So you don't consider nonviolent criminals a problem for society
I am able to distinguish those "crimes" that harm others, from those which do not. Theft, fraud, etc., harm others. Owning a short gun, some pot, or other such things do not. I admit that writing bad checks does harm others, but locking someone away forever for doing it seems harsh, especially compared to killing someone.
or their continued victimization of people to be worth stopping?
I didn't say I opposed all laws, and so long as laws continue to exist, there will be enforcement mechanisms in perpetuity.
And I think its laughable to think that con men, drug dealers, and crack heads are otherwise decent, loving parents that will provide positive formative years for their children if only society would let them.
I didn't say that either. Incidentally, criminals don't have a lock on bad parenting. Would you support nanny-state laws against bad parenting, whatever that is?
I find it sad that criminals have children, I do not, however, find it abusive to keep those criminals away from my children.
And if you don't agree with the pot laws, then you can work to have them overturned, after which it won't be a crime.
Is it your position that disagreeing with a law or its punishment makes it permissible to break it? I would only agree if the law violated basic human rights. I don't concur that drug laws do that.
Incidentally, criminals don't have a lock on bad parenting.
Yea, so what's your point? That because not everyone else is a perfect parent we should give criminals a pass?
Would you support nanny-state laws against bad parenting, whatever that is?
Well if "whatever that is" is beating a child into a coma, abandonment, constant abuse, nonsupport, or exposing the child to a constant chain of criminal activity? YES!