No, of course not. But choosing to smoke a joint is a victimless crime, as is choosing to abuse cocaine or any other substance. Most of the problems with these substances are caused by the fact that they are illegal and are forced into black markets.
We could discuss the social harms of substance abuse all evening, but at the end of the day I'm not harming anyone when I take a puff in the comfort of my own home.
Highly addictive drugs destroy lives and families. The little girl who’s father has a heroin addiction sure didn’t get any say in his choice, but she’s affected by it.
The citizens of communities ravaged by addiction all suffer, whether they individually consume the drug or not.
The idea that drug use is a victimless crime is patently false and all it takes is a few moments of thought to realize it.
No, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with adults smoking a joint after work or on the weekends if that’s what they choose to do, but it quickly devolves from there.
There is a big difference between criminalising/punishing people and hyping drugs as all those cannabis activists do. Smoking may be your personal choice - but I honestly think it would be bad for society if the majority did it. There is a reason that under current law using/selling drugs is punished: society as a whole might suffer.
> Sure there are, easiest one to reach for is the consumption (or even ownership) of various drugs.
Drug consumption is far from victimless. Even light drugs such as marijuana have negative effects on your cognitive abilities. That has an impact on others (the archetypal example being parents distraught by their children becoming drug users).
Stuff such as heroin, cocaine, meth, definitely have serious side effects for others.
If anything, your argument backfires spectacularly, since in a world where this would be possible alcohol, tobacco and possibly coffee would also be banned, for their disastrous consequences (coffee isn't really disastrous, but it's not that good, either).
I remember reading somewhere that the mortality rate on others (i.e. someone drinks alcohol and someone else dies due to that) of alcohol, for example, is second only to heroin (maybe meth, too?). It beats out stuff like cocaine or marijuana, for example.
> Beyond that there's prostitution in many jurisdictions, and no doubt there are other "victimless" crimes still on the books (basically those formed around morality - and therefore moral harm - rather than an otherwise identifiable harm or loss).
Prostitution is not victimless. It's mostly a female occupation (male prostitutes are a very small minority) and a good chunk of female prostitutes are abused and practically forced into it. I mean, it could be victimless, but in practice coercion is so present that it's almost impossible to separate the two.
> The problem with reaching for the "almost every choice you make affects someone" trope is that it's very easy to use it to justify any moral panic you choose.
That's why I said that only stuff where there's general agreement, including both liberal and conservative countries should be considered. For example murder would fit, since there really isn't any jurisdiction where murder is not a serious crime.
> Sodomy (and by that I mean non-procreative sexual activity) is an excellent example whose laws were still active in some states up to 2014* (and maybe still).
I agree. For your example, I'm having a really hard time to come up with real life, scientific, documented, negative side effects of sodomy on others. So it's much easier to distinguish between moral panic/aesthetic (let's be honest here, it's mostly an aesthetic thing, many people are just disgusted by it).
No matter what anyone says, I believe with every fiber of my being that simple drug dealing is a victimless crime. Free people choose to purchase and consume drugs to their own detriment (benefit). All violence related to the sale of drugs is ancillary to the fact some drugs (but not others - alcohol, marijuana, caffeine for starters) are illegal.
Victimless crime? Smoking causes 8 millions death per year, 1 million for non-smokers around smokers. Alcohols causes 3 million deaths per year. They kill more people than COVID. That's not counting the disease and other crimes caused by these so-called recreational substances.
If your argument is that you have absolute freedom to consume whatever pleasures you, then all drugs should be legalized like fentanyl and when the society crumbles with drug addicts dying on every street, it is already too late to stop.
For the most part, yes. Lots of the harm comes from the fact they're not legal and cheaply available. For example, heroin, I would say nearly all the harm comes from the fact it's not legal. Overdoses are prevented because they can happen in safe places where people will notice. I've even been told of a story where people thought someone was having an overdose and they were told to go home because they couldn't risk calling an ambulance, I was told this story by one of the people telling the person to go home, so I believe it. The crime that comes from heroin comes from people trying to make money to buy heroin. Considering tobacco is more addictive, and we have way less crime to buy tobacco, it seems logical to assume crime would drop if drug addicts didn't have to spend 20-30 a day on drugs. Then you have the violence and anti-social behaviour which for most drugs is non-existent.
So-called hard drugs are ... well ... they ain't health food.
But presumably I'm writing to an audience of utilitarian thinkers, so it should be trivial to load up the arguments onto a balance beam: for, and against.
We have lived through the against side it. We know exactly what those consequences are, for society. Importantly, criminalization does ZERO to limit demand, and thus, supply. Zero. This is demonstrably true. So, now imagine a world where all of those same people who already choose to abuse drugs to the point where it becomes a severe health and social hazard, except those activities are not illegal anymore.
Yes, you still have the dangers of those people acting irrationally, or even rationally, but just anti-socially, in pursuit of their high. But this happens now, already. With the added negatives of the so-called war on drugs (which in reality is a war on the American people, especially black people), just thrown into the mix.
Like so many others have done, I could write at great length (and so could you, dear reader, most likely; many of you) about this subject. It's completely fucked, in a word.
And I live in Colorado, so if you'd like to hear about what's happened after pot was legal, I can tell you: nada. Zip. Nothing bad. Zero. And that won't ever change, either. Yeah, pot's not cocaine, but believe it or not, doing a few lines of blow doesn't turn a normal human being into a psychopath. Or, if it does, that same person would become just as dangerous after a pint of vodka.
You are free to form your own opinion about "illegal" substances, but no one should be penalized for behavior that does not infringe on the rights of another individual. In short, Marijuana and all other drugs should be legal. Acts which violate the rights of others, committed under the influence of substances (or any condition really) is no different than an act committed with a clear mind/body.
Trying to prevent crime by criminalizing victimless actions only creates more crime.
Certain aspects? Sure. All aspects? No. I don’t mind the buying the use and the minor incidentsl things. But if the addiction causes harm, be it physical, material or other major impacts on others, then it becomes both a health issue and a criminsl issue (stealing, hit and runs, deception, and obviously more). But yes, let’s try and treat it first rather than seek punishment first.
Drug use has one victim : the user. Time and time again it has been shown that legalization and cure are far more efficient and cost less to society but still many countries cling to the idea that beating up somebody who is down will magically solve the problem.
I suppose it depends on your definition of 'destroyed', then. Personally, any kid of mine who I would consider chaining to a bed would be in rehab without a second thought -- on the other hand, smoking seems so innocuous that before you know it they're dying of lung cancer and you can't do anything about it...
They aren't really comparable, if you ask me -- I get your point. All I'm saying is that some people can recreationally use all kinds of drugs (alcohol, meth, crack, whatever) and others can't. Smoking will just straight up kill you. So IMO, in terms of 'damage to society' smoking is way further up there than most illegal drugs.
I started writing a sensible reply to this and couldn't It's outrageous.
'Drug use goes hand in hand with theft'
Do you know how ignorant that sounds? Caffeine and alcohol are drugs, do they go hand in hand with theft? Is everyone legally smoking weed in Colorado a thief too?
'Once you're addicted to drugs, you have to steal to pay for that habit.'
Not all drugs are addictive. Most are less addictive than alcohol, nearly all are less addictive than tobacco. The vast majority of drug users are not addicts. In any sensible country those people who do get addicted would receive help and maintenance doses of their drug and wouldn't need to turn to crime. See Switzerland and their heroin programs.
'It's hardly a victimless crime.'
It's exactly a victimless crime. If someone steals stuff to support a habit THAT is the crime with the victim. Not drug use. FFS.
You're getting downvoted for this, but you're right. I used to believe that recreational use of hard drugs was victimless, but I don't anymore. If you take opiates, meth, or crack-cocaine, there is some probability that you will become addicted, and once addicted, there is some probability that you will impose a cost on your community.
Hard drugs are really, really bad for you, and really bad for society. It really is the drug that is the problem - some substances simply cannot be used safely for recreation. If you choose to take them, you're rolling the dice on where you'll end up, and that makes it a crime with society as the victim.
It's interesting that you've singled out marijuana. You appear to be a bit obsessed with it yourself, clinging to your emotional appeals and repeating them like mantras. Why marijuana and not a really dangerous substance like alcohol, tobacco, or prescription painkillers?
> "I'm opposed to the notion that drugs and alcohol are consequence-free substances."
See this is what we call a strawman, and this is a particularly blatant example of one. Opponents of prohibition don't argue that drugs and alcohol are "consequence-free substances". They do argue that the consequences of prohibition are far worse than those of the drugs alone.
If you are intent on making this personal, I can tell you that I haven't had a drink in over 12 years, and I remember the exact day of my last drink. If you can guess why I'll mail you a star sticker :). Oh and I don't smoke anything either.
But although I personally can't be trusted with the stuff, I have the maturity to accept that other people can, and I'm not blind to the horrors of preemptively punishing everyone else in deference to my personal weaknesses.
> "In the wrong hands, they kill and they destroy lives."
Granted. But I don't understand how you get from there, to concluding that the solution is to criminalize everyone who uses a substance, regardless of whether or not they actually do something bad with it. Criminal records are pretty good at destroying lives too, and they do nothing to help actual addicts.
Look, I realize you're probably immune to logic on this, and you seemed to acknowledge earlier that the evidence isn't on your side, so I'll spare you all that jazz and just issue a very basic rhetorical challenge:
Tell me with a straight face that the drug addicts in my family (or anywhere else) are better off being treated like criminals, on top of or in lieu of whatever treatment they may receive. Then convince me that everyone else who isn't an addict should also be treated like criminals simply for possession, just so we can continue imprisoning the "wrong hands".
Substance abuse isn't inherently immoral or ungodlike or whatever. In some cases it can cause harm. Causing harm is a problem at individual and societal levels. Public policy should aim to reduce harm, but our drug policies almost all aim to inflict multiple forms of devastating harm to scare or crush addicts into sobriety. Worse, it doesn't even solve the faux "problem" of substance abuse.
But very few drugs cause damage to other people, excluding distribution-related violence. Really there's just the trio of opiates, meth and cocaine that lead to real social problems of people commiting crimes while on/obtaining drugs. But, then, there's the point: if your drug use is hurting other people, your actions are already a crime. It can be useful, sometimes, to criminalize a harmless behavior that usually leads to harmful behavior if it would be impractical to enforce laws agains the harmful behavior. But its much easier to enforce laws against theft or starting fights than against possession of small quantities of a substance.
Apart from those outliers I listed above, the only common negative result to people other than the user is their lack of productivity and the economic implications of that. And even of those outliers, most users are not addicts and do not hurt others with their drug use.
of course not; but neither does the war on drugs. Or legal drugs like alcohol. And it's quite obvious at this point that the negative consequences of the war on drugs far outweigh the negative consequences of drug use, especially if such use was regulated and supervised, and had compassionate treatment options
We could discuss the social harms of substance abuse all evening, but at the end of the day I'm not harming anyone when I take a puff in the comfort of my own home.
reply