There should be no victimless crimes! This man made a product that others willingly wanted for themselves. There are no victims here.
This can be applied to seatbelts, helmet laws, etc.
This can be applied to seatbelts, helmet laws, etc.
People may think LSD or cocaine is all well and good, but there are far more dangerous substances out there. Things like Carfentanil need to be regulated. So too all the so-called "date rape" drugs. Just because some guy wants a powerful, tasteless, anesthetic that can be readily dissolved in water doesn't mean we should let him have it. Even if it has personal uses, the danger of such substances means they need controls.
That was what the legal system did in the 18th century. It didn't work. Allowing people to buy poisons, weapons, even explosives and only punishing them once they harmed others has been deemed unacceptable. We now prevent crime by limiting access to such substances, hand in hand with governments licensing who may access them. Don't like not having access to something? Become a doctor/chemist/soldier/miner and you will be legally free to play around with all sorts of dangerous things.
An example that comes to mind is Redbull and strike anywhere matches are banned in several countries. Both of these substances have been shown to be used responsibly in the majority of other countries.
If all good/bad decisions were made by individuals, we'd basically have anarchy and rule of the strongest - as most people would probably decide that "good" is what benefits themselves and their close friends.
oof...
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.
If you think the impact on a counterparty in a car accident should be taken into account, I would think family should be top-of-mind.
That has a much higher likelihood than my not-wearing-a-helmet affecting someone else but very few people would support alcohol prohibition.
I’m simply arguing that individuals should have the freedom to choose.
Will you also demand that individuals be capable of choosing - in that they have all the sufficient information to make an informed choice and are not manipulated by psychological tricks?
I can’t think of any. That doesn’t mean I would take that choice away from people that have a reason.