[bourgoin]

I don't think that's a good example of victimless crime. Negligently speeding past the school bus creates a situation where children are likely to get injured. The children are victims in the sense that they experience a higher probability of harm (i.e., danger). If you recklessly fire a bullet and it narrowly whizzes by me, I'm still a victim of the danger you created, and the crime was committed the instant you pulled the trigger.

The classic prohibitionist argument against "no victim, no crime" is that society is the victim when an individual uses drugs, because a productive, healthy, social individual who becomes a drug addict stops contributing to society, or even becomes a drag on it, making the world a slightly worse place for everyone. And for some drugs that may be the case... but it's beyond me how the solution to that problem should be to persecute the addicts rather than try to help them live up to their full potential.

[paulddraper]

Drugs pose danger, just like speeding.

Driving under the influence, domestic violence, aggression.

[cf141q5325]

Those are crimes in itself not inherent side effects of drug use. Domestic violence and an increased aggression level are drug specific and driving under the influence is also possible with legal drugs. You can also become a similarly dangerous driver with enough sleep deprivation.

Speeding on the other hand is reckless endangerment, if you are to fast, your stopping distance will become to short for the given environment. As a result, you will run over a kid if one crosses the street at a dangerous position. You driving to fast at this position will have the effect of a run over kid, with the only variables being whether or not a kid is just crossing the street at this point. You already made the decision to drive to fast to have a sufficient stopping distance. Your similar decision of taking drugs doesnt have inherent consequences, it only has an influence of the decisions you make after that, for example a drunk barfight. The same could however also be said for other things which influence your mood.

Driving under the influence is a much better comparison to speeding than druguse itself. Not sleeping enough is not dangerous, however driving while dozing off is

[int_19h]

Speeding where other people aren't present (or you don't know) is ipso facto dangerous. Drugs are not. Driving under influence is not caused by drug use - it's caused by performing another action after using a drug. The most popular illegal drugs do not contribute to aggression in any way - weed makes people less aggressive, if anything. Domestic violence is largely fueled by alcohol, which is legal.

[Broken_Hippo]

Thousands or millions of folks do drugs of different sorts - opiates, alcohol, pot, LSD, cocaine, and so on, both legally and illegally - without doing those things. Just like someone can take prescriptions or drink alcohol safely, a person can do illegal drugs safely. Sitter for the kids, no driving, and so on.

Want to reduce driving under the influence? Have stiff penalties while making sure there is public transportation for all so that it can realistically be avoided.

Folks partake in domestic violence without substances. It should be punished and I don't think it matters if a substance was involved or not. Abuse is abuse and substances do not mean abuse. Sometimes, they are a bonding thing (MDMA especially).

Agression really depends. Teenagers can be quite aggressive. I can be quite aggressive depending on my hormones. A testosterone glitch can make folks aggressive. And so on. It really more depends on what the outcome of "aggression" is. Did you commit assault while aggressive? Charge for assault. Or whatever. If it just makes you an asshole, well. Don't be surprised if folks spend less time with you. Or maybe you instead feed that aggression into basketball or other sports so it doesn't matter at all.

The entire point is that drugs aren't necessarily dangerous beyond whatever physical dangers they do to the user. We can use the existing laws to punish things like assault.

[diamondlovesyou]

Those crimes happened wayyyy before drugs were prohibited. Banning drugs doesn't stop them.

Drugs don't pose an intrinsic danger anymore than cars pose an intrinsic danger.

[cf141q5325]

I would argue that cars once moving do pose an intrinsic danger. Driving is really dangerous, you are basically driving a mobile weapon. And not just dangerous for you but for your surroundings, similar to firearms. Sure, its always a question of how they are handled, but if you own a gun or drive a car, you are, at least at some level, a danger to your environment. Even if its just a driver having a stroke and crashing into a crowd or a gun owner having a muscle spasm at the wrong time.