[cubefox]

Drugs are absolutely not victimless, except perhaps for caffeine.

[bit-anarchist]

But they are.

[cubefox]

False. There is plenty of empirical data on the destructive effects of many drugs.

[bit-anarchist]

That's still not proof of victimhood. Only that's imprudent to consume drugs.

Also, due to politization of the topic, part of the data is distorted to help sell the war on drugs, which had a much more destructive effect overall, aside from failing in its main goal.

[cubefox]

The ""war"" on drugs seems to be pretty successful in some countries where illegal drug usage is quite low compared to others.

[bit-anarchist]

Certainly not on the US, or any country where the criminalization is in full force.

[cubefox]

> Certainly not on the US

We don't know how much higher the drug usage would be if all drugs were legalized.

> or any country where the criminalization is in full force.

That's an extremely general statement which is almost certainly wrong.

[dgellow]

The only victim to weed are people getting jailed for it. Same for shrooms

[cubefox]

Weed isn't harmless. For example, it can probably lead to long-term brain damage. It is also toxic for the lungs, although less so than tobacco, which is usually consumed in greater quantities.

[dgellow]

Sure, but that’s not different from other things reserved to adults in life. And we don’t label those consumers as victims… it’s stretching the definition of victim to a point where it loses its value

[cubefox]

Considering that there are a) many drugs that are substantially more dangerous than marijuana and that b) addiction does create users which are not in full control of their actions anymore, the term "drug victim" does make sense.