Good morning wiegraf,

I will do this in two posts; this to respond directly to some of your concerns and the other to bring some form of closure to the argument.

wiegraf:

The red, no it does not. Someone's gotten a promotion over me or gotten that coveted job hindering my chances at a fatter cheque, he's caused me harm. Has he hindered my rights? Not at all. Woman marries random infidel, family moans and complains. Was she harming them? They'd say yes. Was she infringing on any of their rights? Hell no. Even an irresponsible father need not necessarily be infringing on anyone's rights. Negligent? Yes. In need of medical help? Probably. That does not mean he's infringing on anyone's rights. However, these people would be classified as 'harmful' to friends and family.

The above is not what I mean when I tagged crimes that arise from the use of most of the substance in that 'study' as not victimless...I was referring to actual crimes like murder, rape, burglary etc irrespective of the rate of occurrence.

wiegraf:
As for actual crimes committed by people under the influence and the people who've genuinely had their rights infringed on, these people are victims, yes; of irresponsible users. Blaming the drug in these situations is not in anyway an excuse. The very vast majority of drinkers for instance have their drinks and don't infringe on anyone's rights, so why couldn't they? Many people commit many, many crimes for religious reasons as well yet we do not go about banning religions, do we? Religion (well, most of them) is not a good enough excuse for their behavior, just like drugs. Nobody forced them to do drugs or become religious, etc etc. So again, break the law? Pay the price.

If there are victims then it follows that you cannot possibly say that narcotics are victimless.

wiegraf:
Drugs that cause physical addiction of the non-trivial variety easily though are a different beast. Even if one wanted to stop abusing it would require quite the effort, bordering on impossible for some. In extreme cases even death. For these cases their will is effectively seriously tampered with, it could lead to situations essentially beyond their control in a sense, these shouldn't be legal IMO. Same way cults that befuddle/manipulate members heads in all sorts of manners and/or encourage illegal activity like asking members to say produce human heads etc etc, shouldn't be legal. You don't ban all religion because of that. Heroine would fall into this category, anything milder than alcohol would probably not.

The above was put beautifully but you still mistake the argument here...the OP is not concerned about whether or not narcotics (all or some) should be legalized or banned. One of the concerns of the OP was whether or not narcotics are victimless.

wiegraf:
Emphasis on the bold, 'can'. For the very vast majority of users of some of these drugs, it does not.

Agreed!

wiegraf:
And those are punished. But you're suggesting we ban them because of potential crimes, not actual crimes.

Yes, cause my thoughts were directed at narcotics such as crack cocaine, heroine etc.

wiegraf:
Every drug has a threshold. Every single one. Some low, some high. Alcohol's threshold is not exactly high, at all.(Not to mention it's overall effects when compared to other drugs. ) Comparing is not even easy as alcohol is consumed differently to most other narcotics, but you don't need to drink much before you're (potentially) causing trouble. Just two drinks an hour before a drive is enough to get most people (going by their body weight) arrested, that's how effective it is.

Agreed!

wiegraf:
For the bold, alcohol is clearly a narcotic, and a harmful one at that, just a legal one.

Lol! I know...I guess I must have been smoking something

Now weigraf, I do not believe that someone else' personal piety should be the yard stick for the enactment of any law. I will support an in-depth cost/benefit analysis of any potential law before it is promulgated. Like you have maintained, I agree that the harm a drug can bring to the society at large should be a major factor in determining what is made law and what is not.

Generally speaking, I do not accept that narcotics are victimless...it has been shown that not every narc can be used without causing harm to anyone. Having said that, I agree with you that there are some category of narcotics which can be said to be victimless and the total ban placed on them seems meaningless and can be argued as an infringement on the rights of users.

In a nutshell, I believe we agree that those narcs that are not victimless should be banned while those that are as 'mild' as alcohol should be allowed but with some degree of regulation in order to safeguard the interest of others.

Are we in agreement?

striktlymi:

In a nutshell, I believe we agree that those narcs that are not victimless should be banned while those that are as 'mild' as alcohol should be allowed but with some degree of regulation in order to safeguard the interest of others.

Are we in agreement?

Yup.

Good putting 'mild' in quotes, but it will have to do as the word to use. The devil is in the details, is that the saying? But yes, we are agreed as far as this statement in particular is concerned.

Good evening wiegraf,

I guess I have no option now but to begin the euthanasia discuss...I have been avoiding this for a while

striktlymi: Good evening wiegraf,

I guess I have no option now but to begin the euthanasia discuss...I have been avoiding this for a while

I know that feel...

I shouldn't even be here atm...

Asides from that, yup, hard to find a victim here.