4 ms·

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 dr

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. https://freeross.org/ https://freeross.org/

JALTU 6y ago
Nothing wrong with having that opinion. You might consider that not all humans have equal capacity for free will, and not all humans are equally able to resist addictive substances. And that someday you may be responsible for, or even love someone who is unable to help themselves. And you can still hold the idea there are no victims. Or, not. Just sayin' you might find things are more complicated IRL.
- seibelj 6y ago
  I don't want to restrict the freedom of the 99% to prevent the 1% from abusing drugs and ruining their lives, which under prohibition, they have been able to do anyway. Legalization (or at least decriminalization) would be a net-benefit to the group of people that cannot control their impulses. I'm sorry you know people who have problems with drugs, but drugs clearly won despite their illegality.
skinkestek 6y ago
> I believe with every fiber of my being that simple drug dealing is a victimless crime. Quick, ugly counterexample: Date rape drugs. You can of course say that the crime is on whoever uses it but criminal neglect is a thing. Somewhat more nuanced example: Vulnerable people are still given highly addictive drugs as "marketing" from dealers. This isn't something all of those victims have chosen, so I'd say it isn't victimless. That said I agree that there's a fair chance that legalizing many drugs would bring large benefits to society.
- seibelj 6y ago
  Any store that sells knives contributes to murders. I would argue that alcohol is the biggest date rape drug by a large amount. Do you advocate banning alcohol?
  - skinkestek 6y ago
    > Any store that sells knives contributes to murders. Many countries has laws that regulate the sale of certain kinds of knives that are created primarily for use in fights/combat. > I would argue that alcohol is the biggest date rape drug by a large amount. Do you advocate banning alcohol? Good point. There's still an order of magnitude or two between those options. Also the alcohol is mostly consumed voluntarily unlike date rape drugs that are almost only consumed involuntarily.
    - seibelj 6y ago
      The most common "date rape" drug (GHB) is consumed by many not for sexual violence, but for its depressive effects. I have observed several people who used it because of how it made them feel. So again, saying drug dealers are selling drugs specifically to help rapists, is no more likely than the liquor store specifically selling to wife beaters and drunk drivers.
      - skinkestek 6y ago
        That's interesting, thanks! Now a quick question for you: are you equally for second amendment rights? The same logic applies here IMO. FTR: I'm in favour of 2nd amendment rights (in the US at least) but not a hardliner, so I'm mentally processing now if this goes both ways and I should agree with you. I don't think so but I'm considering it.
        seibelj 6y ago
        I'm not sure the link between the legalization of drugs argument and 2nd amendment, but yes I support the right of people to own guns. I can abide by reasonable restrictions but free people should be allowed to own firearms.
Barrin92 6y ago
if you're dealing drugs on a black market you're not paying taxes, you may be selling drugs to children, which is definitely not a victimless crime, and you're likely facilitate all other sorts of crime and money laundering. Not to mention that some drugs are so addictive and destructive that jurisdictions have good reason to stop their distribution.
- seibelj 6y ago
  If what you are selling is illegal, there is nothing but a black market on which to sell. There is nothing stopping the liquor store from selling alcohol to wife beaters and child abusers. On taxes, to be honest I don't like those either, although I pay every dollar I am legally required to and actively avoid paying all taxes I can legally avoid paying. As I'm someone publicly arguing for the legalization of all drugs, my stance on that issue is not surprising. > Not to mention that some drugs are so addictive and destructive that jurisdictions have good reason to stop their distribution. Honestly I would rather ban videogames. I have seen many smart, hard working people whose lives have been ruined by videogames. So much wasted potential.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    all the things you mention are regulated. At least known criminals usually are drug tested and so on, it's not perfect but there are rules and ways to reduce harm. In most countries if you have a criminal record you can't get a gun, someone who sells on the dark web can't even do a minimal amount of due diligence. Of course you can say well screw it I don't like the rules I'm just going to sell it anyway but then really you can't be surprised if the gov. brings the hammer down on you. I think Ross Ulbricht's sentence is too high, I'm generally not a fan of lifelong imprisonment, but he engaged in lawlessness and crime on a very large scale and that deserves punishment. If people aren't punished for breaking the rules tomorrow someone will break laws that you actually think are valuable.
  - lordnacho 6y ago
    > Honestly I would rather ban videogames. I have seen many smart, hard working people whose lives have been ruined by videogames. So much wasted potential. Me too, I've also seen a lot of life wasted on games. Some of it my own! But isn't this much the same line of reasoning as with drugs? Some people just can't control it. I'm all for adults being adults and making adult choices. But clearly there's people who can't deal with games as well as drugs. Where I grew up, you can get weed without a problem. I just somehow never thought it was worth the money, and though I had a few friends who'd buy they never got into any trouble with it. Perhaps it's also a function of your environment what you find destructive. Like many kids, I grew up in the middle class where games would eat more time than drugs. I wonder if you are the same? There are others who grew up much more exposed to drugs and drug addiction, who maybe didn't have a computer to waste time on. I'm also in favour of legalization, but mainly for practical reasons. We've tried making hard drugs illegal, and people aren't satisfied. Maybe try a different approach and see if there's a better balance there. My main issue with it is that I don't really want to give the drug lords a head start on a business that we want non-criminals to run, but that's something else to thing about.
estaseuropano 6y ago
Without getting into detailed arguments have a look into the opium wars (basically the UK forcing China to keep accepting opium imports) and the effects opium had on Chinese society. Super interesting and a case in point about how drugs - much less addictive compared to modern standards - when used at scale and widely available can destroy the fabric of society. There is no country where drugs are legal, just some where drugs are not criminalised and I think that's a sane approach (Portugal as prime example). But to have wide and legal sale of drugs would probably destroy society.
- vincnetas 6y ago
  Im pretty sure that hashish was invented and used long before it was banned. And it has its traditions of consumption and production. Does not look like a thing destroying fabtics of sociaty. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashish https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashish
- lightgreen 6y ago
  Even if some drug is addictive and dangerous, it does not need to be banned. Society should treat citizens as responsible adults, not as children in kindergarten requiring constant care. Yes, some people will fail to fight with addiction, unfortunately. I believe, eventually all drugs need to be legalized. But not all at once. It should be done very slowly. There are legitimate cases even for addictive recreational drugs. I think of this. Suppose I'm told I'm dying of cancer in 6 months. I could take painkillers for these 6 months and dying of boredom. But instead I'd prefer to stick to cocaine and have a lot of fun.
TrackerFF 6y ago
The problem with black markets - of pretty much any kind - is that they soon attract most things illegal. A good chunk of the population would probably be OK with them only selling weed, but then you have stolen credit cards, weapons, and what not. And the more unscrupulous the seller is/becomes, the worse it gets. It's like with small-town drug dealers. Kids seek them to purchase weed, but then after a while the dealer is trying to push other stuff on them. If anything, the world needs to legalize a lot of drugs, properly regulate them. Keeping things illegal will only result in all things illegal being centralized, and more available to those seeking those markets.
- redisman 6y ago
  > It's like with small-town drug dealers. Kids seek them to purchase weed, but then after a while the dealer is trying to push other stuff on them. This sounds like one of those 90's scary stories. Do you also believe that the first dose is free?
  - TrackerFF 6y ago
    Coming from a very small village (population around 3000), that was absolutely the case back then. The very few people that were dealing, sold everything they could sell.
  - jokethrowaway 6y ago
    Anecdotal evidence: I met someone on the road (massive city, never saw the guy again) who tried to sell me some weed. I didn't want it and he ended up gifting me a small amount. That said, I think the gateway drug phenomenon is a ridiculous theory. There are people who are going to try any drug they can and there are people who are going to research the subject and just do drugs they deem to be safe / not addictive.
    - TrackerFF 6y ago
      I don't think that the gateway drug theory holds any water. With that said, I do think a lot of users end up trying harder stuff because they're with the wrong crowd. For what it's worth - I don't use anything. But I have friends who are regular users. Some use a lot of different stuff. I've been told that whenever cannabis (here in Europe, that's usually hashish) dries up, there's always going to be people that turn to harder stuff. Apparently after COVID hit, hashish became very difficult to get, and people started dabbling with speed, etc.
orange_tee 6y ago
This freewill argument, you can make about a lot of things that are ultimately detrimental to society. Some people are gullible, others ignorant, and others still desperate. It's just not a good argument. For example, I don't want all grannies in my town to get swindled out of their property by smooth talking scammers. Your freewill argument would allow for that. I think that is individualism taken to the extreme and is very unnatural and inhuman. As social creatures we care about others, especially because it is detrimental to us if others close to us are hurt.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  (Sensible) drug use doesn't hurt anyone else though. Most of the violence surrounding drugs is because the lack of a legal supply chain for it.
  - nullsense 6y ago
    https://images.app.goo.gl/Pc8NyKMjaV3MNPyu8 https://images.app.goo.gl/Pc8NyKMjaV3MNPyu8 Tell it to that kid.
    - Nextgrid 6y ago
      But this happened in the current situation where the drugs are considered illegal, so clearly keeping drugs illegal isn't effective at preventing these occurrences, in addition to inciting violence. Decriminalizing drugs wouldn't fully solve the problem of drug abuse either but at least it would significantly reduce the violence surrounding the field, so that's still a net win in my opinion. How many people are hurt because of irresponsible drug use itself compared to being collateral damage as a result of the current (illegal) drug supply chain powered by gangs and violence? I bet the latter is much bigger and decriminalizing drugs would reduce that significantly.

JALTU 6y ago

Nothing wrong with having that opinion. You might consider that not all humans have equal capacity for free will, and not all humans are equally able to resist addictive substances. And that someday you may be responsible for, or even love someone who is unable to help themselves. And you can still hold the idea there are no victims. Or, not. Just sayin' you might find things are more complicated IRL.

seibelj 6y ago
I don't want to restrict the freedom of the 99% to prevent the 1% from abusing drugs and ruining their lives, which under prohibition, they have been able to do anyway. Legalization (or at least decriminalization) would be a net-benefit to the group of people that cannot control their impulses. I'm sorry you know people who have problems with drugs, but drugs clearly won despite their illegality.

skinkestek 6y ago

> I believe with every fiber of my being that simple drug dealing is a victimless crime. Quick, ugly counterexample: Date rape drugs. You can of course say that the crime is on whoever uses it but criminal neglect is a thing. Somewhat more nuanced example: Vulnerable people are still given highly addictive drugs as "marketing" from dealers. This isn't something all of those victims have chosen, so I'd say it isn't victimless. That said I agree that there's a fair chance that legalizing many drugs would bring large benefits to society.

seibelj 6y ago
Any store that sells knives contributes to murders. I would argue that alcohol is the biggest date rape drug by a large amount. Do you advocate banning alcohol?
- skinkestek 6y ago
  > Any store that sells knives contributes to murders. Many countries has laws that regulate the sale of certain kinds of knives that are created primarily for use in fights/combat. > I would argue that alcohol is the biggest date rape drug by a large amount. Do you advocate banning alcohol? Good point. There's still an order of magnitude or two between those options. Also the alcohol is mostly consumed voluntarily unlike date rape drugs that are almost only consumed involuntarily.
  - seibelj 6y ago
    The most common "date rape" drug (GHB) is consumed by many not for sexual violence, but for its depressive effects. I have observed several people who used it because of how it made them feel. So again, saying drug dealers are selling drugs specifically to help rapists, is no more likely than the liquor store specifically selling to wife beaters and drunk drivers.
    - skinkestek 6y ago
      That's interesting, thanks! Now a quick question for you: are you equally for second amendment rights? The same logic applies here IMO. FTR: I'm in favour of 2nd amendment rights (in the US at least) but not a hardliner, so I'm mentally processing now if this goes both ways and I should agree with you. I don't think so but I'm considering it.
      - seibelj 6y ago
        I'm not sure the link between the legalization of drugs argument and 2nd amendment, but yes I support the right of people to own guns. I can abide by reasonable restrictions but free people should be allowed to own firearms.

Barrin92 6y ago

if you're dealing drugs on a black market you're not paying taxes, you may be selling drugs to children, which is definitely not a victimless crime, and you're likely facilitate all other sorts of crime and money laundering. Not to mention that some drugs are so addictive and destructive that jurisdictions have good reason to stop their distribution.

seibelj 6y ago
If what you are selling is illegal, there is nothing but a black market on which to sell. There is nothing stopping the liquor store from selling alcohol to wife beaters and child abusers. On taxes, to be honest I don't like those either, although I pay every dollar I am legally required to and actively avoid paying all taxes I can legally avoid paying. As I'm someone publicly arguing for the legalization of all drugs, my stance on that issue is not surprising. > Not to mention that some drugs are so addictive and destructive that jurisdictions have good reason to stop their distribution. Honestly I would rather ban videogames. I have seen many smart, hard working people whose lives have been ruined by videogames. So much wasted potential.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  all the things you mention are regulated. At least known criminals usually are drug tested and so on, it's not perfect but there are rules and ways to reduce harm. In most countries if you have a criminal record you can't get a gun, someone who sells on the dark web can't even do a minimal amount of due diligence. Of course you can say well screw it I don't like the rules I'm just going to sell it anyway but then really you can't be surprised if the gov. brings the hammer down on you. I think Ross Ulbricht's sentence is too high, I'm generally not a fan of lifelong imprisonment, but he engaged in lawlessness and crime on a very large scale and that deserves punishment. If people aren't punished for breaking the rules tomorrow someone will break laws that you actually think are valuable.
- lordnacho 6y ago
  > Honestly I would rather ban videogames. I have seen many smart, hard working people whose lives have been ruined by videogames. So much wasted potential. Me too, I've also seen a lot of life wasted on games. Some of it my own! But isn't this much the same line of reasoning as with drugs? Some people just can't control it. I'm all for adults being adults and making adult choices. But clearly there's people who can't deal with games as well as drugs. Where I grew up, you can get weed without a problem. I just somehow never thought it was worth the money, and though I had a few friends who'd buy they never got into any trouble with it. Perhaps it's also a function of your environment what you find destructive. Like many kids, I grew up in the middle class where games would eat more time than drugs. I wonder if you are the same? There are others who grew up much more exposed to drugs and drug addiction, who maybe didn't have a computer to waste time on. I'm also in favour of legalization, but mainly for practical reasons. We've tried making hard drugs illegal, and people aren't satisfied. Maybe try a different approach and see if there's a better balance there. My main issue with it is that I don't really want to give the drug lords a head start on a business that we want non-criminals to run, but that's something else to thing about.

estaseuropano 6y ago

Without getting into detailed arguments have a look into the opium wars (basically the UK forcing China to keep accepting opium imports) and the effects opium had on Chinese society. Super interesting and a case in point about how drugs - much less addictive compared to modern standards - when used at scale and widely available can destroy the fabric of society. There is no country where drugs are legal, just some where drugs are not criminalised and I think that's a sane approach (Portugal as prime example). But to have wide and legal sale of drugs would probably destroy society.

vincnetas 6y ago
Im pretty sure that hashish was invented and used long before it was banned. And it has its traditions of consumption and production. Does not look like a thing destroying fabtics of sociaty. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashish https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashish
lightgreen 6y ago
Even if some drug is addictive and dangerous, it does not need to be banned. Society should treat citizens as responsible adults, not as children in kindergarten requiring constant care. Yes, some people will fail to fight with addiction, unfortunately. I believe, eventually all drugs need to be legalized. But not all at once. It should be done very slowly. There are legitimate cases even for addictive recreational drugs. I think of this. Suppose I'm told I'm dying of cancer in 6 months. I could take painkillers for these 6 months and dying of boredom. But instead I'd prefer to stick to cocaine and have a lot of fun.

TrackerFF 6y ago

The problem with black markets - of pretty much any kind - is that they soon attract most things illegal. A good chunk of the population would probably be OK with them only selling weed, but then you have stolen credit cards, weapons, and what not. And the more unscrupulous the seller is/becomes, the worse it gets. It's like with small-town drug dealers. Kids seek them to purchase weed, but then after a while the dealer is trying to push other stuff on them. If anything, the world needs to legalize a lot of drugs, properly regulate them. Keeping things illegal will only result in all things illegal being centralized, and more available to those seeking those markets.

redisman 6y ago
> It's like with small-town drug dealers. Kids seek them to purchase weed, but then after a while the dealer is trying to push other stuff on them. This sounds like one of those 90's scary stories. Do you also believe that the first dose is free?
- TrackerFF 6y ago
  Coming from a very small village (population around 3000), that was absolutely the case back then. The very few people that were dealing, sold everything they could sell.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  Anecdotal evidence: I met someone on the road (massive city, never saw the guy again) who tried to sell me some weed. I didn't want it and he ended up gifting me a small amount. That said, I think the gateway drug phenomenon is a ridiculous theory. There are people who are going to try any drug they can and there are people who are going to research the subject and just do drugs they deem to be safe / not addictive.
  - TrackerFF 6y ago
    I don't think that the gateway drug theory holds any water. With that said, I do think a lot of users end up trying harder stuff because they're with the wrong crowd. For what it's worth - I don't use anything. But I have friends who are regular users. Some use a lot of different stuff. I've been told that whenever cannabis (here in Europe, that's usually hashish) dries up, there's always going to be people that turn to harder stuff. Apparently after COVID hit, hashish became very difficult to get, and people started dabbling with speed, etc.

orange_tee 6y ago

This freewill argument, you can make about a lot of things that are ultimately detrimental to society. Some people are gullible, others ignorant, and others still desperate. It's just not a good argument. For example, I don't want all grannies in my town to get swindled out of their property by smooth talking scammers. Your freewill argument would allow for that. I think that is individualism taken to the extreme and is very unnatural and inhuman. As social creatures we care about others, especially because it is detrimental to us if others close to us are hurt.

Nextgrid 6y ago
(Sensible) drug use doesn't hurt anyone else though. Most of the violence surrounding drugs is because the lack of a legal supply chain for it.
- nullsense 6y ago
  https://images.app.goo.gl/Pc8NyKMjaV3MNPyu8 https://images.app.goo.gl/Pc8NyKMjaV3MNPyu8 Tell it to that kid.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    But this happened in the current situation where the drugs are considered illegal, so clearly keeping drugs illegal isn't effective at preventing these occurrences, in addition to inciting violence. Decriminalizing drugs wouldn't fully solve the problem of drug abuse either but at least it would significantly reduce the violence surrounding the field, so that's still a net win in my opinion. How many people are hurt because of irresponsible drug use itself compared to being collateral damage as a result of the current (illegal) drug supply chain powered by gangs and violence? I bet the latter is much bigger and decriminalizing drugs would reduce that significantly.