You're viewing part of a thread.
So its a crime to increase risk to society?
There isn't a victim. Just the possible increased risk.
Is it a crime to fire a legally owned gun in a built up neighborhood, even if it doesn't harm or otherwise interfere with anyone? Is it a crime to to drive above the posted speed limit even if you're the only person on the road?
Obviously it is currently illegal to expose bystanders to risk, and in the eyes of the law those exposed bystanders are the victims.
You can argue semantics and say that there's no victim if they're just being exposed to risk, but that's contrary to the logic on which the rest of society functions.
Equally obvious, no such bystander is exposed to risk due to an individuals choice to smoke weed, ergo there is no victim (nor any argument presented that there is).
There is always risk. Having easily accessible weed increases the risk that people will operate vehicles while high or increase number of beds needed in medical systems that refuse to increase beds as inhaling smoke increases cancer risk. I can drive through 100 red lights and never hit anyone but an increased demand for medical care in a system that can't handle it puts me at risk also. I say running a red light is victimless just as smoking weed is also victimless and we have said victimless crimes should not be punishable.
Risk of driving when smoking weed is not a good example, because it is illegal to drive while high - much in the same way that it's illegal to run a red light or illegal to discharge a firearm into the air within city limits - the exact same arguments apply, where the victim is those other bystander who is exposed to risk. Taking two otherwise legal things and combining them makes it a risk to others, and illegal. Same as drink driving, either drinking or driving separately is not considered a risk.
The health insurance thing is a better argument (especially if you're in a country with single payer or otherwise taxpayer funded healthcare). The threshold here is a little more dicy and somewhat subjective, but the core argument is good. Cigarettes are legal, and far more carcinogenic , with a far higher risk of respiratory illness, than cannabis smoke (assuming we're not talking about THC gummies or whatever where the medical costs associated are lower), so if this line is somewhere where things like cigarettes, diesel combustion engines, alcohol, coal fires power plants etc are legal, it wouldn't make sense to make low impact drugs like THC illegal.
So to your first point, we, as a society must have some threshold where we accept some risk, otherwise pretty well existing would be illegal (what if you contract a contagious disease and kill someone?). The main argument here is it should be consistently applied. If the cost in respiratory illness caused by sulfides in coal fires powerplants has associated medical cost of exposed people orders of magnitude higher than the total sum of cost associated with individuals using a particular drug, reason would dictate that if the impact of sulfides is considered acceptable that the far lower impact of that drug is also acceptable. Both of these examples carry negligible risks compared to the more deliberate and dangerous actions like running red lights or firing guns in populated areas, so these could still be illegal with consistent reasoning.
I get the feeling you just want to argue.
But assuming you're serious, consider the question of what would happen if everyone did it: traffic would be severely impacted all the time, and/or a lot of accidents would happen, resulting in lots of victims. Contrast that with smoking weed: we've seen what happens when it's made legal, and it turns out nobody gets hurt as a result except when the people smoking weed are committing some other crime, like DWI.
Weed isn't benign. It exasperates amd can induce psychotic mental health conditions much earlier in some people like schizophrenia and bipolar. It is carcinogenic. It does change people mentally affecting their emotional regulation and behaviors even when not high. There are impacts on already stretched health care systems. And what is wrong with wanting to argue. I want someone to give me good reason to think what constitutes a victimless crime isn't some arbitrary line
FFS, Weed doesn't affect anyone who doesn't choose to be affected. It doesn't even need to be smoked. Ever hear the term "nanny state"?
I don't know what point you're trying to make but if you honestly can't understand the difference between a victimless crime and a real crime, I can't communicate with you on this topic.
Driving through red lights doesn't affect anyone either than. I make it through the intersection, nobody gets hurt and everybody gets what they want. We're arguing same thing. Both are victimless crimes.
you are NOT arguing the same thing:
-
you making it through an intersection at a red light requires luck. you need to get lucky, every time, or someone fucking dies. a dead person is a fucking victim, therefore it's not a "victimless crime"
-
weed can't kill you. that's why it's a victimless crime. in extremely rare cases it can cause mental health problems, but only in the person taking it.
the difference is that in one case YOU are responsible for harming someone else, in the other case they did it to themselves AND it's extremely rare AND it's not based on random luck.
these situations are not even close to being the same thing.
In the context of what people have said here they are the same.
Luck has nothing to do with victimless crime. I can safely navigate running red lights and be as safe as smoking weed.
Increases stoners increases amount of stoned drivers on the road. Increasing risk to all drivers.
Smoking anything increases risk of disease. Inhaling any burning substance increases risk both to mental and physical health. Increasing demand on medical systems already stretched thin. Who says a pot head doesn't kick someone out of prompt medical care by taking up a bed or service.
But again increasing risk doesn't create any victims. We've said no victimless crime should exist. Unless they should exist and that risk to public is a viable reason to create a law.
-