zlacker

Well, here we step on a slippery slope of defining a "victimless" crime.

Many illegal drugs have a potential of causing harm.

Should the harm be purely physical?

Homelessness is a public nuisance, which we can choose to ignore, but so is walking naked in a school yard, which will be seen as a much more controversial subject.

>>AlexTW+(OP)
tbh, I'm in favor of treating DUI more as a liability thing (ie, automatic fault in the case of an accident and multiplied damages) rather than a crime itself, but that's a pretty controversial position that I didn't want to bring into the debate. plus it has its own issues; liability is not much of a deterrent for someone with minimal assets and/or income.

>>leetcr+x5
Making DUI a liability thing is such a simple, clean and straightforward thing to do that I wish it worked.

But: - for it to work people should estimate the risks correctly - most people caught DUIing apparently are quite bad in understanding the risks involved

>>AlexTW+(OP)
> Many illegal drugs have a potential of causing harm.

To the user, which is a risk they chose to take.

Now you could argue that the illicit trade is causing harm, but that's the direct result of criminalization and not of people choosing to consume substances.

>>freefl+jd
sure illegal drugs only affect users. and the user affected by illegal drugs don't loose any notion of right/wrong and can harm other people

>>freefl+jd
Totally agree. Making victimless behavior to be crimes creates the trade wars. Those laws cause so much harm on society, they are also the reason a significant group is locked up (especially when counting violence resulting from trade as well).