You are free to form your own opinion about "illegal" substances, but no one should be penalized for behavior that does not infringe on the rights of another individual. In short, Marijuana and all other drugs should be legal. Acts which violate the rights of others, committed under the influence of substances (or any condition really) is no different than an act committed with a clear mind/body.
Trying to prevent crime by criminalizing victimless actions only creates more crime.
I agree with you, but to play devil's advocate, how would you feel about me constructing a nuclear reactor in my backyard for fun? Or manufacturing a bomb or rocket?
I would feel okay with that, knowing logically that the likelihood of you successfully blowing anything up is extremely low, in your back yard. But if you did, my distant relatives would sue the crap out of your distant relatives somehow :)
In any case, I'm more comfortable with these scary and unlikely exceptions than with the government arbitrarily trying to prevent criminal acts by criminalizing things they believe (without sound research) may potentially lead to some harmful side effects.
That is much scarier than a nuclear reactor built in a back yard.
Smoking marijuana isn't the same as building a bomb. If I accidentally light a joint, the people in my immediate radius aren't blown to pieces (although they might choose to get blown).
Not even close. And Marijuana is less dangerous for society and individuals as alcohol, automobiles, etc.
HOWEVER, if we say that anything should be legal as long as it doesn't encroach on someone else's freedom, where do you draw the line with hard drugs such as PCP/Crystal Meth that may increase violent tendencies with the user?
I could potentially see many making the argument that legalizing certain things simply hurts the lower class or keeps them in poverty, such as crack, etc. Should there be rules protecting people who aren't educated enough to make good long term decisions for themselves?
I think runTIME may be making a subtly different argument.
Let's say I have a 1,000 acre ranch and I build a nuclear reactor on it. I go to extreme lengths to make sure it's safe and secure. As far as my neighbors are concerned my operating a nuclear reactor has no impact on them. However, now I have the potential, should I choose, to make nuclear weapons, radiological "dirty" bombs, or otherwise contaminate the general vicinity (for potentially very large values of vicinity) with radioactive byproducts. It is for this reason that the operation of nuclear reactors is highly regulated.
One could imagine how this argument might apply to personal drug use. Drug use itself may not instantly impact anyone else but suppose that, as in personally operating a nuclear reactor, it enabled individuals to have a far greater negative impact on society than other normal human behaviors might.
I don't buy it and I'm not sure if that's the argument that runTIME was making, but it's an interesting argument I think.
Yes. If it turns out that people on PCP or some other hard drug are more dangerous/quicker to violence, is there a limit of how much personal freedom we should grant if there is an increased risk of possible damage to society.
And for all crimes they commit which violates someone's rights, they should be prosecuted. If meth or any other substance has a high probability of encouraging someone to perform violative acts, there's a strong deterrent from doing them in the first place.
Example: If I hold a knife in my hand, it is more likely that I will hurt someone than without it. This deterrent causes people to be more careful when holding knives.
Holding the knife itself is not a deterrent, just as using a substance is not in itself a deterrent, but the possibility of hurting someone else is greater.
Trying to prevent crime by criminalizing victimless actions only creates more crime.