Judging from the success with clinical research into marijuana, if this is successful we can look forward to a future in which family members of the UK government can sell clinical psychedelics all over the world while still insisting at home that it has no medical benefit and is only used by criminals.
I've never accepted some behaviour to be criminal without a victim. Pedantic gov'tal meddling, waste of resources at best, a way to lock up lefty/hippy/non-whites at worst.
Passing laws that make victimless behaviour illegal should be criminal. Let's make that a constitutional law...
I think exactly the same yet legalizing everything victim-less can be a hard target to reach. There is, however, an easier concept: laws that are scientifically and logically unreasonable should be cancelled.
I keep suggesting that laws should have "acceptance tests" in the form of a stated intent in a form that must be possible to invalidate if the premises are wrong. You'd need a mechanism to challenge laws both on the basis that the intent is not met and on the basis that the stated intent is too unclear.
Great idea! I absolutely support this! But it still feels a way too radical for today society to accept. They just want to outlaw whatever they feel like they dislike and call this democracy.
But I've just came up with another compromise idea that can make sense for both progressive and conservative: committing victim-less crimes, doing whatever is outlawed yet doesn't actually harm anybody (like possessing or producing a schedule-1 substance for personal use) should never be considered a crime punishable with a prison sentence but can be considered an administrative infraction punishable with a reasonable (what a person can actually pay without becoming homeless or having to get a loan) fine.
> I've never accepted some behaviour to be criminal without a victim.
You don't have to. That's easy to 'solve' at least a few different ways, depending on how you prefer to look at it. (1) The victim is the same as the criminal. (2) The victims are those who have to pay for that guy's legal/medical/whatever bills later. (3) The victims are nearby/associated families who have to deal with the consequences.
One has to identify as victim. It's not up to someone else to decide if I was a victim at some point.
> (2) The victims are those who have to pay for that guy's legal/medical/whatever bills later.
So in case of medical insurances for all the public is the victim for every persons action is remotely risky.
> (3) The victims are nearby/associated families who have to deal with the consequences.
See 1. Let's say some family members take great offense from one member being gay. They feel victimized. Poor them. Because they are delusional. They are no victim. If they, e.g., excommunicate the gay, the gay person is a victim of a non-punishable offense in my opinion. Not the other way around.
> One has to identify as victim. It's not up to someone else to decide if I was a victim at some point.
Yes, and there certainly do exist people who identify as victims of others' drug use. Unfortunately they don't come knocking on our doors to inform us of this fact. Instead they settle for the sadly-suboptimal solution of electing representatives to represent their perspectives while they go about their own businesses. If you're genuinely suggesting such people are nonexistent, well, I'm not going to continue entertaining this further.
> So in case of medical insurances for all the public is the victim for every persons action is remotely risky.
I can't parse this sentence.
> See 1. [....]
See response to 1.
Also note that dealing with drug users (medical care or however else) costs people's money which is not exactly a subjective or delusional thing to concern oneself with.
All those apply to eating from McDonald's, as an example. Should we ban everything that has a negative health impact?
Later edit: Actually, banning is not a huge problem, the problem is incarceration for choosing to do something that hurts nobody, except maybe yourself.
This is not strawmanning, this is showing you that your definition of what constitutes a victim is completely wrong and very easy to twist and abuse. A fast-food hamburger, alcohol and skydiving all fit your three criteria, but locking people in a cage for any of them is something that no sane person would ever agree on.
You can try to educate people, regulate, disincentivize through various means, but you shouldn't jail someone for an activity that is only dangerous at the tail end.
