The question is complex because we live in a world which is like a web, with effects which are like ripples. Also, your particular example is also complicated because while many people use weed to relax, there is a recognised link with cannabis and psychosis, especially with skunk weed. So, potentially, it may be about seeing the potential risks of psychotic Illness for the individual and, the effects of this on a wider scale.

I think the analysis should include consideration of a reasonableness standard + a community standard + the rights the individual. If a reasonable person would be offended by it, and if a sizable percentage of the affected population in the community agree it should be outlawed, then there should be shown a compelling state interest, and legislated with the least intrusive method of accomplishing the goal. This might permit legalization of pot for use in the home, limits on the locations, hours, ages, sizes of stores, etc.

it seems that weed can harm other people because your family members may be upset about you using weed — TheHedoMinimalist

That's a no-go. First, that doesn't qualify as "harm." That's unreasonable. Your family may get upset if you date someone of another race or religion. So what? "Family upset" is irrelevant and I don't think it constitutes a reasonable standard.

many people may be upset to find out that they have a weed store in their neighborhood so it may create a public nuisance. — TheHedoMinimalist

That would be a zoning issue and should only be a consideration after proof that a nuisance would occur. Make a record, on evidence. Then find the least intrusive way of regulating the store(s).

cause a pretty significant amount of distress to others. — TheHedoMinimalist

That's a no-go. I've never heard of a "significant amount of distress" standard.

I think that arguing for weed legalization requires a more consequentialist sort of argument. — TheHedoMinimalist

I think the burden should upon those who object, not those who want to legalize weed.

But that's just me.

If any harm is derived from seeing others smoke weed, or knowing that a dispensary exists in the neighborhood, it is entirely self-inflicted. The bellyacher is both perpetrator and victim.

If any harm is derived from seeing others smoke weed, or knowing that a dispensary exists in the neighborhood, it is entirely self-inflicted. The bellyacher is both perpetrator and victim. — NOS4A2

:100:

That's a no-go. First, that doesn't qualify as "harm." That's unreasonable. Your family may get upset if you date someone of another race or religion. So what? "Family upset" is irrelevant and I don't think it constitutes a reasonable standard. — James Riley

Well, I believe that there are many cultures that do believe that if you do something to make your family upset which may include dating someone that they don’t like that this constitutes victimizing your family. I speculate that you could only reasonably criticize those cultures from a utilitarian standpoint because it seems to me that deontological theories about what is justified or unjustified are all equally arbitrary and wrong.

That would be a zoning issue and should only be a consideration after proof that a nuisance would occur. Make a record, on evidence. Then find the least intrusive way of regulating the store(s). — James Riley

I agree. I support decriminalizing weed. I just think that it doesn’t make sense to call the act of selling or smoking weed a victimless activity if it often makes people very upset.

If any harm is derived from seeing others smoke weed, or knowing that a dispensary exists in the neighborhood, it is entirely self-inflicted. The bellyacher is both perpetrator and victim. — NOS4A2

I would disagree. If someone spits at me then I could just be detached and not care that they spit on me. But, I think it would be strange to argue that this person isn’t a perpentrator of harm. I’m not sure what the meaningful difference is between making someone upset by spitting on them and making someone upset by smoking weed is.

There are many activities which can occur without incurring material social costs: smoking weed, consuming narcotics and alcohol, engaging in unprotected sex, driving above the speed limit, hunting deer, sleeping on the subway, being substantially overweight for an extended period of time, and so on.

These activities, and many others, can be engaged in without individual or social consequences -- or they can have substantial material personal and social consequences. Risk is inherent in many activities--ranging from low risk to high risk.

How much regulation should be in place depends, partly, on how risk tolerant or risk averse one is. For the risk averse, more regulation will seem reasonable -- quite apart from whether one is a libertarian or not.

People can be personally risk tolerant for some behaviors and risk intolerant for others. Someone might be quite tolerant about the risks of using drugs purchased on the street but be very fussy about food sanitation issues. There are people who insist on organic food for health, and who smoke (maybe organic tobacco and weed) apparently without seeing a contradiction.

We can all endorse well-thought-out intervention programs aimed at reducing known risks, and we can all object to ill-conceived programs which end up causing more problems--whether we are libertarians or regulation loving liberals.

I agree: offending other people is a consequence. I would consider it a usually tolerable consequence, but others may not.

Most libertarians believe that there are certain things that are illegal that should be legal because they are victimless activities. — TheHedoMinimalist

Very few things codified into law are truly victimless activities. Being told not to do something, being stopped, and perhaps receiving a nominal fine is a world of difference from being incarcerated against one's will.

I don’t understand how smoking weed could be considered a victimless crime if the activity could cause a pretty significant amount of distress to others. — TheHedoMinimalist

It makes stupid, lazy, and/or forgetful people even more so. Don't do that to your fellow man. Sure most can handle it, but if you let some people do it you have to let everyone do it. Fast food orders get mixed up, traffic lights and signs get ignored, appointments and important obligations are put off if not missed altogether, entire fridges and pantries become depleted, these actions alone are permissible of course they can lead to surprisingly disproportionate conflict, injuries, and suffering. It's the net impact on society after adding up all these little things that by themselves are basically nothing.

Kind of like how a 1 cent global tax on everyone once a month for a year will create a surplus fund of a billion dollars.

I just think that it doesn’t make sense to call the act of selling or smoking weed a victimless activity if it often makes people very upset. — TheHedoMinimalist

Well, everyone on the planet is a victim then, because everyone gets upset about something. I just don't think the rest of the world has to walk around on egg shells because of a few thin-skinned individuals. It's better to create a society that's a little tougher, and a little more respectful of the rights of others. No one is forcing anyone to smoke pot or patronize a store. Internalize your costs and "mind your own business" is a good philosophy in my book.

Well, everyone on the planet is a victim then, because everyone gets upset about something. I just don't think the rest of the world has to walk around on egg shells because of a few thin-skinned individuals. It's better to create a society that's a little tougher, and a little more respectful of the rights of others. No one is forcing anyone to smoke pot or patronize a store. Internalize your costs and "mind your own business" is a good philosophy in my book. — James Riley

I agree. This is why I think weed should be legalized. But.... It seems to me that offending someone still counts as victimization. I think Victimization can sometimes be justified though.

It seems to me that offending someone still counts as victimization. — TheHedoMinimalist

Some folks victimize themselves if they are offended by the mere existence of another. It's not the other that is victimizing them.

It seems to me that offending someone still counts as victimization. — TheHedoMinimalist

Being a rude or terrible person (while following all applicable laws) is not a crime today. Labor is labor. Organs are valuable to someone who needs them, I wouldn't want theirs but to each their own. However a pattern of long term, coordinated efforts to harass, slander, or violate another person's freedoms or rights just short of committing actual crimes however is in many jurisdictions. A threat is not assault, though it could warrant scrutiny of one's mental health and assessment of whether that person is a threat to themselves or others and if certain privileges need to be revoked or other measures deployed to prevent a crime or tragedy against a truly innocent member of society. It's 'intimidation', which is a crime.

I can flick you off, call you any name I wish, and insult anything about you or how you are and you can't call a cop or pursue legal action for that alone, but if someone is going on a profanity-ridden tirade amongst mixed company in a public place potentially including children it can be considered 'disturbing the peace'.

Life is disturbing enough. We don't need people who make it even worse. But again, labor, etc.

The war was inevitable of course but we realized that only retrospectively; hindsight, as they say, is 20/20. The last battle was fought in fort Xasa. The enemy got into formation in the wee hours of the morning when the first rays of the sun hit the treetops of the nearby forest. The sight of the entire Y'sa army of battle-hardened troops spread out over the adjoining plain evoked in me a sense of both great awe and high terror.

It wasn't too long before we heard the horns of war blaring, signalling the Y'sa troops to begin their assault. In a matter of minutes, the gates of Xasa fort were creaking and moaning under the force of the Y'sa battering rams. Our troops inside the fort did all they could to maintain the integrity of the large wooden gates but alas, luck was not on our side that day.

After but a quarter of an hour of punishment the gates finally gave way. Through the breach the Y'sa soldiers poured in like a swarm of ants - there was nothing we could do to save the day.

Amidst all this, our general Sw'e was unmoved. He stood on the highest point on the wall and ordered our archers to draw their bows and aim at the Y'sa soldiers still outside the walls. For a brief moment, even in all the confusion of firece fighting, we locked eyes - he smiled at me and I, for some reason that I can't still wrap my head around, smiled back. The fort fell, the battle was lost, and the war too.

I can flick you off, call you any name I wish, and insult anything about you or how you are and you can't call a cop or pursue legal action for that alone — Outlander

Actually, you can, at least in some jurisdictions.

Most libertarians believe that there are certain things that are illegal that should be legal because they are victimless activities. Smoking weed is a perfect example of the kind of activity they normally have in mind. — TheHedoMinimalist

Does marijuana use affect driving?

Marijuana significantly impairs judgment, motor coordination, and reaction time, and studies have found a direct relationship between blood THC concentration and impaired driving ability.7–9

Marijuana is the illicit drug most frequently found in the blood of drivers who have been involved in vehicle crashes, including fatal ones.10 Two large European studies found that drivers with THC in their blood were roughly twice as likely to be culpable for a fatal crash than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol.11,12

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/does-marijuana-use-affect-driving

Smoking weed is not a "victimless crime".

How do you feel about being run over by a pothead and ending up in a wheelchair for the rest of your life?

Some folks victimize themselves if they are offended by the mere existence of another. It's not the other that is victimizing them. — James Riley

I would disagree that folks who are upset about weed purely victimize themselves. For example, if someone spits at me then I could just be detached and not care that they spit on me. But, I think it would be strange to argue that I’m alone responsible for the emotional harm caused by the person spitting at me. I’m not sure what the meaningful difference is between making someone upset by spitting on them and making someone upset by smoking weed.

You don't let cancer spread, you.. neutralize it. By whatever legal and socially accepted actions of the times and society are, otherwise, if you had the opportunity to stop it but didn't, you are basically at fault for whatever further damage it causes. You were the one who knew better, not the virus. So, by ignoring it and letting it spread, you effectively become it. Tangential aiding and abetting.

Edit: Of course it's not that simple, that's why we have the law, transparency, and public scrutiny. Humans interestingly enough work like T-cells and viruses, a disease can infect a white blood cell or T-cell (or something, I'm not a medical professional) and cause a previously healthy cell that defends the body to either A.) ignore the disease or virus AND/OR B.) attack it's own body and system that supports it. That's what viruses do. The real world comparison would be a stranger telling a person a perfectly-just (which is rare, sure) government is out to get them and he, as opposition, will save them, when in fact he has no such desire. Or that said government has become tyrannical or infiltrated and must be destroyed because ignoring the fact he left where he came from to get there "everything is not quite perfect for you here so there must be an evil conspiracy against you". This is essentially exactly what happens on the cellular level in relation to viruses and blood cells.

Back to the larger world around us, accountability is important, otherwise some degenerate monstrosity could just go up to a law-abiding citizen, accuse him of a crime, or even shoot him, and claim self-defense. So it's tough today. Pick your friends wisely, and make sure they are of similar sentiment. You are who you hang out with.

I’m not sure what the meaningful difference is between making someone upset by spitting on them and making someone upset by smoking weed. — TheHedoMinimalist

The meaningful difference is this: He who spits at you is doing something to you. He who smokes weed is not. In the former case, he is doing it to you. In the latter case, you are doing it to yourself.

With the weed, he's not making you upset. You are making yourself upset.

Smoking weed is not a "victimless crime".

How do you feel about being run over by a pothead and ending up in a wheelchair for the rest of your life? — baker

Well smoking weed wouldn't be what caused the car accident and wheelchair harm. Pretty obviously it was something to do with the driving, possibly from the weed but not necessarily.
Running people over isn’t a victimless crime, but smoking pot is.
Also, people critical of smoking pot or its legalisation have to be critical of drinking alcohol or its legalisation first if they want to be taken seriously.

The meaningful difference is this: He who spits at you is doing something to you. He who smokes weed is not. In the former case, he is doing it to you. In the latter case, you are doing it to yourself. — James Riley

Ok, in that case, would you also say that if someone is upset at their SO for having sex with someone else that this also doesn’t constitute victimization? If you wouldn’t say that, then what would be a meaningful difference between making your SO upset by cheating on them and making someone upset by smoking weed? After all, it seems to me that you aren’t doing anything to your SO by sleeping with another person. The main recipient of your act would be the person that you’re cheating on your SO with, wouldn’t it? If that’s the case, then I would say that it strikes me as unusual to claim that the SO made themselves upset by caring about their partner’s infidelity.

If you wouldn’t say that, then what would be a meaningful difference between making your SO upset by cheating on them and making someone upset by smoking weed? — TheHedoMinimalist

By using the word "cheating" you imply an agreement. There is no agreement, implied or otherwise, that X not smoke weed.

By using the word "cheating" you imply an agreement. There is no agreement, implied or otherwise, that X not smoke weed. — James Riley

I think that there are plenty of implied agreements that X not smoke weed. For example, when an employer requires a drug test and using weed would make you fail that drug test, doesn’t that constitute an implied agreement with your employer that you not smoke weed? In addition, suppose that you have a roommate that doesn’t want to live with someone that smokes weed and you lie about your weed smoking habits, doesn’t that also violate an agreement? If you accept this, then wouldn’t it make sense to say that there are plenty of cases where someone smoking weed victimizes another person or entity?

I think that there are plenty of implied agreements that X not smoke weed. — TheHedoMinimalist

There are none. X has to do something to cause Y to believe that X will not smoke weed. If X has not done anything to cause Y to believe that X will not smoke weed, then if Y is upset, Y made himself upset.

Employer drug tests are not implied. They are express. As to the roommate, he would first have to make it known he did not want to live with a pot smoker (in which case it would be express). If you then smoke weed without ever having said you would not, that's on the roommate. If you said you would not smoke and then lied and did it, that is like the agreement with the SO.

If you accept this, t — TheHedoMinimalist

I don't.

You know, it's like going to a resort: It is not the resort's job to make you happy. You have to make yourself happy. The resort need only do what it said it would do for the money you paid, and anything reasonably implied (i.e. not piss in your canteen). If you are still "upset" or angry or whatever, that's on you. If you have unreasonable expectations of life, that's on you, not on life. There are people who live in absolutely horrendous conditions who are happier than some of the richest people on earth. If you think people are entitled to be upset by other people who didn't go jack diddly squat to them, then too bad. It was you that hurt yourself, not them.

If X has not done anything to cause Y to believe that X will not smoke weed, then if Y is upset, Y made himself upset. — James Riley

Yes and the employee has taken the drug test which I think does count as X doing something to cause Y to believe that X will not smoke weed.

If you said you would not smoke and then lied and did it, that is like the agreement with the SO. — James Riley

Yes and I think that happens quite frequently. Hence why I don’t think it makes sense to call the act of smoking weed a victimless activity in a near universal sense like it is frequently argued to be by certain kinds of libertarians.

Yes and the employee has taken the drug test which I think does count as X doing something to cause Y to believe that X will not smoke weed. — TheHedoMinimalist

Y has made not smoking weed a condition of employment, the verification of which is the test. They have a preexisting agreement. Do you not see the difference between "doing to" and "not doing to"? It's the same distinction I drew for you between spitting on you, versus smoking weed over there without any agreement not to.

Yes and I think that happens quite frequently. Hence why I don’t think it makes sense to call the act of smoking weed a victimless activity in a near universal sense like it is frequently argued to be by certain kinds of libertarians. — TheHedoMinimalist

The fact that people commit crimes or breach agreements (written or implied) quite frequently is irrelevant. Smoking weed does not transmogrify a mere observer into a victim simply because they saw it and are upset by it. There has to be a nexus showing the harm was imposed upon them by another, and was not merely the result of their own observation or agency.

Compare: You may know that I get upset seeing kids walking around with their pants down and their underwear showing. Guess what? Tough shit to me! You walking around with your pants down and your underwear showing, even if you know it upsets me, is not you upsetting me. It is me upsetting myself. How much more so if you don't know it upsets me? Because you don't know me, and you have no duty to go around asking everyone how they feel about something before you do it. The point here is, people have a duty to go feel somewhere else before their impose their unreasonable, subjective feelings on the rest of the world. Indeed, what if am upset by people with thin skin who get all upset about me smoking weed? Maybe we should outlaw their feelings and make them stay inside and not look out? Whose feels trumps whose feels? How about we keep our feels to ourselves unless and until their are actual, demonstrable, provable, palpable, damages?

The action of smoking weed does not necessarily imply harm towards others, even if some who use weed may hurt their relationships because of it, it isn’t a necessary consequence of the action of smoking weed.

However, imagine a powerful warrior’s drug that gave an urge to assault someone : the consumption of the drug would necessarily imply harm towards other, and I think the harm principle would justify banning this drug and its use.

I think that this critera of ''innateness of harm'' makes the harm principle quite clear for decriminalizing kinds of actions.

I think the question is not whether or not the harm principle is clear (according to my interpretation), I think the question is whether or not we want to consider all merely probable phenomenological harms instead of harms planned by the law, and the latter would require deliberation. The former would make the harm principle quite vague. So maybe it's the notion of harm that is vague.

Compare: You may know that I get upset seeing kids walking around with their pants down and their underwear showing. Guess what? Tough shit to me! You walking around with your pants down and your underwear showing, even if you know it upsets me, is not you upsetting me. It is me upsetting myself. How much more so if you don't know it upsets me? — James Riley

Given that those kids played a causal influence in making you upset in this hypothetical case, I find it more plausible to think that those kids did contribute to your victimization. In addition, I want to point out that I think it’s completely possible for someone to victimize someone else and not realize that they have victimized someone else. So, the fact that I might not know that you would be upset by seeing me walk around in sagging pants doesn’t really seem relevant regarding questions relating to whether or not a particular activity victimizes others.

Because you don't know me, and you have no duty to go around asking everyone how they feel about something before you do it. — James Riley

I agree that you don’t have a duty to not smoke weed. I think it’s perfectly compatible to believe that making people upset by smoking weed victimizes the person who is upset at your actions and to believe that you just don’t have a duty not to victimize that person.

Indeed, what if am upset by people with thin skin who get all upset about me smoking weed? Maybe we should outlaw their feelings and make them stay inside and not look out? Whose feels trumps whose feels? — James Riley

I think pretty much any kind of law or action victimizes people constantly. It’s pretty obvious that a law prohibiting the possession of weed would also victimize people that wish to smoke weed and those weed smokers would also be victimized. The point of my OP was not to argue against weed legalization. To try to answer your questions, I do think that the victimization of weed users by the law is greater and more unnecessary than the victimization of people who are upset about living in a weed friendly society. This is why I think weed should be legal. Nonetheless, I don’t think that the fact that the victimization of the weed haters is smaller implies that they wouldn’t be victimized at all if weed was legalized.

The action of smoking weed does not necessarily imply harm towards others, even if some who use weed may hurt their relationships because of it, it isn’t a necessary consequence of the action of smoking weed. — Godefroy

Well, I’m not sure if any action necessarily implies harm towards others. It seems to me that even an action such as theft doesn’t necessarily produce a negative consequence towards someone. The victim of theft doesn’t always have to upset about the loss of his property and may even use his situation as a learning experience to change his life for the better. In addition, it’s possible that a thief can steal something that either has negative value or would inadvertently have negative value. For example, a thief could steal something that would end up being dangerous to the owner or would end up greatly inconveniencing the owner of the property. Another possibility involves a thief stealing property that the owner never ever realized that he had and property that he would have never really discovered that he owned or lost. So, I’m not sure why banning an act like stealing wouldn’t violate the harm principle but banning an act like smoking weed would.

If the definition of a harm was prealably deliberated as involving no phenomenological assessment ffrom the person being stolen, there is no difficulty in assessing anaction using the harm principle.

If the the mere fact that a person loses possession of a good is considered as a harm, without need to consider the individual's phenomenology, it can be considered as a harm whether or not she cares. If I break my arm doing skateboard and consider it no big deal, I am harmed whether or not I feel pain. If I get stolen without caring about it, I am harmed whether or not I care. If our definition of stealing implies that you take possession of something without permission, and consider this as a harm, the personn has less than she would have if she had not been stolen from, and thefore it is hurtful for her whether or not she cares. We don't really need to assess her phenomenology farther.

Of course most psychological harms are phenomenological (like suffering is much harder to live by than simply experiencing pain), but if we assert that certain kinds of phenomenologies are harms, it is compatible with the harm principle. For example, if you make me angry by smoking weed, and that you consider the phenomenological emotion of angriness as being a harm, it is a harm whether or not I think angriness is harmful or not. I may agree that since you are smoking weed, I am angry, but I may maintain that it is not harmful for me to be angry, since honestly, the feeling of shouting your lungs after someone kind of feels good after all.

If we have an interactionist definition of harm, preferably, one which was prealably deliberated with the community, we have no trouble applying the harm principle.

The harm principle (or my interpretation) simply says ''If X does not imply Y, decriminalize X''. The rationale being : ''if Y is not harmful, the reason we have for criminalizing X vanishes''.

The problem is when someone proposes that the definition of ''harm'' is purely and simply phenomenological (as you seem to be suggesting is the correct definition of harm) : '' i say that it is a harm, so therefore it is harm''. We cannot predict what kind of event would generate this kind of assessment, and therefore this would really make the harm principle unpredictable and vague.

Well, you are not only fundamentally wrong on the law, but you are wrong on the facts. The law will not find a crime, or even civil liability, under a scenario where X "feels" the source of his upset and his "victimization" is Y when Y has no duty to X. Further, Y is not "making" X feel.

I'll take one last stab at getting you to understand by using another case of "feeling". I don't know if you've ever been in love, but if so, the person you fell in love with did not "make you" feel love for them. That was all on you. Or lets try lust: We see a very hot chick in her Daisy Dukes. Guess what? She didn't make you hot for her. That was all on you. All of it. If you rape her, guess what? She didn't make you rape her. That was ALL on you. You not only victimized her, but you victimized yourself.

I'm done.