it seems that weed can harm other people because your family members may be upset about you using weed — TheHedoMinimalist
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
cause a pretty significant amount of distress to others. — TheHedoMinimalist
I think that arguing for weed legalization requires a more consequentialist sort of argument. — TheHedoMinimalist
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
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
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
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
Most libertarians believe that there are certain things that are illegal that should be legal because they are victimless activities. — TheHedoMinimalist
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
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. — James Riley
It seems to me that offending someone still counts as victimization. — TheHedoMinimalist
It seems to me that offending someone still counts as victimization. — TheHedoMinimalist
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
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’m not sure what the meaningful difference is between making someone upset by spitting on them and making someone upset by smoking weed. — TheHedoMinimalist
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
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
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. — James Riley
I think that there are plenty of implied agreements that X not smoke weed. — TheHedoMinimalist
If you accept this, t — TheHedoMinimalist
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.