>> This man made a product that others willingly wanted for themselves. There are no victims here

People may think LSD or cocaine is all well and good, but there are far more dangerous substances out there. Things like Carfentanil need to be regulated. So too all the so-called "date rape" drugs. Just because some guy wants a powerful, tasteless, anesthetic that can be readily dissolved in water doesn't mean we should let him have it. Even if it has personal uses, the danger of such substances means they need controls.

Control the action by the bad actor, not the drug. This same thinking was applied to LSD. “What if they put LSD in the water supply!”

>> Control the action by the bad actor, not the drug.

That was what the legal system did in the 18th century. It didn't work. Allowing people to buy poisons, weapons, even explosives and only punishing them once they harmed others has been deemed unacceptable. We now prevent crime by limiting access to such substances, hand in hand with governments licensing who may access them. Don't like not having access to something? Become a doctor/chemist/soldier/miner and you will be legally free to play around with all sorts of dangerous things.

The problem with this logic as I see it is that you place the good/bad verdict in the hands of the gov. instead of the individual.

An example that comes to mind is Redbull and strike anywhere matches are banned in several countries. Both of these substances have been shown to be used responsibly in the majority of other countries.

Replace "government" with "society" (and centuries of moral philosophy too).

If all good/bad decisions were made by individuals, we'd basically have anarchy and rule of the strongest - as most people would probably decide that "good" is what benefits themselves and their close friends.

All decisions are ultimately made by individuals. There is no such thing as a group. Decisions made by a “group” benefit some and harm others that disagree. It is literally impossible to arrive at an ideal situation when you poll a group. Every individual has unique needs.

> There is no such thing as a group

oof...

How do you feel about the correlation between access to guns and an increased suicide rate?

Again, control (attempt to help) the actor and not the means.

Canadian suicide statistics show no such correlation.

"Date rape" drugs seem rampant in certain communities but aren't used (hopefully) for rape but self-dosing at smaller amounts for their effects; regardless if they are legal or not the solution is the same: being safe in your behaviour and environment.

Any chance you could point out a source for your use of 'antithetic' in this context? TIA.

Spellcheck typo. I was going for anesthetic.

I don't know. It could be traumatizing to kill someone in a rather unspectacular car crash just because they weren't using their seatbelt. Same for helmets.

There's also the externality of increased load on emergency services and hospitals.

The possibility of someone else's trauma shouldn't infringe on my freedom to ride a bike without a helmet.

You may do so on your own private property. If you wish to use public roadways, you must abide by the laws set by your state, which must balance the costs to society of your choices against your ability to make them.

This logic applies against all 'victimless' crimes, including drug possession & use.

not at all.

Drug use has one victim : the user. Time and time again it has been shown that legalization and cure are far more efficient and cost less to society but still many countries cling to the idea that beating up somebody who is down will magically solve the problem.

What about the family of the user? What about friends and relatives affected by a user's addiction?

If you think the impact on a counterparty in a car accident should be taken into account, I would think family should be top-of-mind.

This comment is depressingly American.

I mean why not make alcohol illegal because of the chance that it could negatively affect the people around you?

That has a much higher likelihood than my not-wearing-a-helmet affecting someone else but very few people would support alcohol prohibition.

As a practical matter, helmet and seatbelt laws are effective and drug prohibition is not.

Did I miss an /s or are you seriously arguing against seatbelt and helmet laws?

Are you missing a /s?

I’m simply arguing that individuals should have the freedom to choose.

In which situation would you legitimately not want to wear a seatbelt while driving?

Will you also demand that individuals be capable of choosing - in that they have all the sufficient information to make an informed choice and are not manipulated by psychological tricks?

In which situation would you legitimately not want to wear a seatbelt while driving?

I can’t think of any. That doesn’t mean I would take that choice away from people that have a reason.