[edgarallenbro]

We're talking victimless, not harmless. With drugs, there is no victim, because the person making the purchase is making a conscious choice to buy something to put into their body. They are well aware of the effects and risks.

Contrarily, identity theft is clearly not victimless. A person's credit card or social security number is taken from them without their knowledge or consent so that it can be sold.

To go on an anti-drug tirade here when your pedantry isn't even correct does no one any good. All you're doing is parroting and reinforcing negative drug stereotypes. You wouldn't be doing so if those sentiments weren't pushed on you since before you could even comprehend them.

[danudey]

Using drugs is victimless, but given that a lot of drug manufacture and cultivation is directly linked to organized crime, buying drugs is only victimless if you know for a fact that your drugs are ethically grown, fair trade, etc. Which you don't.

[al2o3cr]

By that logic, there's a good chance you're a perpetrator of slavery due to the labor that put your computer and/or its constituent parts together...

[Lawtonfogle]

>They are well aware of the effects and risks.

First, many are not aware.

Second, there are other parties who are hurt directly or indirectly by the drug use (granted, this only applies to some drugs).

Third, there are victims in getting the drugs to the person (once again, not in all cases, but with the black market, you can't be sure which case you fall under).

Finally, much like with alcohol, just because I do not consider it victimless does not mean I am against it being legalized. In fact I think that legalization would greatly reduce the number of victims.