It is plain to see that you are not familiar with the normal usage of “initiation of force” and its context so I supplied it for you.
Force need not be physical even with your inference.
The IRS can certainly apply force without touching you in any physical way, right?
Lawsuits depriving one of the full use or full value of their property need not involve physical contact or physical intimidation.
My last paragraph in that post referred to many activities that do not directly harm any adults who partake appropriately. Yet these activities have restrictions by the government based on the displeasure and controlling attributes of other citizens.
In these cases one group of citizens uses the threat of government force via police action against another group of citizens who partake in activities that do not harm the first group who deprive the second group from liberties.
If I can raise enough support for my anti-TV cause should I sponsor a law disallowing you the use of your tv because some people over indulge and become slothful??
Or deprive you of some food item because some over indulge and become ill?
Or deprive you of something else you might like to do in the name of Community Safety and Health?
In these cases I would be initiating force against you by using the threat of government police action to deprive you of actions that you can do in your own home that have no direct effect on anyone else.
Is that what you call freedom and liberty?
If I were to take the full “definition” from the Wikipedia page(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiation_of_force), the statement would still not be accurate. This is because it essentially includes any and all acts of wrongdoing, physical or otherwise, against another person, but does not include those harmed indirectly by your actions. Again, please tell me how the family torn apart by a sex cripple’s use of a prostitute has some force initiated upon them. Sure, if you expand the definition to essentially reverse-engineer it based on the outcome, then it becomes a tautology (i.e. Person A was harmed by Action B, thus Action B constitutes initiation of force). The problem here then becomes that almost everything can be construed as initiation of force.
The free use of drugs is not without consequence as many libertarians (and apparently you) believe. Step one, in this case, is the engineering of the term “initiation of force” in such a way that it supports your ultimate goal. Step two is then rationalizing your actions. Marijuana, possibly the least harmful of the illicit drugs, has marked negative health effects. This costs otherwise healthy people financially in the form of increased health care costs. Does this constitute initiation of force? In what way is it different from regular tobacco smokers? In either case, why must I subsidize the habit, directly or indirectly, of a person incapable of dealing with reality?
This discussion is not about freedom or liberty. It’s ultimately about the legalization crowd’s petulant need to have their vice legalized - a vice that is used and abused by people already suffering from some sort of social disorder. If you need to escape, instead of fixing the symptoms you should fix the cause. That’s my opinion. That said, the reason drugs are so abused is because the kinds of people that abuse are precisely the kinds of people mentally inclined to abuse them. It’s essentially self-perpetuating. While anything can be addictive depending on the person, it’s not as if it’s the minority of drug users who suffer social or health consequences from the use of drugs. It’s the majority.
In general, I have become more or less agnostic about the issue of legalization. Were it to be legal, those who wish to use drugs should simply have to accept responsibility for their actions. Much like bad drivers eventually lose their licenses, those who abuse drugs and lose their jobs are entitled to no help whatsoever from productive members of society. Those who endanger their children in any way from the use or abuse of drugs must bear the consequences of that decision.
This discussion to me has never been about liberty or freedom, but rather about the collective need of many libertarians to pretend their vices do not affect others. They do.