Generally, yes. Drug addiction, however, is not. It tends to destroy families and the person who has the addiction. You listed marijuana as a category, which isn't a comparable addiction to let's say meth, cocaine, heroine or other opiates, pcp, ecstasy, mushrooms, etc in the sense of how destruction the addiction can be, so it is a victim-less crime unless you have a medical marijuana card, then it's a victim-less medicine. With marijuana, there are only victims of the drug war, where the DEA and local law enforcement prey on the marijuana consumers as well as various drug cartel, who are generally just provoked to do more smuggling.
A victimless crime is a term applied to a crime which generally has no direct victim, (e.g.: as in the crime of illegal possession of drugs). Victimless crimes must be truly victimless. In many ways, a false statement offense is considered a victimless crime, but in which, society at large becomes the victim. The victim, for purposes of a victimless crime, is the societal interest that has been harmed.
is hacking that does no direct damage a victimless crime
It can be to an extent, but continued use impacts others in a number of ways. When it becomes addiction, it destroys families, causes other crimes, and burdens the hospitals and emergency services.
I believe the questioner means PRE-MEDITATED Murder - meaning that the event was purposely planned in advance of it happening.
a victimless crime
Victimless crime
when a crime was commited and they can't find the victim
Statistically there is none - because no one has ever complied a comprehensive list of so-called "victimless crimes" or described what they are.
It depends on whether the drug abuse hurts others, such as by violence or theft. If the "abuse" is done privately and doesn't affect others, it's a victimless crime and society should take no role.
Yes, victimless crimes should be free from governmental interference. The answer flows naturally from the answer to the question: "What is the proper role of government?" In the United States, the original role of government was to protect the individual liberty and freedom of the individual. In a victimless crime, no individual is impeding the liberty and freedom of another individual. Thus, the government should have no liberty/freedom interest to protect and should be indifferent to the "crime." Unfortunately, the government has transformed into an opposite role--that of mandating that the individual behave in accordance with the way that government thinks the individual ought to behave. Therefore, enforcement of laws against victimless crimes is a rejection of individual liberty and freedom and an acceptance of fascism/totalitarianism. In a "victimless crime," the government believes the individual has violated the government's ideal behavior. Indeed, when the government punishes an individual for committing a victimless crime, the only true victim is the individual, who has been punished.
The best topic for the thesis of criminology is "Is there such a thing as "victimless" crime?"
somtimes