@seazen_ let me try to clarify then. By moral I don’t mean morally admirable, in that some greater good is served by doing them—I just mean they’re morally acceptable, in that no real harm is caused by doing them.
All of the situations I described cover some range of behavior, and those ranges include both moral and immoral behavior. But the government has to make rules that apply equally to everyone and every circumstance, even if the behaviors don’t have the same consequences in all circumstances.
For instance, I think if I drive 65 in a 55 zone that is not immoral. It is illegal. However, on the other end of the spectrum, driving 120 in any zone is so dangerous that is probably immoral.
In terms of file sharing, saying that sharing should be illegal because the work is copyrighted is a circular argument. I think free access to media is generally a good thing and that copyright serves largely to protect recording companies rather than the artists who create media. File sharing can actually benefit artists whose popularity spreads; the recording companies are the big losers in this, and they should be.
On the issue of narcotic use, I have used narcotic drugs in my life and had very positive, beneficial experiences. To the best of my knowledge, no one was harmed by this. So I don’t see anything immoral about that action. However, I understand that drugs have the potential to cause a great deal of harm, so making them illegal is generally a good thing. I wouldn’t be opposed to a more thoughtful and nuanced law, though, that allows for some minimal and responsible narcotic use.