This is an old and well-discussed question. I'll quote from Alexis de Tocqueville's "Tyranny of the Majority" (1835): > "If it be admitted that a man possessin

This is an old and well-discussed question. I'll quote from Alexis de Tocqueville's "Tyranny of the Majority" (1835): > "If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them." Democracy requires that while the majority rules, the minority also have rights. Majoritarianism (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism ) is similar to democracy, and some of its proponents argue is more democratic. I disagree with that viewpoint. I do not respect a vote for autocracy, though of course this is abstract as my respect means nothing to those who voted that way, and I can do nothing to change things. A democratic process must allow the minority at some point to be a majority. If you kill off the minorities, which yes, includes those accused of drug dealing, then there is no democracy. (And no, the frequent US policy of stripping the franchise from felons is not democratic.) See also http://democracyweb.org/node/36 http://democracyweb.org/node/36 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority .