3 ms·
Letting "users" off the hook but going after the people who must exist for those users to obtain drugs makes no sense. The distinction is mostly imaginary (I sa
by standardUser 6y ago
Letting "users" off the hook but going after the people who must exist for those users to obtain drugs makes no sense. The distinction is mostly imaginary (I say this as a former drug dealer).
I'd further argue that decriminalizing a drug for "personal use" but keeping it a crime to participate in the market for that drug is essentially a government endorsement of a black market.
- wcarron 6y agoBeing a former drug user of various substances, I think it makes perfect sense. Addiction is a health issue, and addicts shouldn't be punished for it. The dealers, those responsible for the deterioration of both physical and mental health of the users, are directly responsible for that and should face charges for the damage they inflict on society. I think that is a very real and not imagined distinction. I obviously concede that without a legal alternative to obtaining drugs that yes, the gov't would be endorsing an illegal market. But, clearly, I've stated that's an intermediary step and I believe the sale of these drugs should be legal in a highly controlled environment to consenting adults. I also think meth and opiods are exceptions and should never be legalized for consumption outside of a prescription, but then I'm splitting hairs based on opinion and experience.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]