3 ms·
> But if the only people asking for their legalization are idiots who keep considering their consumption innocent, while funding the author of heinous crimes, t
by dns_snek 3y ago
> But if the only people asking for their legalization are idiots who keep considering their consumption innocent, while funding the author of heinous crimes, then I don't expect a very interesting discussion.
They are only incidentally supporting organized crime because the market has been pushed underground by draconian legislation. The current legal status of various substances is an extremely recent invention, it might as well been yesterday in terms of human history of drug use.
Users of these substances are temporarily routing around a roadblock during a brief period of human history where the nanny state is interfering with these personal choices. Claiming that they're willfully funding organized crime is disingenuous at best.
- pif 3y ago> draconian legislation When it does not infringe a human right, and most people can follow it, a law cannot be considered draconian.
- isaacremuant 3y agoYou just invented your own definition of draconian. > excessively harsh and severe It's about severity, which you can debate. It's not about human rights or being followed.
- pif 3y ago@isaacremuant There is no excessive severity in a law that most people can follow while leaving a full life.
- dns_snek 3y agoPlease define "a full life" and explain why you believe that everyone else should live their lives according to your definition.
- isaacremuant 3y agoThat's your, rather vaguely stated, opinion. We don't share it.