Foreword. Logically, I put this question as someone who never took drugs.
Selling a product that is classified as an anesthetic is considered a penalty.
Only the sale, i. The dealer does not harm anyone for the first time. That's why I find this hatred of dealers so arbitrary. Also, it is unlikely that the consumer will buy the drug his choice to deliberately harm others. As it would be the case with weapons.
Logical would be an issue from the state of drugs to addicts already and the education of young people potential new consumers about the risks.
As an example, the game Fortnite was so in the hype or is. I've never played this game, I've watched it a lot, but never bought it because I did not like it.
That's the way it is with all things.
Being gay was forbidden earlier. But there were always gays as the gay marriage was allowed, I'm also not gay or wanted to collect Bi experience or it?
The only way to help depend on is the control of the substances and the communication with the consumers not with the sellers.
Drugs even get into jail.
The state must become the seller, the contact person, the dealer.
He already has the military power to try to smash other cartels, but he offers no material but the demand remains.
Let's come to the small percentage of people who would like to try all the drugs because they are.
I can only say that today one can operate from man to woman and vice versa if one only convinces a psychologist that this must be.
By the way, I just speak of all other illegal drugs, cannabis excluded.
Because cannabis is a topic in itself. I see no reason to criminalize or limit it in any way because it does no harm to society.
It should be treated like alcohol. Consider only how many decades of alcohol is indulged and how many alcoholics must have originated.
Nevertheless, we have technological achievements that work according to the laws of quantum physics.
So you can't tell me if there had always been an alcohol ban against our civilization even further advanced. Such nonsense this drug policy.
The people who are taking drugs because they are desperate to fight the dealers is like Saint Martin giving his half coat to a woman in the cold shooting in the head. And take her coat away.
The drug dealers are not comparable to Saint Saint Martin.
Without drug dealers there would be no freezing. The comparison would rather be that the drug dealer stripped people and then offered his coats for a good price.
Dealing with drugs has nothing honorable.
Above all, dealers also add newcomers to addiction. Not only do you give something to those who are already addicted.
The questioner is simply through.
Testifies of knowledge.
The drug dealers are not social workers. They want to make a profit. In addition, they do not reduce the suffering on earth as a whole, but multiply it.
If you can even say that they are fighting a problem, it's just that they themselves carry with guilt.
You do not consider the past. You only see someone who needs drugs and the one who sells the drugs. If you have so much empathy, then ask yourself why the person in need of drugs really needs drugs.
It's like thinking you're doing someone good by giving them guns so they can defend themselves better.
You do not have to be an Einstein to gather that you only accumulate more problems with drugs and harm not only yourself, but also everyone else.
Procurement crime, incapacity to work, money problems including debts, co-dependency of relatives… Can be continued indefinitely.
If you do not get along in life, you do not make it better by whistling at any garbage that grinds your brain. You need your head to solve the problems.
There are sellers who serve a demand. Nothing else. The state can't prevent people from taking these substances, it does not work.
For this they would have to wash their brains.
Do not do it
If it is a premise that they want to take it, then the more guilt is blamed on those who give them access.
If you come back with a but, we turn in circles.
It's very easy. If drugs were not produced, there would be no drug problems. If drugs were not marketed, there would be no drug problems. And then nobody would have the desire for drugs.
As you rightly say, you can't exercise much influence on consumers. On the other hand, you can act against dealers and factories.
And so is the current legal situation. Consumers usually have little to fear.
The fight against drugs is a war with weapons and bloodshed.
One deprives a person of his will and freedom.
A drug addict in a therapy can only create a withdrawal and remain clean if he wants it himself so where, where is the meaning.
Every law is thus a deprivation of liberty. Some restrictions on freedom open up other freedoms.
I maintain that in a world without drugs, people are freer than in a drug-free world.
I think it's very good that you said that. This is almost proof that not only drug users come up with such a "crazy idea", but that's true.
I assumed that after your detailed foreword, the actual justification for a council or help request, but apart from some loosely grouped expressions of opinion, the gays, cannabis, alcohol and quantum physics throw in an argument pot, you can't see what you except Want to let off steam at all.
Drugs are illegal because they are prohibited.
Ok, thanks.
Drugs have always existed and will continue to exist in the future. They were already used and appreciated by the primitive peoples. They have, so to speak, a permanent place on the side of people since time immemorial. The spit bourgeoisie will not be able to change that.
It was like this, stay that way.
That's the same with other forms of crime.
So what are we talking about all the time?
