Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'll pass on the softballs that appeared elsewhere in your post. As for what you say above, its nonsense. Would you settle for a but-for test? But for drugs being illegal, they would be widely available and cheap and relatively unprofitable for criminals. (Your position) Check. But, but for criminals in this country providing a demand for illegal drugs at expensive prices, they would be completely unprofitable for criminals (My position: No demand = No Supply). You can hide your face in a crowd of criminals and say its the mob at fault, but it doesn't take away your incremental contribution to the harm by way of your incremental demand. And only the Lord knows what message you send to the children of this country when you deny culpability for the harms that result from your actions. A Friday night in Southwest or Lawndale would do your sense of wrong, right.
|
Huh? Hello someone must have spiked you punch this holiday weekend. If drugs were legal, yes they would be widely availabe and cheap. There would also not be any violence associated with the "trade," and hence no innocent victims. Your but/for criminals is just way off, unless you thing druge users (i.e., those that create demand) are criminals. Seriously, do you put "drugs" in a different category as booze? As nicotine? As prescribed drugs? There is little to no violence associated with those substances, yet the only real difference is that they are legal or legal, but regulated.
efs
