That's a really poor analogy. Decriminalizing drugs will not mean that somebody will have a right to give you drugs. Human trafficking involves abusing other people.
It will mean that an incredible amount of money spent on policing can be used on education of what drugs are and what they do to you. The people that have a job to police the lives of others are scared of this because they will be without a job. As their job is basically not needed they are scared of losing their welfare and privilege.
I don't understand the revenue argument and I've read all the comments.
Sure it works. Look at Holland, does it have a substantially higher or even a higher incidence of drug use than e.g. neighboring countries? I don't think so. Look at Portugal, a country that reduced drug abuse through decriminalization. That's just a fact.
It's a complex issue and there might be cases where it doesn't work, but to say it never works is clearly wrong. If we talk about a democratic society, then it can't rely on brute force for the people's own good, at least not for an extended period of time. A ban would be OK early on, but eventually people need to know themselves what's wrong and crucially why. This goes beyond drug use and is basically the only way to have a democratic society.
As it is, the ban on drugs is mostly a tool of oppression. Especially in countries like the US, that is financing a predominantly white police force to, well, police and subject minorities to a different standard than the majority.
> I don't understand the revenue argument and I've read all the comments.
Look at the top-comment, you have obviously NOT read all the comments:
>>Decriminalise drugs and criminals will lose most of their revenue.
>Sure it works. Look at Holland, does it have a substantially higher or even a higher incidence of drug use than e.g. neighboring countries? I don't think so.
One of European drug trafficking hubs is also Montenegro, a small country with traditionally extremely strict drug laws. So there's not even a lot of correlation in what you say, let alone causation.
Whataboutism in it's purest form...bravo well done.
Comparing Montenegro (the poorest country in europe and second most corrupt one (just Albania is worse)) to holland need some massive stretch (shame on you)...and it's beyond truthful argumentation. Just read the Spiegel...and why Holland is a paradise for the Mafia.
If you point out that lax laws are the cause for something, then it's really easy to disapprove that by pointing out all the counter examples. It's really simple. Have a nice day.
The difference between the drug trade and human trafficking is that it may be argued that the former does not involve harm of others. The latter could never support such an argument.
>is that it may be argued that the former does not involve harm of others.
You can ask afghan puppy farmers about that, and every single crack/heroin user if it's not harm-full, just decriminalize it, solves a really minor problem.
You can see it with prostitution, it's legal in most of Europe, however it's still in the hand organized crime groups, nothing has changed.
> You can see it with prostitution, it's legal in most of Europe, however it's still in the hand organized crime groups, nothing has changed
It's slightly less bad for sex workers, since their activity not being a crime means they can theoretically go to the police, which is better than nothing.
True, at least sex workers can go to the police if something happens, but as i wrote in another comment, it solves a ~minor problem and is not the to-go-and-solve-everything-solution.
The point was the huge difference between what may be argued (successfully) about something and what could not be argued about something (because it's clearly impossible to be successfully argued). That the mays are contentious is implied by the may, but it is possible to put one's weight behind it.
They are already into ransomware anyway.
And maybe decriminalize human trafficking too?
All problems solved right?