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.
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.