People don't sell drugs to help people, they sell them to make easy money. That wouldn't be such a bad thing if drugs didn't destroy the live of so many people, and the lives of those around them. Not all drugs are so bad, and that is reflected in their classification under the Dangerous Drugs Act.

I can only assume that you or anyone you care about hasn't died or destroyed their life due to drug addition?

> I can only assume that you or anyone you care about hasn't died or destroyed their life due to drug addition?

Actually, no, but slight correction: they were killed by the war on drugs, not the drugs. Similarly, I know multiple people who are almost definitely only alive today due to the existence of darknet marketplaces.

The war on drugs and prohibition has destroyed more lives than the drugs themselves.

Prohibition and criminalization of drug use is not the way to solve a medical problem of drug addiction and abuse

Absolutely. Possession shouldn't be a crime; just the intent to supply. The best way to help addicts is to supply them with safe places to go to administer drugs, and provide registered addicts with safe drugs and support for free. It's expensive, but less expensive than wasting resources treating people that are essentially victims, as criminals.

It's important to note that "the war on drugs" is an American concept; not how things are done in the rest of the world. It's almost like they learned nothing from the prohibition!

Most people who use drugs do little harm to themselves or others. And as someone who has sold illegal drugs, I can tell you people sell drugs for many different reasons, not just as some get-rich-quick scheme as your TV-show-level analysis suggests.

Most of the people I have encountered over the years have sold drugs for money, or to feed their own habit. I'm aware that people dealers at the bottom don't make much money; although most of them think they do as they don't often have many better options.

I can only assume that anyone you care about hasn't died of suicide due to lack of treatment? You like telling people what to do?

Nunya fuckin' bizniss, m8. If the healthcare industry works for you, that's fantastic.

It doesn't work for millions of people even in Europe.

No, but I know a few people that have overdosed and died; but hey I guess it was their fault?

Literally every sentence you have written in your comment is factually incorrect.

The highest classed drugs (as in class A) have the biggest negative impact on society, and I don't thin that anyone sensible would try to argue that heroin, cocaine or crystal meth are harmless; or beneficial in any way? I can be argued that people should the personal right to take anything they want; and while I agreed with that in principle, people and society have to pick up the pieces. If drugs were available in a regulated way could solve many problems, but it would have to be done in such a way to it doesn't create a industry which profits from peoples addition.

IF only individuals could make the best decisions about their health. The idea of some ideal perfect "logical" consciousness separate from the real world is a myth.

I drink too much, I eat too much. I know this, and understand it's not a good thing long-term, but I still do it.

More addictive substances would likely make that worse. I'm glad some things are made intentionally hard for my lizard brain to get a hold of.

The best choices for a person, definitionally, are those they themselves deem best (whether they carry them out or not). No other person has a higher authority to decide "best" for them.

It's not any second party's place to say. Your actions plainly demonstrate that you find pleasurable choices (overeating, alcohol) better for you than healthy ones. That's fine and good.

Short term pleasure over long term health is a legitimate choice, if you (or anyone else) wishes to make it for your (or their) own body. Not everyone needs to uniformly prioritize quantity of life over quality of life.