Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well of course, if that's the trade off. But promoting it as an integral part of the solution helps perpetuate the same tired government-should-be-involved thinking that caused the problem in the first place. Pragmatically, it wouldn't simply legitimize the current drug dealers overnight. You'd have to sell them on bullshit paperwork and becoming part of a system that they're predisposed to hate. Good luck with that.…
We shouldn't give a shit about current drug dealers. The idea is to allow other people to provide a safe and consistent product out in the open, out-competing traditional drug dealers. These drug dealers will no longer have the opportunity to exploit children as street-level pushers, those children will get thrown into the legal system realistically erasing all job prospects. Legalized possession of drugs will keep e…
And who do you think that that society is structured around?
> allow other people
"Other people" are going to invest capital in Camden to setup a single-serving storefront that will be violently attacked by vertically-integrated competition? Sure..
There is already a mature market in place, and you're saying the right way is to create a different one and hope that the consumers switch. Maybe that works in theory, right up until junkies start getting beat up for breaking rank and going to the sellout drug store.
> we're only legalizing 'upper class' drugs" arguments are complete nonsense
It's not a claim that upper classes are the most affected by pot being illegal, it's that pot being illegal is something that actually affects the upper classes. Please show me a seriously-taken proposal to "legalize and regulate" pot, cocaine, crack and meth alike. This will never happen, and the Jim Crow laws will continue just fine without pot.