> I think a much better argument is to point at countries that decriminalized drugs and didn't see an increase in crime.
I agree.
> we've already concluded that it's okay to prioritize safety over freedom
Who is "we"? A majority telling a minority "we" know what's best for you at the expense of your freedom is very dangerous rhetoric.
> we have seatbelt laws
In this analogy, I would argue drugs = cars and seatbelts would be some safety measure on where drugs could be used (like no heroin injecting within 100 ft of a school, etc...) which seems like a reasonable restriction. But banning cars because a majority of the population thinks they are dangerous and people cannot drive them responsibly would be absurd.
> I think a much better argument is to point at countries that decriminalized drugs and didn't see an increase in crime.
I agree.
> we've already concluded that it's okay to prioritize safety over freedom
Who is "we"? A majority telling a minority "we" know what's best for you at the expense of your freedom is very dangerous rhetoric.
> we have seatbelt laws
In this analogy, I would argue drugs = cars and seatbelts would be some safety measure on where drugs could be used (like no heroin injecting within 100 ft of a school, etc...) which seems like a reasonable restriction. But banning cars because a majority of the population thinks they are dangerous and people cannot drive them responsibly would be absurd.