You're arguing for the other side now. You just (correctly, IMO) attributed the violence of the drug trade to the fact that it is illegal.
There's no violence in the tobacco or alcohol trades, largely because they are legal and regulated. It is a logical fallacy to blame the consumer for systemic violence.
The other side argues:
a) because illegal drugs should be legal (at this point in time),
b) contributing to demand by buying or selling illegal drugs is acceptable (at this point in time).
I'm arguing, or at least trying to argue:
a) because illegal drugs are not legal (at this point in time),
b) contributing to the demand for illegal drugs by buying or selling is not acceptable due to the violence that it fuels (at this point in time).
I define something acceptable as something morally permissible. If that makes sense.
> It is a logical fallacy to blame the consumer for systemic violence.
I would be sincerely interested in this topic, if you would like to go there. :)
> I would be sincerely interested in this topic, if you would like to go there. :)
Sure, do you blame consumers for buying clothing products that were manufactured using sweatshop labor? No, because the consumer had no intent. You blame the company that operates the sweatshops.
Do you blame civilians in Africa or the Middle East for the atrocities committed against aid workers? No, because the starving civilians have no intent of hurting aid workers. You blame the corrupt governments that perpetrate the atrocities.
Your argument when it comes to drugs rests upon the combination of current legal status and some moral presuppositions. I think the question of moral acceptability is orthogonal here. It is empirically true that people will purchase and use drugs, no matter what your moral sensibilities tell you.
Blaming the consumer is a fruitless effort when it comes to actually promoting better health and safety in society.
This argument could just as well be used to claim that our government is acting immorally by continuing to enforce policies that all evidence suggests promote violence.
In symbolic terms:
government:drug laws == consumer:drugs
We can fix things on either side. Moral arguments are irrelevant -- we should fix whichever side yields the most productive result.
jfornear, you're missing the points we've all made. The drug trade only results in violence because right now, every step to bring drugs to consumers is illegal. That means that it's unmonitored, and results in violence. Since you're breaking the law either way, no matter what you do is illegal, so there's no incentive to be peaceful in your processes.
If the drug trade were to be legalized, suddenly people could profit more by accepting business regulations, and violence would lower.
The point I've made elsewhere here is that it used to be producing alcohol led to violence, thanks to the Prohibition. Once alcohol legalized, businesses started making drinks rather than criminals, and the violence stopped.
No, I agree with your point. I just take it further by holding consumers responsible for fueling that violence when they could have done otherwise, not contributed to demand by obeying the laws.
To make an analogy, it is similar to supporting sweat shop labor by buying Nikes (or whatever companies still use sweat shop labor). The argument in the case of illegal drugs is that handing over money to people engaged in violence makes it more likely the violence will continue.
You're right, they are not alike. Jaywalking is illegal for safety reasons (to both the offender and more importantly the driving public).
On a moral basis, I find neither offense objectionable unless you hurt someone in the process.