Empathy is a good word and should be applied to most debates today and you are correct in bringing it up here. The empathy side for addicts is for those that have already engaged harsh substances. I’m more worried about proactive solutions rather than reactive. Addicts became addicts through access. Why would you increase access? The argument that it will exist no matter what has no merit towards decriminalizing it. If it were possible society would be better served if these things simply didn’t exist period. Everyone of these substances is created through greed and power cravings through the dealers. Power from money or possession of a substance others enslave their entire livelihood toward obtaining. That position provides some level of power and money feeds greed.
There’s a lot of other healthy things in this world that can give you the same and actually a better high than any of these drugs. Try having a small human being created partly from your DNA say “I love you daddy”(or mommy). That’s a high you can’t replicate.
I don’t know your situation in life but I really think society would be better off adjusting voting rules to those that have dependants exclusively. That’s the demographic that is actually shaping an opinion toward voting that results in a world not only for them but those they care for. A lot of people are simply selfish with their opinions and what would serve them, their lifestyle or serve their addictions best - not what’s best for the upcoming generation or a dependent of a different demographic.
Where is your opinion coming from in regards to making the world a better place for the next generations? The addicts need help, no doubt but the rules for future generations should not be shaped off this groups problems.
|