Unless you produce your own drugs and consume them secretly, that is not true.
> That's a good reason to encourage legalization...
The reality is, drugs are not legal. You can't go there.
The only people hurt were hurt due to illegality. Who is hurt when you drink wine? Used to be wine was illegal, and people got hurt until alcohol was legalized.
The reality is, drugs are not legal. You can't go there.
Drugs being illegal isn't hard reality. The solution is to legalize them rather than to stop persecuting the people who are using them.
If a weapons dealer sells a terrorist a bomb knowing it will hurt innocent people, the dealer might not directly detonate the bomb themselves, but I think we would still hold the dealer partly responsible for supplying the tool.
Likewise, if a buyer buys an illegal good and it is known that, somewhere down the line, people were killed in the process of getting that good to the buyer, the buyer shares responsibility for supplying the motive, money.
All these things are fairly minor, but they are all CRIMES. Crimes that people perpetrate all the time. And we'd have to put nearly everyone in jail if we strictly followed 'reality'.
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.
How can you ignore the violence that is unarguably a by-product of the illegal drug trade?
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.
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. :)
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.