Why crack dealers?
I don't know, that's what the discussion turned to. Someone used it as an example.
I see. I thought it was just a statement about your "hot button" issue.
Looks like a number of them over at FTL were quite rude. Unless you've genocidally slaughtered some Jews and Russians today, let me extend some apologies. But don't think too much of it. For many, lashing out in anger is much easier than educating.
Just for fun, let me be the eternal devil's advocate: suppose, as you'd prefer, the Federal government allowed decrim of other drugs on a state-by-state basis if the majority of the state wants to. If a state decriminalizes drugs, you can use them. If not, you go to prison for, let's say, 3 years.
Suppose State A and State B each have 100 people in them and the majority makes the rules. In State A, only 50 people want to criminalize drugs. But in State B, 51 people want to criminalize drugs. So, if you use drugs in State A, you're fine. If you use drugs in State B, you go to prison for 3 years.
Now, I don't think it's much debated that, generally, a person should not lock up any other person if she is not harming anyone. And that two people, working together, should not lock up another person. Or that three people should not lock someone up. And so on. Most people recognize this as undesirable, aggressive, and quite unneighborly. And even when we get to 50 people deciding that a person should be locked up, we still say that's not a good thing to do.
But, upon reaching that 51st person, this group of people should, morally, be able to imprison someone against her will? None of the people have the right to do it individually. But if the conspiracy becomes large enough, that means it should be acceptable?