• shortwavesurfer@monero.town
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    I would agree, except do not criminalize individuals selling to other individuals, but if it’s stores then I completely agree.

    • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      do not criminalize individuals selling to other individuals, but if it’s stores then I completely agree.

      What do you think a store is, exactly?

      • shortwavesurfer@monero.town
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I consider a store to be more of a corporation because of the fact that I can’t go up and talk to the individual who runs the thing in most cases.

        • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          It depends on the size of the store, but that isn’t necessarily true. A lot of convenience stores are franchises, and you definitely could talk to the owner.

          My point isn’t really to define what a store is, but rather to point out that it is really tricky to place blame appropriately when you are banning a substance that people want to buy. How far down the chain do you prosecute?

          Much better to simply teach people the truth about their health and let them make their own decisions rather than try to control and blame, in my opinion.

          • shortwavesurfer@monero.town
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Fair enough, I generally think prosecution is a bad idea if it can be at all avoided because then taxpayers have to pay for that person to be prosecuted in court and if they end up guilty have to keep them in jail and I don’t agree with that if it can be avoided.