[valuearb]

People have the right to control what goes in their bodies. I don't have the ability to see if my weed is "violence free", because drug prohibition took that away. You can't hold me responsible for violence among marijuana cartels if you don't give me a clean source for my marijuana.

It's like saying encryption is used by terrorists, so if I buy encryption I'm indirectly supporting terrorism.

[Retra]

You can be held responsible. You don't have a right to obtain a substance just because you want it. It doesn't matter if it "goes in your body" or not. That's not how rights work. You have to justify the value to society.

[valuearb]

It's exactly how rights work. Freedom of speech doesn't have to justify it's value to society, it's an innate right that's not up for vote. Google the founding fathers and natural law.

[Retra]

If freedom of speech didn't have to justify its value, you wouldn't need legislators to enact it as a law. Legislators aren't going to legislate without justification, and they shouldn't.

[msla]

There isn't a country on Earth run on "natural law" or anything close to it.

[threeseed]

You need to stop with the metaphors because they are ridiculous and wrong.

Buying drugs directly funds people who manufacture drugs.

Buying encryption does not directly fund terrorists.

[msla]

If you can trace the money flow from the drug user to the cartel, that user funded the cartel.

There's no such flow from people who buy encryption software to terrorist groups.