[papaf]

Getting high is not any kind of civil rights struggle. It's nice, but that's it.

I think this is a logical and well reasoned attitude if you are living in an ivory tower and have never been close to an addict. People mostly become addicts in response to something bad happening in their lives.

Punishing fellow human beings for an addiction is wrong. Addicts need treatment and support not punishment.

This may not be a civil rights issue, more common sense and basic decency.

[nnfy]

>People mostly become addicts in response to something bad happening in their lives

This is absolutely untrue. It would seem that you are living in an ivory tower of your own. I won't recount anecdote, but take a look at this source[1].

1. http://theinfluence.org/do-we-overstate-the-role-trauma-play...

[bdcravens]

There's a difference between punishing an addict, and removing access to their provider. At this point, the conversation tends to fork into a discussion on least harm. Nevertheless, when marketplaces like AlphaBay and others are shut down, it's the operators, and sometimes the vendors, who are explicitly punished, not the addicts.

[s73ver]

It's still not. And I am entirely in favor of getting those people help instead of locking them away.

But we're talking about those that set up the stores. They're clearly not helping any of those addicts. And they make a very conscious decision to do something that they know right now breaks the law.