scroll up

Bring an addict isn't economically viable.

Hahahaha

You think that will stop them?

being a neet isn't economically viable

that means the economy is smaller

u dolt

No, but they'll die out quickly.

that's an effect on the society

look, even if we were in your fantasy, people aren't making rational choices

No they wont if you make the drug easier to obtain

There are private charities that pay them not to reproduce.

I have no idea why you think they do

You fucking muppet

Read The Economics of Prohibition.

having fewer economically viable people ***IS*** an effect on the society u dolt

It's so absurd

you're crossing way too many bridges

We have too many drug addicts so we ought to make the substances they abuse more easily accessible and this will resolve the issue

>he wants to live in a society

lol!

Nothing worked in Portugal, nor Canada, where these kinds of policies have been implemented

Prohibition makes drugs more potent. It actively creates more addicts, who will go onto to commit property crimes to feed their addictions. This is also the main incentive for private actors to exclude addicts.

the thing you don't understand is

even if tyou started with a perfect population

you need extreme laws to not degenerate

there is less drug use under prohibition than without it

every time

humans will be humans.

>nothing worked

also, not all prohibitions are similar cases

>didn't try abolishing welfare

ok

let's "try it"

oh, we can't?

@Banjod How are property rights not enough? It's literally a net loss to keep addicts around.

no we can't

too many parasites

so it' not a solution