Why are we still using puritanical justice?

 

 

 

 

 

  

So Trump is conducting operations on foreign shores using weapons to take out drug smugglers. The emphasis on stopping the drug trade is based on some puritanical ideology that has long plagued politics. Drugs are seen as an  

epidemic that must be stopped at all costs even if the suits and ties order murder. 

 

 So does Terrorism not apply here to the CIA? Murder is not murder if the "Intelligence services" commit murder as long as they uphold the puritanical ideologies that have been drummed in as law? 

         There's a lot of things to unpack here. Like why we are still using puritanical justice? Because in my view recreational drugs never excuse the killing of people. Just because you wear a suit and tie does not excuse you from being involved in murder. The word "accused" is bandied around as if they were not certain that these boats even were carrying recreational drugs. The fear of drugs, as a cause of societal ills is huge. There's no downplaying it, but murder? Murder just seems to be the remit of politicians who uphold puritanical principles as the fundamentals of law. So when does law become unjust? Who is wrong? The people committing murderous actions or the people delivering "party-time"? That's the question I'm asking. Although drugs often have negative affects on health, which can impact those individuals. Let's just say "Drugs are wrong" for arguments sake. Does that excuse murder? It seems suspect to me that governments give themselves immunity from consequences that you or I might face from taking similar action. If a civilian went out with the weapons the government provides to those on its payroll, the civilian would be apprehended on Terrorism charges. So what makes it right that administrators of a country don't face similar charges for their behaviour? What makes killing OK for the people in suits that run the country's of the world? And Yes, it probably won't affect my life in the slightest but as a former drug user I'm just curious as to what moral compass they are on because it certainly doesn't live up to my idea of justice. The blanket ban on recreational drugs just seems like red-tape for liberties and is oppressive in nature in places that claim to value "free-market" enterprise. It's not like there isn't a model for making drugs safe. Pharmaceutical industries have very strict regulations. The recreational drug market is hounded because puritans have led policy. They have led policy for years even in the face of growing opposition, and why? 

       There's been many groups calling for decriminilisation including Police. Attitudes towards recreational drug use need to change; and yes, you do have problems with drugs like Fentanyl but you will with any drug that is supposed to be taken in extremely small doses, that just happens to be highly addictive. It seems to me that governments are happy for death to occur, but only when they order it. Otherwise it's a death taken too early that they are not happy about happening without their authority. There are recreational drugs that have are a relatively low risk to health including LSD, MDMA and Cannabis that Professor Nutt advised the UK government to legalise with regulations approved by the pharmaceutical industry. It's not as if there isn't a concern for health when it comes to drugs and risks shouldn't be taken lightly, but the puritanical argument and the overly punitive laws by people who don a suit and tie doesn't speak to the communities where drugs are part of the culture. There's many attacks on culture when it comes to recreational drugs and is a direct attack on large swathes of the worlds population.