Not PP, but the onus is always on the person or group making the affirmative claim. It _might_ be that the policy is sound but the execution is in error, but we should not _assume_ that the policy is sound.
But they're both making an affirmative claim. One says that legalization is better and all these addicts are an error in execution. The other says that criminalization is better and all this widespread disrespect for the law and erosion of civil liberties and mass incarceration and cartel murder squads are an error in execution.
In general the burden should be on the party who wants make something illegal.
By the same count we don’t judge the mentally unwell and children as if they’re well-functioning adults.
By the same count we don’t judge the mentally unwell and children
as if they’re well-functioning adults.
The onus is on you to prove your positive statement.
If you like and implement a policy, you can't hand wave a failure blaming random stuff.
I think even if we don't know what is the right way to go about drug policy, we can probably agree that sticking your head in the sand and pretending there's no debate to be had is probably not the best approach.