Interpret the following quote:

"you can't declare a war on drugs without declaring a war on people."

Since the people are the consumers of these drugs and the ones who choose their political power, you must contest the issue of drugs with them first before actually taking action on the matter of drugs itself. If you declare a war on drugs first without declaring a war on the people, the people have every right to be infuriated and rebel against you as it seems as though you would be threatening an aspect of their individual right: liberty. In this case, the power of liberty assures the people that they have complete freedom to possess and do as they please with drugs without any limitations. By the constitution, the people have every right to go against an individual of power who threatens their individual rights. If you do not provide any reasoning to the people as to why you're declaring a war on the drugs, they will perceive it as a threat to their individual right and an abusive execution of power.

i dont think so i think its more a lot of people i know failed the first time

explanation:

the state b driver brought an action in state b state court against the state a college student, who has limited financial resources.

explanation: