Sometimes you have to start with a mother's voice.
With that sentence that appears over and over again in newspaper archives:
“Please save me, my child is leaving.”
Most of the time, drug news in Turkey appears on the third page with short headlines. A mother's wailing, a house falling apart, the loss of a young person... We read, look and pass on. But behind these news stories, the same story happens over and over again. Those who inflict violence on their families because of drug use, those who burn down their houses, those who pass out on the street... Even those who kill their mothers and then “don't remember what they did.” These are not exceptions; they are facts that are ignored.
This is why drugs are not a matter of “personal choice”. In this country, mothers begged in front of the cameras with photos of their children. “Dealers are in our neighborhood”, “I am losing my child”, “where is the state?” they asked. Most of the time they did not get an answer. Because the issue was not only the young people who were using, but also the networks that dragged them to this point, the organizations that were ignored and the names that could not be touched.
Every event in the newspapers was part of a bigger story:
Poverty, hopelessness, desolation and systematic poisoning.
But instead of talking about this story, we took shelter in a comfortable place and passed it off with a single sentence:
“Individual choice.”
But is it possible for individual choice to destroy so many homes?
Is it a coincidence that so many mothers say the same sentence?
The point here is not to romanticize the drug user or to put everything in the brackets of “victimization”. The point is to see the reality of the pain. To speak without trivializing the crime, without hiding behind the perpetrator, but without whitewashing the system.
Because drugs are not just a substance in this country;
a form of decay,
an organization,
is an agreement of silence.
And that's when it's not just about drugs.
It becomes a question of the order of protection of criminals.
Let's look at the world. The Epstein case is obvious. Relationships in which children were systematically harmed, networks of abuse were established, extending from politics to the business world were exposed. Names were written, connections were discussed. So what happened? The files got bigger, but the responsibility got smaller. The powerful were either protected or taken out of the system over time.
The picture is no different in politics. When a politician commits a crime, it is a “personal mistake”. When an executive does it, it's a “misunderstanding”. When a celebrity does it, it's “personal life”. “misfortune” when a capitalist does it. But when the same crime is committed by a poor person, morality, order and public safety are suddenly remembered.
Drugs are just one example.
So is child abuse.
Corruption, violence, criminal organizations...
The problem is this:
The crime gets lighter the higher you go.
It gets heavier as you go down.
That's why it's always the same people who get caught on the street.
But when it comes to the nets that poison the street, a fog descends.
Files are lost, evidence is lost, trials drag on.
And society gets used to this order; it even applauds it over time.
“A silent pact is established between the ”untouchables“ and the ”expendables".
At that point, we have to ask the following questions:
Is crime forgiven when you become famous?
Do you get a suspended sentence if you're a politician?
Is justice slower for you if you have money?
If the answer is yes, and in practice it is, then justice has ceased to be a principle and has become a class privilege.
The old saying is not in vain:
“When the powerful come to court, justice goes.”
This is exactly what we are experiencing today.
Criminals are protected, crime is trivialized, and justice is reminded only to the powerless.
A new reflex has developed in this country: Everyone defends their own guilty.
We are no longer interested in the crime itself, but in the identity of the perpetrator.
If they are with us, they are protected; if they are not, they are lynched.
“Our fans”,
“Our party”,
“Our neighborhood”,
“Our team”,
“Our artist”...
This “our” language kills morality. Because after a certain point, crime ceases to be a crime; it turns into a test of belonging. If the criminal is on “our” side, he is protected, if he is on the “other” side, he is vilified.
Then we have to ask: Who is to blame?
Is it always the poor?
Always the weak?
Is it always the voiceless?
If you are famous, well-known, have connections, stand in the right place, is your crime less of a crime? Does the law only work for some and not for all?
Defending the guilty is not mercy.
Turning a blind eye to crime is not conscience.
This is hypocrisy.
And as long as this hypocrisy persists, justice remains just a word.
When everyone defends the guilty, the crime grows;
Unless they are held to account, the rot spreads.
When a society does not distance itself from crime, it is only trying to save itself and where it belongs, not justice.