Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yourself and others are missing the point. US law here isn’t “what was considered a hard drug in pre-1970s USSR”. And regardless of what the medical point of view might be, alcohol isn’t classed as a hard drug in US law. Frankly though, even this straw man argument is moot because it is illegal to sell alcohol without a license too. So regardless of what substance was on sale, this market place was facilitating illeg…
No, you're missing the point. We are making a normative claim of what SHOULD be illegal or legal. The definition of a hard drug has nothing to do with whether it is legal or not. Alcohol is a hard drug by the definition of addictiveness and propensity for harm. When it was made illegal, it didn't reduce use and only increased harms. We learned our lesson and made that hard drug legal in order mitigate the harms of or…
I agree. But there is also a legal definition and we are taking about the law. You can bitch and moan about whether the law is just or not but that’s a different topic.
Which is why you’re missing the point and I wasn’t.
You can argue to you’re blue in the face about what the law should be, but that doesn’t make the law so.