Earlier quoted context omitted.
Constraining supply of highly addictive drugs isn't an important factor to you? At all? Alcohol is legal, how does it follow that there should be more iterations of addictive substances that do more damage to the fabric of society?
> Constraining supply of highly addictive drugs isn't an important factor to you? At all? Isn't, at all. Something not being easily available makes it more attractive and makes people more curious about it. Such is human psychology. Prohibition of anything for which there's demand does not work. It can't work. In general, laws only work when the majority of the society is on board with them. If the only people who ar…
Can you cite a period when drug enforcement was more successful causing increased consumption?
>Again, if there's demand, there will be supply, regardless of legality. And since there will be supply of addictive substances either way, it makes sense to legalize them. The legalization will remove the criminal element from the cost, making it significantly cheaper, and would also ensure high quality/purity.
What do you think of the results in places that have attempted various versions of this? SF, Denver, parts of Canada, they all meet a similar result. Do you think the British were the good guys in the Opium Wars?