Outlawing them just makes them more dangerous and unregulated. States can have a say in how dangerous drugs are in a legal regime; they won’t in prohibition.
Further: technology, you don’t seem to be aware that people can already make a slew of “grey area” drugs that persistently sit outside prohibition. They can just slightly alter the molecular composition, and keep selling it each time the Government makes them illegal.
There’s no way lawmakers can keep up with that, and they shouldn’t try to.
The Democratization of tech that has made 3D printing guns a reality, is also making prohibition of other things useless.
For prohibition to work, certain realities have to hold, and they don’t hold for most drugs, so its foolish for the Government to pursue it.
> When does crack hit your radar screen?
When does the reality of efficacy, the issue you’ve avoided here, mean we don’t write laws we can’t enforce? This is the reality conservatives have to consider: There are evils we wish to prevent, but there is also practical limits to state power.
And I do mean practical limits, not just legal or moral ones. There are certain things the state just can’t police effectively: the biggest example of that being the piracy of music and digital IP. It’s already illegal, and the Government can try to enforce it on everyone, but we all know this would only create misery and dysfunction. Alcohol is no different. Guns are no different. There is no practical model for enforcement for any of these things.
And if there was any doubt before, technology has completely taken it away for drugs. The internet proliferates recipes, 3d printers proliferates the method of manufacture, global supply proliferates the ingredients and even the product.
Where does practical enforcement exist Mike, in a world where this much is at the individual’s fingertips?
Simply harping on the evils of drugs, doesn’t suddenly make enforcement effective.