Besides the wealth of extremely addictive substances (and activities) that are legal (some regulated), there's also at least one illegal drug that you're never going to be (chemically) addicted to: LSD.
The "we're protecting you" logic behind making arbitrary drugs illegal is nonsense. It's even more weakened by the fact that at least a few of the illegal drugs with "no medical purpose" have, in fact, some medicinal use: Marijuana for anti-nauseau, combating eating disorders, and pain relief, and MDMA for PTSD.
I think we're talking at cross-purposes. I'm talking about the ravages of drug addiction on society. It's not about protecting you, it's about protecting society from you.
Did anyone ask for drugs to be legal for kids? or to not be regulated at all?
> We even tried to make it illegal but it wasn't tenable.
Neither is the war on drugs, you have to be blind to not acknowledge its huge failure, both economically and socially.
The reason drugs cost so much is because they are illegal, not because they cost a lot to produce or distribute. So we make the drug dealers rich, or we put them in prison, and this has a corrupting effect on police, border patrol, and who knows how many other organizations.
Plus we spend a ton of money, lives, and energy fighting something in a obviously losing fight. Isn't it better to educate, and help people with addictions? Or do you support the prison industry ;-)
Ever considered that this has something to do with it being the most accessible and normalised?
If you could pick up crack at your corner store, if it was advertised everywhere, if crack brands sponsored large sporting events and people commonly went for a puff after work, do you really think it won't be the most ravaging drug in the world, and exponentially worse than alcohol?
You can do this with literally anything.
Rather than treat the mind, I believe in treating the spirit.
Yet, in a large amount of places, some form of gambling is indeed legal (usually heavily regulated of course, but legal nonetheless).
In several nations (or states), there's even a form of completely legal, state sponsored gambling (with often ridiculously lower odds compared to private gambling offerings).
The issue here is that the "treatment" might be worse than the "disease". The vast majority of narcotic users (and gamblers) actually are responsible in how they use the narcotic (play the game). And illegal drug (or gambling) enterprises are also associated with an uptick in crime. Such is why the original "Prohibition" (of alcohol in the US) failed in the first place.
It doesn't help that current governments often tend to treat even simple possession of certain narcotics as a fully-fledged crime. As opposed to not caring except in the case of addiction, where it is at that point a medical problem. (Even the United States' old alcohol prohibition did not outlaw possession or consumption.)
Yes you can. But the evidence shows that crime related to supporting a drug habit actually exists compared to a Facebook habit.
Addiction comes in many flavors. Gaming addiction don't add substances to your body that your body cannot produce and regulate by itself.
Alcohol is more addictive than many illegal drugs. Why does the above reworking of your comment feel erroneous?
If they were legal, prices would come down. Fewer crimes would need to be committed to pay for them. Enforcement dollars could be redirected to education and treatment of addiction. And maybe the drug wars ravaging nearly every country to the South of us would go away.
If we are talking about other drugs, can't say anything...