Consumers also want cocaine, but that doesn't mean you get to sell it to them with impunity.
A threshold that calls the First Amendment in the US into question.
For example foreign states that pays armies of internet trolls to in effect choose president in the US -- is that what the 1st amendment wants to happen
I think "information" can kill more people than cocaine, is more dangerous
Indeed, I mean exactly what I said: the questions you raise call the First Amendment into question.
You're saying that maybe the 1st amendment could be edited a bit so that it was more clear that such things aren't okay?
I'm thinking people interpret "free speech" in sometimes quite different ways
The appropriate situation for those that want cocaine is something similar to the rules around purchasing/possessing/using alcohol.
From an economic standpoint (increased tax revenue, reduced spending on "enforcement" and incarceration, increased economic output because fewer people are in prison, etc.) and a societal standpoint (more resources available to the 2-5% of folks who end up with dependency problems, reduced property crime, not harming communities with significant numbers of residents being pulled out of the community and incarcerated, etc.)
As such, there's no good reason for any mind altering substances to be illegal. Rather, they should be regulated and taxed appropriately.