What is the argument you are attempting to make? Let's start there and see where we can go, yes?
Except it doesn't, so stop making statements to try to sideline the actual argument.
>What is the argument you are attempting to make?
That people who say they do not support prohibition because it doesn't work are being dishonest about their reasoning because in reality they do support prohibition of some materials/goods/services/items/ect. even when such prohibition doesn't work.
My second and lesser point is that people determine their support of prohibiting something based on both an effectiveness and their subjective moral feelings about the subject being prohibited.
As far as I'm concerned, that is exactly what you are doing which is why I dropped this. The only difference is, I picked a different way to say it.
I actually didn't reply to your other comment because you basically said your arguments fail as soon as goods start crossing borders. Considering that for almost everything having been discussed (goods made by slaves, goods made by abusing non-consenting individuals, and most definitely drugs) involves crossing borders. The original article is even about a substance that is crossing legal borders.
>As far as I'm concerned, that is exactly what you are doing which is why I dropped this. The only difference is, I picked a different way to say it.
It is pretty clear your arguments fail as soon as goods crossing borders were taken into account. As such, your arguments have no place in discussing prohibition in reality except for services that don't cross borders at all.