Let's get one thing clear. In the United States, there is no such thing as evidence based, harm-reduction focused, internally consistent drug policy. Doesn't exist. As it stands now, chemicals are banned, legal, or prescription only based almost entirely off of whose wallet is affected/ was affected in the past. Substances are not evaluated by the same criteria because of the problem you described, the social context.
This is the truth. But I don't think I've seen an answer to the question of, couldn't the logic that justifies banning alcohol in order to save lives also be used to ban other substances and activities? Or do you just have a special attitude towards alcohol?In the United States, there is no such thing as evidence based, harm-reduction focused, internally consistent drug policy. Doesn't exist.
Sorry this took so long to reply to, its an important point. Personally, I don't think any recreational chemical should be illegal, and that the industries that exist to cater to recreational chemical demand should be taxed and regulated to ensure product safety, to the extent that alcohol companies can't sell drinks laced with antifreeze and so on. I think that if you live in an area that is densely populated enough that drunk drivers are a hazard, that is a risk that you accept in your life. Just like you accept the risk of getting hit by a meteor by not living underground. To some extent, we seem to be able to treat chemical dependency and addiction. We can't do that in prisons, and more importantly we can't do that by breaking up families. With my point about making alcohol illegal, I was kind of joking about how if our drug policy was actually as ideologically driven and rigorous as it claims to be, alcohol would probably be target number one.