Prohibition is a process and not unique to alcohol. Many other drugs were and are ubiquitous as well. Making them illegal has perhaps made it more so.
As for specific drugs...legal? Maybe, though probably with very strict use cases, controls, taxes, and education. Those have far better track records for reducing use than prohibition does. Generally speaking the more dangerous a drug is the greater the taxes and other controls should be in place. As it is a potential burden for society it should be taxed and controlled thusly.
I guess I'm saying examine the track record: ATF is worthless however the IRS has been consistently effective. Bet on the winning horse.
As for taxation ask Colorado and California how well that's gone. Their dispensaries do little business and legalization has served largely to provide a front for street dealers and increased crime statewide.
prohibition: the action of forbidding something, especially by law.
Respectfully, that's not an accurate assessment at all of California and Colorado legalization of marijuana. Their problems like with other drugs, largely.
Be that as it may though, California tax board does not equal the IRS. Federally speaking the point still stands that the IRS is way more effective.
Prohibition in the American sense is almost universally used to refer to the short lived constitutional amendment banning alcohol nationwide. For which we can thank the early feminists but I digress.
The IRS should not even exist. It's not constitutional at all as anyone calling themselves a libertarian would know.
Prohibition is a process and not unique to alcohol. Many other drugs were and are ubiquitous as well. Making them illegal has perhaps made it more so.
As for specific drugs...legal? Maybe, though probably with very strict use cases, controls, taxes, and education. Those have far better track records for reducing use than prohibition does. Generally speaking the more dangerous a drug is the greater the taxes and other controls should be in place. As it is a potential burden for society it should be taxed and controlled thusly.
I guess I'm saying examine the track record: ATF is worthless however the IRS has been consistently effective. Bet on the winning horse.
No, prohibition is specific to alcohol.
As for taxation ask Colorado and California how well that's gone. Their dispensaries do little business and legalization has served largely to provide a front for street dealers and increased crime statewide.
prohibition: the action of forbidding something, especially by law.
Respectfully, that's not an accurate assessment at all of California and Colorado legalization of marijuana. Their problems like with other drugs, largely.
Be that as it may though, California tax board does not equal the IRS. Federally speaking the point still stands that the IRS is way more effective.
Prohibition in the American sense is almost universally used to refer to the short lived constitutional amendment banning alcohol nationwide. For which we can thank the early feminists but I digress.
The IRS should not even exist. It's not constitutional at all as anyone calling themselves a libertarian would know.
I don't think I ever called myself a libertarian, just a pragmatist.
Agree IRS shouldn't exist, but it does, so we should leverage it rather than living in fantasy land.
The real difference is you are an idealist. I can appreciate it but it isn't productive.