>That's of course hard to do with how socially accepted it is.

Or maybe it has been tried before, and people saw what an utter disaster it was (the prohibition era). To which you might say that the war on drugs has been a similar disaster, and I will fully agree with you on this.

Prohibition was somewhat successful. If it has lasted longer it would probably have become even more effective, since culture could change.

> Second, alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.

> Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.

> Third, violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition's 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after.

> Fourth, following the repeal of Prohibition, alcohol consumption increased. Today, alcohol is estimated to be the cause of more than 23,000 motor vehicle deaths and is implicated in more than half of the nation's 20,000 homicides. In contrast, drugs have not yet been persuasively linked to highway fatalities and are believed to account for 10 percent to 20 percent of homicides.

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibit...

A lot of people would agree with you that prohibition was somewhat successful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Prohibition-era_gangs...

Yes, I know about the prohibition. My comment was because of it, not in spite.

And why stop there? Let's outlaw everything people enjoy doing. It's for their own good.

Hm. I was thinking things that have an outsized effects on innocent bystanders (e.g. drunk drivers) and innocuous enough that both youth involvement and advertising are generally banned.

In that case, cell phones would be banned long before marijuana.

I'd say tax it the way Scands, Aussies and Kiwis do (perhaps even more, plus put each use on your medical record (in NZ you are already bumped down in wait list if you are alcoholic + need a liver transplant).

Additionally, for opioid, I think it should be possible to create tamper-proof cartridges that only release when get correct key signature from master device that tracks your usage (and identity via smartphone). Many opioid users claim drug is safe minus overdoses and purity issues that care caused by it's illegal status.

The problem of all of this - it's trivial to grow marijuana or produce alcohol (or order fentanyl from China via darknet). It's already cheaper to get stoned in NZ than drink (or smoke cigarettes). Not sure we should be put up a fight here after all. If we can't decrease use via economics, then at least there should be accountability for your abuse (not an issue for countries like US with no socialised health care).