Sure it would. Ohhh, ya got me.

But this thread is about how the cure is often worse than the disease with prohibition. See: 18th Amendment, War on Drugs. Concocting a hypothetical scenario where the drug is Disney-villian evil and enforcement is not an unmitigated disaster is hardly a decisive rhetorical victory, wouldn't you say?

It's a rhetorical victory against outright banning all prohibition of substances.

The proposed constitutional amendment would fail hard in the given hypothetical situation. There was no "often" or any other nuance in it.

It _is_ a decisive rhetorical victory, even if you don't like it.

Is it? My point is twofold:

1) The scenario proposed seems...outlandish. I could argue for a host of provisions in law or the Constitution based on the possibility of widespread development of bulletproof skin, but I fail to see the utility of doing so.

2) Even within the hypothetical, it is possible (I would argue probable) that banning the evil rage drug would simply make the situation worse than alternative solutions, in which case the proposed amendment would be a positive.

Edit: You could argue that the above amendment is also ridiculously unlikely to pass and isn't worth debating either. You'd probably be right.