> Yeah but legality has nothing to do with that.

Making a product legal increases its availability, affordability and reach. So, the number of people exposed.

>Making a product legal increases its availability, affordability and reach. So, the number of people exposed.

Really, a prohibition argument made with a straight face?

North American governments famously failed to maintain a ban on alcohol. How well do you think they'd fare with trying to ban sales of caffeine, given it's reach is greater (and far more socially-accepted) than alcohol?

Much better, because alcohol can be made with any grocery store items (like fruits and bread for example) so nearly impossible to ban, whereas caffeine without coffee beans or tea leaves is going to be extremely challenging.

>Much better, because alcohol can be made with any grocery store items (like fruits and bread for example) so nearly impossible to ban, whereas caffeine without coffee beans or tea leaves is going to be extremely challenging.

Don't forget the vast selection of caffeinated pop/soda, energy drinks, etc. You're talking about a wide ban here, as this is one of the world's favourite drugs, covering a very popular array of beverages. If you're daft enough to propose it, I suspect you'd be laughed out of the halls of legislatures.

Regulation of caffeine levels in energy drinks and pop is probably an easier sell, and some jurisdictions already do this.

Moreover, legality doesn’t even necessarily imply reduced cost. I’ve heard anecdotally that in California illegally produced cannabis is cheaper: it’s not taxed and there’s no cost to meet regulatory compliance for the producers.