I was referring to alcohol specifically. Lots of lives would be saved if we banned alcohol. If it were discovered today there is no way in hell it would be legal.
There are lots of things that could save lives if banned. Driving for example. However, we have to way up the benefits that those things provide us. To pick your example. Drinking alcohol forms a key aspect of many of my social activities, such as going to the pub with friends, which I may do once or twice a week. Generally our towns and cities are set up so I don't have to drive home afterwards (tube & train ride) and drink driving is very frowned upon here. I also don't drink excessively and never get violent towards others etc. It wouldn't be the same to go to the pub to watch the football and just have the same soft drinks week in week out (although often someone isn't drinking due to work etc. which is perfectly fine). It's a really important social activity in our culture and helps people maintain their networks (including older people in local pubs in some rural communities). I don't believe the net impact of banning alcohol would be beneficial and I'm sure it would create many of the problems associated with illegal drugs.
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.
In the US we already did this in the 1920s, and it led to Al Capone and the rise of the mafia. People want to alter their brain states. It's becoming increasingly common as more and more people are asked to work excessive amounts of hours for reduced pay.I don't believe the net impact of banning alcohol would be beneficial and I'm sure it would create many of the problems associated with illegal drugs.