[SampleMan]

So, your definition of "can't be prohibited", actually means that it can't be eradicated from existence.

This isn't what prohibited means. For instance, cell phones can be prohibited. Fishing can be prohibited. Swimming can be prohibited. Spitting on the floor can be prohibited. Smoking pot can be prohibited.

Can we agree that what you really mean is that it pot shouldn't be prohibited, or that prohibiting it won't stop it?

[philman_36]

For instance, cell phones can be prohibited. Fishing can be prohibited. Swimming can be prohibited. Spitting on the floor can be prohibited. Smoking pot can be prohibited.
Don't you mean that such actions/items can be regulated and/or crimialized through legislation? Does Congress, or a State, have the right to "prohibit" anything it chooses or can it only make new laws governing such actions? Then why not "prohibit" firearms?

Keep in mind that a large portion of the drugs that the public perceives as "illegal" drugs aren't actually "illegal" at all, they're simply regulated and criminalized under the CSA.

[davesdude]

Thanks for pointing out! we'll go a bit further...

I projected the impact of prohibition if: 100% of all human said let's get rid of pot once and for all...which is wrong to think... so pot can be prohibited for sure but on the long term will have some negative effect on our planet... i'll explain what i mean simply by saying that prohibiting it is wrong, plain... a fundamental reason, but you got to already have tried it to understand, that pot is scientifically proved everywhere you read (except for some reasons on governmental studies,) to be non-addictive on the physical side...after experiencing with marijuana, a lot of mature user, that didn't started too young (like 15yr old) can tell you that yes it's addictive but only the habbit is...on the long run, you don't tolerate pot ( i mean you only need a puff to get the desired level of alteration)... and still, in singapore people get shot for smoking it...do you know why???