I sometimes wonder (foil hat firmly in place) if our “esteemed” politicians aren’t in league with criminal organizations. They learned what will happen if a wanted commodity is banned when the
18th Amendment was enacted. It seems that more than a few public officials and politicians made money from the illegal sales of booze. Shortly after prohibition was repealed recreational drugs were banned – and more than a few public officials and politicians may well be making money from their sale – gotta keep the “War” on drugs going. If they can succeed in forcing tobacco into the same situation, there will be even more money to be made.
Of course, not all politicians or bureaucrats who back this “war” are making money from it – some are just using it to further their careers.
Agreed; "spot on" as our British Friends say. Whenever there's money to be made, corruption will exist at some level, human nature being what it is.
Given that fact, would it not be most beneficial to focus not so much on the potential for corruption but the greater good of humanity?
Assuming we can all agree that it's in society's best interest to prevent five year olds from being given heroin in exchange for their milk money, would it not then be most appropriate to strive toward that goal rather than to entirely forsake that goal only because there is a potential for abuse and corruption at some levels of Government?
(putting flame-resistant Stoat Coveralls on upon realizing that I am treading upon the foundations of Libertarianism)