I never said that. I said the success or failure of prohibiting one has no relationship to the success or failure of prohibiting the other. This makes, I believe, the third time.
"Prohibition, by definition intends to eliminate use. It does no such thing, therefore it is not working."
How does that relate to our laws prohibiting murder? Since murder has not been eliminated, our laws against murder are "not working".
Now what? Eliminate those, too?
"Your answer is not a direct rebuttal of the assertion that it is improper for the state to regulate what we ingest"
Correct. My answer was a direct rebuttal to your original assertion that "it is not a proper function of government to regulate what we ingest". Who would you deem appropriate to regulate the public welfare and safety if not the government?
"the attempted regulation by the state of what we ingest is improper."
No, regulating the interstate commerce of immoral or harmful items is a proper and constitutional role of government. Of course, government is not required to regulate these items, but they do have that power and it is proper for them to do so with the concurrence of the voters.
"As well, the behavior cannot be eliminated by prohibition"
Do you know of any that can?
"Therefore, prohibition is futile."
Isn't the correct phrase, "Resistance is futile"?
I am aware of what you said, and I have responded twice now that what you said was non sequitur. The issue here is whether or not it is consistent and rational to prohibit one drug and not another. There is no functional difference between alcohol and marijuana. Prohibiting one and not the other is inconsistent and irrational. Do you agree or disagree?
How does that relate to our laws prohibiting murder?
Prohibition of murder does not work either, obviously. The only thing that can be done is to make the punishment harsh enough to deter those who would commit it. Would you suggest that we institute capital punishment for people who smoke pot?
Now what? Eliminate those, too?
Irrelevant. There are two parts of my argument for the futility of drug prohibition. They cannot be separated. Murder impinges upon the equal rights of another individual. Therefore, it is a proper function of the state to prohibit it.
I said:
Your answer is not a direct rebuttal of the assertion that it is improper for the state to regulate what we ingest.
You responded:
Correct. My answer was a direct rebuttal to your original assertion that "it is not a proper function of government to regulate what we ingest".
You say "correct," indicating that it was not a direct rebuttal, but then you repeat that it is. Which is it?
Who would you deem appropriate to regulate the public welfare and safety if not the government?
Whether or not I choose to ingest any particular substance for any particular reason, so long as it does not directly impinge on the equal rights of others, does not lie in the domain of the public welfare. Your question is irrelevant.
No, regulating the interstate commerce of immoral or harmful items is a proper and constitutional role of government.
It is a proper and constitutional role of our federal government, and only because it is a subset of the regulation of all interstate commerce. However, we are not talking only about trafficking and we are not talking about only the federal government. The government, both federal and local, prohibits the possession and trafficking of drugs, interstate or intrastate. As well, whether regulation of commerce includes prohibition is arguable.
Do you know of any that can?
Not a single one. Prohibition of anything, by itself, is futile. In the case of the war on drugs, the futility of prohibition is compounded by the government committing resources in an effort to make it appear less so.