And, at one remove, of the War on Drugs that incentivizes such system-playing - nobody gets threatened by rumrunners seeking their stealthily-shipped hooch, because there's no incentive to stealthily ship hooch.
Your original post, which is not even a coherent or grammatical sentence. I have to infer what you meant by it
It made perfect sense as a clause attached to the sentence to which it was a reply (see above).
"Hooch" is by definition illegal
Semantic gymnastics. Nobody's impressed.
You've been backtracking ever since.
Rejecting your clumsy misreadings is not "backtracking."
I notice you avoid addressing any substantive points - here they are again:
"the war on terror doe not incentivize additional endangerment of innocent people (and so my anti-WoD argument does not apply there)."
"I argue not for anarchy but an end to futile and counterproductive drug bans."
Yes I understand your awkward, mangled statement makes perfect sense to you.
Like many misguided denizens of liberalism, you prefer to demonize the law-makers instead of the law-breakers. Perhaps you engage in those activities yourself, and feel threatened. As for the other side, perhaps they’re your suppliers. Perfect — it might also explain the mangled syntax.
Now excuse me for a while, I have to “at one remove” myself from this thread before I throw up on the keyboard.