> Clearly that's not true, as evidenced by the enormous illegal drug trade. Highly regulated availability of safer substitutes for the worst drugs might reduce uptake of those worse drugs.
Hold on, that logic isn't sound. You are saying because the illegal drug trade is enormous, therefore the illegal status of drugs has no suppressive effect on new user uptake? Why can't both statements be true? "The illegal trade is enormous and making drugs legal would make the drug user base even more enormous"
Illegality status might suppress 50% of new users and impulse buyers, who knows. You can claim illegality does not suppress 100% (that much is clear), but I guarantee illegality has suppressed some non-zero % of potential users from trying it.
Legalization probably increases the user base somewhat. But does it increase negative outcomes? The evidence is already in: the legalization of alcohol after the 1930s definitely improved outcomes.
Hold on, that logic isn't sound. You are saying because the illegal drug trade is enormous, therefore the illegal status of drugs has no suppressive effect on new user uptake? Why can't both statements be true? "The illegal trade is enormous and making drugs legal would make the drug user base even more enormous"
Illegality status might suppress 50% of new users and impulse buyers, who knows. You can claim illegality does not suppress 100% (that much is clear), but I guarantee illegality has suppressed some non-zero % of potential users from trying it.