I don't understand this logic. We tax alcohol and cigarettes. We ban cocaine. And look at the result: hundreds of millions addicted to smoking, but almost zero usage of cocaine. Looks like a ban is a good way to curtail usage. Which is what we want, right?
> In the United States, the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health reports that 35.3 million Americans aged 12 and older reported having used cocaine.
10% of the population is hardly "almost zero". I'd also question the premise that it's "what we want". On one hand I'm not sure the drug wars (money into the cartels, families broken up by incarceration, the cycle of drugs leading to violence) was worth it. On the other hand I don't like the idea of the government telling people what they can and can't do to themselves. Drugs are largely a victimless crime.
This is where the disconnect happens, since you dont see people using cocaine you assume that the ban is working. Meanwhile people who really want it, can get it with money or their bodies (women).
Just because you dont see it does not mean its not happening.
