…if it is a time-bound prohibition, maybe in the order of a few weeks, so society can rethink about their consumption habits.
Indefinite prohibition, of the kind that was amended in the US constitution, denies the human desire to consume alcohol and pretend it can be legislated away. A cursory reading of the Wikipedia article on the capital-P Prohibition showed lasting effects in alcohol consumption (I guess, good in the sense that there’s changes in domestic abuse patterns, for example?) and organized crime (bad, with Al Capone and people like him)
I agree, but I think there should be overwhelming evidence of endemic society-wide danger to support the banning of things instead of needing overwhelming evidence of the safety of things for them to be allowed.
Most drugs, like alcohol, have the potential for abuse but aren’t abused (to the detriment of others) by the vast majority of the population. The minority of people who have problems with them should have mental heath support available (if we actually did that in most countries) or be helped by a reformative (or isolating) legal system if the drug use enables violent tendencies.
The fact that a few people abuse anything doesn’t mean that we need to, by default, outlaw that thing. There should have to be a really good reason for it (e.g., garage bioweapon research)