> This is like saying we'll give matches to children but build more fire stations. This is an awful analogy unless you're looking to prove my point. You can't

> This is like saying we'll give matches to children but build more fire stations. This is an awful analogy unless you're looking to prove my point. You can't possibly outlaw matches- they have too many common-good uses, and regulating their use and trade would be impossible even if you somehow made the first person guaranteed to be qualified to have one. Prescription drugs are exactly the same way- and furthermore, short of actually inspecting every inch of every person/vehicle that comes in the country(and keeping vigilant watch of everything else), there's no way to seriously crack down on it(which btw, this entirely violates America's constitution, and I bet several other countries would have similar problems). And even then, it wouldn't work, because how do we keep someone from giving it to a family member, or a friend? And how do we keep them from giving it to someone else? After all, even if the pain clinics are gone, that doesn't mean the abuse isn't happening. In my parent's case, they didn't go to a pain clinic- they had a dedicated physician prescribing it, one they had seen for years beforehand. So we've got something that so far hasn't worked to the tune of billions and billions of dollars, would cost exponentially more money to do significantly better while also eroding basic human rights, then finally still won't completely solve the problem. Or we just spend less money, not completely screw up the very concept of human rights, and clean up the mess leftover from the fact that people are human. --- And hell, this is all assuming we even know of every drug that'll ever be created, which is obviously not true. So what happens when the next "crushing cold medication together in a bowl to get high" happens? Somehow do a check on all of those things, or simply let them go to the already set-up facility that exists to handle said problem?