> Maybe we should ban glue too. if it bound to the same dopamine receptors it would absolutely be banned, and called a narcotic. > You do realize cocaine and

> Maybe we should ban glue too. if it bound to the same dopamine receptors it would absolutely be banned, and called a narcotic. > You do realize cocaine and heroin used to be sold at pharmacies in the 1900s? what percentage of people drove back then, per mile, per day, and at what speed ? Nodding off in your model-T is quite incomparable to nodding off on the 405 Freeway. Hell, what percentage of people even had access to a store ? Most people lived on farms and went to town once a week. They didn't rely on money as much, they grew their own food and sustained themselves. This is the same idiotic argument that free-drugs-for-all proponents always present. They assume the same cultural viewpoints from 1900 still apply today. They assume every other variable has been controlled for and still applies, then uses strawmen aguments like "lets ban glue too". People didn't know how addictive heroin was in 1900. It was just another drug in a pharmacy for people with a cough. The mechanisms for how they worked weren't discovered yet. The same stressors from family and society that drive people to seek chemical escape didn't exist back then. Please retry your argument, sans strawmen, and lets see how you do. Here's how ridiculous your strawman sounds: "You know, cars didn't have seatbelts back in 1900, those people were fine. See, we don't need seatbelts or even airbags today, because people in 1900 didn't have them..." Speaking of 1900, they didn't have the FDA in 1900 either, so by your logic, we should abolish that too and regress to the days when the pharmacy sold literally snake oil and marketed as a cure for all types of cancer. I mean, they didn't have double blind trials back in 1900, so why do we need them today?