> You should definitely know how crack is used, it's effects, and how other legal derivatives are used before trying to regulate it, yes. All things that I wou

> You should definitely know how crack is used, it's effects, and how other legal derivatives are used before trying to regulate it, yes. All things that I would be willing to bet a lot of money, the legislators in question didn't know because of first-hand knowledge, they were advised by doctors, chemists, etc. This is a direct quote from the article: > You need to learn how to fire a gun, how to be safe with a gun, how to clean and take apart a gun, and you need to know what the process is like when you buy a gun. That sentence applied to the cocaine scenario means that legislators would need to be trained in chemistry, rather than say, relying on expert advice from doctors who can tell them "smoking crack is bad y'all". Would you really want legislators to try to be fluent enough in technical concepts to legislate on those things, without the use of outside expert advice? > This is the state of gun regulation right now -- many of the people trying to ban guns don't seem to know the first thing about guns, making the regulation likely to be ineffective. I'm pretty certain a reasonable percent of the legislators involved in all the other developed nations which have functioning gun control, were not all packing heat. Legislators are basically lawyers - their job is to codify in legal terms, the agreed upon changes to be made, based on the advice of experts, and the opinions of their constituents.