> ... which is perfectly reasonable. What's your point? It shouldn't be this way. It serves no purpose. You first claim that everybody has access to resource X

> ... which is perfectly reasonable. What's your point? It shouldn't be this way. It serves no purpose. You first claim that everybody has access to resource X at a reasonable price (because we don't want to discriminate against poor people), then when resource X starts to run out, they enforce bans instead of charging more to people willing to pay a premium (and getting the resource first) and then using it to expand production and access to everyone. This story plays out everywhere, whether in Soviet Russia or in California or in NHS.