This is the kind of poor correlative thinking that created the spurious war on drugs. Morally, you have to draw the line at what is "dangerous", when the danger

This is the kind of poor correlative thinking that created the spurious war on drugs. Morally, you have to draw the line at what is "dangerous", when the danger emerges from a complex behavioral scenario. Some drug is vilified as a lampshade, because a physical substance is considered easier to control than irresponsible behavior. There is a diminishing return for prohibition that is hard to cost-benefit justify at any scale. e.g. the substance can create revenue outside of prohibition. This is the core error in the prescriptive "war on drugs" and decades later it's still confounding audiences as to why it's an incorrect conclusion. The punishment severity of drug offenses is something to look at (the inverse relationship between drug offenses recorded and severity of punishment). This has nothing to do with the danger of the drug itself, but does address the behavior more directly. "Treatment" for addiction is still in the dark ages as many debunkers study this topic routinely. If you chase that topic, you might see how consequence is the stick, not blaming the inanimate substance.