That doesn’t make sense because safe, legal, educated, and controlled access to drugs reduces the burden on society. If someone’s priority is burden on society then they should be in favour of legalisation.
So it seems the opposite is in effect. People are so vehemently against drugs that they are willing to accept a higher societal burden just to push their ideology.
> legal, educated, and controlled access to drugs reduces the burden on society.
I think it does make sense from an anti-drugs point of view. Imagine a parent whose child wants to take football as a sport. You have three choices:
1. "Sure, whatever, have fun". Cheap in the short run, but expensive in the long run due to medical bills and likelihood of traumatic head injury.
2. "Okay, but only with protective equipment". Cheaper in the long run, but still requires an investment in protective measures.
3. "No, too dangerous. Do something else". Even cheaper, no investment required.
Of course this is a simplification, but I think it illustrates the point: that society would rather have no drugs at all than investing in safe and controlled access.
> society would rather have no drugs at all than investing in safe and controlled access.
But this isn’t what happens, which is my entire point. Banning drugs doesn’t result in no drugs. It results in drugs going underground where they cause greater harm to society. Prohibition doesn’t work - we figured that out almost 100 years ago. Continuing to push illegality is purely ideological at this point.
So it seems the opposite is in effect. People are so vehemently against drugs that they are willing to accept a higher societal burden just to push their ideology.