[is_this_valid2]

> America (and a few other places) actually did have a War On Booze, they just gave up because it's too socially normalised

They might've given up because alcohol prohibition increased the crime and alcohol poisoning rates; because it was killing more people than it was saving.

They might've given up because the state prohibition laws had exceptions for religious and medical purposes and so were explicitly unequal ("de jure discriminatory")

[pjc50]

> alcohol prohibition increased the crime and alcohol poisoning rates; because it was killing more people than it was saving.

Lots of people have argued that the same is true of the drug war, it's just that the mainstream discourse isn't interested in examining this as a factual proposition.

> They might've given up because the state prohibition laws had exceptions for religious and medical purposes and so were explicitly unequal

Same is true of the drug laws (e.g. opiates)?

[is_this_valid2]

I guess people don't want to review data that could help solve the optimization problem (maximize Constitutional compliance, minimize crime, minimize unintentional self harm, minimize loss, minimize suffering, maximize Liberty and pursuit of Happiness; with no particular ranking) amidst emotional rhetoric.

Strict Scrutiny requires a law which violates equality to be the absolute minimum necessary policy which achieves the public interest objective(s).