[lapcat]

> You're putting words in my mouth.

No, I'm just wishing that you never wrote your words. Your reply had the feel of pure pedantry. Yes, you can take my short statement totally out of context—which was a discussion of an American problem—and superficially nitpick it if you like, comparing to China or whatever, but what's the point? What have we gained thereby? You get to win some internet brownie points by saying, "Well actually..."

In America, alcohol prohibition failed. I am aware that in some other countries around the world, the government does some nasty things to you if you drink, and thus there's a lot less drinking there. But we wouldn't stand for that here. Alcohol isn't against our religion, it is our religion.

[farmaway]

The point is acknowledging sensible prohibitions on, for example, the sale of alcohol to minors can be measurably and beneficially effective, and abandoning all attempts to crack down on vice because "prohibition never works" is misguided.

[the_only_law]

Please explain then. How in the hell is:

> The first sentence simply isn't true. Vigorous law enforcement can substantially curtail illegal drug trafficking, for example. Singapore does not have a fentanyl abuse problem. They also hang drug traffickers.

An acknowledgment that “sensible prohibition” such as controlling the sale of alcohol to minors can be effective? Unless you consider hanging 18 years olds who have a few drinks “sensible prohibition”.

[farmaway]

I think I've explained very clearly. Sorry if my perceived pedantry made you or the OP upset.

[the_only_law]

Just say what you mean in the first place ffs.