| No, I really don't know. Do you just mean drugs which the state prohibits? If so, isn't that begging the question? If a person wants to go to a place where drugs are prohibited, and "drug" is defined as a substance which is prohibited, then doesn't every jurisdiction qualify? If a person "simply isn't into drugs", with "drugs" defined by the local state, isn't that person just in favor of the state-prescribed diet? And it really has nothing to do with drugs? If such a person goes from a place where drug X is prohibited to one where it is not, does their preference suddenly change? One better: if a person goes from a place where drug X is prohibited to one where it is compulsory, do they suddenly fall in love with the drug? Of course not. Because nobody's preferences work that way. Ergo, there is no actual real human who meets the critera, "simply isn't into drugs" upon close examination. Sure, there may be people who are pro-prohibition, but I imagine nearly all of them are in a position to financially gain from it. In terms of outcomes, it's horrible policy, especially if a target is reduction of death and disease from drug use. |