[wlesieutre]

Prohibition is very definitely a solution to some problems. Take drugs as an example: You can make an argument that marijuana, or even harder drugs like cocaine or meth should be personal choices. But those arguments have limits.

For instance, nobody would run a "Legalize Vancomycin" campaign. Being one of our last resort antibiotics that remains effective against many cases of MRSA, preventing its overuse is critical. If not for our prescription drug system, it'd take less than a week for someone to start selling ANTIBACTERIAL SOAP! KILLS 99% OF MRSA! and the drug would become useless in short order.

While I won't say that's analogous to gun laws, it's a good example of there being cases where prohibition is an effective solution, and there are absolutely situations where things should only be available to people with a strong need to use them.

Saying that prohibition is never a solution reeks of the same aversion to complex opinions that the linked article was written about.

[newishuser]

I don't agree. I think prohibition can coincide with a cultural perception that creates the illusion that the prohibition is effective, but in my opinion it's the culture itself not the prohibition.

Nothing can truly be prohibited. Especially things culture demands. What you're talking about is regulation anyway. There is a deference between prohibition and regulation. Take prescription drugs for example.

People absolutely would campaign to legalize Vancomycin if there was a cultural perception in favor of it's benefits.

[wlesieutre]

>Prohibition: Noun The action of forbidding something, esp. by law. A law or regulation forbidding something.

I don't see how it isn't prohibition. What differentiates it from any other prescription drug, especially those with recreational uses? Would you apply the word to marijuana, but not to OxyContin?

Regarding your last point: If there were a massive outbreak of something best treated by Vancomycin, I'm sure we would see arguments that it should be available over the counter to anyone who wants some. And that would be a terrible idea because of people who would buy a bunch and take it constantly, figuring it would keep them safe. And maybe it would, but at the cost of Vancomycin becoming a less effective treatment, and overall a lot more people dying.

That's one aspect of the argument that does fit pretty well with the debate on firearms.