We should ban junk food. Too many people are abusing it. They are slaves to it, which is not a good way to live. They say they could stop any time they wanted and shift to a healthy veggie diet, but they'd find it a struggle. That's not a good way to live.
Okay, prohibition would put even more billions into the hands of organised crime, fill our very expensive jails with junk food addicts, create a huge load for our very expensive police and courts, and turn what are basically regular citizens into "criminals" but surely that's better than risking the terrible health problems associated with obesity, not to mention premature death.
It almost makes sense, doesn't it?
Trouble is, the tolerant Netherlands has half the pot and coke use of the prohibitionist USA. Surely that's an anomaly, isn't it? Surely prohibition couldn't be treating adults as children and increasing the number of them who live down to expectations?? Surely it couldn't be that we could reduce drug abuse, save billions and hurt organised crime by applying commonsense to public policy? And also stop intruding on people's private lives as well.
Sorry about the the sarcasm but it's all been said before and it seems we're going around in circles:
"Drugs are bad and I agree with prohibition"
"But prohibition has failed because [lists the issues]".
"Yes, but drugs are bad and I agree with prohibition"
And so on.
If anyone is willing or able to argue that the problems of prohibition that we've covered will be greater than taking a health and education-based approach, please do it. It would help to provide stats, as Andy has done.
The control measure I'd like to see is a compulsory 30-second delay between plays built into gaming machines. I wouldn't ban them (same problems as any prohibition) but the delays would reduce the machines' addictiveness. Who knows? If they were less profitable maybe bars and clubs would hire more live music?