No my question was actually this,
"So my question was should the laws be based on profits or actual science?"
In analysing your response to Warren, let us be clear: you posed 3 questions. One of them directly related to an example (alcohol).
So, the question following that example really was:
Should we ban it because a minority of the drinkers can´t control it?
I gave my opinion to that question.
Clear, I hope.
Next question: "So my question was should the laws be based on profits or actual science?"
Already answered too. Although the question is actually a moot point. On one hand, profits, which care nothing about people and what happens to them. Should we then base our decision based on something that does not have as its ultimate goal the benefit of people? OBVIOUSLY NOT. Hence, the clear answer is SCIENCE.But then SCIENCE is now threatened in its independence, as I also referred above.
Please re-read what I posted about PROFIT acting through other means, means that safeguard it from exposing itself.
Next question "And where do you draw the line?"
This question ties directly not into profit vs science, but to that other question:
Should we ban it because a minority of the drinkers can´t control it?
To which I also gave my answer.
Now you try to redefine the intention of the question ("where do you draw the line?" by retracing your steps backwards and asking scientifically speaking and mentioning deaths.
But ok, let us address that again, by repeating the question YOU did not answer:
But ultimately, if a substance is known to cause heavy addiction and problems to 5% of the population (rather generous percentage, obviously; in truth, the numbers are much higher) should we feel fine just because it doesn't affect us and only that minority?
My own answer to this was and is NO.
What is your answer?
My line is drawn that way, regardless of numbers (0.5% or 5% or 50%), as long as human beings are affected by something we should reconsider its use and probably ban it.
What is YOUR ANSWER?
Yes and no it seems. We should be able to fully trust science but with the way it´s funded there is inevitable that you won´t always be able to do that because someone has the ability to strangle the research etc.
Precisely. But one thing is "we should be able", quite another is the actual reality in which, sadly, many scientists are sponsored by companies or governments and have their independence (and integrity) compromised.
Not all scientists are like this. A British professor of mine told me he had a special contract with a BIG OIL company when developing a certain compound for certain catastrophic situations: if he felt, at any time, that compound would have secondary effects on wild life, he would leave the project. Not all scientists sell their souls, thankfully, but the truth is part of Science is heavily compromised by politics and capital.
And the humanitarian course is what?
Isn't it clear? That which does not cause harm to human beings. That S-I-M-P-L-E.
this is the reason i´m asking, because saying "take the most humanitarian course" is as complex as everything else.
No it is not. As long as someone hurts due to the use of this or that substance, we should never be satisfied.