>> Control the action by the bad actor, not the drug.
That was what the legal system did in the 18th century. It didn't work. Allowing people to buy poisons, weapons, even explosives and only punishing them once they harmed others has been deemed unacceptable. We now prevent crime by limiting access to such substances, hand in hand with governments licensing who may access them. Don't like not having access to something? Become a doctor/chemist/soldier/miner and you will be legally free to play around with all sorts of dangerous things.
The problem with this logic as I see it is that you place the good/bad verdict in the hands of the gov. instead of the individual.
An example that comes to mind is Redbull and strike anywhere matches are banned in several countries. Both of these substances have been shown to be used responsibly in the majority of other countries.
Replace "government" with "society" (and centuries of moral philosophy too).
If all good/bad decisions were made by individuals, we'd basically have anarchy and rule of the strongest - as most people would probably decide that "good" is what benefits themselves and their close friends.
All decisions are ultimately made by individuals. There is no such thing as a group. Decisions made by a “group” benefit some and harm others that disagree. It is literally impossible to arrive at an ideal situation when you poll a group. Every individual has unique needs.
