"Not because of any epidemic of cocaine addiction (whatever nanny-staters of the day may have claimed).
"epidemic" and "cocaine addiction" are separate yet related topics. If you want to combine the statement, that's fine by me.
But you have yet to answer the question...
If cocaine isn't a harmful/addictive or deleterious substance, why remove it from Coca Cola?
Maybe you'll answer this one?
If morphine isn't a harmful/addictive or deleterious substance, why remove it from so-called "soothing syrups"?
Maybe you'll answer this one?
If heroin isn't a harmful/addictive or deleterious substance, why remove it from "analgesics"?
At risk of being accused of being a nanny stater, could it possibly be that these substances were in fact harmful/addictive and deleterious?
If they weren't and were legitimate medicinal products, why not continue to use them?
They were, afterall, legal. This is what your one trick pony is all about, isn't it? Re-legalizing these types of substances.
I never said nor implied otherwise - of course they are, as are alcohol and tobacco.