I don't see how it was out of context nor meaningless, I've clarified my point. Abuse needs to be taken into account where the likelihood and/or severity of abuse are high..
But is it the government's job to determine how much of a given substance an individual can use? A good example is sugar and caffeine. New York is pushing a bill (maybe it's already been passed here) making it illegal to sell drinks like the Big Gulp which are, they say, exorbitantly sized. Now I personally agree with the idea; it is certainly a health conscious objective, but is it really the job of government to determine how healthily we eat?
Many people abuse sugar and caffeine (admittedly, substances with less obvious state-altering effects), but that does not mean they should be illegal simply because they have a high probability of abuse...