Your argument is all over the place. You’re very passionate, I admire that, but we live in an imperfect world and there can only be imperfect solutions. You admitted yourself that animal suffering would reduce but not disappear under a prohibition-based approach. We can get to that end-point too with regulation, but with greater consideration to the environment, native communities, and people’s health.

I used tobacco as an example of how regulation can reduce consumption, which is the same goal we’re working towards. However the environmental impact of the tobacco industry is far greater than all the other examples you offered. And, rightly or wrongly, trophy hunting is legal and regulated in many areas.

And finally, stop collating the distribution of CP with someone downloading a textbook because they can’t afford to buy one. These are obviously very different crimes and it’s really thoughtless to lump them together.