Trying to ban porn would be doomed to fail, for the exact same reason that prohibition of alcohol failed- It's virtually impossible to police a "crime" with no victims, that happens behind closed doors, where all parties involved are willing participants. All you'd end up doing is expanding gov't powers, and justifying police invasion of normal people's daily life. And today, given the nature of porn, that would also mean more gov't restriction of the internet, and more gov't power to snoop through private online communication; Calling for porn to be illegal, is literally demanding that the gov't have more power to go through your emails, phone records, ISP records, etc.
And banning porn would be 100x more impractical than prohibition of booze was in the 1920s, because making hooch at least required buying raw materials that could potentially be tracked, building a big, stinky, incriminating still that you had to hide, physically storing and transporting bottles of booze. But todays tech means that anyone with a phone and an internet connection can produce, or consume porn. Literally every adult has both those things. And it's not that hard to practice the basic security measures to ensure that your porn production/consumption is essentially untracable. Or, are we going to ban VPNs, Tor, and encryption software, too?
Back in the pre-internet era, when making porn required photos/film that needed to be developed, and you needed a physical distribution network, prohibition of porn was able to have able to have SOME impact (although even back then, it's pretty arguable whether you could call porn prohibition "effective", or not. The technological limits of the era did more to curtail porn in the mid-20th century, than illegality did), but today having ANY real impact on porn would be essentially impossible, even WITH some insanely invasive police force- And all to enforce a "crime" where there's no victim, and all participants are voluntary.
Police already can't even effectively enforce CP laws. But, you want to divert funding and resources away from CP/pedos, to try to arrest 30yo soccer-moms for doing tits-out role-plays about chicken tendies, and the >80% of adults who choose to watch porn?!? All for the purpose of protecting that >80% of adults, from themselves?
Even if we just accept the idea that porn IS harmful to viewers (which is questionable, but lets go with it)- So what? Alcohol is harmful, tobacco is harmful, any food worth eating is harmful. Guns, cars, skateboards, sky-diving and crossing the street, all cause harm (significantly more harm than porn; no-one ever died from watching some sloot get bukkake'd) every single day- You want to ban all that stuff, too?
Adults are responsible for their own actions; If they want to risk harm to themselves, why do you get to stop them? You aren't special; If YOU get to impose your personal opinions about whats "too harmful" to be permitted, everyone else can, too. The inevitable end of your nanny-state logic is that everything from video games, to coffee, to every food that isn't tofu, all get criminalized for being "harmful". We'd all be living in some kind of bland, wrongthink-free, cottonwool-clad Disneyland-police-state.
