• Dr. MooseOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    9
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m not very convinced by this argument. First your alcohol example is working against your point as alcohol costs billions in damages. Some sources argue that alcohol is very similar in costs:

    For example I’m reading that US CDC estimates 249B usd damage from alcohol and 300B from smoking so they are very much the same.

    That being said, my main argument would be that prohibition just doesn’t work and it’s so hard to determine lines. Should we ban excess calories like fast foods or just butter because obesity is by far the biggest expense and we know that food is extremely addictive. Policing every activity at this level seems impossible.

    We already have a solution for this burden - tax. You won’t get any taxes if you ban smoking and still have to care for smokers.

    • lazynooblet
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      Is this prohibition in the same way it is delivered in the past? Existing users continue to have a legal path of purchase whilst new potential addicts don’t. I don’t think it’ll have the same effect as you are concerned about, at least at a much reduced rate.

      And just because there are other vices that are detrimental to our health doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be efforts to counter this one.

    • Poplar?
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -21 year ago

      I dont think fast food works as a counter-example because it isnt addictive like cigarettes are. We can safely have butter, fast food and drinks like coke occasionally and just stop until the next time.

      • Dr. MooseOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Millions of people safely have a cigarette once in a while too. I don’t think addiction can be measured so simply.