You know I would kind of off the cuff think that probably the optimal solution would be something that prevents general accessibility for the population at large, but encourages, and makes it more easily accessible for those who already have problems with it, and then kind of, chase solutions from there. Of course, I think probably that solution would lend itself more towards a country or state that cares whether or not you’re going homeless or sleeping in your car or what have you, because it’s generally easier to keep track of less marginalized populations.

This isn’t really to advocate for a ban, but there’s definitely a kind of fine middle ground between full bans and completely free easy access. I think the thing that strikes me the most as a kind of, huge dick move, is mostly that it’s kind of a purely short term financial calculation of, oh, smokers are going to pay a lot more in taxes than in healthcare, and they die quick, so that’s economically good. But of course, you wouldn’t want a country made up entirely of smokers, and I don’t think that would be good, or pay out the best in long term societal, or even purely economic, benefits. I’m skeptical of blanket calls for total drug legalization just as I am skeptical for blanket calls for bans. Usually, there’s more nuance to the situation than that, which unfortunately tends to be the thing most leveraged to enforce the status quo or pass bad austerity legislation.