New Zealand to ban smoking completely under radical plan
news.com.au
news.com.au
(And that ignores the fact that prohibition doesn't work. Guess what just became the most coveted drug for New Zealanders 14 and under)
(and that ignores the fact that prohibition doesn't work. Guess what just because the most coveted drug for New Zealanders 21 and under).
I write this out because freedom of choice becomes moot when something directly removes choice through its addictive properties. Particularly when other people pick up the bill for your human imperfections
Just like you can drink wine responsibly, you can smoke responsibly. I don't think you can do heroin responsibly.
I'm not ok with being stripped of a wide variety of possible enjoyable experiences just because somebody is going to abuse them.
Why not, out of interest?
It's not like information about heroin is hard to come by.
An estimated 65% of people who inject heroin don't develop an addiction compared to only 20% of cigarette smokers [1]. I wouldn't bet my life on these exact numbers but everything I've read suggests that occasional heroin users exist [2] and may exist in similar proportions to occasional smokers.
You mentioned cigars, which might be different, but the original article is primarily about cigarettes.
Again, I'm not endorsing anyone smoking or using heroin, nor any particular policy. I'm just bringing up some findings that contradict the idea that responsible use of heroin is much less likely than responsible smoking.
[1] https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/08/whats-the-most-addictive-...
[2] https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/27/health/functioning-heroin...
I can't wait for this to backfire spectacularly, perhaps this time politicos will learn that prohibition doesn't bloody work.
But it's so easy and buys you more voters to put a "no!" into law than trying to deal with the problem at a deeper and more compassionate level.
Smoking tobacco = bad.
Smoking cannabis = good.
The second reason is that nicotine isn't that strong. People can use harder drugs to escape life and stress a bit, but a cigarette doesn't have that effect. Even playing a video games is arguable a stronger and more effective than smoking a cigarette, and it has a higher cultural pull.
The prohibition in the United States tried to force a culture change. That is a recipe for failure, especially if there is no easy alternatives except for abstinence.
The issue of burden on health services is political and often actually a fallacy:
Political because it is politically unpalatable to tell smokers that they'll have to deal with the health consequences from their own pocket.
A fallacy because in many Western countries the heavy taxes on cigarettes cover, or more than cover, the financial cost on public health services (so smokers do pay from their own pocket).
They also die earlier so they don't use as much government resources in retirement.
I was fully in favor of banning smoking in many places, and even using social pressure against people who smoke in public places. This however just goes to far.