You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
New Zealand smoking ban: Health experts criticise new government's shock reversal
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67540190
To fund tax cuts 😳
How else are they going to get kids to help fund tax cuts to hard working families if it isn't through a tax on their addiction?
It is obviously the patriotic duty of all teenagers in New Zealand to take up smoking.
FFS.
Jeez 🙄
Hmmm, I'm all for doing everything that we can to reduce smoking.
However the lesson from history and from the current war on drugs is that prohibition never works, it just encourages crime.
I can't help thinking that there are better ways to approach this.
and this, boys and girls is the downside of mmp and the resulting general need for coalition governments. This is the fourth time that the odious Winston Peter's gigantic ego and his NZ First party has held the balance of power, and in order to meet each parties electioneering promises something has to give- in this case it's the smoking ban.
Hmmm, I’m all for doing everything that we can to reduce smoking.
However the lesson from history and from the current war on drugs is that prohibition never works, it just encourages crime.
I can’t help thinking that there are better ways to approach this.
Prohibition might not work completely, but it does reduce consumption. As regards encouraging crime- by the same logic, surely the high tax rates on tobacco encourage crime- reducing the tax would therefore reduce crime.
However the lesson from history and from the current war on drugs is that prohibition never works, it just encourages crime.
True you can't completely eliminate something through a ban, but banning a commercial product like cigarettes will significantly reduce their use, especially somewhere like NZ, be more difficult to ban them in Germany if they were still legally on sale in France.
However the lesson from history and from the current war on drugs is that prohibition never works, it just encourages crime.
Ummm, this is a sliding type of prohibition - so the people who were never able to buy it would be entirely prohibited. And people who can already legally buy it can happily continue to carry on forever. It sounds to me like a fantastic way of going about it.
However the lesson from history and from the current war on drugs is that prohibition never works, it just encourages crime.
And yet the OP's link doesn't mention that at all. Apparently:
New Zealand's new government says it plans to scrap the nation's world-leading smoking ban to fund tax cuts.
You would have thought that the claim it encourages crime would be a better excuse than the current one they are giving.
Presumably the evidence that it will fund tax cuts is better than the "encourages crime" argument.
Prohibition might not work completely, but it does reduce consumption.
Does it? And at what cost?
banning a commercial product like cigarettes will significantly reduce their use,
Will it, compared to other potential measures (taxation, properly funded smoking cessation, medicalisation etc)?
AFAIK cocaine is prohibited, and the UK is absolutely swimming in it, and it's criminalising all sorts of young people.
AFAIK cocaine is prohibited, and the UK is absolutely swimming in it, and it’s criminalising all sorts of young people.
It's not really though, is it. I'm sure usage, especially among teens would be a lot greater if you could just rock up to Tesco and find it amongst the 3-for-2 offers.
AFAIK cocaine is prohibited, and the UK is absolutely swimming in it, and it’s criminalising all sorts of young people.
And you think making it legally available to teenagers at the local newsagents is the solution?
It’s not really though, is it.
I think you'd be surprised.
I’m sure usage, especially among teens would be a lot greater if you could just rock up to Tesco and find it amongst the 3-for-2 offers.
Is anyone suggesting that we do that?
And you think making it legally available to teenagers at the local newsagents is the solution?
Wow. Talk about a straw man.
I’m sure usage, especially among teens would be a lot greater if you could just rock up to Tesco and find it amongst the 3-for-2 offers.
Is anyone suggesting that we do that?
So, which part of the Meal deal would it replace?
Pasta salad, bag of Square crisps and a line of Coke instead of the giant can of Redbull sounds good.
Or maybe swap out the salad, tough choices.
Wow. Talk about a straw man.
Go on then, talk to me about a straw man. What was the purpose of you comparing cigarettes with cocaine?
What was the purpose of you comparing cigarettes with cocaine?
As something that is prohibited, and yet usage is increasing despite the prohibition.
I didn't suggest that it should be freely available to teenagers at the local newsagent, and in my previous comment:
(taxation, properly funded smoking cessation, medicalisation etc)
I suggested that there were other measures short of an outright ban that could also be used for cigarettes, which may also include moving them from newsagents (medicalisation).
Prohibition might not work completely, but it does reduce consumption.
It really does not at all. Heroin usage ( and other drugs) retain a certain rebellious glamour. Prohibition enhances that. Prohibition also is responsible for many deaths from impure drugs and folk not getting help
The best way to reduce heroin consumption is to make it really dull ( and allow some less damaging drugs). worked for the Netherlands and Switzerland. If you are an addict you can get register and get a clean supply of injectable heroin - but you take it in a dingy government office and have to fill forms in and stuff. The result? the netherlands has very little issue with heroin addiction, the black market in it dies as there are few customers and people do not die of ODing. the average age of heroin addicts in the netherlands gets older each year and less of them. Here we have more each year and the average age is decreasing ( last time I looked at numbers)
Prohibition does not only not work - it kills people.
I’m sure usage, especially among teens would be a lot greater if you could just rock up to Tesco and find it amongst the 3-for-2 offers.
Again - not the experience with the Netherlands with cannabis. Freely available cannabis has not really increased consumption and as above reduced consumption of other more damaging drugs
Evidence based practice. Drugs should be a medical / healthcare issue not a criminal justice one. thats what all the evidence says.
Compared to cocaine, heroin, THC, MDMA, and LSD, nicotine is a really really shit drug.
If it was made illegal would anyone even bother taking it up?
I guess we'll never know now.
More addictive than heroin
I just think it's crazy that most people who work in addiction services and the criminal justice system are working to change the conversation away from prohibition and criminalization and towards treatment and management, and yet here we are trying to add one more thing to the list of prohibited substances.
I just think it’s crazy that most people who work in addiction services and the criminal justice system are working to change the conversation away from prohibition and criminalization and towards treatment and management, and yet here we are trying to add one more thing to the list of prohibited substances.
It's not really the same thing though, is it? You don't get fired if you're found to have nicotine in your system during work hours.
There's addiction and then there's addiction. Trying to treat everything exactly the same way seems a bit daft.
It’s not really the same thing though, is it? You don’t get fired if you’re found to have nicotine in your system during work hours.
At the moment you don't. If it's illegal then why wouldn't that change?
There’s addiction and then there’s addiction. Trying to treat everything exactly the same way seems a bit daft.
That argument works against prohibition too though?
At the moment you don’t. If it’s illegal then why wouldn’t that change?
Because being high at work is generally considered dangerous (from an HSE point of view). You don't automatically get fired because you have done something illegal. You get fired if you do something illegal that affects your job.
That argument works against prohibition too though?
Tobacco is one of those weird drugs where it doesn't really get you high and yet it's incredibly addictive. And it kills you or at least gives you serious long term health issues, statistically speaking.
With harmful drugs you have to ask yourself if it's possible to put up barriers that create enough of a disincentive to make this particular drug not worth it for people to use. With many drugs such as heroin, cocaine, hash, MDMA, etc it's simply not possible to create enough of a legal barrier to stop people using them.
We don't know if it's possible to create enough of a legal barrier to stop people taking up smoking yet. It hasn't been tried.
I actually think the idea of a graduated ever increasing age to buy tobacco would have a significant effect - simply because as pointed out above its a crap drug, very addictive and easy availablity makes it harder to stop
Because being high at work is generally considered dangerous (from an HSE point of view). You don’t automatically get fired because you have done something illegal. You get fired if you do something illegal that affects your job.
Not so - you can be fired for cannabis delectable in your system for weeks long after it has ceased to have any effect. This also pushes people to cocaine as its undetectable after a day or two. Many jobs you would also be fired for a cannabis possession conviction even if it never effected your job, Nursing you would also be struck offthe register ie never work as a nurse again
It's weird how this conversation concerning the effectiveness of banning tabacco is rambling on when the New Zealand government appear to have made clear that this is about tax cuts.
In other words they need young people to become addicted to nicotine to provide them with a new source of revenue.
No one interested in that angle?
Because being high at work is generally considered dangerous (from an HSE point of view). You don’t automatically get fired because you have done something illegal. You get fired if you do something illegal that affects your job.
If I took speed at work I would be promoted.
Source: I used to take a lot of speed and Dexadrine - 6 Dexys a day or a quarter ounce of speed. I got promoted.
Very sensible reversal, completely unenforceable and unneeded law, vaping is largely replacing smoking among the young so the number of new smokers is falling off a cliff. The worst bit of the legislation was the nicotine reduction provisions which would really drive a black market, no mention of those in the BBC article.
completely unenforceable and unneeded law,
I cannot recall the last time that I saw you totally oppose a Tory government policy mefty.
It seems strange that of all the issues to put your foot down over and rebel against you should choose the proposed rolling minimum age for smoking.
mefty - vaping is creating a whole new variety of addicts and its damaging to the health.
tobacco kills millions worldwide each year
I cannot recall the last time that I saw you totally oppose a Tory government policy mefty.
Fair few policies I don't agree with just don't bother posting much on here - I prefer washing my hair - but I am very liberal on these sorts of policies.
vaping is creating a whole new variety of addicts and its damaging to the health
The growth in vaping is driven almost entirely by ex smokers or people who would have smoked causing a significant net health benefit - it is by far the most significant advance in smoking reduction - the guy who invented it should win the Nobel prize.
The growth in vaping is driven almost entirely by ex smokers or people who would have smoked causing a significant net health benefit
thats really not so.
If you think the growth of vaping is driven by ex smokers you clearly don’t have any contact with teenagers.
Mefty, I am afraid you are massively out of touch with regard to who is vaping. As above, it is rampant amongst Secondary school age young people who have never smoked a cigarette. I am not saying "all", but significantly more than those who smoked cigarettes.
Vaping delivers more nicotine, more quickly and more often. Kids cannot make it through a lesson, let alone a day, without NEEDING to vape. They are severely addicted to nicotine.
It messes with sleep patterns - I know kids who wake up to vape in the night - and it is having a significant negative impact on educational attainment.
Not so – you can be fired for cannabis delectable in your system for weeks long after it has ceased to have any effect. This also pushes people to cocaine as its undetectable after a day or two. Many jobs you would also be fired for a cannabis possession conviction even if it never effected your job, Nursing you would also be struck offthe register ie never work as a nurse again
OK, but you don't automatically get fired if you do anything illegal (depending on the job, I guess).
If this legislation was passed and a 21 year old doctor or nurse was found to be smoking when the cut off was 22 I'd be very surprised if they were struck off. You don't get struck off for speeding convictions, do you?
You don’t get struck off for speeding convictions, do you?
Speeding doesn’t potentially impair your professional competence to care for ill people.
Speeding doesn’t potentially impair your professional competence to care for ill people.
Yes, and neither does nicotine.
Like I said, there's prohibition and then there's prohibition. Lumping all prohibition together and saying it will all have the same consequences is wrong, imo.
I've never really smoked, just the odd ciggy when drunk and a brief rebellious teenager phase but to me smoking is more a lifestyle choice you fall into (mates etc.) and get addicted to rather than something you start for a buzz or other effect (e.g. coke or weed) so I'd have thought prohibition (via an annually increasing age restriction) would probably be more effective than with other drugs. Not sure how it would be practically enforceable though, I guess it probably wouldn't be other than by putting the responsibility on retailers and the penalties only for supply rather than consumption.
I guess it probably wouldn’t be other than by putting the responsibility on retailers and the penalties only for supply rather than consumption.
Wasn't the NZ plan to end the traditional supply chain and have licensed tobacconists with a stricter checking procedure. I think that it was basically the "traditional" retailers that were the ones driving the campaign against the restrictions.
In other words they need young people to become addicted to nicotine to provide them with a new source of revenue.
That does seem to be the rather sad basis for this.
That does seem to be the rather sad basis for this.
Isn't the tax there to pay for the long term healthcare costs associated with smoking?
If that's the case, it doesn't even make sense economically. Long term at least, which probably tells you all you need to know about the people voting for it.
Grab the money now and **** the future generations.
As a nurse pretty much any non motoring criminal offense gets you struck off. Shoplifting would for example. So if smoking was illegal i think it highly likely it would be a striking off offense
So if smoking was illegal i think it highly likely it would be a striking off offense
Underage smoking isn't illegal though, is it? It's supplying the cigarettes that's illegal.
I'd imagine the control would be on the seller's side (tobacco only sold through specific tobacco shops, from what I understand) so if a 21 year old managed to get hold of some cigarettes but the cut off was 22 I'd imagine they wouldn't be committing any offence but the person who supplied them would be.
But yeah, if people were going to be criminalised for smoking I'd be against any sort of ban. But I don't believe that's what we're talking about here.
That does seem to be the rather sad basis for this.
Its a weird place for the non-prohibitionists to inhabit though. How on the one hand can you support a ban on smoking tobacco and on the other, insist that other drugs should be de-criminalised? I can see it from a harm-reduction perspective - kind of; I accept that tobacco is the most harmful, but other drugs are not harm free. But from a libertarian perspective its somewhat a confused position.
You're either in favour of letting people decide what drugs they want to take, or you're not, surely?
For me its all about harm reduction and evidence based practice. Tobacco kills thousands a yrar. MDMA virtually no one. Tobbacco and heroin are addictive . Other drugs are not
Thus to me each drug need a different approach
How on the one hand can you support a ban on smoking tobacco and on the other, insist that other drugs should be de-criminalised?
It's fine to believe things in principle but it's better to adjust your position based on reality rather than to try to get reality to fit perfectly with your principles. So yes, I'm in favour of decriminalisation of all drugs but since most countries are a long way away from doing this I don't see anything wrong with introducing this type of graduated ban on tobacco products and see what happens.
And I don't think there's anything to suggest the users of tobacco products would have been criminalised, anyway.
For me its all about harm reduction and evidence based practice
So in @tjagain world, alcohol is going to be banned then? because by any measure (harm to self, harm to others) its by far and away the most harmful.
So in @tjagain world, alcohol is going to be banned then?
Again, why do you want everyone to pick a single position and stick to it religiously with no exceptions?
Tobacco is not alcohol, which is not weed, which is not heroin, which is not valium...
Tobacco is a shit drug which causes a great deal of harm and is very addictive. Alcohol is a better drug which causes harm and isn't as addictive as tobacco.
Why do you insist they be treated the same?
Personally I think the reason is the graduated tobacco ban is very difficult to argue against so people insist on arguing about banning other drugs instead and pretending it's the same thing.
I don’t see anything wrong with introducing this type of graduated ban on tobacco products and see what happens.
no me neither, that seems a reasonable approach, I think most of these discussion come down to "where is the line drawn" I don't see that legalising other drugs is going to make the 'problems' [of those drugs] go away - despite being legal there's a roaring trade in both cigarettes and alcohol, both real and counterfeit, for example so presumably that would carry on for other drugs, it's certainly the experience of countries that have part-decriminalised them. I think the only drug that seems its "without harm" is magic mushrooms
Once you decide that some drugs - Heroin, crack, methamphetamine (the most harmful - for both users and society) should be illegal; you create a market for it.
Again, why do you want everyone to pick a single position and stick to it religiously with no exceptions?
I'm not, its a discussion to see what the positions are. Alcohol is by far and away the most harmful drug that humans have come up with, its deadly. and yet...
It shows that none of these positions can be the one way forward. If you look at harm reduction as a basis Alcohol has to go, but of course you'd never be able to do that, same with fags, they're pretty deadly but even if you try to reduce them (good) you automatically create a black market (bad)
Why do you insist they be treated the same?
That's not my position, that's @tjagain. He's the one that wants them legalised on a harm basis, not me.
Alcohol is by far and away the most harmful drug that humans have come up with, its deadly
By what measurement?
In the western world tobacco kills 10 times as many people as alcohol each year and worldwide it's still twice as many.
you automatically create a black market (bad)
If they were banned entirely overnight, sure.
With the NZ approach, we don't know that.
By what measurement?
As a component of other harm.
On individuals Alcohol is a component cause of easily more than hundreds of diseases, injuries and other health problems, of which tens of which are wholly attributable to booze. Alcohol is carcinogenic and toxic and kills at younger ages and in some different ways to tobacco, including through violence associated with being drunk.
At a societal level; alcohol is responsible for any number of problems, including the need to fund healthcare and social services. In England the costs to the NHS and wider society are approximately £2.5 and £11 billion respectively for tobacco, compared to £3.5 and £21 billion for alcohol.
With the NZ approach, we don’t know that.
But the position of the anti-prohibitionists is that anything like this which is attractive will find its market, and if young kids can't get hold of it legally, they'll look at other avenues. Slowly banning fags may very well create a slowly increasing black market. As you say, we just don't know.
If they were banned entirely overnight, sure.
With the NZ approach, we don’t know that.
The "black market" in the case of New Zealand would presumably have been perfectly legal cigarettes illegally supplied to underage smokers.
Since these cigarettes would have had tax applied to them, and the new New Zealand government now says that they are scrapping the scheme because they want tax cuts, you have to assume that they thought the scheme would have led to a drop in tobacco consumption.
In other words they are worried that it would be successful.
On the issue of tobacco v alcohol, I would consider moderate alcohol consumption incomparably safer to health than moderate smoking.
There is no safe level of smoking.
Hmmm, I’m all for doing everything that we can to reduce smoking.
However the lesson from history and from the current war on drugs is that prohibition never works, it just encourages crime.
I can’t help thinking that there are better ways to approach this
OK, go on tell us what those are. Your objectives are to stop young people starting smoking and incurring the resulting health risks. What are your better ways?
It’s weird how this conversation concerning the effectiveness of banning tabacco is rambling on when the New Zealand government appear to have made clear that this is about tax cuts.
In other words they need young people to become addicted to nicotine to provide them with a new source of revenue.
No one interested in that angle?
Ernie, its interesting because whilst some of mefty's point is nonsense, he is correct that its no longer "cool" at 14-21 to smoke - vaping has replaced that as a way to mark yourself out as being "radical" (by conforming!) like smoking use to; so as a future source of revenue they are not going to get that much from the post 2008 births anyway. BUT wrapped up in the same legislation where a number of initiatives to reduce smoking in the already addicted: restriction on which shops could sell it, reduction in strength etc. Those created a negative sentiment from the everyday peddlers of these drugs. Whilst I am sure they had no intention to promote canabis use, did they also get a backlash from those who like to enjoy their weed mixed with tobacco?
So I 100% support the policy of a rolling age limit increase (whilst also supporting decriminalisation of a number of drugs), but if you've spent the last 100 years encouraging businesses to exploit your population and harvest taxes on your behalf - don't be surprised if they take the hump if you decide to "switch off" their revenue stream. Given that smoking is no longer "cool" with the very young, it might all be a bit of a waste of time - like banning a tamigochi, or fidgit spinner.
OK, go on tell us what those are. Your objectives are to stop young people starting smoking and incurring the resulting health risks. What are your better ways?
Please read the thread, where I've already answered this.
other potential measures (taxation, properly funded smoking cessation, medicalisation etc)?
I would consider moderate alcohol consumption incomparably safer to health than moderate smoking.
Define "moderate", and honestly, both are pretty awful long-term. Both of these are going to do irreparable damage to you. Like I said, I think the only one that doesn't do some sort of harm is magic mushrooms.
If we use a harm reduction basis for our drugs policy, which is a perfectly reasonable position to take; it gets blown out of the water on day one, because you have either ban alcohol, or ignore it...So there has to be a position at which you say "These drugs, although they do harm, it's at a level we're prepared to accept" and if that includes booze, well then it includes fags as well, becasue at just a basic economic level, the harms from fags are less expensive than the harm from booze. Which is a pretty nasty position to be in
Current drugs policy is clearly all over the shop, but any policy you choose to replace it with will be as well.
Define “moderate”
There's various definitions, both with daily and weekly limits. It boils down to a couple of drinks a day and not every day.
Again, tobacco and alcohol are not the same drugs.
You could quite easily go the rest of your life drinking 'moderately'. Sure, it might have a negative impact long term but the effects are negligible. Or at least, no one has proven that the effects aren't negligible yet.
And of course, there's the addiction factor. Alcohol is simply not as addictive as nicotine. You are generally either a smoker or you aren't. The only question is how much nicotine you need to avoid going through withdrawal.
Becoming addicted to alcohol is, of course, possible but the number of people who consume alcohol but aren't addicted is huge compared to the number of addicts.
With nicotine, the number of people who consume nicotine but aren't addicted is tiny.
Once again, it's almost like we are talking about two completely different drugs that are so dissimilar it's almost impossible to make any kind of meaningful comparison between them.
Define “moderate”
Ten cigarettes one pint of beer?
I know which one will do more damage to my health.
To claim that alcohol is much more harmful than smoking is totally misleading.
Excessive water intake will kill you much quicker than heavy smoking, are we to conclude that water is therefore much more dangerous than tobacco?
You could quite easily go the rest of your life drinking ‘moderately’. Sure, it might have a negative impact long term but the effects are negligible. Or at least, no one has proven that the effects aren’t negligible yet.
Haven't they?
As a nurse pretty much any non motoring criminal offense gets you struck off. Shoplifting would for example. So if smoking was illegal i think it highly likely it would be a striking off offense
That's not quite true*. The NMC has a list of offence that they consider and those that they don't, as well as considering the sentence/disposal imposed by the courts. https://www.nmc.org.uk/ftp-library/understanding-fitness-to-practise/fitness-to-practise-allegations/criminal-convictions-and-cautions/ you would not be struck off for not paying your TV license, and realistically if its not related to your nursing duties then a single shoplifting with well presented mitigation shouldn't either. I don't think anyone has proposed making smoking illegal (or as far as I know even making possession of tobacco under the age limit illegal) so its a bit of a hypothetical argument.
* I think people have probably been struck off for stuff like shoplifting - but perhaps not because of the offence, but failing to declare the offence, or the circumstances surrounding the offence.
I know which one will do more damage to my health.
Over the long-term, if you're doing those daily, I would say it'd be evens to see which one killed you first.
To claim that alcohol is much more harmful than smoking is totally misleading.
At a societal level it really isn't. The economic cost, the harms to self and others, alcohol is right at the top along with heroin, meth and crack, in a way that fags aren't. There are any number to studies to show this.
At a societal level it really isn’t.
With the exception of the number of people killed by each product.
That and the fact that it's not really possible to be a 'moderate' smoker. You are an addict almost regardless of the number of cigarettes you smoke per day. If you stop you are going to go through withdrawal.
You can be a moderate drinker.
Once again, not the same drugs. Not really comparable in any meaningful way.
I agree that its hard to justify aalcohol being freely a ailable while mdma is not given the addiction and harms each engender
Yes, if you're "starting from now" alcohol is just a non-starter, but here we are. And I totally agree that there are prohibited drugs that by comparison to fags and booze shouldn't be, you're absolutely right.
But any drugs policy has to be a blend of harm to society and self vs individual freedoms, and I think that as a society given how we can't even managed a healthy food environment introducing more drugs that although less harmful still have the capacity to harm, is a non-starter.
Over the long-term, if you’re doing those daily
No, not imo. If I was to smoke 10 cigarettes this evening the negative effect on my health would be greater than if I was to drink a pint of beer.
Please read the thread, where I’ve already answered this.
If you did it was lost amongst the bickering about heroin, alcohol and other distractions! but:
other potential measures (taxation, properly funded smoking cessation, medicalisation etc)?
Taxation doesn't seem to be a massive success. It might be a slight disincentive, but its really a penalty on the already addicted. Its also hugely non-progressive. If you are poor and smoke (perhaps as some sort of belief it makes your crap life seem better) then it has a far harsher penalty on your than if you are affluent. In terms of discouraging initial adoption, which the rolling age increase is intended to do, does price (tax) have that big an impact? or infact does it being an expensive / luxury product add a degree of allure?
Smoking cessation and medicalisation are options for those already on the drug not as ways to stop people starting. You'll not get me objecting to funding smoking cessation, but there's no reason that a rolling age increase prevents that. Medicalisation with nicotine is already essentially available - nobody is talking about removing access to nicotine to people who are existing users.
So I put the question back to you, how else can you stop the adoption of smoking amongst people born in 2008 or later. Have you actually understood the plan they had (which we look set to follow)? Or have you just decided that its basically prohibition so bound to fail?
If I was to smoke 10 cigarettes this evening the negative effect on my health would be greater than if I was to drink a pint of beer.
Yes, probably, but smoking isn't really done like that is it?
In this society, where self-moderation is not something that is in any way compatible with late stage capitalism, introducing any more drugs into it would IMO be a disaster. Like I said, we can't even produce a healthy food environment, and the disease cost associated with that is just an absolute shit-show, and to introduce other drugs? No thank you.
So now we're bringing food into the discussion?
Can we just accept that humans have a special relationship with stuff that gets us high* and accept that it has to be treated differently to everything else?
*for the purposes of this discussion I'm not counting nicotine as something that gets you high. Consuming nicotine is more about avoiding withdrawal symptoms rather than the high associated with it.
&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=c3f5bf1537790a8445bcefc5eff351081e6ddddf9c334428da9b3f180678c542&ipo=images" rel="nofollow" >If you say that we've (as a society) chosen the wrong drugs to make legal. I would totally agree with you.
But here we are; busy making our food addictive. So given that we can't go back in history and make better informed decisions, we are where we are. Introducing more into our society, the way that its shaped currently. I don't think you could justify it. When hypertension and diabetes is killing people at the rate it does. At what point do you say? "You people can't be trusted with this shit, so you don't get to play with it"
Yes, probably, but smoking isn’t really done like that is it?
'Social smoking' is probably much more common than you might imagine. I certainly would be doing it if wasn't for the negative effect on my health.
Having a drink with mates in a pub, going through the ritual of rolling up a fag, leaving it on the table until you decide it's time to go outside and smoke it, lighting up inhaling deeply and getting that first hit.....bliss.
Having a packet of cheese and onion crisps instead doesn't quite do it for me.
Anyway the point remains, whether you smoke 3 or 35 cigarettes a day it is harmful to your health. Low levels of alcohol almost always have no significantly negative effect on health.