
Originally Posted by
ApricotMilk
Smoking tobacco is not solely synonymous with lung cancer. People smoke to relieve themselves (contrary to what most believe, smoking does have some psychoactive effects that exist outside of feeding a craving). Not only that, not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer or dies of a similar illness.
Now, you say that severe illness is better than none, but I said there would be more severe if it were illegal, credited to how tobacco would STILL be consumed, but with adulterated product.
Tell me a drug, substance or activity that has been prohibited and educated about that has almost eradicated the subject in question and I'll tell you you're wrong. Half a million heroin users in Britain? Yeah I am sure they had no idea what they were injecting into themselves. Guess we need more education that tells them heroin will kill them instead of a failed system that has no concern to their well being. In the meantime lets keep heroin in the control of criminals shall we? Or maybe we could do something a bit more humane and passionate, such as prescribing pure, uncut diamorphine to addicts and give them the therapy and support needed to quit?
I don't know if you watched the video I posted, but I ask you to at least watch 28:30 to 34:50.
Now with that in mind, street heroin has much more of a bad reputation than tobacco, uet there are still a millions of users in Europe alone. So what do you think tobacco would be like? I would say you are foolish to think that making it illegal will reduce the numbers and the cost to healthcare. In fact, keeping it legal instead, with education of course, will reduce the numbers, as it has done so already in the past 30 years. But if you were to make it illega it is a huge huge huge step backwards, and an uncompassionate one towards smokers.
Bookmarks