Cigarettes

[Ricardo]

I don't know if this should even be asked, because it has nothing to do with revolution or communism, but do you think that cigarettes should be made illegal? I was asked this on a political survey in Political Science, and i think i'm gonna write yes, because hundred of thousands of people die each year from it, while the corporations selling it make billions, while cannabis doesn't kill and remains illegal.

Also, if cigarettes were made illegal in the US, what would happen to the economy?

[Zeruzo]

I dont think they should be illegal, it's a personal choice. The fact that corporations make money out of it wont change much, they'll make money out off something else when illegalized (Coffee or whatever).

[MolotovLuv]

Instead of making another drug illegal, we need to legalize them all. That will still hurt the nasty cig. corporations without imposing another stupid law :) imo.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 08:40 PM
I dont think they should be illegal, it's a personal choice.
My thoughts exactly, I think all drugs should be legal.

[Demogorgon]

Banning drugs never seems to work. Fuck the tobacco companies though.

People should certainly be discouraged from smoking, but if they want to anyway, at the end of the day it's their choice..

[Sadena Meti]

I'd ban cigarettes, not because it is a drug, but because it is a really shitty drug. Proof- no one has chosen to use "the patch" as a recreational drug.

The benefits of cigarettes (an extremely minor high) are nothing compared to the downsides. Additionally, passive smoking affects more than the user, therefore it is a social issue. One person's pleasure harming the health of others, utilitarian logic is a must, ban public smoking.

Rather see a post-revolutionary society smoking weed than tabacco. Same with heroin, compared to the alternatives it should be banned and safer choices made available. Bring back the opium pipe.

Once the anti-drug puritanical culture is abolished, put a drug company to work creating clean safe recreational drugs. I'm sure it can be done.

[rouchambeau]

On what grounds are you saying they should be illegal? That they kill a lot of people?

Think of how much would be illegalized if everything that killed a lot of people was illegal.

[which doctor]

Water kills a lot of people, should we ban that too?

[Wanted Man]

Keep them legal. Although I do not smoke them.

[Ricardo]

Water and Cigarettes are two completely different things. but i agree that it is a person's choice what they do, but i think that cigarette companies should only be able to sell tobacco, no additives. I think that they shouldn't be able to add things which make it more addictive.

Does anybody have any ideas what would happen to the economy if they were made illegal?

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 04:58 PM
Does anybody have any ideas what would happen to the economy if they were made illegal?
Yeah, very little. A bunch of rich bastards would loose their cash cow. The farmers (who see very little profit) would switch to another crop, corn or soya, and the handful of nearly fully automated factories would close, resulting in rather minor job loses.

The billions made by the industry go almost exclusively to the top, even more so that most industries.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 04:58 PM
Does anybody have any ideas what would happen to the economy if they were made illegal?
A large cigarette black market would erupt. Along with crack and meth, drug dealers would sell cigarettes.

A lot more crime as well.

[Okocim]

nothing wrong with cigarettes - I don't think they should be illegal, just smoke your own roll ups and you leave out half the crap added by tobacco companies. However, if you just legalised something like weed then no one would bother with cigarettes because compared to other stuff they're really not worth it.

[Janus]

It's one thing to start a counter-cig. campaign and quite another to ban it. The latter generally isn't effective and causes the marketing of the product to be more dangerous,etc.

[RevSouth]

I am kind of worried about what would happen if they ever legalized cannabis here in the US. Suddenly all sorts of bureacracy would pop up governing the standards for its potency, etc. You would need a license to grow. All the huge tobacco companies would sell it, and edge everyone out of the market. They would figure a way to make it more addictive, and in the process more dangerous. I feel like the negatives might almost outweight the positives.

[Kurt Crover]

but if there was a revolution, wouldn't new cigarette brands be used anyway, where there would be no fat cat companies or additives?

[A CLOCKWORK ORANGE]

Originally posted by Skinz+Sep 28 2006, 07:47 PM--> (Skinz @ Sep 28 2006, 07:47 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 08:40 PM
I dont think they should be illegal, it's a personal choice.
My thoughts exactly, I think all drugs should be legal. [/b]
I agree. Also, legalizing drugs will end drug tafficking, drug crimes, etc.

[midnight marauder]

I don't think it's too outrageous to complain that when discussing cigarrettes, especially compared to otherdrugs, the complications that occur from smoking greatly outweigh the benefits.

However, despite my personal oppinion, as a leftist, I stand perhaps principally
for autonomy of the individual. This includes the freedom to destroy your own body, if you believe that there is something more impactful to gain by smoking than by choosing not to. I refuse to assume that authority over another individual, and I suspect that most people here would agree with me.

[Orange Juche]

Why should we deny people the freedom to smoke tobacco if they please?

Heart problems from obeisity are killing a good number of people as well. Do we outlaw fatty foods too?

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 10:17 AM
Why should we deny people the freedom to smoke tobacco if they please?

Heart problems from obeisity are killing a good number of people as well. Do we outlaw fatty foods too?
The major difference is there is no such thing as "second hand fatty food" or "passive heroin." Cigarette smoke affects more than the user.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by rev-stoic+Sep 29 2006, 04:47 PM--> (rev-stoic @ Sep 29 2006, 04:47 PM)
[email protected] 29 2006, 10:17 AM
Why should we deny people the freedom to smoke tobacco if they please?

Heart problems from obeisity are killing a good number of people as well. Do we outlaw fatty foods too?
The major difference is there is no such thing as "second hand fatty food" or "passive heroin." Cigarette smoke affects more than the user. [/b]
However, parents whose diet contains a high percentage of fatty foods are likely to pass those eating habits onto their children - thereby harming the child as well as themselves.

[Nondominus]

I don't think that you should make cigarettes illegal, even though they destroy many lives. If people want to destroy themselves then so be it. It is very sad with passive smoking but what can we do that doesn't limit their freedom. As for your last message Okocim.


The major difference is there is no such thing as "second hand fatty food" or "passive heroin." Cigarette smoke affects more than the user.
However, parents whose diet contains a high percentage of fatty foods are likely to pass those eating habits onto their children - thereby harming the child as well as themselves.

Then we would have to make a whole lot of other things illegal. So that christian parents don't make their children christians. This doesn't only go for christians though. This goes for all ideas and other things that parents can turn their children towards, without the children having any choise.

[Clarksist]

Fuck counterrevolutionary anti-smoking nazis. :P

Seriously, ban? Are you bat-shit crazy?

Cigarettes heighten your risk for cancer, big fucken deal. If I accept that, then I accept that. if you don't want second hand smoking, MOVE.

:)

[rouchambeau]

Water and Cigarettes are two completely different things.
So?

[BreadBros]

No, they should remain legal, its up to people if they want to smoke them or not. As for second hand smoke, I dont know the medical evidence, but common sense tells me that whatever whiff you get from walking past someone smoking probably has very little if any negative health effects. Just ban them on playgrounds and in certain buildings and the such. I even think they should bring back smoking sections in restaurants and allow it completely in bars, where its illegal to do so in a few states at the moment (NY and CA are two examples).

[LoneRed]

Pretty much everything is bad for us nowadays,

Obesity has passed smoking as the lead preventable death in the US, Certainly food is more dangerous, lets ban that while we're at it.


excuse me I gotta go smoke a cig

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 30 2006, 01:45 AM

The major difference is there is no such thing as "second hand fatty food" or "passive heroin." Cigarette smoke affects more than the user.

Exactly.
I can understand not wanting to be stuck in a room with someone who is smoking. But do you really think we should make it so that second-hand smoke is NEVER present? Does walking by someone for a brief instant who happens to be smoking really damage your health to such a great extent?

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 29 2006, 09:01 PM
Probably not, but that's not the limit of smoking. People smoke in front of buildings, you walk through it when you enter. People smoke in resturaunts and bars (where it hasn't been banned yet), other people, and the people that work there have to breathe that shit in. You could say, well ban it in public places, but then what about small children around that shit in their homes?
So whats your answer?

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 30 2006, 02:01 AM
Probably not, but that's not the limit of smoking. People smoke in front of buildings, you walk through it when you enter. People smoke in resturaunts and bars (where it hasn't been banned yet), other people, and the people that work there have to breathe that shit in. You could say, well ban it in public places, but then what about small children around that shit in their homes?
The phenomenon of people smoking in front of buildings is interesting. I think its rather new and in my opinion a lot of it has to do with smoking bans themselves. I know a lot of people who are prohibited from smoking in their own apartment by landlords and therefore have to go out to smoke. Likewise, there is such a dearth of public space, especially public sitting space in most cities that sitting on a stoop or standing around your place is often the easiest option. Case in point: the place where Im at now has some greenspace and benches in front of it, people never smoke in front of the door because they have places to go and be apart. My good friend lives in a place with a dearth of such space and there are always people smoking in front. Personally I say create smoking lounges, a place people can go and sit down for a few minutes.

As for bars and restaurants, I find that ban to be horrible. Places should decide whether or not to allow it themselves, people can decide where they want to go based on their preferences. You can just have a room set-aside for it where employees dont have to enter.

As for the children thing, thats the only point I would concede, it can harm children. I just dont know what can be done. People do all sorts of stupid actions around their children that can endanger them, you cant really legislate stupidity. And really, with some of the things people do to their kids, smoking is probably one of the lesser concerns. I'd be much more concerned about people putting crazy religious ideas into their kids heads than whether they light up near them or not. For whats it worth I know someone who grew up with a smoking father, he just made sure to not smoke around them or when they were present, and they seem to be fine health-wise.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Skinz+Sep 28 2006, 07:47 PM--> (Skinz @ Sep 28 2006, 07:47 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 08:40 PM
I dont think they should be illegal, it's a personal choice.
My thoughts exactly, I think all drugs should be legal. [/b]
hmmm...even hard drugs? Marijuana should definately not be illegal but drugs like heroi and crack and PCP are really dangerous. It's a known fact that once you legalize something, although the business will lose it's danger, more people will do the thing because it's widely available.

[Ol' Dirty]

Think about it: how did prohibition in the 20's work out? It ended with an underground booze market. Think of how illegalizing cigs would work.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 03:21 AM
Think about it: how did prohibition in the 20's work out? It ended with an underground booze market. Think of how illegalizing cigs would work.
yeah exactly. The thing is that most likely, less people drank booze during the prohibition era, however, bootlegging (as it was called) was very dangerous like drug dealing today.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 04:07 AM
hmmm...even hard drugs?
Yes, even "hard" drugs.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Sep 29 2006, 10:29 PM--> (LeftyHenry @ Sep 29 2006, 10:29 PM)
[email protected] 30 2006, 03:21 AM
Think about it: how did prohibition in the 20's work out? It ended with an underground booze market. Think of how illegalizing cigs would work.
yeah exactly. The thing is that most likely, less people drank booze during the prohibition era, however, bootlegging (as it was called) was very dangerous like drug dealing today. [/b]
Should society decide to completely ban cigarettes, the solution is easy to implement.

Crop Destruction.

With all the research that has been done to maximize tobacco production and protect the plants against disease, blights, and pests, there is more than enough scientific data to wipe out the crops with a custom tailored blight.

No tobacco, no cigarettes, doesn't matter how many Al Capone's you throw at the problem.

[Red Ivan]

No,

Because it's just like what happened in Prohibition: You make law breakers out of a bunch people.

You'd have people making their own cigarettes, people selling them illegally, it would be a nother nightmare.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by Skinz+Sep 30 2006, 03:46 AM--> (Skinz @ Sep 30 2006, 03:46 AM)
[email protected] 30 2006, 04:07 AM
hmmm...even hard drugs?
Yes, even "hard" drugs. [/b]
I'd like to explore this logically a bit. What about "consumer protection?"

What if a company produced a drug that cures all headaches instantly, but causes lung cancer? That drug would not be allowed on the market. It wouldn't be a crime if someone got caught using it, but it would be illegal to produce or sell because it is dangerous to the user.

Now what about a drug that produces a massive high, but causes systemic organ damage and is neurologically degenerative? I'm talking about heroin.

And smoking weed does damage the lungs. Not as much as cigarettes, but that is partially due to the fact that most weed smokers don't go through a "pack" a day :) Better to use pharmaceutical THC.

Possession and use should be decriminalized, but a stoner-FDA should be created to outlaw the production and sale of medically dangerous recreational drugs, and replace them with high quality pharmaceutical grade recreational drugs. Better living through chemistry.

Consider Vicadin abuse. Produce the tablets with pure hydrocodone and no ACAP, and you eliminate the liver damage. But right now there's no effort to do that because such a tablet would only be useful for recreation, or nausea and cough suppression (an interesting use as it happens).

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 30 2006, 08:08 AM
No,

Because it's just like what happened in Prohibition: You make law breakers out of a bunch people.

You'd have people making their own cigarettes, people selling them illegally, it would be a nother nightmare.
And how would they make cigarettes if the tobacco plant no longer exists?

People made bathtub gin during prohibition because it is impossible to eliminate the ingredients for alcohol, i.e. sugar :)

Use a fungal agent to wipe out any large scale cultivation and the problem goes away. Sure, people could grow it in secret basement greenhouses, but why bother? If you are going to do that you might as well grow weed or make meth.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Skinz+Sep 30 2006, 08:46 AM--> (Skinz @ Sep 30 2006, 08:46 AM)
[email protected] 30 2006, 04:07 AM
hmmm...even hard drugs?
Yes, even "hard" drugs. [/b]
well think about what you're saying. If heroin was legalized and could be bought in stores, more people would do it on a natural bases like people drink alchohal now. It would have a devestating affect on society. I think maybe decriminalized but definately not legalized. You have to understand how those type of drugs change you.

[Leo]

excuse me I gotta go smoke a cig

:D Sounds like a good idea...

*lights a cigarette*

[Kurt Crover]

I think I might join in

*lights a cigarette*

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Sep 30 2006, 03:07 AM--> (LeftyHenry @ Sep 30 2006, 03:07 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 07:47 PM

[email protected] 28 2006, 08:40 PM
I dont think they should be illegal, it's a personal choice.
My thoughts exactly, I think all drugs should be legal.
hmmm...even hard drugs? Marijuana should definately not be illegal but drugs like heroi and crack and PCP are really dangerous. It's a known fact that once you legalize something, although the business will lose it's danger, more people will do the thing because it's widely available. [/b]
First of all, PCP is a disassociative, like DXM, Ketamine, Salvia Divinorum, or nitrous oxide. The idea that it drives you insane or is as hard as Heroin or Cocaine is not true, myths about an unknown drug created by the DEA to scare people.

Secondly, why are drugs such as Heroin and Cocaine dangerous? In order to acquire them you usually have to deal with black-market economies which pose a multitude of dangers, all because its illegal. Addiction: yes they are addictive (well, cocaine mostly psychologically, not physically), so is alcohol and nicotine, often to a far greater extent. However, there is support for those addictions, while illegal drug users face far more chastisement, marginalization, and less viable care.

Now lets suppose we make them legal. More people will try them? Very possible. However, the idea that society will somehow collapse is not necessarily true. If people are educated about the nature of the substance, and realize its dangers, I think a lot of people will personally choose to stay away from the stuff based on their personal choices. I know that I can go buy certain legal inhalants right now and do them, but I dont, why? Because I know it poses a lot of dangers to your brain chemistry. If we end the illegal nature of these drugs and provide open care to those who want to stop using them, many individuals who want to but can not (for financial and legal reasons) will stop using them. As for one-time uses or people trying them out, I see no problem in that. If someone gets high a few times to try it out, its not to big of a problem to me, as long their not driving or putting others in danger. You also have to realize that this whole system of illegalizaton breeds danger. Crack only exists because its cheaper to manufacture and provides more profit than powder cocaine weighed against the risks of making and selling it. If normal cocaine, or even coca tea is readily available, Im pretty sure most people wouldnt resort to crack. Similarly, heroin exists because it makes more financial sense weighed against risk to manufacture it and traffic it than opium, which is less dangerous.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 06:23 PM
(talking about heroin and coke)
Addiction: yes they are addictive (well, cocaine mostly psychologically, not physically), so is alcohol and nicotine, often to a far greater extent.

If normal cocaine, or even coca tea is readily available, Im pretty sure most people wouldnt resort to crack.
First, nothing is as addictive as Heroin. Heroin is the only drug that has withdrawal symptoms so severe they can KILL YOU. That's right, not only can taking the drug kill you, but stopping taking the drug can also kill you. (Hence methadone.)

Second, Coca tea is readily available. You can order it from Bolivia and import up to 200 bags at a time legally. How do I know this? Um... I heard it from some guy... :D

Tip: Brew it really strong en masse, 1 bag per cup of water steeped for 2-3 hours. Then pour it into a pitcher and chill it. Drink a pint when you wake up on work days. Redefines "refreshing." At least, um, that's what the guy I mentioned said...

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 10:05 PM
Fuck counterrevolutionary anti-smoking nazis. :P

Seriously, ban? Are you bat-shit crazy?

Cigarettes heighten your risk for cancer, big fucken deal. If I accept that, then I accept that. if you don't want second hand smoking, MOVE.

:)
You know it would be easier to move all the smokers than to move all the non-smokers.

I hear Siberia is nice this time of year... ;)

[captain donald]

on the case of additives, doesnt winston have an additive free cigarette now? i havent tried it yet but have been meaning to. anyone have an opinion on it? it proves that people are being fed up with the junk put into our smokes.

off to light up a p-funk.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by captain [email protected] 4 2006, 03:12 PM
on the case of additives, doesnt winston have an additive free cigarette now? i havent tried it yet but have been meaning to. anyone have an opinion on it? it proves that people are being fed up with the junk put into our smokes.

off to light up a p-funk.
Surely if there are no additives in it then it fails in satisfying a nicotine addiction.

[LoneRed]

The anti-smokers need to stop complaining and whining, shit you already kicked us out of most buildings, now in AZ and other states they are trying to get it kicked out of bars, so fucking stupid. We have to freeze our asses our sweat our balls off when we wanna smoke, while you sit inside. We have to do that just because people are whiners, I have all the right in the world to smoke, and I shouldnt be pushed out in the rain to do it. I realize that some prudes don't wanna be around smoke, so go in a different room, or talk to the building manager or something. Dont punish the smoker, punish the society that doesnt make both on an equal level

[LoneRed]

Edit * Double Post

[Red October]

yeah, i think weed should be legalized, but definately not heroin. heroin can have disastrous effects on the mind and body, and making it even more available to people would be a terrible idea.

[Hannibal_Barca]

A cigarette as a entity should not be elegal. How ever the manor in which the Tobaco Industry does is a crime punishable by death.
There is no need for 50 brands of smokes , make 2 , menthol and non-menthol , thats it , and do it bugle boy style , roll your own shit , want a filrte? walk around with that plastic tip shit. I smoke newport lights so I'd be fucking myself mind you but oh well , as long as capitalism takes the cock too its well worth it.

[Marx_1369]

I'm against the idea of legalizing all drugs and the reson why is simply that I see them as unproductive. There is no purpose to them... why bother?

I know a lot of people who argue that they could be taxed and bring in funds but that shit is just capitalism at it's worse.. get people addicted to this shit and then we tax them everytime they need it? no way. It's essentially why I am against smoking.. the same shitis happening. I am in the camp of banning smoking.. and it's nothing personal to the smokers out there.. but your trapped, and the governments of the world are loving it.. not to mention the filthly bourgeois running the tabaco companies...

I support the complete banning adn removal of all things that are so highly addictive they hurt the comunnion as a whole.. and turn the populus into slaves...

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 08:06 PM
I'm against the idea of legalizing all drugs and the reson why is simply that I see them as unproductive. There is no purpose to them... why bother?
Whats the purpose of movies, music, video games, books etc? Entertainment, but they arent productive, should we do away with those as well?

[Marx_1369]

Well certainly not.

I see where your going with this. I suppose the difference is simply that a movie, for what it is.. doesn't harm you. It entertains you by stimulating your sense and telling a story, but it doesn't harm you. Narcotics harm. They do damage to your body and in turn they will hurt the movement.

Before we get into the whole.. "Some drugs aren't harmful.." bit.. let me just say that ALL drugs harm you, while I realize some are not in a very distinct way.. it's called inTOXICation for a reason...

[Okocim]

Originally posted by Marx_1369+Oct 12 2006, 09:06 PM--> (Marx_1369 @ Oct 12 2006, 09:06 PM)I'm against the idea of legalizing all drugs and the reson why is simply that I see them as unproductive. There is no purpose to them... why bother?

I know a lot of people who argue that they could be taxed and bring in funds but that shit is just capitalism at it's worse.. get people addicted to this shit and then we tax them everytime they need it? no way. It's essentially why I am against smoking.. the same shitis happening. I am in the camp of banning smoking.. and it's nothing personal to the smokers out there.. but your trapped, and the governments of the world are loving it.. not to mention the filthly bourgeois running the tabaco companies...

I support the complete banning adn removal of all things that are so highly addictive they hurt the comunnion as a whole.. and turn the populus into slaves...[/b]
A thought has occured to me in the last 30seconds, so let me try and run with it here:

People are constrained by religion too, a lot of the left don't demand that religious people completely forget about their god when they join the movement - to do so would be overly sectarian and we'd alienate a lot of people from the movement. So....why are people religious? imo because they are brought up that way and the religion acts as "the heart in a heartless world". So...why do people smoke? could be for a few of the same reasons (of course, not completely the same but similar).

During the dictatorship of the proletariat I believe that people will do away with religion because there will no longer be any need for it. Couldn't the same be argued with cigarettes?

I dunno, I was just kind of thinking as I was reading and really haven't given this serious consideration. :unsure: What do other people think?



[email protected] 7 2006, 10:20 AM
A cigarette as a entity should not be elegal. How ever the manor in which the Tobaco Industry does is a crime punishable by death.
There is no need for 50 brands of smokes , make 2 , menthol and non-menthol , thats it , and do it bugle boy style , roll your own shit , want a filrte? walk around with that plastic tip shit. I smoke newport lights so I'd be fucking myself mind you but oh well , as long as capitalism takes the cock too its well worth it.

wait....why do we only need 2 different brands? should we only have 2 types of sandwich as well? cheese or ham? I don't see anything wrong with having multiple choices in cigarettes if we didn't have the bourgeois companies behind them.

I roll my own atm because it's a hell of a lot cheaper and doesn't have quite so much crap in as the pre-rolled ones.

[JC1]

To those advocating prohibition; Why should we waste resources to tell people what they can do with there bodies ? Why should we tell people what to do with there bodies in the first place ?

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:38 PM
Well certainly not.

I see where your going with this. I suppose the difference is simply that a movie, for what it is.. doesn't harm you. It entertains you by stimulating your sense and telling a story, but it doesn't harm you. Narcotics harm. They do damage to your body and in turn they will hurt the movement.

Before we get into the whole.. "Some drugs aren't harmful.." bit.. let me just say that ALL drugs harm you, while I realize some are not in a very distinct way.. it's called inTOXICation for a reason...
While it is true that drugs may harm you, I encourage you to look at "drugs" beyond the scope of how our society defines. Drugs are merely chemical substances, that humans have (for a large part of our history, even going back to our nomadic, foraging past) applied or ingested to themselves with some desired effect. Certain drugs that are invaluable towards medicine have been accepted. However, for various reasons certain drugs that are habit-forming or particularly pleasurable have been banned. Now, I ask you, why should society deny the ability to achieve chemically-induced pleasure to individuals? You argue that its harmful. Well, eating rich food (which is pleasurable) can lead to obesity, which kills quite a large number of people. It can be addicting, but so are many other things and more importantly, many other legal drugs. Obviously there is a trade-off between pros and cons, but why should we as a society make the decision to prohibit individuals from taking them? Think back to history, has there ever been any prohibitive attempts towards drugs or foods that has been successful without having to kill or oppress a large number of people? What makes you think people will stop now? Can you imagine a Communist society where we imprison or kill people because of decisions they have made concerning their body? Part of the reasons drugs are so destructive is because of their illegal nature. If I get addicted to sleep-aids, I can get assistance from the doctor. If I get addicted to heroin, then going to some figure of authority may not be the best option unless you want to spend time incarcerated. If we provide more education, more resources to help people, that will solve a lot of the problem. As for cigarettes, yes they are addictive and fairly bad for you. They have also played an important social role, can be pleasurable, etc.