UK bans sale of cigarettes to future generations.

If a post mentions alcohol, there is one member here who contends that alcohol is a "red herring" in relation to the debate on tobacco (see post 202) but when that same member himself introduced Oxycontin to the thread (see post 106) he doesn't see that as a "red herring". He needs to familiarize himself with the meaning of "red herring," and use it correctly and consistently.
PSA - A red herring is a misleading or irrelevant point that shifts focus away from the central question. :geek:

I know there's folks on here (I'll not mention names) that get a bit agitated when a thread veers off of the intended subject. I'm not one of those, And in this case, addiction isn’t a detour at all; it’s woven into the subject. These days, very few people would take up smoking in the first place, and a ban on cigarettes might be unnecessary if they weren’t addictive to begin with. Smokers have become something of a pariah class anyway. There are hardly any public places left where they’re allowed to light up, and the cost is outrageous—though I couldn’t tell you how the price of a pack compares to OxyContin, whiskey, or heroin.
 
Hey, apparently people should be free to addict themselves to Oxycontin and create great wealth for the Sackler family, if that's what they want. Or, in the case of the addicted, if that's what they're driven to do.
That wasn’t the point I was trying to make. I agree that there are times when it’s appropriate, perhaps even necessary, for the government to legislate behavior. But it’s a dangerous path, one that can slide toward unintended consequences with remarkable speed. Prohibition is the classic example, and the War on Drugs, (launched in 1971 and still grinding on half a century later), only reinforces the lesson. By any reasonable measure, we’re not winning that one. I don’t pretend to have the answer for how to curb harmful behavior, or whether the wiser course is simply to find ways to limit the damage it causes.
 
Back
Top