We should move towards the elimination of authoritarianism. Giving those the right to push their beliefs, no matter how apparently beneficial, cuts human freedoms. Let people do what they want to do as long as it doesn't harm others. It's not your business otherwise.

The problem is that you have big financial interest from tabacoo (or other) industry that promotes consumption of X and on the other hand you have an under-budgeted health department that will try to spread information and make studies etc. So the average person will be tricked by the gigantic adverting campaigns... my point a person can't do a correct choice when big money companies have the intrest he does the wrong choice.

It's funny you brought up tobacco, since it's a counter-example to your point.

Somehow, even with Big Tobacco putting tons of money towards promotion and an under-funded health department spreading information, we've arrived at a society where a) nobody can deny that tobacco consumption is harmful (and be seen as sane) and b) tobacco consumption is declining (nicotine use may not be, but it's also not clear that nicotine use alone is as harmful).

It took a few decades to get there, but it worked.

>>b) tobacco consumption is declining (nicotine use may not be, but it's also not clear that nicotine use alone is as harmful).

Sure it's not "as harmful" but a shotgun isn't as harmful as a nuclear bomb. Relative harm isn't important here, it's just "ability to cause harm" and understanding the likelihood that could happen. A car can cause harm, but most people drive safely. Nobody smokes a pack a day for 30 years with ill effects. We're not sure exactly what happens is you vape the equivalent level of just nicotine and additives, but we're pretty sure it's not going to be a good thing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/

>It took a few decades to get there, but it worked.

Yeah let's not take a few decades this time around? You're basically talking about an entire person's life at some scale.

>It took a few decades to get there, but it worked.

Better to count lives not decades though

"Prohibition has worked wonderfully well for tobacco in many countries"

Examples? As far as I know in most western countries tobacco "prohibition" is limited to interior common spaces, not in private homes or in the open (say, on the street).

It is actively discouraged (and in that it has been very succesful) through PSAs, medical counseling, warnings on packets, high taxes and the mentioned public bans, but that's not "prohibition".

"Prohibition" is more akin to the alcohol ban in the US in the 1920s, or the current status for drugs in most countries.

In all cases it has been far from successful, the only things that are accomplished is favoring the black market and related criminal activities.

> We should move towards the elimination of all drugs.

I agree. While we're at it, also elimination of all crime and immorality. Let's start by executing offenders on the spot. Guaranteed to deter drug usage in adolescents. And adultery, too.

Also, we could and should do better than allow people to harm themselves by unhealthy food choices. It logically follows that we need to ban cheeseburgers and sugary drinks!

And? It is not your choice to tell me if I wanna get buzzed or not.

I don't mind others smoking. I mind wrong advertising, advertising to kids, cigarettbutts, the stink etc.

Would you seriously contend that prohibition doesn't come with awful side effects? The cartels in Mexico and South America are big fans.

We tackle smoking and alcohol abuse through education (and tax, to a certain extent). Meanwhile prohibition is being selectively enforced in the US to criminalize being non-white. I see zero reason to continue the madness, and economics, social science, and history tend to agree.

We should start a war on drugs and check back in in 40 years.

wow. you have some scary views. how about you mind your own business and let others do the same.

> how about you mind your own business and let others do the same.

said on a public forum in reply to a comment on a public forum...¯\_(ツ)_/¯

they're actively advocating to legislate this stuff. /shrug /shrug /shrug /shrug /shrug

>Prohibition has worked wonderfully well

It very much hasn't. The War on Drugs is very much a catastrophic failure, claiming the lives of millions with no tangible improvement to control drug addiction. Meanwhile liberalisation and decriminalization programmes (e.g. Portugal for decriminalization and de facto tolerance without legalisation) have been much more successful. When will you start looking at empirical evidence and realise prohibition simply doesn't work?

How is tobacco prohibited? Smoking in public spaces is prohibited, but tobacco is still legal to buy, own, smoke or use in any way you want.

I just upvoted your comment because it is the truth and most probably you will be heavily downvoted for not being mainstream :)

It is literally false. There are only two countries with actual tobacco prohibition, Bhutan and Turkmenistan, and only since 2005 and 2016, respectively. We have decades of evidence from dozens of countries that total prohibition of recreational drugs is disastrous. Sensible regulation is what's needed.