> Unless you can prove “getting group X less addicted” is more valuable than “getting group Y addicted” If group X is larger and/or the harm avoided from their

> Unless you can prove “getting group X less addicted” is more valuable than “getting group Y addicted” If group X is larger and/or the harm avoided from their switching to less harmful behaviours is more serious, then a simple utilitarian calculation says yes, it is more valuable. What data I've seen is still tentative, but suggestive that this is the case. Do you have data to show the opposite?