11 ms·

This is scarily prohibitionist. This is not a health-related choice, only an enjoyment preference one. Whether you find the war on smoking justified or not, out

This is scarily prohibitionist. This is not a health-related choice, only an enjoyment preference one. Whether you find the war on smoking justified or not, outright banning of flavored tobacco this way has parallels in other illegalization approaches. And when you grow your own tobacco and flavor it? Criminal. On a general note, I find it upsetting how many people cheer these things on due to misplaced righteousness. You can disagree with smoking and even recognize its societal harms that affect you without supporting making it illegal. If only the human lifecycle were twice as long, we'd have many remembering political victories built on prohibition platforms followed by state after state banning breweries on the way to the 18th amendment.

HarryHirsch 8y ago
It's absolutely health-related. Menthol is a mild anaesthetic (remember menthol sports cream?) and permits the inexperienced smoker to inhale fully. Same with the eugenol in kretek cigarettes.
- kodablah 8y ago
  While the heath related differences exist, they exist in several different forms of tobacco consumption. The proposed ban is coming at the same time as the proposal for banning all flavored-except-menthol ecigs. By your logic, menthol flavored ecigs would also encourage more inhalation which is also worse and should be banned with the other flavors, but it's not. Why? Because it's, admittedly, more about the type of consumer and it's a government-mandated step down program. It's more about what's politically acceptable to ban than health related. While it may have benefits (prohibition cut drinking in half), if anything, it's a trial balloon. I believe the general war on tobacco to be rooted in health concerns, but I believe this action to be a test to confirm the societal acceptance of this approach.
  - HarryHirsch 8y ago
    You don't need anything to numb your lungs to inhale deeply from a vape. And I think that Juul & similar should be banned because of the addiction potential, the way they deliver nicotine is designed to resemble cigarettes.
    - BurningFrog 8y ago
      But there isn't much health danger from being just addicted to nicotine. It's probably comparable to caffeine. What makes cigarettes so lethal is all the other toxins.
      - provolone 8y ago
        Aside from the risks of smoking (tar etc. like you said) nicotine has some health benefits. To the extent that it is used as a supplement by some. https://examine.com/supplements/nicotine/ https://examine.com/supplements/nicotine/
        Mirioron 8y ago
        It's also being looked at as a new ADHD drug, but its addictiveness makes it difficult.
        snuxoll 8y ago
        Yeah, because the amphetamines we currently use to treat ADHD aren’t addictive at all.
        dreyfiz 8y ago
        Being looked at by whom?
      - oliwarner 8y ago
        Nicotine suppresses elastin synthesis. Actively harms alveoli in lungs, and skin condition.
        udp 8y ago
        As a regular user of nicotine lozenges, I’m struggling to work out how my lung alveoli are going to be affected.
        8y ago
- fromthestart 8y ago
  Have you ever smoked a cigarette in your life? You don't know what you're talking about.
  - bbarn 8y ago
    When my father quit for periods of time, he would always start up again on menthols because the volume he smoked hurt too much with his Marlboro reds, and he said the menthols made it easier. Yes, it is that addictive that he would knowingly switch to menthols to help him ramp back up again.
    - fromthestart 8y ago
      To be frank, his anecdote conflicts with my own. It is pure speculation that inhaling menthol actually creates an analgesic effect which works towards the sensation of smoke in the lungs. I find mentholated cigarettes harsher, because menthol has a certain heat to it not unlike peppermint.
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  Same with sugar in alcoholic beverages. Or salt on red meat.
  - Valmar 8y ago
    Both just work so well together. :) Also, salt in meat and vege stews ~ if you have nothing else in terms of flavour, salt makes it infinitely more appetizing.
  - madaxe_again 8y ago
    You jest, but here in the UK, where menthols were banned several years ago, we tax sugar in beverages (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43659124 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43659124), and food producers are under pressure to cut salt and sugar from their products (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/salt-reduction-targets-for-2017 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/salt-reduction-ta...). I understand the rationale behind this prohibitionist, paternalistic approach (maintain a healthy work/consumption force, reduce burden on socialised healthcare, improve GDP), but the additional cost to the economy is already built in to these goods - smoke tax (it’s not just tobacco, it’s anything you could burn and inhale) in the uk more than covers the cost of smoking related illness.
    - wrboyce 8y ago
      Menthols are still available in the UK today, I believe they are slated for removal from the market in 2020. What has been removed from the UK market is "10 decks", we can only buy 20s now.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      > smoke tax (it’s not just tobacco, it’s anything you could burn and inhale) in the uk more than covers the cost of smoking related illness. ...according to the people who sell cigarettes.
      - gaius 8y ago
        ...according to the people who sell cigarettes Smoking related illnesses in the UK cost the NHS (taxpayers) around £5Bn year, and taxes on tobacco raise around £9Bn. So it's pretty close, but that £4Bn gap will need to be made up from somewhere. Personally I'd legalise the wacky tobaccy and tax that, but there really ought to be equivalent taxes on vaping too. Also if life expectancy goes up, there will be an even greater shortfall in pensions too.
- pnloyd 8y ago
  This is completely true. I started smoking at 17 with menthols because they tasted good to me and were easier to inhale. Switched to regular after I got used to them.
- IronBacon 8y ago
  I would also ban the mixing of substances that have a bronchodilator effect with the excuse of improving taste. Yup, ammonia will totally improve the taste.
schoen 8y ago
By the way, this already happened locally in San Francisco this year: https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Proposition_E,_Ban_on_the_Sale_of_Flavored_Tobacco_(June_2018) https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Propositi...
- HarryHirsch 8y ago
  Why a broad prohibition on flavoured tobacco products instead of mentholated cigarettes and clove cigarettes? As far as the cancer potential and addiction goes, dip and chew are a different league from menthol cigarettes and vapes, especially Juul, with a psychopharmacology comparable to cigarettes.
  - hi5eyes 8y ago
    flavoured ecigs target highschoolers
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      Utter rubbish. Are flavoured boxes of chocolates and flavoured coffee syrups targeting highschoolers too just because they're flavoured? Every vaper and ex-vaper I know or have ever met has used flavoured ecigs, including myself while I was quitting. A whiff of the vapour as they pass is enough to establish if they're using a fruity flavour etc. As I'm in my mid 50s and my friends are mostly 30s-60s I think it's safe to say we're not highschoolers. The one and only time I tried a tobacco flavoured ecig I almost vomited it was so terrible. I think it's a flavour everyone tries as they switch. Tries just the once mostly - they are utterly unlike any cigarette.
      - yladiz 8y ago
        Before calling it utter rubbish, maybe you should do some research[1]. 1: https://www.europeanneuropsychopharmacology.com/article/S0924-977X(18)30285-2/fulltext https://www.europeanneuropsychopharmacology.com/article/S092...
the_clarence 8y ago
I agree and disagree. While I find it really cool this is also what is getting kids
- ekun 8y ago
  Wait are you saying that smoking is really cool?
  - the_clarence 8y ago
    Flavored tobacco or flavored weed. Etc. If you're a smoker it's just better than the plain stuff. It's like the pleasure of smoking shisha
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 8y ago
> You can disagree with smoking and even recognize its societal harms that affect you without supporting making it illegal. Disagree. Smoking products have addictive attributes that suck the user in and make it extremely difficult to quit. I support the banning of smoking in a similar fashion as tightly controlling the supply of opioids.
- kodablah 8y ago
  We'll have to disagree. My concern is more about the direction (banning more and more at the federal level) and the righteousness that drives it. Given such justification, there are many vices, addictive ones at that, we can feel good about banning. It's not that precedent doesn't exist, it's more about whether it's the role of the government at the national level to make this type of decision. I was just reading about Wayne Wheeler [0]. He had a negative personal anecdotal experience with alcohol which he successfully used to justify its banning. (edit: sorry, last part was meant to address the anecdote you previously had there, and which many of us have experienced with the harms of smoking by loved ones) 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Wheeler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Wheeler
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- refurb 8y ago
  Prohibition has been a abject failure whether it’s alcohol or opioids. Discouraging use and offering treatment is far more effective.
- cronix 8y ago
  While not AS addictive (to some) as nicotine, you really could argue the same for alcohol, couldn't you? In the US in 2018, what do you think is more directly and indirectly responsible for more societal harm: tobacco or alcohol?
  - cyphar 8y ago
    Alcohol probably, but this would be mostly due to violence. Smoking has an area-of-effect that is purely based on how close you are to people smoking. Smoking in the center of cities on the street should be illegal (like it is in most of Australia), because it causes harm to complete strangers.
Alex3917 8y ago
> And when you grow your own tobacco and flavor it? Criminal. Source? The FDA only regulates product marketing, not drug legality.
- kodablah 8y ago
  Sorry if I was unclear, the part you quoted was meant as a future example based on slippery slope, the direction being taken, and similar substance outlawings. I am not saying this particular ban is criminalizing it.
  - Alex3917 8y ago
    > was meant as a future example based on slippery slope, the direction being taken, and similar substance outlawings. The next logical step would be to ban cigarettes, but allow people to continue to purchase loose leaf tobacco. But if that happened then smoking rates would likely fall enough that it'd no longer be a major health issue, so even if we are in a slippery slope situation it doesn't seem likely to me that criminalization is the logical conclusion. Already most smoking deaths are in long term smokers. The 14% of Americans who still smoke are for the most part only smoking a few cigarettes per day (except the couple percent in the severely mentally ill population), so they're going to have nowhere near the same level of health outcomes as the folks who spent decades smoking multiple packs per day. I wouldn't personally ever use tobacco products because I place a high value on not being dead, but from a statistical perspective just looking at the number of current deaths would lead one to vastly overestimate the risks of tobacco use practices. I guess my point is that from a personal level you should definitely not smoke, but at a public policy level we'd hit the point of diminishing returns far before instating a complete ban.
    - jon_richards 8y ago
      >at a public policy level we'd hit the point of diminishing returns far before instating a complete ban. I think there was a study that showed chain smokers are actually less of a burden on the public because they die relatively quickly, reducing their consumption of medical resources.
provolone 8y ago
HN, a website purportedly about tech entrepreneurship generally favors the 'government knows best' model. Whether it is a health related choice or not is immaterial. 30 minutes of cardio per day is generally regarded as a healthy choice. Yet for obvious reasons we are not taking a collective vote on making mild exercise compulsory for all individuals.
- mancerayder 8y ago
  HN, a website purportedly about tech entrepreneurship generally favors the 'government knows best' model. We use terms like hindsight bias and selection bias all the time here; is there a name for the perception that the 'other side' of a wide ideological divide is more prevalent? Because I've read the same complaints about the libertarian attitudes here. There are plenty of folks on both sides of the fence (or it'd be boring).
  - sk5t 8y ago
    I think what you describe is angling towards the hostile media effect - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect
  - provolone 8y ago
    Perhaps I observe this bias based upon the articles I have chosen to comment on. Or maybe it is an accurate assessment. I can only speak from my own experience. However, I would expect that entrepreneurs would generally have a free market bias. I create online businesses because I have an affinity for tech, and because the Internet has largely been an unregulated space.
    - cyphar 8y ago
      I think that viewing any argument that some government regulation can lead to the greater betterment of society as being a "government knows best" view is very close to being a strawman. I definitely see quite a few folks from both sides of the libertarian/authoritarian spectrum. I originally wrote a much longer comment talking about how free markets need at least government regulation in order to function (so people have faith in them) while too much regulation leads to high barrier of entry, but I'm sure you get the gist.
sjwright 8y ago
> This is scarily prohibitionist. The US Federal Government is prohibitionist when it comes to cocaine, marijuana and nuclear weapons. But when you start proposing bans on products that earn billions for multinational conglomerates, out come the little guys pointing at their Constitution.
- update 8y ago
  Lots of us 'little guys' have been pointing at the Constitution re: the drug war since it first began.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  You can be against both.
- pessimizer 8y ago
  So are nukes free or a local artisanal craft? Because I'm pretty sure that they make billions for multinational conglomerates.
point78 8y ago
Are you in favor of banning selling poison to children on store shelves? Because that's exactly what this is. If cigarettes were invented today they'd never make it to market. Each cigarette has 2000 toxins. Over 85% of smokers start at under 18. It's a life long addiction picked up by children that kills so companies can turn a profit. Not to mention the health care burden on society. In no way or form should such a deadly substance be sold for consumption.

HarryHirsch 8y ago

It's absolutely health-related. Menthol is a mild anaesthetic (remember menthol sports cream?) and permits the inexperienced smoker to inhale fully. Same with the eugenol in kretek cigarettes.

kodablah 8y ago
While the heath related differences exist, they exist in several different forms of tobacco consumption. The proposed ban is coming at the same time as the proposal for banning all flavored-except-menthol ecigs. By your logic, menthol flavored ecigs would also encourage more inhalation which is also worse and should be banned with the other flavors, but it's not. Why? Because it's, admittedly, more about the type of consumer and it's a government-mandated step down program. It's more about what's politically acceptable to ban than health related. While it may have benefits (prohibition cut drinking in half), if anything, it's a trial balloon. I believe the general war on tobacco to be rooted in health concerns, but I believe this action to be a test to confirm the societal acceptance of this approach.
- HarryHirsch 8y ago
  You don't need anything to numb your lungs to inhale deeply from a vape. And I think that Juul & similar should be banned because of the addiction potential, the way they deliver nicotine is designed to resemble cigarettes.
  - BurningFrog 8y ago
    But there isn't much health danger from being just addicted to nicotine. It's probably comparable to caffeine. What makes cigarettes so lethal is all the other toxins.
    - provolone 8y ago
      Aside from the risks of smoking (tar etc. like you said) nicotine has some health benefits. To the extent that it is used as a supplement by some. https://examine.com/supplements/nicotine/ https://examine.com/supplements/nicotine/
      - Mirioron 8y ago
        It's also being looked at as a new ADHD drug, but its addictiveness makes it difficult.
        snuxoll 8y ago
        Yeah, because the amphetamines we currently use to treat ADHD aren’t addictive at all.
        dreyfiz 8y ago
        Being looked at by whom?
    - oliwarner 8y ago
      Nicotine suppresses elastin synthesis. Actively harms alveoli in lungs, and skin condition.
      - udp 8y ago
        As a regular user of nicotine lozenges, I’m struggling to work out how my lung alveoli are going to be affected.
        8y ago
fromthestart 8y ago
Have you ever smoked a cigarette in your life? You don't know what you're talking about.
- bbarn 8y ago
  When my father quit for periods of time, he would always start up again on menthols because the volume he smoked hurt too much with his Marlboro reds, and he said the menthols made it easier. Yes, it is that addictive that he would knowingly switch to menthols to help him ramp back up again.
  - fromthestart 8y ago
    To be frank, his anecdote conflicts with my own. It is pure speculation that inhaling menthol actually creates an analgesic effect which works towards the sensation of smoke in the lungs. I find mentholated cigarettes harsher, because menthol has a certain heat to it not unlike peppermint.
WillPostForFood 8y ago
Same with sugar in alcoholic beverages. Or salt on red meat.
- Valmar 8y ago
  Both just work so well together. :) Also, salt in meat and vege stews ~ if you have nothing else in terms of flavour, salt makes it infinitely more appetizing.
- madaxe_again 8y ago
  You jest, but here in the UK, where menthols were banned several years ago, we tax sugar in beverages (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43659124 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43659124), and food producers are under pressure to cut salt and sugar from their products (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/salt-reduction-targets-for-2017 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/salt-reduction-ta...). I understand the rationale behind this prohibitionist, paternalistic approach (maintain a healthy work/consumption force, reduce burden on socialised healthcare, improve GDP), but the additional cost to the economy is already built in to these goods - smoke tax (it’s not just tobacco, it’s anything you could burn and inhale) in the uk more than covers the cost of smoking related illness.
  - wrboyce 8y ago
    Menthols are still available in the UK today, I believe they are slated for removal from the market in 2020. What has been removed from the UK market is "10 decks", we can only buy 20s now.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    > smoke tax (it’s not just tobacco, it’s anything you could burn and inhale) in the uk more than covers the cost of smoking related illness. ...according to the people who sell cigarettes.
    - gaius 8y ago
      ...according to the people who sell cigarettes Smoking related illnesses in the UK cost the NHS (taxpayers) around £5Bn year, and taxes on tobacco raise around £9Bn. So it's pretty close, but that £4Bn gap will need to be made up from somewhere. Personally I'd legalise the wacky tobaccy and tax that, but there really ought to be equivalent taxes on vaping too. Also if life expectancy goes up, there will be an even greater shortfall in pensions too.
pnloyd 8y ago
This is completely true. I started smoking at 17 with menthols because they tasted good to me and were easier to inhale. Switched to regular after I got used to them.
IronBacon 8y ago
I would also ban the mixing of substances that have a bronchodilator effect with the excuse of improving taste. Yup, ammonia will totally improve the taste.

schoen 8y ago

By the way, this already happened locally in San Francisco this year: https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Proposition_E,_Ban_on_the_Sale_of_Flavored_Tobacco_(June_2018) https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Propositi...

HarryHirsch 8y ago
Why a broad prohibition on flavoured tobacco products instead of mentholated cigarettes and clove cigarettes? As far as the cancer potential and addiction goes, dip and chew are a different league from menthol cigarettes and vapes, especially Juul, with a psychopharmacology comparable to cigarettes.
- hi5eyes 8y ago
  flavoured ecigs target highschoolers
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Utter rubbish. Are flavoured boxes of chocolates and flavoured coffee syrups targeting highschoolers too just because they're flavoured? Every vaper and ex-vaper I know or have ever met has used flavoured ecigs, including myself while I was quitting. A whiff of the vapour as they pass is enough to establish if they're using a fruity flavour etc. As I'm in my mid 50s and my friends are mostly 30s-60s I think it's safe to say we're not highschoolers. The one and only time I tried a tobacco flavoured ecig I almost vomited it was so terrible. I think it's a flavour everyone tries as they switch. Tries just the once mostly - they are utterly unlike any cigarette.
    - yladiz 8y ago
      Before calling it utter rubbish, maybe you should do some research[1]. 1: https://www.europeanneuropsychopharmacology.com/article/S0924-977X(18)30285-2/fulltext https://www.europeanneuropsychopharmacology.com/article/S092...

the_clarence 8y ago

I agree and disagree. While I find it really cool this is also what is getting kids

ekun 8y ago
Wait are you saying that smoking is really cool?
- the_clarence 8y ago
  Flavored tobacco or flavored weed. Etc. If you're a smoker it's just better than the plain stuff. It's like the pleasure of smoking shisha

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

toomuchtodo 8y ago

> You can disagree with smoking and even recognize its societal harms that affect you without supporting making it illegal. Disagree. Smoking products have addictive attributes that suck the user in and make it extremely difficult to quit. I support the banning of smoking in a similar fashion as tightly controlling the supply of opioids.

kodablah 8y ago
We'll have to disagree. My concern is more about the direction (banning more and more at the federal level) and the righteousness that drives it. Given such justification, there are many vices, addictive ones at that, we can feel good about banning. It's not that precedent doesn't exist, it's more about whether it's the role of the government at the national level to make this type of decision. I was just reading about Wayne Wheeler [0]. He had a negative personal anecdotal experience with alcohol which he successfully used to justify its banning. (edit: sorry, last part was meant to address the anecdote you previously had there, and which many of us have experienced with the harms of smoking by loved ones) 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Wheeler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Wheeler
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
refurb 8y ago
Prohibition has been a abject failure whether it’s alcohol or opioids. Discouraging use and offering treatment is far more effective.
cronix 8y ago
While not AS addictive (to some) as nicotine, you really could argue the same for alcohol, couldn't you? In the US in 2018, what do you think is more directly and indirectly responsible for more societal harm: tobacco or alcohol?
- cyphar 8y ago
  Alcohol probably, but this would be mostly due to violence. Smoking has an area-of-effect that is purely based on how close you are to people smoking. Smoking in the center of cities on the street should be illegal (like it is in most of Australia), because it causes harm to complete strangers.

Alex3917 8y ago

> And when you grow your own tobacco and flavor it? Criminal. Source? The FDA only regulates product marketing, not drug legality.

kodablah 8y ago
Sorry if I was unclear, the part you quoted was meant as a future example based on slippery slope, the direction being taken, and similar substance outlawings. I am not saying this particular ban is criminalizing it.
- Alex3917 8y ago
  > was meant as a future example based on slippery slope, the direction being taken, and similar substance outlawings. The next logical step would be to ban cigarettes, but allow people to continue to purchase loose leaf tobacco. But if that happened then smoking rates would likely fall enough that it'd no longer be a major health issue, so even if we are in a slippery slope situation it doesn't seem likely to me that criminalization is the logical conclusion. Already most smoking deaths are in long term smokers. The 14% of Americans who still smoke are for the most part only smoking a few cigarettes per day (except the couple percent in the severely mentally ill population), so they're going to have nowhere near the same level of health outcomes as the folks who spent decades smoking multiple packs per day. I wouldn't personally ever use tobacco products because I place a high value on not being dead, but from a statistical perspective just looking at the number of current deaths would lead one to vastly overestimate the risks of tobacco use practices. I guess my point is that from a personal level you should definitely not smoke, but at a public policy level we'd hit the point of diminishing returns far before instating a complete ban.
  - jon_richards 8y ago
    >at a public policy level we'd hit the point of diminishing returns far before instating a complete ban. I think there was a study that showed chain smokers are actually less of a burden on the public because they die relatively quickly, reducing their consumption of medical resources.

provolone 8y ago

HN, a website purportedly about tech entrepreneurship generally favors the 'government knows best' model. Whether it is a health related choice or not is immaterial. 30 minutes of cardio per day is generally regarded as a healthy choice. Yet for obvious reasons we are not taking a collective vote on making mild exercise compulsory for all individuals.

mancerayder 8y ago
HN, a website purportedly about tech entrepreneurship generally favors the 'government knows best' model. We use terms like hindsight bias and selection bias all the time here; is there a name for the perception that the 'other side' of a wide ideological divide is more prevalent? Because I've read the same complaints about the libertarian attitudes here. There are plenty of folks on both sides of the fence (or it'd be boring).
- sk5t 8y ago
  I think what you describe is angling towards the hostile media effect - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect
- provolone 8y ago
  Perhaps I observe this bias based upon the articles I have chosen to comment on. Or maybe it is an accurate assessment. I can only speak from my own experience. However, I would expect that entrepreneurs would generally have a free market bias. I create online businesses because I have an affinity for tech, and because the Internet has largely been an unregulated space.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    I think that viewing any argument that some government regulation can lead to the greater betterment of society as being a "government knows best" view is very close to being a strawman. I definitely see quite a few folks from both sides of the libertarian/authoritarian spectrum. I originally wrote a much longer comment talking about how free markets need at least government regulation in order to function (so people have faith in them) while too much regulation leads to high barrier of entry, but I'm sure you get the gist.

sjwright 8y ago

> This is scarily prohibitionist. The US Federal Government is prohibitionist when it comes to cocaine, marijuana and nuclear weapons. But when you start proposing bans on products that earn billions for multinational conglomerates, out come the little guys pointing at their Constitution.

update 8y ago
Lots of us 'little guys' have been pointing at the Constitution re: the drug war since it first began.
beaconstudios 8y ago
You can be against both.
pessimizer 8y ago
So are nukes free or a local artisanal craft? Because I'm pretty sure that they make billions for multinational conglomerates.

point78 8y ago

Are you in favor of banning selling poison to children on store shelves? Because that's exactly what this is. If cigarettes were invented today they'd never make it to market. Each cigarette has 2000 toxins. Over 85% of smokers start at under 18. It's a life long addiction picked up by children that kills so companies can turn a profit. Not to mention the health care burden on society. In no way or form should such a deadly substance be sold for consumption.