> You can see this in the way we mix up terms like "dependency" and "addiction". I don't believe many people have an issue with dependency. Nor do they have a

> You can see this in the way we mix up terms like "dependency" and "addiction". I don't believe many people have an issue with dependency. Nor do they have any issue teasing apart the two concepts. We do not have qualms with someone who is dependent on an insulin pump, tetanus shots, or HIV medication. These days most fair people also wouldn't have issues with someone being dependent on marijuana, for example. So I think the concepts are quite clear in people's minds. When talking about an epidemic of vaping, people aren't worried about dependency. We're worried about addiction. Is it, strictly speaking, possible for someone to have a healthy, beneficial relationship with nicotine? Sure. But the trouble is that nicotine doesn't give anyone a choice. You're going to be addicted whether it's good for you or not. That's the issue. The reality is that human history is filled with death and misery caused directly by substance abuse. And we can see that history reflected in our public consciousness and policies. And I believe that is rightfully so. I'm happy to agree with you in theory, that we should take a measured approach to substances to view their objective benefits. But reality makes that metered approach difficult. Because the reality is that we have no real treatments for addiction. Which means we live in a world where a large percentage of people are addicted to substances they probably wouldn't want to be on if given the choice. And of those people, most will have degraded quality of life, some will commit violence against others, and some will die. So in this world we live in today, I can't fault people for having prejudice against addictive substances. And in many ways I view that prejudice as helpful. I certainly don't agree with the way we've waged war on drugs (at least in America). But I don't disagree with the reasons, and I don't view a prejudice against addictive substances as "knee-jerk" but rather a well informed policy birthed from a long human history of pain and suffering at the hands of these chemicals. (P.S. Re: the war on drugs; the crux of the issue is that we demonized not only the chemicals but also the victims of the chemicals. It is the former that I have no qualms with. It is the latter that has lead the war to perhaps cause more harm in itself than the chemicals ever did. But I'm really not trying to incite a discussion on those topics.)