4 ms·
Seems reasonable, I don’t think we would have allowed the sale of tobacco if we knew then what we know now. Also it’s a drug that is mostly just addiction. It d
by romafirst3 3y ago
Seems reasonable, I don’t think we would have allowed the sale of tobacco if we knew then what we know now. Also it’s a drug that is mostly just addiction. It doesn’t really have a high until you are addicted to it, so I’m not sure non addicted users are going to be breaking too many laws to get it.
Contrast with hard drugs, most of the users are not addicts, they are recreational users.
- bdcravens 3y agoPrevalence isn't a good criterion for illegality. After all, most instances of drunk driving don't result in a crash.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago>don’t think we would have allowed the sale of tobacco if we knew then what we know now. At the time when tobacco was first sold in the US men were allowed to duel each other to the death. Attitudes about what you can do to and with your body were different. Smoking opium, long known to be powerfully addictive was legal until the early 1900s, mostly for racist reasons
- squigz 3y ago> Contrast with hard drugs, most of the users are not addicts, they are recreational users. Am I just misunderstanding this sentence, or are you saying that most users of hard drugs aren't addicts?
- romafirst3 3y agoI’m saying most users of hard drugs are not addicts.
- squigz 3y agoDo you have any data to support that claim?
- romafirst3 3y agoHere is a random journal article, but a quick google search will pull up a lot more. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2050324520904540 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2050324520904540