What made weed cool was that weed was made illegal because of racism and was always cool... we are just addicted to the forms of racism that disappear when you look right at them more than we are willing to let ourselves have cool things.

Treating vaping like smoking is wrong, though. They are nothing alike besides containing nicotine.

And you can't even compare that because the forms of nicotine are different. The one used in modern vapes is only about 12% as bioavailable as the nicotine in tobacco.

Vaping is 95% less harmful, but there's a gigantic misinformation campaign against it. Most studies that show that vaping produces harmful substances either had methodology that was designed to produce harmful results by using the devices in ways humans wouldn't, or the scientific reporting on the study grossly misrepresented the findings to make vapes sound scary.

Public health interventions can do far more than banning! The reason it tooks so long to treat vaping as smoking is the far lesser danger of vaping for health (if you put aside the US studies).

Even without die of it, I would still prefer to avoid cancer. And smoking clearly rise the risk to have one.

Also, a cure we may have someday, is just a call to found research, not a real promise. Don't build anything on such.

This question can be rephrased like this: how can shooting myself in the head be bad for me in a world where shooting myself in the head is impossible to be bad for me? We could cure death and people will still say shooting yourself in the head is the deadliest thing ever.

So therefore, trying to prevent people shooting themselves in the head is not about health.

If nothing can kill you (even shooting yourself), then can anything (including shooting yourself) be dangerous?

I present this puzzle to others, they do the same thing.

Think of it this way, if we had death curing nanobots, does this mean you can survive a nuclear explosion? Will you become immortal?

The nanobots the book was talking about are nanobots that stop the tendency for the body to decay as we age. They are not meant to make us immortal.

Think of them like very advanced prosthetics.

Having the ability for prosthetic arms and legs does not mean that arms and legs (both natural and prosthetics) is impossible to be chopped off. Having heart pacers does not mean that poor diet and low exercise is impossible to cause heart disease.

People with poor health need more medical intervention and earlier than people with good health. The existence of inventions does not change risk factors.

We have a real life example. Oxygen is a very reactive molecule, it is unstable in large amounts and corrodes everything else, yet we need it to survive. Something that is bad for other things is required by us. The reverse is also true. CO2 is harmful for us but good for plants.

Hope that actually clears up your thought process and helps you stop believing in none sense.

Like autoerotic asphyxiation.

Education and freedom, yes!

But please don't push, making addicts guilty doesn't help health issues.

Like smorking

This. I know some people who have switched to vapes and have steadily reduced their nicotine to 0.

It's a start, but I'm a bit like those anti smoking people except for cars. I know it's not realistic to ask everyone not to use cars and trucks so I can settle for electric vehicles with massive investments in public transit and bike lanes.

But if I wanted to go further, and also just to add information, cars and vehicles in general cannot be entirely zero emission. Even the tires and brakes of bicycles are emitting pollutants in the air and water. It's one of the oversight about electric vehicles. In the last decade, we found out that tires are also emitting a lot of harmful shit that gets in the air and the water. The production of cars and tires are also producing harmful pollutants.

Tire Pollution May Threaten Human Health, Study Finds

Car tyres produce vastly more particle pollution than exhausts, tests show

Tire emissions may be in the form of whole tires, tire particles, and chemical compounds, each of which is transported through various atmospheric, terrestrial, and aquatic routes in the natural and built environments. Production and use of tires generates multiple heavy metals, plastics, PAH's, and other compounds that can be toxic alone or as chemical cocktails. Used tires require storage space, are energy intensive to recycle, and generally have few post-wear uses that are not also potential sources of pollutants (e.g., crumb rubber, pavements, burning). Tire particles emitted during use are a major component of microplastics in urban runoff and a source of unique and highly potent toxic substances. Thus, tires represent a ubiquitous and complex pollutant that requires a comprehensive examination to develop effective management and remediation.

So, only by the logic of "it's never enough", like people asking for a complete ban on smoking, I say electric vehicles are not enough and that we should ban all cars and trucks. (/s)

I can go on.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), road traffic injuries caused an estimated 1.35 million deaths worldwide in 2016. That is, one person is killed every 26 seconds on average.

And that's not counting animals, which are in the billion.

Parking spaces and parking lots are also not permeable and bad for the environment. They contribute to pollutant runoff and increase the heat island effect. Even their colour can have an impact.

So me it's funny that smoking outside is banned in certain places, while people breathe in all those nice pollutants from the cars. Breathing in that "fresh air", on a terrace next to the town's main road.

We can go full in on banning smoking, to protect the health of everyone, smokers and non-smokers, while ignoring other obvious health hazards. In a way, electric cars are the vaping form of smoking. They claim to be better for the environment and/or healthier, but in reality, they still have other problems and issues.

Again, that's why I think those anti smoking people are going too far. I'm "anti car" and understand very well that it's impossible to just ban them.

Or like any other movements. I'm not vegan, but I usually avoid eating meat. I don't prepare it myself. And I know the meat industry is a terrible blight on the environment. It may even be human health issue. So reducing our consumption should be a priority. But there's still going to be some people that will want to over consume red meat. Just as there's going to be some people that want to smoke. Yes, it has collective impacts. Yes, it should be reduced as much as possible, but banning things, even gas powered cars, or smoking, is extreme and goes too far.

Sadly yes. But this has a long tradition - put out flawed study methodology or write publish incendiary claims and then only later it gets debunked. It's fucking evil because vaping actually is one of the most effective ways to quit smoking and vastly safer.

The Canadian temperance movement was largely a success, that went on for a long period of time in a number of regions.

It didn't so much fail (as it did in the U.S) as It was abandoned due to government disinterest due to lost tax revenue, societal transformation due to urban centralization and the generational shift that coincided with the allure of the short lived age of the roaring 20's.

In the U.S, it can be argued that it was profiteers that dismantled prohibition. Not society. They've pushed the message that "prohibition can't work" ever since.

https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/temperance-movement

I know there are punitive taxes ( punitive to discourage people ) on tobacco products in store hence the high price tag. The reason I would still prefer to restrict it to the crown monopolies is to restrict commercial entities from profiting at all from it.

We are going the opposite way for alcohol (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-beer-wine-convenience-corner-stores-doug-ford-1.7055737 ). We already have LCBO, we have OLG, we have OCS ( though it was purposely nerfed).

Why is there a need for private entities to distribute it? The LCBO model works, why not use the same for tobacco. Does LBCO push people to black market alcohol?

Not very familiar with First Nations' jurisdiction on this. But from your comment that there are people who would still skirt the law even if it legal. Well it is their problem, and when they break the law, they should face the consequences. We do not need to make every black market activity legal. What I find reasonable is to provide a pathway for these substances to be bought with large disincentives to heavy discourage it.

What is your line between heavy discouragement and the black market? There is already a black market for pirated software and copyrighted material. Many justified and many others unjustified. The existence of a black market, in and of itself, does not justify the need to relax or remove regulation or legislation.

Not enough. Most people simply ignore tobacco as a substance and do not talk with their children, family and friends about it. It is addictive, it is dangerous for health but it should never be banned as it is being attempted on several countries.

Tobacco should be treated as a luxury, an indulgence, not something to label as a drug and criminalize. As you state and very well: this is prohibition. Puritanism never works and this will not be an exception.