• papalonian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Their argument was that banning cigarettes wouldn’t eliminate their use, only drive people to continue doing it through other methods.

    What does your comment have to do with that…? Nobody said there would somehow be more users than before, just that people would continue doing it…

    • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      My argument is that since illegal drugs have significantly fewer users, prohibition does reduce usage.

      • papalonian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That logic doesn’t flow, though. You need to compare number of current illegal users vs number of users before it was illegal.

        Have you heard of the US prohibition on alcohol? It’s a pretty famous counterexample to your argument showing that it absolutely does not reduce usage.