Why do we still permit tobacco use? (2015)
&quot;Our governments collect $2.81 billion in tobacco sales taxes federally (2), which is &gt;1% of all federal government spending in 2013 (3) ... However, the direct and indirect cost of lung cancer, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Canada is $12.0 billion (2012 figure), of which smoking is considered to be the number one cause (4). That’s not a good trade-off, even if you only consider it economically.&quot;<p>Tobacco sales taxes show up in the current fiscal year, while chronic respiratory health costs show up decades down the road.  Governments tend to be better than corporations at prioritizing long-term concerns over short-term accounting.  However, there is <i>substantial</i> demographic that opposes regulations on narcotics.  Specific ones, at least.<p>Look at how popular legalizing cannabis was in Canada over the last decade.  Smoking pot is the most popular form of delivery for that narcotic and it&#x27;s likely going to prove to have many of the same long-term consequences as smoking tobacco.  Nonetheless, Canada legalized it.  Doctors raised concerns and were ignored.  The public willed it, and politicians don&#x27;t stay politicians by ignoring the public&#x27;s will.<p>Why do we still permit tobacco use?  Because politicians have the power to prohibit it, not doctors.<p>Perhaps the doctors espousing prohibition don&#x27;t have the right of it either. Narcotics have been a part of human existence across the globe for all of recorded history.  Although many people successfully abstain from them, narcotics seem to fill a basic human need.<p>Research on safe, enjoyable recreational drugs is virtually nonexistent.  Perhaps we should focus on filling that human need while minimizing the side-effects. To put it another way, with all the medical and pharmacological advances we&#x27;ve made in the last century, does it really make sense that people are still sucking on burning leaves to get high?