By banning tobacco you'd merely transfer some of its medical costs to police, military and criminal and judicial costs
That is why most countries chose to ban it slowly...to phase it out. it seems each generation is producing addicts, though numbers are down on previous users.
In what way would it be easier to prevent people from affecting others with tobacco if it were illegal?
For one, passive smoking, especially by children.
The costs of prohibiting drugs are not congruent with the idea of society providing a common friendly environment.
I dont see the need to support self destructive behaviour in order to apear friendly.
In the US the banning of alcohol turned out to be a disastrous failure.
I am aware of that but it was hardly an effective ban.
I have thought about legalising all drugs and just letting human misery be the limiting factor for the spread and use of drugs. This is very expensive, but with the world poluation exploding, perhaps we should go back to the opium trade days. Isnt that what legalising drugs would do ? Or are we only to legalise the drugs some want and not the drugs others want ? If you register as an addict for a certain drug, then why couldnt the government sell you a clean dose and enable you to live a normal life ? Or die. Either is acceptable.
What is unacceptable is the damage done to society by making drugs illegal, and having people follow the latest drug fashion to be daring. Have yourself declared an addict, have it printed on your licence and buy cheap drugs at the local chemist. Drug induced crime and corruption removed in one hit. But it has to be for all drugs, as people take the latest fashion drugs. Usage of some of the old staple drugs is waning as people discover new trendy ones.
As a sideline, the war on drugs is being won, it is just very expensive and destined to take centuries rather than years.