ALL VICES CAN'T BE BANNED

I agree with every paragraph of Dean Woods' letter from Nov. 17
("Target cigarettes, not cannabis") except the last one, largely
summed up with its final sentence, 'Outlaw cigarettes'.

I'm assuming this was used rhetorically, but just in case it wasn't,
I feel compelled to present the arguments against outlawing cigarettes.

Put simply, it's a victimless crime. Self-harm, deadly though it may
be, has no business whatsoever being banned by any government
authority provided that it not infringe upon any other's right to
life, liberty, property and protection against fraud. It's not even
an effective deterrent - has any addict ever given up a habit due to
its legal status alone? Would anybody have taken a tippler at his
word if he had announced that he'd drink his last drop at 11:59 on
the eve of prohibition?

But what about the cost to health care? Presently the parasitic
cigarette taxes collected are enough to finance health care and, this
is just a guess, but probably a decent amount of the domestic drug war as well.

Free adult citizens cannot morally be prevented from any vice
provided no public danger is posed and no other individual's rights
are violated - any thought or deed of it shows contempt towards the
human spirit's innate curiosity and desire to take risks in life.

I cannot see an appropriate argument for criminally punishing a
non-violent, self-financed drug addict - be it heroin or nicotine.
And besides disagreeing with it upon principle, I don't want to pay
for it. More police, more jails, more lawyers, cross-border
co-operations, stings, international treaties, UN declarations, all
government self-patronization financed by our blood and sweat. There
will always be vices - fear the government that would force them into
the sole domain of criminals.

Chris Banton

Cambridge