The Astounding Gullibility Of A Stanford Professor

If you want a laugh, you may wish to have a read of this quite absurd article by some berk from Stanford University, on the banning of tobacco.

He's got it all figured out, so he has.

Mr. Proctor has called for regulators to do two things. First, because cigarettes are designed to create and maintain addiction, the amount of nicotine should be limited to a level at which they would cease to be addictive. Smokers who want to quit would then find it easier to do so.

Second, that we should bear history in mind. The first smokers did not inhale tobacco smoke; that became possible only in the 19th century, when a new way of curing tobacco made the smoke less alkaline. Regulators, therefore, should require that cigarette smoke be more alkaline, which would make it less easily inhaled, and so make it harder for cigarette smoke to reach the lungs.

If we want to save lives and improve health, nothing else that is readily achievable would be as effective as an international ban on the sale of cigarettes.

Now, I was going to fisk this quite vigorously, but since the little Ps kindly brought a cold home with them that, while not severe, has an irritating tendency to sap one's energy to that of a valium-soaked Jim Royle, I - consequentially - can't be arsed. Besides, I'm pretty sure you can pick holes in it without much help from me.

Suffice to say that said berk possesses an almost childlike belief in the realistic extent of state power.

For those who recognize the state’s right to ban recreational drugs such as marijuana and ecstasy, a ban on cigarettes should be easy to accept.

Well, firstly he is starting from an assumption that the state has such a right which is universally accepted (hmmm); and secondly, seeing as ecstasy has killed just about no-one, that's not too difficult a comparison. One might just as easily say that we should ban swords because they kill more people than soft boiled eggs.

I digress. So, as he brought up the subject of state proscription of recreational drugs, let's discuss the progress of this policy in Wales as detailed in two articles published today. Remember that cocaine was banned in 1920.

Home Office figures published this week figures reveal there were 6,029 seizures of illegal drugs across all categories from April 2010 to April this year, down from 6,245 for the same period 12 months previously.

And that figure was down from 6,720 during 2008/09.

Inspector Steve Clarke, who is with South Wales Police's territorial policing section, said: "We never lose sight of the effects that drugs have on our communities and we are using all means at our disposal to halt the cultivation, supply and sale of all illegal drugs to make our communities safer.

"Intelligence gathering and information from the public has paid dividends and led to many raids across South Wales, leading to significant hauls of drugs being seized."

Again, employing a state-is-perfect mentality, this is sold as a good story. Because the police, quite obviously, always find all drugs that are in circulation, don't they? Celebrations all round!

So, how is consumption faring with substances which haven't been legal for over 90 years?

"There has been an increase in the number of individuals testing positive for cocaine from around 10 per cent in April 2011, to 50 per cent in September — including those testing positive for both cocaine and heroin."

Councillor Stephen James said the increase in positive cocaine results was 'alarming'.

D'oh!

Fortunately, cocaine is easily created in a specialist lab, whereas tobacco requires the almost impossible requirements of a greenhouse and some seeds, so our berk doesn't foresee any problem with prohibition.

The other argument for the status quo is that a ban on tobacco might result in the same kind of fiasco as occurred during Prohibition in the U.S. That is, like the effort to ban alcohol, prohibiting the sale of tobacco would funnel billions of dollars into organized crime and fuel corruption in law-enforcement agencies, while doing little to reduce smoking.

But that may well be a false comparison. After all, many smokers would actually like to see cigarettes banned because, like Mr. Obama, they want to quit.

Don't laugh. This guy is a science historian, and published author, at a renowned university. You should be very scared.

Good grief with loud, dangly bells on!