I agree it feels very headline grabby, it seems an odd priority in terms of health inequality, and I wonder if this is extended to other nicotine products.
The plan to reduce who can sell them is an interesting concept, if concerning on how that will be implemented.
Like I say where do you draw the line. Will it eventually be all junk food too and alcohol?
While I'm for decriminalization and moving addiction more into a social care issue if there was the resources there among other things to reduce drug use, there are plenty of products that are banned in the UK.
I mean, we had sprinklegate over what we have can have in cake decorations not that long ago.
cigarettes don’t get you high and are just massively addictive and harmful vs MDMA or weed.
Some people do experience a type of high on cigarettes as they have a stimulant as well as a depressant effect and it causes a release of reward neurotransmitters like alcohol, marijuana and MDMA.
Alongside the brain reward boost, part of cigarettes addictive quality is that it gives energy and relaxation hit that later when it's out of the system causes the hormones connected to stress and anxiety to rise again causing the cravings. Much like those who smoke weed, the effects can be seen in some who live with smokers, for better and for worse, and there are alternative ways than smoking to get the same effect without risking others.
There are many factors when it comes to addictiveness and harm that making direct comparisons are difficult to make, but claiming something is 'just' addictive and harmful with no benefits has no benefit itself. We can't really get into harm reduction and alternatives if we don't recognize what makes different forms of self-medication enjoyable, no matter how much we may personally dislike them.
I was also very struck by the liver specialist on the programme Adrian Chiles made about his drinking who told him that if we had understood the effects of alcohol and were discovering it now, it would be a banned substance because it causes so much damage.
The idea that banning is entirely wrapped up in how much harm something causes is popular, but it's more complicated than that, often balanced with benefits (like cars and the internet), control of supply and alternative industries lobbying to maintain power, social ideas around who uses a product, among other factors.
People invent things all the time that cause harm and have many risks. The question is what is the government's role in mitigating that, considering how what's been tried so far has worked, and what roles can/should others play in that when it comes to recreational drug use for pleasure or to self-medicate away pain. The destructive risks make that complicated.