What nicotine addiction and regulation could tell us about a
prohibition free world.
Nicotine is considered to be very addictive.
Although it does not share the same reinforcement effects as
heroin or cocaine, it still ranks higher in dependency.
This means that while heroin or cocaine is more pleasurable,
nicotine, when habituated, plays a more significant role in one’s daily activities.
This is probably due
to the fact that smoking a cigarette can be done almost anywhere at any time,
so one associates its use with everyday activities, (eating, showering, errands,
etc.). Heroin or cocaine on the other hand, because of its method of ingestion
(needles, sniffing) it becomes ostracized from normal activity. Therefore, one associates
its use with non-ordinary situations.
Hence, when one is trying to quit an activity, it becomes
harder if that activity is associated with ordinary behavior.
Knowing how much nicotine can seep into the normalcy of everyday
life, it’s amazing to consider why more people aren’t addicted given its availability.
The likely factor here is in how nicotine and tobacco
products in general are regulated. In the late sixties and early seventies,
congress passed legislation which limited the advertising of tobacco
products. Essentially, the legislative measures banned advertising on television and radio,
limiting it to adult oriented magazines and other print media or niche adult
material only.
This ban had nothing to do with one’s behavior, and yet it
helped reduce smoking.
Now, how come that’s the case? How could such an addictive substance
have its prevalence of (ab)use drop significantly? The case is that education,
not prohibition, helped individual make wiser decisions about their health and
wellbeing.
I believe there’s no reason why this couldn’t be the case
with other addictive substances. What drives many to use harder drugs is the
realization of the falsehoods of what the “authorities” told them about substance
use.
Therefore, we can envisage a market for drugs with high
addiction potential, which relies on users seeking out the businesses rather than
vendors marketing to the general public. Companies selling opiates or euphoric
stimulants, for instance, would have their clientele seeking out their
products, as opposed to the business itself marketing trying to acquire new
customers.
Thus, we could sell potentially addictive substances in a
legal drug market. There would just be restrictions on how these companies
could market their addictive products. We may even see a drop in addiction
compared to the rates under prohibition. It’s surprising how a cigarette could
help us picture a market where we could sell addictive substances ethically.
No comments:
Post a Comment