Prohibition is not the same as banning them for people born later than 2008 in any sense of the word.

We’re talking about banning for people who will never be able to buy cigarettes, not people who were able to and were later denied this.

With prohibition you’re conveniently missing the fact enforcement was poor and loopholes existed. Plus you were denying people alcohol who already drank.

Along with this was the fact that public support was not in favour.

I think you’ll find a lot of people support a blanket ban on smoking.

Also stop using the argument of appealing to authority.

Finally, I’m talking a pub full of people and you’re talking about one guy on blow. Yeah, seems like less people are using drugs than taking drugs. Obvious , right?

I’m not a prude. I’d support legalisation of certain drugs and decriminilisation of others. It depends purely (for me) on how damaging they are but they wouldn’t be for me to decide. I firmly believe though that drug users don’t belong in prison at all.

Edit: To make me belive this prohibition shit you’d have to convince me that prohibition fails when public support is high. Perhaps like a majority Islamic country where I would assume people support the banning of alcohol.

It seems to me like it works there fine.

Whatever we are doing to not turn into a shithole like America seems to be working.

Yes, parties without drugs do not exist. Youre right.

OK, so why exactly did prohibition fail? You ignored my question completely.

Are you really implying that people banning a substance doesn’t reduce the amount of people using it?

I can literally go to a pub and see a whole pub full of people drinking and smoking.

Where can I go to see a whole building of people smoking weed or taking drugs?

The aim isn’t to stop everyone, no sensible person would suggest that.

Are you even British? Not sure why you’d even care if you’re not.

Just don’t go.

Perfection is not the aim. Fewer people will be smoking tobacco over time. Smoking also has an easy alternative like vaping available.

It is also much easier to make alcohol at home than cigarettes.

Prohibition failed for multiple reasons. I’d suggest you look into it.

Of course you can. Over time fewer and fewer people will smoke.

The number of smokers have been going down for a long time now.

You’re incapable of answering a question. Sure sign of below bot intelligence.

Ok, so what other countries have Iran attacked that have no involvement. I love how you missed out this important fact to push your narrative.

Then kick them out of your countries. Leave NATO.

Sadly the whole of the EU is complicit then. We all depends on US protection.

I’m pretty sure you haven’t read the article.

Yes, and how did the UK defend this bases that were hit?

Logic?

Have you read any of your comments?

In what way are we on the US’s side?

You’ve still not managed to state now we are defending the US. We are defending ourselves.

The US turned on us a long time ago. Our PM has been very clear that the attack on Iran is not legal.

Iran has already launched a missile towards Cyprus. Tell me, how were they involved?

Huh? No one is angry about that. It is state media. But it’s independent even if the Tories did try and make it less so.

The issue is that most people associate “state media” with it being controlled by the state.

We are absolutely not defending the US. Think about it. Why would the world’s largest military need the UK to defend them?

The UK is stopping Iran firing missiles are countries that aren’t involved.

What am I missing here? The UK is just saying to Iran don’t fire missiles at countries that haven’t been involved in firing missiles at you.

That’s sensible.