Cigarettes Were Never a Combatant in the War on Drugs and Yet They Have Been Soundly Defeated

Be it the war on drugs, or the war on poverty, or homelessness or any of a hundred other social problems the US and other countries around the world have declared war on, our record remains abysmal. It remains where it has been stuck seemingly forever at zero victories and very little tangible ground gained. The record is actually so bad that it appears as if declaring war on a thing is the metaphysical opposite of what one should do if wanting to make a positive change to a persistent social problem. The war on drugs is perhaps the best known example of the failure of the let's declare war on something we want to go away approach to social policy. Many, many drugs became and remain combatants in this many decades old war. Cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin and other opiates, meth, marijuana, LSD, etc. Interestingly however one of the drugs that somehow managed to be left out of the war on drugs was nicotine. Specifically nicotine in the form of cigarettes. And, surprisingly to some I guess, they are the one drug (technically cigarettes are only a particularly deadly delivery mechanism for the addictive drug nicotine) that has been soundly defeated. They have in fact had their asses kicked. Completely, totally, absolutely crushed. In less than two decades cigarettes have gone from the hip, cool, must have accessory of the rebel without a cause, to a disgusting, hated, and reviled evil that no one in their right mind wants to have anything to do with. Cigarette smoking has become about as popular as Yahoo mail. That is to say, not popular at all with demand and usage at record lows. Meanwhile all the other addictive drugs still slugging it out in the war on drugs remain as popular or more so than ever. As popular as Google Maps. That is to say, quite popular and in heavy demand with usage at historic highs (no pun intended).

The question you are probably asking yourself, if you have not yet clicked away and/or fallen asleep, is why. The answer is of course, multi-faceted, complex and highly debatable. My intent with this post is not to wade into that intractable morass, but rather to use the example of cigarettes and the war on drugs to draw attention to the stupidity of declaring war on things we do not like. I think it is safe to say that most people believe war is a terrible thing. Even when there are clear winners and losers, which happens to be almost never these days, everyone loses something, even the victors. The scars of war last for generations and they impact all sides in any war. War may be rarely necessary, but it should never be aspirational. It is something to be avoided and used as a last resort, not the go to solution for any problem, no matter how small or large. And yet, a huge chunk of the population seems to think that declaring war on something we want to go away is a good idea. The belief is that somehow, no matter what history has proven again and again, this time, the war will work out for the best; good will triumph over evil, and everyone will walk away smiling and laughing and congratulating themselves on a job well done. The war will be won and it will be the end of (fill in the blank with thing you want to go away). It can of course be argued that declaring war on something sends a signal or message that we are serious, and committed to the cause. It shows that we are willing to sacrifice whatever it takes to achieve victory. The problem is, like with many wars, what victory actually looks like is never fully elucidated, and the price is paid by people who for the most part were not given any say in the matter. In the war on drugs this includes both the combatants (law enforcement/military and the drug cartels) and many innocent bystanders. Users and non-users alike who, because of their social circumstances or addiction, get caught up in the war. It is way past time to call a truce in every social policy war. Making war on things we do not like is stupid, counterproductive, and never works. End them all now, at least in name, if not in actual practice.