That is bunch of gibberish. Colombia and Mexico is mostly run by mafia. Look how they turned out.
When you have a prohibited product that brings in billions of dollars each month, it's an inevitability.
We like to pretend that if tobacco was criminalized, the result would be a healthier country with less cancer. The real result would be more violence, more money to the mafia, and a negligible drop in cancer cases (if at all).
Any average drop in cancer would be hailed a success by advocates of tobacco prohibition. Others would point out that cancer cases were already dropping, and they would be ignored. (In the U.S cancer cases are decreasing, worldwide they are increasing)
People wouldn't quit smoking, why would they? It's simply no longer convenient to buy cigarettes. It's not like its already inconvenient to smoke them, they are banned from just about everywhere but home.
In other words, poor decisions by government cause those problems. You don't see violent sugar cartels, banana cartels, or coffee cartels. If these cartels are so powerful, why aren't they taking over these industries? Because it would be legal to compete with them. Cartels aren't going to get into a business where they would be faced with hundreds of rivals.
Just like my last post, if you can't admit a mistake, you won't learn from it. We have historical proof that more prohibition results in violence, and we ignore it because we keep doubling down on ignorance.
