Nowhere in this segment does he state that prohibition is the option he endorses - that is what a reporter has interpreted from his words. The final comment is "until they are extinguished by regulating them out of business" accounts for the fact that smokers should not be held primarily accountable for the harm done (since they do not manufacture and distribute tobacco). However, there is a problem to be addressed - the preventable illness and death that results from smoking, and it's not acceptable to maintain the status quo. The 'physiological response' indicates that smoking imposes a prohibition on the vital function of breathing.Go back and take in the interview again, and focus especially on the part after Hitler's name is mentioned, listening for the various examples of sinister conduct outlined.
Still, anybody who believes prohibition is the next logical step in the war on tobacco needs their head read. So many calls for tobacco to be banned, yet so many more ill-informed opinions that instigated them. Prohibition was and is a complete failure from it's conception, as the war on drugs and the prohibition era of the United States will testify to.
Good work John - I notice that for the 5.5 mins of the item, you really only had to ask a couple of questions, make a couple of comments, and your guest responded in a clear, decisive & engaging manner.Viewers can contrast Dr Wigand's authoritative comments with the deception expressed in TVNZ's 'AD show' by one of their guests this past week about BAT as a 'great' company who governments had to work with to reduce tobacco harm (..Bullsh**).