>>82192864>It's subjective yes but I believe it to be of a greater intensity than the effects of tobacco. Our looks, self-image, external image, psychological profile (because HRT is not just cosmetic, the treatment has a major impact on the brain) and more dramatically the abstract "self" are all at stake with this issue.All of this can be said for tobacco, as well. I do not know why you consider it to be of greater intensity, either. Tobacco contains numerous neurotoxins and outright dastardly poisons like hydrogen cyanide and benzene. Tobacco massively increases your risk of premature death and can be physically disabling. Few things cause as much "psychic tension" as morbidity and disability.
You seem to be caught up in a naturalism bias. How can you be certain that someone's untreated state is better than with HRT? Some people need to take Xanax to avoid having unexplained, debilitating panic attacks. Yet, I would describe Xanax as a dangerous poison for a normal person I believe that estrogens are rightfully considered prescription-only medications, but they aren't as dangerous as controlled substances like painkillers are.
If you want to have a serious conversation about prohibiting certain drugs for the benefit of society, then starting with a known-killer of hundreds of thousands of people annually, in the US alone, is a good start. That is at least 400,000 people. Dead. Every year. How many people do you know? 300-400? If everyone you have ever met died, then that would be 1/1000 of the people that die in one year attributable to tobacco directly (most often severe emphysema).
If you still don't care, then I question your motivations, here. Clearly, anyone with the intent to "save people from themselves" would see tobacco as a massive source of self-inflicted disability, suffering, and death.