What I said is people shouldn't have the right to commit suicide without interference - as in, it should not be illegal to try to prevent a suicide against that individual's wishes.
Self-destructive behaviors should not be conflated with suicide, because they have a gradient of cost. Suicide by definition results in immediate death, which is a high cost (dependent on age). Even eating terribly for your whole life and dying at 45 results in a gross cost that is at most based simply on age (so the upper limit is equivalent to suicide), and a calculated cost (per, say, burger) that is very, very small (so the lower limit is practically negligible).
I think it's immoral to eat yourself to death. Whether or not legislation should be involved is another question. But we already do legislate against some unhealthy habits - there's a list of banned food additives, for example.
Cartels control the land the grow on they dont have to really worry about anything and if you think they couldn't have taken a high yield/potent clone from cali and started mass producing it then ur crazy. They just dont give a fuck because producing massive amounts of brick weed is probably more profitable to them even if it is garbage.
- - - Updated - - -
There is no smoke when you vape.
Actually I thought you were talking about cigarettes, and was referring to its addictive capacity and extraordinary lack of benefits. Weed is a bit different since it has some benefits and isn't addictive, although it can still mess with brain development so in some cases I would classify it as destructive. Still, it would not deserve the sweeping classification I gave to tobacco.