Should tobacco be banned?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I think yes. Reason? It kills 34,000 a year.

 

Look at the terrorist attack at 9/11. 3,000 dead. Terrible? Well, 34,000 people die each year from smoking in the USA. That's just about 31,000 more than the death count of 9/11 and it's an annual deat count.

 

"What about workplaces"?

If the Talibans were based in the United States and the terrorist attacks were carried out by US citizens, do you think Bush would hesitate for a second with death-rowing the crap out of them for the attack? I don't think the "we're a capitalist country" argument would count for those who deliberately killed 3,000 people. Why would it for these people who have deliberately killed millions so far?

 

"People would smoke anyway, and tobacco would be smuggled into our country".

Well, the same thing happens to narcotics. It's illegal, but people do drugs and people smuggle narco into the USA and illegally sell it. Does this mean that the "prohibition" of narcotics has failed? I guess so. Does that have to mean we should legalize narco? I hope not.

 

"People choose to smoke".

Sad truth is, many don't. Many are pressed into doing it, and many are mis-led by commercials (a good deal of people start smoking because of advertising). Then there are the people who "just want to try what it's like" and ends up becoming addicts. And once you're an addict, the argument on "voulentary smoking" dissapears.

 

"First amendment".

Well, that's stating why it's legal, not why it should be legal. A lot of other stuff is banned, including narcotics. Smoking does not produce happiness. The first amendment does not state that the governmnent cannot ban anything. I guess if you're going to be really extreme you could say it was undemocratic of Bush to "prevent the Talibans from expressing religious feelings when destroying the World Trade Center". You can't say that, can you? That's not exercise of religion, it's terrorism. Well, smoking does not produce happiness, it poisons and kills you. Happiness? I think not.

 

In conclusion, sale, import, and production of tobacco, as well as smoking should be banned.

[Tie Guy]

Well, hard to disagree with you there. In general, i want less government involvement in people's lives, but this is something that i think needs to be stopped.

 

Like you said, it kills some 34000 people every year, thats bad enough. Unfortunately, car accidents kills alot too, but that doesn't mean we should ban cars. Doctors also kill lots of people every year, albeit unintentially, but that doesn't mean we need to outlaw doctors.

 

Unfortunately, people do chose to smoke, whether they are tempted by ads or not, ultimately it is their choice, no one elses. i don't know about you, but i've never heard of anyone lighting a cigarette and physically forcing them to smoke it. The tobacco industry doesn't make it easy on people to chose, but it still is their choice, plain and simple. Besides, even people who are addicted have several practical ways of dealing with it. They could take any one of the various medications widely available.

 

Our basic right to self expression is voided when serious injury or damage occurs to person or property. Smoking doesn't directly harm anyone besides the smoker. You could say second hand smoke does, but that's not a directly harmfull and frankly not incredibly common. Its sad, but many people choose to smoke despite knowing it may kill them. and i hate to say it, but they have very right to do so. They know the risks, but i guess they consider it worth taking. Kinda like rock climbing without a safety harness.

 

Then why do i want to see it banned? I personally think it is a repulsive habit that destroys not only lives but families and friendships. Maybe our country survived only because of the little green weed, but I certainly think we can do just fine without today.

[Boba Rhett]

If we could travel back in time and stop the whole "using tobacco" thing, I'm all for it. But the way it is now, we're stuck with it. If we make it illegal it'll become just like any of the other illegal drugs as to what problems it causes. So I guess we just have to put up with the lesser of the two evils.

[Zygomaticus]

John Rolfe...

[WolfmanNCSU]

Ultimately, I would like to see a ban on smoking myself, however, it may be a better idea to research alternative uses for tobacco. This way, industries, farmers, etc will not loose so much that they depend on. Its actually the other posions (ie nicotine) in cigarettes that are the most harmfull and addicting.

[Breton]

Is it still legal to advertise for tobacco in US???

[Surfnshannon]

yes - on tv anyways. I believe magazines and possibly billboards are free game though.

[Deft Aklin]

None of the tobacco companies really have a lot of money to advertise anymore. Especially now that they all have to pay for all of those anti-smoking ads you see everywhere. I am a smoker. Don't get me wrong, I have been trying to quit, and wish I had never started. In reality though, if they were to ban smoking there would be widespread mayhem. Protests, possibly even riots. It may not seem like it, but nearly one third of the adult poulation smokes and nearly half of all teens. Crazy, I know, but that is a lot of addicts, far too many for any politician to risk angering.

[duder]

A ban in public areas would suit me fine. I also don't for a second believe any of this nonsense that passive smoking is harmless. Spend some time with some chain smokers in a bar, and see how much you cough. Notice how these new studies surface at the time when smoking bans could be enforced? Or are you surprised that they are born from corporate interests?!

 

People choose to smoke, therefore if or when they die from it, it is there fault. Wonderful. I wonder when children take up smoking, become addicted to the chemicals, if they have choice to reverse their decision. Smoking kills. Advertising is expoitative, & IMO implicitly eradicates freedom of choice. Things have to change. I would propose a ban on smoking in public areas, and a complete ban on advertising smoking.

 

But then again I am a European and am all for more government involvement. Take it away and others will assume control - Corporations perhaps. We are social animals, it is in our nature.

[C'jais]

Treat it like a drug, because it is a drug.

 

My ideal: People cannot by their nicotin at shops at all. To get their fix, they'd have to go a special clinic where they could get a shot of their chosen drug. It had to be taken on the place and it'd be free.

 

Where would the new junkies go? They can't get the drug on the streets, since the drug lords can't compete in any way with free drugs. They can't get it in the clinics, since they could test you to check if you'd have tried the drug before.

 

Problem solved. And this idea encompasses all drugs, not just nicotin.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Originally posted by Boba Rhett

If we make it illegal it'll become just like any of the other illegal drugs as to what problems it causes. So I guess we just have to put up with the lesser of the two evils.

 

BUT, there's less people with drugs (yeah u can still get them, but the fact that police may catch them will scare all but the most die-hard). There's more smokers becuase they know smoking's legal, and unless they're over 16 they will get cuaght.

[ShadowTemplar]

Second-hand smoking is harmful. Period.

 

I personally find that advertisement on the following should be outlawed:

 

Tobacco, booze, ect.: It's harmful to public health, and to state budget.

 

Easy loans: They tempt some people into getting into debt that they can't get out of (if you need a loan, you can sure as feth find a place to get one, but that requires active action on your part, since you have to find the offer, not just passively accept it).

 

Medicine: These ads turn a lot of healthy people into patients, for no appearent good, and could promote immune diseases. And the undesired side effects of the drugs in question would effect more people ([repeat from brackets above]).

[Admiral Odin]

I would point your attention to when the government tried Prohibition (18 amendment prohibiting the selling, buying and using of alcohol). Complete failure. Same thing would happen if you try to ban smoking.

 

Furthermore, if you were to ban smoking think of the consquences.

 

1. Ciggerate companies would no longer exist which would result in an absence of antismoking ads. Which would then mean either no ads, or government funding of ads which in turns means higher taxes.

 

2. The Government would no longer get the tax revenue from the selling of ciggerates. Meaning higher taxes for everyone.

 

3. The Government would not be able to regulate smoking. In other words they couldnot put restricitions on what can be placed in ciggerates.

 

4. Look at what happened during prohibition, same thing would happen.

 

Banning smoking will not work. Placing more restrictions, and regulations on the companies in my opinion would be better. For instance prohibiting placing niciotine in ciggerates, and other chemicals. Make ciggerates taste like crap, and let them have no benefits (ie, relaxing people), then over time people will stop smoking.

 

The same things will occur as I stated above (less tax revenue ect). However, there will be less of the need for anti smoking ads, and overtime it will fall out of favor (people stopping on their own). Also there are other positives. A ban on smoking would require an amendment to the constitution (which nearly never happens). Regulations can be done through the FDA, and are not nearly as hard to pass. The FDA has everyright to regulate smoking, (telling the companies what they can or cannot put in cigerates), and most likely won't be unconstitutional. There are also other pros and cons.

 

Summary:

 

Ban on smoking will not work, however stricter regulations/restrictions on smoking have a greater chance to succed and stop smoking in the long run.

[Boba Rhett]

Very nicely put, Admiral.

[Tie Guy]

I'm afraid though, Admiral, that should the goverment do that, they would be sued for conspiracy to bankrupt the cigarette industry. And they would most certainly win in this day and age, unfortunately.

[Admiral Odin]

Thanks Rhedd.

 

Tie Guy, unfortunatly you are probably right. Sueing is far to easy and common. Still it probably is the best way to elimanate smoking. If done properly then you could avoid the conspriacy issue.

 

Overall I think the public would prefer this to an outright ban. Lets say that the gov. can't restrict the stuff put into cigarettes. There are still other alternatives (and better than outright banning).

 

1. Continue to raise the cost of cigarettes via taxes. Eventually people couldn't not afford to buy them.

 

2. Continue to limit the places a person can smoke.

 

3. Getting tougher on teenagers smoking.

 

Right now you are not supposed to sell cigarettes to teenages (it still happens). I don't think that is enough. If caught smoking teenagers should be faced with a fine (which increases with evertime they are caught). Stores then should be fined for selling it to teenagers. The tougher it is for teenagers to begin to smoke, then fewer teenagers will begin to smoke.

 

Other things to think about. Sometimes the appeal of certain things is increased by making it illegal. Also teenagers are generally lazy, like most people, (Example: how long have you searched for a remote just so you don't have to get up to change the channel?). If something is relativly enjoyable and easy to aquire more teens will do it.

 

Now obviously making smoking legal is not an option. Making cigarettes tougher to get is. This will stop many teens from smoking. It won't prevant every teenager, but then again you will always have those who will do what ever needs to get something.

 

Combinations of these can sersiously diminish smoking. I really doubt that there will be a day when smoking will be completly eliminated. Someone will always smoke, even if it is illegal. However, we can make it so where smoking barly does exist.

[Tie Guy]

Admiral, i agree with you on more tightly restricting where and who can use cigarettes, but i really don't think that raising the price is the best anwer. That's because even if you raise the prive tremendously, people are still addicted, and they will still buy cigarettes, or worse, steal them, often at the cost of their family and friends. Sure, it may have a good effect on some, but it could be disatrous on others.

 

Besides, i think rasing the price to an outrageously high value would do the same thing as banning it. That is, it would create a black market.

[Admiral Odin]

The outragoues pricing was more of an example of what you could do, wasn't really serious about that being a true fix.

 

One sole thing is not the answer but I feel a combination of things can be. For instance raise the prices (to a degree, to avoid what Tie Guy said), place more restrictions on where you can smoke, and make it harder for teens to smoke (see what I said above).

 

Funny thing: As I typed this I got a pop up aid about how to stop smoking.

[Rogue15]

smoking is stupid.

 

 

PWNED!!!!!!!!!

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I would point your attention to when the government tried Prohibition (18 amendment prohibiting the selling, buying and using of alcohol). Complete failure. Same thing would happen if you try to ban smoking.

 

1. Ciggerate companies would no longer exist which would result in an absence of antismoking ads. Which would then mean either no ads, or government funding of ads which in turns means higher taxes.

 

Don't know about the United States, but here in North Europe the Health organisations take care of anti-smoking ads. Smoking ads? History: They are banned, forbidden, forbudt, verboten.

 

The only thing you'd need to do is let the government or the red cross take care of the anti-smoking ads.

 

2. The Government would no longer get the tax revenue from the selling of ciggerates. Meaning higher taxes for everyone.

 

I suppose this holds true for the United States. In socialist (-democratic) countries they would probably make money due to the money saved from treating patients. The money earned could be spent on programs for the addicts. But I guess that's off-topic for right-wing USA.

 

3. The Government would not be able to regulate smoking. In other words they couldnot put restricitions on what can be placed in ciggerates.

 

How du you regulate something that's completely banned? I'm talking a ban of import as well as domestic production, so you can't say that "some stuff in cigarettes is legal, some is illegal".

 

4. Look at what happened during prohibition, same thing would happen.

 

You mean when it failed because no one cared to enforce it? How do you know the police will act the same way today?

 

During the prohibition era, US police were more of a USSR type. Pardon me for saying it that way, but it's the impression I get of them: Africans demonstrated for equal rights, the police hit them with batons, sprayed them with fire hoses, or even shot them! That, and the police departments didn't care to prohibit it. The whole system was corrupted because all policemen wanted to drink. You think they will react the same way

 

1. 90 years later

2. With tobacco, that's WAY more dangerous than drinking

3. When many adults DO NOT smoke?

 

Oh, and I agree with Shadow Templar:

Tobacco, booze, ect.: Ditto.

Easy loans: Ditto.

Medicine: Ditto. Medical ads create overprescription and abuse/overuse.

 

And with duder:

Things have to change. I would propose a ban on smoking in public areas, and a complete ban on advertising smoking.

[duder]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

 

I suppose this holds true for the United States. In socialist (-democratic) countries they would probably make money due to the money saved from treating patients. The money earned could be spent on programs for the addicts. But I guess that's off-topic for right-wing USA.

 

 

Unfortunately here in the UK more money is made in stealth taxes on tobacco than is spent on the relevant health care on smoking related illnesses. That is not to say that is the same all around Europe (afterall the UK is not a good example of social healthcare!).

 

On the filpside smoking causes the immune system to operate less efficiently, less smokers would surely create a higher level of productivity!

[Lord Fergie]

Ironic thing.

 

John Wayne in his last movie the Shootist hads cancer and dies but he dies because he is shot

 

REal life. It was his last movie because he died of lung cancer from smoking. Because in his early movies around the 50s it was cool to smoke much cooler than it is now. Have you seen his early stugg we're talkin 6 cigarrettes a scene

[Admiral Odin]

The Cigarette companies are forced to pay for antismoking adds. The money for the ads have to come from somewhere, and if the Cigarette companies aren't paying for them then the public has to through higher taxes.

 

How du you regulate something that's completely banned? I'm talking a ban of import as well as domestic production, so you can't say that "some stuff in cigarettes is legal, some is illegal".

 

I said they would not be able to regulate cigarettes, cigars ect. if they were banned. By not being able to regulate it then there is the potential even more harmful substances are added to the ones bought on the black market.

------------------------

It seems like your thinking more about the civil right movement of the 1960s and not the Prohibition era of the 1920s. Here is what I meant by didn't work, and why smoking won't be banned in this country.

 

But at some time near the middle of the 1920s it became abundantly clear that "Volsteadism" was presenting enormous, if not intolerable problems. Stopping the illegal traffic seemed impossible. Few political leaders had realistic plans for funding a naval blockade of the coasts or for closing the thousands of miles of borders along Canada and Mexico. Nor were elected officials inclined to pay for the huge police forces necessary to restrict the bootlegging that became pandemic, or to monitor the distillation of medical alcohol, which flowed easily into illicit outlets, or to track the production of sacramental wines, which so easily found secular markets. Token raids on speakeasies by federal agents usually encouraged colorful newspaper stories rather than respect for federal law. In fact, after 1925, more and more citizens seemed to resent the cynicism with which the federal government (whose Founding Fathers had left murders, lynchings, adulteries, and other moral transgressions to the disciplines of the state legislatures) was so inconsistently pursuing an intrusive interest in whatever it was they might be tempted to drink.

 

Congress had placed the matter within the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, whose untrained Prohibition officers faced challenges that would have defeated entire armies and navies. They operated with ineffective budgets - if any at all could have been effective - and only slight approval by the public. Even their friends in the Anti-Saloon League began to feel that, having made Prohibition the law of the land, they should employ their lagging energies and resources in the interest of propaganda and education, not law enforcement. Congress seemed to agree: it allowed Prohibition for the most part to live or die in the public conscience.

 

To some voters, this seemed adequate. Many in the rural areas, especially the farm counties, had voted dry early in the century and had remained happily so ever since. In such areas few people ever saw a bootlegger or visited a speakeasy. But in the major urban areas the failures of Volsteadism became both obvious and notorious. The ease with which beer and liquor flowed in such cities as New York, Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, and San Francisco could easily convince observers that the Eighteenth Amendment was destroying respect for law and order throughout the nation.

 

Yet before 1930 few people called for outright repeal of the amendment. No amendment to the Constitution had ever been repealed, and it was clear that few Americans were moved to political action yet by the partial successes or failures of the Eighteenth. Newspaper polls did reveal that large numbers of readers approved of some revision in the Volstead Act to allow light beers and wines but would not accept outright repeal. Most of these readers voted in 1928 for Herbert Hoover, who during the campaign had called Prohibition "a great social and economic experiment, noble in motive and far-reaching in purpose." He had, of course, also promised to uphold the Constitution.

 

The full article about Prohibition can be found here:

http://www.historychannel.com/cgi-bin/frameit.cgi?p=http%3A//www.historychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl%3FID%3D35583

 

1: People still act the same, no matter how many years have passed.

 

2: That is a matter of Opinion. While smoking may cause cancer of the long run. Drinking can cause people to go into rages that they may not have gone into had they not be drunk. DWI enough said, also heavy drinking causes cancer of the liver and other diseases. Smoking does tend to calm people...

 

3: During Prohibition, many adults didn't drink. It still failed.

[Hannibal]

Originally posted by irulual

None of the tobacco companies really have a lot of money to advertise anymore. Especially now that they all have to pay for all of those anti-smoking ads you see everywhere.

 

This is a joke, right? Tobacco is a multi-multi-multi-billion dollar industry. The ads were part of the lawsuit settlements but even with the amounts of money they end up paying the states they still make an incredible profit.

 

How many industries do you know that have to pay out billion dollar settlements and are still strong enough to stay in business.

 

Smoking is very big business. Lots of money. In this country politicians(dems and repubs) will not do anything to hurt people that come in with lots of money. Especially if there is no money to be made in the alternative.

 

Look at the oil industry and solar power.

[Surfnshannon]

well - i don't like smoking

 

and i find it amusing rhett with your avatar - u posting about smoking...just funny!

 

if they ban smoking people will smoke anyways. Kids aren't supposed to smoke and they do. People sell it to them. Yet they card me....I'm so confused. I think that people who smoke know its bad and they do it anyways. If they want to be stupid then let them. But do not do it in public, or on a bus or in a bar or in a casino or anywhere. Stick them in there own little sanction. I never realised how many places people smoked until I got pregnant. Then I really started to take notice. People just sit there and blow it in your face and I'm noticibly pregnant!! How stupid can people be. i say raise the price to 10 dollars a pack. Make it so its not affordable. Tax them to death!!!