142 replies to this topic

[Hasina]

Should Cigarettes Be Illegal?

A proposed bill in Oregon to make the possession of cigarettes illegal is well-intended, but from a practical standpoint, it's unlikely to happen, bioethicists and public health experts say.
The ban, sponsored by State Rep. Mitch Greenlick of Portland, would make nicotine a controlled substance, and says possessing more than 0.1 milligrams would be illegal, punishable by a year in prison or a $6,250 fine. Exceptions would be made for people who had a doctor's prescription for the drug, according to the bill.
Tobacco clearly takes a significant toll on the lives of Americans, causing 450,000 premature deaths each year, and drastic measures should be taken to eliminate the habit from our lives, including, some say, banning cigarettes. But others argue that, in today's society, such a goal is overly idealistic, and would be extremely difficult to implement.

Source: http://www.livescien...es-illegal.html

Edited by Hasina, 25 January 2013 - 01:05 PM.

[and then]

The healthcare situation will soon act as a natural brake on the smoking rates.  When more young people begin to see their elders and even friends dying horrible, painful deaths due to this poison, they'll get the message.  I lost my mom and almost lost my older sister to smoking.  When people begin to be discriminated against in the health system due to their smoking, drug use, obesity..... life styles may begin to change.  But trying to prohibit?  Nah......

[Darkwind]

I think it would just create a black market for them, like it did with alcohol.

[Frank Merton]

I think there should be no profit to be had from selling something so clearly so harmful.  Therefore its manufacture, distribution and sale should be done by government-owned entities.

This is not the case even in Vietnam, where foreign cigarettes are imported and sold privately, the government just taking a tax, so I guess I shouldn't talk.

Banning them is too much and would lead to a huge windfall for criminals, as does banning almost anything.  Just find ways to take out the profit motive and the use will gradually decline.

[The world needs you]

Anything that makes people sick and we have to end up footing the bill later on should be regulated.

Let people have a choice but harmful products should be taxed heavily to recoup the cost of health care associated with them.

Hopefully if the price is too high people will just quit and regulation would effectively operate as a ban.

Yes, I want them banned but realize we can't do it outright cause the whiners will complain even if they expect us to pay for their healthcare later on down the line.

Alcohol, guns, and fast food too.

For now we are going to go after soda! It is next.

Edited by I believe you, 25 January 2013 - 01:59 PM.

[Frank Merton]

I believe you, on 25 January 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

For now we are going to go after soda! It is next.

This seems to be somewhat new knowledge.  I'm what is called "pre-diabetic" and you should have heard my doctor on this subject the last time I saw her.  She went after what she calls "sugar-water" with no ifs or buts.  The stuff upsets the insulin in the body because the suspended sugar enters the body directly through the stomach unlike other foods where it goes in more slowly.  She had the same opinion of fruit juices -- eat the fresh fruit, not the juices.  (She also insisted I switch to brown rice, no problem, and whole-grain breads and pastas (the latter are getting easier to find in Vietnam but are a bit expensive here).

Since all of these are clearly harmful, even to healthy young people, I wonder what restrictions are coming.

[dreamgoddess2011]

I am a smoker. I have often wished they would make it illegal. Then i would have no chiice but to quit. i have tried to quit so so many times. I do not think my willpower is strong enough to overcome the withdraw stages. It sucks! I wish they were illegal and harder to get my hands on. I hate it that they are not.

[dreamgoddess2011]

Oh and of course people would complain... the ones addicted to them & the ones profiting from them. Which by the way... The state profits so I do not think they will make them illegal. :-( it doesn't matter how expensive they are... Addiction doesn't care about the cost.

[Hasina]

dreamgoddess2011, on 25 January 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

I am a smoker. I have often wished they would make it illegal. Then i would have no chiice but to quit. i have tried to quit so so many times. I do not think my willpower is strong enough to overcome the withdraw stages. It sucks! I wish they were illegal and harder to get my hands on. I hate it that they are not.

Then maybe they should ban alcohol again, help all us alcoholics kick the habit faster, eh?

I agree that if a product only kills, then it should be prohibited. Cigarettes do cause cancer so that's why they should be banned. Not for the silly reasons people have for banning big sodas and alcohol, because they can't control their urges?! D: Halp me GUMENT, control me!

[ExpandMyMind]

Well if we are to look at it objectively, we can see that tobacco is a drug. We can see that it is more addictive than heroin, it is also far more detrimental to health, and causes far more deaths. We can see that it is completely off the charts when compared in the same ways to cannabis.

If one is illegal - one that is far less dangerous - then why shouldn't the other be illegal? Or, more to the point: if one is legal, then why shouldn't the other, far less dangerous one be so too?

They should be legal because people should be allowed to put whatever they want into their bodies, but they should stop moving the goalposts when it comes to different substances.

Edited by ExpandMyMind, 25 January 2013 - 03:04 PM.

[The world needs you]

dreamgoddess2011, on 25 January 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

Oh and of course people would complain... the ones addicted to them & the ones profiting from them. Which by the way... The state profits so I do not think they will make them illegal. :-( it doesn't matter how expensive they are... Addiction doesn't care about the cost.

The campaign against smoking in America has largely worked putting smoking into decline. The reason of course is because it was regulated to include taxing it higher. Many simply quit when it became too expensive.

Everything I previously suggested has already been tried, we progressives know it works, and we can do it with other products that pose harm to society. We taxed Big Tobacco then used that money to pay for the programs that inform others with the knowledge that smoking kills.

Want to know what Big Tobacco did?

They went to what were previously known as Third World countries and began marketing their products. Now they poison other societies where education is weak and the people simply do not know what it will do to them long term.

Hasina, on 25 January 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

Then maybe they should ban alcohol again, help all us alcoholics kick the habit faster, eh?

I agree that if a product only kills, then it should be prohibited. Cigarettes do cause cancer so that's why they should be banned. Not for the silly reasons people have for banning big sodas and alcohol, because they can't control their urges?! D: Halp me GUMENT, control me!

Any product shown to harm society should be regulated. Sodas contribute to poor lifestyles because of poorer health and it leads to early deaths robbing years of productivity from society. This is beyond the toll of higher health costs while they do live, get ill, and they might even die in the hospital. Alcohol does all this to some regarding a toll on health, it causes drunk driving incidents with others, and for even another group alcohol leads to abuse and other negative states emotionally. It kills just slower but it does kill.

Now you defend alcohol, your choice, but not cigarettes, saying they only kill. That is not exactly fair as smokers would claim the pleasure they derive just as those who drink would do the same? Or did you mean something other?

ExpandMyMind, on 25 January 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

Well if we are to look at it objectively, we can see that tobacco is a drug. We can see that it is more addictive than heroin, it is also far more detrimental to health, and causes far more deaths. We can see that it is completely off the charts when compared in the same ways to cannabis.

If one is illegal - one that is far less dangerous - then why shouldn't the other be illegal? Or, more to the point: if one is legal, then why shouldn't the other, far less dangerous one be so too?

One is legal because corporations make money even if they make less money here in the US now. The other is illegal because of past xenophobia, look it up. There is also the prison and specialized drug task forces in law enforcement who all profit from keeping it illegal. Beyond that many companies provide contract services to support the war on drugs. They are all making a living, many careers and jobs we are talking about, so it is not a failure for them but a perpetual hoax where they profit. For society the war on drugs is a failure.

Edited by I believe you, 25 January 2013 - 03:24 PM.

[Frank Merton]

I will repeat what I said: I don't think banning things does much good and helps criminal enterprises.  "Make a law, make a criminal."

So I think businesses that sell seriously harmful products should be state-run, so there is no profit.  I would emphasize the word "seriously," since a case can be made that practically anything in some circumstances is harmful.  Let neutral bodies like the courts decide on an industry by industry basis within the framework of a regulatory law.

Some countries that have gone the taxation route have regretted it; the income is nice but then politicians become loathe to further suppress the product because of this revenue.  Also, taxation encourages black markets and smuggling.  Better to just have the government handle it and keep prices at a level where you don't get criminal involvement.

Take the glamor out of these products too with gray-box no-branding no-advertising policies.

[The world needs you]

I approve of nationalization.

[Purifier]

I believe you, on 25 January 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

The campaign against smoking in America has largely worked putting smoking into decline. The reason of course is because it was regulated to include taxing it higher. Many simply quit when it became too expensive.

Everything I previously suggested has already been tried, we progressives know it works, and we can do it with other products that pose harm to society. We taxed Big Tobacco then used that money to pay for the programs that inform others with the knowledge that smoking kills.

Well it worked halfass, some of us ex-smokers switched over to chewing and dip tobacco. Others went on to other kinds of drugs. Have a relative and his friends that smokes cannabis and crack now because he thinks it's cheaper. And there's more toxins in the use of those drugs than tobacco.

Bet nobody saw that happening...or did they?

[Frank Merton]

Purifier, on 25 January 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

Well it worked halfass, some of us ex-smokers switched over to chewing and dip tobacco. Others went on to other kinds of drugs. Have a relative and his friends that smokes cannabis and crack now because he thinks it's cheaper. And there's more toxins in the use of those drugs than tobacco.

Yea -- its like putting criminals in jail only works halfass -- you reduce crime some but you don't eliminate it and the jails have their own bad effects.

We do what we can.  Over time the generations that got hooked will die off and hopefully new smokers, once the profit motive is removed, can be prevented.  Now we have new smokers because there is profit to the tobacco companies in hooking them.