Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Why can't we totally ban smoking?

  1. Aug 6, 2011 #1
    Whats all the fuss about, Compulsory mentioning of smoking hazard in cigrate Boxes, No smoking zones, Taxes on Cigrates, Ban on advertisement, etc etc to make smoking harder.
    When we all know that smoking is hazardous, what stops politicians from making a total ban on big Cirgrate companies? I simply can't understand this two way behavioral.
    Are we really greedy of the taxes they pay?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 6, 2011 #2
    Who are we to determine what people should do? The best we can do is give the proper warnings etc and let people determine for themselves what they should or should not do. If they want to smoke, then they would just have to face the consequences.
     
  4. Aug 6, 2011 #3
    Why are other drugs banned then?
     
  5. Aug 6, 2011 #4
    Well, it is a lot of tax money. But to ban smoking and not ban alcohol would be sort of inconsistent -- not that our system of laws is a paragon of consistency.

    A more interesting question for me concerns why politicians started with this anti-cigarette crusade in the first place. It's not like they don't have more important things to attend to.
     
  6. Aug 6, 2011 #5
    Ignorance?

    Politicians can totally ban smoking, but would that put cigarettes more or less totally in the control of the criminal underworld? Then droopy-drawered gangstas can have something else to sell on the streets besides marijuana, cocaine and dope?
     
  7. Aug 6, 2011 #6

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    If alcohol was discovered today it would be banned and classified as a class A drug (UK system). Tobacco too, the reason they are not banned is because they are too ingrained in society.

    The reason why they should not be banned is because it is not the job of government to tell people what they can and can't do when that decision affects no one but themselves. Smoking bans for public places address the danger of second hand smoke, not smoking on the individual.
     
  8. Aug 6, 2011 #7
    I agree. This is America after all.

    I'm 64 years old and grew up in a world full of smoke. People smoked everywhere. My mom and dad both smoked. Our living room had its own weather system. Now you can't even smoke in bars or outside at a ball game, and they're talking about banning smoking totally, including in a person's own home. It's ridiculous, especially in light of the financial/economic problems that politicians at all levels of government have wrought.
     
  9. Aug 6, 2011 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Beyond issues of liberty and personal choice, it would merely create a new black market and all of the crime that goes along with it. In fact, even the taxes on cigarettes have created a black market.

    .
    http://www.kirotv.com/news/28538135/detail.html [Broken]

    We've been "fighting a war on drugs" since the Reagan administration and we can all see how well that has worked. Now we are trying to recreate the same mess with cigarettes.

    I wonder which cost more; the failure to collect taxes on Vietnamese cigarettes, or the money spent trying to catch them.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  10. Aug 6, 2011 #9

    cristo

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Why should a non-smoker have to breathe in someone's stale, second-hand smoke in a bar, or have to sit next to someone smoking at a baseball game? Do what you like in your own home, but not in public places.
     
  11. Aug 6, 2011 #10

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Point of order; there are many other countries than the US that have similar issues and this site has an international membership.

    There is a big difference between making a choice that affects you and making a choice that affects others. If you smoke around people that don't want to smoke you are putting them at risk, their risk wins over your choice.
     
  12. Aug 6, 2011 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    As much as I agree with you it is more complicated than that. When a person gets addicted to nicotine and smoking, they becomes a liability to the health care system. But that goes to lifestyle choice and is also true of fat and salt intake, alcohol intake, exercise, the amount of sleep that one gets, where one chooses to live, and on and on. In fact stress is likely more harmful than smoking, so by the nanny-State logic, we should regulate stress as well.
     
  13. Aug 6, 2011 #12
    Well, they shouldn't have to. That's why, in the olden days when public smoking was the norm, I would always ask people near to me if they would be bothered if I smoked. And if they said yes, then I would blow it directly into their face. Actually that only happened a couple of times ... in bars when I was drunk.

    Seriously though, has anybody actually ever died from breathing second hand smoke in a bar? I just don't get the ban on bar smoking. Yes it's smelly and disgusting, but that was always an integral part of the bar scene. (At least the sleazy ones. And the sleazier the better as far as I was concerned.) Now everything's so clean and healthy. There seems to be some sort of ordinance or law for just about everything, and I don't like that.

    By the way, I'm 64, have been smoking for more than half a century, play tennis more or less competitively a couple times a day, and actually am quite conscientious about where and when I smoke.
     
  14. Aug 6, 2011 #13
    My street is filled with smokers and walking past them everyday, I have developed sort of an instinctive action of blocking my nose with the base of my tongue. Heck the local carcinogen concentration is going to kill me someday....
     
  15. Aug 6, 2011 #14

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I agree with the health care thing however the duty on such things could be channelled into dealing with that (easier if you have an NHS) or result in an increase in your insurance payments.
     
  16. Aug 6, 2011 #15

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Do you really want to hurt me?
    Do you really want to make me cry?


    I WANT MY CIGARETTES!!!!!!
     
  17. Aug 6, 2011 #16
    Actually, one interesting thing I read was that smokers SAVE our healthcare system money. Of course it costs because of the cancers they get, but they die off so early that it actually balances out and goes the other way. (I can't find the source, so there's a good chance I might be blowing smoke)

    So if you want to save the healthcare system some money, pick up a pack of smokes.
     
  18. Aug 6, 2011 #17
    That is completely illogical. I wouldn't want to kill people in order to save money. If simply wanted to save money, why would I have a healthcare system in the first place?
     
  19. Aug 6, 2011 #18

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Lovely, another "why smoking is good for you and others" thread. :rolleyes:
     
  20. Aug 6, 2011 #19

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    It is not illogical at all.
    Many save money in insurance companies in order to get pensions.
    Those who die before they were to receive their pensions represent a net benefit, while those who become, say, 90+ are losses.
     
  21. Aug 6, 2011 #20

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Not illogical at all. It's just the reality of the situation. You're not killing people to save money; they're dying before they become a burden to the system. It's their decision.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Why can't we totally ban smoking?
  1. Global smoking ban? (Replies: 39)

Loading...