Why can't we totally ban smoking?

  • #1
677
16
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?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
25
1
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.
 
  • #3
677
16
Why are other drugs banned then?
 
  • #4
472
0
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?
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.
 
  • #5
472
0
Why are other drugs banned then?
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?
 
  • #6
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
712
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.
 
  • #7
472
0
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.
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.
 
  • #8
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,260
301
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?
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.

SEATTLE -- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said police raided multiple locations in Seattle and Western Washington Wednesday to stop illegal trafficking in contraband cigarettes.

...The imported cigarettes do not bear valid State of Washington tax stamps.

Since the cigarettes are not legally imported or manufactured in the U.S., federal taxes that would normally be due on them are not paid. As a result, they are sold for much less than legal cigarettes cost, the ATF said
.
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:
  • #9
cristo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
8,107
73
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.
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.
 
  • #10
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
712
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.
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.
 
  • #11
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,260
301
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.
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.
 
  • #12
472
0
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.
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.
 
  • #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....
 
  • #14
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
712
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.
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.
 
  • #15
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
132
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?
Do you really want to hurt me?
Do you really want to make me cry?


I WANT MY CIGARETTES!!!!!!
 
  • #16
30
0
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.
 
  • #17
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.
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?
 
  • #18
Evo
Mentor
23,172
2,914
Lovely, another "why smoking is good for you and others" thread. :rolleyes:
 
  • #19
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
132
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.
 
  • #20
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
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?
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.
 
  • #21
918
16
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.
This is no small issue. I used to work for an insurance company and I planned out one of their pension plans. Unfortunately, the people didn't die fast enough.

A ban on cigarettes would not be cheap. I don't think we can afford it right now. I wish that instead of dreaming up new ways for the government to spend money, we were working on ways to do without some of what it spends now.
 
  • #22
Evo
Mentor
23,172
2,914
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.
Who do you think is footing the outrageous bills for their healthcare in many cases, medicare/medicaid. If they die and are married or have children under age 18, their spouse and children get Social Security survivor's benefits, capped at $3,600 a month. People with cancer can be a huge drain on the system.

Let's not be silly, this is serious.
 
  • #23
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
132
What about forced smoking if you are to receive social welfare, Jimmy?
Wouldn't that take care of the debt problems?
 
  • #24
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,214
272
you jerks, tobacco addiction is a disease!

(i'm three months nicotine free! It was much harder then quitting crack and heroine).





((ok, that was a joke, I wasn't addicted to crack and heroine, but I've heard that cigarettes are the most difficult to quit, and I still have terrible, depressing urges to light up. It feels empty in my chest like I've been dumped by the love of my life whenever I realize I don't smoke anymore. Very strange addiction.))
 
  • #25
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,214
272
You guys may appreciate this paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2742626/

Nicotinic modulation of synaptic transmission and plasticity in cortico-limbic circuits
Huibert D. Mansvelder, Marjolijn Mertz, and Lorna W. Roleb
Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2009 June; 20(4): 432–440.
 

Related Threads on Why can't we totally ban smoking?

  • Last Post
5
Replies
118
Views
9K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
85
Views
7K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
68
Views
6K
Replies
62
Views
14K
Replies
21
Views
3K
Top