Why can't we totally ban smoking?

[Adyssa]

And lastly, I would like to ask, how is the addiction? I mean if I locked you in your house with no supply of cigarates for months, can't you really survive? I can supply every other things, like, Movies, Games etc.

I've smoked for 15 years. I've given up once for a full year, and taken it back up. My smoking habits are probably at an all time low right now, that is, I smoke about 2-3 cigarettes on an average day, but I hit them pretty hard if I go out for a night on the drink (say 10-15+).

I can go a day, or two or three without a cigarette and it can be fine - depends on what I'm doing. However, kicking it completely is a very different story. Particularly when your lifestyle involves being around them (the pub, uni, etc). I find it very difficult to sit around with a few beers and not smoke.

If I were to go camping for a month, or 6, with no smokes, I'm sure I would handle it fine, but when I got back I know I would be hanging on every whiff in the first bar I visited. I've come to the conclusion that I will be addicted forever. I need a very different lifestyle to remove them from my life.

 

[I_am_learning]

Did you actually read anything that was posted in this thread? This has been proven false.

Sorry for missing the point.
So, what is the answer then? (to the OP)

 

[Evo]

Sorry for missing the point.
So, what is the answer then? (to the OP)

The answer is that the tobacco lobbies still pay politicians. Politicians want money. I doubt that a vote to ban cigarette smoking would win.

There are many countries that ban cigarette smoking, like Saudi Arabia.

"In view of the harm caused by tobacco, growing, trading in and smoking of tobacco are judged to be haram (forbidden). The Prophet, peace be upon him, is reported to have said, 'Do not harm yourselves or others.' Furthermore, tobacco is unwholesome, and God says in the Qur'an that the Prophet, peace be upon him, 'enjoins upon them that which is good and pure, and forbids them that which is unwholesome'" (Permanent Committee of Academic Research and Fatwa, Saudi Arabia).

http://islam.about.com/od/health/a/smoking_fatwa.htm

Alcohol consumption is also illegal, as are drugs.

Persons violating Saudi Arabian laws, even unknowingly, may be expelled, arrested, imprisoned, or even executed. Suspects may be detained without charges or legal counsel, and with limited consular access, for months during the investigative stage of criminal cases. Penalties for the import, manufacture, possession, and consumption of alcohol or illegal drugs in Saudi Arabia are severe. Convicted offenders can expect long jail sentences, heavy fines, public floggings, and/or deportation. The penalty for drug trafficking in Saudi Arabia is death. Saudi officials make no exceptions

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1012.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The answer is that the tobacco lobbies still pay politicians. Politicians want money.

Are you suggesting this is the only reason?

 

[Evo]

Are you suggesting this is the only reason?

No, I said this

The answer is that the tobacco lobbies still pay politicians. Politicians want money. I doubt that a vote to ban cigarette smoking would win. (smokers)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=10298&ttype=2

Don't forget that a person with a variety of smoke caused medical conditions can live a long, but medically costly life, double whammy on society.

One factor that is distinct in this study is the calculation of “quasi-external cost,” which the authors define as the cost of freedom of choice to the family members of smokers, including children who are nonsmokers.

That's interesting!

 

[Ken Natton]

I find an undercurrent of cynicism running through most of the arguments put on this thread. I don’t believe that any Western government makes its decisions about permitting tobacco use or banning drug use on the basis of tax revenues or health care costs. Those things are simply not the issue.

I believe that it is right that tobacco use is not banned and that the use of ‘recreational drugs’, as they are sometimes called is banned, and I’ll try to explain why. There was a time when opiate use was unchecked except for by practical access and, I suppose, knowledge of its existence. What experience taught at that time is just how destructive a thing drug use could be. People who were well educated, effective contributory members of society were turned into useless wasters, unable to do anything effective. There is good reason to believe that extensive recreational drug use as an acceptable social phenomenon has the potential to undermine the very workings of society. Tobacco, however addictive and whatever the issues of passive smoking does not do that. In 1950s and 60s Britain smoking was extremely pervasive. That had a very powerful effect on health, but it did not undermine society. Even the heaviest smokers were still able to perform their roles effectively until it took its toll on their health. That, I believe, is the difference.

 

[arildno]

Hi, Ken!
Yes, it is the horrid experiences of how opium use degraded the users in Malaysia, China and the underground in London etc. in degrees far worse than alcohol abuse that led to a commitment to ban these drugs.

For those who naively wish to let these drugs onto the free market, they really ought to read some nineteenth century history.

 

[Stengah]

So, to come to conclusion, I found too things mentioned
1. Government shouldn't tell us what we should put in our mouth, it can only suggest.
Logical Enough. But as already mentioned, Why does it ban other drugs then? There are in fact lots of instances where government has told us how we should live. aren't there? Then why not in this case, for everybody's benefit*.

The government SHOULD legalize other drugs. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have said this very clearly. It SHOULD NOT allow people to bother others with their habits though. So only private use should be allowed. We should educate people on the effects of using drugs, but stop spending enormous amounts of money trying to prevent from using. If they are motivated enough they will still find a way. And who pays for it once we lock them up? You and me.

BTW I have never used drugs except alcohol.

 

[arildno]

Should substances like cyanide and industrial waste ALSO be available at the free private market?

If not, what specific criteria do you think should be used to distinguish between products that can circulate freely and those that should not?

 

[Ken Natton]

Should substances like cyanide and industrial waste ALSO be available at the free private market?

If not, what specific criteria do you think should be used to distinguish between products that can circulate freely and those that should not?

I’m not sure I see the connection with the subject of this thread arildno. Cyanide is clearly a very dangerous substance. It wouldn’t necessarily require someone with evil intent, only someone to be careless in handling it and it could create a major incident involving significant risk to public health. I’m not sure what the legitimate uses of cyanide would be, but industry certainly does handle some pretty dangerous substances. They aren’t generally banned, but there are very strict restrictions on how they are handled and requirements in terms of containing them. That is a general matter of good health and safety practice. I don’t see it as the same issue as tobacco and drugs use.

 

[arildno]

I’m not sure I see the connection with the subject of this thread arildno. Cyanide is clearly a very dangerous substance. It wouldn’t necessarily require someone with evil intent, only someone to be careless in handling it and it could create a major incident involving significant risk to public health. I’m not sure what the legitimate uses of cyanide would be, but industry certainly does handle some pretty dangerous substances. They aren’t generally banned, but there are very strict restrictions on how they are handled and requirements in terms of containing them. That is a general matter of good health and safety practice. I don’t see it as the same issue as tobacco and drugs use.

That comment was to the one advocating full liberalization of drugs, not you.

"Free trade" does NOT mean that every conceivable product should be in unregulated circulation, but that the historically pervasive system of trade priveleges/guild structures
is a generally wrong form of market regulation.

 

[flyingpig]

Gangs will sell them illegally, which is a even bigger problem

 

[Evo]

The government SHOULD legalize other drugs. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have said this very clearly.

And they're crackpots.

IMO.

 

[SteveL27]

And they're crackpots.

IMO.

Three questions:

1) Famous conservative icon William F. Buckley advocated legalization of all drugs. So did former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz. They both noted the futility and practical failure of the drug war. Are Wm. F. Buckley and George Schultz crackpots too?

2) Is anyone who disagrees with you a crackpot? Or can you provide a logical argument in favor of a drug war that's cost hundreds of billions of dollars, imprisoned millions of Americans, most of them poor and/or minorities, and that has resulted in drugs being more available than ever?

3) Alcohol is responsible for a huge amount of disease, death, and human misery in America. The U.S. once tried banning alcohol. The result was the same as we see with our war on drugs: the rise of organized crime; the imprisonment of otherwise law-abiding Americans; many deaths from adulterated alcohol due to the black market nature of the product; and in the end, a failure to stop anyone from drinking.

Do you think the U.S. should return to the days of alcohol prohibition?

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe taxes can cover the healthcare cost?

Well that's exactly the problem I was talking about! That means people want the freedom to be irresponsible but want others to pay for it.

 

[Evo]

2) Is anyone who disagrees with you a crackpot? Or can you provide a logical argument in favor of a drug war that's cost hundreds of billions of dollars, imprisoned millions of Americans, most of them poor and/or minorities, and that has resulted in drugs being more available than ever?

I said IMO, so I don't have to respond, I've posted many times on the crackpot things Ron Paul has said.

Here's an article for you though.

The phrase “crackpot” comes immediately to mind—and in any contemporary political dictionary that term would appear alongside a photograph of Congressman Ron Paul.

The Mad Doctor, who proudly consorts with 9/11 Truthers, announced his third race for the nation’s highest office on Friday the 13th (appropriately enough)

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/dailybe...identialcandidatesaddledtakeonpersonalliberty

 

[SteveL27]

I said IMO, so I don't have to respond, I've posted many times on the crackpot things Ron Paul has said.

Here's an article for you though.




http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/dailybe...identialcandidatesaddledtakeonpersonalliberty

Yes, but the subject is banning ciggies, and the obvious parallels to banning recreational drugs. Can you discuss Ron Paul's view on drug legalization without an ad hominem attack on other views he holds that you might not agree with? And how did Gary Johnson become a crackpot in your mind? He's the successful two-term ex-governor of New Mexico, well known for his opposition to the drug war. Even though this is the politics section, we're still on the physics forum. Evidence and logical argument are to be encouraged; namecalling, we can leave to the Craigslist forums.

 

[Evo]

Yes, but the subject is banning ciggies, and the obvious parallels to banning recreational drugs. Can you discuss Ron Paul's view on drug legalization without an ad hominem attack on other views he holds that you might not agree with? And how did Gary Johnson become a crackpot in your mind? He's the successful two-term ex-governor of New Mexico, well known for his opposition to the drug war. Even though this is the politics section, we're still on the physics forum. Evidence and logical argument are to be encouraged; namecalling, we can leave to the Craigslist forums.

Anyone that thinks it's ok to legalize meth, crack, heroine, opium, etc.. has a screw loose, IMO.

Are you perhaps thinking of legalizing marijuana? That's completely different. Gary Johnson isn't on the same level with Paul, Johnson is only for legalizing pot. That's what I thought until you insinuated the two were the same in their views. They're not.

And yes, we need to stop going off topic onto drugs and alcohol, this is about cigarettes.

Anymore off topic references to anything other than cigarettes will be deleted from this point forward. Let's stay focused.

 

[SteveL27]

Anyone that thinks it's ok to legalize meth, crack, heroine, opium, etc.. has a screw loose, IMO.

Are you perhaps thinking of legalizing marijuana? That's completely different. Gary Johnson isn't on the same level with Paul, Johnson is only for legalizing pot. That's what I thought until you insinuated the two were the same in their views. They're not.

And yes, we need to keep going off topic onto drugs and alcohol, this is about cigarettes.

Anymore off topic references to anything other than cigarettes will be deleted from this point forward. Let's stay focused.

Wait. You respond to me on the topic of illegal drugs; make the claim that anyone who advocates complete drug legalization, which includes me, has a screw loose; and then you put on your moderator hat and forbid me to respond.

So you tell me I have a screw loose and then tell me I'm not allowed to respond?

Ok.

 

[Evo]

Wait. You respond to me on the topic of illegal drugs; make the claim that anyone who advocates complete drug legalization, which includes me, has a screw loose; and then you put on your moderator hat and forbid me to respond.

So you tell me I have a screw loose and then tell me I'm not allowed to respond?

Ok.

I had no idea that you personally were for legalizing those hard core drugs, so it had nothing to do with you. We don't discuss use of anything illegal here.

And this thread is about cigarettes.

Back to cigarettes.

 

[SteveL27]

I had no idea that you personally were for legalizing those hard core drugs, so it had nothing to do with you. We don't discuss use of anything illegal here.

And this thread is about cigarettes.

Back to cigarettes.

But still -- you made YOUR rhetorical point -- that people holding a particular view had a screw loose. Then as moderator, you forbade response. Don't you think that's a tiny bit unfair behavior from a moderator? If you're going to end the discussion, that's your right; but you can't just sneak in one more namecall.

FWIW I'm a pretty sane and reasonable person, happy to discuss the legalization of ALL behavior among consenting adults. One need not have a screw loose to recognize the futility and collateral damage of the drug war. But we need not have that discussion here.

 

[ThomasT]

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?

I would suppose that one of the main reasons for not "making a total ban on big cigarette companies" in the US is because of the negative effect it would have on the general economy. There are large numbers of people and amounts of money involved in the manufacture, distribution and sales of smokes.

Then there's the money that's paid by the government wrt Medicare costs of smoking related problems that finds its way back into the general economy.

Then there's the huge expansion of the underground smokes market and the problems associated with that.

Then there's the idea that cigarettes and smoking are rather far down on a reasonable prioritized list of things that our elected representatives should be attending to.

Cigarettes are regulated enough as it is, imo. State and federal governments get substantial revenues from their sales, they aren't advertised, and smoking is banned in virtually all enclosed public places, which should be enough big brother nannying for even the most hard core prohibitionists.

And, for the politician looking to get reelected, there's the percentage of the estimated 60 million American smokers who vote.

 

[ThomasT]

One need not have a screw loose to recognize the futility and collateral damage of the drug war. But we need not have that discussion here.

I agree, and it's a good topic for another thread.

 

[Evo]

I agree, and it's a good topic for another thread.

But only the drug war on marijuana. We already have a history on hard drugs.

Read these posts, "Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it".

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3439958&postcount=57

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3440032&postcount=58

 

[ThomasT]

But only the drug war on marijuana. We already have a history on hard drugs.

Read these posts, "Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it".

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3439958&postcount=57

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3440032&postcount=58

What's this got to do with starting a new thread to discuss drug legalization/decriminalization and the futility and collateral damage of the 'war on drugs'?

 

[Evo]

What's this got to do with starting a new thread to discuss drug legalization/decriminalization and the futility and collateral damage of the 'war on drugs'?

Because the "war on drugs" he cited was actually to do with marijuana, not hard drugs. Gary Johnson only talks about marijuana. Only Ron Paul goes off the deep end without any facts or reasoning.

We've already had a number of threads on legalizing pot, so no need to go there again, nothing's changed.

Back to cigarettes, or is this thread over?

 

[Galteeth]

I highly criticize the smoking and want that it should get ban as soon as , there should be a strict law ato oppose it.

I feel the same way about bad spelling.

But seriously, I think the crux of these issues (like a similar thread about banning music) is not one based on arguing facts but rather a philosophical and moral position. Many people today accept de facto that society is a collectivist enterprise, and that the role of government is to serve the interests of the collective. Everyone knows smoking isn't good for you, but it comes down not so much to a notion of personal freedom as general ideology. I agree with the posters that the logic for making things like marijuana or heroin illegal can be applied to cigarettes. I also agree that by the same logic, stress, or anything else bad for you, should be regulated. The division between retained freedoms and banned activities is always drawn somewhere, and economics is a big factor. Your economy can't function if you don't allow for any demand. But people arguing about something like is who are coming from different a priori moral/philosophical perspectives will always be talking around each other.

 

[drankin]

Here is the spiral I see. We create a mandatory national health care system. Then, because it effects the costs to the system, we ban your various lifestyles.

Eventually, your liberties are dictated by the healthcare system. Mountain climbing? Banned. Car racing? Banned. Extreme sports? Banned. Spending more than an hour in the sunshine? Banned. Eating a second bag of salty popcorn? Banned.

 

[Loren Booda]

Cigarettes are seductive, with short term pleasure and long term suffering.

The foremost reason they are legal is because society has tolerated them until the relatively recent scientific acknowledgment of their insidious destructiveness.

Smokers may think that they have a superior argument for their habit, but abstainers will outlive any of that convoluted logic.

(I quit marijuana 27 years ago after 12 years of heaven and hell.)

 

[arildno]

Do you want to ban ME as well, Loren, from being addicted to those banworthy cigarettes??

 

[Loren Booda]

Do you want to ban ME as well, Loren, from being addicted to those banworthy cigarettes??

To air is human.

He who is without singe, cast the first stone.

Before criticizing a man, walk defiled in his shoes.

 

[arildno]

To air is human.

He who is without singe, cast the first stone.

Before criticizing a man, walk defiled in his shoes.

 

[Meteora]

Cigarette is too integrated into the society, advertisements, taxes, social status it brings. Plus it is a drug lots of people are addicted to, if you suddenly ban it, many smokers will become neuropaths. We also know that quitting smoking suddenly is dangerous as well. Only way smoking could be banned was when it spreaded first, which is ofcourse impossible now.

Only way to stop people from smoking is through education and that, for me, is an utopia.

 

[ForMyThunder]

At the beginning of this year, Spain placed a ban on public smoking. Which I think is fantastic since a lot of people don't want to be exposed to second hand. If you want to smoke, do it in a place where it only kills you.