Why can't we totally ban smoking?

[blade123]

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.))

Craving wise, tobacco is the worst. However the actual kicking tobacco can't hold a candle to opiates or benzos.

As someone who has used a ton of drugs, the only one I still get cravings for is tobacco.

However kicking cocaine after I ODed was definitely interesting (paranoia, feeling "on edge", aural hallucinations...trying to sleep with someone whispering in your ear is interesting). I still get some cravings for it, but not as much as tobacco. But then again I haven't used it as much as tobacco.

But cravings-wise, tobacco has to be the worst. Especially at school, walking past smokers every single day and having is smell soooo good.

 

[mishrashubham]

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.

Going by that logic, the entire healthcare system itself is a liability.

 

[Pengwuino]

Going by that logic, the entire healthcare system itself is a liability.

It is. Just because something is a liability doesn't mean we don't want it. It's like a home mortgage. Sure it's a debt and costs money, but you still want your house right?

You're really not getting this, are you? We're not encouraging people to go out and smoke and die early. We're saying dying before living to an older age where medical costs can soar benefits the system. It's just like people who pay home insurance and never have a thing happen to their house benefits the system, even if it was detrimental to the home owner who had to pay for their insurance their entire life.

 

[Evo]

What does a pack of cigarettes cost a smoker, the smoker's family, and society? This longitudinal study on the private and social costs of smoking calculates that the cost of smoking to a 24-year-old woman smoker is $86,000 over a lifetime; for a 24-year-old male smoker the cost is $183,000. The total social cost of smoking over a lifetime—including both private costs to the smoker and costs imposed on others (including second-hand smoke and costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security)—comes to $106,000 for a woman and $220,000 for a man.

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.

 

[mishrashubham]

It is. Just because something is a liability doesn't mean we don't want it. It's like a home mortgage. Sure it's a debt and costs money, but you still want your house right?

Exactly my point. Just because treating smokers costs money doesn't mean we simply let them die does it? So saying that smoking is good because it saves the system money is not logical. Sure it was their decision, but the aim is to help them start a new life and give them a chance and not let them suffer due to that wrong decision.

EDIT: Just noticed the edit

You're really not getting this, are you? We're not encouraging people to go out and smoke and die early. We're saying dying before living to an older age where medical costs can soar benefits the system. It's just like people who pay home insurance and never have a thing happen to their house benefits the system, even if it was detrimental to the home owner who had to pay for their insurance their entire life.

Like Evo already said, a poor man who smokes and dies leaves behind a helpless family with no source of income, and who become a heavier burden on the society.

 

[Pengwuino]

Exactly my point. Just because treating smokers costs money doesn't mean we simply let them die does it? So saying that smoking is good because it saves the system money is not logical. Sure it was their decision, but the aim is to help them start a new life and give them a chance and not let them suffer due to that wrong decision.

Ok I see where this got started. Yes, you of course treat them. However, I think the point we've been trying to get across is if they die early because of the cancer (I believe lung cancer is one of the cancers that has a higher mortality rate), they aren't going to live on to face the various problems people typically face near the end of their life. I'm currently under the impression that as you get further beyond the average life expectancy, your medical costs soar. If you get lung cancer in your 40s or 50s and you survive it, that's about it. If you're 80 and you get cancer, that's usually the tip of the iceberg. Not that I mean to trivialize lung cancer, I'm just saying as you get very old, the problems don't become isolated incidents anymore.

So basically, the point I'm trying to get across is that of course you want to treat someone, but if they die, it will benefit the system considering the average costs of health care as you get old.

 

[Evo]

Ok I see where this got started. Yes, you of course treat them. However, I think the point we've been trying to get across is if they die early because of the cancer (I believe lung cancer is one of the cancers that has a higher mortality rate), they aren't going to live on to face the various problems people typically face near the end of their life. I'm currently under the impression that as you get further beyond the average life expectancy, your medical costs soar. If you get lung cancer in your 40s or 50s and you survive it, that's about it. If you're 80 and you get cancer, that's usually the tip of the iceberg. Not that I mean to trivialize lung cancer, I'm just saying as you get very old, the problems don't become isolated incidents anymore.

So basically, the point I'm trying to get across is that of course you want to treat someone, but if they die, it will benefit the system considering the average costs of health care as you get old.

But lung cancer from smoking is most prevalent among the elderly, around 70.

Lung cancer is most common in the elderly. The average age of people diagnosed with lung cancer is 70 years old.

http://menshealth.about.com/od/cancer/a/lung_cancer.htm

 

[Pythagorean]

Craving wise, tobacco is the worst. However the actual kicking tobacco can't hold a candle to opiates or benzos.

As someone who has used a ton of drugs, the only one I still get cravings for is tobacco.

However kicking cocaine after I ODed was definitely interesting (paranoia, feeling "on edge", aural hallucinations...trying to sleep with someone whispering in your ear is interesting). I still get some cravings for it, but not as much as tobacco. But then again I haven't used it as much as tobacco.

But cravings-wise, tobacco has to be the worst. Especially at school, walking past smokers every single day and having is smell soooo good.

Well, yeah, that's the thing. It seems that with a hard drug, you can lock yourself away for a couple weeks (go out to the cabin, out on a boat, to a rehab clinic, a friend's out in the country). The experience is crap; enough for lots of people not to want to go back in once its over. Sometimes dramatic enough to change a person outright.

With cigarettes, I've done that several times and always came right back (the withdrawal symptoms are hardly noticeable, except for the raging caveman/toddler being in your stream of consciousness that wants you to give in... but that withdrawal symptom lasts for the rest of your life, albeit with diminishing effect over time). There's no character building from the withdrawal process; no tearing down and rebuilding of the psych.

To quit, I had to basically do an extensive psychological self-deprogramming (with the help of Allen Carr's mysterious wonder, "The Easy Method..."). I remember even thinking some of the neuro/psych in it was hokey, but I read on and it worked. Society accepts it, companies advertise it, the government banks off it, and the drug itself rewires your whole reward system for the rest of your life. At this point, it only counts against it that the physical withdrawal symptoms are trivial. Makes it easier to give into one of the millions of constant barrages of cravings that come in after quitting.

It's such a trivial little thing.. one cigarette won't hurt... maybe just a puff first, maybe that will be enough... maybe I'll just walk by somebody smoking and take a deep breath...

 

[arildno]

You can argue whatever you want, but I STILL want my cigarettes!

 

[Evo]

You can argue whatever you want, but I STILL want my cigarettes!

Poor arildno.

 

[dlgoff]

Lovely, another "why smoking is good for you and others" thread.

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.

I smoked for over 30 years. I knew I was a dumb s..t for doing it but it's very addictive.

I agree here. Smokers don't want to admit it's not good.

 

[KingNothing]

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.

I believe I read the same study you did, but the researchers admitted that they didn't take into account a lot of other things.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

My problem with this is that we all now live in societies who consider health care to be a collective problem. So while on the one hand, the government can't tell you what to put into your body, the government (the other citizens) have to pay to fix it when you screw it up.

Personal freedom and personal responsibility are two edges of the same sword, but most western societies today are choosing to keep personal freedom while forcing others to relieve them of their personal responsibility.

 

[arildno]

Smokers don't want to admit it's not good.

It's not?
Time for another one..

 

[SteveL27]

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?

How'd it work out when we banned beer in this country?

If you banned smoking, all you would end up doing would be to empower criminals with a new black market in which to make money.

Nicotine is the most addictive drug in the world, right up there with heroin. In prison when they ban cigarettes, people stop using hard drugs and start trading for ciggies.

What you are suggesting would be an unmitigated law enforcement and public safety disaster. You would bring the drug war to the suburbs of America.

 

[Hells]

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.

I'm not convinced it would be the same, if starters it's would be a lot harder to hide the smoking. It would also make cigarettes a lot pricier.

 

[blade123]

Well, yeah, that's the thing. It seems that with a hard drug, you can lock yourself away for a couple weeks (go out to the cabin, out on a boat, to a rehab clinic, a friend's out in the country). The experience is crap; enough for lots of people not to want to go back in once its over. Sometimes dramatic enough to change a person outright.

With cigarettes, I've done that several times and always came right back (the withdrawal symptoms are hardly noticeable, except for the raging caveman/toddler being in your stream of consciousness that wants you to give in... but that withdrawal symptom lasts for the rest of your life, albeit with diminishing effect over time). There's no character building from the withdrawal process; no tearing down and rebuilding of the psych.

To quit, I had to basically do an extensive psychological self-deprogramming (with the help of Allen Carr's mysterious wonder, "The Easy Method..."). I remember even thinking some of the neuro/psych in it was hokey, but I read on and it worked. Society accepts it, companies advertise it, the government banks off it, and the drug itself rewires your whole reward system for the rest of your life. At this point, it only counts against it that the physical withdrawal symptoms are trivial. Makes it easier to give into one of the millions of constant barrages of cravings that come in after quitting.

It's such a trivial little thing.. one cigarette won't hurt... maybe just a puff first, maybe that will be enough... maybe I'll just walk by somebody smoking and take a deep breath...

With hard drugs, I feel more of a desire to go back to living how I was. It's so carefree when you're loaded all the time. Whenever school gets rough or life starts to suck, I wish I could just be screwing around and loaded. It's so much simpler and carefree. Unsustainable, but easy.

With tobacco though, it's more the actual substance calling me back. You can live a normal life and be tobacco'd. You can't live a normal life geeked out or nodding off, which is kind of the draw...

 

[I_am_learning]

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*.

2.Smoker's die early, which actually saves us money.
Are you saying, "Let them smoke, Let them smoke and die fast (and hard), so that we don't have to look after them to old age"
How much selfish can you get?

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.

 

[Tosh5457]

My problem with this is that we all now live in societies who consider health care to be a collective problem. So while on the one hand, the government can't tell you what to put into your body, the government (the other citizens) have to pay to fix it when you screw it up.

Personal freedom and personal responsibility are two edges of the same sword, but most western societies today are choosing to keep personal freedom while forcing others to relieve them of their personal responsibility.

Maybe taxes can cover the healthcare cost? As long as taxes on tobacco and alcohol cover the costs of the increased healthcare costs it's fine, but I don't know if this happens.

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 ban on drugs is illogical. In Portugal it's allowed to use any drug since 1999 (it's illegal to sell them though) and there were no increased use of drugs, in fact it has been diminuishing. Prohibiting the use of heavy drugs obviously isn't going to stop most drug addicts from using them, drug addicts shouldn't be treated as criminals...

 

[Evo]

So, to come to conclusion, I found too things mentioned2.Smoker's die early, which actually saves us money.
Are you saying, "Let them smoke, Let them smoke and die fast (and hard), so that we don't have to look after them to old age"
.

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

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3439363&postcount=37

Ok I see where this got started. Yes, you of course treat them. However, I think the point we've been trying to get across is if they die early because of the cancer (I believe lung cancer is one of the cancers that has a higher mortality rate), they aren't going to live on to face the various problems people typically face near the end of their life. I'm currently under the impression that as you get further beyond the average life expectancy, your medical costs soar. If you get lung cancer in your 40s or 50s and you survive it, that's about it. If you're 80 and you get cancer, that's usually the tip of the iceberg. Not that I mean to trivialize lung cancer, I'm just saying as you get very old, the problems don't become isolated incidents anymore.

So basically, the point I'm trying to get across is that of course you want to treat someone, but if they die, it will benefit the system considering the average costs of health care as you get old.

But lung cancer from smoking is most prevalent among the elderly, around 70.

Lung cancer is most common in the elderly. The average age of people diagnosed with lung cancer is 70 years old.

http://menshealth.about.com/od/cancer/a/lung_cancer.htm

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3439318&postcount=34

What does a pack of cigarettes cost a smoker, the smoker's family, and society? This longitudinal study on the private and social costs of smoking calculates that the cost of smoking to a 24-year-old woman smoker is $86,000 over a lifetime; for a 24-year-old male smoker the cost is $183,000. The total social cost of smoking over a lifetime—including both private costs to the smoker and costs imposed on others (including second-hand smoke and costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security)—comes to $106,000 for a woman and $220,000 for a man.

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.

 

[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?