Why can't we totally ban smoking?

[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.