The reasons why smoking should be banned

[RisingKnowledge]

good point, but no - I think alcohol should be allowed.

why?

because most people do not become alcoholics, however virtually all cigarette smokers become addicted and have a very hard time quitting.

"As a result, teens who drink can be injured or killed, even the first time they try alcohol. In fact, alcohol is linked with an estimated 5,000 deaths in people under age 21 each year--more than all illegal drugs combined."

Deaths from Underage Drinking | The Cool Spot

 

[RisingKnowledge]

"There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes." Car Accident Statistics, Stats, Auto, Fatal, Drunk Driving

NO MORE DRIVING PEOPLE .

 

[nnmartin]

how about those who do not drink and drive though?

anyway, banning alcohol may have some value but it's another topic.

so should we ban tobacco or not?

 

[Poisonshady313]

how about those who do not drink and drive though?

How about those smokers who live long without lung cancer or heart disease?

The bottom line is, you can't talk about banning a substance without revisiting Prohibition. No matter how much you don't want it to be, it is exactly the same thing.

so should we ban tobacco or not?

No.

No good will come of it. Addicts won't just switch off their addiction because someone declares their drug "banned".

 

[LongGe123]

The old 1920's argument about prohibition and Al Capone etc....not again!
ok, that didn't work - but that was nearly 100 years ago - times have changed.
Marijuana is a restricted item that is generally only harmful because it is often mixed with tobacco.

There are many things that just don't work ,whenever you try them - take invading afghanistan or China for example. Banning cigarettes outright will not work. Simple.

But also, you're doing this thing again where you just want to deny people their basic freedom of choice. If people choose to smoke cigarettes in the privacy of their own homes, or in other places where it might be deemed ok (another smoker's home maybe, haha), then why shouldn't they? Banning public smoking is absolutely right, since others shouldn't be made to endure second-hand smoke.

There's another issue too, that you set an appalling precedent - in banning cigarettes in such a sweeping way, deeming them 'worthless' or 'wrong', you allow other groups to lobby for a complete ban on other items they consider the same. Are we to ban alcohol too? It causes violence and rioting, is linked to domestic violence, drunk-driving accidents, alcoholism destroying families...the list goes on. What else might be banned because of its dangers. Fast-food is making people fat, lets ban that. Let's ban all chocolate and candy because all it does is make us unhealthy and rot our teeth! Let's ban a bunch of websites as well, while we're at it!

Once again, I'm amazed at your ability to over-simplify every issue and make it seem like an open and shut case. There are many things in society that we might deem "useless" - but that doesn't mean we ban them. On your logic, we should be banning a lot more than cigarettes. And finally, as someone else alread no-doubt mentioned, you'd be robbing a nation not only of a major source of income, but also a fundamental freedom to choose!

 

[LongGe123]

how about those who do not drink and drive though?
anyway, banning alcohol may have some value but it's another topic.
so should we ban tobacco or not?

Banning alcohol is NOT another topic, as I mentioned in a post above. The principal is the same - you wish to ban cigarettes probably because you don't like them, and you see them as completely useless. Well, what if I don't drink and I see alcohol as completely useless - I think I'd like to ban it!

I know plenty of people who smoke but are not addicts. Once again you just make massive sweeping assumptions. Didn't you say you were living in Cambodia? Where are you getting all your information from? On what basis do you presume to make so many massive final judgments on so many complicated issues.

 

[nnmartin]

But also, you're doing this thing again where you just want to deny people their basic freedom of choice. If people choose to smoke cigarettes in the privacy of their own homes, or in other places where it might be deemed ok (another smoker's home maybe, haha), then why shouldn't they?

because it encourages others to smoke, and has health costs which the rest of society must bear.

Are we to ban alcohol too? It causes violence and rioting, is linked to domestic violence, drunk-driving accidents, alcoholism destroying families...the list goes on. What else might be banned because of its dangers. Fast-food is making people fat, lets ban that.

Each item can be looked at individually with the pros and cons of banning debated - they need not be linked to each other.

And finally, as someone else alread no-doubt mentioned, you'd be robbing a nation not only of a major source of income, but also a fundamental freedom to choose!

Some things you should not be able to choose to do though - such as drugs for example.

As for source of income - so what? - who really benefits financially anyway, other than corrupt tobacco corporations?

 

[DarkSun]

Smoking is a foul and pointless activity that does nothing of any real value.

In a modern nation we ought to do away with this unhealthy activity.

I cannot see any real benefits for smokers other than a short-term artificial stimulation that only damages ones body.

for sure, the tobacco companies benefit so they want to continue with their legalised form of drug addiction which reaps great rewards.

But the time has surely come to do away with this pointless habit.

Cigarettes should be banned.

any objections?

It won't work. Tell people to stop smoking cigarettes and they'll just do it anyway. The only way you're going to fix the problem is if people simply stop smoking of their own accord; not because a piece of paper says they aren't allowed to.

 

[LongGe123]

because it encourages others to smoke, and has health costs which the rest of society must bear.
Each item can be looked at individually with the pros and cons of banning debated - they need not be linked to each other.
Some things you should not be able to choose to do though - such as drugs for example.
As for source of income - so what? - who really benefits financially anyway, other than corrupt tobacco corporations?

I was talking about a source of revenue for the government - which MANY benefit from since the funds inevitably go into many different departments.

Saying that some people smoking encourages other to smoke is an incredibly weak argument, in my mind. Does my being gay encourage others to be gay? I mean, I DID say, smoke in the privacy of your own home. I don't think you can say it's "encouraging" others to. There is no advertising, no publicity, and every packet has a massive warning on it - where exactly is the encouragement? Even James Bond doesn't smoke any more - for the same reason! People think it makes a bad role model. If despite all this some people choose to do it, then hell it's up to them and who are you to tell them they can't.

I agree with you on the drugs issue, and I do advocate the legalization of certain more natural drugs, which can consequently be taxed and more revenue brought in to the national coffers. But, in our current society, tobacco and alcohol are among the "socially accepted" drugs category, and do indeed comprise something of a hypocrisy when it comes to a hardline on "drugs'. However, drugs like heroine and cocaine are harder to accept as "social" items, since their addictive nature is much more potent, and their dire consequences much more fast-moving. Too much so for our society to cope with today.

Anyway, main thing - you can't say some people smoking encourages others too - we could ba virtually anything based on that argument. Anything at all. Football encourages hooliganism - banned. Alcohol encourages binge-drinking - banned. Harry Potter encourages a belief in wicca and sorcery - banned. It's the use of that word "encourage" thats dangerous

 

[DarkSun]

Also, to everyone saying that smoking cigarettes is like drinking coffee etc, and that the arguments for banning cigarettes can be used for coffee too...

That's like comparing murder to genocide really. The scales are completely different, you can't compare apples and oranges.

 

[DarkSun]

Anyway, main thing - you can't say some people smoking encourages others too - we could ba virtually anything based on that argument. Anything at all. Football encourages hooliganism - banned. Alcohol encourages binge-drinking - banned. Harry Potter encourages a belief in wicca and sorcery - banned. It's the use of that word "encourage" thats dangerous

The thing is, you're using an equivocation fallacy. If prohibition of tobacco could work, then yes, it should be banned. It would do wonders for the economy by lowering the burden of tobacco-related disease, it would increase the life-expectancy of the population and increase the mean number of years people are able to work. It would also prevent human suffering. You can't compare banning Harry Potter to banning cigarettes, because the problems associated with cigarettes are very real, but the problems you've linked to Harry Potter are fanciful and unfounded. Also, I'm sorry, but the slippery slope from cigarrettes to harder drugs can and does happen. It's not a slippery slope fallacy when the slippery slope actually occurs.

If prohibition of smoking would work, it'd be a good thing. The problem is, it won't work. People will simply choose to get their tobacco elsewhere, and it'll be out of the government's control. Imo, I think the creator of this thread was a bit naive in saying some of the things he has.

 

[LongGe123]

The thing is, you're using an equivocation fallacy. If prohibition of tobacco could work, then yes, it should be banned. It would do wonders for the economy by lowering the burden of tobacco-related disease, it would increase the life-expectancy of the population and increase the mean number of years people are able to work. It would also prevent human suffering. You can't compare banning Harry Potter to banning cigarettes, because the problems associated with cigarettes are very real, but the problems you've linked to Harry Potter are fanciful and unfounded. Also, I'm sorry, but the slippery slope from cigarrettes to harder drugs can and does happen. It's not a slippery slope fallacy when the slippery slope actually occurs.
If prohibition of smoking would work, it'd be a good thing. The problem is, it won't work. People will simply choose to get their tobacco elsewhere, and it'll be out of the government's control. Imo, I think the creator of this thread was a bit naive in saying some of the things he has.

You realise that my tirade was quite against the proposed ban on tobacco, right? Also, you're making a leap of logic by assuming a ban would improve the economy - there's no telling what other ways people could be a burden to the economy - you're making out that smoking is somehow the truly defining factor. I agree on the economies you put forward on the whole, but at the same time, strange as it sounds, a population that lives longer also puts great strain on the economy.

But before i get into that bizarre region, I'll just stop myself. I believe anyway that you may not have noticed that I'm against banning tobacco for the very reason you also put - that it just wouldn't work. However, feeling the need to further reason it out, I also add that people like nnmartin would have no right to ban something like tobacco were he in a position to

As for Harry Potter, who are you to say that people's objections are "fanciful" - if that is what a nation genuinely believes. If a community sees no purpose in Harry Potter, and that it does more harm than good, according to nnmartin they are within their rights to ban it too. I believe that the government has done enough against smoking - and that people who still choose to smoke do so (by and large) through their own choice. Anti-smoking campaigns are maintained, and schools teach anti-smoking as their policy, what more do you want? You can't just rob people of a simple right like that.

 

[DarkSun]

You realise that my tirade was quite against the proposed ban on tobacco, right? Also, you're making a leap of logic by assuming a ban would improve the economy - there's no telling what other ways people could be a burden to the economy - you're making out that smoking is somehow the truly defining factor. I agree on the economies you put forward on the whole, but at the same time, strange as it sounds, a population that lives longer also puts great strain on the economy.

But before i get into that bizarre region, I'll just stop myself. I believe anyway that you may not have noticed that I'm against banning tobacco for the very reason you also put - that it just wouldn't work. However, feeling the need to further reason it out, I also add that people like nnmartin would have no right to ban something like tobacco were he in a position to.

Well, I agree. He would be out of his mind to try and ban tobacco because it wouldn't work. Just writing down on a piece of paper telling people to stop doing something bad for them won't make them stop. You'll notice that I'm saying that if people stopped smoking, it would benefit the economy. What I never said is that the economy would benefit if smoking were banned. I said it would benefit if people stopped smoking. The amount of tax the government reaps from selling tabacco at exorbitant prices would be counteracted by the fact that people will be able to live longer, be taxed for longer, work longer and work more efficiently. People living longer shouldn't put strain on the economy, people becoming incapable of supporting themselves does. Could you please explain how people living healthier for longer could possibly burden the economy? I don't really understand.

As for Harry Potter, who are you to say that people's objections are "fanciful" - if that is what a nation genuinely believes. If a community sees no purpose in Harry Potter, and that it does more harm than good, according to nnmartin they are within their rights to ban it too. I believe that the government has done enough against smoking - and that people who still choose to smoke do so (by and large) through their own choice. Anti-smoking campaigns are maintained, and schools teach anti-smoking as their policy, what more do you want? You can't just rob people of a simple right like that.

What people believe doesn't concern me. But here's some facts for you: smoking is correlated to cancer, it weakens the immune system and opens the body up to opportunistic infections, it depletes lung capacity and reduces your ability to work efficiently for extended periods of time, and over all due to increased oxidative stress, it decreases your life-expectancy. And Harry Potter does not make people wiccan. You can't compare the two and pretend your analogy is a good one (it's not).

I agree with you though. The government has done all it can to decrease the burden of disease in the US. It wouldn't be a bad idea for you lot to introduce free health care though, like they do in Australia. That'd mean they can tax people for smoking and help them recover from smoking faster at the same time.

 

[Shermana]

How about a ban on the additives instead and require them to all be like American Spirit as additive free?

Did you know there are proven health benefits in certain situations and with certain ailments that smoking tobacco helps?

 

[LongGe123]

Well, I agree. He would be out of his mind to try and ban tobacco because it wouldn't work. Just writing down on a piece of paper telling people to stop doing something bad for them won't make them stop. You'll notice that I'm saying that if people stopped smoking, it would benefit the economy. What I never said is that the economy would benefit if smoking were banned. I said it would benefit if people stopped smoking. The amount of tax the government reaps from selling tabacco at exorbitant prices would be counteracted by the fact that people will be able to live longer, be taxed for longer, work longer and work more efficiently. People living longer shouldn't put strain on the economy, people becoming incapable of supporting themselves does. Could you please explain how people living healthier for longer could possibly burden the economy? I don't really understand.

What people believe doesn't concern me. But here's some facts for you: smoking is correlated to cancer, it weakens the immune system and opens the body up to opportunistic infections, it depletes lung capacity and reduces your ability to work efficiently for extended periods of time, and over all due to increased oxidative stress, it decreases your life-expectancy. And Harry Potter does not make people wiccan. You can't compare the two and pretend your analogy is a good one (it's not).

What you fail to see here is a principle - a precedent that such a measure would set - you're quoting health risks of tobacco at me - there are health risks to just about everything. Chocolate increases your sugar levels and excessive consumption can lead to obesity, diabetes, rotten teeth...Alcohol can lead to an addiction that will ruin your career and family life, it damages your brain cells, impairs your ability to drive...

The same logic can be used to ban virtually anything - I'm only using Harry Potter as a rather extreme example to illustrate it - as in, "where will it all end, this banning!". FYI, it IS a good analogy, if you see what I'm trying to demonstrate.

Second, regarding living longer + economy. I said it sounds strange and didn't go into it, because usually when you argue this point you sound like a fascist who's planning on killing everyone at the age of 60 or something. OK, people living longer is absolutely a massive burden to the economy - you say you can tax them longer - how do you tax over 60's who are retired and living on social welfare? Indirect taxation maybe, but on the whole not so much, especially when you compare how much money it takes to keep the old dears going. Nursing homes, medication, pensions.

The real strange thing is, do I therefore mean more people should lay down their lives through smoking-related illnesses in order to release the burden? No, of course not, let me just make that absolutely clear. But, the point I'm making is that getting rid of smoking, whether through voluntary quitting or simply banning it, will NOT just magically help the economy - the arguments for the burden on the economy are just as strong, if not stronger.

 

[LongGe123]

That'd mean they can tax people for smoking and help them recover from smoking faster at the same time.[/quote]

FYI - I'm British - we had free healthcare before just about everyone except the Germans, so no need for a lecture there.

Actually, I shouldn't say that - we mustn't encourage the Americans to think it's free. We pay for it with taxes, it's not really free. It's just...National Insurance

 

[LongGe123]

It wouldn't be a bad idea for you lot to introduce free health care though, like they do in Australia.

Got the wrong bit - i'm tired and retarded this afternoon

 

[Reverend Rick]

What is next, banning unhealthy fast food? How about doughnuts or snack cakes?

 

[Shermana]

What is next, banning unhealthy fast food? How about doughnuts or snack cakes?

How about banning aspartame and GM foods like they do in Japan and Europe?

I think banning artificial Trans fats and margarins wouldn't be a bad idea.

In a similar way, I think banning the additives of cigs and making them all like American Spirit and Nat Sherman would be a step in the right direction.

 

[Reverend Rick]

How about banning aspartame and GM foods like they do in Japan and Europe?

I think banning artificial Trans fats and margarins wouldn't be a bad idea.

In a similar way, I think banning the additives of cigs and making them all like American Spirit and Nat Sherman would be a step in the right direction.

You know, personally I agree but it can be a slippery slope.