The reasons why smoking should be banned

[nnmartin]

Then what of the exceptions? Should they be banned from doing something because others become addicted to it? Should a light social drinker be prohibited from purchasing alcohol because alcoholics exist? Should a healthy moderate eater be kept from indulging in a BigMac because some people get fat from eating at McDonald's?

who cares, because that has nothing to do with smoking.

Like I said, each of these prohibitions need to be dealt with separately.

I take it you do have some vague understanding of how the Law actually works?

 

[Draka]

who cares, because that has nothing to do with smoking.

Like I said, each of these prohibitions need to be dealt with separately.

I take it you do have some vague understanding of how the Law actually works?

How do you figure it has nothing to do with it? It would appear that your main arguments for banning smoking are that it's addictive and unhealthy. We already have many things that are legal that are unhealthy and you admitted that there are exceptions when it comes to addiction. Should the exceptions be made to suffer a loss of choice and freewill due to others having issues with unhealthy choices?

 

[cablescavenger]

Personally, I'm not in favour of banning smoking outright, but I am in favour of a number of restrictions:

- prohibit the sale of tobacco to minors and use of tobacco by minors.
- tax tobacco to the point that its cost to the user reflects the costs of its health effects on society
- ban its use in any indoor or confined space except in cases where all people exposed to the smoke freely consent to it, have the legal capacity to consent, and have the freedom to leave. This would preclude smoking in any enclosed environment where children are present, or where anyone is required to be there as part of their job, including bars as well as private homes with children.

I think these sorts of restrictions are reasonable.

I agree.
The only thing I am puzzled over is the tax on cigarrettes.

In the UK the tax is extremely high and more than covers the health costs, but what of countries like the US where they have insurance? Do you think tax matters then?

 

[Draka]

You know, it's conversations like this that actually just make me want to go snag one of my hubby's cigs and go outside and smoke it. And I don't even smoke. Matter of fact...I just may do that. :yes: It can be like having a beer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree.
The only thing I am puzzled over is the tax on cigarrettes.

In the UK the tax is extremely high and more than covers the health costs, but what of countries like the US where they have insurance? Do you think tax matters then?

Well, I'm in Canada, not the US, but even in cases where health insurance is private, I think it's valid for government to use measures like taxation to encourage positive social change.

 

[cablescavenger]

Well, I'm in Canada, not the US, but even in cases where health insurance is private, I think it's valid for government to use measures like taxation to encourage positive social change.

While I see what you mean about the taxation, I wouldn't agree with it primarily because the taxes on these are not raised as a deterrent.

In the UK the tax burden on cigarrettes has been incremental rather than instant, as has the tax burden on the other harmful addiction alcohol. This tells me it hasn't been used as a deterrent but as a revenue raiser.

The problem I have with raising revenues from addictive substances is that you could be doing more harm than good, i.e. making no dent in reducing the addiction, and yet increasing the risk of taking them or their families below the poverty line because of their reduced expendable income.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see where you're coming from, but I think that moral problem can be at least partly addressed by using that revenue to pay for things like addiction recovery programs and campaigns to prevent kids from getting addicted in the first place.

 

[LongGe123]

who cares, because that has nothing to do with smoking.
Like I said, each of these prohibitions need to be dealt with separately.
I take it you do have some vague understanding of how the Law actually works?

Draka is right - you are creating a double standard by saying that only smoking should be banned because it is addictive and unhealthy.

As I already tried to point out to you - by banning smoking in that kind of sweeping way, you set a terrible precedent to have a lot of things banned based on similar logic. I'm no advocate of smoking, I hate it, but I would fight to the end to defend somebody's RIGHT to choose to do it.

We all make many choices in life, some of them are totally stupid. I ordered a second big mac with my McDonalds meal order last weekend - that was pretty dumb, and I probably got even fatter as a result. But because I'm doing something like that, should others step in and just BAN big macs?

There are indeed many scary facts and figures on smoking, and it has a prominent place in discussions on health. But, there are many other destructive habits people have that we're not talking about, because we just accept that it comes down to whatever that person chooses. It's fine to be publicly minded and ban smoking in places where it might do harm to others, but when one is at home, their smoking is their own business.

 

[nnmartin]

yes, but eating a Big Mac is not inherently unhealthy - it is a source of needed sustenance.

but what benefit does a cigarette give to anyone ever, other than a false feeling of positive stimulation?

 

[LongGe123]

pray tell what good comes from a bic mac, other than the satisfaction of eating tasty junk food? I'm not trying to promote smoking here, but according to smokers I know, cigarette smoking can have certain therapeutic effects on certain people.

sorry, but eating a bic mac IS inherently unhealthy - did you know the reason they have pickles in the burgers at mcDonalds is because there's so much sugar in the bread and sauces that it would technically have to be classed as a dessert? And, as we saw in that move "Supersize me", eating mcDonalds every day damages your health far more and more quickly than smoking does to the average smoker. I know people who've smoked for years and don't even cough yet. I'm not trying to make out that smoking is healthy, but as with many things, with serious moderation, it doesn't do any more harm to you than other things we do in life, like drinking or eating junk food.

Smoking is bad for you, correct. VERY bad for you. But so are a lot of things and we don't just ban them. In my view, the reasons you give for smoking being absolutely banned are nowhere near strong enough. They merely support bans of smoking in public, which is something I think quite a lot of us can agree on.

 

[Draka]

yes, but eating a Big Mac is not inherently unhealthy - it is a source of needed sustenance.

but what benefit does a cigarette give to anyone ever, other than a false feeling of positive stimulation?

What benefit does tossing back of shot of Jose Cuervo give to anyone except a buzz?

What benefit does bungee jumping provide except an adrenaline rush?

What benefit does drinking a Pepsi or Coke give except a limited caffeine jolt?

If your criteria has now moved to things that don't provide a benefit to people there are tons of things to ban. Better get moving.

 

[nnmartin]

pray tell what good comes from a bic mac, other than the satisfaction of eating tasty junk food?

like I said, it provides a source of food which the body needs.

It may not be the most healthy source but most people eat other types of food as well.

As for smoking, it provides nothing - and even the stimulus is fake.

 

[nnmartin]

What benefit does tossing back of shot of Jose Cuervo give to anyone except a buzz?

Most drinkers do not become addicts, whereas virtually all smokers do.

What benefit does bungee jumping provide except an adrenaline rush?

It is not inherently harmful.

What benefit does drinking a Pepsi or Coke give except a limited caffeine jolt?

It is not bad enough for you to ban and most people only have a Coke now and again anyway.

If your criteria has now moved to things that don't provide a benefit to people there are tons of things to ban. Better get moving.

no, it hasn't moved to that - but for something that is bad for you, there should also be a positive of some sort.

 

[Draka]

You sure do like moving goalposts.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I know people who've smoked for years and don't even cough yet.

That's actually a bad sign. Coughing is a way the body expells things that are bad for you... like the crap put into the lungs by smoking. Not coughing means a built up tolerance, and an increasing collection of the toxins one gets from cigarette smoke. The mind doesn't think the body is being attacked anymore, so the body stops fighting off poisons and toxins. When these people you know start coughing, it'll probably be the sign of a serious consequence of smoking that quitting might not cure.

 

[Shermana]

It is not bad enough for you to ban and most people only have a Coke now and again anyway.

Explain why GMO High-Frucstose Corn Syrup using Coke and especially Aspartame-using Diet Coke are not bad enough to ban. They can be just as cancer causing.

http://blog.sfgate.com/green/2010/08/04/high-fructose-corn-syrup-linked-to-deadliest-type-of-cancer/

 

[Poisonshady313]

I see where you're coming from, but I think that moral problem can be at least partly addressed by using that revenue to pay for things like addiction recovery programs and campaigns to prevent kids from getting addicted in the first place.

The US does pay for addiction recovery programs. The trouble is, they pay for largely ineffective addiction recovery programs. They stand to benefit as much from smokers trying to quit as they do from smokers buying cigarettes. The government gives people free nicotine patches and nicotine gum, and I don't know if they give them enough for the three month program those products are intended for. And in the likely event that it doesn't work, I'm not sure if individuals can receive government funded nicotine gum/patches for a second attempt. Or a third attempt. etc...

Unless you mean that they should give money to programs for recovery from other substances. That might be helpful.