Should we ban cigarettes?

[Blackstar the Chakat]

Thats the only reason the government wont ban smoking - the amount of tax they make off it is unbelieveable, similiar to the porno industry. The amount of tax money the government recieves is actually staggering. Same with alcohol. So I say this. Take 90% of the tax off petrol/gasoline and place that onto cigarettes, and keep them legal. We'll see what happens!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well porn doesn't kill you like smoking does. In fact it actually helps keep your blood pressure down according to some studies. I agree with your tax idea. It'll force many people to quit and mean lower gas prices. It's a win-win. And if the government loses some money they might start spending better(They once paid a guy a lot of money for his studies on the effect of gas from cow farts effects the ozone. Does that give you a clue as to how wasteful my government is?)

[Sionnach Glic]

Wow, that got a lot of responses. Sorta figured it would.

My question is why cigs?

I actualy meant all related products, as well. I just said cigarettes because they're what everyone thinks of when you hear the word 'tobacco'.

[MetalHead]

MetalHead's method for quitting smoking:

Everytime you want a cigarette? Eat like fook.

Fast food, posh food, whatever. EAT. This way, you'll eat like hell and feel full to the bursting point.

When the NEXT craving comes do some exercise. This will keep your weight off.

Then, go buy that chemical you can put on your tongue that lets you actually taste whats in cigarettes. Game over.

[sunnyside]

Nah much as it annoys me I support gas taxes. All that money is going to building targets we then have to go and blow up at someone point in the future. It makes sense to put the pressure on to be more fuel efficient.

[Graham Kennedy]

Well? The reasons for impossing a full-scale ban on cigarettes and similar tobacco products are manyfold and obvious. They're harmfull to both the user, and anyone in the vicinity. There's no enjoyment gained from them. They slowly kill you (and anyone in the area unfortunate enough to inhale the carcinogenics). They are of no benefit to anyone but the companies that make them. And, lastly, they are simply disgusting to be around.
That's just a sample of the many reasons I believe there should be a full ban on these things, but can anyone give me a good reason why there shouldn't be a ban on them?

Only one of those is a reason to ban them, namely - the harm they do to others. Since that is effectively negated by a ban from enclosed public places, and none of your other reasons are valid in my eyes, I see no reason to restrict cigarettes further.

[Serapha]

What gives one person the right to impose his views of what's good or bad on another person? That's what banning things is.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're only hurting yourself and not anybody else, then it's nobody else's business what you do. Since, as has been mentioned, smoking is banned from most public places, smokers are only harming themselves, and it's their business. You could muster most of the same arguments in favor of banning cigarettes in favor of banning alcohol, porn, or even television. Most of the things we enjoy a lot have potential harmful effects. (Chocolate is my poison of choice! Someday I may well be a fat diabetic.) But in my book it's not my business, and it's definitely not the government's business how somebody else chooses to enjoy himself. I mean really! Here we have grown adults, and we're going to treat them like children. "No, you can't do that. It's for your own good, you know, doing that is bad for you." We're not their mothers!

And anyhow, nobody will ever manage to push through a law banning cigarettes, because the tobacco companies have WAY too much political clout.

[Captain Seafort]

What gives one person the right to impose his views of what's good or bad on another person?

The fact that they're right. The dangers of passive smoking are only mitigated by bans on smoking in enclosed spaces, not removed. In addition, that doesn't reduce the damage to the smoker's health in any way, which means that everyone else's taxes have to go towards paying for the health care they end up absorbing rather than anything else.

You could muster most of the same arguments in favor of banning cigarettes in favor of banning alcohol, porn, or even television.

No you couldn't - alcohol has proven health benefits in small doses, porn does no harm whatsoever, and TV is an important means of communication, dissemination of information, and advertising.

And anyhow, nobody will ever manage to push through a law banning cigarettes, because the tobacco companies have WAY too much political clout.

True, unfortunately, plus the amount of tax on tobacco means that governments are unlikely to intentionally cut themselves off from a lucrative source of income.

[Graham Kennedy]

In addition, that doesn't reduce the damage to the smoker's health in any way, which means that everyone else's taxes have to go towards paying for the health care they end up absorbing rather than anything else.

I don't like where that argument leads, though. If the government has an ethical right to ban a person from smoking because the health effects cost money, can they ban you from eating fatty foods? Can they mandate that you do regular exercise? Both would mitigate heart disease greatly, and heart disease is the single biggest medical expense there is.

So do we go for a national legally mandated diet and exercise program? I'll take to the hills with a Kalashnikov if it happens.

[sunnyside]

Personally I prefir the government to only use taxes to nudge things when it's something only moderatly harmful. And again dying of cancer earlier as opposed to later might actually save our social security system money at least and won't put any extra cost on the health care system.



Other things, like crack cocaine, can quickly become societies problem in a wide variety of ways , and take people out way to young.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

In addition, that doesn't reduce the damage to the smoker's health in any way, which means that everyone else's taxes have to go towards paying for the health care they end up absorbing rather than anything else.

I don't like where that argument leads, though. If the government has an ethical right to ban a person from smoking because the health effects cost money, can they ban you from eating fatty foods? Can they mandate that you do regular exercise? Both would mitigate heart disease greatly, and heart disease is the single biggest medical expense there is.

So do we go for a national legally mandated diet and exercise program? I'll take to the hills with a Kalashnikov if it happens.

It's already started. Many schools have switched to healthier food programs because of the benefits the government provides. That's how it starts, influincing the young people, getting them used to being controlled, then the government begins pushing control into other areas.

[mwhittington]

Well, banning them would be great, IMO, but that may never happen, so Plan B: a HUGE tax on them, like the Black Talon bullets, somewhere around 10,000%. Then use the tax for healthcare, particularly those affected by second-hand smoke. I know the latter half of that would never happen, but it would be a great ironic happy ending.

[Mikey]

Nearly 50%, if not more, of the cost of a pack of cigarettes is sales and vice taxes... so the response to that "solution" would have to be "Sorry, tried that already."

And as far as MetalHead's solution, or the dangers of weight gain/overeating when quitting smoking - I am in a somewhat unique position, I suppose, but that would be far more dangerous to me than the actual smoking. Believe me, I pray every day for a safe way for me to put on a bit of weight.

[Aaron]

I don't like where that argument leads, though. If the government has an ethical right to ban a person from smoking because the health effects cost money, can they ban you from eating fatty foods? Can they mandate that you do regular exercise? Both would mitigate heart disease greatly, and heart disease is the single biggest medical expense there is.

So do we go for a national legally mandated diet and exercise program? I'll take to the hills with a Kalashnikov if it happens.

Why not? The West is rapidly becoming a nest of fatasses. A little exercise and reduction of fatty foods wouldn't hurt anyone. Note that elimantion of trans fat is already mandated in various states and provinces in the US and Canada.

I'd just charge you extra if you show up at the hospital with a self-infliceted problem like that. Or in the case of a country with an NHS, make you pay out of pocket.

[MetalHead]

Nearly 50%, if not more, of the cost of a pack of cigarettes is sales and vice taxes... so the response to that "solution" would have to be "Sorry, tried that already."

And as far as MetalHead's solution, or the dangers of weight gain/overeating when quitting smoking - I am in a somewhat unique position, I suppose, but that would be far more dangerous to me than the actual smoking. Believe me, I pray every day for a safe way for me to put on a bit of weight.

lol, well, it was just how my boss quit smoking. He would mutter "i want a smoke" then leg it to KFC. haha

[Mikey]

I don't like where that argument leads, though. If the government has an ethical right to ban a person from smoking because the health effects cost money, can they ban you from eating fatty foods? Can they mandate that you do regular exercise? Both would mitigate heart disease greatly, and heart disease is the single biggest medical expense there is.

So do we go for a national legally mandated diet and exercise program? I'll take to the hills with a Kalashnikov if it happens.

Why not? The West is rapidly becoming a nest of fatasses. A little exercise and reduction of fatty foods wouldn't hurt anyone. Note that elimantion of trans fat is already mandated in various states and provinces in the US and Canada.

I'd just charge you extra if you show up at the hospital with a self-infliceted problem like that. Or in the case of a country with an NHS, make you pay out of pocket.

Yeah, I heard a similar argument on Maria Bartiromo's show. Some talking head was saying that diabetics, among other things, should be charged more in certain circles because of our diminished productivity due to a self-inflicted disorder. I never watched nor read Maria Bartiromo after that, because I am a diabetic, and my diabetes had ZERO relationship to any factors within my control. Before I contracted diabetes, I was 5'8", 159 lbs., just turned 35 years of age, excercised MINIMUM three times/week. An autoimmune reaction to a common virus caused the incapacitation of my pancreas. So now, people want to say that I should pay more for health care and suchlike because I got sick? It's bad enough that I can't get life insurance to protect my daughter, that I'll have a shorter lifespan, and that I run the risk of blindness, limb problems, neuropathy, and amputation; now you say you want to make it more difficult to avail myself of whatever treatment is available?