Should we move towards banning smoking (1 Viewer)

[zombie omie jay]

more like why are certain illicit drugs not legal despite having less health implications

 

[scuba_steve2121]

I'm saying that cigarettes are an EXCEPTION to the banned substances even though they are clearly harmful.
Whilst illict drugs are BANNED because they DO HAVE harmful (subjective to some) effects.

TL;DR Why are cigarettes not banned like the rest of the harmful drugs if the government truly cares?

revenue mate revenue they know smokers are not going to give up no matter how high the price is. well thats an exaggeration but u get the point

 

[Misyndo]

revenue mate revenue they know smokers are not going to give up no matter how high the price is. well thats an exaggeration but u get the point

Even though I clearly stated that in my first post. Good job anyways.

 

[Riet]

people who can't afford it will just get counterfeit/black market tobacco.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Even though I clearly stated that in my first post. Good job anyways.

you asked why they are not banned and i answered

 

[Misyndo]

you asked why they are not banned and i answered

???

 

[supercalamari]

I'm not a big fan of cigarettes or their stench but I see very little point in totally outlawing them. People will still buy them illegally.

 

[brendroid]

Personally, I think that it should be discouraged to a greater degree than it may be currently. But yeah... banning anything isn't necessarilly good... just, I kinda like public spaces to be relatively clear of smoke. It's a public space, so it's going to be used by everyone... what I'm trying to say is that smoking where there is going to be a fairly large amount of people with little say isn't really the best thing to do...

 

[Slidey]

TL;DR Smoking will never be banned because of the tax revenue that it reels in.

Not banning smoking because of an infringment of personal freedom borderlines euthanasia and as mentioned before, other drugs.

What's your point? Euthanasia is a personal choice and so is drug use. Why should these things be banned (criminal)?

 

[Lukybear]

This is true. Smokers should and are beginning to compensate for their cost to public health.

That's absolutely stupid. All your saying is that smokers should continue to harm themselves and others so that we can squeeze money out of them. Wheres the moral decency gone?

 

[thongetsu]

They could quit but would they really?

 

[MissedThePoint]

Isn't smoking in public places banned in the UK? I think I was over there when it came in, people seemed to be cranky about it.
I think it'd be good to do something similar here. Much like you can't be naked in public: it might not actually be hurting anyone, but it's pretty inconsiderate.

 

[supercalamari]

That's absolutely stupid. All your saying is that smokers should continue to harm themselves and others so that we can squeeze money out of them. Wheres the moral decency gone?

Welcome to politics, there never was any in the first place

 

[Slidey]

That's absolutely stupid. All your saying is that smokers should continue to harm themselves and others so that we can squeeze money out of them. Wheres the moral decency gone?

He didn't say anything like that. Why are you using a strawman fallacy?

 

[aussie-boy]

That's absolutely stupid. All your saying is that smokers should continue to harm themselves and others so that we can squeeze money out of them. Wheres the moral decency gone?

Except where others are harmed (torts/criminal cases), Gov responsibility is to effectively educate only, not to force certain individual behaviours.

An ideal drugs policy:

-All drugs are banned where their use negatively affects others (playgrounds, beaches, inside, train stations + bus stops, al fresco dining)

-Cocaine, Marijuana, Tobacco, Alcohol, Ecstacy legal; sold under the counter in appropriate sized packets plastered with health warnings. Produced according to strict guidelines to be as pure as possible.

-Drugs taxed at appropriate rates such that tax revenues = negative externalities + Gov profit margin; different uniform volumetric tax rate for each drug

-All drugs advertising banned; product information can be published on company websites side by side with health warnings

-Revenues to be spent on preventative healthcare - e.g. free school-PE style sessions in local parks... emphasis on fun and fitness

 

[Misyndo]

What's your point? Euthanasia is a personal choice and so is drug use. Why should these things be banned (criminal)?

I'm trying to say that the debate on banning smoking is going to be somewhat similiar to the debate on banning euthanasia because of the same points being brought up.

1. Personal freedom.
2. Social/economic costs to society (People dying, hospitals having to deal with it etc etc)

And another argument for the cigarettes debate is the taxation revenue which doesn't apply to euthanasia obviously.

That's all I can think of atm whilst I'm tired but you see the gist of what I'm saying. Trying to ban smoking is going to bring up a shitstorm from the media and society and will have members from both sides of the argument directly opposing it just like the topic of euthanasia did and that it will be INCREDIBLY HARD to make any progress.

 

[gainsimmon]

Firstly smoking is a personal choice so if dumb people want to do it then, well im not going to stop them. Secondly if we outlaw smoking for peoples own health benefit then shouldn't we outlaw fat people as being fat is also detramental peoples health(not to mention the strain on the eyes)?

 

[Reanna]

That's the direction we seem to be headed in. I think most people can see that it is impractical right now. But there seems to be a view that there is nothing morally wrong with preventing people from smoking by force. After all, we already ban other illegal drugs which are actually less harmful.

So at some point in the future, if smoking rates become sufficiently low to prevent mass public outrage, would it be a good idea to ban smoking all together?

in theory its a great idea- morally, ethically, socially, financially (users) coz smokers not only harm themself but those around them too

but there would be major issues in the execution of the ban

 

[Garygaz]

make it so if you smoke you can't claim medicare benefits on any illness or disease that is linked to smoking. ie you smoke you better have the goddamn money to cover yourself or you can go die coughing up blood at home in bed. i seriously can't give a hoot if us taxpayers aren't forced to put up a hospital bed for some deadshit 2 pack a day smoker who brought his chronic illness upon himself.

 

[bio_nut]

Firstly smoking is a personal choice so if dumb people want to do it then, well im not going to stop them. Secondly if we outlaw smoking for peoples own health benefit then shouldn't we outlaw fat people as being fat is also detramental peoples health(not to mention the strain on the eyes)?

Smoking harms other people too. Not the same. If I want to sit outside at a pub I have to deal with inhaling heaps of smoke. Sitting near a fat person won't kill me.