Poll: Should smoking be made illegal?

[Flac00]

I have a friend who's a radical straight edge kid. We had a discussion on facebook the other day on smoking, and the fact that more people in our community have started smoking. My friend is of the opinion that smoking should be made illegal and classed as a drug, and that the state should step in to essentially protect people from themselves.

Me being a libertarian, I argued that people, knowing the dangers of smoking, should choose for themselves if they want to do it or not. I was immediately stormed by an angry mob of facebookers who showed their dislike with indignified comments.

Eager to get to the bottom of this, I thought I'd ask you guys.

Tl;dr: Should smoking be made illegal?

No it shouldn't. I mostly think this because of what happened with the prohibition. We don't need that again. Plus, you are right that people should take responsibility for their own actions. I only want it to be illeagal to smoke in areas that can hurt other individuals, such as in a school, government building, etc.

 

[Flac00]

Drinking should be outlawed first. However, we've seen that before - Speakeasys and the like pop up, and it becomes even more unregulated.

Frankly, I think either both smoking and drinking should be made illegal, or some other drugs made legal. Never seen someone get in a bar fight because of LSD, and never seen someone overdose on weed.

But weed and LSD can be much more damaging than Alcohol and nicotine. LSD f's you up pretty quickly, and weed just destroys people's personalities. There is a reason why they are illegal (though I think weed should be slightly legal, but that is for another conversation). Alcohol and nicotine should not be outlawed. The reason: you actually said that reason, it has been done before, and I don't need to remind you how much crime rose because of that. Suddenly making a popular thing illeagal can make catastrophic problems. Look at China. After they outlawed opium usage, the Triads grew huge. At this point, we should just try to make people not want to drink or smoke.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Me being a liberal, I argued that people, knowing the dangers of smoking, should choose for themselves if they want to do it or not.

I hate to break it to you, but that isn't a liberal viewpoint. Liberals are responsible for all of the laws that negatively impact smokers. Your viewpoint is libertarian at best, and conservative at worst.

Ah, sorry. It's the same word in Swedish, I mistranslated.

I think you are correct, actually. Freedom to choose is a liberal view. It's just that in the USA 'liberal' means something else to the rest of the world.

To be honest, the entirety of the Western World is liberal. The USA is very Liberal, to the point of this god-forsaken libertarianism. Europe is more Socialistic in general.

 

[Jonluw]

Nicotine is a heavier narcotic than THC, so is ethanol. It does not make sense to keep nicotine legal and THC illegal.

Here's a metaphor.
Say there's a really annoying guy living in your house, and you would really like to get rid of him. However, you can't get rid of him, because he - for example - is your cousin. Forcing him to leave would create a lot of trouble for you. However, the fact that you have to put up with him doesn't mean you will go ahead and invite every annoying dickhead you meet into your house.

Nicotine is heavily rooted in our culture, so we can't easily ban it, but that doesn't mean we should legalize all other drugs that have similar effects.

It will not be easy to ban it, but the effort needed to be put into change does not make the argument of change any less valid.
A change that will benefit humans for hundreds of years far outweighs the effort put into it over much less time.
It is the optimal we are after, not the compromise.

You can look back at prohibition times, and see how well it went the last time we tried banning a drug.

Drugs need to be faded out from our culture, because if we try to remove it immedeately, we will most likely face an uprising, and then the drugs will return in a matter of years.

Of course.

Then we have consensus. I thought you meant it should be banned immedeately.

 

[lacktheknack]

Guess what? Smokers aren't mind readers. Until the government start issuing out stickers to those they deem weak (shouldn't be too long after tobacco gets banned), there is no possible way we could know about your issues.

Must suck to have weak lungs, i have sympathy, but at the end of the day it's your job to take care of yourself. Sauntering through the street under the assumption that all smokers should give you a wide berth because they should know about your "condition" is silly.

Oh, I keep out of their way, but then a bunch of them get offended, which leads to all kinds of incredibly stupid problems.

I must apologise, I read the words you wrote, rather than skimming along the surface making stuff up - I guess that's reading too deeply. Allow me to walk you through the hysteria point.

You wrote:
"breathing in smoke puts me in hospital"

Then some other random sentence. Then you wrote:
"So if you smoke near me, you kill me."

This kind of high-speed exaggeration is exactly the sort of behaviour exhibited usually described as 'hysterical'.

Finally, 'in hospital' is not the same as 'dead'. That's the kind of hysteria I was askingnn you to dial down.

Now dealing with your new substantive points:
1. Carcinogens cause cancer, so unless each time you take this little hospital trip of yours they fix you up with a bit of chemo or radiotherapy, it's pretty unlikely that's relevent.
2. There's this amazing thing called medical science where they train doctors, and some of them practice medicine, and some of them do research on what causes disease and how to fight it. Rather than testing on yourself, this 'medical science' can often provide answers for you. When you are so severely allergic to something that either you must immediately go to hospital or you immediately die (depending on your particular level of hysteria at that time) these doctors usually make a pretty solid effort to work out what it is that causes the reaction. 4000 different chemical in cigarette smoke, and not a single one of them unique to cigarette smoke... you must live in fear of going near anything else that combusts. You know how many chemicals come out of a car exhaust? Probably not, that won't have been in the PSA you've been pulling your entire 'argument' out of.

Well what am I supposed to say? I get cigarette smoke, my lungs fill with mucous. End of.

I find it interesting how you complain about my "hysteria" making it hard to take me seriously, but then you take everything I say that potentially has a seam (in your mind) and attack it as hard as you can. I am also a person with an opinion that's just as valid as yours, and I'm forced to stop respecting anything you say because of your reactions.

You're supposed to have reacted like a normal human being and thought 'hmmmmm if I can be hospitalised/die from the tiniest bit of cigarette smoke, I wonder if there's anything else I should probably avoid?' and ask your doctor. None of the chemicals in cigarette smoke are unique to cigarette smoke, that's why I wanted to know what it was that you were claiming to be susceptible to. The fact that you are so blase about it being just cigarette smoke that causes this makes it look like you're lying. Your opinion isn't just as valid as mine because my opinion is the product of an enquiring mind, the sort of mind that when it gets threatened with death is compelled to find out a little more about how to avoid this.

But let us leave all that aside and assume that you will magically die if a particle of cigarette smoke reaches your lungs, why does that mean that the hundreds of millions of smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke on the street? What if (for argument's sake) I would instantly die if I saw an orange t-shirt? Would that be an argument for banning the public wearing of orange t-shirts, or an argument for me moving somewhere isolated so I can leave all the normal people to get on with their lives?

So first I'm hysterical, then I'm blase?

Not that it even means anything. I know tons of people who are blase about this sort of thing. It doesn't effect credence.

And lastly, I haven't gone to a doctor over it because it only flared up recently. I'm surrounded by crack smokers, not-remotely-green cars, and the like, but only cigarettes do it. Maybe I'm allergic to nicotine.

 

[WaderiAAA]

Economically: If it was made illegal it would cost a lot to enforce that law.
Practically: It would also be nearly impossible to enforce it, just like regulating people downloading songs for free.
Freedom argument: Well, they do know the risks and it mostly just harms themselves, so why not let them do it?

I still think they should have campaigns against it to be sure everyone knows the risks (like they do) and since it costs society a lot, it should be heavily taxed.

So basically, I'm happy with how it is right now.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

It should either be heavily taxed or banned inside buildings completely except in designated areas like it is in Ireland at the moment. For example pubs have people go outside or a room in airports for people to smoke. I am sure other places have a similar system.

In Ireland they are taxed up to the eyeballs. Why do you think so many people buy cartons when they go on holiday? They don't cost 8.65 a pack here and 3.50 other places for no reason.

You're they don't their health system doesn't have the extra pressure due to smoking related diseases. Although I am sure they have their own reason for their excise being so low mainly as it is a tourist thing thus why they are bought on holidays. Same as to why Ireland has one of the lowest Coporation Tax in the world. Every system gets the money somehow and from somewhere.

Are they taxed enough as to add a disincentive? No obviously not but that is more due to the fact that they are addictive. Will excise on them fall no probably not ever as the gov knows it is a steady source of income. So you can take from that what you will but certain countries have certain taxes at certain levels to achieve their objectives.

 

[mew4ever23]

I hate smoking. It's a filthy habit, people that smoke are paying for something that WILL kill them. And worse, anyone around a smoker is getting MORE of the detrimental effects of cigarette smoke. Cigarettes should not be allowed to be sold in stores unless all the harmful chemicals are removed from them.

 

[ironlordthemad]

I clicked other because it's your right to do what you want with your body, but just don't do it in my face because the smoke is disgusting to me and I don't want tar in MY body from YOUR cigarette.
Although I do think smokers should realise that they cost their countries hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds/dollars/euros in medical bills each year for their habit. Which people who don't smoke help to pay for. So if the tax on cigarettes has to rise to cover the bill for the damage its creating, im all for it.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

No. If smoking is banned then drinking has to be banned as well.

Drinking doesn't harm your health unless you overdo it. Smoking harms you regardless of amount smoked.

Pretty sure alcohol harms you whether you drink a lot or a little, just like smoking.

And banning tobacco would reduce government income due to the elimination of the tax on it. Call your friend and everyone who agreed with him an idiot.

Agreed with the second part, but drinking in moderation has a few health benefits.

Anyway, anyone smoking in public buildings should get the cigarette extinguished on their hand and one smack across the face.

 

[TheSanityAssassin]

1:'We had a discussion on facebook' - i loled

2: you are 12 and what is this

 

[Vuljatar]

It's pretty disturbing to me that almost 15% of the people who voted in the poll support the government taking away people's rights "for their own good".

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can tell that nothing good can ever come of that shit.

 

[Blue_vision]

No, but we still need to stop rampant smoking among certain people. Even I like the prospect of being able to have a cigarette every once in a while, but it's an incredibly addictive substance/activity that's suited in some cultural norms which is creating a large burden to our society. Continue to get smoking away from being "the cool thing" and get more help (not more Nicorette products) for people that have problems with it. I have a similar view on Marijuana. People should have the choice, and it could be great for some people, but not in the way we see it today.

What's this burden that smoking is creating? Don't take this question as aggressive, I'm genuinely curious.

High disease rates meaning high costs to treat people who are statistically far more likely to get diseases such as cancer, which is also a big social issue as well as a matter of simple economics (isn't it great to have your smoking kids die before their parents?)

Also are the costs of general attractiveness. To a lot of people that don't smoke, just the odour that comes from a single person smoking is kind of offsetting which makes the public area a bit less attractive.

 

[thejboy88]

As much as I hate the smoking industry for the pain they have caused to so many people, I cannot bring myself to say that it should be banned.

Pople have a right to make their own choices regarding their own healt. And as much as I believe that smoking kills, I beleive even more in an individuals right to not have someone else tell them how to live their life, government or otherwise.

 

[Bureacreative]

My friend is of the opinion that smoking should be made illegal and classed as a drug, and that the state should step in to essentially protect people from themselves.

This made me chuckle. Cannabis IS classified as a drug and the state has yet to keep me from smoking it regularly.

i'm fine with people smoking weed, but cigarettes are disgusting and you shouldn't smoke them where people can see you. You should be too ashamed. But it is reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally fun to cough at smokers when running by them

hahahahaah that's great. my post was pretty joking, i just don't like the smell but yeah, do what you like, go ahead, seriously if you ever see me judging you go ahead and give me a nice kick in the non-smoking puss

 

[Bureacreative]

i'm fine with people smoking weed, but cigarettes are disgusting and you shouldn't smoke them where people can see you. You should be too ashamed. But it is reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally fun to cough at smokers when running by them

I smoke and run on a daily basis. Im not saying im the fastest runner in the world or that smoking is a good thing to do and I know im the exception not the rule but im just saying it for the sake if saying it. There are far worse things to do to your body then smoking that are perfectly legal. Mcdonalds is a prime example.

a genuinly well formed and intelligent argument. well done sir. and I swear i'm not being sarcastic. trust me i respect you. mostly cause you're a runner, but also cause you took more time than was needed to call me a douche and move on. and on the subject of your argument, i guess i'd have to say, yeah i guess you're right. well done sir, perhaps we'll meeet in a later life

 

[PrototypeC]

You have to understand that I HATE SMOKING. Not to make it personal, but everything about it from the smell that collects on everything nearby, the fact that nobody stamps out their finished smokes when it's as easy as taking a single step, or the fact that they recently KILLED MY FATHER, I have a hatred for smoking that makes my blood boil whenever they come up.

I still don't think they should be made illegal.

I understand that people need their chosen vices, and while it's odd that hard drugs are illegal yet smoking (which is both more harmful and more addictive than your average joint) is allowed to persist, I find that it's a matter of choice whether or not you do it. Sure, it'll make your whole city stink, but that's a matter for everyone, including smokers, to decide for themselves. I do think there should be heavy fines put on smoking around babies and small children, but overall it's already harder to be a smoker than non-smoker, so they are aware already of what they'd have to give up. Why make it a crime on top of that? I might even have to call it discrimination.

Smokers who read this, there is only one thing I ask, nay, beg of you. I won't ask you to stop smoking, but just... stamp them out when you toss them. It's as easy as putting your foot down. Please?

 

[Private Custard]

I clicked other because it's your right to do what you want with your body, but just don't do it in my face because the smoke is disgusting to me and I don't want tar in MY body from YOUR cigarette.
Although I do think smokers should realise that they cost their countries hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds/dollars/euros in medical bills each year for their habit. Which people who don't smoke help to pay for. So if the tax on cigarettes has to rise to cover the bill for the damage its creating, im all for it.

No, but we still need to stop rampant smoking among certain people. Even I like the prospect of being able to have a cigarette every once in a while, but it's an incredibly addictive substance/activity that's suited in some cultural norms which is creating a large burden to our society. Continue to get smoking away from being "the cool thing" and get more help (not more Nicorette products) for people that have problems with it. I have a similar view on Marijuana. People should have the choice, and it could be great for some people, but not in the way we see it today.

What's this burden that smoking is creating? Don't take this question as aggressive, I'm genuinely curious.

High disease rates meaning high costs to treat people who are statistically far more likely to get diseases such as cancer, which is also a big social issue as well as a matter of simple economics (isn't it great to have your smoking kids die before their parents?)

Also are the costs of general attractiveness. To a lot of people that don't smoke, just the odour that comes from a single person smoking is kind of offsetting which makes the public area a bit less attractive.

Here in the UK, in 2009, the tax revenue from tobacco sales was approximately double that of the cost to the NHS to treat smoking related illnesses. Yes, it's a case of simple economics!

Jesus, how many times does this have to be pointed out before people listen??

 

[The_Graff]

no, we do not want the nanny state. once you ban smoking then what? ban alcohol, mc donalds, driving (kills many people through accidents and buggers the environment so kills everyone long-term) etc.