ban cigarettes?

[t125eagle]

and why not? if they are known to be addictive, with cancer causing qualities and no useful or helpful properties, why are they still legal? why not just ban them?

 

[winston53660]

and why not? if they are known to be addictive, with cancer causing qualities and no useful or helpful properties, why are they still legal? why not just ban them?

And open up another black market?

 

[jfuh]

An adult making a concious decision of what they want to do with their own bodies, no should be saying yes or no other than themselves.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I want a government that tells me what I can and can't do, don't you?

and why not? if they are known to be addictive, with cancer causing qualities and no useful or helpful properties, why are they still legal? why not just ban them?

Brilliant! Why not ban everything thats bad for you, fast food, alcohol... you're really on to something here. We shouldn't have the freedom to make bad decisions! In fact, this whole notion of freedom is a dangerous idea IMO. Safety first!

Lets have the government decide whats considered "useful or helpful" and make illegal everything else! Think of how safe and healthy we'll be! It'll enough to almost make you forget the fact that we aren't living free anymore...almost.

If only more generations of people were born ignorant of history, fascism and tyranny that it could repeat itself more easily. Notions like these aren't proposed often enough... Why must the advocates of liberty be SO vigilant? Hey does this slope feel slippery to you?

 

[A_Wise_Fool]

and why not? if they are known to be addictive, with cancer causing qualities and no useful or helpful properties, why are they still legal? why not just ban them?

You first have to ask yourself this question:


Is it better to live, or is it better to die......:shock:


And then make sure your answer applies consistently across the board and appeals to everyone. Then will you have a foundation in which to enforce ideas in matters such as these. Good luck.

 

[tristanrobin]

could America survive without the revenue from tobacco?

 

[t125eagle]

well, i guess everyone gets to point and laugh at me today. LOL.
drinking, is ok in moderation.... im not against someone having a beer or whatever. but if the person beside me drinks, do i get drunk? no. if the person beside me lights up a cigarette i could still get cancer. the tobacco industry makes billions of dollars, or more, and it has no benefit. all it causes is death. but i guess, as according to the constitution, everyone has the freedom to make the choice.

 

[mikhail]

well, i guess everyone gets to point and laugh at me today. LOL.
drinking, is ok in moderation.... im not against someone having a beer or whatever. but if the person beside me drinks, do i get drunk? no. if the person beside me lights up a cigarette i could still get cancer. the tobacco industry makes billions of dollars, or more, and it has no benefit. all it causes is death. but i guess, as according to the constitution, everyone has the freedom to make the choice.

what does it matter smokers cant smoke anywhere anyway.In th Uk at least we have banned smoking in all inclosed public buildings passive smoking is nothing when outside so why should it be banned.

 

[PoliticalGrrrl]

No nanny-government for me, thanks.

Careful wanting to open Pandora's box... ban this, ban that, etc... next thing you know, we'll all be given gray vitamin slop to eat (nutritionally balanced and without taste don't you know) and government issued clothing that is 'good' for us. God knows we're all too stupid to take charge of our own well being.

God forbid we wouldn't want to show too much leg or wear something a bit too skimpy when it's chilly outside. Lord knows we need someone - even if it is a faceless institutionalized entity - to tell us what we should and should not be doing with our own selves....

Ugh.

 

[Kushinator]

well, i guess everyone gets to point and laugh at me today. LOL.
drinking, is ok in moderation.... im not against someone having a beer or whatever. but if the person beside me drinks, do i get drunk? no. if the person beside me lights up a cigarette i could still get cancer. the tobacco industry makes billions of dollars, or more, and it has no benefit. all it causes is death. but i guess, as according to the constitution, everyone has the freedom to make the choice.

If only elected leaders followed that old thing. We should have the freedom to make our own choices, but that isnt entirely the case now is it??? Nice chat...:2wave:

 

[RightOfCenter]

could America survive without the revenue from tobacco?

That's the broken window fallacy. The money would simply be spent on something else. Cigarettes don't cause economic activity, just different economic activity.

 

[RightOfCenter]

well, i guess everyone gets to point and laugh at me today. LOL.
drinking, is ok in moderation.... im not against someone having a beer or whatever. but if the person beside me drinks, do i get drunk? no. if the person beside me lights up a cigarette i could still get cancer. the tobacco industry makes billions of dollars, or more, and it has no benefit. all it causes is death. but i guess, as according to the constitution, everyone has the freedom to make the choice.

If people are getting enough secondhand smoke in their system to die from it, and tobacco is one of the most addictive substances on the planet, then; Why is no one addicted to second hand smoke?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

In principle, banning smoking would be a good thing. Not only do both first hand and second hand smoking cause a variety of health problems, but the costs of treating both these health causes and the addictive qualities of smoking are high.

In practice, banning smoking would be a terrible thing. Firstly, it eliminates personal responsibility, and can lead to the dictatorial decisions to ban other things that could be considered dangerous. Secondly, the economic costs would be high. It would mean every store that sells any type of tobacco would need to eliminate this product from their inventory, every tobacco farm would be closed, and all tobacco companies would be forced out of business. I may hate smoking, but to me, the economic costs seem to high. Very similar to the possible banning of alcohol.

 

[winston53660]

In principle, banning smoking would be a good thing. Not only do both first hand and second hand smoking cause a variety of health problems, but the costs of treating both these health causes and the addictive qualities of smoking are high.

In practice, banning smoking would be a terrible thing. Firstly, it eliminates personal responsibility, and can lead to the dictatorial decisions to ban other things that could be considered dangerous. Secondly, the economic costs would be high. It would mean every store that sells any type of tobacco would need to eliminate this product from their inventory, every tobacco farm would be closed, and all tobacco companies would be forced out of business. I may hate smoking, but to me, the economic costs seem to high. Very similar to the possible banning of alcohol.

Banning would also create a whole 'nother underground economy that is off the tax books and law enforcment would have to devote ever more resources towards enforcing the ban.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

If people are getting enough secondhand smoke in their system to die from it, and tobacco is one of the most addictive substances on the planet, then; Why is no one addicted to second hand smoke?

I would assume that the majority of nicotine (the addictive component) is inhaled by the smoker, and that passive smoke only contains a very small amount of nicotine (I would check this on the web, if I could be bothered, LOL).

 

[Kim Jong Il]

Don't ban cigarettes...please. Not that I'm...addicted...or anything.

Either way, people should have the total and greatest decision in their lives whether or not to participate in self-destructive behavior. People are capable of thought, and making decisions...however bad they are. Though they are bad decisions, the liberty to make such a decision should never be compromised.

If people are getting enough secondhand smoke in their system to die from it, and tobacco is one of the most addictive substances on the planet, then; Why is no one addicted to second hand smoke?

'Cause there's like..no nicotine in it...just the lung cancer stuff.

That's the broken window fallacy. The money would simply be spent on something else. Cigarettes don't cause economic activity, just different economic activity.

Nothin' sells like cigs bud.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Nothin' sells like cigs bud.

You're right, but if there weren't cigarettes on the market people would have money to spend on other things. banning cigarettes wouldn't stop economic activity, it would cause different economic activity.

 

[WI Crippler]

You're right, but if there weren't cigarettes on the market people would have money to spend on other things. banning cigarettes wouldn't stop economic activity, it would cause different economic activity.

And here I thought smokers would invest that extra money in mutual funds.....:2razz:

 

[Cold Highway]

and why not? if they are known to be addictive, with cancer causing qualities and no useful or helpful properties, why are they still legal? why not just ban them?

You do remember prohibition right?

 

[LaMidRighter]

and why not?

If you care at all about preserving liberty and freedom in this country, the onus is on your side to provide the why, not for us to provide the why not.

if they are known to be addictive, with cancer causing qualities

food is addictive as well, and certainly can cause cancer if it has certain additives, sex is addictive, and certain viruses have been linked to cancer as well as lethal diseases, should we ban those as well?

and no useful or helpful properties,

hold it there bud, certain studies have shown that tobacco, coffee, and alcohol consumers tend to have lower incidences of parkinsons and alzheimers disease, both of which are much worse than dying.

why are they still legal? why not just ban them?

They are legal because this is America, banning them would be exactly the opposite of what this country stands for, what the founding fathers intended, AND what many generations have bled for to protect, that is why.

 

[CoffeeMan]

If people are getting enough secondhand smoke in their system to die from it, and tobacco is one of the most addictive substances on the planet, then; Why is no one addicted to second hand smoke?

Because the myth of second hand smoke has is filled with even more junk science than the myth of man made global warming.

 

[1069]

Why is no one addicted to second hand smoke?

I think some kids are.
At least, in my case, constant exposure to tobacco smoke throughout my childhood certainly facilitated my own addiction, when the time came.
I took to cigarettes like a little fish to water, like a pro.
Surely kids shouldn't be that comfortable ingesting poison for the first time... unless they've already spent a lifetime building up a tolerance/ incipient addiction to it.

 

[new coup for you]

from my cold dead hands

 

[danarhea]

and why not? if they are known to be addictive, with cancer causing qualities and no useful or helpful properties, why are they still legal? why not just ban them?

Oh yes, the Federal Nanny knows what is best for us, right? :roll:

If I choose to smoke, it is none of the government's damn business, and none of yours either.

 

[jfuh]

Because the myth of second hand smoke has is filled with even more junk science than the myth of man made global warming.

True, there is a lot of junk science there.
But there nevertheless is this bottom line. Why should I, someone who does not wish to smell and deal with cigarettes be forced to inhale a smoker's exhaust? Unfortunately smoke doesn't just stay in one place it diffuses everywhere in particularly in closed spaces such as restaurant and it is intoxicating and unhealthy no matter how you cut it (carbon monoxide anyone?). Having a smoking section and a non-smoking section doesn't really do squat. Most restaurants aren't quite willing to spend hundreds to thousands more to install individual exhaust systems so how do you get around the issue? Isn't the cleaner and more bodily friendly to everyone approach more prudent??
Smokers have a choice of when to and when not to light up, why should non-smokers be denied that same choice as to when to and when not to be exposed to second hand smoke?