Should the government ban the sale and use of tobacco?

I have a very slightly different approach: The government should not criminalize smoking itself, in private, or the mere possession of tobacco for personal use.

Instead, it should outlaw the commercial manufacture and distribution of tobacco, including small-scale distribution; it should outlaw smoking in any public place, indoors or outdoors, and smoking in the same enclosed space with a child should be recognized as child abuse and dealt with the same as beating a child would be.

Thus the focus of law enforcement is not the smoker, but the people who supply the tobacco. The intent is the same: to eliminate tobacco; but the smoker is not made into a criminal.

One of my pet peeves is that smoking near a child IS child abuse. In my mother's house, smoking seldom happened in the living or dining room, but in my step-mother's house everyone except me smoked, more or less constantly, and I suffered for it. All the more so because I am sensitive to second-hand smoke: it makes me very sick. I was constantly sick on the days I was required by the terms of the divorce decree to spend in my step-mother's house (nominally my father's house). And in addition to the physical illness, I was subject to emotional abuse as I was accused of faking my nausea at the tobacco smoke.

To those who say anyone can quit, tobacco is more addictive than heroin. It is addictive. It kills. It kills the person next to the smoker along with the smoker. And it serves no legitimate purpose. Morally, tobacco companies are as evil as any other kind of drug cartel.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Dec 6 2006, 01:09 PM) [snapback]358633[/snapback]</div>

The stigma attached to smoking in most of the developed world is going to eradicate the habit without the goverment's help; why stick a wrench in the gears when they're running smoothly?

We've got to kick this filty habit of looking to government to solve every problem, especially looking FIRST to government to solve every problem, like a chain-smoker reaching for a cigarette. None of tobacco's growing unpopularity has come about as the result of anything government did, it's emerged as society has ever more widely recognized that cigarettes can really kill you, and are no longer "cool."

Let the habit die naturally. Getting the government involved will only exacerbate (and perhaps even prolong) smoking's bad effects by putting people in jail, fostering creation of a black market and all the other ills and evils associated with illicit activities.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

Smoking causes more harm to society than any other single product. I think it is time for the government to ban smoking. No other action the government could take would have as beneficial an effect on Americans' health.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Dec 6 2006, 03:09 PM) [snapback]358633[/snapback]</div>

Prohibition didn't work, I doubt this would either.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Dec 6 2006, 04:09 PM) [snapback]358633[/snapback]</div>

and I guess you're ready for the higher taxes that would be imposed on other products when the states loose all that revenue!

 

I disagree. Most smokers are trying desperately to quit. What better help could they get than making cigarettes unavailable or extremely expensive (on the black market) People said that seatbelt laws would never be accepted, but most people now use them and they have saved thousands of lives. It is all just a matter of breaking a very bad habit.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nyconrad @ Dec 6 2006, 04:18 PM) [snapback]358639[/snapback]</div>

That would more than be made up for by lower health care costs.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Dec 6 2006, 05:22 PM) [snapback]358640[/snapback]</div>

As much as I think smoking is bad, I don't think prohibition would work much better for it than it did for alcohol. Illegal cigarettes would be another income boost to the drug economy with a loss of state tax revenue. In other words, I don't think making them illegal would actually make them hard to obtain.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 6 2006, 04:31 PM) [snapback]358644[/snapback]</div>

If the supply was cut off by banning the production of cigarettes, then some would still get through, but the quantity would be a small fraction of current production. Prices on the black market would be very high - perhaps 10 times higher than now. Many smokers, who already want to quit, would do so.

Some people here have been confusing "liberal" with "libertarian". As I learned in moral philosophy 101, no one is absolutely free because there are other people in the world. Our freedoms are necessarily limited by the fact that we live in civilized society. Government should interfere with people as little as possible, but it has a role to play in promoting general health and encouraging good health habits. I basically agree with utilitarianism, which means that the best form of society is one which provides for the "greatest happiness of the greatest number", which I interpret as democratic socialism, as in scandinavian countries. This is why, for example, it is right for the government to require everyone to drive on the right and stop at red lights. A strict libertarian would demand the right to drive on any side of the road and to go through red lights. Such an extreme position is, of course, absurd.

 

I think you're going about it wrong - The government shouldn't ban stuff just because it's bad for you. If someone wants to destroy their lungs, by all means allow them to. Instead, the government should look out for the public health, which in this case would be to ban smoking in public areas (commercial buildings, restaurants, bars, etc). This would help to remove the effects of second hand smoke, which to me is much, much worse (since it's someone else's habits that are causing your problems). Additionally, those who want to quit will find it much easier, as they can't smoke in public. If you're looking to quit, it's easy to throw out all your cigarettes and declare your house a smoke free zone - true, some people have trouble with this aspect, but after a few tries, some gum or patches, I'm sure they can, or at the very least reduce the amount the smoke, which is the first step. The problem many people have is that they go out to the bar or club, and everyone around them is lighting up... that situation makes it much easier for them to start smoking again. remove that situation and it will be easier for people.

Add to that all the stop smoking products, support groups, etc that are out there, and i'm sure that anyone can quit, if they want to. The biggest problem is simply the exposure they have to them when being social.

I think you're going about it wrong - The government shouldn't ban stuff just because it's bad for you. If someone wants to destroy their lungs, by all means allow them to. Instead, the government should look out for the public health, which in this case would be to ban smoking in public areas (commercial buildings, restaurants, bars, etc). This would help to remove the effects of second hand smoke, which to me is much, much worse (since it's someone else's habits that are causing your problems). Additionally, those who want to quit will find it much easier, as they can't smoke in public. If you're looking to quit, it's easy to throw out all your cigarettes and declare your house a smoke free zone - true, some people have trouble with this aspect, but after a few tries, some gum or patches, I'm sure they can, or at the very least reduce the amount the smoke, which is the first step. The problem many people have is that they go out to the bar or club, and everyone around them is lighting up... that situation makes it much easier for them to start smoking again. remove that situation and it will be easier for people.

Add to that all the stop smoking products, support groups, etc that are out there, and i'm sure that anyone can quit, if they want to. The biggest problem is simply the exposure they have to them when being social.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 6 2006, 04:52 PM) [snapback]358659[/snapback]</div>

"The government shouldn't ban stuff just because it's bad for you"

Why not? The government does lots of things to promote public health - like testing public water supplies. What's the difference?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Dec 6 2006, 04:54 PM) [snapback]358661[/snapback]</div>

I hope you can see the difference between the analogy you propose above.

After you ban tabacco what will be your next target? Alcohol - an abvious one with massive and serious adverse consequences for our society? Then - Ice Cream - again very bad for you and our society? Don't forget leaving your house - most bad thing are attributable to doing this - if you stay in your house you cant buy tabacco, you cant operate killing machines like cars, you cant initiate self-destructive behavior, etc... lock everyone inside. Guns - ban all guns - obvious. Where would you stop? Who would determine good from bad from acceptible risk? You??? How do you know the presence of trans-fats in our diets is not have some benificial effect on our genome? How about the possible pharmacuetical breakthroughs that it might be pushing that would have additional unrelated benefits? What if it benefits some people?

How about a persons right to choose?? Is not terminating a human life after 30 weeks gestation bad for that baby but yet you let people make that individual choice hundreds of thousands of times a year without even blinking an eye. How many Einstiens have been flushed down the toilet bowl? Is not immediate death worse than eating a little trans-fat. Where are you when it comes to protecting individual rights to life - I am referring especially to late term abortions here with a viable baby. Or do you want it both ways - protect those from themselves once they are ex-utero?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 7 2006, 09:36 AM) [snapback]358805[/snapback]</div>

If we're going to completely switch topics, I second the poster in an earlier thread who suggested the topic of angry gay sex.

But seriously, I agree with airportkid. Making smoking socially unacceptable I think will work far better. I smoked for 20 years and have been quit now for about 3, but I can't tell you how nice it is to go out to a bar and NOT be tempted to smoke after having a drink. Drinking and smoking is a really potent combination -- the one makes you socially unrestrained, the other keeps you from falling asleep with your face in a bowl of peanuts.

Smoking is a really potent way of self-medicating: it makes you feel better, it gives you energy, it becomes the way you relax for five minutes or blow off steam when something upsets you. It's the poor man's Prozac or therapy. It makes you feel suddenly alert again. It doesn't debilitate your mental functions like other drugs (at least, not until you're old and get alzheimer's). And it will totally kill you dead. And make you stink like an ashtray. And make you cough incessantly. But as long as you're still smoking, you don't notice these last three as much. Because it's nearly as addictive as breathing.

I think you really underestimate cigarettes if you think a ban would work. The income generated off illegal cigarettes would be just as potent, if not more so, as that generated off other illegal drugs. And if history is any lesson, it would divert money away from health treatment and turn that money into prisons and an increased prison population. If anything, for kids, a ban would probably just make it cooler.

But making smoking illegal in public spaces, illegal in a home with children, and relentlessly hammering home the message that second hand smoke is like a very slow chemical weapon attack on those in same area -- these all seem to me a better approach.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Dec 6 2006, 03:54 PM) [snapback]358661[/snapback]</div>

Because it's not part of their responsibilities. Take a good, hard look at the constitution - where does it say anything about securing the public health? Testing something like the public water supply is part of their responsibility to secure public safety - safety from ingesting unknown chemicals or bacteria. Water distribution (from the faucet, at least) is a public utility - it's a government sanctioned monopoly. We don't have a choice of where the water that goes into our pipes comes from, and for our own safety the government monitors that water.

You can't make the same argument about the private use of tobacco. One person smoking, in the privacy of their own home, does not effect the public health one bit. Publicly smoking, in bars and restaurants, office buildings, airplanes, etc, on the other hand, does effect public safety (in the way of air quality) and should be banned (like they did in Minneapolis a few years back). They have standards for automobile emissions and factory emissions, to keep the air breathable (we can later debate if the standards are strict enough - i vote NO), but no standards for cigarette emissions, even though they cause more damage to the people.

As for the manufacture and sale of tobacco, i don't think the government should interfere, with the exception of selling to minors. If you outlaw it, then it will increase the illegal drug trade (by a hell of a lot, i would imagine), which increases the presence of undesirable elements, gangs, and violence. Additionally, taxes on tobacco provide a huge revenue stream for the government - do you want your taxes increased to compensate for that? If the government doesn't allow the manufacture and sale of tobacco, there will be no controls on it, no limitations to the poisons they can put in it.

Its been well documented that cigarettes are made with additives that are harmful - 599 approved additives that, when burned, produce over 4000 chemicals, including many which are toxic and/or carcinogenic. The additives are approved by the FDA for use in food, because when consumed they aren't harmful - burning changes their properties. What additives do you think would be added if this industry wasn't watched over by the government? I think the real crime is that the FDA hasn't taken more steps to reduce the additives and make the things safer.

Rather than treating individual symptoms, like trans fat and smoking, treat the root cause - the screwed up medical system we have in place, where the average tax payer ends up paying for his neighbors life long doctors bills for something that resulted from a personal choice. Stop crying about the sanctity of life, and how it's our duty to help those less fortunate than us, and tell people we'll only help them after they help themselves. Such a system would work for the public safety - keeping the air and water clean, traffic laws, etc, while not infringing on any freedoms one would have in the privacy of their own home. Anything with a legitimate personal use would be available, and people would be held responsible for their actions, instead of hiring a high priced lawyer to ensure that someone else pays for their mistakes.

I also agree with MegansPrius that smoking around a child should be considered abuse. I agree with the entire approach he just laid out - illegal in public places, around children (can we just say minors so there's no confusion between infants and those large enough to walk away? it would also help reduce the number of teens that start, i would imagine), and get the message out there that it's bad for you and those around you. allow public pressure and opinion drive home the final nail in the coffin, so to speak.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 7 2006, 09:12 AM) [snapback]358815[/snapback]</div>

I am sure I am not with you about letting the government ban smoking in an individual citizens home. I even have trouble with the government telling you that you can't smoke in your own car. The argument comes full circle in that in both these instances they are concerned about the welfare of children in these spaces. The counter argument returns in the form of partial birth abortion - at what point and determined by whom and to what degree is the welfare of a child the governments jurisprudence.

 

The biggest health care issue in this country is NOT smoking. It's obesity, caused by the sedentary lifestyle that many Americans live coupled with the ease/price of going out to eat.

You start down the slippery slope of the government outlawing cigarette consumption, french fries will be next. And for people who say "But there's a difference; french fries aren't addictive," I will differ loudly. Studies have shown that the effect of refined carb consumption on obese folks' brains is a match to cocaine addicts' consumption of coke.

And I agree that we need to start doing things to keep down health care costs. But that's the insurance companies and hospitals' responsibility--not the government's. Those industries have long denied coverage or increased fees to those who smoke; some of them are beginnning to do that for obesity, as well. It would be great to have incentives for those who exercise and keep their weight at a healthy level.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 6 2006, 04:31 PM) [snapback]358644[/snapback]</div>

There's a big difference between banning alcohol and tobacco! Alcohol is easy to make from crops we need around.
Tobacco ban would work much better since we could just ban farmers from growing the stuff.

Just like with the other illegal drugs, the problem would be imports, but fixing our trade problems and homeland security issues would fix that part for free if we ever decided to do more than just talk about it.

 

see, now this starts to infringe on freedom of choice. without trans fats, you can still have a fast food burger in nyc. without cigarettes, you can no longer smoke, period. something is no longer available to you.

plus, someone somewhere will still be making them and sending them over to the US, and it'll be just like any other drug. available at a price if you know the right people. you think that's going to stop people from smoking? we still have lots of crack addicts but making and selling crack is illegal...

not that i advocate tobacco in any way, shape or form, or that i like the consequences it has upon its users. but this to me sounds more like the big brother stepping in to protect you from yourself type scenario.

if they do ban growing tobacco, i need about a year's notice so i can get out of the south. i don't want to be here when that happens...

 

"I have a very slightly different approach: The government should not criminalize smoking itself, in private, or the mere possession of tobacco for personal use.

Instead, it should outlaw the commercial manufacture and distribution of tobacco, including small-scale distribution; it should outlaw smoking in any public place, indoors or outdoors, and smoking in the same enclosed space with a child should be recognized as child abuse and dealt with the same as beating a child would be.

Thus the focus of law enforcement is not the smoker, but the people who supply the tobacco. The intent is the same: to eliminate tobacco; but the smoker is not made into a criminal."


I agree. I do not want police breaking down doors at 4am to arrest smokers. (They have enough other pretexts to break down doors.) The companies that produce cigarettes should be the target. In my opinion, they are no better than drug dealers.

 

I haven't seen anyone on here post that they really really support tobacco use and reasons for it. Instead, what we have is a bunch of people arguing about what steps should be taken on a national level to reduce and eventually eliminate tobacco use.

Yes, i'll agree that there is a certain appeal to banning it, making it illegal to manufacture, sell, or use. However, it is not in the government purview to do this. read the "important documents" pertaining to the running of the country - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence clearly supports actions by the government to secure the basic, unalienable rights, and to effect the people's safety and happiness. No where does it say anything about protecting an individuals health. No where in the Constitution does it say anything about protecting an individuals health. Simply their safety and security.

for all of you who are arguing, in one way or another, to ban manufacture, sale, or personal use of tobacco (in private, not public, since that infringes on others freedoms), where does the government get this power? What document gives the government this power?