Should the government ban the sale and use of tobacco?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Dec 7 2006, 09:39 AM) [snapback]358824[/snapback]</div>

"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."

Obesity is a huge problem in this country and in other countries (pun intended) We have already discussed this at length. It is not difficult for an individual to lose weight, in spite of what people say. You just have to exercise and control your calorie intake. I lost 10 pounds in 2 months and I am no more disciplined than average. The government should properly step in when companies produce, for profit, harmful substances like cigarettes and trans fats. I am frankly surprised at the number of people who say government has no responsiblity for the health of its citizens. In every other advanced industrial society, it is taken for granted that government is responsible for health care and for public health promotion. Why should this country be different? The profit model for supplying goods and services works for many things - cars, computers, airline seats, but it does not work for health care. The so called "free market" (which is anything but free) is not the answer to every problem.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Dec 6 2006, 02:08 AM) [snapback]358679[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, Mark, but much of the developed world still hasn't gotten it. I lived in Spain from 1999 to 2001 (actually 18 months) and nearly everyone smokes, and they do it nearly everywhere. City busses, subway cars, and designated train cars are smoke-free. No place else is. The whole country stinks like a chimney. And from what I've been told, much of Europe is the same.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 7 2006, 05:36 AM) [snapback]358805[/snapback]</div>

There is a big difference between a person's right to choose to engage in an unhealthful habit, and the "right" of trans-national corporations to aggressively market unhealthy products for profit.

The government has a responsibility to protect people from predatory corporations. A corporation that uses scientific methods of propaganda (advertising) to induce children to take up use of a deadly and addictive drug is as evil as any terrorist. The terrorist kills for political ends. The corporation kills for money. And don't try to say that tobacco companies do not target kids in their advertising.

I am not saying that the government should "protect people from themselves." I am saying it should protect them from corporate drug pushers.

And I am saying that the government should protect children from abusive parents. And smoking around kids is as abusive as beating them.

 

saying that it's not difficult for someone to loose weight is ridiculous. It's entirely possible for anyone to loose weight, but that doesn't mean it's not difficult. Personally, i've been able to effectively lose weight as i thought i needed, when i needed. My mother, on the other hand, has spent the past 20 years trying to lose weight, and only in the past year or so has she made any progress. Everyone is different, don't make assumptions about "average discipline".

You say the government should step in and stop companies from making harmful substances... Ok, so they should ban sugar? it's harmful, leads to obesity, heart problems, etc. Where do you draw the line?

The US is not like other industrialized nations. We haven't voted for a public health care system, we like things the way they are. This is primarily because we don't want to have to be paying for others bad choices, even though we usually wind up paying for them anyways. That covers health care. As for promotion - I'm all for government promotion. The government should regulate and require warning labels. they should create public information campaigns.

How does our current model not work for health care? It's the same as if you're buying anything - you're paying for someones time, materials, and other costs associated with the final product. What doesn't work is the current system that allows for way too many lawsuits, which is one of the primary causes for the huge bills we have to pay.

 

"The government has a responsibility to protect people from predatory corporations. A corporation that uses scientific methods of propaganda (advertising) to induce children to take up use of a deadly and addictive drug is as evil as any terrorist.:

Exactly, and very well put. Many people confuse their freedom as individuals with the freedom of large corporations to make profits. This is not surprising in a country where corporations, in effect, own government.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Dec 7 2006, 10:15 AM) [snapback]358843[/snapback]</div>

Jared, I usually agree with you, but I am taking an exception to this. Having smoked in my college years AND having been fat in my lifetime, I can tell you unequivocally that losing weight was MUCH harder to do than quitting smoking.

It is not difficult for an individual to quit smoking. You just stop buying cigarettes and hanging out a places where you can mooch. I'm being tongue in cheek here, btw...I know that some people have to do the patch, etc., but I've also known lots who do it cold turkey, have a week of withdrawal, and then never touch one again.

The problem with losing weight is that you HAVE to eat to live--you can't cut out food "cold turkey" (unless, of course, you're Lech Walesa or someone). Food served as my "drug" of choice for several years...I turned to it when sad, when happy, when stressed, and when bored. And they don't make a patch for it. And there's a commercial on every ten minutes telling you how good a Big Mac or Pizza Hut pizza would be right now. Hell, there's a whole network dedicated to the preparation of food. The last time I checked, the only ads for cigarettes are in magazines and on billboards...nasty, bad-for-you, diabetes-inducing, cholesteral-laden, heart-stopping, cellulite-causing food advertisements are EVERYWHERE. It's a wonder ANYONE can maintain a healthy weight.

 

You have to really want to lose weight. Then you just follow the simple method of walking about 4 miles every day (it feels good) and eating less. I tune out advertising. My meals are fresh and delicious - I don't deny myself at all, I love good food. But quality is the thing, not quantity.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Dec 7 2006, 10:15 AM) [snapback]358843[/snapback]</div>

well, evolutionary mechanisms would beg to differ. once you achieve a high weight, your body will fight to maintain it. metabolic chemistry is a fascinating thing, and the adaptive mechanisms we have are still based upon storage to protect against not knowing where our next meal will be coming from or when it will arrive.

 

Something i just stumbled across - The courts have already ruled on this, back in the 90's. the Supreme Court ruled that the FDA did not have the authority to regulate tobacco.

So there's the judicial branches take on it - Our system of checks and balances was designed to prevent branches from assuming too much control, and interfering with our basic rights too much. Who can argue with that?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 7 2006, 10:53 AM) [snapback]358875[/snapback]</div>

What? Like the right of the people to elect the man they want for president? The Supreme court sure protected us from that right.

 

I understand that many people are upset about the whole election fiasco, recounts, etc... but in those cases the courts enforced the letter of the law, and made sure that proper procedure was maintained. Just because you don't like the outcome, or the fact that it was that close, doesn't mean that the courts weren't doing their job properly. After all, you were still able to go in and vote for the individual you wanted to vote for, weren't you?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 7 2006, 10:58 AM) [snapback]358880[/snapback]</div>

The Supreme court stopped the counting of legitimately cast votes in Florida. On what legal basis was this recount stopped?

 

Back on topic....
Isn't the vast majority of tobacco crops exported?
What are the chances the government will make illegal one of our major exports?
The ME exports oil to us, which is technically addictive, unhealthy, and profitable. The US sends back tobacco.

 

"The ME exports oil to us, which is technically addictive, unhealthy, and profitable."

Not just the middle east. Canada is actually the biggest foreign source of oil and gas.

We are utterly dependent on fossil fuels right now, not just to get around in cars, but for our survival. How much food could be grown without diesel for the machinery and gas for the fertilizer? Without oil and gas we would literally starve to death. That's why peak oil is just an important issue.

As for exporting tobacco, it should be stopped because it is a poison that kills people. Some things have a simple moral imperative.

 

Following the letter of the law. In Florida at the time (i don't know if things have since been changed, but i assume they have), there was a mandated machine recount, because the margin of victory was less than a preset percentage. In addition, runners were allowed to request manual recounts in counties, which Gore did in 4 counties. However, by law the results had to be turned in within 7 days of the election. The Florida circuit court determined that counties could amend their returns at a later date. This was followed by the Secretary of State for Florida issuing a set of criteria for accepting amended returns:

None of the counties met these criteria. Notice at this point the full force of the checks and balances - the legislative branch created the laws, the judicial branch ruled that there may be exceptions, and the executive branch decided on the exact criteria for those exceptions.

Gore then challenged her right to refuse the recount under those criteria, which went to the Florida Supreme court (which ruled in favor of Gore). Bush appealed (as is his right) to the US supreme court.

At the end, the judicial branch sided with the side of the Constitution - The manual recount was being conducted in a manor that was unconstitutional. Additionally, It ruled that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by the December 12 deadline (remember, it's not your votes that count, but the votes of the people you're electing to vote in the electoral college). the deadline was formed from the safe harbor provision in Section 5 of Title 3 of the United States Code.

The entire way, the courts did what they could to support the constitution and the proper functioning of the government.

 

And to what real end would banning tobacco help? We already tried this once with booze and we know the results of that fiasco. We have been completely ineffective in the "war on drugs" and banning tobacco would simply strengthen the black market and broaden the scope of citizens willing to purchase illegally something they cannot purchase through authorized channels.

In reality, obesity related illness creates more strain on our healthcare system than does tobacco related illness and obesity related desease is growing while tobacco related desease is falling.

Additionally, in the big picture, the more we peer into the personal lives of our neighbors through legislation the more we degrade the basic tenants of freedom in essentially the last place we have to protect... Our homes.

I see this as a very slippery slope.

The reduction in tax revenue will create a perceived "need" to raise taxes elsewhere or create new taxes to make up for the revenue shortfall. Smoker generally do not live as long as healthy people and that is a good thing for our already overburdened social security system. Smokers already pay higher life insurance premiums than non smokers... Guess whose premiums will rise if we ban smoking?

Alcohol creates a similiar situation to tobacco. It is a physically addicive substance that is legal and taxed for private consumption. However a single act of alcohol abuse is far more likely to result in an automobile accident or an act of violence than any tobacco product of which I am aware.

The educating of adults and children has already drastically reduced the number of smokers in our country. Lets not go nazi and create a problem in an area where we have been making good progress.

 

I had a university class with Richard Evans Schultes, Professor of Economic Botany, Harvard University. We used his text, The Botany and Chemistry of Hallucinogens. The course covered all types of plant-based adulterants. After extensive coverage of multiple plants, a student asked, "If tobacco and alcohol are so bad and cause so much misery (in comparison to Cannibis) why don't we outlaw them?!"

Dr. Schultes smiled and responded, "Because they are taxed."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Dec 7 2006, 09:04 AM) [snapback]358915[/snapback]</div>

I'd have said, "Because our lawmakers use them, and because their manufacturers give the lawmakers money." Cocaine is illegal because Pablo Escobar neglected to bribe the U.S. Congress. (Though this might have been a calculated choice, since were it legal he'd have had more competition.)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Dec 7 2006, 07:42 AM) [snapback]358865[/snapback]</div>

Maybe I'm thinking of someone else, but aren't you the fellow who's wife cooks Chinese meals from fresh market-bought ingredients? Even I could lose weight if I were in your situation!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 7 2006, 08:30 AM) [snapback]358895[/snapback]</div>

That you put so much faith in your constitution, supreme court, etc. at the expense of common sense is a bit unnerving. Who told you that your constitution was perfect and it should always be followed to a T? How many times has it been ammended anyway? If the common interpretation of your consitution implies that the government has no right to ban something like tobacco, that's all you seem to need to justify condemning the ban. Sounds like a christian saying, the bible implies such and such so that's what I believe.

With regard to tobacco, the question should be: would more harm than good come out of banning cigarettes? and/or are there more effective ways to improve the greater health of our population? The perceived "constitutionality" of something shouldn't be where the argument ends. You can always decide to amend, if necessary, the constitution if a "unconstitutional" act still makes more sense than the status quo.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ Dec 7 2006, 08:30 AM) [snapback]358896[/snapback]</div>

I tend to agree with this. The government shouldn't really engage in criminalizing relatively harmless activities and substances.

Tobacco is actually a good case to show that health education (including about sex works. Smoking rates have fallen dramatically in the US, and are falling in Europe. And most of this "educating" is paid for by taxing the product. If it wasn't for politics, and sometimes vested interests (which is the same thing,) this could have been applied to the "war on drugs." Remember, cotton growers were the main thrust behind the Marijuana Tax Law (and the oil industry didn't mind it, either

The bottom line is, if somebody wants to indulge in smoking, they should be able to do it, and obtain the tobacco legally. One can regulate public behaviour, like smoking in public places (or drinking, or making noise,) but the rest should be up to the individual. And this goes for all drugs.

Yes, statistically obesity is a much bigger health problem. Perhaps we should ban "super-sizing" first Somebody mentioned trans fats. Before we all lapse into media-induced hysteria, it is worth remembering that only 20 years ago these were seen as the "healthy" alternative to the saturated fats used widely until then.

I guess it comes down to tobacco being a "pleasurable sin," and thus rubbing the wrong way the same people who flood the call-lines when a woman's breast pops out on prime time TV, but have no problem showing graphic mutilation scenes to their 7 year olds in The Passion of Christ....

(No, I don't smoke, and I avoid trans fats as well, and I am a vegetarian for moral reasons