Should the government ban the sale and use of tobacco?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Dec 7 2006, 06:02 PM) [snapback]359085[/snapback]</div>

In terms of the legal basis question i was replying to, yes, i do put faith in it and in the different branches of power.

As for banning smoking, i oppose it on other grounds - I don't think it's morally right to enforce my beliefs on others by telling them they can't do an activity they find pleasing. While i am against smoking in general, and think it's a disgusting habit, I'll never tell someone that they can't purchase cigarettes, or smoke them - so long as i don't have to suffer from the second hand smoke. The way i see it, as soon as i force my opinions on people in the form of banning a product or activity, they can enforce theirs on me. It's a two way street, and in the end everyone ends up screwed.

I think i've sufficiently stated my position on tobacco usage numerous times in this thread, with or without using the system we have in place to support my argument. Using the constitution was my response to the following post by jared2:

Yes, the government promotes public health, but they don't secure it. It's not their job to ensure that everyone is living a healthy lifestyle - if it was, they would have failed a long time ago. It is in their job to test products and warn people about potential health complications, but who is to say that they should be out there enacting laws to make everyone healthier? It's a very slippery slope, in many directions. You ban smoking today, alcohol tomorrow, sugar the say after that, all because they're bad for you. Once we have everyone eating carrots and cabbage, They'll then start mandating activity levels, that you go to the gym 3 times a week, talk 5 miles a day, etc etc... Now, it's easy to look at some of these and see that they're extremes, but how is each one that much different from the one before it? They're all in the interest of public health.

Thats why the government was put in place to secure our safety and basic freedoms - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thats all they're supposed to do.

 

YES !!!!!!!!

 

I think smokers are so exploited by tobacco producers - I can't understand why any smoker wouldn't quit yesterday just to say, "screw you - I'm not going to be used anymore!".

If this was a new product it would never fly. Would we allow a corporation to sell a product that is both highly addictive and deadly? Think about that for a moment. It is addictive and deadly. Plus the fact, that it also reduces your quality of life as it slowly kills you. Sure there are some minor mental benefits to getting a fix from nicotine, but considering the costs, it just floors me that people are still willing to be used in this way.

I'm not for a ban on anything as that is too expensive to maintain. I think all recreational substance should be legalized as this causes less harm overall. And I don't use any recreational drugs - I don't even use coffee. I object to all of it on moral and health grounds.

Besides a ban there are things that can be done (and in many cases are). Government should increase the taxes as much as possible without creating too large a black market. Citizens and governments should sue the evil exploiters when they can. Advertising rights should be curtailed. There should be other financial deterents to unhealthy activities - perhaps charging health care premiums to those that make decades-long unhealthy choices. Also sginificant government money should be used in educating/advertising against unhealthy lifestyles - rather than spending huge sums building prisons and housing prisoners and fighting a neverending war on drugs. Perhaps there is also some mechanism that can be developed to give tax breaks to citizens and corporations that avoid unhealthy lifestyles. (And if any age-old government documents restrict any sensible approaches to combating these problems then we can do something about that too).

 

"It's not their job to ensure that everyone is living a healthy lifestyle"

Then you must oppose mandatory seat belt laws, right?

 

Yes, i oppose the mandatory requirements for people to wear seat belts. Everyone knows that seat belts are the first, and best, safety measure when involved in an accident - if you chose not to wear one, then I won't shed a tear when you take yourself out of the gene pool. one less moron.

An individuals private use of tobacco or seat belts doesn't in any way, shape, or form harm anyone else. So allow it. Just keep the smoke away from me and i'll be happy. (Also, i've never, and i do mean never, gotten into any car without using a seat belt).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 8 2006, 01:25 PM) [snapback]359347[/snapback]</div>

I've usually been lousy about wearing my seatbelt (once even got a ticket here in Chicago). Tried to make it a habit but kept forgetting. Thankfully, our Prius has that helpful little ding so that hopefully I will be able to pass my moron-ness down to future generations. I think in the Prius my seat belt wearing is pretty much 100%. An electronic beep here much more effective than the law ever was for me.

I completely agree with you on the choice issue. However, the one really interesting point this thread has raised that I bet we'll see legistlation on in 10 years is smoking around children. The thought hadn't occurred to me, but I bet laws regarding that are coming.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 8 2006, 01:29 PM) [snapback]359378[/snapback]</div>

I wager you are correct and as much as I want to "protect our children" I am still against this type of legislation. Such a law would open the door to all kinds of issues regarding disagreement over parenting and although the case, in my opinion, is darn clear that smoking around kids is bad on all kinds of levels, if we legislate parental activities... family activities... How long is is before the obesity police knock down your door as your overweight child eats a piece of birthday cake? Plus... Some parents think it isok for their children to be unsupervised on the internet (think open door to porn and predators), and some parents think it is ok to feed their kids bacon and eggs in the morning, and some put twinkies in their lunch boxes for school.... Some parents allow their children to shoot guns, have pea shooters, take their bikes over ramps, and stay out after dark...

The way statistics can be manipulated and promoted by the media is very powerful and to take even something we all pretty much know is wrong, and legislate it, to "protect our children", the next step will be protecting the family dog or cat, or perhaps even requiring a license to breed (humans that is)....

No. As bad as smoking is, family is family, and not all family values are consistent and unfortunately some kids go through the horror of living with smokers in close quarters, but the simple fact is that life is not fair and who are we to judge our neighbors.

I remember being sick one day after a two hour car ride with a couple of aunts and uncles who chain smoked with the windows up. Maybe it took 37 seconds off my life, or maybe not, but i learned that day that my Mom was a considerate smoker and did not smoke where I would be subjected to smelling it. She would go outside (and this was the 1960s when supposedly nobody knew how bad cigarettes were)....

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that butts are bad... real bad... But it should not be a big stretch to see the slippery slope of legislation either.

 

Agree with you, in part. It is a slippery slope, and this type of legislation is dangerous. As i've stated on here, what you do in the privacy of your own home is really none of the governments business - thus my view against banning smoking. However, when it comes to kids i am almost forced to think differently. And i realize that, in this, i come off as sounding almost like a hypocrite, as i'm almost supporting invasion of privacy. But children come first in my mind, and sometimes one issue outweighs what you feel in another (the two issues here being freedom and protecting our children).

As things stand right now, if teachers have a reason to suspect abuse at home - mental or physical - they can get the police involved, etc... leading to the parent(s) heading to jail or at the minimum the kid going into the foster system. I would contend that a child forced to remain in a toxic environment (caused by chain smoking, for example) is being abused just as much, if not more than the child that is being beaten. their lungs will never recover from the smoke.

As i've said, there are items of personal choice - choosing to smoke by yourself, what you eat (the trans fat thread), wearing seat belts - that only harm you. Cases where the choice harms other people, such as smoking in public, is another matter. I think smoking around children should be banned and treated just like abuse.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 8 2006, 09:25 AM) [snapback]359347[/snapback]</div>

We have mandatory seat belt laws to save money (insurance/health care costs) not to save lives or protect people from there own stupidity/ignorance - although that's what it looks like.

Banning trans fats - same thing. There are many examples where the goal appears to be about saving people (often from themselves) but it isn't really about that - it's about keeping the financial costs of these things in check (heart disease). I'm all for that. I just don't think these bans work well enough for addictive substances. For them I think it's probably more effective to use taxation and education, etc.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 8 2006, 03:11 PM) [snapback]359402[/snapback]</div>

Agreed. I'd stake money on California for the first actual law on this.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Dec 8 2006, 01:13 PM) [snapback]359406[/snapback]</div>

Like i've said before, fix the real problem, not all the other problems it causes. If i tell you the trees are going to die, your house is going to be demolished, and your cat drowned, what do you do? move the trees, house and cat, or repair the dam thats about to break and flood the valley you're living in?

Rather than attack all the different items that cause health problems (smoking, trans fat, sugar, salt, etc... the list is very long), why not fix the health care system? make people more liable for the costs of their own care - if you can't afford to pay for the treatment that will save your life, then how can you afford to pay for that super sized extra value meal?

When people have a health problem, they aren't always treated. If i get cancer but can't afford the chemo, then the doctors are probably gonna tell me how long i have to live, and wish me a merry christmas. we need to stop treating everyone with every ailment and start making people more accountable for their own well being. It's the current attitude of "someone else will do it" that has led to many of our problems, including the health care system, lawsuits, and a host of other problems.

Fix the root cause.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 8 2006, 11:21 AM) [snapback]359413[/snapback]</div>

You're right - fix the root cause. Namely, by manipulating the masses into not making terrible health and lifestyle choices - using carrots, sticks and education. People aren't going to be enlightened (accountable for their own well being) without some restrictions, regulations, public sponsored education/propaganda and tax incentives.

And for certain things we need to get tougher. I'm all for making it illegal to smoke around children, advertise candied breakfast cereals to minors, throw batteries in the trash, drive gas guzzlers and sell violent video games to 10 year olds, etc. Bring on big brother! But then, I'm from socialist Canada, eh.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 8 2006, 11:21 AM) [snapback]359413[/snapback]</div>

You're right - fix the root cause. Namely, by manipulating the masses into not making terrible health and lifestyle choices - using carrots, sticks and education. People aren't going to be enlightened (accountable for their own well being) without some restrictions, regulations, public sponsored education/propaganda and tax incentives.

And for certain things we need to get tougher. I'm all for making it illegal to smoke around children, advertise candied breakfast cereals to minors, throw batteries in the trash, drive gas guzzlers and sell violent video games to 10 year olds, etc. Bring on big brother! But then, I'm from socialist Canada, eh.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Dec 8 2006, 05:22 PM) [snapback]359525[/snapback]</div>

Wow...

I learned to shoot a gun at the town dump. We targeted rats. I was a cub scout at the time...

I thing it is odd at a time when I was encouraged to take a jacknife to school and whittle during recess we didn't have a problem with people blowing up schools. I think it is odd that my Mom knew smoking was bad and should not be done around children back when we didn't have warning labels on cigarettes and the concept of second hand smoke was not even a real phrase in our culture. I find it amusing that we were encouraged to play with BB guns in our back yard and somehow we learned to not shoot out windows and if we did... We were expected to apologize, fix the broken window, and pay for it ourselves.

As much as I want to protect our kids I think we need to lessen the laws and go after the adults for shirking the responsibilities of good child rearing and putting the burden on the legislators.

I believe the actual root of our problems stem from the following:
A growing attitude of entitlement amongst all of us.
A two income family that offloads children on day care.
The economic structure that forces two income families.
The belief that we can and should legislate what goes on the the privacy of our homes.

I think these are the roots of our problems, stimulated in part by the disrespect of our government that began back with Johnson and Nixon.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ Dec 8 2006, 02:39 PM) [snapback]359534[/snapback]</div>

I'm ten-bear in agreement with you on fixing this: "A growing attitude of entitlement amongst all of us.
A two income family that offloads children on day care. The economic structure that forces two income families."

But what do you mean by "...go after the adults...." ? How is that done exactly?

 

Reading this thread has left my mind reeling. My random thoughts:

In the heart of tobacco country, our county, in a compromise measure, banned smoking in all public places that allow children under 18. Ironically, the owner of the only restaurant in town that banned children rather than smoking died of lung cancer. The restaurant no longer allows smoking.

I agree that there has to be some kind of regulation of smoking in the presence of minors, but I don't have a clue how to reconcile that with my belief in the privacy of one's home, which I feel VERY strongly about.

I agree that smoking can be considered abuse in that there is no longer any question that it causes physical harm. I do, however, take umbrage at the statement that it is as bad or worse than physical abuse. As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse AND a chain-smoking mother, I can assure you that the second-hand smoke is not as bad or worse.

Somebody mentioned the additives in cigarettes -- what really gets me is the tobacco companies deliberately increase cigarettes' addictive quality. These are not my mother's cigarettes!

After smoking for 30 years, I quit almost 2 years ago. And while I enjoyed every cigarette I ever smoked, breathing is better -- not to mention the fact that I have not had bronchitis or even a cold since I quit smoking.

I agree that obesity is a huge (no pun intended!) health problem. And as many of you know, I have recently started dieting and walking. Hopefully, I haven't waited too late.

Peace --

 

The government should ban the sale and use, especially when it is harmful to non-smokers. What would be the downside of getting rid of an addictive substance that has been shown to cause cancer and other health problems? But they won't since they receive millions of dollars in revenue. They don't care that banning it will save millions of healthcare dollars. Just my two cents.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PriusPaul @ Dec 8 2006, 11:16 PM) [snapback]359615[/snapback]</div>

Well, alcohol is an addictive substance and creates healthcare problems as well. Plus a predisposition to the addiction often seems to follow genetic lines... And although you can't be harmed by sitting next to someone who has had a few drinks (unless you are at a Greenbay bar in Wisconsin during football season and start cheering for the Vikings), the risk to other people from someone drinking is often more immediate in terms of alcohol related deaths due to driving while intoxicated. I agree that if tobacco were discovered today it would probably be considered as bad or worse than other drugs that are not legal, but that is not the case. And although second hand smoke, in sufficient quantities and sufficient duration will create an environment likely to raise the incidence of health problems in others, it typically will not kill you in the blink of an eye like a drunk running a redlight... Besides... My brother who has never had a cigarette in his life inhales the equivalent of half a pack of cigarettes a day simply by living in Manhattan...

 

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

Jared2's right, Ban tobacco, But then you have to ban everything else that causes health issues... (ahh what am I saying?) :huh:


I was talking to a guy the other day, He told me he had just found he has out full blown cancer. he's 39.
He doesnt drink never smoked didnt hang around others that smoked and has no cancer history of others in his family.. He has never been on prescription medication, other than atibiotics every now and then. He just cant figure out how he caught it...

I have a grandmother that just passed away she died of natural causes she was 95 she smoked two packs of cigarettes a day from age 14 to 89.. She never had cancer or emphysema or any other smoking related issues....

I think the whole hype on smoking is just a scare tactic, to raise fear that smoking and 2nd hand smoke is gonna kill you because you breathed it. This is turn scares the sheeple to follow them in thier quest the anti-bad thing people get other known people to say its bad, those people become experts and the wheel starts turning and gaining speed. until they get what they want or the wheel breaks.. Kinda like prohibition in the 20's & 30's. Now it's the drug trade, you can buy crack or meth just about anywhere these days, is it illeagle? yeppers it sure is, I think they should just legalize drugs and prostitution and tax the living hell out of it. Hmm if it was leagle would they still do it or would they OD and take care of the over population problems when they arise and we have to go to the museum of hatural histroy to see what trees and grass looks like.. <_<

Im sure smoking is just like drinking you do to much and it becomes bad for you (like eating to much makes you Fat). I really believe if a person wants a perfect world go out and buy 100 acres build a 10' wall around it and start your community "The Safe Life Community" : No Smoking, No Drinking, No Fried Foods, No Drugs, No Guns, No Candy, No worries just plenty of clean healthy air, and leave it to beaver nieghbors.. :lol:

Sounds like a perfect place doesnt it? :mellow:

PS I think there are quite a few out there that would say the Gov. has too much control over what we can or cant do...

There I'll leave the Soap box here for somone else to use.. B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Dec 9 2006, 09:16 AM) [snapback]359739[/snapback]</div>

A lot of people who are scientifically and/or numerically illiterate fail to understand that cancer is a statistical condition. First of all, it is not "a disease" and is not "caught" the way you catch infectious illnesses. It is the name for what happens when some of your cells go berzerk and multiply out of control. There are numerous factors involved, many of which are understood and many of which are not. There are genetic factors and environmental factors. And not all the environmental factors are lifestyle choices. Cosmic rays can cause genetic changes which lead to cancer.

Does this mean that you might as well smoke a pack a day because you might get cancer from cosmic rays anyway? No, it does not, though it might seem that way to someone who is scientifically illiterate.

Everyone, no matter his genes or his lifestyle, has some statistical chance of developing cancer. Some people have a higher chance due to their genes. Some people have a higher chance due to exposure to carcinogens in the workplace. And some people have a higher chance due to chemicals they choose to expose themselves to, or chemicals that others (such as nearby smokers) expose them to.

The above quote displays a total lack of understanding of the mechanisms that lead to cancer and the reasons why lifestyle choices can increase your chances of developing it. Not because every smoker will get cancer, and not because a non-smoker cannot get cancer, but because smoking increases your chances of getting it astronomically.

Regarding the comparison with alcohol, one difference is that alcohol, in moderation, may have some slight health benefits. However, our society is altogether too lax in dealing with drunk drivers. Considering the number of tragic fatalities due to drunk driving, it should be considered a felony of the highest degree and treated accordingly: A substantial jail term for a first offense and loss of driving privileges. The "three strikes and you're out" philosophy makes far more sense for drunk drivers than it does for most other crimes.