Merged Smoking should be banned universally

[Ferguson]

No they can be arrested and put in smoker friendly cells.

Yes, I was just thinking that's the problem with the "War on Drugs," it doesn't waste enough money or imprison enough people.

 

[CosmicDP]

Maybe addicts should be able to apply for a card (Much like how foreigners can get an alcohol card in Dubai) To buy cigarettes or tobacco product you'd be required to show the card. Perhaps then this is all we need and the smoking age thing becomes superfluous.

That's the way to go. Banning smoking outright probably wouldn't work, but we could stamp it out in a generation doing it your way.

This idea has merit in principle but would need tightening up. Cards have the potential to be modified and passed from person to person. A more secure approach would be to tatoo some identifying mark on the smoker which would serve as their license to purchase tobacco. This would make it more difficult for individuals to get around the system. To combine convenience with confidentiality perhaps a location like the underside of the forearm would be best. Of course nobody would be forced to receive the tatoo but having it would be the precondition to purchasing tobacco.

 

[mikeyx]

I don't get why the smokers get singled out, it's a choice. I don't think they should ban it.

What is a bigger problem, the health risks of smoking or the health risks of obesity? They should be taxing the chit out of a burger at McDonalds and such as well then.

second hand smoke effects air quality and the health of others, it's not a choice or a right.

 

[mikeyx]

I don't see much evidence, if any, that banning smoking would be save money on healthcare, at least in the UK.

The cost of smoking related diseases to the NHS is somewhere between £1.7 and £5 billion. Tax revenue from smoking is around 10 billion.

so you put money ahead of people dying, then?

 

[mikeyx]

If you don't care for it, take yourself away from it; out of the situation.

nope put all the smokers in one enclosed (airtight) mandatory area, and seal them off from the rest.

 

[mikeyx]

Then we can go on to ban alcohol, fast food, soft drinks, cars...man to list goes on.

What else can we go ahead and ban while we are here?

(I have been smoke free for a long time, and I find them rather disgusting myself.)

nope, just smoking, because of second hand smoke.

 

[corbin]

Making poor decisions shouldn't be illegal.

I should have the freedom to choose to do good for myself or to do bad for myself.

 

[CosmicDP]

nope put all the smokers in one enclosed (airtight) mandatory area, and seal them off from the rest.

Yes, that could play a key role in the solution.

 

[MoeFaux]

No. Smoke away. You're free to have a puff around me whenever you like.

 

[bottsranzee]

second hand smoke effects air quality and the health of others, it's not a choice or a right.

So does vehicle exhaust, but I bet you are around those everyday.

 

[bottsranzee]

nope put all the smokers in one enclosed (airtight) mandatory area, and seal them off from the rest.

Then we should do the same to you and your kind; I can smell you body odor from here.

 

[JJM 777]

Can you give an example of such a law you would prefer not removed?

Seatbelt law.
Drug and medicine abuse laws.
Work safety laws.

 

[CosmicDP]

So does vehicle exhaust, but I bet you are around those everyday.

You don't need to smoke.

 

[phatred]

I've always thought I've had a good solution to this. Smoking cigarettes, weed, or drinking alcohol should be banned out in the open. Bars and restaurants should have a little cigarette, beer, or weed symbol in the window to show if it is permitted or not. Honestly I think the smell of cigarette smoke is disgusting and feel like punching whoever it is that is smoking by me. I've never understood how you can be allowed to smoke all over the place outside but get arrested if you are drinking a can of beer. But then again I think there are tons of laws that are ridiculously stupid.

 

[bottsranzee]

You don't need to smoke.

Ride a bike, take a hike...

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Prohibition is ineffectual at best.

I prefer to let others make their own lifestyle choices. My choice is to not smoke. Others may make a different choice.

 

[ehcks]

Seatbelt law.
Drug and medicine abuse laws.
Work safety laws.

Someone not wearing a seat belt becomes a projectile in a crash, and they can easily injure someone else.

Drug laws need to be abolished as soon as possible.

A business not having safety equipment is a danger to its entire workforce.

 

[roger]

- people have a right to be as healthy or sickly as they want. A person can drink themselves until they die, gamble away their life savings, contract as many venereal diseases as they please, eat fastfood everyday of their lives -- but they can't smoke? Seems like a bizarre and irrational exclusion, why shouldn't a person have a right to smoke until they die?

I agree, mostly. However, as a child I was forced to live in smoke for much of my childhood (my parents eventually quit). Having quite strong allergies (my allergist said I was the worst case he'd seen, which was probably an exaggeration but indicative) I can't say I view it as much different than child abuse. So, yes people are allowed to infect themselves with venereal diseases, or what have you, but not their children. Where public policy should fall out given that I'm not sure.

 

[Dessi]

Someone not wearing a seat belt becomes a projectile in a crash, and they can easily injure someone else.

One of my friends is a nurse who works in emergency care. Most people injured in traffic accidents are people who don't wear seatbelts in cars or helmets on a bike. (Crazily enough, I see people riding in shorts, no shirt, no helmet on the interstate. If someone like puts the bike down in the interstate, they're basically gooified.) Those people use a lot of hospital resources, drive up the cost of healthcare, and drive up the cost car insurance -- which takes money out of my pocket.

The trick with smoking is understanding that they pay much higher health insurance premiums. Its money out of their own pocket instead of mine. Here in Nebraska, Blue Cross Blue Shield will increase the premiums for smokers by $40-70/mo per smoker for any given insurance plan.

 

[GlennB]

nope, just smoking, because of second hand smoke.

Just smoking?

How about second-hand emissions from industrial incinerators?
Or second-hand silica dust from quarries?
Second-hand radioactive emissions from nuclear facilities?
Second-hand human hormones and derivatives entering our rivers?
Second-hand herbicides/pesticides/fungicides in our food?

Seems to me that action should be proportional to risk.