Merged Smoking should be banned universally

[Explorer]

Why? Please support your argument for making tobacco illegal.

Explain what the consequences of prohibition would be, what it would achieve, and on what you base your assumptions. Thank you.

We already have a ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces in the UK. This also applies to smoking in company vehicles. The legislation is likely to be extended to the vicinity of the outside entrances to public buildings and the workplace. I would hope that the next step will be a ban on smoking in all outside public places like streets, public parks and gardens, beaches,etc.

A ban in the home would not be enforcible, but this is needed where passive smoking is important with respect to its effect on children.

Total prohibition is not practical, but legislation as described above will reduce smoking to a very small minority over the years.

My support for all current and future bans is entirely based on passive smoking, and the damage it causes to non-smokers, particularly children.

I also have to admit to an historical interest. I was an employee of British American Tobacco, and was sent on a two week indoctrination course on how tobacco was not harmful in any way. I was even supplied with as many free ciggies as I could smoke in the two weeks. BAT Industries eventually lost the medical arguments, and so their sales and marketing focus turned to the less enlightened and more vulnerable third world.

Their profit is derived from nicotine addiction. Once addicted, their customers often delude themselves into believing that they enjoy smoking, when really, it is only relief of nicotine withdrawal symptons that they experience.

 

[slingblade]

We already have a ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces in the UK. This also applies to smoking in company vehicles. The legislation is likely to be extended to the vicinity of the outside entrances to public buildings and the workplace. I would hope that the next step will be a ban on smoking in all outside public places like streets, public parks and gardens, beaches,etc.

A ban in the home would not be enforcible, but this is needed where passive smoking is important with respect to its effect on children.

Total prohibition is not practical, but legislation as described above will reduce smoking to a very small minority over the years.

Re-read what you wrote. If all were done as you suggest, it would be a ban, because all the places one could smoke have just been eliminated.

After you've taken smoking out of all indoor areas and all outdoor areas, where, pray tell, is left?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Private smoking clubs, and personal homes without children.

 

[slingblade]

Private smoking clubs, and personal homes without children.

I could be wrong, but I haven't lived anywhere that a private smoking club would be allowed. When a "public building" smoking ban is passed, it means ALL public buildings. Some places in Colorado tried to get smoker's clubs and special smoker's bars allowed. Nope.

If you didn't have small children of your own at home, but occasional visitors like grandchildren, what might be the law then? I'm asking for a best guess, not for you to know absolutely.

 

[dafydd]

No crack pipes?

This was in 1972,long before crack was invented. His point was that pipe smokers are peaceful,law abiding chaps.

 

[dafydd]

We already have a ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces in the UK. This also applies to smoking in company vehicles. The legislation is likely to be extended to the vicinity of the outside entrances to public buildings and the workplace. I would hope that the next step will be a ban on smoking in all outside public places like streets, public parks and gardens, beaches,etc.

A ban in the home would not be enforcible, but this is needed where passive smoking is important with respect to its effect on children.

Total prohibition is not practical, but legislation as described above will reduce smoking to a very small minority over the years.

My support for all current and future bans is entirely based on passive smoking, and the damage it causes to non-smokers, particularly children.

I also have to admit to an historical interest. I was an employee of British American Tobacco, and was sent on a two week indoctrination course on how tobacco was not harmful in any way. I was even supplied with as many free ciggies as I could smoke in the two weeks. BAT Industries eventually lost the medical arguments, and so their sales and marketing focus turned to the less enlightened and more vulnerable third world.

Their profit is derived from nicotine addiction. Once addicted, their customers often delude themselves into believing that they enjoy smoking, when really, it is only relief of nicotine withdrawal symptons that they experience.

Alcohol does more physical and social damage. Should that be banned too?

 

[Drachasor]

Alcohol does more physical and social damage. Should that be banned too?

Personally, I don't think total bans work. Smoking laws that don't totally ban smoking everywhere, but make it inconvenient and a bit expensive, seems to work better. I'd be in favor of doing this with alcohol, and legalizing drugs and doing it with them.

 

[dafydd]

Personally, I don't think total bans work. Smoking laws that don't totally ban smoking everywhere, but make it inconvenient and a bit expensive, seems to work better. I'd be in favor of doing this with alcohol, and legalizing drugs and doing it with them.

A very sensible attitude.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Round and round we go. What is going on here? If we take the arguments as presented, then we must also ban the internal combustion engine...but we won't. That's 'necessary', apparantly, 'economically' (although we managed just fine with tobacco and without the ICE).

What business is it of yours how I die?

 

[Verde]

This was in 1972,long before crack was invented. His point was that pipe smokers are peaceful,law abiding chaps.

Of course they are. My dear departed father smoked a pipe as long as I knew him. He was a fine member of the community. The problem was he used to stuff it with something like 'Old Dark Shag' which stank the house out. It perhaps was in an attempt to counteract the odours of my (Austrian) mother cooking up home-brewed sauerkraut. I'm surprised I still have any olfactory capability.

I haven't smoked a cigarette in almost 20 years, and wouldn't be averse to a complete ban. The problem would be that a number of my friends still do that, and it's getting harder to find a place where we can socialize. I dislike the stench, but I'll put up with it.

If there was a ban, maybe we'd just hang out under the freeway bridges, where the good folks go.

V.

 

[23_Tauri]

Round and round we go. What is going on here? If we take the arguments as presented, then we must also ban the internal combustion engine...but we won't. That's 'necessary', apparantly, 'economically' (although we managed just fine with tobacco and without the ICE).

What business is it of yours how I die?

Oh, I guess we'll get the last, lame defence of the interfering busybody:

Think of the children!

People with pets. That'll be next. If you're a smoker, you can't have a pet.

Why won't anyone just think of the kittens?! Kitten die of passive smoking too!

 

[23_Tauri]

I could be wrong, but I haven't lived anywhere that a private smoking club would be allowed. When a "public building" smoking ban is passed, it means ALL public buildings. Some places in Colorado tried to get smoker's clubs and special smoker's bars allowed. Nope.

And the mere fact that private smoking clubs are not allowed demonstrates that smoking bans aren't about public health, they're the outcome of a long-standing, politically powerful, moralistic, prohibitionist movement with its roots in 19th century Puritanism.

Pardon the pun, but the passive smoking debacle is a smokescreen.

 

[23_Tauri]

We already have a ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces in the UK. This also applies to smoking in company vehicles. The legislation is likely to be extended to the vicinity of the outside entrances to public buildings and the workplace. I would hope that the next step will be a ban on smoking in all outside public places like streets, public parks and gardens, beaches,etc.

And why would me having a cigarette in a public park, in the wide open air, interfere so badly with your life that makes you want to stop me from having that cigarette?

A ban in the home would not be enforcible, but this is needed where passive smoking is important with respect to its effect on children.

Think of the children!

Total prohibition is not practical, but legislation as described above will reduce smoking to a very small minority over the years.

Why is it any business of yours if other people choose to smoke? Do I go around wanting to ban things that other people like doing?

My support for all current and future bans is entirely based on passive smoking, and the damage it causes to non-smokers, particularly children.

Think of the children! Even if your argument holds and SHS does affect childrens' health (and I'm far from convinced there is strong evidence that it does) then why aren't adults allowed to smoke in places where only adults are allowed to go? Like pubs?

I also have to admit to an historical interest. I was an employee of British American Tobacco, and was sent on a two week indoctrination course on how tobacco was not harmful in any way. I was even supplied with as many free ciggies as I could smoke in the two weeks. BAT Industries eventually lost the medical arguments, and so their sales and marketing focus turned to the less enlightened and more vulnerable third world.

And I'm living in a 24/7, 365 days a year ASH indoctrination course on the evils of tobacco.

Their profit is derived from nicotine addiction. Once addicted, their customers often delude themselves into believing that they enjoy smoking, when really, it is only relief of nicotine withdrawal symptons that they experience.

Alcohol? Sugary foods? Computer games? Heck, we don't even have to get into the illegal stuff to see that business takes advantage of peoples' propensity to get addicted to stuff to make fat profits.

 

[Drachasor]

And the mere fact that private smoking clubs are not allowed demonstrates that smoking bans aren't about public health, they're the outcome of a long-standing, politically powerful, moralistic, prohibitionist movement with its roots in 19th century Puritanism.

Umm, people in the club are still members of the public, just to be clear.

 

[23_Tauri]

Umm, people in the club are still members of the public, just to be clear.

Yes, that's right, they're grown-up, smoking members of the public, who are making an informed choice about what to put into their bodies. What's that got to do with the campaign by the anti-smoking movement to - ostensibly - protect non-smokers from tobacco smoke?

If a bunch of smokers want to get together in a dimly lit but warm basement and smoke the evil weed, what's it got to do with anyone else?

Do I go around trying to stop people from eating MaccyD's because I find the sight of fat people's bellies sticking out over their trousers gross? Nope. I put up with looking at the bellies when I wander around in public places because I believe in the individuals' right to choose how they live their lives and that we should be tolerant of other peoples' choices, even if we wouldn't do what they choose to do ourselves.

 

[Drachasor]

Yes, that's right, they're grown-up, smoking members of the public, who are making an informed choice about what to put into their bodies. What's that got to do with the campaign by the anti-smoking movement to - ostensibly - protect non-smokers from tobacco smoke?

For one "informed choice" goes out the window with addictive substances.

If a bunch of smokers want to get together in a dimly lit but warm basement and smoke the evil weed, what's it got to do with anyone else?

If it causes significant harm then I think the State has a right to make doing it a bit annoying at least. If it doesn't hurt anyone, even the user, to any significant extent then I don't think the State should interfere at all. Assuming such harm is reasonably avoidable, of course.

Do I go around trying to stop people from eating MaccyD's because I find the sight of fat people's bellies sticking out over their trousers gross? Nope.

I think there's a great argument to be made for government interference in food to make healthier food cheaper and more available while unhealthy food is more expensive and harder to get.

 

[23_Tauri]

For one "informed choice" goes out the window with addictive substances.

With respect, I think that's quite a patronising thing to say and paints a picture of some junkie looking for their next tobacco fix. Not all smokers want to give up. Not even a majority. Smokers know the risks and some choose to keep smoking because of the positive effects of nicotine.

(Tauri waits for Drachasor's "well you would say that, you're addicted" response in 5, 4, 3.....)

If it causes significant harm then I think the State has a right to make doing it a bit annoying at least. If it doesn't hurt anyone, even the user, to any significant extent then I don't think the State should interfere at all. Assuming such harm is reasonably avoidable, of course.

Perhaps that's where we differ. Looks like I'm a bit more libertarian in my views on personal liberty. As it is, most things are dangerous. What's your view on alcohol, by the way? And does restricting a substance lead to less consumption? Take marijuana as a prime example of how banning something doesn't stop people from wanting it and finding it.

I think there's a great argument to be made for government interference in food to make healthier food cheaper and more available while unhealthy food is more expensive and harder to get.

Actually, healthy food is cheap. It's just that people like sugary, fatty food. And lots of it. Preferably made by someone else because they're lazy. If you look at some other threads on here you'll see some interesting discussions about how healthy food (made from scratch! ) is cheaper than processed junk.

 

[Drachasor]

With respect, I think that's quite a patronising thing to say and paints a picture of some junkie looking for their next tobacco fix. Not all smokers want to give up. Not even a majority. Smokers know the risks and some choose to keep smoking because of the positive effects of nicotine.

It's patronizing to ignore reality? I think it is ridiculous to act like you are immune to basic neural chemistry.

Perhaps that's where we differ. Looks like I'm a bit more libertarian in my views on personal liberty. As it is, most things are dangerous. What's your view on alcohol, by the way? And does restricting a substance lead to less consumption? Take marijuana as a prime example of how banning something doesn't stop people from wanting it and finding it.

I already stated my view on Alcohol. I'd be in favor of making it annoying to drink. I'd be in favor of making most/all currently illegal drugs legal and then making them annoying to use. This seems to produce positive effects in use. Now, I'd say we should start with less severe illegal drugs first, because it is possible that making them legal might get people to switch away from hard core drugs, hence making bans against them effective. Worth a shot.

I do realize this isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Actually, healthy food is cheap. It's just that people like sugary, fatty food. And lots of it. Preferably made by someone else because they're lazy. If you look at some other threads on here you'll see some interesting discussions about how healthy food (made from scratch! ) is cheaper than processed junk.

Made from scratch means it takes time. Taking time is a cost. Factor that cost in and they are FAR from cheap. Even that aside, the cheapest calories you can get are from non-healthy food. Ramen noodles is about 20 cents for 400 calories. SUPER CHEAP. You aren't going to find healthy food that can compare to the cheap price of cheap junk food when you factor in all things that are relevant.

Likewise if you go out to eat, junkier food is much cheaper than non-junkier food. So pretty much any venue you choose, the junk is cheapest.

Cutting out fat isn't cheap. Adding in vegetables isn't cheap. The right processed foods are cheap.

 

[23_Tauri]

It's patronizing to ignore reality? I think it is ridiculous to act like you are immune to basic neural chemistry.

I've not had a ciggie in two days. That's not because I've been trying to quit, but because it hasn't crossed my mind that I'd like one. I tend to smoke when I go out to the pub and have a drink, it's part of the ritual; pint, make a rolly, sit and have a chat.... apart from that I don't really smoke that much.

The reason I give you the personal details is to ask: how often does one have to indulge in order to be defined as addicted to a substance? If I have sugar in my tea, does that make me a sugar addict? If I toke weed at parties, am a addicted to marijuana? (the last one I don't do, but I do like m'sugar )

Most things we ingest change our neural chemistry. That's why we ingest them.

I already stated my view on Alcohol. I'd be in favor of making it annoying to drink. I'd be in favor of making most/all currently illegal drugs legal and then making them annoying to use. This seems to produce positive effects in use. Now, I'd say we should start with less severe illegal drugs first, because it is possible that making them legal might get people to switch away from hard core drugs, hence making bans against them effective. Worth a shot.

ok, I get the drift that you like annoying people.

Made from scratch means it takes time. Taking time is a cost. Factor that cost in and they are FAR from cheap. Even that aside, the cheapest calories you can get are from non-healthy food. Ramen noodles is about 20 cents for 400 calories. SUPER CHEAP. You aren't going to find healthy food that can compare to the cheap price of cheap junk food when you factor in all things that are relevant.

Likewise if you go out to eat, junkier food is much cheaper than non-junkier food. So pretty much any venue you choose, the junk is cheapest.

Cutting out fat isn't cheap. Adding in vegetables isn't cheap. The right processed foods are cheap.

What are the 'right' processed foods?

As it is, yeah, whatever. We all lead stressful lives, do crappy jobs, and you want to make life even more crappy by making it hard for grown-ups to unwind and have fun. Well, all I can say is I don't share your vision.

 

[Drachasor]

I've not had a ciggie in two days. That's not because I've been trying to quit, but because it hasn't crossed my mind that I'd like one. I tend to smoke when I go out to the pub and have a drink, it's part of the ritual; pint, make a rolly, sit and have a chat.... apart from that I don't really smoke that much.

The reason I give you the personal details is to ask: how often does one have to indulge in order to be defined as addicted to a substance? If I have sugar in my tea, does that make me a sugar addict? If I toke weed at parties, am a addicted to marijuana? (the last one I don't do, but I do like m'sugar )

Addiction is pretty well-defined. If you experience withdrawal, then you are chemically addicted to something. It's possible you are not addicted to nicotine, though I can't say for sure. I don't believe marijuana is addictive and I know sugar isn't.

There's also psychological addiction, but that's weaker AFAIK.

Honestly, I perhaps should have avoided the whole addiction thing. That makes something WORSE, but it isn't a core part of what I am talking about.

ok, I get the drift that you like annoying people.

Just saying, it seems like making something annoying to do rather than banning it works better.

What are the 'right' processed foods?

The cheap ones, of course (like the aforementioned ramen noodles). The most cost-effective stuff for caloric intake IS cheaper than healthy stuff and not good for you in significant quantities.

As it is, yeah, whatever. We all lead stressful lives, do crappy jobs, and you want to make life even more crappy but making it hard for grown-ups to unwind and have fun. Well, all I can say is I don't share your vision.

If you have to alter your neural chemistry to unwind or have fun or hurt yourself to unwind or have fun, I politely suggest that something is wrong with your brain or your life. I don't think this is an unreasonable stance to have.