Should we keep Tobacco legal?

[BSP]

I am arguing against the selling of tobacco. Wish me luck, and thanks for reading.

Tobacco is a very common product in our economy today, appearing in many stores like Wal-mart and even the average corner store. One of the most common forms of tobacco is the cigarette, a small roll of finely cut tobacco leaves wrapped in a small tube of paper for smoking (tobacco is also used for cigars and pipes) . This ingredient, unfortunately, creates very serious side effects for its users.

Tobacco
Tobacco is a plant that is grown in warm climates. After it is picked, it can be ground/dried up to be made into a cigarette. These cigarettes and other tobacco products are sold all over the world (http://www.cancer.org/downloads/AA/TobaccoAtlas07.pdf). While this is a major economic success, there are serious flaws with the tobacco plant..​

I. Nicotine The plant contains nicotine, a highly addictive chemical that causes the user of the cigarette to want more. By consuming tobacco, the user begins to become dependant on the substance, forcing them to attain more and more of the substance to feel satisfied.

II. The Effect of Tobacco Besides causing addiction in users, tobacco has some nasty effects on the body as well.

Once tobacco has been smoked, two main ingredients are left in the consumer's body: tar and nicotine. While the latter acts as a stimulant and gives the tobacco its addictive qualities, tar is the gooey black substance that remains in the consumer's lungs. Both have negative impacts on the respiratory system: Nicotine constricts blood vessels, causing the heart to pump harder (and strain, while making gas exchange difficult) while the tar causes the person to cough (the body attempting to remove it). Eventually, this combination decreases the body's lung mass, leading to emphysema, which can't be stopped.

In addition to this, tobacco has been proven to be one of the leading causes of lung cancer (which is the leading cancer in deaths of both men and women): "About 90% of lung cancers arise due to tobacco use." (from emedicine health) Lung cancer is a deadly cancer that spreads ravenously once it becomes a malignant tumor. Lung cancer is to be feared: "Only about 2% of those diagnosed with lung cancer that has spread to other areas of the body are alive five years after the diagnosis, although the survival rates for lung cancers diagnosed at a very early stage are higher, with approximately 49% surviving for five years or longer."

Now, after reading this information on tobacco, let's get back to the main point. After seeing all of these negative effects of tobacco, how can we possibly keep it legal in our world today? Not only does it cause dependencies, but it is a proven of both men and women. If the user is lucky enough to survive, the plant usually causes irreversible harm to the body, with the sad part being the user will just want even more.

One counter-arguement I expect to see is that tobacco is good for our economy. While I must agree that the sales of tobacco products do bring in an impressive amount of capital, we must consider the price we are paying: human life. Is it right to kill our brothers to have some extra money? Human life is not comparable to any monetary value; it's not right to murder our own brethren for the sake of money.

There is no question that tobacco does nothing positive for the body (except the short lived feeling of happiness), yet we continue to distribute it to our fellow human beings. We need to take a stand and improve our future by removing this threat now.


Links for information:

http://healthliteracy.worlded.org/docs/tobacco/Unit1/1what_is.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette (for a definition)
http://www.cancer.org/downloads/AA/TobaccoAtlas07.pdf
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/lung_cancer/article_em.htm

I can find more information if needed. Thank you for reading, and I'll adress any criticisms to the best of my ability.

 

[Grandeza]

Is it right to kill our brothers to have some extra money? Human life is not comparable to any monetary value; it's not right to murder our own brethren for the sake of money.

Nobody is being murdered. It is the choice of the buyer to purchase and smoke cigarettes. The people distributing and selling them are by no means murdering. The bottom line is, it's your body and if you want to harm it with cigarettes, that is your right.

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

what about the safe food and drug act? lol

But the way I see it is it has a warning label, people are being warned all the time, ad there is an age limit.

It gives jobs and it reduces the number of people or slows the popution exposion a little.

It keeps the dumber parts of world down when they could use their *** money for help.

it's clearly a choice this isn't carck or anything.

Also my dad smokes and I know he will die them and my time with him will be robbed I still think they should be legal(but it's BS that as dangerous as this compared to weed this is legal) But yeah is they think weed shouldn't be used neither should cigs.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

what about the safe food and drug act? lol

But the way I see it is it has a warning label, people are being warned all the time, ad there is an age limit.

It gives jobs and it reduces the number of people or slows the popution exposion a little.

It keeps the dumber parts of world down when they could use their *** money for help.

it's clearly a choice this isn't carck or anything.

Also my dad smokes and I know he will die them and my time with him will be robbed I still think they should be legal(but it's BS that as dangerous as this compared to weed this is legal) But yeah is they think weed shouldn't be used neither should cigs.

T'would be nice if you made your writing a tad more legible, at the moment it's rather hard to read...

Anyway...

If you ban tobacco, you risk increasing crime rates. Remember in the prohibition era, there were plenty of gangs selling contraband alcohol, using that to make massive profits. Then they would have gang-wars.

Would you rather live in a society that has a few people practicing self-harm (smoking) or have a surge in crime rates and large gang wars? The choice is yours. Additionally, rates of smoking are decreasing and currently it would be better to just lower the numbers of smokers so that the effects are fewer, and keep it legal.

Also, when cigarettes are legal, they can be regulated. This means that although they're dangerous, we can use legislation to try and minimise the harm that they cause. We can try and decrease the amounts of dangerous chemicals that enter cigarettes during the manufacturing process, and regulate the amount of tar that is in a cigarette. Whereas if we outlawed cigarettes, we have no control over what the tobacco dealers sell to the smokers. They'll put anything in to make a larger profit, I wouldn't have a clue!

 

[BSP]

Nobody is being murdered. It is the choice of the buyer to purchase and smoke cigarettes. The people distributing and selling them are by no means murdering. The bottom line is, it's your body and if you want to harm it with cigarettes, that is your right.

I totally agree with smoking being the people's choice. My complaint is that these industries (and governments regulating these laws) know the harmful effects (ultimately leads to death) that tobacco causes, yet we are still selling it. I know it's the right of the person to chose to smoke that cigarette, but I do not think it's right to distributors to distribute a product that is known to cause harmful effects.

what about the safe food and drug act? lol.

From reading in the FDA (see link below), the safe food and drug act seems to be more focused on drugs used for medical purposes. I do not see where it specifically includes tobacco. Look below where I elaborate more.

From the FDA (updated 4/30/2009)

2000

"The U. S. Supreme Court, upholding an earlier decision in Food and Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. et al., ruled 5-4 that FDA does not have authority to regulate tobacco as a drug. Within weeks of this ruling, FDA revokes its final rule, issued in 1996, that restricted the sale and distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to children and adolescents, and that determined that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products are combination products consisting of a drug (nicotine) and device components intended to deliver nicotine to the body.

Federal agencies are required to issue guidelines to maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the information they generate, and to provide a mechanism whereby those affected can secure correction of information that does not meet these guidelines, under the Data Quality Act.

Publication of a rule on dietary supplements defines the type of statement that can be labeled regarding the effect of supplements on the structure or function of the body."

All the FDA can do is provide information about the drugs people are taking. They can't regulate tobacco like a drug.

But the way I see it is it has a warning label, people are being warned all the time, ad there is an age limit.

It gives jobs and it reduces the number of people or slows the popution exposion a little.

It keeps the dumber parts of world down when they could use their *** money for help.

it's clearly a choice this isn't carck or anything..

See my response to Grandeza. I'm aware that it's the people's right and choice to use the products, but I am against the distribution if it's known to have significant consequences.

When you say it gives jobs, that is the one area that I agree with will be hurt with tobacco being made illegal. I'm aware that if tobacco became illegal, it would bring this con for sure. Give me some time and I will try to think of some response.

Slowing the population..I do not believe that death is a good thing, or that the world should be giving more chances of allowing death (ie marketing tobacco). Death happens naturally, and from other things besides tobacco. When our numbers exceed our carrying capacity, we will dwindle, it's natural. Why should we offer the people a chance to kill themselves when we are aware of what we are offering? Especially when naturally we will dwindle if we begin to overpopulate?

Your comment about keeping its consumers down...I agree that once tobacco has been used, it is very difficult to quit. Thus, the people hooked will continue to waste their money on something leading them close to death (their choice, ok) while we continue to produce more for them to (not ok)

If you ban tobacco, you risk increasing crime rates. Remember in the prohibition era, there were plenty of gangs selling contraband alcohol, using that to make massive profits. Then they would have gang-wars.

How do you know that the banning of tobacco would cause similar events to the prohibition era? That's a pretty big assumption.

Would you rather live in a society that has a few people practicing self-harm (smoking) or have a surge in crime rates and large gang wars? The choice is yours. Additionally, rates of smoking are decreasing and currently it would be better to just lower the numbers of smokers so that the effects are fewer, and keep it legal.

If you refer to the map chart I posted in the OP, I wouldn't call the amount of people practicing self harm a few. And again, how do you know that large gang war and violence would erupt? That is assuming people will react in the same exact way, feel the same about alcohol and tobacco, etc.

From http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5542a1.htm

"In 2005, an estimated 20.9% (45.1 million) of U.S. adults were current cigarette smokers; of these, 80.8% (36.5 million) smoked every day, and 19.2% (8.7 million) smoked some days."

45.1 million people smoking, and that's just the US. That's a lot of self harm going on. How do you know that the rates of smoking are decreasing? Can you link to some sites or something?

Also, when cigarettes are legal, they can be regulated. This means that although they're dangerous, we can use legislation to try and minimise the harm that they cause. We can try and decrease the amounts of dangerous chemicals that enter cigarettes during the manufacturing process, and regulate the amount of tar that is in a cigarette. Whereas if we outlawed cigarettes, we have no control over what the tobacco dealers sell to the smokers. They'll put anything in to make a larger profit, I wouldn't have a clue!

See above at the quote from the FDA on the regulation on tobacco. It can't be regulated by the FDA like medical drugs are. If they were outlawed, wouldn't the government be after the illegal dealers anyway? The "what they would put in the cigarettes if they were outlawed" statement makes sense to me, but in their current position now, they are still causing death. Is their something worse than death they could cause?

 

[Dre89]

I would just like to ask a question here-

Nobody is being murdered. It is the choice of the buyer to purchase and smoke cigarettes. The people distributing and selling them are by no means murdering. The bottom line is, it's your body and if you want to harm it with cigarettes, that is your right.

To be consistent with the logic in this sentence, I'm guessing you'e going by the idea that anything is ok as lonn as you're not harming or imposing on others against their will.

So then is it ok to view child pornography, or at least have lustful thoughts about children? If not, what's the difference?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

How do you know that the banning of tobacco would cause similar events to the prohibition era? That's a pretty big assumption.

Yeah, you're entirely right I'm assuming a number of things. Firstly, that even if smoking is made illegal, it will still be done. Secondly, drug-dealers will sell these cigarettes to the people who want to buy them and that it will be expensive because it's illegal. Thirdly, that increasing the amount of money drug-dealers receive will increase their power and influence, which will create more crime.

These seem to me to be fairly reasonable.

If you refer to the map chart I posted in the OP, I wouldn't call the amount of people practicing self harm a few. And again, how do you know that large gang war and violence would erupt? That is assuming people will react in the same exact way, feel the same about alcohol and tobacco, etc.

From http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5542a1.htm

"In 2005, an estimated 20.9% (45.1 million) of U.S. adults were current cigarette smokers; of these, 80.8% (36.5 million) smoked every day, and 19.2% (8.7 million) smoked some days."

45.1 million people smoking, and that's just the US. That's a lot of self harm going on. How do you know that the rates of smoking are decreasing? Can you link to some sites or something?

Well, this report here from the Washington State Department of Health suggests that Tobacco use is decreasing:
http://www.doh.wa.gov/tobacco/program/reports/tpcp09progrpt.pdf

This graph from the CDC seems to tell the story:

Full Link here: http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/AAG/osh.htm

See above at the quote from the FDA on the regulation on tobacco. It can't be regulated by the FDA like medical drugs are.

There's this wonderful thing called legislation. Congress can meet and create a new body to regulate it, or pass laws that allow the FDA to do it or something. When you can create laws, you can really make lots of progress.

If they were outlawed, wouldn't the government be after the illegal dealers anyway? The "what they would put in the cigarettes if they were outlawed" statement makes sense to me, but in their current position now, they are still causing death. Is their something worse than death they could cause?

Remember, not everyone that smokes dies from lung-cancer or from smoking. If tobacco was made more toxic, more people would die, so it's basically a matter of ensuring that that doesn't occur. Take an illegal drug for example, heroin. All sorts of strange substances (concrete powder, flour, sugar) are deliberately placed in it, to increase its volume so that the drug-dealer can increase his profits. This causes more health problems, than if pure heroin were sold. This may happen to tobacco if it is outlawed.

 

[Grandeza]

I would just like to ask a question here-



To be consistent with the logic in this sentence, I'm guessing you'e going by the idea that anything is ok as lonn as you're not harming or imposing on others against their will.

So then is it ok to view child pornography, or at least have lustful thoughts about children? If not, what's the difference?

Well child pornography is bad because involves abusing a minor when they can't yet give consent legally. And to the part about having lustful thoughts of children: If they're just thoughts not being acted upon, you couldn't actually arrest someone for it, right?

 

[Dre89]

But are you saying that having lustful thoughts of children is moral? Forget whether we can arrest them or not, I'm only concerned with the moral implications of the logic of 'if you're not harming anyone else it's ok'.

What about sex with animals, they don't have personhood, and things such as cattle are mindlessly slaughtered all the time, so surely they don't have any rights we need to respect?

 

[Grandeza]

But are you saying that having lustful thoughts of children is moral? Forget whether we can arrest them or not, I'm only concerned with the moral implications of the logic of 'if you're not harming anyone else it's ok'.

What about sex with animals, they don't have personhood, and things such as cattle are mindlessly slaughtered all the time, so surely they don't have any rights we need to respect?

I wouldn't say that having lustful thoughts of children is moral. But when I say If you're not harming someone else it's ok, I mean if your not harming someone else it shouldn't be illegal and like I said you obviously can't arrest someone for having lustful thoughts of children.

And in response to the sex with animals, slaughtering animals is very different from having sex with them. Animals are generally slaughtered quickly and humanely. Having sex with them is entirely different.

 

[GoldShadow]

What does bestiality have to do with tobacco?

 

[Grandeza]

What does bestiality have to do with tobacco?

Nothing directly but he was questioning the extensions and implications of my original point.

 

[BSP]

Yeah, you're entirely right I'm assuming a number of things. Firstly, that even if smoking is made illegal, it will still be done.

I agree. It will surely happen illegitimately. However, we can't say that everyone will resort to illegal smoking, and the extent of the illegitimate tobacco use is important too. If a ban was sure fire to cause prohibition-like status, I wouldn't support it as much. You also have to look at the other side of a ban: It removes tobacco from the market, lowering the chances that any more peoples will become addicted. At the same time, medical expenses due to tobacco related problems (and any other tobacco related procedures)would also decrease due to its ban, in addition with deaths, cancers, etc.

Secondly, drug-dealers will sell these cigarettes to the people who want to buy them and that it will be expensive because it's illegal.

Again, if we could predict the extent of this, it would make a difference in my response. If a ban on tobacco would produce just as much trouble as prohibition, I'd reconsider.

Thirdly, that increasing the amount of money drug-dealers receive will increase their power and influence, which will create more crime.

Again, going back to extent. Do you know if the number of tobacco users in today's day is comparable to the number of alcohol consumer back in the 1920's? You said it yourself that the level of smokers is falling (but your graph is limited to Washington). This would mean that the chances of significant reprocussions is being reduced as well. These assumptions are assuming that times are exactly like those of the 1920s, but there are some different factors (# of alcohol users in 1920 vs. #tobacco users today, alcohol ban made alcohol considered intoxicating illegal, including beer, liquor,etc. Compare this to tobacco being 1 drug.)

Well, this report here from the Washington State Department of Health suggests that Tobacco use is decreasing:
http://www.doh.wa.gov/tobacco/program/reports/tpcp09progrpt.pdf

This graph from the CDC seems to tell the story:

Full Link here: http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/AAG/osh.htm

The first report is nice, but it is only Washington. Is the whole country following this pattern?

The second graph also shows a definite decrease in tobacco use as well. This leads me to to things: Since the # of tobacco users is decreasing, prohibition like reprocussions because of a ban seem more and more unlikely.

Two, instead of leaving that decreasing line up to chance, how about we ban the drug, making it harder for individuals trying to quit to have access to it. With a ban, we could support programs like many states are doing now to try and turn people away from this nasty habit, and get closer to a tobacco free country (note closer, not become tobacco free). Like I said before, the abscense of tobacco plus the steady decrease in users would mean that expenses caused by the drug would go down as well, and a ban would help prevent future generations from getting tied in as well.

There's this wonderful thing called legislation. Congress can meet and create a new body to regulate it, or pass laws that allow the FDA to do it or something. When you can create laws, you can really make lots of progress..

lol, I do fail sometimes. Even with restrictions, the addictive quality of the drug will remain, and thus the chances of illness related to the drug will remain. If the amount of tar is limited, that would help, but the addictive quality still poses a problem.

Remember, not everyone that smokes dies from lung-cancer or from smoking. If tobacco was made more toxic, more people would die, so it's basically a matter of ensuring that that doesn't occur. Take an illegal drug for example, heroin. All sorts of strange substances (concrete powder, flour, sugar) are deliberately placed in it, to increase its volume so that the drug-dealer can increase his profits. This causes more health problems, than if pure heroin were sold. This may happen to tobacco if it is outlawed.

True, not everyone that uses tobacco dies directly from it, but it is a pretty high rate. I think my response above covers this.

On a side note, thanks for participating.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I agree. It will surely happen illegitimately. However, we can't say that everyone will resort to illegal smoking, and the extent of the illegitimate tobacco use is important too. If a ban was sure fire to cause prohibition-like status, I wouldn't support it as much. You also have to look at the other side of a ban: It removes tobacco from the market, lowering the chances that any more peoples will become addicted. At the same time, medical expenses due to tobacco related problems (and any other tobacco related procedures)would also decrease due to its ban, in addition with deaths, cancers, etc.

I know, it's just that Tobacco has a whole number of people in the USA who are currently addicted and some will resort to illegal smoking. Even if a small number did this, rates of illegal drug use would increase dramatically.

Again, if we could predict the extent of this, it would make a difference in my response. If a ban on tobacco would produce just as much trouble as prohibition, I'd reconsider.

The thing is, we can't predict the future very easily, so I'm saying that it isn't really worth the risk.

Again, going back to extent. Do you know if the number of tobacco users in today's day is comparable to the number of alcohol consumer back in the 1920's? You said it yourself that the level of smokers is falling (but your graph is limited to Washington). This would mean that the chances of significant reprocussions is being reduced as well. These assumptions are assuming that times are exactly like those of the 1920s, but there are some different factors (# of alcohol users in 1920 vs. #tobacco users today, alcohol ban made alcohol considered intoxicating illegal, including beer, liquor,etc. Compare this to tobacco being 1 drug.)

Yes, indeed, but the levels of smokers are decreasing normally, we probably should just let them drop down very close to 0, and leave it at that. That way we don't risk raising crime rates or having significant repercussions. If a ban is to occur, it should wait until tobacco use becomes much more rare and sidelined. This way there will be no chance of a repeat of the prohibition era.

The first report is nice, but it is only Washington. Is the whole country following this pattern?

The second graph also shows a definite decrease in tobacco use as well. This leads me to to things: Since the # of tobacco users is decreasing, prohibition like reprocussions because of a ban seem more and more unlikely.

Okay, sure then, but there is still plenty of smokers, and if a ban is enacted in the current moment, the repercussions would probably be large.

Two, instead of leaving that decreasing line up to chance, how about we ban the drug, making it harder for individuals trying to quit to have access to it.

Well, firstly, the decreasing line isn't really due to chance. It's because of raised awareness of the dangers of tobacco and a whole number of factors such as, no smoking areas, social stigma attached to smoking etc.

With a ban, we could support programs like many states are doing now to try and turn people away from this nasty habit, and get closer to a tobacco free country (note closer, not become tobacco free). Like I said before, the abscense of tobacco plus the steady decrease in users would mean that expenses caused by the drug would go down as well, and a ban would help prevent future generations from getting tied in as well.

Well, that's all well and good, but you have to remember, we can turn people away from smoking without a ban. Though I do understand your point, but we are already making it very hard for people to take up the habit, with no smoking areas, age restrictions, and so forth.

lol, I do fail sometimes. Even with restrictions, the addictive quality of the drug will remain, and thus the chances of illness related to the drug will remain. If the amount of tar is limited, that would help, but the addictive quality still poses a problem.

I know, but the point is we can make cigarettes less harmful, but they'll always produce harm. Harm minimisation is a good approach to take, it'll mean that we can reduce the impacts of cigarettes, and reduce the numbers of smokers, to reduce the effects.

On a side note, thanks for participating.

Nah, I think it's more down to you creating a very good topic!

 

[Aesir]

What does bestiality have to do with tobacco?

What does anything he brings up have to do with any topic really?

I agree. It will surely happen illegitimately. However, we can't say that everyone will resort to illegal smoking, and the extent of the illegitimate tobacco use is important too. If a ban was sure fire to cause prohibition-like status, I wouldn't support it as much. You also have to look at the other side of a ban: It removes tobacco from the market, lowering the chances that any more peoples will become addicted. At the same time, medical expenses due to tobacco related problems (and any other tobacco related procedures)would also decrease due to its ban, in addition with deaths, cancers, etc.

Let me ask you something, has banning marijuana stopped anyone new from smoking it?

Again, if we could predict the extent of this, it would make a difference in my response. If a ban on tobacco would produce just as much trouble as prohibition, I'd reconsider.

Might want to start because not only does prohibition not stop people from smoking it also doesn't stop new people from trying.

Furthermore banning smoking would hurt states during budget crisis, when states go through recessions what tax do they raise almost immediately? The sin tax. If people want to pay more money to kill them self's than that's their right to do so.

 

[KrazyGlue]

It's a great idea in theory to ban tobacco, but honestly it's still being used too widely. When the amount of people using tobacco is down considerably, I definitely think it should be banned. It most cetainly harms people other than the smoker (i.e. a child living with a parent who smokes is subjected to dangerous levels of second hand smoke).

By the way, thank you mariobrouser for bringing some actvity in here.

 

[Dre89]

What does anything he brings up have to do with any topic really?

Why are you always out to attack me?

If a PGer said that, they'd get criticised for being insultive, and get told to sharpen their debating skills to make them more articulate.

I was questioning the moral implications of the idea that if something is not harming other people, it is ok to do.

It's relevant to the topic because someone said that tobacco should be legal, on the grounds that it's your body and you're not harming anyone else. I was merely questioning the implications of allowing certain practices on these grounds.

That's what it has to do with the topic.

 

[SuperBowser]

Let me ask you something, has banning marijuana stopped anyone new from smoking it?

Basically this.

I do think smoking should have been illegal when it started. But I'm aware that there's no point now because it won't make a difference. People will smoke regardless, so what will the law acheive? It's just going to open up the market for illegal practices.

In England (i can find the study if anyone's interested) there's a lovely graph showing that if you increase the price of cigarettes, people smoke less. However once past a certain point people just imported their cigarettes or got them from illegal sources. As a result, cigarettes haven't seen much change in price for several years. Until this problem is sorted, it's likely to remain that way.

A better solution is to educate the new generation, limit the damage done to others and provide incentives/help for the smokers who do want to quit (as bob jane already mentioned).

 

[KrazyGlue]

I disagree that making tobacco illegal wouldn't reduce the amount of users. Less people use marijuana than tobacco despite it being not as bad for you (and arguably more glorified, at least in the US). I certainly agree that we should increase the price on tobacco and continue educating youth on its effects. The amount of people using tobacco in the US has been steadily decreasing for a long time, and I hope the trend continues. Then, when only a small percetage of people are using it, ban it.

 

[SuperBowser]

Oh it probably would decrease the number of smokers. But not by much and at a great cost.

You think addicted people won't continue to purchase cigarettes if they find a way? I'd say it's borderline cruel to even put a smoker in such a situation. I know I'd be angry if the government forced me into continuing my habit through illegal methods.

 

[BSP]

I know, it's just that Tobacco has a whole number of people in the USA who are currently addicted and some will resort to illegal smoking. Even if a small number did this, rates of illegal drug use would increase dramatically.

Don't know about dramatically, but yes.

The thing is, we can't predict the future very easily, so I'm saying that it isn't really worth the risk.

I see your point, see my conclusion.

Yes, indeed, but the levels of smokers are decreasing normally, we probably should just let them drop down very close to 0, and leave it at that. That way we don't risk raising crime rates or having significant repercussions. If a ban is to occur, it should wait until tobacco use becomes much more rare and sidelined. This way there will be no chance of a repeat of the prohibition era.

All right.

Okay, sure then, but there is still plenty of smokers, and if a ban is enacted in the current moment, the repercussions would probably be large.

You can't really say how large the reprocussions would be. Anyway, see conclusion.

Well, firstly, the decreasing line isn't really due to chance. It's because of raised awareness of the dangers of tobacco and a whole number of factors such as, no smoking areas, social stigma attached to smoking etc.

I meant that we should lower the chance of new users.

Well, that's all well and good, but you have to remember, we can turn people away from smoking without a ban. Though I do understand your point, but we are already making it very hard for people to take up the habit, with no smoking areas, age restrictions, and so forth.

All right, I see your point.

I know, but the point is we can make cigarettes less harmful, but they'll always produce harm. Harm minimisation is a good approach to take, it'll mean that we can reduce the impacts of cigarettes, and reduce the numbers of smokers, to reduce the effects.

Yes, reducing the harm is a good approach. It would give smokers more time to realize that they're killing themselves.

Let me ask you something, has banning marijuana stopped anyone new from smoking it?

Probably not. Do you think it decreased the chances of new people using it?

Might want to start because not only does prohibition not stop people from smoking it also doesn't stop new people from trying.

It would decrease that chances of new users trying. It would take it out of the legal market, so that source would disappear. It would appear illegally, but most likely not to the same extent as it does legally now. Sorry if I said it would flat out stop new users from trying.

Furthermore banning smoking would hurt states during budget crisis, when states go through recessions what tax do they raise almost immediately? The sin tax. If people want to pay more money to kill them self's than that's their right to do so.

The sin tax isn't solely on tobacco products. Their ban would make it less effective, but it wouldn't destroy the tactic immediately. I agree that it's the people's right to hurt themselves, but I don't agree on marketing tobacco even though it's harmful.

By the way, thank you mariobrouser for bringing some actvity in here.

Activity is good!

Children being exposed to second hand smoke is a good point that KrazyGlue mentioned, I should have included that. Unlike the people who willingly choose to smoke, the second hand smoke can hurt people (mostly children in this case, since smoking has been outlawed in most public places) that have not made the choice to consume it themselves. Is there anything we can do about this?

Oh it probably would decrease the number of smokers. But not by much and at a great cost.

You think addicted people won't continue to purchase cigarettes if they find a way? I'd say it's borderline cruel to even put a smoker in such a situation. I know I'd be angry if the government forced me into continuing my habit through illegal methods.

The ban wouldn't really affect the # of current smokers (except drop a tiny bit, since it would drive the ones not willing to resort to illegal tactics to smoke away) . The aim was to reduce the chance of new smokers.

Your second point goes back to the emergence of illegal smoking, which I agreed would probably happen. However, it would be difficult to predict the extent, and how many users will resort to illegal tactics to smoke.

It's the smoker's own fault for getting addicted in the first place, not the Gov.'s. If tobacco was outlawed, it would be up to the smoker to resort to illegal methods or try to break the nasty habit.

Anyway,

I've seen some good respones and they changed my mind a bit. It would be best if we left tobacco legal, raise the price of the drug, and tried to raise more awareness of the drugs effects. A ban would do some good, but it also raises the chance of prohibition like reprocussions. While it's hard to say whether or not these reprcussions would be just as bad as prohibition's, it wouldn't be worth the risk if the # of smokers is decreasing without a ban. If the # keeps going down, the business may begin to fail on its own, and a ban may not even be necessary.

Well, that's my thoughts on the topic now. I would like an answer to my point on children being subjected to secondhand smoke though.

 

[Aesir]

Probably not. Do you think it decreased the chances of new people using it?

No.

It would decrease that chances of new users trying. It would take it out of the legal market, so that source would disappear. It would appear illegally, but most likely not to the same extent as it does legally now. Sorry if I said it would flat out stop new users from trying

No it wouldn't stop new users from trying it, it would only make it harder there are still ways to acquire tobacco even if it was illegal. The number of people you're deterring would be such a minute amount. On a cost benefit analysis it wouldn't make sense you would be wasting so much law enforcement resources for a policy that doesn't even work well.

The sin tax isn't solely on tobacco products. Their ban would make it less effective, but it wouldn't destroy the tactic immediately. I agree that it's the people's right to hurt themselves, but I don't agree on marketing tobacco even though it's harmful.

So you're all for making the tax less effective? as for your second point what's the difference if it's marketed or not? You're not going to win the fight against tobacco if you're just going to go legislate it. It's ineffective, education has been a far more effective tool against tobacco.

 

[BSP]

No.

Well, that's your opinion.

No it wouldn't stop new users from trying it, it would only make it harder there are still ways to acquire tobacco even if it was illegal.

Which is what I said. A ban would decrease the chances of new users trying it. Making it harder to aquire decreases the chances too. I'm aware that there would be ways to aquire tobacco even if it was illegal.

The number of people you're deterring would be such a minute amount. On a cost benefit analysis it wouldn't make sense you would be wasting so much law enforcement resources for a policy that doesn't even work well.

How do you know that the amount of people that would be detered is a minute amount? If the drug was banned, illegal methods would be the only way to acquire it. For the # of people deterred to be very minute, you're claiming that the amount of illegitimate tobacco distribution and use will be close to even with legitimate distribution and use today. If that's correct, what's your reasoning for this? Do you expect most of the current users to become distributors of the drug, or a huge surge of drug dealers (which would be going straight to worse case scenario)?

I want to know your reasoning to believe that the policy would be such a failure.

So you're all for making the tax less effective? as for your second point what's the difference if it's marketed or not? You're not going to win the fight against tobacco if you're just going to go legislate it. It's ineffective, education has been a far more effective tool against tobacco.

Well, the answer to your first question (loaded? Why couldn't states just include other practices believed to be sinful in the tax to balance the abscense of tax on tobacco?) would depend on how much less effective the tax would become. If it became near useless, I could see it as a valid point for keeping the drug, but then that leads me to ask if money is valued more than people, since we're willing to keep a drug that kills legal just for money.

My second point was that I don't think the gov. should allow tobacco to be distributed when its harmful effects are known. I know its the right of the individual to smoke, but I do not agree with giving people the chance to kill themselves.

Well, in my post above yours, I did say I though about what I've seen, and I decided that a ban wouldn't be the best option. If the # of smokers continues to decrease, it's probably not smart to risk creating an underground scene (the extent of which is unknown though). However, I have not seen any proof that a ban WILL create such a large underground scene that we can't handle.

 

[SuperBowser]

The ban wouldn't really affect the # of current smokers (except drop a tiny bit, since it would drive the ones not willing to resort to illegal tactics to smoke away) . The aim was to reduce the chance of new smokers.

Your second point goes back to the emergence of illegal smoking, which I agreed would probably happen. However, it would be difficult to predict the extent, and how many users will resort to illegal tactics to smoke.

It's the smoker's own fault for getting addicted in the first place, not the Gov.'s. If tobacco was outlawed, it would be up to the smoker to resort to illegal methods or try to break the nasty habit.

Well just look at how many people try marijuana despite it being illegal (it's a lot). The simple act of making something illegal will have a questionable effect if the product is still freely distributed. Seriously, I can get weed from like 3 different sources right now if i feel like it. Knowledge is power, not a ban. You will simply give the market away to drug dealers, alienate smokers and prevent a very small number of people from picking up the habit.

I don't think blaming the smoker is so simple. Imagine the backlash; Why was it legal before? How can the government just withdraw something that people have had all their lives? Is this a class-ist law? Why is the goverment making 30% of the population of law abiding citizens feel like they are criminals? When I started smoking nobody knew me it was bad for your health. How can you ban me from something that I'm addicted to, when it's not my fault?

Banning cigarettes in such a fashion might even have an impact on smoker's health. Will they want to admit to doing something illegal, even if it is relevant to their condition? Will as many people come forward for help quitting?


Education, support of smokers in quitting, increasing taxation and combating illicit trade of tobacco is the current method employed. I don't think there's any evidence that an outright ban would be more effective than this (correct me if I'm wrong)...

 

[BSP]

You will simply give the market away to drug dealers, alienate smokers and prevent a very small number of people from picking up the habit.

I see your point. I would like to know your reasoning for saying it would only prevent a small amount of people from picking the habit. The # of smokers is decreasing, and a ban would remove the tobacco from the market. Do you think the amount of illegitimate distribution will be the same as the legal distribution now, and if so, do have anything to back that claim up?

When you guys say "give the market to the drug dealers", you don't give any reasoning to back that up. How are you guys so sure that the illegal scene will become such a huge problem that law enforcement can't handle it? You guys seem to be assuming the worst. I think it's going into slipery slope; where is the evidence to support this?

I don't think blaming the smoker is so simple. Imagine the backlash; Why was it legal before? How can the government just withdraw something that people have had all their lives? Is this a class-ist law? Why is the goverment making 30% of the population of law abiding citizens feel like they are criminals? When I started smoking nobody knew me it was bad for your health. How can you ban me from something that I'm addicted to, when it's not my fault?

Question 1: If the government provides reasoning, why is it important? For example, "we've decided that this practice produces too many reprocussions", or something like that.

2: Isn't that a fallacy? Yeah, appealing to tradition. And again, what if the Gov. provides reasoning?

3: Everyone has the option to smoke, correct?

4: If they stop smoking/using, they are not a criminal.

5: That wouldn't work in today's world, the information is out there.

6: The person chose to use the drug, I'm pretty sure it's their fault.

Banning cigarettes in such a fashion might even have an impact on smoker's health. Will they want to admit to doing something illegal, even if it is relevant to their condition? Will as many people come forward for help quitting?

Well, like Bob Jane said, we can't really predict the future. But we can try to influence it by spreading awareness.

Education, support of smokers in quitting, increasing taxation and combating illicit trade of tobacco is the current method employed. I don't think there's any evidence that an outright ban would be more effective than this (correct me if I'm wrong)...

Well, like I said, I re-thought about it, and decided that if the # of smoker's is going down with our current methods, we should just continue to watch the progress and raise awareness. However, the only evidence against the ban seem to point straight to worse case scenarios.

 

[Aesir]

Mariobowser, your position is basically, if we can stop at least one person from starting that's a victory. However in reality we don't have such low standards for victory. The amount of people you're going to deter from smoking wouldn't be enough to be called a victory. Look it marijuana, how much as prohibition stopped children from starting? It doesn't matter what the law says kids do whatever they see as cool. Kids who would do Marijuana are still going to do it, all you're doing is making it harder. I also take issue with your reasoning that making it harder = deterrence if that were the case Prohibition would have worked for alcohol and marijuana.

It's not a loaded question, you're making the sin tax less effective. It's cool that you think the gov shouldn't be allowing people to kill them selves but you're not convincing anyone. Why should the government get involved? Is it an epidemic? If we don't prohibit smoking are we going to suffer in some way? Of course not, in fact prohibiting smoking is how you make more crime and put more strain on law enforcement, to much of our resources get siphoned from real problems and real crime. Enough of this prohibition stuff, it doesn't work it's a failed practice.

 

[SuperBowser]

I know a lot of the questions I gave are fallacies. But these are the sorts of ouraged arguments you would expect to hear when you cut off 30% of the country's addiction with little evidence-based justification. I think you need to make a much greater argument for banning tobacco when you are speaking about a huge portion of the population's daily habit.

It was only proven around the '70s that smoking was bad for you. And even then, the tobacco industry made things confusing. Lots of people started smoking before that period and blaming them for trying an addictive substance when they didn't know the consequences is... difficult, no?.

At the very least, you can admit that illegal smuggling of tobacco will exceed that of marijuana? Smoking consumes more on a regular basis and there's a much greater demand. Even if you make a conservative estimate, we will be talking huge figures of illegal tobacco entering the country.

Look at the prevalence figures for illicit drugs. You'll probably be surprised. Smoking isn't going to go away because it's ''banned''.

 

[BSP]

@Aesir-All right. I agree that marijuanna can be used to predict what would happen with tobacco if it got banned. But just wondering, how many children have been trying marijuanna even though it's banned? And I don't think I said making it harder = deterrence, but if I did, I was wrong because it doesn't. Raising awareness however, can help with deterrence.

@Super Bowser-Well, from all the responses I've seen, a ban wouldn't have enough positive effects to outweigh the potential cons. On your comment about people finding out about the harmful effects after they started smoking, I think that when they did find out about the harmful effects, if they wanted to save themselvess, they would've looked for help. And like I've said before, if Tobacco became banned, I know it would be used illegitimately. The amounts of illegal tobacco would probably be high, so it would be better if we just left things alone.

That being said, I'm pretty much done. A ban looks good in theory, but the posssible risks seem to outweigh the possible benefits. Marijuanna is in pretty much the same situation, though illegal, and it's a pretty good comparison to what would happen to tobacco. Even if the negative reprocussions weren't great, the # of smokers is decreasing, so a ban might not be necessary anyway.

So, the best thing to do would be to watch the # of smokers, and try to raise awareness to help the number keep going down.

Thanks to all who participated. I'm kinda tired now lol.

But now I'm wondering, if marijuanna is in such a similar state as tobacco, why is it illegal?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Don't know about dramatically, but yes.

I see your point, see my conclusion.

All right.

You can't really say how large the reprocussions would be. Anyway, see conclusion

I meant that we should lower the chance of new users.

All right, I see your point.

Yes, reducing the harm is a good approach. It would give smokers more time to realize that they're killing themselves.

Probably not. Do you think it decreased the chances of new people using it?

It looks like we see eye-to-eye on most things then.

I've seen some good respones and they changed my mind a bit. It would be best if we left tobacco legal, raise the price of the drug, and tried to raise more awareness of the drugs effects. A ban would do some good, but it also raises the chance of prohibition like reprocussions. While it's hard to say whether or not these reprcussions would be just as bad as prohibition's, it wouldn't be worth the risk if the # of smokers is decreasing without a ban. If the # keeps going down, the business may begin to fail on its own, and a ban may not even be necessary.

Well, we could phase tobacco out, but I'm not entirely sure how everyone would do that. And that's kind of happening anyway with all the smoke free areas, age restrictions and so forth.

Additionally, we should ban all kinds of promotion for Tobacco. Those pesky Tobacco Companies have only got a few options left, and we could ban them. This would reduce the number of new smokers and generally make the society a better place. With a bit of luck, this would drive the Tobacco companies out of business. Furthermore, we could force Tobacco companies compensate all victims of smoking related illness. This would give them a big kick in the pants, and it's only fair as well.

And your welcome!

Lastly I think the reason that marijuana is illegal and tobacco isn't, is because that it isn't part of many people's lives. Smoking tobacco is something many people do, and smoking marijuana isn't.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Lastly I think the reason that marijuana is illegal and tobacco isn't, is because that it isn't part of many people's lives. Smoking tobacco is something many people do, and smoking marijuana isn't.

Not too sure on this one.

Evidence to show for this?

Anyone else can help as needed...

 

[Sucumbio]

How many people smoke cigarettes?

Cigarette smoking has decreased among adults in the United States from about 42% of the population in 1965 to about 21% in 2008 (the latest year for which numbers are available).

So about 1 in 5 smoke cigarettes.

How Widespread is Marijuana Abuse?

According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, in 2007, 14.4 million Americans aged 12 or older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed, which is similar to the 2006 rate. About 6,000 people a day in 2007 used marijuana for the first time—2.1 million Americans. Of these, 62.2 percent were under age 18.

So it's a more difficult demographic to calculate (more than likely due to the fact that it's an illegal substance).

Speaking of which, we should remember that discussion of this matter is not allowed on SWF. Not to mini mod or anything but I have me a locked topic all about this

-----------------

Some interesting facts:

Cigarette smoking has 0 benefits.
A cigarette smoker only smokes to answer their nicotine withdrawal.
Smoking is carcinogenic.
2nd hand smoke is carcinogenic.
3rd hand smoke (smokey clothes, upholstery, etc.) may be carcinogenic.

Conclusions:

It's dangerous to everyone, including those around you.
It serves NO real purpose except to perpetuate itself.
It is the anchor to a multi-billion dollar industry world wide, and the US is no small part of it.

Suppositions:

Would it be tenable to make cigarette smoking illegal?

It already is in many forms. Public smoking has been outright banned in many communities, towns and even cities. This means, no bars, no restaurants, clubs, while walking down the street, etc etc. If you're in your car and smoking and the smoke escapes your vehicle and wafts into a policeman's face, you're done.

It's been illegal on planes for years. Same with movie theaters, public buildings (town hall, library, post office, etc). It's illegal at many airports.

Where it's not entirely banned, you may find "designated smoking areas" where smokers are forced to huddle together and turn themselves into a veritable funeral pyre; a living smoke stack. Just stick your head into one for a split second and breath once, and you may get violently ill.

Smoking is already "illegal" ...

Is it tenable to make cigarette smoking COMPLETELY illegal, in all respects? Absolutely not.

1.) Congress tried and failed with Prohibition. This unfortunate decision gave rise to a specific Organized Crime, the very roots of which that were established and have yet to be dissipated.

2.) There are far too many currently addicted Americans to expect proper compliance with any laws. It would be logistically impossible to enforce. Part of the duty of a good lawmaker, is to first recommend which laws are even worth passing before wasting time on it.

3.) The US makes way too much Tax revenue from smokers to abandon it all at once. Like a smoker, the US Treasury would in theory require time for cessation from these gigantic funds.

4.) Big Tobacco arguably fits under TBTF (Too Big To Fail) business. The major corporations involved would suddenly find themselves in a far too difficult situation. This is why lobbyists for big T stay on the ball, to prevent such things from ever happening. Ever.


TL;DR: " Should we keep Tobacco legal?" No. But we will anyway.

 

[BSP]

Lastly I think the reason that marijuana is illegal and tobacco isn't, is because that it isn't part of many people's lives. Smoking tobacco is something many people do, and smoking marijuana isn't.

Well, marijuanna is used pretty widely as well, but not as much as smoking.

@Succumbio

I've pretty much been convinced on why a ban is a good idea, but why it won't happen. Your post just basically summed up all I've seen. But anyway, you're pretty much right that it is illegal in a lot of ways, just not outright banned. I've changed my opinion on the matter to just watching the # of smokers in the future. At this rate, it's currently going down, so a ban would just stir up unnecessary side effects.

The answer to my initial question is yes, but realistically, it won't be happening for a while.

I changed my mind on the subject, so should I change the title or something?

 

[Sucumbio]

nah, you're empowered to change your position. the questions is still valid, and anyone can argue for or against it, but as has been demonstrated by several, and you yourself admit, it's unlikely a total ban would happen, at least anytime soon.

but with the advent of Chantix (which is not like other smoking cessation tools, it actually attacks and destroys the nicotine receptors in the brain, and it works), the strong anti-smoking campaigns geared toward youth, the prohibitively expensive (and still rising) costs it incurs in both out-of-pocket expense to buy butts, and the medical/health costs... it's likely to become extinct, eventually.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Lastly I think the reason that marijuana is illegal and tobacco isn't, is because that it isn't part of many people's lives. Smoking tobacco is something many people do, and smoking marijuana isn't.

To some extent this is right, but the notion that not many people use marijuana is completely wrong. Here's a report on the amount of marijuana users in the US:

Marijuana is the Nation's most commonly used illicit drug. More than 94 million Americans (40 percent) age 12 and older have tried marijuana at least once, according to the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH).
Marijuana use is widespread among adolescents and young adults. The percentage of middle-school students who reported using marijuana increased throughout the early 1990s. In the past few years, according to the 2004 Monitoring the Future Survey, an annual survey of drug use among the Nation's middle and high school students, illicit drug use by 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-graders has leveled off. Still, in 2004, 16 percent of 8th-graders reported that they had tried marijuana, and 6 percent were current users (defined as having used the drug in the 30 days preceding the survey). Among 10th-graders, 35 percent had tried marijuana sometime in their lives, and 16 percent were current users. As would be expected, rates of use among 12th-graders were higher still. Forty-six percent had tried marijuana at some time, and 20 percent were current users.

What you said about tobacco is pretty much true though: it's only legal because so many people started using it.

 

[Deleted member]

Personally, I really wished tobacco was illegal. They are known to be extremely dangerous if you get hooked to using it. They can create all sorts of diseases and shorten lifespans by six to ten minutes with every smoke. I also heard it had around six thousands chemical in one smoke. Did I forget to mention stained teeths?

My mom is a smoker, my dad uses smokeless tobacco, and my stepdad also smokes. I know that if they continue with there habit, it is unlikely that they'll live to seventy, which is sad. Especially bad is that one of my older brother is illegally uses smokeless tobacco. His lifespan will probably be even shorter.

Not only that, they also suck out a ton of money when you're smoking. Let's say my brother wants Nintendo's 8th gen console and already has Microsoft's next consoles. But he can't afford he because he is using tobacco. But not just that. He would have problems paying for food, bills, taxes, and mortage payment, etc. Smoking every day cost you thousands of dollars down the drain a year.

If I was given the decision to illegalize all forms of tobacco, I would do it because I care about my family and I want to make sure they don't experience the ulgy side effect of doing tobacco.

This is a sad video of what tobbaco can do to you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_8BerrJg0M

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

To some extent this is right, but the notion that not many people use marijuana is completely wrong. Here's a report on the amount of marijuana users in the US:



What you said about tobacco is pretty much true though: it's only legal because so many people started using it.

Well, more people smoke tobacco and not as many smoke marijuana as habits. That's what I mean.

In response to SSB Fan, I don't feel that your argument is really appropriate. Sure, it's bad to smoke and it causes lots of damage to one's health, but banning it could just cause to much social up-heaval. There are millions of smokers, and some of them are going to resort to buying the cigarettes illegally, and this is going to fuel organised crime.

Those are reasons to get people to quit smoking, rather than ban it.

 

[Deleted member]

In response to SSB Fan, I don't feel that your argument is really appropriate. Sure, it's bad to smoke and it causes lots of damage to one's health, but banning it could just cause to much social up-heaval. There are millions of smokers, and some of them are going to resort to buying the cigarettes illegally, and this is going to fuel organised crime.

Those are reasons to get people to quit smoking, rather than ban it.

I'll say it's possible. The amount of smokers in the USA has been going down. Less then 20% actually smoke. If it gets to where people who smoke are hard to find, the tobacco business may become unprofitable and could become illegal in this country.

It's getting that way anyway. Many places ban the use of smoking such as public places. Those who do allow it have designated smoking rooms.

 

[Sieguest]

I'll say it's possible. The amount of smokers in the USA has been going down. Less then 20% actually smoke. If it gets to where people who smoke are hard to find, the tobacco business may become unprofitable and could become illegal in this country.

It's getting that way anyway. Many places ban the use of smoking such as public places. Those who do allow it have designated smoking rooms.

But, just how much is 20% out of the American population, and the average expense of cigarettes? If you do the math, that's a lot of money.

 

[Deleted member]

I give up (For now), Guest438 got me.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well, more people smoke tobacco and not as many smoke marijuana as habits. That's what I mean.

Agreed. Probably because tobacco was already in the americas by the time settlers arrived there, and people started growing it early and often. Though marijuana has just as long of a history, tobacco was readily available so it ended up being used more.