Where would you find more support for outlawing cigarettes?

[mdmc]

[Momgonepostal]

1. Hmmm, maybe here but...

I can't say I have read many or any posts to that effect on DU.

I feel very strongly against smoking, I absolutely hate pretty much everything about it, BUT, even I don't favor outlawing cigarettes. I like California's stricter public smoking laws but have not problem with other people choosing to smoke in their own homes. That's THEIR choice.

[mdmc]

4. I'm an anti-smoking anti prohibitionist too

:kick:

[Momgonepostal]

2. dupe, sorry

[Ian David]

3. People should be able to smoke anything they want. However...

it should be left up to public referendum to decide which orifice they are allowed to smoke it with.

:P

[denverbill]

5. I favor banning it over taxing it to death.

And I felt the same way when I was a smoker. Plus, I oppose bans on smoking in bars/restaurants.

But I still believe banning it is the progressive position.


What if I invented a candy that was known to kill 1 out of every 100 kids that ate it, and was incredibly addictive? Which solution makes sense to you?

1) Tax it so that fewer kids will eat it.
2) Ban it altogether.

What other product exists which kills or seriously harms maybe 1/3 of it's users is treated the same way?

When I smoked, I wanted to quit, but it was difficult because every time I walked into a grocery store, liquor store, bar, drug store, or whatever, there they were, waiting for me to give in to temptation.

If they were banned, the temptation is gone, and the withdrawal symptoms only last a couple weeks.

If cigarettes were illegal before you were born, there is no way you'd be a smoker now and there is no way anyone would be supporting legalizing a product that kills 300,000 people per year.

Heavily taxing it may cause some people to quit and some not to start, but it seems immoral to me. "OK, I'll let you take a chance of killing yourself, but you have to pay me to take that chance" isn't the way anyone who actually cares about another person would deal with a situation like this.

[denverbill]

6. btw, I'm not an anti-smoking nazi either.

Personally, I still like the smell of cigarette smoke and it doesn't bother me being in smoke-filled bars.

So my perspective isn't 'I hate smoking', it's what makes the most sense.

[Kali]

10. Might be more than just 2 options. Prohibitions don't work.

Your imaginitive candy might be exactly what they used to call nose candy. Prohiition doesn't work.

Even stiff regulation doesn't work that well but it would be a middle of the road alternative approach instead of outright "acceptance"/legality (taxed) or totally "banning" a substance.

[denverbill]

12. Prohibition will never be 100% effective, that's true.

But cigarettes and booze are 2 different stories.

I would guess that 90% of all smokers agree that smoking is bad for you. Some don't give a damn, others know it, but either can't quit or aren't willing to quit. If selling tobacco was illegal, some would probably just quit cold turkey from the get-go, many would buy as much tobacco as they could afford and stockpile it. Once their stockpiles ran out, most would probably come to grips with the fact that it was going to be an enormous pain to keep trying to buy cigarettes, and quit then and there. A few would begin smuggling from Canada or Mexico. Fewer still would probably grow their own. By this point, I'd bet 90% of all smokers would decide to bite the bullet and quit, and a month after quitting, life would be moving on. They'd still be pissed about the ban, but every day away from smoking makes it easier.

Virtually nobody would start smoking who hadn't smoked before the ban began.

I just don't think smoking has the same sort of social/health implications are drinking, or even smoking pot. During Prohibition, 90% of drinkers didn't have the same concerns about their long-term health that 90% of smokers do. Drinking bans to them were simply an attempt by religious prudes to impose their morality on the entire populace. AFAIK, there is also no real evidence that pot-smoking significantly contributes to disease either. And both drinking and pot have significant 'highs' other than the mild stimulus that tobacco gives.

Frankly, to me, banning is more humane than our current system. Every day, smokers get kicked further and further to the curb. First, smoking lounges. Then, no smoking in entire buildings. Now, no smoking with 15 feet of buildings. Around here, smokers have to stand out in the wind and rain and snow, and then get taxed extra for the privilege. And they can't even smoke in businesses which don't care if they smoke, like bars.

It just seems ridiculous to keep a product legal that kills 300,000 people per year, while at the same time, we force companies to recall products if one child chokes to death on a tiny plastic part of a product that wasn't meant to even be consumed.

[Lilith Velkor]

7. DU, because closet freeps want to alienate potential voters

Now, let's see if it works...

:eyes:

[tcfrogs]

8. How do the freepers feel on the issue?

I honestly have no idea since I don't choose to read their site. I'd guess there are some on both sides who lean toward the libertarian view of "leave the issue alone".

[ComerPerro]

9. Well, if being a slave to cigarettes is more important than politics

then, by all means, go to Free Republic

[Kali]

11. I would say here at DU.

Democrats tend to care more about people and I can see the justifications for imposing a prohibition being more easily accepted in terms of doing it for health reasons. Cons/repukes generally aren't in favor of actions that are regulatory or limiting of "freedom" at least untill lately. (and with the exception of any other drugs, womens reproductive choices and rights of non-heteros.)

[bigwillq]

13. If the last few weeks are any indication....

right here on DU.

[pinto]

14. Locking.

This topic's been run into the ground of late, from a number of angles. We need to limit it somewhat. Thanks.