Smoking cigarettes: is humanity advantaged by the ever-increasing harsh policies and bans?

14 posts

Flag Post

In many nations and subnational entities cigarette smoking is increasingly being banned in public, restaurants, etc. Is this advantageous to us as humans? I.e., in all aspects: including health, economy, freedom, etc.?

I personally believe in the legalisation of all drugs and the allowance for human beings to be allowed to consume whatever they please—regardless of the possible consequences. In terms of smoking cigarettes, I believe the ever-increasing ban should not be allowed. From 2002 and until a few years ago I believe this would be advantageous to all. However, recently I have come to believe in the idea that we should all be allowed to consume whatever we please. I disagree with the ban on smoking, since it decreases the chances of the legalisation of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc.

Do you see these policies and bans as beneficial for everyone, or not? Do you believe the health benefits of it are inherently irrelevant to the argument since less people will consume cigarettes and thus less of the private sector will be allowed to be economically benefited from their sales?

 
Flag Post

Health: Oh hells, yeah.

Economy: Well people would spend less on cigarettes, but that may be better for their economic health so it’s hard to tell.

Freedom: Not really, as it technically is restricing them of the freedom to do whatever they damn well please.

Originally posted by JaumeBG:</cite

I personally believe in the legalisation of all drugs and the allowance for human beings to be allowed to consume whatever they please—regardless of the possible consequences.

The thing about that, though, is when you get into the effects it has on other people, like second hand smoke, it gets harder to maintain that belief without having to either admit that as long as there’s only hurting one person (themselves) it’s okay, or to admit that people will have to deal with the effects of something they didn’t want to deal with. (And that includes sick and/or developing people.)

 
Flag Post

There is no denying that cigarettes are bad for you, certainly. But I take issue with any group, from individuals to the state, preventing me from attending my own business. It’s charming that the Federal body is so concerned with my welfare, but ultimately it is not a decision I consider up to them to make.

As for the economics, I imagine that if cigarettes vanished the existing spending surplus would readily be soaked up by other markets. Quite likely existent petty luxary items, like snacks and the like. Also, quite likely drugs. So the wheel would keep turning. The rub here is, taxes. I know it varies from Fed to Fed, but at my neck of the northern woods cigarettes are deeply, deeply taxed. They cost 10-13$ Canadian, at roughly 80% of that is tax. That is a massive, massive cut. If you buy them off the native reserve, which are not obligated to pay that tax, they’re like three bucks. So, if that money was to be spent anywhere else then cigarettes, it would actually be a major hit to government revenue. Especially if that money marked to non taxable black market sectors like drugs.

It’s also been touted that cigarettes cost the government alot of money on health care. The last round of studies found that decidedly not so. Everyone is dying, sooner or later. That period is an expensive one, all the stops are pulled out and everyone is doing their best (and spending money) to see you live. Smoking cause health complications, the kick being it causes you to die early. Non smokers spend far more time in high levels of care, whereas smokers tend to simply die.

As far as second hand smoke I am fine with a general ban in regards to public property. Canada has banned smoking in private businesses, which I take issue with. Again, it is certainly not good for anyone, but that is up for the business owner in conjunction with his patrons and staff to decide – not to be forced upon them.

-Also Baume, thank you for hammering out some new topics. A pleasure.

 
Flag Post

In public and places where generally all people could go to (banks, restaurants, schools, etc) it certainly should be/stay banned. You can smoke yourself to death in your house or car (owned, not leased or borrowed) whenever you want, as long as you don’t have children under the age of 18. Taxes on cigarettes are a smart way of the government to get a lot of money.

 
Flag Post

The problem with smoking cigarettes is the smoke itself. If we can do away with the smoke, and the secondary inhalation that occurs (people who never asked to smoke are foced to smoke) then we do away with the problem. The answer is obviously to use vaporisers, but they have some problems of their own at this point in time. (As I learnt last time this thread came up and I looked into the problem seriously, as a way of finding a solution, about two years ago).

With a vaporiser, the user still gets a lungful of nicotine, but none of it escapes into the air around them. All that coms out is water and a few trace elements when they exhale. Means a cigarette is more potent and lasts longer too, and they can load their drug of choice into it as a capsule.

I looked into them with interest in creating an asthma and bronchitis inhaler via a cigarette. It is doable, but there are issues with the vaporiser mechanism tha lead to parts of the metal of the mechanism being breathed in with the smoke. Once that problem is solved, they’re more useful.

 
Flag Post

Or people could, ya know, stop smoking.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

Or people could, ya know, stop smoking.

It needs to be a personal choice. If we can get it to the point that it does very little harm, and certainly no physical damage to the lung tissue whilst at the same time negating all possible side effects to people around them, then why not allow it?

I’m advocating the vapor-cigarette of course, because I see it as a brilliant method of drug administration which bypasses so many of the problems we currently face, esp from a social perspective when it comes to the stigma of inhalers for example.

 
Flag Post

What does everyone think about the relation between (a) high taxing on cigarettes, (b) cigarette/nicotine addicts, and (c) poverty?

I know some people who have smoked for 10 to 30 years and are thus addicted to the substance of nicotine and other substances in cigarettes who also happen to be of lower middle class or lower class. The high taxing of cigarettes does not benefit them in any way, since for them nicotine is a drug their body regulates and necessitates and they decreasingly can afford the cigarettes which in many occurrences are the only manner in which they can become calm and straight-forward.

According to them, nicotine patches are not effective and do not work for them. Is there any way they can get out of this seemingly endless cycle of drug abuse—the drug being nicotine? Should the government possibly provide for drug rehabilitation for these people, should they keep the taxes high as an incentive to not buy them (of which the efficacy I disbelieve), or some other remedy?

Economy: Well people would spend less on cigarettes, but that may be better for their economic health so it’s hard to tell.

Yes, less people being dependent on drugs such as the subtances in cigarettes will mean a better personal economy for each individual.

I think all of you make a good point about second-hand smoke. That is of harm to individuals who may not be in consumption of cigarettes. Also, some good points on healthcare and the economy.

And Ungeziefer, it’s my pleasure. I think I have noticed the same and same threads on SD with little to no innovation and I felt I had to change that slightly today. I’ve always got quite a few inner questions like these in my mind, so I wanted to know what all of you thought.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

According to them, nicotine patches are not effective and do not work for them.

It is certainly possible that this is because they enter the bloodstream directly, rather than passing through the lungs into the bloodstream. As a result the protein paths in the respiatory system are not activated. So for them, it may well be that part of the established pathway is missing when they use a patch.

 
Flag Post
Economy: Well people would spend less on cigarettes, but that may be better for their economic health so it’s hard to tell.

it’s not hard to tell. cigarettes don’t help a country in any way. it doesn’t lead to better educated people, to more satisfied (thus more docile) workers, or any other benifit. that means any money spent on cigarettes is a loss.

whoever came up with the argument that spending money itself is somehow good for the economy regardless of what it is spent on is deceitful, lying fucking idiot, and anyone buying that crap is also retarded.

@OP:
i don’t think cigarettes will be fully banned any time soon. but personally, as cigarettes have no advantage whatsoever (beyond a very mild anti-depressant effect), while cannabis actually helps people cope with stress, and simply has recreational purposes, i’d see a ban on cigarettes as more logical than a ban on cannabis…well, ignoring that cigarettes are usually employed in the consumption of cannabis, of course.

because cigarettes is inherently an exploitative relation between seller and consumer.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

According to them, nicotine patches are not effective and do not work for them. Is there any way they can get out of this seemingly endless cycle of drug abuse—the drug being nicotine? Should the government possibly provide for drug rehabilitation for these people, should they keep the taxes high as an incentive to not buy them (of which the efficacy I disbelieve), or some other remedy?

All of those things at the same time.

Where I live cessation aids are available free. Choice of patches, inhalers, gum, varenicline, microtabs… and though I wouldn’t go as far as full-scale rehab, I’d quite like the aids to be available free in other countries too. I needed a combination of patches and gum to stop when I did (from a ridiculously high level – hit 46ppm CO level on the breath tester) and that would have been rather expensive. Or rather, I saw it as expensive. Giving them away free removed that hurdle for me.

With all those freebies, the government here (UK) also has huge taxes on tobacco as a deterrent. They use a combination of the two methods (and bans on smoking in certain places and demonisation campaigns against smokers) to try to convince people to stop. Have to admit it’s pretty effective, despite my loathing any sort of ‘taxing out of affordability’ method.

 
Flag Post

As for me, I hate the smokers like you people hate the pedophiles.

You can barely imagine how sick it makes me to live in a world where everyone smokes everyday. Hearing you saying “It is wrong to ban smoking” just makes me feel even worse.

Now, JaumeBG, try to imagine that you woke up tomorrow and realized that the 80% of humanity makes out with children, and you were 1 against 6.000.000.000 people, and just had to accept them, because the police and the government was on their side. How long would you endure it?

Oh, and try to imagine that instead of sadistically torturing pedophiles in jailhouses, the governors and campaign runners just tried to convince them to stop gently. Would you accept that?

The smokers made me become extremely agoraphobian. I can barely get out of my household.

365 days a year, I wake up with this dagger in the testicles!

 
Flag Post

Where I live we have some of the worst chain and under-aged smoking let me tell you their vocal talents are gone.

 
Flag Post
Now, JaumeBG, try to imagine that you woke up tomorrow and realized that the 80% of humanity makes out with children, and you were 1 against 6.000.000.000 people, and just had to accept them, because the police and the government was on their side. How long would you endure it?

that actually wouldn’t be a problem. if everyone was not against it, then apparently it’s not a problem, so why would i make it one?

of course, the analogy could be improved upon to something far worse, but it’s a horrible comparison to begin with.

unless you mean specifically smoking around children, which would be very bad, but smoking ≠ smoking around children.