Should smoking be illegal?

Tobacco products shorten the lives of 480,000 people a year in USA alone. On average a smoker loses 10 -- 15 years of life. About 264 billion cigarettes and 12.4 billion large cigars are sold yearly in USA.

Tobacco is illegal in Bhutan. In Russia, sale of tobacco was punished severely during the years 1550 -- 1700.

 

`
`
"Should smoking be illegal?" - Only if you are on fire.
`

 

Many dangerous drugs are already illegal.

 

the only further restriction on tobacco usage I might entertain, is by pregnant women in their second or third trimesters and I'd need to see a lot of science showing some serious consequences on the health of a high percentage of newborns.

 

I am prohibited by my doctor from ever drinking alcohol due to the antidepressants I take.

 

Sorry to hear that...

 

Why limit it to tobacco? You're obviously quite concerned about the welfare of people who are not you, to the point that you would love to use the power of the state to force those people (who are not you) to stop doing things that contribute to shortened life spans.

This list can become quite long, but that's what you want.

and because it can become quite long, I'll say no to your desire to help other people lead long but shallow lives without the freedom to pick their own noses while sitting in traffic (you could be rearended thus giving yourself a nasal lobotomy).

 

I don't smoke tobacco.

So sure, make it illegal.

The crybabies in NC, etc. (crying about "economic impact" and "livelihood") can sell their Cancer Sticks to China.

 

Alcohol abuse reduces lifespan more than smoking... skydiving ? - even more. Joining the army depending on the circumstances ... even more. Obesity/Sugar probably the worst.

One of my favorite movie lines "Everybody wanna go heaven .. nobody wanna get dead".

Our time here on earth is short be it 70 or 80 years. I would rather enjoy 70 years than live in some Orwellian totalitarian nanny state for 80 years.

This is my personal preference... others are welcome to theirs. One thing to keep in mind is that there is a difference between 1) having a belief and 2) forcing that belief on others through physical violence (Law).

Belief in freedom means believing in the right of people to risk a reasonable amount of harm to themselves. Belief in freedom is not belief only in things for which one agree's with - everyone believes in that. Belief in freedom is belief in freedom for people to things that you disagree with.

The one caveat is that right and freedoms end where the nose of another begins.

 

Holy carp this is an ignorant and hypocritical statement. So you are for an Orwellian totalitarian state ? Your comment condones even worse than this. Even Communism had more freedoms than you are suggesting.

Belief in freedom is not belief in freedom - only for things that you agree with. Everyone believes in that. Belief in freedom is belief in freedom for people to do things you disagree with - (the caveat being that rights end where the nose of another begins).

 

I am in favor of legalizing drugs and taxing them.

But, if the Draconian Police State won't let me have my weed and coke, I couldn't care less if tobacco smokers can't get their fix.

 

This makes no sense. In one breath you condemn the "Draconian Police Nanny State" and in the next breath you support it ?

The reason why we have this lack of respect for individual liberty (a major violation of the main principle on which this nation was founded) is because of this type of thinking.

I do not actually believe that you personally think like this - the problem is that many people do.

There is a difference between 1) having a belief and 2) forcing that belief on others through physical violence (Law).

2 requires "Legitimate" justification - legitimate meaning within the bounds of the founding principles.

For example, the question of a referendum (say on banning alcohol) is not "Do you like Alcohol". The question is "do you have legitimate justification to force your personal belief on others through physical violence (law).

"I don't like alcohol" is not even an answer to the question - never mind constituting legitimate justification.

"God Says so" is not a legitimate justification - Prove that God thinks something??

Our system has become so convoluted and messed up by fallacious utilitarian justification for law and just bad arguments posing as valid justification for law.

I realize the situation is pretty much hopeless but, this does not justify perpetuating this nonsense.

 

The biggest problem I have with trying to regulate a legal product is where does it stop?
Also the hypocrisy of those that flip out if you're smoking a cigarette but are down with legalizing marijuana.

 

That explains a lot about what you type here. Thank you for your honesty.

 

No, and the current rules should be abolished. Here in Australia it is approaching 40 bucks for a pack of cigarettes, we have packets with no details other than ugly PSAs, advertising is illegal, ecigs are illegal, the tobacco excise tax rises automatically 12.5% compounding per year.

If it wasn't for the billions they get from the tax (approaching the total value of the healthcare budget) they'd have gone down the Tassie route and banned it for those born after a certain year.

I want all this to change. Smoking should be permitted indoors subject to the wishes of the property owner. Don't like it? Go elsewhere, he's not forcing you to shop at his bar or restaurant. Advertising should be allowed. Abolish the tax so the companies can't hide behind it as an excuse to raise prices.

I only smoke at music festivals. I occasionally use ecigs. That they are illegal is one of the most farcical, corrupt things I know of. It's none of your business if I choose to have a smoke from time to time.

The public shaming is almost as bad as the legislation. It's viewed to be everyone's responsibility to force others into making "good choices". That's the attitude I hate most about Australia.

 

In some states they already make it a crime to smoke while pregnant, or drink, or do any drugs not prescribed by doctors. The idea is to make it illegal to perform any action, aside from a legal abortion, which harms a fetus.

 

This is crazy. More freedoms you want gone. What’s next no booze? No caffeine? We should let some liberal health board decide how we should live?

 

If you want to smoke feel free, enjoy. SS is going broke and your early death will make it last longer for people like me that don't smoke. Need a light?

 

No it doesn't explain what the fellow you are responding to is typing. ... although you thinking it does tells us much about the state of your ignorance.

Not that this is your fault. 12 years of school and they manage not to teach what logical fallacy is (your fallacy was - Ad hominem - in case you were wondering) and other basics of Philosophy such as "what constitutes a valid argument".

I hope you appreciate my honesty as much as his

 

This is a point that the tax Nazi's never bring up when they cry "drain on healthcare system" to justify higher tax (not that this is legitimate justification to begin with but that is another story).

How much is the system saving through a person dying 10-15 years earlier ? Massive. Further, someone smoking is paying massive amounts of money into the system in taxes throughout their lives... money that others are not paying... others doing things that are even less healthy such as eating a ton fatty and/or sugary foods and becoming obese.

This is not "equal Justice" aka Rule of Law. This is also discrimination... targeting one group like drinkers or smokers. If taxes must be increased .... do so by having a flat tax on all.

Why should a smoker pay more than someone going out and buying a Yacht ?

 

NO.

I don't like nanny states. Cigs are already taxed to death. People should be free to make their own decisions.

 

1) Where is the authority delegated in the Constitution to criminalize what I might choose to smoke? (previous unconstitutional transgressions notwithstanding)
2) Historically, how has similar government attempts at prohibiting other items gone? (marijuana, alcohol, prostitution, etc.)
3) Will enacting such a prohibition give rise to even worse public health problems? (black markets, cartels, gangs, etc)
4) If I believe previous prohibitions to have been enacted unconstitutionally*, why would I agree to another one?

*with the exception of the one they actually amended the constitution to be able to enact, constitutionally.

 

Now that is the most retarded draconian measure I've ever read about. That's as stupid as banning Nicorette or nicotine patches. WTF?? I'm not sure how you deal with some of your fellow Aussies, many of them need a plexiglass belly button to see their way.

 

I picked legal but taxed higher because I don't see why taxpayers should have to subsidize the exorbitant healthcare costs of smokers. If they want to smoke make them pay up front for what it is going to cost when their health goes down the tubes.

 

So what you're saying is that smokers should be taxed more and have higher health insurance rates. So the same should apply to the LGBT lifestyle as you are much more likely to get AIDS than otherwise. The same should apply to those that ride motorcycles vs cars, much higher rate of catastrophic injury vs a car or suv.

The point is, where does it stop?