The War On Tobacco

gravity · Post by **gravity** » 2002-11-20 08:02am

No, I don't think it should be banned. In fact, I think *all* drugs should be legal (except ones that make you extremely violent immediately, such as PCP). They should be taxed by how much they damage your health (when comsumed in pure form), and smoking (of anything) should be banned in public.
But you should be able to do what you want in private.

Lord_Xerxes · Post by **Lord_Xerxes** » 2002-11-20 10:56pm

I think the header on the poll might be where alot of people are brining up the banning thing: "Do you support the banning or extreme taxation of tobacco?". Although I cannot recall of any posters who were for baning, perhaps this is prompting people coming to the threads to respond with the anti-baning statements that have been surfacing and drawing questions about "who said baning?".

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-20 11:04pm

Could this thread just die?

arctic_series · Post by **arctic_series** » 2002-11-23 12:56am

let's not forget the ciggy butts left behind from smokers which contributes to littering.

just make it a pill and we solve half our problems.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-11-23 12:02pm

I do believe smokers have been vilified by anti-smoking campaigns, which are everywhere in schools. I don't believe they work, anyway. Kids still smoke, probably more than ever, because they don't (and probably don't want) to listen to the statistics given. One of the reasons is they do it to rebel, and doing it against the will of the campaigns only gives them a reason for rebellion. They gt around restrictrions on purchasing them by having an older firend (Or in some cases, a parent) buy them for them.

As for the pregnant women, they shouldn't smoke, because they're putting the baby at great risk.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2002-11-24 08:39pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I do believe smokers have been vilified by anti-smoking campaigns, which are everywhere in schools. I don't believe they work, anyway. Kids still smoke, probably more than ever, because they don't (and probably don't want) to listen to the statistics given. One of the reasons is they do it to rebel, and doing it against the will of the campaigns only gives them a reason for rebellion. They gt around restrictrions on purchasing them by having an older firend (Or in some cases, a parent) buy them for them.

As for the pregnant women, they shouldn't smoke, because they're putting the baby at great risk.

So you think that a woman hooked on cigarettes is suddenly going to stop cold turkey when she gets pregnant?
Look, smoking IS a problem. Something needs to be done about it. The last statistics I heard were that about 25% of Americans smoke. I don't have any data on if its going up or down, but I don't see you providing any either.
Finally, not all teens rebel by smoking.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-24 08:52pm

So you think that a woman hooked on cigarettes is suddenly going to stop cold turkey when she gets pregnant?

My mom did.

Look, smoking IS a problem. Something needs to be done about it. The last statistics I heard were that about 25% of Americans smoke. I don't have any data on if its going up or down, but I don't see you providing any either.
Finally, not all teens rebel by smoking.

But it's quite a convenient way to rebel due to the massive campaign to demonize smoking.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-11-25 01:53am

Interesting debate. I think there are two issues here: 1) the harm that smoking causes and 2) funding smoker's health care.

Obviously smoking causes harm. Not only to the individual but to others around him. So you would think that smokers should, especially if thinking about their fellow man's well being, quit. But since it's addictive, it's pretty hard to stop.

But this leads into #2, namely the belief that revenue from cigarettes will directly pay a smoker's incurred health expenses 20-30 years down the road. If only governments were so organized. At least in BC it appears that a new tobacco tax increase will merely go into the general coffers with only some of the money being diverted for an ad campaign.

http://www.taxpayer.com/search/index.html

In short, why would the government want to cut off a steady supply of revenue? As well, some smokers feel that since the tax on cigs are high, that this will cover the cost of people afffected by second-hand smoke.

Smokers already pay more in private life insurance. I'm not exactly sure if smokers pay more in house and car insurance too.

Personally, I view smoking as a filthy habit. But I think it's extreme to start locking smokers up because they engage in self-destructive behaviour. Most smokers I've met are reasonable people who don't blow smoke in other people's faces. Perhaps stronger penalties should be invoked if pregnant women smoke.

XPViking

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2002-11-25 02:17am

Darth Servo wrote:
So you think that a woman hooked on cigarettes is suddenly going to stop cold turkey when she gets pregnant?
Look, smoking IS a problem. Something needs to be done about it. The last statistics I heard were that about 25% of Americans smoke. I don't have any data on if its going up or down, but I don't see you providing any either.
Finally, not all teens rebel by smoking.

Why is smoking a "problem"? It's the person's choice; it's none of government's business. If they want to ruin their life, what can we do about it, short of trying to get them to stop if they're a friend? Government doesn't have a right or duty to intervene.

Just slap a tax on them and end the wasteful anti-smoking campaigns that are government funded. The money can go to better uses than social engineering.

I'm not trying to be heartless; I'm just saying that - Hey, we have free will, and some people choose to do stupid things with it.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2002-11-25 11:05am

Durandal wrote:
So you think that a woman hooked on cigarettes is suddenly going to stop cold turkey when she gets pregnant?
My mom did.

Anecdotal evidence. I wish I had a dollar for every smoker who tried to use George Burns as "proof" that smoking is harmless. One exception does not make an argument. Cigarette smoking is HIGHLY addictive and MOST smokers DON'T quit when they're having a baby.

Look, smoking IS a problem. Something needs to be done about it. The last statistics I heard were that about 25% of Americans smoke. I don't have any data on if its going up or down, but I don't see you providing any either.
Finally, not all teens rebel by smoking.
But it's quite a convenient way to rebel due to the massive campaign to demonize smoking.

Not anymore. The government is really clamping down hard on selling tobacco to minors.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2002-11-25 11:30am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Why is smoking a "problem"?

Because smoking harms MORE than just the person smoking!

It's the person's choice;

Your rights end when they start hurting aonther. Second hand smoke KILLS

it's none of government's business. If they want to ruin their life, what can we do about it, short of trying to get them to stop if they're a friend? Government doesn't have a right or duty to intervene.

It is the government's business to make sure teenagers don't smoke. If you want the government to pay for your medical expenses when you have lung cancer from years of smoking, they yes, the government most assuredly has a right and a duty minimize the number of people who need such treatment.

Just slap a tax on them and end the wasteful anti-smoking campaigns that are government funded. The money can go to better uses than social engineering.

Please provide some EVIDENCE that anti-smoking campaigns are wasteful.

I'm not trying to be heartless; I'm just saying that - Hey, we have free will, and some people choose to do stupid things with it.

And the government has a duty to EDUCATE people about the DANGERS of such stupidity.

Non Catenatum · Post by **Non Catenatum** » 2002-11-25 11:38am

it's none of government's business. If they want to ruin their life, what can we do about it, short of trying to get them to stop if they're a friend? Government doesn't have a right or duty to intervene.

I'd suggest you apply this thinking to suicide "helpers". Things like pills that some doctors used to (don't know if they still do) administer to patients who wanted to die, because it was "their choice".

Now go one step further. A doctor starts administering pills that will kill yourself, and the toxins released from it has the potential to kill others around it...

2nd hand smoke kills thousands (don't know the exact data) in America. Justify that.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-25 01:28pm

Anecdotal evidence. I wish I had a dollar for every smoker who tried to use George Burns as "proof" that smoking is harmless. One exception does not make an argument. Cigarette smoking is HIGHLY addictive and MOST smokers DON'T quit when they're having a baby.

You said that no one would do it. I provided a contrary example.

Not anymore. The government is really clamping down hard on selling tobacco to minors.

Bullshit. Minors only have to get their over-18 friends to buy them cigarettes. It's not that hard. The continued demonization of smoking just makes it more appealing to teenagers who want a way to piss off the establishment.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-25 01:29pm

I'd suggest you apply this thinking to suicide "helpers". Things like pills that some doctors used to (don't know if they still do) administer to patients who wanted to die, because it was "their choice".

It is their choice, whether you like it or not.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2002-11-26 12:48am

Durandal wrote:
Anecdotal evidence. I wish I had a dollar for every smoker who tried to use George Burns as "proof" that smoking is harmless. One exception does not make an argument. Cigarette smoking is HIGHLY addictive and MOST smokers DON'T quit when they're having a baby.
You said that no one would do it. I provided a contrary example.

Liar. Here is what I actually said:

Darth Servo wrote:So you think that a woman hooked on cigarettes is suddenly going to stop cold turkey when she gets pregnant?

I don't see how that can be construed as saying zero women will quit when they become pregnant. Allow me to rephrase it so it becomes clearer for you. MOST female smokers PROBABLY will NOT quit when they become pregnant.
There is that better?

Not anymore. The government is really clamping down hard on selling tobacco to minors.
Bullshit. Minors only have to get their over-18 friends to buy them cigarettes. It's not that hard. The continued demonization of smoking just makes it more appealing to teenagers who want a way to piss off the establishment.

Thats still one more hoop they need to jump through and its a hell of a lot harder than when cigarettes were available in restaurant vending machines. The more inconvienent it is to get them, the fewer people will smoke. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-11-26 12:54am

Arizona's newly updated tobacco tax goes into effect tomorrow. The total tax on a pack of cigarettes is now $1.18. Supposedly the new tax is supposed to go to pay for programs to help people quit smoking, ER trauma services in Southern Arizona and anti-smoking education. The problem there is that Arizona is really hurting in the state budget so they've already started talking about raiding the new funds to make up for the ½ billion dollar shortfall.

Our sleazy politicians did the same thing with the state lottery, which was supposed to only go to education.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-26 01:45am

Thats still one more hoop they need to jump through and its a hell of a lot harder than when cigarettes were available in restaurant vending machines. The more inconvienent it is to get them, the fewer people will smoke. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

And has that hoop proven effective? No. Teen smoking rates are up and climbing. The money spent on these idiotic campaigns could be better spent on schools and better facilities, so kids could actually come to the conclusion that smoking is bad by themselves, instead of having monolithic government entities repeatedly pound that notion into them over and over, which has proven to be ineffective.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2002-11-26 10:34am

Durandal wrote:Teen smoking rates are up and climbing.

Two words: Prove it.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2002-11-26 04:46pm

Darth Servo wrote:
Durandal wrote:Teen smoking rates are up and climbing.
Two words: Prove it.

Three more words: Ask yourself why. I'm reminded of the cute little slogan I saw on a T-shirt recently:

I do it because I want to. I want to because you say I can't.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2002-11-26 04:52pm

Mr Bean wrote:
The same with tobacco and nicotine.
Ehhh BZZZZT Sorry try agian, this is why I said bullshit Example

Formadhyed Containted in Ciggerets IS a Posion, 4 OZ is enough to kill you immue system pretty well and its in Ciggrets

Its NOT in Chocalete, Its NOT in WHEAT and its NOT in Coca-Puffs Ceral Either

Ciggretes DO kill you, thats the point, they kill you very slowy is a side issue the fact is smoking =slow death

If you want that Nicotine just buy the fucking patchs already!

Well then, here's a comparison that is NOT bullshit: NutraSweet. NutraSweet is the commercial name for Aspartame, a substance which has been demonstrated to induce an untreatable and ultimately fatal clone of MS. Further, almost EVERYTHING that is labeled as being "Sugar Free" contains it, and there are no warnings of any kind on such products. How do you explain that double-standard?

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2002-11-26 04:58pm

meNNis wrote:all i have to say is.... legalize marijuana

And don't even get me started on this double-standard.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-26 09:56pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:Well then, here's a comparison that is NOT bullshit: NutraSweet. NutraSweet is the commercial name for Aspartame, a substance which has been demonstrated to induce an untreatable and ultimately fatal clone of MS. Further, almost EVERYTHING that is labeled as being "Sugar Free" contains it, and there are no warnings of any kind on such products. How do you explain that double-standard?

What double-standard? I doubt the correlation is as strong for aspartame as it is for tobacco. Smokers have a one thousand percent greater chance of lung disease than non-smokers. This is no small difference, folks.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2002-11-27 05:09am

Darth Wong wrote:
Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:Well then, here's a comparison that is NOT bullshit: NutraSweet. NutraSweet is the commercial name for Aspartame, a substance which has been demonstrated to induce an untreatable and ultimately fatal clone of MS. Further, almost EVERYTHING that is labeled as being "Sugar Free" contains it, and there are no warnings of any kind on such products. How do you explain that double-standard?
What double-standard? I doubt the correlation is as strong for aspartame as it is for tobacco. Smokers have a one thousand percent greater chance of lung disease than non-smokers. This is no small difference, folks.

You'd have to consume a bathtub full of Aspartame a day for seven years to get the levels of it in your system that caused cancer in lab rats. There's a reason the FDA approved it.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2002-11-27 05:25am

Darth Servo wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Why is smoking a "problem"?
Because smoking harms MORE than just the person smoking!
It's the person's choice;
Your rights end when they start hurting aonther. Second hand smoke KILLS

Actually, second hand smoke may not hurt you:

http://pub82.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliti ... c&index=19

There is no disagreement that direct smoking is unhealthy, but there has yet to be any definitive conclusions that SHS is dangerous. There was a ruling in 1998 by a Federal Court Judge that found the EPA’s assertion and methodology that SHS is hazardous to a person’s health to be fraudulent.

But despite this ruling the myth perpetuated by the EPA is enshrined in the culture.

(I'll need to look that ruling up.)

And:

http://pub82.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliti ... c&index=24

The studies that have been done thus far have been inconclusive. The biggest study was a meta-analysis, a combining of data from other studies together to form a result. This study claimed a positive outcome that SHS was harmful, but used a p value of 0.1 to do it. A definite statistical no no. Sadly the journal who published this is a very well respected medical journal, which was caught publishing politically biased studies and the editor was forced to resign. Unfortunately, just like global warming and other politically driven science this has "common knowledge" and if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth.

Please provide some EVIDENCE that anti-smoking campaigns are wasteful.

They waste tax dollars for the unproductive purpose of trying to get people to quit a private habit. Furthermore, as a product of rebellion, they probably cause more and more children to want to start smoking - In a free, democratic society with American-style individualism, scare tactics often have the opposite result.

Reverse psychology does happen, you know. About the only scare campaign I can think of that was effective in recent memory was the one against AIDS - Due to the fact you were talking about a rather brutal, nasty, unknown sort of thing that got into you and slowly killed you, and they made it quite graphic. Easy to associate a virus and death; hard to associate a cigarette and death. 5,000 years of civilized living and mass death from plagues isn't behind the psychological image of smoking.

And the government has a duty to EDUCATE people about the DANGERS of such stupidity.

No, it doesn't. The government's duties are outlined in the Constitution, and that isn't one of them.

Heck, it wouldn't even cost us anything in healthcare - well, for the government - if we cut out all the socialist care programs like we should. And, like I said, removing the government anti-smoking campaigns will probably reduce the number of teenaged addictions.

P.S. Sorry I replied so lately.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-11-27 11:15am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:Well then, here's a comparison that is NOT bullshit: NutraSweet. NutraSweet is the commercial name for Aspartame, a substance which has been demonstrated to induce an untreatable and ultimately fatal clone of MS. Further, almost EVERYTHING that is labeled as being "Sugar Free" contains it, and there are no warnings of any kind on such products. How do you explain that double-standard?
What double-standard? I doubt the correlation is as strong for aspartame as it is for tobacco. Smokers have a one thousand percent greater chance of lung disease than non-smokers. This is no small difference, folks.
You'd have to consume a bathtub full of Aspartame a day for seven years to get the levels of it in your system that caused cancer in lab rats. There's a reason the FDA approved it.

That's funny, it seems that people in this thread are confusing Aspartame with sacarine.