Should smoking of cigarettes be illegalized in the publicity?

[Rapier]

how do you feel about it?

I admit I don't have a formed opinion on the matter, but...

One word: China. Another word: Opium.

We don't want to go through the opium route again, forming delinquents in large scale.

Also, we know that the heavier drugs not only are addictive but also contribute to the deaths of many. Is that a desirable thing to a nation? It is roughly the same as selling poison in the market and letting people suicide on their own will because "they're free to do so".

Libertarians fail to realize that absolute freedom is not so desirable and positive. They score on market politics but fail terribly on the cultural spectrum.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Rapier

[Phoenix Wright]

many lives are wasted over the black market business, though. completely innocent people.

with portugal as a model, i think the legalization of drugs will bring about an immediate spike in use, but over time drug use will dwindle to record lows, as it did in portugal.

[Master Awesome]

Should the use of drinking alcohol be illegal? It's harmful to both the user and the people surrounding them.

Oh wait... The U.S. (and many other countries) already tried that decades ago. Didn't work.

The government doesn't need to deny us anything else.

[Rapier]

many lives are wasted over the black market business, though. completely innocent people.

with portugal as a model, i think the legalization of drugs will bring about an immediate spike in use, but over time drug use will dwindle to record lows, as it did in portugal.

Mr. Wright, you ought to look at the evidence a bit closer. Portugal has not legalized drugs, they only changed the offense from a criminal one to an administrative one

"Possession has remained prohibited by Portuguese law, and criminal penalties are still applied to drug growers, dealers and traffickers"

I believe it is particularly hazardrous to implement in third world countries, hence why I am against drug liberation on my country (Brazil). Mix addiction to poverty and we'll have a legion of addicts stealing other people's money to buy drugs because they won't be able to pay for it for too long, forcing them to retort to "easier" ways such as crime. Poor countries also have a hard time treating drug addicts.

Let me ask you a question: If drugs are legalized, won't it help the big narcotic dealers such as the FARC? Their easier profit will only help them with their terrorist and other illegal activities. Also, follow my line of reasoning: Let's say Country A legalized drugs, but Country B, C and D didn't. Country A is the perfect spot for organizations such as the FARC to "strengthen" themselves, making it easier to sell drugs on the other countries. Therefore, the black market will increase in other countries, unless every country decides to legalize drugs.

Should the use of drinking alcohol be illegal? It's harmful to both the user and the people surrounding them.

Oh wait... The U.S. (and many other countries) already tried that decades ago. Didn't work.

The government doesn't need to deny us anything else.

It is an absurd to compare alcohol to cocaine and stronger drugs. Alcohol is only harmful if the user exaggerates on its consumption.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Rapier

[Shin]

It is an absurd to compare alcohol to cocaine and stronger drugs. Alcohol is only harmful if the user exaggerates on its consumption.

In a study by Professor David Nutt, it was thought that alcohol is overall more dangerous than illegal drugs on a society-wide level and roughly comparable on an individual level. Think, the social burden and cost to healthcare of alcohol greatly outweighs that of any illicit substances in the west. El sourco. Those without a subscription to the Lancet can still see the abstract.

[rabbyradical]

For me personally I think the government meddles too much in things than they should (I live in USA). It is their bodies and if they want to screw it up it is their choice. As in second hand smoking issues, it is actually only found in studies to be a big deal if you are living with a smoker or go to places frequently with a lot of smokers. About 95% of lung has known extreme environmental/ lifestyle causes. 2/3 are cause by smoking while most others are related to jobs like fire fighting. Lung cancer rarely if ever is caused by just passing by somebody smoke.

If anything it should be to local governments (cities, not states) that set limits.

To be fair to the other side.

Alcohol prohibition didn't work mostly because of how it was implemented not necessarily because of it being banned. Alcohol was banned almost completely with an amendment to the US Constitution making it so no state can have it legal. A lot of states were dry states that have benefited from it being illegalize locally. As a country so huge as the USA even back then it wasn't going to work to have complete federal ban.

In a study by Professor David Nutt, it was thought that alcohol is overall more dangerous than illegal drugs on a society-wide level and roughly comparable on an individual level. Think, the social burden and cost to healthcare of alcohol greatly outweighs that of any illicit substances in the west. El sourco. Those without a subscription to the Lancet can still see the abstract.

This might be largely because alcohol is legal and those other drugs are illegal. I am not sure if this is an counterargument or not.

Edited September 17, 2014 by eclipse

[Black Dynamite]

No, it should not be. Smoking indoors is banned here in North Carolina (which is understandable), but if you're outside in a public place I believe that it is absolutely absurd you would ban smoking. If it's not harming anybody and you're being respectful, it should be allowed.

[Rapier]

I've been thinking, why make a law that prohibits smoking indoors? Why don't we simply leave it to the owner of the establishment to decide? It is hard and ineffective for the State to policy whether people are complying with this law, whereas the employers and their employees have a much easier time to do so, if they desire to prohibit smoking indoors (and they have reasons to do so, since their clients are favorable to non-polluted environments, which attract more people and more money). Enforcing this law through State intervention is ineffective unless we have a few police officers walking inside bars to check if someone is smoking, which is absurd because they have more important tasks to fulfill. Therefore, I'd rather leave the choice to the free market to decide.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Rapier

[Ownagepuffs]

There is no point in banning public smoking.

[eclipse]

I've been thinking, why make a law that prohibits smoking indoors? Why don't we simply leave it to the owner of the establishment to decide? It is hard and ineffective for the State to policy whether people are complying with this law, whereas the employers and their employees have a much easier time to do so, if they desire to prohibit smoking indoors (and they have reasons to do so, since their clients are favorable to non-polluted environments, which attract more people and more money). Enforcing this law through State intervention is ineffective unless we have a few police officers walking inside bars to check if someone is smoking, which is absurd because they have more important tasks to fulfill. Therefore, I'd rather leave the choice to the free market to decide.

Once upon a time, Hawaii allowed smoking in restaurants/bars. Recently, that has been changed. I believe the impetus behind this was second-hand smoke. It also helps to get people out of the restaurant, as smoking an after-dinner cigarette while taking up a seat is no longer an option.

[Rapier]

How do they enforce this law and how effective is it? It must be hard to make sure there is no one passing over the radar. I try to imagine a police officer walking inside a bar to see if there is someone smoking, but this seems a tad inappropriate. Unless it's an open bar.

[eclipse]

There's a bunch of No Smoking signs, and the law itself got quite a bit of attention as soon as it was passed. Restaurants don't fuck around with the government in this neck of the woods - doing so results in some very hefty fines.

The places I've been in haven't had a problem. I think it helps the restaurant, because I can smell the food, as opposed to cigarette smoke (my nose is really sensitive).

[mewyeon]

For me, on my way to school I walk past a building every day where there are 'NO SMOKING' signs plastered all over it. And yet people have the nerve to stand right next to the sign and smoke. Every time I pass by there's like...at least 3 people doing that, and double the amount later in the afternoon. And that's a lot of secondhand smoke for the people that walk by, it's a frequently used walkway. Now every time I go past there, I cover my mouth and nose. I've been scouting out alternate routes that I can take to avoid that path, because I'm getting real sick of it. If these people want to destroy their own health, there's nothing I can do. But they're making it hard on everyone else by being inconsiderate like this.

[Black Dynamite]

I've been thinking, why make a law that prohibits smoking indoors? Why don't we simply leave it to the owner of the establishment to decide? It is hard and ineffective for the State to policy whether people are complying with this law, whereas the employers and their employees have a much easier time to do so, if they desire to prohibit smoking indoors (and they have reasons to do so, since their clients are favorable to non-polluted environments, which attract more people and more money). Enforcing this law through State intervention is ineffective unless we have a few police officers walking inside bars to check if someone is smoking, which is absurd because they have more important tasks to fulfill. Therefore, I'd rather leave the choice to the free market to decide.

I agree with your initial statement. I believe it should be ultimately left up to the business to decide whether smoking is allowed in doors, or not. I believe here in North Carolina that it is at the discretion of privately owned businesses as to whether smoking is allowed inside. Public establishments, however, it is very understandable why smoking is banned in doors.

[Philax]

I'm a smoker myself, and I don't think it should be banned. Here in France, smoking is commonplace and lots of people do it.

[Life]

I'm a smoker myself, and I don't think it should be banned. Here in France, smoking is commonplace and lots of people do it.

Same in Israel. It's actually harder to find someone who doesn't smoke here.

I'm also a smoker and I work in a bar/restaurant that has a smoking bar and a non-smoking bar. Guess which one is always full (hint: it's not the non-smoking bar).

So what it needs is regulation and popularity, as well as some data on its effects. But it really should be a lot better with all the stuff in cigarettes that's not in e-cigs.

Refills for e-cigs are about 1.50$ per unit. From what I'm reading, you get about 150-250 "puffs" per each of these. Now, this might not be the most accurate data, but I'm seeing around 10-20 puffs per cigarette. The average pack of cigarettes has 20 inside, so a total of 200-400 puffs per pack, so about 1.5-2 e-cig refills per pack. It seems that average cigarette pack is around 6$, but it has a lot of variation, from what I see. ultimately, it seems e-cigs are half as expensive after the initial cost of the e-cig, at least for the moment. And i don't claim to have the most accurate data so numbers could be slightly off.

Or... you could just roll your own cigarettes and spend like I do (about 100 shekels a month for about 150 cigarettes). That's between 25 and 33 dollars a month.

So yeah, your numbers are off because you have no idea what you're talking about since you don't smoke.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Man Bun

[Moira]

Same in Israel. It's actually harder to find someone who doesn't smoke here.

I'm also a smoker and I work in a bar/restaurant that has a smoking bar and a non-smoking bar. Guess which one is always full (hint: it's not the non-smoking bar).

Or... you could just roll your own cigarettes and spend like I do (about 100 shekels a month for about 150 cigarettes). That's between 25 and 33 dollars a month.

So yeah, your numbers are off because you have no idea what you're talking about since you don't smoke.

Sick quote from 8 months ago

My numbers were based on the cost of a pack of cigarettes, not rolling them. A very large amount of people only buy packs, so the information is relevant.

Why can't I have any idea without smoking?? It's not like the prices of things are a mystery to me because I don't smoke. You literally make no sense.

[Life]

My numbers were based on the cost of a pack of cigarettes, not rolling them. A very large amount of people only buy packs, so the information is relevant.

Why can't I have any idea without smoking?? It's not like the prices of things are a mystery to me because I don't smoke. You literally make no sense.

Then that's their fault. They could be paying less for the same quality but they're not.

If you're planning to use relevant data, use a more cost effective way to keep up a smoking habit. I paid 55 shekels for tobacco today and it will last me about 100 cigarettes. A pack is like 25-30 for 20 cigarettes. The only difference is having to roll but if you roll cigarettes, the pouch lasts a lot longer for less.

And you're don't know what you're talking about because you've never used an e-cig. It's not the same and smokers know that. A person will only move to an e-cig if 1) the law essentially prohibits that person from smoking anywhere (which pretty much outlaws smoking) or b) they're trying to quit and it's a progression from actual cigarettes. E-cigs aren't a better substitute but rather, a simple substitute. Sort of like butter to margarine.

[Moira]

Then that's their fault. They could be paying less for the same quality but they're not.

If you're planning to use relevant data, use a more cost effective way to keep up a smoking habit. I paid 55 shekels for tobacco today and it will last me about 100 cigarettes. A pack is like 25-30 for 20 cigarettes. The only difference is having to roll but if you roll cigarettes, the pouch lasts a lot longer for less.

And you're don't know what you're talking about because you've never used an e-cig. It's not the same and smokers know that. A person will only move to an e-cig if 1) the law essentially prohibits that person from smoking anywhere (which pretty much outlaws smoking) or b) they're trying to quit and it's a progression from actual cigarettes. E-cigs aren't a better substitute but rather, a simple substitute. Sort of like butter to margarine.

The relevant data is what people actually do, and my data was addressed to people who buy cigarettes from cigarette companies.

Now you're just changing what you say. You said my numbers were off because I don't smoke. Now you're saying that I don't understand that e-cigs and real cigarettes are not the same. Please do not this in an attempt to salvage your broken logic.

[Life]

The relevant data is what people actually do, and my data was addressed to people who buy cigarettes from cigarette companies.

Now you're just changing what you say. You said my numbers were off because I don't smoke. Now you're saying that I don't understand that e-cigs and real cigarettes are not the same. Please do not this in an attempt to salvage your broken logic.

No. Because you don't smoke, you have no idea what that means for using an e-cig and you wouldn't bring it up if you did. If someone's trying to salvage broken logic, it's yourself.

[Moira]

No. Because you don't smoke, you have no idea what that means for using an e-cig and you wouldn't bring it up if you did. If someone's trying to salvage broken logic, it's yourself.

Just saying no won't change the fact that you screwed up.

Can you spot the difference?

So yeah, your numbers are off because you have no idea what you're talking about since you don't smoke.

And you're don't know what you're talking about because you've never used an e-cig. It's not the same and smokers know that. A person will only move to an e-cig if 1) the law essentially prohibits that person from smoking anywhere (which pretty much outlaws smoking) or b) they're trying to quit and it's a progression from actual cigarettes. E-cigs aren't a better substitute but rather, a simple substitute. Sort of like butter to margarine.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Moiraine

[Moishe Oofnik]

No. Because you don't smoke, you have no idea what that means for using an e-cig and you wouldn't bring it up if you did. If someone's trying to salvage broken logic, it's yourself.

Electronic Cigs still have the same nicontine from the tabbaco and they are a worse alternative to the nicotine Inhaler

Now for my stand on the topic

No Smoking=Demand For More places too smoke private rooms feel uncomftrable to some people so they might want open rooms

So we are basicly giving spare land to people who smoke cigs for some people who have inconvinience with people who smoke near them

Driving makes the envrioment worse an I know some people (I too as a kid used to be one) Who got nasuea from the gas smell so driving in public shouldnt be allowed because of them are people who smoke arent as entitled as other people

Alcohol proved to cause much more destructive effects to your own body and your sorrundings doesnt prevent drinking in public (I drink and smoke so yea this is kinda not a big subject to me deal against)

So Alcohol shouldnt be allowed in public

So how many other things should be not allowed in the public

also here is an intersting true story

my physics teacher a good man didnt even smoke a cigarrete once in his life

Recently he got lung cancer

My Literture Teacher Smoked allmost all her life (retired when I was a senior in high school)

Her most major problem in her health for the past 20 years was common cold

Edited March 2, 2015 by TTPK_Tal

[Rapier]

The problem with smoking in public places with no ventilation is that the amount of nicotine inhaled by passive smokers is much higher than what active smokers inhale. But whether it is an issue of enough impact to become a matter of importance or not, I don't know. The above poster brought a good point: Many things that we do also affect negatively our surroundings, should we also forbid them even if they don't pose a major problem?

Edited March 4, 2015 by Rapier

[Esau of Isaac]

The problem with smoking in public places with no ventilation is that the amount of nicotine inhaled by passive smokers is much higher than what active smokers inhale. But whether it is an issue of enough impact to become a matter of importance or not, I don't know. The above poster brought a good point: Many things that we do also affect negatively our surroundings, should we also forbid them even if they don't pose a major problem?

Well, given that his point with regards to alcohol is already treated in much a similar way, in that it's illegal in most places to be drunk in public...yes, depending on the risks associated with them.

That said, this is still speaking of them in the public, in an open-air space, so it's a non-issue.

[Spikey]

Smoking in restaurants, pubs, clubs or wherever was banned years back over here because of working environments. You can however have a completely seperate room / smoking area where personnel does not need to go for work. The reasoning here is that people who go to work at such places, should not get cancer or other short or longterm ailments from doing so. I tend to agree.