Ban traditional cigarettes completely?

[RandBlade]

Traditional smoking is supposed to be as dangerous as cocaine or heroin - both or which are illegal. If they were to be invented today and nobody was addicted then I don't doubt they would be criminalised.

However the problem is that millions are addicted. So instead piecemeal it is becoming illegal to smoke in more and more places - bars and restaurants, the workplace, any enclosed building and sometimes parks.

It remains however legal to smoke at home and in the car with children in etc, a weird anomaly that a bartenders life is more important to protect from second hand smoke than a child who has less developed lungs and would be at higher risk. Realistically it will not be possible to ban smoking at home short of making the product illegal the same as similarly lethal drugs. Similarly despite the negative effects on foetal development it remains discouraged but legal for expectant mothers to smoke like a chimney.

Simply getting people to quit, while ideal is not necessarily realistic. There are however now electronic cigarettes which are meant to provide similar sensations and nicotine to traditional cigarettes but safer (not safe) to the smoker and without any second hand effects.

I think we have reached a point where traditional cigarettes can and should be treated the same as heroin and cocaine. If anyone wants to continue smoking, then electronic cigarettes should be used instead. Or we should legalise everything else.

[Veldan Rath]

Really, when did you become the big government nanny?

Prohobition on Cigs? Don't we have it bad enough with the war on drugs?

[RandBlade]

My general philosophy is that you should be allowed to do what you want so long as it doesn't cause harm to others. Smoking, especially in front of children IMO does cause harm to others.

It is logically consistent to say legalise all drugs, but why should we criminalise a load that do less harm (especially less scond hand harm) than cigarettes then provide an exemption for that?

Which has more second hand effects cigarettes or ecstasy? If you oppose a ban on cigs, do you support or oppose a ban on cocaine, heroin etc?

I could understand the logic too of saying they should all ideally be banned but it wasn't possible to ban cigarettes as people couldn't quit simply, but that's not true now. Switching types to one that is very similar but doesn't emit second hand emissions doesn't to my knowledge have the same symptoms as cold turkey, patches etc do.

[CitizenCain]

My general philosophy is that you should be allowed to do what you want so long as it doesn't cause harm to others.

Not lately it isn't.

Smoking, especially in front of children IMO does cause harm to others.

Yeah, well, so does the exhaust from an internal combustion engine when you direct into someone else's face. Seems like what's really causing the problem is fire, so maybe you should propose we ban it. Come to think of it, that doesn't just apply to the chemical byproducts of fire... directing a fridge into a kid's face also causes harm to others, so maybe we need to look at banning fridges also.

Like Veldan asked, when did you become Mr. Nanny government? Did you recently suffer a severe head injury, maybe?

[RandBlade]

Not lately it isn't.

Why, what goes against this?

Yeah, well, so does the exhaust from an internal combustion engine when you direct into someone else's face.

I suspect holding some bodies face against an exhaust would class as assault. Plus there are many laws and regulations to minimise exhaust fumes. These leave car exhausts as rated safer than second hand smoke even without considering the practical advantages of automobiles.

Seems like what's really causing the problem is fire, so maybe you should propose we ban it.

Again jeopardising others safety by burning certain things in certain ways is illegal.

Come to think of it, that doesn't just apply to the chemical byproducts of fire... directing a fridge into a kid's face also causes harm to others, so maybe we need to look at banning fridges also.

If you mean physically assaulting someone with it, oops again wrong and illegal. As for the chemicals in fridges, interesting you'd mention that. Buy one using CFC's recently?

[Lebanese Dragon]

It remains however legal to smoke at home and in the car with children in etc, a weird anomaly that a bartenders life is more important to protect from second hand smoke than a child who has less developed lungs and would be at higher risk.

The difference here is, one is their home, and the other is a public space, where the government has more rights to excercise. Secondly, most families do have their loved ones that smoke do so outside and away from kids. I think most naturally don't smoke next to their kids, I'd be fine with a law that said you can't smoke next to people of a certain young age, but I don't think it's needed.

The reason it's not outright banned or illegal is a combination of two things.

1. Our experiences with prohibition
2. Large tobacco lobbies.

I will say JEL and other groups have really had a positive impact in the world, I think significantly less youth are growing up doing cigarrettes because of it. And that's the beauty of it. If you never start it's so easy to not pick up the habit.

[Aimless]

The difference here is, one is their home, and the other is a public space, where the government has more rights to excercise. Secondly, most families do have their loved ones that smoke do so outside and away from kids. I think most naturally don't smoke next to their kids

Most don't, many do. Similarly, most people don't punch their children or bully them, but many do. Most people don't rape people, but many do. Etc.

[CitizenCain]

Why, what goes against this?
I suspect holding some bodies face against an exhaust would class as assault. Plus there are many laws and regulations to minimise exhaust fumes. These leave car exhausts as rated safer than second hand smoke even without considering the practical advantages of automobiles.
Again jeopardising others safety by burning certain things in certain ways is illegal.
If you mean physically assaulting someone with it, oops again wrong and illegal. As for the chemicals in fridges, interesting you'd mention that. Buy one using CFC's recently?

Well, thanks for pointing out that there are plenty of existing laws on the books that prohibit harming someone else. So, your reasoning for wanting to ban dried tobacco plants instead of utilizing one of those existing laws to prevent is...?

FFS, it's already basically illegal to smoke indoors in the UK, so, again, what does this proposal of yours actually achieve, other than putting another largely pointless liberty-infringing statute on the books? Just more nanny government, yippie.

[RandBlade]

Well, thanks for pointing out that there are plenty of existing laws on the books that prohibit harming someone else. So, your reasoning for wanting to ban dried tobacco plants instead of utilizing one of those existing laws to prevent is...?

Because those don't prohibit this.

FFS, it's already basically illegal to smoke indoors in the UK, so, again, what does this proposal of yours actually achieve, other than putting another largely pointless liberty-infringing statute on the books? Just more nanny government, yippie.

It's legal to smoke:
At home with kids.
At home with others.
In a car with kids or others.
While pregnant.
At parks.
On the pavement.
In doorways.
While pushing a pram.
While walking with kids.

Need me to go on?

Not unusual remotely to see people smoking with kids in a car etc etc so this is not theoretical. So rather than pretend its not an issue already how about either agreeing or providing a reason to disagree?

[Aimless]

Jesus god that is the worst case of the slippery slope fallacy I've seen in months

[Veldan Rath]

Jesus god that is the worst case of the slippery slope fallacy I've seen in months

May I direct you to the Prohibition Era of the US?

And yes Rand, I'm for the legalization of drugs.

[RandBlade]

May I direct you to the Prohibition Era of the US?

And yes Rand, I'm for the legalization of drugs.

All drugs? Ok well that is as I said I'm the OP consistent.

It is not simpy 'think of the children' why I think that fags should be treated the same as crack and other similar drugs. It is just one big reason. I don't see any logical reason why we should have a "war on [less serious] drugs" yet say this ones ok? I haven't seen anyone in this entire thread attempt to justify that either. Have I missed a rationale?

[ImAnOgre]

Think of the Children!!!!!

Don't we have enough government oversite already? I say businesses should be able to choose whether they can allow smoking or not.... and as a patron, I'm going to go where smoking isn't allowed. I'm not going to hire a smoker because they smell bad and my health insurance rates will increase for smokers. There should be LESS legislation!!!! And as an insurance company, I would charge smokers more. If it becomes too expensive to smoke, smokers will quit.

[Aimless]

Think of the Children!!!!!

Don't we have enough government oversite already? I say businesses should be uable to choose whether they can allow smoking or not.... and as a patron, I'm going to go where smoking isn't allowed. I'm not going to hire a smoker because they smell bad and my health insurance rates will increase for smokers. There should be LESS legislation!!!! And as an insurance company, I would charge smokers more. If it becomes too expensive to smoke, smokers will quit.

Er... I may be missing something, but only the first sentence appears to have much to do with the OP

[GGT]

If it becomes too expensive to smoke, smokers will quit.

Not necessarily. They might smoke less or buy cheaper smokes, including black market stuff. Same thing happened during Prohibition with booze. The Tax Man wouldn't appreciate losing that vice to tax either, since it (ironically) helps fund things like healthcare and elder care in some states.

If you want to get more smokers to quit, it'd make more sense to have cut-price patches and gums. Those things are expensive, and more pricey than cigarettes! They're locked up behind cases with anti-theft devices. Plus making meds like Chantix or Wellbutrin more affordable OOP.

Rand, your child-centered approach sounds well-intentioned, but falls apart fast as a "justifiable reason" to BAN cigarettes. If what you'd really like to see is less smoking around kids, changing cultural attitudes with education and social pressures have worked pretty well over the decades. It's just a slow process.

Watch any older movie (especially black and white ones) to remember how smoking anywhere and everywhere used to be acceptable in our culture. Soldiers given cartons of cigarettes during war as part of their "rations", Gene Kelly dancing with a cig in his mouth, cigars passed around and smoked in hospital nursery waiting rooms, doctors smoking in hallways, patients smoking in their rooms (while attached to oxygen), every grocery store and restaurant with ashtrays, ashtrays in elevators and airplanes. Not to mention the subtle film suggestion of having sex without showing it on the screen, by a couple in bed having their post-coital smoke.

Non-smoking is more "popular" than ever. Cars don't even come with standard ashtrays anymore, and charge premium for a "Smoker Package"---that can mean just an ashtray or fancy circulated air filters. Outdoor smoking has been banned in public parks, on sidewalks, in bars and restaurants, and places of employment. Entire cities and towns have banned public smoking.

The down-side to that is....smokers having no place to go but their own home, even if they share walls in crappily built apartments, or older places that share ventilation systems. Didn't we have a thread about some NYC co-op that was trying to BAN residents from smoking in their own homes, because a neighbor down the hall could "smell their smoke"? I don't think they tried to pull the think of the children angle at all, but it's still a slippery slope.

Not where it matters the most. In the home.
Ocean has officially been declared an asthma suffer, thanks to the constant smoking her grandmother did around her. 6 years old, with asthma

Not that I'm trying to defend smoking around babies, but her asthma could just as easily be caused by the number of pets you or her grandmother had/have. Didn't you say you've got like 6 cats, and took in your mom's dogs for a while? And didn't you say there were problems with mold and mildew in the drywall of her home after flooding? I remember a picture you posted of your yard looking like a soggy petri dish ripe for allergens. Asthma has more than one environmental cause, y'know, and it's not always second-hand smoke.

[Ominous Gamer]

Not that I'm trying to defend smoking around babies, but her asthma could just as easily be caused by the number of pets you or her grandmother had/have. Didn't you say you've got like 6 cats, and took in your mom's dogs for a while? And didn't you say there were problems with mold and mildew in the drywall of her home after flooding? I remember a picture you posted of your yard looking like a soggy petri dish ripe for allergens. Asthma has more than one environmental cause, y'know, and it's not always second-hand smoke.

My mom is the one with the excess pets, and we haven't combined households yet. I posted a picture of the street flooding, into our yard and driveway, but I don't think I've ever talked about mold or mildew issues

[RandBlade]

Anyone think banning smoking in front of kids would seriously be remotely enforceable?

[Kazuha Vinland]

I was thinking the same thing. That sounds farfetched.

Secondhand smoke kills, you know. It's far worse than the fumes you inhale directly. Take diethylene, one of those nasty carcinogens your doctor might have warned you about on your last visit. Firsthand smoke has between 5.3 and 43 nanograms of diethylene, where as, secondhand smoke has 680 and 823 nanograms.Then we've got quinoline, another effective one, secondhand smoke has 18,000 nanograms; 11 times more than the amount you're sucking down firsthand. You can make the choice to blacken your lungs, but don't expect to enforce that on me.

And secondly I think that the reason why most people set themselves against this proposition, is due to appearance. When you use the term "electric cigarette", you get the association as with plastic lights instead of living lights for Christmas. Therefore you should inform the ignorant people, that this isn't the case. Electronic cigarette is an electrical device that simulates the act of tobacco smoking by producing an inhaled mist bearing the physical sensation, appearance, and often the flavor and nicotine content of inhaled tobacco smoke. The mist does not bear the usual odor of tobacco smoke, and according to some, does not bear its health risks. The device uses heat, or in some cases ultrasonics, to vaporize a propylene glycol- or glycerin-based liquid solution into an aerosol mist, similar to the way a nebulizer or humidifier vaporizes solutions for inhalation.

[Flixy]

I was thinking the same thing. That sounds farfetched.

Secondhand smoke kills, you know. It's far worse than the fumes you inhale directly. Take diethylene, one of those nasty carcinogens your doctor might have warned you about on your last visit. Firsthand smoke has between 5.3 and 43 nanograms of diethylene, where as, secondhand smoke has 680 and 823 nanograms.Then we've got quinoline, another effective one, secondhand smoke has 18,000 nanograms; 11 times more than the amount you're sucking down firsthand. You can make the choice to blacken your lungs, but don't expect to enforce that on me.

Not that I dispute second hand smoke kills, but I call BS on your numbers and would like a source. Also, is that per cigarette, per day, per what?

[Lebanese Dragon]

Does anyone here think it should be legal to smoke while pregnant? Or to subject kids to smoke or anything?

I don't think it should be legal, my concern with the law is enforcing, as I was the first to point that out. Also like a parent walking with a child while smoking.. will the wind direction determinie th elegality of that? or they have to walk while their child walk 10 feet away from them, or what. They literally will have to fight off the urge, this is not always the easiest task.

[Ominous Gamer]

Anyone think banning smoking in front of kids would seriously be remotely enforceable?

Not where it matters the most. In the home.
Ocean has officially been declared an asthma suffer, thanks to the constant smoking her grandmother did around her. 6 years old, with asthma

I wouldn't mind traditional cigs being taxed and restricted a little harder, with education and social support to match. Something along the lines of how we handle public drinking. Remove smoking sections and smoking breaks. But banning them outright would cause more problems than solve.

[ImAnOgre]

Not where it matters the most. In the home.
Ocean has officially been declared an asthma suffer, thanks to the constant smoking her grandmother did around her. 6 years old, with asthma

I wouldn't mind traditional cigs being taxed and restricted a little harder, with education and social support to match. Something along the lines of how we handle public drinking. Remove smoking sections and smoking breaks. But banning them outright would cause more problems than solve.

Why would a parent leave their kid with a grandparent who smokes? Seems like that is a big issue right there...

[Aimless]

Why would a parent leave their kid with a grandparent who smokes? Seems like that is a big issue right there...

to work three jobs because someone dismantled the welfare system

Dunno if that applies to OG's case of course

[Aimless]

Are you quoting Bleach, Kazuha? :P

[Aimless]

They banned fire and fridges in the Prohibition era?

[GGT]

They banned fire and fridges in the Prohibition era?

What?

[GGT]

Yes, you missed that huge DRUG called booze. Wine. Beer. Spirits. The one "drug" that's just as addictive as tobacco, and more harmful to "children" when things like domestic violence, drunk driving, or accidental pregnancies are considered. Cigarette smoking has never been considered a second-hand behavioral health danger with the same types of "victims" that booze has.

[RandBlade]

The one "drug" that's just as addictive as tobacco

Source needed.

I think that's total bull. I never at work get people cranky because its 30 minutes since they last had some vodka or have people ask to go have a whiskey break. I used to drink a lot but now frequently go weeks at a time without drink, sometimes months, just because its not convenient/I don't want one right now/I'm normally driving. Never get withdrawal symptoms or cravings. Yes its addictive to some people (just like gambling and other pursuits are to some), but I find the notion its even remotely as addictive as tobacco to be garbage.

[GGT]

Source needed.

I think that's total bull. I never at work get people cranky because its 30 minutes since they last had some vodka or have people ask to go have a whiskey break. I used to drink a lot but now frequently go weeks at a time without drink, sometimes months, just because its not convenient/I don't want one right now/I'm normally driving. Never get withdrawal symptoms or cravings. Yes its addictive to some people (just like gambling and other pursuits are to some), but I find the notion its even remotely as addictive as tobacco to be garbage.

Wait, you're asking me for a source...because you expect drinkers to act like smokers...based on your personal experiences?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Traditional smoking is supposed to be as dangerous as cocaine or heroin

Almost as addictive, yes. As dangerous, no. Since there is less physical harm.