Should we move towards banning smoking (1 Viewer)

[jennyfromdabloc]

That's the direction we seem to be headed in. I think most people can see that it is impractical right now. But there seems to be a view that there is nothing morally wrong with preventing people from smoking by force. After all, we already ban other illegal drugs which are actually less harmful.

So at some point in the future, if smoking rates become sufficiently low to prevent mass public outrage, would it be a good idea to ban smoking all together?

 

[jkdsfsio3458963]

no, smoking doesn't really bother me, but cigarette tax should continue to increase and be directed straight to the health system, as the goverment proposes to do

 

[showy]

no, smoking doesn't really bother me, but cigarette tax should continue to increase and be directed straight to the health system, as the goverment proposes to do

This is true. Smokers should and are beginning to compensate for their cost to public health.

 

[Phoenix Fury]

As fucking gross as it is, imma have to say no cos of the whole freedom thing.

 

[zombie omie jay]

do you agree with weed being illegal then?

 

[Phoenix Fury]

do you agree with weed being illegal then?

I do not.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

no people should be able to smoke all they like. however they can be banned from smoking in certain places/property if it the wish of the owner. E.G. private bus company could ban all smoking on their buses or just corporation X banning smoking or their premises

 

[Phoenix Fury]

^ye

 

[bio_nut]

In public and in non-designated areas, I'm thinking yes. Not altogether, that's their choice I suppose, as stupid and costly to society as it is.

Second hand smoking IS harmful. So it has extended beyond the realm of personal freedom. Activities such as drinking can indirectly lead to harmful consequences to others, such as being caught up in an alcohol induced fight. But just being around a smoker is a direct cause of emphysema and a myriad of cancers.

Smoke all you like in your home, but leave me my fucking air, it's polluted enough as it is.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

In public and in non-designated areas, I'm thinking yes. Not altogether, that's their choice I suppose, as stupid and costly to society as it is.

Second hand smoking IS harmful. So it has extended beyond the realm of personal freedom. Activities such as drinking can indirectly lead to harmful consequences to others, such as being caught up in an alcohol induced fight. But just being around a smoker is a direct cause of emphysema and a myriad of cancers.

Smoke all you like in your home, but leave me my fucking air, it's polluted enough as it is.

Second hand smoking is quite harmful, in enclosed areas where it is already banned.

The dangers of pollution from second hand smoke in open areas like public streets is statistically insignificant.

 

[Lolsmith]

A smoking ban just seems to be too restrictive. The way cigarettes are treated now are at a pretty decent level of restriction. The new regulations (hopefully) on cigarette packs should be where it stops.

As long as people are paying for their healthcare in sin taxes and not smoking near me, I don't really care.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

a typical day at uni involves breathing in copious amount of second hand smoke. not happy. not happy at all.

 

[Lolsmith]

but surely at Hogwarts the professors can use their superior magic to stop students from smoking

 

[Riet]

This is true. Smokers should and are beginning to compensate for their cost to public health.

they already do you moron, it's not like they just put a tax on it, they just increased the tax.

edit: second hand smoke outside where there is plenty of ventilation is statistically insignificant, especially compared to the fumes from vehicles.

 

[zombie omie jay]

this debate is always going to be tards v libertarians

always

 

[Sadiah]

but surely at Hogwarts the professors can use their superior magic to stop students from smoking

I'm pretty srue we're talking about muggles here..

 

[Slidey]

no, smoking doesn't really bother me, but cigarette tax should continue to increase and be directed straight to the health system, as the goverment proposes to do

Agreed.

And other less harmful drugs like marijuana and LSD should be legalised and regulated.

 

[Misyndo]

TL;DR Smoking will never be banned because of the tax revenue that it reels in.

Not banning smoking because of an infringment of personal freedom borderlines euthanasia and as mentioned before, other drugs.

It's on the topic of doing whatever you want to yourself even it may be harmful or deadly (ie. euthanasia/illicit drugs), but even after all the medical evidence pointing out that smoking is bad for you and everyone else around you, the government will not ban it simply because of the tax revenue.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

TL;DR Smoking will never be banned because of the tax revenue that it reels in.

Not banning smoking because of an infringment of personal freedom borderlines euthanasia and as mentioned before, other drugs.

It's on the topic of doing whatever you want to yourself even it may be harmful or deadly (ie. euthanasia/illicit drugs), but even after all the medical evidence pointing out that smoking is bad for you and everyone else around you, the government will not ban it simply because of the tax revenue.

By that logic though, the government would also legalize drugs like marijuana since the tax revenue that would bring in, plus the savings on law enforcement costs would be a huge boon to government revenue.

Clearly there are other factors in play; namely the social perception of certain drugs which is based on culture, tradition and religion rather than science and evidence.

 

[Misyndo]

By that logic though, the government would also legalize drugs like marijuana since the tax revenue that would bring in, plus the savings on law enforcement costs would be a huge boon to government revenue.

I'm saying that cigarettes are an EXCEPTION to the banned substances even though they are clearly harmful.
Whilst illict drugs are BANNED because they DO HAVE harmful (subjective to some) effects.

TL;DR Why are cigarettes not banned like the rest of the harmful drugs if the government truly cares?