Hasn't the time come to outlaw the sale of tobacco products?

[OmahaBlueDog]

High health risk.

The smoke harms others -- especially kids in homes of smokers.

Vaping represents a comparatively safer alterative, so no one is being denied their nicotine.

Lower health insurance costs.

Isn't it time the rest of America follows the lead of CVS?

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Prohibition has worked so well in the past (and present).

[OmahaBlueDog]

3. We've outlawed other cancer causing, hazardous products - like asbestos

I'm saying ban nicotine. Let people buy e-cigs.

[REP]

12. I'm still trying to kick smoking asbestos

[mindwalker_i]

17. Yeah that's a hard one

I tried to switch to nutmeg, but it just wasn't the same.

[Eleanors38]

73. Hell, I still get a reduction in house insurance for having it.

[Gravitycollapse]

13. E-cigs contain nicotine.

[former9thward]

85. Coffee contains caffeine. So what.

[Major Nikon]

88. Nicotine is not a carcinogen

[Gravitycollapse]

91. Some studies suggest it is.

Not that I'm in favor of banning it. But emerging research suggests nicotine is a carcinogen.

[WillowTree]

53. Please cite the statistics showing how many people have become addicted to asbestos.

[OmahaBlueDog]

92. Asbestos was used in some cigarette filters in the 60s

..it's not an addictive substance, but it's a carcinogen, and it was banned. So if tobacco is also a know carcinogen, it should be _________ (fill in the blank - I know you can do it)

[WillowTree]

143. Just can't get enough of the banning, can you? We banned one thing, so let's ban some more!

How about making choices for yourself and letting other adults make their own decisions and their own choices? Who knows? You might even like not having the burden of having to decide what's best for everyone else and then putting up with their anger when you inflict your choices on them.

[riverwalker]

57. nicotine doesn't cause cancer

besides, e cigs have nicotine. What are you talking about?

[Spider Jerusalem]

69. Nicotine doesn't cause cancer.

The tars and particulates in tobacco smoke and the slight radioactivity of the fertilisers used in tobacco farming cause cancer.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

126. There's no market for asbestos.

That's why you don't see cartels killing for asbestos territory.

[Travis_0004]

2. No.

I support freedom, even if its a dumb choice. Smokers have more expensive healthcare, but they pay the majority of those cost through taxes on tobacco and higher healthcare cost. Yes they don't pay for all those cost, but you could also argue that fat people don't pay for any extra health care cost they incur.

[OmahaBlueDog]

4. The fat could counter argue that they have to pay for the knee replacements for the joggers

If freedom only impacted the user, it'd be one thing. Second hand smoke impacts everyone. It's like drunk driving -- it impacts the non-user.

[mokawanis]

8. Car exhaust impacts people who don't drive

Let's ban cars, and alcohol, and fatty foods, too. I bet we could come up with a long list if we tried.

[OmahaBlueDog]

44. I don't want to ban alcohol, but I'd love to see overservers taken to task

Cars do produce exhaust, but the evolution of hybrid and electric technology, as well as better fuels and more efficient engines are reducing exhaust. Wouldn't you outlaw gas cars in favor of electric cars if you could?

You aren't harmed by my secondhand fat, unless, of course, I fall on you.

[OmahaBlueDog]

45. I don't want to ban alcohol, but I'd love to see overservers taken to task

Cars do produce exhaust, but the evolution of hybrid and electric technology, as well as better fuels and more efficient engines are reducing exhaust. Wouldn't you outlaw gas cars in favor of electric cars if you could?

You aren't harmed by my secondhand fat, unless, of course, I fall on you.

[Travis_0004]

10. Smoking is banned businesses in most states

Its legal in the home, and I've been to homes of people that smoke, but I am free to leave if I don't like it. I'll agree that smoking in a house with kids is stupid, but so is a lot of things people do.

[raccoon]

103. Great post! nt

[TexasProgresive]

56. Does early death of smokers equal

less costly maintenance of long living people with senility?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

127. *That* is an interesting point. n/t

[Recursion]

70. Smokers' younger deaths improve Social Security's and Medicare's actuarial strength

IIRC RJR did the calculation in a whitepaper but (for once) had the sense not to push that argument, but the numbers seem to check out. Smokers do rack up expensive medical treatments, but not as expensive as the people who live to their 90s (who pretty much all aren't smokers). And obviously younger deaths improve Social Security's situation.

[The Straight Story]

5. Tobacco is a plant, want to arrest people for growing that too?

Ban SI covers with women, cigarettes, guns, large sodas, and then wonder why people think us progressives want to control them as much as we are saying they want to control us.

[DebJ]

6. I'm a chain smoker and I vote yes. I wish they had been illegal in 1982

I never would have started smoking. I have a big addiction problem.
I get horrible ADD without nicotine...drive down the wrong side of the highway,
fall down stairs, can't think straight...my brain has totally stopped making whatever
it's supposed to make that nicotine replaces.

I say yes, save others from this hell.

[TroglodyteScholar]

108. Sorry, that's not how ADD works.

It doesn't just come and go based on your situation.

P.S. Cigarettes, btw, are not a treatment for ADD. If you are unable to control your body and mind, there may be something else wrong with you. I'd go to the doctor ASAP. Again, cigarettes aren't a medically accepted treatment for any known malady.

[etherealtruth]

136. I don't think the poster suggested "ADD" was transient

It is entirely possible s/he is self medicating ADD with nicotine, caffeine ... addiction and ADD/ ADHD are often concomitant disorders

[DebJ]

140. Thanks.

But I never had any issues for 26 years until the cigarettes. I am familiar with ADD because
another family member has it... and always had it from youngest childhood days. Their brain
was wired like that; mine became wired to function similarly after the nicotine dependence.
People who might start smoking should be aware that this could happen to them too. I know
I could more easily brush off yellowing teeth than I could have brushed off lapse of focus and
ability to get things done...if ONLY someone had told me about that before I was smoking.

On Edit: I began smoking after living with my ex-husband for nine years. He was/is a chain smoker.
I don't know WHY I started when I did ... except my world (marriage) had fallen apart, and I felt
sort of rebellious, I don't know...I've always been a very straight and narrow rules-following person.
In retrospect, hindsight being 20/20, I can now see how very quickly the addiction kicked in for me.
After three days of having ONE cigarette at 4 pm, I was craving a cigarette at 4 pm every day. That
amazed me, but I was too stupid and reckless at the time to see it for what it was. And it escalated
very quickly.

[DebJ]

139. Why in the world would you interpret that I am implying cigarettes

are a medically accepted treatment for anything, when I said I wish they had always been illegal?

That's strange.

I guess you misread what I posted.

I was simply explaining how addiction works, the way it was explained to me.

"If you are unable to control your body and your mind...." sweetie, that's what addiction means.
It mean you are out of control, and could greatly benefit from assistance where possible, because
you have physical symptoms from the addiction.

[TroglodyteScholar]

142. Eh, never mind I guess

I read you to say you were "ADD" without cigs.

on edit: I posted this without re-reading your post because others jumped down my throat. But I just read it again and you say that you are ADD without nicotine. The jump that I made, which is not a big one, is that you claim you aren't symptomatic with nicotine in your system.

Looks like you were using ADD as an adjective to describe your nic withdrawal, which may not sit well with someone who actually has ADD. Ahem.

[DebJ]

144. Okay. But I now have all of the symptoms

listed for ADD attention type not hyperactive, when I am not smoking, and I didn't have them for 26 years before that.
My 'disorders' are the same....just the cause is different. Whether or not my brain will go back to a more 'normal-for-me'
status or has been permanently damaged remains to be seen...since I haven't yet quit.

[DebJ]

141. From NIH:

You may notice symptoms of nicotine withdrawal within 2 - 3 hours after you last use tobacco. People who smoked the longest or smoked a greater number of cigarettes each day are more likely to have withdrawal symptoms. For those who are quitting, symptoms will peak about 2 - 3 days later. Common symptoms include:

An intense craving for nicotine
Anxiety
Depression
Drowsiness or trouble sleeping, as well as bad dreams and nightmares
Feeling tense, restless, or frustrated
Headaches
Increased appetite and weight gain
Problems concentrating

You may notice some or all of these symptoms when switching from regular to low-nicotine cigarettes or cut down on the number of cigarettes smoked.

From WebMd: (hyperactivity doesn't apply to me, just the inattention, and its not because I don't WANT to pay attention, it is because my brain CAN'T ...hoping it will recover. And again, NONE of this applied to me before I became physically addicted to nicotine. NONE.

Symptoms of ADHD

There are three different categories of ADHD symptoms: inattention, hyperactivity, impulsivity.

Inattention may not become apparent until a child enters the challenging environment of school. In adults, symptoms of inattention may manifest in work or in social situations.

A person with ADHD may have some or all of the following symptoms:

Difficulty paying attention to details and tendency to make careless mistakes in school or other activities; producing work that is often messy and careless
Easily distracted by irrelevant stimuli and frequently interrupting ongoing tasks to attend to trivial noises or events that are usually ignored by others
Inability to sustain attention on tasks or activities
Difficulty finishing schoolwork or paperwork or performing tasks that require concentration
Frequent shifts from one uncompleted activity to another
Procrastination
Disorganized work habits
Forgetfulness in daily activities (for example, missing appointments, forgetting to bring lunch)
Failure to complete tasks such as homework or chores
Frequent shifts in conversation, not listening to others, not keeping one's mind on conversations, and not following details or rules of activities in social situations

[DebJ]

138. Let me explain it this way:

I never in my life had a problem focusing until I tried to quit smoking.

I didn't start smoking until age 26 (yes, doubly stupid). I had no problems focusing for 26 years.
Honor roll student including college classes, taken at night after working all day and putting two children to bed.
No problems.

When I tried to quit later in life, I found myself unable to focus, brain just shutting down.
I read that nicotine works as a stimulant, and that what the brain does when exposed
enough to substances like nicotine, the brain stops producing its own stimulating chemicals
and just relies on the nicotine.

This is similar to people who get addicted to chapstick: the body stops producing its natural
moisturizers and then the user finds themselves continuously using chapstick.

That's my understanding.

In the past, I have been able to reduce my smoking substantially. I was working in an office
where I couldn't smoke, after years of working in an office with a cloud of smoke hanging in the air.
In the new environment (which was also in the dark as the CAD people I worked with preferred to
use only the lights from their screens), I found myself repeatedly falling asleep on the job. My
brain just shuts off. It took quite awhile, but I did adjust to the lower nicotine levels. Unfortunately
I don't work outside the home now, and old habits have come back with a vengeance and I must
start over. I HOPE my brain will learn to compensate again.

I cannot take any substitute stimulants on the advice of my doctor.

[Earth_First]

7. Isn't it time others minded their own tucking business?

Smoking has been banned in most public places.

Most smokers pay higher insurance premiums.

All of them know the consequences.

If that's their prerogative, have at it.

[LuvNewcastle]

24. It's high time.

Most of the country wants to make pot legal now. Are we going to let people smoke pot and ban cigarettes? Hey, at least we'll still be able to lock people up for something.

[nomorenomore08]

68. +1000

This was pretty clearly posted to stir shit, but still... Stupid is stupid...

[Throd]

9. No. (I don't use any tobacco products)

[Upton]

11. No..and I don't smoke tobacco..

Ban this, ban that...it's all I see anymore. Whatever happened to the idea of letting people make their own choices?

[Yo_Mama]

16. By the same arguments we could outlaw

ice cream, sugared sodas etc.

Next we can try sex.

Realistically, societies that try to legislate absolute goodness end up creating a whole lot of badness.

[Upton]

23. Control freaks...every society is full of them.

They're just not happy unless they can dictate to others how to live their lives. Seems to be part of the human condition.

[Yo_Mama]

133. Yes, it does seem to be the human condition

But that just means we should think once, twice, a third time before any of these Ventures into Better Living.

[madokie]

14. Are you sure vaping is safer

I'm not so sure after reading the ingredient list
I quit smoking cigarettes 8/14/'77. Smoked them nasty bastards for years. It was an easy addictions to quit for me

Now at 65 I have breathing problems that I contribute somewhat to the cigarettes I smoked. I worked in a lot of dusty environments too so I think that had a lot to do with it too.

[Demit]

19. What did you read was in the ingredient list of e-cigarette vapor?

I really would like to know.

[madokie]

20. Here's a link

http://www.tobacco.ucsf.edu/10-chemicals-identified-so-far-e-cig-vapor-are-california-prop-65-list-carcinogens-and-reproductive

10 chemicals identified so far in e-cig vapor that are on the California Prop 65 list of carcinogens and reproductive toxins
Submitted by sglantz on Sat, 2013-07-20 09:25

California's landmark Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, was enacted as a ballot initiative in November 1986. The Proposition was intended by its authors to protect California citizens and the State's drinking water sources from chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and to inform citizens about exposures to such chemicals.

Proposition 65 requires the Governor to publish, at least annually, a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.

Products containing chemicals on the Proposition 65 list are required to carry the following warning in California: "WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm."

The following compounds that are on the Proposition 65 list have already been identified in mainstream or secondhand (sidestream) e-cigarette vapor:

Acetaldehyde (MS)
Benzene (SS)
Cadmium (MS)
Formaldehyde (MS,SS)
Isoprene (SS)
Lead (MS)
Nickel (MS)
Nicotine (MS, SS)
N-Nitrosonornicotine (MS, SS)
Toluene (MS, SS)

As the two papers linked above note, there are other toxic chemicals in the vapor as well as ultrafine particles, that likely have cardiovascular effects.

E-cigarettes do not deliver "pure nicotine" and "harmless water vapor."

[Yo_Mama]

15. No - making a bunch of people into criminals

and losing the tax revenue is not a good plan at this point.

The arguments for legalizing less harmful drugs are pretty powerful, both from a financial and social priority point of view.

[edhopper]

18. Yes

any other consumer product that causes cancer and serious health problems(and cigarettes kill more people than anything else) is banned from sale. And that is what should be done. The Tobacco lobby has prevented this so far.
Not illegal to use, just stop the sale. I doubt that we will see wide spread illegal trafficking in cigarettes. If the price is high enough for people to take a chance at illegal sales, the vast majority of smokers won't pay the price. If the price is low enough for smokers, it won't be worth the risk. The prohibition thing is a red herring. Last I saw there isn't a big black market for red dye two or trans fats.
We could have a largely smoke free country and save millions of lives.

[OmahaBlueDog]

37. Add to that that there is now a smoke-free way to fulfill a nicotine addiction

So the secondhand smoke aspect is removed.

[hughee99]

21. What about chewing tobacco? n/t

[OilemFirchen]

22. I say we ban pot first.

Have you ever walked by a pot smoker? Disgusting, filthy degenerates polluting the air around me. And it gets all in my clothes and my hair.

[MineralMan]

25. And you have no bad, unhealthy habits?

Casting the first stone?

[OmahaBlueDog]

39. I was a pack a day smoker once

When my smoke was making my wife cough, I decided enough was enough.

My bad habits now don't impact others the way secondhand smoke does.

[Comrade Grumpy]

116. Should we have thrown you in jail for it?

[OmahaBlueDog]

119. It was legal

It was legal to smoke everywhere then. It was legal for 16 year olds to buy smokes in those days. It was legal to smoke pretty much anywhere you damn well pleased in those days.

Times. change. Smoking in your own home or your own car is not your own business if anyone else -- especially kids -- are in the car or home.

[Jenoch]

26. Has CVS also decided to stop selling alcohol?

Both tobacco and alcohol are the cause of tens of thousands of deaths annually in the U.S.

[hughee99]

64. Does CVS sell alcohol?

None of the CVS stores around me do, but I'm not sure if that's just a local thing, state thing or corporate-wide thing.

[Jenoch]

65. I live in Minnesota and the the CVS stores here do not

sell alcohol, but I have seen and purchased alcohol (beer and liquor) at CVS stores in Arizona.

[former9thward]

86. They sell it in my state.

[OmahaBlueDog]

95. That would be CVS' call.

IIRC, they sell booze in Florida (so does Walgreen's). OTOH, neither of them sell booze in Nebraska -- which is really odd, since everybody else (Target, Wal-Mart, the grocery stores) sell beer, wine, and the hard stuff here.

[former9thward]

97. Some states have weird laws about alcohol.

Places can sell beer but not anything stronger. Some states you have to buy it at a state store and regular stores can't sell it.

[Blue_In_AK]

27. No.

Prohibition doesn't work. Education seems to be having a more beneficial impact on the number of smokers.

[Agnosticsherbet]

30. Regulations that limit where people can smoke and protect the health of those who don't smoke

has played an important part, as has taxing the damn things until people fid it difficult to afford the.

[Politicalboi]

60. Your own words

"Prohibition doesn't work"

Why start now? It will work it's way out in time.

[Agnosticsherbet]

28. It wouldn't bother me, but it would never be done for economic reasons.

(1) It would put several large American Corporations out of business over night.
(2) It would cause enormous damage to the farming industry. Oh sure, they could grow tobacco for export, but it would cause serious losses on those farms.
(3) Think of he nightmare of regulation and the cost of the necessary expansion of the ATF to manage the explosion smuggling and the crime that would erupt around illegal tobacco sales.


Expansion of laws that guarantee safety and health of the majority of those who don't smoke from the self destructive habits of the nicotine addicts is the best we can hope for.

[cthulu2016]

29. CVS didn't outlaw anything.

[Niceguy1]

31. umm, no...

Prohibition never works...and considering the movement to legalize mj...it would look ridiculous to go down that road........

[hack89]

32. Guns are the only social problem that banning will completely cure

Or so I have been told.

[OmahaBlueDog]

41. Oddly, the Constitution allow the possesion of firearms and the state-controlled sale of alcohol

I see no such protection for tobacco.

[liberal_at_heart]

33. no and if we did it wouldn't work. People would go back to growing their own tobacco

and making their own cigarettes. Of course if we did do that at least people would be smoking a more natural product, but I still don't support prohibition. Telling people what they are allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do is what conservatives do, not liberals or at least liberals shouldn't even though some do.

[MadrasT]

34. No. Adults' choices are their own business. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

35. Nope, it is time to grow up and accept other people's choices with their bodies.

[KoKo]

36. You Mean a Trade Off for other Vices?

I think not... 's

[madville]

38. I've never agreed with the increased healthcare cost argument

Think about it a second, a smoker has supposedly higher healthcare costs and a shorter lifespan. Due to that shorter lifespan they will collect less Social Security and other Pension benefits during their lifetime than the average non-smoker. That's a cost savings.

The non-smoker will also incur more years of routine healthcare costs until they pass or possibly develop their own expensive/serious health problems. In many cases it has to be a wash or even cheaper to the system if someone smokes vs. not smoking.

[OmahaBlueDog]

43. Smoking leads to very expensive problems

The heart problems smoking aggravates can be caused by other things, so I'll grant that point. However, unless you're an underground coal miner, very little can damage your lungs as much; lead to the need for chronic oxygen use; and lead to the need for expensive medications for emphysema/COPD. Cancer is exceptionally expensive to fight.

[madville]

46. And smokers will have lower costs in other areas

They'll draw less Social Security over their abbreviated lifetime. The smoking may kill them 10 years before a different, more expensive ailment affects them.

I'll concede smokers have higher medical costs earlier in life, those could easily be offset by them drawing social security for a shorter time and not using Medicare for an extra decade or two as medical costs continue to rise and rise some more.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. actually I think it is pretty much a wash.

they generally die younger. Lots of people have very expensive end of life events, but by taking the early exit program, smokers leave a lot of not so expensive health care on the table, along with their social security benefits.

[yeoman6987]

59. NO Way

Why do you want to take away freedoms? I swear that liberals are supposed to be accepting to all but sometimes I think we are narrow minded. First of all smokers will die early as you predict…..don't you believe that some smokers would rather die before going into a complete Alzheimer's life which most of the non-smokers will end up? Freedoms are being taken every day and you cheerlead.

[former9thward]

87. Then lets make fast food and restaurants illegal.

Being overweight leads to far more health problems than tobacco.

[OmahaBlueDog]

93. I can choose to eat a salad at McDonalds

I can't choose a non-carcinogenic tobacco product.

...and why "fast food " restaurants. Is Haute cuisine healthier? Is that never-ending pasta bowl drowned alfredo sauce more wholesome?

[former9thward]

96. I said all restaurants -- not just fast food.

Shut them all down. Do not allow people any choice in their life whatsoever. The state knows best. And only one type of car -- an electric of course. Ban the rest. Have a government official at the check out in grocery stories. They will determine what you can buy. They know best.

If you don't want to choose "a non-carcinogenic " tobacco product then don't choose any. Problem solved.

[seveneyes]

40. Sure, right along with booze

The real home wrecker.

[backscatter712]

42. Fucking stupid idea.

I think the present-day norms and laws are OK. You can smoke... outside, where you're not bothering people who don't want to breathe your second-hand smoke. There are alternatives, such as vaping, to help people quit or manage their addictions.

And banning never works. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, it doesn't work for cannabis, it's not working for hard drugs, and it won't work for tobacco.

Keep it legal, regulate it, implement harm-reduction strategies.

[LostOne4Ever]

47. Why?

Do you want to increase the number of smokers by making it the forbidden fruit? Outlawing other drugs has done a wonderful job of getting people not to abuse them hasn't it?

The current laws and ad campaigns have done a wonderful job of cutting down on the number of people smoking. If we stick with what works this problem will solve itself.

[RebelOne]

48. Yes, as a 1-1/2 pack a day smoker,

I would like to see tobacco products outlawed, so that I could kick the habit. I am 75 years old and have been hooked on cigarettes since I was 16. But I had a chest X-ray a few weeks ago for a pre-op examination for cataract surgery, and believe it or not, my lungs are clean.

I had the surgery today and could not smoke for 12 hours before the operation. I have had high blood pressure, but after not smoking for that length of time, my blood pressure dropped to normal. That has spurred me to seriously try to stop smoking, plus I would save money on blood pressure medication. In fact, despite my age my high blood pressure is my only health problem.

[Egalitarian Thug]

67. So you see no problems beyond your own inability to control yourself?

[Logical]

89. LOL, not a deep thinker I see! nt

[Armstead]

49. Nope. Not until I kick the habit.

If I ever do they may outlaw it.

[Lost_Count]

50. Demolition Man here we come...

Sigh... No one could really be this controlling and trifling.

This is a bad stereotype of the nanny state liberal.

I feel like I'm being trolled.

[Gemini Cat]

75. +1

I thought the same thing. Put me back in the fridge.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. no. that would be stupid. nt.

[Th1onein]

52. Yep, because we know prohibition works, right?

[WillowTree]

55. I'm a former smoker and I say emphatically no!

By the way, I'm enthusiastically opposed to you getting to make any other choices for me, too.

Run your own life, why doncha, and let the rest of us run ours.

[AndyTiedye]

58. No. I don't Smoke Tobacco, but Don't Want to Take Away Yours

I have the same position regarding firearms btw.

[TeamPooka]

61. Prohibition is a failed public policy. nt

[Warpy]

62. Yeah, let's add to the non functional drug war!

Drug gangs will add cigarettes and chewing tobacco and because the nanny state forbids them, they will increase in popularity.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

[greymattermom]

63. not banned at casinos in the South

My sister took me to a casino in Montgomery AL. It's full of smoke, so yukky. They are advertising all over Atlanta, but they never tell you about the toxic fumes.

[Egalitarian Thug]

66. What will it take to get the lesson through your heads? n/t

[Eleanors38]

71. Yes, because we must service that greatest of addictions:

Prohibition.

Did you know that almost half of the cigs sold in NYC are through the black market? Who'd thunk it?

[WinkyDink]

72. States' budgets would not thank you.

[TransitJohn]

74. Lol

Yeah, let's use government to prohibit a controlled substance. What could possibly go wrong? Jesus, what fucking board am I on?

[Squinch]

76. We've tried that with other controlled substances. Didn't work.

[jberryhill]

77. Jail them. Jail them all!

Anyone and everyone who does anything to annoy and offend should be taken to a cage and locked up.

[fadedrose]

84. But I like and have always liked Omaha Bllue Dog...

No exceptions?

[OmahaBlueDog]

122. I'll be thrown in DU jail at some point

I think it's inevitable. If for no other reason than I enjoy looking at photos of beautiful women.

[NCTraveler]

78. No thanks. Bloomberg democrats freak me out. nt.

[bemildred]

79. No, what we are doing now is about right. nt

[ladjf]

80. No. It's not the government's place to outlaw everything

that could harm health. (I'm a non-smoker.)

[giftedgirl77]

81. No.

It's our decision to smoke.

[sorefeet]

82. Hell no, they ain't hurting me

I quit the dirty filthy habit 30 years ago. I only smoked for 13 years. About ten of those were conviction years. I knew for a fact they were deadly and I had to quit. I get more pleasure and peace of mind by not smoking than I ever did smoking. The cigarettes owned me and I didn't like that. But if you actually enjoy them (doubtful) go for it, but you won't like the end results.

[fadedrose]

83. No

[Boom Sound 416]

90. Yes

Signed,
an addicted about to quit smoker

[marions ghost]

94. yes in a sense

Shouldn't be over-the-counter. Should be readily available to the addicted, just as addictive drugs should be decriminalized and monitored in addicts.

I put tobacco in the same category as harmful drugs.

PS on intent to quit

[Lost_Count]

102. Wow... You just took nanny state to the next level up from OP...

It'd be impressive if it wasn't so disconcerting.

[marions ghost]

104. I watched my mother die

for 10 years. In and out of the hospital, several surgeries and respiratory collapses. Gasping for breath, sucking on tubes. Struggling every minute of every day for 10 years. Have you ever watched somebody who desperately wanted to live, die an agonizing death? I knew when I was 12 that she was so addicted she would die of it, and she did. Far too young.

Yes, tobacco should be a controlled substance. Sorry if you're offended. Consider the cost--just as bad as any serious drug addiction. I don't compare it to alcohol, which is not necessarily addictive, like certain drugs and tobacco always are.

So I'm not saying to outlaw it, to criminalize it. No. I am saying to make it available as a controlled substance, to those who need it (for a cheaper price than over the counter). This would do a lot to discourage children from taking it up. (And do the same for heroin--no jail time for users, just help to overcome the addiction).

I believe in mandatory seat belts and banning texting while driving too. Stuff like that. Call it what you want.

[Lost_Count]

110. I'll stick with my original description...

...tugged heart strings and all.

[marions ghost]

111. Spoken like the addicted

and I understand. Try Smokenders. Worked for some in my family.

[Lost_Count]

112. Adorable...

You don't think that someone could make an argument for free choice unless they were addicted? It's very revealing to your mindset and how you perceive others and their motivations.

Non-smoker here chuckles...

[marions ghost]

115. "free choice"

--smokers are not free. They are hooked on a dangerous drug that someone else is profiting from (the supplier, the dealer). It's not a free choice, when you start smoking (or doing heroin) at a young age.

Of course a non-smoker can make an argument for "smoker's rights" (or whatever you want to call it). But I'd have much more understanding if you were addicted to it.

I don't have any regard for those who don't care about the harm that smoking does to people in the name of some dubious abstraction called "free choice." Sorry, I come from a public health background. Smoking is just as much a menace to society as breathing the worst kind of air pollution is --(and there's no free choice there either, for many).

[Lost_Count]

117. I think you missed the bit where "you are only doing this for the children"

Oh.. wait.. You nailed it...

Check check and double check...



I cannot imagine a more boring and dull world than the sterile, sanitary and bubble wrapped world you are hoping for.

[marions ghost]

120. Ok to repeat

tobacco smoke = pollution = death = does not amount to caring about your friends who smoke.

outta here nice chattin adios

[Lost_Count]

121. Lots of things equal death...

It's super duper convenient that this is the one you picked... or maybe you have a list?

[marions ghost]

137. finale

[Puzzledtraveller]

98. No

[Lizzie Poppet]

99. That would cost more lives than it saved.

Tobacco prohibition would create a vast black market, far, far larger than that for illegal drugs. That market would be in no small part controlled by violence-prone organizations...just like the illegal drug market is. The idiotic War on Drugs is a huge factor in our rate of homicide and other violent crimes. How much worse would a vastly larger War of Tobacco be?

No way in hell the lives saved by tobacco prohibition would come close to those lost.

[KamaAina]

100. Pass me the

[OmahaBlueDog]

123. Butter?

Caramel?

I like Garrett's Chicago Mix myself.

[KamaAina]

124. Furikake

a Japanese spice that is a popular popcorn topping in Hawai'i.

[Lint Head]

101. I think the internal combustion engine should be outlawed but fat chance.

[MicaelS]

105. Are you joking?

We are on the verge of legalizing Cannabis nationwide, and you want to go back down the failed road of Prohibition?

[marions ghost]

109. Cannabis =

good for you in many cases. Tobacco = very bad for you, in every case.

Not a good comparison. Tobacco is a public health menace, most of all to those who smoke it.
More like breathing emissions and ash from a coal burning plant all the time.

[JJChambers]

106. Wtf

Can we STOP trying to regulate substances? We want to get AWAY from that.

[TroglodyteScholar]

107. And create a black market that would increase organized crime and couldn't be taxed?

Sounds brilliant.

[dipsydoodle]

113. No.

.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

114. No

[dembotoz]

118. if you have a dream to make pot legal you damn well better not ban cigs first

you take a vice away from group 1
they sure as hell will not be happy with giving in to making vice 2 legal

i would want my own vice back

btw i don't do either

[Fantastic Anarchist]

125. Um, no.

[WilliamPitt]

128. Troll.

[Hekate]

129. Making smoking socially unacceptable has done a better job than Prohibition ever would

Alcohol consumption had become a truly serious social/public health problem by the time Prohibition was enacted -- that's something now forgotten. Yet outlawing the manufacture, sale, and consumption of alcohol was a disaster, turning ordinary people into lawbreakers and opening huge opportunities for criminal gangs.

Society's attitudes toward consumption have changed drastically since then. It's no longer legal to sell to small children -- or to drive under the influence. Party hosts no longer urge departing guests to have one more for the road. Pregnant women are advised to avoid it. Ads are different.

Attitudes toward smoking have undergone a similar change. Big Tobacco has fought this tooth and claw, and they always will, but the fact is that smoking is declining in the US. I'm for education and severe regulations, including high taxes (which have been shown to reduce the incidence of youngsters starting the habit) -- but not making tobacco illegal.

[meow2u3]

130. Prohibition is a very bad idea

Just look at what happens when we made criminals out of boozers in the 1920's and drug users currently. Do we really want a prison full of smokers?

I vape too, but don't want to see smokers turned into felons overnight.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

131. no. i am generally against telling adults what to do with their bodies.

i am all for educating people, reducing attractiveness of cigarettes, highlighting dangers etc. But would not be ok with a ban.

[amuse bouche]

132. Nah, let them smoke themselves to the grave

and up the price to 50 bucks a pack

[Donald Ian Rankin]

135. No, but it's time to ban advertising them.

Let people who choose to smoke, smoke.

Let people who choose to sell cigarettes do so, too.

But make it illegal to encourage other people to smoke.