Should Smoking Be Made Illegal?

Smoking is a hazard but its effects are massively overstated by the smoking lobby. For instance although lung cancer affects “0.01”% of non smokers smoking increases the likelihood of a person who started smoking in their teens have a chance of developing lung cancer at 2% if they stop at 30 and 16% if they stop at 70 [[Forest “Smoking and Health”http://www.forestonline.org/output/Smoking-and-Health.aspx Accessed 19.06.2009]] Also smoking could potentially help protect against Alzheimers disease as well as reduce stress something that can cause just as much serious problems for people as smoking does. [[Forest “Smoking and Health”http://www.forestonline.org/output/Smoking-and-Health.aspx Accessed 19.06.2009]]

Secondly it pays its way so to speak, the UK treasury gets an estimated £8,000 million from revenues that’s money that can go towards hospitals schools etc[[Ash http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_95.pdf Accessed]]. Why take away a good source of revenue that can help?

Just because something is heavily taxed and regulated doesn’t make the activity wrong and the regulations on it working it right. The high taxes on smoking force people some people to buy illicitly whether in the form of smuggled cigarettes from France something that hits the treasury to the amount of £2 billion a year or fraud cigarettes. [[ Action on smoking and health (ash) “Facts at a glance ” [[http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_95.pdf]]

The Health secretary who was present when the ban was enacted, John Reid famously said it “was wrong for middle class politicians to ban what for many working class people was their only pleasure”. [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3789591.stm]] This means an outright ban on smoking far from being an act of liberating people would be tightening the screw on an already strained working class by a puritanical middle class nanny state.[[Patrick Wintour http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/oct/27/smoking.health1%5D%5D.

That would certainly be an argument for regulating the circumstances in which people can smoke, like, for example, the law in Ireland that bans smoking in enclosed workplaces. But so long as smokers don’t “smoke in someone’s face” then they should not be prevented for enjoying a cigarette if they so choose.

It is the case that smoking is an unhealthy habit, and that it harms the smoker and those physically close to the smoker when they are smoking. But that’s no argument for a government-enforced ban on smoking. Eating fast food is unhealthy, so is it up to the government to shut down all fast food restaurants? Drinking alcohol is unhealthy, and many innocent bystanders are harmed as an effect of drunk behavior (drinking and driving, drunken arguments, etc), is it up to the government in that case to eradicate all alcohol from the country? Of course not. In all of these cases, it is up to the individual to make the decision for their own health. As for preventing secondhand smoke, smoking regulations enforced by the government, ie smoking is not allowed within 50 feet of a public building or inside the workplace, etc, seem to be a good idea. But there’s no need for complete government control of tobacco products/cigarettes.

Smoking does not cause Lung Cancer. It may increase your chances of getting Lung Cancer but smoking does not cause it. If smoking did cause Lung Cancer then non smokers would be unable to get it.

Assuming that cigarettes do kill 1,200 people a day, that would mean 438,000 a year. In 2001, car accidents caused 669,000 deaths. [[http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/cause.php]] Should we outlaw driving to?

In my opinion, smokers know the risk. They choose to smoke anyway. They are adults that can do what they chose to.

Banning smoking would be a yet another slippery slope down the road of overzealousness leading to a nanny state if we aren’t in one already. Given that a significant amount teachers and schools are chafing at the bit because of health and safety regulations and worrying about. What’s next alcohol? There are some groups calling for that to happen, does the government ban alcohol with all the consequences that would bring.

Cigarettes have like a 2 dollar tax, assuming that even if 20,000,000 people in the USA alone smoke, thats 40,000,000 dollars every time they buy a pack a cigarette.

Walking outside in a polluted city like San Francisco or Karachi or LA or a city in china(16 of the world’s most polluted cities are in China) [[http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1661031_1661028,00.html]], you are already damaging your lungs from all the CO(carbon monoxide fumes) put in the air from car emissions and all the people exhaling Carbon Dioxide(why are very polluted BIG cities, very populated too? people use cars and aeroplanes/airplanes(used by people vacationing to places with cleaner air and traveling businessmen) which cause a lot more pollution than cars[[http://www.ehponline.org/qa/105-12focus/focus.html]]).

Cigarettes release chemicals that are bad of course, but they are a preferable means of getting your smoke. Electronic vaporizing cigarettes do not produce second hand smoke and are hugely unpopular but won’t be for long.

It’s better to be the smoker than to be the person whose face is being smoked into(statistically passive smokers are at a greater risk) .

It’s a great idea but in practice how would it work? Taking them out of the shops will leave greater problems since many people smoke because they are addicted and not because they enjoy it.

Making something illegal is of course easier than it seems. We must weigh in not only the reasons why, but also how are we going to implement a certain set of provision. We have to realise that making something illegal does not automatically solve a problem, instead it might create even more problems as a repercussion to such a decision.

Making illicit drugs such as heroine, cocaine, etc. was agreeably a good decision. However, the consequences of making such commendable decisions also involve the allocation of large amounts of state resources (read: tax payer money) to combat illegal drug trafficking. Apparently, making these drugs illegal did not really stop people from using the drugs (fyi: drugs are still a lucrative business, if not why would people risk their lives to smuggle it). That said, the same goes for cigarettes, I don’t see any strong reason that making cigarettes (or smoking them) illegal to be of any use in the context of making people quit the bad habit.

People who smoke are addicted to it, and as those people who are addicted to illicit drugs, they will always find ways to circumvent the law. Making smoking illegal does not automatically make the business less profitable. As I see it, the demand for cigarettes are still high everywhere, and this kind of policy would only create “black markets” for the item. This in turn would put burden on the law enforcement to combat such black markets (read: more personnel, more funds needed), and of course these burdens would be passed on to tax payers who pays for all the cost of faithfully enforcing such a new law.

I believe that the restrictions and requirements which are already in place (i.e. restricting smoking areas, limited advertisement methods) are sufficient enough to tackle the problem. Moreover, the current approach is right on track where the government should sponsor and support policies that would decrease the demand for cigarettes (if the demand for cigarettes were to fall substantially, the business would be less lucrative, and soon enough nobody will be in the cigarette business). This is not a policy that would effectively reduce the demand, simply making it illegal is not addressing to the demand problem.Thus, what I see in this is another burden for the state budget, with little or minimal impact on the real issue at hand.

“That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise.
…
Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

[[J. S. Mill, Utilitarianism, 1859. Chapter 1. see http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html ]]

The principle that only those actions which harm others should be legislated against is being eroded by legislation on obesity and narcotics in particular. Certainly, it is true that there is an extent to which something such as smoking falls into the category, for it has demonstrable negative effects on others in certain cases. However, these are the cases that have already been legislated against with the ban on smoking in public, indoor places. At the point at which the extension of the ban on smoking crosses the line from protecting others to controlling the behaviour of the individual, it transgresses the principles upon which a liberal democratic society is based

The buying and selling of tobacco products should not be made illegal (as the sale of drugs has). There is no paucity in pot-smoking college students, even though the transaction is illegal. American tycoons smoke Cuban cigars despite the law in their Country. Making the sale/purchase of cigarettes/pipes/cigars/etc illegal will (as in the case of illegal narcotics) only give rise to the boom of a black market for these products , thus crime(Theft, murder and smuggling). Also, the hate (for self and others), guilt (for doing something illegal) and desperation (from addiction, loss/test of self-control and the inability to come clean/get rehabilitated without legal prosecution) will most naturally lead to a host of psychological/psychiatric problems (Prozac nation), followed by more crime(increased suicide-rate, theft etc).

However, the public use and abuse of such products SHOULD be illegal. This will permit people who choose not to smoke, to avert the health risks of passive smoking. The black market will NOT emerge, since transactions (buying and selling of tobacco products) will be legal (and the black market having to incur added costs would be unable to compete with legal prices). Smokers restricted from public circles/events will have the incentive to get rehabilitation and work towards losing the habit. Once public smoking is illegal smokers might even take the health concern seriously.

It has been legal for so long it does not make sense to change it now. If they hadn’t advertised cigarettes as flashy as they were advertised ( handsome people in movies smoked , while nerds had healthy pink lungs!) people would not have become addicted.

This means it is all the government’s fault!

They did not check if it was as dangerous so allowing the tobacco companies to ruin lives

In the late 1920’s in America, alcohol was banned. There was something called a underground railway or something. Where people went underground and bought cans and bottles of alcoholic products. they drank it in clever ways (teacups,in/outside coffee shops) ECT ECT!

Thus meaning is if the government BANS anything, it is still not stopped in the Country
so leave people to have freedom of choice/speech!

People have seemed to forgotten the basis of smoking; people start, and many continue to because they enjoy it. It relieves stress, can calm people and help them focus. It is also used as a hunger suppressant by models, and assorted other people. Smoking itself is a solution to other problems, if you think you could prevent all stress in society and remove any other reasons why people start smoking then i think you need to place your feet back on the ground. Smoking itself is a solution to other problems, not just a problem itself in the eyes of social facists.

Can’t really reference that other than personal experience (no im not an addicted chain smoker) and common sense.