Why isn't smoking just banned?

upgetupgetup

It's scandalous that governments continue to take money from addicts, knowing that a certain percentage of young people will continue to smoke (and that they're not likely to be the children of the current masters of the universe; maybe, they don't matter as much), and that they're likely to die before they drain the system overly much.

There's no lawyer on earth who can now defend a tobacco company's claim that it doesn't cause cancer, etc. How can our societies still permit smoking??

In my current state (of withdrawal), I am thinking it would be amazing if it were banned, and all the nicotine addicts were forced, but fully supported, with counselling, NRT, Zyban/Chantix/whatever, to be weaned off over two years. How could that be wrong? We agree it's not ok for people to drive drunk or sniff glue or take heroin, but there's an acceptable rate of mortality related to this.

melsinct

At least in the US, the big tobacco lobby is too powerful and too rich. It will never happen.

RonnieLodge

How can our societies still permit smoking??

I am thinking it would be amazing if it were banned, and all the nicotine addicts were forced, but fully supported, with counselling, NRT, Zyban/Chantix/whatever, to be weaned off over two years. How could that be wrong?

It is called having personal choice and responsibility.

Once the government has stepped in like that and have gotten rid of all the smokers, what will be the next thing that is decided to be the number one easily avoided killer?

Alcohol and obesity are the first two that come to mind. Guns and other weapons too. High heels have reached pretty dangerous heights, cause accidents and horrific foot and spine problems but make the people wearing them feel good. Should they be forced to wear flat shoes?

Obesity is already overtaking smoking as the leading cause of health problems.

Would you agree with the government banning all junk foods? Taxing them so that they become unaffordable? Forcing food and sugar addicts, fully supported of course, to be weaned off over two years? Or perhaps just banning some people over a certain weight from entering places where fast food is sold or from purchasing it?

Just because you don't like smoking doesn't mean that you should favour the government being able to be in control of what you put in your mouth.

It is the start of a very slippery slope and anyone who claims that personal responsibility and choice should be removed for society's own good is being very naive. The USA's 'War on Drugs' has for the most part been a massive waste of time and effort.

Your guilty pleasure could be next.

upgetupgetup

What personal choice are you talking about? Do you really think as it is, smoking's a totally 'free' decision?

Smokers are usually preteens or young teens when they start. Which means their brains (and lungs btw) are not fully mature by the time they're hooked. And it takes no time at all for them to become addicts. To what extent can addiction be 'free'?

I mean what normal person picks up a cigarette for the first time at 25 (which is roughly when people stop being psychopaths, developmentally)?

Also: smokers are disproportionately less educated, wealthy or healthy than non and never smokers. This is not accidental. It also means it's not really a free choice.

And, I would actually be totally fine with heavy taxation of sugar and crap etc. The fact is people use the lowest (usually biologicallyl based, if not socially constrained) criteria to make their 'choices', and manufacturers know this (PLAN for it, in the case of tobacco). WTF personal choice are you talking about, seriously?

We have laws for some things - like I said, driving drunk is NOT OK, we do not just leave it to dumbasses to make that personal decision, because it impacts us all. Just like smokers, and their care, do. And yeah, just like obesity does.

I have zero problems legislating that stuff for the better, because as it is, skeevy companies make money off ignorance. Better to retool it towards health, or at least the absence of disease.

upgetupgetup

Also I am totally fine with no one being allowed guns (or tanks, missiles, etc) either.

upgetupgetup

What is naive is imagining there's anything LIKE personal choice.

RonnieLodge

There really is no one as vehemently anti-smoking as a nooby ex-smoker.

upgetupgetup

There really is no one as vehemently anti-smoking as a nooby ex-smoker.

There's practically nothing so anti-life as lung cancer.

sdumma

What personal choice are you talking about? Do you really think as it is, smoking's a totally 'free' decision?

Smokers are usually preteens or young teens when they start. Which means their brains (and lungs btw) are not fully mature by the time they're hooked. And it takes no time at all for them to become addicts. To what extent can addiction be 'free'?

I mean what normal person picks up a cigarette for the first time at 25 (which is roughly when people stop being psychopaths, developmentally)?

Also: smokers are disproportionately less educated, wealthy or healthy than non and never smokers. This is not accidental. It also means it's not really a free choice.

And, I would actually be totally fine with heavy taxation of sugar and crap etc. The fact is people use the lowest (usually biologicallyl based, if not socially constrained) criteria to make their 'choices', and manufacturers know this (PLAN for it, in the case of tobacco). WTF personal choice are you talking about, seriously?

We have laws for some things - like I said, driving drunk is NOT OK, we do not just leave it to dumbasses to make that personal decision, because it impacts us all. Just like smokers, and their care, do. And yeah, just like obesity does.

I have zero problems legislating that stuff for the better, because as it is, skeevy companies make money off ignorance. Better to retool it towards health, or at least the absence of disease.

Yes Yes and....YES