Controversial question.

I say tax it all (heavily) - cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana. We could be out of the federal debt crisis in no time.

Don't subject people who don't want to be around it, to it. So, make it more widely unacceptable and illegal to smoke in public places.

Enforce laws about operating vehicles while under the influence any mind-altering substance.


To add on to your debate question: Should highly processed foods and trans or saturated fats be taxed, banned, or made unavailable? I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't do, so my opinion on this one is the same: tax the heck out of it. I can still have it if I want it, but hopefully it discourages.

Shall we put a luxury tax on chocolate, soda/pop, potato chips and other non-essential delights? If we did, our country would be out of debt by the end of the year.

Shall we put a luxury tax on chocolate, soda/pop, potato chips and other non-essential delights? If we did, our country would be out of debt by the end of the year.

Actually - I think that's a brilliant idea!!! Considering the number of Americans that are overweight and the exponential rise in diabetes... and the associated cost on healthcare... with the number of underinsured and uninsured where the masses have to PAY for unhealthy lifestyles..... I LOVE IT. Imagine: Healthy foods cheaper and tax-free. Unhealthy foods: Taxed and pricey. The only crimp is who gets to decide "healthy" vs "unhealthy." I'd hate to see my avocados and cashews taxed exorbitantly because someone ruled all fats as evil...

What a person does to their own body should be their own choice. Smoking is bad for the one person who does it and anyone who is in constant contact with the smoket in a confined spot. Owners of private businesses and property should be able to dictate for themselves whether or not to allow smoking based on the needs and wants of their customers. In a free market, and with so many non-smokers, there should be plenty of non smoking clubs and bars to frequent without infringing on the owners rights by forcing his/her hand in the situation. Also, if you are in a bar often enough to feel the effects of second hand smoke, then you probably need to worry about your drinking problem before the second hand smoke problem.

Also, smoking outdoors on government property should be regulated to smoking areas or banned. But second hand smoke has been so blown out of proportion that people are quick to think that getting a whiff of it will give you cancer, but don't worry about the crap coming out of their cars muffler and exhaust. If you want a lesson in second hand smoke vs. exhaust, play poker all night in a closed garage with cigar smokers. The next day your chest will hurt, your eyes will be blurry. Now spend a night in the garage with the engine of your car running. You won't be able to finish the experiment because you will be dead.

Let americans make up their own minds. By now, every one knows how bad smoking is. Use that tax money we gouge the smoker for and use it to educate children and adults alike about smoking and also give out free Chantix, patches, or quit smoking meetings, but don't nanny these people.

And I am an ex-smoker.

We will try to allow this topic for now, as long as it stays respectful and doesn't veer into political discussion. Please keep it on topic and remember, no attacks/insults.

Thanks for your cooperation.
Ladyhawk00
MyFitnessPal Forum Moderator

on a non biased point of view, i don't think they should control it. because it creates too much tax revenue that we need and use. and it would still be available illegally (like any other drug is available). We may as well benefit from the taz income it produces.

on a biased point of view, i think they should ban it, because my partner would probably stop smoking, or get ciggies a whole lot cheaper illegally. the price of cigarettes (In Australia) is absurd, liek $15 a packet or something... it's a massive waste of money, and it stinks.

We will try to allow this topic for now, as long as it stays respectful and doesn't veer into political discussion. Please keep it on topic and remember, no attacks/insults.

Thanks for your cooperation.
Ladyhawk00
MyFitnessPal Forum Moderator

Thanks. By the way, I didn't see the gun discussion as being political, but I apologize for it seeming so.

in addition to that I thought the gun topic was a nice civil discussion (unless I missed something). I have seen way more heated discussions over guns than that one.

I would be indifferent but I don't like the idea of children suffering because of their parents' decisions to smoke around them. My dad used to smoke around me when I was younger; nothing has come of it as I know now, but who knows what my arise in the future.

Otherwise, if you want to smoke yourself to death, have a great time. I'm unwilling to stand in their way.

shouldnt it be the right of the business owner to decide if they want a nonsmoking facility?

I am a business owner and could not imagine asking my staff to subject themselves to customers smoking..... So ya it should be the right of the business owner providing the owner has no employees, or the employer allows employees to work in an area that has no smoke.....and does not discriminate in who they hire....what I mean ask them after they are hired about there smoking habits or if they have an issue working around smoke....if they say no smoke make sure you keep them employed......

Begin rant/

I don't believe they are trying to protect anyone from tobacco. About a year ago a bill was passed that gave the FDA
control of tobacco in the USA. Oddly this bill was sponsored by a company called Altera (sp?) a parent company of Phillip Morris, an American tobacco giant. It outlawed flavored tobacco, except of course menthol which is a huge seller, and allowed them to reduce the amount of nicotine by 50% from cigarettes.

Nicotine is an addictive stimulant, however the majority of smoking deaths are attributed to the carcinogens in the actual smoke. Reducing the amount of nicotine (the addictive substance) only causes people to smoke more, thereby increasing their risk of disease and death. Raising taxes only makes more money as addicts will pay whatever you ask for their fix.

Did I mention that the bill also included raises and other funding for non-related entities that were of interest to members of congress that were on the fence about the issue. They only found a way to double the governments and industries profits while doing twice as much damage to the people they were protecting.

then they outlawed public use of electronic cigarettes (which were never shown to be harmful second hand) in most cities.

If the FDA or the USA were interested in helping people they would have outlawed tobacco entirely. Their motives are profit based.

/end rant

Well, I'm in the mood for some (hopefully) intelligent conversation to read and/or participate in, so I'm going to ask a somewhat controversial question.

Should the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) be allowed to regulate or ban the use of tobacco (mainly cigarettes) as an addictive drug?

Now before you answer, I'd be very interested to hear an argument from a NON-biased POV (facts only.) and then your argument from a biased position (what you think from a smoker's/non-smoker's POV.) Please remember that most people are adults here, and this is meant to be a DEBATE not an irrational argument.


From a non-biased stand point, I say they should be allowed to regulate it, but not ban it. I feel that even if it was banned, the demand would end up being even higher and it'd just get sold illegally, anyway. I think regulating it is a good idea simply because the additives in cigarettes are so harmful not only to those that smoke, but to those that are too close to the ones that do. As far as the types of regulations, I'd say there wouldn't really need to be a regulation put on some tobaccos used for hookah smoking or something of the like provided they were "natural" (i.e., only consist of tobacco and honey/molasses.)

From a biased stand point, I stand with my above argument.