Controversial question.

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.

I haven't read the rest of the comments but as a principle the government should not be allowed to regulate every harmful thing on the planet. That being said, they already do regulate tobacco. If they ban tobacco then they should ban diet pills, tanning beds, alcohol, etc... you get my point. Basically in my opinion the government needs to back off.

Should they ban the use or commerce involving asbestos,lead and PCBs?...... or should they be allowed?

They should not ban it.....however the companies that profit should cover the cost of the related health care costs.....if that happened there would be no need to ban it....no one would sell it.

Banning the sale of tobacco will not eliminate cigarettes any more than banning marijuana has eliminated pot. It will just give the Mexican cartels another leg up on American law enforcement, not to mention giving the U.S. government yet another foothold in controlling absolutely everything we do in our private lives. Same goes for banning tobacco companies from making a profit. They'd go out of business, and smokers would get their cigs on the black market from sellers who have no vested interest in complying with regulations on safety, advertising, distribution, etc.

I have a dream that one day Americans will grow the hell up and take responsibility for their own decisions instead of running to the government and screeching for them to ban every stupid behavior in which we freely choose to engage.

Edit: For the record, no, I do not smoke. Never have, never will. My dad smokes religiously, and I have lost multiple relatives to smoking-related cancers. If my dad suffers the same fate, it will be entirely his fault, not the fault of the company that made the cigarettes he chose to buy and smoke for most of his life.

Agreed banning is wrong.

Disagree that the government should stay out.....regulation on something that is a known cancer causing product is essential.

Disagree that it is completely your dad's fault if he was to suffer a smoking related illness .....manufacturers have admitted to manipulating tobacco to create addiction.....some are addicted and can't quit....most smokers when asked will tell you they would rather not smoke....so why do they?....it is tough to quit....me i did it cold turkey and i am glad i did.....