I have never smoked in my life, but I am one hundred percent against the government deciding that I am not permitted to take up the habit should I choose. Seriously, fuck you. People framing the scrapping of this as being ‘right-wing’ clearly have no understanding of what the ‘right’ and the ‘left’ stand for.
In general I’m very left leaning, and I was a fan of most policies adern put in. This one I thought was a weird one and really harsh. You want to raise the smoking age to 25 or 30 sure. But banning it entirely is to me like banning weed entirely or when people tried to ban alcohol, etc.
I understand smoking isn’t healthy for anyone. But it’s still someone’s choice to do so or not. Drinking isn’t healthy either. Lots of people die every year from drinking entirely too much. You can’t ban that entirely either.
Bans work better on tobacco because unlike alcohol or drugs, they’re used habitually but generally not recreationally. That is, the role of cigarettes in society and individually is different from those of alcohol, cannabis, and the like.
I am going to hazard a guess that tobacco industry lobbying is responsible for this. They went into Eastern European nations and pitched the idea that tobacco control was bad for the country’s economy because without smokers they’d have to deal with more people who live to retirement age, and killing them earlier makes things cheaper.
Banning cigarettes removes them from convenience stores, making them much harder to buy. The work they’ve done so far has pulled the smoking population down to 8% from over 16% ten years ago, although it’s still 20% among Māori.
I would not be surprised if the ban cut that in half or more.
I guess the difference is you have a right to smoke, the 6 people sitting next to you have 6 rights not to. Maybe that was the consideration at the time?
Then just ban it in public spaces and let businesses have private smoking areas if they want to. That’s what was done here in India and it seems to have worked out okay in my state at least.
2nd hand smoke isn’t someone’s choice and the difference between banning cigarettes and banning a full class of a drug is that people aren’t going to turn to the black market for cigarettes (barring poverty) when vaping is still legal
Ex smoker here, who is very against smoking as practice. I am also against the complete ban because it makes no sense whatsoever to be for the legalization of cannabis and other drugs but to also be for banning smoking. If I support one, I cannot support the other. I support drug legalization, so I can’t support a smoking ban.
I’m not for banning tobacco. But as you can see, these medicinal uses are not the same as those for Marijuana, and even if they were, I wouldn’t be aghast if kids stole tobacco leaves from the hospital and rolled joints with the.
The article only talks about cigarettes and smoking, but doesn’t say whether that includes other uses of nicotine
Same with other drug legalization - I think we’re well past the point of knowing that intentionally inhaling burnt stuff is bad, no matter what it is. I can support legalizing cannabis while trying to ban smoking anything
Also, is it just cigarettes or also cigars and pipe tobacco? I know people that, after the ‘flavored cigarette’ ban here, switched to flavored cigarillos or whatever. Just moved someone to a worse product.
Even when you consider the differences in addiction/habit forming? Do you feel the same way about morphine and heroin and their derivatives, that we should either legalize all or nothing?
It might be useful for an inbetween period, first we legalize softdrugs and ban all extremely addictive stuff, then after a year or 5 we open all the gates.
I don’t even know if I’m for a complete ban but it sounded refreshing to have a smoker free generation, is such a low quality drug as well…
I don’t think any recreational drugs should be branded or advertised. It should be very factual what you are getting and that’s it. I think tobacco should still be available from tobacconists only, which can be state run because it’s unlikely to be profitable otherwise. I’m for complete legalisation of everything but I think the smoke free generation is a great and noble idea.
It conflicts but I’m not a machine ,I see that tobacco is the most readily available addictive substance in the world, responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths and I can just thumbs up a law that removes it as an opportunity without impacting those who are addicted and don’t want to quit.
Well all those snobs are suckers for marketing, it’s the process they are enjoying the fruits of not the label.
But I’d envision a world where you could buy cocaine and just have a list of the ingredients and strength, I don’t need Johnny Walker White to be pushing it. Just have it available if people want it.
Are you really gonna argue that all whiskies, wines, etc. taste alike and that anyone who says otherwise is just a sucker? I don’t even like wine but I can tell a red from a white with almost 100% accuracy.
Actually if you go with the original statement that drugs should just be generically labeled, it’s saying all beer, wine, and liquor should just be labeled “alcohol”. Can you imagine someone going to a fancy Italian restaurant and being happy when the only thing on the wine list is just “alcohol”?
That’s not what I argued at all but your point about a fancy restaurant misses the point twice.
I’m saying it’s not the label it is the process, it isn’t red or white by some company, it’s the grape in a cask for how long. It’s not alcohol it’s the right combination of water, hops and wheat brewed the right way. I’m saying that we shouldn’t have Philip Morris Nose Candy when we legalise we should have no branding no advertising “80% cocaine” and a list of what it is cut with.
You clearly don’t know shit about how alcohol is made if you think describing a process that might be virtually identical across dozens or hundreds of brands is adequate to convey the level of detail that consumers use to make purchasing decisions.
For a lot of brands, the process is blending other products to create a specific flavor profile. There is literally no process to describe beyond “the blenders combine things until they find a blend that tastes the way brand X is supposed to taste.” How do you propose to describe such a process without brands? And no, they can’t just describe the individual inputs, because things like wine naturally vary from year to year even with identical processes, which means blends need to use different ratios to get the same flavor for each batch.
I was specifically talking about illicit recreational drugs you’ve clearly steered the conversation in a direction where you feel comfortable being indignant. Alcohol being rolled back to that level is not an option in reality, for drugs it is.
I don’t acknowledge a distinction between alcohol and “drugs”, aside from a purely legal and historical one. “Recreational drugs” absolutely includes alcohol in my vocabulary.
It’s “addictive” in the sense that you can develop tolerance, cravings, and withdrawal symptoms, but I’ve never heard of anyone being sent to rehab because their coffee habit was wrecking their life. Even pure caffeine just isn’t potent enough to hijack your brain’s reward system the way harder drugs can.
IMHO the word “addiction” really only applies when you feel so compelled to keep engaging in a problematic behavior that you can’t stop even when you know it’s hurting you.
I mean, trying to get rid of smoking is admirable, but completely banning a drug has historically not often ended well, because it forces those who ended up addicted underground, and creates opportunity for organized crime to profit from their production.
It’s not a temporary measure though I imagine? If someone born after 2009 gets ahold of some illegal cigarettes a few years from now (I definitely remember some high schoolers when I went to school that smoked, despite being under the legal age at the time) and gets addicted, then the issue still arises. People end up addicted to illegal drugs all the time.
Many of the smokers I’ve known started smoking at that age or younger. When I was at school there was a playground back market for cigarettes.
Banning cigarettes for younger people now won’t stop that. Just as banning cannabis for everyone doesn’t stop those who want to smoking it.
Many of the younger people in my family now however don’t want to smoke. There has been a significant shift in cultural and health attitudes against tobacco consumption, without a ban being required.
Yes, if prohibition has taught us anything it’s that it doesn’t work.
My country, the UK, is attempting to follow in New Zealand’s footsteps and recently announced its own “generation ban” on tobacco smoking. Despite the fact that tobacco usage has been declining here for many years and seems likely to all but cease naturally anyway.
I’m no fan of tobacco smoking, but prohibition does not seem the right approach to take. It doesn’t seem helpful or necessary from a public health standpoint, and is also an impediment of individual liberty.
Revoking such a ban for tax reasons isn’t a great angle either though in New Zealand’s case. However, from what I remember of USA history tax was a motivation to repeal alcohol prohibition in the 1930s, so maybe that’s an unpleasant taste we should be willing to swallow in this case.
I do. And as a smoker, I also support attempts to eliminate tobacco. It’s a shit drug, only good at making the craving stop for a bit, and it’s awful for your health and general quality of life.
In the UK sugar tax is a thing. People are going to consume stupid amounts of sugar so we may as well increase the taxes to hopefully fund the diabetes mellitus treatment in later life.
In the same vain I support higher taxes on tobacco. Whether that sends people to the black market remains to be seen.
The real problem with tobacco is that the use of it harms others around the people using it.
I agree banning drugs is not the best option. Education and support is better.
Gas and diesil cars are the other things can think of that are terrible for the health those around them. And they need to be banned asap too. For multiple reasons. But health is definitely one.
How does using it harm others? Unless you’re straight up locked in a room with a chain smoker for a few years it’s about as bad for you as sitting in traffic or near a camp fire.
Education is already working, as a very small portion of western nations smoke now. In the USA it’s less than 9% and that’s for all tobacco users which includes vaping. So cig smokers are probably around %5 at most now. Tobacco is a non-issue and is blinding us from other problems.
The argument you’ve presented oversimplifies complex public health issues by lumping together unrelated substances and policies.
Tobacco, universally acknowledged for its lack of health benefits and high harm potential, is incomparable to substances like cannabis or alcohol, which may have varied effects and potential positive uses.
The term ‘nanny state’ is a reductive way to dismiss nuanced health policies that aim to balance regulation with individual freedom.
Regarding obesity, it’s a multifactorial issue. A simplistic approach like banning sugar or fast food ignores the broader socio-economic and lifestyle factors at play (although a sugar tax is probably not a terrible idea).
How so? Tobacco is a vice which has health benefits such as organic pesticides and cognitive research against dementia and Alzheimer’s. It’s a vice just like cannabis and alcohol is. Neither of which when used in the way the majority of people use them have any health benefits.
Nanny state is exactly what trying to ban a vice is. Prohibition is a nanny state response.
What does that have to do with my comments pointing out obesity is a way bigger problem than tobacco is? Tobacco is being used as a scapegoat, while increased alcoholism and obesity is at epidemic levels. Tobacco is no longer an issue of public health in western nations. Education has basically fixed this.
Depends statistically they die earlier and of relatively quick diseases. Combined with a life time of paying steep taxes to ingest poison, usually they tend to be a net positive for the state (coldly put).
I hate smoking, but where do we stop? Gamers who sit too long in a chair are an issue for the medical system, too. People who do no sports. People who do not sleep enough. Eating habits…
I mean that's the classic slippery slope fallacy you're employing here. The answer is, sometimes it's a more clear cut situation and other times it isn't.
But just because the next rung down your logical ladder is more of a gray area than smoking does not mean that smoking is now also as much of a gray area. That's not how this works.
This is the same style of argument people make when debating against gay marriage. Well if gay people can get married does that mean people can marry dogs now? Why not? Where do we draw the line?
But this isn’t clear cut; I tend to hear that smokers are a net plus for a country’s finances because of the taxes on cigarettes and due to dying younger, before costlier chronic disease treatments and social care are required.
So yes, you should be asking where to draw the line.
Where I live (the US), smoking in most public places is already banned unless you’re outdoors and far from the entrance to act building. Any additional ban would apply almost exclusively to people who smoke alone or in the presence of other smokers.
That’s not been the argument where I live for a generation ban, because smoking in public is already banned - so the argument is all about the health of the people who can no longer buy cigarettes.
Cool so when do we start banning junk food? This isn’t a slippery slope argument. I’m using the same logic you’re using against tobacco, except sugar kills more people than tobacco does.
Obesity is also more complicated than just sugar. I can only go by personal anecdote here but I struggle with weight issues despite not eating much junk or overly processed food. A sugar tax would affect actual foods but not be sufficient nor even useful toward improving health
You will get by just fine without sugar in your diet. I didn’t say we should ban food, I said we should ban sugar. You’re struggling to show me why it’s so different from tobacco.
The only real differences are 1) everyone loves sugar, so they’ll make up a reason for the double standard and 2) public consumption doesn’t immediately hurt other people. But then I never said I was opposed to banning smoking in public so that’s actually irrelevant.
No, I’m clearly stating that taxing sugar is neither clear cut nor is it sufficient to be in any way useful.
– plenty of beneficial foods have sugar, and plenty of harmful foods do not
– there’s lots of food with negative nutritional value but it’s not just sugar nor can it be clearly distinguished from other foods
— obesity is more a matter of habits and quantity than one ingredient .
Yeah it’s satisfying to demonize the hypothetical person who drinks two liter bottles of soda every day but that’s like cutting social programs because “welfare queens” or building a wall because “anchor babies”, or police needing military gear because “gangs”, or election results needing to be overturned because “fraud”. What they all have in common is they’re a target for outrage but not real or not significant.
I’d be all for a sugar tax if I thought it could be well defined or make a difference, especially if it could make a difference for me. However of all the people I know or have met struggling with weight issues, I don’t recall any being that hypothetical sugar queen, any with any significant sweets habit that would be affected, any that could in any way be changed with this approach
Your intake of sugar participation in extreme sports absolutely impacts other people when you end up with chronic health issues that other people have to help pay for.
It’s not as if there’s some natural law obligating you to pay for anyone else’s health issues. Your government is responsible for externalizing that private cost onto you and others, effectively subsidizing risk-taking and irresponsibility. If you don’t like it, insist that people pay for their own health care and insurance at market rates, without subsidies.
Slippery slope arguments are usually fallacious, but I don’t think this one is. A slippery slope argument is valid when thing A actually does enable thing B. Banning something because it’s unhealthy does, in fact, enable further bans on other things by normalizing the notion that something being enticing but unhealthy is a sufficient reason to ban it.
Just look at all the things that have been criminalized at some point on the principle that they’re dangerous to the people who use them, or just that they’re vaguely bad for you. Cannabis, pornography, sex toys, gambling, even raw milk! And look at the specific things we know are next because they’re already being taxed in some jurisdictions. Tobacco is actually a great example because it’s going through the transition right now from being heavily taxed to being banned outright.
Not enough. I support discouraging use by greatly increasing taxes and insurance.
And yes, as someone who sometimes enjoys alcohol, that goes for all vice taxes. They need to be raised regularly with inflation or they need to be a percentage
Not enough, according to who? Smokers already pay more in taxes and everything I’ve read suggests they pay for more care than they actually receive, so how is it not enough?
Punitive actions like raising taxes and insurance aren’t going to help addicted people get off of tobacco. That’s just a tax on poor and middle class people.
Not enough because they’re not deterring people from smoking. While I understand it only punishes those already addicted, they’re kind of a lost cause. The priority needs to be preventing new victims. Someone who is not yet addicted is less likely to take it up if it’s more expensive
Obesity is the number one drain on the medical system by 10 fold over smokers. It’s the number one cause of death western nations now. Increased cancers/disease and chronic illness, plus a whole host of other things. Smokers are already disappearing because it’s been a taboo in society for a long time now. The next generation isn’t smoking anymore.
I think vice taxes are a great tool to discourage behavior that affects public health but we need to increase them.
However it’s a lot harder to create a vice tax on food. It would be great to make poor food choices more expensive than better choices but I don’t see how you can draw clear lines, nor be effective. For example this obese person doesn’t eat much junk or overly processed food so even if you could clearly define junk food, a vice tax wouldn’t help
Ok, but what about those of us who enjoy pipe tobacco or cigars or any other form of smoking? It’s not killing us like the 6 pack a day guy…so why are we included in the ban? 99% of obese people aren’t eating healthy… they’re drinking a 2 liter of coke a day and eating fast food non stop. They’re the pack of day smokers…so you’re logic would apply to them as well…
As someone who enjoys a good microbrew once in a while, or a smooth single malt, I would be affected by a higher alcohol tax but still think it’s a good idea. I like to think I’m responsibly enjoying my vice and I spend more on it to reach higher quality, but I still recognize it’s a vice. Realistically I’d grumble but not change my habits because I don’t use it very often
You would be the exception to the rule. People would be pissed if it cut further into their purchasing power because of a high tax on alcohol. So while I applaud your willingness to take on a higher tax because you don’t drink often, many others would not be so willing.
The thing is, if you smoke outdoors, you are violating people's right to live in an clean environment and breathe fresh air. I don't care if you fuck yourself up in your own house, but the moment smokers smoke outside of their own homes, they are messing with the liberties of all other citizens.
Who would rationally choose to get cancer and fuck up their lungs for the shittiest of head rushes. It’s only a thing because it’s been so heavily commercialized.
That’s because of gradual shifts in culture and attitudes, not due to prohibition.
Prohibition has failed to effectively “ban” any drug, and often tends to encourage their usage and harm efforts to alleviate addiction.
Tobacco smoking is also declining in many nations in response to improved public health awareness and again cultural shifts. If those trends continue it could all but fade away naturally. Tobacco prohibition is arguably not necessary and could even become counterproductive.
Raising the legal drinking age has definitely helped. While there’s still all too many teenagers drinking, my experience through my teens is that it’s a lit fewer than when I was a kid and harder to get.
— funny story - as an obviously older adult I got carded a couple years ago at a baseball game. They had a zero tolerance policy so I could not get a beer, despite going to multiple stands. Finally, partly out of amusement, I asked a newly legal intern less than half my age to buy beer for me
I’m not so sure. I’m in the UK, many parts of Europe have more liberal laws and attitudes towards alcohol than us, but it’s the British teens (and the British in general) infamously known for binge drinking.
Yeah I always used to prefer the more liberal policies (when it affected me) and wanted to raise my kids that way but here in the US you just can’t hide from binge drinking issues predominantly in teenagers. And that type of alcohol abuse seems to have decreased with the stricter laws (a later start to problem behavior gives some time to mature)
I don’t know what about those other cultures may cause different behavior patterns but it’s not simply a matter of us loosening up, nor of parents setting an example of moderation
Either you don’t have good reading comprehension or you are trolling. To spell it out for in case you are really challenged crimes are already ilegal by definition and yet that doesn’t make society free from crime. In other words your assumption of this working is delusional
So they can decide what’s good for your body except for abortions? It’s incredible how people values are so fluid. They might as well say that everything the right does is evil and wrong.
They should be called the pretty good and mostly evil sides if we were being honest. But no one wants to openly support the mostly evil side. (strangely there are a very large group of silent right supporters too what’s that about? )
I think that’s the type of reasoning that leads to communism and famines. Politicians are known to steal agenda items from the other side. I think it’s really stupid to oppose good measures just because they are not coming from your tribe.
I already made it clear on my answer but I’m not surprised you missed it. it’s pretty disingenuous to ask something like that and disrespectful for those who had to suffer it. it’s well documented so if you want to know you just need to stop covering your ears.
Add comment