if this were a brand new product on the market there is no way it would be permitted in most civilized countries. is it time to stop allowing it because of history?
2006-09-15 09:03:10 · 33 answers · asked by Jason A 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
would be hard to enforce; but YES YES & YES. this shitty substance killed my father and is now destroying my partner. when my father died, in my anger i wanted to set fire to the nearest outlet distributing these deadly products. i feel so sad for all the youngsters who think they look cool with a cancer twig hanging from their perfect young mouths.
2006-09-15 09:10:40 · answer #1 · answered by ididntknodat 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It would be counter-productive to ban it because the demand for the market is so strong due to the large number of users and the strength of the addiction it would bring about all the same problems that were experienced with the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s in the USA.
The most effective approach would be to develop effective legislation so that users who are damaged by the product are able to sue the manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers for compensation. That would then make it unprofitable to sell without making it illegal. They currently get around this by attaching a warning to the packets but that presupposes that it's use is a free choice and not an compulsive addiction.
Sadly, so many people in high and powerful places make so much money out of it that such changes to product liability legislation will not take place. Sadly it's still legal to destroy peoples health for profit, providing you make enough to pay a lot of lawyers and you can blame the addict for their own downfall. It's a twisted interpretation of freedom.
2006-09-15 09:34:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
OK everyone, listen.
We need to stop with the movements to make substances illegal. I think we can all see, if we look around, how well the prohibitions of certain substances are working. It is easier for a 12-year-old kid to get their hands on marijuana (or other illegal drugs) than alcohol or tobacco. People who have done nothing but seek an escape mechanism are serving mandatory sentences of 20 years or more in federal prisons. Meanwhile, these drugs are everywhere, and the money goes into the pockets of criminals.
What makes you think it would be any different with cigarettes? Organized crime already makes a decent profit on smuggled tobacco. Why should we make it easier for the mob to make money? At least with the present system, 3/4 of the price of tobacco goes to state & federal taxes, which they can then use to educate your kids about how bad it is to smoke.
If you don't like the smell of smoke, that's fine. We aren't allowed to smoke in restaurants, offices, sidewalks, or even bars anymore. If you don't want someone smoking in your house, tell them to go outside. If you manage to find a public area where smoking is allowed, don't go there. But tell me where it is, because I can't find it.
2006-09-15 09:18:27 · answer #3 · answered by Danzarth 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
How many more fascist laws do we need to pass before we can officially remove "the land of the FREE" from the star spangled banner? This anti-smoking thing has just gone too far. Sure if your enclosed in a room with a smoker you have a right to clean air and protection from second hand smoke. Banning smoking outdoors, on sidewalks, so many feet from doors, in parks etc. reminds me of a modern day witch hunt. Let's be real here. If you are offended by someones smoke as you walk past them you have not been subjected to second hand smoke; you are offended by the scent of tobacco smoke! What else should we ban? Perfume? deodorant? maybe car exhaust. Yeah that's it ban car exhaust from all of Texas. It's more toxic than cigarette smoke! Don't believe me? I'll tell you what... I'll spend a day locked in my garage with a chain smoker if you'll spend a day locked in yours with a running automobile!
2016-03-27 02:38:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it needs to be made illegal, people are going to smoke no matter what and at least now it's a regulated poison.
That being said, I fully support a ban in public places. As a non-smoker, I don't appreciate being subjected to YOUR habit. I made the choice to not smoke, that's my choice and second hand smoke takes that choice away. Now (in Ontario at least), I can go to a restaurant and enjoy the food without smoke filling the air, or go to the bar and have a good time with friends without coming home reeking of smoke.
If you want to smoke, do it outside away from your kids and people who choose not to smoke.
What's the old saying. "I choose to drink, the by product of drinking is peeing; you choose to smoke, the by product is second hand smoke. Don't smoke in my face and I won't pee in yours"
2006-09-15 09:20:23 · answer #5 · answered by simplyrelaxinginblvl 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Made Illleagl? NO! Look what we tried with prohibition of alcohol in the 20's and 30's. It didn't work then and it would not work now. If you outlawed tobacco it woud only result in the bootlegging of it.
Incidently, during prohibition it was not unlawful to consume alcohol; it was only illegal to manufacture or sell alcohol.
2006-09-15 09:39:56 · answer #6 · answered by SkepticThomas 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO. It is my choice to smoke or drink or anything else I want to do to my body. No one born after 1960 can honestly claim they didn't know smoking was dangerous. If you're going to ban tobacco, you'd better ban alcohol first; it's much more dangerous- oh wait, we tried that all ready, and all it did was make the gangsters rich.
Also, to those of you who spout the nonsense that 2nd hand smoke is more dangerous, guess us smokers picked the safest way, huh?
2006-09-15 09:11:55 · answer #7 · answered by fedup_dwn_south 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I hate smoking but I don't think banning it would help. As long as I can go to places where it's not allowed that's ok. They can do it their own homes if they like. However I think there should be stronger enforcement on children smoking.
2006-09-15 10:45:22 · answer #8 · answered by L'il Tree 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh certainly, and while we're at it lets make these unhealthy habits illegal - drinking alcohol, eating fast foods, not exercising. And of course then we can build more jails to keep these unhealthy people in so they don't infect the self-righteous population.
God help us if it ever comes to this....
2006-09-15 09:19:33 · answer #9 · answered by rosecitylady 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why is it that everyone thinks they have a right to dictate to other people how they should conduct their own personal affairs. If a person wishes to kill himself smoking tobacco, that is his own personal affair in my opinion. And if he can not afford the medical costs associated with it, it is not up to everyone else to pay for them either.
2006-09-15 09:15:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
How you going to make up for the billions in taxes that the government collects from tobacco?
2006-09-15 09:13:10 · answer #11 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋