Is it time to ban cigarettes all together ?

Question

With all now know about the health effects of smoking and the restrictions in public places and now the increase in age to 18 in Britain in October.

To those who have metioned about rights what about the rights of passive smokers take Roy Castle a british comic and TV Presenter who died of Cancer related to passive smoking. Also im not a killjoy i dont believe in banninng fatty foods or risky sports but smoking can cause risk to others and with more restrictions the logical conclusion is a ban. The black market argument is a weak one there is a mass market in Child Porn does that mean we should legalise it ?

Answer 1

Robby216 re:
'BTW - The information on second-hand smoking is totally bogus. It was labelled junk science as soon as it was published.'

You might want to read the article you use to back up this flawed argument in full before using it:

The study was part funded by Philip Morris and other tobacco companies; the article you quote pretty much debunks your argument and goes on to say that:

"In fact, researchers reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1998 that 75% of studies done between 1980 and 1995 that found no link between secondhand smoke and health problems were funded by tobacco companies"

While I am all for personal freedoms, I draw the line at my own health being affected by someone elses selfish addictions...

Answer 2

I am a non smoker but I think if a person chooses to smoke then why shouldn't they.
This world is becoming ridiculous
kids can't play conkers anymore without safety goggles.
Skipping is frowned on in case they tangle up in the rope.
Perhaps we should ban swimming in case people drown
or driving because more people kill other people by driving a car than by passive smoking.
Do all non smokers especially the asker of this question choose not to drive so that their exhausts don't poison non drivers I know I don't. Unfortunately some things we do have an impact on others and smoking probably is one which has least impact, yes its smelly, but car exhausts are very much more dangerous to us and especially to small children than someones old smoke.
Did you know that the revenue from smokers entirely pays for the NHS. If we ban smoking all of our taxes will go up but people will still smoke.
Live and let live.

Answer 3

You just asked a very controversial question. About half the price of cigarettes is taxes, so raising them borders on the ridiculous. A ban would cause a huge riot and possibly violence from withdrawal. And of course, there's illegal cigarettes. Like white lightning from the prohibition, this will appear to the smokers as a blessing and the nonsmokers as a scourge.

A possible ban would be to make a cutoff point; this year the limit would be 18, next year 19, and so on. All the current cigarette customers would have their beloved puff of death, while the underage at the time will never have to deal with it. Maybe it could work, or maybe I'm just an idealist.

Answer 4

Shaft gave a good answer.

We cannot go on banning everything. What kind of life would we have then? A world where every aspect of it was dictated by law and the state. Where people's freedom to live life as they choose is taken away, and they must abide by the whims and diktats of the current power base.

I value my personal freedom (what's left of it, in 'Elf & Safety, PC, red tape Britain), and I want the right to choose my own particular road to perdition or salvation. Otherwise, what am I? Not an autonomous individual with choices, that's for sure, but a slave to the state. A bit too 1984 for me.

There are many things I don't like, but I recognise that if I expect to have personal choices, then other people are entitled to them too, whether I personally dislike them or not.

Answer 5

I totally agree with Shaft. I am a non-smoker, but I can see where this kind of stupidity will end. There are many unhealthy activities in which people partake every day. Exactly how much do you want to restrict people's freedoms?

BTW - The information on second-hand smoking is totally bogus. It was labelled junk science as soon as it was published.

Check out the info at Web MD (hardly a pro-smoking source of information):

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/64/72529.htm

Answer 6

Are you and the rest of the anti smoking brigade willing to finance the government to the tune £8billion pounds they receive in taxes minus the £2 billion it costs to fund the NHS for smoking related illnesses so the surplus would have to be found somewhere remember the feeling in the country already about high taxes my personal opinion is that they cannot afford to ban tobacco products in the UK also what if someone brings in the products from abroad

Answer 7

No, it's time to ban stupid laws.
Most of the evidence used by the governments and the anti-smoking establishment is "junk science" based on preconceived results.
Smoking is not healthful but it is most definitely not what the antis are portraying it to be. The biggest single polluter and threat to health is the automobile.
Anti-smokers are simply just so many hypocrites who want to pollute the air with their SUVs while banning others the right to choose.

Answer 8

Maybe we should ban all alcohol as well. Its just as bad for you as smoking and also costs the NHS millions a year. I agree with the ban in public places as its not fair on non-smokers. But Im a smoker and I wont be dictated to by anyone about what I can or cant do in my own home.

Answer 9

Good idea. Let's also ban alcohol, fatty meats, chocolate, sweets, fried foods, and overeating.

Maybe the government can also criminalize dangerous activities, too, like motor-bike riding, parachuting, and promiscuity.

Maybe we should have them invoke a mandatory meal plan and a mandatory exercise plan, with fines and imprisonment for any breach or excessive eating.

Perhaps the government should mandate a weight for each person, with fines and imprisonment should they exceed it.

See what happens when people have all that unnecessary freedom and liberty? They go and do things a bunch of busy-body do-gooder tyrants find objectionable. They need to be strictly controlled for their own good!

Answer 10

Only if you restrict all other unhealthy activities.

If you want to dictate how everyone should live their lives, why not eliminate all fatty foods, high-calorie desserts, and put people who don't exercise in jail?

While you're at it, I'd also like to see something done about people who participate in "extreme" and even not-so-extreme sports. Why should I have to pay to fix some kid's broken leg because he was doing something stupid while on a skateboard, bicycle or roller blades?

Do you really want to go down this road?