Should smoking be banned?

[Yaniv]

The fast-food ban thread gave me this idea.
I for one am for banning smoking- It is harmful even to those who don't smoke, and its real easy for young kids to obtain them.
Any other thoughts?

 

[Ramius75]

Yes, it should be banned with immediate effect. Unlike fast food, cigarette contain chemcial that are inherently addcitive like drugs and also many many harmful products like Tar.

Also smoking is devestagting to the health of all those around the smoker. unwilling introduce to the smoke.

 

[Masquerouge]

Smoking should be banned from the face of the Earth, starting now.

Right now the law is pretty strict, but the State do not have the means to enforce it. People just smoke in the subway, in airports, because they know no cop will be here to fine them.
I wish it was like in the US...

 

[Cheetah]

I voted for 'Remove smoking from the face of the earth'. Though I do so while seeing the question in a stricly hypotheticaly way. I fear that if smoking was banned, we would get situations similar to those of the USA during the banning of alcohol.

 

[Scuffer]

It should only be banned if I get my pick of something I can ban in return.

 

[Thedrin]

I voted for 'Remove smoking from the face of the earth'. Though I do so while seeing the question in a stricly hypotheticaly way. I fear that if smoking was banned, we would get situations similar to those of the USA during the banning of alcohol.

I doubt it would be anywhere near as bad. I don't smoke but I don't believe that tobacco alters your perception any way close to what alcohol does.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

If folks want to smoke in private no problem, just don't pollute the public areas.

 

[Yom]

It should not be banned. Proscribe people from smoking in public areas where people are affected by their smoke, and tax it, as it still causes a negative externality (the smoke's effect of killing the user prevents others in society from enjoying the fruits of his labor - this may seem SNesque, but it does constitute a negative externality in my mind).


Where's the option for me?

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Public smoking ban. People are going to buy them wether they are "legal" or not. Might as well make some tax money off of it and not repeat prohibiton. However, with the public smoking ban you can reduce the damage of second hand smoke and make public places more enjoyable.

 

[Winner]

Yes, because it hurts also the other people, not only the smoker. I have enough of smelling like a coal plant when I leave the pub

 

[Mise]

Don't ban smoking, don't tax it (it makes poor people even more poor). Countries with nationalised health care can charge people more for health care if they smoke. Public smoking bans should be decided on the local/community level.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Ban public smoking. Keep punitive taxes on it, but not so high they create a flourishing black market.

 

[Fetus4188]

Ban public smoking. Oh wait, that's already true for where I live

 

[Yom]

Don't ban smoking, don't tax it (it makes poor people even more poor). Countries with nationalised health care can charge people more for health care if they smoke. Public smoking bans should be decided on the local/community level.

Instead of saying that poor people are hurt, inform everyone on its dangers and still tax it. Whether or not poor people are consuming cigarettes is the poor person's decision; higher prices discourage poor people from wasting their money, and, if coupled with education, then poor people's standard of living will increase.

 

[Mise]

That kind of economic arguement is fine for things like caviar or petrol, but for physically addictive stuff like cigarrettes, it doesn't work. It's often the cigarrettes decision whether or not a person buys a pack of cigarrettes.

EDIT: And I don't see the point in regulating it anyway. It's not like cigarrettes are morally repugnant or anything.

 

[Yom]

That kind of economic arguement is fine for things like caviar or petrol, but for physically addictive stuff like cigarrettes, it doesn't work. It's often the cigarrettes decision whether or not a person buys a pack of cigarrettes.

Yes, but methods of quitting cigarettes easier (nicotine patches and gums), in addition to education about its dangers make the influence of the nicotine relatively less. Ideally, though, cigarette producers should be proscribed from including nicotine in their cigarettes.

 

[Yom]

EDIT: And I don't see the point in regulating it anyway. It's not like cigarrettes are morally repugnant or anything.

They're not morally repugnant, but they do have negative externalities tied to them.

 

[Super Crunk Jew]

They are trying to get a state-wide ban in Mn. I hope it goes thru. Mpls and it's subarbs already have one.

 

[Oruc]

no way, just because i cant stand the smell and think its disgusting doesnt mean to should be banned

 

[Zeekater]

Don't ban it, more taxing on cigs means less taxing for me
But make people who smoke not get any free healthcare if their sickness is cig related.

There already is a smoking ban in most if not all public buildings here, it'll probably be another year or so before there's a ban in bars and then another 2 years before a full scale ban.