Why aren't cigaretes illegal?

[Dragonlord]

A non-smoker myself, I'm not in favor of making ciggies illegal. As others have said, legislation is no solution, it just leads to increasing crime because people WILL smoke, and someone WILL provide the ciggies - it will just become more expensive and fought over in gangster turf wars.... Prohibition should have been enough of a lesson for anyone!

OTOH, I'm absolutely for prohibitons on smoking in public, especially where others have no choice but to passively smoke as well.
If you're only smoking in your home, as Stapel said, that's OK: people can choose not to visit. But if you're smoking on a bus, say, others can hardly be expected to leave the bus (or jump out the window to avoid your smoke.

IMO, the only solution to the problem is reaching the kids before they ever start using the d*** things - banning all forms of advertising for them would be a good start.

 

[AceChilla]

The same applies to motorcycles .

Indeed that's also a dangerously crazy machine, that should be banned for everyone's sake.

But since it isn't I plan to get my motorcycle license this year.

 

[Yom]

Why aren't cigarettes illegal?

See effect of 18th amendment.


Also, they bring in a lot of tax revenue. People are going to smoke cigarettes whether or not they're legal, but the government can make some money (and move the market to the socially optimum level) through taxes on such products. I support the legalization of soft drugs for the same reasons.

People shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public places where there are a lot of people, however (e.g. a busy street) but should be allowed to smoke in a private area or public area with few people (e.g. the countryside, as long as there isn't a chance of a brush fire).

IMO, the only solution to the problem is reaching the kids before they ever start using the d*** things - banning all forms of advertising for them would be a good start.

I agree. Preventative measures are the best ones that should be taken. The tobacco companies actually profit from an industry-wide ban on adverstisement (cuts costs and lowers competition), so such a measure should be coupled with higher taxes to offset the lower cigarette costs.

 

[Stapel]

I see many people are against fags, yet realise banning is no option.

Though you are right about that,
YOU ARE WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE!

The only thing we should ban, is banning things.

Yes, cigarettes are bad for health.
But why in the world do you want to take an unhealthy liberty away from me.
Yes, from ME PERSONALLY.

Where does this fascist/communist idea of taking away this liberty from me come from?
I am seriously worried about people that think they have the right to do this.
You ARE WRONG, terribly wrong. It is immoral to take this liberty from me!

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Yep. And stop driving this car without Airbags, ABS, and with the motor in the back. That's unsafe at any speed .

 

[Stapel]

Yep. And stop driving this car without Airbags, ABS, and with the motor in the back. That's unsafe at any speed .

Not too many people know a FIAT 850 has the engine in the back .

On a serious note:
You compare regulation with banning.
It's ok when smoking in public places is banned. That's like a speed limit. But totally banning cars is just as ridiculous as banning fags.

 

[Gogf]

Cigarettes aren't illegal because that would put so many people out of work instantly. We need some sort of program to phase them out of those jobs though, as cigarettes should be illegal.

 

[Knowze Gungk]

Well, there is room for debate here.
I smoke, and anybody who enters my home will passively smoke too. People know that, and are by no means forced to enter my home.

I whole heartedly agree. Any kind of substance abuse should be fully legal within the confines of the users property. But I belive in a total ban in public, restrict substance abuse to the confinds of ones home & licenced premises.

Smoking around children should be classed as child abuse ('though not if the child approaches the junkie, that'd just insight a sue frenzy).

It's a damn shame that nicotine is so beneficial, while most users will only take it in one of the worst possible ways.

 

[jonatas]

They tried banning a thing people like to do before. It was called Prohibition. Need I say more.

but do you think smoking will come back in force in a couple decades? Some countries seem pretty determined to completely get rid of it if they can....

 

[Bluemofia]

They aren't because there's a high tax around them, and the gov wants money.

 

[Stapel]

Cigarettes aren't illegal because that would put so many people out of work instantly. We need some sort of program to phase them out of those jobs though, as cigarettes should be illegal.

Another one that wants to steal my liberties!

The more I read it, the less respect I have for it.

 

[HalfBadger]

Why are cigarettes legal? Because they're ingrained in our society. As well as all the great things already posted (largely by DocT ), Cigarettes are seen as "not that harmful or addictive"

Actually a recent Poll of teenagers here in Manitoba, showed that many teenagers believe that Cigarettes are more harmful than Pot and that it's easier for them to get Pot than Cigarettes. Some people are guessing this has to do with the massive campaigns about second-hand smoke and the new Province wide public ban on Cigarettes, shows how harmful and bad Cigarettes are for you, however when it comes to pot, all they hear is it's illegal, not the negative health effects.

Another thing interetsing thing I heard about, pertaining to cigarettes, there are also a big reason for the destruction of our forrests, as open fires are used to dry the tobacco (don't have any links to cite at the moment, at work). So not only does it polute and poison the smoker and others, it polutes the environment and furthers the destruction of our precious forrests.

Why is it still legal, when by all accounts it shoulbn't be? Like prohibition, too many people are addicted to it and the outrage would be too great, aswell as all the bribery generated fromt he tobacco industry. The theory that the tax revenue is needed, is true however, I think it's sad that we depend on it so much.

Why not make other drugs like pot legal? Not sure if there would be enough Tax Revenue to make it worth the while, specially with any negative effects it might have, Drunk Driving is a big concern here, could you imagine the car insurance rates and death tolls rising to stoned driving...

A maybe better question, should be, why such things likeAlcohol, Smoking, caffine (in Canada if a drink has Caffine, it must have a dark colour), etc are legal, that harm ourselves, others and the planet, when Prostitution, which in essence hurts no one is illegal?

 

[Pikachu]

EPA and BMA are well known; I may have to point out I am indeed a MD. Thus, I know very well how reliable the German equivalent is - if something fits there politics, they always can come up with some ill-conducted study proving their POV.
And the same happens here.

So now the Bush administration wants to escalate the hazards of passive smoking? That’s a new one!

I smoke, and anybody who enters my home will passively smoke too. People know that, and are by no means forced to enter my home.

So you are comfortable with killing your friends in your gas chamber as long as you don’t force them in there?

I think that smoking in the proximity of non-smokers are evil, even if it is in your own home, but I don’t think we need to ban smoking in private homes as long as no minors have access to the contaminated place.

 

[Mise]

Saying that you don't force people to breath in your smoke is like saying you're going to fire your gun off and if the bullet just so happens to hit someone it's not my fault: no-one forced him to stand where my bullet was going.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

So now the Bush administration wants to escalate the hazards of passive smoking?

Is the EPA part of the Bush administration? At least the BMA and German Ärztekammer is pretty independent.
I'd just say that is in the interest of any medical association to eliminate smoking; since smoking clearly causes diseases, they can much easier score a success here than on other, harder to fight bad habits (noone dares to mess with the Agrobussiness, or Car Industry). And to achieve that, they come up with any arguements against smoking, even not plausible ones. Simply check the National Library of Medicine for any convincing articles about the risks of secondary smoking.

 

[cgannon64]

Saying that you don't force people to breath in your smoke is like saying you're going to fire your gun off and if the bullet just so happens to hit someone it's not my fault: no-one forced him to stand where my bullet was going.

True, but you certainly don't force people to breathe in your smoke every day for 30 years - that is the only way you're going to get cancer from second-hand smoke.

 

[JohnRM]

I see on TV commercials that tell people that sigaretes harm and kill others and I see the same ads for illegal drugs. So if both harm users why aren't sigerets illegal?

People don't rob convenience stores for money to buy cigarettes.

 

[cgannon64]

Actually, people do rob convienence stores for large amounts of cigarettes. I imagine selling them without the taxes is a lucrative business.

(Which should be a good argument against the half-legal realm of overtaxed drugs...)

 

[JohnRM]

Actually, people do rob convienence stores for large amounts of cigarettes. I imagine selling them without the taxes is a lucrative business.

(Which should be a good argument against the half-legal realm of overtaxed drugs...)

I find that assertion highly dubious.

 

[cgannon64]

Well, maybe I'm wrong, but I could swear that I've heard of people stealing hundreds of cartons of cigarettes. It makes sense - the big kind sells for like $50.