Ban smoking
More specifically, give a one-year warning and then ban the sale of cigarettes; after a further three months, impose moderate financial penalties for smoking in public. Offer free quit-smoking products, such as gum (a very good use of government money in the long term). Advertise about the dangers of second-hand smoke, particularly for children exposed to it in their homes. Target teens with ads explaining that smoking makes them look unhip. Stringently regulate the growing of tobacco within the US.
Likely consequences: a black market will develop for cigarettes, of course, but overall the number of people in the US who smoke will sharply decrease. If the program is successful at preventing children from beginning smoking, the practice could die out within a generation. There's simply too much money involved for the tobacco companies to allow that passively to occur, so I predict they will suddenly invest a significant amount of time and money into developing a safer delivery vehicle for nicotine. Whether that means an entirely new product (along the lines of gum) or safer cigarettes (as regulated by the FDA) I don't know, but I have a lot of faith in their cleverness, I'm sure that when properly motivated they'll come up with something.
Why do this? Didn't we learn with prohibition that criminalizing petty vices is extremely counter-productive? The key difference here is that using alcohol in moderation is not inevitably harmful (wine may actually be mildly beneficial ). Smoking in moderation is potentially lethal
. I think it's simply ridiculous that we as a society tolerate a product that when used as intended slowly kills people at enormous financial and emotional cost to the rest of us.
The cost/benefit to smoking is not particularly hard to figure out. Benefit: once you're addicted, it feels good. Cost: you'll probably die a nasty death. Hmm. The reason people don't quit is obvious, of course: nicotine is alarmingly addictive. Ask anyone who has smoked for more than five years how many times they've tried to quit, and I betcha the answer isn't gonna be zero. Unfortunately, the preferred delivery system for this drug is inevitably and cumulatively harmful. Banning smoking has nothing to do with morals; I could care less if the smokers chew nicotine gum all day (although that's kind of creepy too, but whatever). It's just common sense to avoid an entirely predictable tragedy.
Which makes it hard to understand why politicians wouldn't support such an obvious method of saving money and saving lives. Gosh, you think money had anything to do with it?
According to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), in the previous election cycle, the tobacco companies gave more than $6 million in soft money, mainly to the Republican Party. Between 1995 and the end of 2002, Philip Morris alone put up more than $10.7 million (about $9 million to Republicans), making it number four on the all-time soft-money donor list.
When you throw in the jobs involved with growing and processing tobacco, it's not hard to see why politicians ignore the elephant in the room. Maybe change will have to come from the local level, where many businesses now prohibit smoking indoors. It can also come from the personal level: if you smoke, try to quit.
Inspired and modified from a conversation on universal health care over at the forvm
.
Comments :
Would probably work about
as well as making murder a crime.
Or outlawing drugs.
How about we ban corn syrup. Or coke. Or exhaust fumes from cars.
I resent government interferance from both the right and the left.
The right always tells me what I can do in my bedroom.
The left is always preaching what is good for my health.
I think an education approach is much less intrusive and won't create the backlash from the tobaco industry.
I'm only half stupid
Well...
some places have already banned trans fats. McDonalds is voluntarily switching. Smoking is prohibited indoors in many areas.
I'm not advocating a full-on war on cigs in the sense some people seem to be assuming, and I tried to make that clear when discussing the proposed legislation and penalties. It's aimed at drastically reducing the number of smokers, not putting smokers in jail. I just don't get why liberals are happy to go after gun manufacturers when the statistics are unclear at best but somehow the tobacco industry is sacrosanct even though we KNOW their product, when used as intended, kills.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Generalizations as a rule aren't fully true.
You know that. How many times do you resent being compared to some cretin just because they share one of your values? You fill in the names, I'm not going to.
Liberals. Some liberals don't like guns. Some do. Most liberals don't mind having to go through a 15 day waiting period when purchasing a gun. Most liberals would prefer that only the truly needy carry conceiled weapons. Most liberals think certain guidelines like 15 day wait periods, trigger locks on guns kids can reach, not allowing psychopaths, violent felons, etc own firearms are good.
Many liberals (I know many at least) own guns. You see, just because we're liberal, doesn't mean we hate guns. We just don't seem to place it in the same place as motherhood or apple pie as some conservatives do.
My point? I'd like to clear up the inaccuracy that liberals are all against guns. Some are, some aren't. They're a useful tool, but like any powerful tool, you should use them with due dilligence & caution. I think a baseball bat is better for home defense. But I can't throw a baseball bat 100 yards to hit a target. You get the idea.
Anyway, out here in CA, I know alot of liberals who do own guns. I can't imagine that the "red states" have any less of them.
Contrast to your gun statement:
Conservatives hate sex toys and want to illegalize vibrators. I mean, all you have to do is look at Alabama law (illegal to sell or mail) and several other states & it MUST BE TRUE.....
Oh geez
I don't hate guns in general myself. It was sloppy shorthand to make a broader point. But ok, sorry about the generalization...
(bloody oversensitive whining crybaby liberals!)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Nothin' personal.
I'm just a liberal who owns guns, that's all.
And the NRA does NOT represent my views. They want the public to be able to own teflon coated (cop killer) rounds. I don't. They want the public to be able to own automatic (I don't mean semi-automatic, I mean machine) guns. I don't.
On the other side, my esteemed governator, Arnold, made owning 50 cal BMG rifles illegal when he came into office. I disagree with him as distance shooting is what I like. And no, I don't own a 50 cal BMG. Too pricey for my bank account. I guess I could go over to Nevada and buy one if I ever got 2500 dollars to spare.
Gotcha,
and I agree on the NRA. The bit about CA is interesting and I can't remember the debate all that well -- what was the argument in favor of banning those? And thanks for catching my generalization =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Arnold said you could shoot down airplanes
with them. And you can. But you also can with any number of high powered rifles that are extremely common (30-06, etc).
Isn't that just a good argument...
...for getting rid of the other high powered rifles too?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I guess it could be.
But I think what it comes down to was that you have a handful of people who want new 50 cal rifles. The old ones that were already out there weren't made illegal. They were grandfathered. They just can't be re-sold to anyone within the state. But you have many, many thousands of people who want to own a new 300 win mag hunting rifle, a 30-06 deer rifle or something similar. The numbers, they don't lie. Arnold was willing to look tough on terrorists (even though no terrorists in the US have ever been captured with 50 cals). He didn't want to piss off deer hunters.
How about
free cigarettes for Republicans?
Seriously, though, would you also ban tobacco exports?
qui tacet consentire
or chewing tabacoo
and pipes, rolling papers.
They could treat it like marijuana and make it a Class A Drug.
Growing of all tabacco would be illegal.
They could have a TEA, a Tabacco Enforcement Agency and arrest people in their homes for smoking, mostly the poor.
Tobacco prohibition is the hysteria of the day.
Carrie Nation's moralistic cry against alcohol lead to a crime network. Can we learn from history.
I'm only half stupid
Good question
Morally I guess I'd prefer to do that, since if smoking is bad here it's bad in China or Europe too. But economically and politically I'd probably leave it alone, at least initially. The immediate problem is dealing with the impact to our health care system.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
How about
we leave tobacco legal, but pass a law saying health insurance coverage does not have to extend to smoking related illnesses but all health insurance providers must pay 100 percent of the costs of any cessation program?
So, if you choose to smoke and get cancer, you're on your own financially. If you smoke and want to quit, your insurance will pick up the cost.
qui tacet consentire
great idea
but in the end the unaffiliated liberals (the ones who didn't sign on to this compromise) will sue the f*** out of the insurance industry and force the payout for smoking related illnesses anyways.
Sounds like having it both ways.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Kind of like having immagration laws
and then not enforcing them.
Both ways Bush.
I'm only half stupid
No
not if it's legislated. Sort of like the way Republicans want to give gun manufacturers immunity from lawsuits.
qui tacet consentire
Eh, I dunno
I don't think it goes far enough to help people stop (and avoid starting) smoking. I think banning the sale of cancer-causing cigarettes is necessary for real progress -- we've been trying the whole education thing for decades now. It was my impression (could be way off, I haven't checked) that many health care plans already cover smoking cessation, and/or charge more if you smoke, and yet people still do. I don't just want to avoid having taxpayers cover the cost of avoidable cancer treatment, I want to do as much as possible to ensure that we have fewer cases of avoidable cancer, and I don't see people rationally acting in their long-term best-interest as actually occuring enough to make your plan work.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The slippery slope to that
is that if the primary purpose is to force people to be healthier whether they want to or not, then others will want to ban alcohol and trans-fat and supersize fries and Krispy Kreme doughnuts and 48-ounce Cokes, etc. etc.
qui tacet consentire
Well yeah
but personally I don't see any problem with banning the sale of food containing excessive trans fat, so you can't scare me that easily =)
The rest is obviously in a different category, I submit.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Another drug war?
No, thanks. What I would support is legislation to control the contents of cigarettes. Strip out all the stuff that tobacco companies added to increase their addictiveness and maybe reduce the carcinogenic stuff.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Hey, if you want to legislate a safer cig,
that's ok by me. But I think the only way that's gonna happen is by making it illegal to sell the current kinds. Seems to me we're on the same page here, you just don't want to admit it =)
I'm not in favor of the war on pot. Cigarettes are actually far more dangerous, but I still wouldn't support SWAT teams breaking down doors to catch smokers or any of that nonsense. It's a multi-pronged approach to slowly stamping out smoking, or at least changing the form in which people get their nicotine fix.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Seems to me we're on the
Maybe. I got the impression from your piece that you were looking to ban cigarettes. That just won't work. But controlling the ingredients of cigarettes probably can.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I would ban the sale of cigarettes
deemed by the FDA to be dangerously carcinogenic. Right now, that would mean banning cigarettes. After the tobacco companies do some research, diversify a little, who knows? But I don't see this research into a safer method of delivering nicotine happening without some external motivation. Controlling the ingredients of cigarettes is in practice pretty much the same thing, isn't it? I mean it's not like they can take out the tobacco overnight...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I don't think that'll work.
That's like saying we'll ban all automobiles that don;t meet the new CAFE standards. Might feel gratifying but totally impractical. What you do is require all cars/cigarettes from here on forward to meet the new standards.
Oh and you can throw a bunch of tobacco industry executives in prison for perjury since they, you know, lied through their teeth to congress. You can similarly promote lawsuits against the tobacco industry and let the people drive the vampires into the ground.
This allows people to get the new healthier cigarettes from the new companies that will inevitably spring up while also providing an important object lesson to big businesses everywhere: you might get away with it for a while but eventually prison and privation will catch up.
I can't for the life of me think of a single good reason the heads of all the major cigarette companies aren't currently in Federal "pound me in the a$$" prison right this second.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The road to hell
is paved with good intentions.
No. More government is not the answer. And one wonders why liberalism scares the bejeebus out of some people. Just reading this makes my skin crawl.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Mine as well
In fact it just makes me want to scream.
I think we should pass a law that everyone be required to wear helmets at all times.
A helmet would protect YOU!. While driving and anytime you are moving on public property. If it could save just one life....it would be worth it. Play violins now.
I'm only half stupid
How do you feel about laws
mandating seatbelt use?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I don't like them
The laws to be are less about public safety than they are about insurance costs.
I'm only half stupid
The likelihood of surviving a car crash
increases enormously if you wear a seatbelt. Thousands of deaths
could be avoided yearly if more people did:
So there's legitimate public safety reasons for these laws.
But more importantly, we don't argue that they are a restriction of our liberty, that they are outside of the bounds of governmental concern, that they infringe upon some nebulous right of personal expression. We understand that driving a motor vehicle is potentially dangerous, so we take sensible steps to mitigate the danger without losing the benefit of convenient transportation. Why can't we take sensible steps to mitigate the danger of smoking? And what's the benefit of smoking that we wish to retain?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
If we really want...
...to reduce car fatalities we should just require cars to top out at a maximum of 40 miles per hour, make that the highest speed limit anywhere in the US (so as to control older cars built prior to the law) and then begin a massive system of rail systems for long distance travel.
Far less fatalities, far more efficient in terms of resources, somewhat less efficient in terms of travel time but with wireless connectivity travel time is no longer unproductive time, far less pollution.
Of course we'll never do it. People loves their cars. God damn, people are idiots.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
lol
I figured that would be the general reaction. It's ingrained, it's instinctive.
And yet when you stop and think about it, we do this sort of nanny-state micromanaging all the time: make it illegal to drive without a seatbelt, make it illegal to drive while talking on a handheld cell phone, make it illegal to commit suicide, for heaven's sake. Why the uproar with smoking in particular? Why is smoking so widely accepted as natural, why is it immune from the regulation we apply without a second thought to other areas? Particularly given that smoking is so obviously destructive and costly, and that this is an unavoidable nature of its practice.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I'd like less nanny-state regulation in general
and think we have too much already. Don't need to make it worse than it is. Maybe the uproar is just because of that fact, not because of the topic under discussion.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
OK, well, I'm better now
but man you scared me.
Brendan, I can appreciate where you're coming from on this. Yes, smoking can lead to an early death and is bad for you in general. It stinks and it costs too much. Children should be discouraged from acquiring the habit.
But what you're proposing is a totalitarian government solution.
If the healthcare cost angle is what concerns you, pore over the numbers some more. The earlier death of smokers, while providing a short-term blip in the cost of healthcare, does mean that funds are not required for their longer-term care. Dying at 60 from lung cancer, perversely, can cost the heathcare/elder care system less than living to 85 does.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Nonsense
Prohibiting the sale of cigarettes is not at all totalitarian. I'm not advocating SWAT raids to catch closet smokers, I'm suggesting a nuanced plan to gradually eliminate smoking. Most of the legislative onus impacts the tobacco companies, not the consumer.
The monetary health care cost is part of what concerns me, and frankly I have a hard time believing that someone who dies slowly from cancer costs less than someone relatively healthy living until 85 (could you direct me to those studies?), but there are many hidden costs
to smoking beyond the obvious hospital expenses.
Beyond that, however, I think it's silly to allow a product that actively harms people. The cost in human suffering is tremendous. I just don't understand the knee-jerk reaction here: we regulate pesticides on crops but we can't regulate carcinogens in cigarettes? Any company that sold diet pills that lead to heart failure or deodorant that was found to cause cancer or whatever would be forced by the FDA to stop selling that product -- why don't these standards apply to the tobacco companies?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Cost Studies
Once upon a time, I was in a job that required me to keep current on tax law and related developments including things such as Social Security and Medicare costs and funding, etc. I read reams of quite interesting analyses but never with the inkling that I might have to be able to quote them chapter and verse ;} Of course this was before the invention of the internet so even though I cannot remember the titles of the studies, it seemed unlikely that I'd be able to find anything online. But lo, seek and ye shall find.
Some studies by the Congressional Research Service, an arm of the Library of Congress:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/download/crs_97-1053.pdf
The meatiest bits appears to be in a report published in 1991 called "The Costs of Poor Health Habits" by Manning etc, per the footnotes, but it is out of print and not available online. This may not be the exact set of studies I have seen in the past, but for the purposes of providing backup to my obviously unexpected point they should suffice.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Thanks
Not sure the numbers match what I've been reading elsewhere: for example, they quote: "the Federal government saves about $29 billion per year in net health and retirement costs (accounting for effects on tax payments). These include a saving in retirement (largely social security benefits) of about $40 billion and in nursing home costs (largely medicaid) of about $8 billion. Costs include about $7 billion for medical care under 65 and about $2 billion for medical care over 65; the remaining $10 billion cost is the loss in contributions to social security and general revenues that fund medicaid... The federal government also collects $5.6 billion in cigarette taxes."
The cost for medical care is lower than the $50b/yr from the Rice study because they take into account premature death -- fair enough, and a good point. But the Rice study, while a high number at the time, is low by modern standards; for example, from here
, we get: "An estimated $92 billion (average for 1997-2001) in productivity losses occurs annually from deaths due to smoking. The economic costs of smoking are more than $167 billion, including an additional $75.5 billion in smoking-related medical expenditures." Naturally the numbers for $$ saved on SS payouts have probably also changed, but I doubt that offsets the increased costs that are now attributed to smoking. You're right, my initial thought was that premature deaths can't possible compensate for smoking costs, and based on your cite and the more modern statistics I guess it's not as clear as I had assumed, but my impression is that it's still a net loss when you take into account all the related costs of smoking.
I would also submit that regardless of the financial costs the human costs of early mortality are sufficient to justify my proposal.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Americans living longer
is a huge problem for SS, Medicare, Hospitals, and the Heathcare system in general.
In terms of financial benefit (in cold stark terms) it would be better if people were not living longer.
So in terms of pure dollars and cents it would be better if folks stopped living to be 80 and 90 years old.
I'm only half stupid
Other way
Better to leagalize all drugs, without restriction, so that tobacco (one of the most harmful ones -- certainly has the highest risk of death from usage) will become old-fashioned and unpopular.
There is no Constitutional way to ban drugs, anyway. They don't affect anyone but the user -- unlike the user's actions, which are already covered by statutes against public intoxication, disorderly conduct, theft, DUI, etc.
Cigarette banning highlights an important distinction between liberals and progressives, the former being motivated by principle and the latter by the justness of the end results. As a liberal, I feel my right to regulate my body is absolute, and unlike progressives (the prohibition wing of the left), this fundamental human right outweighs any public health concern. As far as I'm concerned, progressives can go join the Republicans, who share a similar ends-based approach to policy.
Socialisme ou Barbarie!
Oddly enough
I'm in favor of legalizing pot, although not hard drugs. I guess I lump tobacco in with the more dangerous drugs, as per your first sentence.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
that's some strong words
though I like what you said about progressives :) For all their supposed personal liberty rhetoric, they are very comfortable with serious government intervention into those liberties as long as it's the liberties they don't care about.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Interesting thing about smoking, though.
Among the dwindling number of people I know who smoke, every one of them wants to quit at some point. Most of them say they'd be happy if cigarettes were outlawed because it'd be easier for them to quit.
So where's the libertarian angle there? The people are demanding the right to be banned from smoking!
My perception, as a non-smoker, is that I simply don't want to pay any extra healthcare costs (public or private) or in any way be inconvenienced by the smell or litter of cigarettes. If that can be done without banning them, I say live and let live.
What makes you think
that progressives are the prohibition wing? Looking at the places that have instituted smoking bans, they run from progressive (California) to liberal (New York) to conservative (Louisiana).
If anything, I find progressives are more libertarian on this issue than other liberals. In my experience, at least. Where are you drawing your observation from?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
For the most part.
Now that I think about it, I can't even say that with certainty. I've noticed no significant overlap between pro-/anti-ban and liberal/conservative, or vice-versa.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
The prohibition party
that created "Prohibition
" is actually a religious group with some progressive intentions. A mix between the left and right.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Agreed!
It seems like it's backwards. Liberals are the prohibition wing. Progressives are more libertarian.
I'm only half stupid
While I generally agree...
...there are certainly arguments that various drugs can affect others besides the user. Second hand smoke is an obvious example. For another, well have you ever seen someone on PCP. Jeebus.
Personally I'd favor legalizing pretty much all drugs but maybe require some sort of class or psychological exam to certify a person for using some kinds. In that category would only be a handful of the worst drugs: heroin, PCP, crack. Maybe an easier certification to license people to use psychedelics. None for most light drugs like pot.
I'd still favor strong restrictions against using while operating in certain professional capacities and driving.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
There was a great little article
musing on the growth of smoking bans, by one of my favorite writers: Andrei Codrescu. He was waxing on Louisiana's new ban, and talked a bit about his reaction to bans elsewhere:
The whole essay
is well-worth a read. No hardcore analysis, just a series of impressions, but that's his style.
Call me more libertarian on this issue, but I really don't like the idea of a smoking ban. As someone fiercely repulsed by cigarette smoke, I feel where you're coming from, but I also know I have plenty of my own vices that don't hold up to any more scrutiny. Sure, alcohol isn't as addictive, but it costs quite a few lives every year.
There's a fierce balance, though, between trying to curb the tobacco companies from exploiting some markets (like children) and making the product more desirable by doing so. Blech.
I'm fine with banning it from my own house, and I'm fine with banning it from indoor public places. Banning outdoor smoking in public places makes no sense to me (a local college recently banned it from their campus, for example). Banning it in restaurants/bars makes me extremely uncomfortable: if I'm a restaurant owner and I want to cater to a smoking clientele, why should I stop? Just because other people who may never patronize my establishment anyway won't feel uncomfortable? I don't get it.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I agree with you
there can be some common sense bans though even indoor public places could have special places set aside. Otherwise people should be free to slowly kill themselves.
It seems like the same liberals who are for assisted suicide are for banning smoking even in the instances where it only hurts the user... One part of it is to legislate their own morality and the other is sticking it to the Big Tobacco corporations.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Let me ask a question:
if you own a restaraunt should you be able to place jars of ether on the tables? The fumes from the ether will of course affect, in some cases drastically, even life threateningly, your patrons.
More to the point should you tolerate others coming in and setting up their own jars of ether?
I don;t think there has ever been a fundamental right to spew toxins at other people, regardless of private or public property. The reason smoking can be banned on a campus is the same reason that a student is allowed to throw tear gas canisters around the quad.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I'm not sure that comparison makes sense.
Smoking is a legal activity, and restaurants can advertise smoking or non-smoking in order to attract like-minded patrons. If ether were legal, and if the patrons know that your restaurant is ether-friendly, I'd see no reason why the restaurants couldn't set up jars of ether.
On the other issue, my example about banning cigarette smoke on campus bothered me because it's banning smoking outdoors, as well. I see no possible argument along the lines of 1b. or 1c. here, insofar as there's no medical way that a smoker walking between classes is going to have significant impact on the air you breathe. Many places ban smoking within X feet of a building, because vestibules can trap air. But in an open field? I don't buy it.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Thought experiment for those upset by this
I have a new product I would like to sell. You eat it, and it makes you feel calm and happy for about a half hour. It also reduces your appetite and consequently helps you stay thin! The side affects are mild: an enormously increased risk of cancer and a sharply reduced life expectancy. Oh, and once you start it's extremely difficult to quit. Also, the product harms anyone else in the immediate vicinity when you ingest it. I'm prepared to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising to explain why using this product makes you cool, and I'll happily contribute to politicians to influence local laws. I'll even pay doctors to promote it on TV!
Whaddya think? No reason I shouldn't be able to sell that, right?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
You're selling BigMacs? (n/t)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Heh
This country was built by tobacco, ladies and gentlemen. The tobacco lobby is very powerful. Tobacco sales generate tremendous income for the states. If you mess with tobacco, you're messing with America.
Ok well perhaps I have overstated things here.... but still.
I'm all for legislation that protects me from you, and you from me. I'm not so much in favor of legislation that protects me from me.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Yes...
...another charming legacy of the south. Stupid Lincoln.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Big macs make you thin?
Oh frabjous day! Wait, then why is McDonalds switching cooking oils?
Seriously though, if NYC can ban the serving of food containing trans fat, why can't we ban the selling of a cancer-causing product? Say my magic pill is 90% lead... you'd have no problem with me selling it?
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
the trigger happy
Ban obsessed totalitarian NYC should not be a great example to follow.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Smoking has a long history
as does alcohol, heroin, and the coca leaf.
Big Macs do not.
Advertising for cigarettes is practically gone.
If the war is a media/educational one for health, then make the case that way.
Not with more laws, regulations, rules, committes and paper shuffing.
There are other health causes that are much more dire and do not involve choice. Tuberculosis, immunity to anti-biotics, that could use attention.
I'm only half stupid
More dire?
Approximately 1 in 5
deaths is smoking related. This is a solvable problem! Why aren't we allowed to legislate or regulate smoking, we do it for basically all other products.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
TB Is contagious
spreading and difficult to treat. Dr.'s Without Borders
Smoking is a choice which is becoming less and less chic. Tuberculosis is contagious and serious threat according to the WHO.
I don't care for seat belt laws, or smoking laws. But life goes on. If I want to open up a business where people can smoke, why is that your business?
If you want to legislate the survival of the human species re smoking that is certainly your right. I disagree.
And just for the record I used to keep a loaded gun in my bedroom, behind the door, when I lived in rural Washington.
If I want to drive without a seatbelt, smoke a cigarette and carry a gun, why is it your business. (just for the sake of argument)
I'm only half stupid
do you smoke
or something? :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I used to
I'm only half stupid
Great topic, by the way.
There are definitely some major inconsistencies in the ways we treat public health, consumer advocacy, government roles, etc.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Heh
I thought it might get people talking, and maybe even arguing with someone besides Ender =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Freedom vs Safety
(Did the site just shut down for everyone for about 20 minutes or was it just me?)
This is the classic case of liberty as Mills defines it, "your rights end where another's nose begins." Of course the air pollution and health risks posed by second-hand smoke make smoking a legitimate candidate for banning in public areas (more specifically, enclosed public areas).
What Brendan is suggesting doesn't fall into this intrusion of others' rights, since it is a consensual harm/risk (for the individual smoker when others are not effected). For that reason, I believe it is an intrusion on personal liberties.
Force the industry to make a safer cigarette, tax the hell out of them, and raise insurance premiums for smokers, but do not lessen freedom or else we will have another drug war on our hands.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
it did
The server apparently likes to have database problems... Fortunately it was just 20 minutes.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I love a guy with common sense.
Your rights vs liberties comparison.
It is always odd that when states need more money they always go for the "sin" tax. Why! Because lots of people sin and it generates income.
I'm only half stupid
Yes, and a tax on cigarettes
is about as regressive as they come.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
So let's go for education
The tobacco companies seem to be doing a decent job of it.
I'm only half stupid
How do you propose to recoup the lost tax revenue?
I think that they are fairly substantial at this point which is also, I believe, a primary reason that you haven't yet seen an outright ban on them already ... oh yea and the lessons we learned from that whole prohibition thing with alcohol.
I'm a non-smoker, BTW.
I was curious so I dug up the following link at R. J. Reynolds
. The tax revenue that you will need to somehow backfill is not insignificant. It stands at a little over $24B per year. And since smoking is on the increase, so is the tax revenue.
Just something for the tax and spend libs to think about ahead of time.
(Yea yea, I know that the Republicans have been spending just as much ...)
You might find these interesting too:
Tobacco Revenue Ticker
Hyprocisy of Raising Cigarette Excise Taxes
Here's a quote:
So there you have it, RJR is standing up for the little guy against these regressive tax strategies. When was the last time you agreed with RJR on anything?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4This goes along with Purpleface's point
about the net cost of smoking, which we were debating above
. The federal tax revenue from smoking is quoted as $5.6 billion, which is presumably somewhat more nowadays, but the remainder must be state and local.
I completely agree that cigarette taxes are extremely regressive.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Just as stupid as invading Iraq
This is great. Prohibition failed with alcohol, it is failing with drugs now, and you want to try it again, so we can all see it fail again. You acknowledge that there will be a black market in cigarettes. But it doesn't show up in your tallying of the costs of smoking. What is the cost of giving people a glorious new opportunity to earn money criminally? The criminal gangs who got their start from Prohibition are still operating today, more than 70 years after repeal. And there are newer gangs now too! What is the cost to law enforcement? What is the cost of innocents caught in the crossfire? What is the cost of breeding even more contempt for law?
You say you don't want jail as a punishment for smokers, but this proposal will have to live in a context where illegal drug use does in fact entail prison time. It won't make sense for pot smokers to go to jail when tobacco smokers don't. This kind of giant illogicality in the law will not last forever. How much support will there be for weakening other drug laws to match this, versus stiffening the tobacco penalties to match existing drug laws? You are starting a process which can easily go beyond your careful limits, pushed by people who can see profit and power in demagoguery. (Hence my subject line.) Do you think the American people are not susceptible to this sort of thing? (If you do, I have to ask where you have been the last six years.)
the number of people in the US who smoke will sharply decrease
A statement that you do not and cannot support. The ones who are still smoking have dealt with restriction and social disapproval galore, and they are still smoking. Illegality will stop some, but you have no idea how many.
If the program is successful at preventing children from beginning smoking, the practice could die out within a generation.
Because this worked so well to eradicate smoking marijuana.
The key difference here is that using alcohol in moderation is not inevitably harmful (wine may actually be mildly beneficial). Smoking in moderation is potentially lethal.
How will this affect the success or failure of the new prohibition? People didn't break the law because drinking was not that bad for them. Alcohol prohibition came about because a lot of people did drink to excess, did get addicted, and did ruin lives -- their own and their family's.
Prohibition has failed before, over and over again. It will fail again with tobacco. We have a reasonable policy about tobacco now: regulate to preserve the health of non-smokers, and pile on the taxes. Your cure is worse than the disease.
A few points
First, I'm in favor of legalizing pot, so hopefully that covers some of your concerns there. I consider tobacco to be substantially more dangerous and harmful than pot or alcohol. Second, most of the enforcement I envision here is targeted at the production and distribution of cigarettes, not the consumer. I'm willing to tolerate some hard-core hidden smokers rather than engage in the SWAT-style excesses that characterize our failing drug war. But just as most Americans don't smoke pot daily, I think it's fair to say that most Americans wouldn't illegally purchase cigarettes. Third, the reason we failed to eradicate smoking marijuana is that the government's approach was (is) fundamentally dishonest and illogical, driven by dubious moral standards rather than common sense. Naturally my proposal suffers from no such shortcomings =)
Finally, I heartily disagree that we have a reasonable policy about tobacco now. We don't regulate all that much to preserve the health of non-smokers (what about kids raised by smokers, for example?), and those taxes we're piling on are extremely regressive. We could curtail the number of avoidable deaths due to smoking; we simply choose not to. I don't think that's sane.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson