Should We Ban Tobacco?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Cigarettes kill more people than cocaine, heroin, meth and all other illegal drugs combined. Imagine if they were illegal.

By Tony Newman, CNN

Cigarettes kill; 400,000 people die prematurely every year from smoking. When we analyze the harm from drugs, there is no doubt that cigarettes are the worst.

They kill more people than cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and all other illegal drugs combined.

More than 800,000 people are arrested every year for marijuana, the vast majority for possession, yet all the data from studies that compare the two substances show that cigarettes are more harmful to an individual's health. If we make these other drugs illegal, shouldn't we outlaw the leading killer?

Considering how we deal with less harmful drugs, making cigarettes illegal seems logical. Over the past decade, we have seen, in states from California to New York, increasing restrictions on when and where people can smoke -- and even momentum toward tobacco prohibition.

Smoking is banned in bars and restaurants and on some university campuses. People can now be fired from their jobs because they can't give up smoking. We have seen parents denied adoption rights if they smoke. In some cities, it is nearly impossible to smoke anywhere besides your own home.

The Drug Policy Alliance sponsored a Zogby Poll in 2006, and we were shocked to find that 45 percent of those polled supported making cigarettes illegal within the next 10 years. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, it's more than 50 percent.

But with all of the good intentions in the world, outlawing cigarettes would be just as disastrous as the prohibition on other drugs. After all, people would still smoke, just as they still use other drugs that are prohibited, from marijuana to cocaine. But now, in addition to the harm of smoking, we would find a whole range of "collateral consequences" that come along with prohibition.

A huge number of people who smoke would continue to do so, but now they would be considered criminals. We would have parents promising their kids that they will stop smoking but still sneaking a smoke.

We would have smokers hiding their habit and smoking in alleys and dark corners, afraid of being caught using the illegal substance. We would have cops using precious time and resources to hassle and arrest cigarette smokers. Our prison overcrowding crisis would rise to an unprecedented level with "addicts" and casual cigarette smokers alike getting locked up.

We would have a black market, with outlaws taking the place of delis and supermarkets and stepping in to meet the demand and provide the desired drug.

Instead of buying your cigarettes in a legally sanctioned place, you would have to hit the streets to pick up your fix. The cigarette trade would provide big revenue to "drug dealers," just as illegal drugs do today. There would be shootouts in the streets and killings over the right to sell the prohibited tobacco plant.

We have tried prohibiting cigarettes in some state prisons, like in California, and we have seen that smoking continues, with cigarettes traded illicitly. There is a violent black market that fills the void and leads to unnecessary deaths over access and the inflated profits.

Luckily, no one is proposing making cigarettes illegal. On the contrary, our public health campaign around cigarettes has been a model of success compared with our results with other prohibited drugs. By placing high taxes on cigarettes, restricting locations where one can smoke and banning certain kinds of advertising, we have seen a significant decline in the number of people who smoke.

Instead of giving teens "reefer madness"-style propaganda, we have treated young people with respect and given them honest education about the harm of cigarettes, and we have been rewarded with fewer young people smoking today than ever before.

Although we should celebrate our success and continue to encourage people to cut back or give up smoking, let's not get carried away and think that prohibition would eliminate smoking.

We need to realize that drugs, from cigarettes to marijuana to alcohol, will always be consumed, whether they are legal or illegal. Although drugs have health consequences and dangers, making them illegal -- and keeping them illegal -- will only bring additional death and suffering.

Don't just take my word for it. Take it from the news anchor who was called the most trusted man in America, Walter Cronkite.

Here is what he said about prohibition and our war on drugs: "I covered the Vietnam War. I remember the lies that were told, the lives that were lost -- and the shock when, 20 years after the war ended, former Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara admitted he knew it was a mistake all along. …

"And I cannot help but wonder how many more lives, and how much more money, will be wasted before another Robert McNamara admits what is plain for all to see: The war on drugs is a failure."

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/14172...we_ban_tobacco/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Should We Ban Tobacco?

Yes. Filthy, disgusting habit, although not as bad as smoking marijuana, which should stay banned.

[Pooky 3,795]

Should We Ban Tobacco?

Yes. Filthy, disgusting habit, although not as bad as smoking marijuana, which should stay banned.

Agreed. Smoking stinks. Smoking anything stinks. It's banned in my house and within 25 yards of the house.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Pooky

[Ban Hammer 13,366]

who's gonna pay for the tricycle motors health care then?

[Danno 1,228]

Hell no you don't ban it, people have a right to smoke if they want too, if you don't like it, don't smoke.

For every logical reason you can suggest for why WE SHOULD BAN IT, I can insist you ban other foods or products first as they are harming even more people.

I think someone is seriously "cookin the books" on those number to begin with.

I have known a lot of smokers in my family and friends, I don't know one that has died from smoking.

Common sense would tell you smoking can't be good for you but I have seen a lot more people way-laid from being fat or drinking to much.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Hell no you don't ban it, people have a right to smoke if they want too, if you don't like it, don't smoke.

For every logical reason you can suggest for why WE SHOULD BAN IT, I can insist you ban other foods or products first as they are harming even more people.

I think someone is seriously "cookin the books" on those number to begin with.

I have known a lot of smokers in my family and friends, I don't know one that has died from smoking.

Common sense would tell you smoking can't be good for you but I have seen a lot more people way-laid from being fat or drinking to much.

Don't ban smoking. Just ban the sale and cultivation of tobacco within the US. Ban the sale of all smoking paraphernalia and accessories. Kill two birds with one stone. No more "smoke shops" that don't sell tobacco. No more rolling papers. No more cigarette lighters. No more "bubblers". Make it hard enough, and nobody will smoke anything.

[natty bumppo 297]

Hell no you don't ban it, people have a right to smoke if they want too, if you don't like it, don't smoke.

For every logical reason you can suggest for why WE SHOULD BAN IT, I can insist you ban other foods or products first as they are harming even more people.

I think someone is seriously "cookin the books" on those number to begin with.

I have known a lot of smokers in my family and friends, I don't know one that has died from smoking.

Common sense would tell you smoking can't be good for you but I have seen a lot more people way-laid from being fat or drinking to much.

Don't ban smoking. Just ban the sale and cultivation of tobacco within the US. Ban the sale of all smoking paraphernalia and accessories. Kill two birds with one stone. No more "smoke shops" that don't sell tobacco. No more rolling papers. No more cigarette lighters. No more "bubblers". Make it hard enough, and nobody will smoke anything.

just ban the sale and cultivation ...

ever hear of cannabis? It already been down that path

[G&R 0]

what about the CHildren . taxes from smokes fund schools in cali. then schools will need another bailout for over worked teacher . 2 months a year off for most . Black market for smoke becoming common place here only 4 $ a pack from latin guy at work . just one more thing coming across the souther boarder . besides Guns drugs and thugs

[Wei&Shu(Joe) 2]

Hell no you don't ban it, people have a right to smoke if they want too, if you don't like it, don't smoke.

For every logical reason you can suggest for why WE SHOULD BAN IT, I can insist you ban other foods or products first as they are harming even more people.

I think someone is seriously "cookin the books" on those number to begin with.

I have known a lot of smokers in my family and friends, I don't know one that has died from smoking.

Common sense would tell you smoking can't be good for you but I have seen a lot more people way-laid from being fat or drinking to much.

That is great logic. Because you know a smoker who didn't die from a smoking related illness, therefore no (or fewer than reported) smoker(s) die(s) from smoking related illness. I don't think that anyone has ever claimed that all smokers die from smoking related illness but, do tell, what are your qualifications to diagnose smoking related illness? Did you personally perform the autopsies on these friends and relatives or did they just not die of smoking related illness because that's what you want to be true? Was it emotionally trying to perform all those autopsies on people you knew?

The statistics on obesity and alcohol related illnesses are available for you to compare, have you? Obviously not or you wouldn't have made that false statement about the relative morbidity and mortality compared to smoking. Is your block so representative of America that you can extrapolate your tiny experience to the entire country/world. Why do you suppose your tiny, uncontrolled, casual observations are so much more valid than controlled data collection form a huge part of the population? If you can tell us the secret it could save a lot of research dollars. Then again, your technique is great for coming up with the answer you decide ahead of time but pretty poor at discovering truth. If the truth doesn't matter to you it is a very valuable way of thinking.

And what would be even one food more dangerous than smoking tobacco? You might note an important distinction between food, essential to life but, like everything else, capable of being misused and tobacco, not in any way essential to life and useful for 3 purposes, calming the cravings of those addicted, causing disease, and creating a class of rich drug pushers who manipulate their product for the greatest addictive potential, even when that makes the product more dangerous. Beyond that, it is really useless.

I'm personally not in favor of a ban. Smoking should be allowed in settings where only smokers will receive a significant dose of the toxin. You can bathe in toxic waste if you want but if you bathe the neighbors or the kids, then you crossed a line. Then cigarette taxes should reflect the true cost to society of allowing people to smoke. It would price out many users and those who still chose to smoke would no longer be a burden on society in monetary terms as they are now. Cigarettes would be expensive but life and health insurance would be cheaper because the huge additional costs from smokers would be fully covered by the taxes on cigarettes. Another option is to keep cigarette prices lower but exclude all smokers from life/health insurance and only offer them health services for which they pay in full.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Wei&Shu(Joe)

[thepizzadude 26]

Then how would the corporations that sell cigarettes and help RUN the country make any money off tobacco anymore? And...what about all the taxes the govt get from the sale of cigarettes. And the marijuana question it'll never get legalized because the govt cant really make anything off of it, as long as the ordinary person could grow it, why buy it.

And they make so much money for the government machine fighting the "war on drugs"

Edited August 4, 2009 by thepizzadude

[ScottThuy 140]

dont ban tobacco, ban filters! require all cigarettes to be unfiltered... all or nothing.... just like the good old days...

[G&R 0]

Hell no you don't ban it, people have a right to smoke if they want too, if you don't like it, don't smoke.

For every logical reason you can suggest for why WE SHOULD BAN IT, I can insist you ban other foods or products first as they are harming even more people.

I think someone is seriously "cookin the books" on those number to begin with.

I have known a lot of smokers in my family and friends, I don't know one that has died from smoking.

Common sense would tell you smoking can't be good for you but I have seen a lot more people way-laid from being fat or drinking to much.

That is great logic. Because you know a smoker who didn't die from a smoking related illness, therefore no (or fewer than reported) smoker(s) die(s) from smoking related illness. I don't think that anyone has ever claimed that all smokers die from smoking related illness but, do tell, what are your qualifications to diagnose smoking related illness? Did you personally perform the autopsies on these friends and relatives or did they just not die of smoking related illness because that's what you want to be true? Was it emotionally trying to perform all those autopsies on people you knew?

The statistics on obesity and alcohol related illnesses are available for you to compare, have you? Obviously not or you wouldn't have made that false statement about the relative morbidity and mortality compared to smoking. Is your block so representative of America that you can extrapolate your tiny experience to the entire country/world. Why do you suppose your tiny, uncontrolled, casual observations are so much more valid than controlled data collection form a huge part of the population? If you can tell us the secret it could save a lot of research dollars. Then again, your technique is great for coming up with the answer you decide ahead of time but pretty poor at discovering truth. If the truth doesn't matter to you it is a very valuable way of thinking.

And what would be even one food more dangerous than smoking tobacco? You might note an important distinction between food, essential to life but, like everything else, capable of being misused and tobacco, not in any way essential to life and useful for 3 purposes, calming the cravings of those addicted, causing disease, and creating a class of rich drug pushers who manipulate their product for the greatest addictive potential, even when that makes the product more dangerous. Beyond that, it is really useless.

I'm personally not in favor of a ban. Smoking should be allowed in settings where only smokers will receive a significant dose of the toxin. You can bathe in toxic waste if you want but if you bathe the neighbors or the kids, then you crossed a line. Then cigarette taxes should reflect the true cost to society of allowing people to smoke. It would price out many users and those who still chose to smoke would no longer be a burden on society in monetary terms as they are now. Cigarettes would be expensive but life and health insurance would be cheaper because the huge additional costs from smokers would be fully covered by the taxes on cigarettes. Another option is to keep cigarette prices lower but exclude all smokers from life/health insurance and only offer them health services for which they pay in full.

yes and the others with a vise will need to pay full fair too for heath care . all drugs , fats and risk that a person might take. like speeding or even skate boarding . . sounds like big job to keep track of.

thats right B.H.O. can spend another billion or so for that too.

[nowhereman 1]

I totally support banning smoking in restaurants & bars, but I enjoy a good cigar in the privacy of my own back yard so the answer is hell no!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Hell no you don't ban it, people have a right to smoke if they want too, if you don't like it, don't smoke.

For every logical reason you can suggest for why WE SHOULD BAN IT, I can insist you ban other foods or products first as they are harming even more people.

I think someone is seriously "cookin the books" on those number to begin with.

I have known a lot of smokers in my family and friends, I don't know one that has died from smoking.

Common sense would tell you smoking can't be good for you but I have seen a lot more people way-laid from being fat or drinking to much.

Don't ban smoking. Just ban the sale and cultivation of tobacco within the US. Ban the sale of all smoking paraphernalia and accessories. Kill two birds with one stone. No more "smoke shops" that don't sell tobacco. No more rolling papers. No more cigarette lighters. No more "bubblers". Make it hard enough, and nobody will smoke anything.

just ban the sale and cultivation ...

ever hear of cannabis? It already been down that path

Has it, really? When I inbibed, I had no problem getting weed, anywhere, anytime. As long as it is done with a wink and a nod, nobody is stopping anything. But, if there are no "smoke shops". If even tobacco is illegal, then the gateway drugs that tobacco and marijuana are, will not be available. Hippies are just kidding themselves. Marijuana, just like cell phones, cause brain damage. I can tell by watching them try and drive all day long.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I guess few people bothered to even read the article, which poignantly compared outlawing tobacco to our current laws against marijuana.