Cigarette Ban

Sparki55
Guru
Posts: 5434
Joined: Feb 24th, 2013, 1:38 pm

Cigarette Ban

Post by Sparki55 »

Poster wants to ban cigarettes; claims BC will save the cost in healthcare and fire fighting. My opinion on saving money spent on healthcare is that people will still get sick and die with or without cigarettes, smoking may speed up the process and they die sooner costing the system less. If anyone has some numbers on the subject please post them.

Link to the storey:
https://www.castanet.net/news/Letters/203189/Cigarette-ban
gman313
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3521
Joined: Sep 15th, 2008, 8:03 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by gman313 »

the challenge of course is we know prohibition doesn't work and simply opens up an illegal market

While I agree with the poster in theory society has proven the ban doesn't work
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 63555
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Fancy »

Bootlegging cigarettes will rise - already a problem in some countries.
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
Bnoel
Fledgling
Posts: 187
Joined: Jul 1st, 2017, 5:57 am

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Bnoel »

Governments profit handsomely off tobacco and liquor. If the revenue did not exceed the expenses then it would be illegal. If you want to ban anything, make it sugar and saturated fats. Obesity costs taxpayers.
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 36407
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Glacier »

Ya, banning sugar would go over well. You may as well ban driving. You cannot ban something that 98% of population uses, especially given the fact that sugar substitutes are worse for your health.

15% of people smoke, and of course they are irresponsible and ignorant. In this day and age, you have to be both just to pick up the habit in the first place.
"No one has the right to apologize for something they did not do, and no one has the right to accept an apology if the wrong was not done to them."
- Douglas Murray
Bnoel
Fledgling
Posts: 187
Joined: Jul 1st, 2017, 5:57 am

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Bnoel »

Sugar causes far more health issues than smoking . So if 98% of the population smoked it would be ok then by your logic. Anyone who let's themselves become obese has to be ignorant and irresponsible.
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 63555
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Fancy »

Don't forget the fire fighting.
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 36407
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Glacier »

Bnoel wrote:Sugar causes far more health issues than smoking . So if 98% of the population smoked it would be ok then by your logic. Anyone who let's themselves become obese has to be ignorant and irresponsible.

Getting obese is one thing, but putting a little sugar in my pie is another. I hardly eat sugar myself, but banning it would be ridiculous because it would lead to people using artificial sugar in their pie, which not only tastes like horse urine, but leads to even more obesity.
"No one has the right to apologize for something they did not do, and no one has the right to accept an apology if the wrong was not done to them."
- Douglas Murray
User avatar
neilsimon
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 852
Joined: Aug 13th, 2015, 7:35 am

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by neilsimon »

gman313 wrote:the challenge of course is we know prohibition doesn't work and simply opens up an illegal market

While I agree with the poster in theory society has proven the ban doesn't work

Certainly the ban wouldn't work completely as some would still smoke. Banning smoking isn't quite like other prohibitions. The most obvious difference is that it is very obvious if someone is smoking in a public or semi-public place. It's actually quite hard to hide. Secondly, smokers consume throughout the day. Most smokers who go to work do not do without smoking until they get home again, they take frequent breaks to satisfy their habit. Any ban would essentially require those who continue to smoke to work from home, or learn to handle 8+ hours of not smoking on a daily basis. Most other prohibited substances or those which have been in the past are ones we use for relatively short periods of time, condensed together and possibly away from public gaze.

So a ban on smoking would essentially make it hard for smokers to continue to be such while still spending time in public. Prohibition would probably reduce the amount of smokers by a lot and therefore reduce the harm that smoking causes. I also think it would cause a huge increase in use of nicotine patches, gum, etc.

That said, I strongly feel that we should not prevent people smoking if that is what they want to do. We can limit the harm they do to others, but if someone wants to puff a cancer-stick and kill themselves, that is their choice. To try to force other people to live by my values, especially in cases where they are not hurting anyone else but themselves, is taking authoritarianism far too far and heading towards fascism.
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 63555
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Fancy »

Smokers harm more than themselves - that's the trouble.
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
neilsimon
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 852
Joined: Aug 13th, 2015, 7:35 am

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by neilsimon »

Fancy wrote:Smokers harm more than themselves - that's the trouble.

True, and we need to fight that, but it is unfair to impose a blanket ban on all smoking to just fight the actions of a few. Do we ban drinking because a few idiots get violent when drunk? How about banning cold medicine since some people have accidents because they are drowsy after taking it? How about banning wet-wipes because some people flush them down the toilet? Or tampons too? Or driving because some drivers get into accidents?
User avatar
GordonH
Grumpy Old Bleep
Posts: 34324
Joined: Oct 4th, 2008, 7:21 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by GordonH »

Cigarette ban would be damn hard to enforce, I suggest installing a HD dash camera if get digital evidence hand it over to proper authorities.
Last edited by GordonH on Aug 1st, 2017, 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don't give a damn whether people/posters like me or dislike me, I'm not on earth to win any popularity contests.
birdsarentreal.com
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 63555
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Fancy »

I'd rather not compare apples to oranges.
From the States:
http://www.greenecoservices.com/taxpaye ... -and-fire/

According to the National Fire Protection Association, cigarette-caused fires result in more than 1,000 civilian deaths, 3,000 critical injuries (many among firefighters), and $400 million in direct property damage each year. (Source: Albany Times Union, June 13, 2003)
According to the 2006 U.S. Fire Experience report, there is an estimated fire in an outside property every 38 seconds. Injuries, deaths, and property damages are all results of this problem every year because of the homes nearby in the wildfires path. Overall, smoldering cigarettes are the leading cause of fire deaths in the United States.

Sobering facts.
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 63555
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by Fancy »

neilsimon wrote:How about banning wet-wipes because some people flush them down the toilet? Or tampons too?

There have been a lot of recalls and discontinuations of products that have injured people. I certainly wouldn't compare the above to the destruction that cigarettes can cause with forest fires and the loss of life - human and animal.
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
neilsimon
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 852
Joined: Aug 13th, 2015, 7:35 am

Re: Cigarette Ban

Post by neilsimon »

Fancy wrote:I'd rather not compare apples to oranges.
From the States:
http://www.greenecoservices.com/taxpaye ... -and-fire/

According to the National Fire Protection Association, cigarette-caused fires result in more than 1,000 civilian deaths, 3,000 critical injuries (many among firefighters), and $400 million in direct property damage each year. (Source: Albany Times Union, June 13, 2003)
According to the 2006 U.S. Fire Experience report, there is an estimated fire in an outside property every 38 seconds. Injuries, deaths, and property damages are all results of this problem every year because of the homes nearby in the wildfires path. Overall, smoldering cigarettes are the leading cause of fire deaths in the United States.

Sobering facts.

So, maybe ban outdoor smoking and smoking while driving in areas where there is a high risk of fire. Also, maybe put it to the cigarette companies to try to find a way to reduce the likelihood of starting a fire from a lit cigarette. There are less drastic solutions which can allow us to manage the risk without needlessly telling people what they can and cannot do.
Last edited by neilsimon on Aug 1st, 2017, 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “Fire Watch 2017”