Cigarette Ban

[neilsimon]

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.

I was not comparing them in terms of damage, just pointing out that there are other products which through improper use can cause problems too.

[Fancy]

Yes we all know products can cause problems - especially if used improperly. Hardly does any product cause the widespread carnage that one cigarette can do by starting a wildfire. Banning cigarettes in public areas and parks - already in place. Penticton just issued a press release regarding no off road vehicles and no smoking as well. The law is there - people need to start reporting those that are endangering others and get the message out there.

[neilsimon]

Yes we all know products can cause problems - especially if used improperly. Hardly does any product cause the widespread carnage that one cigarette can do by starting a wildfire. Banning cigarettes in public areas and parks - already in place. Penticton just issued a press release regarding no off road vehicles and no smoking as well. The law is there - people need to start reporting those that are endangering others and get the message out there.

Great, so lets start enforcing that law. And I think we should add a ban on smoking in a vehicle within a high risk area. Maybe at the same time we could ask cigarette companies to look into ways they can improve things.

[Silverstarqueen]

There are many ways that those addicted could get their fix, it doesn't have to be from a burning cigarette (e.g. lozenges, gum, patch,vapor-paks, e-cigs). If the cigarettes were not sold everywhere, and these alternate means were available (as they are now), it would greatly reduce the harm without anyone having an excuse as to why they have to ever light a cigarette.Cigarette companies could definitely improve their role in destroying people's health by not making and selling tobacco products.If they cared at all.

[Bpeep]

We should spend millions of dollars per city of tax money building safe smoking sites .

[Sparki55]

There are many ways that those addicted could get their fix, it doesn't have to be from a burning cigarette (e.g. lozenges, gum, patch,vapor-paks, e-cigs). If the cigarettes were not sold everywhere, and these alternate means were available (as they are now), it would greatly reduce the harm without anyone having an excuse as to why they have to ever light a cigarette.Cigarette companies could definitely improve their role in destroying people's health by not making and selling tobacco products.If they cared at all.

The way you see this is kinda messed up. Assuming people smoke only because they are addicted makes as much sense as saying people who drink occasionally are alcoholics. Some people choose to smoke from time to time; a nice cigar on vacation, at a milestone event, poker games.
You can't just go around banning things people enjoy. I'm very confused how the government ever thought it was their duty to ban any substance, or control it via prescriptions.

[gman313]

The way you see this is kinda messed up. Assuming people smoke only because they are addicted makes as much sense as saying people who drink occasionally are alcoholics. Some people choose to smoke from time to time; a nice cigar on vacation, at a milestone event, poker games.
You can't just go around banning things people enjoy. I'm very confused how the government ever thought it was their duty to ban any substance, or control it via prescriptions.

The VAST majority of tobacco products sold are to addicts.

[Silverstarqueen]

There are many ways that those addicted could get their fix, it doesn't have to be from a burning cigarette (e.g. lozenges, gum, patch,vapor-paks, e-cigs). If the cigarettes were not sold everywhere, and these alternate means were available (as they are now), it would greatly reduce the harm without anyone having an excuse as to why they have to ever light a cigarette.Cigarette companies could definitely improve their role in destroying people's health by not making and selling tobacco products.If they cared at all.

The way you see this is kinda messed up. Assuming people smoke only because they are addicted makes as much sense as saying people who drink occasionally are alcoholics. Some people choose to smoke from time to time; a nice cigar on vacation, at a milestone event, poker games.
You can't just go around banning things people enjoy. I'm very confused how the government ever thought it was their duty to ban any substance, or control it via prescriptions.

Of course you can regulate things people enjoy. Some people enjoy driving at very high speed, some people enjoy a campfire in the middle of a drought (don't deny them their fire roasted weenies and marshmallows). Some people enjoy the wind in their hair when they ride a motorcycle. Some people enjoy driving drunk or not wearing a seatbelt. Some people enjoy stealing other people's stuff. Some people enjoy molesting children. So we regulate or at times ban or fine certain activities, might even fine those who think they have every right to enjoy every thing regardless if it is banned or puts others property or health at risk. There is no reason I can see why the production,importation or sale of tobacco products could not be banned for starters.

[neilsimon]

...
Of course you can regulate things people enjoy. Some people enjoy driving at very high speed, some people enjoy a campfire in the middle of a drought (don't deny them their fire roasted weenies and marshmallows). Some people enjoy the wind in their hair when they ride a motorcycle. Some people enjoy driving drunk or not wearing a seatbelt. Some people enjoy stealing other people's stuff. Some people enjoy molesting children. So we regulate or at times ban or fine certain activities, might even fine those who think they have every right to enjoy every thing regardless if it is banned or puts others property or health at risk. There is no reason I can see why the production,importation or sale of tobacco products could not be banned for starters.

So, ban the behaviour which is the problem. We ban driving at very high speed, hell we even ban driving at very ordinary speeds, but we don't ban driving. We ban campfires during high risk times, but we don't ban campfires. We ban having sex with children, but we don't ban having sex. Banning smoking because of forest fires and cancer is akin to banning driving because of speed demons and single vehicle accidents. We should ban the absolute minimum that allows the rest of us to enjoy life unimpeded by those who wish to engage in other behaviours. If you are a driver, you pose a far greater risk to others than someone who just smokes does.

[johnny24]

I'd rather not compare apples to oranges.

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.

Not really. Far more likely to die just walking down the street. Many activities carry a higher risk of death than a cigarette caused fire. Let's put some perspective on the numbers.

[Silverstarqueen]

If you ( are banning or fining some activity (like smoking) because of the health and fire risk, you have to balance that against the need.
I mentioned addicts, not because all smokers are addicted, but because it would be more difficult for them to just quit, so therefore the provision of other means of getting nicotine that are less hazardous. No one actually needs to light up tobacco. Driving, for many people is a necessity, or nearly a necessity, because they have to get groceries, get to work,make deliveries, take their children to school or the doctor (transit being rather unpractical in many situations or areas). And it is regulated in many ways to reduce the harm and still allow people to do what they need to do.
Just recently parts of alberta have banned the use of off highway vehicles (like ATVs and motorbikes) because of the fire risk. Yes, it does reduce the fun that some people enjoy with these vehicles, but it is for the greater good. So why not ban the burning of tobacco products, which we well know are causing some of these wildfires (and some housefires).
Banning smoking cigarettes isn't just about reducing wildfires, there are a lot of other harms created by it(heart disease, respiratory illness and death, lung cancer).

[Sparki55]

Of course you can regulate things people enjoy. Some people enjoy driving at very high speed, some people enjoy a campfire in the middle of a drought (don't deny them their fire roasted weenies and marshmallows). Some people enjoy the wind in their hair when they ride a motorcycle. Some people enjoy driving drunk or not wearing a seatbelt. Some people enjoy stealing other people's stuff. Some people enjoy molesting children. So we regulate or at times ban or fine certain activities, might even fine those who think they have every right to enjoy every thing regardless if it is banned or puts others property or health at risk. There is no reason I can see why the production,importation or sale of tobacco products could not be banned for starters.

I'm happy there were already rebuttals to your comment that outline my point. Anything that promotes safety and security to the public without removing liberty is easily accepted. I can argue the reverse is the case to ban drugs. Banning specific items creates a black market for them which removes public safety and security adding more illegal activity into areas while also removing the freedom to use what you wish on your own body. Yes cigarettes can cause a fire but only if used with negligence. There is a direct correlation to speeding and severity and frequency of accidents but not with banning smoking and forest fires.

If there is no reason for you to see why the production and sale should not be banned then there is also no reason for you not to see why the production and sale of trampolines should be banned. They serve no human survival purpose and about 100,000 people in the US are injured from them every year. Or ban personal watercraft, they pollute the lake and are dangerous; no real reason you need a boat other than for fun.

[Sparki55]

If you ( are banning or fining some activity (like smoking) because of the health and fire risk, you have to balance that against the need.
I mentioned addicts, not because all smokers are addicted, but because it would be more difficult for them to just quit, so therefore the provision of other means of getting nicotine that are less hazardous. No one actually needs to light up tobacco. Driving, for many people is a necessity, or nearly a necessity, because they have to get groceries, get to work,make deliveries, take their children to school or the doctor (transit being rather unpractical in many situations or areas). And it is regulated in many ways to reduce the harm and still allow people to do what they need to do.
Just recently parts of alberta have banned the use of off highway vehicles (like ATVs and motorbikes) because of the fire risk. Yes, it does reduce the fun that some people enjoy with these vehicles, but it is for the greater good. So why not ban the burning of tobacco products, which we well know are causing some of these wildfires (and some housefires).
Banning smoking cigarettes isn't just about reducing wildfires, there are a lot of other harms created by it(heart disease, respiratory illness and death, lung cancer).

You fail to see the slippery slope. If the province bans all smoking (FYI pot becomes legal next summer so you have that to combat) then what will be the next thing to ban? You already outlined ATV's at Bikes but those bans are only while the fire risk is high. You are a sideline activist and if smoking ever gets banned you will move onto the next item that you feel people shouldn't have until nothing is left to ban. Its an extreme view but eventually it would happen.

[neilsimon]

If you ( are banning or fining some activity (like smoking) because of the health and fire risk, you have to balance that against the need.
I mentioned addicts, not because all smokers are addicted, but because it would be more difficult for them to just quit, so therefore the provision of other means of getting nicotine that are less hazardous. No one actually needs to light up tobacco. Driving, for many people is a necessity, or nearly a necessity, because they have to get groceries, get to work,make deliveries, take their children to school or the doctor (transit being rather unpractical in many situations or areas). And it is regulated in many ways to reduce the harm and still allow people to do what they need to do.

Driving certainly is not a necessity, and the utility it brings has to be balanced with the damage it does to those who are not driving. We have rules to keep that in check and we accept the rather large harm it does to us as a society because of the huge benefit of having access to vehicles.
Smoking also brings utility (in the utilitarian view of utility) to those who smoke. Those who smoke are engaging in one of the most highly regulated activities that people get up to and in that way it is on a par with driving. The harm done by smokers to others is not inconsiderable (though tiny compared to the damage drivers do) and we should minimise this harm, but to ban smoking rather that target the behaviours most harming to others, is to use a hammer where a screwdriver is required. It's unnecessarily restricting and just reeks of imposing of one's own morality.

Just recently parts of alberta have banned the use of off highway vehicles (like ATVs and motorbikes) because of the fire risk. Yes, it does reduce the fun that some people enjoy with these vehicles, but it is for the greater good. So why not ban the burning of tobacco products, which we well know are causing some of these wildfires (and some housefires).
Banning smoking cigarettes isn't just about reducing wildfires, there are a lot of other harms created by it(heart disease, respiratory illness and death, lung cancer).

So, ban smoking in public and vehicles passing through high risk areas. Of the remaining harm you list, these are issues almost entirely inflicted by smokers on themselves, and as such, completely irrelevant to the discussion as to whether we should ban smoking. Of course, where such smoking harms others, such as smoking around kids, or others who cannot choose to leave, then it is appropriate to restrict smoking, but if smokers want to kill themselves slowly through use of cigarettes, who are you or I to say that they can't.

By the way, I hate smoking, I don't smoke, I think it is a disgusting habit and it smells foul, but until we start regulating body odour and physical appearance, smokers should be allowed to continue to smoke so long as no unwilling participants are forced to partake and negligible harm is being done to others.

[Silverstarqueen]

Since you mentioned pot, yes, there is a case to be made for not having people wandering around with lit joints (similar risk as to with cigarettes and pot smokers even more likely to be "forgetful".). are there ways to enjoy cannabis without that risk? Sure we know that. Just as there are ways to enjoy nicotine without lighting a cigarette.
So banning one thing, might lead to banning other things. So be it, if a case can be made.
Maybe trampolines should be more closely regulated, if so, then what is wrong with that? Or if there is a way to mitigate the injuries, like using a safety fence, or following some simple safety rules, nothing wrong with that.
So we have the potential harm from the activity itself, then we also have to look at the potential for greater harm than anticipated. There is the harm from the tobacco smoking, and there is the potential unanticipated harm caused by the millions of discarded butts that are found everywhere, on the side of the road, in the bush. It's a huge number, so only a small percentage have to land in the wrong place, and, whoosh, there goes the neighborhood. If jumping on a trampoline had the potential not only to injure the jumper, but also to suddenly cause everyone in the neighborhood to be evacuated,to flee for their lives, put out of work, and fleets of helicopters to be required to save a whole town, then we might very well ban trampolines.