Cigarette Ban

[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/2 ... arette-ban

[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

[Fancy]

Bootlegging cigarettes will rise - already a problem in some countries.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Fancy]

Don't forget the fire fighting.

[Glacier]

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.

[neilsimon]

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.

[Fancy]

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

[neilsimon]

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?

[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.

[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.

[Fancy]

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.

[neilsimon]

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.