Board 8 > Should cigarettes be banned?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Assume that this would not necessitate a ban on all tobacco products (though it can if thats a prerequisite for you to support a ban).

---

I think the US really needs to do this. Right now the police can search/arrest anyone they want by claiming they smelled marijuana, but as more places legalize weed they'll lose that ability. Banning cigarettes will give the cops a new excuse to harass people for no real reason, something we need them to do to make sure that minorities and the poor are properly oppressed.
---

Which is why you ban sale and not possession!

---

Nah, authoritarianism doesn't stop at one victory. You can make the exact same argument for banning unhealthy foods as you would for banning cigarettes.

ChainLTTP posted...

Nah, authoritarianism doesn't stop at one victory. You can make the exact same argument for banning unhealthy foods as you would for banning cigarettes.

no cause unhealthy foods don't hurt people around you like second hand smoke does

---

Lightning Strikes posted...

Which is why you ban sale and not possession!

Growing and processing your own tobacco at home isn't really feasible, though. The police could assume that any cigarettes they (claim to) smell were obtained illegally and use that as a pretext to bother people.
---

MZero posted...

no cause unhealthy foods don't hurt people around you like second hand smoke does

There are ways to negate the risk of secondhand smoke without banning cigarettes. (There's also very little evidence to actually show that secondhand smoke is actually a real problem).

The percent of people smoking has gone down, and is dropping more and more. Rather than banning it, we need better education about the harmful effects of cigarettes. Make them more expensive, too. Raise taxes on cigarettes.

---

ChainLTTP posted...

Nah, authoritarianism doesn't stop at one victory. You can make the exact same argument for banning unhealthy foods as you would for banning cigarettes.

And people can and did make that argument about seatbelts, covid, and so on. Sometimes intervention is essential as there is literally no alternative.

The unhealthy food thing in particular is amusing because some bans have happened, and I was at a conference last week where all the experts basically agreed that intervention (not outright bans but stricter regulations, and some advertising bans) were the only real way to actually ever get anything done on obesity as education can only do so much and awareness of the health risks is pretty universal. It isnt authoritarianism and if you dont think so well what are your feelings on seatbelts?

Xeybozn posted...

Growing and processing your own tobacco at home isn't really feasible, though. The police could assume that any cigarettes they (claim to) smell were obtained illegally and use that as a pretext to bother people.

I feel that if the main backlash against a public health intervention is that the police will use it to oppress minorities that says more about the country than the intervention! Oh America.

---

Should be banned completely. It's not just the second hand smoke you have to deal with but the stale smoke getting on your clothes.

---

Well in the UK the tobacco industry accounts for roughly 10 billion in government taxes per year. So that would be a big hole to fill if it was to cease.

Saying that, I'm a smoker and wish cigarettes didn't exist as I can't seem to kick the habit lol

---

Lightning Strikes posted...

well what are your feelings on seatbelts?

The government owns the roads, stop using this argument.

ChainLTTP posted...

The government owns the roads, stop using this argument.

This is your argument? In that case I would consider a government monopoly on the only practical means of transportation for millions of people to be a far greater infringement on liberty than a ban on any particular luxury product.

---

The argument is that second hand smoke has been proven to have a negative effect on other's health. It's no longer just a personal issue when it effects others. Take the current COVID pandemic as clear example of that same issue.

---

redrocket posted...

This is your argument? In that case I would consider a government monopoly on the only practical means of transportation for millions of people to be a far greater infringement on liberty than a ban on any particular luxury product.

This is a legal distinction that has been around for literal centuries. The government has much more leeway to police public utilities vs restricting people from consuming something on private property.

The argument is that second hand smoke has been proven to have a negative effect on other's health. It's no longer just a personal issue when it effects others. Take the current COVID pandemic as clear example of that same issue.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of secondhand smoke. Smoking a cigarette outside will not harm anyone other than the smoker.

Also, again, authoritarians and useful idiots like people in this topic are not going to be satisfied by fixing one problem. Once they get one victory, they get a bloodlust. You can make the "It's no longer just a personal issue when it effects others" collectivist bullshit about anything--and they will.

"We must ban beef because cows produce methane, and methane affects climate change, and climate change harms us all."

Just make it banned for anyone born after a certain date, forever. You can phase out smoking over the next 70 years.
---

ChainLTTP posted...

Also, again, authoritarians and useful idiots like people in this topic are not going to be satisfied by fixing one problem. Once they get one victory, they get a bloodlust.

I mean, this exact same logic applies to your flimsy justification for seat belt laws. The government owns the roads, therefore police should be able to stop you and search your vehicle at any time. No probable cause or reasonable suspicion needed!


---

redrocket posted...

I mean, this exact same logic applies to your flimsy justification for seat belt laws. The government owns the roads, therefore police should be able to stop you and search your vehicle at any time. No probable cause or reasonable suspicion needed!

The Supreme Court disagrees

But you're not even allowed to smoke in most indoor locations. Where is second hand smoke actually a problem?

---

I'm pretty surprised by how many people agree. I thought we came a long way from having puritan values.

---

pjbasis posted...

But you're not even allowed to smoke in most indoor locations. Where is second hand smoke actually a problem?

It is in the brains of subservient do-gooders who don't actually know anyone who smokes

People that think second hand smoke only occurs indoors are delusional. Outdoors it just doesn't have the lingering effect that pollutes the whole environment for hours but its still bad if you are nearby while they are smoking.

---

Colegreen_c12 posted...

People that think second hand smoke only occurs indoors are delusional. Outdoors it just doesn't have the lingering effect that pollutes the whole environment for hours but its still bad if you are nearby while they are smoking.

Unless you are standing outside next to someone smoking every single day for decades, you aren't getting sick from secondhand smoke.

MZero posted...

no cause unhealthy foods don't hurt people around you like second hand smoke does

fat people clogging up hospitals is hurting everyone so this isnt true

ChainLTTP posted...

Unless you are standing outside next to someone smoking every single day for decades, you aren't getting sick from secondhand smoke.

False. If you want to make this argument do basic research. Literally the first result on google https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/index.htm

There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke

---

Colegreen_c12 posted...

False. If you want to make this argument do basic research.

he talked to 3 waiters and they told him second hand smoke is harmless. Pretty ironclad

---

Colegreen_c12 posted...

False. If you want to make this argument do basic research. Literally the first result on google https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/index.htm

There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke

The CDC is pure propaganda when it comes to anti-smoking claims... and that is not a conspiracy theory. Here's an overview of the kind of unscientific data manipulation going on:
https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/bioethics/article/view/6687

In his 2006 report, the United States Surgeon General ominously concluded, There is no risk free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.14 This is known as the no threshold theory, which proposes that a substance that is carcinogenic at high doses must also be proportionately carcinogenic at small doses. But scientists Claus and Bolander posit that this theory is at odds with all the fundamental principles of cell biology.15 According to Dr. Elizabeth Miller, former president of the American Association for Research on Cancer, Chemical carcinogenesis is a strongly dose-dependent phenomenon.16

Skimmed the article. It's basically saying there is biases in the cdc and who but isn't saying that anything they have said is untrue.

Saying something might not be true isn't an argument that its safe

---

Yeah there's no way someone can suck on cigs themselves for 20 years before getting cancer and occasionally walking by a smoker outside is dangerous.


---

Colegreen_c12 posted...

Saying something might not be true isn't an argument that its safe

You need to prove its dangerous

---

Colegreen_c12 posted...

Skimmed the article. It's basically saying there is biases in the cdc and who but isn't saying that anything they have said is untrue.

Saying something might not be true isn't an argument that its safe

Just read the citations for the very claim that you made about secondhand smoke. It is a conclusion drawn from a very faulty premise that is not actually supported in a clinical setting.

No. If they wanna smoke and they know the medical risks, let them smoke.

---

ChainLTTP posted...

Just read the citations for the very claim that you made about secondhand smoke. It is a conclusion drawn from a very faulty premise that is not actually supported in a clinical setting.

No, its someone making assumptions based on their knowledge of biology, not based on any actual studies to prove the opposite. There is more evidence that it is harmful than not, you literally picked one study (that is more of a theory than anything) that is saying conversely. And this is despite there being a TON of tabbaco companies that have an interest in smoking not being illegal

---

I will point out I personally have no problems with people smoking in their own private property as long as they don't have kids/a pregnant person that regularly visit

---

Colegreen_c12 posted...

No, its someone making assumptions based on their knowledge of biology, not based on any actual studies to prove the opposite. There is more evidence that it is harmful than not, you literally picked one study (that is more of a theory than anything) that is saying conversely. And this is despite there being a TON of tabbaco companies that have an interest in smoking not being illegal

I am saying read the actual article cited, not just the passage on the website. There are plenty of studies that indicate the level of carcinogenic impact of cigarettes...but like, use common sense. Do you really think that you will get cancer if you smell someone smoking outside?

ChainLTTP posted...

The Supreme Court disagrees

The Supreme Court has also upheld drug prohibition, so your simple appeal to authority is insufficient here.

---

Banning cigarette sale is dumb for the same reason alcohol prohibition was dumb. You just get a massive illegal cigarette industry.

Banning cigarette smoking in public would make a lot more sense.
---

pjbasis posted...

Yeah there's no way someone can suck on cigs themselves for 20 years before getting cancer and occasionally walking by a smoker outside is dangerous.

This is like saying "There's no way someone can suck on cigs themselves for 20 years before getting cancer and someone smoking for 10 years is dangerous"

---

redrocket posted...

The Supreme Court has also upheld drug prohibition, so your simple appeal to authority is insufficient here.

My appeal to authority on a bizarre slippery slope argument that police can use the same authority they have for ticketing people for not wearing seatbelts to search any car on a public road without a warrant? Okay, you got me! I should have definitely spent more time on that post.

ChainLTTP posted...

I am saying read the actual article cited, not just the passage on the website. There are plenty of studies that indicate the level of carcinogenic impact of cigarettes...but like, use common sense. Do you really think that you will get cancer if you smell someone smoking outside?

Why do you act like second hand smoking is either cancer or your perfectly fine. Obviously you won't get cancer alone from it (Unless it happens daily which I'm sure it basically does to some people), but it has other adverse side effects..

And i'm not sure what article you are talking about, that document doesn't have anything that seems to be anything other than trying to discredit existing studies rather than a study proving it non harmful

---

Dancedreamer posted...

This is like saying "There's no way someone can suck on cigs themselves for 20 years before getting cancer and someone smoking for 10 years is dangerous"

Uh, no it's not try again.

---

I will just quickly say that basically every smoker I know actually supports a ban, but were not American!

---

Man, even the 2006 standford study just boils down to "if you're 3 feet away from a smoker for an hour outside, it's dangerous"

THANK YOU CAPTAIN OBVIOUS

note: I am not completely opposed to banning them in outdoor public spaces, but that's basically the last resort. If you wanna talk a wholesale ban, the conversation becomes a lot deeper.

---

ChainLTTP posted...

My appeal to authority on a bizarre slippery slope argument that police can use the same authority they have for ticketing people for not wearing seatbelts to search any car on a public road without a warrant? Okay, you got me! I should have definitely spent more time on that post.

oh, but when you engage in slippery slope arguments, its completely valid and we should definitely take you seriously. Gotcha.

---

Anyways if we really just want to try and discredit studies, https://www.acsh.org/news/1999/10/01/a-critical-assessment-of-lies-damned-lies-400000 -smoking-related-deaths-by-robert-levy-and-rosalind-marimont-published-in-regulation-fall-1998 is a discredation of one of the core points of evidence of your article. (Theres a space in the url after 400000 cause its too long

If you really think that tobacco companies haven't found evidence that tabacco isn't harmful outdoors but it still exists i'm not sure what to say.

---

smoking's already banned in public indoor spaces where i am. i'm very glad for it

i've been to illegal parties or whatever you want to call them where people felt comfortable smoking indoors ("we're already breaking the law"), and it was miserable. although, now that i read up, i don't know why i'm surprised to learn that pretty much the entire southeast allows smoking everywhere

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States

i don't see a good reason to ban them outdoors/outright. drug wars don't work

just keep showing kids gross images of smoker lungs and the number will keep going down. not sure what we should replace it with tbqh. a large subset of teens really shouldn't be doing psychedelics of any kind, and we can't identify who is who before negative effects appear

---

ChainLTTP posted...

I am saying read the actual article cited, not just the passage on the website. There are plenty of studies that indicate the level of carcinogenic impact of cigarettes...but like, use common sense. Do you really think that you will get cancer if you smell someone smoking outside?

Obviously not, but your risk can increase, if for example, you have relatives who smoke.

---

banananor posted...

smoking's already banned in public indoor spaces where i am. i'm very glad for it

i've been to illegal parties or whatever you want to call them where people felt comfortable smoking indoors ("we're already breaking the law"), and it was miserable. although, now that i read up, i don't know why i'm surprised to learn that pretty much the entire southeast allows smoking everywhere

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States

i don't see a good reason to ban them outdoors/outright. drug wars don't work

just keep showing kids gross images of smoker lungs and the number will keep going down. not sure what we should replace it with tbqh. a large subset of teens really shouldn't be doing psychedelics of any kind, and we can't identify who is who before negative effects appear

Yeah, I remember smoking and non smoking sections in restaurants and hotels and when they had cigarette vending machines.

---