So what do we do? I don't believe in making them illegal as that infringes on others rights to choose what they put in their body, but I do feel for the kids and family members who have to put up with the habit.
Well, this is my personal opinion but here it goes.
It's not about our rights, it's about public health. Cigarrettes should be illegal, and all the companies making these products shluld be banned. This is costing the entire world millions every month.
I am a smoker. I smoke about a pack everyday. And I've tried quitting more than once, but this thing is more addictive than a lot of substances you can buy on the street. The only reason it's legal is because some people get huge profits from it. If they asked me, I would ban it in a second. In the US there's people in jail for selling a joint in the street, but nobody has done anything to put the people owning the companies who manufacture shit that kills so many people everyday behind bars. I don't get it. I mean, I do, but it just shows how nasty some parts of every goverment are
Have you considered switching to an e-cigrarette without the intention of quitting (which is where I think most people trip up)? I have a friend who uses a balance of nicotine in his e-cigarette that is way way more nicotine than he would ever get from a normal cigarette, he is extremely happy (and claims that the real trick is you need to not use a cheap e-cigarette but get one that nails the temperature consistently), and as far as we can all tell he is avoiding the horrible health effects. I mean: you are addicted to nicotine, not tar, right?
Prohibition hasn't ever worked and will never work... it just makes criminals rich. It's an addiction that needs comprehensive, overlapping cessation programs.
Yes, make the unfortunate pay even more. And it is the poor who are heavy smokers. There was a Russian joke when the government announces that alcohol price is going up so the boy is asking his dad if he is going to drink less and the father replies that probably the son will eat less instead. And ciggies are still in shops. Making it more expensive is a dumb idea.
My mother is dying of lung cancer from smoking right now. Growing up, she would smoke around me despite it causing me and my sister to have asthma attacks. I think forbidding it in public spaces does not go far enough. One's right to swing their fist ends where another's nose begins.
Hate to be a skeptic -- or realist -- (and also risk downvotes) but here goes.
No matter what we try to do, it's looks like an Un-winnable battle. Unless Tobacco is outlawed, it's almost impossible to fight the entity known as "Big Tobacco".
They have an army of lobbyists, congressmen, senators, and all other power decision makers in their pockets, and using a combination of the above people, they get BILLS signed into LAW that legalizes a lot of things that would be otherwise be CRIMINAL, and on top of that, have very shady, but highly effecting marketing schemes and PR that they perform, to target the crowd most susceptible to succumbing to tobacco - teenagers, young adults, and (young) military men.
> AND THEN CAME THE CHRISTMAS CARDS.
> Big Tobacco sponsored, organized, and paid for thousands of service members to receive tapes with video recordings of their families back home sending sweet messages for the holidays. Seems like a super f*king nice gesture, right? Until you hear what Big Tobacco sited as their motivation for the program.
“Positive publicity and goodwill associated with Marlboro,” and “awareness and visibility of Marlboro among young adult smokers.”
> Today, 38% of US military smokers start after enlisting.
I would say keep increasing taxes on tobacco (slowly) and explore other ways to make the purchase process and use inconvenient (i.e. use dark patterns "for good.")
Perhaps also explore legalizing marajuana (I think weed should be legal any way but I wonder what effects it would have on tobacco use. I wonder how that body handles a nicotine craving and then ingests marajuana instead.)
I understand the personal freedom and liberty arguements and I don't think we should jump straight to outlawing it(don't want organized crime taking up cigarette production). However, in the end cigarette's are addictive poison that tobacco companies sell to our people for profit. I won't feel bad if they are crushed by taxes and regulation.
Edit: Also, maybe, something with vaping. Maybe...
> Perhaps also explore legalizing marajuana (I think weed should be legal any way but I wonder what effects it would have on tobacco use. I wonder how that body handles a nicotine craving and then ingests marajuana instead.)
This is pretty much one of the main reasons for my tobacco habit. Cannabis is hard to come by where I'm at (not the US), nobody smokes pure because most people don't have reliable enough supply, the supply shortages also make it quite expensive.
That's why lacing the weed with tobacco is very widespread, which leads to the odd situation that most people who want to try weed end up being addicted to tobacco.
Tax it to death. A pack of cigarettes should cost $20 or more in this country. Ensure that the externalized costs are included with the price and people will quit.
Possibly nothing; I'd imagine that the vast majority of these deaths are of people from older generations when smoking weed ubiquitous. I think that smoking is a lot less popular in younger generations, so in another generation the number of smoking-related deaths will likely go down on its own.
Long since past the point of smokers in Australia and NZ paying their own healthcare costs. Smokers subsidise the public healthcare system.
Unfortunately, the statistics are often muddied by externalised costs being assumed to include ~50k/year of lost life per smoker along with 'lost future income taxes'.
Generally smokers die earlier and more quickly. Ironically, living a very long life might actually cost society more due to many more years of intensive healthcare costs at the end of a long life.
I once heard an actuary claim that the tobacco taxes paid by smokers in NZ, if used for private health insurance for the individual, would afford the absolute best health cover available with funds to spare.
I apologise for not citing sources for the above claims. Quite frankly I am lazy and it would take some time (I have spent hours researching this in the past). You'll just have to take this as opinion.
I don't think there's really a fair way to do that. From a strictly monetary standpoint, smokers die many years earlier than non smokers. They also often live past the prime of their working life so those lost years equate to a tremendous amount of money saved in reduced payouts for social security, medicare, pensions, etc.
Even if we could assign a strict dollar amount to the long term cost of a pack of cigarettes I don't think that would be a useful thing to do. The cost to society does not factor in the cost to the consumer and while I'm normally pretty libertarian about such things we're talking about a very addictive drug here.
Smokers infringe on my health by exposing me to second-hand smoke and forcing me to ingest nicotine, a known carcinogen. This absolutely needs to be made illegal as far as I'm concerned.
While there are a lot of carcinogens associated with smoking, there doesn't seem to be a consensus that nicotine is one of them:
> Although there is insufficient evidence to classify nicotine as a carcinogen, there is an ongoing debate about whether it functions as a tumor promoter. In vitro studies have associated it with cancer, but carcinogenicity has not been demonstrated in vivo. There is inadequate research to demonstrate that nicotine is associated with cancer in humans, but there is evidence indicating possible oral, esophageal, or pancreatic cancer risks. Nicotine in the form of nicotine replacement products is less of a cancer risk than smoking. Nicotine replacement products have not been shown to be associated with cancer in the real world.
biktor_gj|8 years ago
It's not about our rights, it's about public health. Cigarrettes should be illegal, and all the companies making these products shluld be banned. This is costing the entire world millions every month.
I am a smoker. I smoke about a pack everyday. And I've tried quitting more than once, but this thing is more addictive than a lot of substances you can buy on the street. The only reason it's legal is because some people get huge profits from it. If they asked me, I would ban it in a second. In the US there's people in jail for selling a joint in the street, but nobody has done anything to put the people owning the companies who manufacture shit that kills so many people everyday behind bars. I don't get it. I mean, I do, but it just shows how nasty some parts of every goverment are
saurik|8 years ago
trapperkeeper74|8 years ago
dangsdad|8 years ago
[deleted]
designcode|8 years ago
democracy|8 years ago
majewsky|8 years ago
novia|8 years ago
paulddraper|8 years ago
justboxing|8 years ago
Hate to be a skeptic -- or realist -- (and also risk downvotes) but here goes.
No matter what we try to do, it's looks like an Un-winnable battle. Unless Tobacco is outlawed, it's almost impossible to fight the entity known as "Big Tobacco".
They have an army of lobbyists, congressmen, senators, and all other power decision makers in their pockets, and using a combination of the above people, they get BILLS signed into LAW that legalizes a lot of things that would be otherwise be CRIMINAL, and on top of that, have very shady, but highly effecting marketing schemes and PR that they perform, to target the crowd most susceptible to succumbing to tobacco - teenagers, young adults, and (young) military men.
> AND THEN CAME THE CHRISTMAS CARDS.
> Big Tobacco sponsored, organized, and paid for thousands of service members to receive tapes with video recordings of their families back home sending sweet messages for the holidays. Seems like a super f*king nice gesture, right? Until you hear what Big Tobacco sited as their motivation for the program. “Positive publicity and goodwill associated with Marlboro,” and “awareness and visibility of Marlboro among young adult smokers.”
> Today, 38% of US military smokers start after enlisting.
Source: https://www.thetruth.com/articles/videos/exploitation-milita...
Pulcinella|8 years ago
Perhaps also explore legalizing marajuana (I think weed should be legal any way but I wonder what effects it would have on tobacco use. I wonder how that body handles a nicotine craving and then ingests marajuana instead.)
I understand the personal freedom and liberty arguements and I don't think we should jump straight to outlawing it(don't want organized crime taking up cigarette production). However, in the end cigarette's are addictive poison that tobacco companies sell to our people for profit. I won't feel bad if they are crushed by taxes and regulation.
Edit: Also, maybe, something with vaping. Maybe...
freeflight|8 years ago
This is pretty much one of the main reasons for my tobacco habit. Cannabis is hard to come by where I'm at (not the US), nobody smokes pure because most people don't have reliable enough supply, the supply shortages also make it quite expensive.
That's why lacing the weed with tobacco is very widespread, which leads to the odd situation that most people who want to try weed end up being addicted to tobacco.
aphextron|8 years ago
addHocker|8 years ago
saghm|8 years ago
sp332|8 years ago
Frondo|8 years ago
What's the externality society bears for the individual's pleasure?
Figure that out, and assign tobacco taxes accordingly.
tmnvix|8 years ago
Unfortunately, the statistics are often muddied by externalised costs being assumed to include ~50k/year of lost life per smoker along with 'lost future income taxes'.
Generally smokers die earlier and more quickly. Ironically, living a very long life might actually cost society more due to many more years of intensive healthcare costs at the end of a long life.
I once heard an actuary claim that the tobacco taxes paid by smokers in NZ, if used for private health insurance for the individual, would afford the absolute best health cover available with funds to spare.
I apologise for not citing sources for the above claims. Quite frankly I am lazy and it would take some time (I have spent hours researching this in the past). You'll just have to take this as opinion.
MertsA|8 years ago
Even if we could assign a strict dollar amount to the long term cost of a pack of cigarettes I don't think that would be a useful thing to do. The cost to society does not factor in the cost to the consumer and while I'm normally pretty libertarian about such things we're talking about a very addictive drug here.
seasonalgrit|8 years ago
grzm|8 years ago
> Although there is insufficient evidence to classify nicotine as a carcinogen, there is an ongoing debate about whether it functions as a tumor promoter. In vitro studies have associated it with cancer, but carcinogenicity has not been demonstrated in vivo. There is inadequate research to demonstrate that nicotine is associated with cancer in humans, but there is evidence indicating possible oral, esophageal, or pancreatic cancer risks. Nicotine in the form of nicotine replacement products is less of a cancer risk than smoking. Nicotine replacement products have not been shown to be associated with cancer in the real world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Cancer
The fact that it's other compounds that are carcinogenic rather than nicotine in no way changes the effects of second-hand smoke.