Tobacco Should Be Outlawed

[Bärin]

I'm sick and tired of the repulsiveness of tobacco. It should be outlawed like all the other drugs, because just like drugs it causes damage to the body, brings no benefits and disturbs others. My blood is boiling when I see parents blow up the toxic fumes in the face of their children. Tobacco is poison.

[Grimsteinr]

I think it should be left up to the individual, to Smoke or not smoke, or to use Smokeless tobacco, if one chooses. I drink alcohol. That can be harmful.
Many Folks use Cannabis. That can be harmful.
Driving might be Harmful. Firearms might be harmful. Using a knife, you might slip & cut yourself.

I'm more of a Libertarian, politically. I dislike too many restrictive Laws.
Why should we live under a Nanny-State, that tells us every detail, every choice we might be allowed to make?

[Vindefense]

Yes. I can think of lots of reasons to ban tobacco. That is if I was involved in organized crime and the black market.

I, know you mean well Barin, but you should learn to think about the consequence of force. There are things that always seem right when viewed from one angle but never overlook the un-seen angle.

[Stormraaf]

The argument that a practice or habit should be left to an individual's preference doesn't really fly if it harms other individuals. I agree with Vindefense that tobacco is not something we want pushed from the open market to the black market, though. What should be outlawed to a greater degree than is already being done is where one is allowed to smoke, e.g. no public places.

In the context of Bärin's argument, I'd say it should also be against the law for parents (or anyone) to smoke in a home with children. Responsible parents who smoke could of course take the necessary measures not to expose their children to too much second-hand smoke without the law telling them to do so, but there are far too many irresponsible parents, and the responsible ones would not suffer any more from such a law than what they would have taken upon themselves anyway.

[exit]

I never liked the mass production of cigarettes which made smoking an addictive social habit. To me it just seems pointless. But I do enjoy a cigar every now and then, and have also smoked a pipe in certain rituals which consisted of other herbs such as coltsfoot, woodruff, etc., and very little tobacco.

I think we need to change the thinking of people to respect things more and use moderation rather than tax and ban things.

Habits are most often acquired from perception of what's cool that get's forced on society by the marketing controllers and other strange factors.

I think to not be cool is the new cool.

[Neophyte]

The big problem with cigarettes is that tobacco companies add additives that make them even more addictive than they already are and push them onto little children.

A cigar every now and then is perfectly in order and something that I myself enjoy in private, at home or at private parties. But cigarettes should be banned, as should smoking in public.

[einherjarNZ]

I am a smoker. It is my ultimate shame.

I yearn for a complete ban on smoking.

It is the most lethal legal drug on this beautiful earth of ours. Well next to methamphetamine.

But the governments all over our beautiful earth make too much money in tax from smokers.

Why is smoking still legal? They take half-measures. Seen to be doing something but still raking in the taxes.

[Patrioten]

I'm not in favor of banning all forms of tobacco from one day to another. I would like to see the cigarette-tax to continue to be raised while at the same time drastically reducing the tax for Swedish-made snus. I think it is a good idea to try and push tobacco use away from cigarettes and towards snus, if people are going to use tobacco then they should be using the product which is the least harmful. This strategy would only work in Sweden of course and so its not a universal solution.

[ChaosLord]

A ban of tobacco would be frivolous. Tobacco itself is not the culprit to cigarette smoking addiction. Tobacco does contain nicotine which is a central nervous system stimulant. The culprits are the additives and chemicals that have been added to the tobacco during the processing and manufacturing phases. Alot of these chemicals are hazardous and poisonous and are even used in rodent poisons and household chemicals.

[Stygian Cellarius]

Smoking is bad, no doubt, but this ultra-sensitivity phenomenon didn't exist 10 years ago. What has changed? Anti-smoking propaganda has increased ten-fold. A few radical left-wing anti-smoking activists have vehemently pushed for its abolition. This is a movement left-dominated and those few antagonists somehow got their message to spread amongst their fellow left-wingers, until it was all over the media. Then it became hip-science to explore the negative effects. I just recently heard of 3rd hand smoking and how it KILLS!
3rd hand smoking works like this; someone walks by a smoker, they get smoke molecules on their clothing, then go home to their baby, pick it up and the molecules fall into the babies mouth/eyes - [potentially] killing it. The fashion of "bad science" to promote "good policy" is left unchecked. The science is not held up to scrutiny because everyone knows smoking is bad so why bother criticizing it? Whose going to try to prove them wrong if they are promoting something good? So it's run amok.

Now all I hear, constantly, is "ew gross smoking, I walked by it and it stunk so bad, they shouldn't let those people stand by the door". Something that I never heard 10 years ago. I live in the city, with hundreds of fowl fumes abound - not a peep of irritation about those. Why? Because those other, more toxic, more fowl-smelling fumes are not parroted in the media. So the individual just naturally adapts to them and deals with it without even a thought of annoyance. It just goes to show you how susceptible people are to external influence, predominantly - media influence.

The effects of smoking have been grossly exaggerated. An automobile produces toxins that are 1000X deadlier. You can't even stay in a garage without dying if a car is running. Compare that to millions of people that put cigarette smoke directly into their lungs, daily, for years, and can live to be 95. The two are not even comparable, but one is considered a great evil these days while the other goes unmentioned. Granted smoking is non-essential and automobiles; essential. Regardless, there is major discrepancy here.

This sensitivity to smoking is 98% media induced. I'm not pro-smoking, but I will not allow my sensitivities to be influenced by media-hyped, faddish concerns. If one has allowed their sensitivities to be affected as such, what other influences have taken a hold of them that they are unaware of?

Smoking is bad, yes, we've all known this for a very long time. However, the science behind 2nd and 3rd hand smoking is just bad science and grossly exaggerated. If I am going to be in favor of banning it then I truly need to know what effects it has on other people (besides the smoker). I also need to know the effects of every other man-made fume producer in our environment, so I can make a list with the worst ones at the top and concentrate on those first. I am willing to bet that if that was done, smoking would hardly be a concern to anyone in light of the others and attention to it would likely be a laughing matter.