Are cigarettes doomed to extinction?

Great Debates
1

Sorry if this is more of an IMHO thread but I think it is open to debate.

What do you think will happen to the giant cigarette companies in the future? Of course I am not refering to the near future but say in 2080 or even 3000 and beyond. I was just wondering if cigarettes will eventually be banned altogether and if not, will they be sold in a different way? One possiblity is that they could be taxed out of existence but that doesn’t seem likely.

Anyone got any thoughts about the far future of cigarettes?

2

Well, if they are banned, I practically guarantee they will be sold in a different way. Just like all the other banned substances that permeate our society.

3

Cigarettes, and other tobacco prodcuts, will be given the same treatment under the law as marijuana by 2020.

And for other joy in the future:

Alcohol will start to be more severely restricted by 2020 as well, possibly banned (again) by 2060.

Handguns will effectively be unavailable by 2030, hunting rifles and shotguns severaly restricted (a la Japan) by 2050, and probably a complete ban on all firearms with house-to-house sweeps by 2070.

Fireworks for use by private individuals will be banned by 2020.

Powerful sports cars (soon to be termed “assault cars”) will be so severely restricted by 2050 that only museums or special collectors will have them.

Certain high-fat, unhealthy foods (soon to be termed “assault foods”) will fall under Government restrictions by 2030.

I think these events will come regardless of what party is in control. however, these events may all come sooner if Democrats win and maintain control of Congress. (and no, I will not debate this now. Take this as a WAG at face value).

If Republicans keep winning and maintain control of Congress, we might see some additional bans of a different sort:

Pornography in magazine or net form may be outlawed by 2030.

Extensive internet filters will be put into place to screen for objectionable content (porn, radical thoughts, etc) by 2015.

Abortion will be very restricted by 2020, and possibly have a Constitutional Amendment against it by 2025.

And so forth. Fun, fun, silly-willy!

4

Anthracite, your predictions for the future are certainly pessimistic! However, I think they might be unduly so. I think, so far as alcohol and tobacco are concerned, few politicians would ever want an outright ban on them–the legacy of '30’s Prohibition remains, and tax revenues from them are just too great to be chucked away. (Yes, the long-term financial costs of deaths from alcohol and tobacco are greater than the short-term tax benefits. But since when did politicians start thinking long-term?) What will probably happen (and which is happening already in the US) is that demand for alcohol and tobacco will fall to the point that prohibition will become a moot point. Anyway, that’s what I could hope for…

5

Anthracite wrote:

My guess:

By 2020, the pendulum will have started to swing the other way, and this ridiculous trend toward a “nanny state” will be seen as a laughable social experiment by the generation currently in power. Courts will no longer award millions of dollars to stupid people just because a dinner fork did not have a warning label saying “Do not stick this fork in your eye.” The “danger” of second-hand smoke will be scoffed at with the same derision that we now feel toward that old issue of Time magazine that said “Killer salt!” on the cover. After many miserable failures with unproven herbal remedies and other forms of “alternative” medicine, the public will be starkly aware of the Placebo Effect and won’t trust any cure that hasn’t passed a double-blind placebo trial.

And pigs will fly.

6

Given the widely held view backed up by plenty of research that smoking is harmful, one could ask why smoking survives at all.

It will continue for a long while yet, there are markets to be exploited whose educational systems do not have smoking down as a high priority.

The tobacco companies will keep themselves in business and governments, having become used to the tax derived from them, will need them to do so.

For government the dillema is - do we discourage smoking more heavily but raise taxes in the short term to cover the shortfall but gain the benefits at some unspecified time in the future ? Or do we educate people as cheaply as possible about the dangers and hope that they will gradually give up the habit ?

You might say that keeping people alive and healthy has a moral imperative but every politician knows that when the taxes rise they will be voted out.You might say that the people will not stand for it, we all have something to lose in the short term.

The ending of the tobacco industry would be disastrous for many economies and whole areas of the US.
This would lead to changes of leadership and unrest in those countries.
That leadership might well be hostile to the developed world.

7

Folks do not smoke becuase they enjoy it, they smoke because they are addicted to nicoyine. Note that there are a few “herbal” cigs w/o nict- impossible to find, and not used. However, nicotine is no worse than caffiene, altho perhaps more addictive. So I predict that there will be more & more “safe” non-tobacco sources/uses of nictotine. I already know a few folks, long time “quitters”, who continue to chew the gum. And that is a “good” thing. No more fires (killing thousands a year), no more cancer or heart disease (killing 10’s of thousands), nor more 2nd hand smoke ( killing even a few is FAR too many).

8

I wonder if the legalization of marijuana would allow the tobacco industry to change gigs. Surely there would not be as much grown as tobacco, but some of the factories could make joints.

Cigarettes would be sold another way, as liquor was during prohibition. People would grow it in flower pots under their beds.

Why does the government subsidize the tobacco industry and then tax the snot out of them? How many states grow tobacco? The Carolinas and Virginia? Can their Senators and Representatives have that much clout?

It’s been eight weeks, two days, nineteen and one half hours, five minutes since I had one. May there’s one under the refrigerator…

9

Danielinthewolvesden wrote:

Cecil Adams’ two articles on the “lethality” of second-hand smoke:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000707.html

10

tracer: a couple of quotes “and a danger to vulnerable folk such as asthmatics, children & the elderly”, and "“I agree ETS is harmful”.

Second hand smoke may or may not cause cancer or heart disease, but it does kill those with vulnerable lungs. True the numbers widly quoted are weak, but thas why I said “even a few”. SHS kills babies, the elderly and those with lung conditions. And what is worse, those are those in the weakest position to object or “get out”. SHS kills babies.

11

You’ll get my pork brains when you pry them out of my cold dead hand!

12

I enjoyed smoking very much, thank you.

I still miss it and the need for nicotine long ago left my body.

Yer pal,
Satan

[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, two weeks, five days, 12 hours, 42 minutes and 50 seconds.
5661 cigarettes not smoked, saving $707.65.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 5 days, 15 hours, 45 minutes.[/sub]

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/sub]

13

Satan, you can’t possibly mean that the anti-smoking forces’ rhetoric (that Daniel seems to have bought into) isn’t always exactly the truth? Are you saying that they would go so far as to spread distortions, lies, generalizations and misleading statements to further their agenda? I’m shocked!

14

“This vice brings in 100 million francs a year in taxation, and I will certaily forgid it at once when you can name a virtue that will replace the revenue.”

– Napoleon Bonaparte (circa 1810)

15

I have to concur with Satan. I am not a smoker, nor have I ever been what most people would call a smoker. I do not smoke cigarettes, but I do, occasionally (once or twice a year) smoke a cigar. I enjoy smoking my cigar now and then…DEFINITELY not because I am addicted to nicotine…surely I am not. :slight_smile:

16

I have heard this flown before, but I wonder. How much tobacco could one surreptitiously grow? Considering the 3 pack-a-day chain smokers out there, could there ever be enough of an underground to satisfy such desires?

17

More realistically, it would be smuggled in from other countries.

18

During alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, drinkers switched from low-alcohol beverages like beer and wine, to hard liquor like vodka, whiskey, and gin, because you could store and transport more alcohol in less space if it was in a concentrated form.

The same thing will happen if cigarettes are outlawed. The Columbian tobacco lords will add pure nicotine to their tobacco leaves, resulting in concentrated super-high-nicotine cigarettes. Or maybe they’ll just sell liquid nicotine for the back-alley “cig users” to add to their cigarettes themselves.

19

Danielinthewolvesden wrote:

Are there any verified baby deaths from second-hand smoke? Links?

20

Have you folks been watching the headlines?

In NUMEROUS states (including right here in Texas), falling demand for tobacco is leading to government budget shortfalls. It seems that all those greedy Attorneys General and Governors who thought they were so clever for suing Big TObacco have outsmarted themselves.

As soon as the tobacco settlements were finalized, many states went on big spending sprees. In theory, the settlement money was SUPPOSED to be spent on ant-smoking programs, but when has ANY politician ever worried about technicalities like that? States have gone on spending sprees, assuming they’d be rolling in cash from tobacco taxes.

Problem is, the tobacco taxes HAVE cause sharp drops in tobacco sales. That’s what state governments SAID they wanted, but they were lying. They now have to do one of two things:

  1. Slash all the pork barrel programs they expected to fund with tobacco money. Or…

  2. Urge people to do their part and start smoking heavily!

Now, I don’t say that Rush Limbaugh is always prescient (his predictions are no more reliable than anyone else’s), but in this case, he foresaw EXACTLY what would happen!