From the Guardian. The social costs of tobacco addiction are staggering. Is it time to being considering the criminalizing the sale of tobacco and banning the use use of tobacco? The Surgeon General thinks it might well be.
Ban all tobacco - US health chief
[sub]
On one hand i’m in favor of this because it will lead to less deaths, but next they may decide to ban little debbie snack cakes because they lead to heart disease and type II diabetes. So i am unsure where i stand.
Right, like we’re doing such a good job controlling illegal drugs like cocaine, weed, and heroin, so we should add Marlboros, Skoal, and vanilla-walnut-maple pipe tobacco to the list?
Uh huh.
Richard doesn’t have enough work to do, I’m thinkin’…
So if something that everyone else does is bad, you advocate banning it. But if something that you do is bad, you don’t advocate banning it.
If tobacco is banned, the organized crime that results will be unbelievable.
You thought the black market for alcohol caused a few problems? Banning a substance that already has millions of addicts will make Prohibition look like a friggin’ Six Flags vacation.
One of life’s little amusements is that the many of the same people who (sensibly) call for marijuana decriminalization on grounds of reduced crime, controlled distribution and tax revenue also (not so sensibly) want to see cigarettes banned (or at least regulated out of existence).
Dammit, people, it’s the same thing, with the same problems! A little consistency, please!
I agree that Prohibition II: The Sequel would be a really, really bad idea.
Well, I tend to agree with you, Dewey, but if someone believes that cigarettes are much more dangerous than marijuana, it’s not as nonsensical as it sounds. Plenty of folks who support decriminalizing marijuana probably balk at doing the same thing with cocaine or heroin, for example.
What an funny off the cuff quip. Do the customers ask for you by name at Arbys or is your presence enough to satisfy?
I never said what you are implying i said. I was merely stating that the idea of banning dangerous things is a slippery slope with no real consistency. On one hand, not wearing a seat belt is illegal but being 400 pounds is legal. Both are dangerous and put someone at higher risk but one is illegal and hte other isn’t and there isn’t strong consistency about what dangers to ban and what dangers to allow.
Outright banning with punishments for people who disobey the ban won’t solve anything IMO. It failed in the drug war.
Ah, the ever entertaining Dr. Carmona. He was ours here in Tucson for years, and now the President’s got him. I hope they enjoy each other.
Carmona gives the phrase ‘loose cannon’ entirely new meaning. The man is famous in this town for driving the county health system deep into debt, getting injured in SWAT team shootouts, suing a hospital for wrongful termination to the tune of millions, and killing an armed mental patient in a gun battle. Which, incidentally, took place less than a half mile from where I live.
He’s going to set a whole new standard for Surgeon General. And it’s gonna be fun to watch.
Decriminalization is not quite the same thing as legalization. The latter makes it legal whereas the former merely removes the stiff penalties. I support the decriminalization of pot but not the legalization. I also support the criminalization of tobacco so long as no harsh penalties were applied. I agree that we should treat both substances the same.
I think that these products should be illegal because of the wacky legal structure we have here in the US. Because our rights are determined by the courts instead of the representatives of the people it is impossible to legislate a reasonable policy on these drugs. While they are legal a legislature can’t effectively restrict their advertising. Yes, I know that the tobacco industry has been threatened into “agreeing” to certain limitations on its ads but that is inefficient. A company can just ignore any agreement.
So I say the best thing to do is just make these things barely illegal. Spend money educating people on their dangers but don’t actively pursue either the users, sellers, or producers unless they are marketting to kids. That way we would eliminate the advertising which reduces the number of users and addicts and conveniently eliminates the tobacco subsidies as well. If I am wrong and someone could come up with a way to have all these benefits plus tax revenue from these products then I would go for that instead.
I was going to post this idea in the recent nationalized tobacco thread but figured I had started enough hijacks for the week.
**
You’re going to have to explain what that all means. Will decriminalized substances be regulated in some way, shape, or form? Will it still be illegal to produce, distribute, and buy these decriminalized substances?
**
That already seems to be the nationwide policy. Sure, you can buy them but in many places you can’t even think about smoking them in public places. Have you considered the possibility that such a policy may have some nasty unintentional side effects? People might start to turn more to alcohol or other drugs to get their fix if tobacco isn’t available.
Marc
Legalization makes a substance unillegal. Decriminalization makes it less illegal. As an example: say that we move from where we are now to a fine of a mere $5 for possesing, using, growing, or distributing any amount of pot. That would be decriminalization. As I see it you can regulate an illegal substance to some degree by making harsher penalties for some acts, such as selling to minors, but that is a pretty blunt instrument. And you can’t tax it, of course.
I haven’t considered the effects of taking away people’s cigarettes because I am not proposing that we take them away. The idea is to discourage new people from picking up the addiction by eliminating the advertising. As there already exists a blackmarket in untaxed cigarettes, at least here in Western Pennsylvania, I figure those same networks will expand and continue to deliver tobacco.
As a former nicotine addict I can say that it is unlike other drugs in that it doesn’t get you high. It does make nonusers lightheaded but addicts are used to it and lighting up simply satisfies their craving. Now if you are out of cigarettes you can smoke marijuana or something and you will get high but you will still crave a cigarette.
Wow! I wonder how many times the same mistake can be made. The term “drug war” will take on new meaning if you try to take away people’s tobacco. Having seen the face of smokers when they are out of cigarettes, I have no doubt things would turn violent.
I’m sure some drug dealers out there would absolutely love for them to ban tobacco. The potential for profit is staggering.
I think decriminalized but not legal tobacco will be completely untenable.
Here’s one reason why: quantity. While you could decriminalize pot, cocaine, heroin, etc., and people would still use it quietly in their own homes without becoming public menaces and getting arrested and thrown in jail, we’re talking about the use of tiny, tiny quantities.
Tobacco is a different drug. No one smokes just one cigarette a day (whereas many users smoke only a single joint a day, or a week, or a month). There’d be no good way to get rid of all the evidence, so people will surely get busted. Enormous numbers of people will be prosecuted.
Besides which, what’s the advantage in turning a reasonably transparent, heavily taxed business into a black market operation?
I hate cigarettes, but banning them altogether would be a big mistake. Fortunately, the Surgeon General does not have the authority to make laws.
Here’s the thing: that already happened. Between the TV ads, the stickers on packs, the money spent on educating people about the dangers, the tax hikes, the new laws…
Tobacco advertising is severely restriced. No TV ads for cigs, no radio ads. I think there are restrictions on print ads where kids are involved. They still manage to market them to kids, it seems. And of course, big tobacco HAS been pursued for lying about the product and for selling it to kids.
Does anyone know if there are hard figures about smoking and teen smoking in the US? I think both are down, but I don’t know how much.
Don’t like it - ban it. have we learned nothing from prohibition part one? Or the ridiculous war on drugs?
if you ban these you must also ban:
fatty food
automobiles
sharp objects
heavy blunt objects
aircraft
boats
the list goes on and on and on
If anyone with legislative authority takes this seriously, I’m investing in private prison development stocks PRONTO.
“Unlegal?’
The point that is being missed here is the commercial aspect to the whole thing. Some wit once said that anything that 100 reputable businessmen make money doing will always be lawful. A good number of otherwise reputable, church going, tax paying, responsible and hard working people, a fair number of whom voted and will vote for George W. Bush, make their living with the filthy weed. Some make a slim living, some make a good living. It ain’t going to happen.
I suspect that if Phillip Morris wanted to go into the marijuana light business we would find that pot was at least tolerated. It’s not a matter of health, it’s not a matter of sin or public virtue, and it’s not even a matter of taxation. It’s money. It’s always the money.
Cite? I want to see marijuana (and all other drugs) made legal, but wouldn’t want cigarettes banned. No, I don’t smoke (and I’ve never taken illegal drugs). For me, it is a question of personal freedom and not having the government tell me what I can and can’t do to my own body.