Gloves off! It's time to criminalize tobacco - SG of US says so!

Great Debates
21

**

Is that really necesary in this forum?

Well, that’s why my statement had a question mark. I understood that there could be that implication in what you said - but I do often find that people tend to advocate laws based on their own personal preferences rather than logical consistency, so I was posing the question to you. I don’t really see a difference between a smoking ban and a twinkie ban - in either case, the government is trying to control you for your own good - deciding that it can make better decisions about your life than you can. So, if you were to share that view on some level, it wasn’t unreasonable to ask if what you were advocating was a matter of personal preference.

22

Suppose they do make manufacturing and possessing cigarettes illegal, how difficult would it be to make them illegally? I assume tobacco farms would harder to hide than pot plants, simply because you need places to dry the tobacco and grow it (would it thrive in a dank basement with grow-lights?). Would your average “criminal” be able to grow their own? Or would people producing the cigarrettes on the sly need to rely on smuggled in dried plants? I’m trying to figure out if it would be harder or easier than pot to regulate.

And- the most flamable question, as it were- is the move to ban smoking (like in MA public buildings) and outlaw it a liberal or converative goal?

23

I’d say in California tobacco is similar to a thong bathing suit…barely legal! There’s almost no advertising anywhere, and almost no place where you are allowed to smoke in public. Some municipalities have prohibited smoking in parks; I think this is going just a bit too far. West Hollywood allows landlords to prohibit smoking in their buildings, so there actually exist apartment tenants for whom smoking is never allowed at any time.

Last I heard, 16% of California adults smoke tobacco. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s comparable to the percentage who smoked pot in the 1970s.

24

Calculus never said the he/she ate snack foods. Calculus was simply comparing one to the other. The gist, as I understood it was that Calculus was kinda in favor of banning tobacco, but felt that the act of banning could easily get out of hand.

25

Woops, I made a mistake. I didn’t have a question mark. My bad, I meant to.

26

I think some of y’all are missing the boat re: busting tobacco growers. I’m not advocating that we bust them. I don’t think we should and if it starts happening on a large scale it disrupts the plan. The idea is to place a very slight penalty but if you get some cowboys cruising around busting growers and burning their crops then that goes far beyond a mere $5 dollar fine.

Nor am I talking about perpetuating the problems of the drug war. Again, I favor decriminalization of pot and putting tobacco on the same footing. I’m not advocating a black market, I’m advocating a grey market. In the grey market it will be cheaper to transport large quantities of tobacco than it currently is to move smaller quantities of illegal drugs because you don’t have to pay someone to take risks. They are only risking a slap on the wrist. Less risk also means less reward so there won’t be the huge profit margins of the narcotic operations that currently exist. Still, tobacco companies make a lot of money so the operators of the grey market could expect to too. The loss of governmental revenue is undeniable though. It wouldn’t be taxed.

And as for the main benefit, it is that it halts advertising. I also believe that tobacco companies continue to target kids because who else are they going to get hooked? I wouldn’t be able to cite that belief however because I don’t know how they do it. The point I am making is that if tobacco were illegal there wouldn’t be any question about whether tobacco advertising was OK or not. It would all be banned. I believe that less advertising would lead to fewer addicts. Knowing how hard it is to quit I am all for that.

I am discussing my plan as an idea here. I don’t have any insight on how to enact it. I am interested in whether it would work or not. So far I haven’t seen anything to make me doubt that it would.

27

**

I know this is going to sound like a slippery slope arguement but if we ignore history we’ll simply be doomed to repeat it. Other then the prohibition of alcohol every other drug law has escalated in the past 70 years. What assurance do we have that the tobacco laws won’t be toughened as well? Also, what other lessons can we learn from the banning of addictive substances? It generally lead to crime, corruption, and the erosion of our rights.

**

To stop production you’ll have to ensure that the profit isn’t worth the risk. A slight penalty might not be enough to ensure people don’t distribute, purchase, or use tobacco products.

**

I just don’t see how that would be ultimately beneficial. Someone would just show up and say “People haven’t quit smoking. We need to make more drastic laws.”

**

I’ll agree that it is a bit different. You’ll always have people willing to transport drugs because the margin of profit is just so damn high.

**

Where do we see tobacco advertising? We don’t see it on television or hear it on the radio. Just a few magazine ads.

**

Did you start smoking because of television ads or because your peers or parents smoked?

Based on what we’ve learned from the last half of the 19th century and the whole 20th century I don’t see why you think "it will work, this time.

Marc

28

There are no guarantees. We might do something stupid if my plan is enacted just like we might do something stupid right now. But if the plan works and it is seen to work then its success provides the disincentive to change it.

We have learned that the addicts will continue to get their fix no matter what the costs. And that there will also continue to be casual users some of whom will become addicted. I accept that. What I object to are well financed directed marketing campaigns to turn people into addicts.

My plan would technically lead to more crime because now millions of smokers will be breaking the law. But hopefully my plan would reduce the number of tobacco users. My plan wouldn’t lead to corruption because there is no point in bribing an official to avoid a $5 fine. The erosion of rights comes from the “Stop it at all costs” mentality of the drug warriors. That is hardly what my plan is about.

I don’t want to stop production. I want to stop marketing to kids.

** People are saying that now. What’s the difference?

Allow me to quote myself from the post you were replying to: “Less risk also means less reward so there won’t be the huge profit margins of the narcotic operations that currently exist.”

I don’t wish to argue whether or not tobacco companies advertise to kids. I believe they do but don’t know a lot about it. If you want to argue this then I suggest you write an OP stating that “Tobacco companies don’t advertise to kids”. I’m sure you will get plenty of responses. Alternatively you just have to pursue this question and I will do it for you, giving you full credit, of course.

Because I’m not proposing to ban tobacco to get rid of tobacco. I know how hard it is to quit. I accept that there will always be some smokers. I’m proposing that we ban tobacco to eliminate the advertising campaigns.

If we had a reasonable system of government where it was possible for the representatives of the people to discuss the matter and enact a ban on tobacco advertising then my plan wouldn’t be necessary. Since we live in the USA that simple and direct solution isn’t a possibility.

29

Well, you might want to stay away from Corrections Corporation of America (and their subsidiary, Childcare Corporation of America [Interesting to note that they both have the same acronym.]) as they just lost a massive lawsuit over stock manipulation or something similar, plus, it seems like the only folks who can’t escape from their prisons (at least the ones here in Tennessee) are the guards. Everyone else who tries seems to make it out just fine.

As a smoker, this talk of banning cigarettes just cheeses me off to no end. I’d love to quit, but a month after I do quit, I’ll start having panic attacks, really bad ones. Since I have no health insurance, I can’t afford the medication to keep me from having panic attacks, so I’m kind of forced to smoke, you know? If not, then it’s only a short period of time before I turn into a ravening loon hell-bent on killing people.

Addtionally, let’s look at another couple of factors as to why tobacco should remain legal:
1.) Tax revenues. Given that the states are all in a financial crunch, so if you ban tobacco, then you’re taking away a large portion of the states income. Any guesses as to how they’re going to make that up? Their either going to raise everyone else’s taxes, or (more likely) slap stiff fines on folks caught with tobacco.

2.) The Tobacco Settlement. Ban tobacco, and the states probably aren’t going to see any more money from that, and considering that’s the only thing keeping Tennessee (and no doubt a few other states) solvent, this is a bad thing.

3.) Farmers. The folks who grow tobacco have two problems: A.) Tobacco is harder than hell on the soil, so you’re going to have to recondition your soil to get any other crops to grow. B.) Farmer equipment is pretty specialized, so if they do decide to grow something else, rather than selling the farm, then they’re going to have to invest in new equipment. How much do you want to bet that they’re going to lobby Congress to get the Gubmint to pick up the tab, since they were the ones that put the farmers out of the tobacco business to begin with?

Face it, it’s a bad idea, all the way around.

30

Never ever happen, because it’s bad politics.

  1. Those multi-billion-dollar class-action settlements that the state DAs won against the tobacco companies are being paid out over a period of many years. If they put those companies out of business, they lose those massive amounts of money. IIRC, some states have already issued bonds secured by the future tobacco-settlement money.

  2. Even aside from those settlements, tobacco taxes are a big, big revenue stream. If the pols lose that, they will have to cut services or raise taxes elsewhere. Any economic benefits to a ban, from healthier workers, or whatever, would be very long-term and intangible.
    Bottom line, Not only will it never be illegal, but the governments – state and fed – have a vested interest in keeping big tobacco profitable.

31

Personally, I think Tabacco is a dangerous product, so something should be done about it.

Make the tobacco companys even more liable than they already are.

Make it illegal for a person born after a certain date, say, 1985, to ever buy cigs. The people who are already addicted can keep buying them for the rest of their short lives, but kids will never be able to buy them legally, so there is no incentive to market to kids. As business dwindles, more and more companys will either switch to something else, or close up shop altogeather. make export of them illegal as well. Dry up the profit for the big companys.

32

2sense - I’m also interested to see just how tobacco companies are marketing, not just to kids, but to anyone. I haven’t seen an advertisement for tobacco products in ages.

Why go to the lengths of making tobacco possession illegal to stop those “well-financed marketing campaigns”, when they aren’t even running campaigns today?

33

And, even presuming that tobacco companies are marketing today, and that it’s a reasonable goal to stop it, why would it be necessary to outlaw tobacco? Why not just outlaw tobacco advertisements (even more than they already are)?

34

Notice that my plan would not force farmers to sell their farms or find something else to grow. They could go on growing tobacco though as time passed there should be less demand which would favor a gradual move to different crops. That assumes the farms are profitable without subsidies. If not they they might quickly go under.

The loss of tax revenue is another story and one I take seriously. I like sin taxes. Economic disincentives are a fine way to steer people away from undesirable choices. If someone can show me how we can have our cake and eat it too I would abandon my plan. I only support it because I think it is the best we can do under our constitution.

35

OK, I’ll start a thread on tobacco advertising. It seems obvious to me that Big Tobacco isn’t going to leave their profit margins to chance but there’s no reason to rely on assumption when there is bound to be plenty of evidence.

You can’t outlaw tobacco advertising because they have a First Amendment right to advertise. Commercial speech is more limited than regular speech but it is still protected. So long as it is legal they are free to advertise.

36

All tobacco products?

Oh, great.

He not only wants to ban cigarettes, he wants to ban cigars, pipes, and chewing tobacco too.

Never mind the fact that chewing tobacco can be cured in such a way that it contains no carcinogens whatsoever.

37

Dewey asks for

And indeed there should be. Pot is less dangerous than tobacco, it is silly for it to be as severely punished as it is. It should be legalized and taxed like tobacco, or at least decriminalized. OTOH our experience with pot has taught us that outlawing a drug does not accomplish the goal of the outlaw: kids have easier access to pot than to tobacco and their pot is much more potent today than it was a few decades ago because of “the drug war.” Criminalizing tobacco would likely not decrease its use, especially among youth, and would likely have the effect of increasing its damage, all the while eliminating a source of revenue for taxation that can be used to combat its harmful effects.

Legalize, regulate and tax pot; Regulate and tax the hell out of tobacco.

38

Um… you can’t regulate away their right to advertise?

Hello?

39

bdgr:

I like this idea a lot.

40

I will never cease to be amazed at how many people jump at the opportunity to take away the rights of others under the guise of “acting in their best interests.”