My father died of lung cancer and my sister is dying of it. Yes, they chose, but I hate to see other people choose this and die. If cigarettes become illegal, some will still smoke of course, but many won’t.
I don’t smoke and I’d welcome it only because a few of the consequences would be favorable for me. Ideally, I would like everyone to do whatever they want with their bodies.
But if smoking became illegal it would mean my boyfriend and family members would do it less or put more effort into quitting which means less second-hand smoke for me to inhale and probably more years for me to spend time with them.
It would also mean I don’t have to dodge smokers in the streets and at bus stops or inhale smoke in cafes and restaurants.
Don’t smoke, know people who do, and meh. I wouldn’t join the Nicotine Strike Force Alpha One Defence League, but I wouldn’t aid jonesing people in their hunt for tobacco.
I’d be pissed off that my government decided that it didn’t need all that tasty taxation money, though.
The criminal law seems to draw a clear divide between people who buy and use the stuff and people who grow, process, transport, or sell the stuff. I figured that it was obvious. Anyway, the option for smoking illegally but not getting involved in trafficking includes buying cigarettes from drug dealers, but no further involvement (e.g. don’t become a sub-dealer for profit, etc.) If you would buy from the dealer and supply family members, that’s a borderline case but if you would do it just to your close family who life with you (spouse, parents, children, siblings, etc) I’d allow you to say that you wouldn’t get involved in trafficking, regardless of what the law might actually say constitutes “dealing”.
I put down “meh” but you should have had an option for “I don’t smoke, and would oppose this new law.” Qadgop notes just one of the reasons we don’t need or want another futile unwinnable drug war. The ones we have are bad enough.
Because we don’t need another black market for violent gangs to take over? Because the state shouldn’t dictate lifestyle choices for people?
I do support laws restricting where people can smoke, to protect others from second hand smoke. But I think people should be free to use tobacco on private property or in designated outdoor areas. I think pot should be legal and regulated too.
As long as you understand that at some point, some group of people might decide that something you do in the privacy of your home offends them so greatly that they wish to outlaw it. Supposing that this happened, how would you react? How would you hope that others would react?
I don’t smoke, but I’d be doing a dance of joy that my husband’s cigarettes would no longer be contaminating my lungs, my house, my clothes, and my budget.
I hope there would be civil disobedience on an unprecedented scale. Within reason, I accept curbs on where I can smoke, but fuck accepting a ban on it.
I’m basically a social smoker, but I’m celebrating this thread by lighting up.
I agree with this.
I would thoroughly enjoy not being forced to hold my breath in the parking lot of every shopping center in town, particularly grocery stores where the employees are standing around the entrance chain smoking.
But I can see how this would just add to the crime stats.
Pretty much here. It’s amazing how many smokers don’t think butts on the ground is littering. Other than that I would be all “meh” and maybe grumble a bit about a nanny state.