I have evolved my position as I have thought about the problem more. I’m saying that smokers would not be allowed to smoke cigarettes on property they do not own.
That means no smoking at employers, on public land, on private land without the landowner’s position, or at any apartment complex or in the public areas in a condo.
It would also be considered child abuse to smoke indoors in the presence of a minor.
I am saying that this would reduce cigarette consumption, whether or not they are made illegal to manufacture or sell, to such a tiny fraction of what it is now, that nearly all new smokers from the time the law was passed would not accumulate enough damage to actually die from the illness.
If you were homeless for 30 years and you were unable to buy more packs of smokes other than what you could afford in between paying for food and an occasional shower, it wouldn’t be the cigarettes that killed you. You probably would accumulate maybe 3-5 pack years over a 30 year period because you couldn’t afford any more. Also, the police would harass you if they found you smoking in public under a bridge or in a back alley somewhere.
What I consider a success from my proposal is “very few deaths from cigarettes”. Not people quitting their addiction to nicotine. Not zero cigarettes consumed. Just very few people dying from them.
So making it illegal to manufacture or sell cigarettes openly in stores, and banning them in all places the Federal government can regulate (everywhere but private property) and in the presence of anyone the government has an interest in protecting (like a child) would accomplish my objective.
I’ve wondered about that (having nothing to do with this thread). If smoking was totally illegal, could I just hang out in my backyard and smoke? But then I thought that everyone within half a block could smell it. I know I can smell my neighbors smoking cigarettes. I could smoke in my house, but it’s really obvious when someone has been smoking in an enclosed space (ie house/bathroom/car etc).
However, some random cites I found online show that about the same amount of people smoke tobacco as smoke marijuana and I certainly don’t smell weed nearly as often as I do tobacco meaning if people want to hide it, they can and will.
The cost of smoking isn’t just about worrying what someone else is doing on their own time. There are ample studies that show that smoking in the military costs taxpayers about a billion dollars – some studies say significantly more, others say slightly less.
Wasting a billion dollars a year from the military budget than can be used on better things – like actually killing bad guys instead of our guys – doesn’t make sense to me.
And of course, I’m not even talking about the costs that everyone pays in taxes and higher health insurance bills to deal with all these horrible smoking related diseases that are very much preventable.
Obviously banning cigarettes is a touchy subject because many people smoke already. But what if we slowly phase out tobacco in a way which allows current smokers to keep smoking but new people can’t take up the habit. For example, say that only people born before 2000 can buy tobacco. You can keep smoking until you die, but younger people won’t be able to buy it.
Of course, this would easily create a black market where older people could sell tobacco to younger people, but I don’t see that as a huge market. If you can get nicotine easily, why start up with tobacco? Sure the taste is good, but it’s not so good that it’s the only acceptable way. I’m sure a few people would smoke illegally, but I think that black market would get smaller and smaller as people find tobacco alternatives.
Again, 15% of Americans smoke, as opposed to 70% drinking before Prohibition. If you leave open Vaping, there will be no large market for organized crime to move into.
We could just shoot them on sight! No smokers very quickly!
You’re falling into the exact same trap that drug prohibition always falls into: this is a really bad thing, so we should just make the punishment so severe that no one does it. But that’s not how addiction, or human psychology work.
While you’re helping people live longer by quitting smoking, how long do homeless unemployed people live? How much damage are you going to do to the people who count on them.
It is terrible that some parents smoke around their kids. But it’s probably worse to make those parents homeless and unemployed, right?
Or, it would make cigarette suppliers very well armed and remunerated. One or the other, for sure.
Completely!
As a rhetorical technique, suggesting that people who disagree with you haven’t bothered to read what you said is trending toward insulting. I read the thread. I think you are wrong.
You seem to be assuming that people who are addicted to deadly drugs are going to make rational choices in response to punishment. If they were going to do that, wouldn’t they have quit smoking already?
Maybe? And I mean that sincerely. You might be right. But what if you’re wrong?
Tobacco sales are a multi-billion dollar industry. What if 5% of smokers don’t switch? To the gulag with them?
To those who think this will work: We’ve had nicotine gum for decades, right? Could this have worked 30 years ago?
I’m a former smoker who switched to vaping. I have trouble understanding why people still smoke at this point - vaping is cheaper, more convenient (no need for trips to the store all the time to buy packs or cartons of cigarettes, just get a 3-month supply mailed to you when you see a good sale), tastes better, and smells better. Aside from the obvious major upside of being way better for your health.
But I still think banning cigarettes is a horrible idea, for all the reasons given already. The War on Drugs has given ample proof that making a substance illegal doesn’t decrease usage, it just punishes users of that drug and empowers criminal organizations. People will still have the negative effects, with the added burden of it costing more, risking legal consequences, and having to give their money to organizations that typically engage in lots of other horrible shit like killing rival gangs/cartels, human trafficking, etc.
However, one thing that hasn’t been mentioned: Why can’t we make it illegal for cigarette manufacturers to put additives in their products? It’s not legal for Tylenol to add tons of extra ingredients that aren’t at all necessary to deliver acetaminophen to your body. Why in the hell is it legal for tobacco companies to add in hundreds of chemicals to their products that make them more carcinogenic, solely for the purpose of making the nicotine more addictive and enhancing flavor?
As long as people are smoking, we should at least do we can to actually make the products as safe as possible, within the context of what it is - delivering nicotine via smoke. I believe the number of people who do so will continue to decrease as vaping becomes even easier and more widespread, the younger generation displaces the existing smokers, and it continues to become more socially unacceptable and bans become more the norm in public spaces.