Jump to content
Raider5678

Making smoking illegal?

Recommended Posts

What would happen if a law was suddenly passed making smoking illegal?

And should we try to start putting legal pressure against smoking?(I.E. rapidly increasing taxes and regulations on them until they can't afford to buy them nor make them)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making something illegal may reduce use rates, but won't eliminate the behaviors entirely in the way you want so it really depends what you're trying to achieve and how much personal choice we're all willing to surrender.

 

For other well intentioned ideas that failed to achieve their stated objective, see also:

Illegal drugs (especially pot)

Under age drinking

Prohibition

Sodomy laws

Speed limits

The list continues...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making something illegal may reduce use rates, but won't eliminate the behaviors entirely in the way you want so it really depends what you're trying to achieve and how much personal choice we're all willing to surrender.

 

For other well intentioned ideas that failed to achieve their stated objective, see also:

Illegal drugs (especially pot)

Under age drinking

Prohibition

Sodomy laws

Speed limits

The list continues...

Okay.

So how about trying the other method I mentioned? Like raising taxes on them.

Even if we reduce it so the only people who smoke are those willing to do it illegally, that's still a reduction. I also think it would help make it so kids are raised in a better environment. I knew a young kid who had lung problems because his parents always smoked in the house. And they still did and his lungs just kept deteriorating. It was sad to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smoking what ?

Banning tobacco and allowing marijuana ? This is all upside down. Next is banning barbecuing and mowing. No more internal combustion engines nor camping fires, chimneys. Ground all jets, trucks, rockets... Much, much higher volume of smoke producers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another alternative: stop the active campaign against intellectualism, start educating everyone to a higher degree, do as much as we can to remove the desire to smoke, and make anti-smoking treatments part of a universal healthcare system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how about trying the other method I mentioned? Like raising taxes on them.

 

 

We've been doing that for decades.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5819a2.htm

 

All states have had cigarette taxes since 1969, and the oldest sates to 1921

https://taxfoundation.org/individual-consumption-taxes/excise-taxes/cigarette-and-tobacco-taxes/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were up to me, smoking in public would be indisputably prohibited, for the sake of the well-being of all non-smokers inhaling that crap passively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We've been doing that for decades.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5819a2.htm

 

All states have had cigarette taxes since 1969, and the oldest sates to 1921

https://taxfoundation.org/individual-consumption-taxes/excise-taxes/cigarette-and-tobacco-taxes/

I think the aim of those taxes are to make money, not put it out of business.

I might be wrong though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not mutually exclusive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were up to me, smoking in public would be indisputably prohibited, for the sake of the well-being of all non-smokers inhaling that crap passively.

 

Smoking in public has always been restricted. There have always been "No smoking" signs in many public places, more so now. It's getting to the point where the question is exactly WHERE is smoking PERMITTED in public?

Edited by Airbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Smoking in public has always been restricted. There have always been "No smoking" signs in many public places, more so now. It's getting to the point where the question is exactly WHERE is smoking PERMITTED in public?

 

I meant on the streets etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I meant on the streets etc.

I would worry about more what's coming out of cars than cigarettes in streets. When I was giving up smoking I was regularly tested on a CO meter and it went down to 2 after a while but if if I rode to my appointment in heavy traffic it went up to 5-7 units. A heavy smoker, like I was, had initial readings of 15. A person walking by/riding in a modestly traffic-laden two-lane road is consuming a third to a half of the carbon monoxide of a heavy smoker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would worry about more what's coming out of cars than cigarettes in streets. When I was giving up smoking I was regularly tested on a CO meter and it went down to 2 after a while but if if I rode to my appointment in heavy traffic it went up to 5-7 units. A heavy smoker, like I was, had initial readings of 15. A person walking by/riding in a modestly traffic-laden two-lane road is consuming a third to a half of the carbon monoxide of a heavy smoker.

I'm opposed to smoking around me but this was also my thought yesterday. I briefly tried to find any papers on the relative dangers of passive smoking and general pollution but I only found news paper reports quoting who representatives and similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm opposed to smoking around me but this was also my thought yesterday. I briefly tried to find any papers on the relative dangers of passive smoking and general pollution but I only found news paper reports quoting who representatives and similar.

Yes, it's pretty conclusive to me. This is a government-run smoking cessation scheme held at pharmacists around the country and CO checking was to test for compliance. The advisor, a pharmacist , told me that riding there behind cars can confound the result. They set a maximum limit of 10 units, for compliance purposes, due to that. People should be up in arms. God knows what it's like in a traffic-jammed city centre. The transient smoke from a passer-by will be well below the pervasive pollution noise of road traffic, which you are breathing constantly. A person living in a city or by a busy road is not as much better off than a smoker as they might think.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm opposed to smoking around me but this was also my thought yesterday. I briefly tried to find any papers on the relative dangers of passive smoking and general pollution but I only found news paper reports quoting who representatives and similar.

 

Harm from environmental exposure is difficult to trace and often one has to rely on longitudinal study studies to find associations. In such cohorts second hand smoking is different to establish and often relies on indirect indicators such as e.g.having a smoker in the household, but not smoking oneself. Short-term effects generally are not terribly helpful to establish public health effects. I could try and dig out relevant data if there is interest, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Harm from environmental exposure is difficult to trace and often one has to rely on longitudinal study studies to find associations. In such cohorts second hand smoking is different to establish and often relies on indirect indicators such as e.g.having a smoker in the household, but not smoking oneself. Short-term effects generally are not terribly helpful to establish public health effects. I could try and dig out relevant data if there is interest, though.

That's why i assumed I couldn't find anything. Walking to work everyday I'm becoming more generally worried about pollution. This is wandering slightly off topic, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there are large studies looking at co-occurrence of air pollutants and incidence of cancer, asthma and other lung diseases. The issue there is that most categorize the participants as smoker or non-smoker.

However, there are a couple studies out there that used indicators as outlined above to include passive smokers. For example Hoek et al (Lancet 2002) which concluded that long-term exposure traffic may shorten life expectancy, but they adjusted for active and passive smoking, Unfortunately, without the raw data one cannot easily figure out the contribution of smoking to overall mortality.

Obviously, passive smoking is still an independent factor, and tends to dominate in-door (or in-car) exposures. What one could look for the is the opposite study design, I.e. looking for effect of second-hand smoke adjusted for air quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's pretty conclusive to me. This is a government-run smoking cessation scheme held at pharmacists around the country and CO checking was to test for compliance. The advisor, a pharmacist , told me that riding there behind cars can confound the result. They set a maximum limit of 10 units, for compliance purposes, due to that. People should be up in arms. God knows what it's like in a traffic-jammed city centre. The transient smoke from a passer-by will be well below the pervasive pollution noise of road traffic, which you are breathing constantly. A person living in a city or by a busy road is not as much better off than a smoker as they might think.

 

 

Is CO the only factor, though? Smoking has other products in it that are carcinogens, e.g. nicotine, and others. Neither is good for you, but I'm pretty sure cigarettes cause far more deaths than all of the components involved in air pollution.

 

Cigarettes are also a source of particulate pollution; significantly more from them burning than from a diesel engine running for the same amount of time

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1747905/?tool=pubmed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Cigarettes are also a source of particulate pollution; significantly more from them burning than from a diesel engine running for the same amount of time

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1747905/?tool=pubmed

 

 

I missed the CO part, it should be emphasized that a general assumption is that air particulates overall have one of the strongest effects on lung health and associated mortality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Is CO the only factor, though? Smoking has other products in it that are carcinogens, e.g. nicotine, and others. Neither is good for you, but I'm pretty sure cigarettes cause far more deaths than all of the components involved in air pollution.

 

Cigarettes are also a source of particulate pollution; significantly more from them burning than from a diesel engine running for the same amount of time

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1747905/?tool=pubmed

I wasn't pursuing an agenda, just sharing an anecdote that I happened to experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People smoking in the vicinity (or even in) a bus stop shelter thing while it's raining makes me quite furious. Inside, alas. I don't have the guts to tell them to stop smoking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People smoking in the vicinity (or even in) a bus stop shelter thing while it's raining makes me quite furious. Inside, alas. I don't have the guts to tell them to stop smoking.

Doesn't matter if you do.

The most common response I get is shut up kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.