Is tobacco going the way of Cocaine and Heroin?

[Dari]

Most countries are making harsher laws against smoking. According to the 60 Minutes piece tonight, Canada has graphic images of the damages cigarette can do to you on advertisements. How long before cigarettes are tied to terrorism or some other social taboo and it gets a permanent black eye?

By the way, for those who don't know, cocaine and heroin used to be perfectly legal less than a century ago?

 

[Infohawk]

It's going in that DIRECTION but unlikely down the whole slope. I'm still waiting for people to target alcohol.

I'm for structuring tobacco laws in a way that puts all the external costs on smokers.

 

[illustri]

you think cigarrettes are expensive now, what happens when you have to go to that dorm room with the funky smell just to get a pack of menthols

 

[CaptnKirk]

Tobacco Lobbys prop up a pretty big part of our Government now -
with the support of selected Representatives and Senators that prevent laws
that are not 'Friendly' to the states that rely heavily on tobaco production.

The Corporation support, the pressure of 'Import' and 'Domestic', using the
ploy of suppresing more authoriative regulation, and tax revenue from sales
sure seem to trump the consumers right to be informed, and stay living.

It's a miracle that congress has been able to even get this far with product liability,
but even then with awards being what they are to the dead and the dying . . .
can 'tort reform' be very far off - which gives them the ultimate loophole.

 

[Colt45]

Only in north america.

Yes - we have packs with stupid pictures on them, covering 50% of packaging. Previous to this, we had a text warning covering ~25% of the pack, and before that it was similar to US style warning (small warning on the side of the pack).
It really makes little sense to me though, smokers already know that it's bad for them. They don't wake up one day, read the pack, and go "shit! this is bad for me! I never knew that!"

Most of the world still smokes like a chimney, not as much lobbying and litigation


I'm curious as to what these groups are going to go after next..

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Colt45
Only in north america.

Yes - we have packs with stupid pictures on them, covering 50% of packaging. Previous to this, we had a text warning covering ~25% of the pack, and before that it was similar to US style warning (small warning on the side of the pack).
It really makes little sense to me though, smokers already know that it's bad for them. They don't wake up one day, read the pack, and go "shit! this is bad for me! I never knew that!"

Most of the world still smokes like a chimney, not as much lobbying and litigation


I'm curious as to what these groups are going to go after next..

It seems like it's starting to get worse in other countries too. I don't think this is only in America thing vs. an America leading the way thing. Even Ireland recently banned smoking in bars. They'll go after alcohol next.

 

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Colt45
Only in north america.

Yes - we have packs with stupid pictures on them, covering 50% of packaging. Previous to this, we had a text warning covering ~25% of the pack, and before that it was similar to US style warning (small warning on the side of the pack).
It really makes little sense to me though, smokers already know that it's bad for them. They don't wake up one day, read the pack, and go "shit! this is bad for me! I never knew that!"

Most of the world still smokes like a chimney, not as much lobbying and litigation


I'm curious as to what these groups are going to go after next..

It seems like it's starting to get worse in other countries too. I don't think this is only in America thing vs. an America leading the way thing. Even Ireland recently banned smoking in bars. They'll go after alcohol next.

I suppose I should have said "the west" instead of north america.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Colt45
I suppose I should have said "the west" instead of north america.

Us tobacco haters will get the rest of 'em too -- don't you worry.

 

[Martin]

probably not an outright ban, but something close to it.

 

[Rainsford]

Giving our recent slant towards authoritarian perspectives, I wouldn't be surprised. A surprising number of people don't seem to believe in the freedom to do things that are bad for you any more.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Giving our recent slant towards authoritarian perspectives, I wouldn't be surprised. A surprising number of people don't seem to believe in the freedom to do things that are bad for you any more.

I don't think we've seen much of that. I think we've seen more of, "if you are going to do something bad, you better be god d*mned sure it doesn't affect me." Again, I don't have any problems with forcing smokers to go outside or pay taxes for the future medical costs they are going to impose on society. Do something bad if you want but pay for it and suffer all the burdens that go along with it (like going outside to smoke in the snow).

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
It's going in that DIRECTION but unlikely down the whole slope. I'm still waiting for people to target alcohol.

I'm for structuring tobacco laws in a way that puts all the external costs on smokers.

They did target alcohol. It didn't work and they stopped the nonsense - the same thing that they should do with drugs. During prohibition, alcohol related crimes twined what we see today as drug related crimes. Our prisons are getting full of people whose only crime is being of weak character and subject to addiction. That is too harsh and too much of a burden on society. Huge jails and prisons have been built that will never be paid for if we decriminalize drugs. The more reason to decriminalize them. To clarify - I am conservative, voted Republican and don't use drugs - don't even smoke. I surely hope that smoking isn't criminalized. I think people are thinking it over these days and some have given up the habit. Europe is awful though. Everyone seems to smoke there.

 

[Byers]

I think, for the most part, anti-smoking laws in the US have been less about getting smokers to quit and making smoking illegal and more about a public health concern aimed at stopping smoking in public areas. It's more akin to laws that are meant to keep levels of lead or mercury at safe levels. It's not (although to some perhaps) about prohibiting something because of religious or cultural beliefs.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
It's going in that DIRECTION but unlikely down the whole slope. I'm still waiting for people to target alcohol.

I'm for structuring tobacco laws in a way that puts all the external costs on smokers.

they tried to ban alcohol. it didn't work.

 

[daveshel]

The only thing that makes sense is regulatory parity for tobacco, alcohol and marijuana. Stiffen the protocol for tobacco to keep it out of the hands of kids and prohibit its use in public places (like open container laws). As one who suffers asthma attacks from even incedental exposure to cigarette smoke, I would love to see it kept off the streets like other vices. And we are wasting so much money treating pot offenses as crimes. Decriminalize it and tax it, it isn't any more harmful than the other two.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: daveshel
The only thing that makes sense is regulatory parity for tobacco, alcohol and marijuana. Stiffen the protocol for tobacco to keep it out of the hands of kids and prohibit its use in public places (like open container laws). As one who suffers asthma attacks from even incedental exposure to cigarette smoke, I would love to see it kept off the streets like other vices. And we are wasting so much money treating pot offenses as crimes. Decriminalize it and tax it, it isn't any more harmful than the other two.

:thumbsup: