That’s kind of shallow IMO. People drink and smoke (unhealthy much) usually because of something, like problems and such. We were also basically given cigarettes to start smoking and alcohol is everywhere, not always so simple. People don’t do it to spite taxpayers.
But it’s good, a really good trend, banning cigarettes, NZ started it IIRC.
If we go that way, IMO smokers should pay higher health insurance contributions.
When I was playing full contact, injury rich sport, our club paid an additional insurance covering sport injuries for every game day - because general insurance can be stringent in such cases.
So, risky behavior = higher cost of insurance.
For context, I pay about 16% of my income towards health insurance. When I was between jobs, government paid most of it. I’m also a smoker, clearly realizing that this is a morbid self destructive habit.
Because every throat and lung cancer is caused by tobacco, we should make everyone who gets them go bankrupt and die? I’m really confused dude. What cancers are necessary.
Oh, so my initial assumption was correct, it’s whichever ones you personally feel like blaming the patient for getting. I take it the worst thing that’s ever happens to you is stubbing your toe and you’re a trust attorney?
You’re just saying that treating tobacco-related cancer is paid for by the whole population. That’s it folks! If anyone is inferring something from that, well, that’s clearly on them.
my dude, i just took a look through your last page or so of comments. are you okay? are you going through a crisis of some sort? do you need some kind of help?
Prohibition was ridiculously popular until it wasn’t. Just like smoking bans will be.
People will choose to smoke just because it’s illegal, and it will unironically be a gateway to harder drugs since the same guy selling tobacco will now be the same guy selling crack.
Smoking is already on the decline, i don’t think you’ll find such fervor for cigarette running
You’re wrong, it will also have widespread lawbreaking, enforcement failures, economic pressure, and create a new organized crime powerhouse. As always.
The smoking market is comparable to the drug market in size of users… how’s that drug war doing?
It’s a good analogy, because nicotine is a drug and smokers as addicts will seek it out whether or not it’s illegal.
A non-addictive drug like THC is a good comparison, as the legalization within the US is a big source of tax revenue and the period when it was more illegal made it a staple of cartels, which smuggled it into the states.
When criminals run an enterprise, they inevitably use their resources to undermine government and commit more crime. That’s the true nature of prohibition.
Prohibition of any item, meaning, making the item illegal to make or possess anywhere, is a stronger infringement on personal freedom and often leads to organized crime stepping in to provide the prohibited item, both of which make it unpopular.
Popular smoking bans generally ban smoking in certain public areas. This does not promote organized crime to sell the banned product, and is less of an infringement on personal freedom.
The proposal to “ban cigarettes” sounds like it would fall under the former category .
Prohibition does not prevent. Prohibition makes the good things bad and the bad things worse.
“Controlled substance” they say. How Orwellian. Handing it over to the black market, with no control but [criminal] market forces. How controlled.
“We said don’t do it.”, like that works. Generally, good people do not obey bad rules, and bad people do not obey rules either.
Then there’s the forbidden fruit effect. Then the profiteering and price-hike for risk, and in absence of regulation oft coming in the most harmful polluted forms of whatever’s been turned into contraband. Dangerous combination.
Normalisation of controlling people’s behaviour’s an even deeper bag of rant bait yet, than just via banning substances, slippery sloping via banning delivery methods.
Funny how prohibition and “public relations” [e.g. as per Ed Bernay’s Crystallising Public Opinion] came into being at around the same time. Prohibition wouldn’t work without the accompanying psyop? Due reconsideration of the popularity of bans. … Especially in light of realising “Prohibition does not prevent. Prohibition makes the good things bad and the bad things worse.”
Go ahead, do it! You can call it the “Smoke War” and kill hundreds of thousands of additional people over the years (over and above the danger of smoking), imprison many times more, and destroy families from coast to coast!
This is exactly what I am thinking. A person can smoke legally, expelling drug laced smoke at everyone around them … including babies. However, if a person cannistered this up and went around spraying it that would likely be considered assault.
The United States should ban cigarettes, but should continue to allow tobacco to be used in smoke-free forms.
If you want to poison yourself, that should be your choice, but poisoning others should not be allowed.
In countries with solidary health insurance expenses to cover unnecessary, tobacco related cancers are paid by the whole population.
That happens in the US too. We just also pay CEO salaries and shareholder disbursements.
We’re such a generous nation ❤️
/s
And health care for Israel
And Iran. Think of how much healthcare we’re saving them by helping school kids never needs care again. /s, dark /s
Wait, that happens just about everywhere else too, I feel like it may just be a systematic problem
That’s kind of shallow IMO. People drink and smoke (unhealthy much) usually because of something, like problems and such. We were also basically given cigarettes to start smoking and alcohol is everywhere, not always so simple. People don’t do it to spite taxpayers.
But it’s good, a really good trend, banning cigarettes, NZ started it IIRC.
Taxes on tobacco don’t even begin to cover costs.
If we go that way, IMO smokers should pay higher health insurance contributions.
When I was playing full contact, injury rich sport, our club paid an additional insurance covering sport injuries for every game day - because general insurance can be stringent in such cases.
So, risky behavior = higher cost of insurance.
For context, I pay about 16% of my income towards health insurance. When I was between jobs, government paid most of it. I’m also a smoker, clearly realizing that this is a morbid self destructive habit.
Because every throat and lung cancer is caused by tobacco, we should make everyone who gets them go bankrupt and die? I’m really confused dude. What cancers are necessary.
s/unnecessary/avoidable/
Oh, so my initial assumption was correct, it’s whichever ones you personally feel like blaming the patient for getting. I take it the worst thing that’s ever happens to you is stubbing your toe and you’re a trust attorney?
smoker detected lol
No, my nephew had cancer when he was six months. Anyone who is rooting for cancer deserves to die of it.
Do you mind showing me where I was rooting for cancer?
You’re just saying that treating tobacco-related cancer is paid for by the whole population. That’s it folks! If anyone is inferring something from that, well, that’s clearly on them.
Edit: saw the deleted reply
my dude, i just took a look through your last page or so of comments. are you okay? are you going through a crisis of some sort? do you need some kind of help?
You’re so dumb it’s funny.
Never read about the Prohibition?
Prohibition was unpopular. Smoking bans are popular. So it’s not a very good analogy.
Prohibition was ridiculously popular until it wasn’t. Just like smoking bans will be.
People will choose to smoke just because it’s illegal, and it will unironically be a gateway to harder drugs since the same guy selling tobacco will now be the same guy selling crack.
It failed because of widespread lawbreaking, organized crime, enforcement failures, and economic pressure (tax and jobs during the great depression)
Smoking is already on the decline, i don’t think you’ll find such fervor for cigarette running.
You’re wrong, it will also have widespread lawbreaking, enforcement failures, economic pressure, and create a new organized crime powerhouse. As always.
The smoking market is comparable to the drug market in size of users… how’s that drug war doing?
You’re wrong!
see how easy that is?
There is, in some countries with very high taxes on tobacco.
It’s a good analogy, because nicotine is a drug and smokers as addicts will seek it out whether or not it’s illegal.
A non-addictive drug like THC is a good comparison, as the legalization within the US is a big source of tax revenue and the period when it was more illegal made it a staple of cartels, which smuggled it into the states.
When criminals run an enterprise, they inevitably use their resources to undermine government and commit more crime. That’s the true nature of prohibition.
Prohibition of any item, meaning, making the item illegal to make or possess anywhere, is a stronger infringement on personal freedom and often leads to organized crime stepping in to provide the prohibited item, both of which make it unpopular.
Popular smoking bans generally ban smoking in certain public areas. This does not promote organized crime to sell the banned product, and is less of an infringement on personal freedom.
The proposal to “ban cigarettes” sounds like it would fall under the former category .
Yep.
Prohibition does not prevent. Prohibition makes the good things bad and the bad things worse.
“Controlled substance” they say. How Orwellian. Handing it over to the black market, with no control but [criminal] market forces. How controlled.
“We said don’t do it.”, like that works. Generally, good people do not obey bad rules, and bad people do not obey rules either.
Then there’s the forbidden fruit effect. Then the profiteering and price-hike for risk, and in absence of regulation oft coming in the most harmful polluted forms of whatever’s been turned into contraband. Dangerous combination.
Normalisation of controlling people’s behaviour’s an even deeper bag of rant bait yet, than just via banning substances, slippery sloping via banning delivery methods.
Funny how prohibition and “public relations” [e.g. as per Ed Bernay’s Crystallising Public Opinion] came into being at around the same time. Prohibition wouldn’t work without the accompanying psyop? Due reconsideration of the popularity of bans. … Especially in light of realising “Prohibition does not prevent. Prohibition makes the good things bad and the bad things worse.”
No one ever got cancer standing beside a drinker.
Drinkers kill people every day, drunk driving, drunken murders and violence, etc., all would not happen without alcohol.
They kill many more people than second-hand smoke, DUIs alone.
12000 drunk driving deaths vs estimated 34000 deaths from second-hand smoke in the USA.
You can easily search for these numbers given by official government sources.
Should they ban smoking weed too?
Not a terrible idea but
The problem here is thinking the U.S. government exists to make intelligent decisions that will help us
Go ahead, do it! You can call it the “Smoke War” and kill hundreds of thousands of additional people over the years (over and above the danger of smoking), imprison many times more, and destroy families from coast to coast!
BRILLIANT
This is exactly what I am thinking. A person can smoke legally, expelling drug laced smoke at everyone around them … including babies. However, if a person cannistered this up and went around spraying it that would likely be considered assault.
Same for drivers of ICE cars presumably?
A gas powered car with its exhaust fumes poisons others way more than a smoker. Same rules apply?
They should. A big part of the world is moving towards that, while the US moves backwards.
Completely agree