Should smoking be banned completely ?

MadDog76

RayM wrote: »

Most smokers want to give up. It's hard to imagine many people being prepared to become criminals for the sake of a very conspicuous habit that they want to kick anyway (and one which can so easily be supplanted by other methods of nicotine ingestion).

Said like a true non-smoker! :rolleyes:

Most smokers do want to give up smoking ........ most drug addicts also want to give up drugs.

Making something illegal does not make it go away or solve anything ........ in fact, it usually just creates another load of problems to deal with.

RayM wrote: »

"Remember when people used to get Lung Cancer?"

"Remember when people used to be able to decide for themselves what they can and can't do ........ my dad told me he used to have a few beers on a Friday after work then bring home fish & chips for my mam afterwards ....... crazy isn't it!!!" :rolleyes:

MadDog76

rubadub wrote: »

Why not? they banned magic mushrooms pretty much overnight. Screwing over loads of sellers and users. Same with loads of actually addictive drugs too.

BUt I suppose mammy and the local garda do not openly admit to abusing those drugs.

Magic Mushrooms are still available to buy ........ pm me for details.

RayM

No, I should be smoke if I choose.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Said like a true non-smoker! :rolleyes:

Most smokers do want to give up smoking ........ most drug addicts also want to give up drugs.

Making something illegal does not make it go away or solve anything ........ in fact, it usually just creates another load of problems to deal with.

This is why an overnight ban wouldn't work. If a future date was set, by which the manufacture, sale and possession of tobacco products was banned, then people would have plenty of time to quit or find alternative methods of nicotine ingestion. I'm talking decades, rather than years.

magma69

Yes, the price should be increased to €15 a pack.

Everything that I don't like should be banned and all the things that I like and partake in should be allowed.

MadDog76

RayM wrote: »

This is why an overnight ban wouldn't work. If a future date was set, by which the manufacture, sale and possession of tobacco products was banned, then people would have plenty of time to quit or find alternative methods of nicotine ingestion. I'm talking decades, rather than years.

The Op is talking about an over-night ban ......... a long gradual process of phasing out smoking is a more sensible approach with a much higher chance of being successful.

I personally believe that this process has already begun and is, slowly, working.

matt007

I hate driving. I always have, and all ways will. My friend died in a car crash in 1986. He drove to work everyday from the age of 17 to when he died aged 24.

When I was 17 all my mates learnt to drive. I couldn't stand the smell of the fumes so I stopped hanging out with these lads. Even now when I'm in town, I hate standing near a car at the lights, the smell makes me sick.

The one thing I look forward to in the budget every year is the price of petrol going up. I hope this encourages people to stop driving, or it makes them stop because they cant afford it.

So, should it be banned completely ?

DEFTLEFTHAND

Yes, the price should be increased to €15 a pack.

Talking about decreasing the number of smokers the amount of social smokers must have increased significantly when the 2004 ban came in. Pubs and clubs smoking areas are always crammed with muppets sucking out of 'borrowed' cigs that they don't even inhale.:rolleyes:

At least these dorks for the most part don't seem to get addicted, it's purely a weekend thing for them.

osarusan

MadDog76 wrote: »

Of course it does ....... your point is, if the Government has to deal with the effects of smoking and/or the fall-out from a smoking ban then it should have the right to independently regulate it on our behalf ......... whereas it is in fact us, the people, who really have to deal with smoking both as individuals and in relation to our loved ones therefore the choice should not be dictated to us by the Government.

It isn't just us, the people, who really have to deal with the effects of smoking. The government also really has to deal with the effects of smoking, to the tune of about half a billion Euro every year.

That huge amount very much makes it the government's business.

whether or not you think it 'should' be a personal choice and none of the government's business, at the moment it very clearly is the government's business, as they regulate who can smoke and who can't, where you can smoke and where are you can't, how much they cost, and so on.

end of the road

Liamario wrote: »

You can't ban it for existing smokers, but you could ban it for future ones...

would still be to costly and would fail. banning things doesn't stop it.

end of the road

RayM wrote: »

This is why an overnight ban wouldn't work. If a future date was set, by which the manufacture, sale and possession of tobacco products was banned, then people would have plenty of time to quit or find alternative methods of nicotine ingestion. I'm talking decades, rather than years.

if it was doable or cost effective it would be happening

MadDog76

osarusan wrote: »

It isn't just us, the people, who really have to deal with the effects of smoking. The government also really has to deal with the effects of smoking, to the tune of about half a billion Euro every year.

That huge amount very much makes it the government's business.

whether or not you think it 'should' be a personal choice and none of the government's business, at the moment it very clearly is the government's business, as they regulate who can smoke and who can't, where you can smoke and where are you can't, how much they cost, and so on.

The Government rakes in 1.1 billion euro a year in revenue from cigarettes ....... they are up 600 million euros ......... if it is the Governments business then business is very very good right now!!!

jonnny68

Yes, the price should be increased to €15 a pack.

ex smoker here, banning it would be the absolute worst thing of all, just like the failed war on drugs just say no has and never will work, education is the key,

the_syco

eeguy wrote: »

The ever increasing cost

The ever increasing cost means that people are just buying the dodgy chinese smokes, which are even worse for their health.

Violafy

People should be free to do what they want, as long as it doesn't cause harm to others. Smoking in public places can harm others, as others are forced to breath in disgusting second hand smoke. Smoke in your house to your heart's content (preferably not in front of children) but don't enforce your habit on others on the street, in a pub etc. Therefore I think the current ban is brilliant, and should perhaps be extended to places like bus stops, but banning it completely is stupid and probably impossible to enforce.

Also smoking is incomparable to other unhealthy habits like eating too much sugar, as eating junk food doesn't involve exhaling toxic chemicals that pollute both the air and the lungs of non-smokers.

SeanW

RayM wrote: »

Most smokers want to give up. It's hard to imagine many people being prepared to become criminals for the sake of a very conspicuous habit that they want to kick anyway (and one which can so easily be supplanted by other methods of nicotine ingestion).

You just don't get it - Prohibition doesn't work! It's been tried with alcohol, pot, hookers, you name it. Not only fighting wars on vices never worked, it's usually exacerbated, rather than ameliorated the problem it was supposed to solve.

But as I said, I'd love to see the cigarettes consigned to the dustbin of history. How do you do that? Change our culture, make it "uncool" and make teens etc realise how foolish it is, like we did with drink-driving which was once not only unlikely to cause legal trouble, but widely accepted in society as a whole as being the done thing. Of course teens don't necessarily listen to their parents on these matters, so if you (or anyone reading) has influence over a young person who is considering the topic of tobacco, (e.g. you're a favourite uncle or something) then talk with them about what a mistake that would be, prefereably not like Mr. Garrison in South Park with his pointless "Drugs are bad Mmmmkay" speech.

That would do a hell of a lot more to limit cigarette usage in society than another pointless war-on-a-vice.

"Remember when people used to get Lung Cancer?"

Again, this is based on the shaky assertion that a government ban would actually mean something. 100 years of various kinds of Prohibitionist nonsense would suggest that this is a very big leap.

Sam Kade

No, I should be smoke if I choose.

MadDog76 wrote: »

You believe that all smokers will become ex-smokers because it's now illegal?

You think those smokers who do become ex-smokers will donate their newly saved money to the "War on Smoking"?

No, they'll stick it under the matress :rolleyes:

gormdubhgorm

Simple fact is : smoking is a money spinner even when health implications and resulting costs are taken into account the government make money.
Also a high percentage of those from the lower end of the socio- economic spectrum smoke. If they are stupid enough to smoke let them.
Increasing the tax on it would be a good idea too.
For these reasons it should not be banned.

enfant terrible

Wouldn't banning alcohol be a much better idea with all the problems it causes.

youtheman

Regarding smoking being a source of revenue. If a person gives up fags is his/her bank account better at the end of the year ?. No, because he/she spends the money elsewhere (granted, maybe giving less % tax to the government). And if you drive the cost up through the roof will your typical smoker go underground to buy his fix off some dodgy criminal type?.

If you announced that you had a 'goal', and that was that anyone born post 2020 would never inhale tobacco smoke, would you get any objections ?. No (except for the tobacco companies). So why don't we aspire to banning it someday (granted, easier said than done).

I'm always amazed that the published risk of a 50% chance of dying from cancer doesn't put people off.

Boskowski

Yes, the price should be increased to €15 a pack.

I prefer them banning it outright rather than this faffing around with ever more price increases. Either ban it or leave people the f*** alone. Preferably just leave people alone. There is a demarkation between disincentivizing behaviour thats damaging to society and on the other hand just patronising, nannying, bossing people around. And before anyone mentions the health bill. If we were only allowed to do things that profit everyone and everything we would be living in a terribly boring place. The whole smoking ban thing has overstepped the line a long time ago and its just hypocritical anyway.

And to the posters here. Ye we get it. Its stupid, you can't understand how people can be so moronic and disgusting. So don't do it yourself, avoid smokers and leave people alone. Get over it.

RayM

No, I should be smoke if I choose.

SeanW wrote: »

You just don't get it - Prohibition doesn't work! It's been tried with alcohol, pot, hookers, you name it. Not only fighting wars on vices never worked, it's usually exacerbated, rather than ameliorated the problem it was supposed to solve.

No, I actually do get it. Which is why I don't believe that immediately banning cigarettes would work. It can only work if it's done throughout the EU and at a specified date in the future (something like 15 or 20 years away), thus giving smokers plenty of time to quit or find another way of consuming nicotine, and the tobacco industry plenty of time to find a less evil way of making money.

The biggest difference between prohibition of alcohol and prohibition of tobacco is that you'd never hear the average drinker saying "God, I wish they'd just ban it... at least I'd have no choice but to stop then." Also, apart from satisfying an addiction, tobacco doesn't really 'do anything' for the user.

SeanW wrote:

But as I said, I'd love to see the cigarettes consigned to the dustbin of history. How do you do that? Change our culture, make it "uncool" and make teens etc realise how foolish it is, like we did with drink-driving which was once not only unlikely to cause legal trouble, but widely accepted in society as a whole as being the done thing.

Any conscious attempt to make it 'uncool' will inevitably have the opposite effect. The tobacco industry needs to be attacked and publicly portrayed as absolute bastards - people need to be made aware that every time they buy a packet of cigarettes, they're handing money over to one of the most evil industries on earth - every bit as morally repugnant as organised crime. Pictures of damaged internal organs aren't really shocking any more. Publicise the lesser-known effects of Lung Cancer, for instance. Yes, your lungs will be invaded by tumours, but you won't necessarily cough yourself to death. The tumours can multiply and spread to other parts of your body too, like your bones and your brain, resulting in unimaginable pain that no medication seems to alleviate, immobility, incontinence, blindness and an inability to remember your own kids' names.

MadDog76

Sam Kade wrote: »

No, they'll stick it under the matress :rolleyes:

While your sarcasm is greatly appreciated by me personally, some on here may be more interested in a grown-up discussion ........ good attempt though :rolleyes:

MadDog76

youtheman wrote: »

Regarding smoking being a source of revenue. If a person gives up fags is his/her bank account better at the end of the year ?. No, because he/she spends the money elsewhere (granted, maybe giving less % tax to the government).

I gave up smoking in the past .........the first time I gave up I used my "smoking money" to pay off my credit card and then a car loan.
The last time I gave up I put what I would have spent on cigarettes into a little tin box (I did this daily, the way I buy cigarettes) and eventually used all of the money to pay for a holiday including spending money.
The Government got very little, if any, of my cigarette money once I stopped smoking!

youtheman wrote: »

And if you drive the cost up through the roof will your typical smoker go underground to buy his fix off some dodgy criminal type?.

Yes they would, many already do in fact.

youtheman wrote: »

If you announced that you had a 'goal', and that was that anyone born post 2020 would never inhale tobacco smoke, would you get any objections ?. No (except for the tobacco companies). So why don't we aspire to banning it someday (granted, easier said than done).

A more sensible approach but cigarettes and smoking has as much chance of being eradicated completely as cocaine or alcohol.

youtheman wrote: »

I'm always amazed that the published risk of a 50% chance of dying from cancer doesn't put people off.

The health risks involved with Fast Food, Bungee Jumping, Unprotected Sex, Recreational Drugs, Alcohol, Contact Sports doesn't put people off ....... I'm amazed that you're amazed by human instinct to seek pleasure regardless of the risks involved.

Richard Hillman

It will be banned and then all the usual heads will be telling us that it should be dicriminalised and that regulation is the only way forward.

MadDog76

RayM wrote: »

No, I actually do get it. Which is why I don't believe that immediately banning cigarettes would work. It can only work if it's done throughout the EU and at a specified date in the future (something like 15 or 20 years away), thus giving smokers plenty of time to quit or find another way of consuming nicotine, and the tobacco industry plenty of time to find a less evil way of making money.

The biggest difference between prohibition of alcohol and prohibition of tobacco is that you'd never hear the average drinker saying "God, I wish they'd just ban it... at least I'd have no choice but to stop then." Also, apart from satisfying an addiction, tobacco doesn't really 'do anything' for the user.



Any conscious attempt to make it 'uncool' will inevitably have the opposite effect. The tobacco industry needs to be attacked and publicly portrayed as absolute bastards - people need to be made aware that every time they buy a packet of cigarettes, they're handing money over to one of the most evil industries on earth - every bit as morally repugnant as organised crime. Pictures of damaged internal organs aren't really shocking any more. Publicise the lesser-known effects of Lung Cancer, for instance. Yes, your lungs will be invaded by tumours, but you won't necessarily cough yourself to death. The tumours can multiply and spread to other parts of your body too, like your bones and your brain, resulting in unimaginable pain that no medication seems to alleviate, immobility, incontinence, blindness and an inability to remember your own kids' names.

While I agree that a phasing-out approach to banning smoking is a more sensible way to go with a higher chance of being successful, it won't eliminate cigarettes, smoking or smokers completely.
A lot of smokers will smoke right up to the last minute of the ban with a "I'll be giving up at midnight tonight anyway" then they'll eventually seek out (and find!) illegal cigarettes when the cravings become too over-whelming to ignore.

Judging by my own teenage nephews, nieces and their friends, smoking is already "uncool" ......... they seem to have a "what's the point in smoking? It's stupid" attitude which I actively encourage .......... I personally believe that smoking will eventually (and naturally) phase out with every new generation ....... the message has gotten through.

As far as "educating" smokers on exactly how harmful smoking is ......... don't bother, they already know better than anybody.

end of the road

RayM wrote: »

No, I actually do get it. Which is why I don't believe that immediately banning cigarettes would work. It can only work if it's done throughout the EU and at a specified date in the future (something like 15 or 20 years away), thus giving smokers plenty of time to quit or find another way of consuming nicotine, and the tobacco industry plenty of time to find a less evil way of making money.

The biggest difference between prohibition of alcohol and prohibition of tobacco is that you'd never hear the average drinker saying "God, I wish they'd just ban it... at least I'd have no choice but to stop then." Also, apart from satisfying an addiction, tobacco doesn't really 'do anything' for the user.



Any conscious attempt to make it 'uncool' will inevitably have the opposite effect. The tobacco industry needs to be attacked and publicly portrayed as absolute bastards - people need to be made aware that every time they buy a packet of cigarettes, they're handing money over to one of the most evil industries on earth - every bit as morally repugnant as organised crime. Pictures of damaged internal organs aren't really shocking any more. Publicise the lesser-known effects of Lung Cancer, for instance. Yes, your lungs will be invaded by tumours, but you won't necessarily cough yourself to death. The tumours can multiply and spread to other parts of your body too, like your bones and your brain, resulting in unimaginable pain that no medication seems to alleviate, immobility, incontinence, blindness and an inability to remember your own kids' names.

what "less evil" way. their way isn't evil as people know the risks. the tobacco industry isn't evil. its an industry people want to be a part of and choose to be. it is no way near, and never will be anywhere near organized crime. there is no moral argument involved in smoking or the tobacco industry. they are all ready showing the effects, and even at that some of your effects are over exaggerated and only have happened in a couple of cases. this industry brings in billions into the economy which can never be replaced. even a phased ban would eventually lead to a black market. the state being in control as currently is the only way along with education. after that if people choose to smoke so be it. their choice, none of our business

RayM

No, I should be smoke if I choose.

end of the road wrote: »

what "less evil" way. their way isn't evil as people know the risks. the tobacco industry isn't evil. its an industry people want to be a part of and choose to be. it is no way near, and never will be anywhere near organized crime. there is no moral argument involved in smoking or the tobacco industry. they are all ready showing the effects, and even at that some of your effects are over exaggerated and only have happened in a couple of cases. this industry brings in billions into the economy which can never be replaced. even a phased ban would eventually lead to a black market. the state being in control as currently is the only way along with education. after that if people choose to smoke so be it. their choice, none of our business

Honestly didn't expect someone to come along and try (admittedly quite badly and incoherently) to defend the tobacco industry...

Their entire business model is reliant upon getting children hooked on carcinogens.

MadDog76

RayM wrote: »

Honestly didn't expect someone to come along and try (admittedly quite badly and incoherently) to defend the tobacco industry...

Their entire business model is reliant upon getting children adults hooked on carcinogens.

Fixed your post for you ......... now I agree with it!

end of the road

RayM wrote: »

Honestly didn't expect someone to come along and try (admittedly quite badly and incoherently) to defend the tobacco industry...

Their entire business model is reliant upon getting children hooked on carcinogens.

no, grown adults. it is illegal in most countries for children to be smoking under a certain age. usually 18/21

MadDog76

end of the road wrote: »

no, grown adults. it is illegal in most countries for children to be smoking under a certain age. usually 18/21

Plus the fact that it would be a pointless market to go after anyway ........ children don't have money, adults do.