Smoking Bans

Don't we do that all the time? When a person's decision making abilities are impaired or insufficient, we take away the right to do certain things. If you're drunk, you can't drive. If you are psychotic, you get institutionalized. If you are a child, you don't get to vote. None of these are choices we offer to the people in question.

Who gets to decide who is impaired?

I don't know, you tell me.

And if it were the same statement was used in an effort to keep marijuana illegal, I'm sure that it wouldn't be a problem...

If you're drunk, you can drive. You are advised not to drive, you are punished if you fail to take the advice(and get caught), but you're choice isn't taken away...

People who are psychotic don't get a say in what happens in their daily lives after they do something "wrong". Prior to that point, they are usually allowed to choose what they want to do(just like everyone else).

I think we've seen plenty of evidence that marijuana is not harmful to the degree that other drugs are — far less than nicotine and alcohol! However, if a person were severely addicted to it such that they could not control their desire to consume it and made self-destructive choices in pursuit of a high, then I would consider them impaired just as I would an alcohol addict or a nicotine addict.

And I'm talking about self-admitted addicts who state right up front that they will do absurd things in pursuit of that habit, like buy black market cigarettes that might contain rat poison, or dig through dumpsters for butts. People like my dad who will smoke two packs a day while on full-time oxygen support for emphysema.

When a person is proven to be engaged in compulsive self-harming behavior, we as a society have judged it appropriate in some cases to take away some of their rights to self-determination. We may not like it, but it's a simple fact.

Now, at no point have I advocated forcibly committing smokers to rehab or anything like that. Nor have I ever heard anyone say that smokers should not get to vote on smoking policy. What I'm hearing are arguments that attempts to make smoking more difficult for smokers are somehow infringing on their rights. This is what I have a problem with.

How can you have a "right" to do something that is not an exercise of your free will, but is in fact an addiction to which you are enslaved? This assertion that, "It's my choice to smoke, but I've tried to quit and can't," is illogical.

edited 31st Aug '12 9:40:05 AM by Fighteer

^

But the majority of smokers are not desperate to dig through trashcans for butts, and are by your criteria, capable of making their own decisions.

What Fighteer is saying is that theres some major dissonance between

Barkey:

Drunk Girlfriend:

Emphasis mine. The problem is that addicts don't always realise they have an addiction. My solution here would be to

• Offer addicts who voluntarily seek help what they need to stop.
• Allow Barkey and his ilk their habit (so long as they stay off my nose).
• Tax the manufacturers to hell and back to pay for it.

^

What it comes down to is that me and DG disagree on this matter, or that cases vary based on dependency.

I think there's some misunderstanding flying around in here, allow me to try and correct it.

I've tried to quit smoking several times so I know the process pretty good. I actually was smoke-free for about a year before woman troubles got me back into it...not a decision I would make again, unfortunately.

Anyhow, the physical addiction part isn't really the problem. You feel crappy for a week or so, but that evens out...its just like giving up coffee if you are a regular coffee drinker. Meals don't sit well,you get headaches, act crabby etc. For a few days, then its done and you start to feel pretty good.

The problem is the habit. Smokers light up regularly, and tend to associate certain times (waking up, after meals, work breaks, etc.) with cigarettes and when those times come around the cravings really hit you.

And that's a problem inherent in any behavior change. Think about trying to give up the Internet and you'll probably get what I'm talking about.

As an example, my father smoked in his teens and broke the habit when he was 25, but when I was a child (at that point he was in his late forties) he would still absently rummage in his shirt pocket when he got upset or frustrated...which is where he used to keep his smokes.

So, I think it's important that we separate "Habit" from "Addiction" when we discuss smoking and quitting...because breaking a nicotine addiction is fairly simple. Unpleasant, but simple. Breaking a smoking habit is a cast-iron bitch, and the habit sticks with you long after the chemical addiction is gone.

edited 31st Aug '12 6:12:10 PM by drunkscriblerian

As somebody who regularly breaks habits and regains them, I'd say the solution to that is to get yourself distracted. I broke my "one hour gaming every night regardless of how late I return home" habit by just spending that time cleaning my room, which desperately needs cleaning.

@Ira: That does actually work. When I broke my smoking habit for a year, I'd deal with the occasional cravings by expending nervous energy in cleaning my apartment.

The point I was trying to make, however, is that smokers are not mindless addicts and neither are they fully conscious choice-makers. Yes, most smokers like the act of lighting up but there are the forces of habit and chemical addiction present.

Smoking doesn't really work like most other addictions, and I as a smoker get tired of people who want to compare me to a crack addict. I've never given a strange man a handjob in an alleyway for a Pall Mall, okay? *

Here are several letters I had published in the local paper on the topic.

• I read with interest the discussions over the issues of legal drinking, smoking and gambling.

On the one hand these are unhealthy habits that lead to complications for those who partake in it, and cause a burden for our police and doctors when it gets out of control.

On the other hand as a mature adult I smoke and occasionally drink. I do so knowing the dangers and accepting the responsibility of my actions. Much the same as all entering adulthood must with driving, voting and raising a family.

Rather than look down on those who are responsible in what they choose to do to cope with life, should we not focus our attention on those who do not need cigarettes alcohol and vehicles to act irresponsibly?

• At the moment smoking is not illegal but given how much of an uproar there is at the moment it may as well be.

If the habit is such a problem here's an idea, why not ban the sale of cigarettes full stop?

The answer of course is if no one was allowed to buy cigarettes then the government couldn't profit from it.

• The web site Tobacco in Australia discusses the profits made by the government, so unless the information is a lie it would be accurate to state our nation's leaders profit from it.

I am actually on both sides of the fence over the issue of smoking. I smoke and were the habit to be taken away it would be difficult but it would be better for the health of all. On the other hand and the point I'm making is if the problem is so bad why is it allowed? It's one thing if profit to be made but quite another if myself and the number of experts on the topic are wrong and the government does not profit.

edited 1st Sep '12 1:19:44 AM by tsstevens

Smoking is allowed for the same reason Prohibition was eventually repealed: everyone broke the law to get around it and the money was going directly to organised crime.

The other argument against an outright ban is how well it worked when you guys tried to ban alcohol.

And I call that strawman given that tobacco hasn't been a social lubricant for the last thousands of years across several cultures (Europe, East Asia, Africa, to name a few) and cannot be safely consumed without harm at any quantity.

Still, for me trying to ban tobacco would work as well as trying to ban guns in the States.

Also I don't like the "profit from it" comment, but I'm afraid it's sadly the truth. It should be entirely spent on tobacco reduction stuff, but it's like saying speeding radars should be placed in dangerous places instead of lucrative ones.

Mind you, there are some still that want a total ban on alcohol*

edited 1st Sep '12 5:22:12 AM by Greenmantle

Honestly, tobacco-wise, that's what I wish were possible. To me, both tobacco and guns are in the "should have been banned long ago, but now it's far too late for it to work" category.

edited 1st Sep '12 5:21:45 AM by Medinoc

@DS: If you ever do consider wanting to quit smoking again, may I suggest that, as incentive, DG do something special with you for resisting to burn a smoke? I was thinking some room-romping as I was coming up with the strategy, but anything could work. Just suggesting, not saying "DON'T SMOKE ARGHFLARGHBABARTHEELEPHANT".

"To me, both tobacco and guns are in the "should have been banned long ago, but now it's far too late for it to work" category."

If we ban guns, then we'll just back to attacking people with swords.

Ah but you see, it is not a straw man. Alcohol can be more dangerous in any quantity depending on what the drinker does (and as a drinker, I can tell you that bad ideas become "good" ones with alarming regularity). Also...outright banning of anything has been proven time and again to simply create a black market in the thing people want to do (drugs, free media, etc.). The answer is the same as it was with alcohol; better education, a revamping of our legal system, and a slow campaign against the abusive/unhealthy aspects of the thing in question.

A simple ban doesn't get rid of the problem; it just makes criminals out of ordinary citizens, and turns petty crooks into rich motherfuckers.

Smoking once in a while isn't that great a risk to your health, same as drinking or just about any other drug. I know plenty of people who occasionally indulge in things like cigars, for example. What we need is a rewrite of how society views tobacco, the same way we needed to rewrite how society viewed alcohol when Prohibition was a thing.

Cigars =/= cigarettes. How many people are social cigarette smokers (in comparison to social drinkers)?

edited 1st Sep '12 8:39:23 PM by Medicus

Lots, actually. You can smoke a cigarette without getting hooked; people do it all the time.

That still doesn't account for the fact that alcohol has been a social lubricant for over thousands of years across several cultures, and smoking is dangerous regardless of quantity (point me to a study where smoking itself- not just nicotine but also the thousands of different chemicals in it- can be safe or even beneficial in smaller quantities). Drinking is bad only when in large quantities: when in small quantities it does nothing or even be good for you. Smoking only does less harm when you smoke less and not do nothing as if you do not smoke at all.

Besides, everything that gets banned turns into a black market anyway. It's just that when smoking gets entirely banned that means that the government expressed a proper position on it rather than the "oh, we don't like people smoking but we like getting the tax revenue out of it" position that it is in now.

edited 1st Sep '12 9:15:20 PM by IraTheSquire

" It's just that when smoking gets entirely banned that means that the government expressed a proper position on it rather than the "oh, we don't like people smoking but we like getting the tax revenue out of it" position that it is in now."

Someone a while back on this thread said something around the lines of "I'd rather do something hypocritical than something stupid." That perfectly expresses my opinion on this matter. I'd prefer our government do something hypocritical (getting smoking tax revenue), than something stupid (banning smoking outright).

edited 1st Sep '12 9:35:42 PM by DeviantBraeburn