I really, really hate non-smokers

[MikeH]

Those are byproducts of taxation and restrictions to an otherwise lawful product.

You used to smoke. Can you imagine going way out of your way to get black market smokes in the event that they were totally banned and not available anywhere over the counter? I wouldn't.

Yes, definitely.

I have also in the past bought illegal drugs, no difference.

[notyoueither]

Yes, definitely.

I have also in the past bought illegal drugs, no difference.

I wouldn't equate tobacco with drugs or alcohol.

The later two are fine for casual and infrequent use, such as you'd have with prohibition. Tobacco use doesn't really work that way.

Perhaps there would be a few smokers *** heroin addicts. I suspect though that the majority of smokers would quit and the number of new smokers would be miniscule if there were no easy access to the product.

Alberta might provide an good test for the theory. As of Jan 1 you can't buy smokes at any business with a pharmacy (all the grocery stores) and smaller stroes can't display the product (they have to be kept under the counter or in opaque cabinets). The theory is the restrictions in availablility and removing them from sight will reduce the number who take up the habit and make it easier for current smokers to quit. We'll see.

[MikeH]

I wouldn't equate tobacco with drugs or alcohol.

The later two are fine for casual and infrequent use, such as you'd have with prohibition. Tobacco use doesn't really work that way.

No, so it'll be worse.

They are planning on hiding cigarettes from view in shops here. I don't think it'll make any difference.

[rah]

Putting cigarettes under the counter out of sight will make it easier for current smokers to quit.
That's the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
I tried to quit for over 20 years, man, if I had just asked them to hide the cigaretts in the store, I could have quit 10 years ago.

[notyoueither]

Putting cigarettes under the counter out of sight will make it easier for current smokers to quit.
That's the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
I tried to quit for over 20 years, man, if I had just asked them to hide the cigaretts in the store, I could have quit 10 years ago.

It was the last way of promotion left to them.

Tobacco advertising and sponsorships of events have been banned. The tobacco companies resorted to colourful, flashy displays in stores.

Also, you are ignoring the larger point, that being reducing the number of people who start to smoke.

Coming full circle, assuming reports are accurate and tobacco use is directly and indirectly lethal, I can't for the life of me understand why it is still legal to produce the product. ****, or get off the pot.

[notyoueither]

No, so it'll be worse.

They are planning on hiding cigarettes from view in shops here. I don't think it'll make any difference.

I don't agree. On either point.

[MikeH]

Coming full circle, assuming reports are accurate and tobacco use is directly and indirectly lethal, I can't for the life of me understand why it is still legal to produce the product. ****, or get off the pot.

That's easy, huge tax revenues for governments and experiences with the problems black markets caused during previous (and current) prohibitions.

Of course, if you think there wouldn't be a black market, that's not going to be satisfactory for you as an answer. It is for me.

I think a ban is completely justifiable based on the medical evidence, but the social cost of a ban in increased crime isn't one I'm prepared to pay. I'd legalise and regulate all recreational drugs, despite their health problems

[onodera]

I wouldn't equate tobacco with drugs or alcohol.

I would. Nicotine and ethanol are drugs.

[Boris Godunov]

Sky diving, driving fast, drinking far too much, some drugs, etc. are all known to be bad for people. That does not prevent young people from taking them up/doing them.

I will go back to what I've been saying for a long time now. If smoking is guaranteed bad for people, it should be illegal to grow, manufacture, import, and sell the product.

Take any 100,000 people born today. Be assured that in 18 years a certain number of them will smoke. Why is that allowed to continue?

I don't get your point, as I am not advocating smoking be made illegal in its entirety. That doesn't mean it isn't stupid to do it. I can't think of any other way to describe a habit that a) everyone knows has a high lethality rate, b) everyone knows is highly addictive, c) costs a ****load of money that you're literally burning away and d) makes you smell like a pile of ****. None of these are secrets.

The vast majority of young people who take up smoking do it because of peer pressure. Isn't that a stupid reason to do anything, especially to start a lethal and addictive habit? I'd say so.

Skydiving is at least fun. It's also statistically a lot safer than smoking.

[rah]

Smoking was enjoyable to me when I did it. Which I'm reminded of constantly almost a year later (since I'm obviously passed the physical addiction stage. I miss the pleasure of smoking. It relaxed me and helped me concentrate. That's the essense of the mental addition. I enjoyed it and miss it. And I don't think you want to go down the percentage of risk arguement. At what percentage should we start banning something?

[Boris Godunov]

And I don't think you want to go down the percentage of risk arguement. At what percentage should we start banning something?

Are you talking to me? Because I said:

I am not advocating smoking be made illegal in its entirety.

[rah]

Skydiving is at least fun. It's also statistically a lot safer than smoking.

That's what I was referencing when I mentioned the statistical aspect.

[notyoueither]

That's easy, huge tax revenues for governments and experiences with the problems black markets caused during previous (and current) prohibitions.

Of course, if you think there wouldn't be a black market, that's not going to be satisfactory for you as an answer. It is for me.

Governments cost themselves a lot when they banned asbestos and went so far as to rip it out of all their buildings. There are also the ongoing and future health care costs.

And we agree that I do not agree with the fears of a black market giving rise to modern day Al Capones. First, they already exist. Second, the volume of tobacco they would need to move fill containers, not luggage.

I think a ban is completely justifiable based on the medical evidence, but the social cost of a ban in increased crime isn't one I'm prepared to pay. I'd legalise and regulate all recreational drugs, despite their health problems

How many heroin addicts are there, and how is the health of children in homes of heroin addicts affected by secondary exposure?

[Theben]

And people will continue to eat fast food and get fat and die of heart attacks... Why is that allowed to continue

That's fine, b/c they harm themselves only (not including emotional distress on family, etc). If smoke only affected smokers I wouldn't care either. In the big picture their early deaths would make room for my family to succeed further.

But no, you dumbasses have to smoke in my face. Well if I took a knife and cut you a little each time you smoked near me you'd get pissed off, wouldn't you? Oh, and I love how you lazy bastards get to shirk work when you need a "smoke break" but us non-smokers it's "you don't smoke, why do you need a break?"

Smokers are stupid, throw grenades at them.

[Theben]

How many heroin addicts are there, and how is the health of children in homes of heroin addicts affected by secondary exposure?

You do realize that heroin use is universally frowned upon (in addition to illegal)?