Ban Ban Ban?

[Jiro]

Commentary: Why not prohibit smoking?

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Cigarettes kill; 400,000 people die prematurely every year from smoking. When we analyze the harm from drugs, there is no doubt that cigarettes are the worst.

They kill more people than cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and all other illegal drugs combined.

More than 800,000 people are arrested every year for marijuana, the vast majority for possession, yet all the data from studies that compare the two substances show that cigarettes are more harmful to an individual's health. If we make these other drugs illegal, shouldn't we outlaw the leading killer?

Considering how we deal with less harmful drugs, making cigarettes illegal seems logical. Over the past decade, we have seen, in states from California to New York, increasing restrictions on when and where people can smoke -- and even momentum toward tobacco prohibition.

Smoking is banned in bars and restaurants and on some university campuses. People can now be fired from their jobs because they can't give up smoking. We have seen parents denied adoption rights if they smoke. In some cities, it is nearly impossible to smoke anywhere besides your own home.

The Drug Policy Alliance sponsored a Zogby Poll in 2006, and we were shocked to find that 45 percent of those polled supported making cigarettes illegal within the next 10 years. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, it's more than 50 percent.

But with all of the good intentions in the world, outlawing cigarettes would be just as disastrous as the prohibition on other drugs. After all, people would still smoke, just as they still use other drugs that are prohibited, from marijuana to cocaine. But now, in addition to the harm of smoking, we would find a whole range of "collateral consequences" that come along with prohibition.

A huge number of people who smoke would continue to do so, but now they would be considered criminals. We would have parents promising their kids that they will stop smoking but still sneaking a smoke.

We would have smokers hiding their habit and smoking in alleys and dark corners, afraid of being caught using the illegal substance. We would have cops using precious time and resources to hassle and arrest cigarette smokers. Our prison overcrowding crisis would rise to an unprecedented level with "addicts" and casual cigarette smokers alike getting locked up.

We would have a black market, with outlaws taking the place of delis and supermarkets and stepping in to meet the demand and provide the desired drug.

Instead of buying your cigarettes in a legally sanctioned place, you would have to hit the streets to pick up your fix. The cigarette trade would provide big revenue to "drug dealers," just as illegal drugs do today. There would be shootouts in the streets and killings over the right to sell the prohibited tobacco plant.

We have tried prohibiting cigarettes in some state prisons, like in California, and we have seen that smoking continues, with cigarettes traded illicitly. There is a violent black market that fills the void and leads to unnecessary deaths over access and the inflated profits.

Luckily, no one is proposing making cigarettes illegal. On the contrary, our public health campaign around cigarettes has been a model of success compared with our results with other prohibited drugs. By placing high taxes on cigarettes, restricting locations where one can smoke and banning certain kinds of advertising, we have seen a significant decline in the number of people who smoke.

Instead of giving teens "reefer madness"-style propaganda, we have treated young people with respect and given them honest education about the harm of cigarettes, and we have been rewarded with fewer young people smoking today than ever before.

Although we should celebrate our success and continue to encourage people to cut back or give up smoking, let's not get carried away and think that prohibition would eliminate smoking.

We need to realize that drugs, from cigarettes to marijuana to alcohol, will always be consumed, whether they are legal or illegal. Although drugs have health consequences and dangers, making them illegal -- and keeping them illegal -- will only bring additional death and suffering.

Don't just take my word for it. Take it from the news anchor who was called the most trusted man in America, Walter Cronkite.

Here is what he said about prohibition and our war on drugs: "I covered the Vietnam War. I remember the lies that were told, the lives that were lost -- and the shock when, 20 years after the war ended, former Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara admitted he knew it was a mistake all along. ...

"And I cannot help but wonder how many more lives, and how much more money, will be wasted before another Robert McNamara admits what is plain for all to see: The war on drugs is a failure."

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Commentary: Why not prohibit smoking?

I personally can see the point that cigarettes kill and so we should ban them, but I disagree. Yes, they kill, but I believe in personal choice. We've regulated cigarettes, so hopefully, they aren't getting into the hands of minors. We have laws that protects those that don't want to be exposed to anothers cigarette smoke. That's going far enough. I think that a ban would just cause complete and utter chaos and isn't worth it to try. Remember prohibition, anyone? It was an EPIC FAIL and a ban on cigs would be also.

As for the war on drugs, no comment. That's another well meaning idea gone totally wrong.

 

[flip]

I personally can see the point that cigarettes kill and so we should ban them, but I disagree. Yes, they kill, but I believe in personal choice. We've regulated cigarettes, so hopefully, they aren't getting into the hands of minors. We have laws that protects those that don't want to be exposed to anothers cigarette smoke. That's going far enough. I think that a ban would just cause complete and utter chaos and isn't worth it to try. Remember prohibition, anyone? It was an EPIC FAIL and a ban on cigs would be also.

As for the war on drugs, no comment. That's another well meaning idea gone totally wrong.

I think the idea of this article is to not ban cigarettes, but show how stupid it would be to ban cigarettes. This article promote the idea of decriminalize both hard and soft drugs. Correct me if I am wrong, anyone!

It's a good idea to decriminalize all drugs, and instead foucs on harm reduction. If heroin was made legal for decades, and then suddenly someone wanted to ban it, it's a possibility many would say it's crazy to ban heroin, and it's just going to make things worse.

 

[Royale]

Ban smoking will help saving money from massive health care costs.

 

[Jiro]

I think the idea of this article is to not ban cigarettes, but show how stupid it would be to ban cigarettes. This article promote the idea of decriminalize both hard and soft drugs. Correct me if I am wrong, anyone!

It's a good idea to decriminalize all drugs, and instead foucs on harm reduction. If heroin was made legal for decades, and then suddenly someone wanted to ban it, it's a possibility many would say it's crazy to ban heroin, and it's just going to make things worse.

yep. correct. It's emphasizing on anti-smoking campaigns, not banning. The author delved on why banning cigarette would be an EPIC FAIL.

I still support drug ban on certain drugs such as meth, crack, and heroine but drug penalty law should be completely revised. However - I support a clean safe clinic that provides sterilized syringe for meth/crack/heroine addicts under medical supervision. Marijuana should be legalized.

 

[rockdrummer]

What I think should happen is that the cigarette makers should start to slowly reduce the amount of nicotine and start to wean smokers off the addictive substance. It's how many of the stop smoking systems work. That will help eliminate the physical addiction
Nicotine occurs naturally in tobacco, but is amplified during the cigarette's manufacture. This is to help ensure you stay addicted and continue to purchase their product. The problem I think with banning them is there is a huge tax base that would get eliminated.

 

[Jiro]

What I think should happen is that the cigarette makers should start to slowly reduce the amount of nicotine and start to wean smokers off the addictive substance. It's how many of the stop smoking systems work. That will help eliminate the physical addiction
Nicotine occurs naturally in tobacco, but is amplified during the cigarette's manufacture. This is to help ensure you stay addicted and continue to purchase their product. The problem I think with banning them is there is a huge tax base that would get eliminated.

hmm.... if you reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarette, that will cause heavy smokers to smoke more and buy more to achieve that level of nicotine they need. That means more pollution - massive littering of cigarette butts on property, more cigarette lighters & lighter fluid, and more resource consumed to produce cigarette packs.

 

[rockdrummer]

hmm.... if you reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarette, that will cause heavy smokers to smoke more and buy more to achieve that level of nicotine they need. That means more pollution - massive littering of cigarette butts on property, more cigarette lighters & lighter fluid, and more resource consumed to produce cigarette packs.

I would agree with that only if they cut it quickly. What I am talking about is a slow reduction to where it would be hardly noticable. Then before you know it, you are not addicted and will not suffer withdrawals when you try to quit.

 

[Daredevel7]

As long smoking is banned inside certain places (due to other people's asthma, etc), I don't think it's a good idea to ban cigarettes altogether....

 

[hohDougRN]

I would agree with that only if they cut it quickly. What I am talking about is a slow reduction to where it would be hardly noticable. Then before you know it, you are not addicted and will not suffer withdrawals when you try to quit.

I think thats why nicotine gum and patches are created to wean off nicotine until quit.

 

[Mrs Bucket]

For those who say smoking is a free choice, here's how much of a free choice.

Russian child smoking

It doesn't matter where you are, the freedom of smoking needs to stop because it's the other people that pays the price and pays the price of your suffering. This is where I have an issue about the system paying for the aftereffects of their "freedom of choice" in smoking, that is. Please.

 

[shel90]

Honestly, I wish cigaretts would be banned. Nothing good comes from smoking them. My hubby would disagree with me right there on the spot!

 

[flip]

yep. correct. It's emphasizing on anti-smoking campaigns, not banning. The author delved on why banning cigarette would be an EPIC FAIL.

I still support drug ban on certain drugs such as meth, crack, and heroine but drug penalty law should be completely revised. However - I support a clean safe clinic that provides sterilized syringe for meth/crack/heroine addicts under medical supervision. Marijuana should be legalized.

We got "needle rooms" in europe. Don't know about US, but here it have had no harm reduction effect with overdoses and diseases in mind. In europe we are moving toward decriminalizing "hard" drugs. The success of decriminalizing all drugs in Portugal is very telling. Drug abusers are patients, not lawbreakers. If you are addicted to marijuana, you are qualified to become a patient with follow up programs, no money spent for prison care. Same if you are addicted to crack cocaine, meth or street heroin. People who have experienced marijuana in portugal is as low as 10 percent, with 40 percent in USA, if I remember right.

The point is not to make few as possible smoke marijuana or do other drugs, but let it find it's presence in a society naturally, not glorified through a exciting drug on war or used to attract tourists from countries with strict laws. I think a large part of smokers who fight for legalizing marijuana in USA will quit smoking if it became legal. The high is after all stupid, isn't it?

 

[flip]

What I think should happen is that the cigarette makers should start to slowly reduce the amount of nicotine and start to wean smokers off the addictive substance. It's how many of the stop smoking systems work. That will help eliminate the physical addiction
Nicotine occurs naturally in tobacco, but is amplified during the cigarette's manufacture. This is to help ensure you stay addicted and continue to purchase their product. The problem I think with banning them is there is a huge tax base that would get eliminated.

I heard that own grown tobacco is the best. Not that toxic and very very strong. A guy world war II veteran I talked to, told me 1 roll of home grown tobacco was so strong he just smoked that cigarette the whole day! Think thats healthier than smoking 40 flavored cigarettes a day.

 

[flip]

Honestly, I wish cigaretts would be banned. Nothing good comes from smoking them. My hubby would disagree with me right there on the spot!

I am all in for criminalizing tobacco, making it illegal to add flavors and alter cigarettes. Fancy packs and all that should also be banned. Selling in supermarkets banned, but not banned to use. I think we are able to use it properly, if we take it out of the hands of corporates, and treat more like other drugs, not a candy.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Sure, it would be cool to have tobacco into illegal to save health cost but ban tabacoo doesn´t solve anything because junk foods are everywhere.

 

[Phillips]

Ban smoking will help saving money from massive health care costs.

True! But their decisions :shrug:

 

[sallylou]

Banning won't work. I have a problem with pregnant women who smoke or drink. Alcohol is a legal drug but even moderate use has a devastating effect on the developing fetus (even if the child looks normal). We would eliminate a lot of problems if there was successful program for keeping women off drugs. Their children will also be less likely to become drug users if the mothers do not use drugs. You've got to get to the root of the problem.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

I think the idea of this article is to not ban cigarettes, but show how stupid it would be to ban cigarettes. This article promote the idea of decriminalize both hard and soft drugs. Correct me if I am wrong, anyone!

It's a good idea to decriminalize all drugs, and instead foucs on harm reduction. If heroin was made legal for decades, and then suddenly someone wanted to ban it, it's a possibility many would say it's crazy to ban heroin, and it's just going to make things worse.

yep. correct. It's emphasizing on anti-smoking campaigns, not banning. The author delved on why banning cigarette would be an EPIC FAIL.

I still support drug ban on certain drugs such as meth, crack, and heroine but drug penalty law should be completely revised. However - I support a clean safe clinic that provides sterilized syringe for meth/crack/heroine addicts under medical supervision. Marijuana should be legalized.

You were right, Flip. I didn't read it carefully enough the first time around. I agree with the article.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

For those who say smoking is a free choice, here's how much of a free choice.

Russian child smoking

It doesn't matter where you are, the freedom of smoking needs to stop because it's the other people that pays the price and pays the price of your suffering. This is where I have an issue about the system paying for the aftereffects of their "freedom of choice" in smoking, that is. Please.

I disagree. Banning cigs will only make someone go to extreme lengths to obtain them. As for keeping children away from smoking, that starts with the parents.

Banning a product seems like a really good idea, but it's not. If someone wants a substance bad enough, they will get it regardless of the consequences.