Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta

Should cigarettes be made illegal? watch

  • View Poll Results: Should cigarettes be made illegal?
    Yes - ban them!
    1,313
    64.17%
    No - keep on puffing...
    733
    35.83%

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Banning them would be incredibly short sighted. How many people voted yes but at the same time probably want drugs legalised? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The important part of personal finance is the personal bit, it is for the
    individual to decide how to spend their income, post tax, not the state, so that's somewhat of a moot point. As for drugs and sex slave making loads, that is for the individuals, not the exchequer, and I think that it doesn't go on the GDP figure either, although I may be wrong on that part.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I would agree on the personal bit, although cigarettes are so expensive in the UK therefore the benefits from making smoking illegal would be huge in terms of health and personal finance. I presumed drugs and prostitution contributed to GDP because both industries are in the billions moneywise.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Never smoked and never will but it is not my place to support the banning of people making the conscience choice to smoke themselves. Besides, if it is banned what are people going to turn to? Something "worse" no doubt.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CAElite)
    Holy sh*t. The rest of the world is progressively deregulating and decriminalising "potentially harmful substances" in the name of libertarian values and to allow people to get the help they want without the police looking over their shoulder. Only the UK would be so backward as to go entirely in the other direction.
    Other drugs do not directly harm anyone but the user. Tobacco does. A libertarian may well be in favour of the decriminalisation of other substances on the grounds that the user should be free to harm themselves if that's what they desire, but the regulation of tobacco is a completely different argument.

    (I suppose you could argue that there's such a thing as second-hand cannabis smoke, but for now that's irrelevant. Nobody publicly smokes cannabis when there are lots of non-users around).
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Hugs31)
    I would agree on the personal bit, although cigarettes are so expensive in the UK therefore the benefits from making smoking illegal would be huge in terms of health and personal finance. I presumed drugs and prostitution contributed to GDP because both industries are in the billions moneywise.
    As I said, I'm not too sure as to whether the black markets get included, not least due to difficulty in estimating value. Also, remember that gdp is in the trillions.

    If we want to go personal finance, then should we not also ban alcohol, fine foods, sports and luxury cars, holidays abroad, most things that the department of Culture, Media and Sports are responsible for, etc?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Arbolus)
    Other drugs do not directly harm anyone but the user. Tobacco does. A libertarian may well be in favour of the decriminalisation of other substances on the grounds that the user should be free to harm themselves if that's what they desire, but the regulation of tobacco is a completely different argument.

    (I suppose you could argue that there's such a thing as second-hand cannabis smoke, but for now that's irrelevant. Nobody publicly smokes cannabis when there are lots of non-users around).
    Most others may not have a direct hit on others, but one could argue that indirect is just as bad. Definitely in terms of years lost, I'm fairly sure that alcohol is way more damaging for bystanders than drinkers, or at the very least harming others.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Prohibition doesn't work.

    No.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    As I said, I'm not too sure as to whether the black markets get included, not least due to difficulty in estimating value. Also, remember that gdp is in the trillions.

    If we want to go personal finance, then should we not also ban alcohol, fine foods, sports and luxury cars, holidays abroad, most things that the department of Culture, Media and Sports are responsible for, etc?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I suppose the argument there is that smoking doesn't just affect the smoker but those around them, alcohol is kind of the same but the others you mentioned not so much. It's a tricky one though because the measures in place already impose strict regulations on smoking, banning it altogether won't perhaps see as big an improvement.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, we should ban everything we don't like. Personal choices are over-rated.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Hugs31)
    I suppose the argument there is that smoking doesn't just affect the smoker but those around them, alcohol is kind of the same but the others you mentioned not so much. It's a tricky one though because the measures in place already impose strict regulations on smoking, banning it altogether won't perhaps see as big an improvement.
    All the things listed can be very expensive, and since I was going on your personal finance argument, should all be banned so that so many more people are sat on hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, because they have nothing to spend it on, bar emigration. Emigration aside, you would then be looking at a messed up economy; I'm inclined to think depression, mass unemployment, low wage growth or even wage contraction and/or very high inflation.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I voted to ban cigarettes the main reasons are second hand smoke which should be classed as assault(smokers harm the health of those around them, which is not fair on non-smokers).This something most smokers seem to completely forget about and most them smoke very close to people.There is also the environmental problems of smoking with smoke contaminating the atmosphere("Three cigarettes can cause more air pollution than a diesel car's exhaust, according to an Italian study."), do we want to increase air pollution?.Tobacco workers are also susceptible to GTS.

    http://smoking.ygoy.com/smoking-and-the-environment/
    http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_127.pdf
    http://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20040...-air-pollution
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arbolus;[url="tel:60107829")
    60107829[/url]]Other drugs do not directly harm anyone but the user. Tobacco does. A libertarian may well be in favour of the decriminalisation of other substances on the grounds that the user should be free to harm themselves if that's what they desire, but the regulation of tobacco is a completely different argument.

    (I suppose you could argue that there's such a thing as second-hand cannabis smoke, but for now that's irrelevant. Nobody publicly smokes cannabis when there are lots of non-users around).
    We should ban cars then because emissions directly affect pedestrians quality of air and respiratory systems?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Smoking is banned in many public places but not all - I still see copious amounts of people smoking at bustops and train stations. Cannot stand it. Needs to be banned from anywhere public in my opinion
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    I voted to ban cigarettes the main reasons are second hand smoke which should be classed as assault(smokers harm the health of those around them, which is not fair on non-smokers).This something most smokers seem to completely forget about and most them smoke very close to people.There is also the environmental problems of smoking with smoke contaminating the atmosphere.Tobacco workers are also susceptible to GTS.

    http://smoking.ygoy.com/smoking-and-the-environment/
    http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_127.pdf
    So we should also ban cars, trains, planes, all electrical appliances, anything that requires power to produce, planes, boats. Actually, let's be really facetious, ban life.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    YES. All these arguments were made against banning it in public places. Ban this unhealthy, disgusting product and gradually feel the benefits...
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammy duel)
    so we should also ban cars, trains, planes, all electrical appliances, anything that requires power to produce, planes, boats. Actually, let's be really facetious, ban life.

    posted from tsr mobile
    no fun, not ever
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    no fun, not ever
    It's the exact same logic that was being applied in the quoted post.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Most others may not have a direct hit on others, but one could argue that indirect is just as bad. Definitely in terms of years lost, I'm fairly sure that alcohol is way more damaging for bystanders than drinkers, or at the very least harming others.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    For the indirect effects, the drug is merely a contributing factor. The user is still responsible for their own actions. Someone might get in a rage when drunk and start beating his/her partner, but they would still be a s***** person prone to violent outbursts even if it wasn't for the alcohol. The crime then should be in the abuse, not in the drinking.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King Leonidas)
    Nah, let smokers increase the risk of getting cancer.

    Cigs act as a natural cleanser of the gene pool.

    Nomsayian.
    Incorrect, cancer from smoking is largely developed in mid-late life. More than enough time to reproduce plenty!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It's the exact same logic that was being applied in the quoted post.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I agree with your post 100%, the damaging the environment thing seems like a really wishy washy argument. Most people who oppose it decide they oppose it and then find reasons to oppose it. Instead of the other way around.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.