Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dionysus)
    If they made smoking illegal, I would seriously consider smoking in protest. As I think a lot of other people would. Currently I only smoke on occasion, whilst drinking, for example. Fortunately, I seem to be completely immune to nicotine and am not addicted at all. A smoking ban is just far too much of an infringement on civil liberties, no matter how well-intended.
    In what way is a smoking ban any different (in principle) to the illegality of heroine?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    In what way is a smoking ban any different (in principle) to the illegality of heroine?
    We're talking about a completely different level of damage to health, not to mention the fact that heroin trafficking results in conflict, death and suffering.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dionysus)
    We're talking about a completely different level of damage to health, not to mention the fact that heroin trafficking results in conflict, death and suffering.
    Heroine trafficking is a result of it being illegal so that argument becomes circular.

    On the point of smoking being less damaging. True but smoking also damages bystanders while heroine and other illegal drugs do not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hmm apart from the obvious reasons of tax revenue etc... think of the uproar if it was made illegal!! Smoking tobacco goes back hundereds of years, it would just be so difficult to actually put into practice the measures that would be needed to ensure people were actually made to stop smoking There would be more issues with human rights etc etc, and with the lack of money coming in from the tax revenues it would probably be much more trouble than its worth...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Heroine trafficking is a result of it being illegal so that argument becomes circular.

    On the point of smoking being less damaging. True but smoking also damages bystanders while heroine and other illegal drugs do not.
    Hmm not to intrude on your little debate :p: but you could say that illegal drugs do effect others. In the way of people being high on drugs can get paranoia, and attack other people. And that alot of house thefts, muggings can be traced back to people who are taking drugs, and dont have enough money to fund their habit. Also, women who take drugs can give birth to babies who are hooked on the drug their mother has been taking etc etc. There's quite a few ways in which drugs effect others...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The clear lack of thought in the original post is unbeliveable.

    I'm not a smoker - but to call for it to be made illegal? What a load of tosh - there would be complete uproar amongst those who do and don't.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prettygreeneyes99)
    Hmm apart from the obvious reasons of tax revenue etc... think of the uproar if it was made illegal!! Smoking tobacco goes back hundereds of years, it would just be so difficult to actually put into practice the measures that would be needed to ensure people were actually made to stop smoking There would be more issues with human rights etc etc, and with the lack of money coming in from the tax revenues it would probably be much more trouble than its worth...
    The loss of revenue from banning smoking would be £8 billion or just 2% of the total revenue raised by the government. (See here for more details: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=15).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prettygreeneyes99)
    Hmm not to intrude on your little debate :p: but you could say that illegal drugs do effect others. In the way of people being high on drugs can get paranoia, and attack other people. And that alot of house thefts, muggings can be traced back to people who are taking drugs, and dont have enough money to fund their habit. Also, women who take drugs can give birth to babies who are hooked on the drug their mother has been taking etc etc. There's quite a few ways in which drugs effect others...
    Absolutely true. But a) all those are secondary whereas smoking is primary (from the smoke itself not from the effects of the drug on the taker) and b) most of those effects are caused by it's illegal status and thus cannot be used to argue that drugs should be illegal while tobacco not.
    Offline

    11
    1) Practicality. Smoking is legal practically everywhere else in the world. A ban would basically be as useful as putting a brick on your driveway and calling it a flood defence.

    2) Political decisions are not made in a vacuum. They must be made pragmatically, and with regards to the status quo. One of the many reasons heroin/cannabis are illegal, and tobacco isn't, is that people have already come to accept the use of tobacco as moral and legal, and as a way of life, and would be angered were these rights removed. Ditto alcohol, which has as much damage as almost any other drug, legal or otherwise; we've become too attached to it. The harm caused by a drug is not the only factor considered.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    The loss of revenue from banning smoking would be £8 billion or just 2% of the total revenue raised by the government. (See here for more details: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=15).
    Only 2%?? Still alot of money to lose though! And what with the amount they would have to invest to actually bring in measure to stop smoking... although, to be fair they probably spend a fair amount on anti-smoking campaigns etc... cant actually see it happening though, there would be a huge uproar and the whole 'nanny state' argument would come into it more than likely. Because I mean, if smoking was banned, what would it be next? Drinking alcohol? Eating junk food?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Absolutely true. But a) all those are secondary whereas smoking is primary (from the smoke itself not from the effects of the drug on the taker) and b) most of those effects are caused by it's illegal status and thus cannot be used to argue that drugs should be illegal while tobacco not.
    Haha, point made, I agree with you!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    £8 Billion is a huge amount of money in tax revenue!

    You get rid of that and you have to tax something else or remove a service away, both are not a good ideas.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tory Dan)
    £8 Billion is a huge amount of money in tax revenue!

    You get rid of that and you have to tax something else or remove a service away, both are not a good ideas.
    Well if you subtract the cost to the NHS from smoking (£1.5 billion) and the loss falls to only £6.5 billion (1.5%). It's fairly small change. And consider this: Inheritance tax nets £4 billion a year and I haven't heard one person defend it on that basis.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Well if you subtract the cost to the NHS from smoking (£1.5 billion) and the loss falls to only £6.5 billion (1.5%). It's fairly small change. And consider this: Inheritance tax nets £4 billion a year and I haven't heard one person defend it on that basis.
    I'm against tax as a whole I do not believe in a NHS, I believe individuals should decide if they want to smoke and not the state. Labour has destroyed once what was a proud part of this countries history and economy, the tobacco industry. British-American Tobacco's profits were down, this leads to lower tax taken in by corporation tax, possible job losses leading to people being made unemployed requiring benefits and no longer injecting money into the economy.

    Then you have the problems with loss of business in bars, pubs, shisha bars and cigar clubs, its a huge problem and a large cost to the countries economy and individual freedoms by the anti-smoking stance of Labour.
    Offline

    11
    It's very difficult to accept an economic argument on this. Yes, there's less money. Also fewer dead people. In theory, money well spent.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tory Dan)
    I'm against tax as a whole I do not believe in a NHS, I believe individuals should decide if they want to smoke and not the state. Labour has destroyed once what was a proud part of this countries history and economy, the tobacco industry. British-American Tobacco's profits were down, this leads to lower tax taken in by corporation tax, possible job losses leading to people being made unemployed requiring benefits and no longer injecting money into the economy.

    Then you have the problems with loss of business in bars, pubs, shisha bars and cigar clubs, its a huge problem and a large cost to the countries economy and individual freedoms by the anti-smoking stance of Labour.
    I'm not arguing on the freedom front (sounds like some far-right group :p: ) only the economic one. Although, something being bad for the economy is not a reason not to do it - abolishing slavery was very bad for the economy.

    I posted earlier an article that said that in Manchester smoking related probelms cost £251 pp. That extrapolates to £15 billion in the economy. Probably the amount of money raised in the economy as a whole from smoking is more than that but since most tobacco companies are not British (AFAIK) the loss probably wouldn't be that bad, but I could be wrong.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Heroine trafficking is a result of it being illegal so that argument becomes circular.
    Yes but legalising it would likely just incite the existing paramilitary groups who control it to fight each other for control of the markets, rather than the black markets. They're not going to just lay down their arms and play nice.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Slightly off topic, but I think the NHS is a great idea, its just a shame our Government has made an absolute shambles out of it with the way they run it!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dionysus)
    Yes but legalising it would likely just incite the existing paramilitary groups who control it to fight each other for control of the markets, rather than the black markets. They're not going to just lay down their arms and play nice.
    Perhaps so. But the point here is that you tried to differentiate between heroine and tobacco because of drug trafficking and were thus using the result of its illegality to explain why it deserved to be illegal while tobacco which doesn't have trafficking (to the same extent) should not be. That is a circular argument and invalid.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Perhaps so. But the point here is that you tried to differentiate between heroine and tobacco because of drug trafficking and were thus using the result of its illegality to explain why it deserved to be illegal while tobacco which doesn't have trafficking (to the same extent) should not be. That is a circular argument and invalid.
    Tobacco isn't trafficked because it is legal. There aren't wars fought over it because it was never illegal and thus there isn't a climate of hostility between producers - not to mention the fact that the market is utterly dominated by massive producers. If it became illegal, a massive black market would open up overnight, and then you would see conflict over it.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.