Smoking set to be banned nationwide in the Philippines - Polidicks

this new ban says you are allowed to smoke outside of your own home. on your property. it's public areas that you're not allowed to smoke cigarettes in. banning smoking in public areas is a good thing. whether or not it will actually work is another thing.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51185324]why would you make that comparison at all after declaring they're not similar[/QUOTE] The substances are not equal in the eyes of the law. This is because they are dissimilar.

Yeah I don't see what's bad about that law. We had the same thing done here too. I still smoke in parks if nobody is near me tho, I'll just hold the cigar behind me and shit like that if I see some cops coming.

[QUOTE=matt000024;51184496]Reason is the lack of ashtrays/disposal cans in areas where people often smoke. Honestly though, more personal freedoms for a bit more litter is a good trade-off.[/QUOTE] No it isn't. I've seen plenty of cigarette butts a few meters away from the trash can or ashtray.

Maybe people smoke more elsewhere in the world, but I don't think avoiding cigarette smoke is that difficult. Maybe sometimes you'll catch a whiff of cigarette smoke while walking through the city, but it's not THAT bad. I've never felt like I'm trapped breathing in second hand smoke in a public place. It was way worse in the 90s when people still smoked indoors a lot. A lot of people would sit in the kitchen next to the stove with the range hood on and smoke there. The smell in their houses/apartments was nauseating. I guess this law doesn't ban smoking outside on your own property, but it's still bad for people who live with smokers in apartment buildings.

[QUOTE=matt000024;51184496]Reason is the lack of ashtrays/disposal cans in areas where people often smoke. Honestly though, more personal freedoms for a bit more litter is a good trade-off.[/QUOTE] I work as a service clerk at my local grocery store and holy shit this is so far from the truth it makes Pluto's orbit look like the distance between you and your monitor. Infact, i'd say there's even more butts next to the trays bins than anywhere else outside the store. Bonus ducks because people grab the butts off the ground and smoke them if they're long enough. Gross af.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;51184466]Smoking is bad for you, and smokers have the annoying tendency of not cleaning up after themselves - that is, cigarette butts EVERYWHERE. This is a good thing.[/QUOTE] Not really a good thing since it's just taking away more freedom from the citizens, if there were more designated areas for smoking that'd help a tiny bit with the litter problem. But you may as well ban anything else that causes littering with that kind of logic because people are always to blame for these things, a cigarette can't litter on it's own, it's all up to the individual being mindful of their environment at the end of the day. [editline]11th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TheMrFailz;51185611]I work as a service clerk at my local grocery store and holy shit this is so far from the truth it makes Pluto's orbit look like the distance between you and your monitor. Infact, i'd say there's even more butts next to the trays bins than anywhere else outside the store. Bonus ducks because people grab the butts off the ground and smoke them if they're long enough. Gross af.[/QUOTE] Even if that's the case, don't blame the product at hand, blame people for being disgusting af. Littering sucks ass and it bothers the hell out of me whenever I see people tossing shit out of the window when driving, or just leaving their leftovers on the table at school or wherever and not cleaning up after themselves.

[QUOTE=Zestence;51185559]Maybe people smoke more elsewhere in the world, but I don't think avoiding cigarette smoke is that difficult. Maybe sometimes you'll catch a whiff of cigarette smoke while walking through the city, but it's not THAT bad. I've never felt like I'm trapped breathing in second hand smoke in a public place.[/QUOTE] Smoking in restaurants and bars was really prominent before Michigan banned smoking in them. Though Michigans ban doesn't extend as far as this one

[QUOTE=Cmx;51185648]Smoking in restaurants and bars was really prominent before Michigan banned smoking in them. Though Michigans ban doesn't extend as far as this one[/QUOTE] Smoking in bars and restaurants is banned here too, and has been since 2008 if I remember correctly. And I'm glad it is too. Going to a bar before the ban would sometimes make your eyes water from the smoke.

[QUOTE=Govna;51184701]Good on their health secretary, it's a disgusting habit that affects everyone exposed to it. They need to heavily restrict advertising and push alternatives to tobacco products (like gums and patches) as well. Can't fault them for this. Maybe they'll move on alcohol next.[/QUOTE] Did you never learn about prohibition? This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of. Now there is just going to be an illegal cigarette trade for all the people that are very addicted.

[QUOTE=Kylel999;51184631]I used to smoke and let me tell you how much effort it takes to find a garbage can or put the butt into your pack until you find one :rolleyes: [sp]next to none[/sp][/QUOTE] you know how I know you didn't used to smoke? putting the butt into the pack ruins the rest of the pack.

This isn't going to be enforced.

How do they plan on enforcing this? Anything above a light fine is draconian. Imagine getting sent to jail because you are enjoying a smoke in your car.

[QUOTE=Kylel999;51184716]Until they start killing people for smoking a cigarette[/QUOTE] Anything to suggest that this is going to happen, or is this just an example of typical Slippery Slope paranoia? Killing smokers is extreme, and even Duterte's government isn't that far out there to do something like that. [QUOTE=Vintage Thatguy;51185665]Did you never learn about prohibition? This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of. Now there is just going to be an illegal cigarette trade for all the people that are very addicted.[/QUOTE] Yes, I did learn about it. I have a history boner, and it's a worthwhile subject to learn about because of what lessons it has to teach for future applications. [url=http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html]Prohibition in the United States actually worked; it decreased the consumption of alcohol dramatically (by about a third), decreased the number of deaths and admissions to asylums related to alcoholism, the number of arrests for alcohol-related offenses declined, and (contrary to the popular myth most people believe) violent crime did not increase and become rampant as a result of it being imposed[/url]. This isn't common knowledge by now because it usually isn't discussed outside of academic circles, the movies and popular media portray it as being a crime-bolstering failure, and because it makes a better story to say that it failed and can never work. As far as black markets go, they've always existed and always will. Governments can and have successfully managed to mitigate issues with them before however, it's just a matter of what kinds of methods they choose to use and how fervently they choose to pursue the matter. It can be mitigated here as well.

[QUOTE=Vintage Thatguy;51185665]Did you never learn about prohibition? This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of. Now there is just going to be an illegal cigarette trade for all the people that are very addicted.[/QUOTE] Did you not read past the title? Even the fucking OP says it's [I]only public places[/I] where it's banned. Not even reading the OP is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever read.

[QUOTE=Govna;51185794] Yes, I did learn about it. I have a history boner, and it's a worthwhile subject to learn about because of what lessons it has to teach for future applications. [url=http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html]Prohibition in the United States actually worked; it decreased the consumption of alcohol dramatically (by about a third), decreased the number of deaths and admissions to asylums related to alcoholism, the number of arrests for alcohol-related offenses declined, and (contrary to the popular myth most people believe) violent crime did not increase and become rampant as a result of it being imposed [/url]. This isn't common knowledge by now because it usually isn't discussed outside of academic circles, the movies and popular media portray it as being a crime-bolstering failure, and because it makes a better story to say that it failed and can never work. As far as black markets go, they've always existed and always will. Governments can and have successfully managed to mitigate issues with them before however, it's just a matter of what kinds of methods they choose to use and how fervently they choose to pursue the matter. It can be mitigated here as well.[/QUOTE] It did not work, it was not just repealed because reasons, it actually was indeed a failure. That article is just a hate-boner for the drug laws against cocaine and heroin, saying in the end that "the benefits... are a small price to pay for the benefits". The movies and media portray it as being a failure because it was, not just because Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge somehow have a conspiracy with the producers of media, but because it just did not work. For starters, the metric by which it decreased the consumption of alcohol is a slighted metric and the article you cite uses some dumb measurments. [quote]Second, alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928. Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.[/quote] Cirrhosis death rates declined by two-thirds, but the writer assumes that this can only be attributed to alcohol prohibtion, alcohol consumption was already declining between 1915-1919 and cirrhosis of the liver does not happen overnight. People became smarter consumers of alcohol during prohibtion to some degree and consumed less in terms of alcoholism sure, but overall alcohol consumption did not go down. Per capita consumption boomed, quadrupling between 1921 and 1922 and was steady throughout the entirety of prohibition, nearly reaching pre-prohibtion levels by 1929. The alcohol being consumed was also far more likely to kill a person from other toxic chemicals in the alcohol being added as the impurity was likely to be higher due to a lack of regulation, leading to less cirrhosis but still increasing the amount of alcohol-related deaths nonetheless. The lack of admissions to state hospitals can be owed also to the lack of room and the failure to accomodate incoming alcoholics due to the closing of many state hospitals following the crash of 1929 and the lack of alcoholics willingly admitting themselves due to fear of being arrested. The decreased number of people drinking in general can only be owed to the lessened amounts of people drinking lighter alcoholic drinks like beer. The general shift due to the higher efficiency of shipping stronger drinks like liquers and wine (which would be in the general interest of a smuggler) can also be held responsible for "healthier" drinking as there was less liquid for the liver to process for the vast majority of drinkers during prohibition. The price of beer skyrocketed but liquors (like whiskey) saw a much slower increase in price during prohibtion because it was 1) easier to produce, 2) easier to smuggle and 3) took up less room during shipping. Your article actually supports the argument that prohibtion was a failure in saying "Arrests for public drunkennness[sic] and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922" as prohibtion was implemented in 1922, we don't even know if that statistic includes time when prohibtion was in place. Even if it was the resources of the Bureau of Prohibtion were far less in the beginning years of prohibtion as opposed to the final years of the law. Violent crime did increase, homicide rates in big cities went up by 78% countering pre-prohibition rates and sure as hell black market activities boomed during this time. Just as now there are not very many violent crimes being committed by drug criminals, there weren't back then. The vast majority of arrests during this period were from non-violent alcoholic smugglers/consumers, thought that is not to say there were not violent effects being felt from the increased consumption of harder liquors and the strengthening of crime syndicates. I don't know where the fuck the author got his statistics but actually drunkenness and disorderly conduct rates DID rise during prohibition times, by some 40%. Violent crime went up by 13% and crimes associated with burgarly went up by 9%. By 1932, the number of federal convicts went up by over 550% from pre-prohibition era levels. Two-thirds of those in federal prisions were in-fact, in prison due to alcohol related offenses. The only crimes that went down during this time were owed to very minor offenses, such as vagrancy, public swearing and malicious mischief, which went down some 50%. The homicide rate per 100,000 was up more than 200% by 1932, and steadily declined following the repeal of prohibtion. You claim that the black market will always exist and it must be the governments fault for not using "more effective methods" or not attacking crime with "more fervor" when they absolutely did. Prisons were overflowing with persons in jail only due to alcohol and alcohol-related offenses and the Bureau of Prohibition was being allotted more money than the Coast Guard during prohibition and local and state governments had to pay significant funds as well. The government hired many more people to work in government in order to try and curb alcohol smuggling and paid vast dividends in trying to curb the consumption of it. The government budget was substantially going towards enforcing prohibition and the government grew much larger as a result. Much to the dismay of the leaders of the temperance movements, not only did abstinince not reduce the number of convicts and reduce the amount of taxes going towards incriminating people for violent offenses, it ballooned and costed the tax-payers many millions of dollars. Prohibition failed to curb alcohol consumption, did not reduce serious crimes, did not save people money or their lives, served to make alcohol more dangerous to consume, provided for the increase in corruption due to strengthening mobs and the crime syndicates, and made the government bigger as a result. Prohibition failed, you shouldn't be citing weak articles with skewed statistics that only serve to boast the current drug war. Here, have a much less biased and more accurate source: [url]http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa157.pdf[/url] [editline]11th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=helifreak;51185813]Did you not read past the title? Even the fucking OP says it's [I]only public places[/I] where it's banned. Not even reading the OP is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever read.[/QUOTE] Oh, I feel dumb. I misread it when it said it was banned indoors and outdoors to meaning that it was banned in totality, sorry.

The FBI itself spiked liquor with toxic wood alcohol to ruin batches and people died Hoover was pretty brutal about some things

[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;51185163]You guys remember the prohibition? I think that's enough proof that this isn't going to work.[/QUOTE] This isnt prohibition, and smoking in public around others is disgusting anyway. If you cant drink while walking down a street, you shouldnt be able to smoke.

[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;51185611]I work as a service clerk at my local grocery store and holy shit this is so far from the truth it makes Pluto's orbit look like the distance between you and your monitor. Infact, i'd say there's even more butts next to the trays bins than anywhere else outside the store. Bonus ducks because people grab the butts off the ground and smoke them if they're long enough. Gross af.[/QUOTE] you see the same for actual trash bins. at least it's all gathered close enough to easily remove.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;51184466]Smoking is bad for you, and smokers have the annoying tendency of not cleaning up after themselves - that is, cigarette butts EVERYWHERE. This is a good thing.[/QUOTE] Way to generalize. We should ban soda cans and pizza boxes as well maybe. You can find those everywhere on the street. Hell soda is very bad for you as well, and stuff like redbull smells horrible to bystanders. Fuck peoples free choice, lets ban that as well. At least cigarette butts are bio degradable. I don't get all these hate against smoking here. Live and let live.

[QUOTE=taipan;51186390]Way to generalize. We should ban soda cans and pizza boxes as well maybe. You cam find those everywhere on the street. Hell soda is very bad for you as well, and stuff like redbull smells horrible to bystanders. Fuck peoples free choice, lets ban that as well. At least cigarette buts are bio degradable. I don't get all these hate against smoking here. Live and let live.[/QUOTE] Soda and pizza don't give bystanders cancer

[QUOTE=RedBaronFlyer;51186416]Soda doesn't give bystanders cancer[/QUOTE] Neither does cigarettes as long as you aren't living with a smoker.

[QUOTE=Perrine;51184417][url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/smoking-nationwide-ban-philippines-a7354066.html[/url][/QUOTE] Only see this as a positive. Really surprised i'd see something that I agree with, coming from duterte

Can't believe so many people are cheering for the revocation of freedoms. Limiting smokers to their own homes and assuming they have yards or balconies to smoke on is assumptive to say the least and surely an endangerment of the smoker and their family who isn't going to quit but instead chain smoke inside? It's a very short sighted move to make

[QUOTE=Zestence;51185657]Smoking in bars and restaurants is banned here too, and has been since 2008 if I remember correctly. And I'm glad it is too. Going to a bar before the ban would sometimes make your eyes water from the smoke.[/QUOTE] Yes, but now pubs and bars all stink of piss because there's nothing to blot the smell out

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51186448]Can't believe so many people are cheering for the revocation of freedoms. Limiting smokers to their own homes and assuming they have yards or balconies to smoke on is assumptive to say the least and surely an endangerment of the smoker and their family who isn't going to quit but instead chain smoke inside? It's a very short sighted move to make[/QUOTE] This has been done in other countries succesfully though.

[QUOTE=eirexe;51186453]This has been done in other countries succesfully though.[/QUOTE] Each time anything in a country tries anything that the U.S. has done it's just like "UMMMM but it didn't work here so it shouldn't work there." yeah makes sense.

Woah lotta people in here who don't like smoking who think banning people from doing something they don't like is a good idea. Fuck off, it's not up to the state to tell me what I can and cant put in my body.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;51184466]Smoking is bad for you, and smokers have the annoying tendency of not cleaning up after themselves - that is, cigarette butts EVERYWHERE. This is a good thing.[/QUOTE] oh yeah lets just fucking ban it all, ignoring the fact that a lot of people simply can't fucking quit [editline]11th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=SpaceGhost;51186056]This isnt prohibition, and smoking in public around others is disgusting anyway. If you cant drink while walking down a street, you shouldnt be able to smoke.[/QUOTE] there is no fucking difference drugs are drugs

[QUOTE=Chonch;51185302]Smoking and drinking are in no way similar. If people drank like they smoked, they'd get thrown in jail for public intox.[/QUOTE] There's a lot of places in the world where you don't get thrown in jail due to drinking in public.