Danmark delivers, professor at health institure wants to ban smoking for everyone born after 2000. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;46338920]"But blackmarkets make it not work!" "But people already grow their own tobacco!" "But but but my body I do what I want!" This is an excellent idea, and imo, one of the few times this type of ban could work. At most, anyone born after 2000 is 14 or soon to be 15. No one smoking that young is running or buying from a black market, no one that young grows their own tobacco. The smokers in this thread are just being selfish, this doesn't effect anyone not already over 18. This is a thing that could effectively eliminate smoking from Denmark. Do you smoke and think "man I really want my children and other kids to do this."? You've turned this into an argument about healthcare when its nothing of the sort. Denmark could start a program targeted towards current smokers under 18, doing everything they can to get them to quit since its easier when you are younger or at least use alternate sources like nicotine patches. If that age group 12-17 is eliminated from smoking, there IS NO LONGER any peer pressure to even younger kids to smoke. And when they are 18, they have absolutely no reason to be interested or want to purchase cigarettes. Once this generation of smokers will have passed away, then none of their children will be addicted to cigarettes. This is a much more sensible ban than just outlawing all tobacco.[/QUOTE] Do you remember the prohibition on alcohol? Better yet, do you know about the current war on drugs? You're basically saying "This will work!" when it's been proven that it won't.

IMO, outright prohibition by law isn't the best way to go. Much like other drugs, it A. Makes it more appealing because it's illegal, and B. People that addicted don't give a fuck whether it's legal or not. I prefer something I think of as a "soft prohibition". It's not illegal, people can still get it, but: -They're expensive and/or inconvenient to obtain. -They're banned in public places, which makes it inconvenient to use (and better for the rest of us who don't). -Advertising is prohibited, so the manufacturers can't proactively market them. -The consequences of using them are well-known and well-publicized (though preferably stopping short of tasteless shit like 40-foot pictures of diseased cadavers). -Addiction counseling and treatment is available and paid for entirely by the government, along with whatever else is needed to quit. Smoking needs to become something that is seen as stupid, expensive, hazardous to your health, and ultimately not worth whatever "benefit" you get from doing it. Using the law to bully people into not smoking isn't going to work. You have to make people [I]want[/I] to quit (which most do), then do everything you can to help them quit. I watched both my parents quit, and it is NOT easy. But, it is possible, and it is worth doing.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46339364]IMO, outright prohibition by law isn't the best way to go. Much like other drugs, it A. Makes it more appealing because it's illegal, and B. People that addicted don't give a fuck whether it's legal or not. I prefer something I think of as a "soft prohibition". It's not illegal, people can still get it, but: -They're expensive and/or inconvenient to obtain. -They're banned in public places, which makes it inconvenient to use (and better for the rest of us who don't). -Advertising is prohibited, so the manufacturers can't proactively market them. -The consequences of using them are well-known and well-publicized (though preferably stopping short of tasteless shit like 40-foot pictures of diseased cadavers). -Addiction counseling and treatment is available and paid for entirely by the government, along with whatever else is needed to quit. Smoking needs to become something that is seen as stupid, expensive, hazardous to your health, and ultimately not worth whatever "benefit" you get from doing it. Using the law to bully people into not smoking isn't going to work. You have to make people [I]want[/I] to quit (which most do), then do everything you can to help them quit. I watched both my parents quit, and it is NOT easy. But, it is possible, and it is worth doing.[/QUOTE] I don't say this often, but for once, I agree with your main point salesman. You have to try and make people [B]WANT[/B] to quit. That is the deciding factor on weather or not they can find the strength to do it. However, making them stupid expensive is not exactly a good option for this reason: you're going to hurt poor people who smoke much more, and possibly send some into poverty. Take it from somebody who can't really afford to, but does anyway. You don't realize how much smoking really costs until it's too late. But inconvenient, sure.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;46339171]Do you remember the prohibition on alcohol? Better yet, do you know about the current war on drugs? You're basically saying "This will work!" when it's been proven that it won't.[/QUOTE] I guess you didn't actually read my post whatsoever. This is different from the prohibition of alcohol, and COMPLETELY different than the "war on drugs". This effects CHILDREN. Not adults. Kids aren't going to make secret tobacco farms in their basements, and they aren't going to start drug empires either. You really do not grasp that this does not effect adults at all and is meant to stop future smokers at the source. This idea is a very soft prohibition. I cannot imagine an easier and safer way of getting rid of tobacco other than slowly eliminating it.

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;46339457]I guess you didn't actually read my post whatsoever. This is different from the prohibition of alcohol, and COMPLETELY different than the "war on drugs". This effects CHILDREN. Not adults. Kids aren't going to make secret tobacco farms in their basements, and they aren't going to start drug empires either. You really do not grasp that this does not effect adults at all and is meant to stop future smokers at the source. This idea is a very soft prohibition. I cannot imagine an easier and safer way of getting rid of tobacco other than slowly eliminating it.[/QUOTE] They are suggesting making it illegal for anyone born in or after the year 2000 to buy tobacco products, so lets look at what's going to happen: Kids will already have tried cigarettes by the time they are of legal age. SAME THING happens with everything else. Some kids will still become addicted to them. Welcome cigarettes into the existing drug trade, still making them available to people born after 2000. You're not going to stop it with a soft ban. You have to make people want to quit. It's as simple as that.

As someone who dislikes smoking, I find this pretty dumb. Someone born in 2000 is now 13 or 14. But what if, when they turn 18, they want to smoke? Let's not worry about things like "but there's no reason for them to want to", that's a different discussion. What if they do? If a 20 year old in 2020 sees their dad smoking and are like "why's it legal for you to smoke but not me, dad? We're both adults" "I was born before 2000, son". That's kind of ridiculous. An adult is an adult.

[QUOTE=confinedUser;46337922]i don't smoke anymore i actually quit, but in a circumstance like what my brother in law pulled yesterday with his know it all mentality mixed with a spoiled rotten and super self centered and an immature view on things like for example he thinks that within just 4 months he will be as skilled as a programmer that has been doing it for 10 years straight. It's a dumb mentality and it pisses me the fuck off. had i had a smoke things would of went different i wouldn't have blown up and almost fractured his skull i would of just been passive aggressive. So in a situation like that, yes i would most certainly take degenerating my own health for the moment than to get violent and potentially send him to the hospital.[/QUOTE] you need to see a therapist about those anger issues of yours.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;46338698]No, the alternative is realizing that socialized medicine means you pay for EVERYONE'S healthcare, not just people who live like you want them to live.[/QUOTE] Sorry no, cigarrettes should be taxed.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;46339688]Sorry no, cigarrettes should be taxed.[/QUOTE] I never said they shouldn't. But trying to tax them out of existence is wrong and will do more harm than good. Are smokers somehow less of a human being than you and don't deserve the same healthcare that they put in for just like you? Do you think poor people should also not receive care because they cost more than they put in???

Didnt the nazi party try to ban smoking

[QUOTE=shackleford;46339983]Didnt the nazi party try to ban smoking[/QUOTE] Yes, and they succeeded quite well.

Although Danmark will be a better place if this law was passed, shit ain't right Just ain't right. Plain and simple.

[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;46336672]In a socialized healthcare system, I wouldn't want to pay for the expensive lung cancer meds and procedures of someone who made the choice to smoke.[/QUOTE] Everybody dies of something at some point. Due to the shorter life-expectancy, smokers are actually cheaper then avg.

[QUOTE=Xain777;46338517]how about we just regulate what type of poisons can be put into cigarettes, or even better, encourage nicotine purity levels being printed on the boxes, then people will be motivated to get the more pure cigarettes and we won't have as many deadly things in them.[/QUOTE] If a ciggie packet said it was more pure on it and it wasn't bullshit I'd buy it 100% of the time

[QUOTE=freaka;46341043]Yes, and they succeeded quite well.[/QUOTE] [citation needed] because prohibition works so well, right guys [editline]27th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=En-Guage;46341129]If a ciggie packet said it was more pure on it and it wasn't bullshit I'd buy it 100% of the time[/QUOTE] As a fellow Australian, would you agree that plain packaging changes pretty much nothing? [editline]27th October 2014[/editline] Oh, and since no one else seems to be providing proof that smokers are actually a tax benefit to the country, i've found this interesting report from 2006 covering just that. This is before the extra $5 tax hike mind you. Smokers in Australia raised 2.7 BILLION a year in 2006, and due to the tax increases, are also expected to raise another 5.3 Billion from between 2012 and 2016. That's a fuck load of money. The "muh socialist healthcare" isn't a fucking valid argument. [editline]27th October 2014[/editline] Oh, source thing [url=http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-17-economics/17-2-the-costs-of-smoking]here.[/url]

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46339364] I prefer something I think of as a "soft prohibition". It's not illegal, people can still get it, but: -They're expensive and/or inconvenient to obtain. -They're banned in public places, which makes it inconvenient to use (and better for the rest of us who don't). -Advertising is prohibited, so the manufacturers can't proactively market them. -The consequences of using them are well-known and well-publicized (though preferably stopping short of tasteless shit like 40-foot pictures of diseased cadavers). -Addiction counseling and treatment is available and paid for entirely by the government, along with whatever else is needed to quit. Smoking needs to become something that is seen as stupid, expensive, hazardous to your health, and ultimately not worth whatever "benefit" you get from doing it. Using the law to bully people into not smoking isn't going to work. You have to make people [I]want[/I] to quit (which most do), then do everything you can to help them quit. [/QUOTE] Yeah here in the Netherlands all of those things are true. They are expensive, we pay $8.50 to $10 for a single pack of cigarettes. Advertising is completely prohibited in any way. The consequences are shared in schools, and are openly talking about. Counceling and treatment paid for by government is available for free or very low cost. Still people smoke. Just accept, that some people will do things, even if they know they're not good for them. The "it's costing money for everyone" is rubbish. Smokers in the Netherlands pay for their own healthcare everytime they buy a pack of cigarettes through the tax. A cigarette costs €0.30, and of that €0.22 goes to government. People riding bikes also have loads more accidents than car drivers and should we then also ban riding bikes under the same argument?

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;46338920]"But blackmarkets make it not work!" "But people already grow their own tobacco!" "But but but my body I do what I want!" This is an excellent idea, and imo, one of the few times this type of ban could work. At most, anyone born after 2000 is 14 or soon to be 15. No one smoking that young is running or buying from a black market, no one that young grows their own tobacco. The smokers in this thread are just being selfish, this doesn't effect anyone not already over 18. This is a thing that could effectively eliminate smoking from Denmark. Do you smoke and think "man I really want my children and other kids to do this."? You've turned this into an argument about healthcare when its nothing of the sort. Denmark could start a program targeted towards current smokers under 18, doing everything they can to get them to quit since its easier when you are younger or at least use alternate sources like nicotine patches. If that age group 12-17 is eliminated from smoking, there IS NO LONGER any peer pressure to even younger kids to smoke. And when they are 18, they have absolutely no reason to be interested or want to purchase cigarettes. Once this generation of smokers will have passed away, then none of their children will be addicted to cigarettes. This is a much more sensible ban than just outlawing all tobacco.[/QUOTE] Yes, yes, many times yes. I don't think many people in this thread from outside Europe realize what the problem is. The problem is that people start smoking when they are young (14-15 years old), too young to know if something is bad for them or not and make a conscious decision about it. So many of my friends started smoking early in their lives, many of them because they wanted to be "cool" in 7th grade. Some of them started a few years later, especially when large parties became really common, they just gave in to peer pressure while they were under the influence of alcohol. Back then, the age limit was 15 for buying cigarettes, and people started as early as 12-13. Now the age limit is 18, people are starting at 15, so restricting purchase really does something when it comes to teenagers, just not enough as it is. Now we are here, ten years later, and many of us are getting masters degrees at the university, and my friends are [I]still[/I] smoking. Not because they want to, but because they are addicted because they have been doing it every day for a decade. So many of them have tried to stop, but almost no one have succeed, because nicotine is extremely addictive. I know people who do research at the [I]institute of medicine[/I] who still smoke on a daily basis. The issue here isn't to stop people from smoking completely in an instant, but instead to limit cigarettes so much that they aren't readily available for teenagers anymore. Right now, people are still getting cigarettes from older siblings and friends.

[QUOTE=valkery;46336489]I don't live in Denmark, and I shouldn't really have a say in this, but I really fucking hate it when governments take a lot of money and countless man-hours telling us that something is bad and then go and ban it because they can't get 100% of the population to agree and stop using it. People know that smoking is bad. They just don't care. We're all going to die anyway. What's the big deal if someone goes out and has a cig or two or fifty. As long as they aren't inside or blowing it in people's faces, they should be allowed to smoke. Basic human rights are violated when people tell me that I [I]have[/I] to do what is good for my health or else. Since Denmark has Universal Healthcare, people who smoke should not be eligible for free health care pertaining to smoking-related illnesses. That's it.[/QUOTE] In my eyes they should just pay extr for the average medical cost a smoker has, that is higher than that of a non smoker. However, during the whole smoking debate here in the Netherlands some insurance company's actually calculated that smokers where cheaper for them because they die younger and dont get al the other illnesses when they get old. [editline]27th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Pr0fane;46341392]Yeah here in the Netherlands all of those things are true. They are expensive, we pay $8.50 to $10 for a single pack of cigarettes. Advertising is completely prohibited in any way. The consequences are shared in schools, and are openly talking about. Counceling and treatment paid for by government is available for free or very low cost. Still people smoke. Just accept, that some people will do things, even if they know they're not good for them. The "it's costing money for everyone" is rubbish. Smokers in the Netherlands pay for their own healthcare everytime they buy a pack of cigarettes through the tax. A cigarette costs €0.30, and of that €0.22 goes to government. People riding bikes also have loads more accidents than car drivers and should we then also ban riding bikes under the same argument?[/QUOTE] A pack is 5.70 but I get your point.

This guy is a total jackass. Smoking is awesome.

Hurr hurr hurr, i don't like smoking and therefore we should ban it. Seriously, is this what our society has become? Fuck that. I hate alcohol, let's ban it. Does it bring anything good to the table? Nope. Gone, no more alcohol to anyone from now on. We don't just fucking ban things we don't understand or like, this is not how the world should work. Never smoked a cig in my life, and i hate the smell of it. But why the fuck should i be able to choose what you can do and can't? Everything should be allowed, as long as the actions you do doesn't affect another human being in a negative way. As in, don't fucking smoke if you're pregnant. Don't drink and drive. Don't kill people. If everyone lived by common sense, the world would be a better place. Too bad people are too fucking dumb to understand common sense these days. But, i will say that children should never consume alchohol or smoke. This is why we have age laws which i am perfectly fine with, because people under 18 should not be responsible for themselves /RANT

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;46338920]"But blackmarkets make it not work!" "But people already grow their own tobacco!" "But but but my body I do what I want!" This is an excellent idea, and imo, one of the few times this type of ban could work. At most, anyone born after 2000 is 14 or soon to be 15. No one smoking that young is running or buying from a black market, no one that young grows their own tobacco. The smokers in this thread are just being selfish, this doesn't effect anyone not already over 18. This is a thing that could effectively eliminate smoking from Denmark. Do you smoke and think "man I really want my children and other kids to do this."? You've turned this into an argument about healthcare when its nothing of the sort. Denmark could start a program targeted towards current smokers under 18, doing everything they can to get them to quit since its easier when you are younger or at least use alternate sources like nicotine patches. If that age group 12-17 is eliminated from smoking, there IS NO LONGER any peer pressure to even younger kids to smoke. And when they are 18, they have absolutely no reason to be interested or want to purchase cigarettes. Once this generation of smokers will have passed away, then none of their children will be addicted to cigarettes. This is a much more sensible ban than just outlawing all tobacco.[/QUOTE] this is the same fucking thing they said in the early 1970's when anti-smoking campaigns began to finally take precedence on national American television. you're gonna have to get real and accept the fact that smoking isn't some short-term teenage fad but rather a fundamental part of post-industrial society that isn't going to go away. People have smoked cigarettes for the last 300 years and they're going to keep smoking for the next 300 as well. you can tax it or you can even make it illegal, you can pump out ads and graphs showing just how much it's bad for you, it's not going to change a single thing. in fact, it might even have the opposite effect. smoking isn't the fad, anti-smoking is the fad. and fads have a habit of fading into obscurity.

[QUOTE=The Aussie;46341225][citation needed] because prohibition works so well, right guys [editline]27th October 2014[/editline] As a fellow Australian, would you agree that plain packaging changes pretty much nothing? [editline]27th October 2014[/editline] Oh, and since no one else seems to be providing proof that smokers are actually a tax benefit to the country, i've found this interesting report from 2006 covering just that. This is before the extra $5 tax hike mind you. Smokers in Australia raised 2.7 BILLION a year in 2006, and due to the tax increases, are also expected to raise another 5.3 Billion from between 2012 and 2016. That's a fuck load of money. The "muh socialist healthcare" isn't a fucking valid argument. [editline]27th October 2014[/editline] Oh, source thing [url=http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-17-economics/17-2-the-costs-of-smoking]here.[/url][/QUOTE] There was something by a liberal (Leyonhjelm I think) in which he thanked them... it turns out smokers contribute about $8 billion in taxes (this year alone I think) from buying them which goes directly into healthcare. Then again, Australia is a country where smoking has been seeing a slight upward trend in the last few years and where in 2011, then-minister Nicola Roxon working in cohort with other cabinet members and many across the parliamentary floor managed to pass a bill in which all tobacco products have price increases (due to higher taxes) every 3 months at 12.5% until the end of 2016 (I think) and plain packaging implemented into the industry. By then, a regular 25-pack of Winfield Red's would cost about $35. Rolling tobacco may end up hitting the $50 dollar mark for a 25gm pouch.

[QUOTE=shutter_eye5;46341930]There was something by a liberal (Leyonhjelm I think) in which he thanked them... it turns out smokers contribute about $8 billion in taxes (this year alone I think) from buying them which goes directly into healthcare. Then again, Australia is a country where smoking has been seeing a slight upward trend in the last few years and where in 2011, then-minister Nicola Roxon working in cohort with other cabinet members and many across the parliamentary floor managed to pass a bill in which all tobacco products have price increases (due to higher taxes) every 3 months at 12.5% until the end of 2016 (I think) and plain packaging implemented into the industry. By then, a regular 25-pack of Winfield Red's would cost about $35. Rolling tobacco may end up hitting the $50 dollar mark for a 25gm pouch.[/QUOTE] 50$? Welcome black market, welcome mass import of illegal tobacco. WELCOME CARTEL

I hope they do this in my country. Hate having to breathe in smoke from cigs when you go out to certain places

[QUOTE=Matrix374;46342010]I hope they do this in my country. Hate having to breathe in smoke from cigs when you go out to certain places[/QUOTE] I hope they ban you, because i hate having to breathe in your odor. You see how this works?

[QUOTE=Nuggi man;46341995]50$? Welcome black market, welcome mass import of illegal tobacco. WELCOME CARTEL[/QUOTE] It's already happening, there's been times where I've been having a 'durry while somewhere in the city (brisbane) and had people coming up to me trying to get me to buy 'chop chop' (slang for home-grown tobacco)

[QUOTE=Nuggi man;46342025]I hope they ban you, because i hate having to breathe in your odor. You see how this works?[/QUOTE] I fail to see how because I don't smell and body odour isn't as annoying or health damaging as second hand cigar smoke

[QUOTE=Matrix374;46342040]I fail to see how because I don't smell and body odour isn't as annoying or health damaging as second hand cigar smoke[/QUOTE] The amount of smoke you get by second hand smoking outside won't be able to do anything to you.. Unless you upright like to go infront of smokers and consume their lovely foams Almost everywhere it's illegal to smoke inside now so i can't really see your problem at all. Edit: Hang on, i just failed to realise you act like every fucking political person out there. "I DON'T KNOW HOW I CAN AVOID/ABUSE THIS, SO LET'S BAN IT FOR EVERYONE ELSE, BECAUSE I DON'T NEED IT"

[QUOTE=SexualShark;46336442]because bans work and the black market doesn't exist. better yet they could just go get one from a friend or family member and even strangers.[/QUOTE] Bans actually work, yes.

[QUOTE=Killuah;46342086]Bans actually work, yes.[/QUOTE] Hmm that's funny. Last time i've checked, the entire battle against drugs has failed completly because people can buy it on the black market.