Danmark delivers, professor at health institure wants to ban smoking for everyone born after 2000.
139 replies, posted
[QUOTE=shutter_eye5;46342036]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]
They've gotten greedy and they might lose control of the market. No one pays taxes on black market tobacco. Not to mention it's like 50g for $20.
[QUOTE=Nuggi man;46342068]
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]
And you don't seem to be able to make an argument without having to resort to an insult of sorts
[QUOTE=Nuggi man;46342068]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Sadly there's a lot of smokers in my area and in some situations it is almost impossible to avoid them due to lax enforcement of that rule.
Anyways,I can't be bothered arguing anymore so I'll have to yield.
While I would be a very happy man if they banned it we won't really know if it's going to turn up a black market or not.
Hopefully smoking anything in public will be a social stigma in the sometime future so we won't have to resort to banning or whatever
Flat out banning is a terrible idea, but I wouldn't mind trying to make it harder and harder to start, such as trying to limit the market, just to discourage, rather than stop.
[editline]27th October 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;46338468]All the winners OP received is proof that prohibition propaganda actually does work depending on the drug.[/QUOTE]
Keyword is "propaganda." The Prohibition in the United States had a lot of people supporting it, but we all know how well that went.
While I do hate smoking alot (I'm asthmatic) I think they should just restrict where you're allowed to smoke so it doesn't bother other people instead of banning smoking all together.
Yes bans work so well, lets open more black markets please.
[QUOTE=Nuggi man;46342123]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.[/QUOTE]
There is no control group.
One of the most popular and well documented bans in history on the other hand actually worked: The prohibition.
Aside from all the Hollywood trope stuff alcohol consumption actually went down during that time.
[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/[/url]
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;46336424]Banning cigarettes to 2000+ won't stop them from getting cigarettes. They could just ask someone to give them a cig, or steal from their parents'. It won't matter in the end.[/QUOTE]
[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]
These comments literally mean the exact same things, and yet one is dumbed to oblivion while the other is endlessly agreed?!?!?! I don't get it
On topic, if this were in tandem with the decriminalisation of marijuana, it'd be much better. Don't wanna start another marijuana debate, but safe, legal stress relief would trump unsafe, illegal stress relief in every single way
But no matter what, if this were applied en masse, it'd mean that eventually nobody would smoke, because in about a hundred years there'd be no point in manufacturing them since it'd be illegal to sell it to anyone
I mean, anyone with the right stuff (that can be easily bought by any old lady from what I've seen) can just make cigarettes themselves but honestly, by that point, who would even try, I'm sure in a hundred years smoking will be even more obsolete than it is now, even with the ravaging lung cancer.
[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]
Yep, it's a problem alright.
But this also applies to things like having fat sucked out of someone's asshole, which was also their choice.
Which is to say that smoking is certainly not the only thing that is "needlessly" stressing government budgets and therefor taxpayers, although I'm not sure about the ratios as to what is the most costly.
[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]
Wouldn't it be better if they simply forbid smoking in public areas?
[editline]28th October 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;46346228]Yep, it's a problem alright.
[/QUOTE]
Except not really, due to the previously mentioned high taxes on tobacco products
[QUOTE=Killuah;46344433]There is no control group.
One of the most popular and well documented bans in history on the other hand actually worked: The prohibition.
Aside from all the Hollywood trope stuff alcohol consumption actually went down during that time.
[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/[/url][/QUOTE]
maybe consumption per person, but overall production and consumption of alcohol in the US went through the roof because it was "hip" and a few gallons of it could net you a nice paycheck, a few dozen gallons a nice career, and a few hundred gallons enough money and power to enshrine your family in the US political system
[editline]27th October 2014[/editline]
prohibition did not work ever
[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]
Yeah they're a joke when your stoned you can make a face
[editline]28th October 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bonde;46341447]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]
So correct its not even funny
I'm surprised there's so much support for this given how I thought FP was mostly in support of drugs - guess that's just a small minority.
When I was young my father smoked a lot, and when I found out about the risk I came up with petty schemes to make him quit. I also stated that I wanted to become a Senator so I could ban cigarettes.
My dad did end up quitting but I discarded my "dream" of banning cigarettes because I grew a brain and moved away from the far left wing
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.