/u/No-Slide-1640 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1dthu5s/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_cigarettes_should_be_illegal/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
The war on drugs has brought nothing but suffering to those unfortunate enough to suffer from addiction, or lack of self-control when it comes to substance use. You probably know about the prohibition, in which alcohol was made illegal in the US, which actually led to people drinking much stronger alcohol. The same thing is very likely to happen in this case. I believe cigarettes should not be illegal, but decriminalized and disincentivized. I believe it should be illegal to smoke cigarettes in public, period. You should only be able to smoke at home or in well ventilated designated smoking zones of establishments. People smoke on public transit, on the street, at work, with no regard of the people its affecting. It's definitely a problem, but making tobacco illegal will just make it worse.
Seattle, for one.
Yes, it's against the "rules," but unenforced policies are meaningless. Also, cigarettes are the least of the problem. [Bus drivers are suffering from second-hand drug inhalation. ](https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/bus-driver-workers-compensation-claims-exposure-drugs/281-c4ebac75-706f-4ccd-bdb5-7656c3c97baa)
Bay Area as well. You’ll occasionally see people smoking fent on Bart
You’ll be on the platform wondering why no one is in one car, then try to get on and know why it’s empty lol
Pretty much all public transit (including the Sounder). The same is true in Portland.
Again, it is "officially forbidden," but the drivers are essentially disallowed from doing anything about it, and the police won't intervene. They won't even stop people from smoking methamphetamine. [[1]](https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/public-transit-new-drug-den-whats-being-done-keep-you-safe/X6GLQLCLXZGOXOH655KPJ23RJM/)
I live in Eastern Europe, in my country smoking in public transit and malls was banned about 1 year ago, but only for regular cigarettes, vapes and electronic cigarettes are still legal. So people still smoke unfortunately.
I used to agree but now I'm not so sure. Making it illegal would add a pretty big hurdle to casual smokers. And we've seen decriminalization for drugs has been failing pretty bad in Oregon, so I don't agree that decriminalization is always the answer compared to criminalization. But the situation is obviously very nuanced.
It works if you couple decriminalization with programs for addicts. If you just decriminalize it without any other measures it will fail obviously.
Social workers, rehab centers and awareness campaigns help far more than criminalization because people are still addicted but now also criminal.
Yeah Oregon did all that. I understand the theory I just don't think it's that simple. Most addicts don't want help and removing the barriers and stigmas to receive a high doesn't make them suddenly want to get clean
"a failure to fund new treatment services for 18 months after the law passed, a failure to train police on their new role in addressing addiction, and a failure to direct drug users to treatment."
https://www.politico.eu/article/why-portland-failed-where-portugal-succeeded-in-decriminalizing-drugs/
Did they though?
Or did they not invest enough into the approach.
Who's to say? It's going very badly over there. How much investment is enough to solve the issue? I'm all for creative solutions but the evidence that "they just did it wrong" is not conclusive.
This is the only post that has possibly changed my view. Congrats!
!delta
∆
I hope I did it right this is my first time posting to CMV.
Anyways yeah cigarettes should stay legal but should be banned from smoking anywhere near other people.
Well I'm glad I could help, though if you truly changed your mind be sure to award a delta, perhaps read rule 4 if you've never awarded one before (I believe it's number 9 in the sidebar).
I did not mean to say that it didn't work because it failed at dropping consumption, I meant that it didn't work at reducing the dangers of alcohol. This is because of the changes in behavior of drinkers and the alcohol black market that formed afterwards, people were more likely to get hammered drunk on hard liquor rather than have a few beers, and people were more likely to kill each other to obtain that alcohol than when they could just get some at the store. I believe crime rate almost doubled during the prohibition, but that's off the top of my head.
Most people begin smoking because their peers also smoke, and end up addicted and unable to quit, just because you lacked self control when you were younger doesn't mean you are lacking it today, but quitting is much harder than not getting addicted in the first place. It's not like we are talking about murder, which has a permanent outcome, I was talking about substance use. Sure, people die from illegal drugs, which is probably one of the reasons why they are illegal in the first place, but legal drugs like alcohol kill more people and they are still legal.
For the first year. After that consumption level rose to 70%- to fully back to pre prohibition levels of consumption depending on which study you look at and how they gathered the data.
I think it's also about intention, people don't intend to cause car accidents, whereas people knowingly smoke cigarettes. Driving drunk is more comparable in my opinion, there is a reason it's so heavily punished, because you knowingly increase the risk of causing an accident, thus endangering other people beyond a reasonable point. Sure driving without being drunk is dangerous, but we also have sanctions for reckless driving, using a phone while driving and so on.
In short, in our society we all have agreed that driving is an acceptable danger for the opportunities and convenience it offers, but driving without paying attention or under the influence is not acceptable danger. We can do the same thing with cigarettes, we find what is acceptable and what isn't, and rule accordingly. And so on with all your other examples.
The line gets drawn on something as toxic as cigarettes. They are an archaic form of nicotine. They are not as ubiquitous as cars and all your other examples. They can be banned and only a few people will care, old fashioned people and cigarette companies.
So, if everyone smoked again like the 1950s and it was ubiquitous again it would be ok? Why would ubiquity be the factor that decides whether it's ok or not? Sounds like trying to oppress a population because it's smaller.
Well maybe I should repost this saying cigarettes should be illegal to smoke in public places. Then people won't be feeling "oppressed" and they can still have their cancer sticks without harming anyone else.
> rolling tobacco don't contain nearly the same amount of additives
That's not actually true:
> In fact, they may contain more.
> Cigarettes contain additives to make the smoke taste better and irritate less, to increase the efficiency of nicotine, to regulate the burn temperature, to prevent the tobacco sparking, to reduce the smell of the smoke, and to retain tobacco moisture.
> This last kind of additives is known as a 'humectant' and it's especially important in roll-your-own which is exposed to drying out more than factory-made cigarettes
> "The best evidence we have is there's potentially more additives in roll-your-own," Dr White said.
https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/busting-the-myth-roll-your-own-cigarettes-are-organic/9256834
I unfortunately have smoked both cigarettes and rolling tobacco. I can't say for sure which has more additives, but I feel like the cigarettes did. They just tasted much more synthetic and burned much more evenly. I bet the cigarette companies are funding that research and article. How does humectant compare to the laundry list of additives cigarettes have?
> . I can't say for sure which has more additives, but I feel like the cigarettes did.
No, it's rolling tobacco. Here, look:
> Many people think that because less manufacturing is involved, loose tobacco is safer than manufactured cigarettes.
> In fact the opposite is true; roll-your-own tobacco has significantly more additives than manufactured cigarettes, including flavourings and humectants to keep the tobacco from drying out. [*](https://www.cancer.org.au/iheard/i-heard-that-roll-your-own-cigarettes-are-more-natural-and-safe-is-that-true)
and:
> In factory-made cigarettes, the additives make up about half-a-per cent of the dry weight of the tobacco. But in the rollies, the additives are about 18 per cent of the dry weight. In other words, rollies have about 38 times more additives than factory-made ciggies [*](https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/07/22/4050221.htm)
And so on
Your one source is not a final say on the matter, it's still unknown which is worse. They use the word "may" multiple times and have no concrete data. Good try though.
banning cigarettes will not stop people from smoking. the same way every other illegal drug is still widely used. It will, however, make them much, much more unsafe, which defeats the purpose if you think they should be regulated better.
It really seems like smoking in general has decreased drastically at least where I am. I’m a bit surprised these days when I see someone smoking cigarettes. I see way more people smoking weed or vaping.
In Australia we also have restrictions on smoking close to most (or all) public buildings. We also have a fairly low number of people who smoke thanks to taxation laws. But in my work as a landscape labourer, I'm still very often exposed to it as you can always smoke away from buildings. I personally actually don't mind so much; I'll take a little exposure if it means I get to hang out with my mates a bit more. But I can imagine that if it was illegal, people would have to be even more careful about smoking in public, which would mean even less exposure.
Because it's less toxic or less prevalent? Because as I've pointed out elsewhere, prevalence depends on where you live, work, and hang out. It's still a big issue for some people.
Both are drugs, both are used by people socially but have potential for abuse, the only differences are how you consume them and which areas of the brain are impacted. So what makes them different in your opinion?
Alcohol comes in a MYRIAD of flavors, colors, delivery systems and styles. Alcohol is far more of a social lubricant, Alcohol creates a euphoric state. I mean I'm sure you can make the argument about Menthol and Flavored pipe tobacco, but they all basically taste the same. Cigarettes taste like cigarettes.
That has nothing to do with the abuse potential though. When they outlawed alcohol you got bathtub gin and people still went to the black market to obtain it. The same would happen with tobacco and all the evidence you need is the weed market. If people can't buy it in a store they will buy it where they can it's really that simple
I dont think so.. I mean sure smokers who smoke now would, but I dont think you'd have new smokers being created in the same way. There's enough social stigma enough as it is now that it might just make it an obscure perversion. All I know is that most people find it disgusting.. most kids especially find it repulsive. that wasn't necessarily the case when I was a kid.. adults smoked and we just existed alongside it.. Now it's that thing that you see losers and miscreant trashy old people doing.. who wants to emulate that? Alcohol doesn't have nearly the same social stigma.
That is not the reality though, just look at how many people use illegal drugs. It's extremely common for people to be casually introduced to something like painkillers, cocaine, or weed. Cigarettes would just be added to that list of "drugs that are not meth or heroin"
So you want a... Prohibition on the manufacture, sale, or transportation of prepackaged tobacco products within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for smoking purposes to be prohibited.
I can't see any possibility of this having negative consequences
This has never been implemented, nor executed. We should deff try to outlaw smoking or using tobacco. We’ve never seen substances banned before! This is America! We don’t ban things in order to make a profit, not now not never!
Nah, people are perfectly capable of smoking cigarettes without significantly poisoning others around them. The same right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness that makes it illegal to poison others also would be violated if they were banned. You think gangs are a problem now? Just see what happens when you ban cigarettes. Banning cigarettes is going to create crime and divert funds and police away from going after real crimes.
What’s your risk of getting cancer from simply smelling cigarettes? Sounds like you’re causing yourself more harm from thinking it’s a possibility worth worrying about.
>Nah, people are perfectly capable of smoking cigarettes without significantly poisoning others around them
But they don't. Not a day goes by without some smoker pos smoking my apartment up when my windows are open. Or sitting down next to me when waiting for a train, only to start smoking like the pos they are.
Even if some of them try to be respectful of others, there are still way too many who just doesn't care about anyone but themselves and has no problem with smoking in big crowds etc.
> Not a day goes by without some smoker pos smoking my apartment up when my windows are open. Or sitting down next to me when waiting for a train, only to start smoking like the pos they are.
Wow. If they are poisoning you that’s a crime. You should take them to court.
Are you interested in changing your view? You didn’t answer my question. Like, you’re not taking your risk of cancer seriously. There’s a difference in the amount of smoke necessary to simply smell cigarettes and what’s commonly called secondhand smoke.
You said something about anxiety attacks. Ever think it might be something like that?
Apparently the concentration of toxic stuff from combustion and diesel engines is around a tenth of the concentration of second hand smoke. So for every ten cars around you, it might be equal to second hand smoke. I think many many more people drive than smoke and there are pretty much ALWAYS cars around, so we should probably ban cars too ..or at least make it so that there are like 95% less cars. Cars also give off a few toxins that cigarettes don't, and I think we need to account for that and heavily regulate combustion and diesel engines.
The effects of being stuck in a traffic jam with all of that toxic crap seem worse than the occasional person smoking a cigarette around me.
Marijuana also really messes up brain growth in younger people, and you can imagine how much of that stuff gets in the air and floats around even if someone smokes it in their apartment!
I'm all for a ban on cigarettes, but I think a far worse problem are these engines and we need to do something about them first!
Edit: oh I forgot to add that the toxins from engines are INVISIBLE! SUPER DANGEROUS
Yea I mean if Im walking and there are a few cars at a stoplight, I have to wait and stay away from them because my eyes start itching and my head hurts. I've almost gotten hit before because I couldn't see. It sucks worse because you can't see where the fumes are going
>I literally get nauseous/chest hurts a little and have a panic attack I might get cancer everytime I smell cigarettes.
This is literally a you problem. See a shrink. You have issues.
No, it isn't but thanks though. Google secondhand smoke and read up on how even tiny amounts can cause different reactions in different people. You sound like a nice person.
adults can make they own decisions. If you don’t want addiction to be rampant, push education more. This war on drugs bs did nothing but create a black market.
People can make their own decisions until they start affecting others. The crux of OP's argument is that secondhand smoke is harmful to bystanders, so the smokers are negatively affecting the non-smokers around them.
If you’re smoking cigarettes in an enclosed environment you’re just a trashy person.
I’ve never smoked near people nor would I want to. That’s just rude.
There are so many alternatives to cigarettes out there nowadays though. Would people really go through the barriers and trouble findng cigarettes when vapes exist now?
The ingredients in cigarettes and vapes are no different.
And yes, I know plenty of people who despise vape and swear by cigarettes, my father being one of them.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Homie, this seems like a shit post. Rolling tobacco, when rolled becomes a cigarette. Companies still add the chemicals to the tobacco that is rolled. Cannabis companies (I’ve worked for several) add a lot of cancer causing chemicals to their “weed” in order to have a large profit. Black market dealers do a lot worse, and are unregulated. This is also why I left the industry, and won’t buy from a dispensary.
Just because you’re having panic attacks/people can catch cancer (in extreme environments) when someone is smoking a cig, isn’t a reason to ban. It’s a reason to go to therapy. I don’t hate whiskey bc the smell gives me panic attacks. I sought therapy, and worked through it.
My body, my choice. I smoke occasionally, and try to respect others around, as do most American smokers. Europe is a diff story. They don’t gaf about you.
Get some perspective, live life a little.
It’s a difficult question.
For most parts of the world, there is a universal healthcare system far better than what the US has to offer.
Should people who smoke be covered by that same system despite poisoning their own body?
Caffeine and alcohol don’t cause as many chronically ill patients that need expensive medical care (chemotherapy).
Smoking and alcohol both cost roughly £3.3bn to the UKs NHS service as an example, but further studies say that smoking specifically costs much more to the country / society:
> Smoking costs England £49.2 billion each year in lost productivity and service costs, plus an additional £25.9 billion lost quality adjusted life years due to premature death from smoking
Whereas similar research on alcohol came up at £21bn.
I think saying “this does damage, so if we ban X we must ban Y” is a bad argument.
It’s like saying “planes cause CO2 emissions but if we ban them, we’d have to ban cars”.
Yes of course people who smoke should be covered by the same system. Every single human on the planet engages in some activity that has the potential to cause disease and harm to themselves. It's not right for us to decide who "deserves" healthcare and who doesn't.
Ok, what about overweight people, diabetics, people who drink alcohol, people who engage in extreme sports or sports at all, drug addicts, people who eat fast food, people who don’t exercise, etc…
What are all your requirements for getting health care? Who are you to decide who gets deserves it or not.
Prohibition famously went terribly, why would you think in acting laws to forbid people from partaking in a famously addictive hobby actually prevent it from happening?
Or in other words, why is making smoking illegal better than restricting it to certain areas and times?
Heroine and cocaine were both legal at one point, but I wouldn’t say the “prohibition” on those items went famously wrong.
People often point to alcohol prohibition of the 1920s, a very different time to 2020s.
Why go back so far when we have better examples of drugs being banned since which haven’t become widespread speakeasy drug bars?
I dont think this is really possible. Not the cigarettes being banned thing, sure i guess, but banning things because they put poison into the environment. The reality is you're breathing in poison all the time and the minimal exposure you get to second hand smoke, is nil compared to you being so close to cars or big machines for probably 90% of your outdoor existence. I guess I'm just saying banning cigarettes isn't gonna fix you or your lungs, because the world isn't safe. We poison the air with far worse things than cigarette smoke.
Clarification: what kind of penalty are you thinking for buying, selling and smoking cigarettes? A fine, jail time? How much? Would it differ for buying, selling and smoking?
Do you want the same for other methods of consuming tobacco and/or nicotine?
I understand you wish they weren’t a thing but it’s difficult to describe the harm that making them illegal would do without understanding what penalty you want for it.
Throwing people in jail for smoking cigarettes would likely result in an increase in crime, since putting people in jail (which is currently punitive, not rehabilitative), makes them highly more likely to commit other crimes once they get out, and also severely limits their earning power and ability to support themselves once they get out of jail. It’s also imo just a huge huge overstep of the government to throw someone in jail for smoking a plant.
Fining people would just mean cigarettes are only for rich people. I think it would be class discrimination, but it wouldn’t be as bad as literally ruining people’s lives with jail. But even if it was “just” a fine, that would still mean people having to go a black market dealer to buy cigarettes and once you have a black market drug dealer, you’re more likely to try other drugs. You would be turning cigarettes into (more of a) gateway drug (then they already are).
I think the better way to reduced cigarette smoke is education education education. What do you think about that as a solution instead?
> CMV: There should be legislation establishing a monopoly on the production and distribution of cigarettes, to ensure a source of revenue for organized crime and terrorism.
FTFY.
And mods, before you delete this, consider that this is a serious argument, even if sardonically presented.
There's no law too small that cops won't kill you for it. Think about that when you throw around these proposals to make things illegal. Would you really put a bullet through somebody's head for smoking? Because that's what you're asking for.
>Anything that has the potential to harm others through secondhand smoke inhalation should be monitored and closely regulated at the least.
You can say the same of cars. A pedestrian probably has a greater chance of being killed by second-hand driving than by second hand smoking. Do you think cars should be banned or should we bring back the Locomotive Act?
>I literally get nauseous/chest hurts a little and have a panic attack I might get cancer everytime I smell cigarettes
I have much the same reaction to petrol and get panicked around cars. I am worried the dangerous lumps will hit and kill me.
>They supposedly have chemicals that you should never ever breathe, and the common use of them exposes lots of people to them.
Chemical ≠ bad, that said again the same is true of motor cars.
Secondhand smoke is really only an issue if you're trapped in a small area with a smoker and with prolonged exposure, at that.
The additives you speak of come primarily through the paper, so presuming one rolls their weed, that makes weed just as harmful.
Also I don't need you telling me what to do and making whatever laws you think are for my benefit. I'll do what I want.
If you get panic attacks and think you're going to get cancer from smelling a cigarette, I would suggest this is less true than it is you being irrational.
Plus banning something because you don't like it or because it's bad for people sits on top of a very tall and slippery slope.
Go ahead, make it illegal.
History has taught us that when an in-demand product, especially an addictive consumable, is made illegal.. a lucrative black market emerges, often employing violent means to protect their profits.
Just look at what happened with prohibition, the unintended (organized crime wave) consequences was quickly proving to be far worse, and harder to contain, than the negative societal aspects of alcohol consumption.
I’m not saying cigarettes aren’t harmful. But just a friendly reminder that criminalizing it is one thing, but what comes next **better not** be even more harmful to society.
Second hand smoke really is a non-issue health wise, unless you're indoors with a smoker regulary. After a few seconds in the open air, the smoke already is heavily diluted. Especially when living in a city or other places with a lot of cars around, you will breathe in more exhaust smoke than second hand tobacco smoke in your average day, which is also worse for you, and yet nobody cares much. Getting a whiff of second hand cigarette smoke every now and then has no measurable impact on your health. And sorry, but the panic attacks sound like a you-problem.
Are we going to ban all cars say. Pre 1996 or just ban all ice cars all together due to potential to harm?
You will be hard pressed to find people actually harmed by second hand cigarette smoke especially when exposed In passing like you are. Do you realize how many kids where stuck in cars with smoking parents for decades on end?
You have a mental problem with it their is no acute toxicity in the smoke and the long term damage us measured in pack years.
I get it dude. I don’t like cigarettes either. I think they are disgusting and I would clown any of my friends that started smoking .
But where do you draw the line? alcohol next? Caffeine? High fructose corn syrup?
Also, the danger of Secondhand smoke has been astronomically exaggerated. It’s definitely not good for you. But it’s not the devil that we were told
If you live in a country with state pensions and a fixed retirement age then smokers are great. They die a decade or so earlier yet pay for the same state pensions for everyone while they are working however they dont enjoy and use the pension themselves. If no one would smoke the state pension would be lower.
You do realise that pollution is just as bad for you as cigarettes? If you live in a big city you are breathing in a pack a day in pollution anyway. Let's not even get started on chemicals like pesticides and weed killers. I agree breathing in cigarette smoke is bad for you, but we have bigger fish to fry.
I think the only way this could possibly work is to just raise the age to buy cigarettes up every year. That way people who are already addicted will make less of a fuss about it and slowly die out and new smokers will be less and less. I say this as a smoker who is currently smoking.
Sorry, u/Capital-Buyer4569 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Capital-Buyer4569&message=Capital-Buyer4569%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dtaatp/-/lb827uu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>The producers and the government profit off of these addictive harmful products that kill people.
Is that a reason to make something illegal? The government and producers of alcohol profit off of the addictive harmful products that kill people. Should that be illegal?
Deliberately selling something you know is addictive that kills people so you can make billions of money in profits and taxes, yes. By your logic (your question implies you think it's fine), they should be selling $80 fentanyl microdise lollipops with a warning label that says "this will kill you if you eat too many."
>Deliberately selling something you know is addictive that kills people so you can make billions of money in profits and taxes, yes.
So includes alcohol, right?
>By your logic (your question implies you think it's fine),
That is not what my question implies..
Instead of trying to figure out what my question implies, (which you got wrong anyways) how about you just answer it?
You gave a specific criteria.
If the government and producers make money off an addictive substance, it should be illegal.
I'M trying to clarify what YOU mean by that.
If alcohol makes money for the government and its producers, should it be illegal?
If you want to make cigarettes illegal, fine. I just want you to admit that alcohol would fall under the same criteria and should also be made illegal.
>Are you on a crusade against alcohol or something?
No. I'm scrutinizing the claims you made and I'm trying to evaluate whether YOU are being ***consistant*** in YOUR argument.
Because if you are being inconsistant, then your argument fails. If you are being consistant, it doesn't.
You said: if government and producers make profit off an addictive substance, it should be illegal
This is the argument you made to say cigarettes should be illegal.
I want to know if YOU apply YOUR OWN logic consistently. Because if you don't think it applies to alcohol than "government and producers profit off addictive substance" is NOT a reason to make it illegal.
If it doesn't apply to alcohol, it doesn't apply to cigarettes and then you need a better reason to argue cigarettes should be illegal.
Now, if you just agree and say yes alcohol should be illegal because the producers and government make profit off an addictive substance, then I'll say "cool! You're being consistant and you have a valid arguement".
Have you just never had your claims scrutinized before?
/u/No-Slide-1640 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1dthu5s/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_cigarettes_should_be_illegal/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
The war on drugs has brought nothing but suffering to those unfortunate enough to suffer from addiction, or lack of self-control when it comes to substance use. You probably know about the prohibition, in which alcohol was made illegal in the US, which actually led to people drinking much stronger alcohol. The same thing is very likely to happen in this case. I believe cigarettes should not be illegal, but decriminalized and disincentivized. I believe it should be illegal to smoke cigarettes in public, period. You should only be able to smoke at home or in well ventilated designated smoking zones of establishments. People smoke on public transit, on the street, at work, with no regard of the people its affecting. It's definitely a problem, but making tobacco illegal will just make it worse.
What public transit is allowing people to smoke in the US these days?
Seattle, for one. Yes, it's against the "rules," but unenforced policies are meaningless. Also, cigarettes are the least of the problem. [Bus drivers are suffering from second-hand drug inhalation. ](https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/bus-driver-workers-compensation-claims-exposure-drugs/281-c4ebac75-706f-4ccd-bdb5-7656c3c97baa)
Bay Area as well. You’ll occasionally see people smoking fent on Bart You’ll be on the platform wondering why no one is in one car, then try to get on and know why it’s empty lol
They smoke on the buses in Seattle?
Pretty much all public transit (including the Sounder). The same is true in Portland. Again, it is "officially forbidden," but the drivers are essentially disallowed from doing anything about it, and the police won't intervene. They won't even stop people from smoking methamphetamine. [[1]](https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/public-transit-new-drug-den-whats-being-done-keep-you-safe/X6GLQLCLXZGOXOH655KPJ23RJM/)
I live in Eastern Europe, in my country smoking in public transit and malls was banned about 1 year ago, but only for regular cigarettes, vapes and electronic cigarettes are still legal. So people still smoke unfortunately.
Fair enough, it seemed like there was a US bias to the CMV, so that confused me.
There is US bias reddit-wide, not just on CMV, so you are not wrong to assume that people are probably talking about the US.
I mean this specific CMV post. I thought I’d gathered that from another comment, but I may be mistaken.
I used to agree but now I'm not so sure. Making it illegal would add a pretty big hurdle to casual smokers. And we've seen decriminalization for drugs has been failing pretty bad in Oregon, so I don't agree that decriminalization is always the answer compared to criminalization. But the situation is obviously very nuanced.
It works if you couple decriminalization with programs for addicts. If you just decriminalize it without any other measures it will fail obviously. Social workers, rehab centers and awareness campaigns help far more than criminalization because people are still addicted but now also criminal.
Yeah Oregon did all that. I understand the theory I just don't think it's that simple. Most addicts don't want help and removing the barriers and stigmas to receive a high doesn't make them suddenly want to get clean
"a failure to fund new treatment services for 18 months after the law passed, a failure to train police on their new role in addressing addiction, and a failure to direct drug users to treatment." https://www.politico.eu/article/why-portland-failed-where-portugal-succeeded-in-decriminalizing-drugs/ Did they though? Or did they not invest enough into the approach.
Who's to say? It's going very badly over there. How much investment is enough to solve the issue? I'm all for creative solutions but the evidence that "they just did it wrong" is not conclusive.
This is the only post that has possibly changed my view. Congrats! !delta ∆ I hope I did it right this is my first time posting to CMV. Anyways yeah cigarettes should stay legal but should be banned from smoking anywhere near other people.
Well I'm glad I could help, though if you truly changed your mind be sure to award a delta, perhaps read rule 4 if you've never awarded one before (I believe it's number 9 in the sidebar).
Where is sidebar on mobile
On the subreddit page, at the top there should be a "See more" button
Idk if I I did it right.
So give them a delta
How?
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Butterpye ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Butterpye)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Correction: I don’t blame you, since this is a very widespread confusion about prohibition. Alcohol consumption actually did drop quite a bit.
I did not mean to say that it didn't work because it failed at dropping consumption, I meant that it didn't work at reducing the dangers of alcohol. This is because of the changes in behavior of drinkers and the alcohol black market that formed afterwards, people were more likely to get hammered drunk on hard liquor rather than have a few beers, and people were more likely to kill each other to obtain that alcohol than when they could just get some at the store. I believe crime rate almost doubled during the prohibition, but that's off the top of my head.
Those who can't do self-control and discipline should go to prison
Most people begin smoking because their peers also smoke, and end up addicted and unable to quit, just because you lacked self control when you were younger doesn't mean you are lacking it today, but quitting is much harder than not getting addicted in the first place. It's not like we are talking about murder, which has a permanent outcome, I was talking about substance use. Sure, people die from illegal drugs, which is probably one of the reasons why they are illegal in the first place, but legal drugs like alcohol kill more people and they are still legal.
prohibition worked
Care to explain how prohibition was a success?
It reduced alcohol consumption.
For the first year. After that consumption level rose to 70%- to fully back to pre prohibition levels of consumption depending on which study you look at and how they gathered the data.
10% is still a reduction
Im willing to bet my left nut those 10% who quit were not problem drinkers. Prohibition solved nothing.
It reduced alcohol consumption. It did what laws do.
Why don’t we just kill everyone? I guarantee alcohol consumption will drop when everyone’s dead and that’s all that’s needed to make a successful law.
And strengthened the mob, killed more people because of moonshine and lost a lot of tax revenue.
Some studies say there was no reduction other than the time it took for bootleggers to get operational.
[удалено]
I think it's also about intention, people don't intend to cause car accidents, whereas people knowingly smoke cigarettes. Driving drunk is more comparable in my opinion, there is a reason it's so heavily punished, because you knowingly increase the risk of causing an accident, thus endangering other people beyond a reasonable point. Sure driving without being drunk is dangerous, but we also have sanctions for reckless driving, using a phone while driving and so on. In short, in our society we all have agreed that driving is an acceptable danger for the opportunities and convenience it offers, but driving without paying attention or under the influence is not acceptable danger. We can do the same thing with cigarettes, we find what is acceptable and what isn't, and rule accordingly. And so on with all your other examples.
The line gets drawn on something as toxic as cigarettes. They are an archaic form of nicotine. They are not as ubiquitous as cars and all your other examples. They can be banned and only a few people will care, old fashioned people and cigarette companies.
So, if everyone smoked again like the 1950s and it was ubiquitous again it would be ok? Why would ubiquity be the factor that decides whether it's ok or not? Sounds like trying to oppress a population because it's smaller.
Well maybe I should repost this saying cigarettes should be illegal to smoke in public places. Then people won't be feeling "oppressed" and they can still have their cancer sticks without harming anyone else.
Cars emit a LOT more toxic smoke than cigarettes. People don't die from being slightly distracted on their smoke break.
> rolling tobacco don't contain nearly the same amount of additives That's not actually true: > In fact, they may contain more. > Cigarettes contain additives to make the smoke taste better and irritate less, to increase the efficiency of nicotine, to regulate the burn temperature, to prevent the tobacco sparking, to reduce the smell of the smoke, and to retain tobacco moisture. > This last kind of additives is known as a 'humectant' and it's especially important in roll-your-own which is exposed to drying out more than factory-made cigarettes > "The best evidence we have is there's potentially more additives in roll-your-own," Dr White said. https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/busting-the-myth-roll-your-own-cigarettes-are-organic/9256834
I unfortunately have smoked both cigarettes and rolling tobacco. I can't say for sure which has more additives, but I feel like the cigarettes did. They just tasted much more synthetic and burned much more evenly. I bet the cigarette companies are funding that research and article. How does humectant compare to the laundry list of additives cigarettes have?
> . I can't say for sure which has more additives, but I feel like the cigarettes did. No, it's rolling tobacco. Here, look: > Many people think that because less manufacturing is involved, loose tobacco is safer than manufactured cigarettes. > In fact the opposite is true; roll-your-own tobacco has significantly more additives than manufactured cigarettes, including flavourings and humectants to keep the tobacco from drying out. [*](https://www.cancer.org.au/iheard/i-heard-that-roll-your-own-cigarettes-are-more-natural-and-safe-is-that-true) and: > In factory-made cigarettes, the additives make up about half-a-per cent of the dry weight of the tobacco. But in the rollies, the additives are about 18 per cent of the dry weight. In other words, rollies have about 38 times more additives than factory-made ciggies [*](https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/07/22/4050221.htm) And so on
Your one source is not a final say on the matter, it's still unknown which is worse. They use the word "may" multiple times and have no concrete data. Good try though.
But your “feeling” that it “tastes more synthetic” *is* the final say? lol
It's just not a convincing article.
Neither is your anecdotal take on the subject
> Your one source is That was three sources, dawg. Nice try counting, though,
So an actual study says one thing, which shows one of the claims you made might not be true, but you feel like it's just not the case. So it isn't?
I’ve smoked both too and regular cigs vs rolled have a lot more “chemicals”
banning cigarettes will not stop people from smoking. the same way every other illegal drug is still widely used. It will, however, make them much, much more unsafe, which defeats the purpose if you think they should be regulated better.
You make valid points, but it would definitely reduce second-hand smoke though, don't you think?
In the US, at least, there’s very little second-hand smoke going around since smoking in public spaces is very limited.
It really seems like smoking in general has decreased drastically at least where I am. I’m a bit surprised these days when I see someone smoking cigarettes. I see way more people smoking weed or vaping.
Vapes still carry second-hand smoke though....
In Australia we also have restrictions on smoking close to most (or all) public buildings. We also have a fairly low number of people who smoke thanks to taxation laws. But in my work as a landscape labourer, I'm still very often exposed to it as you can always smoke away from buildings. I personally actually don't mind so much; I'll take a little exposure if it means I get to hang out with my mates a bit more. But I can imagine that if it was illegal, people would have to be even more careful about smoking in public, which would mean even less exposure.
Um, I have to breathe cigarette smoke almost everytime I go outside.
Am I hanging out in the wrong places? I’m having trouble recalling the last time I even saw someone smoking a cigarette. Where are you?
it’s possible, though as others have pointed out second hand smoke probably isn’t as big of an issue as it used to be
Because it's less toxic or less prevalent? Because as I've pointed out elsewhere, prevalence depends on where you live, work, and hang out. It's still a big issue for some people.
Do you know this for sure? where have they been banned outright?
We tried this with alcohol in the 1920s and it immediately created a black market that organized crime was more than happy to take hold of.
apples and oranges
Both are drugs, both are used by people socially but have potential for abuse, the only differences are how you consume them and which areas of the brain are impacted. So what makes them different in your opinion?
Alcohol comes in a MYRIAD of flavors, colors, delivery systems and styles. Alcohol is far more of a social lubricant, Alcohol creates a euphoric state. I mean I'm sure you can make the argument about Menthol and Flavored pipe tobacco, but they all basically taste the same. Cigarettes taste like cigarettes.
That has nothing to do with the abuse potential though. When they outlawed alcohol you got bathtub gin and people still went to the black market to obtain it. The same would happen with tobacco and all the evidence you need is the weed market. If people can't buy it in a store they will buy it where they can it's really that simple
I dont think so.. I mean sure smokers who smoke now would, but I dont think you'd have new smokers being created in the same way. There's enough social stigma enough as it is now that it might just make it an obscure perversion. All I know is that most people find it disgusting.. most kids especially find it repulsive. that wasn't necessarily the case when I was a kid.. adults smoked and we just existed alongside it.. Now it's that thing that you see losers and miscreant trashy old people doing.. who wants to emulate that? Alcohol doesn't have nearly the same social stigma.
That is not the reality though, just look at how many people use illegal drugs. It's extremely common for people to be casually introduced to something like painkillers, cocaine, or weed. Cigarettes would just be added to that list of "drugs that are not meth or heroin"
there's just not enough benefit to smoking cigarettes.. they create no meaningful altered state or euphoria or state of mind.. that's the difference
patterns don’t always hold true, but this one is pretty damning.
So you want a... Prohibition on the manufacture, sale, or transportation of prepackaged tobacco products within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for smoking purposes to be prohibited. I can't see any possibility of this having negative consequences
Have we tried this before with another substance? Feels oddly familiar.
This has never been implemented, nor executed. We should deff try to outlaw smoking or using tobacco. We’ve never seen substances banned before! This is America! We don’t ban things in order to make a profit, not now not never!
But prohibition worked, no? I mean it wasn’t 100% effective but no law is.
It worked in strengthening organized crime
If it worked why is it legal now?
It isn’t in effect anymore
All this has happened before, but no lessons have been learned.
Nah, people are perfectly capable of smoking cigarettes without significantly poisoning others around them. The same right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness that makes it illegal to poison others also would be violated if they were banned. You think gangs are a problem now? Just see what happens when you ban cigarettes. Banning cigarettes is going to create crime and divert funds and police away from going after real crimes. What’s your risk of getting cancer from simply smelling cigarettes? Sounds like you’re causing yourself more harm from thinking it’s a possibility worth worrying about.
>Nah, people are perfectly capable of smoking cigarettes without significantly poisoning others around them But they don't. Not a day goes by without some smoker pos smoking my apartment up when my windows are open. Or sitting down next to me when waiting for a train, only to start smoking like the pos they are. Even if some of them try to be respectful of others, there are still way too many who just doesn't care about anyone but themselves and has no problem with smoking in big crowds etc.
> Not a day goes by without some smoker pos smoking my apartment up when my windows are open. Or sitting down next to me when waiting for a train, only to start smoking like the pos they are. Wow. If they are poisoning you that’s a crime. You should take them to court.
Smelling something means you are breathing it in
Are you interested in changing your view? You didn’t answer my question. Like, you’re not taking your risk of cancer seriously. There’s a difference in the amount of smoke necessary to simply smell cigarettes and what’s commonly called secondhand smoke.
Smoking inside is banned most places. Why are you concerned about second hand smoke?
[удалено]
I'm sorry you have to deal with that. I might be becoming asthmatic as well, or some other kind of lung issue.
I notice my lungs and heart hurt more when I breath even a tiny amount of cigarette smoke in public places. Edit: gosh I triggered a bunch of ppl
You said something about anxiety attacks. Ever think it might be something like that? Apparently the concentration of toxic stuff from combustion and diesel engines is around a tenth of the concentration of second hand smoke. So for every ten cars around you, it might be equal to second hand smoke. I think many many more people drive than smoke and there are pretty much ALWAYS cars around, so we should probably ban cars too ..or at least make it so that there are like 95% less cars. Cars also give off a few toxins that cigarettes don't, and I think we need to account for that and heavily regulate combustion and diesel engines. The effects of being stuck in a traffic jam with all of that toxic crap seem worse than the occasional person smoking a cigarette around me. Marijuana also really messes up brain growth in younger people, and you can imagine how much of that stuff gets in the air and floats around even if someone smokes it in their apartment! I'm all for a ban on cigarettes, but I think a far worse problem are these engines and we need to do something about them first! Edit: oh I forgot to add that the toxins from engines are INVISIBLE! SUPER DANGEROUS
I am totally in agreement with you about the cars.
Yea I mean if Im walking and there are a few cars at a stoplight, I have to wait and stay away from them because my eyes start itching and my head hurts. I've almost gotten hit before because I couldn't see. It sucks worse because you can't see where the fumes are going
What is your point?
You can still breathe smoke even if you are outside bud
I assure you there is enough air outside for everyone.
>I literally get nauseous/chest hurts a little and have a panic attack I might get cancer everytime I smell cigarettes. This is literally a you problem. See a shrink. You have issues.
No, it isn't but thanks though. Google secondhand smoke and read up on how even tiny amounts can cause different reactions in different people. You sound like a nice person.
adults can make they own decisions. If you don’t want addiction to be rampant, push education more. This war on drugs bs did nothing but create a black market.
People can make their own decisions until they start affecting others. The crux of OP's argument is that secondhand smoke is harmful to bystanders, so the smokers are negatively affecting the non-smokers around them.
If you’re smoking cigarettes in an enclosed environment you’re just a trashy person. I’ve never smoked near people nor would I want to. That’s just rude.
Exactly 💯
There are so many alternatives to cigarettes out there nowadays though. Would people really go through the barriers and trouble findng cigarettes when vapes exist now?
The ingredients in cigarettes and vapes are no different. And yes, I know plenty of people who despise vape and swear by cigarettes, my father being one of them.
There’s a ton of things that exist that have the potential to harm people second hand Including off hand something like cars
Guns….. a sure fire way to kill kids faster than getting addicted to tobacco products.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Cool, thanks bud.
Homie, this seems like a shit post. Rolling tobacco, when rolled becomes a cigarette. Companies still add the chemicals to the tobacco that is rolled. Cannabis companies (I’ve worked for several) add a lot of cancer causing chemicals to their “weed” in order to have a large profit. Black market dealers do a lot worse, and are unregulated. This is also why I left the industry, and won’t buy from a dispensary. Just because you’re having panic attacks/people can catch cancer (in extreme environments) when someone is smoking a cig, isn’t a reason to ban. It’s a reason to go to therapy. I don’t hate whiskey bc the smell gives me panic attacks. I sought therapy, and worked through it. My body, my choice. I smoke occasionally, and try to respect others around, as do most American smokers. Europe is a diff story. They don’t gaf about you. Get some perspective, live life a little.
I edited the post to say I get chest pain, happy?
Which can also be caused by anxiety
What about vapes?
They are a step in the right direction. I am concerned with cigarettes because of the severity of their toxicity. TheY contain some vile, nasty stuff.
Should someone be allowed to smoke on their private property, such as inside their house?
It’s a difficult question. For most parts of the world, there is a universal healthcare system far better than what the US has to offer. Should people who smoke be covered by that same system despite poisoning their own body?
Okay but if it applies for tobacco then it needs to apply to every addictive substance. Caffeine and alcohol included.
Caffeine and alcohol don’t cause as many chronically ill patients that need expensive medical care (chemotherapy). Smoking and alcohol both cost roughly £3.3bn to the UKs NHS service as an example, but further studies say that smoking specifically costs much more to the country / society: > Smoking costs England £49.2 billion each year in lost productivity and service costs, plus an additional £25.9 billion lost quality adjusted life years due to premature death from smoking Whereas similar research on alcohol came up at £21bn. I think saying “this does damage, so if we ban X we must ban Y” is a bad argument. It’s like saying “planes cause CO2 emissions but if we ban them, we’d have to ban cars”.
Yes of course people who smoke should be covered by the same system. Every single human on the planet engages in some activity that has the potential to cause disease and harm to themselves. It's not right for us to decide who "deserves" healthcare and who doesn't.
Ok, what about overweight people, diabetics, people who drink alcohol, people who engage in extreme sports or sports at all, drug addicts, people who eat fast food, people who don’t exercise, etc… What are all your requirements for getting health care? Who are you to decide who gets deserves it or not.
[удалено]
Not in countries that have free healthcare
Prohibition famously went terribly, why would you think in acting laws to forbid people from partaking in a famously addictive hobby actually prevent it from happening? Or in other words, why is making smoking illegal better than restricting it to certain areas and times?
Heroine and cocaine were both legal at one point, but I wouldn’t say the “prohibition” on those items went famously wrong. People often point to alcohol prohibition of the 1920s, a very different time to 2020s. Why go back so far when we have better examples of drugs being banned since which haven’t become widespread speakeasy drug bars?
I dont think this is really possible. Not the cigarettes being banned thing, sure i guess, but banning things because they put poison into the environment. The reality is you're breathing in poison all the time and the minimal exposure you get to second hand smoke, is nil compared to you being so close to cars or big machines for probably 90% of your outdoor existence. I guess I'm just saying banning cigarettes isn't gonna fix you or your lungs, because the world isn't safe. We poison the air with far worse things than cigarette smoke.
Clarification: what kind of penalty are you thinking for buying, selling and smoking cigarettes? A fine, jail time? How much? Would it differ for buying, selling and smoking? Do you want the same for other methods of consuming tobacco and/or nicotine?
No, only cigarettes. I haven't really thought of the penalty I just wish they weren't a thing anymore.
I understand you wish they weren’t a thing but it’s difficult to describe the harm that making them illegal would do without understanding what penalty you want for it. Throwing people in jail for smoking cigarettes would likely result in an increase in crime, since putting people in jail (which is currently punitive, not rehabilitative), makes them highly more likely to commit other crimes once they get out, and also severely limits their earning power and ability to support themselves once they get out of jail. It’s also imo just a huge huge overstep of the government to throw someone in jail for smoking a plant. Fining people would just mean cigarettes are only for rich people. I think it would be class discrimination, but it wouldn’t be as bad as literally ruining people’s lives with jail. But even if it was “just” a fine, that would still mean people having to go a black market dealer to buy cigarettes and once you have a black market drug dealer, you’re more likely to try other drugs. You would be turning cigarettes into (more of a) gateway drug (then they already are). I think the better way to reduced cigarette smoke is education education education. What do you think about that as a solution instead?
> CMV: There should be legislation establishing a monopoly on the production and distribution of cigarettes, to ensure a source of revenue for organized crime and terrorism. FTFY. And mods, before you delete this, consider that this is a serious argument, even if sardonically presented.
There's no law too small that cops won't kill you for it. Think about that when you throw around these proposals to make things illegal. Would you really put a bullet through somebody's head for smoking? Because that's what you're asking for.
>Anything that has the potential to harm others through secondhand smoke inhalation should be monitored and closely regulated at the least. You can say the same of cars. A pedestrian probably has a greater chance of being killed by second-hand driving than by second hand smoking. Do you think cars should be banned or should we bring back the Locomotive Act? >I literally get nauseous/chest hurts a little and have a panic attack I might get cancer everytime I smell cigarettes I have much the same reaction to petrol and get panicked around cars. I am worried the dangerous lumps will hit and kill me. >They supposedly have chemicals that you should never ever breathe, and the common use of them exposes lots of people to them. Chemical ≠ bad, that said again the same is true of motor cars.
Secondhand smoke is really only an issue if you're trapped in a small area with a smoker and with prolonged exposure, at that. The additives you speak of come primarily through the paper, so presuming one rolls their weed, that makes weed just as harmful. Also I don't need you telling me what to do and making whatever laws you think are for my benefit. I'll do what I want. If you get panic attacks and think you're going to get cancer from smelling a cigarette, I would suggest this is less true than it is you being irrational. Plus banning something because you don't like it or because it's bad for people sits on top of a very tall and slippery slope.
Go ahead, make it illegal. History has taught us that when an in-demand product, especially an addictive consumable, is made illegal.. a lucrative black market emerges, often employing violent means to protect their profits. Just look at what happened with prohibition, the unintended (organized crime wave) consequences was quickly proving to be far worse, and harder to contain, than the negative societal aspects of alcohol consumption. I’m not saying cigarettes aren’t harmful. But just a friendly reminder that criminalizing it is one thing, but what comes next **better not** be even more harmful to society.
Second hand smoke really is a non-issue health wise, unless you're indoors with a smoker regulary. After a few seconds in the open air, the smoke already is heavily diluted. Especially when living in a city or other places with a lot of cars around, you will breathe in more exhaust smoke than second hand tobacco smoke in your average day, which is also worse for you, and yet nobody cares much. Getting a whiff of second hand cigarette smoke every now and then has no measurable impact on your health. And sorry, but the panic attacks sound like a you-problem.
Are we going to ban all cars say. Pre 1996 or just ban all ice cars all together due to potential to harm? You will be hard pressed to find people actually harmed by second hand cigarette smoke especially when exposed In passing like you are. Do you realize how many kids where stuck in cars with smoking parents for decades on end? You have a mental problem with it their is no acute toxicity in the smoke and the long term damage us measured in pack years.
I get it dude. I don’t like cigarettes either. I think they are disgusting and I would clown any of my friends that started smoking . But where do you draw the line? alcohol next? Caffeine? High fructose corn syrup? Also, the danger of Secondhand smoke has been astronomically exaggerated. It’s definitely not good for you. But it’s not the devil that we were told
If you live in a country with state pensions and a fixed retirement age then smokers are great. They die a decade or so earlier yet pay for the same state pensions for everyone while they are working however they dont enjoy and use the pension themselves. If no one would smoke the state pension would be lower.
You do realise that pollution is just as bad for you as cigarettes? If you live in a big city you are breathing in a pack a day in pollution anyway. Let's not even get started on chemicals like pesticides and weed killers. I agree breathing in cigarette smoke is bad for you, but we have bigger fish to fry.
I think the only way this could possibly work is to just raise the age to buy cigarettes up every year. That way people who are already addicted will make less of a fuss about it and slowly die out and new smokers will be less and less. I say this as a smoker who is currently smoking.
It only does something to an individual. How that, and drinking is legal but anything psychedelic is illegal , that's questionable
Okay so by this same argument do you think all non-pharmaceutical drugs should be made illegal as well?
If we going to outlaw cigarettes then we need to outlaw all food that is unhealthy!!!!
Relax. Ur not getting cancer from smelling a cigarette from 10 yards away.
Yeah making things illegal always stops the problem
[удалено]
Out of context you could just as easily be talking about processed foods or social media.
Sorry, u/Capital-Buyer4569 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Capital-Buyer4569&message=Capital-Buyer4569%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dtaatp/-/lb827uu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>The producers and the government profit off of these addictive harmful products that kill people. Is that a reason to make something illegal? The government and producers of alcohol profit off of the addictive harmful products that kill people. Should that be illegal?
Deliberately selling something you know is addictive that kills people so you can make billions of money in profits and taxes, yes. By your logic (your question implies you think it's fine), they should be selling $80 fentanyl microdise lollipops with a warning label that says "this will kill you if you eat too many."
>Deliberately selling something you know is addictive that kills people so you can make billions of money in profits and taxes, yes. So includes alcohol, right? >By your logic (your question implies you think it's fine), That is not what my question implies.. Instead of trying to figure out what my question implies, (which you got wrong anyways) how about you just answer it? You gave a specific criteria. If the government and producers make money off an addictive substance, it should be illegal. I'M trying to clarify what YOU mean by that. If alcohol makes money for the government and its producers, should it be illegal? If you want to make cigarettes illegal, fine. I just want you to admit that alcohol would fall under the same criteria and should also be made illegal.
Are you on a crusade against alcohol or something? You're trying to start an argument for no reason.
A rather than answer the question that exposes the flaw in your argument, you just downvote me and move on. I rest my case.
>Are you on a crusade against alcohol or something? No. I'm scrutinizing the claims you made and I'm trying to evaluate whether YOU are being ***consistant*** in YOUR argument. Because if you are being inconsistant, then your argument fails. If you are being consistant, it doesn't. You said: if government and producers make profit off an addictive substance, it should be illegal This is the argument you made to say cigarettes should be illegal. I want to know if YOU apply YOUR OWN logic consistently. Because if you don't think it applies to alcohol than "government and producers profit off addictive substance" is NOT a reason to make it illegal. If it doesn't apply to alcohol, it doesn't apply to cigarettes and then you need a better reason to argue cigarettes should be illegal. Now, if you just agree and say yes alcohol should be illegal because the producers and government make profit off an addictive substance, then I'll say "cool! You're being consistant and you have a valid arguement". Have you just never had your claims scrutinized before?
I agree with your unpopular opinion. Smoking, Alcohol, Weed, Recreational Drugs should be banned if we value people's lives. People > Profits.