Do they have enough power to do it, or do some MPs smoke themselves?
Even if they "ban" smoking, they'll never stop it. Look at pot and other illegal drugs. It can't be stopped.
A lot of people would be very unhappy if they did that
its a huge revenue source for the government so I don't see why they would ban it
How could it be possible? The President smokes.
There, I have edited it. Besides, I am not a perfectionist.
'People who want everything to be perfect are not living in reality they are living in a dream world.'
No, if they did, it would just increase illegal activity. Look what happened with prohibition. It failed. Besides, they would lose tons of revenue and an excuse to raise taxes. Not to mention, the government is injecting itself into peoples' private lives in too many ways. They should go back to cleaning up their own house and get on with the business of keeping our economy strong and our streets and borders safe.
The government should ban people. No more problems, anywhere.
Thats my man, and smokers should be put on an Island with yer stinky smoke. Jeeeez I get smoke all over my clothes, do I throw my red wine all over your clothes no I dont. So cmon you smokers stub it out !
Just a helpful hint .... if your clothes smell like smoke, take a dryer sheet and wet it, throw it in the dryer with the offensive clothing, run the dryer for 20 minutes and the smell will be gone.
I learned this little trick while I was in a band....we played in many smoky bars, but if you live in part of the world where you don't have dryers or dryer sheets, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe drink more red wine (my personal favorite) and then you won't notice how bad you smell. Cheers!
Should the government ban smoking and cigarettes?
No it will not help. People will buy cigarettes from illegal outside sources and will smoke inside their house.
Actually, the government should find alternatives that really work and make it easier for people to use those alternatives (as well as educate them that they exist)
I totally agree! There are alternatives out there!
Wasn't America's main export or trade during it's establishment, tobacco?
The government should have paid for it with all the money they got from suing tobacco companies (Florida got $13 billion....), as well as all the current money they get from tobacco taxes. I said then, that if they were really serious, they would make "stop smoking" tools free for those who smoke. They were just after the cash.
We already are ... in the form of many new lung cancer cases every year, a lot of which ending up on the government's dollar (which was once ours).
Will never happen. Would increase the blackmarket sales of cigs (just like the latest fed tax increase)
The fact of the matter is that the tobacco lobbying industry is one of the largest. They can afford some of the best lobbyists on the planet. Both parties are constantly being persuaded to vote in favor of big tobacco.
Why should the government pay for people that are actually paying good money to get Cancer, jeeez even on the packet in bold writing " Smoking Kills " so why do you want the government to carry you ?
YES, just as it is not the government's business to ban ANYTHING in a 'free' country...
They continue to try to ban all sorts of stuff:
cigarettes, books, same sex marriages, free speech...
Lobbyists DO have a secure hold on some of them, like tobacco. People will always be able to BUY it, yet the US seems determined to erase any use of tobacco in public.
When X is outlawed, only outlaws will use X.
Of course they wud never ban smoking, 1. They make a fortune out of yer habit. 2. Like they give a monkeys uncle if you get cancer !
If they ban it MAYBE that will be the umph I need to quit smoking! Nah! besides, escalating prices didn't help, so I don't think banning cigarettes will help, either. It will just make me sneak and smoke
I still say electronic cigarettes are the best option for those that have failed all others. Yes, it's substitution, but with a lot of benefits for those that smoke ... and those who don't.
We have a lot of forums about "banning" things. Banishment is so permanent. Shouldn't we have some right to do unhealthy things?
I noticed Miss M has opened several threads on things she thinks people should not do. She does not want young women to wear skirts because they might be too girly, and she does not want anyone to smoke.
I really, really hate smoking, but I do not think it should be banned completely. Banning smoking would be similar to how we had an alcohol Prohibition here in the US, which did not go very well by the way. Organized crime simply became more organized in the pursuit of selling liquor on the black market, and many people even made there own moon shine. I hear how in Iran people brew their own beer at home since it is illegal to drink alcoholic beverages. Why do people want to be so control freaky?
Governments will never ban cigarettes or alcohol because they rely on the taxes.
Until the costs associated with things like Medicare and Medicaid exceed the tax revenue they get from smoking. Actually they'll destroy tobacco companies long before that happens and wind up destroying entire sectors of the economy. Not good for people who have to get elected to office.
Thought tobacco and alcohol was gov't controlled least in Canada ...n revenue from taxes goes to them ...storeowners don't make lots $$ from selling it either except those on blackmarket ads have been runnin on t.v. about fight against blackmarket cigarettes, lol. Oh..control issues usually arise from no control in ones own life wierd, yeah
Banning anything does not solve the problem. There will always be a demand and supply. Proactive thinking, like education, is the only way to decrease the demand for it. Also, if one chooses to commit suicide slowly and painfully, who's to stop them from their informed choice?
Too bad private enterprise kicks in too make the big bucks for people trying to quit. I caught an ad on late night news of an electronic cig that you inhale vapors of nicotine. Supposingly no harm in the person and no noticeable smell, but it costs $200.00...... I know, a far cry from the yearly price of buying cigs but the one-time cst is steep for many. Thank God I quit years ago cold turkey......Maybe the government can give vouchers to help defer the cost withthe thought of decreasing future costs in medical treatment for emphyzema, COPD, lung diseases, and second hand illnesses.....
Well you know, I came from a background where smoking wasn't tolerated in the home. When I asked my friends who smoked why they did, they usually said "I was bored". Sounded stupid to me but what they did had little impact on my life. If they want to get started for whatever reason and want to suffer the consequences, let them.
How does giving vouchers for people who want to quit make any sense whatsoever. The government already subsidizes the tobacco companies, growers, etc. Now you want the government to spend more of our money to get people to quit? Starting and stopping smoking is a choice. Smokers should be grateful there are companies out there willing to help them with their quest to quit. And you also nailed it on the head, compared to what they'd pay for cigarettes over their lifetime, $200.00 is nothing. They made the choice to start, they can choose to pay to stop too.
Besides, doesn't you stance seem just a bit inconsistent. You did just what my dad did, quit cold turkey. From many accounts this is the best way to do it. I do applaud your strength of will in quitting cold turkey, I've heard heroin addicts claim cigarettes is harder to get clean from than heroin. Think about that for a minute. Surely quitting comes down to strength of will. You will either quit or you will not. Some people may find it easier to use a crutch like a patch or electronic cig. If so, let them pay for it.
The problem with socialized health care is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money to spend. We'll soon see the effects of that in Europe as the population ages and less and less workers are able to support a growing retired and elderly population. We'd be wise here in the States to view Europe as a bellwether for the effectiveness of socialist programs.
I just purchased one for $59.95 from Blu E-Cigs. Haven't received it yet though as they are way backed up on orders. It should be here in the next week or so though. I'm anxious to see how it works. You can "puff" them anywhere as the "smoke" produced is actualy just water vapor that quickly dissipates.
That is great. I am going to tell a few of my friends about that web site. I wish you the best. Keep the positive thoughts about your wanting to quit because I truly believe that personally wanting to quit, and sticking to it, does work. It will be difficult but hang with it......
I've tried a couple of times before, but as you said, I never really "wanted' to quit bad enough to succeed! Thanks for the good wishes though, and if your friends decide to try the Blu smokes, they will have to wait until after the 21st to order as they have suspended new orders until they get caught up!
I can understand what you feel about vouchers, but wasn't it the government who provided vouchers to those needing box converters for television ??? Do we really need TV?
My point is the cig habit is addictive and the tobacco companies know just the right ingredients to keep the addiction possible. We pay for addicts, alcoholics, and domestic violence to be treated, why not for tobacco treatment? In the long run, decreasing the addiction to tobacco will help save more dollars in the treatment of the diseases caused by smoking.....
How about keeping cigarettes and banning government?
Which kills more people: smoking or politicians fighting over power?
It's the tax ramifications that will not allow this to happen any time soon. In fact State tax revenues from smoking were actually down almost $20 million last year...hence the increases. With the Federal Government now making $1.01 per pack, and the State Governments making on average about $2.50 per pack, and with roughly 30 billion packs per year being sold in the US, we're talking over $100 billion in annual tax revenues. If we assume that only 25% of the US smokes, then the average smoker pays an additional $1400 per year in taxes over non-smokers. This doesn't include additional city taxes that exist in some places. In Ohio, taxes on tobacco go to pay for all kinds of useful things...like new sports arenas!
I personally think it should be illegal to smoke in front of children and the elderly. Adults should know better to stay away or stick around a smoking person.
In a perfect world, we would have the power to ban substances like illegal drugs, cigarettes and so on. We don't live in a perfect world...and banning doesn't stop it. Perhaps education and putting in place programs to help smokers quit is a better avenue.
My local hospital has a policy of no smoking on the hospital grounds. This poses as a problem for all the smokers. As a result, the hospital provides a program to help smokers quit -- there is counselling, hypnosis, nicotine patches, nutrition and dietition services, videos and a follow up program. Who foots the bill? It's provided through donations -- private, business and, even, the drug companies!! And, it seems to be working.
And on top of banning cigarettes lets ban booze and OHHHH thats right we tried that already !
Yes, we need the paternal government to save us from ourselves!
Why stop at cigarettes? They should ban alcohol, sugary foods, starchy foods, greasy foods, meat, coffee, soda, all snack foods, and of course every drug, prescribed as well as those sold over the counter that can be abused. That includes NyQuil, cold pills, cough medicine, sleeping pills. And let's not forget things that contain alchol like mouthwash and vanilla extract.
Truly, we should not be allowed to make any decisions for ourselves. Nope.Let's get rid of any/all personal responsibility and put it in the hands of government.
I suggest they make a new department, perhaps an offshoot of Homeland Security. They can call it the Department of In-Home Security. LOL.
I think I will apply to head this department. Think I got a chance?
MM , dont give them ideas , im sure someones employed on millions right now to come up with "progressive" (not) ideas that you thought up in a few minutes....and the worse part about this ...USCIS Homeland Security do have an offshoot, waahhhhhh....'Field Offices' for enquiries about....'other enquiries.......good lord , no wonder the drug companies are the new millionaires, registers going ker ching
Worlds gone crazy!!
LOL Sir Dent. I think you'd be the perfect choice:-). Might be a few other candidates on here to fight you for it, tho.
I'd certainly vote for ya! MM
Mighty Mom, you have it ALMOST right...except maybe it shouldn't be the Department of In-Home Security but, oh, how about Home And Land INSECURITY.... Plenty of THAT goin' around these days! LOL (he wrote, whose house in Colorado is up for foreclosure)
Yes they should ban smoking!!
Smoking's a disgusting habit
Ok I am just teasing...sort of. I quit smoking two years ago and don't miss it, but one person should never try to control another person. That is an impediment of God's Free Will.
'Sides they have already banned smoking in public places, which is good... I think.
I think there so be regulation for public places, at the owner of said places discretion. For example if I own a bar/restaurant/whatever it should be my choice if I want people smoking there or not and what parts of my area people can smoke at. But as far as banning all together, that would create another ridiculous black market.
by ga anderson 5 years ago
I heard the headline story about NYC and Chicago's e-cigarette bans going into effect tomorrow - 4/29/14First I thought it was stupid...Then I thought the citizens of NYC and Chicago get what their votes deserve.So I Googled a few articles...Then I considered... OMG! then is going to the national...
by Jayesef 6 years ago
Should a government allow cigarette sales knowing well that cigarette smoking causes cancer?Every cigarette smoker knows smoking causes lung cancer, yet he or she smokes. Isn't this suicidal? By letting open trading in cigarettes, is a government abetting suicides? If opium producers pay the...
by Twenty One Days 8 years ago
We can all agree, smoking tobacco inside is quite unhealthy and annoying. Parks, school grounds -heck even church grounds, were added to the "city limits" as for smoking.today, however, Mayor Bloomberg has legally enacted a city wide no Public Smoking Ban.Keep in mind, nearly 4 million...
by Ralph Schwartz 3 months ago
A bipartisan bill is being floated in the Senate today that would raise the legal age to buy tobacco across the nation to 21 - this would include members of the military, who to this point have been exempted from similar laws.Some say this is a direct attack on the vaping/e-cig industry and a...
by ii3rittles 7 years ago
I quite smoking almost 3 months ago...What should I do..?I haven't really wanted one since I quit until now. I really enjoyed the taste and the feel. It calmed my nerves and kept my anxiety at bay. I have a taste for one really bad, & while I don't see any harm in having "just...
by Stacie L 8 years ago
Sales of electronic cigarettes rise, and so does criticismAFPSales of electronic cigarettes rise, and so does criticism AFP/ANP/File Makers of electronic cigarettes are reporting strong growth in sales as anti-tobacco laws force European Â¦by Marie-Noelle Blessig Marie-noelle Blessig ...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|