this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
214 points (96.1% liked)
worldnews
4836 readers
1 users here now
Rules:
-
Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Posts from sources that aren't known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.
-
Post titles should be the same as the article title.
-
No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.
Instance-wide rules always apply.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wtf, it's difficult to imagine a more directly harmful and scientifically evidenced habit.
absurd
I see people on this site say all the time that all drugs should be legalized and we should allocate the money used to enforce drug laws on addiction resources instead. I'm not sure why this harmful drug is different. I totally support anti cigarette campaigns but I'm not sure bans are a good tool in general.
work in the smoking section of a restaurant for a bit and the phlegm ball you cough up every morning will be your proof that smoking isn't just an individual's choice.
Smoking directly harms people around you even if you just walk by.
Smoking in public is already very widely banned, and I do support that ban since as you say it impacts others.
There are a few good reasons.
cigarettes are more harmful than any of the other harmful drugs you're referencing, and all of those "harmful drugs" combined.
cigarettes were unnecessarily designed to be more harmful and addictive than necessary
bans come in many forms and have many uses
I'll preface this by saying I'm one of those people that think all drugs should be legally regulated and available.
That won't result in all drugs having equal regulations, just as the regulations for driving a bicycle versus driving a car are different, auto drivers requiring more regulations because of how much more dangerous they are.
Drugs, even the illegal ones, are nowhere near as harmful as cigarettes or kill as many people as cigarettes, and a lot of these drugs may be mixed with a few chemicals, not hundreds.
Magic mushrooms are biologically harmless, for example: shrooms are about half as toxic as caffeine, one of the most common and addictive legal regulated chemicals in the world.
When I talk about supporting this ban on cigarettes, I'm specifically supporting this ban in this country at this time as a good way to show cigarette corporations the consequences of continuing to market a known harmful product at the expense of society.
If that ban had lasted for even a couple of years, the companies would be forced to adapt their manufacturing or even mission statement so that they were producing less harmful cigarettes.
Even with the short amount of time it was active, it's a clear shot around the bow globally to cigarette companies and other companies purposely using cheaper and more toxic ingredients for their products, telling them that they're going to have to change what they're doing.
Because of worldwide lax regulations, the historical popularity of smoking plants, the enormous profit margin, corporate legal lobbying supremacy and modern mercantilism(capitalism), we have the result that at least 7 million people are directly dying every year from a product designed to addict you with toxic compounds and is scientifically, indisputably proven to violently harm you.
We aren't including plantation slavery, second hand smoke, manufacturing deaths, or any other processes and infrastructures that have gone into propping up the industry
So quick math, well over a billion people in the last century, well over 10% of the Earth's current population, has died because of cigarettes, most of them from directly known toxic substances and processes sold to people under false pretences.
Prohibitions don't work, but regulations do, which are simply targeted prohibitions.
Lowering the amount of mercury and lead in the water and air of the United States has significantly lowered the amount of birth defects, chronic illnesses and cancers in the United States.
Not using a particular red dye that was found to be carcinogenic meant m&m and cake shops had to take a decade to reformulate a non-toxic red dye, but because of that regulation requiring a safer product, cancer and illness rates dropped.
Banning cigarettes is not going to stop people from smoking cigarettes, but a nationwide ban on an indisputably toxic substance is practically and politically important so that companies know the momentum that they've built up pushing their unnecessarily toxic products is losing steam.
Totally agree on regulating cigarettes and I think pretty much all the additive chemicals added to cigarettes should be banned, the same way dangerous chemicals are banned in food regulations. I think it's ridiculous that it hasn't happened yet.
Alcohol.
Alcohol is indeed bad for you, but not on the level of cigarettes. Cigarettes are intentionally filled with additive chemicals that both cause them to be hyper addictive and substantially raise the risk of cancer. They are designed to be deadly from the ground up in the name of making a few extra bucks.
Vast sums of money have also been spent on inveigling the public into believing that cigarettes are better for you than they actually are, up to and including the purchasing of scientists to draw false conclusions in public studies in order to present cigarettes as healthy.
The sheer maliciousness of the cigarette industry is shocking and terrible, I just don’t think there’s a real comparison here.
Also, tobacco is a lot harder to grow and process than alcohol. I've got everything I need in my house right now to mix up a batch of mead, and I don't even have any specialized equipment. A quick trip to the hardware store and I've got a still. It's also not like weed where you can have a plant in a closet and get a couple months worth of flower.
As someone who struggles with alcohol, ban that shit as well...
My heart goes out to you because alcohol is a cruel mistress.
But banning a substance never works, if it did we wouldn’t have people addicted to illegal substances.
...unless it's nicotine, because that's different, for some reason
I appreciate the sentiment but I hold down a full time job (I absolutely don't drink on the job. I work heavy machinery) and have a normal (as it gets) family life... I should just drink less.
So drink less, don’t ban it for everyone else.
lol except tabacco for some reason right?
You’re the second person to talk about cigarettes which I’m pretty sure I haven’t mentioned.
Am I missing something here?
I’m not for banning anything besides personal WMDs and carnies.
I think it was the vibe of the thread
Because that worked so well before.