|
|
| | |
| |
 |
| Summary: Should there be further restrictions on the advertising, selling, and smoking of tobacco? Should it be banned? |
|
|
| |
Author:Thomas Dixon ( United Kingdom )
Dr. Thomas Dixon is research fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge.
Created: Tuesday, July 04, 2000
Last Modified: Thursday, April 09, 2009
|
| |
Tobacco is one of the most widely-used recreational drugs in the world; mainly in the form of cigarettes, but also in cigars and pipes, and in combination with cannabis and marijuana in 'joints'. Although most countries put age restrictions on its use, over a billion adults smoke tobacco legally every day, and supplying this demand is big business. As well as having serious health consequences for smokers themselves, the pollution of other people's atmospheres with cigarette smoke also makes this an environmental issue.Attitudes have changed rapidly over the past twenty years. In the developed world, public opinion has shifted against smoking. By the 1990s, the sheer weight of evidence had forced major tobacco companies to admit that their products are both harmful and addictive. Many governments have substantially increased taxes on tobacco in order to discourage smoking, and often to alleviate the economic costs of smoking-related illness. However, while smoking has declined amongst some groups, it has increased amongst others - particularly young women. Meanwhile restrictions on the industry in the developed world have seen a new emphasis on developing nations, and new markets.Key questions for this debate are: Is it the proper role of government to legislate to protect citizens from the harmful effects of their own lifestyle decisions? Does tobacco advertising increase tobacco consumption? Do health warnings, however much of the cigarette packet they cover, reduce consumption? What would be the effects of banning smoking in all public places, or even completely? |
 |
|
|
| There is little doubt that smoking tobacco is extremely harmful to the smoker's health. In the US, for example, research by the American Cancer Society suggests that tobacco causes up to 400,000 deaths each year - more than AIDS, alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides, and fires combined. World-wide some 3 million people die from smoking each year - one every ten seconds - which estimates suggest will rise to 10 million by 2020. Smokers are up to 22 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers, and smoking can lead to a host of other health problems, including emphysema and heart disease.One of the main responsibilities of any government is to ensure the safety of its population; that is why taking hard drugs and breaking the speed limit are also illegal. It would therefore be reasonable to ban smoking - an activity which kills millions of people each year. |
|
While a government has a responsibility to protect its population, it also has a responsibility to defend their freedom of choice. The law steps in to prevent citizens causing harm to others, whether deliberately or accidentally. However, it should not stop them taking risks themselves - for example, dangerous sports such as rock-climbing, parachuting or motor-racing are legal. It is also legal to indulge in other health-threatening activities such as eating lots of fatty foods, taking no exercise, and drinking too much alcohol. Banning smoking would be an unmerited intrusion into personal freedom. |
 |
|
|
| Personal freedom is of course an important issue, but it is the tobacco companies who we should be acting against. If a company produces food that is poisonous or a car that fails safety tests, the product is immediately taken off the market. Since all cigarettes and other tobacco products are poisonous and potentially lethal, they should all be taken off the market. In short, smoking should be banned. |
|
Cigarettes are very different from dangerous cars or poisonous foods. As the proposition points out, cigarettes are not dangerous because they are defective; rather they are inherently, potentially, harmful. But people should still be allowed to choose to buy and smoke them. A better comparison is to unhealthy foods. High cholesterol or a high intake of fat can be extremely harmful, leading to heart disease, obesity, and other conditions; but manufacturers of these products are not punished. Consumers simply like the taste of fatty food. People should be allow to smoke cigarettes and to eat fatty foods - both these things are sources of pleasure which, while having serious associated health risks, are only fatal after many decades, unlike a poisonous food or an unsafe car, which pose immediate and high risks. |
|
|
|
| Smoking is not a real choice, as nicotine is an addictive drug - in fact, recent allegations suggest that tobacco companies deliberately produce the most addictive cigarettes they can. Up to 90% of smokers begin when they are below the age of 18, often due to peer pressure; once addicted, continuing to smoke is no longer an issue of freedom of choice, but of chemical compulsion. Like other addictive drugs such as heroin and cocaine, tobacco should be banned since this is the only way to force people to quit. Most smokers say that they want to kick the habit, so this legislation would be doing them a favour. |
|
A comparison to hard drugs is inaccurate - tobacco is not debilitating in the same way that many illegal narcotics may be, nor is it comparable to the likes of heroin in terms of addictiveness, nor is it a mind-altering substance that leads to irrational, violent, or criminal behaviour. In this sense it is much less harmful than e.g. alcohol. The fact that so many smokers give up every year is testament to this. Many other substances and activities can be addictive (e.g. coffee, physical exercise) but this is no reason to make them illegal. People are able to abstain if they choose to live a healthier life, but many enjoy their use as part of their everyday existence. |
|
|
|
| Most people who smoke tobacco are law-abiding normal citizens who would like to stop. They would not resort to criminal or black-market activities if cigarettes were no longer legally available - they would just quit. Banning smoking would make this happen and massively lighten the burden on health resources of the countries in which it was banned. |
|
It would be crazy to criminalise an activity indulged in by about one sixth of the world population. The lesson of prohibition of alcohol in America in the 1920s was that banning a recreational drug used by a large proportion of the population merely leads to crime and contraband. It would also mean that governments would lose tax revenue from tobacco sales - a major source of income for national health and other resources in many countries. |
|
|
|
| Smoking also has wider effects, not simply restricted to smokers themselves. So-called 'passive smoking' is becoming an important issue: in a smoke-filled environment, non-smokers are also exposed to the risks associated with tobacco. Research suggests that partners of smokers have an increased chance of developing lung cancer, even if they do not use tobacco products. Beyond the health risks, smoke can also be extremely unpleasant in public spaces, in the workplace or in bars and restaurants. Smokers are therefore causing discomfort - as well as actual harm - to others. On top of the harm cause to the smokers themselves, this is surely enough reason to ban smoking. |
|
The evidence for passive smoking is very slim indeed, with very few controlled studies having been carried out. At most, those who live with heavy smokers for a long period of time may have a very slightly increased risk of cancer. It is true that smoke-filled environments can be unpleasant for non-smokers, but there are reasonable and responsible ways around this - smoking rooms in offices and airports are an excellent example. Some bars and restaurants may choose to be non-smoking establishments, giving customers the choice to select their environment. Allowing people to make their own, adult decisions is surely always the best option. Restricting smoking in public places may sometimes be appropriate, banning it altogether would be lunacy. |
|
|
|
| At the very least there should be a ban on all tobacco advertising and even more prominent and graphic health warnings on cigarette packets to deter young people, in particular, from starting to smoke. |
|
There is no good evidence that either of these measures would have an impact on the rate of tobacco consumption. Cigarette companies claim that advertisements are merely to persuade people to switch brands, not to start smoking in the first place. People start smoking through peer pressure - indeed the more of a 'forbidden fruit' cigarettes become, the more attractive they will be to adolescents. As for health warnings, if the knowledge that cigarettes have serious health risks deterred people from smoking then no-one would smoke any more. People start and continue to smoke in the full knowledge of the health risks. |
|
|
|
| | This House Would Ban Tobacco
This House Would not Smoke
This House Would Declare War on the Tobacco Industry
|
| View the full discussion |
Author |
Post |
monemie13
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:02 am
|
|
I think that smoking is very unhealthy. I used to smoke, and I did it for about 15 years. It isn't impossible to quit, it's just difficult. I used to believe that I was choosing to harm myself, and that no one else was being harmed in the process. Look at my financial situation now that I don't smoke. I save at least $300 a year, that doesn't include the cost of lighters, medical bills due to smoke related illness. The depreciation of my car and house that now isn't happening. There is more than just second hand smoke. What would my little kids say If their mom died of cancer. How does that affect them? Even if I never smoke near them, i am choosing to negatively affect them with a very dirty habit.
Its true that smoking isn't the only unhealthy product out there. If the government has the right to protest, and ban smoking in public places, which i think is wise, then the government should also take a stand on obesity caused by eating fast food. How many die each year due to obesity that could have been avoided or helped? What about diabetes?
Quit smoking and save yourself money, save your family from losing someone that they care about too soon, and save yourself. A person should choose to live life, not slowly take their own life.
|
MALE
Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 4, 2009 11:31 pm
|
|
Hi
Is my firts time here, so thanks for be pacients.
Respect the point of the dicussion:
The smoking is harmful for the health of everyone, even for each one who do not do it. the people likes smoke and if we really want to finding a solucion for the problems that itself deriban of this activity, we have to be realistics and working with dialogues and factibles arguments.
say the smokers have to leave it because they are making something wrong or create a norm that limits them are not enough.
showing the consequences and how important are the rest things and activitys can be more util. |
D.Andreu
Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 4, 2009 09:22 pm
|
|
I think this issue raises very good points, all of which need to be seriously considered. However, after reviewing both sides of the issue, I still seem to fall against a general smoking ban.
Not all who smoke are addicted. Some enjoy casual smoking, as do most cigar enthusiasts. It is also my belief that many smokers are curtious and are aware that smoking is very unpleasant for non-smokers - most intend no harm to others when they take a cigarette break; at least, I assume. Also, although smoking is harmful to it's consumer - and those around - the same could be said about alcohol consumption. Both cigarettes and alcohol are legally distributed goods, with both equally destructive capabilities. It could even be alleged that drinking is worse than smoking since its repercussions are physical and may impair judgment.
All I mean to say is that drinking is equally - if not more harmful than smoking, yet we're interested in banning it's allegedly less evil cousin - cigarettes. Why? Well, as a society, we understand that even though there are risks for abuse; all things considered, drinking, in moderation, is a pleasure.
Smoking can be too.
Simply put, if one bans smoking, citing health issues as it's main argument, then one must look to ban drinking aswell; citing those same health issues. Therefore, the smoking ban, would become a drinking ban as well and no one - not even casual or social drinkers/smokers, could drink or smoke again. Seems unfair.
Consider this, should butter be banned as well? Obesity is one of the main causes of death in united states... If we choose to ban smoking, then drinking, then fatty foods; where would we draw the line?
It is my opinion that we should not ban smoking, nor drinking, nor fatty foods but rather spend our time and effort to promote moderation as well as good, sane and healthy lifestyle habits.
|
|
|
Login
to leave a quick reply or
View the full discussion
|
|
|
|
