Proposal for new anti-smoking law?

[White_Unifier]

My proposal.

1. No advertising at all except on approved websites that a smoker could choose to have blacked.

2. To make any tobacco product visible in public would be a fine-able offense. This would mean that when you go outside, you wrap them up, put them in a bag, whatever, but keep them out of public sight.

3. Any seller of tobacco products must allow any smoker so smoke on premises in a sealed and well ventilated room. People could also smoke in hiding the privacy of their homes when no guests are present.

4. Sellers of tobacco products would pay 1/3 of their net profits to an Addictive-Products-and-Services (APS) tax that casinos, sellers of alcoholic beverages, casinos, and lotto corporations would have to pay too.

Keep tobacco out of sight, and the prevalence of tobacco will shrink significantly in the next generation.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

My proposal.

1. No advertising at all except on approved websites that a smoker could choose to have blacked.

2. To make any tobacco product visible in public would be a fine-able offense. This would mean that when you go outside, you wrap them up, put them in a bag, whatever, but keep them out of public sight.

3. Any seller of tobacco products must allow any smoker so smoke on premises in a sealed and well ventilated room. People could also smoke in hiding the privacy of their homes when no guests are present.

4. Sellers of tobacco products would pay 1/3 of their net profits to an Addictive-Products-and-Services (APS) tax that casinos, sellers of alcoholic beverages, casinos, and lotto corporations would have to pay too.

Keep tobacco out of sight, and the prevalence of tobacco will shrink significantly in the next generation.

I'm good with it. #2 is basically already being done in Ireland and Britain.

How about

5. Require all manufacturers of tobacco products to reduce nicotine by 10% per year for the next 10 years?

 

[PoliticalNick]

You're a tool!

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

You're a tool!

Yeah, and not even a real cool one. He's like. . . wire cutters or a drywall saw.

I'm a tool too, but I'm a muhfuh CHAINSAW, baby!

 

[White_Unifier]

I'm good with it. #2 is basically already being done in Ireland and Britain.

How about

5. Require all manufacturers of tobacco products to reduce nicotine by 10% per year for the next 10 years?

Maybe. If the black market really starts to pick up, we could always revise that law later to decelerate the reduction. But I like the principle at least.

You're a tool!

Hi PoliticalNick.

Yeah, and not even a real cool one. He's like. . . wire cutters or a drywall saw.

I'm a tool too, but I'm a muhfuh CHAINSAW, baby!

I'm a Swiss Army knife.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Maybe. If the black market really starts to pick up, we could always revise that law later to decelerate the reduction. But I like the principle at least.



Hi PoliticalNick.



I'm a Swiss Army knife.

Works for me. I was even thinking 5% per year for 20. Wouldn't that be cool? One generation to smoke freedom?

 

[White_Unifier]

Works for me. I was even thinking 5% per year for 20. Wouldn't that be cool? One generation to smoke freedom?

Maybe. Worth experimenting with. Again, worst case scenario, we just cease the reductions for a while.

I'm not sure we could ever remove tobacco altogether. Heroin is completely banned yet we still see it. with that, maybe we're aiming more at extreme marginalization than outright prohibition. Heck, let's do the same for heroin and other drugs too.

Trafficking though is something we should come down hard on. If you can sell it legally, then there would really be no excuse to break the advertising laws surrounding it. In other words, sell it, don't promote it.

Also, even if we need to rewrite the constitution, make a clearer distinction between not-for-profit freedom of expression and for-profit freedom of expression.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

You're kinda behind the times. Most forms of tobacco advertising are already banned, no Constitutional problems.

 

[White_Unifier]

You're kinda behind the times. Most forms of tobacco advertising are already banned, no Constitutional problems.

Interesting. I thought the US had been struggling with freedom of speech laws that the tobacco companies hid behind.

So that's no longer the case in the US is it?

In Canada, advertising is mostly banned and packages are even hidden behind a cupboards, but the shops selling them can still advertise themselves and other customers can see when someone buys a pack.

 

[Johnnny]

It's honestly fine the way it is.

Just don't tell a women at the bar that she looks like the girl on the pack of players.... Lol oh boy its not pretty...

 

[White_Unifier]

It's honestly fine the way it is.

Just don't tell a women at the bar that she looks like the girl on the pack of players.... Lol oh boy its not pretty...

Ouch!

 

[gerryh]

How about alcohol........ sugar.... candy.......soda pop....... juice.......

 

[White_Unifier]

How about alcohol........ sugar.... candy.......soda pop....... juice.......

Some products are more harmful than others. Tobacco and alcohol are far more addictive than sugar is.

 

[Johnnny]

Some products are more harmful than others. Tobacco and alcohol are far more addictive than sugar is.

No. Its in so much of the food you eat that you cant notice.

Eat just vegetables and meat for 2 weeks and you'll notice

 

[mentalfloss]

1 and 4 seem fine.

Don't really understand 3, but 2 is just draconian.

 

[JamesBondo]

3 is dumb. Dont you understand that road taxes have never been used to build roads?

 

[gerryh]

Some products are more harmful than others. Tobacco and alcohol are far more addictive than sugar is.

and yet, you don't suggest that alcohol be drank only where it is sold and only inside ones own home without anyone else there.


As for sugar, tell that to the legions of type II diabetics.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Some interesting ideas. But never underestimate the tendency of the really stupid to inflict self-harm. I suspect that the only thing that would really reduce tobacco use would be to have a situation in which all tobacco companies are banned and smokers are forced to grow their own. The problem with that, however, would be that it would lead to an immediate underground market.

 

[White_Unifier]

and yet, you don't suggest that alcohol be drank only where it is sold and only inside ones own home without anyone else there.


As for sugar, tell that to the legions of type II diabetics.

Well, the thread was about to tobacco, but yes, I would support applying the same or similar to alcohol.

Sugar is not as addictive so a person can cut back more easily.

Some interesting ideas. But never underestimate the tendency of the really stupid to inflict self-harm. I suspect that the only thing that would really reduce tobacco use would be to have a situation in which all tobacco companies are banned and smokers are forced to grow their own. The problem with that, however, would be that it would lead to an immediate underground market.

Not all who inflict self harm are stupid. Trauma can play a role too. I know of one man who became alcoholic right after his son die and a woman who starte smoking during an ugly divorce. She had stabbed herself in the leg around that time too where her husband who'd cheated on her (the rason for the divorce) tried to take the Kids.

If you think only the stupid do drugs or self harm, then you should read up on trauma and addiction.

With that, keeping drugs out of site at citical times in one's life could cut back on addictions.

Another simple solution: make tobacco consumption a fineable ofence and trafficking leading to incarceration.

While it could cost revenue and could lead to a black market, it would achieve its primary objective of pushing tobacco out of public sight and making it expensive as long as the police enforce it.

I still smell pot in public, but I am sure that would go underground too if the law were enforced.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

and yet, you don't suggest that alcohol be drank only where it is sold and only inside ones own home without anyone else there.


As for sugar, tell that to the legions of type II diabetics.

I have to disagree, gerryh. I've heard this one before. Stating that there is something wrong with addressing one problem without addressing all problems is like stating that it is wrong to donate $100 to the cancer society unless you donate $100 to every charity in the book.

Just ain't true.