If you have enough power, will you place a ban on smoking in your country?

I once smoked, but I soon found out it is harmful to me, especially to my throat. So I quit smoking. I think you can not prevent the tobacco companies from getting their big profits by increasing taxes rate. By this way, maybe you will fall in love with the tobacco companies, because you get more taxes, and they get more profits, you and the tobacco companies will be birds of a feather. Nowadays the goverment and the tobacco companies are doing just as what you are thinking to do.

That's already happening IncredibleDNA, the price of cigarettes went up $1.00 per pack yesterday, and do you know who that hurts? The lower income people who are smokers and who are already struggling financially. But, it's okay for some folks to look down their noses at these people because they personally don't like smoking. I wonder how they would feel if the price of certain foods that they enjoy went up "just because" someone else said it was bad for them? They would be the first ones screaming about the injustice.

Increase tax, will increase the price, no people get benefit, but get hurt.
The most important thing is increasing tax will not hurt the tobacco compnaies, but make them play a more important role in financing the government. This is not a good idea.

I am not a smoker but I would tax the hell out of tobacco products. If people had to pay more for the products, I think people would be more reluctant to stop smoking. Also, I think it would be a great idea to make "smoking restaurants" like coffee shops. You can smoke all you want in this restaurant and you wouldn't have to deal with all the "no smoking" signs around you. You won't feel isolated because all the smokers are in one place. I would never ban smoking. I think people should do it in moderation. As long as the smoke isn't in my direction, I do not care.

Some people make a problem when there isn't one. I have seen more than once where I'm standing outside a building smoking when someone walked by and starts coughing. Even when the wind is blowing in the other direction. Like, please, I'm really going to fall for you fake cough.

Around 350 New Zealanders die each year because of exposure to other people's tobacco smoke;Regular exposure to second-hand smoke increases the risk of lung disease by 25% and heart disease by 10%. I get the above figures from the internet, though you may doubt the figures, but don't deny the bad effect of second-hand smoke, no matter it is obvious or not.

getitok, I'm not trying to be mean so don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way...but your information is not accurate and does not prove your argument against smoking. New Zealand has a population of over 4 MILLION and 350 people die each year due to exposure of second hand smoke? That calculates to .0000875 of the population...so far below less than 1% that you have to go into scientific notation to even describe it. Even 1% of the population would be 40,000 people so can you see how ridiculous that claim is? What percentage of the population die due to exposure to smog or exhaust fumes? What percentage die from heart disease caused by arteries clogged from eating fatty foods? How many die from the long term effects of drinking?

You believe that there are bad effects from exposure to second hand smoke because there's been a media blitz telling you this for quite a few years now but there is no factual data to back it up. As I posted above, if this were true MILLIONS of Americans would be seriously ill or dead by now because my generation...the people who are now in their 50s and 60s...were raised by parents who smoked around them...who smoked cigarettes with no filters...who smoked in closed cars with their children in them...and a large majority of us went on to smoke ourselves. Yes, people who smoke put themselves at risk but there is no medical evidence that proves that simply being around someone who smokes causes the increased health risks that you mentioned. I doubt the figures because I know the facts...not just the hype.

spalladino, I got the figures from internet. I am not sure it is accurate or not.
But I don't agree your explanations of the figures. You mean 350 New Zealanders die because of second-hand smoke is a very low rate, it can be just ignored. You argued with a rate much less than 1%, calulated based on the population of New Zealand. But it is estimated that the annual death of New Zealand is 28977 people per year. so calculate the rate of 350/28977=1.2%, do you think the rate is too small that can be ingored?

What I think is, that if you do further research into New Zealand death rates, you will find that more people die from other causes than second hand smoke so why are you only focusing on that? As I said above, what about the ones who die from heart disease due to a high fat diet, or from the long term effects of alcohol, what about drug abuse and automobile accidents? Why the laser focus on smokers when there are so many ohter things that are bad for you? I suspect that you wouldn't support telling people what they can and cannot eat or abolishing alcohol or driving.

I can see it coming with the disabled. As the mother of a disabled child I got scrutinized constantly when my daughter was small. I didn't hold her enough, I didn't pay attention to her, etc. etc. Most of these comments came from people who we saw maybe once a year and had no concept of what my daughter's disability was or even tried to learn about it.
When you start banning stuff then more people come along with their own things they want banned. It just starts a vicious cycle.

This is not the case, it is not to interfere private life, and not to discriminate against smokers. Do you think the Drug Control is interfering your life and discriminating against the druggers?

Drugs are illegal, tobacco is not. And it is to interfere with private life and to interfere with the legal sale of a legal product. It won't become illegal because the government needs the taxes they collect from cigarette sales. Taxing cigarettes is a way to raise revenue without anyone objecting. What it means of course is that 20% of the population are taxed unfairly on a legal product because it is legal to discriminate against them.

But again, regardless of what the second part of the question was, I cannot agree that anyone should have power over the lives of others.

And I would not discriminate against drug users in that they also have the right to make choices. They make illegal choices, they go to jail. They make poor choices, they die. Freedom is not without responsibility or consequence but it beats the alternative.

Yes, some smokers are inconsiderate. Some non-smokers are just as inconsiderate. Don't put all of us in one category. I've stepped outside to smoke at my own house for a guest. I don't know of any that blow smoke in anyone's face. The restaurant issue I agree with you but I still can't fully blame the smoker if the smoker is in the smoking section. There needs to be a completely separate section not just a booth or two apart. If you walk into a restaurant you know to be a smoking establishment that's on you not the smoker.

That was very rude behavior, heathcliff. I probably would have found myself sitting in a jail cell for punching that jerk in the face...with a very satisfied smile on my face. Not all smokers are that rude, thankfully.

Now, let's talk about the folks who find it necessary to saturate themselves with a gallon of cologne or perfume before leaving the house. THAT is something that disgusts me. When I can still smell someone's personal favorite scent 20 minutes after that person has left the room, that is offensive so can you ban them from being smelly in public?

I have (in the past) had the unpleasant experience of sitting in a smoking section, where the restaurant had provided me with both an ashtray and a pack of matches, nicely embossed with the name of the restaurant only to find that a non-smoker had chosen to sit at a table next to me (in the smoking section) and complain about my smoke being wafted to her table by an overhead fan. Now, since the restaurant was not full and she had the option to sit much further away, why I am responsible for her having an unpleasant dining experience?

There's inconsiderate people everywhere. Some smoke, some don't. Some chew gum with their mouths open, some practice poor hygiene and stand much too close to you in crowded elevators. There's only one thing you can do with inconsiderate people, you just avoid them when possible.

No one should blow smoke in your face, even if you are a smoker. And no one should pretend that they are choking on your smoke from across the street. But there are people inconsiderate and self-absorbed enough to do both.

Yes, to ban tobacco completely is very difficult, it is difficult for both the authorities and the smokers.

Not to mention the many, many people who earn their living growing, processing, packaging and transporting the products. With the economy as bad as it is, putting even more folks out of work...and especially poor farmers...isn't the best idea.

Tobacco sector has been a large business. Not only the tobacco companies, and related transportation and packing, retails, and farmers earn money from smoker directly, but also doctors and pharmaceutical factories earn their money from smokers indirectly. Tobacco contributes a lot of GDP to most of the countries in the world each year. If there's no tobacco, the world would be better even lose a lot of GDP. GDP should not be our final goal, you can imagine that a lot of GDP will be produced if heroin and cocaine are not banned, but most of us agree to ban heroin and cocaine.

I don't hate smoker, I just hate tobacco, especiallly hate the tobacco companies.

This post contains content of a mature nature. You must be Signed in or Registered to have the option to view this content.

Never mind, I took a second look at your post. Sorry LOL

Still I don't think it would work the way you think it will. There haven't been television ads for cigarettes since I was a kid. More people smoke today than then.

If you want to take more money (Tax)from tobacco, you will certainly fail to achieve your goal of weakening tobacco. You will be addicted to the tax from tobacco just like the smokers are addicted to the nicotine.

I am sorry maybe you took my opinion in the wrong sense. Here when I say heavy taxes I don't want to earn money. Heavy taxes in the sense which the companies can hardly pay. Taxes on everything they manufacture which will eventually let them to shut down their factories. That is what I meant maybe I had done the wrong choice of words.

Btw I have become a passive smoker because people around me smoke and I have had asthma attacks as well. So I hate smoking and smokers and it is definately not any of my means to earn money.!

How much is "a hecktic $200 fine", 200USD or 200 Kenyan Shilling?

There's the problem... all the non-smokers who feel they can tell smokers what to do. I can't tell someone who smokes that they must stop any more than I can walk up to fat people and grab the Twinkies out of their mouths.

But I guess that if you manage to shut down all the tobacco companies, then you will provide jobs for all the people who work for that industry who will now have no income to feed their families.

Yes, it seems impossible to succeed in banning suddently. So I ask the question on the assumption that you have enough power.

In my opinion, this is a good attitude. Maybe Obama has such a attitude just like you and me. But sure he probably will do nothing about this issue.