Outlawing tobacco?

[TechBear_Seattle]

These questions came came up in a discussion with friends this weekend, and I would like to get some input from other DUers. While I have Washington State specifically in mind, I think the questions are generic enough to let everyone weigh in with their thoughts.

Should the sale of tobacco products be banned?
Would the Supreme Court declare such a ban unconstitution? On what grounds? How quickly?

Last November, an initiative in Washington extended the state's "no smoking within government buildings" law to include all places open to the public and places of employment, as well as within 25 feet of any door or ventilation into such a place. (Text if Initiative 901, PDF format.) The rationale for the original ban, and the principle motivation for extending it, is the known danger of tobacco smoke and the growing body of evidence (already substantial) on the toxicity of "secondhand" smoke.

The idea came up this weekend of an initiative that would extend this ban to the next logical level of prohibiting all sales of tobacco within the state. The reasoning goes that the state should not be making money by selling something that kills when used as intended (tobacco taxs are a major source of revenue for Washington.) The initiative would leave in place the existing smoking ban in public spaces (the personal use of tobacco would remain legal) and existing laws regarding the tobacco tax (which makes charges of tax evasion an option.) Selling or otherwise distributing tobacco for personal gain would range from a misdemeanor offense to a major felony, depending on the quantity involved. Sharing a pack of smokes would not be a crime, but offering half a pack in exchange for money or other remuneration would be. We could not decide if "posession with intent to sell" would be included in the ban.

Obviously, this would have to be an initiative, as there is no way state legislators would be willing to get rid of such a profitable venture. I think that it could pass in Washington, as the state was one of the leaders in suing the tobacco industry a few years ago, and I-901 mentioned was approved by 63% of the voters.

So, back to my questions: Would you support such an initiative in your home state? Why or why not? If passed, would such a ban be a constitutional excercise of a state's sovereign rights protected by the 10th Amendment, or an unconstitutional violation of interstate commerce?

I would appreciate your thoughts. :hi:

[RB TexLa]

1. If you want to create the most powerful organized crime association in the

history of the world, it's a good idea.

[Poiuyt]

2. You're right of course. But should we do what's right, or what can

easily be enforced?

[ProfessorGAC]

74. Define "Right".

Why would outlawing be inherently the "right thing"?
The Professor

[HillDem]

3. Prohibition worked great

.... for Al Capone.

The best thing we can do is just tax tobacco enough to cut consumption, but not enough to create a black market.

[AngryAmish]

43. Black market has already formed in Chicago

(and other places).

[anarch]

50. hey hey! it's still working great for all the drug cartels

Can you imagine how pissed off they'd be if all of a sudden cocaine was a legal product? Why, they'd be reduced to the level of (extremely wealthy) farmers!

[King Coal]

18. That easy to fix. Just make it illegal to smoke it, not sell it.

You people don't use your heads. Don't you know the prisons need the business?

[wuushew]

46. I doubt that such a "super mafia" would have the reach of legal channels

Look at the people who enjoy smoking: the blue colored, elderly and Americans addicted enough to expend the minimum energy needed to go to a local gas station. Prices and availability are largely represenative of a mass produced commodity made possible by large scale industrial farming and factory fabrication.

Have not black markets in the past restricted supply and raised price of those goods so demanded by the consumer? Alcohol is a poor example simply because it happens spontaneously given the presence of natural sugars and microbes, nature in effect is able to supply an infinite volume of spirituous drink. I submit that the problems of tobacco are caused by its scope and pervasiveness. I would gladly have the underworld sell 1/10 the product at 10 times the cost all things being equal. Who would be the victims of this organized crime? Is an elderly smoker with emphysema likely to be the victim of organized crime from a nursing home or hospital?


If we hypothesize that increased crime would result from tobacco prohibition how do we weigh this against the societal benefits of increased life expectancy, economic growth, happiness and reduced contribution to Republican coffers?

[RB TexLa]

53. societal benefits of increased life expectancy ????

How does society benefit from this? Honestly, CDC showed life expectancy to be 77.3 for Americans in 2002, how does more people living into their 80s benefit society as a whole?

[Rabrrrrrr]

4. The only tobacco related ban I'd be willing to support

would be one making it illegal to add chemicals to tobacco to enhance the burning of it; which would mean, basically, banning cigarettes as they are currently made.

Cigars and pipe tobacco would remain legal, as would any cigarette made from pure 100% tobacco.

I don't think we need to make them illegal - the popularity of smoking is going way down anyway, and sales are way down from what they used to be. It will slowly die the death it needs to die.

I would also support much higher taxes on cigarettes (but not on pipe tobacco or cigars).

[Don Claybrook]

16. that's a great idea

I had never thought of that, but banning the additives would be a good idea, I think.

Also, you're right about the smoking #'s going way down, at least in the US. However, the last I heard, tobacco companies were doing great business in China, getting more and more people to smoke. Is there such a thing as "premeditated manslaughter"? Although I'm not well-versed in these areas, I'd like to see some sort of huge export penalty that would make exporting cigarettes overseas too expensive for the tobacco companies.

[Horse with no Name]

25. I read a study that smoking popularity is on it's way up

again in the teens.
Let me see if I can find a link.

[Horse with no Name]

28. Here are some statistics

Seems we are too busy with our "War on Drugs" to see that the worst offender is gaining in popularity again.
http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/teensmoking/a/teensmokefacts.htm

* Every day in the United States alone, approximately 3,000 kids under the age of 18 start smoking.
* Every day 1,200 Americans die from smoking-related illnesses.
* Teen smokers get sick more often than teens who don’t smoke.
* Teen smokers have smaller lungs and weaker hearts than teens who don’t smoke.
* Teen smokers are more likely to use alcohol and other drugs.
* Addicted smokers tend to use more nicotine over time. The habit usually grows. What starts out as 5 or 10 cigarettes a day usually becomes a pack or two a day habit eventually.
* It is estimated that approximately 4.5 million adolescents in the United States are smokers.
* Spit tobacco, pipes and cigars are not safe alternatives to cigarettes. “Light” or “low-tar” cigarettes aren’t safe either.
* Those who start smoking young are more likely to have a long-term addiction to nicotine than people who start smoking later in life.
* Smoking-related illnesses claim more American lives than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide and illegal drugs combined.(1)
* People who smoke a pack a day die on average 7 years earlier than people who have never smoked.
* Smoking is the single most preventable cause of premature death in the United States.(2)
* Every day in the United States alone, approximately 3,000 kids under the age of 18 start smoking.
* Every day 1,200 Americans die from smoking-related illnesses.
* Teen smokers get sick more often than teens who don’t smoke.
* Teen smokers have smaller lungs and weaker hearts than teens who don’t smoke.
* Teen smokers are more likely to use alcohol and other drugs.
* Addicted smokers tend to use more nicotine over time. The habit usually grows. What starts out as 5 or 10 cigarettes a day usually becomes a pack or two a day habit eventually.
* It is estimated that approximately 4.5 million adolescents in the United States are smokers.
* Spit tobacco, pipes and cigars are not safe alternatives to cigarettes. “Light” or “low-tar” cigarettes aren’t safe either.
* Those who start smoking young are more likely to have a long-term addiction to nicotine than people who start smoking later in life.
* Smoking-related illnesses claim more American lives than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide and illegal drugs combined.(1)
* People who smoke a pack a day die on average 7 years earlier than people who have never smoked.
* Smoking is the single most preventable cause of premature death in the United States.(2).

[KyuzoGator]

65. Cigarette and alcohol consumption always rises in economic downturns.

Just a statistical fact. Jim Cramer is begging people to buy Altria these days.

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. Changing the manufacturing process in most states...

... most definitely would be unconstitutional, except for changes in how in-state tobacco is manufactured. And even then, since most tobacco is exported to other states and countries, I have little doubt that Congress and the Supreme Court would step in and declare "interstate trade."

[Spider Jerusalem]

34. No, it wouldn't;

it's clearly within the purview of the FDA to regulate the manufacturing process of cigarettes by banning the use of certain additives, under the interstate commerce clause (Article I, Section VIII of the US Constitution), whence the FDA's authority to regulate purity of other foods and drugs derives (most cigarettes in the US are manufactured in either North Carolina or Kentucky, so they're clearly manufactured FOR interstate trade, regardless of whether consumed in the state of manufacture or not).

[TechBear_Seattle]

36. What I meant was...

It would be unconstitutional to change the manufacturing process of cigarettes by state initiative.

[Rabrrrrrr]

39. No it wouldn't - just get the FDA to unapprove the additives

and/or say that they can't be used in the making of cigarettes.

We have laws as to how much alcohol can be in bourbon, gin, vodka, etc.; and how much grain can be used in an alcohol product and still call it bourbon or what-have-you. No reason the government can't limit tobacco additives that do nothing but help them burn and/or cause addiction.

[TechBear_Seattle]

49. The FDA is a federal agency. Initiatives are state only n/t

[Rabrrrrrr]

55. Oh, I get it - you're talking about if just a state came up with my plan.

Sorry, I was making the assumption I was talking from a federal level, which wasn't a good assumption, since this thread is about Washington. Of course Washington state could not get the FDA to act.

Washington State could, however, enact a law barring the import of tobacco with chemical additives; though I'm sure that would be a tricky widget to pull through without a lot of legal wrangling.

[AngryAmish]

44. I don't think so

Otherwise California emisssions in cars would be illegal. As long as the state did not discriminate or have a discriminatory effect the ban would be ok. If it is a good idea is another question.

[walldude]

62. Good idea... I'm smoking American Spirits now

on my way to quitting. A friend who quit said to try them, they are chemical free. He said once he got off the chemicals the tobacco was much easier to give up. The only bad thing is they cost 50% more than regular smokes...

[Rabrrrrrr]

66. They also taste a hell of a lot better, in my opinion.

Natural is the way to go! They may be more expensive, but, hell, at least they taste better. To me, that's worth the cost.

Good luck to you on quitting cigarettes altogether.

I rarely smoke cigarettes, and every now and again have a cigar or a pipe. But probably once a month for any of them. part of me would like to smoke more often, but, truthfully, for the most part, I never think of it. And having given up the cigarettes, smoking isn't as convenient - a cigar is a commitment from anywhere from 20 to 90 minutes, and while a pipe isn't as much of a commitment, I could smoke a cigarette in the time it takes me to get the pipe, open the humidor for the tobacco, fill the pipe, tamp it, light it, tamp it, and then light it again...

[Warren DeMontague]

69. At the very least, they should TELL YOU what it is that's in there.

I mean, they have to do that with food- why not cigarettes?

[Minnesota Libra]

5. What, and get rid of the tobacco lobbying money? won't happen..nt

[mdmc]

6. prohabition is never the answer. freedom is the answer

[sweetheart]

63. pearls ringing on an empty swine feeding trough

feedom isn't free, you've heard it all before,
lets put a halter on that horse, clearly freedom doesn't work,
and i have to wonder what kind of vacuous lore,
any mention that we are not farm animals molded enmass to be slave apologetic clerks.
Freedom couldn't solve anything as hollywood history tells so clearly,
hamster wheeling 2 jobs to break even, don't even knows what it means, the jerks,
and now we're stuck with the neoziocons and their pentacostal zealot tree,
foregoing any liberty for the tax burden of a military gone berzerk.

Freedom couldn't be what it actually means,
that would be to simple for those who lurk,
aye it must mean a vast conspriacy of dreams,
and foregoing the truth, hearts stopping lost betrayed dead inert,
Freedom is of no value, in a prison where it's banned,
pretend really that you now have it and the shit will hit the fan.

[Toots]

7. Not outlawing tobacco but it's public usage would be fine with me

I see no reason it should be allowed in public any more than masterbation is allowed in public but still not illegal. I don't care one whit if someone wants to damage their own health but when they bring it to me there is a problem.. What people do in the privacy of their home is no business of mine as long as others are not hurt. When they start dumping poison into my life giving source (air) then there is a problem. just my $.02 worth :shrug:

[TechBear_Seattle]

24. That's basically what Washington has done

The initiative -- now law -- prohibits smoking in all enclosed public spaces as well as places of employment. "Enclosed public spaces" is getting interpreted pretty broadly, based on existing court rulings. Covered bus stops and homeless shelters all meet the definition.

[Township75]

8. I don't support that or the current bans on other drugs...

even heroin or cocaine.

My feelings are that in this country you know what is good for you and what is bad for you, and if you want to go ahead with it, fine by me, provided you do it in a responsible manner that doesn't endanger others.

[Daphne08]

9. As long as you ban alcohol, too.

How many deaths per year occur due to alcohol?

[BoneDaddy]

26. Right

Let's all lock ourselves up in little tiny liberal bubbles and the whole world will leave us alone and we will be happy, little insulated creatures with no risk, no choice, no chance towards self-determination because my government mommies told me what to do.

This kind of restriction is not only NOT liberal it is fascism of a different color...."we are doing it to protect you" bullshit.

[Jensen]

35. You are so RIGHT!!....soon enough you will go to a hardware store

to buy some rope and not only will it cost you more due to the sticker they must place with a warning that if you put it around your neck you might kill or injured yourself but you will also have to sign a affidavit that you were warned!

Fascism or stupidity on the rise???

:crazy:

[BoneDaddy]

37. LOLOL

I loved the rope reference, hehe. I just get so tired of the folks out there who feel it is their need, like the religious right, to tell everyone how to live, what they should or shouldn't do etc... Some libs are as bad as the fundies in that respect.

My pet name for them are the "Insulationists". They want to wrap the world in cotton cause they live in a fear based existence all the time.

[Jensen]

56. BoneDaddy , Right again..One could be as bad as the other ....

I love your reference "Wrap the World in Cotton"! Oh my friend if we only could!!!!

[gauguin57]

31. Alcohol can be used in a way that will not kill you or wreck your health.

Cigarettes cannot. Cigs are coffin nails, pure and simple. An occasional glass of wine with dinner, not so much.

[Cats Against Frist]

75. Well, technically,

The amount of people who die from secondhand smoke is relatively small. I'd say it's about on par with people who get killed by drunk drivers, and children of alcoholics who grow up to be fucked up. If we're measuring the harm done to the primary intak-er, yes, smoking is more addictive. But, when taking into account the effects on innocent bystanders, IMHO, drinking is no better than smoking.

I've both taken care of someone I loved who had a smoking-related illness, and I've lived with an alcoholic for five years. Both of them are like watching a slow, sick death. The difference is that the cancer patient doesn't try to drive, doesn't spend all of your money, is relatively tolerable when he is awake, is not abusive, doesn't act like an asshole, doesn't embarrass you in front of the neighbors and doesn't make your four-year-old depressed.

Alcoholism is disgusting, and for some reason, by nonalcoholics, they're often given much more sympathy than smokers. My grandfather, who died when he was 90 years old, smoked two packs of unfiltered Camel cigarettes, a day. He raised a family of eight, worked hard every day, had a good, sharp mind, and was able to take care of his family. Everything slips through the alcoholic's fingers -- the term "high functioning alcoholic" was made up by alcoholics as rationalization -- every alcoholic loses, in the end. If you don't quit smoking, you might die earlier, or contract a disease. If you don't quit drinking, you'll also die a premature death, and make everyone else's life a living hell, on your way out.

[Beelzebud]

10. I would not support this. Why do some want to legislate their choices?

In a free country people should be able to make their own decision.

Stop trying to legislate yours...

[RB TexLa]

19. They could use the right's anti-abortion slogans

"Tobacco kills a beating heart"

"It's lungs, not a choice"

"If tobacco doesn't make you sick, you're already sick"

Or they could just cut through everything and be honest

"I will decide what you can do!"

[Beelzebud]

33. Exactly. They aren't far off from those ppl, IMO...

Just get out of my personal life. If I want to smoke I will.

I wish the busy-bodies from the left, and the right would just realize that THEY can make those choices for THEMSELVES, and it doesn't require outlawing something for the rest of us.

This *is* supposed to be a free country, right?

[DanCa]

11. I hate smoke but...

I hate the thought of interfering in anyone's life more. What's next calling the cops on someone for smoking in his backyard? Bah I don't call the cops on people, people call the cops on me:D

[Cats Against Frist]

76. You think that's crazy?

Apparently anyone who can smell smoke, in that suburb in Cali, basically have a right to make a citizen's arrest. You could probably be fined for smoking in your own yard, if your paranoid baby-ninny of a neighbor next door caught a whiff.

[Don Claybrook]

12. I've been smoke-free for only 6 days now

and I don't believe smoking should be banned.

So what do I think? Well, it's muddled, and I don't have clear answers, but here's what I do think:

-I wish I had never started and wasted so many years
-I wish that all cigarette manufacturers would go bankrupt, then take a flying leap straight to hell
-I don't like laws that attempt to legislate morality (and health)
-I think I might like the idea of pricing cigarettes prohibitively, but I'm sort of torn on that one.
-I don't believe in "smoker's rights" and I never have. If you're smoking around someone who doesn't want to be exposed to smoke, you should move to a different spot.
-I would love to see a better label on cigarettes, something like "Smoking makes you much more likely to die early, and the corporation that manufactured this box is well aware of that fact".
-I'd be perfectly fine with ALL tobacco advertising outlawed, including magazine ads and convenience store sale signs.
-I don't want to see cigarettes used as some sort of leverage to further the War on Some Drugs.
-And most importantly, at least to me, I hope to never touch another cigarette in my life. It's too soon to make big proclamations, but after 6 days, I'm off to a good start. Sure, I feel surly and agitated a lot, but I'm able to direct all of this at tobacco companies, who I hold in the lowest esteem possible.

Oh, and a tip for any investors out there: buy stock in chewing gum and Altoids. I'm going through them at a record pace.

[DanCa]

15. Good Luck on breaking the habbit.

Take it one day at a time, nice and slow. If you need anything pm me :hug:

[Don Claybrook]

20. thank you

I'm doing ok so far. And I'm starting to break some of the psychological habits, times/places that were conducive to smoking.

There are so very many reasons for not smoking, and only one short-term reason to smoke. I just have to keep that in mind.

Again, thanks for the encouragement.

[northzax]

23. you mean like the Australian Warnings?

[Don Claybrook]

32. Wow. I haven't seen these warnings before

Yes, I'd be totally supportive of required warning labels just like that one.

Thanks for pointing this out to me.

[rinsd]

54. I'm on Day 35...keep strong! (nt)

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Well, alcohol nearly killed me & I've been sober for years, but I don't

think banning it is any kind of a solution, any more than prohibition works for anything else.

Congratulations. Hang in there. Your health and your life are worth it. Rather than worrying about all the time you spent smoking, think about how glad you are that you're not right now, and all the time that you're giving yourself by quitting. I don't know much about nicotine except that it's a bitch to quit, but I would wager that time -and more time- away from it will help your outlook on the situation immensely. In my experience with addiction, past a certain point, regret becomes counter-productive, and a potential excuse for the addictive voice in one's brain to try to convince you to throw what I call the "ahhhh, fuck it all" switch.

Don't fall for it. You've made a wonderful decision for yourself. :applause:

[sinkingfeeling]

13. I think prohibition failed before, but made some people alot of money.

Want to try again? I really resent any governing body telling me what to do.

[Donkeykick]

14. I find it to be...

quite strange that marijuana is illegal but tobacco is not. I guarantee you that tobacco has killed more people than marijuana.:smoke:

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. I think this is a catastrophically stupid idea.

As far as environmental toxicity goes, atmospheric pollution from internal combustion engines and coal-fired power plants is of much greater concern (as an example, see the statistics for juvenile asthma rates in US metropolitan areas vs rural areas).

Not to mention that outlawing tobacco would lead to a tremendous black market and the expansion of organised crime (as happened in the 1920's with prohibition of alcohol), and it would result in a tremendous loss of excise tax revenues at the federal and state levels. Efforts at prohibition of alcohol and drugs have amply illustrated that as long as a market exists, it WILL be supplied, by legal or illegal means.

[wuushew]

48. Revenues not raised from progressive taxation should be discontinued

That means all sales taxes, most fees/fines and most certainly state lotteries.

[Skinner]

21. I'd like to add my name to the chorus of people here...

...who think this is an incredibly bad idea.

[Cats Against Frist]

22. I, of course, would not support tobacco prohibition

any more than I would not support prohibition of lots of things that bother me, sex toys, gambling, pornography, drugs, etc. Free people need to be allowed to make choices. That said, I don't believe a tobacco ban would be that far off. There's a dangerous and irrational slipperly slope involved in lots of kinds of prohibitions. They're banning outdoor smoking in parks, and on beaches, which has no basis in anything but discrimination. Someone who is that much of an ideologue wouldn't have a problem with banning tobacco, no matter the taxes, or corporate pressure.

[Untermonkey]

29. Why not?

Prohibition is doing such a great job with drugs why not carry that success over into the tobacco arena?

[Douglas Carpenter]

30. If smoking is outlawed - Only outlaws would smoke

[DrGonzoLives]

38. Let's just ban everything

Then we'll all be safe!

[SeattleGirl]

40. Idiotic idea

First off, they could not prevent the sale of cigarettes on Native American land.

Second, that kind of ban just would not work. It would be like the days of prohibition. Sales would go underground, but they would not stop.

Finally, since much of the taxes on cigarettes in Washington go to pay for health care costs, the state would lose revenue. Then they'd have to raise taxes elsewhere. Meaning non-smokers would have to start picking up the tab for what cigarette taxes pay for.

I'm not defending smoking. I just think that it's a losing proposition to try a blanket ban. If the state thinks that banning cigarettes state-wide would work, they'd better think again. The black market would boom.

[porphyrian]

41. Why don't we outlaw pesticides first?

They're certainly more toxic and more widespread.

[mykpart]

64. Not just pesticides

I live near a fiberglass plant. I don't smoke any more, but I think the danger from breathing the air in my neighborhood is greater than any secondhand smoke hazard. Let's clean up the air of exhaust fumes and other pollutants, and then see how bad the cigarette smoke is.

I don't defend smoking - I quit because I had a heart attack. But I am sick of those who focus on the dangers of secondhand smoke when there are so many greater dangers that need to be taken care of.

[suffragette]

42. I would gladly support a Universal Health Care initiative

in Washington State. That would be a step in a positive direction for all.
But prohibition targeted at one part of the population that is already being treated as pariahs. No, I don't think so.

[Hippo_Tron]

45. Wonderful, another group of innocent people to throw in prison

[Alamom]

47. A doctor mentioned this to me about 4 years ago.

My Mother had a respiratory problem and had to be taken to the ER. She smoked then. I was there, thin and I smoke. With me, my sister who is younger, a non-smoker and very overweight.
The doctor said that in a few years, insurance companies would stop paying for smoking related illnesses.
I thought he was about to give us the lecture on the evils of smoking.

He then said, I would almost agree with that except,
we will begin to see people (adults and children) come in with all kinds of respiratory problems and claims rejected whether they are smoking related or not. The criteria to treat and insurance to pay will be so strict, doctors will not want to treat anything that could be considered respiratory problems.

The next will be alcohol related problems. Liver, kidney, bladder and anything else that can be affected by alchohol will be excluded from insurance coverage.

Next will be obesity. Any disease related to over eating will be excluded. Heart disease, diabetes, bad back, hips, knees, etc. Anyone who is above thier ideal weight will be denied coverage and treatment unless they are wealthy and can afford to pay.

He said it will reach a point where only healthy & wealthy people can get affordable insurance as the insurance companies grow richer everyday.

He went on to add one car wreck with an injury would knock your insurance and several other scenarios.

Medicare and medicaid will be phased out as all elderly people no matter how healthy they lived, eventually get something wrong with them and it could be blamed on one of these banned practices. Not many just "go to sleep" of super old age.

He said if this begins, there will be no end.

He said this is our new government, our new world order.

He then said, we would see a day when only the wealthy could get decent healthcare, because they could pay out of pocket, regardless of any "bad" habits.

He said he was not "for" a ban on smoking.........



(was he right?)

[Xenotime]

51. I support a ban on tobacco...

this country would be healthier and safer.

[SeattleGirl]

52. Hmmmm, how would it be safer?

And, would you support a ban on other things that can cause health problems such as alcohol, fast food, factories, cars, etc.? I'm not being sarcastic. Yes, cigarettes are harmful to people, but so are many other things. Why pick just cigarettes?

[rman]

77. Banning cars would make the country healthier and safer

As would banning alcohol, fire arms, knives etc.

Question is if health and safety should be the _only_ criteria for banning or allowing things.

When you ban everything that could possibly harm someone, if you eliminate all possible risk, you end up with one boring and uptight society. And the RW will call it "small government", while controlling peoples lives down the smallest detail.

[alittlelark]

57. Tobacco is the ONLY product that will KILL you if used properly.

Great to prevent SS benefits from being dispersed.


Those Repug lovin' farmers would go ballistic.....

[porphyrian]

70. Why doesn't alcohol also qualify?

What constitutes proper use, anyway? There are no recommended dosages of cigarettes, and genetics play as much as a role in whether or not you'll die from smoking. Prohibition never works, and second hand smoke is not even in the top twenty most abundant air pollutants giving us all cancer. Let's punish the corporations who knowingly kill us for profit before fining their victims, waddayasay?

[Swamp Rat]

58. That's a really really really really really really really really really

BAD idea.

[alittlelark]

59. They won't do it..... way too much $$$$$$ for R's at stake

They should..... Honestly. It is evil and wonderful, and evil, and .....gotta go for a few minutes.....

[Cleita]

60. Go read about prohibition and you'll have your answer.

People won't quit smoking, they will buy from a bootlegger. This is one more commodity to be traded by gangs and criminals. We should be decriminalizing drugs not making more of them illegal.

Society has conceded that smoking should be kept away from most buildings where the public goes, but now that the anti-tobacco factions got their yard, they want the mile.

I'm a non-smoker btw.

[adwon]

61. Could only be done at the federal level

Regulation of tobacco products is almost solely a federal concern. If Congress were to pass legislation specifically allowing states to do this, then there shouldn't be a problem. In the absence of a clear grant, it's likely an infringement of interstate commerce (even if the state attempted a 'traditional functions' justification).

I've seen some posts suggesting the FDA has some regulatory power over the manufacturing of cigarettes. Unless a federal law was passed to overrule the case involving Brown and Williamston, the FDA has no such power.

Adding my voice to the chorus...

Why not pass laws against earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters at the same time? Obviously, these events incur massive costs and loss of life. The negative regulation of behavior that is costly to a society, but not inherently destabilizing (such as laws against murder), is too often nothing more than an exercise in vanity. The state is the servant of the people, not the parent. Blue laws, like this proposal, are an attempt to supplant the domain of the family with the coercion of the state. No thanks.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. We need FEWER laws re: what consenting adults can do with their own bodies

NOT MORE.

Hell, maybe you're coming up on tax time and saying to yourself "ONLY $40 Billion a year for a drug war aimed primarily at pot smokers? There's GOTTA be a way the government can waste more of my money turning otherwise law abiding folks into criminals over their personal choices!". Maybe that's you. But I think, unless you're being facetious, you've hit upon an absolutely horrible idea.

Look, there are legitimate reasons that municipalities, states, etc. might want to regulate smoking- of anything- in certain indoor places. On one hand (and I really am not up for another smoking ban thread..ugh) you have the folks who can't understand why they're not allowed to suck on marlboros on Airplanes, or in Hospital ICUs. On the other, you have the busybody control freaks who obsess over what other people are doing in their own homes and with their own bodies.

I happen to think the WA law goes too far, particularly with the 25 feet rule, but I also think the California law in this regard has been a great success. I think regulating whether or not people can smoke in indoor, public spaces is a legitimate area for discussion. (I'm not arguing purely pro or con- I think in some cases it may be a legitimate argument to say 'leave the decision up to the business owner'-- although in my personal experience, until it was legislated, I never saw such an animal as a "no smoking bar") I do NOT think it's any of the government's business what consenting adults do with their own bodies, in their own homes, etc. insofar as they don't harm anyone else. I would extend that to drugs like I would extend that to tobacco.

(I would add that I don't see any problem with people smoking outside, but they should be courteous about disposing of the cigarette butts, just as with any other garbage. I hate going to a beach that is a big ashtray.)

[QC]

71. Proof that not all puritan authoritarians are on the right. n/t

[rman]

78. Sam Reed is a Republican - a Right-Wing puritan authoritarian.

"INITIATIVE 901
I, Sam Reed, Secretary of State of the State of Washington and
custodian of its seal, hereby certify that, according to the records on
file in my office, the attached copy of Initiative Measure No. 901 to
the People is a true and correct copy as it was received by this
office."
http://secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i901.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Reed

[TechBear_Seattle]

72. My own position on such a ban

I very much doubt I would support such a ban myself; this was a thought experiment / opinion research kind of post. One of my friends proposed it, and I was curious to see what others thought.

You can stop with the hate mail now :grouphug:

[ScreamingMeemie]

73. I think it is a horrid idea. I think it would cause an uproar and I would

probably rally against it. Think Boston Tea Party.

[BiggJawn]

79. Gee, we tried something like that before....

18th Ammendment, "The WAR On Drugs", both miserable failures.

What's next, the "Mandatory Condom Act" where I could be stopped at random and ordered to show that I'm carrying cock-socks?

Yeah, tobacco's dangerous, but so's unprotected anal sex with strangers. Don't hear an outcry to make that universally illegal, do you?

And then, what next? The "Anti-Obesity Act", where I'm given a year to get the weight off else I get taken to a federally-operated (by Halliburton) "Fat Farm"? That's a "Public Health Issue", isn't it?

[Bassic]

80. I think tobacco companies should be forced to retract

all the added chemicals they put in there.