5 ms·
Great. Let's roll this out everywhere. Actually it would be nice to do something about cigeratte butts too.
by 1ba9115454 8y ago
Great. Let's roll this out everywhere.
Actually it would be nice to do something about cigeratte butts too.
- sleepychu 8y agoJust ban cigarettes? They're ridiculous, I don't understand why we allow them.
- sumedh 8y ago> I don't understand why we allow them. because some people like them. Should we ban Alcohol, fast food and sugar as well?
- Cthulhu_ 8y agoPeople like cocaine too; enjoyment of something isn't grounds to keep it legal. Smoking (and alcohol) just can't be made illegal now; the US tried that for a couple of years, and all it managed to do was give rise to organized crime and illegal (and dangerous) manufacture of alcohol. In my country, smoking and alcohol are more passively discouraged; high taxes, a ban on advertising, strict age checks, and (for smoking, lately) shocking imagery, removal of brands, removal of any kind of interesting packaging, and (most recently) a ban on displaying it. I mean I'd still be in favor of outright banning it already, because all of these measures are just idk, weird, but at the same time criminalising it would cause more problems than the current measures.
- sumedh 8y agoCocaine should made legal too, with all the measures which you listed. If people like something, they will try anything to get it, if its illegal is just goes underground.
- dingo_bat 8y agoI don't understand this logic. We tax alcohol and cigarettes. We ban cocaine. And look at the result: hundreds of millions addicted to smoking, but almost zero usage of cocaine. Looks like a ban is a good way to curtail usage. Which is what we want, right?
- chillacy 8y ago> In the United States, the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health reports that 35.3 million Americans aged 12 and older reported having used cocaine. 10% of the population is hardly "almost zero". I'd also question the premise that it's "what we want". On one hand I'm not sure the drug wars (money into the cartels, families broken up by incarceration, the cycle of drugs leading to violence) was worth it. On the other hand I don't like the idea of the government telling people what they can and can't do to themselves. Drugs are largely a victimless crime.
- sumedh 8y ago> but almost zero usage of cocaine. This is where the disconnect happens, since you dont see people using cocaine you assume that the ban is working. Meanwhile people who really want it, can get it with money or their bodies (women). Just because you dont see it does not mean its not happening.
- Dirlewanger 8y agoThat's why you tax it. The benefits of taxing vices and other negative externalities like single-use plastic items is multifaceted: the consumer will start to think twice about the added cost, the firm providing the item is incentivized to look at alternative methods, and the government gets additional tax revenue (that ideally goes toward the damage that the item does to society/environment/etc). It's not the state's job to tell me what I can and cannot do. They should, however, nudge me toward what they'd prefer.
- 4ndr3vv 8y agobecause of tax revenues and the pressures from tobacco lobbyists.
- Hendrikto 8y agoBanning something does not make it go away. Look at alcohol, look at cannabis, … You only cede control over it. No consumer protection anymore, no age restrictions, no quality assurance, …. On the black market nobody asks for your ID. People like to pretend that the question is: Do we want drug X or not? That‘s distorting reality. We already have this drug in our society. The question is how to deal with it. An outright ban is almost always the wrong choice to go about it.
- emiliobumachar 8y agoWhile it seems appealing, a cigarette ban would cause enormous damage, much much higher than the damage from cigarettes themselves. Just look at the worldwide War on Drugs, which is finally starting to wind down here and there. Or alcohol Prohibition in the USA. But heavy fines for improper disposal should be ok.
- Hendrikto 8y agoBanning something does not make it go away. What is does is taking control over it out of the state‘s hand, and giving it to criminals.
- fithisux 8y agoSmokes are drugs. Make them illegal. Since they take time to cause harm, banning them is more beneficial and altogether different from the war on drugs. Just ban them.
- sleepychu 8y agoTo address the many replies. What I would actually propose is a ban on smoking in public places of all types (streets, parks, etc.) with aggressive fines. If you want to smoke in your own house with no children in it, that's fine. I'm just sick of walking down the street and smelling smoke, knowing it's causing harm to people who have little choice in the matter via passive smoking, creating so much litter etc.
- oftenwrong 8y agoYou could ban cellulose acetate filters, which do not readily degrade. One day we may figure out how to make cigarette filters that are more biodegradable. I also recall reading about a group training birds to collect cigarette butts.
- goldenkey 8y agoIt only takes a couple years for the deacetylzation process to occur from UV light and weathering. The cellulose backbone decays in a matter of days once the acetate is gone. Carbon impregnated polyester works just fine as a smoke filter and is readily degradable.