13 ms·
Hawaii considers ban on cigarette sales
- giggles_giggles 8y agoHawaii considers the benefits of creating a black market for tobacco
- ams6110 8y agoIt's already there, because of taxes, but yeah, it would just get bigger.
- benj111 8y agoProbably? But then what's the alternative (assuming you agree with the decision to start with). People are always going to murder, evade taxes, do illegal drugs. The fact that some people won't follow laws isn't a reason not to implement them. I'm guessing that due to geography, Hawaii has the most chance in the US of making this work though.
- loeg 8y agoThe proposed bill doesn't ban tobacco, just cigarettes in particular. Oddly, cigars are not banned.
- eesmith 8y agoI don't know if it's the reason, but USPS at https://www.usps.com/ship/shipping-restrictions.htm https://www.usps.com/ship/shipping-restrictions.htm (expand 'Cigarettes & Tobacco') says "Most cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products may not be mailed domestically" while "Cigars may be mailed domestically." Ban cigar sales and many people will get deliveries by domestic mail. That doesn't hold for cigarettes.
- loeg 8y agoThat's an interesting point, thanks for raising it. > Ban cigar sales and many people will get deliveries by domestic mail. That doesn't hold for cigarettes. I bet you're right for people who currently seek out cigars (more or less). But I suspect there will be some substitution effect of cigars for cigarettes, if a bill like this is passed, and cigars can still be sold locally. I expect the effect would be smaller in magnitude if cigars could only be purchased from mainland sellers and shipped via USPS. But I am just speculating.
- DougN7 8y agoI’m guessing the percentage of people smoking cigars, and those who get started smoking via cigars, is pretty small.
- loeg 8y agoI agree, but unless it's some protected classification, what prevents Philip Morris from slapping some cigar branding on the packaging for cigarettes in Hawaii?
- sbuttgereit 8y agoAssuming you agree with the decision to start with, aren't you de facto say all those other things don't matter relative to your decision? I think you may of meant something a bit different: perhaps, that if you believe that government has a role in dictating certain health related choices, then what options do you have to achieve that other than something like this? If so, then you're just debating implementation details which I think is less important and less interesting than the real discussion about what personal autonomy, and personal responsibility, you should have to live your life as you see fit.
- benj111 8y agoYes that what I meant. I was intending it as an rhetorical question. Agreed personal autonomy, and personal responsibility are the interesting questions, not really where the comment I was responding was leading though.
- loeg 8y agoNot exactly: > If approved, the restrictions would only apply to cigarettes—not e-cigarettes, cigars or chewing tobacco. Just cigarettes. Oddly, cigars are excepted. Probably just get a lot of oddly thin and long cigar sales.
- kokokokoko 8y agoI'm curious if the ban may have to do more with littering and pollution as opposed to simply the health issues.
- pacoWebConsult 8y agoI think if that were the case they'd be pushing for bio-degradable butts and also coming up with some solution to throw-away vape cartridges like Juul pods which I see on the ground outside every gas station.
- geoelectric 8y agoWhen clove cigarettes were banned, clove cigarillos became quite popular. Ironically, they're probably even less healthy than the cigarettes were.
- ghtrytttttnsa 8y agoJust tax them and make them too expensive for constant use as is already happening. Banning something entirely is just another dystopia raising.
- gnulinux 8y agoSerious question: when has banning any drug worked in the past? I watched quite a few TED Talks claiming there is data suggesting legalizing all drugs -- even those that are "objectively harmful" like meth or heroin -- has merits. [Disclaimer: I smoked tobacco in the past (~10 years ago for a few months in HS due to social reasons) but I wouldn't care the slightest if they're banned.] I don't think cigs are more harmful than meth or heroin. If countries like Portugal had success legalizing these hardcore drugs and using other sorts of policies to limit their harmful effects, why go backwards and ban them? I'm all for limiting harms of cigs, especially to children who are more susceptible, but is this really the right approach to solve this problem? Again this is a legitimate question; not being sarcastic.
- riffraff 8y agoAFAIR Portugal did not legalize drugs, it decriminalised them.
- frankus 8y agoExpanding on this a bit, there's a huge difference between not punishing drug users and allowing commercial sales. The latter opens up a Pandora's box of regulatory capture, since problem users account for the vast majority of profits in recreational drug industries. Meanwhile coming up with a defensible reason to criminalize possession in amounts for personal use is a bit of a stretch. You either care about drug users as people (in which case alienating them from law enforcement is bad) or you don't (in which case there is no reason to regulate drugs at all). There's a bit of a gray area around discouraging initiation of new users, I suppose, but mostly it comes down to punishing people for getting high in ways you don't approve of.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- loeg 8y agoThis is proposed by a single legislator; they may not have considered the implications especially deeply. The text in particular bans cigarettes, but not loose leaf tobacco. It's unclear if any black market for pre-rolled cigarettes is viable enough to be worth the costs of a black market business.
- sneakernets 8y agoI can see why some would be upset but, I just ain't seeing the problem here. The only reasons tobacco exploded in the late 19th and early 20th century were based on junk science, lies, and deception. Some patent medicine hucksters targeted tobacco distributors in hopes of getting their poisons into the cigarettes themselves. Now we're down to "habit" and "it's always been here", which isn't convincing enough for me.
- randyrand 8y agoCigarettes are actually enjoyable to a lot of folk. I socially smoke about 20 cigarettes a year and get enjoyment from it. It seems it should be one’s own choice to smoke in private.
- tinus_hn 8y agoAs much as it is to use prescription medication in private.
- antidesitter 8y agoDo you think the government should ban all harmful activities?
- sneakernets 8y agoOf course not, because "harmful" in your question isn't the same meaning as what the government uses. PS: Does that strawman smoke menthols?
- antidesitter 8y ago> Of course not, because "harmful" in your question isn't the same meaning as what the government uses. What's the definition "the government uses"? And why is it different from the one in the comment you're replying to? > PS: Does that strawman smoke menthols? ?
- benj111 8y ago
- larrik 8y ago"The ban would go into effect progressively, starting next year, by raising the minimum age for buying cigarettes from 21 to 30. Two years later, no one under 100 would be allowed to buy cigarettes. " This is the most wacky way to ban it I can think of. This can possibly pass a challenge in court.
- jobigoud 8y agoToo fast for good drama. Another approach would be to start by banning anyone born in 2000 or after, and then remove a year from that cut line, every year. This way if you are an old addict you have more time to prepare, and every one has a clear deadline coming their way. By 2030 nobody under the age of 40 is allowed. By 2040 nobody under 60, by 2050 nobody under 80.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> This can possibly pass a challenge in court. Why not? Sure, it's discriminatory, but it's not a suspect or quasi-suspect class, so the standard of review is rational basis, which is a very low standard, and which is satisfied essentially when there is any legitimate government interest being served and any rational relationship between the basis of discrimination and any such legitimate purpose, even an indirect one which could be more specifically targeted (more narrow targeting is required when intermediate or strict scrutiny is involved.) Or are you imagining some other basis for legal challenge?
- DannyB2 8y agoAs long as the US cigarette makers can export to other countries, with less stringent regulations on how addictive or deadly their product is, it will all be profitable . . . er, I mean . . . okay.
- traviswingo 8y agoIve been a huge advocate of this for a long time now, and I love that people have started considering it. Here’s the deal - it’s not a rights thing. It’s the fact that smoking cigarettes, no matter what, is a group act. You bring everyone within eyesight of you into your bad habit. There are plenty of other ways to get your nicotine fix, and we can still tax the shit out of it. Nice going, Hawaii. I hope it actually happens. Btw, Hawaii is one of the boldest states to consider this. I have a condo on the water there and I have to ask people to not smoke cigarettes under my deck on a daily basis. I wouldnt be surprised if there were a huge backlash to this suggestion.
- rcchyssser 8y agoAny smokers here? Nicotine IS a hard core drug.
- ac29 8y agoSeems like this would have an unintended affect on the significant amount of Japanese tourism there. While on the decline, about 30% of Japanese men and 10% of Japanese women smoke [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_in_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_in_Japan
- Simulacra 8y agoI don’t like the government banning anything really, rather I would prefer that they just keep raising the price. Once cigarettes become $100 a pack people will stop. Those that really want a cigarette, they can buy them if they want, but at some point when you’re paying five dollars per cigarette even the most addicted (or stupid) person will quit.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- 3131s 8y agoNo, because cigarettes will still be available on the black market for cheap.