Making smoking illegal?

[Function]

Doesn't matter if you do.

The most common response I get is shut up kid.

 

If ever I'd encounter a situation as described above, and I notice someone else experiencing discomfort from the smoke, or when there's a pregnant woman (or, the hell with it, someone with asthma, COPD, ...), boy you better run

Edited April 28, 2017 by Function

[iNow]

You could offer them an umbrella...

[MonDie]

I do not think the smoking age should be the age of consent. I suspect that cigarettes are sometimes used to advertise being "legal" to have sex.

[Function]

How about just making "smoking age" nonexistant? I mean, now, it can still be something like: "Ooh, I'll turn 16 tomorrow, imagine what I can do next: drink (at least, beers and whine etc. in Belgium), drive (at least, not in Belgium, lol), have sex (I guess, everywhere?) and smoke (at least, I think, mostly everywhere)!"

 

Just to make it less ... exciting and exotic?

 

It has been demonstrated a few times I guess that a paternalistic approach "Thou shalt not smoke" has a contrary effect. Abolishing the so-called "smoking age" could be an interesting experiment to see what numbers of smoking proportions do. If they should indeed fall significantly, we could be a step closer to prohibiting smoking in public (less whining).

Edited May 2, 2017 by Function

[Klaynos]

I do not think the smoking age should be the age of consent. I suspect that cigarettes are sometimes used to advertise being "legal" to have sex.

The UK increased the age at which you could buy tobacco, from 16 (age of concent) to 18 (age you can buy alcohol). This has lead to a drop in young people smoking. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3158837/

 

Whilst I see the argument for removing the age as it's something you can do when you turn a certain age I think that's a bad idea for a few reasons. You would have a big increase in the short term when it's legalised as suddenly it's legal for 14 year olds to buy tobbaco, starting earlier is even worse for you than starting later in life, and it's addictive so kids are likely to try it a few times (they will make more foolish decisions than older people on average) and then be stuck.

[MonDie]

How about just making "smoking age" nonexistant? I mean, now, it can still be something like: "Ooh, I'll turn 16 tomorrow, imagine what I can do next: drink (at least, beers and whine etc. in Belgium), drive (at least, not in Belgium, lol), have sex (I guess, everywhere?) and smoke (at least, I think, mostly everywhere)!"

 

Just to make it less ... exciting and exotic?

 

It has been demonstrated a few times I guess that a paternalistic approach "Thou shalt not smoke" has a contrary effect. Abolishing the so-called "smoking age" could be an interesting experiment to see what numbers of smoking proportions do. If they should indeed fall significantly, we could be a step closer to prohibiting smoking in public (less whining).

 

I was surprised to see the D.A.R.E. logo painted on a police car the other day. I thought, "Wasn't it five years ago that I read in my psychology textbook that D.A.R.E. actually has the opposite effect?" Apparently the ineffectiveness of D.A.R.E. has long been known, and yet the program persists.

 

Was D.A.R.E. Effective? (Natalie Wolchover of LiveScience)

http://www.livescience.com/33795-effective.html

[DoYouEvenScienceBro]

I'd be all for banning cigarettes. I'm also all for a return of prohibition, or at least much stricter alcohol laws. There are just too many issues linked to alcohol consumption.

[iNow]

So, you favor more mafia and black markets / less freedom of choice for individuals?

[Raider5678]

So, you favor more mafia and black markets / less freedom of choice for individuals?

Evidently.

[DoYouEvenScienceBro]

So, you favor more mafia and black markets / less freedom of choice for individuals?

 

Given that those individual choices have proven to be irresponsible, and pose such dire consequences for society, as a whole . . .

 

Yes.

 

Your scenario, even if true, would be the lesser of two evils.

[Lord Antares]

It doesn't work like that.

 

Alcohol is responsible for many deaths, yes. Cars are responsible for many more. So the logical step forward from banning alcohol is banning cars. It would technically decrease mortality, right?
I could substantiate the examples even further, but I think you get the point.

[Delta1212]

 

Given that those individual choices have proven to be irresponsible, and pose such dire consequences for society, as a whole . . .

 

Yes.

 

Your scenario, even if true, would be the lesser of two evils.

In what way was life in America better under Prohibition than before or after it?