26% Say Smoking Cigarettes Should Be Outlawed

I wonder if the 26% had any kind of halfway-decent sounding explanation for their answer? If they think it’s for health reasons, what else would they be willing to have outlawed later on under that guise? :frowning:

(btw I don’t smoke myself and never understood why anybody did. IMO it’s just a no-brainer)

Just over one-out-of-four Americans (26%) continue to believe cigarette smoking should be against the law in this country, a finding that’s changed little from previous surveys.

Sixty-three percent (63%) disagree and say smoking should not be outlawed, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

           Interestingly, even 18% of those who currently smoke think their habit  should be illegal. Thirty percent (30%) of those who have never smoked  agree.

But Americans are inclined to think that government pressure won’t change smokers’ habits. Forty-five percent (45%) say more government regulation of tobacco is at least somewhat likely to reduce the number of smokers, but 51% think that’s unlikely. These findings include 17% who say the increased regulation is Very Likely to cut down on the number of smokers and 15% who say it is Not At All Likely to do so.


Mind, I know darn well smoking is not healthy in the least, being a respiratory therapist, but I don’t think I or any government entity has the right to dictate what one does with their health.

I eat pretty ****** (well, I am trying like mad to correct this behavior, but, there it is) but I wouldn’t expect the government to step in and tell me that I cannot eat a Big Mac every day…
(not that I DO, mind)…

When we go on a gluttony fuelled bender at McD’s we’re only hurting ourselves. People can’t catch obesity or heart disease from sitting next too or living with an obese person.

Alcohol can harm others if we take into much, get drunk and then go for a drive or get into a round of fisty cuffs.

But smoking, that doesn’t just hurt the smoker, it hurts the people around the smoker, and its the rubbish you can’t smell in the fags that are the real danger. And honest to God, I ask Him, who in the burning fires of Hell woke up one morning and decided “oh, you know what, let’s put jet fuel in fags, or hey, what about arsenic?”

Seriously. Its so messed up its just not funny. Or healthy to anyone so much as near a smoker. The rubbish gets into their clothes. When you smoke it gets into your body, and it oozes out of your pores so even when you’re not smoking, or haven’t smoked for a few days its still oozing out of you posioning those you love.

You can ban it at work, but peopel will smoke on the streets, ban it on the streets, people smoke at home. If people want to smoke and can do it somewhere where they can’t hurt anyone else, then let them do it - but short of living in a cave away from all aspects of humanity, animal, plant an dmineral, its not gonna happen.

However, I think smokes should cost a lot more, and no insurance company or public health care system should cover smokers. Because they cost a lot of money.

Of course, I’m insanely bias against smoking given the worst death I have ever seen in my entire career has been that of a smoker.

Ban the rubbish. Just ban it. Dole out the nictoine patches and gum and the varenicline (Champix, Chanpix) and we can tolerate their withdrawl symptoms for a few months, and it’ll be easy to tell if someone is smoking against the law, because, you know, they stink.

But I was rather stunned when a lecturer of mine told me they’ll never ban smoking beccause people are living so long, so they need something to cull the ranks a bit, and smoking kills enough people that its not so pricey for a govt. to pay for pensions et al.

Now this is something I have never heard of before.
Is there any scientific evidence of this?
What exactly is oozing out?
In what form?

The evidence that smoking is bad for your health is there and reasonable.
But when people resort to outrageous and unsubstantiated claims to try to make smoking look bad, it only hurts the case.

I would rather we go in the direction of more legalization - marijuana, etc.

That being said, I am always for higher taxes on cigarettes and could see the legal age going up to 21.

I don’t think we should outlaw cigarettes all together, just as we don’t outlaw alcohol, but I do think society has a right to bann cigarette smoking in all places where the public gathers or where those who don’t smoke won’t be bothered by the hazards of second hand smoke. I think society is presently doing a good job of protecting most non smokers from the smoking of others, so I don’t forsee the need for government intervention any more than at present, but if that should change I would expect the government to step in to protect me, even to the point of making more stringent laws if necessary.

The Government has a responsibility to protect the well-being of its people

How could further legalization possibly be beneficial to anybody but the cigarette companies?

so it should be legal for people to destroy their body’s?:shrug:

I suppose one could put it that way.

I do not believe it is for the state to decide.

This is a moral decision.

people die every day because of careless use, or aftereffects of these substances, that alone is all the reason required to ban them

I do not look to the state to dictate morality.
Your point that there could be a public safety issue may be valid, but I see no evidence that smoking endangers anyone other then the smoker himself.
And that ceases to make it any more then a moral decision.

Should assisted suicide be legal?

Cigarette smoking is slow suicide. All the evidence stacks up to this.

Should hard drugs be legalized?

Nicotine is highly addictive, the other side effects aren’t quite as damaging as hard drugs though.

Should murder be legal?

Second hand smoke kills.

Should people be allowed to choose for themselves what damage they do to their bodies?

Unfortunately, yes.

If they made it illegal… wonder how many nicotine ( cigarettes and cigars etc ) would pop up.

While on a practical level I’m opposed to outlawing cigarettes, on a intellectual level I don’t think I could justify their legality.
Alcohol can be used in moderation and can even have health benefits. So I don’t think there’s a legal parallel to alcohol.
Cigarettes on the other hand contain an addictive drug, contribute zero health benefits, and can only cause harm. Outside of their historical presence in our society and perceived failure of any prohibition attempts as well as the jobs they produce, is there a reason to allow them?
Is there any other addictive drug that is as bad for us that we would justify?

I think the most comparible thing to cigarettes is marijuana. I think either legalize both or make them both illegal is the most logically consistent thing to do.

Yes, it is at the very least conspiracy to commit murder.

Without proving the intent of the smoker, that would be difficult to show.
Further, one would have to redifine suicide so loosely to make it fit that the term suicide would become meaningless.

Hard drugs should be illegal. There is plenty of documentation to show the danger it causes to those that are not taking them but are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

No. Your rights do not extend over the right to life of another human being.

Second hand smoke is exceedingly difficult to quantify.
Thus studies on the effect second hand smoke are just as unquantifiable.
There may be statistical analysis available, but that is a long way from proving anything.

No, but it is not for the state to say.
That is the realm of God, his church, and morality.

Outlawing cigarettes will never happen. The government would lose billions of dollars of tax revenue each year. There is not way the greedy and corrupt politicians (I know that is a redundant statement) would never let that much money slip from their fingers.

I don’t care to argue the other points.

But this particular point I disagree with too strongly NOT to comment on. God does not remove the choice to harm our bodies from us so why should we remove it from each other?

I don’t think the use should be legislated but that said, I wish they’d NEVER become available. I smoked for 36 years and quit 2 years ago. If I’d never had access to them I’d never have started the nasty habit and if they were illegal, I’d never had access either. I could have saved a gajillion dollars over the years, not to mention my health. :frowning:

Meant to say nicotine dealers.

On an intellectual level I say no they shouldn’t be illegal.

However, on a purely personal/practical level I wish they were.:stuck_out_tongue: The main justification I would use is that cigarette users routinely fail to follow the rules and regulations that are put in place to protect non-smokers. Almost every day I have to walk to a cloud of smoke just to get inside my school (graduate school). The smokers stand right in front of the doors so the smoke is drawn into the building. Or I have been sitting in class and you can smell cigarette smoke because the smokers are standing in front of the air intake vents. :mad: The University has a 30 ft rule for smokers, but it is not enforced and the wind and snow often drive people close to the buildings. (I always thought living in a cold area would cure people of smoking. Oh and apparently law school actually causes smoking :shrug:). So that is why I wish it was illegal though I know it won’t be.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.