Tobacco sales should be banned throughout U.S.

Tobacco sales should be banned throughout U.S. In regards to the June 1 article, "Airport smokers snort at proposed ban," there are many reasons the sale of tobacco should be banned in the United States, ...

[Bryan]

What about car, truck, and factory pollution? They produce more harmful smoke then cigarettes do. Yet idiots like Don and others are too stupid and naive to see that.

And before anyone says anything, I don't smoke anymore. I will be smoke free a year next month.

[DavidM]

I would hope that they would do this. Create a back market, put people in jail for dealing in tobacco. No more big taxes on tobacco. IF its so bad for people to use these products BAN IT. Now watch the anti smokers come out :)

[karensflowers]

Alcohol should also be banned. I would suspect that just as many people are maimed or killed by this drug as well; alcohol ruins families as well.

[Reader]

Bryan wrote:

What about car, truck, and factory pollution? They produce more harmful smoke then cigarettes do. Yet idiots like Don and others are too stupid and naive to see that.
And before anyone says anything, I don't smoke anymore. I will be smoke free a year next month.

Agree 100%, been smoke free for over two years and do not feel one ounce better.

[First thought]

Lets ban everything. Let's just have one national rule. Go to your home, close all windows and doors. Stay there. You people have no idea what your doing to this country, but you will pay the price.

[Lynn Resinger]

In the 1920s, the prohbitionists felt the toward alcohol as Mr. Knapp does tobacco. The result was the 18th Amendment to the Constitution.

The entire Prohibition era was one of the most colorful, violent and crime-ridden times in American history as Americans rebelled, as they always will, against the tyranny of those who self-appoint themselves as our moral watchdogs and use the government to act as a parent does toward a miscreant child.

The 21st Amendment, ratified in December 1933, ended Prohibition and now protects us all from the actions and reactions of those such as the self-righteous Mr. Knapp who believe that their rights supersede those of the rest of us and, as a result, have the entitlement to force, through government control, each and every one of us to become a reflection of their "perfect" image.

[FreeCitizen]

Don, every fact you noted about tobacco is valid (with the exception of your assertion that it should be banned). However, I would like to challenge you to provide one example of when any such substance being banned has actually prevented people from getting and/or using it. I do not question your intention to improve society. I do question your methods. If a society cannot be convinced to give up a non-criminal habit willingly, making laws to force them to do so does not improve society. It only creates conflict and resentment of the fact that government has one more thing about our lives that they control. It is human nature to have resentment about being controlled, even if it is "for our own good". I have no problem with public campaigns discouraging smoking, especially for young people. It should not however be paid for with public money. When society is truly ready for smoking to become nonexistent, it will happen on its own. The very government you would have create this legislation is itself not ready to eliminate tobacco. It is just as addicted to the revenue generated from it as most smokers are addicted to nicotine. If you wish to be part of the "anti-tobacco movement", by all means, do so. Even though I am a smoker, I would have to admit that if done properly this can be a very noble cause. Using a nanny-state mentality to accomplish these goals will never help you gain any ground. Even if the legislation were passed to ban tobacco, all that would do is create an even higher profit margin for the product you wish to eliminate. It would also eliminate all funding to support your cause because you can't tax an illegal product.

[candid]

Tobacco will most likely always be with us. Tax it,teach people about it's dangers,keep some areas that are smoke free,tax it some more but don't ban it. That would be stupid just as the ban on booze was.

[Ryko]

Living is dangerous for your health, think about it. You can stay away from tobacco, alcohol, trans fats, whatever a politician tells you is dangerous but you end up in the same place as the rest of us who pay the "sin" taxes. Get down off of your soapbox and live a little.

[Jrszabo]

First thought wrote:

Lets ban everything. Let's just have one national rule. Go to your home, close all windows and doors. Stay there. You people have no idea what your doing to this country, but you will pay the price.

Are you absolutely stupid or what?

[Ryko]

Jrszabo wrote:

<quoted text>Are you absolutely stupid or what?

No, I think he has a good point. Why should our "nanny" government decide what is good/bad for us? Why is their opinion any better than ours? If you don't like smoking, don't do it. If you don't like alcohol, don't drink it. Special interest groups pushing their self-serving agendas are stripping us of our rights little by little.

[runamok]

About four years ago, a state legislator in North Dakota introduced a bill that would prohibit the sale and use of tobacco in that state. And who do you suppose sent representatives to Bismark to fight against it?

The American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society among others. Reasons stated?

That the loss of tax revenue (that they get a substantial portion of) would hinder their ability to implement tobacco-control programs!

Now it seems to me that total prohibition of tobacco is THE ULTIMATE tobacco-control program.

These supposedly "anti-smoking" organizations depend heavily on brisk cigarette sales and have created a billion dollar gravy-train that has absolutely NOTHING to do with "Public Health" but has everything to do with cushy jobs, vacation homes, perks and pensions...all funded by the new sub-humans....SMOKERS.

All of you fans of total tobacco prohibition are in for quite a surprise when you find out who you'll be fighting against in that battle.

[Jay]

Sheesh. The government simply does not have the authority to ban tobacco. It did not have the authority to ban the sale of alcohol and needed the 18th amendment to gain that power.

We'd be a lot better off if nobody smoked because I have to pay for the healthcare of idiots who get cancer though their own bad choices.

[Taxthemgood]

candid wrote:

Tobacco will most likely always be with us. Tax it,teach people about it's dangers,keep some areas that are smoke free,tax it some more but don't ban it. That would be stupid just as the ban on booze was.

I fully agree, tax the heck out of them... Charge them to use smoke free areas. Use some of this money to pay for the govt sponsored health care they will need when they get cancer or heart disease.

[Rus]

The tobacco boo-hooing saga goes on and on and on and on...

[indynittany]

Taxthemgood wrote:

<quoted text>
I fully agree, tax the heck out of them... Charge them to use smoke free areas. Use some of this money to pay for the govt sponsored health care they will need when they get cancer or heart disease.

You had better hope that you don't have any bad habits. They'll be coming after you soon enough!

[Taxthemgood]

So you agree that smoking is a bad habit. Glad to hear it.

[Taxthemgood]

indynittany wrote:

<quoted text>
You had better hope that you don't have any bad habits. They'll be coming after you soon enough!

So you agree that smoking is a bad habit. Glad to hear it.

[runamok]

For reasons I stated earlier (read: MONEY), gov't will never totally prohibit tobacco.

What I suspect is going to happen however, is that the FDA will be given the power to regulate it. The FDA will then begin the process of reducing and then eliminating the nicotine. This will result in a couple of unintended, but predictable consequences:

With less (or no) nicotine in the cigarettes, smokers will ingest MORE of the supposedly deadly toxins (of which nicotine is not one of) as they smoke more and more in an effort to get what they originally started smoking for in the first place....the nicotine. When sales of tobacco start rising, the anti-tobacco industry will demand more taxes on the smokes (of which they get a cut) to quell this "disturbing trend".

Big Pharma (another major player in the tobacco-control game) will be selling THEIR nicotine right next to the nicotine-free cigarettes and since ingestion of nicotine doesn't seem to be a moral problem (unless you smoke to get it), it will certainly become available to the kiddies (they always find a way) and now we have a whole new generation of nicotine lovers with Big Pharma as the peddlers. And what would go better than a nicotine-free cigarette after a couple hits of "socially-acceptable " nicotine.

Anti-tobacco will again demand more taxes on the smokes (of which they get a cut) to quell this "disturbing trend". "For the children" of course.

[candid]

One thing to keep in mind is that in todays world, smoking and smokers are thought to be among the bckward and slow to learn.When you smoke you are stigmatized as such.