Smokeless attacked; e-cigs next?

[dc2k08]

if your .gov feels it need more revenue, they'll just increase taxes elsewhere or invent a new tax (on your piss) thatsall..sorry if i was too crude.

[e-pipeman]

Crude can be great - just didn't get your point (too brief for me)

[dazzer1975]

I have no problem with this. I would like to see tobacco banned completely, since it would be easier for me to stay off it.

Absolutely, I have wished that in the u.k. they would just outright ban it.

The trouble then though, is that they would lose billions from the taxation hence they don't... outright hypocrites.

[edisme518123]

I say remove the restrictions and let natural selection do the work.

Seriously though, I'm damn tired of other people telling me what I can and can't do with myself. (Without harming others of course).

[Schroedinger's cat]

I have no problem with this. I would like to see tobacco banned completely, since it would be easier for me to stay off it.

Well, then alcohol should be banned so as not to tempt alcoholics, and gambling as well. Why not ban all forms of candy and fast food, too? In fact, this would be a slippery slope with no end in sight, with the potential to ban just about everything, the e-cigarettes being among the first....

Personally, just as the previous poster, I would rather that people stopped telling me what to do or not, as long as I only harm myself. I am really tired of this health fascism attitude.

I am pretty healthy, and my only "violation" is smoking (now substantially reduced thank to the e-cigarettes). However, if I had to be forced to live in a world where only healthy things were allowed, I'd be terribly unhappy -and so would most people, I believe.

[dazzer1975]

The point is that while lobby groups and governments persecute smokers, where we can smoke, who with, when etc they are marginalising a legal to buy and use product.

The fact of the matter is they won't ban it until smokers are so few in number that tax revenue wont be affected.

At the moment while it is still legally available to buy and use, yet is heavily restricted where it can be used (there are even some outdoor spaces where smoking can not occur) then they are showing themselves to be the hypocrites that they are.

If they really wanted to take a principled stand on tobacco smoking as a result of its long proven disastrous effects on health then they would just ban the substance outright.

The fact that they don't should be pissing you off too as obviously the social castigation of smokers is derived as a result of a fear of losing tax revenue and the arguments they use to justify the almost criminalisation of smokers are false and meaningless.

I would rather they did things motivated by principles and follow it out to the logical conclusion than spout a load of tripe about health but put tax revenue first.

Politics should be about beliefs and convictions, not wishy washy self serving crap. Just ban it if that's what they want.

[Bertrand]

Well, then alcohol should be banned so as not to tempt alcoholics, and gambling as well. Why not ban all forms of candy and fast food, too? In fact, this would be a slippery slope with no end in sight, with the potential to ban just about everything, the e-cigarettes being among the first....

hehe. Was speaking purely selfishly. Better than recent actual encroachments on free speech and habeas corpus, though. Probably people would get more upset if you took away their McDonalds.

[e-pipeman]

If they really wanted to take a principled stand on tobacco smoking as a result of its long proven disastrous effects on health then they would just ban the substance outright.

I couldn't agree with you more.

[Schroedinger's cat]

hehe. Was speaking purely selfishly. Better than recent actual encroachments on free speech and habeas corpus, though. Probably people would get more upset if you took away their McDonalds.

I agree with you. There have been some worse things going on, using the excuse of national security. I sure hope we'll see the end of that with the next administration.

[Schroedinger's cat]

Several years ago in Italy they had a strike of the people who put the little "state monopoly" stamp on the cigarette packs (you can't sell cigarettes legally wihtout them). There was a shortage of cigarettes for a few days, and some smokers were getting really antsy. However, a special interruption in the strike was organized to prepare shipments to prisons and psychiatric hospitals, as the situation in those two types of institution was getting really really tense....

Beyond the lost revenue aspect, banning things really is not a good solution for something so widespread (see prohibitionism), even if it is done to show principle and coherence. On the other hand, the kind of war of attrition waged against smokers (which infuriates me) may end up having a very similar impact, without all the bad side effects of making tobacco outright illegal. Maybe there is method in this strategy....