Population control with smoking?

[DrMA]

According to some commentators, we are in imminent danger from an overpopulation crisis.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29788754

So, how about this proposal: instead of draconian, nanny-state reproductive policy (see China) eliminate all smoking restrictions. If smoking is as deadly as claimed, this should work quite well not only in keeping population numbers under control, but also in rebalancing the age distribution towards a younger average (since smoking is thought to cause disease and death in older people).

Wouldn't it be awesome? Think of the slogans:
Save the world - ban tobacco control!
Smoking saves the planet!

[of course, even under this ridiculous scenario, vaping would end up being banned, because it's too healthy ]

 

[dragonpuff]

According to some commentators, we are in imminent danger from an overpopulation crisis.
BBC News - Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'

So, how about this proposal: instead of draconian, nanny-state reproductive policy (see China) eliminate all smoking restrictions. If smoking is as deadly as claimed, this should work quite well not only in keeping population numbers under control, but also in rebalancing the age distribution towards a younger average (since smoking is thought to cause disease and death in older people).

Wouldn't it be awesome? Think of the slogans:
Save the world - ban tobacco control!
Smoking saves the planet!

[of course, even under this ridiculous scenario, vaping would end up being banned, because it's too healthy ]

It's funny you bring this up, because I was kind of thinking along the same lines - except, I was figuring that was kind of what they are already doing, but in a totally different way:

The WHO just encouraged several nations to: (a) tax the crap out of cigarette smokers, and (b) "consider restricting or banning" all smoking alternatives.

So if most of these nations oblige, what would the end result of this be? Overall, a lower population. In the meantime, they can make some money off the deal through the taxes, and as long as smoking is banned in public buildings and whatnot, smokers will continue to be demonized and ostracized, thus justifying the higher taxes. It's a win win for everyone (except for those of us who don't run the world).

Sound about right?

 

[Harlen]

They have a better way it's cald war.

 

[DrMA]

It's funny you bring this up, because I was kind of thinking along the same lines - except, I was figuring that was kind of what they are already doing, but in a totally different way:

The WHO just encouraged several nations to: (a) tax the crap out of cigarette smokers, and (b) "consider restricting or banning" all smoking alternatives.

So if most of these nations oblige, what would the end result of this be? Overall, a lower population. In the meantime, they can make some money off the deal through the taxes, and as long as smoking is banned in public buildings and whatnot, smokers will continue to be demonized and ostracized, thus justifying the higher taxes. It's a win win for everyone (except for those of us who don't run the world).

Sound about right?

In my scenario that wouldn't be sufficient to accomplish meaningful change. It looks like current tobacco control methods have been engineered and optimized to maintain a roughly 15-20% smoking rate (on average) in most populations. I'm not sure how exactly the ANTZ terrorist network managed to tweak their social engineering so precisely to equilibrate smoking rates and population growth and obtain this sustainable, long-term trend...

For the thought experiment proposed in the OP I was imagining large-scale smoking, like the 60's. Don't forget that current medical literature seems to suggest 2nd, 3rd and other "handed" smoke would also help enhance the effect.

They have a better way it's cald war.

According to the article linked in the OP, a global war equivalent to both World Wars combined wouldn't make much of a difference.

 

[Kent C]

According to some commentators, we are in imminent danger from an overpopulation crisis.
BBC News - Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'

So, how about this proposal: instead of draconian, nanny-state reproductive policy (see China) eliminate all smoking restrictions. If smoking is as deadly as claimed, this should work quite well not only in keeping population numbers under control, but also in rebalancing the age distribution towards a younger average (since smoking is thought to cause disease and death in older people).

Wouldn't it be awesome? Think of the slogans:
Save the world - ban tobacco control!
Smoking saves the planet!

[of course, even under this ridiculous scenario, vaping would end up being banned, because it's too healthy ]

Too bad the major premise - overpopulation - is false. Almost all the 'predictions' of the zero pop group were wrong and proven wrong.

 

[Uma]

It's funny you bring this up, because I was kind of thinking along the same lines - except, I was figuring that was kind of what they are already doing, but in a totally different way:

The WHO just encouraged several nations to: (a) tax the crap out of cigarette smokers, and (b) "consider restricting or banning" all

Sound about right?

Interesting coincidences abound as we dive into the world of google.
Black plaque is buried in the papers, behind Isis, Ebola, illegals, etc. It
Pipe tobacco was one of the main treatments for avoiding the Black Plague. FORCES International - Archive
the WHO triples the price of smokes globally so nobody can afford to smoke.
Massachusetts wants to ban all tobacco products. MA was the first colony to establish slavery after the Black Plague.

Ok, I'll stop here, but my wheels are spinning like mad. Are yours?

 

[Kent C]

Interesting coincidences abound as we dive into the world of google.
Black plaque is buried in the papers, behind Isis, Ebola, illegals, etc. It
Pipe tobacco was one of the main treatments for avoiding the Black Plague. FORCES International - Archive
the WHO triples the price of smokes globally so nobody can afford to smoke.
Massachusetts wants to ban all tobacco products. MA was the first colony to establish slavery after the Black Plague.

Ok, I'll stop here, but my wheels are spinning like mad. Are yours?

And an English colony at that - as were the others. We didn't create slavery, we inherited it. And ended it here too.

 

[Nate760]

And an English colony at that - as were the others. We didn't create slavery, we inherited it. And ended it here too.

Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence contained a section explicitly condemning the King and Parliament for instituting an economic model in the American colonies that made the slave trade, and slave labor, necessary components of our self-sufficiency. If it hadn't been edited out by the oversight committee, our national history with regard to slavery would likely look a lot different, and in a good way.

 

[Kent C]

Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence contained a section explicitly condemning the King and Parliament for instituting an economic model in the American colonies that made the slave trade, and slave labor, necessary components of our self-sufficiency. If it hadn't been edited out by the oversight committee, our national history with regard to slavery would likely look a lot different, and in a good way.

Well... there would have never been a 'union' that included Georgia and the Carolinas. That may have been good or bad - hard to tell. Most of Virginia - including Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Mason, Randolph, Marshall, Lees, Henry and many others would have written it out at that time. Madison's attempt to stop slave immigration also failed on the same account.

Tobacco wasn't the crop that needed hands (of course slaves were used there as well) as much as Cotton and the environment/fields/weather of Georgia and the Carolinas were much more harsh and the tasks harsher yet. The invention of the cotton gin while alleviating some tasks actually exacerbated the need for slaves as production grew as a result of the invention.

 

[Nate760]

Well... there would have never been a 'union' that included Georgia and the Carolinas.

If I had a nickel for every time South Carolina threatened to secede from the union (not counting the time they actually did secede), I'd have the equivalent of $8.5 billion Confederate dollars.

 

[DC2]

South Carolina is beautiful, and a wonderful state to visit... for a few months of the year.

 

[Kent C]

South Carolina is beautiful, and a wonderful state to visit... for a few months of the year.

If they were able to secede from the 'Union', I'd move there. (or any other state, for that matter )

 

[TyPie]

Hmmmmm, population control through smoking.
Pretty gruesome thread we got going here, no?

 

[stevegmu]

I think obesity will kill more per year than smoking and at younger ages and a higher percentage of the population in the US is obese than smokes. How can we tie obesity and vaping together for a really good conspiracy?...

 

[Nate760]

I think obesity will kill more per year than smoking and at younger ages and a higher percentage of the population in the US is obese than smokes. How can we tie obesity and vaping together for a really good conspiracy?...

Modern humans have been around for, give or take, around 100,000 years. For the first 99,900 years or so, we had infant mortality rates that averaged over 70%, and outbreaks of infectious disease that routinely killed a quarter to a third of the world's population at a time. That so many people are surviving long enough to eat and smoke themselves to death is, when you get right down to it, a testament to how much progress we've made in a fairly short period of time.

 

[stevegmu]

I'd rather die young than be morbidly obese or die a slow painful death from a smoking related illness...