Will Cigarettes Be Made Illegal in the Near Future?

[Stoner4Life]

Will Cigarettes Be Made Illegal in the Near Future?




mentioned a dozen times already but between prohibition revolts and lost taxes no way will it be made illegal, the govt might actually be overthrown if they try.......


oh yeah I can see it now, appx 45 million pissed off well armed smokers having a massive nicotine fit.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

If I could puff in public, I might could kick the cig habit.

 

[RudolfTheRed]

these new electronic cigarettes have flavored cartridges and i can still go online and buy clove cigarettes all i want. there is no ban in the united states against possessing clove cigarettes you just can't buy them here. i looked online and found multiple sites that will ship them right to my house for about as cheap as i could buy them legally in the united states.

the law is a fucking joke and if you still want cloves you can still get them. if and once they ban menthol cigarettes you'll be able to to the same thing. big tobacco companies will just trademark themselves in other countries like Indonesia and produce them there and then they'll ship them right over for any American smart enough to use there internet connection to order menthol cigarettes.

i hope they do ban menthol's so i can order 100 or so cartons to my house and i'll just go around selling them at bars for a high markup.

i used to date a girl that would order her cigarettes from Russia and she actually saved money because she didn't have to deal with the outragous cigarette taxes we have in the United States.

Cigarettes will never be banned. its impossible.

 

[thingshappening]

After volunteering in the cancer ward during college, all I'll say is that I hope they ban it in all public places, nationwide.

It stops becoming "your space" when your smoke literally kills hundreds of thousands of people. Keep it to your car and house if 100 percent guaranteed health problems for mild reflex pleasure seems like a good trade off to you.

 

[!!!]

I hope not. I love tobacco, and even if you hate it, prohibition doesn't work. Every single drug will be legalized and regulated in the future. It's inevitable and kind of obvious.

Meth, heroin, weed, MDMA, 2C-I, all of them will be legal and regulated. Doesn't mean you can go to the local bodega and pick up a hit of meth, but it will be legal for addicts to go into a rehab center and get their fix from a professional who can administer the correct dose of PURE meth. No more deaths from overdose or tainted drugs. No more crimes to support your habit. No more HIV/Hepatitis scare. No more wasting money on jails and crime fighting. And addicts are close to medical staff who can help them ween off. And no more glamour/romanticism in using these drugs.

Back to the topic. Tobacco would be scary to use if illegal because the smell sticks on you. I wonder how much better the nicotine buzz would be though.

 

[teemu shalanie]

I cant wait for them to outlaw tobacco in the USA, , the next cash crop , since weed prices are dropping, I got a room built already.......

I got packs @100$,lol.hhahah
PM me if you gringos want some good Canadian tobacco,lol.
peace TS

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

good Canadian tobacco... grown in Honduras, rolled by a Dominican and delivered by a hoser, ey?. j/k

 

[turbolaser4528]

I hope not. I love tobacco, and even if you hate it, prohibition doesn't work. Every single drug will be legalized and regulated in the future. It's inevitable and kind of obvious.

Meth, heroin, weed, MDMA, 2C-I, all of them will be legal and regulated. Doesn't mean you can go to the local bodega and pick up a hit of meth, but it will be legal for addicts to go into a rehab center and get their fix from a professional who can administer the correct dose of PURE meth. No more deaths from overdose or tainted drugs. No more crimes to support your habit. No more HIV/Hepatitis scare. No more wasting money on jails and crime fighting. And addicts are close to medical staff who can help them ween off. And no more glamour/romanticism in using these drugs.

Back to the topic. Tobacco would be scary to use if illegal because the smell sticks on you. I wonder how much better the nicotine buzz would be though.

Agreed, it is inevitable !!


And the buzz would be exactly 10.7 times better

 

[RudolfTheRed]

After volunteering in the cancer ward during college, all I'll say is that I hope they ban it in all public places, nationwide.

unfortunately in the real world tobacco generates tax dollars so we can enjoy public places like parks, and lobbyist will never let this happen either. not only that but a lot of cigarette taxes go towards public health as well so we have cancer clinics etc. funny how that works ain't it? not sayin its right, im just sayin.

 

[Tela]

unfortunately in the real world tobacco generates tax dollars so we can enjoy public places like parks, and lobbyist will never let this happen either. not only that but a lot of cigarette taxes go towards public health as well so we have cancer clinics etc.

also in the real world:
Cigarette smoking costs the United States more than $193 billion annually(i.e., $97 billion in lost productivity plus $96 billion in health care expenditures).


U.S. consumers spent an estimated $90 billion in 2006 on tobacco products. So how much tax revenue is it? Maybe 20 billion?

So if it costs the country 193 billion but we make 20 billiion in tax revenues, we are only at a net loss of 173 billion dollars a year. Seems like a sweet deal to me. Can you pick up the tab?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

also in the real world:
Cigarette smoking costs the United States more than $193 billion annually(i.e., $97 billion in lost productivity plus $96 billion in health care expenditures).


U.S. consumers spent an estimated $90 billion in 2006 on tobacco products. So how much tax revenue is it? Maybe 20 billion?

So if it costs the country 193 billion but we make 20 billiion in tax revenues, we are only at a net loss of 173 billion dollars a year. Seems like a sweet deal to me. Can you pick up the tab?

Do smokers cost society money?

WASHINGTON — Smoking takes years off your life and adds dollars to the cost of health care. Yet nonsmokers cost society money, too — by living longer.


It's an element of the debate over tobacco that some economists and officials find distasteful.


House members described huge health care costs associated with smoking as they approved landmark legislation last week giving the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco products. No one mentioned the additional costs to society of caring for a nonsmoking population that lives longer.


Supporters of the FDA bill cited figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that smokers cost the country $96 billion a year in direct health care costs, and an additional $97 billion a year in lost productivity.


A White House statement supporting the bill, which awaits action in the Senate, echoed the argument by contending that tobacco use "accounts for over a $100 billion annually in financial costs to the economy."


However, smokers die some 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the CDC, and those premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs.


Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.


"It looks unpleasant or ghoulish to look at the cost savings as well as the cost increases and it's not a good thing that smoking kills people," Viscusi said in an interview. "But if you're going to follow this health-cost train all the way, you have to take into account all the effects, not just the ones you like in terms of getting your bill passed."


Viscusi worked as a litigation expert for the tobacco industry in lawsuits by states but said that his research, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals, has never been funded by industry.


Other researchers have reached similar conclusions.


A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people.


The reason: The thin, healthy people lived much longer.
Willard Manning, a professor of health economics and policy at the University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy Studies, was lead author on a paper published two decades ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found that, taking into account tobacco taxes in effect at the time, smokers were not a financial burden to society.


"We were actually quite surprised by the finding because we were pretty sure that smokers were getting cross-subsidized by everybody else," said Manning, who suspects the findings would be similar today. "But it was only when we put all the pieces together that we found it was pretty much a wash."


Such conclusions are controversial since they assign an economic benefit to premature death. U.S. government agencies shy away from the calculations.


The goal of the U.S. health care system is "prolonging disability-free life," states the 2004 Surgeon General's report on the health consequences of smoking. "Thus any negative economic impacts from gains in longevity with smoking reduction should not be emphasized in public health decisions."


Dr. Terry Pechacek, the CDC associate director for science in the office on smoking and health, said that data seeking to quantify economic benefits of smoking couldn't capture all the benefits associated with longevity, like a grandparent's contribution to a family. Because of such uncertainties the CDC won't put a price tag on savings from smoking.


"The natural train of logic that follows from that is that then anybody that's admitted around age 65 or older that's showing any signs of sickness should be denied treatment," Pechacek said. "That's the cheapest thing to do."

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-fda-tobacco-costs_N.htm

.

 

[DocLeaf]

In the UK the cultivation of tobacco for the production of smoking material is already illegal!

 

[greenmatter]

this is just another hype job that happens before they raise the taxes again. same old story. if they really cared, this stuff would have been outlawed years ago. sounds twisted but sick people fuel the economy just like the taxes. the way the system works they are fine with spending the 173 billion because that goes back into circulation through the health care system. if you really sit and add up all the money that would be gone if smoking was outlawed i believe you would get into the trillions. large hole to have to fill. maybe it's why they don't do it.