45% of Americans Support Making Cigarettes Illegal

Press release from the Drug Policy Alliance (www.drugpolicy.org):

A startling Zogby Poll has found that 45% of Americans support making cigarettes illegal in the next five to ten years!!

This Thursday there will be a teleconference with leading drug policy, public health and law enforcement advocates who will discuss the significance of the poll and explain why outlawing cigarettes is not the way to deal with the harms of smoking.

For Immediate Release: For More Info: Tony Newman

October 23, 2006 (646) 335-5384

New Drug Policy Alliance/Zogby Poll Finds 45 Percent Support Making Cigarettes Illegal

Startling Numbers to be Discussed via Teleconference on Thursday, October 26 at 11:30 a.m. EST

A new Zogby Poll commissioned by the Drug Policy Alliance asked a sampling of 1,200 Americans if they would support federal legislation making cigarettes illegal in five to ten years.

The startling results will be released and discussed by Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, and others on a teleconference on Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 11:30 a.m. EST.

What: Teleconference releasing new Zogby Poll by the Drug Policy Alliance. The question asks Americans if they would support a federal law making cigarettes illegal within five to ten years.

When: Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 11:30 a.m. (EST)

Who: Ethan Nadelmann, executive director, Drug Policy Alliance, Norm Stamper, former Police Chief of Seattle and member, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), Allan Rosenfield, dean of the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University

“The number of Americans who support criminalizing cigarette smokers is shocking,” said Nadelmann. “The question is not if cigarette smoking is dangerous and leads to premature death – as, surely, it is and does. The question is how to best address cigarette smoking as a public health problem. Based on history and current policies, we know that prohibition often leads to devastating consequences.”

The Drug Policy Alliance is the nation’s leading organization working to advance drug policies grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights.

The Zogby Poll, a Drug Policy Alliance press release and background material will be available at http://www.drugpolicy.org following the teleconference.

Yah know, if you need some, just say so. Cuz, I got rope.

:wow:

They'd be all for such a move. More corporate welfare.

:thumbsup:

:eyes:

smoking is.

Nevermind that this is possibly the most asinine idea ever.

Since when did we decide to allow the government to decide for us whether or not to indulge in harmful activities?

if i couldn't buy smokes at the gas station, the grocery store, the drugstore, the tobacco shop, the convenience store, or a fucking vending machine, it would ABSOLUTELY cause me to stop.

:thumbsup:

who just quit cold turkey when they passed the Harrison Narcotics Act in 1914? :eyes:

You just don't realise how ridiculous what you're saying IS, do you? Someone would supply the demand for tobacco, legal or not. Same as with morphine, or alcohol in the 1920's.

That's no problema? Very logical. Very thoughtful.

But I do smoke.

but not really, because I would get a hold of some bathtub gin!!!

I got all excited when the Chicago smoking ban went into effect until I found out it doesn't affect bars for another couple of years (at least).

So assinine.

Nothing wrong with going to a bar to see your friends, is there? In fact, there are a few smoke-free bars. If you had followed the thread, you'd notice that I am a smoker and I want it banned. Next time you're ready to post something stupid and pointless, think about it beforehand.

If cigs were illegal, I wouldn't buy them. I am law-abiding.

Why clog up the system and waste money with more useless laws?

Would you be okay with being arrested, jailed, forced into compulsory drug treatment?

That's what prohibition means.

and every single time, i end up buying a pack pretty much on auto-pilot. i seriously LOSE CONTROL of myself and head into the store for a pack. they're everywhere. grocery stores, gas stations, convenience stores, tobbacco shops, vending machines...

if that route was cut off, i wouldn't have the first idea how to get smokes. i don't know any drug dealers.

You close the door, knock three times to the right of the phone, a small window will slide open and someone will whisper "Say the secret WOID!!!"

You say the secret 'woid' and place your order--hand over the dough, they hand over the smokes! Forget about always gettin' your favorite brand, though.....!!!!

Seriously, though, if you want to quit, try the patch or those lozenges...with maybe a little acupuncture, eh?

hypnosis, or tapes, or support groups, or gum, or...

i'm a junkie.

FWIW, I quit cold turkey.

Wasn't easy. It's a mind game.

things vanished from the face of the earth.

They would just go underground, and next thing you know your paying $5 for a single cig. I just don't understand your(and others) fantasy that if made illegal they would just disappear.

Trust me on that.

...it doesn't mean that a huge sweeping law that will effect millions of people and millions of dollars should be put into effect because this person is too weak to quit smoking on his/her own.

Lets be free and take responsibility for our actions.

On the corner. With a gun. Selling packs for $15. Gotta love the black market (and all it's consequences).

that'll work (subject line cut me off)

it being worth someone's while to tool over to NH and buy a shitload of smokes and haul them back. Even if you gave a ten or twenty dollar discount per carton you could make some serious money.

it's time the public and private sector hypocrites give up nicotine addiction as a source of income.

That's a huge subsidy to just write-off. Just asking :shrug:

The simple fact is that the city and federal government makes way too much money off them for a full ban. Some cities even use "sin" taxes to build stadiums, roads, schools, etc.

Not to mention the final straw for America's tobacco farmers.

Please let me know so I know who not to vote for.

It is difficult to believe that after alcohol Prohibition and forty years of the failed war on drugs, anyone still believes prohibitions work, or that they solve more problems than they cause.

But then again, is this not the logical culmination of the anti-smoking movement?

:thumbsup:

The War on Tobacco. Can you see it now? People selling "100 percent, Carolina-grown long-cut" on the street corners? Turf wars between rival tobacco dealers? Otherwise law-abiding citizens resorting to crime to appease their addiction?

Yeah, this is a great idea.

"leading drug policy, public health and law enforcement advocates will ... explain why outlawing cigarettes is not the way to deal with the harms of smoking"

I wonder why outlawing marijuana, coke, heroin, Ecstasy etc is the way to go?

After all, it is the Drug Policy Alliance and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

:D

I just never understood why they don't raise the legal smoking age every few years. Or maybe enforce the laws already on the books to keep teens from buying cigarettes?

No grandfather law either. Kids that could buy cigs can't do it themselves anymore. It hasn't done anything except raise some revenue by fining people who sell to people under 19.

the health concerns generated by smoking cigarettes is the most easily avoidable group out there.

If only people would listen to their lungs that first puff as a kid, instead of trying to be sooo damn "cool" ...

Barring that, why don't anti-tobacco people adopt the plans that Rush Limbaugh ($1000 per "morning-after pill") or some of these Religious Righties (video store can carry porn ... $10K per license per copy of each porno title it carries) and make the stores who sell cigarettes have to buy a license (renewable each year) to sell cigs? You know, $400 per pack ...

But then, of course, you'd have the black market going (like marijuana does) ...

Well, Kentucky might get by since its largest cash crop is POT! Still, this will never happen.

But I'd better go smoke one while I still can ...

Bake

paw through orange peels, eggshells and coffee grounds at 3 AM looking for a discarded butt that's still long enough to smoke?

It's not pretty.

I'm against banning any psychoactive substance, tobacco included.

However, anything that is smoked has to be regulated so that it's not inflicted upon unwilling people in enclosed spaces.

look at how well prohibition worked! I can just see picture mafia types salivating over this possibility! And bootleggers!

Good.

I'll get rich being a bootlegger

People are going to be in more trouble with heart disease and diabetes in the next ten years. Let's outlaw everything that people over-indulge in. Some people do smoke socially, like cigar and pipe smokers. Some people become addicted. Just like with alcohol. This is just stupid. Focus on alleviating the despair that drives people to escape in the first place.

But there is a small part of me that would love to see them try to go for this. It would be funny to see where these people are going to get the tax revenues that tobacco generates.

Of course, nowadays, the holier than thou types that bitch about smoking are often the same people who, like Imus, should own stock in Nicorette, because the only thing they've changed is their method of delivery of their favorite drug, nicotine....gum, water, tablets, patches...the items that are supposed to help people TRANSITION from smoking are instead, the new delivery devices for their drug of choice! Someone's making money--that shit costs more than cigarettes, in some states!

I think the 'secondhand smoke' from smokers isn't as much of a worry as the crap that spews out of cars and trucks, if you look at the big picture...and no one's rushing to fix that problem. The air in NY and LA is ALWAYS disgusting, every time I go to those cities...you can TASTE it. So I have to laugh at people who get all offended by some poor bastard huddled on the corner pulling on a butt, while ignoring that diesel blast of black crap coming straight at them...!

And I don't smoke, anymore, and I've never used those nicotine aids, so I've no vested interest in protecting the smokers, particularly. I just think these threads are a bit humorous, how they crop up like mushrooms after a rain, in great bunches....!!

I know someone will quibble with some of the names, but all in all it's pretty overwhelming. Even for those who died in their 70's, death by cigarette is not a pleasant way to go.

Because prohibition has worked SO WELL for other drugs.

45% of Americans should get "I'm an idiot" tattooed on their foreheads so the rest of us can avoid them.

The percentage of smokers has been gradually dropping for decades now, and there's no reason to assume it won't continue to do so (especially in places where the taxes on cigarettes are astronomical).

it would be fiscally irresponsible to outlaw them. The loss in tax revenue would be devastating to the states, and the cost of enforcement would be devastating to everyone.

....but take them completely away and there goes a shit load of revenue...the anti-smokin' nazi's will have to *cough* up taxes on something else to replace them...riiiight!! :smoke:

Gotta fill up those private prisons. Let's go back to the prohibition age of the 20's while we're at it. Ludicrous.

Can you say war on (some) drugs?

I don't smoke, and I do support some restrictions (not as many as some people do) on where people can smoke; but this would be just as successful (hum!) as Prohibition in 1920s America, or the Drug War in so many places at present.

You can't legally produce food or drink that gradually kills anyone who uses it, as well as people around them. You can't get away with it if you're building cars, or computers, or anything else either. So why not make it a legal requirement that any cigarettes or tobacco products sold in the US be certified to have no health risks?

As an aside, a few words about this poll. For one thing, I seriously doubt that that many people actually want to see a law banning cigarettes. However, the fact that they're willing to consider it is in large part due to the fact that many smokers are noxious about their habit. For every smoker who's polite and clean, and doesn't make others inhale their smoke, there's at least two who don't give a shit, and seem to enjoy choking out others and polluting the air around them. Worst of all the people who get obnoxious when asked to stop, and act like they're the ones who are being put upon because they can't practice their habit in bars or restaurants anymore.

Almost all foods and beverages produced in this country gradually kill the user.

Didn't think so.

of the majority of Americans who are obese? Probably not.

I'd be willing to bet that fried potatoes and soda contribute to at least a half-million deaths a year.

The government allows our foods to be chock-full of hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, irratiated, treated with viruses to kill the bacteria, genetically modified, and now nanotechnology is going to be used.

I say they work on our food supply before the focus on the cigarettes. Everyone eats. Not everyone smokes or is around smokers a significant portion of their time.

Actual food, no matter how bad (or overrated, as the case may be) the actual dangers are, doesn't kill a half a million people a year. Tobacco does. And actually, yes, the chances are that you ARE around smokers most of the time. Your chances of dying from smoking or from secondhand smoke are about twelve times worse than your chances of dying in a car accident with a drunk driver, but I don't think that you'd argue that drunk driving isn't a problem.

TheWraith said "You can't legally produce food or drink that gradually kills anyone who uses it". What about alcohol? What about overly processed foods? What about foods that contain pesticides, herbicides, or growth hormones? In the future, try to avoid such inane generalizations.

Q

Alcohol doesn't kill half a million people a year, tobacco does. Alcohol isn't inherently deadly, tobacco is. And "processed foods" is so pathetic it's not even worth talking about. Same for pesticides and growth hormone. If you seriously can't tell the difference between those things and cigarettes, either you're deliberately blind to reality, or your're making up one hell of a rationalization for smoking.

2800 dead in Iraq and somebody is trying to mind the other guys business.
No wonder nothing gets done.

:wtf:

When did it become ok for the government to decide what I do with my body-- be it smoke tabacco or pot?

Should be "Land of sticking my nose in other peoples' business, while ignoring real serious issues, while allowing my personal freedoms too be used as a wedge issue." How brave is that?

Folks, if you thought prohibition on Alcohol (which can be used without addicting the drinker) was impossible, and prohibition on Marijuana (which isn't physically addicting) was impossible, try imposing prohibition on a drug that not only is nearly impossible to break addiction from but addicts you pretty much as soon as you've conditioned your body to consume it--and that addicts almost everyone who uses it. This drug is worse than Smack.

There are smokers here. There are ex-smokers here. Try to think back to when you started smoking. I remember the kids smoking on the goat path at school--pretty much as soon as they were able to inhale without coughing, they craved cigarettes. And these things taste fucking nasty when you start, so it's not like they're all "oh these are super tasting, I MUST have this wonderful flavor." No, the nicotine grabs your ass early and keeps it.

http://groups.msn.com/FreedomFromTobaccoQuitSmokingNow/addiction.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=125421&LastModified=4675585153205861646 is a kinda decent article...they tracked a group of kids who started smoking, and it seems that it only takes a few weeks to become hooked on cigarettes and about six months to become firmly addicted.

As much as we'd like to, there's no way to eliminate this product through legislation. Increase taxes and people will stop buying other luxuries--and, in some cases, minor necessities--so they can afford cigarettes. (Some people will quit smoking. Many won't.) Put restrictions on where they can be smoked, and people will figure out ways around these restrictions. Ban them, and the black market will be awash in tobacco products.

Prohibition didn't work on alcohol. It hasn't worked on cannabis, or cocaine, or heroin. ALL it does is create a black market, put money in the pockets of organised crime syndicates with the incentive to supply that black market, and make criminals out of a class of citizens who are otherwise harming no-one but themselves.

:D

Profits on loan from God. :puke:

Because tobacco makes people work harder and longer at boring jobs. I'd love to see somebody correlate the rise in tobacco usage with the rise in the assembly line. By the time tobacco kills a worker, he or she is past their prime anyways and tobacco saves on pension costs.

Not that I support making tobacco illegal. It's just funny that it remained legal when harmful plants like marijuana were outlawed. I don't use either and don't advocate using them, I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy. Why does high class cocaine carry less of a penalty than low class crack?

...Ban the manufacture and sales of all cigarettes and ban the growing of tobacco for retail sales.If some desparate fool wants to grow their own,dandy-but illicit sales would be banned.A year from now the country would be 99% smoke free. And yes-I am a smoker...

I really want some, if it's going to put me in a fantasy world like yours. All those folks growing their own would spill over to everyone else. Not to mention it would make smoking seem just that much cooler to kids.

n/t

Then, let's outlaw booze and beer. And finally, let's get rid of that awful Second Amendment. And then we'll talk about American 'freedom'!

"Cigarette Tax".

It'll never happen.

... the pharmaceutical companies are a very powerful lobby. The windfall profits from sale of nicotine patches might have them salivating like Niagara.

With all the influence Philip Morris and friends have bought in Washington, I don't see how a cigarette ban could possibly be enacted.

they'd do the same with Marijuana.

No politician is going to risk re-election by getting behind a campaign to legalize reefer.

A massive crime wave would ensue. Organized crime would never be richer should cigarettes be outlawed.

Prohibition never works!

if this is how so many people feel about tobacco these days...

peer pressure....I was weak in those days.

And one of the reasons I quit smoking was because of peer pressure...

Older and wiser and healthier....



Tikki

They aren't being crowded fast enough with pot smokers. Also is this going to apply to all forms of tobacco or just cigarettes. Because frankly I enjoy my occasional cigar.

More sensible, in my mind, however, is to end the drug war-- let consenting adults make up their own minds across the board, but if they want to smoke anything in public, they have to do it outside.

...but want to ban guns (or just handguns)?

Do you think that might be a little self-contradictory considering that in this country 400,000 (conservatively) die from tobacco every year (the same as three full 747s crashing w/o survivors every day) including about 5000 verified from 2nd hand smoke versus no more than 5000 gun-related deaths (including self defense, accident and suicide)?

But I don't want to be around people lighting up cigarettes or firing off guns inside, say, restaurants.

I have to drive a long way to get there.

but rather, where.

Smokers cannot. They can't because before they were old enough to know better, they gave away that freedom to a fortune 500 corportation who does not give a shit about them as long as they keep buying their product. They are slave who are paying for the right to die from their enslavement. Government encroachment--what horseshit!

It will only bring out a criminal element that will sell bootleg tobacco. Why don't these people learn from previous mistakes?

let's expand the war to another front!

:eyes:

:crazy: Criminalizing cigarette smokers is FUCKING INSANE!!!! :crazy:

:crazy: ... and I don't smoke cigarettes! :crazy:

For $65 a carton I could make a nice profit with a RumCig Runner on the lakes.

It'll create more jobs!:sarcasm:

17% of our country is in poverty while only 10% of Canada's population is impoverished. But in the USA more of those people in poverty work their butts off just to stay in poverty, while in Canada having a job actually means something! the only people who would lose a job because of a tobacco tax would be a cigarette advertiser or the politician who wants smoking to be illegal!

and I think that is a bad idea.

this includes liberals and conservatives who saw someone they loved very much suffer because of lung cancer or struggle through the last years of life with no teeth. IMO the rest are probably Mormons or former smokers who had a hell of a time quiting!

Making smoking illegal goes against the basic principles of liberalism, and the few neocons who firmly believe smoking should be illegal are those who view it as a depraved crime against God.

Just think

1. No tobacco, no Sir Walter Raleigh
2. No Sir Walter Raleigh, no English colonies.
3. No English colonies, no America.

This bit goes through and this nation divests itself of it's roots and WILL be adrift.

A pity the experiment in freedom is over.

(And before the white man arrived this plant was sacred)

Fucking idiots are everywhere. even in this thread.

:eyes:

prohibition brings this:



RL

Lock him up? Fine him such that he can't feed himself or his family? Execute him?

What would the penalty be? I can't think of one that would function effectively as a deterrent and also fit the scope of the "crime".

Prohibition is ALWAYS wrong.

Anticipating the likely responses, yes, even with heroin, crack/cocaine, and methamphetamine.

That worked great for drugs. I mean I would have to make 2 phone calls to find any illegal substance.

Prohibition is always a bad idea.

If I hadn't had to sit through stats I would really be concerned about this. In reality it is a bullshit push poll or some other shell game.

"would you make cigarettes illegal?, if i gave you 1000 bucks and it cured all cancer..

Please

yeah, right.

cigarettes be against the law?

I need the government to save me from doing bad things!!!

have fun smoking, but please stop complaining about consequences. :grr: If anyone needs to pay the resulting medical bill, smokers do! That is why we have a cigarette tax, because treatment for cancer and heart disease ain't cheap..

I know exactly what you mean..just think of all the people with juvenile diabetes who have to pay to inject themselves with insulin several times a day just to eat, or those who must live daily with Parkensan's...although none of those people did it to themselves!

Why single out smokers? Why not tax hfcs, trans fats, carcinogens in shampoos, etc.?

the larger our national debt becomes, the more each of us will pay in taxes. I don't believe we should single out anyone, just that anyone who can pay will ultimately pay. obviously people like cigarettes, but how much money will a single person waste for those cigarettes? At least most of that money can ultimately be used for some kind of public service.

if someone has the money to waste on cigarettes, alcohol, or marijuana..then that person has the money needed to help support a national healthcare system..and thus helping others who aren't given such a nice choice!

that are unhealthful are heavily taxed, and others aren't.

Maybe people would start eating fresh fruit if french fries were five bucks a bag--ever think of that?

for one person those french fries are unhealthy, for a diabetic with really low blood-sugar it could be a lifesaver! But for both of these people, cigarettes only make their health worse.

Actually one can claim that the free market is our ultimate tax. supply and demand eventually decides the true value of product, or what a person is willing to pay for it. Please remember that I believe cigarettes should be legal, but regulated by the FDA. And that doesn't mean crystal meth or opium should be legalized, thus we need a government that goes after illegal drugs that people will never recover from.

you asked a good question...why some unhealthy products are taxed and others are not? IMO this will happen eventually, with a little more time and a few more trillions onto the national debt. Too many people now laugh whenever I bring up deficit spending, but eventually we all will pay the price. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

That doesn't mean I like taxes...in a perfect world people could eat, smoke, drink, and life would always get better. Unfortunately that isn't the world we live in today.

I've watched people struggling with it.

I disagree with you about illegal drugs--decriminalization is the only strategy known to help addicts. Interdiction keeps the mafia in business.

that doesn't mean they should be illegally mixed with crystal meth and pushed on the streets!

My doctor has never told me to beware of any types of food that result in a chemical dependency or addiction, he has warned me that I don't eat enough for someone my height. I have no problem with people starting a healthy diet, or people who count every carb of what they eat.

Ironically most of the people I know who are overweight eat far less than I do! metabolism varies from person to person, but cigarettes are bad for all of us. The longer we stay in Iraq, the longer we allow our deficits grow..the sooner the cost of living will increase for everyone. So basically...what's your point? end all taxes, raise all taxes, let's bring back social darwinism, make smoking illegal, or start a national sales tax?

I think that various interest groups are trying to brew up a War on Tobacco that will be just as ineffective yet damaging to democracy as the War on Drugs.

I think the government should intervene in people's health in positive rather than negative ways. It should be promoting health instead of trying to prohibit unhealthy behaviors.

The demonization of smokers on DU just shows that, sadly, the Democrats are not going to break pattern--we have always been suckered into every "War On" that the right invents.

I watched someone I loved and admired as a child just die in misery from the stuff. let me repeat my point...smoking should be legal, it should be taxed, and it should be regulated..just like anything else in life! life isn't free, and neither is universal healthcare.

Now what is the point you're trying to make? should cigarettes be taxless, should the government just stop funding Medicare..if that is your point, then post it..debate over. But please don't start a debate, and then just leave me in the dark! :shrug:

who increasingly do most of the smoking.

I'm against taxes that disproportionately affect the poor. How about funding healthcare out of pharmaceutical industry profits?

Obesity is a major contributing factor to Type 2 Diabetes. If anyone needs to pay the resulting medical bill, damn twinkie eaters do!

How far are we going to go with this?

sorry...but its the type 1 diabetics who have to stick a needle in themselves just to eat! and each shot too often cost more than the goddamn meal.

who cares? why should any of us pay taxes, why should any disease have a cure, why should a rich person pay a higher tax rate than a poor person, why should a smoker pay anything to ruin his or her health, and why should we get anything in return for the taxes we pay?

and by the way..if diabetics do it to themselves, then why does my doctor tell me that weight loss doesn't cure or prevent diabetis...it only makes the bloodsugar for a type 2 a little easier to manage?

Lung cancer is one thing, but the 400,000 deaths figure we are hearing lately are "smoking related" deaths. That means anytime a smoker dies of any illness, be it a heart attack, stroke, pneumonia, what have you, smoking is considered a contributing factor. It's possible that quitting smoking or never smoking at all may only make certain conditions "easier to manage", as with the weight and Type 2 diabetes. Some smokers live to be a hundred with no problems.

Look, smokers already pay a fortune in taxes. Every pack is 80% tax, between federal, state, and local surcharges. If everyone quit smoking tomorrow, there would be a substantial loss of revenue to a lot of coffers and that cost would have to be shifted to something else. A Twinkie tax would almost be a certainty.

I'm a Democrat because of things like the cigarette tax. I hope we can have a universal healthcare system someday, and this is only one way to pay for it.

With the cigarette tax, the smokers would pay more than enough to cover any problems caused by smoking. Everytime a smoker pays for a pack...they are helping to cover the uninsured, to reduce the deficit, and to help pay for the problems caused by smoking.

If I didn't care, I would support no tax on tobacco..make it as cheap as possible. I would oppose Kennedy-Kassebaum, and I would argue that Social Security is only bad for the economy. Universal healthcare, just let those with medical problems die. Why should any of us pay for this war in Iraq..whether we support it or not?

No twinkie tax...don't hold your breath, because this national debt has to be paid back eventually!

Your post is hovering on the border of alert-able flamebait. I don't know where you are getting all these other things from what I posted. I think you are extrapolating wildly.

As for the cigarette tax, I don't oppose it at all. I'm merely pointing out that if it acheives one of its ultimate goals, that is people quitting smoking, then the revenue will have to come from somewhere else. Hell, I support legalizing, regulating, and taxing marijuana, largely for the reasons you state. I believe the money saved by no longer criminalizing it, combined with the taxes collected, could go toward providing universal health care.

:evilfrown: :evilgrin:

It's still a very politically powerful business and there are too many fat cats in Washington who smoke.

I hate cigarettes, but I don't think a ban would work. When I smoked, there wasn't much that could keep me away from them!!!!

I despise cigarettes, but banning them is not the answer. Banning unwilling exposure where applicable, yes.

:rofl:

:rofl:

Got some elections to win.

because it worked so well the first time...

let's ban automobiles because they cause pollution and kill people

let's ban french fries, hamburgers and other fatty foods

let's ban everything and protect the easily offended and hypochrondriates

free habitate bubbles for everyone

is better than the 55% who believe in making them legally...


gosh, have they learned nothing at all from pohibition.

Most Americans are dumbasses.

That doesn't mean we should listen to them.

Whatever. I'm not a smoker but to make cigarettes illegal? STUPID! It will backfire like prohibition and the drug war.

and I can't stand the smell of cigarette smoke, but this is just fucking wrong!

All it will do is create another huge black market. Look folks i have been in places where smoking was banned. Places like jails, and mental facilities. Did the smoking ban stop anyone from smoking? No as a matter of fact not. All that happened was people were paying $5 for a single cig, that or beating the shit out of any one who had some cigs

The only thing i saw was increased violence, increased risk to health (due to the way they broke down and sold "roll ups" which could contain anything as a filler)and a nice thriving black market. It so simple. If you can't stop smoking in a maximum security prison facility, how the hell are you going to stop it in an open society.

Dumbest fucking idea ever!

Thanks, I needed that.

to be illegal is to keep the price so high for the black marketters such as the CIA. Remember Hasefuss.

Message to those people: don't like smoking? Don't smoke! What someone does with their lives should be their business. Education on everything definitley but to outlaw it? I don't think so. That would be even more people in jail for nothing. Aren't our prison's already over crowded?

But that is a shor-sighted approach.

I favor keeping a tax on them, not outlawing them. People learned nothing from the Drug War or Prohibition. I guess bad habits can't be broken.

If you want to commit suicide slowly by smoking cigarettes, be my guest, but don't bitch about high taxes on it and expect me to lend a sympathetic ear for your habit. If you want to burden the health care system, something everybody uses, then you should have to pay proportional to the burden you place on the system.

But I don't mind people smoking in their own homes and places outside that aren't enclosed.

It is enough for me that smoking is banned in public places. That is as it should be. It is a health issue and no one should be exposed to second hand smoke.

We've been down that path before with alcohol and we are still on that path with marijuana. Either of those substances can be damaging if used immoderately. Nevertheless, law enforcement should be out preventing burglaries and not chasing down smokers.

Oh my god I hope this becomes a reality! It would be soooooo incredibly easy to beat the system and while making shitloads of cash. PROHIBITION 2 BABY! HERE I COME!!!

All aboard the easy money train WOO WOO!!!

I'll be curious to see the methodology here.

Sounds to me more like this groups hired Zogby to go out get them a result- and he obliged.

The ricer the Mafia is.