Anti-Tobacco Lobby Stretching the Truth?

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by 42PETUNIAS

So you think that it would be fine if the government made heroin, PCP, and all those other hardcore drugs legal,

Why yes, I believe these drugs, under federal regulations like any other drug, would be good.

Heaven knows illegalizing, say, heroine during this drug war has done nothing but fuel the misuse and mismaking of it.

and used corrupt marketing techniques to pressure children into trying and getting addicted to it?

And *this* would be illegal. I never said that was okay -- I said we should have any recreational drug legalized. That would mean government regulation and less chance for things like the spread of aids, overdose, the black market economy that stems from illegal things.

I mean, that's a pretty slippery slope, because it's pretty hard to draw a fine line at how far you can damage your body.

I'm looking something up currently. Hold on please.


Edit : Here, Penn And Teller with their crack research team and award winning show has a lot to say about it:

Disclaimer -- Gracious amounts of questionable language

Pt 1 Pt 2 Pt 3

Prohibition proved what illegalizing drugs does -- and alcohol is far worse a drug than Cigarettes.

[Loki, The Fallen]

Originally Posted by Mesden

And *this* would be illegal. I never said that was okay -- I said we should have any recreational drug legalized. That would mean government regulation and less chance for things like the spread of aids, overdose, the black market economy that stems from illegal things.

And don't forget, with the newly leagalized drugs, we now have Tax Revenue! Could help pay for the treatment of these people.

[POS Industries]

I'm sorry, I wasn't entirely clear, there. I was mostly noting that, since things like heroin, marijuana, etc. are illegal and yet actually have medicinal uses, it should be a no-brainer to illegalize tobacco products, which have no beneficial properties at all ever. I mean, if you want to get into a freedom of choice and it's our bodies and we can do whatever the hell we want, I should note that I'm not going anywhere near it.

But yeah, they can't make tobacco products illegal. I mean, they could but it would devastate the agricultural economies of several states who rely primarily on tobacco as a cash crop.

[Mesden]

I just always considered the government telling us what we can and can't use as a recreational drug was ridiculous. I should be able to shoot up some cheerios if I really feel like it.

"Free" country and all that jazz.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by 42PETUNIAS

So you think that it would be fine if the government made heroin, PCP, and all those other hardcore drugs legal, and used corrupt marketing techniques to pressure children into trying and getting addicted to it? I mean, that's a pretty slippery slope, because it's pretty hard to draw a fine line at how far you can damage your body.

You're right. It is a slippery slope that we travel down when we try to regulate unhealthy activities.

Why, today it may be cigarettes and 'hard' drugs, but what about tomorrow? Why alcohol seems the next logical step... but what after that? Perhaps red meats, with all of their unhealthy fats and cholesterols? Egg yolks after that? Perhaps the whole egg and even chicken next? After all, short of fish, tofu is far healthier than any meat product. Then perhaps we should mandate exercise!

Why sedentary lifestyles and poor eating habits kill more people than cigarettes in the modern world!*

* Please note that the preceding was satire meant to point out the obviously falsity of using the slippery slope in discussion.

[Eltargrim]

To be honest, I've always seen arguments that don't use the lethality of cigarettes as more convincing. For example, banning them because they cause such a huge drain on health services, what with the cancer treatments and the breathing disorders and the heart disease, etc. We're not banning them because they're dangerous, we're banning them because the social cost is too high. Basically the reasoning behind banning other psychoactive substances. But opiates at least have properties of a strong analgesic; nicotine is nothing but a stim, and a pretty pathetic one at that.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Eltargrim

To be honest, I've always seen arguments that don't use the lethality of cigarettes as more convincing. For example, banning them because they cause such a huge drain on health services, what with the cancer treatments and the breathing disorders and the heart disease, etc.

That may be true in Canada, although I always wonder about the logic of that in the states, where private insurance or personal money is used to pay for treatment.

I mean, how does it cause a drain on the system when it's the individuals who are paying for it? (Yes, even in the case of insurance, as insurance companies charge you more if you smoke, to make sure they STILL make a net profit off your ass.)

It just seems... foolish to me.

I mean, granted, we have state sponsored health care in many states as well, but you STILL pay for it (so I doubt they're losing much money on it), and it's only for people under certain tax brackets.

[Fifthfiend]

I mean, how does it cause a drain on the system when it's the individuals who are paying for it?

Medicare and Medicaid, presumably. It can't help that most of the major health issues for smokers don't develop until later age or that smoking is disproportionately prevalent amongst the poor.

[Eltargrim]

Yeah, to be fair, I also have absolutely no idea how that would work. I have very little working knowledge of their health care system, other than that it seems to have a few issues to work out.

In that case, I would think it would be more of a drain on resources than funds; they may be paying for their cancer treatment, but diagnostic equipment doesn't get used as often as you'd think. I've heard (anecdotal) stories of a new nMRI or PET machine being used more for research experiments than actual diagnosis.

The best analogy I can think of is somebody who took a hammer to their chest and thus receiving a flail chest getting treated before someone who received the same injury in a car crash; assuming they both are in the same condition, who would you treat first?

I realize the fallacies in analogies, but I'm not trying to seriously compare it to a trauma vs a self-inflicted injury, just trying to display my thought processes. I'm tired.

[Mirai Gen]

I always believed that our own hypocritical government system, on the question of legalizing substances, should have to ban alcohol and tobacco by their own words. Yet they don't, because they're considered bad habits that have to be legal because just about everyone got used to doing it for, oh, a few hundred years.

I want pot and all the various illegal substances to be completely legal. If only because it's asinine to say that you can't do a slight hallucinogen with no terrible side effects, yet it's perfectly legal to drink a liquid that impairs judgment, is known to be addicting, and causes liver failure.

EDIT: What's funny is I don't even smoke pot, or drink, or smoke, or do anything else.