Should cigarettes be banned?

https://i.ibb.co/zF7vQWp/public-drum...efault-800.png


Should cigarettes be banned altogether?

There is no positive results from smoking, it harms the individual as well as others around them, known as passive smoking, or second-hand smoking.
It was merely only slightly over a decade ago (July 2007) that smoking in a public places was made illegal, prior to July 2007, you were allowed to smoke in restaurants, and other various public places.

Then in 2015 it became illegal to smoke in a vehicle where children under the age of 18 were present.
It is proven that second-hand smoking can and does cause lung cancer and other such diseases associated with smoking.

Most would agree that it's not fair that non-smokers are being diagnosed and in some cases are dying from the effects of smoking cigarettes, yet it is the people around them and their choice to smoke that has resulted in their health problems/death.

As cigarettes are taxed heavily in the UK, it does make a lot of money for the government, but does the money gained outweigh the money spent treating all the effects of smoking, not to mention money spent on sweeping up cigarette butts, and putting out fires caused by cigarettes, and people who are off work ill from the effects of smoking, causing lost productivity and loss of tax revenue for the time they weren't working.

Quote:

---

Imagine a patient in her 40s who is diagnosed with terminal cancer as a result of her smoking. Let's say her care costs the NHS £20,000 before she passes away. Now imagine we could go back in time and prevent her from taking up smoking in the first place. She might live into her 80s, and even if she spends that time in relatively good health is likely to require any number of GP consultations and routine prescriptions in that time.


If her treatment over these decades costs any more than £20,000 then actually the NHS would have spent less had she been a smoker. Source

---

Is the above quote how we want to look at the world? Wouldn't we as a society rather people live longer and fuller lives, rather than hoping they die sooner so it doesn't cost us more in tax?

What are your thoughts?

Please note this may only be relevant to UK residents, I'm unaware of any laws in other countries.

Quote:

---

THIS DEBATE ENDS ON THE 4th APRIL

For more information on the debate guidelines and how to win prizes see the guidelines thread here

---

This debate is now open!

No.

If we're going to start policing health, should we regulate food and drink? Sugar intake? Exercise regime? There's no end to it. The cigarette campaign originally was well intended, as obviously it isn't a healthy habit. But neither is eating kebab, getting pissed on a friday night and laying in bed all day. Yet we do it because it is up to us as individuals what we do, not the government. Strangely enough, the same people who are so anti-tobacco always seem to be pro-cannabis which always puzzles me.

no, because I think that is the right of the consumer to choose what they do to their bodies. Like Dan said, what’s next on the list since we banned cigarettes? alcohol is plenty dangerous and the government seems to be in no rush to ban it, same with junk fast food

I agree with Dan and Emily’s point plus the government would not ban alcohol or cigarettes because there making money. I feel the worse thing in the UK is alcohol tbh as people’s moods can change once they’ve had a drink, I feel that would be the first thing they should be looking at banning rather then cigarettes yes they cause harm but in the end you dint see people getting arrested everything weekend do you. Also like dan said a lot of people I know from college and outside won’t smoke a cigarette but smoke weed like I think it’s absolutely funny because tobacco is in the joint they are smoking. Also anything of too much can be unhealthy it depends on the individual what they want to do with there life in the end like a person who drinks lots of water could even drown there lungs so it just depends on the amount of intake you take at the end of the day and make sure everything is in moderation.

I don't think they should be banned either but for an entirely different reason.

How fucking difficult would it be to enforce such a ban? They're SUCH a widespread thing you're just giving the police so much more frivolous work to do... it's impossible to enforce properly and you're just setting up law enforcement attempts to be a joke lol. Stop bothering banning something that you can't police and focus law, crime, punishment & policing on more important things.

I'm actually against banning too, mainly because like stated above, it'll be literally impossible to enforce, plus where would you draw the line, plus I honestly don't think it effects me that much to care what others do to their body, however for the purpose of this debate, I'll switch sides and ask questions as such, purley to stimulate conversation :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

No.

If we're going to start policing health, should we regulate food and drink? Sugar intake? Exercise regime? There's no end to it. The cigarette campaign originally was well intended, as obviously it isn't a healthy habit. But neither is eating kebab, getting pissed on a friday night and laying in bed all day. Yet we do it because it is up to us as individuals what we do, not the government. Strangely enough, the same people who are so anti-tobacco always seem to be pro-cannabis which always puzzles me.

---

Sugar in-take is already half regulated, in a sense... UK introduced the sugar tax on drinks such as Coke, and anything that's refillable for free has to be diet, or zero sugar.
Although eating a kebab isn't exactly the healthiest thing in the world, it's not often a thing people eat 2-3+ times a day, whereas smokers DO smoke that many times a day, or more, as with getting drunk, most people at best go on a night out 1-2 times a week (some even once a month) whereas with smokers you know it's almost a guarantee that they'll be smoking a few cigarettes a day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sexpot

no, because I think that is the right of the consumer to choose what they do to their bodies. Like Dan said, what’s next on the list since we banned cigarettes? alcohol is plenty dangerous and the government seems to be in no rush to ban it, same with junk fast food

---

As above... MOST people only go out drinking once a week (thereabouts) and junk food is often moderated in most households (Things such as McDonalds etc) therefore the dangers are a lot less than people who smoke right? Besides, as bad as junk food and alcohol is for you, they actually serve other purposes, such as giving you energy and ensuring you don't starve to death.. Whereas cigarettes serve no purpose do they? Perhaps apart from reducing stress levels? (Idk, I'm not a smoker)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cameron446:

I agree with Dan and Emily’s point plus the government would not ban alcohol or cigarettes because there making money. I feel the worse thing in the UK is alcohol tbh as people’s moods can change once they’ve had a drink, I feel that would be the first thing they should be looking at banning rather then cigarettes yes they cause harm but in the end you dint see people getting arrested everything weekend do you. Also like dan said a lot of people I know from college and outside won’t smoke a cigarette but smoke weed like I think it’s absolutely funny because tobacco is in the joint they are smoking. Also anything of too much can be unhealthy it depends on the individual what they want to do with there life in the end like a person who drinks lots of water could even drown there lungs so it just depends on the amount of intake you take at the end of the day and make sure everything is in moderation.

---

I agree, alcohol can be worse in that sense, don't really hear these days that 2 people got in a fight who were under the influence of tobacco lol. I have no counter argument for this haha. It'll come down to which costs the NHS more, alcohol related incidents (Along with costs for Police call-outs) or lung related illnesses due to smoking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empired

I don't think they should be banned either but for an entirely different reason.

How **** difficult would it be to enforce such a ban? They're SUCH a widespread thing you're just giving the police so much more frivolous work to do... it's impossible to enforce properly and you're just setting up law enforcement attempts to be a joke lol. Stop bothering banning something that you can't police and focus law, crime, punishment & policing on more important things.

---

True, impossible to ban really, especially when people are addicted to them, if it were to happen then they would need a 10-15 year plan to help people off of it, and instead ban people from ever starting... though not sure how they'd regulate that...

How much freedom do you want the government to take away from you? That's my response. Maybe they should double the tax on cigerettes if it doesn't outweigh the healthcare costs. lmao

TOMORROW - Deadline date for the debate.

There has been some excellent replies to this debate. If you haven't posted a reply yet, be sure to do so as every post is a chance to win fabulous prizes!

I'm against the banning of cigarettes, I think it would be counter productive for society in general for many different reasons.

Banning tobacco won't stop people from smoking and would simply make drug dealers a lot more money, encouraging even more crime. The police are already struggling, they are so underfunded and understaffed they are struggling to make call-outs in regards to assault and theft. One of my family members was assaulted a few months ago and all that happened is they were given a crime reference number. If they can't handle real crimes, what makes you think they could handle small crimes like smoking tobacco? Someone could be in danger for being a victim of attempted murder etc, is it worth risking their life because the police are delayed due to telling someone off for smoking?

The NHS spends a lot of money on smoking related illnesses, there's no doubt about that considering cancer treatment costs are in the thousands and that's only one of the potential illnesses. However as already discussed, if we're going to ban cigarettes due to NHS costs, we may as well ban alcohol as well. After all, according to Alcohol Education Trust, it's thought that 35% of A&E attendance and ambulance costs are alcohol related in England. But as a consequence of that, thousands of businesses would have to close and even more people would lose their jobs, resulting in further costs for Universal Credit on unemployment benefits and a lot less income from tax. Less income on tax means more cuts on public services such as the police and NHS, resulting in even more crime and potential deaths. You see where this is going?

In terms of productivity, smokers do spend less time at their desk than non smokers. A few colleagues of mine who smoke have about four breaks a day, each lasting around ten minutes, just to have a cigarette. That's around 40 minutes a day not working whilst still being paid. That may sound bad but lets think of it in a different perspective. Personally, I don't smoke that often but when I'm really stressed out, I have a cigarette or two to calm me down. I've had zero days off due to illness in the last 12 months. My colleagues who smoke have only had a couple of days off due to illness in that same period and that was a result of norovirus. Yet other colleagues of mine who don't smoke have had around two weeks off in that same time and I know a few of them were off due to stress related illnesses.

People smoke for different reasons, a lot of it is down to stress. I know when I have a cigarette, I feel calm and relaxed. If cigarettes aren't an option, alcohol will be the next best thing for some people. Alcohol abuse will therefore rise, causing more stress on the NHS and police, with more people potentially dying from alcohol poisoning. I guess it's also debatable but I would much rather someone smokes than gets addicted to alcohol.