The Freedom to Smoke

In a recent edition of the liberator online, the Advocates for Self-Government's e-newsletter (http://www.theadvocates.org/publications/liberator-online.html), a frighteningly large number of americans claim to support banning smoking!



"       Poll Shocker: Ban Cigarettes?

Will tobacco be the next illegal drug in America?

Maybe. Fully 45% of Americans would support a federal law making cigarettes
illegal in the next five to ten years, according to a new Zogby International
poll, commissioned by the anti-Drug War Drug Policy Foundation (DPF).

Furthermore, young voters in particular favor the idea. An amazing 57% of 18-29
year olds supported it.

A new tobacco Prohibition would be a terrible thing, the Drug Policy Foundation
points out.

"Many Americans would continue to smoke, and Big Tobacco would be replaced by a
violent black market," DPF wrote. "'Tobacco-related murders' would increase
dramatically as criminal organizations competed with one another for turf and
markets, and ordinary crime would skyrocket as millions of tobacco junkies
sought ways to feed their costly addiction. Prohibition would pave the way for
a costly governmental "war on tobacco" that would put tobacco producers,
pushers and users in prison."

DPF's Nathan Edelman further notes: "Mexico's and Colombia's narco-traficantes
would rejoice at the opportunities for new markets and profits. ... And just
imagine the government's "war on tobacco": hundreds of thousands of new jobs
for federal, state and local police, and hundreds of thousands of new prison
cells for tobacco producers, pushers and users; government helicopters spraying
herbicides on illicit tobacco fields here and abroad; people rewarded for
informing on tobacco-growing, -selling, and -smoking neighbors; police seizing
the cars of people caught smoking; urine tests commonplace to identify users;
tobacco courts compelling addicts to quit or go to jail; and an ever bigger
federal police agency -- the Tobacco Enforcement Administration (the T.E.A.) --
employing undercover agents, informants, and wire-taps to get the bad guys."

Further, smugglers would create and sell extremely dangerous new forms of
tobacco -- the nicotine equivalents of crack cocaine and bathtub gin, argues
libertarian journalist Jack Wheeler in the Washington Times.

The idea of a War on Cigarettes may seem far-fetched. However, DPF points out:
"Drug prohibitions tend to be embraced not when a drug is most popular but
rather when use is declining, as tobacco use is now. We've become accustomed to
restrictions on smoking -- sale to minors, and bans on smoking in more and more
workplaces and public spaces -- and on advertising."

Also, longtime readers of the Liberator Online will remember our report in 1998
on the startling comments Drug Enforcement Administration head Tom Constantine
made during the John Stossel ABC special report "Sex, Drugs and Consenting
Adults." Said Constantine: "When we look down the road, I would say 10, 15, 20
years from now, in a gradual fashion, smoking will probably be outlawed in the
United States."

For friends of liberty, the lesson should be obvious. We must vigorously defend
the rights of those whose peaceful lifestyle practices we disagree with or
consider unwise. Otherwise, the same arguments that today outlaw some peaceful
but risky practices (smoking marijuana, for example), will one day be used
against millions of other people who engage in other risky but currently legal
behavior, like selling foods cooked in trans-fat oils (a ban is already being
discussed in New York city), bungee jumping, or taking megadoses of vitamin C.
Or, obviously, smoking.

(Sources: Drug Policy Foundation:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugbydrug/tobacco/
Ethan Nadelman:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-nadelmann/keep-cigarettes-
legal_b_32477.html
"Nightmare of Crack Nicotine" Wheeler, Jack, Washington Times:
http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2002nn/0208nn/020829nn.htm#315 )"


If you enjoyed this article, I'd strongly encourage you to check out the Advocates' website (http://www.self-gov.org/), and subscribe to their free e-newsletter:  The Liberator Online! (http://www.theadvocates.org/publications/liberator-online.html)

>>40
No, we'll do it now.

>>39
lol.

Is that the effect of said substances?

i saw a cigarette commercial once. will i get cancer?

>>42
I'm guessing. Damn kids getting four confused with five.

>>38
not underage, and this is an argument about weither they should impliment a complete ban on tabacco products

Right to smoke people? The organization for you: 

http://www.norml.org/

>>46
everyone on 4chan already smokes weed, you dont need to spam that link

i dont

me neither

>>38
"they don't want to stop smoking, so we simply force them to smoke outside, because we don't want their smoke inside. if they still want to smoke? well that's just fine, but it won't bother us anymore."

If it isn't YOUR business, it isn't YOUR choice what people get thrown out for.  Mind your own business.

forcing me to breathe in smoke is grievous bodily damage and an indictable offence

>>50
it is my business(not in the actual business sense of the word, lols) because it bothers me, and if it bothers me sufficiently, i'll try and pass a law that it MUST be illegal to smoke anywhere (i agree that is pretty anal, teehee, anal).

I personally think it should be up to the restaurant/pub/whatever owners whether they want to label their places non-smoking or smoking areas.

>>52
U LIKE TO PUT COX IN UR ANUS

>>51
Nobody is forcing you to breathe it.

>>52
"I personally think it should be up to the restaurant/pub/whatever owners whether they want to label their places non-smoking or smoking areas."

I agree.

In the interest of society as a whole, if you are to ban Pot, you should ban Cigs, as well as Booze, because they're both more harmful.

At the same time, if you wish to keep your rights for the benifit of yourself, let shops judge accordingly.

>>54
By smoking in my presence is an attempt to make me breathe in smoke and an act of grievous bodily damage. Your reasonning is like the government pulling a gun to someone's head and saying "unless you get out of the way im going to shoot and if you get shot it's your fault".

>>56
second hand smoke doesn't do nearly as much damage to your body as you've been brought to believe. i understand what you're saying, but dont make as if a lung full of smoke is gonna give you tumors right away. smokers only get their diseases after years of smoking.

>>56
"By smoking in my presence is an attempt to make me breathe in smoke and an act of grievous bodily damage."

Breathing smoke for a fraction of a second while walking by someone on a streetcorner = 'grievous bodily damage'?

LOL

second hand smoke kills it be proven, yet the tobbaco lobbiest continue to spew out psuedo science to dosprove it

>>59
see 58

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/

>>61 That movie pwns.

"Freedom just another word for nothing left to lose". You ban something this week and I'll ban something next week. Just keep an eye on the CIA to make sure they don't take away our rights.

xcx

There will never be a ban on smoking, it is a soft drug, causing no direct major harm to the body. There is also a large consumer base, like alcohol, and look what banning that brought us in the previous century. A war on drugs will always turn into a faillure,  for it does not get the support of the people. We humans require certain substances to make our lifes bearable, and becoming old and healthy for the with the cost of not living is no life.

>>65
>There will never be a ban on smoking, it is a soft drug, causing no direct major harm to the body.
Then why is cannabis banned?

causing no direct major harm to the body.
LOL. You're retarded bro.

Cannabis isn't banned because it is bad for ones health, but because it has no representation in the senate etc. It has no effective lobby, just some Jaimacans:).

And there is indeed no direct major harm, unlike heroin. The effects of overdosing tabaco only become apparent after a decade or more (lung cancer etc). I am not saying losing fitness isn't an effect of smoking, but it isn't a direct major harm to your body. Like heroin, where people get so addicted that they start to overdose.

no direct major harm
only become apparent after a decade or more
To say that that makes its effect "indirect" is an abuse of language and downright deceptive. But either way, you're right in that the reason it's illegal has nothing to do with health. The justification for it being illegal is that it makes people unproductive, lazy and more inclined to become criminals. Whether or not that's true and whether or not the government should make laws using guidelines like that is another matter.