Depends on how the calculations are done but it can be shown to save money overall. Smokers have a tendency to die much younger and more rapidly which saves the health and welfare budget a tonne, smokers are certainly aren't causing the population aging.
Aside from that there's the general problems you always have with prohibition, people will use other substances on the black market, many of which will be worse.
While it's technically true I've always hated this argument. Yes, smokers are without doubt cheaper for the healthcare system because they die earlier and faster. It's completely missing the point though, because the entire reason we have our healthcare system is to provide a long and high quality life for the population. Someone dying earlier may be cheaper, but it's also a failure.
The entire reason we have our healthcare system is so that a long and high quality life is an option for the population. It seems pretty apparent to me that most people aren't optimising for either though. No reason to get paternalistic with it.
Smoking imposes one person's choice on many others, in terms of length and quality of life, via the negative effects of passive smoking (and also just day-to-day---I personally hate having to suffer through someone's acrid fumes). If people smoked without releasing the byproducts into the air everyone else breathes, this argument would make more sense. But even then, there's massive money and expertise behind advertising (etc.) for getting people hooked, against what may be their "actual" preferences.
An easy problem solved by restricting use in public locations, which we already do to an extent. However a person quietly poisoning themselves in isolation within their own home is still unnecessarily and unfairly affected by tyrannical sin taxes.
They also have higher health care costs due to smoking, which in Australia costs billions of dollars in increased health spending. I think it's not unfair to have them subsidise their cohort's inevitable health care costs.
The argument runs both ways: given smoking is a lifestyle choice with absolutely no positive outcomes for anyone other than tobacco companies, and numerous and virtually guaranteed bad health outcomes for those who smoke and almost certainly for those frequently around the smoker, then I don't see why wider society should be "punished" for the avoidable actions of those who choose not to quit smoking.
It's not like there are not extensive campaigns and programs subsidised by the Australian government for those willing to attempt quitting cigarettes.
Everyone releases stuff into the air that effects others, from perfume to car exhaust to barbecues. Why is your car exhaust ok but not my cigarette smoke?
There are legal limits placed on exhaust. VW is one recent example of this. If I were to pump exhaust from my car into your home, I'm sure there would be repercussions. I believe there are regulations with respect to perfume as well— yup, there are ADA guidelines in the US[0]. I can imagine cases where barbecues have been considered a nuisance. Found an example of that, too.[1]
When looking up the phrase "my rights end where yours begin", I came across the much more colorful "Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins". I don't think the freedom to emit noisome or noxious fumes is quite as unlimited as implied by your comment.
> If you wanted to run your exhaust next to me in a restaurant I'd complain about that.
That's fine, I'm not a fan of smoke in restaurants or indoors anyway. It's already banned here.
> If your exhaust pipe was pointed at my face on the sidewalk again I'd complain.
This is exactly what cars are doing on the sidewalk. It's not like the emissions travel in a straight line. No one is blowing smoke directly at you either.
> A lot of offices have gone to perfume/cologne free because it is offensive to a lot of people.
>This is exactly what cars are doing on the sidewalk. It's not like the emissions travel in a straight line. No one is blowing smoke directly at you either.
This is wrong go walk on a sidewalk near a smoker and you'll see them blowing clouds which go in peoples faces as they walk by and leaving clouds in the faces of people walking behind them. This isn't an issue of being in the vicinity of the smoke it is having to walk through the cloud of it.
Go outside an office building around 9, 10:30 or lunch time and you'll often have to walk through a large cloud as all the smokers hang out to get in their smokes.
Smokers are in general super inconsiderate about their additions effect on other people in public.
>Never heard of this.
Google scent free office or fragrancy free office it's not uncommon these days.
> This is wrong go walk on a sidewalk near a smoker and you'll see them blowing clouds which go in peoples faces as they walk by and leaving clouds in the faces of people walking behind them. This isn't an issue of being in the vicinity of the smoke it is having to walk through the cloud of it.
The only difference is the visibility, just because you can't see car exhaust doesn't mean it's not there.
> Go outside an office building around 9, 10:30 or lunch time and you'll often have to walk through a large cloud as all the smokers hang out to get in their smokes.
Yes, because it's about the only area left to go for a smoke. It's an effect of banning it everywhere else, not smokers being inconsiderate. If there was a nice out of the way area where smoking was allowed then people would go there.
>The only difference is the visibility, just because you can't see car exhaust doesn't mean it's not there.
The only difference is proximity as I already mentioned.
>If there was a nice out of the way area where smoking was allowed then people would go there.
There are lots of out of the way areas in most cities for people to go smoke. But still you'll find them huddled outside the entrances to buildings or as close as they are allowed to be.
As I said. Smokers are selfish and will try to justify every negative impact of their addiction on others. They aren't being inconsiderate about smoke you're forcing their hand. They don't want to litter but it's your fault for not providing ash trays, etc, etc.
I smoked for 20 years and I've heard countless reasons from smokers for being inconsiderate but they all basically boil down to selfishness.
> I smoked for 20 years and I've heard countless reasons from smokers for being inconsiderate but they all basically boil down to selfishness.
That explains it. Ex smokers always rant about smokers as a way to deal with the cravings they still have. This isn't about the smell of smokers, it's about you wanting a cigarette when you smell them.
>Ex smokers always rant about smokers as a way to deal with the cravings they still have.
No cravings here.
>This isn't about the smell of smokers, it's about you wanting a cigarette when you smell them.
Definitely not. The smell is enough to make me gag when I'm stuck around a bunch of smokers. I look back on my years of smoking embarrassed to know how badly I certainly smelled that whole time. It really is a disgusting addiction.
None of that changes anything I've said though. But given that you've switched to deflection now I think we're done here.
I've never been a smoker and everything sanswork has said, I could have written myself.
I don't care if people smoke, I just don't want to smell it, and I don't want to inhale it. I would not have any problem with people injecting or eating nicotene as much as they want. I just don't want to be forced to inhale it against my will.
And besides the horrible health effects, it smells worse than anything else. Yes, I can smell that you had one before you got on the bus, the stench is overpowering. And yes I can smell you smoking literally 75m away. It's totally gross.
All the strawman arguments about vehicle exhaust gas are irrelevant because at the end of the day smoking has no other utility. Society accepts (a regulated amount of) exhaust gases because we need transport and we can't make a car that does not make emissions currently. If we could make a car that did not cause emissions, it would almost immediately be illegal to make a car that did emit exhaust, and with good reason.
Like sanswork said, at the end of the day smokers are just super selfish and blame others for being "too sensitive" because they are too lazy to change their inconsiderate behaviour.
There are plenty of places you can smoke, those places just aren't conveniently amongst the general population anymore, 90% of whom do not, and don't want to smoke.
Anyone who smokes while walking down the public footpath is selfish and inconsiderate, and anyone who throws their butt on the ground is selfish and inconsiderate.
The "4m from any entrance" and whatever laws are the bare minimum required by law. Nobody likes your addiction. Enjoy the hell out of your cigarettes but please keep your shameful habit to yourself, far away from all the people who don't want to inhale it or smell it.
Not a smoker, never been a smoker, agree with sanswork. Smokers are generally very inconsiderate about their habit. Not everyone, but most of them. They throw them on the ground even when there's an ashtray. They throw it out their car window. They smoke right outside the door. Even if there's a sign that says be 50 feet away from the door, they'll be -maybe- 10 feet away.
Since they get used to the smell they don't realize how awful it is to be that close to the door, or how bad it is when they come inside. I imagine a lot of them don't know about the environmental effects of throwing it wherever, but to be fair I see the same attitude with plastic bottles being all over the damn place.
Earlier but not necessarily cheaper, as they will pick up other forms of repiratory and cardiovascular disease before they expire (not every smoker end up getting incurable lung cancer, and its not like they should be refused treatment kf they do). Not to mention the secdonary harm they cause to the others.
I like that line of thinking. Can't we make it more efficient though? Like, have a live grenade in the filter of every 1% of cigarettes to blow off the smoker's head. Есть человек — есть проблема, нет человека — нет проблемы.
Aside from that there's the general problems you always have with prohibition, people will use other substances on the black market, many of which will be worse.