TED Conversations

Abdul Rahman

Student of Electrical & Electronics Engineering,

This conversation is closed.

Should the selling & using of cigarette & tobacco be banned in the world? If yes, state how can its production be stopped?

After reading many articles & surverys regarding the use of Cigarette & tobacco, many people strictly condemn the selling & using of cigarette & tobacco. It is always written on the pack of a cigarette that " Smoking is injurious to health & causes lung cancer" but still people smoke it. Same is the case with tobacco. It causes several diseases in humans too. But still people use tobacco despite of being well-aware of its side-effects.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Feb 5 2014: The main question is how enforceable such a ban would be.

    If its realistically enforceable, probably a good idea. If its not, we'll end up with a situation like alcohol prohibition in the US; a rise in organized crime and illegal and reckless use of the stuff. Not to mention tax revenue loss, which is unavoidable either way.

    Passing a law you can't stand behind does nothing but undermine your authority and encourage people to break it. Alcohol couldn't be banned because people could easily smuggle it across the border or just make it in their basement. Now, I don't know the first thing about tobacco farming, but a hunch tells me its non-enforceable.
    • thumb
      Feb 5 2014: Such a ban would be more than 90% efficient if imposed. There must be punishments announced for the persons committing this offence and the ones guilty must be punished publicly so that others can learn a lesson from it.
      The main reason for what I dislike and oppose the cigarette is that the non-smoker is more affected by the smoke of the cigarette than the smoker. Also it is a kind air pollution.
      • Feb 5 2014: Like they tried with banning marijuana in the US?
        All that accomplished was land a few million people in jail who would have otherwise stayed out of it over what is in the rest of the developed world considered a minor offense.
        Some deterrents apparently don't work very well... Maybe we should try Singapore's model? Draconian it might be, but it gets results.

        Don't get me wrong, I don't smoke and I don't condone smoking, of any material. However, when looking to solve a problem, one must look to see that his solution doesn't cause more harm then good.
        • thumb
          Feb 5 2014: This task will cause more benefit instead of harm. There is no chance of harm in it at all. Why must the ones guilty of this crime (if in future it is banned) be spared? There must be zero-tolerance in awarding punishments.
        • Feb 9 2014: I am a smoker, and I chew, I will even dip. I find them all to be disgusting, shameful (because they scream: This guy is a stinky dumb dumb, or a grotesque dumb dumb, and all the chemicals they put in it are polluting my body (which has a seemingly endless list of adverse effects), making it harder to breathe,. I've wished many times that tobacco wasn't readily available, legal and broken down to purchase so easily that if I have $1.00 I can get a nicotine fix within a few hundred feet of my house. If I had to buy in bulk, say a year's worth of cigarettes which would cost me $2,190 usd for a year's supply if i payed $5 a pack and smoked only a pack a day I would say "hell no." And people can be very picky or flexible about their method of consuming nicotine, so it would have to ban all types, or maybe at first not the vaporizers because they are supposedly less harmful to individuals and to the environment (maybe just because the lack of combustion?, maybe that and less additives? maybe its horrors are just undiscovered?(the first guy to get boozed up didn't say "i shouldn't do this I don't want my liver to fail.")) Regardless of what methods we take (and a lot of activism and government help is moving us in the right direction here in the US) tobacco has no benefits at all and should be the first substance abuse/addiction target because most people don't confidently boast "I'll smoke til I die" well at least not in reference to nicotine products. I think the underlying issue here isn't as simple as banning cigarettes or nicotine products in general, but eliminating substance dependency wherever there is a want or need for it. My grandma always said "its not what you have its what you do w/ it" so these goals which we are contemplating, if achieved, would help us in the fight against poverty, disease/conditions, the destruction of our habitat at our own hands and probably many more things.
      • Feb 5 2014: Its this attitude precisely that gets me worried.
        "Repercussions? What's that?"
        • thumb
          Feb 6 2014: Well, when applied so in future, then we shall witness what kind of punishments are awarded to them. Yet it is impossible to say anything.
        • Feb 9 2014: I think this whole awarding punishments for harming ones' self or doing things others disagree w/ idea sucks, not just w/ tobacco products, but in general, it doesn't work if you look into things like recidivism or the repercussions of a vital family role being missing (imagine if your favorite movie was missing its starring or supporting actor/actress, it would suck right? imagine the lives of people w/ their substance/socioeconomic abuse free parents in their life vs their substance/socioeconomic abusive parents being either in or out of their lives the story sucks a lot less for the main character (the kids.)
      • thumb
        Feb 7 2014: well, abdul, do you have some idea of the punishments that shall be awarded to them? If so, shouldn't you state it as a step in answering your question?
        • thumb
          Feb 7 2014: Well, the government knows better than me how to deal with the culprits.
    • Feb 5 2014: Your argument speaks to why we should decriminalize all drugs, even heroine. We can not enforce the law 100%, so just give rise to criminal gangs making huge profit importing it. Same with prostitution and gambling.

      Heck, we cannot enforce extortion laws 100%, creating criminal gangs running protection rackets (pay us and we will not beat you up, still your stuff, burn down your business).
      • Feb 5 2014: I wasn't aiming for 100%, merely reasonable enforceability.

        So say, alcohol which is easily smuggled in country (as its legal practically everywhere else), and can be fermented from anything from fruit to grain in people's basement, enforcement is unrealistic, hence the failure of the US' prohibition.
        Something like heroin, which is much harder to smuggle (as its not freely available in most of the rest of the world), and which can't be easily concocted in people's basement, enforcement is a lot more realistic, even if it'll never reach 100%.

        Of course, the damage done by the material in question is also a consideration. Heroin is a lot more destructive then alcohol or tobacco, assuming a given amount of the stuff (in practice the former two do more damage because they're more widespread, but still).

        As for whether a tobacco ban is realistically enforceable, I haven't a clue. I don't know the first thing about tobacco farming, though what I can tell you is that it'll be readily available abroad to smuggle in country.
      • thumb
        Feb 5 2014: At least we can control it upto some extent which is more than enough. Definitely it requires time and huge effort to control it but the word impossible doesn't fit in this case. It is 100% possible to control it.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.