Total Posts:83|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Smoking should be banned

Chloe8
Posts: 2,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 9:03:12 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
The only reasons smoking tobacco products is legal in many parts of the world are:

1. It was one of the first addictive drugs used in western society

2. It was once considered healthy, normal and even cool to smoke tobacco products.

3. It has historically been used by a greater percentage of the population than other illegal dangerous additive substances.

4. Banning it would be unpopular with the electorate.

5. Governments raise a lot of money from tax on tobacco sales.

6. A ban would put a lot of tobacco addicts in a difficult position.

7. A ban would lead to criminals taking over the tobacco trade increasing the health risks to tobacco users and causing increasing policing and law enforcement costs.

It's important though to take a step back though and consider if Tobacco was invented today would it be legalized?

What reasoning is there to ban substances like cannabis that are generally less harmful than tobacco while allowing tobacco to be used?

In my opinion tobacco should be banned for the following reasons:

1. Circulation

A. When you smoke, the toxins from cigarette smoke enter your blood. The toxins in your blood then:

B. Make your blood thicker, and increase chances of clot formation

C. Increase your blood pressure and heart rate, making your heart work harder than normal

D. Narrow your arteries, reducing the amount of oxygen rich blood circulating to your organs.

Together, these changes to your body when you smoke increase the chance of your arteries narrowing and clots forming, which can cause a heart attack or stroke.

2. Heart

Smoking damages your heart and your blood circulation, increasing the risk of conditions such as coronary heart disease, heart attack, stroke, peripheral vascular disease (damaged blood vessels) and cerebrovascular disease (damaged arteries that supply blood to your brain).

Carbon monoxide from the smoke and nicotine both put a strain on the heart by making it work faster. They also increase your risk of blood clots. Other chemicals in cigarette smoke damage the lining of your coronary arteries, leading to furring of the arteries.
In fact, smoking doubles your risk of having a heart attack, and if you smoke you have twice the risk of dying from coronary heart disease than lifetime non-smokers.

3. Stomach

Smokers have an increased chance of getting stomach cancer or ulcers. Smoking can weaken the muscle that controls the lower end of your gullet (oesophagus) and allow acid from the stomach to travel in the wrong direction back up your gullet, a process known as reflux.
Smoking is a significant risk factor for developing kidney cancer, and the more you smoke the greater the risk. For example, research has shown that if you regularly smoke 10 cigarettes a day, you are one and a half times more likely to develop kidney cancer compared with a non-smoker. This is increased to twice as likely if you smoke 20 or more cigarettes a day.

4. Skin

A. Smoking reduces the amount of oxygen that gets to your skin. This means that if you smoke, your skin ages more quickly and looks grey and dull. The toxins in your body also cause cellulite.

B. Smoking prematurely ages your skin by between 10 and 20 years, and makes it three times more likely you'll get facial wrinkling, particularly around the eyes and mouth. It even gives you a sallow, yellow-grey complexion and hollow cheeks, which can cause you to look gaunt.

5. Bones

Smoking can cause your bones to become weak and brittle. Women need to be especially careful as they are more likely to suffer from brittle bones (osteoporosis) than non-smokers.

6. Brain

If you smoke, you are more likely to have a stroke than someone who doesn't smoke.
In fact, smoking increases your risk of having a stroke by at least 50%, which can cause brain damage and death. And, by smoking, you double your risk of dying from a stroke.

One way that smoking can increase your risk of a stroke is by increasing your chances of developing a brain aneurysm. This is a bulge in a blood vessel caused by a weakness in the blood vessel wall. This can rupture or burst which will lead to an extremely serious condition known as a subarachnoid haemorrhage, which is a type of stroke, and can cause extensive brain damage and death.

7. Lungs

The lungs can be very badly affected by smoking. Coughs, colds, wheezing and asthma are just the start. Smoking can cause fatal diseases such as pneumonia, emphysema and lung cancer. Smoking causes 84% of deaths from lung cancer and 83% of deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
COPD, a progressive and debilitating disease, is the name for a collection of lung diseases including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. People with COPD have difficulties breathing, primarily due to the narrowing of their airways and destruction of lung tissue. Typical symptoms of COPD include: increasing breathlessness when active, a persistent cough with phlegm and frequent chest infections.

Whilst the early signs of COPD can often be dismissed as a "smoker"s cough", if people continue smoking and the condition worsens, it can greatly impact on their quality of life.

8. Mouth and throat

Smoking causes unattractive problems such as bad breath and stained teeth, and can also cause gum disease and damage your sense of taste.
The most serious damage smoking causes in your mouth and throat is an increased risk of cancer in your lips, tongue, throat, voice box and gullet (oesophagus). More than 93% of oropharangeal cancers (cancer in part of the throat) are caused by smoking.
The good news is that when you stop using tobacco, even after many years of use, you can greatly reduce your risk of developing head and neck cancer.

9. Reproduction and fertility

Smoking can cause male impotence, as it damages the blood vessels that supply blood to the penis. It can also damage sperm, reduce sperm count and cause testicular cancer. Up to 120,000 men from the UK in their 20s and 30s are impotent as a direct result of smoking, and men who smoke have a lower sperm count than those who are non-smokers.

For women, smoking can reduce fertility. One study found that smokers were over three times more likely than non-smokers to have taken more than one year to conceive. The study estimated that the fertility of smoking women was 72% that of non-smokers.
Smoking also increases your risk of cervical cancer. People who smoke are less able to get rid of the HPV infection from the body, which can develop into cancer.
Smoking while you are pregnant can lead to miscarriage, premature birth, stillbirth and illness, and it increases the risk of cot death by at least 25%.

It's clearly an extremely dangerous substance that is extremely detrimental to health and wellbeing. Many of these extremely bad side effects can be passed to other people including children if the individual in question regularly inhales smoke.

Tobacco is an extremely addictive product. Many people who try it don't intend to be long term users but are often hooked into using the product after a short period of time. 70% of American smokers want to quit using tobacco products but have not been able to do so because of its addictive nature.

In my opinion governments have a responsibility to protect people from choosing to cause significant harm to themselves when there is no benefit to the choice. Therefore I would ban Tobacco.

The money taken by the government in tax and extra money needed for policing and law enforcement would easily be made up by the savings in healthcare costs from dealing with health problems caused by tobacco products.

There is no justifiable reason not to ban Tobacco. People currently addicted to the substance could register immediately for medical treatment to get over the addiction and get immunity from prosecution while they sought medical treatment.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 10:31:40 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 9:03:12 PM, Chloe8 wrote:

Banning smoking outright would probably cause quite a problem, but taxing cigarettes progressively until the costs are too great would probably decrease smoking, and eventually you can ban it outright once the uses are low enough.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 10:50:43 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 10:31:40 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 10/16/2016 9:03:12 PM, Chloe8 wrote:

Banning smoking outright would probably cause quite a problem, but taxing cigarettes progressively until the costs are too great would probably decrease smoking, and eventually you can ban it outright once the uses are low enough.

That's what they should do with pot.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 11:11:41 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 9:03:12 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my opinion governments have a responsibility to protect people from choosing to cause significant harm to themselves when there is no benefit to the choice.

Why should the government be responsible for people's stupid mistakes? And why stop at tobacco? Why not legislate our diets, sex lives, relationships, religion, and political views? Why not determine who we can vote for, in case we suffer for voting wrong? F*ck it, you should just move to China and let the rest of us live in peace.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 11:25:21 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Yes the government needs to save us from ourselves.

I'm not going to make any correlations, analogies, or comparisons.

I'll just be blunt: wanting to restrict choice, on most forms, quite simply... Fvck off.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 11:36:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
It may sound like a cliche but there's people who can smoke tobacco for most of their lives and still be in relatively good health. Obviously *some* risks are associated with it but no more so than with a lot of other things; alcohol consumption, sugar consumption, caffeine consumption (can) have detrimental long-term effects...even having sex can apparently cause cancer according to some people.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 1:40:31 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 11:11:41 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/16/2016 9:03:12 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my opinion governments have a responsibility to protect people from choosing to cause significant harm to themselves when there is no benefit to the choice.

Why should the government be responsible for people's stupid mistakes? And why stop at tobacco? Why not legislate our diets, sex lives, relationships, religion, and political views? Why not determine who we can vote for, in case we suffer for voting wrong? F*ck it, you should just move to China and let the rest of us live in peace.

people should be responsible for their own choices, however today's tobacco is doctored with a lot of additives which make it far more harmful and addictive if those substances were not added. This of course is a huge health care cost which is passed on to the rest of us. So let's say someone gets lung cancer and doesn't have insurance, they will be treated and will run up huge bills, so those costs are passed onto the tax payers and hurts the bottom line of the health systems that takes care of this person. I'm not sure how it can remain legal and effects only apply to the user which is as it should be. But the fact that tobacco is legal and yet it hurts those who don't use it, in higher insurance etc. So in short if you want to smoke you need to pay for all illnesses you get from it, or not be treated (don't pass the costs to me) or you shouldn't be able to have it.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 1:53:48 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 1:40:31 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/16/2016 11:11:41 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/16/2016 9:03:12 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my opinion governments have a responsibility to protect people from choosing to cause significant harm to themselves when there is no benefit to the choice.

Why should the government be responsible for people's stupid mistakes? And why stop at tobacco? Why not legislate our diets, sex lives, relationships, religion, and political views? Why not determine who we can vote for, in case we suffer for voting wrong? F*ck it, you should just move to China and let the rest of us live in peace.

people should be responsible for their own choices, however today's tobacco is doctored with a lot of additives which make it far more harmful and addictive if those substances were not added.

By that logic, we would have to ban almost all processed food. It's not like people have to buy tobacco: they could quit smoking or grow their own.

This of course is a huge health care cost which is passed on to the rest of us. So let's say someone gets lung cancer and doesn't have insurance, they will be treated and will run up huge bills, so those costs are passed onto the tax payers and hurts the bottom line of the health systems that takes care of this person. I'm not sure how it can remain legal and effects only apply to the user which is as it should be. But the fact that tobacco is legal and yet it hurts those who don't use it, in higher insurance etc. So in short if you want to smoke you need to pay for all illnesses you get from it, or not be treated (don't pass the costs to me) or you shouldn't be able to have it.

That's a problem with socialized healthcare, not tobacco consumption.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 2:02:51 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 1:53:48 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/17/2016 1:40:31 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/16/2016 11:11:41 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/16/2016 9:03:12 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my opinion governments have a responsibility to protect people from choosing to cause significant harm to themselves when there is no benefit to the choice.

Why should the government be responsible for people's stupid mistakes? And why stop at tobacco? Why not legislate our diets, sex lives, relationships, religion, and political views? Why not determine who we can vote for, in case we suffer for voting wrong? F*ck it, you should just move to China and let the rest of us live in peace.

people should be responsible for their own choices, however today's tobacco is doctored with a lot of additives which make it far more harmful and addictive if those substances were not added.

By that logic, we would have to ban almost all processed food. It's not like people have to buy tobacco: they could quit smoking or grow their own.

This of course is a huge health care cost which is passed on to the rest of us. So let's say someone gets lung cancer and doesn't have insurance, they will be treated and will run up huge bills, so those costs are passed onto the tax payers and hurts the bottom line of the health systems that takes care of this person. I'm not sure how it can remain legal and effects only apply to the user which is as it should be. But the fact that tobacco is legal and yet it hurts those who don't use it, in higher insurance etc. So in short if you want to smoke you need to pay for all illnesses you get from it, or not be treated (don't pass the costs to me) or you shouldn't be able to have it.

That's a problem with socialized healthcare, not tobacco consumption.

exactly, though I'm not sure if you can legally grow your own because of the huge tax revenue the government gets which is all they really care about.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 2:54:19 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 10:50:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/16/2016 10:31:40 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 10/16/2016 9:03:12 PM, Chloe8 wrote:

Banning smoking outright would probably cause quite a problem, but taxing cigarettes progressively until the costs are too great would probably decrease smoking, and eventually you can ban it outright once the uses are low enough.

That's what they should do with pot.

There's plenty of threads for you to get your a5s kicked on this issue if you actually had an argument to make.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 3:28:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 2:54:19 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 10/16/2016 10:50:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/16/2016 10:31:40 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 10/16/2016 9:03:12 PM, Chloe8 wrote:

Banning smoking outright would probably cause quite a problem, but taxing cigarettes progressively until the costs are too great would probably decrease smoking, and eventually you can ban it outright once the uses are low enough.

That's what they should do with pot.

There's plenty of threads for you to get your a5s kicked on this issue if you actually had an argument to make.

I am in no way saying pot is as dangerous as tobacco, but regulating it with taxes is far preferable to regulating it with jail time.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 3:52:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Since everyone is regulate/tax on behavior modification...

How about screening all at point of service, for everything (even over the counter): nicotine, alcohol, schedule 1-4's.

Whether it's open enrollment for healthcare, DMV for drivers license, registering children for school, booking in jail, seeing a practitioner or admittance into a hospital. If anything 'bad' is in your system 'including elevated A1c levels, type 1 diabetics will carry a card) then all costs is immediately placed on the individual.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 4:17:21 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 3:52:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Since everyone is regulate/tax on behavior modification...

How about screening all at point of service, for everything (even over the counter): nicotine, alcohol, schedule 1-4's.

Whether it's open enrollment for healthcare, DMV for drivers license, registering children for school, booking in jail, seeing a practitioner or admittance into a hospital. If anything 'bad' is in your system 'including elevated A1c levels, type 1 diabetics will carry a card) then all costs is immediately placed on the individual.

my wife's former employer every year screened the employees for nicotine and your premium cost reflected if you used tobacco or not, my employer gives a discount for not using tobacco, you sign an affirmation but they don't test. but first the "doctored" tobacco of today should really be addressed, if in fact extra nicotine is added to make tobacco more addictive etc.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 4:24:46 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 4:17:21 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 3:52:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Since everyone is regulate/tax on behavior modification...

How about screening all at point of service, for everything (even over the counter): nicotine, alcohol, schedule 1-4's.

Whether it's open enrollment for healthcare, DMV for drivers license, registering children for school, booking in jail, seeing a practitioner or admittance into a hospital. If anything 'bad' is in your system 'including elevated A1c levels, type 1 diabetics will carry a card) then all costs is immediately placed on the individual.

my wife's former employer every year screened the employees for nicotine and your premium cost reflected if you used tobacco or not, my employer gives a discount for not using tobacco, you sign an affirmation but they don't test. but first the "doctored" tobacco of today should really be addressed, if in fact extra nicotine is added to make tobacco more addictive etc.

You know I'm in the industry. Starting in 02 we got a discount for not using nicotine (as well as a generous program for cessation). Starting in 06, we started biometrics (couldn't lie anymore, lol).

I can't fault employers for the higher rate or the discount. To go back to the propert comparison: high risk, higher premiums. Is is 'right'? Is it 'fair'?

Just a reality of today and a 'dig' that cry freedom yet at every turn want to tax, ban, or regulate behavior.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 4:29:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 4:17:21 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 3:52:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Since everyone is regulate/tax on behavior modification...

How about screening all at point of service, for everything (even over the counter): nicotine, alcohol, schedule 1-4's.

Whether it's open enrollment for healthcare, DMV for drivers license, registering children for school, booking in jail, seeing a practitioner or admittance into a hospital. If anything 'bad' is in your system 'including elevated A1c levels, type 1 diabetics will carry a card) then all costs is immediately placed on the individual.

my wife's former employer every year screened the employees for nicotine and your premium cost reflected if you used tobacco or not, my employer gives a discount for not using tobacco, you sign an affirmation but they don't test. but first the "doctored" tobacco of today should really be addressed, if in fact extra nicotine is added to make tobacco more addictive etc.

Another example: I don't smoke, have a long period of sobriety, have the heart rate of a triathlete, and my blood work is a practitioners wet dream (for the good). Yet...

I skydive, rockclimb, ride a sports bike, condition and up till 3 years ago still competed in mma, have been more promiscuous before and after marriage than is responsible, etc.., my lifestyle has been truly high risk. But it's not 'measurable'.

So how are things like that factored into cost?
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 4:49:46 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 9:03:12 PM, Chloe8 wrote:

So, before we go into whether smoking is good or bad for you....Shouldn't we discuss the ethics of it. What is it that makes your view trump over the views others who want to do something contradictory?

For me the only argument for this is that there is a net cost to society, financially, and that it has a net negative effect on our quality of life.

The financial argument is never presented properly, which would be comparing the average health cost of a smokers with the average health cost of people living longer then an average smoker, both of which would give you an immoral inhumane feeling as you calculate the cost of human life. Then you'd need to somehow weigh that against your restriction of freedom, which since you consider banning the product to be A-Ok, you likely have little perspective on.....Its just about impossible to win the Pro side on this point with a decent opponent.

You can claim lives will be saved, but not everyone wants to live forever. We all die. Its more like lives are preserved a little longer, and its not like smokers don't know what they are getting into with all the labels. I'd love to have my grandfather today more then anything, but it was his choice to make...Still this aspect is debatable. One could easily argue in fact that quality of life is subjectively more important to a majority of the population then quantity of life, and everyone has a right to engage in the pursuit of happiness so long as the pursuit does not infringe on the rights of others. Since smoking, in the context we are speaking of is not mind altering or necessarily dangerous to others there is no reason to ban it like other hard drugs.

You'd have to be pretty darn good to win on the Pro side of smoking harming quality of life. You can prove the health problems easily enough, but the subjective aspect to quality of life would be a real burden.

There is a strong argument to be made on additives that are placed in modern smoking products. Additives make addiction a high probability, and thus we could leverage against malpractice from companies as there is a difference between enjoying a product and forming an involuntary dependency. Tobacco itself is really not that bad in that regard though, and honestly its commercial grade cigarettes that the majority of statistics are made from. Few compare them with regular tobacco, and other natural alternatives like pot, and campfires. No one ever discusses, or considers how to mitigate the harmful qualities through apparatus either....Most discussion on the topic remains quite shallow for whatever reason. It would be interesting to dive deeper.

Finally, when it comes to my decisions, with my life, the reward and consequence I live with, I think Stymie put it best...
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 5:04:06 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 4:29:53 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:17:21 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 3:52:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Since everyone is regulate/tax on behavior modification...

How about screening all at point of service, for everything (even over the counter): nicotine, alcohol, schedule 1-4's.

Whether it's open enrollment for healthcare, DMV for drivers license, registering children for school, booking in jail, seeing a practitioner or admittance into a hospital. If anything 'bad' is in your system 'including elevated A1c levels, type 1 diabetics will carry a card) then all costs is immediately placed on the individual.

my wife's former employer every year screened the employees for nicotine and your premium cost reflected if you used tobacco or not, my employer gives a discount for not using tobacco, you sign an affirmation but they don't test. but first the "doctored" tobacco of today should really be addressed, if in fact extra nicotine is added to make tobacco more addictive etc.



Another example: I don't smoke, have a long period of sobriety, have the heart rate of a triathlete, and my blood work is a practitioners wet dream (for the good). Yet...

I skydive, rockclimb, ride a sports bike, condition and up till 3 years ago still competed in mma, have been more promiscuous before and after marriage than is responsible, etc.., my lifestyle has been truly high risk. But it's not 'measurable'.

So how are things like that factored into cost?

well they can't be really, though far more people smoke than participate in the activities you mentioned, smoking is far more dangerous especially long term than those risky activities. I would think sky diving and rock climbing accidents tend to lower premiums since well the out come rarely needs medical treatment...that would be more life insurance and you probably would have to pay more if engaging in risky hobbies I would guess.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 5:15:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 5:04:06 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:29:53 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:17:21 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 3:52:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Since everyone is regulate/tax on behavior modification...

How about screening all at point of service, for everything (even over the counter): nicotine, alcohol, schedule 1-4's.

Whether it's open enrollment for healthcare, DMV for drivers license, registering children for school, booking in jail, seeing a practitioner or admittance into a hospital. If anything 'bad' is in your system 'including elevated A1c levels, type 1 diabetics will carry a card) then all costs is immediately placed on the individual.

my wife's former employer every year screened the employees for nicotine and your premium cost reflected if you used tobacco or not, my employer gives a discount for not using tobacco, you sign an affirmation but they don't test. but first the "doctored" tobacco of today should really be addressed, if in fact extra nicotine is added to make tobacco more addictive etc.



Another example: I don't smoke, have a long period of sobriety, have the heart rate of a triathlete, and my blood work is a practitioners wet dream (for the good). Yet...

I skydive, rockclimb, ride a sports bike, condition and up till 3 years ago still competed in mma, have been more promiscuous before and after marriage than is responsible, etc.., my lifestyle has been truly high risk. But it's not 'measurable'.

So how are things like that factored into cost?

well they can't be really, though far more people smoke than participate in the activities you mentioned, smoking is far more dangerous especially long term than those risky activities. I would think sky diving and rock climbing accidents tend to lower premiums since well the out come rarely needs medical treatment...that would be more life insurance and you probably would have to pay more if engaging in risky hobbies I would guess.

I hope the wifey isn't out of work!

The good news on smoking is the precipitous drop. Isn't it down to like 23% of the population?

I'm not sure about you but 'banning' is hardly in my lexicon. But we should pay more for high risk ... but the balance is in the privacy. Alcohol is a good example. We can pickle our liver, pancreas, and gall bladder, dehydrate our kidneys, and get gastritis 6 days a week but the day before biometric screening, our insurer will never know from abstention. Then in a few years we are on ESRD... far more costly than treating lung cancer and copd.

It's a lose lose between cost containment, individual choice, and privacy.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 5:21:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 5:15:49 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:04:06 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:29:53 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:17:21 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 3:52:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Since everyone is regulate/tax on behavior modification...

How about screening all at point of service, for everything (even over the counter): nicotine, alcohol, schedule 1-4's.

Whether it's open enrollment for healthcare, DMV for drivers license, registering children for school, booking in jail, seeing a practitioner or admittance into a hospital. If anything 'bad' is in your system 'including elevated A1c levels, type 1 diabetics will carry a card) then all costs is immediately placed on the individual.

my wife's former employer every year screened the employees for nicotine and your premium cost reflected if you used tobacco or not, my employer gives a discount for not using tobacco, you sign an affirmation but they don't test. but first the "doctored" tobacco of today should really be addressed, if in fact extra nicotine is added to make tobacco more addictive etc.



Another example: I don't smoke, have a long period of sobriety, have the heart rate of a triathlete, and my blood work is a practitioners wet dream (for the good). Yet...

I skydive, rockclimb, ride a sports bike, condition and up till 3 years ago still competed in mma, have been more promiscuous before and after marriage than is responsible, etc.., my lifestyle has been truly high risk. But it's not 'measurable'.

So how are things like that factored into cost?

well they can't be really, though far more people smoke than participate in the activities you mentioned, smoking is far more dangerous especially long term than those risky activities. I would think sky diving and rock climbing accidents tend to lower premiums since well the out come rarely needs medical treatment...that would be more life insurance and you probably would have to pay more if engaging in risky hobbies I would guess.

I hope the wifey isn't out of work!

The good news on smoking is the precipitous drop. Isn't it down to like 23% of the population?

I'm not sure about you but 'banning' is hardly in my lexicon. But we should pay more for high risk ... but the balance is in the privacy. Alcohol is a good example. We can pickle our liver, pancreas, and gall bladder, dehydrate our kidneys, and get gastritis 6 days a week but the day before biometric screening, our insurer will never know from abstention. Then in a few years we are on ESRD... far more costly than treating lung cancer and copd.

It's a lose lose between cost containment, individual choice, and privacy.

very true, what I find ironic and hypocritical is you can't sue the manufacturer lol but yet with different debates.......
it's like owning a sports car, you will pay more for insurance, or if your driving puts you into a higher risk category, seem with insurances, let's say life, riders could be put in where you agree not to engage in certain activities for a lower premium and if you did engage in said activities there would be no coverage.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 5:24:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 2:02:51 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 1:53:48 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/17/2016 1:40:31 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/16/2016 11:11:41 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/16/2016 9:03:12 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my opinion governments have a responsibility to protect people from choosing to cause significant harm to themselves when there is no benefit to the choice.

Why should the government be responsible for people's stupid mistakes? And why stop at tobacco? Why not legislate our diets, sex lives, relationships, religion, and political views? Why not determine who we can vote for, in case we suffer for voting wrong? F*ck it, you should just move to China and let the rest of us live in peace.

people should be responsible for their own choices, however today's tobacco is doctored with a lot of additives which make it far more harmful and addictive if those substances were not added.

By that logic, we would have to ban almost all processed food. It's not like people have to buy tobacco: they could quit smoking or grow their own.

This of course is a huge health care cost which is passed on to the rest of us. So let's say someone gets lung cancer and doesn't have insurance, they will be treated and will run up huge bills, so those costs are passed onto the tax payers and hurts the bottom line of the health systems that takes care of this person. I'm not sure how it can remain legal and effects only apply to the user which is as it should be. But the fact that tobacco is legal and yet it hurts those who don't use it, in higher insurance etc. So in short if you want to smoke you need to pay for all illnesses you get from it, or not be treated (don't pass the costs to me) or you shouldn't be able to have it.

That's a problem with socialized healthcare, not tobacco consumption.

exactly, though I'm not sure if you can legally grow your own because of the huge tax revenue the government gets which is all they really care about.

Its legal to grow your own tobacco. Selling it is another story. You need to get licensed so they can tax you.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 5:24:38 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 5:21:02 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:15:49 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:04:06 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:29:53 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:17:21 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 3:52:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Since everyone is regulate/tax on behavior modification...

How about screening all at point of service, for everything (even over the counter): nicotine, alcohol, schedule 1-4's.

Whether it's open enrollment for healthcare, DMV for drivers license, registering children for school, booking in jail, seeing a practitioner or admittance into a hospital. If anything 'bad' is in your system 'including elevated A1c levels, type 1 diabetics will carry a card) then all costs is immediately placed on the individual.

my wife's former employer every year screened the employees for nicotine and your premium cost reflected if you used tobacco or not, my employer gives a discount for not using tobacco, you sign an affirmation but they don't test. but first the "doctored" tobacco of today should really be addressed, if in fact extra nicotine is added to make tobacco more addictive etc.



Another example: I don't smoke, have a long period of sobriety, have the heart rate of a triathlete, and my blood work is a practitioners wet dream (for the good). Yet...

I skydive, rockclimb, ride a sports bike, condition and up till 3 years ago still competed in mma, have been more promiscuous before and after marriage than is responsible, etc.., my lifestyle has been truly high risk. But it's not 'measurable'.

So how are things like that factored into cost?

well they can't be really, though far more people smoke than participate in the activities you mentioned, smoking is far more dangerous especially long term than those risky activities. I would think sky diving and rock climbing accidents tend to lower premiums since well the out come rarely needs medical treatment...that would be more life insurance and you probably would have to pay more if engaging in risky hobbies I would guess.

I hope the wifey isn't out of work!

The good news on smoking is the precipitous drop. Isn't it down to like 23% of the population?

I'm not sure about you but 'banning' is hardly in my lexicon. But we should pay more for high risk ... but the balance is in the privacy. Alcohol is a good example. We can pickle our liver, pancreas, and gall bladder, dehydrate our kidneys, and get gastritis 6 days a week but the day before biometric screening, our insurer will never know from abstention. Then in a few years we are on ESRD... far more costly than treating lung cancer and copd.

It's a lose lose between cost containment, individual choice, and privacy.

very true, what I find ironic and hypocritical is you can't sue the manufacturer lol but yet with different debates.......
it's like owning a sports car, you will pay more for insurance, or if your driving puts you into a higher risk category, seem with insurances, let's say life, riders could be put in where you agree not to engage in certain activities for a lower premium and if you did engage in said activities there would be no coverage.

Believe it or not, you are, from all my time in the industry/analytics/data research/and regulation consulting, hitting on the ONLY thing I've seen that will truly bring cost down in healthcare without fundamentally wrecking the system.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:01:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 10:31:40 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 10/16/2016 9:03:12 PM, Chloe8 wrote:

Banning smoking outright would probably cause quite a problem, but taxing cigarettes progressively until the costs are too great would probably decrease smoking, and eventually you can ban it outright once the uses are low enough.

It's true banning smoking straight away would cause a variety of problems. Progressive tax increases would be an effective measure leading up to a ban to prepare society for when it actually happens. I would probably give a few years notice before the ban to let society prepare for it.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:05:48 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 11:11:41 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/16/2016 9:03:12 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my opinion governments have a responsibility to protect people from choosing to cause significant harm to themselves when there is no benefit to the choice.

Why should the government be responsible for people's stupid mistakes? And why stop at tobacco? Why not legislate our diets, sex lives, relationships, religion, and political views? Why not determine who we can vote for, in case we suffer for voting wrong? F*ck it, you should just move to China and let the rest of us live in peace.

Your entitled to your opinion but in my opinion the government should protect people from making bad decisions. If an individual is bought up in an environment where use of dangerous substances like tobacco is normal and legal it's hardly surprising they are more likely to also use the drugs used by friends and family members. Remove dangerous substances from society and people become healthier. There is nothing positive about Tobacco.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:07:30 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 11:25:21 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Yes the government needs to save us from ourselves.

In some situations that's true.

I'm not going to make any correlations, analogies, or comparisons.

Ok.

I'll just be blunt: wanting to restrict choice, on most forms, quite simply... Fvck off.

Some people are vulnerable and need protection from bad influences. There is nothing positive about Tobacco.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:13:58 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 11:36:22 PM, Emilrose wrote:
It may sound like a cliche but there's people who can smoke tobacco for most of their lives and still be in relatively good health. Obviously *some* risks are associated with it but no more so than with a lot of other things; alcohol consumption, sugar consumption, caffeine consumption (can) have detrimental long-term effects...even having sex can apparently cause cancer according to some people.

Some people being lucky and avoiding the many potential health problems caused by smoking Tobacco is a non argument. It can't be disputed that Tobacco has serious implications on the health of many of it's users and often causes premature death as well as costing them a lot of money and reducing their quality of life.

Everything else you list is either considerably less dangerous or serves a significant useful benefit to society. There is no benefit from using Tobacco. It's completely pointless and has a solely negative effect on those who use it.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:15:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 5:24:38 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:21:02 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:15:49 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:04:06 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:29:53 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:17:21 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 3:52:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Since everyone is regulate/tax on behavior modification...

How about screening all at point of service, for everything (even over the counter): nicotine, alcohol, schedule 1-4's.

Whether it's open enrollment for healthcare, DMV for drivers license, registering children for school, booking in jail, seeing a practitioner or admittance into a hospital. If anything 'bad' is in your system 'including elevated A1c levels, type 1 diabetics will carry a card) then all costs is immediately placed on the individual.

my wife's former employer every year screened the employees for nicotine and your premium cost reflected if you used tobacco or not, my employer gives a discount for not using tobacco, you sign an affirmation but they don't test. but first the "doctored" tobacco of today should really be addressed, if in fact extra nicotine is added to make tobacco more addictive etc.



Another example: I don't smoke, have a long period of sobriety, have the heart rate of a triathlete, and my blood work is a practitioners wet dream (for the good). Yet...

I skydive, rockclimb, ride a sports bike, condition and up till 3 years ago still competed in mma, have been more promiscuous before and after marriage than is responsible, etc.., my lifestyle has been truly high risk. But it's not 'measurable'.

So how are things like that factored into cost?

well they can't be really, though far more people smoke than participate in the activities you mentioned, smoking is far more dangerous especially long term than those risky activities. I would think sky diving and rock climbing accidents tend to lower premiums since well the out come rarely needs medical treatment...that would be more life insurance and you probably would have to pay more if engaging in risky hobbies I would guess.

I hope the wifey isn't out of work!

The good news on smoking is the precipitous drop. Isn't it down to like 23% of the population?

I'm not sure about you but 'banning' is hardly in my lexicon. But we should pay more for high risk ... but the balance is in the privacy. Alcohol is a good example. We can pickle our liver, pancreas, and gall bladder, dehydrate our kidneys, and get gastritis 6 days a week but the day before biometric screening, our insurer will never know from abstention. Then in a few years we are on ESRD... far more costly than treating lung cancer and copd.

It's a lose lose between cost containment, individual choice, and privacy.

very true, what I find ironic and hypocritical is you can't sue the manufacturer lol but yet with different debates.......
it's like owning a sports car, you will pay more for insurance, or if your driving puts you into a higher risk category, seem with insurances, let's say life, riders could be put in where you agree not to engage in certain activities for a lower premium and if you did engage in said activities there would be no coverage.

Believe it or not, you are, from all my time in the industry/analytics/data research/and regulation consulting, hitting on the ONLY thing I've seen that will truly bring cost down in healthcare without fundamentally wrecking the system.

if we are to allow freedoms then those who choose to use them also bear the responsibility without burdening others. One of the few things I think New York did right is the indoor clean air act, which also designated certain entrances (like at colleges) where people couldn't smoke in front of, no point and making it smoke free if you have to walk past a bunch of people smoking, so if you chose to smoke near an entrance there were some you couldn't do it near, I have no problem with that.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:19:35 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 6:07:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 10/16/2016 11:25:21 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Yes the government needs to save us from ourselves.

In some situations that's true.

I'm not going to make any correlations, analogies, or comparisons.

Ok.

I'll just be blunt: wanting to restrict choice, on most forms, quite simply... Fvck off.

Some people are vulnerable and need protection from bad influences. There is nothing positive about Tobacco.

Nothing positive about refined sugar either.

Worry about yourself and then mind your own business. Tobacco is being phased out by individual choice.

Seriously, you do NOT want people regulating your choice. You are passionate about abortion. Apply the same principle. Or to take your own verbiage: who the fvck are you
To tell someone what they can do with their body? Don't make the health comparison...I'm safe that 'zygote' doesn't appreciate termination off your choice.

Strike home? Of course not...
Vaarka
Posts: 7,535
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:24:27 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 6:05:48 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 10/16/2016 11:11:41 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/16/2016 9:03:12 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
In my opinion governments have a responsibility to protect people from choosing to cause significant harm to themselves when there is no benefit to the choice.

Why should the government be responsible for people's stupid mistakes? And why stop at tobacco? Why not legislate our diets, sex lives, relationships, religion, and political views? Why not determine who we can vote for, in case we suffer for voting wrong? F*ck it, you should just move to China and let the rest of us live in peace.

Your entitled to your opinion but in my opinion the government should protect people from making bad decisions. If an individual is bought up in an environment where use of dangerous substances like tobacco is normal and legal it's hardly surprising they are more likely to also use the drugs used by friends and family members. Remove dangerous substances from society and people become healthier. There is nothing positive about Tobacco.

The problem with this is that if you try to protect people from bad decisions, you take away their freedom to make their own decisions. We learn from our decisions, whether good or bad, and if the government tries to control our decisions, then they are taking away a basic right.

Laws, of course, limit our abilities, but that's more for other reasons, often associated with morals, privacy, and the right to live. Smoking, while it has bad affects, isn't something that a majority of the population has a big problem with, especially since many people smoke, and it helps pay off debt through taxes.
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:28:20 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 6:15:39 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:24:38 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:21:02 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:15:49 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:04:06 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:29:53 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:17:21 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 3:52:11 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Since everyone is regulate/tax on behavior modification...

How about screening all at point of service, for everything (even over the counter): nicotine, alcohol, schedule 1-4's.

Whether it's open enrollment for healthcare, DMV for drivers license, registering children for school, booking in jail, seeing a practitioner or admittance into a hospital. If anything 'bad' is in your system 'including elevated A1c levels, type 1 diabetics will carry a card) then all costs is immediately placed on the individual.

my wife's former employer every year screened the employees for nicotine and your premium cost reflected if you used tobacco or not, my employer gives a discount for not using tobacco, you sign an affirmation but they don't test. but first the "doctored" tobacco of today should really be addressed, if in fact extra nicotine is added to make tobacco more addictive etc.



Another example: I don't smoke, have a long period of sobriety, have the heart rate of a triathlete, and my blood work is a practitioners wet dream (for the good). Yet...

I skydive, rockclimb, ride a sports bike, condition and up till 3 years ago still competed in mma, have been more promiscuous before and after marriage than is responsible, etc.., my lifestyle has been truly high risk. But it's not 'measurable'.

So how are things like that factored into cost?

well they can't be really, though far more people smoke than participate in the activities you mentioned, smoking is far more dangerous especially long term than those risky activities. I would think sky diving and rock climbing accidents tend to lower premiums since well the out come rarely needs medical treatment...that would be more life insurance and you probably would have to pay more if engaging in risky hobbies I would guess.

I hope the wifey isn't out of work!

The good news on smoking is the precipitous drop. Isn't it down to like 23% of the population?

I'm not sure about you but 'banning' is hardly in my lexicon. But we should pay more for high risk ... but the balance is in the privacy. Alcohol is a good example. We can pickle our liver, pancreas, and gall bladder, dehydrate our kidneys, and get gastritis 6 days a week but the day before biometric screening, our insurer will never know from abstention. Then in a few years we are on ESRD... far more costly than treating lung cancer and copd.

It's a lose lose between cost containment, individual choice, and privacy.

very true, what I find ironic and hypocritical is you can't sue the manufacturer lol but yet with different debates.......
it's like owning a sports car, you will pay more for insurance, or if your driving puts you into a higher risk category, seem with insurances, let's say life, riders could be put in where you agree not to engage in certain activities for a lower premium and if you did engage in said activities there would be no coverage.

Believe it or not, you are, from all my time in the industry/analytics/data research/and regulation consulting, hitting on the ONLY thing I've seen that will truly bring cost down in healthcare without fundamentally wrecking the system.

if we are to allow freedoms then those who choose to use them also bear the responsibility without burdening others. One of the few things I think New York did right is the indoor clean air act, which also designated certain entrances (like at colleges) where people couldn't smoke in front of, no point and making it smoke free if you have to walk past a bunch of people smoking, so if you chose to smoke near an entrance there were some you couldn't do it near, I have no problem with that.

Kentucky did that years ago, well Louisville did. Basically one can smoke in their car, home, and in a few designated areas (usually sheds).
Chloe8
Posts: 2,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:39:57 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 4:49:46 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 10/16/2016 9:03:12 PM, Chloe8 wrote:

So, before we go into whether smoking is good or bad for you....Shouldn't we discuss the ethics of it. What is it that makes your view trump over the views others who want to do something contradictory?

To me it's simple logic. Tobacco is very harmful and highly addictive so common sense suggests it should be banned to protect people's lives being ruined/ harmed/ cut short by the drug.

I suppose you think Heroin should also be legal?

For me the only argument for this is that there is a net cost to society, financially, and that it has a net negative effect on our quality of life.

It's true it's detrimental to the economy overall.

The financial argument is never presented properly, which would be comparing the average health cost of a smokers with the average health cost of people living longer then an average smoker, both of which would give you an immoral inhumane feeling as you calculate the cost of human life. Then you'd need to somehow weigh that against your restriction of freedom, which since you consider banning the product to be A-Ok, you likely have little perspective on.....Its just about impossible to win the Pro side on this point with a decent opponent.

To me government has a responsibility to protect citizens from harm. It is not logical to allow people access to dangerous drugs that may cause death to individuals who use them. I don't support giving freedom to people to cause themselves or others unwanted, unnecessary harm.

You can claim lives will be saved, but not everyone wants to live forever. We all die. Its more like lives are preserved a little longer, and its not like smokers don't know what they are getting into with all the labels. I'd love to have my grandfather today more then anything, but it was his choice to make...Still this aspect is debatable. One could easily argue in fact that quality of life is subjectively more important to a majority of the population then quantity of life, and everyone has a right to engage in the pursuit of happiness so long as the pursuit does not infringe on the rights of others. Since smoking, in the context we are speaking of is not mind altering or necessarily dangerous to others there is no reason to ban it like other hard drugs.

Passive smoking is extremely dangerous. If you are a non smoker the chance of getting lung cancer is 25% higher if you live with a tobacco smoker. There is absolutely no benefit from using Tobacco. It's completely pointless and serves no purpose other than causing serious health problems, death and an economic burden. Not everyone wants to live forever but surveys show people with terminal illness caused by smoking would prefer to live longer. People become addicted to Tobacco at a young age when they are ignorant of the health risks or don't think they will get addicted to the product. Once addicted they are often unable to quit using it due to its highly addictive nature and pay a big price for a mistake they made as a teenager.

You'd have to be pretty darn good to win on the Pro side of smoking harming quality of life. You can prove the health problems easily enough, but the subjective aspect to quality of life would be a real burden.

The health problems and cost would be the obvious ways Tobacco hinders quality of life.

There is a strong argument to be made on additives that are placed in modern smoking products. Additives make addiction a high probability, and thus we could leverage against malpractice from companies as there is a difference between enjoying a product and forming an involuntary dependency. Tobacco itself is really not that bad in that regard though, and honestly its commercial grade cigarettes that the majority of statistics are made from. Few compare them with regular tobacco, and other natural alternatives like pot, and campfires. No one ever discusses, or considers how to mitigate the harmful qualities through apparatus either....Most discussion on the topic remains quite shallow for whatever reason. It would be interesting to dive deeper.

Obviously reducing the danger of Tobacco products is a good start and better than the current situation but Tobacco should be banned completely.

Finally, when it comes to my decisions, with my life, the reward and consequence I live with, I think Stymie put it best...

Some people are vulnerable and not capable of making logical choices. Everybody who has ever chosen to smoke Tobacco either falls into that category or was ignorant of how harmful the product is.

In my opinion government and society in general should protect vulnerable/ ignorant people from making decisions that are clearly not in their best interest.