Is smoking tobacco a human right, or should it be banned?

B

BigBawss

Wizard of the Hood
It's no secret today that tobacco and the massive amount of different chemicals it is mixed with, both naturally and unnaturally, is very hazardous to human health. I don't believe that anyone in a first-world nation can rightly say they had no idea smoking cigarettes would/will be so harmful to them. Most every first world nation requires a health advisory to be displayed right on the package in big, bold letters.

But, should smoking be considered a human right? In the same way that drinking alcohol could also be declared a human right to do whatever they feel with their bodies and lives. Some people would tell you that banning tobacco is an act of oppression, while many others would declare that banning tobacco is, plain and simple, the right thing to do since it is so harmful.

Now, this thread isn't about the public smoking ban laws throughout the world. Everybody has a right to not have to be around toxic smoke whenever they are inside a building or otherwise any crowded public area. It's more so about smoking tobacco in general, and whether people should be allowed to do it or not.

On one hand, you have people who say that it is freedom of choice, and it is their right to choose whether or not to smoke tobacco so long as they aren't breaking any laws (mainly regarding the public area smoking bans). It is simply the individual's freedom of choice to do what they want with their lives, so long as they play by the rules like everyone else. For example, if someone wants to burn their nation's flag in protest, or follow monotheistic Satanism, it is their right to do so through freedom of choice and expression, so long as neither of those things break any laws. I am sympathetic to this and in many ways agree with this view.

On the other hand however, you have the anti-tobacco campaigners who are trying to get the plant il-legalized all together. They are showing obvious facts that millions die each year as a result of smoking, with millions more suffering and living with extreme side-effects from smoking, such as the most obvious one, lung decay and cancer, tobacco-caused strokes, and some pretty brutal surgeries which had to be done to save the life of the smoker, due mostly in part because of their smoking habits. Not to mention tobacco smoke preys on any diseases or genetic conditions. These people want to ban tobacco all together in all of it's forms. Through their perspective, I can see their argument also.

What do you think? Ban tobacco, or no? Remember, this isn't about public smoking, but about the individual's right to smoke period.
 
Last edited:
Banning shit never works. Prohibition proved that. Taxing it to hell and back doesn't work either, people still buy it, but are also more likely to turn to illegal sources in that case. End of the day, it's your body, only you should have the right to decide what to do with it, the moment someone else tries to tell you what you can and can't stick in your body, via whatever means, you're a literal slave.
 
It's not a right. It affects the people around you. Banning smoking altogether is completely stupid, though. Everyone should be able to smoke outside buildings or in their homes (and I'd argue for pubs, because I'm going there to drink, so my health is getting ruined anyway).
Yeah, if people want to smoke they should be able to do it. But, the nature of smoke is that it's not exatly localised, so it shouldn't be allowed in public buildings and restaurants and so on.
 
Smoking tobacco is pretty stupid.
Bu everyone has the right to put shit in their bodies, but with tobacco they need to do it in smoking zones or in their own property. Because fuck those people who smoke while walking on the streets and they just exhale a puff of smoke to their side that always lands on your face.
 
It's not a human right. Libery and security of person are human rights. Who ever says that smoking and drinking alcohol are human rights isn't using the term correctly. A government can declare any substances with potentially harmfull agents as illegal. Which is what happend with many drugs over the time where quite a few of them have been completely ilegal to consume, like Heroin, Opium, Amphetamine and many more. Up to the point when someone decided that they should be declared as illegal. Sometimes it might make sense, sometimes it doesn't.
 
Last edited:
I don't smoke and would like to see less smoking in the world. Big tobacco industry is still making a huge bundle out of folks basically getting lung cancer etc. and dying so I'd like to see that taxed even more if not the whole industry eradicated.
 
I'm a smoker. I also fully endorse extra taxes on cigarettes as long as the taxes go toward schools, infrastructure, or public works. I also fully endorse you fucking off if you try to tell me I am not allowed to smoke.
 
Fundamental Right vs. Banning is basically the definition of a false dichotomy.

There's a lot of things you can do that are kind of dumb, but they're not really worth legislating until enough people doing said dumb thing constitutes a problem, in which case some sort of externally imposed rules help mitigate the harm from the dumb thing. If people doing the dumb thing aren't causing problems, then there's really no reason to do anything.

So should smoking be banned? No. Is it a fundamental right? No because it's not part of the foundation of human rights as it has a necessary associated cost. Is it something that can be justifiably be regulated in the public interest? Yes, things like "You have to be 18 to buy tobacco" are totally reasonable regulations.
 
Depends, I think. Maybe if enough people change their mind it might get banned or very heavily regulated. I definitely see that one day with meat and meat production considering the incredible damage it's doing to the environment and people - consuming to much of it. I could imagine that the people of the future might change their opinion about tobacco, alcohol and other stuff so much that it would eventually see a bann. But hey! I am just brain storming :V
 
Banning smoking in countries with a public health care system does make some sense, since the state doesn't want to lose money to any health problems which are a result of your bad habits. If there's a private health care system I don't see how banning it helps, the fact that you pay your ensurance (considerably) more is enough of a deterrent.
 
Banning it would not do anything. People would just buy it illegally, like they do for any other illegal drug, and governments would loose a lot of money. I think that, as long as people don't do it in public areas, smoking should be a personnal choice since the only person it affects is you. Pretty much everyone is aware of the risk today so people should be wise enough to know if they are ready to take the risk or not.
 
There is no such thing as a "human right," but drug prohibition doesn't really work and so banning smokes won't do a great deal either. The issue with smoking, just like with all abuses of mind-altering or addictive substances, is that it's a disciplinary issue. People are too weak and undisciplined to make themselves quit. We can tell them about all of the horrible things that will happen to their body if they keep doing it, but chances are they already know about those things and either don't care or are physically incapable of making themselves come off of it.
 
I don't even need to read any comments outside of the topic title itself.

Answer: YES!

It's a person's individual right to do whatever they want to themselves, provided it doesn't cause harm to anyone else in the process. Ingesting a poison that helps alleviate pain even if it may cause adverse effects in the future? That's not for some outside party to determine whether they should be "allowed" to do or not. It's their choice, and therefore their right to exercise.

Now, RIGHTS (as opposed to liberties) are legally granted, so that naturally makes them subject to legal process to remove them. But a law saying you can or cannot do this does not make it right or wrong. It's wrong to deny someone their own self-determination, because it's NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS but their own. But it can certainly be made illegal. =/
 
I thought about it and just cannot fully comprehend the strangeness and stupidity of smoking (tobacco and its derivatives). Out of every other drug you at least get some kind of a buzz, but there stands alone by itself - the cigarrete. You have to smoke a ton of them with no tangible return, plus you stink and cannot smell shit, while also constantly making your lungs put up with breathing smoke of all things! The first time this came to my mind, is when i was 12 years old, standing in the balcony and looking at my l&m pack of cigarretes; I threw them out the window and never looked back.

How to deal with this, is a pretty hard question, as i personally feel that it is purely the product of culture, meaning that people usually start doing this by mimicking others around them and not out of curiosity of radically altering your brains chemical balance, as with other drugs. Seeing the stubbornness (this fucking word has 2 b's 2 n's and 2 s's in it, i mean, come on!?) of smokers, i feel that the only way to tackle this, is by making smoking more and more and more expensive, as to make it less viable for teenagers (the age at which the mind is the most susceptible). Unless you have a dictator who lynches people for smoking, banning will probably do the opposite of making people not smoke.
 
That's something I also wonder, smoking tobacco cigarrettes is like the lamest vice to have, meth heads at least get a high out of their shit and they can ignore the fact that they haven't eaten the whole day but the only effect of tobacco is making you want to smoke more and smell like shit. It apparently also makes people think that eating half a pack of mints makes them smell good..... it doesn't, that just makes it worse.
 
Walpknut said:
It apparently also makes people think that eating half a pack of mints makes them smell good..... it doesn't, that just makes it worse.
Click to expand...

This! One time i sat near a man who was stinking of mint and smoke so bad, that i really thought i will vomit. It's a terrible mixture of odors.
 
People should smoke more and modern tobacco should be chemically altered to induce sterility 100%.
 
ChildServices said:
There is no such thing as a "human right," but drug prohibition doesn't really work and so banning smokes won't do a great deal either. The issue with smoking, just like with all abuses of mind-altering or addictive substances, is that it's a disciplinary issue. People are too weak and undisciplined to make themselves quit. We can tell them about all of the horrible things that will happen to their body if they keep doing it, but chances are they already know about those things and either don't care or are physically incapable of making themselves come off of it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess it would be better if you call them privileges, but Human Privileges really doesn't sound that catchy now, does it :V
 
Banning doesn't seem to be the right option to me. Look at American prohibition, guys. It gave more power (and profit) to criminals smuggling alcohol all across the U.S., nothing else. As I see it, let anyone ruin his body as he wish, but make him pay the full price for medical care instead of usual insurance charges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top