Actually, I got used to tobacco when I was a teenager, at that time in Taiwan it was easy to get cigarettes and smoking in the school with classmates, I have never tried to quit it until meeting my wife, "stop smoking if you want to ask me out" she said.
According to "'Tobacco-free' plan for Republic of Ireland" the writer report a plan in Ireland that is less than 5% of the population smoke in 2025. In march 2004, the Republic of Ireland introduced a total ban on smoking in the workplace, interestingly, including pubs and clubs, the ban has been successful, with a 97% compliance rate; however, "it's morally wrong to de-normalize smoking", smoker group said and fought for their rights to smoke in public areas.
In my opinion, tobacco is not addictive drug. But it's harmful habit and quit it without any pain easily. For most of smokers, like us, we share our complains, ideas, personal opinions and moods when we are smoking, it's relaxing time for us to have a short "man's talk". To stop smoking is quite easy for me because I have reason to do it and it's not necessary to go to rehabilitation center, that's depend on your mind.
"It's awesome", I said, when the first time I have morphine and cannabis. At that time, I realized why people will addict to drugs and could not quit them all the life because you will forget all the worries, just like a bird fly in the sky and also a jaguar run in the south Africa, that's all up to your imaginations; However, I won't try that kinds of drugs anymore because those are definitely "addictive drugs".
Reference
'Tobacco-free' plan for Republic of Ireland. (2013, October 3). CNN News Retrieved October 7, 2013 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24386229
Is tobacco an addictive drug or not?
ReplyDeleteAlso interesting in Alston's post, I think, is that he gives some very good reasons why so very many enjoy using this popular drug. And I don't think it's surprising that drug users do have reasons for using the drugs that they enjoy, any more than ice-cream users have reasons for using the unhealthy substances that they enjoy, often with bad consequences for health and society.
It becomes used to smoke in the free time, not addict to tobacco. For example, when someone works hard and forgets to smoke because he doesn't have free time, but he won't irrational shake or cannot do anything. Maybe it's a habit only.
DeleteI think the scientific evidence is that tobacco is as highly addictive as cocaine and heroin, which is why so many people find it so very hard to stop smoking. It is true that the withdrawal symptoms of this drug are not as severe or as dangerous as the withdrawal symptoms of heroin or alcohol addiction and dependency, but they are very real.
DeleteAnd since there is some doubt about whether tobacco is addictive, I think I need to cite a reliable source for my claim that it is - it would be very bad academic practise for you to agree with something just because a teacher said it.
As the US Government's National Institute of Health's (NIH) Department of Drug Abuse tells us, tobacco, specifically the nicotine in it, is highly addictive because it acts on the brain in the same ways cocaine, heroin and marijuana so that "changes induced by continued nicotine exposure result in addiction—a condition of compulsive drug seeking and use, even in the face of negative consequences" (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2012, "How Does Tobacco Affect", para. 3).
Reference
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2012, December). DrugFacts: Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products. Retrieved October 9, 2013 from http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/cigarettes-other-tobacco-products
In the above reference citation, the National Institute on Drug Abuse is the name of the group author.
DeleteI agree with Peter that tobacco is addictive, for Nicotine in cigarette make people get addict to this drug especially when getting via smoking.
DeleteAlso worth discussing, I thought, is the comment from smokers' groups in Alston's summary that "it's morally wrong to de-normalize smoking."
ReplyDeleteDo you agree with this?
Actually, I was more interested in the moral aspects of some of the other "solutions" that are commonly proposed for reducing cigarette smoking.
First, is it even morally right for governments to be actively involved in such campaigns? What gives a government any right to make decisions about what citizens smoke, drink and eat? For example, since ice-cream is bad for health, contributing to the serious obesity problem that increases health costs and reduces economic productivity as well as causing many early deaths, should there be high taxes on it and laws that make it illegal to sell ice-cream to children?
And on the question of taxes, how much tax is a government morally able to force citizens to pay? Should the tax on cigarettes be higher than the tax on ice-cream? Why? What makes such taxes morally right?
That's probably enough questions to be getting on with.
Different from ice cream, it should be higher tax on cigarettes because there are many side effects, such as second-hand smoke, cancer and environmental population.
DeleteI think smoking in public area is morally right to do, for there are many people in public area, and no one want other to harm them with thing that they themselves don't act like smoking. I've heard from ads that second-hand smoke get bad effects equal or more than smoker. However, in a private place, I think they can smoke how many as much as they can,and it's morally right because just government who pay for their health problems does care about their health risk, and other people are happy that they don't harm others in public.
DeleteAnd in case of ice-cream, I think it does't be banned because its substances are same as other kind of food like rice, which is sugar, if this substance is banned, then we cannot eat rice or something else that provide us more benefit if we use in appropriate amount.
DeletePerhaps it's not necessary to ban all sugar, just foods that contain inappropriately high amounts of sugar, such as sugary drinks and ice-cream. This would leave rice, which contains useful nutrients, legal, whilst putting ice-cream sellers, whose product contains mainly unhealthy and nutritionally poor sugars, in prison. And the subsequent reduction in obesity would be good for society and the economy.
DeleteActually, there was an article on exactly this in The Sydney Morning Herald this morning - "Territory to get tough on obesity"
And earlier this year, New York's mayor Michael Bloomberg did make new legislation to ban the sale of large sugary drinks for exactly the same reasons that are sometimes used to justify bans on some drugs, although the New York Supreme Court (not the Supreme Court of the United States) subsequently struck down the law (Grynbaum, 2012; Grynbaum, 2013).
DeleteBut I think the Bloomberg's reasoning is correct: if we accept that public health concerns are a reason to ban cigarette smoking or other drug use, then exactly the same reasoning does seem to me to apply to ice-cream and chocolate cake, which if not made outright illegal, need to be controlled by law, and perhaps banned for sale to minors.
References
Grynbaum, M. M. (2012, September 13). Health Panel Approves Restriction on Sale of Large Sugary Drinks. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/nyregion/health-board-approves-bloombergs-soda-ban.html
Grynbaum, M. M. (2013, March 11). Judge Blocks New York City’s Limits on Big Sugary Drinks. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/nyregion/judge-invalidates-bloombergs-soda-ban.html
Is it morally right for governments to ban smoking in restaurants, or any where else?
ReplyDeleteI think it is immoral for a government to interfere this way in the private affairs of free citizens, so if you think such laws are just, I want a reason that supports them. I think that laws banning smoking in restaurants and on other private property are unjust since they violate the right of people to freely choose how they live their own lives.
If you think I'm wrong, what is your reason?
Or would you like to support me by presenting other reasons why bans on smoking in restaurants, clubs and private hospitals are immoral and should therefore be ended?
I know that Pop and Wan agree with my proposition that smoking cigarettes in restaurants must not be banned by law, that it is unjust, and therefore is not a morally acceptable solution to the problems caused by that particular drug of addiction.
DeleteDoes anyone who disagrees with this proposition have a strong reason to support their opposing opinion? (If you do not have a sound reason for your opinion, shouldn't you perhaps change your opinion?)
In fact, I want to strengthen my proposition into a more complex thesis statement:
Although smoking on public property should be banned by law, it is normally morally wrong to similarly ban smoking on private property.
What would be needed to support this stronger version of the proposition?
Which of the points that Hartmann makes on page 224 does it probably contradict?
Can we smoke in AUA class today? Your answer must be "of course not", for it's public area and most of people don't want second-hand somke. That is the similar reason for smoking in restaurant.
DeleteAlston is right. You cannot smoke in class today. The reason is that this ban is AUA policy, and AUA, as the owner of the private property, does have a right to make such policy.
DeleteCustomers who disagree and want to smoke in class have the right to go to schools that allow smoking in class. Actually, they do not now have that right because the law does not allow owners of private property to decide how their own property will be used, and the result is that the choices of citizens are reduced as all are forced by law to follow the personal preferences of some.
Similarly, it customers like to smoke in a restaurant, they should have that choice, whilst customers who do not like it should have that choice. Allowing restaurant owners to decide for their own private property increases the choices for customers without harming any against their wishes. At the moment, the non-smokers use the law to force everyone to live the way they choose, and this seems unjust to me. Why should one group's personal preference about smoking be forced on everyone?
It is true that restaurants are public spaces, but they are not public property, and people do not have any special right to enter them: restaurant owners are allowed to set rules about dress, and customers who disagree are free to go to other restaurants with different policies - this increases choice and freedom for customers, unlike the communist-like interference that forces everyone to be the same. Should all restaurant customers be required by law to wear a dinner suit so that they all restaurants look identically hi-so?
Alston is also right that smoking is dangerous to other people. But if those other people know of the risks and decide to take them, again, that free choice by customers should be respected, not denied as it is by current law.
DeleteOn public property, smoking should justly be banned by law because all must have equal right to use that public land without risk - there is no such right to use other people's private property, such as restaurants or even hospitals.
I would not go to a restaurant that allowed smoking because I don't like the smell. But this personal preference by me should not be forced on everyone else - many of whom either do not mind the smell of cigarettes, or actually like it, or think other factors more important. Free choice is an important part of being human, and should be respected, not violated by laws that force everyone to follow one groups likes.
Thank you Alston for presenting an opposing argument that I need to answer. I hope I have now answered this opposing argument, but if I haven't, let me know what is still wrong with my supporting reasons.
DeleteMen always get a high impact of women. hahaha
ReplyDelete