Do you think smoking should be banned, because of the damage and costs it entails?

No.Prohibition is not more effective than prohibiting minors and education. The basis for addictions are laid at puberty, if that is passed, that risk is smaller. In addition, it appears that we are less barred in the Netherlands than in countries where this was traditionally forbidden. In the US, e.g. > 50% ever blogged. In the Netherlands, that is ~ 25%. In addition, you play criminals in the map. Banning only creates more crime, maintaining it and reducing tax revenues, without actually reducing the number of smokers. ‘ Prohibition ‘ has not led to less alcohol consumption in the US, but to organised crime, such as Al Capone.

Yes.

I say this as a liberal; As someone who thinks that the government is not allowed to mubble with matters that only affect the individual.

The problem is that you can’t smoke without it harming others.In addition to the second-and third-hand smoke, it also brings enormous damage to the environment.

I can only suggest a ban, or at least an extinguish policy, where current smokers are allowed to smoke (for a while), but new smokers are no longer.

The argument that we must maintain smoking because it yields taxes, I find totally wrong.Taxes must be used to draw up a good policy. A bad policy because it raises more taxes is about committing suicide because it is cheaper.

No, the prohibition of addictive substances has exacerbated the problems.Look at the prohibition in the USA and the drug ban. The prohibition did not lead to monder use, on the contrary even. And organised crime has become great thanks to the prohibition and War on Drugs. A ban on smoking would result in a greater damage and expense than now.

Smoking should therefore not be banned.In fact, the ban on drugs must also be reviewed.

Yes, for sure!

Smoking should indeed be banned because of the damage and cost.

And because of the “duty” that non smokers have to smoke when they are smoked around them.

Thanks for the question!

Greetings

Robert.

Yes, I say this as a rooker.And at the same time hard drugs should no longer be tolerated. I see too often too close what this is doing with people who are loving me. We hear a lot about smoking I don’t know why drugs are never mentioned but they should be.

Yes.

It is also not ‘ a bit ‘ bad, it is number three and four on the list of most addictive drugs, involving both ‘ bad for the person in question ‘, as well as ‘ bad for society ‘.

In 2007 (?), the United Kingdom had conducted an investigation into ‘ drug harm in the UK ‘.For convenience, they also took tobacco and alcohol in the list. The results are so unexpected that the Dutch RIVM in 2009 was going to reproduce the research; The results were the same. (* 1, * 2)

If you also look at the scores of the other drugs (17 other drugs) the results were free… ‘ Spectacular ‘.

Smoking/tobacco is a condition for the Mensch.

* 1: RIVM Research

Ranking of drugs.A comparison of the harmfulness of drugs 340001001

* 2: Link to PDF

https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/…

No.We are already being tufted enough and I am the Kotsbeu, all these rules and decide by others what is still allowed and not. Everyone should make that up for themselves. That it is not healthy, everyone knows, but enclose, I will decide if I want to smoke or not. Nowadays, smokers are viewed as criminals! Tolerance is far to look for here. Better what to do against alcohol consumption. There are more lives broken by drunk drivers not to mention that there is going to be in families with excessive drinking! Nowadays nothing can be more. Just pay, pay and pay again for anything and everything. A police state is being here. And I am beu. We can no longer take the car in the city, we must be all on the bike, we must not smoke anymore, this should not be more and that should not be more… What’s next…

Leave a Reply