Should we ban cigarettes?

[Mikey]

And drunk driving kills countless people every year, alcoholism ruins lives and families, and I won't even get into the negative effects of porn addiction and TV addiction. But I'm fairly certain that alcohol causes as many deaths as smoking does, if you add up all the "died doing stupid thing while drink" "hit by drunk driver" and various health problems caused by excessive drinking.

All true, but all those problems are caused by excession, not by the very fact of the activity. Smoking, in whatever quantity, has been proven to be bad for your health.

So has a sedentary lifestyle. But government has no right to mandate your excercise habits, and I think that's the heart of the matter.

[Captain Seafort]

While governments do not have the right to require exercise, they do have the right to prohibit harmful substances - which tobacco undoubtedly is.

[Mikey]

So is alcohol - why has nobody started a thread about banning that? Football, both American and soccer, are very dangerous... but the franchises and leagues are protected by being participants in an "assumed risk" activity. Should those sports be banned?

[Teaos]

No you should never ban them.

Its personal freedom to choose what to do with your own life.

[Mikey]

Thank you for boiling it down, Teaos. I am a smoker, and I agree with mandates against allowing my decision to bother a/o affect other people. But as long as I abide by that, nobody has the right to tell me yea or nay.

[Serapha]

All true, but all those problems are caused by excession, not by the very fact of the activity. Smoking, in whatever quantity, has been proven to be bad for your health.

Well then obviously we should ban excessive drinking!

I honestly do not follow your logic here. We need to ban something that does a guaranteed, but limited, amount of harm, mostly to the person engaging in that activity? But something which doesn't always hurt somebody, but which kills thousands of complete innocents in drunk driving and other accidents every year is perfectly fine, just because not everybody who does it goes out and kills somebody?

I went and looked up some numbers. Alcohol was involved in 40% of auto accident deaths in the USA. That's not fender benders, that's people dead, and auto accident is THE leading cause of deaths in America. By comparison, they say that smoking causes 80% of lung cancers, and lung cancers make up 30% of cancer related deaths, but cancer related deaths are only 6% of the USA total, where auto accidents are nearly 50%. So 80% of 30% of 6%, that comes to... let's see, 1.6% of deaths. Now alcohol, that's 40% of 50%, a nice solid 20%.

My numbers may be a little off, but I don't think they are by much. So shouldn't we be banning the thing that's at the root of 20% of so of all deaths in this country, rather than the thing causing a mere 1.6%?

But let me guess at the root of your logic here. You don't smoke, but you do enjoy drinking. Am I right?

I still say that if it's not hurting anybody else, do whatever you want. Which is why I'm fully behind banning drunk driving, but I don't think we should ban drinking.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

I say ban drinking and smoking. I don't think either has any uses in a civilized society. Smoking is a gross deadly habit that boils down to sucking on a stick of poison that also irritates anyone around them(and stinks to high heaven) while drinking makes even the most respectable men act like total idiots.

[Captain Seafort]

Well then obviously we should ban excessive drinking!

Public drunkenness is illegal last I checked, as is being drunk and disorderly.

I went and looked up some numbers. Alcohol was involved in 40% of auto accident deaths in the USA. That's not fender benders, that's people dead, and auto accident is THE leading cause of deaths in America. By comparison, they say that smoking causes 80% of lung cancers, and lung cancers make up 30% of cancer related deaths, but cancer related deaths are only 6% of the USA total, where auto accidents are nearly 50%. So 80% of 30% of 6%, that comes to... let's see, 1.6% of deaths. Now alcohol, that's 40% of 50%, a nice solid 20%.

Alcohol didn't cause those deaths - poor driving did, and that should certainly be clamped down on hard, whether it's due to the driver being drunk, tired, or simply incompetent.

I still say that if it's not hurting anybody else, do whatever you want.

Exactly - smoking does harm everyone else simply by doing it, whereas the problems caused by drinking are indirect problems that can be dealt with by clamping down hard on general drunkenness.

[Mikey]

Public drunkenness is illegal last I checked, as is being drunk and disorderly.

That's not the same as use of alcohol in toto.

Alcohol didn't cause those deaths - poor driving did

Semantically true, but that's obfuscating the point.

by clamping down hard on general drunkenness.

So you DO advocate a ban on alcohol use?

I say ban drinking and smoking. I don't think either has any uses in a civilized society.

Certain rituals in my faith involve the use of wine. Who gets to say if my religious observance is exempt from your ban or not? As Graham pointed out, trying to enforce your own morality on society at large is tantamount to dancing on a VERY slippery slope. The difference between that and all the most evil societal institutions in history is a matter of degrees.

[Captain Seafort]

Semantically true, but that's obfuscating the point.

I don't believe so - while alcohol is one of the major causes of poor driving, it isn't the only one. I believe clamping down on poor driving generally, whether it be due to the driver being drunk, stoned, knackered or incompetent, would be the better solution. It would also guard against any sense of complacency, with a driver considering themselves "OK", just because they're sober.

So you DO advocate a ban on alcohol use?

No, I advocate harsher penalties for drunkenness, especially when said drunkenness is causing a public nuisance.

[Mikey]

I'm honestly not trying to be sarcastic when I say this: Do you advocate a ban/legislation against OVERuse of alcohol, rather than consumption in general? That's a tough one to put into black and white.

[Captain Seafort]

I'm honestly not trying to be sarcastic when I say this: Do you advocate a ban/legislation against OVERuse of alcohol, rather than consumption in general? That's a tough one to put into black and white.

I do, and it is a tough one. The only way it could really be done would be to clamp down on the behaviour associated with overindulgence - staggering all over the place, gobbing off, etc, and breathalyse anyone demonstrating said behaviour. Basically the same as drunk driving - it's impossible to identify a drunk driver by looking, only a poor driver - once they've been pulled over, then they're breathalysed to see if they're drunk or incompetent.

[Aaron]

Certain rituals in my faith involve the use of wine. Who gets to say if my religious observance is exempt from your ban or not? As Graham pointed out, trying to enforce your own morality on society at large is tantamount to dancing on a VERY slippery slope. The difference between that and all the most evil societal institutions in history is a matter of degrees.

Are you Catholic? Because most of them use grape juice now, in Canada.

[Mikey]

Seafort - I don't pretend to know the laws in the UK, but over here what you're suggesting is better enforcement of current laws, rather than new ones. Which, BTW, I am all for. However, we all know the issues both pro and con when calling for better enforcement of current law, so I'm not going to get into that right now. And more to the point, laws HAVE been enacted over here against driving without a certain amount of sleep within a certain time period, using cell phones, etc. - of course, those laws are longer standing and better enforced for commercial trucking, esp. interstate trucking.

Kendall - No, I'm Jewish, and some groups do use grape juice, but the liturgies and the Bible call specifically for wine. In fact, essays have been written about why wine specifically should be used - particularly for the effect of (small amounts of) alcohol.

And my wife is Catholic, although not Roman Catholic, and her Church will NOT use grape juice, even though they have combined the sacraments of baptism and confirmation and thusly administer communion to children of any age.

[Serapha]

I don't believe so - while alcohol is one of the major causes of poor driving, it isn't the only one.

Sorry, you don't get to use that excuse. When I quoted those numbers, it was ONLY the deaths caused by alcohol, read my post again. 40% of auto deaths are caused by alcohol. Ban drinking entirely and you will save thousands of lives every single year. More than ten times as many lives as will be saved by banning smoking.