Let's just ban smoking

[DGuller]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/12/9725176/smoking-bans-public-housing

Stats are compelling.

Not fond of tobacco smoke at all, but banning it will just increase profits for organized crime, with all the problems that entail.

That's a lousy argument.  It can be made for nearly anything.  Guns, Child Pornography, ham sandwiches, etc

Lousy?  Maybe it's incomplete, but it sure isn't lousy.

[Razgovory]

If we outlaw x it will profit outlaws is not a good argument.  Since X can be pretty much anything, even things we really should ban.

[Jacob]

That's a lousy argument.  It can be made for nearly anything.  Guns, Child Pornography, ham sandwiches, etc

Just because an argument has a wide application doesn't make it lousy.

In this case there are enough differences between guns, child pornography, ham sandwiches, etc, and smoking tobacco that the impact on organized crime profit margins should be weighed significantly differently when discussing whether the objects/ practice in question should be outlawed or not.

[LaCroix]

private homes? of course not. public homes? sure. the government is essentially a landlord, isn't it? landlords ban smoking all the time. though, i'm not sure how much it would affect things. people smoke all the time in banned places. i imagine poor people are more likely to smoke in their homes than rich people, and rundown apartments don't seem to care about enforcing smoking policies. thank god for that

[Capetan Mihali]

It's a little duplicitous when governments take such an pious stance against smoking, while relying on the revenue from tremendous cigarette taxes (disproportionately paid by the less wealthy); if their ostensible wish came true and everyone stopped smoking, there'd be quite a budget shortfall to be made up.  AFAIK, smokers actually consume less healthcare resources than nonsmokers as well, by dying earlier.

If we're really serious about improving public health by eliminating cigarette smoking, I think a more honest approach would be to treat cigarettes like methadone: make a regulated amount available for a low price in conjunction with counseling, nicotine replacement therapy, Zyban/Chantix, etc.

[Razgovory]

That's a lousy argument.  It can be made for nearly anything.  Guns, Child Pornography, ham sandwiches, etc

Just because an argument has a wide application doesn't make it lousy.

In this case there are enough differences between guns, child pornography, ham sandwiches, etc, and smoking tobacco that the impact on organized crime profit margins should be weighed significantly differently when discussing whether the objects/ practice in question should be outlawed or not.

There is no real way to judge how much organized crime will profit from any given law, and I don't see really why it should be taken into consideration.  They are already in the cigarette business, though it's part of a tax scam.  The Mafia isn't a wholesaler of forbidden goods, they make most of their money off scams, fraud, and tax evasion.

[garbon]

AFAIK, smokers actually consume less healthcare resources than nonsmokers as well, by dying earlier.

No, that seems to be a hotly debated issue.

[DGuller]

There is no real way to judge how much organized crime will profit from any given law, and I don't see really why it should be taken into consideration.

It's generally a good idea to take unintended consequences from policies into consideration.

[crazy canuck]

It's a little duplicitous when governments take such an pious stance against smoking, while relying on the revenue from tremendous cigarette taxes (disproportionately paid by the less wealthy); if their ostensible wish came true and everyone stopped smoking, there'd be quite a budget shortfall to be made up.  AFAIK, smokers actually consume less healthcare resources than nonsmokers as well, by dying earlier.

Even if that is true it doesn't address the knock on additional costs of non smokers developing health problems because of second hand smoke - which is the main reason indoor smoking bans have been implemented.

[Jacob]

There is no real way to judge how much organized crime will profit from any given law, and I don't see really why it should be taken into consideration.  They are already in the cigarette business, though it's part of a tax scam.  The Mafia isn't a wholesaler of forbidden goods, they make most of their money off scams, fraud, and tax evasion.

If we're talking about outlawing buying and selling smoking tobacco entirely, I'm confident that it'll become a significant profit vector for organized crime. I've read some fairly convincing (to me, at least) academic literature on the subject (of sources of organized crime profits, not tobacco products specifically). I agree that it's difficult to predict a specific amount of profit, but that's pretty irrelevant to be honest. The combination of a product 1) being outlawed; 2) having a significant pre-existing market (and being addictive to boot); 3) being relatively easy to produce (or purchase overseas); 4) not being seen as particularly harmful by a significant swathe of society makes it pretty much the ideal candidate for generating profits for organized crime.

That may not make it the single convincing argument for whether to cigarettes et. al. should be outlawed altogether, but it's certainly a factor that should be considered.

If we're talking about outlawing the act of smoking in specific places, or even in all the places, that's different than outlawing the buying and selling of tobacco products. I agree that the impact on organized crime profits is more uncertaint and potentially much smaller; so no argument from me in that case.

[Jacob]

Oh, and, maybe the mafia isn't a wholesaler of illegal goods, but there are plenty of other organized crime groups that are.

The Hells Angels, for example, are pretty much a wholesaler (and producer) of marijuana in these parts, and most other illegal drugs has one or more groups that act as wholesalers. Same thing for weapons, same thing for specific subsets of stolen goods that have lucrative second hand markets in various places (bicycles, tools, cell phones, car parts, and luxury cars are all goods that have been subject to large scale theft and export on a wholesale basis by various organized crime groups, for example).

[Razgovory]

I'm not so confident that those melon heads would make a big profit.  But even if they did, what of it?  The Mafia didn't start with prohibition and didn't die when it ended.  What has hurt it was aggressive prosecution by a well organized Department of Justice.  That some criminal will profit and how much should not really alter our judgement.  There is no point where sexual slavery and human trafficking become so lucrative to a class of criminal that we legalize it.  Why would we consider how rich Jimmy Three-Chins becomes because we outlawed something that kills 150,000 people yearly?

[Razgovory]

Oh, and, maybe the mafia isn't a wholesaler of illegal goods, but there are plenty of other organized crime groups that are.

The Hells Angels, for example, are pretty much a wholesaler (and producer) of marijuana in these parts, and most other illegal drugs has one or more groups that act as wholesalers. Same thing for weapons, same thing for specific subsets of stolen goods that have lucrative second hand markets in various places (bicycles, tools, cell phones, car parts, and luxury cars are all goods that have been subject to large scale theft and export on a wholesale basis by various organized crime groups, for example).

So the Hell's Angels would go away by legalizing their illicit trading?  I'm under the impression they do quite a bit more then just sell pot.  When I say that they aren't wholesalers, I'm not saying that they don't deal in drugs, but that's not their reason for being.  Their reason for being is to make money illegally.  If you cut off one revenue source, they'll find another.

[Monoriu]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/12/9725176/smoking-bans-public-housing

Stats are compelling.

Not fond of tobacco smoke at all, but banning it will just increase profits for organized crime, with all the problems that entail.

That's a lousy argument.  It can be made for nearly anything.  Guns, Child Pornography, ham sandwiches, etc

Banning guns or child pornography don't lead to significant profit for organised crime, because most people won't buy guns or child pornography, at least that's the experience in this part of the world.  But people will buy illegal tobacco and drugs if they are taxed or banned. 

[Razgovory]

I don't know if it's true, but I'd heard that extortion and racketeering was the big thing for organized crime in East Asia.