http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/12/9725176/smoking-bans-public-housing
Stats are compelling.
No.
Can't be done.
Keep pushing and the tobacco companies will come up with a smokable gun. 2nd amendment, baby.
We essentially have that here now - except for the private property bit. We even have a ban for recreational outdoor areas and beaches.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 12, 2015, 04:17:47 PM
Can't be done.
Keep pushing and the tobacco companies will come up with a smokable gun. 2nd amendment, baby.
:D
Just start making tobacco brownies instead.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 12, 2015, 04:17:47 PM
Can't be done.
Keep pushing and the tobacco companies will come up with a smokable gun. 2nd amendment, baby.
Let's go into business.
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 12, 2015, 04:14:04 PM
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.
Yeah...and we're pretty much already doing the legalized marijuana approach with tax-and-regulate.
Keep it banned in public places, have help for those who want to quit easily available, and let those who want to stink/die do their thing.
Relax , Hami. You will probably die of heart attack or prostate cancer anyway.
The smell of cigarette smoke is permeating my house right now. I don't understand it. I don't smoke, nobody else is here, it must be coming from outside. Strange.
Quote from: Jacob on November 12, 2015, 04:28:07 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 12, 2015, 04:14:04 PM
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.
The proposal is not to ban tobacco but rather to ban smoking indoors. We are pretty much there in this city. People can smoke all they want in their own homes - unless their home is in a strata which bans smoking.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 12, 2015, 05:19:37 PM
The proposal is not to ban tobacco but rather to ban smoking indoors. We are pretty much there in this city. People can smoke all they want in their own homes - unless their home is in a strata which bans smoking.
Ah ok.
Prohibition on drugs and alcohol was attempted, and it didn't work.
Quote from: Jacob on November 12, 2015, 04:28:07 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 12, 2015, 04:14:04 PM
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/12/9725176/smoking-bans-public-housing (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
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2015, 06:22:21 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 12, 2015, 04:28:07 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 12, 2015, 04:14:04 PM
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/12/9725176/smoking-bans-public-housing (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
:yeahright: Lousy? Maybe it's incomplete, but it sure isn't lousy.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2015, 06:22:21 PM
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.
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 :ccr
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.
Quote from: Jacob on November 12, 2015, 06:48:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2015, 06:22:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 12, 2015, 06:59:29 PM
AFAIK, smokers actually consume less healthcare resources than nonsmokers as well, by dying earlier.
No, that seems to be a hotly debated issue.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2015, 07:18:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 12, 2015, 06:59:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2015, 07:18:02 PM
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.
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).
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?
Quote from: Jacob on November 12, 2015, 07:37:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2015, 06:22:21 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 12, 2015, 04:28:07 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 12, 2015, 04:14:04 PM
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/12/9725176/smoking-bans-public-housing (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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2015, 07:58:00 PM
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.
Yup, and the specifics of the extortion and racketeering (and other rackets) is a response to the laws and economic incentives that are in place. Same as other crime groups, whether in the favelas of Sao Paolo, the streets of Hong Kong, or anywhere else.
Once business operators have access to legal conflict resolution and police protection, organized crime tend to be squeezed out of those markets (or run the businesses in legal and socially acceptable ways) whether we're talking the sex trade, gambling, panhandling, alcohol or other drugs, counterfeit products or anything else really.
EDIT: where extortion exists on a large scale, it's almost always because the extorted cannot go to the authorities for help (because their business is already illegal, usually, or because the police is complicit with organized crime, or because the victims are marginal and denied policing resources as undesirables).
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2015, 07:46:01 PM
I'm not so confident that those melon heads would make a big profit.
Well that's great. I don't know about "those melon heads" specifically, but somebody would. Supply and demand tend to work that way.
QuoteBut 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?
Because if Jimmy Three-Chins is going to become rich from us outlawing something that kills 150,000 people yearly, it is unlikely that outlawing it will have much of an impact on the death count (given the four points I listed above). People will still engage in the activity, only they'll do so in a way that enriches Jimmy Three-Chins and which brings with it all the problems that comes with encouraging the profitability of organized crime.
You're right about sexual slavery, of course. There's no point in time where we legalize it, especially based on profitability. However, if the victims of sexual slavery had recourse to official protection and no fear of repercussions from getting help (like deportation, abuse at the hands of officials as criminals etc) and if sex work was legal and regulated (so sex workers had recourse to legal conflict resolution and the protection of the law) then the profit margins of organized crime in that market would shrink considerably without legalizing sexual slavery.
Of course, to what degree the economic effects and the impact on organized crime should be taken into consideration depends on the specifics of the situation.
Evidence indicates you are wrong on both sex slavery and the assumption that people who smoke cigarettes will get them anyway. The Netherlands is country were prostitution is legal, and it is the center of the sex slavery business in Europe. Rather then eliminate a problem they managed to exacerbate it. A similar problem occur with drug decriminalization. The country has become the entrepot of crime. They are now awash in organized crime. I think the Crips and the Bloods have branches there. In the US when alcohol was made illegal, alcohol consumption dropped dramatically. Some people still got it, but fewer did and they could not drink it as frequently. A similar situation occurred in the Soviet Union when they restricted access to alcohol back in the 1980's, alcohol related deaths decreased dramatically. I would expect a similar situation with tobacco. If we cut lung cancers in half I think it would be okay if Jimmy Three-Chins had a little extra spending money.
What if it's not Jimmy Three-Chins that profits? What if it's Two-Bit Jose who just this morning beheaded an entire third grade class from Juarez Elementary because the school bus driver cut him off?
Jimmy Three-Chins is no saint. He was a crazy asshole. Still that really shouldn't be taken into consideration. Jimmy would still have been a mobster with out the law on cigarettes, he'd still kill people. Not opening a potential revenue stream isn't going to really change that.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2015, 10:00:46 PM
Jimmy Three-Chins is no saint. He was a crazy asshole. Still that really shouldn't be taken into consideration. Jimmy would still have been a mobster with out the law on cigarettes, he'd still kill people. Not opening a potential revenue stream isn't going to really change that.
If the revenue stream is big enough, he can corrupt and undermine the entire system of governance.
Not a likely scenario.
Quote from: DGuller on November 12, 2015, 10:02:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2015, 10:00:46 PM
Jimmy Three-Chins is no saint. He was a crazy asshole. Still that really shouldn't be taken into consideration. Jimmy would still have been a mobster with out the law on cigarettes, he'd still kill people. Not opening a potential revenue stream isn't going to really change that.
If the revenue stream is big enough, he can corrupt and undermine the entire system of governance.
Kill judges, politicians. Maybe build his own jail, that the government agrees not to enter.
I think there are decent arguments about allowing cigarettes to remain legal, gangsters overthrowing our government is not one of them.
Yeah, it's totally fine as long as it happens to some other country.
I love it that people still fall into the trap of "debating" with Raz. :lol:
Quote from: Hamilcar on November 12, 2015, 04:14:04 PM
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/12/9725176/smoking-bans-public-housing
Stats are compelling.
I approve :)
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2015, 01:08:58 AM
I love it that people still fall into the trap of "debating" with Raz. :lol:
Not the best of timing to drive by troll him. Raz is actually doing a good job defending his point here. I still think that Two-Bit Jose is a far bigger asshole than Jimmy Three-Chins, but reasonable people can disagree.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 12, 2015, 11:49:32 PM
Yeah, it's totally fine as long as it happens to some other country.
Okay, but I get to pick the country.
A ban on smoking would probably be much more effective than for drugs or alcohol. A cigarette is a drug with a very modest effect--this allows it to be used very frequently in everyday life, which is the appeal. But the effect is so modest that you won't have a speakeasy industry spring up where people break the law once a week to visit underground establishments to smoke a couple cigarettes.
A couple? No. A couple hundred? Yell yeah.
In my opinion it should be treated as a matter of consent. If you have several adults sharing a house and one of them starts smoking for whatever reason, presumably the others can leave. If you have a child residing with their legal guardian, however, they don't legally have that option and therefore smoking in that residence should be illegal.
Similarly, in public housing presumably people are there because they have few options. It's a weaker case than with the minors because they legally have the option to leave. This would be similar in my opinion to workplace smoking: one has the right to leave, but realistically one often does not have that option.
Quote from: Maximus on November 13, 2015, 10:16:23 AM
In my opinion it should be treated as a matter of consent. If you have several adults sharing a house and one of them starts smoking for whatever reason, presumably the others can leave. If you have a child residing with their legal guardian, however, they don't legally have that option and therefore smoking in that residence should be illegal.
Similarly, in public housing presumably people are there because they have few options. It's a weaker case than with the minors because they legally have the option to leave. This would be similar in my opinion to workplace smoking: one has the right to leave, but realistically one often does not have that option.
That is pretty much the basis for the law here. For example if a strata (condo/town house/coop complex) creates a bylaw (through a vote of all unit owners) that all units will be non smoking then no smoking will be permitted.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2015, 09:26:19 PM
Evidence indicates you are wrong . . .[The Netherlands] has become the entrepot of crime.
What is the evidence of that?
State Dept seems to think it is quite safe with negligible risk of violence and the stats back that up.
Quote from: Maximus on November 13, 2015, 10:16:23 AM
In my opinion it should be treated as a matter of consent. If you have several adults sharing a house and one of them starts smoking for whatever reason, presumably the others can leave. If you have a child residing with their legal guardian, however, they don't legally have that option and therefore smoking in that residence should be illegal.
Similarly, in public housing presumably people are there because they have few options. It's a weaker case than with the minors because they legally have the option to leave. This would be similar in my opinion to workplace smoking: one has the right to leave, but realistically one often does not have that option.
The problem is that second hand smoking hazards are largely a myth. Not in the case of a kid growing up in a home with parents smoking inside, but my chances of getting lung cancer because I used to eat in non smoking sections of restaurants containing smokers was never raised in a manner that was measurable in any statistically significant study. You aren't going to get cancer because your next door neighbor smokes cigarettes.
I recently saw a cigarette warning label "Smoking seriously harms you and those around you." It is great that we force warning labels on cigarettes, but a pity that with so many problems caused by cigarettes we can't stick to ones that are factually sound.
The current system of taxing it to death and making it out to be thoroughly uncool seems to be working out fine.
How's that cannabis ban doing meanwhile?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 13, 2015, 11:13:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2015, 09:26:19 PM
Evidence indicates you are wrong . . .[The Netherlands] has become the entrepot of crime.
What is the evidence of that?
State Dept seems to think it is quite safe with negligible risk of violence and the stats back that up.
I believe there has been several public cases of sexual slavery and organized crime smuggling drugs. I don't think they attack tourists, that would be bad for business.
Quote from: Maximus on November 13, 2015, 10:16:23 AM
In my opinion it should be treated as a matter of consent. If you have several adults sharing a house and one of them starts smoking for whatever reason, presumably the others can leave. If you have a child residing with their legal guardian, however, they don't legally have that option and therefore smoking in that residence should be illegal.
Similarly, in public housing presumably people are there because they have few options. It's a weaker case than with the minors because they legally have the option to leave. This would be similar in my opinion to workplace smoking: one has the right to leave, but realistically one often does not have that option.
Agreed...especially for public housing. Heck, it can be argued that even without other people involved, smoking inside a dwelling, especially a multi-unit complex, causes material damage to the whole complex and should be allowed to be excluded.
In theory, I think one could apply that to condos/association rules as well...which would be a fun stir to see indignant smoking condo owners go apeshit about their private property rights.
Reminds me of my house-hunting days ... We gave each house we looked at a nickname: one of them was "cigarette house" - it was awesome how stinky that place was. ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2015, 06:45:43 PM
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.
It is a true statement. Something to bear in mind when banning things.
Quote from: Malthus on November 13, 2015, 04:31:59 PM
Reminds me of my house-hunting days ... We gave each house we looked at a nickname: one of them was "cigarette house" - it was awesome how stinky that place was. ;)
I liked those whose walls were brown from all the nicotine.
:lol:
http://firsttoknow.com/photos-disgusting-effects-years-smoking-apartment/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffirsttoknow.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F03%2FATwITBH.jpg&hash=b021db8a801168952c0270be5e0a23d3d7f01f46)