Posted By: Matt Bear (27/06/2009 2:00:35 PM)
Comment: Your attempt to analogize slavery with tobacco is, to say the least, flawed. Not only that, it's insulting to everyone involved except, possibly, slave owners. The element of choice did not exist for the slaves, unlike say, smokers, who have the option to smoke or use tobacco products. As for the "second-hand smoke" issue, do you really imagine someone enjoying a cigarette in Walnut Park generates anything nearly as harmful to your lungs (or your child's lungs) than the traffic on the Boulevard? I find it ironic that so many wish to legalize marijuana but ban tobacco. Isn't that just calling the devil by a different name? Perhaps we should have the police patrol all the live music venues and cite all those who are smoking something other than tobacco. It would probably raise a lot of money. Just a thought. BTW, I don't smoke. Anything. I have never smoked. If someone's "second-hand smoke" bothers me, I simply ask them to move, or at least exhale in a different direction. You'd be surprised how a little bit of civility works, rather than scorn or moral superiority. To expand on your rather ludicrous comparison of legal tobacco versus slavery, not only was slavery NOT the foundation of an efficient economic system, it was the opposite. The antebellum South was heavily agarian (tobacco, cotton, etc.). Without the "cheap" labor of slaves, such activity might have been somewhat supplanted by more industial and manufacturing industry, requiring more a more skilled (and better paid) labor force. The economic inefficiency of the "slave" model was what doomed the South during the Civil War. Lack of industrial production (of weapons) and inability to supply their troops was what led them to rely on outside suppliers (the British primarily) whose shipments could be interdicted. Ironically, that very model of inefficiency would have inevitably led to the end of slavery within a few decades (the sheer immorality of slavery aside). Comparing the immorality of slavery with the "immorality" of cigarettes isn't just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to terrorism. Way too much of a stretch. Yes, vast sums of money are made selling cigarettes. So? Vast sums are also made selling alcohol, sodium and/or sugar-laced snacks, fast food, motor vehicles and other things that are "bad" for us. Like all poisons, the only difference is how long they take to kill you.

Response: Thank you for your comment Matt. However, you missed the point of my blog. If you are interested, please see the blog I posted today for my response. As for your comment about civility, if you read some of my earlier blogs, you’ll find that I speak civilly to smokers about proper disposal of cigarette butts whenever an opportunity arises.

Posted By: Dan Lyke (20/06/2009 1:28:09 AM)
Comment: Though I'm happy to have airbags and seatbelts in my car, and willing to pay extra for them, I don't think they should be required. They do raise the cost of an automobile substantially, and I think it should be up to the automobile purchaser (and, yes, passenger) to do their own risk/reward trade-offs. But that's really ancillary to my point: although seat-belts and airbags do reduce the death and injury rates from automobile accidents, I was thinking beyond the 40-50 thousand people a year who are directly injured by automobile accidents, and considering the larger number whose lives are shortened because of the pollution those cars cause. It's been a while since I've run down the numbers, but I think a few years ago I came to the conclusion that around 8 thousand Californians alone die early every year due to simple automobile pollution. This isn't just about tailpipe emissions, some of that is from subtle things, too, like the dust generated by tires grinding on asphalt. It's one of those hidden costs that we forget every time we get in the car and crank the key. And that's not something that's as easily solved as seatbelts and airbags (and electronic stability control and ABS and automatic tire pressure sensing and so forth).

Posted By: Dan Lyke (18/06/2009 2:45:18 PM)
Comment: To your comment about "people who die human sacrifices on the altar of status quo", if you want to look at activities that cause the deaths of those who don't necessarily participate, driving automobiles is way worse than smoking. Second-hand smoke stays lots closer to home than the pollution effects of driving.

Response: Thanks for your comment Dan. Continuing with your automobile example, seatbelts and air bags are a good example of what happens when the government gets involved. Automobile manufacturers have to install airbags and we have to wear seatbelts. Both are required because both reduce injuries, save lives and reduce the cost to society in lost productivity that occurs when people get injured or die in auto accidents. In other words, both are required because they are good for us. I doubt many people would argue against requiring air bags in cars or against making the wearing of seatbelts mandatory. Making cigarettes a controlled substance would also reduce illness and save lives. If it’s appropriate for government to require air bags and the wearing of seatbelts, why isn’t it appropriate for government control cigarettes? One reason? No one gets rich when people don’t wear seatbelts.

Posted By: Dan Lyke (18/06/2009 12:03:53 PM)
Comment: I think your first commenter's point about the black market shows up the idiocy of the drug war in general. People want these physiological effects. They're willing to trade off longevity and other life risks for those effects. Attempting to ban the substance merely creates the black market, and with the black market comes violence because these transactions need their own policing, and that policing can't come from the state. So, sure, regulate the bits that are non-consensual, second-hand smoke and what-not (although as much as I like that I can now enjoy live music in bars because there's no smoking, I think that bar owners should be free to let people smoke in their bars), but if you crack down on people doing things to their own bodies, the only thing you're doing is raising the level of violence in the society.

Posted By: black market (17/06/2009 4:11:17 PM)
Comment: You cannot make cigarettes illegal, doing so would create the largest black market in the world, creating even larger organizations than the Taliban, Al-Quaeda or the Colombian and Mexican Cartels combined. I'm not ready to fight that war. I much prefer a tax and control method. We already have a test study. When we outlawed alcohol, in one decision we created the infamous gangs of New York and Chicago, their income derived mostly from illegal alcohol. Once prohibition was legalized again, the gangs slowly disappeared and are not heard of today.

Response: Thank you for your comment. You make a good point; a black market for cigarettes most likely would arise. If I understand you correctly though, you are suggesting we leave things pretty much the way they are to avoid a black market; leave things pretty much the way they are even though over 400,000 smokers and thousands of non-smokers will die every year as a result of exposure to cigarette smoke. Doesn’t that make the people who die human sacrifices on the altar of status quo? This would seem especially unfair to the thousands of non-smokers who will die from exposure to second-hand smoke.