Call to ban smoking from shopping spots

Judged:

2

2

2

Erana Monika wrote:

Please tell me why it would take that long to become a smokefree country? When all it takes really is passing a bill for prohibition.(and yes the complicated processes involved)

Judged:

2

2

2

Hugh Jass wrote:

<quoted text>
An abrupt and immediate ouster of the industry would win my personal applause, but I believe these are some of the reasons for the long-range plan.
Taxes are likely one element. While I believe that a tobacco-free society would be cheaper to run, budgets and bureaucracies probably need restructured to adjust for where the money comes in and goes out.
Another element is the plight of the addicted if tobacco suddenly became inaccessible.
Addicts also impact decision-making more directly, as members of the deliberative assembly and/or as people close to those members.
Reducing nicotine addiction in the country is sort of analogous to the individual's "tapering off" approach to quitting. The more people who quite before the industry gets the heave-ho, the less problem addiction will cause. Each of the small steps between now and 2025 will/should help with that reduction.
If people know that smoking will not be permitted a decade from now, there is one more reason to avoid acquiring the addiction as well, which should help to reduce the prevalence even more.

Judged:

3

3

2

Erana Monika wrote:

Yes In my "opinion" that gives far too much time for the tobbacco industry to formulate a plan; to possibly liaise with "lawmakers". To come up with another 12 1/2 years to save their industry...

Judged:

2

2

2

HowzBoutDat wrote:

<quoted text>MYOFB.

Judged:

1

1

1

Yeah wrote:

<quoted text> i'm Ken the Kweer and i eat nothing but stool samples. i'm gay and lash out indiscriminately.

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:

Hugh Jass says: "Another element is the plight of the addicted if tobacco suddenly became inaccessible."
They would just Grow their own, in hidden fields and hydroponicly in homes - just like most of the "Weed" in the US is grown now.- don't try to delude yourself - it would just become a HUGE "Black Market" commodity - and smoking would continue.
Hugh Jass says: "Reducing nicotine addiction in the country is sort of analogous to the individual's "tapering off" approach to quitting."
NOT EVEN CLOSE - HUGE - you are comparing "coersion" with an indivuals "personal decision"
If the anti-smokers had stuck with the TRUTH and PERSUADED smokers to quit , it would have been a GOOD thing - but instead you had to resort to outright LIES, and "extremely questionable" legal maneuvers, to try to FORCE your view of how the world should look.
It WILL come back to haunt you.

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:

No - But Dad does!!

Doug wrote:

<quoted text>
The original Hugh Jass is your father?

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:

<quoted text>
Sounds a lot like the movements overall plan in 1990 "Reduce smoking rate to 10% by 2000" then in 2000 when the rate was still 24%- the goal became "reduce the rate to 10% by 2010" then in 2010 when the rate was still 22%- "The best laid plans of mice and men"

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:

Hugh Jass says: "Another element is the plight of the addicted if tobacco suddenly became inaccessible."
They would just Grow their own, in hidden fields and hydroponicly in homes - just like most of the "Weed" in the US is grown now.- don't try to delude yourself - it would just become a HUGE "Black Market" commodity - and smoking would continue.