Hawaii could be first in US to ban sale of cigarettes

[Whispers]

HONOLULU (KHON2) - Hawaii could be the first state in the U.S. to ban the sale of cigarettes, if a current proposal becomes law.

Adults younger than age 30 could be legally prohibited from buying cigarettes in less than a year's time -- and all cigarette sales would be banned in Hawaii in five years -- under a bill by State Representative Richard Creagan. The bill was co-signed by Representatives John Mizuno, also a Democrat, and Cynthia Thielen, a Republican.

"We're taxing them, that did decrease use somewhat, but we still have 140,000 people in our state that smoke cigarettes. You don't see them as much anymore, because we kind of made them hide. But, they're going to die, half of them are going to die if they keep smoking, and we can prevent that."

Creagan dismisses the argument that his proposal would take away a smoker's civil liberty, saying it is something the tobacco industry has long cited. KHON2 was unable to reach the American Civil Liberties Union for comment on this story. 

Creagan says smokers are horribly addicted and need freedom from enslavement.

Smokers and non-smokers have mixed feelings.

Kenny Tsai says, "I don't think it's a good idea. It's taking away our rights to choose. That's what I think."

Frank Raken says, "Even tho like it's 21, you have to be 21, there is still kind of places that you can actually get cigarettes or, you know, how they ask someone to buy for them. It's gonna be a good idea."

Vickson Victor enjoys smoking and says, "It's my right. It's my life. So, it's my choice."

State Representative Richard Creagan is a retired emergency room physician, who believes that from his Capitol office, he can save more lives. 

In addition to smokers' addiction, Creagan says the state also is addicted -- to 110-million dollars in annual, cigarette-tax revenue. While Creagan would prefer the ban be immediate and total, he realizes beneficiaries of those tax dollars, the UH Cancer Research Center and John A. Burns School of Medicine, can't go cold-turkey. That is why the ban would be unrolled in phases.

Creagan believes, if Hawaii becomes the first cigarette-free destination, visitors will flock here.

"Our beaches will be free of cigarette butts, our parks, all of that. Kids won't be exposed. You won't have to worry about your baby or your dog chewing on a cigarette butt, I mean, we'll be the first state to be cigarette-free and i think that's really cool."

Hawaii was first to raise the legal smoking age to 21 and with the proposed ban, he believes the state should continue to be a beacon for the rest of the nation.

 

 

 

https://www.kron4.com/news/national/hawaii-could-be-first-in-us-to-ban-sale-of-cigarettes/1745301619

[Christian99]

I have predicted this for some time, though I thought it would be a country rather than a US state.  The smoking = freedom argument has been one of the most effective and persuasive ones advanced by tobacco companies and their allies, and I am pleased to see a respected entity simply refuse to accept this absurd association.  ultimately, abolition is the solution, and this scaled approach is precisely the way to achieve it.  

 

Christian99

17 Years Quit 

[Whispers]

On 2/2/2019 at 11:00 PM, Christian99 said:

I have predicted this for some time, though I thought it would be a country rather than a US state.  The smoking = freedom argument has been one of the most effective and persuasive ones advanced by tobacco companies and their allies, and I am pleased to see a respected entity simply refuse to accept this absurd association.  ultimately, abolition is the solution, and this scaled approach is precisely the way to achieve it.  

 

Christian99

17 Years Quit 

HONOLULU — “The legislature finds that the cigarette is considered the deadliest artifact in human history.”

 

A black/underground market will rise, but i like what Hawaii is doing. 

 

 

https://kdvr.com/2019/02/04/hawaii-considers-bill-to-ban-cigarette-sales-to-anyone-younger-than-100/

[Wayne045]

I don't think the solution is to make smokers into criminals.   You will just repeat the prohibition era. (US)

 

I would prefer that smoking just fade away on it's own through people quitting or not even starting.   It was well on it's way until the e-cig/vape thing came along.

 

[Whispers]

17 minutes ago, Wayne045 said:

I would prefer that smoking just fade away on it's own through people quitting or not even starting.   It was well on it's way until the e-cig/vape thing came along.

 

 

Treating a cigarette like cocaine or any other drug is what they are trying to do here

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-ecigarettes/e-cigarettes-help-more-smokers-quit-than-patches-and-gum-study-finds-idUSKCN1PO30V

 

The people are being misinformed with the e cigg/vape IMO, people with addictive personalities will go from... to another . Big tobacco knows this, if its used as a step down OK.

Edited February 4, 2019 by Whispers

[sgt.barney]

(1) This is not The State's place - despite what folks think, this is a giant leap of overstepping bounds. Then again, The Sarge thinks same for banning of all drugs. Not government's place. 

(B) Did no one learn a thing during Prohibition? Or the (still better - and relevant/current) spectacularly unsuccessful failure known as The War On Drugs? 

(iii) Only Government can take something this bad and sell it as a GoodThing™ 


EZPZ

[bakon]

Better ways to help people than to outlaw things. 

[Whispers]

Creagan said taxes and other regulations have slowed down tobacco use, but have not stopped the problem.

"Basically, we essentially have a group who are heavily addicted — in my view enslaved by a ridiculously bad industry, which has enslaved them by designing a cigarette that is highly addictive, knowing that it highly lethal. And, it is," Creagan said.

Creagan said he started smoking as a teenager and did so regularly during his medical residency. The state is obligated to "protect the public's health," he said.

"This is more lethal, more dangerous than any prescription drug, and it is more addicting," Creagan said. "In my view, you are taking people who are enslaved from a horrific addiction, and freeing people from horrific enslavement. We, as legislators, have a duty to do things to save people's lives. If we don't ban cigarettes, we are killing people.

 

 

 

Nobody likes to be told what to do and if they aren't asking for help leave them alone.  

 

My views have changed after what i have seen, my mother was quit 9 years and the ending which was a result from smoking that started slowly over the years and boom. You can lead a horse to water ...

 

I was actually smoking watching the deterioration and like the addict i am i couldn't stop, if they were illegal i would've found a way to get them. Now after what i experienced i will do whatever it takes to never puff again. Ban em, educate them..  But help them

 

I remember back in HS a friend who could never be wrong about sports. I would remind him and this guy told me... Don't do that, give him this number.... You see the "type" that will make you money! Tell him he has a nice shirt while you're taking his $ that he willingly throws away ... I just looked at him and didn't understand it fully back then

Edited February 8, 2019 by Whispers

[sgt.barney]

One is never "helped" by taking away freedoms. 

 

EZPZ

[Christian99]

Those who argue that cigarette smoking is a form of freedom (or that smoking bans restrict freedom) are, unfortunately, arguing in favor of their victimization precisely in the way that the billions of tobacco marketing $$$ have hoped.  And the libertarian argument that the government shouldn't be involved in regulating/prohibiting substances is an interesting one; however, in order to use it in this case, you'd also need to allow, then, that things like methamphetamine and heroin should be decriminalized and readily available as well.  You're comfortable with that?  

 

Commercial tobacco is a product unlike almost any other:  it is purposefully designed for maximum addictiveness, and normal use of it leads to death.  Hence, extraordinary remedies--e.g,, eliminating the product in a scaled way from the marketplace--are needed.

 

Christian99

17 Years Quit

 

 

 

[Wayne045]

8 hours ago, Christian99 said:

Those who argue that cigarette smoking is a form of freedom (or that smoking bans restrict freedom) are, unfortunately, arguing in favor of their victimization precisely in the way that the billions of tobacco marketing $$$ have hoped.  And the libertarian argument that the government shouldn't be involved in regulating/prohibiting substances is an interesting one; however, in order to use it in this case, you'd also need to allow, then, that things like methamphetamine and heroin should be decriminalized and readily available as well.  You're comfortable with that?  

 

Commercial tobacco is a product unlike almost any other:  it is purposefully designed for maximum addictiveness, and normal use of it leads to death.  Hence, extraordinary remedies--e.g,, eliminating the product in a scaled way from the marketplace--are needed.

 

Christian99

17 Years Quit

 

 

 

 

I don't know about victimization.   Anyone who started smoking after the surgeon generals first started warning the the public about the dangers of smoking in the mid 60's, knows that smoking was bad for your health.   Now if you had started before then you would have a point.  I know I started smoking and continued smoking knowing the danger and yet I did so anyway.

 

The problem is you start with tobacco/cigarettes and then move on to other things, like soft drinks in NYC, or fast food, etc.  They're all bad for you right?  So we have to tax them into oblivion or outright ban them making everyone an instant criminal.

 

If you want to sue or charge the tobacco companies (and many individuals and state governments have done just that) for criminally misleading the public about the addictive and destructive properties of nicotine/cigarettes , that is an action that goes to the heart of the matter.

 

As for street narcotics like heroin or methamphetamine, those don't exactly come from legal sources do they?   Again the logical action would be to find the source and stop the flow of the drugs.

 

 

Edited February 8, 2019 by Wayne045

[Sazerac]

Please ! Keep your hands off my narcotics, lol. 

They are an integral part of my 'retirement' plan.

Opium in my 90's will be a welcome balm.

 

Choice is always where it's at.

 

[Cbdave]

G’day

I’m not going to craft any arguments for the rights of trade, or peer speach or the rights of the individual. 

Banning cigs is being talked about cause it’s very possible and doable.

And that’s in my lifetime. 

I think it’s blooming fantastic!

Im now thinking could this be tried in a slightly larger island....Australia of course!

Instead of picking off the smokers one by one lets get big and pick off country by country. 

Get big I say.

Let’s not muck about talking about it let’s make it happen.

(And in my lifetime too!)

C

[Lilly]

I don't think anyone should be banning cigarettes anywhere. 

 

What did make me laugh the most about this is that cigars, chewing tobacco and .....wait for it....e-cigarettes won't be banned. The reason e-cigarettes won't be banned is because they are less harmful than cigarettes. Make your mind up America!!

[Whispers]

 

 

 

All Hawaii is doing is categorizing Cigarettes as a drug.. 

 

People will still find a way to smoke if they want to smoke

[notsmokinjo]

28 minutes ago, Cbdave said:

G’day

I’m not going to craft any arguments for the rights of trade, or peer speach or the rights of the individual. 

Banning cigs is being talked about cause it’s very possible and doable.

And that’s in my lifetime. 

I think it’s blooming fantastic!

Im now thinking could this be tried in a slightly larger island....Australia of course!

Instead of picking off the smokers one by one lets get big and pick off country by country. 

Get big I say.

Let’s not muck about talking about it let’s make it happen.

(And in my lifetime too!)

C

 

All we really have to do is send those boffins in Canberra a copy of the article and let them think somewhere else in the world is going to be the first in the world to do something against smoking and they'll be on it like nobodies tomorrow..... can't have anyone else in the world beat us to the anti-tobacco punch.

[Cbdave]

Gday

I don’t know about banned... easy word to shoot off.

I do know that tabocco is no longer grown in Australia, no longer lisenced. Not banned. There were lisences, it was in the interest of big tabacco companies to controll things. Now no licences are issued to grow in the country so nicotine produces are imported.

It is illegal to sell snuff chewing tobacco and vaping nicotine. That’s sell. Not import for your private consumption. So no “rights” apart from those of big tabacco are taken away.

Meanwhile the big tabacco still have the right to import in cigs and tobacco and cigars. Regulated and taxed heaps.

Smoking has declined from over 50 per cent to under 15 per cent. I’m betting the next figures will be under 12 per cent here hoping for that magic 10 per cent. 

In my lifetime too.

So it’s pretty exciting to think it’s actually possible to stop the wholesale sale of smoking in the country. 

Chris

Edited February 8, 2019 by Cbdave
Speeling

[Whispers]

21 hours ago, Lilly said:

I don't think anyone should be banning cigarettes anywhere. 

 

What did make me laugh the most about this is that cigars, chewing tobacco and .....wait for it....e-cigarettes won't be banned. The reason e-cigarettes won't be banned is because they are less harmful than cigarettes. Make your mind up America!!

There's been talk related to this before (e-cigg)...

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/health/vaping-ecigarettes-fda.html

 

 

 

[Christian99]

On 2/8/2019 at 6:52 AM, Wayne045 said:

 

I don't know about victimization.   Anyone who started smoking after the surgeon generals first started warning the the public about the dangers of smoking in the mid 60's, knows that smoking was bad for your health.   Now if you had started before then you would have a point.  I know I started smoking and continued smoking knowing the danger and yet I did so anyway.

 

The problem is you start with tobacco/cigarettes and then move on to other things, like soft drinks in NYC, or fast food, etc.  They're all bad for you right?  So we have to tax them into oblivion or outright ban them making everyone an instant criminal.

 

If you want to sue or charge the tobacco companies (and many individuals and state governments have done just that) for criminally misleading the public about the addictive and destructive properties of nicotine/cigarettes , that is an action that goes to the heart of the matter.

 

As for street narcotics like heroin or methamphetamine, those don't exactly come from legal sources do they?   Again the logical action would be to find the source and stop the flow of the drugs.

 

 

 

I respectfully disagree.  The legality of cigarettes is a construct supported by the BILLIONS of dollars that have been spent by the industry to maintain it as such; it has nothing to do with the toxicity of the substance. Thus, it is far more similar to substances like arsenic (an additive, BTW, in commercial tobacco), DDT, or methamphetamine.  Moreover, regarding the slippery slope "soft drink/fast food" claim/fear, the profound difference is that--with very few exceptions (exceptions that personal growing and use could accommodate)--there is no such thing as moderate, occasional cigarette consumption.  It's an industry that is entirely premised on addiction.  And that leads to disease and death.  

 

Not abolishing commercial tobacco is easy (made easier by sixty years of tobacco marketing and its effective linking of smoking and freedom); I think abolition is the creative, courageous, hard, and principled task of the 21st century. 

 

Christian99

17+ Years Quit 

[Whispers]

On 2/8/2019 at 6:52 AM, Wayne045 said:

As for street narcotics like heroin or methamphetamine, those don't exactly come from legal sources do they?   Again the logical action would be to find the source and stop the flow of the drugs.

 

19 hours ago, Christian99 said:

 Thus, it is far more similar to substances like arsenic (an additive, BTW, in commercial tobacco), DDT, or methamphetamine.

   I posted a while back to watch the movie the insider if anyone hasnt seen it.