I agree with you it is a real topic for discussion. Certainly one of those questions that no matter how often it is phrased, it remains difficult to answer. I can go with the idea of being protected by the powers that be, but balk at the thought that these self-same powers make money from exactly that which they are prohibiting. Here in France not only do smokers contribute to the state coffers through heavy taxes on cigarettes, but the state is also the owner of the tobacco companies. Here again as somebody mentioned the product is legal, but the act is not. We have Bar/Tabac's where alcohol and cigarettes are sold. The one you can consume to your hearts content, but the other you can only consume off the premises.
We would all like to think of ourselves as intelligent people, but how intelligent is it to smoke? Spending good money on a product that has no known benefits, and which slowly and sometimes painfully destroys one's health. Many of us started smoking through what could be considered weakness, or not enough willpower to withstand pressure - advertisement, peer pressure or otherwise. You could therefore, argue for protection of the weak. Many of us have given up on our quits through weakness or inability to cope with a particular situation. Again you could argue that if the product was not available or difficult to get, we would be protected from ourselves. When we argue that it is our decision to smoke, eat or anything else we do, I am not so sure that this is entirely right. How many of us actually decided to become nicotine addicts? None of us I would say, but this is the consequence of maybe a moment of weakness. Even when we decided to go out and buy cigarettes again, after some quit time, did we actively decide to reindulge in our addictive behaviour? Again it was weakness.
Now that we have our addictions in remission, we can justifiably consider ourselves strong, or at least stronger than when we indulged in our addiction. However, a moment of weakness could lead us right back to where we came from. As a smoker I found restrictions on smoking at the very least annoying. Now that I has stopped smoking I appreciate not being constantly confronted with situations where smoking is allowed. It is now easier to remain quit in some ways as it is easier to avoid smoking environments. This of course results in a curtailment of certain liberties which we enjoyed in the past. Do we accept this for the greater good? What's next on the list? Alcohol? Fastfoods? Soft Drinks? All of these are dangerous to your health and should probably be prohibited to those who cannot control their intake? Who decides?
Can we really say that the prohibition of alcohol in the past in the USA or that the present restrictions on smoking really do have an effect on their use? Are there more or less drug addicts because of prohibition? Isn't it just basic human nature to avail of that which procures more pleasure no matter what the cost, or until such time as we learn the error of our ways? Usually too late!
To your pens!
[B]My Milage:[/B]
[B]My Quit Date: [/B]1/6/2008
[B]Smoke-Free Days:[/B] 34
[B]Cigarettes Not Smoked:[/B] 1,190
[B]Amount Saved:[/B] $442.00
[B]Life Gained:[/B]
[B]Days:[/B] 5 [B]Hrs:[/B] 19 [B]Mins:[/B] 26 [B]Seconds:[/B] 25
-
Quit Meter
$408,645.00
Amount Saved
-
Quit Meter
Days: 8149
Hours: 16
Minutes: 20
Seconds: 19
Life Gained
-
Quit Meter
45405
Smoke Free Days
-
Quit Meter
544,860
Cigarettes Not Smoked
