
Hawaii considers ban on cigarette sales - squirrelicus
https://abc30.com/society/hawaii-considers-ban-on-cigarette-sales/5119182/
======
gnulinux
Serious question: when has banning any drug worked in the past? I watched
quite a few TED Talks claiming there is data suggesting legalizing all drugs
-- even those that are "objectively harmful" like meth or heroin -- has
merits.

[Disclaimer: I smoked tobacco in the past (~10 years ago for a few months in
HS due to social reasons) but I wouldn't care the slightest if they're
banned.]

I don't think cigs are more harmful than meth or heroin. If countries like
Portugal had success legalizing these hardcore drugs and using other sorts of
policies to limit their harmful effects, why go backwards and ban them? I'm
all for limiting harms of cigs, especially to children who are more
susceptible, but is this really the right approach to solve this problem?

Again this is a legitimate question; not being sarcastic.

~~~
amalcon
What's unique about this is that they don't seem to be considering banning
other forms of nicotine. This means that (unlike most substance bans) this
could have the effect of pushing smokers toward safer alternatives like
transdermal patches and gum.

To my knowledge, a ban of only a single delivery system is unprecedented. I'd
be interested if anyone has another example, to see how that turned out.

~~~
eesmith
What about the bans on alcohol inhalation?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_inhalation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_inhalation)

~~~
hndamien
From this data point, it appears that it may work.

------
sneakernets
I can see why some would be upset but, I just ain't seeing the problem here.
The only reasons tobacco exploded in the late 19th and early 20th century were
based on junk science, lies, and deception. Some patent medicine hucksters
targeted tobacco distributors in hopes of getting their poisons into the
cigarettes themselves.

Now we're down to "habit" and "it's always been here", which isn't convincing
enough for me.

~~~
antidesitter
Do you think the government should ban all harmful activities?

~~~
sneakernets
Of course not, because "harmful" in your question isn't the same meaning as
what the government uses.

PS: Does that strawman smoke menthols?

~~~
antidesitter
> Of course not, because "harmful" in your question isn't the same meaning as
> what the government uses.

What's the definition "the government uses"? And why is it different from the
one in the comment you're replying to?

> PS: Does that strawman smoke menthols?

?

------
giggles_giggles
Hawaii considers the benefits of creating a black market for tobacco

~~~
loeg
Not exactly:

> If approved, the restrictions would only apply to cigarettes—not
> e-cigarettes, cigars or chewing tobacco.

Just cigarettes. Oddly, cigars are excepted. Probably just get a lot of oddly
thin and long cigar sales.

~~~
kokokokoko
I'm curious if the ban may have to do more with littering and pollution as
opposed to simply the health issues.

~~~
pacoWebConsult
I think if that were the case they'd be pushing for bio-degradable butts and
also coming up with some solution to throw-away vape cartridges like Juul pods
which I see on the ground outside every gas station.

------
larrik
"The ban would go into effect progressively, starting next year, by raising
the minimum age for buying cigarettes from 21 to 30.

Two years later, no one under 100 would be allowed to buy cigarettes. "

This is the most wacky way to ban it I can think of. This can possibly pass a
challenge in court.

~~~
jobigoud
Too fast for good drama. Another approach would be to start by banning anyone
born in 2000 or after, and then remove a year from that cut line, every year.
This way if you are an old addict you have more time to prepare, and every one
has a clear deadline coming their way. By 2030 nobody under the age of 40 is
allowed. By 2040 nobody under 60, by 2050 nobody under 80.

------
traviswingo
Ive been a huge advocate of this for a long time now, and I love that people
have started considering it.

Here’s the deal - it’s not a rights thing. It’s the fact that smoking
cigarettes, no matter what, is a group act. You bring everyone within eyesight
of you into your bad habit. There are plenty of other ways to get your
nicotine fix, and we can still tax the shit out of it.

Nice going, Hawaii. I hope it actually happens.

Btw, Hawaii is one of the boldest states to consider this. I have a condo on
the water there and I have to ask people to not smoke cigarettes under my deck
on a daily basis. I wouldnt be surprised if there were a huge backlash to this
suggestion.

------
Simulacra
I don’t like the government banning anything really, rather I would prefer
that they just keep raising the price. Once cigarettes become $100 a pack
people will stop. Those that really want a cigarette, they can buy them if
they want, but at some point when you’re paying five dollars per cigarette
even the most addicted (or stupid) person will quit.

~~~
3131s
No, because cigarettes will still be available on the black market for cheap.

------
ac29
Seems like this would have an unintended affect on the significant amount of
Japanese tourism there. While on the decline, about 30% of Japanese men and
10% of Japanese women smoke [0].

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_in_Japan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_in_Japan)

------
DannyB2
As long as the US cigarette makers can export to other countries, with less
stringent regulations on how addictive or deadly their product is, it will all
be profitable . . . er, I mean . . . okay.

