General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI don't know how in the hell the anti-smokers people
managed to make smoking illegal in not just every state and province, but also in every country in the world. I never dreamed anything could accomplish what they have done.
I quit 5 years ago and loved my cigarettes, after smoking for 52 years, probably MORE than any person could love their guns.
Let's get those folks involved in the gun problem whoever they are....
lapfog_1
(29,205 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)I have always found that interesting.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I'll have to remember that.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)liberalhistorian
(20,818 posts)to toxins from your bad habit that you CHOSE to engage in, when THEY don't have any choice in the matter. I remember the days before smoke-free offices and public places, and it's SOO much better now. No one forces people to smoke and expose others to that shit and even endanger others at times with it, including second-hand smoke. It IS NOT a "right". The right of people to breathe air free from cigarette toxins supercedes the "rights" of those who CHOOSE to engage in a deadly habit to expose them to it. Period.
JHB
(37,161 posts)...nor various Ottoman sultans...
http://gracchii.blogspot.com/2007/03/history-of-tobacco-in-ottoman-empire.html
...and I recall tobacco being on the list of Mormon "don'ts" too.
The Nazis didn't start it so much as mined an existing vein and put it under their banner.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)I didn't think so.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Usually went outside or bathroom and my home always had separate TV rooms for kids and me. Even picked up butts outside before the anti-smoking stuff started.
I still miss it. I miss the comraderie among smokers and the crowded coffee areas in grocery and department stores where you could get all your packages stuffed in a booth and have a cigarette. Those were the days. Many of these tiny restaurants closed because of the ban and never reopened.
Oddly enough, I never had breathing problems after 52 years. Doctors couldn't understand why my lungs were clear. I stopped for other people, grandchildren, etc., and wish they'd come out with a safe cigarette.
Some people are going to get cancer and asthma, but not everyone. So for the common good, it's good that there's not cigarette smoke everywhere you go. That's how it should be with guns.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)I agree. 100%
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Smoking is the use of a recreational drug use with side effects both to the user and people nearby. It normally had long term health consequences as well. Firearms have some legitimate uses outside of emotional satisfaction.
The key here is the sickness of violence. The US population has had access to these kinds of weapons since WWI, but today we have record levels of violence and perhaps mental illness. What has changed?
dmallind
(10,437 posts)Smoking is illegal in no state or province.
What is illegal in a slowly growing number of them is smoking in public spaces where most people would prefer to avoid ETS (which incidentally kills nigh double those killed by guns - let alone the 14 times that gun number killed by smoking overall).
Your wish has long since already been granted; initiating a shooting in public spaces is already illegal - actually illegal - in every state and province. Just like you can have your cigarettes with you as long as you don't light them, you can have a gun (in some states) as long as you don't fire it. It's the harm to others in both cases that is illegal, although the mere possession of guns is banned in quite a lot of areas - cigarettes in none.
Now if your suggestion is that some of the campaigns to change societal norms that reduced smoking might also work to reduce gun ownership overall voluntarily, it's certainly possible although slow and limited. Essentially all movies set and made in the 50s showed positive characters smoking. Now almost none do. Removing guns from TV and movie heroes of course means finding something to replace war, cop, western etc genres. PSAs are likely to be less effective than in previous decades due to image saturation, unless they were so graphically shocking as to initiate a serious backlash among the sensitive types. Might be worth trying.
The social shunning of smoke-filled venues and people was more possible because it is obviously very apparent. It's hard to tell a bar or restaurant you'll refuse to go there because of all the gun carriers when you have no idea normally how many there are. So that's probably out. You could start a campaign to encourage the shunning of friends' houses etc if they have guns which may have some impact over time, with the loss of many social networks. Probably the best possibility here would be to convince business owners to post "no guns allowed" signs to keep your patronage. The trouble of course being that you have to be able to deliver boycotts greater than those who will refuse to go in because of the signs. Night get a bit of traction here but be damn sure you have the numbers or that will backfire quickly if it loses them business.
I suspect the most effective tactic is also the most risky and most difficult. Humans are gregarious by nature. A far greater percentage of us follow the herd than would care to admit it. The very existence of fashion proves this, but you don't have to wear Prada to be a follower. Look around the next large public gathering you attend. How many male or female have 80s style big hair? How many are wearing caftans or Oxford bags or mood rings? How many have muttonchop sideburns or fedoras? How many in short have some thing wildly out of styles and norms of the day? The tiny few who you see are the ones who are not followers. Too few to worry about.
So how do you apply this to guns? Stop guns being cool. Remove them from positive or even fashionably negative images. This means either disarming cops or making them carry concealed. Same with military shows and security at airports and the like. Ban open carry (to keep this constitutional, you'd have to allow concealed carry - it does say bear arms after all) for EVERYBODY. The Secret Service manage it - so can the cops. Combine this with movie and TV changes and other stuff mentioned above and, 30-40 years from now, legal, normal citizen gun ownership will probably be a lot lower.
Will that, even then, reduce spree killings? Not sure anyone can say. Certainly not to zero. Guns are durable, cigarettes aren't. Guns provide a real advantage in both criminal acts and self defense, cigarettes don't. Making a publicly obvious habit unpopular is a lot easier than making a powerful and concealable tool unpopular. But absent absurd 2A repeal pipedreams, not sure what else would do much.
arthritisR_US
(7,288 posts)is what must be done here.
uncle ray
(3,156 posts)yeah, the prohibition of smoking in public places has inconvenienced a few people enough to quit, but mostly has just made people adjust their habits to accommodate their smoking in private. is that how you want guns handled?
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)and ammo. Things like Glocks and and high capacity clips, items whose only use is to kill people. Make them so expensive they become RARE luxury collector's items.
Hit them where it hurts. Manufacturers don't produce things in large numbers that don't sell in large numbers so the weapons physically available to buy, steal or shoot would be reduced, over time, as manufacturing is voluntarily curtailed and older weapons, already in public hands, are removed from circulation due to misuse, poor maintenance, confiscation (when used during crimes) or just getting moth balled in a shoe box in the closet by owners who finally grow up.
The federal and state governments have the power to levy such taxes, if enough angry citizens demand it. It is working with tobacco and I think this method could be a way to exercise some measure of gun control potentially reducing the number of kindergartners murdered by mad men while not violating anybody's precious, holy, god given constitutional gun rights.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)they made me WORK to try to keep smoking and I got tired of it
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Indeed, the CLAIM that X or Y policy is "impossible" is nothing more than a desperate rhetorical gambit to prevent it from coming to pass. We believe in progressive government: all change is possible, because humans make their own history - and laws.
Imagine the person opposing women's suffrage in 1848. What did that person say? Impossible!
Imagine the person opposing school integration in 1948. What did that person say? Impossible!
Imagine the person opposing same sex marriage in 1988. What did that person say? Impossible!
Impossible is always the cry of the reactionaries. It is not ours:
"Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can repair this world."