NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think smoking should be banned? What do you think of it?

My personal opinion, I think it is absolutely idiotic that they even manufacture cigarettes, with the fact that some ingredients include tar, and a type of rat poison. I feel it is stupid to pay people so you can slowly commit suicide. I mean, I'm not paying someone so I can kill myself. Personally, I think cigarettes should be shot, killed and stomped upon by the entire human population.

What is your opinion?

Smoke where vere you want, just keep the bloody hell away from me. Ohh, and use a reasonable font... :rolleyes:

Cigarettes are fine when classy civilized europeans smoke them, but few people of that stripe are to be found here in the US.

Cigars are always the right answer.

Chewing tobacco is always the wrong answer.

Cigarettes are the most evil things. They're a disgusting nasty habit and they should be banned. I swear I'm going to die from my parents second-hand smoke!!!

Chewing tobacco is always the wrong answer.

Why, what ever do you mean? It leaves my teeth a healthy brown!:p

I'm sure you love all of that wonderful tax revenue it brings in every year.

BTW Euro cigarettes aren't very good. American tobacco is the best for cigarettes, pipe, and chewing.

Though I personally think it's a terrible habit, I don't feel it should be banned. The government shouldn't get involved in the issue. Let the organizations, doctors, friends, families, etc fight it.

But if people feel they absolutely MUST smoke, and people and organizations can't seem to stop them, well, then, let them. But keep the governments nose out of it. They're into enough stuff already. (*For America only, other nations can decide on their own stuff...)

I don't intend on smoking and don't really care if other people do. Just don't do it around me.

I think they should ban the current cigarettes. They need to have very clear standards for tobacco, such as laws barring the use of tar and other toxins.

Once that goes through, it'll be a lot healthier for every one, so you would be free to smoke anywhere, unless a private business says otherwise.

I'm sure you love all of that wonderful tax revenue it brings in every year.

BTW Euro cigarettes aren't very good. American tobacco is the best for cigarettes, pipe, and chewing.


Your first mistake is assuming that there is such thing as a 'good cigarette.'

why should cigarettes be banned? i can see no good outcome.... although i dont smoke nor do i endorse it, i feel that if people want to kill themselves, go right ahead. as long as you can buy mcdonalds(or any fast food chain for that amtter) then you should be able to buy cigarettes...... simple as that.

Smoking in my opinion is one of the most disgusting acts a human being can do, especially around other people. It's 1 step up from 1st degree murder to me, and I have no respect for smokers who constantly expose other people to their dependance on such a gross substance.

Smoking is fine by me, whatever one might smoke.

I smoked from about the age of 15 until I was about 35 then I quit. I started in again when I was about 40 and quit again when I was about 50. I am now almost 62 and am still off those damn things.

If you want to smoke, go ahead but please don't do so around me. If I walk into a bar or pub that allows smoking then it is my choice to leave or put up with the smoking. I think you have the right to smoke, but please don't blow your smoke in my face.

Oh, and give me an area in the restaurant far, far away from those that smoke.

After all smoking is a personal choice and I'm not about to tell you what to do.

we have to leave smoking in place! the planet is (total ns er opion) overpopulated as it is, and if the millions of people dont die each year from cancer and stuff, we face a humongous population increase farther down the road! wich is btw the reason we should just let people fight wars, cuz it also helps problems with agression. :gundge:

Smoking is fine by me, whatever one might smoke.

Exactly, and a basic standard for health should be put into effect for ALL tobacco products, so they won't have such a great potential to kill.

No, it should not be banned in your own private home. But state and city governments should be able to legislate if they want a smoking ban in public.

No, it should not be banned in your own private home. But state and city governments should be able to legislate if they want a smoking ban in public.

That's just stupid. Telling people they can't smoke in public is like telling somebody they can't talk freely in public.

If they had good standards for tobacco products, the smoke wouldn't be very harmful at all. It'd probably be about as harmful as that from a grill.

Exactly, and a basic standard for health should be put into effect for ALL tobacco products, so they won't have such a great potential to kill.


You'll not do a damned thing to cigars.

banning it in public? that seems very extreme, id be more concerned about an automobiles exhaust rather than a a tiny cigarette.

I don't care. Smoke around me or smoke away from me. It has virtually no affect on me.

banning it in public? that seems very extreme, id be more concerned about an automobiles exhaust rather than a a tiny cigarette.

Exactly. Pollution from factories is an even greater concern than that, though.

Exactly, and a basic standard for health should be put into effect for ALL tobacco products, so they won't have such a great potential to kill.

If you touch cigars, and I don't even smoke them, you'll find that it will have a great effect on your health.

we have to leave smoking in place! the planet is (total ns er opion) overpopulated as it is, and if the millions of people dont die each year from cancer and stuff, we face a humongous population increase farther down the road! wich is btw the reason we should just let people fight wars, cuz it also helps problems with agression. :gundge:

You have found the solution to the Social Security problem in the United States.:D

That's just stupid. Telling people they can't smoke in public is like telling somebody they can't talk freely in public.

Australia has recently implimented some of the toughest bans on smoking in the world. You cannot smoke in any non private residentual building, you cannot smoke within 15 meters of any doorway to a public building. :|

banning it in public? that seems very extreme, id be more concerned about an automobiles exhaust rather than a a tiny cigarette.

I've seen it happen, and I rather like going out with friends and coming back home, minus the ash tray fragrance...

That being said, I won't let my friends freeze outside to get their fix. I just use a lot of air purifiers when they leave.

If you touch cigars, and I don't even smoke them, you'll find that it will have a great effect on your health.

My dad's former business partner was a Cigar Enthusiast from Belgium. He chain smoked the damn things, and I was around him for two hours while he was doing just that. It didn't affect me nearly as much as a person chain smoking cigarettes.

Australia has recently implimented some of the toughest bans on smoking in the world. You cannot smoke in any non private residentual building, you cannot smoke within 15 meters of any doorway to a public building. :|

Yo... That's a tad extreme.

My dad's former business partner was a Cigar Enthusiast from Belgium. He chain smoked the damn things, and I was around him for two hours while he was doing just that. It didn't affect me nearly as much as a person chain smoking cigarettes.


A good cigar is practically one hundred percent natural tobacco.

Cigar smoke has a lovely aroma.

haha, it seems like people are too quick to ban things. maybe if they looked at the bigger picture they would realize that banning does more harm then good.

*takes a drag*

There is no giant corporate conspiracy involving cigarettes in a plot for world domination.

Smoking is a filthy, disgusting habit that will kill me and those around me.

*lights up*

But I never really wanted to get old anyways. Never thought it was right that I should go out alone, either.

If you want to smoke , just keep a bloody hell distance away from me lest you want to get something you wish you didn't get .

:mp5: :gundge: :sniper:

That's just stupid. Telling people they can't smoke in public is like telling somebody they can't talk freely in public.

If they had good standards for tobacco products, the smoke wouldn't be very harmful at all. It'd probably be about as harmful as that from a grill.


Ok, I should clarify. I mean smoking ban in public places(Indoors). Now does that make sense? I sure don't want my children around smoke.

Ok, I should clarify. I mean smoking ban in public places(Indoors). Now does that make sense? I sure don't want my children around smoke.

Well, that makes a lot more sense! I think I agree with you on that.

That's just stupid. Telling people they can't smoke in public is like telling somebody they can't talk freely in public.

If they had good standards for tobacco products, the smoke wouldn't be very harmful at all. It'd probably be about as harmful as that from a grill.

I'm sure if you inhaled the smoke from the grill in the same quantity people inhale cigarette smoke, you would find it to be just as unhealthy as cigarette smoke. I doubt you could make a cigarette that wouldn't cause health problems.

Smoke where vere you want, just keep the bloody hell away from me. Ohh, and use a reasonable font... :rolleyes:

Seconded.

Nah don't ban smoking. Why? Their the biggest funders for research in lung cancer (or so I've been told).

Make non-smoking areas in bars, pubs and resteraunts(sp?) compulsory. Smoking should be allowed on the street, it should be allowed in smoking areas. If the pub doesn't have a non-smoking area then don't go in it. And if you do don't whine about people smoking around you.

I'm sure you love all of that wonderful tax revenue it brings in every year.

Depends if the resulting medical costs for society are less. Unfortunately that is longterm thinking instead of shortterm - which is never popular.

I smoke. If you don't like it, get away from ME. I don't see why it is smokers have to be the ones to move away when people feel their lungs are too deinty to handle the secondhandsmoke (apparently the regular air pollution and the stench of their holier-than-though self-righteous crap is OK for Mr/Mrs Clean Lungs). If you see a guy smoking, and you want to put some distance between you and the smoke, do so. It's not that difficult. It's easier than trying to force me to move away from you, as I'm apt to burn my cigarette out in your eyeball.

(apparently the regular air pollution and the stench of their holier-than-though self-righteous crap is OK for Mr/Mrs Clean Lungs).

You do realise that "That is much worse than the thing I am doing, therefor what I do is ok" is a fallacious argument ? Take murder and genocide for instance. Genocide is obviously worse, but that doesn't make murder ok.

The point is that it is possible *your* smoking habit will hurt *me*. It may damage my lungs, but that is not all. It can in fact cost me money, for instance through an increase of the national healthcare costs. Or it may keep doctors busy treating you, leaving them with less time to treat me if I am in need of care. Maybe not immediately, but in 40 years time. And I can think of several other ways your desire to suck lit poison could possibly negatively affect me.

If the amount of tax you pay covers those costs for society, and you are not bothering anyone by forcing them to share your addiction - by all means: smoke away. But the moment your actions cause me harm I have every right to tell you off.

Banned at Bars, Clubs and Restaurants but in other places it's okay to smoke I think.

I think it's stupid to smoke since it makes you dependent on a corporation, but I don't believe in banning it.

This isnt an issue for me. I smoke but I live in spain. Even the banks leave little ashtrays for you and give youlittle sewwts for when you've finished. You can smoke in Bars, pubs, clubs, restaurants, estate agents offices, supermarkets, department stors, basically everywhere. They have never heard of a non smoking area over here.

There is a new plan to ban smoking in public places in 5 yrs time but it's voluntary! Yeah, that'll work!

You do realise that "That is much worse than the thing I am doing, therefor what I do is ok" is a fallacious argument ? Take murder and genocide for instance. Genocide is obviously worse, but that doesn't make murder ok.

Right, but it does put things into perspective for those people who can turn the other cheek to what they're inhaling every day (automobile exhaust fumes among other things), but then get all upset over a cigarette that someone else is smoking.

The point is that it is possible *your* smoking habit will hurt *me*.

It's also possible it won't.

It's possible for smokers, in fact, to live to ripe old ages and not die or have significant health problems to smoking. It happens.

But if you don't smoke, or even hang around someone who does, and you die of lung cancer or something, what then? Who do you blame then? Automobile drivers?


It may damage my lungs, but that is not all. It can in fact cost me money, for instance through an increase of the national healthcare costs. Or it may keep doctors busy treating you, leaving them with less time to treat me if I am in need of care. Maybe not immediately, but in 40 years time. And I can think of several other ways your desire to suck lit poison could possibly negatively affect me.

And I'm sure you do.

Of course, you could suck it up and pay taxes like the rest of us have to.
You could have faith that doctors can treat people EVEN IF they are ALSO treating OTHER people... you seem to think medicine is something to fight over, something to hate the other patients for having to get, and that medical attention is something that should only be given to people like you, who have absolutely no bad tendencies, behaviors, habits, or qualities. ;)
You could even stop blaming other people for your hypothetical problems.

If the amount of tax you pay covers those costs for society

No, the amount of tax money I as an individual pays does not cover even a significant fraction of the national health budget. Luckily, that's why it's a NATIONAL thing and everyone has to pay taxes, not just me! Gosh!

As for telling me off whenever my habit causes you harm, well go for it, if you can prove my habit in particular did anything to you. But you see all smokers the same, all equally responsible for your precious lungs. Did you know that heart disease, not lung cancer, is the leading cause of death in this country? Stress causes heart disease. By worrying about what other people are doing so much, and trying to control us, YOU are contributing to the damage to society here.

So I hope you're not going to reply and stress me out, unless you can pay my taxes! :D

Do what the fuck you want, as long as you're not making taxpayers pay for your surgery or whatever when you get lung cancer.

Noone could EVER give me a reasonable answer on why they began smoking in the first place. I mean an answer I could live with. Personally I think banning the tobacco-industry would lead to the same results as the alcohol-ban in the US in the beginning of the last century...
Just let those who want to cripple themselves do it, as long as they don't force me to do the same.

Do you think smoking should be banned? What do you think of it?

My personal opinion, I think it is absolutely idiotic that they even manufacture cigarettes, with the fact that some ingredients include tar, and a type of rat poison. I feel it is stupid to pay people so you can slowly commit suicide. I mean, I'm not paying someone so I can kill myself. Personally, I think cigarettes should be shot, killed and stomped upon by the entire human population.

What is your opinion?

I think cigarettes are Darwin's best friend. :)

BAN SMOKING!
BAN EVERYTHING!
BAN THE BANNING OF THINGS!

Ban Smoking!
Ban Everything!
Ban The Banning Of Things!

No, ban the banning of the banning of things!

Smoking should be banned from public buildings unless it's some kind of club that's exclusive to smokers or people who don't care about inhaling second hand smoke... or if a place has a smoke free area and a fishtank type thing for the smokers.

Ok here's the deal. Smoking is perfectly okay. If you don't like it and I'm doing it unobnoxiously in an area where it's permitted you can eff the hell off. I know it's bad for me and I don't care. It doesn't do anything except anger me when I get lectured about the bad things that could happen. I'm not an idiot. I like to smoke and until I don't I will. If you don't like it when I smoke GO AWAY. If you die from 2nd hand smoke I probably don't care because I didn't like you to begin with. As for my own cancerous death, it's none of your business.

BAN SMOKING!
BAN EVERYTHING!
BAN THE BANNING OF THINGS!
Thats the way imy nation works Ban until you can ban nomore and then ban some more and then ban Samoa!

Smoking is evil.
English shouldnt have reintroduced it.

In New Zealand there is a ban in all enclosed public spaces(bars, cafes etc..).
My only problem with that is that the Cigar bar at the top of my street can't have people smoking cigars in there anymore. This isn't a personal thing but I think that perhaps special liscences could be obtained for places where the central theme is smoking, non-smokers can just stay away.

Noone could EVER give me a reasonable answer on why they began smoking in the first place. I mean an answer I could live with.

I began smoking because i have endometriosis and the pais was awful. I couldnt take the pill because it caused migranes and i discovered pot (through my boyfriend of the time). So i smoked for 5 to 7 days a months

it relaxed my muscles and really worked. Much better than the pain killers my doctor gave me.

So, one day i didnt have any pot and i had the curse and i was suffering so i rolled a normal cigarrete. It didnt work quite as well but it helped. It went from there.

When i discovered an injection to stop the pain of periods, i quit pot, but i never managed to quit smoking.

I abhor smoking. I also equally abhor all these restrictions on smoking in recent years.

I'm a non-smoker, so I don't like people smoking around me. I've got no problem with it if they want to smoke in the privacy of their own home, car, etc.

People should be able to smoke cigars wherever they want.

Cigarettes reek and are a public nuisance though.

Personally, I think all tobacco products are ridiculous. People start to use them, find out they're bad (even though everyone told them that when they started), and then they spend a great deal of personal energy and money to stop, if they ever do. It basically a big money hole that nothing comes out of.

However, I am a rather liberal person who supports individual choice, so if people want to give themselves some of the most violent and painful diseases on the planet, and pay money to do so, that's their choice. But, if they're going to, they need to at least have the decency to respect those of us who care about our health.

Right, but it does put things into perspective for those people who can turn the other cheek to what they're inhaling every day (automobile exhaust fumes among other things), but then get all upset over a cigarette that someone else is smoking.

Those fabric fumes serve a purpose for society. Those cars *may* serve a purpose for society. Your smoking is selfish.
Of course, one needs to stop those fumes from other sources also. Which through all kind of environmental laws people are trying to do.

It's possible for smokers, in fact, to live to ripe old ages and not die or have significant health problems to smoking. It happens.
It is also possible to put a revolver with a bullet in one of the chambers against my head and surviving this russian roulette. That doesn't take away the fact that I would be taking a significant risk.

and that medical attention is something that should only be given to people like you, who have absolutely no bad tendencies, behaviors, habits, or qualities. ;)

To a degree -yes. If your healthcare system is a national one, based on taxation, I think it is fair towards the rest of society to try and keep the costs to a minimum . If it is privatised and if you can afford it - by all means do whatever you like - as long as it only costs you money.

No, the amount of tax money I as an individual pays does not cover even a significant fraction of the national health budget. Luckily, that's why it's a NATIONAL thing and everyone has to pay taxes, not just me! Gosh!

But since *you* deliberately increase the amount of money *others* need to pay to finance it, it seems not unfair that you pay more, agreed ? Healthcare tax is there to provide for the needy. This does not mean you should do everything in your power to become needy.

I began smoking because i have endometriosis and the pais was awful. I couldnt take the pill because it caused migranes and i discovered pot (through my boyfriend of the time). So i smoked for 5 to 7 days a months

it relaxed my muscles and really worked. Much better than the pain killers my doctor gave me.

So, one day i didnt have any pot and i had the curse and i was suffering so i rolled a normal cigarrete. It didnt work quite as well but it helped. It went from there.

When i discovered an injection to stop the pain of periods, i quit pot, but i never managed to quit smoking.
Some parts of this give me an idea...

How about we do something to cigarettes in a way similar some people want to do with marijuana: legalize smoking for medical and/or therepeutic (sp?) purposes...

Personally, I'm against ALL smoking, but I currently have no say in people's lives... Until I become a leader of a Empire... *evil grin* :D

Do you think smoking should be banned? What do you think of it?

My personal opinion, I think it is absolutely idiotic that they even manufacture cigarettes, with the fact that some ingredients include tar, and a type of rat poison. I feel it is stupid to pay people so you can slowly commit suicide. I mean, I'm not paying someone so I can kill myself. Personally, I think cigarettes should be shot, killed and stomped upon by the entire human population.

What is your opinion?
yes!

I smoke as I am an addict - I try to give up regularly but as yet have not been successful

I WILL NOT smoke around my son or even in the house when he is home as I dont want him to breathe my second hand smoke. I refuse to smoke in restaurents and if I am in the pub with non smoking people in the group of friends I am with I always ask them if they mind if I do smoke - if they say yes I say 'no problem' and either move away to have a smoke or dont light up

I guess the reason I am such a considerate smoker is down to the fact that both my parents are ex smokers and are very much against it so I had to be a considerate smoker

I also managed to give up when I was pregnant with my son so I have done it once and should be able to do it again

I really wish that the government would ban them tbh as then I wouldnt be able to smoke and therefore would be able to give up without temptation

I don't think smoking should be banned. If I understand correctly what happens in Italy (and anyone, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), I think that it's good - smoking isn't banned in public places, but in restaurants, internet points etc, they must be in another section with a door. Is that right? I mean, let's not take away personal liberties - it should be a choice, it's just that people who are repulsed by it shouldn't have to deal with it.
"No, no smoking in bars now, and soon no drinking and no talking!" - Eddie Izzard

It is my civic duty to smoke. The taxes I pay for each carton of cigarettes go to education and public beautification. Besides I keep tobacco farmers employed as well as create jobs in the medical and mortuary fields....

2gergiadark orange
banning smoking would not work. It would just turn smokers into criminals , like people who use drugs . Education , health awareness , and making smoking untendy is the way to stop young people from taking it up . Price is the way to encourage older smokers to stop , in autralia a package is now 12$

Do you think smoking should be banned? What do you think of it?

My personal opinion, I think it is absolutely idiotic that they even manufacture cigarettes, with the fact that some ingredients include tar, and a type of rat poison. I feel it is stupid to pay people so you can slowly commit suicide. I mean, I'm not paying someone so I can kill myself. Personally, I think cigarettes should be shot, killed and stomped upon by the entire human population.

What is your opinion?

I completely and utterly agree with you. Fucking poison peddlers! Kill the parasites because thats exactly what they are! Make them pay! They should be put on trail for murder if you ask me! Also, I always thought that the habit was for the stupid and only soft weakings practice it as it weakens both body and mind. It serves nobody! Be rid of it!

As a non-cigarette smoker, I am not exhaling extra noxious fumes into the air.
So as Not smoking is the base state, The vast majority of areas should be non smoking.

If you wish to smoke you could do it in your own home or certain smoking venues.

Of course the health of you children should be taken into consideration, and If you smoke in the areas of the house they have access to, you should be charged with attempted GBH.

Likewise, if you are in a car with non smoking passengers.

I also think that if it is illegal to eat or drink while driving (as it is in the UK) it should also be illegal to smoke while driving, which is at least as dangerous (one of my friends admitted to me that an accident was caused by him dropping a lit cigarette into his crotch).

Lastly, If you do smoke, smoke. Don't light the thing and leave it in the ashtray or in your fingers seeing how much ash you can pile up in one go.

Boy I loved it when I smoked and had some POS elitist try to tell me to put it out. It is quite simple, if the place you go allows smoking and you do not like it go somewhere else. If a person is smoking on the street you can walk around them. If they are smoking period you can always avoid them. To put limitations on Personal liberty is not only an insult to Democracy but it is actually fascism/communism, dictatorial and others wise just plain wrong for civilized people to do. You have the personal freedom to not be around it, just as another has the personal freedom to smoke till their lungs are black as charcoal. About the healthcare system, it is no different than those lazy bums that get free healthcare but do not work a day in their life. Why should I pay for someone who refuses to hold even a minimum wage job to help defer some of their tax burden away from me? That is more selfish than someone that wants to light up and kill some of their own lung. Especially seeing you have a chance to walk away and stay clear of them.

Oh and the Government is not the fix to everything, infect more times than not the Government screws it up more than if they left it alone for the public to decide. This thought that you need the Government to save you from yourself is a dangerous notion that needs to be stomped out in the coming generations.

It is my civic duty to smoke. The taxes I pay for each carton of cigarettes go to education and public beautification. Besides I keep tobacco farmers employed as well as create jobs in the medical and mortuary fields....

This argument is valid if you can proof that the money you pay in taxes, as well as the jobs you help preserve is in total more than or equal to the costs of smoking for society, as reflected e.g. in the increase in national healthcare costs, the costs for cleaning the streets of stumps, the clearing out of nicotine stains and smell from curtains etc. It is possible you are quite right - but you need to take both sides into account before you can use this as an argument.

This is NOT a personal freedoms issue, and I hate it when people try to treat it as such. Talking about whatever you want in public is a personal freedoms issue. Wearing what you want in public is a personal freedoms issue. Smoking is not. If things like that were, I should be able to take a butcher knife, and go to the mall and spin around in circles with it in my hand until I'm dizzy. I probably won't kill anybody, right? They can just get away from me right? If I fall down onto the knife I'm only hurting myself, right?

Most smokers will justify their smoking by saying the person who is offended can always leave. Well, sometimes you can't leave. If you're waiting in a bus shelter with somebody who's smoking, you can't just leave. You need to catch that bus. Why should I be the one to vacate the shelter because of a disgusting habit YOU CHOSE? Also, what if it's raining? Nobody would want to be out in that. Yes, it's true that I chose to be a non-smoker, but there is no way that that particular personal choice could kill anybody, ever.

Even if we do try to make this a personal freedoms issue, I'd just like to state that I believe it is my right to make this world a better place for myself and my children, so I will continue to be an advocate of banning smoking. I applaud the smokers who don't smoke in front of your children... it's wonderful that you care about them so much. However, I believe anybody who does light up in front of their children is participating in child abuse. I also applaud the smokers who ask the people they're with if they can smoke. If eveybody who smoked were considerate like that, there would be no need for a ban. The ugly truth is, though, that most people don't care. Most people don't ask, or if they do, they ask in such a way that the non-smoker feels pressured to say yes. They continue to believe it is their personal right to possibly shorten my life, and worse (in my opinion), fill it with all sorts of horrible diseases.

And yes, I do realize that pollution is also a problem. I can be the advocate of two issues at once, you know. Speaking of pollution, how about the fact that cigarette butts introduced to our water supply (being washed into the ocean from the beach, or through our drainage system) are a major cause in the killing of a very beneficial type of plankton, an extremely important link in the food chain we all need to survive? You're not only hurting us, you're hurting the animals too.

Well, I need to get off my soapbox and get to work.

Do you think smoking should be banned? What do you think of it?

My personal opinion, I think it is absolutely idiotic that they even manufacture cigarettes, with the fact that some ingredients include tar, and a type of rat poison. I feel it is stupid to pay people so you can slowly commit suicide. I mean, I'm not paying someone so I can kill myself. Personally, I think cigarettes should be shot, killed and stomped upon by the entire human population.

What is your opinion?
I think that if they ban cigarettes, they should ban all cigarettes, including those funny little ones you make yourself. :D

I also think that if I didn't have anything else to do other than raise hell about cigarette smoking, I would just kill myself and be done with it.

Those fabric fumes serve a purpose for society. Those cars *may* serve a purpose for society. Your smoking is selfish.
Of course, one needs to stop those fumes from other sources also. Which through all kind of environmental laws people are trying to do.

Well it's good that you see smoking as just as important to stop as automobile pollution. However,

A Journal of Air and Waste Management Association study found children living within 250 yards of streets or highways with 20,000 vehicles per day are six times more likely to develop all types of cancer and eight times more likely to get leukemia

This was taken from some website. Seems valid enough to me though. Now what do you think is more common, people living within 250 yds of streets or highways, or people living with a cigarette smoker? (or anyone else who CAN'T escape from the secondhandsmoke?)

I think the former, and therefore the former is far more dangerous, widespread, and downright more important.

As for being selfish... you are correct. And one thing about freedom and democracy is it allows people to be selfish. Unless you want to switch over to communism where no one is selfish, and everyone is 100% concerned with society over their individual person... and no one is greedy... cats and dogs live together... la la la....

Selfish is a good thing to be and you my friend, trying to get me and others like me to change just because YOU want us to, are also selfish.

Selfish is what makes society run. Selfish is why most people work their jobs (to improve their own standing and life). Selfish is good for society.

It is also possible to put a revolver with a bullet in one of the chambers against my head and surviving this russian roulette. That doesn't take away the fact that I would be taking a significant risk.

You've got a chance of dying 1/6th of the time (assuming a six chamber revolver) in that scenario. Are you suggesting every six cigarettes I'm likely to die from it? How about 600 cigarettes? 6000? You see, it's not the same probability at all no matter how you stretch it. So while both are risks, I would definitely say smoking cigarettes is far less significant a risk than playing russian roulette.

But you could try the latter and I'll try the former and we'll see how long each of us lasts! Be like an experiment... :)


To a degree -yes. If your healthcare system is a national one, based on taxation, I think it is fair towards the rest of society to try and keep the costs to a minimum . If it is privatised and if you can afford it - by all means do whatever you like - as long as it only costs you money.

As in no, you have no bad qualities faults behaviors etc? No. I don't buy that. Nor do I buy that even if you did, that would mean you had any more right to medical treatment. It might be fair towards the rest of society to try to keep costs to a minimum, but it's also fair towards myself not to place the entire responsibility of the national health system on MY shoulders. Which do I choose, society or self?

Well, speaking of cars, driving cars - since they pollute - isn't fair to society. I'm killing babies each time I hop on the freeway. What's more, stupid people driving cars cause accidents. Together, anyone who is driving and anyone who is stupid (and especially stupid and driving) represent a horribly unfair risk to society and a burden on the medical health system.

But so what? You can't make stupid people go away. You can't ask people to stop driving. And you can't make me stop smoking if it is not my want to do so.

End result, instead of trying to blame a select group of actors and then getting them to change their behaviors to fit your views, do something better like improve that health system, or whatever. That's really all the good you can do with such a rather large global system, whereas pestering individual smokers only exacerbates things.


But since *you* deliberately increase the amount of money *others* need to pay to finance it, it seems not unfair that you pay more, agreed ? Healthcare tax is there to provide for the needy. This does not mean you should do everything in your power to become needy.

It IS unfair, because I am not deliberately doing anything but smoking. The fact that you see a correlation between "smoking" and "higher health care costs" does not meant that each time I smoke, I am raising healthcare costs. Should we tax people who drive cars more?

People do NOT have to drive. You could say that without cars society wouldn't run properly. Well, without civil freedoms people won't run properly.

Taxes should not be a judgemental form of punishment levvied against those who 'do society the most harm.' And if it should, then the highest taxpayers should be prisoners, who are a larger burden on society financially than a handful of dying cigarette smokers could ever be - not including their crimes in the first place.

The reasoning behind your desire to ban cigarettes is that it can result in harm to the person who smokes them and those around them.

Well, so do a lot of activities. like talking on your cell phone while driving. Like driving over 30mph... driving a Hummer with high toxic emissions...NASCAR... rock concerts... playing football...drinking alcohol...using pesticides and non-organic fertilizers...

And the effects of second hand smoke are only significant if you live or work in close quarters with a smoker for many years. Standing next to a smoker at an outdoor bus stop would not appreciably affect your health. You may not enjoy the smell of it, but i hate the smell of hot tar used for roofing. Should i keep roofers from working?

Mind your own dang business and clean up your own back yard. I will kill myself any way i wish. And unless you are prepared to ban every single activity that has a detrimental effect on society's health (meat eating, alcohol drinking, gasoline consumption...) BUG OFF.

If you want to smoke , just keep a bloody hell distance away from me lest you want to get something you wish you didn't get .

:mp5: :gundge: :sniper:

What...a dirty look from a 12 year old??

This is NOT a personal freedoms issue, and I hate it when people try to treat it as such.

Too bad. It is.

Talking about whatever you want in public is a personal freedoms issue. Wearing what you want in public is a personal freedoms issue. Smoking is not. If things like that were, I should be able to take a butcher knife, and go to the mall and spin around in circles with it in my hand until I'm dizzy. I probably won't kill anybody, right? They can just get away from me right? If I fall down onto the knife I'm only hurting myself, right?

Aha, so smoking is just like going to the mall and playing with a butcher knife in a crazy way? Interesting... but totally false.

1) No one ever died or was immediately wounded by a single cigarette
2) People who play with butcher knives like that probably WILL kill someone
3) If you really see smoking as killing people - besides needing obvious psychological help - you should just go ahead and throw homicide charges at smokers. You're right (so you believe), so you could easily convince 12 people to agree with you that smoking is murder, why not go for it?

Or maybe you realize that your comparison is a stretch and as unfair as me suggesting that driving a car is an act of homicide, merely because a lot of people die due to car accidents and pollution.


Most smokers will justify their smoking by saying the person who is offended can always leave. Well, sometimes you can't leave. If you're waiting in a bus shelter with somebody who's smoking, you can't just leave. You need to catch that bus. Why should I be the one to vacate the shelter because of a disgusting habit YOU CHOSE?

No, you'd be the one to vacate the shelter because it is YOUR CHOICE not to be around mister smoker. You could always CHOSE not to, and live with the consequences.

Or hey, you could try to get other people to be your slaves and do as you wish!

Also, what if it's raining? Nobody would want to be out in that. Yes, it's true that I chose to be a non-smoker, but there is no way that that particular personal choice could kill anybody, ever.

It could if the stress you cause (including no doubt, harassing smokers) contributes to heart disease which, as I recall is the leading cause of death. Stress has been known to contribute to heart disease, and when people like you start yipping and calling for blood it contributes to stress.

Therefore you're a murderer! By making that post, you're stressing me out and KILLING me! ;)

Even if we do try to make this a personal freedoms issue, I'd just like to state that I believe it is my right to make this world a better place for myself and my children, so I will continue to be an advocate of banning smoking.

Yeah it's my right to make this world a better place as well. Of course, I define a better place as one in which there is freedom to smoke. You probably have some other definition, but surely we can all agree we're both in our own rights.

I applaud the smokers who don't smoke in front of your children... it's wonderful that you care about them so much. However, I believe anybody who does light up in front of their children is participating in child abuse. I also applaud the smokers who ask the people they're with if they can smoke. If eveybody who smoked were considerate like that, there would be no need for a ban. The ugly truth is, though, that most people don't care. Most people don't ask, or if they do, they ask in such a way that the non-smoker feels pressured to say yes. They continue to believe it is their personal right to possibly shorten my life, and worse (in my opinion), fill it with all sorts of horrible diseases.

What your problem is is with rude people. Chances are, you'd have problems with them regardless of whether they smoked or not.

And what horrible diseases? You have any? No, you only know that secondhand smoke can be statistically linked to them. Just as you know that air pollution (i.e stepping outside of your house) can. But you don't see car DRIVERS as murderers/child abusers/assholes who think it's their personal right to possibly shorten your life/cause you lots of harm, do you?

So why is it so different? Because cars are considered necessary (they aren't; you'll notice humanity got along fine without 'em)? Because you don't blame the tree for a forest when it comes to car pollution? Because you yourself drive a car? ;)

Where are all the libertarians on this??? I was under the impression that libertarians believe that you should be allowed to do anything you want with your own body ... commit suicide, take drugs, prostitute yourself ... why not smoke cigarettes? Hmmm? :)

Where are all the libertarians on this??? I was under the impression that libertarians believe that you should be allowed to do anything you want with your own body ... commit suicide, take drugs, prostitute yourself ... why not smoke cigarettes? Hmmm? :)

My views are a lot like libertarian views. I don't call myself libertarian though. I don't verbally self-abuse.

I wish even more than strangers smoking away from me is that family would keep smoke away also. I find smoking cigarettes around your family disgusting, because for one, most of them don't smoke, two you're supposed to keep your fmily healthy. Whenever I go somewhere with my mom, she will light up a cigarette in the car and then smoke when we are eating. When me and my sister are like "Dude, my throat is hurting from the smoke" she gets all pissy because she needs her stupid addiction. Me and my sister actually bend down and try to stay low and the sort to dodge it. It really isn't hard for her to smoke a cigarette before leaving and then maybe smoke one before going into a restaraunt or something.

Not only that, but smoking while you are pregnant pisses me off. I believe my mom smoked while I was in the uterus, and if you do that there is an increased chance that MY offspring, even if I am extremely healthy and do no drugs, could be born mentally challenged.

What makes this issue NOT a personal choice issue, is that smoking is addictive.

By the smokers arguments here all drugs should be legal, and drug use in public complete with its side effects should be not just accepted but get priority (you want non smokers to leave wherever you are).

Please let me see where you draw the line and why.

I think the former, and therefore the former is far more dangerous, widespread, and downright more important.

Oh, I *agree*. But that doesn't mean you can only focus on that. A government can divide its interests, giving one thing priority over another, but still giving attention to the lesser evil.

As for being selfish... you are correct. And one thing about freedom and democracy is it allows people to be selfish.

Within limits. There are restrictions on personal freedom, "laws", to ensure a better functioning of society (unless you live in an anarchist state of course). This topic is about the question if such a restriction on your freedom can be justified. Seeing something as detrimental for society as a whole without there existing a real need can be used as an argument. Not by itself, because then one can abolish almost all freedoms, but it is one of the arguments.

Lets use a different approach than health issues.
Can two people have sex in the middle of a busy square ? Why not ? It is not unhealthy for themselves. Yet it is deemed too unpleasant to the senses of others. If this is right or wrong can be debated, but it is the current rule.
Can someone cover himself with excrements and then run down the street smelling foul ? No. Why not ? Because his excersise of personal freedom hurts other people too much by offending the senses. If this is right or wrong can be debated, but it is the current rule.
Can someone light a stinking cigarette and upset the average mans nose ? If we continue the previous reasoning... no. But no doubt you have a counterargument :)

You've got a chance of dying 1/6th of the time (assuming a six chamber revolver) in that scenario. Are you suggesting every six cigarettes I'm likely to die from it?

No, I am stating that I am taking a direct risk of suffering from the direct result of my action. Someone who smokes cigarettes has a direct risk of suffering from the consequences. It is not 100% certain he will, it may even be as low as the 1/6th.. yet many people would in the revolver case deem my risk crazy and put me in a mental institution.
The point I wanted to make however was that your claim that "some smokers stay healthy" is not an argument, unless it is a truly significant percentage. Which is possible of course. Care to show some data ?

As in no, you have no bad qualities faults behaviors etc? No. I don't buy that.
Don't be silly. But I try to be a good citizen, yes. Fail miserably at it at times, but try none the less.

Nor do I buy that even if you did, that would mean you had any more right to medical treatment. It might be fair towards the rest of society to try to keep costs to a minimum, but it's also fair towards myself not to place the entire responsibility of the national health system on MY shoulders. Which do I choose, society or self?

That is indeed your choice. But you are not doing that - you are trying to get the benefits of two different systems instead of choosing. On one side of the spectrum we have a system that allows optimal personal freedom, but the risk is also entirely yours (A). On the other side we have one that gives no freedom, but the risk is entirely paid for by society(B). Between them we have those that restrict personal freedom somewhat, but also shares the risks (C). You are now trying to reap the benefits of both A and B or C without taking the downside of either. Be consistent and pick one.

Should we tax people who drive cars more?
Most countries do, yes. It is called "road tax" and "km/miles tax".

I'll skip all the health reasons but give you smokers other reasons why you shouldn't smoke.

erosion (http://sinuhe.jypoly.fi/~a8191/portfolio/manipulation3.jpg)
1. Tobacco farming causes soil erosion, deforestation and even desertification. Tobacco plants are also very fragile and tobacco farmers need to use huge amounts of pesticides to protect their plants. Of course farmers could also use the land for better purposes e.g. to produce food...
subsidies (http://sinuhe.jypoly.fi/~a8191/portfolio/manipulation4.gif)
2. Tobacco is the most heavily subsidised crop in EU. While wineproducers can get 200€ per ha, tobacco farmers get over 6500€ per ha. I bet you smokers don't really want to give EU money to these farmers.

Too bad. It is.

It is not.. especially when second hand smoke is in fact as or even more dangerous then first hand smoking.. just the corrolation now made between second hand smoke and breast cancer has so outlined the real danger of second hand smoke.. your decision to smoke isn't just hurting you.. its hurting me to. Why do I have to risk my health if I want to go out and have fun on the town.... if your going to risk your health you should seperate yourself from others. Just as in Bars and clubs and discos the staff does not have a choice if they want to be around smokers or not unless they dont want to work >.>. This isn't a personal issue.. its a public health issue!!

Aha, so smoking is just like going to the mall and playing with a butcher knife in a crazy way? Interesting... but totally false.

1) No one ever died or was immediately wounded by a single cigarette
2) People who play with butcher knives like that probably WILL kill someone
3) If you really see smoking as killing people - besides needing obvious psychological help - you should just go ahead and throw homicide charges at smokers. You're right (so you believe), so you could easily convince 12 people to agree with you that smoking is murder, why not go for it?

smoking is killilng people.. while its not murder because the smoker has no intent to kill others, and they are really just acting off adiction.
Its true a single cigarett never wounded anyone.. but then a majority of smokers dont stop at one cigarette, and most people inhailng second hand smoke dont recieve it from just one smoker.


No, you'd be the one to vacate the shelter because it is YOUR CHOICE not to be around mister smoker. You could always CHOSE not to, and live with the consequences.

again i state.. mister smokers choices are not just effecting mister smoker.. Now he is infrinding on other peoples health and rights to live in a health enviornment... Just as we would hold someone accountable who decided he wanted to kill himself by burning down the building.. never minding the fact that the building was filled with people. His choice is effecting others



And what horrible diseases? You have any? No, you only know that secondhand smoke can be statistically linked to them. Just as you know that air pollution (i.e stepping outside of your house) can. But you don't see car DRIVERS as murderers/child abusers/assholes who think it's their personal right to possibly shorten your life/cause you lots of harm, do you?

linages statistically are about as close as you will ever get to direct evidence being short of direct evidence... When you see people living in conditions in which they take on second hand smoke having 20-30% more risk of cancer and heart disease.. this is going beyond air pollution to something more specific.

oh and yes.. smoking has to be banned in public places... im glad America has goten that part right... I hope atleast Europe (who are seemingly so concious about the health and welfare of others) will eventually take on this as well.. every time i visit europe i surely lose 2 years off my life just from all the second hand smoke in every establishment i have to endure.

oh and yes.. smoking has to be banned in public places... im glad America has goten that part right... I hope atleast Europe (who are seemingly so concious about the health and welfare of others) will eventually take on this as well.. every time i visit europe i surely lose 2 years off my life just from all the second hand smoke in every establishment i have to endure.

Quite a few countries are adopting laws concerning that. Smoking in the Netherlands for instance is now forbidden in every public building. most coorporate buildings as well as in public transport. Exceptions are special smokers zones on e.g. trainstations or inside special bars.

It is one choice to smoke or not yet it should be forbidden in public areas, 'cause you do harm to non-smokers: even restaurants, pubs and cafes.

It's called freedom. You can't babysit people all the time. Let people smoke, just make sure everybody knows the risks.

By the same token, if you legalise smoking in public, you should also make it legal for me to punch a smoker in the face if he/she deliberately blows smoke in my face. I don't care if it's healthy or not, it's downright unpleasant and disgusting. I don't piss on your shoes, you don't blow smoke in my face. We get that right and we're fine.

It's called freedom. You can't babysit people all the time. Let people smoke, just make sure everybody knows the risks.

By the same token, if you legalise smoking in public, you should also make it legal for me to punch a smoker in the face if he/she deliberately blows smoke in my face. I don't care if it's healthy or not, it's downright unpleasant and disgusting. I don't piss on your shoes, you don't blow smoke in my face. We get that right and we're fine.
That sounds like a good law... :D

*Punches Neptune for obscuring its orbit with smoke*

subsidies (http://sinuhe.jypoly.fi/~a8191/portfolio/manipulation4.gif)
2. Tobacco is the most heavily subsidised crop in EU. While wineproducers can get 200€ per ha, tobacco farmers get over 6500€ per ha. I bet you smokers don't really want to give EU money to these farmers.
Not too convincing. Stop smoking because tobacco farmers get more subsidies in Europe than wine producers.

Not too convincing. Stop smoking because tobacco farmers get more subsidies in Europe than wine producers.
Yeah I know. I just hate the fact that get any subsidies. That's taxpayers money anyway. I don't think we should support the farmers and then complain about the costs smoking causes in healthcare.

Smoking is bad. It not only hurts you, but the people around you as well.

Oh, I *agree*. But that doesn't mean you can only focus on that. A government can divide its interests, giving one thing priority over another, but still giving attention to the lesser evil.

Right, but think of the energy YOU are spending, tackling one smoker. Think of thousands, tens or hundreds of thousands of smokestacks; millions of car exhausts. You are foolishly spending your time and energy (and mine) by berating people for smoking. (And that is what you're doing.)


Within limits. There are restrictions on personal freedom, "laws", to ensure a better functioning of society (unless you live in an anarchist state of course). This topic is about the question if such a restriction on your freedom can be justified. Seeing something as detrimental for society as a whole without there existing a real need can be used as an argument. Not by itself, because then one can abolish almost all freedoms, but it is one of the arguments.

I say there IS a real need. There's an economic need, a social one, and a psychological one.

Unless you mean "need" in the survivalist sense... in which case we don't need anything at all other than the absolute necessities of life.

And you're right, that argument can (and does) lead naturally to abolition of almost all freedoms.

Lets use a different approach than health issues.
Can two people have sex in the middle of a busy square ?

Well... uh. Yes they can. Legally? Meh. Legal shmegal. You realize of course, that people will smoke cigarettes even if you DO ban them, just as people do sometimes have sex in the most unbelievable of places.


Why not ? It is not unhealthy for themselves. Yet it is deemed too unpleasant to the senses of others. If this is right or wrong can be debated, but it is the current rule.

True. It's a current rule.

Can someone cover himself with excrements and then run down the street smelling foul ? No. Why not ? Because his excersise of personal freedom hurts other people too much by offending the senses. If this is right or wrong can be debated, but it is the current rule.

Sure, it's the current rule.

Can someone light a stinking cigarette and upset the average mans nose ? If we continue the previous reasoning... no. But no doubt you have a counterargument :)

The current rule is I *can*. I don't need a counterargument, because all you've done is presented some laws based on 'social decency' type angles. Currently those same laws support smoking still...


No, I am stating that I am taking a direct risk of suffering from the direct result of my action. Someone who smokes cigarettes has a direct risk of suffering from the consequences. It is not 100% certain he will, it may even be as low as the 1/6th.. yet many people would in the revolver case deem my risk crazy and put me in a mental institution.

No, it is NOWHERE NEAR 1/6th a chance. Per cigarette?

Or maybe you meant just "smoking" as in "one who smokes for X amount of years at X rate?" In which case the revolver analogy has passed happily into antiquation, since picking up a gun and shooting yourself is vastly more risky than picking up a cigarette and smoking it. That is why in the revolver case you'd be crazy stupid to do it, whereas in the smoker case it's your choice and decision and you don't have to be crazy stupid to either smoke or not smoke.

The point I wanted to make however was that your claim that "some smokers stay healthy" is not an argument, unless it is a truly significant percentage. Which is possible of course. Care to show some data ?

George Burns. Or OK, I'm healthy as we speak. I don't care to show any data, because I know for a fact that it's very possible to smoke cigarettes and not die of lung cancer or other smoking relating problems.

Just as it's possible (for example) to have gay sex and not transmit AIDS or pervert the will of God. Your precious moral decency laws are a little like laws that forbid gay sex. And likewise, they won't prevent smoking - just make smoking go into the closet, where ignorance, lack of communication, repression and criminality cause more problems than you'd have with legal cigarettes. Then of course there's the prohibition analogy - or pretty much any track record concerning 'war on drugs' crusades of which your cigarette ban is just one more foray against the heathens.


Don't be silly. But I try to be a good citizen, yes. Fail miserably at it at times, but try none the less.

I forgot the original point here. Oh well.

That is indeed your choice. But you are not doing that - you are trying to get the benefits of two different systems instead of choosing. On one side of the spectrum we have a system that allows optimal personal freedom, but the risk is also entirely yours (A). On the other side we have one that gives no freedom, but the risk is entirely paid for by society(B). Between them we have those that restrict personal freedom somewhat, but also shares the risks (C). You are now trying to reap the benefits of both A and B or C without taking the downside of either. Be consistent and pick one.

How am I trying to do anything of that sort? I am trying to maintain my current state - cigarettes are legal, and that's that. I give 2 shits about the healthcare system - really. They (the health care system) have killed and mangled and fucked with enough people I know, so that I really am not at all concerned about it, and if you want to tie it in with cigarettes we may as well tie it in with anything that could possibly be construed to be a burden on our health system as well.

If anyone is trying to reap the benefits of both without taking the downsides, it may as well be you. Unless you really do advocate B... in which case I have no further words to say to you.

Everyone tries to make the best of it.

But not everyone tries to restrict others freedoms as you are. You don't want to accept risks or responsiblity - you would rather prevent, forcefully, people from smoking because you are unwilling to handle individual situations that come up - like some particular smoker blowing smoke directly in your face.

Instead of dealing with that, you'd rather blanket condemn all smoking and all smokers as being exactly the same problem to you. Much like... oh I don't know... [insert any one of a thousand stupid rules enacted by people like you with your self righteous moral decency spew cluck-clucking at people like me]


Most countries do, yes. It is called "road tax" and "km/miles tax".

I had no idea, though it's not surprising.

But that's really for use of the roads, which of course require lots of resources to keep going. It's not a punishment because driving causes pollution causes health problems. Or maybe it is, and people are so stupid that when I give out a stupid scenario thinking it will be rhetorically too stupid to possible happen, it isn't, because people are consistently more stupid than I'd thought. Especially governments, about taxation - which is theft anyway, theft justified by all the "society vs individual" supporters. The same types of people you could probably find in a lynch mob because you see, black men are a danger to society.