NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is smoking still legal? It's a disgusting habit, antisocial and dangerous.

We don't allow other drugs to be used recreationally, so why is this seen as somehow different?

It doesn't 'make a profit for the Government', as I'm sure many people will claim, as it's the NHS that must pick up the bill for all the smoking related illnesses it causes (at least in the UK), a bill far higher than any taxes it raises. Besides, if tax revenue was the reason for legalisation, then why only cigarettes and not other drugs?

It's not a question of 'legalise it and regulate it;' we’re hardly doing a brilliant job of keeping it out of the hands of those who shouldn't have it. Stories about 10 year olds smoking are far from rare.

It kills, it costs and it means I can't come home from the pub without smelling like I've been sleeping in an ashtray. Why not just ban it and be done with it?

I agree without a shadow of a doubt. Thank you.

Why is smoking still legal? It's a disgusting habit, antisocial and dangerous.

We don't allow other drugs to be used recreationally, so why is this seen as somehow different?

It doesn't 'make a profit for the Government', as I'm sure many people will claim, as it's the NHS that must pick up the bill for all the smoking related illnesses it causes (at least in the UK), a bill far higher than any taxes it raises. Besides, if tax revenue was the reason for legalisation, then why only cigarettes and not other drugs?

It's not a question of 'legalise it and regulate it;' we’re hardly doing a brilliant job of keeping it out of the hands of those who shouldn't have it. Stories about 10 year olds smoking are far from rare.

It kills, it costs and it means I can't come home from the pub without smelling like I've been sleeping in an ashtray. Why not just ban it and be done with it?


Yeah and while were at we can ban alcohol, cars, buses etc etc.[sarcasm]

I agree, at least, in theory. My father had a stroke because of his smoking.

Why don't we just raise the cost of cigarettes to, say, $150 a pack? People tend to care about their money far more than their health.

Yeah and while were at we can ban alcohol, cars, buses etc etc.[sarcasm]

What, because cars and buses are addictive substances that serve no purpose?

I am actually teetotal myself, so an alcohol ban wouldn't bother me that much either, but I believe, unlike tobacco, there is no harm done with alcohol in moderation.

Prohibition. Case in point.

It kills, it costs and it means I can't come home from the pub without smelling like I've been sleeping in an ashtray. Why not just ban it and be done with it?Isn't that what the UK government are doing though? Admittedly, it's still a year or so off in most parts, but it's better than what they were planning to do (in England and Wales they were intending to let pubs that don't serve food retain smoking, though both Scotland and here went for an all-out ban from the start).

I have a certain amount of sympathy for those in the bar business; when the Republic banned smoking, loads of people just bought carry-outs so as they could smoke with their booze. That trend seems to be waring off though, and a lot of pubs have created beer gardens with canvas covers and heat lamps to facilitate the smokers, which I think is a fair enough compromise.

Prohibition. Case in point.

No, I don't believe it is. Prohibition was outlawing something that was culturally ingrained; cigarettes have become more and more unacceptable. And, as I said originally, just because there would be an illegal subculture doesn't mean it should be legal. It's not as if we're regulating it particually well at the moment.

Why is smoking still legal? It's a disgusting habit, antisocial and dangerous.

We don't allow other drugs to be used recreationally, so why is this seen as somehow different?

It doesn't 'make a profit for the Government', as I'm sure many people will claim, as it's the NHS that must pick up the bill for all the smoking related illnesses it causes (at least in the UK), a bill far higher than any taxes it raises. Besides, if tax revenue was the reason for legalisation, then why only cigarettes and not other drugs?

It's not a question of 'legalise it and regulate it;' we’re hardly doing a brilliant job of keeping it out of the hands of those who shouldn't have it. Stories about 10 year olds smoking are far from rare.

It kills, it costs and it means I can't come home from the pub without smelling like I've been sleeping in an ashtray. Why not just ban it and be done with it?


Everyone who smokes nowadays knows that it's bad for you; why don't we let people make their own decisions instead of big brother making it for them? We all know how well prohibition turned out.

What, because cars and buses are addictive substances that serve no purpose?

I am actually teetotal myself, so an alcohol ban wouldn't bother me that much either, but I believe, unlike tobacco, there is no harm done with alcohol in moderation.

What i mean is that cars etc can kill people and all motor vehicles cause smog etc causing people to develop asthma and other breathing related difficulties.

What i mean is that cars etc can kill people and all motor vehicles cause smog etc causing people to develop asthma and other breathing related difficulties.

Yes, but while many things in modern society do harm, there is at least a reason why we have them. There is no reason for smoking other than addiction.

I have to laugh at the dweebs who want to ban cigarette smoking, but want to legalize pot smoking. Helll-oh! What's wrong with this picture! ROFLMAO!

I agree, at least, in theory. My father had a stroke because of his smoking.

Why don't we just raise the cost of cigarettes to, say, $150 a pack? People tend to care about their money far more than their health.
That's excessive, but $10 a pack would certainly be reasonable.
People would actually think twice.

Also, smoking should be banned in all public places.

What, because cars and buses are addictive substances that serve no purpose?

I am actually teetotal myself, so an alcohol ban wouldn't bother me that much either, but I believe, unlike tobacco, there is no harm done with alcohol in moderation.

There is no harm done by anything in moderation. Alcohol is a mind altering drug, so is pot, so it tobacco, and so is fricking chocolate. All things in moderation.

Everyone who smokes nowadays knows that it's bad for you; why don't we let people make their own decisions instead of big brother making it for them?

Because it's not just their lives they're affecting; they harm others around them, and cost me money in health care.

I am a libertarian at heart, and so I know that the main principle of liberty is freedom as long as it does no harm to others.

Everyone who smokes nowadays knows that it's bad for you; why don't we let people make their own decisions instead of big brother making it for them?My partner, who actually despises smoking, sees it that way too. I, however, who only stopped smoking fairly recently, do support the ban. If people want to smoke, fine, but why should others who don't want to be forced to breathe their smoke? I was still smoking when I went to California and when the ban was first introduced in the Republic of Ireland. In both places, you go outside or to a beer garden, enjoy your fag, but let others enjoy their drinks without suffering your smoke. Fair enough to me.

I also found in those places that because I wasn't in a smoky room, I felt much less inclined to want a cigarette. That can only be a good thing for my health as well as everyone else's.

I have to laugh at the dweebs who want to ban cigarette smoking, but want to legalize pot smoking. Helll-oh! What's wrong with this picture! ROFLMAO!Yeah, I have to agree with that, actually.

It doesn't 'make a profit for the Government', as I'm sure many people will claim, as it's the NHS that must pick up the bill for all the smoking related illnesses it causes (at least in the UK), a bill far higher than any taxes it raises. Besides, if tax revenue was the reason for legalisation, then why only cigarettes and not other drugs?



As far as I'm aware, the tax receipts from tobacco sales do more than compensate for the extra burden placed on the NHS by smoking-related diseases.

I believe that the fact that smoking tends to kill off people as they approach old age further tips the financial argument in favour of allowing smoking. It lowers total pension liabilities.

However, I was told this in a lecture some years ago, so if someone knows otherwise or the situation has changed....

can't you just stay away from smokers?! that way they can poison themselves without poisoning you. there could be smoking bars and non smoking bars. Also some people actually like the smell...

Because it's not just their lives they're affecting; they harm others around them, and cost me money in health care.

I am a libertarian at heart, and so I know that the main principle of liberty is freedom as long as it does no harm to others.

It's all relative; would you rather pay for a 65 year old's cancer treatment, or pay them social security for 15 more years and then pay for their alzheimer's treatment? Ban it from public buildings, fine with me, and let business owners decide if they want a smoking or non-smoking business (or both, if they can have a smoking/non smoking section).

Why not ban fast food? Eating lots of McDonald's will kill you just as surely.

No, I don't believe it is. Prohibition was outlawing something that was culturally ingrained; cigarettes have become more and more unacceptable. And, as I said originally, just because there would be an illegal subculture doesn't mean it should be legal. It's not as if we're regulating it particually well at the moment.

Alcohol was looked down upon as well. That would be why they could get a vote on it to get rig of it. The govenment didn't just one day say, "let's ban something everyone loves." There was a whole Prohibition movement. Much like there is a whole anti-smoking movement.

Alcohol was looked down upon as well. That would be why they could get a vote on it to get rig of it. The govenment didn't just one day say, "let's ban something everyone loves." There was a whole Prohibition movement. Much like there is a whole anti-smoking movement.

I'm not an expert on Prohibition so I'm not going to argue the circumstances of it; what I will say is that this still doesn't answer the second point; why should something be legal just because some people would break the law?

the whole world can't just quit!! it's not easy, i know. besides it wasn't a law not to smoke when they started so why expect them to stop doing something they've been doing-in some cases- most of their lives?

... smoking should be banned in all public places.
Why? Just to piss off smokers? Don't "public places" belong to all members of "the public?"

It's all relative; would you rather pay for a 65 year old's cancer treatment, or pay them social security for 15 more years and then pay for their alzheimer's treatment?
Agist dweeb! :upyours:

it's interesting that you can tell who in this thread smokes and who doesn't!

I'm not an expert on Prohibition so I'm not going to argue the circumstances of it; what I will say is that this still doesn't answer the second point; why should something be legal just because some people would break the law?

Because there is no particular reason to. I don't particularly want the government to tell me what is not good for my health, therefore, I can't do it. It would be somewhat like banning fast food. Why? If people want to eat it, go ahead. I enjoy having the freedom to make my own decisions on what is heathy for me or not. One cigarette will not kill you; it's not even bad for you. Only in excess is alcohol or smoking or anything else bad for you. I've never smoked a cigarette but I enjoy having a cigar every once in a while, and I don't want the government to tell me I can't smoke because its trying to protect me. That is BS. I can protect myself from my own urges.

Because it's not just their lives they're affecting; they harm others around them, and cost me money in health care.

I am a libertarian at heart, and so I know that the main principle of liberty is freedom as long as it does no harm to others.

If you were a true libertarian, you'd realise two things:

1. You're not forced to be around smokers.

2. The only reason it costs you money in health care is that welfare states force you to pay for the care of others. Thus, the problem is not with the smokers but with the welfare system.

it's interesting that you can tell who in this thread smokes and who doesn't!

Not true. Just because I defend someone's right to do something does not automatically mean I do it, too.

Banning doesn't work.

Smokers pay with their health, higher insurance premiums, and social stigma anyway. It is their choice.

I can protect myself from my own urges.

But what about those around you who don't like your urges? What about those who work in these places because they have to and have no desire to breathe in your smoke? What about the children of those women who smoke during pregnancy, or who live in households thick with smoke?

The fact is that smoking is not an event confined to you - everyone gets the consequences, whether it is through the smoke or the healthcare. Whatever the costs, I don't particually want the bed of someone seriously ill taken up by someone who is there through their own fault.

Well, I think it should be legal, if only for reasons of personal responsibility. Still, I don't like it. I wonder what a tobacco prohibition would be like, though. Would there be mobsters secretly growing tobacco and selling cigarettes in various hidden places, whispering, "Don't let the feds catch you with this stuff" or "Soon you'll want some of the hard stuff: Camel"?

If you were a true libertarian, you'd realise two things:

1. You're not forced to be around smokers.

2. The only reason it costs you money in health care is that welfare states force you to pay for the care of others. Thus, the problem is not with the smokers but with the welfare system.

Right, so segregation is the way to go? I must restrict my freedoms as to where I can and cannot go because of the actions of others?

Financial problems are only one of the costs smoking places on any healthcare system.

You people are crazy.... instead of illegalizing tobaco, we need to legalize marijuana. It may be unhealthy, but it is not the government's bussines.

But what about those around you who don't like your urges? What about those who work in these places because they have to and have no desire to breathe in your smoke? What about the children of those women who smoke during pregnancy, or who live in households thick with smoke?

The fact is that smoking is not an event confined to you - everyone gets the consequences, whether it is through the smoke or the healthcare. Whatever the costs, I don't particually want the bed of someone seriously ill taken up by someone who is there through their own fault.

Rock and a hard place. The one option will not happen and the other one can sometimes suck. What I will say about it is that you should be responsible for you actions. If you can prove that someone has killed someone else through smoking near them then you have a criminal case on your hands. And health care would be easy to fix. It's kind of like, "why should we treat people who cut on themselves?" Screw them! We have more pressing matters to deal with. If you fricking give yourself cancer after all the warnings that our culture gives you about it, you should not expect to be covered by taxpayer money.

Legalized tobacco does not mean you are free to be an asshole.

Why is smoking still legal? It's a disgusting habit, antisocial and dangerous.

"I don't agree with it, and I find it repulsive...ergo it should be banned"

Non tobacco smoker, btw.

I have to laugh at the dweebs who want to ban cigarette smoking, but want to legalize pot smoking. Helll-oh! What's wrong with this picture! ROFLMAO!

That's weird. I don't think i've seen anyone actually seriously argue that point before.

We don't allow other drugs to be used recreationally, so why is this seen as somehow different?What...you mean like caffeine, which we've all but begun mainlining? And alcohol? That's not used recreationally? Hmmm. Where do you live?

And most places are banning smoking...not outlawing it, which would be just stupid. The bans so far do not include smoking outside, or in your home. I think that is more than sufficient in terms of restricting it.

It may be unhealthy, but it is not the government's bussines.

Oh, you are absolutely right. It isn't like a government is supposed to look after the welfare of it's people or anything. That'd just be silly!

Anyway, I oppose a total ban on smoking (can you imagine all the maniacs running around with nicotine withdrawal?:eek:), but smoking in enclosed public spaces is a no-no, partially because of this secondary smoking business, but mostly because the smoke makes me want to throw up.

grow up.

Why not just ban it and be done with it?

It would actually make much more sense to drag crusaders wishing to impose their vision of the well being of others out into the street and shoot them like rabid dogs. Maybe this would serve as a cost effective means to demonstrate the need for constant vigilance in preventing the erosion of freedom for all.

What...you mean like caffeine, which we've all but begun mainlining? And alcohol? That's not used recreationally? Hmmm. Where do you live?

You can try to rubbish the argument by making out as if it's all about a completely different point, but it's not something that will work. This isn't a question of whether alcohol should be allowed; it's a question of whether the legality of a harmful substance that kills thousands should be rightfully confined to the history books.

This asthmatic absolutely agrees.

It would actually make much more sense to drag crusaders wishing to impose their vision of the well being of others out into the street and shoot them like rabid dogs. Maybe this would serve as a cost effective means to demonstrate the need for constant vigilance in preventing the erosion of freedom for all.

How about we just accept that the freedom to kill people is something that has always been banned, and banning smoking would just be bringing it into line with the rest of the law?

You can try to rubbish the argument by making out as if it's all about a completely different point, but it's not something that will work. This isn't a question of whether alcohol should be allowed; it's a question of whether the legality of a harmful substance that kills thousands should be rightfully confined to the history books.

Does or does not that also describe alcohol?

Does or does not that also describe alcohol?

You can argue that as much as you like, I'm not going to object - I already said I'm teetotal. :p

My point is that I don't accept the argument that "just because we allow one wrong thing we must allow all wrong things."

Why is smoking still legal?

Just to piss you off.

Does or does not that also describe alcohol?

The effects of cigerettes are felt by everyone immediatly in the area.

The effects of alcohol are only felt when moderation is forgotten and the responsibilty of those nearby is forgotten.

Just to piss you off.

Well, quite; I believe that is the only reason it could be, as there are no arguments based in logic.

The effects of cigerettes are felt by everyone immediatly in the area.

The effects of alcohol are only felt when moderation is forgotten and the responsibilty of those nearby is forgotten.

Very good point.

The point is, if you want to smoke Tobacco or even if we ever do legalize pot smaoke it in your home, problem is you are STILL effecting others with your medical bills and such. Plus you are endangering your childern, which in itself is wrong. And i hope they eventually ban smoking of any kind everywhere public(they havent totally done that yet here in the states), because not all of us shouldnt have to pick and choose where we want to eat, shop, or whatever. Too bad for the smokers. :rolleyes:

You can argue that as much as you like, I'm not going to object - I already said I'm teetotal. :p

My point is that I don't accept the argument that "just because we allow one wrong thing we must allow all wrong things."

Excellent point. The only point that others are trying to make is there is no logical difference between banning all sorts of other things that people use. The argument works of it all and could cover it all.

How about we just accept that the freedom to kill people is something that has always been banned, and banning smoking would just be bringing it into line with the rest of the law?

Are you really so hopelessly brain washed that you believe the shit you are spouting? Personally I dont think so, but if you are, be warned. Sooner or later people will get fed up to the gills with your sanctimonious vision of how they should live and give you the maximum oppourtunity to see paradise for real.

Are you really so hopelessly brain washed that you believe the shit you are spouting? Personally I dont think so, but if you are, be warned. Sooner or later people will get fed up to the gills with your sanctimonious vision of how they should live and give you the maximum oppourtunity to see paradise for real.

One should talk. ;)

as there are no arguments based in logic.

All Cigerettes are unhealthy to those nearby
All things unhealthy to those nearby are illegal
All Cigerettes are illegal

Probably invalid, especially in the Boolean standpoint, but there is such a thing as logic :D

Are you really so hopelessly brain washed that you believe the shit you are spouting? Personally I dont think so, but if you are, be warned. Sooner or later people will get fed up to the gills with your sanctimonious vision of how they should live and give you the maximum oppourtunity to see paradise for real.

I can tell that you've thought this all through in a calm, rational and reasoned way.

The effects of cigerettes are felt by everyone immediatly in the area.

I used to have a sign on my desk that said, "Thank you for holding your breath as I smoke."

This asthmatic absolutely agrees.

Yeah, yeah...I have asthma, too. Get over yourself.

I can tell that you've thought this all through in a calm, rational and reasoned way.

Young and foolish person, I have lived long enough to watch and see the backlash against those that attempt to steal the freedoms of others through popular campaigns, governmental mandates and the usurping of freedom one piece at a time.

Why? Just to piss off smokers? Don't "public places" belong to all members of "the public?"
If smokers want to ruin their health, they can do so in the privacy of their own home, or in non-public places.
In public places, they're also ruining the health of everyone around them who doesn't want to smoke.
If it pisses off smokers that they can't ruin the health of others, their bad :upyours:

Yeah, yeah...I have asthma, too. Get over yourself.

So I should have trouble breathing because you wanna smoke?

I have enough troubles trying to be a college athlete and then I have to go into public with that shit in my lungs. Get over yourself.

Actually we should propose a bill to legalize marijuana as the fact is that Marijuana is safer then alcohol. And here in the US ciggerrettes are taxed heavily and the big tobacco companies and people themselves pay for the affects of smoking. Onto my original point though, pot is a safer choice then alcohol if moderated.

Actually we should propose a bill to legalize marijuana as the fact is that Marijuana is safer then alcohol. And here in the US ciggerrettes are taxed heavily and the big tobacco companies and people themselves pay for the affects of smoking. Onto my original point though, pot is a safer choice then alcohol if moderated.

Hahahahhahhahaha!
Dont get me started on how pot is NOT safer.....:headbang:

So I should have trouble breathing because you wanna smoke?

I have enough troubles trying to be a college athlete and then I have to go into public with that shit in my lungs. Get over yourself.

Did I not just say I have asthma, too? Yet you think I smoke? Are you retarded?

If smokers want to ruin their health, they can do so in the privacy of their own home, or in non-public places.

Awesome. Smokers can smoke in grocery stores, movie theaters, and the office now! Those are all privately owned, not public, places.

You can try to rubbish the argument by making out as if it's all about a completely different point, but it's not something that will work. This isn't a question of whether alcohol should be allowed; it's a question of whether the legality of a harmful substance that kills thousands should be rightfully confined to the history books.
Do you have any idea...ANY idea of the number of alcohol related deaths? And you pretend that the issues are not the same? Alcohol is abused at a phenomenol rate, and can cause terrible liver and blood diseases, which put just as much a strain on the healthcare system as tobacco-related illness. Not the mention the number of fatal automobile accidents that are related to alcohol use. So before you talk about 'rubbish', re-read that ridiculous statment, and tell me again how alcohol, a harmful substance that kills thousands, is so much more benign than cigarrettes.

Jesus that pissed me off.

Did I not just say I have asthma, too? Yet you think I smoke? Are you retarded?

Well from your stance you made it seem so. Nice personal attack at the end, real mature.

Do you have any idea...ANY idea of the number of alcohol related deaths?

Not to mention sex. Sex kills. In the millions. Lets ban it, too. :D

Do you have any idea...ANY idea of the number of alcohol related deaths? And you pretend that the issues are not the same? Alcohol is abused at a phenomenol rate, and can cause terrible liver and blood diseases, which put just as much a strain on the healthcare system as tobacco-related illness. Not the mention the number of fatal automobile accidents that are related to alcohol use. So before you talk about 'rubbish', re-read that ridiculous statment, and tell me again how alcohol, a harmful substance that kills thousands, is so much more benign than cigarrettes.

Jesus that pissed me off.

So true. We hear all the time about people getting drunk and crashing their cars into people, beating their wives, kicking their dogs, etc. When has someone having a couple of Camels caused them to act that way?

Hahahahhahhahaha!
Dont get me started on how pot is NOT safer.....:headbang:
I was going to go into that...but the truth is, if it were grown in regulated labs/gardens, a lot of the danger of pot would be diffused. One of the biggest issues right now is that it is being laced with other drugs...when I was a teen, it was PCP, now it's crystal meth. The potency could also be regulated so that you wouldn't be smoking the equivalent of a pack of cigarrettes in one joint.

But I digress. This is a rant about making smoking completely illegal. Continue.

Well from your stance you made it seem so. Nice personal attack at the end, real mature.

My stance is that I don't have any say over what people choose to put into their own bodies, whether I choose to do the same or not. And my stance is far more mature than your "I don't like it, so it should be banned" bullshit.

For starters you have to understand how many people you are going to effect if you take away their right to smoke. I agree smoking is gross and that it is not seen as very sophisticated, but it is their freedom to do what they please. Personally, if you do not like people smoking in front of you, if you nicely ask to the person to not smoke in front of you and I bet you that they will go somewhere else to smoke. Always ask no matter what.

So true. We hear all the time about people getting drunk and crashing their cars into people, beating their wives, kicking their dogs, etc. When has someone having a couple of Camels caused them to act that way?
Cigarrette addiction rarely tears famlies apart, and as dangerous as smoking is during pregnancy, it does NOT cause BRAIN DAMAGE like alcohol use during pregnancy. Can you tell I'm still miffed?

As a little aside...tobacco is sacred to native people. Make it illegal, and you'll be back to the days where you forbade our sundances and so on.

My stance is that I don't have any say over what people choose to put into their own bodies, whether I choose to do the same or not. And my stance is far more mature than your "I don't like it, so it should be banned" bullshit.

I don't like it because I grew up around two smokers my whole life and it does affect me. What they put into their bodies goes into mine as well, which really isn't fair. My point the whole time was that there are known consequences from second hand smoking. I'd also like to see a lot more restrictions on alcohol and gun control, and if they were illegal it would be for the better of society. Yet I like them.

Do you have any idea...ANY idea of the number of alcohol related deaths? And you pretend that the issues are not the same? Alcohol is abused at a phenomenol rate, and can cause terrible liver and blood diseases, which put just as much a strain on the healthcare system as tobacco-related illness. Not the mention the number of fatal automobile accidents that are related to alcohol use. So before you talk about 'rubbish', re-read that ridiculous statment, and tell me again how alcohol, a harmful substance that kills thousands, is so much more benign than cigarrettes.
Yes, I have a very good idea about how many deaths alcohol causes. But if you read what I wrote, I was actually referring to the point that we shouldn't allow something because another wrong is legal. I did not defend alcohol at all.
Jesus that pissed me off.
Perhaps reading what I actually have said throughout this thread would help calm your blood pressure.

My point the whole time was that there are known consequences from second hand smoking.

Wrong. It's a lot of crap "science." You inhale more toxins simply by breathing the air in a city.

Awesome. Smokers can smoke in grocery stores, movie theaters, and the office now! Those are all privately owned, not public, places.
We seem to have different definitions of "public places then"...
With "non-public places" I meant places which the public normally doesn't visit - like private clubs which aren't accessible to the public because you need to be a member.
Grocery stores, movie theaters, offices, hairdressers, book shops and all other places which are generally accessible to the public do count as "public places" for me, thus smoking wouldn't be allowed there.

Can you tell I'm still miffed?

Nah, didn't notice. ;)

Yes, I have a very good idea about how many deaths alcohol causes. But if you read what I wrote, I was actually referring to the point that we shouldn't allow something because another wrong is legal. I did not defend alcohol at all. Yet this all began because you made an erroneous statement about not allowing other drugs to be used recreationally.

Perhaps reading what I actually have said throughout this thread would help calm your blood pressure.
I have. You seek to avoid what you've said.

Wrong. It's a lot of crap "science." You inhale more toxins simply by breathing the air in a city.

Willing to back that up, if you can provide some solid statistics than I will concede.

So basically if you let people smoke based on the logic that we can simply go somewhere else I should be able to grab a bat and spin in circles.

Why is smoking still legal? It's a disgusting habit, antisocial and dangerous.

We don't allow other drugs to be used recreationally, so why is this seen as somehow different?

It doesn't 'make a profit for the Government', as I'm sure many people will claim, as it's the NHS that must pick up the bill for all the smoking related illnesses it causes (at least in the UK), a bill far higher than any taxes it raises. Besides, if tax revenue was the reason for legalisation, then why only cigarettes and not other drugs?

It's not a question of 'legalise it and regulate it;' we’re hardly doing a brilliant job of keeping it out of the hands of those who shouldn't have it. Stories about 10 year olds smoking are far from rare.

It kills, it costs and it means I can't come home from the pub without smelling like I've been sleeping in an ashtray. Why not just ban it and be done with it?

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but it's really none of your business what other people want to ingest. If you don't like the smell, avoid it, but don't knowingly go to where there are smokers and then complain about it.

Mind your own business and move along.

The reason smoking isnt banned is because the Government who does that gets voted out at the next election. There are millions of smokers after all, do you think they would be grateful?

And I think smoking earns more through taxes than that spent on the NHS.

Yet this all began because you made an erroneous statement about not allowing other drugs to be used recreationally.

Right...

You originally say "What...you mean like caffeine, which we've all but begun mainlining? And alcohol? That's not used recreationally? Hmmm. Where do you live?"

I replied to this: "This isn't a question of whether alcohol should be allowed; it's a question of whether the legality of a harmful substance that kills thousands should be rightfully confined to the history books."


And so by keeping the thread on topic, I'm somehow a champion of alcohol related illness?

It amazes me how much everbody here sounds like the NS issues. Geez, and I was thinking "ah, that's just a crazy extreme, nobody's actually that charactured in real life."

Sure, ban smoking in public places, restaurants, things like that. But why should you have the right to ban it at someone's house? "It's unhealthy for them and they should stop." Okay, I'm coming over to your place and removing all non-whole grain food. You've been watching TV/playing online too long, time to exercise. It's bed time, you need to be asleep, as sleep is the foundation of good health.

Do you see the problem here?

My turn to be a NS issue extremist! Go the other direction: legalize everything else, but don't provide healthcare for the users. Save that money and use it to get them sterilized so there aren't children getting destroyed by their parents' habits. All recovered children go to foster homes. All drug users are to be given very large quantities of mushrooms and forced to watch trainspotting.

I dunno ... I hail from America (Fuck Yeah! ... team america: world police joke for those who don't catch the referance ... i'm not sure how far that movie reached) and while we like to tout our freedom like it's a bad flyer we pass out, constantly is morality getting legislated. Yeah, it's a disgusting habit that kills those who smoke, but ... that's their freedom of choice. Second hand smoke has not be effectively proven to kill ... infact, the WHO sanctioned 27 scientist in all fields of cancer to study ETS and it's connection with the risk of cancer and other diseases and found no conclusive correlation.

All I'm saying is, is in a true free nation the people have the right to put into their bodies what ever they want, be it harmful or not.

As far as "waaah kids are buying smokes!" be a parent and pay attention. Besides that, I'd really like to see where these annecdotal stories of 10 year olds buying smokes come from? How solid are these numbers? Can you honestly believe an interest group fighting tooth and nail to ban ciggerettes on something like that?

Then the ETS/SHS dealy-o ... well, whatever. Scientists and doctors on both sides say different things ... while the doctors on the side of it doesn't kill quote the WHO's 27 scientist study and the others quote ... the readers' digest, there are still conflicting professional opinions, which obviously means we don't know enough about the subject.

Right...

You originally say "What...you mean like caffeine, which we've all but begun mainlining? And alcohol? That's not used recreationally? Hmmm. Where do you live?"

I replied to this: "This isn't a question of whether alcohol should be allowed; it's a question of whether the legality of a harmful substance that kills thousands should be rightfully confined to the history books."


And so by keeping the thread on topic, I'm somehow a champion of alcohol related illness?
No, you need to remove the part of your argument that says, “well, they don’t let other drugs be used recreationally, now do they?” Yes, yes they do. So if they let these other drugs, be used recreationally, and they are harmful, then why should they suddenly ban one of them, and not the others?

I'm not an expert on Prohibition so I'm not going to argue the circumstances of it; what I will say is that this still doesn't answer the second point; why should something be legal just because some people would break the law?

Why should something be illegal just because it's bad for you? Should we also outlaw McDonalds and other fast food. It serves no purpose, at lest not one that can't be served in other ways. How about gambling, walking in the rain, and tree-climbing?

Not to mention sex. Sex kills. In the millions. Lets ban it, too. :D

And it hurts the people around you! Ban it, ban it all!

No, you need to remove the part of your argument that says, “well, they don’t let other drugs be used recreationally, now do they?” Yes, yes they do. So if they let these other drugs, be used recreationally, and they are harmful, then why should they suddenly ban one of them, and not the others?

Because of the points I've made numerous times already. Primarily, there is the fact that alcohol in moderation and at the right time and place does no harm to anyone; the same cannot be said for smoking.

I used the term 'drugs' in its colloquial sense; I am more than happy to accept that alcohol is a drug used recreationally. I did not object to your objection because I dispute this, but because I do not see it as relevant to the topic.

Because of the points I've made numerous times already. Primarily, there is the fact that alcohol in moderation and at the right time and place does no harm to anyone; the same cannot be said for smoking.

However, it can be said that smoking at in moderation, at the right time, and in the right place, does no harm to anyone.

But what about those around you who don't like your urges? What about those who work in these places because they have to and have no desire to breathe in your smoke? What about the children of those women who smoke during pregnancy, or who live in households thick with smoke?

The fact is that smoking is not an event confined to you - everyone gets the consequences, whether it is through the smoke or the healthcare. Whatever the costs, I don't particually want the bed of someone seriously ill taken up by someone who is there through their own fault.

There exist non-smoking establishments - I think they even have employees. No one is forcing them to work in a place that allows smoking. I think privately owned businesses can decide for themselves whether to allow smoking or not. In my city of residence, a smoking ban was passed and then ruled unconstitutional by the state courts. Several businesses decided to remain smoke-free and others chose to allow it. Both do equally well in this free market. Some will choose to patronize and other will choose not to. A true libertarian would see that as the way to go.

In the instance of the pregnant mother, are you pro-choice? If so, what's the difference between choosing to have an abortion or choosing to smoke? It's her body until the child is born - dosen't she have the right to do with her body what she chooses.

As for children living in a smoker's house, I believe that's a form of child abuse. you have a good point there, as the child dosen't have a choice in the matter. But as for the private businesses, it's THEIR business.

Right, so segregation is the way to go? I must restrict my freedoms as to where I can and cannot go because of the actions of others?

Financial problems are only one of the costs smoking places on any healthcare system.

That's not segregation, it's freedom of choice. You can choose to go there or not.

Y'know, I'm almost tempted to take up smoking now, just to piss Philosopy off. Of course, since cigarettes smell and taste nasty, I'll hafta jumpstart my new habit by using the patch first... :p

Why is smoking still legal? It's a disgusting habit, antisocial and dangerous.

We don't allow other drugs to be used recreationally, so why is this seen as somehow different?

It doesn't 'make a profit for the Government', as I'm sure many people will claim, as it's the NHS that must pick up the bill for all the smoking related illnesses it causes (at least in the UK), a bill far higher than any taxes it raises. Besides, if tax revenue was the reason for legalisation, then why only cigarettes and not other drugs?

It's not a question of 'legalise it and regulate it;' we’re hardly doing a brilliant job of keeping it out of the hands of those who shouldn't have it. Stories about 10 year olds smoking are far from rare.

It kills, it costs and it means I can't come home from the pub without smelling like I've been sleeping in an ashtray. Why not just ban it and be done with it?

Are you really that ignorant of the substance which, in its ubiquity, has logos advertising it all over print, broadcast and billboard media?

THIS BUD'S FOR YOU = THIS DRUG'S FOR YOU.

Seriously, you can't be ignoring alcohol, can you? And if you are, have you lost your mind?

You can try to rubbish the argument by making out as if it's all about a completely different point, but it's not something that will work. This isn't a question of whether alcohol should be allowed; it's a question of whether the legality of a harmful substance that kills thousands should be rightfully confined to the history books.

Are you seriously trying to argue that alcohol dosen't kill many thousands of people each year???

Are you seriously trying to argue that alcohol dosen't kill many thousands of people each year???

Hey, this guy's point has already been beat into the ground, six or seven times. You can stop quoting it now.

There exist non-smoking establishments - I think they even have employees. No one is forcing them to work in a place that allows smoking. I think privately owned businesses can decide for themselves whether to allow smoking or not. In my city of residence, a smoking ban was passed and then ruled unconstitutional by the state courts. Several businesses decided to remain smoke-free and others chose to allow it. Both do equally well in this free market. Some will choose to patronize and other will choose not to. A true libertarian would see that as the way to go.
I don't believe that workers in these places necessarily have a choice at all. You need a job to pay the bills; and people often put the daily needs of life before an abstract such as the long term health impacts.
In the instance of the pregnant mother, are you pro-choice? If so, what's the difference between choosing to have an abortion or choosing to smoke? It's her body until the child is born - dosen't she have the right to do with her body what she chooses.
I think that's quite a frightening concept. I don't think abortion is in anyway relevant; if you decide to get rid of the baby (whether this is right or not) it is an absolute. Slowly harming a baby you intend to have and which will have a life of its own is negligent.

Y'know, I'm almost tempted to take up smoking now, just to piss Philosopy off. Of course, since cigarettes smell and taste nasty, I'll hafta jumpstart my new habit by using the patch first... :p

Don't stop there! Let's all ask Philosopy where he lives and all go to his house and smoke in front of him! Oh, man, that would rock so hard.

Y'know, I'm almost tempted to take up smoking now, just to piss Philosopy off. Of course, since cigarettes smell and taste nasty, I'll hafta jumpstart my new habit by using the patch first... :p

I'm not pissed off, just someone who likes a good debate. :p

Don't stop there! Let's all ask Philosopy where he lives and all go to his house and smoke in front of him! Oh, man, that would rock so hard.

Gimme some time! I've gotta slap on a patch and chew some nicotine gum for a while first! :D

Excuse me, Philosopy, but me a few other guys were wondering where it was that you lived. We think you are so correct that we want to go to your house and become your disciples. Please submit your name and address and we will be there in a couple of days.

Your servant

I don't believe that workers in these places necessarily have a choice at all. You need a job to pay the bills; and people often put the daily needs of life before an abstract such as the long term health impacts.

I think that's quite a frightening concept. I don't think abortion is in anyway relevant; if you decide to get rid of the baby (whether this is right or not) it is an absolute. Slowly harming a baby you intend to have and which will have a life of its own is negligent.

Of course they have a choice in what restaraunt or bar they work in. It's not like those jobs are hard to come by.

I do think it's a relevant argument, both logically and morally. If abortion is fine because the woman has the right to privacy regarding her own body, then that argument covers smoking before the child is born. I'm not advocating it, just being intellectually honest.

Why is smoking still legal? It's a disgusting habit, antisocial and dangerous.
That's just your opinion. What on earth makes you think it would be OK to restrict personal freedom just to erase something that you see as disgusting? Wouldn't that be kinda fascist?

Your sentence is evidence that fundamentalism comes in all shapes and sizes.

While you're at it, why not just ban everything else that's bad for your health?

No more Free Speech. That can causes stress.
No more planes, trains, or automobiles. They cause pollution.
No more sugar. It can cause High BP's.
No more caffiene. It also can cause High BP's.
No more running, at any time. It can hurt your knees.
No more sitting for long periods of time. It can hurt your back.
No more using your keyboard or mouse. They can cause Carpal Tunnel.
No more tennis. You guessed it. Tennis elbow.
No more going outside, ever. You may get sunburned.

I could list "No mores" for days, but I won't.

While we're on the topic of banning anything thats harmful to peoples health, why dont we just go ahead and ban everything thats unhealthy? Including red meat, running on the side of the road, religious organizations, and sports in schools.

It's rediculous to consider banning something simply because it can effect the users health negatively. If it doesnt threaten the life's of others, (like drugs, alcohol, etc...) it should not be the governments area of responcibility.

(edit) Sorry about this one being alot like the one above it, wasnt there when i posted :)

Because of the points I've made numerous times already. Primarily, there is the fact that alcohol in moderation and at the right time and place does no harm to anyone; the same cannot be said for smoking. Bullshit. Smoking in moderation does no lasting harm to anyone. But we aren't talking about moderation, we're talking about abuse.

If abortion is fine because the woman has the right to privacy regarding her own body, then that argument covers smoking before the child is born.

I disagree; when you have an abortion then you are left with nothing but your own body, but when you are smoking you are left with someone else's life as well. If you are going to have the baby then smoking while you are pregnant is no different to blowing smoke in its face when it's born.

Gimme some time! I've gotta slap on a patch and chew some nicotine gum for a while first! :D


Well, hurry up! Our messiah can't wait!

I wonder if the warm-up process would go faster if I ate a cigar....

While we're on the topic of banning anything thats harmful to peoples health, why dont we just go ahead and ban everything thats unhealthy? Including red meat, running on the side of the road, religious organizations, and sports in schools.

It's rediculous to consider banning something simply because it can effect the users health negatively. If it doesnt threaten the life's of others, (like drugs, alcohol, etc...) it should not be the governments area of responcibility.

(edit) Sorry about this one being alot like the one above it, wasnt there when i posted :)

The OP's point was that smoking does threaten the lives of others.

I disagree; when you have an abortion then you are left with nothing but your own body, but when you are smoking you are left with someone else's life as well. If you are going to have the baby then smoking while you are pregnant is no different to blowing smoke in its face when it's born.

I happen to agree with you, but to those who profess the woman's right to an abortion because it's not a baby untill it's born, the line of logic holds for smoking while pregnant.

I agree, at least, in theory. My father had a stroke because of his smoking.

Why don't we just raise the cost of cigarettes to, say, $150 a pack? People tend to care about their money far more than their health.
That is what they are trying to do in America. They keep raising the taxes on each case. It is so funny to see smokers getting angry about it. I just say suck it up. If you don't like the cost then stop smoking. It is a vial habit anyways!
*waves a 'ban smoking' flag*

Why is smoking still legal? It's a disgusting habit, antisocial and dangerous.

We don't allow other drugs to be used recreationally, so why is this seen as somehow different?

We don't ban things for being "disgusting", nor "antisocial."

So it's really just about how "dangerous" it is. Yet we don't consistently ban things for being "dangerous" either. Alcohol is dangerous, but we don't ban that. Driving is dangerous, but we don't stop everyone and their teenage son from having their own car.

So whats your point?

Like all anti-smokers, you just think it's icky and want the government to make it go away:

I can't come home from the pub without smelling like I've been sleeping in an ashtray.

WAHHHHHHHH. My heart is weeping for your plight. No seriously - weeping like a little girl. Shit... you might have to SHOWER. Failing that, you might even have to be more selective about which pubs you go to! OMG! Where's my violin! I feel a sad and haunting tune about to come on!

I think this thread is over. Everyone keeps regurgiating the same auguments over and over. I'm done, out.I think this thread is over. Everyone keeps regurgitating the same arguments over and over. I'm done, out.

Why is smoking still legal? It's a disgusting habit, antisocial and dangerous.

We don't allow other drugs to be used recreationally, so why is this seen as somehow different?

It doesn't 'make a profit for the Government', as I'm sure many people will claim, as it's the NHS that must pick up the bill for all the smoking related illnesses it causes (at least in the UK), a bill far higher than any taxes it raises. Besides, if tax revenue was the reason for legalisation, then why only cigarettes and not other drugs?

It's not a question of 'legalise it and regulate it;' we’re hardly doing a brilliant job of keeping it out of the hands of those who shouldn't have it. Stories about 10 year olds smoking are far from rare.

It kills, it costs and it means I can't come home from the pub without smelling like I've been sleeping in an ashtray. Why not just ban it and be done with it?
Why not ban smoking? Well, for starters, because prohibition doesn't work. It didn't work with booze, it doesn't work with drugs, and it sure as hell won't work with smokes. Look at the prision system, for crying out loud...even if you lock people up and watch them around the clock, you STILL can't keep them from smoking.

If you want people to stop CHOOSING to smoke then you are going to have to do something much more effective than passing some more idiotic prohibition laws. Making smokes illegal will most likely INCREASE the number of people being harmed by cigs, and it will absolutely increase the number of criminals profitting from cigs.

Essentially, if you want to kill people and make criminals rich, go right ahead and ban even more drugs. Alternatively, if you want to ensure that fewer people smoke and fewer people are harmed by drugs, get over yourself and do something more productive about the problem.

We don't ban things for being "disgusting", nor "antisocial."

So it's really just about how "dangerous" it is. Yet we don't consistently ban things for being "dangerous" either. Alcohol is dangerous, but we don't ban that. Driving is dangerous, but we don't stop everyone and their teenage son from having their own car.

So whats your point?
ok, one last time, I'm not going to spend all day answering points I've already spoken about.

Firstly, we do ban things for being disgusting. I'm not allowed to live in squallor, attracting rats and so forth to the area to the detriment of those around me.
We also do ban things for being anti-social; I believe the above point illustrates this again. I think it's time that people stopped having such a selfish attitude and think that just because it's 'their right' to be a complete pain to everyone around them, that means that it is right. This is a side issue, however.

I have said many, many times already that there are many things that are dangerous, but they serve a purpose. Smoking serves no purpose and does nothing. At all.

I think this thread is over. Everyone keeps regurgiating the same auguments over and over. I'm done, out.I think this thread is over. Everyone keeps regurgitating the same arguments over and over. I'm done, out.
I agree. I think I'll bow out and let it die a dignified death.

There exist non-smoking establishments - I think they even have employees. No one is forcing them to work in a place that allows smoking. I think privately owned businesses can decide for themselves whether to allow smoking or not. In my city of residence, a smoking ban was passed and then ruled unconstitutional by the state courts. Several businesses decided to remain smoke-free and others chose to allow it. Both do equally well in this free market. Some will choose to patronize and other will choose not to. A true libertarian would see that as the way to go.

In the instance of the pregnant mother, are you pro-choice? If so, what's the difference between choosing to have an abortion or choosing to smoke? It's her body until the child is born - dosen't she have the right to do with her body what she chooses.

As for children living in a smoker's house, I believe that's a form of child abuse. you have a good point there, as the child dosen't have a choice in the matter. But as for the private businesses, it's THEIR business.

Actually, like 20+ years or so ago, most if NOT all public places as in like restaurants, bars, hospitals, and so forth didnt ban smoking because no one really realized the harm. THEN we started to realize it DOES do harm. And then the "freedom fighters for stupid rights" started complaining. So now we have choices on where we want to go(or so we like to think) but even then its not much of a choice, for instance if i wanted to go to my fav restaurant and they allow smoking it is infringing on my rights to be able to go WITHOUT the hazard of smoking in there. And when we do talk about "public" places we are talking about places where people have to shop, eat and do other "public activities. ;)

Ok, i think I also agree it is a dead topic. I am done for one.

ok, one last time, I'm not going to spend all day answering points I've already spoken about.

Yeah, hey, why defend your outlandish arguments?

Firstly, we do ban things for being disgusting. I'm not allowed to live in squallor, attracting rats and so forth to the area to the detriment of those around me.

Nonsense. People can and do live in squallor. You know, I know a guy who stinks. Bad. Is that illegal? No. I think homosexuals are disgusting - ass sex and all that, very unhealthy and it spreads disease. Contagious diseases at that. Do we ban homosexuality? Or even just ass sex? Why, no!


We also do ban things for being anti-social; I believe the above point illustrates this again.

Since when?

Video games are often anti-social. Book reading is anti-social. Watching TV is anti-social. Do we ban any of those things? No. "Anti-social" is not a cause for ban anymore than "disgusting" is. Concede this and move on, because it's really petty of you to think your bias is a basis for legislature.


I have said many, many times already that there are many things that are dangerous, but they serve a purpose.

And what purpose do alcoholic beverages serve? Or bungee jumping? Recreational driving? NASCAR?

Smoking serves no purpose and does nothing. At all.

My ass. How would you know? You're a non smoker. It serves a purpose of being recreational. Within that subset, there are dozens of reasons why anyone smokes. It doesn't "do nothing," you get a nice little buzz from it. So you're wrong on both counts.

I think the real reason you don't want to be bothered to defend your points is that they're untenable and you know it.

That is what they are trying to do in America. They keep raising the taxes on each case. It is so funny to see smokers getting angry about it. I just say suck it up. If you don't like the cost then stop smoking. It is a vial habit anyways!
*waves a 'ban smoking' flag*

Yeah, taxation as a means of social engineering is hysterical. :rolleyes:

Yeah, hey, why defend your outlandish arguments?



Nonsense. People can and do live in squallor. You know, I know a guy who stinks. Bad. Is that illegal? No. I think homosexuals are disgusting - ass sex and all that, very unhealthy and it spreads disease. Contagious diseases at that. Do we ban homosexuality? Or even just ass sex? Why, no!



Since when?

Video games are often anti-social. Book reading is anti-social. Watching TV is anti-social. Do we ban any of those things? No. "Anti-social" is not a cause for ban anymore than "disgusting" is. Concede this and move on, because it's really petty of you to think your bias is a basis for legislature.



And what purpose do alcoholic beverages serve? Or bungee jumping? Recreational driving? NASCAR?



My ass. How would you know? You're a non smoker. It serves a purpose of being recreational. Within that subset, there are dozens of reasons why anyone smokes. It doesn't "do nothing," you get a nice little buzz from it. So you're wrong on both counts.

I think the real reason you don't want to be bothered to defend your points is that they're untenable and you know it.

Purpose again? Nothing. And it has nothing to do with being a non-smoker. It has everything to do with LOGIC.

Purpose again? Nothing. And it has nothing to do with being a non-smoker. It has everything to do with LOGIC.

Oh, well right, that was extremely logical of you to not answer a single thing I said. Way to go.

Yeah, taxation as a means of social engineering is hysterical. :rolleyes:
Actually it is hysterical! I laugh because I'm not throwing $7 a pack twice a day to feed a deadly habit. It's funny they fight so hard for it. ROTFLMAO!!!

Rock and a hard place. The one option will not happen and the other one can sometimes suck. What I will say about it is that you should be responsible for you actions. If you can prove that someone has killed someone else through smoking near them then you have a criminal case on your hands.

The quote above serves only the purpose of one facet of my argument, let which is not the first point I will make in this post:

I am in college right now. I personally would be hard pressed to find a day in my career so far where I haven't had to walk downwind from someone who is smoking on the way to class. Your obvious argument to that would be "walk somewhere else," but thats the way to my class. If I were walking down the sidewalk, should I just go walk in traffic to avoid second hand smoke? It makes about as much sense as staying on the sidewalk considering I have to put up with harmful chemicals and the possibility of dying earlier than I would otherwise. Also - and this is my biggest peeve of all with smokers - when they aren't allowed to smoke inside a building they walk outside and do it, but do they walk somewhere where they aren't harming others? NO. They stand four feet from the door and smoke their cigarette, assaulting everyone who wants to enter or exit with the stuff. I am a non smoker (if you didn't guess already) and I have to wash my jacket every month to keep it from smelling like smoke. At work I am forced to stand next to (and sell stuff to) people who have been smoking elsewhere, a smell that I still hate putting up with. And what about people with families? They force their children to inhale smoke they may not want entering their bodies, but they can't do anything about it. The smoke assaults everyone elses senses and everyone else RIGHT to be able to breath unobstructed and smell other smells than cigarette smoke. There is no way to leave it at home, it just doesn't happen.

People say that alcohol (a drug that is actually good for blood flow in moderation) and caffeine are also drugs and that they should be banned. But picture this:

My reason for banning cigarettes is not because they are a harmful drug. I wish to ban cigarettes because yes, they are harmful, and they harm people around them.

Yeah, people smoke and it harms other people. What seems even worse to me is that the smokers aren't getting the worst of it. They get to smoke through a filter! Everyone else gets my nostril fulls of pure, unfiltered sidestream smoke, and second hand smoke that comes from a smoker. all 300 and some odd chemicals, pesticides, and our very favorite nicotine get sent to innocent bystanders pure and unadulterated.

You can't say alcohol falls into this category of "harmful to others." Yes, when people abuse alcohol they get sick but that is true for lots of things. You can't logically say that "drinking alcohol" = "drunk driving accidents" because that is not a standard byproduct of drinking alcohol, its a standard byproduct of people being stupid. Alcohol and caffeine are examples of drugs that are less harmful on a public level and are perfectly fine to keep around, and the general population can kill themselves with it as they see fit.

A parallel you can make for my reason for banning cigarettes is the reason for banning guns..Yes..GUNS. Your general, average, Joe Blow isn't allowed to have a handgun or some other firearm he can possibly have near other people (without being immediately apprehended) because there is a chance he will hurt someone else with it. This falls under the big set of civil rights dampening laws we have which have to deal with Public Safety. You have heard of the big public safety umbrella. Its why you have to get a permit to exercise your right to free assembly (to make sure its a peaceful assembly), its the reason you get a ticket for exceeding the speed limit, and it should be the reason you aren't allowed to smoke.

Finally, I will not get around to adressing the quote I have posted above. Its this simple:

80,000 non-smokers a year in the US die from tobacco related sicknesses
440,000 smokers a year in the US (thats a person every 8 seconds)
900 infants a year die in the US due to their mothers smoke during pregnancy
(The National Cancer Institute and a state run anti-smoking campaign)

You can contain smoking to an individual, and so smoking should be banned for the protection of everyone else.

PS- for economic record, the average state tax on tobacco is between 6 and 20 cents per pack. The number of packs of cigarettes that the average smoker will cosumer in their lifetime will not (under average circumstances) even be able to pay their medical bills later in their life when they are sick, much less cover the bills of all the other people that get sick on their account.

Finally, I will not get around to adressing the quote I have posted above. Its this simple:

80,000 non-smokers a year in the US die from tobacco related sicknesses
440,000 smokers a year in the US (thats a person every 8 seconds)
900 infants a year die in the US due to their mothers smoke during pregnancy
(The National Cancer Institute and a state run anti-smoking campaign)

You can contain smoking to an individual, and so smoking should be banned for the protection of everyone else.

PS- for economic record, the average state tax on tobacco is between 6 and 20 cents per pack. The number of packs of cigarettes that the average smoker will cosumer in their lifetime will not (under average circumstances) even be able to pay their medical bills later in their life when they are sick, much less cover the bills of all the other people that get sick on their account.

A very interesting pack of lies and unfounded numbers that have absolutely no basis in fact related to them other than numbers pulled out of a hat.
I find it hard to believe you are actually a college student because your entire post is utter garbage that has been completely debunked as propaganda, and very poor propaganda at that.
You appear to be unaware that the numbers you state are literal guesses as it is illegal in the US for doctors to speculate as to the cause of death or contribute a death to a cause that cannot be proven. (It is legal to lie about the cause of death in the UK however, for social causes)

As for your economic record line which is also as false as the rest of the garbage you wasted your time regurgitating as the taxes per pack are as much as 1.80 per pack and does not include even one dime of the fraudlent lawsuit brought by state attorneys against the producers. You remember the lawsuit right? The one that was to cover the cost of medical expences and insurance costs to the states...The one that not even one single percent of which actually went for the purpose that was stated in court. The money that was diverted to the general funds and pet projects of politicians and special interest groups. Still dont remember? The lawsuit where the states star witness was forced to admit that he lied and misrepresented himself on appeal.
We will not even get into the EPA's official public warnings that were found to be knowingly based on false information and completely vioid of any factual substance. Yet of course you and those like you will continue to do whatever it takes to impose your vision on everyone else no matter how much you have to lie to get the job done. You'd have made a fine Nazi. Carry on Carrie Nation!

There is no harm done by anything in moderation. Alcohol is a mind altering drug, so is pot, so it tobacco, and so is fricking chocolate. All things in moderation.



So how about I just shoot people in moderation, and do a bit of plane hijacking in moderation, and sleep in the middle of the road in moderation, and drink bleach in moderation, and poke a shark in the eye in moderation, and maybe die in moderation?

Yeah, taxation as a means of social engineering is hysterical. :rolleyes:

I think I said it in some other thread before, but yeah! Tax it lots and lots more! Wheee!

die in moderation?

Would you be like a zombie or something then? That would be cool...or maybe a vampire! Even better!

I am in college right now. I personally would be hard pressed to find a day in my career so far where I haven't had to walk downwind from someone who is smoking on the way to class.

I'd imagine that you'd be hard pressed to find a day in your career where you haven't had to expose yourself to industrial and automobile air pollution either.

If I were walking down the sidewalk, should I just go walk in traffic to avoid second hand smoke?

Well, why not? Surely you don't wish to ban automobiles. Therefore their exhaust must be an acceptable and safe thing?

I am a non smoker (if you didn't guess already) and I have to wash my jacket every month to keep it from smelling like smoke. At work I am forced to stand next to (and sell stuff to) people who have been smoking elsewhere, a smell that I still hate putting up with.

You had to wash your jacket... every MONTH?

OMG! That's AWFUL!

The smoke assaults everyone elses senses and everyone else RIGHT to be able to breath unobstructed and smell other smells than cigarette smoke.

Nonsense. I smoke and can smell other smells than cigarette smoke. I can breathe unobstructed too. I'm not a superman. I contend that this point of yours you felt important enough to bold-text is 100% pure shit.


My reason for banning cigarettes is not because they are a harmful drug. I wish to ban cigarettes because yes, they are harmful, and they harm people around them.

They do?

Do you have lung cancer, by the way? I mean, you've been exposed to cigarette smoke. Surely you've been "harmed." And no, I don't consider your jacket-washing "harm."

Yeah, people smoke and it harms other people. What seems even worse to me is that the smokers aren't getting the worst of it. They get to smoke through a filter! Everyone else gets my nostril fulls of pure, unfiltered sidestream smoke, and second hand smoke that comes from a smoker.

Wow, so apparently if you're a smoker, you don't get exposed to second-hand smoke?

So then why does anyone else?

I get the "worst" of it because I am closer in proximity to my cigarette smoke than ANYONE ELSE.


You can't say alcohol falls into this category of "harmful to others." Yes, when people abuse alcohol they get sick but that is true for lots of things. You can't logically say that "drinking alcohol" = "drunk driving accidents" because that is not a standard byproduct of drinking alcohol, its a standard byproduct of people being stupid.

And people smoking in a doorway isn't a product of individual people being 'stupid?' Somehow, their actions are representative of the entire act of smoking cigarettes, but a drunk driver's isn't of drinking?

Interesting... and flawed... view.

Alcohol and caffeine are examples of drugs that are less harmful on a public level and are perfectly fine to keep around, and the general population can kill themselves with it as they see fit.

Yeah, tell that to fetuses with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

Tell that to victims of drunk driving 'accidents'. ("Woops, I accidentally drove a car when I was fucking smashed and killed some people. Gosh! But at least I didn't smoke a cigarette, THAT would be MURDER!")

Caffeine is addictive and causes high stress, and people under stress cause other people stress. Stress is a major contributor to heart disease, one of if not the main cause of death in this country.

But hey, you wanna play blind man, fine.

A parallel you can make for my reason for banning cigarettes is the reason for banning guns..Yes..GUNS. Your general, average, Joe Blow isn't allowed to have a handgun or some other firearm he can possibly have near other people (without being immediately apprehended) because there is a chance he will hurt someone else with it.

No, he has to get a liscense. Where are you from?

This falls under the big set of civil rights dampening laws we have which have to deal with Public Safety. You have heard of the big public safety umbrella. Its why you have to get a permit to exercise your right to free assembly (to make sure its a peaceful assembly), its the reason you get a ticket for exceeding the speed limit, and it should be the reason you aren't allowed to smoke.

Why can't I just get a permit to smoke?

I wouldn't mind that. Then when someone like you bitches about it, I can whip out my permit and tell you to cry in someone else's milk.


80,000 non-smokers a year in the US die from tobacco related sicknesses
440,000 smokers a year in the US (thats a person every 8 seconds)
900 infants a year die in the US due to their mothers smoke during pregnancy
(The National Cancer Institute and a state run anti-smoking campaign)

Interesting that you're willing to include mothers who smoke when pregnant as directly caused by cigarette smoking, but when it comes to mothers who drink when pregnant, you dismiss that as "people being stupid."

And "tobacco related sickness" is another way of saying "something that could be caused by tobacco smoke but we don't really know."

And "a person every 8 seconds" is pure bullshit made to sound scarier than it really is.

And really, you're citing an anti-smoking campaign for your 'data?' Gee, how unbiased. For my next trick, I'll cite Pat Robertson's Top 10 Causes of Death for an unbiased look at how God kills people.

Santa Barbara, I agree with your arguments.

My view: The argument for banning smoking I fail to understand is the "forced to breathe cigarette smoke" argument. I cannot imagine any likely scenario which would result in somebody having to breathe cigarette smoke.

Most smokers, when in a room with non-smokers, have the decency to refrain from smoking. Those who do not, generally stop if asked. Just because a handful of people are inconsiderate, doesn't mean all smokers are.

Also, I think that it is silly to say that "smoking is disgusting" as a fact. I think most smokers probably don't agree. You think because you do not smoke, it's bad and all those who do smoke are wrong. I confess, I used to share that view, when I wasn't as open minded as I think I am now. But that illusion was shattered when I actually met somebody who was a smoker, but also a decent human being.

Let's just use the whole reverse psychology thing: we release cyclosarin into major urban areas, and when people complain, we say "You didn't have a problem with smoking!"

Why is smoking still legal? It's a disgusting habit, antisocial and dangerous.

We don't allow other drugs to be used recreationally, so why is this seen as somehow different?

It doesn't 'make a profit for the Government', as I'm sure many people will claim, as it's the NHS that must pick up the bill for all the smoking related illnesses it causes (at least in the UK), a bill far higher than any taxes it raises. Besides, if tax revenue was the reason for legalisation, then why only cigarettes and not other drugs?

It's not a question of 'legalise it and regulate it;' we’re hardly doing a brilliant job of keeping it out of the hands of those who shouldn't have it. Stories about 10 year olds smoking are far from rare.

It kills, it costs and it means I can't come home from the pub without smelling like I've been sleeping in an ashtray. Why not just ban it and be done with it?


I completely support you. ;)