NationStates Jolt Archive

Pretty simple, I just want to see the mythical people who want to ban all cigarettes. I'm told they're mythical anyway. I rather think they're not.

Nope :)

I wouldnt support such a ban, and I'm an ex-smoker.

No way. I need them to roll my joints.

I wouldn't oppose such a ban, but I oppose the methods that would be needed to enforce it, so I can't say I support a universal ban.

I think they're mythical. I hope they're mythical.

I'm not a smoker, and I hate the smell so much that I hold my breath whenever I'm near a smoker, but I really don't have any right to force them to stop. And neither does anyone else.

Probably not. People have the right to poison themselves in their own homes.

If your going for a ban of cigs I say through alcohol right in there with it. They both cause a large amount of damage and death. However so does a lot of different things. So to stick with the notion of freedom I say no.

Yes I would, and i'm a smoker....

No way. I need them to roll my joints.

use rolling tabacco. makes for better joints anyway

Pretty simple, I just want to see the mythical people who want to ban all cigarettes. I'm told they're mythical anyway. I rather think they're not.

If you passed the ban, I would immediately go into the cigarette smuggling business.

Many more customers for tobacco than there are for other illicit drugs.

It would be about as enforceable as Prohibition was in the US.

I'd support a ban on smoking in all public places. People should be able to smoke in thier own homes. But that's it.

If your going for a ban of cigs I say through alcohol right in there with it. They both cause a large amount of damage and death. However so does a lot of different things. So to stick with the notion of freedom I say no.

Alcohol is different in that:

- One alcoholic drink does no damage to the human body (it actually helps), while one cigarette does lots of damage

- Alcohol in itself does no harm to other people. Cigarettes harm through second hand smoke

use rolling tabacco. makes for better joints anyway

Rolling tobacco is too wet, too thick and too sticky. its makes it harder to mix, grind and press into a perfect cone form.

I draw your attention to my sig....

Id like to see a public ban on smoking. I'd also like to see smokers pay more for their healthcare to offset the cost to the rest of us. Beyond that, I really don't care if someone wants to slowly kill themself and smell like ass.

No a fan of the Government Nanny state in any case. I don't smoke but if I decided to start I don't want to have to ask Big Brother for permission to do it.

I'd also like to see smokers pay more for their healthcare to offset the cost to the rest of us.

Why stop there? How about since black people are more likely to get shot, they should pay more in HI taxes to offset the cost to the rest of us? Also hey, fat people, and old people. Both groups that wind up costing the health system a lot more. You in favor of that too, or is this just one special case limited only to cigarette smokers becaue they and their healthcare needs and costs are completely unique?

Id like to see a public ban on smoking. I'd also like to see smokers pay more for their healthcare to offset the cost to the rest of us. Beyond that, I really don't care if someone wants to slowly kill themself and smell like ass.

Bad argument. Cigarrette taxes cover the healthcare.......here anyway

Yes, because it smells bad.

But oddly enough i miss it in clubs :\

I'd support a ban on smoking in all public places. People should be able to smoke in thier own homes. But that's it.

My agreement lies with this statement. :)

Yes, because it smells bad.

But oddly enough i miss it in clubs :\

*Nods* Covered up the smell of BO and people farting, etc

Why stop there? How about since black people are more likely to get shot, they should pay more in HI taxes to offset the cost to the rest of us? Also hey, fat people, and old people. Both groups that wind up costing the health system a lot more. You in favor of that too, or is this just one special case limited only to cigarette smokers becaue they and their healthcare needs and costs are completely unique?

I never said they were unique, smoking is just the topic at hand.

They have to pay more for life insurance, I don't see why healthcare should be any different. Hell, I have to pay higher rates for my life insurance because I ride a motorcycle. I have no problem with that. I'd have no problem paying more for my healthcare because I have debilitating allergies. It's only fair.

Rolling tobacco is too wet, too thick and too sticky. its makes it harder to mix, grind and press into a perfect cone form.

bah
dry tobacco burns too fast. and the rest is down to skill... and practice

Why stop there? How about since black people are more likely to get shot, they should pay more in HI taxes to offset the cost to the rest of us? Also hey, fat people, and old people. Both groups that wind up costing the health system a lot more. You in favor of that too, or is this just one special case limited only to cigarette smokers becaue they and their healthcare needs and costs are completely unique?

Last I checked Black is not a condition caused by one's own stupidity.

As long as we get to keep our sacred tobacco, you smokers can get bent. MUAHAHAHAHA!

Bad argument. Cigarrette taxes cover the healthcare.......here anyway

We have private healthcare here. The overall health of my company is what determines our rates. I had no idea that's how they calculated costs until I had to purchase it for our company.

I never said they were unique, smoking is just the topic at hand.

They have to pay more for life insurance, I don't see why healthcare should be any different. Hell, I have to pay higher rates for my life insurance because I ride a motorcycle. I have no problem with that. I'd have no problem paying more for my healthcare because I have debilitating allergies. It's only fair.

The whole point of medicare is that it isn't like insurance, it's a government service provided to all taxpayers equally, kinda like police. What you propose is like having some people a special extra tax if they want police and happen to live in an area where there is more crime. It's not "fair," it's ridiculous.

Why stop there? How about since black people are more likely to get shot, they should pay more in HI taxes to offset the cost to the rest of us? Also hey, fat people, and old people. Both groups that wind up costing the health system a lot more. You in favor of that too, or is this just one special case limited only to cigarette smokers becaue they and their healthcare needs and costs are completely unique?

the more unhealthy you are the more you pay!
same for smokers and drinkers. sounds like a good idea to me!

bah
dry tobacco burns too fast. and the rest is down to skill... and practice

You dare doubt my KraZy Rolling SkilZ ? :p I have mastered the 7 heavenly stages of the sacred BackRoll !

Id like to see a public ban on smoking. I'd also like to see smokers pay more for their healthcare to offset the cost to the rest of us. Beyond that, I really don't care if someone wants to slowly kill themself and smell like ass.

Tax revenue from fags would pay for the NHS smoking treatment....several several times over.

Hate to say it but you have a null arguement.

Universal ban; no, but I would like to see them out of pubs, cafes, restaurants, and most all public places really.

The whole point of medicare is that it isn't like insurance, it's a government service provided to all taxpayers equally, kinda like police. What you propose is like having some people a special extra tax if they want police and happen to live in an area where there is more crime. It's not "fair," it's ridiculous.

I wasn't talking about medicare, I was talking about private healthcare. They should have to pay more for their private healthcare like they have to for their private life insurance. Like I have to for my private life insurance.

Yes. Smoking is a bad habit that's costly and all it does is make you sicker, rather then help you. You are paying a corporation to die whenever ypu buy a pcak of cigarettes. So yes, smoking should be banned. :)

Tax revenue from fags would pay for the NHS smoking treatment....several several times over.

Hate to say it but you have a null arguement.

I've purchased healthcare for my company. If you can give me a better reason why our quoted health premium jumped after several people answered their initial surveys "non-smoker" and when it came time for enrollment changed their answer to "smoker" I'd like to hear it. I'd also like to know why my broker lied to me when he said that's the reason the premium went up.

yes, but it also depends on how it's worded.

I've purchased healthcare for my company. If you can give me a better reason why our quoted health premium jumped after several people answered their initial surveys "non-smoker" and when it came time for enrollment changed their answer to "smoker" I'd like to hear it. I'd also like to know why my broker lied to me when he said that's the reason the premium went up.

I'd say that insurance companies are businesses accountable to shareholders.

I'd say that insurance companies are businesses accountable to shareholders.

Our insurance isn't publicly traded, so it really isn't. And anyway, the structure of my insurance provider has nothing to do with the very simple fact that the smokers in our company raised our premium.

No. My opinion of cigarettes is very low to say the least. But my opinion of personal freedoms is very high.

I would support a ban on smoking in all indoor buildings other than private residences.

Hell no!

Our insurance isn't publicly traded, so it really isn't. And anyway, the structure of my insurance provider has nothing to do with the very simple fact that the smokers in our company raised our premium.

Your insurance company is not a PLC?

I admit I am looking at this from a UK perspective. Cigarettes are heavily taxed...85% I believe.

It generates billions in tax revenue. The NHS budget for treating smokers is less than a billion....

No. My opinion of cigarettes is very low to say the least. But my opinion of personal freedoms is very high.

I would support a ban on smoking in all indoor buildings other than private residences.
That's my take on it as well. People should be able to smoke outside, or in their homes or on their property (and in their cars if they so wish). Other than that, no.

That's my take on it as well. People should be able to smoke outside, or in their homes or on their property (and in their cars if they so wish). Other than that, no.

More specifically, my right to clean air trumps their right to smoke. But that doesn't negate their right to smoke.

Hell no,

There's no real proof that they actually harm you. (Sarcasm)

Frank Sinatra smoked his whole life and lived to be like 80!

Your insurance company is not a PLC?

I admit I am looking at this from a UK perspective. Cigarettes are heavily taxed...85% I believe.

It generates billions in tax revenue. The NHS budget for treating smokers is less than a billion....

It's an NPF. Most all of the insurance companies are here. They really don't have a choice but to directly pass the cost on to the consumers. The original insurance I had picked out was pretty sweet. The insurance I had to choose after the adjustments has a $5,000 deductible and no perscription coverage. It's not about saving my company money, that's literally all we can afford. We are NFP and on a shoestring budget. It just sucks that we all have to suffer for a few people's lifestyle choice.

If you want to slowly kill your body, fine....just don't take me along with you

It's an NPF. Most all of the insurance companies are here. They really don't have a choice but to directly pass the cost on to the consumers. The original insurance I had picked out was pretty sweet. The insurance I had to choose after the adjustments has a $5,000 deductible and no perscription coverage. It's not about saving my company money, that's literally all we can afford. We are NFP and on a shoestring budget. It just sucks that we all have to suffer for a few people's lifestyle choice.

Where is here if you don't mind me asking? If you are in Canada I would not be able to comment as I know virtually nothing about Canada.

How much do cigarettes cost and how much is taxed? How much of that is used to pay for smoke related diseases?

And what proportion of the population are smokers?

I wasn't talking about medicare, I was talking about private healthcare. They should have to pay more for their private healthcare like they have to for their private life insurance. Like I have to for my private life insurance.

Private health care is something else. I believe people DO pay more for private healthcare based on various risk factors, like smoking. I could be wrong. But when I talk of healthcare I mean taxes.

Where is here if you don't mind me asking? If you are in Canada I would not be able to comment as I know virtually nothing about Canada.

How much do cigarettes cost and how much is taxed? How much of that is used to pay for smoke related diseases?

And what proportion of the population are smokers?
By here I mean the US.

The taxes on cigarettes are pretty substantial here, but companies purchasing health insurance don't get part of that.

The way private healthcare works here is every group (company) gets assesed as a whole. You can get healthcare on your own, but it's more economic to get it through your company (bulk discount). The more people we have that are smokers, above a certain age, ect, the higher our premium is.

Private health care is something else. I believe people DO pay more for private healthcare based on various risk factors, like smoking. I could be wrong. But when I talk of healthcare I mean taxes.
The group pays more as a whole. It makes me angry that my entire company has crap insurance because of a relatively few employees.

By here I mean the US.

The taxes on cigarettes are pretty substantial here, but companies purchasing health insurance don't get part of that.

The way private healthcare works here is every group (company) gets assesed as a whole. You can get healthcare on your own, but it's more economic to get it through your company (bulk discount). The more people we have that are smokers, above a certain age, ect, the higher our premium is.


The group pays more as a whole. It makes me angry that my entire company has crap insurance because of a relatively few employees.

Here (http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cigarett.html) is a list of taxes on cigarettes by state, if it's helpful. My state is among the lowest in taxes on cigarettes.

I don't think that there should be a total ban, but I like the ban in restaurants and places like that. I can't stand being around smoke and I have to run away immediately if anyone smokes around me, though.

More specifically, my right to clean air trumps their right to smoke. But that doesn't negate their right to smoke.

Yeah, this.
If people really want to pay that much tax to make themselves ill and smell abhorrent that's fine, so long as I don't have to partake of their noxious odours and be made to feel ill myself.

Here (http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cigarett.html) is a list of taxes on cigarettes by state, if it's helpful. My state is among the lowest in taxes on cigarettes.

I don't think that there should be a total ban, but I like the ban in restaurants and places like that. I can't stand being around smoke and I have to run away immediately if anyone smokes around me, though.

18th and climbing. It seems like they are raising the tax every year in this state.

A ban on smoking in public places would indeed be nice. Maybe not outside, if they put those smoker's shelters somewhere besides right outside the building. It would be nice if they'd ban smoking at outdoor concerts too, I have way too many cigarette burns.

Nah, but I'm all for ad campaigns and such whose aim is to get people to stop smoking or never start.

By here I mean the US.

The taxes on cigarettes are pretty substantial here, but companies purchasing health insurance don't get part of that.

The way private healthcare works here is every group (company) gets assesed as a whole. You can get healthcare on your own, but it's more economic to get it through your company (bulk discount). The more people we have that are smokers, above a certain age, ect, the higher our premium is.


The group pays more as a whole. It makes me angry that my entire company has crap insurance because of a relatively few employees.

Fair enough.

I wonder if perhaps the current state of US health care is also contributing to the high costs of your insurance?

Fair enough.

I wonder if perhaps the current state of US health care is also contributing to the high costs of your insurance?

If by that you mean the cost of US health care, I would say yes, among other things.

If by that you mean the cost of US health care, I would say yes, among other things.

That and how much of the tax revenue raised from cigarette sales go to finance the treatment of smoking related diseases....

I don't really give a f*ck....

BUT....

I would like to say that if you ban pot then cigarettes and alcohol should also be banned...all or nothing IMO...

I'd revolt. Or rather, I'd cry. Yes. I'd cry.

Fair enough.

I wonder if perhaps the current state of US health care is also contributing to the high costs of your insurance?

It doesn't help, but for most of my life, healthcare has been pretty nice here. Bush's tinkering has fucked it all up. I remember the days of $100 deductibles, and OHP (Oregon Medicaid) being able to cover everyone who didn't have access to healthcare via their company.

The good old days being less than 10 years ago.

Yes, because then I could make a fortune selling them on the black market.

It doesn't help, but for most of my life, healthcare has been pretty nice here. Bush's tinkering has fucked it all up. I remember the days of $100 deductibles, and OHP (Oregon Medicaid) being able to cover everyone who didn't have access to healthcare via their company.

The good old days being less than 10 years ago.

I appreciate that you are not taking my posts as an attack on the US....thanks...

The NHS is not doing well either....yep....tinkering.

Now I am here in the Netherlands I am surprised to find that I have to pay for health care...not via taxes but out of my net income.

Definitely not. My opportunities for smoking cigarettes would be greatly reduced. Although that never stopped me with other things...

I appreciate that you are not taking my posts as an attack on the US....thanks...

The NHS is not doing well either....yep....tinkering.

Now I am here in the Netherlands I am surprised to find that I have to pay for health care...not via taxes but out of my net income.

Well, every country has it's short commings. It's kind of silly to pretend our healthcare isn't a problem (right now anyway).

That's unfortunate. Aren't your taxes are signifigantly higher over there too?

I'd really like to see things go back to the way they were here, and evey state follow Oregon in the medicaid (state provided healthcare) model. It worked here for years, didn't unduely burden the tax payers. Everyone won.

I'd support it. It would help me to quit smoking

Pretty simple, I just want to see the mythical people who want to ban all cigarettes. I'm told they're mythical anyway. I rather think they're not.

They appear in the minority ... rather in contrast to what you portray in other threads

I'd support it. It would help me to quit smoking

So you would impose that restriction on everyone else just to help you quit smoking?

I would not wish their universal ban but I would think highly of any private business who chose to protect other customers and staff by not allowing smoking.

Nah. Let people put whatever they want in their bodies in the privacy of their own homes.

ive never smoked and never will but i would never support a universal ban on smoking

i would like the federal govt to mandate smoking areas in all airports past the security gates. its a safety issue.

i would also like the states and municipalities to stop their social engineering and instead madate a certain level of air quality on inside air that must be maintained at all times in any business that allows smoking (their option to allow or not allow). if they can find a way to make the air clean enough, it should be OK to allow smoking. oh yeah and the standard should be something equivalent to the local air quality in businesses that do not allow smoking.

We need to treat cigarettes the way Bhutan does.

They appear in the minority ... rather in contrast to what you portray in other threads

Ah, but that's just with a total and complete prohibition of cigarettes. Most people won't admit to that. Now if I'd said a total ban on smoking in "public" (which apparently includes privately owned places for a lot of people) the numbers would be higher. And it amounts to the same thing, really.

Ah, but that's just with a total and complete prohibition of cigarettes. Most people won't admit to that. Now if I'd said a total ban on smoking in "public" (which apparently includes privately owned places for a lot of people) the numbers would be higher. And it amounts to the same thing, really.

It really really doesnt

It really really doesnt

actually it does.

I said yes, but my post also says "depends on how it's worded."

actually it does.

I said yes, but my post also says "depends on how it's worded."

How does 'Complete and total prohibition' amount to the same thing as 'Regulation against smoking in publicly used spaces'?

Sure. I hate walking down a street and choking to death on cigarette smoke.

Ah, but that's just with a total and complete prohibition of cigarettes. Most people won't admit to that. Now if I'd said a total ban on smoking in "public" (which apparently includes privately owned places for a lot of people) the numbers would be higher. And it amounts to the same thing, really.
No not really a universal ban implies your personal space as well to me (example home)

Where a public ban does not

No. Not only does it fly in the face of all human rights, but it would be less effective than prohibition of alcohol. Well, that and the fact that I smoke.

I might also note no government in the world would risk losing the money it takes from duties upon ciggarettes, were I to be a cynic....

How does 'Complete and total prohibition' amount to the same thing as 'Regulation against smoking in publicly used spaces'?

please show me where it's states "Complete and Total Prohibition."

Universal can mean "complete and total" or it can mean "planet wide" (and I will not dictate how other countries care for their people.)

and with anything, there can be exceptions included, which would not break the definition of universal.

hence, depends on how it's worded.

I would support a ban on smoking for the following points.
1) Health care issue for smoker
2) Health care issue for neighbors
3) Health care issue for immediate family members
4) Fire hazzard
5) Littering (minor point)
6) the fact that it's heavily taxed and regulated in some areas almost to the point of being banned already.

please show me where it's states "Complete and Total Prohibition."

Universal can mean "complete and total" or it can mean "planet wide" (and I will not dictate how other countries care for their people.)

and with anything, there can be exceptions included, which would not break the definition of universal.

hence, depends on how it's worded.

I would support a ban on smoking for the following points.
1) Health care issue for smoker
2) Health care issue for neighbors
3) Health care issue for immediate family members
4) Fire hazzard
5) Littering (minor point)
6) the fact that it's heavily taxed and regulated in some areas almost to the point of being banned already.

Did you read what it was I was quoting at all?

Pretty simple, I just want to see the mythical people who want to ban all cigarettes. I'm told they're mythical anyway. I rather think they're not.

I'm a non-smoker, and I personally absolutely hate the smell of it. Plus, the butts on the streets and roads everywhere you go annoy the hell out of me.
I fully support the smoking ban here in Ireland, which had 3 positive effects from my personal point of view :


I can stay in a pub or restaurant for more than 30 minutes without my eyes strting to itch, and subsequently to water until I look like someone in my family has just died.
After a night out, I don't get sick in the morning from the way my skin, hair and clothes smell
Pubs in Ireland have no put chairs and tables outside, and I do enjoy sitting outside on a nice day.


Despite all that, I would not support an absolute ban on smoking. If an adult person wants to smoke, that's their choice. I do support discouraging it, but not banning it.

.....I would not support an absolute ban on smoking. If an adult person wants to smoke, that's their choice. I do support discouraging it, but not banning it.

Yeah, that.

I love when people type out what I'm thinking for me, saves me time :)

Stupidest idea I've heard in a long time. The War on Drugs is smashing the country and accomplishing nothing, and you want to add more stuff to the banned list? With an already established and HUGE market?

Why don't you just sell the country to organized crime? It would save a lot of time and effort.

As long as you go about killing yourself in private. I don't care. Against banning them in situations where it's in private and others aren't being affected.

Ah, ever summer I dream of visiting the beach and feel the butts in between my toes...

Yes I would, and i'm a smoker....



use rolling tabacco. makes for better joints anyway
Or... don't use tobacco at all. I never rolled them with it until I went to europe. What's the point?

If people want to die of lung cancer, that's their own fucking fault.

In other words: No, I would not support such a ban.

We need to treat cigarettes the way Bhutan does.

And how is that?

No. Mind you, I'm currently trying to quit and it would be much easier if they wern't available. But no, people can choose for themselves.

I'd support a ban on smoking in all public places. People should be able to smoke in thier own homes. But that's it.

Only if there are no underaged kids there - People conveniently forget that smoking, alcohol and drugs also tend to hurt other people, especially defenceless children, whether they want it or not. :(

I'd rather see people smoking outside than inside: With all the cars and pollution lingering about a cig ain't gonna do much (more) harm to your fellow man, woman or a child.

Of course, smoking near bus stops or other crowded areas (eg. restaurants, stations, work places, amusement parks, etc..) should be banned. I also wouldn't like to smell smokers near recreational areas (beaches, parks,...).

In short: Smoking should be banned when there are other people (esp. non-smokers) about except near high traffic or industrial areas :D

As much as I would like to see cigarettes banned, in reality, a ban would be very difficult to achieve in the present - there are too many cigarette smokers, and there are far more important issues for politicians to deal with. In which case, I believe the status quo should be maintained, although we should aim to see cigarettes become even more unfashionable; and Hollywood would be a good place to start.

People shouldn't be banned from putting whatever they want into their bodies as long as they do not harm others.

Smoking is an interesting case as there is passive smoking or second-hand smoking. The dangers from second hand smoking are greatly exaggerated by some but they are dangerous.

Children can be harmed, and parents should be responsible enough to stop smoking around them. At a pub or something, if you really hate the smell, STOP PATRONIZING THE PLACE. Go down the street to a place that is non-smoking. Before the full restaurant smoking ban in NYC, most places were smoke free anyway and many offered smoke-free sections outdoors or indoors.

A ban on smoking in public places I would not mind. In a private establishment is an infringement on the owner's rights. Unless his bar was pumping smoke into the lungs of pregnant teenage orphan mothers with asthma, it really isn't that bad.

Here's my proposition...

What about we go half way, like they now do in 2 out of the 4 regions in the UK? In Scotland and Northern Ireland all smoking IS banned - in public places only. That way, the general public is protected from others' bad habits, and, if you really want to, you can suffocate to death 'in the privacy of your own home'.

This may have something to do with the relative importance of the tobacco industry there, so they can't extinguish (pun not intended) it all together - but I don't think they would completely ban it anyway, being honest.

I absolutely agree with a smoking ban in all public places. I'm for people having the freedom to do what they want, but I'm also very against people hurting each other. I know of many cases in which people have died of second hand smoke without having been smokers themselves (a famous case: Christopher Reeves's wife, from lung cancer after working in a lounge for years).

People bitched & whined when NYC instituted the public smoking ban, but you know what? Lung cancer rates have gone down significantly in NYC in the last 5 years. Less painful & unnecessary death = absolutely better in my book. I think it's hard to argue against that.

People shouldn't be banned from putting whatever they want into their bodies as long as they do not harm others.

Evaluating harm unto others is much more difficult than you'd think, from the production process to collateral damage.

In principle I agree with that statement though.

cameroi opposes the universal banning of the possession or consumption of anything. its in our constitution. but whole heartedly supports the banning of manufacture, sale and whole sale importation of whatever objects or substances a two thirds majority of the people living in a particular place wish to not have in that particular place. this is usually local, but again, if that same 2/3 applies, it could be regeonal or even national.

tobacco cigarettes are among the many items not mass produced here. there is no legal opposition to roll your own's however, nor to the growing of tobacco, (nor other smokable natural products), for personal consumption.

the health risks of recreational tobacco consumption ARE widely recognized and generating second hand smoke is banned in other then open and well ventilated areas away from where non-smokers have to live and work.

there are no restrictions however, on its traditional ritual use.
(nor that of any other consumable substance)

we feel this to be a sane and sensible position on all such matters.

=^^=
.../\...

I could support only a policy like this: if you want to smoke where you don't force your smoke on non-smokers, fine. Don't expect the national health system to pay for your smoke-related health problems, though.

I'd support it if it were workable and wouldn't end up like prohibition.

One thing I hate, is that when I go to a restaurant and its full, and they give me a waiting time. I then ask them how long the wait is for the smoking section and if its less, they get told off because they are catering to the smaller minority, and don't deserve my money if they can't figure out that smokers make up less of their customers.

You are free to kill yourself in the privacy of your own home, assuming you have no children in your house. However, smoking in public should be banned.

Only if there are no underaged kids there - People conveniently forget that smoking, alcohol and drugs also tend to hurt other people, especially defenceless children, whether they want it or not. :(

There's a point you got there... I remember the other day being on the bus and looking out the window as it passed the Rotunda hospital. There was a woman standing outside, more than abviously pregnant (I'm not expert, but I guess she was in the 8th or 9th month), happily puffing away at a fag. It made me angry.
I mean, if you don't want the kid, don't have the kid. A flight to Manchester and an abortion aren't that unaffordable with RyanAir around. But if you want to have it, it's your fucking responsibility to look after it, including its health, and not only after you popped it out! :mad:

You are free to kill yourself in the privacy of your own home, assuming you have no children in your house. However, smoking in public should be banned.

Why? If I smoke on the pavement of a street or in a park, my smoke won't do the non-smoker any greater harm than the cars' and lorries' exausts are already doing.
When you'll have abolished thermal engines, we could discuss a ban on smoking in public open areas.

Why? If I smoke on the pavement of a street or in a park, my smoke won't do the non-smoker any greater harm than the cars' and lorries' exausts are already doing.
When you'll have abolished thermal engines, we could discuss a ban on smoking in public open areas.

in cameroi we don't mass produce "thermal engines" either. our little trains and other mechanical transport alternatives run on batteries, flywheels and other methods of storing energy, which are in turn charged from the grid which is fed primarily by wind, solar and micro-hydro.

the only use of combustion widely accepted is for cooking and home heating. and even in home heating it is suplimented to a large degree by alternatives.

=^^=
.../\...

There is a very simple way to reduce smoking. Progressive deterrent tax rises over five years, until a pack of 20 costs about the same as a bottle of whisky. That should cut the smoking rate by 80 maybe even 90%
Of course it won't matter come Sunday. It will be illegal to smoke in an enclosed public place or workplace anywhere in the United Kingdom.

There is a very simple way to reduce smoking. Progressive deterrent tax rises over five years, until a pack of 20 costs about the same as a bottle of whisky. That should cut the smoking rate by 80 maybe even 90%
Of course it won't matter come Sunday. It will be illegal to smoke in an enclosed public place or workplace anywhere in the United Kingdom.

I've got serious doubts there, to be honest. See, Ireland has massive taxes on alcohol. When I first came here from Germany, the price of a pint, or a bottle of wine, seemed outrageous, 2 to 3 times what I was used to. To my mind it was (and still is) in no relation to what people here earn on average.
And yet, go to a pub on any given Friday or Saturday night, and you'll find people happily spending a week's wages on tomorrow's hangover. The price is no deterrant whatsoever, apparently.
That said, I've got no problem with raising a huge tax on cigarettes, provided the obtained extra funds go into healthcare to deal with the effects of smoking.

I'm an ex smoker and I voted Yes, since there is no better fitting option. Let me explain:

- ban on smoking in all public areas
- restriction of the sale of tobacco products to special shops (like coffee shops in the Netherlands) and drugstores

This way if you smoke, you can still smoke but if you don't, chances of acquiring this nasty habit would be minimal. It's not like the nicotin gives any pleasant effects to the unaddicted.

Pretty simple, I just want to see the mythical people who want to ban all cigarettes. I'm told they're mythical anyway. I rather think they're not.

Universal? I don't know, it's pretty trivial banning cigarettes in places with no air.

I don't support any such ban. A ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces, I think, is a good idea. But anything beyond that is no different than telling me how many hours of sleep I have to get each night, how much coffee Dear Majority will tolerate me to drink and so on. It's a fucked up idea.

But if it really happens one day, I'll gleefully vote to ban all fast food - because that's sure to follow, and unlike most of you gits, I never have any :p
Rolling tobacco is too wet, too thick and too sticky. its makes it harder to mix, grind and press into a perfect cone form.I thought you were talking about joints?

There's a great deal of different rolling tobacco, by the way. Far more to choose from, texture and taste -wise than cigs.

I would absolutely support a ban on cigarettes. A complete ban. Chewing tobacco too.

Cigars? Not so much.

It's funny how a huge amount of people who support the legislation of drugs support a ban on fags.

wishing for clean air in enclosed public space /= wishing to ban smoking

Well, every country has it's short commings. It's kind of silly to pretend our healthcare isn't a problem (right now anyway).

That's unfortunate. Aren't your taxes are signifigantly higher over there too?

I'd really like to see things go back to the way they were here, and evey state follow Oregon in the medicaid (state provided healthcare) model. It worked here for years, didn't unduely burden the tax payers. Everyone won.

Sadly true..

yeah my taxes are high....well sorta...normally I'd be paying 52% income tax...on top of that would be other costs such as pension and healthcare...and 22% of the value of my company car...:eek:

However as I am a foreign worker in 'hi tech' the fist 30% of my income is not taxed...which is nice ;)

I am torn with health care....I think all people should be allowed access to health care...but it does not sit well with my anti taxation stance...

ahhh...life...full of contradictions LOL

Home made cigarettes, no.
Poison in a carton, yes.

Alcohol is different in that:

- One alcoholic drink does no damage to the human body (it actually helps), while one cigarette does lots of damage
Wrong. One cigarette helps the body to relax and is, much like a single drink, quite good for you.
- Alcohol in itself does no harm to other people. Cigarettes harm through second hand smoke
Cigarettes in themselves harm nobody. It's the people who light up that do.

Yes! Smoking has no upside about it really.

Yes! Smoking has no upside about it really.
Ever smoked?

Ever smoked?

No and I don't plan to. Being asthmatic I feel smoking wouldn't really help matters.

No and I don't plan to. Being asthmatic I feel smoking wouldn't really help matters.
Then how could you possibly know if it has an upside or not?

Chrissakes, man.

How about this... Use all tax money collected from cigarettes to cure lung cancer. Then encourage all people to smoke. Then when everybody smokes, lower the tax rate to make smoking affordable. Its win - win.

No and I don't plan to. Being asthmatic I feel smoking wouldn't really help matters.

I was an asthmatic too when I was a kid, but I grew out if it, and now enjoy smoking on a daily basis! Doesn't bother me one bit!

*lights up*

Then how could you possibly know if it has an upside or not?

Chrissakes, man.

There is an upside but personally I feel it is much outweighed by the downside

There is an upside but personally I feel it is much outweighed by the downside
Try it, and you'll find that the upsides faaaaar outweigh the downsides.

As someone vaguely asthmatic myself, I must say that it makes things easier by not being so tense all of the time, which is a definate cause of asthma.

Try it, and you'll find that the upsides faaaaar outweigh the downsides.

As someone vaguely asthmatic myself, I must say that it makes things easier by not being so tense all of the time, which is a definate cause of asthma.

I'll take meditation or Tai Chi or something instead if I need to relax.

Greatly increased risk of emphysema, COPD, cancer, etc aren't so much of an issue with them

I'll take meditation or Tai Chi or something instead if I need to relax.

Greatly increased risk of emphysema, COPD, cancer, etc aren't so much of an issue with them
Yoga = not so much fun at the pub as a smoke and Stella in hand, though.

I voted no because cigarettes are deeeeeeeelicious

Yoga = not so much fun at the pub as a smoke and Stella in hand, though.Oh, is 'Stella' what you call it?

i have made the personal choice not to smoke and some have made it a personal choice to smoke. i also have the choice to be somewhere where people are smoking or not and i don't mind socializing with people while they are smoking.

Oh, is 'Stella' what you call it?
What, "I can't believe you call Stella Artois 'Stella' instead of its full name"?

What, "I can't believe you call Stella Artois 'Stella' instead of its full name"?

You missed the joke

What, "I can't believe you call Stella Artois 'Stella' instead of its full name"?Wow, cool, it has a full name.
I call mine Miss Perkins. It doesn't have a first name, though.

HAHAHA I call mine Stanley