Cigarettes should be illegal.

[theheroofaction]

Banning cigarettes would be a terrible idea, just like every other time addictants have been banned.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

snip

You typed it yourself, that it is a slippery slope fallacy. I understand what you mean, I just don't agree that it could happen outside of some fictional movie/book/game.

 

[BNguyen]

Weed is less harmful than cigarettes. At least weed help people in a way. That and it's natural unlike the thousands of chemicals in the average cigarette. And in what way does a cigarette help anybody. If you know a way please tell me. But they should just ban them without hesitation.

Well cigarettes only affect the person smoking - possible lung and throat cancer, and the people who might happen to breathe the second-hand smoke might have a better than let's say 5% chance of getting the same type of cancer.
And alcohol - get's people drunk, livers fail, can cause people to become unnaturally violent due to distorted brain activity, and can cause car crashes which can and do result in the direct deaths of numerous people.
Alcohol is much more dangerous directly than cigarettes which indirectly affect the people around the smoker.
Both can be fine to people in low quantities but a lot of people do not go with moderation when using these substances.

 

[WaReloaded]

I'm an Australian and I smoke, Australia is well on its way to becoming a "nanny nation", one where the government and over-opinionated conservatives are "forcing our hands" on several issues, so to speak. One of those issues is the taxing and restriction of alcohol, it's called a sin tax, at least where I'm from that's what it's called and to be honest I think it's ridiculous.

I can understand the heavy restrictions that are being placed on alcohol because alcohol-related violence is still an issue (at least in Melbourne it is, but I'm sure it's a problem in the other states, too), alcohol literally destroys lives, and whilst cigarettes are destroying lives, too, I feel as though cigarettes aren't causing minorities to be beaten and killed on the streets and cigarettes certainly aren't sparking the assaults on the various cab drivers that work 20 hour shifts just to get by.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/foi-request-shows-hike-in-victorian-alcohol-related-violence-and-sickness/story-e6frf7kx-1226013649360
An interesting article that may shed some light for you on just how big of a problem alcohol-related violence is in Victoria.

However, I would like to add that I do not smoke around people in the city, or anywhere for that matter. I feel as though it's my responsibility to avoid potentially damaging the health of others. I also refuse to litter my cigarette butts.

 

[Darthbawls77]

Although I dont smoke Ciggs I dont think its the governments place to tell me that I cant smoke. Now they can tell me not to smoke in certain areas but not not smoke in general. When we finally make things illegal like being a super jerk ass in real life like the west baptist church does to our soilders and their families or perhaps an actual good prison system then we should worry about ciggs and alcohol. Till then let the people have their ciggs I say.

 

[Siffit]

Cigarettes, alcohol and drugs should all be legal, but regulated. If it's illegal it just leads to crime ("war on drugs" anyone?). Also you get cleaner stuff if its not sold by freakin criminals

 

[solemnwar]

snip

You typed it yourself, that it is a slippery slope fallacy. I understand what you mean, I just don't agree that it could happen outside of some fictional movie/book/game.

Doesn't mean it won't, and you should always be critical of the government meddling in private affairs anyways.

Although wouldn't Nazi Germany be a pretty good example of slippery slope? It's not like Hitler got elected and immediately threw the Jews (and others) into concentration camps. Had to start off slow. Not really the same sort of thing I suppose. And I probably just invoked Godwin's Law. I should probably just go to bed. Bllh.

 

[Aprilgold]

I think that things like Alcohol and Cigarettes should be banned since they both hurt you and in times others around you.

Great plan. What could go wrong? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States]

You know I would almost respect your opinion if you didn't sarcastically point out the prohibition. Yes, I am aware of how that turned out there was no reason to link me to Wikipedia for it. Its my opinion, not fact or law therefore I felt this to be quite immature. *cleans monocle*

 

[sunsetspawn]

Weed is less harmful than cigarettes. At least weed help people in a way. That and it's natural unlike the thousands of chemicals in the average cigarette. And in what way does a cigarette help anybody. If you know a way please tell me. But they should just ban them without hesitation.

sigh... so wrong...

Cigarettes are acctually more natural then Weed, as the cigarette only has tobacco grown from diffrent places in their mixtures while most forms of marijuanna has several diffrent plants or chemicals mixed into it to give it a diffrent flavor or provide a diffrent/deeper high.

Incorrect

Here's a small list of some of the familiar chemicals in cigarettes

Chemical-----------------Found in:

carbon monoxide----------car exhaust

nicotine-----------------bug sprays

tar----------------------material to make roads

arsenic------------------rat poison

ammonia------------------cleaning products

hydrogen cyanide---------gas chamber poison

cyanide------------------deadly poison

acetone------------------nail polish remover

butane-------------------cigarette lighter fluid

DDT----------------------insecticides

formaldehyde-------------to preserve dead bodies

sulfuric acid------------car batteries

cadmium------------------used to recharge batteries

freon--------------------damages earth's ozone layer

geranic acid-------------a fragrance

methoprene---------------a pesticide

maltitol-----------------a sweetener not permitted to be used in foods in the U.S.

Sources: Dr. Joel Dunnington, Tobacco Almanac, Revised, May 1993.



Cigarettes are designed to be far more addictive than the tobacco plant. If you've ever smoked a rolled cigarette made from natural tobacco you would know that it just doesn't produce the same satisfaction. Cigarettes are an addictive plague in the same way as cocaine and heroin and it should be banned as such. I even know smokers who wish it would be banned. However, it won't be due to the outcry of the addicted.

As to helping.

Weed doesn't help.
it causes brain damage. While the depth and severity of this brain damage is largely arguable, the fact remains that THC harms brain cells and causes a noticably suggnificant change in mood, emotions, and cognative capability.

Cigarettes on the other hand do acctually provide some advantages as it is a stimulant.

The fact remains? What fact?
Cite your sources. No wait, you have none. There were scientists in the 80s that claimed that they damaged a monkey's brain with tremendous doses of THC. This study was never peer reviewed and it came up negative in attempts to duplicate. Take your disinformation where the stupid people are.


In fact, THC may actually assist in new brain cell formation.

Cannabinoids promote embryonic and adult hippocampus neurogenesis and produce anxiolytic- and antidepressant-like effects
Published in Volume 115, Issue 11 (November 1, 2005)
J Clin Invest. 2005;115(11):3104?3116. doi:10.1172/JCI25509.
Copyright © 2005, American Society for Clinical Investigation


search for University of Saskatchewan and Professor Xia Zhang. I think Newscientist has an article.


So, the only substance that MAY cause brain damage is MDMA. The original study could turn out to be propaganda but I'm not feeling brave about that one. Supposedly dopamine and seratonin could end up in the wrong neurons and interact with the wrong components within said neurons ultimately creating something caustic and destroying said neurons.


The bottom line is this. While I'm currently borderline straight edge due to the fact that I'm busy, cannabis is the only substance I plan on getting around to doing again one of these days. It's safe, non-habit forming, doesn't causes hangovers, and just plain nice.

Here, let Joe Rogan explain it...

http://youtu.be/HOHnsoNJteo

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Second hand smoke isn't harmful -- it's a common belief, but entirely inaccurate and not supported by genuine science -- and individuals are free to do whatever they want to their own body, in my eyes.

So let's see some sources which say that it isn't harmful.


People should be free to do whatever the fuck they want, until it affects me.

Second hand smoke *does* affect me. Go ask the surgeon general.

Until you can prove that it doesn't, I have no problem ranking smokers just about level with kiddy fiddlers.

The largest and most credible study ever conducted on spouses of smokers, by Enstrom and Kabat, published in the May 12, 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal found:

"The results do not support a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality. The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."

"It is possible that very few or even no deaths can be attributed to ETS. Elsewhere, it also noted that people exposed to pack-a-day secondhand smoke for 40 years had little or no risk of developing lung cancer, much less dying from it.

-http://www.amlibpub.com/docs/secondhand_smoke_meeker3.pdf

The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality.

-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC155687/?tool=pmcentrez

The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.

-http://thetruthaboutetsandersonin.com/HTMLobj-100/Passive_Smoking_Doesn_t_Cause_Cancer.pdf

The only dangers secondhand smoke exposes us to are Nicotine Nazis and junk science.

-http://articles.nydailynews.com/1998-03-26/news/18075183_1_secondhand-smoke-smoke-causes-cancer-nicotine-nazis

David Olsson, a PhD student in Public Health and Clinical Medicine and part of the research group, has expressed surprise at the results which show that the effect of air pollution is comparable to that of smoking during pregnancy.

-http://www.thelocal.se/38930/20120205/

Exhaust fumes more cancer causing than secondhand smoke.

-http://digitaljournal.com/article/326563

You hold smokers on the same level as people who molest and abuse children? That's sickening and a grave insult to people who have been abused.

 

[ResonanceSD]

.

So that's *a* source and that study has been criticised by the paper it was released in, the American cancer society and science, as the study didn't go about finding a control group.


Moving on, and this is actual, sourced content, which wikipedia crawled and sourced,

Enstrom's ties to the tobacco industry also drew scrutiny; in a 1997 letter to Philip Morris, Enstrom requested a "substantial research commitment... in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS and active smoking."[117] In a US racketeering lawsuit against tobacco companies, the Enstrom and Kabat paper was cited by the US District Court as "a prime example of how nine tobacco companies engaged in criminal racketeering and fraud to hide the dangers of tobacco smoke."[118] The Court found that the study had been funded and managed by the Center for Indoor Air Research,[119] a tobacco industry front group tasked with "offsetting" damaging studies on passive smoking, as well as by Phillip Morris[120] who stated that Enstrom's work was "clearly litigation-oriented."[121] Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study against what he terms "illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it."[122]


Yeah, I hear if you pay someone to study something with a goal in mind, surprisingly enough, they'll fucking say what you want them to.



That crackling sound you're hearing is your point burning up in flames. Not unlike one of the cancer sticks you keep touting as being completely harmless to others.

 

[MysticToast]

le snip

You know most of those things you mentioned also contain dihydrogen monoxide, that stuff can kill you if you consume enough. Maybe we should ban that too.

Except, you know, that creates and sustains life, and we need it to survive. Tell me again, what benefit does cyanide or sulfuric acid have to us?

 

[Earlybuddy]

It's not just about these people hurting themselves. I mean come on, is nobody going to mention the very important and dangerous second-hand smoke that causes cancer?

 

[ResonanceSD]

It's not just about these people hurting themselves. I mean come on, is nobody going to mention the very important and dangerous second-hand smoke that causes cancer?

Quite a few have mentioned it. On this page alone.

 

[lacktheknack]

I find it curious that you attack cigarettes, and not alcohol, when clearly the latter is the greater evil.

EDIT: I don't disagree though... Just realized that that didn't really come through in the post.

Not trying to be offensive, honest!

WHOA... HI!

OT: Public healthcare? Check.

Asthma? Check.

Dislike of terrible smells? Check.

You tell me what I think.