Cigarettes should be illegal.

[Dfskelleton]

That and it's natural unlike the thousands of chemicals in the average cigarette.

Scorpion venom is natural, but that doesn't mean that I want to pour myself a hefty glass of it and take a swig.

OT: I don't like smoking, but that doesn't mean that by default nobody else should be able to enjoy it. I don't see what one could get out of it, but I'm sure people have their reasons.

In fact, I'm thinking that when I'm an old man I might start smoking a pipe, just because pipes look awesome. Besides, I don't think it would matter much if I started then considering that I'd only have so many years left anyways.

 

[Flailing Escapist]

Tobacco is an addictive and highly unhealthy drug shamelessly abused by MILLIONS of people the world over. Unlike alcohol you CANNOT smoke safely as alcohol is only harmful when used in excess, while tobacco is harmful simply for what it is- you're concentrating and inhaling poison. Tobacco is also the worst of ALL drugs because it spreads its harmful effects to innocent non-users around the user- the amount of passive tobacco smoke I have to put up with in the average day literally makes me ill. It stinks, it ruins your health and appearance (seriously smokers, you're fucking disgusting, I can't even stand to be within 2 metres of you), it has no positive effects and it pollutes land, air and water.

And despite all this, it's not only tolerated but COMMONPLACE worldwide just because it's been around for hundreds of years (in one form or another). Guess what- so was SLAVERY before it was finally abolished. And no, I'm NOT comparing smoking to slavery, but I AM pointing out that just because something bad has been around for a long time that doesn't meant it's any less bad, nor that a lot of people thinking there's nothing wrong with it makes them RIGHT (America had to fight a CIVIL WAR to abolise slavery). I mean, can millions of people possibly be wrong? Stupid question; of course they can!

Wow bro, calm down.

Why don't you take up a war on world hunger, serial killers, Communism, child pornography, soap operas, fast food restaurants, dangerous cults, terrorism and always online DRM before raising banners against smoking? Or are you just too lazy to pick a better target?

Rage against something worth raging about!

 

[Sangreal Gothcraft]

And who are you telling what people can't do, let them smoke if them freaking want too.
I hear that argument "weed is less harmful" can't help to think that it is an excuse to do the plant yourself.

 

[Flailing Escapist]

Why don't you take up a war on world hunger, serial killers, Communism, child pornography, soap operas, fast food restaurants, dangerous cults, terrorism and always online DRM before raising banners against smoking? Or are you just too lazy to pick a better target?

Rage against something worth raging about!

By that logic, one shouldn't complain about anything, because there's always a bigger issue they 'should' be complaining about instead.

No, you can complain all you want. But if you're going to devote the time to rage-fuck something, rage-fuck something that matters.

 

[NightHawk21]

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 lets break your post down.

Weed has been shown to have some potential health benefits to SOME people not all people, and to claim such would be inaccurate (and correct me if I'm wrong but I thought most studies just focused on THC which I'll bet was not administered through a joint or a bong).

Cigarettes help people who sell and grow tobacco. Also although I would highly advise against it, cigarette smoking can aid with weight loss. Also fun fact, smoking was prescribed to help deal with TB back when that was a big deal.

As for the ban, I'll disagree. While I don't smoke, and I personally don't like people smoking in my general vicinity I see no reason to tell people exactly what they should be doing to themselves. Also bans don't really work. What would that accomplish really? You might see a small drop in new smokers (and I wouldn't even hold my breath since most kids get them illegally anyways), but currently addicted people would just be forced to get them through illegal means (or possibly on reservations if you live in Canada). Do you really think the ban on weed is stopping people from smoking it? Also the argument that x is less bad for you than y, so x should be legal is really bad, and you shouldn't use it.

 

[Grathius22]

You can't win with banning tobacco, unfortunately.

You don't ban it and well... it continues on as is.

You ban it and it's against personal freedom, and even after a ban people will just create an illegal market for it. Just like what would happen with alcohol.

In an ideal world, tobacco and alcohol would be illegal and no one would complain. It will never be like that.

 

[viranimus]

And in what way does a cigarette help anybody.

If you smoke, a well timed cigarette can mean the difference between sleeping in your bed when you go home at night or twenty five to life.


Honestly I think enough has been done to smokers over the years. Between the constant "Sin tax"ing that make them insanely overpriced, to the constant legislation that bans when and where you can smoke to just the never ending opinionated snideness people give you for smoking. Seriously what other completely legal activity is so tolerated for allowing people to sit in opinionated judgment of others?

Just leave smokers alone, they are a dying breed anyway.

(Smoked for 15 years and had I not gotten too old and too weak to tolerate it, I would be more than happy to continue doing it.)

 

[Flailing Escapist]

By that logic, one shouldn't rage-fuck anything, because there's always something that matters more that they should rage-fuck.

Yes, because I said that people should only rage-fuck the most rage-fuckable thing (delicious, chocolatey rage-fuckables mmmmm mmmm).

You know what should be illegal? Mindlessly spewing hate filled speeches where ever you go.

It's-*cough* worst even that second hand smoke *cough* *cough* because more people see, hear and are affected by it. *weeze* It should be outright- *cough* banned, man.

[sub]Source:[/sub]

[sub]I don't think cigarettes should be illegal. The way I see it, it weeds out all the stupid fucking morons who don't seem to care that they're slowly killing themselves. Cigarettes are less likely to get other people killed than other drugs like alcohol or marijuana, so as long as I have some reasonable protection from getting some asshole blowing smoke in my face, let the idiots die.[/sub]

 

[frizzlebyte]

As someone with asthma, I would love to see smoking go away. However, with the roaring success that was prohibition, I would not want to see tobacco made illegal.

And the argument that cannabis is natural and tobacco is not is just about the most hilarious thing I've ever heard in my life. And perfect stoner logic, too...

Spoiler: You're arguing this soil-grown plant *is* natural...

Spoiler: ...while this one is not.

Yeah...that's why I don't do drugs.

Yes, cannabis is a drug.

 

[NiPah]

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.

You bring up two very different topics there my friend, one cigarettes are harmful and should be made illegal, I agree with this and I believe all airborne drugs should be banned due to their impact on others. I believe non-airborne nicotine drug applications such as nicotine-patches should remain legal for those addicted or the idiots who want to become addicted as there is little risk of airborne transmission of the drug.

Your second topic, that weed is less harmful then cigarettes is true but does little to make marijuana look good, weed is also less harmful then meth but that doesn't make me want to legalize it anymore. There is also the issue with smoking weed as it too becomes airborne and effects anyone who passes by. THC also has short term memory loss side effects, dulls reaction time much in the same was as alcohol, and on a 1 to 1 ratio has more carcinogens and tar then cigarettes. I agree there are medical uses of marijuana, but personal use is still harmful, I'd just vote to legalize non-airborne applications of the drug and put it in the same class as the drug alcohol.

 

[lacktheknack]

The problem is, it's like moonshine. Anyone can make moonshine easy. That's why it's illegal. Cus they (use your imagination) cannot make money off of it.

Also, because if you fail to get the methanol out of it (which is pretty common) it will <link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol#Health_and_safety>eat your eyes.

Anyways, I live in a country where health care is public, I DO give a damn about how you're killing yourself, because I'm shelling out for your hospitalization. I'm fine with people smoking as much as they damn well want, as soon as they're booted out of the health system. End of.

Since they are not, I'll go with the more popular route of trying to make them stop smoking.

 

[him over there]

The problem is, it's like moonshine. Anyone can make moonshine easy. That's why it's illegal. Cus they (use your imagination) cannot make money off of it.

Also, because if you fail to get the methanol out of it (which is pretty common) it will <link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol#Health_and_safety>eat your eyes.

Anyways, I live in a country where health care is public, I DO give a damn about how you're killing yourself, because I'm shelling out for your hospitalization. I'm fine with people smoking as much as they damn well want, as soon as they're booted out of the health system. End of.

Since they are not, I'll go with the more popular route of trying to make them stop smoking.

Wouldn't having a public healthcare system that excludes people undermine the purpose of it being public?

 

[lacktheknack]

The problem is, it's like moonshine. Anyone can make moonshine easy. That's why it's illegal. Cus they (use your imagination) cannot make money off of it.

Also, because if you fail to get the methanol out of it (which is pretty common) it will <link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol#Health_and_safety>eat your eyes.

Anyways, I live in a country where health care is public, I DO give a damn about how you're killing yourself, because I'm shelling out for your hospitalization. I'm fine with people smoking as much as they damn well want, as soon as they're booted out of the health system. End of.

Since they are not, I'll go with the more popular route of trying to make them stop smoking.

Wouldn't having a public healthcare system that excludes people undermine the purpose of it being public?

Not as far as I know, "public welfare" only applies to a certain percentage of the populace, for instance.

But if you think it does, that's another reason to want smoking to be stopped.

 

[Nemesis729]

No it shouldn't, cigarettes pose no threat to the people who don't smoke them. Please don't bring up that second hand smoke crap. It's not like most drugs that can make you a danger to the people around you.