Cigarettes should be illegal.

[Xangi]

Here you guys go, anyone who says weed can't hurt you, read some of these

Cannabis Use and Fatal Car Crashes - TRUE

(Deadly Drugged Driving: Drug Use Tied to Fatal Car Crashes)http://www.jsad.com/jsad/article/Drug_and_Alcohol_Involvement_in_Four_Types_of_Fatal_Crashes_OPEN_ACCESS/4590.html

BMJ-British Medical Journal. "Cannabis Almost Doubles Risk Of Fatal Crashes." ScienceDaily, 5 Dec. 2005. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051205115540.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cannabis Use and Cancer - SMOKING: TRUE, INJESTING: FALSE

(Cannabis Use and Risk of Lung Cancer)
http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/31/2/280.full?sid=55ff48fe-ccaf-4469-b1dc-9ec4f86fc407

American Chemical Society. "Marijuana Damages DNA And May Cause Cancer, New Test Reveals." ScienceDaily, 15 Jun. 2009. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090615095940.htm

American Chemical Society. "Marijuana Smoke Contains Higher Levels Of Certain Toxins Than Tobacco Smoke." ScienceDaily, 17 Dec. 2007. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071217110328.htm

American Chemical Society. "Growing Evidence Of Marijuana Smoke's Potential Dangers." ScienceDaily, 5 Aug. 2009. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090805110741.htm

Wiley-Blackwell. "How cannabis suppresses immune functions: Cannabis compounds found to trigger unique immune cells which promote cancer growth." ScienceDaily, 24 Nov. 2010. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101124214728.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cannabis Use and Respiratory Problems - TRUE

FOR
Yale University. "Long-term Marijuana Smoking Leads To Respiratory Complaints." ScienceDaily, 12 Feb. 2007. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070212184119.htm

American Thoracic Society. "Marijuana Worsens COPD Symptoms In Current Cigarette Smokers." ScienceDaily, 21 May 2007. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070521145539.htm

(Growing Evidence Of Marijuana Smoke's Potential Dangers)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090805110741.htm
AND
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx9000286

(Marijuana Smoking Increases Risk Of COPD For Tobacco Smokers)
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/180/8/814

BMJ Specialty Journals. "Impact On Lungs Of One Cannabis Joint Equal To Up To Five Cigarettes." ScienceDaily, 31 Jul. 2007. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070731085550.htm

AGAINST
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cannabis and Physcotic Illnesses - TRUE

FOR
Cardiff University. "Cannabis Could Increase Risks Of Psychotic Illness By 40 Percent." ScienceDaily, 31 Jul. 2007. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070731125526.htm

McGill University Health Centre. "Cannabis damages young brains more than originally thought, study finds." ScienceDaily, 17 Dec. 2009. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091217115834.htm

BMJ-British Medical Journal. "Cannabis use precedes the onset of psychotic symptoms in young people, study finds." ScienceDaily, 1 Mar. 2011. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110301184056.htm

University of Cincinnati. "Marijuana Use Takes Toll On Adolescent Brain Function, Research Finds." ScienceDaily, 14 Oct. 2008. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081014111156.htm

(Cannabis Use and Earlier Onset of Psychosis)
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/68/6/555

(Long-Time Cannabis Use Associated With Psychosis)
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/2010.6

AGAINST
Wiley-Blackwell. "Minimal Relationship Between Cannabis And Schizophrenia Or Psychosis, Suggested By New Study." ScienceDaily, 22 Oct. 2009. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022101538.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cannabis Use and Memory Issues - TRUE

FOR
(Long-Term Cannabis Users May Have Structural Brain Abnormalities)
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/65/6/694

Nature Medicine. "How Marijuana Causes Memory Deficits." ScienceDaily, 3 Aug. 2009. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090803123240.htm
OR
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v12/n9/full/nn.2369.html

Society for Neuroscience. "Human study shows greater cognitive deficits in marijuana users who start young." ScienceDaily, 16 Nov. 2010. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101116104202.htm

AGAINST
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cannabis Use and Sexual Dysfunction - CONFLICTED

Queen's University. "Cannabis use may worsen sexual dysfunction, rat study suggests." ScienceDaily, 22 Feb. 2011. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110222122212.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cannabis Use and "Gateway Drug" - FALSE

University of New Hampshire. "Risk of marijuana's 'gateway effect' overblown, new research shows." ScienceDaily, 2 Sep. 2010. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100902073507.htm

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. "No 'Smoking' Gun: Research Indicates Teen Marijuana Use Does Not Predict Drug, Alcohol Abuse." ScienceDaily, 4 Dec. 2006. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061204123422.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cannabis Useage Afffect's Multiple Sclerosis Users Negatively - TRUE

American Academy of Neurology. "Smoking Marijuana Impairs Cognitive Function In MS Patients, Study Shows." ScienceDaily, 13 Feb. 2008. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080213160851.htm

(Marijuana Use May Hurt Intellectual Skills in Multiple Sclerosis Patients)
http://www.neurology.org/content/76/13/1153

 

[QUINTIX]

If it where not a source of tax revenue, I am sure no one younger than I would be smoking.

 

[pearcinator]

Yeah if you were to ban ciggies then you would also have to ban alcohol.

Now...that doesn't really bother me much but you better believe that it would bother millions and millions of people.

It won't achieve anything anyway. They would just be sold on the black market. They already tried banning alcohol but that didn't work out did it? (Watch The Untouchables)

 

[QUINTIX]

Yeah if you were to ban ciggies then you would also have to ban alcohol.

Didn't read OP; but I assume he excluded pipe tobacco, cigars, hookahs, etc..

That aside, alcohol is not really comparable to purposeful smoke inhalation.

EDIT: READS OP
Yet another thread about legalizing weed. It takes some strong tobacco to have the same (yes, temporary) effects on the body and mind comparable to weed; and even if it did not, still falls under the category of smoke inhalation. IIRC smoke from weed is more lung gunk filling than tobacco.

 

[TheLiham]

then how should i smoke my then legalized weed if they banned tobacco

Bongs dude.

OT: Just because tobacco is worse for you than weed doesn't mean that it should be illegal. It just means that weed should be legal.

 

[Dascylus]

Really?
Doesn't the usual argument go blablabla weed better than alcohol blablabla when was the last time you saw a stoned person smash stuff in the street.

The whole argument that one thing isn't bad because a seperate thing is worse in your opinion is a poor argument.
Like, why is besiality illegal when sodomy is ok. Sodomy is way more disgusting.... You see, one does not prove/disprove the other.

Of course if we are talking precedents and where we set our standards then there is a greater argument against drinking than for the legalisation of weed so that is obviously not the right direction to take.
If you wanna talk about the arguments in favor of weed I suggest you research the reasons it became socially unacceptable in the first place, it is much easier to attack racism than it is to attack opinion on what is fun.

 

[Treblaine]

then how should i smoke my then legalized weed if they banned tobacco

Marijuana Brownies. Avoid the cancer risk almost entirely.

 

[BeeGeenie]

We can't ban them in America because we believe in freedom and every individual's right to do stupid things if they feel like it... as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to anyone else... so smokers should not do it in the company of others (i.e. public buildings), which there are rules about, so yeah... Things are fine the way they are.

 

[tycho0042]

I wouldn't mind if cigarettes were banned. but then again, I wouldn't mind if alcohol was banned either.

 

[Bassik]

Cigarettes are harmful to you, yeah. But weed is illegal because it puts you into a state where you are harmful to others. You can smoke twenty cigarettes and drive no problem. You smoke one joint and you'll crash your car faster than Spongebob.

And you drink a few, or are under heavy medication, or are distracted by your cellphone.

You know, some people do understand that driving under influence is a bad idea. When my friends come over to get stoned off our asses, they don't bring their cars.

In my opinion, your arguement is bollocks.

 

[Treblaine]

We can't ban them in America because we believe in freedom and every individual's right to do stupid things if they feel like it... as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to anyone else... so smokers should not do it in the company of others (i.e. public buildings), which there are rules about, so yeah... Things are fine the way they are.

Yes, you couldn't ban the possession of Tobacco, nor its smoking, that would lead to a dangerous precedent of police being permitted to invade anyone's home or garden to see if they were.

But wouldn't it defy the "as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to anyone else" rule if you are SELLING cigarettes which have the sole purpose of being smoked, which is inherently and unavoidably very harmful. So the SALE of cigarettes would be banned, but you'd be free to grow your own tobacco plants and do what you like with them, other than give them to others in exchange for material benefits such as money or barter.

It's easy to ban stores from selling cigarettes. Stores can't up and run away and they are inherently open to the public, any cop can come in, ask for some cigarettes and then issue a fine then a warrant to confiscate and destroy all the other contraband.

You could still sell tobacco, as long as you made sure it couldn't be smoked, such as doping it with a chemical that is harmless to eat but if you burn it (like try to use the tobacco in a cigarette) it has a tear-gas like effect inducing such severe sneezing and coughing that they couldn't continue smoking.

 

[Samantha Burt]

Lol, let's ban an addictive drug to legalise another addictive drug.

They'll never ban them, too many people depend on them and in the UK at least, the tax the government slap on them bring in way too much income for them to ban them.

My main issue with this is the amount the NHS spends on smokers. I'm pretty sure there's not much profit in it anymore. Also, I don't see why weed can't be legal. It's no more harmful than cigarettes or alcohol and it's not like people don't steal to pay for their nicotine habits. \:

 

[BeeGeenie]

We can't ban them in America because we believe in freedom and every individual's right to do stupid things if they feel like it... as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to anyone else... so smokers should not do it in the company of others (i.e. public buildings), which there are rules about, so yeah... Things are fine the way they are.

Yes, you couldn't ban the possession of Tobacco, nor its smoking, that would lead to a dangerous precedent of police being permitted to invade anyone's home or garden to see if they were.

But wouldn't it defy the "as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to anyone else" rule if you are SELLING cigarettes which have the sole purpose of being smoked, which is inherently and unavoidably very harmful. So the SALE of cigarettes would be banned, but you'd be free to grow your own tobacco plants and do what you like with them, other than give them to others in exchange for material benefits such as money or barter.

It's easy to ban stores from selling cigarettes. Stores can't up and run away and they are inherently open to the public, any cop can come in, ask for some cigarettes and then issue a fine then a warrant to confiscate and destroy all the other contraband.

You could still sell tobacco, as long as you made sure it couldn't be smoked, such as doping it with a chemical that is harmless to eat but if you burn it (like try to use the tobacco in a cigarette) it has a tear-gas like effect inducing such severe sneezing and coughing that they couldn't continue smoking.

That's a dangerous road to go down... besides, the store owner isn't causing harm to the smoker, he's providing a product for which the smoker is willing to pay. I don't drink, smoke, or do any kind of drug, but I do think they should all be legal... as long as you're willing to accept the consequences of using them. If those consequences are lung cancer? then tough luck for them. If the consequences are drunk driving resulting in manslaughter? Too bad, hope they enjoy their time in prison.
Is my libertarian streak showing? I believe the gov't constantly trying to micromanage everything is a bad thing, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Treblaine]

We can't ban them in America because we believe in freedom and every individual's right to do stupid things if they feel like it... as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to anyone else... so smokers should not do it in the company of others (i.e. public buildings), which there are rules about, so yeah... Things are fine the way they are.

Yes, you couldn't ban the possession of Tobacco, nor its smoking, that would lead to a dangerous precedent of police being permitted to invade anyone's home or garden to see if they were.

But wouldn't it defy the "as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to anyone else" rule if you are SELLING cigarettes which have the sole purpose of being smoked, which is inherently and unavoidably very harmful. So the SALE of cigarettes would be banned, but you'd be free to grow your own tobacco plants and do what you like with them, other than give them to others in exchange for material benefits such as money or barter.

It's easy to ban stores from selling cigarettes. Stores can't up and run away and they are inherently open to the public, any cop can come in, ask for some cigarettes and then issue a fine then a warrant to confiscate and destroy all the other contraband.

You could still sell tobacco, as long as you made sure it couldn't be smoked, such as doping it with a chemical that is harmless to eat but if you burn it (like try to use the tobacco in a cigarette) it has a tear-gas like effect inducing such severe sneezing and coughing that they couldn't continue smoking.

That's a dangerous road to go down... besides, the store owner isn't causing harm to the smoker, he's providing a product for which the smoker is willing to pay. I don't drink, smoke, or do any kind of drug, but I do think they should all be legal... as long as you're willing to accept the consequences of using them. If those consequences are lung cancer? then tough luck for them. If the consequences are drunk driving resulting in manslaughter? Too bad, hope they enjoy their time in prison.
Is my libertarian streak showing? I believe the gov't constantly trying to micromanage everything is a bad thing, but that's just my opinion.

Well it's a road we have gone down before. You can't sell asbestos insulation because it causes cancer. All the time products are pulled from store shelves - by law - as they are found to be carcinogenic or otherwise harmful. Like those children toys with dangerous amounts of lead contamination.

You aren't allowed to sell foot of beverages laced with dangerous levels of lead or mercury, even if you warn them. Why should cigarette's get a free pass?

You can't say "Oh yeah, this milk has lead in it that some health Nazis say is too much, but it's not problem, look, I'm drinking the milk! Now give me your money"

This isn't libertarianism, this is exploitation. Which defies the "do no harm" guidance of libertarianism. Libertarianism means you can drink poison, but you cannot sell poisonous drinks. Simply saying "it's poisonous" is irrelevant if you give every other indication it is harmless like "oh, I've been consuming it for years with no problem" and insinuate that the advice that its poisonous is erroneous.

 

[BeeGeenie]

We can't ban them in America because we believe in freedom and every individual's right to do stupid things if they feel like it... as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to anyone else... so smokers should not do it in the company of others (i.e. public buildings), which there are rules about, so yeah... Things are fine the way they are.

Yes, you couldn't ban the possession of Tobacco, nor its smoking, that would lead to a dangerous precedent of police being permitted to invade anyone's home or garden to see if they were.

But wouldn't it defy the "as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to anyone else" rule if you are SELLING cigarettes which have the sole purpose of being smoked, which is inherently and unavoidably very harmful. So the SALE of cigarettes would be banned, but you'd be free to grow your own tobacco plants and do what you like with them, other than give them to others in exchange for material benefits such as money or barter.

It's easy to ban stores from selling cigarettes. Stores can't up and run away and they are inherently open to the public, any cop can come in, ask for some cigarettes and then issue a fine then a warrant to confiscate and destroy all the other contraband.

You could still sell tobacco, as long as you made sure it couldn't be smoked, such as doping it with a chemical that is harmless to eat but if you burn it (like try to use the tobacco in a cigarette) it has a tear-gas like effect inducing such severe sneezing and coughing that they couldn't continue smoking.

That's a dangerous road to go down... besides, the store owner isn't causing harm to the smoker, he's providing a product for which the smoker is willing to pay. I don't drink, smoke, or do any kind of drug, but I do think they should all be legal... as long as you're willing to accept the consequences of using them. If those consequences are lung cancer? then tough luck for them. If the consequences are drunk driving resulting in manslaughter? Too bad, hope they enjoy their time in prison.
Is my libertarian streak showing? I believe the gov't constantly trying to micromanage everything is a bad thing, but that's just my opinion.

Well it's a road we have gone down before. You can't sell asbestos insulation because it causes cancer. All the time products are pulled from store shelves - by law - as they are found to be carcinogenic or otherwise harmful. Like those children toys with dangerous amounts of lead contamination.

You aren't allowed to sell foot of beverages laced with dangerous levels of lead or mercury, even if you warn them. Why should cigarette's get a free pass?

You can't say "Oh yeah, this milk has lead in it that some health Nazis say is too much, but it's not problem, look, I'm drinking the milk! Now give me your money"

This isn't libertarianism, this is exploitation. Which defies the "do no harm" guidance of libertarianism. Libertarianism means you can drink poison, but you cannot sell poisonous drinks. Simply saying "it's poisonous" is irrelevant if you give every other indication it is harmless like "oh, I've been consuming it for years with no problem" and insinuate that the advice that its poisonous is erroneous.

I'm still gonna have to say sell what you want. I can understand recalling toys with lead-based paint or asbestos tiling, because they didn't know at the time that it was a problem, and once they did, they fixed it. But if people willfully ingest something that they know to be harmful, that's their problem. Natural selection.

 

[Treblaine]

I'm still gonna have to say sell what you want. I can understand recalling toys with lead-based paint or asbestos tiling, because they didn't know at the time that it was a problem, and once they did, they fixed it. But if people willfully ingest something that they know to be harmful, that's their problem. Natural selection.

I'm sorry. I don't get how you can recall lead laced products or asbestos tiles but not cigarettes. Couldn't you just easily keep selling asbestos tiles and lead laced toys and food with a little disclaimer?

Why do cigarettes get a free pass? People are making BILLIONS of dollars off feeding an addiction THEY created, that directly leads to [EDIT] the death of hundreds of millions of people, up to ten million people each year with current trends.

If they were selling asbestos tiles after they knew the risk we'd all be livid. But why do cigarettes get unfairly beneficial treatment. This is not libertarian, this breaks the golden rule of "Do no harm to others".

 

[Britisheagle]

They shouldn't be banned as its a lifestyle choice and addiction would make a ban ineffective, simple as. It would just encourage illegal trading.

I hate the alcohol banning comments, however, as drinking alcohol sensibly is harmless and as long as you are responsible its hardly harming anyone else.