Cigarettes should be illegal.

[Treblaine]

Sorry for the double post.

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 the death if hundreds of millions of people each year.

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".

Because - get this - toys are sold to CHILDREN, while cigarettes are sold to ADULTS. You know, people who are supposed to be able to decide for themselves. I don't know what your definition of "freedom" is, but the fact that I can go to a bar, drink beer, eat a greasy burger, and then take some skank home for the night while tuning out people who can't get laid talk about granola bars is what makes Western society great.

Also, lol at cigarettes killing "hundreds of millions of people each year". Right. Mate, WWII took six years to kill 60 million. If cigarettes killed, say, 200 million people a year (the minimum requirement for your use of the plural), and we say that the rise of the tobacco industry started in the late 1940s, when there were about 2.4 billion people on Earth, then they would have killed their entire consumer base within 12 years.

You should really learn to think before typing, my friend.

Yes, but the toys are bought by adults. And it's not just children toys pulled for lead content, also adult sized t-shirts and milk and other things designed for adults. Should it be legal to sell asbestos insulation to places with only adults? If it's wrong to hurt a child then it's wrong to hurt and adult.

People should not be free to harm others by selling them dangerous products. The golden role of libertarianism: do no harm.

There are safe levels of consumption of alcohol and fat that is down the the individual to exercise self control, and sexual health can only be enforced on an individual basis, the police can't go around checking if people wear condoms or not. Every single cigarette smoked significantly and persistently harms the individual and contributes to them getting cancer.

Misspoke, meant to say up to ten million each year, or hundreds of millions, period

http://www.inforesearchlab.com/smokingdeaths.chtml

It kills people globally about the same rate as WWII killed people. About 6 million per year, with current trends of increasing smoking in developing/non-western countries will see 1 billion people killed by smoking, about 10 million per year with current trends. And that is TODAY, with smoking levels fallen lowest in a long time but rising in other parts of the world.

So in the defence of smoking:

"Oh smoking isn't that bad, it isn't killing EVERYONE. It's only the global population people at the same rate AS WORLD WAR 2!"

Still a billion dollar industry based on a self-created addiction and causes so much suffering.

 

[BeerTent]

I think smoking should be compulsory, so people can be reminded every single day of their lives via public announcements and cigarette packs that they're gonna die sooo fucking bad.
/iamdick

Move to Canada.
https://www.google.com/search?q=canadian+cigarette+packages&hl=en&prmd=imvnsu&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=1ZjpT7XuJaqG6QGlh_SHDQ&ved=0CFIQ_AUoAQ&biw=1440&bih=775

Done.

Personally, I'm not for banning anything. The Canadian war on drugs appalls me, as while Weed can be harmful, it's not nearly as harmful as some more legal alternatives.

But banning anything, is foolish. We shouldn't ban cigs, we should limit what tobacco companies can do with them. Again, up here, I feel we sorta got the right idea. No advertisements, and a strict limit on the space of the package that can be used for a logo. (Seriously, my co-worker has covers for those health warnings.)

If your going to ban anything then...
Keep weed banned, because it makes you hungry and look like an unattractive idiot.
Ban alcohol, because you can go over your limit, and it makes some people aggressive.
Ban Cigs, because well, second hand smoke is bad. And nicotine is addictive.
Ban cellphones, because people answer them on the road. Get in accidents and die.
Ban Korean MMO's because people can, and will sit and play them until death, and only get to level 4.
Ban cars, because its two tonnes of metal going at 100KPH. What disaster can and will ensue?
Ban water, because you can drink too much and die.

 

[The Lugz]

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

alcohol itself is not inherently bad, in small doses it is entirely harmless
however, if you abuse it and overwhelm your body's resistance to it you will suffer multiple long term debilitating diseases social problems and mental problems

smokers effect anyone in a 100 yard radius, with poisonous fumes that it's very hard to avoid.
it's forcing your will to destroy yourself on other people who do not choose the same

it also doesn't matter how often you smoke you are still processing chemicals that are inherently dangerous to your health and the health of anyone around you
( google it, you'll find thousands of compounds in tobacco smoke and the various additives used to 'flavour' it )
stage actors who are not smokers themselves have often developed symptoms ranging from lung cancer to bronchitis due to smoke exposure
( and is a factor contributing to the banning of smoking in public spaces )

so, gotta disagree there inherently alcohol is safer than smoke
but if you abuse anything enough it will of course be a severe problem
just as you could down 4 bottles of Jd, you could cover your entire body in nicotine patches or simply smoke 90 a day and poison yourself with a lethal overdose as-well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine
( and that's just nicotine, there are other poisons in smoke )

as for my opinion;
if i had the power i'd ban smoking in a heartbeat and set a reasonable restriction on alchahol
unfortunately people are ignorant and don't understand the brain can entertain itself with the proper stimulation and until that changes they will choose chemical salvation over proper neural function

 

[Dense_Electric]

No. So long as what you're doing isn't harming anyone else (including drinking, smoking in your own home (not in public, second-hand smoke and whatnot), doing weed, crack, meth, heroin, or any other drug), you have the inherent right to do it. The government has no right to get involved and tell you what you can and can't do to your own body. PERIOD.

 

[Sam Winterton]

Agreed on the weed front. But as for tobacco, you cant hook people for over a hundred years, then ban them. Its an addiction, nicotine is apparently more addictive than heroin. Besides, imagine how high your tax bill would go if they banned cigarettes. The government'll take a big hit in the pocket, then take out another wedge of your hard earned money

 

[Treblaine]

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.

Right. Let's just ban everything that isn't helpful and that can hurt people. Because, you know, who gives a crap about freedom of choice? Let's all get treated like immature children by people who know better. Let's all eat only organically grown vegetables, let's all drive eco-box cars, let's all live in government housing, let's ban loud music, alcohol, motorcycles, casual sex, anything that doesn't directly benefit the nanny state shall henceforth be VERBOTEN!!!


You know who implemented the first smoking bans in history? The nazis.

You know what should be banned? The right of daft people to voice their opinions.

Well that's an extreme slippery slope argument.

No reason to ban non-organic vegetables which have trivial difference from organic veg. No reason to ban alcohol as most can drink responsibly. No reason to live in government housing when private enterprise is more suited to that task. No reason to ban motorcycles when helmet laws are enforced.

Loud music is already regulated according to noise pollution as I'm quite sure YOU would appreciate if some pickheads where playing Justin Bieber (or whoever's music you don't like) records at 160 decibels next door. That's clearly not libertarian, allowing to infringe upon others.

This is not about what will "directly benefit the nanny state" this is about what will directly harm people.

"You know who implemented the first smoking bans in history? The nazis."

Ever heard of Godwin's Law? Smoking is irrelevant to what the Nazis were infamous for and in fact the first anti-smoking campaign started in Germany BEFORE the Nazis came to power in the 1920's.

People should have the right to smoke. But people should not have the right to profit off that by selling cigarettes.

"You know what should be banned? The right of daft people to voice their opinions."

Now that is something the Nazis were infamous for, how they suppressed people's freedom of speech for arbitrary reasons.

 

[-Samurai-]

Smoke all you want, but keep your fucking cigarette butts off the ground. If you don't want them in your car, what makes you think I want them in my front yard?

I have to clean the parking lot at work(Zoo), and the amount of cigarette butts I find daily is disgusting.

 

[Dense_Electric]

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.

As a libertarian, here's the problem I have with your logic: the act of selling someone a poison does not do any harm. Consuming the poison is what does harm. A Libertarian is perfectly able to sell poison and still be in keeping with libertarian philosophy so long as the libertarian makes the full affects of their poison known at the time of the transaction. Whether or not the purchaser of the poison, now fully aware of the poison's affects, then consumes the poison falls solely on their own shoulders, not the seller. It is the free will of the purchaser that decides that, and therefor, the seller has not interfered with the purchaser's free will or rights. Suggesting that the seller of the poison can be held accountable for the death of the purchaser is exactly like saying the seller of a firearm can be held accountable for the suicide of the purchaser. It doesn't make logical sense.

Now, you're correct in saying that misleading the purchaser could be considered a violation of their rights, but that's why we have laws that prevent such deception as much as possible - so that each individual can, of their own free will, decide whether or not to purchase cigarettes, or alcohol, or any other potentially harmful substances.

 

[BleedingPride]

cigarettes very slowly, and painfully killed my grandfather. i was 8 when i saw his face swell up so much that i could no longer see his bluer than the sky eyes. i agree that they should be banned. and on the alcohol issue, they tried that already but it didnt work. the thing about alcohol is that in moderation its not extremely dangerous. whereas in cigarettes they are so highly addictive that you WILL continue smoking, you will NOT be able to stop unless you've got the willpower of batman or something, and you WILL NOT survive in the end.

 

[Treblaine]

"Oh smoking isn't that bad, it isn't killing EVERYONE. It's only the global population people at the same rate AS WORLD WAR 2!"

Still a billion dollar industry based on a self-created addiction and causes so much suffering.

Here's an argument.

Video games contribute nothing to society, they are addictive while filling a need they themselves created, they harm people by turning them into shut-ins with tendencies towards anti-social behaviour and obesity, and therefore should be banned.

Again - the whole "suffering" aspect is SELF-INFLICTED. Smokers CHOOSE to harm themselves. A friend of mine drives motorcycles - friends of his have died in accidents, and he himself almost got killed because a car cut through his lane - now we call him "Wolverine" because the left half of his torso is reinforced with titanium. Is he gonna quit? No. Why? Because it's fun.

So, it's addictive, dangerous behaviour that serves no purpose. Let's ban it.

You see, that's the whole point of being adults in a free society - we can do what we like to ourselves. Look at who bans what, and you will have a DIRECT measure of that society's relative degree of liberty.

You cannot order me to live a healthy life. Not in a free country. Don't smoke around children? Cool. Don't smoke in closed rooms with non-smokers present? Cool. Don't smoke around foodstuffs? Cool. Don't smoke when it can harm others? No problem. Don't smoke, full stop? Fuck you. Not you personally, but anybody who tells me what I can do to my body. I pay higher health care premiums as a smoker, so no, I am not a burden on society - and again, by that token, fatty foods should be banned, as well.

The whole argument that tobacco is more dangerous than cannabis and therefore should be outlawed? Bullshit. If anything, weed should be legal.

That's a wrong argument, it is based on falsehoods. Video games are not addictive. Nicotine is addictive. Video games have artistic and social merit merit. Video game addiction comes from within. Cigarette addiction comes from nicotine. The tendency towards obesity is not caused by the video games. It is on them not taking the 30 a day to get some exercise. Anything other than exercise could be banned, including reading. Your spurious arguments are desperate and are not working.

The suffering is inflicted by the addiction that the cigarettes caused. Nicotine is not a habit like picking your nose, it defies the free will of the individual by creating cravings from the nicotine.

You can drive a motorcycle safely with everyone following all the road laws, including the motorcycle going at appropriate speed for road condistions. The car cutting across him caused that accident, the fault is on HIM, not the motorcycle seller.

You are right, I cannot order you to live a healthy life. But the police CAN order that shops cannot sell cigarettes that are PURELY for the purpose of inhaling smoke. I'm not saying you can't smoke, grow your own damn tobacco. But don't think you can SELL any tobacco for smoking.

"Don't smoke, full stop? Fuck you." = your straw man argument

[HEADING=2]I NEVER - EVER - NOT ONCE, NOT AT ALL, EVER SAID THAT YOU COULD NOT SMOKE!!! I SAID YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SELL CIGARETTES[/HEADING]

You should be able to sell cannabis as you can EAT weed for a purpose, but you cannot smoke nor even chew tobacco safely and you get nothing out of eating it. Selling cigarettes is purely benefiting off harming others by getting them addicted to smoking.

cpatcha: sting like a bee

 

[Treblaine]

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.

As a libertarian, here's the problem I have with your logic: the act of selling someone a poison does not do any harm. Consuming the poison is what does harm. A Libertarian is perfectly able to sell poison and still be in keeping with libertarian philosophy so long as the libertarian makes the full affects of their poison known at the time of the transaction. Whether or not the purchaser of the poison, now fully aware of the poison's affects, then consumes the poison falls solely on their own shoulders, not the seller. It is the free will of the purchaser that decides that, and therefor, the seller has not interfered with the purchaser's free will or rights. Suggesting that the seller of the poison can be held accountable for the death of the purchaser is exactly like saying the seller of a firearm can be held accountable for the suicide of the purchaser. It doesn't make logical sense.

Now, you're correct in saying that misleading the purchaser could be considered a violation of their rights, but that's why we have laws that prevent such deception as much as possible - so that each individual can, of their own free will, decide whether or not to purchase cigarettes, or alcohol, or any other potentially harmful substances.

That's unsound logic. Selling someone asbestos insulation doesn't kill them, installing it does. Selling poisonous food isn't harmful, eating it is.

EULA disclaimers are not enough, especially with how easily you can play on ambiguities and exploit their addiction creating conformational bias.

Using firearms does NOT inevitably lead to harming the user from their use, you can safely and justifiably use firearm. You CANNOT safely smoke cigarettes any more than you can safely drink milk that is laced with mercury. It does make logical sense if you actually look at the PRACTICAL distinctions rather than ignoring them to focus on the trivial similarities.

There is no purpose to cigarettes other than smoking them. The only cigarettes that could be sold are those with the intention that they not be smoked, like curio cigarettes liked for their historic value.

You can't sell lead laced food or asbestos insulation with any amount of disclaimer, only with the GUARANTEE that they not be consumed and if it is know they WILL be consumed then they NOT be sold.

captcha: easy as pie

 

[RicoADF]

I do not really think they should be banned. Who am I to tell someone how to live their life? It all comes down to the question "Do people have the right to harm themselves? And if so, to what extent?"

Except they harm others as well. I grew up with parents that smoke, and as someone with lung damage it effects me more than the average person. Its not just them, and it should be illegal outright.
Alcahol (not a huge fan myself but ok with it), however is only negative when abused. It can also be positive as theres been evidence a drink a day can be benefitial, just not over use.

 

[DaMullet]

I haven't read through all this but this thought keeps popping into my head.

Why are smokers not put on suicide watch? I mean if someone was addicted to rat poison, would you not get them help? They know they are killing themselves so why are they not thrown into straight jackets?

Just curious.

 

[AnarchistFish]

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.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Why don't we just ban you from talking.

In what way does it help anybody.

 

[Crumpster]

Ban McDonalds to be honest. I think obesity kills more people than smoking does, so why is eating fatty foods legal?

Also: Watch Penn & Teller Bullshit - Second Hand Smoke and Baby Bullshit, they show that there's NO proof of second hand smoke harming anyone, it's only first hand smoke hurting people.

So here's my question: What gives people the right to choose who's allowed to harm themselves and with what?

 

[Crumpster]

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.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Why don't we just ban you from talking.

In what way does it help anybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis
I rest my case.

Edit: It's used against the symptoms of Huntington's Disease, who wouldn't want Olivia Wilde to be a bit more healthy?

 

[loa]

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.

It's called "tobacco".