Poll: Should smoking be made illegal?

[Sikachu]

smoking does not just harm the people that smoke, but also the people around them.
smoking has no health benefits at all.
tobacco only kills whoever breathes it in, even after you smoke.
the smoke clings to your clothes, forcing others to smell it.
and for those who say "i'm just exercising my right to smoke" i say this: you are interfearing with my right NOT to breathe that smoke.

Unless I'm forcibly entering your home and smoking there, you're ALWAYS welcome to fuck off elsewhere.

that would be called "breaking and entering"
which is illegal

Yes... relevant?

there are people who smoke and there are people who don't
the ones that do not smoke don't harm anyone when they exhale
those who do smoke harm themselves and others
why should people who don't smoke have to breathe second-hand smoke?

Because unless I've invaded your home and pinned you down so I can breath my second-hand smoke at you, you've always got the freedom to fuck off elsewhere to protect your precious lungs from the immeasurably small amount of damage that my second hand smoke might do. That means it is your choice to breath the air that you like slightly less, and that means you're damaging yourself. In other words, if you want total control of your environment, stay the fuck out of the shared space.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

smoking does not just harm the people that smoke, but also the people around them.
smoking has no health benefits at all.
tobacco only kills whoever breathes it in, even after you smoke.
the smoke clings to your clothes, forcing others to smell it.
and for those who say "i'm just exercising my right to smoke" i say this: you are interfearing with my right NOT to breathe that smoke.

Unless I'm forcibly entering your home and smoking there, you're ALWAYS welcome to fuck off elsewhere.

that would be called "breaking and entering"
which is illegal

Yes... relevant?

there are people who smoke and there are people who don't
the ones that do not smoke don't harm anyone when they exhale
those who do smoke harm themselves and others
why should people who don't smoke have to breathe second-hand smoke?

Why should i have to to listen to idiots in the streets or binge drinkers who cause fights?.

I smoke around those who smoke and when i'm in the street i stay clear of people around me by walking on the outer street of where i live i actually tend to care about where my smoke goes but anyway my point is that while your saying why should they have to breath in 2nd hand smoke i'm also countering that with binge drinkers and midday drunk poeple in the streets giving you a not so great time.. its not really nice either.

 

[Maze1125]

Although Smoking in the house with kids deffinatly does increase the chance of the child smoking (perfect example, me) later on in life. So mabye there should be a law passed that you shouldn't be allowed to smoke inside your home when there is kids there or something.

Damn right there should be.
Children living with smokers are the single most at risk group from passive smoking, yet no-one seems to care. Significant health and addiction risks have been proven time and time again for children. Yet it's still legal to smoke 5 packs a day when pregnant if you want, but not okay for a pub owner to choose if they want a smoking section or not. It's utterly absurd.

 

[Sikachu]

It would just be a mess if it was banned entirely.

But I am all for banning it in public places, I feel really sick when I smell cigarette smoke. And people aren't very considerate in where they smoke, so.

Oh yeah?

And every time you make a smoker stand out in the rain because they want a cigarette but you don't want them in the same room you're being very inconsiderate to them too (it works both ways, you are not inherantly morally superior because you choose not to smoke, and this is coming from a non-smoker).

Maybe the next time you see someone light up on a rainy day maybe you should be considerate enough to wait outside while they finish.

I'm sorry to dissapoint, I've never forced someone else to stand in the rain because they smoke. That's just rude.

Where did that even come from? Sorry, but when I'm waiting for my train, it would be very nice of the smokers not to light a cigarette in my face when there's plenty of space they can stand on and have a cigarette without forcing me to breathe in the smoke, without having to stand in the rain even.

And did I ever say I was morally superior? My dad smokes, lots of people in my class smoke - I won't ever force them to not do it, but it would be very nice of them not to do it in my face.

And for that matter, what's worse: having to breathe in toxic smoke or standing out in the rain for two minutes? I for that matter wouldn't mind standing in the rain, I think it's refreshing.

If there's so much space, why don't you move and stand in it? The smoker hasn't got a problem, you've got a problem. You have a solution to fix your problem, take it. Not sure why you expect every smoker out there to recognise you as the sort of pussy that can't handle a little smoke in the air and give you a wide berth, but I'm pretty sure the whole 'lighter, cigarette, lighting' process might tip you off that they're about to smoke...

 

[Sikachu]

No, because prohibition doesn't work. Making smoking illegal would be the same as making drinking illegal in the 20s, or making marijuana illegal. All you end up with is more crime, and more people clogging up the criminal justice system with petty offenses.

It works both ways. If it was so petty, why would they commit a crime just to do it?

Your avatar is a great representation of what it must feel like to have a conversation with you.

 

[Gammaj4]

See, thing is, you don't need to.
Non-smokers hate the smell of smoke so much, businesses that prohibit smoking are generally much more successful than those that don't.

 

[Sikachu]

And every time you make a smoker stand out in the rain because they want a cigarette but you don't want them in the same room you're being very inconsiderate to them too (it works both ways, you are not inherantly morally superior because you choose not to smoke, and this is coming from a non-smoker).

If you're sitting in a restaurant and someone whips out a mandolin and just starts wailing on it, singing some old song all out of tune, I think you would be very cross. If you're the assertive type you may even get up and tell the other patron to stop it or leave. Hell, the restaurant owner may insist on it himself. Is it inconsiderate to tell the guy off? Of course not; that sort of action is intrusive and irritating, and therefore he is the one who should stop. Same concept. If "moral superiority" entails not acting in such a way that pisses everyone else in the room off, then yes, the non-smoker enjoys a position of moral superiority in that situation.

Not really an argument for making mandolins illegal, is it? And why shouldn't the restaurant owner be the one to decide if he wants impromptu mandolin playing in his restaurant instead of blanket banning mandolins from all restaurants, bars, pubs, hotels, and indoor public areas?

 

[Ziggy the wolf]

honestly no, let it be. its natural selection, if they want to smoke let them do it. my mom had enough sense to stop smoking. i made it my business to not smoke and i never will.

 

[Sikachu]

I'm actually going a bit farther with this: Smoking should remain legal and other such drugs should also be legalized and regulated. This would deal a massive blow to he various drug cartels. When I say legalized though, I say that in the same sense that alcohol is legal. You can drink it but not while operating heavy machinery or while working. Obviously, a percentage of people will not heed the laws and kill themselves during drug induced road trips. I just defeated my own thought.

...

Anyway: in a truly free society the citizenry should be able to do with themselves whatever they want so long as it doesn't harm others. I think that's how the Turians do things...

You didn't defeat your own thought, you succumbed to the oft repeated 'if just one person is saved because...' argument that is one of the oldest fallacies that politicians use to justify inaction about things. The reason they use it is that it is effective with the morons that vote for them - 'You made drugs legal and then my kid smoked crack everyday for 2 years and now he's totally fucked. It's your fault for legalising it!' Difficult to use the only correct rebuttal if you are a politician (which would be: 'you're a bad parent and your child died of a severe case of natural selection). You're right, some people would definitely die and cause accidents if we legalised drugs. Bring your analysis forward and you'll come to the question 'so what?' because people already die and kill others in huge numbers because drugs are illegal. What we need are rationality rather than popularity based decisions on which lines to draw.

 

[Dwarfman]

Ahhh dang. I'm not a smoker but I do miss a good dingy, smoky Irish Pub. You know the ones, they're usually underground and have that many smokers the place has its own atmosphere. Ahhh good time, good times...

 

[Senaro]

Everyone knows the dangers of smoking. I never want to smoke, but I'm not going to stop someone else from doing it. Just be respectful and never do it indoors, unless it's in your own home or other specified area.

 

[wasalp]

I think most smoking should be heavily taxed until it is universally socially unacceptable.

i'm fine with people smoking weed, but cigarettes are disgusting and you shouldn't smoke them where people can see you. You should be too ashamed. But it is reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally fun to cough at smokers when running by them

What makes marajuana better than cigarettes? Marajuana is in fact worse for your lungs and overall health than cigarettes are. Big gaping hole in your argument.

I see the DEA has got to you, it is in fact not. They did a research to show the correlation between heavy smoking(cannabis) and lung cancer, what they found is that there was no significant increase and that the subjects who also smoked cigarette seemed to get less cancer. Now I'm not saying its all healthy because like all forms of smoke(ALL OF THEM) there is tar and carcinogenics, which is why you can vaporize or eat it instead.

 

[Sikachu]

It should be banned in public (including outside) because it is fucking disgusting.

Disgusting is subjective and if we're going to start banning things on that basis you better get used to not leaving your parents' house ever again, I somehow doubt your face would pass my 'not disgusting' test.

 

[RIOgreatescapist]

True that it acts as a major cancer agent and also a expendable expense especially for someone highly addicted to it. If you're ready to face these facts and still smoke son its all up to you.

 

[Maze1125]

It should be banned in public (including outside) because it is fucking disgusting.

Disgusting is subjective and if we're going to start banning things on that basis you better get used to not leaving your parents' house ever again, I somehow doubt your face would pass my 'not disgusting' test.

Smoking is a choice, being as ugly as you are is not.

 

[Sikachu]

Actually drinking anykind of red wine HELPS your heart and digestive track and white wine has a few benefit's it self and as for beer
beer poisons the liver a little bit but the liver takes care of that so no harm done
and smoking cigarettes hurts your lungs by everything that's in it including tar and paint
weed on the other hand also hurts your lungs but isn't as bad as cigarettes

And smoking significantly diminishes the likelihood of several types of cancer. Doesn't mean it isn't bad for you. It's amazing what you people can convince yourselves of by cherry picking a few facts and then absolutely refusing to do more research or even admit your immense ignorance on the rest of the topic at hand.

 

[Sikachu]

It should be banned in public (including outside) because it is fucking disgusting.

Disgusting is subjective and if we're going to start banning things on that basis you better get used to not leaving your parents' house ever again, I somehow doubt your face would pass my 'not disgusting' test.

Smoking is a choice, being as ugly as you are is not.

1. You've got the choice to wear a mask in public or get surgery.
2. Ignoring that facetious point, I may happen to find fat people disgusting (I do, but that's unrelated) and you will be hard pressed to show me the anything like a significant proportion of those that are fat can attribute it to their metabolism, and so being fat is a choice they are making. Does that mean it is alright to ban fat people from being visible in public places?

 

[MassiveGeek]

I'm sorry to dissapoint, I've never forced someone else to stand in the rain because they smoke. That's just rude.

Where did that even come from? Sorry, but when I'm waiting for my train, it would be very nice of the smokers not to light a cigarette in my face when there's plenty of space they can stand on and have a cigarette without forcing me to breathe in the smoke, without having to stand in the rain even.

And did I ever say I was morally superior? My dad smokes, lots of people in my class smoke - I won't ever force them to not do it, but it would be very nice of them not to do it in my face.

And for that matter, what's worse: having to breathe in toxic smoke or standing out in the rain for two minutes? I for that matter wouldn't mind standing in the rain, I think it's refreshing.

It's a misunderstanding, in England and the US too (I think) it is illegal to smoke in public buildings, this includes train platforms. This was effectively a group of "morally superior" campaigners who decided smokers were second class citizens.

As your profile says you're from Sweden you may have been totally unaware of this.

My opinion on the topic, as a non-smoker, is that it should not be illegal.

We're in a decent place where we are now, the law prevents smokers from inflicting it on other and the massive taxes help relive the burden smokers put on healthcare. Not sure how they justify this in the US where healthcare isn't free and the government just pockets the taxes.

We do need to stop the persecution of smokers, they are not second class citizens. We also need to loosen the smoking laws; a plumber should be able to smoke in his own van, a shopkeeper should be able to smoke in his own shop. Pubs should be forced to have effective smoking areas, sealed and air-conditioned separately from the non-smoking areas, so I can chill with my friends while they smoke and I drink.

Well, it isn't illegal here(for what I know), because as long as you're outside, you can smoke wherever the fuck you want.

But there is a difference between personal freedom to choose, and common sense. You don't light a cigarette in someone's face, that's just not cool.

I don't care if you smoke: just don't do it in my face, because I think it's disgusting and I feel sick when I smell the smoke.

That was MY entire point. Making it illegal would just make a big mess of it all, but at least here in Sweden, I feel people need to start showing some decency. If they don't, maybe we need more regulations, but I don't know.

 

[Harrowdown]

No. If smoking is banned then drinking has to be banned as well.

Drinking doesn't harm your health unless you overdo it. Smoking harms you regardless of amount smoked.

No, that's wrong. A couple fags every now and then isn't enough to damage the body faster than it can recover, or at least not to the point of serious health risks. Drinking isn't all that much safer in the short term either, especially when you take into account the accidents that can happen when someone is intoxicated. Car crashes, violent crime, accidental death with a sex toy, etc. You'll find as well that certain people are more resistant to the effects of smoking than others. I had a great grandpa who smoked daily, and he lived to 91. Died of old age, no cancer or anything.