Poll: Should smoking be made illegal?

[rb26dett]

The difference between us smokers and you non smokers, is that we don't give a toss about your habbits.

 

[WOPR]

Nah, If people want to kill themselves slowly, good for them. Just as long as they don't do it around me and pretend their all cool.
Heavier, and I mean heavier taxes would be good though:].

Just on the note of "kill themselves"

you do know for every 4 smokers a non-smoker dies of smokers cancer? (second hand smoke)

and being that a smoker dies every 6.5 seconds...

smokers kill an innocent every 32.5 seconds(?)

EDIT: oh yeah, health care treating smokers costs us roughly 3 times the amount of money we earn from taxing smokers...

so all we're really doing is lining the pockets of tobacco companies, digging ourselves a deeper hole, and killing ourselves and each other (by smoking... which I don't)

 

[jack583]

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

I believe he was talking about the breaking and entering part. Which isn't relevant.

As for smokers harming others, drinkers harm way more WAAAAAAAAY more. Infact the amount of people that smokers harm (due to smoking) is very very small. Yes they harm themselves but that is their choice

EDIT: I think the quote button is being a bit weird.

the fact is that smoking harms the smoker and those around them, the amount affected shouldn't matter
smoking causes damage and has no health benifits.
yet, marajawana has little to no negative side affects for adults and can be used to treat glaucoma and it is illeagal.
what possitive side effects can come from smoking that you can't get from something else?

First of, read mine again.

Secondly, I take it you smoke pot then seen as one of the side effects of smoking it is denial. Seriously I'm getting sick of pot heads saying "Pot does nothing wrong, infact it magicaly heals everything"
This is complete and utter bolloks. A few side effects of pot include adiction (and yes it is addictive not through it's chemicals but through the effects, basically you become addicted to smoking pot and getting high not any particular chemical), anxiety attacks, becoming a complete wanker and depression. How many of you know someone who has depression and has done for a while (more than 4 months)? Now do they smoke pot? I bet you 9 out of 10 times the answer is yes. Taking anti-depressants is a 3 month course to help you get over the depression. If you have it because you smoke pot then the only that's going to solve the problem is to stop.

Also thanks to long expossure to the substance I've developed anxiety attacks and social issues (I still have them after stopping).

But like i said the main problem with pot is denial, pot causes a serious amount of denial which is why you get so many pot smokers going "oh no, it's perfectly healthy for you honest, some scientist said so" or "some survey said so" show it to me? From a reliable source.

first, i don't smoke pot and i did not say it was a "magic cure" but it is often used to treat illnesses like glaucoma. and yes it is addictive, but so is smoking, in fact a lot of things are addictive. if it can be done it can be over-done. anti-depressants can also be addictive. and if you want a reliable source look at a medical site.

 

[Jonluw]

Well, by arguing that people know the risks of it and should be allowed to decide for themselves, you could also argue for the legalization of far heavier drugs than tobacco.

I, myself, do not think smoking should be outright banned, it should be purged over time. The narcotics industry's firm grasp on our culture must be loosened slowly and with care.

The reason stronger drugs are banned is because partaking in them creates a massive risk to those who do not. I've done a lot of work in halfway houses and some of the stories from people who were on meth made me cringe. Alcohol comes closer than cigarettes in regards to potential harm to innocents, but it is far less damaging and much easier to control.

There are enough banned drugs that pose lesser risks to your environment than alcohol does. I'm no expert, but I'd say most non-hallucinogen "down"-drugs are fairly harmless to anyone but the user.

I'm not here to discuss though. I'm just voicing my opinion. I don't mind people who smoke, except for when they smoke unreasonably close to me, or pester me about trying cigarettes, or smell like smoke in my presence. Those are just tiny points of irritation though. Hardly grounds for a ban.

Spoiler: Slightly irrelevant stories

We watched an interesting video in biology class a while back. We were learning about the specific effects some drugs have on your nervous-system. In a segment there, they placed a few drug-experts in a group, and asked them "If there were no drugs present on the consumer market today, and you were told you had to introduce one drug to the market, which would it be?"
It was interesting to watch them trying to get away from the question, saying that they wouldn't introduce any; but we finally got an answer from them.
Their opinions differed, one said khat, another said cannabis, and yet another suggested sleeping- or painkiller-pills that we know people have used recreationally.
On one point there was complete consensus though: It would not be alcohol.

I did, by the way, once hear a funny story of a man who tried to jump off a ski-jump while on lsd. (Not the kind of ski jumps you find in parks, mind you.

Spoiler: This kind of ski jump

A person who has never tried tobacco, and haven't been presented with it through his environment, will have no desire to use tobacco, and will live just as good a life - probably a better one - as someone who does use tobacco. The presence of drugs creates the need for drugs, we would live perfectly content lives, even if there were no drugs available. If it wasn't for the fact that drugs are available, noone would care about them.
Mind you, I'm not some anti-drug extremist. I do drink. However, it would not be the end of the world for me if alcohol was suddenly banned; and it wouldn't have been a problem for alcoholics either, if they hadn't started with alcohol already. Again, the presence of drugs is the only thing that creates the need for drugs.

I don't support an outright ban, because this would cause massive withdrawal, like in prohibition times, and a lot of jobs would be lost. That's what I meant when I said that "The narcotics industry's firm grasp on our culture must be loosened slowly and with care."
To put it this way: The world would have been a lot better off if we just weren't introduced to drugs in the first place, and we should strive for that world. I think this can be achieved through slowly erasing drugs from the market.
Or you could say that the deaths caused by inebriation are removing the weak ones from the gene-pool. A sort of naturally organized eugenics system if you will.

 

[Skratt]

Nah, don't make it illegal, it's a great source of tax revenue.

 

[Gearran]

No, I don't think it should be made illegal. After all, that would just be another prohibition (and we all know how well THAT worked). The government has pretty heavy taxes on them (that's why a pack of ten rolled up paper tubes and an herb cost $6 or more), and the current regulations about smoking in buildings and the like are working well (when was the last time you ate at a restaurant that had a "smoking section?").

 

[Sikachu]

No. Imagine the black market.

However, get it out of public. I can barely breathe as is.

How about we get you out of public, and the overwhelming majority of the rest of us who cope with trains, trucks, cars, motorcycles, ventilation systems, buses, factories, the list goes on get on with our lives in public with the option to make no difference to the quality of the air outside by smoking open to us?

Point: Missed.

Well, I didn't give enough information. I'm asthmatic and have bad reactions to cigarettes. As in: Breathing in the smoke puts me in the hospital. Car exhaust doesn't do this, I don't live near factories, etc.

So if you smoke near me, you kill me. I need to be in public more than you need to smoke. Period.

Fortunately for me, I know you're lying. Giving you the benefit of the doubt (the tiny chance that I missed something in my extensive research on asthma), what is it specifically (I want a chemical name here) that is so abundant in cigarette smoke as to reach critical levels in your lungs if I walk past the street smoking that is not present in any of the other things we pollute our cities with constantly?

Also, could you possibly dial down the hysterics a little? You went from 'breathing in smoke puts me in hospital' to 'if you smoke near me, you kill me' in three sentences and it makes it VERY difficult to take you seriously.

Sadly, I'm not lying. I've ended up flat on my back for days after someone blew smoke in my face. As for what hurts me in the cigarette: You tell me. There's over 4000 chemicals in it, 51 are carcinogenic. I'm not about to go eat 4000 (or even 51) chemicals to figure out which one makes me keel over.

The whole reason I brought up the asthma is that it's the main symptom - it turns up to eleven and my lungs fill with green and yellow phlegm in the presence of cigarette smoke. I don't need to research whether or not that's possible, because IT FREAKING HAPPENS.

As for hysteria - what hysteria? If it puts me in the hospital, it's deadly to me. You don't need to read so deeply into it.

I must apologise, I read the words you wrote, rather than skimming along the surface making stuff up - I guess that's reading too deeply. Allow me to walk you through the hysteria point.

You wrote:
"breathing in smoke puts me in hospital"

Then some other random sentence. Then you wrote:
"So if you smoke near me, you kill me."

This kind of high-speed exaggeration is exactly the sort of behaviour exhibited usually described as 'hysterical'.

Finally, 'in hospital' is not the same as 'dead'. That's the kind of hysteria I was askingnn you to dial down.

Now dealing with your new substantive points:
1. Carcinogens cause cancer, so unless each time you take this little hospital trip of yours they fix you up with a bit of chemo or radiotherapy, it's pretty unlikely that's relevent.
2. There's this amazing thing called medical science where they train doctors, and some of them practice medicine, and some of them do research on what causes disease and how to fight it. Rather than testing on yourself, this 'medical science' can often provide answers for you. When you are so severely allergic to something that either you must immediately go to hospital or you immediately die (depending on your particular level of hysteria at that time) these doctors usually make a pretty solid effort to work out what it is that causes the reaction. 4000 different chemical in cigarette smoke, and not a single one of them unique to cigarette smoke... you must live in fear of going near anything else that combusts. You know how many chemicals come out of a car exhaust? Probably not, that won't have been in the PSA you've been pulling your entire 'argument' out of.

 

[Shpongled]

No. Imagine the black market.

However, get it out of public. I can barely breathe as is.

How about we get you out of public, and the overwhelming majority of the rest of us who cope with trains, trucks, cars, motorcycles, ventilation systems, buses, factories, the list goes on get on with our lives in public with the option to make no difference to the quality of the air outside by smoking open to us?

Point: Missed.

Well, I didn't give enough information. I'm asthmatic and have bad reactions to cigarettes. As in: Breathing in the smoke puts me in the hospital. Car exhaust doesn't do this, I don't live near factories, etc.

So if you smoke near me, you kill me. I need to be in public more than you need to smoke. Period.

Guess what? Smokers aren't mind readers. Until the government start issuing out stickers to those they deem weak (shouldn't be too long after tobacco gets banned), there is no possible way we could know about your issues.

Must suck to have weak lungs, i have sympathy, but at the end of the day it's your job to take care of yourself. Sauntering through the street under the assumption that all smokers should give you a wide berth because they should know about your "condition" is silly.

 

[Sikachu]

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?

Well... yeah you're right.... My mandolin argument can only be extrapolated to mean that smoking in such places should be a social faux-pas (by the way, fuck spelling in French). though I would like to point out that that's an appropriate counter to the post I was actually responding to. He was suggesting that it was unfair of non-smoker to ask someone to stop smoking around them. That's not true. But back on topic:

The only reason I can think of to institute a legal prohibition would be if there was a significant health risk to the other people in the room. The whole argument seems to boil down the significance of second hand smoke. From what I understand, it would be too great a risk for everyone to be allowed to do it. Sure, the effects of a single smoker may be negligible, but if non-smokers have to inhale it at every restaurant, grocery store, bank, and library they go to, those effects can add up. Therefore, smoking should be banned in public places. That's a much better argument I think.

That is a better argument but still not really that persuasive I think. You're definitely right that the effect of second-hand smoke is the crux of the issue. Personally, I find smoking in restaurants quite offensive and wouldn't do it, and I'd expect the owner to ban smoking if he was serious about his job. To be honest, I can accept banning it in public buildings like libraries and schools as well (though a warm indoors place to smoke would be appreciated) but open public spaces? ALL pubs? Why can't we have some pubs that are inclusive and so pubs that are for the health-conscious only?

 

[Jonluw]

Nicotine is a heavier narcotic than THC, so is ethanol. It does not make sense to keep nicotine legal and THC illegal.

Here's a metaphor.
Say there's a really annoying guy living in your house, and you would really like to get rid of him. However, you can't get rid of him, because he - for example - is your cousin. Forcing him to leave would create a lot of trouble for you. However, the fact that you have to put up with him doesn't mean you will go ahead and invite every annoying dickhead you meet into your house.

Nicotine is heavily rooted in our culture, so we can't easily ban it, but that doesn't mean we should legalize all other drugs that have similar effects.

 

[jack583]

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.

let's say that there is a space with 5 non-smokers and one person that is smoking. all six people have to be in that spot for some reason; waiting for a bus, a cross walk sign to say "go", ect. should the person that does smoke leave because he/she is the minority?

No. Because the person smoking hasn't got a problem with the environment as it is.

Also, you have applied your idiosyncrasy about smoking to all non-smokers (with the implication that if 1 of 5 is a smoker, 4 object to there being a smoker in their vicinity when they're outside), something that just isn't the case, as the majority of non-smokers clearly don't mind smoke enough to inconvenience themselves in any way (else UK pubs would be doing a lot better since the smoking ban). If I was sitting in a public park having a picnic and 4 other picnics were happening in the nearby area, and one of them started playing music I didn't enjoy, I would move rather than demand that they stop enjoying a space they have just as much right to as I do just because I'm hypersensitive. I certainly wouldn't spend my time trying tp outlaw all music in public spaces...

Don't get me wrong, when I wait at bus stops and smoke I almost always stand at the outside of the bus stop on the off-chance someone inside's too uncomfortable to say anything, but if it is raining then fuck them - if they really have such a strong objection to breathing in a tiny amount of smoke they can stand in the rain.

the flaw with that pinic example is that there were five people and you were the only one that did not like the music played by one of the other people there. if the other people liked the music then they would not tell the music player to stop (you would be the one out of five that hated the muisc. minority: person that hates the music). but if the others agreed with you and left the music player then then that person would probably feel guilty for annoying others and would stop the music anyways out of guilt(four out of five hated the music. minority: person that likes the music).

mind telling me why you smoke? anything good side effects about smoking can be found in other, less unpleseant, methods.

 

[_Cake_]

I read the question wrong at first, had a little dyslexic moment. I thought it said "Should Poll Smoking Be Illegal?" XD A much more interesting question if you ask me.

 

[deadxero]

From an exsmoker, yes. Smoking really serves no purpose. There are many things that are bad for you, but have some type of benefit. Alchohol at least is entertaining. Fast food, you have to eat, if you choose to eat shit on a bun have at it.

Smoking only exists to addict people for the profit of tobaco companies. People start because of peer pressure, or it fits the image they want to present, and it kills them while others profit. It literally has no redeaming features what so ever, and it imposes a terrible cost on society in the form of medical issues later in life.

 

[Metropocalypse]

No. I'm not a smoker, and I don't like it. But I don't think it should be made illegal and the reason for that is because having grown up with it all around me, I just find it a normal part of society. It would simply be odd to not have it there. Like when it was banned indoors for example, I found it odd that people were no longer smoking inside pubs or anything. And watching comedians, it was once normal for comedians or performers to be on stage smoking, but that is gone, too. It is just simply strange, that's all. I think it's a cultural thing, like many things that aren't very good for your health.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Not anymore than marijuana. If people want to pay money to kill themselves, let them.

 

[lacktheknack]

Guess what? Smokers aren't mind readers. Until the government start issuing out stickers to those they deem weak (shouldn't be too long after tobacco gets banned), there is no possible way we could know about your issues.

Must suck to have weak lungs, i have sympathy, but at the end of the day it's your job to take care of yourself. Sauntering through the street under the assumption that all smokers should give you a wide berth because they should know about your "condition" is silly.

Oh, I keep out of their way, but then a bunch of them get offended, which leads to all kinds of incredibly stupid problems.

I must apologise, I read the words you wrote, rather than skimming along the surface making stuff up - I guess that's reading too deeply. Allow me to walk you through the hysteria point.

You wrote:
"breathing in smoke puts me in hospital"

Then some other random sentence. Then you wrote:
"So if you smoke near me, you kill me."

This kind of high-speed exaggeration is exactly the sort of behaviour exhibited usually described as 'hysterical'.

Finally, 'in hospital' is not the same as 'dead'. That's the kind of hysteria I was askingnn you to dial down.

Now dealing with your new substantive points:
1. Carcinogens cause cancer, so unless each time you take this little hospital trip of yours they fix you up with a bit of chemo or radiotherapy, it's pretty unlikely that's relevent.
2. There's this amazing thing called medical science where they train doctors, and some of them practice medicine, and some of them do research on what causes disease and how to fight it. Rather than testing on yourself, this 'medical science' can often provide answers for you. When you are so severely allergic to something that either you must immediately go to hospital or you immediately die (depending on your particular level of hysteria at that time) these doctors usually make a pretty solid effort to work out what it is that causes the reaction. 4000 different chemical in cigarette smoke, and not a single one of them unique to cigarette smoke... you must live in fear of going near anything else that combusts. You know how many chemicals come out of a car exhaust? Probably not, that won't have been in the PSA you've been pulling your entire 'argument' out of.

Well what am I supposed to say? I get cigarette smoke, my lungs fill with mucous. End of.

I find it interesting how you complain about my "hysteria" making it hard to take me seriously, but then you take everything I say that potentially has a seam (in your mind) and attack it as hard as you can. I am also a person with an opinion that's just as valid as yours, and I'm forced to stop respecting anything you say because of your reactions.

 

[Colour Scientist]

Make the tax higher, there is no downside.

The government will get more money from tax.

Less people will smoke making healthcare cheaper and people happier

Cigarette tax is what makes your health care cheaper, less smokers equals health care increases.

less smokers = less money spent treating smokers with illnesses.

Actually, the tax on cigarettes more than covers the expense of treating people with smoking-related illnesses.

 

[Sikachu]

Nah, If people want to kill themselves slowly, good for them. Just as long as they don't do it around me and pretend their all cool.
Heavier, and I mean heavier taxes would be good though:].

Fuck you and everybody like you. Over half the cost of cigarettes is tax, and it is a stealth tax that pretends to compensate the population for the added health costs of smoking when actually it pays (in the UK) for the entire health costs of all the smokers + loads of the non-smokers.

LOL I was looking at all the other people that quoted me and then I stumble across this.
Look, if you don't agree with someone's viewpoint, don't say 'Fuck you' to them, alright? Learn some respect, okay?

And hey I think that's great that it's going to smokers and non smokers! I think smokers should have to pay for their own healthcare though; they do it to themselves so why should us non smokers pay for that?

Listen mate, learn some manners or take a chill pill. Jeeeez.

Don't see much point of showing someone respect when the sum total of my experience of them has been them demonstrating publicly that they are self-centred and ignorant. If you want respect, earn it by not expressing your worthless opinion on topics about which you have no knowledge. It's not that I "disagree with your viewpoint", it's that I recognise your viewpoint is that of an ignorant selfish person (if you didn't know that taxes on cigs are huge and cover well over the total spend on all the healthcare then you're ignorant, if you did, then you're literally just a greedy ****) and I think that people who voice their opinions in those situations do us all damage, and deserve rudeness. So no, I won't show you any respect until you learn to start respecting your audience. Which of course you never will because the terminally self-centred are only peripherally aware that there even exists an audience.

Smokers do pay for their own healthcare. The taxes from cigarettes cover all the healthcare of all the smokers. Then there's enough to cover another whole person who isn't a smoker. So when it comes to healthcare, smokers are net contributers, and non-smokers are net leeches. So whatever it is you seem to think smokers do to themselves (not sure how a smoker who gets hit by a bus and is left brain damaged 'did it to himself' but ok, I assume you mean smoking-caused diseases) they are ALREADY PAYING FOR, just by paying the huge tax on cigarettes.

 

[Liam Moriarty]

Yes. Second hand smoke can still kill people even if they had never smoked in their life. It will affect innocent people and at the very least should disallow it in all public places.