Poll: Should smoking be made illegal?

[L-J-F]

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.

Pretty much, 4/5 people in prison in the US are there for drug related crimes if I remember correctly. No reason to make it worse.

 

[Estelindis]

We have a ban on smoking in workplaces in Ireland and it's worked excellently. Everyone thought it would be flouted like nobody's business before it came in, but it's pretty much turned out to be an unmitigated success. One of my friends, who had smoked for fifteen years (since he was thirteen), even quit as a result of it.

I don't see how anyone could oppose a ban intended to protect non-smokers from second-hand smoke (as ours does). If nothing else, it means that I don't have to accept coming home from a night out with my clothes and hair stinking of cigarettes as the price for going out anymore.

 

[katsumoto03]

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.

Aw, now that's just mean. There's a difference between something that's unpleasant and something that inhibits my ability to breathe.

Have a nice day.

 

[Blunderman]

Yes, I do.

Unsupported claim.

Now that is a staw man argument.

Anyway, nope. Just the ones that involve protecting people from themselves. Anti-drug laws, anti-prostitution laws, anti-gay marriage laws, as well as others have arguably fascist qualities. Note that just because a government has some fascist leaning laws does not mean it is a fascist government. My argument is far from invalidated.

You're obviously extremely biased against any legislation that restricts your free will. I, on the other hand, am not so massively naive.

You never made any coherent argument. Even if I granted that my suggestion was fascist in nature you're still required to present your case on why that would be bad. Is it also fascist to legislate taxes so the state can provide public schools, roads and libraries?

Oh no! I used a common internet colloquialism to express my confusion! My argument must now be invalid.

Straw man. I commented on your eloquence, or lack of it, and that's all. You'd do well to not overreact so much.

I agree that it would be the smart thing to do, but I would never agree to a legal mandate requiring it.

In this case, no, it should not be legislated. However, unless the doctor(s) recommend(s) the procedure, it should be charged to the patient, even in countries that have socialised healthcare, because it is an unnecessary operation, equal to cosmetic surgery, and that is not why people pay taxes.

It should be taken into account by the person choosing to smoke and no one else. The extreme view here is the idea that the government should mandate what we can and can't do in the comfort of our own homes while not hurting anyone.

This would only be true if the person in question is single, lives alone, has no children, and smokes exclusively under a vent or in a way that prevents any smoke from leaving his apartment and thus harming his neighbours.

Even still, he would be harming himself, and all this is enough reason to simply phase out a habit that contributes nothing to society.

I have yet to see you point out a single logical fallacy in my argument and I already responded to your overreaction to my "WTF" comment.

I'm not surprised. If you could determine what is and what isn't a logical fallacy then there wouldn't be any in your post(s), would there? Now, I'm not here to tutor you, and what's more I've lost my patience for this thread. I don't want all the flaming spoil my mood.

Speaking of crudeness. You implied I should have pissed my pants because your argument was so awesome. I guess everything else in that post was invalid as well.

I never claimed that my argument was 'awesome'.

This is the segment to which I made the 'wetting yourself'-comment:

I'm done. Your views are incredibly extreme and it's obvious I'm not going to change your mind and you're definitely not going to change mine.

Good night and good luck with the whole fascism thing. I hope it works out for you.

Not only were you offended enough to storm out of the discussion, but you instantly decided that the entire discussion was pointless because you decided that my views were 'incredibly extreme', that you were obviously not going to change my mind and that I was definitely not going to change yours, which makes the fact that you've now returned even more interesting, but I guess I was so extremely fascist that you just couldn't simply walk away.

You were obviously very upset, clearly overreacting and what you've said simply doesn't make much sense. Hence, I made the comment.

Someone else already pointed out how ridiculous this argument was (and yet you quoted it as though I said it for some reason), so I wont bother re-stating it. I'll just sit back and laugh maniacally.

A lack of grammatical prudence is a sign of various things, and such a basic error was significant enough for me to poke a stick at. If you'd been calm you would've gathered that it was not meant to be an argument, but rather a spot of levity.

Your post failed to prove otherwise.

Please see the comment I made about the logical fallacies in your post(s).

Thank you for the discussion, son, but as I said, I'll be ceasing my involvement in this thread for the reasons previously mentioned.

 

[Tohru_Readman]

Well in the UK, it's already ban in public places like: bars, pubs, restaurants, cinemas etc... but it's still annoys me, when someone is smoking outside and the smoke gets in your face.

The main reason for this is I don't smoke and think it's pretty disgusting.

 

[Danpascooch]

I have a friend who's a radical straight edge kid. We had a discussion on facebook the other day on smoking, and the fact that more people in our community have started smoking. My friend is of the opinion that smoking should be made illegal and classed as a drug, and that the state should step in to essentially protect people from themselves.

Me being a libertarian, I argued that people, knowing the dangers of smoking, should choose for themselves if they want to do it or not. I was immediately stormed by an angry mob of facebookers who showed their dislike with indignified comments.

Eager to get to the bottom of this, I thought I'd ask you guys.

Tl;dr: Should smoking be made illegal?

I am of the strong opinion that we should be allowed to ANYTHING we want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

Under my rule, I would like it if smoking was legal, but if you smoked in public there would be a fine because of second-hand smoke.

 

[Always_Remain]

1:'We had a discussion on facebook' - i loled

2: you are 12 and what is this

You smell of 4chan, my friend. I like it.

The cancer killed /b/ boys, your old memes are not exactly cool and edgy anymore.

/b/ was never good so how can it be killed but shitty memes since all memes are shitty?

 

[Gothtasical]

i don't know whether or not you where speaking to me or adding on to what i said so i'm a tad confused

 

[MrGalactus]

Nope. All Narc should be legal

 

[Joshimodo]

Drinking should be outlawed first. However, we've seen that before - Speakeasys and the like pop up, and it becomes even more unregulated.

Frankly, I think either both smoking and drinking should be made illegal, or some other drugs made legal. Never seen someone get in a bar fight because of LSD, and never seen someone overdose on weed.

But weed and LSD can be much more damaging than Alcohol and nicotine. LSD f's you up pretty quickly, and weed just destroys people's personalities. There is a reason why they are illegal (though I think weed should be slightly legal, but that is for another conversation). Alcohol and nicotine should not be outlawed. The reason: you actually said that reason, it has been done before, and I don't need to remind you how much crime rose because of that. Suddenly making a popular thing illeagal can make catastrophic problems. Look at China. After they outlawed opium usage, the Triads grew huge. At this point, we should just try to make people not want to drink or smoke.

Weed is as damaging to someone's personality as tobacco. The primary difference is that people who smoke weed typically become lazy, whereas tobacco users become irritable. Pure weed (as in, no added crap) is actually less physically damaging than store-sold tobacco.

LSD can damage your body a lot faster, but it's neither addictive or as outwardly destructive. Of course, as with anything, someone can become addicted - But that's personality, not the drug itself.

The point there is, alcohol is one of the only drugs that affects people other than the user. LSD is only damaging to yourself - Which makes it FAR more acceptable in my eyes. Limit your usage, and you're fine. You can't get physically addicted, and it doesn't cause families to tear apart, or fights to break out. It's also cheaper than booze.


You're absolutely right on the legality, which is why I said it in the first place. Making things illegal doesn't stop people getting it - It just privatises the market. Look at the cocaine boom in the 60's, the prohibition era, or modern day heroin, ecstasy and cannabis imports. BILLIONS of pounds going to gangs and cartels. If the government legalised it, they could make it far safer (less cut crap), and make money off of it. Not to mention they'd be able to help people during the addiction, not just manage the after-effects.

I'd add more, but I'm incredibly tired after not sleeping for 3 days straight. Point is - Either ban alcohol or legalise other drugs. Smoking sucks and people who do smoke are weak or dull, but it's not half as bad as booze.

 

[badgersprite]

No. Prohibition doesn't work. If people want to smoke, people are going to smoke. If it's made illegal, it will just provide an opportunity for an underground industry to take over. After all, it's not like there's any shortage of cigarettes in the world. One country banning it is hardly going to stem the tide coming in from everywhere else.

Besides, I really don't care what anyone else does with their body. What can I say? On the rare occasion that I drink alcohol, I like a cigarette with it. Not everyone who smokes is an addict, and, if they are, then so what?

 

[Unesh52]

...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?

I wasn't thinking of a ban on outdoor places. I'm not sure about the other bit though. Maybe it should be required to have to sections, like in some restaurants? Or do you think that would be impractical?

 

[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.

WOW. I would LOVE to see the study that this aborted fetus of an idea came out of.

Let's see..well, just for shits and giggles, let's start with the big 3 car manufacturers, Ford, GM, and Chrysler. Boy, they're just a steaming pile of success now, aren't they? All those bailouts are a sign of making the right call when they passed that anti smoking act on employees.

Grow the fuck up, you dolt. Whether a business prohibits smoking or not has exactly as much effect on how successful it is as my left nut has on how stupid your statements are.

(I know you're thick, so I'll spell it out - none. It has no effect.)

Not internally, but externally. Storefronts, Restaurants, retail locations.
For Example, I know of a restaurant in my area that used to have a "smoking section" that consisted of a four-foot wall, allowing smoke to seep throughout the restaurant. Then they prohibited smoking altogether, and their business increased Tenfold.

You do make a good point(albeit with somewhat excessive profanity), that the internal conditions have little effect. But I don't think that ultimately matters that much, as most offices prohibit smoking inside the buildings for health, safety and comfort concerns.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

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

EDIT: Everyone who is quoting me are you all idiots or something? The bottom of this? Heres the bottom, drinking causes just as much problems as smoking. Ever hear of drunk driving, bar fights, abuse due to alcohol, poor judgement under the influence, or alcohol poisoning? Or do all of these just fly past your heads? You don't cancer right away from smoking, you get it later on. ITS THE SAME WITH DRINKING. IF SMOKING GETS BANNED THEN DRINKING SHOULD AS WELL. Fucking hell, think people think

Just to make sure everyone sees it before quoting me again.

EDIT 2: I am not saying that drinking is worse then smoking. As the second person I quoted figured it out, I was saying if one harmful thing should be banned, then the others should be too as well. I was just using alcohol as an example of that because it was the next leading cause of death due to abuse that I know of. I just didn't extend that to all things. Now can you morons finally understand? Its just me saying if one harmful thing should be banned, then the rest should too. Thank you last two people who understand somewhat at what I was getting at.

Now is everyone ok? We all good? Your asses don't hurt anymore?

Remember, drinking WAS banned during Prohibition. It had all intents of goodwill, and is justified for decent reasons, but PEOPLE STILL WANTED IT. It created the biggest uprising of organized crime the world has ever seen!
I don't need it banned, I'll just keep my ass away from being a drunkard.
People don't generally regret drinking, unless they are dependently alcoholic, and it is not a particularly addicting substance, if taken properly.
I see cigarettes as kinda, well, evil. The companies making them KNOW that it is an addicting substance, and that it has clear links to lung cancer (Unlike the accusations surrounding Video Games and violence). They are so important, economically, that we CANNOT outlaw those companies, it will cause a huge economic collapse! The only way America was able to outlaw slavery was after the south seceded, and that was only to stop the British from siding with the Confederacy through implications of siding with slavery.
As it is, we CANNOT outlaw smoking. Doing so would cause economic downfall, rise in crime in order to fill the demand for the addicting substance. It would be impossible to do so properly.

 

[Ewyx]

If anything, every substance know to man should be legal for consumption, why should the government have the responsibility over how people harm themselves. I mean, let's think about it, alcohol makes a ton of people act irrationally and aggressively, so we're already at the stage where we don't really care about how people react towards others, might as well be PCP if some asshole really wants it.

 

[Yureina]

I think it should be made illegal around me, but that's because I have an allergic reaction to cigarette smoke.

Beyond that, no. Slap some taxes on it to discourage people, but... no. Not illegal.

 

[willi61]

This is a great idea for people who smoke. check it out.


http://greensmoke.com/22216.html

 

[Vykrel]

only in certain places... schools, hospitals, places of worship, etc.

but it should be more heavily discouraged. i think that if kids that are under 18 are caught smoking, their guardians should be fined. i know its very likely not their fault, but theres no better way of getting a kid to stop doing something than for their parents to be REALLY pissed at them over a couple hundred dollar fine.

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

I don't understand the black market argument being applied in this situation. You all really think people do MORE of something because it's illegal? There are plenty of things I don't do because they're illegal, including all the illegal drugs. I'd imagine that's true for many of you.

Sure, there would be a black market for cigarettes, but it's going to seriously scale down smoking. Those huge factories that roll them by the billion? Gone. Giant, tax-subsidized corporate tobacco farms? Gone. Three pack a day habits? Gone, for all but the very rich. Smoking outside the door of buildings? Mostly gone.

You don't see people snorting cocaine or even smoking marijuana every day as you go about your usual business unless you live in a pretty interesting place. The same would become true of tobacco only more so because it doesn't even get you high, so I suspect people would go to much less trouble and sacrifice to continue it if it were outlawed.

Argue it all you want on other grounds, but don't pretend outlawing tobacco wouldn't mostly get rid of it.