Poll: Should smoking be made illegal?

[Sikachu]

smoking = an ABSOLUTE RISK as smoking will cause cancer.

drinking = a potential risk dependent on personal judgment.

nice way generalizing everyone to be an idiot who will do stupid shit. that is the same argument against illegal drugs like pot saying "everyone who smokes pot will become gang bangers and shoot people". nice fucking generalizations there. care to do pot smokers too? what about heroine users? or cocaine users? alcohol gives cancer? talk about bull shit.

I believe that you are the misinformed bull shitter who is generalizing. So Mr/Mrs Hypocryte, where is it you get your 'facts' from? Smoking WILL not cause cancer, smoking CAN cause cancer. So there is not this ABSOLUTE RISK that your talking about. And the thing with drinking is that that effects others (a drunk driver or a drunk with a gun for example (guns are another thing that should be banned if something so trivil in comparason such as smoking was))when it's not even their choice. The child in the backseat of the car owned by the well behaved, good mannered driver didn't choose to be broadsided by the idiot who chose to drink and drive did it?

However noone has stabbed someone becuse they smoke. Like all things, smoking is a choice but it only effects the smoker.

For the record I drink aswell.

so second hand smoke isn't dangerous? maybe we should make smoke saunas so we can all die of smoke inhalation how about that? smoking can affect those around them as well. this is all coming from someone with first hand experience in a alcoholic and smoking family.

No-one cares about your first hand experience. First-hand experience is the opposite of useful comment in a debate about issues that affect populations. Maybe if you have first hand experience of running clincical trials and reaching scientific conclusions your opinions might be worth more than the scum on the soles of my shoes, but until then leave your dysfunctional addict family out of the discussion and stop trying to manipulate people into valuing your opinion. This is coming from someone with first hand experience of attempted manipulation.

so if no one cares then why should anyone care about your thoughts, or your experience then? since you only seem to cite experience rather than scientific studies. you linked alcohol to cancer without evidence, and portrayed alcohol to kill everyone who takes so much as a sip yet you call us "idiots" for disagreeing? talk about being a hypocritical, and egotistical.

you can talk shit, but you can't take it. nice debate there. seeing as this debate will go nowhere good luck on your incoming depression and threatened sense of self worth seeing as half of the escapist already argued with you over this.

Once again I fear I've pitched my comments at too high a level.

"No-one cares about your first hand experience" means 'The fact that you say that you're from a family of drunks and smokers does not give any more credibility to your reasoning or arguments'. By writing "this is all coming from someone with first hand experience in a alcoholic and smoking family" you are attempting to imbue your opinion with some credibility just because of who is saying it, not because it is well justified or reasoned. It's the other side of the coin of something called an ad hominem argument, which is where you discredit someone's point by attacking their character rather than engaging with the reasoning.

I am interested to see where I said alcohol kills everyone who takes a sip though, or even words that are generally in that ballpark. Or told some group of people they were idiots for disagreeing with me. Do please furnish me with quotes from where you got those impressions and I'll happily walk you through them so you can better understand.

 

[superbatranger]

Making smoking illegal is pointless, don't you think? Look at any and all drugs, such as marijuana, ecstasy, heroin, acid. All illegal, yet people still get their hands on them. It might help, but how can we be sure? Banning smoking could just give drug cartels a new product to smuggle into countries to sell.

That being said, I agree wholeheartedly that there are places where one should not smoke at all.

 

[qeinar]

i don't smoke, but if people wanna smoke that is fine with me. also second hand smoking is bullshit.

 

[lettucethesallad]

I'd like to know what the OP meant by public places?

Do they mean actual public places because I've seen anti-smokers say a privately owned bar counts should be as a public place.

For the sake of argument a public place is a place open to the public, i.e. bars, restaurants, parks, etc.

 

[Rickyvantof]

I'm a party smoker.
I smoke parties.
I also smoke salmons.
Smoked salmon is good.

 

[SovietSecrets]

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. If smoking is banned then drinking has to be banned as well.

I don't care what people do if it doesn't harm me or others. Smoking does inherently, drinking doesn't.

Oh right I forgot, because just because drinking doesn't harm you right away(lie), its a lot worse than smoking. Keep on drinking then and end up in the same boat with cancer as a smoker. Or keep on drinking and screw up and go drive. Like smoking over time will cause issues, so will drinking.

smoking = an ABSOLUTE RISK as smoking will cause cancer.

drinking = a potential risk dependent on personal judgment.

nice way generalizing everyone to be an idiot who will do stupid shit. that is the same argument against illegal drugs like pot saying "everyone who smokes pot will become gang bangers and shoot people". nice fucking generalizations there. care to do pot smokers too? what about heroine users? or cocaine users? alcohol gives cancer? talk about bull shit.

Are you a fucking idiot? Smoking is also based on personal judgement. Good job saying that everyone who smokes won't stop and will continue smoking for the rest of their lives. Nicely done there Detective Dipshit. Both are potential risks I hope you realize. If I were to smoke and drink for the rest of my life and anyone else as well, we would all end up with lung and liver cancer. Now before you cry to me about how wrong I am be sure to read the bottom of the post.

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.

Tobacco was the leading cause of death in 2000: 435,000
Alcohol was the third: 85,000

Congrats lets go back 10 years. Death is still death. People die from both, so just because one group dies more then another that means the other shouldn't be banned as well?

People also die from caffiene and prescription medications, so let's just ban those as well. And since people die from diabetes and lack of exercise, lets also get rid of all food that can possibly be fattening, and all food with any sugar added to it.

See now you are thinking how I was when I made this post. Do you understand? If one causes the death then the other abused substance should be banned as well. I just only extended it to alcohol because I would hope people would understand what you just came up with. Now read the bottom of this post as well please. You are the person who gets it.

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.

Lol the people quoting you are morons. You're actually slightly wrong in that the societal harm is significantly higher with alcohol than with cigarettes, not that those idiots will understand. Here's a study conducted by the ACMD (in the UK) before its head (David Nutt) had the audacity to put science ahead of toeing the Government's line, get fired, and signify the end of the ACMD as a trustworthy source of scientific enquiry and its rebirth as a really expensive rubber stamp for government policy: [a href=http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf]http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf[/a]. Skip to the graph on page ten if you can't be bothered to read the whole thing.

Thank you, I think I finally understand the problem with all the idiots who are quoting me.


My Post

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.

nice argument, "everyone around cant recognize my genius"? did you come up with that all by yourself? you cite no research, and cite no damn evidence at all except "my genius" which isn't genius its redundant, failed logic.

What genius? What research do I need to cite? For what even? I made no claims. I simply said if one thing is banned because its bad for health and kills then everything should be banned for that same reason. I just used alcohol as an example and then every person (you included) jumped on my ass without even thinking about it. I assumed people would understand basic reasoning of if one thing is banned then the next thing should be banned and so on and so forth. I had to spoon feed it to you to finally get it, which you do now. Don't be mad because you couldn't figure out something so simple.

oh so we are idiots when you fly around your opinions without properly explaining them? i see how you have to constantly editing your posts to better explain things. don't blame other people when you cannot even explain your stance on the issues. so who is the idiot? the ones who get the wrong message from a badly worded opinion or the person who cant speak English well enough to explain what he is saying in the first place? then says we are the "idiots" and cant "understand your genius"? get a damn grip hypocrite. even the escapist's rules say "you have unlimited time to make a post, there is no excuse for badly worded posts". next time fully explain your stance otherwise people will get offended and the moderators will come down on you especially if you start insulting everyone in the damn thread.

I will gladly insult everyone this damn thread. Why were others able to figure it out? Oh let me answer that for you, they took the time to think about what I said and answered exactly how I wanted them to. Hell my friends could figure it out without reading the edits. Are you seriously gonna sit there and tell me my sentence was so beyond understanding that if you took a few minutes to think about the concept and apply it that you wouldn't get the same conclusion? You have a mind, fucking use it before you get high and mighty with you. I had to spoon feed it to your brain dead head in order for you to understand at as you are no longer arguing with me about it.

oh? so why did half the fucking escapist jump at you then? hell the escapist is called the smartest place on the damn internet for a reason. just because you can't speak proper English doesn't mean you can insult people. also what friends? for all we know you can be lying and making up shit.

Half the fucking Escapist did exactly what you did, they posted without fully thinking. The smartest place on the internet? Have you seen the posts and topics here? Or do you just make up bullshit to try and disprove me? This is far from the smartest place on the net. Friends, you know people who I know. Yet you don't so I will agree its null. Either way people understood it when they took the time to THINK BEFORE THEY POSTED. Something no one else did. Even you have to agree that its possible to come to the same conclusion if you think about my words. Someone else did. I will say it again do not get pissy at me because you couldn't use rational thinking.

'

so you are gonna call 1/2 the escapists idiots? and insult everyone? when we use the report button and have dedicated mods? have fun with your mod wrath pal. you're gonna need it, and you call us idiots? wow.

Yeah I will because I don't need to turn to Mods and cry to them when I know I am wrong. I accept it gracefully and know that I was proven incorrect. I also think before I speak. Thank you for threatening and calling me an idiot because I stood up for my words and arguments. World needs more people who cry like you. Fin.

*looks back at all the edits you have made so people can understand you*

oh yeah you really think before you speak. /sarcasm.

you didn't stand up for SHIT. all you do is say "your an idiot because your not me, LOL" and that is against site policy. our rules are very clear on that and will incur mod wrath without hesitation. if this site is full of idiots like you say then why bother coming here?

Nah of course not. I let all the people who said I was wrong walk all over me. No I proved them wrong and including you. I made those edits because people were, again you, were unwilling to fucking think and make an easy deduction that others made. Why couldn't you?

 

[Shpongled]

snip

stuff

misinformation and stuff

Going to throw this in here as an example of the mass ignorance in this thread, mainly coming from non-smokers, ironically.

LSD is not harmful to the body at all. That is, the LD50 of LSD is ~12,000 micrograms (on tested animals), a typical dose is ~200-300 mics (2 tabs, average blotter containing ~100-150 mics). There are numerous reports of people taking doses in the milligrams, and surviving with no adverse physical health problems at all. Indeed, thumbprinting (thumb pressed against crystal LSD and licked) is relatively common in experienced psychonauts. (Though it's getting rarer, finding that much acid is incredibly difficult.)

No substantiated reports of death directly caused by LSD intoxication have yet been reported in humans. Occasional news reports pop up of some moron doing something stupid on acid, none substantiated and no causal links have ever been established. Nor would this be a physical effect of the drug.

Finally... hallucinogens by their very nature are not addictive. The experience is very emotionally and mentally taxing, very few users report feeling the desire to take acid again in the near future after a trip. Not to mention tolerance making it unfeasible to dose more than once on a given trip (or in the same weed).

All this may seem unrelated, i'm just using it an example of the misinformation surrounding ALL drugs, including tobacco and alcohol. Don't trust what your friends say, or what you saw on some government sanctioned advertising (propaganda) campaign, trust the factual evidence presented by professionals in the field.

stuff

Tell the medical and scientific practitioners involved in those peer reviewed studies that they are grasping at straws.

There is no evidence whatsoever that users of marijuana express "denial" in any higher capacity than non-users at all, whether whatever it is in question relates to marijuana or not. Of course, there are plenty of stoners that refuse to acknowledge negative effects, but there is no reason to assume that stoners proportionally outnumber non-users in this aspect.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

There are problems with heavy marijuana use, but the problems aren't related to long-term lung damage.

 

[SuperNashwan]

I used to know loads of straight edge kids. They all grew up to have normal middle class jobs and enjoying beer, once the teenage desire to find their niche wore off. Seriously, the only thing they retained were the silly 'discipline' tattoos they had put on the stomachs, which became rapidly less legible once the beer started to erm 're-shape' their midriffs.

I agree with your libertarian ethics - people should be free to choose. Also I read a textbook on biopsychology that rated all the health impacts of various drugs, from class A down to alcohol, and the one that costs us the most in damage to health and money (to treat drug related health problems) every year is booze. Amazingly heroin was lurking right near the bottom of the list, so sometimes you have to wonder if our whole drug classification system isnt a bit wonky. There was that British professor who got everyone in a tizz lately by saying that marijuana should be de-classified, so its not just the pot heads that think its no worse than tobacco or alcohol.

All that said i rarely drink, I dont smoke cigarettes, or weed. MY VICE IS BISCUITS. And they are thinking of taxing them to hell in the UK 'for health reasons'. Yeah right, health reasons - not because you screwed the economy ...

EDIT: BTW smoking is banned in public places in the UK, well at least any public place with three or more walls. So you cant smoke at a bus shelter or anything more buildingey than that. Its nice to go to bars and not come home stinking of ciggies.

 

[quhouv vhqwiufv qwiu]

As long as they do not expose me to their poison fumes (i.e. in public) they should be free to destroy their lungs as they please.

 

[MikeFrost]

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

Smoking harms you and others around you.

Drinking only harms you.

Both are done by choice, so any third consequential damage (like driving under the influence and running over a guy) would hold that person accountable. Smoking however, doesn't make you guilty for causing other people to breathe in your smoke involuntarily.

These are two different things we're discussing here. One is harmful to the public in general and the other is harmful to the user only. I'd have no problem with smoking being banned from small confined public spaces and keeping alcohol law as it is.

 

[Harbinger_]

Sure just as long as you're willing to ban anything with caffeine in it because caffeine is actually a drug where cigarettes aren't.

 

[Crumpet Man]

I would say that they shouldn't make smoking illegal, because, again, if people like killing themselves than they can go do that all they want

 

[Jezzascmezza]

No.
As much as I hate the fact people smoke regularly, if it was made illegal it would just cause more problems.
People would be fined and charged all over the place, and smoking would be even less healthy and possibly more deadly, with the likely possibility that make-shift cigarettes sold at night in dinghy back alleys.

 

[DraconianGamer]

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

Smoking harms you and others around you.

Drinking only harms you.

Both are done by choice, so any third consequential damage (like driving under the influence and running over a guy) would hold that person accountable. Smoking however, doesn't make you guilty for causing other people to breathe in your smoke involuntarily.

These are two different things we're discussing here. One is harmful to the public in general and the other is harmful to the user only. I'd have no problem with smoking being banned from small confined public spaces and keeping alcohol law as it is.

Driving harms you and others around you.
Stabbing only harms you.

Both are done by choice, so any third consequential damage (like stabbing a guy) would hold that person accountable. Driving however, doesn't make you guilty for causing other people to breathe in your exhaust smoke involuntarily.

These are two different things we're discussing here. One is harmful to the public in general and the other is harmful to the user only. I'd have no problem with driving being banned from earth and keeping stabbing law as it is.

(By the way, you breath in more carcinogens from exhaust smoke than you do from tobacco smoke, unless you are a smoker of course.)

 

[Blue_vision]

The matter of simple economics is that tobacco is a massive net gain for society. Ignoring the size of the industry in production and selling, and just looking at the people who get higher disease rates from smoking, the tax on cigarettes is sufficiently high that the average smoker's tax contribution just through buying cigarettes funds their entire healthcare (smoking and non-smoking related diseases) + the average cost of a non-smoker's healthcare. Add in factors like the rate of mortality amongst smokers only really being significantly different towards the end of the working life (meaning that smokers tend to work all their lives and then die either just before or just after retirement) and you're seeing an even greater contribution.

That you don't like to see it in a public space seems awfully unaccepting - there are massive groups of people in the world who think that seeing any part of a woman not covered up in a public place make that area a lot less attractive, and I'm sure you'd agree they'd be wrong to push their views on society.

Again, here you're trading human well-being for money. Sure, if you think it's right that we should attempt to grow the economy as much as possible (to what end, I may ask,) while basically ensuring the tragic ends of a relatively large demographic. Though perhaps with this argument you've put up, we may start seeing people advocate for factories dumping their toxic waste into rivers because it lowers costs for them, and creates GDP to clean up the watersheds and treat all the cancer and birth defects that come from neighbouring towns.
But in case you didn't think of that, there's a reason that people don't encourage factories to dump their toxic waste into rivers; the well being of people and the environment around them vastly outweighs the "advantage" of saving a couple bucks on the factory's side. Perhaps if the goal in life is to maximize your country's GDP so you can wave your dick high and proud, then smoke away. But if you want a happy, healthy society on the other hand, smoking in huge amounts (packs a day,) is a bad move.

And as for the latter, no, I don't like to breathe in toxic smoke while I'm out for my stroll. I got asthma from my great grandfather constantly smoking around me as a child which seriously affected the first 12 or so years of my life. And while I may be wrong to say that women are less appealing if they're not covered up (which is a bit of a silly and totally untrue blanket statement you've made on muslims,) I'd say that reducing smoking would be a lot more similar to locking up muggers than forcing women to wear the hijab.