Yes, it SHOULD be illegal. No, it never will be. Such is the stupid tragedy of human existence.
Poll: Should smoking be made illegal?
- Thread starter lettucethesallad
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ban cigarettes.
Seriously, there's far better ways to get a nicotine fix that are better for both you and me, and will taste better as well. Its really a win win win. Just go get yourself an e-cigarette [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_cigarette] or a hookah. They're not as bad for you and the smoke isn't as ronchy (or non-existent for e-cigs). Failing that, at least get some decent rolling/cigar/pipe tobacco and smoke that. Sure its still straight tobacco, but it won't smell quite as bad...
Seriously, there's far better ways to get a nicotine fix that are better for both you and me, and will taste better as well. Its really a win win win. Just go get yourself an e-cigarette [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_cigarette] or a hookah. They're not as bad for you and the smoke isn't as ronchy (or non-existent for e-cigs). Failing that, at least get some decent rolling/cigar/pipe tobacco and smoke that. Sure its still straight tobacco, but it won't smell quite as bad...
Haha all the kids commenting about drinking being the same as smoking in this thread, you can tell they have never tried it themselves. Excessive drinking over a long term will do you in, but not say a couple of beers a two nights a week.
I for one would have smoking banned, but we need a way to calm down population growth so if people are going to kill themselves in a horrible and painful way then I suppose it's ok.
I for one would have smoking banned, but we need a way to calm down population growth so if people are going to kill themselves in a horrible and painful way then I suppose it's ok.
Making it illegal or taxing it too much will just bread a black market. We have pretty active cigarette black and gray markets here in Canada as it is from the taxes.
I put yes in public places, but in a lot of places it already is. It's mostly just a personal distaste for cigarettes, but I hate having to breathe the air around smokers. It makes me want to throw up. I have a friend who actually has allergic reactions to it as well.
2009 cost to the UKs National Health Service - £5bntris4992 said:
2009 tax revenue from tobacco - £10bn
You might want to try a different argument......your current one is broken!
I see what you did there...feather240 said:You deserve a cookie for that.Monkfish Acc. said:
If people want to smoke let them, just not in public were it can affect others. Business owners however, should have the choice to allow smoking on their property.
Yes, because those are all basic effects one experiences while drinking. I have to bail my friends out of jail for DUI or beating their wives. Those aren't specific to alcohol abuse or anything like that.cerebus23 said:
As well as every other narcotic? Cigarettes aren't narcotics in any way, shape, or form. Perhaps you should find the definition before throwing inane buzzwords around.Agayek said:
To show the hypocracy of smoking, and to a lesser extent, other drug, prohibitions one only has to look at attitudes to non-drug risk-taking. Here in Australia, due to the Ozone/CFC crisis of the 90s, we have an ultra-thin Ozone layer and the hole in the layer just reaches our southern cities. The cancer that kills most people here is skin cancer - not lung cancer. Yet nobody suggests that we should ban going to the beach, or mandate long-sleeved clothing (in the Australian sun - again, because of the lower Ozone content in the atmosphere - sunscreen isn't enough to prevent skin cancer from prolonged sun exposure). They accept that we have education on skin cancer built into our communities and schools from an early age, and that people have to decide for themselves how much they'll remain indoors and how much they'll risk sun exposure. The notion that we should avoid all unnecessary sun exposure to maxisimise our lives is viewed as ridiculous - even with our biggest-killing cancer being skin cancer.
The same can be said for views on rock climbing, cliff diving, para-gliding and caving. All of these involve a very substantial tradeoff of security for satisfaction, and people accept that whilst they might not wish to take such risks, others should be able to so long as they understand what's involved.
That's the key. In a society with adequate education on smoking, and restrictions on cigarette advertising, people should be free to decide for themselves where to make that tradeoff between satisfaction and security.
Of course, there could well be good non-paternalistic reasons for limiting smoking. If second-hand smoke is sufficiently dangerous, then it could plausibly be banned as a hazard to others - from what we know so far, that is probably true in enclosed spaces for prolonged exposure, so smoking in eating areas, public buildings, workplaces etc should be prohibited.
Where a country has a first world (sorry US) health system, where the state covers the cost of treatment, it is also perfectly reasonable to tax cigarettes at a rate sufficient to recoup the increased costs of lost productivity (the health costs themselves are the same, as the person is going to need extended support eventually - we still die, regardless of whether we smoke or not). That, again, is routine in countries like Australia and the UK.
The same can be said for views on rock climbing, cliff diving, para-gliding and caving. All of these involve a very substantial tradeoff of security for satisfaction, and people accept that whilst they might not wish to take such risks, others should be able to so long as they understand what's involved.
That's the key. In a society with adequate education on smoking, and restrictions on cigarette advertising, people should be free to decide for themselves where to make that tradeoff between satisfaction and security.
Of course, there could well be good non-paternalistic reasons for limiting smoking. If second-hand smoke is sufficiently dangerous, then it could plausibly be banned as a hazard to others - from what we know so far, that is probably true in enclosed spaces for prolonged exposure, so smoking in eating areas, public buildings, workplaces etc should be prohibited.
Where a country has a first world (sorry US) health system, where the state covers the cost of treatment, it is also perfectly reasonable to tax cigarettes at a rate sufficient to recoup the increased costs of lost productivity (the health costs themselves are the same, as the person is going to need extended support eventually - we still die, regardless of whether we smoke or not). That, again, is routine in countries like Australia and the UK.
Snake Plissken said:
If alcohol qualifies as a narcotic, nicotine does too.Dictionary.com said:
Either way, that's completely irrelevant. The point is, drugs of all sorts should be completely legal. If people want to damage themselves with them, no one else has the right to say they can't.
I agree with you lettucethesallad it should be the people's choice. I'm not saying smoking is good or anything like that. But that the government shouldn't tell you what you can and can't do. Perhaps a heavier tax would help discourage smoking tobacco.lettucethesallad said:
Actually cigarettes and tobacco use kills an average of 435,000 people in America annually, while marijuana (cannabis) kills 0 Americans and it doesn't cause cancer. Cigarettes also contain a lot of chemical additives that make them more deadly than smoking just pure tobacco, marijuana does not having any additives. Huh, I just stood up for something I never used in my life... I feel odd.AwesomePeanutz said:
No. Because alcohol can be considered a narcotic does not mean that cigarettes can. Narcotics cause stupor, as well as sleep. In general, narcotics are "downers". Nicotine is a stimulant, much akin to caffeine. This would be the exact opposite of a narcotic. Not all drugs are narcotics.Agayek said: