Poll: Should smoking be made illegal?

[Pvtghostgummy]

No, probation has never help anything look at Marijuana

 

[tehroc]

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.

 

[Crazy_Dude]

Nope the taxes should stay the same too. Prices for a pack of cigarettes are nearly double what they were 5 years ago.

 

[Vryyk]

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.

The whole second-hand smoke argument is questionable at best, but since smoking is banned in public institutions anyways we can neatly sidestep that whole quandary.

 

[FalloutJack]

I'm with Denis Leary on the issue of smoking. Let 'em go. They'll smoke even if you outlaw them. They'll smoke them even if it kills them. It's their thing, so let it go.

 

[SirDoom]

No. We, as a culture, are currently working toward the legalization of marijuana. Why on earth would we ban a drug that's already legal? That's kind of counterproductive.

I am against any effort to ban smoking/drinking or increase the excise tax on alcohol/tobacco. Everyone should have the right to put what they want into their own body, so long as they don't harm anyone else in the process*. The government has no business telling people what they can or can't smoke, eat, drink, etc...

*I say "don't harm anyone else in the process," but I guess what I really mean is "Don't directly harm anyone else in the process." Some people will argue that if there is any smoke within half a mile, they could die. This is ridiculous. I can see the issue if someone is standing in the middle of the crowd blowing smoke at people, but if the smoker is off to the side or sitting in a well-ventilated smoking area, no asthma sufferer should be able to pull the "he's hurting me" card, especially when it's easy to avoid the area with the smoke. (...and if you want to sit in a designated smoking area, for whatever reason, you shouldn't complain when people start smoking in it)

 

[Vryyk]

Every country should follow suit on what Ireland started.
Ban smoking in all public places.
It was enforced 6 years ago, and now when I go to watch a football match in my local pub with my Dad, I can enjoy the match, without having to inhale that horrible smell

Smoking is banned in all public places here in America (for which I am glad, I really hate that smell too ) but laws in that regard are starting to creep into the private sector now too.

 

[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.

 

[MikeOfThunder]

I said 'No' but i mean't 'Yes just in public places'

 

[C95J]

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.

 

[Crazy_Dude]

No for all public places if you dont like smoking you shouldnt be bothered by the smell.

However outside/inside your own home it should be allowed. There is no good reason to ban it since they are making tons of money of the taxes on it.

 

[lacktheknack]

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.

 

[DanielDeFig]

I think the people should get their stories straight and stick to them. If you legalize alcohol, which is immediately dangerous in high dosages, and cigarettes, which are dangerous long-term regardless of the dosage: then why not do so with all drugs? Selling them in safe, low dosage portions, and overdosing is u to the individual.
On the other hand, if you illegalize drugs like marijuana on the basis of the damage they cause long-term, and the extreme dangers of overdosing, then why not do the same with alcohol and cigarettes?

I know the answer: Alcohol and tobacco are established drugs that have been in use for thousands and hundreds of years (respectively), as well as being BIG moneymakers for several existing companies. The new Drugs are not established and traditional, and don't make a lot of money legally.
I also know that Tobacco and alcohol are not nearly as damaging as most of the illegal drugs out there (both long and short term), but i'd like to think that legalizing such drugs would ensure that they are not released in dangerous dosages.
The alternative is to illegalize tobacco and alcohol. Either way, i would prefer if one argument can be decided upon, and sticking to it, not the half-assed double standards that exist today.

 

[jameskillalot]

drinking and smoking are both terrible for the health of the user BUT EFFECT OTHER PEOPLE BOTH DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY. I don't care if they want to use for themselves but there are other drugs that are currently illegal that are less harmful than either of those. Drunk driving is still the leading cause of death for teenagers I believe and 50% of all crime is related to intoxication, something like that. So yeah they should be illegal - I've known plenty of people who don't smoke who have died of lung cancer, and many of their doctors said that second hand smoking was a factor.

 

[Captain Bobbossa]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[GeorgW]

Yes. But I'm an extremist without any GOOD reasons for it and I know it. I just hate smokers. Sorry...

 

[BlueberryMUNCH]

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.

 

[Kair]

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

 

[A-Heart-Of-Gold]

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:].

I agree with your every word!

I don't care who smokes or why they are doing it as long as it is as far away from me as possible!

And if they higher the tax on fags I think that they should lower the tax on things that help you stop as well so it is easier for people to quit all together!