Poll: Should smoking be made illegal?

[Chrinik]

MY Granpa never smoked and he got cancer...and one of my friends killed his cancer with eccessive drug abuse...or so assumes the doctor.
No, simply because illegalizing everything is the wrong way. My opinion might be biased because I am a smoker, but over here, it is 5? a pack and climbing, this shit get´s unpayable sooner or later.
And if you say "but then just stop smoking!" A: it´s an addiction B: it´s a habbit C: it calms me down and passes the time, and D: THE MORE WE SMOKE THE LESS YOU PAY TAXES!
Serriously, if every ************ in this world would stop smoking, the taxes would explode, many people will lose their jobs and the healthcare? They will just charge you the same or more regardless of all the smoking patients falling away...
Sure, smoking kills and highers the risk of cancer...so does DRIVING CARS! Should we get rid of cars now too?
I hate Anti-Smokers...Nonsmokers okay, it is a choice, but flailing around, screaming in agony and pain when a smoker so much as looks at them is completely stupid.

Also, taxing it more and more has led to the number of smokers in germany falling by 20%...but in Poland, our much cheaper neighbor, they raised by 50%...what might have made that occur XD

BRB, Smoking.

 

[Hiraeth]

Sorry if this has already been shared, but I'm too lazy to go back 17 pages. Taxing might not be the most popular option, but (in Australia at least) it has been effective:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/23/3019779.htm
It's also been banned in pubs and clubs in most states, which I really appreciate. In most places here it's not cold enough that it's a problem for people to go outside for a smoke, and my friend that smoke don't seem to have a problem doing so.

 

[Ethylene Glycol]

id say only in public places (second and third hand smoke are bad for you)

No, they aren't. Secondhand smoke is nothing more than carbon dioxide and water vapor. All those nasty chemicals get absorbed by the smoker--and if there are any left in the secondhand, it's all gone by the time it gets to be "thirdhand".

but since i can only choose one, raise the tax. If the price is too high, people wont feel inclined to buy them hopefully...and if they do at least we make money

BECAUSE THAT WORKS SO WELL ALREADY AMIRITE?
Oh, wait a minute! No, it doesn't.

Here's the thing, kid--cigarettes are a drug. They're addictive. Being addicted to something has been colorfully compared to being caught by a hook through one's genitals. Since you probably need this spelled out for you, they're what's called an inelastic good, like gasoline. That means consumers will tolerate a lot of price gouging before they even consider giving up on that product.

And it's pretty damn rude to punish people [financially or otherwise] for just becoming addicted to something addictive.

My vote goes for no.

First off, I'm a smoker, and I don't appreciate being made a criminal over night. That's bullshit and you all know it.

Secondly, I'm a libertarian. I think that people should be able to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Now to all you second hand smoking bullshit merchants, I'd remind you that the only indoor place I can smoke in (to comply with uk law) is my own home. So, smokers do not harm anyone (if they were to begin with but that's a different argument). Since they don't harm anyone, they are free to do what they like.

Thirdly, we couldn't afford the loss of tax.

Fourthly, if governments are going to interfere in our lives to that degree (ie 'to save us from ourselves') then they would have to ban almost everything. Alcohol has to be next in the firing line, then junk food, then an enforced hour a day of exercise, then why not throw in a Two Minute Hate. By degrees shedding our liberty for the sake of healthier lives.

The tricky thing about freedom of choice is that some people choose 'wrong', or at the very least choose different. We live our lives how we want, you live your lives how you want. Any loss of personal choice is something that diminishes our whole society.

If you don't smoke, why do you care what I do ? You care because you think you can run my life better than I can. Maybe you can. Tough. It's my life. I didn't get conned into smoking, nor do I continue because I am unaware of the risks. I will sign a document to that effect. I can vote, I have a job, a car, a masters degree and a comprehensive insurance plan, and I'm getting married... Basically I can make decisions about my own life.

Why should the law consider me as being a stupid teenager who is totally unable to make my own choices ? Because that's what banning smoking would amount to. Hell I choose the government, how could they ever say I'm not adult enough to choose ?

This, so much.

...it's gotta be hard being libertarian in the UK. One of these days, Parliament's going to figure out that, thanks to all the pollution, air itself is bad for you...and subsequently ban that. :/

 

[Syntax Man]

When you make something illegal invariably you get a black market, prohibition in the 20s and modern prohibition 2.0 with drugs have proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt, if you make cigarettes illegal or tax them too much you're practically giving money to the gangs.

 

[Sunstrike]

Frankly no, making anything illegal makes more people do it to "stick it to the man/parents" and often creates black markets, crime, gang violence and a lot of other bad shit. Let people fuck themselves up if they want (note: they are usually going to no matter the legality of these highly ADDICTING substances), but make sure people know the consequences of using/abusing these sorts of things.

I'm also in favour of legalizing and heavily regulating the currently illegal drugs. Lets stop letting people kill themselves from improper equipment, shared needles and so on, while making sure the real criminals (like the mob) can't make a profit off of these things.

As a last note, I have never once been drunk, high and so on. I have no real stake in the outcome of this debate, but I do believe the benefits of legalization outweigh the arguments against it.

 

[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.

You're assuming that the three other picnic-goers (or people at the bus stop that aren't me and you) all agree one way (pro-music/anti-smoking). Which they probably don't, but even if they did, it isn't a utilitarian principle, it's a deontological one. The music player has a right to enjoy playing his music with his picnic, and I have the right to move away from him if it annoys me. I don't have the right to stop him playing music, even if all four other picnics would rather he did. We can all ask him nicely, and he probably would stop (as indeed I would if asked to stop smoking at a bus shelter) but he would be doing everyone else a favour, not vindicating their right to not be annoyed.

I started smoking when I didn't have any weed at uni, smoked about 5-10 cigs a day for a while and now smoke on average maybe 5 cigarettes a week. In smokers' terms, I'm not a smoker. What I get from it though is a pleasant taste, enjoyable ritual, great way to get talking to random girls in clubs, nicotine steadies the nerves, and the ability to help out someone who needs a light/cigarette whenever they ask for one. There's not really a whole lot of unpleasantness involved. It does mak your breath smell bad, but then being aware of that it's easy to be hypersensitive and overcompensate, and so constantly have better breath than I otherwise would have.

you do bring up a good point. but there is another option rather then turning off the music or smoking in a crowd. for the music the person could be asked to turn it down, just enough so that person can hear but not loud enough to bother everyone else. as for the smoking, the smoker could be asked to turn around so his/her back is to the non-smokers (inside) or stand down-wind (outside). i do aggree that you have just as much of a right to smoke as i do not to smoke, but the conflict arises when one violates the others' rights.

are you saying that you do not need cigarettes and only like the taste? if so good for you. but i would like to ask if you feel you need them.

 

[Ethylene Glycol]

I don't suppose anybody's brought up yet the ideas that (1) the dose makes the poison and (2) increasing the risk of something is not the same as causing it?

Bacon contains a lot of nitrates and nitrites, some of which are known carcinogens. But most people simply do not eat enough bacon for this to become a factor. This is because the basic risk of getting cancer--unless you happen to live near a live atomic bomb--is very, very low. Likewise, even if smoking multiplies your risk of lung cancer sometime in your life twentyfold, if the basic chance is 1 in 200,000, you've still got pretty good odds of not getting it.

Fun fact: One study (I believe it was even British) has found that a reasonably active person who smokes ten or fewer cigarettes per day suffers negligible side effects from smoking, if any at all.

When you make something illegal invariably you get a black market, prohibition in the 20s and modern prohibition 2.0 with drugs have proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt, if you make cigarettes illegal or tax them too much you're practically giving money to the gangs.

Yes! Thank you!

 

[jack583]

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.

Well I never said that anti depresseants and smoking weren't adictive, I know this.

Why did you say that marjuwana has little to no side effects?

It isn't used to treat anything, it's used as a pain killer.

And if "alot of things are addictive" then why the smokers? why not fat people for instance?

little to no side effects FOR ADULTS. it is still dangerous for kids a teens. and the side effect i was talking about was brain damage.

then how is it different from any other pain killer as long as it is used how it is supposed to? people can get addicted to over the counter pain killers just as easiely as they would anything else.

and the difference between being addicted to smoking and being addicted to fatty foods and/or over-eating is that smoking effects you and the people around you, a donut caused heart-attack only affects the person eating the donut, no one else.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

First off, people who smoke are going to get it one way or the other, whether it's illegal or not. Look how successful the law is at keeping things like heroine, cocaine, weed, etc, off the streets and out of reach.
On a personal note (I am a smoker) it's harder to smoke these days than it's ever been. Businesses and public places and so on you cannot smoke, we're shunned to these smoking sections so for the love of god, don't make it any harder for us to smoke.

 

[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.

 

[incoqnito]

No for three reasons.
one. because it shouldnt be up to the government to "save" people from themselves.
two. because it wouldnt stop people smoking at all. if it was made illegal people would just buy it illegally and this would fund all sorts of organised crime (look at what happened with prohibition in america)
three. because smoking is cool. Fact!
XD

 

[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.

It will not be easy to ban it, but the effort needed to be put into change does not make the argument of change any less valid.
A change that will benefit humans for hundreds of years far outweighs the effort put into it over much less time.
It is the optimal we are after, not the compromise.

You can look back at prohibition times, and see how well it went the last time we tried banning a drug.

Drugs need to be faded out from our culture, because if we try to remove it immedeately, we will most likely face an uprising, and then the drugs will return in a matter of years.

 

[Rofl-Mayo]

I believe it should be illegal because my parents are only like 35 but I'm constantly afraid of them getting cancer at such a young age. Smoking is just as bad as any drug, and does the same damage if not more, than some of the weaker illegal drugs.

 

[Pontus Hashis]

I've not read most stuff but i think it needs to be more hated by society, like rape...
Not saying it's as bad as rape, but it's reallt fucking bad. Poison yourself, not me. Also :
"WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!"

 

[Ubilaz]

I don't believe it should be illegal or heavily taxed because making it illegal won't stop people from smoking and the the only purpose of taxes is to raise money and using taxes for any other purpose is a corruption.

 

[direkiller]

Topic done five times that I can remember.

Anti-Smokers say it's harmful and they don't like the smell.
Smokers point out the 90% tax they pay that props up the Health service, it's an addiction and it's their choice.
Anti-Smokers repeat it smells bad and some call for the death penalty.

There ya go. /thread.

Anti smokers point out although we are bringing in 9billion in taxes we are paying more then 90 billion in lost productivity and healthcare cost.

Personally I would prefer it not be aloud in most public areas. You can do it just keep it away from me.

 

[Kair]

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.

It will not be easy to ban it, but the effort needed to be put into change does not make the argument of change any less valid.
A change that will benefit humans for hundreds of years far outweighs the effort put into it over much less time.
It is the optimal we are after, not the compromise.

You can look back at prohibition times, and see how well it went the last time we tried banning a drug.

Drugs need to be faded out from our culture, because if we try to remove it immedeately, we will most likely face an uprising, and then the drugs will return in a matter of years.

Of course.

 

[hem dazon 90]

Not my hookah that's how I get through the day!

 

[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.