Poll: Should smoking be made illegal?

[Ethylene Glycol]

theres no need to be so rude about it. I mean, I know its too much to ask since you are clearly a douchebag using the internet to vent your anger at still living in your parents basement, but please use a tone of civility

D'aww, you think you're actually making a counterpoint! That's so cute!

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke

yes in fact, you still get nicotene in second hand smoke. it takes only a few minutes to realize this.

They're using the term "secondhand" to mean "sidestream". If you actually bothered to think about this scientifically, you'd understand--how can smoke come out of a smoker's lungs with more dangerous and deadly chemicals than it contained going in?

Btw: Cancer is the biggest pile of steaming bullshit in medicine. Nobody actually knows what "causes" it, which is why the list of "known carcinogens" is longer than the unabridged edition of War and Peace. There are far too many variables to definitively say anything "causes" cancer.

i feel no sympathy for addicts of ciggarettes.

Interesting. I feel no sympathy for people who feel they're too important to think,

its not like heroin, there are not pushers for the drug. its negagtive effects are well known.

Yes, and we choose to do it anyway. Why? Because it's our right to do what we want with our bodies. You can tell me not to smoke until you're blue in the face, but you don't have the right to force me not to. It's the same principle by which I can tell you to go fuck yourself with a frozen durian, but I'm not allowed to shove it up your ass myself.

I say we punish them with high prices. we need the money anyways

You need money? Stop spouting moralistic bullshit on the Internet and go get a job. You know--work for pay, the same way we smokers do to afford cigarettes. Problem solved.

 

[ZydrateDealer]

If we outlaw one drug we should outlaw them all...that's a nanny state and it strips you of your free will, all you should be able to do is educate people about drugs but then if drugs were affordable I'm sure there'd be less crack whores and drug barrons if you could get some from the chemist or the off-license.

 

[eljawa]

theres no need to be so rude about it. I mean, I know its too much to ask since you are clearly a douchebag using the internet to vent your anger at still living in your parents basement, but please use a tone of civility

D'aww, you think you're actually making a counterpoint! That's so cute!

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke

yes in fact, you still get nicotene in second hand smoke. it takes only a few minutes to realize this.

They're using the term "secondhand" to mean "sidestream". If you actually bothered to think about this scientifically, you'd understand--how can smoke come out of a smoker's lungs with more dangerous and deadly chemicals than it contained going in?

Btw: Cancer is the biggest pile of steaming bullshit in medicine. Nobody actually knows what "causes" it, which is why the list of "known carcinogens" is longer than the unabridged edition of War and Peace. There are far too many variables to definitively say anything "causes" cancer.

i feel no sympathy for addicts of ciggarettes.

Interesting. I feel no sympathy for people who feel they're too important to think,

its not like heroin, there are not pushers for the drug. its negagtive effects are well known.

Yes, and we choose to do it anyway. Why? Because it's our right to do what we want with our bodies. You can tell me not to smoke until you're blue in the face, but you don't have the right to force me not to. It's the same principle by which I can tell you to go fuck yourself with a frozen durian, but I'm not allowed to shove it up your ass myself.

I say we punish them with high prices. we need the money anyways

You need money? Stop spouting moralistic bullshit on the Internet and go get a job. You know--work for pay, the same way we smokers do to afford cigarettes. Problem solved.

the problem when you sake "think about it scientifically" or whatnot is that all logic is flawed.

Yes, they are talking about sidestream smoke, which is inhaled by people who happen to walk past smokers on the side walk. Moralistic Bullshit? I mean...ok allow me to rephrase...The government is kinda sorta in debt...This is a fact. We also need money to run programs. SO the government NEEDS to tax people to get money. Might as well tax smokers...As stated and generally agreed upon by people who arent ignorant, smoking is bad for peoples health, including the health of people around smoker.

PS. I have a job. Just throwing it out there.

Find me a legitimate Doctor/medical journal/something legit aside from you being an idiot who says second hand smoke ISNT bad for your health. Youll have trouble doing it...theres a reason for that

 

[adamtm]

Thank You For Smoking
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/

/discussion over

 

[SpaceGhostPoncherello]

I can see the need to ban it from public places, but to get rid of it all together is a bit much IMO. People know the risks and they should decide for themselves whether they mess up their lungs. As long as they do it in their lonesome or near other smokers.
Also getting rid of it all together would result in millions of cranky John Beckers.

 

[masher]

Doesn't matter if it "should" or "shouldn't", fact stands, like drinking, it will never -be- made illegal. Even if it -were-, as in the past, people will -still- find a way. That's just how human society works nowadays.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

In public places sure, I don't want no passive smoking.

 

[Ethylene Glycol]

the problem when you sake "think about it scientifically" or whatnot is that all logic is flawed.

Annnnd this is where I stopped reading. Go fascinate someone else with your hippy-dippy "you-can't-really-know-anything" nonsense, kthxbai.

 

[eljawa]

the problem when you sake "think about it scientifically" or whatnot is that all logic is flawed.

Annnnd this is where I stopped reading. Go fascinate someone else with your hippy-dippy "you-can't-really-know-anything" nonsense, kthxbai.

nope. All logic is flawed. Science is not. You can know things if you can prove it with sc ience and statistics, but simply to say "think about it" is stupid. thats what your doing

 

[WorldCritic]

No, prohibition doesn't work and we know it. I don't smoke, but as long as people who do smoke can do it away from me then I don't care.

 

[TrollOgerElf]

booze first
ill be waiting for the roaming gangs selling tobacco product filled with...
oh wait i mean unchanged product

 

[Ethylene Glycol]

the problem when you sake "think about it scientifically" or whatnot is that all logic is flawed.

Annnnd this is where I stopped reading. Go fascinate someone else with your hippy-dippy "you-can't-really-know-anything" nonsense, kthxbai.

nope. All logic is flawed. Science is not. You can know things if you can prove it with sc ience and statistics, but simply to say "think about it" is stupid. thats what your doing

Do you know what the word "science" refers to?
The end result of a lot of thinking done by a large of people far smarter than you. And not just any kind of thinking, but logical thinking--you know, the kind which you'd evidently rather decorate your dunce-cap with dungarees than do.

Most of the anti-smoking "science" you people cite was churned out by Hitler's propaganda mills, as it happens. Hitler was pretty notorious in his day for being anti-tobacco and anti-alcohol. One of his friends came up with the terms "passive smoking" and "secondhand smoke". Oh, and he also ran a dictatorship that censored scientific reports and falsified information wherever it served their needs. I'm not really a fan of reductio ad Hitlerum, but when the primary source's bias on this subject is so infamous and its credibility is so low, such a thing is rather justified.

Of course, I could link you to the actual reports and give you hard numbers and statistics 'til we're both blue in the face and the balls, but we both know nothing short of a frontal lobotomy will change your mind--so why don't you just jam a couple sharpened pencils up your nose and we'll call it even?

 

[JamesBr]

Don't know if this has been covered yet. Living in Canada, smoking is already heavily taxed. Public smoking bans have also been in place for years now, making it so I can't smoke in bars/restaurants/basically anywhere indoors (not at home of course, I can smoke in doors at home). And you know what? I'm ok with that. I don't mind going outside for my cigarettes. I already pay 10$ for a pack of cigarettes, it can't get much worse. And anyone who thinks I'm polluting their air should stop driving a car, or if you don't drive, should start bitching at anything with a combustion engine. A single car emits more carbon into the air during it's lifespan that I will smoking cigarettes my entire life.

I try to be polite about it, I don't smoke around kids, I don't smoke around people who are clearly bothered by it (as long as their not dicks about it), and I am fully aware of what it does to me. It's already classified as a drug (much like booze), but that shouldn't automatically make it illegal (otherwise pharmaceuticals would be out of luck). And making it illegal "because it's bad for me" is somewhat fascist. If we use that logic, we should make alcohol, anything with excess sugar, caffeine, fat and so on illegal. Just my two cents. Now, where are my cigarettes....?

 

[eljawa]

the problem when you sake "think about it scientifically" or whatnot is that all logic is flawed.

Annnnd this is where I stopped reading. Go fascinate someone else with your hippy-dippy "you-can't-really-know-anything" nonsense, kthxbai.

nope. All logic is flawed. Science is not. You can know things if you can prove it with sc ience and statistics, but simply to say "think about it" is stupid. thats what your doing

Do you know what the word "science" refers to?
The end result of a lot of thinking done by a large of people far smarter than you. And not just any kind of thinking, but logical thinking--you know, the kind which you'd evidently rather decorate your dunce-cap with dungarees than do.

Most of the anti-smoking "science" you people cite was churned out by Hitler's propaganda mills, as it happens. Hitler was pretty notorious in his day for being anti-tobacco and anti-alcohol. One of his friends came up with the terms "passive smoking" and "secondhand smoke". Oh, and he also ran a dictatorship that censored scientific reports and falsified information wherever it served their needs. I'm not really a fan of reductio ad Hitlerum, but when the primary source's bias on this subject is so infamous and its credibility is so low, such a thing is rather justified.

Of course, I could link you to the actual reports and give you hard numbers and statistics 'til we're both blue in the face and the balls

im not sure why you feel the need to bolster your ego with insults...I deleted it from the quote, your just being nasty

and, of course, I provided my link. you still ramble on. Give me sources, or else your a liar

and please refrain from being a jerk

Speaking of Links, heres what the CDC says, with original research
that second hand smoke has 50 known cancer causing chemicals. Im not saying it should be illegal (im all for legalizing...well a lot of things) but i am saying that, if the US needs to raise money, why not through taxing unhealthy things

oh, and true to my word
link
http://www.cdc.gov/datastatistics/archive/second-hand-smoke.html

 

[Tdc2182]

HAH

Go for it. See what happens. Just have fun cleaning up the mess.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

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.

I'm getting married.

Getting married but living apart? Not having any children?

 

[hecticpicnic]

In ireland cig are taxed till they are 8 euro which is 10 dollars and is illeagal in public places, with the exception of smoking area.You should be alowed toput a sign out side you pub or what have you, saying smoking allowed in here.Aslo i think the tax is a little steep,most people buy illegal imported cigs now.

 

[farscythe]

no.
but by all means just go ahead
just dont blame me when you pay another 3% or more in tax to make up for lost revenue (the percentage is pure guesswork but i know tobacco raises a hell of a lot of tax money)

 

[Red Right Hand]

Me being a liberal, I argued that people, knowing the dangers of smoking, should choose for themselves if they want to do it or not.

I hate to break it to you, but that isn't a liberal viewpoint. Liberals are responsible for all of the laws that negatively impact smokers. Your viewpoint is libertarian at best, and conservative at worst.

Also, no. Bans are stupid. Until a group of DOCTORS discusses the merits of second hand smoke (rather than the EPA, as the current studies are done by), people need to quit freaking out.

Not all of them are done by the EPA. A European study actually showed that even people who live and work in the most "smoky" areas, actually only consume the equivalent of 0.02 cigarettes a day, which equates to around 6 cigarettes a year.

However, this does not mean that I don't agree with you, we need proper medical studies done before any judgments can be made on the dangers of passive smoking. Only then should laws regarding banning public smoking be considered.

Source

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/passmok2.htm

 

[omega 616]

If so make drinking illegal aswell.

Both cause problems in the bad, both can kill, both are addictive, both are used the same way. I do think booze is worse, much more pain and suffering from drunk drivers and beaten partners etc.

If not make drugs legal aswell as drink and smoking 'cos there is no difference between them, except the government can't tax drugs (which is why I think there illegal).

Just to make it clear, I lead a clean life style. I do love unhealthy food though.