Cigarettes should be illegal.

[Colour Scientist]

Hardly anybody smokes Marlboro because they're too damn expensive. Why pay a quid more for Marlboro Reds when you can get just as good a hit (and IMO flavour) from a deck of Chesterfields?

That said, Bright Leaf are lush.

Here, there the same price as most. When I don't want to pay the extra I can stick to Marlboro Touch. They're 7.80 as opposed to 9.10.

What can I say? Marlboro is my brand.

Or a pack of Cutter's Choice for when I'm really broke.

 

[Nash]

We just have Marlboro Gold over here. Roughly the same values but they're not slimline.

 

[MyNameIsNowNotMyName]

I do not really think they should be banned. Who am I to tell someone how to live their life? It all comes down to the question "Do people have the right to harm themselves? And if so, to what extent?"

The problem comes when it harms others. I think that's a big if right there, does it harm other people? If it doesn't in your situation, I say smoke away... nobody's going to really care, or at least they shouldn't. If it isn't harming anyone else, in my opinion: Okay!


Edit: Still, I think that cigarette smoking is pretty DUMB, due to how your literally harming yourself to just trick your body. Now if only there were such things as Dopamine pills, then people would never smoke again! And they wouldn't harm themselves either, or other people. Let's hope the education system can eventually teach a generation to stop doing things that are just asininely stupid.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

It still isn't the government's job to force them to care or be responsible. Not on a matter like this.

Why shouldn't the government help keep people healthy?

If they want to get a 64 ounce double gulp they should be able to get one.

Unless your trying to tell me that drinking large amount of soda is as harmful to a fetus as smoking cigarettes, the comparison fails.

I'd like to have one but all you're doing is going through Wikipedia and applying whatever logical fallacy you think fits.

So that's a no? You can't go without using a slippery slope fallacy?

'Sides there is no such thing as a slippery slope fallacy with the US government. There's just a slippery slope. They cannot be trusted with anything. They have proven time and again they fuck EVERYTHING up, and if it's in the best interests for the public they'll do the exact opposite. It happens on every level, local, citywide, state, federal, all of it. Corrupt to the core. Can't be trusted.

Prove it. Prove that every single task the US government has ever been handed has fail at.

And all you're doing is posting random big terms to make yourself sound smart instead of actually trying to show why the government needs to micromanage people's lives. So far you've simply said "Because they need to", then resorted to logical fallacies in an attempt to sound smart.

I hope the term ad homienem isn't too big of a word for you, because your doing that exactly right now.

Simple matter is I've won, you've run out of ammo, you can't counter my ammo, and you've got no reasoning behind banning double gulps besides "Because they should".

"Because they should" isn't my reason why pregnant women shouldn't be allowed to purchase cigarettes, these [http://www.babycenter.com/0_how-smoking-during-pregnancy-affects-you-and-your-baby_1405720.bc] are my reason why they shouldn't buy cigarettes.

There's no actual benefit, people who bought the double gulp will just buy two big gulps instead, which entirely defeats the purpose of the law, something you've also failed to address.

Again, unless your saying that drinking large amounts of soda is as bad for a fetus as the pregnant women smoking cigarettes are, your comment doesn't hold up

So like I said I'm not gonna try to debate it with you.

Your actions say otherwise.

 

[MyNameIsNowNotMyName]

And in what way does a cigarette help anybody. If you know a way please tell me.

In what way does whining about cigarettes on a gaming website help you?
Oh right, it doesn't.
Checkmate.

Pfft... Like your being any better

 

[Agow95]

I think they should be banned, even though with most drugs I feel it's a case of let them do whatever they want and harm themselves, but smoking doesn't just harm the smoker it harms the people around them.

 

[Colour Scientist]

We just have Marlboro Gold over here. Roughly the same values but they're not slimline.

I prefer Gold to Red myself.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

The thing is I think alcohol and cigarettes should be banned, because they affect other people than the one using it. Secondhand smoke has caused health problems, and drunk driving has killed countless people. YOu can say what does it matter what a person chooses to do to themselves, but this is affecting other people as well. So I would agree with banning them. It'll never happen though, there are too many people hooked on it. Although I really don't understand how weed is illegal when cigs and beer aren't. It's less harmful than either of them.

Aand Weed does not come with any chemicals?
No pesticides on the leaves?
Nothing?

And weed really isn't all that harmless.
It might not give you cancer, but more often than not you can get yourself a bad psychosis.

 

[The Last Nomad]

I agree that weed is less harmful than cigarettess. But how am I supposed to roll a joint without tobacco? Then its basically a blunt and I ain't got the money to only smoke blunts.

You crazy fool.

 

[The Last Nomad]

And weed really isn't all that harmless.
It might not give you cancer, but more often than not you can get yourself a bad psychosis.

"More often than not"?

I'm sorry to be the one to point this out but that's not true. "Far less often than not" would have been a better choice of words.

 

[Nash]

We just have Marlboro Gold over here. Roughly the same values but they're not slimline.

I prefer Gold to Red myself.

Used to, but then I realised I'd spend less money if I smoked cigarettes with a higher nicotine content. After a couple of months on Red I made the jump to Bright Leaf and took an instant liking to them.

 

[Idlemessiah]

1. Weed is less harmful than cigarettes.
2. At least weed help people in a way.
3. That and it's natural unlike the thousands of chemicals in the average cigarette.
4. And in what way does a cigarette help anybody. If you know a way please tell me.
5. But they should just ban them without hesitation.

1. In small doses yes. But how often do you hear of people ODing on cigarettes?

2. The only way I can think of weed helping people is as a painkiller when conventional drugs won't work.

3. You've obviously never had cut or spiked weed.

4. They don't, but neither does any addictive substance.

5. Oh, cause prohibition was such a great idea last time. I can just imagine it... Governments worldwide outright ban smoking. Smog clears, lung cancer patients are suddenly cured, people on the internet stop complaining. The next day, major population centres across the world burn as hundreds of millions of people experience nicotine cravings all at once and collectively go mad.

Now excuse me, I have a jar of "I can't believe how terrible your ideas are!" to eat.

 

[Colour Scientist]

We just have Marlboro Gold over here. Roughly the same values but they're not slimline.

I prefer Gold to Red myself.

Used to, but then I realised I'd spend less money if I smoked cigarettes with a higher nicotine content. After a couple of months on Red I made the jump to Bright Leaf and took an instant liking to them.

I thought that would happen to me but I always seem to smoke the same amount, regardless of brand or nicotine content.

 

[JochemHippie]

No, they shouldn't be illegal. If some people wanna smoke themselves into a early grave, then let them.

 

[JochemHippie]

Snip

Have you ever heard of anyone OD"ing on weed?

'Cause whoever told you that is dead wrong.

 

[Something Amyss]

Weed is less harmful than cigarettes. At least weed help people in a way. That and it's natural unlike the thousands of chemicals in the average cigarette. And in what way does a cigarette help anybody. If you know a way please tell me. But they should just ban them without hesitation.

Don't ask for help, google it. There are positive impacts to cigarettes.

But since this is based around a two wrongs make a right argument, I'm going to have to go iwth:

 

[Valkyira]

Never gonna happen. Think of how much the government makes by selling cigs. They would never delegalise anything profitable. Also why alcohol is never going to be made illegal.

 

[Something Amyss]

As someone allergic to cigarettes, I'm just going to say this:

Keep your tobacco and weed out of my face, and I'm cool with it. But I should not have to cloister myself because you have a vice that spreads.

I'm for personal choice, as long as you don't harm others.

 

[Link55]

As someone allergic to cigarettes, I'm just going to say this:

Keep your tobacco and weed out of my face, and I'm cool with it. But I should not have to cloister myself because you have a vice that spreads.

I'm for personal choice, as long as you don't harm others.

I agree since I've had asthma attacks when someone is soming around me many times before.

 

[ThePenguinKnight]

With everyone else on this one, I prefer my freedom. We should be legalizing all drugs so we can tax the hell out of it, fix the economy, reduce prisoner number, and reduce crime of all sorts by a ridiculously large amount. If I can go out and purchase a semi-automatic and reduce a classroom to a pulp than I should be able to go out and buy some pot for a mellow day at home.