Cigarettes should be illegal.

Stuntcrab

New member
Apr 2, 2010
557
0
0
TheNamlessGuy said:
I find it curious that you attack cigarettes, and not alcohol, when clearly the latter is the greater evil.
Because a ban on alcohol worked so well for the United States
Other than the slight problem of prohibition you're right alcohol is worse, but I would assume the same thing would happen with cigarettes if it was banned, no matter the location.
 

kouriichi

New member
Sep 5, 2010
2,415
0
0
I can agree with this to an extent. Smoking in your own home? 100% fine with me. Backyard? Completely understandable.

Anyplace where other humans are common? No. Not fine. Smoking in public ANYWHERE should be outlawed, unless specifically stated otherwise.

I understand there are people who are "hooked" or, "Need" to smoke, but its all about willpower. You dont "have" to smoke. You never "need" a cigarette. No one is demanding you go buy them, and then smoke them. Cigs only hold as much power over you as you give them.

Do i think they should be "illegal"? Only in public. (any public whatsoever, unless stated otherwise, such as bars, clubs or lodgings, where the general public arnt going to be exposed to it.)

And yes, i agree that Weed is far less destructive then Cigarettes. I dont smoke it. I never have. I never will. The thought of smoking ANYTHING really just puts me off (Inhale smoke? Chewing glass sounds more enjoyable). But it has actual medical uses that can be quantified. There are people out there in mind crippling amounts of pain who need something to help get them through their daily lives. Even the long term negative effects are hard to quantify, unless the person is a hardcore smoker. Its not a cure all. It wont save lives, or cure cancer. But i understand people with cancer could use something like cannabis to help get through their lives. (which could be extremely short due to cancer anyway.)
 

el derpenburgo

New member
Jan 7, 2012
79
0
0
I wonder how many of the people who say smoking is bad have actually tried it themselves. I used to think smoking was worthless just like you, but in the end it affects less the people around you than say, alcoholism. If smoking makes you feel better, more power to you, as long as you don't murder people because of it.
 

Zeriah

New member
Mar 26, 2009
359
0
0
There's no argument that if things like marijuana or ecstasy are illegal, cigarettes should be too. However my opinion swings the complete other way, more things should be made legal. The war on drugs was a huge failure and all it's doing now is wasting money and forcing people to deal with criminals.

Make it legal so we, as a society can benefit from taxes, keep people safe from dangerous criminals and deal a huge blow to organized crime. If people want to ruin their lives with drugs, the law isn't going to stop them, so we might as well make it as safe as possible and make some money at the same time.
 

Vkmies

New member
Oct 8, 2009
941
0
0
Link55 said:
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.
Cigaretters should not be illegal, Marihuana should be legal. That's how I see it. Yes, tobacco is more harmful than weed, so I think weed should be legalized. For those who smoke (I do too occasionally) good for ye. Everyone should get to smoke whatever they want.
 

ReadyAmyFire

New member
May 4, 2012
289
0
0
What do people think about the points raised in this?
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping/

I have to profess ignorance on the subject, but I do feel that people arguing for weed to be made legal never just say they want it so they can get high without dealing with undesirables.
 

ElPatron

New member
Jul 18, 2011
2,130
0
0
Aprilgold said:
Your not wasting your time because your post was stupid.
How so? I made a valid point about how things being illegal do not stop them from happening. Remember the prohibition of alcohol? Didn't work.

Prohibition of cigarettes would just drive people into planting their own tobacco and rolling their own cigs, and give a lot more power and money to the gangs dealing with tobacco.
 

Duol

New member
Aug 18, 2008
84
0
0
No, I see smoking as one of life's small pleasures. Stop telling me what to do.

Ban in public places? Why? Let's also ban peanuts from public, after all, they can cause a deadly reaction in some people. Who are all these selfless ingrates eating Snickers on the street???

Oh no, you need to walk around me because I'm smoking and you don't like the smell? Tough shit. I have to walk around dog crap on the street, I don't call for a ban on dogs. I have to walk a wider berth around fat people, let's ban them! I have bad pollen allergies... Ban ALL the florists!

Get a grip.
 

monkey_man

New member
Jul 5, 2009
1,164
0
0
well why not make it twice as expensive? Add a Stupidtax to it, same goes for alcohol and other seriously harmful stuff you can buy (perhaps even Mcdonalds food and stuff) That way you can still buy it, but it'll become a luxury, so people will think twice about giving someone a smoke, and McDonalds food will be eaten less, so people will be less fat. (Mcdonalds can be replaced with any mayor fastfood chain). OR set a limit and after that you'll pay more?

Like the one child policy in China, if you have more than one child (within the exceptions and such) you receive a penalty, and have to pay more. So if you buy more than a pack of smokes a week, or 10 beers a week, you have to pay a 20$ fine or something. I'm sure politicians can work this out better than I can, but still, I think it's a potentially good plan. People will be forced to think about their habits, and doing so really helps all of mankind.
People don't think enough anymore
 

Calibanbutcher

New member
Nov 29, 2009
1,691
0
0
2clueless said:
Calibanbutcher said:
DrLoveNKiss said:
2clueless said:
I am going to take this an entire step further.

Not only should cigarettes be banned, people who smoke should be euthanized.

For the moment, ignore other drugs. I am also ignoring the impact on economy (taxes vs future extended care). Focus on the single aspect of smoking.

When a person smokes, he or she is knowingly pumping harmful chemicals into their body. They are putting themselves through incredible physical trauma to sustain what is or very soon will be their habit. All this simply on inhalation. On the exhale, you are now sharing all those particles and chemicals with the people around you, poisoning and inflicting upon them the same trauma you are doing to yourself.

To my eyes, smoking is akin to slow suicide, and attempted murder to those around you. With every cigarette, you are doing yourself and the people around you even more harm.

If you do not respect yourself enough and your friends, family, general public, to prevent and protect from widespread debilitation and harm, you should be put down.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Now, we know that there are a lot of smokers.
There are even more who do not smoke.
Of this majority, a few are truly ANTI-smoking.
Wouldn't it make more sense just to kill them?
There are fewer of them than smokers, so less people would have to be put down.
I am looking for discussion. I am not looking for quotes and reversals that do not relate to the spirit of the argument.

Is this an extreme view? Definitely. Am I willing to back off or concede a point or two? Certainly. I am sure their are plenty of smokers who are courteous and diligent enough to indulge their suicidal tendencies without annoying and endangering the rest of us, and so may be left alone. My real issues lie with the idiots and asshats who still smoke in the house with young children, who smoke next to malls, schools, hospitals, and all other busy public institutions. Fine them, restrict them, jail them, euthanize them, whatever it takes to stop the local pollution and danger to other people.

Are both of you smokers? Would you disagree that second hand smoke is poisonous? Do you enjoy harming others with your habit?

If you are both non-smokers speaking up for those who practice the habit, do you not get angry with every errant breath of carcinogen-laden cigarette smoke? I believe you should. I believe you should be seeking ways to be rid of such reckless public enadngerment, one way or another.
You are looking for a discussion, huh?
Well, you stated clearly that you want everyone who smokes to die.
And there really isn't much to discuss here.
No-one should have the right to kill another human being, especially not for sth. as trivial as smoking.
And whilst second-hand smoke is harmfull, this does not mean that smokers should be put down.
I agree with the notion that smoking indoors in public buildings, restaurants, malls etc. should be banned, but smoking should not be banned, since everyone is free to do with their body as they please.

And smoking = suicide?
Seriously?

You know what's also carcinogenic?

1. Being obese.
2. Eating lots of red meat.
3. Not eating enough vegetables.
4. Eating too much salt.
5. Alcohol.

Are all of these forms of suicide as well?

And smoking = murder?
You know what also causes cancer?
The antibaby-pill.
It's been linked conclusively to an increase in prostate cancer in the male population.
Should every woman on the pill be jailed for attempted muder?
 

The Last Nomad

Lost in Ethiopia
Oct 28, 2009
1,426
0
0
Calibanbutcher said:
The Last Nomad said:
Calibanbutcher said:
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.
Soo, the people I met whilst working in a psychiatric institution who where there due to weed destroying their brain had no psychosis (well, psychotic episode WOULD have been the correct term, I admit).

Interesting.

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/157/1/25.short

http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1935-04602-001

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673687926201

Enjoy.
Didn't say it couldn't lead to psychosis, but I've met a lot more people who smoke weed and don't go crazy than do. Its only a small percentage of weed smokers who go on to getting psychosis. And most if not all of them have other problems as well.

Think you may have misread/misunderstood what I said.
 

Nyaliva

euclideanInsomniac
Sep 9, 2010
317
0
0
solemnwar said:
Nyaliva said:
However, I hate the argument that everyone has a choice as to whether to kill themselves slowly because many start out in their teens and they don't know any better or find it too difficult to quit. You may tell them to suck it up but you won't know how hard it really is until you try it yourself.
Don't know any better? Starting in bloody elementary school you're being bombarded by how bad smoking is for you. Teenagers are not stupid little kids who don't realise that their actions have consequences. They're not brilliant, hindsight makes me roll my eyes at myself hard enough to dislodge something, but give them SOME credit man! They had a choice, they made it.

And FWIW I think most people understand how hard it is to quit. Part of the whole being bombarded by how bad smoking is for you thing- they mention health risks and how hard it is to quit.
Sorry, I should've been more specific with my wording. I meant they start smoking young, they keep smoking and it just becomes a part of their life. This is also what I meant when saying people don't always understand how hard it is to quit, after doing it for so long they either see no reason to or can't imagine life without it. They may hear the ads saying how bad smoking is but because they've been smoking for so long and they haven't yet experienced any of the negative effects, it's all just white noise. Heck, I usually tune out when an anti-smoking ad comes on and I like them, I think they're the best way available to get the point across.

And about being told from a young age how bad smoking is for you, it'd be a similar thing. Those that start out young are most often the types to either tune out/talk amongst themselves during those presentations at school or they would hear it and simply want to defy authority, thus start smoking. I know it's still very much a choice thing but I ultimately meant that younger people are often either less influenced by authority or influenced to specifically disobey authority, at the very least the ones who would consider taking up smoking at age 14.
 

Conza

New member
Nov 7, 2010
951
0
0
Link55 said:
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.
Its nice in theory, so is banning alcohol, but they tried that in the US didn't they? And it didn't work? (Isn't that how NASCAR was formed? Talk about side effects). Once something is made legal, criminalising it, is different to legalising something that was previously always criminal.

I think go the other way, be pro-weed, legalise that, let the government have the tax revenue from that, same with prostitution, ect ect, use whatever you like, if it's happening now, and it doesn't really harm anyone, you may as well let it happen above board and tax it, you'll likely limit it anyway.
 

Jfswift

Hmm.. what's this button do?
Nov 2, 2009
2,396
0
41
I dont feel that cigarettes are good for you, although, being a former smoker id have to say I did find them relaxing at times.
 

Arakasi

New member
Jun 14, 2011
1,252
0
0
I neither drink alcohol nor smoke, however I do feel that cigarettes need to be banned, not alcohol.

This is primarily due to their addictive content, remove that, and I would have no problem (well, less of a problem) with them, but when people get hooked, it is a real societal, health and individual problem.
 

Extragorey

New member
Dec 24, 2010
566
0
0
Phasmal said:
Daystar Clarion said:
I dislike cigarettes as much as anyone, but who am I to tell people how to live their lives?

I do not wish to live in a nanny state, and neither should you.

Also, weed has potential harmful side effects in the same drunkenness has potential harmful side effects.

People do stupid things when drunk, so I can't imagine the number of 'heavy machinery' accidents caused by people who are high all the time.
Yeah, that.
I dont like smoking, people who smoke... stink. To put it bluntly. You don't notice it when you're around smoke but when you're not it hits you like a wall of gross.

But if people wanna do it then that's their choice.
I see this line of reasoning all the time, and I have to say... It's BS. Okay, it's cool in today's society to be all like "Freedom of speech yeah!" etc. etc.
But quite frankly, people do dumb things. They often need direction, so that they don't do dumb things quite as much.
Smoking, excessive drinking of alcohol, taking drugs... These are dumb things that people do.
By banning smoking, the government would send a message that smoking is bad. Which it is. People could still smoke if they really wanted, but they'd be doing it illegally and thus most would be discouraged from smoking.
Obviously I'm glossing over the details; if a government really banned smoking, they'd be well-advised to provide some sort of rehabilitation program for smokers to help them quit, and they might make that "Nicorette Stop Smoking Gum" sold more widely, among other things - but you get the picture.
 

mrdude2010

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,315
0
0
If this was 4chan, I would almost think this was a troll post. Too many unqualified statements. I agree that cigarettes are bad, but it's almost always more efficient to tax/regulate something rather than making it illegal.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
chadachada123 said:
Treblaine said:
chadachada123 said:
2) Lethargy is not a problem if you have pain and are already going to be sitting around the house waiting for the pain to ease (or waiting to DIE, in the case of inoperable cancers). The increase in appetite is DEFINITELY not a problem for people that are dying, as they need all the food they can get. It's also not a problem for people with eating disorders if it helps them eat and keep their food down. Even if it were a problem, that'd be something for users to deal with themselves, like with tobacco users having to deal with the loss of weight generally associated with it.

4) Not quite. The law should always be fair and unbiased. That marijuana is illegal while alcohol is legal is massively hypocritical, and must be fixed if the justice system is to be, well, just. It's not so much a slippery slope as it is a call for fairness, though I'd agree that his wording was a little fallacious. I'd take out video games, but I'd leave in 'dangerous' activities that can actually kill you, like dirt biking, etc, which are demonstrably far worse than marijuana as far as direct risk goes, and should thus be illegal if marijuana is illegal.
Point 2 does not make the case that Cannabis should be freely distributed like coffee, but that is should be a controlled substance, so you have to go to a doctor to get a prescription who gives you a PRESCRIBED amount and it would be in pill form, purified to the active ingredient, not all the chemicals in Cannabis plant burned and inhaled. If a patient is in need of THC it must be administered in pill form where it has the analgesic and calming effect and less the high which many patients may not want and sick patients are likely to need a surgical operation. It is NOT helpful to have been inhaling smoke (any smoke) as it impedes the ability for wounds to heal, also how can you smoke in a hospital confined to bed when you cannot easilly pop outside.

The case for medical cannabis is the same as the case for medical opiates. It adds NOTHING to the case for its recreational use and is in fact a good argument AGAINST its recreational use.

People with severe injuries are given Opiates, that is no justification that heroine syringes should be sold in the local 7/11 to people who are NOT in mind destroying pain.

That is fair.

PS: remember, America TRIED to ban alcohol and the Gangsters took over. When they banned weed at around the same time, not such a bad problem. They ban what they can. Alcohol is incredibly hard to ban as you just have to leave any nutrient juice to ferment anaerobically and you've got some hooche. America bans what it can. Maybe the drug trade could be sabotaged by legalising marijuana (I use that term to describe cannabis with the intention of recreational use) but I don't see how crack cocaine or heroine can safely or fairly sold to even 21 year olds.
Well for one, I wasn't talking about smoking marijuana. OF FREAKING COURSE IT'S NOT HELPFUL TO INHALE SMOKE.

But I fail to see how medical use (when used safely, like by not smoking it) is an argument against recreational use.

PS: When they banned weed, the exact. Same. Problems. Happened. I should know, I live near Detroit, where around 70% of the murders in 2007 were related to illicit drugs, well over half of those related at least in part to marijuana. Similar stuff is happening in Mexico right now because of their war against marijuana and other drugs, with a lot of that crime being related to the import of those drugs into the US.

Marijuana prohibition is causing the same empowerment of criminals, the same crime, and the same death as alcohol prohibition did. Crack and other drugs weren't part of this discussion (from what I can see), and while I certainly think that they should be legalized as well, those aren't nearly as hypocritical for being illegal as marijuana is.

I personally imagine part of the reason that marijuana prohibition isn't seen in such a negative light is that most of the crime, most of the victims, and most of the imprisoned gang members are poor (and black), as opposed to the rich (white) mob members of the 30s. 30s criminals appear to us as smart yet dirty, compared to modern drug dealing thugs seeming brutish and uncivilized.
Marijuana (cannabis as recreational drug) should not be legalised JUST because there is a demand for it that is being fulfilled by criminal gangs, as that would justify anything no matter how horrible and destructive or irresponsible. If there was a demand for slaves, that is no reason to repeal the 13th Amendment.

Marijuana should be legalised as the harm of its legal distribution is so insignificant both by itself and especially relative to harm of an illegal unregulated drug trade that is so great.

Cocaine, Heroin and Meth are just too dangerous to allow to be sold (though clean needles should be made available and possession should be decriminalised) it is irresponsible to allow people to be sold a substance that is so likely to cause irreversible harm. The addiction rate is so high and the spiral so steep: that is, they need more and more of the drug at such a high rate in a very short time they need to overdose to get the high they crave. Even opiates that are administered by medical professionals need to be VERY carefully monitored as even then a cycle of unsustainable addiction is far too easy to fall into.

Ecstasy I also think should not be illegal and should be free to sale to all adults. It is not very addictive nor dangerous. Some people have an intolerance to the drug, but equally some people are allergic to peanuts yet in almost every bar in the world you'll find bowls of the peanuts being handed out for free. That's the science. The UK government was so disappointed that science didn't back up their moral prejudice to people getting high on Ecstasy Tablets as being harmful, that they fired their chief science adviser who told them the scientific evidence.

But a legalisation of the "safe" drugs must come simultaneously with an even harder crackdown on the "dangerous" drugs.

The drug trade suddenly losing half their business while the drugs enforcement now half half the workload, that is the prime opportunity to strike at these drug gangs who kidnap, kill and torture with impunity. Their networks must be smashed. There the war on drugs must be a REAL war. These drug "cartels" are extremely well armed and equipped, with military weapons, military tactics and ample supply, military force must be used against what has crossed the line from criminality to insurrection. Win over the cocaine and poppy farmers to grow cannabis legally and accountably and internment for those who refuse this generous offer.

But you can't legalise anything because it empowers criminals for it to remain illegal. Not when a criminal enterprise is inherently harmful, like people trafficking, which is a serious problem of kidnapping women and even small children to be forced into prostitution.

But to reiterate, simple possession of dangerous drugs should not be illegal though the drugs should be confiscated... if they don't cooperate with police. There aren't many things a heroin addict won't reveal to avoid having their fix taken away. Yeah, if they were smart they'd know if their dealer gets arrested they won't be able to get any more drugs... but the cravings are so bad you can't think that far ahead. Intel from the streets is vital, absolutely vital.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
David Woon said:
hey look i'm about to have a cigarette -puts cigarette in mouth and lights it- -puts up middle finger- DEAL WITH IT
If you want to huff irritants, don't let any of them come my way. I've stood down wind of a camp fire and gotten less smoke in my face as when I had to queue behind some smoker blowing smoke everywhere. He looked at me like I just asked to sleep with his wife when I discretely asked him not to do that as his tobacco smoke was irritating me. He used the "it's not going to kill you" excuse. Well I supposed if he spritzed me with tear-gas that wouldn't kill be either, but either way my eyes are bloodshot and watering.

PS: and do not just throw your used cigarette butt on the ground when you are done. I know it's incendiary, smelly and has tar oozing from the filter but that's your problem, should not be all of our littering problem. Carry around a metal box to extinguish and store it therein till you find a bin, but I've yet to meet a smoker who actually does that.