Cigarettes should be illegal.

Dascylus

New member
May 22, 2010
255
0
0
I smoke cigarettes, am well aware of the risks aswell as aware of how it effects others...
Since the european change in the law there are few who are openly flaunting it... In fact whenever a restaurant or bar had a no smoking policy before that there were few that I noticed that smoked in designated non-smoking areas.

Often though I would be standing in a public place and an anti-smoker would walk in my vicinity and cough while staring at me, when I offer a "Can I help you?" they then follow up with "You are aware how dangerous those are don't you?
But that was many years ago...

Now the same people give me the same behaviour when I use my phone too close to my children... So I'll do you a deal, I'll give up smoking if you are also willing to spearhead a campaign to ban radiotowers, cell phones, wi-fi and all the other things that get accused of harming others.

No actually I take it back because this is ridiculous. Are you suggesting we should revert to 19th century approaches of solving questions of social opinion? And if you believe we are discussing fact then you have missed how inconclusive much of the data is for passive smoking in adults.
 

EtherealBeaver

New member
Apr 26, 2011
199
0
0
TheNamlessGuy said:
I find it curious that you attack cigarettes, and not alcohol, when clearly the latter is the greater evil.

EDIT: I don't disagree though... Just realized that that didn't really come through in the post.

Not trying to be offensive, honest!
Not really. Cigarettes affect you as well as everyone around you while alcohol only affects you.

Ever seen a person with a kid smoking with the excuse that (s)he has had no ill effects so its okay to smoke? What that person is doing is making sure that the child will live a long life where all the nastiness from the smoke really gets to take effect. Smoking doesnt really hit you had until 10+ years later and while its usually not too much of a problem for an adult, children are in the unfortunate situation that they are still developing. All the hormonal interference from cigarettes can do serious damage to children, stunt their growth, harm their lungs, give them asthma and allergies and a host of other very unpleasant effects.

Sure, alcohol can also have harmful effects in case of domestic abuse etc but that is forbidden by law so I see no reason why harming your child through smoke shouldn't be.

And that is just one of the reasons why I am extremely opposed to the idea that cigarettes are legal. Other reasons include stuff like smokers effectively forcing anyone with allergies/asthma away from where they smoke (which is very often in public places where you cant really just not go if you want to enter the hospital, school, bus, train, supermarket or just take a walk in the park), they are effectively poisoning anyone near them even if the people close to them do not have asthma, smokers are forcing their habit on others - even if I say I don't want to be exposed to smoke I will still be exposed to it the second I enter a crowd of people, smoke lingers in the air because the molecules are often too small to be effectively blown away fast so whenever a smoker goes down the road there is a 15 meter (45 foot for you imperialists) trail where the smoke will still affect anyone going there, and so on.

I appreciate the argument that a man can decide what he does to his own body but if that means that a small group of people can take away my right to decide what I do to my body then it becomes a non-argument.


Edit:

Archangel357 said:
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.
Right. Let's just ban everything that isn't helpful and that can hurt people. Because, you know, who gives a crap about freedom of choice? Let's all get treated like immature children by people who know better. Let's all eat only organically grown vegetables, let's all drive eco-box cars, let's all live in government housing, let's ban loud music, alcohol, motorcycles, casual sex, anything that doesn't directly benefit the nanny state shall henceforth be VERBOTEN!!!


You know who implemented the first smoking bans in history? The nazis.

You know what should be banned? The right of daft people to voice their opinions.
The nazis also breathed air, used the loo, ate food, promoted art, reduced unemployment and sent Germany into the greatest economic boom the country has ever had so unless you think that was bad as well, your point about bans being bad because the nazis did it is invalid

And now that we are on the topic about rights, what about my right to go to the hospital without having to walk through a wall of smoke? Or the grocery, or the bus, or the train, or the park, or the street for that matter? I have asthma and whenever someone lights up a cigarette I have to walk away as fast as possible if I want to be able to breathe normally the next hour - that makes even something as basic as using communal transport pretty damn hard and all in the spirit of your right to force smoke upon others, thus removing their rights to opt out of smoking.

I honestly find it saddening that you write so much about freedom of choice when what you are actually advocating is the right to force air-born chemicals upon others without their consent.
 

DaWaffledude

New member
Apr 23, 2011
628
0
0
I don't wish it was illegal. That would have economic repurcussions, and it would deny people of their rights to freedom and whatnot. I do, however, wish they had never existed in the first place.
 

n00beffect

New member
May 8, 2009
523
0
0
By that logic, they should also ban Alcohol. Oh, and you know what else? Chocolate. Yeah, that's right. Chocolate is harmful for your teeth, and aside from some redundant sugar intake, doesn't help you in any way; also, it's a common cause for/threat to diabetes. Ooh! Ooh! I've got another one! McDonalds/KFC/Every single fastfood/pizza place ever! Harmful s@$#, makes you fat - baaan. But how about non-substance things that aren't helpful in any way? I know a few, like games for instance. Should all games be banned because they don't help you? I mean, judging by your example, the equivalent of weed>cigarettes should be books>games, right? Books are a lot more helpful and s*&(, so games ought to be banned because they don't serve a purpose. Oh, and also, cats. Kitties are just lazy things, who do nothing but sleep and eat all day; dogs, on the other hand, bring you your paper/slippers and can fetch a stick. Hm, yes indeed, ban cats.

Okay I'm gonna stop now. Next time when you try to make a bold, 'controversial' statement or something, try to at least defend it with some logic, kid. (and I mean REAL logic). It's true that cigarettes are harmful to you, and the environment, and to all those bloody pandas everyone loves so much, but that's true of almost anything in the world. Banning something just makes it more desireable. It's bad enough that in some countries you can't even smoke on the street anymore because of fussy plebs that just want to ban everything that doesn't suit their tastes.
 

n00beffect

New member
May 8, 2009
523
0
0
EtherealBeaver said:
TheNamlessGuy said:
I find it curious that you attack cigarettes, and not alcohol, when clearly the latter is the greater evil.

EDIT: I don't disagree though... Just realized that that didn't really come through in the post.

Not trying to be offensive, honest!
Not really. Cigarettes affect you as well as everyone around you while alcohol only affects you.

Ever seen a person with a kid smoking with the excuse that (s)he has had no ill effects so its okay to smoke? What that person is doing is making sure that the child will live a long life where all the nastiness from the smoke really gets to take effect. Smoking doesnt really hit you had until 10+ years later and while its usually not too much of a problem for an adult, children are in the unfortunate situation that they are still developing. All the hormonal interference from cigarettes can do serious damage to children, stunt their growth, harm their lungs, give them asthma and allergies and a host of other very unpleasant effects.

Sure, alcohol can also have harmful effects in case of domestic abuse etc but that is forbidden by law so I see no reason why harming your child through smoke shouldn't be.

And that is just one of the reasons why I am extremely opposed to the idea that cigarettes are legal. Other reasons include stuff like smokers effectively forcing anyone with allergies/asthma away from where they smoke (which is very often in public places where you cant really just not go if you want to enter the hospital, school, bus, train, supermarket or just take a walk in the park), they are effectively poisoning anyone near them even if the people close to them do not have asthma, smokers are forcing their habit on others - even if I say I don't want to be exposed to smoke I will still be exposed to it the second I enter a crowd of people, smoke lingers in the air because the molecules are often too small to be effectively blown away fast so whenever a smoker goes down the road there is a 15 meter (45 foot for you imperialists) trail where the smoke will still affect anyone going there, and so on.

I appreciate the argument that a man can decide what he does to his own body but if that means that a small group of people can take away my right to decide what I do to my body then it becomes a non-argument.


Edit:

Archangel357 said:
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.
Right. Let's just ban everything that isn't helpful and that can hurt people. Because, you know, who gives a crap about freedom of choice? Let's all get treated like immature children by people who know better. Let's all eat only organically grown vegetables, let's all drive eco-box cars, let's all live in government housing, let's ban loud music, alcohol, motorcycles, casual sex, anything that doesn't directly benefit the nanny state shall henceforth be VERBOTEN!!!


You know who implemented the first smoking bans in history? The nazis.

You know what should be banned? The right of daft people to voice their opinions.
The nazis also breathed air, used the loo, ate food, promoted art, reduced unemployment and sent Germany into the greatest economic boom the country has ever had so unless you think that was bad as well, your point about bans being bad because the nazis did it is invalid

And now that we are on the topic about rights, what about my right to go to the hospital without having to walk through a wall of smoke? Or the grocery, or the bus, or the train, or the park, or the street for that matter? I have asthma and whenever someone lights up a cigarette I have to walk away as fast as possible if I want to be able to breathe normally the next hour - that makes even something as basic as using communal transport pretty damn hard and all in the spirit of your right to force smoke upon others, thus removing their rights to opt out of smoking.

I honestly find it saddening that you write so much about freedom of choice when what you are actually advocating is the right to force air-born chemicals upon others without their consent.

Uh, excuse me good sir, but unless you live in f-ing PAKISTAN or some other third world country, smoking is banned on almost all public places and sites. And I'm sorry you suffer from such a condition, and it's tragic that you have to endure all those nightmarish situations you listed above. It's rather odd, really. I know a lot of people with asthma, both friends and relatives, and smoking around them has never caused any sort of unprecedented attack or anything. Hell, my grandma has asthma yet every single member of my family smokes, and it's never been an issue. Sure, we take a couple of steps away from the old darling whenever we wish to indulge in our twisted pleasures, but that's about the only precaution we use. Your case must be very dire, if you are that sensitive.
 

EtherealBeaver

New member
Apr 26, 2011
199
0
0
n00beffect said:
EtherealBeaver said:
TheNamlessGuy said:
I find it curious that you attack cigarettes, and not alcohol, when clearly the latter is the greater evil.

EDIT: I don't disagree though... Just realized that that didn't really come through in the post.

Not trying to be offensive, honest!
Not really. Cigarettes affect you as well as everyone around you while alcohol only affects you.

Ever seen a person with a kid smoking with the excuse that (s)he has had no ill effects so its okay to smoke? What that person is doing is making sure that the child will live a long life where all the nastiness from the smoke really gets to take effect. Smoking doesnt really hit you had until 10+ years later and while its usually not too much of a problem for an adult, children are in the unfortunate situation that they are still developing. All the hormonal interference from cigarettes can do serious damage to children, stunt their growth, harm their lungs, give them asthma and allergies and a host of other very unpleasant effects.

Sure, alcohol can also have harmful effects in case of domestic abuse etc but that is forbidden by law so I see no reason why harming your child through smoke shouldn't be.

And that is just one of the reasons why I am extremely opposed to the idea that cigarettes are legal. Other reasons include stuff like smokers effectively forcing anyone with allergies/asthma away from where they smoke (which is very often in public places where you cant really just not go if you want to enter the hospital, school, bus, train, supermarket or just take a walk in the park), they are effectively poisoning anyone near them even if the people close to them do not have asthma, smokers are forcing their habit on others - even if I say I don't want to be exposed to smoke I will still be exposed to it the second I enter a crowd of people, smoke lingers in the air because the molecules are often too small to be effectively blown away fast so whenever a smoker goes down the road there is a 15 meter (45 foot for you imperialists) trail where the smoke will still affect anyone going there, and so on.

I appreciate the argument that a man can decide what he does to his own body but if that means that a small group of people can take away my right to decide what I do to my body then it becomes a non-argument.


Edit:

Archangel357 said:
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.
Right. Let's just ban everything that isn't helpful and that can hurt people. Because, you know, who gives a crap about freedom of choice? Let's all get treated like immature children by people who know better. Let's all eat only organically grown vegetables, let's all drive eco-box cars, let's all live in government housing, let's ban loud music, alcohol, motorcycles, casual sex, anything that doesn't directly benefit the nanny state shall henceforth be VERBOTEN!!!


You know who implemented the first smoking bans in history? The nazis.

You know what should be banned? The right of daft people to voice their opinions.
The nazis also breathed air, used the loo, ate food, promoted art, reduced unemployment and sent Germany into the greatest economic boom the country has ever had so unless you think that was bad as well, your point about bans being bad because the nazis did it is invalid

And now that we are on the topic about rights, what about my right to go to the hospital without having to walk through a wall of smoke? Or the grocery, or the bus, or the train, or the park, or the street for that matter? I have asthma and whenever someone lights up a cigarette I have to walk away as fast as possible if I want to be able to breathe normally the next hour - that makes even something as basic as using communal transport pretty damn hard and all in the spirit of your right to force smoke upon others, thus removing their rights to opt out of smoking.

I honestly find it saddening that you write so much about freedom of choice when what you are actually advocating is the right to force air-born chemicals upon others without their consent.

Uh, excuse me good sir, but unless you live in f-ing PAKISTAN or some other third world country, smoking is banned on almost all public places and sites. And I'm sorry you suffer from such a condition, and it's tragic that you have to endure all those nightmarish situations you listed above. It's rather odd, really. I know a lot of people with asthma, both friends and relatives, and smoking around them has never caused any sort of unprecedented attack or anything. Hell, my grandma has asthma yet every single member of my family smokes, and it's never been an issue. Sure, we take a couple of steps away from the old darling whenever we wish to indulge in our twisted pleasures, but that's about the only precaution we use. Your case must be very dire, if you are that sensitive.
Its only forbidden inside. Outside, the problem persists. And I am willing to bet that if they have asthma and your smoke doesnt seem to affect them, they either took a bunch of medication before you showed up because they know you smoke or they are too polite to say anything. Almost everyone I know who has asthma have serious problems with smoke but they are just too polite or docile to stand up for themselves because even when you ask nicely and the smoker goes somewhere else to smoke, you are lucky if another doesnt come along very shortly - so yeah, most of my friends who have these problems just suck it up. It doesnt make breathing any easier though.

Edit: I live in Denmark btw, where we do have indoors regulations on smoking so no "F.. pakistan". That, however, just means that there is a wall of smokers at every entrance to every shopping mall/hospital/train station/etc - you get the idea.
 

n00beffect

New member
May 8, 2009
523
0
0
EtherealBeaver said:
Its only forbidden inside. Outside, the problem persists. And I am willing to bet that if they have asthma and your smoke doesnt seem to affect them, they either took a bunch of medication before you showed up because they know you smoke or they are too polite to say anything. Almost everyone I know who has asthma have serious problems with smoke but they are just too polite or docile to stand up for themselves because even when you ask nicely and the smoker goes somewhere else to smoke, you are lucky if another doesnt come along very shortly - so yeah, most of my friends who have these problems just suck it up. It doesnt make breathing any easier though.

Edit: And for the record, I live in Denmark where we do have indoors regulations on smoking but that just means that there is a wall of smokers at every entrance to every shopping mall/hospital/train station/etc - you get the idea.
Ok, fair enough, I'll grant you that every single asthma sufferer is a docile, polity-pants philanthropist who can't stand up for themselves. You just said that my grandma allgedely takes some medication that makes her resistant to us evil smokers' ways. Doesn't that seem like a worth-while solution to the problem, where both parties are content? And yes, I know that most smokers pile outside of establishments like a bunch of hobos outside a pub whenever there's a footbal match screening, but at least here they make them go a couple of metres away from the doors. At airports and such, outside there are designated areas where smokes can smoke, and that's true of most major train stations. Not that it makes any better, but at least they're not in your way. I don't know how it is in Denmark though, so I sympathyze with you, and I apologize on behalf of all my slowly-suicidal comrades.

Back on topic, though, I don't see how legalizing Marijuana (or however you spell that) and banning cigarettes will fix things. Wouldn't that just be switching one for the other?
 

EtherealBeaver

New member
Apr 26, 2011
199
0
0
n00beffect said:
EtherealBeaver said:
Its only forbidden inside. Outside, the problem persists. And I am willing to bet that if they have asthma and your smoke doesnt seem to affect them, they either took a bunch of medication before you showed up because they know you smoke or they are too polite to say anything. Almost everyone I know who has asthma have serious problems with smoke but they are just too polite or docile to stand up for themselves because even when you ask nicely and the smoker goes somewhere else to smoke, you are lucky if another doesnt come along very shortly - so yeah, most of my friends who have these problems just suck it up. It doesnt make breathing any easier though.

Edit: And for the record, I live in Denmark where we do have indoors regulations on smoking but that just means that there is a wall of smokers at every entrance to every shopping mall/hospital/train station/etc - you get the idea.
Ok, fair enough, I'll grant you that every single asthma sufferer is a docile, polity-pants philanthropist who can't stand up for themselves. You just said that my grandma allgedely takes some medication that makes her resistant to us evil smokers' ways. Doesn't that seem like a worth-while solution to the problem, where both parties are content? And yes, I know that most smokers pile outside of establishments like a bunch of hobos outside a pub whenever there's a footbal match screening, but at least here they make them go a couple of metres away from the doors. At airports and such, outside there are designated areas where smokes can smoke, and that's true of most major train stations. Not that it makes any better, but at least they're not in your way. I don't know how it is in Denmark though, so I sympathyze with you, and I apologize on behalf of all my slowly-suicidal comrades.

Back on topic, though, I don't see how legalizing Marijuana (or however you spell that) and banning cigarettes will fix things. Wouldn't that just be switching one for the other?
I don't mean to be rude but in effect - if I understand you correctly - your solution to the problem that I am being forced to inhale chemicals against my will is to force me to inhale even more chemicals to make up for some of the damage caused by the first chemicals while at the same time making me take the bad side effects from the second set of chemicals? Taking medication against it sounds good but the medication comes with side effects as well such as temporary full body palsy (shaking - and incredibly uncomfortable but at least you can breathe I guess) and blisters in the mouth for instance which makes them pretty unattractive if at all avoidable.

As for the train stations, I would love that but the problem is that the designated area is called "outside". In Denmark, smokers have the unfortunate habit of spreading out all over the stations 10 meters apart, ignoring the indoor smoking ban and insisting on getting those few last precious inhalations, packed in the cue to the train doors. And the same goes for busses, shopping streets, parks etc etc etc.

My wife works at a hospital and when I go to pick her up, its very common for 10-20 smokers to stand just outside the door, ignoring all "no-smoking on the premise" signs, while people with oxygen tanks and breathing masks try and find a way in because the smokers damn sure wont budge.

But yeah, on topic, cannabis is pretty much the same as smoking cigarettes from an asthmatics point of view. I definitely support the model that Holland uses with smoking bars though. It would be lovely to have such places because I honestly think that people should be allowed to smoke if it could be done in a way which does not affect others - freedom of choice should be universal as long as it does not limit other peoples choice (as smoking anywhere unfortunately does)
 

Electrogecko

New member
Apr 15, 2010
811
0
0
The title of this thread should be "Cannabis should be legal." I think we can all agree with that part.

PMorgan18 said:
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.
Well, cannabis has side effects similar to alcohol. We have enough problems with drunk driving I don't want to add them to the mix. The cigarette industry produces jobs as well and if you read and/or watch the news at all you can tell that jobs are in demand.
Yea I know right? Our hospitals would practically need to be cut in half!

But seriously, it's fairly objective to say that cannabis has a far wider range of industrial uses than tobacco. Arguments like this can be boiled down to "eh, changing things is too difficult."
 

Lethos

New member
Dec 9, 2010
529
0
0
So like hell I'm reading through 17 pages to see if the beeb is being slow and this news has already been posted.

I found this article [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18608666] on the BBC. Basically researchers are creating a vaccine that will make smokers receive no pleasure from nicotine. I want to ask the Escapists who smoke, would you take this? Would you prefer to get pleasure from a cigarette and continue smoking or take the vaccine and remove one of your pleasures?

Felt it would be better to post it in a thread already to do with smoking rather than create a new one.
 

direkiller

New member
Dec 4, 2008
1,655
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.
Natural dose not make anything less harmful if you think that there is a nice ivy outside my house you can smoke(posion ivy). It's natural so have at it.

Your lungs were never made to have smoke in them regardless of what your burning. It will always cause damage. It will always increase your risk of lung Cancer. They are in fact both bad for you.
 

n00beffect

New member
May 8, 2009
523
0
0
EtherealBeaver said:
I don't mean to be rude but in effect - if I understand you correctly - your solution to the problem that I am being forced to inhale chemicals against my will is to force me to inhale even more chemicals to make up for some of the damage caused by the first chemicals while at the same time making me take the bad side effects from the second set of chemicals? Taking medication against it sounds good but the medication comes with side effects as well such as temporary full body palsy (shaking - and incredibly uncomfortable but at least you can breathe I guess) and blisters in the mouth for instance which makes them pretty unattractive if at all avoidable.

As for the train stations, I would love that but the problem is that the designated area is called "outside". In Denmark, smokers have the unfortunate habit of spreading out all over the stations 10 meters apart, ignoring the indoor smoking ban and insisting on getting those few last precious inhalations, packed in the cue to the train doors. And the same goes for busses, shopping streets, parks etc etc etc.

My wife works at a hospital and when I go to pick her up, its very common for 10-20 smokers to stand just outside the door, ignoring all "no-smoking on the premise" signs, while people with oxygen tanks and breathing masks try and find a way in because the smokers damn sure wont budge.

But yeah, on topic, cannabis is pretty much the same as smoking cigarettes from an asthmatics point of view. I definitely support the model that Holland uses with smoking bars though. It would be lovely to have such places because I honestly think that people should be allowed to smoke if it could be done in a way which does not affect others - freedom of choice should be universal as long as it does not limit other peoples choice (as smoking anywhere unfortunately does)

Again, excuse me for my lack of information on the situation in Denmark, or indeed asthma as a whole. I had no idea the medication for it had such awful side-effects. Also, you guys there seem to have a huge problem with smokers by what I'm hearing from you? And I mean a HUGE one. Here, it's not THAT bad, I mean people are (mostly) considerate about their bad habbit, so very rarely do you see scenes like the one you described. Yeah, sure we smoke everywhere but at least it's not RIGHT IN FRONT of the bloody doors. The reason for this might be because there are special kinds of trash-bins which have a place where you can stub our your cigarette. So smokers usually pile around that, which always protrudes a quite good distance away from any entrance. And also - I FULLY AGREE with your suggestion about the smoking bars. I'm willing to bet that if we had that here, you'd see almost no smokers in any other bar/club/caffe (aside from the ones who all of their friends are non-smokers, the poor sods, lo do I know that feeling!). Maybe if your government was to pass a bill or a tax of some sort which fines people who throw their cigarettes on the ground? That might frighten them a bit. It would be great if we had special places where we could indulge in our self-destructiveness all we wanted, without being in the way of people... So yes, in conclusion - I'm sorry. I'm fully in the wrong here and I believe all of my arguments fall flat.
 

DugMachine

New member
Apr 5, 2010
2,566
0
0
Too many replies to this one thread but i'll say it anyways. As long as I'm not blowing my smoke in someones face or smoking indoors, it's my god damn body and i'll inhale whatever I damn well please.

Oh and if you ask me for a ride to work, no I'm not going to stop my smoking in the car for you while i'm stuck in traffic. iasegjege;