Cigarettes should be illegal.

[godofslack]

Legalise all of the drugs, regulate and tax the shit out of them, and all will be well.

People who want these drugs can get them through legal channels, less gang related violence

If you had a good social system you could recognise problematic addicts and help them when they need it

I could get blazed after a long day... well I can now... but you know, legaly

Better yet, nationalize drug sales and use it to subsidize taxes, so everyone benefits. Except gangs of course.

 

[Easton Dark]

Ban it in public places and/or areas around children. I'm all for that.

Or better yet, make an alternative that doesn't slowly kill people, mess with your teeth, and make you smell like smoke.

 

[Racecarlock]

So you want it more like this? [youtube]kowUpdwOVHI[/youtube]

 

[Eamar]

We all hear so much about the ridiculous quantities of additives in addition to the tobacco in cigarettes... Does anyone actually know why they're added in the first place? I mean, obviously smoking anything isn't going to do your lungs a whole lot of good, but surely in this day and age we could have come up with a slightly less damaging "recipe," or at least a way to reduce the amount of tar that builds up when you smoke...

Anyone know anything about this? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I dislike cigarettes as much as anyone, but who am I to tell people how to live their lives?

(which has no permanent harmful effects)

Except that's wrong.

Inhaling smoke of any kind has a negative impact on the lungs.

3 joints a day does as much damage as 20 cigarettes [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2419713.stm]


I agree with your point, but the idea that marijuana is some sort of amazing drug that does no damage is, frankly, ridiculous.

 

[rob_simple]

I don't think we should ban anything that restricts freedom of choice, but I do think the NHS should come out and say 'if you smoke and you get cancer, you're on your own; if you drink and you get liver failure, you're on your own; if you eat so much that your arteries clog and your heart explodes, you're on your own; if you injure yourself because of your own stupidity, you're on your own. Deal with it.'

People should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies, but it shouldn't have to cost the rest of us anything, whether it be financially or by taking up space in a hopsital that could be used by someone who didn't put themselves there.

 

[wetfart]

Cigarettes will never be banned for a simple reason. Tax revenue. The majority of the taxes on cigarettes all go to children's health programs. Ban cigarettes and all those programs go bankrupt.

 

[Blow_Pop]

Weed is less harmful than cigarettes. At least weed help people in a way.

yeah about that...I worked(for a very short period of time)with a guy who'd get high on every break he had. Either he had shite memory and wasn't good at multi tasking or the weed made him worse. Considering I never saw him not high to some extent I can't say what exactly it was but considering he was in a position in which he had to have a clear head.....I'd say that's a bit harmful.....Especially since I had to run around and do both his AND my job.

OT: I don't like smoking of any kind especially since *MOST* smokers out here are arseholes. You tell them to please go downwind from you since you can't move(due to your desk being right near the door and you not being able to disappear for 2 hours from your desk and people being arses and smoking next to an open door that shouldn't be open anyway and management not taking your complaints seriously because they don't have that problem when they're around and management all smokes too so..)and they disregard you and send you into asthma attacks and shite. I'm fine with smokers having designated areas to be in since most areas like that are away from doorways so I don't have to walk through a cloud of smoke but honestly I think smokers need to learn a bit of consideration. Now, that being said non-smokers also need to stop being arseholes. I'm not the type of person who will go and purposefully stand next to a bunch of smokers and ostentatiously cough and such because they're smoking. In fact, I don't go near smokers unless I have to(ie: standing in a line and the line just happens to go by the designated smoking area..damn you DMV)and even then I try to just do everything I can to NOT be an arse to smokers. Which usually winds up with me sitting on the ground so I don't wind up in an asthma attack. But if I ask a smoker nicely to please stand downwind from me or to move to the designated smoking area and they(i swear this has happened before)decide to be an arse and blow smoke in my face, at that point I view it as an assault on my health and get very mean with them. In conclusion, people are arses and need to learn common courtesy. Also, smoking is bad but I'm not going to tell someone they can or can't in the privacy of their homes or randomly on the street without provocation.

 

[Eamar]

I don't think we should ban anything that restricts freedom of choice, but I do think the NHS should come out and say 'if you smoke and you get cancer, you're on your own; if you drink and you get liver failure, you're on your own; if you eat so much that your arteries clog and your heart explodes, you're on your own; if you injure yourself because of your own stupidity, you're on your own. Deal with it.'

People should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies, but it shouldn't have to cost the rest of us anything, whether it be financially or by taking up space in a hopsital that could be used by someone who didn't put themselves there.

While I can see where you're coming from, I don't think I'd want to start down that road. Pretty much anything could be seen as your own fault in one way or another... Isn't that basically how insurance companies work in the US? Refusing to pay out for anything? I could be totally wrong about that, but I can certainly see potential for such a system to be abused.

 

[BrionJames]

I'm sure plenty of people have already come to the defense of one of my past times. I don't smoke often, hardly at all actually, but I enjoy it. I used to smoke marijuana, but don't anymore. I don't like the way it clouds my senses. I prefer to drink, and though sometimes I do it to excess, I'm generally just a casual drinker. I don't think anything should be illegal except for drugs that can possibly make you a dangerous psychopath, generally the harder things. I know people can do bad things while intoxicated, but they don't do crazy shit like eat people (see rapper who ate his girlfriend while high on meth). So, in short, I agree that weed should be legalized and yet I do not agree with you in that smoking cigarettes, while not having the medicinal effects of marijuana, is any less harmful than smoking weed. If you want an example just look at your bowl or bong or whatever else it is you use and see how much shit is caked on there. Not all of that gets stuck to the bowl, some of that shit gets in your lungs.

 

[willsham45]

Smoking should not be illegal.
Neither should any drug.
We can all agree prohibition was a terrible idea. But if smoking was 100% banned it will just make way for another item on the black market and that is not good.

If all drugs were made available at your local chemist or supermarket then they could be regulated. They would be safer...er, in some ways because you would know your getting what your buying and you could be assured your hit of weed is weed and not a crushed up dog biscuit for example.
Using disposable needle for drugs that need it will deduce the dirty needle problems.

It will destroy the black market around it. Which is generally a good thing and will reduce a lot of crime that is associated with drugs.

From that resources could be moved away from drug crime prevention and moved to where it is needed else where. And I am sure the artificial mark up taxing it will bring will help further, and yes some of that might have to go to helping those with the downsides of the drugs I can still see it as a positive as long as it is generally preserved as the drugs being bad.

And Just because something is easier to get will not mean everyone will go out and get high.

And back to topic Smoking is not the best thing you could be doing but there are a lot of things that you probably should not be doing, some things you might not even be aware of, and some of those things can be just as harmful to your health. Just smoking is such an easy target.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

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.

Stress relief.

Marijuana does the same, but has a numbing aspect that helps cancer patients. Otherwise, marijuana is retarded, addictive, and can eff with the brain quite a bit.

Also, why ban something that's a free choice that has no negative effect on other people?

 

[BodomBeachChild]

How about the chemicals in cigarettes be banned? Or fiberglass filters instead? Why not just start smoking cigars? I don't smoke cigarettes, but I'm not gonna tell someone else not to. Yeah it is bad but it's their choice.

 

[DanDeFool]

Well, let's see. It's been clinically proven that breathing oxygen can cause a buildup of free radicals in your bloodstream that will eventually kill you, so we'd better ban air too, just to be safe.

Okay, I'm being facetious here, but honestly. We already tried banning stuff like alcohol, and it didn't really work. A better idea might be to make its use and abuse as legal, and VISIBLE, as possible. I think if we all saw a share of meth-addicts with corroded teeth and coke addicts going through withdrawal on the street corners, less of us would be inclined to try drugs of any kind.

That, and I'd wager a lot of drug use starts out as rebellion. Somehow, I don't think saying, "hey guys, let's go take some of this perfectly legal substance that will severely damage our health and won't get us in trouble in any way" has quite the same advertising appeal.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Cars are not a necessity for the populace. For a select few who can drive sanely maybe but not for the masses who constantly abuse it.

Yeah they sort of are unless you can think of a way to convince governments all around the world that something that has been ingrained in our culture for eighty years needs to be done away with in favour of a comprehensive green public transport system.

Besides, cigarettes and cars are not comparable and just because we have an issue in need of solving doesn't mean we should let the others fester.

Oh but they are they both are privileges granted to us by being US citizens and by allowing others to ban a legal substance "just because" they do not like it reduces all of our rights and freedoms as its one more thing the powers that be can turn into an inane rule or crime.

 

[Evil Smurf]

if Cigarettes are banned then gangsters will sell them. Who wants gangsters selling you things? Not me.

 

[chadachada123]

I disagree, but in the other direction. Since alcohol and tobacco are legal (and they should be, since a government body shouldn't be able to tell you what you can and can't stick in your own body for your own pleasure in your own house), marijuana should absolutely be legal since it:

cannot kill you

is not physically addictive

cannot kill you

and has medical applications.

 

[MarlonBlazed]

How is alcohol worse? You can get lung cancer from second hand smoke, I've never heard of getting cirrhosis of the liver from second hand drinks lol. But that's why I've always considered cigs worse is you can be affected by one even if you yourself don't smoke. But if someone is drinking next to you, you aren't gunna get any side effects. (I'm not anti-cigs, drinks, or pot btw to each his own)

I only meant the point of that alcohol has a way worse effect on the body of the user.

In second hand, smoking is definitely the worst of anything, aside from society as a whole.

Common people, it seems like everyday I have to keep stating this proven fact. Second hand smoke is not a threat to non-smokers, it takes around 10 minutes for people to filter the effects of these chemicals out of there body.

Second hand smoke was debunked a very long time ago, it just doesn't exist.

 

[Palmerama]

Its ironic that most of the time you ned tobacco to make a spliff as that keeps it alight! Also there is a difference between cigarettes and rolling tobacco, as tobacco is far healthier as it doesn't have any where near the same amount of chemicals that cigarettes do!
There has been studies done to show the effects of nicoteen and whlst there was the usual negative ones, they came to a startling discovery that there is an element in nicoteen that helps against alzheimers and other mentally dibilitating diseases such as dementia.

I smoke, I'm not going to smoke forever but im doing i while I can. I know its bad for me but everything is bad for you to an extent! Eat too many bananas & you get potassium poisoning! too many eggs & you get constapated!

Also before anyone says anything, Im not against the smoking ban but Im against the way it was implemented & done in a way that didn't give places such as bars & pubs enough time to create smoking areas properly which is a large reason why there are so many pubs closing around the UK! Also the definition of a public place is stupid! Fair enough that you can;t smoke on indoor train paltforms you haven't been able to that before the ban came in but not being able to do it in town or village platforms where you're in the open air is stupid! Also a smoking shelter can't have three walls to it as it then counts as a public place such as a bus stop where you can't smoke! Bloody idiotic planning there!

At the end of the day the government won't make it illegal as they get too much money from the taxes!

 

[Paladin2905]

I think when considering this question we need to consider that the cigarettes are addictive. While that certainly doesn't set them apart from other activities discussed in the thread it does modify the question of "who are we to tell people how to live their lives" to "are we allowed to tell people how to live if their choices may not be completely under their control?"

Honestly, I don't know where I fall on that question; but I do think it is pertinent to this discussion. I realize that there are many people who believe that addictions can be broken whenever people want to break them, but I think there is ample evidence that it isn't that easy to do so. We have lifeguards for swimmers that go past their ability in the ocean, and we ban swimming during riptides; would cigarettes be the equivalent of a riptide?