Cigarettes should be illegal.

Recommended Videos

GlorySeeker

New member
Oct 6, 2010
161
0
0
I agree to a point. I detest smoking, and am a nonsmoker myself. I cant smoke, even if I wanted to (But thats really not the point) To me, its a gross habit, and yes, it is bad for you. Says so right on the box. Same with alcohol. And im sure that if they tried to ban smoking like they tried alcohol, (prohibition?) it just wouldnt work. And as many have already said, its a choice people make. No one makes you smoke. To each their own.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,305
0
0
Father Time said:
MysticToast said:
Father Time said:
sunsetspawn said:
Pyro Paul said:
Link55 said:
You know most of those things you mentioned also contain dihydrogen monoxide, that stuff can kill you if you consume enough. Maybe we should ban that too.
Except, you know, that creates and sustains life, and we need it to survive. Tell me again, what benefit does cyanide or sulfuric acid have to us?
I'm just saying that just because it's found in something dangerous doesn't make it dangerous.
True.

However, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, and arsenic ARE dangerous. You can't deny that. If you try, I invite you to inhale some straight hydrogen cyanide and tell me again. You might still be able to find some at Auschwitz.

(Godwin'd?)
 

xshadowscreamx

New member
Dec 21, 2011
523
0
0
weed is banned in all Australia..only becouse the GOV wont make money cuz its easily grown.....its all about the money
 

Helmholtz Watson

New member
Nov 7, 2011
2,497
0
0
TestECull said:
The only reason one would put such a law into the books is because they believe the populace is too dumb to choose the 'right' thing.
No, that is not the only reason. There are also people who just don't care or are just irresponsible.

TestECull said:
It's bullshit, it's wrong, and it paves the way for the government micromanaging even more of your life. How about being told you can only buy one TV because Washington thinks no household needs more than one? How about being told you can only have a dual core computer because quad cores use more power and therefore aren't green? How about being told that you can't own a nice car that seats seven because the government thinks you need to be in a 45MPG rotbox with room for two adults and two midgets? It's un-American to suggest such laws be put into place, let alone actually putting them into place.
How about being able to have a debate without the slippery slope fallacy?



TestECull said:
As much as I'd like to keep this convo going, my sanity is more valuable. So I'm just going to leave it at this. It is wrong for the government to micromanage people's lives like this, you are wrong for supporting that, and that's the end of discussion. I'm not going to waste any more of my time or IQ points trying to convince you otherwise.
That's a nice cop out but all you have done is pulled the slippery slop fallacy and a no-true-scotsman about how it is "unAmerican".
 

Helmholtz Watson

New member
Nov 7, 2011
2,497
0
0
solemnwar said:
Helmholtz Watson said:
solemnwar said:
You typed it yourself, that it is a slippery slope fallacy. I understand what you mean, I just don't agree that it could happen outside of some fictional movie/book/game.
Doesn't mean it won't, and you should always be critical of the government meddling in private affairs anyways.

Although wouldn't Nazi Germany be a pretty good example of slippery slope? It's not like Hitler got elected and immediately threw the Jews (and others) into concentration camps. Had to start off slow. Not really the same sort of thing I suppose. And I probably just invoked Godwin's Law. I should probably just go to bed. Bllh.
While I'll admit that the US economy is in a bit of a dip, it isn't nearly as bad as the economy of post WW1 Germany. So I doubt such a government will be forming anytime soon.
 

JoeThree

New member
May 8, 2010
191
0
0
I'm sorry, but not only is making smoking illegal asinine, but banning it in open, public places is too. Gee, sure sorry that your sense of smell is being bothered, shall we make farting in public illegal too? How about other things that might offend your senses, like say, use of language in public people might not like? And no, before anyone says that second-hand smoke is dangerous, someone smoking outside a store that you walk past is not going to give you lung cancer, that's not how that works at all. Prolonged exposure has been thought of to be potentially dangerous, but even then, it's not been 100% proven (admittedly, that's probably because the government has, at least until last I heard, not bothered with testing because then they might have people like the OP demanding cigarettes really are outlawed, and then you'll run into a few billion less dollars in taxes/campaign contributions. What was I saying again?).

Bottom line, you don't like it, it's not actually hurting you, so stop being so damn sensitive. The government is not your mother, and you are not mine - so all you Bloomberg inspired people seriously need to learn to live and let live... or die of cancer. Whichever.

PS: I do however think that if you own a store and don't want people smoking infront of it, that's your right, and posting signs saying "If you're smoking, you're trespassing" and the like are 100% acceptable. In short, property rights, personal responsibility, and all that jazz.
 

MysticToast

New member
Jul 28, 2010
628
0
0
JoeThree said:
I'm sorry, but not only is making smoking illegal asinine, but banning it in open, public places is too. Gee, sure sorry that your sense of smell is being bothered, shall we make farting in public illegal too? How about other things that might offend your senses, like say, use of language in public people might not like? And no, before anyone says that second-hand smoke is dangerous, someone smoking outside a store that you walk past is not going to give you lung cancer, that's how how that works at all. Prolonged exposure has been thought of to be potentially dangerous, but even then, it's not been 100% proven (admittedly, that's because the government has, at least until last I heard, not bothered with testing because then they might have people like the OP demanding cigarettes really are outlawed, and then you'll run into a few billion less money in taxes/campaign contributions. What was I saying again?).

Bottom line, you don't like it, it's not actually hurting you, so stop being so damn sensitive. The government is not your mother, and you are not mine - so all you Bloomberg inspired people seriously need to learn to live and let live... or die of cancer. Whichever.

PS: I do however think that if you own a store and don't want people smoking infront of it, that's your right, and posting signs saying "If you're smoking, you're trespassing" and the like are 100% acceptable. In short, property rights, personal responsibility, and all that jazz.
Oh I see, it's bad to be bothered by people smoking around you, unless you're a business owner....
 

Clearing the Eye

New member
Jun 6, 2012
1,345
0
0
ResonanceSD said:
Clearing the Eye said:
So that's *a* source and that study has been criticised by the paper it was released in, the American cancer society and science, as the study didn't go about finding a control group.


Moving on, and this is actual, sourced content, which wikipedia crawled and sourced,

Enstrom's ties to the tobacco industry also drew scrutiny; in a 1997 letter to Philip Morris, Enstrom requested a "substantial research commitment... in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS and active smoking."[117] In a US racketeering lawsuit against tobacco companies, the Enstrom and Kabat paper was cited by the US District Court as "a prime example of how nine tobacco companies engaged in criminal racketeering and fraud to hide the dangers of tobacco smoke."[118] The Court found that the study had been funded and managed by the Center for Indoor Air Research,[119] a tobacco industry front group tasked with "offsetting" damaging studies on passive smoking, as well as by Phillip Morris[120] who stated that Enstrom's work was "clearly litigation-oriented."[121] Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study against what he terms "illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it."[122]


Yeah, I hear if you pay someone to study something with a goal in mind, surprisingly enough, they'll fucking say what you want them to.



That crackling sound you're hearing is your point burning up in flames. Not unlike one of the cancer sticks you keep touting as being completely harmless to others.
You didn't actually comment on half the sources I showed you, including those that discuss air pollution in an actually quite pollutant free atmosphere to be more harmful than second hand smoke, and only managed to quote Wikipedia (without giving any further sources beyond numbers) saying a study was criticized.

Now, given that it is a fact that car exhaust is much, much more harmful to one's health (a not uncommon form of suicide, even) I assume you want cars made illegal? For the sake of consistency and all.

A little less confrontation and a little more civility would do you wonders.
 

JoeThree

New member
May 8, 2010
191
0
0
MysticToast said:
JoeThree said:
I'm sorry, but not only is making smoking illegal asinine, but banning it in open, public places is too. Gee, sure sorry that your sense of smell is being bothered, shall we make farting in public illegal too? How about other things that might offend your senses, like say, use of language in public people might not like? And no, before anyone says that second-hand smoke is dangerous, someone smoking outside a store that you walk past is not going to give you lung cancer, that's how how that works at all. Prolonged exposure has been thought of to be potentially dangerous, but even then, it's not been 100% proven (admittedly, that's because the government has, at least until last I heard, not bothered with testing because then they might have people like the OP demanding cigarettes really are outlawed, and then you'll run into a few billion less money in taxes/campaign contributions. What was I saying again?).

Bottom line, you don't like it, it's not actually hurting you, so stop being so damn sensitive. The government is not your mother, and you are not mine - so all you Bloomberg inspired people seriously need to learn to live and let live... or die of cancer. Whichever.

PS: I do however think that if you own a store and don't want people smoking infront of it, that's your right, and posting signs saying "If you're smoking, you're trespassing" and the like are 100% acceptable. In short, property rights, personal responsibility, and all that jazz.
Oh I see, it's bad to be bothered by people smoking around you, unless you're a business owner....
No, you always have the right to be bothered, you just don't have the right to tell someone what to do unless they happen to be on your property.
 

him over there

New member
Dec 17, 2011
1,728
0
0
No they really shouldn't. People want to hurt themselves that's their business. You can't stop them just because they miss out on a few games of shuffle board at the least and maybe have a heart attack if their addiction is severe which isn't always the case at the most. I don't smoke, mostly because I'm actually not old enough but most of my friends do. I'm totally fine with it. Why? because I don't mind and don't want to ruin their good times. I think it smells fine and don't really care. Stay out of people's lives.
 

scorptatious

The Resident Team ICO Fanboy
May 14, 2009
7,403
0
0
While I don't smoke and never plan too, I have no right to tell other people how to live their lives. (Unless it's someone really close to me)

So no, I don't want cigarettes to be banned. Kept under control yes. But not banned.
 

burningdragoon

Warrior without Weapons
Jul 27, 2009
1,934
0
0
7 pages already? Probably not saying anything new, but here goes...

I fucking hate hate hate hate hatehatehatehatehatehatehatehate cigarettes. No I don't think they should be illegal. And definitely not on the grounds of "it's bad for you" or "it's worse than something else that is illegal".
 

fenrizz

New member
Feb 7, 2009
2,788
0
0
I'm inclined to agree.

Most smokers start smoking at an age where the greater consequences do not even occur to them, or at least before they really understand consequences.

Buretsu said:
I don't think cigarettes should be illegal. The way I see it, it weeds out all the stupid fucking morons who don't seem to care that they're slowly killing themselves. Cigarettes are less likely to get other people killed than other drugs like alcohol or marijuana, so as long as I have some reasonable protection from getting some asshole blowing smoke in my face, let the idiots die.
See above.
 

Kashrlyyk

New member
Dec 30, 2010
154
0
0
solemnwar said:
....
Doesn't mean it won't, and you should always be critical of the government meddling in private affairs anyways.....
Like the speed limits in inner cities? Or how they made extortion illegal? People should be allowed to agree to ridiculous interest rates. And omg I need to finish highschool to be allowed access to a college?
And all those regulations about what can be inside food or not. Or restrictions on child labor? How dare the government intrude into my private affairs.

Everytime with this topic we get this type of people, for which the state immediately turns into a "nanny" state. Everything black and white. And no, banning smoking is nowhere near "micromanaging" everyones life. You are a moron if you think so.

And then we have the idiots who say: "You can't tell me what I put into my body." They always think what you put in your body only affects them and nobody else. Until of course it costs you your job. Or an important work project crashes and thousands of people loose their jobs. Suddenly thousands of people can not repay their mortgages, because you fainted after you put something in your body. They completely ignore personal responsibility towards other people.
 

Dfskelleton

New member
Apr 6, 2010
2,850
0
0
Link55 said:
That and it's natural unlike the thousands of chemicals in the average cigarette.
Scorpion venom is natural, but that doesn't mean that I want to pour myself a hefty glass of it and take a swig.

OT: I don't like smoking, but that doesn't mean that by default nobody else should be able to enjoy it. I don't see what one could get out of it, but I'm sure people have their reasons.

In fact, I'm thinking that when I'm an old man I might start smoking a pipe, just because pipes look awesome. Besides, I don't think it would matter much if I started then considering that I'd only have so many years left anyways.
 

Flailing Escapist

New member
Apr 13, 2011
1,602
0
0
Arcane Azmadi said:
Tobacco is an addictive and highly unhealthy drug shamelessly abused by MILLIONS of people the world over. Unlike alcohol you CANNOT smoke safely as alcohol is only harmful when used in excess, while tobacco is harmful simply for what it is- you're concentrating and inhaling poison. Tobacco is also the worst of ALL drugs because it spreads its harmful effects to innocent non-users around the user- the amount of passive tobacco smoke I have to put up with in the average day literally makes me ill. It stinks, it ruins your health and appearance (seriously smokers, you're fucking disgusting, I can't even stand to be within 2 metres of you), it has no positive effects and it pollutes land, air and water.

And despite all this, it's not only tolerated but COMMONPLACE worldwide just because it's been around for hundreds of years (in one form or another). Guess what- so was SLAVERY before it was finally abolished. And no, I'm NOT comparing smoking to slavery, but I AM pointing out that just because something bad has been around for a long time that doesn't meant it's any less bad, nor that a lot of people thinking there's nothing wrong with it makes them RIGHT (America had to fight a CIVIL WAR to abolise slavery). I mean, can millions of people possibly be wrong? Stupid question; of course they can!
Wow bro, calm down.

Why don't you take up a war on world hunger, serial killers, Communism, child pornography, soap operas, fast food restaurants, dangerous cults, terrorism and always online DRM before raising banners against smoking? Or are you just too lazy to pick a better target?

Rage against something worth raging about!
 

Sangreal Gothcraft

New member
Feb 28, 2011
298
0
0
And who are you telling what people can't do, let them smoke if them freaking want too.
I hear that argument "weed is less harmful" can't help to think that it is an excuse to do the plant yourself.
 

Flailing Escapist

New member
Apr 13, 2011
1,602
0
0
Buretsu said:
Flailing Escapist said:
Why don't you take up a war on world hunger, serial killers, Communism, child pornography, soap operas, fast food restaurants, dangerous cults, terrorism and always online DRM before raising banners against smoking? Or are you just too lazy to pick a better target?

Rage against something worth raging about!
By that logic, one shouldn't complain about anything, because there's always a bigger issue they 'should' be complaining about instead.
No, you can complain all you want. But if you're going to devote the time to rage-fuck something, rage-fuck something that matters.
 

NightHawk21

New member
Dec 8, 2010
1,272
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.
Well lets break your post down.

Weed has been shown to have some potential health benefits to SOME people not all people, and to claim such would be inaccurate (and correct me if I'm wrong but I thought most studies just focused on THC which I'll bet was not administered through a joint or a bong).

Cigarettes help people who sell and grow tobacco. Also although I would highly advise against it, cigarette smoking can aid with weight loss. Also fun fact, smoking was prescribed to help deal with TB back when that was a big deal.

As for the ban, I'll disagree. While I don't smoke, and I personally don't like people smoking in my general vicinity I see no reason to tell people exactly what they should be doing to themselves. Also bans don't really work. What would that accomplish really? You might see a small drop in new smokers (and I wouldn't even hold my breath since most kids get them illegally anyways), but currently addicted people would just be forced to get them through illegal means (or possibly on reservations if you live in Canada). Do you really think the ban on weed is stopping people from smoking it? Also the argument that x is less bad for you than y, so x should be legal is really bad, and you shouldn't use it.