Cigarettes should be illegal.

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
MercenaryCanary said:
"Guys, let's ban a substance that is harmful but popular within the population!"
Sure thing, 1920's America!
How could this ever go wrong?
Prohibition era, when crime was rampant and boozed up.
Well, in the Prohibition alcohol was banned for moral reasons. Back then health concerns were relatively minor compared to the temperance movement's emphasis on how it affected behaviour in completely benign ways: like not taking your hat off when you met a lady. Or singing too raucously. This was a time back when radium cough drops were sold. Temperance movement didn't give a damn about people being irradiated as although they killed people, at least they acted "proper".

Prohibition failed as it had an unsound moral argument. The crimes committed while under the influence of alcohol were still on the individual, one needed to exercise the same restraint in drinking excessively as containing their anger and urge to steal or commit other crimes.

Who would describe the ban of asbestos in building as a form of "prohibition"? Or the ban of CFC gses? Or leaded fuel based cars? Or the sale of radiation laced foodstuffs?

But those are things that cannot exist safely outside a special containment facility. Tobacco by itself is pretty harmless. The problem is people foolish enough to set it on fire and inhale the smoke from it. Nicotine is not inherently alluring, only once you start inhaling burning tobacco in sufficient quantities.

I think it is unnecessary to ban tobacco, just convince enough people to not smoke.
 

MercenaryCanary

New member
Mar 24, 2008
1,777
0
0
Treblaine said:
MercenaryCanary said:
"Guys, let's ban a substance that is harmful but popular within the population!"
Sure thing, 1920's America!
How could this ever go wrong?
Prohibition era, when crime was rampant and boozed up.
Well, in the Prohibition alcohol was banned for moral reasons. Back then health concerns were relatively minor compared to the temperance movement's emphasis on how it affected behaviour in completely benign ways: like not taking your hat off when you met a lady. Or singing too raucously. This was a time back when radium cough drops were sold. Temperance movement didn't give a damn about people being irradiated as although they killed people, at least they acted "proper".
Dude, what. No, they kind of did care about being irradiated, its just they didn't really know too much about that. Are you also aware of the "radium parties" they would have, where there would be rooms where the drinks were coated in radium so they would glow in the dark? Pool tables and the balls as well. Then they'd turn out the lights and have a grand, old time. They just didn't know about the side-effects.

Prohibition failed as it had an unsound moral argument. The crimes committed while under the influence of alcohol were still on the individual, one needed to exercise the same restraint in drinking excessively as containing their anger and urge to steal or commit other crimes.
I wasn't referring to the individual who drank alcohol during the prohibition. I was talking about the mafia and its activities during the Prohibition era. In my mind, the same thing might happen, but on a lesser scale.


Who would describe the ban of asbestos in building as a form of "prohibition"? Or the ban of CFC gses? Or leaded fuel based cars? Or the sale of radiation laced foodstuffs?
No one uses asbestos or irradiated food for enjoyment. Banning something that is dangerous is okay. Banning something that is dangerous that provides entertainment? As long as it is only dangerous for the individual participating in it, let them do it.

But those are things that cannot exist safely outside a special containment facility. Tobacco by itself is pretty harmless. The problem is people foolish enough to set it on fire and inhale the smoke from it. Nicotine is not inherently alluring, only once you start inhaling burning tobacco in sufficient quantities.
Okay, I agree with this.

I think it is unnecessary to ban tobacco, just convince enough people to not smoke.
I also agree with this.

In my mind, it would cause more harm to ban tobacco usage and also be hypocritical during a time period when people are pushing for marijuana legalization.
 

Captain Anon

New member
Mar 5, 2012
1,743
0
0
hey look i'm about to have a cigarette -puts cigarette in mouth and lights it- -puts up middle finger- DEAL WITH IT
 

Anti Nudist Cupcake

New member
Mar 23, 2010
1,054
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.
I do not smoke.
I do not want to smoke because I don't get why anybody would want to start smoking at all.
It becomes an addiction, you are the slave to said addiction.
It becomes quite an expensive habit requiring you to pay for the addiction once a month for every month.
That is money that could have been used to by your girlfriend or wife or even yourself something nice.
That is money that goes to the Tobacco industry, who are laughing all the way to the bank at the sheep who want to look cool.
Furthermore, you are a sheep.
A weak willed sheep who couldn't deal with stress, or gave into the desire to look cool and want to please those around you because you don't have any personality of your own.
Breaking this habit is nearly impossible.
And last but not least, you are damaging your body. Your silly desire to seem cool or your inability to handle the stresses of everyday life is now killing you and slowly making your body atrophy away.
Nice job, you weak, pathetic, sheep.

And you know what else? Most of the same applies to smoking weed, drinking alcohol and doing any other drug out there.

But we don't make ALL of that illegal, do we?
Because who the fuck are we to decide what other people do to themselves? Who the fuck are we to decide how other people run their lives? Who died and made YOU king?

Why must people feel so self entitled that they think they should decide the life routines of millions.
Who the fuck gives a priest the right to say that children must not enjoy Halloween? Who the fuck gives an Atheist the right to say people may never say "merry Christmas"? Who the fuck gave your grandma the right to say kids shouldn't play video games?

Stop trying to control other people's lives. It's not your life, it's their's. So leave it alone.

However, if the habits of others bring harm to those around them, THEN it should be banned. Or at least regulated.

Other than that, why care that other people are slowly killing themselves for the sake of tiny moments of relief?
 

Nash

New member
May 25, 2012
51
0
0
Matthew94 said:
Reaper195 said:
Matthew94 said:
I think smoking them outside should be curbed, or at least reduced in public areas, but not banned.

I dislike when I go to somewhere like a hospital or shopping centre and I have to walk through the cloud of smoke caused by all the smokers.
Smoking inside a building is illegal in New Zealand, so many places have employees, customers, patients, anyone outside smoking. And it looks ridiculous. Most places had smoking rooms that were air-tight and had separate ventilation. They were specifically built for smokers. But since the bill was passed about eight or so years ago, they can still be used for anything else except smoking. What they were designed for.

The other thing is, these days, a little over half of a pack of cigarettes is now tax. SO if the NZ Government were to ban them, tax on anything else would friggin' skyrocket.
I worded it badly. They are banned inside here and because of that they all just stand at the entrance now to smoke so you have to walk through a big cloud of smoke just to get into any of these high-traffic buildings.
Not necessarily. Both my place of work and my place of education have designated smoking areas. I'm not saying it's the same everywhere, but more and more places are establishing a 'smoking shelter' or somesuch that is at least two metres away from the entrance.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
MercenaryCanary said:
Treblaine said:
MercenaryCanary said:
"Guys, let's ban a substance that is harmful but popular within the population!"
Sure thing, 1920's America!
How could this ever go wrong?
Prohibition era, when crime was rampant and boozed up.
Well, in the Prohibition alcohol was banned for moral reasons. Back then health concerns were relatively minor compared to the temperance movement's emphasis on how it affected behaviour in completely benign ways: like not taking your hat off when you met a lady. Or singing too raucously. This was a time back when radium cough drops were sold. Temperance movement didn't give a damn about people being irradiated as although they killed people, at least they acted "proper".
Dude, what. No, they kind of did care about being irradiated, its just they didn't really know too much about that. Are you also aware of the "radium parties" they would have, where there would be rooms where the drinks were coated in radium so they would glow in the dark? Pool tables and the balls as well. Then they'd turn out the lights and have a grand, old time. They just didn't know about the side-effects.

...

Who would describe the ban of asbestos in building as a form of "prohibition"? Or the ban of CFC gses? Or leaded fuel based cars? Or the sale of radiation laced foodstuffs?
No one uses asbestos or irradiated food for enjoyment. Banning something that is dangerous is okay. Banning something that is dangerous that provides entertainment? As long as it is only dangerous for the individual participating in it, let them do it.
Seem to be a contradiction here, they LIKED using radium product right through the 1920's, but radiation and it's negative effects had been known since the 1890's. And people LIKE having insulated homes, that asbestos does a very good job with. CFC's are very useful odourless deodorant propellants and fire-suppressants.

What distinguishes someone who sells asbestos insulation from someone who sells tobacco rolled in paper tubes with intention of being smoked? Not a lot. I think cannabis and tobacco should be legal to grow for your own consumption, but that it is too irresponsible to give to others without severe limitations. Certainly criminalising mere ownership of tobacco or cannabis is impractical.

I think it is more acceptable to sell cannabis than tobacco, as at least cannabis can be baked into brownies for safe consumption, but what use is tobacco other than smoking it?

The sad thing is global cigarette consumption is level or increasing as even though in more developed world it is falling it is rising hugely in the less developed world, poor people who cannot afford to live with the diseases of smoking and are often too poorly educated to know better. They are where the cigarette companies are making bank.
 

ASan83

New member
Mar 11, 2011
141
0
0
Speaking as a smoker, I have no problem being banned from smoking indoors (I never do anyways. I always step outside, mainly because I don't want my apartment to smell of smoke, but also out of respect when I'm around people who don't smoke) but an outright ban? That dog won't hunt, monsignor. Besides, tobacco companies are too powerful for that to happen.
 

Naeras

New member
Mar 1, 2011
989
0
0
Banning any kind of drug has never, ever, stopped people from being able to get their hands on it if they want it. I can't think of any case where it's reduced the abuse of it either.

More information on why smoking is harmful is the way to go.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
Why? What good would that do? It would only make people desire them more. It'd be a case of the old Forbidden Fruit syndrome, the more something is denied to us, the more we want it. That's probably a big reason why so many people get into illegal drugs, it's because they're illegal.
 

Chanel Tompkins

New member
Nov 8, 2011
186
0
0
Believe me, they're trying to discourage tobacco smoking in whatever ways they can without banning it outright. Have you ever bought the stuff? An ounce costs around $5-$6.
 

Moromillas

New member
May 25, 2010
328
0
0
You can't be serious. Put more items on the black market? Just put more people in danger over a commodity? Tobacco prices are already high enough without having to deal with unsavory criminal types, or get caught with tobacco of all things and put in jail, or get caught up in cartel "disputes" when they're unable to settle their grievances the legal way.

People should be able to put whatever they want in their own body, because it's just that, their own body. Are people really so eager to have their liberties taken away?
 

fenrizz

New member
Feb 7, 2009
2,790
0
0
Buretsu said:
fenrizz said:
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.
I don't know about other places in the world, but where I live, you're not allowed to smoke until age 18, which is when one is declared a legal adult, and thus are assumed to be capable of making smart decisions, like not smoking.
Yes, because every single smoker waits until they are 18 so they can make an informed decision about smoking.

I really hope you don't actually believe that.
 

medv4380

The Crazy One
Feb 26, 2010
672
4
23
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.
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!
Oh little children. Go back to your history classes and go look-up prohibition. Then answer one simple questions.

Who became Rich and Powerful because of Prohibition?
Answer: The American Mofia

The current laws that prohibit substances currently sustain the high profits for South American and Mexican Drug Lords.

When Prohibition ended the mobs that were making bank on liquor collapsed or ventured off into other areas like the Drug Trade.

Given that information you can make a pretty good argument that outlawing any substance that people are demanding is a bad thing. You're better off with the Sin Taxes we currently have and just prohibiting minors. Though even that can be taken too far and establish a black market for goods.
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
PercyBoleyn said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
Oh but they are they both are privileges granted to us by being US citizens
I'm not a US citizen.

ZippyDSMlee said:
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.
Second hand smoking actually harms the health of the people nearby.
Not to a high enough degree, its like the older non stick surfaces cause cancer but only if you do X,Y,Z with it....

Also

The US is a weeerriiiddddd place. :p
 

Ledan

New member
Apr 15, 2009
798
0
0
Nope. If you want to, and you know the health risks, your goddamned choice. Weed should be legalized. I'm going to drink mine as a tea, anyone can smoke it if they want but im going to think that the're doing it wrong and in a hazardous manner.

Maybe up the tobacco tax a bit more?
 

Vivi22

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,300
0
0
Treblaine said:
Seem to be a contradiction here, they LIKED using radium product right through the 1920's, but radiation and it's negative effects had been known since the 1890's. And people LIKE having insulated homes, that asbestos does a very good job with. CFC's are very useful odourless deodorant propellants and fire-suppressants.
The difference is that even when properly handled, the side effects of using radium, asbestos, and CFC's are not limited to affecting the people who chose to use them. Moreover you're trying to compare compounds with harmless replacements which serve the function just as well to things like tobacco, alcohol, or marijuana where the same claim can't be made.

There's no contradiction there because you're making a false equivalency.
 

SongsOfDragons

New member
Feb 28, 2008
35
0
0
Hazy992 said:
How does alcohol actually help people? It's the same argument.
O/T, and apologies if it has already been mentioned in some way: I know of a way it can indeed help you, even save your life. Ethanol is the cure for antifreeze poisoning (ethylene glycol, IIRC) and in lieu of medical-grade ethanol, vodka will do quite nicely. Or whiskey, or gin, or... :D

But that's indeed a specific situation, and mostly unrelated to how most people generally treat alcohol. It just amused me when a medical student told me of it. ^^