Cigarettes should be illegal.

[Snotnarok]

I'm sort of on the side that at some point people need to think for themselves and we need to stop outlawing everything that's remotely dangerous.

Smoking is hazardous, it's obvious and people continue to do so, why? Who knows who cares and it's not everyone elses problem.
Made my mom quit cigarettes by tossing them out and soaking them in water (in the 90's)

 

[MiskWisk]

I take issue with that, cannabis is less dangerous statement, for a couple of reasons.

1. One cigarette is less damaging than joint (probably), the only reason to say cigarettes are worse is because people don't smoke one while people are more likely to smoke one joint.

2. Cigarettes, while causing dependency, are not linked in anyway to mental disorders such as psychosis, and are also easier to give up

Back on topic though, I feel that cigarettes should be banned but it is too ingrained into society to remove easily. Right now efforts should really be to reduce smoking to a point where it can be banned.

 

[chadachada123]

1: It is literally impossible to overdose from smoking tobacco. People die of a cyanide overdose, but only when the cigarette is enough to push them over the cyanide OD ledge. You will vomit uncontrollably before smoking can put you at that point. Meaning they have to have drunk some recently.
Tobacco does not cause lung cancer. Inhaling smoke into your lungs does. Weed can cause it, hookah can cause it, cigars, can cause it. Idiot.

2:It is also a placebo. You don't put a band-aid on cancer. There are countless harmless non-addictive painkillers out there, that are cheaper and easier to use than marijuana. They also don't cause lethargy and sudden increase of appetite.

3: Your point is still invalid.

4: This is a slippery slope fallacy.

5: Yeah, then why ban cigarettes?

The quote is is incorrect. Remember the sudden increased appetite? You know what happens to people who eat a lot? More than they should? The kind of over eating of junk food marijuana is known to cause? Diabetes, heart attack, heart disease. Things that tobacco can be linked to having an effect on as well.
Marijuana is not harmful by itself, neither is tobacco. Smoking both of those, are equally harmful. Why do you think Firefighters who don't smoke have lung troubles?

Yet another completely meaningless quote by a nobody who is filled with bias.

Regarding 1, you're missing the point. So was the other poster, admittedly. You cannot overdose on THC, the primary 'ingredient' of marijuana, even through injection, unless you essentially replace your blood with pure THC. It's just not doable in ANY real sense short of an extremely determined lab test.

The active ingredient in tobacco, nicotine, however, is comparatively insanely easy to overdose on, with patches or pure extract or whatever.

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.

3) ...er, what?

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.

5) The point of the thread is to point out hypocrisy and incongruity in the justice system, not to actually suggest that cigarettes should be banned, only to suggest that cigarettes are far worse than weed (and they are).

First, your assertion that increased appetite will lead to a significant increase in heart disease, etc is unfounded and clearly biased. Second, you completely ignore the addictive effects of nicotine both on the body and on the mind, and the fact that THC is not chemically addictive while nicotine certainly is.

It's ironic, then, that I'll have to quote you: "Yet another completely meaningless quote by a nobody who is filled with bias."

 

[Treblaine]

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.

Hmm, I see what you are getting at. CFCs are too likely to leak, they need a blanket ban to protect the Ozone that we all depend on. However radium is not actually banned, it is used in commercial products that are sold, mainly on watch faces where you have the glowing clock face.

So maybe the possession of tobacco should NEVER be made illegal but advertising it as something to smoke should be illegal just as it is illegal to sell radium laced beverages, but is legal to sell a clock with a radium watchface.

 

[chadachada123]

1: Nicotine is in fact not easy to overdose on. Easy means you can do it by accident. One patch cannot kill you. It takes a lot of nicotine to kill you. More than you can handle without violently throwing up.


2: You're arguing need versus recreation. You're not aloud to separate the two. I need food to live. I don't make a lot of money. Thus the food I buy has to be cheap. Therefore it is of poor quality. It's killing me. High sodium, high sugar, preservatives.
You cannot argue the benefits without discussing the drawbacks. I highly believe if we legalized marijuana our obesity rate would sky rocket.

3: Trust me, I'm just as confused.

4: Law will never be fair, or unbiased. Nowhere has it been written to the contrary. Don't be so willingly naive.

5: No. Cyanide, rat poison, are worse than weed. Cigarettes are merely a tool getting poisons into your body. Marlboro, is worse than weed, American Spirit, is worse than weed. A fine Native Red, is nothing.


As far as appetite, wrong. Read any health journal. Increased appetite added to convenience of location and cost will always result in food being bought. Add in an altered state of mind in which healthy choices cannot be soundly made. I'm not wrong. It's fact, pure and simple. You smoke weed, you get the munchies, don't lie, it happens. Which do you do: Say to yourself, "Damn dude, I needs food. Better run down to the super market and get a healthy snack choice based on this altered state of being." Or say, "Fucking A man! FUNYUNS!"

It's funny that you use my quote against me, yet you don't seem to know anything about me or my arguments.

Well...hm...I'll see if there's anything that I can salvage from my original statement.

Other than disagreeing with your claim that obesity would skyrocket if weed was legalized, and disagreeing that just because the law currently is (and always has been) unfair that it isn't unconstitutionally and morally reprehensible and should be fixed to be balanced...

(Edit: to be clear, I'm arguing against complacency. If you require a license to own a dog but not to have children, there's a big problem. If you can drive a 4000 pound steel cage at 16 but have to be 18 or 21 to buy a gun, there's a problem. If you can be paid to star in porn or paid to be a stripper but can't be paid to be a prostitute, there's a big problem. All of these incongruities need to be fixed if we're to call ourselves a free or just nation, which I'd LIKE to see sometime during my life, and I consider weed being illegal while alcohol is legal to be one of these hurdles that needs to be put into the limelight)

I guess I pretty much concede. I would note that when I said the cigarettes were worse than weed, I meant Marlboros and the like. I can only guess that by "Native Red," you mean a cigar or something else that uses pure tobacco?

 

[Treblaine]

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.

 

[chadachada123]

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.

 

[mooncalf]

I don't believe bans or prohibitions strongly help curb the use or misuse of any substance.
Yes Cigarettes are bad for you, they're also kind of lame, I smoke one or two from a friend's pack to be social, but they have no taste, there's no element of interest in them to me unlike pot or even a decent cigar.

It's like cigarettes are a troll, and everyone's feeding the troll so there's people getting lulz from the troll, but only because the feed is so good.

 

[DYin01]

I then smiled at him, while I lighted up a cigarette.

Y know, that should be a meme.

There's reasons why people smoke, I personally smoke to help stress and anxieties, and guess what, it works for me.

I guess I have a bigger reason than most do anyway.

I don't want to sound like a dick here, but cigarettes don't help relieve stress and anxiety unless you're addicted to them in the first place. The stress relief just comes from giving in to your nicotine craving. Nicotine on it's own is actually a stimulating drug, but the effect of relief is greater than the stimulance provided by the drug itself.

Whatever bigger reason you have probably motivates you to keep smoking and if you want to smoke, you do that. I'm just saying, don't fool yourself.

 

[Stuntcrab]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.