Cigarettes should be illegal.

[briunj04]

It's about about the public's perception. I agree that cigarettes are more harmful than weed, but hell man, people smoked like 10 packs a day back in the 40s, so they don't seem that bad. Whereas everyone thinks that if you smoke weed, you're an unemployed person in their basement.

Regardless, if you're saying that something should be banned for having harmful effects, might as well make both of them illegal. And McDonalds too (hear hear!). If you think something should be illegal because it's worse than the alternative, you need to reevaluate your thought process.

 

[Treblaine]

Bottom line, the point Buretsu made about legality and risk keeping most people away from drugs is like when religious people say that without religion we'd all be murderers and rapists and thieves.

I never said that was the only reason stopping someone. Please stop attacking me based on what you think I said.

Furthermore, it's not the same idea at all. There are obvious moral reasons why murder, rape and theft are wrong to do, moral reasons that don't exist with drugs. In fact, there's a counter-culture that explicitly glorifies drug usage. Driving while drunk is considered to be a horrible thing to do, but driving while stoned is an amusing anecdote or even a major motion picture.

Incredulity is not argument but a fallacy (which is precisely what "It doesn't make sense to me" is)

It honestly doesn't make sense to me. That's not a fallacy, but a personal truth.

If it doesn't make sense, then ask for a clarification and THEN make your case.

If mean to say there is an inconsistency in my reasoning, then point out the inconsistency in reasoning. It's pointless to say you don't understand. You seem to be just refusing to understand how addicts shouldn't be persecuted by the law, but rather it should focus on those who make incredibly profits selling addictive poisons.

"moral reasons that don't exist with drugs."

He didn't say there were only moral reasons other than legal prohibitions. Such as basic self-interest of not having to deal with the costs and disruption of a substance habit.

Precisely WHAT is the problem with people taking drugs that don't harm them? What is the problem with someone making and eating weed brownies? Taking ecstasy tablets at a party doesn't have any significant health risk nor addiction tendency.

I think you are mistaken about the drunk driving thing, driving while intoxicated on ANYTHING is equally frowned upon. There is no double standard. The people who think driving while high is OK also think driving while drunk is OK. This is a minority of irresponsible and unrepresentative people. In no way would decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis for recreational use mean permitting ANY kind of driving while intoxicated.

 

[Cpu46]

I can't say I hate smoking without being a hypocrite seeing as I smoke Hookah once every month or two but there is a difference between smoking in a lounge and smoking in public. I don't like people who smoke cigarettes in places that are heavily used. I'm fine with people choosing what to do with their own bodies but secondhand smoke is horrible and often times can't be avoided.

Smoking shouldn't be banned but public smoking should be heavily restricted.

 

[LiftYourSkinnyFists]

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.

Just gonna quote a bit of Hicks for this one...

?I have something to tell you non-smokers that I know for a fact that you don't know, and I feel it's my duty to pass on information at all times. Ready?. . . . Non-smokers die every day . . . Enjoy your evening. See, I know that you entertain this eternal life fantasy because you've chosen not to smoke, but let me be the 1st to POP that bubble and bring you hurling back to reality . . . You're dead too.?

People die every day related and unrelated to smoking it's been around longer than you and your nan and that's not gonna change, it's a huge part of today's culture it can't just be "Made Illegal" specially when it's so heavily taxed in such a harsh economic time.


Plus, Weed is a gateway drug you smoke weed you'll probably decide to try other things and it's a downward spiral from there just like drinking, driving, eating and masturbating.

 

[Nieroshai]

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.

Sorry to tell you this, but all burnables produce carbon monoxide, a chemical harmful to the body. I assure you, once marijuana is legal, they'll use pesticides and fertilizers on it too as well as chemical curing agents and chemically treated paper. On top of that, regular use causes distorted perception, memory and learning difficulties, loss of coordination, and increased heart rate as well as reduced blood pressure. Those are the short-term post-high effects documented. Long-term frequent users develop the same lung issues as tobacco smokers. Taking a single hit occasionally may not do this, but smoking several joints is another story. While it is not linked to cancer, cancer isn't the only thing that happens to tobacco smokers, what with cannabis containing three times the tar of its nicotine counterpart. THC itself has been shown to impede the immune system. I'd cite my sources, but most proponents automatically don't trust "the Man" or frankly anyone who disagrees.

That being said, I'm fine with the stuff being legal, and treated within the law the same as alcohol and tobacco. It's this implication that the stuff is some super-herb that can do no wrong that I take issue with. It's just as bad as tobacco and just as impairing in the right quantities as alcohol, so you can't say one should be banned for health reasons and still give any of the others a free pass.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

Just gonna quote a bit of Hicks for this one...

?I have something to tell you non-smokers that I know for a fact that you don't know, and I feel it's my duty to pass on information at all times. Ready?. . . . Non-smokers die every day . . . Enjoy your evening. See, I know that you entertain this eternal life fantasy because you've chosen not to smoke, but let me be the 1st to POP that bubble and bring you hurling back to reality . . . You're dead too.?

People die every day related and unrelated to smoking it's been around longer than you and your nan and that's not gonna change, it's a huge part of today's culture it can't just be "Made Illegal" specially when it's so heavily taxed in such a harsh economic time.


Plus, Weed is a gateway drug you smoke weed you'll probably decide to try other things and it's a downward spiral from there just like drinking, driving, eating and masturbating.

Hmm, but people don't choose not to smoke any more than they chose not to sniff paint. Some people chose to do such things and others never even make the choice, there is nothing active in not smoking.

And non-smokers don't think they are immortal, both smokers and non-smokers know smoking is relatively more harmful to health. Hicks even died from Cancer before he was 32 years old. Smokers are just in denial or don't care of the risks relative to the rewards.

PS: weed isn't a gateway drug. The only way it is gateway is how it is illegal, wouldn't be the case if marijuana was legal.

"downward spiral from there just like drinking, driving, eating and masturbating."

What.

the...

HELL!!!!!

Eating? Jacking off? Driving?

 

[El Danny]

Second hand smoking actually harms the health of the people nearby.

To what extent? If it really bothers you, ask the guy having a smoke at the bus stop to move up, but I seriously don't see how one can develop health issues based to standing next to a smoker at the bus stop, or passing one in the street.

It's my habit, and it's not anybody's business what I do with it.

I was wondering, how do you feel about people who like to sniff powerful glues to huff on the solvents?

It's their "habit", not your business, but what would you think of such a character. But how is it different from what you are doing? Is it different because Yul Brynner looked "real keeewl" smoking a cigarette? Even though his final public appearance was an earnest insistence was that no one copy his habit as he died from diseases caused by smoking.

I have no illusion that solvent abuse can be solved by banning solvents. Nor can smoking be solved by banning tobacco. I think largely we have succeeded in educating everyone so most people have the sense not to spray Old Spice directly up their nostrils, yet the same sense of self-preservation abandons them when it comes to burning tobacco.

People just need to realise this habit of getting high is really REALLY dangerous to them.

Two completely separate things, solvents can kill you instantly, you'd be damn unlucky to die in your first year of smoking, even if you're on 2 packs a day. For what it's worth I tried solvents, like 5-6 years ago, thought they were shite but I maintained friendships for quite a few years with a couple of people who abuse solvents.

----

I agree with your logic on the smoking area ideas (technically we have them at my college) but I just don't think the dangers of second hand smoking are enough to threaten a member of the public, certainly not enough to justify spending £££ to implement and enforce such a scheme. Nobody is going to get cancer from passing a smoking in the street or standing next to one at the bus stop.

So "completely separate" because they *can* kill instantly, only in the sense of passing out and suffocating on ones own vomit. And anyway you said it was their own body, their own habit, what is this distinction on different degrees of danger?

So you'd see no problem with your close family and friends all huffing solvents as long as there was someone around to roll them over if they pass out and start vomiting? The ongoing health risks of solvent abuse are very equivalent to habitual smoking. I'm not talking ongoing friendship, I'm saying do you have a PROBLEM. Do you think they shouldn't do that and that they should quit their solvent habit.

Your vouching for insistence of the acceptability of smoking is not help by how you also vouch acceptance of solvent abuse.

I'm not saying solvents nor tobacco should be banned. I'm saying these people should be helped and every effort made to get them to quit this habit permanently.

PS: ban on smoking in public may be also a factor of the litter and fire risks of smoking. It's pretty easy to put a food or drinks container back in your pocket till you find a bin, but what to do with a smouldering tar-oozing cigarette butt? What almost all smokers do, they throw it on the ground. They are hardly going to put the stinking thing in their pocket. Tossed directly in a trash can it'll likely set it on fire. Or tossed onto dry grass or onto an oily rag.

I'd never seen a smoker on the streets finish a cigarette and not immediately throw it on the ground. I don't know any smoker who carries around a case for their spent cigarette butts till they find a place to dispose them. Of all the litter I see on the streets, cigarette butts are the most common. The government provides these streets for everyone, no one should be allowed to discard crap all over them.

Distinction between different kinds of danger? Like how the danger of opening my door and having a piano fall on my head, and walking into a busy road are two different things? You make distinctions between dangers so many times a day when you go down the stairs or won't cross the road with out looking both ways.

Other than that, the entire first half of your post is just irrelevant dribble about solvents.

Here is some education; things smokers do and don't with their fag buts.
Throw it on the ground?: No.
Throw it on the ground and stamp: Yes
Throw it in a trash can: No. (If I ever saw somebody doing this I'd walk up and make them fetch it out).

Now for whether smokers do things drunks do;
Vomit in a public area like a path or park: No.
Urinate in a public area like a path or park: No.
Have sex in a public area like a path or park: No.

Your argument is now invalid.

 

[Blunderman]

Whilst I personally would not be interested in doing either, both smoking cigarettes and marijuana should be legal. I think we shouldn't stop there, but that's a question for another time.

However, it should be illegal to smoke in all public places where vicinity with others is unavoidable (everything from restaurants to public transportation platforms). Everyone else has the right to not be subjected to harmful substances.

Unlike with alcohol or non-smoking recreational drugs, the mere act of being next to someone who's enjoying a cigarette is directly harmful. It doesn't matter how harmful it is, it's still harmful, and no one should have to suffer it against their will. There are still plenty of places where you can light up.

I would also like to see employers and various services have the right to discriminate based on what drugs a person is using. Whilst smoking tobacco hasn't been shown to have a significant effect on a person's brain, the same cannot be said for marijuana (and other psychoactive drugs). Hence it should be legal to, for example, refuse to hire someone based on marijuana usage, as well as alcoholism.

I suppose the same could be true of smoking tobacco if it directly interfered with the person's ability to do their job, such as if you were a masseuse. Some people would definitely prefer it if the person giving them a massage didn't stink to high heavens of cigarettes.

 

[El Danny]

Whilst I personally would not be interested in doing either, both smoking cigarettes and marijuana should be legal. I think we shouldn't stop there, but that's a question for another time.

However, it should be illegal to smoke in all public places where vicinity with others is unavoidable (everything from restaurants to public transportation platforms). Everyone else has the right to not be subjected to harmful substances.

Unlike with alcohol or non-smoking recreational drugs, the mere act of being next to someone who's enjoying a cigarette is directly harmful. It doesn't matter how harmful it is, it's still harmful, and no one should have to suffer it against their will. There are still plenty of places where you can light up.

I would also like to see employers and various services have the right to discriminate based on what drugs a person is using. Whilst smoking tobacco hasn't been shown to have a significant effect on a person's brain, the same cannot be said for marijuana (and other psychoactive drugs). Hence it should be legal to, for example, refuse to hire someone based on marijuana usage, as well as alcoholism.

I suppose the same could be true of smoking tobacco if it directly interfered with the person's ability to do their job, such as if you were a masseuse. Some people would definitely prefer it if the person giving them a massage didn't stink to high heavens of cigarettes.

You're not going to get lung cancer from walking around smokers, such an idea would cost £££ to implement and enforce but would offer nothing.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

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

I do not wish to live in a nanny state, and neither should you.

Also, weed has potential harmful side effects in the same way drunkenness has potential harmful side effects.

People do stupid things when drunk, so I can't imagine the number of 'heavy machinery' accidents caused by people who are high all the time.

Correct me if i'm wrong but doesn't the majority of the harm come from the second hand smoke which is unfiltered, harming other people? I try not to stay around smokers but it's freaking ridiculous when they're driving a car and light up a cigarette, thinking the smoke's going out the window when really it's just getting blown back inside..

It's a not a pleasant experience, I'll grant you that, but the effects of 'second hand smoke' are negligible at best.

Much like walking through a traffic heavy city.

 

[Blunderman]

You're not going to get lung cancer from walking around smokers, such an idea would cost £££ to implement and enforce but would offer nothing.

First, there is consensus that second-hand smoke is harmful. How harmful it is doesn't matter. Claiming that it has to cause lung cancer for it to warrant concern is just plain stupid. Moreover, it's not just about health. It also stinks something awful.

I believe in personal freedom, in that I want the choice of whether to inhale cigarette smoke. I don't want it forced upon me by those who couldn't care less about my personal health just because they've decided to ruin theirs.

Second, such a law wouldn't cost anything. People are already prohibited from smoking in many public places and it didn't take constant police supervision for that to happen. The public generally respects the law. If you make it illegal to smoke in the places I mentioned, there would be a significant drop straight off the bat and the rest would go away slowly through a combination of convention, respect and people policing themselves and others.

Third, the effect would be an increase in personal freedom, slightly better health, more pleasant experiences in public places for non-smokers as well as more respect shown for non-smokers by smokers.

All in all, it would be better for everyone. Smokers still get to smoke and non-smokers get to remain non-smokers.

 

[Blunderman]

It's a not a pleasant experience, I'll grant you that, but the effects of 'second hand smoke' are negligible at best.

Much like walking through a traffic heavy city.

Cigarette smoke is made up of something like 6,000-7,000 chemical compounds, ~60 of which are known carcinogens. That's hardly "negligible at best."

Heavy traffic is also a problem, for a variety of reasons. Most countries of the world are working for reducing emissions.

 

[Fireprufe15]

I think smoking them outside should be curbed, or at least reduced in the areas near public areas, but not banned. Due to the ban on smoking inside smokers now just crowd around the entrance in large numbers instead.

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.

Here in South Africa if you smoke in any public space you get a fine. We don't even get smoking zones in restaurants anymore. Thank you government. It really does help now people can only really smoke at their home or in their cars.

 

[wsmieszek]

Newsflash: You smoke marijuana mixed with tobacco.

 

[Robert Ewing]

It's that instance where if cigarettes were invented today, they'd be illegalized in a heartbeat. But as they're so ingrained into our culture, it's impossible to ban them

Picture it, a political party banning cigarettes and then expects to be voted in for the next term, while other parties want to re-legalize them again. Absolutely idiotic.

We all know cigarettes are bad, but the public have spoken loud and clear.

 

[The_Emperor]

As long as it does not affect others people should be able to do what they want.

 

[LiftYourSkinnyFists]

What.

the...

HELL!!!!!

Eating? Jacking off? Driving?

You can die from eating, Jacking off and Driving just like smoking.

Oh and need I remind us an Aneurism could strike us down at any time in our life?

 

[Dylan Sowers]

I think we should ban bread, personally. I mean, think about it. We could just replace it with bananas. Bananas don't have any of the long-term side-effects that bread has. It makes perfect sense.

 

[Treblaine]

What.

the...

HELL!!!!!

Eating? Jacking off? Driving?

You can die from eating, Jacking off and Driving just like smoking.

Oh and need I remind us an Aneurism could strike us down at any time in our life?

Please, tell me you are joking?

Masturbation is not at all deadly and not remotely dangerous. The low possibility of choking while eating is offset by the inevitable fatality from starvation, while choking is rare and easily treated with the Heimlich manoeuvre which most should be trained in, I am. Driving is relatively safe if you follow all safety laws. No insurance company charges extra for driving, almost all charge extra for smoking as it is borne out in statistics: driving legally isn't dangerous, smoking AT ALL is very dangerous.

Habitual smoking is the single biggest thing that will shorten your life and hasten you to an early gave, the physical impediments of smoking are immediate and continuous as long as one continues to smoke.

There is nothing you can do to stop a spontaneous aneurysm which are EXTREMELY rare, mainly affecting people with rare genetic conditions in their youth or the very old.

 

[Treblaine]

Distinction between different kinds of danger? Like how the danger of opening my door and having a piano fall on my head, and walking into a busy road are two different things? You make distinctions between dangers so many times a day when you go down the stairs or won't cross the road with out looking both ways.

Other than that, the entire first half of your post is just irrelevant dribble about solvents.

Here is some education; things smokers do and don't with their fag buts.
Throw it on the ground?: No.
Throw it on the ground and stamp: Yes
Throw it in a trash can: No. (If I ever saw somebody doing this I'd walk up and make them fetch it out).

Now for whether smokers do things drunks do;
Vomit in a public area like a path or park: No.
Urinate in a public area like a path or park: No.
Have sex in a public area like a path or park: No.

Your argument is now invalid.

But it's a false dichotomy: "yeah, no problem smoking, It'll kill me slowly. No chance of sudden death" is no defence. It doesn't not deflect from the equivalence between smoking and huffing solvents.

What about all the smouldering cigarette butts I see littering the street? Smouldering or not, Cigarette littering has become such a problem I can understand why so many places have banned public smoking. They make up the majority of the litter on the streets and are hard for sanitation workers to clear up they can't easily be picked up with prongs like discarded food packaging.

Ask any fireman the number of fires caused by discarded cigarettes into rubbish piles and onto dried foliage, the contribution of smokers to unintended arson is not insignificant. You may claim you don't do it, but enough smokers do for it to be a problem that we all have to pay for and we are getting fed up with it.

Its another false dichotomy comparing smoking to being drunk and disorderly as in most jurisdictions it is a CRIME to do all of those things you listed while drunk. Drunks are arrested or fined for doing all those anti-social things if they get caught. Are you suggesting that smokers should feel the same heavy hand of the law for blowing smoke in people's faces and littering fag-ends everywhere?

How is my argument invalid? You invalidated your own argument! You try to contrast smoking with drinking, but have just COMPARED them and illustrated how smokers should fairly get the same restrictions as drunks.