Cigarettes should be illegal.

[Dascylus]

Really?
Doesn't the usual argument go blablabla weed better than alcohol blablabla when was the last time you saw a stoned person smash stuff in the street.

The whole argument that one thing isn't bad because a seperate thing is worse in your opinion is a poor argument.
Like, why is besiality illegal when sodomy is ok. Sodomy is way more disgusting.... You see, one does not prove/disprove the other.

Of course if we are talking precedents and where we set our standards then there is a greater argument against drinking than for the legalisation of weed so that is obviously not the right direction to take.
If you wanna talk about the arguments in favor of weed I suggest you research the reasons it became socially unacceptable in the first place, it is much easier to attack racism than it is to attack opinion on what is fun.

 

[Treblaine]

then how should i smoke my then legalized weed if they banned tobacco

Marijuana Brownies. Avoid the cancer risk almost entirely.

 

[BeeGeenie]

We can't ban them in America because we believe in freedom and every individual's right to do stupid things if they feel like it... as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to anyone else... so smokers should not do it in the company of others (i.e. public buildings), which there are rules about, so yeah... Things are fine the way they are.

 

[tycho0042]

I wouldn't mind if cigarettes were banned. but then again, I wouldn't mind if alcohol was banned either.

 

[Bassik]

Cigarettes are harmful to you, yeah. But weed is illegal because it puts you into a state where you are harmful to others. You can smoke twenty cigarettes and drive no problem. You smoke one joint and you'll crash your car faster than Spongebob.

And you drink a few, or are under heavy medication, or are distracted by your cellphone.

You know, some people do understand that driving under influence is a bad idea. When my friends come over to get stoned off our asses, they don't bring their cars.

In my opinion, your arguement is bollocks.

 

[Treblaine]

We can't ban them in America because we believe in freedom and every individual's right to do stupid things if they feel like it... as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to anyone else... so smokers should not do it in the company of others (i.e. public buildings), which there are rules about, so yeah... Things are fine the way they are.

Yes, you couldn't ban the possession of Tobacco, nor its smoking, that would lead to a dangerous precedent of police being permitted to invade anyone's home or garden to see if they were.

But wouldn't it defy the "as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to anyone else" rule if you are SELLING cigarettes which have the sole purpose of being smoked, which is inherently and unavoidably very harmful. So the SALE of cigarettes would be banned, but you'd be free to grow your own tobacco plants and do what you like with them, other than give them to others in exchange for material benefits such as money or barter.

It's easy to ban stores from selling cigarettes. Stores can't up and run away and they are inherently open to the public, any cop can come in, ask for some cigarettes and then issue a fine then a warrant to confiscate and destroy all the other contraband.

You could still sell tobacco, as long as you made sure it couldn't be smoked, such as doping it with a chemical that is harmless to eat but if you burn it (like try to use the tobacco in a cigarette) it has a tear-gas like effect inducing such severe sneezing and coughing that they couldn't continue smoking.

 

[Samantha Burt]

Lol, let's ban an addictive drug to legalise another addictive drug.

They'll never ban them, too many people depend on them and in the UK at least, the tax the government slap on them bring in way too much income for them to ban them.

My main issue with this is the amount the NHS spends on smokers. I'm pretty sure there's not much profit in it anymore. Also, I don't see why weed can't be legal. It's no more harmful than cigarettes or alcohol and it's not like people don't steal to pay for their nicotine habits. \:

 

[BeeGeenie]

We can't ban them in America because we believe in freedom and every individual's right to do stupid things if they feel like it... as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to anyone else... so smokers should not do it in the company of others (i.e. public buildings), which there are rules about, so yeah... Things are fine the way they are.

Yes, you couldn't ban the possession of Tobacco, nor its smoking, that would lead to a dangerous precedent of police being permitted to invade anyone's home or garden to see if they were.

But wouldn't it defy the "as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to anyone else" rule if you are SELLING cigarettes which have the sole purpose of being smoked, which is inherently and unavoidably very harmful. So the SALE of cigarettes would be banned, but you'd be free to grow your own tobacco plants and do what you like with them, other than give them to others in exchange for material benefits such as money or barter.

It's easy to ban stores from selling cigarettes. Stores can't up and run away and they are inherently open to the public, any cop can come in, ask for some cigarettes and then issue a fine then a warrant to confiscate and destroy all the other contraband.

You could still sell tobacco, as long as you made sure it couldn't be smoked, such as doping it with a chemical that is harmless to eat but if you burn it (like try to use the tobacco in a cigarette) it has a tear-gas like effect inducing such severe sneezing and coughing that they couldn't continue smoking.

That's a dangerous road to go down... besides, the store owner isn't causing harm to the smoker, he's providing a product for which the smoker is willing to pay. I don't drink, smoke, or do any kind of drug, but I do think they should all be legal... as long as you're willing to accept the consequences of using them. If those consequences are lung cancer? then tough luck for them. If the consequences are drunk driving resulting in manslaughter? Too bad, hope they enjoy their time in prison.
Is my libertarian streak showing? I believe the gov't constantly trying to micromanage everything is a bad thing, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Treblaine]

We can't ban them in America because we believe in freedom and every individual's right to do stupid things if they feel like it... as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to anyone else... so smokers should not do it in the company of others (i.e. public buildings), which there are rules about, so yeah... Things are fine the way they are.

Yes, you couldn't ban the possession of Tobacco, nor its smoking, that would lead to a dangerous precedent of police being permitted to invade anyone's home or garden to see if they were.

But wouldn't it defy the "as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to anyone else" rule if you are SELLING cigarettes which have the sole purpose of being smoked, which is inherently and unavoidably very harmful. So the SALE of cigarettes would be banned, but you'd be free to grow your own tobacco plants and do what you like with them, other than give them to others in exchange for material benefits such as money or barter.

It's easy to ban stores from selling cigarettes. Stores can't up and run away and they are inherently open to the public, any cop can come in, ask for some cigarettes and then issue a fine then a warrant to confiscate and destroy all the other contraband.

You could still sell tobacco, as long as you made sure it couldn't be smoked, such as doping it with a chemical that is harmless to eat but if you burn it (like try to use the tobacco in a cigarette) it has a tear-gas like effect inducing such severe sneezing and coughing that they couldn't continue smoking.

That's a dangerous road to go down... besides, the store owner isn't causing harm to the smoker, he's providing a product for which the smoker is willing to pay. I don't drink, smoke, or do any kind of drug, but I do think they should all be legal... as long as you're willing to accept the consequences of using them. If those consequences are lung cancer? then tough luck for them. If the consequences are drunk driving resulting in manslaughter? Too bad, hope they enjoy their time in prison.
Is my libertarian streak showing? I believe the gov't constantly trying to micromanage everything is a bad thing, but that's just my opinion.

Well it's a road we have gone down before. You can't sell asbestos insulation because it causes cancer. All the time products are pulled from store shelves - by law - as they are found to be carcinogenic or otherwise harmful. Like those children toys with dangerous amounts of lead contamination.

You aren't allowed to sell foot of beverages laced with dangerous levels of lead or mercury, even if you warn them. Why should cigarette's get a free pass?

You can't say "Oh yeah, this milk has lead in it that some health Nazis say is too much, but it's not problem, look, I'm drinking the milk! Now give me your money"

This isn't libertarianism, this is exploitation. Which defies the "do no harm" guidance of libertarianism. Libertarianism means you can drink poison, but you cannot sell poisonous drinks. Simply saying "it's poisonous" is irrelevant if you give every other indication it is harmless like "oh, I've been consuming it for years with no problem" and insinuate that the advice that its poisonous is erroneous.

 

[BeeGeenie]

We can't ban them in America because we believe in freedom and every individual's right to do stupid things if they feel like it... as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to anyone else... so smokers should not do it in the company of others (i.e. public buildings), which there are rules about, so yeah... Things are fine the way they are.

Yes, you couldn't ban the possession of Tobacco, nor its smoking, that would lead to a dangerous precedent of police being permitted to invade anyone's home or garden to see if they were.

But wouldn't it defy the "as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to anyone else" rule if you are SELLING cigarettes which have the sole purpose of being smoked, which is inherently and unavoidably very harmful. So the SALE of cigarettes would be banned, but you'd be free to grow your own tobacco plants and do what you like with them, other than give them to others in exchange for material benefits such as money or barter.

It's easy to ban stores from selling cigarettes. Stores can't up and run away and they are inherently open to the public, any cop can come in, ask for some cigarettes and then issue a fine then a warrant to confiscate and destroy all the other contraband.

You could still sell tobacco, as long as you made sure it couldn't be smoked, such as doping it with a chemical that is harmless to eat but if you burn it (like try to use the tobacco in a cigarette) it has a tear-gas like effect inducing such severe sneezing and coughing that they couldn't continue smoking.

That's a dangerous road to go down... besides, the store owner isn't causing harm to the smoker, he's providing a product for which the smoker is willing to pay. I don't drink, smoke, or do any kind of drug, but I do think they should all be legal... as long as you're willing to accept the consequences of using them. If those consequences are lung cancer? then tough luck for them. If the consequences are drunk driving resulting in manslaughter? Too bad, hope they enjoy their time in prison.
Is my libertarian streak showing? I believe the gov't constantly trying to micromanage everything is a bad thing, but that's just my opinion.

Well it's a road we have gone down before. You can't sell asbestos insulation because it causes cancer. All the time products are pulled from store shelves - by law - as they are found to be carcinogenic or otherwise harmful. Like those children toys with dangerous amounts of lead contamination.

You aren't allowed to sell foot of beverages laced with dangerous levels of lead or mercury, even if you warn them. Why should cigarette's get a free pass?

You can't say "Oh yeah, this milk has lead in it that some health Nazis say is too much, but it's not problem, look, I'm drinking the milk! Now give me your money"

This isn't libertarianism, this is exploitation. Which defies the "do no harm" guidance of libertarianism. Libertarianism means you can drink poison, but you cannot sell poisonous drinks. Simply saying "it's poisonous" is irrelevant if you give every other indication it is harmless like "oh, I've been consuming it for years with no problem" and insinuate that the advice that its poisonous is erroneous.

I'm still gonna have to say sell what you want. I can understand recalling toys with lead-based paint or asbestos tiling, because they didn't know at the time that it was a problem, and once they did, they fixed it. But if people willfully ingest something that they know to be harmful, that's their problem. Natural selection.

 

[Treblaine]

I'm still gonna have to say sell what you want. I can understand recalling toys with lead-based paint or asbestos tiling, because they didn't know at the time that it was a problem, and once they did, they fixed it. But if people willfully ingest something that they know to be harmful, that's their problem. Natural selection.

I'm sorry. I don't get how you can recall lead laced products or asbestos tiles but not cigarettes. Couldn't you just easily keep selling asbestos tiles and lead laced toys and food with a little disclaimer?

Why do cigarettes get a free pass? People are making BILLIONS of dollars off feeding an addiction THEY created, that directly leads to [EDIT] the death of hundreds of millions of people, up to ten million people each year with current trends.

If they were selling asbestos tiles after they knew the risk we'd all be livid. But why do cigarettes get unfairly beneficial treatment. This is not libertarian, this breaks the golden rule of "Do no harm to others".

 

[Britisheagle]

They shouldn't be banned as its a lifestyle choice and addiction would make a ban ineffective, simple as. It would just encourage illegal trading.

I hate the alcohol banning comments, however, as drinking alcohol sensibly is harmless and as long as you are responsible its hardly harming anyone else.

 

[Treblaine]

Sorry for the double post.

I'm still gonna have to say sell what you want. I can understand recalling toys with lead-based paint or asbestos tiling, because they didn't know at the time that it was a problem, and once they did, they fixed it. But if people willfully ingest something that they know to be harmful, that's their problem. Natural selection.

I'm sorry. I don't get how you can recall lead laced products or asbestos tiles but not cigarettes. Couldn't you just easily keep selling asbestos tiles and lead laced toys and food with a little disclaimer?

Why do cigarettes get a free pass? People are making BILLIONS of dollars off feeding an addiction THEY created that directly leads to the death if hundreds of millions of people each year.

If they were selling asbestos tiles after they knew the risk we'd all be livid. But why do cigarettes get unfairly beneficial treatment. This is not libertarian, this breaks the golden rule of "Do no harm to others".

Because - get this - toys are sold to CHILDREN, while cigarettes are sold to ADULTS. You know, people who are supposed to be able to decide for themselves. I don't know what your definition of "freedom" is, but the fact that I can go to a bar, drink beer, eat a greasy burger, and then take some skank home for the night while tuning out people who can't get laid talk about granola bars is what makes Western society great.

Also, lol at cigarettes killing "hundreds of millions of people each year". Right. Mate, WWII took six years to kill 60 million. If cigarettes killed, say, 200 million people a year (the minimum requirement for your use of the plural), and we say that the rise of the tobacco industry started in the late 1940s, when there were about 2.4 billion people on Earth, then they would have killed their entire consumer base within 12 years.

You should really learn to think before typing, my friend.

Yes, but the toys are bought by adults. And it's not just children toys pulled for lead content, also adult sized t-shirts and milk and other things designed for adults. Should it be legal to sell asbestos insulation to places with only adults? If it's wrong to hurt a child then it's wrong to hurt and adult.

People should not be free to harm others by selling them dangerous products. The golden role of libertarianism: do no harm.

There are safe levels of consumption of alcohol and fat that is down the the individual to exercise self control, and sexual health can only be enforced on an individual basis, the police can't go around checking if people wear condoms or not. Every single cigarette smoked significantly and persistently harms the individual and contributes to them getting cancer.

Misspoke, meant to say up to ten million each year, or hundreds of millions, period

http://www.inforesearchlab.com/smokingdeaths.chtml

It kills people globally about the same rate as WWII killed people. About 6 million per year, with current trends of increasing smoking in developing/non-western countries will see 1 billion people killed by smoking, about 10 million per year with current trends. And that is TODAY, with smoking levels fallen lowest in a long time but rising in other parts of the world.

So in the defence of smoking:

"Oh smoking isn't that bad, it isn't killing EVERYONE. It's only the global population people at the same rate AS WORLD WAR 2!"

Still a billion dollar industry based on a self-created addiction and causes so much suffering.

 

[BeerTent]

I think smoking should be compulsory, so people can be reminded every single day of their lives via public announcements and cigarette packs that they're gonna die sooo fucking bad.
/iamdick

Move to Canada.
https://www.google.com/search?q=canadian+cigarette+packages&hl=en&prmd=imvnsu&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=1ZjpT7XuJaqG6QGlh_SHDQ&ved=0CFIQ_AUoAQ&biw=1440&bih=775

Done.

Personally, I'm not for banning anything. The Canadian war on drugs appalls me, as while Weed can be harmful, it's not nearly as harmful as some more legal alternatives.

But banning anything, is foolish. We shouldn't ban cigs, we should limit what tobacco companies can do with them. Again, up here, I feel we sorta got the right idea. No advertisements, and a strict limit on the space of the package that can be used for a logo. (Seriously, my co-worker has covers for those health warnings.)

If your going to ban anything then...
Keep weed banned, because it makes you hungry and look like an unattractive idiot.
Ban alcohol, because you can go over your limit, and it makes some people aggressive.
Ban Cigs, because well, second hand smoke is bad. And nicotine is addictive.
Ban cellphones, because people answer them on the road. Get in accidents and die.
Ban Korean MMO's because people can, and will sit and play them until death, and only get to level 4.
Ban cars, because its two tonnes of metal going at 100KPH. What disaster can and will ensue?
Ban water, because you can drink too much and die.

 

[The Lugz]

I find it curious that you attack cigarettes, and not alcohol, when clearly the latter is the greater evil

alcohol itself is not inherently bad, in small doses it is entirely harmless
however, if you abuse it and overwhelm your body's resistance to it you will suffer multiple long term debilitating diseases social problems and mental problems

smokers effect anyone in a 100 yard radius, with poisonous fumes that it's very hard to avoid.
it's forcing your will to destroy yourself on other people who do not choose the same

it also doesn't matter how often you smoke you are still processing chemicals that are inherently dangerous to your health and the health of anyone around you
( google it, you'll find thousands of compounds in tobacco smoke and the various additives used to 'flavour' it )
stage actors who are not smokers themselves have often developed symptoms ranging from lung cancer to bronchitis due to smoke exposure
( and is a factor contributing to the banning of smoking in public spaces )

so, gotta disagree there inherently alcohol is safer than smoke
but if you abuse anything enough it will of course be a severe problem
just as you could down 4 bottles of Jd, you could cover your entire body in nicotine patches or simply smoke 90 a day and poison yourself with a lethal overdose as-well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine
( and that's just nicotine, there are other poisons in smoke )

as for my opinion;
if i had the power i'd ban smoking in a heartbeat and set a reasonable restriction on alchahol
unfortunately people are ignorant and don't understand the brain can entertain itself with the proper stimulation and until that changes they will choose chemical salvation over proper neural function

 

[Dense_Electric]

No. So long as what you're doing isn't harming anyone else (including drinking, smoking in your own home (not in public, second-hand smoke and whatnot), doing weed, crack, meth, heroin, or any other drug), you have the inherent right to do it. The government has no right to get involved and tell you what you can and can't do to your own body. PERIOD.

 

[Sam Winterton]

Agreed on the weed front. But as for tobacco, you cant hook people for over a hundred years, then ban them. Its an addiction, nicotine is apparently more addictive than heroin. Besides, imagine how high your tax bill would go if they banned cigarettes. The government'll take a big hit in the pocket, then take out another wedge of your hard earned money

 

[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.

Right. Let's just ban everything that isn't helpful and that can hurt people. Because, you know, who gives a crap about freedom of choice? Let's all get treated like immature children by people who know better. Let's all eat only organically grown vegetables, let's all drive eco-box cars, let's all live in government housing, let's ban loud music, alcohol, motorcycles, casual sex, anything that doesn't directly benefit the nanny state shall henceforth be VERBOTEN!!!


You know who implemented the first smoking bans in history? The nazis.

You know what should be banned? The right of daft people to voice their opinions.

Well that's an extreme slippery slope argument.

No reason to ban non-organic vegetables which have trivial difference from organic veg. No reason to ban alcohol as most can drink responsibly. No reason to live in government housing when private enterprise is more suited to that task. No reason to ban motorcycles when helmet laws are enforced.

Loud music is already regulated according to noise pollution as I'm quite sure YOU would appreciate if some pickheads where playing Justin Bieber (or whoever's music you don't like) records at 160 decibels next door. That's clearly not libertarian, allowing to infringe upon others.

This is not about what will "directly benefit the nanny state" this is about what will directly harm people.

"You know who implemented the first smoking bans in history? The nazis."

Ever heard of Godwin's Law? Smoking is irrelevant to what the Nazis were infamous for and in fact the first anti-smoking campaign started in Germany BEFORE the Nazis came to power in the 1920's.

People should have the right to smoke. But people should not have the right to profit off that by selling cigarettes.

"You know what should be banned? The right of daft people to voice their opinions."

Now that is something the Nazis were infamous for, how they suppressed people's freedom of speech for arbitrary reasons.

 

[-Samurai-]

Smoke all you want, but keep your fucking cigarette butts off the ground. If you don't want them in your car, what makes you think I want them in my front yard?

I have to clean the parking lot at work(Zoo), and the amount of cigarette butts I find daily is disgusting.

 

[Dense_Electric]

This isn't libertarianism, this is exploitation. Which defies the "do no harm" guidance of libertarianism. Libertarianism means you can drink poison, but you cannot sell poisonous drinks. Simply saying "it's poisonous" is irrelevant if you give every other indication it is harmless like "oh, I've been consuming it for years with no problem" and insinuate that the advice that its poisonous is erroneous.

As a libertarian, here's the problem I have with your logic: the act of selling someone a poison does not do any harm. Consuming the poison is what does harm. A Libertarian is perfectly able to sell poison and still be in keeping with libertarian philosophy so long as the libertarian makes the full affects of their poison known at the time of the transaction. Whether or not the purchaser of the poison, now fully aware of the poison's affects, then consumes the poison falls solely on their own shoulders, not the seller. It is the free will of the purchaser that decides that, and therefor, the seller has not interfered with the purchaser's free will or rights. Suggesting that the seller of the poison can be held accountable for the death of the purchaser is exactly like saying the seller of a firearm can be held accountable for the suicide of the purchaser. It doesn't make logical sense.

Now, you're correct in saying that misleading the purchaser could be considered a violation of their rights, but that's why we have laws that prevent such deception as much as possible - so that each individual can, of their own free will, decide whether or not to purchase cigarettes, or alcohol, or any other potentially harmful substances.