Cigarettes should be illegal.

[k3v1n]

Most things nowadays are bad for us. Fuck, even a McDonald's hamburger has chemicals pumped into it. If you start forbiding things, the only thing you're going to manage is to increase it's illegal selling (not sure if that's the right expression).

Although, I partially agree with you, I see no value in smoking. It relieves stress you say? you might as well have a wank at a public toilet and, at least, you're not hurting anybody with your smoke.

 

[Jegsimmons]

Weed is less harmful than cigarettes.

Wrong, its inhaling the same amount of tar and smoke than 20 cigarettes, this is why its been linked to lung and heart illness.

At least weed help people in a way. That and it's natural unlike the thousands of chemicals in the average cigarette.

Except for the fact that most of those chemicals dont actually go in your body, those go in the filter that actually help clean it before it enters the lungs. With the exception of nicotine.
Also, there is NOTHING natural about inhaling paper smoke and plant smoke and cause a chemical imbalance in your brain. to say its more natural is like saying its more natural to die from getting ran over by a horse than a car.

And in what way does a cigarette help anybody.

relieve stress, employs tens of thousands of people (something weed can not do, because tobacco can be smoked in different ways and chewed, none of which make you high and impair your abilities to operate a car or other devices.)

If you know a way please tell me. But they should just ban them without hesitation.

wow, you could not come off more as a fascist than with that sentence. i am actually embarrassed i live on the same planet as you.
"ban what i dont like! Legalize what i do like!"
"i dont agree with it so it should be banned!"

Its literally the liberal logic meme you find on 4chan.


Also, how old are you? you cant be older than 16 judging by your wording. This is the reason why we continue to not legalize weed because no one can come up with a valid arguement backed up by science and logic to suggest it would be beneficial to society in anyway because no one wants to just say "Alright we just want to get high"
because lets be honest, getting high is pointless, getting drunk or impaired mentally will never benefit a society. especially an American society.

Note: i neither smoke nor drink.

 

[karcentric]

Personally I think people who smoke are better to talk to, that and I have no problems with people who smoke. It's normally people that INSIST things be illegal that are the boring up right twerps jumping on the political correctness train.

Cigarettes don't make people paranoid, hungry, lazy or boring to talk to. All things that weed does very well.

Either way banning something won't stop people who actually want it.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Oh man this again? If cigarettes are banned, then alcohol should be too.

 

[eevangoh]

Sorry, I can't be bothered to read all 550 posts, so I'll reply directly to OP: fuck no they shouldn't.

I'm a smoker. I smoke in my own house, sometimes on the balcony, in places where I'm allowed to (bars, for example), and if I do it outdoors, I make sure I don't blow smoke in someone's face and try too keep distance. I never throw out the butts anywhere except trash cans or ashtrays if I have a choice (because if there isn't a trash can in a 100 meters in any direction from me because of some stupid terrorist act that almost happened in my city, I'm not carrying it for ten miles just because the city council decided to go out of their way to strip me of the ability to properly dispose of garbage). I also live right next to a beer factory and a large-ish highway. Now, how exactly does my smoking affect anyone except me? And if it only affects me, then what right do you have to take the right to make stupid decisions away from me?

And really, "weed is less harmful"? Your point is "don't do this thing that is bad for you, do this other thing that is also pretty bad"?

In fact, as I've said in that Unpopular Opinions thread, I think all the drugs should be legalized and nationalized.

Alas, the world seems to agree with you, Link55, and I think smoking will be illegal in about 40 years, tops.

 

[CentralScrtnzr]

To echo some comments made by Frank Zappa on this issue, I will relate the following. Cigarettes, damaging as they may be from burning organics (which would be a similar problem with smoking marijuana) has for its active ingredient nicotine. While nicotine has been demonstrated to damage heart tissue, so has the same been demonstrated of many more powerful medications--particularly amphetamines like adderall--which actually sharpen the mind and produce performance enhancing effects. Simply put, cigarettes don't dull the mind. Even the famous Hunter Thompson said that the only drug he couldn't write on was marijuana.

Of course, I'm not actually opposed to the legalization of marijuana, but I wanted to speak merely of the dangers of advocating its legalization by advocating the outlawing of cigarettes.

Millions of Americans still smoke cigarettes; if you've ever been in the armed forces, odds are you came out a smoker; you can't drink on the job, but you can always smoke, and you mind will remain alert. Pretty much, if you've ever worked some high-stress occupation with long hours and with little respite, you will take up smoking; it's the only respite.

I'm lucky enough not to work a high-stress, long-hours occupation. I don't smoke. I have promised myself that, if I should ever become successful--and thus a point of pride, rather than shame to my parents--I will take up periodic cigar-smoking.

 

[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.

I don't come out in support or animosity toward marijuana. People ask why it is illegal, that's the reason why.

Yeah, Alchohol and medication do the same thing, as does a ringing cellphone. But in a lot of people, weed has a tendency to impair judgement in a different way.

Example. Someone who gets drunk and then thinks they're okay to drive a car, is probably a fucking idiot whether they're drunk or not. Someone who gets high can be put into a different state of mind than how they would react. They don't just behave differently physically, they behave differently mentally as well, to a more severe degree than someone does when getting drunk.

Now, that's all from my experience with people who like to get high. There is no scientific basis behind it, just my own observations. But the point is the risk is too high. I'm sure there are other reasons behind why weed is illegal.

But the fact remains that is IS ILLEGAL. Deal with it.

It's legal(ish) where I live, buddy. Holland!

Personally I've never experienced such a drastic impairment of judgement, and neither have I seen it happen to my friends.

Now, I am sure you know about people who smoke it to relieve their pain, but did you know a lot of autistic people smoke it as well? It helps with some of the worst aspects of that handicap, especially the rage is completely gone after only a small dose of THC.

Not to mention the camaraderie and tolerance it promotes in a group of friends that smoke.

 

[Kelgair]

We tried prohibition in the last century and it failed spectacularly. What makes people think trying it with a new vice this century would work better? I swear the Neo-Prohibitionist of this century are annoying as hell.

 

[Dascylus]

I smoke cigarettes, am well aware of the risks aswell as aware of how it effects others...
Since the european change in the law there are few who are openly flaunting it... In fact whenever a restaurant or bar had a no smoking policy before that there were few that I noticed that smoked in designated non-smoking areas.

Often though I would be standing in a public place and an anti-smoker would walk in my vicinity and cough while staring at me, when I offer a "Can I help you?" they then follow up with "You are aware how dangerous those are don't you?
But that was many years ago...

Now the same people give me the same behaviour when I use my phone too close to my children... So I'll do you a deal, I'll give up smoking if you are also willing to spearhead a campaign to ban radiotowers, cell phones, wi-fi and all the other things that get accused of harming others.

No actually I take it back because this is ridiculous. Are you suggesting we should revert to 19th century approaches of solving questions of social opinion? And if you believe we are discussing fact then you have missed how inconclusive much of the data is for passive smoking in adults.

 

[EtherealBeaver]

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!

Not really. Cigarettes affect you as well as everyone around you while alcohol only affects you.

Ever seen a person with a kid smoking with the excuse that (s)he has had no ill effects so its okay to smoke? What that person is doing is making sure that the child will live a long life where all the nastiness from the smoke really gets to take effect. Smoking doesnt really hit you had until 10+ years later and while its usually not too much of a problem for an adult, children are in the unfortunate situation that they are still developing. All the hormonal interference from cigarettes can do serious damage to children, stunt their growth, harm their lungs, give them asthma and allergies and a host of other very unpleasant effects.

Sure, alcohol can also have harmful effects in case of domestic abuse etc but that is forbidden by law so I see no reason why harming your child through smoke shouldn't be.

And that is just one of the reasons why I am extremely opposed to the idea that cigarettes are legal. Other reasons include stuff like smokers effectively forcing anyone with allergies/asthma away from where they smoke (which is very often in public places where you cant really just not go if you want to enter the hospital, school, bus, train, supermarket or just take a walk in the park), they are effectively poisoning anyone near them even if the people close to them do not have asthma, smokers are forcing their habit on others - even if I say I don't want to be exposed to smoke I will still be exposed to it the second I enter a crowd of people, smoke lingers in the air because the molecules are often too small to be effectively blown away fast so whenever a smoker goes down the road there is a 15 meter (45 foot for you imperialists) trail where the smoke will still affect anyone going there, and so on.

I appreciate the argument that a man can decide what he does to his own body but if that means that a small group of people can take away my right to decide what I do to my body then it becomes a non-argument.


Edit:

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.

The nazis also breathed air, used the loo, ate food, promoted art, reduced unemployment and sent Germany into the greatest economic boom the country has ever had so unless you think that was bad as well, your point about bans being bad because the nazis did it is invalid

And now that we are on the topic about rights, what about my right to go to the hospital without having to walk through a wall of smoke? Or the grocery, or the bus, or the train, or the park, or the street for that matter? I have asthma and whenever someone lights up a cigarette I have to walk away as fast as possible if I want to be able to breathe normally the next hour - that makes even something as basic as using communal transport pretty damn hard and all in the spirit of your right to force smoke upon others, thus removing their rights to opt out of smoking.

I honestly find it saddening that you write so much about freedom of choice when what you are actually advocating is the right to force air-born chemicals upon others without their consent.

 

[DaWaffledude]

I don't wish it was illegal. That would have economic repurcussions, and it would deny people of their rights to freedom and whatnot. I do, however, wish they had never existed in the first place.

 

[n00beffect]

By that logic, they should also ban Alcohol. Oh, and you know what else? Chocolate. Yeah, that's right. Chocolate is harmful for your teeth, and aside from some redundant sugar intake, doesn't help you in any way; also, it's a common cause for/threat to diabetes. Ooh! Ooh! I've got another one! McDonalds/KFC/Every single fastfood/pizza place ever! Harmful s@$#, makes you fat - baaan. But how about non-substance things that aren't helpful in any way? I know a few, like games for instance. Should all games be banned because they don't help you? I mean, judging by your example, the equivalent of weed>cigarettes should be books>games, right? Books are a lot more helpful and s*&(, so games ought to be banned because they don't serve a purpose. Oh, and also, cats. Kitties are just lazy things, who do nothing but sleep and eat all day; dogs, on the other hand, bring you your paper/slippers and can fetch a stick. Hm, yes indeed, ban cats.

Okay I'm gonna stop now. Next time when you try to make a bold, 'controversial' statement or something, try to at least defend it with some logic, kid. (and I mean REAL logic). It's true that cigarettes are harmful to you, and the environment, and to all those bloody pandas everyone loves so much, but that's true of almost anything in the world. Banning something just makes it more desireable. It's bad enough that in some countries you can't even smoke on the street anymore because of fussy plebs that just want to ban everything that doesn't suit their tastes.

 

[n00beffect]

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!

Not really. Cigarettes affect you as well as everyone around you while alcohol only affects you.

Ever seen a person with a kid smoking with the excuse that (s)he has had no ill effects so its okay to smoke? What that person is doing is making sure that the child will live a long life where all the nastiness from the smoke really gets to take effect. Smoking doesnt really hit you had until 10+ years later and while its usually not too much of a problem for an adult, children are in the unfortunate situation that they are still developing. All the hormonal interference from cigarettes can do serious damage to children, stunt their growth, harm their lungs, give them asthma and allergies and a host of other very unpleasant effects.

Sure, alcohol can also have harmful effects in case of domestic abuse etc but that is forbidden by law so I see no reason why harming your child through smoke shouldn't be.

And that is just one of the reasons why I am extremely opposed to the idea that cigarettes are legal. Other reasons include stuff like smokers effectively forcing anyone with allergies/asthma away from where they smoke (which is very often in public places where you cant really just not go if you want to enter the hospital, school, bus, train, supermarket or just take a walk in the park), they are effectively poisoning anyone near them even if the people close to them do not have asthma, smokers are forcing their habit on others - even if I say I don't want to be exposed to smoke I will still be exposed to it the second I enter a crowd of people, smoke lingers in the air because the molecules are often too small to be effectively blown away fast so whenever a smoker goes down the road there is a 15 meter (45 foot for you imperialists) trail where the smoke will still affect anyone going there, and so on.

I appreciate the argument that a man can decide what he does to his own body but if that means that a small group of people can take away my right to decide what I do to my body then it becomes a non-argument.


Edit:

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.

The nazis also breathed air, used the loo, ate food, promoted art, reduced unemployment and sent Germany into the greatest economic boom the country has ever had so unless you think that was bad as well, your point about bans being bad because the nazis did it is invalid

And now that we are on the topic about rights, what about my right to go to the hospital without having to walk through a wall of smoke? Or the grocery, or the bus, or the train, or the park, or the street for that matter? I have asthma and whenever someone lights up a cigarette I have to walk away as fast as possible if I want to be able to breathe normally the next hour - that makes even something as basic as using communal transport pretty damn hard and all in the spirit of your right to force smoke upon others, thus removing their rights to opt out of smoking.

I honestly find it saddening that you write so much about freedom of choice when what you are actually advocating is the right to force air-born chemicals upon others without their consent.

Uh, excuse me good sir, but unless you live in f-ing PAKISTAN or some other third world country, smoking is banned on almost all public places and sites. And I'm sorry you suffer from such a condition, and it's tragic that you have to endure all those nightmarish situations you listed above. It's rather odd, really. I know a lot of people with asthma, both friends and relatives, and smoking around them has never caused any sort of unprecedented attack or anything. Hell, my grandma has asthma yet every single member of my family smokes, and it's never been an issue. Sure, we take a couple of steps away from the old darling whenever we wish to indulge in our twisted pleasures, but that's about the only precaution we use. Your case must be very dire, if you are that sensitive.

 

[EtherealBeaver]

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!

Not really. Cigarettes affect you as well as everyone around you while alcohol only affects you.

Ever seen a person with a kid smoking with the excuse that (s)he has had no ill effects so its okay to smoke? What that person is doing is making sure that the child will live a long life where all the nastiness from the smoke really gets to take effect. Smoking doesnt really hit you had until 10+ years later and while its usually not too much of a problem for an adult, children are in the unfortunate situation that they are still developing. All the hormonal interference from cigarettes can do serious damage to children, stunt their growth, harm their lungs, give them asthma and allergies and a host of other very unpleasant effects.

Sure, alcohol can also have harmful effects in case of domestic abuse etc but that is forbidden by law so I see no reason why harming your child through smoke shouldn't be.

And that is just one of the reasons why I am extremely opposed to the idea that cigarettes are legal. Other reasons include stuff like smokers effectively forcing anyone with allergies/asthma away from where they smoke (which is very often in public places where you cant really just not go if you want to enter the hospital, school, bus, train, supermarket or just take a walk in the park), they are effectively poisoning anyone near them even if the people close to them do not have asthma, smokers are forcing their habit on others - even if I say I don't want to be exposed to smoke I will still be exposed to it the second I enter a crowd of people, smoke lingers in the air because the molecules are often too small to be effectively blown away fast so whenever a smoker goes down the road there is a 15 meter (45 foot for you imperialists) trail where the smoke will still affect anyone going there, and so on.

I appreciate the argument that a man can decide what he does to his own body but if that means that a small group of people can take away my right to decide what I do to my body then it becomes a non-argument.


Edit:

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.

The nazis also breathed air, used the loo, ate food, promoted art, reduced unemployment and sent Germany into the greatest economic boom the country has ever had so unless you think that was bad as well, your point about bans being bad because the nazis did it is invalid

And now that we are on the topic about rights, what about my right to go to the hospital without having to walk through a wall of smoke? Or the grocery, or the bus, or the train, or the park, or the street for that matter? I have asthma and whenever someone lights up a cigarette I have to walk away as fast as possible if I want to be able to breathe normally the next hour - that makes even something as basic as using communal transport pretty damn hard and all in the spirit of your right to force smoke upon others, thus removing their rights to opt out of smoking.

I honestly find it saddening that you write so much about freedom of choice when what you are actually advocating is the right to force air-born chemicals upon others without their consent.

Uh, excuse me good sir, but unless you live in f-ing PAKISTAN or some other third world country, smoking is banned on almost all public places and sites. And I'm sorry you suffer from such a condition, and it's tragic that you have to endure all those nightmarish situations you listed above. It's rather odd, really. I know a lot of people with asthma, both friends and relatives, and smoking around them has never caused any sort of unprecedented attack or anything. Hell, my grandma has asthma yet every single member of my family smokes, and it's never been an issue. Sure, we take a couple of steps away from the old darling whenever we wish to indulge in our twisted pleasures, but that's about the only precaution we use. Your case must be very dire, if you are that sensitive.

Its only forbidden inside. Outside, the problem persists. And I am willing to bet that if they have asthma and your smoke doesnt seem to affect them, they either took a bunch of medication before you showed up because they know you smoke or they are too polite to say anything. Almost everyone I know who has asthma have serious problems with smoke but they are just too polite or docile to stand up for themselves because even when you ask nicely and the smoker goes somewhere else to smoke, you are lucky if another doesnt come along very shortly - so yeah, most of my friends who have these problems just suck it up. It doesnt make breathing any easier though.

Edit: I live in Denmark btw, where we do have indoors regulations on smoking so no "F.. pakistan". That, however, just means that there is a wall of smokers at every entrance to every shopping mall/hospital/train station/etc - you get the idea.

 

[n00beffect]

Its only forbidden inside. Outside, the problem persists. And I am willing to bet that if they have asthma and your smoke doesnt seem to affect them, they either took a bunch of medication before you showed up because they know you smoke or they are too polite to say anything. Almost everyone I know who has asthma have serious problems with smoke but they are just too polite or docile to stand up for themselves because even when you ask nicely and the smoker goes somewhere else to smoke, you are lucky if another doesnt come along very shortly - so yeah, most of my friends who have these problems just suck it up. It doesnt make breathing any easier though.

Edit: And for the record, I live in Denmark where we do have indoors regulations on smoking but that just means that there is a wall of smokers at every entrance to every shopping mall/hospital/train station/etc - you get the idea.

Ok, fair enough, I'll grant you that every single asthma sufferer is a docile, polity-pants philanthropist who can't stand up for themselves. You just said that my grandma allgedely takes some medication that makes her resistant to us evil smokers' ways. Doesn't that seem like a worth-while solution to the problem, where both parties are content? And yes, I know that most smokers pile outside of establishments like a bunch of hobos outside a pub whenever there's a footbal match screening, but at least here they make them go a couple of metres away from the doors. At airports and such, outside there are designated areas where smokes can smoke, and that's true of most major train stations. Not that it makes any better, but at least they're not in your way. I don't know how it is in Denmark though, so I sympathyze with you, and I apologize on behalf of all my slowly-suicidal comrades.

Back on topic, though, I don't see how legalizing Marijuana (or however you spell that) and banning cigarettes will fix things. Wouldn't that just be switching one for the other?

 

[EtherealBeaver]

Its only forbidden inside. Outside, the problem persists. And I am willing to bet that if they have asthma and your smoke doesnt seem to affect them, they either took a bunch of medication before you showed up because they know you smoke or they are too polite to say anything. Almost everyone I know who has asthma have serious problems with smoke but they are just too polite or docile to stand up for themselves because even when you ask nicely and the smoker goes somewhere else to smoke, you are lucky if another doesnt come along very shortly - so yeah, most of my friends who have these problems just suck it up. It doesnt make breathing any easier though.

Edit: And for the record, I live in Denmark where we do have indoors regulations on smoking but that just means that there is a wall of smokers at every entrance to every shopping mall/hospital/train station/etc - you get the idea.

Ok, fair enough, I'll grant you that every single asthma sufferer is a docile, polity-pants philanthropist who can't stand up for themselves. You just said that my grandma allgedely takes some medication that makes her resistant to us evil smokers' ways. Doesn't that seem like a worth-while solution to the problem, where both parties are content? And yes, I know that most smokers pile outside of establishments like a bunch of hobos outside a pub whenever there's a footbal match screening, but at least here they make them go a couple of metres away from the doors. At airports and such, outside there are designated areas where smokes can smoke, and that's true of most major train stations. Not that it makes any better, but at least they're not in your way. I don't know how it is in Denmark though, so I sympathyze with you, and I apologize on behalf of all my slowly-suicidal comrades.

Back on topic, though, I don't see how legalizing Marijuana (or however you spell that) and banning cigarettes will fix things. Wouldn't that just be switching one for the other?

I don't mean to be rude but in effect - if I understand you correctly - your solution to the problem that I am being forced to inhale chemicals against my will is to force me to inhale even more chemicals to make up for some of the damage caused by the first chemicals while at the same time making me take the bad side effects from the second set of chemicals? Taking medication against it sounds good but the medication comes with side effects as well such as temporary full body palsy (shaking - and incredibly uncomfortable but at least you can breathe I guess) and blisters in the mouth for instance which makes them pretty unattractive if at all avoidable.

As for the train stations, I would love that but the problem is that the designated area is called "outside". In Denmark, smokers have the unfortunate habit of spreading out all over the stations 10 meters apart, ignoring the indoor smoking ban and insisting on getting those few last precious inhalations, packed in the cue to the train doors. And the same goes for busses, shopping streets, parks etc etc etc.

My wife works at a hospital and when I go to pick her up, its very common for 10-20 smokers to stand just outside the door, ignoring all "no-smoking on the premise" signs, while people with oxygen tanks and breathing masks try and find a way in because the smokers damn sure wont budge.

But yeah, on topic, cannabis is pretty much the same as smoking cigarettes from an asthmatics point of view. I definitely support the model that Holland uses with smoking bars though. It would be lovely to have such places because I honestly think that people should be allowed to smoke if it could be done in a way which does not affect others - freedom of choice should be universal as long as it does not limit other peoples choice (as smoking anywhere unfortunately does)

 

[Electrogecko]

The title of this thread should be "Cannabis should be legal." I think we can all agree with that part.

Weed is less harmful than cigarettes. At least weed help people in a way. That and it's natural unlike the thousands of chemicals in the average cigarette. And in what way does a cigarette help anybody. If you know a way please tell me. But they should just ban them without hesitation.

Well, cannabis has side effects similar to alcohol. We have enough problems with drunk driving I don't want to add them to the mix. The cigarette industry produces jobs as well and if you read and/or watch the news at all you can tell that jobs are in demand.

Yea I know right? Our hospitals would practically need to be cut in half!

But seriously, it's fairly objective to say that cannabis has a far wider range of industrial uses than tobacco. Arguments like this can be boiled down to "eh, changing things is too difficult."

 

[dcdude171]

No, I'm sick of the goverment regulations- if you don't like cigarettes don't smoke them.

 

[Lethos]

So like hell I'm reading through 17 pages to see if the beeb is being slow and this news has already been posted.

I found this article [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18608666] on the BBC. Basically researchers are creating a vaccine that will make smokers receive no pleasure from nicotine. I want to ask the Escapists who smoke, would you take this? Would you prefer to get pleasure from a cigarette and continue smoking or take the vaccine and remove one of your pleasures?

Felt it would be better to post it in a thread already to do with smoking rather than create a new one.

 

[Huulluu]

Reaction to this thread already:

Just for kicks!