Poll: Should smoking be made illegal?

[Henry Michel Proust]

No. In my opinion it should be an individual decision whether to smoke or not. In country, where I live (Slovak republic, middle Europe, btw), smoking in restaurants and pretty much within every indoor public space has been prohibited and as far as I know there is cca 50% tax on cigarettes and alcohol already. Smokers are a minority (if you can call it that way) and had no chance but to accept those rules ex lege.

I'm (quite) heavy smoker myself and it's helpful to lie down a few rules to aspire to (in order to make it bearable for those around you). For example, I never smoke indoors, I never light up before asking my companions if it's ok (while in smokers areas) etc. On the other hand, question of shame was a good point. However, I'm not really ashamed of smoking, but I do feel ashamed of being an addict.

Brb, cig...

 

[Maze1125]

Is that a priviledge a father gains for being a father?

No, being a father simply meens I have a better understanding of her situation, and so I know she's fucking up.

And you wouldn't necessarily tell her to leave, would you?

If it was raining, probably not. But I'd tell her to get her act together and not to bring the baby out in future if she couldn't look after it.

But what if it was a toddler instead, and was just being inconsolable or spoiled?

If the toddler was spoiled then that's all the more reason to have a word with the mother, and I haven't met a child yet who was completely inconsolable for no reason.

Also, I personally tend to find toddler cries to be less annoying than neglected baby cries.

Well it is less of a health risk.
As I said earlier, marijuana doesn't contain the deadly chemical cocktail that cigarette companies shamelessly add to their products.

For the moment, certainly.
But what happens when it's legalised? Exactly the same commercialisation as has happened with tobacco.

 

[theprokrastinator]

that's Marijuana (which as Benz correctly states has never killed a single person in recorded history;

Maybe it hasn't been recorded, but I can guarantee it has killed.
A common way of consuming marijuana is through smoking it.
All smoke is carcinogenic.
As such, I can guarantee that there is at least one person who had gotten cancer and died as a direct result of smoking marijuana.

Do you know the required lethal dose of tobacco? I don't. But I'm guessing it's quite similar to your statistic for marijuana. Because it's not the tobacco that kills you, but the act of smoking it.

Well in that case: It's not the Tobacco/Marijuana that kills you, but the act of smoking/eating it! (c'mon, of course drugs aren't going to kill you when they're just sat there on the table, think about things before you say them.)
I personally use a Vaporiser to ingest my drug of choice, It completely removes the threat of carcinogens thanks to being steam and not smoke, it's a lovely device, expensive though.

But no doubt, there are probably loads of people who have replaced their tobacco with weed, then struck a match to the end of that rizla, smoked it all the way to the roach and have died of cancer. Theyre smoking, they're lighting a substance and smoking it, [edit to get back on topic] but that's their choice!

Vaporisers replaced the smoke with steam, hurrah! solution!

 

[The3rdEye]

If the toddler was spoiled then that's all the more reason to have a word with the mother, and I haven't met a child yet who was completely inconsolable for no reason.

One word: Colic [http://www.purplecrying.info/sections/index.php?sct=1&loc=mb1r3p6]

 

[AvsJoe]

No. It's almost perfect here in Ontario, Canada, though it should be legal in bars and casinos.

 

[the December King]

Is that a priviledge a father gains for being a father?

No, being a father simply meens I have a better understanding of her situation, and so I know she's fucking up.

Heh- we all get that something's messed up at that point, it's just a question of what happens next- clearly, you are the sort who will say something.

But what if it was a toddler instead, and was just being inconsolable or spoiled?

If the toddler was spoiled then that's all the more reason to have a word with the mother, and I haven't met a child yet who was completely inconsolable for no reason.

Also, I personally tend to find toddler cries to be less annoying than neglected baby cries.

I understand- I prefer badly- played mandolins to crying, myself.

 

[BenzSmoke]

-Snip-

Maybe it hasn't been recorded, but I can guarantee it has killed.
A common way of consuming marijuana is through smoking it.
All smoke is carcinogenic.
As such, I can guarantee that there is at least one person who had gotten cancer and died as a direct result of smoking marijuana.

Do you know the required lethal dose of tobacco? I don't. But I'm guessing it's quite similar to your statistic for marijuana. Because it's not the tobacco that kills you, but the act of smoking it.

Well if marijuana was legalized for medical use I don't think it would be administered through smoking it.
Roughly the same effect could be achieved through it's use in a concentrated capsule (pill) form.

-Snip-

For the moment, certainly.
But what happens when it's legalised? Exactly the same commercialisation as has happened with tobacco.

That's why it should be used for medical reasons only. Not for commercial usage.

[small](It's been fun. But I've got to go now. It's almost midnight here in the USA. [http://xkcd.com/386/])[/small]

 

[FinalHeart95]

In public places because of secondhand smoke and the like.

Otherwise, no. They're just harming themselves, and smoking is too ingrained in society to get rid of at this point.

 

[Maze1125]

But no doubt, there are probably loads of people who have replaced their tobacco with weed, then struck a match to the end of that rizla, smoked it all the way to the roach and have died of cancer. Theyre smoking, they're lighting a substance and smoking it.

Yes, well done, you've just repeated my own point back at me with slightly different wording.
Would you like a cookie now?

If the toddler was spoiled then that's all the more reason to have a word with the mother, and I haven't met a child yet who was completely inconsolable for no reason.

One word: Colic [http://www.purplecrying.info/sections/index.php?sct=1&loc=mb1r3p6]

That's not "no reason". It is, in fact, a reason.
Yes, babies can get colic. But it mostly happens at night. And almost always at a predictable time. It's also often down to diet, but that's another issue.

There is absolutely no reason for a baby with colic to be in a public place, other than a doctor's waiting room. And, if by a very small chance a mother is completely caught out by it, she can still do all she can to comfort the child, rather than leave it screaming as most do.

 

[theprokrastinator]

-Snip-

Maybe it hasn't been recorded, but I can guarantee it has killed.
A common way of consuming marijuana is through smoking it.
All smoke is carcinogenic.
As such, I can guarantee that there is at least one person who had gotten cancer and died as a direct result of smoking marijuana.

Do you know the required lethal dose of tobacco? I don't. But I'm guessing it's quite similar to your statistic for marijuana. Because it's not the tobacco that kills you, but the act of smoking it.

Well if marijuana was legalized for medical use I don't think it would be administered through smoking it.
Roughly the same effect could be achieved through it's use in a concentrated capsule (pill) form.

-Snip-

For the moment, certainly.
But what happens when it's legalised? Exactly the same commercialisation as has happened with tobacco.

That's why it should be used for medical reasons only. Not for commercial usage.

[small](It's been fun. But I've got to go now. It's almost midnight here in the USA. [http://xkcd.com/386/])[/small]

Marijuana is legal only for medical use in parts of the states and is prescribed either in pill form or in food or as I said earlier you can use a vaporiser. A doctor advising you to smoke would be silly and i'd wonder where he got his qualifications! It's also completely legal in Holland and in accordance with EU law you're not allowed to mix your joints with tobacco, cigarettes have to be smoked outside, there is also more regulation on the product (weed) itself and as far as I'm aware the only chemical used in its manufacture is fertilizer, although I've never grown it myself. (If anyone's interested by the way 'Hunters Bar' in Amsterdam do the best hash brownies... mmmm)

 

[Estarc]

No. I don't approve of taking away people's choices like that.

Out of curiosity, what is your friend's stance on alcohol? It causes far more problems than smoking does, so does he think alcohol should be banned too?

 

[theprokrastinator]

But no doubt, there are probably loads of people who have replaced their tobacco with weed, then struck a match to the end of that rizla, smoked it all the way to the roach and have died of cancer. Theyre smoking, they're lighting a substance and smoking it.

Yes, well done, you've just repeated my own point back at me with slightly different wording.
Would you like a cookie now?

Yes, that's because I was agreeing with you. You'll notice I then idited that sentence because their was no point to it being there as it was, it was also getting off topic.

Speaking of off topic, lets get back to it shall we?
Well you guys can, it's 4am here, goodnight.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

It's not just that. It's that it's harmful to my health when I'm around anyone who smokes. As long as it doesn't affect me, I couldn't care less. But it does affect me, and it affects me in a negative way, so I'm against it.

Oh, that's cool. I'll just ban eating peanuts, driving cars, coughing, spitting and people with STDs. I mean, I'm not against it. But it affects me and affects me in a negative way!

Now, in case you think I'm being overtly harsh and cynical, look back through this thread and look at all the people who think that the best way to deal with cigarettes is to levy massive taxes and its because of the massive profits.

I've bought some Marlboro direct from source. They cost me 30p for 20. This is the profit they're making.

The price in England, at the moment is around £6.50 (?) There is already an obscene tax hike on them. This is why underground tobacco sellers exists in pubs.

So, the profit margin is tiny, the tax rate is phenomenal; and yet people still smoke - people still live to a reasonable age while smoking and people WANT to smoke.

Don't you think that you should perhaps all re-think your views? Because you seem to be conflicting with reality here.

 

[Ashendarei]

What the hell is wrong with people in this country? I'm a social smoker (average one pack every 3-4 months) and I think it's absolutely retarded how many people have forgotten the "live and let live" mentality that we used to have as a country.

Not to mention my BIGGEST problem with the anti smoking campaign is that the main arguements are built around the PROVEN INACCURATE and FAULTY EPA study of 1993.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/

http://www.smokingaloud.com/ets.html

http://www.smokingaloud.com/corrupt.html

just shows that the anti smokers who pushed this legislation through did so on no merit of actual science or research as they claimed, but rather shoehorned it in while CLAIMING that 2nd hand smoking was the horrible killer that everyone claims it is nowadays.

/raaaaggeeee

 

[A Curious Fellow]

What the Hell would it prove if it was illegal? I don't see the point, it won't achieve anything

 

[Moromillas]

What the hell... Nearly 40% you can't be serious. ~40% don't know the difference between right and wrong? I'm sorry, but that does make me violently I'll.

No, it's not righteous or admirable to want smoking banned, it's nothing short of selfish and inconsiderate. It's not protecting others from the harmful effects of smoking, it's just forcing your likes and dislikes onto others when it has nothing to do with you, whatsoever. To protect people from themselves? It says right there on each pack, exactly what it does, what the effects are, with big block letters and pictures to get the point across. By that logic, you could effectively ban alcohol, it has some pretty harmful effects right? Prescription medication usually has some uncomfortable side effects, maybe you should get rid of that. Why stop there, have the state ban things like ice-cream and cake, it makes you fat after all.

If some people enjoy having an occasional smoke, or drink, or bowl of ice-cream, or whatever it may be, and it gives them a little bit of peace - I say good on them.

 

[SovietSecrets]

No. If smoking is banned then drinking has to be banned as well.

There's no such thing as second-hand drinking. There are holes in your story, and I'm gonna get to the bottom of this!

Everyone who is quoting me are you all idiots or something? The bottom of this? Heres the bottom, drinking causes just as much problems as smoking. Ever hear of drunk driving, bar fights, abuse due to alcohol, poor judgement under the influence, or alcohol poisoning? Or do all of these just fly past your heads? You don't cancer right away from smoking, you get it later on. ITS THE SAME WITH DRINKING. IF SMOKING GETS BANNED THEN DRINKING SHOULD AS WELL. Fucking hell, think people think.

 

[Drexlor]

I think that it should be banned in public and have rediculous taxes placed upon them. The less people smoking, the better. Plus, they should start charging people for littering if they leave their ashes or butts on the ground.

 

[Naeo]

Wavering between "yes, in public places" and "no, but tax the everloving fuck out of it." I settled on the former. I don't care if people smoke in their own homes, so long as it doesn't affect me. Ditto for all drugs. Some, granted, it's harder to ensure that for than others, but still.

 

[Koroviev]

I don't need the state to babysit me, thanks.