Poll: Should smoking be made illegal?

[Tony Wartooth]

You?ll forgive me if I don?t get the reference, and I still stand by what I wrote, if smokers are so obsessed with poisoning themselves then they should just be shot now and save themselves the trouble.

It's ignorant people like yourself that nearly get Sarah Palin elected. Yes. Everyone that smokes is guaranteed to get cancer and die. All of them. The boogeyman is real too. So is God and Santa.

One day your body will go through changes, and it's called puberty. After that you might realize that you're wrong about 99% of the things you thought you knew. Please disconnect yourself from everything until then.

are you finished? good now you can live your life happy with the knowledge that you insulted someone on the internet, i hope your real fucking proud of yourself.

I am. You're QQing after all. It is "you're" btw. I just got you a C+ in middle school spelling kid, you're welcome.

 

[Tony Wartooth]

You?ll forgive me if I don?t get the reference, and I still stand by what I wrote, if smokers are so obsessed with poisoning themselves then they should just be shot now and save themselves the trouble.

It's ignorant people like yourself that nearly get Sarah Palin elected. Yes. Everyone that smokes is guaranteed to get cancer and die. All of them. The boogeyman is real too. So is God and Santa.

One day your body will go through changes, and it's called puberty. After that you might realize that you're wrong about 99% of the things you thought you knew. Please disconnect yourself from everything until then.

are you finished? good now you can live your life happy with the knowledge that you insulted someone on the internet, i hope your real fucking proud of yourself.

I am. You're QQing after all. It is "you're" btw. I just got you a C+ in middle school spelling kid, you're welcome.

no just don't see the point in insulting others online.

Yet telling others what they can and cannot do is completely logical to you. Or that one person deserves to live more than another. I insult you because what you say is stupid. Also, I secretly hope you have a low self esteem and kill yourself, because hell, with your logic that's completely justified. Correct?

 

[AngryPuppy]

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

Drinking doesn't harm your health unless you overdo it. Smoking harms you regardless of amount smoked.

That truly is the dumbest thing I've seen in quite a while...

OT: No smoking shouldn't be banned or heavily taxed.

 

[PriNCE_oF_PiES]

The only reason that smoking wont be banned and never will be banned is because the government makes far too much money off the taxation of cigarrettes.

 

[QuantumT]

While yes, smoking does increase chances of diseases and health issues; it, like all things, are on a person by person basis. Some people do, some people don't. Statistics don't mean anything to the individual.

Sigh... yet another person who doesn't understand statistics...

Though with those "Truth" commercials blaring their contrived messages, of course people would believe whatever it says.

I will agree that those commercials are excessive.

It does indeed extend that far. People make rallies blocking off traffic over "chemtrails", I'll smoke and make my own little rally of "Mmmm. Freedom tastes good and makes me want to kill less." Though if you're going on the "people shouldn't negatively affect others" then the right to vote should be decided by an IQ test. It isn't however, because we're not living in Berlin circa 1942.

I brought it up before and I'll bring it up again. Why does your right to smoke trump my asthmatic friend's right to be in public?

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

Drinking doesn't harm your health unless you overdo it. Smoking harms you regardless of amount smoked.

That truly is the dumbest thing I've seen in quite a while...

OT: No smoking shouldn't be banned or heavily taxed.

He's right though. Limited amounts of alcohol consumption have known health benefits. Smoking is bad for you in whatever amount you do it in.

 

[Tony Wartooth]

You?ll forgive me if I don?t get the reference, and I still stand by what I wrote, if smokers are so obsessed with poisoning themselves then they should just be shot now and save themselves the trouble.

It's ignorant people like yourself that nearly get Sarah Palin elected. Yes. Everyone that smokes is guaranteed to get cancer and die. All of them. The boogeyman is real too. So is God and Santa.

One day your body will go through changes, and it's called puberty. After that you might realize that you're wrong about 99% of the things you thought you knew. Please disconnect yourself from everything until then.

are you finished? good now you can live your life happy with the knowledge that you insulted someone on the internet, I hope your real fucking proud of yourself.

I am. You're QQing after all. It is "you're" btw. I just got you a C+ in middle school spelling kid, you're welcome.

no just don't see the point in insulting others online.

Yet telling others what they can and cannot do is completely logical to you. Or that one person deserves to live more than another. I insult you because what you say is stupid. Also, I secretly hope you have a low self esteem and kill yourself, because hell, with your logic that's completely justified. Correct?

oh thank you I've seen the light, never again will I express an opinion that goes against the majority, I should be just like the rest of you whining about how "teh government is taking mah smokes".

Going against the majority and being severely flawed in the fact that what you say lacks logic or depth are very different. Cute angst though. Sidenote: the majority voted on "away from public food places", hence why that's a law. So...yeah. There's that. I worry for the next generation. I need to put stock in velcro clearly.

 

[RooftopAssassin]

I think most smoking should be heavily taxed until it is universally socially unacceptable.

i'm fine with people smoking weed, but cigarettes are disgusting and you shouldn't smoke them where people can see you. You should be too ashamed. But it is reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally fun to cough at smokers when running by them

What makes marajuana better than cigarettes? Marajuana is in fact worse for your lungs and overall health than cigarettes are. Big gaping hole in your argument.

You could use a vaporizer instead of burning the entire plant. Otherwise I'd agree with you.

 

[michael_ab]

Topic done five times that I can remember.

Anti-Smokers say it's harmful and they don't like the smell.
Smokers point out the 90% tax they pay that props up the Health service, it's an addiction and it's their choice.
Anti-Smokers repeat it smells bad and some call for the death penalty.

There ya go. /thread.

nice synoposis, but i want to throw something in tht as far as i have read hasent come into consideration. i have asthma rather severly, and because i dont have enough money to take a car i have to take the local transit, which is an outdoor bus station, and as such many smokers feel they can smoke at any time. i have to keep my inhaler on me at all times, because if i get a facefull of that stuff, which happens more often than you think, my throut clamps shut and i cant breathe. at all. smoking isnt just killing people in thirty years, it is harmful to people like me even though we have made the choice to not smoke.

 

[Tony Wartooth]

While yes, smoking does increase chances of diseases and health issues; it, like all things, are on a person by person basis. Some people do, some people don't. Statistics don't mean anything to the individual.

Sigh... yet another person who doesn't understand statistics...

Though with those "Truth" commercials blaring their contrived messages, of course people would believe whatever it says.

I will agree that those commercials are excessive.

It does indeed extend that far. People make rallies blocking off traffic over "chemtrails", I'll smoke and make my own little rally of "Mmmm. Freedom tastes good and makes me want to kill less." Though if you're going on the "people shouldn't negatively affect others" then the right to vote should be decided by an IQ test. It isn't however, because we're not living in Berlin circa 1942.

I brought it up before and I'll bring it up again. Why does your right to smoke trump my asthmatic friend's right to be in public?

I understand statistics quite well actually, it has a very large place in my career. I also know that when it comes down to it, whether you survive a 1 in a million situation (as we all do every day, especially when we get in our car), is completely up to chance. Statistics are a nice guide, but in no way the book of pure fact and future prediction.

I'll answer the second in another way, I'm not a dick contrary to what it seems. I smoke away from people. If someone doesn't, then that's on them, though it's fairly obvious when someone is. Also, I have a few asthmatic friends that do smoke or hang out with a lot of smokers, a few that are severely asthmatic. The smell will not send someone into an attack. If it does, it's typically a placebo effect, more of a mental degradation than a physical one. If I light up in a bar that doesn't care or so forth, then I most assuredly am not the only one; therefore that wouldn't be an advisable place for your friend in the first place. It'd be like wearing a meatsuit to a shark convention. Some places just aren't for everyone, and I'm not saying that to sound like an elitist, I'm a vegetarian so I find myself sitting there at many restaurants without food when I go with friends. It is what it is.

 

[QuantumT]

nice synoposis, but i want to throw something in tht as far as i have read hasent come into consideration. i have asthma rather severly, and because i dont have enough money to take a car i have to take the local transit, which is an outdoor bus station, and as such many smokers feel they can smoke at any time. i have to keep my inhaler on me at all times, because if i get a facefull of that stuff, which happens more often than you think, my throut clamps shut and i cant breathe. at all. smoking isnt just killing people in thirty years, it is harmful to people like me even though we have made the choice to not smoke.

I've been trying to defend your position (I have a friend who's asthmatic), but they seem to think that you're not important. Sorry.

 

[Biosophilogical]

I think it should never have been legal in the first place (as it is, it's addictive, common-place and considered socially cool by a lot of teenagers, so before they are responsible enough to make life-changing decisions they go and get themselves addicted to a substance that is detrimental to your health, your social life and your wallet). However, given how much opposition it would face, I don't think it should be made illegal, the financial and political backlash would be immense. But the fact is, it is like crack or cocaine in slow motion; you get addicted, it messes with your organs, it costs you shit-tonnes of money, but it just takes a lot longer than other drugs, however, because it's legal a lot of people get addicted because those who put peer pressure on them to smoke have such easy access to it.

I propose a middle ground, heavily tax it, meaning it will be less accessible, the health industry gets an added boost to its income, it won't sell as well, less people become addicted, people looking to quit are given a 'nudge in the right direction' and it becomes less ingrained in our society, meaning we won't have to make it illegal and therefore impose upon rights, because the increased price will push the entire smoking industry to kill itself.

 

[QuantumT]

I understand statistics quite well actually, it has a very large place in my career. I also know that when it comes down to it, whether you survive a 1 in a million situation (as we all do every day, especially when we get in our car), is completely up to chance. Statistics are a nice guide, but in no way the book of pure fact and future prediction.

This isn't some small statistic like my chance of getting in a fatal wreck on my way to work.

Also, I have a few asthmatic friends that do smoke or hang out with a lot of smokers, a few that are severely asthmatic. The smell will not send someone into an attack. If it does, it's typically a placebo effect, more of a mental degradation than a physical one.

Basically every study ever conducted on the subject says otherwise.

If I light up in a bar that doesn't care or so forth, then I most assuredly am not the only one; therefore that wouldn't be an advisable place for your friend in the first place. It'd be like wearing a meatsuit to a shark convention. Some places just aren't for everyone, and I'm not saying that to sound like an elitist, I'm a vegetarian so I find myself sitting there at many restaurants without food when I go with friends. It is what it is.

Since you ignored it, here it is again. Why does your right to smoke trump my asthmatic friend's right to be in public? I'm fine with designated smoking areas, but you don't have the right to just do it wherever you please.

 

[bpm195]

It is not the governments place to say that something is bad for you so you can't do it. An adult should be allowed to make their own choices.

If things went my way smoking would be perfectly legal and it'd be up to individual establishments whether or not they want allow smoking inside.

 

[Tony Wartooth]

I think it should never have been legal in the first place (as it is, it's addictive, common-place and considered socially cool by a lot of teenagers, so before they are responsible enough to make life-changing decisions they go and get themselves addicted to a substance that is detrimental to your health, your social life and your wallet). However, given how much opposition it would face, I don't think it should be made illegal, the financial and political backlash would be immense. But the fact is, it is like crack or cocaine in slow motion; you get addicted, it messes with your organs, it costs you shit-tonnes of money, but it just takes a lot longer than other drugs, however, because it's legal a lot of people get addicted because those who put peer pressure on them to smoke have such easy access to it.

I propose a middle ground, heavily tax it, meaning it will be less accessible, the health industry gets an added boost to its income, it won't sell as well, less people become addicted, people looking to quit are given a 'nudge in the right direction' and it becomes less ingrained in our society, meaning we won't have to make it illegal and therefore impose upon rights, because the increased price will push the entire smoking industry to kill itself.

I don't know if you've payed attention to cig prices, but they have gone up drastically. It started becoming huge when Clinton passed a bill that let tobacco farmers only grow tobacco on 1/4th or so of their land. With every democratic president, it goes up more and more also as they tend to tax "luxury" items more. Increased prices won't change anything, people will just be less wealthy than they already are. Cigs are 10 dollars a pack in Tampa, FL and also NYC. People still buy them, and bums still scrounge through places for enough. If anything it just makes people more desperate.

 

[Whitenail]

It doesn't take a high smoke concentration to trigger it. Basically when it gets to the point where I can smell it, he can have an asthma attack.

Basically though, I didn't like the tone of your post. You made it sound like he should just stop being a baby.

Let's look at it from the another perspective though. You have 2 sides, smokers and asthmatics. Why should the rules favor the people that have a choice about it and could go without?

In any scenario rules should never favour those with a choice against those who have none, but if people can be smart about their smoking then all the freedom to them (frankly I'd hate to think of what my folks'd be like if smoking was banned because they don't have the beach-house or zen garden or any other things others use to relax) as long as it's safe for those who's respiration is going to go haywire probably from anything so much as the exhaust from cars on the road (in which case smoking's not gonna make a whole lot of difference to the deeply asthmasmatic considering the number of toxins and pollutants in the air).

And it really is quite annoying when you've got people who could be sitting anywhere well out of smoke range of people who've already gone to a secluded spot to light up berate them endlessly in the most obnoxious ways (half the time those with perfectly healthy lungs). And I'm sorry if my post made it out like your friend is some kind of baby, I've seen my friend go through asthma attacks (I'd hate to think what would happen if he wasn't able to gasp out where his puffer was) and I know that they aren't pretty, I was mostly just going against the overly obnoxious holier-than-thou types who act like smokers are baby eaters.

 

[Pyode]

To me, this subject is incredibly simple.

The only place I support smoking being made illegal is in public buildings (i.e. government buildings, this may or may not include properties supported by government subsidies or tax exemptions on a case by case basis). These are the only locations that every person has a right to have comfortable and easy access to.

Outdoor areas such as parks should allow smoking. If you are so sensitive that you can't handle someone smoking 10 feet away in an open-air environment, you either have a serious medical condition that goes beyond smokers, or you need to just suck it up.

Private buildings (bars, restaurants, movie theaters, etc) should be entirely at the discretion of the owner. If the owner decides he wants to allow smoking, the government should not be able to stop him. If you, as a consumer, decide that you don't want to go somewhere that allows smoking then that is a customer the owner just lost. He/She should have the right to make that decision, no one else.

You have no inherent right to go to that specific restaurant or theater and to turn around and say to the government "They are doing something I don't like in there, make them stop so I can go in too" is immature and inconsiderate of the rights of the owners and patrons who do smoke.

 

[Blunderman]

While yes, smoking does increase chances of diseases and health issues; it, like all things, are on a person by person basis. Some people do, some people don't. Statistics don't mean anything to the individual.

That last sentence is very true, but also doesn't assuage the argument that was put forth. It's a fact that smoking hurts the individual. How much it hurts the individual is obviously not a fact.

However, it is a fact that smoking does not benefit anyone's health. Regardless of the degree, it is exclusively detrimental, and not required for anything. Just because it's not invariably lethal that does not mean it's a viable habit.

Smokers also often think that they like it when it's actually an addiction. There are marked differences between the two.

Me being a libertarian, I argued that people, knowing the dangers of smoking, should choose for themselves if they want to do it or not. I was immediately stormed by an angry mob of facebookers who showed their dislike with indignified comments.

Libertarianism would only work in a society without idiots. Since this is obviously not the case, no matter where you are in the world, the state sometimes has to protect people from themselves. It is very naive to think that everyone knows what's best for themselves, and it'd be rather dispassionate of those that do to turn away those who are clearly in need of help on the matter, no? It's a rather anti-solidarity type of political ideology.

An undesirable situation remains an undesirable situation, regardless of whether it was chosen or not.

 

[QuantumT]

*snip

That's fine, it's your body and you can do what you want to it as long as you don't harm anyone else. It's just that most people don't really seem to think about how their actions can negatively affect others.

If you're doing it off in private, then I don't really care. I think it's a stupid decision, but it's your decision to make.

 

[Blunderman]

You have no inherent right to go to that specific restaurant or theater and to turn around and say to the government "They are doing something I don't like in there, make them stop so I can go in too" is immature and inconsiderate of the rights of the owners and patrons who do smoke.

What rights a person has and what is currently legal has no bearing on the issue. Many things have been allowed in the past that we later abolished because we progressed as a species.

And you're making a huge leap of logic between some people filling an establishment with harmful smoke and, say, a Wild West-themed gay bar or a restaurant that serves live bugs. If it was just mere immaturity then it'd be the inability to tolerate trivial things. Smoking isn't trivial.

 

[Whitenail]

You?ll forgive me if I don?t get the reference, and I still stand by what I wrote, if smokers are so obsessed with poisoning themselves then they should just be shot now and save themselves the trouble.

Firstly, how can you be on the escapist and not know what the metal gear series is?

Secondly, if you truly are committed to what you wrote then you're gonna leave me an orphan and leave the world with two less responsible, hard working tax-paying citizens that smoke responsibly because it's tough to catch a break in their daily lives of working their asses off for the benefit of others and taking care of a family. Some people go through whole packs every day and live until 80, some people never touch a fag in their entire life and come down with lung cancer. Are you really so opposed to things like cigarettes because you're willing to spend 90 years living safely and without thrills?