Poll: Should smoking be made illegal?

[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?

I didn't realize that was a requirement and yes I would gladly turn your parents in if smoking were a crime. whatever difficulties they're going through aren't my concern.

The day that they're shot for something so small and insignificant I'll ask them to spare me the horrors of such an Orwellian regime and shoot me as well.

People smoke, we've been doing it for thousands of years. Would you like me to call the butt-hurt police because what many choose to do doesn't gel with what you feel is good or do you think you can take it on the chin and not be so holier-than-thou about it?

Frankly I don't care about you, I don't care about your parents, I don't care how many kids they have, I don't care how hard they work, all I care about is the law and if they break it then the only thing they deserve is death.

So really now what you're trying to get across is that you don't care about eliminating smoking and you've ultimately given up your argument due to lack of any credibility whatsoever?

 

[k-ossuburb]

I don't need to say anything on this subject because my friend Tyler Durden has said it better than I can:

"First you have to give up, first you have to know, not fear, know that someday you're gonna die. "

Or how about a message I saw on a T-shirt once

"Eat healthy
Exercise regularly
Drink plenty of water
Die anyway."

If you're worried about you're health then how come you're not out there right now running a mile every morning, eating a balanced nutritional diet and trying your damndest to look like an underwear model?

Because you can.

Don't give that up, ever.

 

[QuantumT]

Smoking(always bad)
Drinking(good in limited amounts)
S&M (although I heard most of them don't do stuff that would be permanently damaging or require a hospital visit)(encourages exercise)
the stuff they do on jackass(pretty stupid, but usually still physically active)
Football(exercise)
Boxing(exercise)

You see how smoking is kind of the odd man out there?

I'm not saying it needs to be illegal or anything, it's your body to ruin if you want (as long as you don't hurt anyone else), but don't draw false analogies.

 

[Pyode]

Technical triviality is something that has either no or negligible consequences. Smoking isn't trivial to others, but homosexuality is.

The word trivial has nothing to do with consequences. As a matter of fact I had to reread that second sentence a few times to tell what you where saying. You where using trivial as a synonym for consequences. It isn't.

triv·i·al

1.of very little importance or value; insignificant
2.commonplace; ordinary.

See? Nothing about consequences.

I'll have to call Godwin's law on that one. You went to the very extreme even though I certainly did not advocate fascism.

Actually, what i said wasn't that far of a stretch at all. Fascism is founded in the belief that the masses are to stupid to make the right decisions and that the government needs to make those decisions for them. Your proposal to ban cigarettes entirely, even from the comfort of you own homes, falls perfectly into that belief. Note that I didn't say you where a fascist, just that your proposal was fascist in nature.

Smoking doesn't exclusively offer anything, and as such its benefits are inadmissible.

Wait, so just because we can get those benefits somewhere else means we shouldn't be allowed to get them from smoking? WTF?

That's one massive straw man you've got going there.

Let me know when you're ready to discuss what I actually said.

No straw men here. Just a logical analysis of what you where saying and it's correlations with a known system of government.

You may want to read my post again after you're done wetting yourself.

I assume you mean I should be intimidated by your complete misunderstanding of the definitions of trivial and fascism?

 

[Blunderman]

I'm not sure what you mean by smoking 'propagating itself down the generations'. Do you mean there may be a genetic component? The societal influence? Parental exposure?

Genetic component, I don't know, but the other two, yeah. The fact that we take after society and our parents is both good and bad. In short, the mere existence of smoking ensures that it'll continue to exist. That being said, it's lost on me how someone could choose to start smoking. The smell of it isn't exactly alluring.

Perhaps you don't value functionality over happiness as I supposed. But it seems that your reasoning is that striving for functional perfection is the only correct way to obtain happiness. But happiness is not an objective thing; for some, happiness is the freedom to make poor choices. You're right that it's not a violation of free will to help someone, but it is a violation of free will to legally force someone to accept it. Where do we draw the line? Do we make Twinkies illegal? Certainly no tangible benefit there. Mandatory exercise? I don't disagree with your goals; I just think the these things shouldn't be legislated against, but positive changes voted for.

You're raising an intriguing point, one that I myself have always struggled with. It's the drawing the line-dilemma, since the logic behind legislating against smoking can arguably be used against alcohol, and many other things. As much as I'm against legislating taste, I have to admit to myself that everything isn't relative, and some things are simply objectively worse than others (admittedly, when judged against a societal construct of values that is by no means objective itself).

As far as I can tell, and I'm generalising a bit here, everyone should have the entirely optional choice to improve their health, such as replacing your daily fat intake with olive oil, exercising, not eating at McDonald's more than once or twice a month etc. However, people should be discouraged from doing things that are significantly detrimental. This is basically just information, like the 'smoking kills'-campaign or all the health warnings about fatty foods.

Then, there's the category of things that are too harmful to be legal. Heavy drugs, drinking and driving and such. Smoking shares some attributes in common with the latter in that they both invariably damage other people than the one who chooses to do it. This is primarily where my problem with smoking lies, because I as a non-smoker can sometimes not avoid inhaling cigarette smoke.

For most people, smoking can, and should, be replaced with a number of things that all relieve stress just as well. For the others, I've been thinking about legalising marijuana as a sort of alternative. It's already used to relieve stress medically and I think it's not that different from taking prescription pharmaceuticals. If people could freely purchase a weekly restricted amount of 'weed' from any pharmacy (albeit with full disclosure of the possible side-effects, such as with any drug) and use that to occasionally relieve stress in a much more potent way, then that would surely provide an adequate alternative to cigarettes. It should still be illegal to drive while intoxicated (be it from alcohol or marijuana), and to do certain things that require a sober mind (drive heavy machinery, work in a hospital, etc).

Now I'm rambling a bit. In any case, the practice of phasing out smoking from society is definitely a vastly varied subject that is beyond tackling on an internet forum, and I'm rather convinced that the first step is just for society to collectively decide that smoking is a habit we should try to kick.

That last sentence is so badly worded, I realize I need sleep. To be continued?

You know where to find me. Thanks you for the civil conversation.

 

[Vrach]

Non-smoker here.

Hell no. It should be illegal in public closed spaces, unless otherwise specified. Basically, if you're at work, you're a non-smoker, you don't want to be sitting in a room full of smoke getting enough second hand shit to make you worse off than the average smoker (I've both seen and heard of this situation).

That said, in general, out in the public in the open air (streets and such), smoker designated areas etc.? No. Just completely unnecessary, it's people's choice and your friend is just another one of the airheads incompetent of making his own choice and wanting the government to act like his mommy for the rest of his life.

 

[Blunderman]

Why? Why bother protecting people from themselves? It won't work and it violates freedom. If people want to do stupid stuff it's their right.

Who says they need help? Some people choose to smoke even when they know the long term risks what the fuck makes you think they need your help?

The ends never justify evil means, and arresting people for smoking (without harming anyone else) is certainly evil.

I've never said that smokers should be arrested. If a ban on smoking was to be passed, then certainly the better course of action would simply be for the police to confiscate cigarettes if someone is seen smoking in the open.

Present some actual arguments instead of flaming me and I'll gladly discuss the matter with you. I'm not going to take you seriously when you're obviously just offended and needing to vent your frustration.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

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'd be more concerned about the local transit's carbon monoxide than the smokers. Or people could give smokers somewhere to go and smoke in peace?

Sure, some smokers are assholes. Given that they're anxious for their fix, and are being treated like pondscum for using their legal narcotic, which is hideously taxed - and are being treated worse than some illegal drugs-users, by people supping down their legal drugs from a cup - perhaps there's a reason some are?

 

[NuclearPenguin]

Smoking(always bad)
Drinking(good in limited amounts)
S&M (although I heard most of them don't do stuff that would be permanently damaging or require a hospital visit)(encourages exercise)
the stuff they do on jackass(pretty stupid, but usually still physically active)
Football(exercise)
Boxing(exercise)

You see how smoking is kind of the odd man out there?

I'm not saying it needs to be illegal or anything, it's your body to ruin if you want (as long as you don't hurt anyone else), but don't draw false analogies.

Except that you know, it eases stress.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

If a ban on smoking was to be passed, then certainly the better course of action would simply be for the police to confiscate cigarettes if someone is seen smoking in the open.

Right.

Next time you see someone smoking, do you think it would be a good idea to go up to them, take the lit cigarette out of their mouth and then pat them down for other cigarettes?

Because that's what you're asking the police to do.

They can't do that for illegal drugs without suspicion.

 

[Blunderman]

The word trivial has nothing to do with consequences. As a matter of fact I had to reread that second sentence a few times to tell what you where saying. You where using trivial as a synonym for consequences. It isn't.

triv·i·al

1.of very little importance or value; insignificant
2.commonplace; ordinary.

See? Nothing about consequences.

If something is "of very little importance" in the context of discussing a subject that involves debating the detrimental qualities of a certain habit then something being trivial is certainly related to it having no such detrimental qualities, or consequences.

Let's move on from this, shall we?

Actually, what i said wasn't that far of a stretch at all. Fascism is founded in the belief that the masses are to stupid to make the right decisions and that the government needs to make those decisions for them. Your proposal to ban cigarettes entirely, even from the comfort of you own homes, falls perfectly into that belief. Note that I didn't say you where a fascist, just that your proposal was fascist in nature.

Obviously, you deem smoking as a much less detrimental habit than I do, unless you think people should be allowed to do heroine just because they're in their own home.

By your logic, all legislation is fascist in nature, which invalidates your entire argument. Such extreme black and white thinking won't get you anywhere, hence the Godwin's law-statement from my behalf.

Wait, so just because we can get those benefits somewhere else means we shouldn't be allowed to get them from smoking? WTF?

How eloquent.

It is not the entirety of my view, but it's part of the reason why smoking can and should be phased out of society. Certainly you'd agree that losing weight should first be attempted through diet and exercise instead of having a gastric bypass, no?

Some ways are better than others when it comes to achieving goals. Albeit not as dramatic as the above example, the effects of smoking can be found elsewhere, in healthier ways, and that should be taken into account.

Again, you're thinking in such extreme terms.

No straw men here. Just a logical analysis of what you where saying and it's correlations with a known system of government.

What you wrote does not qualify as a "logical analysis" but rather a display of logical fallacies and general crudeness, as I've displayed in the above paragraphs.

The fact that you confused "its" and "it's" in the quoted segment helps my case along nicely.

I assume you mean I should be intimidated by your complete misunderstanding of the definitions of trivial and fascism?

Don't worry. I do not misunderstand either the definition of 'trivial' or 'fascism' so you needn't feel threatened.

 

[Blunderman]

Right.

Next time you see someone smoking, do you think it would be a good idea to go up to them, take the lit cigarette out of their mouth and then pat them down for other cigarettes?

Yeah. After which they simply let them go, no fine, no fuss.

They can't do that for illegal drugs without suspicion.

If the cops actually saw someone snorting white powder, that isn't suspicion enough for them to investigate?

 

[QuantumT]

Except that you know, it eases stress.

The easing stress is only initially. After you've been smoking for a little while, your stress levels go back to what they were beforehand, and if you don't smoke, you get more stressed.

 

[Kris015]

Actually here in Denmark it's already illegal to smoke in restaurants and public places like that.

Should be more expensive though, I think that would make a lot of people quit it.

 

[Blunderman]

Ok answer my question, how exactly are you helping people who want to smoke despite them knowing the risks?

You're just making people's lives more miserable and imposing your will onto everyone else (the idea that health should come before everything is not held by everyone nor should it be something they are forced to abide by).

For the same reason I'd want to help those who are eating themselves into morbid obesity, doing heavy drugs, being awful parents or hating people over the colour of their skin (not to claim that all of these are of equal severity).

My point has never been that health comes above everything, please don't put words in my mouth. What I've said is that smoking should be phased out and replaced with healthier habits. I don't think either one of us is under the impression that some people simply can't be happy without smoking, and if that was true, then isn't that a problem in itself?

My only desire is to promote a positive change in society. If you were to aptly demonstrate that the phasing out of cigarette smoking would not be a positive step, then I would change my mind.

You seem to think that I want to go 1984 on the world and dictate the thoughts and actions of everyone. I ask you to not punish me for your assumptions. Give me some credit, I don't believe I've given anyone enough reason to think that I'm somehow a draconian emperor.

 

[QuantumT]

Smoking(always bad)
S&M (although I heard most of them don't do stuff that would be permanently damaging or require a hospital visit)(encourages exercise)

So how exactly does being tied up and whipped by your partner encourage exercise (and I'm talking about the one being whipped)?

Umm... having sex is good exercise?

 

[Folksoul]

other.

I'd go for a combo of banned in public and heavier taxes.

 

[Blunderman]

A typo or a grammar error doesn't help your case. The fact that you think it does shows quite a low level of intelligence IMO.

Speaking of which
http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/

Read number 4. The one about Super Tunnel Vision.

Oh, noes! Make me cry, why don't you.

Now you're just trolling. But hey, don't get distracted, man, just keep your eye on the prize!

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Right.

Next time you see someone smoking, do you think it would be a good idea to go up to them, take the lit cigarette out of their mouth and then pat them down for other cigarettes?

Yeah. After which they simply let them go, no fine, no fuss.

I'm going to give you the benefit of being young here, but can I suggest you go around your local town on Friday and see how many people are ready to kick off if you even look at them funny?

Next, do you want to check how many places say that it's illegal to smoke within X metres of here, when that's actually not illegal.

Thirdly, do you want to check how many Nicorette products there are on the market? Your local chemist should carry at least a shelf full. If these worked, there wouldn't be the market demand for so damn many of them.

So - Angry People, Lied to, Can't get cured - You're going to approach them as if you were searching for white powder (Classifying it as a Class A drug now) and search them on the street?

As a white skinned policeman, would you dare to do the same in Brixton/Harlem?
Or a brown skinned policeman in any rural area.

They can't do that for illegal drugs without suspicion.

If the cops actually saw someone snorting white powder, that isn't suspicion enough for them to investigate?[/quote]

Investigate, probably. Apprehend/Search, nope.

Keep in mind here that you're asking our overworked police force - that has fewer "beat" bobbies, to stop and search people probably in a hurry, who are doing something that is legal.

This is something they can't do, or refuse to do with legal sedative drugs. Rememeber that Heroin addicts will be coming out of the chemists with their free Methadone.

Are you also asking all the homeless not to smoke cigarettes as well?

Not to dismiss the draconian nature of your ideas, but did you know that the Leicestershire Anti-Smoking Team, who were brought in to stop people smoking inside pubs, consisted of 10 people?

A total of 832 square miles.

How many constables would YOU put towards enforcing this scheme? And where would you take them from?

(Obviously they're going to be paid, put into dangerous situations, possibly shot/stabbed, and still need sensitivity training so when they're taking cigarettes from the homeless, physically disabled and expectant fathers, they can do it with grace.)

 

[Blunderman]

It's forced help that I think is wrong, if people want to smoke on their own I don't think it's your business. I think if you want to phase it out you get people to choose to stop.

For starters trying to force people to stop doing drugs doesn't work.

I never advocated forced help, and I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that I would be firmly against a sudden ban.

My personal opinion of smoking and smokers hasn't got anything to do with what I'm saying here. I genuinely think that phasing out cigarette smoking from society would benefit primarily the smokers themselves, and everyone else second. I'd never claim that smoking doesn't have anything to offer, instead I respond to such an argument that other things can offer what cigarette smoking does, and better at that.

Certainly, a life is better led if you're just as happy as you were when you were smoking but without the continuous stream of harmful chemicals into your lungs? That's what I want to accomplish.