Poll: Should smoking be made illegal?

[Plurralbles]

I smoke so fuck off : )

And taxing it to oblivion is a douchebag way to try to try to get people to stop. So is firing people for smoking.

 

[Captain Bobbossa]

the fact is that smoking harms the smoker and those around them, the amount affected shouldn't matter
smoking causes damage and has no health benifits.
yet, marajawana has little to no negative side affects for adults and can be used to treat glaucoma and it is illeagal.
what possitive side effects can come from smoking that you can't get from something else?

First of, read mine again.

Secondly, I take it you smoke pot then seen as one of the side effects of smoking it is denial. Seriously I'm getting sick of pot heads saying "Pot does nothing wrong, infact it magicaly heals everything"
This is complete and utter bolloks. A few side effects of pot include adiction (and yes it is addictive not through it's chemicals but through the effects, basically you become addicted to smoking pot and getting high not any particular chemical), anxiety attacks, becoming a complete wanker and depression. How many of you know someone who has depression and has done for a while (more than 4 months)? Now do they smoke pot? I bet you 9 out of 10 times the answer is yes. Taking anti-depressants is a 3 month course to help you get over the depression. If you have it because you smoke pot then the only that's going to solve the problem is to stop.

Also thanks to long expossure to the substance I've developed anxiety attacks and social issues (I still have them after stopping).

But like i said the main problem with pot is denial, pot causes a serious amount of denial which is why you get so many pot smokers going "oh no, it's perfectly healthy for you honest, some scientist said so" or "some survey said so" show it to me? From a reliable source.

first, i don't smoke pot and i did not say it was a "magic cure" but it is often used to treat illnesses like glaucoma. and yes it is addictive, but so is smoking, in fact a lot of things are addictive. if it can be done it can be over-done. anti-depressants can also be addictive. and if you want a reliable source look at a medical site.

Well I never said that anti depresseants and smoking weren't adictive, I know this.

Why did you say that marjuwana has little to no side effects?

It isn't used to treat anything, it's used as a pain killer.

And if "alot of things are addictive" then why the smokers? why not fat people for instance?

 

[ila]

If people want to smoke fine, but I do believe that business and property owners still should have the right to determine whether or not someone can smoke in their establishment.

 

[BlueberryMUNCH]

Nah, If people want to kill themselves slowly, good for them. Just as long as they don't do it around me and pretend their all cool.
Heavier, and I mean heavier taxes would be good though:].

Fuck you and everybody like you. Over half the cost of cigarettes is tax, and it is a stealth tax that pretends to compensate the population for the added health costs of smoking when actually it pays (in the UK) for the entire health costs of all the smokers + loads of the non-smokers.

LOL I was looking at all the other people that quoted me and then I stumble across this.
Look, if you don't agree with someone's viewpoint, don't say 'Fuck you' to them, alright? Learn some respect, okay?

And hey I think that's great that it's going to smokers and non smokers! I think smokers should have to pay for their own healthcare though; they do it to themselves so why should us non smokers pay for that?

Listen mate, learn some manners or take a chill pill. Jeeeez.

Don't see much point of showing someone respect when the sum total of my experience of them has been them demonstrating publicly that they are self-centred and ignorant. If you want respect, earn it by not expressing your worthless opinion on topics about which you have no knowledge. It's not that I "disagree with your viewpoint", it's that I recognise your viewpoint is that of an ignorant selfish person (if you didn't know that taxes on cigs are huge and cover well over the total spend on all the healthcare then you're ignorant, if you did, then you're literally just a greedy ****) and I think that people who voice their opinions in those situations do us all damage, and deserve rudeness. So no, I won't show you any respect until you learn to start respecting your audience. Which of course you never will because the terminally self-centred are only peripherally aware that there even exists an audience.

Smokers do pay for their own healthcare. The taxes from cigarettes cover all the healthcare of all the smokers. Then there's enough to cover another whole person who isn't a smoker. So when it comes to healthcare, smokers are net contributers, and non-smokers are net leeches. So whatever it is you seem to think smokers do to themselves (not sure how a smoker who gets hit by a bus and is left brain damaged 'did it to himself' but ok, I assume you mean smoking-caused diseases) they are ALREADY PAYING FOR, just by paying the huge tax on cigarettes.

I'm sorry, but how is anyone's opinion worthless? You think your better than people that don't support smoking, and the people that are backing me up and agreeing with what I'm saying.

Look, you obviously get kicks from starting arguments online, and that's fine, good for you, but I'd get rid of that chip on your shoulder okay. Doesn't do anyone any good. Good evening.

 

[HappyHacker]

much heavier taxes and if people want to kill them selves bullets are cheaper and less painfull in the long run.

 

[el_negro]

They should make public farting illegal (?). Here you can't smoke in places that are smaller than 100 mt2 (i have no idea how much Ft) but you can still smoke in night clubs, some cybercafes, 3 out of 40 subway stations... and the list goes on

 

[bue519]

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.

Your right nothing happens your liver after drinking and it totally doesn't make husbands hit their families. Well, I'm going to go ride my dinosaur to class now.

 

[Clockwork Scarecrow.]

No, because prohibition doesn't work. Making smoking illegal would be the same as making drinking illegal in the 20s, or making marijuana illegal. All you end up with is more crime, and more people clogging up the criminal justice system with petty offenses.

Agreed.

Now I have nothing to contribute. Damn it!

Also OP, is your friend a fascist?

 

[Shpongled]

the fact is that smoking harms the smoker and those around them, the amount affected shouldn't matter
smoking causes damage and has no health benifits.
yet, marajawana has little to no negative side affects for adults and can be used to treat glaucoma and it is illeagal.
what possitive side effects can come from smoking that you can't get from something else?

First of, read mine again.

Secondly, I take it you smoke pot then seen as one of the side effects of smoking it is denial. Seriously I'm getting sick of pot heads saying "Pot does nothing wrong, infact it magicaly heals everything"
This is complete and utter bolloks. A few side effects of pot include adiction (and yes it is addictive not through it's chemicals but through the effects, basically you become addicted to smoking pot and getting high not any particular chemical), anxiety attacks, becoming a complete wanker and depression. How many of you know someone who has depression and has done for a while (more than 4 months)? Now do they smoke pot? I bet you 9 out of 10 times the answer is yes. Taking anti-depressants is a 3 month course to help you get over the depression. If you have it because you smoke pot then the only that's going to solve the problem is to stop.

Also thanks to long expossure to the substance I've developed anxiety attacks and social issues (I still have them after stopping).

But like i said the main problem with pot is denial, pot causes a serious amount of denial which is why you get so many pot smokers going "oh no, it's perfectly healthy for you honest, some scientist said so" or "some survey said so" show it to me? From a reliable source.

"Marijuana in most cases will not cause any significant damage to the user, in fact it can be used medicinally with great results in certain circumstances."

"STUPID STONERS!!! WEED ISN'T THE MIRACLE CURE, YOU'RE JUST ALL ADDICTED!!!!!"

"No, look, here are peer reviewed articles from prominent professionals in the field of medical science that show some potential positive effects. And here are some statistics that show that the the lungs of heavy marijuana users display no significant sign of unhealthiness."

"DENIAL!!!!!! YOU'RE ALL IN DENIAL!!!!!! SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS NOTHING IN THE FACE OF GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA!!!!!!"

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000884

69 peer reviewed studies. 32 (46%) came to a generally positive conclusion, 23 (33%) sat on the fence, 14 (20%) came to a negative conclusion.

Even if this doesn't change your mind about MJ, it certainly puts it in perspective when put alongside tobacco.

And "denial" isn't a side effect, it's a defense mechanism. Drug's cause side effects, sneezing is a side effect, nausea is a side effect, persistent drop in mood is a side effect. Underlying psychological issues lead to denial. The difference is quite distinct.

 

[Captain Bobbossa]

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.

Your right nothing happens your liver after drinking and it totally doesn't make husbands hit their families. Well, I'm going to go ride my dinosaur to class now.

I kind of wish that there was a "like" function on the escapist but then that would just be another place that facebook had invaded and there is to many of those.

 

[Sikachu]

smoking does not just harm the people that smoke, but also the people around them.
smoking has no health benefits at all.
tobacco only kills whoever breathes it in, even after you smoke.
the smoke clings to your clothes, forcing others to smell it.
and for those who say "i'm just exercising my right to smoke" i say this: you are interfearing with my right NOT to breathe that smoke.

Unless I'm forcibly entering your home and smoking there, you're ALWAYS welcome to fuck off elsewhere.

that would be called "breaking and entering"
which is illegal

Yes... relevant?

there are people who smoke and there are people who don't
the ones that do not smoke don't harm anyone when they exhale
those who do smoke harm themselves and others
why should people who don't smoke have to breathe second-hand smoke?

Because unless I've invaded your home and pinned you down so I can breath my second-hand smoke at you, you've always got the freedom to fuck off elsewhere to protect your precious lungs from the immeasurably small amount of damage that my second hand smoke might do. That means it is your choice to breath the air that you like slightly less, and that means you're damaging yourself. In other words, if you want total control of your environment, stay the fuck out of the shared space.

let's say that there is a space with 5 non-smokers and one person that is smoking. all six people have to be in that spot for some reason; waiting for a bus, a cross walk sign to say "go", ect. should the person that does smoke leave because he/she is the minority?

No. Because the person smoking hasn't got a problem with the environment as it is.

Also, you have applied your idiosyncrasy about smoking to all non-smokers (with the implication that if 1 of 5 is a smoker, 4 object to there being a smoker in their vicinity when they're outside), something that just isn't the case, as the majority of non-smokers clearly don't mind smoke enough to inconvenience themselves in any way (else UK pubs would be doing a lot better since the smoking ban). If I was sitting in a public park having a picnic and 4 other picnics were happening in the nearby area, and one of them started playing music I didn't enjoy, I would move rather than demand that they stop enjoying a space they have just as much right to as I do just because I'm hypersensitive. I certainly wouldn't spend my time trying tp outlaw all music in public spaces...

Don't get me wrong, when I wait at bus stops and smoke I almost always stand at the outside of the bus stop on the off-chance someone inside's too uncomfortable to say anything, but if it is raining then fuck them - if they really have such a strong objection to breathing in a tiny amount of smoke they can stand in the rain.

the flaw with that pinic example is that there were five people and you were the only one that did not like the music played by one of the other people there. if the other people liked the music then they would not tell the music player to stop (you would be the one out of five that hated the muisc. minority: person that hates the music). but if the others agreed with you and left the music player then then that person would probably feel guilty for annoying others and would stop the music anyways out of guilt(four out of five hated the music. minority: person that likes the music).

mind telling me why you smoke? anything good side effects about smoking can be found in other, less unpleseant, methods.

You're assuming that the three other picnic-goers (or people at the bus stop that aren't me and you) all agree one way (pro-music/anti-smoking). Which they probably don't, but even if they did, it isn't a utilitarian principle, it's a deontological one. The music player has a right to enjoy playing his music with his picnic, and I have the right to move away from him if it annoys me. I don't have the right to stop him playing music, even if all four other picnics would rather he did. We can all ask him nicely, and he probably would stop (as indeed I would if asked to stop smoking at a bus shelter) but he would be doing everyone else a favour, not vindicating their right to not be annoyed.

I started smoking when I didn't have any weed at uni, smoked about 5-10 cigs a day for a while and now smoke on average maybe 5 cigarettes a week. In smokers' terms, I'm not a smoker. What I get from it though is a pleasant taste, enjoyable ritual, great way to get talking to random girls in clubs, nicotine steadies the nerves, and the ability to help out someone who needs a light/cigarette whenever they ask for one. There's not really a whole lot of unpleasantness involved. It does mak your breath smell bad, but then being aware of that it's easy to be hypersensitive and overcompensate, and so constantly have better breath than I otherwise would have.

 

[C95J]

Make the tax higher, there is no downside.

The government will get more money from tax.

Less people will smoke making healthcare cheaper and people happier

Cigarette tax is what makes your health care cheaper, less smokers equals health care increases.

less smokers = less money spent treating smokers with illnesses.

Actually, the tax on cigarettes more than covers the expense of treating people with smoking-related illnesses.

then I will go back to my original point about raising the tax so that more money is made and less people will die.

 

[Jodah]

No it should not. I say this not because of any moral reason but because it would fuck our economy over even more then it is now. Imagine if all the jobs involved with making tobacco products suddenly disappeared. How about all the taxes gathered from the sale of said products being gone. If you want to destroy Western society thats how you do it, make a major product illegal. This can be tobacco, alcohol, video games, music, etc. If any of those are made illegal we are royally boned.

 

[bue519]

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.

Your right nothing happens your liver after drinking and it totally doesn't make husbands hit their families. Well, I'm going to go ride my dinosaur to class now.

I kind of wish that there was a "like" function on the escapist but then that would just be another place that facebook had invaded and there is to many of those.

Well, why argue with them when you can just use their own points to prove how bad their argument is. Ahh... progress.

 

[Kair]

Nicotine is a heavier narcotic than THC, so is ethanol. It does not make sense to keep nicotine legal and THC illegal.

Here's a metaphor.
Say there's a really annoying guy living in your house, and you would really like to get rid of him. However, you can't get rid of him, because he - for example - is your cousin. Forcing him to leave would create a lot of trouble for you. However, the fact that you have to put up with him doesn't mean you will go ahead and invite every annoying dickhead you meet into your house.

Nicotine is heavily rooted in our culture, so we can't easily ban it, but that doesn't mean we should legalize all other drugs that have similar effects.

It will not be easy to ban it, but the effort needed to be put into change does not make the argument of change any less valid.
A change that will benefit humans for hundreds of years far outweighs the effort put into it over much less time.
It is the optimal we are after, not the compromise.

 

[Ethylene Glycol]

I have a friend who's a violent, self-righteous, moralizing fascist

Hey, I fixed that for you.

I'm sure this has already been said, and better, but:
No, smoking should NOT be made illegal. "Secondhand smoke" isn't dangerous--all the chemicals were already inhaled by the smoker--and the stuff that's actually bad--sidestream--is almost never inhaled in sufficient quantities to cause anyone harm. Know why? Sidestream smoke burns like a Tabasco-lubed assfuck when it gets in your nose and mouth. Even long-time smokers don't inhale that stuff. And since most of the smoke gets inhaled through the filter anyway, there's very little of it just floating off into the atmosphere.

I'm all for smoking and nonsmoking sections, and banning it indoors for places like office buildings and whatnot--it basically boils down to "do what you want but don't force it on others"--but the bottom line is, your rights end where my body begins, and if I want to put all those oh-so-deadly chemicals [most of which cigarette smoke contains only trace amounts of] in my lungs, that's my choice. Not yours, not your skinhead friend's, not Uncle Sam's.


EDIT: And, for the record, yes: I also support people being allowed to do other drugs legally. Any straight-edge zealots present may feel free to flame me--I enjoy the warmth.

 

[Captain Bobbossa]

First of, read mine again.

Secondly, I take it you smoke pot then seen as one of the side effects of smoking it is denial. Seriously I'm getting sick of pot heads saying "Pot does nothing wrong, infact it magicaly heals everything"
This is complete and utter bolloks. A few side effects of pot include adiction (and yes it is addictive not through it's chemicals but through the effects, basically you become addicted to smoking pot and getting high not any particular chemical), anxiety attacks, becoming a complete wanker and depression. How many of you know someone who has depression and has done for a while (more than 4 months)? Now do they smoke pot? I bet you 9 out of 10 times the answer is yes. Taking anti-depressants is a 3 month course to help you get over the depression. If you have it because you smoke pot then the only that's going to solve the problem is to stop.

Also thanks to long expossure to the substance I've developed anxiety attacks and social issues (I still have them after stopping).

But like i said the main problem with pot is denial, pot causes a serious amount of denial which is why you get so many pot smokers going "oh no, it's perfectly healthy for you honest, some scientist said so" or "some survey said so" show it to me? From a reliable source.

"Marijuana in most cases will not cause any significant damage to the user, in fact it can be used medicinally with great results in certain circumstances."

"STUPID STONERS!!! WEED ISN'T THE MIRACLE CURE, YOU'RE JUST ALL ADDICTED!!!!!"

"No, look, here are peer reviewed articles from prominent professionals in the field of medical science that show some potential positive effects. And here are some statistics that show that the the lungs of heavy marijuana users display no significant sign of unhealthiness."

"DENIAL!!!!!! YOU'RE ALL IN DENIAL!!!!!! SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS NOTHING IN THE FACE OF GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA!!!!!!"

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000884

69 peer reviewed studies. 32 (46%) came to a generally positive conclusion, 23 (33%) sat on the fence, 14 (20%) came to a negative conclusion.

Even if this doesn't change your mind about MJ, it certainly puts it in perspective when put alongside tobacco.

And "denial" isn't a side effect, it's a defense mechanism. Drug's cause side effects, sneezing is a side effect, nausea is a side effect, persistent drop in mood is a side effect. Underlying psychological issues lead to denial. The difference is quite distinct.

Sorry about the quote fail.

I think you'll find that you've grosely over exagurated what I said.

Plus saying that it's better on you lungs that smoking tobbacco does not make it better for you, there just bad in differant ways.

And wether it's a side effect or not denial still comes from smoking alot of pot.

Stop grabbing at straws.

 

[Kinokohatake]

NO! Fuck the government. I am tired of them shoving their noses into my business all the fucking time. So no, it shouldn't be illegal. No new laws!

 

[Sikachu]

Guess what? Smokers aren't mind readers. Until the government start issuing out stickers to those they deem weak (shouldn't be too long after tobacco gets banned), there is no possible way we could know about your issues.

Must suck to have weak lungs, i have sympathy, but at the end of the day it's your job to take care of yourself. Sauntering through the street under the assumption that all smokers should give you a wide berth because they should know about your "condition" is silly.

Oh, I keep out of their way, but then a bunch of them get offended, which leads to all kinds of incredibly stupid problems.

I must apologise, I read the words you wrote, rather than skimming along the surface making stuff up - I guess that's reading too deeply. Allow me to walk you through the hysteria point.

You wrote:
"breathing in smoke puts me in hospital"

Then some other random sentence. Then you wrote:
"So if you smoke near me, you kill me."

This kind of high-speed exaggeration is exactly the sort of behaviour exhibited usually described as 'hysterical'.

Finally, 'in hospital' is not the same as 'dead'. That's the kind of hysteria I was askingnn you to dial down.

Now dealing with your new substantive points:
1. Carcinogens cause cancer, so unless each time you take this little hospital trip of yours they fix you up with a bit of chemo or radiotherapy, it's pretty unlikely that's relevent.
2. There's this amazing thing called medical science where they train doctors, and some of them practice medicine, and some of them do research on what causes disease and how to fight it. Rather than testing on yourself, this 'medical science' can often provide answers for you. When you are so severely allergic to something that either you must immediately go to hospital or you immediately die (depending on your particular level of hysteria at that time) these doctors usually make a pretty solid effort to work out what it is that causes the reaction. 4000 different chemical in cigarette smoke, and not a single one of them unique to cigarette smoke... you must live in fear of going near anything else that combusts. You know how many chemicals come out of a car exhaust? Probably not, that won't have been in the PSA you've been pulling your entire 'argument' out of.

Well what am I supposed to say? I get cigarette smoke, my lungs fill with mucous. End of.

I find it interesting how you complain about my "hysteria" making it hard to take me seriously, but then you take everything I say that potentially has a seam (in your mind) and attack it as hard as you can. I am also a person with an opinion that's just as valid as yours, and I'm forced to stop respecting anything you say because of your reactions.

You're supposed to have reacted like a normal human being and thought 'hmmmmm if I can be hospitalised/die from the tiniest bit of cigarette smoke, I wonder if there's anything else I should probably avoid?' and ask your doctor. None of the chemicals in cigarette smoke are unique to cigarette smoke, that's why I wanted to know what it was that you were claiming to be susceptible to. The fact that you are so blase about it being just cigarette smoke that causes this makes it look like you're lying. Your opinion isn't just as valid as mine because my opinion is the product of an enquiring mind, the sort of mind that when it gets threatened with death is compelled to find out a little more about how to avoid this.

But let us leave all that aside and assume that you will magically die if a particle of cigarette smoke reaches your lungs, why does that mean that the hundreds of millions of smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke on the street? What if (for argument's sake) I would instantly die if I saw an orange t-shirt? Would that be an argument for banning the public wearing of orange t-shirts, or an argument for me moving somewhere isolated so I can leave all the normal people to get on with their lives?