Poll: Should smoking be made illegal?

[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?

 

[Shoqiyqa]

One: yes.

Two: there's such a thing as a safe dose of alcohol, under the right circumstances.

Three: there's no evidence at all that "some ar____le drinking a beer in the cafe where you work while you're pregnant harms your baby," is there?

Four:

Making smoking illegal would be the same as ... making marijuana illegal.

No. Making smoking illegal would make smoking marijauna illegal and, hey, can we call it cannabis? Is that okay? Right. Now: it's legal to use petrol as fuel in your car, motorbike, chainsaw, strimmer, generator or stove, under the right conditions, which bl__dy well ought to include sobriety. It's legal, under some circumstances, to pour petrol over a load of old wood and set it on fire. Operating the chainsaw in the library will make you very unpopular, as will pouring petrol over their bookshelves and setting them on fire. Carrying an axe home from the shop is legal. Swinging it around in the street while wearing a blindfold is probably illegal. Firing a .22SSS rifle at rabbits, given the right locations and permits and licences and so on, is legal. Firing it into a packed stadium is, generally speaking, illegal. To say banning the ownership, carriage and use of guns would make firing into the "away" team's side of the stadium seating illegal (if it wasn't already) is true, but does not mean that making it illegal to spray bullets down the street is the same as making firearm ownership illegal.

I happen to be in favour of following Portugal's lead on "marijuana" for now, partly because of the results they have seen and partly because it would make it a lot easier to do proper research on the stuff and get actual information about just how harmful it is to what percentage of the population and how the susceptible may be identified before the harm is done ...

... which proper research I concede does not include pouring 50mg of THC dissolved in 50% ethanol down the throat of the next person to say it's totally harmless and posting the results on youtube, however tempting that would be.

I am also in favour of discussing things rationally and logically rather than quoting propaganda and smothering it with hyperbole, so I felt the need to correct your assertion above. Banning smoking does not mean banning nicotine gum, nicotine patches, cannabis tea, "space cakes" or any other means of taking any drug, placebo and/or artificial flavouring of your choice.

Thankyou for your time. You may now all resume yelling at each other with your ears covered.

 

[Cuppa Tetleys]

I'd say no - although I absolutely detest smoking, it would ruin the global economy as it is one of the most profitable industries around. Though if they raised taxes it might discourage people to, or more profit will be made. Win-win.

 

[irani_che]

i think that ciggarettes, like alcohol, meat, fatty food, preservatives, foods grown with pestacides, platic bottles, direct sunlight and god-damn oxygen are carcinogenic.
however sitting here, within arms reach of a shisha, i have to come here sticking to what i believe in and say, unless they are actually causing you, yes you! a problem, leave them alone

 

[majes6661]

Maybe smoking shouldn't be made illegal but I think people should be given the right to take legal action against people who smoke around them. It's called Reckless Endangerment.

 

[Torrasque]

Smoking has been made illegal in most public places in Canada (not sure about you Americans), and everyone is happier because of it.
Now you don't have to worry about getting cancer when you go to the bar for a couple of drinks.
This is the kind of angle smoking should take, and alcohol is technically the same. You cannot pop open a brewsky on the street without a heavy fine (if you get caught of course) among other places.

I'm perfectly fine with retards killing themselves slowly so long as they don't poison me as well.

 

[Ampersand]

As long as nobody hurts anybody else, people can do what ever they want in my book.

 

[Captain Bobbossa]

The ignorance of some of the non-smokers about passive smoking is pretty astounding.

 

[kasperbbs]

Hell NO. If i want to smoke i will smoke and who are you to tell me otherwise. And what if they made it illegal? Would they arrest everyone with a lit cigarette? Ofcourse it shouldn't be allowed in public places and i think most people have enough common sense not to do it in front of non-smokers.

 

[Sikachu]

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.

Ah the classic ruse of the unintelligent: 'everyone's opinion is important and you just like arguing!!11'

An opinion, unsupported by either rationale or evidence is no more worthwhile than the random collection of noises that throwing a drumkit down the stairs makes. It isn't that it is your opinion that makes it useless, it's that you are ignorant on the topic, which means any opinion you could form on it would be useless. If I was aksed which type of aircraft carrier the Navy should invest in for renewing its fleet I'm sure I could express an opinion, but I'm equally sure it would be totally useless, given that I know nothing about aircraft carriers. That's how someone's opinion can be worthless.

I don't think I'm better than people that don't support smoking. I'm don't really engage in that way of judging people as I think they're usually too complex to boil down to to Person A > Person B. Generally, I would tend to advise people against smoking (if my opinion was asked) as it can have a lot of nasty consequences that don't really justify the cost. I certainly think I'm better at presenting a coherent and thought through argument than you though, and I think I'm a more valuable forum member as I try my best to refrain from pissing in the poolwater of discussions I have no knowledge about.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

First of ... seen as ... infact ... magicaly ... bolloks ... adiction ... through it's chemicals ... expossure ... or "some survey said so" show it to me? From a reliable source.

... Drug's ...

... grosely over exagurated ... you lungs that smoking tobbacco ... there just bad in differant ways.

And wether it's ...

First off, not first of.
Seeing as, not seen as.
In fact, with a space.
Bollocks, with a c.
Addiction, with two ds.
It's is an abbreviation of "it is." Use its for the possessive.
Exposure, with one s.
GRAMMAR!

The plural of drug is drugs, not drug's.

... grossly over-exaggerated ... your lungs ... they're ... different ...

wether [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wether]:

(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) a male sheep, esp a castrated one

whether [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whether]:

1. Used in indirect questions to introduce one alternative: We should find out whether the museum is open. See Usage Notes at doubt, if.
2. Used to introduce alternative possibilities: Whether she wins or whether she loses, this is her last tournament.
3. Either: He passed the test, whether by skill or luck.
pron. Archaic
Which: "We came in full View of a great Island or Continent, (for we knew not whether)" (Jonathan Swift).
Idiom:
whether or no
Regardless of circumstances.

At least you follow your comparatives with "than" not "then" like so many.

 

[lettucethesallad]

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?

Not a fascist as far as I know, just a pain in the ass at times.

 

[Thirsk]

A ban in public places is no bad idea. That's what we have here in Denmark, and that allows me to enjoy my unhealthy treat without "endangering" or irritating the anti-smoker crowd out there. Sure, it's annoying to have to go outside when the weather's shitty, but a smoke doesn't usually last longer than 5-7 minuttes to my experience, and it's bearable to be outside for such a short amount of time, almost no matter the weather.

Also, just for the record, smoking isn't equal instant doom. If you have a relaxed relationship to smoking, bronchia or lung cancer isn't right around the corner. Just sayin'.

 

[eljawa]

id say only in public places (second and third hand smoke are bad for you) but since i can only choose one, raise the tax. If the price is too high, people wont feel inclined to buy them hopefully...and if they do at least we make money

 

[Captain Bobbossa]

First of ... seen as ... infact ... magicaly ... bolloks ... adiction ... through it's chemicals ... expossure ... or "some survey said so" show it to me? From a reliable source.

... Drug's ...

... grosely over exagurated ... you lungs that smoking tobbacco ... there just bad in differant ways.

And wether it's ...

First off, not first of.
Seeing as, not seen as.
In fact, with a space.
Bollocks, with a c.
Addiction, with two ds.
It's is an abbreviation of "it is." Use its for the possessive.
Exposure, with one s.
GRAMMAR!

The plural of drug is drugs, not drug's.

... grossly over-exaggerated ... your lungs ... they're ... different ...

wether [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wether]:

(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) a male sheep, esp a castrated one

whether [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whether]:

1. Used in indirect questions to introduce one alternative: We should find out whether the museum is open. See Usage Notes at doubt, if.
2. Used to introduce alternative possibilities: Whether she wins or whether she loses, this is her last tournament.
3. Either: He passed the test, whether by skill or luck.
pron. Archaic
Which: "We came in full View of a great Island or Continent, (for we knew not whether)" (Jonathan Swift).
Idiom:
whether or no
Regardless of circumstances.

At least you follow your comparatives with "than" not "then" like so many.

Like I said, stop grasping at straws, grammar nazi.

EDIT: sorry, I should have checked the name. However you are still pathetic.

 

[LostAlone]

My vote goes for no.

First off, I'm a smoker, and I don't appreciate being made a criminal over night. That's bullshit and you all know it.

Secondly, I'm a libertarian. I think that people should be able to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Now to all you second hand smoking bullshit merchants, I'd remind you that the only indoor place I can smoke in (to comply with uk law) is my own home. So, smokers do not harm anyone (if they were to begin with but that's a different argument). Since they don't harm anyone, they are free to do what they like.

Thirdly, we couldn't afford the loss of tax.

Fourthly, if governments are going to interfere in our lives to that degree (ie 'to save us from ourselves') then they would have to ban almost everything. Alcohol has to be next in the firing line, then junk food, then an enforced hour a day of exercise, then why not throw in a Two Minute Hate. By degrees shedding our liberty for the sake of healthier lives.

The tricky thing about freedom of choice is that some people choose 'wrong', or at the very least choose different. We live our lives how we want, you live your lives how you want. Any loss of personal choice is something that diminishes our whole society.

If you don't smoke, why do you care what I do ? You care because you think you can run my life better than I can. Maybe you can. Tough. It's my life. I didn't get conned into smoking, nor do I continue because I am unaware of the risks. I will sign a document to that effect. I can vote, I have a job, a car, a masters degree and a comprehensive insurance plan, and I'm getting married... Basically I can make decisions about my own life.

Why should the law consider me as being a stupid teenager who is totally unable to make my own choices ? Because that's what banning smoking would amount to. Hell I choose the government, how could they ever say I'm not adult enough to choose ?

 

[thegermanguy]

just leave us smokers alone. the taxes for tabacco rise and rise (at least here in germany), the number of smokers decreases steadily, and everywhere we go we have to wait outside like dogs.
its alright all you non-smokers. you have won. it's only a matter of time until smoking disappears.

hm by the way, why don't we ban cars? they are killing me because the emissions are cancerous too. and thats the answer to everything. ban it.

 

[Sir-jackington]

No, thats taking things too far, i do think there should be stricter laws in place about underage smoking and buying for underaged kids. As for the smoking in public places, it should be up to the company or whatever if want to allow people to smoke there. I also think that less should should be spent on helping people who are sick because of smoking and refuse to quit, and more on helping people quit.

 

[Pyode]

Let's move on from this, shall we?

Fine.

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.

Yes, I do.

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.

Now that is a staw man argument.

Anyway, nope. Just the ones that involve protecting people from themselves. Anti-drug laws, anti-prostitution laws, anti-gay marriage laws, as well as others have arguably fascist qualities. Note that just because a government has some fascist leaning laws does not mean it is a fascist government. My argument is far from invalidated.

How eloquent.

Oh no! I used a common internet colloquialism to express my confusion! My argument must now be invalid.

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?

I agree that it would be the smart thing to do, but I would never agree to a legal mandate requiring it.

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.

It should be taken into account by the person choosing to smoke and no one else. The extreme view here is the idea that the government should mandate what we can and can't do in the comfort of our own homes while not hurting anyone.

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.

I have yet to see you point out a single logical fallacy in my argument and I already responded to your overreaction to my "WTF" comment.

Speaking of crudeness. You implied I should have pissed my pants because your argument was so awesome. I guess everything else in that post was invalid as well.

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

Someone else already pointed out how ridiculous this argument was (and yet you quoted it as though I said it for some reason), so I wont bother re-stating it. I'll just sit back and laugh maniacally.

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

Your post failed to prove otherwise.

 

[stormtrooper9091]

Actually my greatest beef is the fucking smell. Imagine you were in a toilet. Yeah it smells horrible in there. Now imagine if every room everywhere smelled a fucking toilet because everyone shits on the floor. Well, that's how I feel in a smokers' area. Every time we get some visitors who happen to be smokers, they smoke one, JUST ONE and it takes a WHOLE DAY for the stench to clear out, with all doors and windows open. Now I'm not the one who supports the total ban of smoking, just don't want to be in the same area as them, I prefer my air to be breathable and non-toxic. And don't give me any of that propaganda shit, my dad was a heavy smoker and he died of ha, guess what, the fucking lung cancer

just leave us smokers alone. the taxes for tabacco rise and rise (at least here in germany), the number of smokers decreases steadily, and everywhere we go we have to wait outside like dogs.
its alright all you non-smokers. you have won. it's only a matter of time until smoking disappears.

hm by the way, why don't we ban cars? they are killing me because the emissions are cancerous too. and thats the answer to everything. ban it.

i support the ban cars idea