Poll: Should smoking be made illegal?

[Siuki]

It should, but it can't. Smoking is too widespread to be banned. Plus, people get addicted every day, so there's always a fresh generation of smokers.

 

[beema]

Yes, in public places. People should be able to do whatever the crap they want in private.

 

[Pyode]

Unsupported claim.

I was answering two questions that you asked, but I am going to assume you are referring to the one regarding smoking detrimental effects. You where asking me a direct question and I answered it. I wasn't trying to convince you to agree so I didn't bother elaborating but, if it bothers you that much, so be it.

Every single study regarding the detrimental effects of smoking have been correlative not causal. There is not a single case of lung cancer (or any other "smoking related" disease) that has been proven to have been caused by smoking. This goes doubly so for second hand smoke.

You're obviously extremely biased against any legislation that restricts your free will.

Damn right I am and I fail to see anything naive about it.

You never made any coherent argument. Even if I granted that my suggestion was fascist in nature you're still required to present your case on why that would be bad. Is it also fascist to legislate taxes so the state can provide public schools, roads and libraries?

Of course I didn't argue why fascism is bad, because it is a subjective belief. It can't be proven to be objectively bad. The only reason I brought it up is to point out the extremism of your view which is exactly what I said when I brought it up.

Straw man. I commented on your eloquence, or lack of it, and that's all. You'd do well to not overreact so much.

Your still misusing the phrase "straw man". What you just refereed to as a straw man argument was simply a sarcastic retaliation to your insult. It would have only qualified as a straw man argument if I had attempted to use it to debunk you entire argument, which I didn't.

Straw man

I suggest you actually follow the link this time so you can actually use the term properly in future arguments.(I know you didn't follow the last one because I messed up the link)

In this case, no, it should not be legislated. However, unless the doctor(s) recommend(s) the procedure, it should be charged to the patient, even in countries that have socialised healthcare, because it is an unnecessary operation, equal to cosmetic surgery, and that is not why people pay taxes.

Wow, something else we actually agree on.

This would only be true if the person in question is single, lives alone, has no children, and smokes exclusively under a vent or in a way that prevents any smoke from leaving his apartment and thus harming his neighbours.

Unless you can show me a case where someone was harmed by cigarette smoke through a wall, I have to say this is just one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

Even still, he would be harming himself, and all this is enough reason to simply phase out a habit that contributes nothing to society.

There are many things that contribute nothing to society. I don't see how smoking is unique in this regard.

I'm not surprised. If you could determine what is and what isn't a logical fallacy then there wouldn't be any in your post(s), would there? Now, I'm not here to tutor you, and what's more I've lost my patience for this thread. I don't want all the flaming spoil my mood.

Hate to break it to you, but that's not how debates work. If you are going to make an accusation, you need to back it up with specific examples.

The whole "if you don't know, then I'm not going to tell you" thing, just isn't going to fly.

It's also funny you should mention flaming. You have been much more belligerent and insulting then I have.

I never claimed that my argument was 'awesome'.

This is the segment to which I made the 'wetting yourself'-comment:

It was still crude and insulting which was the point I was trying to make.

Not only were you offended enough to storm out of the discussion, but you instantly decided that the entire discussion was pointless because you decided that my views were 'incredibly extreme', that you were obviously not going to change my mind and that I was definitely not going to change yours, which makes the fact that you've now returned even more interesting, but I guess I was so extremely fascist that you just couldn't simply walk away.

I had originally intended to walk away. But then you insulted me and began making completely baseless claims like that I was making logical fallacies and straw man arguments. I stand by the fact that your views are too extreme for me to attempt to change. All of my posts since making that statements have been purely reactionary and defensive. I have done nothing to attempt to change your mind since.

You were obviously very upset, clearly overreacting and what you've said simply doesn't make much sense. Hence, I made the comment.

I don't see how you could possibly know how upset I was or was not from what I said, but I suppose it's your right for you to do whatever mental gymnastics you can to make yourself feel superior.

A lack of grammatical prudence is a sign of various things, and such a basic error was significant enough for me to poke a stick at. If you'd been calm you would've gathered that it was not meant to be an argument, but rather a spot of levity.

I hardly think a single minor typo out of several paragraphs of text at 4 AM qualifies as a "sign" of anything. As for being calm, I wasn't even the first person to say anything. Someone completely unrelated to our conversation thought it was ridiculous enough to mention. As for it being a "spot of levity," I'm afraid I have to call as an outright lie.

Had you simply pointed out the error and been done with it, it would have been fine, but you specifically used it as evidence against my argument by saying it "help[ed] [your] case along nicely." You continue to do so by saying it's a "sign" of something.

Please see the comment I made about the logical fallacies in your post(s).

As I already said, you have yet to point out a single logical fallacy and I am afraid the burden of proof is on the accuser.

Thank you for the discussion, son, but as I said, I'll be ceasing my involvement in this thread for the reasons previously mentioned.

No problem kid. I'd be lying if I said I was sad to see you go, but goodbye and good luck all the same.

 

[SovietSecrets]

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.

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

I don't care what people do if it doesn't harm me or others. Smoking does inherently, drinking doesn't.

Oh right I forgot, because just because drinking doesn't harm you right away(lie), its a lot worse than smoking. Keep on drinking then and end up in the same boat with cancer as a smoker. Or keep on drinking and screw up and go drive. Like smoking over time will cause issues, so will drinking.

smoking = an ABSOLUTE RISK as smoking will cause cancer.

drinking = a potential risk dependent on personal judgment.

nice way generalizing everyone to be an idiot who will do stupid shit. that is the same argument against illegal drugs like pot saying "everyone who smokes pot will become gang bangers and shoot people". nice fucking generalizations there. care to do pot smokers too? what about heroine users? or cocaine users? alcohol gives cancer? talk about bull shit.

Are you a fucking idiot? Smoking is also based on personal judgement. Good job saying that everyone who smokes won't stop and will continue smoking for the rest of their lives. Nicely done there Detective Dipshit. Both are potential risks I hope you realize. If I were to smoke and drink for the rest of my life and anyone else as well, we would all end up with lung and liver cancer. Now before you cry to me about how wrong I am be sure to read the bottom of the post.

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

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

Just to make sure everyone sees it before quoting me again.

Tobacco was the leading cause of death in 2000: 435,000
Alcohol was the third: 85,000

Congrats lets go back 10 years. Death is still death. People die from both, so just because one group dies more then another that means the other shouldn't be banned as well?

People also die from caffiene and prescription medications, so let's just ban those as well. And since people die from diabetes and lack of exercise, lets also get rid of all food that can possibly be fattening, and all food with any sugar added to it.

See now you are thinking how I was when I made this post. Do you understand? If one causes the death then the other abused substance should be banned as well. I just only extended it to alcohol because I would hope people would understand what you just came up with. Now read the bottom of this post as well please. You are the person who gets it.

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

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

Just to make sure everyone sees it before quoting me again.

Lol the people quoting you are morons. You're actually slightly wrong in that the societal harm is significantly higher with alcohol than with cigarettes, not that those idiots will understand. Here's a study conducted by the ACMD (in the UK) before its head (David Nutt) had the audacity to put science ahead of toeing the Government's line, get fired, and signify the end of the ACMD as a trustworthy source of scientific enquiry and its rebirth as a really expensive rubber stamp for government policy: [a href=http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf]http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf[/a]. Skip to the graph on page ten if you can't be bothered to read the whole thing.

Thank you, I think I finally understand the problem with all the idiots who are quoting me.


My Post

I am not saying that drinking is worse then smoking. As the second person I quoted figured it out, I was saying if one harmful thing should be banned, then the others should be too as well. I was just using alcohol as an example of that because it was the next leading cause of death due to abuse that I know of. I just didn't extend that to all things. Now can you morons finally understand? Its just me saying if one harmful thing should be banned, then the rest should too. Thank you last two people who understand somewhat at what I was getting at.

nice argument, "everyone around cant recognize my genius"? did you come up with that all by yourself? you cite no research, and cite no damn evidence at all except "my genius" which isn't genius its redundant, failed logic.

What genius? What research do I need to cite? For what even? I made no claims. I simply said if one thing is banned because its bad for health and kills then everything should be banned for that same reason. I just used alcohol as an example and then every person (you included) jumped on my ass without even thinking about it. I assumed people would understand basic reasoning of if one thing is banned then the next thing should be banned and so on and so forth. I had to spoon feed it to you to finally get it, which you do now. Don't be mad because you couldn't figure out something so simple.

 

[Sparcrypt]

Yes it should... however I'd be happy with just a public smoking ban.

To clarrify: I don't care if people smoke, however I do not want to inhale it, ever.

 

[Captain Bobbossa]

the fact is that some people DO use pain killers self-destructively, weither it is for not caring about the instructions ("more i take the faster it works"), trying to commit suicide, and other reasons. people are stupid by nature.

you can get lung cancer from second-hand smoke. not just adults but also children, and kids aren't exactly known for having super immune systems and would be more likely to get cancer from second-hand smoke.

Yeeees... people DO use pain killers self-destructively, although I was more hinting at recreationaly but whatever. Yes people are stupid, (not by nature I might add, but by our own doing and removing natural selection and creating a molly coddle society) but I don't quite get what your getting at? Are you saying we should ban all drugs known to man (including the prescribed ones you mentioned that are so easy to get apparantly even though you need a prescription thus an actual need for them) or are you against banning smoking?

And I've explained this second hand smoke thing so many times in this thread that I think this will be the last. There are very few situations where second hand smoke is going to do ANY damage WHATSOEVER to your precious body.

Now take hede (head, heed, yes heed I think thats it) everyone else who is likely to end up using passive smoke as their main argument. Here is a list of occasions where passive smoke will acctually harm you.

1) This is the most common out of all of these and also one that I agree strongly that it should be stopped. When parents smoke around their children. Now unless both the parents and the child live in quite a small falt or something and the parent(s) in question smokes quite a few a day the acctual smoke itself won't do any permanent harm physicaly. But what is very common is that the child will later on in life start smoking as a result.

2) Your trapped in a lift with a smoker and a few cartons for days. Well it's a very small space and you will be there for a long period of time. However you will recover. Very quickly after the ordeal, provided the smoker hasn't killed you because all smokers are evil and discusting apparntly.

3) Your trapped in any other small confined space for a long period of time with a smoker and a supply of cigarets. See 2.

4) You frequent a bar/pub that allows smoking. However for you to receive any permanent damage from the smoke you would have to spend enough time at this bar that you either love drinking orange juice or because you are a regular and your already fucked because of the amount of drink you consumed waiting around for lung cancer from passive smoke just to prove a point.

5) See number 1 but not for children. The reason this is differant is that you have a choice in this one where the child doesn't.

I don't know where all this extreme amount of ignorance is coming from. But I'll try to educate you.

The smoke from a cigaret is not a death sentance. A good thing to compare it to would be radiation or car fumes. You are all exposed to these things every day (just incase you don't know much about radiation the sun is radioactive, as are Aberdeen and Cornwall) but you don't claim that these things are killing you do you? That's because they're not (unless you live in certain parts of China with the smog) it's all in very small doses so the cumilative effect isn't great enough to do any/much harm. And any harm that his done, your body recovers from very quickly, because your body heals, if it didn't you would be dead right now. Oxygen, one of the things essential to living is poisoness for fuck sake. But it's diluted so your body can handle it, use it and then manage the damage that it does.

Anyway the point I'm trying to get at is that if you smoked one cigaret your body would heal very quickly, if you smoked 100 cigarets in your lifetime your body would recover, even if you smoked 1000 cigarets in your life time your body would recover back to full health. And 1000 cigarets is not enough to get you addicted before you start. Now take second hand smoke, that smoke has dispersed into the air so you are only getting a portion of that draw on the cigaret, the size of portion depending on the area of container you are in. So unless in the circumstances above (sorry I forgot to include a pregnant mother smoking, appologies) you are never going to recieve any damage worth mentioning from passive smoke.

The reason that smoking CAN and not DOES cause lung cancer is because of the long time expossure to the harmful chemicals (all of them) in a cigaret so the body does can't recover because it is constantly fighting it and doesn't get enough of a break to fix the problem. But for you non-smokers this is not a problem.

If you've gotten this far before just giving up and continuing to shout rubbish without acctually listening to anyone else then thank you for reading.

I've got a few other things to bring up though.

Firstly why is smoking "discusting"? I don't quite get that. Stupid and harmful but disgusting? A fat guy scratching his arse is disgusting, mushy peas are discusting, slimey things are discusting I don't get why smoking his discusting.

Secondly hopefully Ive now educated the people who for some reason think that people smoking outside are not harming you.... unless they have a gun.

Thirdly, why should we pay more tax than we already do? We already pay a stupid amount of Tax anyway, why more. Why shouldn't fat people pay for two seats then? Raise drink tax aswell while your at it. What about people into extreme sports, thats dangerous. Raise VAT on snowboards. Oh and road tax because large fast moving metal boxes are pretty dangerous to, especially if a drunk is behind it. Oh and what about guns? Scissors? Really, there are much worse things out there than smokers. Where not really doing anything wrong so can't people just leave us in peice?




Sorry for the vast amounts of grammatical errors in this, I'm not very good in that area. So please don't be a grammar nazi, I know it's shit already. And everyone knows that correcting grammar is a pathetic cop out from thinking of a comeback.

 

[ServebotFrank]

No. People can do whatever they want with their bodies. I have the same opinion about prostitution and marijauna.

 

[Captain Bobbossa]

This is a great idea for people who smoke. check it out.


http://greensmoke.com/22216.html

It's a brilliant idea but there not great to be honest.

It doesn't quite have the 'this is killing you' factor which is essential.

 

[Captain Bobbossa]

I have a friend who's a radical straight edge kid. We had a discussion on facebook the other day on smoking, and the fact that more people in our community have started smoking. My friend is of the opinion that smoking should be made illegal and classed as a drug, and that the state should step in to essentially protect people from themselves.

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.

Eager to get to the bottom of this, I thought I'd ask you guys.

Tl;dr: Should smoking be made illegal?

Who knew this would get close to 700 replies (so far) ?

 

[Fatalistic]

I'm going to pose a weak argument.

Read this the first couple of paragraphs of this (I know, it's old):
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/02/11/2010-02-11_can_a_cigarette_tax_help_save_the_economy_health_advocates_see_9b_revenue_for_1p.html


I read this in a book or an article somewhere.

If every person in the world quit smoking simultaneously, the entire world would be very quickly overpopulated and there would be an economic crash.

If you think about it, that makes sense. Smoking would stop killing people, leaving more people on the planet, and since, currently, one of the main things keeping the US economy alive, or so it seems, is the tax on cigarettes, the economy would crash.

It's a "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't," situation. I say leave it alone.

Like I said earlier, it's a pathetic argument I'm posing here.

 

[Danpascooch]

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

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

Just to make sure everyone sees it before quoting me again.

EDIT 2: I am not saying that drinking is worse then smoking. As the second person I quoted figured it out, I was saying if one harmful thing should be banned, then the others should be too as well. I was just using alcohol as an example of that because it was the next leading cause of death due to abuse that I know of. I just didn't extend that to all things. Now can you morons finally understand? Its just me saying if one harmful thing should be banned, then the rest should too. Thank you last two people who understand somewhat at what I was getting at.

Now is everyone ok? We all good? Your asses don't hurt anymore?

Huh, your argument is the same one I use to say Marijuana should be legal.

 

[Danpascooch]

I'm going to pose a weak argument.

Read this the first couple of paragraphs of this (I know, it's old):
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/02/11/2010-02-11_can_a_cigarette_tax_help_save_the_economy_health_advocates_see_9b_revenue_for_1p.html


I read this in a book or an article somewhere.

If every person in the world quit smoking simultaneously, the entire world would be very quickly overpopulated and there would be an economic crash.

If you think about it, that makes sense. Smoking would stop killing people, leaving more people on the planet, and since, currently, one of the main things keeping the US economy alive, or so it seems, is the tax on cigarettes, the economy would crash.

It's a "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't," situation. I say leave it alone.

Like I said earlier, it's a pathetic argument I'm posing here.

Yeah that's actually absolutely ridiculous.

The world didn't become overpopulated when penicillin was invented, it'd be fine, do you have any idea how much of the world is left undeveloped?

The idea that cigarettes are a form of necessary population control is absurd.

 

[SovietSecrets]

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

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

Just to make sure everyone sees it before quoting me again.

EDIT 2: I am not saying that drinking is worse then smoking. As the second person I quoted figured it out, I was saying if one harmful thing should be banned, then the others should be too as well. I was just using alcohol as an example of that because it was the next leading cause of death due to abuse that I know of. I just didn't extend that to all things. Now can you morons finally understand? Its just me saying if one harmful thing should be banned, then the rest should too. Thank you last two people who understand somewhat at what I was getting at.

Now is everyone ok? We all good? Your asses don't hurt anymore?

Huh, your argument is the same one I use to say Marijuana should be legal.

Because its a valid argument. A damn good one at that as well. This is why smoking should not and will not ever be banned.

 

[Imat]

If they made 'em smell like either nothingness or some actual good smell, I would have no opinion one way or the other about them: Smoking is a choice, albeit a choice I can't, in all honesty, see people in their right minds making (For the first time. Addiction is another matter). I don't have any say in other people's business, except when it affects me. And that smell gives me a headache after the tiniest of whiffs, and that annoys me to no end. And being annoyed doesn't help headaches in the slightest. And having headaches doesn't help on midterms. So again, get rid of that terrible, terrible smell, and I'd be fine with their continued existence.

 

[Luke Cartner]

given that smoking impacts the health of others in a negative way, I feel it is not covered by the normal personal responsibility caveats.

That is when you drink alcohol you are risking your own health, when you smoke you are risking your health, the health of those in your immediate environment and the health of those who will be in your immediate environment.

I am fine with a smoker shortening their own lives (except here in Australia they put a strain on the public health system); I despise that they are permitted to shorten the lives of those around them.

I guess if it was possible to ensure no one smoked anywhere a non smoker would visit (ever), the smoke didn't travel/blow to a location a non smoker would visit (ever) and cigarettes were taxed to the point where the tax income counter balanced the social and health costs I would be ok with smoking not being made completely illegal...

 

[The Ghost]

I as a libertarian agree with you on the fact people should be allowed to kill themselves slowly. However smoking isn't that simple. If smoking only affected the smoker I wouldn't give a damn if someone wanted to do it. However its because of second hand smoke that I believe a person should not be allowed to enjoy a cigarette. Sorry smokers.

 

[SovietSecrets]

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.

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

I don't care what people do if it doesn't harm me or others. Smoking does inherently, drinking doesn't.

Oh right I forgot, because just because drinking doesn't harm you right away(lie), its a lot worse than smoking. Keep on drinking then and end up in the same boat with cancer as a smoker. Or keep on drinking and screw up and go drive. Like smoking over time will cause issues, so will drinking.

smoking = an ABSOLUTE RISK as smoking will cause cancer.

drinking = a potential risk dependent on personal judgment.

nice way generalizing everyone to be an idiot who will do stupid shit. that is the same argument against illegal drugs like pot saying "everyone who smokes pot will become gang bangers and shoot people". nice fucking generalizations there. care to do pot smokers too? what about heroine users? or cocaine users? alcohol gives cancer? talk about bull shit.

Are you a fucking idiot? Smoking is also based on personal judgement. Good job saying that everyone who smokes won't stop and will continue smoking for the rest of their lives. Nicely done there Detective Dipshit. Both are potential risks I hope you realize. If I were to smoke and drink for the rest of my life and anyone else as well, we would all end up with lung and liver cancer. Now before you cry to me about how wrong I am be sure to read the bottom of the post.

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

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

Just to make sure everyone sees it before quoting me again.

Tobacco was the leading cause of death in 2000: 435,000
Alcohol was the third: 85,000

Congrats lets go back 10 years. Death is still death. People die from both, so just because one group dies more then another that means the other shouldn't be banned as well?

People also die from caffiene and prescription medications, so let's just ban those as well. And since people die from diabetes and lack of exercise, lets also get rid of all food that can possibly be fattening, and all food with any sugar added to it.

See now you are thinking how I was when I made this post. Do you understand? If one causes the death then the other abused substance should be banned as well. I just only extended it to alcohol because I would hope people would understand what you just came up with. Now read the bottom of this post as well please. You are the person who gets it.

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

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

Just to make sure everyone sees it before quoting me again.

Lol the people quoting you are morons. You're actually slightly wrong in that the societal harm is significantly higher with alcohol than with cigarettes, not that those idiots will understand. Here's a study conducted by the ACMD (in the UK) before its head (David Nutt) had the audacity to put science ahead of toeing the Government's line, get fired, and signify the end of the ACMD as a trustworthy source of scientific enquiry and its rebirth as a really expensive rubber stamp for government policy: [a href=http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf]http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf[/a]. Skip to the graph on page ten if you can't be bothered to read the whole thing.

Thank you, I think I finally understand the problem with all the idiots who are quoting me.


My Post

I am not saying that drinking is worse then smoking. As the second person I quoted figured it out, I was saying if one harmful thing should be banned, then the others should be too as well. I was just using alcohol as an example of that because it was the next leading cause of death due to abuse that I know of. I just didn't extend that to all things. Now can you morons finally understand? Its just me saying if one harmful thing should be banned, then the rest should too. Thank you last two people who understand somewhat at what I was getting at.

nice argument, "everyone around cant recognize my genius"? did you come up with that all by yourself? you cite no research, and cite no damn evidence at all except "my genius" which isn't genius its redundant, failed logic.

What genius? What research do I need to cite? For what even? I made no claims. I simply said if one thing is banned because its bad for health and kills then everything should be banned for that same reason. I just used alcohol as an example and then every person (you included) jumped on my ass without even thinking about it. I assumed people would understand basic reasoning of if one thing is banned then the next thing should be banned and so on and so forth. I had to spoon feed it to you to finally get it, which you do now. Don't be mad because you couldn't figure out something so simple.

oh so we are idiots when you fly around your opinions without properly explaining them? i see how you have to constantly editing your posts to better explain things. don't blame other people when you cannot even explain your stance on the issues. so who is the idiot? the ones who get the wrong message from a badly worded opinion or the person who cant speak English well enough to explain what he is saying in the first place? then says we are the "idiots" and cant "understand your genius"? get a damn grip hypocrite. even the escapist's rules say "you have unlimited time to make a post, there is no excuse for badly worded posts". next time fully explain your stance otherwise people will get offended and the moderators will come down on you especially if you start insulting everyone in the damn thread.

I will gladly insult everyone this damn thread. Why were others able to figure it out? Oh let me answer that for you, they took the time to think about what I said and answered exactly how I wanted them to. Hell my friends could figure it out without reading the edits. Are you seriously gonna sit there and tell me my sentence was so beyond understanding that if you took a few minutes to think about the concept and apply it that you wouldn't get the same conclusion? You have a mind, fucking use it before you get high and mighty with you. I had to spoon feed it to your brain dead head in order for you to understand at as you are no longer arguing with me about it.

 

[lettucethesallad]

I have a friend who's a radical straight edge kid. We had a discussion on facebook the other day on smoking, and the fact that more people in our community have started smoking. My friend is of the opinion that smoking should be made illegal and classed as a drug, and that the state should step in to essentially protect people from themselves.

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.

Eager to get to the bottom of this, I thought I'd ask you guys.

Tl;dr: Should smoking be made illegal?

Who knew this would get close to 700 replies (so far) ?

I know, I'm a little overwhelmed Thanks guys!

 

[Julianking93]

No. It's been made fairly obvious that making things illegal doesn't do jack to keep people from doing it.

If anything, make more things legal and stop banning everything you think is bad because you don't like it.

 

[lettucethesallad]

1:'We had a discussion on facebook' - i loled

2: you are 12 and what is this

You smell of 4chan, my friend. I like it.

The cancer killed /b/ boys, your old memes are not exactly cool and edgy anymore.

/b/ was never good so how can it be killed but shitty memes since all memes are shitty?

I may be asking much for someone from 4chan, but how about speaking in full sentences?