Poll: Should smoking be made illegal?

[krimson_dropz]

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?

not to mention that if you do drink too much alchohol can kill you if you stop drinking.

 

[madman6656]

if u realy wont to put aban on smokin then i hope ur all ready for a massive tax raise to cover the loss of the tax on cigs. prises for evrything will go up an even ur own taxes will have to go up the ammont of money the goverments make on smokin is unberlivable.
an yes i no i spelt sum of that wrong!

 

[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.

oh? so why did half the fucking escapist jump at you then? hell the escapist is called the smartest place on the damn internet for a reason. just because you can't speak proper English doesn't mean you can insult people. also what friends? for all we know you can be lying and making up shit.

Half the fucking Escapist did exactly what you did, they posted without fully thinking. The smartest place on the internet? Have you seen the posts and topics here? Or do you just make up bullshit to try and disprove me? This is far from the smartest place on the net. Friends, you know people who I know. Yet you don't so I will agree its null. Either way people understood it when they took the time to THINK BEFORE THEY POSTED. Something no one else did. Even you have to agree that its possible to come to the same conclusion if you think about my words. Someone else did. I will say it again do not get pissy at me because you couldn't use rational thinking.

 

[uchi mata]

teens would willingly get caught just to stick it to they're parents after some piss fit. You know that's the truth.

 

[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.

oh? so why did half the fucking escapist jump at you then? hell the escapist is called the smartest place on the damn internet for a reason. just because you can't speak proper English doesn't mean you can insult people. also what friends? for all we know you can be lying and making up shit.

Half the fucking Escapist did exactly what you did, they posted without fully thinking. The smartest place on the internet? Have you seen the posts and topics here? Or do you just make up bullshit to try and disprove me? This is far from the smartest place on the net. Friends, you know people who I know. Yet you don't so I will agree its null. Either way people understood it when they took the time to THINK BEFORE THEY POSTED. Something no one else did. Even you have to agree that its possible to come to the same conclusion if you think about my words. Someone else did. I will say it again do not get pissy at me because you couldn't use rational thinking.

'

so you are gonna call 1/2 the escapists idiots? and insult everyone? when we use the report button and have dedicated mods? have fun with your mod wrath pal. you're gonna need it, and you call us idiots? wow.

Yeah I will because I don't need to turn to Mods and cry to them when I know I am wrong. I accept it gracefully and know that I was proven incorrect. I also think before I speak. Thank you for threatening and calling me an idiot because I stood up for my words and arguments. World needs more people who cry like you. Fin.

 

[Sikachu]

you do bring up a good point. but there is another option rather then turning off the music or smoking in a crowd. for the music the person could be asked to turn it down, just enough so that person can hear but not loud enough to bother everyone else. as for the smoking, the smoker could be asked to turn around so his/her back is to the non-smokers (inside) or stand down-wind (outside). i do aggree that you have just as much of a right to smoke as i do not to smoke, but the conflict arises when one violates the others' rights.

are you saying that you do not need cigarettes and only like the taste? if so good for you. but i would like to ask if you feel you need them.

Yeah, of course I agree that the actual right thing to do in these situations is for everyone to be reasonable and minimise annoyance. If you and I were in a bus shelter and I wanted to smoke the right thing for me to do is always to stand where least smoke will go near you, but I think both sides are a bit touchy because holier than thou non-smokers have become so aggressive in the last couple of years and smokers have been hounded out of being able to smoke in perfectly reasonable places (like ANYWHERE on an open train platform?!) and so often we're quick to over-react (because we are being persecuted).

Regarding my smoking, I wouldn't say I never need one in the same way I wouldn't say I never need a drink (incidentally, I drink less frequently than I smoke). Sometimes when I'm really pissed off or stressed out nothing will hit the spot like a ciggie, but those moments are relatively few and far between.

 

[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?

So first I'm hysterical, then I'm blase?

Not that it even means anything. I know tons of people who are blase about this sort of thing. It doesn't effect credence.

And lastly, I haven't gone to a doctor over it because it only flared up recently. I'm surrounded by crack smokers, not-remotely-green cars, and the like, but only cigarettes do it. Maybe I'm allergic to nicotine.

No, you were blasé when you had your mysterious 'death/hospital-trip' experience and weren't bothered to find out what it was that caused by and if there were other types of smoke you should be careful of. Then you were hysterical when you escalated the consequences of cigarette smoke being blown in your face from 'hospital trip' to 'death' in three sentences. This may not "effect credence" but it certainly does affect credibility as it is exceptionally unlikely that someone would behave the way you have described.

 

[Sikachu]

No, but we still need to stop rampant smoking among certain people. Even I like the prospect of being able to have a cigarette every once in a while, but it's an incredibly addictive substance/activity that's suited in some cultural norms which is creating a large burden to our society. Continue to get smoking away from being "the cool thing" and get more help (not more Nicorette products) for people that have problems with it. I have a similar view on Marijuana. People should have the choice, and it could be great for some people, but not in the way we see it today.

What's this burden that smoking is creating? Don't take this question as aggressive, I'm genuinely curious.

High disease rates meaning high costs to treat people who are statistically far more likely to get diseases such as cancer, which is also a big social issue as well as a matter of simple economics (isn't it great to have your smoking kids die before their parents?)

Also are the costs of general attractiveness. To a lot of people that don't smoke, just the odour that comes from a single person smoking is kind of offsetting which makes the public area a bit less attractive.

The matter of simple economics is that tobacco is a massive net gain for society. Ignoring the size of the industry in production and selling, and just looking at the people who get higher disease rates from smoking, the tax on cigarettes is sufficiently high that the average smoker's tax contribution just through buying cigarettes funds their entire healthcare (smoking and non-smoking related diseases) + the average cost of a non-smoker's healthcare. Add in factors like the rate of mortality amongst smokers only really being significantly different towards the end of the working life (meaning that smokers tend to work all their lives and then die either just before or just after retirement) and you're seeing an even greater contribution.

That you don't like to see it in a public space seems awfully unaccepting - there are massive groups of people in the world who think that seeing any part of a woman not covered up in a public place make that area a lot less attractive, and I'm sure you'd agree they'd be wrong to push their views on society.

 

[LostAlone]

...it's gotta be hard being libertarian in the UK. One of these days, Parliament's going to figure out that, thanks to all the pollution, air itself is bad for you...and subsequently ban that. :/

It depends really... Socially, Britain can be hugely accepting. Within my clique everything's pretty free and easy. Don't step on each others toes, and no-one minds what we do to ourselves. Its pretty awesome tbh.

However, dealing with wider society can be a huge problem. Over here it often seems, there are smokers who don't care if you smoke or not, and there are non-smokers who make vast assumptions both about your intelligence and character if you smoke, and there's nothing in between.

People love to form into groups, and particularly they like their own group to feel superior. Since you're not allowed (publicly) to hate on racial minorities we've started drawing into moral groups instead. Non-smokers, non-drinkers, non-drug users. Those who define themselves that way are by implication saying how much purer/morally better they are than those who do indulge.

Basically its ok to get all tribal against smokers, so they do. But that's their prerogative I guess. I try to just ignore them.

 

[Sikachu]

It should be banned in public (including outside) because it is fucking disgusting.

Disgusting is subjective and if we're going to start banning things on that basis you better get used to not leaving your parents' house ever again, I somehow doubt your face would pass my 'not disgusting' test.

Aw, now that's just mean. There's a difference between something that's unpleasant and something that inhibits my ability to breathe.

Have a nice day.

I was being facetious. However, you're changing your point - first you were saying it should be banned because you think it is disgusting, now you're claiming that me smoking in a park inhibits your ability to breathe, metres away (a demonstrable falsehood). So which is it?

 

[Sikachu]

...but open public spaces? ALL pubs? Why can't we have some pubs that are inclusive and so pubs that are for the health-conscious only?

I wasn't thinking of a ban on outdoor places. I'm not sure about the other bit though. Maybe it should be required to have to sections, like in some restaurants? Or do you think that would be impractical?

Some comedian made a good joke about having smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants being akin to having peeing and non-peeing sections in a swimming pool, which I thought was pretty funny. Not sure if it is true, but I would think it should be possible to have smoking and non-smoking areas. If it was impractically expensive though I'd much rather have all-smoking places and all-non-smoking places so that we don't get the halfway house where places pretend to accommodate both but really everyone gets smoke. I'm glad you agree about outdoor areas

 

[Sikachu]

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.

I believe that you are the misinformed bull shitter who is generalizing. So Mr/Mrs Hypocryte, where is it you get your 'facts' from? Smoking WILL not cause cancer, smoking CAN cause cancer. So there is not this ABSOLUTE RISK that your talking about. And the thing with drinking is that that effects others (a drunk driver or a drunk with a gun for example (guns are another thing that should be banned if something so trivil in comparason such as smoking was))when it's not even their choice. The child in the backseat of the car owned by the well behaved, good mannered driver didn't choose to be broadsided by the idiot who chose to drink and drive did it?

However noone has stabbed someone becuse they smoke. Like all things, smoking is a choice but it only effects the smoker.

For the record I drink aswell.

so second hand smoke isn't dangerous? maybe we should make smoke saunas so we can all die of smoke inhalation how about that? smoking can affect those around them as well. this is all coming from someone with first hand experience in a alcoholic and smoking family.

No-one cares about your first hand experience. First-hand experience is the opposite of useful comment in a debate about issues that affect populations. Maybe if you have first hand experience of running clincical trials and reaching scientific conclusions your opinions might be worth more than the scum on the soles of my shoes, but until then leave your dysfunctional addict family out of the discussion and stop trying to manipulate people into valuing your opinion. This is coming from someone with first hand experience of attempted manipulation.

so if no one cares then why should anyone care about your thoughts, or your experience then? since you only seem to cite experience rather than scientific studies. you linked alcohol to cancer without evidence, and portrayed alcohol to kill everyone who takes so much as a sip yet you call us "idiots" for disagreeing? talk about being a hypocritical, and egotistical.

you can talk shit, but you can't take it. nice debate there. seeing as this debate will go nowhere good luck on your incoming depression and threatened sense of self worth seeing as half of the escapist already argued with you over this.

Once again I fear I've pitched my comments at too high a level.

"No-one cares about your first hand experience" means 'The fact that you say that you're from a family of drunks and smokers does not give any more credibility to your reasoning or arguments'. By writing "this is all coming from someone with first hand experience in a alcoholic and smoking family" you are attempting to imbue your opinion with some credibility just because of who is saying it, not because it is well justified or reasoned. It's the other side of the coin of something called an ad hominem argument, which is where you discredit someone's point by attacking their character rather than engaging with the reasoning.

I am interested to see where I said alcohol kills everyone who takes a sip though, or even words that are generally in that ballpark. Or told some group of people they were idiots for disagreeing with me. Do please furnish me with quotes from where you got those impressions and I'll happily walk you through them so you can better understand.

 

[superbatranger]

Making smoking illegal is pointless, don't you think? Look at any and all drugs, such as marijuana, ecstasy, heroin, acid. All illegal, yet people still get their hands on them. It might help, but how can we be sure? Banning smoking could just give drug cartels a new product to smuggle into countries to sell.

That being said, I agree wholeheartedly that there are places where one should not smoke at all.

 

[qeinar]

i don't smoke, but if people wanna smoke that is fine with me. also second hand smoking is bullshit.

 

[lettucethesallad]

I'd like to know what the OP meant by public places?

Do they mean actual public places because I've seen anti-smokers say a privately owned bar counts should be as a public place.

For the sake of argument a public place is a place open to the public, i.e. bars, restaurants, parks, etc.

 

[Rickyvantof]

I'm a party smoker.
I smoke parties.
I also smoke salmons.
Smoked salmon is good.

 

[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.

oh? so why did half the fucking escapist jump at you then? hell the escapist is called the smartest place on the damn internet for a reason. just because you can't speak proper English doesn't mean you can insult people. also what friends? for all we know you can be lying and making up shit.

Half the fucking Escapist did exactly what you did, they posted without fully thinking. The smartest place on the internet? Have you seen the posts and topics here? Or do you just make up bullshit to try and disprove me? This is far from the smartest place on the net. Friends, you know people who I know. Yet you don't so I will agree its null. Either way people understood it when they took the time to THINK BEFORE THEY POSTED. Something no one else did. Even you have to agree that its possible to come to the same conclusion if you think about my words. Someone else did. I will say it again do not get pissy at me because you couldn't use rational thinking.

'

so you are gonna call 1/2 the escapists idiots? and insult everyone? when we use the report button and have dedicated mods? have fun with your mod wrath pal. you're gonna need it, and you call us idiots? wow.

Yeah I will because I don't need to turn to Mods and cry to them when I know I am wrong. I accept it gracefully and know that I was proven incorrect. I also think before I speak. Thank you for threatening and calling me an idiot because I stood up for my words and arguments. World needs more people who cry like you. Fin.

*looks back at all the edits you have made so people can understand you*

oh yeah you really think before you speak. /sarcasm.

you didn't stand up for SHIT. all you do is say "your an idiot because your not me, LOL" and that is against site policy. our rules are very clear on that and will incur mod wrath without hesitation. if this site is full of idiots like you say then why bother coming here?

Nah of course not. I let all the people who said I was wrong walk all over me. No I proved them wrong and including you. I made those edits because people were, again you, were unwilling to fucking think and make an easy deduction that others made. Why couldn't you?

 

[Shpongled]

snip

stuff

misinformation and stuff

Going to throw this in here as an example of the mass ignorance in this thread, mainly coming from non-smokers, ironically.

LSD is not harmful to the body at all. That is, the LD50 of LSD is ~12,000 micrograms (on tested animals), a typical dose is ~200-300 mics (2 tabs, average blotter containing ~100-150 mics). There are numerous reports of people taking doses in the milligrams, and surviving with no adverse physical health problems at all. Indeed, thumbprinting (thumb pressed against crystal LSD and licked) is relatively common in experienced psychonauts. (Though it's getting rarer, finding that much acid is incredibly difficult.)

No substantiated reports of death directly caused by LSD intoxication have yet been reported in humans. Occasional news reports pop up of some moron doing something stupid on acid, none substantiated and no causal links have ever been established. Nor would this be a physical effect of the drug.

Finally... hallucinogens by their very nature are not addictive. The experience is very emotionally and mentally taxing, very few users report feeling the desire to take acid again in the near future after a trip. Not to mention tolerance making it unfeasible to dose more than once on a given trip (or in the same weed).

All this may seem unrelated, i'm just using it an example of the misinformation surrounding ALL drugs, including tobacco and alcohol. Don't trust what your friends say, or what you saw on some government sanctioned advertising (propaganda) campaign, trust the factual evidence presented by professionals in the field.

stuff

Tell the medical and scientific practitioners involved in those peer reviewed studies that they are grasping at straws.

There is no evidence whatsoever that users of marijuana express "denial" in any higher capacity than non-users at all, whether whatever it is in question relates to marijuana or not. Of course, there are plenty of stoners that refuse to acknowledge negative effects, but there is no reason to assume that stoners proportionally outnumber non-users in this aspect.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

There are problems with heavy marijuana use, but the problems aren't related to long-term lung damage.

 

[SuperNashwan]

I used to know loads of straight edge kids. They all grew up to have normal middle class jobs and enjoying beer, once the teenage desire to find their niche wore off. Seriously, the only thing they retained were the silly 'discipline' tattoos they had put on the stomachs, which became rapidly less legible once the beer started to erm 're-shape' their midriffs.

I agree with your libertarian ethics - people should be free to choose. Also I read a textbook on biopsychology that rated all the health impacts of various drugs, from class A down to alcohol, and the one that costs us the most in damage to health and money (to treat drug related health problems) every year is booze. Amazingly heroin was lurking right near the bottom of the list, so sometimes you have to wonder if our whole drug classification system isnt a bit wonky. There was that British professor who got everyone in a tizz lately by saying that marijuana should be de-classified, so its not just the pot heads that think its no worse than tobacco or alcohol.

All that said i rarely drink, I dont smoke cigarettes, or weed. MY VICE IS BISCUITS. And they are thinking of taxing them to hell in the UK 'for health reasons'. Yeah right, health reasons - not because you screwed the economy ...

EDIT: BTW smoking is banned in public places in the UK, well at least any public place with three or more walls. So you cant smoke at a bus shelter or anything more buildingey than that. Its nice to go to bars and not come home stinking of ciggies.

 

[quhouv vhqwiufv qwiu]

As long as they do not expose me to their poison fumes (i.e. in public) they should be free to destroy their lungs as they please.