The reasons why smoking should be banned

[nnmartin]

The same logic can be used to ban virtually anything - I'm only using Harry Potter as a rather extreme example to illustrate it - as in, "where will it all end, this banning!". FYI, it IS a good analogy, if you see what I'm trying to demonstrate.

no, it's a very silly analogy.

 

[nnmartin]

I smoke my pipe (tobacco) like once every two weeks, and I'm sick of having every person I see (some morbidly overweight) tell me it's bad for me. I know it's not healthy! Just let me enjoy my stroll or sit on the park bench in peace! I can't wait til I have my own house so I can sit down and read while enjoying the occasional good smoke....one of life's few pleasures.

Fatties telling you to stop smoking.... I love me a good hypocrite.

<----- I see one everyday, but I try to be humble about it

Both these posts apply to me.

I too like a smoke on a friday night, namely a cigar.

But they are not so bad for you as cigarettes and I enjoy them, so they are ok.

but cigarettes are not, so they must go

I think that is fair!

 

[LongGe123]

Yes, it could well do that.
Children may want to emulate their fathers.
All those forms of encouragement are indirect , and fairly vague at that.
Most people who watch football, drink or read HP don't turn into hooligans, bingers or Wiccans, but those who smoke all end up addicted.
So the issues are not the same here.

I won't accept your assumptions unless you show me some real DATA. You're just saying all this stuff but not citing any evidence at all. Most of my friends smoke, and I'd say among them 2 (maybe a 3rd, but not sure about him), could be classed as "addicts".

At what standard do we really use for "addiction" - according to the test issued by alcoholics anonymous, I'm an alcoholic - but I don't particularly feel the specific need for booze. I just drink it when I feel it's appropriate, IE when I'm in a bar, or at some social gathering where I'm with friends who are also drinking. I feel no dependency.

Regarding encouragement - you're saying children want to emulate their parents, well, that's no more or less indirect form of encouragement than the things i put up as examples. Active encouragement would be the parents saying to their children "come on, kids, smoke, it's great!". This can be put down to bad parenting, it's no reason just ban cigarettes altogether. Should be ban kitchen knives if there's a man encouraging his kids to go and stab people? Point is, your argument about how smoking encourages others to smoke is weak. And, how exactly does my being gay "encourage" others to be? It's a natural state, either you are or you aren't. My being openly gay might encourage other gays to be more open too, but that would be a good thing!

So, you're wanting to apply proportion to the whole thing? Less people get killed by alcohol than cigarettes so we just ban cigarettes and keep alcohol? This is a dangerous line of logic, in my humble opinion.

 

[LongGe123]

Both these posts apply to me.
I too like a smoke on a friday night, namely a cigar.
But they are not so bad for you as cigarettes and I enjoy them, so they are ok.
but cigarettes are not, so they must go
I think that is fair!

Spoken like a true hypocrite

Cigars are not AS bad for you, so we keep them, where are drawing the line? Anything in excess is bad for you - even water in too great excess can damage your body. You have no faith in people's ability to moderate so you just want to ban everything, is that right? But your personal standards are what we should be abiding by? How ridiculous! Who are you to make this kind of judgement, and have the audacity to present it as factual evidence.

Cigars produce more smoke, which is harmful to others, and can be more dangerous, particularly the slow-burning variety, as left unattended can start fires just as easily as cigarettes can. And, people who buy smaller cigars DO do just as much damage to themselves because they inhale them like cigarettes

Kim Jong Il: We must ban all forms of foreign-made goods in our nation, and be totally self reliant. But, as I am the national leader, and I know how to handle such things, I will be allowed to consume Hennessy Cognac, eat fine imported foods, and watch Hollywood Movies.

 

[nnmartin]

it's a loophole that is needed for the purposes of realism.

the fact is that most heavy smokers use cigarettes which are way more damaging and addictive than cigars.

Loopholes tend to exist in most areas of the law to allow for the necessary leeway required when dealing with human behaviour.

 

[Draka]

but those who smoke all end up addicted.

Not so. Some people can take or leave cigarettes like a beer. I can pick up a cigarette, smoke it, and not have any urge to smoke another. It's not unheard of for me to take a drag or even smoke a whole cigarette and not touch another for several months or years. I can take or leave them. Have no need to have them. Many years ago I actually smoked for quite sometime, but when I decided I simply didn't want to smoke anymore I just stopped. Threw away my pack and didn't smoke anymore and had absolutely no withdrawals or anything. Some people just do not truly become addicted to cigarettes, just like all people who drink don't become alcoholics.

 

[nnmartin]

there are always exceptions.

 

[Draka]

there are always exceptions.

Then what of the exceptions? Should they be banned from doing something because others become addicted to it? Should a light social drinker be prohibited from purchasing alcohol because alcoholics exist? Should a healthy moderate eater be kept from indulging in a BigMac because some people get fat from eating at McDonald's?

 

[apophenia]

I know. I currently live in an apartment complex. For the first few years it was fine, but some tenants moved in that are smokers. I like to have my windows open as much as possible and their **** in my air drives me up the wall. It's been leading me to burn much more incense than usual. >_<;

I understand why you burn the incense, but do you realise that you are just adding more smoke to your environment ? I don't think inhaling incense smoke is healthy either. Try using essential oils.

Also, you may find that an air purifier, like an ioniser, may help without adding more carcinogens to your air.

 

[Poisonshady313]

the fact is that most heavy smokers use cigarettes which are way more damaging and addictive than cigars.

That's not true at all.

Take a look.

Cigar smoking: Safer than cigarette smoking? - MayoClinic.com

 

[Mathematician]

I have no qualms with private and public establishments electing to prohibit smoking. Many college campuses have favored this routine in recent years, and I consider it desirable, but that's completely different than legislating tobacco away.

My opinions on drug laws have been codified in other threads. I basically believe almost every drug should be legal, and all drugs decriminalized.

People do stupid crap. Some smoke their lugs dry. Others drink until their liver kicks the bucket. Others get a tattoo on their face knowing that it will hinder their work opportunities. As long as they're adults, and not harming others, let them be.

 

[apophenia]

I wonder what would happen if all smokers had to pay for medical treatment required as a result of smoking.

Smoking tobacco kills half of its users.

Would you play Russian Roulette with a revolver with 3 bullets chambered ?

The remaining half don't escape unscathed - emphysema, vision loss and even blindness (way more common than people realise), dental problems, and loss of limbs, fingers and toes are common results.

If this was not covered by medical insurance or the public health system (depends on the country you live in), almost noone could actually afford to smoke.

If medical insurance does cover smoking related illness, then smokers are pushing up the cost of medical insurance for everyone else. And where public health systems provide free health care, smokers are using up a huge amount of public health resources.

Generally, smokers get little sympathy from the medical profession when they present with cancer, emphysema or loss of vision. I'm not surprised - they use up a lot of medical resources for perservering with a guaranteed medical disaster.

75% of all deaths due to drugs are caused by tobacco according to the World health Organisation. ( And 24% are caused by alcohol - 1% for all other drugs !)

BTW - I used to smoke a pack a day for about 30 years. Stupid stupid stupid. And for those who think they can stop and their lungs will regenerate - sorry to tell you but emphysema is irreversible, and also inevitable. These are the facts of life (and death).

 

[cablescavenger]

Smoking is a foul and pointless activity that does nothing of any real value.

In a modern nation we ought to do away with this unhealthy activity.

I cannot see any real benefits for smokers other than a short-term artificial stimulation that only damages ones body.

for sure, the tobacco companies benefit so they want to continue with their legalised form of drug addiction which reaps great rewards.

But the time has surely come to do away with this pointless habit.

Cigarettes should be banned.

any objections?

Not from me.

It is legitimised drug pushing of a substance which is infinitely more dangerous than anything which has been made illegitimate.

Given that nicotine is also very addictive I find the heavy taxation of tobacco products to be particularly unethical.

If a drug was being created with similar qualities it would not get past the rigorous New drug Approval Process, so why is it not being removed from the market?

 

[Yerda]

any objections?

A person should be entitled to do what they like without harming others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Personally, I'm not in favour of banning smoking outright, but I am in favour of a number of restrictions:

- prohibit the sale of tobacco to minors and use of tobacco by minors.
- tax tobacco to the point that its cost to the user reflects the costs of its health effects on society
- ban its use in any indoor or confined space except in cases where all people exposed to the smoke freely consent to it, have the legal capacity to consent, and have the freedom to leave. This would preclude smoking in any enclosed environment where children are present, or where anyone is required to be there as part of their job, including bars as well as private homes with children.

I think these sorts of restrictions are reasonable.

 

[Reptillian]

Personally, I'm not in favour of banning smoking outright, but I am in favour of a number of restrictions:

- prohibit the sale of tobacco to minors and use of tobacco by minors.
- tax tobacco to the point that its cost to the user reflects the costs of its health effects on society
- ban its use in any indoor or confined space except in cases where all people exposed to the smoke freely consent to it, have the legal capacity to consent, and have the freedom to leave. This would preclude smoking in any enclosed environment where children are present, or where anyone is required to be there as part of their job, including bars as well as private homes with children.

I think these sorts of restrictions are reasonable.

1st restriction: is that society's job, or the parents' job?

2nd restriction: thats a great idea, we should do the same for fattening foods and foods high in sugar content...soda (pop as I call it) should be very high priced...

3rd restriction: I agree with the business limitations with a caveat; some businesses should be allowed to only hire smokers if their businesses are smoke friendly environments...also, as far as private homes go; how would that be enforced? would smokers be considered unfit parents and have their children taken away by the state? would smoking around one's kid be a form of child abuse?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1st restriction: is that society's job, or the parents' job?

Wait - so you want it to be legal to sell smokes to kids?

2nd restriction: thats a great idea, we should do the same for fattening foods and foods high in sugar content...soda (pop as I call it) should be very high priced...

If you can quantify the cost to society of these products, I wouldn't object to this cost being reflected in their price on the store shelf.

3rd restriction: I agree with the business limitations with a caveat; some businesses should be allowed to only hire smokers if their businesses are smoke friendly environments...

Why? Why treat cigarette smoke differently from any other workplace hazard?

Take a stamping plant: one common problem that happens in a lot of these plants is that the employees will disable the safety mechanisms that help prevent hands and other body parts from being crusheed by the giant presses. It works out better for the employee, since if they get paid by the piece, they can make more money without the guards slowing them down; it works out better for the employer because the plant increases its output.

Should we have "crush hazard-friendly" workplaces? If not, then why is smoke special?

also, as far as private homes go; how would that be enforced? would smokers be considered unfit parents and have their children taken away by the state? would smoking around one's kid be a form of child abuse?

I do think it's a form of abuse, but I don't see the point in removing the kids when the problem can be solved simply by getting the parent to smoke outside.

I recognize that identifying it in a private home can be difficult (just as identifying other forms of abuse is difficult in the same setting), but there are plenty of ways that it would be enforceable and workable. For instance, if a cop pulls over a car for some infraction and notices that the driver was smoking and there's a kid in the back, then they could issue a ticket for the smoking as a secondary infraction, just as they do for, say, failure to carry insurance or to wear a seat belt.

 

[Poisonshady313]

If a drug was being created with similar qualities it would not get past the rigorous New drug Approval Process, so why is it not being removed from the market?

I covered this one already...

The government would never allow it. They benefit too greatly from the revenue cigarette taxes bring in. They also benefit greatly from the support of tobacco companies. They also benefit from smoking cessation companies. For as long as there are smokers, there will be people trying to quit smoking... and man, that sure does bring in a lot of money.

Aside from that...

Prohibition didn't work with alcohol. It's not working with marijuana. I very strongly doubt it would work with smoking.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Wait - so you want it to be legal to sell smokes to kids?

I don't think that's what he meant. Laws are already in place prohibiting the sale of tobacco to minors. As for minors USING tobacco... I'm not sure if there are laws against that. What I mean is, for example, if a minor takes a few cigarettes from his or her parents' or older siblings' pack... is smoking it considered a violation of the law? And if not, should it be?

 

[Reptillian]

Wait - so you want it to be legal to sell smokes to kids?

I think the way we do things now is fine, just that parents need to take some responsibility for their kids' actions.

If you can quantify the cost to society of these products, I wouldn't object to this cost being reflected in their price on the store shelf .

It can be quantified, and let's just say that fast food and gas station sodas would have their prices increased dramatically. Pop would be more expensive than beer. Remember that more than one in three Americans is obese, diabetes is rampant, childhood obesity is on the rise, and heart disease is the number one killer.

Why? Why treat cigarette smoke differently from any other workplace hazard?

Take a stamping plant: one common problem that happens in a lot of these plants is that the employees will disable the safety mechanisms that help prevent hands and other body parts from being crusheed by the giant presses. It works out better for the employee, since if they get paid by the piece, they can make more money without the guards slowing them down; it works out better for the employer because the plant increases its output.

Should we have "crush hazard-friendly" workplaces? If not, then why is smoke special?.

Having an employee with a crushed hand is different than an employee exposed to cigarette smoke. The damage caused by say three years of working in a bar that allows smoking isn't permanent. Getting your body part crushed by a press...now that's forever.

I do think it's a form of abuse, but I don't see the point in removing the kids when the problem can be solved simply by getting the parent to smoke outside.

I recognize that identifying it in a private home can be difficult (just as identifying other forms of abuse is difficult in the same setting), but there are plenty of ways that it would be enforceable and workable. For instance, if a cop pulls over a car for some infraction and notices that the driver was smoking and there's a kid in the back, then they could issue a ticket for the smoking as a secondary infraction, just as they do for, say, failure to carry insurance or to wear a seat belt.

I agree that it is a form of abuse, but enforcing it would be difficult. Some might say that indoctrinating children with religious and political beliefs is a form of abuse as well...where should society draw the line?