It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Should Smoking Be Banned?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 03:19 PM
I’d like to first say that I am a very happy non - smoker and I don’t wish to offend anyone here but just to inform you of what I believe is something that we all should know about thoroughly because if we don’t know the effects and dangers properly we will do serious damage not just to ourselves but to everyone around you and im almost positive that you have heard that before but personally I think you should hear that as much as possible so let’s get down to business then

Im not exactly an expert on this but I have researched it a lot like I have for other various subjects such as:

  • The Effects of Marijuana
  • Meditation
  • Spirituality

And I thoroughly enjoy researching and learning new things and now I am researching a very serious subject and something that I wish to share to everyone here The Effects Of Smoking The British members here will all tell you that smoking has been banned in all public places such as pubs and restaurants and that ban has caused the biggest fall in smoking ever seen in England

More than two billion fewer cigarettes were smoked and 400,000 people quit the habit since the ban was introduced a year ago, which researchers say will prevent 40,000 deaths over the next 10 years.

Smoking was outlawed in all enclosed public spaces in England, including pubs and restaurants, on 1 July 2007 after a prolonged political battle that split the Government and inflamed critics of Britain as a nanny state.

But longer term opposition to the ban never materialized: more than three out of four people support the law, and compliance has been virtually 100 per cent.

Personally I think that is incredible more than 2 billion less cigarettes on the streets as non smokers are walking but still whenever I walk past a pub there is always hundreds of people stood outside and the problem is still their maybe worse than before because at least less non smokers on the street were affected

Here’s a British advert about the effects of smoking

Now we all know here that smoking is bad for us but just how bad is it well I’ve researched and found some interesting facts

  • Around 5.4 million deaths a year are caused by tobacco
  • Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, many of which are highly toxic and over 40 of which are known to cause cancer. There is no safe 'low tar' cigarette and no safe level of smoking
  • Male smokers may produce less sperm and their sperm may have more abnormalities than that of non-smokers. Women who smoke are more likely to have a miscarriage2. Several studies have found that women who smoke have decreased fertility. Of these, one study has found that smokers have about 72% of the fertility of non-smokers
  • A smoker is 10 times more likely to develop lung cancer. Heavy smokers are 15 to 25 times more at risk than non-smokers4. 85% of all male cases and 77% of female cases of lung cancer are related to smoking5
  • Smoking reduces life expectancy by 7 - 8 years. That means each cigarette shortens the life of the smoker by around 8 minutes.
  • Women smokers who use the pill increase their risk of a heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases by about ten times
  • Over 57,000 reports worldwide have examined the link between cigarette smoking and disease, making it the most researched cause of disease ever investigated in the history of Biomedical Research

Now seriously how can you keep smoking when seeing all of this I know that tobacco is very addictive but it ruins life’s and actually kills us aswell so that's why I seriously think that smoking should be banned from all places I think each and everyone of you knows that it should be aswell

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 03:22 PM
one word - Prohibition.

when drinking was outlawed what happened? crime sprees, gangs formed and people died.

if people want to smoke they will.

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 03:24 PM
also i hate to double post but you say tobacco smoke has 4000 chemicals and tabbaco smoke kills. no

cigarette smoke has the chemicals. tobbaco is a plant the things that companies put in there is what makes it so much worse.

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 03:36 PM
I'd like to point out that the 5.4 Million deaths caused by smoking, according to your source, is misleading. All of those deaths are smoking-related, not -caused. It's never been proven that any of those ailments (cancer, heart disease, etc) would not have occured anyway. The statistics used by the Anti-Smokers is largely statistics taken out of context or even engineered [Note: I don't mean falsified.]. Statistics are a horrible way to prove anything, due to how easy it is to make the statistics support any case.

Banning smoking is just silly.
It's like banning red meat, electricity, or fishhooks.
Yes, it may contribute to your death, or even the death of others... but it's not exactly a loaded gun.

Of course, I disagree with any type of vice laws...
IMHO, drugs [not just marijunana - ALL drugs], gambling, public nudity, prostitution, public intoxication, public fornication, and imported ninja monkeys should be legal everywhere.

Might as well just ban the homeless, strong perfume, and smog.

[edit on 12/13/2008 by systemic.aberration]

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 03:38 PM
Keep them away (or as far away as possible) from public spaces, especially indoors, and I have absolutely no problem with their choice to smoke.

[edit on 12/13/2008 by prototism]

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 03:42 PM
Im sorry but all can go on really is whats given to me as the facts right now and although you may be right in saying that the facts may be misleading i think we can all agree that smoking is one of the biggest killers legal right now

heres some links i forgot to put in earlier

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 03:43 PM
See? What are we talking about smoking here? I seen the M word at least once.

I'm a non-smoke, or maybe better put an exsmoker.

You can't ban what grows naturally. It's a waste of resources and governmental money. I can't imagine the "busts" for men growing tabacco. Almost as retarded as busts for that M word.

I seen a drunk driver pull into a package store the other day walk in to get a bottle and walk out drinking it, and then back into the car they went.

It's all foolishness.

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 03:44 PM
reply to post by Anti - Government

Alright. Give me an IV bag filled with Nicotine.

+2 more 
posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 03:51 PM
As a smoker myself, I don't mind a ban on smoking....

as long as they also ban:

strong perfumes and aftershaves
emmissions from all engines
the burning of all non-organic waste
paint that smells
aerosols of any kind
gas fires and heating systems
chemical plants
stinky household cleaners
coal fired power stations
road-tar laying machines
oil refineries

I won't go on......I quit when they quit.

Also, all the statistics in the world mean nothing unless you could prove that someone has suffered "solely" from tobacco smoke and none of the above.

Non-smokers aren't the only ones who suffer at the hands of others.

Do what I do....don't breathe!

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 03:51 PM
I no longer smoke... I no longer care. Smoking is banned in so many places as it is, whether or not they go the last couple yards and ban it everywhere would seem to make little or no difference.

I'll also say that even if it is banned, people will still smoke regardless. How many things that are illegal now are still prevalent in society? As it stands now the only benefit to keeping it legal is the government gets to tax it.

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 03:57 PM
I was surprised to learn that 30% of smokers in Australia want smoking totally banned.

I'm against banning anything completely. I think it should be legal to grow and sell your own home-grown marijuana and tobacco but illegal to sell cigarettes. Same with alcohol.

I despise the conspiracy to prevent the small producer selling their produce and to give all the power to a few greedy companies.

Home grown tobacco doesn't stink nearly as badly as commercial cigarettes, and is much less deadly.

An acquaintance once told me about her husband dying of cancer. He worked for Phillip Morris and his job was adding the chemicals to the tobacco. She complained that, unlike smokers, he didn't deserve to die, because he was too sensible to smoke, and took good care of his health. It didn't matter to her that he was helping to kill millions of other people.

Funnily enough Phillip Morris paid for his funeral.
- On condition he got cremated very quickly.

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 04:01 PM
I guess that I'm the only smoker that has posted as of now.

I can't stand the fact that smokers are being portrayed as the evil people. I've been smoking for almost 30 years and have watched my rights disappear year after year. Is this really fair to me??

I must say that I've become a mindful smoker. I don't smoke in restaurants, nor in the car if I have a passenger. I won't smoke in a friend house if they don't smoke...

What more do you all want from us smokers???? We wont be able to smoke in public soon!! Smoker know the risks and choose to smoke.

If smoking was so bad for you, why are cigarettes still being produced and sold?? Why are they not classified as a drug?? People have been using tobacco since the dawn of time.

I think there is a lot of government tax money to be lost here if they were to be pulled from the shelves, but that's another conspiracy for another time.

In California they say you can't have a BBQ grill, you can't smoke in certain areas and you can't water your lawn on certain days....more government intrusion into our lives. Now were told not to microwave plastics anymore, get side mount air bags in our cars and cell phones can kill you as well.

Do you really think the air that your breathing now is really "clean"?What is the world coming to????

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 04:07 PM
Taking away my right to smoke is like taking away my right to live my life as I see fit. Smokers have already stepped aside and go outside to smoke, gather in the smoking areas that all the non smokers cried like babies for, and thats where the line is drawn.

People breath in more toxic air sitting behind each other at a traffic light on a busy intersection or moving snail paced on a heavy drive time highway spending 2 hours a day trying to get home or to work, and then breath in all day long the smog. Smokers dont puff all day long compared to the garbage thats in the ambient air.

Even the cleanest home has worse indoor air quality than the outdoor air. Article HERE. And most modern homes are so heavily insulated that most do not realize that alot of health and breathing problems stems from stale uncirculated air in most indoor enviroments, homes, buisnesses, schools, churches, and even large public gathering areas like indoor sports arenas and movie theatres, indoor and underground parking lots. When was the last time your employer had their vents cleaned? If you ever get a chance to watch them get cleaned, take note how much crap gets pulled from them, and withiin a year interval of each cleaning. Home air/heat vents are exactly the same.

Granted that smoking does cause health problems, but those health problems are by choice, not by external influence. I wish we all had as much choice to enact a ban on all the smog, pollution, exaust soot from diesel engines, gas engines, and factories.


[edit on 13-12-2008 by RFBurns]

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 04:09 PM
reply to post by wolf241e
You say many ignorant, arrogant, and selfish things in this response.

Ill spell it out for you. When your choice to ruin your own body starts affecting me when I am in a public place, and you (not necessarily you personally) fail to see the problem with that, the government has no choice but to step in and protect my health. They step in, because you refuse to step out (figuratively speaking).

[edit on 12/13/2008 by prototism]

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 04:10 PM
It ultimately doesn't matter if cigarettes are provably the worst thing possible. I have a natural born right to choose to do so, or not to do so.

Much as I have the right to take my own life, I do not feel any 'laws' restricting self indulgence are legal. We must of course take others into consideration, and this is where the law has a place.

I have no problem with business owners and private citizens alike who choose not to allow cigarette smoke in or near their building. Smokers can opt not to patronize these businesses.

However I also feel outdoor smoking bans take it too far. If someone is smoking near you, and it really bothers you that much, move. Now some might say, "I shouldn't have to move", well neither should the smoker.

As with any rights we all must make sacrifice for the many. I for one would rather take it upon myself to make the decision to move away from a smoker, than let the da*n government make one more decision for me.

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 04:11 PM

Originally posted by ObamasLoveChildHowever I also feel outdoor smoking bans take it too far. If someone is smoking near you, and it really bothers you that much, move. Now some might say, "I shouldn't have to move", well neither should the smoker.
Wrong. We are not doing anything that is harming your health.

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 04:14 PM
Putting a ban on smoking outside is like putting a ban on someone farting outside...just as offensive and just as stinky.


posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 04:16 PM

Originally posted by RFBurns
Putting a ban on smoking outside is like putting a ban on someone farting outside...just as offensive and just as stinky.

You're joking, but you are still trying to make a point. "Farting" is not nearly as detrimental to my health.

[edit on 12/13/2008 by prototism]

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 04:17 PM
Tough. At this point going outside is hazardous to your health. Just because you don't like someones actions doesn't give you a right to infringe upon them.

Since I do not hold you as any type of authority, you're judgment of right or wrong is meaningless. I do, however, assume you're an adult capable of making your own decisions, such as moving away from harmful cigarette smoke.

+10 more 
posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 04:17 PM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

This is not specifically directed at the OP, but at the legions of mewling anti-smokers who seem to take great pleasure in being a pain in my ass.

Ban smoking? G'head - try it.

If the purpose of your exercise is to create a new criminal class, and throw even more people in jail for victimless crimes then, by all means, ban smoking.

The statistics you posted are EXTREMELY misleading.

What they should say is that 5.? million smokers a year die from cancer, heart disease, and emphysema. Of those deaths, there is NO WAY to know how many would not have occurred if the person had not smoked.

When a smoker dies from practically anything, it's a smoking-related death.

Why is it that when water-drinkers die from cancer, it's not a water-related death?

Because there aren't billions of dollars in play to try to get people to quit drinking water, that's why.

Did you know that nicotine speeds neuron response, prevents Alzheimer's, and has been proven to improve brain function? No wonder the government wants it banned - the last thing they need at this juncture is thinking citizens...

The cancer epidemic DOES NOT COINCIDE with the advent of smoking. It does coincide with the widespread adoption of plastic for use in food service and storage, and also the atomic testing of the cold war.


I think the cancer rates have a lot more to do with Dow Chemical than they do with Philip Morris.

Lung cancer kills droves of non-smokers every year. So, do yourself a favor, and save us some grief in the process, by dispensing with the eternal life fantasy you use to justify your discriminatory and condescending behavior.

The non-smokers will say "someone must have smoked in the car with them once" or something equally stupid. Nevermind the fact that one forest fire throws up more carcinogens and harmful particulate than every smoker in the history of man; nevermind the fact that the EPA 'safe levels' for mercury and other toxins in our air are enough to cause permanent harm; nevermind the link between bacterial imbalance and the overuse/misuse of antibiotics and heart disease. Nevermind our toxic diet.

It's all the fault of the filthy smokers.

You want to reduce the rates of chronic illness in this country and around the world? Ban corporate greed, individual gluttony and stupidity, and natural causes. I'd bet my lungs that those three factors contribute more bodies to the ground than the humble cigarettes.

Get it - I'm betting my lungs.

That's the final nail in the coffin, excusing the pun. It's a personal choice. Once more - personal choice.

How twisted do your priorities have to be when you care more about what another person is doing to their own body than you care about what you yourself are doing to the ideals upon which this country was founded - freedom, justice, liberty, self-determination. Stop worrying about what I'M doing to my body, and start worrying about what YOU'RE doing to our country.

You want to entertain the illusion that our shopping malls and bars and restaurants will be healthy once all the smokers are gone, knock yourself out, but for God's sake, leave the policy-making to people with active, firing neurons.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

[edit on 13-12-2008 by WyrdeOne]

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in