Should Smoking Be Banned?

As in my previous post I am against a ban on tobacco unless they ban many other things including items leading / causing / promoting obesity.

Here are the facts that these “anti-smoking discriminating” jerks do not want the public to know.

Main causes of carbon monoxide: Carbon Monoxide Sources

Sources of Carbon Monoxide

Unvented kerosene and gas space heaters; leaking chimneys and furnaces; back-drafting from furnaces, gas water heaters, wood stoves, and fireplaces; gas stoves; generators and other gasoline powered equipment; automobile exhaust from attached garages; and tobacco smoke. Incomplete oxidation during combustion in gas ranges and unvented gas or kerosene heaters may cause high concentrations of CO in indoor air. Worn or poorly adjusted and maintained combustion devices (e.g., boilers, furnaces) can be significant sources, or if the flue is improperly sized, blocked, disconnected, or is leaking. Auto, truck, or bus exhaust from attached garages, nearby roads, or parking areas can also be a source.

Bottom of the line, many deaths and cancer are conveniently blamed on tobacco product second hand smoke. While yes there may be some legitimate instances,but most are falsely blamed. My grandfather died in his sleep because of old age. Coronor's diagnosis for death stated from smoking because he did smoke for 2 years back when he was serving in WWII. Since then, he had not smoked anything for over 60 years! BS

Many of these causes of lung cancer need to look towards more common practiced by all and not just smokers. As my source states above there are numerous sources of carbon monoxide besides tobacco. Which we all breath on a regular basis both smokers and non-smokers.

EPA chart rating carbon monoxide sources

OMG! Smoking is not #1 here... YOUR CARS ARE. National average of almost 63 Million TONS come out of our cars! Blame rush hour traffic for your daily dose of cancer promoting carbon monoxide. Clear and odorless gas we breath VAST amounts of daily without knowing it. Smoking falls under the category MISC which includes many other sources as well!Source Category Breakdown

Bottom of the line. GET OFF your high horses and get informed. You attack smoking because of the smell. Your true area for banning and attack to blame most health problems are your modes of transportation. My sources are from the EPA. Do not spout back statements which you cannot justify from reliable sources.

Leave us alone. Smokers need to be aware of those who do not smoke and be kind and courteous not blowing smoke in their direction and abiding laws. Non-Smokers need to be courteous towards smokers by leaving us alone. It is our CHOICE.

We live in America where we can make the decision of religeon, education, gender preference, and smoking preference.

Ofcourse it should be banned.

I love your name by the way, Anti Government.
It's pretty much summed me up.

Originally posted by flice
As a smoker (going up and down in amounts...), I would not directly advocate a complete ban, BUT, I would most definately speak highly for a change in the amounts of free medical care a person could receive if they choose to subject themselves to any addiction that causes them to need severe treatment.

Medical care to selfcaused states of illness is an unneccesary burden to any society.

Another way of doing it would be to force people to take part in programs that get you out of addiction the moment you show signs of serious illness.
If you then persist to be addicted, penalties like above mentioned could be enforced.

While we should be social and take care of eachother, we shouldn't be forced to take care of those who simply don't care about themselves.

I wondered how long it would be before the Economic Nazi would throw in his/her 5 cents..

So, you're actually for re-educating camps for smokers, and if they don't conform you'd deny them medical care?

..following your (warped sense of) logic, surfers should be rejected treatment when they develop skin cancer.
PC addicts wouldn't get treated if the proximity to the monitor causes a tumor.

Businessmen wouldn't get treated after their cellphone sets them up with a nice case of cancer.

Taking care of society's sick people is not a burden but a duty.

How we treat out injured and sick is one of the measuring staffs of civilization.If you can't even manage the empathy it takes to want to take care of your own countrymen who are ill, I'd have to say y ou fall short on that measurement by a mile..

Originally posted by Erytiel
Ofcourse it should be banned.

I love your name by the way, Anti Government.
It's pretty much summed me up.

Anti Goverment sums you up?

Then why advocate some NWO-like monstrosity ?

Seems the smoking issue brings out the hypocrite in man

reply to post by Erytiel


This seems quite contrary and silly. Who do you suppose will do the banning? Who has released most of the data on smoking?

We all know how the government tends to work in these situations. Give an inch, take a mile sort of thing.

Many of you have written that you'd be willing to ban smoking if xyz is also. That's kind of the point. We can't ban smoking, it only leads to more and more legislation.

We are capable of self governance. I know we are, even through all the food, water, and air poisoning, mind control, and general dumbing down tactics the government have been using.

Originally posted by Erytiel
Ofcourse it should be banned.

I love your name by the way, Anti Government.
It's pretty much summed me up.

Yet you would support a government ban on smoking.

You guys are missing the point intirely its not about supporting the government its about being against smoking and what it does to people.

Originally posted by Building7
I scanned most of the posts, but not all, so if this is a re-post I apologize.

I think the big issue here that is not being addressed is not related to whether or not smoking should be banned. I think anyone with any sense can see why that will not work and should not be attempted (I mean prohibition). However, I haven't seen anyone address the consequences from a financial standpoint. People who smoke a lot are virtually guaranteeing the future necessity of extremely expensive medical care. So, should non-smokers be required to shell out for higher medical insurance to help cover the smokers voluntary behavior which guarantees increased medical costs down the line?

This does create a slippery slope of the issues, however. Should obese people be charged more for insurance, etc.? What if the obese person has a genetic metabolic disorder resulting in permanent obesity despite eating well and exercising?

The real reason I mention this is because I predict a trend going toward behavior-related health insurance costs. With ever-increasing premiums responsible people are getting sick of paying for those with bad habits.

They already do this. When I got my insurance at work years ago I had to answer questions one being smoking, another being drinking and yet another on drug use, as I only smoke cigarettes I did have to pay a higher premium. That being said, perhaps you are on to something here. Perhaps if the non-smokers desire to dictate policy and law, maybe they should pay for that right.

I wouldn't care if cigarettes killed within a week of their inhalation. You will never convince me to give up my liberty to do as I please, and yes that means my liberty to do things which are considered very unhealthy. I will fight for people's right to decide for themselves how healthy a life they want to live. Would you want people telling you you're not allowed to eat red meat, ride a motorcycle, swim in the ocean, etc.. I know most of this has already been posted, but I don't understand why some can't understand such a simple concept. This country was founded on a person's right to do as they please as long as their actions do not effect others. I won't tell you that you must live by my moral standards so don't tell me I should live by yours. As for smoking outside, you show me a study which describes how cigarette smoke defies the laws of physics and does not dissipate almost immediately into the open air(which is far more polluted by automobile fumes than cigarette smoke) and I will quit smoking today.

Originally posted by Anti - Government
You guys are missing the point intirely its not about supporting the government its about being against smoking and what it does to people.

No, the point was the title of this thread. Should smoking be banned. I realize you have taken back your stance on should it be banned, but the person a couple posts above me made the statement

"Of course it should be banned.

I love your name by the way, Anti Government.
It's pretty much summed me up. "

That is what I was referring to. If you support a ban you support government intervention, because no one else will ban something like that except the government. Ergo, it supports the government.

Now, to the others why is it that many of you agree that the government lies to us all the time? You agree or have agreed in the past that Doctors and pharmaceutical companies are in bed with each other? That medical insurance companies are in bed with the Medical profession, but for some reason, the government and doctors would NEVER lie about something like this?

There is no, I repeat NO irrefutable evidence that smoking, second hand or otherwise kills people definitively. I don't want to see one of you post a bunch of garbage from sources saying "could cause, may cause, have the potential" Because that is all you will find.

And how many of you have done research on the other side of the argument? Think like a smoker and see what you can find out that could possibly show you that all the stuff you have read has been grossly blown out of proportion. The truth is for you it doesn't matter. Your documentation supports one side of the argument. A good debater and someone with an open mind, which many of you said you have, will get both sides of the argument to make a more effective debate.

If you are so quick to tell us our sources are bunk, why should we take you serious? Most of you didn't even read the links some of the posters have given you. You just spout off without reading it calling it crap. Even when they come from the same people you get your supposed info from.

ok, basic facts here.

They still haven't made any definitive links between smoking, smoke and all the myriad of illnesses that they supposedly cause.

Most of the concentrations they've used to cause the cancers are 10's, 100's even 1000's of times more than even the most abusive types ingest

they have shown that the concentration of chemicals in second hand smoke is way below minute

smokers and non smokers don't care what the other thinks. Its more a war of the haves vs have nots.

Yes, a number of smokers would like to quit, but the only way that will happen is yes, to eliminate tobacco products completely.

They have no problem selling them to people.

At least here in chicago, businesses are down, and the most impacted are the bars, night spots, clubs and some restaurants. as a musician i see it often, talking with the bar owners. a lot have gone out of business becuase theres no smoking anymore, and people don't want to go out if they can't smoke, or have to keep shuffling in and out to have a quick one.

most business owners are up in arms because THEY WERE NEVER GIVEN THE CHOICE. you can make incentives, you can make special licenses and you know what, from about a healthy 80% or more of these businesses that are having problems, they would all say they would have no problem paying for a 'smoking license' just to bring business back in.

i've already thrown (physically) two people from my house during a gathering for telling people they can't smoke. guess what, my house, my rules. you don't like them, YOU leave, not people who offend you. They got indignant, they got the boot.

My question is (if you've read this far) is when did we seriously go to a society that would rather coddle anyone that might be offended rather than putting forward rules and laws for the common good, and telling the rest to grow a thicker skin and learn to deal and get along.

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
My question is (if you've read this far) is when did we seriously go to a society that would rather coddle anyone that might be offended rather than putting forward rules and laws for the common good, and telling the rest to grow a thicker skin and learn to deal and get along.

Society wants to blame everyone else except themselves for all problems.

Case in point, schools are beginning to ban red pens when grading.

Medical industry is more than happy to find a blame for thier illness. Society wants to blame others and create a primal form of racial profiling based off habit and as a result, hatred grows towards that group of individuals.

i am usually not a fan of government intervention but in this instance i am. i would vote for an all out ban in a hot second.

Yeah, ban smoking, it would work perfectly, like prohibition did! Why not? The great depression had their prohibition, I suppose our new depression should have it's own! It's only fair.

Seriously though, yes, I've read all the dangers of secondhand smoke, etc., no greater than the dangers of going out for a jog and breathing in car fumes, so not much point contemplating them is there? You can eliminate secondhand smoke completely and the air is still going to be a polluted mess. I say keep the public place ban in effect and let people do what they want behind closed doors and keep taxing the hell out of them. At this point the govt. needs all the revenue they can get, legalize drugs, prostitution and close that giant budget gap. It's hard to justify keeping drugs illegal while alcohol is legalized, how many get killed from coked out drivers? It's essentially a victimless crime. You'd think the govt. would love the opportunity to tax and create new beuracracies.

Nicotene counters the effects of Flouride to some degree according to a post a read here awhile back. (I'll try to find it)

Being a spring water drinker, a smoker and a tobacco shop owner, My bias is obvious. Still, if this is true the Anti-smoking effort makes that much more sense. With all the powers that be are doing to kill us, believing they want me to quit for MY good would be moronic.

reply to post by Building7


TXtriker here - at work so posting from anon. Smokers do pay higher rates. I work in insurance.

Settlements with the tobacco companies were supposed to be a source of funding for the healthcare of smokers. Where did that money go?

reply to post by CoffinFeeder


Over here in Belgium, the Goverment at first made a law requiring restaurants and such to have either a smoking zone, with air filtration systems and totally seperated from the non-smoking area or to ban smoking alltogether.

Then, they got it in their heads to do away with all the smoking in these businesses, after the owners made the significant investment to be in compliance with these laws..

They do not have enough people to 'police' white-collar crime etc. but you can guess what they had manpower for.. yep, for inspecting if their (anti-smoker's league funded) lunacy was enforced or not.. and the fines where way over the top for every 'breach' of their unholy pact.

These days, many people, like you said, including me, don't frequent bars anymore.. I can get (cheaper) beer at the grocery store, and not have some health-nazi lording over me.. a shame really, as I did enjoy the social aspect of it..

These days, the only people who can count on smoke being blown in their faces are people who think they have some moral supremacy to demand I extinguish my smoke.

[edit on 15-12-2008 by Phatcat]

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
reply to post by jfj123

 

bodies DO have the right to not be subjected to disease causing agents, your point is incorrect.

First - show me the proof secondhand smoke causes cancer.

I can show you 2nd hand smoke is both a direct lung irritant and can initiate disease factors. Will you believe it? Of course not as you have already decided that the facts that refute your OPINION are wrong. This is the problem with this issue. Since smokers want to smoke, they ignore facts to allow them to continue their behavior.

Second - from where do you derive this supposed right?

Really? Regardless of legalities, do you simply not understand that morally it's wrong?

There's a difference between offensive odors and something that causes health related problems.


Right - secondhand smoke is an offensive odor.

And causes health problems.

Just to be clear, it's not about YOUR future health, it's about everyone else's around you. You do not have the right to endanger someone else's health. PERIOD!


Writing the word period in capital letters is no substitute for factual validation of your argument.

Of course it's not and if I posted 1000's of pages of factual information, it wouldn't be enough or you would make a claim that it's "skewed" or "faked" or some other excuse that helps you ignore the reality of smoking.

The difference is that you not smoking does not endanger anyone's health.


hehehe

I disagree...

Of course you do
That's the nice thing. You have the right to be wrong

Smokers generally are NOT accomodating. Some are but most are not.


You have the planes, the trains, the airports, the schools, the taxis, the hospitals, the restaurants, the bars, the theaters, the shops, the sidewalks, the beaches...

Smokers have their homes and their cars..and..that's about it.

I think we've been accommodating..too accommodating, actually.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by WyrdeOne]

Awww poor smoker.
Do you honestly believe that the product in cigarettes which you inhale, have no affect on your health? and others?
Are you saying that cigarette smoke is completely inert and in no way harmful to anyone and anything? Do you actually expect anyone to believe that?

reply to post by WyrdeOne


Brillant post!! As a smoker, I can say everything that was said in that post says pretty much everything I would have to say..
But it leaves out one important part..

You non smokers, care so much for your health, yet you drink the waters, and poison your bodies with flu shots. and such things as brushing your teeth.
Something you should read into before you set out to destroy the last rights we have left...

Careful what you wish for non smokers.. You have already pushed me outside.. I dont mind smoking outside.. Honestly when I eat my food, as a smoker I dont like smelling smoke around me.. thats fine...

But you take away my smoking.. You will be taking away your VERY OWN rights.. Are you insane????

Originally posted by jfj123
I can show you 2nd hand smoke is both a direct lung irritant and can initiate disease factors. Will you believe it? Of course not as you have already decided that the facts that refute your OPINION are wrong. This is the problem with this issue. Since smokers want to smoke, they ignore facts to allow them to continue their behavior.

The pot calling the kettle black eh ?

I've seen several reliable sources burning down your arguments, but you choose to ignore this info so you can continue your personal crusade.
Since non-smokers want to disallow smokers from continuing their habit, they ignore the facts to allow them to condemn this behavior..

Really? Regardless of legalities, do you simply not understand that morally it's wrong?

As opposed to using emo-drama to ban a habit you find offensive?

Just to be clear, it's not about YOUR future health, it's about everyone else's around you. You do not have the right to endanger someone else's health. PERIOD!

And the drama queen appears for one more appearance..

That's the nice thing. You have the right to be wrong

ahh.. thank you so much for at least allowing thàt right.. you have the same right offcourse.

Awww poor smoker.
Do you honestly believe that the product in cigarettes which you inhale, have no affect on your health? and others?
Are you saying that cigarette smoke is completely inert and in no way harmful to anyone and anything? Do you actually expect anyone to believe that?

Do you honestly believe the soda you drink.. the food you eat.. the air you breathe.. the radiation from too numerous sources to mention are in no way harmfull to anyone and anything?

Give me a friggin' break..