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: 17
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 04:14 PM
Here's another thing to consider. At the moment, tobacco consumption is banned for children and young adults basically under the age of 18. The funny part about this is that studies have consistently shown that if a smoker quits, most of the damage done can be healed in a few years, leaving the smoker no worse for the experience.

So... rather than ban smoking for children, it should be banned for adults say, 40 years and older, when it's harder for the healing process to occur. Let kids smoke all they want, but keep it from becoming a health problem in older people.

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 04:17 PM
reply to post by jfj123

Well, I'm sure it's not pleasant either way but there's a very big difference.

An extreme allergic reaction (like the anaphylaxis I went into after being stung by a bee once) can be very dangerous and life-threatening. "Allergy-like" reactions (such as sneezing, coughing, watery eyes, etc.) to chemical irritants, on the other hand, are temporary in nature and not dangerous unless the concentration of the "irritant" gets quite high in a closed space.

I was actually trying to refute some claims made several pages back about people potentially being "killed" by second hand smoke due to severe allergic reactions. It sounds really scary and good for the anti-smoking side, but it just ain't so.

[edit on 17-12-2008 by Heike]

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Heike
reply to post by jfj123

Well, I'm sure it's not pleasant either way but there's a very big difference.

An extreme allergic reaction (like the anaphylaxis I went into after being stung by a bee once) can be very dangerous and life-threatening. "Allergy-like" reactions (such as sneezing, coughing, watery eyes, etc.) to chemical irritants, on the other hand, are temporary in nature and not dangerous unless the concentration of the "irritant" gets quite high in a closed space.

I was actually trying to refute some claims made several pages back about people potentially being "killed" by second hand smoke due to severe allergic reactions. It sounds really scary and good for the anti-smoking side, but it just ain't so.

[edit on 17-12-2008 by Heike]

My response point was only that to the individual, there is no difference between ACTUAL allergy and LIKE allergy as it's happening.
You are correct that a severe allergic reaction can be very dangerous.

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 10:19 PM

Originally posted by vox2442

What's with all the anti-smoking stuff recently?

Over the last week, I've noticed a huge increase in anti-smoking threads and commentaries on about 10 different boards/newsblogs. Is there a campaign on or something? Or is it just one of those internet things, where everyone does the same thing at the same time for no reason?

this is simply more proof of how distressingly easy it is for power to manipulate people. they have reduced the free thinking individual minds of a once capable people into a collective propaganda spewing voice. this massive brain share of opinion that miraculously coincides with their own profit seeking views. i fear the thought of how miserable life could become when this percentage peaks?

opinion seems to be about 50%-50% at present on most issues? frighteningly, that ratio appears to be shifting for the worse. what if it was 70%-30% or even 90%-10%? what would life be like for that minority? minority, in this case, being the people still forming opinions intelligently and indiscriminately via their own thoughts and research.

those that disagree with my theory only need to explain one thing. why do public uproars begin only when media air stories on the topics? assuming these are personal, well thought out beliefs, where were you before? am i to believe these individual conclusions miraculously coincide with the current legislation?

sadly, most of you are only spewing propaganda for an agenda. an agenda that ultimately hurts us all, no matter the topic. the regulate smoking agenda isn't about protecting your health. it's part of the tricking you out of your freedoms agenda. unfortunately, unless people stop sharing a brain, that agenda will succeed. trading your liberty to pass law that steps on another persons liberty is not making you safe, it's making you less free.

this is my opinion and was formed using my own resources. i hope it can help trigger more of the same.

posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 02:19 AM
I love it
seeing addicts justify their weak, harmful, disgusting selfish habit. You can always spot a smoker and usually an ex-smoker when this laughable subject comes up. They are the ones that revert to denial of childlike commonsense. I'd like to tell these sheeple (oh yes, they have complete control over your weakness) that they should continue to harm themselves what do I care but it affects me and those around because of their selfish addiction!

posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 12:44 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 12:50 PM
I have never been a smoker. I hate the smell of smoke. I don't go places where I will be in a big cloud of smoke. I don't want my wife and kids around smoke.

But I don't think that the government should ban it. I feel that the people should be the ones to get public places to not have smoking. If more people would take a stand and make places know that they will not do business there if smoking is allowed, that would make a change. But the people would have to stick with it an really not spend their money at those establishments.

If the government is going to ban smoking, then they need to make tobacco illegal. It should it be illegal to use a legal product? But the government will not make tobacco illegal because there's too much money involved. That's one big honeypot that they have there, why would they get rid of it?

posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 03:29 PM
Smoking will never be banned due to the amount of money the government makes off of selling cigarettes. They can put smokers out of their way to have their cigarette, but they won't stop supplying them for their addiction.

As for the deaths related to smoking, statistics only mean so much. Everything in life comes down to the individual. We are at the end of the day just a big group of individuals. Some people may form cancer after only a few years of smoking, and others may smoke their entire lives & never get it.

posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 08:28 PM
reply to post by flyindevil

Yes actually that is what he was saying!!! Have you heard the debate about charging fat people for two plane seats?? Don't you know fat kids get bullied and ridiculed at school. Don't you know that youths drive by and shout "Fat cow" to women and "Hey, great boobs man" to men??? What planet do you live on????

posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 11:14 PM
reply to post by wolf241e

They'll have us in glass enclosed boxes outside soon my friend...

"Look look mommy, is that a smoker?"

posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 08:39 AM

posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 11:21 AM
I stopped smoking after 41 years (60+ a day). It was my choice to give up smoking, I did not need a Nanny Government to order me to give up smoking. I believe that if anyone wants to smoke it is their choice. Smoking is banned in all Bars, clubs, restaurants etc... in the UK (but not in the Parliaments bars
The local pub where I drink, the owner has built an outside smoke-area (it has a roof but no walls - four posts - with seats and very big outdoor heaters (global warming). But it has not helped at all, his weekly takings have dropped drastically as people are now buying their beer at the supermarkets (malls) and staying at home drinking and smoking. The owner has had to lay off three staff - no money to pay their wages - and now he only opens in the evening, including Saturday and Sunday.
He argues that he should have been given the opportunity to select a room inside his pub for smokers with good ventilation and it`s own bar, and he would not have had to lay-off any staff - of which one of his staff was also a smoker - ideal huh?

In the first few months that I stopped smoking, it was driving me nuts, but now, after nearly three years of no smoking I don`t have the need anymore. Buit some people find it really hard to give up..
People should have a`s called freedom of choice.
People who say - I`ve heard them - that hospital Doctors & Nurses etc, should not treat smoke-related illness and throw them out of hospitals. Who would be next, people with drink problems? people with drug problems, who made them GOD?
If you believe in god that is. But that`s another topic altogether

Only my viewpopint, do what you have to do, but don`t order me to do it

posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 09:00 AM
reply to post by N. Tesla

In the present discussion of cigarette smoking, we should remember that smoke is by far the most harmful way to deliver nicotine. A ban on smoking should not be synonymous with banning nicotine. Society takes the wrong approach toward addictive substances. Total bans usually cause more harm than good. Though they work if a super majority support them. For example alcohol in strict Muslim countries.

Rather than taking a moral stance, society should look at drugs(tobacco for this discussion) from the view to create the most good with the least harm; cost vs. benefit. Users should pay the health and social costs of addiction. The taxes on a pack of cigarettes should pay the increased health costs from smoking. As it is, nonsmokers subsidize smokers. On the other hand smokeless tobacco, particular Nitrosamine free forms, would have almost no "health tax".
It should be possible for smokers to buy an inhaler delivery system that would give the quick deliver desired without the thousands of harmful chemicals created in burning tobacco. This would allow a virtual ban on cigarettes. Rather than an outright ban, a health tax should be applied

A big part of the problem is that people haven't understood what the true drug crime is. It isn't using this or that substance. In most cases this is some form of self medication.


This is true whether its the DEA selling confiscated property, the Royal family selling Opium in China, or the local Convenience Store profiting off America's 3 addictions. Should we include gasoline and make it 4!

I should clarify that I mean economic profit, not a return. Any profit above the Fed Funds rate, should be taxed at a 100%. Actually, it should not be taxed in the traditional sense as this encourages criminality in government. The excess profits should be distributed in a completely random fashion to nonprofits or returned to purchasers.

If there is no taxation on a substance that is deemed harmful or addictive, the users will be the profiteers. Therefore, we should have a social tax so that users would bear the cost. For example, Crack would be taxed at a high rate, powdered coc aine less, and Coca leaves hardly more than Coffee. Distilled Spirits would be taxed at a higher rate than wine and beer. Drinks with a meal would be taxed at a lower rate than when served alone in a bar.

Last of all, a great deal of Politicians time would be soaked up trying to decide whether the tax rate was correct!


posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 09:38 AM
the european smoking ban inside pubs is a law directed towards the health safty of the workers there. not the safty of the customer, explain the logic behind that one, but i guess its basic eu logic.

it has very little to do with smoking and worker health issues but for some reason people tend to belive its because of the butt.

if it was about worker safty and health reasons they would wear hazmat suits and top of the line gasmasks, work behind re inforced glass boxes and serve you beer from a rotating platform to ensure that the workers are in no way exposed to what might have been brought in from outside.

pub customers would even be sterilized/sanitized before entering the venue , money would be paid before you even enter the place and give back to you as you leave,

toilets would be glass boxes that are sterilized after each turn and checked for contamination before next customer

one can spin the idea as much as you want if its about the safty and health issues the workers have/had.

its just a silly law with no context or real function

heck stuides show that smokers live longer then non smokers,

here in finland smokers pay about 630 million euros in tax to the goverment each year
i am one of thouse that contribute to that ammount.

posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 10:59 AM
Simple fact of the matter. Second hand smoke harms others who choose to live as healthy as their enviorment allows. Why on earth would a person think its okay to harm others just because they don't mind harming themselves. If you want to smoke fine, but do it at home in an enclosed area where your second hand smoke doesn't drift to the 8 year old little girl walking into school. I have no problems with smokers but those who refuse to think their second hand smoke is no big deal is the same as someone walking by and you injecting them with some crack. Do what you want to yourself but do it away (far far far away) from people who like their bodies and try to take care of it.
No one has the right or should have the right to subject another to a drug they do not wish to consume. NO ONE!!!!!!!!

posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 03:49 PM
Trans fats used in the majority of fast foods are just as bad as cigarettes are. 1 gram of trans can do damage to your insides but no one seems to say anything about this at all. To be honest I have a sneaking suspicion that the government(s) have a good reason for having us quitting smoking which works in their favour. You think of all the lost tax dollars or pounds sterling these lot lose when people quit.

posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 04:57 PM
segregation, apartheid, discrimination, dissociation, division, disunion, isolation, seclusion, separation, partition, etc...

these are the routes to our defeat. these methods are being used very effectively in our enslavement and will continue unless WE stop it. look beyond the issues to find the greater purpose. ask yourself if you believe these ordinances are to protect your health?

is that protection equally available without damaging your freedoms? is it worth the cost? are we prioritizing these dangers correctly? are we being hypocritical? or hypercritical? is that cigarette smoke distinguishable among other air pollutants? is opening the doors to regulate everything worth it? do non smokers live such a life that nothing they do has any effect on others? does not smoking cigarettes give the right to judge?

there are thousands of toxins in products today. toxins like aspartame that infect food and drink are known to negatively effect our health. aspartame is fed to our children everyday by people that do not smoke cigarettes. the same people that would gladly put the corner bar out of business. people that go so far as to openly support the denial of health care to someone because they smoke cigarettes. these people willingly feed aspartame, along with many other toxins, to their children everyday without so much as a thought.

people willing to give up our freedoms to choose what we put in our bodies. who want government to mandate what we may and may not consume. these same people willingly poison themselves and their children everyday while campaigning for regulation that could one day make that practice mandatory for all of us. is it possible that this idiotic portion of society may become the majority? a voice of ignorance loud enough to influence free choice? unfortunately, debates such as this show evidence that it's so. good luck to us all!

posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 05:06 PM
I'd be all for a full out smoking ban and I smoke.

In creating a ban on smoking the Gov. is then obligated to assist people who smoke to quit. Tit for tat. They can't institute a ban without helping people curb the mental and physical addiction.

I hate smoking...when i quit I become a whimpering, crying, puddle of goo. My mental addiction is clearly severe. I would JUMP at the chance to get REAL help with that. The gums and patches are BS. nicotine is out of the system within three days and actual chemical withdrawl is extremely minor in almost everyone. It's the mental aspect of the addiction that is the real beast.

Banning it as a dangerous substance is a step in the right direction I think.

It can also be abused by cessation "miracles" and pharmaceuticals...but if they ban it they will ultimately have to provide help for those addicted. (I'd hope that'd be how it goes)

posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 11:23 PM
reply to post by Rintendo

I totally see your point. There are people that are sensitive to this, as JTF123 (?) pointed out earlier. And you really don't know who is and who isn't sensitive to it. Since this thread, I have truly evaluated this and I do agree that smokers as a whole are more curtious (sp?) than your everyday non-smoker, although every group has its exceptions. Well over half of you guys state you don't believe MSM and believe they only tell you what certain people want them too. So why would you believe them all when they tell you smoking causes cancer? Everything says it MAY not WILL. But every one jumps on the big C band wagon. Did you know if you drank too much orange juice it can not only make you sick, but give you ulcers as well? Who's screaming for it to be banned? There are everyday irritants out there. Some people are allergic to flowers and things in the air like pollen, I don't see wide spread outrage at those and they can cause an immediate reaction, and if someone doesn't have their epinephrine shot they could die. With all the people all of a sudden allergic to peanuts noone is crying for it's use in foods to be shut down. But these all have one common denominator. They don't stink. And whether you want to admit it or not, that is why the majority of you don't like it. But as brought up many times here there are far worse pollutants out there that cause worse outbreaks than a cigarette. Ironically many of you argue that those smells and toxins dissipate in the air, guess what, so do cigarettes. Our lungs and noses filter out almost every toxin that is in the cigarette twice, when we breathe it in and breathe it out. Yes, some of the people are allergic, most are not. It is the smell the majority of you people hate, and even though I am a smoker, I hate it too. THAT is the reason I am quitting, just got my chantix. Hell maybe I'll end up killing myself from a psychotic episode they say is one of the side effects, instead of a calming cigarette.

posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 11:32 PM
reply to post by fritzM

Reminds me of when people used to say they wouldn't go into a bar where they served negroes, or jews

new topics

top topics

<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in