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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Should Smoking Be Banned?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 06:58 PM
reply to post by prototism


Then I would bet a dollar o a doughnut you don't have a pack of ciggs in our house but a 12 pack to be sure...

Only an ill informed goof would claim Alcohol is not deadly and more deadly than tobacco

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 07:00 PM
reply to post by theindependentjournal

I dont have long here because its really late and i want to go to bed but ill make one last post

Alcohol kills over 650,000 people a year...

four times more likely to die from the health consequencs of smoking than drinkers are to die from the health consequences of drinking, e.g., cirrhosis of the liver. But smoking doesn't impair your performance at work or school, damage your brain, or ruin your life when you're young. No one ever lost his job and family because he smoked too much, or killed the occupants of an oncoming car, or ended up attending AA meetings or a bum in the gutter. So smoking seems to be worse from the health perspective, drinking from the perspective of the effect it has on your day-to-day life when you're younger.

so you can make your own mind up their ^^

Methane from farts is supposedly warming the planet and were all gonna die according to AL Gore over that...

cows are a huge contribution to this as is other animals so dont just blame usanyway that is a natural occurance alcohol and niccotine arent

Whenever I see a fat chick in spandex in public I CLOSE MY EYES TIGHT then I crash the car into some lady and her baby on the sidewalk, the other option is to keep my eyes open which means I throw up on myself and go on the sidewalk and and well you know....

This just isnt funny or even deserving of a response but ill give you one anway what is your problem with overweight people anyway and also i think you need help because i saw a pretty racist comment from you aswell on another thread earlier on today cant remember which one though

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 07:01 PM
reply to post by Anti - Government

I'm sorry but your post may be misunderstood as it starts off about banning smoking and then you say you've been researching the effects of Marijuana.

I fail to see why you even had to bring it(Marijuana) in to your post when you are talking about cigarette smoking.

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 07:03 PM
reply to post by ANTHONY33

Well then im sorry for brining it up although i was just stating a few recent things i have put alot of research into

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 07:04 PM
reply to post by theindependentjournal

Slow down. Take a breath. Don't jump to conclusions.

I neither explicitly stated, nor implied that alcohol doesn't kill. I accept anything beyond moderation is potentially dangerous and harmful to one's health. In fact, I actually defined how I felt about the issue in general, in my discussion with trayen.

All asked you to do is admit smoking is dangerous to one's health also.

And for the record, I don't drink, smoke, "smoke", or do drugs, even prescribed ones, for the simple reason that they are ALL "bad" for you.

[edit on 12/13/2008 by prototism]

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 07:11 PM
reply to post by Anti - Government

Alcohol deaths are actually form the DRUNKS DRIVING not use... And the United States Surgeon General claims I am correct, but hey what the heck does the U.S. Surgeon General know about health and death stats?

I knew this would get the goats of the drinkers, They are all willing to talk about smokers til their DEATH NAIL is mentioned then it's DEFENSE!!! Problem is with your Death Nail, you usually kill NON DRUNK DRIVERS and your dumb drunk butts live.

I didn't even bring up Murder which the Surgeon General says 1/2 of are committed on Alcohol...

One more thing FAT PEOPLE die in higher rates than Smokers too... OUTLAW FAT PEOPLE!!!!
Also so there's no empirical evidence that smoking causes cancer, my grandfather smoked for over 80 years, filter less Lucky's and he died of Alzheimer with NO CANCER... I would say Cancer is Genetic and Smoking may cause those GENETICALLY susceptible to it to get it...

[edit on 12/13/2008 by theindependentjournal]

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 07:24 PM
reply to post by theindependentjournal

I dont Drink so dont try to accuse me of that and dont dare try to blame anything like killing non-drunks on me

also cancer is proven in cigarettes and i do applaud your Grandfather for staying alive all those years without cancer he was one of the lucky ones and not everyone survives some even die in their thirties

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 07:28 PM
hmmpf, i hate all those anti smoker laws popping up everywhere.
in denmark it is now illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to buy tobacco, when i was 15 i could still buy it legally, darn you can even buy alcohol at the age of 16.
i have been smoking now for almost 4 years, drinking for more and i still wanna smoke, but i don't touch alcohol, that stuff destroys people.

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 07:29 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 07:30 PM
reply to post by Oodain
Until you realize that all of these substances brought up in this thread have the capability of "destroying" people, classifying one above the other is nothing more than a double standard.

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 07:30 PM
and since your so keen on using the surgeon general stats here are some for smoking

The 2004 Surgeon General's report newly identifies other cancers caused by smoking, including cancers of the stomach, cervix, kidney, and pancreas and acute myeloid leukemia.

The 2004 Surgeon General's report adds more evidence to previous conclusions that smoking causes cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, lung and bladder.

heres more info
Cancer is the second leading cause of death and was among the first diseases causally linked to smoking.
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death, and cigarette smoking causes most cases.
Compared to nonsmokers, men who smoke are about 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer and women who smoke are about 13 times more likely. Smoking causes about 90% of lung cancer deaths in men and almost 80% in women.

Cancer-causing agents (carcinogens) in tobacco smoke damage important genes that control the growth of cells, causing them to grow abnormally or to reproduce too rapidly.

Cigarette smoking is a major cause of esophageal cancer in the United States. Reductions in smoking and smokeless tobacco use could prevent many of the approximately 12,300 new cases and 12,100 deaths from esophgeal cancer that occur annually.

The combination of smoking and alcohol consumption causes most laryngeal cancer cases. In 2003, an estimated 3800 deaths occurred from laryngeal cancer.

In 2003, an estimated 57,400 new cases of bladder cancer were diagnosed and an estimated 12,500 died from the disease.
For smoking-attributable cancers, the risk generally increases with the number of cigarettes smoked and the number of years of smoking, and generally decreases after quitting completely.

Smoking cigarettes that have a lower yield of tar does not substantially reduce the risk for lung cancer.

Cigarette smoking increases the risk of developing mouth cancers. This risk also increases among people who smoke pipes and cigars.

Reductions in the number of people who smoke cigarettes, pipes, cigars, and other tobacco products or use smokeless tobacco could prevent most of the estimated 30,200 new cases and 7,800 deaths from oral cavity and pharynx cancers annually in the United States.

heres the Link

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 07:37 PM

Originally posted by prototism

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.

Are you kidding me? EVERYONE pollutes the air. Stop driving, mowing your lawn or even riding the bus and I'll bet the smokers will stop smoking.

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 07:39 PM
reply to post by cyberpilot

What is it with the pollution analogy? Read below:

reply to post by RFBurns

Originally posted by prototism
reply to post by ninthaxis
Oh come on. The "pollution" argument is ridiculous. Both smokers and non smokers are suffering from factors beyond our individual control, beyond our individual choice. The difference is black and white.

One is an individual choice that affects others (one group directly, one group indirectly) [smoking], while the other is not an individual choice that affects both groups equally [pollution]. Those are some fundamental differences, that can simply not be ignored by any rationally thinking person.

[edit on 12/13/2008 by prototism]

[edit on 12/13/2008 by prototism]

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 07:40 PM
How can anyone be "Anti-Government" and advocate "Banning" anything?


posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 07:44 PM

Originally posted by prototism

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.


Most of us do things that are bad for someone's health. I mean, you are raising the temperature of my planet by driving that car, aren't you? Those ipods, phones, and gadgets you like, they end up polluting some other country, poisoning children. But it's ok, you don't get to see that.

It's about hipocrisy. When was the last time you met an obnoxious smoker that blew the smoke in your face when you asked him to step out? Most smokers will gladly put it out if you ask them. But this thread is about banning smoking altogether. When so many other things are around to kill us. Tobacco is not bad, it's the other 16 lethal poisons you add too it plus how many other dozens of compounds only slightly less toxic than the ones before that make cigarettes awful.

I used to smoke, don't anymore. I chose to stop for my benefit. I admit that it's not fair for your health to suffer because of my fun. But don't tell me how to enjoy myself. Smokers know it's bad for them, they feel it when they gotta run or climb stairs. Don't preach, we all hurt people unfortunately, humanity is not that well organized. It has it's place, maybe it's not public, but it will always have it.

[edit on 13-12-2008 by Notecreo]

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 07:50 PM
reply to post by prototism

No its your argument that is flawed. You have a serious case of self righteousness. You are polluting but yet the smokers are supposed to modify their behavior by committing the same offense as you but in a different manner, one thats more acceptable to you. Does that about sum it up?

Think about it, It would mean any thing you enjoy, that could be argued that it is having negative effects on others is up for banning. Do you really want to live in that world?

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 07:51 PM
reply to post by Notecreo
Again, when you talk about pollution in the sense you brought up, both smokers and non-smokers are "part of the problem". When you talk about smoking, only the smokers are the problem.

In other words, it would only be "hypocritical" if smokers didn't pollute in the ways you describe (but smoked), while non-smokers did pollute in the way you describe (didn't smoke), but criticized smokers.

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 08:24 PM
This is a tough one. A really tough one.

I certainly agree smoking should be banned in public places, that's for sure. Regardless of the effects of second hand smoke, it smells bad and definitely has some kind of negative effect on the inhaler. (By the way, there's no such thing as smoking and non-smoking, there is just smoking. Separating a restaurant by a doorway or, like some, just a large opening doesn't stop the smoke from circulating and filling the room. The chemicals are still there.)

As for banning smoking completely, that's where it gets tough. People who smoke think that it's taking away their rights. Non-smokers are all for it. Me? Well, I'm not so sure. I would like to see it but people certainly have a right to do what they wish.

Prohibition would probably work a little better now than it used to. Compare it to illegal drugs, like marijuana. People still sell it and use it, but it isn't as big of a problem as prohibition was back then. (Subjectively. I don't have any data for that, but I assume drug control is certainly better now than before.)

I agree smoking is bad. It does bad things to people; bad things to good people. Smoking will probably go the way of other drugs. But right now I think there would be too much backlash.

Of course I always wish for a smoke-free world, but that's just one of the requirements of my perfect world.
(Right next to contact lenses with screens and a world where everyone uses alternative energy.)

[edit on 13-12-2008 by Totakeke]

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 08:33 PM
Well smoking is bad, drinking is bad, breathing is bad (considering the elements in the air), loosing sleep is bad, staying awake all night is bad, eating certian foods is bad, sugar is bad, coffee is bad, soda pop is bad, loud noise is bad....why dont we all just lock ourselves up in a room and nail it shut and warp ourselves up in 5 foot of padding and wear oxygen masks and just sit or stand there and become stagnent and lifeless and worthless all becasue things are so bad.

Well heck folks, there is such as thing as....too bad!!!

So much cry baby going on with almost everything these days. Seems like the strength and agility has turned into yellow jello....

..oh forgot..jello is bad too.


posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 08:37 PM
There has never been a single ounce of proof that "secondhand smoke" has killed anyone. ever.. you show me proof of it and ill stop smoking today

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in