Should Smoking Be Banned?

Let there be a ban on cigarette smoking, then the next thing some other right could get taken away. What's next, a ban on cake? Seriously. It makes people fat, so it's banned.

How about a ban on sky diving? That could kill you instantly if your shoot doesn't open.
Then we could ban roller coasters because they sometimes killed people.
Next, we'll get rid of boating altogether, some people do drown you know.

As has been mentioned to some degree before, some people are more predisposed to health problems. They could die of nasty lung cancer and never have touched one single cigarette. That's not to say I like the really harsh tobacco smoke blown in my face. Some of it I don't mind, and some smoke is actually quite pleasant, but some of that tobacco smoke is just too harsh.

I don't think there should be a ban, but just like any food, I think that everything should be grown organically and naturally. That's what we really need put laws on. At least everything then can be as healthy as it can be, and you aren't being exposed unnecessarily to toxic chemicals. Our natural ecosystem has been trashed, when all we have to do is work with nature, and it will provide better food, plants, etc.

Some people love to sit down and relax, and fire up a pipe, a cigar, or whatever after a hard days work. Maybe sip on an alcoholic beverage. Is it my right to tell this person he can't do it?

Troy

What else will they throw outrages taxes on if they were to completely ban smoking, maybe clothing food, anything else the oh so lovely non smokers buy. After about a year or two of a smoking ban they would be crying for smokers so that there taxes could go down. Not to mention what was said earlier about the non violent criminals. Prison systems already full lets throw in a couple of million people who smoke to go with them. What really gets me is how you known smokers will go out of your way to tell me how bad my smoking is when I am in an open air public area. If it bothers you that much take the five steps further away from me instead of the five steps out of your way you took to cry on an deaf ear. Most smokers are considerate to non smokers to not just blow their smoke in you face. The deal restaurants they con install venting systems that pull the smoke threw above the smoking sections that just about eliminates it just building up threw the entire area. What I really want to say is back off and deal with your real problems(being an self righteous ass, and leave me and my sedatives , I mean cigarettes alone.

My mom died from it. She smoked for 35 years and then quit. She died a year later from the cumulative effect. As much as I wish she were still around and as much as I hope my kids never start, it does reduce the population quite a bit.

Does the earth really need more people? Of course, the people dying from it cost the health care system billions as well. I'm not a NWO a-hole who believes in depopulation but at the same time the earth is running out of food and water.

Banning it reduces tax revenues. There are always going to be people who smoke (I find it disgusting and can't stand the smell) so I think it is a waste of tax money to try to ban it.

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.

In other words, according to the smokers logic, if we non smokers should stay inside, or away from public places because of their smoke, we all should stay inside to avoid the existing pollution. Both sides would agree that that is a preposterous notion.

[edit on 12/13/2008 by prototism]

I would ask that you not assume that I agree with you. They are all individual choices. Noone puts a gun to your head to drive. There are many non-drivers out there, look at New York City. One of the most populous cities in our country, and most of the people there walk, ride bikes, take cabs etc. So should all the homeless suffer more? Should everyone that doesn't own a car suffer? It IS an individual choice.

Originally posted by Anti - Government
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

I like the fact that you have started a great debate. Although I do not agree with some of your theories I am not the type that will bash you and call you an idiot or anything of the kind. I will say you are dead wrong (no pun intended) on this one. There is not one legitimate scientific piece of evidence that smoking causes cancer. Every documentation states smoking MAY cause cancer. If there was proof it did, the cigarette packs would say Smoking causes cancer. They do not. People may be more susceptible to getting a form of cancer because they smoke, but it definitely does not mean that everyone that smokes will get cancer. That is what your statement implies. Smoking causes cancer=Everyone that smokes, will get cancer. Please choose your words wisely. This debate is very hot, and I believe none of us want to jump to conclusions and jump down someones throat over a misconception.

Originally posted by Anti - Government
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

Well, you really should do a bit more research. Women, leading cancers, Breast Cancer, Leading cancers in men, Prostate Cancer.

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,930,000 for leading cancer. (0.25 seconds)

www.medicinenet.com...

IF you ban smoking, people will grow their own tobacco and do it illegally.
More people in the world are addicted to nicotine above anything else.
In Australia, it brings in A LOT of money due to taxes.
You remove smoking, you remove that revenue.
And if people are doing it illegally, say goodbye to your taxes.

If you ban smoking, it'll still be there.
Governments could legalize weed and make a fortune from the taxes, but that's too taboo and can be grown to easily by the average joe.

Originally posted by Totakeke

I'm pretty sure that he not going to quit anytime soon. Too much stress and pressure associated with the new transition.

Actually, he has to quit before he moves into the white house. No smoking allowed there.

He doesn't "Have to" quit, he can go outside. And what are they really going to do to the President? Give him a stern talking to?

I am a smoker. I do believe my rights have been infringed upon because I have been banned from going into certain places of business because of my personal choice. You can sugar coat it all you want, but TPTB that decided this was a good idea, are going to not only cut their own throats but everyone else's too. It is right infringement. Call it freedom of expression. It is how I choose to express myself. Non smokers like to make themselves feel superior to the smoking population. You are not better than me because you don't smoke and I do. I do not have the "LIBERTY" to do as I please. You don't like it, tough.
Every single argument and link you have put up throughout this entire thread has not once definitively stated smoking causes cancer, second hand smoke is detrimental to your health. Every single link, article quoted, everything states "COULD". You know what else can cause cancer? Just about anything. The food you eat, the water you drink, the medications you take, genetic disposition, local environments.
Second hand smoke was a politicians way of saying I hate the smell. Yes, 57,000 reports all came back....inconclusive. It has the potential. No one knows the dangers of smoking more than smokers because like another poster already stated, we have to defend ourselves to you pompous asses everyday. Let me go back for a second. Not all of you are pompous asses. Just those of you that think you know the dangers better than I do, and you have never picked up a cigarette. Does that mean that you don't know the dangers? No, but the anti-smoking campaigns and lobbyists can turn anything into smoking related illnesses. The anti-smoking campaigns have more power in DC than most other lobbying industry. They will lie just like all the other ones, Why? Money and power. The fact that all these threads popping up here lately are nothing more than arrogant people that want to feel better about themselves by warning people that already know the dangers of smoking. I am so sick and tired of people acting like they are looking out for my health when they are only looking out for their own well-being, and selfish agendas.
I am a very courteous smoker. If a child comes around me, I either lift up my cigarette or put it behind my back and do not exhale with them around. If someone in my car doesn't smoke, I don't either, especially if that person is quitting or recently quit. If I have to have one, I'll roll down my window, or pull over. I don't smoke in my house, or other people's houses. I have no problem with going outside, people don't like the smell, I get it. Do I have the right to hurt other peoples health? Again, no evidence to back up that claim.
You do not have the right to not be offended. If you think you do, you're a self righteous ass. Some of you think that it's OK to ban smoking altogether, and may also be indifferent to banning alcohol because you don't drink either. Wrong attitude. You should be sticking up for smokers to smoke because we have the right to do it, and peoples right to drink, it is legal and we have the right. How hard is it to take those rights from us, then take the right of free speech, and freedom of expression. The right to bear arms. You think it's a stretch? Not by a long shot. The money from the lawsuits against big tobacco was not only to go to their health care costs, but the taxes were supposed to go to the school districts as well. I don't hear anyone crying foul there. And what do you think they will tax when alcohol, and cigarettes become illegal. $8 a gallon gas maybe? How about a $15 value meal for an obesity tax? Is smoking bad for you? Yes, should it be banned, NO. I wonder what they would think about a masturbation tax. Hmmm

Ah, this subject rears its ugly head once again...so rather than repeating what all I have posted in the past on the subject I will state one small fact and ask a question.

Cigarettes are a mild depressive much like a sedative for stress, anger and anxiety. After a short time, as nicotine levels drop via natural detoxification processes, the odds increase of socially unacceptible behavior such as violence via these influences as their affects become more acute.

Therefore cigarette smoking is a self medication that greatly eliminates immediate harm to others as opposed to the possible (but not definately proven) effect over a long period of time. So my question to you is do you really want to find out just how not peachy keen you are to a person that has lost their coping mechanism?

Okay I lied, one more question. Have you at all researched the benefits of smoking before making your informed decision? You see, the information is harder to find due to all the funding going towards anti-smoking reseach as well as data manipulation on the so called impartial studies. Such as the 80%-90% potential increase of lung cancer in smokers versus non-smokers. Sounds pretty damning doesn't it? Not nearly as scary as the surgeon general admiting that only 1 in 17 smokers ever develop lung cancer. 1 in 17....that is roughly 5.8%. Can't have that statistic quoted in smoking ban campaigns sponsered by the American Lung Association so it is far btter to say 80%-90% more likely to develop lung cancer in those "grass roots" campaigns.

So my challenge for you is to look at the benefits of smoking and tobacco use and ask yourself why you never hear about these things.

reply to post by systemic.aberration

And while your at it, someone please explain to me why you all acknowledge it is the poisons in the cigarettes, not the tobacco, but curse smokers? We don't make them, we smoke them. Do you know why it is so hard to quit? Because the tobacco industries have increased the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. But guess what, around the time they did that, ironically these quit smoking pills came out. Oh yeah, and one of the pills has the potential to turn you into a raging lunatic to potential suicide. No thanks, I'd rather smoke and take my chances than take a pill that would make me want to kill myself right then.
Why aren't you guys then crying out for the government to ban the poisons in the cigarettes, thereby making cigarettes more safe. Quite a few of you have stated that the tobacco isn't bad for you it's all the crap they add to it. Truth is you don't care, you just don't like the smell. But your "flavored tobacco" that you legally smoke your safe tobacco out of a hooka is ok.

"and one of the pills has the potential to turn you into a raging lunatic to potential suicide."

I agree with you one hundred percent there stinger. I my self tried to use the wonderful quit smoking drug, and felt like taking the heads off of any one person that was around me. It is all about the holier than thou aspect is why the known smokers rant on. It doesn't matter if we put our cigs out to be courteous or not we are still aholes just for smoking.

reply to post by D1Useek


Hi, I have been trying to reply to a lot of people, to say, get me another gin and light me a cig!

Come on, we all have to die sometime and why not enjoy the here and now? And actually that may be over quite soon given the Osama/Obama/Mabus thing.

Cheers (brandishing ciggie and gin)

reply to post by spellbound


I realise you guys don't get me - I am a Kiwi

reply to post by nerbot
As a former smoker (7yrs now)I think smokers should be left alone.It should be an issue of personal freedom,which most people dont get it.So lets make another rule like arresting that kid in Florida for passi gas.Can you imagine the time wed all get for our lifetime of campfire experiances .We would all be felons!

reply to post by stinger94

Hi Sting,

So y are I not not hearing from anyone?

reply to post by Ahabstar
I wonder if anyone has ever looked at the idea that smoking actually was helpful in the industrial revolution and their relationship to one another .

reply to post by nerbot


Yay for u giving up smoking and cheers - you are so right.

Well thank you everyone for all your replies so far ive read them all or atleast ive tried to anyway and ive actually had a change of heart because ive realised that no smoking shouldnt be banned atall it merely should be up to the smoker to be as considerate when around others especially children and to hopefully realize that it is bad for you

also alot of people brought up the dangers of Alcohol consumption and also car pollution and yes those things are very dangerous aswell i do still think that smoking is one of the biggest dangers but yes i thank you ATS because you have helped me realize that no banning shouldnt be an option it is up to us what we do to ourselves and noone else