Should Smoking Be Banned?

Originally posted by systemic.aberration
It seems that non-smokers don't like it when we 'infringe upon their rights'...

So, I say we push for a ban on Non-Smoking, along with Straight Marriage, Failure to Abort, and Recycling.

F' these tree-hugging hippie liberal noobs!

=D

[edit on 12/14/2008 by systemic.aberration]

sarcasm is a great way to move a conversation along in a positive manor.

The reality is that you not smoking does not injure your health while you smoking by me, injures my health.

reply to post by Phatcat


smokers should have the right to smoke as long as it does not affect others.

Just like drinkers should be able to drink but not drink and drive as drinking and driving affects others.

Many countries allow people to carry guns but not randomly shoot them in public places.

reply to post by jfj123


Then you better confine yourself inside your home, while making sure the windows and doors are sealed airtight, because what is in the air you breath with every single breath causes you just as much harm as any puff of cigarette smoke will do.

Factorys.. cars.. chemtrails if those are for real..

Build yourself a nice little Vault, maybe advertize it to other non-smokers, and have your own little Utopia where nothing will ever cause your lungs harm..

guess what? You'll still die.. but at least that way you won't be able to pin it on some guy smoking near you..

reply to post by Phatcat


Come on now we all know that smoking is bad for you and that normal air isnt the equivalent to all those poisonous chemicals in every puff from a cigarette that you take

Originally posted by Phatcat
reply to post by jfj123

 

Then you better confine yourself inside your home, while making sure the windows and doors are sealed airtight, because what is in the air you breath with every single breath causes you just as much harm as any puff of cigarette smoke will do.

Factorys.. cars.. chemtrails if those are for real..

Build yourself a nice little Vault, maybe advertize it to other non-smokers, and have your own little Utopia where nothing will ever cause your lungs harm..

guess what? You'll still die.. but at least that way you won't be able to pin it on some guy smoking near you..

Typical smokers response. Yes why should you consider anyone else when in the end people are going to die anyway. Nice logic.
Well if you were right, and smoking does not cause any additional problems, how is it that it has been proven that smoking does indeed cause additional health problems?

Maybe you should consider the fact that you're not the only one on the planet and have consideration for others instead of just for yourself.

Maybe cigarettes are somewhat compounding, but if you think the air in any given industrialist nation is clean, unpoluted, happy-as-can-be goodlyness, I have this tropical island for sale in the Bahama's..

Anti-smokers make it out to be as if, without cigarettes, they will suddenly be introduced to a healthy world where cancer doesn't exist or something.

Originally posted by Phatcat
Maybe cigarettes are somewhat compounding, but if you think the air in any given industrialist nation is clean, unpoluted, happy-as-can-be goodlyness, I have this tropical island for sale in the Bahama's..

Anti-smokers make it out to be as if, without cigarettes, they will suddenly be introduced to a healthy world where cancer doesn't exist or something.

Horribly poor logic.
Industrial pollution is bad but since we have industrial pollution, smoking doesn't matter ????

Industrial pollution is diluted in most area's while cigarette smoke is concentrated.

Typical smokers response. Yes why should you consider anyone else when in the end people are going to die anyway. Nice logic.
Well if you were right, and smoking does not cause any additional problems, how is it that it has been proven that smoking does indeed cause additional health problems?

Maybe you should consider the fact that you're not the only one on the planet and have consideration for others instead of just for yourself.


I have read every post and have yet to find anyone able to refute the OPs opinion.
Most would agree that smoking may not be healthy however the wedge put forth for the anti-smokers is the issue of second hand smoke. Does ( SHS ) have detrimental health effects ? It would appear on the surface to make sense that SHS would harm someone other then the smoker. THIS SITE REFUTES THIS ANTI-SMOKING AGENDA.
cleanairquality.blogspot.com...

Hope this facilitates the debate.

I smoked about 10 mainstream brand cigarettes a day when I was younger. When I got into a bit of recreational mountain climbing, I realized that my lung power wasn't what I would like it to be because of smoking.

I quit the regular habit about 10 years ago. Now, I smoke a cigar once in a while, a bowl of premium pipe tobacco once in a while, and on rare occasions, I'll buy a pack of all natural Shermans MCDs which don't have the bleached white paper and I'll smoke those but at a rate of about 10 cigs a week.

On this thread, no one has really discussed moderation. If I have an all natural cig after breakfast with that third mug of coffee and then have another cig with a cocktail in the evening, I don't think at that rate (2 cigs a day) they're going to kill me. Impossible to limit your smoking to 2 a day? Nope, not impossible. I've done it and others can too... it is a mindset.

My advice... do not smoke major brands that have the bleached white paper wrappers around the tobacco and additives and nicotine spikes in them. Avoid those smokes always. I'm not pushing any particular brand, but the one I found that is really all natural is the Sherman with the tobacco brown wrapper. Limit your smoking to 2 a day...that way, your body has time to eliminate whatever toxins might be there. Don't bother other people in any way with your smoking.

My grandfather died from lung cancer. He smoked approx 3 packs a day of major brands. One of my best friends died from lung cancer and empshyema. He smoked 3 packs a day of Camel wides. My point is, if you smoke your ass off, your body cannot eliminate the toxins and for damn sure you are going to die from it. Peter Jennings is another example. He quit for years and then when 9/11 happened he went back to smoking a couple of packs a day and got cancer.

Moderation folks. That is the key.

Originally posted by Xwino


Typical smokers response. Yes why should you consider anyone else when in the end people are going to die anyway. Nice logic.
Well if you were right, and smoking does not cause any additional problems, how is it that it has been proven that smoking does indeed cause additional health problems?

Maybe you should consider the fact that you're not the only one on the planet and have consideration for others instead of just for yourself.

I have read every post and have yet to find anyone able to refute the OPs opinion.
Most would agree that smoking may not be healthy however the wedge put forth for the anti-smokers is the issue of second hand smoke. Does ( SHS ) have detrimental health effects ? It would appear on the surface to make sense that SHS would harm someone other then the smoker. THIS SITE REFUTES THIS ANTI-SMOKING AGENDA.
cleanairquality.blogspot.com...

Hope this facilitates the debate.

Here's a bit of reality
COPD. Many people have COPD specifically from smoking
2nd hand smoke is a lung irritant among other things. As a long irritant, 2nd hand smoke can initiate asthma attacks. So someone smoking around an asthmatic, can trigger an attack and asthma attacks can be fatal.
At the very least, smoking stinks and who wants to smell like that?
Smokers who smoke around non-smokers are not curtious people. They don't care if their bad habit affects anyone else in any way. That's the reality.

If they banned smoking, they'd have to ban drinking. And they'd have to make restrictions on illicit drugs stronger. It would never pass, because too many people would refute it to begin with. They've already banned it in most businesses, restaurants, and even some hotels around here. They could ban it in homes, but how would the authorities know that people were smoking in their homes if it wasn't affecting others?

When I was hired for my first job in 1965, I was the first female to be brought into a department of men. My boss told me, above all else, I needed to "fit in" and that since all the others, including the secretaries, were smokers, if I wanted to be accepted, I needed to laugh at their jokes, roll with the adversity of being the first woman in that type of position, and learn to smoke... because the men would never trust any of my independent decisions unless I smoked. So I taught myself to smoke. I made HALF the salary per month as any of them, even when my work proved I was every bit as intelligent as any on them. In fact, the last three years I spent at that corporation, I was TRAINING the college graduates (New Hires) to do their jobs, while I was still being paid HALF of what my peers were being paid.

In the past 20 years I have spent over $20K on "quit smoking" programs. NONE of them have worked.

Recently my doctor, who stopped smoking 20 years ago after 2 major heart surgeries, had a long talk with me when I asked him for Chantix--the most recent pharmaceutical to help people ween themselves off of tobacco. He absolutely REFUSES to prescribe Chantix for ANY of his smoking patients!

He spent nearly an hour with me, explaining how the statistics about smoking-related diseases and second-hand smoke has been used to move the people of the world into the pharmaceutical arena, and out of the tobacco industry. He said that ANY studies showing that most people who smoke would eventually die from the same diseases, including lung cancer, are NEVER allowed to be published except in other countries, where, even now, the non-smokers advocates are beginning to take control of the truth, and skew it to fit their agenda... They don't DARE let those truthful statistics become mainstream information! It would severely impact the sales of all the "stop-smoking" pharmaceutically-based products--the patch, the gums, the vitamins, the hypnotherapists who charge a fortune and rarely achieve success, etc.

He also explained to me how the "flavored" gums have aspartame in them, which is synthesized WOOD ALCOHOL...(Look up the facts about Aspartame; it'll scare you half to death!)

And now there is a new Nicorette Gum that whitens your teeth!!!

What they don't tell you is that ANY of these pharmaceutically produced stop-smoking aids just adds to the already present addiction of the chemicals in the tobacco we've been smoking for years. They aren't helping you to quit... they are furthering our addiction by changing the delivery systems to make you think you're doing something GOOD for yourself... while they're making new fortunes.

My doctor concluded that the best ways for anyone to stop smoking is (1) cold turkey, like he had to do (His marriage dissolved because of his uncontrollable temper), and (2) cut down the number of cigarettes being smoked in a day. NOT by 50% which some programs advocate... but rather by small increments. If you smoke 3 packs a day, count out the 60 cigarettes, and take away 5 for two or 3 days, then take away 10 for another few days, and so forth. He says that this may take longer, but what we're doing is re-acclimating in a sensible way, our bodies to using less nicotine--not enough to make us a raging psychopath, but just enough so that the jolt doesn't send our systems into a nose-dive, or drive away our spouses and all of our friends and animals.

He also said if he hadn't been as young as he was at the time (He was 28 when he stopped cold turkey) he might have suffered another heart attack or a stroke. So he doesn't recommend cold turkey for those of us who are over 55 years old, and have been smokers since our teens.

I keep thinking I'll try his -5 method.. And maybe, by the time I die from something else that will kill me anyway, I'll be a non-smoker... But you can bet that no matter WHAT I end up dying from, the no-smoke-advocates will find SOME reason to blame my death on tobacco! You BETCHA!

Originally posted by Anti - Government
researchers say will prevent 40,000 deaths over the next 10 years.

Really ? So there's a cure for death now ?

Researchers like to use propaganda to con people into believing fantasies, the fact is quitting smoking has not prevented 40,000 deaths as those 40,000 WILL die!

Oh and good luck trying to get smoking banned, the government would not ban smoking because of the loss of tax money. Smokers pay more in taxes than they take out from the NHS, they prop up alot of the tax burden meaning folk like yourself get to pay less in taxes!

Oh and if I want to smoke because I enjoy it, then that is my choice as it's my body so I'll do as I damn well please with it

reply to post by Discotech

Really ? So there's a cure for death now ?

Researchers like to use propaganda to con people into believing fantasies, the fact is quitting smoking has not prevented 40,000 deaths as those 40,000 WILL die!

No if you bothered to read the rest of what you put into quotes you will have known it was in the next 10 years not prevent death altogether

and im sorry but your just looking for stupid ways of winning an argument fce the facts smoking does kill just face it!!

[edit on 14-12-2008 by Anti - Government]

Originally posted by Discotech

Originally posted by Anti - Government
researchers say will prevent 40,000 deaths over the next 10 years.

Really ? So there's a cure for death now ?

Researchers like to use propaganda to con people into believing fantasies, the fact is quitting smoking has not prevented 40,000 deaths as those 40,000 WILL die!

Oh my god ! REALLY?? I hope you're kidding and this is not your real argument ????

Oh and if I want to smoke because I enjoy it, then that is my choice as it's my body so I'll do as I damn well please with it

You should be able to unless it's around people who don't want to smoke. Not smoking should be a choice too.

Originally posted by Anti - Government
fce the facts smoking does kill just face it!!
[edit on 14-12-2008 by Anti - Government]

Hey guess what, life kills! should we ban that too ?

Smoking does not kill directly, neither does it 100% cause effects.

Yes it CAN cause effects but liberal marxists like yourself like to avoid the facts and say it DOES cause effects which is not the case.

I just hate the fact that people blow things out of the water, they make up adverts which claim smoking increases the chances of lung cancer by 50% but they never actually say what that 50% is of (which is roughly about 0.25%) just to make the number look larger than it actually is, to try and scare folk. What about folk who never smoke who get all sorts of cancer and illnesses are you going to try & blame some cause for that and ban that as well ? People die, it's a fact of life and banning things will not save them from a death sentence imposed upon them from conception

I always try to avoid smoking around non smokers, I don't mind the no smoking ban in public places like bars and clubs (although it could have been dealt with better) but to ban it completely like you're suggesting is just downright stupid. It's not upto you or a government to make my decisions in life for me and it's people like yourself who have lead to the erosion of society and the creation of nanny states

Considering you name yourself Anti-Government you sound awful Pro-Goverment

[edit on 14/12/08 by Discotech]

Considering you name yourself Anti-Government you sound awful Pro-Goverment

Im sorry but your logic is just completely flawed their you say that i sound very much pro government why because i dont agree with smoking, i dont agree that smoking does in fact kill something which it seems you cannot quite grasp just yet.
how exactly do i sound pro government please point that out to me because im kinda stumped here as to how i can because of my views on smoking.

I just hate the fact that people blow things out of the water, they make up adverts which claim smoking increases the chances of lung cancer by 50% but they never actually say what that 50% is of (which is roughly about 0.25%) just to make the number look larger than it actually is, to try and scare folk.

Yes maybe it is blown out of proportion some of the time but still its a pretty dangerous thing to do is smoking and you know it so dont try to come up with lame excuses saying that all the adverts and all the appeals about smoking are lying and saying its a little bit worse than it really is because the fact is its one of the biggets killers right now

I always try to avoid smoking around non smokers, I don't mind the no smoking ban in public places like bars and clubs (although it could have been dealt with better) but to ban it completely like you're suggesting is just downright stupid. It's not upto you or a government to make my decisions in life for me and it's people like yourself who have lead to the erosion of society and the creation of nanny states

Wow im just completely blown away by this comment still because i have stated atleast twice and im about to do a third time that i have already made a post and i will give for a third time here it is
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

[edit on 14-12-2008 by WyrdeOne]

For every law, there is an underground.

For every person convicted of possession of Marijuana, 1,000,000 joints have been smoked.

People in prison even smoke Marijuana. How? They aren't telling.

Should cigarettes be banned? No. Then people will be forced to smoke without a filter to get their nicotine fix. They will also be arrested and put in prison for a completely independent act. Is that better for anyone?