It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

a motion introduced to place a ban on cigarette sales to anyone born after the year 2000?

page: 12
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingCap
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


Hmmm... So they are going to bust the people for smoking cigarettes.

Instead of busting the people making the cigarettes.


LOL Excellent point! Why not just go after the source of the problem rather than trying to patch up the end result.

My stance is that yes, I hate the whole smoking thing. From the smell and lack of fresh air (especially as you try to enter a shopping center area where you are subjected to a wall of smoke just to get in) to the grossness of ashtrays and mess made by cigarette ends left willy-nilly all over the place (which for some reason does not count as littering) and then of course there is the fire danger in houses due to falling asleep with a lit ciggie and the myriad of health issues that can come from it all.

HOWEVER, I don't agree with governments being allowed to dictated that you can't smoke in the privacy of your own home/car/property/designated public area at pubs etc and indeed outright ban it all. People should always have a choice, and let's face it, since when did banning something ever stop it's availability and usage? Just have to look at the illegal drugs that is used in abundance (even in prison) or how local 'mafia' gangs will bring it in and sell it anyway like they did in the prohibition time in USA.

If governments are allowed to do something like this, then what is next? Banning of the sale of alcohol? So no nice bottle of wine with your Sunday lunch or champagne for a special occasion then? - Weddings would be a blast wouldn't they? (Got to stop all those selfish alcohol users clogging up the health care system after all!
)
Then there will be a ban on anything containing fat or salt or sugar and all processed food (mind you banning processed food sound's like not to bad an idea lol)
Oh wait, wait, what about banning skateboards/roller blades/bmx bikes and the like, the hospitals must be full of injured people needing attention/meds/beds with the number of accidents that occur on these contraptions (just have to look at youtube to see how many we are talking about here, and those are just the ones caught on camera!)............. So you see, ye old argument that we need to ban something because of selfish people causing self inflicted injury really does not wash. All we are doing is setting ourselves up for a bland and dull future, a drudgery existence with no choice and an ever increasing iron fisted government telling us what to do.

If the governments of this world were really serious about improving things then they would stop the corporations from producing bad stuff in the first instance, or at least have them cough up (pun intended) extra to help repair the damage their products cause.

I think the best we can hope for is more education about what these types of products do to us, and more awareness of how big corporations try con you into using/getting addicted to their products in the first instance.

edit on 22-8-2012 by CthulhuMythos because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ragsntatters
 

My father grew up with two unfiltered camel chain smokers, his mother smoked with him in the womb, around it during all of his formative years and is pushing 85, His sister same thing she's chain smoked everyday since she was 12 and is pushing 90.

There's been a lot of anti smoking propaganda since the early 90's beaten into the heads of the masses every single day. When I smoked and had a doctors appointment, they always wanted to take chest X-rays. Never before or after I quit. By all means Dr. aim high frequency radio waves at my chest and turn that intensity knob to whatever you want back there while you're at it.

The government doesn't care about anyone's health, unless there is a major pandemic; because then they lose money. They only care about the extra billions and trillions they can bilk out of the worker ants, these little steps to eliminate the my body my right freedoms that are left, is a progression towards a slave/master type of government. Where you will work just because you are proud to be an American no pay needed, Uncle Sam will come into your room tuck you in and make sure that pacifier is secured good and tight.

Good night my lil babies xoxox



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS!!!

No not really. I quit smoking last year and all of my ailments have vanished. I think smoking tobacco should be pleasurable. Cigarettes, although it feels good having one, taste awful, likely due to the formaldehyde, arsenic, fiberglass, etc put in them. But if you smoke some real tobacco, say out of a pipe or a hooka, it's actually quite nice.

I say get rid of factory cigarrettes. Promote healthier tobacco use (oxymoron?).



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 





its going to stamp out smoking!


Just like prohibition stamped out alcohol abuse, and the war on drugs completely eradicated the illicit drug trade.

No, my friend, what this will do is open up yet another black market for organized crime to cash in on. Heck, it's already happening here in Canada, illegal smokes are becoming a massive problem, beyond the health effects and risks of them, none of that money goes back into the government, no taxes are paid, none of that goes into the healthcare system.

But, lets just pretend this is a good idea, and you are ok with it.

Lets ban fatty foods and sugar for anyone born after 2000. Lets ban alcohol too.

Hey, why not ban guns for anyone born after 2000?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
YEAH cut their bloody hands off!

f ing tasmainia! WGAF?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by GAOTU789
In Canada, you can't sell cigarettes to people under the age of 18 or 19, depending on the province. Been like that now for a few years.


I was at the liquor store here in BC the other day, and got ID'd. Told them they MUST be joking (I'm 43). They told me that they ID anyone who appears to be under 40.

I thanked them for thinking I looked younger than I am



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by GAOTU789
In Canada, you can't sell cigarettes to people under the age of 18 or 19, depending on the province. Been like that now for a few years.


Same in America...I believe the age to purchase cigarettes is 19? However an 18 year-old boy can join the military and kill if necessary! See anything out of WHACK here?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
They will ban cigarettes because cigarettes are unhealthy and contribute to cancer and heart disease.


...but what about bacon?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


I think Dr. Paul says it best.



NOT TO MENTION:

If the Government TRULY cared about your health, they would begin by dismantling the FDA, CDC, CSA, and Monsanto. Those are the companies who are keeping healthcare costs high and millions of human beings sick.


edit on 22-8-2012 by eleven44 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
It's fascist nonsense like this that makes me want to start smoking again out of protest. The government has no right to do this.

If you want to be dictated to go and live in North Korea.

How can any functioning adult even agree with this. Cigarettes are far less harmful to non-smokers than cars, than fires. Barbecues, as it happens, are tremendously dangerous, nth times more toxic than breathing in second hand smoke. Why don't you throw that fact on your barbie, you aussie fascists.

Wow. If not for the fact cigarettes have a health risk I'd be smoking 8 of them at once now just to spite you nazis



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
reply to post by ragsntatters
 

My father grew up with two unfiltered camel chain smokers, his mother smoked with him in the womb, around it during all of his formative years and is pushing 85, His sister same thing she's chain smoked everyday since she was 12 and is pushing 90.

There's been a lot of anti smoking propaganda since the early 90's beaten into the heads of the masses every single day. When I smoked and had a doctors appointment, they always wanted to take chest X-rays. Never before or after I quit. By all means Dr. aim high frequency radio waves at my chest and turn that intensity knob to whatever you want back there while you're at it.

The government doesn't care about anyone's health, unless there is a major pandemic; because then they lose money. They only care about the extra billions and trillions they can bilk out of the worker ants, these little steps to eliminate the my body my right freedoms that are left, is a progression towards a slave/master type of government. Where you will work just because you are proud to be an American no pay needed, Uncle Sam will come into your room tuck you in and make sure that pacifier is secured good and tight.

Good night my lil babies xoxox


First off, I am not a smoker. You're correct about the government not giving a hoot for our health. It has always appeared quite comical and hypocritical that cigarettes are legal to buy, yet the buyer has lost most rights as to where they can be puffed. Therefore it is entirely clear to me, that the value lies in the sale of the cigarettes, but after that....to hell with you....we GOT your money via the taxes charged, and we will make it very difficult for you to light up everywhere....and if you DO, we will FINE you and get more money! So take that smokers!



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


animal fats are good for some bodies.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Fascism and Dictatorship haven't ever and never will save anyone.

Good Information; Awareness will.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by GAOTU789
reply to post by Poopooplatter
 


A serious question.

Can you provide the studies that show how much second hand smoke you need to be exposed to to have serious health affects on the non smoker? From a non biased source? Not from some anti smoking website or org. That's not unbiased.

I'm going to agree with you on something. people who smoke should show some courtesy to people who don't by following the laws in place. Don't smoke around the buildings and whatnot.

I am also going to add a little personal anecdote, which I know isn't really worth much in the grand scheme of things. My mother had one cigarette when she was 15 and never smoked again. Despised it. She died at 49 of a few different cancers, the main one being lung cancer. She worked in a day care and wasn't exposed to much, if any second hand smoke. My great grandmother smoked heavily for most of her life, right up till she died at 94 of old age. Her body just gave out on her. She was also exposed to second hand smoke as a younger woman due to her career. My great uncle smoked no filter cigarettes his whole life, up till he died of Alzheimer's at the age 91. the funny thing is, my mom would have probably been added to the stats of second hand smoke stats, her mom ran a taxi company and my mom helped out occasionally. But she didn't allow smoking in her car. But taxi driver was listed as one of her jobs.

I can give you tonnes of stories like that. People who smoked living to very old ages and non smokers who died young. And stories of the other way. Smokers who died young and non smokers that live to ripe old age. The smokers, I know who died young, didn't die from any cancers, but would most likely be added to the smoking related deaths.

Wanna hear one that probably got added to the smoking related death stats and probably the alcohol related ones as well. A friend of mine died in a car accident. He was the DD for the night. the guy in the front seat was smoking and dropped the smoke in his rather brand new expensive car and the guy tried to pick it up. He couldn't get it. So the sober driver tried to reach over and grab it off the floor. In doing that he drifted into the other lane and hit an oncoming Dodge Ram 2500 head on. His Mercedes or him didn't stand a chance. He had a seatbelt on but the impact killed him instantly. He smoked too.

Most of your arguments are logical fallacies, you have provided nothing and attacked the others for showing you logical arguments. You must be a real peach to hang out with.




edit on 22-8-2012 by GAOTU789 because: (no reason given)


There's proof smoking is harmful. So when people breathe that smoke first or second hand, it's harmful. This is common sense. How harmful? Who cares? We know it's harmful and that's enough. YOu have twisted beliefs on cigarettes dude... Think it's not harmful? Look at emphazima studies. Get real. Yeah some people do it all of their life and all they got was yellow teeth, bad lungs, and a stinky habit. I would still not be proud of that. Talking about the negatives is just one side. There are little to no positives. Set up a diagram, weigh pros and cons if that helps. The facts remain that it's no good to use and has no upside. There are other things like this we can compare, but that's not the point. A lot of things need to be changed for the better of society. This is just one idea, and I support it. And thanks for your tasteless condescending comment at the end. I expected better from you.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I think it is the duty and joint-responsibility of people and government to educate the masses on the harmful effects smoking can have on the body.

I even think it is okay if this reminder becomes annoying, because the risks are real.

But a person who understands the risks and chooses to smoke anyways should be able to.

And so it should be for nearly all substances.

The only thing about smoking that needs to be carefully controlled is second-hand smoke. While you may have the right to smoke, I should also not have to breathe in your smoke.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


animal fats are good for some bodies.


And tobacco cures ringworm.
Overall, healthcare systems are burdened with fattys whom eat crap and have their heart eventually explode. moreso than smoking now.

I am a smoker. trying to do a slow quit (got my e-cig and cutting down alot). I also always have been agreeable to try and hammer smoking as much as possible, be it through campaigns to make it trend as disgusting, uncool, etc, and tax it.
But to simply ban something because its unhealthy sets a very bad precedence. Send out the truth, let the people decide, and make it not viable for corporations to continue manufacture it based on nearly no sales.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Poopooplatter
There's proof smoking is harmful. So when people breathe that smoke first or second hand, it's harmful.


And ban perfumes, the ones that make you gasp for breath when the ugly wearer walks past.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by nerbot
 


When perfume causes emphazima ill start a topic regarding it. This topic is regarding the ban of smoking to those not yet exposed.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Look, the bottom line is this. The country that is trying to impose this ban, I guess, can do it. I don't know their laws or how people handle things over there. I don't think its a good idea. When a government makes things illegal, all it means is the price goes up, violence increases, and a huge underground market appears.

In respect to cigarette smoke, and people saying it should be banned because it is so bad for you. I certainly don't disagree that the smoke is harmful. Of course it is. I smoke, and I tell my son all the time "never smoke because it is a disgusting habit and costs a fortune". With that being said, where is the funding to help the addicted? I see billions funneled into advertising campaigns about how bad smoking is. I see more corporate sponsored drugs appear on the market that are supposed to help you quit. But none of these programs address the addiction issue. However, that is another topic. Sorry.. don't mean to get off track.

The only way I believe you can fairly impose a ban on cigarettes, is if you ban other harmful things as well. Alcohol for example.

Alcohol: In 2005, alcohol was responsible for over 100,000 deaths in America (25,000 of those being related to drunk driving accidents). Compare that to Aids deaths (18,000).



www.alcoholpolicymd.com

Twenty-five to forty percent of all patients in U.S. general hospital beds (not in maternity or intensive care) are being treated for complications of alcohol-related problems.

Annual health care expenditures for alcohol-related problems amount to $22.5 billion. The total cost of alcohol problems is $175.9 billion a year (compared to $114.2 billion for other drug problems and $137 billion for smoking).

Alcohol use by underage drinkers results in $3.7 billion a year in medical care costs due to traffic crashes, violent crime, suicide attempts and other related consequences. The total annual cost of alcohol use by underage youth is $52.8 billion.




top topics



 
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join