Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 17
15
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by GAOTU789
reply to post by boncho
 


See now that's messed up.

I don't care if they limit the age to purchase but once you remove an adults right to choose, I have serious issues about that.

Just more examples of the gov deciding whats best for us.


When's the tax on breathing coming?



Try looking at it as an outright ban for all adults, with a phased implementation. Some times it is just how we look at some thing. This is saying, we are banning cigs. If you currently smoke we won't force you to give up.

P




posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jheated5
Yeah ok, they are gonna phase out tobacco sales, suuuuurreeee theyyyy areee.... Do you know how much they collect in taxes on cigarettes???? I just don't see the government doing something that's going to cost them billions of dollars......



Ha, got ya! Ya see, this is Tasmania. If they say they will do this then believe me when I tell you they will. You don't know Tasmania! They still have politicians that tell the truth! Good for them. I would do it differently. But hey, each to their own.

P



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


That's crap. People should be allowed to use whatever they want. This opens a precedent to a cam full of worms.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


We will just be adding inventory to the black market and another opponent for the war on drugs.


How about we ban cheese burgers, milkshakes and french fries??

HOw about sugary drinks and high fructose corn syrup??

All of these things lead up to obesity heart disease and diabetes. Plenty of hospital beds are taken up by those people.

Where should we stop with bans??



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 
There is a sickness in this world, it is people who think it is their business to dictate, regulate, control and eliminate what other people do with their bodies and their lives that they don't like. I had concluded this sickness was eliminating and being perpetuated from the British Empire after my visit to that rotten island called England but as I went on to visit other areas I realized it is just a certain kind of person, as I found these rats in every culture, in every country and amongst every class of peoples. This is why we have to have wars; why people can't get along; why most of you would be in shock when the neighbor you thought you had a good relationship suddenly seizes the opportunity to crack your heads open.

I will tell you something about cigarettes. I just came back from an extensive trip around half of the world and there was no place where liquor and tobacco was not a common and desired commodity. I have concluded that this planet is on the verge of imploding, especially in the cities where they are so far removed from the earth that raising their own food and providing for themselves directly from the earth is so alien a concept that they will just take it from another than go try to cut it on their own; that is why there are simply too many people on the earth; because you're takers, wannabe dictators and I for one will not miss you.

edit on 23-8-2012 by MajorKarma because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I have to say in reply to the guy saying it is taking away people's freedoms, do you think that the people who get secondhand smoke have a choice? Sure they can go away or something but what about the kids that can't? Or certain situations where you can't. It isn't taking away a freedom when other people punish for it.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Pressthebutton
 


This is an absolutely bogus argument!!!!

Do people have "choice" about whether to be exposed to car exhaust?
Do people have a "choice" about whether to be exposed to perfume or not?
Do people have a "choice" about whether to be exposed to electrical impulses or not?
Do people have a "choice" about whether to be exposed to toxins contained in air fresheners or not?
Do people have a "choice" about whether to be exposed to barbecue smoke or not?
Do people have a "choice" about whether to be exposed to candle smoke in a public restaurant?
Do people have a "choice" about whether to be exposed to cooking fumes or not?

Every one of the things I have mentioned emit "toxin" into the air but are uncontrolled! The air does NOT belong to just you and the only air you have control over is the air in your privately owned dwellings or any structure you actually own.

Do you own airplanes? Yet, you believe that somehow you can control whether smoking is allowed on a plane. Are you aware that when smoking was allowed, airplanes air was vented to the outside and fresh air was allowed into the cabin. Now that smoking is not allowed, the air is NOT refreshed and is full of germs that make you sick and fumes from the engine?

Stop trying to make everyone in this world live as you want them to and demand that you not be offended. You have no right not to be offended.

Unless you can prove that cigarette smoke hurts you (or if you are one of the sensitive-lunged individuals) hurts you worse than any other contaminate, you have no right to deny me the right to smoke in public and to associate with my friends who smoke. You have no right to demand that private corporations pander only to your tastes and no one elses.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by votan
 

All good points.

You should add sports injuries to the list.
I have to pay a lot more for my healthcare insurance because people choose to participate in sports. They don't need to participate in dangerous activities, so why should I have to pay for it?

Ban sports too!




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
haha, this will work, I'm a smoker and I agree it's a filthy habit, but like anything moderation is the key,
I find this funny because in Oz smoking is all ready considered uncool by the younger generation's based on common sense, so this is all ready just happening naturally, my point is this is one gov plan that will be highly successful and they haven't really done anything, its like making it illegal for tress not to grow, I can see Matt
Stone and Trey Parker getting an episode out of this one.
edit on 24-8-2012 by Mobidinc because: just wanted to add, soon eating will be on the list to, damages teeth costing billions a year.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Wow, this is the dumbest thing I've ever read. Let's make the kids go to the black market for something as innocent as cigs, just so they can be pressured into buying harder, more life-devastating drugs.

I used to have the same mentality as you when I was young, but when I got older I realized putting any drug into prohabition only drives up crime and addiction rates. Think dude



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Mobidinc
 


Mobidinc

Have you ever heard the saying "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"

There is a 400 year history of anti-smoking. Anti-smoking crusades tend to crop up about every 70 years or so. They last about 10 years and then melt away like ice. Each crusade was based on health and morality, just like this one. The current anti-smoking crusade is saying nothing that hasn't been said before. All based on the "science of the day" and like before - all lies and innuendo.

Smokers have been jailed, executed and had hot lead poured down their throats. But smoking continued on. Here is the reason. The secret, if you will, of why puritans always fail. The current anti-smoking crusade has gone beyond reasonable actions. It is the government and a few chosen people trying to impose their will on others in matters that should be the subject of personal choice.

Anti-smoking makes smoking cool. It makes smoking a rebellious activity. Young people are really really attracted to things of that nature.

You see - bans and actions of that ilk, only work if they affect only a minority of the population. Smoking is a fad. Like any fad, its popularity wanes. In the 60s, smoking was popular by the 70s, its popularity was waning. When its popularity had decreased to a point where only 25 to 30 % of the population smoked, the anti-smoking crusades swung into action. At first, their activities are mildly successful. Then the rebellion starts.

Anti-smoking crusaders sow the seeds of their own failure with every unreasonable step that they take. The more they try to force their opinions and lies on others, the more "cool" it becomes to be a smoker. When the popularity of smoking rises again to the point where the majority of the population are affected by the activities of the anti-smoking puritans, then the politicians will pander to the will of the people and bans will be overturned.

But don't you worry about those puritans. There is always another "crusade" to "improve" the population. It strongly looks like diet is the next frontier. The puritans made themselves billions of dollars with anti-smoking and will make millions more with the anti-obesity campaign.

Like I said - always just one regulation away from utopia.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 



Anti-smoking makes smoking cool. It makes smoking a rebellious activity. Young people are really really attracted to things of that nature.
Similar to parents who present to their budding teens "THE LIST" of "you can't do this, and "you can't do that." This makes for a vigorous rebellion! Been there....who hasn't?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 





Would you be happy if your 18yr old daughter came home with 3 cartons of reds and said '' dad im taking up chain smoking '' (assuming your a woman)


Huh? I am being addressed as dad? But I am assumed a woman?? lol




Would you be happy if….


And there's your problem right there, you are looking at this subjectively instead of objectively; you are letting your emotions weigh in on what you believe to be right or wrong.

My emotional response to a situation does not condone the infringement of others rights...

Here is how rights SHOULD work. My rights end where yours begin. This is why it is illegal to smoke in restaurants, and I'm totally down for that, because my right to smoke is infringing on your right to live. BUT this does not mean the right should be entirely taken away.




So, is your right not to have a nuclear weapon an infringement on your liberties?
I mean, your not allowed to have it right, so how about you claim bloody mary?


No, no it is not, because a nuclear weapon's purpose is destruction, and the massiveness of that destruction would infringe upon countless peoples natural liberties and rights, therefore, canceling out my own. However, if i wanted to fool around with nuclear fusion (and not weaponize it) for research without the help of universities or the government and that was not allowed, that would indeed be an infringement of my liberties.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Stop the smoke coming out of your vehicle, even your public transportation, and I will stop smoking in public.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
What if the big problem with tobacco wasn't lung cancer?

The native Americans held it as being sacred, and used it in diplomatic and religious ceremonies, and healings.

IE Peace pipe

What if....what if the big reason for hating tobacco had nothing to do with lung cancer, but had something to do with that it caused people that smoked it to have a bit of an expanded consciousness, awareness, or desire for peace?

I grow tobacco, but I don't smoke it. However, there is something very special about these plants.
I really hate that it - and the people that smoke it - have been so demonized.


Actually, the biggest factor in cancer is the radioactive fertilizer they are using for tobacco (AND FOODS). Japan smokes more and has less smoking related cancers.

SFU in BC did a study on smoking and the mucus it causes prevented lung cancer from radioactive isotopes from nuclear accidents and war, etc.

I would recommend growing your own organic tobacco if you can, indoors or out, if addicted.

Smoking isn't good for heart, and vascular and overall health, so that study is just one component.

Here in Canada, they don't want people to quit easily and banned buying 1 smoke at a time. They should be loose in containers, not just packs, so when you're quitting and having a hard time, you could buy a couple ever few days. What I mean is this, quitting with the patch, going over the hurdle of not smoking, for there are stages, but you overcome relatively easy with a few hard areas. Then, you're cutting down the patch, well I didn't buy stage 1 or 2 or 3, I just cut down stage 1. It works fine once you're off all smokes and butts, that is not nice, but far more merciful than cold turkey. Cut down the patch. Get off the patch. And then spend months having your dopamine production stop, and you get anxiety attacks, can't breathe, and in short, though not addicted, and not even wanting to smoke, can't function.

That dopamine issue is huge for a lot of people who readdict themselves to be able to function again, against their will, and not wanting to.

If there was loose cigarettes sold, they could buy 1-3 a couple times a week and not restart, and still function.

But our government knows that and they don't want people to quit.

They also banned electronic smokes. The whole thing is insane.
edit on 14-9-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I'm actually going to be experimenting growing tobacco next season.

After reading some interesting things about how smoking a small amount of 100% pure organically grown tobacco is actually healthy for you.

It piqued my curiosity.

Anyway is this report real? I don't see how this could ever work. This is a multi billion dollar industry and they're going to just say.. "yeah I guess that's enough, we don't need the money any more"

yeah right!



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
First off I would like to mention that studies have shown that nicotine does provide some positive effects on the body. Decreased incidence of Alzheimers, increase in red blood cell production which could help diabetes patients and so forth Some information can be found here:

How can nicotine be good for me?

Now I just couldn't let this statement go without question or comment:


Originally posted by Poopooplatter
reply to post by aaron2209
 


I shouldn't have to breathe stinky ass cigarettes that are harmful if I'm not a smoker. It infringes upon me. If people weren't so rude and considered others this wouldn't be an issue. Smoke at home.


The primary arguments in favor of banning smoking have to do with health related issues, and I remember here in the US when the clean air acts went into effect the only verbalized complaint against smoking focused on health. Although people wouldn't dare say it, it was pretty obvious as the push gained momentum that there was a fair amount of people who just plain did not like as you put it "the stinky ass cigarettes" and jumped on the health bandwagon. Back then it their argument had been "I want it banned because it stinks and I don't like it" I think the majority reaction would have been "oh well tough stuff who do you think you are trying to control MY Life"

The question I would like to propose is this, since the primary argument still has to do with harmful effects of smoke and health issues, if we were waiting in an office or sitting on the same park bench and you decided to kill time by polishing your nails (if you are a female) or say painting the bench if not and I asked you to stop because the nail polish or paint fumes made it difficult for me to breathe.....would you stop?



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
When I was 13 it was easy to buy smokes, no blackmarket needed.

Not everyone follows the letter of the law.

I would just go from store to store until you get a clerk that doesn't care, less than 8 years ago.

Worked both in Canada and UK
edit on 14/9/12 by Kr0nZ because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join