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

I am a smoker...honestly its the worst decision I ever made. While I do not condone this kind of heavy handed approach as it matters in the realm of personal freedoms. I applaud the effort.

I dont think anyone should smoke personally. granted some say its a choice, but i say to you at this point for me at least it is an addiction, not a choice. If I could easily drop it tomorrow i would in a heart beat. problem is, it has me by the brass sack and its one hell of a monkey to get off yer back.

So when someone says...Ive been smoking for years and I do it because I choose to....I would call them a liar. thats the addiciton talking.

Maybe it will take this kind of approach to get through to people...lets see where it goes.

reply to post by akushla99


OK get rid of them both...

Originally posted by hadriana
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?

After this thread, I'm starting to wonder this myself lol

Originally posted by Poopooplatter
reply to post by akushla99

 

OK get rid of them both...

Agreed!
Will you readily give up your slab of dead animal, that produces 1/3 of the hole in the ozone?

A99

reply to post by akushla99


Lol i only eat fish dude...

Lighting one up right now.

Least I'll be legal.




BTW, I don't live in hospital beds. It will be the last place you see me.

Originally posted by Poopooplatter
reply to post by akushla99

 

Lol i only eat fish dude...

Hopefully fish from sustainable fish farms! Good on you *applause*...

...nevertheless...the comparison for me revolved around the demonisation of addicted smokers versus 1/3 of the ozone...

A99

Originally posted by akushla99
...nevertheless...the comparison for me revolved around the demonisation of addicted smokers versus 1/3 of the ozone...

A99

edit on 22-8-2012 by akushla99 because: (no reason given)

Smokers are just an easy target for people that like to have a whinge.

reply to post by akushla99


Well the problem with methane needs to be solved, but here we are discussing the problem with cigarettes and whether they should be phased out. Just because both are harmful doesn't give us an excuse.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Out-Bloody-Standing.. yes, totally back this idea and its about time something like this was introduced.
Thumbs up and the best of luck introducing this.

www.news.com.au...

TASMANIA'S upper house is calling for a ban on cigarette sales to anyone born after the year 2000.
The state's legislative council has unanimously backed a motion that would effectively start phasing out tobacco ales from 2018, the ABC has reported.
The ban would begin taking effect once people born in 2000 turned 18.

Imagine the knock on effects?

The Health system would be free from all those selfish life long smokers taking up hospital beds.
Cities would be tidy, no more cigerette buts.
Cute girls in the CBD would be kissable, as they are smelling putrid from smoke

Good in theory, but won't work. The smokes would just go underground. As if the criminal element wouldn't capitalize on it. Besides it starts with smokes. It always does. Then it's liquor. Then vitimines, then time you spend on TV, and internet, then amount of hot water you use, then amount of power you use, and fuel, then etc etc etc. As if they end with smokes. It doesn't work that way. If they had there way you wouldn't be allowed to have a damn thing!

reply to post by Poopooplatter


The problem with cigarettes? They are a health hazard to the smokers and no one else, as opposed to: Cow farts/ Vehicle exhaust/ Drunk drivers, and many other things not mentioned in the thread.
Of my mentioned hazards, I only know of cigarettes to have a persuasive positive. If you look into it. Just Google "benefits of smoking" to get started.

reply to post by randomtangentsrme


The other things are all problems... But we have to decide on this topic. On cigarettes the negatives out weigh the positives.

Originally posted by Poopooplatter
reply to post by randomtangentsrme

 

The other things are all problems... But we have to decide on this topic. On cigarettes the negatives out weigh the positives.

That is your opinion. And I accept that. Others disagree, and they have that right. Any adult has that right.

i may never quit smoking but i wouldn't be against it, its to obviously harmful to do nothing about.

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.

The largest and longest study (Enstrom & Kabat) followed more than 35,000 subjects for almost 40 years and found no significant risk associated with second-hand smoke. Similarly, the World Health Organization spent seven years at a dozen research centers in seven countries and came to the same conclusion. This must have been very embarrassing to the WHO because they subsequently tried to do an about face with a paper titled Don't Let them Fool You. I read it carefully and had to wonder just who was trying to fool whom?

So I called the American Cancer Society and spoke with several people. My question seemed simple - "Why haven't we seen a decline in lung cancer deaths despite Draconian anti-smoking legislation?" - but it went unanswered. The ACS representatives didn't know and were clearly uncomfortable talking to the media. Eventually I reached a PR VP who, alas, also had no clue. Of course, I got a promise of "I'll get back to you on that." but I never heard another word.

www.psychologytoday.com...

Just another article to ease some paranoid minds

I like this.

If other drugs are illegal then why should nicotine be legal to sell?

Originally posted by muse7
I like this.

If other drugs are illegal then why should nicotine be legal to sell?

I understand that and in a way I agree but that line of thinking also allows them to take more and more away from people.

I mean, I don't do any currently illegal drugs so those causes aren't first and foremost for me but I smoke cigarettes therefore this is. I'm sure this applies to many people and it is this fact that makes it easy for them. Split us all up, target a small group that won't have much support behind them and away you go.

I think history has a part in this too. Weed has been illegal for as long as I've been alive and there seems to be no way that governments will acknowledge that they may have been wrong about it and change anything.

I can't see how someone that does smoke weed would be happy about these tobacco laws. On the one hand they are advocating making tobacco illegal based on lies and bad science yet at the same time advocating the legalisation of weed claiming lies and bad science are responsible for the current state of things.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by GAOTU789

 

Luckily this is only being proposed in Tazmania (as of now).

But... The anti smoking lobby has international arms and has made several strides in its agenda over the past 10 years. I doubt it will be so long before this comes to Western nations.

Tasmania is a state, in a western nation. haha. So I guess you could say it is already starting in western nations.

Originally posted by Samuelis

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by GAOTU789

 

Luckily this is only being proposed in Tazmania (as of now).

But... The anti smoking lobby has international arms and has made several strides in its agenda over the past 10 years. I doubt it will be so long before this comes to Western nations.

Tasmania is a state, in a western nation. haha. So I guess you could say it is already starting in western nations.

Depends on who you ask, some may not regard Tasmania as part of Australia