Bill proposed in Oregon would make cigarettes prescription-only drugs

Health costs due to alcohol are significantly higher than cigarettes. Only 10% of lifelong cigarette smokers get cancer. Certainly, it is not good for you. In the grand scheme of things, it is unfair to single it out. People who exercise and eat well are healthier - no bonus for that eh?

Now a doctor's prescription for cigarettes? For what? So the bill can be summed up in two words: cigarette prohibition.

Anyone notice that the "Land of the Free" truly has become the "Land of the Fee" with an extra push by the POTUS lately. Didn't Nostradamus say that Mabus would show his fangs in the year 2013?

I know this is Oregon, but Obamacare will cost smokers up to 50% more than non-smokers.

16e.) Illicit Activity: Discussion of illicit activities, specifically the use of mind-altering drugs & substances, engaging in computer hacking, promoting criminal hate, discussing sexual relations with minors, and furtherance of financial schemes and scams are strictly forbidden. You will also not link to sites or online content that contains discussion or advocacy of such material. Any Post mentioning or advocating personal use of illicit mind-altering drugs will result in immediate account termination.

i) Narcotics and illicit mind-altering substances: Due to abuse of the subject matter by some (promoting various aspects of personal use, and discussing actual personal use), no new topics on this subject are allowed in any form.

Threats of suicide, discussion of past suicide attempts, or asking for advice on ways to commit suicide are also forbidden and will result in immediate account termination.

reply to post by Obsrvr


Agreed, not to mention the calming effect cigarettes give us.
You wanna see some folks get crazy in the streets wanting their governments blood, make cigarettes illegal, or ban world of warcraft.
Fat kids throwing mouses and keyboards through police station windows!!

reply to post by elevatedone

Dude, we're talking about CIGARETTES. They're still LEGAL.

reply to post by Obsrvr


Dude... Not EVERYONE was.....

Now, back on topic.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop


BAN Them I say.

If your stupid enough to smoke cigs, then when you get cancer or any other form of illness I think you should be banned from all hospitals. YOU CHOSE your fate, so enjoy it!

You seem to contradict yourself. First you say "ban them". However, you then go on to say that "If you are stupid enough to smoke cigs......then you choose your fate". Exactly, I choose my fate, not the government. Do you see my point here? If people refuse to quite smoking cigarettes, then that is simple Darwinism, correct? The 'weak' of mind deserve to suffer the consequence of cancer or whatever, and be killed off. While those who resist, will end up healthier, and thus live longer.

I just dont see the point in banning them, when the countless harmful things you can find in food, alcohol, medications, vaccines, etc.... would remain legal. You must be consistent. However, I do approve of much more stringent regulations placed on the tabacco companies to make cigarettes less harmful and addictive. I also think people should have an ability to grow their own easily, without all the added harmful chemicals. Another thing I am in favor of is much more dramatic education on the harmful effects of smoking to children, scar them if you have to.

reply to post by g146541


Mm, K ill try this again.
Sorry mod but i was using it as an example, not glorifying it or anything. think your redaction was a bit harsh.

So, My Agenda?
Absolutely I have an agenda.

Person A smokes a pack a day, he knows full well the consequences and he knows exactly what is going to happen to his health, he doesnt care. He keeps smoking.

Person B lives a happy healthy life, doesnt smoke.

Now, when they are both in hospital, why should person A be allowed to occupy the chemo rooms and the operating tables while Person B waits?

you chose to do this to your body, you should be banned from hospitals.

As for my vice? I hate cowards who chose to argue and fight instead of facing their own vices and demons.

The reason cigs are so involved in society, is because back in the day BEFORE the world knew the truth about cigs, they had enough time to build up a massive bank and influence in the halls of power. So when the time came to challenge them they had enough means to fight it.

Other aspects in society that are illegal didnt have that grace period, and thus are illegal.

as for your comparison with motorbikes, fruit and such as cigs, please try again!
neither of them are deliberately altered to make you addicted.

reply to post by Renegade2283


I do , ban em! people chose now a days i dont think they should be able to have the choice

see above

Person A smokes a pack a day, he knows full well the consequences and he knows exactly what is going to happen to his health, he doesnt care. He keeps smoking.
Person B lives a happy healthy life, doesnt smoke.
Now, when they are both in hospital, why should person A be allowed to occupy the chemo rooms and the operating tables while Person B waits?
you chose to do this to your body, you should be banned from hospitals.

Ok, if you dont want to ban cigs, then i saw law should be brought in, that if you smoked more than X amount of cigs per day for x amount of years you are not allowed to use public hospital facilities for any health concern related in any way to smoking cigs.

Sound fair?

If you want the right to smoke, then i want the right to be able to use the hospitals without waiting on your stupid decisions!

reply to post by Agit8dChop

Seems to me you should be attacking Big Tobacco not the end user.

reply to post by Agit8dChop


Are you saying that your vice is that you are hateful?
Or did you totally avoid the question?
I'm wondering how you would feel if something you do or are was banned??
What is your vice??
Are you fat, how would you feel if "they" banned cake??
Are you short, how would you feel if they banned lift insoles??
What is your vice??? Like I said, we all have one.
I am a smoker and I was honest with you, please return the favor, what is your vice?
How would you feel if your vice of choice had to come with a permission from the government?

(Edit)
If your vice is being hateful, how would you feel if you had to take a prescription anti-depressant for that condition? Or else face time and fines!

reply to post by Agit8dChop

Have you actually been inconvenienced by a smoker at the hospital or clinic, or is this fluff?

reply to post by Obsrvr


I'm not attacking the end user, the only way we 'the people' can attack big tobacco is to ban their product that they deliberately manipulate to make you addicted.

Don’t people realise, that when they stop smoking cigarettes their health improves? their live expectancy increases? their general wellbeing improves? society wont frown upon them when they light up? they'll save money?

using the excuse that it makes you feel better or calmer is cowardice. Think of your family and your friends holding your hand while you lay in a hospital bed on breathing machines... how good was that 'calm' feeling again?



I've said my part.. ill let everyone else argue amongst them selves.. DAM I LOVE ATS!

As a smoker, I'm actually happy to hear this. I hope it gets passed. Cigarettes and alcohol are two legal substances that should be banned, period.

I've had a life of hell because my parents have been smoking since before I was born. Hell, my mother admits to smoking and drinking WHILE pregnant with me. I have numerous health problems because of the second hand smoke (and the occasional smoke myself). I know for a fact that if my parents didn't smoke, neither would I. Instead of being responsible when I told them I smoked, they encouraged me to smoke. Because of that, I was addicted to cigarettes for years. Now that I'm on the verge of quitting, I'm seeing the hell they've put me through from both second hand/first hand smoke.

The alcohol thing with me is something that should be on another thread, so I won't be going into what that's about.

Anyways, as I said above, I hope this gets passed. So much harm is caused by cigarettes and it's time that harm is gone for good. It doesn't hurt just only the person who smokes, but everyone around them, including animals. One of my dogs has asthma (can you believe it?!) because of second-hand smoke in my parents house. It's time this harm is taken care of.

reply to post by g146541

As for my vice? I hate cowards who chose to argue and fight instead of facing their own vices and demons.

I'm not fat, because I watch what I eat.
I'm not unhealthy, because I stopped smoking when i realised it was bad for my health.
I go out, i enjoy life.
when I die, ill be happy.
When i look across my hospital bed and see joe blogs at 35 on a breathing machine riddled with cancer, ill pitty society!
I am the most non hateful person around, im saying all this with a smile on my face, because you all come up with the most stupid of arguments, comparing fruit and motorcycles to cigs.

its comical, that none of you actually focus on the real issues behind cigs, you all go running do your constitution. amusing!

Also, I just thought I would mention this, since we are talking about tabacco companies deliberately making cigarettes harmful and addictive. See, what is not widely known, is that cigarettes don't HAVE to be as harmful as they are.

A Safer Cigarette?

In the 1960s, the Liggett & Myers tobacco company created a product called the XA, a cigarette in which most of the stick's carcinogens had been eliminated. Dr. James Mold, Liggett's Research Director, reported in court documents in the case of "The City and County of San Francisco vs. Phillip Morris, Inc.," that Phillip Morris threatened to "clobber" Liggett if they did not adhere to an industry agreement never to reveal information about the negative health effects of smoking. By advertising a "safer" alternative, they would be admitting the dangers of tobacco use. The lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality and Phillip Morris never addressed the accusations. Despite their own scientists' publication of research that showed less cancer in mice exposed to smoke from the XA, Liggett & Myers issued a press released denying evidence of cancer in humans as a result of tobacco use, and the XA never saw the light of day.

Source

So, we can then deduct that cigarettes are not neccesarily inherently deadly. It is the tabacco companies covering their ass, and chasing profits that lead cigarettes to the place they are now. This stuff really grinds my gears.

reply to post by Obsrvr


My mother went through chemo for breast cancer, sadly, she had to wait months inline because other 'cancer' patients filled up the hospitals.
Was everyone of the ma smoker? of course not. Was my mum a smoker? of course not.
But if only 1 smoker was in the queue ahead of my mother ? thats enough for me. Personally!

Have I known people who've died early from smoking? yes many!

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by Renegade2283

 

I do , ban em! people chose now a days i dont think they should be able to have the choice

see above

Person A smokes a pack a day, he knows full well the consequences and he knows exactly what is going to happen to his health, he doesnt care. He keeps smoking.
Person B lives a happy healthy life, doesnt smoke.
Now, when they are both in hospital, why should person A be allowed to occupy the chemo rooms and the operating tables while Person B waits?
you chose to do this to your body, you should be banned from hospitals.

Ok, if you dont want to ban cigs, then i saw law should be brought in, that if you smoked more than X amount of cigs per day for x amount of years you are not allowed to use public hospital facilities for any health concern related in any way to smoking cigs.

Sound fair?

If you want the right to smoke, then i want the right to be able to use the hospitals without waiting on your stupid decisions!

I agree sir/madam. I was not refuting that plan, it sounds pretty good to me honestly. If you get cancer or any other ailment from cigarettes, then no insurance, healthcare, or public hospital should have to treat you. You should have to go to a private hospital and pay for treatment from your own pocket. So yes, it sounds fair.

ETA:

Originally posted by Dondylion

However, there should be a line drawn. If that cancer is caused by second hand smoke from living in a house full of smokers (quite like my parents home who smoke inside without the windows open) then they should get help and not be dismissed. They weren't the one's who chose to smoke, others who lived with them were. Other than that, I agree.

Yes, I agree with this as well, thanks for pointing that out.

Also, I thought I should point out that I got both a warning, and an applause from the forum staff, how and why did that happen? In any case, I lost 500 points, then got 500 points, so I can't really complain, lol.

Originally posted by Renegade2283

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by Renegade2283

 

I do , ban em! people chose now a days i dont think they should be able to have the choice

see above

Person A smokes a pack a day, he knows full well the consequences and he knows exactly what is going to happen to his health, he doesnt care. He keeps smoking.
Person B lives a happy healthy life, doesnt smoke.
Now, when they are both in hospital, why should person A be allowed to occupy the chemo rooms and the operating tables while Person B waits?
you chose to do this to your body, you should be banned from hospitals.

Ok, if you dont want to ban cigs, then i saw law should be brought in, that if you smoked more than X amount of cigs per day for x amount of years you are not allowed to use public hospital facilities for any health concern related in any way to smoking cigs.

Sound fair?

If you want the right to smoke, then i want the right to be able to use the hospitals without waiting on your stupid decisions!

I agree sir/madam. I was not refuting that plan, it sounds pretty good to me honestly. If you get cancer or any other ailment from cigarettes, then no insurance, healthcare, or public hospital should have to treat you. You should have to go to a private hospital and pay for treatment from your own pocket. So yes, it sounds fair.

However, there should be a line drawn. If that cancer is caused by second hand smoke from living in a house full of smokers (quite like my parents home who smoke inside without the windows open) then they should get help and not be dismissed. They weren't the one's who chose to smoke, others who lived with them were. Other than that, I agree.

reply to post by Agit8dChop

Who are you to tell me how to live my life? You're not God. You don't own me.

When I smoke a $10 cigar I enjoy the hell out of it. If I didn't I wouldn't pay that much for it.

You seem to think that everyone has to and wants to feel healthy. You're wrong.

I eat butter, I put half and half in my coffee and I love meat. I'm not going to stop enjoying my life because you think I should be healthy.

I'd rather live how I want, smoke and eat what I want and die at 60 than eat vegetables, margarine, no meat and sweat my ass off at the gym and die at 80.

This is still a free country gxxxxxxxt.