Cigaretes: should we ban that stuff or not ?

[manny78]

Since our government care so much about our health (for example roids among other reasons are banned cause of their potential health problems lol) I was wondering why cigaretes aren't. I mean it has clearly been established that it can easily lead to many disease including lung cancer, even to non-smoker. Is it cause the tobaco industry employes so many citizens ???

 

[starfish]

Cigarrette smoking in public places should be outlawed..

I hate having to sit in a restaurant while breathing someone elses cigarette smoke... I have lungs too.

 

[manny78]

Cigarrette smoking in public places should be outlawed..

I hate having to sit in a restaurant while breathing someone elses cigarette smoke... I have lungs too.

Thats already done in many States/country. I'm talking about a total ban. Selling that stuff would be illegal just like coke.....

 

[starfish]

Thats already done in many States/country. I'm talking about a total ban. Selling that stuff would be illegal just like coke.....

It would be fine with me if it was...

 

[big4life]

I don't think they should ban it. I can't stand it, but I guess I understand those that smoke enjoy it for some reason, and it was legal when they started.

I would never smoke. Just growing up around two parents who did smoke and had that God awful morning smoker's cough was enough to keep me from smoking.

 

[Warik]

People have the right to commit prolonged suicide if they wish. It should, however, be illegal to subject unwilling individuals to the same. Smoking in *ALL* public places - restaurants, clubs, bars, beaches, the street, or ANY place where cigarette smoke could reach the lungs of a non-smoker who does not wish to be exposed to it should be STRICTLY outlawed.

You want to smoke home? Fine.
In your car? Fine.

Just keep your stinky ass cancer catalyst out of my lungs.

Thanks, have a nice day.

-Warik

 

[manny78]

People have the right to commit prolonged suicide if they wish. It should, however, be illegal to subject unwilling individuals to the same. Smoking in *ALL* public places - restaurants, clubs, bars, beaches, the street, or ANY place where cigarette smoke could reach the lungs of a non-smoker who does not wish to be exposed to it should be STRICTLY outlawed.

You want to smoke home? Fine.
In your car? Fine.

Just keep your stinky ass cancer catalyst out of my lungs.

Thanks, have a nice day.

-Warik

Totally agree with you.

 

[Lifter4Life]

I agree w/Warik.

 

[cockdezl]

Government has no right to protect us from ourselves, since this very idea is being extended into more ridiculous restrictions like California's ban on soft drinks in certain public schools. There is also ideas on targeting food manufacturers who produce "un-healthy" foods. People were too stupid to understand that when government targeted one industry, it was just a matter of time when it would begin looking at others to regulate. Non-smokers were easily brainwashed into believing that government was "protecting" them, and that it was no violation of liberty. Plus, there is a plentitude of propaganda from the anti-tobacco industry, such as the suspect statistics stating that "X" number of people die of second hand smoke every year.

There should be no restrictions in tobacco use, and likewise there should be no restrictions placed on businesses who wish to prevent smokers from frequenting their locations, i.e. "No Smoking Allowed".

 

[Mickey Knox]

I agree with banning them in all public places. I hate the smell of cigarettes.

One thing I hate more than anything, is when people smoke in the hallway of my apartment building. And it always manages to smell up my apartment. I feel like walking out there and punching them in the face.

 

[starfish]

The only thing worse than having to deal with inhaling other people's cigarette smoke, is seeing them litter the ground with their used cigarettes

 

[manny78]

I agree with banning them in all public places. I hate the smell of cigarettes.

One thing I hate more than anything, is when people smoke in the hallway of my apartment building. And it always manages to smell up my apartment. I feel like walking out there and punching them in the face.

I got a solution for you: Just spray them with pepper spray. Should do the job

 

[HighIntensity]

simple reasoning the ciq. companies own half the goverment

 

[Julez]

I would actually legalise drugs such as E, speed, roids.... I believe that everyone has the right to make an INFORMED choice.

INFORMED being the key word, I think that by making drugs contraband there is a lot of ignorance out there that actually causes deaths.

It is an individual choice and the indvidual must take the consequences. I agree that non-smokers should not be forced to inhale cigarrete fumes therefore smokers(like myself) should be considerate when smoking in public places or any other place where people are forced to inhale the fumes..... it no longer becomes an INDIVIDUAL choice then as other people suffer.

As a nurse though I see more problems with alchohol than any other drug, the consequences of alchohol always seem to stretch much further than the user.... ie family, other road users, victims of voilence.... you name it

At the end of the day you can't take away people's rights smoke or take any other drugs, but I agree that others should'nt have to be affected..... that's just selfish.

 

[cure]

I would actually legalise drugs such as E, speed, roids.... I believe that everyone has the right to make an INFORMED choice.

INFORMED being the key word, I think that by making drugs contraband there is a lot of ignorance out there that actually causes deaths.

It is an individual choice and the indvidual must take the consequences. I agree that non-smokers should not be forced to inhale cigarrete fumes therefore smokers(like myself) should be considerate when smoking in public places or any other place where people are forced to inhale the fumes..... it no longer becomes an INDIVIDUAL choice then as other people suffer.

As a nurse though I see more problems with alchohol than any other drug, the consequences of alchohol always seem to stretch much further than the user.... ie family, other road users, victims of voilence.... you name it

At the end of the day you can't take away people's rights smoke or take any other drugs, but I agree that others should'nt have to be affected..... that's just selfish.

BEAUTIFULLY SAID. LEGALIZE everything and make laws against doing it in public places. Your caught driving while under the influence then it's jail time. We are suppose to be a "free" and "democratic" nation yet we don't have control over our own bodies. STUPIDIEST LAW IN THE WORLD has to be wearing seatbelts. Hey you want to take the chance and maybe kill yourself go ahead. It's our life let us make the final decision.

 

[danielson]

ok


but if you make that descision to lead a risky life, should my tax $$$ go to help you when your in hospital with lung cancer


fact ==> tax from cigarettes doesnt even come close to replacing the money it takes to care for them in hopsital

fact ==> only one type of lung cancer is operable, and there is only a 10% survival rate

fact ==> smoking has become the leading cause of cancer in young women, overtaking breast cancer

fact ==> lung cancer kills more people than AIDS and BSE combined

fact ==> the cause of luing cancer in 99% of cases is smoking and only smoking



u wanna smoke, sine. go do it wayyyy away from me and sign a disclaimer where i dont pay anything for your healthcare, and you give up your bed of someone else needs it

also cut all advertsing so you dont addict young kids.

then i have no problem with smokers

 

[Prometheus]

STUPIDIEST LAW IN THE WORLD has to be wearing seatbelts. Hey you want to take the chance and maybe kill yourself go ahead. It's our life let us make the final decision.

do you really think seatbelt laws are written because politicians care about your well being?

where is the money - who benefits if there are less fatalities and severe injuries, less head injuries that require million dollar treatment and surgery? insurance companies. and the insurance lobby is HUGE.

 

[cockdezl]

ok


but if you make that descision to lead a risky life, should my tax $$$ go to help you when your in hospital with lung cancer


fact ==> tax from cigarettes doesnt even come close to replacing the money it takes to care for them in hopsital

fact ==> only one type of lung cancer is operable, and there is only a 10% survival rate

fact ==> smoking has become the leading cause of cancer in young women, overtaking breast cancer

fact ==> lung cancer kills more people than AIDS and BSE combined

fact ==> the cause of luing cancer in 99% of cases is smoking and only smoking



u wanna smoke, sine. go do it wayyyy away from me and sign a disclaimer where i dont pay anything for your healthcare, and you give up your bed of someone else needs it



also cut all advertsing so you dont addict young kids.

then i have no problem with smokers

Your tax dollars go to many worthless ventures of government and also medical costs. You pay to save drug-users and criminals, welfare mothers and new children, drunk-drivers who get in accidents, etc.

Also, your "fact" that the cost of cigarette taxes does not cover the cost of Medicare spent on these individuals has been shown to be false. Smokers tend to die earlier, for various health reasons, and thus forfeit Social Security benefits that non-smokers utilize, due to their longer life spans. Also, non-smokers will utilize Medicare benefits longer than smokers.

Also, why did you use the idea of lung cancer killing more people than AIDS and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy? AIDS still kills predominately gay males (in the US) which is a small population compared to smokers, and BSE is such a rare disease it is nearly irrelevant.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26109,00.html

http://www.junkscience.com/feb99/levy.htm

http://www.desnews.com/dn/view/1,1249,115012475,00.html?

 

[Rex]

I don't think tobacco should be banned. Nor should people have to pay for smokers' hospital bills. I smoke a cigar once in a while, but only on my porch or patio, and whoever is around doesn't mind the smoke. It's just plain ignorant to do it w/o taking other people's distaste for smoke into consideration.

 

[danielson]

Your tax dollars go to many worthless ventures of government and also medical costs. You pay to save drug-users and criminals, welfare mothers and new children, drunk-drivers who get in accidents, etc.

Also, your "fact" that the cost of cigarette taxes does not cover the cost of Medicare spent on these individuals has been shown to be false. Smokers tend to die earlier, for various health reasons, and thus forfeit Social Security benefits that non-smokers utilize, due to their longer life spans. Also, non-smokers will utilize Medicare benefits longer than smokers.

Also, why did you use the idea of lung cancer killing more people than AIDS and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy? AIDS still kills predominately gay males (in the US) which is a small population compared to smokers, and BSE is such a rare disease it is nearly irrelevant.

i know they do (the tax dollars)......why not therefore tax smokers to the point where they create enough money to make up for what they are costing us

i live out of the US over the big pond in fact, so when a smoker gets ill, the NHS bails em out. the time between a smoker being diagnosed with lung cancer and him dying can be filled with lots of expensive treatments as well as any other health problems he develops due to smoking

the point i was making is that very prominent attempts are made to reduce AIDS spread and BSE spread. yet smoking, something that can as easily be reduced isnt.

 

[Sushi X]

if you ban cigaretts you are then setting yourself up for the same problem the u.s. had when alcohol was illegal. organized crime ran rapid. drugs are illegal and our prisons are overcrowded and we are paying too much in taxes to house these offenders. do you really want to spend more to house smokers? it's ludicrous. i hate smoke as much as the next guy but banning also violates their civil liberties and their right to destroy their health if they so desire. much like when people drink excessibly.

it must be hard for the left to support a ban and support a person's civil liberties and right to smoke if they chose seeing how that would be contradictory. simple solution: continue to ban it in public areas such as movie theatres, restaraunts, clubs, bars, and such enclosed areas. outside is fine as their is adequate circulation. they can smoke but outside where it belongs. plain and simple.

 

[cockdezl]

i know they do (the tax dollars)......why not therefore tax smokers to the point where they create enough money to make up for what they are costing us

the point i was making is that very prominent attempts are made to reduce AIDS spread and BSE spread. yet smoking, something that can as easily be reduced isnt.

You still believe the lie that smokers take from government benefits more than they pay, which is simply false.

One, as I stated before, they die earlier and therefore do not utilize all of the benefits that taxes (paid by all, mind you) provide.

Second, your above assumption is based off of the false idea all smokers who have lung cancer, utilize Medicare. Many have insurance which covers the cost of treatment.

Third, the assumption that they take more than they pay, is based on the false notion that non-smokers die of less costly illnesses. Heart disease treatments can be extremely costly, same for nursing home care, as well as the vast number of non-smoking related cancers that kill.

Lastly, your analogy to AIDS is misleading, since government agencies never once dared to attempt restricting risky behavior which accounts for the vast majority of HIV cases. But I am glad you did mention AIDS. You pay to care for these individuals too, and the cost of HIV treatment is enormous.

 

[danielson]

You still believe the lie that smokers take from government benefits more than they pay, which is simply false.

One, as I stated before, they die earlier and therefore do not utilize all of the benefits that taxes (paid by all, mind you) provide.

Second, your above assumption is based off of the false idea all smokers who have lung cancer, utilize Medicare. Many have insurance which covers the cost of treatment.

Third, the assumption that they take more than they pay, is based on the false notion that non-smokers die of less costly illnesses. Heart disease treatments can be extremely costly, same for nursing home care, as well as the vast number of non-smoking related cancers that kill.

Lastly, your analogy to AIDS is misleading, since government agencies never once dared to attempt restricting risky behavior which accounts for the vast majority of HIV cases. But I am glad you did mention AIDS. You pay to care for these individuals too, and the cost of HIV treatment is enormous.

in britain we live in a welfare state, so not everyone has health insurance as the NHS (government basically )pays for medical operations etc. those tht do have insurance may go private etc.

however not everyone has insurance. smoking is seen in much greater frequency in th lower classes/working classes, of which the majority can;t afford health insurance and rely on government funding to pay fr their operations. also the fact that they are having opertions means they are using up resources, paid or otherwise

they may die earlier......but chemotherapy, radiotherapy etc don't come cheap. all of these things do cost money whether the die in their 20's or 80's. plus it increases the risk factors to just aboput every 'western' disease there is

other cancers cost as much, true. smokingis the no.1 cause of cancer in the western world (other than food ), and in the UK there are 45,000 new cases of lung cancer each year.

true the government doesnt try to forcibly prevent risky behavour. it does however restrict narcotics. smoking/nicotine has been rated alongside heroin in addictiveness. but yes, we spend large amounts of moolah on patients with AIDS. but the public perception of AIDS is very dark, its a huge killer, whereas smoking doesnt get that image, even though it kills more

 

[casavant]

I can't believe a couple of people voted yes on this. Do you really want the government to be you mommy? I think I'll make my own decisions on what I want to put into my body, thank you very much.

 

[theoak01]

my city passed a by-law where you can't smoke in any establishment anymore

its great atleast now i can breathe in the pool hall

 

[c-sharp minor]

Here, we just passed a law which states: "any establishment which allows person(s) under the age of 18 to be admitted shall be deemed a non-smoking establishment".

We now have businesses banning children in favor of smokers. ie. bowling alleys

 

[paradox]

Since our government care so much about our health

Hell, they might as well ban fast food too.

 

[Whiskey]

Hell no!!

I don't smoke, but I also don't want to have to pay higher taxes either. If they outlawed smoking, we would lose a crap load of tax money. Illinoise just raised teh tax ammount $0.40 to I think $0.94 per pack. Our roads would go to shit.


Whiskey

 

[TheClash]

I think we should ban fat people. I also think we should ban people who talk loud when you are out to eat.

I think we should ban smoking only in public places that are indoors. I think we should ban loud people in movie theaters.

 

[manny78]

I think we should ban loud people in movie theaters.

agree

 

[KAYNE]

I WOULD SAY YES, WE SHOULD BAN THEM BUT THAT WOULD BE PUTTING LOTS OF PEOPLE OUT OF JOBS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WOULD BE LOST EVERY YEAR. ESSENTIALLY, IT WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE A REGRESSIVE EFFECT. I SAY IF THEY WANT TO SMOKE, LET THEM SMOKE. HOWEVER, THEY CANT START BITCHING WHEN THEY GET LUNG CANCER!!! ITS THEIR OWN DAMN FAULT. BANNING THEM WOULD BE SUPERFLUOUS. TAXING THEM GREATLY WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE.


KAYNE

 

[Robert Jan]

Recently I worked as an Intern in the Operating room in the hospital and more than half the time wed be operating on people who

*are heavy smokers and develop cancer somewhere in the respiratory system

*are overweight and damage joints carrying themselves

*are heavy drinkers (who need like the double the dosing of anastethics before they go down too)

I talked to this doc about this and he was very pissed off. Theres long lists of patients who need to be helped and they have to help people who fuck themselves up and will continue to do so.

At the same time conditions of patients who take care of themselves who are on the list, worsen as they wait for the lazy people to be helped.

this is why "freedom to fuck yourself up" shouldn`t be complete.

it always has a second meaning "freedom to fuck yourself up and have yourself fixed at other peoples expense"

and the second is wrong.

 

[manny78]

bump

 

[FarBeyondDriven]

NO!!

And in the same breath stop locking people up for smoking grass. I don't do either, but I respect freedom. And oh yeah, what about juice? I want it legal, it's my f'ng choice, not some fat ass cigar smoking politician.

But as previously stated, it is not the benefit of the citizen that carries wieght, it is the purse of the lobbyist.

Lumber companies banned marijuana so the could make paper.

Partnership for Drug Free America= Aneheisur Busch/ Phillip Morris. What a F'ng joke.

Your government doesn't care about you, they care about who will grease their pockets the most.

 

[Pamela]

I don't like cigarete smoke!!

But if cigaretes are ban;
then what's next?


:havoc: