Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.
Poll of smoking
#61
Posted 06 May 2008 - 02:43 AM
It's a free world, but smokers are not free. They're addicts.
All you people who voted No to banning cigarettes, you must think there's some measure of will-power involved. You do not understand the nature of addiction. For some the physical need is insurmountable with present societal supports. That we even condone the production and distribution of such a substance as tobacco and that money is collected from the lives of those who smoke, is amazing to me.
Go visit a cancer ward and talk to the people who will soon be 'former' smokers and ask them if they think smoking should be banned.
I smoked for 20 years.. and have watched friends die.. so absolutely.. ban the sale of cigarettes and ban smoking everywhere. It won't stop people from 'exercising their right'.. but it will sure put a dent in the creation of new cancer victims.
#62
Posted 06 May 2008 - 03:34 AM
So lets put this under consideration... the legal system you're suggesting is based on the toxicity of the substance, should we not then do a more thorough investigation of the other legal & illegal substances, because quite frankly I'm getting tired of listening to people's hypocrisy (not referring to you).
Regardless, if enough light is brought on various lifestyle habits, it will eventually boil down to people needing to develop their own wisdom and self discipline. Regulation should be maintained on a personal level rather than relying on a centralized power.
Btw, niner, i fail to see how governments are trustworthy, you get represented through wealth and connections...
#63
Posted 06 May 2008 - 03:48 AM
That doesn't mean that they can't be competent. I agree that our government is sub-optimal. If we could manage to reduce the cost of campaigning sufficiently, we could take some, but certainly not all of the influence of wealth out of the system. One way to make them more trustworthy is to make them more transparent. The current administration has been a significant step backwards in that regard.Btw, niner, i fail to see how governments are trustworthy, you get represented through wealth and connections...
sponsored ad
#64
Posted 06 May 2008 - 05:43 AM
That doesn't mean that they can't be competent. I agree that our government is sub-optimal. If we could manage to reduce the cost of campaigning sufficiently, we could take some, but certainly not all of the influence of wealth out of the system. One way to make them more trustworthy is to make them more transparent. The current administration has been a significant step backwards in that regard.Btw, niner, i fail to see how governments are trustworthy, you get represented through wealth and connections...
I don't believe that a centralized power could ever give rise to democracy... yet at the same token i don't always see democracy as a positive thing... unless people develop critical thinking skills...
Doesn't the tobacco industry have millions invested in lobbying?
http://en.wikipedia....i/Tobacco_lobby :
The tobacco lobby gives money to politicians to vote in favor of deregulating tobacco. It is estimated that the tobacco lobby spends an average of $106,415 each day legislature meets
http://www.no-smokin...10-23-01-1.html
In the end it goes towards what i was saying... regulation of the self rather that assuming you can regulate the government...
Edited by mysticpsi, 06 May 2008 - 05:48 AM.
#65
Posted 29 May 2008 - 07:01 AM
that said, I have otherwise extremely liberal views on drug use (aka deschedule amphetamines and most other drugs that don't have potential to harm others) - provided that they don't infringe on the life and liberty of others.
#66
Posted 30 May 2008 - 12:01 PM
Even though I want to drop kick people who find it acceptable to lite up when my pregnant wife is standing next to them.
#67
Posted 30 May 2008 - 12:40 PM
No. It's better to just let the uneducated and weak to burn out.
Nothing personal, but, no way. With the same argumentation you could
literally allow the selling of heroine to children at the local supermarket.
Emotionally, I feel smoking should be fully banned. Objectively and morally,
it should not be banned in private... if for no other reason, at least for the
same one why drug criminalization is a bad idea. But it should only be consumed
in special stores or at home, just like with coffe shops in .NL.
And it shouldn't be advertised at all, including tobacco companies having
brand logos or anything. I'm not a lawyer, but tobacco advertisements
are quasi-banned in Europe, yet you have advertisement everywhere in
public with exceptions to the ban, the tobacco ppl have lotteries, giveaways,
and even areas at clubs and festivals which are reserved for smokers.
Incredibly hypocritical. Legalize controlled drug sale and ban all drug use
and smoking anywhere except at home and designated private clubs, not
in order to protect everyone else, just like harmful chemicals aren't sold
openly to everyone at the local store or advertised/used on public streets.
Edited by mixter, 30 May 2008 - 12:41 PM.
#68
Posted 30 May 2008 - 02:57 PM
#69
Posted 30 May 2008 - 06:34 PM
Why is that surprising? I think smoking should be banned too. Second hand smoke is just as dangerousSurprisingly manu here seems to think that smoking should be completely banned
as smoking yourself. For that reason alone it should be banned...totally. People who smoke
in their homes expose there children to it. I know a little boy who has asthma because his
mother and her boyfriend smoke in the house. He begs them to stop, but they just tell him
to go to his room. What can he do about it? He's only seven. At least with drugs, you just hurt
yourself. He'd be better off is she did heroin. How do you protect children from ignorant
parents?
And, just recently my bldg super, 69 years old, was told at a medical examination that he
better stop smoking or he would get lung cancer. He doesn't smoke. Never has. But all his
kids and their mates and children do. So there he is, at the brink of lung cancer and he never
smoked a cigarette in his life.
I wouldn't mind smoking if it didn't effect non-smokers...but it does and that is a fact.
#70
Posted 31 May 2008 - 10:09 PM
Why is that surprising? I think smoking should be banned too. Second hand smoke is just as dangerousSurprisingly manu here seems to think that smoking should be completely banned
as smoking yourself. For that reason alone it should be banned...totally. People who smoke
in their homes expose there children to it. I know a little boy who has asthma because his
mother and her boyfriend smoke in the house. He begs them to stop, but they just tell him
to go to his room. What can he do about it? He's only seven. At least with drugs, you just hurt
yourself. He'd be better off is she did heroin. How do you protect children from ignorant
parents?
And, just recently my bldg super, 69 years old, was told at a medical examination that he
better stop smoking or he would get lung cancer. He doesn't smoke. Never has. But all his
kids and their mates and children do. So there he is, at the brink of lung cancer and he never
smoked a cigarette in his life.
I wouldn't mind smoking if it didn't effect non-smokers...but it does and that is a fact.
Because many people with immortalist opinions seem to be quite liberalistic
....
#71
Posted 01 June 2008 - 12:32 AM
"Only in private places."
My biggest issue with smoking is the stinch. Public places therefore don't pass muster for me.
#72
Posted 01 June 2008 - 11:49 AM
This poll needs one more option:
"Only in private places."
My biggest issue with smoking is the stinch. Public places therefore don't pass muster for me.
huh?
#73
Posted 01 June 2008 - 09:23 PM
#74
Posted 03 June 2008 - 02:38 PM
Personally the trouble I have with smoking is the health reasons.I usually associate the smell with something pleasant for some reasons,it may be due to visiting good restaurants when travelling.
IMO, the only pleasant scent of smoking is possibly cloves and flavored hookah. I'd ask you where you visited but that could really drag the conversation elsewhere .
Either or, I strongly agree with DukeNukem, there's no reason why a person can't enjoy it in a private location, since when do people view democracy as ideally completely intervening within the private sphere. Leave an individual the ability to choose whether he values his life or not, that's not a lesson you can teach with laws, quite the opposite in fact...
#75
Posted 19 June 2008 - 11:51 AM
Government should regulate what gets put in them so that they are just tobacco, filter, and paper - there's alot of crap mixed in to make them more poisonous and addictive.
If we have universal health care, smoking hurts us all - so they should pay higher premiums.
If we don't have universal health care, smoking should be banned only in places where others are forced to breathe the smoke.
Smoking isn't really an environmental concern as long as cigarettes aren't littered.
#76
Posted 07 July 2008 - 06:17 PM
RE Smoking;
Government should regulate what gets put in them so that they are just tobacco, filter, and paper - there's alot of crap mixed in to make them more poisonous and addictive.
If we have universal health care, smoking hurts us all - so they should pay higher premiums.
If we want to go down this road then there's a lot of other things that will need to be added to the list.
Depending on who gets to decide the list, here's a few possibility's.
1. No supplements without a doctors consent. Misused they could have adverse effect on health care costs.
2. Being overweight is banned. Adds too much cost too health care system.
3. 50 mph national speed limit. Driving faster is dangerous. Adds to much cost to health care system.
4. No motorcycle riding. Too dangerous. Adds to much cost to health care system.
5. No mountain climbing. Too dangerous. Accidents would add unnecessary costs to health care system.
6. No horse back riding. Too dangerous. Adds to much cost to health care system.
7. No donuts. Too fatty and sugary. Makes people fat. See # 2
I think you see what I mean. There's a thousand more things someone will think of to add to the list.
#77
Posted 07 July 2008 - 09:08 PM
#78
Posted 23 July 2008 - 06:10 AM
Can you believe that people were even complaining when they were talking about banning smoking in a car when children were present! Smoking next to children especially in enclosed spaces is child abuse.
#79
Posted 23 July 2008 - 08:26 AM
It was all I could do not to get out the car and rearrange their ugly inbred features.
#80
Posted 23 July 2008 - 09:41 AM
This would be a fine solution if they'd actually die out. The problem is that they don't; smoking doesn't usually kill people until they've had plenty of time to procreate, and is taken up by ignorant people born from non-smoking parents all the time.No. It's better to just let the uneducated and weak to burn out.
I'd love to see a total ban on tobacco (as well as alcohol), but I don't think that would be feasible without some form of world government to actually close down all the production facilities worldwide. As it is, a ban on tobacco and alcohol would mean the formation (or expansion) of a black market fed from abroad, and then we couldn't even tax them. Already we see people driving to other countries just to buy cheaper cigarettes and wine etc.; this phenomenon would only increase.
People (where I live, at least) are becoming more health-conscious every year, on average, and I do believe that a total ban will eventually be feasible, in the far future. But for the moment, the best we can hope for is to ban the sale to minors, charge a reasonable (non-excessive) excise duty and limit the locations in which they can be used.
#81
Posted 23 July 2008 - 10:18 PM
#82
Posted 23 July 2008 - 10:47 PM
I'd love to see a total ban on tobacco (as well as alcohol), but I don't think that would be feasible without some form of world government to actually close down all the production facilities worldwide.
What about sex and rock n' roll?
#83
Posted 23 July 2008 - 10:48 PM
I'd love to see a total ban on tobacco (as well as alcohol), but I don't think that would be feasible without some form of world government to actually close down all the production facilities worldwide.
What about sex and rock n' roll?
ya!
#84
Posted 24 July 2008 - 06:51 AM
#85
Posted 24 July 2008 - 08:28 AM
#86
Posted 24 July 2008 - 11:07 AM
What about them?What about sex and rock n' roll?I'd love to see a total ban on tobacco (as well as alcohol), but I don't think that would be feasible without some form of world government to actually close down all the production facilities worldwide.
My views on this subject have little to do with living forever and everything to do with maximising happiness, health and prosperity for all people.you guys are making immortality sound like a fanatic's religion. Not everyone has to endorse living forever... part of genetics is variety, and sure it may seem misguided, but part of life is the ability to choose your actions and the consequences that come along with it. I can understand laws against public places so that people can decide their own actions, but when people begin to decide the actions of others based on their own conception of right and wrong... you don't think it's going too far?
#87
Posted 24 July 2008 - 12:23 PM
nothing beats flavoured hookah/sheesha
AKA Nargila. Shisha will still give you lung cancer and all the horrible things that come with smoking.
But hey, it's fun seeing smoke come out of your mouth isn't it? Emphysema, slow, demeaning, constantly painful death... pah!
#88
Posted 24 July 2008 - 02:11 PM
Like swearing people get arrested for putting their music too loud because it disturbs the neighbours, why not smoke? it disturbs my senses too, a very terrible smell.
And lately it's becoming everywhere, even in my backyard.
How about the environment? other than health damage, they say car smoke hurts the environment, is this not the same?
The fact is, no matter what the damage is, humans have only half a brain, no one appears to care enough to ban smoking because he benefits from it, or will dis benefit himself but doing so, be it a politician which will lose support for doing something the people don't like, or whatever other scenario you might think of.
All logic says, ban smoking.
Well, you need to be a dictator to make that happen.
#89
Posted 24 July 2008 - 02:13 PM
There's not necessarily anything wrong with that.Well, you need to be a dictator to make that happen.
#90
Posted 24 July 2008 - 06:29 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users