ZFGC
General => Other Discussion => Boards => Archive => Debates => Topic started by: Pyru on April 10, 2006, 10:21:50 am
-
I'm talking tobacco here. Anyone wanting a debate about cocaine, or cannabis, nah. This isn't about that.
So, what is the use of tobacco? Millions of people addicted, billions upon billions of pounds for tobacco companies, not any good economically for the countries producing it, and no health benefits- as well as a lot of problems- for the people addicted.
Yes, people should have free choice, but... I'm sure many wish they'd never smoked in the first place, which they probably wouldn't have- if it was legal. But, then, there's the amount of money governments get from the taxes of these things.
So, uh, yeah. Debate. :P
-
I wish they made it illegal to smoke anywhere except people's houses...or ban the entire thing all together.
Basicly, you pay a lot of money, to go get stuff, that will poison your body...thats like paying to go breathe from the exhaust of a car.
-
People have the right to smoke, who are we to tell them what they can do to thier own bodies.
-
People have the right to smoke, who are we to tell them what they can do to thier own bodies.
What about the effect of passive smoking? Or, y'know. The effect smoking has on unborn children.
-
I think smoking should be completely legal, but there should be more laws about the advertisment for smoking. Something really needs to be done about the idea that 'smoking is cool', which attracts so many teens to smoking. I'm not talking about dumb anti-smoking ads, I mean, The main characters are often paid to smoke, to get kids interested (the cool-looking characters). I think things like that should be out-lawed.
I think it IS up to people, and they should have the choice, but I think the way advertising affects us needs to be monitored and controlled.
-
I think a lot of people know its bad for you and stupid and such, but that what makes it look cool for a lot of people...like, they are willing to do that cuz theyre so cool.
It sickens me.
-
The issue is really whether or not the non-smoker has a choice in this. Do they want to breathe in the second-hand smoke? No, but some arrogant smoker is breathing smoke right in front of them. Considering that about 2/3 of the cancer-causing chemicals are in second-hand smoke, I think that this violates the rights of the person who chose not to smoke.
Why the hell are there restaraunts with smoking sections and non-smoking sections? A smoker would say that it provides equallity. Well, they are wrong. The air in the restaraunt is often circulating throughout the room, getting into everyone's section. It would be like if somebody peed in a swimming pool. There is no non-pee section as the pee circulates through the whole pool.
-
The issue is really whether or not the non-smoker has a choice in this. Do they want to breathe in the second-hand smoke? No, but some arrogant smoker is breathing smoke right in front of them. Considering that about 2/3 of the cancer-causing chemicals are in second-hand smoke, I think that this violates the rights of the person who chose not to smoke.
Why the hell are there restaraunts with smoking sections and non-smoking sections? A smoker would say that it provides equallity. Well, they are wrong. The air in the restaraunt is often circulating throughout the room, getting into everyone's section. It would be like if somebody peed in a swimming pool. There is no non-pee section as the pee circulates through the whole pool.
You're so correct. Passive smoking pisses me off.
-
The issue is really whether or not the non-smoker has a choice in this. Do they want to breathe in the second-hand smoke? No, but some arrogant smoker is breathing smoke right in front of them. Considering that about 2/3 of the cancer-causing chemicals are in second-hand smoke, I think that this violates the rights of the person who chose not to smoke.
Why the hell are there restaraunts with smoking sections and non-smoking sections? A smoker would say that it provides equallity. Well, they are wrong. The air in the restaraunt is often circulating throughout the room, getting into everyone's section. It would be like if somebody peed in a swimming pool. There is no non-pee section as the pee circulates through the whole pool.
Well, people can always go to other restaurants. The problem is in workplaces... if you're working in a restaurant, and need the income, you can't just go somewhere else.
-
People have the right to smoke, who are we to tell them what they can do to thier own bodies.
What about the effect of passive smoking? Or, y'know. The effect smoking has on unborn children.
People have the right to smoke. It's a fact. We can not make it illegal because it's 'unhealthy'. The government is not responsible for forcing peopel to be healthy. Potato chips, candy, beer, pop, coffee - it's not really good for us, but it's legal.
There should be more laws about smoking in a public place. I hate it when people light up near me. If it was illegal, I'd ask them to put it out. (I'm tempted to half the time anyways but I'm pretty sure that they could beat me up). It's especially rude when someone sits next to you and, without asking, lights up. Whenever they do that, I get up and walk upwind.
Like alchohol, their should be laws regarding smoking to keep it safe for all. Drunk people can't drive so that they don't crash into people? Smokers can't smoke in public so that they don' poison my lungs. That's my stance.
(and as for the restaurant thing, in GOOD restaurants, the smokers area has air circulating towards a fan/etc. that sucks up the smoke, or is in a seperate room)
-
People have the right to smoke, who are we to tell them what they can do to thier own bodies.
What about the effect of passive smoking? Or, y'know. The effect smoking has on unborn children.
People have the right to smoke. It's a fact. We can not make it illegal because it's 'unhealthy'. The government is not responsible for forcing peopel to be healthy. Potato chips, candy, beer, pop, coffee - it's not really good for us, but it's legal.
There are potential benefits of those. They're food. You get energy and nutrition from them. The government DOES ban things simply because they're not good for you- drugs, anyone? Tanks? High explosives?
There should be more laws about smoking in a public place. I hate it when people light up near me. If it was illegal, I'd ask them to put it out. (I'm tempted to half the time anyways but I'm pretty sure that they could beat me up). It's especially rude when someone sits next to you and, without asking, lights up. Whenever they do that, I get up and walk upwind. Pyru comment: I like to fart at that point.
Like alchohol, their should be laws regarding smoking to keep it safe for all. Drunk people can't drive so that they don't crash into people? Smokers can't smoke in public so that they don' poison my lungs. That's my stance.
Short term, yes. But I think banning smoking in public places and work places should only be the beginning of it. I believe that smoking should be banned completely eventually- like many drugs.
(and as for the restaurant thing, in GOOD restaurants, the smokers area has air circulating towards a fan/etc. that sucks up the smoke, or is in a seperate room)
What about all the rubbish restaurants?
-
We tell people to wear their seatbelts...or does that have to do with blood stains or something?
Cuz police and all usually do stuff for protection.
But its true, if the whole world would stop smoking now, companies would go bankrupt and governments would lose a LOT of money.
But so be it.
-
But its true, if the whole world would stop smoking now, companies would go bankrupt and governments would lose a LOT of money.
But so be it.
Companies that make money from people dying. Governments wouldn't lose as much money as you'd think- people would have more money to spend, and therefore would spend it on other things, which are still taxed.
-
People have the right to smoke, who are we to tell them what they can do to thier own bodies.
What about the effect of passive smoking? Or, y'know. The effect smoking has on unborn children.
And what about the taxes imposed upon us Americans? Lung cancer anyone? The choice to smoke affects EVERYONE like it or not. We have the freedom to choose just as much as they do, so I'm all for choosing to put an end to wasting our tax dollars.
But its true, if the whole world would stop smoking now, companies would go bankrupt and governments would lose a LOT of money.
But so be it.
Companies that make money from people dying. Governments wouldn't lose as much money as you'd think- people would have more money to spend, and therefore would spend it on other things, which are still taxed.
Definitely.
-
Well, they pull up a lot of extra fees to the cigarettes here, on top of tax. But I guess it wouldnt be that bad.
I wonder how much time it will take to outlaw smoking.
-
Well, they pull up a lot of extra fees to the cigarettes here, on top of tax. But I guess it wouldnt be that bad.
I wonder how much time it will take to outlaw smoking.
It's not realistic in our modern-day world. So I don't think it will happen for a VERY VERY VERY long time (if ever).
-
Well, they pull up a lot of extra fees to the cigarettes here, on top of tax. But I guess it wouldnt be that bad.
I wonder how much time it will take to outlaw smoking.
It's not realistic in our modern-day world. So I don't think it will happen for a VERY VERY VERY long time (if ever).
Its relistic but we'd need to bomb alot of farmers and cig companies.
I really see no debate here. Everyone agrees smoking in public should be lawed.
-
Then why doesnt it happen? No smokers in crowd here I guess....
-
Then why doesnt it happen? No smokers in crowd here I guess....
It doesn't happen because more then half the world smokes so to get them all to stop smoking outside is impossible practicly. Plus the goverment makes money from it and everyone knows how cheep they are. (Like an old saying, "We could kill off millions of people and not care as long as we make the buck")
-
This is one debate I like because it deals with something I actually know about. =) First, let me thank the school system for giving us three drug talks a year since Grade 1. If they wouldn't have told me all that stuff, who would've told me? Certainly not the tobacco companies. (although the drug talks are really annoying now, nothing new is ever said >_<)
People say "they're free to do with their body as they wish". The problem with that is that the argument goes both ways. If they can choose to waste so much money and kill themselves, fine, but us non-smokers should be able to choose not to kill ourselves, and as long as people are smoking, they are killing everyone and everything. All that stuff coming out of cigarettes (and cigars) is spreading out into the air. Eventually those chemicals are going to reach other countries. Imagine that cigarette your smoking, killing a tree in Africa? Exactly, there is no such thing as "they're only harming themselves", the only fair point here is that they are only wasting their own money, thankfully.
Why should people have the right to kill us all? Isn't that the point of laws against pollution in the first place, to make our planet livable? We make laws about treating water to keep it safe for using, yet we legalize other things that completely destroy our Earth and harm everyone, like gasoline and cigarettes! If we're going to attempt to save the planet with our insightful laws, why go halfway?
I'm sure if I said this in real life, I'd get the usual "it's their choice" screamed at me, but really, let's think... the rights of a few million people, versus the rights of the ENTIRE WORLD AND ALL IT'S PLANTS AND ANIMALS. Who's more important, do you think?
Then why doesnt it happen? No smokers in crowd here I guess....
It doesn't happen because more then half the world smokes so to get them all to stop smoking outside is impossible practicly. Plus the goverment makes money from it and everyone knows how cheep they are. (Like an old saying, "We could kill off millions of people and not care as long as we make the buck")
"Half the world"? Prove it. I'd like to see how all the poor countries (which make up a significant amount of the world) can afford cigarettes.
-
In new york state, smoking any product in a public area is illegal. Its very nice to live here, no more smoke in resteraunts and ect. Only problem is people go right outside the door of a place to smoke. People who work at kfc smoke right outside the door, it scares people away. Really though, all of you should move to new york state.
-
K, more then half the western region smokes.
-
K, more then half the western region smokes.
Backup stats?
-
I'm to lazy to find something right nw but when I get back from karate I will.
-
I'm to lazy to find something right nw but when I get back from karate I will.
In the future, I'd appreciate you "finding something" previous to posting :)
It would help immensly ;)
-
I'd also like to point out that "I'm too lazy" is not a valid excuse. It is against the rules to post statistics without facts.
Next time please provide the proof before you post.
-
Does anybody know whether smoking is worse in the USA or the rest of the world? Because I remember in italy, a 9 or so year old asked me for a cigarette XD
-
Does anybody know whether smoking is worse in the USA or the rest of the world? Because I remember in italy, a 9 or so year old asked me for a cigarette XD
I'd assume that Europe is worse from past experience.
-
Ban smoking.
It's not really funny that a nine year old would come up to you and ask you for a cigarette. That's just sad. And, yeah, from that, it seems that the USA is pretty easy on smoking.
-
Realistically, a downright smoking ban will never happen. First, people would revolt, and second the big and powerful heads of the tobacco companies wouldn't let it happen. Cutting it off cold-turkey is not the way to go. Instead, it has to be phased out. It's already being started, in fact. Joeshmo said that there's a ban on smoking in public in New York. Well, that ban will be here in Montreal soon too. The beauty of the ban is that everything is cleaner, it's much less likely that you have to hold your breath or die when going to school, and best of all, the smoking companies won't complain since cigarettes are still being sold. People can buy them and smoke them, just not anywhere public! The innocent people who would be submitted to second-hand smoke are spared, and those that poison themselves can do so alone. With the drop in public smoking, it's possible in theory that teenagers will see it less and fewer will consider it. Eventually, smokers will be all but eliminated, and those that aren't would be secluded. Along with this and the other tactics, like raising the taxes and prices on cigarettes to ridiculous levels, Smoking will eventually not be a problem.
I heard once that somone wanted to put a ban on selling cigarettes, but that won't work. The companies wouldn't stand for it and neither would the people - especially if they were forced to go through withdrawal because of the sudden lack of nicotine.
And, if all else fails we can round them up into rooms filled with hydrogen and dare them to light up >:D.
-
I wonder, if people just put random stuff thats much less harmful to you in cigs, would people still smoke them?
Or is it part of the kick that you are smoking poison !@#$%. Cuz some folk smoke it to calm down and relax and such.
-
and best of all, the smoking companies won't complain since cigarettes are still being sold.
They would complain, since they'd realise it'd cut down cigarette sales.
People can buy them and smoke them, just not anywhere public! The innocent people who would be submitted to second-hand smoke are spared, and those that poison themselves can do so alone. With the drop in public smoking, it's possible in theory that teenagers will see it less and fewer will consider it. Eventually, smokers will be all but eliminated, and those that aren't would be secluded. Along with this and the other tactics, like raising the taxes and prices on cigarettes to ridiculous levels, Smoking will eventually not be a problem.
Yeah, but putting a high tax on cigarettes is usually unfair- this will affect the low income groups more than the high income groups. Not only are low income groups more likely to smoke- poor education, etc.- taxes on goods also make up a higher percentage of their total income than of the high income groups. You know it makes sense.
I heard once that somone wanted to put a ban on selling cigarettes, but that won't work. The companies wouldn't stand for it and neither would the people - especially if they were forced to go through withdrawal because of the sudden lack of nicotine.
Meh. Their own fault really. They could get patches, or gum. They don't really have a right to pollute the air with carcinogens, just like I don't have a right to !@#$% in their mouths (without their permission).
And, if all else fails we can round them up into rooms filled with hydrogen and dare them to light up >:D.
I find leaving the taps off the oxygen tanks works better.
I wonder, if people just put random stuff thats much less harmful to you in cigs, would people still smoke them?
Or is it part of the kick that you are smoking poison !@#$%. Cuz some folk smoke it to calm down and relax and such.
Reminds of this kid running up to class, completely out of breath and sayin' "'Cor, I'm puffed. I need a !@#$%"... and just thinking "Dude, you're out of breath BECAUSE you smoke".
-
I really do think that people should know that there's CARBON MONOXIDE and ROCKET FUEL in their cigarettes.
Do you think that they REALLY stop advertising? There's ads in every magazine that a kid reads for cigarettes. Take for instance, Camel. In a kid's magazine, they had a camel smoking a cigarette and playing poker at a casino. These kids will think, "Hey, that looks pretty cool!" and go out and smoke! 11% of all U.S. middle-schoolers SMOKE! IT'S NUTS!
-
Can't wait till the ban on smoking in public places comes into action over here. One thing I hate about going out, (To the pub, or clubs or whatever) is coming out stinking of smoke. -_-
-
I really do think that people should know that there's CARBON MONOXIDE and ROCKET FUEL in their cigarettes.
Technically, there's no Carbon Monoxide in the cigarettes; that's a by-product of smoking them. The carbon cannot combust fully, so CO is produced.
11% of all U.S. middle-schoolers SMOKE! IT'S NUTS!
It's peer pressure.
-
Helping someone to take suicide is illegal (duh <___<). Smoking and all of that stuff should be banned.
-
The issue is really whether or not the non-smoker has a choice in this. Do they want to breathe in the second-hand smoke? No, but some arrogant smoker is breathing smoke right in front of them. Considering that about 2/3 of the cancer-causing chemicals are in second-hand smoke, I think that this violates the rights of the person who chose not to smoke.
Why the hell are there restaraunts with smoking sections and non-smoking sections? A smoker would say that it provides equallity. Well, they are wrong. The air in the restaraunt is often circulating throughout the room, getting into everyone's section. It would be like if somebody peed in a swimming pool. There is no non-pee section as the pee circulates through the whole pool.
You're so correct. Passive smoking pisses me off.
I completely agree. Smoking in a public place of ANY kind should be banned.
WTF does it do for you? Nothing. No buzz, no benifits, it just harms you. I'd rather see people smokin pot, at least it does something for them. Plus there's less chemicals in it.
-
Helping someone to take suicide is illegal (duh <___<). Smoking and all of that stuff should be banned.
Then so should Soda, fast food, knives, broken glass, drain cleaner, razors. Hell anything that can be harmful to someone's body should be banned. Whats next, are you going to ban rope because people use it to hang them self's with. If someone wants to smoke they have the right to do what they god damn please.
I can't wait till they ban alcohol since it's harmful to your body and you know that the government wont have any of that because people won't mind their own business. Look how that turned out in the 20's. Banning things just because they are harmful to your heath will not work. If I'm 18 and I want to smoke and give myself cancer i will..... it's called freedom. If the government has the right to draft me and send me to war against my will.I want to have the f'ing right to do to my body what ever the hell I please, be it drinking beer or puffing down a cigarette.
Btw i don't smoke.
-
Drinking is bad for you ;_;
>_> Sorry I just had to say that. (people make such a big deal out of smoking, nobody talks about how dangerous over-drinking is :()
And yes, revan has a good point, I was going to say the same thing :P
-
And another thing, My father smoked for 30 years and he recently went to the doctor and they did a full examination of his lungs and it showed his lungs were as clean as a non smoker. My grandmother and grandfather smoked every single day of thier lives but lived to be past thier 70's niether of which deaths were smoking related. My great grandmother lived to 93 and died of old age and my great aunt lived to be 87. I think smoking is like everthing else, it reacts differently to ever person.
-
WTF does it do for you? Nothing. No buzz, no benifits, it just harms you. I'd rather see people smokin pot, at least it does something for them. Plus there's less chemicals in it.
The problem with marijuana is that the toxins that wind up entering your bloodstream are actually oil-based, whereas your blood is water-based. So, the toxins don't dissolve and eject like normal. They sort of ride around inside you, causing detrimental effects on your brain, for a long time. A month or two I believe. All that time, it's affecting your health and your brain. That's why pots gives you memory problems, and why it can be hard to remember things even after the high is long gone.
-
Helping someone to take suicide is illegal (duh <___<). Smoking and all of that stuff should be banned.
Then so should Soda, fast food, knives, broken glass, drain cleaner, razors. Hell anything that can be harmful to someone's body should be banned. Whats next, are you going to ban rope because people use it to hang them self's with. If someone wants to smoke they have the right to do what they god damn please.
You could take suicide with anything, I didn't mean it literally :P. Things that contain dangerous chemicals etc shouldn't be a thing you can find on the market, that's what I mean.
Man, I should stop saying things I don't mean literally, many people have misunderstood me recently :P
-
Helping someone to take suicide is illegal (duh <___<). Smoking and all of that stuff should be banned.
Then so should Soda, fast food, knives, broken glass, drain cleaner, razors. Hell anything that can be harmful to someone's body should be banned. Whats next, are you going to ban rope because people use it to hang them self's with. If someone wants to smoke they have the right to do what they god damn please.
You could take suicide with anything, I didn't mean it literally :P. Things that contain dangerous chemicals etc shouldn't be a thing you can find on the market, that's what I mean.
Man, I should stop saying things I don't mean literally, many people have misunderstood me recently :P
Then they would have to ban alchohol, every single cleaning solution, lighter fluid, gasoline for cars... Its saying everything 'dangerous' is still way to vauge.
-
Helping someone to take suicide is illegal (duh <___<). Smoking and all of that stuff should be banned.
Then so should Soda, fast food, knives, broken glass, drain cleaner, razors. Hell anything that can be harmful to someone's body should be banned. Whats next, are you going to ban rope because people use it to hang them self's with. If someone wants to smoke they have the right to do what they god damn please.
You could take suicide with anything, I didn't mean it literally :P. Things that contain dangerous chemicals etc shouldn't be a thing you can find on the market, that's what I mean.
Man, I should stop saying things I don't mean literally, many people have misunderstood me recently :P
Then they would have to ban alchohol, every single cleaning solution, lighter fluid, gasoline for cars... Its saying everything 'dangerous' is still way to vauge.
Just because something is unrealistic, doesn't mean that it wouldn't make the world a better place.
In example:
I'd love it if we didn't have to go into Iraq! Unfortunately there would be negative consequences either way, so we had to choose a realistic one.
-
Helping someone to take suicide is illegal (duh <___<). Smoking and all of that stuff should be banned.
Then so should Soda, fast food, knives, broken glass, drain cleaner, razors. Hell anything that can be harmful to someone's body should be banned. Whats next, are you going to ban rope because people use it to hang them self's with. If someone wants to smoke they have the right to do what they god damn please.
You could take suicide with anything, I didn't mean it literally :P. Things that contain dangerous chemicals etc shouldn't be a thing you can find on the market, that's what I mean.
Man, I should stop saying things I don't mean literally, many people have misunderstood me recently :P
Then they would have to ban alchohol, every single cleaning solution, lighter fluid, gasoline for cars... Its saying everything 'dangerous' is still way to vauge.
How about everything dangerous with no possible helpful applications? Cigarettes don't have any of those.
-
How about everything dangerous with no possible helpful applications? Cigarettes don't have any of those.
You know, I had never thought of it that way. Because alcohol certainly has other uses than getting drunk, so does soda, so does candy and everything.
Now the question is that if we were to ban it, how would we go about doing so? I mean, no doubt it's addicting and would prove difficult.
-
Two things that I think are important to remember are:
1) If you ban something people are addicted too, they WILL be angry and they may become irrational and/or violent in their withdrawal.
and
2) Just because you ban something doesn't make it dissappear. People will still grow and buy tobacco in the same way they do with pot. Pot is smoked as much or more than cigarettes are at my school. It's not that hard to get, and tobacco wouldn't be all that different. Add on the fact that very few countries will have banned tobacco, it would become very easy to smuggle it over borders. Just hop a plane to another country, go to a store, buy them and then come back.
Outright banning may actually cause more problems than tactful weening off of cigarettes.
-
How about everything dangerous with no possible helpful applications? Cigarettes don't have any of those.
You know, I had never thought of it that way. Because alcohol certainly has other uses than getting drunk, so does soda, so does candy and everything.
Now the question is that if we were to ban it, how would we go about doing so? I mean, no doubt it's addicting and would prove difficult.
Alcohol has tons of helpful applications. It's also healthy to drink alcohol in moderation; it also provides a drink, energy, etc. For non-consumption usess, it's a disinfectant, cleaner, and can be used to prepare chemicals. Cigarettes do nothing like this.
Two things that I think are important to remember are:
1) If you ban something people are addicted too, they WILL be angry and they may become irrational and/or violent in their withdrawal.
and
2) Just because you ban something doesn't make it dissappear. People will still grow and buy tobacco in the same way they do with pot. Pot is smoked as much or more than cigarettes are at my school. It's not that hard to get, and tobacco wouldn't be all that different. Add on the fact that very few countries will have banned tobacco, it would become very easy to smuggle it over borders. Just hop a plane to another country, go to a store, buy them and then come back.
Outright banning may actually cause more problems than tactful weening off of cigarettes.
Wean off, then ban. As for other countries not doing it? Well, most will. Eventually. Co-ordinated withdrawl is always best.
-
@Pyru: I wasn't being sarcastic with my comment on alcohol, however I'd disagree that it's fine in moderation. Remember that "disease" called alcoholism that you don't find out about until after drink #1?
-
@Pyru: I wasn't being sarcastic with my comment on alcohol, however I'd disagree that it's fine in moderation. Remember that "disease" called alcoholism that you don't find out about until after drink #1?
I know you weren't being sarcastic.
Alcohol really is fine in moderation; many alcoholic drinks contain helpful chemicals like anti-oxidants, and alcohol helps with things like bone density.
What about food, huh? That little problem called obesity that you learn about a little later? Or living. It's got a little problem called death. Never told about that, into you're well into it.
-
It's thier life and people should be able to do what ever they want with it. Let them deal with the consequences.
-
Obesity isn't alcoholism, Pyru.
-
It's thier life and people should be able to do what ever they want with it. Let them deal with the consequences.
Man, they are killing everybody with that smoke. I wouldn't care if they were doing it to just themselves, but they aren't. Stop trying to use that excuse.
-
Why should it be the government to ban smoking, a bar is not public property and if they1 want to people to smoke it's thier buisness. If you do not want to be around smoke then go somewhere else. YOU HAVE A CHOICE TO LEAVE! no one is making you go to a resturant that allows smoking. Smoking is less dangerous to have in public places then alcohol. Alcohol, pot and cocain effects people's judgement and inhabitions while tobacco does not but you people are worried about getting cancer from second hand smoke? To get cancer from second hand smoke you are going to have to be around a large amount each and every day and also you are going to have to be practicly right in the smoker's face.
-
Smoking shouldn't be outlawed in bars... Those are the places people go to relax, have a drink, and if smoking helps them in that, let the bar be their place to smoke. I think smoking indoors other than at bars should be out-lawed though, like at restraunts. I'm not sure about outside though :/
-
If you smoke. You die. It's that simple.
Now around other people, that causes second hand smoke disease, which is more deadly than for the acutal smoker himself.Smoking shouldn't be outlawed in bars... Those are the places people go to relax, have a drink, and if smoking helps them in that, let the bar be their place to smoke. I think smoking indoors other than at bars should be out-lawed though, like at restraunts. I'm not sure about outside though :/
It's all psychological, that it allows them to "relax" its acutally raising there blood pressure which makes them more tense, beucase the nicotine has changed the way their brain works it gives them that relaxation.
-
Smoking shouldn't be outlawed in bars... Those are the places people go to relax, have a drink, and if smoking helps them in that, let the bar be their place to smoke. I think smoking indoors other than at bars should be out-lawed though, like at restraunts. I'm not sure about outside though :/
The relaxation effect is feeding an addiction; it's not the nicotine calming them down, it's actually the lack of nicotine making them more nervous.
Besides, what about the health of people working bars? Regardless of whether or not people choose to work in those places, employers have a duty to provide safe working conditions for their staff, in terms of both short and long term effects to their health.
-
True their. You shouldin't want to go to work everyday and have to breathe in smoke if you find it gross. I mean, that's not fair for the workers.
-
Regardless of whether or not they'd "want to", employers aren't allowed to. It's like workplaces with high noise levels, or jobs that involve heavy lifting. The employers are liable should something go wrong, regardless of who's choice it was to work there.
-
Banning tobacco and alcohol will never work as it's been proven over and over and over again.
-
Banning tobacco and alcohol will never work as it's been proven over and over and over again.
Please read the entire topic, we've kind of moved beyond that point.
Besides, who's ever tried to ban tobacco entirely? Prohibition didn't work because it was instant. Things like that need to be more gentle.
-
Banning tobacco and alcohol will never work as it's been proven over and over and over again.
Please read the entire topic, we've kind of moved beyond that point.
Besides, who's ever tried to ban tobacco entirely? Prohibition didn't work because it was instant. Things like that need to be more gentle.
No what i'm talking about is there is no way to get rid of it, gentle or not gentle smoking is here to stay.
Second hand smoke? phfft.... People are more likely to die from a drunk driver then ever getting cancer from second hand smoke. Yet they still allow alcohal to be served at publec events such as nascar races and sport events. If they allow alcohal, why not allow ciggaretts?
-
Banning tobacco and alcohol will never work as it's been proven over and over and over again.
Please read the entire topic, we've kind of moved beyond that point.
Besides, who's ever tried to ban tobacco entirely? Prohibition didn't work because it was instant. Things like that need to be more gentle.
No what i'm talking about is there is no way to get rid of it, gentle or not gentle smoking is here to stay.
Second hand smoke? phfft.... People are more likely to die from a drunk driver then ever getting cancer from second hand smoke. Yet they still allow alcohal to be served at publec events such as nascar races and sport events. If they allow alcohal, why not allow ciggaretts?
agree, well, i just dont like to smoke, but i dont care if a friend of mines smoke, there is nothing wrong in that.
-
Banning tobacco and alcohol will never work as it's been proven over and over and over again.
Please read the entire topic, we've kind of moved beyond that point.
Besides, who's ever tried to ban tobacco entirely? Prohibition didn't work because it was instant. Things like that need to be more gentle.
No what i'm talking about is there is no way to get rid of it, gentle or not gentle smoking is here to stay.
Second hand smoke? phfft.... People are more likely to die from a drunk driver then ever getting cancer from second hand smoke. Yet they still allow alcohal to be served at publec events such as nascar races and sport events. If they allow alcohal, why not allow ciggaretts?
It's like letting people !@#$% in your face; it's fine if you let them do it and give them permission to; it's something completley different when they do it simply because "they enjoy it", "it's not that dangerous" and "it's not illegal".
The thing about alcohol is, there are a large number of laws controlling its use, and you are still responsible for anything you do under the influence. Alcohol does not typically give people cancer long-distance.
A lot of people do die from second-hand smoke, and a lot of babies are born underweight to mothers who recieve a lot of second-hand smoke. There are big impacts healthwise, but it's also offensive to force people to breath in your fumes.
-
Banning tobacco and alcohol will never work as it's been proven over and over and over again.
Please read the entire topic, we've kind of moved beyond that point.
Besides, who's ever tried to ban tobacco entirely? Prohibition didn't work because it was instant. Things like that need to be more gentle.
No what i'm talking about is there is no way to get rid of it, gentle or not gentle smoking is here to stay.
Second hand smoke? phfft.... People are more likely to die from a drunk driver then ever getting cancer from second hand smoke. Yet they still allow alcohal to be served at publec events such as nascar races and sport events. If they allow alcohal, why not allow ciggaretts?
It's like letting people !@#$% in your face; it's fine if you let them do it and give them permission to; it's something completley different when they do it simply because "they enjoy it", "it's not that dangerous" and "it's not illegal".
The thing about alcohol is, there are a large number of laws controlling its use, and you are still responsible for anything you do under the influence. Alcohol does not typically give people cancer long-distance.
A lot of people do die from second-hand smoke, and a lot of babies are born underweight to mothers who recieve a lot of second-hand smoke. There are big impacts healthwise, but it's also offensive to force people to breath in your fumes.
If the mother is exposed to that much smoke over that long of a period, then it's the mother's fault for being an idiot and being around the smoke. If you want to get into birth defects, alcohal still causes more damage to babies each year then second hand smoke.
-
Then don't drink when you're pregnant, y'know?
But as for smoke, there are situations where it may not be possible to avoid smoke if smoking is legal in public places and workplaces.
-
Revan, there are people that smoke everywhere, especially in the city. For example, a pregnant woman living in New York City might take in a lot of 2nd hand smoke just walking to work, etc. Especially since they outlawed smoking indoors. That means everybody goes outside to smoke >_>
-
Then don't drink when you're pregnant, y'know?
But as for smoke, there are situations where it may not be possible to avoid smoke if smoking is legal in public places and workplaces.
Fatal Achohal Syndrome. thats when you drink when your preggo.
Anyways this isint about comparing smoking and alchohal, we're debating smoking >_>
Sorry to kinda rent-a-mod.
-
Then don't drink when you're pregnant, y'know?
But as for smoke, there are situations where it may not be possible to avoid smoke if smoking is legal in public places and workplaces.
Fatal Achohal Syndrome. thats when you drink when your preggo.
Anyways this isint about comparing smoking and alchohal, we're debating smoking >_>
Sorry to kinda rent-a-mod.
They're related, and it does relate to the debate.
-
Hmm...
/me glares
w/e
Revan, there are people that smoke everywhere, especially in the city. For example, a pregnant woman living in New York City might take in a lot of 2nd hand smoke just walking to work, etc. Especially since they outlawed smoking indoors. That means everybody goes outside to smoke >_>
Well... that has a just reason. No one wants to move into a house where someone has been smoking if they don't smoke. It would give them Emphysema, Lung Cancer, Asthma, etc. over time.
Notice at hotels there are "Smoking" or "Non-Smoking" rooms, or at resturaunts. "smoking" or "Non-Smoking" because people dont want to breathe in other peoples ciggarettes.
-
Then don't drink when you're pregnant, y'know?
But as for smoke, there are situations where it may not be possible to avoid smoke if smoking is legal in public places and workplaces.
Fatal Achohal Syndrome. thats when you drink when your preggo.
Anyways this isint about comparing smoking and alchohal, we're debating smoking >_>
Sorry to kinda rent-a-mod.
I didn't bring up the alcohol, someone else did. My post was a reply to someone else's. Please read the topic fully.
Hmm...
/me glares
w/e
Revan, there are people that smoke everywhere, especially in the city. For example, a pregnant woman living in New York City might take in a lot of 2nd hand smoke just walking to work, etc. Especially since they outlawed smoking indoors. That means everybody goes outside to smoke >_>
Well... that has a just reason. No one wants to move into a house where someone has been smoking if they don't smoke. It would give them Emphysema, Lung Cancer, Asthma, etc. over time.
Notice at hotels there are "Smoking" or "Non-Smoking" rooms, or at resturaunts. "smoking" or "Non-Smoking" because people dont want to breathe in other peoples ciggarettes.
As already mentionned, the smoke diffuses into ALL areas, not just where people are smoking. You can't just keep the smoke in a bubble.
-
They had something cool at an airport i've been to once. There were a couple rooms throughout the place, which had a 2 layers of doors. The 2 layers of doors pretty much prevented any smoke from getting out. That means, they still get to do what they want, but its not so dangerous to other people. Now if everywhere could get those rooms ;)
-
They had something cool at an airport i've been to once. There were a couple rooms throughout the place, which had a 2 layers of doors. The 2 layers of doors pretty much prevented any smoke from getting out. That means, they still get to do what they want, but its not so dangerous to other people. Now if everywhere could get those rooms ;)
Ye, that would help prevent second-hand smoke. That would be very helpful. What country was it in?
-
I think there's not much difference between cigarettes and other ILLEGAL drugs, it should be illegal just like them, the only reason it's not is because of all the tax the government collects off their sales.
Cigarettes are a drug, just like cannibis and ecstasy...
-
I think there's not much difference between cigarettes and other ILLEGAL drugs, it should be illegal just like them, the only reason it's not is because of all the tax the government collects off their sales.
Cigarettes are a drug, just like cannibis and ecstasy...
Yeah, of course. If they are illegal, no one can buy them from the gov and the gov gets no extra money. But with the price of gas and homes and an 8% tax on everything, I dont think they need much more.
-
I think there's not much difference between cigarettes and other ILLEGAL drugs, it should be illegal just like them, the only reason it's not is because of all the tax the government collects off their sales.
Cigarettes are a drug, just like cannibis and ecstasy...
Yeah, of course. If they are illegal, no one can buy them from the gov and the gov gets no extra money. But with the price of gas and homes and an 8% tax on everything, I dont think they need much more.
No kidding. Gas prices around calgary are 106.8 I hear thats cheap now a-days. Well, why shouldint they be illegal, it has nicotine in it, and nicotine is a drug. Just like ecstasy, etc. Why should it be allowed?
-
I think that anyone who starts smoking in this day and age with all the health risks and what not is a moron to be frank. Im not talking about parents or grandparents etc because they didnt know about the risks when they where young and have been smoking this long so fair enough, but to choose to smoke in this day and age is just ridiculous in my opinion. On the other hand its thier choice and if they want to slowly destroy thier health then thats thier prerogative im araid.
-
I don't think it should be ilegal seeing as how its not gonna screw you up like alchohal and make you unable to dive properly. But I think it should only be done in the privacy of your house. Simply because the negative effects it has on other people int he world.
But cigaretts as they are now, are stupid. They have so much !@#$% in them that they have absolutly no need for whatsoever. over 5000 chemicals? why? It should be just a plain tobaco-like plant with no added chemicals to reduce the effect it has on unborn babies, and people aroudn them who do not choose to smoke.
Also. They shouldn't put nicotien(sp) in it to make you addicted. Seeing as how because of this people have to smoke in public. Because they can't wait tell they get home.
It should be a simple plant you can smoke just for the pleasure of puffing on some smoke. With different flavors. And no chemicals, or harmfull substances (opther then the smoke itself wich damages you're lungs).
They should work on making healthier smokes, and cigaretts without chemicals I guarantee a lot of people are still going to smoke them. Look at how many do regardless of the health concerns. So if they wern't as bad for the person. They would still have the same buisness. In fact. They might have more buisness. Seeing as how people would live longer.
Then again. Taking out that danger from smoking only causes more people to smoke, more often. And since smoke in general is still harmfull to you're lungs, and still causes emfisyma(sp) you will still have a lot of problems caused by smoking.
So I don't really know what to say.
-
Smoking = bad. But it will never be illegal. If you've ever heard what happened when the U.S. made alcohol illegal. :/
-
Smoking = bad. But it will never be illegal. If you've ever heard what happened when the U.S. made alcohol illegal. :/
It IS illegal for those under 18.
-
I'm talking about for adults. And no one really fully obeys those laws. I've heard/seen peoplle smoking at 15 and its disgusting.
-
Drinking/Smoking age limits don't prevent it very much. :/
I personally think it should all be illegal :P
-
This is like how communism works XD Great on paper, horrible in real life XD Limey, have you ever heard about the speakeasies?
-
This is like how communism works XD Great on paper, horrible in real life XD Limey, have you ever heard about the speakeasies?
I dont think its ever GOING to be illigal, or it would really work to illegalize it, I just think that they're all harmful for yourself and people around you, and in a better world they'd all be illegal :/
-
Its going to be illegal to smoke in public here in England, they are bringing laws in. I say here in England because I assume your form the states.
-
I hope they finally do that here too.
I was at a bowling alley today and there were these two bitches who were smoking right next to us. Its so rude
-
I've never smoked, due to a few reasons
- It's damn addictive...in a bad way
- It makes you smell bad
- It costs a shipweight worth of money
- It's not necessary at all
-
I hope they finally do that here too.
I was at a bowling alley today and there were these two bitches who were smoking right next to us. Its so rude
Hell yeah, Contrary to popular belief not everybody enjoys smoking. Damn those bitches to hell.
-
I don't think it should be ilegal seeing as how its not gonna screw you up like alchohal and make you unable to dive properly. But I think it should only be done in the privacy of your house. Simply because the negative effects it has on other people int he world.
But, see, there are no plus sides to smoking. There is no benefit in any way from smoking. Alcohol, in moderation, helps with bone density and other such things.
But cigaretts as they are now, are stupid. They have so much !@#$% in them that they have absolutly no need for whatsoever. over 5000 chemicals? why? It should be just a plain tobaco-like plant with no added chemicals to reduce the effect it has on unborn babies, and people aroudn them who do not choose to smoke.
There is no such thing. Those 5000 chemicals in the smoke are all chmicals produced from the normal combustion of tobacco leaves.
Also. They shouldn't put nicotien(sp) in it to make you addicted. Seeing as how because of this people have to smoke in public. Because they can't wait tell they get home.
The nicotine is, again, naturally there. The nicotine is the only reason left why anyone smokes; make nicotine immediately unavailable, and you might as well not have any smoking at all.
It should be a simple plant you can smoke just for the pleasure of puffing on some smoke. With different flavors. And no chemicals, or harmfull substances (opther then the smoke itself wich damages you're lungs).
No such thing. Even a "plain" plant would be safe; there would still be carbon monoxide and other such chemicals.
They should work on making healthier smokes, and cigaretts without chemicals I guarantee a lot of people are still going to smoke them. Look at how many do regardless of the health concerns. So if they wern't as bad for the person. They would still have the same buisness. In fact. They might have more buisness. Seeing as how people would live longer.
They start smoking because they think it's cool. They carry on because they're addicted. Business for the industry would flatline.
-
If there is such a big problem with people doing stuff to their bodies, how come humans are living longer than ever?
-
Because they are all High and medicine has advanced too so that helps.
-
If there is such a big problem with people doing stuff to their bodies, how come humans are living longer than ever?
Because they are all High and medicine has advanced too so that helps.
Consider how much polution we have now days. Consider how many more sicknesess there are. Also consider how much crap we eat every day. A lot of people don't realise. But everything you eat in your diet on a regular basis is more then likly not healthy for you. Chikens, cows, and other animals that are a staple in our diet are all injected with different hormones and steroids to help them mass produce, eggs, milk, and crow (leading to faster meat supply).
Even the milk you drink (unless you have your own personal cow) has small amounts of cancer causing agents in it, because of all the crap put into the cows, chicken, etc. etc.
There is almost nothing out there that doesn't have something in it that is harmfull to your body in some way. With the exception of things you grow yourselves. That's why the best wya to live would be to grow all of your food, and animals, butcher them yourselves, gather your own eggs, and food. Then you know exactly what goes into it.
Not to mention shipping food to stores. You know how long and far meat and other products travel before it gets to your store? or to your home. I was watchign a program on global warming the other day, and it was showing exactly how much carbon dioxide and other fumes your food goes through on its journy to your home.
If you consider everything we eat or endure living in this world. It's a shame. With the current medacine. If we corrected the problems of green house gasses, and other forums of pollution and global warming. If the entire diet of the world changed. If people stped worrying so much about money and stoped injecting their food with crap, and humans excersised on a daily basis, drank water when they were thirsty. Imagine how much longer we would live?
So when "who are the brain police" said because we have so much medacine, hes right. But if you gave all of the technolagy and medacine to people 100, or even a thousand ears ago. They would live 2, maybe 3 times as long as we do today.
But with all of that aside. I believe on top of everything Ive just said. I have my own opinion. Which is based on christianity, seeing as how I am a christian. I believe the people who lived long ago, before jesus walked the earth people lived much longer. At one point, they were living to be 900 even 1000+ years. I guess that is almsot impsosible for most people to believe. But in turn. I believe it is not just what we eat, that is causing the decline in average age length. But thigns we have done as humans in the past. Think what you will.
-
If there is such a big problem with people doing stuff to their bodies, how come humans are living longer than ever?
Because they are all High and medicine has advanced too so that helps.
Consider how much polution we have now days. Consider how many more sicknesess there are. Also consider how much crap we eat every day. A lot of people don't realise. But everything you eat in your diet on a regular basis is more then likly not healthy for you. Chikens, cows, and other animals that are a staple in our diet are all injected with different hormones and steroids to help them mass produce, eggs, milk, and crow (leading to faster meat supply).
Even the milk you drink (unless you have your own personal cow) has small amounts of cancer causing agents in it, because of all the crap put into the cows, chicken, etc. etc.
There is almost nothing out there that doesn't have something in it that is harmfull to your body in some way. With the exception of things you grow yourselves. That's why the best wya to live would be to grow all of your food, and animals, butcher them yourselves, gather your own eggs, and food. Then you know exactly what goes into it.
Not to mention shipping food to stores. You know how long and far meat and other products travel before it gets to your store? or to your home. I was watchign a program on global warming the other day, and it was showing exactly how much carbon dioxide and other fumes your food goes through on its journy to your home.
If you consider everything we eat or endure living in this world. It's a shame. With the current medacine. If we corrected the problems of green house gasses, and other forums of pollution and global warming. If the entire diet of the world changed. If people stped worrying so much about money and stoped injecting their food with crap, and humans excersised on a daily basis, drank water when they were thirsty. Imagine how much longer we would live?
So when "who are the brain police" said because we have so much medacine, hes right. But if you gave all of the technolagy and medacine to people 100, or even a thousand ears ago. They would live 2, maybe 3 times as long as we do today.
But with all of that aside. I believe on top of everything Ive just said. I have my own opinion. Which is based on christianity, seeing as how I am a christian. I believe the people who lived long ago, before jesus walked the earth people lived much longer. At one point, they were living to be 900 even 1000+ years. I guess that is almsot impsosible for most people to believe. But in turn. I believe it is not just what we eat, that is causing the decline in average age length. But thigns we have done as humans in the past. Think what you will.
LOL
*ahem* Sorry, but that is just you guessing: There is NO scientific eveidence to back that up WHATSOEVER. Back then, people would die much more often: No hospitals, medicine, etc. People lived until about 50 or so.
-
I know that I said I'm gone (and I am... it's just unfortunate that I have the debates section as my home page :P), but I have to say one thing:
LOL
*ahem* Sorry, but that is just you guessing: There is NO scientific eveidence to back that up WHATSOEVER. Back then, people would die much more often: No hospitals, medicine, etc. People lived until about 50 or so.
We don't have proof against it.
Besides, the ways that we measure years/months/weeks has changed with time. Who's to say that 999 of their years could be 50 of ours?
-
I know that I said I'm gone (and I am... it's just unfortunate that I have the debates section as my home page :P), but I have to say one thing:
LOL
*ahem* Sorry, but that is just you guessing: There is NO scientific eveidence to back that up WHATSOEVER. Back then, people would die much more often: No hospitals, medicine, etc. People lived until about 50 or so.
We don't have proof against it.
Besides, the ways that we measure years/months/weeks has changed with time. Who's to say that 999 of their years could be 50 of ours?
Well we are in a modern world we wouldn't use their time system and say 999, we'd say 50.. u__u
-
If you look at what I said. I said based on my belief. Just what Ive read int he christian bible. So no, im not just taking a wild guess at something. That is just what I'm baseing it on. Weather they messured years different back then or not.
-
I know that I said I'm gone (and I am... it's just unfortunate that I have the debates section as my home page :P), but I have to say one thing:
LOL
*ahem* Sorry, but that is just you guessing: There is NO scientific eveidence to back that up WHATSOEVER. Back then, people would die much more often: No hospitals, medicine, etc. People lived until about 50 or so.
We don't have proof against it.
Besides, the ways that we measure years/months/weeks has changed with time. Who's to say that 999 of their years could be 50 of ours?
Cavemen had hospitals?
-
If you look at what I said. I said based on my belief. Just what Ive read int he christian bible. So no, im not just taking a wild guess at something. That is just what I'm baseing it on. Weather they messured years different back then or not.
Nowhere in the bible does it say that people lived for 999 years O_____o
-
I'm talking about for adults. And no one really fully obeys those laws. I've heard/seen peoplle smoking at 15 and its disgusting.
Try 11, like my cousin.
-
If you look at what I said. I said based on my belief. Just what Ive read int he christian bible. So no, im not just taking a wild guess at something. That is just what I'm baseing it on. Weather they messured years different back then or not.
Nowhere in the bible does it say that people lived for 999 years O_____o
Yes it dose... Ive read parts that say that several times. Try reading some of the early parts of the first book (Genesis). But regardless. Just because that is what it says. Doesn't mean anybody has to believe it. That is just my beliefs.
-
I know that I said I'm gone (and I am... it's just unfortunate that I have the debates section as my home page :P), but I have to say one thing:
LOL
*ahem* Sorry, but that is just you guessing: There is NO scientific eveidence to back that up WHATSOEVER. Back then, people would die much more often: No hospitals, medicine, etc. People lived until about 50 or so.
We don't have proof against it.
Besides, the ways that we measure years/months/weeks has changed with time. Who's to say that 999 of their years could be 50 of ours?
Cavemen had hospitals?
Who ever said that?
If you look at what I said. I said based on my belief. Just what Ive read int he christian bible. So no, im not just taking a wild guess at something. That is just what I'm baseing it on. Weather they messured years different back then or not.
Nowhere in the bible does it say that people lived for 999 years O_____o
Yes it dose... Ive read parts that say that several times. Try reading some of the early parts of the first book (Genesis). But regardless. Just because that is what it says. Doesn't mean anybody has to believe it. That is just my beliefs.
Aye, definitely. And you have every right to do so ;)
-
I know that I said I'm gone (and I am... it's just unfortunate that I have the debates section as my home page :P), but I have to say one thing:
LOL
*ahem* Sorry, but that is just you guessing: There is NO scientific eveidence to back that up WHATSOEVER. Back then, people would die much more often: No hospitals, medicine, etc. People lived until about 50 or so.
We don't have proof against it.
Besides, the ways that we measure years/months/weeks has changed with time. Who's to say that 999 of their years could be 50 of ours?
You said they might. By saying: We dont have proof against it. No proof agains hospitals eh?
-
You said they might. By saying: We dont have proof against it. No proof agains hospitals eh?
I was reffering to the "people lived about to 50 or so", versus the hundreds of years.
-
make it illegal altogether. I've been smoking for five years and I totally regret starting it. Truth is i wouldn't be smoking a pack of 30's a day now if it was illegal. Ban it altogether, so the next generation may be a little healthier than this one ;D
-
make it illegal altogether. I've been smoking for five years and I totally regret starting it. Truth is i wouldn't be smoking a pack of 30's a day now if it was illegal. Ban it altogether, so the next generation may be a little healthier than this one ;D
If you read the whole topic *sigh* then you'd see many arguements against an immediate ban. There would be a lot of protest against banning it altogether straight away.
-
I did, and i still say ban it right now, yes straight away.