Smoking

Famine · Jun 26, 2004

Smoking.

An addiction to throwing burning leaves wrapped up in a paper tube into your mouth and inhaling the fumes.

A habit which causes death, by drowning your lungs in tar and mutating the cells of your respiratory tract so that they strangle their neighbours.

A soothing influence which steadies your nerves..?

Anyway, down to the questions at hand.

Do you think smoking should be banned in public places?
Bear in mind that there is no validated proof that passive smoking (also known as "Secondhand Smoke") causes any statistically increased chances of suffering from ill-health, and that by banning it you are infringing the freedom of smokers to smoke. That said, it started off as their free-choice (even if it was peer-pressure induced or ill-informed) - do they have the right to inflict their choice of addiction onto other people?

Should smokers receive free medical treatment for smoking-related diseases?
This question isn't applicable in the USA (as far as my knowledge of US healthcare goes), but in the UK we are all entitled to free medical treatment. Smokers bring the disease on themselves, causing a huge load on the NHS. That said, they pay tax (tobacco duty AND VAT) on their cigarettes, which helps fund the NHS.

Do you think tobacco should be subject to the same laws as other drugs?
Nicotine is a habit-forming drug. The users suffer withdrawal symptoms if they try to stop and often have to ween themselves off with patches (similar to "curing" heroin addiction by administering methadone in reducing doses). Smoking-related disease kills far more people (deaths per user) than cannabis smoking (which doesn't carry the same levels of risk for the respiratory/mouth cancers). Yet cannabis is illegal and tobacco isn't. In fact, someone from outside the USA who has been given so much as a police caution for cannabis possession can be refused entry to the US even as a tourist - while someone next to him can wander through customs with a lit fagend* hanging out of his mouth.

Discuss. Go on!

Famine has a never smoked tobacco, nor taken any illegal substances, and intends to keep it that way.

*Note to foreigners. A "fag" is a cigarette in British slang. Not a homosexual (although it can be that too).

Blake · Jun 26, 2004

Well smoking laws are alot stricter in Australia and I really like it that way, When I went to Europe I was coughing a hell of alot due to the sheer amount of smoke that was just hanging in bars and restaraunts, it was horrible. Anyway I am 100% against smoking and smoking shouldn't be alowed at all IMO but too many people are addicted to just make it illegal.

ledhed · Jun 26, 2004

Pot needs to be legalized.

Flerbizky · Jun 26, 2004

It's impossible to discuss this subject without getting into a figth. It's like discussing politics - it always ends in a mud throwing contest... So this will be my final post in this thread...

Flerbizky Smokes, but knows when and where not to... !

donbenni · Jun 26, 2004

Famine
1. Do you think smoking should be banned in public places?
2. Should smokers receive free medical treatment for smoking-related diseases?
3. Do you think tobacco should be subject to the same laws as other drugs?

1. No. Not but i think that places such as restaurants, pubs/clubs etc should have the choice to ban smoking from their establishments (which they do i think). I don't think it should be down to Tony to decide whether or not we can smoke in public.

2. Yes. As you say, smokers provide the government with SO MUCH money that it'd be stupid not to.

3. If tabacco should be, then so should alcohol.

Danoff · Jun 26, 2004

1) No. Second hand smoke is a totally BS argument to ban it in public places.
2) Nobody should receive free healthcare treatment except in case of severe emergency.
3) No. Because no drugs should be illegal.

Famine · Jun 26, 2004

danoff
1) No. Second hand smoke is a totally BS argument to ban it in public places.
2) Nobody should receive free healthcare treatment except in case of severe emergency.
3) No. Because no drugs should be illegal.

1) I said that.
2) I said it didn't apply to the US - however the system is in place in the UK. Ignoring your 100% Capitalist ideal, and given that everyone else gets free medical treatment in the UK, should smokers be excluded for their self-inflicted disorders, or not as their tax on tobacco helps pay for it?
3) Interesting. Please elaborate (and if no drugs should be illegal, then surely your answer ought to be "Yes, tobacco should be subject to the same laws")...

emad · Jun 26, 2004

Famine
1) Do you think smoking should be banned in public places?
2) Should smokers receive free medical treatment for smoking-related diseases?
3) Do you think tobacco should be subject to the same laws as other drugs?

1) I'm not sure about the rest of you but being around smoke whether it's outdoors or indoors severely ****s with my sinuses and I'm sure it affects other people in the same way. I can't stand it and because of all the smokers in front of the buildings in downtown, I'm usually forced to take the underground paths to get to and from the train station. This nearly doubles the length of the trip. My only other alternative is to spend $4.50 every day on subway tickets - something I can't afford.

I'd be more than happy if they banned smoking in all public places - It'll help me and many many other people with similar problems breathe at least a little better.

2) If their tax money is going to healthcare, they should get treatment. I'm not sure about the UK, but in canada, treatment is done on a priority basis - the sickest people are treated first.

3) As far as drugs go, I really don't give a damn what who's smoking or drinking or injecting themselves with so long as they do it at home. Frankly, I really don't get how they can ban weed and other drugs when they allow alcohol and tobacco to be sold freely. Alcohol and tobacco are also harmful to your health and potentially addictive, why aren't they illegal?

Famine · Jun 26, 2004

emad
1) I'm not sure about the rest of you but being around smoke whether it's outdoors or indoors severely ****s with my sinuses and I'm sure it affects other people in the same way. I can't stand it and because of all the smokers in front of the buildings in downtown, I'm usually forced to take the underground paths to get to and from the train station. This nearly doubles the length of the trip. My only other alternative is to spend $4.50 every day on subway tickets - something I can't afford.

I'd be more than happy if they banned smoking in all public places - It'll help me and many many other people with similar problems breathe at least a little better.

I was wondering when someone would bring that up. While "passive smoking" has had no scientifically validated evidence to support it, it's certainly true that smoky atmospheres affect those with extant respiratory problems - such as asthma - by reducing the amount of available oxygen in the air.

You've got a choice to go into a pub or not - but if the building bans it, people go outside and you get the problems emad mentions. If you don't ban it in buildings then those people can't go into that building - and non-smokers like to eat out too - or have the odd drink.

In the UK almost all public buildings have smoking and non-smoking areas (although it's banned totally on public transport - a cigarette stub caused the King's Cross fire). Even hospitals have a smoker's room - but then you have to go out of your way to get there if you want to smoke.

Does the smoker's freedom to choose to smoke infringe on the non-smoking asthma sufferer's freedom to go into certain places - or does the non-smoker's freedom to breath clean air impinge on the smoker's freedom to choose to smoke?

Danoff · Jun 26, 2004

1) I said that.

I'm agreeing with you.

2) I said it didn't apply to the US - however the system is in place in the UK. Ignoring your 100% Capitalist ideal, and given that everyone else gets free medical treatment in the UK, should smokers be excluded for their self-inflicted disorders, or not as their tax on tobacco helps pay for it?

If everybody pays taxes for health care then everyone should at least receive treatment. It would be committing two crimes to first force everyone to pay for universal health care, and then use it to regulate their lifestyle. It's a slippery slope... do you tell them they can't go surfing or ride a skateboard because they might get hurt? This is part of the problem inherent in government sponsored health care.

3) Interesting. Please elaborate...

I don't support laws that protect people from theselves. Making drugs illegal is just that. Laws protecting people from other people are fine.

Does the smoker's freedom to choose to smoke infringe on the non-smoking asthma sufferer's freedom to go into certain places - or does the non-smoker's freedom to breath clean air impinge on the smoker's freedom to choose to smoke?

The freedom to smoke is real. The freedom to breath clean air is nonsense. Do you have the freedom to eat? The freedom to drive a car? The freedom to take a shower? You can't have the freedom to do things that must be provided to you. A better way to phrase this argument would be to say that public air is public property and smokers have no right to deface it with second hand smoke. But then we could make farting illegal... or plants that cause allergies... or busses that give off nasty fumes.

Certainly there is a limit to what is reasonable. If someone decided to choke a city with disgusting gasses that would be a problem. So there is a judgement call about what is minor and what is worth banning. I don't think smoking falls into the ban category even though it is nasty.

Famine · Jun 26, 2004

danoff
I'm agreeing with you.

A first?

danoff
The freedom to smoke is real. The freedom to breath clean air is nonsense. Do you have the freedom to eat? The freedom to drive a car? The freedom to take a shower? You can't have the freedom to do things that must be provided to you.

But hang on here - cigarettes ARE provided to you. They are products arising from a plant, which are then treated, processed, packaged, shipped and supplied in boxes of 20 at £2 a time. How is buying and driving a car different to buying and smoking cigarettes?

The need to smoke arises from an addiction to nicotine. The need to breath arises from 4.5 billion years of the evolution of the planet. Surely humans doing what their bodies have evolved to do override those who, through their addictions, are removing their ability to?

Kent · Jun 26, 2004

ledhed
Pot needs to be legalized.

Praise the lord, I would never smoke tabacco again.

I am so with you on this one ledhed... 👍

Man, there are just too many times where I agree with you in this opinions forum.

Thanks for making "our" opinions into such a short and simple statement.

K_Speed · Jun 26, 2004

I live in Germany, and this country's teenagers smokes more than any other. Before school, a few times during school etc etc. One of my friends smokes bout a package a day, or more. Kids here start real early. Some 10, I even saw one at the age of 6. Everyone smokes, and thats why I dont. I do once in a while at a party, but thats it.

Im afraid of smoking, Im afraid of everything that has to do something with cancer or things, cause I even got problems walking into a hospital.

Few of my friends started at around 14 and they keep going, I know maybe only like 5% will stop, and most of them will try and fail. And that happened a lot. They say, im going to stop now, but it never works.
And what am I to think? They smoke from this eraly age, and what is when theyre 30+, I mean, maybe theyll get lung cancer and other diseases.

Everytime I see them smoke, I think "What are they smoking for? Death?"

Blake · Jun 27, 2004

If people want to make there own lives shorter fine,. but do it in the privacy of your own home where you make the general public sick.

Sage · Jun 27, 2004

Famine
Do you think smoking should be banned in public places?[/size]

In certain situations yes, in certain situations no. Regardless of whether or not the information behind secondhand smoke is bullpuckey or not, I know that it can be dangerous to asthmatics, because I am one. When somebody smokes around me for any longer than a few minutes (even if they're 50 feet away) and I can't get out of their area, I'm pretty much toast without my inhaler, and even an inhaler only works for so long. And my asthma isn't that bad I'd hate to think what a truly sensitive asthmatic would have to go through.

Anyway, point being In open-air areas and bars/pubs and those kind of things, it's fine... if you're sensitive, you'd have to be a stupid butt-face to go into a pub with smoke flying out the door. However, in certain public places, like, oh, say, a museum, there's no particularly good reason not to ban smoking.

If smoking just caused other people discomfort, that would be a lousy reason to ban it (morbidly obese people are a discomfort to my eyes, but they shouldn't be banned). However, I have personal experience in knowing that it can cause much worse problems than simple discomfort.

Should smokers receive free medical treatment for smoking-related diseases?[/size]

No. Not here, not there, not anywhere... should you get free medical treatment if you stab yourself in the eyes?

Do you think tobacco should be subject to the same laws as other drugs?[/size]

I can't really answer this, since I am absolutely clueless about laws pertaining to drugs... I don't know anything about drugs in general (Hell, I learned the slang meaning of "Coke" from a teacher! I'm that pathetic.)

Solid Lifters · Jun 27, 2004

I quit smoking years ago and I can't stand being around smokers. Smoking is so addictive, you will want to light up again just smelling the second hand smoke. So, I say ban the hell out of it. You cares about smokers rights. If you want to light up, do it where I'm not going to be around. On a note, all beaches in Ventura and LA Counties have banned smoking on the beach.

Blake · Jun 27, 2004

Sage
Hell, I learned the slang meaning of "Coke" from a teacher!

Hehehe

Event · Jun 27, 2004

1. Yes, except in Bars. Restaurants with bars in them should have proper ventilation around the bar. Many people are allergic to smoke and they can't be around smokers, so they shouldn't have to suffer. For those who say we shouldn't conform the majority to a minority of people allergic to cigarette smoke, we conform to the few people who are handicapped, and we have for years. Being allergic to smoke is kind of like a handicap.

2. No, smokers shouldt've started smoking in the first place. Cigarette corporations should offer services to those who wish to smoke. They got them hooked, the should be able to get them un-hooked.

3. Yes, crack kills, meth kills, heroin kills, ecstacy kills, cigarettes kill. 'nuff said.

1X83Z · Jun 27, 2004

danoff
Laws protecting people from other people are fine.

[/b]

Why would you believe that drug laws don't protect people from other people? :odd:

Danoff · Jun 27, 2004

But hang on here - cigarettes ARE provided to you. They are products arising from a plant, which are then treated, processed, packaged, shipped and supplied in boxes of 20 at £2 a time. How is buying and driving a car different to buying and smoking cigarettes?

You're right. I should have said "the freedom to smoke your cigarettes is real."

Why would you believe that drug laws don't protect people from other people?

That's why I said

Laws protecting people from other people are fine.

I meant to imply that some drug laws fall under this category. However, I think most of them do not.

hanker · Jun 27, 2004

I didn't read all the posts above me, or that matter even Famines original one, but all I got to say is that, Sure go ahead and ban smoking in public just because it wont affect me in antway other than that I wont have to smell it.....But that really does sound a little harsh to me for people who have grown up that way.

I'd like to know, out of all the smokers, how many would quit if they could. My guess would be that if the "quitting on the spot" option would out way the other.

Klostrophobic · Jun 27, 2004

All substances (Woo, pot!! Let's get high, man!) should be legal in private places. All substances that can cause any harm to anyone should be illegal in public places. Smokers should not receive free medical health of any kind just because they smoke. Or should I say, the government shouldn't pay for it.

There's no proof that second-hand smoke is harmful, but I bet it's safe to say that it is. If nothing else, cigarettes create an obnoxious smell.

1X83Z · Jun 27, 2004

Klostrophobic
If nothing else, cigarettes create an obnoxious smell.

Yeah, but so do you, and I don't see them banning you in public places.

Klostrophobic · Jun 27, 2004

What're you talking about?

They won't even let me within 2 miles of the Boston Public Gardens anymore.

And don't remind me about that time at the Smithsonian in DC. I can't even entertain a thought about going within 350 miles of that place. I'm screwed.

hanker · Jun 27, 2004

There would be no more fun in the streets without the Smokin' hot chick

Famine · Jun 27, 2004

danoff
You're right. I should have said "the freedom to smoke your cigarettes is real."

Holy poop! Twice in a thread...

Anyway... if the freedom to smoke your cigarettes is real, then your other examples fall under the same banner. The freedom to eat the food you've bought is real. The freedom to drive the car you've bought is real. Then also the freedom to breathe the clean air we've evolved to breathe is real...

Klos has it right in my mind. Apart from that bit about the Smithsonian.

Kelly · Jun 27, 2004

Here's my take on smoking and answers to Famines questions...

1) Yes, ban it I don't care, I can wait until I get home if I want to light up.
2) Yes, we pay our taxes and as you mention cigarette buyers are giving huge amounts of money in taxes to help pay for our healthcare.
3) Yes, again I agree that nicotine is a highly addictive substance and it should be treated in the same way as other drugs, if that means making it illegal then so be it.

I am a smoker or should I say an addict, since age 14 and I find it pretty funny that I answered yes to all of those questions, maybe it's a sign that I'm ready to quit this filthy stinky habit that makes me cough up **** from my lungs and turns my teeth and fingers yellow, ruins my skin and hair etc..etc.. I guess I'll have to be real strong on breaking this habit, it's not something I enjoy doing, tobacco tastes horrible and stinks :yuck:

So why do I light up? ...because I'm addicted, that's why :embarrassed:

Famine where the hell do you get 20 fags for £2 !!! ?

Hopefully before I turn 30 I can kick this stinking habit, I want to be a non-smoker

ExigeEvan · Jun 27, 2004

I live in Germany, and this country's teenagers smokes more than any other.

Are you sure about that? I swear I read than teh UK had the worst. (Or maybe that is teen pregnancies in the Europe.)

Before school, a few times during school etc etc.

Same in my school. Except most have one after aswell before the buses leave. The teachers are so dumb when it comes to catching them in the act, they make it so obvious, it is no wonder that most the time the ciggarettes are cold by the time the teacehrs get there.

Kids here start real early. Some 10, I even saw one at the age of 6. Everyone smokes, and thats why I dont. I do once in a while at a party, but thats it.

I know a girl that started at 7. I've seen a kid in a rough area smoking at 6. Alot of kids start around 10-13 round here. generally the boys will start but quickly stop as they realise the effect it is having on their fitness. Though there are some than can smoke 10 a day and still come in the top 5 of the 1500m.

I went round a friends house and his father who has been smoking since he was 10 (now 50-60...I quote"everyone smoked then, and newbody new the effects of it") My mate is quite fit and athletic and he hates it when his father smokes, and his father is trying to give up.

I hate smokers, my main opinion is that they are either a) to week to withstand pier pressure or b) they rae trying to escape something and find smoking 'relaxing'.

K_Speed · Jun 27, 2004

Are you sure about that? I swear I read than teh UK had the worst. (Or maybe that is teen pregnancies in the Europe.)

yea the latest study said that germany smokes the most, and england has most teenage pregnancies...

Well, all my friends smoke (almost), and im not gonna stop them, I just laugh at them and see how they smoke their lungs off......well might of you would say,"thats not friendship", well I cant tell them what to do, I could tell its no good, but they know that...know what I mean.

so im just like, "lol, wasting money on cigs again?"(****ing expensive in ger, very!)

I dont mind a cigarette or a cigarre (man lol, i dont even know how to spell the ****) at a party or graduation, who knows, but everyday? no

K_Speed · Jun 27, 2004

Smokers dont have to worry about their pension, theyre going to die early anyways

<>a quote i saw in a magazine<>

Smoking

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Ultraextreme sanity

Weltanschauung

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Retired

Zoom-zoom

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Similar threads