Should Smoking be banned? [Archive]

Deathscyth Hell

07-17-2006, 05:33 PM

Sarteck

07-17-2006, 05:37 PM

{Not on the topic, I'd like to direct people who want to talk about cigarette smoking in specific to this thread: http://forums.bleachportal.net/showthread.php?t=10328 }

{This isn't exactly a repeat thread, so it'll stay, heh.}

Draffut

07-17-2006, 07:03 PM

Deathscyth Hell

07-17-2006, 07:20 PM

I smoke a Cigar about 2 times a month. Usually on Friday nights atfer a hectic week. Why should I not be able to enjoy this small bit of relaxation? I agree whole-heartedly abotu the ban on smoking in most public places, but my house/dorm is my own realm. No reason why I shouldn't be able to have alittle smoke now or then.

This brings me back to my main dilema. Ban a harmfull drug that dose kill eventualy or invade peoples right to do what they want in their own homes?

And also, how come it's only tobaco in cigarets that are legal and not other drugs like cocain of canabis? They have been proven to be harmfull havn't they?

Sarteck

07-17-2006, 07:26 PM

And also, how come it's only tobaco in cigarets that are legal and not other drugs like cocain of canabis? They have been proven to be harmfull havn't they?
Harmful =/= Mind-altering

You don't have a different state of mind while smoking pot (which inhibits motor functions, as well) or snorting coke.

Draffut

07-17-2006, 07:27 PM

This brings me back to my main dilema. Ban a harmfull drug that dose kill eventualy or invade peoples right to do what they want in their own homes?
And also, how come it's only tobaco in cigarets that are legal and not other drugs like cocain of canabis? They have been proven to be harmfull havn't they?

There is an extent to which you need to restrict your population and what they can do. But that line is very fine, and many dont even know what interstate it's located on. (No names.....) Cocain is far more deadly to the user and those around the consumer then Cigarettes. Marijuana on the other hand is very close (almost the equivalent to alcohol) to most "legal" drugs. And in some places (Alaska) It is actually now legal to own and smoke it in hte privacy of your own home.

7D$

07-18-2006, 04:26 PM

i think this thread will be the same as the Alcohol thread but mehh

i smoke Cigarettes and yes it is grose but i dont mind :D hehe but if ppl banned cigarettes i guess they will have to look after the ppl who cant quit on their own and that would be a major challenge. A couple of million ppl who need help aint cheap too so it would cost the goverment to much so i think they wont ban it.

Winter-war

07-18-2006, 11:54 PM

i mean if people have a problem with other people that smoke than i suggest not being around them while they do. is that not why they a smoking section and a non-smoking section in some restaurants.

cant think of anymore arguments right now but i'll be back some more.

SilverD

07-19-2006, 02:32 AM

I WISH it would be banned since I personally hate cigarettes, but realistically, it's impossible. The tobacco industry is huge and so is the number of smokers in the world and like some have mentioned, it's really hard to quit. IMO, the best that can be done is to ban it in certain public areas OR to limit it to designated areas.

Nemesis0521

07-19-2006, 04:48 AM

Funny I find this thread today cause today my mom got this cook book and she likes to cook, but it was from a ciggarette company(virgin slims I think, a female cigar brand) and brought coupans for cigars and some more crap like that. Tabacco companies have even gone low enough to bribe people .

_Ink

07-19-2006, 07:34 AM

tell you what, think of it this way, when you can find us something so much better to smoke that it doesn't pollute the air, doesn't kill you, yet gives you the same pleasure as a cigarette (which by right should have been available ages ago) like Air-Cigars or something, and then you can ban smoking, by forcibly removing the need for the harm, and make way for the need without it.

it is not percisely the ban of smoking I am worried about, UK is ran by market decisions, if in fact, the market demands it, it will always not be fully banned. Sometimes drastic measures are needed

SHiKaMaRi

07-19-2006, 08:19 AM

I seriously think that smoking should be banned. Tobacco companies use such things like Mild, Light, blablabla, but in the end, all cigarette does to you is shorten your life. Not only yours, but people around you who have absorbed second hand smoke. It causes such things as hallucinations to your mind, blocks up your arteries etc etc, too.

07-19-2006, 08:39 AM

...If we look at the huge advancment on the knowledge of what these products do to ourselves and the huge concessions that have been forced unto the cigarette and tabacoo industry we can clearly see that soon they will be fazed out of social life..

Already it is becoming taboo to smoke as you are looked upon as being unclean and a stupid idiot because basically its like drinking poisen..

Whether it is banned now or simply fazed out in the future smoking will eventually die as our health concious way of life is imposed upon this societal problem..

If it's banned now then people will grumble and groan for many a year as excatly the same as the probation period in american history for alchohol and you will get bootlegs popping up...But eventually it will die..

If you leave it to die by it's self it will be a long and ugly death with many debating and arguements in parliments around the world...And more people will die..

So in conclusion i don't think you can ask this sort of question because eventually the outcome will be the same no matter what course we take...Whether we ban it now or leave it to die by it'self..

Sarteck

07-19-2006, 08:44 AM

07-19-2006, 08:51 AM

Well, |Ai|, the major flaws I can see are thus:

1) Not all people who smoke are looked upon as idiots or unclean. Heh. At work, I can say I smoke more than anyone else, yet I'm also one of the most well-groomed and clean persons there. XD Also, I'd argue that my intelligence is not too sub-par. ;)http://forums.bleachportal.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=609262

Only to you Sar..:p...

And yes i concede not all are looked upon as idiots or unclean but you must admit that it is a largely social trend in todays society...Already they are being banned from pubs and bars...they're made to smoke outside due to the large health risks which can occur from them smoking inside..

And not physically unclean..:p...The general attitude...I'm not saying their like leapers ...I know quite a few smokers myself hell my family practically loves them..But underlying all the conciousness of the public is that whenever they see a smoker if they're a non smoker they will generally shy away from them or try to avoid going to near to them ..Not physically showing because that would be really really rude...but mentally they take a step to the side and hold their breath as they walk past..

2) The prohibition on alcohol in America lasted quite a few years with many criminal problems, but after that, it still did not "die out." Why would it be different with tobacco products?

Because unlike alchohol tabacoo products are already being cut back on..

When they first came out it was ok for the companies to do pretty well anything they liked in the way of advertising and selling their product..

Now they are forced to have disturbing images on their boxes...They arn't allow to advertise on the TV anymore..well at least not here in Aus..

Their entire industry is being branded a cancer industry...

As i stated the tabacoo industry is already dying out...it's up to the powerfull folk whether they make it a quick death or a prolonged experiance..

Personally i don't mind either way...

brolijc

07-19-2006, 11:08 AM

It is impossible to ban smoking totally, even if it's possible its gonna take at least 10 to 20 years. To quit smoking actually ain't something too difficult, i was a smoker, quit it in 2 weeks, even though those 2 weeks ain't feel so good.

Now, I will list down reasons why I quit smoking.

1) Its unhealthy

2) It makes me cough frequently

3) My friends always comment when I smoke

Unless these 3 factors don't affect you, then i suggest you quit smoking. Also another thing, smoking requires MONEY. I have a friend, smokes about 1 packet a day. So everyday he spends money on 1 packet of cigarettes and another thing is he doesn't earn much, I would suggest people like him to quit.

People DO view you differently when you smoke, which I experienced. Also, some people just hate the smell of smoke, even if you don't smoke in front of them, the strong smell of smoke is still on you, making them irritated.

Last point, I wouldn't want to shorten my own life after how hard it is for my parents to look after me for years and also for my own sake.

P.S
To tell the truth, I never find smoking a pleasure when you feel sick due to smoking

SHiKaMaRi

07-19-2006, 11:22 AM

On weekends, i go to my parent's shop, which sells Tattslotto and Cigarettes. When i work there for the whole day, in the morning i see a man coming in to buy 2 packs of smoke. After that, in the evening, he comes to buy ANOTHER. And when they talk, you can smell the smell of cigarette smoke.

Not to offend those who smokes, i apologize if it does, but the smell of cigs really stink.

Kurai-chan

07-19-2006, 12:43 PM

I don’t think that smoking or selling cigarettes should be totally banned. Saying it is easy but putting it into action is not. What’s the point of doing it if some/most smokers would just disobey the rule? We cannot totally put the blame on them because it’s really addictive. Maybe the government should just try to focus on informing the people it’s bad effects - in our social life, in our physical and mental condition, and of course, in our health. This way, even before the smokers would try to smoke, they would already know the consequences that they have to face and they cannot blame others because they were the ones who have chosen to do that despite knowing its negative effects.

But then, somehow i also agree with this because the non-smokers are also affected even if they're not the one who is doing it. I don't know if this is really true but I also heard that it's even more dangerous for them(non-smokers) because the smoke goes directly in their lungs if ever they would inhale it while in the smoker, they exhale it so it isn't that harmful.

Azalea

07-19-2006, 12:49 PM

Being a smoker doesnt make you a "dirty person" or as some may call it..
People just got that idea coz most "dirty people" smoke carelessly on the streets.

IMO, smoking is bad for your health, but I guess I cant stop anyone from smoking just by telling them that its bad... or you'll get lung cancer sooner...
Smoking is fine if you just smoke to yourself, like smoke in a closed place - such as your own room, working station or wherever private. Smoking in public isnt really advisable since non-smokers in the vicinity can inhale the "sidestream" which is, as you know, more dangerous to inhale since it doesnt pass through a filter.

Chrono Detector

07-19-2006, 12:56 PM

Yes smoking should be banned. Think about the lives lost due to heavy smoking. Recently the Victorian Government banned smoking on bus, tram and train shelters, which is a good thing, I use public transport a lot and I'm fed up with people smoking around these areas. But I still see people smoke anyway, after when the ban was implemented. If you get caught smoking underneathe a tram/bus/train shelter, you'll get fined.

Vampyrelord

07-19-2006, 01:44 PM

You know, banning smoking would be hard, but not completely impossible. Just cut off the means of supply, close the tobacco companies, put an embargo on importing tobacco, and if possible shut down tobacco plantations. Of course this would require a quite an authoritarian government...

Draffut

07-19-2006, 02:30 PM

Vampyrelord

07-19-2006, 02:49 PM

Becuase you know, we do this for Marijuana and it works so well...

The US having an authoritarian government, of course...or not.

Sarteck

07-19-2006, 06:21 PM

FOr those of you that have mentioned that people are offended by the smell of smoke on a person... I can't really view that at an arguement to ban cigarettes. Should we ban garlic because some people are offended by the smell? Or should be ban sanitizers? There's this one girl at work that can't STAND the smell of the sanitizer we use...

[Mind you, this is just against the "it stinks" arguement.]

Shinomori

07-19-2006, 07:46 PM

Crap stinks, too.

I am hereby declaring a ban on human excrement. Hold it in until you explode.

And I say no for a ban on smoking. I can't really justify it, it just goes along with the type of person I am. The whole "freedom" thing. Not to mention it's ingrained into the US, seeing as how the US was born, raised, and matured on this very same crop (tobacco).

7D$

07-20-2006, 02:47 PM

Crap stinks, too.
I am hereby declaring a ban on human excrement. Hold it in until you explode.
And I say no for a ban on smoking. I can't really justify it, it just goes along with the type of person I am. The whole "freedom" thing. Not to mention it's ingrained into the US, seeing as how the US was born, raised, and matured on this very same crop (tobacco).
AGREED! nuffin to add ;)

chiking1

07-20-2006, 03:13 PM

I think that there SHOULD be a ban on smoking, but i can see that it wouldn't work. Too many people smoke, and it would take awhile for them to stop. Also, all the ciggarette companies would go bankrupt, therefore, ALOT of people would be jobless, that is why smoking cannot be banned. Another reason you CAN'T ban smoking is that the people who smoke would say that they should have the 'rights' to smoke.

prelude

07-21-2006, 12:08 AM

just wanted to ask something?hope that doesnt offend u!sartech have u ever smoked pot?? and if so what kind was it??cause i kinda disagree with u!

Akiha

07-21-2006, 12:11 AM

personally, smoking should be banned in public places, but if a person wants to smoke, its thier choice. so i would say ban it in public places, but let them smoke in their house

Reefern86

07-21-2006, 12:28 AM

Im sorry but i dont understand y we r banning smoking. First off the government SUPPORTED smoking and tabacoo industries. Now ur trying to BAN them. WTF???? I smoke on occasion, im not addicted or anything but i still light up everyonce in a while. Y cant i smoke where ever the hell i feel like smoking? Yeah it may disturb some ppl but guess what...move away from me when im smoking. Shit i get pissed when a new mom wipps out her good to feed her baby, but i dont think it should be banned to only her house. The baby is hungry then and there, and ppl r addicted to smoking...so to me its the same deal. If the government says its legal to smoke then it should be legal ANYWHERE. If ppl want to kill themselves and smoke let then, and if u dont like it...MOVE.

prelude

07-21-2006, 12:32 AM

and what if u are smoking in a hospital or a kinder_garden class.lets be serious if u want to smoke u should move not the others.i am bag ass smoker in case ur wondering.

Reefern86

07-21-2006, 12:41 AM

alright...but seriously if ur stupid enough to be smoking in one of those places u have bigger issues then smoking. Then ur just an asshole

prelude

07-21-2006, 12:55 AM

lol just making examples!hear this what if u are smoking in a restaurant and one table next u sits a mother with her 1 year old rascal!what about then!u paf paf like a mfer or u put out the cigarret

Akiha

07-21-2006, 12:58 AM

if the moms in the smoking section with her kid, then the ladies a dumbass

Reefern86

07-21-2006, 12:59 AM

Hey im going to keep on smoking. They already have smoking and non-smoking in restuarants, so it's the mother's fault for sitting there.

Akiha

07-21-2006, 01:02 AM

its fine if theres a smoking or non smoking, then you choose to be near smokers or away. if you dont want to be around smokers, then sit in the non smoking section

prelude

07-21-2006, 01:06 AM

thats completely irrelevant.did i mentioned a section???w are talking about it in general not smokers section or no smokers.listen to this although greece has to abide by the strict rules of EE about sections !everywhere the non smoking section is like it dont exist,and u have to inhale otherw smoke

Reefern86

07-21-2006, 01:13 AM

alright if im smoking in a reasurant and a mom with a baby walks over ill either put it out or walk out side. I should still be aloud to smoke there im just a nice guy to move

Akiha

07-21-2006, 01:18 AM

prelude

07-21-2006, 01:19 AM

u are right on that one.(lights up a cigarret. ban what??? :)

Reefern86

07-21-2006, 01:21 AM

Look smoking shouldn't be banned from places it should just be up to the smoker to deciede when and where. Now i admit there r idiots that wouldnt move or whatever, but in that case just tell them to move.

prelude

07-21-2006, 01:29 AM

things are more complicated!But i am sure that there is a need for sections in all places, so as not to prevent anyone from lighting up a cigarrete whenever he wants to! i am definetely against banning it from all public places

Akiha

07-21-2006, 01:32 AM

well, i can see this in another way: if th eperson doesnt want smoking around them badly enough, theyll move themselves

Joe Black

07-21-2006, 01:45 AM

Actually, I think smoking shouldn't be banned, for banning is another weak attempt to stop personal choice. If smoking was banned, per say... then the government wouldn't tax it AND people would be buying the product anyways on the black market. As well, I believe that the smoking/non-smoking sections are good enough, for that cuts significantly on the second hand smoke inhaled.

However, we as people should emphasize that smokers must respect the people around them, and respect that they don't want inhaling smoke. Simply put, if we give resonable restrictions and choices to the smoker group, (such as simple bylaws), then the smoker community will most likely respond in a positive manner towards such preventative action.

Nicole

07-21-2006, 02:23 AM

It's the individual's choice to smoke and damage their health and whatnot. So if they want to smoke in a private place like a home or apartment or car where there aren't other people around, I think they should have a right now.

However, I don't think smoking in a public place should be allowed for the sole reason that not everyone around the individual smokes so those other people shouldn't have to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke and face the health problems.

So just ban it in all public places, but don't ban it all together.

Buuhan1

07-21-2006, 03:44 AM

Why shouldn't it be banned? Cause it infriges on human rights? Bullshit, its infriging on it right now. People can't choose not to breath its air when in a public place unless they hold their breaths or wear a mask.

Due to the simple fact its health risks can spread to people who want nothing to do with it is bullshit. Last thing we need is people shorting peoples lifes just by being around them.

I'm very happy to for a change seeing smoking being slowly wripped off the face of the public earth. I can't wait to see the day "no smoking" signs slapped everywhere. ^^

chibo

07-22-2006, 11:07 PM

firebug

07-23-2006, 12:37 AM

Why won't smoking be banned?

Its a billion dollar industry, with plenty of hooks in the mouths of the politicians.

Sarteck

07-23-2006, 01:52 AM

Smoking is banned in california and it's now banned here in minnesota. Some businesses shut down to try and protest, but they only shot themselves in the foot. A no smoking ban works in California and it will work anywhere else. There should be no debate to this.
No debate? WTF? First of all, smoking is NOT banned in Cali--it's only banned in public businesses. Secondly, let's assume for the moment that there was a ban on smoking PERIOD in Cali--why should there be no debate on this? "Cali is so awesome we should all emulate its laws no matter what!" No, not really. Open mouth, insert foot.

KT Samurai

07-23-2006, 02:28 AM

Yeah! Prohibition always works!

... *cough*

Let smoking die out or become something only an "elite" few take up. Anyone with a brain does not smoke, and those who do were either mislead or too ignorant to know what they were getting into. In all honesty, however, I see nothing wrong with banning smoking from public places. It's a friggin' disgusting habit and I don't need a lung full of anything but what I need to get by.

TheSixth

07-23-2006, 09:46 AM

This is a subject I disgussed a while ago in debate enrichment I do in 6th from college.
Recently, here in the UK there has been a ban on smokeing in certain public areas, such as pubs, bars and general social areas. However smokeing is still permited in private homes and such.
Now many western countries are becoming increasingly anti-smokeing, much to the dislike of many people and to the absalout joy of others. Smokeing is a deadly habit that many people enjoy. I personaly am a none smoker. I know what smokeing does and I would rather not kill myself that way.
So I ask this question; with it being such a healthrisk and basicly being a legal drug, should smokeing be banned compleatly?
Now this is a tricky one for myself to answer. While on the one hand, I think of smokeing is banned then many many lives will be saved and general public health will improve. On the other hand, smokeing could be considerd a human right. Since it is currently legal, shouldn't people have the right to smoke if they want to. After all, it's their body and their desicion.
I personaly am not sure wether smokeing should be legal or not. But what do you think? Should smokeing be totaly banned everywhere, if so/not, why?
I didn't know that the U.K. had started banning smoking in certain places, good, i hope that that they set an example for other major countries to start a ban on smoking. The average cigarette has 160+ known poisons, it causes several forms of cancer, and it keeps its buyers addicting to it. For some smokers, it is not a choice to stop smoking because they have become so addicted to what they know could kill them. On top of that, cigarette companies have been targeting minors for generations and it is well known that most high schools have a couple hundred (varies depending on size) students already addicted. The U.S. government (i don't know Canada's position) has raises the price and tax on cigarettes by several dollars but it has had little effect. If the consequences to the smokers wasn't enough, secondhand smoke kills or causes cancer in many people every year just for being near smokers often. With all of these reasons i see absolutely no reasons why cigarettes shouldn't be banned and the companies shut down.

Kootje

07-24-2006, 04:08 PM

Why should it by banned, Because it's a bad habit, healtproblems like getting cancer, heartproblems and even more. Smoking should be banned however, It's your body your decision. I personally do not smoke. My dad does, I told him to stop he doesn't want, nothing I can do about it. As for shutting all the factorys down and completly ban smoking, I aint gonna work, 1. cigarettes will become like a far worse drug, there will probably be a lot of illigal dealing and stuff. That would indanger the youth that smokes. 2. Mass rebelism, for a worldwide ban miljons of people would demonstrate, just to get there cigarette back. So my opion banning it completly isn't the option. It might also have a big economical impact however i'm not sure of that. Restriction of smoking is what i say: Only smoke at bars&disco, and at your home, when someone ask you to stop smoking than do that be a social person! If you dont wanna stop than walk away go outside or something. Restrict it so much that it doesn't bother no smokers anymore

Draffut

07-24-2006, 04:56 PM

Juuju

07-24-2006, 08:56 PM

My father smokes a lot everyday and I know it's a filthy habit and one which is unbelievably to remove one from.

Smoking near anyone who doesn't wish to inhale toxic air should be banned (eg. not at bus stops), so yes, I'm all for the public ban. It is extremely unfair to cause harm to the person next to the smoker simply just for standing next to them: passive smoking is actually worse than smoking directly!

Places where people are permitted to smoke should be known to the public so that they can avoid that place if they want. If they want to smoke at their own homes, that's fine as long as it doesn't bother anyone else.

Deathscyth Hell

07-24-2006, 09:04 PM

One thing I'm wondering is; how can we show smokers that it is possible to get the same sensation from other things that they would do from smokeing?

Because I and many others know, that smoking tobaco releases chemicals in the brain such as dopeamine which basicly makes the person feel good. As the smoker becomes more and more adicted, he or she RELYS on smokeing to get the same sensation that none smokers could get themselves.

So do you think that if a sutable, but safe alternative for smokeing was created, a ban on smokeing woudln't have as much of an impact? And also what could replace it?

kaede822

07-26-2006, 10:13 AM

before, i always thought smoking was a really useless vice... unlike alcohol which has health benefits in moderate amounts... i found out today that smoking decreases the possibility of Alzheimers disease. now dont get me wrong, im not changing my view about smoking. i still think its a useless vice.

it gets addictive because of the nicotine. once you get used to smoking, your body craves for more because of that substance. and can you imagine when you smoke, you're also inhaling tar into your lungs. ever seen that black stuff used to make your asphalt roads... there you have it. and still you insist to take in that. why? for momentary pleasure. i know that it gives a calming effect. but there are other relaxation and anti-anxiety techniques you can do (e.g deep breathing exercise) you dont need to turn to smoking to ease out your stress.

you know people have rights too. and they have the right to smoke...err do whatever to their body... however, if it comes to the expense of other people, you know its no longer good. everyday, i am exposed to second hand smoke. i am getting prone to develop lung cancer because of those mindless people i share a ride with everyday. they smoke without considering that the smoke they are emitting is detrimental to other people's health. plus, in a situation where you smoke and you're near a preganant woman... think of what happens to the child... the pregnant woman getting all the second hand smoke...and what's worse is that second hand smoke is actually more harmful than the first hand smoke. the one puffing the cigar has filter and so the smoke is minimized... the smoke you puff out contains all the harmful substance plus your CO2.. anyway, if the pregnant woman inhales it... what will happen to the child... the fetus is prone to develop complications. the fetus could be born premature because of that.

there's this situation wherein a nurse died of lung cancer... and why? because her husband was a smoker. and she inhaled all the second hand smoke and so, she died before her husband did. do you want that to happen?? innocent people getting killed off first because of smokers negligence. if you, smoker, want to kill yourself, then lock yourself inside a room and smoke to your hearts content.

:D

fullmetalG

07-26-2006, 10:17 AM

I believe that it's ok to do so.i don't smoke,but i believe that people should beable to do what they want to their bodies except the really bad stuff if you know what i mean.but let them smoke if it makes them less stressful.

rukia723

07-27-2006, 03:19 PM

i'd say yes, but i dnt really mind too much about this situation...

subhuman_77

07-28-2006, 07:11 PM

IN my opinion everyone have the right to smoke. It calm the person on stress(as said before..) I know can't get through the day without atleast 3 cigarrets a day (especially when you work at a restaurant,where the ppl can be the bigest assH****.)
Yes i do know it addictive.Yes i do know what's going inside my body. I am aware of that.
However i'm not saying im taking the cigarrets side, i think its ridiculous when ppl smoke 2 pack per day... Waste of money and future bad health.
I support the commercial against cigarrets ,espcially the stickers they put on the cigarrets packs that warns you. I noticed they don't have em in the us, WHICH is kind of strange in my opinion.
Btw Just wondering is It against the rules if i open a threat about marijuana/cannabis?

Kootje

07-28-2006, 09:04 PM

I don't know the rulez but what the hell open it, they'll close it if it's not allowed, smoking isn't that bad as long as you're not a real addict who smokes a packet or more a day, I smoke on special occasions(party's,birthday,sometimes vacation) but not in normal life, than I would get addictedXD

A2ZOMG

07-28-2006, 09:14 PM

Smoking tobacco sucks. Although the problem was worse years ago, I still can't understand why a select number of idiots across the world resort to smoking to calm down or such, because after all, dependency and lung cancer are not worth your money or highs.

As said earlier, it infringes on my rights too. I hate breathing in secondhand smoke...which is about as bad as smoking itself. Furthermore, we do not need another source of global warming either.

Again, it just won't die thanks to today's policies favoring big buisness, as tobacco does remain one of such today.

Kootje

07-28-2006, 09:48 PM

Yes that's true, but global warming, come one if that's an argument what's next destroying all cars because of the globalwarming(which is only increased by human action, it would occur anyway)

Pink_Paper_Heart

07-29-2006, 12:12 PM

how much tabacco smoke really causes global warming?!?!

raisins

07-29-2006, 07:32 PM

erm... not much i guess... but it's still something.
anyway, i don't think that's the main point.
Smoking is definitely bad for health. i agree it should be banned at public areas. Anybody who smokes can smoke at their own house or something like that. It was said that secondhand smoke is worse that first hand smoke. So just because some people like to have their little pleasure and relieve their stress doesn't means they can go everywhere smoking and harm other people's health. anyway, we should be smart enough not to start smoking and get hooked. it may relieve stress but that's not the only way. why not try other stuff that would not harm anybody's health including our own body.
however, i guess it won't be easy as so many people are smoking nowadays and not everybody have the willpower to stop even if they want to. I'm lucky as my friends and relatives don't smoke.

Muzikman

07-30-2006, 04:57 AM

I think that smoking should be completely banned. I think the generation before us may have left it too late. i think it should only be available to adults, so when we have kids and stuff no one will be able to smoke. so i think that smoking should go out with the generation before us.

Chrono Detector

07-30-2006, 03:13 PM

Personally I think smoking should not be available to anybody. Its ruining people's health, and other people who don't smoke who has to deal with people smoking near them will also suffer as well. And I find the tobacco smell is disturbing as well.

dundo1989

08-03-2006, 07:45 PM

well i want smoking to be banned....i'm an athlete and my parents smoke like hell...and cuz of 2nd hand smoking its harder for me to get fit...and smoking is like committing suicide..but in a slower pace....

Kurosaki-San32

08-05-2006, 08:39 AM

yes and no. No because some people are addicted and can't give up no mater how hard they might be trying.Yes it can ruin someones nice meal out at a retarunt or buffet somewhere.

Chrome

08-05-2006, 07:14 PM

yes! i kills many people
and it gets really annoying

obvious troll

08-05-2006, 07:20 PM

subhuman_77

08-05-2006, 07:28 PM

Only from public places. Nobody should have to stand someone smoking near them if they don't like it. But how people treat their bodies is their own business, if they wanna smoke in private that's their own problem.

Yes those are the exact words there is to it.
We can't ban cigarents or tobacco you have any idea how much that influence our econmomy?
And besides that, IT's their habbit (might be a bad habbit) but goddammit it's THEIR bad habbit. :doindadom

M-50

08-09-2006, 01:00 PM

Smoking should be BANNED!!!! End of no arguement.

MasterWordSmith

08-09-2006, 02:15 PM

Smoking of anykind has never really affected me personally, so it really doesn't bother me. If I found out that I got lung cancer from 2nd hand smoke I'd probobly feel differently. I think it's fine being legal, a lot of people seem to like it and Im not going to stop them.

Mercurius

08-09-2006, 03:50 PM

Smkoing should be banned from Public places (if U call a café a public place then I am not counting those)...the amount of money that is made with Cigarettes and Stuff is huge and knowiing how custom it is these days I don't think that banning it will even have and effect

*Hollow*Ichigo

08-11-2006, 05:21 AM

YES AND NO COMMENT i just hate smoking cuz im real easily affected by those commercials...and i feel like im the only 1 cuz so many ppl seen them and they still smoke...and its so stupid ur just making urself die faster and..not reliving any stress once u find out u got lung cancer =\ and yes it sux for 2nd hand smoking since i live in new york the big city theres a lot of ppl and their mostly adults which means not being an age racist but their the ones who smoke alot and the younger suffer from 2nd hand smoke....! were supposed to make the world better for the next generation,so how does it help making every1 dieing faster...i just think how dumb it is and whats the purpose of smoking? if its for stress den u just have to think harder about it...

MissChapina

08-11-2006, 08:36 PM

Yes it should be band 4 life because of all the serious damage it does to the human body

ajames

08-11-2006, 09:52 PM

I don't think smoking should be banned except in the case of enclosed, unventillated buildings or buildings where the owner doesn't allow it. If someone wants to smoke knowing that it will harm their body, more power to em.

Kzimask

08-13-2006, 02:51 AM

Hmm well people knows smoking is bad but they just do it... And smoking 'could' have been banned long ago but you know, its free country. Government have no rights to take away depends on what people wants.

Tyenkrovy

08-13-2006, 02:53 AM

I don't think smoking should be banned, per se. More like, if someone wants to inhale the smoke from burning tobacco, put them in a self-contained suit or put a mask on them that restricts it to just them. That way, it's concentrated, so they feel the negative effects to a greater extreme. No better motivator to quit smoking than coughing up bloody, tumerous chunks of your own lungs at a young age.

mind_fissure

08-18-2006, 10:40 PM

I think that smoking should be kept legal and left to the bars/restraunts to decide if they want smoking in they're bussiness. But in more public places such as walmart/grocery stores where every one has to go it should be illegal. And if you don't like it simply don't go to the bar/restraunt.

yellow flash

08-21-2006, 06:11 AM

Regardless of what those lame "truth" commercials want you to believe. The tobacco industry does not hold knives to anyones throats and force them to smoke until they become addicted. This is also not the 1960's. Everyone who smokes today is well aware of the risks and side effects that it causes. It was their choice to start and continue this disgusting habbit. (I am a smoker myself) I find the ban on smoking in certain areas completely rediculous. Yes smoking in some places absolutely should be prohibited. But other places such as bars and restaurants? Give me a break. I believe each place which desires to allow people to smoke should have a secure ventilated room where people can go instead of sending them out to stand in the rain. If a person doesn't smoke and would find that room completely reprehensible......THEN DON'T GO IN IT. It's really just as simple as that.

Dree

08-21-2006, 01:46 PM

But other places such as bars and restaurants? Give me a break. I believe each place which desires to allow people to smoke should have a secure ventilated room where people can go instead of sending them out to stand in the rain. If a person doesn't smoke and would find that room completely reprehensible......THEN DON'T GO IN IT. It's really just as simple as that.I agree. It was also said that smoking is bad for business in said bars and restaurants. I'd think, I dunno for sure since I'm not a bar or restaurant owner, but I'd think if smoking was bad for business, the owners would've banned it themselves years ago.

I agree about public places.. hospitals, government buildings, the workplace, but yeah, bars and restaurants are actually suffering because of these bans. It's worked fine for decades, but now all of a sudden people are going apesh*t about second-hand smoke when there isn't even enough statistical evidence that proves second-hand smoke causes cancer or even kills.

Godivine

08-21-2006, 03:24 PM

Not everyone's going to be out of a job. The finance director for Malboro could work for any other business, and this works for all(or at least most of) the others, like the factory workers, etc.
We could use more people in other fields anyway.

Kootje

08-21-2006, 05:35 PM

People out of work isn't a argument why smoking shouldn't be banned godvines right, thought banning smoking is just plainstupid, like real addicts will stop! It will become a business like cocaine and herione etc. not good, specialy not for kids, some of my friends smoke(I'm 15 so are they) doesn't sound nice having them ending getting killed by a dealer

SentByGod

08-24-2006, 12:43 AM

i agree..i'm real tired with all this "should alcolhol be banned" or "should weed be legalized"..drugs are bad period..but changing how things already are..including making smoking illegal just makes it worse.

yamiX000

08-24-2006, 04:26 AM

It should never be banned.......why?...becuase its good population control for the pathetic human race..:)

SentByGod

08-24-2006, 07:32 AM

you'll be seeing dead carcasses soon if it's made illegal..joking..don't think that'll be happening.

p0rkfri3drice

08-24-2006, 07:36 AM

oh snap, ur still on
*back on subject* smoking shouldnt be banned, and smoking wont be banned bcuz too many ppl do it, passing the ban process wont be easy, and if it were to be banned, many other equivalents would have to be banned too (too lazy to list, so dont even ask)

SentByGod

08-24-2006, 07:44 AM

yes i am..sleeping is not necessaray till next week.

my uncle smokes..it's his fault if he dies..-_-

Z-man

08-27-2006, 06:10 AM

If had a say I would say totally band it. Smoking doesn't really do anything but kill white cells and create "blob" cells that do absolutly nothing but waste capacity in your lungs :sad:

Dree

08-27-2006, 06:33 AM

you'll be seeing dead carcassesAs opposed to living carcasses? :redbiggri

And yeah, if they did ban it I'm sure some people would stop smoking but there would probably also be thousands of people opposing it.

Z-man

08-27-2006, 06:44 AM

As opposed to living carcasses? :redbiggri

And yeah, if they did ban it I'm sure some people would stop smoking but there would probably also be thousands of people opposing it.
Well even though people will oppose it, it will be for their own good so we would just ignore them and soon they will get over it and they will thank us

Dree

08-27-2006, 07:12 AM

Well even though people will oppose it, it will be for their own good so we would just ignore them and soon they will get over it and they will thank usIf we leave it up to the government to start banning things 'for our own good,' you can say goodbye to anything else that's technically bad for us and the environment, such as vehicles that emit carbon monoxide and other harmful particles and fumes, alcohol, caffeine, etc etc.

Z-man

08-27-2006, 11:54 AM

If we leave it up to the government to start banning things 'for our own good,' you can say goodbye to anything else that's technically bad for us and the environment, such as vehicles that emit carbon monoxide and other harmful particles and fumes, alcohol, caffeine, etc etc.
But they are actually used for something as well, all smoking does is drug us up :P

James Cizuz

08-27-2006, 01:34 PM

If the goverment makes money off it, huge sums of money at that, anything trying to stop it will be supressed. It's the same with oil. Although people don't think the goverment gets money of smoking "directly" the tax on cigs (canada tax is 15%) it's 10.75 for a regular pack, on averrage thats over 1.50 going to the goverment on every pack. When the goverment starts losing out on money,(when around 75% of the smokers quit) then it will be banned, alittle to late then though.

peacmaker

08-27-2006, 08:55 PM

My feels are since smoking as been around for longtime, people will still smoke and if the taxes keep going up on the packs, people will have no choice not to smoke. It would cost to much and people are bearly earning a living to put food on the table.

orochimaru7810

08-28-2006, 04:11 AM

my opinion is that it should be banned, i cant stand people that smoke just there stench that comes off of them and then the smell of the smoke from a cig is just horrible, but on the other hand if smoking was banned then dont u think that would slowly increase the population even more since less and less people would be dying each year from smoking related diseases such as the biggest one lung cancer, and that would be bad if our population were to increase anymore then it is now

soraman2412

08-30-2006, 08:00 PM

it should be banned...not only harming the people who smoke the ciggarette but also the people who is near him or her...oh and do you know that if you smoke a ciggarette, it means you put more than 1000 chemicals (i think, i got this when i was in high school) in your body?

DestinyBlade

08-31-2006, 12:26 AM

I agree with all of you. Smoking stinks (literally), it's bad for health, nearly everything is bad about it. Why not just wipe out tobacco and weed? then they cant complain 'cause there's no more. who cares if they run bankrupt? they've taken lives for money! Greed is not good, I tell you.

Chaos_Overlord

09-20-2006, 02:17 PM

I think smoking should be banned because it quickens your death and also I never heard of any part time effect that make things better. getting smoking banned is not going to happen because the governments make alot of money out of it. I heard that people in Britain spent £9 billion on alchol last year which was enough money to build 20 news hospitals. I know that has nothing to do with smoking but it just shows how much money is spent on it.

Chrono Detector

09-20-2006, 02:22 PM

They should ban smoking ASAP because its just ruining people's health. Not just the smoker, also the unfortunate people who are non smokers who happen to inhale the fumes.

Who cares if the tobacco company will lose money or business if smoking was banned, maybe that would teach them a lesson that they are ruining people's lives everyday by supplying them.

And I'm glad that they banned smoking in several resturaunts here in Australia. In fact, smoking shouldn't even be allowed in a public resturaunt at all. Not everybody enjoys the smell of tobacco, I don't.

Do they air those campaign ads about smoking? Here in Australia they show the most gruesome side effects of smoking, that might encourage some people to stop smoking. Thats called using shock imagery to convenience people to quit smoking and I applaud them.

Muja

09-23-2006, 01:08 PM

At this point, its nearly impossible to banned smoking. All we can do is encourage people not to smoke. Though even we know that they know smoking is bad for their own sack, they will still conintue to smoke with no care in the world.
The Companys don't care, even the goverment won't stop. But there is a city in the world called "sharjah" if i am correct they banned any kind of smoking or anything related to it.

Smoking is a lead head to your death, waste of money, waste of time, and waste of good heath. Everyone of us knows that. Smoking should be banned. It has been said before and here I am saying it again "Smoking Should Be Banned at ALL Cost"

dragoneyes001

09-23-2006, 07:11 PM

the reason the government of canada does not ban cigarettes entirely is simple its a huge cash cow.

the largest argument people who are anti tobacco use is the cost on the health care system the latest quote was the cost of ALL consumables(including prescription, non prescription drugs, legal and illegal drugs and alcohol) on health care was 8 billion dollars/year.

the taxes collected for cigarettes alone was 7.8 billion dollars.

the tax on cigarettes covers almost the entire cost of consumables on the health care system add the duties from alcohol and the government has more money than these two cost plus its paying for the cost of other issues like illegal drugs which they can't tax.

the government will be overwhelmed with a huge deficit if they ever allowed a complete ban on cigarettes.

also another issue that is less mentioned is how sqewed the numbers are for cigarette related deaths. they count all forms of cancer deaths where a patient has been a smoker and although smoking is not related to bone marrow cancer if the patient who died from it was a smoker they are added to the count of people who died of smoking.
chernobyl created millions of cases of lukimia and many other forms of cancer around the globe so did three mile island just not as many and things like hydro dumping PCBs into lakes people swim in has also increased forms of cancer ....etc..... yet everyone who has admited to being a smoker and dies of these cancers will sumarily be counted as a smoking death.

smoking is harmful to what extent is indevidual you may spend two years smoking and it will cause cancer and kill you or you can smoke for 70 years and never die of any cancers its biological chemistry that will save or kill you.

don't take the numbers so much as fact they are biased in the extreme but don't start smoking because they are lieing about the numbers either.

Decado

09-24-2006, 05:25 AM

i understand the arguments presented...i personally don't smoke...
but u can't really ban everything that can lead to death. i know smoking is extremely an exception... i think it would be GOOD to ban it. but then ppl will get pissed also...lol..... this is really really hard to decide b/c it's another product that is harmful to ppl. if this is banned, ppl will immediately try to ban everything else that's even mildly dangeroous to the body. and i can't afford to lose things such as coca-cola cos they're bad for ur teeth!!!

~*StÓÑy RèL0ÂÐeD™

09-24-2006, 05:47 AM

well i think smoking shoul be banned.. but for those who got hooked on cigarettes.. u wont know wad will happen to them..so i think smoking should be banned for tis generation

Bak3d on H1gh

09-24-2006, 08:18 AM

dragoneyes001

09-24-2006, 08:48 PM

it should be banned in all places were it could affect non-smokers.
mmmm i just love that cancer smell...
but seriously folks you can do it at home or in a hermetically sealed room at your workplace, but at the bus stop for example i don't wanna smell it.

I have a problem with people who want to impose their wants on others.

you can argue that smoking is an imposition on you and when indoors in improperly vented areas it is. so I have no objection to the bans we smokers have lived with for years where we don't smoke in offices public buildings and even bars<<<(although the greatest contributers to the bars finances[those who drink more] are the smokers non-smokers are usualy cheap and tend to nurse their drinks)

but heres an example of the truely anal:

I was with a friend in an AFTER HOURS bar we were seated at the first table of a line of about twenty tables in a row all the other tables were empty.
we were chating and having a cigarette when in came a group of five who promptly sat right next to us they call over the waiter order their illegal (since its past bar hours)drinks and proceed to complain that we are breaking the no smoking law that had recently passed.

it was all i could do to not get up and beat the living snot out of the two guy's with the girl who was being such an anal @#$!&*.

I did inform them they were total assholes for sitting next to us in the first place pointing to the long line of tables they could have chosen instead.

long story short if it had been one of the guys who started that he would have left the place minus a few teeth for his trouble.

but anyways back to what i was previously saying.

when outdoors its the non smoker who should simply get up wind of a smoker if they are so unhappy with second hand smoke not like the extra three steps will kill them and its healthy to walk so don't complain we're already being civil enough to be outside for you if thats not good enough tough nuggies not all of us want to quit regardless of what people think.

Bak3d on H1gh

09-25-2006, 07:25 AM

dragoneyes001

09-25-2006, 07:48 AM

aaaah the flames they burn!
your just brng baised because you are a smoker, im not saying i want to force my opinion on other people, its not like i could, im just thinking in terms of whats healthiest for people, do i really need to have cancer? From someone else. and trust me 3 steps will not change the smell.

well if you can't see that upwind is going to mean you don't smell anything then there's no way I'll be able to explain it to you.

and yes if there's a smoker at the same stop as you it should only take three steps to get upwind of the smoker.

smell can only travel in the direction of the wind so does the smoke so if your not willing to take those three steps for your own health don't complain about the smell.

like i said in most of the cities in my country there is no smoking in public buildings so we smokers are making the effort to accommodate the non smokers by being outside for their health we have to walk far more than three steps to accommodate you if you can't make your own effort for your own heath like i said don't complain its your own laziness that's at fault.

by the way i don't see you going to chyrnobil to add more dirt on the biggest cause of cancer and lukimia in the world you say you don't need the cancer then why aren't you helping to contain that problem or helping to contain the tens of thousands of tons of used nuclear waste created around the world which is leaching into every water table known to man and further causing cancers we don't need or the PCB's that were dumped all around the world also causing uncounted cases of cancer the list of government sponsored waste that is killing us has a much greater chance of giving you cancer than living in the same room as a chain smoker will.

Bak3d on H1gh

09-26-2006, 05:04 AM

Your not accommodating us your being forced to theres a big difference.
And yes i know about chryrnoble, and seeing how a highschoolers budget is rather limited i dont think i can make the trip.
But thats besides the point were dealing with smoking, not the government of PCB's. Think of it as smoking supporting the government by taxes, therefor if you stop smoking you will be not helping the government kill us all, but since you are you must want to give your fellow man cancer and asthma.

Vampyrelord

09-26-2006, 02:52 PM

dragoneyes001

09-26-2006, 03:59 PM

Dragoneyes, you may hate people forcing their own wants or predjudices on people, but it must be done I'm afraid. It's just a matter of to what extent.

My line is - if an activity harms people other than those who do it, it should be banned. Here in Britain passive smoking alone kills around 10,000 people every year (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4309613.stm) and alcohol kills another 30,000. What's sickening is that many of these victims are children.

you do realise that by your criteria:

driving, manufacturing, using paper, using plastics, using glues, using any metals and all airtravel should be banned because each kills and harms other people.

thousands die every year getting those materials, thousands die producing those products because of exposure to harsh chemicals because of the products themselves. so basicly you want man to jump back to the dark ages because you think its safer.

as for why i brought up the government sponsored cancers:

140,000,000 cases of lukimia created by chyrnobil alone they actualy estimate it at 250,000,000 this alone is greater than all the directly caused cancer deaths of cigarettes for the last generation.

the US France USSR and all the others who tested nukes above ground have put ten times the radiation chyrnobil did so if you think that someone smoking near you is why your dieing of cancer your not paying attention.
we've been eradiated over and over for 50 years only accidents like chyrnobil were ever metered for the public to know about just how much they affected the entire human race.

Vampyrelord

09-26-2006, 04:32 PM

you do realise that by your criteria:
driving, manufacturing, using paper, using plastics, using glues, using any metals and all airtravel should be banned because each kills and harms other people.

thousands die every year getting those materials, thousands die producing those products because of exposure to harsh chemicals because of the products themselves. so basicly you want man to jump back to the dark ages because you think its safer.

These all serve a useful purpose. Care to explain what purpose smoking serves?

as for why i brought up the government sponsored cancers:
140,000,000 cases of lukimia created by chyrnobil alone they actualy estimate it at 250,000,000 this alone is greater than all the directly caused cancer deaths of cigarettes for the last generation.
the US France USSR and all the others who tested nukes above ground have put ten times the radiation chyrnobil did so if you think that someone smoking near you is why your dieing of cancer your not paying attention.
we've been eradiated over and over for 50 years only accidents like chyrnobil were ever metered for the public to know about just how much they affected the entire human race.

This is relevant to this debate how exactly? Since when have I been pro nuclear? Have you forgotten this (http://forums.bleachportal.net/showthread.php?t=11013)?!

Smoking is the single biggest preventable cause of cancer, and that's a fact (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/).

dragoneyes001

09-26-2006, 08:36 PM

These all serve a useful purpose. Care to explain what purpose smoking serves?

This is relevant to this debate how exactly? Since when have I been pro nuclear? Have you forgotten this (http://forums.bleachportal.net/showthread.php?t=11013)?!

Smoking is the single biggest preventable cause of cancer, and that's a fact (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/).

1) in canada the taxes collected from smokers covers 95% of all costs to health care by all consumable products(prescription drugs, over the counter drugs, illegal drugs, alcohol and tabaco) without the seven point eight billion dollars in taxes generated by us smokers it would be you non-smokers who would have to foot the bill for all the health care costs for consumables.
i'm sure your willing to give another 1000-2000$/year to the government on top of existing taxes aren't you? we do. and we pay for people who abuse illegal drugs and for all those side effects from the legal drugs plus we pay more than all the costs we incur from our smoking.

2) wrong! breast cancer is the number one killer type of cancer preventable with mamograms. the close second is colon cancer also very preventable and the largest killer of men because they don't get checked for it.

both of those cancers are preventable and the cause is neglecting to be checked <<<< the biggest cause of cancer deaths.

Bak3d on H1gh

09-27-2006, 02:22 AM

dragoneyes001

09-27-2006, 07:34 AM

Im not going even to bother anymore, just let him smoke maybe he'll regret it when he needs to use a voice synthesizer to talk.
Have fun smoking!:rolleye09
ill put the hard earned cash that i would have spent on smoking in the bank, and retire early.

I've been smoking over a pack a day for 34 years i don't even cough!
i'm not 16 years old.

I can outdistance people half my age swimming under water (hold breath for over three minutes while swimming)

can do 7 circuits of the park 14km each by bike as a Sunday run.

can move 4 tons of lumber during a work day.

can cross-country ski 20km runs when the snow is good.

I'm not exactly all that worried about my smoking.

its funny to see non smokers who are in worse shape than i am because they don't get off their butts and do stuff. when i was living back east there was an anti smoking display where they tested your lung capacity with a breather machine my numbers were so beyond what a pack a day smoker should have they wanted additional test so i was asked to go to the lab and submit to an entire battery of tests what they found was: as a smoker of twenty odd years my lungs had the capacity of someone 7 years younger who never smoked at all. guess loving to ski and breathing high altitude clean air most of my life has been good for me.

oh by the way you are aware that its not 100% chance that a smoker will ever suffer from cancer or even suffer any major disease in their lifetimes?

by the way you talk you don't know this. what is a certainty is the cumulative of tar in the lung tissues yet very active people in many cases actually clear a large percentage of this from their lungs just by using them so much. but the anti tobacco coalition will never publicise this because they want people to quit.

Vampyrelord

09-27-2006, 08:09 AM

1) in canada the taxes collected from smokers covers 95% of all costs to health care by all consumable products(prescription drugs, over the counter drugs, illegal drugs, alcohol and tabaco) without the seven point eight billion dollars in taxes generated by us smokers it would be you non-smokers who would have to foot the bill for all the health care costs for consumables.
i'm sure your willing to give another 1000-2000$/year to the government on top of existing taxes aren't you? we do. and we pay for people who abuse illegal drugs and for all those side effects from the legal drugs plus we pay more than all the costs we incur from our smoking.

Prove it.

You can also explain how that justifies all the children who die young because of passive smoking.

2) wrong! breast cancer is the number one killer type of cancer preventable with mamograms. the close second is colon cancer also very preventable and the largest killer of men because they don't get checked for it.
both of those cancers are preventable and the cause is neglecting to be checked <<<< the biggest cause of cancer deaths.

Did you follow the link I gave? British cancer research know just a tad more about it than you, I think. Breast cancer is not preventable. Even if you check for it, that doesn't make it disappear. You still have to go through chemotherapy and probably surgery.

I've been smoking over a pack a day for 34 years i don't even cough!
i'm not 16 years old.

I can outdistance people half my age swimming under water (hold breath for over three minutes while swimming)

can do 7 circuits of the park 14km each by bike as a Sunday run.

can move 4 tons of lumber during a work day.

can cross-country ski 20km runs when the snow is good.

I'm not exactly all that worried about my smoking.

its funny to see non smokers who are in worse shape than i am because they don't get off their butts and do stuff. when i was living back east there was an anti smoking display where they tested your lung capacity with a breather machine my numbers were so beyond what a pack a day smoker should have they wanted additional test so i was asked to go to the lab and submit to an entire battery of tests what they found was: as a smoker of twenty odd years my lungs had the capacity of someone 7 years younger who never smoked at all. guess loving to ski and breathing high altitude clean air most of my life has been good for me.

oh by the way you are aware that its not 100% chance that a smoker will ever suffer from cancer or even suffer any major disease in their lifetimes?

by the way you talk you don't know this. what is a certainty is the cumulative of tar in the lung tissues yet very active people in many cases actually clear a large percentage of this from their lungs just by using them so much. but the anti tobacco coalition will never publicise this because they want people to quit.

Okay dragoneyes, so assuming you are an anomalous emphysema-resistant super-man, this does not disprove the 50,000 or so of your fellow Canadian countrymen who die every year because of smoking (http://tobacco.aadac.com/about_smoking/smoking_deaths/). You can quibble about the source or the exact numbers if you really want, but the point is is that smoking causes millions of early and painful deaths.

dragoneyes001

09-27-2006, 08:44 AM

Prove it.
You can also explain how that justifies all the children who die young because of passive smoking.
Did you follow the link I gave? British cancer research know just a tad more about it than you, I think. Breast cancer is not preventable. Even if you check for it, that doesn't make it disappear. You still have to go through chemotherapy and probably surgery.
Okay dragoneyes, so assuming you are an anomalous emphysema-resistant super-man, this does not disprove the 50,000 or so of your fellow Canadian countrymen who die every year because of smoking (http://tobacco.aadac.com/about_smoking/smoking_deaths/). You can quibble about the source or the exact numbers if you really want, but the point is is that smoking causes millions of early and painful deaths.

1) prove the massive numbers your claiming.

2) if cancer is found as a small syst it can be easily removed before it spreads and becomes inoperable this is why not getting checked kills people and sorry to say it again but your wrong breast and colon cancers kill more than ANY other cancers including all the smoking related ones.

3) your link is it from the same source you used last time that asumed 3 billion pounds was spent because of 28,000 cases?

4) you did not read one of my last posts did you the numbers of dead that are being atributed to smoking include those who died of bone marrow cancer and a number of other cancers that are most definitly not caused by smoking yet because the person was a smoker they are added to the toll simply to boost the horror numbers and have people like you quote them as fact.

it must really gal you to know that someone who has smoked for probably twice your entire existance is not weezing and coughing glued to a hospital bed because your so convinced its the only outcome possible for smokers.

Vampyrelord

09-27-2006, 01:18 PM

1) prove the massive numbers your claiming.

Proof? I have given you two very reliable sources - the BBC and British Cancer research. Both much, much more knowlegable than you on this topic I'm afraid.

2) if cancer is found as a small syst it can be easily removed before it spreads and becomes inoperable

Prove it. I want some evidence from a reliable medical source.

3) your link is it from the same source you used last time that asumed 3 billion pounds was spent because of 28,000 cases?

You know nothing about hospital expenses. Suffice to say when push comes to shove, the BBC is very, very reliable - you most certainly are not.

4) you did not read one of my last posts did you the numbers of dead that are being atributed to smoking include those who died of bone marrow cancer and a number of other cancers that are most definitly not caused by smoking yet because the person was a smoker they are added to the toll simply to boost the horror numbers and have people like you quote them as fact.
it must really gal you to know that someone who has smoked for probably twice your entire existance is not weezing and coughing glued to a hospital bed because your so convinced its the only outcome possible for smokers.

Perhaps some surveys make that mistake. Regardless, you cannot say that this applies to all surveys, neither can you say that there are no links between cancer and smoking. Smoking leads to a slow and painful death in the vast majority of cases. The fact that you claim to be in excellent health proves...absolutely nothing.

sakashii

09-27-2006, 02:17 PM

Smoking should be banned. No matter what, the result is it will shorten everyones lives, regardless the person smokes or not. Even if you say a person has the right to smoke, have you ever wondered whether they are actually well enough to say these things? I mean smoking can cause a lot of things like for instance hallucinations and damaging the brain and lungs etc. Eventually they won't have their rights because they won't be able to even fight for their rights considering they smoke to much. I know that smoking damages people, not just the body but also through socialising. Parents who smoke end up killing their children, better known as Passive smoking. I should know.. I lived with a parent who smokes and I hated it, considering I have asthma.... its like hell...

Point being... what's so good about smoking anyways? When you're depressed do you just smoke and does it make things better? .... well... thats just how I see it.

dragoneyes001

09-27-2006, 03:20 PM

You know nothing about hospital expenses. Suffice to say when push comes to shove, the BBC is very, very reliable - you most certainly are not.

oh really? lets see memory serves me that your oh so reliable source implied quite clearly that 28,000 cases cost 3 billion pounds or aprox: 110,000 pounds for each indevidual case hate to see that bill for an overnight stay.

needless to say if some are charged less others need to pay more for the total wont change of cases or what they said it costs.

you keep saying how great that source is I don't believe the numbers from the same source from last time why should i believe the numbers your linking to the same source again for more numbers.

actualy the mention of my health was in response to a coment about how i should be left to suffer speaking through a synthesiser.

but it is proof that not every smoker is going to become a hacking weezing disease ridden soon to be corps.

Bak3d on H1gh

09-28-2006, 01:45 AM

dragoneyes001

09-28-2006, 02:15 AM

Of coarse i know its not a 100% chance of getting a cancer if you smoke, the only way it would be a 100% was if someone decided to enter a nuclear chamber, then they wouldn't even make it out the door.
Were not just talking about you, we are talking about smoking in general, just because one person who has the free time and money manages to have a great lung capacity test doesn't mean that it shouldn't be banned. There are already enough cases of asthma, theres no need to make more

I did not say others should start smoking or that others who wish to should not quit its their choice<<<<key word here

Vampyr wants a world where everyone is treated like a two year old caught running with scissors. {Ban everything}

I want a properly educated world where choice is available because bans never take everything into consideration the removal of choices is the limitation of freedoms the more you ban the easier it becomes to oppress people because there will always be something else that needs to be banned.

without cigarettes being made illegal education has cut the number of smokers by close to 2/3's people have quit because they wanted to quit making it illegal will only force it to become a cash crop for criminals and will probably create more interest in starting smoking simply because its illegal.

this is true of most things that get banned arbitrarily and cigarettes wont be any different. also not one of you seems to see the issue of hundreds of millions of cases of cancer that have been created by all our nuke loving governments being completely ignored or pawned off on cigarette smoking to hide the fact they exist because of our governments.

what better way not to have to face the consequences of their incompetent actions than to place all the blame on someone else keep people from suing the governments for killing their family by irradiating cancer into them if they can get the cigarette companies to be their patsies.

i previously listed a number of issues that are killing people they also include a generation of using asbestos, mercury in our water systems, led paints, some unknown element in plastics used to line food cans which is killing the male gene in animals and mammals, chemical producers venting off tanks with known carcinogens being emitted, militarys spraying carcinogens over entire countries .....etc.... I'm sure the governments will gladly back up anti smoking groups as long as they can continue to blame all their carcinogenic messes on cigarettes.

Bak3d on H1gh

09-28-2006, 04:59 AM

dragoneyes001

09-28-2006, 05:24 AM

Yes it is true that years use of asbestos, mercury, LEAD paint and other things have killed and are still killing people, but the reason for those years of use is because we didn't know better, its still going on today with about 15000(think that's right or close to it ill get back on the correct# tomorrow) chemicals on the market that we don't truely know what they do to us, mostly because lack regulations and testing, but its not like we can stop using every commercial product, such as computer(source of PCB's). The fault doesn't just lie with the government it lies with the corperations, and us, us because we aren't outraged by the lowering of our sperm count, or the killing or our whales. You can't just point your finger at the government and say it is all there fault and they are trying to cover it up.
Oh and i'm pretty darned sure that Canada does not own any nuclear weapons, do we even have a nuclear power plant?
And what the hell does this have to do with smoking cigarettes?!

Canada was the first country outside the US to make nuclear power plants
CANDU

what it has to do with cigarettes is simple: don't you question why they lump every type of cancer (ALL OF THEM) into the count of cigarette deaths?

does it not strike you as odd that they do not attribute those obviously not caused by smoking types of cancer to all those other reasons at least they sure try to snow people into believing that cancer only comes from cigarettes regardless of how much evidence to the contrary exists.

its very convenient for the governments to simply dismiss the cancers their actions and decisions caused as being all part of the demon product called cigarettes.

as long as the most vocal proponent's are busy shitting on the cigarette companies the Government does not have to account for the millions of people affected by all those other carcinogens.

by the way PCBs are most commonly found in old transformers electric companies use. the ones you see on telephone poles. for about 40 years when they burnt out they would toss them into lakes and rivers wholesale.

and again I'll repeat myself banning them will solve nothing the number of smokers will rise rather than decrease if they become completely banned the crime associated with smuggling them will rise and so will street crime associated with selling them illegally.

xtrashock

09-28-2006, 08:07 AM

Being an addicted to smoking i am very confused by all policies about cigarate companies and as well as Governaments .
They print on almost all Packs of cigaratte that smoking is injuriouse for health but who cares right after that!
i think This can be banned and reduced in our community if Governaments put some bold steps to stop it but it is not possible either as This is an established business and companies wjo manufacture these should never be let this business down!

Nero

10-06-2006, 03:11 AM

dragoneyes001

10-06-2006, 08:42 AM

my personal opinion would be to keep smoking confined to the privacy of the smokers homes or private property,but i would have to disagree on smoking in public,Just because on feels the need to have a cigarette doesnt mean they should be afffecting others with their second hand smoke. The choice to smoke is up to that person but i would much rather that the smoking be done on their private property and not in public.

OK then I have the right to say you should not drive your car anywhere that might be close enough that I'll have to inhale your exhaust fumes.

I can also ask the government to enact laws that will force all houses that use heating oil to install VERY expensive filters that clean all emissions from your furnace chimney since I'm forced to breath your pollution.

while we're at it lets ban planes that use fossil fuels since they are creating deadly pollution we are forced to breath.

lets also ban construction all together since they cut fabricated materials that are known to be hazardous to our health including carcinogens why should i breath treated wood dust because you want a deck or drywall dust because you want smooth interior walls or concrete dust because you want a foundation to hold your house up?

you know when someone uses the argument "because it affects me" they rarely take the time to look how often they are guilty of affecting others.

we don't run around naked in the woods so stop acting as if we're supposed to be one with nature humans won't revert and there are too many other causes of cancer for anyone to believe that cigarettes cause all the cases.
if you get cancer its going to be more likely that you've been exposed to some carcinogen in your own life (food additives, chemical cleaners, building materials,burnt fossil fuels, your work place and many other sources)
than you are from some smoker being upwind of you in a public place.

10-06-2006, 08:33 PM

if you get cancer its going to be more likely that you've been exposed to some carcinogen in your own life (food additives, chemical cleaners, building materials,burnt fossil fuels, your work place and many other sources)
than you are from some smoker being upwind of you in a public place.

.....o.o.....

Yea sure...You will always have that risk of getting cancer in normal life.

But being around smoking all the time and getting 2nd hand smoke has already been proven to dramatically iincrease your chances of getting cancer of some lung illness...

dragoneyes001

10-07-2006, 02:16 AM

.....o.o.....
Yea sure...You will always have that risk of getting cancer in normal life.
But being around smoking all the time and getting 2nd hand smoke has already been proven to dramatically iincrease your chances of getting cancer of some lung illness...

ah now we get to the crux of it smoking does cause some forms of cancer but according to the statistics the anti smoking lobby post its causing pretty much every case of cancer and they count every cancer death as atributable to cigarettes.

do you really believe in canada theres 45,000 deaths a year to lung cancer alone?

an estimated 22,700 Canadians will be diagnosed with lung cancer in 2006 and 19,300 will die from it

But according to information CTV's Avis Favaro received from doctors at Princess Margaret Hospital and the Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Centre in Toronto, 10 to 15 per cent of new lung cancer cases diagnosed are in people who have never smoked. Many have never been exposed to second-hand smoke.

acording to the above its aprox. 16,000 deaths per year for people who have smoked now do you believe all those 16,000 got it only from smoking?

then explain the 3500 people per year who also get lung cancer who are not smokers and are not cases of second hand smoke.

the doctors are puzzled because the anti smoking lobby has been so effective in blaming everything on cigarette smoke that now that the quantity of people exposed to smoke has be cut by 2/3's and the number of lung cancer cases keep rising anyways does not make sence unless your willing to actualy look at all the other causes of lung cancer but that would be negating the anti-tobaco lobby's numbers.

industry and government do not want all the causes of lung cancer to be researched properly because it'll drop the "lets sue you for our woes" on their door steps so they gladly support the fiction that cigarettes cause every case of cancer that is being used to demonise tobaco well beyond its actual level of guilt and yes i have no delusions that cigarettes don't cause cancers they most certainly do. i'm just not so blinded that i'll believe bogus numbers being used to snowball a lobbies cause.

dragoneyes001

10-15-2006, 09:34 PM

actualy banning cigarettes instead of letting education to not smoke will have several negative effects the first of which is the loss of billions of dollars which pay for more than smoking cigarettes cost to health care.
there will also arise a underground based on selling illegal cigarettes and the crime that attaches itself to that trade there will be increased policing costs to enforce the ban and the numbers of deaths will probably barely change at all which means the cost on health care wont change but the income to pay for it will have.

all in all banning cigarettes will become the non-smokers new tax instead of the smokers so it will probably cost the average non smoker about $1000-$2000 more in taxes per year to cover the costs of health care the smokers currently are paying for and there will be additional costs per year to cover the police that inforce the ban as well as the judicial costs and penal costs to encarcerate those who really break the law.
chances are the average non smoker will be hit with an increase of about $3000-$4000 per year total to cover all of this should be interesting to see how fast they whine about that little bill they will be handed.

Tablo.

10-15-2006, 09:43 PM

Oh men..... This is just like my 4th Grade essay, a long time ago.... So sucks.... But anyway, I can't spam this place. So, this is my opinion:

Since I live in USA, I don't really care about it. They ALWAYS say that this is a country of freedom. Guess what? It is a country of freedom! You can sleep on the road and do whatever you want, except being bad. That also means smoking is a just nothing at all except smoking. They were allowed here. So, let's just let them have their way..... Before they die in cancer of course.

toxxin

10-15-2006, 11:59 PM

Meh im a non smoker so I don't mind the laws they passed over here about banning smoking in buildings, however the smokers are still free to smoke outdoors and in their own homes.

However, I can understand a smokers negative view towards the ban, obviously who wants to stand outside to smoke in -40 during winter? One cannot hold an addiction against them and say "just quit"...thats not fair. I think they have done enough with banning smoking in buildings, it would be inhumane to put a permanent ban on smoking in general.

Arei

11-06-2006, 10:30 PM

I'm for banning smoking in public places, but not outlawing it. People can smoke at their house just fine. Some of us have trouble breathing and/or are allergic to cigarette smoke, which is pretty dangerous sometimes. I dont want to take rights away from smokers that want to smoke, but why should the non-smokers have to suffer and sometimes the smoke effect their health when they're choosing not to smoke to avoid the health risks in the first place?

shadow_of_89

11-08-2006, 05:41 PM

Smoking should be banned in public because it's simply a murderer and it's even more dangerous for those who inhale the smoke and less for those who actually smoke......I am a non smoker and because of the passive smoking i have a lot of respiratory related problems

rei

11-30-2006, 07:26 PM

there's a sign here on our neighborhood and it goes "tapat mo linis mo" (if its in ur front yard clean it). same thing applies to smokers and i believe that smokers should be responsible enough and know what they are doing. bottomline, we should not ban smoking. everybody has their thing let us co exist peacefully even if we have to make compromises.

uzumaki 45

11-30-2006, 07:42 PM

i think we should because smoking kills and somepeople just care for u they dont want u to die so i believe it should be banned

Abe

12-01-2006, 05:22 AM

I think smoking should get banned.
Smoking dosen't help you all it does is harm you but if you are smoking around other people you are also effecting them with 2nd hand smoke. The only thing smoking will do for you is shorten your life and if you keep smoking you will get addicted and after that it's really hard to give up, so we should ban smoking before more people start smoking and get addicted or die because of smoking.

Atrias

12-01-2006, 11:11 AM

Why ban smoking... people enjoy it, plenty of people smoked before it got "unhealty" if you get me... before it was found out it causes cancer and killed you.

Sure, we now know its gonna turn your lungs into black coal sponges, but still... people enjoy it, and many people smoke for years without any adverse effects.

We've already banned smoking in public places, which I think is enough... and far too much in my opinion because it takes away people's right to choose. Smoking \ Non Smoking sections already exist, those who dont like smoking can use those.

I dont like smoking myself, and dont smoke at all... but I understand that it is wrong to restrict people from doing something they enjoy... life's too short as it is without being miserable all the time...

Which would you rather... living till 90 and never having LIVED a day in your life, or living till your 30 and enjoying every god given minute of it?

kikori

12-09-2006, 12:58 AM

I live next to a city that has banned public smoking everywhere. It comes with a heafty fine if caught. Smoking shouldn't be banned, lately it seems okay because most places that allow smoking have designated areas and such.

Yes smoking may kill people, but is anything really going to change if they ban it? I think banning it would be a negative effect on society because people would then just start illegally importing and selling it. It'd be like crack, but probably ten times worst.

toxxin

12-10-2006, 03:31 AM

I agree with kikori; a city wide public ban could/would definatly have a negative effect on society. Especially if the majority of the citizens in your city were smokers. Yes, the illegal import of cigs would definatly start happening sooner or later......kinda reminds me of good ol' Capone :)

charmednwicked

12-10-2006, 08:23 AM

yes, smoking should be banned. it's not only hurting the smoker, but everyone around them. second hand smoke is just as deadly. it should definitely be banned in amusement parks and zoos, etc. children especially should not be exposed to it.

toxxin

12-10-2006, 06:28 PM

First of all, you have to elaborate on the "ban". Is it the banning of smoking in its entirety? Or is it restricted to certain criteria, such as banned in public places?

Where I live, there is a city wide bylaw that prohibits cigarette smoking in all or any enclosed public places. Of course, there are a very limited exceptions, which still protects nonsmokers from contact with any smoke. Outdoors are a bit different. Where more and more no smoking signs are being put up, its not a general rule yet from smoking outside, which I think is fair.

You cannot simply ban smoking altogether, it is not fair to the public who are smokers, since the government in the first place allowed the retail of cigarettes, leading to the publics addiction. I agree with the limited bans that are out now, but disagree with the full out ban of smoking in its entirety.

Atrias

12-11-2006, 06:44 PM

Agreed toxxin, and by the way your name is very apt! hehe

Banning smoking in its entirety would be entirely impossible as we all have the freedom to do (relatively) whatever we want in the freedom of our own homes.

pathetic_couch

12-19-2006, 07:02 PM

I think they should ban smoking IN public area.

I'm really against on smoking..i don't see any relevance of this..yeah form of relaxation for some..but sometimes they just go over the line. Smokers should be responsible. Not everyone enjoys your vices. Do it on your own. If you want to die early..do it. But don't get others involved.

HalfdeadBleach

12-20-2006, 01:54 AM

smoking is a big a few billion big part of our culture I think it souldn't be banned because of all the people that work at the plants and it is a perfect tough guy streotypes or bad guys in movies,TV shows comics. Second hand smoke just walk away!http://jlao.wordpress.com/files/killzone.jpg

Aelix

12-20-2006, 02:31 AM

I think that either smoking should be banned or it someone should come up with an alternative to it. If someone could find a way to make it so smokings dont give you emphasyma,bronchitis,lung cancer, and put Carbon Monoxide in you, i would probably smoke. But for now it kills you.

Atrias said Which would you rather... living till 90 and never having LIVED a day in your life, or living till your 30 and enjoying every god given minute of it?
but smokings dosent mean you live/have a life. Smokers also dont really enjoy coughing up their lungs everytime they exersise. I mean, if you smoke your not automatically garenteed a fun and avid life and if you dont smoke you are imeaditly condemmed to a life of lonelyness and solitude.

Smoking DOES produce a LOT of income and such, and there WOULD be a lot of downfall if smoking was banned. Which would you rather...live heatly and let other people live healthy/live longer, but with no people in the cig industry, or let people kill them selves everyday and giving their money to companies that encourage their suicide? (not provoking you Atrias, just using it as a shell, hope you dont mind)

the only REAL compromise would be if smoking could be made healthy. Only then could there be no argument. but untill then thousands of people die from smoking and billions are being made by the companies. meh.

omega255

12-21-2006, 06:23 PM

ah... the classic smoking debate...

not necessarily part of the debate, merely my own opinion:
i myself have never liked smoking. i tried a couple of cigarretes when i was thirteen and i didn't like it, so i haven't had any more (i'm nearly 17 now). i didn't continue because of peeer pressure or any other similar bullsh!t, i didn't like it, so it made no sense to me to not bother with it. natturally, i know the dangers of smoking, the toxins, cancer issues, etc etc, which is why i wonder why people smoke. i know it can be 'relaxing' to the people that do smoke, but eventually, it becomes something that has to be done, rather than it being a mere comfort. surely there are other, safer ways to relax? what about relaxing music, massage chair, or something else. why spend a huge amount of your hard-earned savings on slowly killing yourself? i dno't wanna shorten my life. i've heard that every puff of a cigarette shortens your life by two minutes. as i've had two full cihgarretes, i'll have lost about an hour of my life. it may not seem like much but i want that hour back. but, hey, if people like it, it's not up to me to stop them, it's their own decision.

*gasps for breath*

now for the debate...
smoking is a massive business and creates a lot of income. there are a lot of jobs created by it, and the country will earn a big sum of money through it as well. in terms of wealth and well-being of thec country/business/jobs, it is a very good thing.
however... there are a helluva lot of people who dislike smokers, i myself being one. i don't like it if there's someone blowing smoke my way at home, in a building, etc etc. outside, it's okay, as the smoke is blown away to nothing. a ban is good for the people's health, but bad for the economy. a partial ban is best, ie no smoking in restaurants, etc. this means that people need not be choked by second-hand smoke, but smokers can still have the freedom to smoke if they wish, albeit in restricted areas. i believe this would settle many arguments, and i reckon that less people would be affected by the affects of second-hand smoke.

Sal1981

12-27-2006, 10:14 PM

While on the one hand, I think of smokeing is banned then many many lives will be saved and general public health will improve. On the other hand, smokeing could be considerd a human right. Since it is currently legal, shouldn't people have the right to smoke if they want to. After all, it's their body and their desicion.
Heard about passive smoking?

If smoking is a threat to people other than yourself, then i don't see why it should be allowed. If people can smoke a cigarette in their own privacy, granted that it doesn't harm anyone else in any way, then I don't see any problem in people cancering up themselves. And this is coming from a former big smoker.

Vampyrelord

12-29-2006, 01:49 PM

Agreed.

Smoking should be banned because if you decide to smoke, you are killing yourself and those around you or are unfortunate enough to live with you, which is not a decision you should be allowed to make and it is the duty of the government to protect these non smokers.

Here in the UK, more than 10,000 non smokers die painful deaths because of what smokers do to themselves: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4309613.stm

toxxin

12-31-2006, 10:47 PM

Vampyrelord

01-01-2007, 01:30 PM

I do see where you all are coming from, but it simply can't be done. Once you take away smoking, the next big deal will be a ban on alchohol. Then a new debate would arise....booze causes damage just like smoking does. People would reply with smoking causes cancer, faught back with not in all cases; its just a vicious circle.
In short, it won't happen. And if it does, God help us drinkers....

*sigh*

The Slippery Slope argument. A commonly used logical fallacy, typically employed as a last resort. What the Slippery Slope argument says is that "What you're saying is fine, but if we do that, then people will want to do this, and this, and this".

It simply revolves around the assumption that no one can ever do anything without going too far, and the fallacy operates by bringing in irrelevant material.

There is no foundation to suggest that if society bans smoking it will then ban alcohol, and then fast food, etc

Asuka

01-06-2007, 11:52 PM

Ban on smoking, huh? I'd like to see them get away with that without causing a serous negative repercussions.
I don't smoke nor do I like the smell of it, but I like to think people smoke like one does extreme activities like bungie jumping off a bridge. You do it even though you know there's a chance that you could die. Yes, smoking can affect other people, but that's why most public places have it banned inside and if you're outside and someone's smoking, it's just as easy for you move out of the line of smoke as its for them to move, so why don't you just move?

And I can't actually see a ban working anyway, it'd be like marijuana, illegal but everyone and there mother still does it.

Guy

01-07-2007, 12:53 AM

Smoking should be banned in public areas. Not every country can afford to offer a smoker/nonsmoker section, you know... like in China, most restaurants even in big cities don't have smoking/nonsmoking sections. I would hate for a pregnant woman to inhale all that smoking in public areas just because some people just want to feel the pleasure in doing so.

On the other hand, if they choose to smoke at home, even knowing all the health risks... what am I, god? why should I care if they smoke at home...

Asuka

01-07-2007, 01:03 AM

I see what you mean, so they could always place a ban with a radius limit attached to it. Like, you can't smoke inside and 10 feet on or around this area. Something like that?

Guy

01-07-2007, 01:45 AM

I see what you mean, so they could always place a ban with a radius limit attached to it. Like, you can't smoke inside and 10 feet on or around this area. Something like that?

Hmm... maybe not like a radius, but places like on the bus, in restaurants, etc. If you wanna go smoke down in the alley or in your own private home, I don't care.

Neku

01-07-2007, 05:06 PM

I wouldnt say ban it completely, just cut it down to private areas only since if you do smoke and smoke it in public places it can annoy alot of other people and cause harm to them which is a bit unfair, its up to the person whether they want to smoke and banning it completely would also annoy the people who do smoke, personally i hate smoking and am glad i dont smoke. But thats just my opinion. I think one thing that needs to be stopped somehow is young kids smoking.

Commander Lazy Pants

01-07-2007, 05:15 PM

the problem with banning smoking is that big name tobacco companies hav their hands pretty deep into congress' pockets, so trying to all out ban smoking wont happen any time soon

the thing is that smoking is more or less an individual choice, barring peer pressure and such, but it is not a choice to continue it, due to the addictive nature of nicotine

the key to getting rid of smoking is to get rid of addicitve substances, ie nicotine

one has a much better chance of doing that, by passing legislation that bans addicitive substances (now who could go against that? to do so would be a political failure), which then takes away all the bite of smoking

dont blame the smokers for what their bodies basically force them to do, blame the companies for what they put into their products in order to ensure a profit, at the expense of the heath of millions