Cigarettes - banned?

[BTox]

I thought this was a good topic Tony brought up. There are many anti-gun people here that advocate either extreme controls or banning ownership of certain guns entirely,such as handguns and assault weapons. I assume the reason is the needless loss of life due to accidents and crime. Seeing how the annual number of deaths, the human suffering and financial burden on society due to guns pales in comparison to those due to smoking, I wonder how many also advocate a global ban on cigarettes? I do. Here's one thing all our governments can do to save lives.

Deaths due to guns in U.S. 29,500.
Deaths due to smoking in U.S. 440,000.
Global deaths due to smoking - 4.8 million, expected to hit 9 million by 2010.

[Luke T.]

And here I was just saying I hardly participate in gun control topics, but I just couldn't resist this one.

Cigarettes don't kill other people. Only the user. That is a key difference from guns.

No, I'm not a gun control advocate. Just felt the comparison wasn't correct.

[Ignatius]

I don't think that there is actually that large of a percentage of the population that thinks that all guns should be completely banned. I don't think that there is a large percentage of the population that thinks that we should have no regulations at all when it comes to guns.

Cigarettes are subject to regulations and even much higher taxes than guns so I don't think the analogy fits that well.

But if you want to fight with the fringe on either side and then think that them being wrong makes you right, well...

[Luke T.]

One other note. You said deaths due to guns in the U.S. was 29,500. Was that the first day or the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Luke T.
And here I was just saying I hardly participate in gun control topics, but I just couldn't resist this one.

Cigarettes don't kill other people. Only the user. That is a key difference from guns.

No, I'm not a gun control advocate. Just felt the comparison wasn't correct.

I'm not comparing the two. Just seems to me if you're against guns because of the senseless killing (which is a perfectly good argument), then you should be against cigarettes 10 fold.

And to muddy it a bit more, second hand cigarette smoke can and does kill others. Plus a significant number of gun deaths are suicides.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Luke T.
One other note. You said deaths due to guns in the U.S. was 29,500. Was that the first day or the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg?

2001 (as I recall, maybe 2000) source Centers for Disease Control. U.S. firearm deaths.

[Zep]

The difference between guns and cigarettes is that you can't point a cigarette at someone across the road and give them instant lung cancer.

HOWEVER, the point about how seriously bad ingesting burnt tobacco is for humans is hardly worth denying. Furthermore, it is one of the world's most addictive drugs.

From the outside, the obvious question arises: Why isn't there a war on seriously controlled this toxic and highly addictive drug similar to the current "War on Drugs" for other smoked, narcotic and hallucinogenic substances?

The answer is simple: Tobacco was (and remains) a huge income-earner for the tobacco farmers. And big incomes means lotsa taxes paid to governments, directly and indirectly. And that makes the government look REALLY good. And, until recently, the health issues have been successfully buried (research confirming cigarettes as causing lung cancer was done as early as the 1930's and 40's).

The next most obvious observation is that if tobacco is consumed, accepted, legalised, controlled, and generates government income, even considering the totally adverse health issues associated with its use, why can't the same process be applied to other drugs? So far, I've seen no good response to this...

So should cigarettes be banned? In a perfect world, yes, for the sake of health alone. But in this imperfect world that horse has long since bolted, so control is the only option left.

For example, in Australia, smoking in pubs has just been banned. There's already no smoking on planes, taxis and public transport. Many restaurants have banned smoking. There have been no smoking adverts of any kind for decades now. A pack of 20 costs over A$10 (US$7). As a result, smoking is now a dying habit*, but not as fast as many of us would like it to be.



*a bonus complex pun in every post!

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ignatius
I don't think that there is actually that large of a percentage of the population that thinks that all guns should be completely banned. I don't think that there is a large percentage of the population that thinks that we should have no regulations at all when it comes to guns.

Cigarettes are subject to regulations and even much higher taxes than guns so I don't think the analogy fits that well.

But if you want to fight with the fringe on either side and then think that them being wrong makes you right, well...

To clarify, the question here is about cigarettes, not guns. I only brought it up to see if those opposed to one are opposed to the other. For the record, I am for gun controls. The state I live in has pretty good ones that I have no problem seeing adopted on a federal basis.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Luke T.
One other note. You said deaths due to guns in the U.S. was 29,500. Was that the first day or the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg?

Originally posted by BTox


2001 (as I recall, maybe 2000) source Centers for Disease Control. U.S. firearm deaths.

Take a moment. Read again.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Zep
For example, in Australia, smoking in pubs has just been banned. There's already no smoking on planes, taxis and public transport. Many restaurants have banned smoking. There have been no smoking adverts of any kind for decades now. A pack of 20 costs over A$10 (US$7). As a result, smoking is now a dying habit*, but not as fast as many of us would like it to be.



*a bonus complex pun in every post!

Same situation in the states, however, though I don't have the statistics, from a purely observational standpoint it appears many young kids (read teenagers/young adults) are smoking. It is clearly not dying out fast enough due to these regs/taxes.

[Luke T.]

I believe the second-hand smoke scenario is open to doubt.

But a Tobacco Prohibiton does raise some interesting thoughts.

Tobacco does not give you a buzz, but it is one of the most addictive substances known to Man outside of Playstations. So if there was a Tobacco Prohibition, would we have tobacco dealers in alleyways, or would it just fade away as the current batch of users get through their withdrawals?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ignatius



Take a moment. Read again.

"To clarify, the question here is about cigarettes, not guns. I only brought it up to see if those opposed to one are opposed to the other. For the record, I am for gun controls. The state I live in has pretty good ones that I have no problem seeing adopted on a federal basis."

Take a moment. Read again.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Ignatius



Take a moment. Read again.

Maybe if I re-phrased the question.

Global deaths due to smoking was given as 4.8 million, expected to hit 9 million by 2010. So I guess it is 4.8 million cigarette deaths since the dawn of time. Is that more or less than the number of Americans killed in World War Two?

Is a cannon equivalent to a cigar?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by BTox


"To clarify, the question here is about cigarettes, not guns. I only brought it up to see if those opposed to one are opposed to the other. For the record, I am for gun controls. The state I live in has pretty good ones that I have no problem seeing adopted on a federal basis."

Take a moment. Read again.

The question is related to the initial stats. They seem to be skewed prejudicially against cigarettes. I think guns have killed way more than cigarettes, but I could be wrong...

[BTox]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I believe the second-hand smoke scenario is open to doubt.



I think not. CDC attributes 3000 lung cancer deaths per year to environmental smoke.

cdc smoking page (http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/dls/tobacco.htm)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by BTox
I thought this was a good topic Tony brought up. There are many anti-gun people here that advocate either extreme controls or banning ownership of certain guns entirely,such as handguns and assault weapons. I assume the reason is the needless loss of life due to accidents and crime. Seeing how the annual number of deaths, the human suffering and financial burden on society due to guns pales in comparison to those due to smoking, I wonder how many also advocate a global ban on cigarettes? I do. Here's one thing all our governments can do to save lives.

Deaths due to guns in U.S. 29,500.
Deaths due to smoking in U.S. 440,000.
Global deaths due to smoking - 4.8 million, expected to hit 9 million by 2010.

All arguments of the form "X kills more than Y so....." have a problem. You can always find something that kills more people, except death, that definitely kills the most.

A question to the "pro gun lobby" might be .....why not landmines? Surely the 2nd ammendment covers "arms" ie weapons used by "militias" I should be able to put landmines in my yard to blow the feet off trespassers. Handguns kill many more people than landmines so landmines should be allowed.

Smoking is heavily controlled and regulated in Australia, you cannot smoke in many places, minors cannot purchase tobacco products. They cannot be advertised..... I don't have a problem with measures taken to lessen the number of tobacco related deaths. I don't advocate unilateral banning of tobacco or guns, I don't remember anyone on this forum ever suggesting the banning of guns....maybe I'm wrong, can anyone site an example of someone suggesting that? ....

Maybe I could start massaging a lot of numbers to try and show it is not really cigarettes that kill or that responsible cigarette users should not be penalised because some irresponsible cigarette users get cancer.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Maybe if I re-phrased the question.

Global deaths due to smoking was given as 4.8 million, expected to hit 9 million by 2010. So I guess it is 4.8 million cigarette deaths since the dawn of time. Is that more or less than the number of Americans killed in World War Two?

Is a cannon equivalent to a cigar?

Sorry to not be clear. The figure is 4.8 millions deaths PER YEAR. Expected to be 9 million deaths PER YEAR by 2010.

Why bring war into the issue? Obviously there have been many deaths due to war, which uses guns, bombs, etc.

[DavidJames]

"Maybe I could start massaging a lot of numbers to try and show it is not really cigarettes that kill or that responsible cigarette users should not be penalised because some irresponsible cigarette users get cancer."

That would make you a Libertarian on planet shanek :)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by BTox


Sorry to not be clear. The figure is 4.8 millions deaths PER YEAR. Expected to be 9 million deaths PER YEAR by 2010.

Why bring war into the issue? Obviously there have been many deaths due to war, which uses guns, bombs, etc.

Ah. That's very interesting. I guess we could've avoided the confusion with a link.

9 million a year by 2010. This ramping up must be due to a ramping up of the number of smokers some time ago. How do the numbers look for smokers today? Are there more or less smokers than 30 years ago?

Smoking is not as popular as it used to be. Smokers are reduced to smoking out of doors nowadays if they aren't at home. And some towns are trying to outlaw even smoking outdoors.

I am trying to quit smoking myself. Just started on the stop smoking pill three days ago.

Edited to add: Guess that is why I'm being such a smart aleck...

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by BTox


I think not. CDC attributes 3000 lung cancer deaths per year to environmental smoke.

cdc smoking page (http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/dls/tobacco.htm)

They didn't pick that 3000 out of the smoky air.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/corcj22.htm


On the last point, a federal judge in North Carolina last week threw out as invalid the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's infamous 1993 research finding that second-hand smoke kills 3,000 people a year. The EPA study has been the building block for a worldwide movement to ban smoking in restaurants, bars, clubs and other public places. The study has been debunked by countless researchers over the years as a piece of shoddy science in which the EPA set out its conclusion and then twisted its research to prove it.

By any assessment, the health risks associated with second-hand smoke are insignificant. One philosophy professor calculated that two glasses of milk a day poses a greater risk of death from cancer than a lifetime exposure to secondary smoke. A Congressional Research Service review in 1995 said the EPA's research "does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking." Now, a U.S. judge, in a 92-page decision, has reached an even more damning assessment.

Some of the judge's conclusions: "The EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the agency's public conclusion; and aggressively utilized the act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme."

Not that I trust a philosophy professor as able to calculate milk and cigarette deaths...

edited to add: Or a North Carolina judge, come to think of it. That's big tobacco country. ;)

But anyway, second-hand smoke deaths are open to doubt.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by BTox


"To clarify, the question here is about cigarettes, not guns. I only brought it up to see if those opposed to one are opposed to the other. For the record, I am for gun controls. The state I live in has pretty good ones that I have no problem seeing adopted on a federal basis."

Take a moment. Read again.

I did read your original post again and I think you are right that I mischaracterized it. For some reason, I took your initial post as equivocating gun control advocacy to advocating a ban on all smoking.

Sorry.

I think that smoking should be treated more as a national health issue than a legal issue. We tax tobacco more. That seems fair. Smokers should pay more in health insurance. That seems fair. The approach should be more like the way we would want to approach AIDS than how we approached prohibition. I think that if we made it completely illegal, you would see a black market that would dwarf both prohibition and the problems generated from our current drug war.

[JAR]

Originally posted by BTox
[snip]
Plus a significant number of gun deaths are suicides.
I sure hope that's the case.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Ignatius


I think that smoking should be treated more as a national health issue than a legal issue. We tax tobacco more. That seems fair. Smokers should pay more in health insurance.

I agree with this in spirit, even though I am a smoker. But taxes are increased on cigarettes to pay for more than the states' medical costs.

During the recent state budget crunch where I live, the big issue was supposedly over school and prison budgets. At least, that was the scare tactic they used. They said if they didn't get more taxes, big monsters would be released early from jail, and the little monsters would be released early from the school year. Then they raised the cigarette tax by 60 cents a pack, and the state income tax.

[EvilYeti]

At the risk of sounding ghoulish, one could argue that cigarettes are actually doing society a service by shortening life spans. Smoking takes years off the end of your life, so that means less social security, less pensions and less Medicare.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
At the risk of sounding ghoulish, one could argue that cigarettes are actually doing society a service by shortening life spans. Smoking takes years off the end of your life, so that means less social security, less pensions and less Medicare.

Yeah, but we are carrying more than our share of the tax burden, and keeping the crime rate down, and enabling the school year to be lengthened, so you guys better figure out a way to keep us alive. :D

[Luke T.]

Ignatius, something else just occurred to me. Whenever someone says we should tax smokers more to pay for health costs, smokers start huffing and puffing about fat people.* Fatness is a larger slice of the medical cost pie.**

Some places don't even tax food.

*homage to Zep
** 'nuther one.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Whenever someone says we should tax smokers more to pay for health costs, smokers start huffing and puffing about fat people. Fatness is a larger slice of the medical cost pie.


I'm all for taxing the hell out of the morbidly obese. I'm just not sure how to do it. Tax fast food products maybe?

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I agree with this in spirit, even though I am a smoker. But taxes are increased on cigarettes to pay for more than the states' medical costs.

During the recent state budget crunch where I live, the big issue was supposedly over school and prison budgets. At least, that was the scare tactic they used. They said if they didn't get more taxes, big monsters would be released early from jail, and the little monsters would be released early from the school year. Then they raised the cigarette tax by 60 cents a pack, and the state income tax.

Yeah, it is fair that taxes should represent the added cost of smoking to the state but that isn't the case. Here in MN, the tobacco settlement received by the state stopped going towards smoking prevention programs or anything related to smoking or health and was taken over by politicians for other things. Much of which was covering a deficit that our governer made worse by taking an oath to his right-wing base not to raise anything that could be called a tax, but just by raising service fees and other things that hurt the poor more than anybody else...

Dammit Luke, I wish you were a liberal.:D

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


I'm all for taxing the hell out of the morbidly obese. I'm just not sure how to do it. Tax fast food products maybe?

Food is a necessity of life. Cigarettes aren't. Yes they are! No they aren't! Yes they are!

I'm addicted. Can you tell?

Fast food is not a necessity. But the morbidly obese probably didn't get fat by eating only fast food. And taxing fast food would be punishing me, because I like to eat there, too, and I'm nowhere near overweight.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Ignatius


I did read your original post again and I think you are right that I mischaracterized it. For some reason, I took your initial post as equivocating gun control advocacy to advocating a ban on all smoking.

Sorry.

I think that smoking should be treated more as a national health issue than a legal issue. We tax tobacco more. That seems fair. Smokers should pay more in health insurance. That seems fair. The approach should be more like the way we would want to approach AIDS than how we approached prohibition. I think that if we made it completely illegal, you would see a black market that would dwarf both prohibition and the problems generated from our current drug war.

By this same logic the obese who *can* (not thyroid problems etc.) help being fat should pay more in health insurance. Those who have heart problems and won't reduce sodium should pay more in health insurance. Those who drive cars should pay more based on the miles they travel in a day and on and on. Oh, and don't forget to make those jerks who drive SUV's pay more; we'll find some reason.

Here's an idea, take away every smoker's cigarettes and give them registered guns on the same day. :D

Generally, lower income and lower educational status people smoke than say, the middle class white collar types do. It some ways, it could amount to penalizing the poor. More likely, the poor will be taken care of and the middle class will pay the penalty anyway.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


By this same logic the obese who *can* (not thyroid problems etc.) help being fat should pay more in health insurance. Those who have heart problems and won't reduce sodium should pay more in health insurance.

And the problem with this is? We pay car insurance based on risk factors. Some of which is directly absorbed by the higher risk drivers and some of which is absorbed by the larger group of payers. We can always argue about how much each group should be but the principle seems ok.

Those who drive cars should pay more based on the miles they travel in a day and on and on. Oh, and don't forget to make those jerks who drive SUV's pay more; we'll find some reason.

Those who drive more miles DO pay more taxes (it's called the gas tax and it affects SUV and FUV drivers more than others). I'm more than ok with that.

Here's an idea, take away every smoker's cigarettes and give them registered guns on the same day. :D

Fine in principle, but not if it is my cigarettes that you are taking away and you are the poor bastard that happens to have to deal with me on that day.:D

Generally, lower income and lower educational status people smoke than say, the middle class white collar types do. It some ways, it could amount to penalizing the poor. More likely, the poor will be taken care of and the middle class will pay the penalty anyway.
Fair point.

Edited as all my posts are for spelling. Because the principal is your pal.

[The Fool]

Look folks I'm not going to tell you again.

Smokers like me pay so much tax that we support the entire medical system. If it wasn't for us smokers selflessly laying down our lives for the common good then you would all be dying like flies from various illnesses. Next time you see a smoker you should shake thier hands and congratulate them for the unselfish pillars of society that they are.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Zep
The answer is simple: Tobacco was (and remains) a huge income-earner for the tobacco farmers. And big incomes means lotsa taxes paid to governments, directly and indirectly. And that makes the government look REALLY good. And, until recently, the health issues have been successfully buried (research confirming cigarettes as causing lung cancer was done as early as the 1930's and 40's).

I don't know about Australia (except that it has about as many people as Florida), but growing tobacco is way more big a deal for US farmers than the EU, but restrictions on smoking are also way more popular in the US, and per-capita smoking is considerably lower in the US.

So, does the EU shy from smoking bans to protect US farmers because they wuv US farmers so much? And are there black helicopters involved?

[epepke]

Originally posted by BTox


I'm not comparing the two. Just seems to me if you're against guns because of the senseless killing (which is a perfectly good argument), then you should be against cigarettes 10 fold.

Well, of course, this is a reductio ad absurdum, but let me state the bleedin' obvious: none of the people who claim to oppose sidearms because of senseless killing really gives a wet slap about senseless killing at all. It's just a rationalization for what seems an obvious and mindless thing to jam on the US about.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Food is a necessity of life. Cigarettes aren't. Yes they are! No they aren't! Yes they are!

I'm addicted. Can you tell?

Fast food is not a necessity. But the morbidly obese probably didn't get fat by eating only fast food. And taxing fast food would be punishing me, because I like to eat there, too, and I'm nowhere near overweight.

Note to self: Avoid Luke T until his medication kicks in. ;)

(Luke - I'm sure you can make it, my Mother a heavy smoker for over 50 years gave up 13 months ago - and she used the anti-smoking pill. Oh and the other technique she used was biting off heads but I tell you none of the family gave a damn the diference in her health has been astounding, a few lost heads were a worthwhile price to pay.)

[Darat]

Originally posted by epepke


I don't know about Australia (except that it has about as many people as Florida), but growing tobacco is way more big a deal for US farmers than the EU, but restrictions on smoking are also way more popular in the US, and per-capita smoking is considerably lower in the US.

So, does the EU shy from smoking bans to protect US farmers because they wuv US farmers so much? And are there black helicopters involved?

I think it is a strange cultural difference.

Perhaps it is something to do with the fact that the USA still suffers from being founded by puritans and therefore there is an underlying current of "if it is fun/nice/enjoyable it is sinful - ban it". Whilst most of Europe is more influenced by the Catholic ethic - which can be summed up as "indulge and then get an indulgence".

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Luke T.

9 million a year by 2010. This ramping up must be due to a ramping up of the number of smokers some time ago. How do the numbers look for smokers today? Are there more or less smokers than 30 years ago?


This may be due to one of those crazy abuses of statistics that occurs every so often: e.g. World population = 6 billion. 0.08% die from smoking related illnesses = 4.8 million
In 2010, world population is predicted to be 11 billion*. 0.08% die from smoking related illnesses = 8.8 million.

(There was a scare story in the UK a while ago, claiming that the rat population had exploded since the 1950s. It turned out that this was because no-one was actually counting rats, they'd used an estimate that there was one rat per person...)

And in the UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3292979.stm

"Smoking should be completely banned in the UK, according to a top medical journal."

* I made this number up to make it fit. YMMV.

[richardm]

Originally posted by BTox
Seeing how the annual number of deaths, the human suffering and financial burden on society due to guns pales in comparison to those due to smoking, I wonder how many also advocate a global ban on cigarettes? I do. Here's one thing all our governments can do to save lives.



Funny you should mention that. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3292979.stm)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by richardm



Funny you should mention that. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3292979.stm)
Love it. Particularly this bit:
The Lancet also questioned the government's claim that the British public was still to be convinced of the need for a public smoking ban, as introduced in parts of the US, Canada, Thailand, and southern Australia.

It said ordinary people were better equipped to consider the arguments than the government, "perhaps because the UK public does not have to consider directly the £9.3bn per year raised in tax revenue on tobacco".

In comparison, the £1.5bn cost to the NHS of smoking-related diseases was "paltry", the Lancet argued.
But thank God I don't have to align myself with the reactionary mob from FOREST:
Deborah Arnott, director of the anti-smoking charity ASH, said: "A legal ban on smoking is neither possible nor desirable. We want to help and encourage people to not smoke, not to force them."

[Drooper]

The reason why cigarettes will never be banned is because governments raise too much money from tax and duty on them.


It is a completely absurd position when you think about it.

Here in Ireland a ban on smoking in ALL places of work is to come into effect this year. OK, fair enough in offices, but the issue here is pubs, bars, restaurants, even hotel rooms - anywhere that an employee might venture.

Apparently cigareete smoke is SO dangerous that people shouldn't even be exposed to secondary smoke of even the smallest amounts. Yet stopping their sale is out of the question.


This is why I hate politics. Politics is stupid.

[Cain]

A few random thoughts and comments.

The gun deaths... that probably counts suicides.

By this same logic the obese who *can* (not thyroid problems etc.) help being fat should pay more in health insurance. Those who have heart problems and won't reduce sodium should pay more in health insurance. Those who drive cars should pay more based on the miles they travel in a day and on and on. Oh, and don't forget to make those jerks who drive SUV's pay more; we'll find some reason.

Life insurance is higher if you're an unmarried gay man. Interestingly, few people complain when the free-market punishes people for things which they have no choice over.

Re: Federal Judge from North Carolina

Wasn't that ruling unamiously over-turned by a higher court? I'm thinking about the one mentioned in Penn and Teller's show "********!" They argued second-hand smoke is basically junk science. Talk show host and libertarian ideologue Larry Elder was one of their sources. Another was some "scholar" from the Cato institute (which receives money from Phillip Morris), and then a woman from a respectable doctor's group (though she argued the dangers of second hand smoke are over-stated).

I understand that _The Lancet_ is the top medical journal in the world. Then there's the AMA, ALA, and other organizations that claim the threats from second hand smoke are real. Does it follow that smoking should be banned? No, that's an hysterical over-reaction infringing on personal liberty. It only follows that smoking should be strictly regulated, especially in public places.

It's a rather elementary moral principle: You're not allowed to harm others (and smoking a cigarette is in fact tantamount to an "initiation of force", to use the oft-repeated mantra of fake-libertarians). Conversely, provided taht you are not harming others (or plotting to do so), the government is not allowed to interfere in your private life.

[Tony]

Why not ban alcohol? It is responsible for people being killed at their own hand and at the hand of others i.e. drunk driving accidents. How many people are killed a year due to alcohol?

[LFTKBS]

Good lord, I didn't know so many of you were such asses. If you don't want to die of smoking-related disease, don't smoke. End of story.

ATTENTION: Here is my wallet. Take 30% of it for highways, defense, education, and those corporate bailouts you guys are addicted to. Plus here's a couple extra bucks for the next election between you identical jackaninnies.

Now go away, stay out of my bedroom and my friend's bedrooms, and leave my smokes alone. You're not my mom.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Good lord, I didn't know so many of you were such asses. If you don't want to die of smoking-related disease, don't smoke. End of story.

ATTENTION: Here is my wallet. Take 30% of it for highways, defense, education, and those corporate bailouts you guys are addicted to. Plus here's a couple extra bucks for the next election between you identical jackaninnies.

Now go away, stay out of my bedroom and my friend's bedrooms, and leave my smokes alone. You're not my mom.

Oooh–must-resist-temptation to set up a sock puppet called "LFTKBS's mom"... :D

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Tony
Why not ban alcohol? It is responsible for people being killed at their own hand and at the hand of others i.e. drunk driving accidents. How many people are killed a year due to alcohol?
Uh, that's been tried. All it did for us was give us that great institution called the mafia.

[Tony]

Originally posted by WildCat

Uh, that's been tried. All it did for us was give us that great institution called the mafia.

I understand that, and please don’t take my question for an advocacy of an alcohol ban. However, if someone is going to use the excuse that cigarettes and guns "cause" deaths as a reason for them being banned, to hold on to any kind of credibility or constancy, that person would also have to use the same argument for alcohol. But for some reason, no one is doing that. Why?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tony

I understand that, and please don’t take my question for an advocacy of an alcohol ban. However, if someone is going to use the excuse that cigarettes and guns "cause" deaths as a reason for them being banned, to hold on to any kind of credibility or constancy, that person would also have to use the same argument for alcohol. But for some reason, no one is doing that. Why?

I sort of did ask that question at the beginning of the topic.


Originally posted by Luke T.
But a Tobacco Prohibiton does raise some interesting thoughts.

Tobacco does not give you a buzz, but it is one of the most addictive substances known to Man outside of Playstations. So if there was a Tobacco Prohibition, would we have tobacco dealers in alleyways, or would it just fade away as the current batch of users get through their withdrawals?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Tony

But for some reason, no one is doing that. Why?

It's called "hypocrisy", its part of human nature.

In my opinion, everything should be legalized, regulated and taxed relative to its cost to society.

I guess I'm going to have to start my own political movement as none of the other ones have figured this out yet.

[EdipisReks]

government sucks. i hope that some day i can shoot some "ban everything" politician in the head and then blow sweet, sweet tobacco smoke into the bullet hole.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tony


I understand that, and please don’t take my question for an advocacy of an alcohol ban. However, if someone is going to use the excuse that cigarettes and guns "cause" deaths as a reason for them being banned, to hold on to any kind of credibility or constancy, that person would also have to use the same argument for alcohol. But for some reason, no one is doing that. Why?

Seems to me cigarettes are unique in that they are only detrimental to health, both to the users and those around them, at any usage level. Contrast with alcohol, where there is a large body of clinical research documenting the health benefits of moderate consumption. Cigarettes simply have no benefit at all to the user or society.

[BTox]

Originally posted by richardm



Funny you should mention that. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3292979.stm)

I agree 100%.

[BTox]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
government sucks. i hope that some day i can shoot some "ban everything" politician in the head and then blow sweet, sweet tobacco smoke into the bullet hole.

That's another solution - shoot all the smokers. ;)

[Ralph]

Originally posted by WildCat

Uh, that's been tried. All it did for us was give us that great institution called the mafia.

Yeah....but the arguement against tobacco is they only hurt the smoker. Nobody can argue that with alcohol.

How about comparing our approach to alcohol problems
where we HAVEN'T banned the substance. We went after the individual abuser. We still have have a long way to go but I think
we've made some progress in reducing the death rate from drunk drivers.

Instead of attacking the alcohol (or gun)....we recognized it was the INDIVIDUAL (the alcoholic) who was causing 99% of the problems. We didn't punish the vast majority of people who drink sensibly by banning it for everyone. We went after the specific abuser.

Contrast that with approach to heroin addiction. We're still focusing on the substance more than the indivual abuser.

As long as he doesn't commit a crime while under the influence(and even then judges are VERY lenient if they think someone's sincere about getting sober)....he's encouraged to deal with his underlying problem of alcoholism.

The heroin addict is treated as a criminal...even if he did nothing wrong but have possesion of a banned substance.

I think we've made more progress overall in dealing with alcohol rrelated problems than with drug issues because we've focused more on the abuser than the substance.........

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony


I understand that, and please don’t take my question for an advocacy of an alcohol ban. However, if someone is going to use the excuse that cigarettes and guns "cause" deaths as a reason for them being banned, to hold on to any kind of credibility or constancy, that person would also have to use the same argument for alcohol. But for some reason, no one is doing that. Why?
Tony.
Please pay attention this is the last time I'm going to explain this to you.
I'm deeply sorry you can't get anyone to salute your strawman, I really am. But how many times do you have to have this explained to you? Who is suggesting the banning of guns? please provide us with a clue. There are plenty of people advocating controls and restrictions on guns, I'm one of them. Nobody i know of is banning guns, nobody....got it yet?

so......for the last time, if I advocate controls and restrictions on guns why do I have to advocate the total banning of tobacco and alcohol???????...please explain....

Banning guns?? You are simply parroting the brainwashing you have recieved....If the NRA tell you something often enough you just can't help chanting along with them...

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool

Tony.
Please pay attention this is the last time I'm going to explain this to you.
I'm deeply sorry you can't get anyone to salute your strawman, I really am. But how many times do you have to have this explained to you? Who is suggesting the banning of guns? please provide us with a clue. There are plenty of people advocating controls and restrictions on guns, I'm one of them. Nobody i know of is banning guns, nobody....got it yet?

so......for the last time, if I advocate controls and restrictions on guns why do I have to advocate the total banning of tobacco and alcohol???????...please explain....

Banning guns?? You are simply parroting the brainwashing you have recieved....If the NRA tell you something often enough you just can't help chanting along with them...

Blah, blah, blah, you dont know what you're talking about.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BTox

Cigarettes simply have no benefit at all to the user or society.

What about enjoyment? Would you consider that a personal benefit? And does it really matter if there is a benefit or not?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony


Blah, blah, blah, you dont know what you're talking about.
no answer tony? I thought not....

go quiet for a bit, hoping people will forget that you have been told yet again.... then start repeating the "they want to ban guns" line...thats your normal approach, thats what the NRA require of you.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool

no answer tony? I thought not....

go quiet for a bit, hoping people will forget that you have been told yet again.... then start repeating the "they want to ban guns" line...thats your normal approach, thats what the NRA require of you.

Myself and others have already explained it to you in other threads, if you still cant understand it, you never will. This stupidity is exactly what I would expect from a person who thinks islam is a race.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
In my opinion, everything should be legalized, regulated and taxed relative to its cost to society.

Good grief, do you realize what the tax on this message board would be? Think of it, all of you wasting your companies time and $$ by posting here instead of working. Think man, think! ;)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony


Myself and others have already explained it to you in other threads, if you still cant understand it, you never will. This stupidity is exactly what I would expect from a person who thinks islam is a race.
explained what tony? you are ranting again... Maybe you are going to explain why you continually misrepresent advocates for gun controls as wanting to ban guns?? Is it a voluntary behavior or is somebody controlling your actions? Have you been hypnotised? come on Tony, there has to be some explanation other than the one about you being stupid??

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by WildCat

Good grief, do you realize what the tax on this message board would be? Think of it, all of you wasting your companies time and $$ by posting here instead of working. Think man, think! ;)

Hey, you can't tax something thats given away for free! Just think of it as exploiting a loophole.

[EdipisReks]

banning cigarettes, in this country, would be contrary to what america stands for. if this kind of ban went into place, i would join with glee any organized resistance to overthrow a government which instituted such a policy. violently, if necessary.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tony


What about enjoyment? Would you consider that a personal benefit? And does it really matter if there is a benefit or not?

Enjoyment at the cost of guaranteed health detriment? No. And it does matter if there is a benefit. If there is no benefit and only harm, as in the case with cigarettes, they should be banned.

[BTox]

So nobody is in favor of banning? Figured... a bunch of dumb smokers...;)

[Nikk]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
banning cigarettes, in this country, would be contrary to what america stands for. if this kind of ban went into place, i would join with glee any organized resistance to overthrow a government which instituted such a policy. violently, if necessary.

If banning a harmful substance such as tobacco is contrary to what America stands for, whatever that is, why is banning a less harmful substance such as marijuana not contrary to.....etc, etc.

Why did no-one try to overthrow the government violently when prohibition occurred?

As government is already interfering in private property rights by requiring the owners of e.g. restaurants, bars, business premises and heaven knows where else to impose smoking restrictions surely you should be prepared to take some violent action before things get worse. Perhaps bite a congressman on the ankle in protest?

[Ranb]

Originally posted by BTox


To clarify, the question here is about cigarettes, not guns. I only brought it up to see if those opposed to one are opposed to the other. For the record, I am for gun controls. The state I live in has pretty good ones that I have no problem seeing adopted on a federal basis.

Which ones are the "pretty good ones"? Hopefully not the ones that provide for jail time for almost anyone pocessing hollowpoint ammo, or for bringing a legally owned silencer or shotgun with a 17" barrel into the state. The state is allowed to use silencers on their rifles for animal control, but will put a person in jail for using one to lower muzzle blast (and noise polution) to a less deafening level while hunting or at the rifle range.

How about the law that was passed requiring smart gun technology in civilian handguns but not for the police? The state knows the reliable and cost effective technology does not yet exist, but it does not stop them from making it a requirement in the near future. They also know it is not reliable enough for the police. The police do not want it in their handguns, but the state will attempt to force it on their law-abiding gun-owner constituants all the same even if it results in guns malfunctioning when they need it to work the most.

Ranb

[Mona]

Originally posted by BTox


Enjoyment at the cost of guaranteed health detriment? No. And it does matter if there is a benefit. If there is no benefit and only harm, as in the case with cigarettes, they should be banned.

Please keep your morality off of my body. And then read Jacob Sullum's book For Your Own Good, about which non-theist and rationaist Dr. Thomas Szasz writes: "Formerly, the state, drunk with religion, persecuted people with bad religious habits; today, drunk with medicine, it persecutes people with bad medical habits. That such persecutions reinforce the behavior they ostensibly aim to combat matters not. The important thing is that they make the crusaders feel better, for a while. The hangover comes later and is attributed to other causes. Jacob Sullum shows us where the crusade against smoking--the leading medical heresy of the moment--is leading us. Rejecting the anti-smoking crusade is every bit as important for the health of the body politic as rejecting smoking is for the body anatomic."


It is up to the individual, and not you or the state, to determine whether pleasure is an acceptable trade-off for health risks to said individual.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ranb


Which ones are the "pretty good ones"?

I agree those are over the top. I was referring to the current (I assume, I bought my handgun 16 years ago) laws regarding handgun purchase - wait period, background check, fingerprinting - plus ID card needed to buy ammo.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Mona


It is up to the individual, and not you or the state, to determine whether pleasure is an acceptable trade-off for health risks to said individual.

Nope, not when the health risks are costing us billions of dollars. If you want to kill yourself, do it quickly and spare us the medical expense and health costs to those around you.

[Mona]

Originally posted by BTox


Nope, not when the health risks are costing us billions of dollars. If you want to kill yourself, do it quickly and spare us the medical expense and health costs to those around you.

Smokers save you money since they die approximately four years before they otherwise would have, thus saving the expense of caring for them in their aged infirmity. (And since they would have died of something anyway, paying for an earlier, smoking-related death is a no harm no foul situation.) But beyond that, no one argues that life insurance companies should not charge higher premiums for smokers, which they typically do.

Again, my body, my decision; not yours or the government's. We could all be optimal weight, non-drinking, non-smoking models of health under a regime of mandated diet and exercise. But secular health Naziism is not preferable to its supernatural-based analogs.

People own their own bodies, and an incident of ownership is control. You do not owe your neighbor the cost of caring for his/her poor control, but neither do you have the right to take the control away from him or her. *If* you choose a scheme of tax-funded health care which renders you partly liable for the decisions others make about their bodies, and base your coercive interest in what they do on those grounds, then you should reconsider that your generosity comes at the price of appropriating the ownership of other people's bodies -- whatever that is, it is not freedom. And it argues way too much, unless you want to set up a Ministry of Pure Living. Because there is no reason, in principle, to cease your coercive pursuits at the door of tobacco.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Mona


Again, my body, my decision; not yours or the government's. We could all be optimal weight, non-drinking, non-smoking models of health under a regime of mandated diet and exercise.

Sounds like utopia, but non-drinking would not be a part of it. Alcohol is beneficial with moderate consumption.

Originally posted by Mona

Because there is no reason, in principle, to cease your coercive pursuits at the door of tobacco.

The old slipppery slope argument? Please. No paranoia required, this only about tobacco, nothing else.

[Mona]

Originally posted by BTox


Sounds like utopia, but non-drinking would not be a part of it. Alcohol is beneficial with moderate consumption.



The old slipppery slope argument? Please. No paranoia required, this only about tobacco, nothing else.

I see. Then please set forth a principle that allows you to put restrictions on smokers that would not encompass many other behaviors. What is it about smokers, and only them, that inspires your coercive enthusiasms? Please justify your interest in what others do with their bodies in terms that cannot be logically extended beyond smoking.

And why do you allow people to choose pleasure only if you think there is some benefit to it? Who are you to decide that certain "benefits" mean others should be free to choose something? What if your neighbor thinks his/her pleasure is enough justification for what they do with their own body? Are you Moses having been given some tablets?


(edited for spelling and adding second paragraph)

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Darat


I think it is a strange cultural difference.

Perhaps it is something to do with the fact that the USA still suffers from being founded by puritans and therefore there is an underlying current of "if it is fun/nice/enjoyable it is sinful - ban it". Whilst most of Europe is more influenced by the Catholic ethic - which can be summed up as "indulge and then get an indulgence".

LOL, now that's funny.

I always thought the habit of smoking cigarettes was fostered in the US first by the military. They used to put a pack of cigs in every soldier's rations during WWII. Of course, they didn't cost $3.50 - $5.00 US per pack then, either.

I live in California, the socialist HQ for the world. I've already been all through this. What much of the US and other parts of the world are going through on this issue were done ~10 years ago here.

Now the issue is becoming smoking outdoors. More and more, politicians are trying to get laws passed that prohibit smoking outdoors anywhere that could be deemed remotely public. I started a thread a while back and I was frankly amazed at how many people on this forum actually support such an idea as banning smoking outdoors.

I have real trouble believing that all the fuss is strictly over concerns for health and/or health costs. I think some of it is just plain old hatefulness for anyone who engages in an activity that the moral relativists don't approve of.

[Jude]

Did anybody catch the South Park episode about smoking? Hilarious.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


LOL, now that's funny.

I always thought the habit of smoking cigarettes was fostered in the US first by the military. They used to put a pack of cigs in every soldier's rations during WWII. Of course, they didn't cost $3.50 - $5.00 US per pack then, either.

I live in California, the socialist HQ for the world. I've already been all through this. What much of the US and other parts of the world are going through on this issue were done ~10 years ago here.

Now the issue is becoming smoking outdoors. More and more, politicians are trying to get laws passed that prohibit smoking outdoors anywhere that could be deemed remotely public. I started a thread a while back and I was frankly amazed at how many people on this forum actually support such an idea as banning smoking outdoors.

I have real trouble believing that all the fuss is strictly over concerns for health and/or health costs. I think some of it is just plain old hatefulness for anyone who engages in an activity that the moral relativists don't approve of.

What strikes me as sad about this is those who call themselves liberal refuse scientific evidence and rely on belief that second hand smoke simply must be bad.

Originally posted by Jude


Did anybody catch the South Park episode about smoking? Hilarious



Yeah I saw, it was pretty funny.

[Zep]

Personally speaking as an asthmatic, I can assure this forum that second-hand smoke DOES affect me. I can truly smell it outdoors for up to 100 metres away if the breeze is right, and if I get a lung-full of it at close range then it CAN trigger an asthma attack for me. Indoors, second-hand smoke, especially in smoky rooms like bars and clubs, has always been a problem for me - it was the cause of many of my teenage asthma issues until I eventually sought more extensive scientific testing for better drugs to control it (only recently).

BUT...

In general terms, I don't have a problem with smoking outdoors. At least it allows the smoke to disperse rapidly, thereby limiting the damage to the smoker themselves. And although I think they are doing themselves utterly avoidable damage, I would not go so far as to ban it entirely on those grounds alone. There are many more and other ways that people damage themselves deliberately.

HOWEVER...

I have a pet peeve about forcing smokers to smoke outside buildings. Invariably the "smokers' corner" is immediately outside the front door of the building. This leads to the unedifying sight of many buildings in the street with a bunch of people hanging around at the door wasting time puffing away. It's a bad image for visitors who have to fight through the smoke-screen to get to the lobby, etc. Erk. I have seen only one company who did this right - they created a special smokers area on the side of the building well away from the front door - under cover and with tables and chairs but still outdoors. Smart move.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BTox


Enjoyment at the cost of guaranteed health detriment? No.

You could say the same thing about chocolate. Do you advocate banning that too? And who are you to take away someone's freedom to engage in unhealthy behavior?

And it does matter if there is a benefit. If there is no benefit and only harm, as in the case with cigarettes, they should be banned.

That's a pretty unamerican view.

[Ranb]

Originally posted by The Fool

.......... Maybe you are going to explain why you continually misrepresent advocates for gun controls as wanting to ban guns?? ......... Nobody i know of is banning guns, nobody....got it yet?........

I took words from two of your posts.

Since your profile says you are in Australia, I'm not sure who you are speaking for when you say these things, but as an American I can say you are way off base. There are many state and federal regulations in the USA that require prison time for the mere offense of owning or shooting certian firearms. If I own a rifle with a 15" barrel, a shotgun with a 17" barrel, or use a suppressor on my rifle so it does not bother the neighbors, these harmless acts will earn me six months or more in prison where I live. Someone had to support the passage of these laws to whittle away at gun ownership. Sounds like a gun ban to me. How many guns have to be outlawed before it is a ban?

You either have your head in the sand or you think as long as some guns the government likes are available, then guns are not banned. Outlawing some guns equals a gun ban, even if it not a complete ban.

Ranb

[BTox]

Originally posted by Mona


I see. Then please set forth a principle that allows you to put restrictions on smokers that would not encompass many other behaviors. What is it about smokers, and only them, that inspires your coercive enthusiasms? Please justify your interest in what others do with their bodies in terms that cannot be logically extended beyond smoking.

Try reading my previous responses in this thread. The answer should be obvious.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tony


You could say the same thing about chocolate. Do you advocate banning that too? And who are you to take away someone's freedom to engage in unhealthy behavior?

Chocolate is a food, it has nutritional value. And it is not killing anyone.

And it does matter if there is a benefit. If there is no benefit and only harm, as in the case with cigarettes, they should be banned.

Originally posted by Tony

That's a pretty unamerican view.

Why is it unamerican to ban a dangerous drug that kills 400,000 of our citizens per year?

[Tony]

Originally posted by BTox


Chocolate is a food, it has nutritional value. And it is not killing anyone.


Eating chocolate and similar fatty foods leads to obesity, which causes serious health problems, why don’t you want to ban such things? What nutritional value does chocolate offer that can’t be obtained through a lower fat source?

Why is it unamerican to ban a dangerous drug that kills 400,000 of our citizens per year?

Because you are taking away a person's right to decide how to live his or her life. That goes against the very principal America is built upon, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Your appeal to emotion is transparent. The amount of people that cigarettes "kill" is irrelevant, those people made the choice to smoke.

[Zep]

Then let's make ALL dangerous drugs and products freely available to everyone, Tony; make them freely available from drug stores. Then people can choose whether to injure and kill themselves and their unsuspecting children, etc, etc.

Ahem.

Why do you think these things were controlled in the first place? Simply because some "leftie" wanted to be "unAmerican" and foist their Commie influences on the rest of the God-fearing US population? C'mon, wake up! They were banned because they were DANGEROUS! And people were hurting themselves.

Honestly...some people need a brain-implant.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zep

Why do you think these things were controlled in the first place?

Those things were controlled because some self-righteous authoritarian decided it was ok to force other people how to live.

Im sorry you have such a hateful and negative view of personal freedom, but that doesnt give you the right to force your morality on me. People like you are no different than the christians who want to make abortion and gayness illegal.

They were banned because they were DANGEROUS! And people were hurting themselves.

Its not the American government's job to protect us from ourselves. America is a society of free citizens, not a paternalistic society of enslaved subjects like Australia.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tony


Eating chocolate and similar fatty foods leads to obesity, which causes serious health problems, why don’t you want to ban such things? What nutritional value does chocolate offer that can’t be obtained through a lower fat source?

You and others don't seem to be grasping a simple concept here. Everything else you try to compare to cigarettes as something else to be banned have positive attributes. Chocolate provides calories, and causes no health problems in moderation. In fact, chocolate is rich in antioxidants, which are beneficial. There are no such benefits to cigarettes, and are in fact harmful at any usage level. I can think of no other product like it.

Originally posted by Tony

Because you are taking away a person's right to decide how to live his or her life. That goes against the very principal America is built upon, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Ridiculous. We have laws banning illegal drugs. Do you think that is also unAmerican? Do you advocate decriminalization of all currently illegal drugs?

Originally posted by Tony

Your appeal to emotion is transparent. The amount of people that cigarettes "kill" is irrelevant, those people made the choice to smoke.

No, it's an appeal to science, and sanity.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BTox


You and others don't seem to be grasping a simple concept here. Everything else you try to compare to cigarettes as something else to be banned have positive attributes. Chocolate provides calories, and causes no health problems in moderation. In fact, chocolate is rich in antioxidants, which are beneficial. There are no such benefits to cigarettes, and are in fact harmful at any usage level. I can think of no other product like it.


You didn’t answer my question: Does chocolate offer any benefits that can’t be obtained through a less-fatty source? If not, then chocolate should be banned because any benefit one might get from eating chocolate can be obtained from a less "dangerous" and fatty food.

And you're ignoring the fact that smoking offers benefits to everyone who finds enjoyment in it.

We have laws banning illegal drugs. Do you think that is also unAmerican? Do you advocate decriminalization of all currently illegal drugs?

Yes and yes.

No, it's an appeal to science, and sanity.

And so the demagoguery begins. I guess anyone who smokes is now considered "insane"? :rolleyes:

[EdipisReks]

Btox, why don't you move to another country? you obviously don't agree with the principles one you live in.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by BTox


You and others don't seem to be grasping a simple concept here. Everything else you try to compare to cigarettes as something else to be banned have positive attributes. Chocolate provides calories, and causes no health problems in moderation. In fact, chocolate is rich in antioxidants, which are beneficial. There are no such benefits to cigarettes, and are in fact harmful at any usage level. I can think of no other product like it.

just food for thought, fascist, nicotine has been shown to increase memory in humans. there goes your "no health physical benefits". even though cigarettes are very deadly in the long term, they are also enjoyable to people who enjoy them. enjoyment of something is a large benefit.

Ridiculous. We have laws banning illegal drugs. Do you think that is also unAmerican? Do you advocate decriminalization of all currently illegal drugs?

of course banning drugs is unAmerican. all drugs should be decriminalized, with the caveat that penalties for committing crimes while under influence should be stiff. take LSD if you want, but if you drive while under the influence of it (for instance), you should go to prison for a long time if you kill someone.


No, it's an appeal to science, and sanity. i think your insanse. and a fascist. and a moral criminal.

[Mona]

Originally posted by BTox


Try reading my previous responses in this thread. The answer should be obvious.

Assume I am dim-witted (have fun with that, if you like) and please answer my inquiry, to wit: "What principle is it that allows you to endorse that your neighbors may not put nicotine cigarettes into their bodies, but which would not also be a principle that would encompass banning alcohol, extra-marital sex, and fattening food?" A Big Mac is not necessary for anyone, and neither is a one night stand. Both can lead to disease and bad health.

You remind me of a debate I had with a fundie who set forth why adultery and fornication should be illegal: he said he had to pay for the dieases and babies that result when people engage in such activities, ergo, they should be illegal. Your reasoning is closely aligned with his.

[Edited for stupid typos]

[Mona]

Originally posted by BTox


Chocolate is a food, it has nutritional value. And it is not killing anyone.



Did Jesus tell you that as long as there is a **remote** possibility that a pleasurable activity also has a practical function, then it is redeemed? (Uh-huh, chocolate is so very nutritional, doncha know.) Yeah, I was raised by Catholics like you: sex is only ok because it might lead to babies. But sex just for pleasure? No way. Burn 'em at the stake if they think that...same with all those smokers who deemthat they, rather than me or the state, should be able to make their own decisions for pleasure.

You and the Vatican need to get off my body.

[Mona]

Originally posted by Zep

Why do you think these things were controlled in the first place?

I am able to answer that, if you will specify which "things" you mean. The answer will not support your notion that 51% are morally positioned to tell 49% what they may and may not do with their own bodies, for their own good, of course. Thanks Daddy.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Mona
I am able to answer that, if you will specify which "things" you mean. The answer will not support your notion that 51% are morally positioned to tell 49% what they may and may not do with their own bodies, for their own good, of course. Thanks Daddy. Some simple examples: Heroin, cocaine, marijuana, absynthe, trichlorethane. All these were quite legally used in uncontrolled circumstances for many years but they are now not legally available, or they are highly controlled substances. And they were made illegal/controlled by a lot fewer than 51% of the population.

Do you propose that they should now be made readily available in corner stores simply on the basis that they weren't given the universal thumbs-down?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tony


You didn’t answer my question: Does chocolate offer any benefits that can’t be obtained through a less-fatty source? If not, then chocolate should be banned because any benefit one might get from eating chocolate can be obtained from a less "dangerous" and fatty food.

Silly and nonsensical argument. By this logic, all foods should be banned because any can cause obesity. Maybe you don't realize this, but one can eat nothing but "healthy" food, but simply eat too much, and be obese.


Originally posted by Tony

Yes and yes.

All drugs should be legal? OK. But not in my country. I have kids.

Originally posted by Tony

And so the demagoguery begins. I guess anyone who smokes is now considered "insane"? :rolleyes:

No, just incredibly stupid.

[BTox]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
i think your insanse. and a fascist. and a moral criminal.

See what smoking does to the brain? Or is it the absinthe...

[BTox]

Originally posted by Mona


to wit: "What principle is it that allows you to endorse that your neighbors may not put nicotine cigarettes into their bodies, but which would not also be a principle that would encompass banning alcohol, extra-marital sex, and fattening food?" A Big Mac is not necessary for anyone, and neither is a one night stand. Both can lead to disease and bad health.

There are no benefits to cigarettes, only harm, to both the smoker and those around them. Similar to other illegal drugs (which is what cigarettes should be classified as, a dangerous drug). Nothing else on your list is remotely similar.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Mona


Did Jesus tell you that as long as there is a **remote** possibility that a pleasurable activity also has a practical function, then it is redeemed? (Uh-huh, chocolate is so very nutritional, doncha know.) Yeah, I was raised by Catholics like you: sex is only ok because it might lead to babies. But sex just for pleasure? No way. Burn 'em at the stake if they think that...same with all those smokers who deemthat they, rather than me or the state, should be able to make their own decisions for pleasure.

You and the Vatican need to get off my body.

I am not Catholic and religion has nothing to do with this, only science.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BTox


Silly and nonsensical argument.

*Applauses with wreckless abandon*

I’m glad you realize the folly and illogic of your own arguments.

...but one can eat nothing but "healthy" food, but simply eat too much, and be obese.

But you have the solution to that too, ban over-eating. There is no benefit in over-eating and it has unhealthy repercussions.

All drugs should be legal? OK. But not in my country. I have kids.

And they are your kids. Don't punish me because you cant adequately raise your children.

No, just incredibly stupid.

So your line about 400,00 dead was an appeal to emotion? Im glad we've cleared that up.

[Schizobunny]

I think smoking should be banned in places like resaurants, movie theaters, et cetera, but sigerette smoking should not be banned all together. If people want to do something so vial and descusting it is their body and no one should have any control over it.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tony


*Applauses with wreckless abandon*

I’m glad you realize the folly and illogic of your own arguments.

Nice comeback. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Tony

But you have the solution to that too, ban over-eating. There is no benefit in over-eating and it has unhealthy repercussions.

Let me try this one more time, maybe it will sink in. Over-eating is a behavior. Cigarettes are a product, aactually a lethal and addicting drug with no health benefits whatsoever. Oddly enough, cigarettes are the anti-homeopathy: both are grandfathered in the U.S., one is classified as a drug with no efficacy whatsoever, the other is a true drug (FDA regulates all other nicotine delivering products as drugs), yet so dangerous it would have no chance of ever gaining approval for human use. Some day, FDA will set both mistakes straight.


Originally posted by Tony

And they are your kids. Don't punish me because you cant adequately raise your children.

So you're being punished because the illicit drugs you want and deadly cigarettes you're addicted to are unavailable? Some punishement!

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by BTox

There are no such benefits to cigarettes, and are in fact harmful at any usage level. I can think of no other product like it.

Marijuana? Not legal yet; but some want to legalize it. If marijuana is legalized, will it also be banned in public places?

I think cigarettes have great psychological benefits, just listen to some of the non-smokers for proof. :D