Should cigarettes be illegal?

[Lester C.]

I have no problem with people engaging in whatever vices they find it necessary for them to have a good time. It's your life, which you only get to live once, so by all means get the most out it. Its just that enough is enough. How many more people are we going to lose to lung cancer before we wake up and decide to make this product illegal. Smoking, unlike beer or fatty foods, isn't safe in moderation so isn't time we did something about it as a society?

[AaronJ]

No.

Making things illegal has never worked. It didn't work with Prohibition. It didn't work with "The War on Drugs". It doesn't work with laws against prostitution.

One set of actions, and one set alone should be illegal: those actions where one person is acting on another, without that person's consent.

Nothing a person does alone, or two people do with each other's consent should EVER be illegal. The results are always much, much worse than whaetver it is you are trying to stop in the first place.

[Jack Zodiac]

I have no problem with people engaging in whatever vices they find it necessary for them to have a good time. It's your life, which you only get to live once, so by all means get the most out it. Its just that enough is enough. How many more people are we going to lose to lung cancer before we wake up and decide to make this product illegal. Smoking, unlike beer or fatty foods, isn't safe in moderation so isn't time we did something about it as a society?

Moderation, eh?

How many people are going to have "one too many," even just once, get behind the wheel of a car and kill somebody before we make alcohol illegal again?

Outlawing things well within the control of responsible human beings is borderline Orwellian. If the government wants to put faith in some lopsided studies about secondhand smoke and make smoking around others in public illegal, that's one thing; but to completely ban smoking would be ridiculous. "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns" and all that shit.

[glue]

Outlaw them? No. Make it illegal to smoke in public? Sure.

[The Xenos]

Hell, only do I think they should be legal, I also think pot should be legalized. Now I've never smoked any pot (and only had about a pack of tobacco). Yet I still am for them being legalized and regulared. Not just medical either, recreational too. I don't quite see how pot is so much worse than alcahol or tobacco.

Harder drugs? Eh. I think those are a bit too dangerous.

[Jack Zodiac]

Marijuana shouldn't even be considered a drug. It's as much a drug as caffeine or Yerba Mate tea. It's the Diet Coke of drugs. European countries are laughing at us because we call it a drug.

[glue]

Marijuana shouldn't even be considered a drug.

From this day on marijuana shall be known as "leafy pudding".

[OzBat!]

How many more people are we going to lose to lung cancer before we wake up and decide to make this product illegal. Smoking, unlike beer or fatty foods, isn't safe in moderation so isn't time we did something about it as a society?My father, and his father before him, both died from emphysema. On the evidence, it appears that I'd have a strong genetic propensity to go the same way, and so would my kids. So I don't smoke.

My wife's great-grandfather smoked like a chimney until he died ten years ago at the ripe old age of 101. Smoking didn't appear to have much effect on him at all. Fortunately my wife hated the smell, so she doesn't smoke. Both her sisters do though.

So, on the basis of these two wildly variant examples within one extended family, who's to say what levels constitute "moderation"?? And if you can't pinpoint it, how the heck do you legislate it?

Far easier for us to emphasize to our kids that they don't have one grandfather any more because smoking set off our inherited likelihood of getting emphysema. And not mention their chain-smoking great-great-grandpa on the other side of the family in the same conversation for simplicity's sakes.

[AaronJ]

Honestly, and no offense to you Lester, it saddens me beyond the telling of it that something like this is even considered.

But a lot of the laws on teh books already sadden me too.

Man, this used to be the US of A. What the hell happened?

[OzBat!]

Marijuana shouldn't even be considered a drug. It's as much a drug as caffeine or Yerba Mate tea. It's the Diet Coke of drugs. European countries are laughing at us because we call it a drug.Modern hydroponic grown varieties are a heckuva lot more potent than the potted versions made popular back in the 60s. I knew several people personally who pretty much kissed their brains goodbye with marijuana and are pathetic shells of the people they once were. However marijuana, like nicotine, affects different people to different extents. So I personally think it should be regulated like alcohol and cigarettes, with restrictions of driving etc while under the influence (alcohol) and taxed and production qualities monitored (cigarettes). I don't believe it's the "gateway" drug campaigners make it out to be... that distinction appears to have given away to different designer party drugs.

[The Xenos]

To be honest, one reason I don't try pot is because it's illegal and unregulated. Maybe if I found somewhere where pot was regulated and legal, I'd trust it enough to try some. Yet here everything is so under the table, I don't want to even try because I likley don't know exactly what I'm getting.

[glue]

To be honest, one reason I don't try pot is because it's illegal and unregulated. Maybe if I found somewhere where pot was regulated and legal, I'd trust it enough to try some. Yet here everything is so under the table, I don't want to even try because I likley don't know exactly what I'm getting.

For the most part, drug dealers are quite trust worthy.

[rick]

For the most part, drug dealers are quite trust worthy.


So very true.

You don't get return business if you sell crap.

As for making cigarettes illegal, as my last statement should demonstrate, I already have enough bad habits that are against the law, and I really don't need another.

Leave my smokes alone.

[stealthwise]

Outlaw them? No. Make it illegal to smoke in public? Sure.

Bingo.

Seriously, I don't want to have to go all "Red Jack" on someone if they blow smoke around my baby. ;)

[ChthonicSpirit]

I don't think cigarettes should be illegal. In this day and age, any thinking person is aware of the health risks posed by smoking. If they choose to endanger their health, that is their perogative. The idea of removing their right to make that choice is something out of a dystopian novel. It sounds like Huxley's Brave New World, where no one had the right to be unhappy . . . Plus, it's just impractical. It'd be Prohibition all over again. There is already a thriving black market for cigarettes in places where the laws have tightened up, and it would only get worse.

I do think, however, that the law should require the sale of quality tobacco products. Several studies have suggested that large amounts of tobacco farmland have been contaminated with fertilizer containing radioactive trace elements, which would greatly increase the carcinogenic potential of the plants grown there. This needs to be fixed. There is no reason to make cigarettes more dangerous.

Pot? Again I think it should be entirely legal. After all, it was only made illegal because timber barons and newspaper magnates didn't want hemp products to interfere with their businesses. Even today, hemp could be a very useful plant, if we let it. Everyone knows that they used to make hemp rope, but what about cloth? or paper? or the edible oils the plant secretes? Or the proven medical value of its alkaloids? It was predicted once that for every one acre of hemp that was grown to be made into paper, four acres of rainforest would be spared. It is beyond stupid to continue clearing forest when there exists a ready alternative.

The plant's use as a drug can have detrimental effects on the developing brain, there is no doubt of that. All the more reason to regulate its use. I would go the way of Holland.

[the4thpip]

I think they should only be sold in pharmacies, and people who buy them have to be naked, but wear a big sombrero.

[Motormouse]

Not really sure if they should be made illegal but i would be interested to know exactally how much, several billion cigarettes smoked everyday, contributes to global warming.

[Monkey Boy]

I think making cigarettes illegal is not going to help at all but I have no problem with it being illegal for people to smoke them in public. For the majority of my life I've had to deal with smokers and now its finally nice to go out to eat and them not be allowed to smoke. And I get out of the restaurant faster too.

[Agent Helix]

And I get out of the restaurant faster too.

I'm sorry, were we blocking the exits?

[Monkey Boy]

I'm sorry, were we blocking the exits?

no. if that were the case i'd bust out a window or something but i usually had to sit and wait while they finished off about 4 or 5 more cigarettes after the meal.

[The Mirrorball Man]

In my opinion, tobacco and leafy pudding should be legal for everyone older than 18 and illegal for kids.

[Agent Helix]

Well, that's how it is here. Doesn't keep kids from getting their hands on cigarettes, but it's illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under eighteen. I actually think in some places, you may have to be 21 to buy non-cigarette tobacco (chewing tobacco, dip, etcetera).

And as foul as people think cigs are, chewing tobacco is about a hundred times worse and more disgusting.

[Rob on the Job]

If you pay people to grow tobacco,

and if you raise revenue from taxing tobacco sales,

then don't penalize people for smoking.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Well, that's how it is here. Doesn't keep kids from getting their hands on cigarettes.
Well, enforce it then. If a kid is caught smoking cigarettes, he should be fined. And if he can't pay, you just break his neck with a crowbar and feed his corpse to sewer rats.

[Lester C.]

You guys realize that over 160 thousand people die from lung cancer each year.

[Agent Helix]

Lot's of people die from AIDS, too. Should fucking be illegal now? You can't regulate the crap people are going to do to themselves.

[Corrina]

I think the government should get out of the business of subsidizing tobacco farmers, but I don't think it should be outlawed.

[Lester C.]

Lot's of people die from AIDS, too. Should fucking be illegal now? You can't regulate the crap people are going to do to themselves.

A person can take precautions during sexual intercourse and not contract aids. A cigarette is literally a concoction of lethal addictive poisons that people voluntary ingest into their systems, for reasons that are beyond me, and it is lethal as it will kill them over time.

[TomStillwell]

I really don't think anything that a person wants to do to themselves should illegal, as long they only hurt themselves in the process. Stuff like drugs and prostitution.

Want to do drugs? Fine. Knock yourself out. Sell cocaine over the counter at Walgreens for $10 a gram. You'd make gangs a very unappealing place to be without the big money involved. You'd save lives that are lost in the war on drugs. You'd save taxpayers a ton of money.

Want to sell yourself? It's your body. Legalize it like in other countries with health benefits and insurance. Take it out of dangerous places where street hookers end up dead and into safe enviroments with police protection.

I don't condone anyone doing these things. They are wrong to me. But legalizing them just makes sense. It's safer, cheaper, and easier to mandate.

[Motormouse]

You guys realize that over 160 thousand people die from lung cancer each year.

There are over six billion people on this planet, so i doubt very much that we'll notice.

[Agent Helix]

A person can take precautions during sexual intercourse and not contract aids. A cigarette is literally a concoction of lethal addictive poisons that people voluntary ingest into their systems, for reasons that are beyond me, and it is lethal as it will kill them over time.

The question still remains, what's your point?

[Cam63]

I think they should only be sold in pharmacies, and people who buy them have to be naked, but wear a big sombrero.

I know people who'd think that wouldn't be a problem.

[Lester C.]

The question still remains, what's your point?

My point is that I hate to see people suffer and dying a long lingering slow death from self inflicted lung cancer is a whole lot of suffering. It just gets to me. I have no problem with making products like marijuana legal, because plenty of people smoke it with little ill effects, but tobacco is an agent of death that will kill you over time if you continue to smoke. Guaranteed.

[Agent Helix]

Except for all those people that smoke and don't die of cancer.

Yes, it's bad for you, but so is a hell of a lot of other shit that we shove into our bodies day in and day out. If you start legislating one aspect of voluntary intake, you have to start legislating it all.

[Cam63]

I still believe people should have the right to smoke.

Mainly because prohibition never works.

[Lester C.]

Except for all those people that smoke and don't die of cancer.

Yes, it's bad for you, but so is a hell of a lot of other shit that we shove into our bodies day in and day out. If you start legislating one aspect of voluntary intake, you have to start legislating it all.

Mosts laws are not legislated to be absolute as there are restrictions on nearly everything. For instance while you have freedom of speech, assuming you are American, that freedom comes with a bunch of restrictions. You can't commit acts of liable or slander, yell fire in a crowed theater, incite a riot etc. The same thing goes for the legislations of drugs. The whole if you have to legislate one thing you have to legislate it all only applies to certain civil liberties of which smoking does not count.

[Lester C.]

I still believe people should have the right to smoke.

Mainly because prohibition never works.

I'm not arguing for prohibition as I don't view cigarettes as anything other than a concoction of poisons. Its like saying we shouldn't make radiation illegal for people to drink, if all of a sudden you had millions of people voluntary doing so.

[Agent Helix]

I know you're extremely passionate about this, and that's fine. Don't smoke. Encourage others not to smoke. But you're just completely wrong. Criminalizing tobacco would serve no purpose other than to create another criminal element.

[Corrina]

Most of the other things mentioned in this thread has some upside, thought some of those upsides are extremely limited.

For instance, sex has a big upside. It has risks but, generally, it's good for the body, etc.

Certain foods are bad for you, certainly, but some can provide an energy boost in the short term and won't hurt the body, long-term, if not over-indulged.

Cigarettes really don't have an upside. It becomes a habit, and then the habit is valuable in helping people addicted relax, but that's not really what I'd consider an upside. There's nothing intrinsically good for you about cigarettes, not even in some small way.

I'm good for any laws that keep cigarette smoke away from non-smokers but, again, I'm not much for banning it. I figure if the gov't stops the subsidies to the tobacco farmers, the price will go up, and that'll discourage people from even starting and eventually, it'll mostly die out on its own.

[Agent Helix]

There's another point. If you want to argue that tobacco companies have far too much power and influence, and should be seriously investigated, then I wholeheartedly agree. But banning any voluntary action, even if it's bad for the individual that voluntarily partakes in it, is an incredibly dangerous thing to do for what is, ostensibly, a free country.

[Cam63]

I know you're extremely passionate about this, and that's fine. Don't smoke. Encourage others not to smoke. But you're just completely wrong. Criminalizing tobacco would serve no purpose other than to create another criminal element.

You're not wrong.

[NickThompson]

Marijuana shouldn't even be considered a drug. It's as much a drug as caffeine or Yerba Mate tea. It's the Diet Coke of drugs. European countries are laughing at us because we call it a drug.

I believe cannabis is only legal in four European countries.

[glue]

We're calling it leafy pudding now.

[Constantine Drakon]

Ban 'em. If people still sneak out to smoke in some sort of speakeasy, that's fine with me. I just don't want anyone blowing smoke in my face, or their kids'.

[Cam63]

I have a HUGE problem with people who smoke around kids.

[TomStillwell]

I have a HUGE problem with kids smoking people around me.

[Cam63]

You should've seen South Africa last century.

[BcAugust]

...*sighs* You know, so tempted to point out that tobacco is used religiously by a few people in this country. Then again, most of them use tobacco that is as similar to modern as the comparison someone made early on marijuana.

[Damo]

My Aunt smokes like a chimney, and did while she was raising all 7(!) of her kids.

All of whom have grown up to become smokers.

One of whom has recently been diagnosed with... well, guess.

So yeah, I pretty much loathe people that smoke around kids. I can see how things like drinking around kids is bad too, but it's not the same IMHO. So yeah, I would be behind a ban, if only to go "won't somebody please think of the children!"

I don't mind what you do to relax after a long day of work, but I mind what you blow in my face or your childrens' faces.

[shrike]

The question still remains, what's your point?

I have a HUGE problem with people who smoke around kids.

Cam, I implore you to never watch I LOVE LUCY then.

[Jack Zodiac]

Modern hydroponic grown varieties are a heckuva lot more potent than the potted versions made popular back in the 60s. I knew several people personally who pretty much kissed their brains goodbye with marijuana and are pathetic shells of the people they once were. However marijuana, like nicotine, affects different people to different extents. So I personally think it should be regulated like alcohol and cigarettes, with restrictions of driving etc while under the influence (alcohol) and taxed and production qualities monitored (cigarettes). I don't believe it's the "gateway" drug campaigners make it out to be... that distinction appears to have given away to different designer party drugs.

I agree completely. Everybody's biology is different, certain things affect certain people in completely different ways. I could tear apart a sheet of blotters and go nuts without any consequences, while it could completely ruin some other kid, and the same goes with varietals of marijuana (though even with the really good stuff grown today, I've never seen anybody become a "shell"). I'm in the opinion that almost all vices should be regulated by the government, but not outright banned. Including certain drugs, gambling, and prostitution.

[Jack Zodiac]

Not really sure if they should be made illegal but i would be interested to know exactally how much, several billion cigarettes smoked everyday, contributes to global warming.

About as much as flatulence.

[Jack Zodiac]

If you pay people to grow tobacco,

and if you raise revenue from taxing tobacco sales,

then don't penalize people for smoking.

Rob, you and I'll never agree more.

[Jack Zodiac]

You guys realize that over 160 thousand people die from lung cancer each year.

Even if that is true, and I'll remind you that numbers mean shit because they're constantly skewed by whatever side of the fence is bringing them up, that's tough shit on those people smoking. It's well documented how unhealthy it is. It's a decision to be made by mature people whether or not they want to inhale poison, just like it's within all adults' rights to decided whether or not they want to imbibe another kind of poison.

[Jack Zodiac]

A person can take precautions during sexual intercourse and not contract aids. A cigarette is literally a concoction of lethal addictive poisons that people voluntary ingest into their systems, for reasons that are beyond me, and it is lethal as it will kill them over time.

Fast food. High fructose corn syrup. Aspartame. Nicotine can get in fucking line and wait its turn.

[Jack Zodiac]

I really don't think anything that a person wants to do to themselves should illegal, as long they only hurt themselves in the process. Stuff like drugs and prostitution.

Want to do drugs? Fine. Knock yourself out. Sell cocaine over the counter at Walgreens for $10 a gram. You'd make gangs a very unappealing place to be without the big money involved. You'd save lives that are lost in the war on drugs. You'd save taxpayers a ton of money.

Want to sell yourself? It's your body. Legalize it like in other countries with health benefits and insurance. Take it out of dangerous places where street hookers end up dead and into safe enviroments with police protection.

I don't condone anyone doing these things. They are wrong to me. But legalizing them just makes sense. It's safer, cheaper, and easier to mandate.

Mr. Stillwell, you make me wanna' rethink my sexuality, you and that big sexy brain of yours. :)

[Jack Zodiac]

I know you're extremely passionate about this, and that's fine. Don't smoke. Encourage others not to smoke. But you're just completely wrong. Criminalizing tobacco would serve no purpose other than to create another criminal element.

Oh man, could you imagine the news? "Local teen shot over carton of Winstons."

[Jack Zodiac]

I believe cannabis is only legal in four European countries.

Four more than American countries, namely America.

[TomStillwell]

Mr. Stillwell, you make me wanna' rethink my sexuality, you and that big sexy brain of yours. :)

Thank you, Jack. However, I'm saving my man cherry for Dan Didio.

[Jack Zodiac]

Whore! :mad: But hey, it's your body. ;)

[Nick Soapdish]

Even if that is true, and I'll remind you that numbers mean shit because they're constantly skewed by whatever side of the fence is bringing them up, that's tough shit on those people smoking. It's well documented how unhealthy it is. It's a decision to be made by mature people whether or not they want to inhale poison, just like it's within all adults' rights to decided whether or not they want to imbibe another kind of poison.

Which ignores the existence of secondhand smoke. It might not be killing me, but from the amount of coughing that I do, I'm pretty sure it's not doing me any favors. Plus, I simply don't like coughing or throwing up. But I'm sort of obliged to keep breathing and I can't always avoid places where people are smoking.

I think that the battle may have been a bit upside down. Smoking should be banned in public places moreso than in private establishments (although I really don't relish the idea of having smoking vs. non-smoking workplaces for all jobs and running the risk of either not being able to get a job or only being able to find one in a smoking business). That last part is something that's always puzzled me about the battle over non-smoking laws. People complain that it's taking private ownership rights away by not allowing smoking in restaurants, but I haven't heard any complaints about the rights of booksellers or record store owners or pretty much anyone else. Admittedly, they aren't the ones fighting for it, but shouldn't the principle be the same?

[Erebus]

No. If you make tobacco illegal, your firing millions of farmers and factory workers who are just trying to make a living and aren't part of the "evil corporate big-tobacco old white CEOs."

[Jack Zodiac]

Which ignores the existence of secondhand smoke.

Which I'd be all for, until somebody produces more than a lopsided argument about it, instead of chalking up every lung cancer case to cigarettes when it could've been anything from pollution to just plain bad genetics.

All of that horseshit aside, because of the possibility, I'm all for seperating smokers from the public. Indoors. They passed this ridiculous law in Ohio. You can't smoke within fifty feet of a business. Like the goddamn smoke's gonna' snake its way fifty feet across the parking lot and down some poor bastard's throat...

[Nick Soapdish]

Which I'd be all for, until somebody produces more than a lopsided argument about it, instead of chalking up every lung cancer case to cigarettes when it could've been anything from pollution to just plain bad genetics.


Which they've done.

But assuming that they've just made all that stuff up and cigarettes are completely healthy to everyone not actively smoking them, why does your comfort in being able to smoke at peace when you're out taking a walk in the park outweigh my comfort in being able to not breathe in smoke when I'm out taking a walk in the park?

And BTW, cigarette smoke is pollution.

All of that horseshit aside, because of the possibility, I'm all for separating smokers from the public. Indoors. They passed this ridiculous law in Ohio. You can't smoke within fifty feet of a business. Like the goddamn smoke's gonna' snake its way fifty feet across the parking lot and down some poor bastard's throat...

I think it's 50 feet from the entrance of a public building in Florida. Which would be more useful if you didn't have to walk right past smokers to get to the parking lot due to the design of the building that I work in. It has kind of a courtyard or maybe forum with the entrance in the middle. (They don't usually smoke right at the border though. There are a couple gazebos right off the sidewalk and you can get around them by walking through the ornamental plants or going out the door on the other side of the building.) Or if I didn't have smokers that decided to stand beside my car to light up. (It's not like they were picking on me. It was beside their car as well.)

I'm becoming a bit more of a radical about this and less sensitive to smokers because I have this lovely cough that cigarette smoke (among other things) makes worse and I've just spent $500 on doctor's visits and tests trying to get figured out (because I finally have some freakin' health insurance and can afford it - if "have space on my credit card" means "afford it").

[Cam63]

Cam, I implore you to never watch I LOVE LUCY then.

I had heard their major sponsor was a ciggy company.

[Cam63]

About as much as flatulence.

Damn vegetarians !

[Solaris]

Not really sure if they should be made illegal but i would be interested to know exactally how much, several billion cigarettes smoked everyday, contributes to global warming.


Far less than fumes generated from unregulated things like semi trucks and dump trucks, manufacturing plants, animal methane, etc.

As to the original question, no, cigarettes (or tobacco in general) should not be illegal.

As to the side issue of pot, I agree that it is NOT a "gateway drug," it SHOULD be regulated and legal and laws in place for misuse (i.e. DUI), etc.

I saw the stupidest commerical at the theatres the other day: some new fad among the teens in using leeches, and in the commercial they showed a joint being rolled. Now, I have no idea how they can somehow connect smoking pot as a gateway to putting leeches on your body... but apparently, the government believes it's so. *shudders* If it was a medical necessity, I suppose I could grit my teeth and let them put a leech on me... but really, WHO THE HELL IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WANTS LEECHES SUCKING ON THE BACK OF THEIR KNEES IN CLASS??? AND WHO SEES POT AS SOME KIND OF "GATEWAY" TO LEECHES???

[Solaris]

Which they've done.

But assuming that they've just made all that stuff up and cigarettes are completely healthy to everyone not actively smoking them, why does your comfort in being able to smoke at peace when you're out taking a walk in the park outweigh my comfort in being able to not breathe in smoke when I'm out taking a walk in the park?

And BTW, cigarette smoke is pollution.



I think it's 50 feet from the entrance of a public building in Florida. Which would be more useful if you didn't have to walk right past smokers to get to the parking lot due to the design of the building that I work in. It has kind of a courtyard or maybe forum with the entrance in the middle. (They don't usually smoke right at the border though. There are a couple gazebos right off the sidewalk and you can get around them by walking through the ornamental plants or going out the door on the other side of the building.) Or if I didn't have smokers that decided to stand beside my car to light up. (It's not like they were picking on me. It was beside their car as well.)

I'm becoming a bit more of a radical about this and less sensitive to smokers because I have this lovely cough that cigarette smoke (among other things) makes worse and I've just spent $500 on doctor's visits and tests trying to get figured out (because I finally have some freakin' health insurance and can afford it - if "have space on my credit card" means "afford it").

While you're at it, you *might* want to check up on industrial pollution in your area... IIRC, it was found, in an Illinois survey, that people living in an area with high industrial pollutants were 50 times more likely to develop disease. Someone finally got a clue, and quit blaming all the "environmental pollutants" on smokers, and actually did a check on things like diesel fuels, manufacturing plants, etc... and the results were *gasp* astonishing, in terms of relative pollution people were breathing in.

There's no arguing that smoking creates a small localized area of pollution... HOWEVER, it's become the "poster villain" of air pollution, when in reality, there are far WORSE pollutants in our environment that people have tended to ignore. PR and ad campaigns are to blame for that.

Let's put it this way:

It's one thing to have a momentary cough from a smoker walking by you on a street...and another entirely when you live near a polluting plant, or you cough for several breaths because of the quarry truck that's blowing tons of noxious fumes all over at the crosswalk.

[AaronJ]

Lester, is this your argument, in a nutshell?

Because smoking causes lung cancer, and many people die of lung cancer, smoking should be illegal. Is that it?

Because, if I have it right, then what about this:

Many foods cause heart problems, and heart disease is the #1 killer of humans, therefore many foods should be made illegal.


I stand by my original response: The only things which should be illegal are actions by one person upon a non-consenting other person.

Whatever two consenting people want to do together, they should be able to do it. And if an individual wants to do heroin, smoke pot, smoke cigarettes, eat a 22 oz Porterhouse every single day, visit prostitutes, or all of the above and more, there shouldn't be any laws against those things.

I simply do not believe that the law should be used by legislatures to curb whatever behavior the legislature disagrees with. That should be up to each and every individual. Not the government.

[stealthwise]

I love statements like "prohibition never works," when the only real example that's given is usually the prohibition of alcohol in the United States in the early 20th century. It's like when people tell me that war is "good for the economy," but most of their evidence comes from World War 2.

Anyways, people seem to put up with enough bullshit from things that are passed by their own government (i.e. the Patriot Act, or airport regulations), hell, New York just passed a ban on trans fats in restaurants, so why not ban cigarettes?

Second hand smoke is ridiculously common, and I don't want it around my children. There is absolutely no good reason that anyone can give me to justify why some asswipe is allowed to poison both themselves and everyone around them just to have some personal level of comfort. Personal freedom and agency ends where you're causing completely unnecessary risk to the health of others.

Smoking causes cancer, asthma, emphysema, and a ton of other horrid shit, and it's WORSE IN CHILDREN.

[Nick Soapdish]

While you're at it, you *might* want to check up on industrial pollution in your area... IIRC, it was found, in an Illinois survey, that people living in an area with high industrial pollutants were 50 times more likely to develop disease. Someone finally got a clue, and quit blaming all the "environmental pollutants" on smokers, and actually did a check on things like diesel fuels, manufacturing plants, etc... and the results were *gasp* astonishing, in terms of relative pollution people were breathing in.

There's no arguing that smoking creates a small localized area of pollution... HOWEVER, it's become the "poster villain" of air pollution, when in reality, there are far WORSE pollutants in our environment that people have tended to ignore. PR and ad campaigns are to blame for that.

Let's put it this way:

It's one thing to have a momentary cough from a smoker walking by you on a street...and another entirely when you live near a polluting plant, or you cough for several breaths because of the quarry truck that's blowing tons of noxious fumes all over at the crosswalk.

I'm from Florida. As a whole, the state doesn't have much industry and my area is no exception, but it does have a lot of cars. Some of the cleanest air in the country (particularly for its population) and none of the counties are failing to meet standards of the Clean Air Act, except one for soot and that's because of Alabama. (I live about 150 miles away from that county.)

Regarding cars, I'm also fairly unhappy about Florida's discontinuation of annual checks on cars because there are a few cars and more trucks that just totally fail. Heck, the trucks might even be able to pass the emissions standards because they're relaxed for them. I'm also pretty ticked about SUV's getting to abide by those lower standards making them cheaper to build.

But I don't often run across a car or truck that's smoking badly enough to make me cough. Running into a smoker is a lot more frequent and I do usually cough for several breaths like with that hypothetical quarry truck. (And yeah, the quarry truck is worse, but I usually get a visible warning so I can cover up my mouth unlike with the cigarette smoker which mitigates the effect.) In terms of discomfort, I'd have to give the edge to the smokers (although that is still discounting the ambient air pollution created by the laxer standards on SUV's and the vehicles that aren't compliant to begin with). And I wouldn't compare it to all air pollution generated by cars because I think that automobiles do play an important role in society and are a necessary evil. I'm not seeing that for cigarettes (although I'm not arguing that they should be outlawed).

[Corrina]

Actually, Prohibition worked relatively well. The number of people drinking was cut way down, as intended.

The problem was that people just plain didn't like not being able to get a drink when they wanted one and making it illegal led to all sorts of activities surrounding alcohol smuggling which were not so good.

There's a short article here with a handy chart:
http://www.basisonline.org/dram/current.htm


(I double-checked the site sponsors and they seem to be a division of Harvard Medical School.)

[Damo]

Second Hand smoke is a serious problem. The effects that are most readily obvious are that it makes it harder for people that are trying to quit if they're being reminded of the addictive substance they're trying to give up, and it's also a notable allergen. The "Long Term Studies" hold up, and the people that challenge them are in the minority. Which doesn't mean those people are wrong (as far as I'm concerned the fact that the mechanisms seem pretty straightforward is the reason they're wrong, not the fact that they're the minority), but for the love of crap, why would you allow something that might be hurting people, especially kids, because a few people are challenging the data?

[Alex L]

All of that horseshit aside, because of the possibility, I'm all for seperating smokers from the public. Indoors. They passed this ridiculous law in Ohio. You can't smoke within fifty feet of a business. Like the goddamn smoke's gonna' snake its way fifty feet across the parking lot and down some poor bastard's throat...Not that it makes it really any better, but I'd be under the belief that they actually wanted more like twenty to twenty-five feet, and doubled it to ensure that people would stay that far away. Realistically, no one's going to come up with a tape measure and tell you you're smoking only 44 feet away from the entrance.

It's like when someone wants the group to meet at 3:00 and tells everyone to be there at 2:30 -- it's to allow some space for people to get there late.


I saw the stupidest commerical at the theatres the other day: some new fad among the teens in using leeches, and in the commercial they showed a joint being rolled. Now, I have no idea how they can somehow connect smoking pot as a gateway to putting leeches on your body... but apparently, the government believes it's so. *shudders* If it was a medical necessity, I suppose I could grit my teeth and let them put a leech on me... but really, WHO THE HELL IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WANTS LEECHES SUCKING ON THE BACK OF THEIR KNEES IN CLASS??? AND WHO SEES POT AS SOME KIND OF "GATEWAY" TO LEECHES???

The point of the commercial had nothing to do with leeches and everything to do with the fact that our nation's beloved 16-year olds apparently lack any sort of capacity for independent thought. :rolleyes:

[AaronJ]

I love statements like "prohibition never works," when the only real example that's given is usually the prohibition of alcohol in the United States in the early 20th century.

I would argue that "The War on Drugs" has been an abject failure, and destructive in almost every way. I would also argue that having prostitution be illegal is harmful and destructive as well.

I believe it is a matter of principle, more than anything else. These are not the sorts of things that a government should be legislating.

Trans-fats? Good god. What's next? Lemonade because it has sugar? Steak? "Desperate Housewives"?

The government should make sure that its citizens don't act in a harmful way towards other citizens. That's it.

And second-hand smoke has NOTHING to do with whether smoking itself is legal or not. I can have sex in my house. I can have sex in a hotel room. I can't have sex outside Rockefeller Center (legally anyway). There are limitations on things all over the place. That has nothing to do with the basic legality of a thing.

[Cam63]

Actually, Prohibition worked relatively well. The number of people drinking was cut way down, as intended.

Thank goodness the Australian Underground came to their aid.

[Jack Zodiac]

Which they've done.

But assuming that they've just made all that stuff up and cigarettes are completely healthy to everyone not actively smoking them, why does your comfort in being able to smoke at peace when you're out taking a walk in the park outweigh my comfort in being able to not breathe in smoke when I'm out taking a walk in the park?

And BTW, cigarette smoke is pollution.

They have, but not as conclusively as most research is done. Most environmental smoke reports are little more than reiterations of earlier faulty reports, like the '93 EPA Report on Second Hand Smoke, which people still use today, despite how much it's been discredited, to exaggerate second hand smoke effects.

As for smoking in public, especially in wide-open public places like parks, the only way a person's smoke would affect you in any way is if you were right up their ass while they were smoking, not jogging by them while they sat on a bench.

And cigarette smoke is as much pollution as flatulence is, outdoors at least. Yes, indoors, it's thick and heavy. Outdoors, unless, once again, you're right on top of a smoker, it's gone the moment it leaves their mouth, nostrils, whatever. That fine particulate matter experiment commonly cited in the rarely brought up cigarette smoke pollution conversation was a ridiculously basic and entirely vague study. Nothing credible's ever been brought to the table about cigarette smoke in an outdoor environment.

Meanwhile, we're getting asthma patients aplenty in industrial cities and no one's doin' squat about that.

I think it's 50 feet from the entrance of a public building in Florida. Which would be more useful if you didn't have to walk right past smokers to get to the parking lot due to the design of the building that I work in. It has kind of a courtyard or maybe forum with the entrance in the middle. (They don't usually smoke right at the border though. There are a couple gazebos right off the sidewalk and you can get around them by walking through the ornamental plants or going out the door on the other side of the building.) Or if I didn't have smokers that decided to stand beside my car to light up. (It's not like they were picking on me. It was beside their car as well.)

I'm becoming a bit more of a radical about this and less sensitive to smokers because I have this lovely cough that cigarette smoke (among other things) makes worse and I've just spent $500 on doctor's visits and tests trying to get figured out (because I finally have some freakin' health insurance and can afford it - if "have space on my credit card" means "afford it").

That really sucks, Nick, but I'm entirely doubting your cough has anything to do with secondhand smoke besides agitation. Could be early signs of asthma, or worsening allergies (if you've moved recently, that's a high possibility), and I don't doubt that cigarette smoke agitates it, but once again, you don't have to hipcheck the smokers in the parking lot to get to your car. Smoke doesn't "I Dream of Jeanie" its way across fifty feet and up your nose.

[Jack Zodiac]

I love statements like "prohibition never works," when the only real example that's given is usually the prohibition of alcohol in the United States in the early 20th century. It's like when people tell me that war is "good for the economy," but most of their evidence comes from World War 2.

Anyways, people seem to put up with enough bullshit from things that are passed by their own government (i.e. the Patriot Act, or airport regulations), hell, New York just passed a ban on trans fats in restaurants, so why not ban cigarettes?

Second hand smoke is ridiculously common, and I don't want it around my children. There is absolutely no good reason that anyone can give me to justify why some asswipe is allowed to poison both themselves and everyone around them just to have some personal level of comfort. Personal freedom and agency ends where you're causing completely unnecessary risk to the health of others.

Smoking causes cancer, asthma, emphysema, and a ton of other horrid shit, and it's WORSE IN CHILDREN.

I'm not going to argue that secondhand smoke isn't bad for people, but it's incredibly exaggerated. Everything from the likelihood of developing lung cancer because of exposure to secondhand smoke to the actual numbers of cases a year of people developing lung cancer due to secondhand smoke. The possibility is there, and yes it is much more likely to affect children as they're still developing, but it isn't the "25-30%, 5,000+ deaths a year" hysteria it's commonly vocalized as.

I wouldn't want people to smoke around my children, and I wouldn't smoke around my children. Not only because of the possible health risks, but because of the influence of seeing an adult poison themself. Let 'em decide on their own when they're old enough after they've had all the facts. But yeah, say on school grounds, or at kids' play parks, I'd rather not see somebody smoking.

[Jack Zodiac]

Actually, Prohibition worked relatively well. The number of people drinking was cut way down, as intended.

The problem was that people just plain didn't like not being able to get a drink when they wanted one and making it illegal led to all sorts of activities surrounding alcohol smuggling which were not so good.

There's a short article here with a handy chart:
http://www.basisonline.org/dram/current.htm


(I double-checked the site sponsors and they seem to be a division of Harvard Medical School.)

I think that's Diana_Fan's point in contesting prohibition. When you make something illegal, you make the lengths which people will go through to obtain that something more dangerous. As with the "War on Drugs," the Prohibition Act made something that was regulated commonly for thousands and thousands of years into something worth killing for.

[Jack Zodiac]

Second Hand smoke is a serious problem. The effects that are most readily obvious are that it makes it harder for people that are trying to quit if they're being reminded of the addictive substance they're trying to give up, and it's also a notable allergen. The "Long Term Studies" hold up, and the people that challenge them are in the minority. Which doesn't mean those people are wrong (as far as I'm concerned the fact that the mechanisms seem pretty straightforward is the reason they're wrong, not the fact that they're the minority), but for the love of crap, why would you allow something that might be hurting people, especially kids, because a few people are challenging the data?

Not a few people, but a few important people. Like Judge William Osteen, who declared the '93 EPA Report on Second Hand Smoke to be full of holes and actually had it voided for four years before the EPA had it overturned in 2002, not because they were right and further studied second hand smoke, renewing the report, but because it was a "report," and not a "study," it couldn't be declared null and void.

Once again, nobody has ever come across (seriously and with a good case) that second hand smoke is completely harmless, just that it isn't nearly as harmful as the EPA declared it. The possibility's there, and that's enough, in my mind, to restrict smoking in public to outdoor sections, but not to outright ban smoking.

[Jack Zodiac]

Not that it makes it really any better, but I'd be under the belief that they actually wanted more like twenty to twenty-five feet, and doubled it to ensure that people would stay that far away. Realistically, no one's going to come up with a tape measure and tell you you're smoking only 44 feet away from the entrance.

It's like when someone wants the group to meet at 3:00 and tells everyone to be there at 2:30 -- it's to allow some space for people to get there late.

See, I thought it was twenty-five feet here at first, too, and then I heard fifty, which somebody told me came about because people were actually reporting others for smoking nearly twenty feet from the door of certain businesses. And that's fuckin' nutty. We have people who would come to our store in the morning for a coffee and a smoke outside while they read the paper, other corner of the building, where the only way you'd even inhale their smoke would be if you sat right next to them, who have either stopped hanging out at our store or just stopped coming in because of it.

[DuelaDent]

I have no problem with people engaging in whatever vices they find it necessary for them to have a good time. It's your life, which you only get to live once, so by all means get the most out it. Its just that enough is enough. How many more people are we going to lose to lung cancer before we wake up and decide to make this product illegal. Smoking, unlike beer or fatty foods, isn't safe in moderation so isn't time we did something about it as a society?

Nah, don't make them illegal. People will just find ways around it and make more dangerous shit (like the alcohol during Prohibition). Start eductating kids earlier, and tax the Hell out of people who do buy them (like my partner...I told him if I die of lung cancer from second-hand smoke, I would come back as a ghost and haunt his sorry ass!).

[Cam63]

Nah, don't make them illegal. People will just find ways around it and make more dangerous shit (like the alcohol during Prohibition). Start eductating kids earlier, and tax the Hell out of people who do buy them (like my partner...I told him if I die of lung cancer from second-hand smoke, I would come back as a ghost and haunt his sorry ass!).

Your partner should consider your safety first, Duela.

[Corrina]

I think that's Diana_Fan's point in contesting prohibition. When you make something illegal, you make the lengths which people will go through to obtain that something more dangerous. As with the "War on Drugs," the Prohibition Act made something that was regulated commonly for thousands and thousands of years into something worth killing for.

I wasn't contesting that argument, just pointing out that it's not completely accurate to say "Prohibition didn't work," because it did cut down on drinking. Restricting the alcohol did make people stop drinking for a time.

The real argument is not if making smoking illegal will cut down smoking--it seems to me that it definitely will--but whether the illegal activity surrounding smuggling cigarettes will be worth the cost. It seems not, to me. Like I said, I'd rather just stop subsidizing tobacco farmers, and let the free market take its course.

As for the farmers possibly put out of business by ending the subsidies, I feel bad for them and might suggest we switchover the subsidies to some sort of funds for several years that will help them convert the crops to something else or get them started in a new career.

But I don't think it's the small tobacco farmers who have the political pull to keep the tobacco subsidies in. Cynically, I'm not sure Congress really gives a damn about them. But they do care about the campaign money given by the tobacco industry.

[Nick Soapdish]

They have, but not as conclusively as most research is done. Most environmental smoke reports are little more than reiterations of earlier faulty reports, like the '93 EPA Report on Second Hand Smoke, which people still use today, despite how much it's been discredited, to exaggerate second hand smoke effects.

Well, since it's "most", we might as well ignore them all then.

As for smoking in public, especially in wide-open public places like parks, the only way a person's smoke would affect you in any way is if you were right up their ass while they were smoking, not jogging by them while they sat on a bench.


Despite my reference to parks, the public places that I'm in are more often sidewalks, (formerly) bus stops, and other not-so wide open places. Despite what smokers apparently believe, smoke does carry as does its smell. Yeah, I can hold my breath for the 30 seconds or so to give me a reasonable chance of avoiding the smoke while jogging by, but if I don't see the smoke first (which often happens), there's a pretty good chance I'll have a coughing fit even if I'm not right on their ass.


Meanwhile, we're getting asthma patients aplenty in industrial cities and no one's doin' squat about that.


Oh, good. So since we don't give a rat about asthma patients in one respect, we might as well ignore them in another?


That really sucks, Nick, but I'm entirely doubting your cough has anything to do with secondhand smoke besides agitation. Could be early signs of asthma, or worsening allergies (if you've moved recently, that's a high possibility), and I don't doubt that cigarette smoke agitates it, but once again, you don't have to hipcheck the smokers in the parking lot to get to your car. Smoke doesn't "I Dream of Jeanie" its way across fifty feet and up your nose.

I assume that exacerbation of an existing condition, rather than the sole contributing factor is the case. In fact, I'd be quite surprised if it wasn't since it doesn't take much to set me off. My assumption is asthma since I have other symptoms, but the first medication didn't work and I'm due for a test in about a month. I'm not sure how that makes a difference since that's the case for most pollutants.

The cough has been fairly persistent since high school, which is coincidentally when my parents split up and my father began smoking in the house. Apparently, it's been slowly getting worse because people began asking me about it in worried tones a bit over 5 years ago. This past year or so, it's been noticeably worse. I did move into my current house 3 years ago. Cigarette smoke isn't the only thing to start me coughing. Just eating and drinking can do it sometimes. So can strong perfumes or other odors, such as Sol's aforementioned really fumey trucks. Cigarette smoke is one of the more consistent performers.

And when the smokers are standing by my car, yeah, I kinda do have to hipcheck them to get there.

Otherwise, it really depends on the weather. I've smelled smoke when the nearest visible source was over one hundred feet away. I was downwind and it's possible that there may have been another source, but I was sitting in an otherwise empty courtyard. Other times, I've unwittingly walked right past a smoker and never smelled a thing.

The point that I was more interested in hearing from you was why does your comfort outweigh my discomfort? I'll admit that my cough isn't a life-and-death situation. A few seconds (or minutes for bad episodes) and I'm more or less back. Part of my complaint is the odor which I regard as pretty unpleasant (and possibly contributing to the cough).

To answer the flip side of that question - why a non-smoker's rights trump a smoker's, I think that the preference should be set at not "injuring" others (defining that broadly) rather than adding pleasure for others. Any "injury" to the smoker is caused by their own habits, not the habits of others.

[ChthonicSpirit]

I wasn't contesting that argument, just pointing out that it's not completely accurate to say "Prohibition didn't work," because it did cut down on drinking. Restricting the alcohol did make people stop drinking for a time.

It's funny, I would have said just the opposite. An account of prohibition I read recently suggested that breaking the prohibition laws became a point of pride for many people, even those who'd never drunk heavily before those laws were passed.

[Jack Zodiac]

Not gonna' bother with the majority of that post since I don't feel like drawing this out even further.

To answer the flip side of that question - why a non-smoker's rights trump a smoker's, I think that the preference should be set at not "injuring" others (defining that broadly) rather than adding pleasure for others. Any "injury" to the smoker is caused by their own habits, not the habits of others.

Smoking is something that could be easily controlled by people themselves, not the government. If you want to light up before your bus comes, do it on the other side of the glass so people don't have to put up with your smoke. If you don't want to walk past somebody smoking behind a bus stop, walk around the front of the bus stop. People shouldn't have to keep putting each other out.

Indoors, that's one thing. You can't not put somebody out while smoking indoors. Outdoors, though, everyone has control over their situation. I'm not saying you don't have problems with smokers at work. For all I know, they could be playing Red Rover in the parking lot waiting for you with cigarettes in their mouths; but for the common person walking down the street, secondhand smoke isn't going to bother them. Sorry your situation's different, and that you've got onset asthma, but you can always ask them to either put them out or just walk away while you get to your car. Tell 'em you have asthma and if you inhale any cigarette smoke you're probably gonna' have a nice, healthy coughing fit in the car on the way home.

Unless they're total fucking jerkoffs, people are pretty curteous, especially when they know they can help somebody out by doing something as simple as moving out of the way with their smoke while someone else gets in their car. I'd rather see people police themselves and each other than the government stepping in every time.

[AaronJ]

I'd rather see people police themselves and each other than the government stepping in every time.

But ... but ... but why do you hate America?

Are you telling me that we are supposed to think for ourselves, and don't need laws governing every single effin' thing?! I don't understand. I am confused.

I won't know what to do if the government doesn't tell me!

[Karen El]

I miss cigarettes.

[Nick Soapdish]

Smoking is something that could be easily controlled by people themselves, not the government. If you want to light up before your bus comes, do it on the other side of the glass so people don't have to put up with your smoke. If you don't want to walk past somebody smoking behind a bus stop, walk around the front of the bus stop. People shouldn't have to keep putting each other out.


It's something that can be controlled fairly easily, but not always by me.

And the question remains. Your response was that I rely on the courtesy of others which doesn't really answer why you think my rights to the public domain are less than theirs. Yes, people usually are courteous at least to people that they know (regardless of how well). Total strangers tend to be a bit more skeptical of why they should give up their right to smoke (and honestly, it's a question that I wonder about also).

Also, smoke, and especially its smell, lingers. Our elevators often smell like smoke even though nobody ever smokes in them. :( (Even one of the stairways do, but I think that's smoke occasionally drifting in from outside.)

The scenario in the parking lot isn't an everyday occurrence by any means. In fact, it's only happened twice. I just brought it up as a situation that it's not so easily avoidable. It's just that, even paying close attention to my surroundings, I'm not always going to be able to see cigarette smoke before I start coughing. It's not like I'm the only person that has asthma (assuming that is the case). It's about 10% of the population of the US (not that they all have the same trigger as I apparently do).

But I wasn't trying to use myself as a test-case. Why does the comfort of smokers trump the discomfort of non-smokers? Why is the non-smoker required to be the one to "get permission" for a public outdoor area to be a non-smoking zone?

[Gozwald73]

Honestly, and no offense to you Lester, it saddens me beyond the telling of it that something like this is even considered.

But a lot of the laws on teh books already sadden me too.

Man, this used to be the US of A. What the hell happened?

not enough of you give a shit enough to vote

[Jack Zodiac]

But I wasn't trying to use myself as a test-case. Why does the comfort of smokers trump the discomfort of non-smokers? Why is the non-smoker required to be the one to "get permission" for a public outdoor area to be a non-smoking zone?

It doesn't. It doesn't have to and it shouldn't. Like you said yourself, it's something that can be controlled by people themselves, but it isn't. My scenario at the bus stop would be ideal. Public, open area, the smoker opts to seperate himself from a group, a non-smoker passing by decides to go left instead of right and completely avoid the smoke. That'd be perfect. That's the smoker recognizing the non-smoker's right to not have smoke right under their noses, and the non-smoker recognizing that the smoker's already doing others a favor by seperating himself and just avoiding him.

Anything else is the government babysitting people who should be able to take care of themselves.

[AaronJ]

not enough of you give a shit enough to vote

I don't believe that more people voting is really the solution.

The problems in this country are so enmeshed in the way people think, so deeply rooted that only radical, revolutionary changes would make any difference in the long run.

[Gozwald73]

I don't believe that more people voting is really the solution.

The problems in this country are so enmeshed in the way people think, so deeply rooted that only radical, revolutionary changes would make any difference in the long run.

people voting may not be, but people giving more of a damn certainly could be

[AaronJ]

people voting may not be, but people giving more of a damn certainly could be

Yes, and no.

But I do get your point. The problem in the US is so deep, so much a part of how people view the world, that simple political change can't possibly even begin to address it.

[Nick Soapdish]

It doesn't. It doesn't have to and it shouldn't. Like you said yourself, it's something that can be controlled by people themselves, but it isn't. My scenario at the bus stop would be ideal. Public, open area, the smoker opts to seperate himself from a group, a non-smoker passing by decides to go left instead of right and completely avoid the smoke. That'd be perfect. That's the smoker recognizing the non-smoker's right to not have smoke right under their noses, and the non-smoker recognizing that the smoker's already doing others a favor by seperating himself and just avoiding him.


Since (in my experience) tend to not do that, do you have another solution that works? People don't even do the "mind if I smoke" anymore.

[the4thpip]

Should cigarettes on Christmas cards be illegal?



















Oh no he didn't!























http://www.wonkette.com/assets/resources/2006/12/0000allbushes.jpg

Oh yes he did!