.

[Quoi_Tu]

Yes, Its stupid that something that does nothing but negative things is legal in the first place, and to the people saying the tax generated is worth having them legal, you're putting a price on human life.

 

 

 

If cigarettes did only negative things, why would peole smoke?

 

 

 

I'm killing myself actually, it's not the cigarette's (or cigarette companies') fault. One sweet puff at a time.

 

 

 

Have you mastered the smoke ring yet? It might be a little hard with cigarette smoke, but I imagine it's possible.

[Lenticular_J]

I haaaaaaaaave. And ear-smoke, although that one's easy if you don't mind feeling reaaaaally wierd.

 

 

 

Ah. Can't believe how much I've crossed off of my "Before I Die" list already.

[deloriagod]

Cigarettes bring in boatloads of money for the government. It's what pays for healthcare and helps keep property taxes down.

 

 

 

 

 

...at the minor expense of killing millions every year.

 

 

 

There's also a downside to those millions living. Don't you think our planet it quite populated enough without saving millions of people to hang around longer?

[user1991]

No, they should not be illegal.

 

 

 

But neither should any drug.

 

 

 

If the government actually classified drugs on how dangerous they are instead of what the 1940 consensus was, it probably would be another "evil" like weed or acid.

[Lenticular_J]

I dunno. Someone on crack is preeeeeeeeeetty dangerous. Although I guess they wouldn't be as tempted to mug people, since Wal-Mart would probably have better prices than dealers...

 

 

 

But then how can rebels make a stand? All their pot will be bought from big corporations...

[user1991]

I dunno. Someone on crack is preeeeeeeeeetty dangerous. Although I guess they wouldn't be as tempted to mug people, since Wal-Mart would probably have better prices than dealers...

 

 

 

But then how can rebels make a stand? All their pot will be bought from big corporations...

 

 

 

If someone wants to take crack, it is their choice.

 

 

 

Freedom > safety

[Lateralus]

Have you mastered the smoke ring yet? It might be a little hard with cigarette smoke, but I imagine it's possible.

 

 

 

Cigarette smoke works just fine for smoke rings. It's not as lovely and billowy as it is with a cigar, but the smoke is thick enough to make it work. Doesn't taste great, though.

[Lenticular_J]

I dunno. Someone on crack is preeeeeeeeeetty dangerous. Although I guess they wouldn't be as tempted to mug people, since Wal-Mart would probably have better prices than dealers...

 

 

 

But then how can rebels make a stand? All their pot will be bought from big corporations...

 

 

 

If someone wants to take crack, it is their choice.

 

 

 

Freedom > safety

 

Hold on. So you think their "right" to take my money to fuel their habits...Supersedes my right to not be robbed?

 

 

 

I really think that we're just mixing signals, because that's a really stupid thing to say. :/

 

 

 

I'd have to plead the Third Amendment.

 

 

 

Have you mastered the smoke ring yet? It might be a little hard with cigarette smoke, but I imagine it's possible.

 

 

 

Cigarette smoke works just fine for smoke rings. It's not as lovely and billowy as it is with a cigar, but the smoke is thick enough to make it work. Doesn't taste great, though.

 

You look much more "wizardly" if you can do it with a four-foot pipe.

[user1991]

I dunno. Someone on crack is preeeeeeeeeetty dangerous. Although I guess they wouldn't be as tempted to mug people, since Wal-Mart would probably have better prices than dealers...

 

 

 

But then how can rebels make a stand? All their pot will be bought from big corporations...

 

 

 

If someone wants to take crack, it is their choice.

 

 

 

Freedom > safety

 

Hold on. So you think their "right" to take my money to fuel their habits...Supersedes my right to not be robbed?

 

 

 

I really think that we're just mixing signals, because that's a really stupid thing to say. :/

 

 

 

I'd have to plead the Third Amendment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow.

 

 

 

STOP USING THIS SAME STRAWMAN!

 

 

 

I never once said someone should have the right to rob you. I said they should have the right to take crack/any other drug.

 

 

 

Until you can prove that crack causes every single person to go out on mugging sprees, this will remain a strawman.

[RichieMcD]

No, they should not be illegal.

 

 

 

But neither should any drug.

 

 

 

If the government actually classified drugs on how dangerous they are instead of what the 1940 consensus was, it probably would be another "evil" like weed or acid.

 

 

 

I will always agree with you on the legalization of non-physically addictive drugs like Marijuana, Lsd E etc. But drugs like Speed, Cocaine, Heroine, Crack etc are to physically addictive to be allowed to society as eventually they will take over someones life due to the addictions and then the robbing / prostitution will begin.

[Lenticular_J]

Wow.

 

 

 

STOP USING THIS SAME STRAWMAN!

 

 

 

I never once said someone should have the right to rob you. I said they should have the right to take crack/any other drug.

 

 

 

Until you can prove that crack causes every single person to go out on mugging sprees, this will remain a strawman.

 

Thanks for clearing it up so calmly. "Use" would be a better word.

[Quoi_Tu]

Have you mastered the smoke ring yet? It might be a little hard with cigarette smoke, but I imagine it's possible.

 

 

 

Cigarette smoke works just fine for smoke rings. It's not as lovely and billowy as it is with a cigar, but the smoke is thick enough to make it work. Doesn't taste great, though.

 

 

 

I've only ever done it once with a cigar and I think that was just sheer luck.

[Fist_of_ozzy]

Should it be illegal?

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

Will it be illegal?

 

 

 

No.

[purfishx]

Cigarettes bring in boatloads of money for the government. It's what pays for healthcare and helps keep property taxes down.

 

 

 

 

 

...at the minor expense of killing millions every year.

 

 

 

There's also a downside to those millions living. Don't you think our planet it quite populated enough without saving millions of people to hang around longer?

 

 

 

But one of those million people that died could have contributed alot to the world. I mean, one of those could have cured AIIIIIIIDS!!! :twss:

[BlueLancer]

Cigarettes bring in boatloads of money for the government. It's what pays for healthcare and helps keep property taxes down.

 

 

 

 

 

...at the minor expense of killing millions every year.

 

 

 

There's also a downside to those millions living. Don't you think our planet it quite populated enough without saving millions of people to hang around longer?

 

 

 

Most functions and society's infrastructure in the world is set up so that people may live longer, safer and healthier lives, including you.

 

 

 

Just as a reality check, "millions of people" isn't an anonymous mass or statistic. You'd certainly think twice before claiming there is a downside to people staying alive if your family or friends were included in that group dying.

 

 

 

Yes, out planet is already overpopulated compared to available resources... But that doesn't mean that everybody born from this moment on has suddenly less human value than the people born before him/her. That's totally absurd thinking.

[RichieMcD]

Cigarettes bring in boatloads of money for the government. It's what pays for healthcare and helps keep property taxes down.

 

 

 

 

 

...at the minor expense of killing millions every year.

 

 

 

The huge majority of those are actual smokers who are fully aware of the consequences but ignore them. Only in very rare cases is it through second hand smoke as you must be in a area with second smoke regularly for the full effect to occur like a bar, restaurant or house. Out in the streets the petrol emissions will cause more damage to you than the odd smoker who walks by.

[deloriagod]

 

Just as a reality check, "millions of people" isn't an anonymous mass or statistic. You'd certainly think twice before claiming there is a downside to people staying alive if your family or friends were included in that group dying.

 

 

 

You'd think so, but I won't think twice. I have friends who are smokers, family members who are smokers, and I've had members of my family die from side effects of smoking. It's a shame, but if all those people lived we would have additional problems. That's just the way I see it. Yes, it sucks that those people have to die but they chose to smoke. They knew the risks and they took the chance. With their death comes space for other people to make something of themselves.

[Elferin]

Cigarettes bring in boatloads of money for the government. It's what pays for healthcare and helps keep property taxes down.

 

 

 

I find it ironic how you say Cigarettes pay for health care for some reason :lol:

[BlueLancer]

Yes, it sucks that those people have to die but they chose to smoke. They knew the risks and they took the chance. With their death comes space for other people to make something of themselves.

 

 

 

Ok, that argument does have some weight because there are consequences to smoking, and they still continued to ignore them. That still doesn't mean their lives were nothing/they made nothing out of themselves.

 

 

 

When a person dies, he's not making 'space' for anyone. We're pretty stretched on resources, but a lot of people can still be born in most countries without having to face instant starvation (like in some african countries).

 

 

 

Every day, about 350,000 people are born, and some 150,000 die, according to CIA factbook. Human population will continue to rise in numbers despite economic hardships or lack of resources (if anything, most people are actually born in poor and low-educated areas), it's pretty harsh to judge who has the right to live & who doesn't.

[RichieMcD]

Cigarettes bring in boatloads of money for the government. It's what pays for healthcare and helps keep property taxes down.

 

 

 

I find it ironic how you say Cigarettes pay for health care for some reason :lol:

 

 

 

It does though, the tax on cigarettes is quite often put towards health care sectors which deal with the effects of smoking and anti smoking advertising.

[Housepig]

I think smoking should absolutely be made illegal. It's just another example of how democracy dosen't work to see how the Government are willing to pay for the healthcare of idiots who've smoked themselves to death, all because those same idiots would vote them out if they stopped them from smoking themselves to death.

 

 

 

Not only does smoking cause suffering directly, but it wastes money on treating people. The argument from freedom is tired: that same argument could be applied to anything that dosen't directly cause harm to anyone else, yet you don't see herione being legalised. Furthermore, even if you were willing to be denied hospital access if you got lung cancer ten years later, and never smoked within 20 metres of another human (or whatever the distance is) you're argument of having a "right" to smoke would still be void: it causes suffering to those around you, and you have no more "right" to hurt them than yourself.

[Quoi_Tu]

I think smoking should absolutely be made illegal. It's just another example of how democracy dosen't work to see how the Government are willing to pay for the healthcare of idiots who've smoked themselves to death, all because those same idiots would vote them out if they stopped them from smoking themselves to death.

 

 

 

Not only does smoking cause suffering directly, but it wastes money on treating people. The argument from freedom is tired: that same argument could be applied to anything that dosen't directly cause harm to anyone else, yet you don't see herione being legalised. Furthermore, even if you were willing to be denied hospital access if you got lung cancer ten years later, and never smoked within 20 metres of another human (or whatever the distance is) you're argument of having a "right" to smoke would still be void: it causes suffering to those around you, and you have no more "right" to hurt them than yourself.

 

 

 

I think the question that should be posed is: How far should the government go towards protecting people from themselves?

 

 

 

And that same arguement is used for things like heroin. What do you suggest in place of democracy?

[Housepig]

I think smoking should absolutely be made illegal. It's just another example of how democracy dosen't work to see how the Government are willing to pay for the healthcare of idiots who've smoked themselves to death, all because those same idiots would vote them out if they stopped them from smoking themselves to death.

 

 

 

Not only does smoking cause suffering directly, but it wastes money on treating people. The argument from freedom is tired: that same argument could be applied to anything that dosen't directly cause harm to anyone else, yet you don't see herione being legalised. Furthermore, even if you were willing to be denied hospital access if you got lung cancer ten years later, and never smoked within 20 metres of another human (or whatever the distance is) you're argument of having a "right" to smoke would still be void: it causes suffering to those around you, and you have no more "right" to hurt them than yourself.

 

 

 

I think the question that should be posed is: How far should the government go towards protecting people from themselves?

 

 

 

And that same arguement is used for things like heroin. What do you suggest in place of democracy?

 

 

 

I would suggest a limited democracy, where perhaps only some people are allowed to vote, and where if a party wins an election, they get all the seats of the Parliament/Congress/ectr, so you don't get a situation where other parties get together and obstruct every law that is proposed. (I know this can happen in the UK; I'm not sure about other countries).This would enable more effeciant government.

 

 

 

As for protecting people from themselves, they "should" do it to the extent when, overall, it prevents suffering, and no further; as I have already said, that seems to me to be the only way of rationally and unemotionaly judging extrinsic morality.

[l0l0lpur32]

Cigarettes bring in boatloads of money for the government. It's what pays for healthcare and helps keep property taxes down.

 

 

 

I find it ironic how you say Cigarettes pay for health care for some reason :lol:

 

I'm pretty sure the tax revenue from the excise duty on cigars is higher than the amount spent curing smoking-related diseases, not sure of the exact figures though.

[Shinjula]

I would suggest a limited democracy, where perhaps only some people are allowed to vote

 

Sorry who are these people? only the sensible ones? who gets to decide?

 

 

 

As for protecting people from themselves, they "should" do it to the extent when, overall, it prevents suffering, and no further; as I have already said, that seems to me to be the only way of rationally and unemotionaly judging extrinsic morality.

 

So your fine with the government mandating what you are llowed to eat, how much you are allowed to sleep, what entertainment you are allowed to do, how much you are allowed to drive, and further than that how you are allowed to feel and what you are allowed to think, all of these affect your health.

 

Think, no more sweets, no more chocolate eclairs, no more violence in tv mandated exercise plans, only an allowable amount of anger, strictly forumlised social interactions, what a dry and barren and controlled world that would have to be.