.

[doomy]

No smoking in public would be nice. Its illegal here to smoke n worldplaces and bars, mbut its kinda annoying walking past a crowd of people smoking on the footpath.

 

 

 

I don't see any reason to make smoking it illegal, I mean if its not affecting anybody else shouldn't it be your choice what to do with yourself?

 

And yeah the tax on cigarettes is a big moneymaker.

[Lenticular_J]

If cigarette smoking was made illegal, people would just start smoking cigars. There are already cigars made for the pure purpose to avoid the heavy cigarette tax (Black and Milds). And don't forget about pipe smoking and hookahs.

 

Mmm...Cherry pipe...Cherry tobacco...Cherry chair...

[justin_m23]

 

I don't think smoking should be banned anywhere except for family establishments. I think the ban on smoking in bars and such places should be lifted.

 

 

 

For me its the smell that pisses me off more than the health risks. Even going to a party, which is mostly outdoors, you'll still be smelling it all night everywhere you go. I can't imagine how much worse it would be in an enclosure such as a bar.

[warri0r45]

i live in US. people make a great push to make smokers quit. in reality i think it should be illegal because it kills u and not only u but the people around u (second hand smoke)

 

 

 

 

=D> Ladies and gentlemen, here is exactly what I was talking about. The gov't has drilled the idea of secondhand smoke being incredibly dangerous so many times that it actually appears to this young man to be a real issue. Sir, if you will please read what I posted earlier you will see secondhand smoke is not a danger to you unless you are in a confined room with a chain smoker or you purposely go around inhaling the smoke as other exhale it.

 

 

 

Isn't it interesting that even though the government rakes in huge amounts of tax money on cigarettes that they'd still want to throw around propaganda to make people quit or stamp out smoking completely? No, actually, that makes no sense at all. Why must everything with you be that the government is out to get you? Your scapegoat is becoming a cop-out which gives you an excuse not to think. Don't rely on it like a crutch.

 

 

 

It would seem that passive smoking is bad, in the sense that it can cause lung cancer and heart disease, both of which can lead to death:

 

 

 

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/conte ... or_Air.asp

 

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monograph ... lume83.pdf

 

 

 

In general, I'm not against smoking nor would I want it banned, but passive smoking should be stamped out wherever possible. That's not to say that we should try and restrict smokers like a noose around a neck, but we should try and separate smokers and non-smokers as much as possible.

[Lenticular_J]

It would seem that passive smoking is bad, in the sense that it can cause lung cancer and heart disease, both of which can lead to death:

 

I don't like when phrases like this are used. I could make apples seem bad in this way. Or candy. Or sex. Or Left 4 Dead.

 

 

 

There are possible health risks with everything we do in life. Sure, it isn't exactly fair that smokers are slightly elevating your chances of dying, but why not just walk around them? Or hold your breath? Or don't go a to bar/restaurant/cigarette company.

 

 

 

I felt like ranting.

[WookieeMania12]

No because its the person's choice to smoke a cigarette.

[warri0r45]

It would seem that passive smoking is bad, in the sense that it can cause lung cancer and heart disease, both of which can lead to death:

 

I don't like when phrases like this are used. I could make apples seem bad in this way. Or candy. Or sex. Or Left 4 Dead.

 

 

 

There are possible health risks with everything we do in life. Sure, it isn't exactly fair that smokers are slightly elevating your chances of dying, but why not just walk around them? Or hold your breath? Or don't go a to bar/restaurant/cigarette company.

 

 

 

I felt like ranting.

 

 

 

I'm not one for ambiguity either, but that's exactly why I gave you sources. Whether or not you can make those things listed seem as bad as passive smoking (which in itself is a bit of a stretch), the fact of the matter is that passive smoking is bad, and it causes a significant amount of deaths each year:

 

 

 

Secondhand smoke causes other kinds of diseases and deaths

 

 

 

Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:

 

 

 

an estimated 35,000 deaths from heart disease in non-smokers who live with smokers

 

about 3,000 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults

 

other breathing problems in non-smokers, including coughing, mucus, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function

 

150,000 to 300,000 lung infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations annually

 

increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million children who have asthma

 

more than 750,000 middle ear infections in children

 

Pregnant women exposed to secondhand smoke are also at increased risk of having low birth weight babies.

 

(from the first source)

 

 

 

Lung cancer

 

Involuntary smoking involves exposure to the same numerous carcinogens and toxic substances that are

 

present in tobacco smoke produced by active smoking, which is the principal cause of lung cancer. As noted in

 

the previous IARC Monograph on tobacco smoking, this implies that there will be some risk of lung cancer

 

from exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke.

 

More than 50 studies of involuntary smoking and lung cancer risk in never-smokers, especially spouses of

 

smokers, have been published during the last 25 years. These studies have been carried out in many

 

countries. Most showed an increased risk, especially for persons with higher exposures. To evaluate the

 

information collectively, in particular from those studies with a limited number of cases, meta-analyses have

 

been conducted in which the relative risk estimates from the individual studies are pooled together. These

 

meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk

 

in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The

 

excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential

 

sources of bias and confounding. The excess risk increases with increasing exposure. Furthermore, other

 

published meta-analyses of lung cancer in never-smokers exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke at the

 

workplace have found a statistically significant increase in risk of 1219%. This evidence is sufficient to

 

conclude that involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never-smokers. The magnitudes of the

 

observed risks are reasonably consistent with predictions based on studies of active smoking in many

 

populations.

(from the second source)

 

 

 

As for your suggestions as to how I could avoid cigarette smoke, to an extent I do hold my breath when walking down the street around smokers. So long as it's well ventilated, it's much less of a risk. Also, I should have the right to go to a bar without having to sit in a blanket of cigarette smoke, hence why I support smoking and non-smoking areas to limit crossover as much as possible.

[Faux]

Smoking should be illegal in public places. I don't care what ppl do with their time, just don't harm me while you're at it.

[Lenticular_J]

 

Yeah, I see what you're saying, I just hate when people use those phrases. Even more when people consider them effective and become very ignorant due to it (I believe you know about anti-pot commercials, eh?).

[Tetsuya]

It absolutely shouldn't be made illegal.

 

 

 

*is a non-smoker*

[CCCPsrevenge]

i think that its like pollution. people whine about how bad it is, but in the end, they continue to do it.

[deloriagod]

 

Isn't it interesting that even though the government rakes in huge amounts of tax money on cigarettes that they'd still want to throw around propaganda to make people quit or stamp out smoking completely? No, actually, that makes no sense at all. Why must everything with you be that the government is out to get you? Your scapegoat is becoming a cop-out which gives you an excuse not to think. Don't rely on it like a crutch.

 

 

 

Wouldn't it be nice if the gov't was just a bunch of nice people working together to better our country? Too bad they're not. And I wish I had saved an article I read some time ago about those anti-smoking ads and such. The article was about a study that showed those anti-smoking/alcohol/drug ads actually made more teenagers want to do said activities rather than deter them. If I was making money and knew something that looked good to the public would actually make me more money, I'd be throwing them around like crazy.

[Quoi_Tu]

Wouldn't it be nice if the gov't was just a bunch of nice people working together to better our country? Too bad they're not. And I wish I had saved an article I read some time ago about those anti-smoking ads and such. The article was about a study that showed those anti-smoking/alcohol/drug ads actually made more teenagers want to do said activities rather than deter them. If I was making money and knew something that looked good to the public would actually make me more money, I'd be throwing them around like crazy.

 

 

 

Who said that those ads were aimed at teenagers? They're aimed at pre-teens and younger. The commercials are meant to show that it is not cool to do those things before they are socially exposed to them. Beer commercials operate on the same idea. They advertise to people under 21 so that when they turn 21 they will have the idea of Bud light in their head and buy that. Cigarette companies used to do that too, but they've practically been banned from advertising.

[warri0r45]

 

Isn't it interesting that even though the government rakes in huge amounts of tax money on cigarettes that they'd still want to throw around propaganda to make people quit or stamp out smoking completely? No, actually, that makes no sense at all. Why must everything with you be that the government is out to get you? Your scapegoat is becoming a cop-out which gives you an excuse not to think. Don't rely on it like a crutch.

 

 

 

Wouldn't it be nice if the gov't was just a bunch of nice people working together to better our country? Too bad they're not. And I wish I had saved an article I read some time ago about those anti-smoking ads and such. The article was about a study that showed those anti-smoking/alcohol/drug ads actually made more teenagers want to do said activities rather than deter them. If I was making money and knew something that looked good to the public would actually make me more money, I'd be throwing them around like crazy.

 

 

 

Interesting angle, but first I would want to see the article/study and second there is a flaw to your idea. Why would they knowingly allow more kids to take drugs if they're so dead against them and they're just going to have to pay for it in terms of policing/health costs? Sorry, that's just too much of a stretch for me. I can't for the life of me picture government departments weighing up the costs of any set of actions, despite how harmful they may be, just to come out with the best monetary return to wave in people's faces. Of course governments aren't perfect, but on the flipside they're not always out to get you either, deloria.

 

 

 

The reason for continuing those kind of ads, as well as actually wanting to help people, could simply be that they don't want to be seen to accept that study. You could imagine the political backlash if you essentially gave up the anti-smoking/drinking ads and all the "war on drugs" style ads.

 

 

 

Also, you didn't address the other significant point I brought up with you about second hand smoke.

[BlueLancer]

i think that its like pollution. people whine about how bad it is, but in the end, they continue to do it.

 

 

 

Unlike pollution, smoking in western countries is steadily decreasing, so that statement really has no substance. In the US it's been dropping since the 1960's... For the first time ever, the total % of smokers in the US has hit under 19% last year:

 

 

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27701997/

 

The number of US adults who smoke has dropped below 20 percent for the first time on record but cigarettes still kill almost half a million people a year, health officials said on Thursday.

 

 

 

About 19.8 percent of U.S. adults -- 43.4 million people -- were smokers in 2007.

 

 

 

In the 50's and 60's, 40-60% of the adult population were smokers. Pollution currently just keeps going upwards but smoking is more or less disappearing year by year.

[RichieMcD]

i think that its like pollution. people whine about how bad it is, but in the end, they continue to do it.

 

 

 

Unlike pollution, smoking in western countries is steadily decreasing, so that statement really has no substance. In the US it's been dropping since the 1960's... For the first time ever, the total % of smokers in the US has hit under 19% last year:

 

 

 

 

I'll try to find the source, but when I was researching it before the amount of people in the 12-18 bracket starting to smoke compared to 10 years ago has gone up something like 3 times in Britain and Ireland although according to the study it is falling in America, even though the price of a pack of cigarettes there is about half of what it is in Ireland.

 

 

 

Edit: Interesting study I just found while looking for study, according to it obesity is more dangerous than smoking on the heart

 

http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoe ... e4fc2dd670

 

So should be banning fatty foods?

 

 

 

Closet studies / articles I could find:

 

http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&con=310

 

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... -21529736/

[Dracion1]

Yes it should in my opinion, but whether it will actually happen is another thing altogether. Personally, I think the best compromise are electrical cigarettes.

[BlueLancer]

 

Edit: Interesting study I just found while looking for study, according to it obesity is more dangerous than smoking on the heart

 

http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoe ... e4fc2dd670

 

So should be banning fatty foods?

 

 

 

Closet studies / articles I could find:

 

http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&con=310

 

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... -21529736/

 

 

 

Yes, it's almost common knowledge by now that obesity is just about the biggest cause of health problems and deaths in western countries..

 

 

 

It's hard to ban fatty foods, but the way they are prepared, the materials used.. Can be healthier. Less buns on hamburgers, more of the meat, lettuce, etc.

 

 

 

More potato on the french fries, less soaking in grease, etc...

 

 

 

More milk in the milkshake, less of the added sugar and fat....

 

 

 

It's possible to engineer tasty foods without having to load them with carbohydrates/ create unhealthy weight bombs. At least some companies already took the initiative, like Coca Cola with their Zero line of products (which have zero calories per bottle, using artificial sweeteners).

[blushenka]

OP: While you're at it, ban cars.

[Ginger_Warrior]

OP: While you're at it, ban cars.

 

And factories. Oh damn, don't forget power stations too.

[Mylez]

I think people are becoming slightly side-tracked from the original argument, which must not be forgotten.

 

 

 

Smoking is un-healthy, that much is common knowledge. I've smoked myself, for about a year until recently when I quit.

 

 

 

Despite being something of a hypocrite with the following statement, I dislike smokers. I see no reason to smoke, it CAN relax you, but only really if you're under immense pressure or highly depressed. The information is out there, nobody should be ignorant as to the risk.

 

 

 

The Government here in the UK relies on smokers, as a high form of taxable income for themselves, and also something of a population control - a true, yet often forgotten "benefit" of smoking for the Government.

 

 

 

While I think it's wrong, I don't think it should suddenly become an illegal drug. Habits are hard to lose, and something like this must take time. I believe smoking should become a taboo subject among family, and frowned upon by all. Then, and only then will the "joker-smokers" quit, and the true smokers follow.

 

 

 

People have also suggested for alcohol become an illegal substance, as many people binge drink and cause trouble (I'm well aware of this, and once again this is something I cannot stand).

 

However, alcohol is only really dangerous when consumed very heavily. Drinking the occasional beer will not kill you, smoking the occasional cigarette will. The chance of getting cancer, it greatly increased simply from passive smoking, I hate to thing how high the likely hood is for a long-term smoker.

 

 

 

In conclusion, my belief is this:

 

 

 

Smokers, should be encouraged (more so than at present) to quit, and this should not be a hasty operation but an in depth, controlled one.

 

 

 

How it's done, I couldn't care less, I just don't think it should be FULLY illegal as this leads to more problems, such as black markets, and on the other hand I think it should be frowned upon. As those who strongly wish to smoke, will always do so. ;)

[Andy]

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.

[Lateralus]

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.

 

 

 

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

[llcoolguy972]

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.

 

I don't think anyone's saying it's worth having them legal because of the revenue, but that it's unlikely that they'll be made illegal because of that reason. And everyone puts a price on human life, some are just less ashamed about it than others.

[Will H]

The only problem I have with anybody smoking is having a cloud of the stuff going right into my face in public when I don't smoke and never intend to smoke. It smells bad, it makes plenty of people cough, and it ain't a good thing for your health no matter how you look at it. There's no real choice about it either. That's what I want to get rid of.