Ban Smoking?

[Mort-Hog]

There have to be decisions based on what is ultimately practical. Some tighter legislation on gun ownership would make sense.

 

But allowing people to slowly kill themselves and everyone around them has no benefit whatsoever, and an outright ban would only improve the health of society.

[toms]

no one is entirely clear what the purpose of the government, and/or the law is these days...

 

It used to be there to ensure that society didn't grind to a halt in a mass of disagreements... these days, who knows...

[wassup]

Prohibition didn't exactly work out, so I don't see how a outright ban on smoking can work either.

 

As in many cases, I think this issue should be left up to the states/local governments to decide. Certain societies tolerate smoking differently than others, so restrictions and guidelines should be based upon the varying situations and opinions among each local populace.

[ShockV1.89]

Here in my county in NY, we've banned it from all indoor establishments. So, no bars, no resturaunts, no bowling alleys, etc. I like it, too. Works real well.

[Kurgan]

What some seem to be doing is setting up certain areas for smoking, like "cigar bars" and "hookah bars" etc.

 

Basically, if you want to smoke, you go there and cough and blow smoke in each other's faces and drop ashes on the floor all you want.

 

Of course the thing is with smoking is that the high nicotine levels in cigarettes get people addicted pretty quickly, and makes quitting long term very difficult. Thus people need to get their "fix" and so it's difficult if they have to drive to the nearest "cigarette bar" every 15 minutes from their job or school, whatever.

 

If cigarettes were less addictive, it might not be such a problem. Fewer people would smoke, they'd be able to control themselves more and segregating the activity from the public wouldn't be such a big deal.

 

Of course cigarette companies would be understandably reluctant to make cigarettes less addictive, because that's how they keep customers doing the unhealthy and disgusting habit, despite all the information bombarding them that it's killing them. Simply, they'd lose a lot of money if people weren't addicted.

 

Alcohol can be addictive and destroy lives, but by its nature it doesn't seem to be as addictive as cigarettes (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). So as long as people drink responsibly, it's no big deal for the rest of society. But smoking always hurts somebody. The person toking up is getting addicted, the person next to them is inhaling the same toxic chemicals in the smoke, etc.

 

Sure, a smoker does a lot less (short term) damage than a drunk (crashing his car into somebody, starting a brawl, etc), but even a "responsible" smoker is hurting someone just by his very act of smoking.

 

Then there's tobacco ingestion that is just as addictive but less harmful to others. Like chewing tobacco. It's pretty disgusting (spitting all the time) but nobody is actually getting health problems from the stuff except the person chewing (unless you're some crazy sick individual who's slurping up their used chaw off the ground or whatever).

[Writer]

If people want to ruin their lungs, it's not my problem. It's not really the government's problem either... unless somebody decides to make it their problem.

 

Where I live, there already seems to be at least a partial ban. Restaurants are non smoking, our mall is non smoking... many of the public buildings are, but as far as I have seen, there are always places to do so outside.

 

Outside, the smoke doesn't linger much. What little it does, you can easily escape by walking a little. Smoking ban? No, not a full ban. What we've got is fine by me. I don't smoke, but I don't really care if others do.

[legameboy]

I say ban smoking in public areas. Think of the children and adults breathing in all of that second-hand smoke. Nobody wants a butt-kisser (pun intended) to give their kid asthma or help contribute to the lung cancer cause.

[kipperthefrog]

tobbaco is nothing more than a drug like cocaine and haroin anyway. the only difference is it happenes to be leagal.

[El Sitherino]

And it doesn't get you high.

[Kurgan]

Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak

I think public smoking (Outside your home/building, walking on the sidewalk, sitting on the god damn steps, ect) should be banned. Smokers have every right to butcher their lungs, but when I'm trying to leave my dorm or alk to class, they should not be allowed to butcher mine with their second hand smoke.

 

People should still be allowed to smoke in certain buildings (restruants, bars, ect). If you don't like it, just don't go. I don't have a choice about it when I'm walking down the sidewalk or leaving my dorm.

 

It especially pisses me off right now because I have a horrible cold and breathing the smoke gives me a horrible cough.

 

I know what you mean, this is a major problem on college campuses. Three things you absolutely can't avoid there: cell phone gabbers, annoying drunks, smokers.

 

The winter was the worst, because I couldn't just cut across the green at my campus to get to class, I had to march in file behind some guy or gal (or group of them) puffing away like an old time locomotive, while somebody had a loud conversation on their cell inches from my ear drums.

[Kurgan]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

And it doesn't get you high.

 

 

Well, it DOES, but not nearly as high as the others, and while addictive and dangerous, it doesn't quite have the ability to kill you as quickly as those other drugs can.

 

I haven't heard of anyone "overdosing" on cigarettes for example, have you?

 

And even smoking pot has been shown to be just as bad for you as tobacco cigarettes, even if it's less addicting. The "high" it brings often leads people to smoke just as much anyway.

 

 

One key to understanding drug policy is "intoxication."

 

People are allowed to drink alcohol most places. But if they become intoxicated, that's a problem. Public intoxication is a crime most places I know around here. Drunks cause disorder, damage, they disturb the peace, make messes that endanger public health (puking and pissing everywhere), start fights, rape people, crash vehicles, etc.

 

If somebody gets drunk at home and nothing happens, fine. But once that person gets intoxicated in public, problems occur.

 

Smoking doesn't really get a person "intoxicated." Sure they're addicted, and they get their "buzz" from cigarettes, but there's no impairment of judgement (not in the short term, public affecting sense anyway, obviously they'll smoke themselves to death if they're not stopped eventually, but you get what I'm saying).

 

Somebody does crack cocaine or heroine, and they're pretty much intoxicated. They're impaired.

 

Likewise, smoking pot impairs you, perhaps not as much as certain other drugs, but it still does, thus counting as "intoxication."

 

And sure, there is a difference between a staggering, yelling, vomitting drunk and somebody who just had a couple of beers and shouldn't be driving, but still. Intoxication = Impairment = disorder.

 

Following the societal effects there is (Or should be) the guiding force behind the legislation.

 

And while Prohibition didn't work in the States, I'm told the alcoholism levels were "never lower" during the time it was in force (unfortunately this also enabled gangsters to make massive profits from the illicit sale of booze and cause mayhem).

[El Sitherino]

No, cigarettes do not get you high. No euphoria, no high. And that BS propganda about smoking pot being worse than a cigarette is that, bull. True it's unhealthy, but cigarettes are worse.

 

What cigarettes do is cause a physical addiction. You need it. You get it and you feel good. It's the same as when a crack addict jones'.

[wassup]

Originally posted by Kurgan

And while Prohibition didn't work in the States, I'm told the alcoholism levels were "never lower" during the time it was in force (unfortunately this also enabled gangsters to make massive profits from the illicit sale of booze and cause mayhem).

 

Exactly the aspect that I'm concerned about. An outright ban on smoking could have significantly adverse effects on criminal activities and such, as citizens go to extreme lengths to obtain what has been outlawed. Is a government declaration of martial law the price our society must pay to stamp out cigarette smoking? There must a better compromise somewhere other than these extremes.

[toms]

but nowhere is talking about a prohibition on smoking, merely banning people from doing it in public places.

 

This should have many of the positive effects of discouraging or making people reduce their smoking, without creating an illegal market for them (as they will still be for sale, and people will still be able to smoke at home or in certain places.)

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Norway recently banned smoking in places where food and/or drinks are served nationwide.

 

My God, the uproar! That was a while ago, but people still complain. Resturants and cafes say they've lost customers, some smokers say the government is evil and proscecuting them like... well, insert minority here...

 

I think it's a good idea. You want to smoke? Fine, step outside (sort of sucks if the temperature is down at -16 degrees celsius, though:D).

 

I voted no, but then I read your second post. So I change my vote to "yes", ban smoking in public places.

 

And while Prohibition didn't work in the States, I'm told the alcoholism levels were "never lower" during the time it was in force (unfortunately this also enabled gangsters to make massive profits from the illicit sale of booze and cause mayhem).

My prime argument against banning smoke and alcohol completely. I've sort of "learned my lesson".