Shockgamer
Banned
Absolutely.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
How Are Smoking Cigarettes Even Legal?
- Thread starter Joel Was Right
- Start date
- Status
Absolutely.
WickedAngel said:
I can point you to a GP that will disagree with that actually.
People haven't been smoking the stuff for hundreds of years because it did nothing. People smoke, people drink, people do drugs, because it makes them feel good.
For every upside, there is a downside. Like everything in life you way up the pros and the cons, and make a personal decision.
If an individual wants to do something that has a health risk, that's their call. I don't want to climb up a mountain with no safety ropes, but if someone else wants to they can go right ahead. It's their choice. You make a calculated choice everytime you cross the road.
Unless you start banning EVERYTHING that is a risk, or puts a strain on the health service, there really is no argument over a personal choice.
Alcohol isn't going anywhere, and has FAR more repercussions than smoking - domestic abuse, violence, drunk driving, liver damage.
And neither is fast food which is an even bigger problem.
As high moral horses go, the anti-smoking one is particularly retarded.
Ace 8095 said:
I don't think anyone in this thread has a problem with smokers harming themselves. Rather, it's the second hand smoke that they want removed.
DECK'ARD said:
Nope. Not when it's been demonstrated that smokers are a ridiculously large burden on the health system of Western nations, only rivalled by alcoholics and the obese.
Smoke all you want, but don't come expecting the taxpayer to pay for your lung cancer treatments when you get it. And smokers who smoke long enough will get lung cancer, it's not a chance, it is a certainty.
12 days quit so far. Hard thing to do.
Should smokes be illegal? No way. Everyone needs to make their own choices about these things. At the end of the day, my decision to quit has allowed me an opportunity to appreciate even more the consequences of my freedom to choose how I live my life. The consequences of quitting have been character building, and it's not over yet :|
So, yeah, when you make illegal all of the things in life that represent the real difficult choices of ours (or any) time, you're really just making it impossible for yourself to engage in those things (make a mistake), and learn from it. Or die from it. Smoking by itself has often been a "lesson learned" for people who've had family die from it.
*everyone* on my mom's side died from smoking. So why the hell did I ever start
Hilarious, that.
Should smokes be illegal? No way. Everyone needs to make their own choices about these things. At the end of the day, my decision to quit has allowed me an opportunity to appreciate even more the consequences of my freedom to choose how I live my life. The consequences of quitting have been character building, and it's not over yet :|
So, yeah, when you make illegal all of the things in life that represent the real difficult choices of ours (or any) time, you're really just making it impossible for yourself to engage in those things (make a mistake), and learn from it. Or die from it. Smoking by itself has often been a "lesson learned" for people who've had family die from it.
*everyone* on my mom's side died from smoking. So why the hell did I ever start
Hilarious, that.I'm not really in support of banning cigarettes, but I do believe that they should be taxed to all hell so that only people responsible enough to have a steady income would be able to afford them. Mainly, I don't want them to be appealing to kids considering the amount of marketting that goes towards luring the youth market into smoking. If I ever have kids, I don't want that shit coming remotely close to them.
Asmodai said:
Better remove everything that pumps out shit into the environment then ...
And all the second-hand chemicals we ingest everyday because of the way food is grown and processed these days.
Honestly, unless it's in a household environment there is a billion more things to worry about and far more things about their own lifestyles that they should probably concern themselves with.
Everyone is dying every second of every day, the passage of time, and no one knows what is round the next corner for themselves. The trick is to enjoy your OWN life along the way, not waste it lecturing others.
vandalvideo
Banned
Gilby said:
They may not be arguing about that, but is a natural by product of legalizing the drug. You bet that I'm going to make a deal out of it. You have to look at all externalities.
Keep up the good work man! Don't break the chain!Spoo said:
Divvy said:
Oh, shit, you live in Utah too?!
Super cigarette tax is bullshit; might as well put a heavy tax on everything you don't want to do, just so the people who usually do buy it (generally your underpaid, overworked illegal mexican) can get a huge dick in their ass. Yes, harm the poor and let the rich have their smokes, because those entreprenuers earned a good smoke.
Dumb.
I'm going to call bullshit on that.Asmodai said:
People hate second hand smoke because they don't like the smell, they just dress it up as a health concern to get traction.
If people were serious about the health risks of second hand smoke we would have laws that looks like hazardous material bans.
But we don't.
Think about it, we have legal levels for fucking cyanide in our food, but we can't have acceptable number of whatever smoke particles in the air we breath.
It must be all or nothing.
Why is that?
DomesticTerrorist
Neo Member
second hand smoke is great! I can still get the negative health effects for FREE!
vandalvideo
Banned
They wouldn't have to smuggle anymore if it was a legitimate product that could actually be imported.Gilby said:
Chichikov said:
It's been scientifically proven to be a health risk. It also annoys other people. If they get the government to ban you from smoking in public areas, take it up with the other people.
Luckily where I live second hand smoke isn't as much of a problem because it's been banned in every public area.
Chichikov said:
Exactly.
It's people wanting to impose their personal decision on others, because they prefer it that way.
Unless someone has a new born baby in their room while smoking like a chimney, it's hard to take seriously as a health-risk.
Public smoking bans only came in because of our lawsuit-happy society, and the chances of lung-cancer cases that might be linked to a working environment and the difficulty of proving it either way.
Personal freedoms should be protected, and all the fuss about smoking while the problems of alcohol etc. are just accepted is plain ridiculous.
vandalvideo
Banned
Gilby said:
That doesn't mean they couldn't naturally import the product. I'm against any action that would allow these people to legally sell their product because of the actions they engaged in.
DECK'ARD said:
Really? Because here in Canada, frivolous lawsuits are far less common than they are in the United States, and yet most of the provinces have widespread public smoking bans.
Get over your ridiculous sense of self-entitlement. If you're going to slowly kill yourself with carcinogenic chemicals, that's perfectly fine (Social Darwinism at work), just do it where you don't endanger or even annoy anyone else by doing it.
DECK'ARD said:
OMG, I don't go to tanning salons or drink bottled water!
Quick, find some other strawman non-argument! (oh, and to save you the obvious ones, I'm not overweight and don't drink heavily.)
I have to give you smokers one thing: you are good for entertainment.
WickedAngel
Banned
DECK'ARD said:
Tanning salons? Sure. Bottled water? :lol
You listening to Nine Inch Nails won't agitate someone with a respiratory issue.
WickedAngel
Banned
Ace 8095 said:
Depends; is it their money or are they on welfare?
Divvy said:
I don't mean to sound mean when I say this, but there's a fundamental disconnect between the thought processes of those who don't smoke, and those who do. And the only fair-minded medium usually comes from the individual who's been on both sides of the fence.
It's one thing to dictate what people should and shouldn't want if it's just a *thing*, but you're talking about an addiction :} Poor people, rich people -- nobody takes kindly to the idea of someone dictating what's better for them when they're addicted to it! We don't like it when the gov't does it, and we certainly don't like it when people who hold little-to-no influence does it either.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you; nobody should "waste" money on cigarettes, but people do, and to suggest massive tax hikes on an item people are fucking addicted to much grosser than inhaling toxic smoke into your lungs. Like, what you suggest isn't even altruistic; it's devilish. You 1) know people are addicted to it, so 2) you charge more to "save" those who can't afford it, all the while knowing that when you're dealing with addictive substances, the addict in question will ALWAYS pick the addiction over things that matter until they choose to get help/quit. Smoking is no different. I couldn't believe the amount of shit I'd go through just to buy a pack sometimes :|
themustardman
Member
Smoking is legal due to it have being socially acceptable for so many years in western society. As America was and still is the primary grower of tobacco plants they had/have some invested interest in keeping the industry alive. Also the taxes the government make off of tobacco make it hard for them to want to axe it.
If it was the marijuana plant growing abundant in America perhaps things could be a little different.
Here in Canada it would make sense to ban them since we have national health care.
If it was the marijuana plant growing abundant in America perhaps things could be a little different.
Here in Canada it would make sense to ban them since we have national health care.
Ace 8095 said:
It's not like I said they can't buy them. Just if cigarettes are sufficiently expensive, it would be irresponsible to buy them when there are more demanding needs (such as food/shelter/health/income)
Spoo said:
I agree that increasing the cost of cigarettes would definitely cause some harm to people as you've said. However, I think the benefits are still more worthwhile if it restricts new (particularily younger market) people from taking up the habit. Sure I admit this is tremendously insensitive to the existing smokers, but speaking from a purely lesser of two evils standpoint, it is more preferable in my mind.
WickedAngel
Banned
Ace 8095 said:
No. No, they shouldn't.
WickedAngel said:
Oh yes, the chemicals in the plastic, and add artificial sweetners, vitamins etc. in soft drinks. Pesticides contaminating food. Let's just ban everything that any scientist has every said may kill us, and ignore that fact that basically everything we enjoy in life kills us.
And the person with a respiratory issue will probably be intensly annoying with their incessant coughing, let's get rid of them as well.
Honestly, it's just Fascism-lite.
Who's going to start up the anti-alcohol thread then? Not quite as cool a bandwagon to get on that one, although you'd have FAR more evidence in your favour to justify it being banned.
vandalvideo said:
How about this? Just shut up.
Look at prohibition. The whole reason why these drug cartels HAVE POWER IN THE FIRST PLACE is because there is no LEGAL way to get drugs. Thus, the only way to get drugs is through illegal means, and through people already participating in illegal activities. If we "legitimize" these people, as you suggest, isn't that a good thing anyways, because it forces them to obtain it in legal ways, that don't involve gunning down people in Mexico? Further, wouldn't they just produce it in the United States, where prices are bound to be more stable, less prone to violence, and the US government can actually regulate what the fuck is going on within the industry? I would think so.
But, that's assuming this legitimization will happen, when, it won't. Just think of all the different alcohol companies we have today. These people aren't committing illegal activities or waging gang wars to make a profit. Instead, since alcohol is now legal in the US, they produce it within the US, completley avoiding costly drug wars, negating the need for any sort of costly smuggling into America, that is risky, both of getting caught (less so) and price fluctuation (a very real problem). If you don't think there are "legitimate" companies just waiting to make marijuana products for the average consumer, that will be obtained through legal and "legitimate" means, you are delusional.
DECK'ARD said:
Who the hell wanted smoking banned? (well the OP maybe, but nobody takes this OP seriously)
I don't want it banned, banning it would just make all the addicts turn to the black market instead.
The best solution is just to ramp up the taxes on cigarettes even more. The addicts will pay whatever you charge them. How else can governements hope to pay the huge health care fees directly resulting from smoking other than with taxes collected from their cigarettes?
vandalvideo said:
Why would smugglers be the ones importing? There are gigantic corporations with huge shipping capabilities that would start importing/exporting the product as soon as it became legal. The criminal factions would not be able to compete.
The product would also begin being cultivated/manufactured domestically, like I mentioned before. This would provide a lower cost to consumers, driving down demand of the imported product. The imported product would eventually have only a small market, as a luxury. Think domestic vs. imported beer.
- Status