So why isn't smoking banned yet?

[Shiny212]

No it won't, because spending time with a smoker doesn't mean they're smoking around me. The smell of old smoke isn't harmful, no smoker is hurting other people just because they smell like smoke.

The smell of smoke IS harmful. Google thirdhand smoking. Learn something.

[aisatsana]

It will most likely be banned in the future, as will processed+red meats (or just mass animal farming as a whole) just need time for the zeitgeist to change, just look at how much our perception of smoking has changed over the last few decades.

[Allybeboba]

You have people trying to legalize weed and ban smoking, so much stupid in the world.

Hit the nail on the head with this one!

On to topic...
Smoking has been 'banned' in my area for a long long time. I live in the 4th largest city in the US and it is traditionally Democrat controlled. I don't think you can even smoke in bars.

[Uglyduck]

Very dependent on location. In my little rural town it's not nearly as expensive as like NYC.

True, in my small town where I grew up it was $5.30, then I moved to the city...

[Tyrianth]

The smell of smoke IS harmful. Google thirdhand smoking.

Or you know, link your damn sources. You made the ridiculous claim.

[Wildtree]

You're "pretty sure". I'm dead certain and have libraries of scientifically proven facts to back me up.

back you up with what?
You are attacking smokers for smoking in the open. Your brain doesn't comprehend that you inhale more toxins, more carcinogens that are in the air without a smoker present. It's a clear fact that YOU yourself are in parts responsible for that polluted air.
And for that, you conveniently ignore air pollution.
How about the fact that lung cancer is on the rise among nonsmokers that are NOT subject to passive smoking?

I mean, I get it.. Smoking is unhealthy, and people should therefore either never start it, or quit it.
But your rants about it are comically idiotic.

[Lenonis]

Can they ban cars too? I got hospitalized a few years back because I got hit by a car.

Smoking is banned in almost all public places, can they ban driving in public too?

I don't know why this is a go-to argument for banning something. Cars CLEARLY have a uses that is valuable to society. Can you say that about cigarettes?

[Jimson]

I don't know why this is a go-to argument for banning something. Cars CLEARLY have a uses that is valuable to society. Can you say that about cigarettes?

Sure. It's a multi-billion dollar industry that provides a lot of jobs for people.

[Deleted]

I wouldn't be surpsied if the EU will try to ban it someday.

[Shiny212]

back you up with what?
You are attacking smokers for smoking in the open. Your brain doesn't comprehend that you inhale more toxins, more carcinogens that are in the air without a smoker present. It's a clear fact that YOU yourself are in parts responsible for that polluted air.
And for that, you conveniently ignore air pollution.
How about the fact that lung cancer is on the rise among nonsmokers that are NOT subject to passive smoking?

I mean, I get it.. Smoking is unhealthy, and people should therefore either never start it, or quit it.
But your rants about it are comically idiotic.

Sure if I go to a majorly polluted city, that'll be a greater danger to me, but this whole post was about smoking was it not..

I don't have any qualms about attacking smokers, it's not something that deserves respect or acceptance. They actively harm other people. I don't live in a polluted city, smokers are the only toxin and carcinogen spreading menace I have to deal with, and I don't think I should have to deal with it.

Lung cancer is not the only health detriment that comes with smoking. As a matter of fact smoking damages every single part of the human body.

Glad my rants amuse you.

[Auxora]

About 4 reasons why it isn't banned:

- Tobacco companies spending money and lobbying to keep them from going out of business.
- Representatives and Senators from tobacco-related employment areas (farming, manufacturing, etc.) protecting income and jobs for their areas.
- 31 of 50 states are running a budget deficit, and state government income from cig taxes are huge (over 1/2 the price of every pack), so they can't afford to lose that.
- General populous support for personal freedoms and people being able to do what they want. It would be pretty massively unpopular to fully ban and cost a lot of votes. As it is there is hardly anywhere left but someone's car or home to smoke, and in the US telling people what they can't do in the confines of the their own home never goes over well.

Everyone knows cigarettes are terrible health-wise, but the reasons above are why they haven't been completely banned. Just ridiculously taxed and extremely regulated on where people can smoke.

[Deleted]

Lot's of money involved, it's been in most cultures for awhile now and the only ones who would benefit from making it illegal are criminals who will smuggle it in so they can sell it for a massive profit. People are free to do what they want with their bodies, fuck the coal mining companies must have been confused when they saw my great grandmother instead of a new mine.

Just don't do it near other people and it's fine.

[jackofwind]

The smell of smoke IS harmful. Google thirdhand smoking.

I certainly hope you don't go anywhere near traffic, or hell even live in a city at all, if you're worried about that kind of thing. Ooooooh trace amounts of residual nicotine, so scary! You inhale more toxins walking past a single idling car.

Also, burden of proof - we're waiting.

[Wildtree]

Sure if I go to a majorly polluted city, that'll be a greater danger to me, but this whole post was about smoking was it not..

I don't have any qualms about attacking smokers, it's not something that deserves respect or acceptance. I don't live in a polluted city, smokers are the only toxin and carcinogen spreading menace I have to deal with, and I don't think I should have to deal with it.

Lung cancer is not the only health detriment that comes with smoking. As a matter of fact smoking damages every single part of the human body.

Glad my rants amuse you.

I was talking about lung cancer without the interference of smoking.
Plus, you're deflecting. You don't need to be in a big city to cause air pollution. Any place in a modern society does it. You're using a computer, using the internet. You have any idea how large of a carbon footprint you've created with that? How many people's health you harmed with your high tech gadget use? No?
Further more, you cited science as justification to attack smokers.
That tells me you either:
- do not know the science surrounding it.
- do not comprehend that science.
- you're just an ignorant asshole.

I don't know which one of these three possibilities is the right one.
But I do know that you seem to fail the topic of nicotine and it's effects on the human brain completely.
If you'd understand a damn thing you'd know that smokers are like addicts. They need support and not bashing.

[Shiny212]

I certainly hope you don't go anywhere near traffic, or hell even live in a city at all, if you're worried about that kind of thing.

Ooooooh trace amounts of residual nicotine, so scary! You inhale more toxins walking past a single idling car.

Mhmm, come back when you google some more.

[Deleted]

For eternal reasons: money and power.

[Ghostpanther]

It may be banned on paper, but in practise? Good luck calling cops on someone, before they come he will be long gone.

Public banning of smoking inside establishments works well in Ohio. I have not been to any restaurant or place of business which it is banned and seen smokers in them since it was.

The reason smoking is not totally banned is easy to explain. Tax money.

[jackofwind]

Mhmm, come back when you google some more.

Burden of proof dictates that it's on you to show your sources. Debating 101.

Tell us, do you own a car? Do you put plastic in the microwave? Do you ensure you wear a perfectly sealed mask whenever you use an aerosol can? Because if you don't you're a giant hypocrite, on top of being appallingly self-righteous.

[Wildtree]

For eternal reasons: money and power.

That's not the reason.
The tobacco industry has long lost the battle.
There's a lot more money made with/by the industry that cashes in on the ban of tobacco products.

[Powerogue]

It's simply been more practical to restrain it to minimize second hand smoking's impact and do public campaigns alerting people to how hazardous it is for your body than to do a blanket ban. Remember what happened with alcohol in the US? Didn't end well. People actually drank more. Because you can't just take away an addictive vice and expect the demand to go with it the same day.