So why isn't smoking banned yet?

[Lenonis]

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

That's an incidental affect. Drug smuggling is a multi-billion dollar industry that provides a lot of jobs for people. As is the car industry. That's not an argument in an of itself.

[Shiny212]

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.

Maybe you're misunderstanding what we've actually doing here. We're having a discussion on an online forum, not deciding public policy. When I see smoker apologists spewing crap and sowing shit online, I attack them for their deadly habit. And not because it's deadly to them, ooh if only that were the case they could smoke all they wanted, it's the bioweapon released into the air we all breathe I'm thinking of.



I would love to see some science on how my carbon footprint or any individual person is anywhere near the depravity caused by cigarettes. And explain to me how the carbon footprints we all leave behind are anywhere near as easily prevented as smoking is.

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.

It's a very silly comparison to make. I'd love to discuss how we trash our environment in a million different ways if you like, but they have nothing to do with smoking. The earth does just fine with the smokers. It's an issue that only really affects humans, and some pets. There's no such thing as smoke-pollution, it doesn't ruin our planet like greenhouse emissions might. It just ruins our bodies.

[jackofwind]

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.

Not only that, but if you remove the current regulations and just ban it outright you'll find a backslide occurs in terms of where people smoke as well.

[Jimson]

That's an incidental affect. Drug smuggling is a multi-billion dollar industry that provides a lot of jobs for people. As is the car industry. That's not an argument in an of itself.

Drug smuggling is also illegal, as are the jobs involved.

And if you remember the 2008 recession, and the efforts made to rescue the auto industry, I think you'll understand how important the effect is.

[ping-pong]

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.

It's fun how you try to make him/her look idiotic and childish, however, who is childish? A person who knows all the dangers of doing something, dangers for himself and for others around him, close people and strangers... and they continue to do so, because "they gotta"? Or a person who tries to fix the situation that is obviously not desirable for anyone?

[derpkitteh]

sadly, it can't be outright banned. people will just illegally obtain them.

now, if the government were really willing to commit to banning it, we could destroy every tobacco plant in the world. make it extinct.

that's the only way it could be banned.

[jackofwind]

Maybe you're misunderstanding what we've actually doing here. We're having a discussion on an online forum, not deciding public policy. When I see smoker apologists spewing crap and sowing shit online, I attack them for their deadly habit.



I would love to see some science on how my carbon footprint or any individual person is anywhere near the depravity caused by cigarettes. And explain to me how the carbon footprints we all leave behind are anywhere near as easily prevented as smoking is.

It's not actually hard to decide to not own a car and to eat locally grown food. It's just a choice that many people aren't willing to make. If you drive a car you're already creating more toxins than a smoker.

Here's a question - where do you live? Because it sounds like you live somewhere that isn't nearly as heavily regulated as, for instance, the province I live in.

- - - Updated - - -

sadly, it can't be outright banned. people will just illegally obtain them.

now, if the government were really willing to commit to banning it, we could destroy every tobacco plant in the world. make it extinct.

that's the only way it could be banned.

You'd never be able to destroy tobacco, it's native to most of North America and has been around for 8000+ years. Even if you destroyed all the plantations there is still tons of it out growing wild.

[Shiny212]

It's not actually hard to decide to not own a car and to eat locally grown food. It's just a choice that many people aren't willing to make. If you drive a car you're already creating more toxins than a smoker.

Here's a question - where do you live? Because it sounds like you live somewhere that isn't nearly as heavily regulated as, for instance, the province I live in.

Environmentally damaging cars are a huge issue to be sure, but just because they are an issue, we shouldn't ignore other issues. Such as smoking. There's also the fact that many people use cars to commute, transport important things..make society go around. Smoking does nothing but spew death and depravity. And even if cars might contribute to our ultimate end if the planet goes under in a few hundred or thousand years, I've never been made ill by car-smoke the way I am made ill regularly by smokers.

It's actually heavily regulated where I live, doesn't stop smokers from bothering me if say I have to go to the airport, take the bus, walk in a crowded street.

[Alvito]

The industry makes far to much money to allow most laws against it see the light of day. It is also very difficult to ban something already allowed. In the last 20 years there have been a lot of laws limiting when and where you can smoke. Even with that we are a long time away from any bans.

[Video Games]

$$$$$$$$$$

[Tyrianth]

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?

Because false equivalency is an easy argument to make for people who lack any critical thought processes.

[Wildtree]

It's fun how you try to make him/her look idiotic and childish, however, who is childish? A person who knows all the dangers of doing something, dangers for himself and for others around him, close people and strangers... and they continue to do so, because "they gotta"? Or a person who tries to fix the situation that is obviously not desirable for anyone?

His insults on people don't solve anything. On the contrary, he only creates hatred in people and one or the other carries out retaliation.
That is what people don't seem to get nowadays anymore. How ones action always leads to reaction.
I don't attack a person that is physically ill. And that's what smokers are. They are ill.
As I pointed out in a later post... The effects of nicotine on the human brain.
If you want to help people that suffer from passive smoking, then help those that suffer from active smoking. It's really how you need to approach it.

[yetgdhfgh]

BECAUSE PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK!!!!

Just like drugs and any other vice humans want if you ban it they just get it another way IE from criminals and the treasury loses out in billions in taxes.

I believe in personal responsibility when it comes to what we ingest and smoke and no government has the right to nanny me into what is good for me or not!

[Shiny212]

BECAUSE PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK!!!!

Just like drugs and any other vice humans want if you ban it they just get it another way IE from criminals and the treasury loses out in billions in taxes.

I believe in personal responsibility when it comes to what we ingest and smoke and no government has the right to nanny me into what is good for me or not!

Alright, but then I'm allowed to shoot a smoker if he smokes near me in Florida. See secondhand smokers don't make the "choice", but you're ok with making it for them?

[yetgdhfgh]

Alright, but then I'm allowed to shoot a smoker if he smokes near me in Florida.

Ermm thats murder

If we are talking about outright banning smoking which i assumed we are then iam against it if we are discussing if people shouldnt smoke in certain places then sure iam on board with that as long as people can go to places where it is ok.

[Shiny212]

Ermm thats murder

If we are talking about outright banning smoking which i assumed we are then iam against it if we are discussing if people shouldnt smoke in certain places then sure iam on board with that as long as people can go to places where it is ok.

Shoot him with a toxic gas grenade then. Equal harm, stand your ground and all that.

[jackofwind]

Environmentally damaging cars are a huge issue to be sure, but just because they are an issue, we shouldn't ignore other issues. Such as smoking. There's also the fact that many people use cars to commute, transport important things..make society go around. Smoking does nothing but spew death and depravity.

It's actually heavily regulated where I live, doesn't stop smokers from bothering me if say I have to go to the airport, take the bus, walk in a crowded street.

If it's actually heavily regulated where you live, it would be illegal to: smoke in parks, smoke at bus stops or on buses, smoke on public sidewalks or within 10M of any operable door or window, smoke outside of the designated sealed smoking areas at the airport.

So unless your entire argument is that if you smell even a whiff of old smoke on someone's clothes you're "being bothered by smokers", you either don't live somewhere where it's heavily regulated and enforced or you're lying to support your argument.

As for that smell - there are plenty of foul smells when you're out in a city surrounded by other people (BO, old liquor, halitosis, manky feet, old weed, weird mothball smells, smelly foods, oppressive colognes and perfumes, sick people, farts and burps), and it's just one of the things that humans in cities have needed to learn to accept for thousands of years. People stink when they get put in groups.

[zenkai]

No, how did you come up with that?
You didn't answer my question. Let me rephrase it:
What has tobacco to do with weed?

People want to ban Tobacco because of second hand smoke, but some of the same people want to legalize weed that also has second hand smoke which is bad for you as well.

[Shiny212]

His insults on people don't solve anything. On the contrary, he only creates hatred in people and one or the other carries out retaliation.
That is what people don't seem to get nowadays anymore. How ones action always leads to reaction.
I don't attack a person that is physically ill. And that's what smokers are. They are ill.
As I pointed out in a later post... The effects of nicotine on the human brain.
If you want to help people that suffer from passive smoking, then help those that suffer from active smoking. It's really how you need to approach it.

I haven't been arguing my policy of telling smokers to fuck off when they bother me should be government policy. But envision yourself waiting for a bus with your daughter, and some dick lights up near you, do you go up to them and say "I want to help you" and give him some leaflets on nicotine addiction?

[derpkitteh]

You'd never be able to destroy tobacco, it's native to most of North America and has been around for 8000+ years. Even if you destroyed all the plantations there is still tons of it out growing wild.

without even trying, we have wiped out countless species of animals and plants.

i'm pretty sure a concerted effort to take out tobacco plants would work just fine.