Cigarette laws and pharmaceutical conspiracy

I live in North Carolina right now. Home of Big Tobacco. I see dozens of people on the streets, every day, smoking. I don't have asthma. I don't smoke. And every time I stop to talk to one, they tell me not to smoke.
My grandfather died of lung cancer, roughly a month before I was born. I look almost exactly like him.
Just get the pineapple out.

I forgot to add one more point to why smokers actually cost less or the same as nonsmokers. TAXES. Do you have any idea how much the smokers donate to the government every year? If smoking would be banned right now, we nonsmokers would hit on us.

I smoke and I wholeheartedly agree on disgusting images put on cigarette boxes. Smoking is terrible and young people should be encouraged not to smoke anymore. It's not invasive, if you want to smoke you don't care. The cigarette inside is always the same and the package hardly changes.

But you are over 18. If you think that way, I guess you also think that age limits on cruel or scary movies are useless.

Poison yourself slowly for all I care. Just don't poison others while you do so.

Pretty much this. Replace Cigarettes with chewing tobacco, that way it only satisfies/kills one person.

Pretty much this. Replace Cigarettes with chewing tobacco, that way it only satisfies/kills one person.

But secondhand smoke doesn't kill you unless you are a 90 years old man with lung disease and other breathing problems, who due to dementia forgot his breathing machine home.

You are more likely to die from car exhaust fumes like I stated before in this thread. Those statistics I noted were from an article of a Finnish science magazine that are directly taken from "Statistics Finland (Fin: Tilastokeskus)", that is the national statistical institution in Finland. If anything, it's biased AGAINST smokers as it's connected to the government. Yet it shows it very clearly that dirty outdoor air kills almost 3 times as much as secondhand smoke.

When secondhand smoke is nothing to be seen as a real risk, I can only wonder what you people mean with "poisoning or killing others". Real life does not equal James Bond where there's a hidden gun inside a smoke.

Whether you personally dislike the smell or not, I believe calling smokers murderers is pretty obscene, while most people drive cars or work in factories, killing not only people with breathing problems, but nature as well.

Funny how you can pull up one place claiming that second hand smoke isn't risky when a simple google of secondhand smoke brings up thousands that say it is;

http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/secondha...dsmoke.htm

The fact that other things can kill you too, or with a higher exposure rate, doesn't make something dangerous suddenly safe

Why don't you try a realistic evaluation; compare the number of people who breathe the air to the number of people exposed to second hand smoke and then normalize the results of the two so they're on the same scale.
Suddenly that three times number is a lot less meaningful due to population disparity.

For people who didn't get that math - Sheer volume is irrelevant, it's percent exposed that experience detrimental effects that matters. 1 out of 100 people is still more meaningful than 3000 out of 30 billion even though 3000 is a larger overall number.

Funny how you can pull up one place claiming that second hand smoke isn't risky when a simple google of secondhand smoke brings up thousands that say it is;

http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/secondha...dsmoke.htm

The fact that other things can kill you too, or with a higher exposure rate, doesn't make something dangerous suddenly safe

Why don't you try a realistic evaluation; compare the number of people who breathe the air to the number of people exposed to second hand smoke and then normalize the results of the two so they're on the same scale.
Suddenly that three times number is a lot less meaningful due to population disparity.

The fact that your link starts with "quitsmoking.about.com" makes me wonder how neutral and unmanipulated the study is. I could come up with many sites that claim no connection between secondhand smoke and premature deaths or lung cancer. I could give you links but I decided to just google that for you! Look for yourself:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=no+connection+betwe...ung+cancer

And I can agree that indoors smoking can be dangerous, at least cause asthma. But indoors smoking is banned in most places already.

The results of that are every bit as biased.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smo..._over_harm

So lets use occams razor; Which is more plausible.
Cigarettes, smoking of which undeniably cause lung cancer to the user, magically do not harm other people nearby who are exposed to them, despite the exposure being often in larger quantities than the actual smoker who has the benefit of a filter, or they're dangerous to everyone equally.

Yeah. The latter seems to win out without any unbiased proof to the contrary and some pretty decent explanations of how.

Instead of fighting over something where antis will only quote sources that support their view point, that is based on the discourse gaining much space in western media (I want to point out. WESTERN), we can go straight to this scenerio:

Even if smoking would be banned and smokers would be labeled as murderers, a question would arise: What will we ban next? Alcohol, guns, cars, nuclear plants...

This isn't the biggest concern however. More of the fact that a totalitarist ban on smoking, that we are slowly moving towards, would cause more bad than good for us nonsmokers.

Think of this:

- Illegal trade +40%
- Criminality +30%
- Obesity +5%
- Retirement costs +40% (less tax payers + tax profit and people living longer

- Tourism -25%
- Population -15%
- Tax funds -5% (more when loss of population is taken in account)

Yes. I made those %s up. Wanted to highlight the impact of illegalizing tobacco on nonsmokers and a single country.

Point stands still. In the end it wouldn't do good for us nonsmokers.

There's good and strict guidelines on smoking as it is, I've never been bothered by smokers. Don't make new laws, make sure current ones are obeyed.

You're ignoring the fact those taxes exist to offset the problem. No problem, no need for the taxes in the first place.

Just like toll roads created to fund new road-work are supposed to be removed when their original payoff is achieved.

I really don't think you even have any cohesive point any where in this, you're just scatter shotting a half dozen unrelated topics like they have some correlation.

That's an argument that could be used on almost anything that doesn't affect you personally. Like Alcohol, Sodas, Candies, Fat food, Lady Gaga, cars, United States of America.

you're implying that i haven't had to deal with the problems of substance abuse, and that things like that don't affect me

My mother died from drugs when I was still a babe, and my father died the same way, but with alcohol abuse mixed in.

my aunt is currently an alcoholic, and we just got my cousin off her heroin addiction, and we're hoping she doesn't slip back, because she has a family to raise

i've had SO fucking much heartache over drug and substance abuse in general

also, my grandmother had a double lung transplant about eight years back, because she was a smoker, but it was also compounded with emphysema, and untreated asthma from when she was a kid.

so don't you DARE fucking take that attitude with me.

Even if smoking would be banned and smokers would be labeled as murderers, a question would arise: What will we ban next?

What in the world has that to do with smoking?

This isn't the biggest concern however. More of the fact that a totalitarist ban on smoking, that we are slowly moving towards, would cause more bad than good for us nonsmokers.

Again, what does that have to do with smoking?

 Spoiler

It's kind of easy to make the same argument against no enforcement of these rules, too:

Even if it would be legal to smoke anywhere any time, a question would arise: What will we legalize next? Drunk driving, murder, hit-and-run, having nuclear elements in your basement?

This isn't the biggest concern however. More of the fact that an anarchistic legalization on smoking rules, that we are slowly moving towards, would cause more bad than good for us nonsmokers.

Again, what does that have to do with smoking?

 Spoiler

It's kind of easy to make the same argument against no enforcement of these rules, too:

Even if it would be legal to smoke anywhere any time, a question would arise: What will we legalize next? Drunk driving, murder, hit-and-run, having nuclear elements in your basement?

This isn't the biggest concern however. More of the fact that an anarchistic legalization on smoking rules, that we are slowly moving towards, would cause more bad than good for us nonsmokers.

Did I say that smoking should be legalized everywhere? Nope, if you read my post you can notice I said "law is good as it is". Even though I'm not such an narrow-minded anti like most of the nonsmokers, I still wouldn't like smoke flying around in my favorite restaurant or cafe.

you're implying that i haven't had to deal with the problems of substance abuse, and that things like that don't affect me

My mother died from drugs when I was still a babe, and my father died the same way, but with alcohol abuse mixed in.

my aunt is currently an alcoholic, and we just got my cousin off her heroin addiction, and we're hoping she doesn't slip back, because she has a family to raise

i've had SO pineappleing much heartache over drug and substance abuse in general

also, my grandmother had a double lung transplant about eight years back, because she was a smoker, but it was also compounded with emphysema, and untreated asthma from when she was a kid.

so don't you DARE pineappleing take that attitude with me.

Exactly how is that related to smoking again? "Drugs" are illegal and personally I think they are the worst of the intoxicants. Your story just adds to what I already though about drugs.

As for alcohol and cigarettes, alcohol causes intoxication smoking doesn't, meanwhile alcohol and cigarettes can both be used in moderation, with smoking being still a little bit more risky.

You're ignoring the fact those taxes exist to offset the problem. No problem, no need for the taxes in the first place.

Just like toll roads created to fund new road-work are supposed to be removed when their original payoff is achieved.

I really don't think you even have any cohesive point any where in this, you're just scatter shotting a half dozen unrelated topics like they have some correlation.

Want examples?

Finland's law that banned alcohol. Did it work? No. Instead illegal trade and criminality increased and people made their own drinks, that were sometimes far from safe.

New tobacco law in Hawaii That resulted in significant loss in (especially) Japanese tourism, that was their big cashcow, so they later had to allow Japanese to smoke at the island.

Did I say that smoking should be legalized everywhere? Nope, if you read my post you can notice I said "law is good as it is". Even though I'm not such an narrow-minded anti like most of the nonsmokers, I still wouldn't like smoke flying around in my favorite restaurant or cafe.

Responses like this make me cringe to realize this was posted in Rubik's Cube.

Look, it's this thread AGAIN, with the same people with the same silly arguments AGAIN.

Poison yourself slowly for all I care. Just don't poison others while you do so.

Dis please.

ban smoking in general

pomegranate does more harm than good

Sure will be fun watching that domino effect on the economy. Tobacco is a pretty big seller, you know. If banks are "too big to fail", then it certainly is, it's almost on par with alcohol, and we all know how banning the consumption of THAT ended.

Far too many people take one of two (or both...) erroneous viewpoints:

A) You can't ban anything effectively because of what happened in Prohibition
B) Wanting one thing banned logically requires you to ban everything that shares any characteristic

Prohibition didn't work because alcohol has been a huge part of human culture since the dawn of civilization. I can't think of one culture that was dry by choice rather than by technological or agricultural limitations. You can make it by leaving stuff in a container for a while. Obviously, a federal ban on alcohol was impractical if not impossible. Can we ban the smoking of one type of plant without comparable social effects? Of course. They aren't anywhere near analogous cases for that point to stand.

If I think that it's fair for society to ban certain substances or behaviors, then I am subject to those same means, if a majority decides something I don't want banned should be banned. That's sort of how the US Constitution was written. It's up to you to convince others that choosing to ban X is a bad idea, not scream that some nonexistent right is being violated. All I argue is that it's (legally) a choice between banning and not banning, not a million little legally dubious regulations of doom, which is what they've been doing to tobacco.

Sure will be fun watching that domino effect on the economy. Tobacco is a pretty big seller, you know.

Sure, banning anything where there was once economic activity will eliminate or drive underground that economic activity. But that's the point of saying "more harm than good:" there are other costs to its use (and legality) that are harming the economy more than leaving it legal. Or so the argument goes. I personally don't think that's the case with smoking unless we're responsible as a society for paying other people's long term medical costs. Which in the US we aren't, yet anyway.

Sure, banning anything where there was once economic activity will eliminate or drive underground that economic activity. But that's the point of saying "more harm than good:" there are other costs to its use (and legality) that are harming the economy more than leaving it legal. Or so the argument goes. I personally don't think that's the case with smoking unless we're responsible as a society for paying other people's long term medical costs. Which in the US we aren't, yet anyway.

The major flaw with that argument is that, no, the harm will be far greater than the good done. I am highly allergic to smoke and have been hospitalized from exposure to even secondhand smoke for extended periods before, but I still support a person's choice to do what they want to do when it comes to purchaseable goods. Am I saying all illegal drugs/commodities should be legal? Yes. Because if they were legal, stealing to fund a habit would no longer happen; the item would be sold over the counter in a cheap and easily obtainable manner with no risk involved when TRYING to obtain the item. If an item is marketable, the item should be legal to trade, and the only illegal commodity should be sentient beings, mainly, other humans. This would not only lower prison upkeep tremendously, it would provide a steady increase in the economy from the addicts constantly sending most of their money directly into corporate coffers instead of the pocket of the shady guy on the corner of the street.

I don't use any substance that impedes the thought process, be it illegal drug or alcohol, but there is no denying there is a market for such things; instead of constantly DRAINING our money trying to quell it, why not reverse the money flow?

That's an argument that could be used on almost anything that doesn't affect you personally. Like Alcohol, Sodas, Candies, Fat food, Lady Gaga, cars, United States of America.

Alchohol- Was already banned at one point, but due to how major it was in more or less every civilization to ever live it didn't work out all too well.
Sodas- They don't kill you and everyone around you, nor do they addict you
Candies- Read above
Fat Food- While it does have some negative effects (Obesity), it does help some people personally, or at least, physically. I'm struggling to maintain 130 lbs. as a 17 year old standing at almost 6 feet tall. Without fat foods I wouldn't even make it.
Lady Gaga- You... can't be serious. You're saying Lady Gaga is as bad as cigarettes?
Cars- Our society wouldn't know how to survive without them. Banning them is a no-no.
The United States of America- I kinda, you know, love my country and all the freedoms I get that I probably shouldn't.

The major flaw with that argument is that, no, the harm will be far greater than the good done. I am highly allergic to smoke and have been hospitalized from exposure to even secondhand smoke for extended periods before, but I still support a person's choice to do what they want to do when it comes to purchaseable goods. Am I saying all illegal drugs/commodities should be legal? Yes. Because if they were legal, stealing to fund a habit would no longer happen; the item would be sold over the counter in a cheap and easily obtainable manner with no risk involved when TRYING to obtain the item. If an item is marketable, the item should be legal to trade, and the only illegal commodity should be sentient beings, mainly, other humans. This would not only lower prison upkeep tremendously, it would provide a steady increase in the economy from the addicts constantly sending most of their money directly into corporate coffers instead of the pocket of the shady guy on the corner of the street.

I don't use any substance that impedes the thought process, be it illegal drug or alcohol, but there is no denying there is a market for such things; instead of constantly DRAINING our money trying to quell it, why not reverse the money flow?

That is a good mindset. The problem is, if illegal substances become TOO easy to obtain, the % of drug addicts might reach an uncontrollable level. If I could just go to the store and buy some crack while my parents are asleep I honestly would have probably done it a long time ago. These illegal substances might become regular parts of the average American's life, and suddenly you'll find yourself full of a country that is hooked on these drugs with no money. Hypothetically, of course. And then, there's the problem that when these people run out of money, they might get together to try to make it themselves, and then the death rate will increase when meth labs start exploding. We'd essentially be living in Rapture, if you know what I mean.

Just ignore this