David Woon:
hey look i'm about to have a cigarette -puts cigarette in mouth and lights it- -puts up middle finger- DEAL WITH IT

If you want to huff irritants, don't let any of them come my way. I've stood down wind of a camp fire and gotten less smoke in my face as when I had to queue behind some smoker blowing smoke everywhere. He looked at me like I just asked to sleep with his wife when I discretely asked him not to do that as his tobacco smoke was irritating me. He used the "it's not going to kill you" excuse. Well I supposed if he spritzed me with tear-gas that wouldn't kill be either, but either way my eyes are bloodshot and watering.

PS: and do not just throw your used cigarette butt on the ground when you are done. I know it's incendiary, smelly and has tar oozing from the filter but that's your problem, should not be all of our littering problem. Carry around a metal box to extinguish and store it therein till you find a bin, but I've yet to meet a smoker who actually does that.

What I wish was illegal is the ciggy companies putting in the bad shit into their cigarettes to make them addictive.

Treblaine:

David Woon:
hey look i'm about to have a cigarette -puts cigarette in mouth and lights it- -puts up middle finger- DEAL WITH IT

If you want to huff irritants, don't let any of them come my way. I've stood down wind of a camp fire and gotten less smoke in my face as when I had to queue behind some smoker blowing smoke everywhere. He looked at me like I just asked to sleep with his wife when I discretely asked him not to do that as his tobacco smoke was irritating me. He used the "it's not going to kill you" excuse. Well I supposed if he spritzed me with tear-gas that wouldn't kill be either, but either way my eyes are bloodshot and watering.

PS: and do not just throw your used cigarette butt on the ground when you are done. I know it's incendiary, smelly and has tar oozing from the filter but that's your problem, should not be all of our littering problem. Carry around a metal box to extinguish and store it therein till you find a bin, but I've yet to meet a smoker who actually does that.

I'm with ya on the last part, I see so many people just throw their butts out their car window 9you have an ash tray in there for a reason you moron!!) I fucking hate those people.

Treblaine:

PS: and do not just throw your used cigarette butt on the ground when you are done. I know it's incendiary, smelly and has tar oozing from the filter but that's your problem, should not be all of our littering problem. Carry around a metal box to extinguish and store it therein till you find a bin, but I've yet to meet a smoker who actually does that.

Is knocking the embers off and putting the butt back down in the pack until I find a bin (or a drain under extreme circumstances) well enough? It's my usual method, can't stand people leaving whole droves of butts wherever they go.

I also agree that you shouldn't be smoking when standing in a queue or in a poorly ventilated enviroment. It's one thing going down a street with plenty of space and air, but it's just rude when people are more or less stuck with being packed against you. It's easy as pie to just knock it off and save it for later.

LastGreatBlasphemer:

chadachada123:

Well...hm...I'll see if there's anything that I can salvage from my original statement.

Other than disagreeing with your claim that obesity would skyrocket if weed was legalized, and disagreeing that just because the law currently is (and always has been) unfair that it isn't unconstitutionally and morally reprehensible and should be fixed to be balanced...

(Edit: to be clear, I'm arguing against complacency. If you require a license to own a dog but not to have children, there's a big problem. If you can drive a 4000 pound steel cage at 16 but have to be 18 or 21 to buy a gun, there's a problem. If you can be paid to star in porn or paid to be a stripper but can't be paid to be a prostitute, there's a big problem. All of these incongruities need to be fixed if we're to call ourselves a free or just nation, which I'd LIKE to see sometime during my life, and I consider weed being illegal while alcohol is legal to be one of these hurdles that needs to be put into the limelight)

I guess I pretty much concede. I would note that when I said the cigarettes were worse than weed, I meant Marlboros and the like. I can only guess that by "Native Red," you mean a cigar or something else that uses pure tobacco?

It's not so much a claim that obesity would sky rocket, so much as a belief based on very little data. It's not exactly a country known for choosing salad over bacon burger.

Oh don't get me wrong, the laws are most definitely fucked and need to be fixed. I was just shooting down the notion of fairness in the law. A man who is old enough to die for his country should damn well be allowed a beer.

But yes, Native Reds are a cigar, and yes, Marlboros are god awful for you. Tobacco isn't as bad for you as you may think, it's all the harmful chemicals that are added to it that are killing people. And that's what should be made illegal. How does somebody even get away with that?

I'm wondering that too (the last part) why are these companies allowed to put these terrible chemicals into the cigarette? Something should be done

War on Cigarettes... Yea that will work. It's amazing how well it worked for alcohol and how well it is working for drugs. #Freedom

Eamar:

DanDeFool:

That, and I'd wager a lot of drug use starts out as rebellion. Somehow, I don't think saying, "hey guys, let's go take some of this perfectly legal substance that will severely damage our health and won't get us in trouble in any way" has quite the same advertising appeal.

I wouldn't bet on it- that's how most of the cigarette smokers I know got started. By which I mean it's legal, they knew the health risks and just got into it to "rebel." I never understood that, it's not even like you get high off a cigarette... I swear the only reason for it was to piss off their parents, which is pretty pathetic when you think about it.

You know, I was starting to feel that this was a fairly weak point while I was writing it, and now I'm almost certain that it is. While having something be illegal probably makes abusing it feel somewhat more rebellious, as long as you're going against the advice and wishes of the authority figures in your life, doing drugs will probably always be a staple of "teen rebellion", regardless of legality issues.

Oh well. Can't fix stupid.

Buretsu:

Treblaine:
Big Snip

I'm sorry, but can you explain why one would think that giving people easier access to mind-altering substances is a good thing? It doesn't make sense to me. There are a lot of people out there who are refraining from causing severe damage to themselves and risking the lives and well-being of those around them, because drugs being illegal and risky to obtain keep them from seeking them out.

For that matter, the decriminalization of possession of dangerous drugs like coke and meth also baffles me. A cop takes away what a druggie is currently holding and just sends him on his way, and he just goes back home where the rest of his stash is waiting for him. And nothing ends up resolved.

I may just be a cynic, but I honestly don't understand how someone can say things like this, except in a hypothetical 'perfect world' situation.

You would start by reading this:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.379481.14894494

The very thing you quoted me from.

Incredulity is not argument but a fallacy (which is precisely what "It doesn't make sense to me" is), the effect of marijuana are not as bad affect of the enforcement of laws banning it. How does eating a marijuana brownie endanger either them or the well-being of those around them? What is the problem with mind altering when so many innocuous things alter the mind. Being imprisoned for possession of marijuana is far worse for their life, health and wellbeing than if they'd just consumed it and followed all other laws. Same with ecstasy tablets, they are just not that dangerous nor addictive.

The cops gives the option of NOT confiscating dangerous drugs IF they turn temporary informant. I did make clear how important it is that the police get good human intel If addicts lie, THEN they go to prison. They couldn't plead the 5th amendment as it isn't a crime to buy or own dangerous drugs but they still have the right to remain silent. The point is the police don't have the time nor resources to imprison every addict. Nor is prison necessarily an appropriate place for drug addicts. The police can get really good, every time they catch a druggie with a stash, they can squeeze more intel out of them.

I thought it was obvious that imprisoning the MILLIONS of people addicted the dangerous drugs is an extremely foolish thing to do. They need to be persuaded to willingly enter sobriety programs. Forcing or coercing people into sobriety programs is starting from the worst possible position.

The people who did wrongs onto others are the dealers in dangerous drugs, THEY belong in prison.

Quiet Stranger:

Treblaine:

David Woon:
hey look i'm about to have a cigarette -puts cigarette in mouth and lights it- -puts up middle finger- DEAL WITH IT

If you want to huff irritants, don't let any of them come my way. I've stood down wind of a camp fire and gotten less smoke in my face as when I had to queue behind some smoker blowing smoke everywhere. He looked at me like I just asked to sleep with his wife when I discretely asked him not to do that as his tobacco smoke was irritating me. He used the "it's not going to kill you" excuse. Well I supposed if he spritzed me with tear-gas that wouldn't kill be either, but either way my eyes are bloodshot and watering.

PS: and do not just throw your used cigarette butt on the ground when you are done. I know it's incendiary, smelly and has tar oozing from the filter but that's your problem, should not be all of our littering problem. Carry around a metal box to extinguish and store it therein till you find a bin, but I've yet to meet a smoker who actually does that.

I'm with ya on the last part, I see so many people just throw their butts out their car window 9you have an ash tray in there for a reason you moron!!) I fucking hate those people.

Not to mention the fires. How many thousands of acres of pine forest have been destroyed because some douche threw their cigarette out the window on a hot summer day instead of disposing of it properly? Who knows, but I'll bet it's a lot.

Muspelheim:

Treblaine:

PS: and do not just throw your used cigarette butt on the ground when you are done. I know it's incendiary, smelly and has tar oozing from the filter but that's your problem, should not be all of our littering problem. Carry around a metal box to extinguish and store it therein till you find a bin, but I've yet to meet a smoker who actually does that.

Is knocking the embers off and putting the butt back down in the pack until I find a bin (or a drain under extreme circumstances) well enough? It's my usual method, can't stand people leaving whole droves of butts wherever they go.

I also agree that you shouldn't be smoking when standing in a queue or in a poorly ventilated enviroment. It's one thing going down a street with plenty of space and air, but it's just rude when people are more or less stuck with being packed against you. It's easy as pie to just knock it off and save it for later.

Hmm, I suppose embers aren't a problem. Every person in a day emit as much small particulates as dandruff, skin cells, etc.

If only more would take the consideration to not litter their still smouldering fag-ends, I can understand the inherent dilemma as they have often no where to practically stub it out and it does emit an awful stench from the tar soaked filter that not even smokers like. Cigarette butts are still such a common form of litter, not to mention source of fires. I used to smoke, but I smoked a PIPE precisely because of this concern and never smoked in public.

I guess many jurisdictions wouldn't have banned smoking in public places if smokers had been more considerate, not smoking in close quarters like outdoor queuing or in a crowd nor littering so much. It would be impractical to enforce against smoking in "too close" a quarters or catching them in the act of littering.

Treblaine:

Buretsu:

Treblaine:
Big Snip

I'm sorry, but can you explain why one would think that giving people easier access to mind-altering substances is a good thing? It doesn't make sense to me. There are a lot of people out there who are refraining from causing severe damage to themselves and risking the lives and well-being of those around them, because drugs being illegal and risky to obtain keep them from seeking them out.

For that matter, the decriminalization of possession of dangerous drugs like coke and meth also baffles me. A cop takes away what a druggie is currently holding and just sends him on his way, and he just goes back home where the rest of his stash is waiting for him. And nothing ends up resolved.

I may just be a cynic, but I honestly don't understand how someone can say things like this, except in a hypothetical 'perfect world' situation.

You would start by reading this:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.379481.14894494

The very thing you quoted me from.

Incredulity is not argument but a fallacy (which is precisely what "It doesn't make sense to me" is), the effect of marijuana are not as bad affect of the enforcement of laws banning it. How does eating a marijuana brownie endanger either them or the well-being of those around them? What is the problem with mind altering when so many innocuous things alter the mind. Being imprisoned for possession of marijuana is far worse for their life, health and wellbeing than if they'd just consumed it and followed all other laws. Same with ecstasy tablets, they are just not that dangerous nor addictive.

The cops gives the option of NOT confiscating dangerous drugs IF they turn temporary informant. I did make clear how important it is that the police get good human intel If addicts lie, THEN they go to prison. They couldn't plead the 5th amendment as it isn't a crime to buy or own dangerous drugs but they still have the right to remain silent. The point is the police don't have the time nor resources to imprison every addict. Nor is prison necessarily an appropriate place for drug addicts. The police can get really good, every time they catch a druggie with a stash, they can squeeze more intel out of them.

I thought it was obvious that imprisoning the MILLIONS of people addicted the dangerous drugs is an extremely foolish thing to do. They need to be persuaded to willingly enter sobriety programs. Forcing or coercing people into sobriety programs is starting from the worst possible position.

The people who did wrongs onto others are the dealers in dangerous drugs, THEY belong in prison.

Also, remember those "what's your anti-drug?" PSAs? I think those were among the best ones ever produced (not really saying much, but whatever), because they sort of made the point "hey kids, life is hard enough without having to deal with substance abuse on top of everything else".

Bottom line, the point Buretsu made about legality and risk keeping most people away from drugs is like when religious people say that without religion we'd all be murderers and rapists and thieves. There are a lot of other reasons besides "because its illegal" that keep people away from drugs, and I think it's those other reasons make the difference far more often than legality and personal danger.

Ugh I don't like topics like this. I smoke and yeah I know its unhealthy fot me, but thats my choice.
Is second hand smoke dangerous to other people? Perhaps, but not nearly as much as some people are warning about. Still i'm always carefull not to smoke in crowded places or near people unless I have their permission. I think its rude to bother other people with my habbits.

I hope that did't sound to much like a rant.

I don't think cigarettes should be banned, as I am in favor of people having the right to engage in unhealthy habits that I do not myself engage in. After all, if the government bans smoking, then they may attack practices I do engage in, like drinking large soft drinks. Not that anyone would actually be crazy enough to . . .

Oh, wait.

It's about about the public's perception. I agree that cigarettes are more harmful than weed, but hell man, people smoked like 10 packs a day back in the 40s, so they don't seem that bad. Whereas everyone thinks that if you smoke weed, you're an unemployed person in their basement.

Regardless, if you're saying that something should be banned for having harmful effects, might as well make both of them illegal. And McDonalds too (hear hear!). If you think something should be illegal because it's worse than the alternative, you need to reevaluate your thought process.

Buretsu:

DanDeFool:
Bottom line, the point Buretsu made about legality and risk keeping most people away from drugs is like when religious people say that without religion we'd all be murderers and rapists and thieves.

I never said that was the only reason stopping someone. Please stop attacking me based on what you think I said.

Furthermore, it's not the same idea at all. There are obvious moral reasons why murder, rape and theft are wrong to do, moral reasons that don't exist with drugs. In fact, there's a counter-culture that explicitly glorifies drug usage. Driving while drunk is considered to be a horrible thing to do, but driving while stoned is an amusing anecdote or even a major motion picture.

Treblaine:

Incredulity is not argument but a fallacy (which is precisely what "It doesn't make sense to me" is)

It honestly doesn't make sense to me. That's not a fallacy, but a personal truth.

If it doesn't make sense, then ask for a clarification and THEN make your case.

If mean to say there is an inconsistency in my reasoning, then point out the inconsistency in reasoning. It's pointless to say you don't understand. You seem to be just refusing to understand how addicts shouldn't be persecuted by the law, but rather it should focus on those who make incredibly profits selling addictive poisons.

"moral reasons that don't exist with drugs."

He didn't say there were only moral reasons other than legal prohibitions. Such as basic self-interest of not having to deal with the costs and disruption of a substance habit.

Precisely WHAT is the problem with people taking drugs that don't harm them? What is the problem with someone making and eating weed brownies? Taking ecstasy tablets at a party doesn't have any significant health risk nor addiction tendency.

I think you are mistaken about the drunk driving thing, driving while intoxicated on ANYTHING is equally frowned upon. There is no double standard. The people who think driving while high is OK also think driving while drunk is OK. This is a minority of irresponsible and unrepresentative people. In no way would decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis for recreational use mean permitting ANY kind of driving while intoxicated.

I can't say I hate smoking without being a hypocrite seeing as I smoke Hookah once every month or two but there is a difference between smoking in a lounge and smoking in public. I don't like people who smoke cigarettes in places that are heavily used. I'm fine with people choosing what to do with their own bodies but secondhand smoke is horrible and often times can't be avoided.

Smoking shouldn't be banned but public smoking should be heavily restricted.

Link55:
Weed is less harmful than cigarettes. At least weed help people in a way. That and it's natural unlike the thousands of chemicals in the average cigarette. And in what way does a cigarette help anybody. If you know a way please tell me. But they should just ban them without hesitation.

Just gonna quote a bit of Hicks for this one...

"I have something to tell you non-smokers that I know for a fact that you don't know, and I feel it's my duty to pass on information at all times. Ready?. . . . Non-smokers die every day . . . Enjoy your evening. See, I know that you entertain this eternal life fantasy because you've chosen not to smoke, but let me be the 1st to POP that bubble and bring you hurling back to reality . . . You're dead too."

People die every day related and unrelated to smoking it's been around longer than you and your nan and that's not gonna change, it's a huge part of today's culture it can't just be "Made Illegal" specially when it's so heavily taxed in such a harsh economic time.

Plus, Weed is a gateway drug you smoke weed you'll probably decide to try other things and it's a downward spiral from there just like drinking, driving, eating and masturbating.

Link55:
Weed is less harmful than cigarettes. At least weed help people in a way. That and it's natural unlike the thousands of chemicals in the average cigarette. And in what way does a cigarette help anybody. If you know a way please tell me. But they should just ban them without hesitation.

Sorry to tell you this, but all burnables produce carbon monoxide, a chemical harmful to the body. I assure you, once marijuana is legal, they'll use pesticides and fertilizers on it too as well as chemical curing agents and chemically treated paper. On top of that, regular use causes distorted perception, memory and learning difficulties, loss of coordination, and increased heart rate as well as reduced blood pressure. Those are the short-term post-high effects documented. Long-term frequent users develop the same lung issues as tobacco smokers. Taking a single hit occasionally may not do this, but smoking several joints is another story. While it is not linked to cancer, cancer isn't the only thing that happens to tobacco smokers, what with cannabis containing three times the tar of its nicotine counterpart. THC itself has been shown to impede the immune system. I'd cite my sources, but most proponents automatically don't trust "the Man" or frankly anyone who disagrees.

That being said, I'm fine with the stuff being legal, and treated within the law the same as alcohol and tobacco. It's this implication that the stuff is some super-herb that can do no wrong that I take issue with. It's just as bad as tobacco and just as impairing in the right quantities as alcohol, so you can't say one should be banned for health reasons and still give any of the others a free pass.

LiftYourSkinnyFists:

Link55:
Weed is less harmful than cigarettes. At least weed help people in a way. That and it's natural unlike the thousands of chemicals in the average cigarette. And in what way does a cigarette help anybody. If you know a way please tell me. But they should just ban them without hesitation.

Just gonna quote a bit of Hicks for this one...

"I have something to tell you non-smokers that I know for a fact that you don't know, and I feel it's my duty to pass on information at all times. Ready?. . . . Non-smokers die every day . . . Enjoy your evening. See, I know that you entertain this eternal life fantasy because you've chosen not to smoke, but let me be the 1st to POP that bubble and bring you hurling back to reality . . . You're dead too."

People die every day related and unrelated to smoking it's been around longer than you and your nan and that's not gonna change, it's a huge part of today's culture it can't just be "Made Illegal" specially when it's so heavily taxed in such a harsh economic time.

Plus, Weed is a gateway drug you smoke weed you'll probably decide to try other things and it's a downward spiral from there just like drinking, driving, eating and masturbating.

Hmm, but people don't choose not to smoke any more than they chose not to sniff paint. Some people chose to do such things and others never even make the choice, there is nothing active in not smoking.

And non-smokers don't think they are immortal, both smokers and non-smokers know smoking is relatively more harmful to health. Hicks even died from Cancer before he was 32 years old. Smokers are just in denial or don't care of the risks relative to the rewards.

PS: weed isn't a gateway drug. The only way it is gateway is how it is illegal, wouldn't be the case if marijuana was legal.

"downward spiral from there just like drinking, driving, eating and masturbating."

What.

the...

HELL!!!!!

Eating? Jacking off? Driving?

Treblaine:

El Danny:

Treblaine:

I was wondering, how do you feel about people who like to sniff powerful glues to huff on the solvents?

It's their "habit", not your business, but what would you think of such a character. But how is it different from what you are doing? Is it different because Yul Brynner looked "real keeewl" smoking a cigarette? Even though his final public appearance was an earnest insistence was that no one copy his habit as he died from diseases caused by smoking.

I have no illusion that solvent abuse can be solved by banning solvents. Nor can smoking be solved by banning tobacco. I think largely we have succeeded in educating everyone so most people have the sense not to spray Old Spice directly up their nostrils, yet the same sense of self-preservation abandons them when it comes to burning tobacco.

People just need to realise this habit of getting high is really REALLY dangerous to them.

Two completely separate things, solvents can kill you instantly, you'd be damn unlucky to die in your first year of smoking, even if you're on 2 packs a day. For what it's worth I tried solvents, like 5-6 years ago, thought they were shite but I maintained friendships for quite a few years with a couple of people who abuse solvents.

----

I agree with your logic on the smoking area ideas (technically we have them at my college) but I just don't think the dangers of second hand smoking are enough to threaten a member of the public, certainly not enough to justify spending £££ to implement and enforce such a scheme. Nobody is going to get cancer from passing a smoking in the street or standing next to one at the bus stop.

So "completely separate" because they *can* kill instantly, only in the sense of passing out and suffocating on ones own vomit. And anyway you said it was their own body, their own habit, what is this distinction on different degrees of danger?

So you'd see no problem with your close family and friends all huffing solvents as long as there was someone around to roll them over if they pass out and start vomiting? The ongoing health risks of solvent abuse are very equivalent to habitual smoking. I'm not talking ongoing friendship, I'm saying do you have a PROBLEM. Do you think they shouldn't do that and that they should quit their solvent habit.

Your vouching for insistence of the acceptability of smoking is not help by how you also vouch acceptance of solvent abuse.

I'm not saying solvents nor tobacco should be banned. I'm saying these people should be helped and every effort made to get them to quit this habit permanently.

PS: ban on smoking in public may be also a factor of the litter and fire risks of smoking. It's pretty easy to put a food or drinks container back in your pocket till you find a bin, but what to do with a smouldering tar-oozing cigarette butt? What almost all smokers do, they throw it on the ground. They are hardly going to put the stinking thing in their pocket. Tossed directly in a trash can it'll likely set it on fire. Or tossed onto dry grass or onto an oily rag.

I'd never seen a smoker on the streets finish a cigarette and not immediately throw it on the ground. I don't know any smoker who carries around a case for their spent cigarette butts till they find a place to dispose them. Of all the litter I see on the streets, cigarette butts are the most common. The government provides these streets for everyone, no one should be allowed to discard crap all over them.

Distinction between different kinds of danger? Like how the danger of opening my door and having a piano fall on my head, and walking into a busy road are two different things? You make distinctions between dangers so many times a day when you go down the stairs or won't cross the road with out looking both ways.

Other than that, the entire first half of your post is just irrelevant dribble about solvents.

Here is some education; things smokers do and don't with their fag buts.
Throw it on the ground?: No.
Throw it on the ground and stamp: Yes
Throw it in a trash can: No. (If I ever saw somebody doing this I'd walk up and make them fetch it out).

Now for whether smokers do things drunks do;
Vomit in a public area like a path or park: No.
Urinate in a public area like a path or park: No.
Have sex in a public area like a path or park: No.

Your argument is now invalid.

Whilst I personally would not be interested in doing either, both smoking cigarettes and marijuana should be legal. I think we shouldn't stop there, but that's a question for another time.

However, it should be illegal to smoke in all public places where vicinity with others is unavoidable (everything from restaurants to public transportation platforms). Everyone else has the right to not be subjected to harmful substances.

Unlike with alcohol or non-smoking recreational drugs, the mere act of being next to someone who's enjoying a cigarette is directly harmful. It doesn't matter how harmful it is, it's still harmful, and no one should have to suffer it against their will. There are still plenty of places where you can light up.

I would also like to see employers and various services have the right to discriminate based on what drugs a person is using. Whilst smoking tobacco hasn't been shown to have a significant effect on a person's brain, the same cannot be said for marijuana (and other psychoactive drugs). Hence it should be legal to, for example, refuse to hire someone based on marijuana usage, as well as alcoholism.

I suppose the same could be true of smoking tobacco if it directly interfered with the person's ability to do their job, such as if you were a masseuse. Some people would definitely prefer it if the person giving them a massage didn't stink to high heavens of cigarettes.

Chatney:
Whilst I personally would not be interested in doing either, both smoking cigarettes and marijuana should be legal. I think we shouldn't stop there, but that's a question for another time.

However, it should be illegal to smoke in all public places where vicinity with others is unavoidable (everything from restaurants to public transportation platforms). Everyone else has the right to not be subjected to harmful substances.

Unlike with alcohol or non-smoking recreational drugs, the mere act of being next to someone who's enjoying a cigarette is directly harmful. It doesn't matter how harmful it is, it's still harmful, and no one should have to suffer it against their will. There are still plenty of places where you can light up.

I would also like to see employers and various services have the right to discriminate based on what drugs a person is using. Whilst smoking tobacco hasn't been shown to have a significant effect on a person's brain, the same cannot be said for marijuana (and other psychoactive drugs). Hence it should be legal to, for example, refuse to hire someone based on marijuana usage, as well as alcoholism.

I suppose the same could be true of smoking tobacco if it directly interfered with the person's ability to do their job, such as if you were a masseuse. Some people would definitely prefer it if the person giving them a massage didn't stink to high heavens of cigarettes.

You're not going to get lung cancer from walking around smokers, such an idea would cost £££ to implement and enforce but would offer nothing.

El Danny:
You're not going to get lung cancer from walking around smokers, such an idea would cost £££ to implement and enforce but would offer nothing.

First, there is consensus that second-hand smoke is harmful. How harmful it is doesn't matter. Claiming that it has to cause lung cancer for it to warrant concern is just plain stupid. Moreover, it's not just about health. It also stinks something awful.

I believe in personal freedom, in that I want the choice of whether to inhale cigarette smoke. I don't want it forced upon me by those who couldn't care less about my personal health just because they've decided to ruin theirs.

Second, such a law wouldn't cost anything. People are already prohibited from smoking in many public places and it didn't take constant police supervision for that to happen. The public generally respects the law. If you make it illegal to smoke in the places I mentioned, there would be a significant drop straight off the bat and the rest would go away slowly through a combination of convention, respect and people policing themselves and others.

Third, the effect would be an increase in personal freedom, slightly better health, more pleasant experiences in public places for non-smokers as well as more respect shown for non-smokers by smokers.

All in all, it would be better for everyone. Smokers still get to smoke and non-smokers get to remain non-smokers.

Daystar Clarion:
It's a not a pleasant experience, I'll grant you that, but the effects of 'second hand smoke' are negligible at best.

Much like walking through a traffic heavy city.

Cigarette smoke is made up of something like 6,000-7,000 chemical compounds, ~60 of which are known carcinogens. That's hardly "negligible at best."

Heavy traffic is also a problem, for a variety of reasons. Most countries of the world are working for reducing emissions.

Matthew94:
I think smoking them outside should be curbed, or at least reduced in the areas near public areas, but not banned. Due to the ban on smoking inside smokers now just crowd around the entrance in large numbers instead.

I dislike when I go to somewhere like a hospital or shopping centre and I have to walk through the cloud of smoke caused by all the smokers.

Here in South Africa if you smoke in any public space you get a fine. We don't even get smoking zones in restaurants anymore. Thank you government. It really does help now people can only really smoke at their home or in their cars.

It's that instance where if cigarettes were invented today, they'd be illegalized in a heartbeat. But as they're so ingrained into our culture, it's impossible to ban them

Picture it, a political party banning cigarettes and then expects to be voted in for the next term, while other parties want to re-legalize them again. Absolutely idiotic.

We all know cigarettes are bad, but the public have spoken loud and clear.

As long as it does not affect others people should be able to do what they want.

Treblaine:

What.

the...

HELL!!!!!

Eating? Jacking off? Driving?

You can die from eating, Jacking off and Driving just like smoking.

Oh and need I remind us an Aneurism could strike us down at any time in our life?