killthenet Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 I am going for a cigarette. For some reason N-Europe is the only place on the entire internet that I can access. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twozzok Posted February 11, 2008 Author Share Posted February 11, 2008 Yuo edited in the last part of your post after I posted mine? Why are you relating drugs to people shooting? Why should someone be legally able to legally buy one of the substances thats one of then highest causes of deaths but not another? I am going for a cigarette. For some reason N-Europe is the only place on the entire internet that I can access. Ouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Very, very unlikely, he may appear healthy but smoking damages the lungs progressively in every smoker, there's no way he would be as healthy as another version of himself who never smoked. He is much more likely to encounter problems as he gets older too. At the end of the day you can go "nanny state", but whatever the motivation, the ban has been shown to increase the number quitting which means better health for them. Sod the reasoning behind people agreeing with the ban, if it results in people stopping it's no bad thing. Yes, yes it is a bad thing. You're familiar with fascism, I presume? Where is the merit in forcing people to stop? That's not only an insult the the very sentiments that make this country what it is, but it's also something inherent in various religious dogmas. From what I remember of your views on religious doctrine, your attitude towards smoking seems more than slightly hypocritical. Banning smoking it's like telling a child to say sorry; it's pointless, because it's forced, causes nothing but resentment and inevitably means nothing. You can say "better health" all you want, but unless you're some supremely benevolent being, the ingenuousness of what you say is doubtful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somme Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Obesity is more of a problem - those people smell and look hideous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Why are you relating drugs to people shooting? It was a very simple and clear comparison, if you did not get it I suggest you try again. :p Why should someone be legally able to legally buy one of the substances thats one of then highest causes of deaths but not another? This again brings me back to exactly what my last post summed up. Even if one substance causes a lot of death and isn't banned, if another substance that causes illness and death is banned we shouldn't start slamming the fact it is banned (partially). I would rather at least one be partially banned than none at all. Yes, yes it is a bad thing. You're familiar with fascism, I presume? Where is the merit in forcing people to stop? That's not only an insult the the very sentiments that make this country what it is, but it's also something inherent in various religious dogmas. From what I remember of your views on religious doctrine, your attitude towards smoking seems more than slightly hypocritical. A blanket public ban was required to stop people forcing - people who forced others, even though not deliberately, to breathe their smoke. In the canteen at Tesco during break, I was forced to breathe the smoke of others even when sitting as far away as possible, since so many smoked. There is no law against smoking on the street or in your house, but smoking in a public place where other people work is actually preventing the forcing of smoke onto other people. That somewhat quells any fascist thing you have going on there. The government tells us to do lots of things, but I don't recall them being labeled fascist for each thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Yeah, fair enough about public bans, but you were talking about an overall ban of the substance altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somme Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 It I would rather at least one be partially banned than none at all. Why can't we let people decide for themselves? Why does it have to be banned? It's already banned in restaurants and pubs, etc. Find something more productive to have a vendetta about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Why can't we let people decide for themselves? Why does it have to be banned? It's already banned in restaurants and pubs, etc. Find something more productive to have a vendetta about. The thing I was talking about, the partial ban, was the smoking in pubs etc, which has already happened (which I support). That was definitely needed because it was making people like me breathe people's smoke. The reason I think it should eventually be banned is simply because they are harmful. I know, for some this is mind boggling stuff that someone actually cares about what happens to other people. But honestly, I know deep down that there are so many good reasons for it to be gone, and a government ban of it would only lead to better health. You can say it's fascist or whatever, but if it saved lives then I'm for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twozzok Posted February 11, 2008 Author Share Posted February 11, 2008 Why should I be told what I can and cannot eat/drink/smoke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 You're told to do lots of things and don't bat an eyelid! Don't take heroin, don't drive without a license, don't drink and drive! These are dangerous things - yes, more so than cigarettes, but still banned and people don't feel like their rights are being taken away. Cigarettes are merely a drug that aren't a god given right for people to have; people lived without them before they came into existence, and really people are being done a favour if they were ever completely banned. Cannabis is banned and reportedly isn't that much more dangerous, yet people aren't as bothered. I am not suggesting a complete halt on cigarettes, obviously I would be talking about some massive scheme where gradually you would reduce the numbers and eventually outright ban them. I realise to a smoker this seems like an infringement of their rights, but I honestly think it would be a good way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaggle64 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 As an asthmatic, I have to admit I hold a slight bias on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 I'm all for Heroin being legal, but as for driving without a license, and drink driving, those things are potentially lethal to other people. Get some perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somme Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 You're told to do lots of things and don't bat an eyelid! Don't take heroin, don't drive without a license, don't drink and drive! These are dangerous things - yes, more so than cigarettes, but still banned and people don't feel like their rights are being taken away. Cigarettes are merely a drug that aren't a god given right for people to have; people lived without them before they came into existence, and really people are being done a favour if they were ever completely banned. Cannabis is banned and reportedly isn't that much more dangerous, yet people aren't as bothered. I am not suggesting a complete halt on cigarettes, obviously I would be talking about some massive scheme where gradually you would reduce the numbers and eventually outright ban them. I realise to a smoker this seems like an infringement of their rights, but I honestly think it would be a good way to go. But who gave anyone a God-given right to stop us smoking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Bad idea bringing god into this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaggle64 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 During one of those rambling debates my writing class regularly slips into, my tutor (a lifelong smoker) summed it up as "At the end of the day though, you're essentially giving your money to bastards in big corporations who don't care about you just to stop the shakes that they gave you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somme Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 I'm giving my money to people in exchange for cigarettes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 It seems as if smokers try to justify carrying on with a bad habit by highlighting that other bad habbits are allowed. If life-endangering habbits can go, let them. I realise other things like McDonalds still are allowed, and I believe food like that will change in time too. But at the moment change is directed at cigarettes. And why should people concern theirselves with other people's health? Ok, if you don't believe people care about others, at least realise that smoking affects loved ones (if you don't smoke around them, it could well affect them still if you get an illness). Well to be honest, what's wrong with highlighting other factors that cause damage in the world? Especially when you can argue they cause a much larger social problem. You're told to do lots of things and don't bat an eyelid! Don't take heroin, don't drive without a license, don't drink and drive! These are dangerous things - yes, more so than cigarettes, but still banned and people don't feel like their rights are being taken away. Cigarettes are merely a drug that aren't a god given right for people to have; people lived without them before they came into existence, and really people are being done a favour if they were ever completely banned. Cannabis is banned and reportedly isn't that much more dangerous, yet people aren't as bothered. I am not suggesting a complete halt on cigarettes, obviously I would be talking about some massive scheme where gradually you would reduce the numbers and eventually outright ban them. I realise to a smoker this seems like an infringement of their rights, but I honestly think it would be a good way to go. By highlighting laws that say don't do something, then by default everyone succeeds in being lawful. That's silly. There's a law against muder and - oh - won't you look at me, I'm not murdering anyone right now! Isn't that awesome! I'm also not drink driving, stealing, blackmailing anyone. It's like making a law saying "you cannnot NOT breathe", and then saying "well gee, 100% of the population are complying - that means the law is sensible. The fact is, seeing it as a "good way to go" is irrelevant. Either you're talking of personal opinion, which you can't force upon others, or you're talking about a social mentality which you want to force upon the minority, which is saying that you believe the decision to do such a thing is in your hands. Personally, I believe either there's some ultimate being watching over us who has a checklist of rights and wrongs, or it's up to us to be responsible and rational human beings. Yes, this belief can have many a hole poked into it, but so can yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Today is day two of smoke free dan not looking forwards to today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightwolf Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 My dad smokes, my mum smokes and my brother smokes. I don't plan on taking up smoking, but I hate the general view over smoking. For instance, I hate the anti-smoking adverts where they're using those party-things, whatever they're fecking called, and that girl just stares at her parents while they 'smoke' those party-things as if to say 'You killed me using them', oh fuck you, you little bitch. *smack* Well actually they are killing her with those, she'd die from passing smoking at an early age. I detest smoking, my sister has been smoking for a long time and I will watch her die from it. Unfortunetly. That is how life is. If you want to smoke fine, but I'm quite happy that I don't have to put up with it when I go to the pub or a restaurant. Kill yourself, do what you want with those little things, I just don't want to pay for you because you fucked up ^.^ EDIT: why do people seem to think food and drink are the same as smoking. smoking isn't something your body needs, food and drink (well healthy food and drink) is needed. Don't put them as the same thing unless you're talking about bad food and drink/alcohol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokhed00 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Why do some non smokers have to be such fascists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 But who gave anyone a God-given right to stop us smoking? The point is that if it's not a god-given right to smoke, you don't need god given rights to stop it. Why do some non smokers have to be such fascists? Because smokers won't stop killing themselves. By highlighting laws that say don't do something, then by default everyone succeeds in being lawful. That's silly. There's a law against muder and - oh - won't you look at me, I'm not murdering anyone right now! Isn't that awesome! I'm also not drink driving, stealing, blackmailing anyone. It's like making a law saying "you cannnot NOT breathe", and then saying "well gee, 100% of the population are complying - that means the law is sensible. Right, you didn't understand what I was pointing out. The comparisons to heroin for instance, highlighted the example of a banned substance that does not cause people to exclaim that the government is fascist or feel that they have no rights. The fact is, seeing it as a "good way to go" is irrelevant. Either you're talking of personal opinion, which you can't force upon others, or you're talking about a social mentality which you want to force upon the minority, which is saying that you believe the decision to do such a thing is in your hands. Personally, I believe either there's some ultimate being watching over us who has a checklist of rights and wrongs, or it's up to us to be responsible and rational human beings. Yes, this belief can have many a hole poked into it, but so can yours. No, it's nothing to do with my opinion- things are banned that are dangerous to health, this has happened in the past (asbestos, anyone) so it has absolutely nothing to do with whether I think it should be banned. If the government geared towards that path eventually, they wouldn't be doing so because a guy named Daniel from N-Europe forums personally believed it was a good idea. What do some people come out with. As for your theory that something with a checklist is watching over you...could this be an argument for the 'against' side of smoking? Just kidding. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 I'm not that fussed about other people smoking so long as i can't smell it. I was coming home from school on the bus the other day and there was this women about 20 odd sat in front of me. She then decided to go to the back of the bus and have a smoke. The stupid bitch must have not realised that smells travel, especially on a bus. She got off about 5 minutes later. God knows why she just couldn't have waited. Inconsiderate bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 I'm not that fussed about other people smoking so long as i can't smell it. I was coming home from school on the bus the other day and there was this women about 20 odd sat in front of me. She then decided to go to the back of the bus and have a smoke. The stupid bitch must have not realised that smells travel, especially on a bus. She got off about 5 minutes later. God knows why she just couldn't have waited. Inconsiderate bastard. Chavs do that on the Metrolink. A woman confronted a smoking chav once because she had a child and the chav started swearing at her and mocked her. Frankly atrocious. Chavs are such disgusting specimens, they should all be eradicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goron_3 Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 I was reading the New Scientist the other day and i found out that weed contains 5 times more carcinogens than tobacco smoke. Made me chuckle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thirtynine. Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 All the people who think smoking/passive smoking sucks, when you were allowed to smoke on planes the air in the plane was actually better for you as the airline had to filter air properly, the only reason you cant smoke on planes is because its cheaper for the airline. Also there is no reason for the smoking ban, all it has achived is make pubs smell like piss and beer instead of smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts