LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksHow many of you are anti smocking? I am 100% against smoking. In my viewpoint, Its one of the most disgusting addiction to have. I would really love to see a smoking ban in my country. What do you think about it?
January 24th, 2011, 11:27 AM
How many of you are anti smocking? I am 100% against smoking. In my viewpoint, Its one of the most disgusting addiction to have. I would really love to see a smoking ban in my country. What do you think about it?
I'm sure you'll get your wish soon enough.
What about free will though - damaging as it might be, should we not be free to expedite our death as we see fit?
You should be able to do what you want, but there should be limits on where you're allowed to do it when there are effects on others. I think as we are now in many places with bans on smoking in public gathering places is fine.
But I love my salmon that way. </jk>Originally Posted by paul parker
There's a delicate balance to be found between allowing freedom and curtailing shared costs. People have the right to decide for themselves what they can and cannot put into their bodies. I like the occasional cigar, for example. If you wanted to ban me from having one, I'd probably punch you in the throat and laugh at you for your naivety.
However, I acknowledge that there are costs to others for my choice to smoke (moreso from those who smoke cigarettes). In public, there is proven impact to others from secondary smoke. That must be limited. There is also long term medical costs, where regular smokers put excessive burden on the healthcare system and increase costs for all of us. We must mitigate that, as well.
However, there must be a balance, and a complete ban is hardly about balance. Have non-smoking sections, or ask people to smoke outside. Add a tax to purchase of tobacco which helps offset medical costs. There are countless ideas, but you must remember that you don't get to choose what others do. Your desire to ban tobacco is well-intentioned, but short-sighted and a bit selfish. Why should your desires be more important than any of ours?
<please note, I no longer smoke... just a cigar like once every month or two... in other words, it's not some addiction making this rebuttal of your point... just logic and experience>
Actually if you look at economic studies by Kip Viscusi and a few others smokers save society tens of billions of dollars per year because they die earlier than non-smokers who collect medicare and social security.
I quite smoking 20 years ago when I realized many of the commercial fishermen grew up with weren't dying of the hard and dangerous work--but from the smoking (and drinking) culture associated with it. My dad has been on supplimental Oxygen for more than a decade after a lifetime of smoking 2-3 packs a day.
I'm not completely against smokers so long as they do it in their private homes.
I'd forgotten about that work, but recall seeing it. Thanks!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...co-costs_N.htm
Smoking takes years off your life and adds dollars to the cost of health care. Yet nonsmokers cost society money, too — by living longer.
It's an element of the debate over tobacco that some economists and officials find distasteful.
<...>
Supporters of the FDA bill cited figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that smokers cost the country $96 billion a year in direct health care costs, and an additional $97 billion a year in lost productivity.
A White House statement supporting the bill, which awaits action in the Senate, echoed the argument by contending that tobacco use "accounts for over a $100 billion annually in financial costs to the economy."
However, smokers die some 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the CDC, and those premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs.
Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.
"It looks unpleasant or ghoulish to look at the cost savings as well as the cost increases and it's not a good thing that smoking kills people," Viscusi said in an interview. "But if you're going to follow this health-cost train all the way, you have to take into account all the effects, not just the ones you like in terms of getting your bill passed."
<...>
A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people.
The reason: The thin, healthy people lived much longer.
I'am against smoking, alcoholism or any such bad habits 8) All these things does is 100% harm !!!!
Rubbish.
Prove it !!Rubbish.
For some people these things provide SATISFACTION.I'am against smoking, alcoholism or any such bad habits 8) All these things does is 100% harm !!!!
For myself, since I quit smoking, I've been using Jagermeister to wash out the aftertaste of hooker spit.
But when the weekend partier gets his coke confiscated by the club bouncer and punches him in the throat he gets to spend time in jail and a criminal record for 'defending his freedom'.
If we can kill ourselves with one substance we should be able to kill ourselves with any substance.
What about any babies/children in that household?
What of pregnant women (considering we become increasingly aware that intra-uterine conditions are of paramount importance to adult health)?
What of a low income family losing its breadwinner due to premature death?
What of people encouraged to smoke when young (as used to happen) and now admonished for being addicted?
What about companies making money from death (drug dealers seem to get a bad press, but its no different to tobacco companies)?
Point being its hard to have a truly individual habit, social creatures that we are, so where do we draw the line? And just how much freewill do you think people have in their smoking habit?
P.S. Do any of you guys have links/references to the health economics articles discussed above, would make interesting reading - to me at least.
Prometheus, people do all kinds of bad things in their homes and so long as it's not deliberately harmful we can't hope to control them. Do you really want government in your babies room to monitor whether mommy takes a few puffs in there--I sure as hell don't.
It's even more so with a substance than anyone can grow and make so easily. I'm not opposed to going even further to limit the smoking industry's ability to advertise though.
I am 100% against smoking
Lynx_Fox, fair enough if that's your stance, so long as it consistent. Pregnant women taking occasional cocaine are often sorely frowned upon - exposing their baby to such drugs. But it's only as bad as exposing them to tobacco or alcohol. We should be consistent in either allowing people to take any substance they want or not.
I don't actually advocate banning anything, or legalising anything for that matter. I'm a teetotaler; the legal status of any drug does not concern me either way. And i don't care too much what other people do in their homes - but i do dislike the logical inconsistencies most people have (though not on this forum i've noticed) of wanting blanket bans on substances they've been told are 'bad', while shooting down anyone who dares take away their precious legal substances.
The argument that we couldn't possibly control people to such a degree i also think is a bit of a red herring. We don't monitor every expectant mother of her illicit drug use - there is just a blanket ban with legal repercussions if she is caught doing it. Same would apply to a blanket smoking ban. It also raises the question whether a law being impractical means it should not be passed. Marital rape is a relatively new term, very difficult to prove in court, near impossible to control, but does that mean society shouldn't take a stance to show its disapproval?
Again, i don't advocate either side, i'm still wading through the moral quagmire, i only offer this as food for thought.
Really? Really?!? You really want to go there? Are you kidding me? Your comment is laughably false. I understand that is how you "feel" and that is what you "believe," but it's barely even close to true... Made readily apparent by your choice to use the "100%" comment.Prove it !!Rubbish.
I'm not saying smoking is healthy, or even a good thing to do. I'm saying your comment that all it does is "100% harm" is rubbish. Here's one example I found after a one second google session:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...igarettes.html
The most fascinating and widely recognized health benefit of smoking is its ability to seemingly alleviate symptoms of mental illnesses, including anxiety and schizophrenia. According to an article published in 1995 in Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, schizophrenics have much higher smoking rates than people with other mental illnesses, and appear to use it as a method of self-medicating. The article postulates that nicotine found in cigarettes reduces psychiatric, cognitive, sensory, and physical effects of schizophrenia, and also provides relief of common side effects from antipsychotic drugs.
<...>
A series of very interesting studies from multiple academic sources confirms that the risk of Parkinson's disease and
Alzheimer's disease is surprisingly higher in non-smokers than in smokers. Doctor Laura Fratiglioni of Huddinge University Hospital in Sweden states, "Cigarette smokers are 50% less likely to have PD or AD than are age- and gender-matched nonsmokers [...] cigarette smoking exerts an undefined, biologic, neuroprotective influence against the development of PD and AD."
The University of Melbourne confirmed the claims made by many smokers that tobacco itself is a strong appetite suppressant, and many use it to self-treat compulsive overeating disorders or obesity.
<...>
Cigarette smoking has also been linked to a decrease in risk of certain inflammatory disorders, since nicotine itself appears to be an anti-inflammatory agent. The department of gastroenterology at the University Hospital of Wales conducted a number of in-vitro studies to confirm and explain the decreased risk in ulcerative colitis (a potentially severe digestive disorder) in individuals who smoke cigarettes.
Perhaps most shockingly, tobacco smoke's anti-inflammatory effects may actually provide some benefits to children who are exposed to secondhand smoke. While this is certainly not worth at-home experimentation, one astonishing study conducted in Sweden observed two generations of Swedish children and found that the children of smokers had lower rates of allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema, and food allergies. The studied groups included 6909 adults and 4472 children, and the findings remained consistent, even when adjusted to reflect other variables.
Other surprising academic findings reveal that tobacco may have a positive effect on pregnancy, although this, too, should not be left up to individual experimentation. A study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology revealed that preeclampsia, an extremely common but potentially deadly condition, is significantly less common in expectant mothers who smoke cigarettes than in expectant mothers who do not smoke.
Like I said... Your comment was laughably false, and total rubbish... and this is coming from a person who is not a smoking advocate, and who in fact agrees with you that it's something to be avoided when possible.
From the same article above:
While it may be interesting to note tobacco's few benefits, it is also critical for all consumers to recognize that its positive aspects are few compared to its many very serious risks. Even taking the health benefits of smoking into account, tobacco smokers can expect to live shorter lives and experience many chronic diseases.
I solder almost every day. I love the smell of smoke. I don't like second hand smoke on clothing or anywhere else. I hate the smell of diesel fuel burning or the smell of low octane gasoline. Yep...call me weird.
Ok !! its free to discuss out on different topics here and iam not forcing out here to anyone quit smoking unless he/she doesn't do it on it own will.Really? Really?!? You really want to go there? Are you kidding me? Your comment is laughably false. I understand that is how you "feel" and that is what you "believe," but it's barely even close to true... Made readily apparent by your choice to use the "100%" comment.Prove it !!Rubbish.
I'm not saying smoking is healthy, or even a good thing to do. I'm saying your comment that all it does is "100% harm" is rubbish. Here's one example I found after a one second google session:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...igarettes.html
All, the harm or benefits as you say are taken on a large scale and then average is calculated.
The whole world know by now, that smoking KILLS. Since, it has large amount of tobacco in it, which leads to several forms of cancers.
I admire your google search, but still truth will remain truth.
Yes, I agree, which is why you were wrong and I was right. Please, I say again... we mostly agree on this topic, I just encourage you to educate yourself better about it. For example, it's not the tobacco which kills, but the carcinogens and toxins in the smoke, and the effect they have on our immune system, our DNA, and other systems. You might also be interested that nicotine very closely resembles a neuroreceptor the body uses for movements and when triggering muscles (acetocholine), without which we'd be completely unable to move (and this is partially what makes nicotine so addictive... it fits into our existing receptors like a key into a lock).
Yes, smoking is generally bad... but so too is using comments which suggest that anything is 100%, okay?
January 27th, 2011, 04:17 PM
Trying to ban smoking completely, is in my opinion, a ridiculous idea. Never mind the fact that the " Nanny State " is way out of control here in the UK. Our law enforcement agencies are spending a prodigious amount of money on the " War against drugs " and guess what, we are losing that war, we will never win. We can not stop illegal street drugs from entering our country. How do you expect to stop cigarettes getting into the country, if a total ban on smoking came into being ?
I'm a smoker and I totally support anti smoking campaign. It's quite unbelievable. But yes, most smokers are having hard times overcoming such addiction.
January 28th, 2011, 02:24 PM
Who's a big nanny?Trying to ban smoking completely, is in my opinion, a ridiculous idea. Never mind the fact that the " Nanny State " is way out of control here in the UK. Our law enforcement agencies are spending a prodigious amount of money on the " War against drugs " and guess what, we are losing that war, we will never win. We can not stop illegal street drugs from entering our country. How do you expect to stop cigarettes getting into the country, if a total ban on smoking came into being ?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43552.html
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/18990/
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-...1/reagan.shtml
January 29th, 2011, 12:34 AM
GiantEvil, I am off to work in a few minutes, can you please give me a better indication of where you are coming from ?Who's a big nanny?Trying to ban smoking completely, is in my opinion, a ridiculous idea. Never mind the fact that the " Nanny State " is way out of control here in the UK. Our law enforcement agencies are spending a prodigious amount of money on the " War against drugs " and guess what, we are losing that war, we will never win. We can not stop illegal street drugs from entering our country. How do you expect to stop cigarettes getting into the country, if a total ban on smoking came into being ?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43552.html
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/18990/
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-...1/reagan.shtml
Apparently you equate the "war on drugs" to "nanny state" politics.
I am equating Reagan to the "war on drugs".Never mind the fact that the " Nanny State " is way out of control here in the UK. Our law enforcement agencies are spending a prodigious amount of money on the " War against drugs " and guess what, we are losing that war, we will never win.
Hence, "Ronald Reagan" = "war on drugs" = "nanny state".
Contemporary neocons are just like the biblical pharisees, they boast loudly about things which their actions put the lie to.
Here are some examples of true classic American Republicans. Not to be confused with the, robber baron toady's, of today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower
| « Hedgewars !! | White Racism » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
