Views on smoking

[Bulle]

I have troubles with my lungs, so public smoking can be really bothering at times. Or when you hang out with some people and they all start smoking.

 

[Calathar]

ppl are afraid of cancer caused by cigs?So i suppose those ppl are wearing masks when going out of home?Or maybe those ppl will tell me that ciggs (smoke from ciggs) are far more dangerous than f.e. polution from the cars,fabrics,etc?
@Ollieh:you do realise that large portion of ciggs price is a tax?Smoker contributes far more money to the state than non-smoker,so don't say things like that,k?
Now it's my problem if i will have cancer or not,and unless i'm not blowing smoke right into your face,gtfo ;]
ps:yeaaaah we should ban everything,alcohol (it's a drug too,and far more dangerous than cigs),ciggs,weed and even pepsi,all ppl should eat grass,drink water and pray in local church every sunday...what a b/s...

 

[Anarion]

I don't have a problem with it myself. I like both the taste and smell (except old smoke. I used to have a friend whose family all smoked, and the air inside his house made me eyes sting).

 

[Bellum]

****ing yourself over doesn't prove any point or annoy anyone, it just means you're ****ing yourself over.

Kind of a flawed argument, because it does piss people off. 

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

Only if you're stood around blowing smoke in their faces.
I don't get annoyed with smokers, I just think it's retardly pointless.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

So, first off, this is about the smoking of tobacco, and no other substance.

What is everyone's views on it? What do you think about laws such as ones in my area which ban smoking almost everywhere. Do you really think it causes cancer? If smoking is so dangerous, why are 18 year olds allowed to?

Because, as 18 year olds, the government is forced to concede that they have the mentality of an adult. As an adult, they can pretty much do anything to themselves. There is an endless list of atrocities they can inflict on there bodies without punishment.

Why is it banned? It's the pinky of the law, as opposed to the thumb. The same reason with seat belt regulations and speeding ticketing. There's a small fee attached to breaking the laws, because despite the years of research that yielded compelling data that it is dangerous to drive without a seat belt, to inhale (certain) types of drugs, or to bike without a helmet, people still won't invest that little amount of time to prevent serious damage later on.
They are not irrational creatures, they will tell you that it is logical to put on a seat belt or to wear a helmet over the prospect of permanently injuring or causing death to themselves. But, as humans, they are obligated to think on short term rewards as opposed to long term ones. The prospect of looking like a douche bag right now to preventing yourself from flying out the front window will take precedent, even if you sit them down and they tell you that it is advisable to wear a seat belt. They will always take the short term consequential action over the longer more rewarding (or less damaging) one.
It is then the government's duty to do something about it, putting in another short term consequence that would stop you from doing such a thing.

Cigarettes and tobacco bans are part of that concept. There's almost no benefits to smoking tobacco, cigars, or cigarettes. Even the benefits are outweighed by the extremely probable ultimate cost a person pays for it later.

 

[Ollieh]

you do realise that large portion of ciggs price is a tax?Smoker contributes far more money to the state than non-smoker,so don't say things like that,k?

Maybe, but treating a smoker with a lung/throat cancer or/and other issues ain't cheap. It would be quite interesting to see some statistics on this.

Also,

Or maybe those ppl will tell me that ciggs (smoke from ciggs) are far more dangerous than f.e. polution from the cars,fabrics,etc?

Umm, yes. I don't go breath through an exhaust pipe every hour.

 

[Bellum]

@Arch, also, I thought you liked fascism. 

@Redcoat, people hate smokers; don't give me that "it doesn't actually bother me" bull****. Smokers are monsters who will rape your children. Kind of like Christians and Socialists.

@Swadius, I think most people understand that concept well enough, but disagree with the premise. I don't think it's the governments job to protect me from myself. I'd rather it if the government stuck to protecting me from everyone else.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

@Swadius, I think most people understand that concept well enough, but disagree with the premise. I don't think it's the governments job to protect me from myself. I'd rather it if the government stuck to protecting me from everyone else.

They're not protecting you, they're protecting everyone else who doesn't smoke from the increase of tax to pay for your surgery and medication.

Edit:

@Arch, also, I thought you liked fascism. 

When he's the one in control .

 

[Bellum]

Everyone gets sick and dies eventually, Swadius. Unless something else kills them first. The cost of dealing with death is unavoidable, for each and every person on this planet.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Doesn't matter how dangerous it is (extremely dangerous), it shouldn't be banned, same as any other drug.

Doesn't it?

 

[Bellum]

Flawed reasoning alert! Nuclear weapons are not drugs!

 

[Archonsod]

You'll find plenty of people who will complain even if you're on the opposite side of the street. Then you get the ****wits who seem to think that if they've got a problem with you smoking, you should be the one to move.

If you ever want to prove a point there, get your **** out and start wanking. Virtually guaranteed they'll be the ones who decide to go stand somewhere else.

It is then the government's duty to do something about it, putting in another short term consequence that would stop you from doing such a thing.

No, the government's job is to run the country, not a creche. If I wanted someone to tell me I can't do things which would be detrimental to me in the long run I'd elect my mother.

Maybe, but treating a smoker with a lung cancer ain't cheap. It would be quite interesting to see some statistics on this.

Maternity provision for some untermensch chav mum whose after her sixth kid for more benefit handouts isn't cheap. Treating dementia, arthritus and similar diseases in the elderly isn't cheap either, and it's not like they're going to live long enough to make it worthwhile. Anyone whose smoked for ten years will have paid more into the national treasury than either.

They're not protecting you, they're protecting everyone else who doesn't smoke from the increase of tax to pay for your surgery and medication.

Given smokers pay around three times the tax as non-smokers in tobacco duty alone it's a bit of a silly idea. Hey, I don't drive, are they going to start punishing drivers because I'm paying taxes towards road maintenance? What about the police, if I don't ever call them do I get a discount on my tax? What about irresponsible parents who insist on raising children with Down's Syndrome and the like, should we be protected from their selfishness by denying them benefit?

If the government want to remove the option of the NHS I'd agree to that (personally I stick with private healthcare anyway), provided they also offer to refund me the last 14 years worth of contributions I've paid towards it.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Flawed reasoning alert! Nuclear weapons are not drugs!

It's not flawed, I promise. What if a drug caused people to go berserk, or to detonate violently, sending lethal shards of bone in all directions?

But I suppose you're saying that people should be able to do things, no matter how harmful, as long as those things only harm the individual who does them.

I don't agree, because people have poor judgement. Also the argument is often misused, as suffering tends to effect more than just the individual.

It is then the government's duty to do something about it, putting in another short term consequence that would stop you from doing such a thing.

No, the government's job is to run the country, not a creche. If I wanted someone to tell me I can't do things which would be detrimental to me in the long run I'd elect my mother.

And what does "running the country" involve exactly. I don't see a necessary problem in saving people from their own poor judgement. Hence warning signs.

 

[Lost-Lamb]

Well, wouldn't mind smokers if I didn't have to pay for their treatment in my taxes.

They're not protecting you, they're protecting everyone else who doesn't smoke from the increase of tax to pay for your surgery and medication.

Actually... Smokers cost less in the long run due to them dying earlier, and when you take tobacco tax into consideration the government ought to be encouraging people to smoke.

 

[Archonsod]

I don't agree, because people have poor judgement.

Yes. The same argument has been made in favour of abolishing the government too

And what does "running the country" involve exactly.

**** all in the main, they're only there in case there's a crisis.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

It is then the government's duty to do something about it, putting in another short term consequence that would stop you from doing such a thing.

No, the government's job is to run the country, not a creche. If I wanted someone to tell me I can't do things which would be detrimental to me in the long run I'd elect my mother.

Running a country does involve running the lives of your subjects.

They're not protecting you, they're protecting everyone else who doesn't smoke from the increase of tax to pay for your surgery and medication.

Given smokers pay around three times the tax as non-smokers in tobacco duty alone it's a bit of a silly idea.

Not really, when someone becomes ill, they are no longer able to work, if they die, all the investment into that person will go to waste. Given that an average person usually takes a good portion of their life time growing up and leeching off the system, it's a good tactic to safe guard that investment.

Hey, I don't drive, are they going to start punishing drivers because I'm paying taxes towards road maintenance?

Yes.

What about the police, if I don't ever call them do I get a discount on my tax?

Yes.

What about irresponsible parents who insist on raising children with Down's Syndrome and the like, should we be protected from their selfishness by denying them benefit?

**** yes.

 

[Archonsod]

Where the **** do you live, Wonderland?

 

[Swadius 2.0]

People in white sometimes refer to my secret mental place as that, yes.

 

[Calathar]

@Ollieh-well,actually if you don't live in some siberia, or amazonia,every time you walk out of your home/flat (and even inside) your lungs are attacked by zillions of toxic gases from fabrics,cars,etc...going down the street filled with cars is far more dangerous for your health than 1 cig. Now i'm smoking 10 yrs and i was in hospital once cozz i was hit by car...no lungs problems,no flus,no colds,i'm perfectly health,and i don't have a problem that my taxes (much more higher than no-smokers,thanks to gov.) are going for some sick ppl,so why you have?
@Redcoat-you have the same opinion bout alcohol,cofee or weed?Just curious