My opinion: Ban it altogether, like drugs. After all, it (the smoke) affects everyone on the face of the planet, and whether or not you like it, it affects you, negatively.
I, for instance, virtually suffocate every time I get near (80m radius) Tobacco smoke; the closer - the worse. As for drinking - no-one else is directly affected, for good or bad. Te alcohol remains in you. The smoke form cigars, cigarettes and pipes is exhaled for the public to inhale.
So, what are the comments? (No, I certainly have no intentions of getting into the 'bad habit' of smoking.)
JH
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
It is a grey area for me.
I personally don't smoke, and don't really care too much to be around people who do. Even though I have many friends who smoke.
But if you ban smoking altogether, then you probably ought to ban drinking alcohol, etc. And where do you draw the line? And who would enforce all of that? It would be an absolutely nightmare to try to enforce it -- just as the drug war is now.
Farmgirl
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think the current compromise in Norway is a good one : No smoking in public places. That's where it annoys others. What you do in your own home is your own business. I also think other drugs should be legalised; again, no smoking marijuana in public. Inject heroin if you must, but God help the addict who leaves his needles around. And so on.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Raise cigarette prices or taxes by 2000%, and restrict alcohol to x number of alcohol, proportional to the other liquids you drank with it, and you may not leave the bar y hours after drinking z drinks.
Alcohol, though, is seperate from smoking.
And those who are not affected by alcohol, must have a special permit for drinking infinite amounts.
I know that restrictions in Europe are working fine...
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
quote:It is a grey area for me.
*snurfle*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think the current compromise in Norway is a good one : No smoking in public places. That's where it annoys others. What you do in your own home is your own business.
This doesn't address the children of smokers who are adversely affected by the smoking.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: Drunk drivers. (Drunk drivers kill) Abusive spouses Abusive parents (granted that isn't an indicator of drinking itself, but it exacerbates those particular societal problems)
Again, not direct damage, like cigarettes; as they are public health and possibly emotionally hazardous. Alcohol only follows rule #2.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I prefer that the government not ban things that don't absolutely need to be banned. But I'm fine with preventing smokers from smoking in public, as it does effect non-smokers, sometimes significantly. And I suppose I tend to see the right not to do something as more important than the right to do something, in many cases. So my right not to inhale cigarette smoke is more important than someone's right to inhale it. However, the right to smoke should be protected whenever feasible, for example in a person's own home. I'd be ok with legalizing drugs for this same reason, as long as people are not under the influence in public.
Edit to respond to MPH: I'd be fine with classifying smoking around minors as child abuse of some kind.
[ January 13, 2005, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Shigosei ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The problem is defining "in public." Would smoking clubs be illegal? What about hotel rooms? What about if you have an open house?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm allergic to cigarette smoke, but banning it will not work. Why not just raise the taxes on it? And, legalize reefer, impose high taxes on that and use the money towards education and the arts.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
A relative of mine is not affected by alcohol. If he drinks too much of it, he goes sick; but no emotional change. I have witnessed it myself. For those people, who might want to drink immense amounts for the taste - they must get a medical permit.
[ January 13, 2005, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: A dunk driver doesn't affect the person they kill or the famlies of both invlved?
He does, but not directly. The emotional change in him, caused by the alcohol, does not mean that the alcohol directly affected the dead: it passed through a body, its behaviour and an action of driving a car.
Cigarette smoke passes directly via a human instinct of inhaling.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The prohibitions are working fine in Norway. It basically applies to restaurants and bars, plus of course government offices. A few cases where people have formed "private clubs" with membership fees paid at the door have popped up, which is fine with me - all the stupid people in one place, and paying extra for it at that.
Smoking as child abuse is one I didn't think of, but may indeed be a good idea. Still, one thing at a time.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
"No smoking in a 25m path of a child", Or however it ain't phrased.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: I'd also liike to say that my grandfather was a drunk. A mean drunk. I carry the scars today of his drunken rages. How do you figure I wasn't affected by his drnking?
You are, indirectly.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:legalize reefer, impose high taxes on that and use the money towards education and the arts.
I have a problem with setting up a situation where we might want to make sure as many people as possible smoke pot so that we can pay for our schools.
Posted by Homestarrunner (Member # 5090) on :
quote:Te alcohol remains in you.
But not for long. Drink too much and it will escape in some form of bodily fluid.
Plus, it makes your breath reek. Blech.
As far as smoking, I like the ban on smoking in public places. I would certainly prefer it if no one smoked at all anywhere, but I don't think banning it would be that effective.It would just make a lot more people break the law.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: The prohibitions are working fine in Norway. It basically applies to restaurants and bars, plus of course government offices. A few cases where people have formed "private clubs" with membership fees paid at the door have popped up, which is fine with me - all the stupid people in one place, and paying extra for it at that.
How is that different from what a lot of states have already set up? If you can still smoke outdoors than you have that barrier of smoke that people have to pass through to enter buildings. Personally, I have to hold my breath when passing through these "zones" or go into a coughing fit.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
BookWyrm, there's a line here that you're ignoring. When someone smokes in a public area, the smoke will directly affect others in the area. Many people have very violent reactions to cigarette smoke, and simply standing next to someone who is smoking for 10 minutes can leave them coughing and feeling bad for a week. Secondhand smoke in public areas is an inherent part of the cigarette experience. The only way to prevent it is to put a wall between the smoker and the innocent bystanders.
The only direct effect of alcohol is confined to the user of the alcohol. When a person drinks a beer, it doesn't automatically cause everyone in a 20 foot radius to also drink beer. If someone has four martinis, their sober dinner companions won't wake up with hangovers the next day.
Now, of course, how the user of the alcohol reacts to it, and how responsible they are about their limitations, can vary widely. Some people are extremely irresponsible when they are drinking. However, it's not a direct and inevitable consequence of drinking. Between the drink and the crashed car is the person who didn't stop drinking when he should have, and didn't listen to her friends wanting to drive her home.
You can say that you want to ban alcohol, because people who drink alcohol are sometimes irresponsible about it, and make bad decisions. But then, why not ban anything that might make someone irresponsible or prone to bad decisions? Kids screaming in the back seat of a car can be frustrating, distracting, and lead to a car accident. Ban kids in cars? Getting dumped by a significant other can leave a person feeling violent and depressed, leading to possible outbursts against strangers, so maybe ending a relationship should be illegal? The Columbine kids went on a shooting spree because they didn't like their athletic classmates... should we do away with high school sports?
See, when it comes to indirect effects, like irresponsible alcohol consumption leading to a car accident, what matters isn't so much the stimulus, but how the person responds to it. Not everyone who drinks a beer is going to end up with their car wrapped around a tree. Lots and lots of people drink responsibly, and feel they should have a right to do so, when their drinking doesn't directly or indirectly affect anyone else. That some people aren't responsible about it is a problem, but lots of people aren't responsible about a lot of things, and we as a society still allow it.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Excellent phrasing of my intentions, Zeugma! My thanks.
It is true, the fact that someone has a sip of wine does not cause you to bleed to death from a car accident. I'm not saying that alcohol cannot be dangerous; rather that if you ban alcohol, smoking should be prohibited as well. Whether or not that is to be done, is another issue.
I never broke bones from a person drinking, but I almost caused a major fight downtown during a happy day. I got into a fight with a very red man, I was heated then. It would've been bad health for us both, had people not seperated us.
Again, that's indirect: not unimportant, but indirect.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Jonathan Howard, do you regularly vote conservative?
It seems like you're on the opposite side of the political spectrum from me with your leaning toward banning things that are bad for you. I usually side with allowing people more freedom.
Even though, smoking is really quite stupid in my opinion, people should be allowed to do it where it's not hurting other people. I would say that banning smoking in ALL public places is going too far to prevent people from harm from unwanted smoke. I think a solution outlawing smoking in public buildings and within 10m of the entrances would be fine. It would be quite a headache for heavy smokers who were forced to go all day without any cigarettes because they were banned from smoking in any public place. Nicotine has some pretty hard to deal with withdrawal symptoms (similar to those related to not getting enough oxygen at high altitudes). There's no reason to completely ban smoking in public to remove the traces of annoying smoke that would be left (that wouldn't cause so much as a cough to someone on the street).
quote:Raise cigarette prices or taxes by 2000%...
Raising cigarette taxes with the goal of forcing people to quit is severely punishing them for their addiction to something that they are legally free to use. This country is a constitutional republic built around the principle of protecting the members of the minority, even if they are undesirable. In this case, your undesirable minority is the group of smokers. You, as the majority, are not free to pass arbitrary legislation on them to make it impossible for them to smoke, just as you wouldn't be allowed levy a tax on people who choose to go to a certain church. Even if they burn incense at that church.
quote:...and restrict alcohol to x number of alcohol, proportional to the other liquids you drank with it, and you may not leave the bar y hours after drinking z drinks.
People should be free to drink within the current laws. In some states, bars are forbidden to sell alcohol to people who are visibly intoxicated. Isn't that enough? Yes, we have many drunk drivers on our roads, but forbidding them from leaving bars isn't the best solution I see. I think offering tax credits (or reduced-price liquor licenses) to bars that have a take-your-keys program where they're returned to you upon you passing a breathalyzer test or designating somebody else to drive you home would be a better solution than forcing people to stay in the bars. How would you have bar managers force people to stay after they want to close down for the night?
My point is that you seem to be unnecissarily restricting people's freedoms. I believe we should hold any bill that restricts rights to a very high standard before considering passing it. How could we say we live in a free society if we're not even allowed to walk home from a bar until our mommy the bartender tells us it's okay?
Our money would be much better spent educating people about the dangers of tobacco and alcohol and treating those who have problems. This does not require that responsible users of these legal substances should have their rights curtailed.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: Jonathan Howard, do you regularly vote conservative?
I'm too young to vote, and I'm not an American citizen.
Remember, too, that the educational system is lying 50m under a pile of **** underground; this is global, so how much do you think 'teaching about drugs, cigs and alcohol' will help when the kids have other things in mind?.
The 10m limit can also be problematic, too static, yet more complexity will be just overdone (in the law).
The idea of the -
quote: take-your-keys program where they're returned to you upon you passing a breathalyzer test or designating somebody else to drive you home
- is simply better implementation of what I had in mind; a certain way of vrifying people are in 'normal' status after they were in a bar. I mean, as long as bars are to maintain drivers' soberness (soberty? Help! Suffixes!), then the situation improves.
Trying to correct laws ain't easy. How about curfews? Maybe using thenm to somehow reduce problems?
God, I do sound conservative... And I support the modern-hippy movement (in Israel, at least).
JH
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
I'm a cigar smoker, and one of my favorite nighttime activities is smoking cigars with my friends at a local coffee shop at an outside table. However, I completely respect the rights of others, and I know that quite a few people are allergic to smoke, or just don't like to be around it. I hate the idea of completely eliminating smoking in a public place, but I certainly think there should be designated areas for smokers (and I don't mean smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants - smoke drifts, so often these sections don't even work.) I believe in Austin smoking has been banned in public buildings. My sister lives there, and though she says it can be nice to enjoy a smoke-free atmosphere, she occasionally likes to smoke a cigarette when she goes out, and now she can't. Also, if smoking was banned in public, I'd have to smoke entirely in my car or apartment, and then Toretha wouldn't ever be able to come over. Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: However, I completely respect the rights of others, and I know that quite a few people are allergic to smoke, or just don't like to be around it.
If only all smokers were like you! At least, when you smoke, you respect others' problems with smoke and try to reduce them. You set an example! Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm actually bothered far more often by excess perfume or scented fumes roiling off someone's hairdo than I am by smoke - the smoke is easier to avoid due to current rules.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: I'm actually bothered far more often by excess perfume or scented fumes roiling off someone's hairdo
Ozone? Or did I get it wrong?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Remember, too, that the educational system is lying 50m under a pile of **** underground; this is global, so how much do you think 'teaching about drugs, cigs and alcohol' will help when the kids have other things in mind?.
No matter what you do, you're not going to stop people from trying tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs. The entire drug education system (at least what I see in the USA) needs a complete overhaul and restructuring. We've gone over this a dozen times here at Hatrack, so I won't talk about it too much.
The first thing we need to do is recognize that we're not going to stop drug use (or at least sampling) through education. Especially not if we use the old "All drugs are bad and will kill you" lines. When a teenager's friends are trying weed out behind the school and nothing bad happens to them because of it, who is a kid going to believe? His friends, or some cop who talked to his class in 5th grade. Recognizing this, drug educators need to give truthful and far more complete information about drugs, emphasize safety, stress that pressuring somebody into trying something they don't want to do is bad, and teach many methods of dealing with negative drug situations (i.e. addicted and abusive friends, responsibility while intoxicated, and how to recognize and deal with being addicted yourself.)
I believe it is possible to do a better job of drug education. Focus on keeping people safe first, then think about keeping them legal.
quote:Ozone? Or did I get it wrong?
That strong undesirable scent is not Ozone, it's the Axe Effect.
[ January 13, 2005, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:How is that different from what a lot of states have already set up? If you can still smoke outdoors than you have that barrier of smoke that people have to pass through to enter buildings. Personally, I have to hold my breath when passing through these "zones" or go into a coughing fit.
It's different because it was done at a national level by a proper socialist government, not as an optional thing by Evil Capitalist Americans (tm). It's also different because, with our climate, smoking outdoors is just not very attractive.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
"all the stupid people in one place"
Wow. I smoke, so in your view I'm stupid. I hate it when people say things like that, I really do. I'm not overweight, and being overweight is a health risk - but I certainly would never call an overweight person stupid.
space opera
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I certainly would never call an overweight person stupid.
I might, but not because they are overweight.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
She's right. I never insulted smokers, unless they refused to turn off the cigarettes (inside a bus stop), in which case they are *beep*ing bastards.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Good luck trying to ban a drug that is more addictive than heroin, and causes less of a noticeable high than marijuana. (Well, unless you use entirely too much in one sitting. No one does this because of the nausea.) Besides, tobacco companies will have more money than prohibitionists for quite some time, and already buy off Congressmen.
Smoking should be banned in government buildings, and up to the owner of private businesses. This is exactly the opposite of the current situation in Lexington. If it is outside, deal with it, although it is common courtesy for smokers to stand downwind.
Smoking in the same room or vehicle as a minor ought to be classified as a mild form of abuse.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
As for stupidity... if you have not rationally looked at the cost/benefit ratio, which will be different for everyone, you are stupid. If you have and decided in favor, you are not. If you have and decided against, you are addicted. No one under 35 or so can claim they were not warned, often to excess by people with nothing better to do with their time.
Nicotine is like any other stimulant. Everyone who uses knows how bad it is. They just do not care.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
So why seperate nicotine and other drugs, such as cocaine?
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Why should you? All drugs should be legal, and any that do not involve smoking should be legal to use in public areas, as well as private areas where the owner has given permission. The situation in America is pretty much the more harmful a drug is to your general health and/or brain cells, the less regulated it is. Alcohol and nicotine are kinda-sorta regulated, morphine and opium are quite illegal, and for the most part solvents can be purchased by a six year old child. And make no mistake, if kids and adolescents cannot get good drugs, some of them will turn to solvents.
Edit: Cocaine specifically causes a little brain damage with heavy use, although less than alcohol. If insufflated constantly, it will dissolve the septum. Taken sublingually it is slightly less efficient, but less damaging. It is better than amphetamines in pretty much every way. In America, the Adderall (amphetamine trade name) given out like candy to "ADHD" children and adults tastes like... candy.
[ January 13, 2005, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Danzig avoiding landmarks ]
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Horrifying! I'm shocked at the atrocities!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: if kids and adolescents cannot get good drugs, some of them will turn to solvents.
And if they can't get the solvents, they'll turn to scarring theimselves?
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
I said solvents when I should have said inhalants in general. No matter how hard you try, you will never ban inhalants so long as this country uses gasoline in any significant quantities. In my admittedly small sample of acquaintances and friends who cut, two used very moderate amounts of alcohol, and one drank and smoked pot. I would much rather my minor child drink or smoke marijuana than cut, and an adult child use most (although not all) drugs.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What is an adult child?
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Is it static?
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
I actually have no moral problem with laws making it illegal for minors to use drugs, but the people drafting the laws need to be realistic. Search deep within your soul, and ask yourself whether you really care more about sending a message that drugs are wrong, especially for kids, or preventing more harm to those same children while perhaps not being able to take quite so high a moral ground.
Edit: an adult child is one that has reached the age of majority. Still 21 in this country, no matter how much you punish 18, 19, and 20 year olds for drinking alcohol or refusing to be drafted.
[ January 13, 2005, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Danzig avoiding landmarks ]
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Look, I smoke and am working towards quitting. It's a daily struggle, sometimes I win, sometimes I lose.
But you can just go banning tobacco use or regulate where it can be used. Is it a public health risk? Possibly, but it has been noted time and time again that the risks of second hand smoke have been grossly overstated, using more emotion than scientific testing.
But say we do ban smoking from all public areas because of the perceived health risk to non-smokers. Shouldn't we also ban people with the flu from going out into public? Influenza is a much bigger and more immediate health risk.
I don't remember seeing many folks (outside of Japan and Korea) in public wearing surgical masks when they are sick to prevent the spread of their ailment. (Barring Michael Jackson...)
What about banning loud people from public places? They can be nuisances, and those who are noisy in theaters should probably be jailed with no parole...
Lastly, let's look at banning the public appearance of one of the most insidious of threats to public health and tranquility... the do-gooding Puritan. Perhaps stress levels would drop and civility levels would climb if we weren't constantly surrounded by the easily offended.
As H.L. Mencken proclaimed, "The problem with a Puritan is that they are so afriad that someone, somewhere might be having a good time."
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
quote: I'm too young to vote, and I'm not an American citizen.
Is it possible that because of your age, you are only repeating what they drill into your brain at school?
quote: The first thing we need to do is recognize that we're not going to stop drug use (or at least sampling) through education. Especially not if we use the old "All drugs are bad and will kill you" lines. When a teenager's friends are trying weed out behind the school and nothing bad happens to them because of it, who is a kid going to believe?
Honestly, I have issues with people who condemn drug use without any first hand knowledge of it. Most teachers/ police have no first hand knowledge (or at least the ones who teach health classes). I personally don't do drugs, But thats because my first time, the weed was laced and nobody told me, I went on a "bad trip". Between that experience and being around friends while they are under various influences. I've decided that "drugs" aren't for me. But I in no way condemn anyone who does do drugs, as long as they are responsible about it (i.e. they have a "fire watcher" who isn't on any thing, including alcohol).
quote: all the stupid people in one place
Speaking as a former smoker, we aren't stupid, we know very well what we are doing to ourselves. I for one thought of it as committing suicide one puff at a time, but that is just my dark humor. Smoking is a social event, if you don't like it, don't socialize with it. IN Bloomington, there is a ban on smoking inside public buildings (any building that is none residential, or a hotel of some kind). That works for a lot of people, I mean it is rather miserable in the winter months, but thats the price you pay for it.
Just to clarify, I *USED* to smoke, i quit due to my inability to smoke during the school day (1 I'm a minor 2 it's against state law for anyone to smoke with in a 100 yards of a school). I never smoked around other people without asking if it bothered them (even people whom i smoked around before). And I never gave cigarettes to other minors. I picked up smoking while i was in europe and was of legal age there. I have no problem breaking the age requirements myself, but I wasn't about to let another minor do it just to socialize.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: Lost Ashes
Don't lose them, make them ashes; fight the smoking 'problem' if you want, and have my true appreciation that you are fighting off addiction!
Way to go!
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
In regards to the perfume and influenza infection in public, I think that it would be great if people did wear masks in public when they were sick, or better yet, stayed home. And I think it's rude to wear tons of perfume, something that can also be a health-hazard due to allergic reactions. I don't favor banning perfume, though. It would be much harder to enforce than a smoking ban anyway.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Strangely enough, the name Lost Ashes has nothing to do with smoking, but more about being homesick now and then (the name of the place was Ashe County...).
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
I felt guilty when I bought tobacco products for minors, and quit some time ago. I doubt I will have any guilt about purchasing alcohol for 18-20 year olds when the time comes, or seniors in high school. If you are old enough to die for your country, or be recruited to die, or be tried as an adult for any crime, you are old enough to drink.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
And old enough to break the law for them, apparently.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Life's strange!
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Shigosei, why would it be harded to ban perfumes in public? It is a choice to wear perfume and it isn't addictive (of course with as heavily as some like to wear it, you might be able to argue that).
Truly, though, if you are worried about breathing in carcinogens don't start with smokers, they are a minor thing in comparison to the pollutants released from automobiles, airplanes and buses. Heck, for that matter, the electricity you are using right now created more air pollution than any smoker you will ever meet if you trace it back to the power generation plant.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Actually, I don't think so. Our electricity comes from hydroelectric power. Whatever it may do to the fish, it doesn't produce carcinogens. But yeah, you have a point.
It would be theoretically possible to ban the sale of perfume, but that would never fly. So then, how do we regulate the use of it in public? I guess everyone who smells strongly could be required to take a shower, but that would start getting really repressive after awhile. I think it's best to "regulate" this sort of thing socially rather than legally. It's socially unacceptable now to smell of body odor, but not illegal. Nevertheless, these social rules do a good job of preventing a smelly populace.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
In this case, the law is wrong. Either raise the age of everything else back to 21, or lower the drinking age to 18.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
I'm with Danzig on this one.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
There's evidence that the brain doesn't stop developing and maturing until the age of 25. Much as I'd hate it, should we consider raising the age-of-everything to that? Wouldn't that be far less arbitrary than 18 or 21?
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
The higher the age requirements, the less and less people will wait till they are of legal age to partake of these substances.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
As Stryker has already noted, that gets into the issue of practicality, but morally there would be nothing wrong with it. I wish my parents and/or the law would have realized caffeine really can get one high, and forced me to wait longer than I did. I do not really regret drinking a few times (and smoking tobacco once) when I was seventeen, but they could have waited a year or two.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Truly, a contention that I've had with the anti-smoking movement has been this...
We all no cigarettes are bad for you. You'll find nary a smoker who doesn't sheepishly say "Yep, they're killing me" if they are asked.
But a few decades ago, cigarette manufacturers were made to introduce filtered cigarettes by the federal government to reduce, at least somewhat, the health problems they caused.
Since then, the tobacco industry, in light of massive waiting litigation, has had to take the rather nonsensical (downright lying) stance that "There's no real proof that cigarettes are hazardous."
They know they are lying. We know they are lying. But they have people ready to fight that fight at a moment's notice, and they are very, very prepared. It's because they know that in today's climate to admit such a thing would be the death knell for their industry.
Why is this important? Simply because the industry could not even try to research a "safer" cigarette without at some point admitting that cigarettes were unsafe. Remember, that is the Surgeon General's warning on the packs, not the tobacco companies'.
So, adult smokers are caught between a rock and a hard place. If they want to smoke, they've got to run the risks (and the cancer part is not guaranteed to happen, nor the emphysema). A safer cigarette can't and won't be made simply because of the liability it sets up for the tobacco industry.
RJR had to pretty much bury the Eclipse smokeless cigarettes years ago, although they still do a bit of guerilla advertising for them in "smoke free" areas like airport lounges. You'll see someone smoking one with the pack on the table... but you can't just go and buy a pack anywhere... very curious.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I don't have the time to debate right now, but I'll definately be checking the thread later (gotta put the goblins in bed soon).
I do have to relate what was to me a mildly amusing anti-cigarette commerical, however. The commerical says something about how in New York they have to sell (crap - forget the actual wording) a "safer" cigarette because cigarettes kill people by starting fires in bed. It then went on to ask, "Why do you sell something that kills your customers?" Mr. Opera (who doesn't smoke, never has, and never will) just about lost it laughing. We both agreed that smoking in bed and killing yourself was more the fault of a badly thought-out decision, and something that shouldn't be put on cigarette manufacturers' shoulders.
space opera
Posted by NinjaBirdman (Member # 7114) on :
I pretty much agree with Danzig on most of what he said.
I don't think drugs should be illegal. We spend too much money putting people in jail for doing/selling drugs when we should be using that money to help drug users with their addictions.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Honestly I do not think addicts really deserve government-funded treatment. Either they knew the risks, or they were irresponsible enough to start in ignorance. I do agree the money would be better spent on programs, especially voluntary ones, but I do not think most people started because someone held a gun to their head.
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
Stryker: you are a fan of bending the truth. Was Mary Ellis not a minor??
I think that marijuana has no reason to be illegal if tobacco and alcohol are legal. I am much more weary of other drugs. I do not think drug use should be a crime punishable my jail. I am ok with the fact it is a crime to use drugs besids marijuana, but why not a fine or community service? It makes sense to me that drug dealers are put in jail. That might not make a whole lot of sense to other people, but I think it is worse to sell a harmful substance then it is to use it.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Narcotic analgesics, while being slightly faster addicting than alcohol (and less so than tobacco) are some of the least damaging drugs around... assuming access to an adequate, pure supply. People lucky enough to get adequate prescriptions for legitimate pain get a tolerance as fast as recreational users, but because they have a permission slip it is not "addiction", it is tolerance or at most dependence. Cocaine HCl is in between caffeine and alcohol as far as the speed, and around alcohol as far as reinforcement goes, with no true physical withdrawals. With the possible exceptions of cocaine freebase and smoked methamphetamine, nicotine is the most addictive drug known to man.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:There's evidence that the brain doesn't stop developing and maturing until the age of 25. Much as I'd hate it, should we consider raising the age-of-everything to that? Wouldn't that be far less arbitrary than 18 or 21?
The problem with that is that we really need younger people than 25 in the military.
Posted by gingerjam (Member # 7113) on :
I live in Australia and we have no smoking in any public buildings apart from bars...and that is about to be changed for the health of the workers i think... though here 18 is the age where you can smoke/drink/drive/go to jail etc... i don't think you can ban smoking or drinking, but the laws and taxes and education campaigns can make it a harder choice. Already we have no advertising for smoking with big warnings on the packets and soon won't be able to advertise alcohol on TV at least...
on a recent trip we actually had to leave the airports at strange (and cold) hours of the morning in Vienna, London and Scotland because the smokers ruled and we who like fresh air and get asthma attacks from cigarette smoke were the ones punished for not smoking. likewise we couldn't find a place to have a coffee or eat anything that didn't choke us...
if a person decides to smoke they should be the ones disadvantaged, not the people who don't want to passively smoke a hundred different chemicals going through their bodies without filters... it's a basic human right to have fresh air.
That said i don't judge my friends who do smoke, it is their choice as long as it does not adversely affect those around them.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Die, kill, pay your taxes (protection money), vote, but do not drink. You have to be responsible to do that.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:There's evidence that the brain doesn't stop developing and maturing until the age of 25. Much as I'd hate it, should we consider raising the age-of-everything to that? Wouldn't that be far less arbitrary than 18 or 21?
That seems just as arbitrary to me. The drinking/smoking/driving/whatever ages are the way they are because those are the ages people are responsible enough to accept those risks (supposedly). In reality, a lot of 18 year-olds could handle alcohol, and a lot of 25 year-olds can't. So really any age you pick is an arbitrary one. Personally, I think 18 should be the age for both drinking alcohol and smoking alcohol or cannibis, but maybe that's just as arbitrary.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)