people saved by a ban > people killed by a ban
And barely anybody would die as a result of a cigarette ban, we're not talking about meth
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Smoking? Should it be illegal?
- Thread starter Gr0ud0np0wer
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
people saved by a ban > people killed by a ban
And barely anybody would die as a result of a cigarette ban, we're not talking about meth
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
prohibition act. know it, people. thats the reason why alcohol was allowed again.
It's not 1930 anymore
The main source of money for drug dealers now = cocaine, pharmaceutical pills, heroin, meth, crack and to a lesser extent weed, ecstasy, mushrooms, pcp, etc
If tobacco was banned it would be quite profitable but not a huge market like crack and it doesn't have the same effects as harder addictive drugs to increase the crime rate too badly
The main source of money for drug dealers now = cocaine, pharmaceutical pills, heroin, meth, crack and to a lesser extent weed, ecstasy, mushrooms, pcp, etc
If tobacco was banned it would be quite profitable but not a huge market like crack and it doesn't have the same effects as harder addictive drugs to increase the crime rate too badly
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
it being 1930 back then is irrelevant. theyre substances people get addicted to. point out a REAL difference.
It's not irrelevant, the drug market is much bigger with many more drugs now than 78 years ago
A real difference:
- Meth/Crack/etc cause a strong pleasurable high
- Meth/Crack/etc cause aggressive/impulsive behaviour in addicts to a higher degree than tobacco
-Meth/Crack/etc are arguably more addictive than tobacco as well(how many people successfully quit tobacco opposed to heroin)
-Meth/Crack/etc create a much deeper bond with the user than tobacco
I will think of more later
A real difference:
- Meth/Crack/etc cause a strong pleasurable high
- Meth/Crack/etc cause aggressive/impulsive behaviour in addicts to a higher degree than tobacco
-Meth/Crack/etc are arguably more addictive than tobacco as well(how many people successfully quit tobacco opposed to heroin)
-Meth/Crack/etc create a much deeper bond with the user than tobacco
I will think of more later
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
wouldnt that make the ban an even worse idea? an addictive substance is an addictive substance. now youre just encouraging them to take drugs!It's not irrelevant, the drug market is much bigger with many more drugs now than 78 years ago
none of these are relevant. both substances are addictive. that is all thats necessary for the ban to produce bad things. you could say the same things about these to alcohol.A real difference:
- Meth/Crack/etc cause a strong pleasurable high
- Meth/Crack/etc cause aggressive/impulsive behaviour in addicts to a higher degree than tobacco
-Meth/Crack/etc are arguably more addictive than tobacco as well(how many people successfully quit tobacco opposed to heroin)
-Meth/Crack/etc create a much deeper bond with the user than tobacco
I will think of more later
My point = tobacco is addictive but to a lesser extent(with lesser consequences) than hard drugs.
Hard drugs will lead you to prison, hospital or death, tobacco will eventually do that too, but at a much slower pace
Sure there might be a bit more crime if you ban tobacco but the real crime will stay in the cocaine game, it's just not the same at all
And the number of lives saved would make it worthwhile in the end
Hard drugs will lead you to prison, hospital or death, tobacco will eventually do that too, but at a much slower pace
Sure there might be a bit more crime if you ban tobacco but the real crime will stay in the cocaine game, it's just not the same at all
And the number of lives saved would make it worthwhile in the end
Yellow Torterra
Otter
Well at least some countries are experimenting with banning
here i mexico at the apital you cant smoke inside buidings so you not harm not-smokers, but there is a bad thing, autside buildings there are thousands af cigarrets tails in the floor
But still I think they should ban cigarrets unless you are 18+ and only outside
here i mexico at the apital you cant smoke inside buidings so you not harm not-smokers, but there is a bad thing, autside buildings there are thousands af cigarrets tails in the floor
But still I think they should ban cigarrets unless you are 18+ and only outside
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
number of lives saved from banning smoking completely? are you still forgetting the family in the homes? are you still forgetting a repeat of al capone and more cigar mafias?
Wert_the_Wolf
I want your cheese..
You're forgetting that there are far more people addicted to cigarettes than to illegal drugs, and far more people that would be willing to try to find cigarettes illegally than the ones willing to go find drugs illegally. Banning cigarettes is a very bad idea, and it's just another way to strip away our freedoms. I hate the thought of smoking, I think it's a filthy habit and you take your life in your own hands on the first puff. I've had three different family members die of cancer from smoking, all horrendously gruesome deaths, but banning them will only do the same thing that prohibition did.
I don't think smoking should be banned. Like drugs, alcohol and other substances, people choose to smoke. Sure, it's addictive, but people have a choice about smoking. People have a right to choose.
However, I do agree with banning smoking inside restaurants and place where many people gather indoors. You also can't really regulate a ban of smoking. They tried (as far as I heard down here) to fine people for smoking... but you can't really stop people from smoking in their own homes, I mean, what are you gonna do? Door to door searches...waste of people and resources.
I also dont like under-age smoking teenagers that do it because they think it's "cool"... but that's people these days...(kind of ironic in my case)
Banning the sale of cigarettes will possibly cause more harm to people than smoking them. Going cold turkey is extremely hard, an extremely addictive substance taken away from someone at short notice will send the person into withdrawal and shock because they always smoked and now it's not there so they have trouble getting through the day.
Also when something is banned, it becomes more desirable, which will make people more and more desperate to get some tobacco. It would be like prohibition, but worse. Crime rates will go up because people (really addicted people) would do anything to get a cig.
Having narcotics police wouldn't really help...If in America, people could cross the borders to another state, Canada or mexico, where smoking might not be banned. Down here in Australia, only a state might've banned it, or if it's entirely banned, New Zealand might not have banned them.
People will still find a way to get them and smoke them. Sure, support groups and the ban will help SOME people... a small percentage of current smokers.
Also if people die, that's because of what they choose, just like alcohol, drugs... but that's their choice.
(Sorry to anyone who has lost someone to any of the above...)
_______________________________________________________________________
$Cash$: Yeah, tobacco isn't as addictive as meth or the like, but more people smoke cigarettes (notice the plural) every day. People take hard drugs 1, 2 times a day tops. Some smokers can go through an entire packet in a day. More cigarettes = more tobacco. (correct me if I'm wrong...I wouldn't be surprised if I was)
_______________________________________________________________________
All in all, I personally don't like smoking, but banning it would be like taking away our right to choose. I do have somewhat experience, my parents smoke and some friends, but that's their choice, and I don't judge them because of it.
Also, one last thing... People still use illegal drugs right? The legality of the drugs don't bother them, that won't be any different for cigarettes but more will become criminals.
However, I do agree with banning smoking inside restaurants and place where many people gather indoors. You also can't really regulate a ban of smoking. They tried (as far as I heard down here) to fine people for smoking... but you can't really stop people from smoking in their own homes, I mean, what are you gonna do? Door to door searches...waste of people and resources.
I also dont like under-age smoking teenagers that do it because they think it's "cool"... but that's people these days...(kind of ironic in my case)
Banning the sale of cigarettes will possibly cause more harm to people than smoking them. Going cold turkey is extremely hard, an extremely addictive substance taken away from someone at short notice will send the person into withdrawal and shock because they always smoked and now it's not there so they have trouble getting through the day.
Also when something is banned, it becomes more desirable, which will make people more and more desperate to get some tobacco. It would be like prohibition, but worse. Crime rates will go up because people (really addicted people) would do anything to get a cig.
Having narcotics police wouldn't really help...If in America, people could cross the borders to another state, Canada or mexico, where smoking might not be banned. Down here in Australia, only a state might've banned it, or if it's entirely banned, New Zealand might not have banned them.
People will still find a way to get them and smoke them. Sure, support groups and the ban will help SOME people... a small percentage of current smokers.
Also if people die, that's because of what they choose, just like alcohol, drugs... but that's their choice.
(Sorry to anyone who has lost someone to any of the above...)
_______________________________________________________________________
$Cash$: Yeah, tobacco isn't as addictive as meth or the like, but more people smoke cigarettes (notice the plural) every day. People take hard drugs 1, 2 times a day tops. Some smokers can go through an entire packet in a day. More cigarettes = more tobacco. (correct me if I'm wrong...I wouldn't be surprised if I was)
_______________________________________________________________________
All in all, I personally don't like smoking, but banning it would be like taking away our right to choose. I do have somewhat experience, my parents smoke and some friends, but that's their choice, and I don't judge them because of it.
Also, one last thing... People still use illegal drugs right? The legality of the drugs don't bother them, that won't be any different for cigarettes but more will become criminals.
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
you didnt really make a valid argument andywoo but that's probably because you're another uptight anti-smoker.
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
they aren't heartless when the people actually buy it on their own will.
I don't think any drugs (that are not poisons) should be illegal, mostly because banning drugs just makes them "more desirable" etc. Although the government should strictly regulate both the usage and sales of them and educate everyone about them.
And while I do feel that smoking should not be illegal, I am not happy with the current product for you see it causes a ton of pollution... I am tired of both the emissions of smoking and tired of cigarette butts on every beach I visit, these companies should be required to manufactor a more quickly dissolving bio-degradable product that burns cleaner than the current product...
And while I do feel that smoking should not be illegal, I am not happy with the current product for you see it causes a ton of pollution... I am tired of both the emissions of smoking and tired of cigarette butts on every beach I visit, these companies should be required to manufactor a more quickly dissolving bio-degradable product that burns cleaner than the current product...
Tell that to automobile manufacturers.these companies should be required to manufactor a more quickly dissolving bio-degradable product that burns cleaner than the current product...
Sapphire_Pichu
I hate Ringo...
They've already banned smoking in some restaurants where I live. Even the really local one in my town. And they're trying to get it banned in Traverse City, as of... I think they started talking about it last year. So many people smoke in that city, its huge. I consider it like the Detroit of northern Michigan, but not as crowded. I don't think I'll die without a cigarette, but I might go nutty for a while. [I smoke occasionally...like once a week.]
They're also trying to create a smoke free dome at my college, because no matter where you go, there's always a smoker. Whether the sign says "Smoking Prohibited here." or not, people still smoke there carelessly.
They're also trying to create a smoke free dome at my college, because no matter where you go, there's always a smoker. Whether the sign says "Smoking Prohibited here." or not, people still smoke there carelessly.
I am not surprised to see so much pro-prohibition in a pokemon website no offense I love pokemon, but the truth is most of you are very naive. Some of you think that smoking will stop once the powers at be say smokings is illegal to possess, sale, and distribute. Drug prohibition is your best example of this, soon we will have indoor tobacco grow ops and an illegal and dangerous black market with no regulation, where it can be sold to minors, and controlled by gangs. Not to mention wanting to arrested and send tobacco smokers to prison. Personally that is ridiculous.
Lets propose a hypothetical, tomorrow, June 5, 2008 tobacco is made illicit schedule 1 controlled substance with heroin, lsd, psilocybin, and thc with no accepted medical value, not to mention meth and coke are schedule 2. People would go crazy tonight go and buy tons of cigs and nicotine gum, and prepare for tomorrow. Some people would quit, some with grow their own tobacco and become self sufficient, and some will turn to the black market. Tobacco is very addictive, if made illegal fear of going to jail is not going to stop the people who really want cigs. Just like if some person really want kill another person they would not care if guns are legal or illegal(the other farce of gun prohibition). IMO the view on drugs in this world needs to change, drugs dont kill people, peoples decisions kill people, drugs are a means just like a car or any object that has ability to be deadly. Why give up control of deadly and addictive substances to gangs and violent entrepreneurs.
Some of the users of this forum have made the arrgument that second hand smoke is violating the natural rights of the non-smoking individual, this completely true. Note: Tobacco smoke is small peas compared to car and industrial pollution. There are many ways to solve this problem, separate sections, and sending patrons outside to a specified smoking section with ashtrays. The problems arise when the non-smoking individual thinks his right is anymore important than right of the smoking individual to smoke.
Bottom line is that banning smoking would only create more problems than that solution even proposed to fix.
We dont treat alcoholics like criminals unless they violating the rights of another individual i.e. driving. The same should go for the currently illegal narcotics, entheogens and weed. The federal government should not have control over the substance I personally want to get intoxicated with. There is nothing inherently wrong with a guy getting high on crack or heroin or slight buzz of cigs, but if they steal, whether to support a habit or just for fun they should be arrested for the violation of the rights of the person they were stealing form. It should not matter whether they were high or drunk or sober.
Prohibtion from the 1930s is completely relevent, I will ask this question, "How are Al Capone and pablo Escobar the same?"
Just because tobacco is "bad"(very subjective) for the individual does give cause to prohibition, many things are I will say dangerous(have risks) that are not prohibited, just a few are high in fat foods, preservatives, cholesterol, radiation, pollution, t.v., cars, doing drugs (illegal, prescription, otc, legal), crossing streets, I got hit by a car on my bicycle while following all the rules of traffic. What I am trying to say is many things are dangerous and chosing only one to ban is discrimination.
The courts are already backed up with meaningless drugs charges why put more pressure on that system and not to mention pushing them into that room where lives get destroyed. A simple felony intent to distribute will cost people who want to get on with their lives, many jobs and time having to go through different loop holes. Kids can loose money for college and that usually leads to getting more involved in drugs and the illegal market. this is creating a permanent underclass of society that some of you want to include cig smokers, its crazy. this is taking another step away form real freedom. Dont let it happen. My favorite line from South Park "When it comes to kids and drugs, lying is ok.
Legalize everything, end the drug war, its a war on American citizens and those of you from other countries with prohibition, And to those of you in Amsterdam dont let them ban the shrooms.
Lets propose a hypothetical, tomorrow, June 5, 2008 tobacco is made illicit schedule 1 controlled substance with heroin, lsd, psilocybin, and thc with no accepted medical value, not to mention meth and coke are schedule 2. People would go crazy tonight go and buy tons of cigs and nicotine gum, and prepare for tomorrow. Some people would quit, some with grow their own tobacco and become self sufficient, and some will turn to the black market. Tobacco is very addictive, if made illegal fear of going to jail is not going to stop the people who really want cigs. Just like if some person really want kill another person they would not care if guns are legal or illegal(the other farce of gun prohibition). IMO the view on drugs in this world needs to change, drugs dont kill people, peoples decisions kill people, drugs are a means just like a car or any object that has ability to be deadly. Why give up control of deadly and addictive substances to gangs and violent entrepreneurs.
Some of the users of this forum have made the arrgument that second hand smoke is violating the natural rights of the non-smoking individual, this completely true. Note: Tobacco smoke is small peas compared to car and industrial pollution. There are many ways to solve this problem, separate sections, and sending patrons outside to a specified smoking section with ashtrays. The problems arise when the non-smoking individual thinks his right is anymore important than right of the smoking individual to smoke.
Bottom line is that banning smoking would only create more problems than that solution even proposed to fix.
We dont treat alcoholics like criminals unless they violating the rights of another individual i.e. driving. The same should go for the currently illegal narcotics, entheogens and weed. The federal government should not have control over the substance I personally want to get intoxicated with. There is nothing inherently wrong with a guy getting high on crack or heroin or slight buzz of cigs, but if they steal, whether to support a habit or just for fun they should be arrested for the violation of the rights of the person they were stealing form. It should not matter whether they were high or drunk or sober.
Prohibtion from the 1930s is completely relevent, I will ask this question, "How are Al Capone and pablo Escobar the same?"
Just because tobacco is "bad"(very subjective) for the individual does give cause to prohibition, many things are I will say dangerous(have risks) that are not prohibited, just a few are high in fat foods, preservatives, cholesterol, radiation, pollution, t.v., cars, doing drugs (illegal, prescription, otc, legal), crossing streets, I got hit by a car on my bicycle while following all the rules of traffic. What I am trying to say is many things are dangerous and chosing only one to ban is discrimination.
The courts are already backed up with meaningless drugs charges why put more pressure on that system and not to mention pushing them into that room where lives get destroyed. A simple felony intent to distribute will cost people who want to get on with their lives, many jobs and time having to go through different loop holes. Kids can loose money for college and that usually leads to getting more involved in drugs and the illegal market. this is creating a permanent underclass of society that some of you want to include cig smokers, its crazy. this is taking another step away form real freedom. Dont let it happen. My favorite line from South Park "When it comes to kids and drugs, lying is ok.
Legalize everything, end the drug war, its a war on American citizens and those of you from other countries with prohibition, And to those of you in Amsterdam dont let them ban the shrooms.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.