Should smoking be banned outright?

Post Reply New Topic

I am and I can tell you, people do not smoke because they enjoy it, they might start because they enjoy it but they do not continue because they enjoy it. I maybe enjoyed it the first couple of years I was smoking - you get a sort of headrush or high. That was 22 years ago. The things you're talking about are all so minor in effect as to be negligible after you've been smoking a while. It gives a very mild bit of short term relaxation, but that's more than cancelled out by the massive anxiety it causes. Not just anxiety about the effects of smoking, it just plain causes anxiety, that's the mechanism of dependancy. That's what makes you reach for another cigarrette, the rising anxiety caused by not having one for a while. You have one ... and then you're not actually relaxed, relative to normal, you're just normal. Then the anxiety starts building again til you have another. That's how it works.

The ads are not effective in making people with strong dependancy or who are self-medicating, quit. They cause anxiety. Anxiety is the mechanism of dependancy. It's a stimulant, but it has a very short-term effect as a depressant when initially ingested. So it calms, then excites. That's the psychological dependancy, which is the primary factor that determines whether someone can quit or not (the physical aspect is about the same for everyone). They do not "subconsciously" influence anyone to quit, there is not an iota of data to support they have any sort of positive subconscious effect. They scare some people into quitting - consciously, and because they are able.

And it is used as self-medication. 80-90% of schizophrenics smoke, for example.

Last edited by edgewaters on 29 May 2012, 4:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

can you really speak for every single smoker out there,

what about pipe smokers?
what about cigar smokers?
what about hookah smokers?

genralizations.
not that you arent right certain people would be drawn to the self medicative side of it.

Moreso than a nonsmoker, yes.



Don't know and can't say, but they're not really targets in the same way. You don't see negative depictions of them in ads, and there's not some giant picture of a dead person on their hookah.

As a smoker I often wonder how many activities are actually more injurous to health than smoking but do not receive the attention that smoking gets. Off the top of my head two come to mind -- sky diving and skiing.

No, it should not be illegel.

True. But constitutionally it has no right to do so. That State is the main source of evil in our society.

ruveyn

Constitutionally, the state can force you to go fight a war for it. I'd scrap the constitution if I were you.

I actually believe in ruveyn's statement. As long as it doesn't affect others, everyone should be able to do as they please. My previous statement has an inmediate flaw though, if for example I was hooked on drugs or something I'd prefer to be treated against my will than be able to ruin my life as I please. That makes a bit of an interesting conversation, but it doesn't belong to this thread.

About cigarettes, wasn't the Prohibition enough of a lesson, in a practical sense? In the moral one... if someone wants to smoke, he should smoke. They know about the risks. I smoke in average one cigarette per week, less on holidays, and I like being able to. And the risks are way smaller than those for regular smokers who can burn through a whole package in a day.

Again the State violates its own laws. According to the 13-th amendment to the U.S. Constitution involuntary servitude is prohibited (except as a punishment for a crime). Yet we had a draft which is involuntary servitude.

The constitution makes no difference. The minions of the State have guns and they can do as they please. It is up to the rest of us to run, hide or stay out of their way.

ruveyn

so??

that still says nothing of the validity of your postiion only that it is in part based on actual experience, trying to equate your experience to that of everyone is naive.

Yes, we need an Ewwy-talitarian dictatorship.

The thing I hate most about smoking is how it divides us. I really don't want to sit in a bar and talk with someone who is smoking, but I do want to sit in a bar and talk with that person.

I hate that it offends me so much. I have a lot of friends who smoke and I love how they monitor their smoke for me. They're so truly considerate but they never are completely successful and I usually go home feeling ill, though happy for the pleasure of their company. I feel compelled by guilt to hide my illness.

I know a lot of people struggling to quit who simply can't, or think they can't. I mean, you can't until you succeed, but if you try long enough, you just might do it. It's NUTS!

So, if people want to smoke, that's ok, but if they want to quit, why can't they? Because the tobacco companies add chemicals to their natural product to make it as addictive as possible. I don't think it's fair and don't understand how and why the FDA still allows it. Why can't people buy cigarettes without these poisons?

When something that is considered desirable by so many is banned an instant black market is created and all the trappings that come with black markets comes into play.......
Besides, if someone wants to smoke that's their business and no one else's.

Here, smoking is banned in bars, cafes, restaurants, etc. All indoor workplaces actually. I don't disagree with it ... it is not difficult to get used to, and I don't think workers should have to be exposed to such a health hazard to make their living, or be forced to quit and forego income if they decide to quit and want to be away from cigarrettes.

Funny story though - it is banned in any workplace that is considered to be a "shelter". "Shelter" is defined as any structure that protects from the elements. This includes even a tarp or parasol or anything like that.

This means that while a workplace can designate an outdoor area for smoking, it is forbidden to provide any shelter from the rain for the area, even so simple as a flap of tarpaulin stretched over it.

I never smoke indoors, even in my own home - secondhand smoke in a closed space is disgusting, even when it's my own. Like I said, I agreed with all the measures, even the workplace ban, up until they started campaigning for a ban in all public areas, including parks and so on (this is already happening and I'm expecting it to be in my city in the next 2-3 years). They are getting to a point of absurdity now.



I've wondered this for a long time myself. There would be a huge market for organic cigarrettes, free of industrial chemicals and additives. But the tobacco industry obviously has no motivation to do this, and the anti-smoking lobby doesn't want it either. The anti-smoking lobby thinks that every smoker is a fool who must be saved from themselves, and if someone markets a safer cigarrette, we fools will think that means it's a safe cigarrette.

This is why they succesfully banned light and extra-light cigarrettes here, so now, you must smoke more dangerous brands. The anti-smoking lobby is now complicit in killing smokers, along with the tobacco industry.

Equating smoking to pooping?
F'k man, gimme a f'n break.
It's folks like you that made me decide to stop being polite about my smoking.
If I'm outdoors, I'll smoke wherever the f'k I want to.

Not in a closed space near me thank you. I have asthma and I would just as soon the smoker take his burning tobacco elsewhere.

ruveyn