Viewing Thread:
"Smoking (thread closed)"

This isn't another "omgay, smokin is bad 4 u!!!" but more of a question to anyone here who smokes - is it just the cardboard chemical crap from the UK/US companies or more rarer exotic stuff like Giantes? Not a smoker myself but I'd like to know.

Smoking is a terrible vice. As the previous posts have said, many deaths and unhappiness have rooted from the evil of smoking. You see these national smoking helplines and stuff (they are good and effective) but the government aren't doing enough about it.

The best way to stop this evil is to ban it completely (maybe a class C drug??) But - they won't do this because it brings so much money into the economy. I guess it's true, money IS the root of all evil...

munn wrote:
> stuff

You know munn, it's amazing how your moral compass is happy to spin all over the place to get round stating that cars (something that you like and would be happy to use) are a pollutant and unpleasant, yet you're entirely unwilling to put the same level of thought into cigs (something you don't like and you don't want to use).

For all the time you've spent trying to justify it, I'm afraid it just looks like a "I don't like this, ergo absolutely no-one should", followed by a "well...anything you say is wrong" with little or no explanation.

If you have your opinions, fair enough. But your justifications are all a little subjective.


As to the other "smoking is bad and causes deaths so ban it" arguments; are any of you willing to apply that logic to drinking?

I would if it hadn't already been proved that small amounts of different alcohols daily can help against diseases and suchlike.

I think, however, that there should be some sort of limit on drinking to try and cut down binge drinkers/alcoholics etc

There are better ways to commit slow suicide.

Oh, and I'm not trying to ignore the fact that cars are a pollutant also, it's just that every time this argument comes up, someone always says "oh, but what about cars/alcohol? They're bad too!"

It's just like in a classroom when the teacher says "Pupil A, stop talking."
"But miss, Pupil C was talking too, why are you only moaning at me?"

With cars though, we can expect a better future still. Hydrogen combustion is still in the early stages, though, as far as I'm aware there's about 20 buses in London with Hydrogen engines. At the moment they're just too big to put in cars, but there ARE scientists working on it.

And back to smoking; you say that the taxes pay for a huge chunk of the NHS. Fair enough. Does that mean they're completely useless in every other country in the world?
I mean, they don't have the NHS, do they/ So I guess it doesn't have its uses anywhere else. So should we just get banned in every other country in the world except the UK, that way it's only kept in the countries where it has a use?

munn wrote:
> I think, however, that there should be some sort of limit on drinking
> to try and cut down binge drinkers/alcoholics etc

So people who are sensible drinkers are punished for others actions?

Nope, it means that the taxes on cigs in other countries go to other things. I was using the NHS example for this country; I'm happy to discuss the taxation benefits in other countries if you'd like me to?

And as to why the cars argument comes up? Well, it's because a teacher wouldn't stop pupil A from talking but allow pupil C to carry on talking at the same volume (to use your analogy). I'm intrigued as to why people put so much vehemence into their "smoking is evil cos it damages everyones health and so should be stopped", but are so willing to make as many allowances as possible for driving, and the pollution it causes.

We can expect a better future for cars? When? You're limiting yourself to national boundaries when looking at transport advances, yet you're trying to apply international standards to how we should look at smoking. You don't seem to have factored in the dearth of alternatives to petrol/diesel fuels for cars in America, or their refusal to implement any sort of strategy to reduce pollution from fossil fuels, or the extraordinary pollution caused in developing nations by inefficient cars?

You want to cut down on drinking too? So you're in favour of people having the personal liberty to cause pollution and cost lives by driving a car, but you're against the personal liberty of drinking and smoking? Why are you in favour of the personal liberties that you personally enjoy, but against the ones you don't? Isn't that a rather selfish attitude? (and no, I personally don't smoke, so...)

Just so you know, nicotene in small doses can also be beneficial to health as it has many of the same relaxant properties as alcohol. So how come you're willing to make the allowance for alcohol in small doses, but not for smoking? Are you assuming that everyone who smokes does so to excess?
Could you go into more detail about your "small amounts of alcohol = good" argument, because I'm inclined to think it's something you've been told, but that you haven't looked into in any detail.

Rai wrote:
> There are better ways to commit slow suicide.

There are indeed. Are you going to be the person to tell everyone how they are and are not allowed to do so?

Isn't it technically illegal anyway? Not that they'll arrest you if you're stupid enough to do it.

Light wrote:
> Rai wrote:
> There are better ways to commit slow suicide.
>
> There are indeed. Are you going to be the person to tell everyone how
> they are and are not allowed to do so?

Invite Dringo round for an i-pod party.