Although people are welcome to poison their bodies if they want, the problem I have with cigarettes is the massive profits that the tobacco companies make from it. I wouldn't ban smoking outright, but I would ban all tobacco advertising in all forms (commercials, ads in magazines, product placement, sponsorship, etc.), regulate packaging to that it would consist entirely of a warning label, with the brand name in a small, standardized font, regulate cigarettes so that companies can't make gimmicky ones to try to get people to smoke, and most of all I would ban smoking in all public places, outdoors or indoors. If you want to smoke in your house, apartment, yard, or balcony then fine, but I should not be obliged to inhale carcinogens when I'm waiting at the bus stop.
Joined: Feb 26, 2006 Posts: 26049 Location: Lancashire, UK
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:19 am Post subject:
AstroGeek wrote:
Although people are welcome to poison their bodies if they want, the problem I have with cigarettes is the massive profits that the tobacco companies make from it.
Jealousy, then.
Do you feel similarly about pharmaceutical companies?
If the prison were a hell hole there would be no volunteers. It doesn't matter if the prison were a hell hole or a country club. The concept is that once you volunteer for treatment you give up your rights as a free citizen. Inside the prison smoking is not possible and you are not allowed to leave until you have completed your sentence. Good way to lose weight. Since imprisonment is temporary the free human spirit will not be broken because there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Wasn't this the premise of a Steven King short "horror" story? "Quitters Inc"
Joined: Sep 22, 2008 Age: 76 Posts: 29320 Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:51 am Post subject:
AstroGeek wrote:
Although people are welcome to poison their bodies if they want, the problem I have with cigarettes is the massive profits that the tobacco companies make from it. I wouldn't ban smoking outright, but I would ban all tobacco advertising in all forms (commercials, ads in magazines, product placement, sponsorship, etc.), regulate packaging to that it would consist entirely of a warning label, with the brand name in a small, standardized font, regulate cigarettes so that companies can't make gimmicky ones to try to get people to smoke, and most of all I would ban smoking in all public places, outdoors or indoors. If you want to smoke in your house, apartment, yard, or balcony then fine, but I should not be obliged to inhale carcinogens when I'm waiting at the bus stop.
There are some First Amendment issues here. Free Speech includes Free Commercial Speech. People have a right to hawk their goods as long as they do not commit fraud. As long as you know what you are getting with each puff you can decline to inhale carcinogens. Also, insurance companies can charge higher premiums on health/medical care insurance for those foolish enough to smoke. I am fifty years without a cigarette. I still consider myself a smoker.
Although people are welcome to poison their bodies if they want, the problem I have with cigarettes is the massive profits that the tobacco companies make from it.
Jealousy, then.
Do you feel similarly about pharmaceutical companies?
Not jealousy, morals. I think it is wrong to make a profit off of selling people poison. I am critical of pharmaceutical companies because I think they tend to make people want to over-medicate, and because of all the money they waste on wooing doctors. However, at least most of their products protect lives rather than damage them.
Although people are welcome to poison their bodies if they want, the problem I have with cigarettes is the massive profits that the tobacco companies make from it. I wouldn't ban smoking outright, but I would ban all tobacco advertising in all forms (commercials, ads in magazines, product placement, sponsorship, etc.), regulate packaging to that it would consist entirely of a warning label, with the brand name in a small, standardized font, regulate cigarettes so that companies can't make gimmicky ones to try to get people to smoke, and most of all I would ban smoking in all public places, outdoors or indoors. If you want to smoke in your house, apartment, yard, or balcony then fine, but I should not be obliged to inhale carcinogens when I'm waiting at the bus stop.
There are some First Amendment issues here. Free Speech includes Free Commercial Speech. People have a right to hawk their goods as long as they do not commit fraud. As long as you know what you are getting with each puff you can decline to inhale carcinogens. Also, insurance companies can charge higher premiums on health/medical care insurance for those foolish enough to smoke. I am fifty years without a cigarette. I still consider myself a smoker.
ruveyn
We will, of course, fundamentally disagree about many issues here. However, on the legal front, you might have a point for the USA. In Canada though, we can and have banned cigarette advertising and require warning labels on cigarette packs. Our freedom of speech laws, although definitely there, aren't quite as sweeping as yours. (Let's leave the debate about that to some other time.) Also, since most of the Western world has a public heath care system, charging higher premiums on health insurance is not a possibility. You disapprove of public healthcare I know (let's not go into it here), but it is a reality in Canada, Australia, and Europe and isn't likely to go away any time soon. As such, smoking costs our societies a lot of money.
Joined: Jan 31, 2011 Age: 23 Posts: 5022 Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:47 pm Post subject:
AstroGeek wrote:
Tequila wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
Although people are welcome to poison their bodies if they want, the problem I have with cigarettes is the massive profits that the tobacco companies make from it.
Jealousy, then.
Do you feel similarly about pharmaceutical companies?
Not jealousy, morals. I think it is wrong to make a profit off of selling people poison. I am critical of pharmaceutical companies because I think they tend to make people want to over-medicate, and because of all the money they waste on wooing doctors. However, at least most of their products protect lives rather than damage them.
selling people poison happen in more than one way though, where do you draw the line?
as long as people dont force it onto others they can do to themselves what they want.
would it be morally wrong to grow tobacco yourself then? _________________ //through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
Joined: Jul 05, 2010 Age: 30 Posts: 28105 Location: California
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:59 pm Post subject:
Sure, why not? While we're at it, we could ban everything else that can cause disease. Silly people don't know what's best for them, the government has to tell us.
*lights cig* _________________ Do you bury me when I'm gone?
Do you teach me while I'm here?
Just as soon as I belong
Then it's time I disappear
and most of all I would ban smoking in all public places, outdoors or indoors. If you want to smoke in your house, apartment, yard, or balcony then fine, but I should not be obliged to inhale carcinogens when I'm waiting at the bus stop.
I don't see a problem with public smoking as long as there are designated smoking areas. secondhand smoke is really only 1/1000 anyway.The smell is the only real issue in my mind.
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 Age: 24 Posts: 7593 Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:01 pm Post subject:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Sure, why not? While we're at it, we could ban everything else that can cause disease. Silly people don't know what's best for them, the government has to tell us.
Joined: Feb 20, 2012 Age: 20 Posts: 4083 Location: South America
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:02 pm Post subject:
Well, if people want to poison themselves, that's their choice. It's a shame when people close to you do it and harm themselves, but it isn't like they don't know the risks.
I smoke cigarrettes twice a month, when anxious or very, very bored, and it really makes a difference. Here we have stringent laws, tobacco advertising has been forbidden in any way, and all boxes come with warnings of the risks of smoking, besides very graphic and rather disturbing images. That will prevent new smokers rather than help old ones, but they are good measures.
Joined: Feb 07, 2005 Posts: 14834 Location: A beautiful vector among many
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:10 pm Post subject:
Shatbat wrote:
Well, if people want to poison themselves, that's their choice. It's a shame when people close to you do it and harm themselves, but it isn't like they don't know the risks.
Unless they're regular smokers its a bit on par with alcohol IMO in that its a vice and whether it has serious damage to their health depends on whether they have it under moderation or not.
Joined: Jan 07, 2011 Age: 23 Posts: 14828 Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:12 pm Post subject:
AdjustedSanity wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
and most of all I would ban smoking in all public places, outdoors or indoors. If you want to smoke in your house, apartment, yard, or balcony then fine, but I should not be obliged to inhale carcinogens when I'm waiting at the bus stop.
I don't see a problem with public smoking as long as there are designated smoking areas. secondhand smoke is really only 1/1000 anyway.The smell is the only real issue in my mind.
Not to mention all the crap in the air from cars, trains, whatever chemicals make it into the air ect....I think that might factor into some of the health problems people get but what are they to do ban cars, trains, and anything else that might put chemicals in the air. _________________ It's like alice in wonderland except, my names not alice and this is the real world not a dream.
I'll agree with a smoking ban provided it coincides with a ban on religion and religious texts, as long as we are banning things that aren't good for people...
good one my thoughs exactly.
