Cigaretes: should we ban that stuff or not ?

[Sushi X]

if you ban cigaretts you are then setting yourself up for the same problem the u.s. had when alcohol was illegal. organized crime ran rapid. drugs are illegal and our prisons are overcrowded and we are paying too much in taxes to house these offenders. do you really want to spend more to house smokers? it's ludicrous. i hate smoke as much as the next guy but banning also violates their civil liberties and their right to destroy their health if they so desire. much like when people drink excessibly.

it must be hard for the left to support a ban and support a person's civil liberties and right to smoke if they chose seeing how that would be contradictory. simple solution: continue to ban it in public areas such as movie theatres, restaraunts, clubs, bars, and such enclosed areas. outside is fine as their is adequate circulation. they can smoke but outside where it belongs. plain and simple.

 

[cockdezl]

i know they do (the tax dollars)......why not therefore tax smokers to the point where they create enough money to make up for what they are costing us

the point i was making is that very prominent attempts are made to reduce AIDS spread and BSE spread. yet smoking, something that can as easily be reduced isnt.

You still believe the lie that smokers take from government benefits more than they pay, which is simply false.

One, as I stated before, they die earlier and therefore do not utilize all of the benefits that taxes (paid by all, mind you) provide.

Second, your above assumption is based off of the false idea all smokers who have lung cancer, utilize Medicare. Many have insurance which covers the cost of treatment.

Third, the assumption that they take more than they pay, is based on the false notion that non-smokers die of less costly illnesses. Heart disease treatments can be extremely costly, same for nursing home care, as well as the vast number of non-smoking related cancers that kill.

Lastly, your analogy to AIDS is misleading, since government agencies never once dared to attempt restricting risky behavior which accounts for the vast majority of HIV cases. But I am glad you did mention AIDS. You pay to care for these individuals too, and the cost of HIV treatment is enormous.

 

[danielson]

You still believe the lie that smokers take from government benefits more than they pay, which is simply false.

One, as I stated before, they die earlier and therefore do not utilize all of the benefits that taxes (paid by all, mind you) provide.

Second, your above assumption is based off of the false idea all smokers who have lung cancer, utilize Medicare. Many have insurance which covers the cost of treatment.

Third, the assumption that they take more than they pay, is based on the false notion that non-smokers die of less costly illnesses. Heart disease treatments can be extremely costly, same for nursing home care, as well as the vast number of non-smoking related cancers that kill.

Lastly, your analogy to AIDS is misleading, since government agencies never once dared to attempt restricting risky behavior which accounts for the vast majority of HIV cases. But I am glad you did mention AIDS. You pay to care for these individuals too, and the cost of HIV treatment is enormous.

in britain we live in a welfare state, so not everyone has health insurance as the NHS (government basically )pays for medical operations etc. those tht do have insurance may go private etc.

however not everyone has insurance. smoking is seen in much greater frequency in th lower classes/working classes, of which the majority can;t afford health insurance and rely on government funding to pay fr their operations. also the fact that they are having opertions means they are using up resources, paid or otherwise

they may die earlier......but chemotherapy, radiotherapy etc don't come cheap. all of these things do cost money whether the die in their 20's or 80's. plus it increases the risk factors to just aboput every 'western' disease there is

other cancers cost as much, true. smokingis the no.1 cause of cancer in the western world (other than food ), and in the UK there are 45,000 new cases of lung cancer each year.

true the government doesnt try to forcibly prevent risky behavour. it does however restrict narcotics. smoking/nicotine has been rated alongside heroin in addictiveness. but yes, we spend large amounts of moolah on patients with AIDS. but the public perception of AIDS is very dark, its a huge killer, whereas smoking doesnt get that image, even though it kills more

 

[casavant]

I can't believe a couple of people voted yes on this. Do you really want the government to be you mommy? I think I'll make my own decisions on what I want to put into my body, thank you very much.

 

[theoak01]

my city passed a by-law where you can't smoke in any establishment anymore

its great atleast now i can breathe in the pool hall

 

[c-sharp minor]

Here, we just passed a law which states: "any establishment which allows person(s) under the age of 18 to be admitted shall be deemed a non-smoking establishment".

We now have businesses banning children in favor of smokers. ie. bowling alleys

 

[paradox]

Since our government care so much about our health

Hell, they might as well ban fast food too.

 

[Whiskey]

Hell no!!

I don't smoke, but I also don't want to have to pay higher taxes either. If they outlawed smoking, we would lose a crap load of tax money. Illinoise just raised teh tax ammount $0.40 to I think $0.94 per pack. Our roads would go to shit.


Whiskey

 

[TheClash]

I think we should ban fat people. I also think we should ban people who talk loud when you are out to eat.

I think we should ban smoking only in public places that are indoors. I think we should ban loud people in movie theaters.

 

[manny78]

I think we should ban loud people in movie theaters.

agree