Smoking

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The only thing I'll insert into this guiness pub chat is that there is a fundamental real difference between chemical addiction and psychological addiction so its a canard to assert equivalency.

I agree. Personally, I think people are quick to blame substances and "physical problems" when it could simply be the lack of a strong will. Some people, like my dad, can't quit. In my dad's case, it's because he lacks the will. (He is pretty weak willed, also why he can't lose weight.) Sure, we could blame it on my stepmom, who has never tried to quit, therefore it makes it impossible for him to, but I think if he truly wanted to quit, he would. In fact, at one point he had stopped for a whole year then started again (needless to say I was extremely disappointed in him).

But anyway, sorry about that trangent I went off into there. My point was that when my dad was trying to stop smoking, his doctor recommended he use a shortened cut-off straw to suck on, to kind of replace the physical movement... basically the habit of having something in his mouth. It was a clear sign of psychological addiction.

Now don't get me wrong. Nicotine plays a large part of it, but it is a combined psychological and physical addiction. However, I think the dangers of such multi-tiered addiction is not to be taken lightly, as many supporters of tabacco (among other similar substances) seem to be doing.

Originally Posted by Nervous Venus

Spectacular: That wasn't my intention. I apologize if that's what you perceived from my post. I'm simply stating that it's not illegal in certain places for certain purposes and looks odd with the list of other hard drugs that I understand perfectly to be harmful to the human body.

I agree with your point. Carry on.

Oh, ok, nevermind then. I am sorry if I misinterpreted what you said. I apologize for the trouble.

[oompa loompa]

I think its been confirmed that smoking is bad.. and that its a bad life choice. Theres no point arguing otherwise in the first place. However, when we talk about banning smoking and restricting ones freedom, that touches upon a whole different issue. Why is smoking legal when other substances, like marijuana ( marijuana is incidently much less dangerous than tobacco..) , cocaine etc arnt? Ah, but thats a whole different debate altogether. What levels of freedom are acceptable in society?

Well, thats something one of us cant ever decide alone unfortunately, and isnt directly relevant to this debate in the first place. Smoking should be stopped yes, because its dangerous etc etc. But banning it outright? Thats not going to go down too well with a lot of people, because most people wont see that as an acceptable restriction. Sure, its convenient to people who dont smoke, but whats to stop people from restricting other things that we do everyday? Smoking has been an accepted choice in society for a very long time right? long before we were here discussing this? its only been recently ( in the grand scale of things) that its been discouraged. Thats why prohibiting something like smoking will go a little deeper.

Ill say it again, YES its bad, and YES people should stop. But an outright ban on it isnt the right solution at the moment atleast. Banning it public places, discouraging it, are probably better solutions. and yeah it is working. Youre taking a ruthless attitude about this because its convenient to you. Well thats how i see it at any rate. Ive said it many times already ( in this post ), its probably a good idea to stop smoking. I dont, however, agree on the methods you intend to use.

[Vexx]

The brain likes to wire itself for habitual behavior to conserve neurons for "all hands on deck" duties. That can constitute a psychological addiction in some instances.

A physical addiction affects multiple organs of the body, affecting major organs, endocrine systems, and immune systems negatively in addition to the little "reward" bits of the brain (endorphin-fun).

At first I was going to say that you were mistaken about your dad, but your last remarks were clearer about how smoking has both components working with it to keep people trapped.

[Anh_Minh]

oompa loompa: I agree that a ban is a bad idea. Expensive to enforce and inefficient. I say, tax the hell out of cigarettes. No reason the tobacco companies should be the only ones to profit from the suckers.

It also has the positive effect of decreasing consumption among the young, who can't afford it.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

oompa loompa: I agree that a ban is a bad idea. Expensive to enforce and inneficient. I say, tax the hell out of cigarettes. No reason the tobacco companies should be the only ones to profit from the suckers.

It also has the positive effect of decreasing consumption among the young, who can't afford it.

Credit debt would be wonderful for these addicts... Yeah, that just seems like a horrible approach. And what is more expensive, putting money into banning cigarettes? Or having all the smokers get health problems and having many die while society gets a little less productive from many of these addicts?

[Anh_Minh]

The ban. The War on Drugs is expensive enough as it is, you don't need to add a cigarette front.

I don't have hard numbers, but I doubt smoking is all that bad for productivity: you mainly get cancer when you're old and retired. The cigarette breaks are annoying, but it's not like non-smokers don't take breaks, too.

Also, if someone dies of lung cancer at 60, you don't have to pay for his back trouble, his prostate cancer, his Alzheimer, his pension... All the things that would have cost money as he lived from age 60 to age 80.

Someone should do a study of the costs to society of smokers vs non-smokers. I'm not saying we should kill all the retired, but if they choose to croak early...

[Kakashi]

That's an intresting train of thought...

[Ending]

Smokers already have nice little cabins in restaurants and the like. Why not expand the prohibition to all public places and move all smokers into the designated smoking areas? After that we can move them to ghettos among with the jews until the plan for Final Solution can be accomplished, mein kampfgefährte!

More seriously, though, I wish they would expand the blanket ban in restaurants to public bus-stops, airports, and train-stations.

[oompa loompa]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

The ban. The War on Drugs is expensive enough as it is, you don't need to add a cigarette front.

I don't have hard numbers, but I doubt smoking is all that bad for productivity: you mainly get cancer when you're old and retired. The cigarette breaks are annoying, but it's not like non-smokers don't take breaks, too.

Also, if someone dies of lung cancer at 60, you don't have to pay for his back trouble, his prostate cancer, his Alzheimer, his pension... All the things that would have cost money as he lived from age 60 to age 80.

Someone should do a study of the costs to society of smokers vs non-smokers. I'm not saying we should kill all the retired, but if they choose to croak early...

a second to that lol. I think we need more people who think like you ( no sarcasm intended)

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Wordplay

Smokers already have nice little cabins in restaurants and the like. Why not expand the prohibition to all public places and move all smokers into the designated smoking areas? After that we can move them to ghettos among with the jews until the plan for Final Solution can be accomplished, mein kampfgefährte!

Bah, just export them all to Madagascar*.

Historic Nazi idea. It didn't go anywhere for obvious reasons.

I'm getting silly here because, quite frankly, the argument is repeating itself. Same points are raised as in the rest of the thread, and same points are answered. 'tis quite a boring affair to witness.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Credit debt would be wonderful for these addicts... Yeah, that just seems like a horrible approach. And what is more expensive, putting money into banning cigarettes? Or having all the smokers get health problems and having many die while society gets a little less productive from many of these addicts?

I don't think that cigarette addiction is strong enough to force people into debt or to begin selling things off to support their addiction. Those are the types of extremes that are usually more associated with people addicted to "hard drugs."

A full-out ban could potentially divert the sale of cigarettes into a black market style of approach. Making anything banned (taboo) immediately makes it desirable to the types of people who get into defying the law and such. Finally, the ban would probably do about as much good as the ban we have here in New York on getting people to stop using their cellphones without a hands-free device while driving - so many people were doing it at the time of the ban (including law enforcement) that the ban is barely enforced. There are still too many smokers.

Raising the prices on cigarettes will be harmful to the people who are currently addicted, but there are a lot of benefits. Since cigarettes would still be legal, there would still be control over their pricing and their distribution (as opposed to a black market scenario). The taboo factor would also be removed. The high prices would impose a greater barrier to entry for many people, and it could cause many current smokers to question their habits. It's sort of like how rising gas prices are causing people to shift away from fuel-inefficient SUVs. Ideally, over time the number of people smoking would dwindle to such a small number that the tobacco companies would no longer have the influence that they currently do and smoking would no longer be condoned in society. If there were ever a time to impose a full-out ban on something, that would be the time to do it. Keeping prices high enough to severely limit the smoking population is probably a better alternative to a full-out ban, though.

[Vexx]

The War on Drugs shows how simply making something popular but toxic illegitimate is a total failure (much like Prohibition was). It simply enriches the criminal class and provides a mechanism of unwarranted power to authoritarians.

You have to examine the motivations and deal with problems at the motivational sources. Why do people do drugs? Why do they smoke crappy quality cigarettes? Why do they stoke up on too much alcohol? Why do they eat ship shavings shaped into fast food?

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

oompa loompa: I agree that a ban is a bad idea. Expensive to enforce and inneficient. I say, tax the hell out of cigarettes. No reason the tobacco companies should be the only ones to profit from the suckers.

It also has the positive effect of decreasing consumption among the young, who can't afford it.

In the US, at least, this is the case. It's one reason why the tobacco companies seem free to operate in dastardly manners: Because cigarette taxes are a cash-cow for government.

That's all I have to add here. You guys seem to have covered anything else I could have contributed.

[WanderingKnight]

People, there is no argument when it comes to personal consumption of tobacco. I can kill myself in any way I want, be it fatty foods, throwing myself off a remote cliff, or incurring in water intoxication. I'm perfectly entitled to do any of those things. Or are you going to ban people from throwing themlseves off cliffs?

What I cannot do, however, is harm other people's health while doing so. And that's why tobacco smoke should be banned from public places.

EDIT: Whoops, didn't read the last page, or else I wouldn't have posted this.

[Vexx]

Sometimes I joke (or not) that the left wants a nanny-state that tells you how to behave in public. The right wants a Big Daddy state that tells you how to behave in private.

ymmv, of course.

[Nightbat®]

Hell, ppl are throwing away their personal freedom the moment they get scared anyway
I say domesticise and train them if they want that so badly

[bbduece]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

Hell, ppl are throwing away their personal freedom the moment they get scared anyway
I say domesticise and train them if they want that so badly

btw nice gixxer, i think the new headlights look like crap.

smoking FTW

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The War on Drugs shows how simply making something popular but toxic illegitimate is a total failure (much like Prohibition was). It simply enriches the criminal class and provides a mechanism of unwarranted power to authoritarians.

You have to examine the motivations and deal with problems at the motivational sources. Why do people do drugs? Why do they smoke crappy quality cigarettes? Why do they stoke up on too much alcohol? Why do they eat ship shavings shaped into fast food?

Sorry, but that seems like a lame excuse not to try at all. The apathy I hear in that statement is quite appalling. "There's nothing we can do about it so why try" is not something I endorse. In order for the world to have any hope of changing for the better (and here's where I get cheesy) we all have to work to gether and not allow negative attitudes like this.

[bbduece]

Originally Posted by Spectacular_Insanity

Sorry, but that seems like a lame excuse not to try at all. The apathy I hear in that statement is quite appalling. "There's nothing we can do about it so why try" is not something I endorse. In order for the world to have any hope of changing for the better (and here's where I get cheesy) we all have to work to gether and not allow negative attitudes like this.

It is not "not trying at all". People have to make decisions that is not always black and white. Yes we have to all work together, that includes people that do not see or agree with each other's view.

Since you mention "we all have to work together and not allow negative attitide like this", that is not a negative attitude but another perspective, someone else's veiwpoint that you might not agree with but in this case i find it legitimate.

If it prolongings the stagnacy of the issue it maybe because some issues are unresolve but may not be negative.

Trying one group's ideals is not working together, a substantial agreement must be made clear before certain things can move on.

[WanderingKnight]

Sorry, but that seems like a lame excuse not to try at all. The apathy I hear in that statement is quite appalling. "There's nothing we can do about it so why try" is not something I endorse. In order for the world to have any hope of changing for the better (and here's where I get cheesy) we all have to work to gether and not allow negative attitudes like this.

Uuh... what? Did you even bother reading Vexx's post?

He said the methodology was wrong. You won't get anything out of warring the production and distribution of drugs and other illegal substances, and that is damn right. If you don't accept that, then you haven't been paying attention these past 50 years. Apathy has nothing to do with trying to find a better way to end with people's harmful (and ultimately useless) addictions.

If anything, there's huge profits involved in the illegality of certain substances. Just look at Colombia's cocaine mafia.