Anti Cigarette site/Pro Smoking Arguments

[Shrykull]

Somehow, I knew this would come up sooner or later.

I speak as a former smoker. Not an ex-smoker, mind you - being an ex-smoker implies that the habit might start again in the future.

It was a chemical way for me to find solace, emotional support, and comfort when I wasn't able to give any of the above to myself.

Since I began taking Qigong nearly a year ago, I worked on replacing the reasons I smoke, one at a time, and replacing them directly with things that added to or enhanced my life, not poisoning and killing myself.

I began to drink good tea all the time to help me keep calm and at peace. I began to take walks and exercise to shed stress. I began to eat better, and more often.

Now, it's been nearly four months since I've left cigarettes in my past. I don't miss them or feel any inclination to go back - I happen to like breathing well.

For all other arguments on this topic, I'll quote a friend of mine: "Those who lack courage will always find a philosophy to justify it."

People start for different reasons. My mom socially with a friend she worked with. My cousin in high school. My friend who didn't start in high school where most people usually do, but in the army where he used to see it all the time.

It is true though, it seems what is said about childrens parents who smoke. withm my Maternal side of the family, both my grandfather and grandmother smoked and all my aunts and uncles are current or former smokers. One of my aunt's quit because she refused to expose her children to it, my uncle just plain quit cold turkey, not sure why.

In Stark Contrast, my paternal side of the family, where neither my grandmother or grandfather smoked, NONE of my aunts or uncle smoke.........well, at least not cigarettes, some of my uncles on that side smoke cigars sometimes, and not as often as cigarette smokers smoke cigarettes, though two of my cousin's currently smoke cigarettes.

It seems what you did is rare. I usually hear that with former smokers (and former alcoholics) the need to get a drink or cigarette is very compelling far after they quit. One woman told me she had quit in 88 (this was in 94) and that she'd smoke tommorrow if she could.

Speaking of smoking in the military, I heard that half of marines smoke, couldn't this be quite a disadvantage in combat? Do half of the Chinese military smoke?[/quote]

[rhoenix]

It seems what you did is rare. I usually hear that with former smokers (and former alcoholics) the need to get a drink or cigarette is very compelling far after they quit. One woman told me she had quit in 88 (this was in 94) and that she'd smoke tommorrow if she could.

My experience wasn't quite to cut and dried, though with a few months' preparation, it was easier than I expected.

I went on the patch to help me, as with the physiological cravings in check, I knew I could win over the psychological cravings, and replace them with things more healthy. This process took about a month and two boxes of nicotene patches, but I haven't looked back.

[Ma Deuce]

1. It's my life, fuck off and mind your own business, leave me alone, it's my right.

2. You're going to die anyway.

I remember Bill Hicks making those same arguments in one of his routines. Amazing how many pro-smoking dipshits repeat his arguments almost verbatim, apparently without realizing the irony that he died of pancreatic cancer (which has been linked to smoking).

[Keevan_Colton]

1. It's my life, fuck off and mind your own business, leave me alone, it's my right.

2. You're going to die anyway.

I remember Bill Hicks making those same arguments in one of his routines. Amazing how many pro-smoking dipshits repeat his arguments almost verbatim, apparently without realizing the irony that he died of pancreatic cancer (which has been linked to smoking).

It gets even better with his smoking out of your butt routine.

[Darth Wong]

People who argue primarily with quotes are basically using the style over substance fallacy: their argument must be true because they're quoting someone who put it in beautifully crafted words. Quotes make good decoration for an argument, but that's it.

[RTS]

The OP wants arguments against banning smoking altogether - I've leave smoking bans in public places entirely out of this. For justification I can only use UK figures, I don't have US figures.

There are currently around 15 million regular users of smoking tobacco products. That includes pipe smokers, cigarette smokers (both manufactured and hand rolled) and cigar smokers so far as I'm aware. Banning tobacco is to launch an attack on their civil liberties. It's very easy to be in favour of demanding a sacrifice for the good of public health when it isn't you that has to make the sacrifice.
We here how smokers are a drain on resources - from the UK figures smoker pay an extra £9 billion in taxation per year whilst the National Health Service reports an annual cost of smoker related illness of £1.6 billion (ish). A net annual surplus of £7.4 billion. Is smoking were to be banned that £7.4 billion would have to come from somewhere - that means everyone would have to suffer an income tax increase, to the tune of around £240 per year.
But it doesn't end there. The war on drugs sucks up billions of pounds per annum and millions of police man hours and has succeeded in drugs being readily available to anyone who wants them. Banning smoking tobacco would require the current resources to the war on drugs to be expanded considerably, requiring billions more poounds per year which in turn will require... even higher taxes. With the likely result of tobacco being readily available to anyone who wants it.
But we're still not done - in a run up to any ban the government in all likelihood would subside smoking cessation products to try an wean as many people off smoking as possible prior to a ban. That money if going to have to come from somewhere. Where? You guessed it, YOUR pocket.
So if you like the idea of paying a lot of extra tax for something you've never done then by all means support a total ban, just don't moan when the government shoves its hand a little deeper into your pocket to finance it.
And don't be surprised that despite you paying a lot of extra money every year a lot of people continue to smoke.

[Dark Hellion]

I used to be a smoker, I quite because my habit was starting to get expensive, and it didn't do me any good, as the people that I socialized with while smoking didn't require me lighting up to talk to.

However, I dislike the idea of no smoking on principle. People should be allowed a great deal of leniancy with what they do to their body, as long as it doesn't affect others dramatically. Smokers who are considerate, ask about smoking accomidations, smoke in such a way as to expose minimal (optimally no one) people to second hand smoke, and are moderating in their use are perfectly acceptable to me, as long as they understand that they are raising their risk of many diseases and I do not believe that normal insurance and health care subsidies should apply to diseases relating to a persons cigarrete use. Of couse, I also support the legalization of Marijuana in the same kind of circumstances.
If people wish to hurt themselves long term for a short term high I can accept this, if they understand it, and they do not burden themselves upon others. The freedom to do what you want to your own body, or to have done to your body what you want is so integral to many equalities that infringing it by extreme artificial limiting of what we can put into our systems seems wrong to me. When the use of a drug becomes beyond the rational control of an individual it is different, or with drugs that have such high addictive properties that a single use will have a very high probability of going over that level (which nicotine may actually apply for, but I have never done Heroine or Cocaine to compare, and my quitting of cigarrettes was rather painless, although I was only a minor addict).

This is my personel view upon smoking. It shouldn't be illegal, but it shouldn't be considered a normalcy, but as a drug.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Banning tobacco is to launch an attack on their civil liberties.

What? Smoking is a civil liberty now?

[Resinence]

There are currently around 15 million regular users of smoking tobacco products. That includes pipe smokers, cigarette smokers (both manufactured and hand rolled) and cigar smokers so far as I'm aware. Banning tobacco is to launch an attack on their civil liberties.

Oh please, the same logic can be used to say banning heroin is an attack on crack whores civil liberties. Or, for another example; do you think it would be A-OK for people who smoke pot to walk into restaurants and start filling the place up with hallucinogenic smoke and causing everyone to walk out high? And smoking cigarettes is not a fucking right.

It's very easy to be in favour of demanding a sacrifice for the good of public health when it isn't you that has to make the sacrifice.
We here how smokers are a drain on resources - from the UK figures smoker pay an extra £9 billion in taxation per year whilst the National Health Service reports an annual cost of smoker related illness of £1.6 billion (ish).

Care to cite the source of these statistics? I would really like to see what they call "smoker related illness" when the smoke is extremely carcinogenic. Just to get things straight, you think you should have the right to expose people to smoke that has been linked to the following just because smokers pay more fucking tax?:
Lung Cancer.
Transitional-cell carcinomas of the bladder, ureter and renal
pelvis.
Oral Cancer.
Sinonasal cancer.
Nasopharyngeal cancer.
Oropharyngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer.
Cancer of the oesophagus.
Laryngeal cancer.
Cancer of the pancreas.
Stomach cancer.
Liver cancer.

Do you get the point, asshole? Or do you want me to continue, I can go on all day.

A net annual surplus of £7.4 billion.

First, define "smoking related illness".

Is smoking were to be banned that £7.4 billion would have to come from somewhere - that means everyone would have to suffer an income tax increase, to the tune of around £240 per year.

When confronted by what second hand smoke can cause I have a hard time thinking people will care about five dollars a week. 5 bucks a week to greatly reduce my risk of cancer? Or maybe you should have said 2400dollars a decade to make the number sound bigger?

But it doesn't end there. The war on drugs sucks up billions of pounds per annum and millions of police man hours and has succeeded in drugs being readily available to anyone who wants them. Banning smoking tobacco would require the current resources to the war on drugs to be expanded considerably, requiring billions more poounds per year which in turn will require... even higher taxes. With the likely result of tobacco being readily available to anyone who wants it.

Do people who do illegal drugs smoke them in public? No. Fuck off.

But we're still not done - in a run up to any ban the government in all likelihood would subside smoking cessation products to try an wean as many people off smoking as possible prior to a ban. That money if going to have to come from somewhere. Where? You guessed it, YOUR pocket.
So if you like the idea of paying a lot of extra tax for something you've never done then by all means support a total ban, just don't moan when the government shoves its hand a little deeper into your pocket to finance it.

I'll take 20dollars more a week in taxes over a slow horrible and painful early death from cancer caused by some selfish prick who thinks its his right to spread deadly gases around in public. And I bet I'm not the only one.

And don't be surprised that despite you paying a lot of extra money every year a lot of people continue to smoke.

Waah wahh, Me quitting smoking will cost you money! Don't do it, I like to cause people to die from cancer. Well, actually I don't think about it because I'm an arrogant self centered asshole who doesn't care as long as I'm happy.

[Darth Raptor]

I love how people can take a part of their daily lives- any part- and proclaim that it's a God-given right for them to maintain that. ANY law that restricts behavior could be construed as an "attack on civil liberties" if you're enough of a wanker.

[Qwerty 42]

I disagree with people who choose to smoke, but the issue with public smoking to me isn't about whether or not you have the right to destroy yourself, it's about the unquestionable wrong of destroying someone else.

[Darth Wong]

We here how smokers are a drain on resources - from the UK figures smoker pay an extra £9 billion in taxation per year whilst the National Health Service reports an annual cost of smoker related illness of £1.6 billion (ish). A net annual surplus of £7.4 billion. Is smoking were to be banned that £7.4 billion would have to come from somewhere - that means everyone would have to suffer an income tax increase, to the tune of around £240 per year.

Show me a source for those figures. The annual business productivity cost of smoking has been estimated at $2565 per employee, and that doesn't even take into account the health-care costs. Total costs of tobacco in Canada are estimated at $9.5 billion, and Canada's population is only a fraction of the UK's population.

And unlike you, I provide sources:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/tobac ... uts_e.html
http://www.ccsa.ca/pdf/ccsa-009989-2000.pdf

[RTS]

Show me a source for those figures. The annual business productivity cost of smoking has been estimated at $2565 per employee, and that doesn't even take into account the health-care costs. Total costs of tobacco in Canada are estimated at $9.5 billion, and Canada's population is only a fraction of the UK's population.

And unlike you, I provide sources:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/tobac ... uts_e.html
http://www.ccsa.ca/pdf/ccsa-009989-2000.pdf

Well, at least of you can remain civil.

The major component of those figures is working from a baseline of working non-stop through your shift. Do YOU know anyone who does that? No stopping for a coffee, no toilet breaks with a newspaper, no checking email or how the ebay bidding is going, no chatting about how the weekend was? Perhaps when they've got a baseline that takes all the timewasting into account then they'll have something worth listening to.

As for source - 2 minutes with google is all the research that's required.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/backg ... /86599.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3292979.stm

I thought the second link especially appropriate given the topic. Oh, and note this is a BBC source and not a pro-smoking site, as opposed to your source with it's fairly obvious agenda.

[RTS]

Banning tobacco is to launch an attack on their civil liberties.

What? Smoking is a civil liberty now?

Your quite right. I was allowing my personal bias to show. I'm personally a fan of the idea of what does or does not go into my body being my decision rather than the government's. I realise people who like government force will be appalled at such a seditious idea.

[bilateralrope]

Banning tobacco is to launch an attack on their civil liberties.

What? Smoking is a civil liberty now?

Your quite right. I was allowing my personal bias to show. I'm personally a fan of the idea of what does or does not go into my body being my decision rather than the government's. I realise people who like government force will be appalled at such a seditious idea.

And I don't think anyone here is arguing with that point. Their problem with smokers is they stuff they force into other peoples bodies.

[Dark Hellion]

Nice job chuckles. You know, some of us have well thought out moral judgments for why we feel that tobacco use should be legalized. Notice how civil liberties require arguments for why they are civil liberties. It's the terrible thing about ethical arguments, you actually have to use axioms, premises and conclusions. I know declarations of liberty are all the rave these days, but that just ain't how it works.

[PeZook]

Your quite right. I was allowing my personal bias to show. I'm personally a fan of the idea of what does or does not go into my body being my decision rather than the government's. I realise people who like government force will be appalled at such a seditious idea.

Your statement is pretty blanket ; What if the substance you put into your body generates hidden costs and social problems that are threatening the functioning of society as a whole? The government should and will regulate such a substance ; the only problem is if regulation won't cause even more problems, like the whole "War on drugs" thing.

Or are you one of these people who consider personal liberty more important than continued functioning of the country?

[RTS]

And I don't think anyone here is arguing with that point. Their problem with smokers is they stuff they force into other peoples bodies.

Unfortunately that's modern living. You can't isolate yourself from the effects of other people living their lives - and if you try then no one gets any freedom.
You realise living within 500 yards of any major road mean you have to accept a higher risk of certain diseases (I might add that it's a higher risk than the risks accepted by those who work in a smoky environment), but of course "we need our cars, you don't need to smoke" is the usual reply. My usual asnwer to that is; do you have the most economical car you can afford and if not not, then how you do fancy the government forcing you out of your current car and into a smaller car, but the smaller one is all you need.

[RTS]

Your statement is pretty blanket ; What if the substance you put into your body generates hidden costs and social problems that are threatening the functioning of society as a whole? The government should and will regulate such a substance ; the only problem is if regulation won't cause even more problems, like the whole "War on drugs" thing.

Or are you one of these people who consider personal liberty more important than continued functioning of the country?

I think you're beginning to see what I'm driving at. I agree wholeheartedly with the above sentiments. There's never been a substance that threatens the functioning of society, nor do I anticipate there being one any time soon.
Most of the drugs that are illegal are now more widely used than they were when they WERE legal.

Lets consider heroin.
At the moment we as taxpayers pay to prevent it coming into the country, pay to prevent it being distributed and pay to prevent it being used. We pay for the incarceration of those involved in the above chain AS well as paying for treatment for those coming off heroin. The dollar value of heroin within society is astronomical. Because it's illegal it's also more highly priced (as well as being lower quality) and it's estimated that here in the UK 80% of the petty crime in the country is the result of people trying to get money for their next fix.
Now imagine it was legal and subject to a sensible tax level that would more than pay for the medical treatment of those wishing to come off it and would reduce petty crime in a stroke
Drug overdoses would almost be wiped out in a stroke (no more wild fluctuations in quality). Billions of dollars and millions of man hours currently involved in the war on drugs could be diverted and organised crime is denied a MAJOR source of revenue.
In addition to all this, the tax revenue can be used to fund anti-drug education in schools, a program that's better than simply "don't do drugs" (because that works SO well) pffft.
Legalisation is the ONLY way to reduce the social impact. Banning something doesn't make it go away, it just pushes it onto the black market. With so little history to learn every American should be well aware of the prohibition era; which is the most graphic example of the effects of banning something.

Not aimed at PeZook at all, but anyone who wants to show what an internet tough guy they are by namecalling can go fuck themselves. I've no time for people who don't know how to conduct themselves in a discussion.

[PeZook]

I think you're beginning to see what I'm driving at. I agree wholeheartedly with the above sentiments. There's never been a substance that threatens the functioning of society, nor do I anticipate there being one any time soon.

I'm just trying to ascertain your position. If a substance like the above did indeed exist (and they do. Cigarettes and alcohol are legal, but regulated by the government - you can't sell alcohol to minors, for example, or drive drunk, or sell toxins or poison without oversight. Do you feel the government has no business regulating what minors put into their bodies,or do you think that yes, sometimes governments have to introduce certain regulation for the good of society as a whole, and are completely justified doing it?

In other words, you're not a crazy libertarian, are you?

Most of the drugs that are illegal are now more widely used than they were when they WERE legal.
<snip heroin argument>

Yeah, I did mention that the war on drugs is pointless, because it brings more harm than legalization of drugs. I asked a question if you consider it always bad if the government regulates what you can put into your body, or do you feel that it's justified if it's done for the good of society.

Not aimed at PeZook at all, but anyone who wants to show what an internet tough guy they are by namecalling can go fuck themselves. I've no time for people who don't know how to conduct themselves in a discussion.

The environment on SD.net is harsh. It is best if you just ignore the insults - and don't try to dismiss an argument because of them, since it is looked down upon here. In fact, it's a strictly enforced posting rule.

In other words, saying "You're mean, so I won't discuss with you" is not a valid option in an SD.net debate.

It's just how the board culture is. I prefer not to use insults in a discussion, but have done so on occasion and I also have been flamed (rather heavily) myself.

[Cairber]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/backg ... /86599.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3292979.stm

I read your sites, and neither give any information on how they got their numbers. I have to wonder if the effects of second hand smoke are taken into account in these numbers. Did they consider infants and children of smokers in their calculations? (asthma and SIDS, amongst other problems).

In addition, did you know that smoking can decrease a breastfeeding mother's supply? Which means that smokers are more likely to have to turn to formula, increasing their child's risk of diabetes, ear infection, respiratory infection, etcetcetc (this is a long list).

I have seen very few studies that end up with numbers like yours that actually take children and second hand smoke into account.

[Darth Wong]

Well, at least of you can remain civil.

Why should I? The first and most important component of civility is honesty, and you aren't doing that. Anybody who dismisses research with vague unsubstantiated accusations of bias is obviously not being honest.

The major component of those figures is working from a baseline of working non-stop through your shift. Do YOU know anyone who does that? No stopping for a coffee, no toilet breaks with a newspaper, no checking email or how the ebay bidding is going, no chatting about how the weekend was? Perhaps when they've got a baseline that takes all the timewasting into account then they'll have something worth listening to.

Bullshit. Those figures are based on the fact that you are paid for those hours regardless. The fact that people aren't perfect machines at work does not have any impact on their validity. If people miss a certain number of days at work due to smoking-related illness, that is lost productivity and an accurate figure for business losses regardless of whether they work 100% of the time when they are at the office.

As for source - 2 minutes with google is all the research that's required.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/backg ... /86599.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3292979.stm

I thought the second link especially appropriate given the topic. Oh, and note this is a BBC source and not a pro-smoking site, as opposed to your source with it's fairly obvious agenda.

How the fuck is Health Canada a source with a "fairly obvious agenda", asshole? And my sources explain where the numbers come from, while yours don't.

[RTS]

Yeah, I did mention that the war on drugs is pointless, because it brings more harm than legalization of drugs. I asked a question if you consider it always bad if the government regulates what you can put into your body, or do you feel that it's justified if it's done for the good of society.

If they can prove categorically that society will be better if substance X is outlawed then OK fair enough, but I'm cheating here I know they can't prove it and I can't think of a single instance where a substance being available on the black market is an imporvement over it being legally available and thus subject to regulation.
The point I'm driving at here is legalisation allows regulation. You outlaw something and you lose control over the manufacturing and supply chain. You can't regulate it to ensure quality, or enforce rules restricting its sale to minors. I mean, think about it - do people worry about shabbily dressed men selling alcohol or cigarettes to school kids?

The environment on SD.net is harsh. It is best if you just ignore the insults - and don't try to dismiss an argument because of them, since it is looked down upon here. In fact, it's a strictly enforced posting rule.
In other words, saying "You're mean, so I won't discuss with you" is not a valid option in an SD.net debate.

Thanks for the heads up, unfortunately my time is fairly limited - based on what I've seen so far there's no way I can answer everything, and if someone has hidden away a half decent point in a storm of insults then I'm not going to work very hard to find them. If the admins want to discipline me, well, their board, their choice.

It's just how the board culture is. I prefer not to use insults in a discussion, but have done so on occasion and I also have been flamed (rather heavily) myself.

Oh I'd seen the boards were full of angry kids, but didn't realise there was a compulsory answer policy; maybe I should have read the T&Cs more closely

[Darth Wong]

The point I'm driving at here is legalisation allows regulation.

Nice try, but that is NOT your original claim. Your original claim was that smoking actually provides a net gain to society, and it doesn't.

Oh I'd seen the boards were full of angry kids,

You will, of course, provide evidence that anyone who doesn't follow Miss Manners rules must be an "angry kid", right asshole?

[RTS]

Bullshit. Those figures are based on the fact that you are paid for those hours regardless. The fact that people aren't perfect machines at work does not have any impact on their validity.

Horseshit! They're shown in a vacuum. Put them alongside figures for much coffee costs in lost productivity or email access for office staff or human's ability to converse about non-work related things then you'll have something that's intellectually honest.

If people miss a certain number of days at work due to smoking-related illness, that is lost productivity and an accurate figure for business losses regardless of whether they work 100% of the time when they are at the office.

Didn't argue with that portion of the figure. Pay attention numbnuts.

How the fuck is Health Canada a source with a "fairly obvious agenda", asshole? And my sources explain where the numbers come from, while yours don't.

Oh for fuck's sake. The £9.3 billion comes from the Treasury whilst the £1.5 billion comes from the NHS. The source is the BBfuckingC If they put a number on something you can be fairly sure its accurate.
As for Health Canada's agenda - work it out yourself.