What "really" is trying to be accomplished by anti-smoking laws?

[Key Sharkz 69]

Okay, I would first like to go on record saying that I actually switched to vapor because I actually don't like smoking that much and I am trying to quit, as is my wife (who still smokes). Also that my father died because of smoking, so I do not really like the long term effects of smoking. That being said:

 

I feel that anti-smoking laws are not protecting non-smokers anymore. I understood not smoking in public areas, and I understood not smoking in closed spaces due to second hand smoke, but really a lot of the recent things regarding smoking I do not believe are to protect other people from second hand smoke, they are pushed by non-smokers to police other people's lives. For example, the recent increase on taxes for cigarettes is bull. In my old state (NY) cigarettes could cost as much as $14 a pack. This tax hype was only introduced because no one feels sorry for smokers. If smokers speak against it, they are instantly met with "well it's bad for you anyways, and second hand smoke!" It's just being used to justify charging smokers more  money for something they enjoy doing.

 

Let's get this out of the way: if you preach anti-smoking to smokers, you're an asshole. I am not going to sugarcoat that. I am sorry, but I can not tell you how many people come up to me and my wife and go "you know how bad that is for you?" NO WAY!? All this time I thought it would give me super powers! Not a single smoker is unaware smoking is bad for you. Smokers know it's bad for you, but it is their choice what they want to do with their bodies. Why is it not rude to come up to smokers and tell them what they shouldn't do, but it is rude to go up to fat people and tell them the dangers of diabetes and being overweight? It's a stupid double standard and it doesn't help anyone. You are not going to convince people to quit smoking by shaming them.

 

However, FINALLY we get vaporizers and E-cigs which literally ELIMINATE SECOND HAND SMOKE AND THE SMELL OF CIGARETTES. So you'd think we finally have a good balance? Smokers can now enjoy non-smoker areas without the need to expose everyone to the smell of cigarettes and second hand smoke. Everyone's happy, right? Well not so much. Now people want to push to ban vaporizers and E-cigs from the same places as cigarettes. There isn't a lot of definitive proof that e-cigs or vaporizers cause second hand effects because they don't burn tobacco. I find the push to ban them pretentious. It has nothing to do anymore with protecting non-smokers and has everything to do with that non-smokers just don't want to see smokers.

[Dracozombie 4,554]

I don't walk up to smokers and tell them to stop smoking, and I don't walk up to fat people and tell them to start eating healthier either. But here's the differene between smokers and fat people: you need to eat, so a fat person's problem is a little more complicated to manage. But you don't need to smoke. It's something you go out of your way to do because it's a 100 percent optional thing -- that has health-related concerns that everyone is aware of. And they do it anyway. So, if policies are implemented to make it harder for smokers to do their thing, it's honestly hard to feel sorry for them. I don't actively stop anyone from smoking, but that's not the same as supporting it. I don't see why it should concern me.

 

E-cigs don't use tobacco, which is where most of the health concerns (and second-hand smoke) comes from, so the banning seems silly at first. But, both regular and e-cigs have nicotine, which is how cigarettes become addicting. Society doesn't have a good opinion of drugs and addiction anyway. Yes, it's their choice what to do with their bodies, but that doesn't stop it from being a bad choice. You even admit all the problems cigarettes caused for you and your family. Hell, you're trying to quit! So it sounds like you just don't like the principle of someone telling you what to do. Yes, it sucks having your choices infringed upon by politicians with a vendetta, but in this specific case, what are the choices they're limiting? The choice to be addicted to something that ultimately has zero benefits in the long run? It's not like this will lead to some kind of slippery slope where they tell you you're not allowed to make this choice, so now you're not allowed to make ANY choice and we all live in a dictatorship.

[Weedanort 8,786]

Okay, I would first like to go on record saying that I actually switched to vapor because I actually don't like smoking that much and I am trying to quit, as is my wife (who still smokes). Also that my father died because of smoking, so I do not really like the long term effects of smoking. That being said:

 

I feel that anti-smoking laws are not protecting non-smokers anymore. I understood not smoking in public areas, and I understood not smoking in closed spaces due to second hand smoke, but really a lot of the recent things regarding smoking I do not believe are to protect other people from second hand smoke, they are pushed by non-smokers to police other people's lives. For example, the recent increase on taxes for cigarettes is bull. In my old state (NY) cigarettes could cost as much as $14 a pack. This tax hype was only introduced because no one feels sorry for smokers. If smokers speak against it, they are instantly met with "well it's bad for you anyways, and second hand smoke!" It's just being used to justify charging smokers more  money for something they enjoy doing.

 

Let's get this out of the way: if you preach anti-smoking to smokers, you're an asshole. I am not going to sugarcoat that. I am sorry, but I can not tell you how many people come up to me and my wife and go "you know how bad that is for you?" NO WAY!? All this time I thought it would give me super powers! Not a single smoker is unaware smoking is bad for you. Smokers know it's bad for you, but it is their choice what they want to do with their bodies. Why is it not rude to come up to smokers and tell them what they shouldn't do, but it is rude to go up to fat people and tell them the dangers of diabetes and being overweight? It's a stupid double standard and it doesn't help anyone. You are not going to convince people to quit smoking by shaming them.

 

However, FINALLY we get vaporizers and E-cigs which literally ELIMINATE SECOND HAND SMOKE AND THE SMELL OF CIGARETTES. So you'd think we finally have a good balance? Smokers can now enjoy non-smoker areas without the need to expose everyone to the smell of cigarettes and second hand smoke. Everyone's happy, right? Well not so much. Now people want to push to ban vaporizers and E-cigs from the same places as cigarettes. There isn't a lot of definitive proof that e-cigs or vaporizers cause second hand effects because they don't burn tobacco. I find the push to ban them pretentious. It has nothing to do anymore with protecting non-smokers and has everything to do with that non-smokers just don't want to see smokers.

 

 

I've had my share of people saying "You smoke? You know smoking's bad for you, right?", and that ticks me off a bit

 

Here in Portugal you can smoke in public spaces, and in closed areas (As long as they're properly equipped for it), and due to a new law, in 5 years from now, all closed smoking areas will be banned.

 

Although I disagree with banning smoking in public spaces, I agree with banning smoking in closed areas, the smoke can really clog up area slike that

[HeyMouseSayCheese 1,133]

Do people really go up to smokers and tell them to stop? Like, if someone lights a cigarette inside a restaurant or right next to a No Smoking sign, I could see that, but I've never seen anyone go out of their way to bother a smoker just for smoking. Hell, I used to go to a cancer hospital with my mom and there would be people smoking right outside the door of the cancer hospital. Maybe it's only like that where I live, but smokers tend to get away with a quite a bit.

[hatok 6,413]

to be honest, I've run into a lot of people who talk about how bad they have it because people judge them for smoking.

Quite frankly, knowing that people are going to judge you for doing something that stupid should be something you prepare for right alongside the negative health effects.

Don't like being taxed to literally breath toxins? do something else or get over it. You're not exactly doing something that's going to be worth defending to most people.

[khoathkeeper13 429]

I was talking with the people at my work about stuff like this (marijuana, cigarettes, alcohol...) and really people shouldn't be upset on outlawing something that harms you when it's completely optional.  The whole goal is to make people healthier.  The restrictions and taxes are to discourage people from picking up awful addictions.

The leading causes of death right now are all lifestyle related.  It's kinda a problem.

[Hardrada 117]

Often smokers suffer from declining health due to their habit and often wind up in hospitals, getting lung cancer, etc.  Since much of our tax dollars go towards healthcare, I have every right to give a shit about people smoking, especially when it has only negative effects for everyone.  It's clearly just an aesthetic choice, like wearing a T-shirt.  

 

Not to mention other benefits to banning smoking would include: Less house fires due to cigarettes, reduced consumption of scarce physical resources, a smaller carbon footprint, and we could potentially halt one of the principal sources of corruption in modern civilization (which is, you guessed it, the tobacco industry).  

[Key Sharkz 69]

I don't walk up to smokers and tell them to stop smoking, and I don't walk up to fat people and tell them to start eating healthier either. But here's the differene between smokers and fat people: you need to eat, so a fat person's problem is a little more complicated to manage. But you don't need to smoke. It's something you go out of your way to do because it's a 100 percent optional thing -- that has health-related concerns that everyone is aware of. And they do it anyway. So, if policies are implemented to make it harder for smokers to do their thing, it's honestly hard to feel sorry for them. I don't actively stop anyone from smoking, but that's not the same as supporting it. I don't see why it should concern me.

 

E-cigs don't use tobacco, which is where most of the health concerns (and second-hand smoke) comes from, so the banning seems silly at first. But, both regular and e-cigs have nicotine, which is how cigarettes become addicting. Society doesn't have a good opinion of drugs and addiction anyway. Yes, it's their choice what to do with their bodies, but that doesn't stop it from being a bad choice. You even admit all the problems cigarettes caused for you and your family. Hell, you're trying to quit! So it sounds like you just don't like the principle of someone telling you what to do. Yes, it sucks having your choices infringed upon by politicians with a vendetta, but in this specific case, what are the choices they're limiting? The choice to be addicted to something that ultimately has zero benefits in the long run? It's not like this will lead to some kind of slippery slope where they tell you you're not allowed to make this choice, so now you're not allowed to make ANY choice and we all live in a dictatorship.

 

First of all, I thank you for not walking up to smokers and telling them to stop smoking. You have no idea how freaking annoying it is. The problem though with your comparison is that I have a right to my body and what I choose to do to it. By your logic we should ban fast food outright because fast food has zero health properties at all and is ultimately bad for you. We should deny obese people into restaurants because they are only fueling their obesity. We should ban alcohol because it damages liver. My point is: people have the right to their body and what they choose to do to it, and it doesn't concern you.

 

The issue with it is that people should be allowed to make their own bad choices without other people butting in. I am only quitting though because I need to because of the military training I am about to undergo. People can be addicted to a lot of things, technically speaking sugar is slightly addictive and people can be mentally addicted to just about anything. My problem is that we DO live in a world where our choices are being limited more and more, and the justification for these limitations is getting skimpier and skimpier. You can't serve soda in public school anymore, you can't smoke weed (which has almost no negative health effects at all), you can't drink under the age of 18 anymore, and all for our "health" that honestly the government who is issuing these laws doesn't give a damn about. And now they want to go after a woman's right to abortion. Do you not see that our country is ALWAYS trying to limit what we can and can't do with our bodies, and every inch they are given, they take a mile? So what if smoking is a "bad" choice, people have the right to make it.

 

 

Do people really go up to smokers and tell them to stop? Like, if someone lights a cigarette inside a restaurant or right next to a No Smoking sign, I could see that, but I've never seen anyone go out of their way to bother a smoker just for smoking. Hell, I used to go to a cancer hospital with my mom and there would be people smoking right outside the door of the cancer hospital. Maybe it's only like that where I live, but smokers tend to get away with a quite a bit.

 

Try being a smoker. You light a cigarette up in a place that isn't your home and you are sure to find someone.

 

 

to be honest, I've run into a lot of people who talk about how bad they have it because people judge them for smoking.

Quite frankly, knowing that people are going to judge you for doing something that stupid should be something you prepare for right alongside the negative health effects.

Don't like being taxed to literally breath toxins? do something else or get over it. You're not exactly doing something that's going to be worth defending to most people.

 

And that mentality is literally how the government gets away with an over 500% tax on cigarettes. Hoping that people like you will think that way and ignore the blatant money laundering.

 

 

I was talking with the people at my work about stuff like this (marijuana, cigarettes, alcohol...) and really people shouldn't be upset on outlawing something that harms you when it's completely optional.  The whole goal is to make people healthier.  The restrictions and taxes are to discourage people from picking up awful addictions.

The leading causes of death right now are all lifestyle related.  It's kinda a problem.

Obesity leads to more preventable death than smoking.

 

 

Often smokers suffer from declining health due to their habit and often wind up in hospitals, getting lung cancer, etc.  Since much of our tax dollars go towards healthcare, I have every right to give a shit about people smoking, especially when it has only negative effects for everyone.  It's clearly just an aesthetic choice, like wearing a T-shirt.  

 

Not to mention other benefits to banning smoking would include: Less house fires due to cigarettes, reduced consumption of scarce physical resources, a smaller carbon footprint, and we could potentially halt one of the principal sources of corruption in modern civilization (which is, you guessed it, the tobacco industry).  

Oh god, I have heard this argument so many times. First of all, only if people are living on medicaid will it come out of government taxes, so that isn't everyone. Secondly more people end up in the hospital for preventable death causes due to obesity, which I might add is a higher percentage of people living on government services, yet you don't see anyone shutting down McDonalds. There are so many more things that people are using to blatantly rip off the tax dollars of Americans over that go completely unpunished.

 

Not to mention that vaporizers have reduced negative adverse health effects caused by cigarettes caused to others, fires and have reduced the negative effects of cigarettes all aright, but now people want those gone too. Let's be honest here: people act like they care about other's health but it's just because people become infuriated seeing people make choices that they themselves don't believe people should have.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Mist Skye

[hatok 6,413]

First of all, I thank you for not walking up to smokers and telling them to stop smoking. You have no idea how freaking annoying it is. The problem though with your comparison is that I have a right to my body and what I choose to do to it. By your logic we should ban fast food outright because fast food has zero health properties at all and is ultimately bad for you. We should deny obese people into restaurants because they are only fueling their obesity. We should ban alcohol because it damages liver. My point is: people have the right to their body and what they choose to do to it, and it doesn't concern you.

 

The issue with it is that people should be allowed to make their own bad choices without other people butting in. I am only quitting though because I need to because of the military training I am about to undergo. People can be addicted to a lot of things, technically speaking sugar is slightly addictive and people can be mentally addicted to just about anything. My problem is that we DO live in a world where our choices are being limited more and more, and the justification for these limitations is getting skimpier and skimpier. You can't serve soda in public school anymore, you can't smoke weed (which has almost no negative health effects at all), you can't drink under the age of 18 anymore, and all for our "health" that honestly the government who is issuing these laws doesn't give a damn about. And now they want to go after a woman's right to abortion. Do you not see that our country is ALWAYS trying to limit what we can and can't do with our bodies, and every inch they are given, they take a mile? So what if smoking is a "bad" choice, people have the right to make it.

 

Try being a smoker. You light a cigarette up in a place that isn't your home and you are sure to find someone.

 

And that mentality is literally how the government gets away with an over 500% tax on cigarettes. Hoping that people like you will think that way and ignore the blatant money laundering.

 

Obesity leads to more preventable death than smoking.

 

Oh god, I have heard this argument so many times. First of all, only if people are living on medicaid will it come out of government taxes, so that isn't everyone. Secondly more people end up in the hospital for preventable death causes due to obesity, which I might add is a higher percentage of people living on government services, yet you don't see anyone shutting down McDonalds. There are so many more things that people are using to blatantly rip off the tax dollars of Americans over that go completely unpunished.

 

Not to mention that vaporizers have reduced negative adverse health effects caused by cigarettes caused to others, fires and have reduced the negative effects of cigarettes all aright, but now people want those gone too. Let's be honest here: people act like they care about other's health but it's just because people become infuriated seeing people make choices that they themselves don't believe people should have.

those poor oppressed smokers, having to pay extra

at least where I live some of the money goes to the hospitals to help deal with the second hand smoke related illnesses

also, obesity leads to preventable death? You're right, but people need to eat food, you can't say the same with cigarettes

[Jake 1,488]

I honestly don't support smoking but I also don't go up to people and tick them off that way. I just think you should use alternatives besides smoking. I know its your body and all, but smoking is a bad concept in my opinion. Smoking leads to tons of people from getting harmed by second hand smoking and like Hardrada stated, it has our tax dollars go to health care which another way affects us all. If you really feel that anti smoking laws is stupid, you should exercise your rights and gather some people who think like you locally and petition the government.  

[Dracozombie 4,554]

 

First of all, I thank you for not walking up to smokers and telling them to stop smoking. You have no idea how freaking annoying it is. The problem though with your comparison is that I have a right to my body and what I choose to do to it. By your logic we should ban fast food outright because fast food has zero health properties at all and is ultimately bad for you. We should deny obese people into restaurants because they are only fueling their obesity. We should ban alcohol because it damages liver. My point is: people have the right to their body and what they choose to do to it, and it doesn't concern you.

 

The issue with it is that people should be allowed to make their own bad choices without other people butting in. I am only quitting though because I need to because of the military training I am about to undergo. People can be addicted to a lot of things, technically speaking sugar is slightly addictive and people can be mentally addicted to just about anything. My problem is that we DO live in a world where our choices are being limited more and more, and the justification for these limitations is getting skimpier and skimpier. You can't serve soda in public school anymore, you can't smoke weed (which has almost no negative health effects at all), you can't drink under the age of 18 anymore, and all for our "health" that honestly the government who is issuing these laws doesn't give a damn about. And now they want to go after a woman's right to abortion. Do you not see that our country is ALWAYS trying to limit what we can and can't do with our bodies, and every inch they are given, they take a mile? So what if smoking is a "bad" choice, people have the right to make it.

 

But fast food isn't the same as cigarettes. Fast food is still food and there's some kind of nutritional value in it. Cigarettes have absolutely zero. And as a matter of fact, banning things like fast food and alcohol probably would do some good in the long run. It's just that I'm not willing to ban it from the people who treat fast food and drinking as the occassional splurge, just to deal with the people who abuse it. But cigarettes aren't an occassional splurge. You can easily have a night of drinking or eating unhealthy and not do it again for like a month. Cigaretters are awful if you're not used to it. The people who buy them are the ones guaranteed to come back for more.

 

Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't make it a good idea. There are consequences to what you do, and if there are measures in place to prevent having to deal with those consequences, more power to it. We're addicted to a lot of things, but some addictions are more benign than others. Some can actually have side benefits, like being addicted to health and exercise or a productive hobby. The temporary feel-good effects of a smoking addition do not match up with the long-term consequences. So yeah, not all addictions are equal.

[Key Sharkz 69]

those poor oppressed smokers, having to pay extra

at least where I live some of the money goes to the hospitals to help deal with the second hand smoke related illnesses

also, obesity leads to preventable death? You're right, but people need to eat food, you can't say the same with cigarettes

People don't need to eat fast food. Fast food is not necessary to survival. We should ban fast food. Also alcohol is not necessary for survival, or many other things. Smoking is a hobby, it's an activity, if you justify charging more for it because it's "bad for you" then one could easily justify charging more for video games because they are addicting.

 

 

But fast food isn't the same as cigarettes. Fast food is still food and there's some kind of nutritional value in it. Cigarettes have absolutely zero. And as a matter of fact, banning things like fast food and alcohol probably would do some good in the long run. It's just that I'm not willing to ban it from the people who treat fast food and drinking as the occassional splurge, just to deal with the people who abuse it. But cigarettes aren't an occassional splurge. You can easily have a night of drinking or eating unhealthy and not do it again for like a month. Cigaretters are awful if you're not used to it. The people who buy them are the ones guaranteed to come back for more.

 

Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't make it a good idea. There are consequences to what you do, and if there are measures in place to prevent having to deal with those consequences, more power to it. We're addicted to a lot of things, but some addictions are more benign than others. Some can actually have side benefits, like being addicted to health and exercise or a productive hobby. The temporary feel-good effects of a smoking addition do not match up with the long-term consequences. So yeah, not all addictions are equal.

 

Fast food has more negative effects than positive. Banning alcohol has been done, might want to look up the results of that. All it did was encourage drinking of non-tested substances, and made a lot of people rich through illegal bootlegging. Literally fast food will kill you faster than cigarettes, that is a fact. Cigarettes can take decades to kill you even if you smoke a lot, fast food can literally kill you in a few years if you eat as much as some people smoke. Alcohol can kill you much faster than cigarettes as well. Also smoking is not as addictive as people make it out to be. Take it from someone who has smoked: it takes years before you get so addicted you can't live without them. It's easier to quit smoking after 4 years than it is to quit drinking soda.

 

The problem also becomes if you just force people to choose "good ideas" they aren't really good. If people have no other options they aren't really doing good, they are just following the only options they have. They are not learning to make good choices. Forcing people to quit smoking does not make them want to quit more.

 

And at the end of the day: it is no one's business what I do to my body. I have the right to my body and most people who promote against smoking don't actually know that much about smoking beyond what they have been told. I am all for banning smoking in enclosed areas and inside public buildings, but beyond that if you are exposed to second hand smoke, it's your own damn fault. Smokers smoke in confined areas and places that they are permitted to, if you are exposed to it, it's because you enter those areas willingly on a fairly regular basis.

 

If you don't like what other people do with their body, then just ignore it. Honestly though, the more you limit people's rights to their body, the more that the government will try to get away with limiting.

 

Really though the argument of that taxes and laws are trying to get people to quit smoking is bull. The government doesn't want people to quit. If they did, they would approve quitting methods such as patches to be covered by insurance. They would fund more programs to help people quit. The reality is, they want to convince everyone smoking is bad so they can get away with taxing it more and making more money. And everyone will go "well at least they are taxing something that is bad for you" and keep that mentality until they start doing the same with something you like doing. I mean hey, they have been constantly trying to convince the public that video games are bad for you. What is going to stop them from one day trying to tax that more, then suddenly it'll be a big deal.

[hatok 6,413]

People don't need to eat fast food. Fast food is not necessary to survival. We should ban fast food. Also alcohol is not necessary for survival, or many other things. Smoking is a hobby, it's an activity, if you justify charging more for it because it's "bad for you" then one could easily justify charging more for video games because they are addicting.

One, fats food is essential because lives are busier now than ever in history, two, video games don't literally inject toxins into you

The difference is the things you compare it to are only bad if used the wrong way, smoking is objectively bad, an as an added bonus negatively impacts anybody who goes near said smoker

and quite frankly? Those health costs are draining from the hospital, you should be paying for that, not making excuses and trying to play it off like you're so OPPRESSED because you voluntarily do something like this

[Key Sharkz 69]

One, fats food is essential because lives are busier now than ever in history, two, video games don't literally inject toxins into you

The difference is the things you compare it to are only bad if used the wrong way, smoking is objectively bad, an as an added bonus negatively impacts anybody who goes near said smoker

and quite frankly? Those health costs are draining from the hospital, you should be paying for that, not making excuses and trying to play it off like you're so OPPRESSED because you voluntarily do something like this

Ummm smokers are paying for it? You act like the hospitals getting business is somehow putting them out of business. Does everyone assume that every person who goes to the hospital does not pay for their own insurance? If you are paying for your own insurance or you have insurance that is not medicaid you are paying for your own negative health. And in that case, I think that other people should butt the hell out of it.

 

Also once again: obesity is killing people faster than cigarettes. Obesity is draining hospitals far more if that's your argument, so we should pass more food laws and outlaw food that is bad for you. Why can't fast food places serve carrots and apples only? Why can they serve a Frappe with over 800 calories? Your logic can just as easily be used against you. If your argument is that smokers are draining hospitals, then being fat should be a federal offense. Risk of almost every health problem is increased dramatically by being obese, yet 1 in 3 Americans are obese. Not even 1 in 5 Americans smoke.

 

Literally more health problems are caused by obesity than smoking.

[hatok 6,413]

Ummm smokers are paying for it? You act like the hospitals getting business is somehow putting them out of business. Does everyone assume that every person who goes to the hospital does not pay for their own insurance? If you are paying for your own insurance or you have insurance that is not medicaid you are paying for your own negative health. And in that case, I think that other people should butt the hell out of it.

 

Also once again: obesity is killing people faster than cigarettes. Obesity is draining hospitals far more if that's your argument, so we should pass more food laws and outlaw food that is bad for you. Why can't fast food places serve carrots and apples only? Why can they serve a Frappe with over 800 calories? Your logic can just as easily be used against you. If your argument is that smokers are draining hospitals, then being fat should be a federal offense. Risk of almost every health problem is increased dramatically by being obese, yet 1 in 3 Americans are obese. Not even 1 in 5 Americans smoke.

 

Literally more health problems are caused by obesity than smoking.

you're going to have to forgive cultural differences here, I'm from Canada, so taxes on cigarettes go towards funding the free health care people who smoke will get.

 

and again, you're comparing something that isn't inherently bad to something that is. You can't ban food because people are different, have different needs, metabolisms, tastes. A lot of healthy food also takes a long time to prepare or spoils quickly, that's why fast food is the way it is. It's not an elaborate scheme to get people to grow obese.

 

Beyond THAT, if your food is making you become fat you can exercise and counterbalance it

 

you keep comparing the inherently negative act of smoking to neutral or positive things that CAN be bad. It's flimsy

[Key Sharkz 69]

you're going to have to forgive cultural differences here, I'm from Canada, so taxes on cigarettes go towards funding the free health care people who smoke will get.

 

and again, you're comparing something that isn't inherently bad to something that is. You can't ban food because people are different, have different needs, metabolisms, tastes. A lot of healthy food also takes a long time to prepare or spoils quickly, that's why fast food is the way it is. It's not an elaborate scheme to get people to grow obese.

 

Beyond THAT, if your food is making you become fat you can exercise and counterbalance it

 

you keep comparing the inherently negative act of smoking to neutral or positive things that CAN be bad. It's flimsy

 

Wait, you just invalidated your own argument...

 

"so taxes on cigarettes go towards funding the free health care people who smoke will get."

 

So if they are paying for it, who cares? :I

 

And actually fast food is far worse than smoking. They have discovered almost no health benefits to eating fast food, and obesity is a far bigger problem than smoking. Healthier choices exist (just like not smoking exists) but people still choose to eat fast food. All you are going to accomplish by taxing the crap out of cigarettes and making it harder to smoke is people finding ways to get around it. In NY, many people would illegally buy cigarettes without paying the taxes by buying individuals or buying a ton of them on the native American reservations.

 

I stress once again: if the government WANTED to ban smoking for health reasons, why are they offering no programs to help people quit? Nicotine patches are not covered by health insurance, and quitting plans aren't either.

 

I think it's a little idiotic that people will bitch to me about their precious healthcare being wasted on smokers, but the fact that 1 in 3 Americans being overweight (thus drastically increasing health risks) doesn't make anyone consider instilling anti-fat laws that prevent people from getting obese. Yet everyone is all for laws that make smoking harder and more expensive. Literally your argument is the flimsy one. Sure fast food can be counterbalanced with exercise, but the fact that 1 in 3 Americans is overweight is proof that that is not happening. Obesity is more rampant than ever, and now we got crap like the fat acceptance movement, trying to get people to be more accepting of obesity. Obesity last year costed the health system over $147 billion in 2008 and on average their medical costs were $1,429 higher. Literally less people smoke than people who are obese. So really why are we hitting smoking so hard to "stop" it when we are not doing anything to outlaw stuff that has been proven to lead to obesity. Fast food literally can be replaced with places that only sell health food, but no such thing happens.

 

Why are people permitted to destroy their bodies with food and no one bats and eye, but the moment someone does with a cigarette (which is considerably less bad for you) suddenly it's okay to police what people do with their bodies? Honestly, it's your body. You should have the right to do whatever you damn well please with it and that includes destroying it. Just because other people don't agree doesn't suddenly make it okay to police what people do with their bodies. I am sure people will start caring when they go on about how bad other crap is (even when it's not really that bad, such as smoking) and they push to ban that.

 

The problem with anti-smoking propaganda is that it exaggerates horrendously. You literally will die faster from being overweight than by cigarettes.

 

Do your research.

[Weedanort 8,786]

So, long story short, everything kills you /shot

 

Here in Portugal tobacco is rising on its prices very quickly, which gives us smokers some options:

 

- Invest more money

- Change to e-vapor

- Change to self-made tobacco (You roll up the tobacco yourself)

- Change to other stuff

- Stop smoking

 

I'm wavering between investing more money, or change to self-made tobacco

[hatok 6,413]

 

Wait, you just invalidated your own argument...

 

"so taxes on cigarettes go towards funding the free health care people who smoke will get."

 

So if they are paying for it, who cares? :I

 

And actually fast food is far worse than smoking. They have discovered almost no health benefits to eating fast food, and obesity is a far bigger problem than smoking. Healthier choices exist (just like not smoking exists) but people still choose to eat fast food. All you are going to accomplish by taxing the crap out of cigarettes and making it harder to smoke is people finding ways to get around it. In NY, many people would illegally buy cigarettes without paying the taxes by buying individuals or buying a ton of them on the native American reservations.

 

I stress once again: if the government WANTED to ban smoking for health reasons, why are they offering no programs to help people quit? Nicotine patches are not covered by health insurance, and quitting plans aren't either.

 

I think it's a little idiotic that people will bitch to me about their precious healthcare being wasted on smokers, but the fact that 1 in 3 Americans being overweight (thus drastically increasing health risks) doesn't make anyone consider instilling anti-fat laws that prevent people from getting obese. Yet everyone is all for laws that make smoking harder and more expensive. Literally your argument is the flimsy one. Sure fast food can be counterbalanced with exercise, but the fact that 1 in 3 Americans is overweight is proof that that is not happening. Obesity is more rampant than ever, and now we got crap like the fat acceptance movement, trying to get people to be more accepting of obesity. Obesity last year costed the health system over $147 billion in 2008 and on average their medical costs were $1,429 higher. Literally less people smoke than people who are obese. So really why are we hitting smoking so hard to "stop" it when we are not doing anything to outlaw stuff that has been proven to lead to obesity. Fast food literally can be replaced with places that only sell health food, but no such thing happens.

 

Why are people permitted to destroy their bodies with food and no one bats and eye, but the moment someone does with a cigarette (which is considerably less bad for you) suddenly it's okay to police what people do with their bodies? Honestly, it's your body. You should have the right to do whatever you damn well please with it and that includes destroying it. Just because other people don't agree doesn't suddenly make it okay to police what people do with their bodies. I am sure people will start caring when they go on about how bad other crap is (even when it's not really that bad, such as smoking) and they push to ban that.

 

The problem with anti-smoking propaganda is that it exaggerates horrendously. You literally will die faster from being overweight than by cigarettes.

 

Do your research.

I didn't contradict, you're just getting desperate. They pay for it BECAUSE of the taxes, that doesn't contradict anything I said. And yes I still care because one walking around in public and having to breath in someone's smoke is obnoxious, two you're spending so much time trying to justify it. I have friends who smoke, the difference is they don't spend their time trying to tell me that it's actually a good thing and they're super oppressed because they smoke.

 

Fast food is worse than smoking? You have to really be fooling yourself to think that. No health benefits? It's still food. There are still nutrients.

 

Also, if taxes "only" make it so people find ways around tit, why are you complaining about it? Clearly SOMEONE is buying them with high taxes, considering you've spent so many paragraphs trying to tell me how hard smokers have it.

 

They can't ban smoking outright, people would be outraged, same with alcohol (remember prohibition) smoking it culturally ingrained into us, which is why there are people like you out there trying to make a million and one excuses for it.

 

And again, you stick to this "WELL OBESITY EXISTS AND IT HAS A SLIGHTLY HIGHER AVERAGE THAN ME SO IT'S ACTUALLY NOT BAD"

One, obesity is constantly called one of the biggest threats to North America, and plenty of plans and stuff are made, but there isn't really a satisfactory solution yet. Again, people RELY on fast food in lot of cases because it's FAST. They don't have time for cooking, or need to grab something for the car ride, or whatever. The entire point of fast food is that it's fast and affordable, taxing it or banning it wouldn't work, though most people would see that.4

Additionally, it's cute how you blame obesity on fast food alone, when there are plenty of societal factors, like there being fewer jobs that require physical activity, and increasing reliance on machines. Oh course it's less easy to say "We should tax low activity jobs and machines" I guess.

 

Though there's also a bit of a fallacy going on here, claiming people can't complain about cigarettes because obesity is also bad. You can do both. It's possible. And cigarettes are still objectively worse for you, despite what you tell yourself.

Also you know why people are more accepting of obesity? Because it's a challenge to overcome. People can exercise, beyond that some types of obesity just happen, not because of what you eat. And it's rude to ask which one you have. You want people to be sympathetic to your smoking? Tell them you're quitting, because that's basically what obese people do.

 

Also I touched on it already, but seriously

outlaw smoking

did they not teach you about prohibition in school

 

People can destroy their bodies however they like, but smoking doesn't just affect YOU. It's smoke. It gets everywhere. If you have a kid it could WRECK them. The act of smoking is so much more destructive than the act of... eating.

Seriously

 

Don't sass me with "propaganda" arguments btw. My friend's dad is a doctor who works specifically with smokers. I trust him a lot more than you on the subject, sorry to say.

[Key Sharkz 69]

I didn't contradict, you're just getting desperate. They pay for it BECAUSE of the taxes, that doesn't contradict anything I said. And yes I still care because one walking around in public and having to breath in someone's smoke is obnoxious, two you're spending so much time trying to justify it. I have friends who smoke, the difference is they don't spend their time trying to tell me that it's actually a good thing and they're super oppressed because they smoke.

 

Fast food is worse than smoking? You have to really be fooling yourself to think that. No health benefits? It's still food. There are still nutrients.

 

Also, if taxes "only" make it so people find ways around tit, why are you complaining about it? Clearly SOMEONE is buying them with high taxes, considering you've spent so many paragraphs trying to tell me how hard smokers have it.

 

They can't ban smoking outright, people would be outraged, same with alcohol (remember prohibition) smoking it culturally ingrained into us, which is why there are people like you out there trying to make a million and one excuses for it.

 

And again, you stick to this "WELL OBESITY EXISTS AND IT HAS A SLIGHTLY HIGHER AVERAGE THAN ME SO IT'S ACTUALLY NOT BAD"

One, obesity is constantly called one of the biggest threats to North America, and plenty of plans and stuff are made, but there isn't really a satisfactory solution yet. Again, people RELY on fast food in lot of cases because it's FAST. They don't have time for cooking, or need to grab something for the car ride, or whatever. The entire point of fast food is that it's fast and affordable, taxing it or banning it wouldn't work, though most people would see that.4

Additionally, it's cute how you blame obesity on fast food alone, when there are plenty of societal factors, like there being fewer jobs that require physical activity, and increasing reliance on machines. Oh course it's less easy to say "We should tax low activity jobs and machines" I guess.

 

Though there's also a bit of a fallacy going on here, claiming people can't complain about cigarettes because obesity is also bad. You can do both. It's possible. And cigarettes are still objectively worse for you, despite what you tell yourself.

Also you know why people are more accepting of obesity? Because it's a challenge to overcome. People can exercise, beyond that some types of obesity just happen, not because of what you eat. And it's rude to ask which one you have. You want people to be sympathetic to your smoking? Tell them you're quitting, because that's basically what obese people do.

 

Also I touched on it already, but seriously

outlaw smoking

did they not teach you about prohibition in school

 

People can destroy their bodies however they like, but smoking doesn't just affect YOU. It's smoke. It gets everywhere. If you have a kid it could WRECK them. The act of smoking is so much more destructive than the act of... eating.

Seriously

 

Don't sass me with "propaganda" arguments btw. My friend's dad is a doctor who works specifically with smokers. I trust him a lot more than you on the subject, sorry to say.

Where did I say that it was a good thing? Nowhere, just that people are using pathetic excuses to justify overtaxing it. I already pay enough in taxes, and I do not cause any extra expense to the government, therefore they do not need to charge me extra for cigarettes. Also if you read carefully, I stated I am for keeping cigarettes banned in public areas. What I am not for is vaporizers being banned in the same manner. Vaporizers literally do not produce second hand smoke or even smoke smells. No where did I say I or any other smoker is super oppressed, you're putting words in people's mouths. What I did say however is that it is not fair that smokers are being used to siphon more tax dollars despite not being anywhere close to the biggest drain on health in America, while obese people pay no more in taxes even though they are a bigger drain on health care.

 

I am not fooled, you are clearly not informed: Fast food is one of the biggest contributors to obesity, which is the second leading cause of death in the US. Fast food has been heavily linked to causing obesity. Nutrients or not, it has been proven that fast food offers more negatives than positives. This is fact. Fast food and obesity are bigger health problems than smoking. The nutrients you get from fast food are almost completely negated by the negative effects to your health.

 

The issue is that if you tax it so high that people try to find ways around paying the taxes, then you have people breaking the law and being thrown in jail, thus wasting more tax dollars. It costs more money to throw people in jail in case you did not know.

 

I am not saying smoking is good for you, or even encouraging people to smoke, but I am saying it's not right to come up with some bullcrap reasons to tax me more for doing something "bad" for me, when there are tons of things that are far worse to do to yourself that don't get higher taxes. We don't tax people more for draining government funds with suicide attempts? Literally if someone is thrown into mental institutions with medicaid, they don't charge that person anything more in taxes when they get out to make up for it. We don't charge people more taxes when they get out of rehab to make up for the costs they drained, do we? No. Many politicians also are trying to push that video games are bad for you (granted with complete bullcrap evidence) but really they only need to convince enough people that video games are bad for you to, and then suddenly they can get the approval for more taxes on those too. Why should things that are "bad" for you justify more taxes? Why can we not tax fast food more? Why don't we raise taxes on alcohol?

 

When did I say smoking wasn't bad? Never. I just said it's not as bad as the media makes it out to be, and obesity is a far worse problem that goes untaxed. Fast food places could easily replace all of their food with healthy alternatives that could be made just as quickly, but you don't see anyone pushing for laws for that do you? No tax breaks are being given to places that "go healthy" are there? No. And while other factors contribute to obesity, one major factor is in fact fast food. I did not say it was the sole factor, just that it has been proven to be a major factor, and yet it is being given a free pass.

 

Cigarettes are objectively worse? On what basis? Studies have proven that eating fast food every day is worse for you than several cigarettes a day.

 

And you clearly are not reading my posts fully. I stated that they do not want to outlaw smoking because the government doesn't really care about your health. They don't want to outlaw it, they want to tax it. They want to convince everyone that it's one of the most terrible things you can do so they can get away with a 500% tax.

 

Also once again: vaporizers do not produce smoke. Problem solved. Vaporizers are a solution to the issue that harm no one but the smoker (and are significantly less bad for you than cigarettes). So there is no reason to tax them more or ban them.

 

Oh and by the way: second hand smoke is not nearly as deadly as it's made out to be. Many of the reports that second hand smoke kills more people than smoking have been disproven, and studies have proven that even being exposed to second hand smoke on a 20-30 minute period on a semi-regular basis is completely reversible health wise. Second hand smoke has only killed around 2.5million since 1964, that is literally less than 50,000 a year, and not even .01% of the population. Not to mention that since we have put bans on smoking inside public places that number has gone down significantly.

 

If you die because of second hand smoke in this day and age it's because you are an idiot who hangs around smoke all the time.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Mist Skye