Things that are addictive ruin the idea of freedom. You're free to buy what you want... but if you're addicted then you're not. It's a trap and it's not fair.

Imagine a world in which punching you in the face was addictive. That's smoking.

Very true. It is a trap. And some of have fallen in. And it seems, that while we may like our hole, instead of getting good reasons or help getting out, some people have choosen to start filling it with dirt.

Yeah. While it'd be great fun and enjoyment for some, it'd suck big time for the rest.

***EDIT***

dc_dux that was great, but it made me want smoke smoke smoke a cigarette :)

its funny you should say that. the non-smokers (at every job i have ever had) had the right to ask for those same breaks, even if they were not going outside to have a break. very few of them acted on that right and took the break.

but i think smokers get breaks because when smoking frist got popular people were allowed to do it indoors. they didn't to take a break cuz they could smoke and do their work at the same time. but with all the laws nad such we have now, people can't and so bosses, jobs, and most people are okay with allowing the smoker to do what they used to do (which is smoke) it's just now they are doing it outside. and of the smokers i know, they wouldn't mind not getting break, they would want to finish their work, but they want that cigarette too. so why bitch? just take the break and run with it.

First they came for the opiates
and I did not speak out
because I was not Chinese
Then they came for the hemp
and I did not speak out
because I did not use rope.
Then they came for the cigarettes
and I did not speak out
because I had asthma
Then they came for my level 70 fully legendary pimped paladin.
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Not a big MMORPG fan. Got any Starcraft references?
Ah, now that's fucking nerdy.

will there is a whole area out there to be dogmatic about you are missing. MMO addiction destroys lives, breaks up families, causes a rise in obesity and poor dental health.

Plus they won't have money to lobby against you as most have a hard enough time holding down a job, unless congress starts to accept WoW gold instead of cash.

You've clearly never played Starcraft. It's quite simply the greatest RTS in the past 15 years, and it was about 25% of my time from 1998 to about 2003.

For a very long time it wasn't just the addiction that kept me smoking. It was the fact that I like to smoke. I genuinely enjoyed my cigarettes. So you are looking to ban my freedom to enjoy that cigarette or not?
If I enjoy being punched in the face shouldn't I be free to get punched in the face?

To all the people out there that have never smoked, you simply do not understand that while yes it is addictive, a great many smokers continue to do so because they enjoy smoking. Why did I stop? Again because it stopped being enjoyable.

Suicide is illegal. Quite frankly the conversation should probably end there, but I'd like to address your points.

The enjoyment you're feeling is caused by nicotine, which is a stimulant. While it is addictive, it's also responsible for the mood-altering effect when one smokes (and to a lesser degree when one uses a patch or gum). I'm sure it feels like a strange combination of wakefulness and relaxation. Unfortunately, this effect, combined with the addictive nature of nicotine, manages to remove the ability to make a sober decision regarding smoking. It's not unlike someone being asked if they should continue drinking when they are already drunk. It is this issue, above all else, that really bothers me. When a person is stripped of their ability to make a sober decision, they are a prisoner. I cannot imagine allowing anyone to be left in such a condition.

I'm glad you posted, morph. Writing this post has helped me to clarify my own stance on this issue.

I am well aware of what the reason behind the enjoyment of smoking is will. Thanks for sharing though. I assume you have never smoked so you only have clinical data to work with and never first hand experience.
It's suddenly the same as asking a drunk person if they should continue drinking? Guess what? I do it all the time. I go out and get drunk and stop myself because I know my limit. So if that's the case then I guess letting people choose to smoke must be okay in my books.
Like eating fatty foods? Tough. You may get health issues. Ban them.
It pisses me off when you non-smokers come in and try to tell the smokers and former-smokers all about cigarettes. Guess what? WE KNOW. We chose to smoke. Some of us chose to quit some of us haven't.
If someone wants to smoke, outside or in their home, I'll be the first to fight for their right to do so. If they want to quit, I'll gladly help them along in anyway I can. Why? Because unlike the non-smokers here I know because I've been there in both cases.

So very, very true.

We have socialized health care here. I don't reckon cigarettes ought to be banned or excluded. If we start excluding people because they make bad choices, we're going to have a lot of out-of-work doctors.

Cigarettes are not like alcohol. Cigarettes provide a pleasure response, but they don't impair judgement like alcohol does. Smokers are able to make proper value decisions; in fact, I still maintain that's what continuing to smoke is. People smoke because they don't have a good enough reason to quit. Some people aren't overly concerned about the negative health effects. Hell, shocking as it is, there are folks out there who figure that if they live long enough for the lung cancer/emphysema to be a concern then they'll have done alright.

That's a pretty weak assumption. I still smoke cigars, though not often.
Rather weak fallacy. You might as well flip a coin. Why? Because of something called inebriation. Ever looked up inebriation in the thesaurus? Stupefaction appears right next to it. In other words, you've had so much alcohol that you've become quite stupid. What kind of decisions can one make when stupid? Bad decisions. What I'm saying is that it's nothing more than blind luck that you don't have another.
I'll tell you what, show me a hamburger that has chemicals that are as physically addictive as nicotine and I'll support a ban on it.
Suicide is illegal.
Would you also defend someone's right to use heroine? Because cigarettes are actually more dangerous than heroine (aside from cutting and dirty needles).

Well shit I guess I must be the luckiest guy in the world because I seem to know when to cut myself off 99% of the time and I go out drinking quite often. Actually its about knowing my body and how much alcohol I can consume that stops me from having another.

BTW are you sure suicide is illegal everywhere? I just looked through the Criminal Code of Canada, the only thing I could find relating to suicide was the following.
I'm too tired right now to argue the rest of your post. I'll come back tomorrow.

If you're already drunk then you've made the wrong decisions. If you're not drunk, then I'm not sure what you're arguing. It's a catch-22, I know, but it's how I prefer to argue.
Have a good night's sleep. :thumbsup:

Unless you set an alarm to go off at 3AM to play for 15 hours straight in order to gain points so maybe the next time or time after you get something you need to do the next task the same way I don't think its a valid comparison.

I played Starcraft online until I found the 'trainers' and saw how easy it was to cheat. Good game, but you were never married to it.

Starcraft addiction is to WoW addiction as Caffeine addiction is to Meth addiction.

This is turning into abit of a threadjack so heres the last thing I have to say about booze...
Hell if I'm already drunk then I've made the right decision. :) You seem to suggest that there is only one point of inebriation. Which of course is false. Am I inebriated when I go out and have three or four beers? Sure I am. Would it be wise to drive or operate heavy machinery? No but I'm still able to make decisions. Add in a few more pints am I still able to make decisions with more than just a 50/50 shot of making the right one? Hell yes. Am I inebriated? More than likely.
What I'm saying is that there is more than just sober or falling down drunk. When I say I'm able to cut myself off I'm talking about when I'm drunk but out of control. Okay I'm done talking about booze now back to cigarettes.

ANYWAY,

Sorry what I should have said is you have never been a smoker. Not a cigar here and there but a pack a day full blown smoker.

Really you should already know about the great health benefits that fast food burgers full of :rolleyes: . I never said that they contain the chemicals that cigarettes to just that they are a) bad for you and b) may be addictive depending on which side you fall (remember for a long time cigarettes MAY have been addictive too)
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2004/...ood041230.html


When I was smoking I (and I assume the same of most smokers) had zero intention of taking my own life. Are there health risks? Sure but I also drove a care in rush hour in Toronto.

Hey lets get pot legalized first, then we'll talk about harder drugs.

I did about a pack to a pack and a half a day when I was a freshman in high school. I managed to, after about 9 months (if I remember correctly), bring it down to 1 a day. Then I quit cold turkey. Leave us say it was difficult. It was fortunate that I didn't do any long term, serious damage to my lungs and cardiovascular system.

I waited years before I tried a cigar, and I now feel I've found a healthy and reasonable balance.

I also had zero intention of taking my own life, but I was stupid. Had I not made a correct decision, I would have been committing slow suicide.

You'll have to forgive my unfamiliarity with Canadian law. I'll have to verify suicide's legal status there before we continue on that vein. It is illegal here in the states, as well as many other countries.

Not really. Smoking does not equal Suicide will, get over it.

I repeat the definition from above that it is
Smoking cigarettes MAY kill you it's true, others though smoke until the day they die of natural causes. However unless you are deliberately trying to poison yourself with nicotine, the act of smoking is not suicide. Stupid, yes I'm not arguing that. Suicide, no.

Also you have argued earlier that an addicted smoker has no choice regarding smoking cigarettes. IF that is true then obviously they can no longer be considered a person of sound mind with regards to cigarettes. Therefor the word suicide and the laws regarding it cannot apply.

I'm all about self-control when it comes to anything considered a vice or drug or whatever. i'm of the solid opinion that everyone has that inner voice telling them whether what they're doing to their body is right or wrong and knows when they've crossed the line.

i think there's plenty of people out there that experience this or dabble in that or use something in moderation their whole life without it affecting their overall health... you just don't hear about them specifically because they never stand out and they keep their vices to themselves.

The thing about smoking, though, is it's effect on other people. that fact that even a little bit of second-hand smoke can negatively effect anyone in any way, whether it's from stanky clothes/hair to serious health problems means that you're taking away other people's choice by doing it around them. this is wrong no matter what... there's no way to argue where the line is or what's too much.

so... if you're truly alone and the only one affected by your decision... yes, smoke away. but if you can't control yourself long enough to GET away from everyone else, and end up smoking anywhere near other people because of your addiction.... sorry, but you gotta stop THAT.

If you live longer, then you cost the health system more money as you more slowly transition to dead.

Eat up, drink up, smoke up and die earlier. It will probably be the best thing you do for society during your existence.

:) wow. here here.

If only it were that simple. Smoking doesn't always kill you, but it can give you long-term illness. Now that is a cost to the health-care system. A non-smoking, health-oriented old person is less expensive than a chain-smoking, health-indifferent old person.

I haven't seen the data, but I wouldn't be surprised if smoking and poor dietary habits cause more burden to the health-care system even if these people have a shorter life span.

Yes, my problem with universal health care is that most people aren't healthy. And with UHC, there is now no incentive for people to be healthy.

The only way I would support UHC is if it was done by groups. I choose to exercise and be healthy and am currently in my 20s, I can be in one group with other people like me. Other people can join this group with low rates if they choose to.

I do yearn for simplicity but she is an elusive lover.

Here is a link to one study:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22995659/

Be warned, I am always dubious of findings from one solitary study.

I do enjoy the fact that it supports part of my world view.

We use laws to ridiculously micromanage things.

I think I've heard of this plan, its called normal health insurance :thumbsup:

So how is that UNIVERSAL Health Care and what are these rates you speak of? I was about to go off on a rant about the joys of UHC, but really this isn't the thread to do it in.

Oh please do, I hear Canada has a wonderful system full of Unicorns and magic beans :thumbsup:

Actually that's not true. There are incentives for doctors with healthier patients and for healthy citizens in NHS, which has been discussed in the Hillary's Healthcare thread.
/threadjack

As far as smoking itself goes I am rather libertarian. If you enjoy it, do it in your own home, or some other consenting person's home. If there is a designated smoking area where it absolutely does not affect others then that is fine as well. I used to hate going home after a night at a bar or club REEKING of smoke, and am grateful for the bans on smoking in public places. I can't stand having to walk through a pall of smoke when I have to enter a building with smokers outside. I wonder what would happen if non-smokers simply hocked lugies on the smokers as they passed through their cloud. Seems fair, gross for gross. Also, why is it that people enjoy smoking in their cars, but do not like the smoking refuse. I find it gross to pull up to a stoplight and find thousands of cigarette butts on the street against the curb. I do not know of a single smoker who ashes and puts out their cigarettes in their own car (though there must be a few). Don't get me started about smokers affecting my health insurance...

Yeah like the time I thought I broke my foot, went to see my doctor, got x-rayed and hit the pharmacy for some painkillers and all I had to pay for was the meds (which are covered by my work place benefits anyway) :thumbsup: //threadjack//

No, it has its problems. But it's a lot better than no universal system at all like in countries such as the United States....and China...Mongolia...a bunch of the -stans, and pretty much all of Africa.

It was once one indicator that separated developed countries from developing countries, but even some developing countries are implementing it.

The United States is, of course, as is the case with several other things, a unique case.

I love smoking threads, so much vitriol on each side. I'm what I think is a considerate smoker. I don't litter (at all, not just butts), I smoke in our designated areas and I'm respectful in that I avoid exhaling upwind. I'm used to being a vilified minority and don't really care. I can be a quite confrontational asshole if someone wants to get in my face about it.

I'm all for banning smoking in public owned buildings but not private ones. Hell, I think people should still be allowed to smoke in offices if they manage to exhaust or purify the air. What really gets my panties in a twist is the legislation banning smoking in private businesses like bars. Smoking and drinking go together and should usually be enjoyed with a card game.

One thing I find especially humorous about militant anti-smokers is the environmental angle. "Bitch, please." The amount of particulate pollution caused by burning tobacco is minuscule at the worst. I guess I'll support banning smoking for environmental reasons when I support banning campfires. "Those damn campers, always screwing up our environment! We're going to install EPA certified wood stoves at all the campgrounds!"

On a slight threadjack, I am happy that Colorado made the diesels clean up their act. Nothing quite like being behind one of those old RTD buses on a bike and getting a face full of diesel smoke when the light turns green. Sure don't miss those days and it's one of the reasons I don't blow smoke in people's faces.

Here's my small contribution, partly because I'm lazy and partly because my sentiments are already an echo at this point:

I've never smoked and I never will, but overriding the wishes of business and apartment owners nauseates me more than secondhand smoke ever will.

You're a guest in that restaurant, and it's not very fucking respectful to demand a rewrite of the host's business plan. Don't like the invitation? Cook your own damn food.

Does that concept (overriding the wishes of business) apply to who a business may or may not wish to serve as well http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...hites-only.gif or just to smoking bans in private restaurants, bars, etc.

I'm not equating the two in terms of law, but the "public good" comes into play in regard to smoking bans.

I think it's funny that the person who decided to bring in a segregation analogy into the thread was part of the anti-smoking crowd.

And yeah, I do personally believe that a business should be able to discriminate in it's clientele based on whatever criteria they choose. If a business owner decides independently not to allow smokers into his establishment, that's great. If he decides that black people shouldn't be allowed, that's fine by me too. One of these businesses is likely to do well, and the other is not. Can you tell which is which?

Racism is a social problem, not a legal one.

Martian, the social and legal often cross. They're not mutually exclusive. Or should women not get promoted unless they shag their boss?

Legal issues are a subset of social issues. My point was that attempting to fix a problem like racism with legislation is ignoring the wider issue. Same goes for smoking.

Both.

The public good isn't a valid issue when the affected property(ies) aren't owned by the public.

I think the billions that the government collects directly from smokers and indirectly from lawsuits against tobacco companies should be used to pay for smokers' health care and/or insurance.

I haven't seen the data either but I bet the taxes that smokers pay more than makes up for the additional cost to the health care system.

I go back and forth when it comes to smoking, but I've never been against bans. Either way, when I do smoke, I don't really mind going outside, even when it's goddamn cold and when I don't smoke, I don't really think about it, and that's nice.

From an ideological standpoint, it seems to me that the well measured regulation of private business is one of the cornerstones of an effective capitalist system. What "well measured" means depends on whose doing the measuring.

It is difficult to refute a personal belief that business owners should be given absolute control when it comes to choosing to allow their patrons to smoke indoor; such a thing is not so far from a belief in Jesus in the sense that ideological stances don't need to be anchored by reason (though they often are to a limited extent).

It is also difficult to argue against the fact that there seems to be overwhelming public support for these bans, and also that there is nowhere any sort of guaranteed right to smoke. To the smoker who complains of tyranny of the majority, I would like to point to Darfur while I take a break from playing a dirge for them on the worlds smallest violin. Even without taking such wholesale slaughter into consideration, yep, it sucks to be you. You are so oppressed. If only society was more accepting of your no doubt well reasoned personal choice to spend a lot of money to make the people who love you watch you slowly kill yourself. If I had any pity left from the little I allotted your family and friends I would give it to you, but I don't. Just my luck I will have smoked just enough in my younger days so that I won't be spared that idiotic fate.

Unfortunately, reality tends to trump ideology. I think that the anti ban crowd is put in the unfortunate position of defending an expensive, disgusting and toxic habit on purely ideological grounds, which is rarely a winning proposition.