Should smoking be illegal?

Do you smoke and should it be illegal?

  • I smoke, it should be illegal!

    Votes: 11 7.4%

  • I smoke, it should NOT be illegal!

    Votes: 16 10.8%

  • I don't smoke, it should be illegal!

    Votes: 72 48.6%

  • I don't smoke, it should NOT be illegal!

    Votes: 49 33.1%
  • Total voters
    148
downhillar

downhillar

Likes Dirt
Hey guys and possibly also gals,

I have a question for you:

If the government decided it was going to make smoking illegal, would you be for or against it, and why?

Pros of banning smoking would obviously be a (somewhat) healthier nation, less people wasting money on smoking, less kids getting addicted etc. less lung, throat, mouth cancer. Definately less polution - take a 10minute walk through the city and you see about 10,000 butts sitting around.

Cons would be a big impact on whatever country is growing and selling tobacco (excuse my ignorance), and the fact that the government would be taking something else away from people when really we should be the only ones who decide what's good and what's bad for us, so it should be up to the smokee to decide if they will buy another pack or not.

So what do you people think? should it be outlawed or not and why?

Try and keep it civil - "In a controversy, the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves."
 
I don't care, but I think it should either be 100% banned and illegal OR sold completely without restrictions (allowed to advertise, no health warnings etc)

What we have now is a half assed situation where the government rakes in a lot of money through the sale of cigarettes, while also spending a lot of people telling people not to smoke;) I would just like to see some decisiveness with these controversial issues.....same with refugees and asylum seekers; either let them all in or kick them all out, don't create a limbo situation.
 
'Ross said:
Stuff.
Click to expand...

The way it is now it keeps every body half happy, if they did ether of the things you mentioned then some people would love Them n others hate.

Personaly hate smoking and wouldn't mind seeing it banned, but that never stopped people getting stoned
 
I think it'd be a bit of a pointless effort really, as said before it didn't stop people getting stoned, and the amount of people who smoke/are addicted would create a huge uproar over the matter.
 
They are bringing out so many stupid laws for smoking now. They can't make up their mind be there "Ban smoking" or let it go on.

They are increasing the price every other month.
I have seen it, as i work in a huge tobacco based store.

But they are also making it harder to promote smoking,
Soon you wont be able to see the packets at all behind the counter. (in VIC, not sure about other states)

And the sales of tobacco products is so risky now.
Its a $100,000 fine for the store if someone sells it to a minor, a $1,000,000 fine for the store if the packets doesn't have the fire safety warning.

It will get to the point where Little stores wont bother risking it and not sell it, then the Coles/myre and Woolies limited will jack the prices up to make more profit.

SO either BAN it completely or easy the fuck up!

Will keep an eye on this thread.
 
I should say my theory only applies to things I don't remotely care about ie. smoking. I would just not like to hear people complaining about it all the time.
 
In my theoretically 'perfect' world: Yes, along with alcohol and any other substance that causes such huge drains on both the medical system and life in general. Completely ignoring the quality of life argument that can be inserted into the discussion.

In a world that I actually want to live in: No.

Edit: "Theoretically 'perfect' world" probably aren't the right words, but I hope my point comes across.
 
Last edited:
Mattydv said:
In my theoretically 'perfect' world: Yes, along with alcohol and any other substance that causes such huge drains on both the medical system and life in general. Completely ignoring the quality of life argument that can be inserted into the discussion.

In a world that I actually want to live in: No.

Edit: "Theoretically 'perfect' world" probably aren't the right words, but I hope my point comes across.
Click to expand...


having been the kid who had chronic bronchitis until a year after i left home, and two chainsmoking parents. and the stepmother of a kid who got an "asthma" diagnosis and drugs when his parent and step parent were chainsmokers...

hell, alcohol (among other drugs) has enough fallout and misery in our society in other ways it damages kids, people, and families. i can avoid going to the pub, easy. but i hate the way i can't go outside without breathing in the toxic crap that other people pay to damage themselves with.
 
hazza6542 said:
I think it'd be a bit of a pointless effort really, as said before it didn't stop people getting stone
Click to expand...
people will still be able to get it, but there would be a shitload of people who just wouldn't bother seeing as smoking doesnt get you high or anything, there is no benefit to smoking tobacco (unlike the high you get from weed etc)

It's quite irrelevant, actually. You can't ban smoking. Well, not in the near future anyway.
Click to expand...
god forbid people use their imagination for 5 minutes..
 
Last edited:
Putting additives in cigarettes should be illegal. and growing your own tobacco should be legal.
Without the additives, smoking would be far less addictive, and dangerous.
 
^^^Wasn't there some serious consideration about making cigarettes more distasteful (with some ingredient) and/or less addictive but the idea got shot down?

Can't remember the full details but it was a pretty interesting proposal.
 
Can we please stop asking for shit to get banned?

Next person who asks a similar question is getting a taste of the banning stick straight up the date!

Oh, and anybody who feels smart-arsey enough to point out the irony in that last statement will find an actual iron up there as well!

:rolleyes:

Back OT, Smokes are indeed absolutely shit. They haven't really got anything going for them other than the fact that I've been drinking, it's taken me half a f***ing hour to write these last 2 paragraphs and I quite fancy a dart right now.

I know myself that they are bad for me, make me smell bad and cost me an absolute fortune* and I'm cutting back further and further every year.

I completely accept that it's horrendously rude (not to mention illegal) to smoke in a restaurant. Same goes for bars and I do admit that it's been refreshing in the last 5 years to be able to come home after a night out and not stink of smoke however I do still relish nipping outside for a cheeky smoke now and again on an evening's festivities.

Now I'm not an ardent smoker. I've quit before. I could do it again easily. If anything, the only reason I still smoke is probably out of spite to the growing trend of nagging 'health' nazis.

I'm certainly not painting all non-smokers with the same brush here. Most people are reasonable folks who realise that having a small huddle of people puffing away next to the doorway of a pub on an evening is not going to bring about the end of the world, give them black lung or press-gang them into getting hooked on the evil nicotine and force them to pay for their habit by blowing sailors and sales reps in back alleys for spare change. However there are more than a few who are quite happy to demonise smokers as evil, unhealthy, filthy polluting self-centred pricks. Seems quite harsh if you ask me...

Is this a genuine concern for their own welfare and the welfare of others or is this really just an excuse for folk to hang shit on others, safe in the knowledge that they have the backing of both government and a growing social trend?

At the end of the day. I can't smoke in a pub anymore. fair enough. It still doesn't stop that guy to the left of me from stinking the place out with his BO, or that other guy talking twice as loud as his mates bragging about he just cleared a bonus big enough to buy a BMW 5 series, or the two chicks at the back screeching about how Jenna is suuuuuuch a bitch and I can't believe Briony is still hanging around with her and have you seen that new Usher video etc.etc

for a whole hour...

Allowing people to smoke again won't really help matters but neither will portraying smokers as evil cancer-merchants.

Anyway, it's late at night. I've been rambling a bit and probably haven't got anywhere further than when we started. TBH I should have just said 2 words.

Keith Richards ;)



*that last statement is a lie at the moment. I brought back 200 Marlboro Gold from Indonesia. The carton cost me less than a single pack would here. I'm smoking them more out of spite to the taxman tbh!
 
I dont think it can happen, on hand you have the HUGE amount of money the govt get, on the other hand it costs the govt alot of money with the related health issues.

I believe the govt will ban it when it costs outweigh the income they are getting.

on a personal level I believe you should be allowed to smoke and it shouldn't cost so bloody much.(i used to smoke.) I also believe that certain laws like the no smoking IN pubs etc is a good thing.
 
downhillar said:
god forbid people use their imagination for 5 minutes..
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't thought this through.

You can't ban something that people are addicted to. Imagine the uproar. The addictive properties of nicotine are well known and accepted, even in a legal setting.

The only reason most tobacco litigation fails is because one can't show causation. However, the acceptance of the addictiveness of nicotine is pretty universal.

Given this, banning cigarettes altogether would not be feasible. People who are addicted to the substance in the cigarette have no legal means of acquiring it. The courts would be filled with cases filed against the government. You can't give someone something they rely on, then take it away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top