Should smoking be illegal?

Originally Posted by OneHungryHippo

No, because it has already been legalised for quite awhile.

That is a terrible reason for anything. Just because something is legal doesn't necessarily mean it should be, which is the question being asked here. Otherwise, no one should have abolished slavery either.

It does cause a lot of fires and is a health risk, but I think it should be allowed in most places that aren't inside.

In California it's banned in all public buildings, but I think it should be allowed in certains bars and venues. If a city or forrest is at huge risk for crazy violent fire then maybe it should be banned until the area is less at risk.

I do believe tobacco and the like should be taxed for the money the cost the poublic health system, but the taxes already on them are normally used to fund things that aren't related to the costs they cause.

I also think that cigarette packs need to be designed to hold the spent butts and that the tobacco companies should directly pay for the clean up of all the litter that smoking creates. Also if any form of tobacco should be banned it's chewing tobacco.

I have to address this point

ONE IN EVERY TEN PEOPLE KILLED BY SMOKING ARE KILLED BY PASSIVE INTAKE.

While this is the popular common wisdom, it is simply patently false on every level. First of all, the fact that the math doesn't work. If this were true people would be keeling off in droves. Pandemic levels of people dying, left and right. We'd be buried in the dead. Even if the deaths took years to manifest.

You can also tell that it's false by the sheer numbers of people who have practically lived in smoke heavy businesses (such as bars) for decades and their health is no worse off.

This bit of false information is actually widely attributable to the EPA. Their study Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, released in 1993, concludes

"Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year among smokers... are estimated to be attributable to ETS (second-hand smoke) in the United States.

However in 1998 a Federal Court tore the EPA a new one, saying they demonstrated NO LINK between Second-Hand smoke and Cancer. They even accused that

... [The] EPA 'cherry picked' it's data,

and,

[The] EPA deviated from acceptable scientific procedure ... to ensure a preordained outcome.

Essentially the EPA faked their results. They lied. This hasn't stopped the lie from spreading as truth, however.

Another report often used was published by the World Health Organization, Multicenter Case-Control Study of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe. It's often cited as stating that there is a definite link between Second-Hand Smoke and lung cancer. However the actual report states exactly the OPPOSITE!

Results: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure. [J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1440-50]

It also states that the increased risk of cancer for adults is not statistically significant!

Since then, there has simply been NO consensus among the scientific community that second-hand smoke poses any health threat whatsoever, in any capacity. There's many "claims" and correlations, but that amounts to nothing scientifically. Most substances on the planet have been linked with various kinds of cancers in some form or other. Doesn't make them statistically or probabalistically dangerous.

Sure, second-hand smoke may suck breathing it in if you aren't used to it, but a thing being unpleasant to you personally isn't a reason to ban someone from doing something if they aren't actually hindering or otherwise harming you.

So all that is left is personal choice, and I can't see why that's a bad thing even if the consequences may be unpleasant. So long as it's possible for the consumer to be adequately educated on the product, It's personal choice and the consequences therein are that person's responsibility. There's no need to legislate behavior. That's a dangerous, Orwellian, can of worms to open.

Smoking shouldn't be illegal. But the CEOs and marketers of the tobacco companies should be put in jail and replaced with somebody who actually has regard for human life.

Tobacco has been proven to be one of the worst drugs you can take, it's not addictive on its own, but the companies put nicotine in it just for marketing. Because of that, almost all money the employees make is blood money.

I can almost guarantee that if the nicotine was gone, there would be far fewer smokers. Once you have it once or twice, and if you have an iron will, you will not stop.

But, seeing as how the corporations have bought out the government, this won't happen.

But the CEOs and marketers of the tobacco companies should be put in jail and replaced with somebody who actually has regard for human life.

Golly.

Calls for illegality were bad enough, but this is bordering on some kind of 'benevolent' authoritarian lunacy. The idea that humans can consume what they want is a very simple notion. Business aren't propaganda machines - regulation laws prevent them from becoming this - and so they are only respondent to consumer demands. Consumers want cigarettes and they are happy to buy substances they will be addicted to. The only problem lies there. I'm quite happy not being a child in a nanny state, personally.

Burning tobacco produces nicotine anyway, but again, it is irrelevant what the businesses do because it is the individual that sustains that practise. Clearly smokers are content. Or unaware. Neither of these is the fault of the business. The government ensure that the dangers of smoking are taught in schools and that is the most they should do.

Smoking should be completely legal. The Conservative legislation that demanded that fags need to be 'hidden' is just fetishising them. Any kind of restriction is fetishisation, as well as patronising and illiberal.

It's not a good thing to do. It's dangerous and gross. Parent smokers are dickheads. Government imposition on consumption is rarely justifiable though.

While it's evidently debatable whether or not it should be illegal, the government(s) would never make it illegal because they make so much money from it.

Personally I think it shouldn't be illegal, better people buying cigarettes from a shop then going down an alleyway round the back of ASDA (Wal-Mart) to meet a lad named Fraser and his dog 'Lil ♥♥♥♥'.

I was actually thinking of this just the other day.

I'm against smoking in general, but I'm pro-choice - if someone wants to smoke, that's their business and I'm not going to deny someone that kind of choice despite the health dangers. However, I am against smoking in public because while it remains the choice of the smoker to put themselves through such health hazards, they're removing that choice from others and forcing it upon them. Practically everyday I have to walk through a cloud of someone else's smoke - why should I and other non-smokers be forced to suffer something like that? I already have mild asthma so I'm taking a risk breathing something like that in - why should I have to face a potential health risk?

So that's where I have an issue. Smokers should smoke in designated areas or in their own homes. I generally don't care if someone chooses to smoke or not. It's when they remove my own freedom of choice that I have a problem.

Originally Posted by Toby

While it's evidently debatable whether or not it should be illegal, the government(s) would never make it illegal because they make so much money from it.

Personally I think it shouldn't be illegal, better people buying cigarettes from a shop then going down an alleyway round the back of ASDA (Wal-Mart) to meet a lad named Fraser and his dog 'Lil ♥♥♥♥'.

The UK government makes next to no money from smoking if you count the expenditure on curing smokin-related problems on the NHS (and you really should.) I imagine the story is similar in other countries with state healthcare.

---------- Post added at 02:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 PM ----------

Originally Posted by OneHungryHippo

No, because it has already been legalised for quite awhile.

That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever seen in an SD thread. By that logic women shouldn't be allowed to vote, black people should still be slaves... You get the idea.

Originally Posted by Mister Blak

The UK government makes next to no money from smoking if you count the expenditure on curing smokin-related problems on the NHS (and you really should.) I imagine the story is similar in other countries with state healthcare.

We contribute to the NHS via income tax. If a packet of cigarettes costed £5.30 and was a pack of a 20 the government takes 77.9% of the price. So for every £5.30 pack of 20 the government would make £4.13.

Do you really think the government would ban cigarettes and lost that £4.13? Considering how many of our lot smoke these days.

Originally Posted by Toby

We contribute to the NHS via income tax. If a packet of cigarettes costed £5.30 and was a pack of a 20 the government takes 77.9% of the price. So for every £5.30 pack of 20 the government would make £4.13.

Do you really think the government would ban cigarettes and lost that £4.13? Considering how many of our lot smoke these days.

Like I said, as far as I know they lose almost all of this money treating smoking-related problems. The net benefit is next to none.

Originally Posted by Mister Blak

Like I said, as far as I know they lose almost all of this money treating smoking-related problems. The net benefit is next to none.

The anti-smoking campaign costs 60 million per year, there are over 13 million smokers in the UK, that includes pills, therapy and meetings the NHS does as well as the advertising campaigns.

Take into account there are well over 13 million smokers in the UK, if we narrow it down and just say that each smoker has 2 packs of cigarettes every month and then take the governments 77.9% tax and that equals a hell of a lot more than 60 million. And also take into account that like I had said, a large amount of the NHS is paid for by income tax as oppose to cigarette sales, most of the VAT tax goes into the treasury.

Originally Posted by Toby

The anti-smoking campaign costs 60 million per year, there are over 13 million smokers in the UK, that includes pills, therapy and meetings the NHS does as well as the advertising campaigns.

Does it include the curative stuff? Like the active surgery etc, or just the preventative measures?

Take into account there are well over 13 million smokers in the UK, if we narrow it down and just say that each smoker has 2 packs of cigarettes every month and then take the governments 77.9% tax and that equals a hell of a lot more than 60 million. And also take into account that like I had said, a large amount of the NHS is paid for by income tax as oppose to cigarette sales, most of the VAT tax goes into the treasury.

That's not really how it works- what funds the NHS is irrelevant, as long as it is funded. It is common knowledge (although not necessarily true, of course) that the expenditure roughly equals the income when it comes to smoking.

---------- Post added at 11:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 PM ----------

Originally Posted by AdaMiSt

While this is the popular common wisdom, it is simply patently false on every level. First of all, the fact that the math doesn't work. If this were true people would be keeling off in droves. Pandemic levels of people dying, left and right. We'd be buried in the dead. Even if the deaths took years to manifest.

I'm sorry, but the WHO says it is a fact. Besides, the math works fine. Other things kill at those rates- one person dies of smoking every six seconds, and so one person dies of second hand smoke everty sixty. Water pollution (although I may be thinking of famine) kills a child every 15 seconds. We are not currently buried in the victims of water pollution. Perhaps I should make it clear that those are global statistics- I'm not saying the rate is that fast in the US or Canada or wherever. I believe it's one every fifteen minutes in the UK.

Besides, the math works fine. Other things kill at those rates- one person dies of smoking every six seconds, and so one person dies of second hand smoke everty sixty. Water pollution (although I may be thinking of famine) kills a child every 15 seconds. We are not currently buried in the victims of water pollution. Perhaps I should make it clear that those are global statistics- I'm not saying the rate is that fast in the US or Canada or wherever. I believe it's one every fifteen minutes in the UK.

Well, perhaps I was a bit too enthusiastic when I wrote that bit, haha. My other points still stand, however. The EPA's study really did get thrown out by a Federal Court for lying.

I know what the WHO says publicly, but I showed that their actual reported study shows they found the opposite of what they publicly state. In the WHO's press release for that study they claim the study shows there is a definite link to cancer. This is why it is cited as saying such.

HOWEVER a press release is not a study. The actual study says that there is no risk involved with childhood exposure to second-hand smoke and that the slightly increased risk in adults is not statistically significant. This means that the increased risk was in the expected range of pure chance.

The WHO has never come clean and been honest on this point against them. There is a bit of propaganda going on here. There is no doubt an agenda from the anti-smoking crowd. Going to their site even now raises a few red flags. There's a lot of very general, fuzzy language, and very scarce sources for their claims in this area.

This page for instance, makes many claims and backs up none of them. The language is all worded to incite emotion and is incredibly general. It sounds more like an advertisement.

"In 2004, children accounted for 31% of the 600 000 premature deaths attributable to second-hand smoke."

Emphasis mine. Attributable is not "attributed". This is politician-like slippery language. It implies a thing without actually stating it so you can't be called on it if you're found to be wrong.

"In adults, second-hand smoke causes serious cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, including coronary heart disease and lung cancer. In infants, it causes sudden death syndrome. In pregnant women, it causes low birth weight."

Where are the sources for these claims? There are none. The red flag for me here is the mention of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). Doing even minimal research on this tragic syndrome shows that we aren't even close to figuring out what may possibly potentially cause it! So where do they get off claiming that Second-Hand Smoke is a cause for SIDS?!

Something is seriously wrong here.

"Neither ventilation nor filtration, even in combination, can reduce tobacco smoke exposure indoors to levels that are considered acceptable. Only 100% smoke-free environments provide effective protection. Contrary to common belief, smoke-free environments are widely supported by both smokers and nonsmokers. "

Pure propaganda. All worded towards leading the reader to a specific pre-determined conclusion. That smoking should be wiped off the face of the planet. The part here that really bugs me is the last sentence.

"Contrary to common belief, smoke-free environments are widely supported by both smokers and nonsmokers. "

Such general fuzzy language! It can't be called a lie, but it isn't entirely a reflection of the truth either. Designed to manipulate your opinion in one direction. This isn't proper behavior for a respectable organization like this that is supposed to use scientific based reasoning and studies.

Then there's this page which at least has some sources.

Oh wait, one of them is Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry, Tobacco Control, which is exactly what it says on the tin.
A study about how good the studies of the economic effects of smoke-free policies in the hospitality industry, are. So that's probably where they get some of their economic benefits points from (why are they trying to point out the economic benfits? Isn't this an unbiased organization?).

And the other source is about the WHO calling for pictoral warnings on tobacco products. That's it! There is no source for ANY of the other claims they are making! And everything is worded so pointedly towards convincing the reader of a certain viewpoint. This page is supposed to be a fact sheet too...

My point is, don't take the WHO's word at face value. They ignored their own findings so they could keep promoting an anti-smoking campaign.


EDIT:

I did some hunting around and discovered these points from a 2010 Report by the Surgeon General.

Chapter 9. Respiratory Effects in Adults from Exposure to Secondhand Smoke

1. The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and odor annoyance.

2. The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and nasal irritation.

3. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to conclude that persons with nasal allergies or a history of respiratory illnesses are more susceptible to developing nasal irritation from secondhand smoke exposure.

Duh, of course the smoke can be stinky and irritating, but that's not exactly life threatening is it?

Respiratory Symptoms

4. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.

5. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.

6. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.

Lung Function

7. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.

8. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.

9. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to in-
fer a causal relationship between chronic second-hand smoke exposure and a small decrement in lung function in the general population.

10. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between chronic secondhand smoke exposure and an accelerated decline in lung function.

Asthma

11. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and adult-onset asthma.

12. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

13. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

14. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and morbidity in persons with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Damn. Not one point for second-hand smoke being dangerous. I picked out the respiratory points, but it's a similar story throughout all of the types of disease.

Uh-huh. Smoke inhalation isn't dangerous at all, which is why people don't get treated for it after fires and such. Oh wait.

Sarcasm aside, if second hand smoke isn't a problem, then why do cigarettes have filters?

Originally Posted by AdaMiSt

Lots of well-researched stuff.

Well I'll be. I suppose that what I said is mostly moot now, oh well. This discussion is pretty much done now, for me. People can feel free to hurt themselves as much as they like, IMO, as long as they leave everybody else unaffected.

Although the evidence being suggestive, although not strong enough to be completely proven, is a rather interesting point...

It's a very interesting point. My whole point was the science just isn't there at this time to make the claim of popular wisdom. There's no doubt that primary smoking is dangerous to you, though even that is quite subjective, but there is, as of now, no backing to the claim that second-hand smoke does any real harm.

So then the argument comes down to personal choice, since it appears there is no harm to others. So please be courteous if someone does not wish you to smoke in certain conditions, such as their home or a person on oxygen is nearby, but don't try to legislate the behavior.

@ Darth Yoshi

I'm on my Kindle and it won't let me copy your text for some reason :/ but anyway...

You can't really compare smoke from, say a house fire, to tobacco smoke. Unless there was enough of it. That means like a whole barn of it was on fire around you. They are two totally different kinds of smoke and the proccess by which you react to them is different. Many times smoke damage is simply friction damage, or asphyxiation.

With tobacco smoke there isn't enough toxins in the air for you to even metabolise them, instead your body kicks them out through it's natural toxins filtration system. That's how little there is, unless of course you're the smoker.

As for the filters, that's not for second hand smoke, it's for primary. Many smokers just cut the dang things off. The different grades of cigarette, such as light, just have different sizes of filter for personal taste. They almost make no real difference.

Originally Posted by Darth Yoshi

Uh-huh. Smoke inhalation isn't dangerous at all, which is why people don't get treated for it after fires and such. Oh wait.

Sarcasm aside, if second hand smoke isn't a problem, then why do cigarettes have filters?

....why do you think they have filters?

with filters a lot of tar or whatever that ♥♥♥♥ is in cigarettes (i'm a smoker and don't even know lol) gets caught in it and therefore it isn't in your mouth or lungs, some of it is, but most is blocked by the filter. also it blocks tobacco from being in your mouth which happens a lot with filterless cigarettes. not to mention the fact that filters make it easier to smoke. there's a reason non-filter cigarettes like lucky's have a reputation for being very manly and hard to smoke.

as far as i can tell filters literally have nothing to do with second-hand smoke. then again maybe i'm wrong.

If people want to pay to kill themselves over time, let them.

Originally Posted by forte

....why do you think they have filters?

with filters a lot of tar or whatever that ♥♥♥♥ is in cigarettes (i'm a smoker and don't even know lol) gets caught in it and therefore it isn't in your mouth or lungs, some of it is, but most is blocked by the filter. also it blocks tobacco from being in your mouth which happens a lot with filterless cigarettes. not to mention the fact that filters make it easier to smoke. there's a reason non-filter cigarettes like lucky's have a reputation for being very manly and hard to smoke.

as far as i can tell filters literally have nothing to do with second-hand smoke. then again maybe i'm wrong.

You think I didn't know that? That was my point. There's a whole bunch of crap in cigarette smoke that even smokers don't want to deal with, so they filter it out. Secondhand smoke is a combination of the filtered smoke that gets exhaled and unfiltered stuff straight from the cigarette itself.

Originally Posted by AdaMiSt

I have to address this point....

Statistically insignificant does not mean it has the potential to harm someone; it may be unlikely, of course.

Sidestream smoke is four times as toxic than directly inhaled smoke; and some other stuff. Secondhand smoke also lingers for 1.5-2.0 hours; and more stuff.

"The gas/vapour phase of sidestream smoke is responsible for the majority of the sensory irritation and damage to the respiratory tract epithelium." Damage to the epithelium increases with longer exposures.

I also live with a smoker and I find it to annoying. She won't go outside to smoke although there are two minors and two adults in the house (plus cats and dogs) -- all non-smokers. She also smokes more than once within a two hour period. She's smoking right now, actually.

Even if all of my data is incorrect or whatever, I like fresh air and not secondhand smoke. While I seriously hate smelling/inhaling smoke, I would not make it illegal, but rather continue banning it in public places.