Idea for better cigarette laws.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by chaos86, Dec 11, 2007.

  1. chaos86 macrumors 65816

    chaos86

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #1
    I was just reading the thread about underage drinking where somebody mentioned cigarettes and it got me thinking about the age restriction on buying cigarettes.

    Cigarettes have no positive place in society, nobody can argue with me on that, except people who are addicted and are trying to justify their ridiculously stupid actions. Now I know this will never happen because of all the tobacco lobbyists, but I think of might be a good idea:

    Instead of having a fixed age for the purchase if cigarettes, thus having the "born-before" date changed every day, just set the date permanently as today's date. That way those who can smoke now can continue to do so, those who cant never will, and those a*****es at marlboro have 40 years left to kill their existing customers and find a new business to be in.

    What do you guys think? I should be a congressman. Bring on the flames from the dumbass smokers.

    P.S. I'm not a troll, I'm suggesting something that could make the world (especially bars and clubs) better for today's youth.
     
  2. paul.b.davis macrumors 6502

    paul.b.davis

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Location:
    Over the hills and far away...
    #2
    fine with me, at least I will still be able to smoke

    I think I'll go have one right now
     
  3. davidjearly macrumors 68020

    davidjearly

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    #3
    It's a nice concept to rid the world of the disgusting stench that is cigarette smoke, but unfortunately this will never happen.
     
  4. synth3tik macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #4
    The one main benefit of smoking is it pisses off all those pompous douche bags that think they are the all knowing beings.

    "Hey, smoking is bad for you"


    Really?

    Honestly all the chemicals in perfumes and colognes are far more dangerous then smoke.

    Not trying to start a fight but I really can not stand people complaining about smoking choking me with their chemical fragrance.
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    Nah, people are, and should be, free to smoke if they so choose. As long as their smoking doesn't impact me or my health, I don't care.

    Plus, banning something never solves the problem. People will simply do what they do with marijuana now -- they'll either grow it themselves, or obtain it tax-free from some shady dealer who marks the price up untold amounts. You think cigs are expensive now? Ban them and they'll cost $100 a pack
     
  6. FF_productions macrumors 68030

    FF_productions

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2005
    Location:
    Mt. Prospect, Illinois
    #6
    A cigarette is good every once in a while, but it sucks to see people get really hooked and die from it later on.

    Your idea is pretty good though.
     
  7. Jaffa Cake macrumors Core

    Jaffa Cake

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    The City of Culture, Englandshire
    #7
    If you were a congressman you'd probably be aware how much money the tobacco industry rakes in for the Government though tax– just as long as there's a stack of cash to be made, an outright ban will never happen. ;)
     
  8. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #8
    You've got to be kidding... where's your evidence for that?
     
  9. davidjearly macrumors 68020

    davidjearly

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    #9
    Please provide me with some scientific papers backing up this hideous claim.
     
  10. gauchogolfer macrumors 603

    gauchogolfer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    American Riviera
    #10
    I don't really think you can say this with a straight face, can you?

    I agree with you about the annoying perfume, fwiw.
     
  11. synth3tik macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #11
    It's on the box. You can not happen to think that those chemicals are good for you. Any chemical is bad for the human body. I say this as a chemical engineer(not in that field however). The chemicals in perfumes and colognes are toxic. These chemicals can also lead to lung cancer. It's not just smoking that gives you lung cancer. dust and chemicals also give people lung cancer.


    Now I am not saying that we should all stop wearing cologne and take up smoking, but people need to see that smoking is not the only cause of health issues around the world. For instance, while everyone is concerned about smoking everyone is getting fat and an un-godly amount of kids (at least in the US) have diabetes and other health issues.

    I do smoke. I also do try to be respectful about it. I will stand away from people who are not smoking. I will exhale smoke away from people, and I will not leave cigarette butts laying around. Years before our state wide smoking ban I decided on my own to smoke outside and away from others. I used to not like sitting in the smoking sections at restaurants as it was kind of gross. However, I also do like sitting by someone that is wearing a lot of cologne or perfume as it gets in you mouth and you can not get rid of the taste. It make me choke and sneeze. I would guess much like smoke would to a non smoker.
     
  12. paul.b.davis macrumors 6502

    paul.b.davis

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Location:
    Over the hills and far away...
    #12
    The thing I do not get about public smoking bans is that, to me, it should be up to the establishment, not the state.

    If you do not like being in a bar with smokers, then just go to one that does not allow smoking, I do not see what is so hard about this.

    Fortunately, Virginia has not banned indoor smoking ...yet... but since the whole tobacco thing started here, I think I am safe for a while
     
  13. wonga1127 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Location:
    Wishing for a magic bus.
    #13
    Let peoples own lungs be their own business. Because guess what, Bill Hicks had it right when he said this:

    NON SMOKERS DIE EVERYDAY

    We all die, cigarette smokers just like to use a product they enjoy before they do. Just because you don't like cigarettes doesn't mean you have to be a dick to the ones who do.

    And yes as a smoker, I can say smoking is a ridiculously stupid thing to do. I tried one, and I liked it. I would not recommend them to anyone. I am not a worse person because I enjoy killing myself slowly. But the idea that government needs to tell me what I can and can't do with my own body is even more ridiculously stupid thing.
     
  14. paul.b.davis macrumors 6502

    paul.b.davis

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Location:
    Over the hills and far away...
    #14
    I could not agree more, to me the leading cause of death is life
     
  15. xUKHCx Administrator emeritus

    xUKHCx

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Kop
    #15
    What about the workers in these places, for example before the ban in the UK a tv program took readings from the staff and it showed that they had the equivalent of 3 cigarettes a day worth of crap in their systems.
     
  16. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #16
    So it's safe to put you in the pro-choice camp then?
     
  17. synth3tik macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #17
  18. davidjearly macrumors 68020

    davidjearly

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    #18
    This is what I fail to grasp.

    Even as a smoker, surely you can understand that non-smokers should not be restricted as to where they can go to avoid the serious adverse effects of adverse smoking?

    It is smokers that create this problem, therefore they should have the restriction as to where they can divulge their filthy habit.

    In my opinion, the thought of trying to avoid a smoking section is something I should not have to think about.

    Thankfully, at least in my country, I don't.
     
  19. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #19
    It was mainly banned for the health of people working at those establishments. It's all fine and dandy to say that someone should go to a non smoking place if they want to. However what about the person who needs a job and is working at a pub? Do they deserve to be poisoned by smoke? Do they deserve to go home stinking of smoke. You can't just say "oh they can work elsewhere", because maybe they can't. Maybe they like working in that pub, just would prefer not to die of second hand smoke.

    Personally i never "got" smoking. Sure nicotine calms you down but in doing so it destroys your bodies natural ability to calm itself down so you need even more cigarettes just to return your body to the normal calm you'd have if you never smoked.

    Plus it kills you and it stinks.

    Where is the upside? Unless you like smelling like crap, killing yourself slowly and making it harder for yourself to be calm.
     
  20. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #20
    <Picks up a box of Chanel Coco from bathroom> Nothing there.

    Please show me a comparative study showing deaths from smoking and one showing deaths from perfume... BTW, ex-smoker me.

    Walking into a room of smokers, seeing the filth in the air and on the walls and breathing it in, isn't remotely comparable to the occasional whiff of perfume.
     
  21. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #21
    wow if that wasnt the stupidest thing ive read all day.

    id prefer not to get lung cancer from inconsiderate smokers how's that..

    tobacco use is responsible for 1/3 of all cancers mostly lung cancer which has a high fatality rate

    my right to not breathe in smoke overrides the rights of those to breathe it. im glad where i live has banned smoking from all public places

    i hope legislation passes to have smoking in household be child abuse if there are children who cant help but breathe in smoke all the time

    also smoking greatley increases cvd and so many other problems. tell me why i should support this again? there are NO benefits to smoking
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    So you would be OK with, say, a construction company not providing a safe working environment for their employees? Letting workers work at high levels with no safety harness for example? Or perhaps a better analogy is a company that doesn't provide respirators for workers doing asbestos or lead abatement.

    And if you don't like working for a company with this policy, just go work somewhere else?
     
  23. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #23
    The idea is novel, but let's look at a real life example to see how government currently operates with tobacco.

    In State X, the legislature forced through several tax increases (including the highest computer services tax in the US - 6% [of course Conn at 1% is the only other state to tax the service]). One of those increases was an increase in the tobacco tax. The increase in taxes, supposedly, was to cover the $2.2b reversal of fortune from the state's position two years ago. Anyway, the tobacco tax went up $2 (if I remember right). But, if the federal tobacco tax goes up at any time, the increase will be reduced - thus forcing the state to look for more alternatives to burden the taxpayer as income from tobacco drops.

    I imagine that the feds will raise the tax soon enough - they need money and smokers have to either quit or pay. And few will quit. Which means State X's tobacco tax increase is meaningless.

    Oh! I forgot to mention - this is actually a "progressive state" where several counties have public smoking bans.
     
  24. paul.b.davis macrumors 6502

    paul.b.davis

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Location:
    Over the hills and far away...
    #24
    Well I can understand the employee's health, but then again, as a former pub worker, I do not know many people working in pubs who do not smoke, and those that do not do not really seem to care about it.

    A traditional pub is a place where people gather to enjoy a drink and smoke together (of course, in the traditional sense, it was pipes, but same principal).

    If restaurant owners want to ban smoking, thats totally cool, I do not like smelling smoke when I am enjoying a nice meal, however, a bar is a different story to me.

    And as for people having to go out of their way to find a non smoking establishment, people already go out of their way to find places with services that suit them, would it be so hard to just add "no smoking" as another service?
     
  25. davidjearly macrumors 68020

    davidjearly

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    #25
    I'm afraid thats just not going to cut it.

    You've still to provide any evidence of this.

    As a scientist, you don't need to lecture me on the adverse effects of insecticides etc...

    I'm requesting evidence to back up the 'far more dangerous' aspect of your very flawed argument.

    David

    EDIT:

    What she said.
     

Share This Page