Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

As of September 21st 2009 the sale of Kretek (clove) cigarettes in the United States has been declared illegal. Congress has called them "gateway cigarettes"
The Official Act of Congress

A few years ago, legislators (at least in New York,) also banned the sale of Camel's flavoured blends, which included varieties like citrus, and highball flavoured cigarettes, also saying it was "for the children."

Add this on top of the fact that smokers these days are becoming somewhat of a national pariah. While the PC liberals are wont to argue that discrimination is bad based on this or that, they still seem to have no issue with bashing smokers like a pack of dogs and huddling us in secluded cold and windy corners.

Here's the question- should smokers be the butt end (pun intended,) of all this legislation? Ought we, as humans, who choose to smoke, be forced to give up the things we enjoy because of some liberal agenda that was not only pushed by Philip Morris, but also unfairly punishes smokers for the bad behaviour of either the middlemen who are selling the product to children or the adults who are buying them?

Furthermore- is it right for any country to tell a group of people what they are and are not allowed to do with their bodies in the realm of causing themselves harm?

I understand that with the nation pushing for national health-care, this is a concern, but, really, people have enjoyed the act of smoking since time immemorial, and for a government to tell us that we can smoke this tobacco but not this kind not only seems to me like a corporately backed move, but also a form of fascism. Smokers are already forced to pay (at least in New York,) ridiculously high taxes on our cigarettes, with the intention of "making us healthy whether we like it or not," and recently, there have been moves to ban the distribution of cigarettes to prisoners.

I mean, really? Prisoners? Who needs a cigarette worse than them? In a way, this is heartlessly cruel.

I grant that my opinion in the matter, as a smoker who started at 18 and enjoys himself, is somewhat bias, but still, I think a point should be made. (Even if it is insignificantly placed on a Final Fantasy forum in some lonely corner of the interwebs.) At what point are we allowed personal choice and the option of responsibility for our own bodies? Is this legislation not just another poorly veiled attempt at complete regulation of our lives?

While I am willing to begrudge them the second hand smoke issue and a ban in certain public places, the fact that these "certain places" get smaller and smaller, as well as more secluded every year somewhat irks me, and at the least, gives me pause.

People go on and on about the quality of life and how we've improved our longevity so much since the old days when we all died young, but really, how can we say our life is improved if we're not even allowed to live it? Does the idea of being 80 and taking a cocktail of pills every morning just to get you through the day sound appealing to you? Kudos. Some of us would simply rather take our chances and die at the age of 60- I'm not saying we all should, but, rather, that we should have a right to do so.

I understand my point of view to be somewhat radical, but hell, I'm somewhat pissed.

Opinions? Naturally, there's always room for argument

--------------------

If you've been mod-o-fied,
It's an illusion, and you're in-between.
Don't you be tarot-fied,
It's just alot of nothing, so what can it mean?
~Frank Zappa

Sins exist only for people who are on the Way or approaching the Way

I want to start by saying that smoking is your own choice and, even though I disagree with the act, think that it should be legal and remain that way. However I think that regulations should be made and enforced and that taxes on them are not cooperate backed, for one what cooperation would back this. These taxes are an attempt to make money on a commonly purchased product and this has been the case since the establishment of the American Colonies. In comparison is alcohol that is also taxes and has very strict regulations.

It isn't the tax that's the issue here, (although it's irritating, i'll admit,) it's the regulation of what, and where one is allowed to light up. I'm not pushing for marijuana legalization, (although, I wouldn't be opposed,) I'm saying that cigarette smokers are being unfairly oppressed.

Alcohol is regulated in terms of WHERE and WHAT because it's an intoxicating substance. I have yet to hear of somebody being really strung out on nicotine and causing any sort of violence. And, honestly, I can't say I'm in favor of THOSE regulations either- i.e the brewing of liquors by persons for their own use. (although Beer and Wine are allowed.)

And it is a corporate thing when Philip Morris is pushing the legislation. As far as I can tell, they don't want kids to smoke flavoured cigarettes- but theirs are okay. (Although naturally, they'd never admit to such.)



--------------------

If you've been mod-o-fied,
It's an illusion, and you're in-between.
Don't you be tarot-fied,
It's just alot of nothing, so what can it mean?
~Frank Zappa

Sins exist only for people who are on the Way or approaching the Way

When it comes to "so-called" moral issues (vices, if you will), I'm of the Libertarian persuasion. I don't believe the government has any right to infringe upon any decision you make which does not negatively impact another individual. I do approve of the designation of smoking/non-smoking sections--as I have absolutely no desire to smoke or inhale said smoke. However, that doesn't seem to be the issue at the moment.

How about we ban all cigarettes? (I make this spurious argument because it's actually quite similar to the current issue.) Either we should step in to prevent their being any smokers at all, or we should let each take to his own.

To limit the choices available because you want to prevent others from becoming smokers is ridiculous. Try communicating with your kids about smoking: kids aren't quite as stupid as we make them out to be.

As for marijuana, I say make it legal. I'll add the caveat that I'd only accept its being smoked in certain places (like your home), because, perhaps quite obviously, not everyone wants to become high. I think cigarettes are far worse than marijuana. (From the little research I've seen there are no long-term negative effects associated with marijuana, while, as just about everyone knows, cigarettes carry quite the laundry list of nasty effects.)

Quote (MogMaster @ 30th September 2009 15:53)

I mean, really? Prisoners? Who needs a cigarette worse than them? In a way, this is heartlessly cruel.

Prisoners are supposed to be atoning for their actions. If the cigarettes make prison seem not as bad, then why should they be able to get them?

Quote (MogMaster @ 30th September 2009 15:53)

While I am willing to begrudge them the second hand smoke issue and a ban in certain public places, the fact that these "certain places" get smaller and smaller, as well as more secluded every year somewhat irks me, and at the least, gives me pause.

As a person who can't stand cigarette smoke or the smell of someone after they've had a smoke, I'm all for keeping people's smoking out of public places. Think of it as noise for the nose. If you were at a restaurant and someone started screaming like a lunatic, it would certainly make your meal less pleasant. The person would probably be asked to be quiet or leave. Well, when someone smokes, even if there are separate sections for smokers and non-smokers, the smoke will eventually reach your nose.

At work I was sitting next to someone who during the break had a cigarette. When she sat down smelling like cigarettes it made my nose itch and I was very uncomfortable.

I live on the second floor of a two floor apartment building. If I have my window open, sometimes I smell cigarette smoke coming from the people below me. Is it fair that I have to shut my window on a hot day because the people downstairs like to light something on fire and stick it in their mouths? Furthermore, littering your front entrance with cigarettes does nothing for the aesthetic appeal of a building.

--------------------

Wha? Thanks to me?

I feel the same about this issue as I do with gun rights/control. I understand that we should have the right to smoke cigarettes, but it is also very dangerous, deadly even. It should be heavily regulated so we have fewer cases of diseases and deaths caused by the use of cigarettes.

This post has been edited by BlitzSage on 1st October 2009 02:46

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

I don't smoke and I don't like the habit, but this ban is fishy. Kids don't smoke flavored cigarettes, they smoke whatever they can get. And speaking personally if cigarette smoke smelled like potpourri I'd mind it less.

...What is Phillip Morris monopoly for 500?

This post has been edited by Shiva Indis on 1st October 2009 16:31

--------------------

"Cavefish is delicious, but only if cooked."

I do think that it's a bit odd that it would be possible to ban certain sorts of cigarettes and not others, since - as I understand it, I'm no expert - all of the banned cigarettes banned did contain tobacco and therefore should have already been regulated by federal and state governments. This would indicate very little reason to ban one type and not another assuming all are being regulated the same (though, something tells me they're probably not regulated just the same - just a hunch).

I also can't say I disagree with you that if you choose to kill yourself this way, you should have the privilege of doing so within the same bounds as every other privilege is given; you can be legally barred from consuming alcohol if your drinking harms another person, for instance, and you should be legally barred from smoking in the case where it directly causes another person harm, such as in an indoor, public area or a mother smoking while pregnant. Outside of those bounds, which can in theory be legally defined, you should be able to do as you will. For the same reason I'm technically opposed to both seatbelt and helmet laws, even though you'd never catch me ever allowing someone I knew to go without either.

However, I think it's a bit daft to try to play a martyr card on this issue in the real world. It doesn't seem to me as if you're being "forced" to give up what you enjoy, unless you only ever smoked clove cigarettes and have a physical inability to smoke something else. Even in that case, it seems like a bit of a stretch to imply that the loss of being able to smoke what you want denies your basic human nature. You can draw your own analogy here, but there is a difference in human rights between being prohibited from eating and prohibited from smoking (or anything else that you might or might not like to do, but can in theory survive without).

Again, if you stick to the simple point of "it's awkward that some cigarettes are banned and others are not," and can back that up by illustrating why all cigarettes should be treated the same way, whether that's "all legal," "all banned," or some other option, that's the sort of thing that can make sense. However, in crusading not just on that one issue, but on multiple other issues simultaneously, you lose not only focus but you also give the entire argument a bit of a tinfoil-hat feel that's going to lose the audience.

Let's go through a few. For instance, likening this move to fascism, even if minor, is almost certainly hyperbolic. To throw in the plight of the poor prisoners, who by definition have impeded upon the rights of others, further undermines the arguments made for the very point that you seem to care most about. In what way does the banning of one (or two, in the case of New York, assuming all of your statements are on target) indicate that the federal government is legitimately attempting to regulate your life in a "complete" fashion? Beyond that, in what way is it "another... attempt" at the same; what other attempts are you referencing here? Are the places in which you're allowed to smoke actually becoming smaller and more secluded "every year," or is this another chunk of hyperbole?

In a similar vein, your arguments about death seem front-loaded towards your bias, as well. Do you want to die at 60? I wouldn't stop you and bans notwithstanding, nor would anyone else. Since you're implying through this overall topic that the reason you would be dying earlier would be your love of tobacco, though, it's a tough argument to make that your death at 60 would be so much more relaxed and peaceful than the average person who dies at 80 after a decade of taking pills. Surely you've seen someone slowly die of lung cancer - haven't we all by now? Lord knows I have. That being said, what's the point of even saying this? What relevance does it have?

All in all, the main point you're trying to make here isn't lost on me. The ban on clove cigarettes seems odd based on the information I have in front of me right this second. On that we can agree. As soon as you exit that first paragraph, though, your style of arguing the points really does go into tinfoil territory, and those arguments cloud any lucid points you're making elsewhere. All in all, it's just not convincing.

And, before someone wants to paint me with some sort of generalist's brush, I do from time to time smoke a hookah or cigars; never had a cigarette, though. I personally wouldn't be troubled by an utter ban on tobacco as a whole, nor am I particularly troubled by the state in which the industry finds itself in the United States right now.

This post has been edited by Rangers51 on 1st October 2009 20:39

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

All I have to say is that Smoking was one of the factors in my brothers death this past year combined with other health issues.

Regardless I'm against the liberals though because at least the cigars that my brother smoked helped him through out all his other health problems Which would have killed him anyways.

I wish he could still be here and I know they may have shortened his life some but at least he was happy smoking.

--------------------

I treasure those who I love that love me in return. <3

Quote (MogMaster @ 30th September 2009 19:53)

While the PC liberals are wont to argue that discrimination is bad based on this or that, they still seem to have no issue with bashing smokers like a pack of dogs and huddling us in secluded cold and windy corners.

Ought we, as humans, who choose to smoke, be forced to give up the things we enjoy because of some liberal agenda that was not only pushed by Philip Morris, but also unfairly punishes smokers for the bad behaviour of either the middlemen who are selling the product to children or the adults who are buying them?

I understand my point of view to be somewhat radical, but hell, I'm somewhat pissed.

True fact: When something goes wrong it's always the liberals' fault.



Actually to be honest I don't see I problem with people smoking. Sure it's unclean and bad for your health but it's the individuals choice to smoke. At age 18 they very well know the risks of smoking and they abide by that.

As for the flavored thing that comment is outrageous. How many kids smoke fags? The legal age to smoke is 18 so I highly doubt too many kids will be smoking it. Not to mention even with flavor it's still a pretty foul stuff. If you want to smoke a fag that's fine I really couldn't care less.

This post has been edited by Messier17 on 2nd October 2009 16:26

--------------------

If god is all-forgiving then why do we have to kill people in his name?

Quote (MogMaster @ 30th September 2009 15:53)

While the PC liberals are wont to argue that discrimination is bad based on this or that, they still seem to have no issue with bashing smokers like a pack of dogs and huddling us in secluded cold and windy corners.

Wait, I missed this comment. Are you kidding me?

You are comparing smokers being left out of restaurants to black people being segregated? Most of the chemical compounds in cigarettes are carcinogenic, and you don't choose to be black like you do to smoke cigarettes.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 2nd October 2009 14:31)

Wait, I missed this comment. Are you kidding me?

You are comparing smokers being left out of restaurants to black people being segregated? Most of the chemical compounds in cigarettes are carcinogenic, and you don't choose to be black like you do to smoke cigarettes.

Where on EARTH did you get that?

--------------------

Hey, put the cellphone down for a while
In the night there is something wild
Can you hear it breathing?
And hey, put the laptop down for a while
In the night there is something wild
I feel it, it's leaving me

Quote (Neal @ 2nd October 2009 15:28)

Quote (BlitzSage @ 2nd October 2009 14:31)

Wait, I missed this comment. Are you kidding me?

You are comparing smokers being left out of restaurants to black people being segregated? Most of the chemical compounds in cigarettes are carcinogenic, and you don't choose to be black like you do to smoke cigarettes.

Where on EARTH did you get that?

He said that liberals argue that discrimination is bad, but they discriminate against smokers. Perhaps my statement was a bit hyperbolic, but I do not think that banning a dangerous substance such as tobacco relates to discrimination.

He made the point seemingly to imply that smokers are being forced out of buildings as if they were some type of social group being forced out for some arbitrary reason, something other than the fact that second-hand smoke itself can cause cancer. And I equated his use of the word discrimination to an issue which that word is used: racism.

The implication is that liberals would fight for the civil rights of black people and women, but not smokers.

The difference is, discrimination against the two former groups is foolish, when you take into consideration that all humans are 99.9% (not an invented number, that is the actual number) similar in our genetics, so that any discrimination of these groups could only be attributed to appearance.

But smokers can choose whether or not they wish to smoke, and smoking has more of a reasonable argument to be discriminated against other than some arbitrary reasons. As I have stated, cigarettes contain hundreds of carcinogens, which are cancer-causing substances.

And you might argue that this is an individual's decision. That would be valid, if cigarettes only individually hurt us.

But as I have also said, second-hand smoke, inhalation of tobacco in a room with someone else smoking, can also be extremely dangerous, and can cause diseases and even death.

So, to get back to your question, I was attempting to argue that smokers are not just a social group to be discriminated against. They use a product that hurts them and has the potential to hurt other people.

And maybe I'm wrong, and you all might say it violates personal freedoms, but isn't the government responsible for the safety and health of its citizens. Isn't that why we have laws in the first place?

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Ok:

For the record-
I'm aware I argue like a fanatic- I was also typing from anger at the time, and consequently the whole thing turned into more of a rant against the government, which, I'll admit, probably wasn't totally right and proper.

That being said:
"Discrimination" doesn't refer necessarily to the wholesale rape of a group of people by a government or group (such as what one MIGHT argue is/was the case with African Americans, Women, and Homosexuals,) it could also be less severe, as I would argue is the case here.

Furthermore, I could, potentially still import cloves. They just aren't available for distribution, so I suppose I can still get them, but that the difficulty of this task was raised was my point.

And yes, the chunks in which we are allowed to smoke ARE getting smaller every year, at least where I go to school.

As to comments about death at 60, the point was simply to reiterate that there is a flip side to not living a "long-healthy life" that isn't all necessarily bad. It's a subjective value judgment that I make for my own personal reasons. And certainly I respect the rights of others to NOT breathe in smoke, (I don't MIND smoking outside, or otherwise observing regulations to that regard,) that was never the issue, although somehow it came to be.

And as to the liberals- it was a democrat from California who introduced the bill. Furthermore, is it a coincidence that many of the states that have passed bans are blue states?
Smoking Bans in the US
Don't paint me conservative though, I did vote Nader in 08. I can dislike any political group that pushes legislation contrary to my sense of what's right and proper, and hell, I usually do.

As to the comparison to facism- I hate to do the obvious, but Nazi Germany was one of the first governments to come out with research and laws against smoking. I'm not claiming to have been dragged away as I shout "HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED", or Obama is Hitler, or any of that nonsense the right wingers like to throw out there, I'm just making the point- regulation of personal habits is a sign of some sort of repression.

Again, not saying that we should all be allowed to smoke in hospitals or any of that, but, simply, that this ban is outrageous, and furthermore, that at least in some psychosomatic capacity, the decision by people to find smoking dirty and disgusting has, in turn, made smoking dirty and disgusting.

As to the prisoners, as somebody who has run into a decent handful of people who have gone to prison, I have to say, they're being punished enough, and even Stalin and the Czars weren't so cruel as to deny the people behind bars a butt or two. To simply say- "well, screw them, they're in jail, they shouldn't have done whatever they did in the first place" seems to be trivializing and dehumanizing an entire group of people as monsters who don't deserve any rights at all. On a case by case basis, one finds it's really much more complex than that. This is just my opinion, naturally, but to close, (also with an opinion, note,) I do think there are worse things in life than death, and the loss of one's freedom, no matter what the circumstances were under which it occurred, is to me a tragedy equal to that category of "worse" things.


--------------------

If you've been mod-o-fied,
It's an illusion, and you're in-between.
Don't you be tarot-fied,
It's just alot of nothing, so what can it mean?
~Frank Zappa

Sins exist only for people who are on the Way or approaching the Way

Quote (MogMaster @ 2nd October 2009 21:45)

And as to the liberals- it was a democrat from California who introduced the bill. Furthermore, is it a coincidence that many of the states that have passed bans are blue states?
Smoking Bans in the US

Can't you say the same thing for many other things? It's not much of a secret that liberals when voted into office vote on the liberal side of issues, and conservatives will vote conservative, so I don't see your point. I also don't see why this is a conservative/liberal issue, since there are only 14 states that have not passed any bans, according to the source you gave. That is 72% of the states in the union that have banned smoking in bars, restaurants, and/or non-hospitality workplaces. And 24 states have passed bans in all three of those areas.

And also according to your map, one of the states has banned smoking in both restaurants and non-hospitality workplaces is the state which I call home . . . good ole Rocky Top. And it is historically a conservative state, one of the "red-est" in the US. So, I don't undertand why you think that liberals are the only anti-smoking people.

Quote

Don't paint me conservative though, I did vote Nader in 08. I can dislike any political group that pushes legislation contrary to my sense of what's right and proper, and hell, I usually do.

You did? I don't mind you choosing the candidate you wanted to win, but . . . you do know he doesn't really run to win, don't you? I mean, he runs every year, and this year he won .56% of the popular vote. I think he would be the most surprised person if he ever won. I don't think he'd even know what to do. I'm not saying he'd be an incompetent leader, I'm just saying he'd be so awe-struck, and so would the 99.44% that didn't vote for him.

Quote

As to the comparison to facism- I hate to do the obvious, but Nazi Germany was one of the first governments to come out with research and laws against smoking. I'm not claiming to have been dragged away as I shout "HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED", or Obama is Hitler, or any of that nonsense the right wingers like to throw out there, I'm just making the point- regulation of personal habits is a sign of some sort of repression.

This is very true. The Nazi anti-smoking campaign was perhaps the first in history, as their doctors and reseachers found links between the smoking of tobacco and lung cancer. However, some are under the assumption that because the Nazis were terrible fascist maniacs, that absolutely everything they did was also evil. No matter who conducted research and enforced bans the fact remains that smoking can lead to lung cancer.

Furthermore, most of the smoking bans of today are based off of late 20th century research on secondhand smoke becoming public knowledge and states subsequently passing acts based on those studies that revealed the danger of cigarettes. So I think it is useless to bring up the Nazis, because who began bans is irrelevant to the fact that the facts are still here, proven and tested, that cigarettes can be very dangerous.

Quote

Again, not saying that we should all be allowed to smoke in hospitals or any of that, but, simply, that this ban is outrageous, and furthermore, that at least in some psychosomatic capacity, the decision by people to find smoking dirty and disgusting has, in turn, made smoking dirty and disgusting.

I do believe that is called the "Circular cause and consequence" fallacy, where the consequence of the cause becomes known as the root of the cause. The decision was made after research came around to reveal that tobacco can be deadly, as it when it burns the chemical reaction creates cancer causing substances to diffuse through the air and enter into living things and, well, cause cancer. Remember, once upon a time before this research advertizers loved to use cigarettes. So it is scientific data that caused us to change our opinions on smoking, not the decision to change our opinion (okay, now I'm confused).

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

I'm generally opposed to banning something that's deemed harmful by talking heads and politicians on principle these days, but with things like Smoking, Alcohol, and even fatty foods I think that the choice is down to the individual. It's their responsibility to then ensure their choice does not impact on others. If you are asked to smoke outside a room by someone, that's their choice.

Smoking and alcohol are notable in that they can be argued to have effects on others, though the latter it's down to the fact that people simply go overboard with it and start fights etc. Smoking however leads to all the bad sides being spread to everyone else. They have to breathe it in. They have to smell it. They don't get the relaxing effect of the nicotine.

However, as a general rule, people are selfish. People often get very crotchety when it comes to smoking, both smokers and people asking smokers not to smoke. People also often fail to exercise their responsibilities that go with their rights. Therefore, slight restriction on those rights in order to fulfil the responsibilities is IMO acceptable.

That's why I support most legislation that has smoking banned indoors in public places, but I think it should be fairer than it usually is. For example, here in the UK, as far as I know, the Scottish ban was used as a model for the rest of the UK in that any place that is more than 50% enclosed counts as indoors and that smoking rooms or shelters cannot be set aside unless they meet the rule with being enclosed. That's pretty stupid if you ask me.

Besides, if we ban smokers, what will the common infected use as a Piñata?

--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.

Quote (Del S @ 3rd October 2009 06:39)

I'm generally opposed to banning something that's deemed harmful by talking heads and politicians on principle these days, but with things like Smoking, Alcohol, and even fatty foods I think that the choice is down to the individual. It's their responsibility to then ensure their choice does not impact on others. If you are asked to smoke outside a room by someone, that's their choice.

Well, I believe in personal choice too. But I also believe that the government has the responsibility to portect the citizens of the United States from killing themselves and each other. That is why we have laws.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote

Well, I believe in personal choice too. But I also believe that the government has the responsibility to portect the citizens of the United States from killing themselves and each other. That is why we have laws.

I would disagree. The government has a right to step in to make sure I'm not harming others, true, but in regards to my own person, for the government to step in and tell me at any given point what I should do with my body, in any form, I might add, (this is my belief, anyway,) is them stepping way out of bounds. I can, and should be able to, kill myself if I want to.

Could this mean a forfeiting of certain "rights?" (i.e social security or medicare,) Well, that would be their decision as the body bestowing these things upon us. In theory, every citizen of the USA is entitled to a large degree of individual sovereignty, as per the constitution. Whether they choose to exercise this right...

I hate to pull a Cartman, but: "Whatevah, it's my body. I do what I want"

--------------------

If you've been mod-o-fied,
It's an illusion, and you're in-between.
Don't you be tarot-fied,
It's just alot of nothing, so what can it mean?
~Frank Zappa

Sins exist only for people who are on the Way or approaching the Way

Quote (MogMaster @ 3rd October 2009 02:45)

And as to the liberals- it was a democrat from California who introduced the bill. Furthermore, is it a coincidence that many of the states that have passed bans are blue states?
Smoking Bans in the US
Don't paint me conservative though, I did vote Nader in 08. I can dislike any political group that pushes legislation contrary to my sense of what's right and proper, and hell, I usually do.

As to the comparison to facism- I hate to do the obvious, but Nazi Germany was one of the first governments to come out with research and laws against smoking. I'm not claiming to have been dragged away as I shout "HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED", or Obama is Hitler, or any of that nonsense the right wingers like to throw out there, I'm just making the point- regulation of personal habits is a sign of some sort of repression.

Firstly I just want to say how confusing it is in American politics when 'liberal' means 'conservative' and 'conservative' means 'liberal'. According to the quote above, the Nazis were liberals. How is it possible to be repressed by a liberal? "No! I don't want individual freedoms! You can't force me!"

I'm with the conservatives on this one. Smoking is bad for you, it is mathematically likely that you will die from it, so it's probably better if you quit. Rather than simply banning it completely and risk angering a lot of liberals who apparently want people to die, or don't want anyone telling them what's right for them, it's better to remove it slowly and gradually, preferably without anyone noticing. We're seeing it already; attitudes towards cigarettes are changing year after year. I must ask, MogMaster, is it really such a bad thing that smoking is becoming more of a social faux pas? Less people smoking and smokers smoking less is surely a good thing on any level, right?

And another quick point, I think it's really ironic when smokers complain about persecution from the government but don't mind being stamped into the floor by tobacco companies who have them hooked to their products. I mean, it's hardly personal choice if you have to buy tobacco every week to sustain your physical and mental well-being.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I only smoke occasionally, but I do enjoy it a lot. I really, really wouldn't care if it was banned; I'm sure heroin is very enjoyable too but I don't particularly want to try it, legally or otherwise.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 3rd October 2009 15:33)

Firstly I just want to say how confusing it is in American politics when 'liberal' means 'conservative' and 'conservative' means 'liberal'. According to the quote above, the Nazis were liberals. How is it possible to be repressed by a liberal? "No! I don't want individual freedoms! You can't force me!"

I figured that that would happen. I'm taking a political science class right now that talked about that very issue. I would say that liberlism as defined in America is about progression, while conservatism is about upholding tradition and fundamentalism.

See, the conservatives in America today are upholding the liberal ideas of the past, and that is why it's so confusing, and that's why I don't like those definitions. They are stuck in history, but the traditions they uphold in the future will be diffeent than the ones they uphold now.

So, when I call myself liberal, I don't mean that I am for individual freedom, but rather intellectual freedom and progression. I do not want to ally myself with a certain party or ideological movement, because those change over time (as I've said, the conservatives are attempting to preserve what were liberal ideas of John Locke and Adam Smith). I just want to see what is right happen.

And that is why I side with bans on cigarettes in certain establishments. But, if you asked me if I'd support a complete ban, of course not. That hasn't worked well in the past with alcohol (when we had one of the largest crime waves in our history), and it doesn't work well now with marajuana. Because marajuana is illegal, you have a substance that is unregulated snuck in by drug dealers, and resulting violence. If we legalized pot, it could be much safer.

Quote

And another quick point, I think it's really ironic when smokers complain about persecution from the government but don't mind being stamped into the floor by tobacco companies who have them hooked to their products. I mean, it's hardly personal choice if you have to buy tobacco every week to sustain your physical and mental well-being.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I only smoke occasionally, but I do enjoy it a lot. I really, really wouldn't care if it was banned; I'm sure heroin is very enjoyable too but I don't particularly want to try it, legally or otherwise.

Those are two really good points, and I think that goes back to what powers and responsibilities a government has in the first place. I'm sure there are many things we would like to do that could hurt ourselves and others, so we need authority to prevent us from killing whoever we want, stealing, etc. And if the government tells us what not to do with those things, can't they also regulate deadly products? We have laws that do that kind of stuff anyways already here, and like I said, only 14 states have not passed some kind of ban anyways.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

I say the government doesn't have an business banning anything. Instead they need to be putting regulations on it in order to tax it. Banning a taxed product during a recession is just plain ridiculous. People love to support banning things they think will influence children and society, based on their own moral views. Take prostitution for example; Americans love to shove their moral views on this down everyone's throat, but the reality is that people do it anyway! Check THIS article out (it gave me the mobile version from my iPhone. Let me know of it doesn't work). The STD rates are lower in countries that regulate prostitution, requiring a license and regular monthly testing. In America it's just plain illegal so there is no one checking these women out and the AIDS rate is much higher in American prostitutes than say Germany, Holland etc. Prostitution is legal in Korea as well and to my knowledge South Korea has one of the lowest rates of AIDS in the world. I'm not trying to change the subject, but rather to make a point. To make products like this illegal is going a bit to far. Humans are going to find a way to get what they want, but which is the better idea, buying goverent regulated and taxed extacy pills or some nonsense you know has been made in a crackhead's basement? Bottom line; pushing these scare tactics about children and morality does more harm than good.

This post has been edited by Sephiroth on 4th October 2009 18:38

--------------------

Climhazzard is the timeless evil robot who runs some of the cool stuff at CoN (mostly logging chat, since there are no quizzes at the moment), all the while watching and waiting for his moment to take over the world. -Tiddles

Quote (Sephiroth @ 4th October 2009 14:32)

I say the government doesn't have an business banning anything. Instead they need to be putting regulations on it in order to tax it. Banning a taxed product during a recession is just plain ridiculous.

People love to support banning things they think will influence children and society, based on their own moral views. Take prostitution for example; Americans love to shove their moral views on this down everyone's throat, but the reality is that people do it anyway!

Bottom line; pushing these scare tactics about children and morality does more harm than good.

I agree with you, actually, though it might look like I don't.

I've always been a fan of film and art in general. If you look at the Film Production Code of the 30's, it did the same thing that you're talking about: shoving morality down your throat. They did the same thing with the Comic Code Authority, music in the late 80's and 90's, and they're doing it with video games today. And one truth shows that is never works.

So, like I've said, prohibition does not work. Alcohol caused people like Al Capone to make hundreds of millions illegally and moon shiners all across the US. And I think the same thing is happening with pot today.

I support the legalization of pot, and prostitution, and cigarettes, but those things should be regulated. Because they are dangerous. So, banning cigarettes in restaurants is something I also support, because secondhand smoke. Allow people to drink, but not drive and drink. That is what the government is for, to give us our freedoms but also protect us.

And about prostitution and sex. It's like what David Letterman. Instead of being outraged by what the 48 Hours producer did, people can only talk about his affairs. Everybody has sex. We are sexual beings, but people restrict the conversation. It reveals the actual problem we have. We don't talk about it, we censor things, and it has the adverse effect that we want.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 4th October 2009 13:10)

That is what the government is for, to give us our freedoms but also protect us.

Well said. Give people freedom, but protect us from those who do reckless and/or plain stupid things.


As for the Letterman "scandal," I think it's pathetic that we focus on the fact that he cheated on his wife, rather than the million $ + blackmail plot. People cheat. Fact of life. It's douchey, but it happens. Blackmail is the rare gem you never hear about (outside of the movies).

I just read a pretty interesting article about this subject. Duncan Bannatyne ('health club entrepreneur') claims that 11,000 people die in the U.K. from passive smoking each year, and generally rants that the non-smoking majority shouldn't have to put up with the minority. For example, smokers outside pubs should stand a few yards back so non-smokers don't have to breathe their smoke. He's got a point; I've seen people doing a kind of low sprint out of the pub, probably without really meaning to.

Also, apparently in England the figure for smokers over 16 has declined from 39% in 1980 to 21% this year, and he commends the government for the work they've done to help achieve this.

Some of the debate is focused on a new bill which would mean shops can't store cigarettes behind the tills, they have to hide them. What do we make of that? Again, in the article he explains that shopkeepers like this because they can sell other things and don't need to give the space to the tobacco companies. That's probably correct. I mean, smokers will always go up and ask, we don't really need to have a massive selection spread across the wall to entice us further.

Quote (D.B.)

This isn't nanny statism, Big Brother, or wrongful interference in people's personal freedoms – it's the right thing to do to protect the health of the vast majority of us who don't smoke from the declining minority who do.

Oh, and for those of you who want to read the article and don't already know, 'fags' are cigarettes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...yne-smoking-ban

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 13th October 2009 14:43)

For example, smokers outside pubs should stand a few yards back so non-smokers don't have to breathe their smoke. He's got a point; I've seen people doing a kind of low sprint out of the pub, probably without really meaning to.

I remember in college I'd often have to hold my breath as I entered one of my academic buildings because people liked to smoke by the door before and after classes. I always wondered why the college didn't ban smoking next to academic buildings.

--------------------

Wha? Thanks to me?

Quote (ElPanachino @ 13th October 2009 23:29)

Quote (sweetdude @ 13th October 2009 14:43)

For example, smokers outside pubs should stand a few yards back so non-smokers don't have to breathe their smoke. He's got a point; I've seen people doing a kind of low sprint out of the pub, probably without really meaning to.

I remember in college I'd often have to hold my breath as I entered one of my academic buildings because people liked to smoke by the door before and after classes. I always wondered why the college didn't ban smoking next to academic buildings.

Yeah, it's the same outside my classes in college. I hate it, because it's like a wall of smoke hits your face.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Smoking has been banned on my campus. At least, 20-feet away from the building. Not enforced though, which is crap.

Not like I ever need to go back on campus at this point in my career.

--------------------

And have you found your joy, in this near dead world of ours?

Quote (Gabe @ 18th October 2009 16:22)

Smoking has been banned on my campus. At least, 20-feet away from the building. Not enforced though, which is crap.

Not like I ever need to go back on campus at this point in my career.

Yeah, lol, they need to do that for my school. I don't want to completely ban it, but they put smokers right outside the entrance, and that screws up the entire anti-secondhand smoke thing. Secondhand smoke is really my only issue. If you wanna smoke, go ahead.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

I just really think its ****ing retarded to make cloves illegal, they say its "for the kids", guess what? most kids and most people DO NOT LIKE CLOVES, and i didnt know they were declared illegal so early! i have bought cloves since that date, they must have been left over or something, and to all the people that have to deal with walls of smoke and people smoking where they shouldnt be, im sorry, i understand you non-smokers dont like second hand smoke, hell, smokers dont like second hand smoke ( at least I dont)
but enough about cigarettes back to Final Fantasy!!