I've always wondered, if ciggerates are bad for you, how are they legal? It's even proven that ciggerates are bad for your health, and the government still allows them

Now, is it just for money or what? Shouldnt they be illegal? After all, they are as bad as crack you could say

Should we outlaw caffeine? Fatty foods? Sugar? Automobiles? Bicycles?

All of them are dangerous.

I am an adult individual.
If what I am doing does not harm you directly, mind your damned business.

but ciggerates aren't like caffeine and alcohol, they are dangerous drugs and its odd that a government wouldnt ban the product

but ciggerates aren't like caffeine and alcohol, they are dangerous drugs and its odd that a government wouldnt ban the product

Caffeine and alchohol ARE dangerous drugs.

Regardless, why should I not be allowed to make my own decision?
If I want to hit myself in the hand with a hammer, I should be allowed to.

But alcohol and caffeine, I dont know why, but you cant compare them. Ciggerates are proven to be the cause of millions of deaths, and countless injuries. Caffeine not so much, you just can't compare it. And yet the Government does absolutely nothing about it.

I think weed should be legal, cuz its fun and makes you smarter, but ciggerates dont do anything but kill you in the end.

Ciggerates are proven to be the cause of millions of deaths, and countless injuries.
Injuries? :bugeye:
Cigarette burns?

And yet the Government does absolutely nothing about it.
Why should they do anything about it?
I'm a grown up - I don't need mommy and daddy telling me how to live my life anymore - expecially strangers!

As far as being dangerous.
I'd be willing to wager that more deaths are due to alchohol than cigarettes (not only liver cirrhosis and other alchol-related heath problems, but drunk driving incidents) but you seem OK with that.

I think weed should be legal, cuz its fun and makes you smarter, but ciggerates dont do anything but kill you in the end.
Makes you smarter?
I think anything that harms no one other than the self should be legal.

If you think it's bad, don't do it.
Why should you stop others from doing what they enjoy?
Who are they hurting?

How old are you?

It shouldn't be the government's job to make a decision like this for people. If people want to smoke dispite the health risks then what business does the government have making that decision for them?

No, well, I meant to say health problems not injuries

Well, they dont have to do anything, but so long as its there, whats to stop the youth from getting it? And the addiction spreading? Until the whole country is on its knees.

Yes, weed makes you smarter.
And its not to stop others from doing what they enjoy, its that it will leak onto other people, and others, until its an epidemic

I think weed should be legal, cuz its fun and makes you smarter, but ciggerates dont do anything but kill you in the end.
Now that is absurd. Cigarrettes have plenty of beneficial effects. They concentrate the mind. They work as an antidepressant. They can help you stay awake and alert during boring activities like guard duty (the reason cigarrettes were included in rations during WW2).

And I find it hard to believe that pot is not just as bad for you as tobacco. You're still inhaling smoke, which your lungs were not designed for.

And pot most certainly does not make you smart! The term "pot head" is not generally meant as a compliment.

They work as an antidepressant.
You know you're going to have to back that one up.

Originally posted by Norsefire
Yes, weed makes you smarter.

Well that explains a few things...

But weed can't possibly be more dangerous than a ciggerate. When have you ever heard of someone getting lung cancer, or emphysema, from weed?

You're high right now, aren't you?

It may be the lesser of two unhealthy substances, but it seems like a double standard to legalize marijuana and outlaw tobacco, or for states to keep the sale of tobacco legal but pass statewide anti-smoking laws. I say make it all legal and allow individual liberties, but not at the restriction of businesses. If a bar wants to ban smoking, let them, or if they want to have Meth Mondays, go for it. That which is wrong will collapse.

It may be the lesser of two unhealthy substances, but it seems like a double standard to legalize marijuana and outlaw tobacco, or for states to keep the sale of tobacco legal but pass statewide anti-smoking laws. I say make it all legal and allow individual liberties, but not at the restriction of businesses. If a bar wants to ban smoking, let them, or if they want to have Meth Mondays, go for it. That which is wrong will collapse.

Hear! Hear!
:bravo:

I've always wondered, if ciggerates are bad for you, how are they legal? It's even proven that ciggerates are bad for your health, and the government still allows them

Now, is it just for money or what? Shouldnt they be illegal? After all, they are as bad as crack you could say

they allow caffine, drink, cola, they are contain things that are bad for us!

But alcohol and caffeine, I dont know why, but you cant compare them. Ciggerates are proven to be the cause of millions of deaths, and countless injuries.

Alcohol is one of the major causes of traffic accidents. How many people are killed as a result of drink driving every year (either their own or some other idiot's)?

I think weed should be legal, cuz its fun and makes you smarter, but ciggerates dont do anything but kill you in the end.

You smoke weed, don't you? Thus, it has at least all the same problems as tabacco cigarettes.

What is so dangerous about caffeine ??

What is so dangerous about caffeine ??

http://www.energyfiend.com/death-by-caffeine/

What is so dangerous about caffeine ??
Right now, coffee is believed to be good for you. It's been shown to prevent Parkinson's Disease (so has nicotine, by the way) and is chuck full of cancer fighting anti-oxidents when it's fresh.

http://www.energyfiend.com/death-by-caffeine/

How much of your favorite energy drink or soda would it take to kill you? Take this quick test and find out:
Gulp down 318.38 cans of Coka-Cola Zero and you're history.

Now thats just silly, you could do that for peanutbutter sandwiches... :confused:

Right now, coffee is believed to be good for you. It's been shown to prevent Parkinson's Disease (so has nicotine, by the way) and is chuck full of cancer fighting anti-oxidents when it's fresh.

:worship:

Not sure about the nicotine though... :bugeye:

But evidence is slowly building that nicotine also has unmistakable positive effects in illnesses as diverse as schizophrenia, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Alzheimer and Parkinson diseases, ulcerative colitis and Tourette syndrome.
http://www.jcrows.com/nicotine.html

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=nicotine+positive+effects&meta=&btnG=Google+Search

No one has really answered Norsefire's question, which is, if cigs are so dangerous, why don't governments make them illegal?

I don't think there can be one clear cut answer to that, but a combination of reasons, which I'll try to list in no particular order of importance.

1) The culture of cigarettes is too ingrained into all levels of society, popular culture and recent history (as with their free supply to army and navy), and is a worldwide phenomenon.

2) The tax revenue from cigarettes is astronomical.

3) Any government that attempts to illegalise cigarettes would be committing suicide and would have to face public rebellion and anarchy for the above reasons, in addition, cigarettes would immediately become available on the black market in the hands of criminals.

4) The tobacco lobby is hands in pockets and first cousins with all government establishments ie. super powerful.

All that governments can do is to exploit the negative health issues by overtaxing tobacco products and banning smoking in public places, but they know that it is just not feasible to illegalise.

If governments really cared about health issues and really wanted to make tobacco less popular, they could do the following.

1) Ban the use of all harmful additives and flavour enhancements to tobacco products and cigarette papers.

2) Process tobacco in such a way that nicotine, tar and other chemicals are diminished.

3) Unglamourise cigarettes by banning all brand names, logo's and fancy packaging, and ban the use of terms such as 'lights' or 'mild', istead, they could for example have, (Manufacturer's name) Harmful cigarettes and (Manufacturer's name) Extra Harmful cigarettes.

4) Restrict the number of cigarette brands to 2 per manufacturer.

5) Slap a health tax on all tobacco manufacturer's with revenues going directly to health services and research.

1) Ban the use of all harmful additives and flavour enhancements to tobacco products and cigarette papers.Should this apply to food as well?
2) Process tobacco in such a way that nicotine, tar and other chemicals are diminished.It's been shown that when you decrease the nicotine content in cigarettes, smokers inhale more deeply to make the most of the nicotine that's there. The result is even more severe damage to their lungs.
3) Unglamourise cigarettes by banning all brand names, logo's and fancy packaging, and ban the use of terms such as 'lights' or 'mild', istead, they could for example have, (Manufacturer's name) Harmful cigarettes and (Manufacturer's name) Extra Harmful cigarettes.First of all, there are some freedom of speech issues there. Secondly, it would probably make cigarettes even more popular.
4) Restrict the number of cigarette brands to 2 per manufacturer.Don't know what to say about this one. What's the point?

5) Slap a health tax on all tobacco manufacturer's with revenues going directly to health services and research.
Good idea, because cigarretes are so undertaxed already. Also, did you know the lifetime health costs of smokers is less than that of nonsmokers as they die younger and more quickly rather than lingering on forever with Alzheimer's and racking up ever higher bills.

Alcohol is one of the major causes of traffic accidents. How many people are killed as a result of drink driving every year (either their own or some other idiot's)?




I agree JR...I never crashed my Bronco into a tree at 40mph/65kph because I passed out smoking a cigarette....or punched my best friend...or made a pass at a married women in front of her husband..or tons of other stupid shit because I was smoking a square.

Well I just don't feel that you can compare tobacco to fats and caffeine. Caffeine is a part of society, and so is ciggerates but considering there is no movement against 'caffeine' that shows how much ciggerates negatively affect society.

Weed doesn't damage your lungs. I breathe fine, and I used to smoke it every week.

Weed doesn't damage your lungs. I breathe fine, and I used to smoke it every week.

Although judging from your posts, it does seem to damage the brain. ;)

- N

Ha, judging from my posts, that is proof it makes you smarter

Ha, judging from my posts, that is proof it makes you smarter

Hey, you forgot your period, is that why you're always so worried? ;)

- N

the rising fire of hate and apathy rages within your souls

They are legal (at least in the UK) because they are highly addictive and the government knows that as long as they are legal they can add on as much tax as they like and people will still have to buy them.

They are legal (at least in the UK) because they are highly addictive and the government knows that as long as they are legal they can add on as much tax as they like and people will still have to buy them.

Very true, theres just too much profit there too ban them.
Also the same applies to alcohol.

Ha, judging from my posts, that is proof it makes you smarter

:shrug:

How smart do you have to be to spell "cigarettes"?

Should this apply to food as well?

In the context that government really cared about our health, then yes, most definitely.

It's been shown that when you decrease the nicotine content in cigarettes, smokers inhale more deeply to make the most of the nicotine that's there. The result is even more severe damage to their lungs.

Where has it been shown? I've smoked cigarettes with very high levels of both, nicotine (14mg) and tar (1.6mg) and I did not drag any less than with my normal cigarettes (8.0 & 0.8). People may drag harder when filter tips are perforated as in 'light' cigarettes, or when tobacco is packed too tightly for an easy drag, I don't think nicotine content is a factor necessarily. Example: when I used to smoke marijuana I could still get my normal buzz whether I added a few miniscule flakes of grass to my tobacco joint, or whether I made it without any tobacco at all. Conclusion: when a person is addicted to a substance, then just a hint of it seems to work.

First of all, there are some freedom of speech issues there. Secondly, it would probably make cigarettes even more popular.

Companies that peddle poison for mass consumption should not enjoy normal freedoms. If fancy packaging, fancy logo's and fancy brand names did not encourage extra consumption, or give a competitive edge, then no manufacturer would got to the expense and bother to create them, therefore I think you are wrong.

Don't know what to say about this one. What's the point?

Makes it harder for them to stay in the market place and be competitive, also diminishes their profits.

Good idea, because cigarretes are so undertaxed already. Also, did you know the lifetime health costs of smokers is less than that of nonsmokers as they die younger and more quickly rather than lingering on forever with Alzheimer's and racking up ever higher bills.

Extra tax on the manufacturer's profits, which runs into tens of billions, should not necessarily translate into higher costs to the consumer. Government does not want you to die younger, they want your taxes and this is why retirement ages will be raised.

In the context that government really cared about our health, then yes, most definitely.

So big brother should tell us what we can and cannot consume?

And as I learned, to quit smoking isn't as hard as people make it seem. I've come to the conclusion that most smokers that fail at quitting are just weak minded.

So big brother should tell us what we can and cannot consume?



Surely, you realise they already do that. Are you allowed to eat any type of animal or fowl, you choose? Are you allowed to grow your own edible hemp sprouts? Are you allowed to buy alcohol with any strength you choose? Are you allowed to buy counterfeit goods? Are you allowed to distill your own spirits? To grow your own tobacco? To grow your own mj? Loads of consumables are controlled, usually, they are illegalised.

Wouldn't you prefer to be able to buy fresh and processed food in the clear knowledge that it's not contaminated with heavy metals, pesticides, E numbers and toxic chemicals? Do butcher's shops clearly display exactly or even a bit of what their products have been fed on, or how many hormones and anti-biotics they've been injected with? Governments only concession to food health is that packaged processed food is labelled with fat content, E numbers and other artificial additives, which is absolutely useless to most people as most are ignorant but, it takes painstaking personal research to realise just exactly what poisons are allowed to be sold for consumption.

In the context that government really cared about our health, then yes, most definitely.



Where has it been shown? I've smoked cigarettes with very high levels of both, nicotine (14mg) and tar (1.6mg) and I did not drag any less than with my normal cigarettes (8.0 & 0.8). People may drag harder when filter tips are perforated as in 'light' cigarettes, or when tobacco is packed too tightly for an easy drag, I don't think nicotine content is a factor necessarily. Example: when I used to smoke marijuana I could still get my normal buzz whether I added a few miniscule flakes of grass to my tobacco joint, or whether I made it without any tobacco at all. Conclusion: when a person is addicted to a substance, then just a hint of it seems to work.



Companies that peddle poison for mass consumption should not enjoy normal freedoms. If fancy packaging, fancy logo's and fancy brand names did not encourage extra consumption, or give a competitive edge, then no manufacturer would got to the expense and bother to create them, therefore I think you are wrong.



Makes it harder for them to stay in the market place and be competitive, also diminishes their profits.



Extra tax on the manufacturer's profits, which runs into tens of billions, should not necessarily translate into higher costs to the consumer. Government does not want you to die younger, they want your taxes and this is why retirement ages will be raised.

the goverment should never be in the situation where they "tell" people what to eat, we need some freedoms to decide for ourselves what we eat and drink

Surely, you realise they already do that. Are you allowed to eat any type of animal or fowl, you choose? Are you allowed to grow your own edible hemp sprouts? Are you allowed to buy alcohol with any strength you choose? Are you allowed to buy counterfeit goods? Are you allowed to distill your own spirits? To grow your own tobacco? To grow your own mj? Loads of consumables are controlled, usually, they are illegalised.

Wouldn't you prefer to be able to buy fresh and processed food in the clear knowledge that it's not contaminated with heavy metals, pesticides, E numbers and toxic chemicals? Do butcher's shops clearly display exactly or even a bit of what their products have been fed on, or how many hormones and anti-biotics they've been injected with? Governments only concession to food health is that packaged processed food is labelled with fat content, E numbers and other artificial additives, which is absolutely useless to most people as most are ignorant but, it takes painstaking personal research to realise just exactly what poisons are allowed to be sold for consumption.

you are allowed to brew lagers, wines, beers, and some spirits.

The only problem with the ciggerates are, although I agree they could be ok if they are kept personal, is that they eventually leak onto youth and others and become an epidemic.

Wouldn't you prefer to be able to buy fresh and processed food in the clear knowledge that it's not contaminated with heavy metals, pesticides, E numbers and toxic chemicals?

Well, I do think that some organization needs to be charge of keeping mass produced foods clean and secure. Food is a necessity, tobacco is not. We all know that cigarettes are bad for anyone. In the past, people were misinformed about the effects of smoking and many died because of it. Today, it's no longer a secret. Anyone that starts today need only blame themselves. I blame myself for starting a few years ago. Should I instead blame the government for not telling me to not poison myself? I mean, just because I knew all along I was killing myself, I obviously couldn't control my own actions.

Should we outlaw caffeine? Fatty foods? Sugar? Automobiles? Bicycles?

All of them are dangerous.

I am an adult individual.
If what I am doing does not harm you directly, mind your damned business.

Your argument is that of, "if it doesn't affect you, then mind your own business." However, smoking does affect individuals other than yourself, i.e second hand smoking. People can develop diseases and cancer from prolonged exposure to second hand smoking (and that's without a filter, mind you), not to mention the irritating stench.

Fatty foods, sugar, and caffeine ONLY affect the individual who uses them (unless, of course, you threw a cup full of coffee in someone's face). It is your artiries that are being clogged, not anyone else's.

As for cars, good point. What can I say? I'd never agree with outlawing or prohibiting cars because there were accidents with them.

Norsefire:

Weed doesn't damage your lungs. I breathe fine, and I used to smoke it every week.

It's only a matter of time.

How old are you? I'm guessing you're in your 20s. If you've been smoking long enough (tabacoo, marijuana, whatever), you may have damaged your voice and throat by now, but perhaps not. And you'll have some lung damage, but not so it's very noticeable to you.

In your 30s, you'll start to really notice some effects of reduced lung capacity. Then, from about your 40s onwards you are likely to get the more severe health problems such as lung disease, cancer, heart disease and so on.

Have fun.

lol, it's because the government makes too much money off of it :P

Norsefire:



It's only a matter of time.

How old are you? I'm guessing you're in your 20s. If you've been smoking long enough (tabacoo, marijuana, whatever), you may have damaged your voice and throat by now, but perhaps not. And you'll have some lung damage, but not so it's very noticeable to you.

In your 30s, you'll start to really notice some effects of reduced lung capacity. Then, from about your 40s onwards you are likely to get the more severe health problems such as lung disease, cancer, heart disease and so on.

Have fun.

Notice how I said 'used to'
I dont anymore
Nor will I ever
And I breathe fine, I've been smoking it for months, usually once a week, but I quit

Have fun thinking I'm having fun

I smoked for a year and quit 3 months ago, haven't noticed much difference so far but I'm glad I stopped. It's much nicer having a cigarette every now and then when I'm out with friends than smoking them all the time, and so long as I don't buy any myself it's easy to keep it that way.