[Bobboau]

we could use bicycles, better public transportation there are all sorts of things the government could force us to do that would be better for oursleves and the world than everyone driveing there own car. hell we could ban recreational driveing, there are lots of people who just go out and drive for the hell of it.
while we cannot make do without comercal trucks the world could work without everyone owning a personal car.

[IceFire]

Its true...but judging by the road systems down there in the states that'd be pretty difficult without ripping up all the roads and redoing the whole transportation system.  You can't even walk anywhere in half the places I've visited in the states.  You have to take the car...even to just get across the street from the hotel to their prefered restaurant chain. Its definately walkable in distance but only if you want to take your life into your own hands.

I CAN and sometimes do walk to get around here...its not a problem. There are walkways, pathways, sidewalks, and pedestrian crossings. We have traffic lights for pedestrian crossings in some cases...bridges in others.

[Bobboau]

"You have to take the car...even to just get across the street from the hotel to their prefered restaurant chain. Its definately walkable in distance but only if you want to take your life into your own hands."

that's only because there's a thousand cars on that street, if everyone didn't own there own car that wouldn't be such a problem.

[aldo_14]

Well, we could also save on pollution by abolishing heavy industry and going back to manual slave labour...............

The difference between a car and a cigarette is that a car has a clearly defined purpose with harmful sideeffects that we need to reconcile with that purpose.  For cigarettes, the primary effect is the harmful sideffects, namely consumption of all sorts of ****.  Even alcohol - the closest analogy - isn't immediately harmful at the first drink.

[Bobboau]

cigarettes have a clearly defined purpose, to make the smoker feel good, they enjoy it, it's like entertainment, there are plenty of analogies I could provide from home entertainment systems and barbeque pits to golf courses and themeparks, all of wich have negitive drawbacks and no real logical purpose other than to genorate enjoyment.

[IceFire]

"You have to take the car...even to just get across the street from the hotel to their prefered restaurant chain. Its definately walkable in distance but only if you want to take your life into your own hands."

that's only because there's a thousand cars on that street, if everyone didn't own there own car that wouldn't be such a problem.

Its true...but they could have designed the road to handle the cars and have pedestrian walkways...they didn't.  I find this a problem with US roads and generally not with Canadian roads.  There are places that follow the US style but there are many that don't.

[GodisanAtheist]

cigarettes have a clearly defined purpose, to make the smoker feel good, they enjoy it, it's like entertainment, there are plenty of analogies I could provide from home entertainment systems and barbeque pits to golf courses and themeparks, all of wich have negitive drawbacks and no real logical purpose other than to genorate enjoyment.

-Difference of course being that those recreational activites won't drastically increase your chances of dying by simply being near them while not partaking in them.

[aldo_14]

cigarettes have a clearly defined purpose, to make the smoker feel good, they enjoy it, it's like entertainment, there are plenty of analogies I could provide from home entertainment systems and barbeque pits to golf courses and themeparks, all of wich have negitive drawbacks and no real logical purpose other than to genorate enjoyment.

Injecting heroin has a clearly defined purpose, to make the addict feel good, they enjoy it, it's like entertainment, there are plenty of analogies I could provide from home entertainment systems and barbeque pits to golf courses and themeparks, all of wich have negitive drawbacks and no real logical purpose other than to genorate enjoyment.

Snorting cocaine has a clearly defined purpose, to make the addict feel good, they enjoy it, it's like entertainment, there are plenty of analogies I could provide from home entertainment systems and barbeque pits to golf courses and themeparks, all of wich have negitive drawbacks and no real logical purpose other than to genorate enjoyment.

Taking amphetamine has a clearly defined purpose, to make the addict feel good, they enjoy it, it's like entertainment, there are plenty of analogies I could provide from home entertainment systems and barbeque pits to golf courses and themeparks, all of wich have negitive drawbacks and no real logical purpose other than to genorate enjoyment.

Jumping off a bridge to a longed for death has a clearly defined purpose, to make the suicidal person feel good, they enjoy it, it's like entertainment, there are plenty of analogies I could provide from home entertainment systems and barbeque pits to golf courses and themeparks, all of wich have negitive drawbacks and no real logical purpose other than to genorate enjoyment.

Machine gunning those bastards at accounts has a clearly defined purpose, to make the oppressed worker gone nuts feel good, they enjoy it, it's like entertainment, there are plenty of analogies I could provide from home entertainment systems and barbeque pits to golf courses and themeparks, all of wich have negitive drawbacks and no real logical purpose other than to genorate enjoyment.

[TrashMan]

Yeah, but those "entertainments" directly harm only the user....

[aldo_14]

Yeah, but those "entertainments" directly harm only the user....

Um, actually, not entirely.  Drugs use causes things like crime and affects family, suicide hurts family as well (assuming no-one is hurt in the suicidal act), and machine-gunning accountants.....well, they're only accountants.

You have a very good point though, in that I'm finding it hard to imagine an act with the same sort of direct associated medical effects on bystanders as smoking has.  Whilst (generic) you could possibly make criticisms of, say, TV, to do so is massively stretching the analogy and totally losing perspective of relative risks and immediate side-effects.  Because the act of, say, watching TV does not consist of a wholly harmful action in the same way inhaling a load of carcinogenic chemicals does; even drinking (the closest legal equivalent) can be healthy in moderate amounts, and at the very least it's localised on the drinker.

Perhaps a special inhalation hood could be used to cover the entire smokers head?

[Bobboau]

drug related crime is mostly due to it's illigality.

I don't want the government to protect me from myself, and I think I can handle other people smokeing on my own.

[aldo_14]

All crime is mostly due to it's illegality.

That's why we call it crime.

[Bobboau]

drugs are illigal, why, because it causes crime. drugs cause crime, why, because hey are illigal.

God wrote the Bible, why, because the Bible says so.
why does the Bible say so, because God wrote it.

circular logic is fun!:D

[Mefustae]

Drugs don't cause crime, I mean, you don't see dangerous gangs of joints roaming the streets of LA at night. Drugs cause crimes through people, and unless you don't think slowly poisoning people around you [literally] is a crime, smoking is no different.

[aldo_14]

drugs are illigal, why, because it causes crime. drugs cause crime, why, because hey are illigal.

Because drugs cause harmful side-effects on the user (are medically dangerous), and are highly addictive (preventing or restricting the excercise of free choice).

Heroin used to be sold in Sears catalogues, remember?  It was sold as a cough suppressant, along with syringe kits, at the turn of the 20thC (hell, heroin was marketed by Bayer as a 'cure' for morphine addiction).

i'm not ever sure what your point is supposed to be, frankly.

[Bobboau]

my point is I don't like it when other people tell me what's good for me, and then go about legislateing ther opionion.

[aldo_14]

my point is I don't like it when other people tell me what's good for me, and then go about legislateing ther opionion.

It's not an opinion, though, that it's bad for you.  And particularly vis-a-vis the uk, where the costs of treating someone with lung cancer are likely to outweigh the lifetime contribution in ciggy-tax they make, even excluding the risks to bystanders. 

Technically, every law made is telling you what's good for you (or more accurately, society as a whole).  Of course, I'd wager 5 minutes spent in a Scots pub either side of the bans introduction would sell anyone on the benefits of it.

[Kazan]

Translation: Cause it makes money

Actually, there's a different reason. You might recall a period called Prohibition in the US; would you care to see it happen again? It was ugly, crime skyrocketed, and it didn't work. The same would apply to any instant ban on cigarettes.

there is a difference between alcohol and tobacco

tobacco smoking violates the rights of nonsmokers and therefore should be automatically illegal

chewing tobacco... disgusting but have at it

[Kazan]

my point is I don't like it when other people tell me what's good for me, and then go about legislateing ther opionion.

no, instead you want to tolerate other people knowing what is not good for you and forcing you to partake (involuntary smoking)

my opinion on drug law is: if it only affects you, have at it - it's your body (so snort, inject, eat, drink, stick up your arse - i don't care), if it affects others (smoking tobacco, cannabis, etc) it's banned. period

"private property" argument holds no weight because private property doesn't have private air supply, and "then don't go to the bar" argument doesn't hold weight either because that isn't the only place smokers are*



*go right ahead and challenge those - i'll list off places where I know for a fact (by smelling) that i've been forced to partake in the vile habit via second hand smoke - the threshold of concentration for human preception is orders of magnitude above the minimum threshold of toxicity (which is nearly 0ppm)

[Wobble73]

The ban on Alcohol caused crime in the US during prohibition right? Well it's causing crime on our streets today through binge drinking and louts fighting when the bars shut, try a night out in Birkenhead and see what I mean! Alcohol costs the government more in policing than cigarettes.