Do you think smoking cigerettes should be illegal ?
- Thread starter Kathleen
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
C
I don't really know what to think on this matter, I am very mixed. In one sense it is your free will to smoke if you'd wish. In the other it isn't fair for others to breath in smokers second hand smoke. The bottom line is, it doesn't matter if I believe that cigarettes should be banned or not, they won't be banned. The government makes WAY to much money on cigarettes to ban them.
The obvious solution is smokeless cigarettes, use e-cigarettes. Smokers have no real excuse for why they must get their nicotine fix through blowing out smoke that others have to breathe in, there are plenty of other ways. I think the only reason people smoke is a ) nothing better to do, b) have too much money to spend, c) want to look cool.
L
looks like i hit a nerve there eh. reeelllaaaxxxxx... If you truly believe that smoking benefits your life, then hey knock yourself out. I like to presume things just as much as you like to smoke. And believe me i can presume even more from the other side of the Atlantic.
ohh yeah.. dont get so emotional next time you respond to something... their just conversations on forums sheesh...
ohh yeah.. dont get so emotional next time you respond to something... their just conversations on forums sheesh...
M
Yes you're right. There are many, many things which influence your risk of cancer, such as your genes and diet. That's why it's so disingenuous when some people insist that the reason so and so got cancer is because he smoked, without taking into consideration all the other hundreds of cancer inducing agents that the person was exposed to. The only real reason they do this is because the anti-smoking movement is driven more by money and politics than it is health.
M
No, I do believe that there is a genuine correlation between long term heavy smoking and the risks of certain diseases, enough to suppose a causative link. It's just the exaggeration and the over-emphasis on this one single product while ignoring all other factors that I think is dishonest.
Aye, but this time the main culprit is the big pharmaceutical companies. They make a mint convincing smokers to stop smoking and use instead their nicotine replacement therapy (patches and gums), which have about a 98% failure rate. Anti-smoking is big business these days.
Aye, but this time the main culprit is the big pharmaceutical companies. They make a mint convincing smokers to stop smoking and use instead their nicotine replacement therapy (patches and gums), which have about a 98% failure rate. Anti-smoking is big business these days.
my dad ABSOLUTELY LOVED smoking 50 cigarrettes a day for 40 years. then he had to have a massive heart operation. he would still smoke if he could.
I don't think smoking should be illegal, but it SHOULD be banned in public, because there it affects other people. Just like stabbing people is illegal because it harms people.
Cigarattes should be TAXED ALOT to reflect the true cost of health care that smoking causes the government (under a nationalised health care system). So maybe $250 a pack.
I don't think smoking should be illegal, but it SHOULD be banned in public, because there it affects other people. Just like stabbing people is illegal because it harms people.
Cigarattes should be TAXED ALOT to reflect the true cost of health care that smoking causes the government (under a nationalised health care system). So maybe $250 a pack.
M
In an ideal world they would not be made, the problem with smoking is it can't be compared to other things that can harm us that we indulge in anyway, the majority of things like junk foods, alcohol and caffiene etc.. aren't all inherently bad for you, in fact in reasonable amounts can be good for you.
Now while smoking 1 or 2 cigarettes a day might not be enough to ever cause you significant harm they bring no benefit to you, so there is no credible argument to keep them beyond the pleasure people say they give and the freedom people have to choose.
I am against banning things most of the time because it simply doesn't work, it gives the police one more crime to look out for meanwhile people do it anyway, banning certain drugs hasn't stopped their usage, but I do think all governments should move in the direction of doing away with cigarettes completely so they aren't made anymore.
Smokers always always argue it is their right to do it if they choose and I always hear the argument made 'if I want to kill myself, let me, I am not harming anyone else', with most unhealthy things there is no physical harm to other people, but this isn't the case with cigarettes, second hand smoke harms everyone, it harms children growing up in a smokers home, it stains everything and makes everything smell, it taints food and has a negative consequence for everyone who is around it in the home or outside it.
No-one has the right to cause these kinds of problems for other human beings under the cover of freedom of choice, there are simply too many negatives to smoking and not one credible positive, they should be done away with as soon as possible.
Now while smoking 1 or 2 cigarettes a day might not be enough to ever cause you significant harm they bring no benefit to you, so there is no credible argument to keep them beyond the pleasure people say they give and the freedom people have to choose.
I am against banning things most of the time because it simply doesn't work, it gives the police one more crime to look out for meanwhile people do it anyway, banning certain drugs hasn't stopped their usage, but I do think all governments should move in the direction of doing away with cigarettes completely so they aren't made anymore.
Smokers always always argue it is their right to do it if they choose and I always hear the argument made 'if I want to kill myself, let me, I am not harming anyone else', with most unhealthy things there is no physical harm to other people, but this isn't the case with cigarettes, second hand smoke harms everyone, it harms children growing up in a smokers home, it stains everything and makes everything smell, it taints food and has a negative consequence for everyone who is around it in the home or outside it.
No-one has the right to cause these kinds of problems for other human beings under the cover of freedom of choice, there are simply too many negatives to smoking and not one credible positive, they should be done away with as soon as possible.
Last edited:
C
Even if they are banned it won't stop much. The government just finished a survey in 8 Ottawa highschools, they went around and picked up 1500 cigarette butts. 33% I believe were illegal cigarettes that cost 1 buck for a pack of 20. They looked inside these cigarettes and found mold, human waste, and isect eggs inside tyhese cigarettes. Not sure why I posted this, but it has something to do with cigarettes, lol.
M
Few points:
1. An increased risk of developing certain diseases is not the same as causing actual harm to your body. It's a risk, nothing more, just as everything we do involves risk.
2. I believe that heavy taxes on tobacco in order to dissuade its use it thoroughly repugnant let alone stupid. As soon as governments do this they have immediately set up a conflict of interest (ie.they want people to stop smoking but at the same time they don't because they are making money out of it). As well as this they are also encouraging a growth in the black market.
3. The myth of second hand smoke was invented by the anti-smoking lobby in order to try and convince people that smokng was damaging, even killing people around them. Anti-freedom laws have been passed and the fat cats in Big Pharma have got richer because of it. The truth is, the science behind the dangers of 'enviromental tobacco smoke' is extraodinarily flimsy, and in any other field the results would have been chucked out as meaningless. But because of their agenda (many of these studies had Big Pharma funding) they pressed on with the second hand smoke story in defiance of the results of their own studies (I think it's quite telling when even the WHO's study failed to prove anything).
4. I'm sure there are some people who want to give up smoking and don't like doing it, but I don't personally know anyone. I've liked smoking ever since the day I decided to take it up, and everyone I know who smokes does so for enjoyment.
This Christian website of which I am a member may be of interest to some of you: www.christianpipesmokers.net
1. An increased risk of developing certain diseases is not the same as causing actual harm to your body. It's a risk, nothing more, just as everything we do involves risk.
2. I believe that heavy taxes on tobacco in order to dissuade its use it thoroughly repugnant let alone stupid. As soon as governments do this they have immediately set up a conflict of interest (ie.they want people to stop smoking but at the same time they don't because they are making money out of it). As well as this they are also encouraging a growth in the black market.
3. The myth of second hand smoke was invented by the anti-smoking lobby in order to try and convince people that smokng was damaging, even killing people around them. Anti-freedom laws have been passed and the fat cats in Big Pharma have got richer because of it. The truth is, the science behind the dangers of 'enviromental tobacco smoke' is extraodinarily flimsy, and in any other field the results would have been chucked out as meaningless. But because of their agenda (many of these studies had Big Pharma funding) they pressed on with the second hand smoke story in defiance of the results of their own studies (I think it's quite telling when even the WHO's study failed to prove anything).
4. I'm sure there are some people who want to give up smoking and don't like doing it, but I don't personally know anyone. I've liked smoking ever since the day I decided to take it up, and everyone I know who smokes does so for enjoyment.
This Christian website of which I am a member may be of interest to some of you: www.christianpipesmokers.net
