Do you think smoking cigerettes should be illegal ?

  • 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.
M

Maddog

Guest
#101
#101
mpaper345 said:
Anything that is not of the Holy Spirit is wrong.Smoking cigarettes is a fleshy pleasure and would be considered wrong.Smoking is bad for your health so it would be considered wrong.If you smoke cigarettes it would be considered self abuse for you are damaging your health and that would mean you do not love yourself as you should.

Would you allow your child to smoke cigarettes that is only 5 years old.Sin has no age limit and if you considered it wrong for a young child to smoke then it would be wrong for an adult to smoke in God's eyes for sin is wrong no matter what age.

Matt
Click to expand...
So we should all bear this in mind next time we go for a pint, or watch a 15 certificate film, or any other activity that we may not wish a 5 year old to do. Come to think of it, we probably shouldn't even go out without our parents.
 
M

Maddog

Guest
#102
#102
aspen said:
The biggest danger from smoking is not cancer - it is heart disease. Since public smoking has been restricted in public, heart disease has decreased by 30% in the United States.
Click to expand...
I smell nonsense statistics. Such 'heart attack miracles' following smoking bans have been thoroughly debunked by those not on the lucrative payroll of pharmaceutical companies or others with a vested interest in anti-smoking.
 
MahogonySnail

MahogonySnail

Banned
#103
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#103
Just go to your local hospital and observe all the people smoking outside. They are usually unhealthy looking, obese, and wrinkled.
 
M

Maddog

Guest
#104
#104
MahogonySnail said:
Just go to your local hospital and observe all the people smoking outside. They are usually unhealthy looking, obese, and wrinkled.
Click to expand...
Well, some of them look a bit worse for wear, but then, most people in hospital do.
 
W

wwjd_kilden

Guest
#106
#106
lol, yes they are.

let's ban smoke, alcohol, sugar and caffine! :D :p
 
W

wwjd_kilden

Guest
#108
#108
hmm, I gotta have tomatoes and leek, you can ban the rest if you want to
 
ProudLibertarian

ProudLibertarian

Banned
#109
Feb 14, 2010
250
0
0
#109
We tried making alcohol illegal. It didn't work.

No where in the bible does it say "thou shall not smoke", but even if it did, thats no reason to make smoking illegal. A government should not enact laws based on Religious views.
 
zavok

zavok

Banned
#110
Dec 4, 2009
467
0
0
#110
all i can say is drugs like cannibs are illegal but people still use that if cigs were banned that wont stop people agreed it may make some people stop but it wont solve the problem
 
W

wwjd_kilden

Guest
#111
#111
zavok said:
all i can say is drugs like cannibs are illegal but people still use that if cigs were banned that wont stop people agreed it may make some people stop but it wont solve the problem
Click to expand...
I agree on that, but the question the becomes: should cannabis, lsd etc be legal?
what makes these (especially cannabis which many scientists compare to alcohol) illegal why other things arent?
 
Sharp

Sharp

Senior Member
#112
May 5, 2009
2,569
23
38
#112
ProudLibertarian said:
We tried making alcohol illegal. It didn't work.

No where in the bible does it say "thou shall not smoke", but even if it did, thats no reason to make smoking illegal. A government should not enact laws based on Religious views.
Click to expand...
What if 100% of citizens wanted a "religious" government? A mandate would be there for the government to pass religious laws.

Similarly, what if 100% of people wanted cigarettes banned. Shouldn't the government act? Shouldn't the government act when an overwhelming majority of people want something to happen? (I'm not saying this is the case with cigarettes). But if 93% or 78% or 62% of people wanted cigarettes banned, I think a government would be obliged to do it. And I think this will start to happen more and more.
 
zavok

zavok

Banned
#113
Dec 4, 2009
467
0
0
#113
that depends if goverments actully give a *space* about our views i mean smoking is bad becuase of health problems and if we all go and say we want it banned and gone whyw ould the goverment give up a good reliable source of income
 
phil36

phil36

Senior Member
#114
Feb 12, 2009
8,345
2,159
113
United Kingdom
#114
Sharp said:
What if 100% of citizens wanted a "religious" government? A mandate would be there for the government to pass religious laws.

Similarly, what if 100% of people wanted cigarettes banned. Shouldn't the government act? Shouldn't the government act when an overwhelming majority of people want something to happen? (I'm not saying this is the case with cigarettes). But if 93% or 78% or 62% of people wanted cigarettes banned, I think a government would be obliged to do it. And I think this will start to happen more and more.
Click to expand...
Your probably right sharp, if they banned smoking in the UK, the government would need to find 10 billion pounds from somewhere else. atypical pack of ciggies here is £5.50, the Government take app £3 in tax per packet.

its a bit of a catch, people want the government to ban smoking yet they would complain if theyr taxes went up to compensate.

we have a welfare state system here in the UK, where all medical care is free and to everyone. smoking related diseases cost the govenrment around 3 billion, so that still leaves 7 billion pounds to find.

Phil
 
Sharp

Sharp

Senior Member
#115
May 5, 2009
2,569
23
38
#115
zavok said:
that depends if goverments actully give a *space* about our views i mean smoking is bad becuase of health problems and if we all go and say we want it banned and gone whyw ould the goverment give up a good reliable source of income
Click to expand...
Over a certain level of political support for doing something a government would harm its chances of re-election by not doing it.

If they were concerned about income, they could double the tax on it.
 
N

NodMyHeadLikeYeah

Guest
#116
#116
In my state, smoking cigarettes is no longer allowed in restaurants. Thats the best choice this hick town has made. I cant stand inhaling smoke while im trying to eat my food.
 
phil36

phil36

Senior Member
#117
Feb 12, 2009
8,345
2,159
113
United Kingdom
#117
NodMyHeadLikeYeah said:
In my state, smoking cigarettes is no longer allowed in restaurants. Thats the best choice this hick town has made. I cant stand inhaling smoke while im trying to eat my food.
Click to expand...

Its banned here in the UK from workplaces, that includes retuarants/pubs etc.

Phil
 
Browncoat

Browncoat

Banned
#118
Feb 19, 2010
467
2
0
#118
Sharp said:
What if 100% of citizens wanted a "religious" government? A mandate would be there for the government to pass religious laws.
Click to expand...
That'll never happen, but if it did, our country would cease to be the democratic republic it is and would become a theocracy - and history shows us that that is a HORRIBLE thing to happen.

Similarly, what if 100% of people wanted cigarettes banned. Shouldn't the government act? Shouldn't the government act when an overwhelming majority of people want something to happen? (I'm not saying this is the case with cigarettes). But if 93% or 78% or 62% of people wanted cigarettes banned, I think a government would be obliged to do it. And I think this will start to happen more and more.
Click to expand...
This country is based more on minorities than majorities. The Founders did not want a tyranny of the majority, nor a tyranny of the minority. So if the issue is unconstitutional, in America it shouldn't even be an option to vote on.

You can't vote to deny someone their constitutional rights. Even though we do/have.
 
N

NoahsMom

Guest
#120
#120
caffeine????????? thats gettin ugly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.