Why are cigarettes still legal?

Folks, take a deep breath and calm down and debate the issue. If we can't debate the different sides without name calling, the thread will be shut down and warnings issued.

If your were part of a group of people and had a global agenda on taking over the world and reducing the world population was part of that agenda. Well I just don’t think they care if people die from cigarette causing deceases and cancers.

There a lot of stuff spewing into the very air we breath that does and will eventually lead to our inevitable demise, stuff that we openly contribute to everyday. But hey if they can make money off of your deaths hey, seem like they have the right idea. More money more power, less people less competition in the world to worry about.

I don’t smoke never have but have worked around people that do, its not nice but I don’t care to say its not fare because the fact is I to have a choice to not work around people that smoke and spare myself from potential dangers to our body.

One complaint I would have is that when your work with people that do smoke sometimes they get to have smoke brakes, Well I’ve used this towards my argument that Hey if they get Smoke brake why can’t I have a fresh air brake from a building or room filled with smoke. And its not enough for a person who smokes to be in a room filled with second hand smoke. Gott’a get your fix! Right?

Make it illegal I don’t know, I’m pro-life I want to live a long life. Hey it’s a so called free country so by all means make your best impression of a train just don’t do it near me, please thanks.

Originally posted by Byrd
Folks, take a deep breath and calm down and debate the issue. If we can't debate the different sides without name calling, the thread will be shut down and warnings issued.

And this is nothing compared to what would happen if tobacco were to be outlawed.

These legal vs illegal discussions always make me wonder.
How many here think the government is already too invasive?
We do not need the government to tell us whether or not smoking is bad. Assuming we are adults, we can make those decisions for ourselves.

To even consider making cigarettes illegal is just another nail in the coffin of our freedoms.

For the record, I do not smoke. (Although I did smoke for one summer in the mid-70s). My husband is an ex-smoker, mostly because they got too expensive.

People talk about the freedom to smoke, and yet find it perfectly normal that we do not have the "freedom" to drive without a drivers license or to drive drunk.
Companies don't have the "freedom" to throw carciogenic substances into the river nearby either.

We support those examples of limited freedom.

Why don't we support the example of limited freedom when it comes to smoking?

This quote is from wikipedia:

The term carcinogen refers to any substance, radionuclide or radiation which is an agent directly involved in the promotion of cancer or in the facilitation of its propagation. This may be due to genomic instability or to the disruption of cellular metabolic processes. Several radioactive substances are considered carcinogens, but their carcinogenic activity is attributed to the radiation, for example gamma rays or alpha particles, which they emit. Common examples of carcinogens are inhaled asbestos and tobacco smoke.

We find it normal that asbestos is no longer used to build houses, that much money is spend on removing it from houses, polluting the air around people with asbestos is prohibited, yet poluting the air around people with tobacco smoke is not.

Originally posted by hikix
Im ashamed to admit that i am a smoker. I have tried to quit a few times but i keep getting sucked back into it. Smoking cigarettes have to be one of the worst things a person can do to their body. I know that the Govt makes huge amounts of money taxing them but it is at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives a year. I really dont understand why we just dont outlaw cigarettes like we have every other drug.

I smoke - but I'm certainly NOT ashamed of it - why should I be Cars kill far more people every year - plus they contribute to global warming - why aren't gas-fuelled cars illegal? Well, certain people are making a heck of a lot of money out of them, that's why.
Plus - people who smoke generally don't break the law while under the influence of tobacco either....yet alchohol has that effect - bu alchohol is legal.

Just an observation.

Jimbo999

Originally posted by Jakko


We find it normal that asbestos is no longer used to build houses, that much money is spend on removing it from houses, polluting the air around people with asbestos is prohibited, yet poluting the air around people with tobacco smoke is not.

people died directly from esbestos.

Nobody has died from tobacco.


oh, and did you know that the brain has receptors that react to nicotine,

This activation of receptors by nicotine modifies the state of neurons through two main mechanisms. On one hand, the movements of cations cause a depolarization of the plasma membrane, which results in an excitation, particularly of neurons, but also by the activation of other voltage-gated ion channels. On the other hand, the entry of calcium acts, either directly or indirectly, on different intracellular cascades leading, for example, to the regulation of the activity of some genes or the release of neurotransmitters.

en.wikipedia.org...


i dont know if it is good or bad, but its not like our body does not know what to do with nicotine.

however:

formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide, and Benzine are not good for anybody for any reason.

why are they in im cigarettes?

why is it neccessary to put poison in tobacco?

Originally posted by Jakko
People talk about the freedom to smoke, and yet find it perfectly normal that we do not have the "freedom" to drive without a drivers license or to drive drunk.
Companies don't have the "freedom" to throw carcinogenic substances into the river nearby either.

We support those examples of limited freedom.

Those are different though.

Drunk driving has a high chance of a direct result of the death and/or injury of others
who were not participants, and there are no places that one can do it without the risk
or hurting others.

Companies throwing dangerous chemicals into others are directly hurting the environment
and both indirectly and directly hurting the entire population of the area and any other
areas that the river may take the pollution.

Smoking has the possible indirect risk of hurting others a long time after, however you do
not have to be around it, if there are people smoking in a bar, and the bar owner explicitly
says that this is an establishment that allows smoking, than it is your own fault for going
in there and increasing your risks of possibly getting some chemical related ailment later on.

Even outside, as long as you are not right in the smoke plume, that is someone does
not blow smoke right in your face, you are safe enough from the effects, as the smoke
dissipates fastly in the open atmosphere.

Why don't we support the example of limited freedom when it comes to smoking?

Simply because it is a persons choice to smoke, and no one has the right to tell
someone else otherwise.

Originally posted by tom goose

people died directly from esbestos.

Nobody has died from tobacco.

Tom,
There are no added chemicals in cigarettes that give people cancer.
Tobacco kills.
There is no conspiracy.

Do some reading man, you're living in your own fantasyworld.

[edit on 10-6-2007 by Jakko]

Originally posted by Jakko
There are no added chemicals in cigarettes that give people cancer.

The following list is of chemicals added to cigarettes that are known to cause cancer.

-Dimethylnitrosamine
-Ethylmethylnitrosamine
-Nitrosopyrrolidine
-Hydrazine
-Vinyl Chloride
-Urethane
-Formaldehyde

actually it has nothing to do with population its just completely with me if i didnt get my one and a half packs a day i would completly lose it and none would be safe from my wrath

Originally posted by iori_komei

Originally posted by Jakko
There are no added chemicals in cigarettes that give people cancer.

The following list is of chemicals added to cigarettes that are known to cause cancer.

-Dimethylnitrosamine
-Ethylmethylnitrosamine
-Nitrosopyrrolidine
-Hydrazine
-Vinyl Chloride
-Urethane
-Formaldehyde

These are not added Chemicals, the chemicals in cigarette smoke come from the tobacco plant itself, its surroundings, the manufacturing process, and burning the cigarette.
Manufacterers of cigarettes do not add these chemicals to cigarettes like Tom here suggests, these chemicals are just a natural result of the manufactering proces of cigarettes.

The only cases in which chemicals are actually added, is when it comes to taste. But these chemicals are a few of the chemicals that actually are not carciongenic, like ammonia, which is added to make it easier for the body to proces nicotine, making cigarettes more addicting.

info.cancerresearchuk.org...