Political Crossfire Forums

[perdidochas]

The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote:

I disagree. I think it is a legitimate use of state/local governmental power, just like zoning.

Why would you want the government to tell you how you can run your business?

The government already does.

Yes, it certainly does, and I am very thankful for it in many instances. In fact, I have been sometimes accused of having overly socialist beliefs in some cases. You don’t want, for example, to buy a car that does not have working brakes. You do not want to buy a stove that won’t shut off. You don’t want to take aspirin that just happens to be laced with poison. But we understand there are certain differences between different types of legislating. For example, taking to either extreme is not desirable, and I believe this is one case.


And I don't. If my smoking had no effect on anybody else in the room, I'd agree 100%. However, smoking does.


The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: I don't see how this is any different than zoning, or requiring a certain number of parking places or bathrooms, or the use of certain chemicals (and not others) in the kitchen.

And that’s what worries me about people. They don’t see the difference. Since we understand zoning is an acceptable tenant to regulate how business can run their establishments, we go on to justify many other things. I ask this…to what end…yes perdidochas……….yes…….to what end………

Where is enough enough? In your opinion regulating smoking is fine. In my opinion, that falls under the jurisdiction of the business owner…just like the color of his bar stools. Or would you have them legislated as well…under zoning laws.

I would say regulating smoking would be "enough." I could also see regulating smoking, like alcohol, where a business had to request a special smoking license.

The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: The government is allowed to regulate businesses that are open to the public. I'd be against the feds doing this, but this isn't a federal issue, it's a state/local government issue, and it should be dealt with at that level. If you don't like it in your state/local area, contact your state/local officials.

No one is contesting that the government is allowed to regulate business that are open to the public. The question is…how far should their hand reach?

I'd say this is about the limit. Smoking is an objectively bad habit, with no good points, except enjoyment by the smoker. I see no problem with regulating smoking in public (which includes public establishments). If smoking were like drinking, were my drinking doesn't affect you (actions I do while I'm drinking might, but the actual act of drinking or having a glass of alcohol at my table doesn't), I'd be with you. But smoking isn't something that has a very limited radius. It infiltrates most of a building, or at least most of a room. Smoking does have effects on others, which is why it can be regulated, IMHO. We've already established that businesses open to the public can be regulated by state/local governments. This is no different.

[Otacon]

Fiduciary wrote: Otacon wrote: Fiduciary wrote: Otacon wrote: Fiduciary wrote: perdidochas wrote: Shady wrote: perdidochas wrote: Shady wrote: agentkgb wrote: Shady wrote: You believe YOU must force people to be safe? I suppose you also support helmet laws, seatbelt laws, smoking bans in restaurants and other nanny laws?
Smoking in public places isn't a "nanny law," it doesn't stop people from smoking. What it stops is people who smoke hurting others with secondhand smoke.

In places owned by the government, there is nothing wrong with a smoking ban. But I didn't say that, I'm referring to smoking bans in private establishments. Such as restaurants.

State/local governments can regulate a lot about restaurants. They can regulate hte number of parking spaces built, etc. Not allowing smoking is like any other regulation of things that require a license. The state/local governments have the power to do this.

I would disagree with those things too. Just because the state/local government MAY have the right to ban smoking from restaurants doesn't mean they should. You can easily go somewhere else, and in fact here in my state of VA we have no laws about it but roughly half or more then half of the restaurants have voluntarily instituted smoking bans. Capitilism works if you give it a chance.

I think this is an issue for the state/local government to decide. I have no problem with smoking bans in areas open to the public. Smoking is a disgusting habit that reduces the rights to clean air of those around them. I like going to smoke-free restaurants, and I have no problem with the smoking bans. If I felt differently, I would address it with my state legislator.

Even though I'm a former social-smoker, I despise the attitude of smokers. It's as if they think they have a right to expel noxious and dangerous chemicals in everyone's face! And they STINK. I literally hold my breath when one walks by after getting their fix..

You act as though someone is going to get cancer from merely walking past someone who is smoking.

How about I don't feel like inhaling s**t exhaled from some other rude bastard.

Is that valid enough for you??

No. You can hold your breath. Hell, hit him if you want to. But getting the government involved is not the answer.

It the typical "battle of liberties"

My right to not inhale noxious and dangerous fumes outweighs his right to smoke in front of a walkway or doorway or thoroughfar. I am referring to smoking in high traffic areas, not in an isolated spot.

I'm in a suit and tie, I should have to get into an assault and battery, the Gov't's job is to police bad behavior.

It won't hurt you to walk by a guy who is smoking. Those fumes are not going to kill you. The smoker takes 99% of the bad stuff directly in their lungs.

[Malcolm Kyle]

Otacon wrote: Fiduciary wrote: Otacon wrote: Fiduciary wrote: Otacon wrote: Fiduciary wrote: perdidochas wrote: Shady wrote: perdidochas wrote: Shady wrote: agentkgb wrote: Shady wrote: You believe YOU must force people to be safe? I suppose you also support helmet laws, seatbelt laws, smoking bans in restaurants and other nanny laws?
Smoking in public places isn't a "nanny law," it doesn't stop people from smoking. What it stops is people who smoke hurting others with secondhand smoke.

In places owned by the government, there is nothing wrong with a smoking ban. But I didn't say that, I'm referring to smoking bans in private establishments. Such as restaurants.

State/local governments can regulate a lot about restaurants. They can regulate hte number of parking spaces built, etc. Not allowing smoking is like any other regulation of things that require a license. The state/local governments have the power to do this.

I would disagree with those things too. Just because the state/local government MAY have the right to ban smoking from restaurants doesn't mean they should. You can easily go somewhere else, and in fact here in my state of VA we have no laws about it but roughly half or more then half of the restaurants have voluntarily instituted smoking bans. Capitilism works if you give it a chance.

I think this is an issue for the state/local government to decide. I have no problem with smoking bans in areas open to the public. Smoking is a disgusting habit that reduces the rights to clean air of those around them. I like going to smoke-free restaurants, and I have no problem with the smoking bans. If I felt differently, I would address it with my state legislator.

Even though I'm a former social-smoker, I despise the attitude of smokers. It's as if they think they have a right to expel noxious and dangerous chemicals in everyone's face! And they STINK. I literally hold my breath when one walks by after getting their fix..

You act as though someone is going to get cancer from merely walking past someone who is smoking.

How about I don't feel like inhaling s**t exhaled from some other rude bastard.

Is that valid enough for you??

No. You can hold your breath. Hell, hit him if you want to. But getting the government involved is not the answer.

It the typical "battle of liberties"

My right to not inhale noxious and dangerous fumes outweighs his right to smoke in front of a walkway or doorway or thoroughfar. I am referring to smoking in high traffic areas, not in an isolated spot.

I'm in a suit and tie, I should have to get into an assault and battery, the Gov't's job is to police bad behavior.

It won't hurt you to walk by a guy who is smoking. Those fumes are not going to kill you. The smoker takes 99% of the bad stuff directly in their lungs.
Are we all in agreement that the smoker (nicotine addict) has a right to self abuse. Or are there those amongst us who would like to prohibit tobacco?

[The Grandmaster]

perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote:

I disagree. I think it is a legitimate use of state/local governmental power, just like zoning.

Why would you want the government to tell you how you can run your business?

The government already does.

Yes, it certainly does, and I am very thankful for it in many instances. In fact, I have been sometimes accused of having overly socialist beliefs in some cases. You don’t want, for example, to buy a car that does not have working brakes. You do not want to buy a stove that won’t shut off. You don’t want to take aspirin that just happens to be laced with poison. But we understand there are certain differences between different types of legislating. For example, taking to either extreme is not desirable, and I believe this is one case.


And I don't. If my smoking had no effect on anybody else in the room, I'd agree 100%. However, smoking does.

I would agree that it does. However, and I almost feel like a philosophy 101 noob using the tired old argument we’ve all heard 100 times, and you’re probably bored of it too, but it does make a good point. No one is forcing you to patronize the establishment. You choose to go there. If you don’t like smoking, are you not free to go elsewhere? IMO, a business owners right to run his property as he sees fit extends beyond my right to enjoy his business. If people hated smoking so much, I would assume they would not go to the place and the business would collapse, no?

perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: I don't see how this is any different than zoning, or requiring a certain number of parking places or bathrooms, or the use of certain chemicals (and not others) in the kitchen.

And that’s what worries me about people. They don’t see the difference. Since we understand zoning is an acceptable tenant to regulate how business can run their establishments, we go on to justify many other things. I ask this…to what end…yes perdidochas……….yes…….to what end………

Where is enough enough? In your opinion regulating smoking is fine. In my opinion, that falls under the jurisdiction of the business owner…just like the color of his bar stools. Or would you have them legislated as well…under zoning laws.

I would say regulating smoking would be "enough." I could also see regulating smoking, like alcohol, where a business had to request a special smoking license.

I don't know why alcohol requires a license, but I assume it is because of it’s intoxicating effects, not present in smoking.

perdidochas wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: perdidochas wrote: The government is allowed to regulate businesses that are open to the public. I'd be against the feds doing this, but this isn't a federal issue, it's a state/local government issue, and it should be dealt with at that level. If you don't like it in your state/local area, contact your state/local officials.

No one is contesting that the government is allowed to regulate business that are open to the public. The question is…how far should their hand reach?

I'd say this is about the limit. Smoking is an objectively bad habit, with no good points, except enjoyment by the smoker.

This I can agree with.

perdidochas wrote: I see no problem with regulating smoking in public (which includes public establishments).

On streets and certain buildings, were we understand people sometimes need to go, yes.

perdidochas wrote: If smoking were like drinking, were my drinking doesn't affect you (actions I do while I'm drinking might, but the actual act of drinking or having a glass of alcohol at my table doesn't), I'd be with you.

Again, I also agree alchohol effects only the person taking it, and his actions are a seperate matter. Many people cannot seperate the two. They are like "OMG, your dr1inking hurts me ban it ZOMG!!11!!11"

perdidochas wrote: But smoking isn't something that has a very limited radius. It infiltrates most of a building, or at least most of a room. Smoking does have effects on others, which is why it can be regulated, IMHO. We've already established that businesses open to the public can be regulated by state/local governments. This is no different.

It certainly cannot be contested that the smoke will drift throughout the restaurant or bar. But then again, do we have to go there?

[Selfish_Meme]

Not such a big issue in America but those countries with tax funded health care systems, it is a big thing for them, smoking, heart disease, drinking, all cost us taxpayers a lot of money.

[Boneman]

They don't actually, smoking and drinking make an aweful lot of money through tax revenue, farm more than they cost the NHS. Smoking generates around 9.5 billion pounds a year of taxes, yet it costs the NHS about 1.5 billion. 80% of the cost of a pack of cigarretes go to the government. I don't know the figures for alcohol, but I would assume it was something similar.

[Bolshevik]

Well it's simple what the solution SHOULD be. All drugs should be legalized, but you should still beat your kid if you catch him/her doing them. Drugs encourage free thought and relaxation, and general release from the world. All the time kids sit smoking pot could be spent working in the fields, or cleaning your house. Remember: you're not hurting them because they're destroying themselves. You're hurting them because they're wasting YOUR time. Bring them crashing down off of that high with an atomic backhand to the face. They'll either stop taking drugs, or learn how to work while on them.

[The Grandmaster]

Bolshevik wrote: atomic backhand to the face.

:rotf: :rotf:

[StrikeEmd15]

Quicksurf wrote: Malcolm Kyle wrote: What about the children?

Prohibition glamorizes drugs and encourages children to experiment with them, as shown by recent statistics on adolescent drug use.

Well, that would be great to know if you actually backed up your claim with facts.



Malcolm Kyle wrote: The "forbidden fruit" phenomenon makes some activities attractive to young people who are testing their limits. There are higher use rates among adolescents in the US where it is completely prohibited than in the Netherlands where things are somewhat more relaxed.

That's just a philosophy. The majority of kids don't want to get in trouble. That's just common sense, (I was a kid at one time). No, kids nowadays want to get in trouble to make themselves look cool for their friends and, of course, to score with the girls. Or, that's how most of the kids at my school act. But, then again, my county is kinda known for it's STDs, and we had a pretty big drop out rate until about two or three years ago.


Malcolm Kyle wrote: What kind of world are we making for our children: One full of prisons, secret police and repressive laws that tell them to spy on their own parents and family. Instead, let's build them a world that respects each individual while it teaches them to work together for the common good in the exercise of freedom.

What are you rambling on about? Earlier you said that kids want to try anything that's forbidden, and now you are saying that the government is scaring them. The Government scares plenty of kids at my school, but most couldn't care about the government either way.

There are other arguments against prohibition that are much better than this, but this has to be one of the worst that I've read so far.

[Fiduciary]

Otacon wrote: Fiduciary wrote: Otacon wrote: Fiduciary wrote: Otacon wrote: Fiduciary wrote: perdidochas wrote: Shady wrote: perdidochas wrote: Shady wrote: agentkgb wrote: Shady wrote: You believe YOU must force people to be safe? I suppose you also support helmet laws, seatbelt laws, smoking bans in restaurants and other nanny laws?
Smoking in public places isn't a "nanny law," it doesn't stop people from smoking. What it stops is people who smoke hurting others with secondhand smoke.

In places owned by the government, there is nothing wrong with a smoking ban. But I didn't say that, I'm referring to smoking bans in private establishments. Such as restaurants.

State/local governments can regulate a lot about restaurants. They can regulate hte number of parking spaces built, etc. Not allowing smoking is like any other regulation of things that require a license. The state/local governments have the power to do this.

I would disagree with those things too. Just because the state/local government MAY have the right to ban smoking from restaurants doesn't mean they should. You can easily go somewhere else, and in fact here in my state of VA we have no laws about it but roughly half or more then half of the restaurants have voluntarily instituted smoking bans. Capitilism works if you give it a chance.

I think this is an issue for the state/local government to decide. I have no problem with smoking bans in areas open to the public. Smoking is a disgusting habit that reduces the rights to clean air of those around them. I like going to smoke-free restaurants, and I have no problem with the smoking bans. If I felt differently, I would address it with my state legislator.

Even though I'm a former social-smoker, I despise the attitude of smokers. It's as if they think they have a right to expel noxious and dangerous chemicals in everyone's face! And they STINK. I literally hold my breath when one walks by after getting their fix..

You act as though someone is going to get cancer from merely walking past someone who is smoking.

How about I don't feel like inhaling s**t exhaled from some other rude bastard.

Is that valid enough for you??

No. You can hold your breath. Hell, hit him if you want to. But getting the government involved is not the answer.

It the typical "battle of liberties"

My right to not inhale noxious and dangerous fumes outweighs his right to smoke in front of a walkway or doorway or thoroughfar. I am referring to smoking in high traffic areas, not in an isolated spot.

I'm in a suit and tie, I should have to get into an assault and battery, the Gov't's job is to police bad behavior.

It won't hurt you to walk by a guy who is smoking. Those fumes are not going to kill you. The smoker takes 99% of the bad stuff directly in their lungs.

You don't know if it will hurt me or not. Shall I spam you with billions of articles on second hand smoke. What if a person has asthma issues or the like?

[Malcolm Kyle]

StrikeEmd15 wrote: Quicksurf wrote: Malcolm Kyle wrote: What about the children?

Prohibition glamorizes drugs and encourages children to experiment with them, as shown by recent statistics on adolescent drug use.

Well, that would be great to know if you actually backed up your claim with facts.



Malcolm Kyle wrote: The "forbidden fruit" phenomenon makes some activities attractive to young people who are testing their limits. There are higher use rates among adolescents in the US where it is completely prohibited than in the Netherlands where things are somewhat more relaxed.

That's just a philosophy. The majority of kids don't want to get in trouble. That's just common sense, (I was a kid at one time). No, kids nowadays want to get in trouble to make themselves look cool for their friends and, of course, to score with the girls. Or, that's how most of the kids at my school act. But, then again, my county is kinda known for it's STDs, and we had a pretty big drop out rate until about two or three years ago.


Malcolm Kyle wrote: What kind of world are we making for our children: One full of prisons, secret police and repressive laws that tell them to spy on their own parents and family. Instead, let's build them a world that respects each individual while it teaches them to work together for the common good in the exercise of freedom.

What are you rambling on about? Earlier you said that kids want to try anything that's forbidden, and now you are saying that the government is scaring them. The Government scares plenty of kids at my school, but most couldn't care about the government either way.

There are other arguments against prohibition that are much better than this, but this has to be one of the worst that I've read so far.
You seem to be angry with me, did I do something wrong?

[Prole]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Not such a big issue in America but those countries with tax funded health care systems, it is a big thing for them, smoking, heart disease, drinking, all cost us taxpayers a lot of money.
Actually, by some accounts, smokers cost less money to provide medical attention to than non-smokers.

Everyone dies. (Duh.) Smokers die younger. (Again, duh.) But eventually, most people in countries with socialized healthcare are going to end up needing healthcare; whether they receive it at 60 because of heart disease aggravated by smoking, or at 80 with any other disease associated with old age, they are going to be hospitalized, and it is going to cost a lot of money. But by some estimates (and apologies that I couldn't find an article backing this up), it is the latter person's healthcare which will, on average, cost more. And certainly, 20 years of pensioners checks aren't too cheap either.

Then again, smoking causes a lot of lost productivity for workers, in that smokers, whether partially or wholly (though I suspect the former) because of tobacco use, tend to take more sick days as a result of illness, and smoking breaks take a while as well. Accidents caused by smoking are certainly considerable as well.

The bottom line is, one should not assume so easily that just because smokers suffer from smoking-related illnesses that they have to be treated for at a significant cost, that smoking itself causes an increase in money spent. People are going to get sick, whether or not they smoke, and arguably it costs less if they do.

Also, in regards to Boneman's point about more money being taxed from smoking than being spent on it, here's an article confirm it. It's an opinion piece from an anti-smoking website, but has some pretty good points.

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/whytax99.html
From the article wrote: It is true that NHS costs are lower than tobacco tax revenues. Tobacco taxation amounts to £10.5 billion per year whereas a figure for NHS spending on tobacco related disease is £1.7 billion. But so what? The comparison is a false one. Tobacco tax is not and never has been a down payment on the cost dealing with ill health caused by smoking...

[Malcolm Kyle]

Prole wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Not such a big issue in America but those countries with tax funded health care systems, it is a big thing for them, smoking, heart disease, drinking, all cost us taxpayers a lot of money.
Actually, by some accounts, smokers cost less money to provide medical attention to than non-smokers.

Everyone dies. (Duh.) Smokers die younger. (Again, duh.) But eventually, most people in countries with socialized healthcare are going to end up needing healthcare; whether they receive it at 60 because of heart disease aggravated by smoking, or at 80 with any other disease associated with old age, they are going to be hospitalized, and it is going to cost a lot of money. But by some estimates (and apologies that I couldn't find an article backing this up), it is the latter person's healthcare which will, on average, cost more. And certainly, 20 years of pensioners checks aren't too cheap either.

Then again, smoking causes a lot of lost productivity for workers, in that smokers, whether partially or wholly (though I suspect the former) because of tobacco use, tend to take more sick days as a result of illness, and smoking breaks take a while as well. Accidents caused by smoking are certainly considerable as well.

The bottom line is, one should not assume so easily that just because smokers suffer from smoking-related illnesses that they have to be treated for at a significant cost, that smoking itself causes an increase in money spent. People are going to get sick, whether or not they smoke, and arguably it costs less if they do.

Also, in regards to Boneman's point about more money being taxed from smoking than being spent on it, here's an article confirm it. It's an opinion piece from an anti-smoking website, but has some pretty good points.

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/whytax99.html
From the article wrote: It is true that NHS costs are lower than tobacco tax revenues. Tobacco taxation amounts to £10.5 billion per year whereas a figure for NHS spending on tobacco related disease is £1.7 billion. But so what? The comparison is a false one. Tobacco tax is not and never has been a down payment on the cost dealing with ill health caused by smoking...
Does this mean that you wish to add tobacco to the moronathon of prohibition?
Are you one of those rare persons who believe the drug war is a success?

[slitedeviance]

One thing I've always wondered is this...

The new laws being brought into force in the UK restrict smoking to the streets and to your home. The discussion took place against a background run of Ads showing kids breathing out smoke etc. with a "Don't make children breathe your smoke" tag.

If they don't want children to breathe my smoke why are they banning smoking in the one place you are guaranteed not to have any children (Pubs and Bars) but not in the home or in the parks / bus stops / amusement parks, where kids are likely to be?

Strikes me as bloody stupid.

[emerald]

Quote: One thing I've always wondered is this...

The new laws being brought into force in the UK restrict smoking to the streets and to your home. The discussion took place against a background run of Ads showing kids breathing out smoke etc. with a "Don't make children breathe your smoke" tag.

If they don't want children to breathe my smoke why are they banning smoking in the one place you are guaranteed not to have any children (Pubs and Bars) but not in the home or in the parks / bus stops / amusement parks, where kids are likely to be?

Strikes me as bloody stupid.

i think the point of it being outlawed in pubs and bars is because of the effects of second hand smoke on those around smokers, i didnt assume it was aimed so much at children. i think the ads with the kids breathing smoke was more as a way of trying to get awareness for the issue, i walk down the street sometimes and see mumsor dads with a pram with their baby in it and them puffing smoking in the kids face.second hand smoke is dangerous for adults so i can only imagine the damage it would do to a young child over a period of time, not to mention the likeliness of that child taking up smoking later on. you cant control all public spaces, in a pub or bar the spae is limited and it can be controlled, but how would you make sure that people were'nt smoking in parks? or amusement parks?? i would assume that would be pretty difficuly to control fully. all i think it means is that smokers need to be more aware of where and around who they are smoking. my nan used to make my grandad stand in the freezing cold if he ever wanted a cigarette even when there was no one else around....(until he built a conservatory to smoke in peace :-D )

[Otacon]

The studies that say that second-hand smoke is crazy deadly are flawed. Seriously. In the 1992 EPA study, it found that 10 out of 1,000,000 non-smokers got lung cancer and 12 out of 1,000,000 smokers got lung cancer. It's all scare tactics. I'm not saying that you won't get sick and die if you are exposed to second-hand smoke, but it takes incredible amounts of it to kill.

[Prole]

Malcolm Kyle wrote: Prole wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Not such a big issue in America but those countries with tax funded health care systems, it is a big thing for them, smoking, heart disease, drinking, all cost us taxpayers a lot of money.
Actually, by some accounts, smokers cost less money to provide medical attention to than non-smokers.

Everyone dies. (Duh.) Smokers die younger. (Again, duh.) But eventually, most people in countries with socialized healthcare are going to end up needing healthcare; whether they receive it at 60 because of heart disease aggravated by smoking, or at 80 with any other disease associated with old age, they are going to be hospitalized, and it is going to cost a lot of money. But by some estimates (and apologies that I couldn't find an article backing this up), it is the latter person's healthcare which will, on average, cost more. And certainly, 20 years of pensioners checks aren't too cheap either.

Then again, smoking causes a lot of lost productivity for workers, in that smokers, whether partially or wholly (though I suspect the former) because of tobacco use, tend to take more sick days as a result of illness, and smoking breaks take a while as well. Accidents caused by smoking are certainly considerable as well.

The bottom line is, one should not assume so easily that just because smokers suffer from smoking-related illnesses that they have to be treated for at a significant cost, that smoking itself causes an increase in money spent. People are going to get sick, whether or not they smoke, and arguably it costs less if they do.

Also, in regards to Boneman's point about more money being taxed from smoking than being spent on it, here's an article confirm it. It's an opinion piece from an anti-smoking website, but has some pretty good points.

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/whytax99.html
From the article wrote: It is true that NHS costs are lower than tobacco tax revenues. Tobacco taxation amounts to £10.5 billion per year whereas a figure for NHS spending on tobacco related disease is £1.7 billion. But so what? The comparison is a false one. Tobacco tax is not and never has been a down payment on the cost dealing with ill health caused by smoking...
Does this mean that you wish to add tobacco to the moronathon of prohibition?
Are you one of those rare persons who believe the drug war is a success?
No, I do not wish to see tobacco banned; but I certainly think that as a public health issue, disallowing people from smoking in public places is a good thing. I am all for personal decisions (and accountability), but the issue with tobacco is that it does not just affect the smoker; it affects others as well.

In regards to the article, I thought some of the better points it made was that smoking has so many costs that are not immediately evident. It's the extra space that we set aside for smokers' lounge, extra time that we give workers for smoking breaks, the huge proportion of disposable income that poorer families devote to smoking, etc. I do not think that making smoking illegal would remedy any of these problems, but do nonetheless regard tobacco as a huge burden on society, and thus the huge taxes upon it not at all unreasonable.

Do I think the war on drugs is a success? Absolutely not, and I doubt I am rare in this regard. However, I am somewhat of a rarity in that I believe the end of the war on drugs should be legalization and regulation, whereas most people still oppose the legalization of most (if not all) drugs.

Otacon, do you have a source for your claim? It seems to go against every conventional medical view that I have ever heard. Frankly, it sounds completely off; the rate for lung cancer is aroud 65 per 100,000 in the UK (and is probably similar in the US), and every cancer site I visited when researching your claim listed tobacco smoking as an important environmental factor in increased chance of developing lung cancer.

Also, do realize that smoking causes more diseases than just lung cancer, and that smokers are (to some extent due to their smoking habits) much less active than non-smokers, and all thus incur all the negative effects associated with a sedentary lifestyle.

[agentkgb]

Otacon wrote: The studies that say that second-hand smoke is crazy deadly are flawed. Seriously. In the 1992 EPA study, it found that 10 out of 1,000,000 non-smokers got lung cancer and 12 out of 1,000,000 smokers got lung cancer. It's all scare tactics.
Have you done your own scientific study that you believe to be more accurate?

Otacon wrote: I'm not saying that you won't get sick and die if you are exposed to second-hand smoke, but it takes incredible amounts of it to kill.
What about to be hospitalized? It's not like all of a sudden in a split second you just have too much second-smoke and keel over and die. People get sick too.

[Malcolm Kyle]

Prole wrote:
I do not think that making smoking illegal would remedy any of these problems, but do nonetheless regard tobacco as a huge burden on society, and thus the huge taxes upon it not at all unreasonable.

Do I think the war on drugs is a success? Absolutely not, and I doubt I am rare in this regard. However, I am somewhat of a rarity in that I believe the end of the war on drugs should be legalization and regulation, whereas most people still oppose the legalization of most (if not all) drugs.

.
Thank you prole for taking so much time and consideration to answer my question. I fully agree with you and wish to add that fortunately those of us who believe in regulation as an antidote to the woes of prohibition, are not so rare anymore.

[Praetorian]

Marijuana should be legalized and treated like alcohol. No driving after smoking it, can't buy it till a certain age, no smoking it in public, etc...

Other drugs, however, get a big fat no. Research various narcotics and the effects they have on people. Look at those pictures, then come back and argue to legalize all drugs. Because by legalizing it, we condone, and we are saying it is alright. How many kids do you know (18+) who smoke even though their parents hate it. The retort? "I'm an adult, and it is legal."