Cigarettes Should be made Illegal - Page 107

Jellah · #**1061** (**permalink**) 09-29-2008, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde

There is taxes, and I imagine you will say that those taxes are payment, but I don't think so. I don't see it as being the same thing.

Why isnt it? Those taxes can be paid directly into the services that are needed to care for smokers and it would be money that comes from the smokers pocket. Thats paying for their own care....lets remember that the taxes they pay for cigarettes wouldnt be in the tax purse at all if they didnt buy them and pay those taxes.....it would be interesting to see how much lighter the tax purse would be without those taxes wouldnt it?

Stanislav · #**1062** (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 11:51 AM

All this anti-tobacco talk will one day backfire, and instead of SMOKING KILLS, SMOKE FOR YOUR HEALTH will be inscribed on the packets. It isn't like smokers will stop smoking because of taxes, they might just smoke less.

The fact that small amounts of plutonium have been found in cigarettes, has made scientists realise that it is the plutonium which creates the cancer. Soon, scientists will find a way to remove this by-product from the production, and the industry will thrive even more.

mburf5 · #**1063** (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Living in Los Angeles, with it's smog, is equal to smoking 1/2 pack of cigarettes per day. I say we should ban living in Los Angeles.

Cars emit more harmful toxins that cigarettes so we should ban them as well.

And coffee is addictive so it should be banned.

And people that insist on becoming involved in the affairs of other people are annoying and they should be banned as well.

Good point. Many people have died from caffeine overdose, I have not seen a case in which someone died from nicotine overdose...although I'm sure there are a few out there.

Just a couple of weeks ago Pennsylvania banned smoking in bars and offices. The owners of those buildings should be able to make that decision, not the government.

Independent-Thinker · #**1064** (**permalink**) 10-01-2008, 04:31 AM

Quote:

And coffee is addictive so it should be banned.

Technically, caffeine is the addictive substance - not coffee in general. And coffee is actually good for you. It lowers your risk of heart attack, stroke, colon cancer, et cetera... Although, in moderation. Taking out five or six pots a day may not be the best thing.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=39269 Yeah, it actually does reduce the risk of heart attack according to some research.

Coffee contains the stimulant caffeine and a number of other important compounds and some research has indicated that coffee is a good source of antioxidants that are thought to protect from heart disease, cancer and other diseases and also reduces inflammation in the body and improves the function in artery walls.

Anyway, I'm a big, big fan of coffee, so I always stick up for it when the opportunity arises.

But banning cigarettes is nonsense. I am a former smoke. I believe the industry should be regulated more, but an all out ban is just nonsense. The government has no right telling me what I can put in my body.

JW Frogen · #**1065** (**permalink**) 10-01-2008, 04:38 AM

How about we make death illegal?

You (*)(*)(*)(*)ing Nanny State totalitarians need to get a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing life and get the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of my life!

And I don’t even smoke!

presluc · #**1066** (**permalink**) 10-01-2008, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heikstheo

Is it okay to be pro-choice on a bad cigarette or a cheap cigarette? Or just good cigarettes?

Key word= CHOICE.

presluc · #**1067** (**permalink**) 10-01-2008, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jellah

I am quite a fan of fuel alternatives and options like walking, bycycling, taking a train to work....we dont own a car at all. We take the train. Even those here who own cars also opt to use public transportation most of the time or only take the car to a park and ride spot (parking lots near train stops or bus stops).

In spring, I sometimes bycycle to work...its really a gorgeous ride and takes about 1 hour.

Less cars would mean more exercize for people which is also healthy

The infrastructure in the US is not friendly to such options though and I wasnt able to do any of this while I lived in the US. We have teachers who ride their bike to work every day, even in winter. Walkways and bike paths are kept cleared of snow (for strollers as well) so they can easily be used all year round.

I also agree about the water...its rather stupid to poison our own supply. I knew many people who only drank soda or other sugary drinks and never drank water at all!! I enjoy my clean water right from the tap (the plastic bottles are also not good for us and they certainly arent good for the environment).

So I agree that we need to be BETTER on our shared environment, I just dont see that allowing more pollutants is a good thing. We simply need MORE steps in the right direction, not less.

Allowing more pollutants, cigarettes was around long before smog and bad tasteing water, or the polution accounts, or that tear in the ozone layer that happened.
As a matter of fact indians were smoking in the U.S.A., long before the first settlements arrived from Europe.
If American history is correct America wasn't doing to bad then.

presluc · #**1068** (**permalink**) 10-01-2008, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heikstheo

Yeah! Besides, if the 25% of us who are smokers stopped paying our cigarette taxes, who the hell would the other 75% who are not smokers be able to impose arbitrary taxes upon every time they want taxes raised for something (but don't want to pay the tax increase themselves)?

When the politicians say they want to lower taxes it does not apply to taxes on a pack of cigarettes.