Why would you do it. If one people does it another will follow. The things inside it is a drug that can kill you by lung cancer. If you have lung cancer all your fresh air is not fresh but its dirty. And if its dirty you'll eventually stop breathing. YOUR ONE CIGARETTE CLOSER TO DYING
Tobacco is still a drug, one of the only legal ones at that.
It affects the lungs overtime and damages them, and significantly reduces a persons lifespan.
It also affects second hand smokers and people who only sometimes inhale their family or friends smoke. It's not fair on them that 5 people must suffer from lung cancer because only one of them smokes.
I'm sure alcohol would be banned if one person drinking it would get everyone in the vicinity, all nearby people, drunk. Imagine it, a man drinks alcohol, babies and children nearby getting drunk from it.
Well, cigarettes are basically that, but in an airborne form.
Everybody who thinks it's not bad is just lying to him self, usually the answer that you get from a smoker is,*Well i'm going to die anyways*, well if you want to die now then be my guest, but if you want to live your full maximum life, then turn off that Cigarette and stop buying it
The problems with smoking are varied and numerous. I believe secondhand smoking is not necessarily deadly, but is very annoying! Besides, even if smoking was banned, there would still be people who did it, it would simply reduce the amount of smoking that is done. Smoking also destroys lives and families, the government has tried to raise the taxes to discourage smoking, but this has only resulted in people who, "can not" afford necessities, but smoke several packs of cigarettes a day.
I know that smoking is bad, and would personally never consider doing it myself. However, it brings in a large amount of money for economies. Well, why do you think smoking hasn't been banned?
Obviously because it's addictive, but it also makes money, and a large amount at that. Smoking shouldn't be banned purely because without it, less money would be made.
In an economic standpoint, cigarettes are excellent tool to generate tax profit. But in medical view, it's harming to the user and to the neighboring bystanders. If everyone was to get a lung cancer in compensation for being rewarded with a million dollar, do you think that is worth the trade?
Smoking is not something which will make you better, it will kill you. It is not a problem if they are not banned, let the smokers die, once they all die, the others will learn a lesson and at least we wont have any new smokers and finally the aim of a non smoking world will be achieved
It's not criminal to smoke, but it's pretty dangerous. You can't ban everything just because you don't like it. At least, in 'merica we can do what we want. Smoking is already banned in many places, and face it; tobacco sells. Though I hate to admit, and I bet many people hate to too, but there's nothing completely wrong with it.
I think smoking in public places should absolutely be banned-- nobody should have to contend with secondhand smoke-- but as for people smoking on their own private property, that's their prerogative. Are they putting themselves in a dangerous position by doing so? Of course. But their bodies are their business, not the government's. Living in a free country is about having the power of choice, poor ones included, so long as they're not affecting anyone else. (And that's where bans on PUBLIC smoking come in. Because that's a whole different ballpark.)
The trick is to simply publicize the negative effects, like the "cigarettes are bullies" and the "here lies your smooth skin" commercials. And also, not allocate taxpayer dollars to treating tobacco-induced disease, save secondhand smoke. Also, back in the old days, the manufacturers did not abuse nicotine to make their tobacco products addictive. These days, they do. Outlawing tobacco, ignoring the fact that the lobby would probably kill any measure halfway through, would simply put a lot of people out of work, and a different group of people into harder drugs if they haven't done so already. People want to get their fix. This is what is.
Please note that I'm not defending the tobacco industry. I'm merely pointing out the fact that tobacco on its own is relatively okay. When you add nicotine into the mix, you've migrated to narcotics.
Possible counterargument: Sugar is a narcotic, albeit less addicting. Its effects include: mood swings, sweet taste, damage to teeth, is a possible cause of an onset of diabetes, and it can permanently atrophy your penis. It's perfectly legal.
They can be harmful, but if you're going to makes thing illegal because of that you'd have to ban a lot more thing. Alcohol being one, and remember how that turned out? A low percentage of people who smoke a cigaret every other day actually get a major illness from it. It's a persons choice to smoke or not.
There is a growing sentiment in America that if people don't like something then just complain loudly to legislators. We all know smoking is bad for you, but if people want to willingly participate then by all means.
We don't need rules and regulation it just makes everything boring and miserable. People are happiest when they have the freedom to do what they want. My philosophy is that if they aren't hurting anyone then why go through endless hoops to stop it?
And don't mention second hand smoke. Nowadays you rarely see anyone smoke inside or near children. Culture will do more to stop smoking before any laws do.
Its a market with which people buy into. Any pharmaceutical company can be seen the same way to lesser extents. There are reports (proverbial reports in some far away place) that state that many pain killers like opiates are over prescribed for dealing with pain because the pharmaceutical company pushes their agenda.
To ban cigarettes because they are unhealthy means we should ban trans fats, high salt and carb foods, and return to a antiquity life style.
Should we ban everything we don't like? Everything which endangers life and health in some fashion? Where will it stop? And who are you to decide what other people do with their lives? Fat clogging the arteries, heart disease on the top of the death chart. Polluted air, asthma and bronchitis. Unreasonable work hours, nagging boss, no minimum wage requiring several employments, stress is a killer. But cigarettes, which is a choice, is the bad wolf? I imagine a bleak future where people live in sterile environments too afraid of possible threats to enjoy life, lives dictated by their neighbors self righteous entitlement to impose their choices on others. Is it wise to smoke cigarettes? No. Is it criminal?
It is none of my business what other people do and why does it affect me. I myself would never smoke a cigarette but other peoples freedoms are not for me to decide and if you want to smoke go ahead but we need to help people who want to quit smoking as well.
The NHS benefits much from the tax on cigarettes, and I believe the practise will die out- that's why I believe cannabis should also be legalised. Drugs that aren't advisable but don't kill in droves, reliably, or ruin lives without exception should be legalised, and their dangers should be explained.
Adding tobacco to the war on drugs will just lead to more blackmarketeering, driveby shootings, and tobacco will just become more dangerous because any quality control regulations would no longer be enforced. Innocent people would be killed by the police in tobacco raids that were at the wrong house. Planes carrying innocent people would be shot down because they falsely thought they were carrying tobacco.