I don't smoke myself, but whenever I'm in the presence of cigarette smoke I feel nauseous, it is a headache inducing feeling. I'd never want to actually try smoking, mostly due to this.
I do not and never will smoke anything tobacco related. If weed was legal I might try that but I wouldn't try fake weed or get it illegally. Smoking cigarettes though is just way too unhealthy. I don't want cancer and I don't want to get addicted to something that is really expensive. Doesn't seem worth it, the pleasure gained vs the health risks and constantly having to buy packs which are not cheap.
Drug abusers, including smokers, are simply weaker-willed human beings. Now, smokers aren't nearly as awful as potheads or drinkers, but their habit certainly is.
Personally I just don't see the appeal of smoking, it also seems way to expensive and I have much better things to spend my hard earned money on.
I smoked for a time, I've quit now though. I never consider myself addicted. I quit all at once, I finished the pack I had and never went back. Does that make me weak-willed?
Yes. You're trading your health or control over your mental faculties when using recreational drugs. Anyone that would give up something as precious as their life or their mind in exchange for some base physical pleasure is weak-willed. As I said, smokers aren't nearly as bad as potheads or drinkers in that regard, and I think it's entirely possible to rationalize smoking and live normally, but their habit is annoying to the public at large.
If you're gonna do drugs, do something that won't kill you. Marijuana, for instance - The high is much better, non addictive, and you won't die at the age of 40.
Creative license. Jokes aside, I absolutely believe that cigarettes should be banned. That being said, I think people take things much too far in their anger, and hatred of smokers. Rather than blaming, and outright persecuting the individual, they should be asking themselves: "Why the hell does the government allow these things to be sold on the shelves?"
Personally I'm for cigarettes being banned, although right now we do alot to make sure people know the dangers of smoking. It's just that some people choose to do things that are entirely bad for there health on quest for pleasure. But until the government votes that cigarettes should be banned it is perfectly legal for them to be sold and the repercussions of smoking them fall on the user, not the provider of the cigarettes.
Strawman argument. I wasn't trying to compare smoking to rape. That would be a sick comparison. I was trying to show that sometimes, what some may consider civil liberties must be curved in order to maintain a lawful, and safe society. Some considering smoking a civil liberty, despite the (Hundreds of millions?) of deaths that the smoking industry has caused. Some men believe that sexism, and ownership of women should be civil liberties, like they were considered for thousands of years. This too, is wrong. This is a very rough comparison, and I don't mean to compare the deed, but rather so the action of banning it. I can tell you're going to take this out of context, and try to use this is proof that I hate free speech or some shit. Edit: My intention was to compare the smoking industry as whole, not the individual smoker. Wanted to clarify that.
KALI GET ON SKYPE YOU FUCKING AUTIST. Are you honestly saying that rape is a civil liberty, because that is absurd. No harming of another person of their property against their will can be considered a civil liberty, because it could only be at the expense of another person. And the smoking industry is not responsible for any deaths.
Of course I'm not, more straw man rhetoric. I already explained that I wasn't trying to compare the two items. I'm arguing that just because you can attach the term 'Civil liberty' to an action doesn't make it right, or justifiable, or mean that it should be legal. I don't think that the average smoker is a bad person, nor will I join in on this persecution which exists against them. But the smoking industry as a whole is a downright evil industry. It's profits rely upon getting people addicted to a poisonous substance, that will almost certainly end up killing you. In terms of what the rape comparison, maybe I didn't clarify enough on what I was trying to say - There are men in the world who believe women are inferior, and should be second class citizens. These guys don't exist in the same numbers as pro-smoking industry people do, but in the end, it's lack of ethical validity is remotely similar to that of the pro-smoking argument, which indirectly justifies the poisoning, and deaths of hundreds of millions more people. Edit: Your argument regarding the smoking industry not being responsible for any deaths is entirely hypocritical - You accuse communist leaders of personally murdering hundreds of millions of people and you attribute these deaths to communism And yet when a capitalist industry not only directly murders hundreds of millions of people, but benefits, and profits off it, you brush it off onto the individuality argument, and claim that no corporation, or capitalist government can be responsible for any death. This is a terrible double standard, and clear evidence of double-think on your behalf. As always, your arguments and political opinions prove themselves to be entirely intellectually dishonest.
And anti-smoking propagandists are white-knigh, public heros? I'd say their attack ads are far more poisonous than the single cigarette they attack in every one.
