<p>"it is not a chocie to keep smoking when you are addicted.period. Its not a choice to breath. Its not a choice to be ADDICTED"</p>
<p>really?! what is it then? will of god? I can tell you I knew I'd get addicted and have some lung problems in the distant future from the very first time I lit. I assume most mentally sane smokers did as well. I know many people who don't smoke "regularly" for fear of developing tolerance and getting stuck with a bad habit. so it's obviously a decision that's in your hands, not an uncontrollable desire you get out of nowhere. </p>
<p>you're right starting leaves you with very little hope of stopping once you get addicted. but you choose to be addicted after you've heard all the advice and seen all the gross ****ed up lung picures and read all the big warning messages on cigarette boxes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can tell you I knew I'd get addicted and have some lung problems in the distant future from the very first time I lit. I assume most mentally sane smokers did as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ok well firstof all--not accurate. THe people that started smoking decades ago before the publich was aware of cigarettes' hazardous effects, well yeahh they wouldn't exactly knoww the problems. Which brigns me to my next(already stated, however its been totally ignored), when you are A D D I C T E D... then you are dependent on it, you cant just q u i t. At this point, its no longer a conscious choice..and whatever you say contrary to this is wrong. I would keep going but hopefullyy most of you are , to quote SAT_Hater, "mentally sane" enough to grasp the definition of addiction and all it entails yourself.. and in response to scarlet, yes some idiots like to smoke fully knowing its consequences, maybe they want to hurt themselves. But just because people want to hurt themselves doesnt mean we should let them. We dont just let people carry on eating disorders, self mutilation, or slitting wrists. We help them. And I'm sure as hell these peoples' familes want their best interest. So we HELP them---we BAN ciggarettes..and we save them their health, their finances, and their piece of mind. No its not gonna be successful at first, but if we dont start taking action now then some bad s h i t is gonna happen. And plus--i hate the tobacco industry and everything they stand for so lets them pennyless lol.</p>
<p>I just can't believe that it could be right to but into other people's lives and tell them what to do, especially if they are unwilling. Some people like smoking, I know quite a few. It is not my business to tell them what to do, just like it is not their business to tell me not to drink alcohol. </p>
<p>For me your argument is as follow: The government or who ever happens to be in charge at the moment should have to right to control the actions of other people that they consider wrong or bad? </p>
<p>If so, you're treading on a pretty slippery slope there.</p>
<p>^ well that argument needs to be refined a TON (to make it seem ridiculous, that is), because there ARE many things the government prohibits people from doing because it (the gov.) thinks they are bad. how bout: murder, stealing, treason, etc etc etc the list could go on forever.</p>
<p>Of course, but what about personal privacy and bodily integrity? Those things don't involve just yourself. </p>
<p>I know it isn't the greatest argument. I just really don't like the idea of the government telling me what to do with my body and arbitrarily deciding for me what is right and wrong.</p>
<p>Which is why they should be taxed and regulated. How much would it cost to enforce a smoking ban, not even to think of the loss of tax revenues.</p>
<p>Someone else got to it first. Since does so much to help things. Imagine how much revenue the government would lose if it banned cigarettes. How would they make up that shortfall when they are already running a twin deficit. Yes, that's really great for the economy.</p>
<p>I care a lot more about public health than the deficit. It may hurt the economy outright but in the long run there will be a lot less <em>wasted</em> money spent on production of cigarettes and money spent on cigarettes. So yeah it is a fascinating idea SAT_Hater!!!! THanks! :)</p>
<p>Banning any of this stuff is crazy. It's personal choice. Cigarettes may not be good for you (and I don't smoke them), but I'll fight to let people live how they want. As for things aside from cigarettes, I'm not going to write anything incriminating.</p>
<p>1) Age 17
2) Grade 12
3) Gender F
4) Do you smoke? NO
5) If so, how long have you been smoking? Oh, since I was in the womb. I kidkind of. I have been exposed to smoke since then.
6) If you are under the age of 18, do you plan to smoke? NO!
7) Do you live with someone who is a smoker (parents, siblings, etc.)? Yes. Dad.
8) Why do you (or someone else you know) smoke? Because he felt like it. I'm actually kind of serious. Plus, he's dumbenough to smoke knowing the consequences. I sympathize because I seriously think his health is faltering and he won't stop.
9) Should cigarettes be continued to be made? or should they be banned? Seriously, looking at long term consequences, it seems as though MJ is probably less harmful. BANNED.</p>
<p>1) Age 18
2) Grade freshman in college
3) Gender f
4) Do you smoke? no
5) If so, how long have you been smoking?
6) If you are under the age of 18, do you plan to smoke?
7) Do you live with someone who is a smoker (parents, siblings, etc.)? no
8) Why do you (or someone else you know) smoke?
9) Should cigarettes be continued to be made? or should they be banned? banned</p>
<p>i think they should be banned b/c there are no benefits whatsoever. i haven't read this whole thread, but i'm sure alcohol has been mentioned, in which case i can just say it can be used to a certain point without being harmful to the user or those around them.</p>
<p>and i'm no eco or gov major, but i had a history teacher that mentioned cigarretes actually being helpful as far as taxes go. he said that if smoking was banned, then that would mean a rise in other taxes. whatever, i don't know if thats true.</p>
<p>and i'm going to have to agree with SAT_hater. i mean, of course people that were born a long time ago may not have known all the things smoking could do, but they probably did know it was addictive. and even now, they know the consequences. if people want to quit, they can. it's not easy as 123, but it def possible. its a lot cheaper to quit than to keep going. and people know that cigarretes are addictive before they start, but they start anyway. some people like being addicted and don't care about the consequences. </p>
<p>it's a choice to smoke, and making that choice is cosciously choosing to be addicted to something. just b/c you're addicted to something doesn't mean you aren't choosing to do it. smokers made the choice to smoke before they were addicted to it. if cigarrettes were somehow made to be non-addictive (but still had all the other crap) , i bet 80% of smokers would still keep smoking.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I care a lot more about public health than the deficit. It may hurt the economy outright but in the long run there will be a lot less <em>wasted</em> money spent on production of cigarettes and money spent on cigarettes. So yeah it is a fascinating idea SAT_Hater!!!! THanks!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's a smart idea, let's screw over the economy so we can mess with people's choices and personal lives. </p>
<p>Now I think we can all do pretty simple math. There are a lot of smokers. Cigarettes raise a lot of tax. If the government loses that money they are either going to raise taxes elsewhere or cut spending. Now the government in office at the moment who is already losing federal revenue due to income tax cuts, what do you think they are going to pick? I'd put my money on cuts in spending: most likely health care and education. That's a really fabulous idea. Lets cut billions from health care and education so we can ban smoking- and hey people will still smoke anyway, but now they won't be discouraged from it in schools or taken care of in hospital or doctor's offices. Yes, a really great idea.</p>