what if tobacco became an illegal substance like marijuana?

sounds far fetched i know, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility when you consider all the smoking bans popping up, and the anti tobacco mentality of the last few decades.

pot smokers have always been banned to the fringes of society for fear of imprisonment because they smoke a relatively harmless herb. so it's slightly amusing to see cigarette smokers wailing about being banned from restaurants.

pot smokers know already what it's like to be an outcast because of their particular choice of smoke, and remember that pot was made illegal only recently. it was once just a plant that people smoked, now it's a controlled substance because the law deemed it harmful.

that is the direction it is heading....

Prohibition is ridiculous.

but the prohibition goes on.

NONE!!!

err...privatized prisons. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, and a quarter of a case of the third. :scared:

And crime will increase.

It's a civil rights issue in a way. I mean... we're talking so many people here that ostracising all smokers creates an underclass in itself.

think of all the tax money they will lose.

Plus, if it really came down to it, inflated figures of how many people would be put of of work would be floated all over the media. Won't happen.

and the ONLY reason I think that is because the government(s) love all that revenue from taxes on cigarettes. How many times have state goverments raised taxes on cigarettes to get them out of a budget crunch? It recently happened here in Maine. It's hypocrisy at its worst...the government pretending to care about the health of its citizens while happily spending the money that this unhealthy choice generates.

The distribution of tobacco would merely be controlled as is the distribution of pain killers. Nicotine patches might be the means of conveying nicotine into the bloodstream rather than smoking. I believe nicotine is bad for you, but taken in with the smoke it is is especially bad for you. Correct me someone if I am wrong. Strong painkillers are also controlled substances. You have to have a doctor's prescription to get them. Why not do that for tobacco. It would make it harder for kids to start using it.

I think we'd be just as bad, if not worse, than the Republicans are now. A little bit of power goes to our heads, obviously; "Strong painkillers are also controlled substance. You have to have a doctor's prescription to get them. Why not do that for tobacco". This is how judgmental and power-hungry we can get sometimes. Makes me think.

There are people right here on DU who would be very happy to ban tobacco, meat, porn, guns, cars, testosterone, and anything else that doesn't fit that harmony-with-nature purist sort of lifestyle.

I guess I'm more of a left-leaning libertarian than a true liberal.

Authoritarian types on both sides know what's good for us. Their desire to mandate behavior springs from a simple desire of wanting the best (to be determined by them) for everyone, and surely not from a desire to control and manage.

Yet, that is a regulated substance as well. There are NO laws that will prevent any kid from smoking. If the kid wants to smoke, he or she will. If they don't, they won't. These forms of legislation are a smoke-screen for politicians so they can act like they're doing something in the public interest. They are doing it in the interest of their own re-election.

Look at every poll in Chicago over the latest smoking ban. 60% of the people DON'T CARE one way or the other. So, we're passing laws for the 20% who hate smoking over the 20% who do smoke, and then ignore the 60% who think politicians probably have better things to do.

Prohibition will never work in a free society.
The Professor

And that's why we must stomp out this "free society" garbage. Who needs it? :sarcasm:

After all, we're so afraid of the "bad guys".
The Professor

America: land of the risk-free, home of the extraordinarily cautious.

LOL

22% of the population smokes and 78% does not. It is inevitable that the 78% will protect their air from that small minority. The human being needs three things to sustain life, Food, water, and air. You can not pollute public food or public water but yet so many think they should be allowed to pollute public air. The times will dictate the change..

So you are saying the problem is not the nicotine use per se but the act of smoking? The problem with adding another layer of bureaucracy--the medical establishment--is that will do nothing more than fuel a black market. You use the analogy of pain killers; I can't just wander into a doctor's office and get a medication without demonstrating some bona fide medical need.

Basically this falls into the class of recreational drug use which ain't nobody's business but my own.

true, it already is a controlled substance.

They "would not be ostracized" :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
They can't even admit to smoking without being ganged up on.

AND, let's look at caffeine next. just kidding.

Then you can see what would happen if we made tobacco illegal...

I agree, it is not far down the road. Even marijuana is a misdemeanor is most states?
and at this point I would also say that pot is probably cheaper-- not cigarette for cigarette, but by comparative use.

tobacco is far worse than mj for society yet it can be had everywhere. WTF?

I'd clean up by growing tobacco in my basement!

Unlike pot, tobacco is addictive, so will fetch a very high price when contraband.

Pot smokers stop smoking pot when the price becomes too high for them, but tobacco smokers do not!

market will decrease, but thats ok because they have some beautiful tobacco out there that are definietly mind altering, but you smoke less of it because you get ill really quick when you abuse it.

Some states are jacking up the price of cigarettes so hight that people will eventually start buying them from sources which do not pay taxes.

You mean I could go into a restaurant without it smelling like a cesspool? I could accept an invitation from an acquantence without wonder if I can breathe in his or her house or car? I can socialize in a bar without having to talk a show and wash my clothes as soon as I got home? People will stop slowly suffocating to death at great expense because of emphasema like Grandma did?

So far no down side.

But I'm not demanding they be removed from all public events simply because I don't happen to enjoy the smell. As my mother used to say, "the world doesn't revolve around you, you know." Sometimes other people do things that may bother someone else--it's the real world--get used to it. Let's ban garlic too; it makes people smell bad.

And if you go in a restaurant that smells like a cesspool, I'd recommend leaving regardless of the smokers.

Smoking is not normal and never has been. There is no reason why everyone else has to pretend it is except for corporate greed on the one hand, and irrational attachment to an addiction on the other. I should not have to exclude myself from public activities because I do not want my health and comfort damaged by people who do not care about their own. If I knew boiling franks bothered you, I would not cook them in your presence. Cigarette smoke is poisonous and, therefore, bothers everyone whether they know it or not.

Smoking may not be "normal" however you define that, but people have been doing it for a very long time. Waking up at five in the morning and going to spend ten hours in a windowless cube staring at a screen isn't normal either, but billions of us do it every day. That can't be good for my health either

I'm certainly not saying it's good for you, and tobacco companies are some the most evil entities on the planet. We humans do a lot of things that are not exactly in keeping with the healthy lifestyle. Do you also want to ban fatty foods? But how is it that your dislike of a particular thing allows you to regulate someone else's behavior? And no, I'm not buying the idea that incidental contact with someone else's smoking is going to give you cancer.

. . .i was on the peer review committee of the NIH study regarding second-hand smoke. It's a scholarly and highly scientific study using decades of data and a sample set in the 10's of thousands.

The conclusions were that there was no causative link between cancer, debilitating respiratory diseases, or heart conditions and second hand smoke. None.

However, the added conclusion was that smoke was a provable irritant and has been assigned, by CDC and OSHA a classification of Class III irritant. This is then something that would be highly likely to irritate the respiratory system of anyone with a chronic conditions, such as asthma, emphysema, chronic sinusitis, and a few others. So, it's scientifically valid to say that it could be medically irritating to some people who inhale the second smoke, but carries no IDLH or long term systemic causation factors.
The Professor

I think what makes me most angry about this whole thing is the exaggeration.

First, according to the necessarily conservative estimates from the CDC, about 5000 people die in this country every year from exposure to second hand smoke. Anyway tobacco problems are not limited to cancer. It triggers my asthma and my sinusitis. Smoking kills far more from emphysema or heart attacks or strokes (like my Dad) than does lung cancer. Plus it smells BAD. It sticks to everything and necessitates immediate cleaning of clothes and hair.

Europeans have been using tobacco for centuries and American Indians for longer than that, but they were not chain smokers and did not smoke mass-produced cigarettes. Also, tobacco was never cheap like it is now until the beginning of the 20th century. Smoking from a pipe or rolling a cigar is a pain in the ass. Consequently, these were occassional activities, like alcohol consumption is for most people.

"ot exactly in keeping with the healthy lifestyle," is the euphemism of the century. Half a million Americans are killed by smoking every year. That's six times as many as were killed in all 12 years of US involvement in Vietnam. That's the same as three fully loaded 747s crashing every day with no survivors. Cigarettes are the only lawful product that when used as directed will kill you. Fatty foods won't unless you gorge yourself. Neither will alcohol. It is no wonder people are so defensive about it. Withdrawal is said to be worse than heroin. Anyway, the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Restricting tobacco does not necessitate restricting other potentially harmful products.

"allows you to regulate someone else's behavior"
I have no such authority. The state does and the sooner they use it the better. Some of the public places in the next county are going smoke free next month and that is where we will be eating. All laws regulate behavior, so that is a non-issue.

"and tobacco companies are some the most evil entities on the planet"
Then stop enabling them. You sound like a beaten, but dutiful wife who insists that her abusive husband loves her in his own way. Sticking up for tobacco and supporting it with your purchase price confuses the debate and allows those companies to continue.

An irritant, yes, but not a killer in and of itself. As for the anecdotal evidence, my grandmother--well into her nineties--still smokes two packs a day. On the other hand, my dad who had quit more than 20 years previously, didn't make it to his 70th birthday. He died of liver cancer--didn't drink either.

Obviously all laws regulate behavior--that's a given, but regulating a behavior simply because it irritates someone else is an infringement on the individual rights.

You apparently assume I'm a tobacco user. You assumed incorrectly.

Thanks for deciding that my health is not worth protecting. I choose not to take that risk.

The post you cited seemed to define "irritant" as something that is pretty dangerous. Still, I choose to believe the CDC, the Lung Association and the Cancer Society.

If you are not a tobacco user, and I think you are lying about that, then you are truly a fool for defending the practice.

If this is going to devolve into personal attacks, then in the words of the man some call president, "Bring it on."

So your health is more important than everyone else's rights? :eyes:

then you probably won't be spending any time in an environment where you will have enough exposure to secondhand smoke to adversely affect your health, in terms of cancer, emphysema, etc.

As for the smell -- tough shit, free country.

How is refusing to breathe poison paranoia.

There is no right to smoke or to pollute the common air. We will continue our efforts to ban indoor smoking. NY, MA, AZ and CA have already joined the reality based community. The rest will follow. Tough shit, except it is not since smokers will not be inconvenienced anymore than golfers are by being restricted to the golf course.

The very study that the CDC, American Lung Association, and the Cancer society use, and cherrypick, and change conclusions to draw their dogmatic conclusions. Professor GAC knows what he's talking about.

If what you say is true, and considering that HALF of the country smoked in the 50s, then EVERYBODY woudl be dead of lung cancer, and there would be no USA. The propaganda masquerading as research is laughable on it's face.

The right has managed to paint all democrats as authoritarian nanny statists -- like yourself, who would like to regulate every aspect of behavior.

You might want to do some research on prohibition before you go advocating banning anything else...

and never go near them. Nor is driving a car normal, or using central heating. These are all luxuries which make huge profits for the companies that supply them. We could live without them, but we don't want to, do we?

It will never be a perfect world. If you can't get used to that, then I feel sorry for you. We're all going to die eventually. My husband was killed by someone driving a car. I hate cars and motorcycles, not normal either. I think you said you want to go into bars without smelling smoke. Is alcohol 'normal' or could we live just fine without it? It's smelly, it kills, it takes away the reasoning power of otherwise rational human beings, which smoking does not. Alcoholics cannot function under its influence, smokers remain contributing responsible members of society regardless of their 'addiction'.

Second smoke? I have yet to see one iota of proof that one individual died as a result of it. I have seen expert testimony to the contrary. If that were true, just about everyone I know would be dead by now since almost all have been exposed to it. That was a desperate attempt to compare smoking to drugs when the argument that 'smoking only affects the smoker' was proving to be a block to the 'ban smoking' crowd.

As for evil Tobacco Cos. well, how about the Oil Cartels? Do you drive, use home heating oil? Just about everything you do, watch tv, listen to music, etc. is enriching the evil Oil barons. And they have killed literally millions, some say billions when you include auto accidents, plane crashes, wars etc. over the years. Way more than tobacoo companies. To argue effectively about smoking, you would have to ban everything that is harmful or irritating or else appear to be hypocritical, imo.

But I don't believe there is a big push to make it illegal. The bottom line here is what I do with my body is my business. You know, like that whole "right to choose" thing?

I choose to have my body clean and smoke-free. So how the fuck am I to do that? I have no obligation to live in a bubble. The 'default' position should be pro-health, not pro-disease. That is why this whole issue is an O'Reilly-esque lie.

You have a right to swing your fist, but that right ends at my nose. I don't care what you inhale, but don't blow it out and keep it from coming out the end of the cigarette between drags.

Your logic would abolish all drug laws, including regulation of lawful drugs, seat belt laws, speed limits, food quality control, minimum wages, alcohol regulations, and anything else that might affect ones body. Maybe you agree with that, but it is pretty far outside mainstream legal thought.

where everyone is nice and pure and all the same flawless little individuals. In your world no one would ever get out of bed because there might be some health risk involved. You might trip and fall on your way to the bathroom.

We are not talking about small details. We are talking about a pandemic killer! Jesus Christ, if this is a small matter, just what kind of catastrophe does it take to get your attention?!

It is incredibly disgusting to watch them spit and see the black gooey chucks between their teeth, but you don't have to be subjected to the irritant of secondhand smoke.

small details. Please show me statistics on how many people die of second-hand smoke each year. And I will also present to you, evidence that this is bull. I may be wrong, you may be right, but this second hand smoke issue is very, very debatatable and was thought up as a weapon to defeat the claim that smokers, unlike drinkers or drug addicts, harm no one but themselves.

I'm still waiting to see those statistics, after years of being 'told' they exist, but have yet to see anything convincing, although it makes a great 'my body won't tolerate YOUR bad habit' type argument.

As for keeping your body pure, you better wear a Michael Jackson mask, because you are breathing in fumes from factories, car exhausts and various other harmful fumes each day, that are far, far more harmful than any little puff of smoke you might breathe in from the occasional smoker you might encounter ~ that's what makes this whole argument so illogical, and I think personal. It is not based on logic, if it were, other known and proven cancer causing agents would be met with the same virulence that this subject generates.

I personally, in my own experience, have noticed that those most virulent about second hand smoke, are generally angry at something else. That, btw, is simply my own experience, and I've noticed that many of those same individuals illogically, considering their claim of being so concerned about their 'own bodies', often engage in other not-to-healthy behavior, such as lack of exercise, bad eating habits etc.

I'm proud to say that I have happily partied with smokers, drinkers, and other fun individuals my entire life and have never once been to a doctor (who I think are hazardous to one's health) while my fearful friends spend at least several hours a year, getting 'checkups' and going to counselors etc. etc.

Just live your life. Nothing is less healthy than fear and anxiety. The healthiest people I know, are the happiest and least inclined to worry themselves about little things, fully comprehending that no one will live forever, and there's not much they can do about all the poisons they are exposed to every day, the least of which is second-hand smoke.

By not patronizing businesses that allow smoking. It's that simple.

There is no need for laws banning smoking. If enough people are offended by cigarette smoke, businesses will take note. And they have. There are more and more non-smoking establishments every day.

I have to agree with Mongo on this. This is authoritarian nanny-state bullshit. Why the hell should you care if some bar somewhere wants to allow smoking? And why should people who agree to enter such places and assume the risks involved not be able to do so?

No smoker, or most any other rational human would want to be around you longer than the occasional "$14.50 please. Thank you, and come again!" :eyes:

'Little heart-attacks waiting to happen' according to some experts! :-)

just to smell them and I LOVE garlic and onion. I didn't go around whining my ass off at every restaurant who cooked with Garlic and onion just because it made ME sick. I just left.the anti-smoker NAZIS are BABIES. If they don't like the smoking...LEAVE THE AREA! LEAVE THE ROOM! This issue drives me up a damn wall. My sister is a RABID anti-smoking NAZI. She stopped bitchin' at me YEARS ago because I told her ass off.

With obesity becoming a serious problem of epidemic proportions in the American population, how can our national leaders continue to allow the sale of these dangerous artery-clogging fat bombs?

If tobacco goes, I got a list...

allow the patrons to decide. This is illegal, but in my book necessary for justice and liberty. We should have the right to choose a smokey vs. smoke-free restaurant or movie theatre, yet the government has yanked that right in this state.
Why don't you just seek out your preferred smoke-free places,OR just ask an offending smoker to take it outside?
Las Vegas has lessened the smokey problem with smoke free rooms, and casinos get high ceilings and good air conditioning.
Is smoking pot a problem in your mind, if it's controlled like alcholic bevs?

so they hang around by the door which means the non-smoker has to pass though a cloud of smoke to get to the smoke-free environment. In other words, nothing has changed except that previously the non-smoker could go in, be seated in the non-smoking section and never be confronted with the smoke.

MindPilot,

Check out Sparky's if you're ever in my neighborhood. The owner, who acquired it in 2000, built a smoking deck in the back (alley side) that allows patrons to have their drinks in hand while smoking, and it's completely legal.

Unfortunately a few people do smoke in the front, so that smoke cloud is often there in spite of the availability of an excellent smoking zone.

http://www.broadwaypub.com

We need to counter this whole nanny-state mentality.

I've heard of Sparky's; Tony's in OB has a simlar setup, and that's a place I could probably get away with sparking up a doob. :smoke:

They are lured in when they are minors and become addicted. That's the reality. This is a public health issue and has nothing to do with civil liberties. By they way, I saw a very few non-smoking poker areas in Vegas, but no seperate rooms.

Just try asking an offending smoker to take it outside. As far as their addiction addled brains are concerned, the whole goddamn world is a smoking zone unless there is a cop standing there waiting to write them a ticket. People are very defensive about their addictions.

Yes, you *are* very defensive about your addiction to perfectly pure air. Instead of asking the "offending" smoker to go outside, why don't you carry an oxygen tank and put the mask on when some one offends you.

You telling the smoker to leave is no different than the Catholics getting Comedy Central to pull an episode of South Park pulled because they don't like it. You are the one offended, you should be the one leaving.

BTW I'm in Vegas frequently and you cannot smell smoke in most of the casinos unless you want to sick your face right in someone's ashtray. Their HVAC systems are very efficient.

...and I had hit a few driving shots at the 'green' in the salad bar. It was a tricky shot. I had to bounce the golf ball off the bartender and through the ceiling fan before getting it near the 'hole' next to the potato salad. Someone then expressed offense that at actions. I told her that since she was the one who was offended, she should go outside. Geeze, next I won't be able to practice my pistol shooting at the office anymore!

One of my best friends is a "body talk" expert, which is another way of saying, "you pay me, and I will sell you a hunk of flaming shit on a stick." She sees dozens of clients every week with "allergies" and "asthma" and fybromy-gonads, and any other auto-baloney disease that the pharmaceutical companies and doctors can cook up, for a buck. You know how she "cures" them? By making them hold an egg, or a piece of wheat and tapping them repeatedly on the head and chest. Some people, who live in the real world, call these diseases "all in your paranoia hypochondria addled brains." I submit that anywhere from 60-70 percent of those who complain about smoke flairing up their little nose hairs, need to hold an egg and be subjected to some raps on the noodle. Maybe a walk in the park, and some good sex. Maybe, a cigarette. At least smokers are willing to take some creeping, grody tumor for their particular pleasure -- attention-getting Baron Munchausens don't really have to suffer much, for the attention.

LOL!

Funny thing is, I don't remember the throngs of people who now get violently ill from the slightest whiff of cigarette smoke -- where were these people in the 70's?

I even know of one who is an ex-smoker and still smokes pot -- but if she gets a whiff of cig smoke, she goes postal and feins an asthma attack.

We have to do something to stop the hypochrondria epidemic!!!

No need to get vile here, you chose to go where smokers go, why not pick some laws that work or we will repress the rights of people who bug you with their smoke, and unintentionally for the most part. As for the child addiction issue, eating disorders are also childhood behaviour related.
What of those addicted to air coditioned environments...the fluoro-carbon earth pollution from all the comfort industries can't be good either.

out of which drunken fools get in their cars and kill innocent citizens every day, not to mention the stench of those who drink that I have to tolerate, and their boorish behavior, each time I accept an invitation to a party at a friend's home over which I have no control???

Or maybe we could ban McDonalds, since lazy parents opt for fast food, rather than cooking decent, nutritious meals for their children, causing American children to become the most obese on the planet, with other countries now following suit.

We could go on and on with what should be illegal, depending on our own particular pet peeves. I have a friend who can't breathe when someone wearing perfume stands next to her, another who chokes if she is around cats etc. etc. Make cats illegal!

How about bees? Can we make them illegal also, since many people are dangerously allergic to them, or peanuts in food, which can cause deadly allergies to some?

More deadly altogether are cars, which kill tens of thousands of Americans every year. Let's ban them and go back to horses, not to mention the oil wars' deadly toll so that we can have the convenience of driving?

Or, is it possible that we don't need a nanny state? That we could grow up and be responsible for a change, instead of passing more and more laws which only end up stealing away more and more of our 'freedoms'?

I won't lobby for making alcohol illegal (even though I hate it) because I'd rather deal with it than take away YOUR rights, which would eventually take away mine, as the 'let's make it a law' mentality takes over. Besides, we tried that already and we got the Mafia, etc.

As long as we think only of our own pet peeves, and selfish people don't realize that their own bad habits, such as drinking, might be as offensive to others as smoking, eg, is to them, we'll keep playing into the hands of the control freaks pretending to care about you, just like a good father. This is how we got the 'war on drugs', the 'war on Islam' etc. etc.

Make friends with those who agree with you if you can't be tolerant of others' 'bad habits'. After all, I'm sure you have some too. And don't forget that to some of us, alcohol is the worst killer, when you include accidents, as well alcohol related illnesses such as liver desease, heart problems, the destruction of families as alcoholics sink deeper into their desease and impoverish and often abuse those around them. But I'm NOT for any laws banning bars, or alcohol. That 'cure' already proved to be worse than the desease.

How about smokers' bars, where grown ups know the score and make their own decisions. Those who don't want to be around smokers, can go to non-smoking bars. There's room for both. You cannot legislate everything you hate, or someone else hates. It's a strange world, there's always something we would like to get rid of. But then, since we all hate something, imagine what kind of
world this would be? We're getting there, though. Our jails are filled with pot smokers already, as a result of those who 'hated drugs' and it won't be long before they are filled with cigarette smokers, if we don't watch out. Who's next? Be careful what you wish for, you may have a bad habit someone might want to make illegal.

BTW, the Mafia was created originally to funnel oil profits, but the prohibition is what really stripped away their traditional invisibility in the US and gave them a black market on a silver platter.

they always only include those who died as a direct result of it that year, from liver desease etc. They do not include those who suffer from other alcohol related deseases, such as heart problems, if the patient has stopped drinking by then.

The current number given is approx 100,000 thousand a year. That is in no way accurate, and does not include deaths due to automobile deaths.

Domestic violence due to alcoholism is another major problem. Most experts agree that alcohol is responsible for most instances of domestic violence.

Economically, alcoholism is probably responsible for the impoverishment of more families than most other reasons. Even educated individuals, with good jobs, will end up impoverishing themselves and their families, if they continue to drink to excess.

But still, I will not advocate making it illegal. It wouldn't stop the carnage anyway, just as the drug wars have not stopped drug addiction.

I don't believe in useless 'solutions'. I'm more for studying the causes (alcoholism, while it probably has more of a devastating effect on more people in society than any other desease, affecting on an average at least six to ten other individuals, adversely, who are close to the alcoholic) the amount of money put into research on the causes of it, is way below that of other deseases. There simply isn't the will to understand and then treat those who are afflicted. We would rather 'punish' people. It seems to make some of us feel superior for some reason.

Imo, working on solutions, rather than laws, is the best way to reduce all these problems. But we live in a very 'quick fix' and vengeful society. Which is probably why in the end, we never fix anything ~

really apples and ducks. In order for that to work, you would have to compare drunk-driving fatalities to deaths resulting from smoker-caused fires. And DUI should really not even be a factor in the equation since in a drunk-driving accident the actual cause of death is injuries resulting from the crash, not the alcohol consumption. DUI numbers also include the non-intoxicated victims of the accidents.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=191x14062

Pot smokers would have a chuckle about it i'm sure, and probably both pot smokers and tobacco
smokers would form an illegitimate alliance underground... with pot growers helping to teach
a new generation of illegal tobacco growers how to set up big tobacco growing rooms in the
basement and all. :-)

I get offended(disgusted) everytime I see them, too.

No, its almost a guarantee..............

Man... the tobacco industry would dry up, like they deserve to. I can't fathom WHY good liberals would continue smoking and enriching an industry as vile as the gun industry.

Let the Native Americans run all the vice. There could be the gambling tribes, the porn tribes, the drug tribes, and the weapons tribes. They already have done very well with the casinos, let 'em take the gun, tobacco and alcohol companies too. Some guy named Running Bear as CEO of Colt would be just the height of irony, huh? Not to mention justice.

I think that's a good liberal solution.

I am curious about this claim.

If I smoke and develop lung cancer (or heart disease or emphysema)at 65 and die, how is that more expensive than if I don't smoke and and live to 80 and die of some other disease? Seriously.

i know, it's illegal and you could go to jail, and someone might get a contact buzz, and there is no 'pot smoking section' anyway. will lighting up a cig get you arrested? possibly.

Nice straw man. I'm for smoking bans AND for the legalizition of drugs. I just don't want you smoking next to me in a restraurant or a movie theatre.

And we heard all this shit when they banned smoking in airplanes, in workplaces, in schools, etc....etc.

Get off the cross chicken little.

bar and smoke? Why don't you exercise your choice and go to smoke-free establishments? Why must you impose your preferences with the force of law?

It's more then a preference. It's about health. Nobody has the right to do anything that endangers other people's health.

Studies show that bar owners do not want to ban smoking because they fear that it will impact thier business if they do it unilaterally.

Why don't you just QUIT? Or if you don't have the good sense to do that why don't you just STEP OUTSIDE for 5 minutes to get your nicotine FIX?

If smokers weren't caught in this fantasy world where smoke is harmless they'd act like responsible adults and step outside. And we woudln't need laws banning smoking in enclosed public spaces. But most smokers are selfish addicts who can't confront the fact that they are performing sucicide in slow motion so they have to pretend that smoke isn't bad for you or the other people who breath in the air thier pollute.

Do you advocating allowing people to smoke at thier work places? Afterall you can take a job at a place that does not allow smoking, right? How about in a plane? We can all just be sure to not book tickets on smoking planes right?

I'm amazed at how retarded the anti-smoking ban arguments are.

You are killing yourself, and you aren't a victim just because you have to walk outside to pollute your lungs and get your nicotine fix. You are a victim because you are addicted to a substance that's harming your health. And you could stop. Millions have, and there has never been more resources available for smokers who want to quit.

Smoke all you want in your home or outside far away from entrances but quit your cry baby whining about having to walk outside to get your fix.

...you can still smoke a cigarette in your house, and on the street in most places, while talking to a cop and not fear arrest.

But most pot-smokers have NOT been banned to the fringes of society; they aren't outcastes. They smoke in private. And they've been lucky.

If pot were legal, I still would NOT blow my smoke in a stranger's face.

This is one issue that brings authoritarians from both sides of the political spectrum together.

Some people just don't like it when someone else is enjoying themselves.

:hi:

I'm done. Try not to cough any bloody spit onto your keyboard.

but remember to not blow any of those poisonous carcinogens from the tailpipe of your car in my face, should I be walking or bicycling behind you. Ban all poison spewing cars!! My body doesn't need to breathe in YOUR poison just because you are too lazy to walk or ride a bike!!:sarcasm:

See? We all have our little problems with each others filthy bad habits and there's none more filty than car fumes, imo. I do hope that the county you plan to eat in, to avoid a few secondhand smoke puffs, has also banned dangerous, poisonous carcinogens. Otherwise, I don't see the point of inconveniencing yourself?

Folks, while we breath in gasoline additives coming out of the tail pipe of our fellow drivers...a more vile toxic carcinogen, brake dust asbestos, accumulates on our road ways, stirred up.

several years. But that's not to say there is not a lot of crap out there. All those tires are shedding tiny particles of rubber. And the metallic/ceramic composites used today still give of a bunch of dust, it just isn't asbestos. There are chucks of oily dirt, atomized droplets of oil and coolant, plus concrete powder from the roadbed itself.

Just the regular dust that is in your house is a vile concoction of decomposing organic material, microorganisms, ash, minerals, and all kinds of other crap. If you have ever sanded an old piece of furniture and repainted it with a spray can, you probably inhaled more nasty chemicals than a lifetime of SHS exposure.

when claims of "asbestos free" compounds are made. The parts are from all over the planet, and you can't believe the purity of brake linings. New Old stock is often used as well, pre-ban.
The concetration is probably down from the pre-ban days, but asbestos is the lungs is bad at any level of exposure. imo.

Nov 16,2000 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/uncivilaction/brks16.shtml

Millions of brakes on cars and trucks -- and millions more waiting on parts-shop shelves
nationwide -- contain asbestos fibers that can kill mechanics.

Federal health and safety officials acknowledge the risks inherent in asbestos brakes. Yet the
agencies, apparently relying on the auto industry to police itself, have done nothing in recent
years to warn workers or check on workplace safety.

Mechanic Bill Rice replaces a set of brake shoes. Rice says he can't even change a tire without
getting brake dust on him. He says he tries to hold his breath to avoid inhaling it.
Meryl Schenker/P-I
Almost everybody interviewed during the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's four-month investigation --
mechanics and the government officials charged with protecting them alike -- said they thought
asbestos had been taken out of brakes years ago.

"It's an intolerable risk," said Dr. William Nicholson, professor emeritus at Mount Sinai School of
Medicine in New York and a leading authority on the hazards of asbestos in brakes.

Tests conducted for the P-I by government-certified laboratories found alarmingly high levels of
asbestos contamination in gas stations and brake-repair shops in the District of Columbia and six
states, including Washington. Public health experts said the exposure levels were so high in some
locations that more than one in 10 mechanics working without protective gear would likely
contract cancer.

But the government has issued no warnings to the nation's 750,000 brake mechanics in the past
decade. No alarms have been sounded by worker safety, environmental or public-health officials
because no one has looked at the dangers.

"The government is not doing its job," said Dr. Richard Lemen, a former U.S. deputy surgeon
general.

During the past three months, the P-I collected samples of dust from floors, work areas and tool
bins in 31 brake-repair garages in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Richmond, Seattle and
Washington, D.C. Asbestos, almost exclusively chrysotile, which has been used for decades in
brakes, was detected in 21 of the locations. The amount of asbestos in the dust ranged from 2.26
percent to 63.8 percent

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/uncivilaction/brks16.shtml

AND heres from Mar. 31, 2002 http://www.detnews.com/specialreports/2002/asbestos/a13-453346.htm

Asbestos brakes return
The confusion stems largely from a failed effort by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in
1991 to ban asbestos products. The prohibition lasted 28 months before being overturned by a
federal appeals court.
After the ban was lifted, asbestos brakes returned.
Most of the original brakes on new cars and trucks these days are made with synthetic
materials or nonasbestos materials. One notable exception: General Motors Corp. uses asbestos
brakes supplied by Delphi Corp. on the Chevrolet Cavalier and Pontiac Sunfire small cars. GM is in
the process of phasing the asbestos brakes out.
Brakes on many older cars and trucks, however, still contain asbestos. And replacement brake
pads and shoes manufactured with asbestos are commonly available in auto parts stores.
"They are dumped in from Mexico, from the Far East, because they are cheap," said Jim
Zamoyski, senior vice-president of Federal-Mogul Corp., a supplier of nonasbestos brakes. "A lot
of the old-timers prefer them because they stop better."
At Murray's auto parts store on Woodward in Detroit, for example, asbestos-laden brake pads
are distinguished by their yellow boxes and a warning that reads: "DANGER: May contain
asbestos fibers/Avoid creating dust/Cancer and lung disease hazard."
Arne Anderson, a former Ford Motor Co. research engineer and brake expert, estimates that
one third of drum brakes on cars and trucks on the road today contain asbestos. Less than 5
percent of pads on disc brakes are made with asbestos, he estimates.

http://www.detnews.com/specialreports/2002/asbestos/a13-453346.htm

the non-smokers. :D

Good to see you Swamp! Are you back home yet?

Do whatever the fuck you want, but I reserve the right to cough up phlegm onto your shoes if you aggravate my asthma and allergies.

pretty easy

Sheesh. Let 'em WHINE. It makes 'em feel better.:eyes:

I maight add...anyone EVER spits on MY shoes, their ass will be in jail.

Sadly, it's usually a visit to the hospital to stop a major attack.

where I live, most of the restaurants have a smoking section, which I do avoid. However, smoke doesn't usually stay on one side of the smoking/non-smoking line.

and I don't even frequent bars anymore, but if I DID...I want a cigarette with my beer...damn it.

If they make smoking illegal, I'll go back to smoking POT. It's much more enjoyable.:hippie::smoke:

When alcohol was prohibited, the result was the mafia. When marijuana and cocaine were made illegal, it provided a basis for the CIA (and as a result, the Bush Criminal Empire) to fund themselves with an endless supply of tax free money.

About the only good thing about illegalizing tobacco would be that the Republicans could no longer count on the tobacco industry for funding.

Now on the other hand, if we could eradicate the tobacco plant from planet earth entirely, that would be a different story.......

And find justification to build MORE.

Actually, being that nicotine kills half a million per year, it should be illegal by the standards we use. At least it would be a uniform justice, if not screwed up. But freedom is not being spied on, and being able to do what you want with your own body.

I'm deathly afraid that this new eminent domain law is just for things like new jail cells. Got a piece of land? Would a jail be more lucritive to the city? And this is just what I thought they meant by "service economy".


By the way, I appreciate being able to read what you say about pot smokers. Until I quit recently, I was a fugitive in my own country.

Freedom. It's a dirty word.

I'd buy stock in Wackenhut.

SD

http://www.unm.edu/~quantum/quantum_spring_97/tobacco.html

SACRED SUBSTANCE
SUSTAINING THE POSITIVE ROLE OF
TRADITIONAL NATIVE
AMERICAN TOBACCO WHEN USED RESPECTFULLY

By Valerie Roybal

We know tobacco to be a powerful, dangerous and potentially deadly substance. In Native American cultures, tobacco is also known to be one of the most sacred substances, to be revered and respected. This is not as contrary as it may seem if you consider that it is precisely this sacredness which makes tobacco a powerful, potential nemesis.

"A Navajo herbalist explained it to me this way. 'Tobacco is Diyin - a Holy Person. Use it with respect and it rewards you. Use it the wrong way, it kills you,' " describes Joseph Winter professor of anthropology and director of the Office of Contract Archeology.

It is based on this principle that Winter, in collaboration with Lawrence Shorty, a Navajo/Choctaw student at UNM, created the Traditional Native American Tobacco Seed Bank and Education Program (TNAT). The program, now in its second year, strives to educate Native Americans of the dangers of misusing tobacco, especially commercial tobacco, while sustaining the positive role of traditional tobacco in American Indian culture when it is used respectfully.

Operating concurrently are TNAT's efforts of collecting, preserving and distributing traditional Native American tobacco seeds in addition to raising and collecting traditional tobacco from Native American growers and the wild. In turn, this tobacco is distributed exclusively to Native American individuals, tribes and groups for use in ceremonies, pow wows, rituals, prayers and other spiritual events requiring the use of tobacco.

"There is a tremendous need for ceremonial tobacco in the Native American community," explains Winter, "which is one reason why they use so much commercial tobacco. Many American Indians no longer have access to traditional tobacco. Over half of all Native Americans live in urban settings, so we raise it and give it to them so they don't have to use commercial tobacco."
..more..