Why put all the emphasis on smoking?

Question

Smoking is no more harmful than drinking and will the government ever put a ban on drinking? I doubt it. They say smoking harms other people around you but a lot of crime is committed under the influence so that's gotta be more harmful. You don't have a smoke and want to go out and take the world on and if you're smoking weed you're probably hiding behind the sofa in a state of paranoia so won't even leave the house! Don't you think the govenrment have got it all wrong as usual?

Answer 1

Absolute bull. Smoking is 100% harmful to everyone who comes into contact with the smoke, be it the smoker or passive smoker. Normal drinking is nowhere near this, wine is not harmful and neither is lager when drunk sensibly which most people do, and if one man decides to drink himself silly he won't give the guy sitting next to him liver problems. The cost to the nation is in the health care system, man hours lost through *** breaks (does a non-smoker get one? No!), people smoking while driving causing accidents, or smoking in bed etc (burn their house down, killing their children in the process). Drunken louts are a problem but in general I think smoking costs the nation much more.

Answer 2

Not this time. There are tons of victimless crimes out there that should be wiped off the books and the government has controls and bans on things that they should have no say in.

Direct threats to public health, however, are one of the few areas where I believe government intervention is needed. Second hand smoke is directly harmful to everyone in the vicinity. Not wearing a seat belt is not directly harmful to anyone. It is only potentially harmful to the person not belted and others in the vehicle.

Smoking marijuana should not be illegal. Just like with tobacco, you should have the right to poison your own body all you want. Smoking marijuana in no smoking areas, or while driving, directly harms or significantly threatens the safety of others.

Ultimately though, I question the logic of your argument because alcohol consumption is as regulated as tobacco use, if not more, and has been for much longer. There are laws which limit alcohol consumption in certain places. Hell, you can smoke in your car, but you can't even transport an open container of alcohol in the same car. You can't drink in public. So I don't quite get your logic that smoking has been banned. It's certainly being controlled, but that's as it should have been long ago.

Answer 3

You're wrong, though. Smoking is far more harmful than drinking.

For one thing, I've never heard of anyone getting cancer from chardonnay, or emphasema from beer. Even if that were possible, there's no such thing as second-hand drinking, so I couldn't get cancer from the drinkers around me.

It depends on the individual and how things affect them, but in general, smoking is far more dangerous than drinking. Remember that if someone drinks, gets drunk, and goes out and commits some violent crime, that's not really the alcohol, that's his own stupidity. The crime wasn't caused by the alcohol, and it's not the alcohol that goes to jail for it.

But the health effects of smoking are caused directly by the introduction of known carcinogens into the body. Still a measure of stupidity, to be sure, but a much more direct link.

And remember that the government is (supposedly) following public opinion about smoking bans, etc. No one would go for any kind of drinking ban, although there are, of course, lots of places where people can't drink.

Answer 4

Truth is, they won't ever put a full ban on smoking because they make too much money off the taxes on cigarettes (at least here in Canada). But you're right, they do have it backwards. They say that smokers become a drain on the healthcare system, but I've never seen any statistics that state that more smokers end up in the hospital for long periods of time, as opposed to any other medical condition that may land you in the hospital for long periods of time. Nor have I ever seen anything that proves that smoking or second-hand smoke is actually linked to the illnesses that people end up with.

My theory is that the government thinks they are following popular opinion, but really it's just another form of segregation. They are making smokers out to be second-class citizens. It's like during prohibition when alcohol was banned and speak-easies opened up everywhere to allow people to still enjoy alcohol even though it was illegal. I'm sure you will see those popping up for smokers pretty soon.

I am a smoker. I don't personally care that I can't smoke in a restaurant or bar. But I am worried about the direction in which they are headed with all the latest legislation. If they can stop you from smoking outside your workplace unless you are a certain distance from any entrance, what is to stop them from trying to make it illegal to smoke outside, period? When are they going to try and make it illegal for anyone to smoke in their cars...in any enclosed space?! They are getting out of control and someone needs to put an end to it.

In Canada there is an organization called My Choice, they are a pro-smoking lobby organization that has taken on the government at every turn when it comes to the smoking bans. They haven't necessarily been successful, but at least they are trying. That is the other problem with society today. Too many people sit back and do nothing when they feel something is wrong because they don't feel that, individually, they could affect any kind of change. That is not the right way to think. Stand up and be counted...make sure that the government knows how you feel. If every person who felt that way actually took the time to write one letter to their member of parliament or senator or congressperson, just think how many letters those people would be flooded with!

Answer 5

I'm not sure why you think drinking is as harmful to general health as smoking is. That's just plain wrong.

You're right about the harmful affects of alcohol, though. Drunken people do stupid things and believe being drunk is some sort of excuse for everything from criminal damage, to cheating on a partner, to killing somebody behind the wheel of a car.

If either tobacco or alcohol were only discovered now, they would be made illegal like most of the other addictive and mood altering substances out there.

It is possible, though, to drink responsibly, have a good time and not harm anybody. Every time you light up a cigarette, however, anyone breathing in your vacinity is being poisoned. If I stood next to you at a bar holding a peice of asbestos and a cheese grater, filed off some dust and blew it in your face, you'd probably not be happy. Same thingas smoking, really.

Answer 6

Lots of places in the UK have a ban on drinking in the street and parks except for at cafes, a smoking ban in buildings, pubs and resaurants is no different. If you were drinking a pint of beer and I was sat 3 feet frm you, I wouldn't be affected in any way by the beer. but id you were smoking, then I would ahve to endure the smell of your cigarette until it was finished, and then even the smell from the tab end in the ashtray. Driving under the influence of alcodol is banned, but driving under the influence of smoking is legal. It is illegal to drink even water while driving, but you see large numbers of drivers smoking, and when they have finished they throw the still burning stub out the window, where it could go into another vehicle, land on the verge and start a fire. The driver is distracted if driving while smoking and has to take a hond off the steering wheel to smoke. I think it should be illegal to smoke while driving, in the same way as it is illegal to use a mobile phone.

Answer 7

(1)
smoking makes people sick. When people get sick, they go to hospitals. When people go to hospitals in many countries around the world, the Government of that country pays for their care. That's expensive. So, they try to make you not smoke, because they don't want to have to pay to look after you

(2)
People who don't smoke don't like having to breathe in other peoples' smoke. Even if you take away the argument of the effects of second hand smoke, there is that it's nauseating and stinky. So, the government clamps down on the places you can smoke. Because smokers are outnumbered 3 to 1. So, they lose.

(3)
Smoking is more addictive than heroin. And, smoking is directly and indirectly responsible for way more deaths than alcohol. So, I think that you're wrong when you say it's no more harmful.

Answer 8

Well you're generalizing that people that smoke weed are all paranoid. The weed today is much more potent that what was around in the 60's and 70's. So no I do not think the government has it all wrong as usual.

Answer 9

Smoking is not only harmful to the smoker but also to people within the distance of his second hand smoke.
While it may be fine for smokers to choose to kill themselves by inhaling deadly smoke, it is not acceptable for them to also kill innocent non-smokers.
I am in favour of a persons freedom to do as he likes within reason but not if that freedom gives him the right to harm others.
Alcohol only harms the drinker. If he splashes his drink on a passer-by they merely mop it up & move on. A smoker breathes smoke into your face & there is no escape without inhaling it yourself.
The other difference is that you can easily sopt a person under the influence of alcohol & can avoid him. a smoker tends to just wander around bolwing smoke everywhere & is not easy to spot until it is too late.

Answer 10

Smoking IS more harmful than drinking. You can drink in moderation and be fine. There is no such thing as smoking in moderation. If someone breaks the law from drinking too much there are penalties attached to those crimes. If you hurt someone from your smoking, there are no penalties to you. So the only solution is to ban it in public places. That being said, I think it has been overdone when they start banning it outside.