ban tobacco products?

Question

Do you believe that the federal government, should ban ALL tobacco products?

If your answer is yes, please explain.

if your answer is no, please explain that too

Answer 1

No, I don't think tobacco products should be banned. I made several points about smoking in response to a different question. I'll copy -n- paste it here. But, just to warn you ahead of time, it's really long.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Smoking is fine.

I smoke and probably always will.

The so called cancer risk is hooey. In my opinion, it's junk science that's constantly recycled to "feed" the rich and to support specific political agendas.

"In epidemiologic research [research involving the study of the causes, distribution, and control of disease in populations], relative risks of less than 2 [that is, 100% increment of risk] are considered small and usually very difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias or effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." (The National Cancer Institute, "Abortion and Possible Risks for Breast Cancer; Analysis and Inconsistencies", October 26, 1994).

Even risk elevations smaller than 200% (Some even say 300%.) do NOT prove that the risk even exists. There are too many variables, errors, biases, and so on.... That being said, I highly doubt that ANYONE can name a single study involving tobacco that has yielded results showing a risk elevation of less than 200% or even 100%.

Conning people about their health is a rapidly growing industry, and it's all about politics and money. Enjoying tobacco (particularly smoking) is politically incorrect. What's more, the pockets of politicians and big pharma are being lined by the anti-smoking activists. How? Simple- Big pharma foots the bills of the anti-smoking nut jobs and their junk science. And, in turn, big pharma rakes in on the cash from campaigns that induce so-called addicts to quit using tobacco with cessation "therapies" made available by.... Yup, BIG PHARMA, of course. And big pharma provides money and support to politicians in exchange for spreading their bull sh*t. The reason for smoking bans is nothing more than a scare tactic deceitfully used in order to convince people of the "risks" so they'll throw their money and support at politicians, big pharma, and the anti-smoking movement.

DON'T BUY INTO THE LIES!

Of course doctors will tell you that there is a horrible risk. With all the second hand smoke floating around, making people believe that there's a cancer risk is going to constantly send them running to their doctors in droves. [Money, money, money, and more money!] Additionally, medical students are propagandized throughout their education.

I don't think there is anywhere remotely close to enough evidence to indicate that tobacco use causes cancer. As I said, too many variables.

As for second hand smoke- Let's assume for a moment that smoking can indeed cause cancer- Take lung cancer, for example... Decades pass from the time HEAVY smokers start smoking to the time they develop lung cancer. If smoking is truly the reason for their cancer then wouldn't it take at least a few hundred years for those exposed to second hand smoke to catch up? How do we know that cigarette smoke causes the cancer as opposed to, let's say, smog? We don't. A bunch of smokers inflicted with cancer isn't evidence. Neither is a bunch of cancer patients who have been exposed to second hand smoke. There are far too many factors to consider. There are far too many possibilities.

At one time, marijuana was thought to turn people into maniacs. All the "experts" agreed and produced a mountain of "evidence" to back up their claims. Conning people about their health has been going on for a while and has become increasingly popular. The powers that be employ dubious methodology, manipulation of statistics, and facts out of context in order to dupe people into believing their nonsense. They cause us to obsess over cancer, because they know that cancer scares the crap out of us (and, therefore, rakes in the big bucks).

Most of the so-called "evidence" that the anti-smokers rely on consists of statistics. Well, statistics are unreliable. They can be fudged to reflect whatever the statistician wants to be believed. (For instance- There's a computer program called SAMMEC that produces many of the estimates of smoking deaths. And it will feed you whatever number you want depending upon your data input.) Likewise, with any gathering of statistics, there is the potential for error. And they're certainly not science. Furthermore, they can be re-packaged to give a particular impression. To illustrate [clever re-packaging]: Estimates of "increased risk" are often used to frighten. Take Professor Sir Richard Doll's figures for example- Professor Doll reckoned that about 160 in 100,000 smokers developed lung cancer. This could be expressed by saying that there is a 24 times greater risk if you smoke. But it could also be expressed by saying that you have a 99.8% chance of NOT getting lung cancer.

Another issue that I have with statistics is that they don't provide enough information. They only reveal one reality. FACT: Cancer is mostly a disease of the elderly. Cancer is increasing because, contrary to what many believe, people are living longer and healthier lives. This is why the "increased risk" statistics provided by the anti-smoking movement don't mention the fact that most lung cancer occurs within or beyond the normal range of death (a time at which SOMETHING will most likely cause us to die whether or not we smoke tobacco).

I haven't even touched on the several contradictory statistics- such as those which show that Chinese women have one of the highest lung cancer rates in the world even though very few of them smoke- and such as those which show that, while Japan is one of the heaviest smoking countries, it's also among those with the highest life expectancy. Statistics further show that more people smoked in the U.S. during the World Wars than at any other time in our history. But the 1950's brought a baby boom. (There goes the claims that smoking causes impotence and infertility!) There are statistics which show that smokers who exercise regularly have less disease than sedentary non-smokers. What's more, until cervical cancer was proven to be caused by a virus, 13% of cases were randomly claimed to have been caused by smoking.

The trickery doesn't end with statistics. Claims are cleverly worded so as to lead us into thinking one way or another. We are being programmed without realizing it. For example: Instead of being told that someone has decided that smoking MIGHT be a factor that contributes to such-and-such disease, we're told that the disease is "smoking-related" (thereby leading us to believe that the disease is actually directly caused by cigarette smoke).

It's laughable that the anti-smoking movement wants us all to buy into the fallacy that any level of cigarette smoke is harmful. This is a scientific howl! There are safe and unsafe levels of EVERYTHING. This is common knowledge.

And what is it about tobacco that's so harmful anyway? Oh yea, it's the nicotine. HA! That's another laughable claim. If nicotine is so harmful then why is it marketed to us in gum and patches? And why aren't the powers that be trying to scare us away from gorging ourselves with tomatoes, potatoes, black & green tea, peppers, and so forth? (Yes, they contain varying levels of nicotine.)

Talk about receiving regular doses of lies! I could go on all day.....

--------------------------------------...

TO ADD:

I'm still waiting for the proof that it's as harmful as claimed.
As I said- There are safe and unsafe levels of EVERYTHING. This is common knowledge.

And, again- A bunch of smokers inflicted with cancer isn't evidence. Neither is a bunch of cancer patients who have been exposed to second hand smoke. There are far too many factors to consider. There are far too many possibilities.

As far as the rights of non-smokers are concerned- I can understand the desire to ban smoking within facilities which people HAVE TO visit at some point (i.e. hospitals, government buildings, public schools, etc...). However, no one is forcing you to patronize restaurants, for example. To be blunt, if you visit an establishment knowing that smoking is allowed and that you disapprove, it isn't your health that concerns you but rather the inconvenience. Well, sorry, but smokers' freedom to enjoy their cigarettes shouldn't be encroached upon simply because people feel inconvenienced. You have the choice to turn around and walk out or to not enter in the first place.

Furthermore, anyone who contributes to industries that pollute while complaining about smokers is nothing less than a hypocrite. The automobile industry, the oil industry, the meat and dairy industries, and so on- They are responsible for much of the air pollution that we are forced to breathe each day. But they are also the politicians' bread and butter, therefore actions are not taken against them. You want to stomp out my cigarette while supporting the world's worst polluters. Shame on you. If you don't want to smell cigarette smoke then make the choice to not visit establishments which permit smoking.

Demanding that business owners prohibit smoking is no different than demanding that people not smoke in their own homes. Whoever owns the property should make the decision. Because, after all, no one is forcing you to enter. Fighting for smoking bans is the equivalent of admitting that you are too stupid to make decisions which you feel are right for you and for those whom you are responsible for. And it is literally fighting for business owners to be robbed of their right to decide how they wish to run their businesses. The solution to your problem is simple- Don't visit or work for establishments in which smoking is allowed.

For those who argue that smoking bans help to keep people safe by limiting smoking to the outdoors and to smokers' homes, automobiles, etc- I suggest you re-think your logic. In case you haven't noticed, smoke floats. You will eventually breathe second hand smoke regardless whether you realize it or not.

There are many people who are against smoking altogether and believe that it should be outlawed. One of their arguments is that it costs a great deal of money to treat smokers for medical conditions and that society "foots" the bill for those who are uninsured. Yes, society "foots" the bill for the uninsured. But this is not a valid argument against smoking, as society foots the bill for ALL who are uninsured (not just smokers). Should we illegalize unhealthy foods and beverages? Or how about illegalizing perfume and cologne since they cause violent reactions in those who are allergic?
Sound ridiculous? It isn't any more ridiculous than smoking bans that are based upon illogical arguments, misinformation, and ignorance.

What's more, since tobacco is taxed, I am of the opinion that tobacco use isn't just a freedom but also a right. I don't see anyone fighting to end tobacco taxation. Fair is fair- If my right to smoke is infringed upon then my tobacco purchases shouldn't be taxed.

In 1998 the United States Supreme Court threw out the E.P.A.'s study, which claimed that second hand smoke kills, and called it junk science. I agree with the Supreme Court. I don't believe that second hand smoke kills. And neither do many of you, otherwise you wouldn't visit establishments in which smoking is permitted. Many of you aren't at all concerned about the effects of cigarette smoke on your health. You're just annoyed. Probably seems like I keep harping on that, but it's the truth.

Those who cheer for smoking bans (i.e. what they perceive as victories) should be mindful of the fact that something they enjoy may very well be taken from them one day. Smoking in public places is just another freedom lost. People think they have won freedom- the so called freedom to breathe fresh air. But government officials and politicians don't care about you any more than big business. Their only concern is money.

What will you complain about when smoking ends in all public places throughout the world? Think you will be breathing clean air THEN? You won't.

I am not robbing you of your rights, but politicians sure want you to think so.


"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
--Ben Franklin


Just some food for thought:

The anti-smoking movement is rooted in Nazi Germany. Hitler (who was actually a smoker at one time) has been quoted as saying that tobacco is, "the wrath of the red man against the white man..." The Nazis, being anti-smoking and anti-alcohol (among other things), promoted racial hygiene and purity. Hitler is the father of the anti-smoking movement.

Answer 2

The government already tried doing similar thing with prohibition of alcohol and look what that did! Banning tobacco would just create a whole new black market and alot more criminal activity. Our jails would be filled with smokers leaving no room for the truly guilty. People need to get over the whole smoking issue. As others have said, we should be free to harm ourselves if that is what we want. That is what this country is about. Sure, go ahead and outlaw it in public places, that saves smokers from harming others but there is no need to make this country even one more step closer to a socialist society!

Answer 3

As a fan of freedom, I don't think the government should be banning tobacco.

However, I would prefer a full ban rather than banning smoking in restaurants, bars, etc. If tobacco is legal to sell, legal to buy, and legal to own you should be able to smoke anywhere, provided the establishment itself allows smoking. If a restaurant/bar owner wants to ban smoking in his/her establishment thats fine, it's his/her place, but the government shouldn't regulate that. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

Answer 4

no, because I don't think you'd want to encounter me without me having a morning smoke. I can be quite tempermental. It's my prozac. Keeps me level. Imagine my crabbiness and mood swings times 10 million. And remember, smokers are real people too, so we can be serving you at the checkout, making yor food and taking care of your children. We just happen to smoke.

Answer 5

No. Because it WOULD lead to anything being banned, butter, salt, whatever, it would set a precedent that could cause serious problems later.

Answer 6

Quit Smoking Cigarette With QuitSmokingMagic - http://Go.QuitSmokingMagics.com

Answer 7

Only after cars are banned and any other air polluting thing that we do.

Answer 8

Won't stop people from smoking

Answer 9

No - BUT they should ban coffee & sodas

Answer 10

technically no....cause we are a free country

morally yes...because smoking does harm people (whether from second hand or just to keep people from harming themselves ((kinda like the stupid seat belt laws)))

Answer 11

when a govt protects the people from themselves, they can not call the people free

or use the freedom propaganda