Suppose they banned tobacco

Written by: Birgit

---

Given the toxicity of cigarette smoke, it really should be banned, along with alcohol (what other neurotoxin do you get encouraged to drink???).

---

Written by: Sethis

---

It's our business when your smoking habits cost our health service millions of pounds per year. I don't see why we should fund your (self inflicted) damage-control.

---

Written by: Konsti

---

and non-smokers shoud stop being judgemental of smokers
(not directed at anyone specific, but at militant non-smokers in general) get over it, yes you are healthier than us! good job!

---

Written by: Konsti

---

and i dont think that u are against busses, are u?

---

Written by: Konsti

---

generally nobody is forcing anybody to go to smoky places. If can put up with it, then go and if u cant then dont.

---

Written by: Konsti

---

and smoking is pretty restricted anyway.

---

Written by: Konsti

---

well if u feel that way, then u would have to be against anything that pollutes the air. breathing the air of any larger city is the equivalent of several cigarettes a day, due to cars, industry and general pollution.
(thats a fact that i found when researching this topic for debate club in high school, so im pretty ceratin of that, dont have the link tho)

---

Written by:

---

Dont think anyones mentiond though, if they ever banned tabaco alot of 3rd world countrys economies would collapse, wich even if it does benifit the smoking/none communitys in other countrys, its too much of a hefty price. Ironic isnt it, ciggerettes save lives.

---

I've finally reached a point where I can't be bothered to waste time formulating replies to those who consider smoking OK.

(I've dealt with every pro-smoking argument at one time or another in various other threads, all of which are available via the search facility).

I'll just state, for the record, as far as I'm concerned, I would happily support a total ban on smoking in pubs, all workplaces, and any public space which a non-smoker may wander into.

I do have valid reasons why this is the right, and best thing to do; but, even if I didn't, I'd support the ban anyway, on the grounds that I don't want to be around smoke.

I would be happy if smoking could be entirely eradicated from the whole world, and, if there was a magic button I could press to bring that about, I would do so (also if there was one for the equally pointless and destructive alcohol, I'd press that as well... also with weed, and cars )

As for the right of smokers to choose- in reality, they do not value that right, otherwise they wouldn't be using one of the most addictive substances they could get their hands on, would they?

Smoking is not an expression of personal choice or liberty, it is the anti-thesis of it.

If smokers want choice, then great, they're welcome to it- but they'll need to quit their smoking addiction first, cos that is precisely the thing that is killing their ability to choose.

Having said that, I wouldn't automatically support a total ban of the kind Mike suggested, as I don't know if it would be as effective as the less extreme ban on smoking in public places.

If I thought it would be more effective, I would probably support it.

Personally, I don't want to harass or put down smokers- I see them as only victims of something they do not understand (as I was, when I used to smoke); but, the priority for me is simply that-

a world where smoking is percieved as even partially acceptable, desirable, a lifestyle choice, and normal- is a world where a portion of the next generation of young people will end up as addicts

whereas,

a world where no one smokes, where smoking is not normal, where it is seen as nothing more than what it is- an insiduous drug addiction that kills its self-deceiving victims, and is seen, not in use in public, but in school books as an historical curiousity: is a world where upcoming generations will finally be free of this ridiculous, pointless and incredibly destructive addiction.

All of those innocent lives saved, is well worth any bad feelings that current smokers may feel, especially as those feelings are primarily the result of their nicotine-skewed view of reality.

Smokers are fine by me; but smokers who feel the need to perpetuate addiction in others, or sabotage attempts to ensure that future generations remain free of smoking, are a different matter.

Written by: Sethis

---

It's our business when your smoking habits cost our health service millions of pounds per year. I don't see why we should fund your (self inflicted) damage-control.

Although that's only me speaking from the UK, it might be different elsewhere.

---

Written by: Brit_Joe

---

Bah that argument dosent work, if there is a park where drug addicts go to shoot up at night, and me and my friends met there usually to spin poi or something, we would all stop. No one would use that argument couse its just common snese not to go there anymore.

The same thing goes for a pub or club (lets assume that these places are smaoke free) and theres usually trouble there at nights couse of bad crowdes, you wouldnt go there and you wouldnt complain about it you would just find somewhere else and be happyer elsewhere.

---

Written by:

---

(I've dealt with every pro-smoking argument at one time or another in various other threads, all of which are available via the search facility).

---

Written by: Brit_Joe

---

Not really squarexbear, theres loads of places and things to do without ciggerette smoke. Dont put up with it you dont have too at all.

the thing is, when people say 'I dont like how I should have to move somewhere else because of smoke, make them ship out not me' is hypocritical, especialy when none smokers walk into a smoking pub and tell them all you cant do it anymore.

Written by: onewheeldave

---

(I've dealt with every pro-smoking argument at one time or another in various other threads, all of which are available via the search facility).

---

How do you mean you've dealt with every pro-smoking argument? Sounded abit arrogant sorry

---

Written by: Brit_Joe

---

How do you mean you've dealt with every pro-smoking argument? Sounded abit arrogant sorry

---

Do a search

Out of interest, how many no-smoking pubs are within a 5 mile radius of your house?
I don't go further than about 10 miles to visit a pub (and even traveling that far is a rare occurance), and there aren't any no-smoking pubs that close to where I live.
Your suggestion that I find somewhere else to go that doesn't have the smoke really isn't logistically feasible.

*shrug* sometimes it's like beating your head against a brick wall trying to get smokers to actually think about some of the arguements given by non-smokers.
I don't fancy giving myself another headache any time soon so that's it for me on this thread I think.

Written by: Brit_Joe

---

Not really squarexbear, theres loads of places and things to do without ciggerette smoke. Dont put up with it you dont have too at all.

the thing is, when people say 'I dont like how I should have to move somewhere else because of smoke, make them ship out not me' is hypocritical, especialy when none smokers walk into a smoking pub and tell them all you cant do it anymore.

---