Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

should tobacco be banned

Name: Anonymous 2008-05-24 14:12

i say yes

benefits:
less healthcare costs
higher productivity (no smoke breaks)
more farm land will be used to produce useful products (food, bio-fuels)
cleaner environment
less house and forest fires
less car accidents

Name: Anonymous 2008-05-24 14:18

Well yeah, it SHOULD be banned. But look what that has done when we banned drugs such as cocaine or marijuana. Yes, it IS illegal. But people still try to use it. Too many people have already succumb their selves to cigarettes and the like. Plus the tobacco companies already make a ton of money to begin with and right now  I don't think they are going to be happy to lose their $1,000,000 income per week.

Name: Anonymous 2008-05-24 16:16

It should be legal, but unrolled, in a pouch. When they roll it for you, evil chemicals get added en masse

Name: Anonymous 2008-05-24 16:26

Your organic tobacco has no place in this world of megacapitalism

Name: Anonymous 2008-05-24 18:10

Should Anonymous be banned?

Name: AMERIKAH FUCK YEAH 2008-05-24 18:16

ANYONE WHO WANTS IT BANNED IS NOT A PATRIOT

TOBACCO INDUSTRY EMPLOYS GOOD AMERICANS, IT PROVIDES AMERICA MOENY

ALSO, MUSLIMS WANT TO BAN TOBACCO, DID YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?

DO WHAT IS AMERICAN. SUPPORT US.

Name: Anonymous 2008-05-24 18:50

We should ban tobacco and legalise marijuana.

Name: Anonymous 2008-05-25 3:28

>>1
If tobacco (arguably the most important and influential crop in American history) were criminalized, you'd only see INCREASED usage and increased negative health/social/financial effects. Just as with previous prohibition attempts and the "War on Drugs", you will see results directly opposite of your intentions.

>less healthcare costs
First off, you obviously don't have a clue how our (retarded) health care system works. But anyway, we'd actually see INCREASED costs. Why? Because there would no longer be direct funding to the health care providers from the tobacco companies to offset the increased insurance risks. What you'd see is an increase in costs across the board to make up for the lost income.

>higher productivity (no smoke breaks)
What do you think people did BEFORE smoke breaks became almost standard? They snuck out. All that would happen would be that people start sneaking out en masse to hide in the bathroom or behind a dumpster and take a drag. Just like people do today with other drugs like pot.

>more farm land will be used to produce useful products (food, bio-fuels)
There are now less than 50,000 farms in the US that produce tobacco, averaging 7% of their harvest by land area. That isn't a lot. (There are a little more than 2,000,000 farms in the US, meaning at a rough guestimate we're using ~0.14% of our farmland on tobacco.) About 98% of our tobacco now is IMPORTED due to the high price of growing it domestically. So while this may actually be a valid point, it is very very weak.

>cleaner environment
There WAS a study done that showed cigarette smoke to be "ten times worse" than diesel exhaust, not to mention the couple hundred poisons and carcinogens in cigarettes. But suggesting that banning tobacco would stop people from smoking is retarded, so it's a moot point.

>less house and forest fires
Again, prohibition has the opposite intended effect. If anything, more people would be smoking in the privacy of their homes and such, so there would be an INCREASE in fires.

>less car accidents
What? Cigarettes don't noticeably affect the number of vehicle deaths at all. No more than other minor distractions, anyway (radio, talking to other passengers, etc). Instead you should be make a point about how 10 times more people are killed DIRECTLY from cigarettes via lung cancer, etc (~440,000/year in the US) than in ALL kinds of automobile accidents combined (~44,000/year in the US).

Then there's the fact that the US federal and state gov'ts earned over $30 billion in taxes last year on cigarettes alone.

I have never smoked a cigarette in my entire life and probably never will. I have also never done any drug other than alcohol at social events (and then only a glass or two of wine/champagne). Not saying I will never do drugs or indulge in alcohol, just that I personally don't see the point in poisoning my body for shitty products. I don't eat fast food, I won't smoke the shitty cigarettes people smoke nowadays, and I won't drink the piss that people chug down constantly.

I'm not sympathetic to smokers. On the contrary, I think those retards should be beaten to death with their own blackened lungs. I'm just saying outlawing tobacco is retarded. Along the same lines, other drugs should be legalized (with limitations, of course). By legalizing the drugs, we'll be able to tax them and regulate their production, leading to less dangerous products and stimulating the legit economy instead of the black market. Further along the same lines, I also think that performance enhancers should be similarly legalized, even if we need to segregate the sports leagues. People should be free to do what they please with their bodies so long as no harm comes to anyone else. "Harm" including second hand smoke, which is why I favor smoke-free zones where they make sense (schools and family restaurants, but not bars). If there was a way to do it without infringing on privacy, I'd make it illegal to smoke in a building with children under 18 living in it (children's rights trump adult privledges), but since there isn't, that one has to slide.

Oops. I'm ranting. /post

Name: Anonymous 2008-05-25 8:18

>>8
There already was >>6 for shitty apologetics, but thanks anyway.

Name: Anonymous 2008-05-25 9:47

>>8
wow, that's a lot of text...

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-02 11:33

I hate people who smoke and have tattoos.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-02 12:42

>>11
go back to watching wheel of fortune, grampa

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-02 15:24

Tobacco should be banned only if hemp is legalized.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-02 17:42

>>12

Actually youngin' I'm only 19 years old. I hate people who do drugs, have tattoos, and have piercings. That's right, I judge them just like they judge me.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-02 18:29

>>8
tl;dr, looks like you wasted your time, try cutting down on the verbal diarrhea next time

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-02 18:41

I say no. Tobacco is a plant.

You fucking idiot, why do you want to ban something that grows naturally? You want to ban roses? Potatos?

Why not ban fucking cake. It'd make people less fat, it'd mean less cake breaks, it'd mean everybody was healthier.

Yeah, that's how stupid you sound.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-02 19:00

>>1
I understand what you mean, but i perfer some people to smoke over going compleatly over the deep end with stress that they kill some one.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-03 0:36

>>16
Don't give them ideas.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-03 6:38

>>16
Apply the same reasoning to opium and hashish

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-03 8:50

>>1
i agree
tobacco should be banned

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-03 11:00

Tobacco is unhealthy, expensive, and pollutes the atmosphere.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-03 11:30

>>21

You are unhealthy, offensive to look at, and you pollute the atmosphere with your body odor.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-03 13:57

Legalise everything and let market forces sort it out.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-03 16:37

>>23
Sorry, we are dealing with scientifically valid arguments here. Clearly you can see why people with actual responsibility can't leave things to sort themselves out praying to the supernatural.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-03 23:35

Ban tabacco = Less tax

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 5:12

>>24
You mean the arguments that outlawing such things has made them cheaper and more widepread in usage, especially in children, who drop out of school at record rates to make obscene tax-free profits selling drugs?

Or the arguments that outlawing them has made them more dangerous, due to a lack of production regulation?

Or the arguments that outlawing them has made society at large more dangerous, due to clogging the prisons (more than 50% are in for non-violent drug charges, many for longer terms than violent rapists), supporting violent drug cartels, street dealers, and gangs?

Or the arguments that outlawing them has drained the economy to the tune of nearly a trillion dollars a YEAR, due to the combined costs of the War On Drugs, supporting the prisoners who shouldn't be there, paying for law enforcement, the lost tax revenue, etc?

Fuck it, I'm not gonna rant anymore, but while I'm thinking about it, these same points apply to prostitution, as well.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 9:49

>>26
It's nice of your retarded mind to connect legalizing something to DURR HURR FREE MARKUTZ. I'm all for legalizing medically sensible drugs, a la netherlands, however connecting this to LIBERTARYANIZM DERP DERP DERP only exposes your retardation once again. The legalized version works because it is regulated not because MARKAT FORSAZ MAGICALLY MADE EVERYTHING ALRIGHT!!!!!

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 10:25

>>27
Under a libertarianism regulations which serve to preserve justice are permitted.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 11:01

>>28
How? MAGICK MARKAT FORSAZ!!!! DEY SOLV EVRYTHUNG!!! MAGIC WILL STOP PROFITEERING!!!!

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 11:28

>>29
The state still exists under a libertarianism. It's purpose is merely restricted to preserving liberty and justice.

The bulk of your trolls overwhelmingly consists of telling people they are crying which suggests reaction formation. Furthermore you exclusively troll people you believe are stormfags or secretly racist, which can only mean you actually care about the issue at hand. If you were a true troll who didn't care about the issue he is trolling you would troll multiple issues, considerring the volume of text you put in to trolling it appears to me you are severely "butthurt" by these stormfags.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 11:47

Ban tobacco so all the faggots addicted to it whine. Also there are warning labels on all tobacco products for a reason.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 12:28

>>30
How will it preserve when it can't now? Oh, right DA MAGICK comes in.

Keep up with your denial, and crying BAAWWW TROLL every time your retarded delusions are disproven, my retarded copy-pasting buddy.

Name: Libertaryan 2008-06-04 12:36

>>32
STAYT IZ KROOONI AND SOSHALIST NOW! WEN STAYT IS POWERLESS, PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS WILL TAKE PITY AND WON'T EXPLOIT!!! WHY? BEKUZ IF THEY DO THE HOLY MARKUT FORSAZ WILL STRIKE DEM DOWN WIT A LIGHTNING BOLT FRUM HEAVENZ! WIT MAGICK LIBERTARYANIZM PREZERVS JUSTIS AND LIBERTY!!!!

CLEARLY YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE GREAT WISDOM BEHIND LIBERTARYANIZM, YOU'RE STILL USING LOGIC AND REASON - DAT'S NOT THE LIBERTARYAN WAY! LIBERTARYANIZM IS A MASHINE OF IGNORANCE AND HERDING RETARDED LOSERS, LUBRICATED BY ANAL LUBE!!! FACTS ARE NOT FOR US!!

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 12:41

>>33
Can someone translate this to English?

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 19:00

>>34
It's libertarianese, sorry.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 19:25

i think it should be banned, and pot should be legalized.  beer can go too.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-04 23:19

>>27
>>29
>>32
>>35
Why don't you try making an actual argument, instead of strawmen and red herrings?

Screaming like a retard about your political misconceptions when they have no real relationship to the argument at hand serves no purpose but to derail the thread and convinve us that you are indeed retarded. If you really think you know what you're talking about, make a decent arument or don't waste your and our time.

Thanks.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-05 1:42

>>32
Obviously the state cannot eliminate all crime, but it can reduce it to reasonable levels as determined via a representative system of government.

The bulk of your trolls overwhelmingly consists of telling people they are crying which suggests reaction formation. Furthermore you exclusively troll people you believe are stormfags or secretly racist, which can only mean you actually care about the issue at hand. If you were a true troll who didn't care about the issue you are trolling you would troll multiple issues, considerring the volume of text you put into trolling it appears to me you are severely "butthurt" by these stormfags.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-05 3:56

Smokers are scum. Marginally better than homosexuals.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-05 9:16

>>37
It's funny because you have described yourself, and the posts you cited ridicule how retarded your "thought" is. Come back when you can argue with facts, my retarded friend, rather than MARKAT FORSAZ MAGICALLY FIX TINGS!! LIBERTARYANIZM FTW!!!

>>38
More shit with no substance, try again.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List