UK doctors call to ban the purchase of cigarettes to anyone born after 2000 - until smoking is compl
139 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Technopath;44362160]So does driving a car, and we haven't banned cars.[/QUOTE]
That is a bit of a silly comparison, mostly because cars are used for everything. Remove cars and everything becomes harder for everyone.
Cigarettes are always going to be there, just like how most other things are used if they are outlawed. I am glad that I never liked them, but people should have a right to choose what they do to their body.
[QUOTE=Viva;44362030]Electronic Cigarettes are traditionally still restricted under many no-smoking laws. It's either they're just ignored and no one cares or they're treated just the same as smoking tobacco.
I know most places here in Philadelphia will tell you to leave the premise if you use them indoors or even get on your back if you're outside but near a door.[/QUOTE]
Yep.
Electronic cigarettes should still be banned since you can still smell them and the vapor they give off isn't 100% nicotine free.
[QUOTE=Topzombie;44362210]Because Facepunch likes to bandwagon on hating tobacco while other stuff (especially weed) is perfectly fine.[/QUOTE]
Tobacco is especially dangerous and addictive, smells terrible, and effects more than just the user.
[QUOTE=Grazony;44362235]That is a bit of a silly comparison, mostly because cars are used for everything. Remove cars and everything becomes harder for everyone.
Cigarettes are always going to be there, just like how most other things are used if they are outlawed. I am glad that I never liked them, but people should have a right to choose what they do to their body.[/QUOTE]
Just as a side note: My life is made harder by the existence of cars. I live close enough to my work that I don't need a car, so I don't have one. I'd actually prefer if cars were banned downtown.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44362035]A lot of kids born after 2000 already smoke[/QUOTE]
Not legally, this has nothing to do with the article you silly billy.
Did you think there was no age restriction on buying cigarettes or something?
how people can agree with this boggles my mind
we're sinking into a more and more depressing future, take away the things that can lift people up and you're in for a ride
fuck, everything britain does with these things is stupid and ass backwards
[QUOTE=Technopath;44362160]So does driving a car, and we haven't banned cars.[/QUOTE]
Seriously? You can't compare something that pretty much everyone depends on to cancer sticks.
Tobacco is the most retarded drug. Even taking hard drugs would be less retarded because with those you're atleast tripping balls while ruining your health and becoming addicted.
how is this a good thing
facepunch is all like oh man we should legalize drugs so there isnt a black market for them then an article says something about the banning of tobacco and you guys go apeshit with winners
hypocritical
[QUOTE=Egevened;44362276]how people can agree with this boggles my mind
we're sinking into a more and more depressing future, take away the things that can lift people up and you're in for a ride
fuck, everything britain does with these things is stupid and ass backwards[/QUOTE]
Think of all the lives saved from second hand smoke (and even third hand, in smaller numbers).
Just to clarify one thing, the debate on whether nicotine itself is carcinogenic is still on. While there is some evidence that points to nicotine being a carcinogen, it is not solid as cigarette smoke. Nicotine is the addictive part of cigarettes. The various other chemicals within tobacco (and/or cigarettes, chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco etc...) are known to be highly carcinogenic, while nicotine has a ton of adverse effects on various systems of the body.
I am all for legalisation (of almost everything), but I simply cannot understand how you can be for legalising weed and be fine with banning smoking. Apart from the obvious difficulty of rolling joints if tobacco is illegal, burning and inhaling something is not good for your mouth, windpipe or lungs, no exceptions. There is absolutely no difference between tobacco being legal and weed being made legal.
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;44362293]Think of all the lives saved from second hand smoke (and even third hand, in smaller numbers).[/QUOTE]
yeah, think of all the people saved from pollution in general
wait no
no illusion of a mid-city park is going to change the fact you are living and breathing in very dangerous chemicals by the day, cigarettes or not
[QUOTE=katbug;44362254]Tobacco is especially dangerous and addictive, smells terrible, and effects more than just the user.[/QUOTE]
Weed is also addictive, maybe not as fast/strong as tobacco but it is!
Also inhaling any fumes is damaging the body
[QUOTE=Egevened;44362291]how is this a good thing
facepunch is all like oh man we should legalize drugs so there isnt a black market for them then an article says something about the banning of tobacco and you guys go apeshit with winners
hypocritical[/QUOTE]
One can only imagine the size of the (already quite large) tobacco black market if it were to be made illegal.
[editline]26th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Topzombie;44362311]Weed is also addictive, maybe not as fast/strong as tobacco but it is!
Also inhaling any fumes is damaging the body[/QUOTE]
There is no evidence that points to cannabis being physically addictive the same way nicotine is. However they both also lead to psychological addiction.
I don't think this would work. The kids will just have older people buy the cigarettes.
However, I'm glad this is happening because smoking cigarettes is way more popular than it should be.
Lovely idea, will never work though. Plus i'm a huge hypocrit as i like a smoke every now and then.
"People should be free to put what they want in their bodies except tobacco cause it smells bad" - Facepunch 2014
[QUOTE=Grimhound;44362080]Because it's still a heavily addictive substance. E-cigs have been found not to help people quit in any fashion, but rather just serve to enable the addiction.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to see some of the studies that told you that as i personally have never encountered them and have lurked heavily around many many vaporizor boards. On a purely anecdotal note i can offer the complete opposite of what you're saying with many citing ec-gis as greatly aiding their quitting. The stories where ecigs/vaping were beneficial to smokers greatly outweight the stories where they were more harmful to their habits.
[QUOTE=Falchion;44362283]Tobacco is the most retarded drug. Even taking hard drugs would be less retarded because with those you're atleast tripping balls while ruining your health and becoming addicted.[/QUOTE]
Actually "hard" drugs readily available and in a regulated environment without black market side effects and used with clean paraphernalia, unbiased education, etc. are probably healthier than cigarettes. "Tripping balls" is more of a feature of psychedelics like shrooms, acid, etc.
A well maintained addiction to hard drugs from a regulated source would probably be far less damaging to health than a cigarette addiction.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44361965]which is stupid, electronic cigarettes are less dangerous because it's vapour and not smoke, not to mention there are far fewer chemicals.
why would you treat them the same?[/QUOTE]
it really gets me fuming when i pass someone and catch a whiff of that [I]disgusting[/I] mango water vapor they exhaled.
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;44362253]Yep.
Electronic cigarettes should still be banned since you can still smell them and the vapor they give off isn't 100% nicotine free.[/QUOTE]
Yes but in the studies that have done research specifically on secondhand vape smoke have found that while it is true that vapes are not emission free, they do in fact contain some trace amounts of various things like the vegetable base and nicotine.
HOWEVER, in order to see any substantial amounts of these built up, to a point where they can actually actively have any sort of negative effect on secondhand victims, there needed to be heavy, constant use of the e-cigs.
The specific study i'm recalling had 9 users in a small room vaping for two consecutive hours straight and only saw roughly 20% of an increase in pollutant, only a small amount of the pollutants were nicotine.
So tl;dr. The second hand smoke in an ecig is really nothing substantial and only poses real threats in real world situations if their popularity exploded and you had 5-10 people in a small room vaping at the same time for more then a few minutes, which as it currently stands, is fairly unlikely to occur. Not to mention most who do vape do so for only a few minutes, not TWO HOURS.
I don't smoke, but this is dumb as dicks yo
[QUOTE=Egevened;44362291]how is this a good thing
facepunch is all like oh man we should legalize drugs so there isnt a black market for them then an article says something about the banning of tobacco and you guys go apeshit with winners
hypocritical[/QUOTE]
just what i thought
whats this with everyone defending literally every other drug because "it's your body", but hating on tobacco just because?
LOL, doctors want to ban cigarettes, on the other side consumers want to legalize marijuana... and the consumer is always right.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;44362466]Actually "hard" drugs readily available and in a regulated environment without black market side effects and used with clean paraphernalia, unbiased education, etc. are probably healthier than cigarettes. "Tripping balls" is more of a feature of psychedelics like shrooms, acid, etc.
A well maintained addiction to hard drugs from a regulated source would probably be far less damaging to health than a cigarette addiction.[/QUOTE]
That is definitely not true. Most of the hard drugs are considered hard for a reason. Plus you are not accounting for tolerance at all. Of course access to clean needles, unadulterated substances, safe places to do drugs in etc... all would go a long way in reducing the harm associated with many drugs, but in the end the drugs themselves have physiological effects and these effects will get you.
As you build tolerance, you would need more of the same substance to achieve the same effect, but the side effects of the drug would mount too. Cocaine for example has very powerful vasoconstrictor effects and is associated with coronary artery spasms and sudden death in the young which is completely unrelated to how clean your paraphernalia is (it also causes septal perforation for the same reason). Heroin (opiates in general) depresses the respiratory system to the point where you can simply stop breathing if the dose is high enough.
Overall nicotine is a very highly addictive substance, but comparing cigarettes to hard drugs is not very logical.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;44362102]Drinking in public is already illegal.
Also, cigarette smoke/vapor actively affects other people.[/QUOTE]
Not illegal in the UK, you can drink and be drunk in public. You will only be arrested for being drunk and disorderly (urinating in public, swearing at old women, etc)
[QUOTE=Fetret;44362658](it also causes septal perforation for the same reason).[/QUOTE]
Coke causes your septum to get fucked because its normally the hydrochloric salt which is snorted, which means that once it enters the nose it forms HCl which will cause septum damage.
[QUOTE=Technopath;44362160]So does driving a car, and we haven't banned cars.[/QUOTE]
Comparing cars to tobacco is ridiculous. What use does tobacco even have? It serves no purpose, as opposed to cars.
[QUOTE=G71tc4;44362389]"People should be free to put what they want in their bodies except tobacco cause it smells bad" - Facepunch 2014[/QUOTE]
"hurr durr facepunch hivemind" - retarded posters 2014
[QUOTE=Egevened;44362291]how is this a good thing
facepunch is all like oh man we should legalize drugs so there isnt a black market for them then an article says something about the banning of tobacco and you guys go apeshit with winners
hypocritical[/QUOTE]
Wow it's almost like marijuana has very legitimate medical applications while tobacco is useless and harms everyone around the smoker a great deal.
There are people born after 2000
[QUOTE=Chubbs;44362747]Coke causes your septum to get fucked because its normally the hydrochloric salt which is snorted, which means that once it enters the nose it forms HCl which will cause septum damage.[/QUOTE]
No it causes the vessels in the septum to constrict, leading to ischaemia, which in the end slowly leads to necrosis and perforation. It is not as dramatic as HCl burning a hole through your nose.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.