Danmark delivers, professor at health institure wants to ban smoking for everyone born after 2000. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Jojje;46336474]I disagree with prohibition of anything, but it shouldn't be glorified and perhaps not advertised as rigorously as it is. Let people make their own decisions, no matter how wrong they may seem.[/QUOTE] When these same morons but a huge strain on the healthcare system? Yeah, I think not. Tabaco products should receive 0 advertising, be locked up behind the counter, out of sight, and only purchasable upon showing an ID.

This is fucking ridiculous. Even if you don't like smoking (like me) I feel this is a massive MASSIVE intrusion on our freedom. I like whiskey, which is unhealthy too, but I'll be damned if I let the government decide what I can or cannot enjoy. Get the fuck outta here.

It's like almost every post so far is completely ignoring second hand smoking? I'm talking about kids who's parents smoke around them, people smoking under my apartment, causing my apartment to smell like shit. Also people smoking on the streets (for some reason the seem to always concentrate on subway exits, and public doors in general). This is more than about "reducing your freedoms" Of course it would create a "black market" of some sort, but banning it would absolutely reduce the amount of smokers significantly. Just look up what smoking does to your country's general health, its fucking insane. You can't argue against this shit.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46337193]There is really no legitimate reason for anyone born after 1990 to start smoking in the first place. You can't claim ignorance or being misled by advertising anymore, it's common knowledge that smoking will make you die early of COPD and/or lung cancer. I have zero respect for young people that start smoking, IMO it's a wonderfully efficient way of telling the entire world how irredeemably stupid you are.[/QUOTE] Wow. You got eight people to call you dumb and more shockingly 8 others to agree with you. What the hell. Some people just like smoking, and the effects of nicotine, so what? You're talking shit about ISIS trying to regulate society, and you feel comfortable saying people are irredeemably stupid for making a different choice than you, and that their choice deserves to be banned? That's some scary mental strain of thought man. [editline]26th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Uberpro;46338299]It's like almost every post so far is completely ignoring second hand smoking? I'm talking about kids who's parents smoke around them, people smoking under my apartment, causing my apartment to smell like shit. Also people smoking on the streets (for some reason the seem to always concentrate on subway exits, and public doors in general). Of course it would create a "black market" of some sort, but banning it would absolutely reduce the amount of smokers significantly. Just look up what smoking does to your country's general health, its fucking insane. You can't argue against this shit.[/QUOTE] Without going into the argument of wether second hand smoking is harmful or not. The next step would be getting rid of cars that have big engines. They emit much more, just as poisonous as cigarettes, fumes than a small car or even an electric car. Big cars should be banned, and if you drive a big car now you're a fucking scumbag for poisoning yourself and everyone around you. You can't argue against this shit.

[QUOTE=Uberpro;46338299]It's like almost every post so far is completely ignoring second hand smoking? I'm talking about kids who's parents smoke around them, people smoking under my apartment, causing my apartment to smell like shit. Also people smoking on the streets (for some reason the seem to always concentrate on subway exits, and public doors in general). This is more than about "reducing your freedoms" Of course it would create a "black market" of some sort, but banning it would absolutely reduce the amount of smokers significantly. Just look up what smoking does to your country's general health, its fucking insane. You can't argue against this shit.[/QUOTE] no i acknowledge that, that's an issue and i agree, my main argument though was that when I smoked i had reasons to.

[QUOTE=buro;46337302]Also is it even possible to be born with a nicotine addiction?[/QUOTE] Chain-smoking soon-to-be mothers.

[QUOTE=Pr0fane;46338304] [editline]26th October 2014[/editline] Without going into the argument of wether second hand smoking is harmful or not. The next step would be getting rid of cars that have big engines. They emit much more, just as poisonous as cigarettes, fumes than a small car or even an electric car. Big cars should be banned, and if you drive a big car now you're a fucking scumbag for poisoning yourself and everyone around you. You can't argue against this shit.[/QUOTE] You're right, the pollution cars and other sources cause to cities is an extremely serious problem. Look up cities like Beijing. Also I'm pretty sure big and polluting cars will be reduced significantly in the future. You've however for some reason chosen this to be the main point of my post, which it isn't. I'm just bringing it up, because as I said nobody else has. About second-hand smoking, everything else than the smoking around kids bit isn't a major health concern to me, just massively annoying, like smoke causing my apartment to smell like shit. I haven't studied or looked up any studies concerning this, but I'm pretty sure you can't deny that having plenty of cigarette smoke around you as a kid is pretty awful. There are probably hundreds of better examples to this. [QUOTE=confinedUser;46338352]no i acknowledge that, that's an issue and i agree, my main argument though was that when I smoked i had reasons to.[/QUOTE] I wasn't replying to your post.

[QUOTE=Uberpro;46338379]You're right, the pollution cars and other sources cause to cities is an extremely serious problem. Look up cities like Beijing. You've however for some reason chosen this to be the main point of my post, which it isn't. I'm just bringing it up, because as I said nobody else has. About second-hand smoking everything else than the smoking around kids bit isn't a major health concern to me, just massively annoying, like smoke causing my apartment to smell like shit.[/QUOTE] Yeah I can understand. I'm just trying to point out.... I don't think it's a good idea for government to regulate stuff like this. It's not the governments business to meddle in our affairs like this. I lived in an apparment that smelled horrible because the woman below me had 4 cats. I really wanted her to get rid of the 4 cats, but I would never have it regulated, or force her to give up her cats. It's just the wrong approach to dealing with problems.

[QUOTE=download;46336811]Then tax them at a rate that recovers the medical costs.[/QUOTE] Ohhh .. they tax it alright .. they just added 11% 2 years ago. [QUOTE=NiandraLades;46337494]Instead of spending money on trying to stop something you cannot, it'd be infinitely better to use it for helping those who want to quit or are in need of assistance in quitting[/QUOTE] There are lots of places to quit .. we even got phone-lines open and free meetings you can attend to. People who sell can/have to ask for ID .. and can be fined up to 10.000DKK (170,03 EUR) if they sell to people below 18 years. There are already a "black market" for kids (if they pay extra) since shops ask for ID. The big problem are friends who just turned 18, who usual buy for a group of younger kids. (I know since I work at a shop)

[QUOTE=Pr0fane;46338413]Yeah I can understand. I'm just trying to point out.... I don't think it's a good idea for government to regulate stuff like this. It's not the governments business to meddle in our affairs like this. I lived in an apparment that smelled horrible because the woman below me had 4 cats. I really wanted her to get rid of the 4 cats, but I would never have it regulated, or force her to give up her cats. It's just the wrong approach to dealing with problems.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but your examples are horrible and completely irrelevant. Just look up the amount of deaths and disease smoking causes in your country. I don't think you can argue much more after you see the numbers. I think it's absolutely the goverments duty to regulate these types of things.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;46337953]I'm going to go full on lefty for the first time ever here, but the whole damn purpose of cigarettes is profit. Cigarettes do not fill any need or want by society EXCEPT for the need they create for themselves through addiction. Their used to be the want of wanting to be the cool kid, but not only is that a stupid want but no one thinks you're cool if you smoke cigs these days. I like the whole argument of 'hurr if you ban cigarettes you'll create a black market!' except this article isn't about banning cigarettes. It's about letting the people who currently smoke and kill themselves that way to continue killing themselves, while minimising the number of people born after 2000 who will take up the habit.[/QUOTE] That same argument can be Applied to alcohol

All the winners OP received is proof that prohibition propaganda actually does work depending on the drug.

[QUOTE=Uberpro;46338446]I'm sorry but your examples are horrible and completely irrelevant. Just look up the amount of deaths and disease smoking causes in your country. I think it's absolutely the goverments duty to regulate these types of things.[/QUOTE] Woah. No they're not. You adress the amount of deaths caused by smoking, and I gave the example of cars being an equally big problem. I could also talk about 'unhealthy' foods and the deaths they cause, therefor they should also be banned by your logic. The cat thing was not pointed at you, or your death argument. It was aimed at the people who above who go "BAN SMOKING CUZ I HATE IT"

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;46338468]All the winners OP received is proof that prohibition propaganda actually does work depending on the drug.[/QUOTE] Exactly. This times a 100. The irony is palpable.

how about we just regulate what type of poisons can be put into cigarettes, or even better, encourage nicotine purity levels being printed on the boxes, then people will be motivated to get the more pure cigarettes and we won't have as many deadly things in them.

[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;46336672]In a socialized healthcare system, I wouldn't want to pay for the expensive lung cancer meds and procedures of someone who made the choice to smoke.[/QUOTE] They did the maths with the NHS and smokers cost less.

I don't know much about Denmark's economy but I personally started smoking when I was working for 5 dollars an hour, 12 hours a day and only 2 days off a month. I was born in 1992, so I knew it was bad for me when I accepted the first fag, but I didn't care at that time. Smoking a fag was relaxing, and seemed to take a bit of weight off of my shoulders. The company I worked at wouldn't allow us any food breaks, even if we clocked out; however they allowed 5 min breaks to smoke. I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes for a pack of fags to keep the privilege to smoke, I would mind if they took the privilege away from me altogether. Some of us need an escape, and if you take away a drug that's so popular away, everyone who uses it will just have to get it somewhere else or switch to a new drug.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46338474]Are we banning fast food too? Statistics show that eating fast food as regularly as the population does causes massive health problems. Are we banning alcohol because of the amount of deaths that it directly and indirectly cause? Are we banning soda because the increase in sugar intake is directly correlated to diabetes? Are you going to ban parties and the like because statistically the more people are in a space, the more likely someone is to get hurt? Where do you draw the line of government intervention? I'm pretty sure that the state doesn't exist to babysit its citizens.[/QUOTE] I think your examples about soda and sugar intake are pretty silly and not really relevant here. Also goverments do have regulations concerning food ingredients. Also, I think you guys really should take second-hand smoking in account in your arguments. Banning smoking is a pretty straightforward and do-able thing in countries like Danmark. It get's rid of a major health problem pretty easily. I don't care if the goverment "babysits" me like that, if thats what goverment babysitting means to you. [editline]26th October 2014[/editline] I know my avatar is smoking..

[QUOTE=Uberpro;46338618]I don't think your examples about soda and sugar intake are really comparable to smoking. Also, I think you guys really should take second-hand smoking in account in your arguments. Banning smoking is a pretty straightforward and do-able thing in countries like Danmark. It get's rid of a major health problem pretty easily. I don't care if the goverment "babysits" me like that, if thats what goverment babysitting means to you.[/QUOTE] What about the second hand smoke overblown bullshit that was made using cherry picked statistics???

[QUOTE=confinedUser;46337922]i don't smoke anymore i actually quit, but in a circumstance like what my brother in law pulled yesterday with his know it all mentality mixed with a spoiled rotten and super self centered and an immature view on things like for example he thinks that within just 4 months he will be as skilled as a programmer that has been doing it for 10 years straight. It's a dumb mentality and it pisses me the fuck off. had i had a smoke things would of went different i wouldn't have blown up and almost fractured his skull i would of just been passive aggressive. So in a situation like that, yes i would most certainly take degenerating my own health for the moment than to get violent and potentially send him to the hospital.[/QUOTE] If you wanted to beat him half to death because of something he said, then you have much deeper issues. [QUOTE=sgman91;46338216]That's a manufactured consequence. The real consequence would be to pay for any health bills that you incur because of your choices. The issue with creating consequences is that many people will smoke and have no real health problems because of it, and yet they still have the consequence that you've created.[/QUOTE] High tax is a consequence of smoking. Don't like it? Too bad. The alternative is excepting Smokers from free healthcare, is that preferable to you?

I've given up carbohydrates, and it's worse than nicotine withdrawal. Plus there's bread etc EVERYWHERE, it's fucking torture. Carbs made me put on weight and become lethargic and hypothetically would have caused a slew of health problems putting a possible strain on the healthcare system. Plus, people pay very little tax to offset the strain on the healthcare system, there's an obesity 'epidemic', you know. Ban Carbs instead. I'm also not happy that the government spends my tax dollars on the many thousands of sport's injuries, especially full contact sport where people die 20 years younger due to concussions. Why should I have to pay for people who risk their bodies by choice? Tax sport more.

[QUOTE=MachiniOs;46338539]They did the maths with the NHS and smokers cost less.[/QUOTE] I've heard both, to be honest.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;46338657]High tax is a consequence of smoking. Don't like it? Too bad. The alternative is excepting Smokers from free healthcare, is that preferable to you?[/QUOTE] No, the alternative is realizing that socialized medicine means you pay for EVERYONE'S healthcare, not just people who live like you want them to live.

[QUOTE=confinedUser;46337922] yes i would most certainly take degenerating my own health for the moment than to get violent and potentially send him to the hospital.[/QUOTE] You need help

[QUOTE=download;46336635]People can kill themselves on tobacco if they want.[/QUOTE] Private health care? Go right ahead. Tax payer funded? We have enough people that don't respect their bodies who end up clogging up our health care system, thanks.

I'm sorry but all the examples certain individuals here are trying to pulling off here about banning cars and unhealthy foods as well are pretty hilarious. +Goverments are already regulating these things pretty hard which just makes your posts ironic. Just think about what you're typing for a second. This is about banning smoking. Buying a toxic and addictive cigarette and inhaling it. No, it's not comparable to banning soda or having too many cats either :suicide: Also I hate to being up this pretty cold argument but smokers do ultimately cost the tax payers quite a bit in countries like Finland.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;46338698]No, the alternative is realizing that socialized medicine means you pay for EVERYONE'S healthcare, not just people who live like you want them to live.[/QUOTE] I love this. Folks wave their dollar around like it makes them important. Pisses me off to no end.

[QUOTE=Mitsudigi;46338771]Private health care? Go right ahead. Tax payer funded? We have enough people that don't respect their bodies who end up clogging up our health care system, thanks.[/QUOTE] Yeah OK but how do you define that though? That and it goes directly against the idea of socialised healthcare, that everyone pays in and everyone is equally entitled to care.

[QUOTE=Mitsudigi;46338771]Private health care? Go right ahead. Tax payer funded? We have enough people that don't respect their bodies who end up clogging up our health care system, thanks.[/QUOTE] Unemployed people who don't contribute also place a burden on the system. Should you deny them healthcare as well??? You guys really have a funny warped view of socialized medicine.....

"But blackmarkets make it not work!" "But people already grow their own tobacco!" "But but but my body I do what I want!" This is an excellent idea, and imo, one of the few times this type of ban could work. At most, anyone born after 2000 is 14 or soon to be 15. No one smoking that young is running or buying from a black market, no one that young grows their own tobacco. The smokers in this thread are just being selfish, this doesn't effect anyone not already over 18. This is a thing that could effectively eliminate smoking from Denmark. Do you smoke and think "man I really want my children and other kids to do this."? You've turned this into an argument about healthcare when its nothing of the sort. Denmark could start a program targeted towards current smokers under 18, doing everything they can to get them to quit since its easier when you are younger or at least use alternate sources like nicotine patches. If that age group 12-17 is eliminated from smoking, there IS NO LONGER any peer pressure to even younger kids to smoke. And when they are 18, they have absolutely no reason to be interested or want to purchase cigarettes. Once this generation of smokers will have passed away, then none of their children will be addicted to cigarettes. This is a much more sensible ban than just outlawing all tobacco.