smoking

[andrewstx]

What about the people that are left behind because of alcohol? What about the innocent people killed because of drunk driving? What about people whose lives and families are ruined because of porn or gambling? What about those left behind and the people killed because of car accidents? What about those left behind because of tragic skydiving accidents?

Do you think alcohol should be illegal? What about porn? What about skydiving? What about motor vehicles and driving? What about gambling?

Believe me, if I could live on a private island all by myself and without the government interfering in my life I would, in a heartbeat.

Legalization of drugs is not radical libertarianism, it is common sense. How much money has been spent on the war on drugs? How many lives have been ruined because of criminalization of drugs? How many innocent people have gone to jail for doing something as innocent as taking drugs? Do you think we should ruin people’s lives, their family’s lives, send them to jail, turn them into hardcore criminals, make it impossible for them to find a decent job, all because they decided to consume drugs?

Do you feel no compassion for the child that is going to grow up without their parent all because he or she decided to consume drugs? What about the mothers that are left to raise their children alone? Where is your compassion for them?

I already stated my views on alcohol and tobacco prohibition a page or two back, read it there please. I think drug prohibition is a lot the same.

To me, in my thinking most or what we do does not effect only ourselves and we are all interconnected. If a man or woman decides to become an addict and spend all their money on drugs and little or none on food for their families, they effect their families and not just themselves.

If you decide to kill yourself with cigarettes I may not like it, but there is nothing I can do to control you. And there are a few that can get away with smoking all their long lives, but they are a small minority. Smoke away as you will, but you will not smoke near me. Neither will you smoke upwind from me. Most of my family has died from cigarettes, and I now have COPD myself.

 

[freeRadical]

I already stated my views on alcohol and tobacco prohibition a page or two back, read it there please. I think drug prohibition is a lot the same.

What about gambling prohibition? Skydiving prohibition? Porn prohibition? Driving prohibition?

Do you really think it is moral to put people in jail for consuming drugs?

To me, in my thinking most or what we do does not effect only ourselves and we are all interconnected. If a man or woman decides to become an addict and spend all their money on drugs and little or none on food for their families, they effect their families and not just themselves.

So you think we should restrict what people may do to themselves because it might affect someone else?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Believe me, if I could live on a private island all by myself and without the government interfering in my life I would, in a heartbeat.

Really? You have so little desire for human companionship?

Legalization of drugs is not radical libertarianism, it is common sense.

How far are you willing to take this point? For example, should there be no law preventing someone from selling heroin to to a six year old kid?

 

[Yago]

Are you seriously comparing abortion to consumption to drugs?

?Huh?:nope::banghead::dts:

 

[freeRadical]

How far are you willing to take this point? For example, should there be no law preventing someone from selling heroin to to a six year old kid?

I believe there is a difference between selling drugs to a six-year old kid and consumption of drugs by adults.

I assumed we were talking about adults. I guess I assumed wrong.

When minors are concerned, of course there are extenuating circumstances.

Do I think it should be legal for six-year olds to drive cars? No. But that doesn’t mean I think it should be illegal for adults to drive cars.

Do I think it should be legal for six-year olds to consume drugs? No. But that doesn’t mean I think it should be illegal for adults to consume drugs.

Do I think it should be illegal to sell drugs to six-year olds? Yes. Do I think it should be illegal to sell drugs to adults? No.

 

[andrewstx]

I just heard on CBS 7 news that about 14,000,000 million people are seriously sickened by smoking. That number is not just cancer victims, but people with COPD shortness of breath and Emphasema as well.

A huge number, and the tobacco companies are just laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[freeRadical]

I just heard on CBS 7 news that about 14,000,000 million people are seriously sickened by smoking. That number is not just cancer victims, but people with COPD shortness of breath and Emphasema as well.

A huge number, and the tobacco companies are just laughing all the way to the bank.

It seems you have a lot of built up anger over tobacco. You know, you are never going to persuade people to stop smoking with antagonizing behavior like that. It just turns people away. Maybe you should try to show some compassion to people who are dealing with an addiction.

You know what they say, you catch more flies with honey.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I believe there is a difference between selling drugs to a six-year old kid and consumption of drugs by adults.

I assumed we were talking about adults. I guess I assumed wrong.

When minors are concerned, of course there are extenuating circumstances.

The camel’s nose is under the tent. Once you allow some laws against drugs, you are going to have a hard time drawing a firm line on what should be allowed. I will agree with you, though, that many anti-drug laws are ineffective and unnecessary. But let’s recall why we are talking about this in a thread that was supposed to be about smoking. It was because someone thought the issue of regulating smoking could be addressed by generalizing to all activities that might be harmful. Since we seem to have concluded that at least in the area of narcotics, some laws are appropriate, this particular line of argument comes to a dead end. The most we can conclude from this is that some regulations about smoking may be appropriate and some may be inappropriate, based on prudential judgement. OK, I can agree with that too. To go any further I think one would have to get into the specific regulations and apply prudential judgement there too. But the issue cannot be decided in its full generality based on principle alone.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I just heard on CBS 7 news that about 14,000,000 million people are seriously sickened by smoking. That number is not just cancer victims, but people with COPD shortness of breath and Emphasema as well.

A huge number, and the tobacco companies are just laughing all the way to the bank.

Along with all the city/state governments who tax it. They’re laughing right along with the tobacco companies.

 

[freeRadical]

The camel’s nose is under the tent. Once you allow some laws against drugs, you are going to have a hard time drawing a firm line on what should be allowed. I will agree with you, though, that many anti-drug laws are ineffective and unnecessary. But let’s recall why we are talking about this in a thread that was supposed to be about smoking. It was because someone thought the issue of regulating smoking could be addressed by generalizing to all activities that might be harmful. Since we seem to have concluded that at least in the area of narcotics, some laws are appropriate, this particular line of argument comes to a dead end. The most we can conclude from this is that some regulations about smoking may be appropriate and some may be inappropriate, based on prudential judgement. OK, I can agree with that too. To go any further I think one would have to get into the specific regulations and apply prudential judgement there too. But the issue cannot be decided in its full generality based on principle alone.

The argument does not come to a dead end when it concerns adults. The argument for banning smoking is that it is harmful and bad for us and the government should protect us from ourselves. If that is the case, then why ban certain harmful activities and not others? When you bring children into the argument, of course it changes but we are talking about adults here. Children and adults are not the same. But it seems some people and the government think adults are children and want to tell them what to do.

It all boils down to some people, and by extension the government, think they know what is best for everybody. I know what is best for me, not you. By all means, provide information and use persuasion. but when it comes to coercion, that is where the line needs to be drawn.

As far as taxation goes, why should tobacco be taxed more than other harmful activities? The tax on tobacco should be no more than the sales tax.

Should alcohol be taxed more? Should gambling be taxed more? Should fast food be taxed more? Should skydiving be taxed more? Should driving be taxed more?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The argument does not come to a dead end when it concerns adults. The argument for banning smoking is that it is harmful and bad for us and the government should protect us from ourselves.

First of all, I have never advocated a total ban on smoking. I do think some degree of regulation is in order, as well as measures that discourage smoking, if not outright banning it. Things like limitations on when and where it can be advertized, and in what public place it can be done.

If that is the case, then why ban certain harmful activities and not others?

Because things that are harmful are harmful to different degrees, and have different benefits that need to be considered along with the harm. I’m thinking of skydiving there, or even riding a bicycle, which is mile-for-mile the most dangerous way to travel, even though I enjoy riding immensely.

When you bring children into the argument, of course it changes but we are talking about adults here. Children and adults are not the same.

Yes, they are different, but they cannot be considered in isolation. Children live with adults. They inhabit the same world. It is impossible to have a policy for adults that does not have some potential for affecting the lives of kids.

But it seems some people and the government think adults are children and want to tell them what to do.

It all boils down to some people, and by extension the government, think they know what is best for everybody.

But this is simply the workings of a democracy. If it is done right, the policy decisions made by a government that truly represents the majority of the people, will truly represent what that majority thinks is appropriate. Of course this can break down, and then you can get some very inappropriate policies (like prohibition). But if that breaks down, you’ve got more problems than just silly regulations. And that would be a good topic for another thread. But if we assume that smoking policy is decided by a properly functioning democracy, there is no reason to characterize all regulations as us vs. them. It is more like us vs. us.

I know what is best for me, not you. By all means, provide information and use persuasion. but when it comes to coercion, that is where the line needs to be drawn.

What if what you think is best is to give your kid heroin? Can we cross that line in that case and “coerce” you into stopping that?

As far as taxation goes, why should tobacco be taxed more than other harmful activities? The tax on tobacco should be no more than the sales tax.

As a practical matter I think that despite the good intentions of reducing smoking through making it more expensive, the consequences of taxing it are to make the government more reliant on the continuation of smoking to continue the revenue stream that they get used to. The temptation is just too great for government to quietly encourage the very activity that they are supposed to be discouraging. For that reason, and for that reason alone, I agree with you.

 

[dave1677]

I know you already feel terrible about your habit so I won’t sink the knife in deeper into your wound. I had smoked for years tired and tried my best to quit. I had beat myself up with guilt over failure so I know unlike many who post here the struggle it is to over come addictions. First of all God bless you for being honest in stating you are imperfect like many of us who often forget we all have areas of our life we need to work on. A while ago I had been asked by my parish priest if I would be interested in joining him and other men discerning the priesthood or in the seminary on a retreat for the weekend. I was concerned about many things, one of them being my tobacco use. After voicing my concern to my friend and former parish priest, he simple stated psss well father… chews tobacco. I was relieved tremendously that you know people aren’t as perfect as you think or in some cases as they think. I believe many that are striving for holiness by upholding the laws of the ten commandments are often breaking the most important which is to love one another. To support and help in the time of need and encourage rather than condemn . I could think of many other sins over which god weeps besides smoking. Grave I doubt it, venial probably. But then again I’m just a lay person not pretending to teach church doctrine. The truth is that you love Jesus Christ and he loves you more than you could imagine. Don’t ever give into despair because that is saying your sin is beyond forgiveness and that his precious blood is limited in forgiving one’s sins. I love you brother or sister in Christ and may the Holy Spirit bless you with his presence encouraging and enlightening you on your journey in this life.

 

[quilisma]

I am just wondering… on a purely religious level, do the folks here who dislike smoke stay away from High Masses because of the incense? The Church has been offering smoke to God as a part of the highest holy liturgies since her beginnings. The Jewish high priests did the same before that, following the directives of the Mosaic Law.

 

[sallybutler]

I am just wondering… on a purely religious level, do the folks here who dislike smoke stay away from High Masses because of the incense? The Church has been offering smoke to God as a part of the highest holy liturgies since her beginnings. The Jewish high priests did the same before that, following the directives of the Mosaic Law.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I am just wondering… on a purely religious level, do the folks here who dislike smoke stay away from High Masses because of the incense? The Church has been offering smoke to God as a part of the highest holy liturgies since her beginnings. The Jewish high priests did the same before that, following the directives of the Mosaic Law.

What is your point? That smoking cigarettes can’t possibly be wrong because priests regularly burn incense in ceremony? That fact that incense is used in religious ceremonies is totally irrelevant to the question of the health dangers of smoking. Reasons:

1. Incense in not inhaled in concentrations anywhere near what happens when a person smokes tobacco.
2. Incense is burned only at certain special times, whereas a smoker generally smokes every day.
3. Incense is not tobacco.

By the way, there are people who are extremely allergic to incense and have to sit way in the back of Church, or not go to those masses at all.

 

[mikekle]

I just heard on CBS 7 news that about 14,000,000 million people are seriously sickened by smoking. That number is not just cancer victims, but people with COPD shortness of breath and Emphasema as well.

A huge number, and the tobacco companies are just laughing all the way to the bank.

Exactly right, what I find curious is the Fed Govt always claims they go after illegal street drugs to protect the health and safety of the public…well, if this is true, why do they continue to allow tobacco to be sold just about everywhere and to anyone over 18 yrs old?

Plus, Im always hearing about new laws, regulations regarding certain prescription drugs, but NEVER hear anyone even suggesting new laws/ regulations with regards to tobacco, or even talk of banning these products due to their danger…???

I think there is more to this than we think, I dont think they care about our health or safety as much as they claim, more likely its about MONEY and GREED.

 

[andrewstx]

I am just wondering… on a purely religious level, do the folks here who dislike smoke stay away from High Masses because of the incense? The Church has been offering smoke to God as a part of the highest holy liturgies since her beginnings. The Jewish high priests did the same before that, following the directives of the Mosaic Law.

I hope you are not equating incense to cigarette smoke, they could no be more different. No-one concentrates incense smoke and inhales it in such a concentrated form. No-one is addicted to incense either.

I remember back in the bad old days when everyone smoked, on days when there was use of incense people would fake cough and complain of allergies but as soon as Mass ended they would all light up as soon as they went into the narthex.

They were allergic to incense but not cigarette smoke? That does not compute.

 

[styrgwillidar]

…
why do they continue to allow tobacco to be sold just about everywhere and to anyone over 18 yrs old?
…

As you state further on, it’s about the money-- tobacco is a large industry employing a lot of people. It’s a large percentage of some states’ economies.
Every state in the US makes a lot of money in taxes on tobacco productes.

Plus, Im always hearing about new laws, regulations regarding certain prescription drugs, but NEVER hear anyone even suggesting new laws/ regulations with regards to tobacco, or even talk of banning these products due to their danger…???

Don’t know where you live, but in California they’re constantly proposing new laws/restrictions. Including in a person’s own home if it’s an apartment/condo-- in the backyard of homes on the premise of second-hand smoke.

I think there is more to this than we think, I dont think they care about our health or safety as much as they claim, more likely its about MONEY and GREED.

Our safety isn’t their primary concern. If it was, we’d have secure borders and immigration enforcement vice the aiding and abetting of violation of immigration laws by state/fed government. So, I agree it’s primarily money and greed

But I wish it were an area where the primary motivation of the government was respect for adults’ ability/right to make decisions for themselves. To be able to weigh the risks/benefits and make a decision, than accept responsiblity for the consequences. But it isn’t. We in the US seem to have rejected the notion of personal accountability and responsibility for the idea that the public at large should subsidize take on the consequences of individual’s (including corporations) risk decisions. The government as our representative claiming more and more right to restrict activities for ‘our own good’. The way of any bureaucracy continue to grow and expand regulations because that’s its measure of it’s own productivity.

I truly do not care if other folks smoke, drink, or eat more than I choose to. We each have a limited number of hours in our lives, if that’s what bring them enjoyment in the life God gave them, who am I to judge? They may be far more christian, loving and giving than I am-- and their choices are all a part of that. Unless they are demonstrably directly affecting someone else- I don’t see myself as having a right to do anything other than educate them on the consequences of their choices. I do believe the government has a legitimate function in that respect. Research and collecting the information so that citizens’ decisions are informed decisions.

Problem with limited resources in government is that the bad actors often spoil things for the folks who aren’t a problem. We punish the good by restricting their freedoms based on the choices of the bad. For example, in California smoking is banned on most beaches. I kind of support one motive— many smokers just throw their butts away where ever they’re standing, just toss them an the beach. Its a mess. But instead of fining heavily the folks caught doing it (so few will be caught it’s no much of a dissuasion), we ban smoking totally. So now folks who were polite, conscientious in discarding their butts properly can’t have a smoke looking out over the water.

 

[Yago]

I find little good coming from this thread.
Unsubscribed.

 

[iwunnder]

Let’s compare two addictions. One kills the addicted party and in some cases those around them. The other does not. Our Faith highly values human life at all levels. Yet the addiction that kills according to some in this thread may not even be a sin while the other is considered a mortal sin in most threads. The addictions are smoking and masturbation. Puzzling.