Cigarette Smoking Survey

[JustStuit]

For my online class I need to survey ten people on their answer to a question I make up about prohibition/legalizing of drugs. Any feedback is apprieciated! A short answer will do.

 

1. Should cigarette smoking be prohibited, restricted, or kept legal?

[herpguy]

I think cigarette smoking should remain legal, just not in public places. Why? We have our individual rights, and smoking is one of them. But I don't want to get lung cancer, athsma, emphaseema (sorry about the spelling) or anything like that from secondhand smoke.

[starbug1]

and where the people smoke should have posters of cancer victims all over the walls. Smoking is disgusting and where they go to smoke should be digusting as well. Nothing else is helping them quit, and this won't either, but it would keep it out of the workplace.

[Bettina]

Since it is considered a poison it should be banned. Funny how we ban certain weed killers now but not cigarettes. The only reason it isn't banned already is politics and big business.

 

Bettina

[starbug1]

tabacco companies: powerful, formidable, hard-hitting, and with more 'say' that you can imagine.

[PhDP]

1. Should cigarette smoking be prohibited, restricted, or kept legal?

 

Restricted. Cigarette is harmfull to those who smoke (it's their problem to some extant), but it's also harmful to others' health.

[infinite_gir]

Smoking cigarette's should be banned in all public places. It's funny ironic how the government allows the sale of tobacco, yet marijuana is illegal. Tobacco is far more lethal.

[bascule]

It's funny ironic how the government allows the sale of tobacco, yet marijuana is illegal. Tobacco is far more lethal.

 

At this point you should be asking yourself why. Burning marijuana produces benzopyrene just like it does in cigarettes (and for that matter pretty much any burnt organic matter). Yet marijuana doesn't appear to cause cancer, despite containing many of the same carcinogens which result from the inhalation of burnt organic matter.

 

For the answer to this question, see my Why do cigarettes cause cancer? thread in which I reiterate the conclusions of former surgeon general C. Everett Koop: Cigarettes cause cancer because they're radioactive.

 

The radioactivity in cigarettes results from the use of calcium phosphate fertilizer which contains the alpha emitter polonium-210. Insoluable polonium-210 compounds become lodged in the lungs after smoking and continually bombard your lung tissue with ionizing alpha radiation, which is very damaging internally. For more information, see this research paper:

 

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/80/5/1285

 

From a social policy perspective, I think the choice is clear: don't punish the smokers or limit their freedom. Punish the manufacturers. They are knowingly creating a dangerous product which kills their customers because to create a safer cigarette would require considerable expense on their part. Ever wonder why Philip Morris runs ads saying "There is no safe cigarette"? Because they don't want to pay the development costs of creating one. It's for this reason that I consider cigarette manufacturers to be some of the most vile and loathesome corporations on the planet.

[starbug1]

So...I'm assuming you don't smoke.

[YT2095]

The radioactivity in cigarettes results from the use of calcium phosphate fertilizer which contains the alpha emitter polonium-210. Insoluable polonium-210 compounds become lodged in the lungs after smoking and continually bombard your lung tissue with ionizing alpha radiation, which is very damaging internally.

 

well that`s interesting, as I use calcium phosphate on my onions, are they radioactive also?

bone ash is largely calcium phosphate, although the calcium phosphate is already present in bones, burning it gets rid of other bulk materials only, so are our bones radioactive also?

 

as a smoker myself, I`m all for restrictions in public places, keep it legal also, bringing in other things like weed or booze into the equasion as a comparison is nonsense strawmanning, those are seperate and unrelated arguments altogether and need not apply.

actualy there`s certain rooms in my home that I don`t smoke in ever, a Self Restriction if you like. oddly enough, even as a smoker, I don`t like the smell of or the sight of someone smoking while I`m eating either and am sure non-smokers are the same, so yup, restrictions are good

[Airmid]

Legal (with restrictions) for smokers, but non-smokers shouldn't be able to buy cigarettes.

 

Airmid.

[the tree]

Bascule, you seem to forget that weed is almost always smoked alongside tobacco and is therefor going to at least encourage cancer.

 

And do you honestly belive thier is such thing as a safe ciggerette? Even a rolly with a needle thin portion of tobacco and a complete filter, is still not good for you.

[JustStuit]

Thanks guys. With the nine replies plus my mom's I got enough.

[ecoli]

Legal (with restrictions) for smokers' date=' but non-smokers shouldn't be able to buy cigarettes.

 

Airmid.[/quote']

 

That doesn't really make too much sense. It's not like you can give somebody an ID card that allows them to be a smoker.

 

Everybody here seems to be looking at the situation very black and white. The world isn't divided into non-smokers and chain smokers. There are people who only smoke occasionally (be it to calm the nerves, or socially, etc.). While this is obviously still not healthy, it's not like these people are going to do a great amount of long term damage to themselves, especially not compared to a heavy smoker.

 

Cigarettes should remain legal, because personal freedoms should triumph here. However, more should probably be done to cut down on under-age smokers (enforce ID-checking, etc). In New York, it is illegal to smoke in any public place, which is a good law that prevents people from being exposed to things that they have a personal right not to.

[Phi for All]

Prohibition will just encourage a black market. Humans want what others tell them they can't have, especially when younger. Leave them legal but restricted and educate people about the short and long-term effects, preferably in grade school.

 

Semi-off-topic, I quit smoking twelve years ago this month, and I can tell you that, like alcoholism, no pack+ per day smoker can make a rational argument for or against until they've quit for a few months and flushed their system completely. You can't possibly imagine how much better you feel, how much more flavorful food tastes, how much better the whole world smells until you've experienced it in contrast to when you were smoking.

[starbug1]

Because of the social phenomenon smoking is, (much like drinking), and the personal right, can there ever be a time when smoking will be nonexistant? A good question on a future (probable?) milieu.

 

My answer: I don't think so.

[ecoli]

Semi-off-topic, I quit smoking twelve years ago this month, and I can tell you that, like alcoholism, no pack+ per day smoker can make a rational argument for or against until they've quit for a few months and flushed their system completely.

 

Similarly, would you say that someone who has never been a smoker make a rational argument for or against smoking, as well. It stands to reason that you can't truly make an informed decision without experiancing both sides.

[starbug1]

It stands to reason that you can't truly make an informed decision without experiancing both sides.

 

 

Is this why the creation/evolution debates are never resolved?

[ecoli]

Is this why the creation/evolution debates are never resolved?

 

I don't think that's the same thing... creationism is a philisophical ideal. Cigarrettes are physical.

[bascule]

well that`s interesting' date=' as I use calcium phosphate on my onions, are they radioactive also?

bone ash is largely calcium phosphate, although the calcium phosphate is already present in bones, burning it gets rid of other bulk materials only, so are our bones radioactive also?[/quote']

 

It's not the calcium phosphate that's radioactive, but the polonium-210 impurities which are present in calcium phosphate fertilizer. Regardless, most plants do not take up polonium from the soil, and even if they do, it passes through your digestive tract rather than remaning stuck in your lungs.

 

Specifically, see this post which quotes a Philip Morris internal memo which describes the cause and solution to the radioactivity in calcium phosphate fertilizer (the solution being to produce purified ammonium phosphate) in which Philip Morris claims:

 

"The recommendation of using ammonium phosphate instead of calcium phosphate as fertilizer is probably a valid but expensive point."

 

as a smoker myself, I`m all for restrictions in public places

 

What about bars? That's my main gripe.

 

actualy there`s certain rooms in my home that I don`t smoke in ever

 

I smoke mostly outside. Very rarely do I smoke in my bedroom.

 

I don't consider myself addicted to tobacco either. I'm something of a social/recreational smoker. I didn't smoke a cigarette yesterday and, unless I go out, probably won't smoke one today. A pack usually lasts me about a month.

 

Bascule[/b'], you seem to forget that weed is almost always smoked alongside tobacco and is therefor going to at least encourage cancer.

 

Depends where you live, but around here, weed is overwhelmingly smoked without mixing it with tobacco. I don't think you'll ever see someone mixing weed and tobacco if they're smoking out of a pipe, a bong, etc.

 

And do you honestly belive thier is such thing as a safe ciggerette?

 

I think that organic tobacco which is cured with indirect fire is substantially safer. I would really love to see the experiments Martell performed to detect alpha radiation exposure from cigarettes carred out with organic tobacco instead. In theory, organic tobacco should be free of both radioactive polonium and nitrosamine, which are the two most potent carcinogens in cigarettes.

[starbug1]

I think that organic tobacco which is cured with indirect fire is substantially safer. I would really love to see the experiments Martell performed to detect alpha radiation exposure from cigarettes carred out with organic tobacco instead. In theory, organic tobacco should be free of both radioactive polonium and nitrosamine, which are the two most potent carcinogens in cigarettes.

 

In theory, no matter how the tobacco is cured, they are still dangerously toxic. Indeed, the actual process of curing, no matter the method, generating the same chemical reactions, thus producing the same finished product full of the same toxins and carcinogens, if only to the smallest variations in potency. In theory, today the organic cigarette is just as much a hoax as the "filter" one. When they said filter's and light cigarette's made it less harmful. It did something, but to overall health it did squat.

 

Tobacco's genetic makeup and chemical composition have to be changed completely for it to be rid of toxins. And in doing so, the tobacco is no longer tobacco. And no matter how synthetic, how "artificially flavoured" it becomes, it will never be the original.

[cosine]

Is this why the creation/evolution debates are never resolved?

I also don't think this is the same because you can logically follow the other side's point of view, where as to follow the sensations of ciggerettes may require personal experience, though I don't know if an chain-smoking experience is entirely neccessary.

[starbug1]

I also don't think this is the same because you can logically follow the other side's point of view, where as to follow the sensations of ciggerettes may require personal experience, though I don't know if an chain-smoking experience is entirely neccessary.

 

So it was an elusive example, I apologize. My post was meant to bring attention to the disparity between smoking and evolution. It was a play on words; whereas a conclusion may eventually come as the end with the differing views on cigarette smoking, never will one be reached when it comes to religion (at least not in our lifetime.)

[padren]

The radioactivity in cigarettes results from the use of calcium phosphate fertilizer which contains the alpha emitter polonium-210.

 

Did you say polonium-210? More like bullonium-210

 

Sorry' date=' once in a while I can't resist a bad pun, which has nothing to do with any challange to the validity of the comments above.

 

 

I would consider theoretical legistlation that put caps on the profitability of things like cigs and other "poisons of choice" as I think part of the problem is these corporations grow to cartoonish levels of political influence. I am not sure how something like that would work though.

 

I am not in favor of banning cigs or anything really.

 

Self destruction is a time honored route to self discovery, I think cultures that try to fight that just end up more messed up in the head than if they'd relax a bit.

 

I certianly think there needs to be regulation, and selling addictive harmful products requires lots of oversight just like mining uranium does.

 

 

 

A side note: Considering gambling addictions tend to make people loose their entire life savings and homes, why do we say its up to them to have self control, yet try to protect everyone else from harmful chemical addictions? Maybe Nevada [i']will[/i] legalize crack, who knows.

[silkworm]

Yeah, when you look at it's affect on the cost of health care for everyone, it would make sense to make it illegal. Alcohol should be illegal too. So should pop and saturated fats. It just depends on where you draw the line.