PDA

View Full Version : Tobacco Should Be Outlawed



Bärin
Wednesday, June 17th, 2009, 09:32 PM
I'm sick and tired of the repulsiveness of tobacco. It should be outlawed like all the other drugs, because just like drugs it causes damage to the body, brings no benefits and disturbs others. My blood is boiling when I see parents blow up the toxic fumes in the face of their children. Tobacco is poison.

Grimsteinr
Thursday, June 18th, 2009, 01:47 PM
I think it should be left up to the individual, to Smoke or not smoke, or to use Smokeless tobacco, if one chooses. I drink alcohol. That can be harmful.
Many Folks use Cannabis. That can be harmful.
Driving might be Harmful. Firearms might be harmful. Using a knife, you might slip & cut yourself.

I'm more of a Libertarian, politically. I dislike too many restrictive Laws.
Why should we live under a Nanny-State, that tells us every detail, every choice we might be allowed to make?

Vindefense
Thursday, June 18th, 2009, 02:09 PM
Yes. I can think of lots of reasons to ban tobacco. That is if I was involved in organized crime and the black market.

I, know you mean well Barin, but you should learn to think about the consequence of force. There are things that always seem right when viewed from one angle but never overlook the un-seen angle.

Stormraaf
Thursday, June 18th, 2009, 02:45 PM
The argument that a practice or habit should be left to an individual's preference doesn't really fly if it harms other individuals. I agree with Vindefense that tobacco is not something we want pushed from the open market to the black market, though. What should be outlawed to a greater degree than is already being done is where one is allowed to smoke, e.g. no public places.

In the context of Bärin's argument, I'd say it should also be against the law for parents (or anyone) to smoke in a home with children. Responsible parents who smoke could of course take the necessary measures not to expose their children to too much second-hand smoke without the law telling them to do so, but there are far too many irresponsible parents, and the responsible ones would not suffer any more from such a law than what they would have taken upon themselves anyway.

exit
Friday, June 19th, 2009, 01:34 AM
I never liked the mass production of cigarettes which made smoking an addictive social habit. To me it just seems pointless. But I do enjoy a cigar every now and then, and have also smoked a pipe in certain rituals which consisted of other herbs such as coltsfoot, woodruff, etc., and very little tobacco.

I think we need to change the thinking of people to respect things more and use moderation rather than tax and ban things.

Habits are most often acquired from perception of what's cool that get's forced on society by the marketing controllers and other strange factors.

I think to not be cool is the new cool.

Neophyte
Friday, June 19th, 2009, 06:49 PM
The big problem with cigarettes is that tobacco companies add additives that make them even more addictive than they already are and push them onto little children.

A cigar every now and then is perfectly in order and something that I myself enjoy in private, at home or at private parties. But cigarettes should be banned, as should smoking in public.

einherjarNZ
Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009, 02:45 PM
I am a smoker. It is my ultimate shame.

I yearn for a complete ban on smoking.

It is the most lethal legal drug on this beautiful earth of ours. Well next to methamphetamine.

But the governments all over our beautiful earth make too much money in tax from smokers.

Why is smoking still legal? They take half-measures. Seen to be doing something but still raking in the taxes.

Patrioten
Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009, 04:23 PM
I'm not in favor of banning all forms of tobacco from one day to another. I would like to see the cigarette-tax to continue to be raised while at the same time drastically reducing the tax for Swedish-made snus. I think it is a good idea to try and push tobacco use away from cigarettes and towards snus, if people are going to use tobacco then they should be using the product which is the least harmful. This strategy would only work in Sweden of course and so its not a universal solution.

ChaosLord
Wednesday, June 24th, 2009, 11:58 PM
A ban of tobacco would be frivolous. Tobacco itself is not the culprit to cigarette smoking addiction. Tobacco does contain nicotine which is a central nervous system stimulant. The culprits are the additives and chemicals that have been added to the tobacco during the processing and manufacturing phases. Alot of these chemicals are hazardous and poisonous and are even used in rodent poisons and household chemicals.

Stygian Cellarius
Thursday, June 25th, 2009, 01:02 AM
Smoking is bad, no doubt, but this ultra-sensitivity phenomenon didn't exist 10 years ago. What has changed? Anti-smoking propaganda has increased ten-fold. A few radical left-wing anti-smoking activists have vehemently pushed for its abolition. This is a movement left-dominated and those few antagonists somehow got their message to spread amongst their fellow left-wingers, until it was all over the media. Then it became hip-science to explore the negative effects. I just recently heard of 3rd hand smoking and how it KILLS!
3rd hand smoking works like this; someone walks by a smoker, they get smoke molecules on their clothing, then go home to their baby, pick it up and the molecules fall into the babies mouth/eyes - [potentially] killing it. The fashion of "bad science" to promote "good policy" is left unchecked. The science is not held up to scrutiny because everyone knows smoking is bad so why bother criticizing it? Whose going to try to prove them wrong if they are promoting something good? So it's run amok.

Now all I hear, constantly, is "ew gross smoking, I walked by it and it stunk so bad, they shouldn't let those people stand by the door". Something that I never heard 10 years ago. I live in the city, with hundreds of fowl fumes abound - not a peep of irritation about those. Why? Because those other, more toxic, more fowl-smelling fumes are not parroted in the media. So the individual just naturally adapts to them and deals with it without even a thought of annoyance. It just goes to show you how susceptible people are to external influence, predominantly - media influence.

The effects of smoking have been grossly exaggerated. An automobile produces toxins that are 1000X deadlier. You can't even stay in a garage without dying if a car is running. Compare that to millions of people that put cigarette smoke directly into their lungs, daily, for years, and can live to be 95. The two are not even comparable, but one is considered a great evil these days while the other goes unmentioned. Granted smoking is non-essential and automobiles; essential. Regardless, there is major discrepancy here.

This sensitivity to smoking is 98% media induced. I'm not pro-smoking, but I will not allow my sensitivities to be influenced by media-hyped, faddish concerns. If one has allowed their sensitivities to be affected as such, what other influences have taken a hold of them that they are unaware of?

Smoking is bad, yes, we've all known this for a very long time. However, the science behind 2nd and 3rd hand smoking is just bad science and grossly exaggerated. If I am going to be in favor of banning it then I truly need to know what effects it has on other people (besides the smoker). I also need to know the effects of every other man-made fume producer in our environment, so I can make a list with the worst ones at the top and concentrate on those first. I am willing to bet that if that was done, smoking would hardly be a concern to anyone in light of the others and attention to it would likely be a laughing matter.

Hipriformkatus
Thursday, June 25th, 2009, 08:53 AM
i smoked for several years as a youth and struggled to stop many times until i finally managed to leave it behind 20 years or so ago. while i am not in favor of making tobacco illegal i am in favor of the fda (or somebody) scrutinizing what is in cigarettes i.e additives and fillers.
the criticism of 'smoking' for the last 10 -15 years is better described as criticism of the cigarette industry and those who have profited mightily off of the addiction they aided and abetted by adding other ingredients and suppressing information regarding the dangers of said products. it is a matter of record that in the 60's these companies knew these products were highly addictive and posed potentially serious health risks and yet they actively worked to hide this info while they continued to glamorize (especially to young people) smoking in the media up until (very gradually) these actions of suppression were revealed and the dangers of cigarette addiction became common knowledge. i do agree that worrying about 3rd hand smoke is excessive and only useful by the media on really slow news days but cigarette smoke (& 2nd hand smoke) is harmful to others and this recognition is in no way a fad or bad science.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp

while airborne environmental pollutants also contribute to health problems one would have to live in mexico city, or worse, to experience the harmful exposure a child encounters in a home full of 2nd hand cigarette smoke.
i applaud the pressure cigarette companies feel today via the 'media' as people are reminded of the deceitful practices these profiteers used to addict millions while knowing full well the toxicity of their products.
cigarette addiction is nothing but an opportunity to be used as a paying nicotine junky by these tobacco fat cats.

when it comes to substances like alcohol, tobacco, marijuana i think freedom to indulge should exist but one must know what might result from
said indulgence. when it comes to cigarette smoke for once the media just might be on the right track.

Zimobog
Thursday, June 25th, 2009, 09:01 PM
More laws? More taxes? No thanks.:thumbdown

Regardless what I think about tobacco, heroin, speed, or beer the idea that the government can save us from it is more dangerous than any substance.

I smoke a pipe about once a month. I don't care what people do in their homes, offices, cars, or even in front of their kids. I don't care what tobacco companies add to their product. Someone should start a tree-hugging tobaccoo company and offer additive-free tobacco if you think it would sell better. Raw tobacco is unsmokable, btw.

I can't stand the idea of government or even a majority deciding this for freemen and freewomen. This is not the role of government in my view, it is to protect our liberty from tyranny, either from dictators or from the ballot-box mob. The idea that just because a lot of people don't like something it should be banned by law is misguided.

Hipriformkatus
Thursday, June 25th, 2009, 09:24 PM
i think the tree hugging cigs have already been created ;)

when it comes to selling stuff an important part of the equation is disclosure. ever since medicine cut with ethylene glycol was marketed 70-80 years ago (with the expected result) people have grown to depend somewhat on a label on a product being descriptive and accurate. unfortunately somebody (?) needs to watch over that. otherwise you get anti-freeze in your cough syrup.

i say roll your own if you like to smoke. i wonder if gitanes and european tobacco products contain the same additives as u.s. cigarettes?

Wulfram
Thursday, June 25th, 2009, 09:48 PM
Someone should start a tree-hugging tobaccoo company and offer additive-free tobacco if you think it would sell better.


http://i539.photobucket.com/albums/ff355/williamofwaco/3386031784_d267d592f1_b.jpg

They have. The photo above is of both the additive-free brands as well as the "more dangerous" one in the middle.
These are what I smoked for sixteen years. I started out with Marlboro's in the middle, and was absolutely convinced that people thought I was way cool, even the ones who looked at me in disgust.
I then moved on to the American Spirit Regular's, or 'The Turquoise' on the right.
But, "additive-free" just wasn't enough, so the liberal me decided I needed to ruin my lungs the organic way! That is when I switched to the cigarettes on the left, known as 'The Cranberry'. Amazingly enough, the organic blend turned out to be much more potent than even the Marlboro's.

I was born with both asthma as well as a condition known as "Old man's lungs". My doctor told me that my lungs literally resemble those of a seventy-plus year old man. But, I smoked regardless of these facts.
So on top of the ailments I mentioned above I am now also diagnosed with the beginnings of emphysema, which means there are times that I have difficulty breathing in and out, in spite of the fact that I quit three years ago.:thumbdown

velvet
Thursday, June 25th, 2009, 10:42 PM
i say roll your own if you like to smoke. i wonder if gitanes and european tobacco products contain the same additives as u.s. cigarettes?

Not the exact same ones, but there are additives here like there.

But it is not that easy. European products are prepared different for the US market as well as US products are prepared different for the european market.
I used to smoke Marlboro myself for a while, back then I worked in a forwarding agency and some of our truck drivers delivered goods from Amsterdam to us. Due to that they bought directly on the ships, it was sometimes real american Marlboro they brought me and there was a huge difference between German and American ones.
The German ones were parfumed to death (almost) when directly compared with the almost parfume free ones from America. That is why I stopped then to consume German Marlboros, I noticed that the parfume was ugly and in addition, I sometimes got headaches from them, specially when I had a whole carton American before.

Beside the additives in the tabacco itself, also the filters are prepared different, they got parfumed for another taste.

After I came to know that I started to make my own cigarettes. The loose filters funnily (at least the 'no-name' ones) are not parfumed and loose tabacco contains only few of all the 'brand-own' taste enrichers, additives to flavour the tabacco and so on. Since this tabacco gets not processed in high-tech machines, also the creosoles and other cancer causing additives are not present and the filters do their job and filter lots of the remaining, naturally present dangerous incredience out instead of increasing them.

I'm so used to the complete parfume free cigarettes, that I even decline offered brand cigarettes. And it is by far cheaper.


PS: I would rather allow marijuana instead of creating more laws to keep people from smoking. The consume of both, cigarettes/tabacco and marijuana is almost as old as civilsation, and I consider the additives the more dangerous part than the pure things themselves. Until today scientist didnt proof neither the addictive nor the mortal attributes of pot. And it should be known that the prohibition of hemp is only because the plant produces fibers similar to cotton, to the time of prohibition, in America and Europe alike, the most important economy factor of exporting America. Noone cared about human' health here, it was, as always, only economical strategies that led to the prohibition.
To have it legal would also prevent kids (and no law will ever prevent them from trying out) having to buy the stuff from dealers that also sell other drugs with more addictive/mortal potential.

Zimobog
Thursday, June 25th, 2009, 11:51 PM
They have. The photo above is of both the additive-free brands as well as the "more dangerous" one in the middle.

:D Ok, my only qualification for saying this is I was born and raised in the Deep South...

Actually all tobacco is cased and dried before it ever goes to auction. These guys might be telling the truth, ie THEY didn't add anything to it... but the grower used pesticide (mainly for hornworm), herbicide, and than cased and dried it before selling it to the cigarette maker.

Naked green tobacco is unmarketable. The blend of tobaccos and its additives is what makes a cigarette or cigar sooo tasty. So that is why I think that there is no additive free tobacco.

Hipriformkatus
Friday, June 26th, 2009, 04:37 AM
yeah my uncle grew tobacco and i got to help him (it was a privilege but at the time i wasn't so sure). LABOR intensive crop to be sure. just to clarify i am not anti tobacco.. nor do i want more laws and more government money wasting but it angers me when these companies doctor these products to enhance addiction. economics does drive this industry (as it does them all) and selling anything at a profit is prioritized over safety to the consumer.
natural products such as tobacco, marijuana, peyote, mushrooms..... they all should be legal and it should be known that to ingest these powerful substances is a big personal responsibility.
can't speak to europe (velvet?) but it seems americans don't know how to handle a buzz and our criminal justice system doesn't know how to punish the screwups. i should pursue my drug notions on another thread no doubt.

Bittereinder
Friday, October 2nd, 2009, 03:21 PM
PS: I would rather allow marijuana instead of creating more laws to keep people from smoking. The consume of both, cigarettes/tabacco and marijuana is almost as old as civilsation, and I consider the additives the more dangerous part than the pure things themselves. Until today scientist didnt proof neither the addictive nor the mortal attributes of pot. And it should be known that the prohibition of hemp is only because the plant produces fibers similar to cotton, to the time of prohibition, in America and Europe alike, the most important economy factor of exporting America. Noone cared about human' health here, it was, as always, only economical strategies that led to the prohibition.
To have it legal would also prevent kids (and no law will ever prevent them from trying out) having to buy the stuff from dealers that also sell other drugs with more addictive/mortal potential.

Velvet, do I detect a crypto pot head? I smoked pot for the beter part of 10 years, in no meager quantity or frequency I might add. Pot is not alwys addictive to each person that tries it but it depends on the individual entirely. In my case it took a long time but I am willing to admit I was hooked. Besides de-prohibition would just mean sky-high (no pun intended) prices as it would be a whole new tax stream for Governments. The other reason it wont be legalized is IMHO that pot encourages abstract thought and the NWO cant have that now can they? ;)

Rightpath
Friday, October 2nd, 2009, 04:35 PM
Again some very interesting posts have been made here, if I may add my own take on this.

I have been a smoker for 13 years, I started at the age of 15, mostly to look cool... for myself I suppose there was a degree of rebelion in it also. I have probably made a few half hearted efforts in this time to give up.

The face of smoking has changed very much in this country over the past 10 years.... First was the clampdown on smuggled tobbaco from the rest of europe which was cheaper because the UK import duty had not been paid.... They started marking all cigarettes with UK DUTY PAID this eventualy restricted the trade on Duty free sales which conflicted with the goverment taxes that continously rise and make a packet of cigarettes more expensive.

Now we have a much smaller trade in Britain with Duty free and a packet of cigarettes now can range between £4.40 - £5.60 for a pack of 20.
[£4.40 is 4.78 Euro or $6.99 USD]

Other measures introduced are larger health warnings and graphic pictures showing lung disease,, Dead Bodies laying on autopsy slabs etc etc.... Ban on all smoking in public places from Bars to Bus shelters. Of course most cigarette advertising in sports is also dead.... It used to be pretty prevelent in Formula 1 racing for example.
Further plans include the removal from view of cigarette stands in shops in favour of placing them out of sight under the counter.

Although I complain bitterly about not being able to have a cigarette with my pint of Beer in a Pub,, I can however see the logic and accept this is the way forward to providing a better lifestyle.

I would personaly however stop short of a complete outlaw, it would drive the trade of cigarettes underground, funding the criminals as drug dealers claim the trade. The loss of taxes to the government would be incredible, and something they could well do without. Yes it would save the National Health service funds when they are not treating smokers, but the same must apply to Drinkers and drug addicts.

However the amount of smokers continues to decrease (supposedly) year after year.... which shows to a certain degree that new measures are working. I don't think a total ban would be productive, not for many years... Education and Restrictions are a far more IMHO better way to go.

As for myself, yes still I continue to smoke... Although I have moved on to a much cheaper brand of Rolling tobacco. 10 years ago this would have been unthinkable to me, as I loved my cigarettes to much to consider moving onto what I thought at the time to be inferior rolling tobacco. Price increases worked for me by restricting the amount of cigarettes I could purchase, education works for others who are appauled by seeing rotting lungs on the front of tobbaco products, I am certainly shocked by such images but also I am stubborn and set in my ways.... almost certainly highly addicted to the evil weed :|

I dont consider myself to be scum of the earth because I smoke, I try to keep it to myself - smoke that is. Smoking is my will, and a vice which i'm sure in the end will be controlled by Restriction and education.... more effectively than an outright ban.

velvet
Friday, October 2nd, 2009, 05:54 PM
Velvet, do I detect a crypto pot head?

Me? How do you come to this thought?!? :wsg


I smoked pot for the beter part of 10 years, in no meager quantity or frequency I might add. Pot is not alwys addictive to each person that tries it but it depends on the individual entirely. In my case it took a long time but I am willing to admit I was hooked.

Well, 'hooked' certainly is something different than 'addicted'. ;)
Pot is not addictive. I consume that stuff for, le'me think, twenty years or so, and partly much, and there never was a sign of becoming addicted. Due to our personal financial crisis currently my consume is down to zero. I dont go up the walls :D ;)


Besides de-prohibition would just mean sky-high (no pun intended) prices as it would be a whole new tax stream for Governments. The other reason it wont be legalized is IMHO that pot encourages abstract thought and the NWO cant have that now can they? ;)

Methinks that hits the nail :D
Well, it works in Netherland to have it legal, it is completely absurd, the border is not 50km from me. On one side legal, on the other 'tolerated' to a certain degree (differs significantly from federal state to federal state).


And the arguments against it are still weak. There has not been ONE SINGLE documented case of death after consume of pot, while each year in Germany alone die around 40.000 people due to alcohol (mis)use. Noone ever went to a therapy because he was 'addicted' to pot, if they were, they took all sorts of drugs what they could get. Such people are addicted to being addicted (and that's a genetic defect btw), I knew such people myself. And the commonly heard 'entry drug' thingy, well, sell it in chemistries or like in Netherlands in coffee shops and not by the black market drug seller, who isnt very interested in occasional customers, and the entry drug problem would be gone.
The price thingy, well, would be quite stupid for the government to sell it then for sky-high prices, because then noone would use their shops but still buy on the black market. Works really well in the Netherlands, I dont see why it wouldnt work anywhere else ;)

Anyway, outlawing any of these things will not make people stop to use it. And what about the second-hand alcohol effects, when people drive drunken and eradicate a whole family or something? But the evil second hand smoke in streets full of diesel cars, yes, that's important to outlaw :oanieyes ;)

I consider all that 'they need to ban [insert random bs here]' stuff really stupid. Outlaw meat, schnitzel, currywurst, chocolate, fat, sugar, salt... it's all the same stupid nonsense. I have to agree with Rightpath, it's all about knowing what you do :)

Méldmir
Friday, October 2nd, 2009, 06:08 PM
Personally I think people should know better than to intake a excess of anything from alcohol, tobacco and drugs. We have something called snus which is very popular among alot of young people for some reason. I am also against excessive intake of unhealthy things like candy and junk-food. I'm not sure I want to make all these things illegal but people shouöd realize that none of these things will help them at all when they use it.

Bittereinder
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 08:08 AM
Me? How do you come to this thought?!? :wsg



Well, 'hooked' certainly is something different than 'addicted'. ;)
Pot is not addictive. I consume that stuff for, le'me think, twenty years or so, and partly much, and there never was a sign of becoming addicted. Due to our personal financial crisis currently my consume is down to zero. I dont go up the walls :D ;)



Methinks that hits the nail :D
Well, it works in Netherland to have it legal, it is completely absurd, the border is not 50km from me. On one side legal, on the other 'tolerated' to a certain degree (differs significantly from federal state to federal state).


And the arguments against it are still weak. There has not been ONE SINGLE documented case of death after consume of pot, while each year in Germany alone die around 40.000 people due to alcohol (mis)use. Noone ever went to a therapy because he was 'addicted' to pot, if they were, they took all sorts of drugs what they could get. Such people are addicted to being addicted (and that's a genetic defect btw), I knew such people myself. And the commonly heard 'entry drug' thingy, well, sell it in chemistries or like in Netherlands in coffee shops and not by the black market drug seller, who isnt very interested in occasional customers, and the entry drug problem would be gone.
The price thingy, well, would be quite stupid for the government to sell it then for sky-high prices, because then noone would use their shops but still buy on the black market. Works really well in the Netherlands, I dont see why it wouldnt work anywhere else ;)

Anyway, outlawing any of these things will not make people stop to use it. And what about the second-hand alcohol effects, when people drive drunken and eradicate a whole family or something? But the evil second hand smoke in streets full of diesel cars, yes, that's important to outlaw :oanieyes ;)

I consider all that 'they need to ban [insert random bs here]' stuff really stupid. Outlaw meat, schnitzel, currywurst, chocolate, fat, sugar, salt... it's all the same stupid nonsense. I have to agree with Rightpath, it's all about knowing what you do :)

Mmm… my potometer is yet to fail. :D

In my personal experience, well it’s fair to say I love pot but unfortunately I have the genetic defect you mention, I find it hard to use pot, abuse is what I would liken my personal consumption to. I often wish that was not the case but I become lethargic after a while and basically all my priorities fly ot the window, work especially gets the short end of the stick, because I work for myself and have no regular office hours to keep it is relatively easy for me to say ‘o f#ckit I’ll do it tomorrow’ and happily stone the day away. And tomorrow repeat the process again. So in short nothing gets done and honestly at that point I could not care less.

I spent seven months in rehab six years or so ago, though I’ll admit not for pot alone but I never considered myself addicted to anything except pot and for the record I asked to be sent to rehab, Though I did resume smoking pot afterwards it was one of the best things I have ever done. No other substance had me waking up at five in the morning to get my day to the ‘required’ start. When I finally muster the pluk to quit (and I have more times than I can count) I don’t go up the walls as you say but must admit I become rather combative for a week or so, road rage and the like, very short tempered. :|

The problem I have with pot is that it dulls my emotions to the point where I don’t deal with anything, if the going gets tough the tough goes potting so to speak, it is escapism to me and it dulls my crises management mechanisms. After prolonged excessive use I basically have to rebuild these mechanism and I am rather tired of doing that at the expense of myself and others. :(

But like I say that’s just me I know plenty people who use pot and are none worse off for it. :)

Does Europe have any native strains that occurred there naturally? I doubt there was such a thing and therefore it is alien to Germanic people and should be seen as such. :P

I Personally don’t think pot is something that an upright Germanic should waste his/her time on, though if I could make my choices over again I would not change a thing, IMO pot had just as many good influence in my life as it had bad and opened my eyes to allot of things that is wrong on this earth, Especially concerning religion and the current system of control imposed on us by evil men. ;)

PS: What is the German word for pot?

celticruine
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 08:26 AM
I must agree most of the experiences you´ve made.
Some People do it here..
And they are not very motivated.
Problems are the consumption of tobbacco and the addiction to smoke cigarrettes
The German Word for Pot is HANF :D
Smoking Pot is still illegal but tobacco is legal.
Legal as Coffee,Tea,Alcohol and medicine.
If we want a drug free nation then we must forbidd the use of the listed "drugs" .
Coffee can cause Hallucinogene effects.
Alcohol is very unhealthy more than pot.
I´m much more fallen from the chair in cause of availlabity of alcohol.

Zimobog
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 09:28 AM
I don't know, guys. Pot is still very clandestine and there isn't much data about it's use. Don't get me wrong, I am not against people smoking/eating all the reefer they want (or smoking tobacco or drinking alchohol for that matter). I think drugs should be legal because it is a moral issue and not a legal one (imo).

I live where pot is legal to posses and it still isn't talked about much. I think people assume it is harmless because there is no studies on it, other than obviously bias studies. Some are bias because they love to use the drug, others are bias because they want to destroy all drugs. Either way, I can't trust those studies.

Do what you want, just don't call it "harmless". :thumbup

celticruine
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 09:58 AM
I´m not taking care of People smoking Pot.
They should know what they do.
And i don´t say Pot is harmful even for medical use.
Side Effects exist at pot too but theres more side effects on alcohol.
There´s much more People who abuse alcohol and dying in cause of the abuse.
Tobacco isn´t harmful too not because it is legal.
Smoking Tobacco is more dangerous because they do it every 5 minutes.
That cannot never be in a relative to using pot in a sober border.
There´s much more risk in cause of the tobacco when smoking pot.

Pot is banned nearly in relation of the free use and avaibilty of a good to use plant not only for clothing since the ww2.
In cause of the cotton industry which forced by the united states.
That is a fact.

Nachtengel
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 10:27 AM
Smoking tobacco doesn't impair your judgement, unlike smoking pot or drinking alcohol. You can safely smoke tobacco and engage in your normal activities.

SpearBrave
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 10:43 AM
Smoking tobacco doesn't impair your judgment, unlike smoking pot or drinking alcohol. You can safely smoke tobacco and engage in your normal activities.

Very True ! IMO pot makes some people lazy or with "I don't care" attitude even when they are not high on the stuff.

As far tobacco goes making new laws is just a form of oppression. I smoke cigars and I enjoy them very much. I don't smoke them indoors or public places when people are around.

celticruine
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 11:02 AM
That´s totally false that when people are not high they got a "i dont care" attitude.
They got the attitude when they have smoked pot.
You shouldn´t judge about smoking pot when you smoke cigars
Tobacco generally should be forbidden in cause of the cancer risk.

How can you say you like the taste of cigars ?

Damaging the lungs is contraproductive.
Smoking tobacco generally is totally underestimated.
Tobacco is totally destructive.

SpearBrave
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 11:29 AM
That´s totally false that when people are not high they got a "i dont care" attitude.
They got the attitude when they have smoked pot.
You shouldn´t judge about smoking pot when you smoke cigars
Tobacco generally should be forbidden in cause of the cancer risk.

How can you say you like the taste of cigars ?

Damaging the lungs is contraproductive.
Smoking tobacco generally is totally underestimated.
Tobacco is totally destructive.

I have formed my opinion about pot smoking by working around people who have smoked pot. They think they are productive and creative but they are really just stoned.


Cigars do taste good if you are a cigar smoker.

The anti- tobacco industry is filled with leftist just like most other liberal groups. Some marxist Hippocrates have found another way to make money. I never said smoking tobacco was not bad for you, I'm just saying there is to much hype in the banning of tobacco.

velvet
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009, 01:59 PM
The problem I have with pot is that it dulls my emotions to the point where I don’t deal with anything, if the going gets tough the tough goes potting so to speak, it is escapism to me and it dulls my crises management mechanisms. After prolonged excessive use I basically have to rebuild these mechanism and I am rather tired of doing that at the expense of myself and others. :(

Hmm, I see. Yes, this is a side effect of pot, getting dull, not only emotions but also motivation. I know that myself. I guess in general I tend to develop addictive behavior too, but besides my computer addiction (14+h/day) and cigarettes I have learned to controll them. I've limited my weed consume to the evening hours, my chocolate/sweets consume is controlled by numbers of pieces (not that it works all the time :D), beside a glass of wine once in a while I dont touch alcohol. I prefer pot over alcohol anyway when it comes to 'relaxing'.
A friend of ours has the same problem with it like you. Not really addicted, but if he gets his hands on pot he shoots himself to the stars, starting right after breakfast. I would say this is the point where one should start worrying. I'd never do it. I decided to use it the same way other people drink a beer or two after work, you know. This way it doesnt interfer with your daily activities ;)



Does Europe have any native strains that occurred there naturally? I doubt there was such a thing and therefore it is alien to Germanic people and should be seen as such. :P

Yes, Hanf grows here naturally, well, grew until America banned the entire plant (even the THC free sorts) because it endangered their cotton market after WWII. But it is one of the natural plants that grow here. So, no, it is not alien ;)


I Personally don’t think pot is something that an upright Germanic should waste his/her time on, though if I could make my choices over again I would not change a thing, IMO pot had just as many good influence in my life as it had bad and opened my eyes to allot of things that is wrong on this earth, Especially concerning religion and the current system of control imposed on us by evil men. ;)

Used in a conscious way pot, any drug for that matter, can indeed expand the perception of the world. Just look at the late 19th century Absinth scene, or opium (back then they smoked it). Indeed, some people died on abuse of those things, but it brought forth also fascinating literature (Aleister Crowley, H.P.Lovecraft...) ;)


PS: What is the German word for pot?

The plant is called Hanf, also the fibers.
Then there is Pott (in German too), also called Dope. It referes to the pressed stuff, further differed by its colors and attributes.
Then there is weed, in German Grass and Pollen (same word like in English).
The effect is different from that of pot, the pressed stuff often dulled me completely, dont have that problem with weeds though ;)

Bärin
Friday, October 9th, 2009, 01:14 PM
I think it should be left up to the individual, to Smoke or not smoke, or to use Smokeless tobacco, if one chooses.
The individual has proven it makes bad choices which damage our nations. It's time he gets kept in check.

What about the small children who inhale the toxic fumes of their irresponsible smoking parents? Or the ones who get beaten up or abused by their alcoholic parents? Do they have a choice, where is their choice? Smokers and drug users don't only hurt themselves, they hurt the others around them.


I drink alcohol. That can be harmful.
Good that you mention it. Alcohol should be banned too. It has no benefits other than selfish hedonism, just like smoking.


Many Folks use Cannabis. That can be harmful.
Likewise.


Driving might be Harmful. Firearms might be harmful. Using a knife, you might slip & cut yourself.
Those are different, because they have benefits. A car helps you travel, a firearm protects your life, so does a knife. What are the advantages of smoking and other drugs? None! They only create disadvantages, and pollute the body and the mind. :thumbdown


I'm more of a Libertarian, politically. I dislike too many restrictive Laws.
Why should we live under a Nanny-State, that tells us every detail, every choice we might be allowed to make?
Because the people are too irresponsible. Don't blame this on the nanny state. If people behaved themselves properly there wouldn't be need for one.

See what people say:


I am a smoker. It is my ultimate shame.

I yearn for a complete ban on smoking.

What does this prove? Most people are too weak to give up their personal and damaging hedonism. They need a government ban to force them.

Æmeric
Friday, October 9th, 2009, 03:40 PM
I don't think tobacco should be outlawed. That would be a law too difficult to enforce. I am in favor of laws that restrict its use in public. I don't appreciate someone smoking upwind of me & I don't like tobacco chewers spitting near me. Smokers use to be able to smoke almost anywhere in public without regard to others. Now they have been confined to smoking ghettoes away from us non-smokers.:thumbup

Besides the smell the other thing I dislike about smokers is the cigarette butts they leave all over the place. They just throw the butts down wherever they happen to be (outside) when the are done with the cigarette & move on. They act as if the public forum is their ashtray.

Rightpath
Friday, October 9th, 2009, 05:46 PM
Quote:
I drink alcohol. That can be harmful.
Good that you mention it. Alcohol should be banned too. It has no benefits other than selfish hedonism, just like smoking.


I would support outlawing smoking before I ever considered backing a ban on Alcohol consumption. Infact I could see a smoking ban being easier to inforce than one on Alcohol, While tobacco is an import I consider Alcohol to be interwoven into our heritage and culture.

I would however agree that it should be made harder for the youth and abusers to obtain. Perhaps if a smoking ban went through the government may move towards higher taxation of Alcohol. In England we have a culture of selling cheap Alcohol (Such as Drink all night for £10 deal) or happy hour. The youth may be able to buy cheap cider... And of course there are abusers, and there probably always will be. However there are certainly those who abuse women and children who are not alcoholics. I have been under the influence of it many times and never considered hitting my wife or children.

Besides this I think a ban on alcohol would a step toward giving the muslims a sharia type law.

Zimobog
Friday, October 9th, 2009, 06:43 PM
Most people are too weak to give up their personal and damaging hedonism. They need a government ban to force them.

*sarcastic* Yes, look how well the ban on alcohol and drugs went. It has created heavily armed criminal narco-imperialists and militarized the police force. I do not fancy my police trotting around carrying machine guns and wearing ninja suits, nor my criminals. This is what criminalization has caused in America.

Governments are made up of the same weak, hedonistic individuals who make up the society. The government's only purpose for existence is to protect it's citizens rights and resources. Not protect itself, not protect spotted owls, not to protect me from myself, and not to find new laws to enact.

Ideals and ethics can change and inspire people, governments can only oppress when it tries to do things like ban substances. Educational programs about tobacco has done more to curb it's use than anything else we tried here in America.

When we combined education about tobacco with lack of education about the Constitution, America ended up with a very ugly loss of personal freedom.

I say that smokers should be allowed to smoke outside and in businesses and homes of persons who allow smoking in their establishments. None of us owns the air.

SpearBrave
Friday, October 9th, 2009, 06:49 PM
Good that you mention it. Alcohol should be banned too. It has no benefits other than selfish hedonism, just like smoking.

We tried that in this country once it created large scale immigrant organized crime.

Zimobog
Friday, October 9th, 2009, 09:22 PM
America's first citizen's uprising after the Reveolution was the Whiskey Rebellion. It happened because Washington tried to tax whiskey. I'll stop the OTing now


We tried that in this country once it created large scale immigrant organized crime.

And the prohabition invented NASCAR :D.