SMOKING BAN! Please Read The Motion, And Only Answer Aye! For! OR...

» Home » Health

SMOKING BAN! Please Read The Motion, And Only Answer Aye! For! OR Nay, Against In This Debate. And, Pick Up Your Ten Points.

Let's suggest that hypothetically you are a Member of Parliament or a Senator, and a Bill is passing through the 'House' calling for a blanket ban on Smoking, and yours is the deciding vote! Would you vote Aye! For! The bill, in the knowledge that your vote will save millions of smokers from horrific smoking related illnesses, or Nay! Against! Knowing that you are most probably condemning weak willed smokers, who can't kick the habit, to horrific horrible smoke related illnesses, and an inevitable cancer ridden slow death sentence, at the end of the day?

joe9

19 Nov 2008 09:46

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

Yes.

People who smoke are in dire want for a smokestack stuck to the top of their head, and a kick in the trousers to boot.

sylverwyld

19 Nov 2008 19:13

Add a Comment

Aye! For!

Endy1

19 Nov 2008 14:44

2 Comments

Over 90,000 people die of smoking related Lung cancer throughout Europe every year. Hypothetically, I for one could not live with a final decision to say Nay to a bill like this, if the final out-come was up to me. It would be a lot worse than Hitler's final solution.

Endy1

19 Nov 2008 14:49

Comment

Aye. For.

The politically correct part of me wanted to post on the Nay side based on not interfering with other's rights, a sensitivity to those who struggle to quit, and a reluctance to impose my morality on others.

But the "maverick" in me says smoking is an unnecessary and deadly habit, we ban other things far less pervasive or harmful (like marijuana - not that I'm pro marijuana), and I couldn't live with myself easily if I bypassed my chance to end this scourge on society.

Sorry, I was NOT a McCain/Palin fan but I have to say I'm getting all "mavericky" up on this one.

Grenache

19 Nov 2008 14:00

Add a Comment

Aye! For!

joe9

19 Nov 2008 09:46

1 Comment

The hypothetical validaty of this bill is a life death scenario, affecting the health of millions of smokers too weak willed to give up smoking unless this bill is passed. I for one wouldn't sleep soundly at night, if I had one single death on my hands from a horrific horrible smoking related illness due to not passing a bill of this nature!

joe9

19 Nov 2008 11:07

Comment

Nay alone is too few words.

No, seriously. Asked to simply say yea or nay, and the system said "nay" was too few words.

Lynn

23 Nov 2008 09:57

1 Comment

Actually it said say: 'Nay! Against!', if you are against the motion, which is two words...;-)

joe9

23 Nov 2008 10:21

Comment

Nay!!! I'm against

ambercol

20 Nov 2008 13:52

Add a Comment

NAY! Against!

Kirsty08

20 Nov 2008 10:11

Add a Comment

Nay, Against!

SlyOne

20 Nov 2008 05:48

Add a Comment

Nay. Although that people can harm others by their smoking, it's still a choice. It's bad, I know that, but if there were a ban, it's still going to happen, they would just be doing it legally.

imright20

19 Nov 2008 20:45

Add a Comment

No. Besides the irrationality of this notion, it simply wouldn't work.

verum

19 Nov 2008 19:41

Add a Comment

NAY! Against!

Specter87

19 Nov 2008 18:21

1 Comment

I would just like to state that I am greatly disappointed in those of you who posted your reasoning on your initial post. READ THE DIRECTIONS!

Specter87

19 Nov 2008 18:24

Comment

Nay! It's not our job to protect people from themselves. Let them smoke outside.

Lola

19 Nov 2008 16:35

1 Comment

Lola, if you'd bothered to read the motion porperly, you would have discovered that this debate is not about a job. It is about a moral issue. In fact it is about your own morals, and the way you would vote if you were confronted with a life death situation.

joe9

19 Nov 2008 16:46

Comment

The U.S. Proved prohibition of substances doesn't work when they made alcohol illegal for the very same noble and well-meaning reasons you want to ban smoking. They actually passed an amendment to the Constitution, but it was a big flop. It led to a rise in organized crime and just didn't stop people from getting their hands on booze. Many people made their own. The amendment had to be removed. It just did not have the desired results. I pose to you that this is what would happen with a ban on smoking. However, I still admire your intent here, but I disagree with your plan of action.

kkcoyne

19 Nov 2008 15:16

2 Comments

Kick me, I started thinking about your position and forgot you didn't want any responses other than aye or nay. Sorry, tried to edit it out but it wouldn't let me.

kkcoyne

19 Nov 2008 15:20

Comment

Nay! Against!

my2cents2u

19 Nov 2008 11:37

5 Comments

I'm surprised you haven't added your two cents worth as to the reason why?...;-) Nice handle by the way, I suppose the English version would be A Groats worth of Wit...;-)

joe9

19 Nov 2008 16:49

Comment

Hey joe9...Now I have to add my two cents and I was trying to be a good girl and simply do as was asked...a simple Aye or Nay.  I see where a ban on cigarettes would lead.  So, we take away the cigarettes, but what about all of the other substances that are proven to be harmful to human health?  What would be done about smokeless tobacco?  What about the loss of revenue on a product that is taxed higher than any other than I can think of?  Are we going to tell people that they cannot drink alcohol to prevent liver disease and hepatitis?  How about sodium?   If one has high blood pressure, sodium is a major issue.  As for the obesity epidemic and the fact that being obese has huge adverse effects on one's health, I would think that Twinkies would have to be banned as well.   If we start telling people what to do with their bodies regarding legal substances, we might as well go back to prohibition.  Processed foods of most types are horrible and many contain ingredients that may cause cancer, especially "diet" foods.  I am in favor of not selling cigarettes to minors, but I am a smoker and did not start smoking until I was nearly 20 years old.  I wish I would have never lit up the first one, but if someone told me I could not have a cigarette, I would lose it on them.  I am already angry enough at the rights that we, as smokers have lost.  I am considerate and do not mind going outside at all.  I do not appreciate being looked at like I am lower than a drug abusing (illegal drug...for the sake of argument, one could correct me and say that nicotine is a drug) criminal.  Cigarettes are more difficult to give up than most hard drugs.  I think the one exception may possibly be meth....at least from what I have read that drug does to your dopamine receptors from the first time it is used.  There are people abusing so many legal substances, food included, that I don't feel we can single out just cigarettes.  I think people tend to single them out because they don't want to be around them, but do you really like to be around someone who is falling down drunk and reeks of alcohol either?  I don't mean this to be cruel, but there are people who are so morbidly obese that it is uncomfortable for me to watch them shove more food into their face.  I work in a medical office and we have hospitalized some of our morbidly obese patients on a calorie restricted diet, simply to extend their life because they were so large that breathing was an issue for them.  They did not have a normal life expectancy either and, the moment they left the hospital, the food was back and the weight was also back.  This is not due to a metabolic disorder either.  If one eats enough, for the most part, one is going to become obese.  If one smokes enough, the health risks increase.  I do not agree with bans in general.  I, personally, do not want to lose anymore rights.

Thanks for the compliment on the name.  I guess the English version you suggested is quite accurate....lol. BTW...Checked out your profile.  It is very impressive.  I like someone who can hold their own in an intelligent conversation.  Sadly, I don't meet many people like that offline, or online, for that matter.  Have a good evening.

Comment

You have raised some valid and fair points my2cents2u. I can't fault you. Sorry to hear you are addicted to the terrible weed. I use to smoke quite heavy at one time. And, always use to have a cig after I'd accomplished a task as a treat, so I related smoking heavily with relaxation. Once this was pointed out to me I found it quite easy to stop. I would most probably estimate that nine out of ten smokers wish they could kick the habit. The number of smokers who have quit over here in England since the smoking ban came into force in pubs, and many other public places is quite considerable. Smoking and alcohol link together like pork and apple, and become a far more addictive recipe, than smoking solely is on its own. You could possibly be right about an infringement on human rights if a total blanket ban was imposed. Mill's essay 'On Liberty' points out that, and I quote directly: 'secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, so long as we do not harm our fellow-creatures'. By passing a bill mentioned in the motion of this debate, one would be doing no harm to our fellow creatures, apart from taking away their liberty, and right to pursue one of their tastes. However, I would still strongly argue, which would cause the greater harm? And, the crux of this hypothetical debate is would this matter be better managed by Government by the passing of a bill, making a smoking ban law or be left to law abiding individual smokers who find it very difficult, and painful to give up their addiction of their own free will? It is your individual choice, and I respect the choice you have made.

Thanks for your response it was well written and interesting.

Comment

In many of the states here in the United States, there is a ban in smoking indoors, which includes bars.  When the first states passed the laws, the bars lost a lot of revenue as smokers went to the neighboring states so they would be able to drink and smoke at the same time.  I agree the two together are a combination that is difficult to separate.  I don't drink, except on rare occasion, so this has never really been an issue for me.  I can also relate to what you said as to using a cigarette as a reward after accomplishing a task.  I tried to quit once and found it utterly miserable to get ready in the morning.  I would get in the shower and, when I got out, I couldn't think of what to do next.  I was supposed to be having a cigarette.  After putting on my makeup...same thing.  This went on all day.  Cleaning the house was totally frustrating for me without a cigarette break.   You are probably pretty dead on about 9 out of 10 smokers wishing that they could quit, however the degree of how much they want to quit will determine whether they are successful when they make an attempt.  For some, putting down the cigarettes after years of smoking can be liberating.  I know they always "miss" them in some way.  For others, there is a psychological as well as physical addiction to the nicotine.  For myself, the psychological addiction is stronger than the physical.  I have put the patch on and still felt an intense craving for a cigarette.  There was no physical reason because my body was not nicotine deprived.  The level was different, but still I was not without any.  I tried the inhalers and the gum.  I personally think I would go out of my mind if there were a ban and I was no longer able to purchase cigarettes.  I would, however, learn a coping mechanism.  There are other citizens who would resort to illegal measures.  If marijuana can be purchased illegally, tobacco would follow suit.  It would not be regulated by the FDA and would be easily tainted and children would be targeted as they are with other illegal substances.  The thing with society is that there are law abiding citizens and there are people willing to do whatever they want to feel good.

Thank you for your kind words and understanding.  Many ex-smokers do not share your tolerance.  They are more of a mindset that says "if I can do it, so can you".  I appreciate your fairness.

Absolutely not.

finsch

19 Nov 2008 11:01

3 Comments

We all know you are a fascist finsch, (hypothetically), who apparently can't read, too. It said in the motion that Nay, Against! Was quite sufficient.,,;-)

joe9

19 Nov 2008 11:14

Comment

Nay! Against!

Quincel

19 Nov 2008 09:55

10 Comments

It is not our place to stop others from harming themselves, we've banned smoking in public places (in the UK) so smoking is now a bad choice, just like the ones we let people make every day.

Quincel

19 Nov 2008 09:58

Comment