candygirl Posted December 2, 2007 Report Posted December 2, 2007 They ban drugs but not Tobacco. Drug Abuse Mortality Data 25,500 Deaths this Year.Tobacco-related Mortality Data 529,000 Deaths this Year. What are they thinking...Ban Tobacco now! !@#$%^&* it when are they going to wake up?
SeVeR Posted December 2, 2007 Report Posted December 2, 2007 You can never ban something based solely on the number of deaths it causes. It has to be deaths as a percentage of usage. For instance, car accidents cause more deaths than drugs but cars are used billions of times every day by millions of people. Thus, the car is not a very dangerous object when looking at how often it's used. I imagine choking to death on bones within food, or bee stings cause alot of deaths too, but we're not going to ban those. So the point is, millions of people use tobacco, and if the same number of people used drugs then we'd see a much bigger rate of people dying from drugs than with tobacco. Thus drugs are more dangerous than tobacco and are more deserving of a ban.
Russky Posted December 2, 2007 Report Posted December 2, 2007 statistically speaking airplanes are safer than cars
Cancer+ Posted December 2, 2007 Report Posted December 2, 2007 The government will never ban something that they are making millions of dollars off of. Same with alcohol. If they could somehow profit off of the sales on drugs, they would do that too.
Memory Posted December 2, 2007 Report Posted December 2, 2007 There are too many users. Banning it would create a massive black market immediately. While it would certainly fade away eventually, it would cost more than it's worth.
Falcoknight Posted December 2, 2007 Report Posted December 2, 2007 The government would never ban something it makes that much money off..Which is why I don't get why they don't just legalize marijuana and tax the !@#$%^&* out of it.
JDS Posted December 3, 2007 Report Posted December 3, 2007 if pot was legal we would just grow it ourselves. . . gov would never make much off of pot.
Bak Posted December 3, 2007 Report Posted December 3, 2007 I don't think everyone would grow it themselves. It's like growing your own produce is legal and fine, but we're americans !@#$%^&*, we want instant gratification for zero effort.
LearJett+ Posted December 3, 2007 Report Posted December 3, 2007 (edited) Do you know anyone who grows their own tobacco? Edited December 3, 2007 by LearJett+
Bak Posted December 3, 2007 Report Posted December 3, 2007 i know farmers who do but people who smoke something like two packs a day times 20(?) cigs per pack is 40 a day. I'd be hard pressed to find someone who can smoke 40 joints a day, every day (!@#$%^&* even in one day would be a feat). with pot you can smoke a joint or two one day a week and be content. Plus with tobacco you have to dry it for weeks if not months, whereas you can dry weed in the microwave if you're don't feel like waiting a few hours.
AstroProdigy Posted December 4, 2007 Report Posted December 4, 2007 Pot is a lot easier to grow than tobacco. You can grow pot like a garden plant. For tobacco you'd basically need to be a farmer.
LearJett+ Posted December 4, 2007 Report Posted December 4, 2007 (edited) I guess I'm not as experienced at growing marijuana as you guys are. Don't you guys hate corporations and big tobacco? If legalized, that's all that marijuana would turn in to. I can see it now: "Big Marijuana" It seems that legalization inevitable, though. Just remember that I predicted the corporations. also, i don't know what states you guys live in... but smoking bans in public places really piss me off. i don't smoke, but the government should respect the wish of a private business owner to make his establishment a smoking establishment. if customers don't like that, they'll go elsewhere. Edited December 4, 2007 by LearJett+
Bak Posted December 4, 2007 Report Posted December 4, 2007 I think the purpose of those laws is typically to protect the workers. So like in a bar the bartender might not smoke but breathing in 2nd hand smoke all day isn't healthy. One might say the workers would go somewhere else if they cared enough about it, which is a fine point. However, you could use the same argument to justify any unsafe work condition which creates a slippery slope. What is ridiculous is that some states are passing laws banning things like smoking in your own car, which seems like a big invasion of privacy. The difference between big tobacco and big marijuana is that smoking causes lung cancer. There haven't been studies on the long term effect of marijuana smoking (that I know of) and the best people can do is intuitively guess that all smoke is bad and therefore causes lung cancer. Even !@#$%^&*uming smoking marijuana causes lung cancer, there's other, non-cancerous ways to consume it. Firstly one can cook it into brownies (google space cakes), and secondly one can also vaporize pot. In the latter, the plant is heated until the THC (the fun stuff) evaporates into the air and you breath that in, without burning anything. Tobacco, on the other hand causes cancer in pretty much all forms. In terms of ease of growth, I've seen pictures of people growing one strain (low ryder) in dixie cups! Try doing that with tobacco.
LearJett+ Posted December 4, 2007 Report Posted December 4, 2007 Their paycheck covers their work environment.
Bak Posted December 4, 2007 Report Posted December 4, 2007 again, what's stopping someone from saying the same thing for a construction company that refuses to use safety mechanisms?
Tiq Posted December 5, 2007 Report Posted December 5, 2007 smoking is bad. THC rapes you lugs Y'all are just leaking cauldrons of new information, aren't you? ;\ They ban drugs but not Tobacco. Drug Abuse Mortality Data 25,500 Deaths this Year.Tobacco-related Mortality Data 529,000 Deaths this Year. What are they thinking...Ban Tobacco now! !@#$%^&* it when are they going to wake up? They do not ban Tobacco because the companies have a massive influence on various political issues, like elections and what not. They cater to politicians, and thusly own their souls. When you have that much money, you can quite literally throw money at whatever money you have to be rid of it. The fact of the matter is, the only way these companies will die is if they no longer have consumers.
Dav Posted December 5, 2007 Report Posted December 5, 2007 I agree with the ban and this is why. I go to a pub as a non smoker. I do not smoke because i do not want to suffer its negative effects. In the pub there are many smokers. I have two choices. A: Go to the pub and suffer some negative effects of smoking from smoke in the airB: Be socially excluded to avoid these effects. On the other hand a smoker is not excluded because they cannot smoke, they do not HAVE to smoke and if neccacary can go to an area where non-smokers are not affected. A ban therefore meand that all can go to said pub and suffer no ill effects that they do not willingly wish to expose themselves to. A counter is often "ban alcahol in public plases then". Other people drinking does not give me the negative healh effects oif alcahol therefore I can select when in the pub weather I wish to expose myself to them.
Drake7707 Posted December 5, 2007 Report Posted December 5, 2007 I don't drink alcohol or smoke, but if i have to choose between smoking and alcohol, i'd choose smoking. At least with smoking you don't get drunk and annoy others. I absolutely hate the stench of beer or other alcoholic drinks, much more than the smoke of a cigarette. Besides, why should smoking be banned ? As long as you don't annoy others, it's your life your screwing with (and living here near the busiest industry zone i'm 100% sure to have cancer later anyway)
SeVeR Posted December 5, 2007 Report Posted December 5, 2007 Well yes, a ban in public places such as bus-stops, pubs, banks, and so on should be enforced. But smoking in the comfort of your own home or out on the street away from crowds of people if fine in my opinion. I know what you mean about pubs though. I hate the way the smoke makes my clothes smell the day after.
LearJett+ Posted December 5, 2007 Report Posted December 5, 2007 If the owner of the pub wants it to be a smoking establishment, however, they should be able to make it so.
Dav Posted December 5, 2007 Report Posted December 5, 2007 I don't drink alcohol or smoke, but if i have to choose between smoking and alcohol, i'd choose smoking. At least with smoking you don't get drunk and annoy others. I absolutely hate the stench of beer or other alcoholic drinks, much more than the smoke of a cigarette. Besides, why should smoking be banned ? As long as you don't annoy others, it's your life your screwing with (and living here near the busiest industry zone i'm 100% sure to have cancer later anyway)the smell of the beer does not have negative heath effects to you. The cigarette smoke does. I agree server, in your home or in the street should be ok, it isn't an area where non smokers will be affected. The landlord decided thing would undo the ban's benefits. Landlord A says "smoke in my pub" all the smokers go their and their friends follow. All the other pubs to regain business allow smoking and suddenly everywhere is full of smoke again.
Drake7707 Posted December 5, 2007 Report Posted December 5, 2007 the smell of the beer does not have negative heath effects to you. The cigarette smoke does. yeah, i agree, i implicitely included that in the 'as long as you don't annoy others' part
Recommended Posts