Should smoking be illegal?

In what state is it a crime to smoke or drink during pregnancy? Some women keep their pregnancy a secret until they go into labor.

 

But the risk of fatal accident is about 30 times greater then for a car. I do not drive at all.

 

In USA there are 44 million mentally disabled people and 10 million severely mentally disabled people. Many of them would be likely to take unjustified risks.

 

how many times more is the risk of brain injury from football vs no football? I am ok with rules like no one under 18 be allowed to play like we have with cigarettes, but to out right ban it, I think Adults need to decide for themselves

 

Oh no, nothing like that, just really bad back pain and restless leg syndrome, but yeh, chemo might be another thing you could put in a vaper. I've never tried one, because it was hard enough getting off nicotine once, but one of smoking's real pleasures to me was seeing the smoke and vaping can be done with no nicotine whatever, just being water vapor, yes?

 

Existence beats nonexistence all hollow. There are lots of very exciting things I can do that involve no real risk at all.

 

Heart attacks are the result of a blood clot blocking off blood flow to part of the heart muscle. Without blood that part of the heart muscle dies. With a surgical bypass of the blockage it is possible for the heart muscle to regenerate. The degree of blockage and the amount of dead muscle factor into the severity of the heart attack and the ability to recover.

Emphysema means that the lung tissue is damaged to the point where it loses the ability to efficiently exchange carbon dioxide in the blood with fresh oxygen from the air. As this efficiency decreases the body increases the number of red corpuscles to order to grab as much oxygen as it can from what little is available. Red corpuscles are "sticky" in that they contain the coagulating agents that stop bleeding. Too many sticky red corpuscles will start forming clots and it is those clots that cause the heart attacks.

For the emphysema patients that don't have heart attacks they end up dying of long term carbon monoxide poisoning because the lungs can no longer eliminate the carbon dioxide and instead the body converts the carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide. Mostly before that happens those with emphysema are susceptible to die of pneumonia and bronchitis. They can also die of a variety of other conditions since a lack of oxygen in the blood effectively weakens all of the other body systems. In essence it is like dying of blood loss without external bleeding.

FTR one of the most important parts of my own exercise routine is deep breathing. Breathing all the way down to the bottom of my lungs and then slowly exhaling means ensuring that there is sufficient oxygen for all the other parts of my body. It also naturally straightens my posture and helps me to remain fit and healthy.

 

Allied air crews were also given methedrine to keep them awake and alert on long bombing missions.

 

My kid wanted to play it recently and I said no dice. He already acts like he has brain damage, I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $4000 a semester to make it worse..

He kept it up and I said I'd approve only if it was his required sport to be a Rhodes Scholar, that shut him up rather quickly.

Yes and no. It's very true that smoking doesn't ALWAYS cause cancer, but my understanding is it's SOO likely that the risk is just unacceptable for most people, and there's also the fact that it causes a whole crapload of other really awful stuff too and it has practically no real good side, except to be a mild relaxant. One really damning thing is that practically nobody, even most smokers, actually LIKES doing it most of the time. People may enjoy a cigaret after a meal or ....other pleasurable activities.. now and again but people mostly do it because they must.

 

Where is the option that just says 'No'?

It is none of the government's business what we put in our bodies (within reason).

Individual homes/businesses should be able to ban or allow people to smoke.

As for the legal age? Not sure. Maybe 16, maybe 18.

America needs FAR LESS laws.

 

no, I did not mean the chemo in a vaper, I meant the neuropathy medications, though anything woudl be better then 8 hours a day with a IV in your arm... heck if I had to do over I may have choose to forgo chemo and risk it, let the cards fall where they may, cause with chemo your again playing the odds with a increased risk of cancer down the road 20 years, but a better survival rate in the present

yep, vaping can be done with no nicotine at all

 

it's not that likely, the odds increase, but not by that much

as I said, the longest living person smoked for almost 100 years, a title non-smokers have not obtained, so there is more to it - obesity and stress are bigger killers

some smokers like smoking, especially if they can afford it, some don't

I would recommend anyone that smokes roll their own though, cheaper and no carpet glue that anti-smokers forced cigarette makers add to all US cigarettes sold - anti-smokers want to make Cigarettes as bad as they say they are... even if they have to make them that way

good for you on not subjecting your child to an increased risk of brain damage, really no child should smoke, eat process meat or play football, just not sure it's the government place to ban all things they think are bad for us adults

 

Bingo!

Nicotine is one of the most powerful addictive substances of all and it really doesn't provide enough benefits to justify the addiction.

My nephew, who has an addictive personality, cannot quit but he has switched over to vaping. That eliminates all of the toxins except the nicotine itself so that makes it about as "safe" as it can be under the circumstances. Most of the cancers appear to be caused by the tars and other chemical substances introduced into cigarettes by the manufacturers.

 

OP

Alcohol causes far, far more social chaos, misery, ill health issues which lead to premature death, and is more carcinogenic than tobacco, so WTF?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science...ference-between-risk-and-strength-of-evidence

 

Glad to see the truth come out from the left side -- so refreshing and surprising. The issue then is not others subsidizing my medical costs as a smoker, it is you do not like smoking and want to keep me and others from doing it.
I'll revise my analogy: I'm sure you do something that I don't like. Let's ban it.

 

Or your own home. Public housing requires accommodation for people affected by smoke, and the Smoke-Free Environments Law Project is working to apply this to private apartment and condo complexes.

 

Well said. I too do deep breathing exercises along with volumetric breathing exercises.

 

Don't drive for fear of a crash?

 

Socializing the risk is exactly what "single payer" and "socialized insurance" and all its variants do. That inevitably leads to the govt dictating peoples actions - such as you can't buy a large soda.

And its not an issue of coding law, its finance. You already see it now in this thread with people saying smoking should be banned because it drives up health care costs for everyone. When the single payer etc. has fiscal problems as every one of them have, the govt will start banning other activities.

 

I do not drive due to my Moderate Autism and Moderate Depression.

I have attention shortage.

 

As far as I'm concerned, consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long they they endanger only themselves.

The issue is that in many cases they endanger others without even realizing it. For, example, if a person in a crowded car chooses not to wear their seatbelt, they aren't risking only their lives. A good portion of injury in accidents come from a person not wearing a seatbelt being tossed around inside a car and injuring other people. It's not just about the state forcing you to do it for no reason.

As for people smoking and drinking, I think it should be legal, but they shouldn't be allowed to use public money for medical treatment. They know it causes cancer and liver damage and other issues, and choose to still do it. No medicare, social security disability, etc, for diseases caused by smoking or drinking.

 

Unfortunately many people of adult age have severe mental disabilities or distress and take very irrational steps.

 

It isn't just that I don't like it. (and oddly, I do like it, unlike most other former smokers I really like the aroma of good tobacco and cigarets are the best, as the tobacco has to be finely ground or it won't burn right in them) my problem is that secondhand smokes KILLS me, and my family. This is, despite the fact that it doesn't seem like it possibly could, a scientifically proven fact with nearly as much backing as the fact that direct smoking is also damaging.

No, I don't argue that we should forbid smoking because it's costly to our health care not to. I don't really think we should forbid smoking at all. Taxing it, however, is like taxing liquor. It's a VOLUNTARY tax and those are, IMO, the best kind.

 

But how do you determine that the smoking or drinking was in fact the cause of the disease? Some people would have gotten the disease whether they smoke/drink or not. It's wrong to penalize people for getting sick, the disease itself is enough of a punishment.