26% Say Smoking Cigarettes Should Be Outlawed

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/june_2010/26_say_smoking_cigarettes_should_be_outlawed


Just over one-out-of-four Americans (26%) continue to believe cigarette smoking should be against the law in this country, a finding that's changed little from previous surveys. Sixty-three percent (63%) disagree and say smoking should not be outlawed, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

[dannno]

That's pretty lame.

[QueenB4Liberty]

That's ridiculous.

[sevin]

If smoking should be outlawed, then they should also outlaw aspartame, neotame, splenda, and the hundreds of other dangerous substances pushed on the public. On the other hand, if this is supposed to be a free country where people are responsible for researching the facts and making their own decisions...

[Southron]

No surprise here.

People like their vices but don't mind banning the vices of others.

[payme_rick]

I think letting dumbasses participate in polls such as these should be outlawed...

[catdd]

Most of them are probably x smokers who can't stand the temptation from others.

[phill4paul]

Sure. Poll me about all-you-can-eat heffer troughs.

[tsopranos]

YouTube - Bill Hicks on Smoking (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD8bsfggCuo)

[slothman]

I agree, cigs should be outlawed.
Just as long as all the other drugs and chemicals are legal.
:D

P.s. telephone surveys don't mean anything.

[james1906]

Then Kentucky secedes and becomes the new Amsterdam.

[Bman]

Just in.

26% of Americans need to move to China A.S.A.P.

[Kotin]

Outlaw fatty foods too.. I need protection... From myself!!!!

[RM918]

26% of Americans are complete and utter fuckwads.

Which is far lower a figure than I imagined.

[Ninja Homer]

26% of Americans should be traded for people from statist countries that would appreciate some freedom.

[brenden.b]

Ahh yes... And let us outlaw cigarettes and start yet another black market in this nation fueled by Tobacco Lords and Tobacco Gangs....

I don't think it will ever happen... I seriously think the South would secede if this were to occur.

[BlackTerrel]

That sounds like a lot. But keep in mind that 63% to 26% is a landslide by any measure.

[specsaregood]

Most of them are probably x smokers who can't stand the temptation from others.

I doubt that. As an ex-smoker the smell from a cig smells disgusting and offers no temptation. The thought of smoking is still alluring, but the actual act does not. In fact the surest way to kill off the temptation is for somebody to actually light one up near me.

With that said, I don't think it should be illegal.

[Number19]

Read the details :


...Republicans and adults not affiliated with either major party strongly oppose the outlawing of smoking. Democrats are more closely divided...

There is nothing unusual about this poll given the demographics of those wanting to ban cigarettes outright.

[PreDeadMan]

I say that people should be able to declare their individual sovereignty from the us government :) I don't care what the rest of the so called "country" thinks.

[Kregisen]

26% of Americans should be traded for people from statist countries that would appreciate some freedom.



*sigh* If only that were possible....I can't believe 26% are really that stupid. (yes I knew americans were stupid but still shocking)

[silentshout]

26% of Americans are scary idiots.

[akforme]

I bet a few are bitter pot heads who just feel that way because their choice is illegal.

[dannno]

I bet a few are bitter pot heads who just feel that way because their choice is illegal.

A few as in a few people in the entire world, maybe.. a few as in a significant amount of those who were polled, i don't think so.

[Icymudpuppy]

I am torn on this one.

Second hand smoke does harm others, and violates the non-aggression principle.

Therefore, I am in favor of a ban on cigarettes in public places. Private cigarette use on the other hand is perfectly acceptable in private establishments that support smoking, or in private homes in which all persons are of age to give consent.

I should be able to sue you for exposing me to second hand smoke against my will. Including if a breeze blows it in my direction as I walk past.

[Natalie]

That is stupid. Let's ban McDonalds too. Along with butter and bacon and everything else that is delicious and fattening. Obesity is now the leading cause of preventable death in the US. It kills more people than cigarettes do. But choosing to eat healthy food is the responsibility of the individual, and choosing whether to smoke or not should be as well.

[JeNNiF00F00]

..

[Travlyr]

I am torn on this one.

Second hand smoke does harm others, and violates the non-aggression principle.

Therefore, I am in favor of a ban on cigarettes in public places. Private cigarette use on the other hand is perfectly acceptable in private establishments that support smoking, or in private homes in which all persons are of age to give consent.

I should be able to sue you for exposing me to second hand smoke against my will. Including if a breeze blows it in my direction as I walk past.

Utter nonsense... how about I sue you for having to smell your body odor? Some reasonableness is required. Who are you going to sue if you happen to drive past a forest fire? :rolleyes:

[dannno]

Car fumes are probably even worse. I used to ride a bike everywhere instead of driving, and had more colds/lung infections etc. than I did just by 2nd hand smoke.

Ya, there is really nothing dangerous about second hand tobacco smoke.. unless you are literally stuck in tight quarters all day with somebody smoking, it's not going to have any affect on you.

Hey, ICMUDPUPPY, do you think that people should be allowed to burn wood in their fireplaces :confused: What about campfires, should those be illegal, too :confused:

I find it absolutely ridiculous that the same people you can go and sit around campfires and suck in smoke with, then drove back to the polluted city to breathe in polluted air all day, are the same people who claim that you shouldn't smoke ANYTHING because it is absolutely horrible for you..

The reason people are dying of lung cancer is not from smoking the tobacco the native americans used to smoke, anyway.. it is from the countless nasty additives as well as the radiated fertilizer that sticks to the leaves that causes cancer. If tobacco was grown naturally, then FIRST hand smoke would likely pose little if any danger to individuals.

[BlackTerrel]

That is stupid. Let's ban McDonalds too. Along with butter and bacon and everything else that is delicious and fattening. Obesity is now the leading cause of preventable death in the US. It kills more people than cigarettes do. But choosing to eat healthy food is the responsibility of the individual, and choosing whether to smoke or not should be as well.

Nothing annoys me more than a fat dude being repulsed by cigarettes and going on a tirade of how cigarettes will kill you. I've seen this at least twice.

[dannno]

Nothing annoys me more than a fat dude being repulsed by cigarettes and going on a tirade of how cigarettes will kill you. I've seen this at least twice.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154265

[JeNNiF00F00]

..

[echebota]

Denis Leary about drugs and vegetarians :)

YouTube - Denis Leary about drugs and vegetarians (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q7kUFS-0XQ&feature=related)

[Fredom101]

I think the people who are against freedom in this country (26%?) should just leave.

[Theocrat]

Nothing annoys me more than a fat dude being repulsed by cigarettes and going on a tirade of how cigarettes will kill you. I've seen this at least twice.


Hypocrites. I know someone who bitches about carbon footprints but then doesnt think twice to take a 9 hour drive one way for a day trip up into the mountains. Annoying.

Or liberals who indignantly condemn genocide in other countries, but say it's okay for mothers to kill their unborn babies.

[Brian4Liberty]

No surprise here.

People like their vices but don't mind banning the vices of others.


Most of them are probably x smokers who can't stand the temptation from others.

The only people I have ever run into that want to make cigarettes illegal are current and ex-smokers. Some current smokers claim it is the only way they would be able to stop. :rolleyes:

[catdd]

The only people I have ever run into that want to make cigarettes illegal are current and ex-smokers. Some current smokers claim it is the only way they would be able to stop. :rolleyes:

There's nothing worse than a reformed crusader. I did my share of it the first couple of years after dropping drugs and alcohol.
I'm sure people hated to see me coming their way during those days.

[JeNNiF00F00]

..

[ChaosControl]

Woohoo neo-prohibition!

Wonder how much I'll make selling cigs on the black market?

[dannno]

Woohoo neo-prohibition!

Wonder how much I'll make selling cigs on the black market?

It's a kitty!!

[Fox McCloud]

surprisingly, it seems this is a policy that more on the left typically favor (I never understood that...the right is more for the drug war, but less against banning cigarettes .....yet the left is slightly more against the drug war but for banning them....so odd).

In any event, this will only create more violence and make terrorism easier to fund because it'll jack the price wayyyy up.

Thankfully it's only at 1/4 of our population...so...I doubt they'll be banned any time soon.

[osan]

Most of them are probably x smokers who can't stand the temptation from others.


Good point.

[osan]

I should be able to sue you for exposing me to second hand smoke against my will. Including if a breeze blows it in my direction as I walk past.

This in unsound. BTW, you can try to sue, but bear in mind that you will have to demonstrate harm and loss in order to get anything. Given the near impossibility of this, you are likely to be laughed out of the courtroom.

[Kregisen]

I am torn on this one.

Second hand smoke does harm others, and violates the non-aggression principle.

Therefore, I am in favor of a ban on cigarettes in public places. Private cigarette use on the other hand is perfectly acceptable in private establishments that support smoking, or in private homes in which all persons are of age to give consent.

I should be able to sue you for exposing me to second hand smoke against my will. Including if a breeze blows it in my direction as I walk past.


You can equate every single circumstance in public to affecting your health.

I can say, if you cut me off on a public road, that makes me angry and my blood pressure goes up....studies show it's very unhealthy.

We can ban cars so we don't have to breathe in the exhaust (1000 times worse than 2nd hand cigarette smoke)

Sick people still go out in public....they can spread an illness that will make you sick and hurt your body.

People who support smoking laws are creating many double standards.

Public is public. You won't have your same "leave me alone" mentality as you would on your private property. You interact with many people, for better or for worse.

If you don't wanna interact with others, don't go in public.

[Icymudpuppy]

Car fumes are probably even worse. I used to ride a bike everywhere instead of driving, and had more colds/lung infections etc. than I did just by 2nd hand smoke.

Ahh, but where is the study that proves it? Tobacco has been proven to be harmful.

In the meantime, I do my best to reduce harmful emissions even when driving by burning biofuels rather than petrofuels when I can, and using catalytic converters despite their MPG reducing effects.

[Icymudpuppy]

Utter nonsense... how about I sue you for having to smell your body odor? Some reasonableness is required. Who are you going to sue if you happen to drive past a forest fire? :rolleyes:

Right, show me the study that proves Body Odor causes cancer.

As for the forest fire, if it was a natural caused fire, then it is a natural hazard, or and Act of God. Suing god might be comic, but that really is silly.

If it was man-made, by accident, the person starting should have some good liability insurance.

If it was man-made on purpose, the Arsonist when caught should be taken to court and give restitution to all victims.

If it was a controlled burn for Forest management, then there should have been an effort by the Forest managers to notify the public to keep clear of the area. If all reasonable efforts have been made, and I still go in, that is my own fault.

[Icymudpuppy]

Hey, ICMUDPUPPY, do you think that people should be allowed to burn wood in their fireplaces :confused: What about campfires, should those be illegal, too :confused:.

Wood smoke has not been proven to cause cancer like cigarette smoke has.

Yes, if tobacco were more pure, there wouldn't be near the issue.

But, if wood smoke was proven to cause cancer like cigarette smoke has been, then yes, appropriate bans of wood burning during certain atmospheric conditions or in certain proximity to others without their consent should be considered an aggressive act against them.

[Icymudpuppy]

BTW, I don't advocate a ban on smoking or cigarettes. Just a public safety restriction. I think it is reasonable for a city to have a law against reckless discharge of a firearm in public, likewise, reckless emission of proven to be harmful cigarette smoke in public should be reason for a law.

But, private use, or use in approved smoking areas, or cigarette businesses is perfectly acceptable. It's already like this in most airports.

[Kregisen]

BTW, I don't advocate a ban on smoking or cigarettes. Just a public safety restriction. I think it is reasonable for a city to have a law against reckless discharge of a firearm in public, likewise, reckless emission of proven to be harmful cigarette smoke in public should be reason for a law.

But, private use, or use in approved smoking areas, or cigarette businesses is perfectly acceptable. It's already like this in most airports.


There have been many laws like this trying to be passed on college campuses across america. Here at ASU they failed, and the supporters of it were unable to provide statistics for out-door secondhand smoke being a health issue.

[Fox McCloud]

Second hand smoke does harm others, and violates the non-aggression principle.

I should be able to sue you for exposing me to second hand smoke against my will. Including if a breeze blows it in my direction as I walk past.

this depends. If it's on someone's property and they clearly allow smoking, you can't sue. If you're in your own home and your neighbor is smoking so much that it affects you, well, then you could get him to stop, but I doubt any court would award you damages.

Also the level of pollution matters too--if it's virtually undetectable, then it's not a just-cause for suing.

[Icymudpuppy]

this depends. If it's on someone's property and they clearly allow smoking, you can't sue. If you're in your own home and your neighbor is smoking so much that it affects you, well, then you could get him to stop, but I doubt any court would award you damages.

Also the level of pollution matters too--if it's virtually undetectable, then it's not a just-cause for suing.

I agree with this. Some proof of harm should be necessary for damages to be awarded if use occurs on private property and the smoke drift away, but I think a ban on use in public of a known toxic substance except in approved zones is fine.

[catdd]

They would like to sit back in smug self satisfaction as unruly smokers are hauled off to jail for disobeying "their" will.

[White Knight]

Legalization isn't always the answer. Despite five decades of waring people about the dangers of smoking, as many people smoke now as 30 years ago. Why isn't the message getting throw to these idiots? Banning is extreme, but what can be done to stop these kids from starting?

[Kregisen]

Legalization isn't always the answer. Despite five decades of waring people about the dangers of smoking, as many people smoke now as 30 years ago. Why isn't the message getting throw to these idiots? Banning is extreme, but what can be done to stop these kids from starting?

What can be done or what should be done?

We could force them to stop smoking and pretend we own their health, or we can go back to reality and say, the government doesn't own your body, YOU do. Take care of it. Or don't. It doesn't matter. It's your choice and you will pay the consequences.

I don't smoke either.

[White Knight]

What can be done or what should be done?

We could force them to stop smoking and pretend we own their health, or we can go back to reality and say, the government doesn't own your body, YOU do. Take care of it. Or don't. It doesn't matter. It's your choice and you will pay the consequences.

I don't smoke either.

Perhaps we should just lower the drinking age to 16. Want to try smoking? nah, just have a beer instead. It's better for you, and won't harm anyone else.

[Fox McCloud]

I agree with this. Some proof of harm should be necessary for damages to be awarded if use occurs on private property and the smoke drift away, but I think a ban on use in public of a known toxic substance except in approved zones is fine.

until we have zero land owned by the public, I think it should be voters who get to decide what the policy for public land should be.

For private land? Well, I've already covered that, as you know.

that said, I think we need to define "public land"...a restaurant isn't "public land" merely because "the public" visits the place--it has to be owned by the state to make it "public land".

[Icymudpuppy]

until we have zero land owned by the public, I think it should be voters who get to decide what the policy for public land should be.

For private land? Well, I've already covered that, as you know.

that said, I think we need to define "public land"...a restaurant isn't "public land" merely because "the public" visits the place--it has to be owned by the state to make it "public land".

Agreed.