Smokers getting a rough ride?

cornbb

Froot wrote:

As a smoker I have to say that website is a bunch of sensationalistic, hyperbolic crap.

As a smoker I would have to agree. Thats not helping anyone's arguments. I don't think I know a single smoker who was against the ban.

senordingdong

As sensationalist as that site is, the foundations of their articles are based on good points.

RainyDay

senordingdong wrote:

And with the taxes smokers pay, that we are told go to health system, you still think they are a burden on the health system?

You're not seeing the big picture (must be obscured by all the fog). Look at the opportunity costs arising from early death. Look at the social welfare costs arising from dependant families left without a wage-earner. Look at the costs of cleaning up butts. It's not just about health costs.

Terry

look at the government pension money saved by early deaths...

Dutchology

I do agree that the site is quite OTT, and I am also a smoker who agrees with the ban, however some of the articles are quite informative.

Froot

Any, and I mean any, website that uses Nazi symbols to convey a point is utter sh!te to me.

However informative their articles are the website is extremely amateur in its design and layout and the fact that their points are backed up by sensationalist propaganda really does not make it easy to take interest in. The points they make appear to be made by appealing to people who are swayed primarily by an exagerrated poster more than actual fact.

Besides that fact I have no particular grievance in the way the government treats smokers in this country.

Zombrex

senordingdong wrote:

I think any hospital visit I make, I have already well and truely paid for.

Well you would be wrong.

You seem to be assuming that all the tax you pay on a pack of cigs over the next 35 years will be kept in a little fund ready for you when you check into hospital with lung cancer.

Firstly it doesn't work like that.

Secondly, even if it did that would still not pay for the treatment you might require.

Thirdly, as RainyDay points out, you are not seeing the big picture. Smoking in Ireland costs the Irish economy between 1 and 5 million euro a day, through a large variety of things. Some estimates put that figure much higher.

rubadub

Dutchology wrote:

http://www.sadireland.com/

Seems to miss the point, and will not fully spell out the point of banning 10 packs, as though the suggestion was a typo or something. Then it makes a comparison by saying it is similar to forcing people to buy 12 packs of beer instead of 6. Well yes, some would say that is a good idea! I usually couldnt afford to buy 12 beers at a time when I was young, nor 20 smokes. I would have simply ended up going splits on a 20 pack with mates, like many of my mates did when pub machines only dispensed 20 packs.

The comparison to a supersize mcdonalds meal is way off the point too. It would have made some sense if the government was forcing the actual cigarettes to be 30% bigger than usual. That is a portion size increase, not a pack size increase. A more similar comparison would be forcing bars to be sold in larger packs.

There is a poll on it about how often you frequent bars now the smoking ban is in, I wonder what this is intending to show? Is it such a bad thing that the reduction in usage of one damaging recreational drug leads to a reduction in another? or are they concerned about drug dealers profits? (in this case publicans)

Wibbs

That site has it's hype moments that's for sure, but there are good points in there. Joe Jacksons open letter on the subject makes interesting reading http://www.sadireland.com/newpage1.htm

cornbb wrote:

I don't think I know a single smoker who was against the ban.

Actually, I know quite a few, including myself. To be precise the implementation of the ban. I prefer the less holier than thou Spanish version of the ban. In any event we Irish are well known for bending over under duress and taking it, with nary a whimper. Moaning yes, actual debate or resistance that's worth a damn, no. Why didn't the vintners not dredge up the countless studies(inc the WHO one) that showed no link between "second hand" smoke and disease.

Wicknight wrote:

Well you would be wrong.

Would he? How wrong?

You seem to be assuming that all the tax you pay on a pack of cigs over the next 35 years will be kept in a little fund ready for you when you check into hospital with lung cancer.

Of course not, but all things being equal he/she will have contributed considerably more than a non smoker over the same time period. The vast majority of smokers don't get lung cancer and even if they do it's usually well into their later years. As a primary cancer it's a rare disease in the young, smoker or not.

In any case non smokers get lung cancer too. Considering that, you can contend that the body of smokers who have contributed to the tax fund will more than pay for minority of their number who may succumb to lung cancer. I use the example of lung cancer like yourself as it is the one disease uppermost in the mind when one considers tobacco use. You could argue the same for other diseases too, but the link in most is not exclusively smoking and in some of them the link is more tenuous than the smoke itself. In fact if you take alzheimers where nicotine has a preventative link then you could argue that smokers are lessoning the burden in some sectors. Jeez, from the warnings on the ciggie packets you would swear you'll be free and easy and live to 100 if you don't smoke. Sadly not.

Anyway who is paying for those non smoking leeches who have the gall to get "smoking" diseases like cancer of the lung, esophagus etc ? I dunno some people

Secondly, even if it did that would still not pay for the treatment you might require.

Even if you don't take the ciggies tax into account all his other taxes should though. The same for a non smoker. Again we could dredge up the whole fatty, processed food that people increasingly stuff into their bloated faces, the lack of exercise, blah blah blah. The fact is we all can contribute to our longevity and choose not too. Even then other factors, both environmental and genetic can cause disease, even if one is practically a saint in the health nut faith. I personally know a one of those who developed lung cancer(he survived BTW). Non smoker non drinker veggie marathon runner type. Who would have thunk it? One can reduce risk certainly but we can't eliminate it. Leave that mad guff to American babyboomers who think they have a right to live forever and want to force others down their daft path.

Look if you want to live much longer than you would otherwise, start a very low calorie diet high in nutrients as it's the only way that has increased longevity in other animals(outside genetic mods). Now most of us don't follow that diet. Should we tut tut at ourselves for not reducing the future health tax burden? Eh no again.


If a genetic test showed a propensity for heart disease in someone would we even think of restricting care for them or villifying them for being weak if they ate fatty food as some of the antis talk about with smokers? Eh no we wouldn't. We start down that route at our peril, tobacco or not.

Thirdly, as RainyDay points out, you are not seeing the big picture. Smoking in Ireland costs the Irish economy between 1 and 5 million euro a day, through a large variety of things. Some estimates put that figure much higher.

Show me any of the stats, broken down into real reasons for such a figure, not woolyheaded ASH backed government conjecture to justify the villification of tobacco. Hey fire off the woolyheaded stuff and we can look at it.

Terry

Wibbs wrote:

That site has it's hype moments that's for sure, but there are good points in there. Joe Jacksons open letter on the subject makes interesting reading http://www.sadireland.com/newpage1.htm
Actually, I know quite a few, including myself. To be precise the implementation of the ban. I prefer the less holier than thou Spanish version of the ban. In any event we Irish are well known for bending over under duress and taking it, with nary a whimper. Moaning yes, actual debate or resistance that's worth a damn, no. Why didn't the vintners not dredge up the countless studies(inc the WHO one) that showed no link between "second hand" smoke and disease.

Would he? How wrong?

Of course not, but all things being equal he/she will have contributed considerably more than a non smoker over the same time period. The vast majority of smokers don't get lung cancer and even if they do it's usually well into their later years. As a primary cancer it's a rare disease in the young, smoker or not.

In any case non smokers get lung cancer too. Considering that, you can contend that the body of smokers who have contributed to the tax fund will more than pay for minority of their number who may succumb to lung cancer. I use the example of lung cancer like yourself as it is the one disease uppermost in the mind when one considers tobacco use. You could argue the same for other diseases too, but the link in most is not exclusively smoking and in some of them the link is more tenuous than the smoke itself. In fact if you take alzheimers where nicotine has a preventative link then you could argue that smokers are lessoning the burden in some sectors. Jeez, from the warnings on the ciggie packets you would swear you'll be free and easy and live to 100 if you don't smoke. Sadly not.

Anyway who is paying for those non smoking leeches who have the gall to get "smoking" diseases like cancer of the lung, esophagus etc ? I dunno some people

Even if you don't take the ciggies tax into account all his other taxes should though. The same for a non smoker. Again we could dredge up the whole fatty, processed food that people increasingly stuff into their bloated faces, the lack of exercise, blah blah blah. The fact is we all can contribute to our longevity and choose not too. Even then other factors, both environmental and genetic can cause disease, even if one is practically a saint in the health nut faith. I personally know a one of those who developed lung cancer(he survived BTW). Non smoker non drinker veggie marathon runner type. Who would have thunk it? One can reduce risk certainly but we can't eliminate it. Leave that mad guff to American babyboomers who think they have a right to live forever and want to force others down their daft path.

Look if you want to live much longer than you would otherwise, start a very low calorie diet high in nutrients as it's the only way that has increased longevity in other animals(outside genetic mods). Now most of us don't follow that diet. Should we tut tut at ourselves for not reducing the future health tax burden? Eh no again.


If a genetic test showed a propensity for heart disease in someone would we even think of restricting care for them or villifying them for being weak if they ate fatty food as some of the antis talk about with smokers? Eh no we wouldn't. We start down that route at our peril, tobacco or not.

Show me any of the stats, broken down into real reasons for such a figure, not woolyheaded ASH backed government conjecture to justify the villification of tobacco. Hey fire off the woolyheaded stuff and we can look at it.

or you could get hit by a bus.

rubadub

Wibbs wrote:

In fact if you take alzheimers where nicotine has a preventative link then you could argue that smokers are lessoning the burden in some sectors.

A bit true, if people were really taking it for medicinal purposes they should take nicotine tablets though. I find it crazy when I hear of doctors prescribing cannabis joints, rather than eating the plant. Most campaigners would not really have a problem with nictoine itself, or its abusers, if they took it orally.

Wibbs wrote:

The fact is we all can contribute to our longevity and choose not too.

Not to the same extent though, many similar activities to tobacco smoking are illegal or unacceptable by people controlling or self-policing "public places" or so you cannot take part in these activities anywhere but your own home, even if legal they could complain to the police who probably could call it "disturbing the peace" or something. Tobacco smokers enjoyed the freedom to smoke in enclosed spaces for years, whereas other legal, unintoxicated, recreational drug users would not be tolerated, even outside.

Wibbs wrote:

One can reduce risk certainly but we can't eliminate it.

A common way to reduce such risk is to make it illegal, from reading many posts in this thread some people would never have started smoking at all, or would stop if it was illegal.

Oul Wan

Hmmm.........yes, well, I think they should have banned 20s and tripled the price of the 10s.

cornbb

rubadub wrote:

A common way to reduce such risk is to make it illegal, from reading many posts in this thread some people would never have started smoking at all, or would stop if it was illegal.

How short sighted can you possibly be? The country is full of scumbags who think nothing of shooting each other or innocent bystanders. The existence of these scumbags and their murderous ways is caused purely by the lucrative market for certain illegal drugs. Yet you condone the criminalisation of a drug that is far more popular and addictive than smack, cocaine, cannabis, etc? If tobacco were made illegal, believe me, I'd still buy it from the guy on the corner. It'd probably be cheaper than what it is now but I for one wouldn't like paying for those asshole's guns.

Wibbs

julep wrote:

or you could get hit by a bus.

Or a truck. Or choke on a fishbone or something.:D

rubadub wrote:

A bit true, if people were really taking it for medicinal purposes they should take nicotine tablets though.

Well patches would be the preferred method of delivery. Nicotine in tablet form is largely a non starter because of dosage release issues.

I find it crazy when I hear of doctors prescribing cannabis joints, rather than eating the plant.

Usually out of convenience and common usage methinks. Anyway it's not that simplistic anyway. Obviously there are chemical changes inherent in combustion that may have a bigger effect, both positive and negative. There is even some research that showed a bigger improvement in MS by smoking rather than eating. Indeed there were some findings that suggested an even bigger improvement with people who habitually smoked resin or leafand tobacco. The theory being that the nicotine in combination with something in the cannabis was increasing the protective effect(possibly a similar effect that was seen in Parkinsons with tobacco alone).

Most campaigners would not really have a problem with nictoine itself, or its abusers, if they took it orally.

Really? They went mad after chewing tobacco in the states. Snuff isn't exactly easy to get hold of either. In any case my contention is that there is no research that shows a link between second hand smoke disease and certainly not increased morbidity. One of the few issues would be among asthmatics where smoke(of any kind) is a trigger. Then again as I've pointed out before, 40 years ago when far more people smoked in far more places(hospitals included) asthma was not even close to the levels it's at now. Hey you could even argue with stats that smoking less now has increased asthma rates. You would be equally wrong but you would be in the same loopy ballpark of some of the antis research. (I personally lost some confidence in even the asthma link when an ex of a friend of mine objected strongly to smoking in her presence. I pretended to light up and watched her convulse with a full on attack and scrabbling dramatically for her inhaler. To this day she's convinced I lit up. Suggestive idiot doesn't come into it.)

Even Dr Doll the originator of the link between smoking and lung cancer and a rabid anti smoker gave little credence to any such link. 99% of such research that shows any link(usually statistically insignificant) uses co-habitees as the subjects. People that share the same background, food, environment and general habits. You cannot filter out the co factors in that scenario. No way, no how. Fact. One piece of research even found that people who owned more than one piece of antique furniture were over half as less prone to suffer from lung cancer regardless of smoking habits. Well Duh, they're likely to be middle class and richer with better access to better food and health management. Read another way you could argue formica furniture gives you cancer.:D

What you largely have in this debate are the usual moaning minnies complaining about inconsequentials and others joining them through guilt and dubious research. I'm not suggesting for a moment that smoking 60 a day is good for you. On the contrary. But, breathing a passing smoke cloud is very very very very low on the list of things you should be worrying about. Indeed if you do worry about it, consider yourself very very very fortunate that this is the extent of your daily concerns.

Gasp..... end of rant.

senordingdong

Wibbs wrote:

That site has it's hype moments that's for sure, but there are good points in there. Joe Jacksons open letter on the subject makes interesting reading http://www.sadireland.com/newpage1.htm
Actually, I know quite a few, including myself. To be precise the implementation of the ban. I prefer the less holier than thou Spanish version of the ban. In any event we Irish are well known for bending over under duress and taking it, with nary a whimper. Moaning yes, actual debate or resistance that's worth a damn, no. Why didn't the vintners not dredge up the countless studies(inc the WHO one) that showed no link between "second hand" smoke and disease.

Would he? How wrong?

Of course not, but all things being equal he/she will have contributed considerably more than a non smoker over the same time period. The vast majority of smokers don't get lung cancer and even if they do it's usually well into their later years. As a primary cancer it's a rare disease in the young, smoker or not.

In any case non smokers get lung cancer too. Considering that, you can contend that the body of smokers who have contributed to the tax fund will more than pay for minority of their number who may succumb to lung cancer. I use the example of lung cancer like yourself as it is the one disease uppermost in the mind when one considers tobacco use. You could argue the same for other diseases too, but the link in most is not exclusively smoking and in some of them the link is more tenuous than the smoke itself. In fact if you take alzheimers where nicotine has a preventative link then you could argue that smokers are lessoning the burden in some sectors. Jeez, from the warnings on the ciggie packets you would swear you'll be free and easy and live to 100 if you don't smoke. Sadly not.

Anyway who is paying for those non smoking leeches who have the gall to get "smoking" diseases like cancer of the lung, esophagus etc ? I dunno some people

Even if you don't take the ciggies tax into account all his other taxes should though. The same for a non smoker. Again we could dredge up the whole fatty, processed food that people increasingly stuff into their bloated faces, the lack of exercise, blah blah blah. The fact is we all can contribute to our longevity and choose not too. Even then other factors, both environmental and genetic can cause disease, even if one is practically a saint in the health nut faith. I personally know a one of those who developed lung cancer(he survived BTW). Non smoker non drinker veggie marathon runner type. Who would have thunk it? One can reduce risk certainly but we can't eliminate it. Leave that mad guff to American babyboomers who think they have a right to live forever and want to force others down their daft path.

Look if you want to live much longer than you would otherwise, start a very low calorie diet high in nutrients as it's the only way that has increased longevity in other animals(outside genetic mods). Now most of us don't follow that diet. Should we tut tut at ourselves for not reducing the future health tax burden? Eh no again.


If a genetic test showed a propensity for heart disease in someone would we even think of restricting care for them or villifying them for being weak if they ate fatty food as some of the antis talk about with smokers? Eh no we wouldn't. We start down that route at our peril, tobacco or not.

Show me any of the stats, broken down into real reasons for such a figure, not woolyheaded ASH backed government conjecture to justify the villification of tobacco. Hey fire off the woolyheaded stuff and we can look at it.

...what he said...

Wibbs

senordingdong wrote:

...what he said...

Ya lazy so and so. You see that's the smokin for ya. Senordingdong was poised at the keyboard but a fit of coughing and breathlessness put paid to that.

rubadub

Originally Posted by rubadub
A common way to reduce such risk is to make it illegal, from reading many posts in this thread some people would never have started smoking at all, or would stop if it was illegal.

cornbb wrote:

How short sighted can you possibly be? The country is full of scumbags who think nothing of shooting each other or innocent bystanders. The existence of these scumbags and their murderous ways is caused purely by the lucrative market for certain illegal drugs. Yet you condone the criminalisation of a drug that is far more popular and addictive than smack, cocaine, cannabis, etc? If tobacco were made illegal, believe me, I'd still buy it from the guy on the corner. It'd probably be cheaper than what it is now but I for one wouldn't like paying for those asshole's guns.

I said it was a common way used to reduce risk, I never said I agreed with it!
At least somebody else here agrees it is more addicitve than heroin or cocaine. I am for the legalization and control of all drugs, whatever they are, partly for the crime associated with them. I do not have a major issue with the taxation of drugs, the main problem is the loss of possible taxation due to the fact drugs are illegal, millions of possible revenue is being paid to our criminals when it should be going to the government. Some are moaning saying smokers only partly pay for hospital visits, well heroin overdose patients are contributing no money via their drug use for hospital visits.

Some people posting seem to only have a problem with the legality of drugs, not the drugs, so it would seem if tobacco was illegal or had been illegal before they tried it, then they never would have been addicitive.

rubadub

Most campaigners would not really have a problem with nictoine itself, or its abusers, if they took it orally.

Wibbs wrote:

Really? They went mad after chewing tobacco in the states. Snuff isn't exactly easy to get hold of either. In any case my contention is that there is no research that shows a link between second hand smoke disease and certainly not increased morbidity.

What was the objection to chewing tobacco? The only one I have heard is the spitting of it, which is disgusting, or just the horrible browning of the teeth. Snuff can be got in proper tobacconists, but many view insuffalation of drugs in a bad light, even though it can be a more efficient delivery method you only see people mainly snort amphetamine & cocaine. Snuff would be included in the activities I previously mentioned that, though legal, are socially unacceptable. I could see myself getting thrown out of a pub if I refused to stop snorting lines of snuff off a table. If I was spitting tobacco, inside or outside the pub, the gardai would be called.
I was really saying people would have no problem with medicinal or even recreational nicotine use, i.e. pharmaceutical nictoine, patches, gum, tablets. I would expect opposition to snuffing and some to chewing

I am not going to get into the passive smoking studies, ad nauseum contradiction all the way. Common sense would lead me to believe it is better to breath in relatively clean air rather than air purposely contaminated with the smoke of burning plant matter.

Even if tobacco smoking was proven to be extremely healthy and good for you it doesnt not mean it should be legal to smoke wherever you want! It is crazy to impose smoke on others. If it was discovered today and shown to be good for you there is no way you would be allowed smoke in work or pubs like you used to. To go back to basics smoking is a fire hazard! why should you allow burning of plant matter on your premises!?, My garden is full of leaves, should I be allowed go into my local to burn them while supping a nice pint, feck the rest of you, stay home if you dont like the smell stinking up your clothes, making you cough, and sting your eyes.

I hope most companies made sure they got a decrease in their insurance premiums after the smoking ban. It would not and should not have to be tolerated. Many smokable recreational drugs are still legal, try going down to your local or sit in work and smoke them to a mild threshold effect just like tobacco was, FFS even when it was legal to smoke tobacco in pubs you would have been barred for smoking other legal drugs..

In those sadireland forums people were boycotting tescos for not wanting employees standing outside in uniforms smoking, well a glass of wine per day IS supposed to be healthy, yet I bet tescos would not want their employees standing outside swigging from a bottle of red passing it round, (only taking a glass each and hence not being pissed.)

WhiteWashMan

i am a smoker and its my right blah blah blah

Backtoblack

I can't belive you're all still posting in this thread...:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:

Dutchology

*scans through what Wibbs writes*... hm, informed, long, sounds right! *pats Wibbs on the back*:D

Dutchology

Backtoblack wrote:

I can't belive you're all still posting in this thread...:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:

we have to give rubadub something to "respond" to!

Wibbs

Dutchology wrote:

hm, informed, long, sounds right!

The latter two make a change for me....:D

Dutchology

Wibbs wrote:

The latter two make a change for me....:D

You see I don't care enough about this thread or the issue at hand to sit down and write that much, so I wait for someone else to do it and just agree I'm so lazy...:rolleyes:

rubadub

Dutchology wrote:

we have to give rubadub something to "respond" to!

LOL! yep, cheers I love a good moan.
I was getting tired of this thread and been told to that my comments had no place here, so I started a different thread and was finally getting some people who were starting to get my points, with some decent fundamental thinking about why people smoke at all. unfortunately somebody who didnt have a clue about what I was talking about binned it. I pm'd him but kept getting bizarre illogical answers about why it was binned, was never given a chance to explain when the thread was there.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055028811

I still would like to hear answers since some were starting to be nice and blunt, instead of rehashing the questions to avoid them.

If using tobacco had been made illegal at the same time as cannabis would you use tobacco now?

cornbb

rubadub wrote:

If using tobacco had been made illegal at the same time as cannabis would you use tobacco now?

Thats not a very logical rhetorical question, as we are talking about 2 drugs which are very different in many ways. But even by that logic, for me, the answer would probably be yes, given that I'm a cannabis user. If tobacco were illegal I'd still buy it. But then my money would then be going to criminal murderers instead of funding the health services or whatever, and I would be made a criminal too :eek:

rubadub

cornbb wrote:

the answer would probably be yes, given that I'm a cannabis user. If tobacco were illegal I'd still buy it.

That is very interesting, you say they very different in many ways yet say you would use them "given" that you are a cannabis user. Could you please elaborate on that. Do you think they go hand in hand?

Or is this just a presumption/reasoning due to the fact most people in Ireland tend to combine them to smoke tobacco/hash joints, thereby making and extremely addictive "combination drug", all the high of the cannabis, all the addiction of the nictoine.

There are plenty of other legal herbs out there that could be used as filler/padding for your joints.

Some people would say "I like the taste of the tobacco", but to me that is just the addiction talking. If it was illegal why would you even start using it as a filler?

The guy who binned my poll was saying "people smoke tobacco because they are addicted", missing the point entirely- why would they have started in the first place!
Most would not touch heroin since it is illegal and addictive, yet the high is reportedly very nice, if made illegal years ago tobacco would be portrayed in the same light, but without the high! WTF would you risk jail & health and spend money on that?

cornbb

rubadub wrote:

That is very interesting, you say they very different in many ways yet say you would use them "given" that you are a cannabis user. Could you please elaborate on that. Do you think they go hand in hand?

Of course they do, smoking dope without tobacco is pretty nasty and smoking tobacco without dope doesn't screw your brain up in fun ways.

extremely addictive "combination drug", all the high of the cannabism, all the addiction of the nictoine.

I take issue with that. While I agree that cannabis can be addictive, I disagree completely with this whole "extremely addictive combination drug" bull****. I've vastly cut down my cannabis consumption in recent years without significant problems or side effects, unfortunately I can't say the same about tobacco. I have friends who smoke plenty of dope (in the form of joints with tobacco), who would never dream of smoking a cigarette, yet don't exhibit symptoms of craving/needing a joint. This suggests to me that the common tobacco addiction is completely independant of the much rarer cannabis addiction.

There are plenty of other legal herbs out there that could be used as filler/padding for your joints.

Yeah yeah, who on earth actually does this? I've tried that, its horrible and not fun at all.

If it was illegal why would you even start using it as a filler?

Illegal does not equate to immoral. I wouldn't murder, rape or rob someone because I believe those things to be immoral. I have no problem in smoking dope, because I do not feel it to be immoral. Ironically, the only immoral thing I can think of associated with dope is that it funds serious criminals, and this is just because it is illegal. By the same logic, if tobacco were illegal, its illegality would not affect my decision to start using it for anything.

Most would not touch heroin since it is illegal and addictive, yet the high is reportedly very nice, if made illegal years ago tobacco would be portrayed in the same light, but without the high! WTF would you risk jail & health and spend money on that?

Heroin is indeed illegal and addictive but thats where the similarity to tobacco ends. When is the last time you heard of a robbery or murder by a smoker desperate to get their fix? Tobacco has always been viewed, until recent years, as a sociable and/or "cool" drug. Heroin breaks up families and destroys lives, and I don't think that that's because its illegal. You cannot seriously compare the effects of heroin to the effects of tobacco :rolleyes:

rubadub

cornbb wrote:

Of course they do, smoking dope without tobacco is pretty nasty

Good cured weed can be very nice on its own, just like some good cured tobacco. Unfortunately well cured weed is hard to come by, if tobacco was illegal then good cured tobacco would be just as hard to come by. People here are smoking contaminated "hash", full of all sorts of crap that dealers put in to boost profits, tobacco would be the same if illegal.
Even if it was nice how would people even discover that? why would they buy it? Just because it tastes nice? You could get similar legal, properly cured herbs. Remember my question is if it had been made illegal at the same time, i.e. well before you were probably born. If somebody raved about heroin smoke tasting nice would you try it? Think how tobacco would be portrayed by the media and government, some people think they have a negative view now!

cornbb wrote:

smoking tobacco without dope doesn't screw your brain up in fun ways.

Exactly, why start?

cornbb wrote:

I take issue with that. While I agree that cannabis can be addictive, I disagree completely with this whole "extremely addictive combination drug" bull****. I've vastly cut down my cannabis consumption in recent years without significant problems or side effects, unfortunately I can't say the same about tobacco.

Exactly the point I am making! it is not the cannabis I am saying is addictive, but when combined with tobacco it forms a "combination drug" my problem with it is that many view the tobacco in the joint as the benign part, simply since it is legal. I know many who "don't smoke cigarettes only joints" yet smoke every single day. Those people who do smoke only cannabis only do so on the odd weekend.

cornbb wrote:

I have friends who smoke plenty of dope (in the form of joints with tobacco), who would never dream of smoking a cigarette, yet don't exhibit symptoms of craving/needing a joint. This suggests to me that the common tobacco addiction is completely independant of the much rarer cannabis addiction.

There is only a single person I know of who would be in the same boat, but he NEVER smoked cigarettes to begin with. All the others I know used to be proper tobacco smokers who turned to joints, while their tobacco intake did decrease their cannabis use skyrocketed, also they ended up putting these miserable bits of hash in their huge tobacco joints, convincing themselves they are only having it for the hash. I also know of people who only smoke tobacco now and then while out drinking, maybe one smoke a month.

cornbb wrote:

Yeah yeah, who on earth actually does this? I've tried that, its horrible and not fun at all.

Yes, who would be raving about the high so much that it would make you want to start? Same could make the exact same point about tobacco, and that is now while it is legal.

cornbb wrote:

Illegal does not equate to immoral.

Fully agreed

cornbb wrote:

I have no problem in smoking dope, because I do not feel it to be immoral.

Same here

cornbb wrote:

By the same logic, if tobacco were illegal, its illegality would not affect my decision to start using it for anything.

That is fair enough, by the same logic its illegality would not affect me from a moral view, but I would never have considered using it. What would affect me is the same sort of press it would have as heroin, that and the fact that it doesnt give a decent high. The morality is not an issue for me, the fact I could go to jail for taking a useless addicitve drug would put me off. What would drive you to want to try it? If heroin or crack had the same poor high I doubt many people would use it either, even if it was legal.
Risk of arrest is low on my reasons for never trying crack or heroin

cornbb wrote:

When is the last time you heard of a robbery or murder by a smoker desperate to get their fix?

Why do you think that is? It is a relatively cheap drug. The propaganda media love a good "heroin addict robs granny" story. If tobacco was illegal and people were robbing grannies and using some of the money to buy smokes you would hear the exact same thing! People are hooked on smokes and would spend money on them rather when other things that could be more worthwhile, just like heroin addicts. A 40 a day habit cost over €100 per week. If some guy is on the dole that is money that could have been spent on his kids instead, just like the heroin addicts money.
Do you really believe that no proceeds from robbery or murder ever goes towards buying tobacco. Of course it does and if it had been illegal for all this time it would be portrayed in the same way as heroin is. A junkie does not use every last penny for drugs. If tobacco was illegal its high addictiveness would probably mean it could command a high price like other highly addictive drugs.

cornbb wrote:

Tobacco has always been viewed, until recent years, as a sociable and/or "cool" drug.

Never understood the "cool" thing, heroin was supposedly viewed the same way in the 60's & 70's lots of rock bands into it. Never really got the cool thing, what other activites are "cool" anyway? drinking?
I hear the media saying "oh its terrible that kids think pete doherty is cool because he is a heroin addict", but I have never heard a person other than the media say it!

cornbb wrote:

Heroin breaks up families and destroys lives, and I don't think that that's because its illegal.

That is a big part of it, the price and jailing, lack of pharmaceutical control. You only hear about the bad side, many heroin addicts live perfectly normal lives and hold down decent jobs, just like many alcoholics. If alcohol was illegal you would think of alcoholics only as winos on the street, just like heroin addicts are pictured as junkies on the street strung out in doorways.
The difference with tobacco addicts is the lack of inebriation/intoxication, but that goes back to one of my main points, WTF would you start using it if it does nothing for you!

Dutchology

:rolleyes: