Should tobacco products be banned?

[newman]

You're being inconsistant and contradictory.

But with foods, we need to eat. And your absolutely right, fatty foods etc are a risk. Therefore it'simportant for governmnets to strictly monitor food preparation and the chemicals placed in the food.

If smoking must be banned- NOT merely regulated (as you say) because it shortens life, then so too must ALL fatty food. Humans can live on lentils and vegetable.

Sunbathing. That's a problem with society. That's why society needs to be de-programized towards not being sex robots and whaetver. And not just thinking sex sex sex the whole bloody freakin time!

You're missing the point. If smoking must be banned (as you say) because it MAY (or may not-depending on the person) cause cancer, then so too should sun bathing.

Insufficient sleep and warm clothes in winter won't kill you just like that.

Nor does tobacco. So if you are prepared to ban one, why not ban the other for the same reason?

Alcohol...now government needs to STRICTLY regulate the buying capacity for individuals.

It does. Not only with alcohol but with tobacco too.

But again you miss the point. You advocate 'regulating' booze (which alters the mind causing violence and dangerous driving etc) but 'banning' tobacco. Why the inconsistancy and where are your priorities?

  With technology, it is possible to regulate how much alcohol one can buy.

'Regulate', 'monitor', 'control'..........nazism/communism pure and simple.

Alcohol brings me to an important note. Alcohol is a terrible thing! It not only buggers up people's health, famly life, but it also kills. It basically upsets society. Bad family life as result of alcohol misuse will deeply challenge the children etc etc etc. Another thing, alcohol does nothing beneficial.

Yet you only advocate regulation and not a total ban as you do with tobacco. Why the hypocracy?

[Boeregeneraal]

You're being inconsistant and contradictory.

But with foods, we need to eat. And your absolutely right, fatty foods etc are a risk. Therefore it'simportant for governmnets to strictly monitor food preparation and the chemicals placed in the food.

If smoking must be banned- NOT merely regulated (as you say) because it shortens life, then so too must ALL fatty food. Humans can live on lentils and vegetable.

Sunbathing. That's a problem with society. That's why society needs to be de-programized towards not being sex robots and whaetver. And not just thinking sex sex sex the whole bloody freakin time!

You're missing the point. If smoking must be banned (as you say) because it MAY (or may not-depending on the person) cause cancer, then so too should sun bathing.

Insufficient sleep and warm clothes in winter won't kill you just like that.

Nor does tobacco. So if you are prepared to ban one, why not ban the other for the same reason?

Alcohol...now government needs to STRICTLY regulate the buying capacity for individuals.

It does. Not only with alcohol but with tobacco too.

But again you miss the point. You advocate 'regulating' booze (which alters the mind causing violence and dangerous driving etc) but 'banning' tobacco. Why the inconsistancy and where are your priorities?

  With technology, it is possible to regulate how much alcohol one can buy.

'Regulate', 'monitor', 'control'..........nazism/communism pure and simple.

Alcohol brings me to an important note. Alcohol is a terrible thing! It not only buggers up people's health, famly life, but it also kills. It basically upsets society. Bad family life as result of alcohol misuse will deeply challenge the children etc etc etc. Another thing, alcohol does nothing beneficial.

Yet you only advocate regulation and not a total ban as you do with tobacco. Why the hypocracy?

,Alcohol has been with mankind since...since always, basically. You need to take into account alcohol such as wine (which has religious purposes), but small amounts of alcohol has health benefits. Besides, controlled alcohol will not kill you, and does not permanantly bugger up your body.

Smoking does! It carries no health advantages whatsoever. Evry smoke buggers up your body. Notice how if you smoked 7 years efore pregnancy, your baby can suffer health risks, and with alcohol this is not the case.

Yes, not all smokers get cancer. BUT it buggers up your immune and health systems, compromising one's system to fight diseases etc.

So should we debann drugs?Should we lift bann's on say asbestos? Should governmnets cease their involvement in preventing dangerous products containing harmfull ingredients? Should governments stop ALL imports from China which have been banned from entry due to health hazards (personally id say bann ALL products from china).

So we can just go and build heavilly polluting industries right next to suburbs, nurseries and hospitals?

Call it communism/fascism, i call it seeing to it that MY people are not being murdered!

[Dr. Dan]

Newman understand...ciggies destroy lives, it's murder! It does one no good!

I just cn't stand seeing people murder themselves...and paying for it!

How can a RIGHTEOUS government allow it's people to commit mass suicide?! How can a righteous government allow people to come into their society, and give their people pure poison?!

We are G-D's temples (our bodies), and now we go and pollute His temples. It's suicide-whether you like it or not! I don't need to talk about what the Torah says about suicide!

Ciggies do not destroy lives. People do!
Ciggies do not cause mass suicide they just shorten most lives.
In a Jewish nation, there shoudln't be an outright ban right away on ciggies if it is determined that it is a type of suicide.  On the other hand, more and more restrictions and mass education needs to take place to make ciggies look like the most terrible thing anyone can ever use. At that point, it will be then and only then that a ban won't be needed bcause nobody will ever desire to smoke a ciggy ever!

[newman]

You're being inconsistant and contradictory.

But with foods, we need to eat. And your absolutely right, fatty foods etc are a risk. Therefore it'simportant for governmnets to strictly monitor food preparation and the chemicals placed in the food.

If smoking must be banned- NOT merely regulated (as you say) because it shortens life, then so too must ALL fatty food. Humans can live on lentils and vegetable.

Sunbathing. That's a problem with society. That's why society needs to be de-programized towards not being sex robots and whaetver. And not just thinking sex sex sex the whole bloody freakin time!

You're missing the point. If smoking must be banned (as you say) because it MAY (or may not-depending on the person) cause cancer, then so too should sun bathing.

Insufficient sleep and warm clothes in winter won't kill you just like that.

Nor does tobacco. So if you are prepared to ban one, why not ban the other for the same reason?

Alcohol...now government needs to STRICTLY regulate the buying capacity for individuals.

It does. Not only with alcohol but with tobacco too.

But again you miss the point. You advocate 'regulating' booze (which alters the mind causing violence and dangerous driving etc) but 'banning' tobacco. Why the inconsistancy and where are your priorities?

  With technology, it is possible to regulate how much alcohol one can buy.

'Regulate', 'monitor', 'control'..........nazism/communism pure and simple.

Alcohol brings me to an important note. Alcohol is a terrible thing! It not only buggers up people's health, famly life, but it also kills. It basically upsets society. Bad family life as result of alcohol misuse will deeply challenge the children etc etc etc. Another thing, alcohol does nothing beneficial.

Yet you only advocate regulation and not a total ban as you do with tobacco. Why the hypocracy?

Alcohol has been with mankind since...since always, basically.

So has tobacco. Ask Amerindians......who used tobacco and and had hardly any cancer.

You need to take into account alcohol such as wine (which has religious purposes), but small amounts of alcohol has health benefits. Besides, controlled alcohol will not kill you, and does not permanantly bugger up your bodySmoking does!.

That is not proven. My grandfather smoked heavily for over 40 years and died at age 93 from NOTHING TO DO WITH tobacco. Please explain.

It carries no health advantages whatsoever. Evry smoke buggers up your body.

Not true. Nicotein has been shown to be the best natural anti-depressent thay've got. Superior to anti-depressant drugs, in fact. Depression is a huge killer in the west, so nicotein is good in that regard.

Notice how if you smoked 7 years efore pregnancy, your baby can suffer health risks

That does not apply to men and infertile women and women past child bearing age so it's a non-argument for banning.
 

and with alcohol this is not the case.

Have you never heard of feotal alcohol syndrome? It's far worse than any smoking related problems a baby can suffer.So why ban one and not the other?

Yes, not all smokers get cancer. BUT it buggers up your immune and health systems, compromising one's system to fight diseases etc.

So does alcohol and a diet lacking vitamin C. So why ban one and not the others?

So should we debann drugs?

Drugs were NEVER a mainstream product. There is no comparison.

Should we lift bann's on say asbestos? Should governmnets cease their involvement in preventing dangerous products containing harmfull ingredients? Should governments stop ALL imports from China which have been banned from entry due to health hazards (personally id say bann ALL products from china).

So we can just go and build heavilly polluting industries right next to suburbs, nurseries and hospitals?

Those are not valid arguments, boer as you well know.

Harmfull ingredients, chemicals and factory pollution are not imbibed by people of their free will and consent. Tobacco, fatty food, booze and other vices are. That is why we outlaw the first and allow the second (with some regulation)

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

------The harm principle is articulated most clearly in John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

Call it communism/fascism, i call it seeing to it that MY people are not being murdered!

Fine. Murder is already banned (and it still occurs, BTW).

The volluntary imbibing by adults of tobacco, alcohol, saturated fat and other things by their own hand and consent is NOT 'murder'. Nor is it 'suicide' by any legal definition in any nation on earth.

[Dr. Dan]

You're being inconsistant and contradictory.

But with foods, we need to eat. And your absolutely right, fatty foods etc are a risk. Therefore it'simportant for governmnets to strictly monitor food preparation and the chemicals placed in the food.

If smoking must be banned- NOT merely regulated (as you say) because it shortens life, then so too must ALL fatty food. Humans can live on lentils and vegetable.

Sunbathing. That's a problem with society. That's why society needs to be de-programized towards not being sex robots and whaetver. And not just thinking sex sex sex the whole bloody freakin time!

You're missing the point. If smoking must be banned (as you say) because it MAY (or may not-depending on the person) cause cancer, then so too should sun bathing.

Insufficient sleep and warm clothes in winter won't kill you just like that.

Nor does tobacco. So if you are prepared to ban one, why not ban the other for the same reason?

Alcohol...now government needs to STRICTLY regulate the buying capacity for individuals.

It does. Not only with alcohol but with tobacco too.

But again you miss the point. You advocate 'regulating' booze (which alters the mind causing violence and dangerous driving etc) but 'banning' tobacco. Why the inconsistancy and where are your priorities?

  With technology, it is possible to regulate how much alcohol one can buy.

'Regulate', 'monitor', 'control'..........nazism/communism pure and simple.

Alcohol brings me to an important note. Alcohol is a terrible thing! It not only buggers up people's health, famly life, but it also kills. It basically upsets society. Bad family life as result of alcohol misuse will deeply challenge the children etc etc etc. Another thing, alcohol does nothing beneficial.

Yet you only advocate regulation and not a total ban as you do with tobacco. Why the hypocracy?

Alcohol has been with mankind since...since always, basically.

So has tobacco. Ask Amerindians......who used tobacco and and had hardly any cancer.

You need to take into account alcohol such as wine (which has religious purposes), but small amounts of alcohol has health benefits. Besides, controlled alcohol will not kill you, and does not permanantly bugger up your bodySmoking does!.

That is not proven. My grandfather smoked heavily for over 40 years and died at age 93 from NOTHING TO DO WITH tobacco. Please explain.

It carries no health advantages whatsoever. Evry smoke buggers up your body.

Not true. Nicotein has been shown to be the best natural anti-depressent thay've got. Superior to anti-depressant drugs, in fact. Depression is a huge killer in the west, so nicotein is good in that regard.

Notice how if you smoked 7 years efore pregnancy, your baby can suffer health risks

That does not apply to men and infertile women and women past child bearing age so it's a non-argument for banning.
 

and with alcohol this is not the case.

Have you never heard of feotal alcohol syndrome? It's far worse than any smoking related problems a baby can suffer.So why ban one and not the other?

Yes, not all smokers get cancer. BUT it buggers up your immune and health systems, compromising one's system to fight diseases etc.

So does alcohol and a diet lacking vitamin C. So why ban one and not the others?

So should we debann drugs?

Drugs were NEVER a mainstream product. There is no comparison.

Should we lift bann's on say asbestos? Should governmnets cease their involvement in preventing dangerous products containing harmfull ingredients? Should governments stop ALL imports from China which have been banned from entry due to health hazards (personally id say bann ALL products from china).

So we can just go and build heavilly polluting industries right next to suburbs, nurseries and hospitals?

Those are not valid arguments, boer as you well know.

Harmfull ingredients, chemicals and factory pollution are not imbibed by people of their free will and consent. Tobacco, fatty food, booze and other vices are. That is why we outlaw the first and allow the second (with some regulation)

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

------The harm principle is articulated most clearly in John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

Call it communism/fascism, i call it seeing to it that MY people are not being murdered!

Fine. Murder is already banned (and it still occurs, BTW).

The volluntary imbibing by adults of tobacco, alcohol, saturated fat and other things by their own hand and consent is NOT 'murder'. Nor is it 'suicide' by any legal definition in any nation on earth.

Some drive cars with their whole  lives without wearing any seat belts!!

"Oh but Oh!!! explain how my grandpa lived for 99 years without wearing seat belts!!! Oh Oh!!  Therefore, I will not wear seatbelts whenever I drive!"

Newman, that's a terrible argument to say that smoking doesn't cause cancer!!!

I will state a fact:  Smoking is a HIGH RISK FACTOR in causing cancer.

Do you know the difference between a Risk Factor and a Cause?

Not wearing seatbelts will not cause death when driving.  However, it is a very high risk factor of death in a car accident when one chooses not to wear a seat belt.

Hear's another risk factor:

It is a very high risk factor if people listen to Ovadia Yosef that giving land to the arabs will save Jewish lives, that in fact more Jews will die.  However, Ovadia Yosef doesn't kill Jews. 

Got it? Maspeek?

[newman]

Fine.

'High risk' I can live with. 'x causes y' I will not.

My point being that nobody in church or government may interfere in peoples personal activities based on their assessment of high risk or other concerns unless it effects others.

[Dr. Dan]

Here's another difference between risk factor and cause:

Foods with a high content of fat eaten is a high risk factor for heart disease.
However, foods high in fat do not directly cause someone to die from heart disease.

You want to roll the dice and smoke 2 packs a day for the rest of your life?  Fine
You want to roll the dice and not wear your seatbelt while you drive? Fine (just dont' get pulled over)
You want to roll the dice and have sex with strange women without wearing protection?  hey, just stay away from my girls.
You want to eat McDonalds all day long everyday?  MMM hmmm

Now illegal drugs like Cocain, Heroin? they actually directly cause lots and lots of problems.

Alcohol?  If you have too much, it is a high risk factor for liver disease.
However, a decent amount is actually beneficial for the health.

A little amount of cigarettes (which contains TAR -not tobacco-) has no benefit and can be very addictive.

(remember I'm only referring to cigarettes; not cigars, pipes, hookas...although too much of that isn't healthy either).

[Dr. Dan]

Fine.

'High risk' I can live with. 'x causes y' I will not.

My point being that nobody in church or government may interfere in peoples personal activities based on their assessment of high risk or other concerns unless it effects others.

Applaud!! This should be everyone's final answer on this post!

However, I will follow up with another question:

What if any high risk behavior one does, doesn't affect anyone directly.  However, causes a crisis in the health field?

Like food that a lot of Black people and others like to eat leading to an epidemic of diabetes and heart disease causing a crisis in the health field?  Do we make McDonalds illegal?

My answer:

We make a rule of changing the content of certain of known fats to be non existent
We make a rule that the calories and fat content to be published in every known food in every restaurant menu.
We educate about healthy and unhealthy diet.
We change our healthcare insurance rules like the way Huckabee was proposing, as an example.

[newman]

ScienceDaily (Apr. 5, 2007) — While nicotine is highly addictive, researchers have also shown the drug to enhance learning and memory--a property that has launched efforts to develop nicotine-like drugs to treat cognitive deficits in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, schizophrenia, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

It's also an excellent natural anti-depressant. With record suicides from depression it should be encouraged.

As for mucking up the health system, nicotine tax more than offsets extra health costs. Plus if people die 5 to 10 years early, they save a fortune in Social Security and other non-tobacco, old-age related health costs.

Smokers are financial benefactors to their countries and non-smokers sponge off them without paying their way.

[Dr. Dan]

ScienceDaily (Apr. 5, 2007) — While nicotine is highly addictive, researchers have also shown the drug to enhance learning and memory--a property that has launched efforts to develop nicotine-like drugs to treat cognitive deficits in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, schizophrenia, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

It's also an excellent natural anti-depressant. With record suicides from depression it should be encouraged.

As for mucking up the health system, nicotine tax more than offsets extra health costs. Plus if people die 5 to 10 years early, they save a fortune in Social Security and other non-tobacco, old-age related health costs.

Smokers are financial benefactors to their countries and non-smokers sponge off them without paying their way.

nicotine doesn't cause cancer.  We have nicotinic receptors in our brains which are natural receptors.

It's the tar and the hydrocarbons in the cigarette which are a high risk factor for cancer.

Nicotine in the cigarettes make it more addictive to smoke.
Tobacco, per say, isn't necessarily bad for you either.

However, it's the TAR!

[Electra]

Banning ANYTHING that does not alter the mind is nazi and facist. This is a liberal/leftist ideology........."we know what's best for eveybody".

Protein cooked at high temperature (meat over flames) is proven to cause cancer. Do we ban BBQs?

Fats cause heart disease. Do we ban lamb chops?

The formaldahyde in dish detergent causes cancer. Wanna ban that, too?

By all means outlaw smoking in enclosed public spaces as it may effect non-consenting others, but banning a legal product enjoyed by consenting adults for several centuries "for their own good" is nazi, facist and DEMOCRAT to the core.

Yes, I concur.

Its like this obsession with creating a nanny state - why think at all when libs and leftists can do that for us as well. Thinking generates non-liberal ideas.

[newman]

Banning ANYTHING that does not alter the mind is nazi and facist. This is a liberal/leftist ideology........."we know what's best for eveybody".

Protein cooked at high temperature (meat over flames) is proven to cause cancer. Do we ban BBQs?

Fats cause heart disease. Do we ban lamb chops?

The formaldahyde in dish detergent causes cancer. Wanna ban that, too?

By all means outlaw smoking in enclosed public spaces as it may effect non-consenting others, but banning a legal product enjoyed by consenting adults for several centuries "for their own good" is nazi, facist and DEMOCRAT to the core.

Yes, I concur.

Its like this obsession with creating a nanny state - why think at all when libs and leftists can do that for us as well. Thinking generates non-liberal ideas.

Sometimes even conservatives forget they're conservatives and have an attack of liberal 'I-know-what's-best-for-everybody' syndrome.