I don't know how true this is, but I saw a healine on a UK paper, stating that a law is about to be passed in UK, to ban smoking in 2006. I am not quick to accept media healines and I was to busy to stop and read the healine, but as a smoker, if the UK ban smoking I am leaving . I simply do not have the time to plan how I am going to grow/smuggle tobacco.
I have no doubt, if smoking was banned the Cig Smugglers would make a stack of money. The problem is I am not a Cig smuggler so I will a politician from his home for every cig that I do not get to smoke.
I do not care to much whether the stuff is band. I smoke what I want regardless of what some old men with slow minds and voices say. And I will not pay anymore than the crap interest rate I pay now on tobacco to fund wars.
Why do people need cleverer people to tell them how to be born, live and die. Has the word freedom been forgotten for the sake of the millionair getting one over the more intelligent thousandair, because he has better lawyers and more rights hence he wins? Don't get me wrong, as I have bloody rich parents, but I do not care about that. My view is not of wealth, but of wealth deciding freedom.

Smoking won't be banned.
The Govt. make far too much money in fag tax to do something as stupid as that - tobacco tax partly covers the NHS budget for a year, there's no way they're going to drop a cash cow like that.
Smugglers already do make a fortune on smuggled cigarettes.
What does a pack of 20 legal UK bought high end cigarettes cost now? Just shy of a fiver? Smokers must be insane to keep paying that sort of price for cancer.

EDIT They might be thinking of banning smoking in public places - and about time too. I don't think you smokers realise what a gut wrenchingly disgusting stench dirty ashtrays and second hand smoke is. People that smoke stink too - to a non smoker, a smoker smells like a greasy pork sandwich served up in a dirty ashtray. And you pay for the privilege of going to a smelly early death too.
If that ain't natural selection in action, I dunno what is.

I have no problem with people who smoke - outside/away from other people.
You are adult, and if you want to have a great time now and die early, go ahead and do so.
The problem with tobaco is that it affects other people to. That is way i think they should ban tobaco in public places.

Oh puhleze... second hand smoke from a cigarette is no more harmful than second hand smoke from that lousy diner you cooked last night or second hand smoke from the bus your kids took to school this morning. The difference is we all have to eat and use transportation, so it's just the minority (smokers) who are forced to make a change. Somewhere along the line someone decided democracy meant the majority could force its will on minorities. Quite the opposite, democracy means all people, whether in the majority or minority, have equal rights under the law. So I demand the immediate ban of all cooking and driving, particularly in public places. Your second hand smoke is taking years off my life that could be spent enjoying a good cigar. My second hand smoke doesn't bother me.

Back to chemistry class with you. You know that smoke from the dinner doesnt happen to contain over 1,000 carcinogens in vapour form unlike that nasty cancer stick.

The only reason Alcohol + Smoking aren't illegal (as with many other substances / carcinogens) is due to the aforementioned profits our governments are taking in. It's simply rediculous, IMNSHO

Data seems to go against you on this one. When you inhale with a cigarette, it goes through a filter right? When I inhale second-hand smoke, I don't get the same benefit. If second hand smoke was no more harmful than the activities you suggest, then why do smokers have a higher probability of getting lung cancer? That seems to suggest smoking is hazardous to the health. Second hand smoke is the same as the smoke you inhale, but I don't get the filter. You may be inhaling orders of magnitude more, but that still does not counteract that second hand smoke is harmful. If I'm surrounded by smokers all the time, I guarantee that little second hand smoke will build up.

They decided that when they invented democracy. Everybody does have equal rights, but the majority-in-agreement gets to determine policy. That's just the way it works. I'm sure every person in jail for robbery would like to see robbery be legal, but they're in the minority, and that's just not going to happen. The majority sets the rules, and the minority has to live with them. That, or the minority needs to convince enough people so that their position becomes the majority position.

I personally have no problem with people who smoke. I'm not one of the health fanatics that feel it's necessary to warn smokers of this implication or that implication from smoking. People can make their own choices. That, however, is a double-edged sword, because I don't want to pay for a government program that provides habitual smokers with medical care or breathing machines. At this point, everybody knows smoking has been linked to health problems, and if fate's coin flip causes one person to develop severe lung cancer, well, I'm sorry, that sucks, but that individual knew the risks. I hope they can pay for their medical care. That might sound callous, but hey, if I go skydiving and break my legs landing, nobody's going to jump up and say "let me pay your hospital bills!" I guarantee you everyone will say, "It's your own damn fault for skydiving to begin with. Pay the bills yourself."

I do have a problem with "good health" laws. Things like banning smoking in all restaurants. Let each private establishment determine its own policy. Mandatory evacuation of people from homes during a hurricane, flood, or whatever. Hey, if they want to try and "ride it out", go for it. It's my body, and I'll do what I please to/with it, thank you very much. Of course, that extends only so far as it doesn't interfere with someone else's rights, and that's where it gets sticky.

When with a smoker, do they breath the smoke in your face? Even if they did it would have gone through a filter. As for being in a smokey room. The smoker inhales the same smoke you do. The arguement about second hand smokers getting more damaged, is flawed. The main filter is the smoker himself.
I agree that democracy is in practice about the majority making decisions. If this is the case then every fascist government in history has been a democracy. In WW2 Germany the majority made the decisions to start a world war and to gas ethnic minorities. If the government was not backed by the majority, it could never succeed before a revolution. There is no distinction between fascism and democracy. Both serve the majority and hurt the monority.
For people that complain about paying higher tax for smokers operations and want it banned. I could say, ban people from being fat or anorexic and make them pay higher tax for their indulgent lifestyle or make them pay double for a train ticket when they can not fit in one seat. I only mention this as an example as a relative opinion and don't have anything against anyone who is over weight.
Everyone has habits that damage their health. From work stress to drugs, both take a toll and if we calculated the tax we pay to live, in the same way we calculate car insurance, the junkies would get even lower in society, fat people would become the under class and the super fit people who don't enjoy living would become the super class untill they commit suicide in their first mid life crisis because their life is so boring.

Second hand smoke does notonly come from the smoker's lungs. It also comes from the cigarette left burning in the ash stray and the smoke from ashes flicked off the cigarette. Also, the human lung is not an ideal filter. The smoker may get some, maybe even a majority of the toxic substance, but (s)he does not get all of it.

There is, of course, a difference between fascism and democracy. In a democracy, you have the opportunity to change policy. As I said before, those in the minority have the option to convince others that their position is the correct one. Thus, your example of WW2 Germany is not a vlaid comparison. In WW2 Germany, people were killed that openly voiced opposition to the government. That, by its very nature, removes the populace's ability to convince others to change their views. While it is possible for a democracy to turn into a fascist government, they are not the same. There is a significant difference between ignoring arguments against the government, and killing those that speak them.

The Cig left burning in the ashtray does produce produce smoke, but it does not decide to attack the passive smoker. At the end of the night the smoker takes more damage. I never claimed the human lungs make an ideal filter. My point was that compared to the smoker the passive smoker suffers nowhere near as much harm from smoking.
In what way do you have a way to change as an individual in democracy that you don't in fascism? What political achievement do riots create in democracy that keeping silent in fascism does not. The only time the majority listens in Democracy is when the majority is at threat. In the same way a fascist state bows down when it has no more rounds or soldiers left.
Why should a minority have to convince a majority to have the right to do anything? In WW2 Germany people were killed not for voicing their opinions, such a move would have been more than suicide and nobody wanted that. People were killed because they did not benefit the majority. After the fall weimar republic, the Germans were angry at rich Jews, in the same way the british public are angry at foreign workers and assylum seekers, while they are paying high fuel and living expences.
What is the british government doing? It is repressing foreigners and non natives in a more sleek way than nazies would, but it is still the same. The government serving the majority and the majority wanting the best for itself.

as a semi asthmatic, and coming from Australia, where NO ONE (well, almost) smokes in a public place. its the law. And everyone is happy, the smokers still get to gas themselves in thier own homes, while those who choose to get to breath nice air.
The UK needs to grow up. All the argument about how "we don't want a nanny state" is stupid. The smokers have rights to kill themselves, but the non-smokers can choose to avoid it. I was shocked when in a public indoor place that someone was smoking. yech.

titanium_geek

first of all, youre wrong. but assuming youre right, youre still wrong anyway. the smell of smoke gives me a headache and it smells like ass. if you want to smoke in public, stay the hell away from me.

So, you're conceding that the smoke is dangerous. Now the question becomes: how much harm is necessary before it becomes morally wrong? Your choice of action is directly affecting another person's health. Is it ok for me to punch someone (that does not want to be punched), if it only hurts "a little bit?" Then what's to stop me from punching them the same way many times, and cause noticeable damage? What if it's not one person doing the punching, but one out of every 5, 10, 20 people I pass on the street?

You misunderstand my point. In a democracy, the majority can change its opinion. People can speak out against the current policy in an attempt to convince others to change their views. In WW2 Germany, people were executed for speaking out against Hitler. There are plenty of stories of Hitler's secret SS police raiding houses in the middle of the night and families disappearing for exhibiting anti-Hitler behavior. When there is no peaceful recourse to address grievances, then you have a militaristic state that only violent revolt will change. As an example of the democracy-can-change argument: the Vietnam war. The majority of the United States population was behind the war to begin with. Then, as time progressed, and information from dissenting groups spread, public opinion changed. While the administration may have been reluctant to withdraw, eventually policy changed to end the war and bring the troops back. The majority of the population changed its opinion, and thus, changed the government's policy. The minority became the majority, and the "new" majority dictated policy. There was no overthrow of the government. There were protests, and most fell within the letter of the law; the system allows change.

Because, to have an ordered society, people have to agree to be bound to certain restrictions of behavior. As I said before, the people in jail for commiting robbery would love for robbery to be legal. Unfortunately for them, the majority of the individuals in this country do not feel people have a right to rob other people. Thus, it is the responsibility of the minority to convince the majority to allow that activity. If you're suggesting that we should all be able to do what we want, then obviously, that's anarchy. I don't believe anybody really wants that. So, the choices are: do whatever you want (anarchy), do whatever one person/party says (dictatorship, monarchy), or do what most of the people believe (democracy). I figure most people will go for democracy since they believe there is the potential they can impact decision making.

EDIT:
Again, I have no problem with smokers as long as they understand the risks, and understand that I do not smoke, because I do not wish to expose myself to the health risks. I will gladly allow them to smoke all they want in private, enclosed establishments or in their own homes. I respect their desire to smoke, and I expect them to respect my desire to not be exposed to it.

What is the fag tax? Do homosexuals pay more taxes in europe or something? LOL

hi all!

i just graduated this year... i'm a doctor... the medical type... all thru the six years of studying medicine i have seen countless patients whose lives have been destroyed by cigarettes... it probably even looks cool blowing rings in the air or whatever but the end result of all of this is not cool or funny in any way... there is not one good effect cigarettes have on your or my body... be it 1st or 2nd hand... it affects everything from your lungs, heart, blood vessels, blood, skin, b@!!s and worst of all for ladies, their unborn children...

i believe tobacco should be made illegal for the harm it does to the population who would otherwise be healthy... or healthier depending on our level of decline... and a healthier nation is always a good thing right???.... wrong.... the people who make money out of this murderous scam wouldnt blink at the plight of a smoker and continue to entice more to smoke...

Yes tobacco should be illegal... i mean C. sativa is illegal... its use has far less toxic effects compared to tobacco... and it even has some positive effects... scientifically proven and no one can deny this... why is it illegal?? because of its ease of use (including making of cloth, paper, fuel, food, etc... seriously!!) they will not be able to control its distibution and hence they cant make money off of it unless it was illegal...ie by putting people in jail... this is unlike tobacco which requires many stages of processing before consumption... which is where the money making is done...

the strangest thing of all is some of us smokers (yes, i am one) realise this and have tried... are trying to quit... and unless you are a smoker you cant understand how hard it is to quit smoking... it really is addictive... and if i ever took narcotics... its tobacco... you know what the worst thing is??? your breath stinks... and YOU can smell it all the time... its grosse...

sadly it seems we are all puppets in a great scheme of things where those who have acquire more from those who have less... who in turn do it to others... and when will this vicious cycle end??? only we know the answer... and each one must find it for himself/herself... maybe then we can ban cigarettes and i can stop smoking...

but before that happens.... let me spark up one more cigi

seriously kids... smoking is BAD for YOU.