Good. It’s not the governments place to ban people from making unhealty decisions when they don’t affect others.


Right, so when they develop health complications due to smoking, they get lowest priority care after everyone else has been treated, right?


By that logic you should also get a lower priroty if you injure yourself during any risky recrational activity.

Like, if you’re injury yourself doing something stupid for “fun” … like, I don’t know, playing rugby?

Apprently in your world healthcare is only for people that get sick by totally random chance.


Actually its the world you suggested, I’m just taking the logical next steps.

FfaerieOxide avatar

I’m just taking the logical next steps.

Giving smokers refunds on their NHS taxes because they die before the really expensive geriatric care kicks in, unlike greedy non-smokers?


In a country with universal healthcare this is simply not true. Smoking increases your risk of many health problems, many of them with very expensive long term treatments. That money could be better spent on increasing access to other aspects of healthcare for everyone.

FfaerieOxide avatar

many of them with very expensive long term treatments.

Smokers die before spending anywhere near as much as non-smokers' old age care.


That’s what taxes are for. Tax the sh*t out of cigarettes to account for the increased public health spending. Banning a substance is not the only, neither the best, solution to addiction.


How far does this go though… Should we still be able to use asbestos in literally everything? Why not just tax it?

Part of the responsibility of the government is to protect the health of its population, particularly from industries that profit from leeching funding from the public.


Well, asbestos are not banned and they are actually pretty toughly regulated. So maybe find a better analogy.



EPA also banned new uses of asbestos which prevent new asbestos products from entering the marketplace after August 25, 1989


I’m sorry my response came out pedantic, it was not my intention. But I stand by my comment. Asbestos hasn’t been fully banned in USA.

Notice how much work the “new uses” is doing in that sentence.

Some articles on it:

Even though asbestos is known to cause deadly diseases, the U.S. still allows companies to import hundreds of tons of the raw mineral. It is primarily used by two chemical manufacturers, OxyChem and Olin Corp., in the production of chlorine

The EPA has missed some legislative deadlines to enact the ban but says it will finalize the regulation by October.

(Deadline they missed, again)…/asbestos-ban-poisoning-workers-f…


Asbestos hasn’t been fully banned in USA.

Right, but are we assuming that a ban on nicotine would ban all commercial uses of it, or just the sale of it as a consumable?

Nicotine has plenty of non-consumable applications as well such as its capabilities as a pesticide.

used by two chemical manufacturers, OxyChem and Olin Corp., in the production of chlorine

Yes, as a reagent that doesn’t come in contact with the general public. They aren’t selling asbestos, they’re selling a byproduct of one of its chemical reactions.


I yield. Thanks for the information!


Haha, no reason to turn it into a contest or anything. Just two people exchanging different perspectives for educational purposes. Though I do commend you for your mental plasticity. Not many people possess the mental flexibility to change their opinions based on newly introduced information anymore. Cheers.


Just make sure you apply this consistently and you also ban all other non essential recreational activities that have an higher than average risk of injury.

Just think of all the money the healthcare system could save if you simply banned fun.


I am not necessarily for a ban, but pointing out that it’s not a decision that doesn’t affect others.

I personally believe in harm reduction. Alcohol? drugs? Smoking? Sex work?

Focus on reducing harm and the negative impacts become much less.


The effect on others is no more relevant than those of a myriard of other recreational activity and certainly doesn’t justify a flat ban.


So first it doesn’t affect others, now it does but it doesn’t matter? The effect on others is cancer, friend. Not to mention it stinks. Smoking is “fun”, according to you? Yeah, calling bullshit. At best, you’re a troll. At worst…

FfaerieOxide avatar

Smoking is “fun”, according to you? Yeah, calling bullshit.

Look who's never smoked and fancies themself an opinion.

Smoking feels incredible.


National will be happy that the tobacco industry will retain robust profits.
Nicotine is 10 times more addictive than heroin or cocaine and 6 to 8 times more addictive than alcohol.

Once again, thank your stupid uncle for voting for National.


No one sucks a cock for a few cigarettes. Your claims are ridiculous nonsense. Nicotine is harmful, cigarettes are terrible and difficult to quit, but they are not 10 times more addictive than heroin, christ.

FfaerieOxide avatar

No one sucks a cock for a few cigarettes.

I bet no one would suck cock for crack if they carried it at the Circle K and you could find crack butts in ashtrays.


How addictive it is doesn’t translate as to how harmful it can be to your psyche and/or how bad the withdrawal effects are, which is what translates into people doing crazy shit for heroin, for example.

It is also ignoring how much easier you can get nicotine, compared to heroin.

This is an incredibly short sighted comment.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • DreamBathrooms
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • GTA5RPClips
  • InstantRegret
  • ngwrru68w68
  • rosin
  • kavyap
  • hgfsjryuu7
  • ethstaker
  • Durango
  • Backrooms
  • anitta
  • osvaldo12
  • mdbf
  • cubers
  • everett
  • khanakhh
  • tacticalgear
  • tester
  • modclub
  • cisconetworking
  • Leos
  • normalnudes
  • provamag3
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines