be banned, and made totally illegal.

No, I'd die roflmao

And that ends the dicussion roflmao

I'd rather they didnt.

Yep, it's them or me Serena! :D Anyway before I'm told they are the devil's work I'd just like to point out that in the God created Earth scheme of thinking, he must have given us grapes and tobacco. And before I'm told that we were evil turning grapes into wine, Jesus managed to do that with water in the Bible. Maybe he can give me some help with my home brew. roflmao

:janx:

Would you feel better if we were to ban Alcohol and tobaco? Do you think that those 2 are the real evils of this world?

I personally can see many other things that are much more harmful but are left unquestioned because they are part of our way of living.

Yeah, a bit like the thread starter here roflmao

Why not ban religion instead? The disputes and wars that religion causes kills far more people.

roflmao roflmao roflmao

:tsk:

You're gonna have to tell me off to cos I laughed! roflmao

why not? It's all just a quirk of history as to why those two are legal and various others are illegal. There's plenty of drugs that are illegal which actually cause less harm than the legal drugs.

I don't think they should be banned, but your comment is fair. What concerns me is that there are drugs handed out willy nilly on the NHS that cause more long tern damage than alcohol, fags and legal some illegal drugs. I know in some cases it's a question of the side effects balancing out the illness but GPs do prescribe quite irresponsibly at times. Look at Zyban, Seroxat fo reg.

I don't think they should be banned either in all honesty, but it's interesting reading up on why and how each drug became illegal. And I agree entirely about the prescription meds. Do you know there are very few drugs where the withdrawal symptoms can kill you, and one set of those drugs are barbiturates - which is what they hand out on the NHS?

perhaps a more interesting argument would be, what would the government tax in their place if they were banned?

:shrug:

Money and power are the real reasons for wars. Religions can be used as weapons but not the cause of wars.

Im finding this forum to be an addiction with pretty severe withdrawal symptoms !
;)

It's certainly addictive :yikes:

Prohibition was a Failure

I'd say no, they shouldn't be banned . . .

Can i ask, without trying to start an argument, whether you'd agree that all other drugs should be legalised then? If the prohibition of alcohol was a failure, then surely the prohibition of drugs could be seen in the same way?

No. I think narcotics, for example, are far too addictive and dangerous to be legalised. I personally wouldn't mind tobacco being banned, but's probably not the best approach, since it is such an engrained part of our society. I think the better approach is to do as things have been going there. Namely, trying to restrict it in public areas, to reduce the health threat to others via second-hand smoke, publicising the health risks and taxing it to help subsidise the health-care costs involved.

Alcohol is not a problem for most people and can actually has some health benefits in moderation. There is a proportion of the population who have a problem with abuse of alcohol, though, and that does cause some danger to themselves and others, so it is something that has to be dealt with. I don't think banning it is a good solution, though, as was demonstrated in this country a few decades ago.

I actually think tobacco makes less damage than Alcohol. small doses of tobacco can also be good for health.

The argument works both ways.

I would certainly prefer to be exposed to a bit of passive smoking than a drunk behind a driving wheel or worse the exhaust pipe of the driver.

What about car/transport fumes? it is not only our generation but the future ones and the planet as a whole who will suffer from it. But hey who wants to get rid of his car? Are our governments and car industries able to survive without our petrol/CC/road etc..taxes?

So let's not fool ourselves with the danger of lightening a cigarette.

Tenez, I was not trying to argue that tobacco was worse than alcohol. I said that "I personally wouldn't mind tobacco being banned, but . . . " I fully understand that this is an easy thing to say for someone who doesn't smoke. Just like it would be easy for someone who doesn't drink alcohol to suggest it should be banned.

I do question your statement about "small doses of tobacco can also be good for health", though. I haven't heard that before. I took a quick Google search, though, and there is a lot of information from various sources about the health benefits of alcohol.

A similar search about tobacco revealed a bunch of sources for the health benefits of tobacco control or tobacco tax increases, along with a few references to one book by a Dr. William Douglass about actual health benefits of tobacco itself.

I remain unconvinced on that one.

I agree. You can't complain about passive smoking if you then walk down Oxford Street in the summer. A scientist said that the pollution was so bad, it was the equivalent of having smoked 30 fags in a day in the lungs of a person who spent about an hour there or something like that. Of course I agree that smoking is bad, even though I do it myself. And I agree that passive smoking is bad for you too - of course it is. But it's both pointless and hypocrtical to target passive smoking as the main cause of lung disease and yet do sod all about traffic fumes and other pollutant emissions. What's the point of avoiding cigarette smoke if you are going to inhale more or just enough carbon monoxide to do damage walking down the road? Sort out the lot of don't bother IMO. And I ahte it when these righteous people pick on you for having a fag outside and yet drive a gas guzzling vehicle or a Chelsea bloody Tractor! And drive at every opportunity, like a 10 min walk to a shop or to take their lazy kids to school! Send them roudn here and I'll put them straight! roflmao

I'm not aware of any health benefits of tobacco. Maybe like anything used in moderation as a relaxant, it can be beneficial as a de-stresser but that would be about it. Did the American Indians say it had health benefits? :shrug:

I understand that red wine is good as long as you drink it daily and only the one glass, but even that is debateable. I've heard a lot of stories in the UK about peopel who've lived until their 90s and swear that it's cos they drank whiskey every single day without fail. There was even a goldfish who lived for 20 odd years and the owner put whisky in it's tank every day. I bet it was a happy fish. roflmao

I'm sorry, SB, but that's one of the worst arguments I've ever read. Sure, it's important to do something about air pollution, too. But to suggest that we should not address one problem, if we're not addressing every problem just doesn't make sense.

Think about it. You said:

Why not? That makes about as much sense as if I said you can't complain about pesticide residue in food if you then go have a cheeseburger at McDonald's. Both can be bad for you, right? If everyone waited until they were living their lives in perfect harmony with nature and everything that's right, before speaking up on an issue, would that make things better? :blink:

yes but it is difficult to deny that smoking gets all the bad press though it is in my view a lesser evil that the burning of shell fuel.

Nicotine has a stimulating effect...almost like caffeine. The old indians saw some benefits in the plant. For those being in the trenches in WWI, it was very beneficial. The problem is the addictive side of nicotine. But Alcohol is addictive too. Small doses may be beneficial for your coronary system but is almost always bad for your brain cells (not to be neglected).

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/HealthIss...1103162109.html

I've never read about Nicotine having a stimulating effect. I was under the illusion that the only effect nicotine had that it was addictive. No offence tenez but anything about nicotine having a stimulating effect and being beneficial in small doses sounds like a complete urban myth to me. :shrug:

the article contradicts itself, don't you think?

Not at all. The basic points are:

Those don't seem at all contradictory. Was there something else in there that you thought was?

Sorry I don't buy that. I see little point in tackling an issue the effects of which are a minor contributor to the main problem. I've no objection to tackling the lot of course. But the government won't because as usual they pick on the soft target - a few smokers and bars that allow it rather than big businesses like airlines etc. If smoking is barre din public places, all that will happen is that people who frequent pubs and don't smoke will be better off. But that's a minority and everyone is forced to inhale other polutants passively - they really cannot be avoided, whereas a pub/bar can. Living near an airport, and a busy city, I know of loads of people who've developed breathing problems and never smoke or go near cigarrette smoke. It's a big problem among kids at the moment so scientific findings and health reports are saying and the DOH is even naming outdoor pollution rather than cigarettes as the main cause. So they need to focus on that moreso.

Yes, shell fuel is going to have a mich more adverse effect on us than passively smoking cigarettes. I don't get why some people keep going on about passive smoking as you can't smoke anywhere public anyway, except some pubs and then you can choose not to go there. It's people living with smokers that are most at risk and you cant; stop people smoking in their own homes. In fact they will smoke more in their homes if they cant; smoke elsehwere.

Yes alcohol destroys brain cells.

Well, as one who is quite allergic to tobacco smoke, I can say that I am very happy that it has been banned from most public places now, where I live. When I'm around a smoker, I end up with congestion, sinus headaches, sneezing, etc. I don't get that from just walking down the street. I quite like the fact that I can now go to any restaurant in town and enjoy a nice, smoke-free dinner. (Smoking was banned from all restaurants as of 1 January this year. :)

:tsk:

Sorry, but that one is a myth. But heavy drinking does have adverse brain effects.

Fair enough. :) It's been banned in most restaurants for years here too, well not forcibly banned but most places dont; allow it or have a seperate room for smoking. Mayeb where you live the air is cleaner I dont; know, but I've visited central London before and come back with a black filth on my skin despite cleaning my face before I set off. Thats' purely dirty air and it's worse where there is heavy traffic. My mum cant; visit this area as she is asthmatic and gets really poorly if she's down here.People may not notice the immediate effects of street pollution but they are accumulative and can cause lung problems later in life. They are saying over here that there is an increase of asthma and other lung problems among kids and that's beign put down to pollution. Loads of kids have asthma, but when I was a kid it was very rare indeed.

Well yes, I meant if you abused it. My firend is living proof that it does affect your brain! :D Is it totally harmless on the brain in moderation then?

I think some of that is due to the fact that a lot more kids are diagnosed with asthma than when we were kids. (Or perhaps, to make it more clear, I should say that fewer cases go undiagnosed.) That said, I do believe that air pollution is responsible for an increase in the incidence of asthma, particularly in urban areas.

Well, there are conflicting studies (as with most things that have been studied by enough different people), but most suggest that moderate drinking has at worst only a very minimal negative effect or perhaps even a beneficial effect on the brain.