Hey Veeky Forums

Smoking isn't harmful, and global warming isn't happening. Trust us.

oh is it really just one guy?
poor guy

yea i know what you mean it would be a huge slap in the face if it were wrong but i think the whole point of it is
when youre sitting in a hospital bed with an oxygen tank taking your last breathes at the age of 50 youll wish you never picked up that cigarette. But youre right sometimes being so pushy is counterproductive in these types of situations.

I have watched a friend die from emphysema. It's really gnarly. Not a nice way to go.

>いす すもく フトウ ブルンつ の グズ ふぉ ユー?
>ユー ラフ ユー ルズ
Google Translate gave me this:

Chair Sumoku wharf Brunn one of procrastinator follower YOU ? YOU rough Yu Luz

I don't really understand what all the backlash is about. Posting relevant studies, analysis, and data that tries to refute some of the more popular ideas surrounding smoking hardly qualifies, to me at least, as having ones head up their ass. In particular, the rigid, almost evangelical and unquestionable truths of smoking causing a slew of diseases, coupled with the most popular numbers and studies regularly cited by anti-smoking figures regarding smoking both strike me as misinformed or crafted by dishonest scientific research. One of the biggest examples is talked about here:
members.iinet.net.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html

There are a ton of links that, while appearing biased, nonetheless raise interesting points. I will try and find time to post them when it's not so late at night, but they come across as solid rebuttals of the information people usually refer to when pointing out the supposed dangers of smoking. In some cases the data doesn't even seem to reflect what the groups are communicating to the public regarding smoking. To quickly summarize:

-the most prominent studies associated with smoking increasing ones risk in diseases come across as desperately crafted to invoke the results the researchers wanted.
-major health groups/organizations have been picked apart for not providing the full story behind their research or over exaggerating their findings. One of the biggest problems surrounding this was the relative risk ratio; according to some people it's no less than 2, to others who are more prone to pointing out the dangers of smoking, it's far smaller.
-secondhand smoke has an even bigger problem for much of the same reasons.

I smoke only when I am drunk. Will I get cancer?

Reported for public endangerment.

Well those last 10 or 15 years are when the medical and pharmaceutical industries make all their money and drain everything you've worked for in life away.
Of course they want you to live longer even if it's going to be shit existence of eating $1000 worth of pills a month.
It's not healthy, we get it.
Neither is promiscuous homo sex and stress. Getting the kind of job everyone wants sitting at a desk all day will kill you early too.
The biggest lie is that smokers and fatties cost society more when the opposite is true. The longer you live the more of a burden you are, the longer people live the more the worlds population problems are increased.
Some guy getting terminal lung cancer at 70 doesn't make them money.

You will get cancer form something else or die of heart disease.
You can shift the pieces around but the pie chart of ways to die is always 100%.

Nah it's like this: that smoking is unhealthy and leads to lung problems is a no brainer. It's a fact so obvious that for you to spend so much effort looking for flaws in it, well it speaks volumes about your state of mind. I mean, if that's really where you're coming from, then I consider it a waste of time to even address any of your points. I encourage you to reevaluate where you want to go with your life.

何それ?

Don't bother. Veeky Forums says smoking isn't bad for you for two reasons. Either because they smoke themselves and have too much of an ego to accept that they are doing something stupid or because they are just an edgy contrarian kid.

That's a nice box you've put people in. How about you either discuss the evidence or shut up.

>he takes obvious b8 memes seriously

Some peoplee, myself included, actually have their asthma symptoms alleviated from cigarette smoke.

I used to suffer from ridiculous asthma and sleep apnea, especially during the cold seasons. Doctor prescribed me antihistamines, barely helped. Gave me an inhaler, barely helped.

I started smoking when my mother died, and over the years I've noticed that when I have an attack, stepping outside and having a cigarette causes the symptoms to fade off within

I'm arguing that the "evidence" linking smoking to disease is painfully flawed. If you took one look at the link you'd come to realize that too. Richard Doll was covering up for Agent Orange, Asbestos and a ton of other industries.

To simply sit here and say "it's still bad and if you can't accept it that's your problem" is like being a global warming alarmist; none of their predictions ultimately had any weight either.

This thread has a guy who debunks every popular myth about how smoking harms health.

longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/

People have been dismissing people with ties to the tobacco companies as well, but that doesn't and has never happened with Monsanto or other popular companies today, despite the fact that scientists and universities benefit heavily from Monsanto. The "conflict of interest" argument has always been a way to deflect from the positions actually being held by these scientists who don't agree with the hive mind consensus. You didn't even. Refute any of the information that the J.R. Johnstone link asserted. He's been trying to combat this shit for years.

newscientist.com/letter/mg19726410-800-smoking-gun/

sci.med.diseases.cancer.narkive.com/6qNYNZIZ/the-dishonesty-of-antismoking

bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/29/passive-smoking-why-all-fuss

>mom they're posting memes i don't like again

Sounds like the pharmaceutical industry was successful in destroying their competition by latching onto the "smoking is bad" meme.

These aren't even memes. As far as I'm concerned they're facts until proven otherwise.

Other countries don't have the same problem with smoking the U.S. does. Indonesia has the highest smoking rate on the planet and they use cigarettes to treat disease, yet they have the one of the lowest death rates from supposed smoking related illnesses.

>taking stats from indonesia seriously
well memed

See for yourself, from the WHO's own numbers.

worldlifeexpectancy.com/indonesia-life-expectancy

Sounds like one guy with a lot of time on his hands to cherry-pick weak studies.
You can go to any public health website and find hundreds of citations to relevant research.

"There's a conspiracy to convince people that there's a conspiracy to convince people that smoking is bad" is doubling down on a faulty premise.

which they get from officials in Indonesia.

It doesn't imply that, the paper they pulled the figure from most likely has some definition of a smoker that isn't "I had one cig a couple years ago."

You do realize that smoking is a risk factor for stroke?

Did ou actually read through his analysis? I get that it's long but I figured people on Veeky Forums would have at least some one to spare.

The guy goes through some studies thrown at him by anti-smokers; popular studies that have large sample sizes and are cited by anti-smokers all the time. He tears them apart one by one and the people throwing the studies at him move the goalposts whenever they're defeated.

It's like the people insisting vaccines cause autism. There are a ton of other, actual reasons as to why these diseases happen but it doesn't at all seem to be due to smoking.

I do not see why they'd have a reason to lie for the simple fact that they still provide a death rate or LE for all of these lung and smoking related problems. It's in the thousands but the percentage compared to the actual population of Indonesia is still really small.

They have kids as young as two taking up smoking over there and x rays of the kids chest show that they're still perfectly fine. When smoking can't even harm a fucking kid you know there's something else going on.

And while it can harm some people and kids, it's likely due to a problem with their genetics, or if that's not the case then another pollutant causing the problem. Radioactive vapor, for example, can turn someone into Darth Vader after only a few seconds of exposure.

Just wanna throw in that "cigarettes aren't bad for you" was propaganda bullshit to avoid new tobacco regulations and cigarette companies paid for so much contrarian research that "proved" their claims. So if you have a source alleging that cigarettes aren't bad for you, then you should seriously check where it is coming from.

It's sort of like citing the journals the NFL paid off to say that concussions don't cause long-term damage.

I already addressed he futility of the "conflict of interest" argument: one cannot discredit the information just because they don't like where it's coming from. You'd have to actually disprove the evidence itself. Who cares if it comes from big tobacco as long as the science makes sense?

Also this tobacco industry document seems genuinely concerned with science as opposed to simply trying to cover anything up. You can't just assume bad intentions from a company because of what others say about it.

industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=khcw0110

>I wish cigarettes were illegal
Illegal like crack, coke, meth, heroin, speed, LSD, XTC, PCP and weed?

>Did ou actually read through his analysis? I get that it's long but I figured people on Veeky Forums would have at least some one to spare.
I did, dudebro, and I wasn't as impressed as you seem to be.

user, this was me literally last week. I said these words. They should be illegal. If I sold toxic, addictive chemicals I would be arrested. I smoked 10 a day. I bought a box mod and vape juice five days ago. I've had maybe 15 since then, and partially because I got high with other smokers and so of course I needed one. It's definitely the truth. You feel like a douche but it makes it interesting again, there's a lot more smoke and it packs a fuckload of punch. A cigarette feels harsh and weak now unless I am baked.

So your belief system is so strong that you just dismissed a wealth of analytical and useful information simply because it didn't impress you?

>I wish cigarettes were illegal

Which would create a gigantic black market with drug dealers and violent deaths, and just feed the private prison industrial complex.

A far worse trade off, ultimately.

You say you've been smoking since you were ten, aside from the waste of money, have there been any serious health problems for you? It honestly doesn't sound like it. I don't blame you for wanting to quit (it can be a pretty costly habit) but I don't see why you'd have to, myself.

It's not a bait meme. Asbestos, radiation exposure, radon gas, and air pollution are all actual factors for lung cancer. Smoking is not.

Med student's thoughts on this

Is smoking bad for you?
Of fucking course it is, what the actual fuck do people think it does otherwise?

Is second hand smoking bad for you?
Unless you are an infant or a child I would go far enough to say not likely, considering the current way we measure cigarette intake is in "pack years" which means years of pack a day habits. being in a room with someone who is smoking means you are getting a diffuse amount of smoke, which I will add, has been filtered twice by the time it gets to you, by both the filter on the cigarette and by the lungs of the person who is smoking it. So I am personally reticent to agree with the second hand smoke conclusion unless you are an infant or child (primarily due to immunoreaction to noxious chemicals that tends to stop being as big of a deal as you reach puberty->beyond) or you are unfortunate enough to live in china or India. Currently despite the huge percentage of people who smoke in china, the number one cause of lung cancer in Beijing is living in Beijing.

Is smoking addictive?
Yeah, anyone who has tried to quit can attest to this one, how much of it is psychological is up to some debate, but it still fucking sucks to try to quit.

Does smoking cause Lung Cancer?
Yes, but keep in mind only 9-11% of Heavy smokers (more than a pack a day habit for more than 35+ years) actually develop lung cancer. So, you know, there are more factors involved than just smoking. It is harmful of course but I would think any habit with that high of a dosage process for that long would have similarly disasterous effects.

How does smoking affect health?
Poorly, but so does any number of other shitty things people do to their bodies. For some reason we just feel more justified in rubbing this shit in smokers faces than we do in people who are fat, lazy, drunks, or use tanning booths. Weird.

Well at least you don't believe in the secondhand smoke meme, but do you believe in this stuff because it was told to you?

I posted relevant links here and here

Also, what gives you the impression that smoking at a young age would be bad? Interestingly, Indonesia has the highest smoking rate and the earliest starting age (2 years old) yet I'm pretty sure chest rays have shown no significant damage to the children who take up smoking.

Maybe that's because most of the 2 year old smokers don't make it long enough to get chest rays...it's called survivor bias. Also you're talking about Indonesia, do you really think every single mother is going to get their kid checked out for cancer? They are obviously not paying for an xray to make sure their children are healthy especially when they are okay with their 2 year old smoking.

>Interestingly, Indonesia has the highest smoking rate and the earliest starting age (2 years old) yet I'm pretty sure chest rays have shown no significant damage to the children who take up smoking.

You know what the mortality rate for cancer is in Trobriand Islanders? Zero percent.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2523227/posts
>The story is not all that unusual for people in that region of the world. In 1970s there was a report in British Medical Journal [Dr. G.Y. Caldwell "Natural curing of tobacco and lung cancer", BMJ Feb 26 1977, v1. p580] about Semai people of Malaysia where children start smoking at age two, as a rite of passage from nursing. To the complete shock of the medical researchers, the full medical examination, including chest X-rays, of all 12000 Semai found them in a remarkably good health and could not find a single lung cancer. Interestingly, in our western world during the golden age of British Empire, smoking was compulsory for the students of their elite boy schools (for refs see "The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking" by J. R. Johnstone (PhD), P.D.Finch, (Prof. Em. Mathematical Statistics, Monash).

Sorry but it's not unlikely that the children will in fact be fine. Smoking is the single greatest health scapegoat of modern times.

Not sure what you're trying to get at here.

Interesting. I was going to say something about them not waiting long enough before testing for cancer but when looking up and reading page 580 of the paper it was clear they tested every single member of the tribe and not just the children. I didn't think the entire population was as small as 12000, so I guess I was wrongly assuming.

One thing to point out though is that these tribes do not smoke cigarettes, they smoke locally grown tobacco, probably out of a pipe or bowl. The paper you linked actually has some discussion on this, maybe the lack of cancer is because it's not processed. Although smoking tobacco may very well be a health scapegoat, I still think smoking prepackaged cigarettes is not.

This. People generally connect smoking with plebeians and the lowest tiers of society, teenagers that want to look cool and various other ridiculous perceptions.
I don't know what it is, but I suppose that there are a few people that gain advantage from smoking. I didn't have asthma like you, but my problem was constant low energy to the point of apathy. Adderral and caffeine pills didn't change much. But cigarettes keep my energy levels high, better than any other stimulant. It might sound crazy, but smoking has changed my life for the better. I can think better, I can stay awake for longer and even my sports performance increased.

>although smoking tobacco may be a health scapegoat, I still think smoking prepackaged cigarettes is not.

If you have the time I would encourage you to go to these links. They explain more.

longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/
members.iinet.net.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html

There's a good argument raised that many major studies linking smoking to disease were deceptive.

I personally find it plausible that smoking was actually a perfectly fine thing to do that was attacked by the medical and pharmaceutical industries so they could push their own products instead. Seems likely.

Yes, this might actually be true. Suppose that cigarettes do indeed work as medicine. Then, just like with any other medical product, people react differently to it. Pump caffeine pills into one person and they will feel nothing while another, perhaps weaker person, might get a cardiac arrest. It's a really strange topic that isn't as black and white as people would like to think.

It's like anthropogenic climate change though. Supporting smoking will get you stares from people both smoking and nonsmoking who think it's bad because that's what the people tell them over and over again. Just like how denying that human activity is involved in climate change also will get you angry responses from people.

The question remains: why are exactly these two topics such controversial ones? I've seen people getting more worked up over the issue of smoking than war. It's so full of emotions that something has to be wrong.

Conservatives lost badly on both the smoking-cancer link and the CO2-Global Warming link.

What we have here are the ass-hurt dead-enders who will fight tooth and nail just to avoid admitting that they were totally discredited and the "Shrill Hippies" were completely vindicated.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#Effects_2

Because people simply think it's bad for them due to brainwashing, it smells repugnant to nonsmokers.

So they freak out about it, also smokers always look like they're having a good time, nonsmokers don't.

They refuse to believe in the truth, like this guy:

So according to ou, science is determined by what side of the political spectrum you're on, instead of actual facts? That's a shame.

>linking Wikipedia

Ha.

smokescreens.org/secondhand-smoke-firsthand-lies/

smokescreens.org/chemistry.htm

downtrend.com/robertgehl/weve-been-lied-to-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer

While I find this one to be wrong about the high lung cancer rates (again, multiple risk factors) it also came to the same conclusion.

m.jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/105/24/1844

Don't worry, before long you won't get any more angry responses. You'll just get laughed out of every serious discussion.

I can't help but notice that the whole tack behind this thread seems to be the oft discussed link between smoking/cigarette companies and climate change/fossil fuel companies. In other words they have both employed the same tactics to downplay or deny the seriousness of the harm their products cause.

It's weird to see, like, regular people trying to support basically.. you know, Darth Vader. What is your personal stake in it all, is what I wonder.

>smokescreens.org/secondhand-smoke-firsthand-lies/

Wow, some guy on the Internet, who is a scientist of any kind, did an independent study, talking to, like, doctors and stuff. And here are his conclusions. Please donate.

*not a scientist, of course.

I don't get how you need scientific evidence to know that smoking is bad for you.

My Mom has never smoked and she looks great for being in her 50's. Her sister has smoked since her teens and she looks older while being several years younger. Not to mention the yellow teeth, bad breath, raspy voice, and dry, dead hair.

My grandfather has smoked for the majority of his life, and after my grandmother died he started smoking inside his trailer. After a couple years of this you can now literally scrape nicotine/tar residue off of every surface inside the trailer. If even a fraction of that is in his lungs it can't possibly be healthy.

Simply telling people they're wrong isn't nearly enough of a response. I would imagine your idea of scientific research is grabbing whatever mainstream consensus you can find on something and repeating it instead of looking at the evidence. Do you take ideas from authorities like the WHO or EPA too even though they've flip flopped on a ton of issues out of incompetence?

The reason why these two issues are indirectly linked is simple: both ACC believers and Tobacco controllers use similar misinterpretations of data and information to get their way.

Didn't actually refute anything he said, all you did was discredit him based on him not being a scientist therefore not being, in your mind, a proper authority on the subject.

While that is certainly good visual evidence it doesn't support the idea of smoking causing disease, just having enough free radicals to make people look older. Additionally not all smokers are going to look this way.

I noticed your grandfather is still alive, I'm assuming in decent shape for his age, even though he smokes.

Bottom line is that other risk factors can combine with smoking and also turn it into a problem. Smoking by itself though Isn't the health risk people often claim it is.

Like I said, I'm not here actually debate you on any of your points, because they are ridiculous and it would be a complete waste of time. The only reason I might take you on with evidence and such, would be if I believed there were others reading along who might be on the fence about all this. But I'm pretty sure everyone reading along can see that your entire stance is ridiculous as well, so I'm not bothering.

Besides, if you're looking for actual studies and what they mean, there's always these.

lshtm.ac.uk/pressoffice/press_releases/2002/smogpollution.html

longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/

members.iinet.net.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html

newscientist.com/letter/mg19726410-800-smoking-gun/

sci.med.diseases.cancer.narkive.com/6qNYNZIZ/the-dishonesty-of-antismoking

bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/29/passive-smoking-why-all-fuss

Sounds like the anti-smoking community comes across as pretty dishonest if you ask me.

Sounds like you have no interest in looking at some interesting scientific research then. That's really unfortunate.

This is essentially the model anti-smoker. He has relatives with weak genes that should never have picked up cigarettes. They smoke, they decompose and they smell, thus annoying him. Instead of thinking about the role of personal agency in this problem and looking at all working factors, he demands the vector to be banned altogether.
The most selfish people of them all, operating under the guise of legit science.

Once again, I wonder what your personal stake is in this. Like, why do you even want to pursue this line of reasoning. It almost seems like you're trying to convince yourself of something.

Is every person who smokes going to get emphysema? Nope. That doesn't change the truth about the increased risk of lung disease that smokers incur. Relative to the amount they smoke, of course.

youre joking, right?
Everyone on my moms side of the family smoked for many years. They either died of lung cancer or quit. Those that are still around all have painful coughs. Both grandparents dead before 70. On my dad's side no one ever smoked and everyone still relatively healthy except my grandfather who died at 88. My grandma is still going at 89. Yeah this is an anecdote but you are either delusional or a hopelessly wishful thinker to think that smoking doesnt make one more susceptible to illness.

seconded

You still haven't looked through the studies in this very thread that have pointed out the errors in this kind of reasoning.

Since nobody wants to bother looking through the thread that basically disproves the supposed dangers of smoking I'll post the relevant point regarding lung cancer and genetics.

longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-9#entry388507

There is a reason why we ask patients with potential lung pathologies about parents, spouses, or housemates who smoke.

There is no "clean smoke" double filtered or not.

Second hand smoke is incredibly relevant to dealing with any respiratory tract diseases and it is a relevant risk factor.

Air pollution is akin in many ways to second hand smoke exposure. Air pollution is the leading cause of lung cancer in Beijing, not merely living there.

These are not credible links, get it? The source of your information is in question.

>I noticed your grandfather is still alive, I'm assuming in decent shape for his age, even though he smokes.
He's actually in awful shape and he has dementia. He hasn't taken very great care of himself in general, but I'd say that smoking has been the largest cause in his decline, right after diabetes. It's also proven to be more addicting to alcohol, because he stopped drinking many years ago, but was never able to quit smoking.
He's supposed to be on oxygen, but he refuses to use it because it would prevent him from smoking. The lack of oxygen fucks up his brain and makes it harder for his other systems to support his brain, thus exacerbating his dementia.

>Bottom line is that other risk factors can combine with smoking and also turn it into a problem. Smoking by itself though Isn't the health risk people often claim it is.
In terms of things you can legally do to yourself that are unhealthy, it's definitely up there. It destroys your property too. I guess if it wasn't extremely addictive I could see doing it every once and a while for fun.

>weak genes
As far as I can tell my grandfather has incredible genes, because otherwise he'd be dead. He had a seven artery bypass in his late fifties and he's 77 now. No cancer, no emphysema, but I'd hardly say his body functions well.

Also I don't want to ban smoking, nor does second hand smoke really bother me that much. People like to worry about it these days but unless you're getting hotboxed by smokers all the time I don't think it's a huge deal.

>So according to ou, science is determined by what side of the political spectrum you're on, instead of actual facts? That's a shame.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

youtube.com/watch?v=Fys5Z63xCvA

>smokescreens.org/secondhand-smoke-firsthand-lies/

>smokescreens.org/chemistry.htm

Tobacco industry funded scientist find no harm caused by the tobacco industry.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Enstrom

>downtrend.com/robertgehl/weve-been-lied-to-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer

>While I find this one to be wrong about the high lung cancer rates (again, multiple risk factors) it also came to the same conclusion.

>m.jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/105/24/1844

>The part that says smoking causes cancer is fatally flawed but the part that says second-hand smoking doesn't cause cancer (uh... sort of...) is totally unassailable.

That's some top-notch cherry picking.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44330/

>discredit the information by attacking the source

Typical fallacious reasoning. The information being presented are from actual scientific studies. In the links I've posted they are being criticized for both faulty scientific evidence and biases, and are being analyzed and discussed. Or were you too triggered by smoking to actually realize this?

Funny, I could easily accuse you of cherry picking as well with that one study, but I also have to point out that James Enstrom took money from the American Cancer Society first, in order to fund his study. He believed in a relative risk ratio needing to be at least 2 or 3, which is far higher than other scaremongering epidemiologists. The ACS disagreed with him on this and pulled funding. He then got funding by the tobacco industry, they were not allowed to see the study he was carrying out until it was released to the public. There's no bias there.

I should have expanded on what I mean with weak genes. The question is specifically about a person's tolerance towards certain impulses. This doesn't seem obvious in every day life, but in extreme situations you will quickly see differences. How is it that people react and develop differently in the same conditions? How is it that while one person dies from a certain effect, the other does not?
This is the biggest problem in this whole debate. People try to seperate the doer from the deed in order to avoid uncomfortable questions and it certainly is a strategy that you see in almost all social questions. It's weak and intellectually dishonest. For every study that says smoking is bad I can find a counter-study. For every personal anecdote that tells about how smoking ruins their families, I can find counter-examples.
In short: I find the underlying, deeply anti-human mindset more troubling than every conceived negative effect of smoking.

Your sources are not legitimate, your information is. End of story. You SAY it's from scientific studies but every like of yours I've chased has yielded nothing but speculation and dead ends.

I support your right to smoke. It's not my business if you smoke or not. Your argument is still shit, though.

>information is legit

So...we're actually on the same page?

>your source is not

I don't get this. The information being discussed is certainly legitimate, the people in question (many of them either good at science or actual scientists) are pointing out flaws in important studies that came to a conclusion about smoking. Why would the source of information matter? Are you afraid that there's bias involved? Do you also not trust that Kevin Folta guy who was coached by Monsanto via email despite it being clear that GMOs are harmless?

Obviously smoking is going to affect different people differently, just like every conceivable good or bad thing you can do to your body. There's a heap of evidence that smoking generally has negative effects on people, and is highly addictive. So why would you promote or even condone that behavior on a societal level?

>speculation or dead ends

So pointing out that Richard Doll's research was flawed, or that information from groups like the WHO and EPA were misinterpreted is a dead end?

So pointing out flaws in studies is speculation as opposed to, well, pointing out actual flaws?

>So why would you promote or even condone that behavior on a societal level?

Freedom of choice?

Liberty?

Avoiding a nanny state?

Yeah I mistyped.

You still have the freedom to smoke, it's just made clear that it's harmful and taxed appropriately. Just like alcohol is and marijuana should be.

Taxing, especially sin taxing, is harmful to the middle class and poor.

The supposed "harms", if falsely reported (and I believe the majority of them are) simply creates false information that distracts not only from the real problems but boosts the ideological resolve of people who simply really dislike smoking and want it gone.

>So why would you promote or even condone that behavior on a societal level?

I don't and neither does anybody else these days. I defend this position because the likes of you are my enemies. Complacent people unworthy of having a voice in matters of ruling, that nevertheless attempt at doing so.

Also it's pretty hard to call smoking a freedom, especially when most states systematically ban it in most public places.

bruh state governments are now profiting off of my weed and i still can't smoke it outdoors in my own neighborhood

oh no and i can't take a walk carrying bottle of beer either!!

welcome to life, stop crying about it

>statist apologism

Do you enjoy being controlled?

>being controlled
as a private pot smoker, i enjoy how many less tobacco smokers and alcoholics i am regularly exposed to by such hobbies being restricted to fairly rare locations.

that being said, i'll agree that sin tax is a scam.

Well most people who smoke do not. A lot of these bans are based on the demise that smoking and secondhand smoke is bad and I'd say that's a pretty serious problem considering how high up these falsehoods ultimately go. Major global health organizations spout this shit regularly.

>demise

*premise

>I wish cigarettes were illegal
Just because you don't have any willpower doesn't mean that I shouldn't have the right to choose what I can put in my body.