Bill proposed would make cigarettes prescription-only.
kptv.com/story/20662618/bill-proposed-in-oreg...
kptv.comPosted Jan 24, 2013, 9:46 AM UTC
3117
kptv.comI'm a non smoker, never have, and this is really stupid. Make cigarettes prescription only?? If people want to smoke, it's their choice. Yesterday they were fine, today you can go to jail for it? Dumb. This will never pass.
10
Sure, except that second hand smoke apparently kills more people than guns in the US each year.
And that's not including first-hand smoke.
I'm not saying that I think it should be illegal, but still... it's not always their choice.
-2
This bill isn't even about cigarettes though, it's about nicotine. It'd make "safer" alternatives like e-cigs and Swedish snus (and other forms of oral tobacco like dip and chew) just as illegal as cigarettes. Besides, I think that the second hand smoke issue is being totally mishandled. Instead of banning smoking, why not promote the installation of specific smoking rooms with filtration systems that remove the smoke from the air? I've encountered that exact thing in the New Delhi and Hong Kong airports (well, I KNOW the Hong Kong smoking rooms had vents to remove smoke from the air, not sure about Delhi). Smokers can go and sit in these rooms, smoke to their lungs content, and not have to choose between nicotine withdrawal and leaving the airport to smoke (and risk missing their flight by getting stuck in security again). I think it'd be great if restaurants and bars could install booths with special smoke-removal systems to accommodate smokers without harming the non-smoking employees, but the indoor smoking ban basically denies business owners the opportunity to experiment with such novel ideas. It pisses me off when legislation hinders technological advancements like that because the legislators lacked the foresight to presume that solutions besides outright prohibition might be on the horizon.
1
"I hope it passes and I hope people actually think about it," said Rick Cannon of Salem. "You know there's less and less smokers everyday because they know how bad it is for them, so I just hope people wake up and realize how bad it actually is for them."
You fucking dick. Most people can't just wake up and not smoke anymore. Fining them their life savings and throwing them in jail for a year would not solve this problem. If anything, it would only make things worse.
5
I'll wager that doctors would prescribe cigarettes to those who are addicted, to start.
1
Making substances effectively illegal leads to increased violent crime (drug cartels, gangs, black market) and we lose tax revenue. If people want to harm themselves by smoking, shooting up, or whatever I don't care. Just as long as they don't get in a car after or do it in a way that would be of a detriment to my health (second hand smoke).
5
That is absolutely ridiculous. The headline is also misleading. The bill specifically makes nicotine a Schedule III substance. So they'd effectively ban cigarettes, rolling tobacco, e-cigs, dip, chew, Swedish snus, American imitation snus, pipe tobacco, cigars, cigarillos, filtered mini-cigars, blunt wraps, and any other product that contains nicotine. I haven't read through the whole bill yet, but I would presume that manufacturing a Schedule III substance would be illegal as well. So much for my plans to grow my own personal tobacco crop some day...
4
I don't smoke. A bill like this infringes on people's rights. It's your body why do others get to control what you do with it? We need to teach social responsibility.
2
This will never happen.... lets be realistic here. Almost every person who smokes will be against this and that will be like 20% of Oregon's population... Giant tobacco company's will be against this... people who care about civil liberty's will be against this...
lol.
1
This will never ever pass, there is to much money in tobacco from taxes the state gets, and money from the industry to let this pass.
1
This is ridiculous! Do they not know how prohibition worked out? Besides what doctor is going to honestly issue a prescription for cigarettes?
I have a friend who lives in Kansas. She has Crohn's and fibromyalgia. Her doctor prescribed a cigarette after meals to help with digestion since they don't have medical marijuana.
Wow, sounds like that doctor is really behind on the times. I'd think that a clinical strength probiotic and full array of digestive enzymes would be WAY more effective than a cigarette for digestion.
Crohn's disease is complex. Your digestion does not work normally abs you go with what works for the patient.
True, I guess I was just a little taken aback that cigarettes would still be prescribed for digestion. Then again, I'm not an expert by any means. However I DID just find this, which says:
So that doesn't sound good. Though I also know that quitting smoking can cause an increase in digestive issues, even for otherwise 'healthy' people.
Anyway, on a somewhat related note, your friend might want to look into the GAPS Diet (GAPS stands for Gut and Psychology Syndrome). The book Gut and Psychology Syndrome by Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride gives a good outline of the theory behind it, as well as the protocol for initiating the diet. Anyway, I know that some people have had success treating both Crohn's and Fibromyalgia (separately) with the GAPS diet. The great thing is that it seems to be a very low risk dietary protocol. The (poorly designed) GAPS Diet website has more info if you wanna look into it, though I highly recommend that your friend checks out the book as it's much more informative.
I actually just started the GAPS diet the other day, though I'm not trying to treat a severe condition. I'm doing it to see if it will help with my food allergies (Oral Allergy Syndrome), Primarily-Inattentive AD(H)D, and some other mood issues.
By the way, I'm not trying to play "internet doctor" or anything. Just wanted to pass along some potentially helpful info. Best of luck to your friend!
That's what I'm wondering. It doesn't exactly jive with 'do no harm'.