Yeah, reading the expression on Ms. Cigarette, they might not live as long as you think...

Your video, Yall Got A Cigarette?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You see no difference between the federal and state (or county level) just the same as some cops don't see the difference between strong-arm robbers who try to take weapons and cigarette sellers who give up and are still fucked up...welcome to the world of stereotypes...

Think on this. CIA blatantly torture without rebuke, yet regular cops rarely (Although some do but many are prosecuted). Massive difference if you look.

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

Tags for this video have been changed from 'thai, anti smoking, cigarettes, thailand, children' to 'thai, anti smoking, cigarettes, thailand, children, smoking kid' - edited by Grimm

I'm amazed they survived the thick cloud of cigarette smoke that long.
I lasted about 30 seconds and everything I was wearing stank of cigs for days.

Whew. Anyone got a cigarette?

Damn. And they didn't even give him a blindfold or offer him a last cigarette.

next in the series:
please verify that your watch doesn't conceal a garrote in the bezel

please verify that your gold lighter, cigarette case, and pen don't reassemble to become a pistol

please verify that your lotus esprit turbo doesn't transform into a submarine

I'm not really concerned if someone is an addict or a criminal. I'm simply concerned with the repercussions of hard drugs being made readily available for anyone to use. The prohibition did increase crime, sure, but the availability of liquor since then has caused far more deaths and ruined many more lives. Hell, in 2010, alcohol killed almost as many people in the U.S. as guns did. Tobacco causes more than 5 million deaths worldwide each year. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it isn't harmful. The widespread availability of liquor and tobacco has caused more damage than the entire war on drugs.

As for education, I don't think that's the root of the problem. Everyone knows that smoking is unhealthy and that alcohol is addictive and that driving while drunk is incredibly dangerous. The problem isn't lack of awareness. The problem is apathy. People know these things yet do them anyway because they just don't care. The momentary relief/pleasure derived from liquor and cigarettes is more important to them. If all drugs were legalized, I have no doubt that more people would use them because they'd be easier to get and people don't really care about the downsides.

My point is that even with regulation, alcohol and cigarettes are causing plenty of harm to society. Check the statistics for drunk driving incidents and health issues caused by smoking. If alcohol and cigarettes were banned, they would be harder to obtain and therefore the harm they cause would be decreased.

Conversely, if you legalize hard drugs like cocaine and heroin (which are scientifically proven to be detrimental to your health and livelihood in general), the usage of said drugs and their destructive effects will only increase. Marijuana is irrelevant to this argument, as it isn't addictive and its effects aren't harmful. If you only want to legalize marijuana and not heroin, cocaine, PCP, meth, LSD, etc, I'm in full agreement.

Regulation will never be completely effective, as people will often ignore laws if they really want something (see the current drug situation). But by banning something, you at least make it slightly harder to obtain. It's a tricky situation with no perfect solution. By banning something, you are empowering the criminals who can supply it. But by making something legal and easily obtained, you are also promoting its use. Sure, the government makes a lot of money from liquor and cigarette taxes but those two products have ruined many lives in the process.

@Jerykk

i am trying to understand your position.
you state you cant regulate addictive substances.
yet we regulate:cigarettes,alcohol.both of these are addictive and both are regulated.

you also infer that if illegal drugs were decriminalized the situation would become far worse.

in relation to what,exactly?
are you positing that if illegal drugs were made legal,illicit drug use would rise? can you provide some evidence to back that up? because i cannot find any...at all.

you appear to actually agree with @SquidCap in regards to the fact that people are going to do what they are going to do but disagree with the idea of regulating the illicit drug trade.

non-regulation=black market=criminality=violence=waste of resources directed towards non-violent citizens doing something they enjoy in the privacy of their own home,with their own body.

so i agree with @SquidCap,i am just unclear where your disagreement lies.
please clarify.

Yeah, I've seen references like this. It's crap. A quick Google search turned up articles where fat people were motivated to lose their weight because of fat shaming. There was a recent article in our local paper that made a similar point. You can always find a study to support your view. I prefer the evidence of my own eyes.
Obesity has soared in one generation because we now refer to fat women as BBW. Manufacturers of planes and cars, clothing are now designing for heavier people.
Acceptance of fat has led to the current crisis (and I do acknowledge the role of the fast food industry which I compare to the tobacco industry).
Remember how cigarette smoking was once seen as glamourous? Not any more... it was re-branded as a disgusting vice that took its toll on your health, your looks, your breath and people (like me) dropped the habit so that in one generation it's the exception rather than the rule.
Sure, there are hardcore smokers who will never be cured. And some fat people are always going to stay fat rather than develop some willpower. But it should never be accepted or promoted somehow.

These videos never show the alleged crime or lack thereof. The cops claim the suspect was selling cigarettes illegally, the narrator claims that he simply broke up a fight. If that's the case, why does the video not show either?

All the video shows is a man resisting arrest and having a heart attack in the process. One could argue that this wouldn't have happened if the cops didn't try to arrest him. One could also argue that it wouldn't have happened if he had simply cooperated. Because the video doesn't show what happened beforehand, we don't know if the arrest or resistance was justified. Context is everything and the removal of context makes it easier to push your own agenda.

Let this be a warning to anyone who sells untaxed cigarettes. The judges, juries, and executioners are the suckers with the badges, there to "Protect & Serve" the shit out of anyone who steps out of line.