So let's talk about smoking...
- Thread starter Malkavian
- Start date
Making rules restricting smoking in public places is like making laws requiring the vaccination of children. It's not there to tell you how to raise your children, it's there to protect other children from your unvaccinated child.
That being said, you can't raise a child in complete isolation from other children. You can, however, smoke in a way that doesn't endanger anyone else. I think it's acceptable for governments to restrict public smoking.
That being said, you can't raise a child in complete isolation from other children. You can, however, smoke in a way that doesn't endanger anyone else. I think it's acceptable for governments to restrict public smoking.
"There is no scientific proof correlating second hand smoke with death" Buddy, think before you post. You should change that right now. Smoking is something you do in private, and not around people who don't want to breathe it in.Housebroken Lunatic said:
***Please do not flame me for this***
I am completely against smoking as a whole. I think cigarettes should be completely illegalised. The reason for this is the fact that...
1) The cost for medical support for smokers increases taxes for non-smokers (how is that fair???)
2) People say it is a 'choice' and yet a lot of society is heavily influenced by parents and peers and i highly doubt that a lot of people who have only ever been exposed to the facts about smoking and not the peer pressure will decide to take up smoking unless they want to hurt themselves (which means their head is not in the right place). So my point of this is that most of the time it isn't that big of a choice as most people will cave to peer pressure(choice doesn't play a big part), especially when intoxicated.
3) It is addictive which makes it hard for people to quit, meaning they continue to waste money killing themselves.
4) Smoking does not only affect the smokers. It also affects people nearby from second-hand smoke.
5) CANCER!!! LUNG DISEASE!!! combine these with the first and third and fourth point!!!
On the topic of whether smoking should be allowed in public establishments. No. Should the owner of the business be able to decide? No. That is like saying people can murder in their property legally (hazardous to the health of others without legal repurcussions).
SUMMARISE: I am completely against smoking, but it being legal doesn't mean non-smokers should have to suffer for the choices of others (smokers).
I am completely against smoking as a whole. I think cigarettes should be completely illegalised. The reason for this is the fact that...
1) The cost for medical support for smokers increases taxes for non-smokers (how is that fair???)
2) People say it is a 'choice' and yet a lot of society is heavily influenced by parents and peers and i highly doubt that a lot of people who have only ever been exposed to the facts about smoking and not the peer pressure will decide to take up smoking unless they want to hurt themselves (which means their head is not in the right place). So my point of this is that most of the time it isn't that big of a choice as most people will cave to peer pressure(choice doesn't play a big part), especially when intoxicated.
3) It is addictive which makes it hard for people to quit, meaning they continue to waste money killing themselves.
4) Smoking does not only affect the smokers. It also affects people nearby from second-hand smoke.
5) CANCER!!! LUNG DISEASE!!! combine these with the first and third and fourth point!!!
On the topic of whether smoking should be allowed in public establishments. No. Should the owner of the business be able to decide? No. That is like saying people can murder in their property legally (hazardous to the health of others without legal repurcussions).
SUMMARISE: I am completely against smoking, but it being legal doesn't mean non-smokers should have to suffer for the choices of others (smokers).
just take ur damn smoke away from me and you'll be fine. oh... and dont complain when you have cancer and die at 40
Meh, is it right for the government to punish us for taking coke or heroine?
To be honest, I dunno. The question is where to draw the line, I guess.
Is smoking okay despite the harm it does? Apparently, but then so would other drugs.
Is it okay because it's regulated and taxed by the state? Much more likely.
I find it a bit weird to ban smoking in pubs while I support banning it in public spaces such as train-stations, municipal buildings, hospitals and so on.
You know, places where people have to go, places that are essential.
Pubs and similar establishments, however, are privately run and it should be the owner's decision whether or not to allow smoking.
To be honest, I dunno. The question is where to draw the line, I guess.
Is smoking okay despite the harm it does? Apparently, but then so would other drugs.
Is it okay because it's regulated and taxed by the state? Much more likely.
I find it a bit weird to ban smoking in pubs while I support banning it in public spaces such as train-stations, municipal buildings, hospitals and so on.
You know, places where people have to go, places that are essential.
Pubs and similar establishments, however, are privately run and it should be the owner's decision whether or not to allow smoking.
I don't smoke. There. I said it. I'm not cool.
Now I have that out of the way, I find that smokers are generally more considerate of other people than anti-smokers. Before the ban, every smoker I knew would ask before they lit up, would deliberately attempt to puff away from people, and would try to finish as quickly as possible. Every anti-smoker would have a go at them the second they started puffing - I've seen people cross the fucking street to tell people that smoking is bad for them, after they've made sure that the group they're with are fine with it.
I'm all for smoking being allowed back everywhere, just because militant anti-smokers are bigger twats than PETA.
Now I have that out of the way, I find that smokers are generally more considerate of other people than anti-smokers. Before the ban, every smoker I knew would ask before they lit up, would deliberately attempt to puff away from people, and would try to finish as quickly as possible. Every anti-smoker would have a go at them the second they started puffing - I've seen people cross the fucking street to tell people that smoking is bad for them, after they've made sure that the group they're with are fine with it.
I'm all for smoking being allowed back everywhere, just because militant anti-smokers are bigger twats than PETA.
No It isn't.Tdc2182 said:
I could claim that others second hand bitching cause me emotional and mental distress which could trigger a psychosis under the right conditions. It's about the same risk of someone ever developing lung cancer due to sporadic instances of second hand smoke. Meaning that BOTH of them counts as "mild annoyances" and nothing else.
If I have to just "suck it up" listening to other people ***** about smoking, then they should have to just "suck it up" when they are exposed to second hand smoke...
I think all the time thank you very much, and what's good is I think FOR MYSELF, in constrast to you people who swallow all the bullshit propaganda about smoking.Tdc2182 said:
There IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF CORRELATING SECOND HAND SMOKE WITH DEATH, PERIOD. It's not really an issue up for discussion, it's just fact.
The only slightly tangible connection between smoking (not the second hand kind that is) and lung cancer is statistical data. But as most of us should know (but still do not for some reason), statistics are just numbers with little regard to context.
So while the statistics say that a larger amount of people smoking have developed lung cancer, it doesn't prove that it is actually the tobacco smoke causing it. Especially since there are people who've smoked for the better part of their life and still haven't shown the slightest signs of developing any harmful diseases because of it.
The most sound theory so far is that some people MIGHT be more genetically predisposed to developing lung cancer due to smoking, but that's still just a theory (although a theory A LOT better than the politically correct "ALL SMOKING CAUSE DISEASE AND DEATH!" - theory). Effectively making harmful effects brought on by smoking a sort of allergic reaction, but much more difficult to predict. And im sorry, but whe can't wrap th world in plastic bubble wrap just to make it safe for all the allergic people out there. ESPECIALLY NOT for second hand smokers whose possible (but unproven) "allergy" towards tobacco smoke which they tend to avoid anyway like most non smokers do.
So "Buddy", I suggest YOU try to think a little for yourself before swallowing politically correct propaganda about smoking.
Yes smoking can be bad for you, especially if you're addicted and smoke a lot. But if you have a normal functioning immune system, some second hand smoke encountered once or twice a week at most will be no more harmful to you than loud noises or a foul smell. What you should worry about is exhaust fumes from running cars, especially if you live in a city or other high traffic area, because then you are exposed to harmful gases pretty much all the time, and that will be more detrimental to your health than any second hand smoke ever could be...
Actually, seeing as our decisions are based on our influences (people are more inclined to do one thing over another because they are MORE influenced to do it) and peer pressure is a strong influence in teenage lives, it would not be uncommon for peer pressure to be the deciding factor for an adolescentSwollen Goat said:
Well seeing as I am against smoking as a whole, I don't think people should have places where they aren't exposed to the dissapproval, and the less places people can smoke, the less likely they are to do so (if there isn't anywhere they can smoke nearby they do without). And so what if they don't like being judged, everyone judges everybody everytime they look at one another (men judge women on their physique, people judge others based on hair styles and weight, peoplejudge others by physical deformities (strange walk, deformed face, broken legs, degree to which their shoulders are stooped) all of those things are chosen attributes and people get judged on them so why shouldn't smokers be judged (and for those that aren't chosen, they still get judged and it isn't their fault so how is a chosen quality (smoker) any less judge-worthy)???Swollen Goat said:
... sorry if that sounded harsh but that is how I feel about it.
No Drinking won't be next.Longshot said:
With that obvious bullshit aside.
Is Washington State just immune to this "Bars being punished by nonsmoking" story? All the Bar Owners I've met haven't had any issues with sales. I think it has something to do with people still liking to drink.
Overall it is simple. If you could smoke without it getting into other people's lungs nobody would be on your ass. That's why drinking won't be next, prohibition aside, no amount of someone else drinking will get me drunk.
Don't get me wrong. Alcohol is a pretty large catalyst for a vast percentage of criminal activity in the US. But it isn't the sole problem and should never be treated as such.
My roommates all did weed in college and it was the same issue. I asked them to take up a more socially friendly drug like Heroine (somewhat jokingly of course).
I have absolutely nothing against any kind of drug. I want folks to get so much of it in them (if they want it) that they couldn't be higher. But I -NEVER- want to be forced into taking the crap myself.
If it is a crime for me to fart in your mouth I don't see how it is coolies for you to exhale smoke in mine. (PS. It is a crime to fart in someone's mouth if you didn't know.)
Just a few notes.Housebroken Lunatic said:
Because some people can be near radioactive waste and not contract cancer does not mean that radioactive waste does not cause cancer. It means those folks are less susceptible to the effects of radiation than other folks.
I have never met a doctor who questions whether or not smoking is terrible for you.
Now I'll explain why I've never met a doctor that says that. The reason is pretty simple. Smoke + Lungs = Bad. It doesn't matter if it is tobacco smoke, weed smoke, wood smoke, battery acid smoke, it is all bad. Now it is differing levels of bad but it is always ALWAYS bad.
There is no reason to ever assume that any foreign agent in your lungs is a good thing. I'm obviously excluding the gases that are actually expected to be in the lungs and I hope you understand that.
Now does the fact that car exhaust isn't equally feared make it any better? Not at all. You raise a fantastic point. Cars shouldn't be running on fuel anymore. The technology behind hydrogen and electric vehicles is easily far enough along to make it feasible for anything smaller than a semi truck. We should immediately adopt this and everyone would be the better for it.
All smoking does not cause death or disease, however all smoking, no matter where the smoke is from, facilitates a higher likelihood for an earlier death or susceptibility to disease. Period. It isn't fire that kills most folks when a house is burning, it is the smoke.
I like your posts and such and I imagine you might have been making some of the points I just said and didn't notice. But overall I just find myself utterly confused when folks question whether or not smoke is ever good for you.
Basically to me the question is simple.
Does Second Hand Smoke Help people? No? Does it do absolutely nothing to them? No? So what is the only other reasonable assumption to be had? It isn't good for them.
I'm sure that logic is flawed and I imagine I'll be given a reason (I hope a valid one) why. But it tends to be how I look at things.
Does breathing underwater help folks? Nope.
Does breathing underwater do nothing to them? No.
So what is the only other reasonable assumption to be had? It isn't good for them.
My basic thought being that if it doesn't help you and it doesn't do nothing to you it seems to me that it must be bad for you.
Aside from the occasional ****/prick who blow smoke into someones face as an insult, have you ever actually experienced that someone who smokes blows smoke into your face?theultimateend said:
They don't. The exhale it into the air. You just standing in the vicinity is just a case of misfortune. You could move away or wear a facemask.
Besides, if someone farts in your viinity, some of that gas is bound to enter your mouth unless you stop breathing. By that reasoning, people who pass gas should be put in jail because they did it to close to your vicinity...
I don't recall any smoker being put in jail for exhaling.Housebroken Lunatic said:
But I have been around hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people all with working assholes who didn't fart on or in range of me. Plus the level of fecal chloroform from a fart is far less dense (PPM) than any exhale from any smoker. But that's pulling hairs I admit so I won't go that direction.
To answer you question, yes I have had people exhale right in my face as I am walking by them. It most often happens in cities where smokers sit against a wall and exhale towards the walkway where people *gasp* walk.
I suppose my better example would be this.
I really love masturbating. In fact I'd say that I have a compulsion to do so. However I can't masturbate in public. So we have an action someone enjoys, a desire to do that action, and a situation in which it isn't appropriate.
People say it is a matter of decency or health. Well all anyone needs to do is wear gloves and a face mask and my masturbation tendencies should never get them ill.
Likewise if it is a matter of decency then wouldn't smoking equally be limited?
Just seems to me if something I like to do requires that you gear up like a football player that perhaps what I like doing might be better done in my home.
Because really...how hard is it to NOT smoke every second of every day? If it is that hard shouldn't we be examining just how addictive the stuff is? I have friends who do opium (or is it opiates...whatever) and various other substances and they have no problem not doing it in public.
i cant believe this arguments go on so long,the owner of a pub/club etc. decides the rules, you (the customer) dont have a god dam say, you dont own the place or pay the bills, so why should you sit their and say " i dont wanna fill my lungs with crap wah wah wah", if the owner decides he wants smoking in his establishment, and your a none smoker,and you dont like it, you dont go in their, its simple
for all you health freaks that complain, try not to hurt yourself when you dismount from your high horse.
for all you health freaks that complain, try not to hurt yourself when you dismount from your high horse.
Well all the posts I've read have more been talking about in public.Pubis Mcfly said:
I do find it cute that you use the term "Health Freak" though. Might be why it is so hard to pass healthcare reform in the US. Folks have an odd sense of what makes someone a freak these days.
"You retard! You act like you only have one life or something! Jeeze! Haven't you played Mario?!?"
This is one of the more sensible responses I've seen on the topic (moreso than anything I've said).brainfreeze215 said: