So let's talk about smoking...

[Disaster Button]

Slowly killing yourself makes you feel better about yourself?

We're all slowly killing ourselves, regardless of whether we choose to smoke or not...

No, we are not killing ourselves. Unless you count our lifestyle and so on, but then again, you might call living "kiling ourselves".

Not what I said. The effects of smoking make you feel better, not the negative health effects. Although some people will like it for those too.

But like Housebroken said below you. We're all slowly dying, might as well enjoy it

Yeah, those great effects of smoking that make you great...

Chronic cough, higher chance of various cancers, yellow teeth, horrible smell around you and problems with hair. There was something more, but I forgot.

Anyway, I have had too many experiences with people who have smoked their whole life.

Grandma - died of lung cancer.
Aunt - constant coughs (and she's still smoking...) every few minutes.
Another aunt - ...yeah, coughing again. Plus disgusting yellow teeth.
Neighbour - 50-year old woman with a voice of a drunken 65-year old guy with a cold. She's almost like Bale's Batman. It's often hard to understand what she's saying.

Also, I can pinpoint which girls in my school/class just by the ravages on their faces, the stink when they move past me and how they constantly go to the toilet (and got caught 2 or 3 times outside of the school smoking) because they can't go on without having a smoke for more than an hour.

Yeah, it's REALLY great to have an addiction.

Again I didn't say it made me great. But anyway, by "all killling ourselves I mean we're all dying anyway."

And you only get those effects if you smoke A LOT, I have like 2 a day? I don't have an addictive personality. So I don't feel the need to have one, I just do it when I get wound up or when I want one.

But yeah smoking a lot produces those affects or smoking for a really long time. Same for stinking of it, or if you let the smoke blow black onto you or in your house, 2 things I don't do. I'd hate to smell of it so I make sure I don't.

And I've had a few bad experiences of having people die around me due to smoking but they smoked like 40 a day. Not saying it's still not bad for me but 2 a day is a really small amount..

 

[Omnis]

I admit, I haven't read every entry in this thread. However, judging by the non-smoker arguments I've read so far a lot of them need to think a bit more for themselves and get off their moral high horse and think about WHY they don't want people smoking, is it something about you personally or are you just going by the things stated in the newspapers?

I would like to point out, I am not a smoker, I've tried it and I couldn't see the appeal. I do know a lot of people who do smoke however, and that's their choice. (I do however point out it would be healthier for them to stop doing it. So. Yeah.)

Being around smokers can bring me discomfort, I can get snotty from it and experience allergic like reactions because of it. THAT is why I don't like being around people who smoke, and yet, I still hang around them. Why? Because believe it or not, most smokers will actually be considerate towards you if you show discomfort about being around their cigarettes - even better, tell them.


OT:

I live in Denmark. And personally I've found it much more enjoyable to go out drinking after the laws been passed, I do not however believe we should completely ban smoking. As it is now in most clubs and the likes where the law could have had a major effect on business, what it's done instead is make smoking and non-smoking areas so we now have a choice whether we want to be around smoke or not, a choice made for us before.

All in all I'm fine with the law as it is now, and a lot of the smokers I've talked to are too. Of course there's always naysayers and people refusing to adapt.
And, unfortunately politicians getting drunk with power. I can't see a reason as to why we can't just keep it as it is, everyone's got a choice now and there's room for everyone.

Oh, and if a man opened a bar and he had the choice between non-smoker, and smoker before the law in Denmark was made, what kinda bar do you think would have gotten the most customers and thereby earned him the most money?.. By making it non-smoker you would basically be alienating the customers in the smoker department. Thereby loosing a lot of money. Few smokers would go into a non-smoker bar, whereas non-smokers could, and did, easily go into a smokers bar.

 

[Tdc2182]

"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.

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.

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...

My suggestion, shorten it down a bit. Propaganda is usually frowned upon, but that doesn't make it false. I am a mild smoker, meaning I smoke but not to much. Smoking is extremely bad for your health. Both my grandparents had lung cancer and now my grandmotherr has a hole in her throat. I have been thinking for myself for a while, and I'm usually ahead of the curb on most of this stuff. You are a dumbass, I repeat DUMBASS, if you believe that smoking doesn't have any negative effects, apart from making you look like a douche.
By the way I only skimmed through what you said so yet again, make it smaller.

 

[Tdc2182]

snip/

Because it smells like shit to other people who don't smoke, try thinking of them. I like cigars, but people who smoke when your trying to eat, it's just goddam annoying.

Yes, it smells like shit to many non-smokers, but really, if that's your only concern, then I want laws that dictate what clothes people can wear, whether they can fart in public, how often they must shower, etc.

"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.

No, he shouldn't. Instead of you just shouting out he's wrong, you should produce some evidence of your claim.

You don't really have a choice in the matter. Something will kill you eventually. And safeguarding yourself from ONE potential source that could kill you, by infringing on the personal rights of other people and individual businesses won't prevent you from dying due to another gazillion sources out there.

I'm just gonna quote this, since it is my favourite part of your post. And then I want to say: that, sir, was one hell of a good post.

Why should I have to produce evidence of something that is common Knowledge if you have been alive for a day? Heres your homework assignment, I want you to go find a scientist that says smoking is not bad for your health. I in the meantime will poke my head out the window and shout "Does anyone think smoking has no negative effects for your health!? Anyone at all?"
And yes, It is your right to not have any common decency.
And if me not breathing in second hand smoke is gonna keep me alive for just a little while longer, then hell I'm taking it. I don't only safeguard myself from one thing. I wanna die by something more interesting.

And I'm gonna wrap this all up by saying, you don't need to smoke in public, You don't see people masterbating in public, and thats not hazardous to your physical health, only mental.

 

[Tdc2182]

Slowly killing yourself makes you feel better about yourself?

We're all slowly killing ourselves, regardless of whether we choose to smoke or not...

But smoking brings the end a bit faster.

 

[CptCamoPants]

I want to know, who really thinks that someone smoking near them out doors, or hell, even in a bar or something, will give them cancer?

 

[Ack-ack]

to quote one specific bar owner "if we would have business suffering from smoking we would ban it" meaning the people dont care enough to go someplace else so they whine to the goverment about it so they dont have to do anything. If people cared so much why dont they just open smoking-free bars instead force their morals on others.

Also if not clear by now, im on the side "Free all drugs and make them available at any store for >18 years old for more money and less crime"

 

[Biosophilogical]

Shine, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. What you are not entitled to is to make others live by your opinion.

Ah, that statement just made my day, mainly because the majority of the community makes the rest live by their opinions (of how they should behave) and the funny thing is that, as a human being, I am allowed to try an convince others to live by my standards (as this is part of my opinion) and you saying i can't is actually saying I am not entitled to my opinion (of influencing others twoards my other opinions). This isn't really part of my argument but thank you that actaully made me laugh when I read that.

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, people judge 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)???

... sorry if that sounded harsh but that is how I feel about it.

Your post starts by saying that YOU are against smoking as a whole and YOU don't think people should smoke any any place. You know there are people out there that have opinions equally as valid as yours, right?

Yes I do. But seeing as you are arguing against my opinion it is obviously alright to argue against the opinions of others and if they change theirs then that is fine.

Again, as long as smoking is NOT illegal and NOT done where it can hurt someone else, I don't see where it's any business of yours or (especially) the governments.

Well if people started making businesses (for example) 'fat people only' or 'no non-smokers' or 'combover-only' then people without those attributes would lose places to go (and you apparently (correct me if I'm wrong) think that that is wrong as you so obviously believe that, as long as you aren't harming someone, you should be allowed to do something, and someone with a full head of hair walking into a combover-only bar doesn't actually cause any harm). So if someone made a smoker's only bar than any non-smoker would be able to walk in because 'they aren't harming anybody' so then it wouldn't be a smokers only, it would just be not no-smoking.
Alternatively, if new businesses opened to accomodate to exclusive members (fat, combover, emo hair, freckles, smokers), then those places would take business fromother establishments so the owners of all the other small-time businesses would be hurt financially (and that hurts people).

So basically, no matter which way you try and open these businesses (as having JUST a smoking establishment and not others for different people is a bit rude and hardly fair)

And no offense, but your next arguement is floating in a sea of fail. People get judged for things like hair, weight, and physical deformities so smokers can too? Well, if you want to point and mock a smoker, that's true-you have every right to do so. But how would you feel if suddenly, no fatties were allowed to go into restaurants?

If their obesity causes harm to others then I see no issue with not allowing them into the establishment as their choices shouldn't affect that safety of others.

Or mullets were banned from bars?

Well if mullets were a fire-hazard or a health-risk then it would be perfectly reasonable to refuse them entry.

You got a hunched back? Get outta my store, freak!

Well if the hunched back is a genetic deformity then, naturally, they wouldn't be alive to enter the establishment because, in the wild, they would have been killed. So, naturally, they shouldn't even be alive. But as long as they don't reproduce (pass on bad genetic material) then they aren't actually hurting anyone so why shouldn't they be allowed in???

You see, just because other people are harassed, doesn't make right.

Completely true, but smokers shouldn't be allowed to be free of the judging if people with judgable characteristics that cannot harm people aren't given their own establishments. So it isn't right to judge them but it would be wrong to judge them and not judge others, and seeing as no one is completely unjudging then why should smokers get a place to be judge free???

Remember when the US used that policy against black people. How that turn out?

I am going to go with 'NOT WELL'. But being black doesn't harm anybody and if there is a blacks-only establishment and a white guy walks in then how is the white guy 'harming' anybody??? So therefore, why should the blacks get their own establishment when them being around white people doesn't hurt them or the white guys???

And before you come back with, "but those people aren't hurting anyone else" I say-the obese cause our healthcare system (NOT the taxpayers) more than smokers so with their diabetes and heart disease.

Well then if you can think of a way that stops obesity that doesn't involve a murderous rampage or torture then I would support it (oh and obviously, it doesn't hurt people who aren't fat)

Also, those smokers would not be harming anyone else IF YOU'D LET THEM HAVE A PLACE TO CONGREGATE AND STAY AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC.

At the risk of sounding repetitive, why should they get a place to not be judged when countless others do not have the similar places??? ESPECIALLY when some of them do not choose to have those qualities by which they are judged.

And I'm sorry that I was harsh. But if I can do something in a way that doesn't hurt anyone else, how dare you tell me I can't do it?

Well for starters, you hurt yourself without any beneficial outcome that couldn't be achieved in some less harmful way. And secondly, if you do harm yourself without, for example, protecting someone else from harm through that act, or (example 2) getting large benefits for yourself (other than the joy of smoking (I'm assuming smokers enjoy it)), then maybe smokers need counselling cause, evolution-wise, self-harm for no reason isn't exactly a trait that would promote survival, and therefore is, most likely, a bad mental state which smokers should probably not have.

Well that is my opinion. I hope that you didn't find it too long-winded (I'm going to say you did).

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

My suggestion, shorten it down a bit. Propaganda is usually frowned upon, but that doesn't make it false. I am a mild smoker, meaning I smoke but not to much. Smoking is extremely bad for your health. Both my grandparents had lung cancer and now my grandmotherr has a hole in her throat. I have been thinking for myself for a while, and I'm usually ahead of the curb on most of this stuff. You are a dumbass, I repeat DUMBASS, if you believe that smoking doesn't have any negative effects, apart from making you look like a douche.
By the way I only skimmed through what you said so yet again, make it smaller.

You don't even bother reading an entire post and you're calling ME a "dumbass"? Oh the irony... XD

First of all, I've NEVER said smoking can't be bad for your health. I have stressed it in quite a few posts now and I really think the message should have gotten across. Therefor I hold any possible misunderstandings about this on the readers responsibility. And this is clearly a case where YOU should have read up a little before commenting, instead of bitching about a post being "too long" for you. Im not hear to please you with short enough posts for your low brow intellect to handle, if you want to counter my arguments in any way, read the entire post or just shut the fuck up...

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Slowly killing yourself makes you feel better about yourself?

We're all slowly killing ourselves, regardless of whether we choose to smoke or not...

But smoking brings the end a bit faster.

For SOME people, yes. But it doesn't matter. It's their choice and should be their choice. Case Closed...

 

[I Framed OJ]

Well I think it is a preservation of life thing. See I am addicted to niccotine, my grandparents smoked and I got small doses as a child that always made me want to come back for more. Now I know people grow up with parents smoking and what not and get turned off. But I was too young to realise it was bad. Now I keep wanting to smoke. But you see I don't smoke for the same reason I wear a seatbelt and stick to the speed limit. To preserve my life. So in that respect I can understand why the government is involved. But I also heard on the news that due to iPod's and MP3's etc headphones being abused by young kids, the hearing damage will cost medicare over 400 billion dollars in 40 years (Medicare is like free-health care in Australia). And in a different story I heard that somking related health issues will only cost the government 70billion dollars in 50 years. So the government should be concerntrating on getting headphones out of your ears than people smoking.

 

[Omikron009]

I think that if somebody has the urge to slowly kill themselves, they should at least have the decency to do it in a place where they won't harm others as well.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I think that if somebody has the urge to slowly kill themselves, they should at least have the decency to do it in a place where they won't harm others as well.

See, this is indicative of certain people's attitude and why I still rally for smokers despite having given it up some time ago.

Despite having gone over all the material a long time ago, and having had people bring up new material, there's some basic facts which tend to get missed.

. Smokers already pay dearly for their habit before you talk about anything else. One day's cigarettes cost me £6 (Nearly $10). These same cigarettes cost 30p($.5) to make.
. Smoking provides the Government with a massive revenue towards Health care, which smoking related diseases only use up an eighth of.
. No unbiased survey of second hand smoking has been carried out because ministers wants people to think it is a good idea. It also smells, unlike carbon monoxide.
. Most MPs, Congressmen and other political officials not only have smoked but have rules allowing them to smoke at work while we can't.
. Smokers are well aware that the habit is harmful to them (that's why it's hard to give up because the narcotic nicotine prevents you feeling the tightness in your lungs)
. No other product (despite worse ill effects) has the hatred directed towards it that smoking does. Heroin addicts are welcomed into get their methadone.
. Smokers are, on the street, approached and told in no uncertain terms that they're killing people. What sort of outright intolerance is that?
. I have rarely, if ever, seen a smoker that deliberately blows smoke at a non-smoker, and I've spent nearly 20 years of my life around them. I can also say that the "smoker's corner" tends to have a better deal of etiquette than any other group of strangers.

. Flaws: You smell of death and decay (which you can't smell), you have a short temper when idiots start telling you that it's going to kill you.
. Flaws it doesn't have: Violence (drink), Fattening(In fact the reverse, it supresses appetite), Lack of concentration (drink etc.)

. Take a quick look through this, or any other, set of postings. Replace the word "smoker" with woman, black person, fat person, Asian, American, Englishman, child and see exactly how virulently you are treating someone you are likely never going to meet.

Now do you get why some of us smoke?

 

[Malkavian]

Why should I have to produce evidence of something that is common Knowledge if you have been alive for a day? Heres your homework assignment, I want you to go find a scientist that says smoking is not bad for your health. I in the meantime will poke my head out the window and shout "Does anyone think smoking has no negative effects for your health!? Anyone at all?"
And yes, It is your right to not have any common decency.
And if me not breathing in second hand smoke is gonna keep me alive for just a little while longer, then hell I'm taking it. I don't only safeguard myself from one thing. I wanna die by something more interesting.

And I'm gonna wrap this all up by saying, you don't need to smoke in public, You don't see people masterbating in public, and thats not hazardous to your physical health, only mental.

I've never said that smoking wasn't bad. I smoke, and I KNOW it's bad. We're talking second hand smoke here, and that's different.

Now, you're reproach of my statement makes no sense. It's basicly "nuh-UH, YOU find evidence!" But you represent the side with the claim: 2nd hand smoke is bad. So surely, the need to provide evidence must lie with you. BUT, since you are such a nice fella, let me me help you on the way: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+second+hand+smoking+bad

Among the results, this one has my interest: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n9_v46/ai_15249651/

 

[Biosophilogical]

Shine, I'm glad to see you this evening so we may continue. I hope I haven't offended-I do tend to get sarcastic and for that I apologize. Now then, to rebut your rebuttal!

Ah, that statement just made my day, mainly because the majority of the community makes the rest live by their opinions (of how they should behave) and the funny thing is that, as a human being, I am allowed to try an convince others to live by my standards (as this is part of my opinion) and you saying i can't is actually saying I am not entitled to my opinion (of influencing others twoards my other opinions). This isn't really part of my argument but thank you that actaully made me laugh when I read that.

I think a bit of miscommunication has occured. I really do believe you have the right to your opinion and to try and persuade people to come around to your way of thinking. But I took your post as literally saying noone should be allowed to smoke, ever. If you're persuading them not to smoke, fine. If you begin coercing them legally, physically, fiscally, whatever-THAT'S where I take issue. Is that what you're looking for, or did I in fact misinterpret?

No, there were no miscommunications, more like just the way i originally read your post made me think that.

I'm not sure I entirely follow you here. I'm not saying a business would necessarily be smokers ONLY, but at least smoker FRIENDLY. If you're a non-smoker but aren't bothered by second hand smoke you'd be welcome too. My point was not to exclude certain types (such as fat people, or combovers as in your other examples. Obviously if you have issues with smoke, or fat, or hair you're not going to want to go in there...so don't. There's plenty of other establishments that will suit your needs. As far as having businesses that cater to certain populations being bad, I don't see that. If I can make money giving the smokers someplace to hang out, then so can any other business owner who feels slighted. Of course, he'll get all the anti-smokers I'll lose out on so it balances out to me. It's like saying,"You can't have any gay bars, because it'll take all the gay business away from the regular bars". Except you can be gay in a "straight" bar, you can't be a smoker in a non smoking establishment.

I may have written my post in a bit of an obscure way, my main message was that, why should people who smoke get an establishment designed for them(and those that don't judge them, as I got from your post) when there are people who get judged on factors that aren't their choice and yet they have no place to feel accepted (kind of like helping people who hurt themselves before helping victims of (for example) rape, beatings, mugging, etc.). The main point was actually that, if people who get judged by things out of their control don't have a place then why should smokers (at least why should they get one first).

Well if the hunched back is a genetic deformity then, naturally, they wouldn't be alive to enter the establishment because, in the wild, they would have been killed. So, naturally, they shouldn't even be alive. But as long as they don't reproduce (pass on bad genetic material) then they aren't actually hurting anyone so why shouldn't they be allowed in???

I don't see what this has to do with anything. We don't live in the wild, and I don't think that keeping certain people from breeding is ethical. My point was that the vibe I was getting was that if you don't like something someone does/is we can shun them from society and I don't think that's fair. That aspect all boils down to morals and everybody's are different so unless you've got proof yours are right ones you don't get to make rules for the rest of us.

Admittedly I went off on a tanjent here, but my main point was that if they don't hurt anybody then they shouldn't be excluded (The whole reproducing thing was me getting side-tracked into reproductive-eugenics (basically controlling (to an extent) human reproduction to best benefit the species (people who carry harmfulk genetic defects shouldn't have kids because the issue could be carried into thousands of people (key word 'could))).
NOTE: A bit side-tracked and it has nothing to do with the argument.

Completely true, but smokers shouldn't be allowed to be free of the judging if people with judgable characteristics that cannot harm people aren't given their own establishments. So it isn't right to judge them but it would be wrong to judge them and not judge others, and seeing as no one is completely unjudging then why should smokers get a place to be judge free???

We actually agree here. I believe you have every right to tell a smoker he's an idiot who's just killing himself in the long run. I also believe he has the right to call you a sactamonious prick in response. Say what you want, just don't force him to change his behaviour when it's not affecting you.

Well for starters, you hurt yourself without any beneficial outcome that couldn't be achieved in some less harmful way. And secondly, if you do harm yourself without, for example, protecting someone else from harm through that act, or (example 2) getting large benefits for yourself (other than the joy of smoking (I'm assuming smokers enjoy it)), then maybe smokers need counselling cause, evolution-wise, self-harm for no reason isn't exactly a trait that would promote survival, and therefore is, most likely, a bad mental state which smokers should probably not have.

You posted this section in response to my asking why you have the right to stop me from doing something that doesn't affect you. If a smoker is only smoking in a designated smoking area (thus protecting someone else from harm through that act), why should you care? I don't get why smokers do it either. I think it tastes horrible, and the nicotine "high" is unpleasant. But if it feels good to them, great. Don't you have anything you do that's not good for you but is fun? Bacon is horrible for you, so should people who like it seek counseling?

Oh no, you were completely right about it not harming others, I was just saying that, IMO, smoking, even when it doesn't harm others, isn't exactly something people should do and the fact that they know they are killing themselves yet continue to do it doesn't sound like mental stability (more like a suicider who is in for the long run) (my examples tend to be towards the extreme to emphasise the point so please don't try and point out my relation of smokers to suiciders)

And no, I didn't find your post too long winded. I'm mildly offended you think I'm some ADD teen that can't read more than two minutes without twitching. As long as you care to discuss this topic and we don't start going around in circles I'll be more than happy to consider your side and refute what I don't agree with. So until then, good day sir!

This wasn't so much an attack at you so much as at me, cause I normally don't write such long posts as I rarely get to discuss such big issues with people (don't pick me up on calling it an issue, that is just my opinion of it). Oh and no offense taken whatsoever.

 

[Tdc2182]

Why should I have to produce evidence of something that is common Knowledge if you have been alive for a day? Heres your homework assignment, I want you to go find a scientist that says smoking is not bad for your health. I in the meantime will poke my head out the window and shout "Does anyone think smoking has no negative effects for your health!? Anyone at all?"
And yes, It is your right to not have any common decency.
And if me not breathing in second hand smoke is gonna keep me alive for just a little while longer, then hell I'm taking it. I don't only safeguard myself from one thing. I wanna die by something more interesting.

And I'm gonna wrap this all up by saying, you don't need to smoke in public, You don't see people masterbating in public, and thats not hazardous to your physical health, only mental.

I've never said that smoking wasn't bad. I smoke, and I KNOW it's bad. We're talking second hand smoke here, and that's different.

Now, you're reproach of my statement makes no sense. It's basicly "nuh-UH, YOU find evidence!" But you represent the side with the claim: 2nd hand smoke is bad. So surely, the need to provide evidence must lie with you. BUT, since you are such a nice fella, let me me help you on the way: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+second+hand+smoking+bad

Among the results, this one has my interest: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n9_v46/ai_15249651/

Im Not gonna continue this arguement because the google thing you did was actually pretty cool and kind of funny. So thank you good sir.

 

[Tdc2182]

My suggestion, shorten it down a bit. Propaganda is usually frowned upon, but that doesn't make it false. I am a mild smoker, meaning I smoke but not to much. Smoking is extremely bad for your health. Both my grandparents had lung cancer and now my grandmotherr has a hole in her throat. I have been thinking for myself for a while, and I'm usually ahead of the curb on most of this stuff. You are a dumbass, I repeat DUMBASS, if you believe that smoking doesn't have any negative effects, apart from making you look like a douche.
By the way I only skimmed through what you said so yet again, make it smaller.

You don't even bother reading an entire post and you're calling ME a "dumbass"? Oh the irony... XD

First of all, I've NEVER said smoking can't be bad for your health. I have stressed it in quite a few posts now and I really think the message should have gotten across. Therefor I hold any possible misunderstandings about this on the readers responsibility. And this is clearly a case where YOU should have read up a little before commenting, instead of bitching about a post being "too long" for you. Im not hear to please you with short enough posts for your low brow intellect to handle, if you want to counter my arguments in any way, read the entire post or just shut the fuck up...

I said I skimmed it, and my bad I should have made clear second hand smoke. It is basically the same as smoking, your just not taking in as concentrated as an amount as first hand smoke.

And I and most other people instantly lose respect an decency if you insult at the end of your post. Don'tinsult, it makes you look like yourhaving second thoughts on what your saying.

 

[Biosophilogical]

I think we're starting to compare apples and oranges a little bit here. Of course, victims of crime or disease or trauma should get the help they need before smokers are made to feel comfortable. But that requires a specialized counseling/treatment facility, and my argument is more along the lines of a restaurant or a bar having the right to choose what kind of clientele they cater to. Should the government create safe havens for smokers? Good lord, no! But if Johnny who runs Big Boys' Burgers down the street wants to make his restaurant smoke friendly, I don't think anyone has the right to tell him otherwise.

Yeah you are quite right that people shouldn't be able to stop someone from making a place 'smoke-friendly' and I will add that if it is clearly stated that the restuarant is smoker friendly (so no parents go in with their kids and inhale lungs full of smoke by accident) then I see no issue, my main thing was that I believe that smoking is unhealthy and stupid but you seemed to put it into perspective here ...

Ok, I see your point here. We just see it with differing levels of their "dysfunction". I think smoking is stupid as hell. But I totally understand the concept of trading time for pleasure. Smoking is actually a pretty extreme example, so I see where you (almost) put it in the category of a disorder. For me, I eat foods that have no nutritional value whatsoever and are purely for pleasure (mmmmm, Twinkies). Sure, I could lessen my risk of an early death from heart disease or diabetes by eliminating such things but the loss of enjoyment doesn't seem worth it to me. I'd rather have fun with sixty years than deprive myself for eighty. To me, life is about the individual making the most of it in their eyes. You may see smoking as a waste where that person could achieve so much more by being healthy but if the comfort of nicotine is what that person wants rather than running marathons, it's ultimately their choice, not ours.

Although I may never accept smoking, you are quite right that even non-smokers undertake similar activities (junk food analogy) but as long as there is the slightest chance that second hand smoke is responsible for harm to non-smokers I will never accept it as it seems (my' rents have smoker friends) that the addiction to smoking is what prevents smoking from being completely safe for non-smokers, as at family outings and what-not, they still end up smoking and it is ulikely that the non-smokers will be left completely unexposed to the second hand smoke.

BTW, I have enjoyed the debate very much and I can see the validity of your points from your perspective.

 

[inhuMANATEE]

the answer is no. The government has one actual responsibilities but they are on such a monumental scale that they necessitate bureaucracy; protection. Having an army and maintaining it which requires alot of shit, but it hasn't any authority to tell you what to do.
If some guy came up to you on the street and said "put out that death-stick" you'd probably tell him to fuck off. I suggest the same policy applied to the government.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I said I skimmed it, and my bad I should have made clear second hand smoke. It is basically the same as smoking, your just not taking in as concentrated as an amount as first hand smoke.

So you are seriously suggesting that smoking several times a day, and even being addicted to nicotine is the same thing as catching a whiff of smoke perhaps once or twice a week where you might encounter someone who smokes, but you otherwise stay away from tobacco smoke and don't actively inhale it yourself, like a regular smoker does?

Please, tell me you're joking. The very suggestion is so far from reality that it isn't even funny.

And I and most other people instantly lose respect an decency if you insult at the end of your post. Don'tinsult, it makes you look like yourhaving second thoughts on what your saying.

That's your opinion, and frankly I couldn't care less about it. Isn't that fairly obvious? If I refuse to cater to your tastes in "short and neat" posts, why would I care at all about how "decent" you think I am? This thread isn't about me as a person, so I suggest you stick to facing the arguments presented instead of giving me tips on how I should act in order to please you more. I don't care how little or how much my presentation pleases you, so don't even bother commenting on it, you're just wasting your breath...