I was just wondering whether or not people hate smokers?

What is your main problem with smoking and smokers.....

should there be certain clubs/pubs/bars where smokers can gather?

Should there be a total ban on smoking? in certain places? or everywhere?

what are people's thoughts?

I think smoking should be totally banned but not straight away. I think the next step should be a ban in all public places; even outside. It should be done in the privacy of your own home/garden/etc.

I hate people who smoke near me and think that it's alright. I really don't care much for inhaling smoke and I want to have healthy lungs. Why should the people around me choose what I breathe? It's not fair.

Anywhere there's a public gathering that people will be very close to each other, like restaruants, libraries, beaches, pools, movies, malls ect.ect.. Cigarette butts are not that great to walk on at the beach and cause litter problems anywhere they aren't discarded correctly.

Does this include smoking marihuana?

I think non smokers overestimate the threat of passive smoking, alright if you work in a bar or a club then i can understand it if your breathing other people smoke day in day out for 20 years, but out in the open you have more chance of contracting cancer from the exhaust on your cars!

I am a smoker, but i do believe that smoking should be banned in bars and resturants, however i believe that in private clubs smoking policy should be at the disgression of the managment.

I'm just giving up smoking (which might explain some of my dogmatic responses in here). Every last one of my smoking friends want to give up. Not being able to smoke in pubs would make it easier and help break the connection between cigarettes and alcohol (how good they sound together).

I hate smokes......

I think the best way for me to stop eating junk food is to ban it as well.

Cool skill, why not ban sex while you're at it

It won't happen. In the city near where I live, smoking has been banned in all restaurants, bars and public places. Bars have said that they have lost buisness because people go to the bar just to have a cigarette and a drink. I think that if smoking were to be banned, a whole new underground industry would start. I never understood smokers because all that cigarettes do is give you cancer and blacken you lungs. Weed makes you high, crack and heroine make you high and fucked up, drinking makes you drunk and buzzed and smoking does..... nothink. Zero! Zilch! Nada! Useless! Even though I might not agree with the use of certain substances, substance has a purpose. As for sex... that has multiple purposes. A mix of alcohol, drugs and sex... That has a purpose too. Cigarettes don't.

End Of Rant

Ah! Thor... shut up! :P

"smoking does..... nothink. Zero! Zilch! Nada! Useless!"

Not true, nicotine is a stimulant. It can even be useful to fight fatigue, like if you have to drive while tired. Nicotina Rustica, a more ancient form of tobacco, was almost hallucinogenic in its effects. Of course, after you are addicted, you don't notice these effects, just the pleasure of lack of withdrawl symptoms.

I'm more libertarian with respect to the banning, people should be allowed to smoke almost everywhere, except hospitals and schools. I mean, with petroleum burning everywhere, it seems kind of rediculous to ban tobacco.

I think smoking should be totally banned but not straight away.

I'm in complete agreement. I think the first step should be the placement of severe contraints on the manufacturers, including, most importantly, the cessation of all their advertisements.

Whether or not they realize it, all smokers choose to endanger my health. I'm not comfortable with that, and I'm all for harsh government control where my health is concerned.

and restaurants!!!

I don't want bloody nicotine and smoke and tar and whatnot in my food/blood.

Okay, so car exhaust gives us sickle cell... corrupt lungs doesn't tickle my fancy... and having both is even less appealing.

Main Entry: nic·o·tine
Pronunciation: 'ni-k&-"tEn
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from New Latin nicotiana

: a poisonous alkaloid C10H14N2 that is the chief active principle of tobacco and is used as an insecticide.


http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2257/niceffects.html


What are the Effects of NicotinThis chart shows why several pharmaceutical companies (notably Abbott Labs, SIBIA, and Astra Arcus) are concentrating on nicotine research. You see, there are effects that people would like to replicate. So, the companies are working to design drugs which will mimic the good effects and avoid the bad ones.

One effect that is not listed on this chart is that nicotine can stimulate the division of SCLCs (small cell lung carcinomas), a cancer cell line, by several hundred percent. This fact is interesting because it may explain why certain types of lung cancer grow so rapidly in smoking patients.

Looking at this chart, you can see that nicotine's effects are felt throughout the body. The receptors to which nicotine binds (see Action) are found in many areas, though primarily on muscles and neurons. The complex and interacting nature of these effects makes any precise determination of the actual cause of some reactions very difficult.

Definitions:

Analgesia
(ahn ahl gee shia), absence of pain while retaining the sense of touch, painlessness. One of the most promising uses of nicotinic drugs to date is as pain relievers.

Anti-psychotic
(ahn tee si kah tihk), literally, against psychosis (a type of insanity where the subject loses almost complete touch with reality). Interestingly, the correlation between a diagnosis of untreated psychosis and smoking is very high--it appears that somehow the psychotic person "knows" to self-medicate themselves.

Anxiolysis
(ang zee oh lie sis), lowering of anxiety levels.

Cognitive Enhancement
(cahg nih tihv ehn hahns mehnt), increasing/enhancing of the processes involved in thinking/knowing (cognition).

Cerebrovasodilation
(ceh ree broh vay soh dye lay shun), dilating (opening, widening) of the blood vessels (vaso) in the brain (cerebro).

Emesis
(eh mee sihs), vomiting. An emetic is a substance which can induce vomiting, so nicotine is technically an emetic.

GI
Gastrointestinal (gah stroh ihn teh stih nahl), relating to the stomach or intestines. GI distress could be anything from an upset stomach to cramping of the bowels to constipation, etc. .

Hypertension
(hi pur tehn shun), high blood pressure. Nicotine has an effect on the sympathetic nervous system (part of the nervous system involved in the classic "fight or flight" response), part of this effect is to cause the blood vessels within the body to constrict. Since, hopefully, the same amount of blood is still going through the body, this results in a net increase in the pressure within the system (think of what happens when you squeeze a garden hose). Why is it bad? The increase in pressure has to come from somewhere, and that's the heart which is trying to pump against this. Also, higher pressure can lead the "blowing up" of blood vessels, called aneurysms (think again of that garden hose and what happens if you hold it bent for too long).

Hypothermia
(hi po thehr me ah), lowering (hypo-) of body temperature (thermia) to below normal levels.

Neuroprotection
(nyoo rho pro tek shun), as it sounds, protecting the cells of the nervous system from certain types of degenerative disease. No one knows for sure quite why, but a history smoking seems to be protective against some of the neuronal loss in Alzheimer's disease.

Respiratory Distress
(reh spih rah toh ree dih strehs), as it sounds, causing distress within the respiratory system (the respiratory system includes the lungs and all the parts of the body related to the exchange of oxygen/carbon dioxide). Distress can come from problems caused within the lungs (nodules, degeneration) or by vasoconstriction (not enough time for the exchange to take place).

Seizure
(see zhyur), a sudden attack. Usually we associate seizures with conditions such as epilepsy. Seizures are caused by the loosening of the controls within the brain, allowing electrical activity to "run wild." Tremors and activities associated with seizures are the result of this uncontrolled electrical activity within the brain.

i do not smoke but i have nothing against any body who does
it positive discrimination if you do
we are all against people who discriminate against sexual preferences,color, greed, so why is it different for people who smoke
and bullshit to health issues there are millions of ways to die

I think smoking should be totally banned but not straight away. I think the next step should be a ban in all public places; even outside. It should be done in the privacy of your own home/garden/etc.

I hate people who smoke near me and think that it's alright. I really don't care much for inhaling smoke and I want to have healthy lungs. Why should the people around me choose what I breathe? It's not fair.

do you break wind around people(family friends etc)
it's abit hipocritical then is'nt it and bullshit to health reasons there are millions of way to die

How many people do you think farting has killed, first and second hand?

Compare that to the number which cigarettes have killed, first and second hand.






we are all against people who discriminate against sexual preferences,color, greed, so why is it different for people who smoke


Smoking is a choice, whereas sexual orientation and color are not.

As for "greed"... people aren't really persecuted for that, and I don't know what prompted you to write it down.

no
but make sure it doesn't interfer with nonsmokers' breathing space.

Cosmic:

I saw this excellent science program where they take the filters from about 10 cigs and put them in a beaker with some alcohol or something over night... and then they put it in a vapourizing flask and use it as insecticide!!

Besides smoking, let us also ban the following:

1. All junk food restaurants because these food are not good for your health.
2. All gas/diesel drivings because the smoke coming out from tail pipes are much more unhealthy than that of cigarettes.
3. All drivings because they result in accidents and sometimes even cause dealths.
4. All other things that are considered bad for any of us.

But seriously, I believe that smoking inside buildings should be banned but if smoking is done outside, all public places should have at least one designated smoking area if possible so that the non-smokers are least likely to be bothered.

The prophet speaks:

"I smoke, if this bothers anyone, I recommend you looking around the world in which we live and... shutting your fucking mouth. Either that or suffer a facial burn, your choice. After all this is America, land of freedom, so you have that option ahead of you.

I now realize I smoke for simply one reason, and that is spite. I hate you non-smokers with all of my little black fucking heart, you obnoxious, self-righteous, whining little fucks, my biggest fear, if I quit smoking, is that I'll become one of you. Now don't take that wrong. How many non-smokers do we have here tonight? By round of applause, non-smokers. A few of you. Good, 'cause I have something to tell you. I do. I have something to tell you non-smokers, and this is for you and you only, because I know for a fact that you don't know this. And I feel it's my duty to pass on information at all times, so that we can all learn, evolve, and get the fuck off this planet. Non-smokers, this is for you and you only, ready? Non-smokers die every day. Sleep tight. See, I know you entertain some kind of eternal life fantasy because you do not smoke cigarettes. May I be the first to pop that little fucking bubble of yours, and send you hurtling back to the truth? You're dead too. Have a good evening. And you know what doctors say, "Shit, if only you smoked, we'd have the technology to help you! It's you people dying from nothing that are screwed." I got all sorts of neat gadgets waiting for me, man. Oxygen tent, iron lung-it's like going to Sharper Image! Major rationalizations. We live in such a weird culture, man."

Bill Hicks

~Raithere

Actually, thats an old formula for insecticide for the garden, doesn't prove a thing. Salt kills slugs, too, does that mean salt is always toxic to humans?
Please, you guys and your precious lungs, you think you are going to live forever? Look at George Burns, 100 years on cigars!

mustafhakofi - Since when has smoking been a natural function of the human body? And if someone farts near me I don't go home smelling of farts. But if someone smokes near me, I have trouble breathing, my clothes and hair stink and my eyes go all itchy.

Bring on the next flawed arguement!

mustafhakofi - Since when has smoking been a natural function of the human body? And if someone farts near me I don't go home smelling of farts. But if someone smokes near me, I have trouble breathing, my clothes and hair stink and my eyes go all itchy. Then go somewhere where people aren't smoking you twit. There are all sorts of places where smoking is banned. If I go to a bar that has crap music and piss to drink I don't whine about it, I leave. It's called voting with your dollar.

The thing that truly pisses me off is when I'm being nice and smoking off by myself somewhere and some ass-wipe has the gall to come near me and then complain about my smoking. Honestly, wtf? Facial burns indeed.

~Raithere

I agree that banning it in pubs and clubs would make it easier for people to stop. When I try to give up, I always start again when I get drunk in a licenced premises, why? because all my freinds are there smoking away and a loosened sense of consequence to my actions (because Im drunk) together with readily available fag machine, this is my downfall. Breaking the connection would be great because I would stop easier.
Im against banning it in public places, for two reasons;
Firstly, I dont believe that this country needs anymore rules reguarding what you can and cant do in your spare time, banning smoking would take away individual freedom. If you can buy cigarettes then you should be able to smoke them where its allowed by the premises owner.
Secondly, small business cannot afford to deal with the consequence in a ban on tobacco. I think it should be a choice, if you want it on your premises or not. I guess this point kinda ties in with my first reason.
I can see the benefits however, but I dont think it should be half done. It should either be banned outright or carry on the way it is.

As to feeding the black market if cigarettes were banned, I think this is over estimated. Tobacco is a bulky product for the usage an addict will consume, this would not be an easy thing to smuggle. Smokers need to smoke alot of the time to stop them getting withdrawal, these two factors would probably see a black market not do too well. Anyway, tobacco wouldnt be more popular than drugs such as e and marijuana which are more convenient for the smuggler and purchaser (in a hypothetical situation).

Cheers.

I agree with Thor.

I cough like hell with it around. It makes me nauseous.

"Then go somewhere where people aren't smoking you twit."

Yeah...real easy...have you ever been to a pub or a gig where smoking isn't allowed?? And my college is very lenient on smokers also.

Also, I have heard that various governments have been telling tabacco companies to get out of their country for years. They've given them oppurtunities to find other things to sell. This was around the 70's.
AND, I think stopping adverts for smoking should be totally banned. Not just in sports. It's not like you advertise porn on billboards (man would that be sweet!)

Ah..

I don't particularly care for ciggaretes but It doesen't really bother me to the extent that i'm going to go off and bitch about it, i'm not the one that is smoking something with that much radioactivity. Sometimes it seems, as if, right hand christian fundamentalists and naiive conservatives wan't america to be in a police state. If smoking was banned, it would not be effective in any means..

In the netherlands were Marijuana is distributed freely, the rate of marijuana users are actually lower than that of America and ciggarettes might even be a bigger epedemic than Marijuana because of its addictive factor... If you people don't want ciggarette smoke in your faces, the last thing you would wan't to do is ban ciggarettes all together.

In pubic places like restraunts (Atleast family orientated), there are ussually non smoking and smoking sides... and if your in a bar and don't enjoy the ciggarette smoke for health reasons than why the fuck are you in a Bar, which operates mainly to serve beverages that have a way greater impact on your health than second hand smoke..

Also, I have heard that various governments have been telling tabacco companies to get out of their country for years. They've given them oppurtunities to find other things to sell. This was around the 70's.
Marlboro sell a clothing range. Yeh, they do sell tobacco too, but Ive always wondered why they sell clothes and that could be a plausible reason you got there.

I think stopping adverts for smoking should be totally banned. Not just in sports
they are going to have a total ban on tobacco ads in F1 in the next few years. Really have no idea what the impact will be.

"Marlboro sell a clothing range."

Now that I DID not know. Cheers for the info.

"they are going to have a total ban on tobacco ads in F1 in the next few years. Really have no idea what the impact will be."

I thought this happened years ago, or was it just planned? And does anyone else watch F1 other than the Brits?? I can't really see other nationalities watching it for some reason *scratches noggin*

Non-Smokers,

If you do not like inhaling cigarette smokes, can you then stay away instead of telling smokers to go away? I am only referring to the outdoor areas. The smokers pay tax to contribute to the creations of public areas just as much as you do; don't you guys think they deserve a little space called designated smoking area or do you think that smokers can help you pay tax for the public areas but they are still not allowed to smoke just because you think it is disgusting or it might affect your health.

I bet most of you non-smokers would really wish that Raithere was also banned from typing.

I have an impression that non-smokers are dictator wannabe. Is this impression totally wrong?

F1 is huge all over the world, yeh, it was planned and is being put into action now.

Joey, I agree with you. The western world is seeing too much police states and we can see that over regulation does nothing its intended. It a really good point what you said about smoking in bars.

Yeah...real easy...have you ever been to a pub or a gig where smoking isn't allowed??Quite a few actually but they tend to suck (go figure). Of course most of the time a smoker goes into a pub we're harassed by all the non-smokers wanting to bum a smoke.

Also, I have heard that various governments have been telling tabacco companies to get out of their country for years.Why would a government have to tell them more than once? Sounds like political publicity to me, pointing to the door with one hand while the other reaches for a campaign contribution.

AND, I think stopping adverts for smoking should be totally banned. Not just in sports.I agree and the same for alcohol. But most importantly for Old Navy.

~Raithere

"If you do not like inhaling cigarette smokes, can you then stay away instead of telling smokers to go away?"

Well, non-smokers really don't get a choice in the matter while smokers get the choice. If I'm in a restaurant and someone lights up, I did not choose to inhale smoke but they have. Yet they're imposing their desicion on me. Why should I let that happen if I don't want it to? And if it effects me physically, should I just pull down my pants and bend over? Negatory good bunny, NEGATORY!

"I bet most of you non-smokers would really wish that Raithere was also banned from typing."

Not really, I like Tim.

"Is this impression totally wrong?"

Yes and you may call me 'Mein Kaiser'

"Do you have these Truth commercials overseas too?"

The what now??

"Why would a government have to tell them more than once? Sounds like political publicity to me, pointing to the door with one hand while the other reaches for a campaign contribution."

That was my initial thought, but with Ireland introducing non-smoking laws and Scotland heading that way, wouldn't it be logical to do it throughout the UK??

Actually, the effects of passive smoking are far from proven.

Well, non-smokers really don't get a choice in the matter while smokers get the choice. If I'm in a restaurant and someone lights up, I did not choose to inhale smoke but they have. Yet they're imposing their desicion on me. Why should I let that happen if I don't want it to? And if it effects me physically, should I just pull down my pants and bend over? Negatory good bunny, NEGATORY!

You do have a choice, go to the non-smoking side of the restraunt. If they have none, go to one that has. I don't go to a restraunt that allows strippers, than bitch about how I'm morally disgusted and why they allow them.

"You do have a choice, go to the non-smoking side of the restraunt. If they have none, go to one that has. I don't go to a restraunt that allows strippers, than bitch about how I'm morally disgusted and why they allow them."

I've always thought that the concept of non-smoking and smoking sections are obsurd. Smoke doesn't go towards the boundry and say 'Oh crap, can't go there!' Smoke get everywhere! And many pubs and restaurants rarely enforce their smoking policies for some reason. And if I've booked a place in a restaurant I enjoy, why should it be ruined by someone who wants to kill themselves prematurly and wants to take a few with him?

I just disagree with it period. No-one can sway me and my real reasons run too deep to change.

Thor,

I you read my earlier comment again, you should see that I was referring to smoking outdoors. I am a believer in indoor smoking ban unless it is a bar where many people come there to have a drink and smoke.

From your yes answer, I now have a slightly different impression: Some non-smokers are dictator wannabe. Is this impression still completely wrong?

hungvu - I'm sorry I misread your post. I shall re-reply. I am happier about people smoking outside, well, okay, I'm cool with people smoking outside. But that should be the only place it should happen. Or at home. Also, if someone is smoking near someone outside, they should at least ask if the other person minds it as I hate it when smoke blows into your face. Thanks wind!

lol, I think that most non-smokers blieve they should have a choice as to whether they should be forced to inhale other peoples smoke. Not to impose rules to annoy others. If there was some middle ground then I'm sure the 'dictator' attitude would subside.

a place in a restaurant I enjoy, why should it be ruined by someone who wants to kill themselves prematurly and wants to take a few with him?

Can you at least listen to yourself? The only people who want to kill themselves and to take others with them are suicide bombers. Smokers just simply want to smoke, period.

"Can you at least listen to yourself? The only people who want to kill themselves and to take others with them are suicide bombers. Smokers just simply want to smoke, period."

This relates to my deep reason behind not liking smoking. I'm not saying any details other than it is very personal. People who do smoke have a lowered life expectancy...how is that not dying prematurly? And passive smoking has been linked to some diseases in certain studies. Not totally conclusive but still not worth the risk in my book.

I just honestly don't see the point of purposely shoving a shit filled tube in your mouth, lighting it, and sending it to your lungs...

Where's the kick?

No one shoves their nose in a car's exhaust pipe.

About smoking outside near a non-smoker, I think the one who was there first has the right to stay and the other should walk to a different place to smoke or to stay away from smokes. I wish wind can be asked to blow a certain direction but we cannot ask for everything, can we?

Even though I am a smoker, I still do not like the after smell resulted from smoking indoor so I think for restaurants, there should be at least some kind of a filtering machine that can effectively collect smokes like one of those that I remember seeing on some advertisings.

Hm....

What restraunt doesent enforce such policy? I don't see people go to the non-smoking side and sparking up, I imagine they would be asked to leave immediately being the people that go to the non-smoking side go for a reason. I'm also sure, that such sections are at a distance where the smoke does not practically effect you or is so miniscule, it doesen't make a difference.

Now, I'm not saying that smoking in small areas where people do not have a choice but to inhale it in a practical manner is justified because it is not. I'm just saying that in the present time being smokers/non-smokers are under a compromise, and both parties should adequetelly comply with the needs of this compromise.

Also, remember... second hand smoking is ussually caused by years and years of inhaling it and is ussually in a family setting where inhaling is unavoidable. Don't be paranoid >:()

us? paranoid? who thinks their phone is tapped?

"About smoking outside near a non-smoker, I think the one who was there first has the right to stay and the other should walk to a different place to smoke or to stay away from smokes."

I think that's something I can agree with. It's only fair. But what if it's a situation where another person can't go anywhere else...say, a bus stop? I think the polite thing to do is ask if they mind if they have a smoke.

"Even though I am a smoker, I still do not like the after smell resulted from smoking indoor so I think for restaurants, there should be at least some kind of a filtering machine that can effectively collect smokes like one of those that I remember seeing on some advertisings."

These are expensive and I can't see restaurants forking out for equipment like this when they think leaving a door open is going to do the same job. Unless it was made compulsory.

"I just honestly don't see the point of purposely shoving a shit filled tube in your mouth, lighting it, and sending it to your lungs..."

With me being in college I know a fair few smokers. A vast majority of them really wish they hadn't started and can't see why they thought it was a good idea to start in the first place.

me being in high school I know people who love their cigs and think I'm mad. It drives them wild. They love every moment of it.

jadedflower,

Since you do not know where the kick is, I figure you have never smoked before. Trust me on this one, nobody can show you where or how the kick is. You have to smoke to find out yourself. By the way, you will also never see "the point" until you are a smoker yourself.

in which case: May ignorance be bliss.

Only thing I've ever smoked is pot.

"Since you do not know where the kick is, I figure you have never smoked before."

Is the kick only in recieving your dose of nicotine during a comedown? Or is it something more euphoric, like...slapping a bald guy on the head?

"By the way, you will also never see "the point" until you are a smoker yourself."
"in which case: May ignorance be bliss."

Is the kick only in recieving your dose of nicotine during a comedown? Or is it something more euphoric, like...slapping a bald guy on the head?

Again, you have to try it yourself because nobody can describe or tell you where or how the kick is.

it's an adrenaline thing... but don't the cons outweight the pros?

"Again, you have to try it yourself because nobody can describe or tell you where or how the kick is."

Again, do the kicks only come when you're hooked or is it something that appears when you first do it? You can't just go up to a non-smoker and say 'Get one of these down ya, it's great' then watch them cough their lungs up.

Its when you begin to smoke youll get a nicotine rush that feels really amasing but when you get addicted that rush turns into something not so good which is wanting a cigarette to feed the addiction. When your at this point you only feel releaf.

it's an adrenaline thing...
It is unique and unlike any other including the "adrenaline thing"

but don't the cons outweight the pros?
For smokers, those who consider the cons outweight the pros, they quit. Those who think different still smoke.

For a non-smoker like yourself, of course you can only see the cons because the pros do not even exist for you.

Since you have smoked a pot before. If you already quit, then the kick from the pot smoking obviouly was not enough a pro for you to outweight the con.

pot didn't do much for me, so i didn't think it worth another shot... as for smoking... I'm sure there are pros... but i don't care.

you have more chance of contracting cancer from the exhaust on your cars!

Cars give off Carbon Monoxide just like cigarettes, except they don't give off 100 other carcinogens.

exhaust pipes give you sickle cell. Yippee... oh, and acid rain.

You people are all fascists. If I want to smoke in the privacy of my own home – alone or in the company of other smokers – what business is it of yours? Yes, it’s dangerous and disgusting, but in case you haven’t heard, in a free society people are allowed to do dangerous and disgusting things so long as it doesn’t endanger anyone else.

Ban smoking in bars and clubs? Why? Do you really believe that you have a right to eat or dance anywhere you want without having to worry about second-hand smoke? If you don’t want to patronize a restaurant/bar/club/whatever because they allow smoking, you’re perfectly free to not go there. If enough people insist on only going to places that ban smoking then sooner or later large numbers of places will begin banning smoking on their own. In the mean time, why shouldn’t I be able to open a bar that allows smoking? If you don’t like the smoking, you’re perfectly free to get out. I’ll sit happily with my three other coughing, cancer-riddled customers and smoke my lungs out.

You could make a good case for banning smoking in public buildings (a public health hazard) or around children (young children might not be able to appreciate the dangers of second hand smoke, and might not be able to effectively remove themselves from the situation even if they did). That’s about it. There is absolutely no reason why consenting adults shouldn’t be able to smoke on private property, including restaurants and clubs. As for the argument that it would help others quite smoking, why the heck should I be obligated to help you quit smoking? If you want to quit, more power to you, but don’t expect to be able to restrict my civil liberties simply because it’s convenient for you.

Cars give off Carbon Monoxide just like cigarettes, except they don't give off 100 other carcinogens.

Wake up and smell your car exhaust tail pipe (no cheating here: engine should be running). Carbon Monoxide is not the only toxic that comes out from exhaust tail pipes. A smog technician can tell you more in details. Besides, has anyone ever worry that cigarette smoke is considered an air pollution contributor? Last time I checked, it is the automobile exhausts that people are most concerned about.

"You people are all fascists. If I want to smoke in the privacy of my own home ? alone or in the company of other smokers ? what business is it of yours? Yes, it?s dangerous and disgusting, but in case you haven?t heard, in a free society people are allowed to do dangerous and disgusting things so long as it doesn?t endanger anyone else."

I think we all agreed it was alright to smoke in your own home, geez.

Fascism c'est en vogue. C'est le mot de la mode.

Excuse my spelling. That says "Fascism is popular. It's the word in fashion"
Basically:

If you want to ban smoking: Fascist.
If you're an atheist: Fascist.
If you want to be politically correct: Fascist.

Get a life and learn a new word.

It's not fascism.
It's like driving a car. It's not a right. It's a privilage. Like voting, like anything else.

Yes I do have the right to breathe fresh air without you telling me to go live in the Amazon.
Yes, fine, smoke. Smoke in your house. A friend's house. Do it away from me! Thank you very much, you selfish pig... breathing is my human right. I don't see any article about smoking.

"Yes I do have the right to breathe fresh air without you telling me to go live in the Amazon."

What Amazon?

And having an opinion does not, I say that again, does not make one a fascist.

If people want to smoke, so be it. If they want to smell bad and damage their body, so be it. That's their choice, not ours.

Smoking/non-smoking should be up to the establishment owner.

Smoking in public buildings/vehicles should be illegal.

Smoking outside is fine. Just don't do it right in front of the door.

what i hate are those renegade non-smokers who come up to me at the bus stop when i am like ten feet away from any individual and tell me to put my cigarette out because its hurtin them from frikkin way over there which is nowhere near the stupid bus stop... get a frikkin life...

Well us non-smokers do get pissed at smokers for good cause. I can't count the number of people who have lit up right next to me and had their smoke AND ASH blow on me.

You just happened to remind them of the asshole who lit up next to them.

I've always thought that the concept of non-smoking and smoking sections are obsurd. Smoke doesn't go towards the boundry and say 'Oh crap, can't go there!' Smoke get everywhere! And many pubs and restaurants rarely enforce their smoking policies for some reasonThe issue in this case is neither the rights of the smokers nor of the non-smokers but the rights of the proprietor. That's why I said, vote with your dollar. Because if it behooves the business to ban smoking you can be sure they will. Many restaurants have indeed banned smoking, at least in the dining area because there are enough non-smokers who object and will go elsewhere. Bars and pubs, however, tend to be a different story. Many people who do not smoke regularly will smoke when they're out partying and having a drink. As Eddie Izzard says, "Soon no drinking and no talking."

The point is that a restaurant is not a public space, it is a private space. As far as the outdoors, try standing downwind because all you're objecting to at that point is the smell. You're doing more damage to your body standing out in the sunlight than from the amount of toxins you could possibly get from the outdoor diffusion of cigarette smoke. And if we're going to start legislating smell there are far more offensive odors, I assure you.

~Raithere

Ive never had a non-smoker come stand next to me when Ive been smoking and tell me to put it out (not even ask). I can assure you if someone was as ignorant as this I would stub it out on their face.
Someones correct (forget who said it), they said that once smoking is banned, they will move onto something else until you wont be able to do anything. There is a movement in UK where, they want to ban swords because of the recent kill bill movies incase someone wants to go out and copy whats in the film on someone, so far it hasnt happened but they want to do it anyway - I havnt seen the film. There are also anti-drinking movement who want to see health warnings plastered over all bottles or beer/wine/liquor, telling you how bad it is for you and ban alcohol related ads from television.

I'm a far greater danger to people's health when they complain about me smoking than I am when I am smoking.

i've always wondered why smoking was banned in all other buildings but not restaurants until recently. the smoke doesn't know which table it's supposed to stay at. even those restaurants that realized this and put up the little partitions can't tell the smoke to stay inside them.
cigarette smoke makes me nauseaus...not what the restuarant wants for its patrons who intend on eating. i'm so glad about the smoking ban. even smokers i know agree bars/clubs are so much more pleasant now that they have to smoke outside and it's not that big a deal for them. afterall, you have to go outside everywhere else.

their smoke AND ASH blow on me.

arg i hate that. a few days ago my friend lit up a cigarette, upwind of me mind you, and proceeded to tap ashes onto my shoes and bag. i had to keep reminding her not to burn my things. rude. :mad:

What Amazon?


Forest. :rolleyes:

SwedishFish,

Here is another story. A friend of mine was standing in front of his house smoking. A woman about sixty something driving by stopped her car in front of him and said to him: "Will you stop polluting the air?" My friend, while being able to see visible smoke coming out of her exhaust tail pipe, becomes speechless as she drove away after giving him an unfriendly kind of look.

By the way, let us all be reminded that the amount of tax money coming out from smokers pockets is huge. Trust me on this one.

I have a solution. A bit ambitious but it's a solution that could very well be put into effect and work if implemented the right way.

Okay, smokers today don't want a ban right? So why don't we just ban the smokers of tomorrow?! It would work like this...

The smokers of today (people over legal age who are smoking now) can apply for a smokers license. This license will be asked for whenever you wish to purchase any tabacco based products and you must show it in order to buy.

This means that the smokers of tomorrow will not be able to buy them from the stores but the smokers of today will. And when an allotted period of time has passed, tobacco based products are banned outright as a health and safety scheme.

So, people who smoke already will be appeased and the people of tomorrow will be healthier.

What do you think? Can anyone add anything to it? It's only an early idea that I thought up in a Burger King car park like two hours ago.

Thanks

"Hey bro, can you buy me some cigs?"

"sure"


Sorry Thor. It'll never work.

Thor,

Burger King? The food there is categorized as junk food and thus not good for you. To avoid being a dictator, before thinking about forcing people to have a license so they can smoke and forbiding people from deciding to smoke in the future, stop thinking!

i'm not in the habit of listening to "proud americans" much less proud smokers. i've never met anyone who was proud to be a smoker. everyone i know swears up and down that they will quit or want to quit or wish they could quit but it's just too hard. i have certainly never heard of defending it. all the smokers i know (plenty...too many :( ) are in favor of the ban. if it's really too hard for you to go outside then consider getting a less dependent dependency.
your "story" is neither here nor there. the point was that she apologized the first time she dropped ashes on me, then continued to do so despite repeated reminders. that is simply rude. i don't like burn holes in my expensive shoes thank you.

""Hey bro, can you buy me some cigs?"

"sure""

Well that's one flaw. If fines and prison sentences' were there as a deterent, that would only happen on rare occassions.

"Burger King? The food there is categorized as junk food and thus not good for you."

How does being in a Burger King car park constitute as being unhealthy?! I am so confused!

"To avoid being a dictator, before thinking about forcing people to have a license so they can smoke and forbiding people from deciding to smoke in the future"

It's gonna be banned in the future so what are you wailing about? I'm just thinking of ways to make it easier. No-one wants to ban it as they'll lose votes come election time. But it is on the agenda.

" stop thinking!"

Done

"By the way, let us all be reminded that the amount of tax money coming out from smokers pockets is huge. Trust me on this one."

And being spent on what, nuclear weapons? Yeah, that's great. Use money from products that kill to make stuff that kills more. Yippee!

Send people to jail for life for buying cigs?

Zeig Heil, Mein Füher Thor!

Why not shoot them and spare their prison expence?

Nonono... you can't ban ciggarettes. It's not a viable solution.

What do the smokers suggest for the future generations? Do they encourage it? Do they think people just be unincentivated? tell us, please :) and how would you, victims of the smoking fashion (although you'd probably never admit it) go about saving the youth?
Or is it just not working?

Why don't we just remove the nicotine from cigarettes and any other overlyaddictive substances and let the companies try selling that? Only god knows how fast ciggarette companies will be out of business after that.

"Zeig Heil, Mein Füher Thor!"

*dons crown and waves*

"Why not shoot them and spare their prison expence?"

The bullets could be paid with the tax money earnt from ciggies. Oh the irony.

"you can't ban ciggarettes."

It's being planned, I swear to you. It's very, very slowly being implemented. When I say very, I mean VERY!

I kind of liked my idea of letting this generation of smokers smoke and stop a new generation from lighting up. Wait til I rule the world!

"Why don't we just remove the nicotine from cigarettes and any other overlyaddictive substances and let the companies try selling that?"

We could make nicotine illegal. That way people will only be smoking some paper, tabacco leaves and tar. Nice.


Next stop, Caffiene!

The governments get loads of cash from ciggarettes... they feed of the cig. addicts.
It'll never happen. Its too big a source of income.

Always a sceptic eh? It's all about the money with you, isn't it? The governments of today are great, I'm sure that as soon as they realise that alcohol and cigarettes kill people, they'll ban them both!

unless they happen to be smokers/drinkers

oh, and I prefer "realist" to sceptic. ;)

There's a distinction now?

oh be quiet :P

I would say smoking sucks, but it´s the people´s freedom and choice if they want to. Special areas for smokers would be nice. And smoking should be banned at certain locations. For example restaurants, it really sucks if someone smokes a cigarette next to you while you are eating.

BTW Hey Jaded, your german is kinda bad.

Fascism c'est en vogue. C'est le mot de la mode.

Excuse my spelling. That says "Fascism is popular. It's the word in fashion"
Basically:

If you want to ban smoking: Fascist.
If you're an atheist: Fascist.
If you want to be politically correct: Fascist.

Get a life and learn a new word.
I meant ‘fascism’ to mean ‘an overly right-wing, authoritarian form of government’. I was suggesting that a government ban on smoking in places like restaurants would be an undue infringement. I think that was pretty clear from my post, and is in line with the common definition of fascism. I’m sorry if the term ‘fascism’ is some sort of pet peeve of yours, but I didn’t suggest that atheists or politically correct people are fascists, so I don’t really know what you’re ranting about. It's not fascism.
It's like driving a car. It's not a right. It's a privilage. Like voting, like anything else.This might shock you, but you don’t need a driver’s license to operate a vehicle on private property. If you want to go out and build your own private race track, you can drive around on it all day without a license. You only need a license to drive on public land, ie. streets. This is exactly the way it should be with smoking; permissible in privately owned property.

Also, voting is a right – at least here in the United States. If you live in a country where voting isn’t considered a right, then I suppose you already have much bigger political issues to deal with then whether or not to ban smoking.Yes I do have the right to breathe fresh air without you telling me to go live in the Amazon.
Yes, fine, smoke. Smoke in your house. A friend's house. Do it away from me! Thank you very much, you selfish pig... breathing is my human right. I don't see any article about smoking.You seem to have totally missed my point, and apparently you’re a little confused about how rights work in a free society. Yes, you have a right to breath fresh air; but you don’t have a right to breath fresh air anywhere you want. If you’re in a public place – a park, a city bus, a public school - then yes, you have the right to fresh air. On the other hand, if I own a private business like a restaurant or club then I have the right to determine whether or not to allow smoking. If I allow smoking in my restaurant and you can’t stand to be around smokers, then the only right you have is the right to not come into my business.

BTW Hey Jaded, your german is kinda bad.
I thought so... :o what would be correct to say?

I didn’t suggest that atheists or politically correct people are fascists, so I don’t really know what you’re ranting about.

Cool Skill called me fascist for being an atheist... and the politically correct story isn't directly related to this thread, but it's another case of people using fascism for stuff that has nothing to do with it.

This is exactly the way it should be with smoking; permissible in privately owned property.

Yeah, sure... smoke at home... as long as your not like my neighbour who lets the smoke dance through my windows.

Question:Are bars and shops private property? Meaning, are they (and can they really be) encompassed withing the smoking ban laws?

And did I say voting wasn't a right?

but you don’t have a right to breath fresh air anywhere you want. If you’re in a public place – a park, a city bus, a public school - then yes, you have the right to fresh air.
Duh, that's mainly what I'm talking about...

if I own a private business
fair enough... but...

like a restaurant or club
check the question I asked...

If I allow smoking in my restaurant and you can’t stand to be around smokers, then the only right you have is the right to not come into my business.
do you know how hard it is to find a non-smoking place? and even then people smoke!!! That's the problem with smokers, they think they have more rights than regular non-smokers.
What is the issue was burning rubber?

Question:Are bars and shops private property? Meaning, are they (and can they really be) encompassed withing the smoking ban laws?Yes. Some states (Florida, for example) have banned smoking in all clubs, bars, and restaurants.And did I say voting wasn't a right?Yes. Your exact quote was “It's like driving a car. It's not a right. It's a privilage. Like voting, like anything else.”

Yeah, nonsmokers should go into smoking sections with burning tires. "You dont have the right to breath clean air" that would be great. A burning tire probably produces less pollutant than a cigarret. Go to a park next to a smoker and light up your tire... same principle.

I'm not aware of smokers that seek people out so they can smoke next to them.
I'd be all too happy for non-smokers to get the fuck out of my personal space, if smoking causes some kind of barrier then thats just fantastic.

Yeah, nonsmokers should go into smoking sections with burning tires. "You dont have the right to breath clean air" that would be great.Again, you seem to think that you have an inalienable right to breath clean air anywhere you want – this just isn’t the case. If you can’t stand the fact that smoke from the smoking section of a restaurant is finding its way toward you, you can leave the restaurant. I’ll reiterate, since you seem to have missed it before: you only have to right to be ‘smoke free’ in publicly owned places.A burning tire probably produces less pollutant than a cigarret. This is simply insane.

Nasor: the voting thing; under 18s and people in jail for big stuff aren't allowed to vote.

@ Jaded

Well, the correct spelling of "Zeig Heil, Mein Füher Thor!"
would be "Sieg Heil, Mein Führer Thor!"

I suppose on a german forum I would get banned for writing something like that.

(I distance myself from this expression since I do not associate myself with paroles of the NSDAP, nor with their political agenda)

Nasor: the voting thing; under 18s and people in jail for big stuff aren't allowed to vote.Never the less, voting is a right, not a privilege. Of course there are many rights that you can’t exercise until they’re an adult and that you can lose if you commit a crime.

I'm not aware of smokers that seek people out so they can smoke next to them.
I'd be all too happy for non-smokers to get the fuck out of my personal space, if smoking causes some kind of barrier then thats just fantastic.

you don't??? holy hell, I do...because smoking is something they do when they're just standing around talking. we're standing outside just chilling and talking....out come the cigs. without fail. why, just today me friend came over to my door with her cigarette to talk to me until she was done smoking, at which point she went back to work.

Hell, I actually take 'smoke breaks' at work even though I don't smoke. I go down with a couple of the other guys for 10 mins... but they realize I don't smoke and are polite enough to stand downwind. If they didn't, I wouldn't go with them.

Some other smokers though seem to care less and will light up in a crowded train, in the bathroom, whereever... and not seem to care that their smoke and ash are both blowing on you. Makes me wish I could fart on command.... maybe then they'd realize why it's rude to subject someone else to your fumes.

The government continues to try to gain more power and control because it attracts people who like to be in charge. Outlawing smoking because it is a health hazard is just one step next will be the outlawing of guns and the restrictions on food and clothing. It is probably paranoia talking but who would have thought that you could be sued by a burglar who broke through your sky light. If you want to feed an elephant to a kitten you can't do it all at once you'll end up with one dead kitten. You feed it to the kitten one bite at a time.

Dreamwalker: the "Seig" bit I didn't know. What does it mean anyway?? I just hear it a lot. And the Führer was a spelling mistake. See? I even remembered the ü :)


Nasor: Okay, point taken. Voting was a bad example. But I still stand by my statment that smoking is NOT and never will be... a human right. (ditto driving)

It is probably paranoia talking but who would have thought that you could be sued by a burglar who broke through your sky light. Urban legend.

Actually no... this happened in the UK. It was recently on one of those urban legend shows. Basicallt they thought that it was the equivalent of a 'trap'.

the "Seig" bit I didn't know. What does it mean anyway?? I just hear it a lot. And the Führer was a spelling mistake. See? I even remembered the ü

Well, it basically is a wish for victory(=Sieg) in the coming battles. The Heil-part is just a wish that the Führer stays healthy. Originally it was just like the english word "hail" and could be employed the same way. The third Reich did just gave many german words and expressions a bad connotation.

"Hell, I actually take 'smoke breaks' at work even though I don't smoke. I go down with a couple of the other guys for 10 mins... but they realize I don't smoke and are polite enough to stand downwind. If they didn't, I wouldn't go with them."

If smoking and ultimately smoke breaks were banned, do you believe that productivity would increase or would you just dos about anyway?

"Urban legend."
No, Urban fact. I have already said this before on this forum but I'll say it again. In the eyes of the law (in the UK anyway) property owners are liable for the saftey of an guests. Be these wanted or unwanted. So if a burgular cuts his hand on something he's trying to steal, he has the civil right to sue. Property owners have been told to remove things that prevent people from breaking in i.e. smashed glass protruding from walls.

Uhm. Just a thought. If property owners are liable for their guests safety, that would mean that smoking is technically illegal as it effects the health of others. I know it isn't seen as illegal but if you bend a few straws it could be.

why would you feed an elephant to a kitten? poor kitten and por elephant. give her some whiskas instead.

Kittens like elephants. I have never heard any kittens that I fed elephants to complain.

Wtf, so if i just walked into your appartment and started taking stuff right in front of you, you coudnt intervene because it would be threatening my safety? Ha! say goodbye to your tv.

How many people do you think farting has killed, first and second hand?

Compare that to the number which cigarettes have killed, first and second hand.


Smoking is a choice, whereas sexual orientation and color are not.

As for "greed"... people aren't really persecuted for that, and I don't know what prompted you to write it down.

i think he meant creed not greed I dont think he was saying you could die from the color of you skin allthought it has been known .it was a connection to the prejustice in the thread
you can get cancer from numerous things cant you
sexual orientation is a choice sorry your wrong
I would'nt wonder at the amount of people who've died of gas inhalation or related deaths first hand or second there are no recorded case of smoking causing cancer or an other illness second hand if there is it i would like to se the evidence.

Well, it basically is a wish for victory(=Sieg) in the coming battles. The Heil-part is just a wish that the Führer stays healthy. Originally it was just like the english word "hail" and could be employed the same way. The third Reich did just gave many german words and expressions a bad connotation.


Thanks :) I like German... I just wish I could make more sense of it :rolleyes:

Okay, I don't smoke...anymore, but I really don't mind other people smoking around me except while I eat, yuck. I live near Del Mar, a beach city in So. Calif. known for it's Thoroughbred racetrack, and it is illigal to smoke OUTSIDE in public. Nice, huh?

No, Urban fact. I have already said this before on this forum but I'll say it again. In the eyes of the law (in the UK anyway) property owners are liable for the saftey of an guests. Be these wanted or unwanted. Sorry, I meant that there had been no such case in the United States. How ethnocentric of me.

The British legal system seems to have been set up in a way that discourages self defense. People are apparently supposed to rely solely on the police for protection from violent criminals. There have been all sorts of cases in Britain of people being charged with crimes for defending themselves against violent attacks. Is anyone surprised that violent crime is skyrocketing in Britain?

Regarding the "Rights of Restaurant Owners" to allow people to smoke on their property:

Tobacco smoke is poisonous. This is a proven fact. Restaurant owners (and property owners in general) are not within their rights to expose guests to poisonous or toxic substances. For an extreme example, let's say a restaurant owner decides to release mustard gas in his "private property". Would that be his "right" as a property owner, or can we accept that it is within the bounds of the law to place restrictions on what you can do on property where you allow guests?

Regarding the "Rights of Restaurant Owners" to allow people to smoke on their property:

Tobacco smoke is poisonous. This is a proven fact. Restaurant owners (and property owners in general) are not within their rights to expose guests to poisonous or toxic substances.Restaurant owners serve alcohol, don’t they? That’s also a toxic substance.For an extreme example, let's say a restaurant owner decides to release mustard gas in his "private property". Would that be his "right" as a property owner, or can we accept that it is within the bounds of the law to place restrictions on what you can do on property where you allow guests?The restaurant patrons all implicitly consent to eat in a smoking environment by walking in the door. This means that they accept the risk associated with eating in the smoky restaurant. It’s your right to voluntarily engage in a risky activity. Presumably no one would consent to being exposed to mustard gas.

Restaurant owners serve alcohol, don’t they? That’s also a toxic substance.The restaurant patrons all implicitly consent to eat in a smoking environment by walking in the door. This means that they accept the risk associated with eating in the smoky restaurant. It’s your right to voluntarily engage in a risky activity. Presumably no one would consent to being exposed to mustard gas.

Alcohol, unlike cigarette smoke, is only consumed by people who request it.

As for implicit consent, walking into a restaurant is not a consent to breathe poisonous substances. Releasing poisonous substances into the air in other cases (rightly) requires explicit consent and full disclosure of known and potential risk (under US law, at least), both because airborne substances can't be detected until you have already been exposed to them, and because the health risks of exposure aren't immediately obvious (and are in many cases, including smoking, not entirely known).

The restaurant asking for explicit consent to be exposed to cigarette smoke, and providing full disclosure of all of the potential risks of being exposed to each of the toxic components of cigarette smoke before entering the restaurant would be an appropriate replacement for an all-out ban, but of course, I suspect few nonsmokers would consent.

As for implicit consent, walking into a restaurant is not a consent to breathe poisonous substances.If you know that you’ll be exposed to poisonous substances when you walk into a place, then yes, simply going in is implicit consent. I wouldn’t have a problem with mandatory “Warning: this facility allows smoking” signs.
Releasing poisonous substances into the air in other cases (rightly) requires explicit consent and full disclosure of known and potential risk (under US law, at least), both because airborne substances can't be detected until you have already been exposed to them, and because the health risks of exposure aren't immediately obvious (and are in many cases, including smoking, not entirely known).

The restaurant asking for explicit consent to be exposed to cigarette smoke, and providing full disclosure of all of the potential risks of being exposed to each of the toxic components of cigarette smoke before entering the restaurant would be an appropriate replacement for an all-out ban, but of course, I suspect few nonsmokers would consent.Actually the standards for determining whether or not a company needs to warn people about something (like being exposed to poisonous chemicals) in the United States is whether or not a ‘reasonably prudent’ person would be aware of the risk. For example, car dealers don’t need to explicitly warn people about the dangers of dieing in a car crash because any reasonably prudent person would be aware of the risk of injury when driving a car. Similarly, any reasonably prudent person would realize that they’re taking a slight health risk when they eat in a restaurant that allows smoking.

Similarly, any reasonably prudent person would realize that they’re taking a slight health risk when they eat in a restaurant that allows smoking.

To repeat myself from the previous post:

"airborne substances can't be detected until you have already been exposed to them, and ... the health risks of exposure aren't immediately obvious (and are in many cases, including smoking, not entirely known)."

To repeat myself from the previous post:

"airborne substances can't be detected until you have already been exposed to themHence the 'warning: smoking allowed' sign on the door.and ... the health risks of exposure aren't immediately obvious (and are in many cases, including smoking, not entirely known)."Please. Everyone over the age of 13 (and most people under 13, as well) know that second hand smoke in a restaurant is slightly dangerous.

Hence the 'warning: smoking allowed' sign on the door.

So the question becomes 'Does every reasonably prudent person read and comprehend every sign posted by the door of a restaurant?'

Also: I think the fact that we are reasonably sure there are *unknown* risks is a mitigating factor here as well.

I think we should implement a polar distribution of populus by "smoker" status.

Put all the smokers on the North Pole and all the freaks who complain about second-hand smoke on the South Pole. Then they won't affect each other.

The rest of us reasonable non-smokers can enjoy the warmth of the Equator.

Occasional smokers can reside in Canada or Russia, and generally bitchy people can inhabit South America, Africa, and Australia :)

Put all the smokers on the North Pole and all the freaks who complain about second-hand smoke on the South Pole.

If you implement the former, the latter will cease to exist. ;)

If you know that you’ll be exposed to poisonous substances when you walk into a place, then yes, simply going in is implicit consent. I wouldn’t have a problem with mandatory “Warning: this facility allows smoking” signs.
Actually the standards for determining whether or not a company needs to warn people about something (like being exposed to poisonous chemicals) in the United States is whether or not a ‘reasonably prudent’ person would be aware of the risk. For example, car dealers don’t need to explicitly warn people about the dangers of dieing in a car crash because any reasonably prudent person would be aware of the risk of injury when driving a car. Similarly, any reasonably prudent person would realize that they’re taking a slight health risk when they eat in a restaurant that allows smoking.

what of petrol fumes, carbon monoxide,factory chimneys,industrial waste etc
i know of case's of cancer at petrol refinerys and sewage plants
anything you do in life is a " risk you take "
so we would need signs everywhere would we not

Originally Posted by transio
Put all the smokers on the North Pole and all the freaks who complain about second-hand smoke on the South Pole. ”

Replied by coolsoldier
If you implement the former, the latter will cease to exist.

Yes, coolsoldier, your statement is so true and if you switch the positions of "former" and "latter" it is also equally true!

Given that obesity is posed to surpass cigarettes as the number one cause of preventable death within the United States, perhaps we should ban fast food?

...with that logic... Cars in Portugal.

Everything in moderation... including cars in portugal.

Yes, coolsoldier, your statement is so true and if you switch the positions of "former" and "latter" it is also equally true!

Wait, so you're saying that if the people who complain about secondhand smoke went away, smokers would cease to exist?

Alcohol, unlike cigarette smoke, is only consumed by people who request it.

True, but to quote Bill Hicks, "I can't get behind the wheel of a car and kill somebody, 'cause I'm having a fucking cigarette."

It's simple, follow the Golden Rule. Everyone should be able to do WHATEVER they please, so long as it doesn't affect someone else in a negative manner (unless that person doesn't mind it).

People are free to commit suicide so why should they not be allowed to kill themselves by smoking? Let them do whatever they want so long as they keep it to themselves. Smoking is bad because of it's second-hand nature so I'd say yes to banning it (yes, I live in Southern California, heh) in the public except in private areas designated for smokers. Let people light a joint, stick needles in their arms, mutilate themselves -- whatever they want -- just keep it to yourselves.

- N

edit: Oh yeah, even though I said yes to banning it in public, I actually voted no to banning smoking completely.

"If you do not like inhaling cigarette smokes, can you then stay away instead of telling smokers to go away? I am only referring to the outdoor areas. The smokers pay tax to contribute to the creations of public areas just as much as you do; don't you guys think they deserve a little space called designated smoking area or do you think that smokers can help you pay tax for the public areas but they are still not allowed to smoke just because you think it is disgusting or it might affect your health." - by hungvu

fascinating point, if i got a group of drunken friends together, gave them shotguns and went into parks, cafes and on streets, shooting whoever they passed, i would get arrested, even if i said "If you do not like getting shot in the face, can you then stay away instead of telling gun weilding maniacs to go away?"

YOU ARE KILLING PEOPLE!!! people have a right to live, but they dont have a right to kill other people, whether quickly by a shot in the face, or slowly by chemical poisoning, lung cancer and heart problems

I voted no. I can't remember a single post by smoking, and I have been reading every thread carefully for more than a year now.

i didnt vote cos my answer would have been, it should be banned to smoke where anyone who doesnt smoke can be effected

It's disgusting how many people in this thread trust their government to play the paternal figure and tell them what they can and can't do. I think I get it: trust The Man when he operates in your interest, but Rage Against the Machine when he doesn't? My, what consistency! :rolleyes:

Voted no, obviously.

Well you are burning tar in your mouth and intentionally inhaling smoke.....kinda like having a poll on wheather or not you should be allowed to drive nails through your foot or not......I mean yes smokers are only hurting themselves, but, at a financial burdon to soiciety as a whole. Their medical complications, though self-induced are not in existance in a vacuum. Medicare and medicade are impacted as are any social health programs. As of date, as far as I can see, there has been no medically documented benefit to smoking but quite a number of detraments. Why free-will is socialisitic paramount to our social coehsion the fact that (a) smoking has no immediate or long term-benefits and (b) the economic impact is distrubted in part to society, including non-smokers as a whole, there should be legal sanctions and restrictions on its use.

I realize that an immediate ban on smoking is not feasible but of all the smokers I have ever met I have only met one who is not trying to quit smoking. My personal experience with smokers at that most (except the one smoker) feel either addicted to smoking and want to quit, or compelled to smoking and want to quit.

If there are more smokers in this forum world who don't want to quit would lov e to know but with so many smokers in my world being anti-smoke plus no benefits to smoking plus smoking being economcially burdonful to society mabye we could find ways to adjust smoking habits one degree at at time to phase it out in the long run.

Well you are burning tar in your mouth and intentionally inhaling smoke.....kinda like having a poll on wheather or not you should be allowed to drive nails through your foot or not......I mean yes smokers are only hurting themselves, but, at a financial burdon to soiciety as a whole.

Smokers are not only hurting themselves (http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_9.htm)

Secondhand smoke is overrated. Penn & Teller did an episode of Bullshit dedicated specifically to the secondhand smoke myth, and thoroughly debunked it.

Chiefly because the EPA study that said it was OMG SO DANGEROUS was found to be utter bullshit by a federal judge some years later. Agenda-driven consensus science.

What the government is my new mum, what next ban alcohol, then salt. While were at it ban unsafe sex that kills to, and ban cars. It has been proven that if you live close to a garage you are 4 times likely to have astma. If you work in a work place were people smoke quit, find a new job,if you cant set up a smoke free restraunt or whatever. If there are so many anti-smoking people you will make a fortune. But there arent because we would have seen people capitalizing on this.

What about wokers who work in tunnels and mines with petrol/diesel engines? do they have the luxary of gas masks?

How come many people can smoke all there lifes and still live past 90 smoking 40 a day like my grandad for example?

Why dont we ban cows farting, because they contribute to global warming/cooling which in turn causes floods and kills. Heck stick a fucking cork in your ass and stop poluting the air. If I want to smoke in a bar it's up to the propritor, if you dont like it go somewhere fucking else and stop blaming us smokers for all the damm problems.

It's our right to smoke in buildings were the owner says so not the fucking government. The government doesnt care about individuals or us as a whole, they only care about figures and money. US SMOKERS NEED TO PROTEST WE NEED TO MARCH FOR OUR RIGHTS TO SMOKE IN PUBLIC AT THE OWNERS DISCRETION, IF WE WANT TO GAMBLE OUR LIVES THATS OUR PROBLEM, NOT YOURS OR THE GOVENMENT, THEY TAX US MORE MONEY THAN THE AVERAGE JOE. IF YOU FUCKING PUSSY ANTI-SMOKERS DON'T LIKE IT GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!