Should Smoking Be Banned?

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

Smokers are not only hurting themselves

 

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!!!