Ban Smoking Right Now

You shouldn't worry about your children. According to the WHO study, children raised by smokers had a 22% lower risk of lung cancer!
The RR for exposure during childhood was 0.78, with a CI of .64 - .96. This indicates a protective effect! Children exposed to ETS in the home during childhood are 22% less likely to get lung cancer, according to this study. http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
 
Medicine focuses WAY too much on probabilities. You either get lung cancer or you don't, who cares what the chances are for anything? Studies like this are a waste of money. They should be spending it trying to find cures for diseases, not how doing x lowers/raises your risk of y by z percent. All that does is makes them look like they don't have a clue.

Rant off.
 
I'm very apprehensive about a ban of tobacco cigarettes in public places. I see the reasons behind it, but I'm still apprehensive. In the privacy of your own home, however, it should certainly be allowed. Although, I will have to think a bit about when it affects your neighbors. Perhaps it should be allowed unless it's clearly and unreasonably affecting them.

I'm tempted to agree with people who want to ban the use of cigarettes. That shit often smells horrible and gives you cancer. But then I remember my attitude towards the outright ban on marijuana and realize an outright ban on cigarettes is unreasonable as well.

Smoking should be BANNED. It's much worse then any other drug around, including illegal drugs. But the elite is just profiting too much for that to happen.....
Too much money in tobacco for it to be banned.

The government could get a shitload of money from marijuana too. If they would fucking withdraw troops from Iraq already (by staying, we can only hope to provoke terrorists), they may be able to stop and finally realize, "Hey, we can make money off these stoners, balance the Dubya deficit, and finally pay off the Reagan debt!".

And even if the government doesn't profit from it, the private sector would definitely jump on the opportunity to suck as much money as they can out of stoners. I don't imagine it would be too hard either. It'd probably be one of the best things for our economy. I honestly don't understand why the American reich-wing, predominantly self-avowed capitalists, are in favor of such communistic control of the economy as the ban of a substance from being used by an otherwise free market.

No. Just ban completely. Period.

Not completely. I could understand if you ban it in public places, but what if a smoker in his own home makes the proper accommodations so that no one is exposed to his smoke who doesn't want to be?

i respect my elders, i respect that they have experienced more than me, but i also know that wisdom is not installed into everyone with age, i know alot of older people who are as stupid as a mule, and so stuck in their racist ways that nothing will change their bigoted point of view.

Something I heard recently which makes a very good point: Being older does not make you an elder.

Well holy shit, who is gonna pay for all the policing? Sure as fuck ain't me.

People already pay for the policing required to make sure no one's doing hard drugs or smoking weed. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth; I just felt like saying it because it's relevant to this thread.

The government can't get people to stop using more dangerous drugs. It can't get people to stop driving drunk. It can't keep drugs out of schools, hell it can't even keep drugs out of prisons. Is there any sane person who really believes that the damn stupid overpaid incompetent government is going to be able to stop people from smoking??? They tried outlawing alcohol in my country in my parents' era, and all it did was make alcohol more popular because it suddenly became cool.

People are going to do what they want. It's the government's job to facilitate that, not to tell them that they're wrong. This is the same government that dumps sodium fluoride into our water supply on purpose. Do you really trust these bureaucrats to make decisions about our health???

Fucking amen! :D

"For public safety" is becoming a blanket excuse for all kinds of stupid laws and political initiatives.

Like the PATRIOT Act. :(

Smoking and drinking go together like peanut butter and jelly.

Not if it's weed you're smoking. Shit together gives you a bad headache. I learned that the hard way this last Saturday.

Dude, you should have gotten an education and a better job before you started pumping out babies---or your wife to start pumping out babies, so you could live and raise children on your own terms, and wouldn't have to deal with people "blowing toxic fumes" in your children's faces. It's your fault. At least take some responsibility.

Dude, you shouldn't make assumptions about people. As he said before, he's an accountant.

It should most definitely not be banned. I don't smoke, but if somebody else wants to, I think that's there right.
Right. And I don't think they should have that kind of power over us. I don't think the government should be able to tell people whether or not to smoke. The job of the government isn't to hold peoples' hands and protect them on that small of a scale. That's too much power, and not enough freedom.

A liberal streak is showing through. :)
 
Last edited:
Incredible. I cannnot stand being in my own house because the asshole upstaris is smking in his bathroom. My ENTIRE FUCKING HOUSE smells like smoke. I have to leave my own house, because it's so disgusting. I have a son and a pregnant wife that are being poisoned because an asshole decided to poison himself. :mad:

Smoking should be BANNED. It's much worse then any other drug around, including illegal drugs. But the elite is just profiting too much for that to happen..... :bugeye:

Excuse me... I can't stay here....

Just because you can smell smoke, dos'nt mean your inhaling lethal quantities, it takes minute amounts to create a smell.

The guy has every right to do what he wants on his own property, you can't ban basic freedoms. Besides Alcohol is far worse, for health and for society. God knows how many murders or fights have started due to a nicotine high.

It should also be my right to protect my family from being poisoned in my own fucking home, eh? :bugeye:

But I can't call the police over this. So how would you explain this? :bugeye:

Buy double glazzing and don't leave the window open thats next to his bathroom. It's not like the guy is walking into your flat and smoking in your face, he's trying to be discreete.

yeah true!! it pisses me of, smokers can kill us non smokers slowly but we cant do anything to them!! assholes!!

You have no fucking clue as to how much exposure you need to get side effects linked to second hand smoke. Unless you work as a bartender in a smoke filled pub three or four days a week for years, you have nothing to fear AT ALL. Walking past someone smoking in the street does nothing to your health. The air you breathe filled with arsinic and carbonmonoxide from car fumes is more likely to give you a disease than sitting with a smoker during your morning coffee.

excuse me while I go and light up in the garden, I Invested in double glazzing the house, hence no one inside would smell a thing.

Lets just hope I don't give the people in that plane up there cancer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What else should people not be allowed to do? Dude, you should have gotten an education and a better job before you started pumping out babies---or your wife to start pumping out babies, so you could live and raise children on your own terms, and wouldn't have to deal with people "blowing toxic fumes" in your children's faces. It's your fault. At least take some responsibility.
Wtf are you talking about? I'm ana accountant. :bugeye:
And this apartment building is non-smoking. :bugeye:
 
I'm very educated, I support myself and I have no babies, I have an apartment in a quiet nonsmoking neighborhood. That did not stop the man standing next to me at the bus stop from blowing a mouth full of cigarette smoke in my face. If he was standing with a glass of alcohol or smoking weed (which would mostly affect him) I could have held him liable, but strangely enough, cigarette smoking is a state sanctioned drug industry, so I could only hold my breath and move away.
I don't think they understand that, sam....... :rolleyes:
 
You shouldn't worry about your children. According to the WHO study, children raised by smokers had a 22% lower risk of lung cancer!
You know that when you do a study one must draw a conclusion from the data that is LOGICAL in nature? It appears they failed to do that..:rolleyes:
 
Not completely. I could understand if you ban it in public places, but what if a smoker in his own home makes the proper accommodations so that no one is exposed to his smoke who doesn't want to be?
I feel tempted to accept that.

However, regardless of the situation, smoking is totally useless and it's a huge was of resources.
 
Odin'Izm ,

1) This is a non-smoking apartment building.
2) Smoke was coming from the fan in the bathroom.
 
You have no fucking clue as to how much exposure you need to get side effects linked to second hand smoke. Unless you work as a bartender in a smoke filled pub three or four days a week for years, you have nothing to fear AT ALL. Walking past someone smoking in the street does nothing to your health. The air you breathe filled with arsinic and carbonmonoxide from car fumes is more likely to give you a disease than sitting with a smoker during your morning coffee.
Exactly, a whiff of smoke here and there won't have any impact on your health. The whole second hand smoke debate is about people who work in places like bars that are constantly filled with smoke. I'll agree that it smells bad and can be annoying though.
 
You know that when you do a study one must draw a conclusion from the data that is LOGICAL in nature? It appears they failed to do that..:rolleyes:
Can your lungs gain a tolerance to smoke? That would make the study make sense.
 
Odin'Izm ,

1) This is a non-smoking apartment building.
2) Smoke was coming from the fan in the bathroom.

Well then that sounds like a problem with the management and not a problem with smoking, now doesn't it?
 
Athelwulf said:
A liberal streak is showing through.
No, a libertarian streak is showing through. Less power = smaller government = political conservatism. The liberal viewpoint would be to say the government should ban smoking, which I wholeheartedly disagree with.
 
Back
Top