|
On April 19 2011 19:15 fearus wrote:
Another smoker's point of view:
Please enjoy your personal freedom of choice to smoke or not, and allow others the same.
On April 19 2011 19:13 Velr wrote:
Just let the people smoke.
Let them drink....
Fuck the "health-facism" and tons of retarded rules that are taking over...
Drunk drivers exercised their personal freedom of choice to drink and drive. Why do people complain about them so much I wonder?
|
On April 20 2011 02:19 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 00:43 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
smokers are a detriment to society (a large amount of smokers/former smokers relying on welfare/medicare/medicaid/social security to pay their smoking related medical bills)
not to say that it's the only thing that causes this kind of problem, but it is huge - i don't like paying for the bad choices that others make with their activities, money, and health A large amount of non-smokers also rely on all those services. Maybe we should just get rid of welfare and medicare?
You clearly didn't read the last two lines of what I said, try again.
What about alcoholics/former alcoholics relying on those services for medical bills for their liver?
Re-read the last two lines
Obese people who should have watched their diet and exercised?
Re-read the last two lines
As it turns out, people will always have self inflicted health issues. The question should be whether we support people who can't support themselves at all or not, instead of basing it on where their issues came from. If medicare and medicaid were only for people in perfect health, they wouldn't need to exist.
Re-read the last two lines
Also, you complain about smokers being a detriment to society, but consider the obscene tax on tobacco products paid in most parts of the US. Comes to a LOT of money flowing back in.
We could make up for that with increasing taxes on other "luxury" purchases, as well as reducing the amount of money we pay for their life support for the last 10 years of their life.
|
On April 19 2011 19:15 fearus wrote:
Another smoker's point of view:
Please enjoy your personal freedom of choice to smoke or not, and allow others the same.
Musta missed this but exactly. I don't see what is so foreign about this concept.
|
On April 20 2011 03:50 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 02:19 JingleHell wrote:On April 20 2011 00:43 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
smokers are a detriment to society (a large amount of smokers/former smokers relying on welfare/medicare/medicaid/social security to pay their smoking related medical bills)
not to say that it's the only thing that causes this kind of problem, but it is huge - i don't like paying for the bad choices that others make with their activities, money, and health A large amount of non-smokers also rely on all those services. Maybe we should just get rid of welfare and medicare? You clearly didn't read the last two lines of what I said, try again. Show nested quote +
What about alcoholics/former alcoholics relying on those services for medical bills for their liver?
Re-read the last two lines Re-read the last two lines Show nested quote +
As it turns out, people will always have self inflicted health issues. The question should be whether we support people who can't support themselves at all or not, instead of basing it on where their issues came from. If medicare and medicaid were only for people in perfect health, they wouldn't need to exist.
Re-read the last two lines Show nested quote +
Also, you complain about smokers being a detriment to society, but consider the obscene tax on tobacco products paid in most parts of the US. Comes to a LOT of money flowing back in.
We could make up for that with increasing taxes on other "luxury" purchases, as well as reducing the amount of money we pay for their life support for the last 10 years of their life.
You like your last two lines, don't you? But they don't actually answer the question I asked. What do you want done about the other ways people ruin their health? Smoking is just another one, no different than any other. People ruin their health all kinds of ways and end up using all those services you mention, and many of those ways are avoidable.
You can't make it a question of smokers and non-smokers, you have to make it self-inflicted health issues vs not self-inflicted health issues. If you do that, you START to have an argument, but then who exactly decides which studies to use on what can cause people health issues? If you ask the state of California, every single thing ever sold in a store is a potential carcinogen.
If you raise the taxes on other luxury items, you might make up the money, but that doesn't change the fact that the smokers ARE putting money back into society through the addiction, which is a valid counterpoint no matter what other ways that money could be gleaned.
Also, those tax rates are higher than most luxury items are taxed, just due to the fact that tobacco is EASY to tax. Here is a list of taxes by state. The taxes per pack are 20-25% in some states. Some counties have additional taxes, plus the federal ones. Hard to imagine that THAT much would end up getting taxed on other items that more people use.
|
On April 20 2011 04:19 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 03:50 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On April 20 2011 02:19 JingleHell wrote:On April 20 2011 00:43 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
smokers are a detriment to society (a large amount of smokers/former smokers relying on welfare/medicare/medicaid/social security to pay their smoking related medical bills)
not to say that it's the only thing that causes this kind of problem, but it is huge - i don't like paying for the bad choices that others make with their activities, money, and health A large amount of non-smokers also rely on all those services. Maybe we should just get rid of welfare and medicare? You clearly didn't read the last two lines of what I said, try again.
What about alcoholics/former alcoholics relying on those services for medical bills for their liver?
Re-read the last two lines
Obese people who should have watched their diet and exercised?
Re-read the last two lines
As it turns out, people will always have self inflicted health issues. The question should be whether we support people who can't support themselves at all or not, instead of basing it on where their issues came from. If medicare and medicaid were only for people in perfect health, they wouldn't need to exist.
Re-read the last two lines
Also, you complain about smokers being a detriment to society, but consider the obscene tax on tobacco products paid in most parts of the US. Comes to a LOT of money flowing back in.
We could make up for that with increasing taxes on other "luxury" purchases, as well as reducing the amount of money we pay for their life support for the last 10 years of their life. You like your last two lines, don't you? But they don't actually answer the question I asked. What do you want done about the other ways people ruin their health? Smoking is just another one, no different than any other. People ruin their health all kinds of ways and end up using all those services you mention, and many of those ways are avoidable. You can't make it a question of smokers and non-smokers, you have to make it self-inflicted health issues vs not self-inflicted health issues. If you do that, you START to have an argument, but then who exactly decides which studies to use on what can cause people health issues? If you ask the state of California, every single thing ever sold in a store is a potential carcinogen. If you raise the taxes on other luxury items, you might make up the money, but that doesn't change the fact that the smokers ARE putting money back into society through the addiction, which is a valid counterpoint no matter what other ways that money could be gleaned. Also, those tax rates are higher than most luxury items are taxed, just due to the fact that tobacco is EASY to tax. Here is a list of taxes by state. The taxes per pack are 20-25% in some states. Some counties have additional taxes, plus the federal ones. Hard to imagine that THAT much would end up getting taxed on other items that more people use.
Not sure why these arguments always pop up.
Okay, smoking is bad. So is many other things. That doesn’t make smoking any “better” for you. The logic that because other things are also bad for you, that we shouldn’t as a society crack down on something that is so taxing on worldwide healthcare is plain wrong.
That brings me to the other point. Your point about taxation on tobacco strikes me as odd. Are you actually trying to justify the existence of the tobacco industry – that kills millions annually through their products – because they bring in MONEY? Holy shit. That is exactly the line of thinking that is wrong with society. And while we’re talking about money, why don’t you pull up some numbers about how much money is coming out from taxpayers’ wallets (read: YOU) that goes into research and treatment of diseases directly or indirectly caused by tobacco smoking? How does that compare? Something tells me your net gain will be much less glamorous considering the much better use of such money and efforts elsewhere.
|
On April 20 2011 04:19 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 03:50 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On April 20 2011 02:19 JingleHell wrote:On April 20 2011 00:43 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
smokers are a detriment to society (a large amount of smokers/former smokers relying on welfare/medicare/medicaid/social security to pay their smoking related medical bills)
not to say that it's the only thing that causes this kind of problem, but it is huge - i don't like paying for the bad choices that others make with their activities, money, and health A large amount of non-smokers also rely on all those services. Maybe we should just get rid of welfare and medicare? You clearly didn't read the last two lines of what I said, try again.
What about alcoholics/former alcoholics relying on those services for medical bills for their liver?
Re-read the last two lines
Obese people who should have watched their diet and exercised?
Re-read the last two lines
As it turns out, people will always have self inflicted health issues. The question should be whether we support people who can't support themselves at all or not, instead of basing it on where their issues came from. If medicare and medicaid were only for people in perfect health, they wouldn't need to exist.
Re-read the last two lines
Also, you complain about smokers being a detriment to society, but consider the obscene tax on tobacco products paid in most parts of the US. Comes to a LOT of money flowing back in.
We could make up for that with increasing taxes on other "luxury" purchases, as well as reducing the amount of money we pay for their life support for the last 10 years of their life. You like your last two lines, don't you? But they don't actually answer the question I asked. What do you want done about the other ways people ruin their health? Smoking is just another one, no different than any other. People ruin their health all kinds of ways and end up using all those services you mention, and many of those ways are avoidable. You can't make it a question of smokers and non-smokers, you have to make it self-inflicted health issues vs not self-inflicted health issues. If you do that, you START to have an argument, but then who exactly decides which studies to use on what can cause people health issues? If you ask the state of California, every single thing ever sold in a store is a potential carcinogen. If you raise the taxes on other luxury items, you might make up the money, but that doesn't change the fact that the smokers ARE putting money back into society through the addiction, which is a valid counterpoint no matter what other ways that money could be gleaned. Also, those tax rates are higher than most luxury items are taxed, just due to the fact that tobacco is EASY to tax. Here is a list of taxes by state. The taxes per pack are 20-25% in some states. Some counties have additional taxes, plus the federal ones. Hard to imagine that THAT much would end up getting taxed on other items that more people use.
this is a thread about smokers/smoking, i am here to talk about that - if you want me to tell you how fat people should change, maybe you can make a thread and i will post there
keep in mind, most addictive people (see; smokers) will have an addiction regardless of what their current fix is - even if not, they still would most likely be spending that money still (even if it is a slight loss).. unless you are suggesting that if smoking weren't an option, all smokers would simply save the money they normally spent on smoking?
|
On April 20 2011 04:33 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 04:19 JingleHell wrote:On April 20 2011 03:50 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On April 20 2011 02:19 JingleHell wrote:On April 20 2011 00:43 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
smokers are a detriment to society (a large amount of smokers/former smokers relying on welfare/medicare/medicaid/social security to pay their smoking related medical bills)
not to say that it's the only thing that causes this kind of problem, but it is huge - i don't like paying for the bad choices that others make with their activities, money, and health A large amount of non-smokers also rely on all those services. Maybe we should just get rid of welfare and medicare? You clearly didn't read the last two lines of what I said, try again.
What about alcoholics/former alcoholics relying on those services for medical bills for their liver?
Re-read the last two lines
Obese people who should have watched their diet and exercised?
Re-read the last two lines
As it turns out, people will always have self inflicted health issues. The question should be whether we support people who can't support themselves at all or not, instead of basing it on where their issues came from. If medicare and medicaid were only for people in perfect health, they wouldn't need to exist.
Re-read the last two lines
Also, you complain about smokers being a detriment to society, but consider the obscene tax on tobacco products paid in most parts of the US. Comes to a LOT of money flowing back in.
We could make up for that with increasing taxes on other "luxury" purchases, as well as reducing the amount of money we pay for their life support for the last 10 years of their life. You like your last two lines, don't you? But they don't actually answer the question I asked. What do you want done about the other ways people ruin their health? Smoking is just another one, no different than any other. People ruin their health all kinds of ways and end up using all those services you mention, and many of those ways are avoidable. You can't make it a question of smokers and non-smokers, you have to make it self-inflicted health issues vs not self-inflicted health issues. If you do that, you START to have an argument, but then who exactly decides which studies to use on what can cause people health issues? If you ask the state of California, every single thing ever sold in a store is a potential carcinogen. If you raise the taxes on other luxury items, you might make up the money, but that doesn't change the fact that the smokers ARE putting money back into society through the addiction, which is a valid counterpoint no matter what other ways that money could be gleaned. Also, those tax rates are higher than most luxury items are taxed, just due to the fact that tobacco is EASY to tax. Here is a list of taxes by state. The taxes per pack are 20-25% in some states. Some counties have additional taxes, plus the federal ones. Hard to imagine that THAT much would end up getting taxed on other items that more people use. Not sure why these arguments always pop up. Okay, smoking is bad. So is many other things. That doesn’t make smoking any “better” for you. The logic that because other things are also bad for you, that we shouldn’t as a society crack down on something that is so taxing on worldwide healthcare is plain wrong. That brings me to the other point. Your point about taxation on tobacco strikes me as odd. Are you actually trying to justify the existence of the tobacco industry – that kills millions annually through their products – because they bring in MONEY? Holy shit. That is exactly the line of thinking that is wrong with society. And while we’re talking about money, why don’t you pull up some numbers about how much money is coming out from taxpayers’ wallets (read: YOU) that goes into research and treatment of diseases directly or indirectly caused by tobacco smoking? How does that compare? Something tells me your net gain will be much less glamorous considering the much better use of such money and efforts elsewhere.
Millions annually dying as a direct result of smoking? Wow! Show me THOSE studies.
I didn't say smoking is any better for you than anything else, since we're discussing reading comprehension skills. What I said is that your argument about tax money supporting smokers is logically absurd until you bring in all the other unhealthy things you can do during your life, and comment on people who ate butter instead of margarine sucking down medicaid dollars. Really, if you take every person being supported by medicare, medicaid, social security, and welfare, and look at them, they've ALL done things that increased the amount of money that it costs those services to maintain them.
The issue I take is that you try to put the entire weight on smokers for every unhealthy thing people can do. Obviously, you think that laws should conform to your exact standards and values, and anything you dislike should be illegal. That, sadly for you, isn't how the USA works.
As to "justifying the tobacco industry", I don't need to. It justifies itself, by providing a product people want. Welcome to capitalism. Try Russia 25 years ago if you don't like this system much. If people choose to spend money on a vice, that's on them. They aren't forcing you to smoke.
On April 20 2011 04:38 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 04:19 JingleHell wrote:On April 20 2011 03:50 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On April 20 2011 02:19 JingleHell wrote:On April 20 2011 00:43 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
smokers are a detriment to society (a large amount of smokers/former smokers relying on welfare/medicare/medicaid/social security to pay their smoking related medical bills)
not to say that it's the only thing that causes this kind of problem, but it is huge - i don't like paying for the bad choices that others make with their activities, money, and health A large amount of non-smokers also rely on all those services. Maybe we should just get rid of welfare and medicare? You clearly didn't read the last two lines of what I said, try again.
What about alcoholics/former alcoholics relying on those services for medical bills for their liver?
Re-read the last two lines
Obese people who should have watched their diet and exercised?
Re-read the last two lines
As it turns out, people will always have self inflicted health issues. The question should be whether we support people who can't support themselves at all or not, instead of basing it on where their issues came from. If medicare and medicaid were only for people in perfect health, they wouldn't need to exist.
Re-read the last two lines
Also, you complain about smokers being a detriment to society, but consider the obscene tax on tobacco products paid in most parts of the US. Comes to a LOT of money flowing back in.
We could make up for that with increasing taxes on other "luxury" purchases, as well as reducing the amount of money we pay for their life support for the last 10 years of their life. You like your last two lines, don't you? But they don't actually answer the question I asked. What do you want done about the other ways people ruin their health? Smoking is just another one, no different than any other. People ruin their health all kinds of ways and end up using all those services you mention, and many of those ways are avoidable. You can't make it a question of smokers and non-smokers, you have to make it self-inflicted health issues vs not self-inflicted health issues. If you do that, you START to have an argument, but then who exactly decides which studies to use on what can cause people health issues? If you ask the state of California, every single thing ever sold in a store is a potential carcinogen. If you raise the taxes on other luxury items, you might make up the money, but that doesn't change the fact that the smokers ARE putting money back into society through the addiction, which is a valid counterpoint no matter what other ways that money could be gleaned. Also, those tax rates are higher than most luxury items are taxed, just due to the fact that tobacco is EASY to tax. Here is a list of taxes by state. The taxes per pack are 20-25% in some states. Some counties have additional taxes, plus the federal ones. Hard to imagine that THAT much would end up getting taxed on other items that more people use. this is a thread about smokers/smoking, i am here to talk about that - if you want me to tell you how fat people should change, maybe you can make a thread and i will post there keep in mind, most addictive people (see; smokers) will have an addiction regardless of what their current fix is - even if not, they still would most likely be spending that money still (even if it is a slight loss).. unless you are suggesting that if smoking weren't an option, all smokers would simply save the money they normally spent on smoking?
This is indeed a thread about smokers and smoking. But if you bring public healthcare into question, you MUST discuss all related facets, or you aren't really bringing anything to the discussion.
I don't think people would save all the money they spend on smokes, but I do certainly think that getting through a law to raise taxes on every other luxury item to make up the money currently being squeezed out of smokers would be difficult.
People scream when it hits their wallet, but they still pay when it's for their vice. Raise tax revenue other ways, and the general public will go ballistic.
|
I'm not too picky on second-hand smoke or people who smoke around me in a public area. When it becomes a problem is when they do it in my personal space. It's pretty rare for a smoker to blow smoke directly in my face (since that's downright disrespect towards a person) so what I mean are like inside my house and car and stuff of that sort.
For example say I'm hosting a party and my friends are smokers, I don't mind them smoking in the backyard/frontyard or balcony-ish area if I'm in an apartment not on ground floor. I do have major problems if it's inside my house though. Other than that, unless there's a sign explicitly stating "No Smoking" then all's fair.
It's not for health reasons of second-hand smoking and the like. Its simply because I don't like the lingering smell it leaves afterwards.
|
On April 20 2011 03:20 Hawk wrote:
How is someone having to go outside to smoke anything like one smoker subjecting 10 other people in a room to harmful chemicals???? I cannot wrap my head around this at all. You are creating health problems for people who have no choice in the matter.
How is everyone having to deal with 2nd hand smoke and all the shit that comes with it preferable to a few people not pushing themselves on others and going outside to smoke some kind of desecration of your rights?? It's the other way around if anything.
Since most of the people in this thread seem to focus on discussing their own issues with health, I'll address this one:
I'm sorry, I'm a smoker, this thing has always baffled me. If a person is entering a room/place/establishment, whre he (I'm always using the male form if you haven't noticed before, just because it's easier for me) knows thst people are smoking within. Why does he do that? Can he really whine about it?
If he didn't know, why doesn't he leave immediately after discovering the fact?
Edit: Let me try this again, with a life experience this time:
Me: Excuse me, could I get an ash tray?
Response: Yes = I get an ash tray and I sit at the place I choose and smoke.
No = I conform and don't smoke or leave the bar.
Non-smoker:
Me: Excuse me, is smoking allowed here?
Response: Yes = WTFBBQ ima shit on you crazy assholes blahblahblah.
No = Oh, ok.
How is that fair?
|
On April 20 2011 10:08 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 03:20 Hawk wrote:
How is someone having to go outside to smoke anything like one smoker subjecting 10 other people in a room to harmful chemicals???? I cannot wrap my head around this at all. You are creating health problems for people who have no choice in the matter.
How is everyone having to deal with 2nd hand smoke and all the shit that comes with it preferable to a few people not pushing themselves on others and going outside to smoke some kind of desecration of your rights?? It's the other way around if anything. Since most of the people in this thread seem to focus on discussing their own issues with health, I'll address this one: I'm sorry, I'm a smoker, this thing has always baffled me. If a person is entering a room/place/establishment, whre he (I'm always using the male form if you haven't noticed before, just because it's easier for me) knows thst people are smoking within. Why does he do that? Can he really whine about it? If he didn't know, why doesn't he leave immediately after discovering the fact? Edit: Let me try this again, with a life experience this time: Me: Excuse me, could I get an ash tray? Response: Yes = I get an ash tray and I sit at the place I choose and smoke. No = I conform and don't smoke or leave the bar. Non-smoker: Me: Excuse me, is smoking allowed here? Response: Yes = WTFBBQ ima shit on you crazy assholes blahblahblah. No = Oh, ok. How is that fair?
so are non smokers expected to have to avoid an entire establishment because they want to breath clean air? everyone can breath fine inside of a non-smoking establishment
basically, i shouldn't have to leave a place because you and your friends want to light up a cigarette, i shouldn't have to avoid a place just so that i can breath clean air while i eat or drink or hang out with friends
|
Cost-benefit Analysis of Increasing Tobacco Tax in UK
A little evidence for people comparing costs to society, etc of smoking. Personally you want to smoke, that is your choice. I have no problem as long as it doesn't affect me. Taxing tobacco does provide society with benefits, it is your choice to smoke. I don't mind taking advantage of that.
Personally I feel sorry for smokers. What would motivate you to continue the habit is beyond me, but I guess that is why I am not a smoker. As for smoking in public places, I believe, at least in Australia, there is a definite belief that smoking is a public health hazard. Hence there is a move to minimise smoking. Increased taxation, plain packaging, disease pictures on packets and limiting smoking areas is how we are trying to minimise that hazard. Cause and effect.
|
I hope smoking continues to exist, it's almost a culture that the whole world can identify with and I think it's nice to have that social tradition.
That's why the only time I've ever smoked a cigarette is when I'm drunk and want to accompany friends in conversation -- but even then I refuse 90% of the time. They are harsh and taste terrible, expensive and inevitably will get you hooked. Most people who get addicted are the ones who start at an early age and for naive reasons.
Why can't cigarettes just be that occasional social experience? Or that one time where you need to go outside and think about something and relieve stress? I feel like they have a place in the world, but so many people simply abuse them. If you've become hooked, you simply don't know how to smoke IMO. I'm not going to look down on you, anymore then I would someone who is a bit overweight -- we all have choices and problems we face.
It seems the thread has gotten a bit OT so I'm just throwing random thoughts here.
|
On April 19 2011 19:33 Grettin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 19:15 fearus wrote:
Another smoker's point of view:
Please enjoy your personal freedom of choice to smoke or not, and allow others the same. Right point of view. Agreed completely.
please do not activate asthmatic symptoms in me, bad smells or otherwise hinder my right to enjoy public places. since smoking is harmful smokers dont have some special right to do it in others way..
|
On April 20 2011 04:19 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 03:50 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On April 20 2011 02:19 JingleHell wrote:On April 20 2011 00:43 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
smokers are a detriment to society (a large amount of smokers/former smokers relying on welfare/medicare/medicaid/social security to pay their smoking related medical bills)
not to say that it's the only thing that causes this kind of problem, but it is huge - i don't like paying for the bad choices that others make with their activities, money, and health A large amount of non-smokers also rely on all those services. Maybe we should just get rid of welfare and medicare? You clearly didn't read the last two lines of what I said, try again.
What about alcoholics/former alcoholics relying on those services for medical bills for their liver?
Re-read the last two lines
Obese people who should have watched their diet and exercised?
Re-read the last two lines
As it turns out, people will always have self inflicted health issues. The question should be whether we support people who can't support themselves at all or not, instead of basing it on where their issues came from. If medicare and medicaid were only for people in perfect health, they wouldn't need to exist.
Re-read the last two lines
Also, you complain about smokers being a detriment to society, but consider the obscene tax on tobacco products paid in most parts of the US. Comes to a LOT of money flowing back in.
We could make up for that with increasing taxes on other "luxury" purchases, as well as reducing the amount of money we pay for their life support for the last 10 years of their life. You like your last two lines, don't you? But they don't actually answer the question I asked. What do you want done about the other ways people ruin their health? Smoking is just another one, no different than any other. People ruin their health all kinds of ways and end up using all those services you mention, and many of those ways are avoidable.
Nothing, except the major ones. We can only fix problems to the best of our time and ability, and smoking is a huge fucking problem. Yes, people do ruin their health all kinds of different ways. Does this mean that we should include coverage on all of them because we do some of them? No, thats not logical in the slightest.
|
Education on smoking has reached a point where, for people growing up today, smoking is very much a choice. The only exception to this is poorer demographics (there's more pressure on them to smoke due to the nature of their environment), but that's a time thing which should change with continued exposure to smoking education.
I think the only thing left to do is increase taxes on smoking to a point where they cover the costs of smoking related health issues. If that happens then people have to stop complaining about smokers and they'll take their high horses elsewhere.
You can't complain about a person smoking when the only person they're harming is themselves.
|
On April 19 2011 19:15 fearus wrote:
Another smoker's point of view:
Please enjoy your personal freedom of choice to smoke or not, and allow others the same.
/thread
I'm not a smoker by the way.
|
On April 20 2011 13:12 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 10:08 Manit0u wrote:On April 20 2011 03:20 Hawk wrote:
How is someone having to go outside to smoke anything like one smoker subjecting 10 other people in a room to harmful chemicals???? I cannot wrap my head around this at all. You are creating health problems for people who have no choice in the matter.
How is everyone having to deal with 2nd hand smoke and all the shit that comes with it preferable to a few people not pushing themselves on others and going outside to smoke some kind of desecration of your rights?? It's the other way around if anything. Since most of the people in this thread seem to focus on discussing their own issues with health, I'll address this one: I'm sorry, I'm a smoker, this thing has always baffled me. If a person is entering a room/place/establishment, whre he (I'm always using the male form if you haven't noticed before, just because it's easier for me) knows thst people are smoking within. Why does he do that? Can he really whine about it? If he didn't know, why doesn't he leave immediately after discovering the fact? Edit: Let me try this again, with a life experience this time: Me: Excuse me, could I get an ash tray? Response: Yes = I get an ash tray and I sit at the place I choose and smoke. No = I conform and don't smoke or leave the bar. Non-smoker: Me: Excuse me, is smoking allowed here? Response: Yes = WTFBBQ ima shit on you crazy assholes blahblahblah. No = Oh, ok. How is that fair? so are non smokers expected to have to avoid an entire establishment because they want to breath clean air? everyone can breath fine inside of a non-smoking establishment basically, i shouldn't have to leave a place because you and your friends want to light up a cigarette, i shouldn't have to avoid a place just so that i can breath clean air while i eat or drink or hang out with friends
Maybe you should make your own choices based on the decision that the establishment makes. If they allow smoking and you don't go there are a result they lose your business. Either they fail or succeed because of that. Either way end of story.
There are plenty of choices of smoke free establishments you can frequent instead.
That said I definitely support smoke-free establishments, especially given that smoking is a minority and smokers can still take smoke breaks outside. It's just a good business decision.
|
On April 20 2011 19:28 Kashll wrote:
That said I definitely support smoke-free establishments, especially given that smoking is a minority and smokers can still take smoke breaks outside. It's just a good business decision.
Where I live, easily 70-80% of club/bar customers are smokers. The no-smoking bar law really hurt some businesses.
|
On April 20 2011 13:12 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 10:08 Manit0u wrote:On April 20 2011 03:20 Hawk wrote:
How is someone having to go outside to smoke anything like one smoker subjecting 10 other people in a room to harmful chemicals???? I cannot wrap my head around this at all. You are creating health problems for people who have no choice in the matter.
How is everyone having to deal with 2nd hand smoke and all the shit that comes with it preferable to a few people not pushing themselves on others and going outside to smoke some kind of desecration of your rights?? It's the other way around if anything. Since most of the people in this thread seem to focus on discussing their own issues with health, I'll address this one: I'm sorry, I'm a smoker, this thing has always baffled me. If a person is entering a room/place/establishment, whre he (I'm always using the male form if you haven't noticed before, just because it's easier for me) knows thst people are smoking within. Why does he do that? Can he really whine about it? If he didn't know, why doesn't he leave immediately after discovering the fact? Edit: Let me try this again, with a life experience this time: Me: Excuse me, could I get an ash tray? Response: Yes = I get an ash tray and I sit at the place I choose and smoke. No = I conform and don't smoke or leave the bar. Non-smoker: Me: Excuse me, is smoking allowed here? Response: Yes = WTFBBQ ima shit on you crazy assholes blahblahblah. No = Oh, ok. How is that fair? so are non smokers expected to have to avoid an entire establishment because they want to breath clean air? everyone can breath fine inside of a non-smoking establishment basically, i shouldn't have to leave a place because you and your friends want to light up a cigarette, i shouldn't have to avoid a place just so that i can breath clean air while i eat or drink or hang out with friends
This is the most arrogant point of view imaginable. Why should you have to make a decision about where to go based on your preference, when other people can just be inconvenienced instead?
If an establishment allows smoking inside, don't go if you don't like it. That's the exact same option smokers get with an establishment that doesn't. We call that EQUAL rights, since you're trying to act like your rights are getting shit on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
