|
On May 24 2011 08:52 alexhard wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 08:41 Legatus Lanius wrote:On May 24 2011 08:38 Lexpar wrote:
Whats next? No public fornication? No target practice in public parks? God damn it, if we don't have our freedom what DO we have?
yeah, you dont have the freedom to give yourself cancer and emphysema and heart disease (in some public places) anymore. this is so terrible I wonder if you guys would be saying the same if they were banning something harmful that you like. Say...red meat? No more burgers for you. It makes sense after all, they're bad for you. The argument can be replicated ad nauseam: people do a lot of things that are harmful to themselves, but that is not a legitimate reason to ban them.
yeah it is, when the health system foots the bill for removing some moron's cancer or disgusting, cancer-ridden lungs. if red meat as banned, i wouldnt give a shit either. im sure some cows would rejoice though
what are the reasons people smoke anyway? to look cool? to relax? do some meditation or some other junk that doesnt affect anyone else
|
On May 24 2011 08:56 Legatus Lanius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 08:52 alexhard wrote:On May 24 2011 08:41 Legatus Lanius wrote:On May 24 2011 08:38 Lexpar wrote:
Whats next? No public fornication? No target practice in public parks? God damn it, if we don't have our freedom what DO we have?
yeah, you dont have the freedom to give yourself cancer and emphysema and heart disease (in some public places) anymore. this is so terrible I wonder if you guys would be saying the same if they were banning something harmful that you like. Say...red meat? No more burgers for you. It makes sense after all, they're bad for you. The argument can be replicated ad nauseam: people do a lot of things that are harmful to themselves, but that is not a legitimate reason to ban them. yeah it is, when the health system foots the bill for removing some moron's cancer or disgusting, cancer-ridden lungs. if red meat as banned, i wouldnt give a shit either. im sure some cows would rejoice though what are the reasons people smoke anyway? to look cool? to relax? do some meditation or some other junk that doesnt affect anyone else
Cardiac disease (caused primarily from trans and saturated fat, which red meat is exceptionally high in) is the biggest killer in the country. More than cancer.
|
On May 24 2011 08:56 Legatus Lanius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 08:52 alexhard wrote:On May 24 2011 08:41 Legatus Lanius wrote:On May 24 2011 08:38 Lexpar wrote:
Whats next? No public fornication? No target practice in public parks? God damn it, if we don't have our freedom what DO we have?
yeah, you dont have the freedom to give yourself cancer and emphysema and heart disease (in some public places) anymore. this is so terrible I wonder if you guys would be saying the same if they were banning something harmful that you like. Say...red meat? No more burgers for you. It makes sense after all, they're bad for you. The argument can be replicated ad nauseam: people do a lot of things that are harmful to themselves, but that is not a legitimate reason to ban them. yeah it is, when the health system foots the bill for removing some moron's cancer or disgusting, cancer-ridden lungs. if red meat as banned, i wouldnt give a shit either. im sure some cows would rejoice though what are the reasons people smoke anyway? to look cool? to relax? do some meditation or some other junk that doesnt affect anyone else
You're missing the point man. Who cares? Nobody needs to have a reason to do something, they don't need to prove to you that something is good for them in order to do it. Who made you the king who gets to decide what reasons are acceptable or not? And since when does the health care system support these people? Not in my anti-socialist America, where free healthcare is nonexistent. Smoking doesn't affect other people when properly regulated. You're talking about banning, which is extreme regulation and it's unfair. If you have no respect for people's freedoms unless they can prove to you that they have a "good" reason for exercising those freedoms, then maybe there's no point in even having a discussion.
|
On May 24 2011 08:52 alexhard wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 08:41 Legatus Lanius wrote:On May 24 2011 08:38 Lexpar wrote:
Whats next? No public fornication? No target practice in public parks? God damn it, if we don't have our freedom what DO we have?
yeah, you dont have the freedom to give yourself cancer and emphysema and heart disease (in some public places) anymore. this is so terrible I wonder if you guys would be saying the same if they were banning something harmful that you like. Say...red meat? No more burgers for you. It makes sense after all, they're bad for you. The argument can be replicated ad nauseam: people do a lot of things that are harmful to themselves, but that is not a legitimate reason to ban them.
No? Because you eating red meat cant ever harm the person next to you. Your argument doesn't make sense at all.
|
Plenty of vegetarians are vegetarians due to political beliefs that reducing meat ingestion will reduce greenhouse methane emissions. They are vegetarians solely because they believe meat-eating affects everybody on the planet. The argument makes plenty of sense.
|
On May 24 2011 09:01 SolidusR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 08:56 Legatus Lanius wrote:On May 24 2011 08:52 alexhard wrote:On May 24 2011 08:41 Legatus Lanius wrote:On May 24 2011 08:38 Lexpar wrote:
Whats next? No public fornication? No target practice in public parks? God damn it, if we don't have our freedom what DO we have?
yeah, you dont have the freedom to give yourself cancer and emphysema and heart disease (in some public places) anymore. this is so terrible I wonder if you guys would be saying the same if they were banning something harmful that you like. Say...red meat? No more burgers for you. It makes sense after all, they're bad for you. The argument can be replicated ad nauseam: people do a lot of things that are harmful to themselves, but that is not a legitimate reason to ban them. yeah it is, when the health system foots the bill for removing some moron's cancer or disgusting, cancer-ridden lungs. if red meat as banned, i wouldnt give a shit either. im sure some cows would rejoice though what are the reasons people smoke anyway? to look cool? to relax? do some meditation or some other junk that doesnt affect anyone else If you have no respect for people's freedoms unless they can prove to you that they have a "good" reason for exercising those freedoms
Freedom is a privilege. Not a right.
|
United States4126 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:08 insaneMicro wrote:
This is getting out of hand imo. Banning smoking at bars I can understand, the air can get sticky and tear-inducing at times.
But why ban people from smoking in public? It's neither harming nor annoying anyone. If I lived in NYC, I'd be pretty mad about this.
As a New Yorker who doesn't smoke, I can't tell you how long I spend inhaling other people's smoke while I'm walking on the streets. It's pretty ridiculous.
|
No, freedom is a right until it infringes upon another person's freedom. Regulated smoking does not. People DO have a right to smoke. Sorry.
|
maybe all the smoke haters should learn to live with it 
|
On May 24 2011 09:02 T0fuuu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 08:52 alexhard wrote:On May 24 2011 08:41 Legatus Lanius wrote:On May 24 2011 08:38 Lexpar wrote:
Whats next? No public fornication? No target practice in public parks? God damn it, if we don't have our freedom what DO we have?
yeah, you dont have the freedom to give yourself cancer and emphysema and heart disease (in some public places) anymore. this is so terrible I wonder if you guys would be saying the same if they were banning something harmful that you like. Say...red meat? No more burgers for you. It makes sense after all, they're bad for you. The argument can be replicated ad nauseam: people do a lot of things that are harmful to themselves, but that is not a legitimate reason to ban them. No? Because you eating red meat cant ever harm the person next to you. Your argument doesn't make sense at all.
And also the fact that red meat is a healthy food ?
|
On May 24 2011 09:06 SolidusR wrote:
No, freedom is a right until it infringes upon another person's freedom. Regulated smoking does not. People DO have a right to smoke. Sorry.
By that logic I have the right to breathe crisp, clean air. If we walk on the same street and you start smoking a cigarette, that infringes on my as you put it, rights.
|
On May 24 2011 09:03 SolHeiM wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 09:01 SolidusR wrote:On May 24 2011 08:56 Legatus Lanius wrote:On May 24 2011 08:52 alexhard wrote:On May 24 2011 08:41 Legatus Lanius wrote:On May 24 2011 08:38 Lexpar wrote:
Whats next? No public fornication? No target practice in public parks? God damn it, if we don't have our freedom what DO we have?
yeah, you dont have the freedom to give yourself cancer and emphysema and heart disease (in some public places) anymore. this is so terrible I wonder if you guys would be saying the same if they were banning something harmful that you like. Say...red meat? No more burgers for you. It makes sense after all, they're bad for you. The argument can be replicated ad nauseam: people do a lot of things that are harmful to themselves, but that is not a legitimate reason to ban them. yeah it is, when the health system foots the bill for removing some moron's cancer or disgusting, cancer-ridden lungs. if red meat as banned, i wouldnt give a shit either. im sure some cows would rejoice though what are the reasons people smoke anyway? to look cool? to relax? do some meditation or some other junk that doesnt affect anyone else If you have no respect for people's freedoms unless they can prove to you that they have a "good" reason for exercising those freedoms Freedom is a privilege. Not a right.
That may be the case in Sweden, but not New York.
|
On May 24 2011 08:52 alexhard wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 08:41 Legatus Lanius wrote:On May 24 2011 08:38 Lexpar wrote:
Whats next? No public fornication? No target practice in public parks? God damn it, if we don't have our freedom what DO we have?
yeah, you dont have the freedom to give yourself cancer and emphysema and heart disease (in some public places) anymore. this is so terrible I wonder if you guys would be saying the same if they were banning something harmful that you like. Say...red meat? No more burgers for you. It makes sense after all, they're bad for you. The argument can be replicated ad nauseam: people do a lot of things that are harmful to themselves, but that is not a legitimate reason to ban them.
You can't get fat sitting next to a fat person eating burgers....
You don't get fat by proxy. Like you get lung cancer.
|
Which is why I said regulated smoking, which means smoking in an area where a nonsmoker would be well aware of the fact that they were going to inhale smoke if they entered the area. Do you even read my other posts? Do you even know what regulation is? Do you know that you can make rules for something instead of outright banning it?
Edit: Hai Kamaise 
|
On May 24 2011 06:35 Myrkskog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 06:26 DannyJ wrote:On May 24 2011 06:22 Mortal wrote:Smoking is unhealthy. Over-eating is unhealthy. Ban smokers. Ban fat people? + Show Spoiler +Again I'm being 100% serious. Fat people don't inherently pollute / litter and give the skinny person next to them cancer. They are just funny and fat. Until a fatty has a milkshake induced heart attack while driving and plows into an elementary school field trip. I'll take the cancer thank you very much.
This is one of the most moronic things I've read in my life. How many people die each year to second-hand smoke vs those that die to fatties having heart attacks? Remember, smoking causes heart problems too.
|
On May 24 2011 09:06 SolidusR wrote:
No, freedom is a right until it infringes upon another person's freedom. Regulated smoking does not. People DO have a right to smoke. Sorry. People have a right to smoke but not wherever they please.
|
On May 24 2011 09:11 AutomatonOmega wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 06:35 Myrkskog wrote:On May 24 2011 06:26 DannyJ wrote:On May 24 2011 06:22 Mortal wrote:Smoking is unhealthy. Over-eating is unhealthy. Ban smokers. Ban fat people? + Show Spoiler +Again I'm being 100% serious. Fat people don't inherently pollute / litter and give the skinny person next to them cancer. They are just funny and fat. Until a fatty has a milkshake induced heart attack while driving and plows into an elementary school field trip. I'll take the cancer thank you very much. This is one of the most moronic things I've read in my life. How many people die each year to second-hand smoke vs those that die to fatties having heart attacks? Remember, smoking causes heart problems too.
Lol it was a joke. How many people die to second-hand smoke from hanging out a beach where someone smokes? 0.
|
On May 24 2011 09:16 Myrkskog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 09:11 AutomatonOmega wrote:On May 24 2011 06:35 Myrkskog wrote:On May 24 2011 06:26 DannyJ wrote:On May 24 2011 06:22 Mortal wrote:Smoking is unhealthy. Over-eating is unhealthy. Ban smokers. Ban fat people? + Show Spoiler +Again I'm being 100% serious. Fat people don't inherently pollute / litter and give the skinny person next to them cancer. They are just funny and fat. Until a fatty has a milkshake induced heart attack while driving and plows into an elementary school field trip. I'll take the cancer thank you very much. This is one of the most moronic things I've read in my life. How many people die each year to second-hand smoke vs those that die to fatties having heart attacks? Remember, smoking causes heart problems too. Lol it was a joke. How many people die to second-hand smoke from hanging out a beach where someone smokes? 0.
Lol my bad, sarcasm fail. A lot of it depends on the density of smokers vs non-smokers.
|
Let's tackle some things people are saying here and some positions some have.
Secondhand smoke is dangerous to you in public.
Lets see then, from cancer.org's page about dangers of secondhand smoke, what they say about places you would be affected by it is:
"Everyone can be exposed to secondhand smoke in public places, such as restaurants, shopping centers, public transportation, schools, and daycare centers."
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke
Hmm all right, no mention of being outdoors, strange if it is a danger. Let's check out what the NCI says:
"People can be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, cars, the workplace, and public places, such as bars, restaurants, and recreational settings."
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
Here is actually a mention, recreational settings. Strange though none of their references or anything seem to link of dangers outdoors, it's all focusing on the dangers it presents in restaurants, bars, workplaces and homes. Those aren't even relevant for this discussion.
Is it too much to presume that the dangers presented by second hand smoke in outdoors public is miniscule, unnoticable even, compared to thedangers of the others? Seems strange to me to put so much backing into the secondhand smoke being dangerous to you in outdoor areas, while it does comparatively nothing when you look at just pollution in general.
The numbers I've seen thrown around here and read are that 46-50000 americans die each year because of it. How many of those would you guess are because of smoke in public areas such as parks? Compare that to the estimated 500000 linked with pollution, and it's a pretty weak thing to take a stance for.+ Show Spoiler +http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution
I thought you guys were all about freedom to do with you life as you wish as long as it does not bring harm to others*, yet the anti tobacco "crusade" a lot of the world is into you support? Again this is regarding parks and other large outdoor areas, not indoors.
2. Regarding people calling for banning of tobacco at all.
Do you have this stance, yet with a much more intense passion, regarding a full ban of alchohol as well? Otherwise you're pretty much a hypocrite. I mean if you check out the facts it a lot more dangerous than tobacco, or even ecstacy, LSD and Cannabis.
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/nov/02/david-nutt-dangerous-drug-list
This man also wrote an awesome piece showing how horseback riding is more of public health concern than ecstacy (in britain)
I do however see the point of littering in parks, but is it that far fetched to fine people 500$ for that instead? Then use that money to put more ashtrays / garbage cans, making even normal littering less of an issue.
I am a smoker myself, I don't really bother others with it. I don't smoke indoors, I smoke in smoking areas at the university, bars restaurants etc., and ofcourse in public. The reason for writing this post is because of all the anti smoking in public shit is really getting out of hand, even borderline discrimination in certain places here in Norway.
* Bringing harm to others, meaning in this sense things that are illegal. Yet pregnant mothers won't be punished for smoking and / or drinking while pregnant. If you want to bring up a point of this, I really hate bright yellow t-shirts. If enough people agree with me, like say 80% of the population, should we have a fine for wearing bright yellow t-shirts in public too? Or does that then infringe upon "freedoms". Where is the line with something like this?
Edit: Forgot a source.
|
I smoke myself and i think this idea is fine. As long as i can just go some place and do it then it's fine. Honestly i don't like to be around people smoking if im not smoking myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
