|
On May 25 2011 01:42 Cyba wrote:
Why not ban alcohol? Hate seeing drunk people, and they smell of alcohol which bothers my sensitive ass :/ Which reminds me of daddy...
all the beatings, oh my...the beatings...
All the arguments saying this law is great just sound like a bunch of brats that throw those crappy answers around when the only reason they agree with it is that mommy toldem smoking is bad but leting your dog shit in the park is ok. There chance of 0.01% of having a heart atack when you're 50 is increased by 50% ! Well that's still just 0.015% so fuck off with the convenient antismoke propaganda you'll have a higher chance of having your aorta burst if you eat beef then smoke.
Nicotine is adictive indeed but it's very repulsive for a beginer, so the risk of you making somebody start smoking by smoking yourself is pretty much nill unless he actually wants to try it... several times untill he gets used to it. As for making somebody sick with second hand smoke, that's pretty much 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% probable IF the guy sits in your face and blows his smoke up your nose.
Clothes smell, cool story but that's only going to happen in clubs where everybody smokes and you can cut through the smoke with a knife, never gona happen in the street.
And the bad smell argument ? Are you serious? If that's even remotely serious imo fat people, fast food, outdoor trashdumps, SUV's, babies, public breast feeding and fuck all the pet owners too.
10 years penalty for farting in public, 5 years if you just REALLY had to go since it's obv not malicious doing, and if your dog does it tough luck, there's only one jail for pets and it's in the sky.
Should just add a death penalty for every fat fuck driving an SUV while eating a Sloppy Joe with his wife in the front seat breast feeding her kid, and keeping a dog that just went to the bathroom in the back. Because the guy behind them is JUST SO MOTHERFUCKING INCONVENIENCED.
Alcohol in public is already banned. What is your point?
|
On May 25 2011 01:23 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 01:17 Omnipresent wrote:On May 25 2011 01:06 fush wrote:On May 25 2011 00:22 Omnipresent wrote:On May 24 2011 19:44 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote:On May 24 2011 18:29 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 18:05 resilve wrote:
I dont get the litter argument either, why not stop people eating wrapped food outdoors too...why are smokers picked out and punished for using consumables outdoors. ? I dislike seeing food wrappers on the ground just as much as I dislike seeing cigarette butts. I'm not sure why you tried to make this analogy... both are bad.  The analogy makes complete logic sense to me. Cigarette butts are no different than any other litter so you can't use littering as an excuse to keep smokers out of open public areas. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's irrelevant if I throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely related. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor. No, I think you've missed it. The main points being made in favor of the ban are: 1. Second hand smoke is harmful to others. 2. Cigarette butts are often left on the ground as litter. People arguing against the ban are saying: 1. OUTDOOR second hand smoke is not dangerous, at least not in any measurable way. 2. Cigarette butt litter is bad, but so is litter from prepackaged food. 3. If litter is the only reason to ban outdoor smoking, we should also ban eating packaged food, drinking bottled water/canned drinks, and reading newspapers in public areas.There's no logical fallacy here. No one is saying it's ok to leave cigarette butts on the ground just because people leave cans on the ground. They're saying that you shouldn't ban something just because people might litter, unless you're going to ban other products that contribute equally to litter. This is especially true since there's already a law covering all kinds of littering. Here's what happened. Someone in New York decided they don't like smoking (or cigarette smoke, or smokers, or something like that). They decided they wanted to ban smoking anywhere that the city has the authority to ban it (plazas, parks, and beaches). AFTER this individual or group decided what they wanted to do (for personal reasons), they came up with a series of reasonable-sounding excuses for banning smoking. They make a lot of sense, if you don't think too hard about it. If you're going to jump on someone, at least take a second to read what they're saying. This is one of the easiest pieces of legislation to argue against, at least as long as people keep making weak arguments. If you want to ban smoking in public, but don't want to ban eating pre-packaged foods in those same areas, at least admit it's because you don't like smoke/smokers/whatever, or that you're trying to make people healthier by limiting their personal choices. While I disagree with both of these reasons, at least they have the advantage of being intellectually honest. This litter/SHS (outside) crap just doesn't hold water. i don't understand this line of thinking. smoking has been shown to be a directly addictive activity. so is marijuana, other drugs of abuse. but also, so are many of the other medications (ie painkillers) as well as a lot of activities that we do (one might argue compulsive eating and gaming are addictions since they have similar activation of neural circuitries). so if we're not going to ban excessive eating, gaming, painkillers, then we shouldn't ban smoking and drugs of abuse either? That's not the point I'm making, but no, we shouldn't ban smoking or drug use. There is however a case to be made. There's a big difference between heroine and fatty foods, both in their addictive nature and harm to the body. It's reasonable to make a case that there's a point where a product is either addictive enough or harmful enough that it should be banned, as long as you can create an objective way of measuring these things. All litter, on the other hand, is litter. In fact, cigarette butts aren't as bad as plastic bottles. remaining tobacco and paper will degrade quickly, as will many parts of the filter. Plastic bottles are essentially permanent. It's fine to take incremental steps, but at least be consistent. If you want to ban smoking in public places because of litter, you should at least be thinking about banning bottled water. The smoking ban should also not include other types of smoking. Cigar and pipe smokers can only leave ash and biodegradable tobacco leaves behind. You can argue the point about litter, but you have to be consistent. I definitely agree about the consistency. However, tossing a water bottle on the ground is illegal, but to my knowledge, there is no law against flicking a cigarette on the ground. I think they should actually use the litter laws...Then people might at least think twice before tossing their trash on the ground. I've never once, in my entire life, heard of anyone being fined for littering.
The litter law probably applies to cigarette butts as well as other litter (agree about poor enforcement)
|
To be honest, I hope to never be addicted to that stuff. But at the same time. I believe it is wrong to completely ban it, as there are people who feel that they actually need it.
|
I agree with it. Smoking is a bad habit that offers no rewards. And non-smokers can also be affected by people smoking in public places, so having certain areas where you can smoke is a good idea.
|
On May 25 2011 01:33 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 01:29 Clearout wrote:On May 25 2011 01:05 RoosterSamurai wrote:On May 25 2011 01:03 Clearout wrote:On May 25 2011 00:49 RoosterSamurai wrote:On May 25 2011 00:22 Omnipresent wrote:On May 24 2011 19:44 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote:On May 24 2011 18:29 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 18:05 resilve wrote:
I dont get the litter argument either, why not stop people eating wrapped food outdoors too...why are smokers picked out and punished for using consumables outdoors. ? I dislike seeing food wrappers on the ground just as much as I dislike seeing cigarette butts. I'm not sure why you tried to make this analogy... both are bad. The analogy makes complete logic sense to me. Cigarette butts are no different than any other litter so you can't use littering as an excuse to keep smokers out of open public areas. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's irrelevant if I throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely related. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor. No, I think you've missed it. The main points being made in favor of the ban are: 1. Second hand smoke is harmful to others. 2. Cigarette butts are often left on the ground as litter. People arguing against the ban are saying: 1. OUTDOOR second hand smoke is not dangerous, at least not in any measurable way. 2. Cigarette butt litter is bad, but so is litter from prepackaged food. 3. If litter is the only reason to ban outdoor smoking, we should also ban eating packaged food, drinking bottled water/canned drinks, and reading newspapers in public areas. There's no logical fallacy here. No one is saying it's ok to leave cigarette butts on the ground just because people leave cans on the ground. They're saying that you shouldn't ban something just because people might litter, unless you're going to ban other products that contribute equally to litter. This is especially true since there's already a law covering all kinds of littering. Here's what happened. Someone in New York decided they don't like smoking (or cigarette smoke, or smokers, or something like that). They decided they wanted to ban smoking anywhere that the city has the authority to ban it (plazas, parks, and beaches). AFTER this individual or group decided what they wanted to do (for personal reasons), they came up with a series of reasonable-sounding excuses for banning smoking. They make a lot of sense, if you don't think too hard about it. If you're going to jump on someone, at least take a second to read what they're saying. This is one of the easiest pieces of legislation to argue against, at least as long as people keep making weak arguments. If you want to ban smoking in public, but don't want to ban eating pre-packaged foods in those same areas, at least admit it's because you don't like smoke/smokers/whatever, or that you're trying to make people healthier by limiting their personal choices. While I disagree with both of these reasons, at least they have the advantage of being intellectually honest. This litter/SHS (outside) crap just doesn't hold water. It is also irritating to have to breathe in cigarette smoke whether it is harmless or not. It makes my eyes water, it makes my clothes smell bad, and I don't want smoke being in my face at all. So, you missed a point. Please edit your post in an attempt to refute my personal preferences, which (If we're going by the argument of rights for everyone) should outweigh your right to smoke wherever you please, as smoking is a vice not necessary to sustain life. It is really irritating when people wear bright yellow t-shirts, they hurt my eyes in the light and hurts my sense of fashion. Bright yellow t-shirts is a vice not necessary to sustain life. Arguing you think something is annoying to support a ban is not a valid argument, because it can be made for just about everything. Should those things be banned as long as enough people are annoyed by it? Where goes the line with such reasoning? If you believe it goes here that is fine, but it that is not a valid logical argument to support a ban, just an opinion. I like how you skip over one point you cannot refute with such childish, stupid arguments: Cigarette smoke makes your clothes smell bad. Do bright yellow shirts make your clothes smell bad? So because cigarettes makes your clothes smell bad, your entire argument does not mount up to being just your opinion? Excactly like my opinion regarding bright yellow t-shirts? Or are you now arguing that because cigarettes makes your clothes smell bad it is worse than bright yellow t-shirts, therefore your argument is more valid than mine regarding t-shirts? If it is a childish argument, so is your argument for why smoking should be banned in public places like parks. Both are just as viable, and as I said "not a valid logical argument to support a ban, just an opinion". I'd like you to show me an instance where a bright yellow shirt has given anyone an allergic reaction, or asthma attack. Show me where a bright yellow shirt has left a lingering affect on you, such as your clothes smelling like smoke until you wash them. If you can't show me either of these, then your argument is simply stupidly liberal, and you're just trying to sound cute. These arent even the things I'm arguing. What you seem to miss from what I'm saying is that in your opinion smoking in public is enough of nuicense that it warrants a ban. I'm saying it is an opinion not a logical argument from a health or danger perspective etc. Then I'm saying such a case could be made for bright yellow t-shirts, which I use as an example because it is ridiculous. So then I am saying where is the line? If you wish to draw the line at smoking in public that is fine, and is your opinion and I respect that. For me that is not where I would draw a line, I don't feel there is enough to support a ban therefore people's privileges should not be infringed. So you have your opinion on the matter I have mine, and we can only agree to disagree. There is nothing to support your argument other than an opinion on the degree of nuicense (which many others may share), which is why I'm saying that it is a de facto ban because something is annoying. Different people will have different opinions regarding that, but it is not a logical way to defend an issue is all I am pointing out.
|
On May 25 2011 01:05 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 01:03 Clearout wrote:On May 25 2011 00:49 RoosterSamurai wrote:On May 25 2011 00:22 Omnipresent wrote:On May 24 2011 19:44 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote:On May 24 2011 18:29 EvilTeletubby wrote:On May 24 2011 18:05 resilve wrote:
I dont get the litter argument either, why not stop people eating wrapped food outdoors too...why are smokers picked out and punished for using consumables outdoors. ? I dislike seeing food wrappers on the ground just as much as I dislike seeing cigarette butts. I'm not sure why you tried to make this analogy... both are bad. The analogy makes complete logic sense to me. Cigarette butts are no different than any other litter so you can't use littering as an excuse to keep smokers out of open public areas. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's irrelevant if I throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely related. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor. No, I think you've missed it. The main points being made in favor of the ban are: 1. Second hand smoke is harmful to others. 2. Cigarette butts are often left on the ground as litter. People arguing against the ban are saying: 1. OUTDOOR second hand smoke is not dangerous, at least not in any measurable way. 2. Cigarette butt litter is bad, but so is litter from prepackaged food. 3. If litter is the only reason to ban outdoor smoking, we should also ban eating packaged food, drinking bottled water/canned drinks, and reading newspapers in public areas. There's no logical fallacy here. No one is saying it's ok to leave cigarette butts on the ground just because people leave cans on the ground. They're saying that you shouldn't ban something just because people might litter, unless you're going to ban other products that contribute equally to litter. This is especially true since there's already a law covering all kinds of littering. Here's what happened. Someone in New York decided they don't like smoking (or cigarette smoke, or smokers, or something like that). They decided they wanted to ban smoking anywhere that the city has the authority to ban it (plazas, parks, and beaches). AFTER this individual or group decided what they wanted to do (for personal reasons), they came up with a series of reasonable-sounding excuses for banning smoking. They make a lot of sense, if you don't think too hard about it. If you're going to jump on someone, at least take a second to read what they're saying. This is one of the easiest pieces of legislation to argue against, at least as long as people keep making weak arguments. If you want to ban smoking in public, but don't want to ban eating pre-packaged foods in those same areas, at least admit it's because you don't like smoke/smokers/whatever, or that you're trying to make people healthier by limiting their personal choices. While I disagree with both of these reasons, at least they have the advantage of being intellectually honest. This litter/SHS (outside) crap just doesn't hold water. It is also irritating to have to breathe in cigarette smoke whether it is harmless or not. It makes my eyes water, it makes my clothes smell bad, and I don't want smoke being in my face at all. So, you missed a point. Please edit your post in an attempt to refute my personal preferences, which (If we're going by the argument of rights for everyone) should outweigh your right to smoke wherever you please, as smoking is a vice not necessary to sustain life. It is really irritating when people wear bright yellow t-shirts, they hurt my eyes in the light and hurts my sense of fashion. Bright yellow t-shirts is a vice not necessary to sustain life. Arguing you think something is annoying to support a ban is not a valid argument, because it can be made for just about everything. Should those things be banned as long as enough people are annoyed by it? Where goes the line with such reasoning? If you believe it goes here that is fine, but it that is not a valid logical argument to support a ban, just an opinion. I like how you skip over one point you cannot refute with such childish, stupid arguments: Cigarette smoke makes your clothes smell bad. Do bright yellow shirts make your clothes smell bad?
Way to totally miss the point. He was asking where you draw the line when something is just a mere annoyance. Car exhaust makes my clothes smell bad so lets ban that too. I also hate the smell of curry so lets ban that too. Do you get it now?
|
The idea of being able to go to bars and not come home reeking of smoke is appealing – I hate that smell. However, I think the smoking ban wrong. I'll concede that a ban in public places might be justified but not a ban in private bars, restaurants or businesses of any type. So below I'm only attacking a smoking ban in private establishments.
The smoking ban is justified by either: (1) Getting rid of man’s right to live as he chooses (2) or maintaining that smoking is a threat to man’s rights (second hand smoke). Let me clarify these positions.
(1)
The basic argument here is that an individual does not know what, in fact, is good for him. The individual makes the foolish decision to start smoking at some point. He either does not know or is currently too irresponsible to care about the fact that smoking is a serious danger to his long term health and well-being. So, as the analogy goes, like a parent monitoring how much junk food their child can eat, the city government is out to protect the long-term interests of NYC residents.
(2)
The basic argument here is of a different sort. This argument seems to grant the right in dispute in (1) – that man has the inalienable ability to select his future – even if it is bad for him. In fact, it uses the concept of right to make its case – as some commentators on this issue have written “It's about time NYC has protected my rights to breath healthy air in a bar and/or restaurant” or “FREEDOM THAT USURPS SOMEONE ELSES FREEDOM IS NOT FREEDOM AT ALL. I have a right to clean air, wherever I go, be that a daycare, or a bar.” [Caps not mine]
Before examining each argument in isolation, I think it is important to note that these arguments are often used simultaneously. This is a blatant contradiction unless a more refined distinction is brought up. It cannot be the case that an individual has a right to live as he chooses unless it interferes with another person’s right AND that the individual does not have a right to live as he chooses.
(1)
If we were to take this argument seriously then the smoking ban would have to be extended not only to bars but…everywhere. Any activity that is at all dangerous – that is, which jeopardizes long term well being for short-term pleasure -- may be called into question. Skydiving, for example, causes about 30 deaths per year --all this for the adrenaline rush of jumping out of a plane? Reign in those irresponsible thrill-seekers. The same goes for hiking, biking, running, skiing and crossing the street. The list could and would become very large.
However, some of the more consistent proponents of the ban may, after all, claim: “Yes, I think the government should do this. The government should make itself the parent-like figure in order to maintain the longevity and well-being of its citizens.”
This leads us to the basic question: What is the justification of this?
My view is that the most basic right I have is the right to my own life. Is my life my own or does it belong to someone else? Laws against suicide provide a convenient point of investigation. Certainly, I shouldn’t be able to commit suicide while driving a car [we will talk about this more in (2)]. Likewise if I’m going to kill myself in my home I certainly should be legally obligated to have someone come pickup the body since my decomposing corpse could become a health risk (the deterring effect of this law would obviously be low). However, if I no longer wish to live can the government can force me to? Where does it get that kind of authority? How is it possible that the government is given the authority to make a metaphysical value judgment about the overall worth of existence itself. The separation between church and state was crafted specifically to prevent the government from enforcing such a judgment. It is not the government’s prerogative, said the founders, to endorse (through force, as that is the essential distinguishing characteristic of government) a religious/philosophic view of reality into its citizens. Instead, it is the government’s job to ensure that all citizens are given the ability to live according to their own metaphysical/ethical views up until the point that it positively and literally interferes with another individual’s ability to do so. (You are not allowed to sacrifice your neighbors or their property to your god). This discussion of rights leads us directly to
(2)
To clarify this argument we need to agree upon a definition of “rights”. There are two distinct characteristics of a right.
One, rights are trump cards. When the term right is used in an argument it takes up the weight of infinite value. For example, you really don’t like what I’m saying? It is making a lot of people cry? So what – I have the right to free speech. (Fraud not protected) The government really doesn’t want to give me a trial? So what – I am guaranteed it. A group of people really want to kill me – and they can show how it would be really great for their community? Sorry – I have a right to life.
Two, rights are negative obligations – and necessarily so. A right guarantees freedom to act and to possess ownership to the results of one’s actions -- nothing else. So, for example, my right to property does not ask more of you than you respecting it. It does not ask you to give some of your property to me but only that you leave my property alone. The same structure applies to free speech. I can’t force you to listen to me but you can’t force me to not voice my view. Or, more succinctly: “If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.”
The point? There is no right to attend a smoke-free bar. An individual or group of individuals owns the bar and they get to decide how to run it. If you don’t want to inhale second hand smoke, and the bar allows smoking, don’t go. The bar can’t force you to go and likewise you shouldn’t be able to force the bar to operate as they choose.
One reply is to concede the above argument but make the case that the workers at the bar don’t get to choose if they go or not, they are forced to work in a smoking environment. The implicit assumption here is that the worker has a right to work in a smoke free environment -- and more abstractly, a right to a job. They don’t have either of these rights because these rights impose positive not negative obligations.
|
Cigarettes look really sexy on girls, though  Not a smoker myself, but I enjoy the smoke. I hate it that liberties are being taken away.
|
is awesome32275 Posts
On May 25 2011 01:42 Cyba wrote:
As for making somebody sick with second hand smoke, that's pretty much 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% probable IF the guy sits in your face and blows his smoke up your nose.
Source please.
|
On May 25 2011 01:46 BouBou.865 wrote:Cigarettes look really sexy on girls, though Not a smoker myself, but I enjoy the smoke. I hate it that liberties are being taken away.
Meh it's just the US, they always have thick ideas like that out of boredom, all the world's loving beer kegs for hundreds of years and they think prohibition is a smart idea....Which it was if you were meaning to create the biggest organized crime networks in the world.
|
On May 25 2011 01:43 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 01:42 Cyba wrote:
Why not ban alcohol? Hate seeing drunk people, and they smell of alcohol which bothers my sensitive ass :/ Which reminds me of daddy...
all the beatings, oh my...the beatings...
All the arguments saying this law is great just sound like a bunch of brats that throw those crappy answers around when the only reason they agree with it is that mommy toldem smoking is bad but leting your dog shit in the park is ok. There chance of 0.01% of having a heart atack when you're 50 is increased by 50% ! Well that's still just 0.015% so fuck off with the convenient antismoke propaganda you'll have a higher chance of having your aorta burst if you eat beef then smoke.
Nicotine is adictive indeed but it's very repulsive for a beginer, so the risk of you making somebody start smoking by smoking yourself is pretty much nill unless he actually wants to try it... several times untill he gets used to it. As for making somebody sick with second hand smoke, that's pretty much 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% probable IF the guy sits in your face and blows his smoke up your nose.
Clothes smell, cool story but that's only going to happen in clubs where everybody smokes and you can cut through the smoke with a knife, never gona happen in the street.
And the bad smell argument ? Are you serious? If that's even remotely serious imo fat people, fast food, outdoor trashdumps, SUV's, babies, public breast feeding and fuck all the pet owners too.
10 years penalty for farting in public, 5 years if you just REALLY had to go since it's obv not malicious doing, and if your dog does it tough luck, there's only one jail for pets and it's in the sky.
Should just add a death penalty for every fat fuck driving an SUV while eating a Sloppy Joe with his wife in the front seat breast feeding her kid, and keeping a dog that just went to the bathroom in the back. Because the guy behind them is JUST SO MOTHERFUCKING INCONVENIENCED. Alcohol in public is already banned. What is your point?
You're still alowed to fuck around drunk outside though, also smoking is baned inside in most places if you can't smoke outside where you gona do it?
|
On May 25 2011 01:40 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 01:33 Omnipresent wrote:
The argument is, "if you want to ban smoking in public because of litter, you should also want to ban these other things." I know that's your argument, it's what I'm talking about. It's a childish silly argument that no one will take seriously. Throwing water bottles on the floor is wrong and we should do what's in your power to stop it. That is wrong. Throwing cigarette butts is also wrong. Two wrongs don't make one right. If you think we should have better regulation to control who litters the park with bottled water. Then go lobby for it. This thread is about controlling a different type of litter. One that constitutes 75% of the litter in NYC parks (according to OP). Which is cigarette butts.
I'm actually not trying to argue in favor of banning bottled water in public parks. I think it's absurd. It just happens to be absurd in the same way banning cigarettes (for the purpose of preventing litter) is absurd. If you don't see the connection, I'm not sure what to say.
I'm not trying to make a case for allowing smoking in public parks. It's the default position. I'm just pointing to weaknesses in other people's arguments against it.
|
is awesome32275 Posts
On May 25 2011 01:46 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
The implicit assumption here is that the worker has a right to work in a smoke free environment -- and more abstractly, a right to a job. They don’t have either of these rights because these rights impose positive not negative obligations.
I'm not familiar with the US law, but in my country employers have the obligation to put the least hazardous conditions around a worker, whenever possible. (I'm sure the US has an analogous law, it's called "Hygiene & Security Law" here).
And people don't have the right to have a job? How are they supposed to live then?
|
On May 25 2011 01:51 Cyba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 01:43 RoosterSamurai wrote:On May 25 2011 01:42 Cyba wrote:
Why not ban alcohol? Hate seeing drunk people, and they smell of alcohol which bothers my sensitive ass :/ Which reminds me of daddy...
all the beatings, oh my...the beatings...
All the arguments saying this law is great just sound like a bunch of brats that throw those crappy answers around when the only reason they agree with it is that mommy toldem smoking is bad but leting your dog shit in the park is ok. There chance of 0.01% of having a heart atack when you're 50 is increased by 50% ! Well that's still just 0.015% so fuck off with the convenient antismoke propaganda you'll have a higher chance of having your aorta burst if you eat beef then smoke.
Nicotine is adictive indeed but it's very repulsive for a beginer, so the risk of you making somebody start smoking by smoking yourself is pretty much nill unless he actually wants to try it... several times untill he gets used to it. As for making somebody sick with second hand smoke, that's pretty much 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% probable IF the guy sits in your face and blows his smoke up your nose.
Clothes smell, cool story but that's only going to happen in clubs where everybody smokes and you can cut through the smoke with a knife, never gona happen in the street.
And the bad smell argument ? Are you serious? If that's even remotely serious imo fat people, fast food, outdoor trashdumps, SUV's, babies, public breast feeding and fuck all the pet owners too.
10 years penalty for farting in public, 5 years if you just REALLY had to go since it's obv not malicious doing, and if your dog does it tough luck, there's only one jail for pets and it's in the sky.
Should just add a death penalty for every fat fuck driving an SUV while eating a Sloppy Joe with his wife in the front seat breast feeding her kid, and keeping a dog that just went to the bathroom in the back. Because the guy behind them is JUST SO MOTHERFUCKING INCONVENIENCED. Alcohol in public is already banned. What is your point? You're still alowed to fuck around drunk outside though, also smoking is baned inside in most places if you can't smoke outside where you gona do it?
1. no you're not, public drunkenness is not allowed.
2. i don't know... your own house?
|
You're still alowed to fuck around drunk outside though, also smoking is baned inside in most places if you can't smoke outside where you gona do it?
You can receive a citation for disorderly conduct.
|
On May 25 2011 01:51 Cyba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 01:43 RoosterSamurai wrote:On May 25 2011 01:42 Cyba wrote:
Why not ban alcohol? Hate seeing drunk people, and they smell of alcohol which bothers my sensitive ass :/ Which reminds me of daddy...
all the beatings, oh my...the beatings...
All the arguments saying this law is great just sound like a bunch of brats that throw those crappy answers around when the only reason they agree with it is that mommy toldem smoking is bad but leting your dog shit in the park is ok. There chance of 0.01% of having a heart atack when you're 50 is increased by 50% ! Well that's still just 0.015% so fuck off with the convenient antismoke propaganda you'll have a higher chance of having your aorta burst if you eat beef then smoke.
Nicotine is adictive indeed but it's very repulsive for a beginer, so the risk of you making somebody start smoking by smoking yourself is pretty much nill unless he actually wants to try it... several times untill he gets used to it. As for making somebody sick with second hand smoke, that's pretty much 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% probable IF the guy sits in your face and blows his smoke up your nose.
Clothes smell, cool story but that's only going to happen in clubs where everybody smokes and you can cut through the smoke with a knife, never gona happen in the street.
And the bad smell argument ? Are you serious? If that's even remotely serious imo fat people, fast food, outdoor trashdumps, SUV's, babies, public breast feeding and fuck all the pet owners too.
10 years penalty for farting in public, 5 years if you just REALLY had to go since it's obv not malicious doing, and if your dog does it tough luck, there's only one jail for pets and it's in the sky.
Should just add a death penalty for every fat fuck driving an SUV while eating a Sloppy Joe with his wife in the front seat breast feeding her kid, and keeping a dog that just went to the bathroom in the back. Because the guy behind them is JUST SO MOTHERFUCKING INCONVENIENCED. Alcohol in public is already banned. What is your point? You're still alowed to fuck around drunk outside though, also smoking is baned inside in most places if you can't smoke outside where you gona do it?
Er no - there are laws against being drunk in public. Just because you may not see it enforced doesn't mean it's not illegal.
|
On May 25 2011 01:49 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 01:42 Cyba wrote:
As for making somebody sick with second hand smoke, that's pretty much 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% probable IF the guy sits in your face and blows his smoke up your nose. Source please.
You either missed my irony or attempted some yourself, i'll give you a serious reply though.
Answer is my survival to this date, had hardcore smoker parents, the entire house smells like nicotine and my mom smoked when i was in the making. I don't smoke (Did for a month or so back when i was working 24/7 on my bachelors) i'm in perfect health and my lungs are clean in X-rays.
|
Thank god. Smoking is the #1 cause of preventable deaths in america. We seriously need to stop. I'm also glad because cigarette butts are almost everywhere on the ground in NYC. It's an asthmatic's nightmare, literally.
|
On May 25 2011 01:50 Cyba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 01:46 BouBou.865 wrote:Cigarettes look really sexy on girls, though Not a smoker myself, but I enjoy the smoke. I hate it that liberties are being taken away. Meh it's just the US, they always have thick ideas like that out of boredom, all the world's loving beer kegs for hundreds of years and they think prohibition is a smart idea....Which it was if you were meaning to create the biggest organized crime networks in the world.
you obviously hate freedom, as only the people of 2011 in the United States know what freedom is.
edit: i'm aggravated because in a few years we will have stupid laws like that over here, because our politicians mimic the us-ones.
|
is awesome32275 Posts
On May 25 2011 01:56 Cyba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 01:49 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 25 2011 01:42 Cyba wrote:
As for making somebody sick with second hand smoke, that's pretty much 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% probable IF the guy sits in your face and blows his smoke up your nose. Source please. You either missed my irony or attempted some yourself, i'll give you a serious reply though. Answer is my survival to this date, had hardcore smoker parents, the entire house smells like nicotine and my mom smoked when i was in the making. I don't smoke (Did for a month or so back when i was working 24/7 on my bachelors) i'm in perfect health and my lungs are clean in X-rays.
So the base for your statistical work is 3 cases? sounds good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
