EPTSo as long as smoker don't care for my health i will not tolerate them. When they can ensure to respect my right to be smoke-free (and cigarette litter free) i will repect them
Smoking Ban in NYC - Page 26
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Cirqueenflex
499 Posts
So as long as smoker don't care for my health i will not tolerate them. When they can ensure to respect my right to be smoke-free (and cigarette litter free) i will repect them | ||
|
BroodjeBaller
125 Posts
On May 25 2011 03:02 Tudi wrote: As long as you automatically assume "all smokers should be banned and smoking should be illegal" based on your personal preference towards smoking, I will assume all I want, thank you very much. I don't like people who relieve sexual tension by going to prostitutes, yet my personal preference has nothing to do with how prostitution is regulated in each country. Based on my personal preference? What about the thousands and thousands of people who die to SHS and smoking every year all over the world? | ||
|
Tudi
Romania127 Posts
 | ||
|
cbt111
Germany35 Posts
| ||
|
Playguuu
United States926 Posts
| ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On May 25 2011 02:43 fush wrote: doesn't mean it's not harmful and shouldn't be regulated. Actually, science isn't exactly sure on that, spoiler is an article from the NYTimes, a professor who has testified regularly in favor of banning smoking in the workplace: + Show Spoiler + Inevitably, smoking-ban opponents ask me, “What’s next, banning smoking outdoors?” My answer has always been no: not only can people move around and thus avoid intense exposure, but smoke quickly disperses in the open air. True, there is evidence that being near someone smoking, even outdoors, can result in significant secondhand smoke exposure. Researchers at Stanford found that levels of tobacco smoke within three feet of a smoker outside are comparable to inside levels. But no evidence demonstrates that the duration of outdoor exposure — in places where people can move freely about — is long enough to cause substantial health damage. But that hasn’t stopped many opponents of smoking. Citing new research, they have argued that even transient exposure to tobacco smoke can cause severe health effects like heart disease and lung cancer. For example, last year the surgeon general’s office claimed that “even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease and could trigger acute cardiac events, such as heart attack,” and that “inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA, which can lead to cancer.” However, the surgeon general’s statement conflates the temporary negative effects of secondhand smoke on the circulatory system, which have been shown to occur with short-term exposure, with heart disease, a process that requires repeated exposure and recurring damage to the coronary arteries. It also conflates one-time DNA damage, which occurs with any carcinogenic exposure, with cancer risk, which likewise generally requires repeated exposure. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/opinion/06siegel.html I honestly believe this is a step too far, the amount of carcenogenics the average person inhales from 2nd hand smoke in an outdoor setting is minimal, and incomparable to the amount of fine particles and other carcenogenics that are in the air (especially in a large city) already. Banning smoking in public places indoors is perfectly fine, understandable and justified, but outdoors it becomes a tad ridiculous. Have fun wading through the mass of smokers standing at the entrance of Central Park, that alone is going to be a bigger dose of 2nd hand smoke then what you would have inhaled on a normal visit, and you'll still have to get out after that. | ||
|
JeremyK
53 Posts
I full on support this in every way. It is in no way fair for my health to be effected so someone else can support their habit. I do not feel all that bad that smokers will have to walk an extra distance to smoke in public places. It is only fair. | ||
|
BroodjeBaller
125 Posts
On May 25 2011 03:22 Tudi wrote: Exactly, it's your personal preference when you say it should be illegal. Oh and please stop throwing numbers to impress. I can equally give you the numbers to the "Thousands and thousands" who die of STDs, alcohol and driving errors or breaking driving rules yet different countries have different regulations to prostitution, drinking and enforcing harsher driving laws. And since we're both biased, me being a smoker and you being a smoke-hater, I'll just leave it at this since there won't be any consensus anytime soon. Just don't call us baby-eating trolls and we're cool Maybe thats why driving errors are punished and drunk driving is illegal. I dont understand why you mention STDs and the regulation of prostitution. What is the analogy with smoking? Smoking is a useless habit which kills people. Something useless kills people. I dont understand why you dont see that this is not right. | ||
|
Fredoq
Sweden206 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:04 indigoawareness wrote: + Show Spoiler + They banned smoking on my campus and it made no difference. Well for the most part, smoking on campus is frowned upon more, you see less people walking and smoking. Dirty looks are more intense. Other then that it didn't mean anything, the spots where people traditionally smoked, outside the libro etc, were the same after a few months. I was also in Paris and Amsterdam the week before they shut down indoor smoking in all of europe, that was an interesting experience. It is better that way though, indoor smoking is just disgusting and makes you feel even worse. Smoking is going to be more and more restricted but there will never a time when you can't go outside and enjoy a smoke. TLDR I wouldn't worry about. + Show Spoiler + EDIT: On the topic of cigarette butts. They are made of cellulose, the same thing as plant cell walls, and break down very nicely and fairly quickly. If anything you should thank me for fertilizing the soil. Edit: What was supposed to say? | ||
|
FFGenerations
7088 Posts
On May 25 2011 03:02 4lko wrote: Rofl. The fact that it would happen is proof enough something's terribly, terribly wrong with the modern world. If I want to poison myself than nobody in the whole wide world should have the right to interfere with that as long as I don't affect other people in the process. My choice, my consequences. Ban drugs, booze, smoking etc = socialist horseshit. smoking is rediculously addictive. im pretty liberal but i know evil when i see it. ive tried to quit smoking 5 times, gone for 10-20 days each time. its psychologically damaging and people who sell it and promote it are indirectly murdering people for their own profit. you can call me stupid for not being able to quit when deep down i want to. you can call your best friend, or your girlfriend, a complete fucking useless piece of shit because she can't muster the strength of character to quit smoking. but thats not going to help these people. you need to face REALITY rather than living in a dreamworld of ideals which is not helpful to anyone on the planet, except maybe your own ego. smoking addiction is a serious psychological illness that so many people suffer from at the abuse of the cigarette companies | ||
|
Casta
Denmark234 Posts
It may dissipate faster in the outdoors but not always fast enough. In the end though I don't really care about the ban in NYC as I don't live there and I don't smoke, I am glad for the indoors ban in my country though. | ||
|
FFGenerations
7088 Posts
On May 25 2011 03:13 Cirqueenflex wrote: I once asked a friend of me who smokes why he doesn't care about him hurting my health when he smokes next to me. His response was: He is a smoker, he doesn't care for his own health, why would he care about mine? So as long as smoker don't care for my health i will not tolerate them. When they can ensure to respect my right to be smoke-free (and cigarette litter free) i will repect them smokers are psychologically brainwashed by the nicotine. its like getting mad at a bullied person for being depressed. yes the bullied person can do shit about it, but they need help because they're depressed as fuck and cant help themselves, and the blame lies more with the bullies than the victim. smokers are VICTIMS , unfortunately many of them dont realise and accept this. | ||
|
Sandrosuperstar
Sweden525 Posts
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. ban fat people. ban cocaine? | ||
|
yawnoC
United States3704 Posts
| ||
|
fush
Canada563 Posts
On May 25 2011 03:29 Derez wrote: Actually, science isn't exactly sure on that, spoiler is an article from the NYTimes, a professor who has testified regularly in favor of banning smoking in the workplace: + Show Spoiler + Inevitably, smoking-ban opponents ask me, “What’s next, banning smoking outdoors?” My answer has always been no: not only can people move around and thus avoid intense exposure, but smoke quickly disperses in the open air. True, there is evidence that being near someone smoking, even outdoors, can result in significant secondhand smoke exposure. Researchers at Stanford found that levels of tobacco smoke within three feet of a smoker outside are comparable to inside levels. But no evidence demonstrates that the duration of outdoor exposure — in places where people can move freely about — is long enough to cause substantial health damage. But that hasn’t stopped many opponents of smoking. Citing new research, they have argued that even transient exposure to tobacco smoke can cause severe health effects like heart disease and lung cancer. For example, last year the surgeon general’s office claimed that “even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease and could trigger acute cardiac events, such as heart attack,” and that “inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA, which can lead to cancer.” However, the surgeon general’s statement conflates the temporary negative effects of secondhand smoke on the circulatory system, which have been shown to occur with short-term exposure, with heart disease, a process that requires repeated exposure and recurring damage to the coronary arteries. It also conflates one-time DNA damage, which occurs with any carcinogenic exposure, with cancer risk, which likewise generally requires repeated exposure. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/opinion/06siegel.html I honestly believe this is a step too far, the amount of carcenogenics the average person inhales from 2nd hand smoke in an outdoor setting is minimal, and incomparable to the amount of fine particles and other carcenogenics that are in the air (especially in a large city) already. Banning smoking in public places indoors is perfectly fine, understandable and justified, but outdoors it becomes a tad ridiculous. Have fun wading through the mass of smokers standing at the entrance of Central Park, that alone is going to be a bigger dose of 2nd hand smoke then what you would have inhaled on a normal visit, and you'll still have to get out after that. nowhere did anyone say science is sure on this matter. in fact, in the op ed piece that you cited he didn't decisively say that transient exposure to shs DOESN'T have health effects. his stance is much like what most people here are saying, which is that there isn't sufficient science to back this up directly - which i can't disagree with here. there's 2 points though that we can still argue: 1. mike siegel's main argument is that there's not enough evidence to conclusively say transient shs directly causes x or y health issues. - these direct experiments may never be done. as i've mentioned before, the effects of transient exposure to lower doses of shs will likely have long-term effects. how do you do a long term effect in humans and directly make a link to causation? the only thing that we can do now is probably a meta-analysis with questionnaires rating shs exposure over many years and correlating with health conditions now. these studies are generally harder to gauge as well, because there are so many other factors at play in everyone's life. now take the cautious stance taken by siegel and we're likely never to go anywhere. 2. there are so many other effects of the components of a cigarette than heart disease or lung cancer. There’s an abundant collection of work that documents all these, and a lot of recent work has shown transient effects of low doses of shs CAN lead to similar risks to health. Again, these aren’t direct causation studies, which is Siegel’s primary concern, but there’s only so much we can do at the moment. Again, I think there is good reason to believe that minimizing outdoor smoking is a good preventative measure despite us not having decisive evidence, simply based on the pieces we do have. so i think while it's important to exercise some restraint and prudence going forward with these types of laws (and perhaps the NYC law may be a little too sudden and too harsh at this point in time) as siegel suggests, i wouldn't say there are absolutely no health benefits possible from this. On May 25 2011 03:47 FFGenerations wrote: smokers are psychologically brainwashed by the nicotine. its like getting mad at a bullied person for being depressed. yes the bullied person can do shit about it, but they need help because they're depressed as fuck and cant help themselves, and the blame lies more with the bullies than the victim. smokers are VICTIMS , unfortunately many of them dont realise and accept this. let's not get too carried away with this analogy... | ||
|
Cirqueenflex
499 Posts
If there is a way for smoker to do their business without involving my health and transforming nature all around me into a compost for their trash, i won't mind. Go ahead and do your thing if you have to. But if it involves my freedom i believe it's my right to be smoke-free. I would even go that far and forbid smoking as it is in general. Chew your tobacco, get injections, sniff it, get bandages, there are plenty of ways that do not affect my health nor my environment as a direct consequense. I won't care if you do so, but if you smoke next to me i hate you. | ||
|
Vul
United States685 Posts
| ||
|
4lko
Poland76 Posts
On May 25 2011 03:05 JinDesu wrote: Saying "if I want to poison myself" is getting quite close to "if I want to hurt myself" or "if I want to kill myself" There's a good precedence of that being frowned upon here. Yeah, so ? If my choice affect only me, then what difference does it make ? Do you excersise daily/sleep regularly/don't stay up late/never eat junk food etc. ? That sounds like you want to die too. Let's ban McDonald's. On May 25 2011 03:13 Cirqueenflex wrote: I once asked a friend of me who smokes why he doesn't care about him hurting my health when he smokes next to me. His response was: He is a smoker, he doesn't care for his own health, why would he care about mine? So as long as smoker don't care for my health i will not tolerate them. When they can ensure to respect my right to be smoke-free (and cigarette litter free) i will repect them I'm sorry to inform you, but that just shows that your "friend" is an asshole. The fact that he smokes has nothing to do with it. On May 25 2011 03:41 Casta wrote: In the end though I don't really care about the ban in NYC as I don't live there and I don't smoke, I am glad for the indoors ban in my country though. You mean a kind of ban that enforces on private owners of, let's say, restaurants to not allow smoking inside their own place ? Oh yeah, that one's just great, lol. I don't get it. I never smoke in places where there're people. In the open, when I'm on the move, it's a different story, but I still avoid places crowded like bus stops 100% of the time. From what I've read here, every smoker is a stinky pile of trash that needs to be put down and smokes should be banned alltogether (along with other things that some people like and others hate i presume). edit: On May 25 2011 03:41 FFGenerations wrote: smoking is rediculously addictive. im pretty liberal but i know evil when i see it. ive tried to quit smoking 5 times, gone for 10-20 days each time. its psychologically damaging and people who sell it and promote it are indirectly murdering people for their own profit. you can call me stupid for not being able to quit when deep down i want to. you can call your best friend, or your girlfriend, a complete fucking useless piece of shit because she can't muster the strength of character to quit smoking. but thats not going to help these people. you need to face REALITY rather than living in a dreamworld of ideals which is not helpful to anyone on the planet, except maybe your own ego. smoking addiction is a serious psychological illness that so many people suffer from at the abuse of the cigarette companies Oh yeah, that's great. Blame the companies for the fact that you smoke and can't quit. You brought this upon yourself, now take it like a man instead of blaming others for your own poor decisions. It's like blaming a knife salesman for cutting yourself while making dinner. A little responsibility for your own actions, please... PS Just for the laughs: Anyone knows where and when did the first anti-tobacco campaign kick off ?  | ||
|
iCCup.Nove
United States260 Posts
chicago better not adopt this. fuck. | ||
|
Cyba
Romania221 Posts
On May 25 2011 03:13 Cirqueenflex wrote: I once asked a friend of me who smokes why he doesn't care about him hurting my health when he smokes next to me. His response was: He is a smoker, he doesn't care for his own health, why would he care about mine? So as long as smoker don't care for my health i will not tolerate them. When they can ensure to respect my right to be smoke-free (and cigarette litter free) i will repect them You have deuchy friends that doesn't mean all smokers are that way  | ||
| ||
