|
On May 25 2011 22:02 ChinaRestaurant wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 21:58 jaydubz wrote:On May 25 2011 21:49 ChinaRestaurant wrote:
So according to this logic, no one in NYC should have a private car. Driving a car can potentially kill you and others, and the exhaust fumes are harmful to others, and cars cost a lot of money. With the amount of public transportation available in NYC it shouldnt be too hard for people to live without a car of their own. Less traffic congestion, less smog, etc etc We've already gone over this. The automotive industry and the act of driving is heavily regulated. You can't just drive on sidewalks. It's illegal to drive drunk, reckless, etc. There are also societal benefits to automobiles. Hence why i said private ones, im not talking about cabs or busses etc. I dont suggest taking away your mobility. But be honest, who needs a car of their own in NYC?
Banning private cars in NYC would be a wonderful thing for the environment, for the people that live in NYC(better air) and it would make public transport more effective. So yes, that would be good as well.
On May 25 2011 21:52 Onieh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 21:33 Arnstein wrote:On May 25 2011 17:56 WhiteDog wrote:
I just don't understand why non smoker should decide if we should or should not smoke. Freedom anyone ? Freedom is good, but do you really want to have the freedom to get hooked on a drug that takes a lot of your time and money, and can even kill you? The pleasures you get from tobacco minimal, and they are nothing to what the bad sides are. Their own time, money and life. I dont smoke but understand why others do. Who the hell are you to tell other people not to smoke. Its their choice.
Sure, if it only affected themselves, it would be okay(but still stupid). The problem is that it doesn't just affect themselves, but the people around them as well. Where I work, there is a lady that smokes, and whenever she's at work, the work is less effective because she takes breaks for smoking. And since we work with health care (with people who got downs syndrom and autists), it's sad to see people doesn't get what they need because she is smoking.
They aren't only using their own money. Think of what the money and time spent on helping smokers that have got lung cancer, and/or other forms of diseases they got because of smoking, could be used for instead? Smokers cost the society a lot of money. And it's totally unnecessary, and give minimal of pleasure to the smokers. It's just a big waste.
|
Regarding the campus thing:
It would indeed be nice to have smoking on campus banned. The most recently policy at my school was no smoking within 20 feet of any building entrance, but nobody ever obeyed or enforced the policy. Even if they did, it wasn't particularly uncommon for it to blow into an open window.
Whether or not there are real health concerns from second-hand smoke, it's still extremely agitating.
On May 25 2011 22:41 Arnstein wrote:
Where I work, there is a lady that smokes, and whenever she's at work, the work is less effective because she takes breaks for smoking. And since we work with health care (with people who got downs syndrom and autists), it's sad to see people doesn't get what they need because she is smoking.
There's usually (and should be) a policy where you get smoke breaks at the expense of your lunch break. If you normally got an hour for lunch, a smoker would get a 30 min lunch and two 15 min smoke breaks.
Otherwise, they should be working longer hours to compensate. That's got less to do with smoking in particular than it does with proper management.
|
On May 25 2011 22:54 Craton wrote:Regarding the campus thing: It would indeed be nice to have smoking on campus banned. The most recently policy at my school was no smoking within 20 feet of any building entrance, but nobody ever obeyed or enforced the policy. Even if they did, it wasn't particularly uncommon for it to blow into an open window. Whether or not there are real health concerns from second-hand smoke, it's still extremely agitating. Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 22:41 Arnstein wrote:
Where I work, there is a lady that smokes, and whenever she's at work, the work is less effective because she takes breaks for smoking. And since we work with health care (with people who got downs syndrom and autists), it's sad to see people doesn't get what they need because she is smoking. There's usually (and should be) a policy where you get smoke breaks at the expense of your lunch break. If you normally got an hour for lunch, a smoker would get a 30 min lunch and two 15 min smoke breaks. Otherwise, they should be working longer hours to compensate. That's got less to do with smoking in particular than it does with proper management.
We have those rules, but she doesn't care.
|
people should try to hid when they smoke, smells bad, looks bad, influence kids, just pretend its a marijuana smoke, where would you smoke it.... probably in a corner somewhere away from people, more out of respect than out of fear...
|
On May 25 2011 17:04 paulinepain wrote:
smoking should only be allowed at home where it annoys nobody, i don't like the smell of cigarettes, wherever i am, in a parc or going to work, or outside in a bar, smoking is bad and should be removed from the market. I had known people that died because of that, I don't see how it is possible to argue on such topic.
drinking should only be allowed at home where it annoys nobody, i don't like the smell of booze, wherever i am, in a parc or going to work, or outside in a bar, drinking is bad and should be removed from the market. I had known people that died because of that, I don't see how it is possible to argue on such topic.
/sarcasm
read the whole thread there is a great yellow shirts example. How do you feel about people who regularly eat curry?
EDIT: Stop saying the pleasures you get from smoking are minimal. Its fucking awesome.
|
On May 26 2011 03:01 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 17:04 paulinepain wrote:
smoking should only be allowed at home where it annoys nobody, i don't like the smell of cigarettes, wherever i am, in a parc or going to work, or outside in a bar, smoking is bad and should be removed from the market. I had known people that died because of that, I don't see how it is possible to argue on such topic. drinking should only be allowed at home where it annoys nobody, i don't like the smell of booze, wherever i am, in a parc or going to work, or outside in a bar, drinking is bad and should be removed from the market. I had known people that died because of that, I don't see how it is possible to argue on such topic. /sarcasm read the whole thread there is a great yellow shirts example. How do you feel about people who regularly eat curry? EDIT: Stop saying the pleasures you get from smoking are minimal. Its fucking awesome.
If you are going to equate it with drinking: If you had a smoking bar, then I don't see why you can't smoke inside a bar that's for smoking.
Like how there are hookah bars.
You aren't allowed to drink outside, in a park, and generally workplaces don't let you drink at work.
|
touche. i wouldn't equate it with drinking for the effects on the body just "annoyance factor" isnt a good debating argument.
EDIT: His post just really rubbed me the wrong way. You cant really relate drinking and smoking at all.
I posted earlier in this thread saying that smokers should be considerate. but banning it in your car on campus is inapropriate
|
The problem is that "annoyance" factor is the only factor that I can imagine as to why it is banned in parks and beaches and not the streets. Sure, people can explain how SHS in open air is bad for us, but if that's the main reason for this ban, then they should be banning it on the street as well.
Unless they say that people are rarely in the same place for long in the streets.
I don't care so much about smokers. I walk around them, and I generally don't make a comment. But I guess if I am at a beach (having scoped out that nice spot behind the hot girls), I really wouldn't appreciate a smoker to sit down next to me (wanting to scope out those same hot girls).
|
I would agree and consent to that. And as a smoker i wouldn't smoke in the middle of a crowded beach either. I just wish it was possible for people to be courteous without having to put these LAWS in place but i'm not delusional enough to believe society would.
There is no need to outlaw farting in public. People should WANT to avoid breathing smoke in peoples faces. and people should want to allow people to smoke at their convenience at a courteous distance.
|
Have any of you ever been to NYC god forbid you live upstate or long island. You need a car lol
|
Smoker and New Yorker here. I confirm the ban didn't change anything.
Non smokers keep on non smoking and smokers keep being awesome.
Who wants to live till they are 90 anyway.
|
On May 26 2011 04:24 ranshaked wrote:
Have any of you ever been to NYC god forbid you live upstate or long island. You need a car lol
And this has what to do with smoking?
On May 26 2011 05:02 Unifex wrote:
Smoker and New Yorker here. I confirm the ban didn't change anything.
Non smokers keep on non smoking and smokers keep being awesome.
Who wants to live till they are 90 anyway.
I wonder if it takes some time....hmmm. The way most city offices run is by not knowing about a law until at least 2 weeks. Or thats what it is in my community.
|
You can't drink in public without risking a fine, so why should you be able to smoke in public?
Both are controlled substances that you have a right to use.
|
On May 26 2011 05:40 Carson wrote:
You can't drink in public without risking a fine, so why should you be able to smoke in public?
Both are controlled substances that you have a right to use.
Sure, if you consider all drugs as equal, but they're not. Alcohol can make people aggressive and dangerous, smoking can't.
I don't agree or disagree with the ban, but your argument is flawed.
|
On May 26 2011 17:48 Swede wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2011 05:40 Carson wrote:
You can't drink in public without risking a fine, so why should you be able to smoke in public?
Both are controlled substances that you have a right to use. Sure, if you consider all drugs as equal, but they're not. Alcohol can make people aggressive and dangerous, smoking can't. I don't agree or disagree with the ban, but your argument is flawed.
Cigarettes are a proven health hazard to both the user and bystanders.
I'm not saying that they're equal in effect, but they are in the same category of substance.
That being an addictive and potentially hazardous recreational product 
I support the ban only because I think peoples rights to "use" are less than people rights not to, and with cigarettes you are imposing on everyone around you.
|
On May 26 2011 18:02 Carson wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2011 17:48 Swede wrote:On May 26 2011 05:40 Carson wrote:
You can't drink in public without risking a fine, so why should you be able to smoke in public?
Both are controlled substances that you have a right to use. Sure, if you consider all drugs as equal, but they're not. Alcohol can make people aggressive and dangerous, smoking can't. I don't agree or disagree with the ban, but your argument is flawed. Cigarettes are a proven health hazard to both the user and bystanders. I'm not saying that they're equal in effect, but they are in the same category of substance. That being an addictive and potentially hazardous recreational product I support the ban only because I think peoples rights to "use" are less than people rights not to, and with cigarettes you are imposing on everyone around you.
But they're hazardous in totally different ways so the comparison is sort of redundant. I agree with the underlying point you're making though (that the right to use should come after the right to be free from undesired smoke).
Normally I'd be totally opposed to the ban, but with the attitude of a lot of smokers it's hard to be. If they were more respectful of non-smokers it may not have come to banning (although sometimes the war on smoking seems more like a self righteous one more than anything, so maybe not). I guess smokers abused their right to do it anywhere anytime and this is how they're paying.
|
Are many of the smokers just plain stupid or are they being ignorant on purpose? A quick google search gave some statisticts for second hand smoking (view in spoilers below)
A 2006 surgeon general's report confirmed that secondhand smoking (also called involuntary or passive smoking) can kill, and it concluded that there is no amount of exposure to secondhand smoke that is safe. The more secondhand smoke you breathe in, the more your health risks increase.
This is why we want smoking banned from all publick places. Its a health hazard for us. YOUR smoking can reduce MY health, just think about it. Now if people want their nicotin so freakin badly, just stuff yourself up with nicotinpatches or whatever.
We have somewhat of the same debate in Norway, and what do people do, take the debate or try to derail it? One of our "brilliant" politicians derailed the discussion by saying its more important to get rid of beggars by banning them, and that the police cant enforce both bans. Others start whining about people driving cars, yes that can be bad but thats not what we are discussing. Its the stupid autodefencepilot smokers have. Oh oh, someone tells me its wrong to smoke... oh WAIT there, oh oh I got something, people use fur as well, geeeez.
Ignorant nonrespectful smokers literally makes me SICK
+ Show Spoiler +Why is secondhand smoke a problem? Secondhand smoke causes cancer + Show Spoiler +Secondhand smoke is classified as a "known human carcinogen" (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.
Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds. More than 60 of these are known or suspected to cause cancer.
Secondhand smoke causes other kinds of diseases and deaths
Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:
* An estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in non-smokers who live with smokers
* About 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults
* Other breathing problems in non-smokers, including coughing, mucus, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
* 50,000 to 300,000 lung infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations annually
* Increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million children who have asthma
* More than 750,000 middle ear infections in children
* Pregnant women exposed to secondhand smoke are also at increased risk of having low birth- weight babies. A 2006 surgeon general's report confirmed that secondhand smoking (also called involuntary or passive smoking) can kill, and it concluded that there is no amount of exposure to secondhand smoke that is safe. The more secondhand smoke you breathe in, the more your health risks increase. Here are a few statistics on the effects of secondhand smoke exposure: * 126 million nonsmoking Americans are exposed to secondhand smoke at home and work. * Secondhand smoke exposure causes nearly 50,000 deaths in adult nonsmokers in the U.S. each year. * Nonsmokers increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20% to 30% and heart disease by 25% to 30% when they are exposed to secondhand smoke. * About 3,000 deaths from lung disease in nonsmokers each year are caused by secondhand smoke exposure. * An estimated 46,000 nonsmokers who live with smokers die each year from heart disease. * Between 150,000 and 300,000 children under the age of 18 months get respiratory infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) from secondhand smoke; 7,500 to 15,000 of them must be hospitalized. * More than 40% of children who visit the emergency room for severe asthma attacks live with smokers. Secondhand smoke can have a number of serious health effects on nonsmokers, particularly cancer and heart disease.
|
"An estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in non-smokers who live with smokers"
It's all in the wording buddy, you'll never get sick from beeing withing 3 meters of somebody in an open space, thus the law is idiotic. Those biased types of studies are only ment for people can't read properly such as yourself.
|
On May 24 2011 06:01 QuoC wrote:+ Show Spoiler +New York (CNN) -- Smokers in New York City looking to light up in most public places will not be able to without paying a price after an outdoor citywide smoking ban takes effect Monday.
The law, which Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed in February after it was passed by the New York City Council, will make smoking illegal in New York City's 1,700 parks and on the city's 14 miles of public beaches. Smoking will also be prohibited in pedestrian plazas like Times Square.
The ban is designed to help curb exposure to secondhand smoke as well as reduce litter.
Secondhand smoke causes close to 50,000 deaths per year, and side effects may include lung cancer, respiratory infections and asthma, according to the American Lung Association's website. Cigarette butts account for 75% of the litter found on New York City beaches, according to a news release from Bloomberg's office.
"Smoking in parks and beaches not only harms people trying to enjoy these recreational facilities, it also causes a litter problem that harms the beauty of our parks," Bloomberg said before he signed the bill into law.
New York follows in the footsteps of 105 municipalities (in states including California, Hawaii, Massachusetts and New Jersey) that have banned smoking on public beaches, according to data from the advocacy group Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights. Major cities include Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Seattle.
In states including California, Texas, Illinois, Minnesota and New Jersey, 507 municipalities impose laws that prohibit city parks, or specifically named city parks, to allow smoking. Major cities include Los Angeles, San Francisco and Salt Lake City.
Puerto Rico prohibits smoking in all parks and beaches.
"These smoke-free laws start at a local level," said Cynthia Hallett, executive director of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights. "They are based on community demand, science looking at exposure to secondhand smoke and the environmental impact."
Thirty-five states have laws in effect that require 100% smoke-free nonhospitality workplaces, restaurants or bars, according to the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation's "Summary of 100% Smokefree State Laws and Population Protected by 100% U.S. Smokefree Laws" compiled in April 2011.
In all, 79.4% of the country's population is covered by local and state laws banning smoking.
Hallett added that the trend to ban smoking is working from the inside out, starting in the indoor workplace, moving to restaurants with patios and then eventually to the great outdoors.
Not all New Yorkers are embracing the ban. New York City C.L.A.S.H. (Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment), a grass-roots organization, is staging a "smoke in the park" to call for repeal or to simply demonstrate anger, according to the group's website.
The ban will be enforced by the city's parks department, and if violators are caught, they could be fined $50.
New York passed its first Smoke Free Air Act in 1988, when smoking was banned in public restrooms and taxicabs. Since then, the law has been amended three times, most notably in 2002, when smoking in some indoor areas -- including restaurants and bars -- was banned. Source: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/23/new.york.smoking.ban/index.html?hpt=T2This has caught my eye because there will also be a smoking ban coming soon to my college campus (UMass Amherst) where you won't even be able to smoke in your own car on campus. What is Team Liquid's opinions/views on this? I think it's a step forward. I had no idea second hand smoking killed that many people.
But what really boggles my mind is people who start smoking, these days.
|
Not that hard to understand really, some people really feel they need the moment of relaxation smoking provides, trade off increasing a risk factor for disease for some less anxiety doesn't seem such a terrible idea to many ppl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
