EPTOn the other hand, public places is a different situation, imo. A public place is supposed to be there for everyone to enjoy, and smokers most definitely reduce the enjoyment on non-smokers in the area.
Smoking Ban in NYC - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On the other hand, public places is a different situation, imo. A public place is supposed to be there for everyone to enjoy, and smokers most definitely reduce the enjoyment on non-smokers in the area. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:50 platorepublic wrote: Agreed, but isn't it the freedom for people to smoke? I think many other things should be banned to, like driving private cars. If you can persuade enough people with solid research as in the case of second hand smoke, maybe you'll get your desire. Until then, tough luck. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15736 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:50 platorepublic wrote: Agreed, but isn't it the freedom for people to smoke? I think many other things should be banned to, like driving private cars. See my post above. People can smoke themselves to death all they want. The issue is people smoking others into discomfort (smoke-triggered asthma can be pretty bad) or even illness. | ||
|
ranshaked
United States870 Posts
No smoking in government facilities (parks etc etc) no smoking in hospitals of places that serve food I think smoking in a bar is fine or in the streets or car or home I am a smoker. In Florida we can smoke in bars and venues that do not serve food. I've never seen anyone complain. If someone asks me to stop I'll move away out of respect | ||
|
Myrkskog
Canada481 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:45 aristarchus wrote: As someone with smoke-triggered asthma, I can vouch for the fact that smoke outdoors does harm at least some of the people walking by. It's not just the smell - for me it's nothing serious, but I can feel my chest get a little tighter. I actually felt this a lot more when I lived in NYC - maybe because of more smokers, or because the dense buildings reduce circulation or something. I even get a bit of the effect when someone who works in my office comes back in from smoking outside. I know plenty of people who have perfume-triggered asthma, in fact it's even worse because there is no legislation preventing people drenched in perfume from being indoors. Smoking is harmful to those around you, and you can make all the libertarian arguments you want, but they only apply when no one else is near you. (In fact, I read an article once saying that children in apartment buildings in NYC had noticeable second-hand smoke exposure just from people living in *other* apartments smoking, since the ventilation system is shared.) What does smoking in an apartment have to do with banning it on the beach? And of course I know second hand smoke is harmful if you are constantly exposed to it in tight quarters. We are talking about a guy smoking on the beach 10 feet away from you. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15736 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:54 Myrkskog wrote: I know plenty of people who have perfume-triggered asthma, in fact it's even worse because there is no legislation preventing people drenched in perfume from being indoors. What does smoking in an apartment have to do with banning it on the beach? And of course I know second hand smoke is harmful if you are constantly exposed to it in tight quarters. We are talking about a guy smoking on the beach 10 feet away from you. Perfume-triggered asthma is a good point to bring up, but perfume does not have the same health impacts other than asthma that smoking does. On the previous page, I linked to 2 reports which clearly outline the health consequences of second-hand smoke. The same is not as easily done with perfume. Perfume also doesn't travel as far as cigarette smoke. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:50 Mohdoo wrote: Second hand smoke stimulates tumor angiogenesis and growth http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1535610803002198 Cardiovascular Effects of Secondhand Smoke Nearly as Large as Smoking http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/111/20/2684 The question as to whether second hand smoke harms people has been answered many times. i'm sure there are effects when it comes to long term exposure to second hand smoke. but i was referring to a person that could be walking by a smoker on the side walk, any effects will be minimal or much more noticeable to a person with medical condition as person mentioned above. if the article says small whiff of 2nd hand smoke can kill you, then i retract what i said. | ||
|
ranshaked
United States870 Posts
| ||
|
Popss
Sweden176 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:53 ranshaked wrote: This is how I believe the law should be: No smoking in government facilities (parks etc etc) no smoking in hospitals of places that serve food I think smoking in a bar is fine or in the streets or car or home I am a smoker. In Florida we can smoke in bars and venues that do not serve food. I've never seen anyone complain. If someone asks me to stop I'll move away out of respect Completely agree with you on this one. Some smokers gets to damn offended. As much as I love my smokes they are one nasty habit. | ||
|
Dracolich70
Denmark3820 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:35 fush wrote: It seems kind of pedantic to me, to discuss the effects of second-hand smoking in open-air, in environments filled of gases and smoke of much grander magnitude of ill effects. It's like cutting the 1 sugar in your one daily coffee, while you daily consume 2 gallons of Coke, trying to be healthy.so because there's the a bigger problem we shouldn't talk about cutting off something that's entirely preventable? good move by NYC. hopefully more places follow... it's about time something like this took off everywhere. | ||
|
Disregard
China10252 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:10 Blizzard_torments_me wrote: Kinda ironic really. They let stuff like like gun rights for civilians run free but they ban smoking. NYC has ridiculously strict gun laws. | ||
|
ranshaked
United States870 Posts
On May 24 2011 07:06 Popss wrote: Completely agree with you on this one. Some smokers gets to damn offended. As much as I love my smokes they are one nasty habit. Yup horrible habit. I smoke a pack a day. I wish I could quit but I do not have the drive to stop | ||
|
Baarn
United States2702 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:51 Myles wrote: I've never like regulations that force a private business to operate in a certain way. IMO, if a business wants to allow smoking/some other social taboo, they should be allowed to. If a non-smoker doesn't like it then they can take their business elsewhere. I think it's the same with racism and such, too. Let them be bigots and racists, especially when these days that will only harm themselves. On the other hand, public places is a different situation, imo. A public place is supposed to be there for everyone to enjoy, and smokers most definitely reduce the enjoyment on non-smokers in the area. You can if it's a private club. Can do whatever you like. | ||
|
Gridlock
United Kingdom517 Posts
I support this, but then I'd support an outright ban and amnesty of all tobacco. I'd like to see this financial burden and medical timebomb wiped from the face of the earth... I think that it's good that smoking tobacco is being frowned upon. Maybe my great grandkids can live in a world where in school its not cool to smoke, and end up chained to something that costs a lot, makes them smell, and increases their chances of developing cancer. Just my opinion | ||
|
Baarn
United States2702 Posts
On May 24 2011 07:12 Gridlock wrote: Smoker here. I support this, but then I'd support an outright ban and amnesty of all tobacco. I'd like to see this financial burden and medical timebomb wiped from the face of the earth... I think that it's good that smoking tobacco is being frowned upon. Maybe my great grandkids can live in a world where in school its not cool to smoke, and end up chained to something that costs a lot, makes them smell, and increases their chances of developing cancer. Just my opinion The world will be so uptight and offended by so much more things by then cigarettes will be something you see in a museum. | ||
|
Hokay
United States738 Posts
On May 24 2011 07:09 Dracolich70 wrote: It seems kind of pedantic to me, to discuss the effects of second-hand smoking in open-air, in environments filled of gases and smoke of much grander magnitude of ill effects. It's like cutting the 1 sugar in your one daily coffee, while you daily consume 2 gallons of Coke, trying to be healthy. You mean necessities like transportation and their by products of pollution/gases that are regulated, that help society and life? Smoking is not a necessity to our society. It is a public health concern, nuisance and environmental problem. Sounds like some good arguments to cut that crap out. | ||
|
Myrkskog
Canada481 Posts
On May 24 2011 07:00 Mohdoo wrote:Perfume-triggered asthma is a good point to bring up, but perfume does not have the same health impacts other than asthma that smoking does. On the previous page, I linked to 2 reports which clearly outline the health consequences of second-hand smoke. The same is not as easily done with perfume. Perfume also doesn't travel as far as cigarette smoke. The first article you referenced put mice in a room filled with smoke for 17 days. I don't think it's fair to compare sitting 10 feet from a guy who is smoking at the beach with sitting in a room filled with second hand smoke for 17 days. The second article again deals with cases of prolonged and constant exposure to second hand smoke in confined spaces. It references studies which examined people who are married to smokers(likely who are being exposed to SHS in the house or car, it didn't say), worked in places with smoking, and hung out in bars and restaurants where smoking is permitted. Is there even anywhere in North America where you are allowed to smoke in a restaurant anymore? I am not denying that SHS isn't dangerous to people who are exposed to it over prolonged periods in confined spaces, I am saying that someone smoking in a park walking by you isn't going to do you any harm other than bugging you with the smell and the unfathomably rare case that walking by a smoker will trigger your asthma(in which case you can make the same arguments against perfume). | ||
|
platorepublic
United Kingdom344 Posts
On May 24 2011 06:53 Mohdoo wrote: See my post above. People can smoke themselves to death all they want. The issue is people smoking others into discomfort (smoke-triggered asthma can be pretty bad) or even illness. Not to be rude, but a lot of other things cause discomfort too: smoke from cars, swearing from people etc etc. | ||
|
Baarn
United States2702 Posts
On May 24 2011 07:22 platorepublic wrote: Not to be rude, but a lot of other things cause discomfort too: smoke from cars, swearing from people etc etc. Yeah the whole my body is a temple myth. Regardless you will eventually stop breathing and cease to exist. It's all a revolving door of reasonings and beliefs that all have the same ending. | ||
|
Hokay
United States738 Posts
On May 24 2011 07:22 platorepublic wrote: Not to be rude, but a lot of other things cause discomfort too: smoke from cars, swearing from people etc etc. You did not seriously compare having someones lungs tighten up, get their airways clogged with mucus, a decline in concentration and breathing capacity (if you never experienced it before you would think you are dying at first and will call 911) to someone suffering from some random swearing on the street. Also transportation and cars are a necessity to developed countries and society which are regulated too. Smoking has no public benefits at all, but negatives effects, which is why their are arguments for a ban to what places where people can smoke since it negatively effects others health and litters the environment with cigarette butts. | ||
| ||
