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.
This 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?
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.
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.
new yorker here. i'm generally fine with it. granted, i dont regularly smoke cigarettes but the overwrought comparisons to hitler/stalin/dictator of your choice strike me as more cranky than credible. a $50 fine (aka the price of a few packs of cigs) in parks is nothing terrible. it's not a citywide ban afaik, it's parks, beaches and large plazas. go to the sidewalk and smoke, you'll be fine.
This is really a tough call. The smoker should have the right to smoke wherever he pleases. However the non-smoker should be allowed a smoke-free environment. It's just a pile of fuck I tells ya.
happens to many colleges and unis but they don't really spend the time to enforce it, but if they do enforce it go for a vapor cig, they'll even help you quit... supposedly...
Kind of odd. I've never experienced a problem with secondhand smoke in most of the places it will be banned. Do they think I get inundated with smoke in Central Park? I'm all for banning smoke in restaurants and places like that, but bans at parks and beaches? I don't care either way, but it's definitely going to rile people up who think it's NY once again acting like your nanny.
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.
tend to see the good sides of it only. in 20-30 years to come people will be looking back at our time thinking :" science damn it, how could they be so irresponsible towards each other? smoking next to another person? affecting other peoples health in a negative way? thank science this is over!!"
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.
it's not 'in public', it's in parks, beaches, plazas, etc. crowded places where it is, in fact, harming and annoying people.
There is no form a litter that plagues this earth moreso than the blanket of fuckin cigarette butts that litter every populated place at this point. EVERYONE in my circle of friends smokes. Not ONE of them EVER thinks to actually throw away their butts properly afterwards. People just don't think about it for some reason. Personally, I could care less for people's health because it is their choice and they can choose to stop at any point (thought it's not easy of course). But I am sick and tired of seeing the trash literally everywhere I go.
I saw a couple of little portable containers designed for holding your butts advertised a while back, but, unfortunately it looks like they never got popular. Someone needs to really start marketing things like this, if people actually cared you'd be rich!
I understand that pros most definitely outweigh the cons to this, but it seems lame that someone couldn't even smoke within their own car. Of course they probably can in their own home I'm assuming, so at least that's one place.
I'm not a smoker myself, and this does kind of strike me as an invasion of privacy. I'm for it, but I can see this being debated.
As long as similar laws don't follow for drinking, it's alllll good.
Edit: I guess that already exists technically; they're only doing to smoking what has already been done to alcohol. After some thought, I can't really see anything wrong with this.
I think marijuana should be legal because tabacco is worse and you don't see anyone trying to make it illegal or anything like that.
Wait, what?
Seriously tho, smoking is forbidden indoors for any public place in my state (bars, night clubs included). And it only had positive consequences. So I approve anything in the similar direction ^^ Banning outdoor smoking sounds like just a logical step further. I'm all for it.
Sorry Moldwood, I would be one of your friends who drops it anywhere. I admit guilt lol it's such a weird phenomenon, I never understood how I could flick a cigarette out of my car window in front of a cop but couldn't spit out orange seeds at a stoplight (yes, I was let off with a warning, prick cop lol)
I dont smoke and think this is an excellent idea - I just wish it took more of a nation wide effect. The negative impacts of smoking to those around the smoker have been well documented over and over. There is no excuse to continue to smoke.
I've smoked in parks and at beaches here in California that have posted signs and I haven't been given a ticket a yet. NYC though might be more uptight about it.
I honestly can't wait to see campus police write people up for smoking at the bus stops at my college when this happens. Hopefully the campus won't go communist by not implementing smoking areas so the ban goes smoothly, or to a tobacco-free campus that all the non-smokers dream of.
edit: I'm sure everyone has been to NYC, and has almost been ran over by a cab, or shoved by a prude businessman while crossing the street. Everyone seems really uptight in NYC, I'm scared for the violent internet videos relating to this ban to come up.
I have asthma and I hate when people smoke around me or when their clothes smell like it and they sit next to me. It's literally like kryptonite to me >_>
On May 24 2011 06:14 Baarn wrote: I've smoked in parks here in California and I haven't been given a ticket a yet. NYC though might be more uptight about it.
I doubt it. It seems like one of those laws that just hope you follow it cause it's a law.
Edit: actually, does the NYPD even acknowledge this law, or is it just the park services?
The less smoking the better. I'm fine with any ban anywhere really. Its detrimental health effects are well known, even to those who just stand around a person smoking. And as others have pointed out, the litter from cigarette buds is annoying and easily avoided. Go bans go
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.
Except in New York firearms are banned unless you're an officer or something of that nature.
OT: I think it's great, I hate walking to school and there is someone in front of me smoking and all the smoke gets blown into my face. One step at a time.
It's the way the world is going. Here in Ontario smoking is banned indoors everywhere, 9 meters from the entrance to anything and in most public places.
As a smoker, I understand it and it only sucks when it's the middle of the deep winter. Other than that though I don't really mind getting away from people to light up.
On May 24 2011 06:07 Terrakin wrote: happens to many colleges and unis but they don't really spend the time to enforce it, but if they do enforce it go for a vapor cig, they'll even help you quit... supposedly...
Using a vapour cig to quit is like giving a heroine addict more heroine, anyone with a brain knows that smoking is an addiction and you don't give addicts more of the thing they are trying to quit. Instead of being hooked on cigarettes you just become hooked on the substitute. People who use nicotine gum more often than not either start smoking again or keep using the gum forever.... people who quit do it inspite of the substitute... not because of it.
I am a smoker btw, and a former coke addict..... if i had taken more coke to quit, i would still be a coke addict.
I don't agree with the second hand smoke crap. I never smoke right next to the non-smokers but i see the litter problem. I never throw my butts on the beach or parks i cary them to the trashcan with me. The problem is that people are too careless to do that. Dumbasses should be banned, not smoking.
As a smoker, I can understand the ban, smoke smells like shit and is not fun to be around unless you're used to it. There's lots of things you're not allowed to do in public places because it's inconsiderate or rude, I don't see how smoking should be treated differently.
I do want to point out that the health effects of being around a smoker while outside are basically nonexistent, and even less so if it's not consistent exposure. The effects of secondhand smoke are from prolonged exposure to it, i.e. living/working with someone who smokes indoors. Just like how smoking a couple packs of cigarettes will never give you emphysema or cancer, being exposed to smoke on an infrequent basis will not hurt you at all.
Also, OP, could you elaborate on the UMass ban? I don't go there, but I spend a lot of time on/around the campus.
I think it's a great policy. In Minneapolis, there's a ban on smoking in public places. While it's not always enforced (damn people who smoke in public despite the ban), most generally follow the law.
I personally hate smoking in public because it's MY lungs that're getting destroyed by your shitty habits. I couldn't care less if you smoked in your house, but when it's near me, it's damaging my health. Idk, you don't get to punch me in the streets without punishment. Why should you get to give me cancer?
As a smoker, I actually support this. This is the city's decision and will help with the litter and sidewalk pollution problem. I hate second hand smoke, especially when around children or infants.
As far as indoor smoking bans for private establishments (bars, restaurants,etc): that angers me. The pollution stays inside, and it should be the right of the establishment to decide whether or not they will allow smoking, not the government.
On May 24 2011 06:10 VIB wrote: I think marijuana should be legal because tabacco is worse and you don't see anyone trying to make it illegal or anything like that.
Wait, what?
Seriously tho, smoking is forbidden indoors for any public place in my state (bars, night clubs included). And it only had positive consequences. So I approve anything in the similar direction ^^ Banning outdoor smoking sounds like just a logical step further. I'm all for it.
They won't totally ban smoking as it brings in too much revenue.
On May 24 2011 06:14 Baarn wrote: I've smoked in parks here in California and I haven't been given a ticket a yet. NYC though might be more uptight about it.
I doubt it. It seems like one of those laws that just hope you follow it cause it's a law.
Edit: actually, does the NYPD even acknowledge this law, or is it just the park services?
It's just a law on the books that give police discretion to write a ticket if they don't have real crimes to solve. Oh and NYC is broke from what I hear so it is another potential source of revenue.
It makes a lot of sense to me. Pollution is already a problem in NY, and when you have four hundred people smoking cigarettes in a five block radius, it's terrible for the non-smokers. Nothing wrong with being expected to take a leisurely stroll over to a bench on the sidewalk to take care of your problem.
Many smokers think of such laws as infringing on their personal rights, but smoking a cigarette next to me is infringing on mine.
We've had a similar law in Holland for a few years now, a smoking ban for restaurants, bars, workplaces and general crowded public places like railway stations. At first a lot of people were very upset about it, feeling like they were being treat as outcasts.
I have to say though it turned out to be great (I'm a non-smoker but a lot of my friends are smokers). The main thing that changed is that people who need a smoke will simply go outside and have it there. Restaurants and bars anticipated by installing heating outdoors to make sure people could have a comfortable smoke outside. The first few times I went to a bar after the smoking ban I simply couldn't believe the smell on my clothes the next morning. Normally you could pick up the stench of smoke from a few feet away, but now you just smell a vague hint of that day's deodorant. You won't really be able to understand the difference until the smoking is gone, but it is really huge, everything feels so much cleaner. None of my friends are bothered by it either, as long as they have a place to light a smoke a few times a night they don't mind.
That's why I believe a key part of making it a success is to stay realistic towards smokers. You can't just put an all-out block on smoking. When a place prohibits smoking it should also supply a place where smokers can go and do their thing. In railway stations for example we have certain zones where smoking is allowed. People who are bothered by the smoke can simply stay away from those zones. I think doing it like that is probably the best way to keep a healthy environment for people while respecting the needs of smokers.
Fat people don't inherently pollute / litter and give the skinny person next to them cancer. They are just funny and fat.
/thread. This is valid. I hate an overreaching government more than the next guy. But air pollution even on such a small, temporary scale, is still air pollution. Every man should have property rights though..
I find it "funny" people talk about the ills of second-hand smoking in cities with 1000s of cars passing in the course of time it takes to smoke a cigarette.
Nanny state at work, banning smoking INSIDE a building, sure. Banning OUTSIDE though is utterly moronic, more harm is done to you with toxic car fumes.
We've had the smoking ban for a while in Scotland now and they simply put up 'shelters' outside public places where you can congregate for a smoke.
I don't understand why 99% of smokers are assholes who just drop their cigarette butts on the ground and leave them there. I don't care a whole lot about secondhand smoke, but the littering pisses me off. Especially on beaches, that would be awful and I definitely support a smoking ban on beaches.
You could say "just ban littering cigarette butts", but let's be honest, none of you clean up after yourselves when you smoke.
On May 24 2011 06:04 indigoawareness wrote: 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.
sorry this aint slovakia. in the US, these laws are taken seriously. For example we have cops at my university in Seattle that will hand out fines if you are caught smoking in a prohibited area.
On May 24 2011 06:29 MaxField wrote: In a perfect world, smoking could just end, and there would be no effects, but i do not think that will ever happen. I do support this ban though.
In a perfect world people also have a thing called ''FREEDOM'', and not the tyrany of the rediculus laws enforced to us by gouvernment.
On May 24 2011 06:32 Dracolich70 wrote: I find it "funny" people talk about the ills of second-hand smoking in cities with 1000s of cars passing in the course of time it takes to smoke a cigarette.
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.
On May 24 2011 06:21 corpuscle wrote: I do want to point out that the health effects of being around a smoker while outside are basically nonexistent, and even less so if it's not consistent exposure.
This isn't true at all for some people with some medical conditions. I had to stop going to my local outdoor fighting game tournament because of all the second hand smoke outside. It would slowly trigger my asthma and affect my play, breathing and concentration.
Ex smoker. I like. It. I always found ppl smoking in public places rude. I did it too but i tried to not be dickwad about it by blowing smoke next to someone either.
That and smoking in front of children. My fucking pet peeves. I know some of my friends are too fucking lazy to walk a few paces away from theor kids (preferably out of sight). I have the urge to take their ciggies and put it out on their eye if i see that lol.
Just a tip to the smokers out there: you probably stink, even after you are done smoking.
Seriously, whenever some smoker gets close I smell that cigarette stink and wonder why in the hell would one like that.
I don't know how it is there in the USA, but here where I live the smokers throw away the cigarette on the ground like they dont give a shit if they will pollute the city at all, dumb bastards, and they think they look cool haha.
I certainly would support the ban of smoking here, I think they did the right thing.
I'm a smoker and I think this is a great plan. I mostly smoke at my own place, in my own car, and at smoke spots anyway. I will admit that sometimes I do smoke in some public areas, but only when there is nobody around and I always take my cigarette butt with me. I think people should be respectful towards others, and since smoking is a hazardous activity, I can understand why people don't want to be exposed to it.
I'm a bit curious to see how they would go about enforcing this. Though it may not seem like much, the areas mentioned would require a lot of people to cover, and I'm sure that at least a few people will be able to fly under the radar every now and then. Though I have to admit, I like the intent behind this. It's a decent attempt to reduce second-hand smoke, at the very least.
I would rather they ban smoking universally, but the more bans the better. I don't think smoking is beneficial to anyone, unless you count pocket lining. It's ridiculous that I have to breathe that stuff in when I walk around.
[QUOTE]On May 24 2011 06:35 Primal666 wrote: [QUOTE]On May 24 2011 06:29 MaxField wrote: In a perfect world, smoking could just end, and there would be no effects, but i do not think that will ever happen. I do support this ban though.[/Q] In a perfect world people also have a thing called ''FREEDOM'', and not the tyrany of the rediculus laws enforced to us by gouvernment.[/QUOTE]
throwing the freedom word around... hilarious. let's just rip all fucking laws apart and see how anarchy works.
they're banning a harmful drug from being used and spread in public. just like how they "tyrannically" enforce the quality of your food or the medicine on your pharmacy counters. how about you make an argument for those guys?
This is fucking absurd. I love how they claim 50,000 people die from second hand smoke yearly. The only smoke that is carcinogenic is the inhaled smoke and the smoke that comes directly off of the burning cigarette. No one ingests the smoke that comes off of a cigarette when you are outdoors.
I remember when smoking in a hospital was legal. The only possible upside to this is making self righteous assholes feel even better about themselves, and possibly cutting down on litter. But its NYC. Do you really think NYC is ever going to be free of litter or significantly improved because of a smoking ban? It's the dirtiest city in all of the world. I think the legislature//government needs to direct their attention to more pertinent issues aside from smoking, and the war on drugs.
All for this. Smoking is fucking disgusting, smells like shit and the smell sticks to your clothes afterwards as well. I don't understand why smokers think everyone should bend over and just deal with their bad habit.
smoke outdoor does not harm the person walking by, there is no health/hazard issue, its just annoying as the person having to smell it when they dont have to.
i dont mind bans on public places but they shouldnt be able to say they can't smoke in their own home and car.
smokers have no complaints as they shouldn't smoke in populated areas for consideration of others.
and those who get so offended by cigarette smell, don't be a pussy
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.
Not sure if serious. You aren't sure why the are banning smoking in public places? They give reasons in the article. You might have to...err..you know, READ it.
On May 24 2011 06:38 inamorato wrote: This is fucking absurd. I love how they claim 50,000 people die from second hand smoke yearly. The only smoke that is carcinogenic is the inhaled smoke and the smoke that comes directly off of the burning cigarette. No one ingests the smoke that comes off of a cigarette when you are outdoors.
I remember when smoking in a hospital was legal. The only possible upside to this is making self righteous assholes feel even better about themselves, and possibly cutting down on litter. But its NYC. Do you really think NYC is ever going to be free of litter or significantly improved because of a smoking ban? It's the dirtiest city in all of the world. I think the legislature//government needs to direct their attention to more pertinent issues aside from smoking, and the war on drugs.
just stop if you have no idea what you're talking about. nicotine is the main psychoactive drug in cigarettes and a recent study shows second hand smoke causes activation of 20% of all brain nicotinic receptors in a non-smoker.
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011 May 2. Effect of Secondhand Smoke on Occupancy of Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors in Brain. Brody AL, Mandelkern MA, London ED, Khan A, Kozman D, Costello MR, Vellios EE, Archie MM, Bascom R, Mukhin AG.
On May 24 2011 06:39 jinorazi wrote: smoke outdoor does not harm the person walking by, there is no health/hazard issue
Are you qualified to make this statement? Please provide your primary research on the subject or cite studies that have supported your statement. Thanks.
Wow there seem to be a lot of people who hate smoking in here. I can understand why one would hate being exposed to smoke, but do you really care if a person smokes in his own home?
EDIT: this comment was directed at the comments in this thread, not the article. I am 100% for the legislation even though i am a smoker myself.
On May 24 2011 06:39 jinorazi wrote: smoke outdoor does not harm the person walking by, there is no health/hazard issue
Are you qualified to make this statement? Please provide your primary research on the subject or cite studies that have supported your statement. Thanks.
Yeah I don't think so. The burden of proof is your job, not his.
On May 24 2011 06:39 jinorazi wrote: smoke outdoor does not harm the person walking by, there is no health/hazard issue, its just annoying as the person having to smell it when they dont have to.
i dont mind bans on public places but they shouldnt be able to say they can't smoke in their own home and car.
smokers have no complaints as they shouldn't smoke in populated areas for consideration of others.
and those who get so offended by cigarette smell, don't be a pussy
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. 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.)
On May 24 2011 06:42 relyt wrote: Wow there seem to be a lot of people who hate smoking in here. I can understand why one would hate being exposed to smoke, but do you really care if a person smokes in his own home?
The subject isn't in their own home, its in a place where people are exposed to smoke without consent.
Considering the potential health consequences for people who do not smoke, it is a really easy conclusion to reach that this is a good choice for NYC.
On May 24 2011 06:39 jinorazi wrote: smoke outdoor does not harm the person walking by, there is no health/hazard issue, its just annoying as the person having to smell it when they dont have to.
i dont mind bans on public places but they shouldnt be able to say they can't smoke in their own home and car.
smokers have no complaints as they shouldn't smoke in populated areas for consideration of others.
and those who get so offended by cigarette smell, don't be a pussy
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. 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.)
Same here. Many people have smoke-triggered asthma, and its really shitty to be walking down the street and suddenly be short on breath and have trouble breathing. Its very invasive.
On May 24 2011 06:39 jinorazi wrote: smoke outdoor does not harm the person walking by, there is no health/hazard issue
Are you qualified to make this statement? Please provide your primary research on the subject or cite studies that have supported your statement. Thanks.
Yeah I don't think so. The burden of proof is your job, not his.
Nope, it's his. There is already evidence that contradicts his statement. If he is to claim otherwise, he must provide evidence. Not sure if you're trolling.
Honestly, while I'm not naive enough to think that this will have NO positive effect, a large percentage of what your average park worker has to sweep up is cigarettes, but unlike the heavy cigarette tax or our heavy handed gun laws, I don't think this will have the effect they're looking for here. That said, it's not a bad law at all for non-smokers, and, well, smokers should expect this by now.
On May 24 2011 06:39 jinorazi wrote: smoke outdoor does not harm the person walking by, there is no health/hazard issue
Are you qualified to make this statement? Please provide your primary research on the subject or cite studies that have supported your statement. Thanks.
Yeah I don't think so. The burden of proof is your job, not his.
Nope, it's his. There is already evidence that contradicts his statement. If he is to claim otherwise, he must provide evidence. Not sure if you're trolling.
On May 24 2011 06:39 jinorazi wrote: smoke outdoor does not harm the person walking by, there is no health/hazard issue
Are you qualified to make this statement? Please provide your primary research on the subject or cite studies that have supported your statement. Thanks.
Yeah I don't think so. The burden of proof is your job, not his.
Nope, it's his. There is already evidence that contradicts his statement. If he is to claim otherwise, he must provide evidence. Not sure if you're trolling.
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.
On May 24 2011 06:04 Valestrum wrote: I'm glad, smoking is a bad habit. It doesn't do anything good for us.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
On May 24 2011 06:39 jinorazi wrote: smoke outdoor does not harm the person walking by, there is no health/hazard issue
Are you qualified to make this statement? Please provide your primary research on the subject or cite studies that have supported your statement. Thanks.
Yeah I don't think so. The burden of proof is your job, not his.
Nope, it's his. There is already evidence that contradicts his statement. If he is to claim otherwise, he must provide evidence. Not sure if you're trolling.
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.
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.
On May 24 2011 06:32 Dracolich70 wrote: I find it "funny" people talk about the ills of second-hand smoking in cities with 1000s of cars passing in the course of time it takes to smoke a cigarette.
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.
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.
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.
Yup horrible habit. I smoke a pack a day. I wish I could quit but I do not have the drive to stop
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.
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.
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.
On May 24 2011 06:32 Dracolich70 wrote: I find it "funny" people talk about the ills of second-hand smoking in cities with 1000s of cars passing in the course of time it takes to smoke a cigarette.
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.
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.
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).
On May 24 2011 06:04 Valestrum wrote: I'm glad, smoking is a bad habit. It doesn't do anything good for us.
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.
Not to be rude, but a lot of other things cause discomfort too: smoke from cars, swearing from people etc etc.
On May 24 2011 06:04 Valestrum wrote: I'm glad, smoking is a bad habit. It doesn't do anything good for us.
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.
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.
On May 24 2011 06:04 Valestrum wrote: I'm glad, smoking is a bad habit. It doesn't do anything good for us.
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.
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.
tbh this is a little much, people need to be free to do what they want to their bodies, we don't have a law that prohibits alcoholics from drinking, only where they can, if this is passed a lot of people will be really angry but i think its going to work anyways...only time will tell
On May 24 2011 07:29 Sega92 wrote: tbh this is a little much, people need to be free to do what they want to their bodies, we don't have a law that prohibits alcoholics from drinking, only where they can, if this is passed a lot of people will be really angry but i think its going to work anyways...only time will tell
Ummm it's the same thing as alcoholics in this case.
I can't be the only one who sees the funny thing in banning smoking in one of the probably most traffic heavy cities in the world...
EDIT: nvm, I wasn't the only one...
And forbidding smoking with that much traffic isn't really going to mean anything at all. It is naïve to think that you will be able to spot any effects of this rule in the statistics...
On May 24 2011 07:29 Sega92 wrote: tbh this is a little much, people need to be free to do what they want to their bodies, we don't have a law that prohibits alcoholics from drinking, only where they can, if this is passed a lot of people will be really angry but i think its going to work anyways...only time will tell
That's funny because this law only constricts smokers to where they can smoke
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.
As in a place that you have to have a membership for? That's cool and all, but I still don't like that if I own my private business, regardless if I charge people a membership fee, I can't decide if I want to say fuck you to a certain portion of the population.
I'm finding TL more and more hypocritical every single time a post like this comes out.
So many people are for this because they believe smoking is bad, and no one should do it. If there's a thread about a limit/ban of video games, TL users are up in arms about human rights and how a government shouldn't get to tell anyone how to live their personal life.
i have chronic sinusitis and allergies and smoking really aggravates my sinuses. I'd really prefer if smoking was banned from public places but on streets and stuff its okay. Just buses mostly since I live in the city during the school year. I'd support this bill at first site but I'd like to see a thorough overview of it though.
On May 24 2011 07:45 TALegion wrote: I'm finding TL more and more hypocritical every single time a post like this comes out.
So many people are for this because they believe smoking is bad, and no one should do it. If there's a thread about a limit/ban of video games, TL users are up in arms about human rights and how a government shouldn't get to tell anyone how to live their personal life.
because playing video games doesn't harm anyone else. smoking cigarettes in public harms people other than the smoker
Full disclosure: I am a smoker In Arizona a couple years ago we banned smoking indoors everywhere except the Casinos because they aren't "ours." I even voted for the bill and I totally understand it. That said we should be able to smoke outdoors especially in places like parks or our cars if we so choose, just be respectful to others (however when ever the onus falls on the average Joe is it destined to fail).
On May 24 2011 07:45 TALegion wrote: I'm finding TL more and more hypocritical every single time a post like this comes out.
So many people are for this because they believe smoking is bad, and no one should do it. If there's a thread about a limit/ban of video games, TL users are up in arms about human rights and how a government shouldn't get to tell anyone how to live their personal life.
because playing video games doesn't harm anyone else. smoking cigarettes in public harms people other than the smoker
learn your reasoning you fail
Smoking CAN harm others but it doesn't in almost every case, outside of those in prolonged exposure in an area with restricted air flow.
Also just off the top of my head no research involved, there is no way walking by a smoker in a public area is any worse than just generally walking around in a densely populated city like NYC.
Now shall we play the hypothetical game?
For video games using your logic, video games lead to obesity which leads to different health issues and if someone is playing video games to often they don't have a job and by not having a job us tax payers end up footing the bill for their health care, instead of it going to actual people who are deserving.
On May 24 2011 07:45 TALegion wrote: I'm finding TL more and more hypocritical every single time a post like this comes out.
So many people are for this because they believe smoking is bad, and no one should do it. If there's a thread about a limit/ban of video games, TL users are up in arms about human rights and how a government shouldn't get to tell anyone how to live their personal life.
I find this a bit ironic as well. Though, I will say there a certainly more merits to why smoking is bad than video games are bad.
On May 24 2011 06:32 Dracolich70 wrote: I find it "funny" people talk about the ills of second-hand smoking in cities with 1000s of cars passing in the course of time it takes to smoke a cigarette.
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.
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.
Suggest riding bikes. It is much healthier than sitting in cars. Suggest public transportation. Suggest underground highways. Suggest non-polluting cars, before you jump on the back of a minimal health risk situation for the second hand smoker.
The effects of second hand smoke in open air is so minimal, if even noticeable in a lifespan, that it is merely a witch hunt/mass hysteria argument you are supporting.
Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. Its smells horrible, its bad for your health in so many ways, its bad for your looks, its expensive. There are no benefits. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
On May 24 2011 07:54 BroodjeBaller wrote: Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. Its smells horrible, its bad for your health in so many ways, its bad for your looks, its expensive. There are no benefits. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
On May 24 2011 07:54 BroodjeBaller wrote: Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
Making absolute statements and generalities are the most stupid and retarded activities to ever exist. Overarching statements should be banned everywhere and people who commit them should be prosecuted.
/sarcasm
Cigarettes are bad for you. Everyone gets that. But there are a lot of stupid and retarded activities out there that have significant health risks and yet aren't banned.
On May 24 2011 06:32 Dracolich70 wrote: I find it "funny" people talk about the ills of second-hand smoking in cities with 1000s of cars passing in the course of time it takes to smoke a cigarette.
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.
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.
Suggest riding bikes. It is much healthier than sitting in cars. Suggest public transportation. Suggest underground highways. Suggest non-polluting cars, before you jump on the back of a minimal health risk situation for the second hand smoker.
The effects of second hand smoke in open air is so minimal, if even noticeable in a lifespan, that it is merely a witch hunt/mass hysteria argument you are supporting.
Support mass hysteria and witch hunts? No. Concern for public environment, and health of others shared in a public area, yes. I and some other posters know how it is to be effected by second hand smoke, indoor or outdoor, so we have to stand up and say "This isn't true." when you have all these people say it is harmless. Well it is it not and there are many studies that say otherwise too.
Bringing up bad strawman arguments such as transportation pollution, a byproduct of what moves our society forward and easier, which are heavily regulated and laws revised for even less pollution that are forced upon car manufactures makes no sense to bring up in the first place, because we are actively solving that problem with stricter regulations and the move to more cleaner solutions such as zero emissions (electric cars).
On May 24 2011 07:54 BroodjeBaller wrote: Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. Its smells horrible, its bad for your health in so many ways, its bad for your looks, its expensive. There are no benefits. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
You feel the same way about alcohol?
Studies have shown that drinking moderate (read: 1 glass) of red wine a day is actually quite healthy for you
I'm all for banning smoking from parks and beaches, I hate walking through all the cigarette butts in the sand, uhg.
On May 24 2011 07:53 Egyptian_Head wrote: Yes lets ban everything that is slightly annoying to anyone else. Thats surely going to lead to something good.
People over focus on smoking, I really don't see what the big deal is.
It smells like shit bro, makes me cough up. I don't want to inhale smoke for every corner of the street I cross or want to take a stroll in the park or whatever, that's the big deal.
On May 24 2011 07:45 TALegion wrote: I'm finding TL more and more hypocritical every single time a post like this comes out.
So many people are for this because they believe smoking is bad, and no one should do it. If there's a thread about a limit/ban of video games, TL users are up in arms about human rights and how a government shouldn't get to tell anyone how to live their personal life.
You should look at why TL'rs have the views they do before you call them hypocrites.
Can someone elses gaming negatively affect my health? No
Can someone elses smoking near me negatively affect my health? Yes
See the difference? I have no problem with the government telling people their choices shouldn't negatively impact on me.
On May 24 2011 07:54 BroodjeBaller wrote: Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. Its smells horrible, its bad for your health in so many ways, its bad for your looks, its expensive. There are no benefits. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
You feel the same way about alcohol?
Studies have shown that drinking moderate (read: 1 glass) of red wine a day is actually quite healthy for you
I'm all for banning smoking from parks and beaches, I hate walking through all the cigarette butts in the sand, uhg.
Only if smokers can smoke 1 cigarette then some org would pay for results in study to keep people buying their product but encourage moderation.
Thats a little too far I think. Never smoked, never will, but I respect the fact that smokers enjoy smoking, and in parks and beaches this is at most a minor inconvenience to me. Guys beside me is smoking? Alright I can move, I'm outside. These bans are totally out of hand.
On May 24 2011 07:54 BroodjeBaller wrote: Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. Its smells horrible, its bad for your health in so many ways, its bad for your looks, its expensive. There are no benefits. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
You feel the same way about alcohol?
While you do make a point with your question, there is a profound difference between being a serious alcoholic, and consuming alcohol moderately. The latter scenario isn't bad for you NOR for others (unless you're a bit too tipsy and plan on driving). Alcohol isn't physically addictive like nicotine, so it's not like drinking will make you crave it like crazy (of course it can be psychologically addictive but that's a different story). With tobacco, you become physically addicted and it's not easy to get off even when you are in a healthy and happy state of mind.
So imo, what BroodjeBaller says still stands, although at the end there he goes to the point of wishing for the complete shutdown and ban of the tobacco industry which I don't agree with.
On May 24 2011 07:54 BroodjeBaller wrote: Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. Its smells horrible, its bad for your health in so many ways, its bad for your looks, its expensive. There are no benefits. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
You feel the same way about alcohol?
Studies have shown that drinking moderate (read: 1 glass) of red wine a day is actually quite healthy for you
I'm all for banning smoking from parks and beaches, I hate walking through all the cigarette butts in the sand, uhg.
So you are not apposed to making getting drunk in bars illegal then?
On May 24 2011 07:53 Egyptian_Head wrote: Yes lets ban everything that is slightly annoying to anyone else. Thats surely going to lead to something good.
People over focus on smoking, I really don't see what the big deal is.
It smells like shit bro, makes me cough up. I don't want to inhale smoke for every corner of the street I cross or want to take a stroll in the park or whatever, that's the big deal.
Quiet self centered there, what about what other people want?
+1 for banning it. Smoke is disgusting, and is just annoying in general. The general population shouldn't have to be forced to smell it/and the dangers it causes just because they need their nicotine
When someone decides to smoke in a public place, they are making a poor health decision not only for themselves, but also for those around them. I certainly do not want to take away people's right to smoke in general, but I strongly agree with the banning of smoking in public places.
Some might argue that if we don't like smoke we can just go somewhere else (especially in the case of non-essential areas such as the beach or parks), but I don't believe anyone should have to choose between their health and their activities (unless of course the activities are inherently unhealthy) simply because somebody else decides they want to smoke in public.
On May 24 2011 07:53 Egyptian_Head wrote: Yes lets ban everything that is slightly annoying to anyone else. Thats surely going to lead to something good.
People over focus on smoking, I really don't see what the big deal is.
It smells like shit bro, makes me cough up. I don't want to inhale smoke for every corner of the street I cross or want to take a stroll in the park or whatever, that's the big deal.
Quiet self centered there, what about what other people want?
If people want to smoke, do it where it isn't in a public location such as the examples I listed, I think that is very fair.
On May 24 2011 07:54 BroodjeBaller wrote: Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. Its smells horrible, its bad for your health in so many ways, its bad for your looks, its expensive. There are no benefits. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
You feel the same way about alcohol?
While you do make a point with your question, there is a profound difference between being a serious alcoholic, and consuming alcohol moderately. The latter scenario isn't bad for you NOR for others (unless you're a bit too tipsy and plan on driving). Alcohol isn't physically addictive like nicotine, so it's not like drinking will make you crave it like crazy (of course it can be psychologically addictive but that's a different story). With tobacco, you become physically addicted and it's not easy to get off even when you are in a healthy and happy state of mind.
So imo, what BroodjeBaller says still stands, although at the end there he goes to the point of wishing for the complete shutdown and ban of the tobacco industry which I don't agree with.
I think this is a good idea as smoking is unhealthy, and most of all, creates extremely annoying litter. There will definitely still be people smoking in NYC as total enforcement is just about impossible, but I would think it would reduce smoking by around 70-80% which would still be great. I'm glad that it's only a $50 fine though, as making it a large fine or a criminal offense would be ridiculous; at least in this case the very small penalty matches the relatively small annoyance that smoking is compared to some other behaviors.
On May 24 2011 07:54 BroodjeBaller wrote: Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. Its smells horrible, its bad for your health in so many ways, its bad for your looks, its expensive. There are no benefits. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
You feel the same way about alcohol?
Alcohol doesnt smell horrible, its not bad for your health(and other peoples health) if you take it in moderation, its not bad for your looks.
Ow and the smell of smoking is not something temporary. Its stay in your clothes(untill you wash them), it stay in your car, it stays in your house, its horrible.
id be fine for smoking bans as long as there were reasonable designated areas to smoke. my college recently banned smoking and its not possible to smoke anywhere on campus, just in the parking lots, which happen to be far away from everything.
people bashing smoking i dont think get that there are a lot of benefits to smoking. the social aspects of it are great, not to mention how relaxing it can be to take a break from shit for 5 minutes and regroup your mind. helps your focus and reduces your appetite too.
the second hand smoking thing is just unwarranted too. nothing is going to happen to you if im smoking 10 feet away outdoors. if you have a personal issue where it does bother you, then move away, it is not a big deal.
the litter is a big deal, though, and my guess was the primary reason for the ban. there is really no easy solution around it, except more designated areas with more trash cans.
On May 24 2011 07:54 BroodjeBaller wrote: Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. Its smells horrible, its bad for your health in so many ways, its bad for your looks, its expensive. There are no benefits. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
You feel the same way about alcohol?
Studies have shown that drinking moderate (read: 1 glass) of red wine a day is actually quite healthy for you
I'm all for banning smoking from parks and beaches, I hate walking through all the cigarette butts in the sand, uhg.
Only if smokers can smoke 1 cigarette then some org would pay for results in study to keep people buying their product but encourage moderation.
Sorry but I hope you are not implying what I think your are implying. That would be fucking stupid.
On May 24 2011 07:54 BroodjeBaller wrote: Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. Its smells horrible, its bad for your health in so many ways, its bad for your looks, its expensive. There are no benefits. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
You feel the same way about alcohol?
Alcohol doesnt smell horrible, its not bad for your health(and other peoples health) if you take it in moderation, its not bad for your looks.
Ow and the smell of smoking is not something temporary. Its stay in your clothes(untill you wash them), it stay in your car, it stays in your house, its horrible.
So no I dont feel the same way about alcohol.
This has got to be the most idiotic post I've seen this week.
Litter is a litter issue, not a smoking issue. You don't see anyone pushing to ban chocolate because there is an O'henry wrapper on the street.
It bugs me as much as anyone else that people throw their butts on the ground(it probably bugs me more), but to say smoking should be banned because people are littering is absolutely ludicrous.
For people saying that second hand smoke is just the random 10 meters guy, you have never been in a uni study room at exams time... its 2 months of second hand smoking for at least 12 hours a day... not preatty. my uni ban smoking in doors for 3 years.. and god, its so much better to study in doors know.
The question as to whether second hand smoke harms people has been answered many times.
I just had a look at the above links:
The second one (circ.ahajournals.org) says:
"Methods and Results— We conducted a literature review of the research describing ..."
Meaning that this paper contains no original research at all. It simply picks research papers since 1995 and comes to the conlcusion that "The effects of secondhand smoke are substantial and rapid, explaining the relatively large risks that have been reported in epidemiological studies." I really do not think that this is science exactly...
The first paper (www.sciencedirect.com) used mice and conducted an experiment on mice which already WERE infected with lung cancer cells, trying to prove that Second Hand Smoking lets the cancer grow faster -- which is not necessarily the same as asking if you get cancer from Second Hand Smoking in general. What's even worse: Have a look at the setup. The paper says: "Four Marlboro filter cigarettes were smoked using a smoking machine (RM 1/G, Heiner Borgwald GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) every 15 min, 6 hr/day, five days/week in the exposure chamber. " So that means 96 cigarettes in a chamber "that had a 3.6 m*m*m interior volume, similar to that of an automobile sedan." Can someone please explain to me how that can be interpreted as "SHS" == "Second Hand Smoke" ? That means these mice were exposed to around 500 cigarettes per week in a room the size of a car; calling this scenario "Second Hand Smoking" sounds like someone is desperately trying to get a result which is not there.
Then they used 5 mice groups of 8-9 mice per group. For a statistical analysis this REALLY does not sound good. I have not done statistics for some time, so I cannot calculate the statistical significance on the spot, but really: Groups of 8-9 subjects ? This sounds like a statistical joke.
So summing up the paper: If you have lung cancer and you spend your life in a car, in which other persons smoke 500 Cigarettes per week, this probably increases the growth speed of your lung cancer. This is really astonishing... NOT!
Don't get me wrong: I might be able to believe that Second Hand Smoke has a negative impact on health... but not because of reading the above papers.
On May 24 2011 07:54 BroodjeBaller wrote: Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. Its smells horrible, its bad for your health in so many ways, its bad for your looks, its expensive. There are no benefits. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
You feel the same way about alcohol?
Alcohol doesnt smell horrible, its not bad for your health(and other peoples health) if you take it in moderation, its not bad for your looks.
Ow and the smell of smoking is not something temporary. Its stay in your clothes(untill you wash them), it stay in your car, it stays in your house, its horrible.
So no I dont feel the same way about alcohol.
This has got to be the most idiotic post I've seen this week.
On May 24 2011 07:54 BroodjeBaller wrote: Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. Its smells horrible, its bad for your health in so many ways, its bad for your looks, its expensive. There are no benefits. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
You feel the same way about alcohol?
While you do make a point with your question, there is a profound difference between being a serious alcoholic, and consuming alcohol moderately. The latter scenario isn't bad for you NOR for others (unless you're a bit too tipsy and plan on driving). Alcohol isn't physically addictive like nicotine, so it's not like drinking will make you crave it like crazy (of course it can be psychologically addictive but that's a different story). With tobacco, you become physically addicted and it's not easy to get off even when you are in a healthy and happy state of mind.
So imo, what BroodjeBaller says still stands, although at the end there he goes to the point of wishing for the complete shutdown and ban of the tobacco industry which I don't agree with.
Thanks for showing me this. I knew very well that there is commonly psychological dependence on alcohol, but not this case so much. Tbh, I've never known anyone who was addicted to alcohol (and I've known tons of people who drink) and those I've known who were/are were quite stuck in a rut in life to put it that way, but apparently it is not the case with everyone who is an alcoholic.
On May 24 2011 08:21 chickenhawk wrote: For people saying that second hand smoke is just the random 10 meters guy, you have never been in a uni study room at exams time... its 2 months of second hand smoking for at least 12 hours a day... not preatty. my uni ban smoking in doors for 3 years.. and god, its so much better to study in doors know.
What the hell does university study room have to do with smoking at the fucking beach? Read the article you shit.
I don't smoke cigarettes, never have and I'm allergic to tobacco but I think this is a horrible idea. Imposing restrictions on people's freedoms just seems like a bad idea. As if cigarette smoke as any real impact on the atmosphere - LOL. NYC should ban driving, if they really want to have any impact at all on their air quality.
On May 24 2011 08:21 chickenhawk wrote: For people saying that second hand smoke is just the random 10 meters guy, you have never been in a uni study room at exams time... its 2 months of second hand smoking for at least 12 hours a day... not preatty. my uni ban smoking in doors for 3 years.. and god, its so much better to study in doors know.
What the hell does university study room have to do with smoking at the fucking beach? Read the article you shit.
On May 24 2011 07:54 BroodjeBaller wrote: Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. Its smells horrible, its bad for your health in so many ways, its bad for your looks, its expensive. There are no benefits. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
You feel the same way about alcohol?
Alcohol doesnt smell horrible, its not bad for your health(and other peoples health) if you take it in moderation, its not bad for your looks.
Ow and the smell of smoking is not something temporary. Its stay in your clothes(untill you wash them), it stay in your car, it stays in your house, its horrible.
So no I dont feel the same way about alcohol.
Alcohol does affect your looks, and anyone or the families of anyone who has been affected by drunk drivers would likely disagree that it doesn't effect others.
On May 24 2011 07:45 TALegion wrote: I'm finding TL more and more hypocritical every single time a post like this comes out.
So many people are for this because they believe smoking is bad, and no one should do it. If there's a thread about a limit/ban of video games, TL users are up in arms about human rights and how a government shouldn't get to tell anyone how to live their personal life.
because playing video games doesn't harm anyone else. smoking cigarettes in public harms people other than the smoker
learn your reasoning you fail
learn your facts you fail
Unless in prolonged exposure to second hand smoke (and a TON of it), second hand smoke cannot do permanent damage to anyone. You would have to breath in unbelievable amounts in order for you to be intensely affected.
On May 24 2011 07:54 BroodjeBaller wrote: Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. Its smells horrible, its bad for your health in so many ways, its bad for your looks, its expensive. There are no benefits. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
You feel the same way about alcohol?
Alcohol doesnt smell horrible, its not bad for your health(and other peoples health) if you take it in moderation, its not bad for your looks.
Ow and the smell of smoking is not something temporary. Its stay in your clothes(untill you wash them), it stay in your car, it stays in your house, its horrible.
So no I dont feel the same way about alcohol.
This has got to be the most idiotic post I've seen this week.
Why? Because you are a smoker I guess?
I'm not a smoker, and I as well think that the post he was referring to is idiotic.
On May 24 2011 07:54 BroodjeBaller wrote: Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. Its smells horrible, its bad for your health in so many ways, its bad for your looks, its expensive. There are no benefits. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
You feel the same way about alcohol?
Alcohol doesnt smell horrible, its not bad for your health(and other peoples health) if you take it in moderation, its not bad for your looks.
Ow and the smell of smoking is not something temporary. Its stay in your clothes(untill you wash them), it stay in your car, it stays in your house, its horrible.
So no I dont feel the same way about alcohol.
This has got to be the most idiotic post I've seen this week.
Why? Because you are a smoker I guess?
Because it's complete bullshit to say alcohol doesn't have an odor. Ever talk to anyone when they are drunk and you are sober? Ever seen the victim of a drunk driver after they can ran over cause someone had a night on the town? Ever had a friend puking their guts out over a toilet bowl and you found that attractive? Your post just fails on so many levels.
On May 24 2011 08:21 chickenhawk wrote: For people saying that second hand smoke is just the random 10 meters guy, you have never been in a uni study room at exams time... its 2 months of second hand smoking for at least 12 hours a day... not preatty. my uni ban smoking in doors for 3 years.. and god, its so much better to study in doors know.
What the hell does university study room have to do with smoking at the fucking beach? Read the article you shit.
When its a bit windy on the beach you can smell that disgusting smoking smell atleast 25 meters away.
On May 24 2011 07:54 BroodjeBaller wrote: Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. Its smells horrible, its bad for your health in so many ways, its bad for your looks, its expensive. There are no benefits. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
You feel the same way about alcohol?
While you do make a point with your question, there is a profound difference between being a serious alcoholic, and consuming alcohol moderately. The latter scenario isn't bad for you NOR for others (unless you're a bit too tipsy and plan on driving). Alcohol isn't physically addictive like nicotine, so it's not like drinking will make you crave it like crazy (of course it can be psychologically addictive but that's a different story). With tobacco, you become physically addicted and it's not easy to get off even when you are in a healthy and happy state of mind.
So imo, what BroodjeBaller says still stands, although at the end there he goes to the point of wishing for the complete shutdown and ban of the tobacco industry which I don't agree with.
Thanks for showing me this. I knew very well that there is commonly psychological dependence on alcohol, but not this case so much. Tbh, I've never known anyone who was addicted to alcohol (and I've known tons of people who drink) and those I've known who were/are were quite stuck in a rut in life to put it that way, but apparently it is not the case with everyone who is an alcoholic.
Unfortunately, my Grandfather was/is an extreme alcoholic and when we tried to intervene and prevent his alcohol consumption his withdrawals would lead him to drink Listerine and other stuff that had alcohol but was not intended to be imbibed.
On May 24 2011 07:54 BroodjeBaller wrote: Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. Its smells horrible, its bad for your health in so many ways, its bad for your looks, its expensive. There are no benefits. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
You feel the same way about alcohol?
Alcohol doesnt smell horrible, its not bad for your health(and other peoples health) if you take it in moderation, its not bad for your looks.
Ow and the smell of smoking is not something temporary. Its stay in your clothes(untill you wash them), it stay in your car, it stays in your house, its horrible.
So no I dont feel the same way about alcohol.
This has got to be the most idiotic post I've seen this week.
Why? Because you are a smoker I guess?
Because it's complete bullshit to say alcohol doesn't have an odor. Ever talk to anyone when they are drunk and you are sober? Ever seen the victim of a drunk driver after they can ran over cause someone had a night on the town? Ever had a friend puking their guts out over a toilet bowl and you found that attractive? Your post just fails on so many levels.
Learn to read I never said alcohol doesnt have an odor. It doesnt smell as horrible as smoking and the range of the smell is much much smaller. I also said drinking in moderation so dont come with your drunk driver bs. Again learn to read.
On May 24 2011 08:21 chickenhawk wrote: For people saying that second hand smoke is just the random 10 meters guy, you have never been in a uni study room at exams time... its 2 months of second hand smoking for at least 12 hours a day... not preatty. my uni ban smoking in doors for 3 years.. and god, its so much better to study in doors know.
What the hell does university study room have to do with smoking at the fucking beach? Read the article you shit.
When its a bit windy on the beach you can smell that disgusting smoking smell atleast 25 meters away.
I smell your nasty $6 cologne when you walk by, it stick to my clothes and makes me stink until I wash them. It also aggravates my asthma, triggers my allergies, makes my eyes water, and makes my throat constrict.
If it is just parks and places like that I can understand the ban. I think it is a bit much, but meh. As long as people can still go outside their work for a smoke break etc I think it is fine.
That said with non public places I think people should get to choose. Here you can only allow smoking in your establishment if it is 21 and up. This leaves a lot of bars in the clear so it is fine, but still seems a bit restrictive to me. 18 and up would allow more clubs the option. If people don't like it they just won't go to said club/bar, so it seems more logical.
Smoking is gross so I'm glad its getting banned. We don't need smoking and I don't want my kids to be around smokers or see people smoking. Sure the world is far from perfect, but enacting laws is a slow and sure way to a smoking free environment.
My key philosophy in life: Do whatever the fuck you like as long as it's not harming someone else, with reason and common sense thrown in.
Smoking comes under "doing whatever the fuck you like" but harms other people. Thus I think smoking should be accommodated where possible, but in general should be avoided in public where it's at best annoying and at worst harmful to others.
I'm not anti-smoking really, but the number of times I've seen people with cigarettes in their hands walking past toddlers who come up to about the person's hand height... pretty stupid.
Edit:
On May 24 2011 08:34 Hall0wed wrote: Smokers suck.
On May 24 2011 08:21 chickenhawk wrote: For people saying that second hand smoke is just the random 10 meters guy, you have never been in a uni study room at exams time... its 2 months of second hand smoking for at least 12 hours a day... not preatty. my uni ban smoking in doors for 3 years.. and god, its so much better to study in doors know.
What the hell does university study room have to do with smoking at the fucking beach? Read the article you shit.
When its a bit windy on the beach you can smell that disgusting smoking smell atleast 25 meters away.
I smell your nasty $6 cologne when you walk by, it stick to my clothes and makes me stink until I wash them. It also aggravates my asthma, triggers my allergies, makes my eyes water, and makes my throat constrict.
But its not cigarettes so no one cares, I honestly have awful allergies to cats but tell crazy cat lady that her cats are annoying or having a negative impact on my health and she will just scoff at you. We tread on a slippery slope.
Everyone has a vice. When it's your turn to have yours banned, due to the disapproval of "society at large", then you can remember all the times you jumped on the bandwagon wagging your finger at other people for living their lives in a way you personally do not choose to. Smoking outside, disposing of your butts responsibly, doesn't harm people around you especially in a designated area. Power is really fun until it's your turn to get crushed for no reason other than not fitting in with the majority.
On May 24 2011 08:34 sgtcodfish wrote: My key philosophy in life: Do whatever the fuck you like as long as it's not harming someone else, with reason and common sense thrown in.
Smoking comes under "doing whatever the fuck you like" but harms other people. Thus I think smoking should be accommodated where possible, but in general should be avoided in public where it's at best annoying and at worst harmful to others.
I'm not anti-smoking really, but the number of times I've seen people with cigarettes in their hands walking past toddlers who come up to about the person's hand height... pretty stupid.
On May 24 2011 08:34 Hall0wed wrote: Smokers suck.
They also blow
smoking doesn't harm other people. You would need to have like 50 people smoking cigarettes all day to produce the same amount of pollution that 1 car produces in like 2 minutes of idling.
On May 24 2011 08:21 chickenhawk wrote: For people saying that second hand smoke is just the random 10 meters guy, you have never been in a uni study room at exams time... its 2 months of second hand smoking for at least 12 hours a day... not preatty. my uni ban smoking in doors for 3 years.. and god, its so much better to study in doors know.
What the hell does university study room have to do with smoking at the fucking beach? Read the article you shit.
When its a bit windy on the beach you can smell that disgusting smoking smell atleast 25 meters away.
I smell your nasty $6 cologne when you walk by, it stick to my clothes and makes me stink until I wash them. It also aggravates my asthma, triggers my allergies, makes my eyes water, and makes my throat constrict.
On May 24 2011 08:21 chickenhawk wrote: For people saying that second hand smoke is just the random 10 meters guy, you have never been in a uni study room at exams time... its 2 months of second hand smoking for at least 12 hours a day... not preatty. my uni ban smoking in doors for 3 years.. and god, its so much better to study in doors know.
What the hell does university study room have to do with smoking at the fucking beach? Read the article you shit.
When its a bit windy on the beach you can smell that disgusting smoking smell atleast 25 meters away.
I smell your nasty $6 cologne when you walk by, it stick to my clothes and makes me stink until I wash them. It also aggravates my asthma, triggers my allergies, makes my eyes water, and makes my throat constrict.
But atleast you dont get cancer from my cologne
You don't get cancer from sitting 10 feet from a smoker on the beach.
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
On May 24 2011 08:21 chickenhawk wrote: For people saying that second hand smoke is just the random 10 meters guy, you have never been in a uni study room at exams time... its 2 months of second hand smoking for at least 12 hours a day... not preatty. my uni ban smoking in doors for 3 years.. and god, its so much better to study in doors know.
What the hell does university study room have to do with smoking at the fucking beach? Read the article you shit.
When its a bit windy on the beach you can smell that disgusting smoking smell atleast 25 meters away.
I smell your nasty $6 cologne when you walk by, it stick to my clothes and makes me stink until I wash them. It also aggravates my asthma, triggers my allergies, makes my eyes water, and makes my throat constrict.
But atleast you dont get cancer from my cologne
Well I am not a doctor but I doubt that walking by someone smoking outside is a medically significant factor in weather or not you get cancer. Now indoor smoking? I agree it should be regulated, just in a reasonable way.
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'd go so far as to say that the terrorists have won.
On May 24 2011 08:21 chickenhawk wrote: For people saying that second hand smoke is just the random 10 meters guy, you have never been in a uni study room at exams time... its 2 months of second hand smoking for at least 12 hours a day... not preatty. my uni ban smoking in doors for 3 years.. and god, its so much better to study in doors know.
What the hell does university study room have to do with smoking at the fucking beach? Read the article you shit.
When its a bit windy on the beach you can smell that disgusting smoking smell atleast 25 meters away.
I smell your nasty $6 cologne when you walk by, it stick to my clothes and makes me stink until I wash them. It also aggravates my asthma, triggers my allergies, makes my eyes water, and makes my throat constrict.
But atleast you dont get cancer from my cologne
You don't get cancer from sitting 10 feet from a smoker on the beach.
There is a chance that you do, eventhough its minor. It all adds up when there are smokers everywhere.
On May 24 2011 07:54 BroodjeBaller wrote: Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. Its smells horrible, its bad for your health in so many ways, its bad for your looks, its expensive. There are no benefits. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
You feel the same way about alcohol?
Alcohol doesnt smell horrible, its not bad for your health(and other peoples health) if you take it in moderation, its not bad for your looks.
Ow and the smell of smoking is not something temporary. Its stay in your clothes(untill you wash them), it stay in your car, it stays in your house, its horrible.
So no I dont feel the same way about alcohol.
This has got to be the most idiotic post I've seen this week.
Why? Because you are a smoker I guess?
Because it's complete bullshit to say alcohol doesn't have an odor. Ever talk to anyone when they are drunk and you are sober? Ever seen the victim of a drunk driver after they can ran over cause someone had a night on the town? Ever had a friend puking their guts out over a toilet bowl and you found that attractive? Your post just fails on so many levels.
Learn to read I never said alcohol doesnt have an odor. It doesnt smell as horrible as smoking and the range of the smell is much much smaller. I also said drinking in moderation so dont come with your drunk driver bs. Again learn to read.
Moderation doesn't make anything addicting better for you nor does it make one better to do than the other. Alcohol is still poison. It's still destructive. Just like smoking. So my point still stands regardless of how you word anything.
On May 24 2011 07:54 BroodjeBaller wrote: Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. Its smells horrible, its bad for your health in so many ways, its bad for your looks, its expensive. There are no benefits. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
You feel the same way about alcohol?
Alcohol doesnt smell horrible, its not bad for your health(and other peoples health) if you take it in moderation, its not bad for your looks.
Ow and the smell of smoking is not something temporary. Its stay in your clothes(untill you wash them), it stay in your car, it stays in your house, its horrible.
So no I dont feel the same way about alcohol.
This has got to be the most idiotic post I've seen this week.
Why? Because you are a smoker I guess?
Because it's complete bullshit to say alcohol doesn't have an odor. Ever talk to anyone when they are drunk and you are sober? Ever seen the victim of a drunk driver after they can ran over cause someone had a night on the town? Ever had a friend puking their guts out over a toilet bowl and you found that attractive? Your post just fails on so many levels.
Learn to read I never said alcohol doesnt have an odor. It doesnt smell as horrible as smoking and the range of the smell is much much smaller. I also said drinking in moderation so dont come with your drunk driver bs. Again learn to read.
Moderation doesn't make anything addicting better for you nor does it make one better to do than the other. Alcohol is still poison. It's still destructive. Just like smoking. So my point still stands regardless of how you word anything.
No alcohol actually has positive effects when you take it in moderation. Smoking is bad even when you take it in moderation.
On May 24 2011 08:21 chickenhawk wrote: For people saying that second hand smoke is just the random 10 meters guy, you have never been in a uni study room at exams time... its 2 months of second hand smoking for at least 12 hours a day... not preatty. my uni ban smoking in doors for 3 years.. and god, its so much better to study in doors know.
What the hell does university study room have to do with smoking at the fucking beach? Read the article you shit.
When its a bit windy on the beach you can smell that disgusting smoking smell atleast 25 meters away.
I smell your nasty $6 cologne when you walk by, it stick to my clothes and makes me stink until I wash them. It also aggravates my asthma, triggers my allergies, makes my eyes water, and makes my throat constrict.
But atleast you dont get cancer from my cologne
You don't get cancer from sitting 10 feet from a smoker on the beach.
There is a chance that you do, eventhough its minor. It all adds up when there are smokers everywhere.
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.
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.
Way to be proactive NYC! Even though this will be enforced about as much as the jaywalking bylaws its a step in the right direction. Second hand smoke is a cause of lung cancer, I don't want to get it because I walk down the street and inhale that crap they blow my way as I pass them. I believe people have a right to smoke if they want to, but do it in a place it cannot harm others. Its been banned where I live at public places and indoors at restaurants/bars/clubs, and soon to be in the parks and beaches. Maybe when it gets to the point where smoking is banned everywhere but in your home and everyone that works during the day will be acting like twitchy crack addicts, the smokers will wake up and realize that its not a good thing to do to yourself and muster up the will to attempt to overcome their addiction.
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.
A lot of things? Like what? Burgers are not necessarily bad for you.
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 08:38 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 08:38 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 08:38 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 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
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.
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 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
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?
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.
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.
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 +
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 +
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?
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.
people bashing smoking i dont think get that there are a lot of benefits to smoking. the social aspects of it are great, not to mention how relaxing it can be to take a break from shit for 5 minutes and regroup your mind. helps your focus and reduces your appetite too..
Benefits to smoking? Surely you joke? I can't see any benefits unless you count taking a hit to reduce cravings as a benefit. Bashing your teeth in with a hammer reduces your appetite too. It's probably not as bad for you in the long term. Theres plenty of appetite suppreants that don't stink, harrass other people and cause cancer. Social aspects? Hanging out for 5 minutes with other addicts while they get their fix to reduce cravings is hardly "focussing the mind"
Whats next, an essay espousing the benefits of crack? It provides employment (for pimps, police and insurance people!)
On May 24 2011 08:19 esla_sol wrote:
the second hand smoking thing is just unwarranted too. nothing is going to happen to you if im smoking 10 feet away outdoors. if you have a personal issue where it does bother you, then move away, it is not a big deal.
How about if you want to smoke then you move away. (it is not a big deal!) Just google second hand smoke. The first page is full of articles from credible universities, institutions such as the CDC and so on. Don't say concerns about second hand smoke are unwarranted, a statement like yours is unwarranted and ignorant of the facts.
On May 24 2011 08:19 esla_sol wrote:
the litter is a big deal, though, and my guess was the primary reason for the ban. there is really no easy solution around it, except more designated areas with more trash cans.
You seriously think the biggest reason to ban smoking in certain places is litter?
Before you write me off as some anti smoking nut, I'm all for it, as long as I don't have to inhale your putrid air or contribute to your medical bills.
On May 24 2011 09:24 Clearout wrote: 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 +
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.
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?
your whole argument boils down to the fact that because there's something that has an even larger negative impact on health compared to smoking, that we shouldn't bother regulating it?
dude. smoking is bad for you. second hand smoke is bad for other people. when you smoke in public, children, babies, other people, have to breathe in cigarette smoke containing nicotine and other substances, even if at lower concentrations than you, research has shown that it can be just as bad as within a smoker - i posted a citation earlier in this thread addressing this very issue - and the research was published only a few weeks ago. there have been so much research on the negative effects of second hand smoke.
it doesn't MATTER that there are other things worse than this, because what they're doing now is to limit the bad caused by THIS only. and just because other things may be "worse" for you, doesn't mean that this shouldn't be regulated.
the second hand smoking thing is just unwarranted too. nothing is going to happen to you if im smoking 10 feet away outdoors. if you have a personal issue where it does bother you, then move away, it is not a big deal.
How about if you want to smoke then you move away. (it is not a big deal!) Just google second hand smoke. The first page is full of articles from credible universities, institutions such as the CDC and so on. Don't say concerns about second hand smoke are unwarranted, a statement like yours is unwarranted and ignorant of the facts.
You should read my post regarding this on the previous page, since your statement is just as unwarrented and ignorant of facts.
On May 24 2011 09:24 Clearout wrote: 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 +
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.
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?
your whole argument boils down to the fact that because there's something that has an even larger negative impact on health compared to smoking, that we shouldn't bother regulating it?
dude. smoking is bad for you. second hand smoke is bad for other people. when you smoke in public, children, babies, other people, have to breathe in cigarette smoke containing nicotine and other substances, even if at lower concentrations than you, research has shown that it can be just as bad as within a smoker - i posted a citation earlier in this thread addressing this very issue - and the research was published only a few weeks ago. there have been so much research on the negative effects of second hand smoke.
it doesn't MATTER that there are other things worse than this, because what they're doing now is to limit the bad caused by THIS only. and just because other things may be "worse" for you, doesn't mean that this shouldn't be regulated.
My whole argument boils down to second hand smoking in public means nothing. Read the quotes, the dangers from secondhand smoking is not really from outdoor public areas. I compare it pollution because taking a strong stance regarding a abyssmal bit of a problem (outdoor second hand smoking vs general second hand smoking) quite a bit smaller than pollution, makes it to me seem a rather ridiculous stance.
Edit: I mean seriously, they barely mention out door second hand smoking, I haven't seen anything to support that it is an actual danger compared to anything. Then why go all up removing the privileges of some because of something I've seen nowhere is shown as a problem. If you can back up that public smoking in outdoor areas produces enough of a problem, I will gladly retract my stance.
the second hand smoking thing is just unwarranted too. nothing is going to happen to you if im smoking 10 feet away outdoors. if you have a personal issue where it does bother you, then move away, it is not a big deal.
How about if you want to smoke then you move away. (it is not a big deal!) Just google second hand smoke. The first page is full of articles from credible universities, institutions such as the CDC and so on. Don't say concerns about second hand smoke are unwarranted, a statement like yours is unwarranted and ignorant of the facts.
You should read my post regarding this on the previous page, since your statement is just as unwarrented and ignorant of facts.
How about the fact that your habit makes the air that I breathe stink. You can't deny that and health factors aside, thats enough for me. My "right" to non stinky air outweighs your "right" to smoke where you please.
Personally, I'll smoke a cig on occasion though it's usually after smoking weed or just to relax and generally during these times I'm not in a public area.
On topic, I can definitely understand the reasons for imposing a ban of this nature, however, I think it would be ridiculously hard to enforce and instead would just upset a lot of people. I feel that many people would not realize this ban exists (this is the first I have heard of it and I live just outside the city) and unless it is heavily enforced, it will not have a huge effect on the amount of smoking in the city.
the second hand smoking thing is just unwarranted too. nothing is going to happen to you if im smoking 10 feet away outdoors. if you have a personal issue where it does bother you, then move away, it is not a big deal.
How about if you want to smoke then you move away. (it is not a big deal!) Just google second hand smoke. The first page is full of articles from credible universities, institutions such as the CDC and so on. Don't say concerns about second hand smoke are unwarranted, a statement like yours is unwarranted and ignorant of the facts.
You should read my post regarding this on the previous page, since your statement is just as unwarrented and ignorant of facts.
How about the fact that your habit makes the air that I breathe stink. You can't deny that and health factors aside, thats enough for me. My "right" to non stinky air outweighs your "right" to smoke where you please.
Again, I mentioned this in my post. I really hate yellow t-shirts, they make my eyes hurt in bright light. Where does one draw a line for such things.
On May 24 2011 09:37 Unifex wrote: As a smoker and a New Yorker. I cant tell you right away this won't change anything.
I've seen drug deals go down right behind a cops back.
I've seen people tag a cop car and run away.
Between the drugs, the bombs, the robberies and everything else going down in this crazy city. I seriously doubt this will be an issue.
... what does any of this have to do with a law about not smoking on a beach?
Basically people will keep on smoking on the beach. And this law won't do anything about it.
Smoking inside of public places is banned but if you know where to go in the city you'll find plenty of places who don't care. It'll be the same thing for parks and beaches.
On May 24 2011 09:24 Clearout wrote: 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 +
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.
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?
your whole argument boils down to the fact that because there's something that has an even larger negative impact on health compared to smoking, that we shouldn't bother regulating it?
dude. smoking is bad for you. second hand smoke is bad for other people. when you smoke in public, children, babies, other people, have to breathe in cigarette smoke containing nicotine and other substances, even if at lower concentrations than you, research has shown that it can be just as bad as within a smoker - i posted a citation earlier in this thread addressing this very issue - and the research was published only a few weeks ago. there have been so much research on the negative effects of second hand smoke.
it doesn't MATTER that there are other things worse than this, because what they're doing now is to limit the bad caused by THIS only. and just because other things may be "worse" for you, doesn't mean that this shouldn't be regulated.
My whole argument boils down to second hand smoking in public means nothing. Read the quotes, the dangers from secondhand smoking is not really from outdoor public areas. I compare it pollution because taking a strong stance regarding a abyssmal bit of a problem (outdoor second hand smoking vs general second hand smoking) quite a bit smaller than pollution, makes it to me seem a rather ridiculous stance.
you ever walk behind a smoker? or have you actually never smelt smoke once you left a building? also, your examples from your sources seem more semantics than anything. you simply say that they don't mention the "outdoors". weak, because clearly they were meant to be examples rather than absolute locations.
besides, the logical flaw you have in your argument regarding pollution vs second hand smoke is still there. 1. from my original post : it doesn't MATTER that there are other things worse than this, because what they're doing now is to limit the bad caused by THIS only. and just because other things may be "worse" for you, doesn't mean that this shouldn't be regulate
2. how do you measure deaths by pollution? how do you know other factors aren't involved? we DO know that second hand smoking and smoking itself can directly lead to pathological conditions however. but pollution? what kind of pollution? at what concentration are the pollutants? you're pulling a really general term to argue a weak point... sorry.
the second hand smoking thing is just unwarranted too. nothing is going to happen to you if im smoking 10 feet away outdoors. if you have a personal issue where it does bother you, then move away, it is not a big deal.
How about if you want to smoke then you move away. (it is not a big deal!) Just google second hand smoke. The first page is full of articles from credible universities, institutions such as the CDC and so on. Don't say concerns about second hand smoke are unwarranted, a statement like yours is unwarranted and ignorant of the facts.
You should read my post regarding this on the previous page, since your statement is just as unwarrented and ignorant of facts.
How about the fact that your habit makes the air that I breathe stink. You can't deny that and health factors aside, thats enough for me. My "right" to non stinky air outweighs your "right" to smoke where you please.
Again, I mentioned this in my post. I really hate yellow t-shirts, they make my eyes hurt in bright light. Where does one draw a line for such things.
We could draw the line at common sense. Ah, but your definition of common sense is different from mine! Round and round we go....
You have my POV, I have yours. We can agree to disagree, but the law will agree with my POV soon.
Tax cig's more and more, while restricting it's use more and more. That's some nice two way pressure and confusion. Seems a tad unfair to tell what folks can and can not do in a public place when it's not really hurting anyone but the user.
I don't smoke, my father however did. I don't support it, but I don't condone restricting personal freedoms over it while still taxing the hell out of it. It just invites itself into other things such as food,drink, and whatever else they feel is bad for you. I can't support this.
It can be very vexing for others to be around smokers as they are being harmed by second hand smoke ( also significantly more harmful than first hand smoke )
some US court case from 1998+ where they concluded... * conspired to minimize, distort and confuse the public about the health hazards of smoking; * publicly denied, while internally acknowledging, that secondhand tobacco smoke is harmful to nonsmokers, and * destroyed documents relevant to litigation.
On May 24 2011 09:24 Clearout wrote: 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 +
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.
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?
your whole argument boils down to the fact that because there's something that has an even larger negative impact on health compared to smoking, that we shouldn't bother regulating it?
dude. smoking is bad for you. second hand smoke is bad for other people. when you smoke in public, children, babies, other people, have to breathe in cigarette smoke containing nicotine and other substances, even if at lower concentrations than you, research has shown that it can be just as bad as within a smoker - i posted a citation earlier in this thread addressing this very issue - and the research was published only a few weeks ago. there have been so much research on the negative effects of second hand smoke.
it doesn't MATTER that there are other things worse than this, because what they're doing now is to limit the bad caused by THIS only. and just because other things may be "worse" for you, doesn't mean that this shouldn't be regulated.
My whole argument boils down to second hand smoking in public means nothing. Read the quotes, the dangers from secondhand smoking is not really from outdoor public areas. I compare it pollution because taking a strong stance regarding a abyssmal bit of a problem (outdoor second hand smoking vs general second hand smoking) quite a bit smaller than pollution, makes it to me seem a rather ridiculous stance.
you ever walk behind a smoker? or have you actually never smelt smoke once you left a building? also, your examples from your sources seem more semantics than anything. you simply say that they don't mention the "outdoors". weak, because clearly they were meant to be examples rather than absolute locations.
besides, the logical flaw you have in your argument regarding pollution vs second hand smoke is still there. 1. from my original post : it doesn't MATTER that there are other things worse than this, because what they're doing now is to limit the bad caused by THIS only. and just because other things may be "worse" for you, doesn't mean that this shouldn't be regulate
2. how do you measure deaths by pollution? how do you know other factors aren't involved? we DO know that second hand smoking and smoking itself can directly lead to pathological conditions however. but pollution? what kind of pollution? at what concentration are the pollutants? you're pulling a really general term to argue a weak point... sorry.
Well what we are disagreeing upon seems to be where the line should be drawn regarding things like this. I'm not saying ignore a problem because there are bigger ones, I'm pulling a bad comparison to show how much of a non issue this is to further my agrument about where a line should be drawn. The wikipedia page I linked have a rather hefty list of references from where they pull their numbers, also agruing about how to measure such a thing is irrelevant. I could flip the same argument regarding outdoor second hand smoke. Also I'm not arguing sematics, what you say about it not being an absolute list furthers my point. How can you get more general than the entire outdoors, and why don't they mention it if it is actually a problem?
the second hand smoking thing is just unwarranted too. nothing is going to happen to you if im smoking 10 feet away outdoors. if you have a personal issue where it does bother you, then move away, it is not a big deal.
How about if you want to smoke then you move away. (it is not a big deal!) Just google second hand smoke. The first page is full of articles from credible universities, institutions such as the CDC and so on. Don't say concerns about second hand smoke are unwarranted, a statement like yours is unwarranted and ignorant of the facts.
You should read my post regarding this on the previous page, since your statement is just as unwarrented and ignorant of facts.
How about the fact that your habit makes the air that I breathe stink. You can't deny that and health factors aside, thats enough for me. My "right" to non stinky air outweighs your "right" to smoke where you please.
Again, I mentioned this in my post. I really hate yellow t-shirts, they make my eyes hurt in bright light. Where does one draw a line for such things.
We could draw the line at common sense. Ah, but your definition of common sense is different from mine! Round and round we go....
You have my POV, I have yours. We can agree to disagree, but the law will agree with my POV soon.
Yes exactly! I'm happy agreeing to disagree. People will have differing opinions regarding grey areas such as this and it's wonderful that we can conclude our discussion like this.
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.
Cigarette smoking causes MANY more deaths from cardiac disease than from lung cancer. People just don't know enough about cigarettes. Heart disease is actually the first cause of cigarette related death.
-COPD -Asthma crisis -Pneumonia -Bladder cancer -Upper digestive tract cancer -Gastric cancer -Esophagus cancer -Acute heart infarction -Congestive heart failure -Acute cerebral stroke -Deep vein thrombosis -Pulmonary thromboembolism -Upper respiratory tract infection -Uterine cervix cancer -Low birth weight -Children's respiratory infections (Viral, bacterial, or otherwise) -Dyslipidemia -Arterial hypertension -Obstructive arterial disease -Aortic aneurysm -Intracerebral bleeding -Subarachnoid hemorrhage -Kidney cancer -Osteoporosis -Decreased testosterone and erectile dysfunction -Decreased estrogen in females -Pancreatic cancer -Atherosclerosis -Chronic kidney disease -Worsening of diabetic nephropathy -Alzheimer's disease -Tuberculosis
Cigarette smoking is a risk factor of, or at least strongly related to, all of these conditions, most of them for active AND passive smokers.
"About 22,700 to 69,600 premature deaths from heart and blood vessel disease are caused by other people's smoke each year." American Heart Association. Note that this only covers heart disease, around 4000 lung cancers are diagnosed in passive smokers.
Also note that 1 cigarette a day for many years is as harmful as many cigarettes for less years, and the damage is permanent and not reversible by stopping the habit.
The big difference with, say, red meat, is that I can't increase someone else's risk of dying by eating lots of red meat. When people smoke a lot around me, my risk of death increases. If I can't walk the streets freely because there's smokers everywhere, we have a problem. Someone's actively, even if indirectly, affecting my freedom, by threatening my life in the long run. It may seem extreme to say it like that, but it's the truth, backed by hundreds of scientific reports.
TLDR; Cigarettes are probably the worst of all vices, the post explains why.
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.
Cigarette smoking causes MANY more deaths from cardiac disease than from lung cancer. People just don't know enough about cigarettes. Heart disease is actually the first cause of cigarette related death.
-COPD -Asthma crisis -Pneumonia -Bladder cancer -Upper digestive tract cancer -Gastric cancer -Esophagus cancer -Acute heart infarction -Congestive heart failure -Acute cerebral stroke -Deep vein thrombosis -Pulmonary thromboembolism -Upper respiratory tract infection -Uterine cervix cancer -Low birth weight -Children's respiratory infections (Viral, bacterial, or otherwise) -Dyslipidemia -Arterial hypertension -Obstructive arterial disease -Aortic aneurysm -Intracerebral bleeding -Subarachnoid hemorrhage -Kidney cancer -Osteoporosis -Decreased testosterone and erectile dysfunction -Decreased estrogen in females -Pancreatic cancer -Atherosclerosis -Chronic kidney disease -Worsening of diabetic nephropathy -Alzheimer's disease -Tuberculosis
Cigarette smoking is a risk factor of, or at least strongly related to, all of these conditions, most of them for active AND passive smokers.
"About 22,700 to 69,600 premature deaths from heart and blood vessel disease are caused by other people's smoke each year." American Heart Association. Note that this only covers heart disease, around 4000 lung cancers are diagnosed in passive smokers.
Also note that 1 cigarette a day for many years is as harmful as many cigarettes for less years, and the damage is permanent and not reversible by stopping the habit.
The big difference with, say, red meat, is that I can't increase someone else's risk of dying by eating lots of red meat. When people smoke a lot around me, my risk of death increases. If I can't walk the streets freely because there's smokers everywhere, we have a problem. Someone's actively, even if indirectly, affecting my freedom, by threatening my life in the long run. It may seem extreme to say it like that, but it's the truth, backed by hundreds of scientific reports.
TLDR; Cigarettes are probably the worst of all vices, the post explains why.
no one is arguing smoking isn't bad.
where is the evidence that says short term exposure to outdoor SHS is bad?
On May 24 2011 07:54 BroodjeBaller wrote: Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. Its smells horrible, its bad for your health in so many ways, its bad for your looks, its expensive. There are no benefits. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
You feel the same way about alcohol?
Alcohol doesnt smell horrible, its not bad for your health(and other peoples health) if you take it in moderation, its not bad for your looks.
Ow and the smell of smoking is not something temporary. Its stay in your clothes(untill you wash them), it stay in your car, it stays in your house, its horrible.
So no I dont feel the same way about alcohol.
This has got to be the most idiotic post I've seen this week.
Why? Because you are a smoker I guess?
Because it's complete bullshit to say alcohol doesn't have an odor. Ever talk to anyone when they are drunk and you are sober? Ever seen the victim of a drunk driver after they can ran over cause someone had a night on the town? Ever had a friend puking their guts out over a toilet bowl and you found that attractive? Your post just fails on so many levels.
Learn to read I never said alcohol doesnt have an odor. It doesnt smell as horrible as smoking and the range of the smell is much much smaller. I also said drinking in moderation so dont come with your drunk driver bs. Again learn to read.
Moderation doesn't make anything addicting better for you nor does it make one better to do than the other. Alcohol is still poison. It's still destructive. Just like smoking. So my point still stands regardless of how you word anything.
No alcohol actually has positive effects when you take it in moderation. Smoking is bad even when you take it in moderation.
Those are all myths. You can still cause harm to your body even under the guidelines by the AMA. There is much more research needed to really understand any benefits from alcohol. I take them with a grain of salt. Your are still taking poison into your body regardless of usage.
On May 24 2011 07:54 BroodjeBaller wrote: Smoking is the most useless and retarded activity to ever exist. Its smells horrible, its bad for your health in so many ways, its bad for your looks, its expensive. There are no benefits. It should be banned everywhere and all cigarette companies should be closed.
You feel the same way about alcohol?
Alcohol doesnt smell horrible, its not bad for your health(and other peoples health) if you take it in moderation, its not bad for your looks.
Ow and the smell of smoking is not something temporary. Its stay in your clothes(untill you wash them), it stay in your car, it stays in your house, its horrible.
So no I dont feel the same way about alcohol.
This has got to be the most idiotic post I've seen this week.
Why? Because you are a smoker I guess?
Because it's complete bullshit to say alcohol doesn't have an odor. Ever talk to anyone when they are drunk and you are sober? Ever seen the victim of a drunk driver after they can ran over cause someone had a night on the town? Ever had a friend puking their guts out over a toilet bowl and you found that attractive? Your post just fails on so many levels.
Learn to read I never said alcohol doesnt have an odor. It doesnt smell as horrible as smoking and the range of the smell is much much smaller. I also said drinking in moderation so dont come with your drunk driver bs. Again learn to read.
Moderation doesn't make anything addicting better for you nor does it make one better to do than the other. Alcohol is still poison. It's still destructive. Just like smoking. So my point still stands regardless of how you word anything.
No alcohol actually has positive effects when you take it in moderation. Smoking is bad even when you take it in moderation.
Those are all myths. You can still cause harm to your body even under the guidelines by the AMA. There is much more research needed to really understand any benefits from alcohol. I take them with a grain of salt.
You are correct, the entire a glass of wine a day is better for your health myth is only based on a observational study for example.
Edit: Discussing on TL till' 3AM when you have school the next day, wohoo Too fun not to though.
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.
Cigarette smoking causes MANY more deaths from cardiac disease than from lung cancer. People just don't know enough about cigarettes. Heart disease is actually the first cause of cigarette related death.
-COPD -Asthma crisis -Pneumonia -Bladder cancer -Upper digestive tract cancer -Gastric cancer -Esophagus cancer -Acute heart infarction -Congestive heart failure -Acute cerebral stroke -Deep vein thrombosis -Pulmonary thromboembolism -Upper respiratory tract infection -Uterine cervix cancer -Low birth weight -Children's respiratory infections (Viral, bacterial, or otherwise) -Dyslipidemia -Arterial hypertension -Obstructive arterial disease -Aortic aneurysm -Intracerebral bleeding -Subarachnoid hemorrhage -Kidney cancer -Osteoporosis -Decreased testosterone and erectile dysfunction -Decreased estrogen in females -Pancreatic cancer -Atherosclerosis -Chronic kidney disease -Worsening of diabetic nephropathy -Alzheimer's disease -Tuberculosis
Cigarette smoking is a risk factor of, or at least strongly related to, all of these conditions, most of them for active AND passive smokers.
"About 22,700 to 69,600 premature deaths from heart and blood vessel disease are caused by other people's smoke each year." American Heart Association. Note that this only covers heart disease, around 4000 lung cancers are diagnosed in passive smokers.
Also note that 1 cigarette a day for many years is as harmful as many cigarettes for less years, and the damage is permanent and not reversible by stopping the habit.
The big difference with, say, red meat, is that I can't increase someone else's risk of dying by eating lots of red meat. When people smoke a lot around me, my risk of death increases. If I can't walk the streets freely because there's smokers everywhere, we have a problem. Someone's actively, even if indirectly, affecting my freedom, by threatening my life in the long run. It may seem extreme to say it like that, but it's the truth, backed by hundreds of scientific reports.
TLDR; Cigarettes are probably the worst of all vices, the post explains why.
no one is arguing smoking isn't bad.
where is the evidence that says short term exposure to outdoor SHS is bad?
You should read the posts quoted... but anyways... just pulled out of my ass:
It took me less than a minute to find these four... all in respectable publications, and just a VERY small sample of the INSANE amounts of evidence available. Of course you can't just take these and instantly interpretate them as truth. However, the point stands, there IS scientific evidence, lots of it.
One more thing, cigarette effects are cumulative, which means if people smoke in my environment, even for small amounts of time, through the years I will be progressively damaged by it. I don't know what you define as "short term exposure", but it doesn't really matter. A little every day for many years is likely to cause me tons of trouble.
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.
Cigarette smoking causes MANY more deaths from cardiac disease than from lung cancer. People just don't know enough about cigarettes. Heart disease is actually the first cause of cigarette related death.
-COPD -Asthma crisis -Pneumonia -Bladder cancer -Upper digestive tract cancer -Gastric cancer -Esophagus cancer -Acute heart infarction -Congestive heart failure -Acute cerebral stroke -Deep vein thrombosis -Pulmonary thromboembolism -Upper respiratory tract infection -Uterine cervix cancer -Low birth weight -Children's respiratory infections (Viral, bacterial, or otherwise) -Dyslipidemia -Arterial hypertension -Obstructive arterial disease -Aortic aneurysm -Intracerebral bleeding -Subarachnoid hemorrhage -Kidney cancer -Osteoporosis -Decreased testosterone and erectile dysfunction -Decreased estrogen in females -Pancreatic cancer -Atherosclerosis -Chronic kidney disease -Worsening of diabetic nephropathy -Alzheimer's disease -Tuberculosis
Cigarette smoking is a risk factor of, or at least strongly related to, all of these conditions, most of them for active AND passive smokers.
"About 22,700 to 69,600 premature deaths from heart and blood vessel disease are caused by other people's smoke each year." American Heart Association. Note that this only covers heart disease, around 4000 lung cancers are diagnosed in passive smokers.
Also note that 1 cigarette a day for many years is as harmful as many cigarettes for less years, and the damage is permanent and not reversible by stopping the habit.
The big difference with, say, red meat, is that I can't increase someone else's risk of dying by eating lots of red meat. When people smoke a lot around me, my risk of death increases. If I can't walk the streets freely because there's smokers everywhere, we have a problem. Someone's actively, even if indirectly, affecting my freedom, by threatening my life in the long run. It may seem extreme to say it like that, but it's the truth, backed by hundreds of scientific reports.
TLDR; Cigarettes are probably the worst of all vices, the post explains why.
no one is arguing smoking isn't bad.
where is the evidence that says short term exposure to outdoor SHS is bad?
Effect of Secondhand Smoke on Occupancy of Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors in Brain. Brody AL, Mandelkern MA, London ED, Khan A, Kozman D, Costello MR, Vellios EE, Archie MM, Bascom R, Mukhin AG. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21536968
Cigarette smoking saturates brain alpha 4 beta 2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Brody AL, Mandelkern MA, London ED, Olmstead RE, Farahi J, Scheibal D, Jou J, Allen V, Tiongson E, Chefer SI, Koren AO, Mukhin AG. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16894067
can't help you if you don't have access to papers, but you asked for the evidence. the 2nd paper shows that 1 puff of cigarette smoke can occupy receptors in your brain (and likely elsewhere, since nicotinic receptors bind nicotine with very high affinity around the body) for 3 hours.
On May 24 2011 07:57 Egyptian_Head wrote: [quote] You feel the same way about alcohol?
Alcohol doesnt smell horrible, its not bad for your health(and other peoples health) if you take it in moderation, its not bad for your looks.
Ow and the smell of smoking is not something temporary. Its stay in your clothes(untill you wash them), it stay in your car, it stays in your house, its horrible.
So no I dont feel the same way about alcohol.
This has got to be the most idiotic post I've seen this week.
Why? Because you are a smoker I guess?
Because it's complete bullshit to say alcohol doesn't have an odor. Ever talk to anyone when they are drunk and you are sober? Ever seen the victim of a drunk driver after they can ran over cause someone had a night on the town? Ever had a friend puking their guts out over a toilet bowl and you found that attractive? Your post just fails on so many levels.
Learn to read I never said alcohol doesnt have an odor. It doesnt smell as horrible as smoking and the range of the smell is much much smaller. I also said drinking in moderation so dont come with your drunk driver bs. Again learn to read.
Moderation doesn't make anything addicting better for you nor does it make one better to do than the other. Alcohol is still poison. It's still destructive. Just like smoking. So my point still stands regardless of how you word anything.
No alcohol actually has positive effects when you take it in moderation. Smoking is bad even when you take it in moderation.
Those are all myths. You can still cause harm to your body even under the guidelines by the AMA. There is much more research needed to really understand any benefits from alcohol. I take them with a grain of salt.
You are correct, the entire a glass of wine a day is better for your health myth is only based on a observational study for example.
Edit: Discussing on TL till' 3AM when you have school the next day, wohoo Too fun not to though.
One 30 year study when there are thousands of years of research and even my personal observations that reject any claims of anything positive coming out of booze but maybe a good time. Yeah it's a good discussion in this thread and maybe someone will get something out of all of this.
On May 24 2011 10:02 Nqsty wrote: I would be so pissed, let people do whatever the fuck they want, give fines for throwing cigs on the floor, aside from that, smoking is bliss.
wow, i wonder what'll happen when that finally happens...
There has been a rise in smokeless tobacco sales since this prohibition of smoking in certain places has started. Sales last year rose by 51% for products like Camel Snus. Seems like people are embracing those products to get the nicotine in response to all of this.
I don't understand why non smokers want to take away the freedom to smoke when it's already a pain in the ass. Meanwhile, you'll take medication for anxiety, eat a mcdonalds burger, drive a big ass truck with a bottle next to you and go home and beat your wives. Yes it is an exaggeration, but as long as there are designated smoking areas what is the big issue? I'm not walking around blowing smoke in people's face, nor will I smoke near someone that doesn't smoke. God it pisses me off that non smokers are making it seem like the smoke is traveling twenty feet and going straight into your lungs.
On May 24 2011 10:14 Baarn wrote: There has been a rise in smokeless tobacco sales since this prohibition of smoking in certain places has started. Sales last year for rose by 51%. Seems like people are embracing those products to get the nicotine in response to all of this.
Unfortunately those are about to get fucked over too. Not to mention the high taxes being put in place on cigars.
It just makes me angry that the government is telling me what I can or cannot enjoy when in reality all I'm harming is myself.
On May 24 2011 10:02 Nqsty wrote: I would be so pissed, let people do whatever the fuck they want, give fines for throwing cigs on the floor, aside from that, smoking is bliss.
wow, i wonder what'll happen when that finally happens...
On May 24 2011 10:14 Baarn wrote: There has been a rise in smokeless tobacco sales since this prohibition of smoking in certain places has started. Sales last year rose by 51% for products like Camel Snus. Seems like people are embracing those products to get the nicotine in response to all of this.
What people often don't realise, is that there's plenty evidence that has linked smokeless tobacco with many of the same diseases as regular cigarettes.
They want to ban smoking in public places in Sweden, I don' think that you should legislate on personal lifestyles, if someone is smoking, it's their own choice.
Its a horrible decision no question about it, secondhand smoke is dangerous but its incredibly easily avoidable in wide open areas like parks and beaches to the point where any risk is completely negligible. Anyone can just politely ask the person smoking to move or walk away themselves. The notion that this law was made to protect people from secondhand smoke is a complete joke, if anything this law does the opposite of that.
Now when people want to smoke they can't go relax on a secluded park bench, nope instead they have to stand on the crowded fucking sidewalk and expose 10x as many people to secondhand smoke. It just doesn't make any sense from that perspective. Believe it or not smokers have no interest in exposing people to secondhand smoke and would probably love to go relax far away from people.
The real reason this law was passed is the same reason prohibition existed, marijuana is currently legal, and in many states you can't buy alcohol on sundays. Its the govt trying to legislate morality which in concept is a total joke, an antithesis to freedom and (least importantly) a waste of time. Public health has its place but the governments job is to inform people of risks and let them make their own informed decisions, not do it for them.
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.
Cigarette smoking causes MANY more deaths from cardiac disease than from lung cancer. People just don't know enough about cigarettes. Heart disease is actually the first cause of cigarette related death.
-COPD -Asthma crisis -Pneumonia -Bladder cancer -Upper digestive tract cancer -Gastric cancer -Esophagus cancer -Acute heart infarction -Congestive heart failure -Acute cerebral stroke -Deep vein thrombosis -Pulmonary thromboembolism -Upper respiratory tract infection -Uterine cervix cancer -Low birth weight -Children's respiratory infections (Viral, bacterial, or otherwise) -Dyslipidemia -Arterial hypertension -Obstructive arterial disease -Aortic aneurysm -Intracerebral bleeding -Subarachnoid hemorrhage -Kidney cancer -Osteoporosis -Decreased testosterone and erectile dysfunction -Decreased estrogen in females -Pancreatic cancer -Atherosclerosis -Chronic kidney disease -Worsening of diabetic nephropathy -Alzheimer's disease -Tuberculosis
Cigarette smoking is a risk factor of, or at least strongly related to, all of these conditions, most of them for active AND passive smokers.
"About 22,700 to 69,600 premature deaths from heart and blood vessel disease are caused by other people's smoke each year." American Heart Association. Note that this only covers heart disease, around 4000 lung cancers are diagnosed in passive smokers.
Also note that 1 cigarette a day for many years is as harmful as many cigarettes for less years, and the damage is permanent and not reversible by stopping the habit.
The big difference with, say, red meat, is that I can't increase someone else's risk of dying by eating lots of red meat. When people smoke a lot around me, my risk of death increases. If I can't walk the streets freely because there's smokers everywhere, we have a problem. Someone's actively, even if indirectly, affecting my freedom, by threatening my life in the long run. It may seem extreme to say it like that, but it's the truth, backed by hundreds of scientific reports.
TLDR; Cigarettes are probably the worst of all vices, the post explains why.
no one is arguing smoking isn't bad.
where is the evidence that says short term exposure to outdoor SHS is bad?
Effect of Secondhand Smoke on Occupancy of Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors in Brain. Brody AL, Mandelkern MA, London ED, Khan A, Kozman D, Costello MR, Vellios EE, Archie MM, Bascom R, Mukhin AG. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21536968
Cigarette smoking saturates brain alpha 4 beta 2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Brody AL, Mandelkern MA, London ED, Olmstead RE, Farahi J, Scheibal D, Jou J, Allen V, Tiongson E, Chefer SI, Koren AO, Mukhin AG. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16894067
can't help you if you don't have access to papers, but you asked for the evidence. the 2nd paper shows that 1 puff of cigarette smoke can occupy receptors in your brain (and likely elsewhere, since nicotinic receptors bind nicotine with very high affinity around the body) for 3 hours.
The only thing this study says in it's conclusion relevant to this discussion is: "This study has implications for both biological research into the link between SHS exposure and cigarette use and public policy regarding the need to limit SHS exposure in cars and other enclosed spaces."
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.
Cigarette smoking causes MANY more deaths from cardiac disease than from lung cancer. People just don't know enough about cigarettes. Heart disease is actually the first cause of cigarette related death.
-COPD -Asthma crisis -Pneumonia -Bladder cancer -Upper digestive tract cancer -Gastric cancer -Esophagus cancer -Acute heart infarction -Congestive heart failure -Acute cerebral stroke -Deep vein thrombosis -Pulmonary thromboembolism -Upper respiratory tract infection -Uterine cervix cancer -Low birth weight -Children's respiratory infections (Viral, bacterial, or otherwise) -Dyslipidemia -Arterial hypertension -Obstructive arterial disease -Aortic aneurysm -Intracerebral bleeding -Subarachnoid hemorrhage -Kidney cancer -Osteoporosis -Decreased testosterone and erectile dysfunction -Decreased estrogen in females -Pancreatic cancer -Atherosclerosis -Chronic kidney disease -Worsening of diabetic nephropathy -Alzheimer's disease -Tuberculosis
Cigarette smoking is a risk factor of, or at least strongly related to, all of these conditions, most of them for active AND passive smokers.
"About 22,700 to 69,600 premature deaths from heart and blood vessel disease are caused by other people's smoke each year." American Heart Association. Note that this only covers heart disease, around 4000 lung cancers are diagnosed in passive smokers.
Also note that 1 cigarette a day for many years is as harmful as many cigarettes for less years, and the damage is permanent and not reversible by stopping the habit.
The big difference with, say, red meat, is that I can't increase someone else's risk of dying by eating lots of red meat. When people smoke a lot around me, my risk of death increases. If I can't walk the streets freely because there's smokers everywhere, we have a problem. Someone's actively, even if indirectly, affecting my freedom, by threatening my life in the long run. It may seem extreme to say it like that, but it's the truth, backed by hundreds of scientific reports.
TLDR; Cigarettes are probably the worst of all vices, the post explains why.
no one is arguing smoking isn't bad.
where is the evidence that says short term exposure to outdoor SHS is bad?
You should read the posts quoted... but anyways... just pulled out of my ass:
It took me less than a minute to find these four... all in respectable publications, and just a VERY small sample of the INSANE amounts of evidence available. Of course you can't just take these and instantly interpretate them as truth. However, the point stands, there IS scientific evidence, lots of it.
One more thing, cigarette effects are cumulative, which means if people smoke in my environment, even for small amounts of time, through the years I will be progressively damaged by it. I don't know what you define as "short term exposure", but it doesn't really matter. A little every day for many years is likely to cause me tons of trouble.
The paper regarding the effects on asthma only had one relevant conclusion to SHS outdoors, and that is that pollution skews the results of research regarding tobacco.. None of the others mention outdoor SHS as something significant.
Edit: Missed a word, and it's way too late for me, good night all. Gonna check back in tomorrow!
On May 24 2011 10:14 Baarn wrote: There has been a rise in smokeless tobacco sales since this prohibition of smoking in certain places has started. Sales last year rose by 51% for products like Camel Snus. Seems like people are embracing those products to get the nicotine in response to all of this.
What people often don't realise, is that there's plenty evidence that has linked smokeless tobacco with many of the same diseases as regular cigarettes.
Sure but it's not like a non smoker will be bothered by someone using smokeless tobacco.
On May 24 2011 10:14 Baarn wrote: There has been a rise in smokeless tobacco sales since this prohibition of smoking in certain places has started. Sales last year rose by 51% for products like Camel Snus. Seems like people are embracing those products to get the nicotine in response to all of this.
What people often don't realise, is that there's plenty evidence that has linked smokeless tobacco with many of the same diseases as regular cigarettes.
Sure but it's not like a non smoker will be bothered by someone using smokeless tobacco.
On May 24 2011 10:14 Baarn wrote: There has been a rise in smokeless tobacco sales since this prohibition of smoking in certain places has started. Sales last year rose by 51% for products like Camel Snus. Seems like people are embracing those products to get the nicotine in response to all of this.
What people often don't realise, is that there's plenty evidence that has linked smokeless tobacco with many of the same diseases as regular cigarettes.
Sure but it's not like a non smoker will be bothered by someone using smokeless tobacco.
On May 24 2011 10:14 Baarn wrote: There has been a rise in smokeless tobacco sales since this prohibition of smoking in certain places has started. Sales last year rose by 51% for products like Camel Snus. Seems like people are embracing those products to get the nicotine in response to all of this.
What people often don't realise, is that there's plenty evidence that has linked smokeless tobacco with many of the same diseases as regular cigarettes.
Sure but it's not like a non smoker will be bothered by someone using smokeless tobacco.
Sure they will. They'll bitch about the spit.
Camel snus you don't spit or chew it.
Oh, well that's cool. I guess they'll just have to make all smokeless tobacco like that then.
On May 24 2011 10:14 Baarn wrote: There has been a rise in smokeless tobacco sales since this prohibition of smoking in certain places has started. Sales last year rose by 51% for products like Camel Snus. Seems like people are embracing those products to get the nicotine in response to all of this.
What people often don't realise, is that there's plenty evidence that has linked smokeless tobacco with many of the same diseases as regular cigarettes.
Sure but it's not like a non smoker will be bothered by someone using smokeless tobacco.
Sure they will. They'll bitch about the spit.
Camel snus you don't spit or chew it.
But it's a quarter of the pleasure of a real cigarette.
That and the act of smoking itself is fascinating. The smoke, the rings, the color. All that will be lost in time like tear drops in the rain.
Nothing to do with Anarchy. There are obvious ways to prevent visual pollution and second hand smoking, banning cigarettes is a non socially efficient way to do so.
2nd hand smoke kills "50,000 a year" but 10 zillion cars on the road spitting out the same smoke does nothing? hmmm.... good thing all those people in the park will be safe from all the deadly smoke... unless of course all the smokers that are now on the sidewalk smoking instead of the park position themselves so that a good strong breeze will still blow all the smoke over like some kind of smoke siege tank. lookout for the smoke! it does aoe damage!! NYC and most other major american cities fail so hard. if your not rich, white, and absurdly paranoid regarding safety and health you are not welcome.
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.
Cigarette smoking causes MANY more deaths from cardiac disease than from lung cancer. People just don't know enough about cigarettes. Heart disease is actually the first cause of cigarette related death.
-COPD -Asthma crisis -Pneumonia -Bladder cancer -Upper digestive tract cancer -Gastric cancer -Esophagus cancer -Acute heart infarction -Congestive heart failure -Acute cerebral stroke -Deep vein thrombosis -Pulmonary thromboembolism -Upper respiratory tract infection -Uterine cervix cancer -Low birth weight -Children's respiratory infections (Viral, bacterial, or otherwise) -Dyslipidemia -Arterial hypertension -Obstructive arterial disease -Aortic aneurysm -Intracerebral bleeding -Subarachnoid hemorrhage -Kidney cancer -Osteoporosis -Decreased testosterone and erectile dysfunction -Decreased estrogen in females -Pancreatic cancer -Atherosclerosis -Chronic kidney disease -Worsening of diabetic nephropathy -Alzheimer's disease -Tuberculosis
Cigarette smoking is a risk factor of, or at least strongly related to, all of these conditions, most of them for active AND passive smokers.
"About 22,700 to 69,600 premature deaths from heart and blood vessel disease are caused by other people's smoke each year." American Heart Association. Note that this only covers heart disease, around 4000 lung cancers are diagnosed in passive smokers.
Also note that 1 cigarette a day for many years is as harmful as many cigarettes for less years, and the damage is permanent and not reversible by stopping the habit.
The big difference with, say, red meat, is that I can't increase someone else's risk of dying by eating lots of red meat. When people smoke a lot around me, my risk of death increases. If I can't walk the streets freely because there's smokers everywhere, we have a problem. Someone's actively, even if indirectly, affecting my freedom, by threatening my life in the long run. It may seem extreme to say it like that, but it's the truth, backed by hundreds of scientific reports.
TLDR; Cigarettes are probably the worst of all vices, the post explains why.
no one is arguing smoking isn't bad.
where is the evidence that says short term exposure to outdoor SHS is bad?
Effect of Secondhand Smoke on Occupancy of Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors in Brain. Brody AL, Mandelkern MA, London ED, Khan A, Kozman D, Costello MR, Vellios EE, Archie MM, Bascom R, Mukhin AG. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21536968
Cigarette smoking saturates brain alpha 4 beta 2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Brody AL, Mandelkern MA, London ED, Olmstead RE, Farahi J, Scheibal D, Jou J, Allen V, Tiongson E, Chefer SI, Koren AO, Mukhin AG. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16894067
can't help you if you don't have access to papers, but you asked for the evidence. the 2nd paper shows that 1 puff of cigarette smoke can occupy receptors in your brain (and likely elsewhere, since nicotinic receptors bind nicotine with very high affinity around the body) for 3 hours.
The only thing this study says in it's conclusion relevant to this discussion is: "This study has implications for both biological research into the link between SHS exposure and cigarette use and public policy regarding the need to limit SHS exposure in cars and other enclosed spaces."
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.
Cigarette smoking causes MANY more deaths from cardiac disease than from lung cancer. People just don't know enough about cigarettes. Heart disease is actually the first cause of cigarette related death.
-COPD -Asthma crisis -Pneumonia -Bladder cancer -Upper digestive tract cancer -Gastric cancer -Esophagus cancer -Acute heart infarction -Congestive heart failure -Acute cerebral stroke -Deep vein thrombosis -Pulmonary thromboembolism -Upper respiratory tract infection -Uterine cervix cancer -Low birth weight -Children's respiratory infections (Viral, bacterial, or otherwise) -Dyslipidemia -Arterial hypertension -Obstructive arterial disease -Aortic aneurysm -Intracerebral bleeding -Subarachnoid hemorrhage -Kidney cancer -Osteoporosis -Decreased testosterone and erectile dysfunction -Decreased estrogen in females -Pancreatic cancer -Atherosclerosis -Chronic kidney disease -Worsening of diabetic nephropathy -Alzheimer's disease -Tuberculosis
Cigarette smoking is a risk factor of, or at least strongly related to, all of these conditions, most of them for active AND passive smokers.
"About 22,700 to 69,600 premature deaths from heart and blood vessel disease are caused by other people's smoke each year." American Heart Association. Note that this only covers heart disease, around 4000 lung cancers are diagnosed in passive smokers.
Also note that 1 cigarette a day for many years is as harmful as many cigarettes for less years, and the damage is permanent and not reversible by stopping the habit.
The big difference with, say, red meat, is that I can't increase someone else's risk of dying by eating lots of red meat. When people smoke a lot around me, my risk of death increases. If I can't walk the streets freely because there's smokers everywhere, we have a problem. Someone's actively, even if indirectly, affecting my freedom, by threatening my life in the long run. It may seem extreme to say it like that, but it's the truth, backed by hundreds of scientific reports.
TLDR; Cigarettes are probably the worst of all vices, the post explains why.
no one is arguing smoking isn't bad.
where is the evidence that says short term exposure to outdoor SHS is bad?
You should read the posts quoted... but anyways... just pulled out of my ass:
It took me less than a minute to find these four... all in respectable publications, and just a VERY small sample of the INSANE amounts of evidence available. Of course you can't just take these and instantly interpretate them as truth. However, the point stands, there IS scientific evidence, lots of it.
One more thing, cigarette effects are cumulative, which means if people smoke in my environment, even for small amounts of time, through the years I will be progressively damaged by it. I don't know what you define as "short term exposure", but it doesn't really matter. A little every day for many years is likely to cause me tons of trouble.
The paper regarding the effects on asthma only had one relevant conclusion to SHS outdoors, and that is that pollution skews the results of research regarding tobacco.. None of the others mention outdoor SHS as something significant.
Edit: Missed a word, and it's way too late for me, good night all. Gonna check back in tomorrow!
This is exactly the point. You can argue about second hand smoke when trying to ban smoking indoors, but it simply doesn't hold water for outdoor smoking. Everyone knows secondhand smoke is bad for you, the effects simply aren't significant for short term exposure outside.
There's something I don't understand. The people who defend smoking bans like this are often the same people who freak out when you try to ban trans-fats in restaurants. It's essentially the same thing. Outdoor smoking doesn't hurt anyone but the smoker.
On May 24 2011 10:42 DatBoiRijad wrote: What's funny is all the potheads want to legalize weed, and when I bring up this issue with weed they say "stop being a little bitch."
Legalize everything or criminalize everything, just stop the hypocrisy.
By God I hope it's the former; I can't imagine a world if the latter were to take place.
our campus banned it too, doesn't mean that it actually has an effect lol. smoking goes hand and hand with drinking.
could try out e-cigs if you're really that concerned.
personally i don't smoke cigarettes (although i enjoy hookah from time to time), generally only weed, but i think most anti smoking laws are pretty stupid.
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.
Cigarette smoking causes MANY more deaths from cardiac disease than from lung cancer. People just don't know enough about cigarettes. Heart disease is actually the first cause of cigarette related death.
-COPD -Asthma crisis -Pneumonia -Bladder cancer -Upper digestive tract cancer -Gastric cancer -Esophagus cancer -Acute heart infarction -Congestive heart failure -Acute cerebral stroke -Deep vein thrombosis -Pulmonary thromboembolism -Upper respiratory tract infection -Uterine cervix cancer -Low birth weight -Children's respiratory infections (Viral, bacterial, or otherwise) -Dyslipidemia -Arterial hypertension -Obstructive arterial disease -Aortic aneurysm -Intracerebral bleeding -Subarachnoid hemorrhage -Kidney cancer -Osteoporosis -Decreased testosterone and erectile dysfunction -Decreased estrogen in females -Pancreatic cancer -Atherosclerosis -Chronic kidney disease -Worsening of diabetic nephropathy -Alzheimer's disease -Tuberculosis
Cigarette smoking is a risk factor of, or at least strongly related to, all of these conditions, most of them for active AND passive smokers.
"About 22,700 to 69,600 premature deaths from heart and blood vessel disease are caused by other people's smoke each year." American Heart Association. Note that this only covers heart disease, around 4000 lung cancers are diagnosed in passive smokers.
Also note that 1 cigarette a day for many years is as harmful as many cigarettes for less years, and the damage is permanent and not reversible by stopping the habit.
The big difference with, say, red meat, is that I can't increase someone else's risk of dying by eating lots of red meat. When people smoke a lot around me, my risk of death increases. If I can't walk the streets freely because there's smokers everywhere, we have a problem. Someone's actively, even if indirectly, affecting my freedom, by threatening my life in the long run. It may seem extreme to say it like that, but it's the truth, backed by hundreds of scientific reports.
TLDR; Cigarettes are probably the worst of all vices, the post explains why.
no one is arguing smoking isn't bad.
where is the evidence that says short term exposure to outdoor SHS is bad?
Effect of Secondhand Smoke on Occupancy of Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors in Brain. Brody AL, Mandelkern MA, London ED, Khan A, Kozman D, Costello MR, Vellios EE, Archie MM, Bascom R, Mukhin AG. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21536968
Cigarette smoking saturates brain alpha 4 beta 2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Brody AL, Mandelkern MA, London ED, Olmstead RE, Farahi J, Scheibal D, Jou J, Allen V, Tiongson E, Chefer SI, Koren AO, Mukhin AG. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16894067
can't help you if you don't have access to papers, but you asked for the evidence. the 2nd paper shows that 1 puff of cigarette smoke can occupy receptors in your brain (and likely elsewhere, since nicotinic receptors bind nicotine with very high affinity around the body) for 3 hours.
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.
Cigarette smoking causes MANY more deaths from cardiac disease than from lung cancer. People just don't know enough about cigarettes. Heart disease is actually the first cause of cigarette related death.
-COPD -Asthma crisis -Pneumonia -Bladder cancer -Upper digestive tract cancer -Gastric cancer -Esophagus cancer -Acute heart infarction -Congestive heart failure -Acute cerebral stroke -Deep vein thrombosis -Pulmonary thromboembolism -Upper respiratory tract infection -Uterine cervix cancer -Low birth weight -Children's respiratory infections (Viral, bacterial, or otherwise) -Dyslipidemia -Arterial hypertension -Obstructive arterial disease -Aortic aneurysm -Intracerebral bleeding -Subarachnoid hemorrhage -Kidney cancer -Osteoporosis -Decreased testosterone and erectile dysfunction -Decreased estrogen in females -Pancreatic cancer -Atherosclerosis -Chronic kidney disease -Worsening of diabetic nephropathy -Alzheimer's disease -Tuberculosis
Cigarette smoking is a risk factor of, or at least strongly related to, all of these conditions, most of them for active AND passive smokers.
"About 22,700 to 69,600 premature deaths from heart and blood vessel disease are caused by other people's smoke each year." American Heart Association. Note that this only covers heart disease, around 4000 lung cancers are diagnosed in passive smokers.
Also note that 1 cigarette a day for many years is as harmful as many cigarettes for less years, and the damage is permanent and not reversible by stopping the habit.
The big difference with, say, red meat, is that I can't increase someone else's risk of dying by eating lots of red meat. When people smoke a lot around me, my risk of death increases. If I can't walk the streets freely because there's smokers everywhere, we have a problem. Someone's actively, even if indirectly, affecting my freedom, by threatening my life in the long run. It may seem extreme to say it like that, but it's the truth, backed by hundreds of scientific reports.
TLDR; Cigarettes are probably the worst of all vices, the post explains why.
no one is arguing smoking isn't bad.
where is the evidence that says short term exposure to outdoor SHS is bad?
You should read the posts quoted... but anyways... just pulled out of my ass:
It took me less than a minute to find these four... all in respectable publications, and just a VERY small sample of the INSANE amounts of evidence available. Of course you can't just take these and instantly interpretate them as truth. However, the point stands, there IS scientific evidence, lots of it.
One more thing, cigarette effects are cumulative, which means if people smoke in my environment, even for small amounts of time, through the years I will be progressively damaged by it. I don't know what you define as "short term exposure", but it doesn't really matter. A little every day for many years is likely to cause me tons of trouble.
i understand that any harm done will be done over time of exposure. how outdoor SHS effects the body can be measured, what i want to know how much amount over time is fatal?
cigarette isn't the only source of heart disease and other various illnesses. if a person who has never had a cigarette dies of lung cancer, SHS can be a factor but it wont be the only one.
if someone in fine health is really worried about being effected by outdoor SHS, with respect, i think that person needs to set his health priorities straight.
in my opinion, this ban has more to do with people fearing illnesses related to cigarettes and annoyance of the smell. +littering not supported by real danger.
i support this ban out of courtesy, not because of its potential to kill.
On May 24 2011 06:07 scatmango2 wrote: This is really a tough call. The smoker should have the right to smoke wherever he pleases. However the non-smoker should be allowed a smoke-free environment. It's just a pile of fuck I tells ya.
Yeah I go to UMASS Amherst also and i heard about that smoking ban coming about. Not a big deal to me but I think its really a bit to far. Weed will just be smoked in rooms more now haha.
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.
Cigarette smoking causes MANY more deaths from cardiac disease than from lung cancer. People just don't know enough about cigarettes. Heart disease is actually the first cause of cigarette related death.
-COPD -Asthma crisis -Pneumonia -Bladder cancer -Upper digestive tract cancer -Gastric cancer -Esophagus cancer -Acute heart infarction -Congestive heart failure -Acute cerebral stroke -Deep vein thrombosis -Pulmonary thromboembolism -Upper respiratory tract infection -Uterine cervix cancer -Low birth weight -Children's respiratory infections (Viral, bacterial, or otherwise) -Dyslipidemia -Arterial hypertension -Obstructive arterial disease -Aortic aneurysm -Intracerebral bleeding -Subarachnoid hemorrhage -Kidney cancer -Osteoporosis -Decreased testosterone and erectile dysfunction -Decreased estrogen in females -Pancreatic cancer -Atherosclerosis -Chronic kidney disease -Worsening of diabetic nephropathy -Alzheimer's disease -Tuberculosis
Cigarette smoking is a risk factor of, or at least strongly related to, all of these conditions, most of them for active AND passive smokers.
"About 22,700 to 69,600 premature deaths from heart and blood vessel disease are caused by other people's smoke each year." American Heart Association. Note that this only covers heart disease, around 4000 lung cancers are diagnosed in passive smokers.
Also note that 1 cigarette a day for many years is as harmful as many cigarettes for less years, and the damage is permanent and not reversible by stopping the habit.
The big difference with, say, red meat, is that I can't increase someone else's risk of dying by eating lots of red meat. When people smoke a lot around me, my risk of death increases. If I can't walk the streets freely because there's smokers everywhere, we have a problem. Someone's actively, even if indirectly, affecting my freedom, by threatening my life in the long run. It may seem extreme to say it like that, but it's the truth, backed by hundreds of scientific reports.
TLDR; Cigarettes are probably the worst of all vices, the post explains why.
no one is arguing smoking isn't bad.
where is the evidence that says short term exposure to outdoor SHS is bad?
Effect of Secondhand Smoke on Occupancy of Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors in Brain. Brody AL, Mandelkern MA, London ED, Khan A, Kozman D, Costello MR, Vellios EE, Archie MM, Bascom R, Mukhin AG. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21536968
Cigarette smoking saturates brain alpha 4 beta 2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Brody AL, Mandelkern MA, London ED, Olmstead RE, Farahi J, Scheibal D, Jou J, Allen V, Tiongson E, Chefer SI, Koren AO, Mukhin AG. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16894067
can't help you if you don't have access to papers, but you asked for the evidence. the 2nd paper shows that 1 puff of cigarette smoke can occupy receptors in your brain (and likely elsewhere, since nicotinic receptors bind nicotine with very high affinity around the body) for 3 hours.
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.
Cigarette smoking causes MANY more deaths from cardiac disease than from lung cancer. People just don't know enough about cigarettes. Heart disease is actually the first cause of cigarette related death.
-COPD -Asthma crisis -Pneumonia -Bladder cancer -Upper digestive tract cancer -Gastric cancer -Esophagus cancer -Acute heart infarction -Congestive heart failure -Acute cerebral stroke -Deep vein thrombosis -Pulmonary thromboembolism -Upper respiratory tract infection -Uterine cervix cancer -Low birth weight -Children's respiratory infections (Viral, bacterial, or otherwise) -Dyslipidemia -Arterial hypertension -Obstructive arterial disease -Aortic aneurysm -Intracerebral bleeding -Subarachnoid hemorrhage -Kidney cancer -Osteoporosis -Decreased testosterone and erectile dysfunction -Decreased estrogen in females -Pancreatic cancer -Atherosclerosis -Chronic kidney disease -Worsening of diabetic nephropathy -Alzheimer's disease -Tuberculosis
Cigarette smoking is a risk factor of, or at least strongly related to, all of these conditions, most of them for active AND passive smokers.
"About 22,700 to 69,600 premature deaths from heart and blood vessel disease are caused by other people's smoke each year." American Heart Association. Note that this only covers heart disease, around 4000 lung cancers are diagnosed in passive smokers.
Also note that 1 cigarette a day for many years is as harmful as many cigarettes for less years, and the damage is permanent and not reversible by stopping the habit.
The big difference with, say, red meat, is that I can't increase someone else's risk of dying by eating lots of red meat. When people smoke a lot around me, my risk of death increases. If I can't walk the streets freely because there's smokers everywhere, we have a problem. Someone's actively, even if indirectly, affecting my freedom, by threatening my life in the long run. It may seem extreme to say it like that, but it's the truth, backed by hundreds of scientific reports.
TLDR; Cigarettes are probably the worst of all vices, the post explains why.
no one is arguing smoking isn't bad.
where is the evidence that says short term exposure to outdoor SHS is bad?
You should read the posts quoted... but anyways... just pulled out of my ass:
It took me less than a minute to find these four... all in respectable publications, and just a VERY small sample of the INSANE amounts of evidence available. Of course you can't just take these and instantly interpretate them as truth. However, the point stands, there IS scientific evidence, lots of it.
One more thing, cigarette effects are cumulative, which means if people smoke in my environment, even for small amounts of time, through the years I will be progressively damaged by it. I don't know what you define as "short term exposure", but it doesn't really matter. A little every day for many years is likely to cause me tons of trouble.
i understand that any harm done will be done over time of exposure. how outdoor SHS effects the body can be measured, what i want to know how much amount over time is fatal?
cigarette isn't the only source of heart disease and other various illnesses. if a person who has never had a cigarette dies of lung cancer, SHS can be a factor but it wont be the only one.
if someone in fine health is really worried about being effected by outdoor SHS, with respect, i think that person needs to set his health priorities straight.
in my opinion, this ban has more to do with people fearing illnesses related to cigarettes and annoyance of the smell. not supported by real danger.
i support this ban out of courtesy, not because of its potential to kill.
You need to understand that relationship doesn't always relate to causality. A huge majority of diseases are multi-factorial, and when a person dies of, say, a heart attack, you can't just say "oh.. he died because he smoked" or "because he was fat", it's a confluence of many physiopathological factors that lead to disease, in most cases.
This doesn't mean that those risk factors shouldn't be managed, from both an individual and communitary point of view.
I will agree that currently, evidence is insufficient to label environmental SHS as a risk factor for many of the diseases associated with tobacco smoking. I believe (as in, haven't read enough to be completely certain) that there's strong evidence supporting higher complications, increased rates of hospitalization, and decrease in quality of life in the case of asthmatic patients exposed to environmental SHS. Evidence is pretty solid in the case of children's respiratory diseases as well.
I think more studies need to (and will) be performed to make a completely unbiased judgement of the matter, however, in my opinion, the likelihood of the damage being relevant, even if not for everyone, makes it enough to be bannable.
Smoking has been banned at auckland uni for over a year now.
People kicked up a bit of a fuss at the time, but now all the smokers just take a 30 second walk to the street instead of smoking in the communal areas. Great idea.
secondhand smoke in NYC cause 50,000 deaths a year? no mate, that's the exhaust shit you inhale every day from the million cars and trucks going about in front of your face...but keep deluding yourself.
This is fucking absurd. I love how they claim 50,000 people die from second hand smoke yearly. The only smoke that is carcinogenic is the inhaled smoke and the smoke that comes directly off of the burning cigarette. No one ingests the smoke that comes off of a cigarette when you are outdoors.
I remember when smoking in a hospital was legal. The only possible upside to this is making self righteous assholes feel even better about themselves, and possibly cutting down on litter. But its NYC. Do you really think NYC is ever going to be free of litter or significantly improved because of a smoking ban? It's the dirtiest city in all of the world. I think the legislature//government needs to direct their attention to more pertinent issues aside from smoking, and the war on drugs.
just stop if you have no idea what you're talking about. nicotine is the main psychoactive drug in cigarettes and a recent study shows second hand smoke causes activation of 20% of all brain nicotinic receptors in a non-smoker.
What the fuck are you talking about? When anywhere did I say anything that nicotine isn't addictive? I think you were just quoting me walking around with your "Recent Study Results" in your holster waiting to bust your data out to impress the readers of TL because your response is completely irrelevant to what I said. You probably aren't even aware of what second hand smoke is. I bet you overheard your parents have a discussion about the NYC Ban and you came on to share your newly acquired statistics about nicotine. This is where the adults like to discuss. Why don't you go to 4chan with your kid shit.
On May 24 2011 11:06 PlaGuE_R wrote: secondhand smoke in NYC cause 50,000 deaths a year? no mate, that's the exhaust shit you inhale every day from the million cars and trucks going about in front of your face...but keep deluding yourself.
I'm pretty sure that data is for the entire United States.
CDC says only 49,400 deaths per year in the United States attributable to SHS, counting heart disease and lung cancer.
ima non tobacco smoker, but enough of my friends smoke tobacco that i dont really care either way, dosent bother me if some one is smoking a square next to me.
*edit* just realized that i have no idea if people use the word square out side of where i live. It mean cigarette if anyone doesn't know.
On May 24 2011 11:14 deadhead42o wrote: ima non tobacco smoker, but enough of my friends smoke tobacco that i dont really care either way, dosent bother me if some one is smoking a square next to me.
*edit* just realized that i have no idea if people use the word square out side of where i live. It mean cigarette if anyone doesn't know.
Interesting, to me it means 'self righteous non smoker'.
j/k guys, before 90% of the people in this thread jump down my throat
Seriously though, I can see the arguments for both sides, and since it doesn't affect me I can happily accept it as a fine idea. If it did affect me though...
Here smoking was banned in indoor public areas and workplaces which is ok, but if it was banned in certain public places...I dunno, I'd be pretty pissed. It's not like I go around breathing smoke into people's faces, I just like to have the odd fag sat in the park with friends or on a bench outside the pub.
Cigarettes are legalized drugs, that's a fact. The only reason they are legal, is because there is a huge number of smokers, and they would flip out out if they didn't get their fix.
Once a society gets over a critical mass of anti-smoking people, then it's only a matter of time until cigarettes are banned completely, so you better quit now lol.
Marijuana on the other hand will be legal in US in less than 10 years. Quite an interesting world we live in
Yesssss. Fuck all cigarette smokers. Smoking cigarettes is a rude, antisocial behavior. Smokers are disgusting creatures with no respect for anyone but fellow addicts.
Cigarettes should be banned everywhere by everyone, they are a disease to anyone and everyone who has the displeasure of being addicted or exposed to them. That being said, banning cigarettes everywhere unfortunately is not really a viable option considering how many people are addicted and the amount of money it adds to the economy.
I think if even one person can be helped to avoid a disease then its worth it. As a smoker, I've always felt bad when non-smokers or kids walk within my bubble, I think that this law basically enforces my conscience.
I think it is a great idea but still not the governments job or right. Get our schools up to par, get the economy balanced, worry about unemployment and problems that can help our youth.
On May 24 2011 11:14 deadhead42o wrote: ima non tobacco smoker, but enough of my friends smoke tobacco that i dont really care either way, dosent bother me if some one is smoking a square next to me.
*edit* just realized that i have no idea if people use the word square out side of where i live. It mean cigarette if anyone doesn't know.
Interesting, to me it means 'self righteous non smoker'.
j/k guys, before 90% of the people in this thread jump down my throat
Seriously though, I can see the arguments for both sides, and since it doesn't affect me I can happily accept it as a fine idea. If it did affect me though...
Here smoking was banned in indoor public areas and workplaces which is ok, but if it was banned in certain public places...I dunno, I'd be pretty pissed. It's not like I go around breathing smoke into people's faces, I just like to have the odd fag sat in the park with friends or on a bench outside the pub.
you're responsible person but other people aren't. now that we're getting a much better idea of the harmful effects of cigarette smoking and shs not just for its broad spectrum health effects but also - and probably more importantly - on the developmental effects on children (which seems to me a primary concern when talking about parks, beaches, and recreational areas in the article), this ban isn't exactly outrageous. it's not that they're banning smoking altogether - hopefully we'll get to a point in the near future where no one has to "ban" anything, but rather people will eventually just stop.
this is hilarious, smoke disperses so fast outdoors that this is just laughable. Also, if you are saying that cigarettes are filthy litter, please stop bring f'kin water bottles to the park too then. Also do not bring any wrappers or packaged foods with you.
So much smoker hate in here too, its crazy. Its almost as crazy as anti-marijuana views. They are logical arguments, but they use an intense amount of hyperbole to make small things like catching a wiff of weed to be like getting hit in the face with a hammer. Ignorance is bliss nonsmokers
On May 24 2011 12:12 Surrealz wrote: this is hilarious, smoke disperses so fast outdoors that this is just laughable.
Kinda have to agree with this. The second hand smoke studies people have been posting are almost all irrelevant because almost all of them are based on subjects in confined places with constant smoking around them.
I don't think a law is needed here. Smokers just need to respect the wishes of non-smokers while smoking in public. Sometimes that means not having a smoke and sometimes it just means holding your cigarette in the other hand while you pass someone by.
On May 24 2011 12:12 Surrealz wrote: this is hilarious, smoke disperses so fast outdoors that this is just laughable. Also, if you are saying that cigarettes are filthy litter, please stop bring f'kin water bottles to the park too then. Also do not bring any wrappers or packaged foods with you.
So much smoker hate in here too, its crazy. Its almost as crazy as anti-marijuana views. They are logical arguments, but they use an intense amount of hyperbole to make small things like catching a wiff of weed to be like getting hit in the face with a hammer. Ignorance is bliss nonsmokers
ps- i dont smoke ciggs just bud
So crazy to hate something that kills tens of thousands of people each year, marijuana is different, its way less lethal.
Oh man, was at a gas station the other day, a lady was smoking in her car while her hubby was gassing up. Two guys like flipped a switch and started hounding her. I could not help but also be quite outraged that she was just nonchalantly smoking within 3 or 4 feet of flowing gasoline. I can see why smoking would be banned in a large city like NYC. The pollution is quite bad and smoke only adds to it. Many people dont like smoking, and dont want to be exposed to it. And they should have that right. But I also see the flip side, in that nicotine is addictive, and people have a right to get their fix. Guess it's just a tough situation.
Freedom and laws are two very different things. In fact, alot of the time it's the laws that grant you your freedom. Kind of an odd way to look at things I suppose.
On May 24 2011 14:07 Phayze wrote: Oh man, was at a gas station the other day, a lady was smoking in her car while her hubby was gassing up. Two guys like flipped a switch and started hounding her. I could not help but also be quite outraged that she was just nonchalantly smoking within 3 or 4 feet of flowing gasoline. I can see why smoking would be banned in a large city like NYC. The pollution is quite bad and smoke only adds to it. Many people dont like smoking, and dont want to be exposed to it. And they should have that right. But I also see the flip side, in that nicotine is addictive, and people have a right to get their fix. Guess it's just a tough situation.
Cigarettes do not burn hot enough to ignite gasoline.
i wish they would just outlaw ciggeretes and legalize weed. i dont smoke anything but from the outside i can see how bad ciggeretes are for you and weed isnt really that bad for you. but ehh i dont do any of it so it dosent matter to me
I don't really have a big problem with this. I do think that the reasoning they provide is stupid and there are more reasonable ways of handling what a loudmouthed minority consider is a problem.
Citing second hand smoking deaths is really stupid. I'm not acquainted with the studies, but I doubt that second hand smoke inhaled outdoors is significant at all. Think about all the crap that you breathe in an urban environment. There are also other ways of handling the problems caused by smoking. Taxes have been increased so much that it's kind of crazy to put further limits on smokers who are already paying more than nonsmokers for the same public services. An equitable policy could be putting all cigarette tax revenue into a fund used to employ street sweepers and buy public ashtrays.
Also, while I understand having a group campaigning for 'nonsmoker's rights,' it just feels wrong calling it a rights group when they are working to impede the rights of others. I grew up just fine with no smoking bans. I don't remember ever sitting in a public park thinking 'damn, that guy over there is totally ruining my day.' People need to be more chill about this shit.
On May 24 2011 14:07 question wrote: Well i heard somewere USA is free country...
Yes, a country where people are free to walk in the park free of cigarette butts and without having to smell others smoking.
I just wish it were a country where people were free to walk down the street without being bombarded with advertisements and car exhaust. I guess it's not quite that simple, huh?
it's good. smoking should not be allowed. you can't go the libertarian route and say "the smokers should be free to smoke all they want" because second-hand smoke is just as harmful to others. just because you chose to exercise your right to destroy your lungs, pollute streets and beaches, waste hundreds of thousands of dollars on both cigarettes and medical procedures, and terrify your family with your health problems, you do not have the right to inflict your habit on others
On May 24 2011 14:00 Swede wrote: I don't think a law is needed here. Smokers just need to respect the wishes of non-smokers while smoking in public. Sometimes that means not having a smoke and sometimes it just means holding your cigarette in the other hand while you pass someone by.
Would be nice if that worked, but it doesn't, so a law is needed. If smokers would get their act together and do as you said it would work, but thats not reality. And I know, each and every smoker in this thread is the most responsible smoker ever, but really..no.
On May 24 2011 14:07 question wrote: Well i heard somewere USA is free country...
Yes, a country where people are free to walk in the park free of cigarette butts and without having to smell others smoking.
I just wish it were a country where people were free to walk down the street without being bombarded with advertisements and car exhaust. I guess it's not quite that simple, huh?
Yep people are working on it okay? One step at at time. Well advertisement isn't too bad it doesn't really kill you. Car exhaust on the other hand is a issue community as a whole needs to work on, it could possibly sort itself out though, we will run out of gasoline soon or later.
i think that banning indoor public area smoking is acceptable while you provide them smoking room for them to smoke with. this is what the japanese government have been doing. but banning it everywhere in the city would obviously be overdoing it as the government would loss tax revenues and that would be completely interfering with personal rights and freedoms base on the basic rule that one's action taken shouldn't be harming the others rights.
also if you make the ban everywhere convenient that would make the cost for breaking the law, i.e. smoking in prohibited places, be the same everywhere. and that would make indoor smoking a little bit worse in the country.
This is definietely the right way of doing it, because it prevents the damages - either health or litter - from happening instead of choosing the other way round.
The other - stupid - way would be to allow smoking and to put extra taxes on cigarettes and such to fund health care research into lung cancer cure and to fund some city cleaners to remove the waste the smokers produce. Sure, this way there are more people who can make a profit from it, but our lives in general will be less enjoyable.
Lets hope people adapt this way for all other similar problems in our societies like free Internet porn available to kids (just had a few 10 year old boys talk about sex and pictures on Facebook ...), pollution and waste (there are too many "throw away plastic toys" and excessive packagings which use up the limited resource of oil).
On May 24 2011 14:07 question wrote: Well i heard somewere USA is free country...
Freedom is NOT the same as being allowed to do whatever you want to do and wherever you want to do it. Rosa Luxemburg reminded her fellow leftists in Russia that "Freedom is always the freedom of the one who thinks differently", which should really be rephrased to "Freedom is always the freedom of EVERYONE ELSE." Thus if you are fighting for freedom you have to fight for someone elses freedom and if you start to infringe upon the freedom of anyone you have reached the limit of your own freedom ...
In short: There is a limit to freedom, because you are not alone in the world and the society (= all of its people represented by a government) dictates these limits. The NY government simply has decided that the smoke coming from smokers infringes upon the freedom of the non-smokers ...
I think the right of a non-smoker to live in a smoke-free environment trumps the right of smoking wherever you like. That said, I find it quite funny how it goes down in the Netherlands. When they introduced the ban on smoking inside clubs and bars a lot of people where outraged and protested against it, going as far as just ignoring the ban and risking the fine. And now I think there is an exception for small pubs run by one person or something like that, but still a lot of people are dissatisfied. The ban on smoking in the Netherlands, it seems, is nothing compared to the one being enforced in NYC. If that would happen here so many people would get their knickers in a twist :p
On May 24 2011 15:22 Rabiator wrote: Lets hope people adapt this way for all other similar problems in our societies like free Internet porn available to kids (just had a few 10 year old boys talk about sex and pictures on Facebook ...), pollution and waste (there are too many "throw away plastic toys" and excessive packagings which use up the limited resource of oil).
Free internet porn is a problem in our society? What the fuck happened to parenting and is there some evidence to support that seeing naked people when you're 10 does some horrible damage?
On May 24 2011 11:40 Zealotdriver wrote: Yesssss. Fuck all cigarette smokers. Smoking cigarettes is a rude, antisocial behavior. Smokers are disgusting creatures with no respect for anyone but fellow addicts.
Allways nice to hear somebody call you a disgusting creature with no respect for anyone.
Personally I'm all for the restriction of smoking anywhere that isn't within one's household.
I personally find it hard to breath around cigarette smoke and it makes my eyes water. Yet I have to deal with it when i walk anyway downtown because of it (I live in toronto).
I seriously wish they could find someway just to stop smoking (which would only happen if a substitute to it is instituted that would take over the economic backlash from no cig sells, so pretty long shot of that happening). There is nothing beneficial about it and nothing private about it with the exhalation of second hand smoke.
Find another bad habit that doesn't affect or annoy other people and it won't be such an issue.
Cars kill more people than cigarettes each year. I wish they'd ban cars worldwide so we can look back and say "wow, people actually drove those death mobiles back then? Science, how could you let us".
There is nothing beneficial about it and nothing private about it with the exhalation of second hand smoke.
You've clearly never had one after sex or a long day of work.
Well in Tokyo they have like restrictions on where u're allowed to smoke. As a non smoker i really appreciated that. + Show Spoiler +
quite a contrast when I got home and arrived at CPH airport Kastrup, Denmark (where they smoke everywhere) before going home to Sweden.
I'm pretty liberal in my opinions, and think that everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else. The problem with smoking is that it , at the very least , is annoying to other people and could even be dangerous.
So well, a total ban would be too harsh but making restrictions and like partial bans in certain areas would be nice imo
The government knows what is good for you and as long as you agree with the government it is fine. I can remember a politcian in my country who said that people who smoke should not be allowed to have children. If that politician got her way two decades ago I wouldnt have even existed.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas.
It's incredibly stupid. Just more of the majority limiting the rights of the minority? Who cares that it is bad for them? That is their choice. If you live in a city and you complain about outdoor second hand smoke you are an idiot. Not only does it have next to zero effect on your health, it's nothing compared to the exhaust and other pollution you breath in everyday.
Seems like its fair enough, they just want open public areas to be smoke free, as one poster mentioned you can still smoke on the sidewalk, when I used to smoke I always enjoyed it more outside so maybe they will all kinda like the fresh air with there cigs. Overall I think every city and town should adopt a similar policy, I mean the damn things cost a ton anyways so might as well give more people a reason to quit and be more healthy, or find a new addiction like dipping etc.
As a smoker, i was a bit annoyed at start when ban come in bars and restaurants in Paris, but fast, we use to go in the street to smoke, it didnt change many things for us finally
It's more respectfull for non smokers and people working in these place, i think it's something good.
People should be able to smoke. It's an industry and a choice. People shouldn't be able to smoke in public places where non-smokers are around, for obvious reasons.
Now it's always hardest drawing the line of how far to go with such laws. I'm sure it should be different for every town/village/city/county/state/province/country since there's a different attituide towards smoking for each area in the world. Not to mention a different % of smokers to non-smokers.
That's the thing i hate about this world. Theres absolutely nothing that's black and white. Just grey areas everywhere. Only thing that's black and white is math and logic. Anything involving life is just too subjective
Its a shame that smoking hurts people Its so nice....
I'm generally opposed to smoking bans in outdoor, public areas. Outdoors, second hand smoke disperses much better, and any effects of secondhand smoke are minimized, if not completely done away with. Indoors is a different story, and public buildings should ban indoor smoking, however I am opposed to smoking bans in bars/restaurants etc. It should be up to the property owner. Not so much because I want to smoke inside, but because I feel it represses the rights of the property owner.
I do feel that stronger means should be taken to stop smoking-related littering, half the battle is providing more accessible means of disposal in areas smoking is allow, and the other half is making it not worthwhile to not use those means.
I have a lot to say about smoking laws... but most of it isn't related to this thread (mostly healthcare issues), but I think that smoking is a personal choice, and that you should be responsible for your body and your property.
On May 24 2011 17:05 Zedders wrote: People should be able to smoke. It's an industry and a choice. People shouldn't be able to smoke in public places where non-smokers are around, for obvious reasons.
Now it's always hardest drawing the line of how far to go with such laws. I'm sure it should be different for every town/village/city/county/state/province/country since there's a different attituide towards smoking for each area in the world. Not to mention a different % of smokers to non-smokers.
That's the thing i hate about this world. Theres absolutely nothing that's black and white. Just grey areas everywhere. Only thing that's black and white is math and reason. Anything involving life is just too subjective
Or everyone should just chill the f out.
When I see a fat person stuffing their face, I'm annoyed and repulsed (may sound rude but it is literally the exact same argument many non-smokers in this thread have made) and I think of how many lives they could have saved with the excessive food they put in their bodies.
Over eating and obesity is a nasty habit that is the one of the leading killers in the US and costs extra billions in healthcare, but do I think there should be bans? No. Everyone should be allowed to do what they want, life is short, for the most part sucky, and it's the only one we have. I don't know why some people are so obsessed with worsening the lives of others.
A guys enjoying a cig in a park-- are you really so god dam malcontent that you have a problem with that?
On May 24 2011 17:09 SpaceToaster wrote: however I am opposed to smoking bans in bars/restaurants etc. It should be up to the property owner. Not so much because I want to smoke inside, but because I feel it represses the rights of the property owner. and your property.
I agree with you partly, but the problem with this is that if you are a property owner and you don't allow smoking, you will be losing a percentage of those that would want to come in and smoke. It's fine if they have smokers/non-smokers sections but that requires 2 rooms. I remember when a lot of restraunts here in Ontario Canada, used to do it this way, but I would still be able to smell the cigarette smoke regardless.
So ultimately it would be the choice of whether to 'discriminate' against smokers and lose some customers, or to allow those smokers in, and lose some anti-smoker customers.
I find it better if everyones just on even ground.
However, with bars I feel like there should be Smoking bars, and non-smoking bars. I mean come on people enjoy a smoke with their alcohol don't they?
A guys enjoying a cig in a park-- are you really so god dam malcontent that you have a problem with that?
wat? no why would I be.
I just said that it's too hard to draw the line. Ban in restaurants, ban in public transport areas, ban in the streets, ban in the parks too? where does it stop, where does it go too far.
I was just saying that everything in life is like this. We'll never be able to draw the line on issue.
I personally don't smoke but idk how I feel about someone not being allowed to smoke in a designated open area that doesn't bother others
only thing I'm against is when smoking causes second-hand smoke that affects those who don't want anything to do with it
if it doesn't really violate that rule I don't mind if someone else smokes and would prefer that they had the right to (as if I wanted to do something that didn't harm anyone else, even if it was unhealthy for me, I would like the right to be able to do it legally)
it's a matter of principle more than anything really
edit: maybe I misread the article, but the thread title is a bit misleading if I did misread it
On May 24 2011 17:34 Barrin wrote: This thread is filled with 3 kinds of people: 1. People with legitimate reasons as to why this is a good law. 2. People without legitimate reasons as to why this is a bad law. 3. People who just don't like the law.
Outdoors? how are they going to enforce this law. Is there a lack of real crime to fight? I'm completely in favour of a ban on smoking in indoor public places (non smoker) but outdoors is just getting ridiculous.
Let the smokers smoke, why should the government tell them which habits to drop. And just leave the hypocritical argument out of it that health problems due to smoking cost the state shitloads of money. They always forget to leave out how money smokers hand over to them with the kind of taxes they put on tabacco.
As a former smoker I was completely respecting of the indoor smoking bans, I understand second hand smoke and that it should not be passed onto others who dont wish it to be.
But....I dont see how second hand smoke works in open air parks and beaches, even on the calmest and busiest day the smoke is going to have a neglible effect compared to inside even an empty house.
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 could believe such laws would happen in Europe, but I am amazed that such controls of civil liberties exist in America, where you are vociferous in your personal freedoms.
Smoking bans had already gone too far before this was passed. If you own property, you should have every right to dictate terms of activity such as whether or not smoking is permitted. If you are in a public place, you should learn to tolerate the activities of others which may cause you minor inconvenience. Smoking bans in enclosed spaces make at least some sense to me, but this kind of blanket ban seems like massive overkill. I'm sure there are plenty of people who smoke alone on a bench with no one else in a 30 foot radius.
It will also only be selectively enforced, as it should be easy to get away with smoking when no authorities are present. When laws are created which are near unenforceable and deal with victim-less crimes (sealtbelt laws, soft drug prohibition, etc), people are simply not going to respect them. This, in my eyes, chips away at the legitimacy of the state. Rather than try, in vain, to control every little aspect of our lives, I believe government and police resources should be aimed at the greater evils of violent crime.
On May 24 2011 18:05 resilve wrote: I could believe such laws would happen in Europe, but I am amazed that such controls of civil liberties exist in America, where you are vociferous in your personal freedoms.
This city ordinance has no effect on personal freedom.
It's weird that you can't even smoke in your own car, I mean, it's a little violation of privacy. Surely it can't bother anyone if you smoke inside your car?
On May 24 2011 18:20 DaBoxX wrote: It's weird that you can't even smoke in your own car, I mean, it's a little violation of privacy. Surely it can't bother anyone if you smoke inside your car?
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.
I approve of this. Personally I hate it when I am waiting for a bus and then some jerk decides to smoke right next to the bench, making me have to either go farther away or suffer from the smoke. I hope this will catch wind in other cities as well. No-one can argue that smoking isn't unhealthy, or harmful towards those who don't smoke as well.
Fuck health, I'll go have a beer with a cigarette.
Seriously: I like the smell of smoke. As a non-smoker. I really don't get the problem. (besides: "oh no, we're all gonna die if we're not living the RIGHT way.") that's just bullshit.
you guys do not realize how exagerated the whole smoking leads to death statistics are.
Cigarette packs say smoking is the leading cause of death worldwide...seriously? I'm sorry, but FUCK NO! CAR Accidents are the leading cause of death worldwide, followed by murder, followed by heart disease (which 70% of heart disease is less then likely to be caused by smoking) so yeah...
Cigarettes kill, yes, but they're not some mass murderer like the government wants you to believe. They wanna act like they're trying to stop smoking, but really they want an excuse to raise taxes on cigarettes to make more and more money.
On May 24 2011 18:20 DaBoxX wrote: It's weird that you can't even smoke in your own car, I mean, it's a little violation of privacy. Surely it can't bother anyone if you smoke inside your car?
Even though smoking is fucking abhorrently gross, this is a pretty disgusting removal of the citizen's freedom. The litter point is pretty stupid because as stated, there's enough of that from people eating and what not anyway. But really it's not as if it's hard to get away from if you're outside, like fuck you don't have to stand/walk near the smokers.
On May 24 2011 18:20 DaBoxX wrote: It's weird that you can't even smoke in your own car, I mean, it's a little violation of privacy. Surely it can't bother anyone if you smoke inside your car?
I'm a smoker and I still think this is a good thing. The harder it is to smoke in peace, the easier it will be to quit. This is one of those times where I favor legislation over personal responsibility, as addiction is difficult to reason with.
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.
On May 24 2011 16:45 EvilTeletubby wrote: Totally agree with this legislation.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas.
And so long as I never hear screaming children I'm happy. Care to explain why your dislikes are more important than mine?
Maybe I am a bit ignorant but would't it be possible for one to take the case to federal court for being unconstitutional? (the part of smoking in privacy -car/house etc-)
On May 24 2011 19:05 EdaPoe wrote: Maybe I am a bit ignorant but would't it be possible for one to take the case to federal court for being unconstitutional? (the part of smoking in privacy -car/house etc-)
That's laughable, I'd like to hear the line of reasoning preventing a landowner from adopting rules restricting the behavior of its guests.
Well I think that most ppl who are pro this law here doesn't think they're gonna die from passive smoking. It's just annoying.
Let me do an (actually not as silly as it seems) analogue ; lets say ppl had a habit of peeing in public, like at any time of the day. That wouldnt be unhelathy for everyone else it'd just be annoying and unpleasant to watch - it wont hurt anyone it's just annoying and BM. So the government isnt trying to control peoples lives it's just that since some people (obviously) can't respect others they've decided to restrict smoking to certain areas - as with peeing. which seem very sound to me
On May 24 2011 19:05 EdaPoe wrote: Maybe I am a bit ignorant but would't it be possible for one to take the case to federal court for being unconstitutional? (the part of smoking in privacy -car/house etc-)
That's laughable, I'd like to hear the line of reasoning preventing a landowner from adopting rules restricting the behavior of its guests.
On May 24 2011 18:45 Phenny wrote: Even though smoking is fucking abhorrently gross, this is a pretty disgusting removal of the citizen's freedom. The litter point is pretty stupid because as stated, there's enough of that from people eating and what not anyway. But really it's not as if it's hard to get away from if you're outside, like fuck you don't have to stand/walk near the smokers.
Gotta agree. It should be a compromise between smokers and non-smokers. Smokers shouldn't smoke when they're in a confined place/heavy populated area (busy streets etc), non-smokers shouldn't stand directly next to a smoker when there's plenty of space elsewhere.
People might not be that respectful now, but the attitude towards smoking has changed enough that they will eventually. There'll be too much social pressure not to be.
The law is pointless in the sense that what it aims to solve will be solved over time through the shaping of social etiquette surrounding smoking. I also suspect that the litter problem is something easily reducible by the tobacco companies with a bit of effort (biodegradable filters already exist so it's just a matter of making use of them).
Wait...who are the majority of smokers in NY? Whenever there is a drug ban, it is often because of a class issue. Meaning, people ban smoking because the most of the people doing so are low income.
It is like Britain quite some time ago. They banned gin but not whiskey because poor people drank gun but rich people drank whiskey. And as for the Prohibition here, we banned alcohol because mostly poor immigrants were drinking alcohol.
In places where there also could be non-smokers, it should just be completly fobidden to smoke, except on your own property. No compromises or respect for smoking, it is just a really, really bad habit.
On May 24 2011 18:40 virpi wrote: Fuck health, I'll go have a beer with a cigarette.
Seriously: I like the smell of smoke. As a non-smoker. I really don't get the problem. (besides: "oh no, we're all gonna die if we're not living the RIGHT way.") that's just bullshit.
Yeah... No.
It doesn't make you die "immediately." It shortens the time you have to live by causing health problems. ( Second hand smoke is far more deadly than first hand smoke with the second hand smoker inhaling 17.47x ( 751 nano grams on average ) vs ~43 directly ).
On May 24 2011 18:32 Vapaach wrote: I approve of this. Personally I hate it when I am waiting for a bus and then some jerk decides to smoke right next to the bench, making me have to either go farther away or suffer from the smoke. I hope this will catch wind in other cities as well. No-one can argue that smoking isn't unhealthy, or harmful towards those who don't smoke as well.
It always causes problems for everyone else when they smoke at the bus stop. And rather, they don't move away instead to smoke, you'll have to move away to avoid them... They carry that stench with them on the bus...
On May 24 2011 16:03 Tudi wrote: Cars kill more people than cigarettes each year.
You are the second person in the last 2 pages to say this. Less than 50k people die from road related stuff per year in the US. The figure for smoking is 10x that.
Stop quoting "facts" that are rubbish. To the other guy who didn't believe the smoking death figures, a conspiracy theory site would probably suit you more than here. Otherwise these debates turn into a "I question the accepted facts" farce everytime.
On May 24 2011 16:45 EvilTeletubby wrote: Totally agree with this legislation.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas.
And so long as I never hear screaming children I'm happy. Care to explain why your dislikes are more important than mine?
Hah, chill with the defensiveness and bad analogies. I'm not quite sure how you can compare screaming children with a clear health concern + littering, it's not JUST a matter of dislikes.
But if you truly want to break it down - Passing along second hand smoke to others and littering is completely controllable and preventable, and unnecessary. A child throwing a temper tantrum is not.
For what it's worth, I dislike screaming children as well, but your example is HORRIBLE.
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.
On May 24 2011 16:45 EvilTeletubby wrote: Totally agree with this legislation.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas.
And so long as I never hear screaming children I'm happy. Care to explain why your dislikes are more important than mine?
Hah, chill with the defensiveness and bad analogies. I'm not quite sure how you can compare screaming children with a clear health concern + littering, it's not JUST a matter of dislikes.
But if you truly want to break it down - Passing along second hand smoke to others and littering is completely controllable and preventable, and unnecessary. A child throwing a temper tantrum is not.
For what it's worth, I dislike screaming children as well, but your example is HORRIBLE.
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 ok to throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely relevant. 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.
There are no health concerns, and the littering is already taken care of with other legislations.
On May 24 2011 16:45 EvilTeletubby wrote: Totally agree with this legislation.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas.
And so long as I never hear screaming children I'm happy. Care to explain why your dislikes are more important than mine?
Hah, chill with the defensiveness and bad analogies. I'm not quite sure how you can compare screaming children with a clear health concern + littering, it's not JUST a matter of dislikes.
But if you truly want to break it down - Passing along second hand smoke to others and littering is completely controllable and preventable, and unnecessary. A child throwing a temper tantrum is not.
For what it's worth, I dislike screaming children as well, but your example is HORRIBLE.
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 ok to throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely relevant. 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.
There are no health concerns, and the littering is already taken care of with other legislations.
No, it's not a logical fallacy. It was a comparison of dislikes, with the only difference that you demand legislation for yours, while I wouldn't dream of that.
There are no health concerns to secondhand smoke?? You're arguing against accepted facts now.
I'm not a fan of the large amount of cigarette butts that accumulate around smoking areas and outdoor ashtrays/disposal are somewhat rarer than they were in the past. One thing I do nowadays is tear off the cherry end before it gets too close to the filter and just toss that while pocketing the filter until I find a garbage.
As for outdoor bans, I don't think it's that big of a deal to just not be in the immediate vicinity of a smoker if it bothers you; most smokers I notice are quite good about not lighting up right next to people or right outside entrances/exits. The health risks from second hand smoke are pretty much non existent outside unless you're standing inches from the guy while he blows smoke in your face.
Understandably some people don't like the smell of it and it can get in your clothes if you're too close but I don't know why some people are stubborn enough not to just move a few steps in any direction like they're more entitled to a certain spot because they're a non-smoker. If a guy standing next to me smelled of bad B.O the first thing I would do is move.
On May 24 2011 16:45 EvilTeletubby wrote: Totally agree with this legislation.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas.
And so long as I never hear screaming children I'm happy. Care to explain why your dislikes are more important than mine?
Hah, chill with the defensiveness and bad analogies. I'm not quite sure how you can compare screaming children with a clear health concern + littering, it's not JUST a matter of dislikes.
But if you truly want to break it down - Passing along second hand smoke to others and littering is completely controllable and preventable, and unnecessary. A child throwing a temper tantrum is not.
For what it's worth, I dislike screaming children as well, but your example is HORRIBLE.
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 ok to throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely relevant. 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.
There are no health concerns, and the littering is already taken care of with other legislations.
No, it's not a logical fallacy. It was a comparison of dislikes, with the only difference that you demand legislation for yours, while I wouldn't dream of that.
There are no health concerns to secondhand smoke?? You're arguing against accepted facts now.
No there's not. There's one study that secondhand smoke haters quote, but that study has been thoroughly disproved, and no other study done shows any health concern. I'm sure you can research the subject further if you're interested.
On May 24 2011 16:45 EvilTeletubby wrote: Totally agree with this legislation.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas.
And so long as I never hear screaming children I'm happy. Care to explain why your dislikes are more important than mine?
Hah, chill with the defensiveness and bad analogies. I'm not quite sure how you can compare screaming children with a clear health concern + littering, it's not JUST a matter of dislikes.
But if you truly want to break it down - Passing along second hand smoke to others and littering is completely controllable and preventable, and unnecessary. A child throwing a temper tantrum is not.
For what it's worth, I dislike screaming children as well, but your example is HORRIBLE.
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 ok to throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely relevant. 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.
There are no health concerns, and the littering is already taken care of with other legislations.
No, it's not a logical fallacy. It was a comparison of dislikes, with the only difference that you demand legislation for yours, while I wouldn't dream of that.
There are no health concerns to secondhand smoke?? You're arguing against accepted facts now.
Short exposure to SHS outdoors has not been shown to be an actual problem. I've gone through and shown that none of the links people post actually say anything regarding short exposure to second hand SHS outdoors. Noone has so far been able to produce anything saying that short exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem for itself to be a reason for a ban. I made a post a post about this, also post about the links others have provided. I do not believe short term exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem to be used as reasoning for a removal of the privileges of smokers.
For me it's really only a disagreement for where a line should be drawn for this, which is a rather gray area. If something is annoying, and that should warrant a ban. Where does one draw the line? If enough people are annoyed by bright yellow t-shirts,does that warrant a ban for it in parks?
On May 24 2011 19:32 Shiragaku wrote: Wait...who are the majority of smokers in NY? Whenever there is a drug ban, it is often because of a class issue. Meaning, people ban smoking because the most of the people doing so are low income.
It is like Britain quite some time ago. They banned gin but not whiskey because poor people drank gun but rich people drank whiskey. And as for the Prohibition here, we banned alcohol because mostly poor immigrants were drinking alcohol.
Fully agree. The US banned pot because Mexican immigrants were smoking it. Even going so far as naming it "marijuana" so it sounds mexican...
On May 24 2011 16:45 EvilTeletubby wrote: Totally agree with this legislation.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas.
And so long as I never hear screaming children I'm happy. Care to explain why your dislikes are more important than mine?
Hah, chill with the defensiveness and bad analogies. I'm not quite sure how you can compare screaming children with a clear health concern + littering, it's not JUST a matter of dislikes.
But if you truly want to break it down - Passing along second hand smoke to others and littering is completely controllable and preventable, and unnecessary. A child throwing a temper tantrum is not.
For what it's worth, I dislike screaming children as well, but your example is HORRIBLE.
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 ok to throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely relevant. 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.
There are no health concerns, and the littering is already taken care of with other legislations.
No, it's not a logical fallacy. It was a comparison of dislikes, with the only difference that you demand legislation for yours, while I wouldn't dream of that.
There are no health concerns to secondhand smoke?? You're arguing against accepted facts now.
Short exposure to SHS outdoors has not been shown to be an actual problem. I've gone through and shown that none of the links people post actually say anything regarding short exposure to second hand SHS outdoors. Noone has so far been able to produce anything saying that short exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem for itself to be a reason for a ban. I made a post a post about this, also post about the links others have provided. I do not believe short term exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem to be used as reasoning for a removal of the privileges of smokers.
For me it's really only a disagreement for where a line should be drawn for this, which is a rather gray area. If something is annoying, and that should warrant a ban. Where does one draw the line? If enough people are annoyed by bright yellow t-shirts,does that warrant a ban for it in parks?
Good, now I can leave this thread knowing at least one intelligent person defends it.
On May 24 2011 16:45 EvilTeletubby wrote: Totally agree with this legislation.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas.
And so long as I never hear screaming children I'm happy. Care to explain why your dislikes are more important than mine?
Hah, chill with the defensiveness and bad analogies. I'm not quite sure how you can compare screaming children with a clear health concern + littering, it's not JUST a matter of dislikes.
But if you truly want to break it down - Passing along second hand smoke to others and littering is completely controllable and preventable, and unnecessary. A child throwing a temper tantrum is not.
For what it's worth, I dislike screaming children as well, but your example is HORRIBLE.
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 ok to throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely relevant. 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.
There are no health concerns, and the littering is already taken care of with other legislations.
No, it's not a logical fallacy. It was a comparison of dislikes, with the only difference that you demand legislation for yours, while I wouldn't dream of that.
There are no health concerns to secondhand smoke?? You're arguing against accepted facts now.
he's actually not
secondhand smoke is a legitimate danger in an area with poor ventilation, such as inside of a house
but the dangers of secondhand smoke have been proven to be absolutely negligible in an outdoor environment and is actually less dangerous than standing nearby to a running parked car. the primary danger of secondhand smoke is carbon monoxide, there's virtually no nicotine in exhaled secondhand smoke
just like any other gas, the smoke dissipates through the environment almost instantly even if there's no wind, whereas indoors it can only expand so far before it has nowhere to go
basically the traffic congestion in the areas they are banning smoking in NYC is so extreme that banning smoking in public doesn't do anything at all for health concerns, at best it solves a littering issue
On May 24 2011 16:45 EvilTeletubby wrote: Totally agree with this legislation.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas.
And so long as I never hear screaming children I'm happy. Care to explain why your dislikes are more important than mine?
Hah, chill with the defensiveness and bad analogies. I'm not quite sure how you can compare screaming children with a clear health concern + littering, it's not JUST a matter of dislikes.
But if you truly want to break it down - Passing along second hand smoke to others and littering is completely controllable and preventable, and unnecessary. A child throwing a temper tantrum is not.
For what it's worth, I dislike screaming children as well, but your example is HORRIBLE.
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 ok to throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely relevant. 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.
There are no health concerns, and the littering is already taken care of with other legislations.
No, it's not a logical fallacy. It was a comparison of dislikes, with the only difference that you demand legislation for yours, while I wouldn't dream of that.
There are no health concerns to secondhand smoke?? You're arguing against accepted facts now.
secondhand smoke is a legitimate danger in an area with poor ventilation, such as inside of a house
the dangers of secondhand smoke have been proven to be absolutely negligible in an outdoor environment and is actually less dangerous than standing nearby to a running parked car. just like any other gas the smoke dissipates almost instantly even if there's no wind, whereas indoors it can only expand so far before it has nowhere to go
basically the traffic congestion in the areas they are banning smoking in NYC is so extreme that banning smoking in public doesn't do anything at all
As someone earlier pointed out it can in fact only make the "problem" worse. If SHS in a park is bad, where one smoker may influence mayhaps 4-5 others. Imagine how much worse it is if they have to stand on the sidewalk doing it, where they would influence 20-30 other people.
I made the same point you made, just regarding pollution in general, in an attempt to show that this is a non issue, and a terribly weak thing to take a stance for. That it is not enough of a reason to warrant a ban infringing upon others privileges, when both arguments I've seen for it doesn't hold water. Noone has shown that it is anywhere near bad enough to warrant a ban.
It then comes down to the other side often that it is "bad mmkay", or that it is annoying. When the first part doesn't really hold, the other part makes other ridiculous comparisons just as viable. If smoking is anoying is a reason for it being banned in parks, so should kids throwing tantrums warrant a ban of kids not behaving? Or bright yellow t-shirts, hipsters or chewing gum, or whatever you find annoying. As long as enough people agree, does it then warrant a ban? Where does one draw the line? So since the first argument doesn't really hold, it is a de facto ban on something annoying, which for me is terrible reasoning, unacceptable and sets a terrible presedent.
Edit: I love how many people are coming forth and argueing properly against this type of ban, I felt really alone 8 pages ago <3
This seems like a no brainer really, laws are designed to protect people. You can do whatever you want as long as what you do doesn't hurt anyone else. Smoking around someone hurts them so sorry go smoke in your closet.
On May 24 2011 20:41 RushWifDietCoke wrote: This seems like a no brainer really, laws are designed to protect people. You can do whatever you want as long as what you do doesn't hurt anyone else. Smoking around someone hurts them so sorry go smoke in your closet.
You should read the post I and several others have made regarding this very thin argument.
The thing is when I didn't smoke I literally can't remember having any problem at all with people smoking outside. As in, I don't even remember noticing it. Unless it was indoors, I couldn't smell it or register it at all. So I have trouble sympathising with people complaining about it. I mean, if it is affecting you then obviously that's an issue, it's pretty unpleasant for non smokers. It's just odd to me because I don't recall it ever being noticable.
Also a lot of people mention smoking as anti-social...I know what you mean but it's funny because for me it's totally a social thing. Like where I work, if you don't smoke you spend all your breaks alone. And in the summer me and my buddies always go sit on the grass with a beer and a cigarrette. Plus it's a good way to make friends in a new place, if other people smoke you go with them, offer them your lighter or a spare fag etc.
My mother had alot of problems with her health because she smoked so much, she was forced to quit or die, she quit and is happier and healthier than she ever was when she was smoking several packs a day.
My story isent unique as im sure many people have family members who have gone through similar things. In EU, most places you can only smoke outside, there are very few indoor places where it is allowed anymore
On May 24 2011 20:46 Tyree wrote: I think it is good, how can it not be?
My mother had alot of problems with her health because she smoked so much, she was forced to quit or die, she quit and is happier and healthier than she ever was when she was smoking several packs a day.
My story isent unique as im sure many people have family members who have gone through similar things. In EU, most places you can only smoke outside, there are very few indoor places where it is allowed anymore
This thread is about the ban of smoking in parks, beaches and other outdoor public areas. Noone is arguing against smoking indoors at restaurants etc, because that is already banned and were fine with that.
On May 24 2011 20:41 RushWifDietCoke wrote: This seems like a no brainer really, laws are designed to protect people. You can do whatever you want as long as what you do doesn't hurt anyone else. Smoking around someone hurts them so sorry go smoke in your closet.
You should read the post I and several others have made regarding this very thin argument.
I read through your posts regarding the ventilation of SHS and how it's not harmful as long as its an open area. I think its better safe than sorry though either way. Can anyone guarantee that the smoke is going to be well ventilated? I'm sure there are times when the park is crowded and someone may be sitting down next to someone inconsiderate to smoke right next to them. It really doesn't seem fair for that person then to have to leave or bother the person who is smoking by asking them to stop. And in general, even if the area is well ventilated it may not be enough to warrent a problem as you said but SHS is still inhaled even if it is diluted. Imagine if a crowd of 50 smokers all got together in the park and all lit up. It would be hard to imagine that area is going to be extremely well ventilated.
On May 24 2011 20:41 RushWifDietCoke wrote: This seems like a no brainer really, laws are designed to protect people. You can do whatever you want as long as what you do doesn't hurt anyone else. Smoking around someone hurts them so sorry go smoke in your closet.
You should read the post I and several others have made regarding this very thin argument.
I read through your posts regarding the ventilation of SHS and how it's not harmful as long as its an open area. I think its better safe than sorry though either way. Can anyone guarantee that the smoke is going to be well ventilated? I'm sure there are times when the park is crowded and someone may be sitting down next to someone inconsiderate to smoke right next to them. It really doesn't seem fair for that person then to have to leave or bother the person who is smoking by asking them to stop. And in general, even if the area is well ventilated it may not be enough to warrent a problem as you said but SHS is still inhaled even if it is diluted. Imagine if a crowd of 50 smokers all got together in the park and all lit up. It would be hard to imagine that area is going to be extremely well ventilated.
Yeah that is where we disagree, I do not believe the SHS argument is valid for it to support a ban. It's all about where we feel a line should be drawn. I don't think this is the place, you may think so and then we can just disagree, because it really comes down to opinion. I believe it sets a terrible precedent, which may be used to further remove the privileges of some in favor of others (imo) mild discomfort. You believe this is the place to draw a line I respect that.
Edit: Regarding 50 people stacking up and smoking, that won't really happen without there being some sort of event, and then I agree it would be more justifiable to designate smokers to another area or such. Though this does not hold when it comes down the point of a person smoking on a bench where it may annoy 3-4 others passing by. It also comes down to respect of each other. If I sit on a bench next to someone smoking and this is discomforting them and bringing them harm, I'm an asshat. I should respect the other enough to either move away or make sure my smoke does not go onto them. If you disregard the possible harm (which is neglible) it can be compared to me sitting on a bench farting really badly next to someone. Unrespectful and something that I am an asshat for doing.
On May 24 2011 16:45 EvilTeletubby wrote: Totally agree with this legislation.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas.
And so long as I never hear screaming children I'm happy. Care to explain why your dislikes are more important than mine?
Hah, chill with the defensiveness and bad analogies. I'm not quite sure how you can compare screaming children with a clear health concern + littering, it's not JUST a matter of dislikes.
But if you truly want to break it down - Passing along second hand smoke to others and littering is completely controllable and preventable, and unnecessary. A child throwing a temper tantrum is not.
For what it's worth, I dislike screaming children as well, but your example is HORRIBLE.
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 ok to throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely relevant. 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.
There are no health concerns, and the littering is already taken care of with other legislations.
No, it's not a logical fallacy. It was a comparison of dislikes, with the only difference that you demand legislation for yours, while I wouldn't dream of that.
There are no health concerns to secondhand smoke?? You're arguing against accepted facts now.
Short exposure to SHS outdoors has not been shown to be an actual problem. I've gone through and shown that none of the links people post actually say anything regarding short exposure to second hand SHS outdoors. Noone has so far been able to produce anything saying that short exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem for itself to be a reason for a ban. I made a post a post about this, also post about the links others have provided. I do not believe short term exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem to be used as reasoning for a removal of the privileges of smokers.
For me it's really only a disagreement for where a line should be drawn for this, which is a rather gray area. If something is annoying, and that should warrant a ban. Where does one draw the line? If enough people are annoyed by bright yellow t-shirts,does that warrant a ban for it in parks?
i provided a source that show substantial direct activation (> 50%) of nicotinic receptors in brain (and likely other places) from a single puff of cigarette smoke that lasts 3+ hours. these receptors are how nicotine act in the human body and likely lead to the whatever actual effects that we see. this was from a few pages back (second paper in the post).
edit: i saw your reply on the next page. you clearly didn't read the actual 2nd article. abstracts don't tell the whole story my friend.
On May 24 2011 16:45 EvilTeletubby wrote: Totally agree with this legislation.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas.
And so long as I never hear screaming children I'm happy. Care to explain why your dislikes are more important than mine?
Hah, chill with the defensiveness and bad analogies. I'm not quite sure how you can compare screaming children with a clear health concern + littering, it's not JUST a matter of dislikes.
But if you truly want to break it down - Passing along second hand smoke to others and littering is completely controllable and preventable, and unnecessary. A child throwing a temper tantrum is not.
For what it's worth, I dislike screaming children as well, but your example is HORRIBLE.
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 ok to throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely relevant. 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.
There are no health concerns, and the littering is already taken care of with other legislations.
No, it's not a logical fallacy. It was a comparison of dislikes, with the only difference that you demand legislation for yours, while I wouldn't dream of that.
There are no health concerns to secondhand smoke?? You're arguing against accepted facts now.
Short exposure to SHS outdoors has not been shown to be an actual problem. I've gone through and shown that none of the links people post actually say anything regarding short exposure to second hand SHS outdoors. Noone has so far been able to produce anything saying that short exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem for itself to be a reason for a ban. I made a post a post about this, also post about the links others have provided. I do not believe short term exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem to be used as reasoning for a removal of the privileges of smokers.
For me it's really only a disagreement for where a line should be drawn for this, which is a rather gray area. If something is annoying, and that should warrant a ban. Where does one draw the line? If enough people are annoyed by bright yellow t-shirts,does that warrant a ban for it in parks?
i provided a source that show substantial direct activation (> 50%) of nicotinic receptors in brain (and likely other places) from a single puff of cigarette smoke that lasts 3+ hours. these receptors are how nicotine act in the human body and likely lead to the whatever actual effects that we see. this was from a few pages back (second paper in the post).
edit: i saw your reply on the next page. you clearly didn't read the actual 2nd article. abstracts don't tell the whole story my friend.
I didn't mention that because nicotine is not dangerous or the problem with SHS. It says that it concludes this keeps smokers smoking. Are you making a point about how outdoor SHS makes it more likely for other people to start smoking because they get nicotine when they pass by smokers? If that is your stance I don't believe that is enough either, just as how smoking 1 cigarette doesn't make you addicted to it. It requires regular exposure over quite a long time to make you an addict. Otherwise I don't see how that article really brings anything.
Edit: Their conclusion in the second article still limits it to cars and enclosed spaces, if the outdoor SHS was shown a problem, that would be huge and you can be sure they would mention it.
Most smokers are intelligent enough to realize that there are those around them who might not to inhale their smoke and adjust their distance accordingly when they do light up. If I was a non-smoker and a guy took a seat right next to me and started puffing away, I would be cheesed, and rightly so. I would feel the exact same way if a guy decided to eat his fish sandwich with raw onion and garlic within close smelling vicinity.
Some people are just inconsiderate of how they affect people around them, regardless of whether they smoke or not.
Coming from Greece I find these measures mindblowing and make me feel even more that I live a country that is decades behind from many EU countries and the USA.
I fucking hate smoking and although there's a law the forbids it in closed spaces, people consciously ignore it completely because you know.... nobody gives a fuck about the law.
Ohhh well I hope I can migrate off this shithole soon
On May 24 2011 20:41 RushWifDietCoke wrote: This seems like a no brainer really, laws are designed to protect people. You can do whatever you want as long as what you do doesn't hurt anyone else. Smoking around someone hurts them so sorry go smoke in your closet.
You should read the post I and several others have made regarding this very thin argument.
I read through your posts regarding the ventilation of SHS and how it's not harmful as long as its an open area. I think its better safe than sorry though either way. Can anyone guarantee that the smoke is going to be well ventilated? I'm sure there are times when the park is crowded and someone may be sitting down next to someone inconsiderate to smoke right next to them. It really doesn't seem fair for that person then to have to leave or bother the person who is smoking by asking them to stop. And in general, even if the area is well ventilated it may not be enough to warrent a problem as you said but SHS is still inhaled even if it is diluted. Imagine if a crowd of 50 smokers all got together in the park and all lit up. It would be hard to imagine that area is going to be extremely well ventilated.
Yeah that is where we disagree, I do not believe the SHS argument is valid for it to support a ban. It's all about where we feel a line should be drawn. I don't think this is the place, you may think so and then we can just disagree, because it really comes down to opinion. I believe it sets a terrible precedent, which may be used to further remove the privileges of some in favor of others (imo) mild discomfort. You believe this is the place to draw a line I respect that.
Edit: Regarding 50 people stacking up and smoking, that won't really happen without there being some sort of event, and then I agree it would be more justifiable to designate smokers to another area or such. Though this does not hold when it comes down the point of a person smoking on a bench where it may annoy 3-4 others passing by. It also comes down to respect of each other. If I sit on a bench next to someone smoking and this is discomforting them and bringing them harm, I'm an asshat. I should respect the other enough to either move away or make sure my smoke does not go onto them. If you disregard the possible harm (which is neglible) it can be compared to me sitting on a bench farting really badly next to someone. Unrespectful and something that I am an asshat for doing.
I get what you're saying. It really does come down to favoring one group of people over another. I guess the reason I favor the non-smoker is because they are not potentially harming anyone where as the smoker has the potential because of their actions. I'm really not big on drug regulation as it is but I think people should just be considerate as you said with the farting example lol. Unfortunately though a lot of people are not considerate (Especially in a huge city like NY) and if it comes to potentially harming someone then I think there needs to be some regulation because they don't mind being an asshat. It sounds like we differ in opinions as you said.
On May 24 2011 16:45 EvilTeletubby wrote: Totally agree with this legislation.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas.
And so long as I never hear screaming children I'm happy. Care to explain why your dislikes are more important than mine?
Hah, chill with the defensiveness and bad analogies. I'm not quite sure how you can compare screaming children with a clear health concern + littering, it's not JUST a matter of dislikes.
But if you truly want to break it down - Passing along second hand smoke to others and littering is completely controllable and preventable, and unnecessary. A child throwing a temper tantrum is not.
For what it's worth, I dislike screaming children as well, but your example is HORRIBLE.
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 ok to throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely relevant. 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.
There are no health concerns, and the littering is already taken care of with other legislations.
No, it's not a logical fallacy. It was a comparison of dislikes, with the only difference that you demand legislation for yours, while I wouldn't dream of that.
There are no health concerns to secondhand smoke?? You're arguing against accepted facts now.
Short exposure to SHS outdoors has not been shown to be an actual problem. I've gone through and shown that none of the links people post actually say anything regarding short exposure to second hand SHS outdoors. Noone has so far been able to produce anything saying that short exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem for itself to be a reason for a ban. I made a post a post about this, also post about the links others have provided. I do not believe short term exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem to be used as reasoning for a removal of the privileges of smokers.
For me it's really only a disagreement for where a line should be drawn for this, which is a rather gray area. If something is annoying, and that should warrant a ban. Where does one draw the line? If enough people are annoyed by bright yellow t-shirts,does that warrant a ban for it in parks?
i provided a source that show substantial direct activation (> 50%) of nicotinic receptors in brain (and likely other places) from a single puff of cigarette smoke that lasts 3+ hours. these receptors are how nicotine act in the human body and likely lead to the whatever actual effects that we see. this was from a few pages back (second paper in the post).
edit: i saw your reply on the next page. you clearly didn't read the actual 2nd article. abstracts don't tell the whole story my friend.
I didn't mention that because nicotine is not dangerous or the problem with SHS. It says that it concludes this keeps smokers smoking. Are you making a point about how outdoor SHS makes it more likely for other people to start smoking because they get nicotine when they pass by smokers? If that is your stance I don't believe that is enough either, just as how smoking 1 cigarette doesn't make you addicted to it. It requires regular exposure over quite a long time to make you an addict. Otherwise I don't see how that article really brings anything.
Edit: Their conclusion in the second article still limits it to cars and enclosed spaces, if the outdoor SHS was shown a problem, that would be huge and you can be sure they would mention it.
nicotine has more properties than addiction, even in the brain. nicotinic receptors are everywhere in the body as well. though not necessarily implied in the induction of cancer, you can have a lot of detrimental effects for attention, proper neuronal growth in the brain, many associated neurological issues, asthma, and many more that you can find with a simple pubmed search.
i appreciate you actually reading the articles, but while we don't know how small doses of nicotine can directly cause anything in a short time frame, we simply don't know how it can affect our health in a long term situation - especially when it comes to children. it's simply not hard to believe that if a single puff of cigarette smoke can occupy 50% of your brain receptors for 3 hours, that a couple of puffs while walking near a smoker on the way to work/school can have some effects down the line. brief applications of nicotine experimentally has shown that a titrated intake (such as in the brain) over even just a few minutes can cause significant changes in neuronal response to endogenous neurotransmitters and changes in cell transcription of nicotinic receptors. what's to say that these microscale changes don't add up over time?
of course there's been no breakthrough direct study that sums all these parts together into a definite link between short term shs and x or y health problems - but it's not unreasonable to believe that there will be problems judging by what smoking has been shown to do to you.
On May 24 2011 16:45 EvilTeletubby wrote: Totally agree with this legislation.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas.
And so long as I never hear screaming children I'm happy. Care to explain why your dislikes are more important than mine?
Hah, chill with the defensiveness and bad analogies. I'm not quite sure how you can compare screaming children with a clear health concern + littering, it's not JUST a matter of dislikes.
But if you truly want to break it down - Passing along second hand smoke to others and littering is completely controllable and preventable, and unnecessary. A child throwing a temper tantrum is not.
For what it's worth, I dislike screaming children as well, but your example is HORRIBLE.
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 ok to throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely relevant. 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.
There are no health concerns, and the littering is already taken care of with other legislations.
No, it's not a logical fallacy. It was a comparison of dislikes, with the only difference that you demand legislation for yours, while I wouldn't dream of that.
There are no health concerns to secondhand smoke?? You're arguing against accepted facts now.
Short exposure to SHS outdoors has not been shown to be an actual problem. I've gone through and shown that none of the links people post actually say anything regarding short exposure to second hand SHS outdoors. Noone has so far been able to produce anything saying that short exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem for itself to be a reason for a ban. I made a post a post about this, also post about the links others have provided. I do not believe short term exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem to be used as reasoning for a removal of the privileges of smokers.
For me it's really only a disagreement for where a line should be drawn for this, which is a rather gray area. If something is annoying, and that should warrant a ban. Where does one draw the line? If enough people are annoyed by bright yellow t-shirts,does that warrant a ban for it in parks?
i provided a source that show substantial direct activation (> 50%) of nicotinic receptors in brain (and likely other places) from a single puff of cigarette smoke that lasts 3+ hours. these receptors are how nicotine act in the human body and likely lead to the whatever actual effects that we see. this was from a few pages back (second paper in the post).
edit: i saw your reply on the next page. you clearly didn't read the actual 2nd article. abstracts don't tell the whole story my friend.
I didn't mention that because nicotine is not dangerous or the problem with SHS. It says that it concludes this keeps smokers smoking. Are you making a point about how outdoor SHS makes it more likely for other people to start smoking because they get nicotine when they pass by smokers? If that is your stance I don't believe that is enough either, just as how smoking 1 cigarette doesn't make you addicted to it. It requires regular exposure over quite a long time to make you an addict. Otherwise I don't see how that article really brings anything.
Edit: Their conclusion in the second article still limits it to cars and enclosed spaces, if the outdoor SHS was shown a problem, that would be huge and you can be sure they would mention it.
nicotine has more properties than addiction, even in the brain. nicotinic receptors are everywhere in the body as well. though not necessarily implied in the induction of cancer, you can have a lot of detrimental effects for attention, proper neuronal growth in the brain, many associated neurological issues, asthma, and many more that you can find with a simple pubmed search.
i appreciate you actually reading the articles, but while we don't know how small doses of nicotine can directly cause anything in a short time frame, we simply don't know how it can affect our health in a long term situation - especially when it comes to children. it's simply not hard to believe that if a single puff of cigarette smoke can occupy 50% of your brain receptors for 3 hours, that a couple of puffs while walking near a smoker on the way to work/school can have some effects down the line. brief applications of nicotine experimentally has shown that a titrated intake (such as in the brain) over even just a few minutes can cause significant changes in neuronal response to endogenous neurotransmitters and changes in cell transcription of nicotinic receptors. what's to say that these microscale changes don't add up over time?
of course there's been no breakthrough direct study that sums all these parts together into a definite link between short term shs and x or y health problems - but it's not unreasonable to believe that there will be problems judging by what smoking has been shown to do to you.
I agree with what you are saying, we can't know, atleast yet. Though where we disagree is that you feel it's proper with a ban just in case, I mean it can't hurt so I understand that. I believe just in case is not a good enough reason for a ban that removes the privileges of some. So we are again disagreeing about where the line for such things should be drawn. I value the privileges granted to people more than the possible dangers it brings, where you are on the other side of that fence. Feels as if every one I discuss with here, we end up with it coming down to differing values and opinions regarding health and "freedom" (Hate to use that word, because it really takes away from debates). Which is a good thing, because it shows how much of a gray areas these things are. Not black and white as the rhetoric used by politicians and the news often make it out to be.
I don't smoke cigarettes and I agree with the ban they have here on smoking in indoor public places (bars/shops/restaurants etc.) but I think a ban on smoking OUTSIDE is pretty ridiculous, parks are generally pretty big, you don't have to sit next to the guy smoking and even if you are, how much harm can it do when you're out in fresh air? -_- I've never experienced a problem with it.
Its the same here. Smoking isnt allowed inside or in restaurants/bars. Also starting next year stores cant keep out the smokepacks on shelves or anywhere you can see them. You get to pick what you want from a catalog and they will then give it to you.
On May 24 2011 16:45 EvilTeletubby wrote: Totally agree with this legislation.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas.
And so long as I never hear screaming children I'm happy. Care to explain why your dislikes are more important than mine?
Hah, chill with the defensiveness and bad analogies. I'm not quite sure how you can compare screaming children with a clear health concern + littering, it's not JUST a matter of dislikes.
But if you truly want to break it down - Passing along second hand smoke to others and littering is completely controllable and preventable, and unnecessary. A child throwing a temper tantrum is not.
For what it's worth, I dislike screaming children as well, but your example is HORRIBLE.
On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote:
On May 24 2011 18:29 EvilTeletubby wrote: [quote]
?
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 ok to throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely relevant. 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.
There are no health concerns, and the littering is already taken care of with other legislations.
No, it's not a logical fallacy. It was a comparison of dislikes, with the only difference that you demand legislation for yours, while I wouldn't dream of that.
There are no health concerns to secondhand smoke?? You're arguing against accepted facts now.
Short exposure to SHS outdoors has not been shown to be an actual problem. I've gone through and shown that none of the links people post actually say anything regarding short exposure to second hand SHS outdoors. Noone has so far been able to produce anything saying that short exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem for itself to be a reason for a ban. I made a post a post about this, also post about the links others have provided. I do not believe short term exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem to be used as reasoning for a removal of the privileges of smokers.
For me it's really only a disagreement for where a line should be drawn for this, which is a rather gray area. If something is annoying, and that should warrant a ban. Where does one draw the line? If enough people are annoyed by bright yellow t-shirts,does that warrant a ban for it in parks?
i provided a source that show substantial direct activation (> 50%) of nicotinic receptors in brain (and likely other places) from a single puff of cigarette smoke that lasts 3+ hours. these receptors are how nicotine act in the human body and likely lead to the whatever actual effects that we see. this was from a few pages back (second paper in the post).
edit: i saw your reply on the next page. you clearly didn't read the actual 2nd article. abstracts don't tell the whole story my friend.
I didn't mention that because nicotine is not dangerous or the problem with SHS. It says that it concludes this keeps smokers smoking. Are you making a point about how outdoor SHS makes it more likely for other people to start smoking because they get nicotine when they pass by smokers? If that is your stance I don't believe that is enough either, just as how smoking 1 cigarette doesn't make you addicted to it. It requires regular exposure over quite a long time to make you an addict. Otherwise I don't see how that article really brings anything.
Edit: Their conclusion in the second article still limits it to cars and enclosed spaces, if the outdoor SHS was shown a problem, that would be huge and you can be sure they would mention it.
nicotine has more properties than addiction, even in the brain. nicotinic receptors are everywhere in the body as well. though not necessarily implied in the induction of cancer, you can have a lot of detrimental effects for attention, proper neuronal growth in the brain, many associated neurological issues, asthma, and many more that you can find with a simple pubmed search.
i appreciate you actually reading the articles, but while we don't know how small doses of nicotine can directly cause anything in a short time frame, we simply don't know how it can affect our health in a long term situation - especially when it comes to children. it's simply not hard to believe that if a single puff of cigarette smoke can occupy 50% of your brain receptors for 3 hours, that a couple of puffs while walking near a smoker on the way to work/school can have some effects down the line. brief applications of nicotine experimentally has shown that a titrated intake (such as in the brain) over even just a few minutes can cause significant changes in neuronal response to endogenous neurotransmitters and changes in cell transcription of nicotinic receptors. what's to say that these microscale changes don't add up over time?
of course there's been no breakthrough direct study that sums all these parts together into a definite link between short term shs and x or y health problems - but it's not unreasonable to believe that there will be problems judging by what smoking has been shown to do to you.
I agree with what you are saying, we can't know, atleast yet. Though where we disagree is that you feel it's proper with a ban just in case, I mean it can't hurt so I understand that. I believe just in case is not a good enough reason for a ban that removes the privileges of some. So we are again disagreeing about where the line for such things should be drawn. I value the privileges granted to people more than the possible dangers it brings, where you are on the other side of that fence. Feels as if every one I discuss with here, we end up with it coming down to differing values and opinions regarding health and "freedom" (Hate to use that word, because it really takes away from debates). Which is a good thing, because it shows how much of a gray areas these things are. Not black and white as the rhetoric used by politicians and the news often make it out to be.
i get what you're saying and i can't expect everyone to have the same stance on this as me. glad most posters here have the maturity to voice their concerns and provide a good base for their arguments as opposed to many other threads.
i just feel strongly on this subject because it's where i do my research and i tend to feel that because of what we know now, we can reasonably expect there to be significant effects of even relatively brief exposure to shs can have lasting effects (as i outlined previously). waiting for a definitive study in humans will take god knows how long - or it'll never be done - since these effects may/may not manifest, and over the many years, how do you attribute this solely to shs? just to make a poor analogy (since i know nothing about nuclear power), we have a nuclear reactor showing some signs of instability, something similar to what was seen before - say chernobyl - but not exactly the same parameters. do you take precautions now even if it means losing money? or wait til the meltdown to be certain it's a problem before taking action?
Personally I don't care what people do to their own bodies, kill yourself or cut off your legs or whatever, it's your own life. The thing with smoking is that it hurts other people not just the smoker. It's illegal to walk around and spread toxic chemicals and other poisons and for good reason.
To argue that smokers should get to smoke in public places is ridiculous, this argument only works if the smoker is the only one affected, this is not the case. If you think smoking should be legal in public places then you should support legalizing walking around with toxic chemicals and throwing them on people even if they are harmful to humans. They should just add cigarette smoke to the list of toxic chemicals which you aren't allowed to go around and fling on people.
It's a non-issue in my mind and simply a question whether or not there is a group of people that are allowed to physically harm other humans because they have power to control laws or whether or not laws should be fair and protect people from physical abuse, which smoking causes to the human body.
On May 24 2011 22:18 odE wrote: Its the same here. Smoking isnt allowed inside or in restaurants/bars. Also starting next year stores cant keep out the smokepacks on shelves or anywhere you can see them. You get to pick what you want from a catalog and they will then give it to you.
Yeah they're going to implement a ban on displaying tobacco in stores here too, seems like a really weird one to me, what the hell is that going to do?
On May 24 2011 22:18 odE wrote: Its the same here. Smoking isnt allowed inside or in restaurants/bars. Also starting next year stores cant keep out the smokepacks on shelves or anywhere you can see them. You get to pick what you want from a catalog and they will then give it to you.
Yeah they're going to implement a ban on displaying tobacco in stores here too, seems like a really weird one to me, what the hell is that going to do?
I have no idea. People wont stop buying cigarettes becouse of that. Maybe some people wont start smoking if they dont see the packages anywhere.. Though most of the first timers dont just go to a store and buy a pack they get one from a friend or smoke when drunk or something else.
On May 24 2011 22:18 odE wrote: Its the same here. Smoking isnt allowed inside or in restaurants/bars. Also starting next year stores cant keep out the smokepacks on shelves or anywhere you can see them. You get to pick what you want from a catalog and they will then give it to you.
Yeah they're going to implement a ban on displaying tobacco in stores here too, seems like a really weird one to me, what the hell is that going to do?
no more free advertisement for tobacco products.
True, I hardly think they need to advertise the stuff anyway though, people will still buy it regardless and actual adverts have been banned for years.
On May 24 2011 22:33 odE wrote: I have no idea. People wont stop buying cigarettes becouse of that. Maybe some people wont start smoking if they dont see the packages anywhere.. Though most of the first timers dont just go to a store and buy a pack they get one from a friend or smoke when drunk or something else.
Yeah I know that's there intention but I agree with you, people don't start smoking just because they see a pack in the shop and decide "I wonder what this is like".
In Ontario, smoking has been banned indoors for a few years now and it's been nothing but great.
I don't really have anything against smoking if it's not done around me. It's stupid, don't get me wrong, but it's not like it affects me if it's not done around me. I do find that more low-class people tend to smoke than more decent people. This is really apparent when you go by the smoke pit of some place of employment or a high school. I would not want to hang around these people.
Having said that, I just got back from Las Vegas. You can smoke ANYWHERE there, and it is totally fine with me. The ventilation in most of these casinos is so good that you hardly notice it unless someone is right beside you. It was only ever unpleasant when one of my friends was smoking a cigar. I couldn't care less the whole time I was there.
We've had the no display law here for years now. All it means is there is less experimenting with other brands because you don't want to be the douche that holds up the line while the clerk takes them out one by one for you to check out.
I have also shown over and over why it being annoying is a terrible argument several times like here. On the other side you have Fush's post to support something otherwise than what I am saying. Then again both sides really comes down to opinion, on what you believe should warrant a ban. If ban's of certain things are good because 'just in case' or if you value others privileges above that. All a matter of opinion. See many people posting not reading the thread
I personally belive it should be that any resturant club etc is forced to provide smoke free tables etc but should still be able to provide tables where smoking is allowed for the customers that prefer so. I really don't see why smokers and nonsmokers cant co-exist.
In a country with public healthcare I feel its a bit different and the state should be alowed to ban smoking in public places.
On May 24 2011 22:51 Robinsa wrote: I personally belive it should be that any resturant club etc is forced to provide smoke free tables etc but should still be able to provide tables where smoking is allowed for the customers that prefer so. I really don't see why smokers and nonsmokers cant co-exist.
In a country with public healthcare I feel its a bit different and the state should be alowed to ban smoking in public places.
The part about smoking tables is more because of the right of a person to work in a smoke free area. Which is normal for other businesses, and was extended to waiters and such. I agree though, we should be able to co-exist. Taking away outdoor public areas for smokers is not good, especially on such a weak premise.
Funny thing, I'm pretty sure I remember hearing they were planning on making cigarrettes 'under the counter' over here, as in not put them on display and have them in plain dull packets. Nominally, so kids won't be attracted by them.
I don't know about you guys, but I think this is totally necessary. After all, fag packets now...tacky and depressing gold and silver, pictures of horrific smoking related diseases and 'YOU WILL FUCKING DIE IF YOU SMOKE THESE' written all over them...they just scream child friendly.
Being from NYC I fully support this and am eager for them to do more. There's nothing more annoying then being stuck walking behind someone smoking a cigarette. There's no reason I should have to inhale second hand smoke.
From what I've heard in Japan there are actually designated smoking areas. Hopefully one day this will be implemented in NYC.
On May 24 2011 16:45 EvilTeletubby wrote: Totally agree with this legislation.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas.
this is going too far. i agree that littering should be banned on places like beaches, where people like to lie down and rump in the sand.
but i never understood why its so dreadful to throw a butt or any other litter in a street that used to be a field or forest and has now already been tarmacked into a grey flat blob of industrial pollution with cars whizzing past, fumes spewing out of chimleys and all plant and animal life extinguished.
the only time i ever put litter in the bin in a place like this (city or town) is when i feel it could be a hazard or when i feel like some person might attack me for being so inconsiderate (and then drive away on their motorbike as the remaining birds fall out of the tree from the noise vibrations)
i think selling cigarettes should be banned and the business owners put in jail, but honestly i couldnt give a toss about inhailing 1 part per zillion of someones ciggy fumes, as six cars go past and i walk by the factory outlet that raped an environment and uses slave labour in other countries. litter seems trivial after this
as for banning smoking in public places (havent bothered to read the article), maybe it is a decent idea in nyc as some people have said its a constant barrage up their nostrils. if they banned it in public where i lived then it would simply not make sense
On May 24 2011 23:33 jaydubz wrote: Being from NYC I fully support this and am eager for them to do more. There's nothing more annoying then being stuck walking behind someone smoking a cigarette. There's no reason I should have to inhale second hand smoke.
From what I've heard in Japan there are actually designated smoking areas. Hopefully one day this will be implemented in NYC.
Are you also pro banning all cars in New York? They harm you a lot more than walking behind a person who smokes...
I have also shown over and over why it being annoying is a terrible argument several times like here. On the other side you have Fush's post to support something otherwise than what I am saying. Then again both sides really comes down to opinion, on what you believe should warrant a ban. If ban's of certain things are good because 'just in case' or if you value others privileges above that. All a matter of opinion. See many people posting not reading the thread
first paragraph "When non-smokers are exposed to secondhand smoke it is called involuntary smoking or passive smoking. Non-smokers who breathe in secondhand smoke take in nicotine and other toxic chemicals just like smokers do. The more secondhand smoke you are exposed to, the higher the level of these harmful chemicals in your body."
You have to be quite ignorant to be believe that when you smoke outdoors its suddenly not harmful. It might be less harmful than smoking indoors because the concentration of cancer-causing agents is lower, but its still harmful. Its not a matter of opinion. Its all just one big probability calculation whether or not these agents damage your DNA and cause cancer.
Besides this, when you think about it there isnt even a good reason for smoking to exist in the first place. Its useless and doesnt have any benefits. The only reason it still exists is because of the taxes.
On May 24 2011 23:33 jaydubz wrote: Being from NYC I fully support this and am eager for them to do more. There's nothing more annoying then being stuck walking behind someone smoking a cigarette. There's no reason I should have to inhale second hand smoke.
From what I've heard in Japan there are actually designated smoking areas. Hopefully one day this will be implemented in NYC.
Are you also pro banning all cars in New York? They harm you a lot more than walking behind a person who smokes...
This is not only ridiculous but it'll be hard to enforce, I doubt that many cops are going to really give a shit about ticketing someone for it.
Smoking is a personal choice, and I'm fairly certain everyone knows about the health risks, but it's their choice to make, regardless of how you feel about it. People supporting it in this thread seem to be doing so on the basis of "it's irritating.".
Most smokers are quite considerate of non-smokers, considering the world we live in. If they happen to be smoking next to you, a simple "could you please not do that here" will likely get them to move.
Are you also pro banning all cars in New York? They harm you a lot more than walking behind a person who smokes...
We have rules in place to prevent cars from driving on sidewalks.
actually you're so used to car and industrial pollution that your brain doesnt register it anymore. its still there, and its incredibly potent.
take a country child to somewhere like london city and they will start coughing and gagging and feel ill constantly, because they are not used to the fumes.
i know this because it happened to me and i remember it
On May 24 2011 23:33 jaydubz wrote: Being from NYC I fully support this and am eager for them to do more. There's nothing more annoying then being stuck walking behind someone smoking a cigarette. There's no reason I should have to inhale second hand smoke.
From what I've heard in Japan there are actually designated smoking areas. Hopefully one day this will be implemented in NYC.
Are you also pro banning all cars in New York? They harm you a lot more than walking behind a person who smokes...
you probably dont mind a person walking in front of you throwing coffee or shooting cum on you either?
On May 24 2011 23:33 jaydubz wrote: Being from NYC I fully support this and am eager for them to do more. There's nothing more annoying then being stuck walking behind someone smoking a cigarette. There's no reason I should have to inhale second hand smoke.
From what I've heard in Japan there are actually designated smoking areas. Hopefully one day this will be implemented in NYC.
Are you also pro banning all cars in New York? They harm you a lot more than walking behind a person who smokes...
Yeah totally for it. However that change will probably take longer to implement for obvious reasons. Cars are are a huge trouble for the planet in more ways then one and I really hope they get replaced one day in the future.
cigarettes already have plenty of viable replacements that won't harm others while being used. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus
actually you're so used to car and industrial pollution that your brain doesnt register it anymore. its still there, and its incredibly potent.
take a country child to somewhere like london city and they will start coughing and gagging and feel ill constantly, because they are not used to the fumes.
i know this because it happened to me and i remember it
Actually my point is that we have designated driving areas. If you don't want to inhale exhaust smoke, you can simply choose not to stand behind cars in the street.
actually you're so used to car and industrial pollution that your brain doesnt register it anymore. its still there, and its incredibly potent.
take a country child to somewhere like london city and they will start coughing and gagging and feel ill constantly, because they are not used to the fumes.
i know this because it happened to me and i remember it
Actually my point is that we have designated driving areas. If you don't want to inhale exhaust smoke, you can simply choose not to stand behind cars in the street.
are you trolling? the fumes from cars and buildings cover the entire city.
these are just pictures of course. most fumes are not noticeable to the naked eye. did you know that?
I think it's kind of silly, and that they should out right just illegalize smoking tobacco right away, since that seems to be the long term goal anyway. The attacks and the stigmatizing way of doing it right now is far too fascistic and inhumane for my likings. Keeping it legal at this point is basically a kick in the face of all that smoke.
I have also shown over and over why it being annoying is a terrible argument several times like here. On the other side you have Fush's post to support something otherwise than what I am saying. Then again both sides really comes down to opinion, on what you believe should warrant a ban. If ban's of certain things are good because 'just in case' or if you value others privileges above that. All a matter of opinion. See many people posting not reading the thread
first paragraph "When non-smokers are exposed to secondhand smoke it is called involuntary smoking or passive smoking. Non-smokers who breathe in secondhand smoke take in nicotine and other toxic chemicals just like smokers do. The more secondhand smoke you are exposed to, the higher the level of these harmful chemicals in your body."
You have to be quite ignorant to be believe that when you smoke outdoors its suddenly not harmful. It might be less harmful than smoking indoors because the concentration of cancer-causing agents is lower, but its still harmful. Its not a matter of opinion. Its all just one big probability calculation whether or not these agents damage your DNA and cause cancer.
Besides this, when you think about it there isnt even a good reason for smoking to exist in the first place. Its useless and doesnt have any benefits. The only reason it still exists is because of the taxes.
I never argued it not being harmful. I argued the effects of it are so completely abyssmal and neglible that it is not an argument that holds water to ban something which removes the privileges of people. There is a difference. It is harmful, but how harmful? Harmful in the way that it actually makes a difference? I doubt it, cosidering how much more dangerous pollution is in general. SHS outdoors has not been shown or proven by anything of what people are linking, they are not even mentioned.
So no I am not ignorant, I've read through almost every "evidence" people link here, and refuted how they use them to support their argument. Seeing how I've backed all my views by logic and shown several times what a poor argument SHS outdoors is for a ban for smoking in parks, you calling me ignorant either makes me think you haven't read all my posts or haven't read up on this yourself.
You can have your opinion, that any smoke should not go to other people and that is fine, but I draw the line of when things should be banned another place.
TLDR; I am not arguing against SHS being harmful. I'm arguing that using SHS outdoors as an argument to support the ban really holds no water, because it has not been proved or showed that outdoors SHS affects other people in any bad way that is noticable. Then it is of my opinion that it is not enough of a reason to remove others privileges because of it.
On May 24 2011 23:56 Musclecore wrote: I think it's kind of silly, and that they should out right just illegalize smoking tobacco right away, since that seems to be the long term goal anyway. The attacks and the stigmatizing way of doing it right now is far too fascistic and inhumane for my likings. Keeping it legal at this point is basically a kick in the face of all that smoke.
PS. I smoke.
except that the people in positions of power are the ones profiting from it, so its never ever going to change. but you knew that, im not being condescending
While the automotive industry probably causes more harm than second hand smoke, it is heavily regulated and the movement to cleaner energy sources is being made. Would I support the ban of all gasoline powered automobiles? No.
Would I support the ban of all tobacco smoking? No.
Comparing the automotive industry to the cigarette industry is a bad argument anyway. One actually brings benefits to society.
To people saying smoking is useless: So is ice cream. It feels good, infinitely more so when you are addicted to nicotine. I would compare it to the feeling you get chugging a tall glass of water when you are extremely thirsty. But you can get it every couple hours. Manages stress and helps kill time. Get more breaks at work ;p. Negatives? Yeah kills you, bad breath, yellow teeth aging quicker... But go eat another cheese burger ill have a king size stick of cancer and endorphins. And we might both get hit by a car tomorrow.
Should people be subjected to second hand smoke? No. A university campus is crowded and full of sensitive young people who can hardly remember their mothers lighting up in pizza hut after the buffet. Perhaps their bodies are more susceptible to these few parts per million in passing breaths than those people of the centuries past where there were no laws. But these sensitive people do not enjoy the smell. My university imposed a 10m from any entrance law that is reasonable and generally unobserved. I am a courteous smoker, i smoke in smoking areas and avoid walking and smoking down busy pathways. People should be courteous but they are not and thus implementing rules to make them so is reasonable. Smoking in your car is taking the initiative to isolate yourself from those that may be offended and banning such is excessive and unnecessary. Rules for smoking in public are reasonable. This set of rules is to strict.
On May 24 2011 14:07 question wrote: Well i heard somewere USA is free country...
Yes, a country where people are free to walk in the park free of cigarette butts and without having to smell others smoking.
Yeah, and everyone is screaming LEGALIZE MARIJUANA! And when the argument is made that people will be smoking that outside more and more, the stoners say "suck it up."
On May 25 2011 00:00 jaydubz wrote: While the automotive industry probably causes more harm than second hand smoke, it is heavily regulated and the movement to cleaner energy sources is being made. Would I support the ban of all gasoline powered automobiles? No.
Would I support the ban of all tobacco smoking? No.
Comparing the automotive industry to the cigarette industry is a bad argument anyway. One actually brings benefits to society.
you just compared them by saying one brings benefits... if you ask a smoker if giving them a cigarette would be beneficial to them, most would say "give me that damn ciggy, i wanna smoke it!" all we're saying is that cig smoke is negligable compared to other fumes, and not to be deluded that the "smell" of ciggies when you walk behind someone in the street is particular significant compared to the "smell" of thousands of tonnes of smoke coming out of everything else that your brain has gotten used to
oh and you know what, if someone is smoking at the bus stop and you feel disgusted by it, then you should say "excuse me get that fucking cigarette out of my face". they will move. you dont need damn law for this shit people, its pathetic
On May 25 2011 00:04 ComaDose wrote: To people saying smoking is useless: So is ice cream. It feels good, infinitely more so when you are addicted to nicotine. I would compare it to the feeling you get chugging a tall glass of water when you are extremely thirsty. But you can get it every couple hours. Manages stress and helps kill time. Get more breaks at work ;p. Negatives? Yeah kills you, bad breath, yellow teeth aging quicker... But go eat another cheese burger ill have a king size stick of cancer and endorphins. And we might both get hit by a car tomorrow.
Should people be subjected to second hand smoke? No. A university campus is crowded and full of sensitive young people who can hardly remember their mothers lighting up in pizza hut after the buffet. Perhaps their bodies are more susceptible to these few parts per million in passing breaths than those people of the centuries past where there were no laws. But these sensitive people do not enjoy the smell. My university imposed a 10m from any entrance law that is reasonable and generally unobserved. I am a courteous smoker, i smoke in smoking areas and avoid walking and smoking down busy pathways. People should be courteous but they are not and thus implementing rules to make them so is reasonable. Smoking in your car is taking the initiative to isolate yourself from those that may be offended and banning such is excessive and unnecessary. Rules for smoking in public are reasonable. This set of rules is to strict.
You have a very decent middle ground standing, which I wholesomely approve of. Life of lively to live to life of full life thx to cigarettes?
On May 24 2011 23:56 Musclecore wrote: I think it's kind of silly, and that they should out right just illegalize smoking tobacco right away, since that seems to be the long term goal anyway. The attacks and the stigmatizing way of doing it right now is far too fascistic and inhumane for my likings. Keeping it legal at this point is basically a kick in the face of all that smoke.
PS. I smoke.
except that the people in positions of power are the ones profiting from it, so its never ever going to change. but you knew that, im not being condescending
True that. But still, the whole movement against smoking got some water on their wheels in these times.
Also, I guess I'm not as fatalistic as you are when it comes to overthrowing powers though. As far as I know, many companies have started manufacturing and selling snus instead of smoking tobacco. At least I've heard they do over in the USA. (And they can't in Europe/EU because it's illegal for some arbitrary reason) Anyway, getting too far from the point, so I'll digress. My point was that once the zeitgeist have declared that we shouldn't smoke, it won't matter if people in power profit from it. If you have a democratic political system worth the name, it will get illegalized.
This is a great thing for the people in NYC. Smoking is an extremely addictive and harmful habit and the second hand smoke from it is terrible as well. Finally we will not have to worry about inhaling this disgusting and terribly smelling drug. I am so glad that people do not have to worry about second hand smoke anymore. NYC WIN!
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.
Governments should waste their energy on things that actually matter. Why can't we just let the people sort this out for themselves? So if someone is smoking near you maybe its be a good idea to move, or ask the guy to move and see what ensues. If there is a bar in my city that stinks like crap whether it be smoking or the food they served and it bothered me THAT much i wouldn't go. I wouldn't go cry and write letters to my government.
Has society become so sensitive?Do we really need the government baby sitting us with trivial BS laws? While ignoring bigger pressing issues.
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.
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.
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?
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?
just because there are OTHER things that may be just as bad or worse DOESN'T CHANGE the fact that smoking and second hand smoke is BAD. so how is it wrong to take this one step at a time?
btw, comparing shs to pollution (in other posts) is just absurd. we're not talking about cigarette smoke as a POLLUTANT in the atmosphere. we're talking even brief exposure to smokers in parks and recreational areas. don't go around saying this doesn't happen, because whipping out a smoke in the vicinity of children playing or pregnant mothers or just other people in general DOES expose them to at least nicotine - a psychoactive drug. i've posted papers showing what a single puff can do in the brain, there is no "concentration" problem here. it doesn't NEED to be at a certain concentration in the atmosphere to be a problem.
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.
If you read carefully, this is this is exactly the kind of arguments I think you SHOULD be making. I'm willing to argue about this, and it's a lot more honest than arguing about the dangers of outdoor second hand smoke or littering as an excuse for banning things.
So here we go.
At what point does something become annoying enough to ban it in public areas? I have a hard time with colognes, perfumes, and a lot of hair products. I have a hard time breathing around people who have recently applied hairspray, for example. It's not a problem after a few hours. Should we ban people from walking in a public park within 1 hour of applying hairspray? What about cologne? Deodorant? Should we simply ban people from applying these products in public?
What about peanuts? I love peanuts, but a lot (a really surprising number) of people are allergic to them, and I mean seriously allergic. If you eat peanuts near them, they can have serious complications. Should we limit where people can eat peanuts? Most US airlines have already done it. BAN THE PEANUTS.
Tell me where the line is. Should we ban public smoking, but allow fuel-inefficient cars (with potent exhaust) to be driven at will? What about other sources of smoke or air particulates. Should Pizza places with wood burning ovens move their ovens away from the door to limit smoke out on the street?
I'll argue about this, but you have to draw the line. What should be illegal and why?
On May 25 2011 00:45 splinter9 wrote: Governments should waste their energy on things that actually matter. Why can't we just let the people sort this out for themselves? So if someone is smoking near you maybe its be a good idea to move, or ask the guy to move and see what ensues. If there is a bar in my city that stinks like crap whether it be smoking or the food they served and it bothered me THAT much i wouldn't go. I wouldn't go cry and write letters to my government.
Has society become so sensitive?Do we really need the government baby sitting us with trivial BS laws? While ignoring bigger pressing issues.
The government likes to have very sensitive citizens because it gives the introduction of their laws a bit more legitimacy. You know, we need to regulate the internet because child pornography exists that sort of thing.
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.
If you read carefully, this is this is exactly the kind of arguments I think you SHOULD be making. I'm willing to argue about this, and it's a lot more honest than arguing about the dangers of outdoor second hand smoke or littering as an excuse for banning things.
So here we go.
At what point does something become annoying enough to ban it in public areas? I have a hard time with colognes, perfumes, and a lot of hair products. I have a hard time breathing around people who have recently applied hairspray, for example. It's not a problem after a few hours. Should we ban people from walking in a public park within 1 hour of applying hairspray? What about cologne? Deodorant? Should we simply ban people from applying these products in public?
What about peanuts? I love peanuts, but a lot (a really surprising number) of people are allergic to them, and I mean seriously allergic. If you eat peanuts near them, they can have serious complications. Should we limit where people can eat peanuts? Most US airlines have already done it. BAN THE PEANUTS.
Tell me where the line is. Should we ban public smoking, but allow fuel-inefficient cars (with potent exhaust) to be driven at will? What about other sources of smoke or air particulates. Should Pizza places with wood burning ovens move their ovens away from the door to limit smoke out on the street?
I'll argue about this, but you have to draw the line. What should be illegal and why?
I'll start off by stating that my university (as well as many others) has banned perfumes, colognes, etc because there are a lot of people who get sick, or have allergic reactions as a result of it. Schools have banned peanuts (There is a thread about this on TL), and cars that emit too much exhaust will eventually fail a vehicle emission test (All cars in the US have to do this test).
Second hand smoke can cause allergic reactions, asthma attacks, and above all else, can simply be downright invasive. Is it your right to smoke in public? Or is it my right to not have to be smoked on? I think you can see where this is going...
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.
On May 25 2011 00:22 Omnipresent wrote: 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.
You REALLY cannot understand the logical fallacy in what you just said? Honestly? How many wrongs make one right in your opinion? That's like saying pot should be legal because no one is trying to make cigarettes illegal lol
It's a ridiculously childish argument with zero logic to back it up.
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.
If you read carefully, this is this is exactly the kind of arguments I think you SHOULD be making. I'm willing to argue about this, and it's a lot more honest than arguing about the dangers of outdoor second hand smoke or littering as an excuse for banning things.
So here we go.
At what point does something become annoying enough to ban it in public areas? I have a hard time with colognes, perfumes, and a lot of hair products. I have a hard time breathing around people who have recently applied hairspray, for example. It's not a problem after a few hours. Should we ban people from walking in a public park within 1 hour of applying hairspray? What about cologne? Deodorant? Should we simply ban people from applying these products in public?
What about peanuts? I love peanuts, but a lot (a really surprising number) of people are allergic to them, and I mean seriously allergic. If you eat peanuts near them, they can have serious complications. Should we limit where people can eat peanuts? Most US airlines have already done it. BAN THE PEANUTS.
Tell me where the line is. Should we ban public smoking, but allow fuel-inefficient cars (with potent exhaust) to be driven at will? What about other sources of smoke or air particulates. Should Pizza places with wood burning ovens move their ovens away from the door to limit smoke out on the street?
I'll argue about this, but you have to draw the line. What should be illegal and why?
I'll start off by stating that my university (as well as many others) has banned perfumes, colognes, etc because there are a lot of people who get sick, or have allergic reactions as a result of it. Schools have banned peanuts (There is a thread about this on TL), and cars that emit too much exhaust will eventually fail a vehicle emission test (All cars in the US have to do this test).
Second hand smoke can cause allergic reactions, asthma attacks, and above all else, can simply be downright invasive. Is it your right to smoke in public? Or is it my right to not have to be smoked on? I think you can see where this is going...
I do see what's going on. You're avoiding the question.
It's my position that none of these things should be banned in public. It's your job to decide which should be banned and why. If you choose to ban one and not another, what's different about them? These don't even have to be black-and-white distinctions. I'm willing to accept degrees of "baddness," as long as you can somehow demonstrate that those degrees are not arbitrary.
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.
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".
On May 25 2011 00:22 Omnipresent wrote: 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.
You REALLY cannot understand the logical fallacy in what you just said? Honestly? How many wrongs make one right in your opinion? That's like saying pot should be legal because no one is trying to make cigarettes illegal lol
It's a ridiculously childish argument with zero logic to back it up.
Again, the argument isn't "people litter all the time, so it's ok if smokers do it." Littering is bad.
The argument is, "if you want to ban smoking in public because of litter, you should also want to ban these other things." I'm not saying they need to be banned first, or even at the same time. By all means, ban public smoking first and then get to the other stuff. The trouble is, you don't want to ban the other stuff. You've created a purpose-built argument for banning smoking, but refuse to apply those conclusions to other (very similar) situations. In essence, you don't even believe your own argument.
If I'm wrong, let me know. Should we also ban drinking bottled water in public? If not, why? Remember, we're talking about littering here. What makes litter from cigarettes worse than litter from plastic bottles?
I'm saying that people who argue for this ban based on littering are making a dishonest argument. Be consistent, and maybe there's something to argue about.
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.
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.
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 and the one in front of them looking in the mirror is JUST SO MOTHERFUCKING INCONVENIENCED.
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 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 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 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.
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.
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 01:42 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 01:33 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.
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 01:42 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?
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 01:42 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 01:46 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.
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.
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?
This is exactly why indoor smoking bans, even in privately owned bars/restaurants, make a lot more sense than a ban in public parks/plazas/beaches. It's more intrusive (to property rights), but there's a real risk to employees.
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.
cyba - the ultimate specimen to represent the entire human race. please sir, let my lab tap you up and we don’t need to bother spending tens of thousands of dollars getting volunteers for our research.
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?
This is exactly why indoor smoking bans, even in privately owned bars/restaurants, make a lot more sense than a ban in public parks/plazas/beaches. It's more intrusive (to property rights), but there's a real risk to employees.
Again, I don't know about the US, I'm talking from my country's perspective:
It also has to do with the cost of healthcare. In my country, we have tax funded universal healthcare (as well as private options). So the banning of smokings (among other things, like forcing shops to have x number of clothe sizes, public eating places like schools having a balanced dinner, bike paths in streets to encourage their use, more parks, etc) is set to lower the overall costs of treating people. Prevention is just cheaper, though it's hard to do the math with too many factors in place, but just overall quality of life goes up.
I agree that if this is done, certain other things should be done (like distinguishing between genetic obesity problems/treating it as an illness and people that just eat too much). What I don't agree with is with people putting smoking on the same level as a dog shitting in a park.
Oh ye i bet you get to see actual non biased research about smoking all day every day everywhere. Specially since it's been like what 5 years? since the actual mechanism with which smoking affects your heart became fully understood.
Not to mention some studies always say smoking causes cancer and some say there's no conection.
EDIT:
Remember how we're told coffee is bad for your BP? Just this month there was some report that having 4+ cups of coffee a day won't significantly affect you in any way.
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?
You can smoke inside and go then outside, too. As to where, most preferably somewhere it won't bother other people.
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.
So you do agree that littering the park with either cigarette butts or bottled water is wrong? You just don't think we should do absolutely anything about it? We should just live in litter and be ok with it?
Because if you do think we should do something about litter. Then you could propose a different solution from banning smoking in parks. I would have no problem with that, I would love to hear a better solution. But that's not what you're doing. You're not proposing a solution. You're just pointing out a different problem.
Yes, bottled waters in the floor are just as wrong as cigarette butts. So what? What are you gonna do about it? Live in litter? We're talking about a solution to cigarette butts here. When you bring up water bottles you're not bringing anything to the discussion. You're not bringing any other solution.
Oh ye i bet you get to see actual non biased research about smoking all day every day everywhere. Specially since it's been like what 5 years? since the actual mechanism with which smoking affects your heart became fully understood.
Not to mention some studies always say smoking causes cancer and some say there's no conection.
So his research is unreliable but your health condition is irrefutable proof. Okay.
Anyway, I think it's a great law. Certainly another step in a good direction. I don't want to force smokers not to smoke, however, I'd really appretiate if they were more considerate to others. They got so used to it that they don't realize there's a lot of people who really mind if people smoke in their pressence.
On May 25 2011 02:04 Cyba wrote: Oh ye i bet you get to see actual non biased research about smoking all day every day everywhere. Specially since it's been like what 5 years? since the actual mechanism with which smoking affects your heart became fully understood.
Not to mention some studies always say smoking causes cancer and some say there's no conection.
smoking doesn't just lead to lung cancer btw, but would it be asking too much for sources for all your blind statements?
btw, just out of chance i came across this paper at work a few moments ago: Threshold of biologic responses of the small airway epithelium to low levels of tobacco smoke. Strulovici-Barel Y, Omberg L, O'Mahony M, Gordon C, Hollmann C, Tilley AE, Salit J, Mezey J, Harvey BG, Crystal RG. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20693378
study from cornell that shows that there is really no "threshold" for the effects of tobacco smoke on small airways in the lung. which means that even the lowest doses of tobacco smoke can lead to increased risk of lung complications later in life. this is in lungs only, so who knows what other effects lower concentrations have in other regions of the body.
We should just ban tobacco products. Let's face it - if tobacco was discovered today, there's no way you would be allowed to grow or sell that poison without ending up in prison.
The ban on smoking doesn't go far enough. Also, alcohol and coffee shouldn't be allowed in any public places. Stop rewarding people with bad habits. Drunk driving and lack of sleep are very dangerous, and cause a lot of second-hand damage to people. So many avoidable deaths because the local government doesn't take away people's rights to harm themselves. I mean, why would someone want to harm himself?
In all seriousness, banning smoking is just one step closer to banning someone for being a dick to others OR to a habit deeply rooted in America's history. What constitutes "legal" or "illegal" secondhand damage? I see this law as another small way to chew away at the rights of citizens.
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.
So you do agree that littering the park with either cigarette butts or bottled water is wrong? You just don't think we should do absolutely anything about it? We should just live in litter and be ok with it?
Because if you do think we should do something about litter. Then you could propose a different solution from banning smoking in parks. I would have no problem with that, I would love to hear a better solution. But that's not what you're doing. You're not proposing a solution. You're just pointing out a different problem.
Yes, bottled waters in the floor are just as wrong as cigarette butts. So what? What are you gonna do about it? Live in litter? We're talking about a solution to cigarette butts here. When you bring up water bottles you're not bringing anything to the discussion. You're not bringing any other solution.
edit: yay I'm a devourer >D
Grats on 3k
I'm not sure the scope of the litter problem in NYC, so I can't be sure that anything actually needs to be improved.
Assuming it's pretty bad, my proposal would be to enforce litter laws, increase fines if you need to, and increase the number of trash cans/places to put cigarettes. They don't have to be open ashtrays, something like this would be fine. + Show Spoiler +
These don't even smell and have a low profile, so they're not unsightly. Hell, you could even impose a small tobacco tax to pay for them. Banning smoking altogether is the wrong way to do it, and is blatantly hypocritical (as per my bottled water example).
People litter because there's nowhere to put their trash, not because they're malicious.
Asking to use a hot chicks lighter even when you have your own is probably the best way to initiate conversation with a girl that shares a habit with you. How will this affect the dating scene in NYC?
On May 25 2011 00:04 ComaDose wrote: To people saying smoking is useless: So is ice cream. It feels good, infinitely more so when you are addicted to nicotine. I would compare it to the feeling you get chugging a tall glass of water when you are extremely thirsty. But you can get it every couple hours. Manages stress and helps kill time. Get more breaks at work ;p. Negatives? Yeah kills you, bad breath, yellow teeth aging quicker... But go eat another cheese burger ill have a king size stick of cancer and endorphins. And we might both get hit by a car tomorrow.
Should people be subjected to second hand smoke? No. A university campus is crowded and full of sensitive young people who can hardly remember their mothers lighting up in pizza hut after the buffet. Perhaps their bodies are more susceptible to these few parts per million in passing breaths than those people of the centuries past where there were no laws. But these sensitive people do not enjoy the smell. My university imposed a 10m from any entrance law that is reasonable and generally unobserved. I am a courteous smoker, i smoke in smoking areas and avoid walking and smoking down busy pathways. People should be courteous but they are not and thus implementing rules to make them so is reasonable. Smoking in your car is taking the initiative to isolate yourself from those that may be offended and banning such is excessive and unnecessary. Rules for smoking in public are reasonable. This set of rules is to strict.
You have a very decent middle ground standing, which I wholesomely approve of. Life of lively to live to life of full life thx to cigarettes?
On May 25 2011 02:16 Serthius wrote: We should just ban tobacco products. Let's face it - if tobacco was discovered today, there's no way you would be allowed to grow or sell that poison without ending up in prison.
It will come in time. We need to smoothly prepare instead of making a radical change. Be patient little grasshopper
On May 25 2011 02:20 ComaDose wrote: Asking to use a hot chicks lighter even when you have your own is probably the best way to initiate conversation with a girl that shares a habit with you. How will this affect the dating scene in NYC?
On May 25 2011 00:04 ComaDose wrote: To people saying smoking is useless: So is ice cream. It feels good, infinitely more so when you are addicted to nicotine. I would compare it to the feeling you get chugging a tall glass of water when you are extremely thirsty. But you can get it every couple hours. Manages stress and helps kill time. Get more breaks at work ;p. Negatives? Yeah kills you, bad breath, yellow teeth aging quicker... But go eat another cheese burger ill have a king size stick of cancer and endorphins. And we might both get hit by a car tomorrow.
Should people be subjected to second hand smoke? No. A university campus is crowded and full of sensitive young people who can hardly remember their mothers lighting up in pizza hut after the buffet. Perhaps their bodies are more susceptible to these few parts per million in passing breaths than those people of the centuries past where there were no laws. But these sensitive people do not enjoy the smell. My university imposed a 10m from any entrance law that is reasonable and generally unobserved. I am a courteous smoker, i smoke in smoking areas and avoid walking and smoking down busy pathways. People should be courteous but they are not and thus implementing rules to make them so is reasonable. Smoking in your car is taking the initiative to isolate yourself from those that may be offended and banning such is excessive and unnecessary. Rules for smoking in public are reasonable. This set of rules is to strict.
You have a very decent middle ground standing, which I wholesomely approve of. Life of lively to live to life of full life thx to cigarettes?
On May 25 2011 02:20 ComaDose wrote: Asking to use a hot chicks lighter even when you have your own is probably the best way to initiate conversation with a girl that shares a habit with you. How will this affect the dating scene in NYC?
On May 25 2011 00:04 ComaDose wrote: To people saying smoking is useless: So is ice cream. It feels good, infinitely more so when you are addicted to nicotine. I would compare it to the feeling you get chugging a tall glass of water when you are extremely thirsty. But you can get it every couple hours. Manages stress and helps kill time. Get more breaks at work ;p. Negatives? Yeah kills you, bad breath, yellow teeth aging quicker... But go eat another cheese burger ill have a king size stick of cancer and endorphins. And we might both get hit by a car tomorrow.
Should people be subjected to second hand smoke? No. A university campus is crowded and full of sensitive young people who can hardly remember their mothers lighting up in pizza hut after the buffet. Perhaps their bodies are more susceptible to these few parts per million in passing breaths than those people of the centuries past where there were no laws. But these sensitive people do not enjoy the smell. My university imposed a 10m from any entrance law that is reasonable and generally unobserved. I am a courteous smoker, i smoke in smoking areas and avoid walking and smoking down busy pathways. People should be courteous but they are not and thus implementing rules to make them so is reasonable. Smoking in your car is taking the initiative to isolate yourself from those that may be offended and banning such is excessive and unnecessary. Rules for smoking in public are reasonable. This set of rules is to strict.
You have a very decent middle ground standing, which I wholesomely approve of. Life of lively to live to life of full life thx to cigarettes?
On May 25 2011 02:20 ComaDose wrote: Asking to use a hot chicks lighter even when you have your own is probably the best way to initiate conversation with a girl that shares a habit with you. How will this affect the dating scene in NYC?
On May 25 2011 00:04 ComaDose wrote: To people saying smoking is useless: So is ice cream. It feels good, infinitely more so when you are addicted to nicotine. I would compare it to the feeling you get chugging a tall glass of water when you are extremely thirsty. But you can get it every couple hours. Manages stress and helps kill time. Get more breaks at work ;p. Negatives? Yeah kills you, bad breath, yellow teeth aging quicker... But go eat another cheese burger ill have a king size stick of cancer and endorphins. And we might both get hit by a car tomorrow.
Should people be subjected to second hand smoke? No. A university campus is crowded and full of sensitive young people who can hardly remember their mothers lighting up in pizza hut after the buffet. Perhaps their bodies are more susceptible to these few parts per million in passing breaths than those people of the centuries past where there were no laws. But these sensitive people do not enjoy the smell. My university imposed a 10m from any entrance law that is reasonable and generally unobserved. I am a courteous smoker, i smoke in smoking areas and avoid walking and smoking down busy pathways. People should be courteous but they are not and thus implementing rules to make them so is reasonable. Smoking in your car is taking the initiative to isolate yourself from those that may be offended and banning such is excessive and unnecessary. Rules for smoking in public are reasonable. This set of rules is to strict.
You have a very decent middle ground standing, which I wholesomely approve of. Life of lively to live to life of full life thx to cigarettes?
On May 25 2011 02:16 Serthius wrote: We should just ban tobacco products. Let's face it - if tobacco was discovered today, there's no way you would be allowed to grow or sell that poison without ending up in prison.
It will come in time. We need to smoothly prepare instead of making a radical change. Be patient little grasshopper
It's unlikely that tobacco will ever be illegal in the US. We have an unfortunate history with prohibition, so Americans understand the effects of denying people something they want.
Conversely, we're slowly moving towards legalizing other substances. Marijuana is next, who knows after that.
Outlawing tobacco completely is pretty clearly on the minds of the people proposing this ban, which part of the reason I'm so frustrated with their poor/dishonest rationale for it.
On May 25 2011 02:20 ComaDose wrote: Asking to use a hot chicks lighter even when you have your own is probably the best way to initiate conversation with a girl that shares a habit with you. How will this affect the dating scene in NYC?
On May 25 2011 00:04 ComaDose wrote: To people saying smoking is useless: So is ice cream. It feels good, infinitely more so when you are addicted to nicotine. I would compare it to the feeling you get chugging a tall glass of water when you are extremely thirsty. But you can get it every couple hours. Manages stress and helps kill time. Get more breaks at work ;p. Negatives? Yeah kills you, bad breath, yellow teeth aging quicker... But go eat another cheese burger ill have a king size stick of cancer and endorphins. And we might both get hit by a car tomorrow.
Should people be subjected to second hand smoke? No. A university campus is crowded and full of sensitive young people who can hardly remember their mothers lighting up in pizza hut after the buffet. Perhaps their bodies are more susceptible to these few parts per million in passing breaths than those people of the centuries past where there were no laws. But these sensitive people do not enjoy the smell. My university imposed a 10m from any entrance law that is reasonable and generally unobserved. I am a courteous smoker, i smoke in smoking areas and avoid walking and smoking down busy pathways. People should be courteous but they are not and thus implementing rules to make them so is reasonable. Smoking in your car is taking the initiative to isolate yourself from those that may be offended and banning such is excessive and unnecessary. Rules for smoking in public are reasonable. This set of rules is to strict.
You have a very decent middle ground standing, which I wholesomely approve of. Life of lively to live to life of full life thx to cigarettes?
On May 25 2011 02:18 Omnipresent wrote: Assuming it's pretty bad, my proposal would be to enforce litter laws, increase fines if you need to, and increase the number of trash cans/places to put cigarettes. They don't have to be open ashtrays, something like this would be fine. + Show Spoiler +
These don't even smell and have a low profile, so they're not unsightly. Hell, you could even impose a small tobacco tax to pay for them.
That's a reasonable solution. I would be ok with that if it works. But I do have some doubts. Do you think people really will use the ashtrays? Don't you think we might end up needing way too many ashtrays that might end up being a new problem? The solution could work. But I have the impression that when you compare both solutions side by side (smoking ban vs ashtrays). And compare pros vs cons. I still have the impression that smoking ban is more advantageous. Tho I admit I'd need to know NYC better to be more certain.
People litter because there's nowhere to put their trash, not because they're malicious.
I wasn't thinking malicious as much as I was thinking lazy
On May 25 2011 02:20 ComaDose wrote: Asking to use a hot chicks lighter even when you have your own is probably the best way to initiate conversation with a girl that shares a habit with you. How will this affect the dating scene in NYC?
On May 25 2011 00:04 ComaDose wrote: To people saying smoking is useless: So is ice cream. It feels good, infinitely more so when you are addicted to nicotine. I would compare it to the feeling you get chugging a tall glass of water when you are extremely thirsty. But you can get it every couple hours. Manages stress and helps kill time. Get more breaks at work ;p. Negatives? Yeah kills you, bad breath, yellow teeth aging quicker... But go eat another cheese burger ill have a king size stick of cancer and endorphins. And we might both get hit by a car tomorrow.
Should people be subjected to second hand smoke? No. A university campus is crowded and full of sensitive young people who can hardly remember their mothers lighting up in pizza hut after the buffet. Perhaps their bodies are more susceptible to these few parts per million in passing breaths than those people of the centuries past where there were no laws. But these sensitive people do not enjoy the smell. My university imposed a 10m from any entrance law that is reasonable and generally unobserved. I am a courteous smoker, i smoke in smoking areas and avoid walking and smoking down busy pathways. People should be courteous but they are not and thus implementing rules to make them so is reasonable. Smoking in your car is taking the initiative to isolate yourself from those that may be offended and banning such is excessive and unnecessary. Rules for smoking in public are reasonable. This set of rules is to strict.
You have a very decent middle ground standing, which I wholesomely approve of. Life of lively to live to life of full life thx to cigarettes?
You can always dazzle her with your winning personality.
But she wont be allowed to loiter around to observe the show! she will be at home smoking alone in her room
Why care about girls who smoke anyway. They are disgusting ashtrays.
Hey, if she smokes, she pokes!
Serious note: it says park and beaches. Now I know a bunch of buildings have "no smoking within 20 feet" signs, but those are generally ignored. So what's stopping people from their smoking on the street? I don't see anything in the ban here about that.
On May 25 2011 02:16 Serthius wrote: We should just ban tobacco products. Let's face it - if tobacco was discovered today, there's no way you would be allowed to grow or sell that poison without ending up in prison.
It will come in time. We need to smoothly prepare instead of making a radical change. Be patient little grasshopper
It's unlikely that tobacco will ever be illegal in the US. We have an unfortunate history with prohibition, so Americans understand the effects of denying people something they want.
I wouldn't be so sure. I'm not talking of a radical change like the licor ban. But something smooth that will take a few generations. Our generation already smokes way much less then the previous. The next one will smoke even less. Eventually, the economic power of tabacco fighting against prohibition will be irrelevant. And not enough people will care. It will come in time
It's incredible the amounth of slurs thrown around in this thread, without any mod taking action. Are all mods non-smokers or do people just get away with it?
I'm sorry, but if I say "<insert minority race here> are filthy" I'll get banned, yet when someone says "smokers are disgusting ashtrays" I should feel how exactly? I get it, you don't like smoking, you think it's incredibly dangerous (which to some extent it is). Yet you have no problem indulging in other incredibly dangerous activities (by the same standards that make smoking dangerous) like drinking alcohol or driving a car.
Trust me, my second-hand smoke you breathe in the park hurts nothing like a drunk driver hitting you head-on with a pick-up truck.
On May 25 2011 02:18 Omnipresent wrote: Assuming it's pretty bad, my proposal would be to enforce litter laws, increase fines if you need to, and increase the number of trash cans/places to put cigarettes. They don't have to be open ashtrays, something like this would be fine. + Show Spoiler +
These don't even smell and have a low profile, so they're not unsightly. Hell, you could even impose a small tobacco tax to pay for them.
That's a reasonable solution. I would be ok with that if it works. But I do have some doubts. Do you think people really will use the ashtrays? Don't you think we might end up needing way too many ashtrays that might end up being a new problem? The solution could work. But I have the impression that when you compare both solutions side by side (smoking ban vs ashtrays). And compare pros vs cons. I still have the impression that smoking ban is more advantageous. Tho I admit I'd need to know NYC better to be more certain.
People litter because there's nowhere to put their trash, not because they're malicious.
I wasn't thinking malicious as much as I was thinking lazy
I'm an occasional smoker, and have friends who smoke. I can tell you, people will use cigarette receptacles if they're nearby. A lot of people even take the time to wait until their butt is cool so they can safely throw it in a trash can, assuming no other option is available.
Preventing people from having cigarettes in the area will obviously be more effective, but it's also much more intrusive and (as I've been saying) hypocritical.
On May 25 2011 02:18 Omnipresent wrote: Assuming it's pretty bad, my proposal would be to enforce litter laws, increase fines if you need to, and increase the number of trash cans/places to put cigarettes. They don't have to be open ashtrays, something like this would be fine. + Show Spoiler +
These don't even smell and have a low profile, so they're not unsightly. Hell, you could even impose a small tobacco tax to pay for them.
That's a reasonable solution. I would be ok with that if it works. But I do have some doubts. Do you think people really will use the ashtrays? Don't you think we might end up needing way too many ashtrays that might end up being a new problem? The solution could work. But I have the impression that when you compare both solutions side by side (smoking ban vs ashtrays). And compare pros vs cons. I still have the impression that smoking ban is more advantageous. Tho I admit I'd need to know NYC better to be more certain.
People litter because there's nowhere to put their trash, not because they're malicious.
I wasn't thinking malicious as much as I was thinking lazy
I'm an occasional smoker, and have friends who smoke. I can tell you, people will use cigarette receptacles if they're nearby. A lot of people even take the time to wait until their butt is cool so they can safely throw it in a trash can, assuming no other option is available.
Preventing people from having cigarettes in the area will obviously be more effective, but it's also much more intrusive and (as I've been saying) hypocritical.
I can tell you the opposite in my neighborhood. They just toss it, still alit. What's terrifying is that some of these people will toss them without caring if it hits someone, and since it's alit, it can hurt.
Yet you have no problem indulging in other incredibly dangerous activities (by the same standards that make smoking dangerous) like drinking alcohol or driving a car.
Drinking alcohol in moderation has been shown to have positive effects on your health.
Driving a car while observing the rules of traffic does not create danger.
On May 25 2011 02:39 Tudi wrote: It's incredible the amounth of slurs thrown around in this thread, without any mod taking action. Are all mods non-smokers or do people just get away with it?
I'm sorry, but if I say "<insert minority race here> are filthy" I'll get banned, yet when someone says "smokers are disgusting ashtrays" I should feel how exactly? I get it, you don't like smoking, you think it's incredibly dangerous (which to some extent it is). Yet you have no problem indulging in other incredibly dangerous activities (by the same standards that make smoking dangerous) like drinking alcohol or driving a car.
Trust me, my second-hand smoke you breathe in the park hurts nothing like a drunk driver hitting you head-on with a pick-up truck.
P.S. I'm smoking a cig while I write this. There.
Dunno - I mean, having a few broken bones and then suing the drunk can possibly be better than getting chemo for 5-10 years.
I do agree on the "insulting" part. Just call smokers smokers.
On May 25 2011 02:39 Tudi wrote: It's incredible the amounth of slurs thrown around in this thread, without any mod taking action. Are all mods non-smokers or do people just get away with it?
I'm sorry, but if I say "<insert minority race here> are filthy" I'll get banned, yet when someone says "smokers are disgusting ashtrays" I should feel how exactly? I get it, you don't like smoking, you think it's incredibly dangerous (which to some extent it is). Yet you have no problem indulging in other incredibly dangerous activities (by the same standards that make smoking dangerous) like drinking alcohol or driving a car.
Trust me, my second-hand smoke you breathe in the park hurts nothing like a drunk driver hitting you head-on with a pick-up truck.
P.S. I'm smoking a cig while I write this. There.
doesn't mean it's not harmful and shouldn't be regulated.
On May 25 2011 02:16 Serthius wrote: We should just ban tobacco products. Let's face it - if tobacco was discovered today, there's no way you would be allowed to grow or sell that poison without ending up in prison.
It will come in time. We need to smoothly prepare instead of making a radical change. Be patient little grasshopper
It's unlikely that tobacco will ever be illegal in the US. We have an unfortunate history with prohibition, so Americans understand the effects of denying people something they want.
I wouldn't be so sure. I'm not talking of a radical change like the licor ban. But something smooth that will take a few generations. Our generation already smokes way much less then the previous. The next one will smoke even less. Eventually, the economic power of tabacco fighting against prohibition will be irrelevant. And not enough people will care. It will come in time
Might make a sick comeback when healthcare becomes so good it's not a danger anymore.
On May 25 2011 02:39 Tudi wrote: It's incredible the amounth of slurs thrown around in this thread, without any mod taking action. Are all mods non-smokers or do people just get away with it?
I'm sorry, but if I say "<insert minority race here> are filthy" I'll get banned, yet when someone says "smokers are disgusting ashtrays" I should feel how exactly? I get it, you don't like smoking, you think it's incredibly dangerous (which to some extent it is). Yet you have no problem indulging in other incredibly dangerous activities (by the same standards that make smoking dangerous) like drinking alcohol or driving a car.
Trust me, my second-hand smoke you breathe in the park hurts nothing like a drunk driver hitting you head-on with a pick-up truck.
P.S. I'm smoking a cig while I write this. There.
Thats why drunk driving is illegal just like smoking should be. And pls stop making assumptions about my opinion on drinking alcohol or driving a car.
On May 25 2011 02:16 Serthius wrote: We should just ban tobacco products. Let's face it - if tobacco was discovered today, there's no way you would be allowed to grow or sell that poison without ending up in prison.
It will come in time. We need to smoothly prepare instead of making a radical change. Be patient little grasshopper
It's unlikely that tobacco will ever be illegal in the US. We have an unfortunate history with prohibition, so Americans understand the effects of denying people something they want.
I wouldn't be so sure. I'm not talking of a radical change like the licor ban. But something smooth that will take a few generations. Our generation already smokes way much less then the previous. The next one will smoke even less. Eventually, the economic power of tabacco fighting against prohibition will be irrelevant. And not enough people will care. It will come in time
I'm not so sure. A lot of people still smoke, and will continue to smoke for a very long time.
I think non-smokers generally misunderstand the situation. They think, "if people only knew how bad tobacco is for them, they'd never get hooked in the first place." Sure, that will stop a lot of people from ever trying tobacco. Telling people the facts is also the right thing to do, regardless of whether it prevents people from smoking.
I'm not addicted. I was told the risks from a very young age. I know that even the small amount I smoke will probably kill me if I continue. But I still smoke . For people who enjoy it, the benefits outweigh the risks. Author Christopher Hitchens is currently dieing from lung cancer. When asked if he would go back and never start smoking, he says no.
The odds of tobacco becoming so unpopular that it can be outlawed without serious reprisal is virtually zero.
We should discourage smoking, especially to children, but adults should have the right.
On May 25 2011 02:16 Serthius wrote: We should just ban tobacco products. Let's face it - if tobacco was discovered today, there's no way you would be allowed to grow or sell that poison without ending up in prison.
It will come in time. We need to smoothly prepare instead of making a radical change. Be patient little grasshopper
It's unlikely that tobacco will ever be illegal in the US. We have an unfortunate history with prohibition, so Americans understand the effects of denying people something they want.
I wouldn't be so sure. I'm not talking of a radical change like the licor ban. But something smooth that will take a few generations. Our generation already smokes way much less then the previous. The next one will smoke even less. Eventually, the economic power of tabacco fighting against prohibition will be irrelevant. And not enough people will care. It will come in time
Might make a sick comeback when healthcare becomes so good it's not a danger anymore.
people aren't developing vaccines and treatments so some joe can inject himself with 20 substances but know he'll be still alive because of doctors.
just because we know how to take a bullet out of your arm without you dying doesn’t mean you can start shooting yourself or others for the thrill of it.
On May 25 2011 02:47 BroodjeBaller wrote: Thats why drunk driving is illegal just like smoking should be. And pls stop making assumptions about my opinion on drinking alcohol or driving a car.
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.
On May 25 2011 02:39 Tudi wrote: It's incredible the amounth of slurs thrown around in this thread, without any mod taking action. Are all mods non-smokers or do people just get away with it?
I'm sorry, but if I say "<insert minority race here> are filthy" I'll get banned, yet when someone says "smokers are disgusting ashtrays" I should feel how exactly? I get it, you don't like smoking, you think it's incredibly dangerous (which to some extent it is). Yet you have no problem indulging in other incredibly dangerous activities (by the same standards that make smoking dangerous) like drinking alcohol or driving a car.
Trust me, my second-hand smoke you breathe in the park hurts nothing like a drunk driver hitting you head-on with a pick-up truck.
P.S. I'm smoking a cig while I write this. There.
You're making too much of this. Smoking isn't like being a racial/ethnic/religious minority. It's a clear choice.
Also, a lot of people have received temp bans for their comments in this thread. It doesn't happen immediately, but it'll happen.
I'm a smoker, and I think the moderation in this thread is fine. Posters of most of the disgusting remarks have already been issued bans. If you're upset about this, go to the "Tobacco Smoking Thread." Just about ever page has a long post about how awful smoking is, and how awful/disgusting smokers are. It's essentially like posting negative comments about someone in a fan club thread, only it's about a product instead of a person.
On May 25 2011 02:16 Serthius wrote: We should just ban tobacco products. Let's face it - if tobacco was discovered today, there's no way you would be allowed to grow or sell that poison without ending up in prison.
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.
On May 25 2011 02:16 Serthius wrote: We should just ban tobacco products. Let's face it - if tobacco was discovered today, there's no way you would be allowed to grow or sell that poison without ending up in prison.
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.
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.
On May 25 2011 03:02 Omnipresent wrote: You're making too much of this. Smoking isn't like being a racial/ethnic/religious minority. It's a clear choice.
Also, a lot of people have received temp bans for their comments in this thread. It doesn't happen immediately, but it'll happen.
I'm a smoker, and I think the moderation in this thread is fine. Posters of most of the disgusting remarks have already been issued bans. If you're upset about this, go to the "Tobacco Smoking Thread." Just about ever page has a long post about how awful smoking is, and how awful/disgusting smokers are. It's essentially like posting negative comments about someone in a fan club thread, only it's about a product instead of a person.
It's an insult aimed at a minority. Regardless if the minority is based on race, a hobby, a profession, a religion or sex it's still an insult. I for one am growing a bit tired to be treated like an outcast just because I have this one vice that I use for social interaction/relaxation (I don't drink, I don't whore, I don't gamble, I don't do fast-food, I don't pee in public. May I please have this one bad addiction in my life, pretty please?).
On May 25 2011 02:16 Serthius wrote: We should just ban tobacco products. Let's face it - if tobacco was discovered today, there's no way you would be allowed to grow or sell that poison without ending up in prison.
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.
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.
You ought to have the right to kill yourself if you want to, but that's not the point.
A better way of saying "if i want to poison myself," would be "I'm an adult, and I've weighed the costs and benefits of smoking. I decided that the benefits outweigh the risks, even though that means a shorter life."
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
On May 25 2011 02:47 BroodjeBaller wrote: Thats why drunk driving is illegal just like smoking should be. And pls stop making assumptions about my opinion on drinking alcohol or driving a car.
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?
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
On May 25 2011 02:39 Tudi wrote: It's incredible the amounth of slurs thrown around in this thread, without any mod taking action. Are all mods non-smokers or do people just get away with it?
I'm sorry, but if I say "<insert minority race here> are filthy" I'll get banned, yet when someone says "smokers are disgusting ashtrays" I should feel how exactly? I get it, you don't like smoking, you think it's incredibly dangerous (which to some extent it is). Yet you have no problem indulging in other incredibly dangerous activities (by the same standards that make smoking dangerous) like drinking alcohol or driving a car.
Trust me, my second-hand smoke you breathe in the park hurts nothing like a drunk driver hitting you head-on with a pick-up truck.
P.S. I'm smoking a cig while I write this. There.
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:
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.
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.
I often get bronchitis from prolonged exposure to second hand smoke. Second hand smoke was also the cause of my asthma that started as a child.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On May 25 2011 02:16 Serthius wrote: We should just ban tobacco products. Let's face it - if tobacco was discovered today, there's no way you would be allowed to grow or sell that poison without ending up in prison.
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
Tried this a few times when out running. Breathing heavily and along comes a smoker out on a stroll and I take a big gasp of his contaminated shit right down the lungs almost makes me wanna puke... god I hate that.
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.
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.
To me it is not a big deal and I don't see why it should be. Honestly it sad sometimes when people can't just restrict themselves from doing something and get all uppity about being told not to.
On May 25 2011 02:39 Tudi wrote: It's incredible the amounth of slurs thrown around in this thread, without any mod taking action. Are all mods non-smokers or do people just get away with it?
I'm sorry, but if I say "<insert minority race here> are filthy" I'll get banned, yet when someone says "smokers are disgusting ashtrays" I should feel how exactly? I get it, you don't like smoking, you think it's incredibly dangerous (which to some extent it is). Yet you have no problem indulging in other incredibly dangerous activities (by the same standards that make smoking dangerous) like drinking alcohol or driving a car.
Trust me, my second-hand smoke you breathe in the park hurts nothing like a drunk driver hitting you head-on with a pick-up truck.
P.S. I'm smoking a cig while I write this. There.
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:
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.
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 03:13 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.
let's not get too carried away with this analogy...
imagine most people you meet on the street using pepper spray on you every single time you come near them, they stand in the entrance of buildings you want to enter/leave, they are everywhere. Pepper spray dissipates fast outdoors and you have plenty of space to go somewhere else if you don't like it (in theory, in reality smoker are most of the time hanging out where it's the shortest way for them, thus in places you cannot always evade). See how messed up that is? If you never tasted pepper spray, go inhale some and you know how i feel. 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.
If they are concerned about second hand smoke and littering in places like parks, then just establish smoking areas. All you need is a sign and a trash can. Banning it outright is a little bit too much for a park-- it's an outdoor, public area. There's no way a compromise couldn't have been made on this, but I guess you can't expect politicians to be reasonable. Smokers have to be punished because they're bad people, right?
On May 25 2011 02:16 Serthius wrote: We should just ban tobacco products. Let's face it - if tobacco was discovered today, there's no way you would be allowed to grow or sell that poison without ending up in prison.
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.
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).
On May 25 2011 02:16 Serthius wrote: We should just ban tobacco products. Let's face it - if tobacco was discovered today, there's no way you would be allowed to grow or sell that poison without ending up in prison.
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
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 ?
They could just make this easy and ban the selling of cigarettes in the state. As a smoker something like this is a slap in the face. "Hey we're going to tax you a lot on those cigarettes that you spend so much money on…but don't smoke them outside. Or inside."
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
On May 24 2011 19:05 EdaPoe wrote: Maybe I am a bit ignorant but would't it be possible for one to take the case to federal court for being unconstitutional? (the part of smoking in privacy -car/house etc-)
That's laughable, I'd like to hear the line of reasoning preventing a landowner from adopting rules restricting the behavior of its guests.
On May 25 2011 04:14 iCCup.Nove wrote: They could just make this easy and ban the selling of cigarettes in the state. As a smoker something like this is a slap in the face. "Hey we're going to tax you a lot on those cigarettes that you spend so much money on…but don't smoke them outside. Or inside."
chicago better not adopt this. fuck.
Banning the sale of cigarettes would likely be unconstitutional.
I'd just like to point out that if people are so concerned with inhaling smoke and liter from cigarette butts there's a couple of things that could be done in general. First of all, simply don't walk past people smoking, intentionally to give them a glaring look, just avoid us, and you won't inhale anything. Secondly, the main reason I personally out my cigarette on the ground is quite simple - there is no receptacles provided - even in the public areas you still can smoke - to put them in. What am I supposed to do? Spit out the heater and put the butt in my pocket? I don't think so that would just be disgusting.
On May 25 2011 04:14 iCCup.Nove wrote: They could just make this easy and ban the selling of cigarettes in the state. As a smoker something like this is a slap in the face. "Hey we're going to tax you a lot on those cigarettes that you spend so much money on…but don't smoke them outside. Or inside."
chicago better not adopt this. fuck.
Banning the sale of cigarettes would likely be unconstitutional.
Yea because they never banned alcohol or cannabis for no reason and still maintain one of those bans even against massive evidence supporting that it is no worse than the one that was unbanned. That never happened.
On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote: 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 ?
are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit?
On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote: 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 ?
are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit?
That's exactly what he's saying. If you're so concerned with health problems - look up liver cancer, liver sclerosis, etc. Fun.
On May 25 2011 04:50 SichuanPanda wrote: I'd just like to point out that if people are so concerned with inhaling smoke and liter from cigarette butts there's a couple of things that could be done in general. First of all, simply don't walk past people smoking, intentionally to give them a glaring look, just avoid us, and you won't inhale anything. Secondly, the main reason I personally out my cigarette on the ground is quite simple - there is no receptacles provided - even in the public areas you still can smoke - to put them in. What am I supposed to do? Spit out the heater and put the butt in my pocket? I don't think so that would just be disgusting.
On May 25 2011 04:14 iCCup.Nove wrote: They could just make this easy and ban the selling of cigarettes in the state. As a smoker something like this is a slap in the face. "Hey we're going to tax you a lot on those cigarettes that you spend so much money on…but don't smoke them outside. Or inside."
chicago better not adopt this. fuck.
Banning the sale of cigarettes would likely be unconstitutional.
Yea because they never banned alcohol or cannabis for no reason and still maintain one of those bans even against massive evidence supporting that it is no worse than the one that was unbanned. That never happened.
so why should the majority of people have to avoid areas of the street, or take alternative routes so you can indulge in a smoke? how does that make any sense?
On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote: 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 ?
are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit?
That's exactly what he's saying. If you're so concerned with health problems - look up liver cancer, liver sclerosis, etc. Fun.
i have said this like 10 times in this thread, and it's been echoed by many others. clearly you put no effort into reading what has already been discussed and just decided to come in with some random statements.
how are the diseases you mention at all related to the topic at hand? do their existence make smoking any less dangerous for you? do their existence justify the companies that market and sell a harmful substance to the public?
On May 25 2011 02:39 Tudi wrote: It's incredible the amounth of slurs thrown around in this thread, without any mod taking action. Are all mods non-smokers or do people just get away with it?
I'm sorry, but if I say "<insert minority race here> are filthy" I'll get banned, yet when someone says "smokers are disgusting ashtrays" I should feel how exactly? I get it, you don't like smoking, you think it's incredibly dangerous (which to some extent it is). Yet you have no problem indulging in other incredibly dangerous activities (by the same standards that make smoking dangerous) like drinking alcohol or driving a car.
Trust me, my second-hand smoke you breathe in the park hurts nothing like a drunk driver hitting you head-on with a pick-up truck.
P.S. I'm smoking a cig while I write this. There.
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:
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.
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.
I agree that any shs is probably not good for you, all I'm saying is that there is such a thing as going too far in the anti-smoking crusade. Construction sites, hummers, swimming pools, burning trash, you name it, there is a substantial amount of carcenogenics (and fine particulates) in any urban environment already. Compared to this, the amount of shs you're exposed to over your lifetime while you're in parks or on a beach is absolutely nothing. It's not comparable to workplaces, bars, schools, any of that, mainly because it was never really an issue to begin with.
I can't remember the last time I was bothered by smoke either on a beach or in a park, and it's hard to imagine circumstances where you can't get away (or ask the smoker to move) from the shs easily. The point here is, should we really try to regulate in cases where exposure is so limited in the first place? And after the experiences in europe with banning smoking from bars, do you actually expect anyone to adhere to the policy? It just becomes countproductive.
This is just symbolic, and if you really want to apply the 'all shs is bad' logic, just ban smoking everywhere except for people's homes.
On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote: 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 ?
are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit?
Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car.
Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them.
Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense.
[QUOTE]On May 25 2011 04:54 fush wrote: [QUOTE]On May 25 2011 04:50 SichuanPanda wrote: I'd just like to point out that if people are so concerned with inhaling smoke and liter from cigarette butts there's a couple of things that could be done in general. First of all, simply don't walk past people smoking, intentionally to give them a glaring look, just avoid us, and you won't inhale anything. Secondly, the main reason I personally out my cigarette on the ground is quite simple - there is no receptacles provided - even in the public areas you still can smoke - to put them in. What am I supposed to do? Spit out the heater and put the butt in my pocket? I don't think so that would just be disgusting.
[QUOTE]On May 25 2011 04:45 MozzarellaL wrote: so why should the majority of people have to avoid areas of the street, or take alternative routes so you can indulge in a smoke? how does that make any sense? [/QUOTE] Ofc that it shouldn't be that way. I'm a smoker and I respect the fact that other people might not like the smell, so I just go around them and not blow smoke when I'm passing by ;p. It's not that smokers should go around doing whatever they wan't. It's the fact that the whole anti-smoking stuff is going way over the top at this point and people should just chill out. Make smoking zones, provide some bins for buds and fine any asshole who smokes in someone's face when someone asks him not to (In a public place - excluding private locales ofc) and all will be well.
On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote: 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...
On May 25 2011 02:04 Cyba wrote: Oh ye i bet you get to see actual non biased research about smoking all day every day everywhere. Specially since it's been like what 5 years? since the actual mechanism with which smoking affects your heart became fully understood.
Not to mention some studies always say smoking causes cancer and some say there's no conection.
EDIT:
Remember how we're told coffee is bad for your BP? Just this month there was some report that having 4+ cups of coffee a day won't significantly affect you in any way.
2 things to say. One, your country is far behind on the smoking issue. If the world took its lead from Romania in other areas we'd see a lot more horse drawn carts on our roads (Go on, tell me its progressive and your contribution to lower pollution!) Your country is a major lagger in this area, not a leader.
Two, shockingly, drinking too much water can kill you. Theres studies on everything you can think of, chocolate, potatoes and so on. Many you think "where do people come up with this crap?" but I can sort of seperate the smoking from the coffee and most people with unclouded judgement can too.
On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote: 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 ?
are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit?
Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car.
Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them.
Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense.
so hypothetically, if a company started to sell firearms in schools to your children, or hard drugs like coke, acid, heroin, for a hefty profit... it's not their fault that other children in the school get shot, or get hooked on these drugs?
all i see is "freedom". no one is being prosecuted for anything, you're still allowed to smoke. they're are just not allowed to smoke in public areas, much like how you're not allowed to wield firearms in public - both share an inherent danger in putting another's health and well-being at risk.
there's a limit to how much "freedom" a society can handle. how much are you advocating exactly?
Since universal health care is on the way this makes sense. Ruining your health now effects more than just yourself since it costs everyone elses money to treat you. Society is about everyone helping each other so that everyone wins. Balancing free will against civil responsibility is always slightly tricky but in this case I think this is a good move. It doesn't make sense for weed to be illegal but tobacco to be legal. Attempting to reduce tobacco smoking is a sensible goal for any Country right now.
Hahaha the big anti smoking bandwagon arrives again.
I always thought you know crime's of poverty and guns were more of a problem and inbreeding might want to look at that first.
Just saying.
I cant wait to move to the state's normally if you try heckle people in NZ you just get a smack in the face for being rude (don't get me wrong if someone walks up to me smoking out side a school or other place's you should respect then comon smokers you cant really have a bitch just walk down the road abit)
I dont mind people killing themselves by smoking, what I do mind however is that filthy smelly shit they breathe out that gets in your hair, clothes etc. gtfo with that shit.
On May 25 2011 02:39 Tudi wrote: It's incredible the amounth of slurs thrown around in this thread, without any mod taking action. Are all mods non-smokers or do people just get away with it?
I'm sorry, but if I say "<insert minority race here> are filthy" I'll get banned, yet when someone says "smokers are disgusting ashtrays" I should feel how exactly? I get it, you don't like smoking, you think it's incredibly dangerous (which to some extent it is). Yet you have no problem indulging in other incredibly dangerous activities (by the same standards that make smoking dangerous) like drinking alcohol or driving a car.
Trust me, my second-hand smoke you breathe in the park hurts nothing like a drunk driver hitting you head-on with a pick-up truck.
P.S. I'm smoking a cig while I write this. There.
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:
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.
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.
I agree that any shs is probably not good for you, all I'm saying is that there is such a thing as going too far in the anti-smoking crusade. Construction sites, hummers, swimming pools, burning trash, you name it, there is a substantial amount of carcenogenics (and fine particulates) in any urban environment already. Compared to this, the amount of shs you're exposed to over your lifetime while you're in parks or on a beach is absolutely nothing. It's not comparable to workplaces, bars, schools, any of that, mainly because it was never really an issue to begin with.
I can't remember the last time I was bothered by smoke either on a beach or in a park, and it's hard to imagine circumstances where you can't get away (or ask the smoker to move) from the shs easily. The point here is, should we really try to regulate in cases where exposure is so limited in the first place? And after the experiences in europe with banning smoking from bars, do you actually expect anyone to adhere to the policy? It just becomes countproductive.
This is just symbolic, and if you really want to apply the 'all shs is bad' logic, just ban smoking everywhere except for people's homes.
1. it's a small component of the carcinogenics found in air 2. it's detrimental to health even through transient exposure in air
i still don't see how statement 1 should change anything if the effects of statement 2 is being controlled through regulation. regardless of how much of the total toxic pollutants in air SHS comprises of, it still is harmful and should be regulated. sure, other pollutants would be regulated in a perfect world where we don't need electricity, or when we don't need to travel, or air condition our rooms on hot summer days. but until the technology is there, are you willing to drop all of these things? the fact of the matter is, we CAN control SHS, NYC chose to accomplish this through radical means. it's a risk, but it's a risk worth taking if it means there's a chance of reducing the taxation on healthcare that is cigarette smoking / second hand smoke.
as for your last statement - i hope the day comes when nothing needs to be banned, and the populace is well educated enough to make the decision not to smoke.
I'm no smoker and while I have nothing against them, I really detest the smell of smoke. (also makes my eye teary) But most smokers I know, not that I know many, always refrain from smoking around non-smoking friends and they usually go outside to the pavement or curb to light one up. I'd like to believe they are just as understanding as the non-smokers about their habit.
On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote: 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 ?
are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit?
Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car.
Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them.
Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense.
so hypothetically, if a company started to sell firearms in schools to your children, or hard drugs like coke, acid, heroin, for a hefty profit... it's not their fault that other children in the school get shot, or get hooked on these drugs?
all i see is "freedom". no one is being prosecuted for anything, you're still allowed to smoke. they're are just not allowed to smoke in public areas, much like how you're not allowed to wield firearms in public - both share an inherent danger in putting another's health and well-being at risk.
there's a limit to how much "freedom" a society can handle. how much are you advocating exactly?
That's something else - every kid is basically stupid (or "lacks experience"), that's the reason why every child has a legal guardian. I'm talking about adults, minors are out of the equation.
Depends on what you define as a "public area". Check my last post.
How much freedom do I advocate ? Depends on a specific part of life, but in general according to the words: "Your freedom ends where mine begins".
Ofc, full-blown anarchy is just plain stupid ;p. I'm more of a libertarian.
On May 25 2011 04:45 MozzarellaL wrote: Banning the sale of cigarettes would likely be unconstitutional.
Yea because they never banned alcohol or cannabis for no reason and still maintain one of those bans even against massive evidence supporting that it is no worse than the one that was unbanned. That never happened.
You're a funny guy. They had to amend the constitution in order to ban alcohol. And cannabis never reached the height of manufacture or industry that tobacco did in the States. You're from Canada, so I don't expect you to know about things like the Commerce Clause or Federal Pre-emption. There are more ways to strike down a law for being unconstitutional than saying that it violates a Constitutional admendment.
On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote: 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 ?
are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit?
Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car.
Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them.
Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense.
so hypothetically, if a company started to sell firearms in schools to your children, or hard drugs like coke, acid, heroin, for a hefty profit... it's not their fault that other children in the school get shot, or get hooked on these drugs?
all i see is "freedom". no one is being prosecuted for anything, you're still allowed to smoke. they're are just not allowed to smoke in public areas, much like how you're not allowed to wield firearms in public - both share an inherent danger in putting another's health and well-being at risk.
there's a limit to how much "freedom" a society can handle. how much are you advocating exactly?
That's something else - every kid is basically stupid (or "lacks experience"), that's the reason why every child has a legal guardian. I'm talking about adults, minors are out of the equation.
Depends on what you define as a "public area". Check my last post.
How much freedom do I advocate ? Depends on a specific part of life, but in general according to the words: "Your freedom ends where mine begins".
Ofc, full-blown anarchy is just plain stupid ;p. I'm more of a libertarian.
how educated are most adults on the effects of smoking, or SHS? most here even seem to claim that SHS in air is "nothing" where there have been pretty concrete proof showing otherwise (and i've listed only a few of these in previous posts as well as many other posters). most adults know smoking causes cancer, but not the many other things it can do to your body/brain function. so no.. i won't say the kids are more "stupid" in the example i gave as compared to adults in the situation we have here.
but even so, a company sells hard drugs to the public - all ages, markets it, and makes huge profits. it's not their fault if drug addiction/drug related healthcare issues go through the roof? what you're essentially implying is that companies needn't take responsibility for what they sell - regardless of how dangerous it can be. somehow i find that a bit disconcerting if put into practice.
On May 25 2011 02:39 Tudi wrote: It's incredible the amounth of slurs thrown around in this thread, without any mod taking action. Are all mods non-smokers or do people just get away with it?
I'm sorry, but if I say "<insert minority race here> are filthy" I'll get banned, yet when someone says "smokers are disgusting ashtrays" I should feel how exactly? I get it, you don't like smoking, you think it's incredibly dangerous (which to some extent it is). Yet you have no problem indulging in other incredibly dangerous activities (by the same standards that make smoking dangerous) like drinking alcohol or driving a car.
Trust me, my second-hand smoke you breathe in the park hurts nothing like a drunk driver hitting you head-on with a pick-up truck.
P.S. I'm smoking a cig while I write this. There.
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:
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.
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.
I agree that any shs is probably not good for you, all I'm saying is that there is such a thing as going too far in the anti-smoking crusade. Construction sites, hummers, swimming pools, burning trash, you name it, there is a substantial amount of carcenogenics (and fine particulates) in any urban environment already. Compared to this, the amount of shs you're exposed to over your lifetime while you're in parks or on a beach is absolutely nothing. It's not comparable to workplaces, bars, schools, any of that, mainly because it was never really an issue to begin with.
I can't remember the last time I was bothered by smoke either on a beach or in a park, and it's hard to imagine circumstances where you can't get away (or ask the smoker to move) from the shs easily. The point here is, should we really try to regulate in cases where exposure is so limited in the first place? And after the experiences in europe with banning smoking from bars, do you actually expect anyone to adhere to the policy? It just becomes countproductive.
This is just symbolic, and if you really want to apply the 'all shs is bad' logic, just ban smoking everywhere except for people's homes.
1. it's a small component of the carcinogenics found in air 2. it's detrimental to health even through transient exposure in air
i still don't see how statement 1 should change anything if the effects of statement 2 is being controlled through regulation. regardless of how much of the total toxic pollutants in air SHS comprises of, it still is harmful and should be regulated. sure, other pollutants would be regulated in a perfect world where we don't need electricity, or when we don't need to travel, or air condition our rooms on hot summer days. but until the technology is there, are you willing to drop all of these things? the fact of the matter is, we CAN control SHS, NYC chose to accomplish this through radical means. it's a risk, but it's a risk worth taking if it means there's a chance of reducing the taxation on healthcare that is cigarette smoking / second hand smoke.
as for your last statement - i hope the day comes when nothing needs to be banned, and the populace is well educated enough to make the decision not to smoke.
But they're not actually regulating it consitently. They're regulating it in parks and on beaches, two of the places where in my view it wasn't much of an issue in the first place.
The strength of the smoking ban in the workplace is that you cannot escape shs there. You're stuck with it, and they extended this logic to restaurants and bars (all of which I agree with, altho I think bars should have the choice). The next step would be to ban smoking in situations where there's high exposure/little chance of avoiding, like sidewalks, the exit of a mall, whatever, but they chose situations where there is relatively low exposure and a high chance of avoiding.
This is simply the wrong way to go with the anti-smoking logic. Before you ban in large open spaces, you should be banning in small, crowded ones. Which is why this isn't a 'radical' chance, it's simply symbolic. Parks and beaches should have been the last places where the smoking ban should have hit next.
(Next to that, people are too concerned with the health risks from smoking, and too little with pretty much everything else, which is what I ment to point out. Just because smokers piss people off doesn't mean they're the root cause of everything cancer.)
On May 25 2011 02:39 Tudi wrote: It's incredible the amounth of slurs thrown around in this thread, without any mod taking action. Are all mods non-smokers or do people just get away with it?
I'm sorry, but if I say "<insert minority race here> are filthy" I'll get banned, yet when someone says "smokers are disgusting ashtrays" I should feel how exactly? I get it, you don't like smoking, you think it's incredibly dangerous (which to some extent it is). Yet you have no problem indulging in other incredibly dangerous activities (by the same standards that make smoking dangerous) like drinking alcohol or driving a car.
Trust me, my second-hand smoke you breathe in the park hurts nothing like a drunk driver hitting you head-on with a pick-up truck.
P.S. I'm smoking a cig while I write this. There.
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:
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.
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.
I agree that any shs is probably not good for you, all I'm saying is that there is such a thing as going too far in the anti-smoking crusade. Construction sites, hummers, swimming pools, burning trash, you name it, there is a substantial amount of carcenogenics (and fine particulates) in any urban environment already. Compared to this, the amount of shs you're exposed to over your lifetime while you're in parks or on a beach is absolutely nothing. It's not comparable to workplaces, bars, schools, any of that, mainly because it was never really an issue to begin with.
I can't remember the last time I was bothered by smoke either on a beach or in a park, and it's hard to imagine circumstances where you can't get away (or ask the smoker to move) from the shs easily. The point here is, should we really try to regulate in cases where exposure is so limited in the first place? And after the experiences in europe with banning smoking from bars, do you actually expect anyone to adhere to the policy? It just becomes countproductive.
This is just symbolic, and if you really want to apply the 'all shs is bad' logic, just ban smoking everywhere except for people's homes.
1. it's a small component of the carcinogenics found in air 2. it's detrimental to health even through transient exposure in air
i still don't see how statement 1 should change anything if the effects of statement 2 is being controlled through regulation. regardless of how much of the total toxic pollutants in air SHS comprises of, it still is harmful and should be regulated. sure, other pollutants would be regulated in a perfect world where we don't need electricity, or when we don't need to travel, or air condition our rooms on hot summer days. but until the technology is there, are you willing to drop all of these things? the fact of the matter is, we CAN control SHS, NYC chose to accomplish this through radical means. it's a risk, but it's a risk worth taking if it means there's a chance of reducing the taxation on healthcare that is cigarette smoking / second hand smoke.
as for your last statement - i hope the day comes when nothing needs to be banned, and the populace is well educated enough to make the decision not to smoke.
But they're not actually regulating it consitently. They're regulating it in parks and on beaches, two of the places where in my view it wasn't much of an issue in the first place.
The strength of the smoking ban in the workplace is that you cannot escape shs there. You're stuck with it, and they extended this logic to restaurants and bars (all of which I agree with, altho I think bars should have the choice). The next step would be to ban smoking in situations where there's high exposure/little chance of avoiding, like sidewalks, the exit of a mall, whatever, but they chose situations where there is relatively low exposure and a high chance of avoiding.
This is simply the wrong way to go with the anti-smoking logic. Before you ban in large open spaces, you should be banning in small, crowded ones. Which is why this isn't a 'radical' chance, it's simply symbolic. Parks and beaches should have been the last places where the smoking ban should have hit next.
ok so you're just saying that there SHOULD be regulation, just that the order by which they are doing it may not be optimal. i can agree with that.
On May 25 2011 02:04 Cyba wrote: Oh ye i bet you get to see actual non biased research about smoking all day every day everywhere. Specially since it's been like what 5 years? since the actual mechanism with which smoking affects your heart became fully understood.
Not to mention some studies always say smoking causes cancer and some say there's no conection.
EDIT:
Remember how we're told coffee is bad for your BP? Just this month there was some report that having 4+ cups of coffee a day won't significantly affect you in any way.
2 things to say. One, your country is far behind on the smoking issue. If the world took its lead from Romania in other areas we'd see a lot more horse drawn carts on our roads (Go on, tell me its progressive and your contribution to lower pollution!) Your country is a major lagger in this area, not a leader.
Two, shockingly, drinking too much water can kill you. Theres studies on everything you can think of, chocolate, potatoes and so on. Many you think "where do people come up with this crap?" but I can sort of seperate the smoking from the coffee and most people with unclouded judgement can too.
You are from south-africa and make fun of someone being from Romania?! Really?!
On May 25 2011 02:04 Cyba wrote: Oh ye i bet you get to see actual non biased research about smoking all day every day everywhere. Specially since it's been like what 5 years? since the actual mechanism with which smoking affects your heart became fully understood.
Not to mention some studies always say smoking causes cancer and some say there's no conection.
EDIT:
Remember how we're told coffee is bad for your BP? Just this month there was some report that having 4+ cups of coffee a day won't significantly affect you in any way.
2 things to say. One, your country is far behind on the smoking issue. If the world took its lead from Romania in other areas we'd see a lot more horse drawn carts on our roads (Go on, tell me its progressive and your contribution to lower pollution!) Your country is a major lagger in this area, not a leader.
Two, shockingly, drinking too much water can kill you. Theres studies on everything you can think of, chocolate, potatoes and so on. Many you think "where do people come up with this crap?" but I can sort of seperate the smoking from the coffee and most people with unclouded judgement can too.
You are from south-africa and make fun of someone being from Romania?! Really?!
how does one turn this topic into a nationalistic debate?
On May 25 2011 04:45 MozzarellaL wrote: Banning the sale of cigarettes would likely be unconstitutional.
Yea because they never banned alcohol or cannabis for no reason and still maintain one of those bans even against massive evidence supporting that it is no worse than the one that was unbanned. That never happened.
You're a funny guy. They had to amend the constitution in order to ban alcohol. And cannabis never reached the height of manufacture or industry that tobacco did in the States. You're from Canada, so I don't expect you to know about things like the Commerce Clause or Federal Pre-emption. There are more ways to strike down a law for being unconstitutional than saying that it violates a Constitutional admendment.
Well, look at the Chech Republic - you can legally own heroine there. I wouldn't say that the tobacco industry there was small compared to the one dealing in heroine or any other drug for that matter. Either way - you know very well what effect the prohibition had on crime rates. Every single thing you ban always leads to 2 things:
Mobs earning a ton of cash + delivering products that very well may be created with cheaper substitutes thus being far worse for your health than the real thing. People going to jail.
The only thing that doesn't change on the other hand is the access to the banned stuff. Sure, it's illegal, but what real problem is there at this point to get some coke or weed? Not to mention "the forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest".
On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote: 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 ?
are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit?
Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car.
Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them.
Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense.
so hypothetically, if a company started to sell firearms in schools to your children, or hard drugs like coke, acid, heroin, for a hefty profit... it's not their fault that other children in the school get shot, or get hooked on these drugs?
all i see is "freedom". no one is being prosecuted for anything, you're still allowed to smoke. they're are just not allowed to smoke in public areas, much like how you're not allowed to wield firearms in public - both share an inherent danger in putting another's health and well-being at risk.
there's a limit to how much "freedom" a society can handle. how much are you advocating exactly?
That's something else - every kid is basically stupid (or "lacks experience"), that's the reason why every child has a legal guardian. I'm talking about adults, minors are out of the equation.
Depends on what you define as a "public area". Check my last post.
How much freedom do I advocate ? Depends on a specific part of life, but in general according to the words: "Your freedom ends where mine begins".
Ofc, full-blown anarchy is just plain stupid ;p. I'm more of a libertarian.
how educated are most adults on the effects of smoking, or SHS? most here even seem to claim that SHS in air is "nothing" where there have been pretty concrete proof showing otherwise (and i've listed only a few of these in previous posts as well as many other posters). most adults know smoking causes cancer, but not the many other things it can do to your body/brain function. so no.. i won't say the kids are more "stupid" in the example i gave as compared to adults in the situation we have here.
You can't deny the fact that the reasoning of 10 year old kid isn't at the same level as a 40 year old man. There is no other way to define responsibility than by the standard of age. Not saying it's 100% accurate but all in all there's a reason why kids should listen to their parents until they aren't mature.
On May 25 2011 02:04 Cyba wrote: Oh ye i bet you get to see actual non biased research about smoking all day every day everywhere. Specially since it's been like what 5 years? since the actual mechanism with which smoking affects your heart became fully understood.
Not to mention some studies always say smoking causes cancer and some say there's no conection.
EDIT:
Remember how we're told coffee is bad for your BP? Just this month there was some report that having 4+ cups of coffee a day won't significantly affect you in any way.
2 things to say. One, your country is far behind on the smoking issue. If the world took its lead from Romania in other areas we'd see a lot more horse drawn carts on our roads (Go on, tell me its progressive and your contribution to lower pollution!) Your country is a major lagger in this area, not a leader.
Two, shockingly, drinking too much water can kill you. Theres studies on everything you can think of, chocolate, potatoes and so on. Many you think "where do people come up with this crap?" but I can sort of seperate the smoking from the coffee and most people with unclouded judgement can too.
You are from south-africa and make fun of someone being from Romania?! Really?!
I'm not making fun of where hes from. I'm just pointing out that his country isn't a good example when it comes to taking policies from. "I'm from Romania and we can smoke anywhere here" is pretty much what hes been saying in his posts. Hope this clarifies
On May 25 2011 05:54 4lko wrote: You can't deny the fact that the reasoning of 10 year old kid isn't at the same level as a 40 year old man. There is no other way to define responsibility than by the standard of age. Not saying it's 100% accurate but all in all there's a reason why kids should listen to their parents until they aren't mature.
ok so what about the next part of my post?
On May 25 2011 05:37 fush wrote: but even so, a company sells hard drugs to the public - all ages, markets it, and makes huge profits. it's not their fault if drug addiction/drug related healthcare issues go through the roof? what you're essentially implying is that companies needn't take responsibility for what they sell - regardless of how dangerous it can be. somehow i find that a bit disconcerting if put into practice.
[QUOTE]On May 25 2011 05:13 4lko wrote: [QUOTE]On May 25 2011 04:52 fush wrote: [QUOTE]On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote: 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 ? [/QUOTE]
are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit? [/QUOTE]
Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car.
Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them.
Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense.
[QUOTE]On May 25 2011 04:54 fush wrote: [QUOTE]On May 25 2011 04:50 SichuanPanda wrote: I'd just like to point out that if people are so concerned with inhaling smoke and liter from cigarette butts there's a couple of things that could be done in general. First of all, simply don't walk past people smoking, intentionally to give them a glaring look, just avoid us, and you won't inhale anything. Secondly, the main reason I personally out my cigarette on the ground is quite simple - there is no receptacles provided - even in the public areas you still can smoke - to put them in. What am I supposed to do? Spit out the heater and put the butt in my pocket? I don't think so that would just be disgusting.
[QUOTE]On May 25 2011 04:45 MozzarellaL wrote: so why should the majority of people have to avoid areas of the street, or take alternative routes so you can indulge in a smoke? how does that make any sense? [/QUOTE] Ofc that it shouldn't be that way. I'm a smoker and I respect the fact that other people might not like the smell, so I just go around them and not blow smoke when I'm passing by ;p. It's not that smokers should go around doing whatever they wan't. It's the fact that the whole anti-smoking stuff is going way over the top at this point and people should just chill out. Make smoking zones, provide some bins for buds and fine any asshole who smokes in someone's face when someone asks him not to (In a public place - excluding private locales ofc) and all will be well.
[/QUOTE]
theyre earning money because tobacco is extremely addictive and very very hard to quit im not gonna reply anymore to you because nothing you say is intelligent or remotely accurate, i think you're probably a (really bad) troll
On May 25 2011 05:54 4lko wrote: You can't deny the fact that the reasoning of 10 year old kid isn't at the same level as a 40 year old man. There is no other way to define responsibility than by the standard of age. Not saying it's 100% accurate but all in all there's a reason why kids should listen to their parents until they aren't mature.
On May 25 2011 05:37 fush wrote: but even so, a company sells hard drugs to the public - all ages, markets it, and makes huge profits. it's not their fault if drug addiction/drug related healthcare issues go through the roof? what you're essentially implying is that companies needn't take responsibility for what they sell - regardless of how dangerous it can be. somehow i find that a bit disconcerting if put into practice.
I mentioned the Czech Republic in my last post. Spain has also allowed the possesion of hard drugs some time ago if I remember correctly. No rise in junkies and drug related issues from what I've read (a shitton of other at this point, but not related ;p).
I'm not saying they shouldn't take responsibility. They should - but only for the issues that they haven't informed the customer about. It's not about giving the public everything that's nice, healthy, fluffy and "good for them". It's about informing people what they get in the product - both good and bad. The decision to use it or not is up to them, not to up to the government.
Like I said - you could most surely close every hardware store in the world because every tool from a knife to a plunger can become a deadly weapon according to that logic. They're useful, yes - but for quite a lot of people smokes, alcohol or drugs are useful too.
On May 25 2011 06:10 FFGenerations wrote: theyre earning money because tobacco is extremely addictive and very very hard to quit im not gonna reply anymore to you because nothing you say is intelligent or remotely accurate, i think you're probably a (really bad) troll
I'll try not to cry my eyes out, thx.
edit:
Ah, you're the guy who blames cigarette companies for his own stupid decisions. Oh man, now I'm really offended by your "intelligent" and "accurate" opinion.
When they're done with smoking I hope they go on with alcohol since more people die of car accidents due to alcoholic influence than of passive smoking. Then we'll go after the cars since even more people die due to car accidents caused by irresponsible drivers. Further we'll go to dangerous sports since you endanger yourself and health insurances won't take it anymore. After that we will have an hourly rate of gaming per day. Because sitting more than 2-3h in front of a computer playing a game is very unhealthy as well. And once almost everything is banned into an underground scene, the people who started crying for all regulations and laws will find out that freedom and regulations/laws are inversely proportional dependend and you will stand in front of the door of the party and won't get in because someone recognizes that you cried out loud enough thus being banned from the "fun" of freedom.
On May 25 2011 06:10 FFGenerations wrote: theyre earning money because tobacco is extremely addictive and very very hard to quit im not gonna reply anymore to you because nothing you say is intelligent or remotely accurate, i think you're probably a (really bad) troll
I'll try not to cry my eyes out, thx.
edit:
Ah, you're the guy who blames cigarette companies for his own stupid decisions. Oh man, now I'm really offended by your "intelligent" and "accurate" opinion.
im the guy who says you should open your eyes to the reality where countless people are dying in misery because THEY cant cope with this monstrously addictive substance
you sound like the kind of angry privileged teenager who likes to say things like "they deserve to die".
well once you mature a bit and start living in the real world you'll realise things are more complicated and its possible to care for people you dont see eye to eye with..
On May 25 2011 06:10 4lko wrote: Like I said - you could most surely close every hardware store in the world because every tool from a knife to a plunger can become a deadly weapon according to that logic. They're useful, yes - but for quite a lot of people smokes, alcohol or drugs are useful too.
The difference is that less than 1% of adults buying knives at a hardware store will kill themselves with it. While over 99% of the people buying crack off a legalized crackstore are gonna kill themselves with it
On May 25 2011 02:04 Cyba wrote: Oh ye i bet you get to see actual non biased research about smoking all day every day everywhere. Specially since it's been like what 5 years? since the actual mechanism with which smoking affects your heart became fully understood.
Not to mention some studies always say smoking causes cancer and some say there's no conection.
EDIT:
Remember how we're told coffee is bad for your BP? Just this month there was some report that having 4+ cups of coffee a day won't significantly affect you in any way.
2 things to say. One, your country is far behind on the smoking issue. If the world took its lead from Romania in other areas we'd see a lot more horse drawn carts on our roads (Go on, tell me its progressive and your contribution to lower pollution!) Your country is a major lagger in this area, not a leader.
Two, shockingly, drinking too much water can kill you. Theres studies on everything you can think of, chocolate, potatoes and so on. Many you think "where do people come up with this crap?" but I can sort of seperate the smoking from the coffee and most people with unclouded judgement can too.
You are from south-africa and make fun of someone being from Romania?! Really?!
how does one turn this topic into a nationalistic debate?
By missing a point completely and not reading all the posts before i'd say.
The way I see it is that if an adult has a developed brain and no major mental health defects he/she should be able to do anything he/she want as long as it does not directly harm or infringe the rights of others. I am all for educating them about the harmfulness of what they do, but they should still have the right to do it. Since second-hand smoke harms others, I agree that smoking should be banned in certain public areas, for the safety of others.
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.
Humans are prone to addictions. Have you tried quitting gaming? A couple of other addictions people struggle with that are far more damaging psychologically (and financially): gambling, prostitution, drugs. Heck, some people even get addicted to shoplifting. Food? Sure,why not.
We can argue if smoking is more damaging on your health, but psychologically any addiction has the same result and is equally demanding to let go.
On May 25 2011 06:10 FFGenerations wrote: theyre earning money because tobacco is extremely addictive and very very hard to quit im not gonna reply anymore to you because nothing you say is intelligent or remotely accurate, i think you're probably a (really bad) troll
I'll try not to cry my eyes out, thx.
edit:
Ah, you're the guy who blames cigarette companies for his own stupid decisions. Oh man, now I'm really offended by your "intelligent" and "accurate" opinion.
im the guy who says you should open your eyes to the reality where countless people are dying in misery because THEY cant cope with this monstrously addictive substance
you sound like the kind of angry privileged teenager who likes to say things like "they deserve to die".
well once you mature a bit and start living in the real world you'll realise things are more complicated and its possible to care for people you dont see eye to eye with..
Well, you on the other hand sound like you just finished being a teenager, thus making that kind of statement valid (for you at least).
"Care for people you dont see eye to eye with" - that one's great. Caring doesn't mean making them "happy" if they don't follow my definition of "happy". Don't judge everyone by your own system of values because it may be (and is) slightly different for other people. Imposing your will on other people is just plain wrong.
I suppose "once you mature a bit" is gonna be when I start judging people on an internet forum not having even a shade of knowledge about them ? Or maybe - once again - blame others for my own mistakes ? Your definition of maturity is kinda awkward.
On May 25 2011 06:10 4lko wrote: Like I said - you could most surely close every hardware store in the world because every tool from a knife to a plunger can become a deadly weapon according to that logic. They're useful, yes - but for quite a lot of people smokes, alcohol or drugs are useful too.
The difference is that less than 1% of adults buying knives at a hardware store will kill themselves with it. While over 99% of the people buying crack off a legalized crackstore are gonna kill themselves with it
I'm not saying they won't. So why isn't everyone a crackhead ? Because tbh there's no real problem in buying hard drugs even in countries where it's illegal. The fact that you can go to Prison ? I highly doubt that I would be afraid of prison when we're talking about facing death in a few years. Yet I'm no junkie. Go figure.
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.
Humans are prone to addictions. Have you tried quitting gaming? A couple of other addictions people struggle with that are far more damaging psychologically (and financially): gambling, prostitution, drugs. Heck, some people even get addicted to shoplifting. Food? Sure,why not.
We can argue if smoking is more damaging on your health, but psychologically any addiction has the same result and is equally demanding to let go.
There's a difference between a psychological addition like games/sex/ect and physical additions like nicotine/caffeine/alcohol/cocaine/heroin/ect.
On May 25 2011 06:58 relyt wrote: The way I see it is that if an adult has a developed brain and no major mental health defects he/she should be able to do anything he/she want as long as it does not directly harm or infringe the rights of others. I am all for educating them about the harmfulness of what they do, but they should still have the right to do it. Since second-hand smoke harms others, I agree that smoking should be banned in certain public areas, for the safety of others.
Yes that's the logical approach and by the same token if you designate certain areas for people to smoke in, provide receptacles to put the butts in - otherwise, they will end up on the ground. In Canada the law, where I am located (near Toronto, Ontario) the law is essentially such that smokers must be a minimum distance away from public entrances to buildings (15 meters, or approximately 25 feet). As a smoker I understand many people do not want to inhale what I'm smoking, and this law makes sense to me. What does not make sense is at that spot 15 meters away from the building there is nothing to put the cigarette butts in. The very same people who made the law and didn't put a trash receptacle in place for the smokers, are the ones complaining about the litter.
People treat smokers like the scum of the universe and its really quite telling of the attitude most people have in life (that is that what they believe is the end all be all of discussion and going beyond that is not allowed).
How about we just go around banning every single thing that exists that gives people any kind of enjoyment whatsoever, gaming(gambling), smoking, drinking, dangerous/full contact sports, hunting, fishing, every single 'extreme sport' - this includes kayaking by most peoples definitions, video games, movies, music, everything. Lets ban it all so we can all live in our bubbles and be safe, you know, because someone could get hurt.
On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote: 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 ?
are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit?
Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car.
Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them.
Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense.
so hypothetically, if a company started to sell firearms in schools to your children, or hard drugs like coke, acid, heroin, for a hefty profit... it's not their fault that other children in the school get shot, or get hooked on these drugs?
all i see is "freedom". no one is being prosecuted for anything, you're still allowed to smoke. they're are just not allowed to smoke in public areas, much like how you're not allowed to wield firearms in public - both share an inherent danger in putting another's health and well-being at risk.
there's a limit to how much "freedom" a society can handle. how much are you advocating exactly?
That's something else - every kid is basically stupid (or "lacks experience"), that's the reason why every child has a legal guardian. I'm talking about adults, minors are out of the equation.
Depends on what you define as a "public area". Check my last post.
How much freedom do I advocate ? Depends on a specific part of life, but in general according to the words: "Your freedom ends where mine begins".
Ofc, full-blown anarchy is just plain stupid ;p. I'm more of a libertarian.
how educated are most adults on the effects of smoking, or SHS? most here even seem to claim that SHS in air is "nothing" where there have been pretty concrete proof showing otherwise (and i've listed only a few of these in previous posts as well as many other posters). most adults know smoking causes cancer, but not the many other things it can do to your body/brain function. so no.. i won't say the kids are more "stupid" in the example i gave as compared to adults in the situation we have here.
I let this slide earlier because I didn't feel like arguing about it, but you keep bringing it up.You have yet to link a single article that demonstrates second hand smoke outdoors has any harmful effects. If I recall, the article you keep talking about said that 1 puff of smoke was detectable in the body (specifically brain chemistry) for 3 hours. That's nothing, and we're talking about significantly less than 1 puff of a cigarette for people exposed to second hand smoke outside.
Where is the evidence of harmful effects, especially the kind that damage your health long term?
The kind of people who are likely to have asthma-related complications from passing a smoker are also going to have problems in a dusty room, a muggy city, or if a bus passes too close to them. The fact is, very brief exposure to extremely low concentrations of tobacco smoke (like you'd be exposed to with outside smoking) is not harmful, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word.
Everyone knows that second hand smoke is bad for you, and is almost as bad as smoking yourself if you're sitting in an enclosed space with someone who is smoking. We're talking about outdoor smoking in parks and beaches.
On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote: 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 ?
are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit?
Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car.
Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them.
Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense.
so hypothetically, if a company started to sell firearms in schools to your children, or hard drugs like coke, acid, heroin, for a hefty profit... it's not their fault that other children in the school get shot, or get hooked on these drugs?
all i see is "freedom". no one is being prosecuted for anything, you're still allowed to smoke. they're are just not allowed to smoke in public areas, much like how you're not allowed to wield firearms in public - both share an inherent danger in putting another's health and well-being at risk.
there's a limit to how much "freedom" a society can handle. how much are you advocating exactly?
That's something else - every kid is basically stupid (or "lacks experience"), that's the reason why every child has a legal guardian. I'm talking about adults, minors are out of the equation.
Depends on what you define as a "public area". Check my last post.
How much freedom do I advocate ? Depends on a specific part of life, but in general according to the words: "Your freedom ends where mine begins".
Ofc, full-blown anarchy is just plain stupid ;p. I'm more of a libertarian.
how educated are most adults on the effects of smoking, or SHS? most here even seem to claim that SHS in air is "nothing" where there have been pretty concrete proof showing otherwise (and i've listed only a few of these in previous posts as well as many other posters). most adults know smoking causes cancer, but not the many other things it can do to your body/brain function. so no.. i won't say the kids are more "stupid" in the example i gave as compared to adults in the situation we have here.
I let this slide earlier because I didn't feel like arguing about it, but you keep bringing it up.You have yet to link a single article that demonstrates second hand smoke outdoors has any harmful effects. If I recall, the article you keep talking about said that 1 puff of smoke was detectable in the body (specifically brain chemistry) for 3 hours. That's nothing, and we're talking about significantly less than 1 puff of a cigarette for people exposed to second hand smoke outside.
Where is the evidence of harmful effects, especially the kind that damage your health long term?
The kind of people who are likely to have asthma-related complications from passing a smoker are also going to have problems in a dusty room, a muggy city, or if a bus passes too close to them. The fact is, very brief exposure to extremely low concentrations of tobacco smoke (like you'd be exposed to with outside smoking) is not harmful, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word.
Everyone knows that second hand smoke is bad for you, and is almost as bad as smoking yourself if you're sitting in an enclosed space with someone who is smoking. We're talking about outdoor smoking in parks and beaches.
just for lung epithelial cells. simple search in pubmed gets you hundreds of papers. here's a review.
Biological evidence for the acute health effects of secondhand smoke exposure. Flouris AD, Vardavas CI, Metsios GS, Tsatsakis AM, Koutedakis Y. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19767410
so. let's turn this question around. where's your proof/sources that 3 hours of over 50% binding of nicotinic receptors is "nothing"? seems to contradict a lot of research if you ask me.
On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote: 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 ?
are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit?
Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car.
Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them.
Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense.
so hypothetically, if a company started to sell firearms in schools to your children, or hard drugs like coke, acid, heroin, for a hefty profit... it's not their fault that other children in the school get shot, or get hooked on these drugs?
all i see is "freedom". no one is being prosecuted for anything, you're still allowed to smoke. they're are just not allowed to smoke in public areas, much like how you're not allowed to wield firearms in public - both share an inherent danger in putting another's health and well-being at risk.
there's a limit to how much "freedom" a society can handle. how much are you advocating exactly?
That's something else - every kid is basically stupid (or "lacks experience"), that's the reason why every child has a legal guardian. I'm talking about adults, minors are out of the equation.
Depends on what you define as a "public area". Check my last post.
How much freedom do I advocate ? Depends on a specific part of life, but in general according to the words: "Your freedom ends where mine begins".
Ofc, full-blown anarchy is just plain stupid ;p. I'm more of a libertarian.
how educated are most adults on the effects of smoking, or SHS? most here even seem to claim that SHS in air is "nothing" where there have been pretty concrete proof showing otherwise (and i've listed only a few of these in previous posts as well as many other posters). most adults know smoking causes cancer, but not the many other things it can do to your body/brain function. so no.. i won't say the kids are more "stupid" in the example i gave as compared to adults in the situation we have here.
I let this slide earlier because I didn't feel like arguing about it, but you keep bringing it up.You have yet to link a single article that demonstrates second hand smoke outdoors has any harmful effects. If I recall, the article you keep talking about said that 1 puff of smoke was detectable in the body (specifically brain chemistry) for 3 hours. That's nothing, and we're talking about significantly less than 1 puff of a cigarette for people exposed to second hand smoke outside.
Where is the evidence of harmful effects, especially the kind that damage your health long term?
The kind of people who are likely to have asthma-related complications from passing a smoker are also going to have problems in a dusty room, a muggy city, or if a bus passes too close to them. The fact is, very brief exposure to extremely low concentrations of tobacco smoke (like you'd be exposed to with outside smoking) is not harmful, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word.
Everyone knows that second hand smoke is bad for you, and is almost as bad as smoking yourself if you're sitting in an enclosed space with someone who is smoking. We're talking about outdoor smoking in parks and beaches.
just for lung epithelial cells. simple search in pubmed gets you hundreds of papers. here's a review.
Biological evidence for the acute health effects of secondhand smoke exposure. Flouris AD, Vardavas CI, Metsios GS, Tsatsakis AM, Koutedakis Y. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19767410
so. let's turn this question around. where's your proof/sources that 3 hours of over 50% binding of nicotinic receptors is "nothing"? seems to contradict a lot of research if you ask me.
i dont know half the words in that article(hehe) but it seems to say nothing about outdoor SHS, which is the main debate in this thread it seems.
On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote: 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 ?
are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit?
Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car.
Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them.
Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense.
so hypothetically, if a company started to sell firearms in schools to your children, or hard drugs like coke, acid, heroin, for a hefty profit... it's not their fault that other children in the school get shot, or get hooked on these drugs?
all i see is "freedom". no one is being prosecuted for anything, you're still allowed to smoke. they're are just not allowed to smoke in public areas, much like how you're not allowed to wield firearms in public - both share an inherent danger in putting another's health and well-being at risk.
there's a limit to how much "freedom" a society can handle. how much are you advocating exactly?
That's something else - every kid is basically stupid (or "lacks experience"), that's the reason why every child has a legal guardian. I'm talking about adults, minors are out of the equation.
Depends on what you define as a "public area". Check my last post.
How much freedom do I advocate ? Depends on a specific part of life, but in general according to the words: "Your freedom ends where mine begins".
Ofc, full-blown anarchy is just plain stupid ;p. I'm more of a libertarian.
how educated are most adults on the effects of smoking, or SHS? most here even seem to claim that SHS in air is "nothing" where there have been pretty concrete proof showing otherwise (and i've listed only a few of these in previous posts as well as many other posters). most adults know smoking causes cancer, but not the many other things it can do to your body/brain function. so no.. i won't say the kids are more "stupid" in the example i gave as compared to adults in the situation we have here.
I let this slide earlier because I didn't feel like arguing about it, but you keep bringing it up.You have yet to link a single article that demonstrates second hand smoke outdoors has any harmful effects. If I recall, the article you keep talking about said that 1 puff of smoke was detectable in the body (specifically brain chemistry) for 3 hours. That's nothing, and we're talking about significantly less than 1 puff of a cigarette for people exposed to second hand smoke outside.
Where is the evidence of harmful effects, especially the kind that damage your health long term?
The kind of people who are likely to have asthma-related complications from passing a smoker are also going to have problems in a dusty room, a muggy city, or if a bus passes too close to them. The fact is, very brief exposure to extremely low concentrations of tobacco smoke (like you'd be exposed to with outside smoking) is not harmful, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word.
Everyone knows that second hand smoke is bad for you, and is almost as bad as smoking yourself if you're sitting in an enclosed space with someone who is smoking. We're talking about outdoor smoking in parks and beaches.
just for lung epithelial cells. simple search in pubmed gets you hundreds of papers. here's a review.
Biological evidence for the acute health effects of secondhand smoke exposure. Flouris AD, Vardavas CI, Metsios GS, Tsatsakis AM, Koutedakis Y. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19767410
so. let's turn this question around. where's your proof/sources that 3 hours of over 50% binding of nicotinic receptors is "nothing"? seems to contradict a lot of research if you ask me.
i dont know half the words in that article(hehe) but it seems to say nothing about outdoor SHS, which is the main debate in this thread it seems.
i'm not an expert in this field so i can't vouch for or verify everything in that review - i just work with nicotine, nicotinic receptors in the brain. but from the line " Based on the presented biological evidence, it is concluded that brief, acute, transient exposures to SHS may cause significant adverse effects on several systems of the human body and represent a significant and acute health hazard." in the abstract, "brief, acute, transient exposure to SHS" would mean a very short term exposure to second hand smoke - meaning what you would get when walking by a smoker on the street.
On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote: 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 ?
are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit?
Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car.
Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them.
Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense.
so hypothetically, if a company started to sell firearms in schools to your children, or hard drugs like coke, acid, heroin, for a hefty profit... it's not their fault that other children in the school get shot, or get hooked on these drugs?
all i see is "freedom". no one is being prosecuted for anything, you're still allowed to smoke. they're are just not allowed to smoke in public areas, much like how you're not allowed to wield firearms in public - both share an inherent danger in putting another's health and well-being at risk.
there's a limit to how much "freedom" a society can handle. how much are you advocating exactly?
That's something else - every kid is basically stupid (or "lacks experience"), that's the reason why every child has a legal guardian. I'm talking about adults, minors are out of the equation.
Depends on what you define as a "public area". Check my last post.
How much freedom do I advocate ? Depends on a specific part of life, but in general according to the words: "Your freedom ends where mine begins".
Ofc, full-blown anarchy is just plain stupid ;p. I'm more of a libertarian.
how educated are most adults on the effects of smoking, or SHS? most here even seem to claim that SHS in air is "nothing" where there have been pretty concrete proof showing otherwise (and i've listed only a few of these in previous posts as well as many other posters). most adults know smoking causes cancer, but not the many other things it can do to your body/brain function. so no.. i won't say the kids are more "stupid" in the example i gave as compared to adults in the situation we have here.
I let this slide earlier because I didn't feel like arguing about it, but you keep bringing it up.You have yet to link a single article that demonstrates second hand smoke outdoors has any harmful effects. If I recall, the article you keep talking about said that 1 puff of smoke was detectable in the body (specifically brain chemistry) for 3 hours. That's nothing, and we're talking about significantly less than 1 puff of a cigarette for people exposed to second hand smoke outside.
Where is the evidence of harmful effects, especially the kind that damage your health long term?
The kind of people who are likely to have asthma-related complications from passing a smoker are also going to have problems in a dusty room, a muggy city, or if a bus passes too close to them. The fact is, very brief exposure to extremely low concentrations of tobacco smoke (like you'd be exposed to with outside smoking) is not harmful, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word.
Everyone knows that second hand smoke is bad for you, and is almost as bad as smoking yourself if you're sitting in an enclosed space with someone who is smoking. We're talking about outdoor smoking in parks and beaches.
just for lung epithelial cells. simple search in pubmed gets you hundreds of papers. here's a review.
Biological evidence for the acute health effects of secondhand smoke exposure. Flouris AD, Vardavas CI, Metsios GS, Tsatsakis AM, Koutedakis Y. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19767410
so. let's turn this question around. where's your proof/sources that 3 hours of over 50% binding of nicotinic receptors is "nothing"? seems to contradict a lot of research if you ask me.
It says that at any detectable level (enough to absorb 25 ng/ml or more nicotine, not that anyone knows how much smoke you need to inhale to get that), cells in the linings of your lungs respond to exposure with changes in their non-coding RNA.
Now I don't know what that means, and I'm guessing you don't either, but Medterms.com says "The transcriptome (non-coding RNA) is dynamic and changes under different circumstances due to different patterns of gene expression." In other words, your lungs know you inhaled tobacco smoke, if you inhale enough to absorb 25 ng/ml niccotine.
This doesn't sound like the end of the world to me, but I'm not a doctor. If you are a doctor or medical researcher, please explain. If not, please find something more decisive.
On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote: 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 ?
are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit?
Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car.
Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them.
Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense.
so hypothetically, if a company started to sell firearms in schools to your children, or hard drugs like coke, acid, heroin, for a hefty profit... it's not their fault that other children in the school get shot, or get hooked on these drugs?
all i see is "freedom". no one is being prosecuted for anything, you're still allowed to smoke. they're are just not allowed to smoke in public areas, much like how you're not allowed to wield firearms in public - both share an inherent danger in putting another's health and well-being at risk.
there's a limit to how much "freedom" a society can handle. how much are you advocating exactly?
That's something else - every kid is basically stupid (or "lacks experience"), that's the reason why every child has a legal guardian. I'm talking about adults, minors are out of the equation.
Depends on what you define as a "public area". Check my last post.
How much freedom do I advocate ? Depends on a specific part of life, but in general according to the words: "Your freedom ends where mine begins".
Ofc, full-blown anarchy is just plain stupid ;p. I'm more of a libertarian.
how educated are most adults on the effects of smoking, or SHS? most here even seem to claim that SHS in air is "nothing" where there have been pretty concrete proof showing otherwise (and i've listed only a few of these in previous posts as well as many other posters). most adults know smoking causes cancer, but not the many other things it can do to your body/brain function. so no.. i won't say the kids are more "stupid" in the example i gave as compared to adults in the situation we have here.
I let this slide earlier because I didn't feel like arguing about it, but you keep bringing it up.You have yet to link a single article that demonstrates second hand smoke outdoors has any harmful effects. If I recall, the article you keep talking about said that 1 puff of smoke was detectable in the body (specifically brain chemistry) for 3 hours. That's nothing, and we're talking about significantly less than 1 puff of a cigarette for people exposed to second hand smoke outside.
Where is the evidence of harmful effects, especially the kind that damage your health long term?
The kind of people who are likely to have asthma-related complications from passing a smoker are also going to have problems in a dusty room, a muggy city, or if a bus passes too close to them. The fact is, very brief exposure to extremely low concentrations of tobacco smoke (like you'd be exposed to with outside smoking) is not harmful, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word.
Everyone knows that second hand smoke is bad for you, and is almost as bad as smoking yourself if you're sitting in an enclosed space with someone who is smoking. We're talking about outdoor smoking in parks and beaches.
just for lung epithelial cells. simple search in pubmed gets you hundreds of papers. here's a review.
Biological evidence for the acute health effects of secondhand smoke exposure. Flouris AD, Vardavas CI, Metsios GS, Tsatsakis AM, Koutedakis Y. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19767410
so. let's turn this question around. where's your proof/sources that 3 hours of over 50% binding of nicotinic receptors is "nothing"? seems to contradict a lot of research if you ask me.
i dont know half the words in that article(hehe) but it seems to say nothing about outdoor SHS, which is the main debate in this thread it seems.
i'm not an expert in this field so i can't vouch for or verify everything in that review - i just work with nicotine, nicotinic receptors in the brain. but from the line " Based on the presented biological evidence, it is concluded that brief, acute, transient exposures to SHS may cause significant adverse effects on several systems of the human body and represent a significant and acute health hazard." in the abstract, "brief, acute, transient exposure to SHS" would mean a very short term exposure to second hand smoke - meaning what you would get when walking by a smoker on the street.
That's certainly one interpretation, if you emphasize brief/transient. Acute suggests something in a much higher concentration. I don't have access to the full review, but this sounds more like short term exposure to higher concentrations of second hand smoke than you'd get passing someone on the street.
This is also a review. When they say "may cause significant adverse effects on several systems of the human body and represent a significant and acute health hazard," they're not talking about conclusions of a specific study. They're setting up the next bit where they suggest new areas of research. They're saying they'd like to see research into the effects of "brief, acute, transient exposure to SHS," specifically pertaining to "the concentrations of tobacco smoke constituents in the alveolar milieu following SHS exposure, individual susceptibility to SHS, as well as the effects of SHS on neurobehavioral activity, brain cell development, synaptic development, and function."
I haven't read a scientific paper in a while, but that's what this looks like to me. If I'm mistaken, let me know.
On May 25 2011 10:28 ScaryGhost wrote: California! Where smoking anywhere is banned
Woooohhh...by anywhere you mean in public places anywhere? or is it still allowed in houses?
On Topic: Meh, I guess this is for the better. It's annoying to have to smell the terrible smoke. But that's coming from a personal point of view not a scientific. However, on Wikipedia, the effects of second-hand smoking are listed to be large with problems ranging from the ear to Crohn's Disease.
On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote: 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 ?
are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit?
That's exactly what he's saying. If you're so concerned with health problems - look up liver cancer, liver sclerosis, etc. Fun.
i have said this like 10 times in this thread, and it's been echoed by many others. clearly you put no effort into reading what has already been discussed and just decided to come in with some random statements.
how are the diseases you mention at all related to the topic at hand? do their existence make smoking any less dangerous for you? do their existence justify the companies that market and sell a harmful substance to the public?
so let me ask you. what is your point?
I should have thought my point was obvious. If the government of a given country flat out bans tobacco then whats to stop another social group from coming and demanding alcohol is banned. Next we'll be hearing movie theaters should be banned because of potential eardrum damage, or concerts. Everyone is so quick to get up in arms about things these days they don't even stop to see the consequences.
In case you didn't understand, those diseases are a result of alcohol abuse. Is smoking for 5 years in your 20's good for your health (this is merely an example)? No certainly not. However its chances of killing you or giving you a detrimental disease is far less than smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years. Likewise drinking to have fun occasionally is great, meanwhile getting drunk on a near daily basis for years on end is not good for your health either. Some studies actually show that alcohol abuse has a faster intake/damage ratio than smoking (i.e 10 years of heavy drinking > 10 years of heavy smoking).
So many of you in this thread fail to see reason and figure 'smoking's bad for people so we should tell anyone who smokes how to make their own life choices by banning it in almost all places one would smoke other than their home'. It's all well and good to try and look out for other people around you, but there needs to be a point where it passes looking out for someone's being and becomes an infringement to civil liberties.
You can kill yourself by drinking too much soda (diabetes), you can die on the road in a terrible car crash (automotive collision), you can die from over-eating(obesity), or under-eating(anorexia), you can die from too little(dehydration), or too much water (electrolyte induced cardiac problems) , you could choke on your next meal and die on your kitchen floor(asphyxiation), you could slip in the shower and break your neck (spinal trauma). The list of ways people could die goes on and on and there is many ways both within, and outside of people's control, and many ways that are a result of habitual use of something.
Bottom line is over use of almost anything in life is going to be bad for your health. Any person who understand this fact will realize that they should leave well enough alone and let people to their own devices. So long as they aren't stealing, killing, or raping and pillaging people, they should be within reason allowed to do what they will. If someone wants to smoke any number of cigarettes a day for any number of years, thats their choice. Same as if people don't want to understand the simple logic of whats been proven over 1000s of years of human history - that society, and nature have a tendency to balance themselves, that's their business. While I don't agree with them, I don't tell them not to think it.
I feel that a lot of the negative opinion from non-smokers towards smokers stems from resentment over being inconvenienced in some way, whether it is adjusting their distance while walking on the sidewalk or holding their breath if they can't avoid the smoke. The reason this doesn't apply to being inconvenienced by something like construction, or making way for a disabled person in a wheelchair is because smoking is a choice; one that is negatively perceived because of the health risks attributed to it.
To address the health concerns regarding second hand smoke, I don't really think it's that significant in a non-enclosed area. Just how bad it actually is for you is irrelevant if you make it a point not to inhale it, just like I make it a point not to inhale around vehicle exhaust fumes. Yes, cars are generally restricted to roads and people generally walk on sidewalks but there are plenty of times that an idling car by the sidewalk generates enough exhaust that you would generally hold your breath as you walk by. Yes, there are scenarios where smokers congregate in an area and it becomes impossible to navigate through them without breathing in some smoke and in this case it was inconsiderate of the smokers not to leave a wide berth for pedestrians. Obviously this is not ideal, in a perfect world we be outputting toxic emissions and pollutants of any concentration in the air in our day to day activities but with our current technology and way of life, this is how it is and we're just going to have to deal with it the best way we can.
The fact is that when you're in the city, you are going to be forced to interact/react to people and things around you whether you like it or not. Hopefully we can be respectful to each other:
To non-smokers: You have to deal with an unpleasant smell in which the surrounding air is probably slightly more unhealthy (mixed in with that pleasant cocktail of other pollutants in the city) for you than the air you were breathing a few seconds earlier. Try not to think of smokers as intruding on your way of life and try not have so many negative thoughts when you expend some extra effort on behalf of a stranger.
To smokers: Respect everyone around you by walking those few extra steps away from others who are not smoking. Not smoking in areas that are heavy in foot traffic or at the very least exhaling in a direction away from others is a basic courtesy. Being the first one to expend effort in moving to the other end of the sidewalk is usually appreciated. Making it a point not to get any smoke in the area of pregnant women or babies/little children is good. Who cares whether or not second hand smoke is actually that bad for you? I'm sure anyone would be appreciative of you adjusting your habits to accommodate them.
To cities/business owners: If you notice a large amount of cigarette butts in an area, it would be beneficial to install an ashtray/butt disposal object. I know there are those that think that they actually encourages smoking/loitering but the fact is that if I want to have a smoke I'm going to do it whether or not there is easy disposal nearby but the probability of me disposing of the butt properly is directly related to whether or not there is easy disposal nearby.
The problem is here that both sides just want to live their own lives without being inconvenienced by the other and it just doesn't go down that way when you are forced to share a limited area of space with a large population of people (cities). There are those on both ends of the spectrum who have little regard for people other than themselves and that is why although I think a public ban is over the top, a ban of smoking within close vicinity to entrances/exits (similar to what we have here in Toronto) is a good idea. This is pretty much never enforced but it does give people the right to complain when smokers are standing right outside a door and blowing smoke in the face of everyone who enters/leaves the building.
On May 25 2011 10:55 DBunny wrote: I feel that a lot of the negative opinion from non-smokers towards smokers stems from resentment over being inconvenienced in some way, whether it is adjusting their distance while walking on the sidewalk or holding their breath if they can't avoid the smoke. The reason this doesn't apply to being inconvenienced by something like construction, or making way for a disabled person in a wheelchair is because smoking is a choice; one that is negatively perceived because of the health risks attributed to it. + Show Spoiler +
To address the health concerns regarding second hand smoke, I don't really think it's that significant in a non-enclosed area. Just how bad it actually is for you is irrelevant if you make it a point not to inhale it, just like I make it a point not to inhale around vehicle exhaust fumes. Yes, cars are generally restricted to roads and people generally walk on sidewalks but there are plenty of times that an idling car by the sidewalk generates enough exhaust that you would generally hold your breath as you walk by. Yes, there are scenarios where smokers congregate in an area and it becomes impossible to navigate through them without breathing in some smoke and in this case it was inconsiderate of the smokers not to leave a wide berth for pedestrians. Obviously this is not ideal, in a perfect world we be outputting toxic emissions and pollutants of any concentration in the air in our day to day activities but with our current technology and way of life, this is how it is and we're just going to have to deal with it the best way we can.
The fact is that when you're in the city, you are going to be forced to interact/react to people and things around you whether you like it or not. Hopefully we can be respectful to each other:
To non-smokers: You have to deal with an unpleasant smell in which the surrounding air is probably slightly more unhealthy (mixed in with that pleasant cocktail of other pollutants in the city) for you than the air you were breathing a few seconds earlier. Try not to think of smokers as intruding on your way of life and try not have so many negative thoughts when you expend some extra effort on behalf of a stranger.
To smokers: Respect everyone around you by walking those few extra steps away from others who are not smoking. Not smoking in areas that are heavy in foot traffic or at the very least exhaling in a direction away from others is a basic courtesy. Being the first one to expend effort in moving to the other end of the sidewalk is usually appreciated. Making it a point not to get any smoke in the area of pregnant women or babies/little children is good. Who cares whether or not second hand smoke is actually that bad for you? I'm sure anyone would be appreciative of you adjusting your habits to accommodate them.
To cities/business owners: If you notice a large amount of cigarette butts in an area, it would be beneficial to install an ashtray/butt disposal object. I know there are those that think that they actually encourages smoking/loitering but the fact is that if I want to have a smoke I'm going to do it whether or not there is easy disposal nearby but the probability of me disposing of the butt properly is directly related to whether or not there is easy disposal nearby.
The problem is here that both sides just want to live their own lives without being inconvenienced by the other and it just doesn't go down that way when you are forced to share a limited area of space with a large population of people (cities). There are those on both ends of the spectrum who have little regard for people other than themselves and that is why although I think a public ban is over the top, a ban of smoking within close vicinity to entrances/exits (similar to what we have here in Toronto) is a good idea. This is pretty much never enforced but it does give people the right to complain when smokers are standing right outside a door and blowing smoke in the face of everyone who enters/leaves the building.
Some excellent points you've made here, I agree with most of them. I just want to add - as a smoker - that I personally try to make sure my habit doesn't inconvenience others. But unfortunately many other smokers are far from that considerate. As my previous post goes over in detail, if everyone would just ease up with being so concerned with how someone else (how dare they!!!) interferes with your day-to-day life for even a few seconds, and simply accept that we are all here together and have to get along we'd be better off. Lets try and learn to do it without having to get the government to step in like a teacher in a school yard fight.
On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote: 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 ?
are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit?
Yes. I'm not even suggesting, that's an understatement. I'm saying that thinking that way stands in contradiction to free will and takes away the responsibility from people. It's like sueing General Motors for being able to travel faster than 5mph because some idiot killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk using his car.
Tobacco companies are not earning money because they sell. It's because people buy. It's your own damn choice. The same goes for booze or drugs. Nobody asks you to take them.
Your freedom ends in the exact spot where the freedom of another human begins. Being prosecuted for the sole fact of smoking a joint, cigarette or doing coke is just ignorant left-wing nonsense.
so hypothetically, if a company started to sell firearms in schools to your children, or hard drugs like coke, acid, heroin, for a hefty profit... it's not their fault that other children in the school get shot, or get hooked on these drugs?
all i see is "freedom". no one is being prosecuted for anything, you're still allowed to smoke. they're are just not allowed to smoke in public areas, much like how you're not allowed to wield firearms in public - both share an inherent danger in putting another's health and well-being at risk.
there's a limit to how much "freedom" a society can handle. how much are you advocating exactly?
That's something else - every kid is basically stupid (or "lacks experience"), that's the reason why every child has a legal guardian. I'm talking about adults, minors are out of the equation.
Depends on what you define as a "public area". Check my last post.
How much freedom do I advocate ? Depends on a specific part of life, but in general according to the words: "Your freedom ends where mine begins".
Ofc, full-blown anarchy is just plain stupid ;p. I'm more of a libertarian.
how educated are most adults on the effects of smoking, or SHS? most here even seem to claim that SHS in air is "nothing" where there have been pretty concrete proof showing otherwise (and i've listed only a few of these in previous posts as well as many other posters). most adults know smoking causes cancer, but not the many other things it can do to your body/brain function. so no.. i won't say the kids are more "stupid" in the example i gave as compared to adults in the situation we have here.
I let this slide earlier because I didn't feel like arguing about it, but you keep bringing it up.You have yet to link a single article that demonstrates second hand smoke outdoors has any harmful effects. If I recall, the article you keep talking about said that 1 puff of smoke was detectable in the body (specifically brain chemistry) for 3 hours. That's nothing, and we're talking about significantly less than 1 puff of a cigarette for people exposed to second hand smoke outside.
Where is the evidence of harmful effects, especially the kind that damage your health long term?
The kind of people who are likely to have asthma-related complications from passing a smoker are also going to have problems in a dusty room, a muggy city, or if a bus passes too close to them. The fact is, very brief exposure to extremely low concentrations of tobacco smoke (like you'd be exposed to with outside smoking) is not harmful, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word.
Everyone knows that second hand smoke is bad for you, and is almost as bad as smoking yourself if you're sitting in an enclosed space with someone who is smoking. We're talking about outdoor smoking in parks and beaches.
just for lung epithelial cells. simple search in pubmed gets you hundreds of papers. here's a review.
Biological evidence for the acute health effects of secondhand smoke exposure. Flouris AD, Vardavas CI, Metsios GS, Tsatsakis AM, Koutedakis Y. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19767410
so. let's turn this question around. where's your proof/sources that 3 hours of over 50% binding of nicotinic receptors is "nothing"? seems to contradict a lot of research if you ask me.
It says that at any detectable level (enough to absorb 25 ng/ml or more nicotine, not that anyone knows how much smoke you need to inhale to get that), cells in the linings of your lungs respond to exposure with changes in their non-coding RNA.
Now I don't know what that means, and I'm guessing you don't either, but Medterms.com says "The transcriptome (non-coding RNA) is dynamic and changes under different circumstances due to different patterns of gene expression." In other words, your lungs know you inhaled tobacco smoke, if you inhale enough to absorb 25 ng/ml niccotine.
This doesn't sound like the end of the world to me, but I'm not a doctor. If you are a doctor or medical researcher, please explain. If not, please find something more decisive.
the receptors that let your lungs "know" are the same ones found in many places in the body, you can wiki nicotinic receptors if you want. your interpretation of "knowing" doesn't mean there are no other effects, in fact, there are more than likely other downstream effects - because cells respond to ligand binding, ligand binding itself is not always an energy efficient process that just stops at this stage. so by having receptors that are ultrasensitive to nicotine or other constituents of tobacco smoke likely means that there are downstream effects - not just cellular identification of the presence of nicotine. now what these effects are may vary, and those are covered in part in the review paper. in fact, the transcriptome change is a big thing, because that is a big indicator of "long term" and not transient changes in your cells - this actually furthers the point of shs potentially having lasting effects.
to be honest i have no idea about your question regarding the number of cigarettes 25 ng/ml nic corresponds to. nicotine is a metabolized product, and its exposure in different tissues is differently titrated - making it a bit more complicated when you want to directly measure exposure. the overall picture is that minute amounts (including a single puff of smoke) can lead to high and prolonged levels of activation of these receptors which likely have downstream effects.
On May 25 2011 10:06 Omnipresent wrote:
That's certainly one interpretation, if you emphasize brief/transient. Acute suggests something in a much higher concentration. I don't have access to the full review, but this sounds more like short term exposure to higher concentrations of second hand smoke than you'd get passing someone on the street.
This is also a review. When they say "may cause significant adverse effects on several systems of the human body and represent a significant and acute health hazard," they're not talking about conclusions of a specific study. They're setting up the next bit where they suggest new areas of research. They're saying they'd like to see research into the effects of "brief, acute, transient exposure to SHS," specifically pertaining to "the concentrations of tobacco smoke constituents in the alveolar milieu following SHS exposure, individual susceptibility to SHS, as well as the effects of SHS on neurobehavioral activity, brain cell development, synaptic development, and function."
I haven't read a scientific paper in a while, but that's what this looks like to me. If I'm mistaken, let me know.
acute doesn't suggest anything other than what brief/transient means to my knowledge. certainly doesn't have any implications on concentration. as for the content itself, they reference many studies. of course they set up further research - as a review should do - but they certainly have both human and animal studies pertaining to each of these effects. can't really help you with the access to the paper though, so i'm sorry.
On May 25 2011 04:09 4lko wrote: 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 ?
are you suggesting that we're not allowed to blame companies that market and sell substances that is known to have a wide range of detrimental health effects for their own profit?
That's exactly what he's saying. If you're so concerned with health problems - look up liver cancer, liver sclerosis, etc. Fun.
i have said this like 10 times in this thread, and it's been echoed by many others. clearly you put no effort into reading what has already been discussed and just decided to come in with some random statements.
how are the diseases you mention at all related to the topic at hand? do their existence make smoking any less dangerous for you? do their existence justify the companies that market and sell a harmful substance to the public?
so let me ask you. what is your point?
I should have thought my point was obvious. If the government of a given country flat out bans tobacco then whats to stop another social group from coming and demanding alcohol is banned. Next we'll be hearing movie theaters should be banned because of potential eardrum damage, or concerts. Everyone is so quick to get up in arms about things these days they don't even stop to see the consequences.
In case you didn't understand, those diseases are a result of alcohol abuse. Is smoking for 5 years in your 20's good for your health (this is merely an example)? No certainly not. However its chances of killing you or giving you a detrimental disease is far less than smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years. Likewise drinking to have fun occasionally is great, meanwhile getting drunk on a near daily basis for years on end is not good for your health either. Some studies actually show that alcohol abuse has a faster intake/damage ratio than smoking (i.e 10 years of heavy drinking > 10 years of heavy smoking).
So many of you in this thread fail to see reason and figure 'smoking's bad for people so we should tell anyone who smokes how to make their own life choices by banning it in almost all places one would smoke other than their home'. It's all well and good to try and look out for other people around you, but there needs to be a point where it passes looking out for someone's being and becomes an infringement to civil liberties.
You can kill yourself by drinking too much soda (diabetes), you can die on the road in a terrible car crash (automotive collision), you can die from over-eating(obesity), or under-eating(anorexia), you can die from too little(dehydration), or too much water (electrolyte induced cardiac problems) , you could choke on your next meal and die on your kitchen floor(asphyxiation), you could slip in the shower and break your neck (spinal trauma). The list of ways people could die goes on and on and there is many ways both within, and outside of people's control, and many ways that are a result of habitual use of something.
Bottom line is over use of almost anything in life is going to be bad for your health. Any person who understand this fact will realize that they should leave well enough alone and let people to their own devices. So long as they aren't stealing, killing, or raping and pillaging people, they should be within reason allowed to do what they will. If someone wants to smoke any number of cigarettes a day for any number of years, thats their choice. Same as if people don't want to understand the simple logic of whats been proven over 1000s of years of human history - that society, and nature have a tendency to balance themselves, that's their business. While I don't agree with them, I don't tell them not to think it.
well that's a much better articulated argument than your original, and you bring up good points. however, your examples all have to do with things that don't necessarily endanger others (food consumption, choking, slipping). smoking and second hand smoke does have this troublesome attribute. therefore it's not unreasonable to regulate it - just as how firearms, drunk driving, hard drugs are regulated. there are obviously many responsible smokers like many in this forum, but you have to also account for the ones who just don't give a damn. exposing children, pregnant mothers can have severe effects on the lives of the next generation. is it really too much to ask - and too much of a tax on your "civil liberties" to just avoid smoking in public areas and do it at home or in designated areas (which i agree with many of you that governments should provide if they're enforcing a ban like in NYC)
they should just study the affects of smoking on a new smoker for 1 week, then divide the affects by an amount to see what the affects would be over a week for a 2nd hand smoker. like, your subject smokes 20 cigs a day for 5 days, you measure X in his blood or whatever shit, then translate that to reflect the amount a 2nd hand smoker would intake in that time.
does that make sense at all?
i know its probably impossible or unscientific or wtvr, but think of it that way theoretically:
if i have 10% reduced performance (say in running) after smoking a pack a day for a year, then a guy getting 2nd hand smoke equivilent to 0.0001 packs a day will suffer 0.001% reduced performance (some put my . in the right place)
Smoking isn't healthy, I understand that. But laws like these make people think it's reasonable to trade simple freedoms like this in turn for a feeling of security in some fashion. These laws never go away, they get more and more restrictive, it gives police a reason to harass or fine you. It's stupid. Leave it up to the private businesses to sort where people smoke and don't. It's already illegal and unfriendly in many places, there doesn't need to be more restrictions, people who smoke already pay with their health, and money.
On May 25 2011 11:49 FFGenerations wrote: they should just study the affects of smoking on a new smoker for 1 week, then divide the affects by an amount to see what the affects would be over a week for a 2nd hand smoker. like, your subject smokes 20 cigs a day for 5 days, you measure X in his blood or whatever shit, then translate that to reflect the amount a 2nd hand smoker would intake in that time.
does that make sense at all?
i know its probably impossible or unscientific or wtvr, but think of it that way theoretically:
if i have 10% reduced performance (say in running) after smoking a pack a day for a year, then a guy getting 2nd hand smoke equivilent to 0.0001 packs a day will suffer 0.001% reduced performance (some put my . in the right place)
but of course its all about the smell.
how can you link 10% reduced performance or whatever other effect you see directly to the smoking? this is really difficult in human subjects because you have to ensure every other variable stays constant. and this is on the assumption that you DO see things after a single year - which is not necessarily the case for every person. now even longer term effects makes it far more difficult as more and more external factors come in.
basically you have the right idea for a simple experiment, but long term human studies are just too difficult.
A law like this has been in place in Ottawa Canada. I don't want to say anything bad of smokers - by all means I believe it is a personal choice and decision that is made with full knowledge of what the effects are. This being said I personally have never liked smoking and have mild asthma so for me when this law came into effect here it became a lot easier to go out to restaurants and parks without having a harder time breathing or coughing. So I think its a good thing but really for smokers its just public buildings If i read that correctly and parks so you can always go somewhere not too far away to smoke.
There has been little to no research on Open Air SHS...which is the crux of the problem here. Until I see definitive proof that Open air SHS causes a significant increase in health problems I'll be against banning outdoor smoking on principle...and I don't even smoke anymore.
On May 24 2011 06:04 Valestrum wrote: I'm glad, smoking is a bad habit. It doesn't do anything good for us.
Neither does alcohol or junk food. Ban them also?
As a non smoker i say if people want to smoke let them.They pay more than their fair share of taxes and die earlier thus putting less strain on social security/pension schemes.I am also for legalising(or at least decriminalising) weed , ecstacy , heroin etc.Can't see how people can be for banning tobacco but also support legalising weed , it is bizarre.
I'm half and half on this ban. On one hand, I can give less of a rats ass to what people do to their bodies. I, for one, drink and I know that doesn't do anything good, but I don't care. On the other hand, people are always smoking in front of me while I'm walking and always smoking outside of entrances to buildings that I have to leave or get into. It's annoying and smells terrible. Whether or not is has an effect on my health isn't what annoys me. It's mainly the smell.
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.
On May 25 2011 11:54 v3chr0 wrote: Smoking isn't healthy, I understand that. But laws like these make people think it's reasonable to trade simple freedoms like this in turn for a feeling of security in some fashion. These laws never go away, they get more and more restrictive, it gives police a reason to harass or fine you. It's stupid. Leave it up to the private businesses to sort where people smoke and don't. It's already illegal and unfriendly in many places, there doesn't need to be more restrictions, people who smoke already pay with their health, and money.
Since they're talking about something that is only felt by other ppl then themselves people tend to try to do lame stuff of the sort.
On May 25 2011 11:59 ZeromuS wrote: A law like this has been in place in Ottawa Canada. I don't want to say anything bad of smokers - by all means I believe it is a personal choice and decision that is made with full knowledge of what the effects are. This being said I personally have never liked smoking and have mild asthma so for me when this law came into effect here it became a lot easier to go out to restaurants and parks without having a harder time breathing or coughing. So I think its a good thing but really for smokers its just public buildings If i read that correctly and parks so you can always go somewhere not too far away to smoke.
That's how it is in most places, and it's quite reasonable.
On May 25 2011 11:54 v3chr0 wrote: Smoking isn't healthy, I understand that. But laws like these make people think it's reasonable to trade simple freedoms like this in turn for a feeling of security in some fashion. These laws never go away, they get more and more restrictive, it gives police a reason to harass or fine you. It's stupid. Leave it up to the private businesses to sort where people smoke and don't. It's already illegal and unfriendly in many places, there doesn't need to be more restrictions, people who smoke already pay with their health, and money.
I don't know man. I just don't consider it much of a freedom debate. This law restricts you from annoying/doing harm to others with smoking. If you are a considerate smoker you wouldn't be doing anyway. It's like bringing a fart in a can and spraying it in parks. We have a very different perspective on this I guess but trust me when I tell you I'm exposed to second hand smoking a lot and it pisses me off. You may not realize how much some people hate it.
Anyways, laws like these will make sure that fewer people will start smoking. That's a good news for sure. You can't prevent smokers from smoking. But you can prevent people to become smokers (to some extent).
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.
We're not arguing about the fact that smoking's bad for you. The problem is that banning something just because someone might get hurt by using it is just plain wrong. Let the administrator of the place regulate it on his own behalf. Public spaces (government administrated I mean), banned ? Sure - just provide an isolated space for people to smoke. But bars ? Seriously ? If the owner wants smokers in his place, let him do it. It's not like you have to go in to that specific place if you don't like the smell of cigs. For all I care you should be able to open a place where you let in only asian midgets on coke if you want to.
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.
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.
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.
Smoking bans have been/are quite a big discussion in austria as well the last few years. A few days (or weeks?) ago they actually started enforcing the smoking area seperation law, (if you want to call it that) as in taking away their licences, forcing every bar or similar establishment to have a seperated smoking area. Bar owners lose quite a lot of money from their smoking customers when they cant have a cigarette to go with their beer and decide not to go out for a drink. If the owner of a bar is okay with risking his health working in an environment that will give him more profit, it should be his own decision, just like a nonsmoker can decide for himself not to go to a bar that has no seperated smoker/nonsmoker area.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Do you live in the NYC area? If you did I think you would understand why people need private cars. I would also think you understand the limitations of the NYC public transportation system. But I'm assuming you don't.
NYC isn't limited to Manhattan. There are four additional boroughs. Travel between Jersey, Long Island, and Connecticut is frequent. Moving North/South in Brooklyn and Queens is difficult. But this isn't a thread about transportation and NYC.
I treat smoking like I do shitting. Yes, you have the freedom to shit. But do it in the appropriate areas for Christ's sake. I do not want to smell you shit, I don't want you to shit in public around other people, and by the hammer of Thor don't you dare shit around children.
They are about to implement smoking bans in bars in our country. I think that it's about time. California has had smoking bans for nearly as long as our country had democracy.
On May 25 2011 22:12 RockIronrod wrote: I treat smoking like I do shitting. Yes, you have the freedom to shit. But do it in the appropriate areas for Christ's sake. I do not want to smell you shit, I don't want you to shit in public around other people, and by the hammer of Thor don't you dare shit around children.
I think if it were really being treated this way they would create smoking areas in parks instead of just banning it. If people are shitting in the park, you don't ban shitting, you build a bathroom.
I fully support this ban. I'm a landlord and I have a few tenants that smoke and EVERY damn week I find several dozen cigarettes on the ground even after I put that damn "NO SMOKING" sign. It's not even the smell that pisses me off any more, it's those people who are too damn lazy and would rather litter.
On May 25 2011 22:12 RockIronrod wrote: I treat smoking like I do shitting. Yes, you have the freedom to shit. But do it in the appropriate areas for Christ's sake. I do not want to smell you shit, I don't want you to shit in public around other people, and by the hammer of Thor don't you dare shit around children.
I think if it were really being treated this way they would create smoking areas in parks instead of just banning it. If people are shitting in the park, you don't ban shitting, you build a bathroom.
If people are shitting in the park you arrest those people and enforce the laws of not fucking shitting in the park.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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 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
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.
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.
This 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.
I can't really see this being enforced in parks (in a literal sense). Have you seen a park ranger in manhattan? They exist in central park but honestly all the small parks here and there in the city aren't going to change much in regards to smokers. The police won't be the ones writing citations at least according to the article so there's nothing to be pissed about.
You have to keep in mind those stats say "non-smokers who live with smokers". Secondhand smoke indoors is bad but outdoors its not really that harmful.
On May 26 2011 23:58 Cyba wrote: 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.
That's fine just don't litter, because finding tons of cigarettes on the ground really GRINDS MY GEARS...
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/09rLE.jpg)
Its so nice....![[image loading]](http://www.reelingreviews.com/bubbleboypic.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.solvemygirlproblems.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/don-draper-final.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/12/29/world/29china.650.2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.thecarconnection.com/lrg/smog-in-new-york-city_100182222_l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.belson.com/images/csocr-M.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/YJyfV.jpg)
Tell him where to smoke
