EPTMy city passed a smoking-ban - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
| ||
|
L!MP
Australia2067 Posts
in other words, you are free to still smoke, the government will just make it harder to do when you want to and seclude you from your group when you choose to. at some point nobody will even consider it worth while anymore. not a bad strategy if you ask me. if you consider it 'not their right' to do that sort of manhandling of the rules, then think about the healthcare system which is burdened by smokers. on top of that, you have lobbyists who fight against 3rd hand smoke. i particularly feel for this issue in the case of pregnant women catching public transport or something and having to breath in smoke. not good. | ||
|
Oystein
Norway1602 Posts
On March 14 2009 19:41 ktp wrote: If a resturant sells you rat meat, then in theory it would go out of buisness because so many people would get sick that it eventaully no one would go to that restaurant anymore. So it would be very counter productive for a resturant to sell you bad food because it would hurt their business. But in reality, people will still eat shit despite knowing its bad for them. Thus all the fast food places responsible for making people fat will always stay in buisness. Instead of making a conscious decision to stay away from unhealthy food, some people want it to be banned so they don't ever have to make that decision again. I don't know if this is just laziness on our part, or that we, as people, are truely incompetent in making decisions. Why must the smokers step outside? Can't the nonsmokers just leave? Maybe there should be a rule like, 20 smokers and 19 nonsmokers in a room, then the nonsmokers leave. And if there are 20 nonsmokers and 19 smokers in the room, the smokers leave. But thats a pain in the ass. So you think a restaurant should be allowed to poison people just to have freedom to do whatever the fuck they want? I don`t know how it works in the US, but here the government sends out health inspections to any place that sell food and can shut it down if it don`t live up to certain standards. These are things made for the safety and health of the public, just as it is when they made the smoking ban for public places here. You think it really takes away your freedom if you can`t smoke in public places?? And why the fuck should I have to leave the room because of YOUR filthy habit? | ||
|
Kaolla
China2999 Posts
On March 14 2009 21:58 L!MP wrote: personally, i think it's a step in the right direction. tobacco has been established as one of the most dangerous legal drugs freely available. it came into fashion when nobody knew the negative side effects. now we know better and thank fuck we are slowly tightening the grip to get rid of it. high tax, no ads and now restrictions on public enclosed area smoking. in other words, you are free to still smoke, the government will just make it harder to do when you want to and seclude you from your group when you choose to. at some point nobody will even consider it worth while anymore. not a bad strategy if you ask me. if you consider it 'not their right' to do that sort of manhandling of the rules, then think about the healthcare system which is burdened by smokers. on top of that, you have lobbyists who fight against 3rd hand smoke. i particularly feel for this issue in the case of pregnant women catching public transport or something and having to breath in smoke. not good. its too bad no one replies to my post but the exact same thign can be said about alcohol.. i wonder what shitstorm will be released when we get a new alcohol ban... and i dont think any kid has ever died from some pregnant woman breathing in some smoke... seriously ... all you people just link to some high propaganda organisations who proclaim millions of ppl have died from smoke...remember MPAA and all those crap organisations claiming there is billions of dollars lost from downloading, predicting every song/movie downloaded means 1 purchase is missed and they totally fuck up all numbers just to make it sound way more important than it is .. well this anti smoking shit is probably no different, cause that's the world we live in... as mentioned 300 times in this thread car fumes and shit are way more dangerous to pregnant women but you dont even mention them, probably because you are too narrow minded and you have already heard the shitty propaganda too often that the only thing you can do is repeat without even thinking... smoking -> bad drinking -> bad (with as much bad effects on other ppl as smoking) fast food -> bad sun -> bad and you can make an endless list... if we are only allowed to do good things there's not much left .. its not the government's job to tell us what to do and what not to do when it comes to things like these... i think they can give the public some information to try and change the situation, but they cannot just put bans on it... | ||
|
fearus
China2164 Posts
People have this images of cigarette smoke as some kind of toxic anthrax where even saying the name will lead you to have mouth cancer. Remember in the 60s and 70s when people didn't know cigarettes were bad. Well guess what... the world didn't stop spinning then and the people from that era haven't gone extinct. | ||
|
Cloud
Sexico5880 Posts
| ||
|
Kaolla
China2999 Posts
On March 15 2009 01:10 Cloud wrote: Your arguments are hilarious koalla 'THOSE STATS ARE BS, ITS THE GOVERMENT PLAYING WITH YOUR HEADS!!!!!' im not saying they are total BS but its just not as bad as they make them seem... no one really knows how bad it really is, but i doubt there are really that many ppl dying from it... lets face it how can they ever conclude who died from it? and another point is just that there is tons of stuff that's bad and if it all gets forbidden nothing is possible anymore... on a 2nd note, if you had even tried to understand, the worst thing is that its not even the government that does the BS and propaganda its organisations and yea they are just plain bad because they do give you bad information that is not objective... just look at MPAA , anti drinking shit, anti smoking shit, environmental organisations... they always wanna make it look as bad as possible (which makes some sense from their point of view, but is not really the truth)... im sure you believe everythign the MPAA tells you too -_- fact is the government is trying to control us more and more with talks goign on about banning alcohol and using fat taxes and whatelse... they should just try and run the country well ffs, since they cant even do that right... bunch of wankers they are | ||
|
ManBearPig
Belgium207 Posts
On March 15 2009 02:14 Kaolla wrote: im not saying they are total BS but its just not as bad as they make them seem... no one really knows how bad it really is, but i doubt there are really that many ppl dying from it... lets face it how can they ever conclude who died from it? and another point is just that there is tons of stuff that's bad and if it all gets forbidden nothing is possible anymore... on a 2nd note, if you had even tried to understand, the worst thing is that its not even the government that does the BS and propaganda its organisations and yea they are just plain bad because they do give you bad information that is not objective... just look at MPAA , anti drinking shit, anti smoking shit, environmental organisations... they always wanna make it look as bad as possible (which makes some sense from their point of view, but is not really the truth)... fact is the government is trying to control us more and more with talks goign on about banning alcohol and using fat taxes and whatelse... they should just try and run the country well ffs, since they cant even do that right... bunch of wankers they are Do you really think the government is hiding information from us? Are you that paranoid? There is a LOT of scientific research out there as far as the effects of smoking on your health are concerned. There is plenty of evidence suggesting not only that smoking is bad for you, but that second-hand smoke is also really bad for you, to a certain extent. Banning smoking on places like busstops however, is not scientifically justified. Although being exposed to second-hand-smoke for a short period of time outdoors will have some noticeable effects, these effects will be gone in a few hours. (Seeing as this is illegal in some states in the US, you do have a point here, although I don't think you realized this) How do I know this? I read an article about it in a science magazine. There's no great big secret, the information is out there and it is quite clear. | ||
|
MiniRoman
Canada3953 Posts
You guys are fucking dumb, learn how the world works. I know personally the smoking ban has effected the economies of many many bars in my city, and since the auto-industry has went to shit my city has become primarily a service-based one. You'd be surprised how much money bars and restaurants have lost since the ban from regular customers being regulated and alienated. They wouldn't ban for no reason and without evidence lobbyists wouldhave been able to reverse the policy change. | ||
|
Kaolla
China2999 Posts
example A: Radiation of mobile phones, still unclear what this does, has been marked as causing cancer by multiple scientific research reports... example B: Video games causing violence blabla... I think there's plenty of research and arguments that counter the scientific research done too and claiming the results are not as bad as your scientific research claims... (too lazy to search for it but thats usually the case with stuff like this..) You should take into account that scientific research does not mean its correct... and i think everyone understands that its not exactly healthy... The question is, does it really endanger the health of people who go to bars and I think the answer to that is no... Trusting scientific research that's coming from organisations that are against something is just not trustable.. And saying : They wouldn't ban for no reason and without evidence lobbyists wouldhave been able to reverse the policy change. This isnt really a good argument, cause once the government wants to get something done they just do it... plenty of examples in that, but i feel we'd be derailing the thread... on top of that i dont really care even if it would be dangerous (which i dont believe), you can always CHOOSE to go to a smoking or non smoking bar or restaurant so why the hell would they need to ban it...we humans are capable of making our own simple decisions i think and we dont need the government to limit us to 1 option.... bleh i already hate the action groups talking about how alcohol is so much worse than smoking and how that's the next step now... a world without alcohol.... thats really a rotten place!!! +_+ | ||
|
ManBearPig
Belgium207 Posts
On March 15 2009 03:36 Kaolla wrote: common... scientific research... theres always 10 scientific researchers that claim this and 10 that claim that... just gotta find the right ones... example A: Radiation of mobile phones, still unclear what this does, has been marked as causing cancer by multiple scientific research reports... example B: Video games causing violence blabla... I think there's plenty of research and arguments that counter the scientific research done too and claiming the results are not as bad as your scientific research claims... (too lazy to search for it but thats usually the case with stuff like this..) You should take into account that scientific research does not mean its correct... and i think everyone understands that its not exactly healthy... The question is, does it really endanger the health of people who go to bars and I think the answer to that is no... Trusting scientific research that's coming from organisations that are against something is just not trustable.. And saying : They wouldn't ban for no reason and without evidence lobbyists wouldhave been able to reverse the policy change. This isnt really a good argument, cause once the government wants to get something done they just do it... plenty of examples in that, but i feel we'd be derailing the thread... on top of that i dont really care even if it would be dangerous (which i dont believe), you can always CHOOSE to go to a smoking or non smoking bar or restaurant so why the hell would they need to ban it...we humans are capable of making our own simple decisions i think and we dont need the government to limit us to 1 option.... bleh i already hate the action groups talking about how alcohol is so much worse than smoking and how that's the next step now... a world without alcohol.... thats really a rotten place!!! +_+ Dude. No. Just no. There is a TON of research on the negative effects of smoking on your health. I dare you to find 1 qualified SANE scientist who disputes this research. There is no consensus on the effects of cell phones, but eventually there will be, there just hasn't been enough research on this. You really have no clue about the dynamics of scientific research. Your arguments concerning smoking in bars are quite flawed, but I won't go into those right now. | ||
|
Headlines
United States482 Posts
I think this should have been voted on by the students because it does affect their lives. I don’t know what percentage of students and faculty are smokers in my school, but that should not matter too much should it? The state of Georgia bans smoking indoors but not outdoors. However, the county school district my school is in bans any tobacco products in school grounds. Honestly, I’m just trying to ask for your opinions here. Should I stand up for the little man, or shut up and put up? | ||
|
eXigent.
Canada2419 Posts
On March 15 2009 03:36 Kaolla wrote: common... scientific research... theres always 10 scientific researchers that claim this and 10 that claim that... just gotta find the right ones... example A: Radiation of mobile phones, still unclear what this does, has been marked as causing cancer by multiple scientific research reports... example B: Video games causing violence blabla... I think there's plenty of research and arguments that counter the scientific research done too and claiming the results are not as bad as your scientific research claims... (too lazy to search for it but thats usually the case with stuff like this..) You should take into account that scientific research does not mean its correct... and i think everyone understands that its not exactly healthy... The question is, does it really endanger the health of people who go to bars and I think the answer to that is no... Trusting scientific research that's coming from organisations that are against something is just not trustable.. And saying : They wouldn't ban for no reason and without evidence lobbyists wouldhave been able to reverse the policy change. This isnt really a good argument, cause once the government wants to get something done they just do it... plenty of examples in that, but i feel we'd be derailing the thread... on top of that i dont really care even if it would be dangerous (which i dont believe), you can always CHOOSE to go to a smoking or non smoking bar or restaurant so why the hell would they need to ban it...we humans are capable of making our own simple decisions i think and we dont need the government to limit us to 1 option.... bleh i already hate the action groups talking about how alcohol is so much worse than smoking and how that's the next step now... a world without alcohol.... thats really a rotten place!!! +_+ omg, you have literally gotta be downright INSANE to post that crap. How are you still debating that scientific research is wrong concerning second hand smoke? I posted 10 links in response to your reply, and you havent even addressed 1 of them. Oh and btw, just so you will STOP saying it...YES it is provable that second hand smoke kills people. I posted links on that as well. MRI scans are used to prove that people who do not smoke are still recieving lung damage from inhaling ciggarette smoke. You really think its impossible to know that? How about an autopsy that reveals tons of smoking related carcinogens in the body of a non-smoker. This has already been proven DECADES ago. Seriously, grow the fuck up and enter the real world. All you are doing is spouting bullshit that is 100% wrong, and you are not even backing it up with any proof. I have posted over 10 links from CREDITED organizations, filled with physicians. All you have done is said your opinion...WHICH IS WRONG. EDIT: I just read what you said about pregnant women not ever losing babies to second hand smoke. Have you even looked at the numbers before? SIDS is a major cause of infant death, and alot of times it is because of second hand smoke. This has also been proven, or would you like me to post a ton of links backing that up? Here, just so you don't come back with some retarded claim that I am wrong, and thats propoganda, here is a link to a website that was created by Canadian PHYSICIANS (Yes, DOCTORS). This is related to children both born, and in the womb still, and the horrible effects that second hand smoke has on them Link | ||
|
Zyrre
Sweden291 Posts
On March 15 2009 04:37 eXigent. wrote: omg, you have literally gotta be downright INSANE to post that crap. How are you still debating that scientific research is wrong concerning second hand smoke? I posted 10 links in response to your reply, and you havent even addressed 1 of them. Oh and btw, just so you will STOP saying it...YES it is provable that second hand smoke kills people. I posted links on that as well. MRI scans are used to prove that people who do not smoke are still recieving lung damage from inhaling ciggarette smoke. You really think its impossible to know that? How about an autopsy that reveals tons of smoking related carcinogens in the body of a non-smoker. This has already been proven DECADES ago. Seriously, grow the fuck up and enter the real world. All you are doing is spouting bullshit that is 100% wrong, and you are not even backing it up with any proof. I have posted over 10 links from CREDITED organizations, filled with physicians. All you have done is said your opinion...WHICH IS WRONG. EDIT: I just read what you said about pregnant women not ever losing babies to second hand smoke. Have you even looked at the numbers before? SIDS is a major cause of infant death, and alot of times it is because of second hand smoke. This has also been proven, or would you like me to post a ton of links backing that up? Here, just so you don't come back with some retarded claim that I am wrong, and thats propoganda, here is a link to a website that was created by Canadian PHYSICIANS (Yes, DOCTORS). This is related to children both born, and in the womb still, and the horrible effects that second hand smoke has on them Link To be fair, the old EPA and WHO studies were complete bogus. It was thrown out by a federal court because they ignored their findings and faked it, and still most organizations quotes the numbers from them. The links you posted state them as sources. But yes, more recent studies have shown it to be dangerous. | ||
|
Kaolla
China2999 Posts
| ||
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
People are going to laugh in 10 years when they think back to when this was an actual issue | ||
|
Bub
United States3518 Posts
On March 15 2009 09:29 heyoka wrote: They banned smoking here a few years ago and there was a big uproar about how it was going to hurt business and the government was taking too much control etc etc but it ended up making downtown 100x better and I don't think anyone (bar owner or otherwise) has complained a bit since People are going to laugh in 10 years when they think back to when this was an actual issue Well, I've seen a number of bars close out soon after a smoking ban took effect. | ||
|
Piste
6177 Posts
There are usually "smoking-rooms" where you can go for a smoke, but you are not allowed to take your drink/meal there. There's few bars where are smokingrooms where you can drink too, but I think they just have special right for few extra years. | ||
|
ktp
United States797 Posts
On March 14 2009 22:55 Oystein wrote: So you think a restaurant should be allowed to poison people just to have freedom to do whatever the fuck they want? Of course not, but we've all seen resturants that still serve suspect food despite all the health regulations put in place. Laws can reduce behavior, but it will never eliminate it. On March 14 2009 22:55 Oystein wrote: You think it really takes away your freedom if you can`t smoke in public places?? Of course it takes away from a smoker's freedom if they can't smoke in public. That is the issue at hand here, how far can government take away the rights of one group to protect another. On March 14 2009 22:55 Oystein wrote: And why the fuck should I have to leave the room because of YOUR filthy habit? You don't have to leave the room, but then you would just be breathing in smoke. If I sat next to someone and he/she started smoke heavily and I started caughing, I would ask him/her to stop. If he/she is a courteous person, they will put away the cigarette and everything is resolved. If not, I leave and find a place to sit, away from them. I don't start a argument about who should leave and why. | ||
|
Kaolla
China2999 Posts
On March 15 2009 09:29 heyoka wrote: They banned smoking here a few years ago and there was a big uproar about how it was going to hurt business and the government was taking too much control etc etc but it ended up making downtown 100x better and I don't think anyone (bar owner or otherwise) has complained a bit since People are going to laugh in 10 years when they think back to when this was an actual issue i think this is the case whatever we do... if we make a law now which sentences people to death row if they walk on the left side of the road in 10 years they would think wow 10 yrs ago ppl were retarded they thought they could walk on the left side of the road man that would be such a mess if there would be pedestrians on the left and right side of the road... LOL what idiots... i think in 10 years they'll think wow im in the US the country of the free but i cant even smoke wherever i want?! >_<<<<<<<<<<<< ah well at least i can carry a gun and shoot ppl without trouble here -_-; unfortunately no they wont think that but changes will always be thought of as easy when you look back and never had the chance to experience them... i just hope ppl realize its freedom they are being cut on... | ||
| ||
