Perhaps it is relevant that I enjoy smoking on sporadic occasions -- probably less than 10 smokes a month. On the other hand, 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 recently passed in my city is wrong.
The smoking ban is justified by either: (1) A form of paternalism ((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 college station 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 my local newspaper wrote, : “It's about time CS 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.
(1) If we were to take this argument seriously then the smoking ban would have to be extended not only to bars. 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. 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.
First, 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. 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.
Second, 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 justification for a smoking ban -- 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 against their wishes.
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.
Australia has had a no smoking in places where meals/drinks are served for a while now, and I think it's a really good thing.
BUT, in a place like America, where healthcare isn't provided free to all citizens it's a bit rich of the government to stop people doing it, it makes sense in Australia because all these arseholes who are sucking down smoke 24/7 are costing the taxpayer millions of dollars every year in medical costs, not to mention lost productivity of days off because they're too sick to go to work. The government would actually save themselves money by outlawing smoking (unless the money they make from taxing cigarettes etc. is really that huge, in which case at least they'd free up the health system to look after people with other problems instead of ones who could have stopped themselves being sick in the first place). I really don't get it though, how could anyone enjoy smoking? Sucking searing hot embers into my lungs really doesn't sound like my cup of tea tbqh, not to mention smokers smell horrible and in public places force their smoke upon other people. Smoking should at least be allowed only in private, I hate the fact that at university every day every second wanker blows a cloud of smoke into my face.
sorry for missing the whole philosophical argument of your post, I don't really have the energy to digest it all right now.
I think your arguments about government sponsored instutions (health-care, universities, etc) are dead on. I don't think those government institutions should exist, but if they do I think you have an important point. That is, argument (2) can be utilized (albeit, in an ultimately contradictory manner)
Smoking has been banned in indoor public places here for a while now, it really doesn't bother me because I don't smoke and I agree it's nice to come home not stinking of cigarette smoke. At first I was kind of against it for similar reasons to you but the smokers themselves don't seem to mind going outside for five minute to smoke so I don't think it's a big deal.
@TheTyranid If it's anything like the ban here then it's for indoor public places only, so outside, in your car, in your house are all fine.
The government should limit the freedoms of the citizens, and make the choices that are obviously stupid for them (the citizens). For example i'm a smoker, i wish i didn't smoke if i could choose i would stop but i can't make myself. Now if the government would ban cigarettes that would be a good thing for me and i'd support it.
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
Smoking is a very complex issue because smokers could be indirectly hurting others. Its not like smoking can be isloted so that smokers can do it in peace. The smoke goes out in the air its not right if someone else has to breath it in. I've always thought that you should be able to do whatever you want if you don't hurt anyone else. But when its something environmental like smoking, the issue is pretty complex. I still don't know where I stand with this.
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
Why would the government ban something that gives them millions of dollars in revenue each year through heavy taxation, theres a reason that its like 11$ australian for a packet of smokes where the rest of the world its a fraction of the cost.
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
it does if your parachute doesnt open and you land on somebody
But when you're skydiving it's done in a place where you won't land on someone, like landing in fields and stuff, sure you could land on someone but that's a freak accident that has a low possibility of happening. Smoking on the other hand, well, as long as people are near you when you exhale smoke there is a high possibility they will breathe that smoke in.
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
it does if your parachute doesnt open and you land on somebody
On March 13 2009 20:06 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: "The government should limit the freedoms of the citizens, and make the choices that are obviously stupid for them."
Freudian slip?
Most likely just a case of less than perfect English grammar, you understood what he meant didn't you? =p
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
Why would the government ban something that gives them millions of dollars in revenue each year through heavy taxation, theres a reason that its like 11$ australian for a packet of smokes where the rest of the world its a fraction of the cost.
I think you need to take a trip to Norway if you think smokes are cheap everywhere else, 10 US$ or so for a pack. On topic Norway started using this law around 03-04 or so, and I as a non smoker find it great and I think the smokers got pretty quick accustomed to it also. Tho they complain a bit in the winter when they have to leave bars to go outside in -5 degrees just to feed their abstinence's. In retrospect its pretty insane that they actually allowed smoking everywhere before.
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
Uh no. Secondhand smoke only causes permanent/serious problems in cramped places with long term exposure. I don't think anyone has ever been killed by secondhand smoke inhalation.
what if i walk to work every day through the city with people smoking on every street? it doesnt matter if nobody has been killed by it, there are plenty of respiratory problems that can arise from second hand smoke, especially to younger children. you telling me that as long as you dont die from second hand smoke, everything is ok?
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
Uh no. Secondhand smoke only causes permanent/serious problems in cramped places with long term exposure. I don't think anyone has ever been killed by secondhand smoke inhalation.
While it don`t kill you it smells like shit, and makes the air nasty to breath. Should we non smoker have to smell like ashes after going out for a dinner just so the smokers can kill themselves slowly and pollute the air for the rest of us?
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
Uh no. Secondhand smoke only causes permanent/serious problems in cramped places with long term exposure. I don't think anyone has ever been killed by secondhand smoke inhalation.
While it don`t kill you it smells like shit, and makes the air nasty to breath. Should we non smoker have to smell like ashes after going out for a dinner just so the smokers can kill themselves slowly and pollute the air for the rest of us?
Smelling bad isn't really an argument to make it illegal, and them taking a few years of their lives on average is a choice they should be allowed to make. Polluting the air? If that's your worry you might want to make cars illegal instead.
On March 13 2009 20:26 JohnColtrane wrote: what if i walk to work every day through the city with people smoking on every street? it doesnt matter if nobody has been killed by it, there are plenty of respiratory problems that can arise from second hand smoke, especially to younger children. you telling me that as long as you dont die from second hand smoke, everything is ok?
Yea it would totally suck to walk around to find everyone smoking. But the question is, what right do we have as none smokers to tell everyone on the single planet not to smoke? A lot of people smoke, and it would be pretty fucked up if we just straight up told them "hey you can't do this", because someday it might come back and bite us in the ass. What if Stacraft is completely banned because of health reasons? Its completely valid, sitting on your ass playing Starcraft is not healthy for you. Hell, getting 1a2a3a by D level toss players raises my stress level, making me ponder about reaching across the computer screen and choking them. Thats obviously not heathly, but is it enough reason to ban? So with smoking, I don't really think its a big enough for it to be completely banned. It is MUCH easier for nonsmokers to just go to a restaurant that has a no smoking policy than it is to ban smoking entirely. So until the streets are filled with massive chain smokers turning the air grey, I think I am against banning smoking.
The purpose of smoking is the nicotine. Nicotine in cigarettes release dopamine from your brain. Dopamine is the chemical your brain releases to tell your body "this feels good". That is why people smoke.
What is the big deal smokers? Are you so self obsessed you cant even go outside to smoke because you dont care about people who dont want to smell like smoke all day long, just because they wanted to outside for a meal for a change? I cant stand it when someone smokes beside me (I start to caugh almost to I vomit and everyone in my family smokes beside me)
Im so glad norway passed this law, and I hope every country do so too
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
Uh no. Secondhand smoke only causes permanent/serious problems in cramped places with long term exposure. I don't think anyone has ever been killed by secondhand smoke inhalation.
While it don`t kill you it smells like shit, and makes the air nasty to breath. Should we non smoker have to smell like ashes after going out for a dinner just so the smokers can kill themselves slowly and pollute the air for the rest of us?
Smelling bad isn't really an argument to make it illegal, and them taking a few years of their lives on average is a choice they should be allowed to make. Polluting the air? If that's your worry you might want to make cars illegal instead.
Its a damn good argument for making it illegal in public indoor places, I don`t care if people smoke outside (tho in ideal world smokes would be totally banned). And I did not mean it in the sense "oh noes the ozone layer is failing" I meant it in the way that I have to breath the air that smells\tastes like smoke, and as coltrane said, cars serve a purpose, smoking don`t.
Like I said in my last post I want to be able to go to a restaurant for lunch and not smell like ashes coming back from it, and luckily where I live I can do that
On March 13 2009 20:59 Patrio wrote: What is the big deal smokers? Are you so self obsessed you cant even go outside to smoke because you dont care about people who dont want to smell like smoke all day long, just because they wanted to outside for a meal for a change? I cant stand it when someone smokes beside me (I start to caugh almost to I vomit and everyone in my family smokes beside me)
Im so glad norway passed this law, and I hope every country do so too
Nope, at least, not me. I try to be as good-mannered as I can towards non-smokers when smoking. Its just the atmosphere I guess, like when your at a bar or pool hall, makes a "chill" situation even more "chill".
On March 13 2009 20:06 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: "The government should limit the freedoms of the citizens, and make the choices that are obviously stupid for them."
Freudian slip?
Most likely just a case of less than perfect English grammar, you understood what he meant didn't you? =p
On March 13 2009 20:59 Patrio wrote: What is the big deal smokers? Are you so self obsessed you cant even go outside to smoke because you dont care about people who dont want to smell like smoke all day long, just because they wanted to outside for a meal for a change? I cant stand it when someone smokes beside me (I start to caugh almost to I vomit and everyone in my family smokes beside me)
Im so glad norway passed this law, and I hope every country do so too
Agreed, this needs to be everywhere, not just city-by-city.
good, its gross when smoking is allowed in public places. I play pool and its absolutely disgusting when I leave there. My clothes smell like absolute shit and I cant leave there and go anywhere else really..... I need to go straight home and change. Its gross as fuck in bars too. I Swear by the end of the night I can taste it in my drinks. When I was in Ireland a few years ago smoking was banned in all public places. It was so much nicer going to the bar and to go play pool there because of no cigarettes.
On March 13 2009 20:04 ktp wrote: Smoking is a very complex issue because smokers could be indirectly hurting others. Its not like smoking can be isloted so that smokers can do it in peace. The smoke goes out in the air its not right if someone else has to breath it in. I've always thought that you should be able to do whatever you want if you don't hurt anyone else. But when its something environmental like smoking, the issue is pretty complex. I still don't know where I stand with this.
Well said. I do think governments should let people do as much as they like, as long it doesn't negatively affect others, at least not too much.
On March 13 2009 20:38 JohnColtrane wrote: cars serve a purpose, what purpose does smoking serve?
I'm not a smoker myself, but obviously people enjoy smoking since they keep doing it. Cars let's people drive, which is more enjoyable then walking.
On March 13 2009 20:54 ZoW wrote: The purpose of smoking is the nicotine. Nicotine in cigarettes release dopamine from your brain. Dopamine is the chemical your brain releases to tell your body "this feels good". That is why people smoke.
It's a drug and should be banned. I also can't stand the smoke.
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
fine, but ban alcohol also.it's as toxic as cigs.and im not even considering what dmg can people do under the influence of it.
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
fine, but ban alcohol also.it's as toxic as cigs.and im not even considering what dmg can people do under the influence of it.
On March 13 2009 20:54 ZoW wrote: The purpose of smoking is the nicotine. Nicotine in cigarettes release dopamine from your brain. Dopamine is the chemical your brain releases to tell your body "this feels good". That is why people smoke.
It's a drug and should be banned. I also can't stand the smoke.
No doubt man. Studies show nicotine is more addicting than heroin. Its no joke =\
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
fine, but ban alcohol also.it's as toxic as cigs.and im not even considering what dmg can people do under the influence of it.
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
fine, but ban alcohol also.it's as toxic as cigs.and im not even considering what dmg can people do under the influence of it.
In regards to OP's first point - I generally agree - people should be free to be able to do whatever they want, say drinking or smoking. But carrying this point to its logical conclusion, it seems consumption of really hard drugs, like heroin or cocaine, should be legalised as well. Personally I'm not comfortable with that at all. OP's thoughts?
In regards to the second point, Rights are trump cards, but they are subject to certain restrictions in the interest of public health and safety. The classic example: you have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre - stampede and all that nasty stuff.
So: you have a right to smoke, but you don't have a right to smoke in a crowded indoor place where everyone has to inhale your smoke.
I don't think it will ever be completely banned. If anything a number of now illegal drugs will be legalized probably in the not too distant future. It's banned in the entire country here, not on a city by city basis which is good.
I could care less if people smoke or not, the same no-smoking law is in slovenia for some time now, and the only problem i had with smokers is that they were smoking happily in restaurants, where many people were eating.. That pissed me off.. Smoke in a bar, smoke when you go for a coffe, dont care, but dont smoke to my face when i( and many others , including smokers) try to eat food.. He could be tables away, but the bad smell just ruins food and many kids come and eat as well so it was just a bad habit.. They should just ban smoking in the are where food is involved and gg!
Well now they cant smoke anywhere, not bars, not restaurants etc etc.. and its great , and besides its about time i can come home and dont need to wash my clothes instantly !
On March 13 2009 19:52 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: I think your arguments about government sponsored instutions (health-care, universities, etc) are dead on. I don't think those government institutions should exist, but if they do I think you have an important point. That is, argument (2) can be utilized (albeit, in an ultimately contradictory manner)
please explain why it seems like a really weird statement from my point of view
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
fine, but ban alcohol also.it's as toxic as cigs.and im not even considering what dmg can people do under the influence of it.
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
fine, but ban alcohol also.it's as toxic as cigs.and im not even considering what dmg can people do under the influence of it.
It will be banned someday, 100%.
You are joking right?
Why do you think so?
Because it's a huge money cow. People are addicted to paying ridiculous import taxes. They cover the costs of treating smokers on public healthcare several times over in this country and probably even more in Sweden. And to add insult to injury smokers get put down waiting lists for treatment over here for smoking related illnesses unless they stop. Sure, the logic is that you can save the lives of 2 non smokers for the price of saving the smoker so you should treat them but when he's already paid for 5 guys to be saved in taxes just for the right to smoke I think you should cut him some slack.
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
fine, but ban alcohol also.it's as toxic as cigs.and im not even considering what dmg can people do under the influence of it.
It will be banned someday, 100%.
You are joking right?
Why do you think so?
Because it's a huge money cow. People are addicted to paying ridiculous import taxes. They cover the costs of treating smokers on public healthcare several times over in this country and probably even more in Sweden. And to add insult to injury smokers get put down waiting lists for treatment over here for smoking related illnesses unless they stop. Sure, the logic is that you can save the lives of 2 non smokers for the price of saving the smoker so you should treat them but when he's already paid for 5 guys to be saved in taxes just for the right to smoke I think you should cut him some slack.
Smoking wtf? I said alcohol will be banned someday....
But I'm sure smoking will be banned someday too, I have no idea when but 100-200 years maybe?
explaining why those government institutions shouldnt exists is not for this thread, but it is really interesting issue - if the government should control hospitals, schools and all other stuff. there are many theories about this and i would like to hear ppl opinion and how is it solved in other countries (in poland we have public health care, schools and many others public institutions, I think some of them are good and useful but I know that in the west it isnt like this - thats cus of our specific history^^)
On March 13 2009 22:18 koziol wrote: explaining why those government institutions shouldnt exists is not for this thread, but it is really interesting issue - if the government should control hospitals, schools and all other stuff. there are many theories about this and i would like to hear ppl opinion and how is it solved in other countries (in poland we have public health care, schools and many others public institutions, I think some of them are good and useful but I know that in the west it isnt like this - thats cus of our specific history^^)
yea i know its offtopic but i didnt feel that creating a thread for just that question was necessary
Smoking wtf? I said alcohol will be banned someday....
But I'm sure smoking will be banned someday too, I have no idea when but 100-200 years maybe?
In America they tried banning alcohol al long time ago, not with any succes I believe. So I don't think that'll happen.
They tried in Sweden as well, was 49% yes 51% no. If alcohol was discovered today it would be banned instantly right? It's impossible to know but someday I think it will happen.
Smoking wtf? I said alcohol will be banned someday....
But I'm sure smoking will be banned someday too, I have no idea when but 100-200 years maybe?
In America they tried banning alcohol al long time ago, not with any succes I believe. So I don't think that'll happen.
They tried in Sweden as well, was 49% yes 51% no. If alcohol was discovered today it would be banned instantly right? It's impossible to know but someday I think it will happen.
49%, didn't expect that... People need stuff to escape reality once in a while, can be alcohol, cigarettes, extreme sports or videogames. I think banning them, is a bad idea.
On-topic. Recently smoking in bars in the Netherlands is banned and a lot of bar and cafe owners still let their customers smoke. There's a lot of discussion wether it's a good idea or not.
Smoking wtf? I said alcohol will be banned someday....
But I'm sure smoking will be banned someday too, I have no idea when but 100-200 years maybe?
In America they tried banning alcohol al long time ago, not with any succes I believe. So I don't think that'll happen.
It gave way to the Al Capones and other gangsters of the world, since there was a ban on something that everyone wanted. You figure we'd learn, but our ridiculous drug policy shows we don't. All it does is just breed criminals and drug lords. Axe the drug laws we have, and the criminal element gets cut in half overnight. Alas, I have digressed.
Alcohol will never be banned again. I'd put any amount of money on that.
The smoking ban is great. Smokers don't have a right to shit up everyone else's health. And the people who are saying second hand smoke doesn't do anything.... lol
At least outdoor smoking allows it to dissipate, making the effects pretty marginal.
I utterly fail to see why they couldn't give the choice to the place of work, where if all employee's are happy with it, smoking is allowed. If not... not. This way no employee is made uncomfortable, and both smokers and non-smokers can choose where they want to eat/drink/socialise. There would have to be a debate on whether new employee's would be able to demand the right to work somewhere even if they were then going to ask for no smoking... but it makes more sense for them to chose somewhere they like to work... if you hate working with meat you don't apply for a job in the butchers and then demand that they stop selling meat so they don't offend you.
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
it does if your parachute doesnt open and you land on somebody
Dooes cutting meat leads to cardiovascular disease, cancer and respitory problems? There's a big difference in something offending you and something being detrimental to your health, and others.
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
it does if your parachute doesnt open and you land on somebody
what if you land over another skydiver?
A ban on smoking in public places is a good thing. Welcome to the civilised world.
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 against their wishes.
How does that concern all second hand smoke? You don't think people smoke when I am waiting at the bus stop? Or at school when I am walking home there are clouds of people smoking by the exit. Some of my friends' parents smoke, so does that mean I shouldn't go visit my friend anymore? I would say I understand your example of going to the bar but even that doesn't seem fair to me, perhaps make a certain atrea in the bar designated for smoking or something if anything. That's not fair at all to me.
Of course I don't care if people want to kill themselves by smoking, it's completely their choice, but the fact they it causes harm to people around them is what gets to me. I would love to have that ban passed where I live.
On March 13 2009 20:54 ZoW wrote: The purpose of smoking is the nicotine. Nicotine in cigarettes release dopamine from your brain. Dopamine is the chemical your brain releases to tell your body "this feels good". That is why people smoke.
It's a drug and should be banned. I also can't stand the smoke.
On March 13 2009 20:38 JohnColtrane wrote: cars serve a purpose, what purpose does smoking serve?
I'm not a smoker myself, but obviously people enjoy smoking since they keep doing it. Cars let's people drive, which is more enjoyable then walking.
On March 13 2009 20:54 ZoW wrote: The purpose of smoking is the nicotine. Nicotine in cigarettes release dopamine from your brain. Dopamine is the chemical your brain releases to tell your body "this feels good". That is why people smoke.
It's a drug and should be banned. I also can't stand the smoke.
Smoking bans are great, but I think we can do more to protect the people from themselves and further the common good. I think that the governments of the world should demand that all citizens be on healthy diets. After all, hospitals will pass on the cost of the fatties' quadruple bypasses to other patients if they can't pay.
If smoking is allowed in indoor public places, it should also be allowed to dump garbage on people while the victims are bound by norms that say they can't do anything about it. It's my right to do with my life as I want. I should be allowed to dump garbage on people.
Excellent post. I'm not a smoker but I detest anti-smoking laws. Pragmatism is wide-spread and extremely dangerous, and the basic premise here is that man is not fit to rule his own life and needs a "Big Brother" to keep him from hurting himself. The difference between these laws and a society like 1984 is really only a question of scale, and sadly with the way politics have been shifting over the last many decades that translates to only a matter of time.
I implore you all to stop thinking in concretes ("smoking is bad for you," "I don't smoke anyway") and start looking at the ideals behind the legislation ("you don't control your life/business/etc., the government does").
On March 13 2009 20:38 JohnColtrane wrote: cars serve a purpose, what purpose does smoking serve?
I'm not a smoker myself, but obviously people enjoy smoking since they keep doing it. Cars let's people drive, which is more enjoyable then walking.
On March 13 2009 20:54 ZoW wrote: The purpose of smoking is the nicotine. Nicotine in cigarettes release dopamine from your brain. Dopamine is the chemical your brain releases to tell your body "this feels good". That is why people smoke.
It's a drug and should be banned. I also can't stand the smoke.
Caffeine is also a drug.
True you don't get addicted of it that easy like smoking (which has the same level as heroin).
On March 13 2009 20:38 JohnColtrane wrote: cars serve a purpose, what purpose does smoking serve?
I'm not a smoker myself, but obviously people enjoy smoking since they keep doing it. Cars let's people drive, which is more enjoyable then walking.
On March 13 2009 20:54 ZoW wrote: The purpose of smoking is the nicotine. Nicotine in cigarettes release dopamine from your brain. Dopamine is the chemical your brain releases to tell your body "this feels good". That is why people smoke.
It's a drug and should be banned. I also can't stand the smoke.
Caffeine is also a drug.
True you don't get addicted of it that easy like smoking (which has the same level as heroin).
Iunno, coffee is a bitch to give up =p
I did it for a bit because I started eating breakfast (helps you wake up) but now I'm back to like 2 cups every work day >_<
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
Uh no. Secondhand smoke only causes permanent/serious problems in cramped places with long term exposure. I don't think anyone has ever been killed by secondhand smoke inhalation.
While it don`t kill you it smells like shit, and makes the air nasty to breath. Should we non smoker have to smell like ashes after going out for a dinner just so the smokers can kill themselves slowly and pollute the air for the rest of us?
Smelling bad isn't really an argument to make it illegal, and them taking a few years of their lives on average is a choice they should be allowed to make. Polluting the air? If that's your worry you might want to make cars illegal instead.
Its a damn good argument for making it illegal in public indoor places, I don`t care if people smoke outside (tho in ideal world smokes would be totally banned). And I did not mean it in the sense "oh noes the ozone layer is failing" I meant it in the way that I have to breath the air that smells\tastes like smoke, and as coltrane said, cars serve a purpose, smoking don`t.
Like I said in my last post I want to be able to go to a restaurant for lunch and not smell like ashes coming back from it, and luckily where I live I can do that
If people choose resturants depending on if they allow smoking or not, some resturants would simply not allow it to get more customers. If that is your problem, there is no problem. No reason for government to step in and not let resturant owners choose for themselves.
On March 14 2009 00:27 Ingenol wrote: Excellent post. I'm not a smoker but I detest anti-smoking laws. Pragmatism is wide-spread and extremely dangerous, and the basic premise here is that man is not fit to rule his own life and needs a "Big Brother" to keep him from hurting himself. The difference between these laws and a society like 1984 is really only a question of scale, and sadly with the way politics have been shifting over the last many decades that translates to only a matter of time.
I implore you all to stop thinking in concretes ("smoking is bad for you," "I don't smoke anyway") and start looking at the ideals behind the legislation ("you don't control your life/business/etc., the government does").
The point is that you are not only hurting yourself but those around you. You are so scared to lose some of your freedom, that you don't realize that its already plenty of restrictions put on you for the good of others. You cant go around beating people up without consequences, that is the government controlling and restricting your life for the good of others, one of the most basic functions of a government. The reason it wasn't implemented long ago is because they didn't know the effects of smoking on your health, or in US's case because they don't use tax-money to help them after they've hurt themselves.
On March 14 2009 00:24 Mindcrime wrote: Smoking bans are great, but I think we can do more to protect the people from themselves and further the common good. I think that the governments of the world should demand that all citizens be on healthy diets. After all, hospitals will pass on the cost of the fatties' quadruple bypasses to other patients if they can't pay.
Thats a huge violation of personal freedom, it's impossible to monitor and "healthy" food is becoming increasingly more expensive at an alarming rate :O
Banning cigarettes does nothing to help the common good and would ruin fucktons of tobacco farmers lives all through the southern states. No government would ever cause blatent job losses.
I haven't been in a disco or a bar for ages. And you know why? Because in this country there's no such law, and I can't stand that smoke, not to tell about the smell of the clothes after you stay in such a place for more than 2 minutes.
I agree that it's quite possible that somebody started to smoke when he was unconscious, but so he could have started to take drugs or just suicide. It's his problem, I have enough of mine. And, is it that hard generally just to take a walk outside in order to smoke?
On March 14 2009 00:24 Mindcrime wrote: Smoking bans are great, but I think we can do more to protect the people from themselves and further the common good. I think that the governments of the world should demand that all citizens be on healthy diets. After all, hospitals will pass on the cost of the fatties' quadruple bypasses to other patients if they can't pay.
Thats a huge violation of personal freedom, it's impossible to monitor and "healthy" food is becoming increasingly more expensive at an alarming rate :O
Banning cigarettes does nothing to help the common good and would ruin fucktons of tobacco farmers lives all through the southern states. No government would ever cause blatent job losses.
Healthy food isn't becoming more expensive at all... organic and healthy aren't the same thing.
On March 14 2009 00:24 Mindcrime wrote: Smoking bans are great, but I think we can do more to protect the people from themselves and further the common good. I think that the governments of the world should demand that all citizens be on healthy diets. After all, hospitals will pass on the cost of the fatties' quadruple bypasses to other patients if they can't pay.
Are you being serious? That is quite frankly the most insane thing I have ever heard. The governments job shouldn't be to personally take care of me, i should be able to manage that on my own. If I want to smoke I'll smoke, if I want to drink myself to death that's what i'm going to do. It's THEIR body.
Smoking ban in public places to me makes sense. The entire argument for that is sound because enclosed spaced do significantly increase the carcinogens you intake. Outside though... you have no argument besides the smell. The amount of carcinogens a smoke has is dispersed so quickly in the open air that its effects are reduced to nigh zero.
So yea, ban smoking in public enclosed places, that's fine. Don't really have an argument for in private and outside though.
I find the most mistaken opinion the economical view on the cigarettes industry. It doesn't help the economy of the country at all. You have to realize that those money that would not be spent on the cigarettes would be spent on other goods. Other goods generate other money to the budget, other jobs and so on. Simply think about it this way: how could a industry that makes nothing useful be good for economy? Unless you have good exports from this industry, your country lose anyway.
Do you mean smoking in public places ban? Because Ontario has done that for awhile now and its very good I don't smoke and I shouldn't have to be around second hand smoke when I go to a public place.. So I support it if that's what you mean.
On March 14 2009 01:11 arbiter_md wrote: I find the most mistaken opinion the economical view on the cigarettes industry. It doesn't help the economy of the country at all. You have to realize that those money that would not be spent on the cigarettes would be spent on other goods. Other goods generate other money to the budget, other jobs and so on. Simply think about it this way: how could a industry that makes nothing useful be good for economy? Unless you have good exports from this industry, your country lose anyway.
The taxes the government gets from cigarettes is a great deal larger than from most other objects. So either they eliminate cigarettes all together (not likely with lobbying...) or they up the taxes on EVERYTHING ELSE.
On March 14 2009 01:11 arbiter_md wrote: I find the most mistaken opinion the economical view on the cigarettes industry. It doesn't help the economy of the country at all. You have to realize that those money that would not be spent on the cigarettes would be spent on other goods. Other goods generate other money to the budget, other jobs and so on. Simply think about it this way: how could a industry that makes nothing useful be good for economy? Unless you have good exports from this industry, your country lose anyway.
I think it's because of the high tax they put on cigarettes, so that the government can make more money easily off them than other things. So it's not that great for the economy but it gives the government a lot of easy cash, so that's a good incentive to keep them legalized.
On March 13 2009 22:47 Piy wrote: They did this in Scotland. It made life better.
You live in Scotland? Where about? I'm in Edinburgh.
On March 14 2009 00:24 Mindcrime wrote: Smoking bans are great, but I think we can do more to protect the people from themselves and further the common good. I think that the governments of the world should demand that all citizens be on healthy diets. After all, hospitals will pass on the cost of the fatties' quadruple bypasses to other patients if they can't pay.
Are you being serious? That is quite frankly the most insane thing I have ever heard. The governments job shouldn't be to personally take care of me, i should be able to manage that on my own. If I want to smoke I'll smoke, if I want to drink myself to death that's what i'm going to do. It's THEIR body.
Smoking ban in public places to me makes sense. The entire argument for that is sound because enclosed spaced do significantly increase the carcinogens you intake. Outside though... you have no argument besides the smell. The amount of carcinogens a smoke has is dispersed so quickly in the open air that its effects are reduced to nigh zero.
So yea, ban smoking in public enclosed places, that's fine. Don't really have an argument for in private and outside though.
The government could care less about what you do with your body. The problem is, when people get sick it costs the government real money in health care.
Its so sad to read this, I JUST stopped smoking, and I have seen my self saying it should be forbidden at times, but it will never work, and its not a realistic solution, we must legalize everything and tax the shit out of it.
On March 14 2009 00:24 Mindcrime wrote: Smoking bans are great, but I think we can do more to protect the people from themselves and further the common good. I think that the governments of the world should demand that all citizens be on healthy diets. After all, hospitals will pass on the cost of the fatties' quadruple bypasses to other patients if they can't pay.
Are you being serious? That is quite frankly the most insane thing I have ever heard. The governments job shouldn't be to personally take care of me, i should be able to manage that on my own. If I want to smoke I'll smoke, if I want to drink myself to death that's what i'm going to do. It's THEIR body.
Smoking ban in public places to me makes sense. The entire argument for that is sound because enclosed spaced do significantly increase the carcinogens you intake. Outside though... you have no argument besides the smell. The amount of carcinogens a smoke has is dispersed so quickly in the open air that its effects are reduced to nigh zero.
So yea, ban smoking in public enclosed places, that's fine. Don't really have an argument for in private and outside though.
The government could care less about what you do with your body. The problem is, when people get sick it costs the government real money in health care.
Good point when you live in a country with free health care I don't have this luxury
On March 14 2009 00:24 Mindcrime wrote: Smoking bans are great, but I think we can do more to protect the people from themselves and further the common good. I think that the governments of the world should demand that all citizens be on healthy diets. After all, hospitals will pass on the cost of the fatties' quadruple bypasses to other patients if they can't pay.
Are you being serious? That is quite frankly the most insane thing I have ever heard. The governments job shouldn't be to personally take care of me, i should be able to manage that on my own. If I want to smoke I'll smoke, if I want to drink myself to death that's what i'm going to do. It's THEIR body.
Smoking ban in public places to me makes sense. The entire argument for that is sound because enclosed spaced do significantly increase the carcinogens you intake. Outside though... you have no argument besides the smell. The amount of carcinogens a smoke has is dispersed so quickly in the open air that its effects are reduced to nigh zero.
So yea, ban smoking in public enclosed places, that's fine. Don't really have an argument for in private and outside though.
The government could care less about what you do with your body. The problem is, when people get sick it costs the government real money in health care.
Good point when you live in a country with free health care I don't have this luxury
On March 14 2009 00:27 Ingenol wrote: Excellent post. I'm not a smoker but I detest anti-smoking laws. Pragmatism is wide-spread and extremely dangerous, and the basic premise here is that man is not fit to rule his own life and needs a "Big Brother" to keep him from hurting himself. The difference between these laws and a society like 1984 is really only a question of scale, and sadly with the way politics have been shifting over the last many decades that translates to only a matter of time.
I implore you all to stop thinking in concretes ("smoking is bad for you," "I don't smoke anyway") and start looking at the ideals behind the legislation ("you don't control your life/business/etc., the government does").
The point is that you are not only hurting yourself but those around you. You are so scared to lose some of your freedom, that you don't realize that its already plenty of restrictions put on you for the good of others. You cant go around beating people up without consequences, that is the government controlling and restricting your life for the good of others, one of the most basic functions of a government. The reason it wasn't implemented long ago is because they didn't know the effects of smoking on your health, or in US's case because they don't use tax-money to help them after they've hurt themselves.
I'm not talking about open-air bans, I'm talking about restaurant bans. A restaurant is a private establishment, and it should be up to the restaurant/bar owner to decide if he wants to allow smoking, and then patrons can act accordingly. If the smoke from a restaurant were spilling over to a neighboring store or out into public property that's one thing, but these bans (which typically ban smoking in any private establishment) are ludicrous. You have a choice to go to an establishment or not, just as the owner of said establishment should have a choice whether or not to allow it.
On March 14 2009 00:24 Mindcrime wrote: Smoking bans are great, but I think we can do more to protect the people from themselves and further the common good. I think that the governments of the world should demand that all citizens be on healthy diets. After all, hospitals will pass on the cost of the fatties' quadruple bypasses to other patients if they can't pay.
Are you being serious? That is quite frankly the most insane thing I have ever heard. The governments job shouldn't be to personally take care of me, i should be able to manage that on my own. If I want to smoke I'll smoke, if I want to drink myself to death that's what i'm going to do. It's THEIR body.
Smoking ban in public places to me makes sense. The entire argument for that is sound because enclosed spaced do significantly increase the carcinogens you intake. Outside though... you have no argument besides the smell. The amount of carcinogens a smoke has is dispersed so quickly in the open air that its effects are reduced to nigh zero.
So yea, ban smoking in public enclosed places, that's fine. Don't really have an argument for in private and outside though.
The government could care less about what you do with your body. The problem is, when people get sick it costs the government real money in health care.
Good point when you live in a country with free health care I don't have this luxury
Even if you pay for health care, I don't think you ever pay 100% of it... right? I remember reading news of the health system costing billions to the american government.
On March 14 2009 00:27 Ingenol wrote: Excellent post. I'm not a smoker but I detest anti-smoking laws. Pragmatism is wide-spread and extremely dangerous, and the basic premise here is that man is not fit to rule his own life and needs a "Big Brother" to keep him from hurting himself. The difference between these laws and a society like 1984 is really only a question of scale, and sadly with the way politics have been shifting over the last many decades that translates to only a matter of time.
I implore you all to stop thinking in concretes ("smoking is bad for you," "I don't smoke anyway") and start looking at the ideals behind the legislation ("you don't control your life/business/etc., the government does").
The point is that you are not only hurting yourself but those around you. You are so scared to lose some of your freedom, that you don't realize that its already plenty of restrictions put on you for the good of others. You cant go around beating people up without consequences, that is the government controlling and restricting your life for the good of others, one of the most basic functions of a government. The reason it wasn't implemented long ago is because they didn't know the effects of smoking on your health, or in US's case because they don't use tax-money to help them after they've hurt themselves.
why dont you ban the fucking car then? it stinks too, it kills people too and it also kills the environment.
its always the same, smokers are a minority so they get fucked over. democracy is soooo nice T_T
On March 14 2009 00:24 Mindcrime wrote: Smoking bans are great, but I think we can do more to protect the people from themselves and further the common good. I think that the governments of the world should demand that all citizens be on healthy diets. After all, hospitals will pass on the cost of the fatties' quadruple bypasses to other patients if they can't pay.
Are you being serious? That is quite frankly the most insane thing I have ever heard. The governments job shouldn't be to personally take care of me, i should be able to manage that on my own. If I want to smoke I'll smoke, if I want to drink myself to death that's what i'm going to do. It's THEIR body.
Smoking ban in public places to me makes sense. The entire argument for that is sound because enclosed spaced do significantly increase the carcinogens you intake. Outside though... you have no argument besides the smell. The amount of carcinogens a smoke has is dispersed so quickly in the open air that its effects are reduced to nigh zero.
So yea, ban smoking in public enclosed places, that's fine. Don't really have an argument for in private and outside though.
The government could care less about what you do with your body. The problem is, when people get sick it costs the government real money in health care.
Good point when you live in a country with free health care I don't have this luxury
Even if you pay for health care, I don't think you ever pay 100% of it... right? I remember reading news of the health system costing billions to the american government.
Working in the military(and by proxy their dependents) affords you health care for basically life and we have enough baby boomers/vets where this could be quite a great deal of people.
Average citizens though pay for health insurance much like you would a car and it's a decent amount of money depending on age/health and profession. Also, because it's an insurance company they try to screw you out of your money at every possible turn.
On March 14 2009 00:27 Ingenol wrote: Excellent post. I'm not a smoker but I detest anti-smoking laws. Pragmatism is wide-spread and extremely dangerous, and the basic premise here is that man is not fit to rule his own life and needs a "Big Brother" to keep him from hurting himself. The difference between these laws and a society like 1984 is really only a question of scale, and sadly with the way politics have been shifting over the last many decades that translates to only a matter of time.
I implore you all to stop thinking in concretes ("smoking is bad for you," "I don't smoke anyway") and start looking at the ideals behind the legislation ("you don't control your life/business/etc., the government does").
The point is that you are not only hurting yourself but those around you. You are so scared to lose some of your freedom, that you don't realize that its already plenty of restrictions put on you for the good of others. You cant go around beating people up without consequences, that is the government controlling and restricting your life for the good of others, one of the most basic functions of a government. The reason it wasn't implemented long ago is because they didn't know the effects of smoking on your health, or in US's case because they don't use tax-money to help them after they've hurt themselves.
why dont you ban the fucking car then? it stinks too, it kills people too and it also kills the environment.
its always the same, smokers are a minority so they get fucked over. democracy is soooo nice T_T
Cars benefit society in some way. Again i'm not exactly a smoker.. I smoke once every 2 weeks or so but I do understand smoking bans in public places. I do think it should be at the discretion of the owner though, it is their establishments so they should be able to decide whether or not to allow smokers there.
On March 14 2009 01:44 Jayme wrote: Cars benefit society in some way. Again i'm not exactly a smoker.. I smoke once every 2 weeks or so but I do understand smoking bans in public places. I do think it should be at the discretion of the owner though, it is their establishments so they should be able to decide whether or not to allow smokers there.
You dont need the car for at least 90% of the shit you do with your car. So you would agree to ban any kind of motor "sport"? Cars shouldnt be baned, as smoking itself shouldnt be baned, but cars should get the fuck out of cities. there is public traffic, ppl just need to fucking use it.
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
Uh no. Secondhand smoke only causes permanent/serious problems in cramped places with long term exposure. I don't think anyone has ever been killed by secondhand smoke inhalation.
While it don`t kill you it smells like shit, and makes the air nasty to breath. Should we non smoker have to smell like ashes after going out for a dinner just so the smokers can kill themselves slowly and pollute the air for the rest of us?
Smelling bad isn't really an argument to make it illegal, and them taking a few years of their lives on average is a choice they should be allowed to make. Polluting the air? If that's your worry you might want to make cars illegal instead.
Its a damn good argument for making it illegal in public indoor places, I don`t care if people smoke outside (tho in ideal world smokes would be totally banned). And I did not mean it in the sense "oh noes the ozone layer is failing" I meant it in the way that I have to breath the air that smells\tastes like smoke, and as coltrane said, cars serve a purpose, smoking don`t.
Like I said in my last post I want to be able to go to a restaurant for lunch and not smell like ashes coming back from it, and luckily where I live I can do that
If people choose resturants depending on if they allow smoking or not, some resturants would simply not allow it to get more customers. If that is your problem, there is no problem. No reason for government to step in and not let resturant owners choose for themselves.
People here don't get it, but the major reason to make smoking illegal at public indoor places is to make the workers at the restaurants get a much healthier work environment.
Without such laws just about every place allows smoking in certain areas because it gets them more customers, which in turn forces everyone who wants to work at such places into working in an environment filled with smoke, which in turn forces them to become heavy second hand smokers and thus it ruins their health. (Smokers gets much more annoyed by not being allowed to smoke than non smokers gets annoyed by the smoke)
There is no other way to fix this really and it is not a big deal since the smokers can just go outside for a moment. This is one of the things a pure capitalistic solution don't exist, I mean how many smoking free coffee shops and such did you see before the bans? And I mean totally free, not just "smoking free areas".
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
Uh no. Secondhand smoke only causes permanent/serious problems in cramped places with long term exposure. I don't think anyone has ever been killed by secondhand smoke inhalation.
You are wrong. Thousands of people have been killed due to second hand smoke inhalation. Here is a link showing that in 2005 alone, there were 49,430 deaths from SECOND HAND SMOKE.
Now, secondly, all of you people saying that bars should be allowed to have smoking if they want, and non-smokers should just go elsewhere, seem to be missing a point. Workers should not have to deal with the effects of second hand smoke. This includes ALOT of people. Waitressess / waiters, dishwashers, cooks, delivery men who need to bring supplies into the bar, food critics, health and safety personnel ETC ETC ETC.
These people should have the freedom to not inhale a substance that might kill them in the future. You need to look beyond just the patrons who smoke, and realize that second hand smoke is a very large cause of death.
Here is a link that basically gives you a bunch of facts on second hand smoke, and just how dangerous it is.
I think this is a clear over analysis of the logical basis of the reason for banning smoking in public places. I just think that people don't want to breath in smoke if they don't choose to do so themselves - ie. waitresses that don't smoke, bartenders, etc.
On March 14 2009 11:23 fearus wrote: The governments have waged a vendetta against smokers for the past few decades when really alcoholism is by far a much greater problem.
Sure second hand smoke isn't good for your health but neither are car fumes, why don't we start banning cars in public areas aswell?
Yes I am an occasional smoker.
Except cars are considered necessary for modern life it's a form a transportation not a form of please or escape ie recreation like smoking is. Sure alcoholism is far greater but usually people that are really alcoholism keep to themselves far less public - the occasional drunk driver that crashes and kills a family of 4 or something like that frankly smoking is a lot more public and a lot less of a social norm at least in the majority of the US
On March 14 2009 00:27 Ingenol wrote: Excellent post. I'm not a smoker but I detest anti-smoking laws. Pragmatism is wide-spread and extremely dangerous, and the basic premise here is that man is not fit to rule his own life and needs a "Big Brother" to keep him from hurting himself. The difference between these laws and a society like 1984 is really only a question of scale, and sadly with the way politics have been shifting over the last many decades that translates to only a matter of time.
I implore you all to stop thinking in concretes ("smoking is bad for you," "I don't smoke anyway") and start looking at the ideals behind the legislation ("you don't control your life/business/etc., the government does").
The point is that you are not only hurting yourself but those around you. You are so scared to lose some of your freedom, that you don't realize that its already plenty of restrictions put on you for the good of others. You cant go around beating people up without consequences, that is the government controlling and restricting your life for the good of others, one of the most basic functions of a government. The reason it wasn't implemented long ago is because they didn't know the effects of smoking on your health, or in US's case because they don't use tax-money to help them after they've hurt themselves.
I'm not talking about open-air bans, I'm talking about restaurant bans. A restaurant is a private establishment, and it should be up to the restaurant/bar owner to decide if he wants to allow smoking, and then patrons can act accordingly. If the smoke from a restaurant were spilling over to a neighboring store or out into public property that's one thing, but these bans (which typically ban smoking in any private establishment) are ludicrous. You have a choice to go to an establishment or not, just as the owner of said establishment should have a choice whether or not to allow it.
Should a restaurant be allowed to sell you bad rat meat just because its private owned and the owner can do as he want? Just like there is general laws for hygiene for health reasons in restaurants there should be laws against the health risks that second hand smoke brings with itself for the customers and the employees. I mean how hard is it to step outside if you so desperately need a cigarette?
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
Uh no. Secondhand smoke only causes permanent/serious problems in cramped places with long term exposure. I don't think anyone has ever been killed by secondhand smoke inhalation.
You are wrong. Thousands of people have been killed due to second hand smoke inhalation. Here is a link showing that in 2005 alone, there were 49,430 deaths from SECOND HAND SMOKE.
this can never be proven... how the hell can they prove that? its called propaganda... its probably just some estimation and as someone else said how many ppl have died from car fumes? or from the sun (skin cancer)? or from eating food they received from their boss?
Now, secondly, all of you people saying that bars should be allowed to have smoking if they want, and non-smokers should just go elsewhere, seem to be missing a point. Workers should not have to deal with the effects of second hand smoke. This includes ALOT of people. Waitressess / waiters, dishwashers, cooks, delivery men who need to bring supplies into the bar, food critics, health and safety personnel ETC ETC ETC.
Just hire only smokers as personel or only ppl who agree on working in such condition... shouldnt be any problem with that... there's plenty of bars where all personel smokes or doesnt give a shit...
These people should have the freedom to not inhale a substance that might kill them in the future. You need to look beyond just the patrons who smoke, and realize that second hand smoke is a very large cause of death.
Here is a link that basically gives you a bunch of facts on second hand smoke, and just how dangerous it is.
If there is a market for non smoking bars then let some ppl make them and let's see if this is rly what ppl want... You would be well suited to work in the third reich, oh minister of propaganda.... seriously who believes that crap.. sure its probably got some negative effects, but what doesnt?! and no i dont smoke i just think there should be some more freedom in the world... and it seems more and more measures from the government are taking away our freedom... now smoking but soon alcohol (it is a poison as well! and it can be dangerous to others (drinking and driving, doing weird stuff to others will poisoned)... we cant be in the sun for more than 2 hrs... not allowed to eat fast food more than once a week (or just make it fkn expensive so we cant afford it)... and the government has to protect us all since we cannot make our own decisions!!!!!! who knows what else....
If many people wanted to go to non smoking bars there''d be lots of 'em (or they would be created alot, hole in the market) but obviously they are not so people don't really care and the effects are negligible... assuming that all those ppl did rly die of 2nd hand smoke, who knows how much longer they would have lived anyway... i bet many of them were old and would have prolly died of some other form of cancer anyway..
more and more rules less and less freedom... and then we call the western world the free world... yea right -_- soon they can follow us anywhere we are and we're not allowed to do shit but work and pay tax and live as long as possible so we generate more tax... and we're all too lazy to do shit about it... or we have ppl actually agreeing to it and propagandizing it >.<;; no thx yo~ -_-;
oh and about the health care there's so much tax on alcohol (which is probably at least as expensive for health care I would say) and cigarettes and that kinda crap that i think that easily makes up for it...
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
Uh no. Secondhand smoke only causes permanent/serious problems in cramped places with long term exposure. I don't think anyone has ever been killed by secondhand smoke inhalation.
You are wrong. Thousands of people have been killed due to second hand smoke inhalation. Here is a link showing that in 2005 alone, there were 49,430 deaths from SECOND HAND SMOKE.
Now, secondly, all of you people saying that bars should be allowed to have smoking if they want, and non-smokers should just go elsewhere, seem to be missing a point. Workers should not have to deal with the effects of second hand smoke. This includes ALOT of people. Waitressess / waiters, dishwashers, cooks, delivery men who need to bring supplies into the bar, food critics, health and safety personnel ETC ETC ETC.
These people should have the freedom to not inhale a substance that might kill them in the future. You need to look beyond just the patrons who smoke, and realize that second hand smoke is a very large cause of death.
Here is a link that basically gives you a bunch of facts on second hand smoke, and just how dangerous it is.
That sounds like an awfully exact number for something that can't actually be proven like that. So... yea i'm calling you bull out because that link didn't tell me a damn thing that couldn't be desputed.
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
Uh no. Secondhand smoke only causes permanent/serious problems in cramped places with long term exposure. I don't think anyone has ever been killed by secondhand smoke inhalation.
You are wrong. Thousands of people have been killed due to second hand smoke inhalation. Here is a link showing that in 2005 alone, there were 49,430 deaths from SECOND HAND SMOKE.
Now, secondly, all of you people saying that bars should be allowed to have smoking if they want, and non-smokers should just go elsewhere, seem to be missing a point. Workers should not have to deal with the effects of second hand smoke. This includes ALOT of people. Waitressess / waiters, dishwashers, cooks, delivery men who need to bring supplies into the bar, food critics, health and safety personnel ETC ETC ETC.
These people should have the freedom to not inhale a substance that might kill them in the future. You need to look beyond just the patrons who smoke, and realize that second hand smoke is a very large cause of death.
Here is a link that basically gives you a bunch of facts on second hand smoke, and just how dangerous it is.
That sounds like an awfully exact number for something that can't actually be proven like that. So... yea i'm calling you bull out because that link didn't tell me a damn thing that couldn't be desputed.
ROFL, are you serious? You are actually going to sit there and tell me that second hand smoke doesn't kill thousands of people each year? Oh my god, you need to seriously take a medical class. How many different links would you like? How about statements from doctors?
The link I provided is from the American Lung Association. How is that not a credible source? How is your opinion more valid than that of DOCTORS? Seriously, tell me.
I am in disbelief that you can actually assume that what I said is propoganda, that has to be the most stubborn, ignorant statement I have ever heard in my life.
You know what I have as proof? How about the fact that most of north america has BANNED smoking in public places BECAUSE IT CAUSES MASSIVE HEALTH PROBLEMS. You think that scientific research is bullshit? That I am wrong, and you are right, and second hand smoke doesn't cause death?
Here are a bunch more links, some written by physicians. (or are doctors all wrong as well?)
Woman dies of asthma attack due to second hand smoke. Second hand smoke is PROVEN to be the cause of the sudden asthma attack Link
AADAC - alberta health services (my province) Link
no-smoke.org - They also state that around 50,000 people die due to second hand smoke. oh and just so you know, I didnt print an EXACT number. This number is based on the midpoint numbers for heart disease deaths (48,500), lung cancer deaths (3,000), and SIDS deaths (2,300) Link
Also, in case you need more proof. In 2007, a study using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology was able to detect damage in the lungs of nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke Link to MRI study
lol. So much passion. It makes me bubble. I smoke, but I don't mind the bans everywhere. Cigarettes are gross. They have their uses though. I mean, I really identified with Joe Camel as a kid. He was so cool. Yeah. Everyone knows it's cool to be a killer.
On March 14 2009 13:40 Tetris wrote: There's a smoking ban in restaurants and lots of other indoor public places where I'm from. It's been that way for a couple years now, I think.
I guess I'm glad I've never had an interest in smoking. *shrug*
Too costly imo playing video games is the cheapest form of entertainment imo no monthly f playing for tv my antenna and hulu among other sites hold me over just fine.
On March 14 2009 13:40 Tetris wrote: There's a smoking ban in restaurants and lots of other indoor public places where I'm from. It's been that way for a couple years now, I think.
I guess I'm glad I've never had an interest in smoking. *shrug*
Too costly imo playing video games is the cheapest form of entertainment imo no monthly f playing for tv my antenna and hulu among other sites hold me over just fine.
This.
Not to start another debate or get off topic, but I don't see the point in having a costly habit that doesn't benefit you or anyone else. *shrug*
On March 13 2009 20:02 JohnColtrane wrote: lol fuck smoking
if you want to smoke fine do it in your home, dont do it in a public place that other people are in. cig smoke causes so many damn health problems, i dont care if smokers dont give a shit about their own health but the problem is it affects EVERYONE elses that breaths the smoke. skydiving doesnt have the potential to kill others that arent skydivers, but smoking does.
i wish australia would just ban cigarettes altogether
Uh no. Secondhand smoke only causes permanent/serious problems in cramped places with long term exposure. I don't think anyone has ever been killed by secondhand smoke inhalation.
You are wrong. Thousands of people have been killed due to second hand smoke inhalation. Here is a link showing that in 2005 alone, there were 49,430 deaths from SECOND HAND SMOKE.
Now, secondly, all of you people saying that bars should be allowed to have smoking if they want, and non-smokers should just go elsewhere, seem to be missing a point. Workers should not have to deal with the effects of second hand smoke. This includes ALOT of people. Waitressess / waiters, dishwashers, cooks, delivery men who need to bring supplies into the bar, food critics, health and safety personnel ETC ETC ETC.
These people should have the freedom to not inhale a substance that might kill them in the future. You need to look beyond just the patrons who smoke, and realize that second hand smoke is a very large cause of death.
Here is a link that basically gives you a bunch of facts on second hand smoke, and just how dangerous it is.
rofl yeah im sure ALL of those deaths are entirely from secondhand smoke. it has nothing to do with car fumes or factory smoke, those things dont matter at all, ITS ONLY THE CIGARETTES!!!
In a way I was surprised that this thread got as much attention as it did. But, in another way, I wasn't. Where someone comes down on an issue like the smoking ban is a result, I think, of their more fundamental views on what is "good" and what the function of the government is. I'm not proposing to begin this discussion becacuse I don't have the energy to do it. It would take far to much time to address myself to all the users at TL who have important points, questions and criticisms.
I'm not going to reply to all the particular aguments raised in the link here. For what its worth, none of the arguments listed in this thread are novel to me -- they are all very standard. Thats not to say they are simple or unworthy of engagement. Quite the contrary, I think the arguments I am referring to are used often because there is a lot of sense in them.
What I am going to do is post a response a personal friend of mine gave to me -- and my response to his arguments.
A RESPOSNE FROM MY FRIEND:
UNiMEDiA:
Uni, you wrote: 1. "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."
The right to a safe workplace is positive right comparable to the right to public education or a basic standard of healthcare. Obviously the question of what is and what is not a positive right is the central issue here, and in the broadest sense I think Karel Vasak's "Human Rights" is probably the most concise and cogent example of what positive and negative rights people should expect in 21st century society.
2. One obvious criticism of Vasak's list of human rights is that some of them seem like political goals disguised in the language of absolute rights. Ultimately though, the distinction between positive and negative rights is illusory -- the right to self-defense, although much older, still has the same element of moral judgement that, say, the right to a healthy environment does.
Does the government have a right to ban smoking, if it has (correctly) determined that smoking presents a health hazard to bartenders? I believe it does, based on Vasak's description of rights, the same way it has the authority to mandate child labor laws, an 8 hour work day, and the sort of nondescrimination statutes that don't allow white business owners to refuse business from blacks. The right to free enterprise is not absolute.
MY RESPONSE TO HIM
FRIEND:
(1) My defense rests entirely on a notion of property rights. What I mean by rights is specific and was somewhat elaborated on in my original post. Ultimately, however, a defense of property rights is a larger and deeper issue. Any debate about a smoking ban will lead to this. For now, I will limit the discussion to the points proper.
(2) You don’t comment on the first of the two distinctive characteristics of rights I lay out. Coupled with the fact that you seem to advocate a form of Human rights, I can only conclude that you agree that rights are, in fact, trump entitlements.
(3) As to the second distinction, you wrote, "Ultimately though, the distinction between positive and negative rights is illusory -- the right to self-defense, although much older, still has the same element of moral judgment that, say, the right to a healthy environment does."
You are partially correct. It is true that any notion of rights includes a moral element. I could claim I have a right to you bringing me a snickers bar each day when I wake up -- and there would be a moral element to this namely that the right bearer is entitled to such and such. In this case, a king-sized snickers each day. (Also, I think you should have to wear a crixalis-the-sand-king costume and a boom-box playing “Standstorm” when you bring me the bar)
However, you are partially incorrect. The reason that there is a non-illusory, non-arbitrary distinction is because positive rights end in contradiction. I made this point in my original post:
“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.” – but let me elaborate further.
In other words, if I have a right to health-care then someone is obligated to give me healthcare if I don’t have it. That is what a right means -- a trump entitlement. Its the same with a "right to a healthy workplace" or a "right to unemployment benefits". However, the right to property is also a right --–a trump entitlement which means that I am granted full authority in the use of my resources. So we have a situation in which two contradictory rights are clashing. That is, the right to healthcare says I do not have full authority over my resources – because I am obligated to use these resources to secure health care for someone else. On the other hand, the right to property says I do have full authority over my resources and, thus, I am not obligated (although I may choose) to use their resources to secure healthcare for someone else. These rights are competing – one of them is going to have to go or the meaning and political implication of rights will be drastically changed.
A final comments that will (hopefully) save some time for anyone responding. I am defending property rights as absolutes. This means that, if pushed, I will defend a whole host of un-intuitive views about government and its sphere of action. If your response is something like "Well according to your view the government couldn't tax and all hell would break loose" You could very well be right. I am, in fact, working on a paper right now about the assumptions underlying the "must tax or face horrible consequences" argument. I think I have some powerful arguments in store for this objection and I will post my work to TL when I am finished. Please keep in mind that I don't brush off this argument easily. I think it is a powerful objection and may very well be correct. As always, I am not interested in fitting facts to my views but instead fitting my views to facts.
On March 14 2009 11:47 Oystein wrote: Should a restaurant be allowed to sell you bad rat meat just because its private owned and the owner can do as he want? Just like there is general laws for hygiene for health reasons in restaurants there should be laws against the health risks that second hand smoke brings with itself for the customers and the employees.
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.
On March 14 2009 11:47 Oystein wrote: I mean how hard is it to step outside if you so desperately need a cigarette?
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.
On March 14 2009 19:41 ktp wrote: Why must the smokers step outside? Can't the nonsmokers just leave?
I'm pretty sure that Oystein means that smokers who desperately need a smoke just step outside and have a quick cigarette to quell their addiction and to avoid infecting other people with second-hand smoke, it would make no sense for nonsmokers to leave.
Even since the Federal Smoking Ban, I've become sick simply from passing smokers by on the streets. With a huge percentage of the student population being active smokers, it's really unavoidable.
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.
On March 14 2009 11:47 Oystein wrote: Should a restaurant be allowed to sell you bad rat meat just because its private owned and the owner can do as he want? Just like there is general laws for hygiene for health reasons in restaurants there should be laws against the health risks that second hand smoke brings with itself for the customers and the employees.
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.
On March 14 2009 11:47 Oystein wrote: I mean how hard is it to step outside if you so desperately need a cigarette?
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?
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...
I'm not saying cigarettes are good or anything BUT it has been attacked by a HUGE scare campaign.
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.
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
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)...
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.
I can't believe how many idiots trust their own intuition over scientific research. Especially when they say its impossible to prove when it's already been proven.
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.
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!!! +_+
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.
My college is about to ban smoking anywhere on campus unless you’re in your car starting spring quarter. I'm a nonsmoker myself, but it's annoying because I think the school was being lazy, and did not consider other options. We have a lot of free space, space that's far away from the main routes in my campus, so I thought my school could at least set-up smoking spaces there.
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?
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
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
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.
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
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.
We have smoking ban everywhere in finland too. 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.
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.
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...
Damn right they should ban smoking.. nasty habit that brings no good out. It's disgusting and only wastes peoples lives. Oh yea we are citizens, free country I should do with my life as I please! Thing is people who smoke makes other people have to smell the shit they exhale from their lungs into our own, affecting poor smoke-free passersby and dealing damage to their health.
Sure there are so many responsible smokers that do not smoke in public places. But that's not what you see everyday is it? Even though it is indeed harsh to those who do so responsibly, it's the majority we are talking about. Really few smokers give a damn about what the other people around are breathing.
The concept of freedom has limits, we should be able to do as we please as long as it doesn't affect others
And for fuck's sake you only feel good smoking because of a drug that's in there, why do people cut their lives by a third and make other's sniff trash just waste money just to feel "pleasure" for a brief moment that is such crap makes no sense.
Sorry, I know really good people that smoke, I don't look down on you, but seriously I don't know why that nasty habit still exists..
Hopefully smoking eventually gets banned even more strictly...and they tax cigarettes much more...and all the smokers realize it is a shitty habit anyway. Damn I hate smokers, isn't it just awesome to be walking in a nice sunny day with a blue sky and inhale a big cloud of smoke? That kind of thing just makes my day.
I think your argument is missing some things.You can still smoke can't you? Just not in public places. In regards to the first argument I think you're missing the fact that it isn't just about your well-being, it's the fact that your smoking could be affecting the well being of others. Your rights after all are still there and are protected, but they are your rights only insofar as they do not negatively affect others. For instance, I think we can agree that as soon as your actions, whatever they may be, impinge on the well-being of others, that society is then entitled to stop you in some way. We can also agree that some people are negatively affected when they are around or smell smoke in public places, and that they are--and perhaps more importantly--affected through physical factors via second hand smoke. If that is the case, then it can be argued that smoking in public places does negatively affect the rights of others, and therefore because of that society can put restrictions on your right to smoke.
I have some issues that I feel I have to raise with your definition of rights.
On March 13 2009 19:36 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: First, 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. 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.
Not quite. Having infinite value would imply that you can't resolve a situation in which two rights conflict, which is not the case. Some rights are more valuable than others (e.g. the right to life arguably trumps free speech), and saying they have "infinite value" doesn't allow those comparisions.
On March 13 2009 19:36 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: Second, 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.”
Wrong. Trial by jury. The onus is on the government to provide you with legal counsel. If you cannot provide your own legal counsel, the government has the positive obligation to provide one for you.
Positive/negative obligations are a hairy thing to base your argument off of, because its possible to frame many things either way.
Smoking is disgusting, people who smoke are disgusting (when they smoke).
They go out, suck on their cancersticks for 15 minutes, come back in and smell like they've been dragged through a sewer pipe for 15 miles. Our anti-smoking ban got enforced 1st of July last year and going out has become so much more pleasurable. No more teary and annoyed eyes, no more clothes and hair smelling like shit. Oh man the times I stood under the shower after a night out having to smell the fucking smoke coming out of my hair again.
People who smoke in places where there are non-smokers are selfish. For me, this is the best argument someone can give. Why do we as non-smokers have to cope with health problems and general annoyances such as smelling like shit after going out to a bar even when you're there only for like 30 minutes?
The cars-argument is ridiculous as well. Cars don't generate nearly as much pollution and health problems as cigarettes in public places. Cars aren't in crowded pubs they are in the streets and the polluted air doesn't get into my clothes and stuff and the only pollution I sniff is very thin. Not to mention that cars serve a general purpose where cigarettes do not. They are only for personal pleasure.
'why not ban alcohol then' When someone drinks alcohol next to me my liver doesn't blow up. When someone smokes next to me my longues do.
On March 15 2009 23:07 Twisted wrote: Smoking is disgusting, people who smoke are disgusting (when they smoke).
They go out, suck on their cancersticks for 15 minutes, come back in and smell like they've been dragged through a sewer pipe for 15 miles. Our anti-smoking ban got enforced 1st of July last year and going out has become so much more pleasurable. No more teary and annoyed eyes, no more clothes and hair smelling like shit. Oh man the times I stood under the shower after a night out having to smell the fucking smoke coming out of my hair again.
People who smoke in places where there are non-smokers are selfish. For me, this is the best argument someone can give. Why do we as non-smokers have to cope with health problems and general annoyances such as smelling like shit after going out to a bar even when you're there only for like 30 minutes?
The cars-argument is ridiculous as well. Cars don't generate nearly as much pollution and health problems as cigarettes in public places. Cars aren't in crowded pubs they are in the streets and the polluted air doesn't get into my clothes and stuff and the only pollution I sniff is very thin. Not to mention that cars serve a general purpose where cigarettes do not. They are only for personal pleasure.
'why not ban alcohol then' When someone drinks alcohol next to me my liver doesn't blow up. When someone smokes next to me my longues do.
alcohol probaby causes at least as much victims by car crashes and violence and maybe some other things i dont think of atm... and cars in big cities are a big problem, i've read that a day of breathing shanghai air equals smoking 1 pack of cigarettes...edit: turns out a 10 minute walk equals that..... so yea you can imagine it doesnt matter but of course it does... and no they are not in bars, but you actually HAVE to go outside... you cant go to a non car outside, you could go to a non smoking pub... and just because it doesnt make you smell its imo much worse since you cannot avoid it... Also cars are often being used for distances that could also be travelled with a bike or by foot... so its not always that necessairy at all i think...
i agree it smells horrible tho, it really does... and its a retarded habit... but if ppl wanna do it why not?! theres so many things that smell bad and/or are retarded... and it doesnt meassure up to other things at all... so in the end we are just being intolerant and nasty to other ppl...
On March 15 2009 23:07 Twisted wrote: Smoking is disgusting, people who smoke are disgusting (when they smoke).
They go out, suck on their cancersticks for 15 minutes, come back in and smell like they've been dragged through a sewer pipe for 15 miles. Our anti-smoking ban got enforced 1st of July last year and going out has become so much more pleasurable. No more teary and annoyed eyes, no more clothes and hair smelling like shit. Oh man the times I stood under the shower after a night out having to smell the fucking smoke coming out of my hair again.
People who smoke in places where there are non-smokers are selfish. For me, this is the best argument someone can give. Why do we as non-smokers have to cope with health problems and general annoyances such as smelling like shit after going out to a bar even when you're there only for like 30 minutes?
The cars-argument is ridiculous as well. Cars don't generate nearly as much pollution and health problems as cigarettes in public places. Cars aren't in crowded pubs they are in the streets and the polluted air doesn't get into my clothes and stuff and the only pollution I sniff is very thin. Not to mention that cars serve a general purpose where cigarettes do not. They are only for personal pleasure.
'why not ban alcohol then' When someone drinks alcohol next to me my liver doesn't blow up. When someone smokes next to me my longues do.
On March 15 2009 23:07 Twisted wrote: Smoking is disgusting, people who smoke are disgusting (when they smoke).
They go out, suck on their cancersticks for 15 minutes, come back in and smell like they've been dragged through a sewer pipe for 15 miles. Our anti-smoking ban got enforced 1st of July last year and going out has become so much more pleasurable. No more teary and annoyed eyes, no more clothes and hair smelling like shit. Oh man the times I stood under the shower after a night out having to smell the fucking smoke coming out of my hair again.
People who smoke in places where there are non-smokers are selfish. For me, this is the best argument someone can give. Why do we as non-smokers have to cope with health problems and general annoyances such as smelling like shit after going out to a bar even when you're there only for like 30 minutes?
The cars-argument is ridiculous as well. Cars don't generate nearly as much pollution and health problems as cigarettes in public places. Cars aren't in crowded pubs they are in the streets and the polluted air doesn't get into my clothes and stuff and the only pollution I sniff is very thin. Not to mention that cars serve a general purpose where cigarettes do not. They are only for personal pleasure.
'why not ban alcohol then' When someone drinks alcohol next to me my liver doesn't blow up. When someone smokes next to me my longues do.
On March 16 2009 03:04 Kaolla wrote:alcohol probaby causes at least as much victims by car crashes and violence and maybe some other things i dont think of atm... and cars in big cities are a big problem, i've read that a day of breathing shanghai air equals smoking 1 pack of cigarettes... so yea you can imagine it doesnt matter but of course it does... and no they are not in bars, but you actually HAVE to go outside... you cant go to a non car outside, you could go to a non smoking pub... and just because it doesnt make you smell its imo much worse since you cannot avoid it... Also cars are often being used for distances that could also be travelled with a bike or by foot... so its not always that necessairy at all i think...
Are you serious? I cannot believe my eyes... I don't know why I'm gonna bother, but whatever. Alcohol can cause crashed because people are idiots, and there ARE laws against drinking and driving. Don't dare compare drinks to smoking. Drinking normally and responsibly will cause you no harm and no harm to others, and no matter how little you smoke somebody WILL be bothered and you will cause yourself harm, no matter how responsible you are. And yea, let me tell you something, you know what the fuck comes out of cars? CO2 and CO mostly, and few other chemicals that are irrelevant. You know what comes out of a cigarette? 4000 fucking substances out of which 200 are toxic. Here are some: cetaldehyde (1.4+ mg) arsenic (500+ ng) benzo(a)pyrene (.1+ ng) cadmium (1,300+ ng) chromium (1,000+ ng)h ydrazine (14+ ng) lead (8+ µg) nickel (2,000+ ng) radioactive polonium (.2+ Pci) And please, even if that was close to the truth, are we in fuckign shanghai? Cars have filters, cause much MUCH less harm than cigarettes and are a NECESSITY. smoking is NOT. When you get old enough to drive a car use bicycles and foot to do everything you need, see if that works.
i agree it smells horrible tho, it really does... and its a retarded habit... but if ppl wanna do it why not?! theres so many things that smell bad and/or are retarded... and it doesnt meassure up to other things at all... so in the end we are just being intolerant and nasty to other ppl...
My god... I don't mind people arguing but I don't know if your problem is ignorance or something else. "if ppl wanna do it why not? Lot's of things smell bad? " ... for starters because there are OTHER people who ALSO happen to have RIGHTS. And secondhand smoke is not one of them, nor is the shit they have to be obligated to smell because some addict cannot control himself.
Man if you are gonna discuss this bring some real arguments. Don't bring crap like "If you ban smoking, you will also have to ban cars and drinking because it kills people too!!".
On March 15 2009 23:07 Twisted wrote: Smoking is disgusting, people who smoke are disgusting (when they smoke).
They go out, suck on their cancersticks for 15 minutes, come back in and smell like they've been dragged through a sewer pipe for 15 miles. Our anti-smoking ban got enforced 1st of July last year and going out has become so much more pleasurable. No more teary and annoyed eyes, no more clothes and hair smelling like shit. Oh man the times I stood under the shower after a night out having to smell the fucking smoke coming out of my hair again.
People who smoke in places where there are non-smokers are selfish. For me, this is the best argument someone can give. Why do we as non-smokers have to cope with health problems and general annoyances such as smelling like shit after going out to a bar even when you're there only for like 30 minutes?
The cars-argument is ridiculous as well. Cars don't generate nearly as much pollution and health problems as cigarettes in public places. Cars aren't in crowded pubs they are in the streets and the polluted air doesn't get into my clothes and stuff and the only pollution I sniff is very thin. Not to mention that cars serve a general purpose where cigarettes do not. They are only for personal pleasure.
'why not ban alcohol then' When someone drinks alcohol next to me my liver doesn't blow up. When someone smokes next to me my longues do.
On March 16 2009 03:04 Kaolla wrote:alcohol probaby causes at least as much victims by car crashes and violence and maybe some other things i dont think of atm... and cars in big cities are a big problem, i've read that a day of breathing shanghai air equals smoking 1 pack of cigarettes... so yea you can imagine it doesnt matter but of course it does... and no they are not in bars, but you actually HAVE to go outside... you cant go to a non car outside, you could go to a non smoking pub... and just because it doesnt make you smell its imo much worse since you cannot avoid it... Also cars are often being used for distances that could also be travelled with a bike or by foot... so its not always that necessairy at all i think...
Are you serious? I cannot believe my eyes... I don't know why I'm gonna bother, but whatever. Alcohol can cause crashed because people are idiots, and there ARE laws against drinking and driving. Don't dare compare drinks to smoking. Drinking normally and responsibly will cause you no harm and no harm to others, and no matter how little you smoke somebody WILL be bothered and you will cause yourself harm, no matter how responsible you are. And yea, let me tell you something, you know what the fuck comes out of cars? CO2 and CO mostly, and few other chemicals that are irrelevant. You know what comes out of a cigarette? 4000 fucking substances out of which 200 are toxic. Here are some: cetaldehyde (1.4+ mg) arsenic (500+ ng) benzo(a)pyrene (.1+ ng) cadmium (1,300+ ng) chromium (1,000+ ng)h ydrazine (14+ ng) lead (8+ µg) nickel (2,000+ ng) radioactive polonium (.2+ Pci) And please, even if that was close to the truth, are we in fuckign shanghai? Cars have filters, cause much MUCH less harm than cigarettes and are a NECESSITY. smoking is NOT. When you get old enough to drive a car use bicycles and foot to do everything you need, see if that works.
i agree it smells horrible tho, it really does... and its a retarded habit... but if ppl wanna do it why not?! theres so many things that smell bad and/or are retarded... and it doesnt meassure up to other things at all... so in the end we are just being intolerant and nasty to other ppl...
My god... I don't mind people arguing but I don't know if your problem is ignorance or something else. "if ppl wanna do it why not? Lot's of things smell bad? " ... for starters because there are OTHER people who ALSO happen to have RIGHTS. And secondhand smoke is not one of them, nor is the shit they have to be obligated to smell because some addict cannot control himself.
Man if you are gonna discuss this bring some real arguments. Don't bring crap like "If you ban smoking, you will also have to ban cars and drinking because it kills people too!!".
ok last reply this thread is getting boring and same things again and again...
all that stuff isnt in your lungs thru 2nd hand smoke so who gives a shit, and i am quite often in Shanghai yea so its quite relevant for me.. its not like the air is awesome in other big metropolitan areas... and mind you that this was about smoking packets of cigarettes, not just 2nd hand smoking them (which is much less bad than actually smoking afaik)... so what's the big deal ...
1 drink has some effect, so does 1 cigarette's 2nd hand smoke i guess but both are negligible... we all know people cannot drink RESPONSIBLY tho and the laws currently in place are just not good enough (there are many action groups with this belief)...fact is alcohol is poison and its not good and 1 drink can already affect your responses...
im more than old enough to drive a car, i don't know what you mean by that but it seems you are just a lazy ass... and dont mind polution the world a bit for everyone...
sure some things can hardly be done without a car, but there's lots of things than easily be done by bike and by foot which are being done by car, but which are done by car just because its easy... i guess especially in a country like usa there's alot of ppl doing that and the cars also use way too much fuel compared to the ones here... anyway if they really give a shit about our health they could do something bout that, but they are just witch huntin.... cause i feel thats what this is all about..
the main thing however is still ->
so if you think you have the RIGHT to go to a non smoking bar then do so by all means... no one FORCES you to be in or go to a smoky bar mr smartass.... If you dont like you can go to a non smoking bar or start one yourself and your problem will be solved?? if you HAD to go there then I would agree with you... but its just free will and as it usually works in our free market if there is a NEED or WISH for something it will be created...
your arguments would make sense if it was banned outside, where you have to go...
what makes you think we cant hande this ourselves?! If you think its so important to go to a bar without any smoking then why dont you go there?? there's no market for it??
then that means apperently too few ppl give a shit... no need to make laws for that i'd say...
and yes alot of things in our world are based on comparison, so usually when we make arguments we compare similar shit .. if smoking gets banned for some reasons and drinking has similar effects there are many ppl who will (and already do) greedily take advantage of it..
there's a good chance this will lead to more and more things will get banned/restricted (i guess you have the sense to understand that) in the future and in the end where will it end?! i dont think we need this protectionism and people are capable of handling this themselves... no need to make laws about it...
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img24.imageshack.us/my.php?image=llama1.jpg)
it seems like a really weird statement from my point of view
![[image loading]](http://firstfriday.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/obama-socialist.jpg)
