| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
showBanquo
Sweden182 Posts
Let me do an (actually not as silly as it seems) analogue ; lets say ppl had a habit of peeing in public, like at any time of the day. That wouldnt be unhelathy for everyone else it'd just be annoying and unpleasant to watch - it wont hurt anyone it's just annoying and BM. So the government isnt trying to control peoples lives it's just that since some people (obviously) can't respect others they've decided to restrict smoking to certain areas - as with peeing. which seem very sound to me | ||
|
Nightfly
150 Posts
On May 24 2011 19:10 MozzarellaL wrote: That's laughable, I'd like to hear the line of reasoning preventing a landowner from adopting rules restricting the behavior of its guests. Uh, this has nothing to do with landowners. | ||
|
Swede
New Zealand853 Posts
On May 24 2011 18:45 Phenny wrote: Even though smoking is fucking abhorrently gross, this is a pretty disgusting removal of the citizen's freedom. The litter point is pretty stupid because as stated, there's enough of that from people eating and what not anyway. But really it's not as if it's hard to get away from if you're outside, like fuck you don't have to stand/walk near the smokers. Gotta agree. It should be a compromise between smokers and non-smokers. Smokers shouldn't smoke when they're in a confined place/heavy populated area (busy streets etc), non-smokers shouldn't stand directly next to a smoker when there's plenty of space elsewhere. People might not be that respectful now, but the attitude towards smoking has changed enough that they will eventually. There'll be too much social pressure not to be. The law is pointless in the sense that what it aims to solve will be solved over time through the shaping of social etiquette surrounding smoking. I also suspect that the litter problem is something easily reducible by the tobacco companies with a bit of effort (biodegradable filters already exist so it's just a matter of making use of them). | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
It is like Britain quite some time ago. They banned gin but not whiskey because poor people drank gun but rich people drank whiskey. And as for the Prohibition here, we banned alcohol because mostly poor immigrants were drinking alcohol. | ||
|
GGitsJack
New Zealand426 Posts
I've read about the China one as well, wonder where that has gone. | ||
|
Shirohige
Germany398 Posts
| ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
On May 24 2011 18:40 virpi wrote: Fuck health, I'll go have a beer with a cigarette. Seriously: I like the smell of smoke. As a non-smoker. I really don't get the problem. (besides: "oh no, we're all gonna die if we're not living the RIGHT way.") that's just bullshit. Yeah... No. It doesn't make you die "immediately." It shortens the time you have to live by causing health problems. ( Second hand smoke is far more deadly than first hand smoke with the second hand smoker inhaling 17.47x ( 751 nano grams on average ) vs ~43 directly ). On May 24 2011 18:32 Vapaach wrote: I approve of this. Personally I hate it when I am waiting for a bus and then some jerk decides to smoke right next to the bench, making me have to either go farther away or suffer from the smoke. I hope this will catch wind in other cities as well. No-one can argue that smoking isn't unhealthy, or harmful towards those who don't smoke as well. It always causes problems for everyone else when they smoke at the bus stop. And rather, they don't move away instead to smoke, you'll have to move away to avoid them... They carry that stench with them on the bus... | ||
|
Deja Thoris
South Africa646 Posts
On May 24 2011 16:03 Tudi wrote: Cars kill more people than cigarettes each year. You are the second person in the last 2 pages to say this. Less than 50k people die from road related stuff per year in the US. The figure for smoking is 10x that. Stop quoting "facts" that are rubbish. To the other guy who didn't believe the smoking death figures, a conspiracy theory site would probably suit you more than here. Otherwise these debates turn into a "I question the accepted facts" farce everytime. | ||
|
EvilTeletubby
Baltimore, USA22259 Posts
On May 24 2011 19:01 Nightfly wrote: And so long as I never hear screaming children I'm happy. Care to explain why your dislikes are more important than mine? Hah, chill with the defensiveness and bad analogies. I'm not quite sure how you can compare screaming children with a clear health concern + littering, it's not JUST a matter of dislikes. But if you truly want to break it down - Passing along second hand smoke to others and littering is completely controllable and preventable, and unnecessary. A child throwing a temper tantrum is not. For what it's worth, I dislike screaming children as well, but your example is HORRIBLE. On May 24 2011 19:01 JayDee_ wrote: The analogy makes complete logic sense to me. Cigarette butts are no different than any other litter so you can't use littering as an excuse to keep smokers out of open public areas. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's irrelevant if I throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely related. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor. | ||
|
Nightfly
150 Posts
On May 24 2011 19:44 EvilTeletubby wrote: Hah, chill with the defensiveness and bad analogies. I'm not quite sure how you can compare screaming children with a clear health concern + littering, it's not JUST a matter of dislikes. But if you truly want to break it down - Passing along second hand smoke to others and littering is completely controllable and preventable, and unnecessary. A child throwing a temper tantrum is not. For what it's worth, I dislike screaming children as well, but your example is HORRIBLE. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy that children make (well he can do it so can I!)... "it's ok to throw this cigarette butt on the ground because people throw other trash on the ground" is just a horrible concept - it is absolutely relevant. People throwing any trash on the ground is unacceptable IMO, just because cigarette butts aren't the only thing you'll find on the ground doesn't make it less of a factor. There are no health concerns, and the littering is already taken care of with other legislations. | ||
|
EvilTeletubby
Baltimore, USA22259 Posts
On May 24 2011 19:49 Nightfly wrote: There are no health concerns, and the littering is already taken care of with other legislations. No, it's not a logical fallacy. It was a comparison of dislikes, with the only difference that you demand legislation for yours, while I wouldn't dream of that. There are no health concerns to secondhand smoke?? You're arguing against accepted facts now.  | ||
|
DBunny
Canada192 Posts
As for outdoor bans, I don't think it's that big of a deal to just not be in the immediate vicinity of a smoker if it bothers you; most smokers I notice are quite good about not lighting up right next to people or right outside entrances/exits. The health risks from second hand smoke are pretty much non existent outside unless you're standing inches from the guy while he blows smoke in your face. Understandably some people don't like the smell of it and it can get in your clothes if you're too close but I don't know why some people are stubborn enough not to just move a few steps in any direction like they're more entitled to a certain spot because they're a non-smoker. If a guy standing next to me smelled of bad B.O the first thing I would do is move. | ||
|
Nightfly
150 Posts
On May 24 2011 19:52 EvilTeletubby wrote: There are no health concerns to secondhand smoke?? You're arguing against accepted facts now. No there's not. There's one study that secondhand smoke haters quote, but that study has been thoroughly disproved, and no other study done shows any health concern. I'm sure you can research the subject further if you're interested. | ||
|
Blizzard_torments_me
Romania199 Posts
| ||
|
Clearout
Norway1060 Posts
On May 24 2011 19:52 EvilTeletubby wrote: Short exposure to SHS outdoors has not been shown to be an actual problem. I've gone through and shown that none of the links people post actually say anything regarding short exposure to second hand SHS outdoors. Noone has so far been able to produce anything saying that short exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem for itself to be a reason for a ban. I made a post a post about this, also post about the links others have provided. I do not believe short term exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem to be used as reasoning for a removal of the privileges of smokers. There are no health concerns to secondhand smoke?? You're arguing against accepted facts now. For me it's really only a disagreement for where a line should be drawn for this, which is a rather gray area. If something is annoying, and that should warrant a ban. Where does one draw the line? If enough people are annoyed by bright yellow t-shirts,does that warrant a ban for it in parks? | ||
|
acidfreak
Romania352 Posts
On May 24 2011 19:32 Shiragaku wrote: Wait...who are the majority of smokers in NY? Whenever there is a drug ban, it is often because of a class issue. Meaning, people ban smoking because the most of the people doing so are low income. It is like Britain quite some time ago. They banned gin but not whiskey because poor people drank gun but rich people drank whiskey. And as for the Prohibition here, we banned alcohol because mostly poor immigrants were drinking alcohol. Fully agree. The US banned pot because Mexican immigrants were smoking it. Even going so far as naming it "marijuana" so it sounds mexican... | ||
|
Nightfly
150 Posts
On May 24 2011 20:05 Clearout wrote: Short exposure to SHS outdoors has not been shown to be an actual problem. I've gone through and shown that none of the links people post actually say anything regarding short exposure to second hand SHS outdoors. Noone has so far been able to produce anything saying that short exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem for itself to be a reason for a ban. I made a post a post about this, also post about the links others have provided. I do not believe short term exposure to SHS outdoors is enough of a problem to be used as reasoning for a removal of the privileges of smokers. For me it's really only a disagreement for where a line should be drawn for this, which is a rather gray area. If something is annoying, and that should warrant a ban. Where does one draw the line? If enough people are annoyed by bright yellow t-shirts,does that warrant a ban for it in parks? Good, now I can leave this thread knowing at least one intelligent person defends it. | ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
On May 24 2011 19:52 EvilTeletubby wrote: he's actually notThere are no health concerns to secondhand smoke?? You're arguing against accepted facts now. secondhand smoke is a legitimate danger in an area with poor ventilation, such as inside of a house but the dangers of secondhand smoke have been proven to be absolutely negligible in an outdoor environment and is actually less dangerous than standing nearby to a running parked car. the primary danger of secondhand smoke is carbon monoxide, there's virtually no nicotine in exhaled secondhand smoke just like any other gas, the smoke dissipates through the environment almost instantly even if there's no wind, whereas indoors it can only expand so far before it has nowhere to go basically the traffic congestion in the areas they are banning smoking in NYC is so extreme that banning smoking in public doesn't do anything at all for health concerns, at best it solves a littering issue | ||
|
Clearout
Norway1060 Posts
On May 24 2011 20:19 Zanno wrote: As someone earlier pointed out it can in fact only make the "problem" worse. If SHS in a park is bad, where one smoker may influence mayhaps 4-5 others. Imagine how much worse it is if they have to stand on the sidewalk doing it, where they would influence 20-30 other people. secondhand smoke is a legitimate danger in an area with poor ventilation, such as inside of a house the dangers of secondhand smoke have been proven to be absolutely negligible in an outdoor environment and is actually less dangerous than standing nearby to a running parked car. just like any other gas the smoke dissipates almost instantly even if there's no wind, whereas indoors it can only expand so far before it has nowhere to go basically the traffic congestion in the areas they are banning smoking in NYC is so extreme that banning smoking in public doesn't do anything at all I made the same point you made, just regarding pollution in general, in an attempt to show that this is a non issue, and a terribly weak thing to take a stance for. That it is not enough of a reason to warrant a ban infringing upon others privileges, when both arguments I've seen for it doesn't hold water. Noone has shown that it is anywhere near bad enough to warrant a ban. It then comes down to the other side often that it is "bad mmkay", or that it is annoying. When the first part doesn't really hold, the other part makes other ridiculous comparisons just as viable. If smoking is anoying is a reason for it being banned in parks, so should kids throwing tantrums warrant a ban of kids not behaving? Or bright yellow t-shirts, hipsters or chewing gum, or whatever you find annoying. As long as enough people agree, does it then warrant a ban? Where does one draw the line? So since the first argument doesn't really hold, it is a de facto ban on something annoying, which for me is terrible reasoning, unacceptable and sets a terrible presedent. Edit: I love how many people are coming forth and argueing properly against this type of ban, I felt really alone 8 pages ago <3 | ||
|
RushWifDietCoke
United States488 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
WardiTV Team League
Big Brain Bouts
Fjant vs SortOf
YoungYakov vs Krystianer
Reynor vs HeRoMaRinE
RSL Revival
Cure vs Zoun
herO vs Rogue
WardiTV Team League
Platinum Heroes Events
BSL
RSL Revival
ByuN vs Maru
MaxPax vs TriGGeR
WardiTV Team League
BSL
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
