|
On May 25 2011 01:54 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 01:46 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
The implicit assumption here is that the worker has a right to work in a smoke free environment -- and more abstractly, a right to a job. They don’t have either of these rights because these rights impose positive not negative obligations. I'm not familiar with the US law, but in my country employers have the obligation to put the least hazardous conditions around a worker, whenever possible. (I'm sure the US has an analogous law, it's called "Hygiene & Security Law" here). And people don't have the right to have a job? How are they supposed to live then?
This is exactly why indoor smoking bans, even in privately owned bars/restaurants, make a lot more sense than a ban in public parks/plazas/beaches. It's more intrusive (to property rights), but there's a real risk to employees.
|
On May 25 2011 01:56 Cyba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 01:49 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 25 2011 01:42 Cyba wrote:
As for making somebody sick with second hand smoke, that's pretty much 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% probable IF the guy sits in your face and blows his smoke up your nose. Source please. You either missed my irony or attempted some yourself, i'll give you a serious reply though. Answer is my survival to this date, had hardcore smoker parents, the entire house smells like nicotine and my mom smoked when i was in the making. I don't smoke (Did for a month or so back when i was working 24/7 on my bachelors) i'm in perfect health and my lungs are clean in X-rays.
cyba - the ultimate specimen to represent the entire human race.
please sir, let my lab tap you up and we don’t need to bother spending tens of thousands of dollars getting volunteers for our research.
|
is awesome32282 Posts
On May 25 2011 01:58 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 01:54 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 25 2011 01:46 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
The implicit assumption here is that the worker has a right to work in a smoke free environment -- and more abstractly, a right to a job. They don’t have either of these rights because these rights impose positive not negative obligations. I'm not familiar with the US law, but in my country employers have the obligation to put the least hazardous conditions around a worker, whenever possible. (I'm sure the US has an analogous law, it's called "Hygiene & Security Law" here). And people don't have the right to have a job? How are they supposed to live then? This is exactly why indoor smoking bans, even in privately owned bars/restaurants, make a lot more sense than a ban in public parks/plazas/beaches. It's more intrusive (to property rights), but there's a real risk to employees.
Again, I don't know about the US, I'm talking from my country's perspective:
It also has to do with the cost of healthcare. In my country, we have tax funded universal healthcare (as well as private options). So the banning of smokings (among other things, like forcing shops to have x number of clothe sizes, public eating places like schools having a balanced dinner, bike paths in streets to encourage their use, more parks, etc) is set to lower the overall costs of treating people. Prevention is just cheaper, though it's hard to do the math with too many factors in place, but just overall quality of life goes up.
I agree that if this is done, certain other things should be done (like distinguishing between genetic obesity problems/treating it as an illness and people that just eat too much). What I don't agree with is with people putting smoking on the same level as a dog shitting in a park.
|
Oh ye i bet you get to see actual non biased research about smoking all day every day everywhere. Specially since it's been like what 5 years? since the actual mechanism with which smoking affects your heart became fully understood.
Not to mention some studies always say smoking causes cancer and some say there's no conection.
EDIT:
Remember how we're told coffee is bad for your BP?
Just this month there was some report that having 4+ cups of coffee a day won't significantly affect you in any way.
|
On May 25 2011 01:51 Cyba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 01:43 RoosterSamurai wrote:On May 25 2011 01:42 Cyba wrote:
Why not ban alcohol? Hate seeing drunk people, and they smell of alcohol which bothers my sensitive ass :/ Which reminds me of daddy...
all the beatings, oh my...the beatings...
All the arguments saying this law is great just sound like a bunch of brats that throw those crappy answers around when the only reason they agree with it is that mommy toldem smoking is bad but leting your dog shit in the park is ok. There chance of 0.01% of having a heart atack when you're 50 is increased by 50% ! Well that's still just 0.015% so fuck off with the convenient antismoke propaganda you'll have a higher chance of having your aorta burst if you eat beef then smoke.
Nicotine is adictive indeed but it's very repulsive for a beginer, so the risk of you making somebody start smoking by smoking yourself is pretty much nill unless he actually wants to try it... several times untill he gets used to it. As for making somebody sick with second hand smoke, that's pretty much 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% probable IF the guy sits in your face and blows his smoke up your nose.
Clothes smell, cool story but that's only going to happen in clubs where everybody smokes and you can cut through the smoke with a knife, never gona happen in the street.
And the bad smell argument ? Are you serious? If that's even remotely serious imo fat people, fast food, outdoor trashdumps, SUV's, babies, public breast feeding and fuck all the pet owners too.
10 years penalty for farting in public, 5 years if you just REALLY had to go since it's obv not malicious doing, and if your dog does it tough luck, there's only one jail for pets and it's in the sky.
Should just add a death penalty for every fat fuck driving an SUV while eating a Sloppy Joe with his wife in the front seat breast feeding her kid, and keeping a dog that just went to the bathroom in the back. Because the guy behind them is JUST SO MOTHERFUCKING INCONVENIENCED. Alcohol in public is already banned. What is your point? You're still alowed to fuck around drunk outside though, also smoking is baned inside in most places if you can't smoke outside where you gona do it?
You can smoke inside and go then outside, too.
As to where, most preferably somewhere it won't bother other people.
|
On May 25 2011 01:09 Arnstein wrote:
Cigarettes doesn't do anyone anything good, they should be banned all over the world.
this is the only good argument ive heard towards banning smoking this whole thread.
but that goes the same for alcohol, junk food and a bunch of other things
|
On May 25 2011 01:51 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 01:40 VIB wrote:On May 25 2011 01:33 Omnipresent wrote:
The argument is, "if you want to ban smoking in public because of litter, you should also want to ban these other things." I know that's your argument, it's what I'm talking about. It's a childish silly argument that no one will take seriously. Throwing water bottles on the floor is wrong and we should do what's in your power to stop it. That is wrong. Throwing cigarette butts is also wrong. Two wrongs don't make one right. If you think we should have better regulation to control who litters the park with bottled water. Then go lobby for it. This thread is about controlling a different type of litter. One that constitutes 75% of the litter in NYC parks (according to OP). Which is cigarette butts. I'm actually not trying to argue in favor of banning bottled water in public parks. I think it's absurd. It just happens to be absurd in the same way banning cigarettes (for the purpose of preventing litter) is absurd. If you don't see the connection, I'm not sure what to say. I'm not trying to make a case for allowing smoking in public parks. It's the default position. I'm just pointing to weaknesses in other people's arguments against it. So you do agree that littering the park with either cigarette butts or bottled water is wrong? You just don't think we should do absolutely anything about it? We should just live in litter and be ok with it?
Because if you do think we should do something about litter. Then you could propose a different solution from banning smoking in parks. I would have no problem with that, I would love to hear a better solution. But that's not what you're doing. You're not proposing a solution. You're just pointing out a different problem.
Yes, bottled waters in the floor are just as wrong as cigarette butts. So what? What are you gonna do about it? Live in litter? We're talking about a solution to cigarette butts here. When you bring up water bottles you're not bringing anything to the discussion. You're not bringing any other solution.
edit: yay I'm a devourer >D
|
Oh ye i bet you get to see actual non biased research about smoking all day every day everywhere. Specially since it's been like what 5 years? since the actual mechanism with which smoking affects your heart became fully understood.
Not to mention some studies always say smoking causes cancer and some say there's no conection.
So his research is unreliable but your health condition is irrefutable proof. Okay.
|
Anyway, I think it's a great law. Certainly another step in a good direction.
I don't want to force smokers not to smoke, however, I'd really appretiate if they were more considerate to others. They got so used to it that they don't realize there's a lot of people who really mind if people smoke in their pressence.
|
On May 25 2011 02:04 Cyba wrote:
Oh ye i bet you get to see actual non biased research about smoking all day every day everywhere. Specially since it's been like what 5 years? since the actual mechanism with which smoking affects your heart became fully understood.
Not to mention some studies always say smoking causes cancer and some say there's no conection.
smoking doesn't just lead to lung cancer btw, but would it be asking too much for sources for all your blind statements?
btw, just out of chance i came across this paper at work a few moments ago:
Threshold of biologic responses of the small airway epithelium to low levels of tobacco smoke.
Strulovici-Barel Y, Omberg L, O'Mahony M, Gordon C, Hollmann C, Tilley AE, Salit J, Mezey J, Harvey BG, Crystal RG.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20693378
study from cornell that shows that there is really no "threshold" for the effects of tobacco smoke on small airways in the lung. which means that even the lowest doses of tobacco smoke can lead to increased risk of lung complications later in life. this is in lungs only, so who knows what other effects lower concentrations have in other regions of the body.
|
We should just ban tobacco products. Let's face it - if tobacco was discovered today, there's no way you would be allowed to grow or sell that poison without ending up in prison.
|
The ban on smoking doesn't go far enough. Also, alcohol and coffee shouldn't be allowed in any public places. Stop rewarding people with bad habits. Drunk driving and lack of sleep are very dangerous, and cause a lot of second-hand damage to people. So many avoidable deaths because the local government doesn't take away people's rights to harm themselves. I mean, why would someone want to harm himself?
In all seriousness, banning smoking is just one step closer to banning someone for being a dick to others OR to a habit deeply rooted in America's history. What constitutes "legal" or "illegal" secondhand damage? I see this law as another small way to chew away at the rights of citizens.
|
On May 25 2011 02:07 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 01:51 Omnipresent wrote:On May 25 2011 01:40 VIB wrote:On May 25 2011 01:33 Omnipresent wrote:
The argument is, "if you want to ban smoking in public because of litter, you should also want to ban these other things." I know that's your argument, it's what I'm talking about. It's a childish silly argument that no one will take seriously. Throwing water bottles on the floor is wrong and we should do what's in your power to stop it. That is wrong. Throwing cigarette butts is also wrong. Two wrongs don't make one right. If you think we should have better regulation to control who litters the park with bottled water. Then go lobby for it. This thread is about controlling a different type of litter. One that constitutes 75% of the litter in NYC parks (according to OP). Which is cigarette butts. I'm actually not trying to argue in favor of banning bottled water in public parks. I think it's absurd. It just happens to be absurd in the same way banning cigarettes (for the purpose of preventing litter) is absurd. If you don't see the connection, I'm not sure what to say. I'm not trying to make a case for allowing smoking in public parks. It's the default position. I'm just pointing to weaknesses in other people's arguments against it. So you do agree that littering the park with either cigarette butts or bottled water is wrong? You just don't think we should do absolutely anything about it? We should just live in litter and be ok with it? Because if you do think we should do something about litter. Then you could propose a different solution from banning smoking in parks. I would have no problem with that, I would love to hear a better solution. But that's not what you're doing. You're not proposing a solution. You're just pointing out a different problem.Yes, bottled waters in the floor are just as wrong as cigarette butts. So what? What are you gonna do about it? Live in litter? We're talking about a solution to cigarette butts here. When you bring up water bottles you're not bringing anything to the discussion. You're not bringing any other solution. edit: yay I'm a devourer >D
Grats on 3k
I'm not sure the scope of the litter problem in NYC, so I can't be sure that anything actually needs to be improved.
Assuming it's pretty bad, my proposal would be to enforce litter laws, increase fines if you need to, and increase the number of trash cans/places to put cigarettes. They don't have to be open ashtrays, something like this would be fine.
+ Show Spoiler +
These don't even smell and have a low profile, so they're not unsightly. Hell, you could even impose a small tobacco tax to pay for them. Banning smoking altogether is the wrong way to do it, and is blatantly hypocritical (as per my bottled water example).
People litter because there's nowhere to put their trash, not because they're malicious.
|
Asking to use a hot chicks lighter even when you have your own is probably the best way to initiate conversation with a girl that shares a habit with you. How will this affect the dating scene in NYC?
+ Show Spoiler +this thread is getting dull. courtesy people, errbody just be courteous On May 25 2011 00:07 Clearout wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 00:04 ComaDose wrote:
To people saying smoking is useless:
So is ice cream. It feels good, infinitely more so when you are addicted to nicotine.
I would compare it to the feeling you get chugging a tall glass of water when you are extremely thirsty. But you can get it every couple hours.
Manages stress and helps kill time. Get more breaks at work ;p.
Negatives? Yeah kills you, bad breath, yellow teeth aging quicker...
But go eat another cheese burger ill have a king size stick of cancer and endorphins.
And we might both get hit by a car tomorrow.
Should people be subjected to second hand smoke? No.
A university campus is crowded and full of sensitive young people who can hardly remember their mothers lighting up in pizza hut after the buffet. Perhaps their bodies are more susceptible to these few parts per million in passing breaths than those people of the centuries past where there were no laws.
But these sensitive people do not enjoy the smell. My university imposed a 10m from any entrance law that is reasonable and generally unobserved. I am a courteous smoker, i smoke in smoking areas and avoid walking and smoking down busy pathways. People should be courteous but they are not and thus implementing rules to make them so is reasonable. Smoking in your car is taking the initiative to isolate yourself from those that may be offended and banning such is excessive and unnecessary.
Rules for smoking in public are reasonable. This set of rules is to strict. You have a very decent middle ground standing, which I wholesomely approve of. Life of lively to live to life of full life thx to cigarettes?  thx thats nice + Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/YJyfV.jpg) Tell him where to smoke
|
On May 25 2011 02:16 Serthius wrote:
We should just ban tobacco products. Let's face it - if tobacco was discovered today, there's no way you would be allowed to grow or sell that poison without ending up in prison.
It will come in time. We need to smoothly prepare instead of making a radical change. Be patient little grasshopper 
|
On May 25 2011 02:20 ComaDose wrote:Asking to use a hot chicks lighter even when you have your own is probably the best way to initiate conversation with a girl that shares a habit with you. How will this affect the dating scene in NYC? + Show Spoiler +this thread is getting dull. courtesy people, errbody just be courteous On May 25 2011 00:07 Clearout wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 00:04 ComaDose wrote:
To people saying smoking is useless:
So is ice cream. It feels good, infinitely more so when you are addicted to nicotine.
I would compare it to the feeling you get chugging a tall glass of water when you are extremely thirsty. But you can get it every couple hours.
Manages stress and helps kill time. Get more breaks at work ;p.
Negatives? Yeah kills you, bad breath, yellow teeth aging quicker...
But go eat another cheese burger ill have a king size stick of cancer and endorphins.
And we might both get hit by a car tomorrow.
Should people be subjected to second hand smoke? No.
A university campus is crowded and full of sensitive young people who can hardly remember their mothers lighting up in pizza hut after the buffet. Perhaps their bodies are more susceptible to these few parts per million in passing breaths than those people of the centuries past where there were no laws.
But these sensitive people do not enjoy the smell. My university imposed a 10m from any entrance law that is reasonable and generally unobserved. I am a courteous smoker, i smoke in smoking areas and avoid walking and smoking down busy pathways. People should be courteous but they are not and thus implementing rules to make them so is reasonable. Smoking in your car is taking the initiative to isolate yourself from those that may be offended and banning such is excessive and unnecessary.
Rules for smoking in public are reasonable. This set of rules is to strict. You have a very decent middle ground standing, which I wholesomely approve of. Life of lively to live to life of full life thx to cigarettes? thx thats nice + Show Spoiler + Tell him where to smoke
You can always dazzle her with your winning personality.
|
On May 25 2011 02:21 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 02:20 ComaDose wrote:Asking to use a hot chicks lighter even when you have your own is probably the best way to initiate conversation with a girl that shares a habit with you. How will this affect the dating scene in NYC? + Show Spoiler +this thread is getting dull. courtesy people, errbody just be courteous On May 25 2011 00:07 Clearout wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 00:04 ComaDose wrote:
To people saying smoking is useless:
So is ice cream. It feels good, infinitely more so when you are addicted to nicotine.
I would compare it to the feeling you get chugging a tall glass of water when you are extremely thirsty. But you can get it every couple hours.
Manages stress and helps kill time. Get more breaks at work ;p.
Negatives? Yeah kills you, bad breath, yellow teeth aging quicker...
But go eat another cheese burger ill have a king size stick of cancer and endorphins.
And we might both get hit by a car tomorrow.
Should people be subjected to second hand smoke? No.
A university campus is crowded and full of sensitive young people who can hardly remember their mothers lighting up in pizza hut after the buffet. Perhaps their bodies are more susceptible to these few parts per million in passing breaths than those people of the centuries past where there were no laws.
But these sensitive people do not enjoy the smell. My university imposed a 10m from any entrance law that is reasonable and generally unobserved. I am a courteous smoker, i smoke in smoking areas and avoid walking and smoking down busy pathways. People should be courteous but they are not and thus implementing rules to make them so is reasonable. Smoking in your car is taking the initiative to isolate yourself from those that may be offended and banning such is excessive and unnecessary.
Rules for smoking in public are reasonable. This set of rules is to strict. You have a very decent middle ground standing, which I wholesomely approve of. Life of lively to live to life of full life thx to cigarettes? thx thats nice + Show Spoiler + Tell him where to smoke You can always dazzle her with your winning personality.
But she wont be allowed to loiter around to observe the show! she will be at home smoking alone in her room 
|
On May 25 2011 02:23 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 02:21 JinDesu wrote:On May 25 2011 02:20 ComaDose wrote:Asking to use a hot chicks lighter even when you have your own is probably the best way to initiate conversation with a girl that shares a habit with you. How will this affect the dating scene in NYC? + Show Spoiler +this thread is getting dull. courtesy people, errbody just be courteous On May 25 2011 00:07 Clearout wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 00:04 ComaDose wrote:
To people saying smoking is useless:
So is ice cream. It feels good, infinitely more so when you are addicted to nicotine.
I would compare it to the feeling you get chugging a tall glass of water when you are extremely thirsty. But you can get it every couple hours.
Manages stress and helps kill time. Get more breaks at work ;p.
Negatives? Yeah kills you, bad breath, yellow teeth aging quicker...
But go eat another cheese burger ill have a king size stick of cancer and endorphins.
And we might both get hit by a car tomorrow.
Should people be subjected to second hand smoke? No.
A university campus is crowded and full of sensitive young people who can hardly remember their mothers lighting up in pizza hut after the buffet. Perhaps their bodies are more susceptible to these few parts per million in passing breaths than those people of the centuries past where there were no laws.
But these sensitive people do not enjoy the smell. My university imposed a 10m from any entrance law that is reasonable and generally unobserved. I am a courteous smoker, i smoke in smoking areas and avoid walking and smoking down busy pathways. People should be courteous but they are not and thus implementing rules to make them so is reasonable. Smoking in your car is taking the initiative to isolate yourself from those that may be offended and banning such is excessive and unnecessary.
Rules for smoking in public are reasonable. This set of rules is to strict. You have a very decent middle ground standing, which I wholesomely approve of. Life of lively to live to life of full life thx to cigarettes? thx thats nice + Show Spoiler + Tell him where to smoke You can always dazzle her with your winning personality. But she wont be allowed to loiter around to observe the show! she will be at home smoking alone in her room
Why care about girls who smoke anyway. They are disgusting ashtrays.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 25 2011 02:21 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 02:16 Serthius wrote:
We should just ban tobacco products. Let's face it - if tobacco was discovered today, there's no way you would be allowed to grow or sell that poison without ending up in prison.
It will come in time. We need to smoothly prepare instead of making a radical change. Be patient little grasshopper
It's unlikely that tobacco will ever be illegal in the US. We have an unfortunate history with prohibition, so Americans understand the effects of denying people something they want.
Conversely, we're slowly moving towards legalizing other substances. Marijuana is next, who knows after that.
Outlawing tobacco completely is pretty clearly on the minds of the people proposing this ban, which part of the reason I'm so frustrated with their poor/dishonest rationale for it.
|
On May 25 2011 02:27 BroodjeBaller wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 02:23 ComaDose wrote:On May 25 2011 02:21 JinDesu wrote:On May 25 2011 02:20 ComaDose wrote:Asking to use a hot chicks lighter even when you have your own is probably the best way to initiate conversation with a girl that shares a habit with you. How will this affect the dating scene in NYC? + Show Spoiler +this thread is getting dull. courtesy people, errbody just be courteous On May 25 2011 00:07 Clearout wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2011 00:04 ComaDose wrote:
To people saying smoking is useless:
So is ice cream. It feels good, infinitely more so when you are addicted to nicotine.
I would compare it to the feeling you get chugging a tall glass of water when you are extremely thirsty. But you can get it every couple hours.
Manages stress and helps kill time. Get more breaks at work ;p.
Negatives? Yeah kills you, bad breath, yellow teeth aging quicker...
But go eat another cheese burger ill have a king size stick of cancer and endorphins.
And we might both get hit by a car tomorrow.
Should people be subjected to second hand smoke? No.
A university campus is crowded and full of sensitive young people who can hardly remember their mothers lighting up in pizza hut after the buffet. Perhaps their bodies are more susceptible to these few parts per million in passing breaths than those people of the centuries past where there were no laws.
But these sensitive people do not enjoy the smell. My university imposed a 10m from any entrance law that is reasonable and generally unobserved. I am a courteous smoker, i smoke in smoking areas and avoid walking and smoking down busy pathways. People should be courteous but they are not and thus implementing rules to make them so is reasonable. Smoking in your car is taking the initiative to isolate yourself from those that may be offended and banning such is excessive and unnecessary.
Rules for smoking in public are reasonable. This set of rules is to strict. You have a very decent middle ground standing, which I wholesomely approve of. Life of lively to live to life of full life thx to cigarettes? thx thats nice + Show Spoiler + Tell him where to smoke You can always dazzle her with your winning personality. But she wont be allowed to loiter around to observe the show! she will be at home smoking alone in her room Why care about girls who smoke anyway. They are disgusting ashtrays. Becuase I am a disgusting ashtray and i should not be denied love.
+ Show Spoiler +(smoking can also be hot)
Your biased and rude
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.belson.com/images/csocr-M.jpg)
