NationStates Jolt Archive

i hate smoking, i think it's a disgusting, expensive habit, that turns your teeth and nails yellow, makes your breath smell, and ruins yours and everyone else around you's lives. i hate it when i go out and have to put up with having smoke blown in my face, if someione wants to slowly kill themselves then that's their decision but they shouldn't be able to kill everyone else around them. 80% of smoke from a cigarette is breathed in by passive smokers!

I agree

I agree with you: people can smoke if they want but should not be able to make other smoke (indirectly).

Unfortunately, too many people take "public places" to include "private businesses that are open to the public".

In the case of such a business, the decision rests with the business owner. If you don't like it, you're free to avoid that place.

Unfortunately, too many people take "public places" to include "private businesses that are open to the public".

In the case of such a business, the decision rests with the business owner. If you don't like it, you're free to avoid that place.

Unfortunately, too many people take "public places" to include "private businesses that are open to the public".

In the case of such a business, the decision rests with the business owner. If you don't like it, you're free to avoid that place.

you can't always avoid the place, i used to work in a cafe which had a smoking area and i hated having to serve people in it, i always ended up having coughing fits


just another thing, do any of the people who agree with me smoke?

You can still avoid it--simply don't work there.

As long as no one's pointing a gun at your head, you do in fact have a choice whether or not to be there. And your desire to avoid having to make a decision is not justification for using the coercive force of government to violate the rights of someone else--namely, the right of a property owner to decide for himself what he will and will not allow on his own property.

Excellent article on this very subject:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/GummintUselessness.shtml

You can still avoid it--simply don't work there.

As long as no one's pointing a gun at your head, you do in fact have a choice whether or not to be there. And your desire to avoid having to make a decision is not justification for using the coercive force of government to violate the rights of someone else--namely, the right of a property owner to decide for himself what he will and will not allow on his own property.

Excellent article on this very subject:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/GummintUselessness.shtml

Quit whining, I'm not a smoker but I can't stand the way some people insist on making them second class citizens. If you're outdoors and close enough to a smoker that he's blowing smoke in your face, then you should put some distance between you two.

As for businesses, that should be up to the owner. The government shouldn't be making a decision for the owner which could possibly cost him money.

Just because you dislike something doesn't mean it should be made illegal. On a side note it amazes me that a lot of people who want to outlaw smoking cigarettes, also want to legalize weed.

Public buildings: Yes, ban it.

Outside public areas: restrict group size gatherings, and maintain certain distances from doorways to public buildings.

Privately owned and open to the public: Let the owners decide that one.

Well to be fair, employeers also are required to have a safe and healthy working environment. Having the air choked with carcinogens doesnt qualify as a "safe and healthy" environment

You can still avoid it--simply don't work there.

As long as no one's pointing a gun at your head, you do in fact have a choice whether or not to be there. And your desire to avoid having to make a decision is not justification for using the coercive force of government to violate the rights of someone else--namely, the right of a property owner to decide for himself what he will and will not allow on his own property.

Excellent article on this very subject:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/GummintUselessness.shtml

i had no choice but to work there, my mum's friend owned the cafe and kindly gave me a job since my family needed the money as my dad had just died and we were struggling

The truth about smoking.

1. Statistically, lung cancer occurs only in 10% of the smokers - the large majority well over 70 years of age - where statistical death occurs anyway.
2. Statistically speaking, the weight loss of the infants of smokers, if present at all, averages 4 grams.
3. The color of teeth (yellow or white) depends on the natural type of teeth. The prevailing color of teeth is, in fact yellow, which also counts for a stronger construction.
4. "Yellow hands" have disappeared since the appearance of filter tip cigarettes, used by the huge majority of smokers nowadays. Also, yellow hands come with over half of the Asian population.
5. Recent major insurance studies have rated smoking in cars as the lowest risk of accidents. Talking and arguing in the vehicle, and setting audio equipment, are by far more dangerous.
6. Smoking protects against Parkinson disease.
7. Smokers in general are thinner than nonsmokers, even when they ingest more calories.
8. From a dental study, "All smokers had less plaque, gingival inflammation and tooth mobility than nonsmokers and similar periodontal pocket depth."
9. Hypertension prevalence rate among smokers is lower than in nonsmokers.
10. Not ONE of the over 100 diseases attributed to smoking can be PROVEN by sound scientific methodology to be "caused" by smoking.

It's still addictive. It still costs money.

On a related note, California bans smoking in public places. Been no problems what so ever.

you're obviously not british because if you were you would have seen the adverts wehad on here to encourage people to stop smoking, they're disgusting and i don't know how people can continue to smoke after watching them. they used to have ones showing people who have had heart disease and lung cancer from smoking, all of thm in their middle ages with families, talking about their experiences, having to sit with an oxygen tank next to them because they can't breath properly. then the new ones show the fat that gets stuck in your arteries when you smoke pouring out the end of the cigarette it's disgusting so don't try telling me it's only people in their 70's who die from smoking or that no diseases are proven to be caused by cancer because you're talking out of your arse!

People don't have a right to smoke cigarettes anywhere. That's the myth. We don't have the right to do certain things just because they are now legal. If the government decides that there is justification in banning smoking cigarettes in public places, guess what? They can ban smoking cigarettes in public places. Smoking is not an "individual right" that we are all entitled to. It's a privledge. There is also no undeniable property right in this country either. The government can determine what is and isn't legal for people to do on private property, and if you violate those laws, they can go in and enforce it. If you've got a meth lab in your basement and the government goes in and arrests you and breaks it up, you're not going to be able to argue, "Well, it's my property, I should be able to decide whether or not people should be able to do that on my own property."

I haven't posted here for quite a while, and I was fascinated to find this thread on the first page.

Not because there's any reason not to find a thread of this kind on NS, but because I live in Ireland. And in Ireland, a little over 90 minutes ago, it became illegal to smoke in enclosed workplaces. That includes bars, nightclubs and restaurants.

There are only a few minor exceptions to the law. Hotels can designate a certain number of bedrooms in which smoking is permitted. Smoking will also be allowed in designated areas of psychiatric hospitals, geriatric care centres, and prisons. Otherwise, that's it.

I haven't posted here for quite a while, and I was fascinated to find this thread on the first page.

Not because there's any reason not to find a thread of this kind on NS, but because I live in Ireland. And in Ireland, a little over 90 minutes ago, it became illegal to smoke in enclosed workplaces. That includes bars, nightclubs and restaurants.

There are only a few minor exceptions to the law. Hotels can designate a certain number of bedrooms in which smoking is permitted. Smoking will also be allowed in designated areas of psychiatric hospitals, geriatric care centres, and prisons. Otherwise, that's it.
actually, i was just watching the news and it said about banning smoking in enclosed workplaces in ireland and that's what made me start this thread, i just hope it works in ireland so then hopefully the same thing will happen here in england

You can still avoid it--simply don't work there.

As long as no one's pointing a gun at your head, you do in fact have a choice whether or not to be there. And your desire to avoid having to make a decision is not justification for using the coercive force of government to violate the rights of someone else--namely, the right of a property owner to decide for himself what he will and will not allow on his own property.

Excellent article on this very subject:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/GummintUselessness.shtml

i had no choice but to work there, my mum's friend owned the cafe and kindly gave me a job since my family needed the money as my dad had just died and we were struggling

Oh, bullshit.

You had a choice. You chose one alternative over the others because you found its consequences more desirable--just like with any of the thousands of other choices you make each day.

You can still avoid it--simply don't work there.

As long as no one's pointing a gun at your head, you do in fact have a choice whether or not to be there. And your desire to avoid having to make a decision is not justification for using the coercive force of government to violate the rights of someone else--namely, the right of a property owner to decide for himself what he will and will not allow on his own property.

Excellent article on this very subject:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/GummintUselessness.shtml

i had no choice but to work there, my mum's friend owned the cafe and kindly gave me a job since my family needed the money as my dad had just died and we were struggling

Oh, bullshit.

You had a choice. You chose one alternative over the others because you found its consequences more desirable--just like with any of the thousands of other choices you make each day.

I haven't posted here for quite a while, and I was fascinated to find this thread on the first page.

Not because there's any reason not to find a thread of this kind on NS, but because I live in Ireland. And in Ireland, a little over 90 minutes ago, it became illegal to smoke in enclosed workplaces. That includes bars, nightclubs and restaurants.

There are only a few minor exceptions to the law. Hotels can designate a certain number of bedrooms in which smoking is permitted. Smoking will also be allowed in designated areas of psychiatric hospitals, geriatric care centres, and prisons. Otherwise, that's it.
actually, i was just watching the news and it said about banning smoking in enclosed workplaces in ireland and that's what made me start this thread, i just hope it works in ireland so then hopefully the same thing will happen here in england

We'll see how it goes. For most people, the big issue is smoking in bars and nightclubs. Before today, smoking was prohibited in a wide range of public indoor locations, including shared offices/working rooms, buses, trains, taxis, cinemas, theatres and so on. Most people, even smokers, will not object greatly to extending the ban to restaurants. However, bars play a central role in Irish social life to an extent that people from other countries might not even begin to understand. Consequently, many smokers fear that the ban will disrupt or even devastate their social activities. And many bar owners fear serious consequences for their businesses.

Initially, I reckon that about 60-70% of businesses will comply with the law without many problems. Over the next 2-3 years, a combination of social pressure and enforcement of the law will push that percentage higher.

It's good legislation, IMHO, and I think a number of other European countries will be watching and will follow suit in the next couple of years.

People don't have a right to smoke cigarettes anywhere. That's the myth. We don't have the right to do certain things just because they are now legal. If the government decides that there is justification in banning smoking cigarettes in public places, guess what? They can ban smoking cigarettes in public places. Smoking is not an "individual right" that we are all entitled to. It's a privledge. There is also no undeniable property right in this country either. The government can determine what is and isn't legal for people to do on private property, and if you violate those laws, they can go in and enforce it. If you've got a meth lab in your basement and the government goes in and arrests you and breaks it up, you're not going to be able to argue, "Well, it's my property, I should be able to decide whether or not people should be able to do that on my own property."

More bullshit.

Just because government decides to make a certain law does not mean that that law is justified. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you don't have the right to do it--it simply means government is refusing to let you exercise that right.

And when that happens, that government becomes illegitimate.

More bullshit.

Just because government decides to make a certain law does not mean that that law is justified. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you don't have the right to do it--it simply means government is refusing to let you exercise that right.

And when that happens, that government becomes illegitimate.

This statement is only true if you can show rights are natural/inalienable/primary, which is no easy task.

I also think your views on choice/autonomy and coercion are fairly simple and niave.

Who is anyone to say where I can and can't smoke. If you don't like it hold your breath. Nobody complains when they raise the taxes on ciggarettes to make the government more money. So if we the smokers have to pay more taxes to support those of u that dont smoke kiss off and let me enjoy my habits afterall I am paying for u as well

People don't have a right to smoke cigarettes anywhere. That's the myth. We don't have the right to do certain things just because they are now legal. If the government decides that there is justification in banning smoking cigarettes in public places, guess what? They can ban smoking cigarettes in public places. Smoking is not an "individual right" that we are all entitled to. It's a privledge. There is also no undeniable property right in this country either. The government can determine what is and isn't legal for people to do on private property, and if you violate those laws, they can go in and enforce it. If you've got a meth lab in your basement and the government goes in and arrests you and breaks it up, you're not going to be able to argue, "Well, it's my property, I should be able to decide whether or not people should be able to do that on my own property."

More bullshit.

Just because government decides to make a certain law does not mean that that law is justified. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you don't have the right to do it--it simply means government is refusing to let you exercise that right.

And when that happens, that government becomes illegitimate.

Wrong. Is the government illegitimate because it doesn't allow you your right to murder and rape young women? No. We don't have the right to do whatever we please. The government creates these laws for the benefit of society. If you don't like them, then you can exercise your right to vote and vote these people out of office. Until then, shut up and deal with it. It's not like there's just one person making all these decisions and we have no power to do anything about it. These laws are being created by people we elected into office. You don't like it, do something to change it. Run for the office, and get the laws repealed. Don't complain that the government that the people elected is doing things that the majority of the people want.

I too, find smoking repulsive and disgusting. I get dizzy by smoke, and considering my medical history, that's not good. However, this cannot be controlled by the smokers. They are at the mercy of their habits. Allow them some freedom to smoke, especially in the open air, with lots of ventilation.

Who is anyone to say where I can and can't smoke. If you don't like it hold your breath. Nobody complains when they raise the taxes on ciggarettes to make the government more money. So if we the smokers have to pay more taxes to support those of u that dont smoke kiss off and let me enjoy my habits afterall I am paying for u as well

the extra taxes help to pay for healthcare for all the smokers that end up in hospital because of their pathetic habit!

I'm all for banning smoking in public places too.

People don't have a right to smoke cigarettes anywhere. That's the myth. We don't have the right to do certain things just because they are now legal. If the government decides that there is justification in banning smoking cigarettes in public places, guess what? They can ban smoking cigarettes in public places. Smoking is not an "individual right" that we are all entitled to. It's a privledge. There is also no undeniable property right in this country either. The government can determine what is and isn't legal for people to do on private property, and if you violate those laws, they can go in and enforce it. If you've got a meth lab in your basement and the government goes in and arrests you and breaks it up, you're not going to be able to argue, "Well, it's my property, I should be able to decide whether or not people should be able to do that on my own property."

More bullshit.

Just because government decides to make a certain law does not mean that that law is justified. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you don't have the right to do it--it simply means government is refusing to let you exercise that right.

And when that happens, that government becomes illegitimate.

Wrong. Is the government illegitimate because it doesn't allow you your right to murder and rape young women? No.
But that is because in this case government is in fact NOT denying you any rights. There is no right to cause physical harm to others without their consent.

Don't complain that the government that the people elected is doing things that the majority of the people want.
Ahh...an unabashed majoritarian. The minority does not exist at the mercy of the majority--which is precisely why democracy is not a proper form of government. Democracy allows the majority to trample over the rights of the minority.

Rights exist independent of government fiat or recognizance. Government can refuse to allow the exercise of certain rights all it wants, but that fails to alter the fact of those rights' existence, and when government does that it becomes illegitimate.

Ahh...an unabashed majoritarian. The minority does not exist at the mercy of the majority--which is precisely why democracy is not a proper form of government. Democracy allows the majority to trample over the rights of the minority.

Liberal democracy by definition over comes this obstacle.

Rights exist independent of government fiat or recognizance. Government can refuse to allow the exercise of certain rights all it wants, but that fails to alter the fact of those rights' existence, and when government does that it becomes illegitimate.
Prove it. Seriously, I'm tired of people saying this kind of stuff with no ability or reason to back it up. I don't believe rights exist independent of society, why should I believe what you have to say?

Ahh...an unabashed majoritarian. The minority does not exist at the mercy of the majority--which is precisely why democracy is not a proper form of government. Democracy allows the majority to trample over the rights of the minority.

Liberal democracy by definition over comes this obstacle.

Rights exist independent of government fiat or recognizance. Government can refuse to allow the exercise of certain rights all it wants, but that fails to alter the fact of those rights' existence, and when government does that it becomes illegitimate.
Prove it. Seriously, I'm tired of people saying this kind of stuff with no ability or reason to back it up. I don't believe rights exist independent of society, why should I believe what you have to say?

Banning smoking on a person's private property is violating their rights. If a restaurant owner or bar owner wants their patrons to suck in smoke, let them. If you don't like the smoke in the bar leave.

Friggin pansies.

I haven't posted here for quite a while, and I was fascinated to find this thread on the first page.

Not because there's any reason not to find a thread of this kind on NS, but because I live in Ireland. And in Ireland, a little over 90 minutes ago, it became illegal to smoke in enclosed workplaces. That includes bars, nightclubs and restaurants.

There are only a few minor exceptions to the law. Hotels can designate a certain number of bedrooms in which smoking is permitted. Smoking will also be allowed in designated areas of psychiatric hospitals, geriatric care centres, and prisons. Otherwise, that's it.
actually, i was just watching the news and it said about banning smoking in enclosed workplaces in ireland and that's what made me start this thread, i just hope it works in ireland so then hopefully the same thing will happen here in england

We'll see how it goes. For most people, the big issue is smoking in bars and nightclubs. Before today, smoking was prohibited in a wide range of public indoor locations, including shared offices/working rooms, buses, trains, taxis, cinemas, theatres and so on. Most people, even smokers, will not object greatly to extending the ban to restaurants. However, bars play a central role in Irish social life to an extent that people from other countries might not even begin to understand. Consequently, many smokers fear that the ban will disrupt or even devastate their social activities. And many bar owners fear serious consequences for their businesses.

Initially, I reckon that about 60-70% of businesses will comply with the law without many problems. Over the next 2-3 years, a combination of social pressure and enforcement of the law will push that percentage higher.

It's good legislation, IMHO, and I think a number of other European countries will be watching and will follow suit in the next couple of years.
It'll cause a lot of headaches in the near-term. Smoking in Ireland is a way of life. It's also an addiction. This is depriving people of an outlet for their cravings. I mean, bars were meant for smoking. It's like passing a law saying one can't drink in bars as well. Smoking and drinking are natural in bars. If anything, bars should be sealed rooms from the rest of a resturant/club.

But that is because in this case government is in fact NOT denying you any rights. There is no right to cause physical harm to others without their consent.


You also don't have a right to smoke anywhere you choose. Nowhere does it say that Americans are given the right to smoke tobacco products wherever they choose, and nowhere does it say that private property is excluded from the jurisdiction of the law.

The "city" (suburb, but we delude ourselves) I live in happens to hold a particular "honor" (depending on who you talk to) -- the first city to ban smoking in restaurants in America (and the world, so far as I know). Much fallout was predicted; restaurants and bars complained that the loss of customers would lead to drop in service, quality, and even the possibility of going out of business. What terrible things happened? About on the level of "nothing."

In indoor public spaces and around the entraces therein, I have little problem with a ban on smoking. It bothers me a little have privately owned businesses be forced to outlaw smoking, but I don't want to deal with the smoke and don't believe that they would do so of their own prerogative. Perhaps in spaces like parks, smoking could be banned. Beyond that -- on the streets, for instance, and especially in private residences -- I don't see enough reason for the government to legislate one way or another.

But that is because in this case government is in fact NOT denying you any rights. There is no right to cause physical harm to others without their consent.


You also don't have a right to smoke anywhere you choose. Nowhere does it say that Americans are given the right to smoke tobacco products wherever they choose,
It doesn't HAVE to be written anywhere. Rights exist independent of their being written down on certain pieces of paper. That's not to say that every possible action is in fact a right, but those that are exist independent of their enumeration in any sort of official document.

and nowhere does it say that private property is excluded from the jurisdiction of the law.
Once again, you're missing the point--a law that violates individual rights is invalid, and the government that institutes that law is illegitimate.

You can still avoid it--simply don't work there.

As long as no one's pointing a gun at your head, you do in fact have a choice whether or not to be there. And your desire to avoid having to make a decision is not justification for using the coercive force of government to violate the rights of someone else--namely, the right of a property owner to decide for himself what he will and will not allow on his own property.



I can also swing my fist in a giant circle for as long as i want but as soon as it hits someone else i lose my right to swing my fist just like i can smoke anytime i want as long as when im smoking it doesnt effect other peoples rights to not be smoked around and damage by it. Things arent as black and white as they seem my friend sometimes you cant avoid smoke because simply quiting your job sounds a lot easier then it really is. Plus why should he or she have to quite their job for someone else?

Quit whining, I'm not a smoker but I can't stand the way some people insist on making them second class citizens. If you're outdoors and close enough to a smoker that he's blowing smoke in your face, then you should put some distance between you two.

As for businesses, that should be up to the owner. The government shouldn't be making a decision for the owner which could possibly cost him money.

Just because you dislike something doesn't mean it should be made illegal. On a side note it amazes me that a lot of people who want to outlaw smoking cigarettes, also want to legalize weed.

Theres a differance between "not liking" and being physically damaged by their actions. Its like saying people who drink are second class citizens for not being able to drive after drinking so much, they have a right to drink and a right to drive so why are people bitching that they cant do both? And if you dont like it then dont drive because you should accomedate them right? And i like your generalization of all or alot of people who dontl ike this want to legalize weed because one or two people you know must mean a lot now a days.

You can still avoid it--simply don't work there.

As long as no one's pointing a gun at your head, you do in fact have a choice whether or not to be there. And your desire to avoid having to make a decision is not justification for using the coercive force of government to violate the rights of someone else--namely, the right of a property owner to decide for himself what he will and will not allow on his own property.



I can also swing my fist in a giant circle for as long as i want but as soon as it hits someone else i lose my right to swing my fist
Unless the person consents for you to hit him.
just like i can smoke anytime i want as long as when im smoking it doesnt effect other peoples rights to not be smoked around and damage by it.
Unless the person consents for you to smoke around him...and by choosing to be on the private property of a third party who decides to allow smoking on the premises, he does consent.
Things arent as black and white as they seem my friend sometimes you cant avoid smoke because simply quiting your job sounds a lot easier then it really is.
That's too bad, isn't it? It's still a choice you have to make.
Plus why should he or she have to quite their job for someone else?
Simple--individual rights. It is solely the prerogative of the property owner to decide what non-violent, non-fraudulent activities he will and will not allow on his property. If you disagree with that decision, you're free to refrain from entering the premises--after all, it's his property, not yours.

As long as its legal, it should be allowed in public.

I am a non-smoker, but I understand their frustration.

How would you like it if you were told you can't breathe in public because your breath stunk??

Its the same principle, and yes I know the health risks invovled, so please don't lecture me on that.

If people want smoking banned in public they should lobby their congressmen/women to get it outlwaed.

The truth about smoking.

1. Statistically, lung cancer occurs only in 10% of the smokers - the large majority well over 70 years of age - where statistical death occurs anyway.
2. Statistically speaking, the weight loss of the infants of smokers, if present at all, averages 4 grams.
3. The color of teeth (yellow or white) depends on the natural type of teeth. The prevailing color of teeth is, in fact yellow, which also counts for a stronger construction.
4. "Yellow hands" have disappeared since the appearance of filter tip cigarettes, used by the huge majority of smokers nowadays. Also, yellow hands come with over half of the Asian population.
5. Recent major insurance studies have rated smoking in cars as the lowest risk of accidents. Talking and arguing in the vehicle, and setting audio equipment, are by far more dangerous.
6. Smoking protects against Parkinson disease.
7. Smokers in general are thinner than nonsmokers, even when they ingest more calories.
8. From a dental study, "All smokers had less plaque, gingival inflammation and tooth mobility than nonsmokers and similar periodontal pocket depth."
9. Hypertension prevalence rate among smokers is lower than in nonsmokers.
10. Not ONE of the over 100 diseases attributed to smoking can be PROVEN by sound scientific methodology to be "caused" by smoking.

(CLAPS)

thx this man for his propaganda from the smoking industry. So when they give you a check to give this shit out do they mail it to you or do they electronically wire it to you? Or do you really beleive the BS they give out about how smokings not bad for you because if you do HA HA HA HA i bet you listen to the NRA on how guns really lower crime and dont raise it. I love people who actually listen to the made up statistics of big corporations because obviously they will be truthful and tell you that their products kill you.

:x smoking in public places is just not right it can cause those that are in the building to take in second hand smoke that can be hazardous to there health it is not right that others have to right to polute us all it is there own choice to smoke but those that dont are smoke free for a reason it is discusting!

I think people have a right to smoke. People also have a right to be in a place where they don't have to suffer from passive smoking. So I think that we should have bars, train carrages etc which should be smoking only and you can only smoke there. This means that the smokers can have their cigarettes and the non smokers can be left in peace.

Unless the person consents for you to hit him.
Because that happens a lot!

Unless the person consents for you to smoke around him...and by choosing to be on the private property of a third party who decides to allow smoking on the premises, he does consent.
So i dont have a right to go on private property cause im a non-smoker now so damn no more bars/clubs/wait everything because smokers should be able to smoke at all private places and if i dont like it guess i cant go their now
That's too bad, isn't it? It's still a choice you have to make.
sigh... people like you piss me off for the simple reason you think that theirs always a black and white choice.
Simple--individual rights. It is solely the prerogative of the property owner to decide what non-violent, non-fraudulent activities he will and will not allow on his property. If you disagree with that decision, you're free to refrain from entering the premises--after all, it's his property, not yours lets be realistic man its the goverments property if they want it so they deem what they want done on thier property and if you dont like it well ill coin your phrase you can "choose" to leave the country.

The truth about smoking.

1. Statistically, lung cancer occurs only in 10% of the smokers - the large majority well over 70 years of age - where statistical death occurs anyway.
2. Statistically speaking, the weight loss of the infants of smokers, if present at all, averages 4 grams.
3. The color of teeth (yellow or white) depends on the natural type of teeth. The prevailing color of teeth is, in fact yellow, which also counts for a stronger construction.
4. "Yellow hands" have disappeared since the appearance of filter tip cigarettes, used by the huge majority of smokers nowadays. Also, yellow hands come with over half of the Asian population.
5. Recent major insurance studies have rated smoking in cars as the lowest risk of accidents. Talking and arguing in the vehicle, and setting audio equipment, are by far more dangerous.
6. Smoking protects against Parkinson disease.
7. Smokers in general are thinner than nonsmokers, even when they ingest more calories.
8. From a dental study, "All smokers had less plaque, gingival inflammation and tooth mobility than nonsmokers and similar periodontal pocket depth."
9. Hypertension prevalence rate among smokers is lower than in nonsmokers.
10. Not ONE of the over 100 diseases attributed to smoking can be PROVEN by sound scientific methodology to be "caused" by smoking.

a reply on 10:
a study can show you how much effect smoking has on the chance an individual develops a certain disease. You just take 2 large populations: a smoking one and a non-smoking one and you follow them for a couple of years. You just count the number of smokers that develop the disease and compare that to the number of non-smokers that develop the disease. When the difference is large enough and the populations are large enough, you have proven that smoking causes that disease.

on 1: would you like to die from lung cancer? Dying from lung cancer means sufficating in a very slow way, unless you are lucky enough to live in a country that allows euthanasia so you can receive a humane death.
on a side note: lung cancer is not the only deadly disease caused by smoking. smoking causes for example an array of hearthdiseases and all kinds of cancers.

on 2-9: non-arguments.

a little statistic: in my country, belgium, with a population of 10 million people, 25000 smokers die each year from the effects of smoking and about 2700 non-smokers die each year from passive smoking, the majority of them working in bars, restaurants, ...
This means that in 4 years time, over 1% of the population dies from the effects of smoking alone.

I am in favour of a ban on smoking in all public places (including bars, restaurants, ...) because:
1) non-smokers have the right to go out and drink without being poisoned by the smokers (ps: smokers have this right too). Right now, the majority of the people, in my country at least, are non-smokers, but still this majority gets forced to smoke almost as much as the smokers when they go out.
2) those that work in these places have the right not to be poisoned. Don't say they aren't forced to work there because we all know that some people really need the money to survive. It's not because you have the choice of not working there that someone else can chose not to work there, a choice that is punished with having no income.

no more protecting of peoples right to give cancer to others? Damn i was looking forward to a good debate.

Unless the person consents for you to hit him.
Because that happens a lot!

Completely irrelevant.


Unless the person consents for you to smoke around him...and by choosing to be on the private property of a third party who decides to allow smoking on the premises, he does consent.
So i dont have a right to go on private property cause im a non-smoker now so damn no more bars/clubs/wait everything because smokers should be able to smoke at all private places and if i dont like it guess i cant go their now
Well, you don't have the right to go on the private property of another without his permission anyway. If he chooses to allow you on his property but you don't like what's going on, you don't have to accept the offer. It's that simple.
That's too bad, isn't it? It's still a choice you have to make.
sigh... people like you piss me off for the simple reason you think that theirs always a black and white choice.
Because there always is a choice. The alternatives might not be particularly desirable, but your wish to avoid an unpleasant choice does not give you the right to evade it altogether by using the coercive force of government to violate the rights of others.
Simple--individual rights. It is solely the prerogative of the property owner to decide what non-violent, non-fraudulent activities he will and will not allow on his property. If you disagree with that decision, you're free to refrain from entering the premises--after all, it's his property, not yours lets be realistic man its the goverments property if they want it so they deem what they want done on thier property and if you dont like it well ill coin your phrase you can "choose" to leave the country.[/quote]
No, the government does not own my property. I own my property.

1) non-smokers have the right to go out and drink without being poisoned by the smokers
No, they don't--not on someone else's property, at least. If a restaurant owner chooses to make accepting the risk of secondhand smoke a precondition of entering his property, so be it. Don't like the risk? Don't go in the door.


2) those that work in these places have the right not to be poisoned.
See above. Same concept.
Don't say they aren't forced to work there because we all know that some people really need the money to survive. It's not because you have the choice of not working there that someone else can chose not to work there, a choice that is punished with having no income.
A choice nonetheless. As I explained in my previous post, your desire to avoid an unpleasant choice does not constitute justification for using government to allow you to avoid the necessity of that choice by violating the rights of others to run their property as they see fit.

I agree that smoking is nasty and smelly and nausiating to be around.

Should people who smoke be charged with attempted suicide?

Completely irrelevant.
not really getting hit in the face with concent is a lot like people smoking around you with concent

Well, you don't have the right to go on the private property of another without his permission anyway. If he chooses to allow you on his property but you don't like what's going on, you don't have to accept the offer. It's that simple.
So a bar is a private or public place i think you can smoke in your own home thats fine but a bar is a privatly owned public place so your taking the rights of the smoker over the rights of the non-smoker whos infringing on whos rights my friend?

Because there always is a choice. The alternatives might not be particularly desirable, but your wish to avoid an unpleasant choice does not give you the right to evade it altogether by using the coercive force of government to violate the rights of others.
So theres a choose not to get raped/murdered/die? Or how about breathing youll find you can hold your breath but ull never be able to stop yourself from breathing. short of killing yourself but i guess thats a choose to. Beleive me theres NOT ALWAYS a choose no matter what you say sometimes yoru hand is forced and you do things you dont like.

No, the government does not own my property. I own my property.
What kind of fantasy world do you live in the goverment can tell you what you can and cant do with your property they can tax you out of your property they can take your property whenever they choose or they can rezone your property to something other then what it is. Face it your their bitch so if you dont like you can choose to leave because what the goverments says on thier property i.e. the US you either deal with it vote for other people or leave those are your chooses.

I agree that smoking is nasty and smelly and nausiating to be around.

Should people who smoke be charged with attempted suicide?

If smokers should then so should people who own barbeques. Barbeques kick out 200 times more carcenogenic smoke than a room with ten smokers in it, and you see no outcry concerning them? Wonder why that would be, every loves a barbeque. Oh, barbeques are outside? Well how many barbeques have you had where you haven't got into the line of smoke, let alone considering the chef.
Being anti cigarette smoking is good press and makes for good votes, that is the only reason you hear anything about passive smoking at all.

I just do not understand why people smoke...

I used to smoke and don't even understand why I did it but it took me years to quit once I decided that I finally wanted to.

Sorry, you smoked but you never knew why you smoked??

That says a hell of a lot more about you than it does cigarettes.


One last time, some pubs can be for smokers, some can be for non-smokers. There are plenty of pubs around after all. A complete ban is senseless, illogical, and deeply frustrating for anyone who isn't a smallminded cretin.

What exactly are all those things that it says about me?

I THINK I smoked because my grandparents and my parents smoked, (I heard that if yer parents smoked that you are more likely to become addicted yourself but I don't know how true those claims are) although i resisted it till a friend in high school got me to smoke with him while drinking alcohol and I enjoyed the small headrush so I continued smoking a little here and there while drinking, thinking that there was no way I would get addicted because of how little I smoked.

I agree that if a place wants to offer smoking sections then they should be allowed to.

What exactly are all those things that it says about me?

I THINK I smoked because my grandparents and my parents smoked, (I heard that if yer parents smoked that you are more likely to become addicted yourself but I don't know how true those claims are) although i resisted it till a friend in high school got me to smoke with him while drinking alcohol and I enjoyed the small headrush so I continued smoking a little here and there while drinking, thinking that there was no way I would get addicted because of how little I smoked.

I agree that if a place wants to offer smoking sections then they should be allowed to.

Fair play to the last comment. And as for the things it says about you, well forget it, i don't want to offend anyone with my interpretations of what they are like judged on one comment, so i shall keep them to myself. Suffice to say, if you like smoking, then smoke. If you don't then don't, but don't try to enforce your views onto others (i'm not suggesting that you were doing that though).

I am for one allergic to tobacco. So yes I think it should be banned in public.

By the way Tink, I love your use of the word 'yous' in the initial post. Very Italian!

Ain't no way that you could possibly offend me - Seriously, give it your best shot if you think you can.

I can certainly understand that it is a major downfall to servers that work in businesses that provide smoking sections. And it is not so easy to say "well, they dont HAVE to work there". That is true but not that simple. In a crappy economy, or to a person with no college credentials, or both, or whoknows what other reasons there could be... sometimes they really don't have a choice if they wish to make money and not live in the gutter.

I am for one allergic to tobacco. So yes I think it should be banned in public.

By the way Tink, I love your use of the word 'yous' in the initial post. Very Italian!

Do you think peanuts should be banned from public places too?

People don't have a right to smoke cigarettes anywhere. That's the myth. We don't have the right to do certain things just because they are now legal. If the government decides that there is justification in banning smoking cigarettes in public places, guess what? They can ban smoking cigarettes in public places. Smoking is not an "individual right" that we are all entitled to. It's a privledge. There is also no undeniable property right in this country either. The government can determine what is and isn't legal for people to do on private property, and if you violate those laws, they can go in and enforce it. If you've got a meth lab in your basement and the government goes in and arrests you and breaks it up, you're not going to be able to argue, "Well, it's my property, I should be able to decide whether or not people should be able to do that on my own property."

More bullshit.

Just because government decides to make a certain law does not mean that that law is justified. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you don't have the right to do it--it simply means government is refusing to let you exercise that right.

And when that happens, that government becomes illegitimate.

Wrong. Is the government illegitimate because it doesn't allow you your right to murder and rape young women? No.
But that is because in this case government is in fact NOT denying you any rights. There is no right to cause physical harm to others without their consent.
...which smoking in public can do.
Don't complain that the government that the people elected is doing things that the majority of the people want.
Ahh...an unabashed majoritarian. The minority does not exist at the mercy of the majority--which is precisely why democracy is not a proper form of government. Democracy allows the majority to trample over the rights of the minority.

Rights exist independent of government fiat or recognizance. Government can refuse to allow the exercise of certain rights all it wants, but that fails to alter the fact of those rights' existence, and when government does that it becomes illegitimate.
Better for the majority to rule the minority than vice versa. What determines these rights you speak of?

Fair play to the last comment. And as for the things it says about you, well forget it, i don't want to offend anyone with my interpretations of what they are like judged on one comment, so i shall keep them to myself. Suffice to say, if you like smoking, then smoke. If you don't then don't, but don't try to enforce your views onto others (i'm not suggesting that you were doing that though).

sigh your live and let live is really great but theres a major flaw when you let people live with smoking it doesnt effect just them it effects people around them as well. Dont try and enforce your views on others sigh so i should just let my friend drive drunk cause he may not think its wrong but i do and i shouldnt enforce my views on him. And BBQS plez ill make sure to get on the band wagon to get those banned. If you can come up with one example of somone dieing because of BBQs (death has to be smoke related no burning to death or choking or heart attacks from too much meat)without being a smoker themselves ill be impressed. Cause there are recorded deaths from passive smoking. I guess those deaths can be ignored because you think politicians only vote against smoke cause it looks good which may be true but heres a inside secret smokings bad and its useless so moral of story is its a good thing to get ride of it.

I am for one allergic to tobacco. So yes I think it should be banned in public.

By the way Tink, I love your use of the word 'yous' in the initial post. Very Italian!

Do you think peanuts should be banned from public places too?

Because peanuts somehow get from the table into your mouth at public places. all this happens without you knowing about it to. Because abig differance between peanuts and smoke its ones a solid and inanimate the other is a gas and floats around where you can breath it in so let me ask you this if i like to smell musterd gas can i take that to a bar and let other people breathe it in. I dont care it hurts me and if they dotn like it they can leave.

sigh your live and let live is really great but theres a major flaw when you let people live with smoking it doesnt effect just them it effects people around them as well. .

No it doesn't.

Dont try and enforce your views on others sigh so i should just let my friend drive drunk cause he may not think its wrong but i do and i shouldnt enforce my views on him.


It's one thing to put for views forward to someone, it's quite another to enforce them. You are also talking about one individual case, and a completely different drug with completely different effects, it holds no relevance to this topic.


And BBQS plez ill make sure to get on the band wagon to get those banned. If you can come up with one example of somone dieing because of BBQs (death has to be smoke related no burning to death or choking or heart attacks from too much meat) without being a smoker themselves ill be impressed. Cause there are recorded deaths from passive smoking. I guess those deaths can be ignored because you think politicians only vote against smoke cause it looks good which may be true but heres a inside secret smokings bad and its useless so moral of story is its a good thing to get ride of it.

Why shouldn't there be any people who have got cancer from barbeque smoke? You actually require proof that inhaling smoke is bad for you??

I couldn't supply any figures into that because noone has jumped upon it yet as a bad thing, but then it took a long time for people to realise that smoking was bad for many peoples health.

I would like to see some clear cut cases where passive smoking has been PROVEN (and i don't just mean concluded by anti-smoking backed scientists) and i would like to see several different sources for this.

And above all of this, it STILL does not answer why some places could be smoke free and others not, does it, hmm..?

But here's an inside secret, smoking's bad and its useless, so moral of story is its a good thing to get ride of it.

Really? Dispite the fact that if people didn't smoke most governments would collapse. After all smoking generates a large tax renevue. Smokers are also like civil servants, the public don't care if they get screwed over. Also the money that smokers generate is far above the amount it takes to treat/cure a smoking related disease. Superficially, smoking is bad, but looking at the big picture then smoking can be argued as good for society.

By all means split resturants and bars into smoking and non-smoking. Actually, dispite the fact I smoke, I would advocate having no smoking areas in resturants. Because I personally I don't find it pleasant to eat food whilst smoke is in the air. But to ban it completely in public area I disagree with (no suprise there), although even I don't smoke in ill ventilated areas so would have no problem with these places not having smokers.

Why should smoking be banned in public places? There doesn't seem to be one coherant arguement here for ban in well-ventilated (even open aired places), can you provide one?

Because peanuts somehow get from the table into your mouth at public places. all this happens without you knowing about it to. Because abig differance between peanuts and smoke its ones a solid and inanimate the other is a gas and floats around where you can breath it in so let me ask you this if i like to smell musterd gas can i take that to a bar and let other people breathe it in. I dont care it hurts me and if they dotn like it they can leave.

Peanuts get strewn all over bars and tables in pubs. And someone could throw a peanut into your mouth by mistake. It's about as likely a chance as getting cancer through passive smoking.

If you like smelling mustard gas then you are plainly a liar and so why should i listen any of your emotive yet illogical arguments?

No it doesn't.

here ill use your style of proof yes it does. Well later in this you said smoke is bad for your. if its bad for the smoker its just magically not bad for the person next to the smoker?


It's one thing to put for views forward to someone, it's quite another to enforce them. You are also talking about one individual case, and a completely different drug with completely different effects, it holds no relevance to this topic.
states the man who said we should ban peanuts and BBQs in a smoking discussion but not its the same thing you said not to enforce me views on others not just for smoking so im just saying i guess ill just let people kill themselves because i dont want to enforce my views on them.




Why shouldn't there be any people who have got cancer from barbeque smoke? You actually require proof that inhaling smoke is bad for you??

I couldn't supply any figures into that because noone has jumped upon it yet as a bad thing, but then it took a long time for people to realise that smoking was bad for many peoples health.

I would like to see some clear cut cases where passive smoking has been PROVEN (and i don't just mean concluded by anti-smoking backed scientists) and i would like to see several different sources for this.

And above all of this, it STILL does not answer why some places could be smoke free and others not, does it, hmm..?

Hmm so basically ill give you some sources they seem somewhat reliable but ull come up with BS because theres a conspircay to stop smoking O heave forbid we stop people from killing themselve slowly. What next trying to make people stop getting into car wrecks? What is this country comming to. Lets see the New England Medical Journal they will back what i say um the US goverment, about everydoctor on the planet so who backs you again o yeah big tabacco im sure they are really honest (cough cough) and i do realize the US goverment isnt really but they have their monents while big tabaccos has never been honest. And if you want real statistics look at goverment studes on the internet or books or for christ sake ask your doctor. Garrentee he knows more then you ever will. Well i personally think private residents and outside places are ok for smoking but enclosed businesses, bars, resteraunts either need a smoking section far far away from none (not some little wall that doestn even go the the ceiling) or just a complete ban.

My biggest qualm with smokers are the people who can't even sit through one meal without a cigarette. I think every restaurant should ban smoking altogether and make the whole thing non-smoking. If you feel like you HAVE to smoke :roll:, then for goodness sakes, go OUTSIDE! Nobody wants to breath in your toxic smoke and damage their lungs. So if you want to destroy your lungs, turn your teeth a nasty shade of yellow, have disgusting breath and adopt a distinct, sickening smell in your clothes and furniture (if you smoke inside the house) then by all means -- do it AT HOME and quit making other people breath it in.

And smoking around kids, with a specific focus on infants? That's just plain cruel and heartless. It's not like THEY can just get up and leave and you're subjecting them to what could lead to an early death -- which would be entirely your fault.

I just hate smoking altogether. It certainly doesn't make you look (or smell) good, it isn't helping your body whatsoever, and there's a dozen other ways you could use as a "release" (for people who try to argue "Well, it's my method of stress relief").

Because peanuts somehow get from the table into your mouth at public places. all this happens without you knowing about it to. Because abig differance between peanuts and smoke its ones a solid and inanimate the other is a gas and floats around where you can breath it in so let me ask you this if i like to smell musterd gas can i take that to a bar and let other people breathe it in. I dont care it hurts me and if they dotn like it they can leave.

Peanuts get strewn all over bars and tables in pubs. And someone could throw a peanut into your mouth by mistake. It's about as likely a chance as getting cancer through passive smoking.

If you like smelling mustard gas then you are plainly a liar and so why should i listen any of your emotive yet illogical arguments?

Wow did you stupid pills this morning my illogical arguments? Mr. Well lets see if someone was throwing around peanuts in a bar and i had my mouth open and i was trying to catch it i might have a one in 1000 chance of getting it. Versus a gaurenteed chance of inhaling second hand smoke in a enclosed environment with multiple smokers. Well whats the differance between mustard gas and smoke gas sure musterds a little tougher but smoking does somewhat of the same thing only its lengthed out instead of instant affect. And proof that it works how about people who died of lung cancer who works in a bar but never smokes themselveyet their lungs are full of tar that seems liek proof to me.

number of families abused, number of people killing in a car accident, number of people arrested each year because of cigarette smoking: 0
because of alcohol: innumerable.

drinking is much more dangerous than smoking. smoking kills you slowly, an unnoticably at first. alcohol kills immediately in some cases, whether by drunk-driving, spousal abuse gone too far, or alcohol poisoning. i, personally, see alcohol as being way more dangerous than tobacco ever could be.

also, if you are an american, and know anything about american history, then you'll know that tobacco is a native to this continent... nowhere else. alcohol never existed ont his continent before the european settlers. yes, it does present health risks, but those are still somewhat passive. no one stabs you in the face to steal your cigarettes, as they do with drugs. no one starts a bar-room brawl because they have had too much nicotine, as they do with alcohol.

if you go into a public place that has a smoking section, there is in fact a nonsmoking section. around here (Pittsburgh), they tend to be a bit distant from each other. they also have seperate ventilation systems, which i believe is a federal mandate. i have also seen resteraunts where the servers in the smoking section are themselves smokers, and the nonsmokers do not wait on the smoking area. as long as there is space between the two sections, they are on seperate vent systems, and the servers aren't bothered by it due to their own smoking preference, then what is the problem? who, besides people who think that one person's habit should be banned because they think of it as "disgusting" even though the only harm done is VERY PASSIVE (except in the rare cases of tobacco allergies), can see fault in that?

and remember what happened when they tried to ban alcohol... the same will happen again.

also, for this part, i shall use the city of pittsburgh, and a small sampling of my friends. please note that the city of pittsburgh has one of the highest number of smokers per capita.

number of smokers in sampling group: 9
total size: 20
tax on cigarettes (average due to price difference between brands. also note that this is the state take rate only): $.99
packs per day breakdown:
less than or equal to one pack per day: 2
between one and two packs: 3
between two and three packs per day: 2
over two packs per day: 2
total approxamate price the government gets in tax each day from nine smokers in the state of Pennsylvania: $17.325. this is counting the "between x and y" as "x.5" packs.
total approximate price per year for 9 smokers in the state of PA: $6323.625

yes, i just proved that smoking is expensive. 9 people in my state pay over 6 grand a year in tax alone. but i also proved that the government makes a gratuitous amount of money off of smokers. no matter how much they say they will ban smoking, or "stamp out tobacco" or whathaveyou, THEY NEVER WILL. smoking will never be illegal. the government will always encourage people to smoke on one side of the fence by helping out tobacco farmers and factories, and then turn right around and tell the anti-smoking lobbyists that they will ban it for them.

BULLSHIT. smoking may be made illegal inside resteraunts and other places of business, but it will NEVER be made illegal in any other public surroundings.

also, if you take a suppliment for Niacin, a B vitamin, then you are more likely to become adicted to smoking. nicotine is a derivative of niacin, which is actually "nicotinic acid." a shortage of niacin in the blood causes beriberi. smokers have no risk of developing beriberi, due to the extra niacin derivative in thier bloodstream.

My biggest qualm with smokers are the people who can't even sit through one meal without a cigarette. I think every restaurant should ban smoking altogether and make the whole thing non-smoking. If you feel like you HAVE to smoke :roll:, then for goodness sakes, go OUTSIDE! Nobody wants to breath in your toxic smoke and damage their lungs. So if you want to destroy your lungs, turn your teeth a nasty shade of yellow, have disgusting breath and adopt a distinct, sickening smell in your clothes and furniture (if you smoke inside the house) then by all means -- do it AT HOME and quit making other people breath it in.

And smoking around kids, with a specific focus on infants? That's just plain cruel and heartless. It's not like THEY can just get up and leave and you're subjecting them to what could lead to an early death -- which would be entirely your fault.

I just hate smoking altogether. It certainly doesn't make you look (or smell) good, it isn't helping your body whatsoever, and there's a dozen other ways you could use as a "release" (for people who try to argue "Well, it's my method of stress relief").

You want to change things ? Stop bitching and don't go to resturants that allow smoking. And then send a nice ( I repeat nice) letter to the owner explaining why you do not go to his place of business anymore. Simple.
I think that there should be resturants and bars and such for smokers only, so we don't have to listen to the constant bitching and fake coughing (how annoying is that) of the militant non-smoker. And then I might just once be able to get through a freakin' meal without hearing some kid scream his head off and throw his food around while mommy and daddy do nothing.

so we don't have to listen to the constant bitching and fake coughing (how annoying is that) of the militant non-smoker.

Do they dance in front of cripples too? Heartless b@stards!

The whole point of having designated smoking and non-smoking areas is so that those who don't smoke can avoid those who do. If smoking in public places were to be banned, those who don't smoke would be soon to suffer - folk would stay and get wasted or eat meals in their homes so they would be able to smoke, thus threatening many restaurants and bars. To have it banned would be especially bad for me though, as i am not allowed to smoke in the house!

so let me ask you this if i like to smell musterd gas can i take that to a bar and let other people breathe it in. I dont care it hurts me and if they dotn like it they can leave.

If you like to smell mustard gas, please do so at least once in private.

Several businesses in New York have shown that the smoking ban has hurt their besinesses. Due to this special exemptions can be made available to those who can prove that their businesses are taking a certain loss because of the ban. So why would you want to further hurt businesses when people are already complaining about a lagging economy.

Is smoking bad; probably. Should it be banned because of this; not unless you're willing to ban other activities that are harmful to people. First on the list should be any engine or factory that releases a form of exhaust. It generally has the same if not worse effects as cigarette smoke and that's your gauge so let's start legislating.

A funny thing I have seen, people at a resturant feed thier kids cheese covered grease burgers and then complaining about the smoke from the smoking section hurting thier darlin' little babes....

the following article ran in my school newspaper a while back:

This whole to-do over banning smoking in public is really getting my goat. People need to chill out and stop trying to legislate all of their opinions.

I don't like that shirt you're wearing, but you don't see me lobbying to ban ugly-ass outerwear. This is an example of how one can hold a belief or preference without forcing on the general public. You have the right to make your house a smoke-free zone. You have the right to get pissed off if someone lights up in the non-smoking section of a restaurant. But when it comes to objecting to there being smokers in the great outdoors, you have the right to shut the hell up and get on with your life.

I personally do not smoke. Most of my friends don't smoke. I don't especially like or endorse smoking, but then it is hard to endorse paying a faceless corporation five dollars a day to give you cancer.

What I do endorse, however, is every human being’s right to be stupid in his or her own way. Eating fatty food is terrible for you, but if you just can't stop putting butter on things I am not going to harass you for it, even if the smell of double-salted deep fried lard does make me a little nauseous. As long as you are not forcing it down my throat you can put whatever you want into your own body.

Now here is the part where you anti-smokers say "but second hand smoke is deadly!" Well now, that is pretty easily dealt with, isn't it? How's this: MOVE. If you have all of the great outdoors to move around in and you can't find the energy to move away when someone fires up a smoke next to you, then go to the gym for God's sake because you are obviously one hell of a sedentary human.

The one conciliation in all of this annoying debate is that it is a sure sign life is good here in America. If people have the time to complain about cigarette smoke this much then there must be very few issues of importance to deal with. We are fortunate to not have to deal with issues like, say, domestic abuse, homosexual discrimination, or a war. This way we can focus all our energy on fighting to take away each other's freedoms one by one.

I dislike whiny people...should they be banned too?

I dislike whiny people...should they be banned too?

Nope....they should be beaten about the knees and shot.

I dislike whiny people...should they be banned too?

Nope....they should be beaten about the knees and shot.

I like your way of thinking. :shock:

I dislike whiny people...should they be banned too?

you're not going to breath in a whiny person, get lung cancer and die!

I dislike whiny people...should they be banned too?

you're not going to breath in a whiny person, get lung cancer and die!

perhaps not, but elevated stress levels have been directly linked to a number of serious medical problems, such as heart disease and high blood pressure. in fact, stress-related illnesses are believed to lead to about as many deaths per year as cigarettes currently are.

can you prove that because i think you're talking out of your arse?!

can you prove that because i think you're talking out of your arse?!
the American Psychological Association and American Medical Association have both had recent symposiums about stress and its health impacts. i read about that particular stat in the APA newsletter a while back, so i am sure you can find it through the APA.

but if you don't believe it that's fine, because the point stands that if you don't want to breath second hand smoke you can MOVE, just like i can move if somebody is being annoying. you have legs...use them. public property doesn't belong to you, and a smoker has just as much right to be there as you do. if you don't like it then stick to the many areas that are designated non-smoking.

i hate smoking, i think it's a disgusting, expensive habit, that turns your teeth and nails yellow, makes your breath smell, and ruins yours and everyone else around you's lives. i hate it when i go out and have to put up with having smoke blown in my face, if someione wants to slowly kill themselves then that's their decision but they shouldn't be able to kill everyone else around them. 80% of smoke from a cigarette is breathed in by passive smokers!

I live near a Paper Mill (Chlorine, Sulphur Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, several other chemical compounds I can't spell...)
Drive a car (Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, Water Vapour, various trace chemicals including mercury and Ozone) occasionally,
There's a Powerplant that burns...something, a byproduct of the Papermill called "Black Liquor" (Don't know what it is, but the smell's something awful.)

Every day, as I'm walking to Community College, I see a bus(Carbon, CO2, CO1, Water Vapour plus whatever additives went into the Diesel) go by with one of those neat little adds on the back claiming that 53,000 People are killed by secondhand smoke per year, and the same question comes up in my mind.
"Can you name ONE?" I want to see a death-certificate naming "Second Hand Smoke" as the cause of death.

After that, I want an explanation why, if it's so bad, my income-tax dollars are supporting it, and the sales-taxes on a pack of ciggies (In Wa. State averaging about two dollars out of four for the cheap stuff) are so high-rather than just a straight ban?

If it's so bad, ban it. I've seen people die from the ingestion of Alcohol-including someone else's ingestion of Alcohol.

but if you don't believe it that's fine, because the point stands that if you don't want to breath second hand smoke you can MOVE, just like i can move if somebody is being annoying. you have legs...use them. public property doesn't belong to you, and a smoker has just as much right to be there as you do. if you don't like it then stick to the many areas that are designated non-smoking.

Or second option how do i physically hurt someone by makign them not smoke threw one meal? Give me one example? If you do its a bunch of BS i can garentee you. Now how do they physically hurt me if they cant go threw one meal(1 hour and 1/2 pretty much max, maybe more but for the most part thats about as long as you have to go) and blow their smoke and cancer in my face i dont f'ing care if they feel like killing themselve hell ill give them a gun so they can stop dicking around with it and get it over with. But if the bullet passes threw them and grazes someone else, when did the person being grazed by a bullet make a choice to kill themselves? And when I eat greasy food, it does not clog your arteries too. I agree you have a right to do whatever you want with your body, but guess what, when it affects others you lose that right so deal with it! And o yeah smoke from cars is bad and i hope in the future they will remove these cars and hey dumbass there are legilation on cars and how much pollution they give out. Agreed it needs to be increased so we dont have all these dirty gasoline cars but when you come up with a better way of transportation call me cause i want in on it. (Note: this transportation must be clean, renewable, and able to replace the gas car with little resistance from the driver)

but if you don't believe it that's fine, because the point stands that if you don't want to breath second hand smoke you can MOVE, just like i can move if somebody is being annoying. you have legs...use them. public property doesn't belong to you, and a smoker has just as much right to be there as you do. if you don't like it then stick to the many areas that are designated non-smoking.

Or second option how do i physically hurt someone by makign them not smoke threw one meal? Give me one example? If you do its a bunch of BS i can garentee you. Now how do they physically hurt me if they cant go threw one meal(1 hour and 1/2 pretty much max, maybe more but for the most part thats about as long as you have to go) and blow their smoke and cancer in my face i dont f'ing care if they feel like killing themselve hell ill give them a gun so they can stop dicking around with it and get it over with. But if the bullet passes threw them and grazes someone else, when did the person being grazed by a bullet make a choice to kill themselves? And when I eat greasy food, it does not clog your arteries too. I agree you have a right to do whatever you want with your body, but guess what, when it affects others you lose that right so deal with it! And o yeah smoke from cars is bad and i hope in the future they will remove these cars and hey dumbass there are legilation on cars and how much pollution they give out. Agreed it needs to be increased so we dont have all these dirty gasoline cars but when you come up with a better way of transportation call me cause i want in on it. (Note: this transportation must be clean, renewable, and able to replace the gas car with little resistance from the driver)

but if you don't believe it that's fine, because the point stands that if you don't want to breath second hand smoke you can MOVE, just like i can move if somebody is being annoying. you have legs...use them. public property doesn't belong to you, and a smoker has just as much right to be there as you do. if you don't like it then stick to the many areas that are designated non-smoking.

Or second option how do i physically hurt someone by makign them not smoke threw one meal? Give me one example? If you do its a bunch of BS i can garentee you. Now how do they physically hurt me if they cant go threw one meal(1 hour and 1/2 pretty much max, maybe more but for the most part thats about as long as you have to go) and blow their smoke and cancer in my face i dont f'ing care if they feel like killing themselve hell ill give them a gun so they can stop dicking around with it and get it over with. But if the bullet passes threw them and grazes someone else, when did the person being grazed by a bullet make a choice to kill themselves? And when I eat greasy food, it does not clog your arteries too. I agree you have a right to do whatever you want with your body, but guess what, when it affects others you lose that right so deal with it! And o yeah smoke from cars is bad and i hope in the future they will remove these cars and hey dumbass there are legilation on cars and how much pollution they give out. Agreed it needs to be increased so we dont have all these dirty gasoline cars but when you come up with a better way of transportation call me cause i want in on it. (Note: this transportation must be clean, renewable, and able to replace the gas car with little resistance from the driver)

Why is this so difficult to understand?

The owner of a restaurant has every right to decide whether or not to allow smoking on the premises. If you don't like that decision, then simply don't go in the door! It's that simple!

Why is this so difficult to understand?

The owner of a restaurant has every right to decide whether or not to allow smoking on the premises. If you don't like that decision, then simply don't go in the door! It's that simple!

Why is this so difficult to understand?

The owner of a restaurant has every right to decide whether or not to allow smoking on the premises. If you don't like that decision, then simply don't go in the door! It's that simple!

Why is this so difficult to understand?

The owner of a restaurant has every right to decide whether or not to allow smoking on the premises. If you don't like that decision, then simply don't go in the door! It's that simple!

Give one arguement why smoking should be banned. As that is the title of the thread. It should be easy.

Now give an arguement why smoking should be banned in well ventilated area that is seperated from a non-smoking section.


You have a meal with someone who cannot last an hour and half without a cigarette. It's their fault for being too lazy/discourteous/weak-willed, and its your fault for going for a meal with them. It is hardly fair to make all smokers suffer on account of your freind being so [see above].

smoking should be banned in public places because it kills! if people stopped going places because people smoked there, they wouldn't have anywhere to go. if you want to die slowly then fine, that's your choice, but it's selfish to drag everyone else down with you. i know someone who smokes around their child and the kid is constantly at the doctors with some kind of throat or chest infection!

smoking should be banned in public places because it kills! if people stopped going places because people smoked there, they wouldn't have anywhere to go.
Right. So smoking should be banned because it kills. By that logic cars (and any other form of vehicle), electricity, hot water/liquid, alcohol should also be banned. Because they kill and exist in public places.

Again, what is wrong with smoking in a well ventilated area away from non smokers (this includes outdoor areas too)?

Boo hoo, if anti-smokers don't go places where smokers go. It means there are less sanctimonious, self-righteous lifestyle fascist hypocrites around.

you want to die slowly then fine, that's your choice, but it's selfish to drag everyone else down with you.
Hey, not to get overly morbid but, guess what life is. A process of dying slowly. Give me proof that the occassional whiff of smoke has adverse effects (apart from the fake coughing fits done by anti-smokers).

i know someone who smokes around their child and the kid is constantly at the doctors with some kind of throat or chest infection!
It is regretable that they are harming their child, but it is not a case to ban smoking.

:oops:

cars, electricity, etc kill people when they are not used responsibly, as does smoking, a responsible person would smoke on their own or with other people who smoke, not in front of people who realise the health risks and for that reason don't smoke!

I like the car point made earlier, I say as well as banning smoking, we should ban all fossil fuel burning vehicals, heavy industry, power production that requires fossil fuel burning, *thinks*
life is one long drop, from the moment your conceived your just waiting to pick up your ticket... I don't see why people want to live for such a long time, give me 50 years, that'll do me fine!
Hay but maybe this would bring back illegal coffee shops and bars eh? that would be cool!!!
Ironically your less likely to get coughs and the likes if you smoke becouse of the tar... hay all that clogging helps kill the bactira pretty good as well as taring up your lungs.
To tell the truth I also don't care how long other people live thats your beef just leave me the f--- alone to sit over here, get shed loads of cash, drink, smoke, watch porn and jerk off constantly! I think being fat should be band and fat people should be have their fat flailed off becouse their a health risk and an eyesore!
I think old people should be banned becouse they crash all the damn time, make me look like a happy shiney person and tell long boring stories...
Who else shall I annoy... nope I think that covers it for now... nope heres one!
people who try and push there views on you should be banned for raising your stress level and blood pressure!

yeah as a non-smoker I think that there should just be smoking and non-smokign sections indoors. Although I know that in the US there arent separate ventilating systems for such sections, and it is a fact that the non-smokign section can still smell the cigarette smoke (although I don't think it's enough to cause a health hazard, it's just stinky). For places where there is no chance of making separate sections, smokers should go outside.

as for outdoor public places, I think that it should be left alone, and just hope that smokers have enough courtesy to not light up around me (or else of course I will have to walk to another location). Which is sometimes the case and sometimes not. I understand that there are smokers that simply do not unerstand how nausiating smokers are to be around.

When I did smoke I went off to a clearing to smoke when outdoors, and if people came near me then that was their fault. And I would always blow my smoke away from anyone standing near me. In calif when I was smoking and went to the bars/clubs that didnt allow indoor smoking, I would smoke outside and I didn't mind one bit (even when it was cold, because I NEEDED my nicoteen).

sorry I wrote too much....

one question to smokers... Why do you smoke, even though you know the health risks and how much it makes you stink? Have you tried to quit and were unable to? It took me many years to quit once I decided to.

I voted yes.

All you wastrels who think it shouldn't be banned in public places are morons.
Think about it for a minute:

IF SMOKING IS BANNED IN PUBLIC PLACES
ADVANTAGES
1) The government can heavily tax 'fags' and thus get rich off of smokers.
2) Smokers will die, meaning that there will be less morons as smoking kills brain cells.
3) Smokers will die, thus freeing up 47% of the NHS's waiting list.
4) Non-smokers will not be able to die through passive smoking.
DISADVANTAGES
1) Smokers will be aggressive throught the day (work/school) as they will most likely suffer from withdrawal symptoms.
2) Smokers will be unhappy as they won't be able to smoke at work and during lunch/other breaks at school.

IF SMOKING ISN'T BANNED IN PUBLIC PLACES
ADVANTAGES
1) Smokers will be fine throught the day (work/school) because they won't suffer from withdrawal symptoms.
2) Smokers will be happy as they can smoke at work and during lunch/other breaks at school.
3) The government can heavily tax 'fags' and thus get rich off of smokers.
DISADVANTAGES
1) There will be morons everywhere because they smoke and are killing off their brain cells.
2) The NHS waiting list won't be reduced.
3) Non-smokers may possibly die due to passive smoking.
4) The NHS's waiting list will be increased slightly due to the numerous diseases people get through smoking/passive smoking.

Think carefully.

~I don't want any smokers whining that they can't give up either. That's a load of rubbish as they can give up, they just can't be bothered to get up off of their backsides and do anything about it.

cars, electricity, etc kill people when they are not used responsibly, as does smoking, a responsible person would smoke on their own or with other people who smoke, not in front of people who realise the health risks and for that reason don't smoke! But they still kill people, so should be banned, by your arguement you gave in the previous post. I also notice you remain silent about alcohol, should I assume ou want that banned too?

I guarentee that the average smoker know more about the health risks than the average non-smoker. Just because you assume that all smokers are ignorant fools (because, why else do they smoke?) doesn't mean they are. Admittedly I know stupid people who smoke, but I also know equally stupid people who don't smoke.

And you still have not explained why smoking should be banned in a well ventilated public area, or offered proof that the occasional whiff of smoke damages your health.

PS, cars damage health no matter how responsible the owner is.

I voted yes.

All you wastrels who think it shouldn't be banned in public places are morons.
Think about it for a minute:

IF SMOKING IS BANNED IN PUBLIC PLACES
ADVANTAGES
1) The government can heavily tax 'fags' and thus get rich off of smokers.
2) Smokers will die, meaning that there will be less morons as smoking kills brain cells.
3) Smokers will die, thus freeing up 47% of the NHS's waiting list.
4) Non-smokers will not be able to die through passive smoking.
DISADVANTAGES
1) Smokers will be aggressive throught the day (work/school) as they will most likely suffer from withdrawal symptoms.
2) Smokers will be unhappy as they won't be able to smoke at work and during lunch/other breaks at school.

IF SMOKING ISN'T BANNED IN PUBLIC PLACES
ADVANTAGES
1) Smokers will be fine throught the day (work/school) because they won't suffer from withdrawal symptoms.
2) Smokers will be happy as they can smoke at work and during lunch/other breaks at school.
3) The government can heavily tax 'fags' and thus get rich off of smokers.
DISADVANTAGES
1) There will be morons everywhere because they smoke and are killing off their brain cells.
2) The NHS waiting list won't be reduced.
3) Non-smokers may possibly die due to passive smoking.
4) The NHS's waiting list will be increased slightly due to the numerous diseases people get through smoking/passive smoking.

Think carefully.

~I don't want any smokers whining that they can't give up either. That's a load of rubbish as they can give up, they just can't be bothered to get up off of their backsides and do anything about it.

all very good yet equally boring pointless reasons, I smoke becouse I just don't care, and becouse people get on their soap boxes worry about your own life and leave mine alone. I've got a good job and going places, and if I die before I'm 50 o well what a shame, I don't want to live for ever, christ I don't want to live till tomorrow... but that aside I just don't care about your arguments, I know them all and I don't care - I hate sanctimonus bull it just winds me up, all you people who talk and talk and come up with facts and figures and pretty pictures of diseased hearts and lungs... do you know all your doing is developing a seige mentality where the more you talk the less we recognise you... this is all so dull...
Want to know a real killer? alchole! now that should be outlawed!
*wonders off*

alcohol only hurts the person who's drinking unless they get violent when they drink in which case they shouldn't drink, people aren't going to breath it in, get lung cancer and die

if someone smokes but still understands the health risks and knows that it could kill them but they choose to ignore it, what are they if not stupid and ignorant?

if the public place is outdoors and noone who would be offended is around, then go ahead, smoke yourself to death, that isn't what bothers me.

ps i actually have to go out for a meal but i will be back later if you have anything else to say.

I voted yes.

All you wastrels who think it shouldn't be banned in public places are morons.
Think about it for a minute:

IF SMOKING IS BANNED IN PUBLIC PLACES
ADVANTAGES
1) The government can heavily tax 'fags' and thus get rich off of smokers.
2) Smokers will die, meaning that there will be less morons as smoking kills brain cells.
3) Smokers will die, thus freeing up 47% of the NHS's waiting list.
4) Non-smokers will not be able to die through passive smoking.
DISADVANTAGES
1) Smokers will be aggressive throught the day (work/school) as they will most likely suffer from withdrawal symptoms.
2) Smokers will be unhappy as they won't be able to smoke at work and during lunch/other breaks at school.

IF SMOKING ISN'T BANNED IN PUBLIC PLACES
ADVANTAGES
1) Smokers will be fine throught the day (work/school) because they won't suffer from withdrawal symptoms.
2) Smokers will be happy as they can smoke at work and during lunch/other breaks at school.
3) The government can heavily tax 'fags' and thus get rich off of smokers.
DISADVANTAGES
1) There will be morons everywhere because they smoke and are killing off their brain cells.
2) The NHS waiting list won't be reduced.
3) Non-smokers may possibly die due to passive smoking.
4) The NHS's waiting list will be increased slightly due to the numerous diseases people get through smoking/passive smoking.

Think carefully.

~I don't want any smokers whining that they can't give up either. That's a load of rubbish as they can give up, they just can't be bothered to get up off of their backsides and do anything about it.

all very good yet equally boring pointless reasons, I smoke becouse I just don't care, and becouse people get on their soap boxes worry about your own life and leave mine alone. I've got a good job and going places, and if I die before I'm 50 o well what a shame, I don't want to live for ever, christ I don't want to live till tomorrow... but that aside I just don't care about your arguments, I know them all and I don't care - I hate sanctimonus bull it just winds me up, all you people who talk and talk and come up with facts and figures and pretty pictures of diseased hearts and lungs... do you know all your doing is developing a seige mentality where the more you talk the less we recognise you... this is all so dull...
Want to know a real killer? alchole! now that should be outlawed!
*wonders off*

they already tried banning alcohol and that just gave the mafia more money. Besides you can't die from other people drinkign alcohol near you. You may mention drunk driving, but there are already laws against that, so don't go there.

And I see, you smoke because you want to die and that is why you don't care if others get sick because of your second hand smoke as you just don't care about yours or others lives. thanks for clearning that up.

one question to smokers... Why do you smoke, even though you know the health risks and how much it makes you stink? Have you tried to quit and were unable to? It took me many years to quit once I decided to.

I'm not a smoker but they probably smoke for the same reasons that people drink alcohol, use drugs, eat too much, have unprotected sex, don't exercise, and so on and so forth; because it feels good to them. If one likes the feeling of something enough, the negative factors don't matter enough to make him quit.

"Four out of five doctors recommend Camels." - actual advertisement slogan

I like being clear, so lets clear it up as opposed to your retarded interpretation. It is the choice of people to hang around with or around or near people who smoke, so just go and get a clue for smegs sake! it isn't anyones place to save people from themselves! If you run a small local pub you'd be hanging yourself if people can't smoke. A pub isn't a place for families maybe in fancy city bars it would have a positive effect but in dark dingy pubs full of furniture types you take one old man, one pipe/cigerete place in seat next to bar and leave for all time (ergo furniture).
I'm tired of this we need carpet bans on this and that.
And no drinking alchole wont directly cause any f----- problem you stupid witch, it tears families apart, causes parents to kill themselves, causes parents to beat each other, causes random people to jump you in the street and kick the s--- out of you, it causes pain and suffering and misery on scale that smoking could never achieve so before you give me your f------ uninspired bull---t responce prehaps you should start living in the real world where life is a miserable trog and where people die and hurt each other and things don't work becouse thats just the way it is... I've seen familys melt becouse of alchole, freinds beaten to a pulp, I've known of woman raped and killed becouse of alchole so don't you start breaving bulls--- about it not being dangerous don't you dare!!!!!!!!!!!!1


<< Sorry I just completly lost my temper but the comments stand none the less >>

Did you people know that in New York state smoking is banned in all bars and resturants? It's only allowed on certain holidays.

I like being clear, so lets clear it up as opposed to your retarded interpretation. It is the choice of people to hang around with or around or near people who smoke, so just go and get a clue for smegs sake! it isn't anyones place to save people from themselves! If you run a small local pub you'd be hanging yourself if people can't smoke. A pub isn't a place for families maybe in fancy city bars it would have a positive effect but in dark dingy pubs full of furniture types you take one old man, one pipe/cigerete place in seat next to bar and leave for all time (ergo furniture).
I'm tired of this we need carpet bans on this and that.
And no drinking alchole wont directly cause any f----- problem you stupid witch, it tears families apart, causes parents to kill themselves, causes parents to beat each other, causes random people to jump you in the street and kick the s--- out of you, it causes pain and suffering and misery on scale that smoking could never achieve so before you give me your f------ uninspired bull---t responce prehaps you should start living in the real world where life is a miserable trog and where people die and hurt each other and things don't work becouse thats just the way it is... I've seen familys melt becouse of alchole, freinds beaten to a pulp, I've known of woman raped and killed becouse of alchole so don't you start breaving bulls--- about it not being dangerous don't you dare!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[b]MOD ALERT![\b]

What have you cleared up exactly? Go ahead I'll give you another chance to actually speak your mind and use intelligence.

Alcohol does not cause those things, people do those things because of who they are and the alcohol just releases their inhibitions. I have gotten really drunk many times and have never torn a family apart (mine or anyoe elses), killed myself nor attempted to, gotten in a fight, or jump out in the street and kick the sh1t out of someone (lol). The only pain and misery I suffered from drinking was a hangover. From smoking I had a long tem cough that lasted months, which finally went away a week after I quit.

I have never seen families melt from alcohol, nor seen my friends beaten to a pulp. I never knew anyone raped or killed because of alcohol either.

Alcohol is dangerous for sure but I am not calling for a ban on anything anyway. I was just interpreting what you said.

You seem very angry. It must be because you live " in the real world where life is a miserable trog and where people die and hurt each other and things don't work becouse thats just the way it is". Sorry I live in a world filled with love and friends and family and strangers even who help each other and smile when you say hello. I live in a world where a few bad apples dont spoil the whole bunch.

I am very sorry you live in such a horrible world.

Yes it should.

i hate smoking, i think it's a disgusting, expensive habit, that turns your teeth and nails yellow, makes your breath smell, and ruins yours and everyone else around you's lives. i hate it when i go out and have to put up with having smoke blown in my face, if someione wants to slowly kill themselves then that's their decision but they shouldn't be able to kill everyone else around them. 80% of smoke from a cigarette is breathed in by passive smokers!

My attitude towards non-smokers has swung around 180 degrees! I'm old enough to remember when you could smoke anywahere that was not designated a "No Smoking" area. And, were I in such an area, and a non-smoker asked me if I'd kindly move down, away from him, I'd gladly oblige. No problem. I was not completely insensitive to the rights of others.

As it is now, the anti-smoking nazis have just gone to damned far trying to curtail MY rights as a smoker, and they have pissed me off! I'm to the point where I'd love to take one of these whiney, crybaby assed non-smokers, hold them down, and blow a whole PACK's worth of smoke right in their face! In fact, without being too ostentatious about it...notorious anti-smoking nazis get exactly this treatment from me now. I deliberately position myself in such a fashion as to create the maximum discomfort, and maximum second-hand smoke inhalation for the anti-smoking nazi. why? BECAUSE THEY HAVE PISSED ME OFF!

I think businesses (resaturants, bars, clubs, etc) should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want to be a smoking, or a non-smoking establishment...and post on their exteriror doors which they are. And then...if a somker goes into a no-smoking establishment, tough cookies on him...he knew before going in what the establishment was. And vice versa.

Barring that, i'd happily see the taxpayers money spent on a few public bubbles, and non-smoker crybaby whining buttheads can go around and be bubble boys for all I care! It's just really pissing me off, how we seem now to live in a society that is perfectly content to take away OTHER PEOPLE'S rights!! As a smoker, I have gone from being accomodating to non-smokers...accommodating with a smile...all the way to resentment and hatred towards them.

And it's all their own fault, for pushing me far too hard, once too often! I'm pushing back now...and if they don't like it, they can kiss my ass! I call on smokers to join me in this crusade against the anti-smoking nazis!

I remember ten hours of HELL on an airplane over the Pacific Ocean on my trip to and from Thailand. Ten freaking hours I had to go without a cigarette...all because of a bunch of whiney crybaby anti-smoking nazi assholes!

I like being clear, so lets clear it up as opposed to your retarded interpretation. It is the choice of people to hang around with or around or near people who smoke, so just go and get a clue for smegs sake! it isn't anyones place to save people from themselves! If you run a small local pub you'd be hanging yourself if people can't smoke. A pub isn't a place for families maybe in fancy city bars it would have a positive effect but in dark dingy pubs full of furniture types you take one old man, one pipe/cigerete place in seat next to bar and leave for all time (ergo furniture).
I'm tired of this we need carpet bans on this and that.
And no drinking alchole wont directly cause any f----- problem you stupid witch, it tears families apart, causes parents to kill themselves, causes parents to beat each other, causes random people to jump you in the street and kick the s--- out of you, it causes pain and suffering and misery on scale that smoking could never achieve so before you give me your f------ uninspired bull---t responce prehaps you should start living in the real world where life is a miserable trog and where people die and hurt each other and things don't work becouse thats just the way it is... I've seen familys melt becouse of alchole, freinds beaten to a pulp, I've known of woman raped and killed becouse of alchole so don't you start breaving bulls--- about it not being dangerous don't you dare!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[b]MOD ALERT![\b]

What have you cleared up exactly? Go ahead I'll give you another chance to actually speak your mind and use intelligence.

Alcohol does not cause those things, people do those things because of who they are and the alcohol just releases their inhibitions. I have gotten really drunk many times and have never torn a family apart (mine or anyoe elses), killed myself nor attempted to, gotten in a fight, or jump out in the street and kick the sh1t out of someone (lol). The only pain and misery I suffered from drinking was a hangover. From smoking I had a long tem cough that lasted months, which finally went away a week after I quit.

I have never seen families melt from alcohol, nor seen my friends beaten to a pulp. I never knew anyone raped or killed because of alcohol either.

Alcohol is dangerous for sure but I am not calling for a ban on anything anyway. I was just interpreting what you said.

You seem very angry. It must be because you live " in the real world where life is a miserable trog and where people die and hurt each other and things don't work becouse thats just the way it is". Sorry I live in a world filled with love and friends and family and strangers even who help each other and smile when you say hello. I live in a world where a few bad apples dont spoil the whole bunch.

I am very sorry you live in such a horrible world.

All due respect, I grew up in a household with an alcoholic father, and the 23 years I lived under my parent's roof were a living HELL for me. My father gave me permanent scars, both physical and mental, because of his alcoholism. so, yes...alcholo DOES, WHEN ABUSED...melt down families.
Sorry, but I gotta side with the other guy here, Sumamba.

*clap*

[to Labrador] Here, here.

So you want proof that second-hand smoking is bad for you huh? When i was 10 about to be 11, i was in a restaurant with my little brother and parents. Within 5 minutes of our completion of our meal, a smoker sat at the table beside us. Now I have really bad asthma, so we immediately asked for the check and prepared to leave. Waiting for the check we finished our meal, and left after under 10 minutes. I was in the hospital for 1 month, 2 weeks, and 3 days. I now can hardly run without needing my asthma medicine, and i have a nebulizer at home for extreme cases. I had to quit the basketball team because i couldn't complete the exercise either in practice, nor the running in the game. All because some lazy-ass smoker couldn't wait through an hour and a half to smoke.

Labrador I know that alcoholISM is a problem but that is the fault of those who abuse it and not the fault of the alcohol itself.

It is directly the fault of the alcoholic. It was the alcoholics choice to drink the alcohol; it was the alcoholics violent tendencies to result in that person beating others or verbally abuse others. The alcohol may have released their inhibitions but it wasnt the alcohol hurting others around them, it was the alcoholic doing it.

With smoking the smoker may not be intentionally hurting the health of others by smoking around them but it still happens without any other action needed by the smoker other than exhaling carconigenic smoke.

Labrador you dont seem like the type of person to blow smoke in someones face just because they don't like being around the disgusting vile smell and wish to maintain good health. You really do that?

What if you were sitting on a bus and a homeless person who smelled of urine sat next to you? Would you not mind? To me the smells are equally disgusting and I would mind and move to another seat telling the guy that I can't take the smell. Should he then pin me down and make me smell his unwashed armpit because I am a odor nazi?

Labrador I know that alcoholISM is a problem but that is the fault of those who abuse it and not the fault of the alcohol itself.

It is directly the fault of the alcoholic. It was the alcoholics choice to drink the alcohol; it was the alcoholics violent tendencies to result in that person beating others or verbally abuse others. The alcohol may have released their inhibitions but it wasnt the alcohol hurting others around them, it was the alcoholic doing it.

With smoking the smoker may not be intentionally hurting the health of others by smoking around them but it still happens without any other action needed by the smoker other than exhaling carconigenic smoke.

Labrador you dont seem like the type of person to blow smoke in someones face just because they don't like being around the disgusting vile smell and wish to maintain good health. You really do that?

What if you were sitting on a bus and a homeless person who smelled of urine sat next to you? Would you not mind? To me the smells are equally disgusting and I would mind and move to another seat telling the guy that I can't take the smell. Should he then pin me down and make me smell his unwashed armpit because I am a odor nazi?

AS I said in my post about alcohol...my caveat was that it does melt down families WHEN ABUSED.
As to the other...you make some valid points, but it's just that the anti-smoking nazis are pushing too hard, too far, and it's pissing me off.

And, yes...the intentional blowing of smoke in a non-smokers face. I DO do that...but that is treatment reserved only for the most obnoxious among them. I don't do it to every, or even most, non-smokers. Just the obnoxious ones.

Example: When my city tried to further toughen the anti-smoking laws, the crusade was led by a guy named Steve Pfluger. I showed up at the City Council meeting on the smokers and restaurant owners side. While waiting for them to let us all into the chambers, for the meeting, I noticed Mr. Pfluger. I made a point of lighting up, and casually placing myself in a strategic location to insure my second hand smoke would enter Mr. Pfluger's airspace.

And when he moved, I casually followed him, to insure I was continuing to pollute his air. Screw him, that's what he gets for pissing me off! A guy like Mr. Pfluger...THAT's the kind of guy I want to sit on his chest and blow a whole pack's worth of smoke in his face. Because he's a jerk.

What's wrong with having some establishments being smoking...and some not...at the business owner's choice...and stating on the outside door, what type of establishment it is?

That's what ended up happening here. And it's a good thing. Banning smoking everywhere is going too damned far. As it is now...there ARE establishments where Mr. Pfluger can go, and not smell my smoke...and if I go in those places, I go in knowing I will not be allowed to smoke...and I accept that cheerfully. I generally do not choose to spend my money in such establishments. On the other hand, there ARE places where I can go, where I CAN smoke...and not listen to crybaby whining anti-smoking nazis. I tend to patronize those places instead.

This way, both sides win...and neither has their rights curtailed by the other side. but what Mr. Pfluger, and nazis like him are pushing for...is for me to have NO CHOICE whatsoever. And it is people like that for whom I reserve my intentional smoke-blowing. And if they don't like it, they can kiss my ass. They bought it on themselves for pushing me once too often, and pushing too hard. I'll be damned if I'm gonna continue to get pushed, and not push back!

I got rights, too, damnit. And here in my hometown, we now have the ability to have both sides be accomodated, and that's more than reasonable.

As I say, I reserve such behavior only for the most obnoxious among non-smokers. If I see someone making a face and waving their hand in front of their nose, and making a scene, bet your ass I'm gonna intentionally blow my smoke their way. If they, instead, kindly ask me to move downwind of them, I'll cheerfully oblige.

It's all in the approach. I'm damned if I am gonna be pushed any more.

Labrador I know that alcoholISM is a problem but that is the fault of those who abuse it and not the fault of the alcohol itself.

It is directly the fault of the alcoholic. It was the alcoholics choice to drink the alcohol; it was the alcoholics violent tendencies to result in that person beating others or verbally abuse others. The alcohol may have released their inhibitions but it wasnt the alcohol hurting others around them, it was the alcoholic doing it.

With smoking the smoker may not be intentionally hurting the health of others by smoking around them but it still happens without any other action needed by the smoker other than exhaling carconigenic smoke.

Labrador you dont seem like the type of person to blow smoke in someones face just because they don't like being around the disgusting vile smell and wish to maintain good health. You really do that?

What if you were sitting on a bus and a homeless person who smelled of urine sat next to you? Would you not mind? To me the smells are equally disgusting and I would mind and move to another seat telling the guy that I can't take the smell. Should he then pin me down and make me smell his unwashed armpit because I am a odor nazi?

AS I said in my post about alcohol...my caveat was that it does melt down families WHEN ABUSED.
As to the other...you make some valid points, but it's just that the anti-smoking nazis are pushing too hard, too far, and it's pissing me off.

And, yes...the intentional blowing of smoke in a non-smokers face. I DO do that...but that is treatment reserved only for the most obnoxious among them. I don't do it to every, or even most, non-smokers. Just the obnoxious ones.

Example: When my city tried to further toughen the anti-smoking laws, the crusade was led by a guy named Steve Pfluger. I showed up at the City Council meeting on the smokers and restaurant owners side. While waiting for them to let us all into the chambers, for the meeting, I noticed Mr. Pfluger. I made a point of lighting up, and casually placing myself in a strategic location to insure my second hand smoke would enter Mr. Pfluger's airspace.

And when he moved, I casually followed him, to insure I was continuing to pollute his air. Screw him, that's what he gets for pissing me off! A guy like Mr. Pfluger...THAT's the kind of guy I want to sit on his chest and blow a whole pack's worth of smoke in his face. Because he's a jerk.

What's wrong with having some establishments being smoking...and some not...at the business owner's choice...and stating on the outside door, what type of establishment it is?

That's what ended up happening here. And it's a good thing. Banning smoking everywhere is going too damned far. As it is now...there ARE establishments where Mr. Pfluger can go, and not smell my smoke...and if I go in those places, I go in knowing I will not be allowed to smoke...and I accept that cheerfully. I generally do not choose to spend my money in such establishments. On the other hand, there ARE places where I can go, where I CAN smoke...and not listen to crybaby whining anti-smoking nazis. I tend to patronize those places instead.

This way, both sides win...and neither has their rights curtailed by the other side. but what Mr. Pfluger, and nazis like him are pushing for...is for me to have NO CHOICE whatsoever. And it is people like that for whom I reserve my intentional smoke-blowing. And if they don't like it, they can kiss my ass. They bought it on themselves for pushing me once too often, and pushing too hard. I'll be damned if I'm gonna continue to get pushed, and not push back!

I got rights, too, damnit. And here in my hometown, we now have the ability to have both sides be accomodated, and that's more than reasonable.

As I say, I reserve such behavior only for the most obnoxious among non-smokers. If I see someone making a face and waving their hand in front of their nose, and making a scene, bet your ass I'm gonna intentionally blow my smoke their way. If they, instead, kindly ask me to move downwind of them, I'll cheerfully oblige.

It's all in the approach. I'm damned if I am gonna be pushed any more.

Labrador I know that alcoholISM is a problem but that is the fault of those who abuse it and not the fault of the alcohol itself.

It is directly the fault of the alcoholic. It was the alcoholics choice to drink the alcohol; it was the alcoholics violent tendencies to result in that person beating others or verbally abuse others. The alcohol may have released their inhibitions but it wasnt the alcohol hurting others around them, it was the alcoholic doing it.

With smoking the smoker may not be intentionally hurting the health of others by smoking around them but it still happens without any other action needed by the smoker other than exhaling carconigenic smoke.

Labrador you dont seem like the type of person to blow smoke in someones face just because they don't like being around the disgusting vile smell and wish to maintain good health. You really do that?

What if you were sitting on a bus and a homeless person who smelled of urine sat next to you? Would you not mind? To me the smells are equally disgusting and I would mind and move to another seat telling the guy that I can't take the smell. Should he then pin me down and make me smell his unwashed armpit because I am a odor nazi?

AS I said in my post about alcohol...my caveat was that it does melt down families WHEN ABUSED.
As to the other...you make some valid points, but it's just that the anti-smoking nazis are pushing too hard, too far, and it's pissing me off.

And, yes...the intentional blowing of smoke in a non-smokers face. I DO do that...but that is treatment reserved only for the most obnoxious among them. I don't do it to every, or even most, non-smokers. Just the obnoxious ones.

Example: When my city tried to further toughen the anti-smoking laws, the crusade was led by a guy named Steve Pfluger. I showed up at the City Council meeting on the smokers and restaurant owners side. While waiting for them to let us all into the chambers, for the meeting, I noticed Mr. Pfluger. I made a point of lighting up, and casually placing myself in a strategic location to insure my second hand smoke would enter Mr. Pfluger's airspace.

And when he moved, I casually followed him, to insure I was continuing to pollute his air. Screw him, that's what he gets for pissing me off! A guy like Mr. Pfluger...THAT's the kind of guy I want to sit on his chest and blow a whole pack's worth of smoke in his face. Because he's a jerk.

What's wrong with having some establishments being smoking...and some not...at the business owner's choice...and stating on the outside door, what type of establishment it is?

That's what ended up happening here. And it's a good thing. Banning smoking everywhere is going too damned far. As it is now...there ARE establishments where Mr. Pfluger can go, and not smell my smoke...and if I go in those places, I go in knowing I will not be allowed to smoke...and I accept that cheerfully. I generally do not choose to spend my money in such establishments. On the other hand, there ARE places where I can go, where I CAN smoke...and not listen to crybaby whining anti-smoking nazis. I tend to patronize those places instead.

This way, both sides win...and neither has their rights curtailed by the other side. but what Mr. Pfluger, and nazis like him are pushing for...is for me to have NO CHOICE whatsoever. And it is people like that for whom I reserve my intentional smoke-blowing. And if they don't like it, they can kiss my ass. They bought it on themselves for pushing me once too often, and pushing too hard. I'll be damned if I'm gonna continue to get pushed, and not push back!

I got rights, too, damnit. And here in my hometown, we now have the ability to have both sides be accomodated, and that's more than reasonable.

As I say, I reserve such behavior only for the most obnoxious among non-smokers. If I see someone making a face and waving their hand in front of their nose, and making a scene, bet your ass I'm gonna intentionally blow my smoke their way. If they, instead, kindly ask me to move downwind of them, I'll cheerfully oblige.

It's all in the approach. I'm damned if I am gonna be pushed any more.

So you want proof that second-hand smoking is bad for you huh? No, I want proof for a ban on smoking in well-ventilated public places that have non-smokers seperated from smokers.



When i was 10 about to be 11, i was in a restaurant with my little brother and parents. Within 5 minutes of our completion of our meal, a smoker sat at the table beside us. Now I have really bad asthma, so we immediately asked for the check and prepared to leave. Waiting for the check we finished our meal, and left after under 10 minutes. I was in the hospital for 1 month, 2 weeks, and 3 days. I now can hardly run without needing my asthma medicine, and i have a nebulizer at home for extreme cases. I had to quit the basketball team because i couldn't complete the exercise either in practice, nor the running in the game. All because some lazy-ass smoker couldn't wait through an hour and a half to smoke.

It is hardly the fault of all smokers that this one was a t***. Most of my freinds who smoke don't smoke in stuffy areas where the smoke tends to hang in the air or in resturants, at all. Because we feel the same way as most non-smokers.

Labrador I know that alcoholISM is a problem but that is the fault of those who abuse it and not the fault of the alcohol itself.

It is directly the fault of the alcoholic. It was the alcoholics choice to drink the alcohol; it was the alcoholics violent tendencies to result in that person beating others or verbally abuse others. The alcohol may have released their inhibitions but it wasnt the alcohol hurting others around them, it was the alcoholic doing it.

With smoking the smoker may not be intentionally hurting the health of others by smoking around them but it still happens without any other action needed by the smoker other than exhaling carconigenic smoke.

Labrador you dont seem like the type of person to blow smoke in someones face just because they don't like being around the disgusting vile smell and wish to maintain good health. You really do that?

What if you were sitting on a bus and a homeless person who smelled of urine sat next to you? Would you not mind? To me the smells are equally disgusting and I would mind and move to another seat telling the guy that I can't take the smell. Should he then pin me down and make me smell his unwashed armpit because I am a odor nazi?

AS I said in my post about alcohol...my caveat was that it does melt down families WHEN ABUSED.
As to the other...you make some valid points, but it's just that the anti-smoking nazis are pushing too hard, too far, and it's pissing me off.

And, yes...the intentional blowing of smoke in a non-smokers face. I DO do that...but that is treatment reserved only for the most obnoxious among them. I don't do it to every, or even most, non-smokers. Just the obnoxious ones.

Example: When my city tried to further toughen the anti-smoking laws, the crusade was led by a guy named Steve Pfluger. I showed up at the City Council meeting on the smokers and restaurant owners side. While waiting for them to let us all into the chambers, for the meeting, I noticed Mr. Pfluger. I made a point of lighting up, and casually placing myself in a strategic location to insure my second hand smoke would enter Mr. Pfluger's airspace.

And when he moved, I casually followed him, to insure I was continuing to pollute his air. Screw him, that's what he gets for pissing me off! A guy like Mr. Pfluger...THAT's the kind of guy I want to sit on his chest and blow a whole pack's worth of smoke in his face. Because he's a jerk.

What's wrong with having some establishments being smoking...and some not...at the business owner's choice...and stating on the outside door, what type of establishment it is?

That's what ended up happening here. And it's a good thing. Banning smoking everywhere is going too damned far. As it is now...there ARE establishments where Mr. Pfluger can go, and not smell my smoke...and if I go in those places, I go in knowing I will not be allowed to smoke...and I accept that cheerfully. I generally do not choose to spend my money in such establishments. On the other hand, there ARE places where I can go, where I CAN smoke...and not listen to crybaby whining anti-smoking nazis. I tend to patronize those places instead.

This way, both sides win...and neither has their rights curtailed by the other side. but what Mr. Pfluger, and nazis like him are pushing for...is for me to have NO CHOICE whatsoever. And it is people like that for whom I reserve my intentional smoke-blowing. And if they don't like it, they can kiss my ass. They bought it on themselves for pushing me once too often, and pushing too hard. I'll be damned if I'm gonna continue to get pushed, and not push back!

I got rights, too, damnit. And here in my hometown, we now have the ability to have both sides be accomodated, and that's more than reasonable.

As I say, I reserve such behavior only for the most obnoxious among non-smokers. If I see someone making a face and waving their hand in front of their nose, and making a scene, bet your ass I'm gonna intentionally blow my smoke their way. If they, instead, kindly ask me to move downwind of them, I'll cheerfully oblige.

It's all in the approach. I'm damned if I am gonna be pushed any more.

And regarding your homeless guy...why can't you just get up and change your seat, and hold the unpleasant remark? That's the basic difference. Were I the homeless guy, and someone didn't want to sit next to me because of my smell...and they just quietly got up and changed their seat, it would be one thing. If tnhey made an uncalled for rude comment or gesture, and otherwise made a scene, I'd get up and follow that person, to make sure they got the full benefit of my aroma. no different. It's all in the approach. If you're going to be unpleasant...then I'm gonna return the unpleasantness in spades.

Wow...Labrador said something correct for once.

Wow...Labrador said something correct for once.

You cynic.

If I see smoke I will asume there is a fire and put it out by throwing a large bucketfull of water.

Wow...Labrador said something correct for once.

You cynic.
Damn straight :)

i hate smoking, i think it's a disgusting, expensive habit, that turns your teeth and nails yellow, makes your breath smell, and ruins yours and everyone else around you's lives. i hate it when i go out and have to put up with having smoke blown in my face, if someione wants to slowly kill themselves then that's their decision but they shouldn't be able to kill everyone else around them. 80% of smoke from a cigarette is breathed in by passive smokers!

My attitude towards non-smokers has swung around 180 degrees! I'm old enough to remember when you could smoke anywahere that was not designated a "No Smoking" area. And, were I in such an area, and a non-smoker asked me if I'd kindly move down, away from him, I'd gladly oblige. No problem. I was not completely insensitive to the rights of others.

As it is now, the anti-smoking nazis have just gone to damned far trying to curtail MY rights as a smoker, and they have pissed me off! I'm to the point where I'd love to take one of these whiney, crybaby assed non-smokers, hold them down, and blow a whole PACK's worth of smoke right in their face! In fact, without being too ostentatious about it...notorious anti-smoking nazis get exactly this treatment from me now. I deliberately position myself in such a fashion as to create the maximum discomfort, and maximum second-hand smoke inhalation for the anti-smoking nazi. why? BECAUSE THEY HAVE PISSED ME OFF!

I think businesses (resaturants, bars, clubs, etc) should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want to be a smoking, or a non-smoking establishment...and post on their exteriror doors which they are. And then...if a somker goes into a no-smoking establishment, tough cookies on him...he knew before going in what the establishment was. And vice versa.

Barring that, i'd happily see the taxpayers money spent on a few public bubbles, and non-smoker crybaby whining buttheads can go around and be bubble boys for all I care! It's just really pissing me off, how we seem now to live in a society that is perfectly content to take away OTHER PEOPLE'S rights!! As a smoker, I have gone from being accomodating to non-smokers...accommodating with a smile...all the way to resentment and hatred towards them.

And it's all their own fault, for pushing me far too hard, once too often! I'm pushing back now...and if they don't like it, they can kiss my ass! I call on smokers to join me in this crusade against the anti-smoking nazis!

I remember ten hours of HELL on an airplane over the Pacific Ocean on my trip to and from Thailand. Ten freaking hours I had to go without a cigarette...all because of a bunch of whiney crybaby anti-smoking nazi assholes!

Thinks well smoke up some more man the more you smoke the quicker you die and the better off the world would be. And how dare they make you wait 10 hours!!! just some some whiny bitch wont have you puffing poisons gas in her babies face! What is this country comming to i mean really.. .. And when my tax dollars are paying to your ass to be in a iron lung cause your lungs are so full of tar that you cant breath and your deaht is a slow suffication or a battle with cancer dont come bitching to me cause i should have the right not to make my taxes help you cause you killed yourself!

Thinks well smoke up some more man the more you smoke the quicker you die and the better off the world would be. And how dare they make you wait 10 hours!!! just some some whiny bitch wont have you puffing poisons gas in her babies face! What is this country comming to i mean really.. .. And when my tax dollars are paying to your ass to be in a iron lung cause your lungs are so full of tar that you cant breath and your deaht is a slow suffication or a battle with cancer dont come bitching to me cause i should have the right not to make my taxes help you cause you killed yourself! Don't worry, no smoker should have to come to you. Smokers pay above and beyond what any medical expense cost. So the next time you need any treatment, go to your nearest smoker an thank them for smoking so that you can be treated.

If I see smoke I will asume there is a fire and put it out by throwing a large bucketfull of water.

If your large bucket of water puts out my cigarette, and ruins it so I can't smoke it...with what cigarettes cost now, I will kick your ass until you pay me for the property of mine that you made unuasble!

Or, if I'm in a more melloe mood, I'll just press assault charges on you!

God damned anti-smoking nazis...why can't you just walk away from the smoker...or POLITELY and NICELY ask them to move. Most smokers, myself included, WILL accomodate, provided we are traeted nicely and respectfully. It's the freaking anti-smokig nazis that will get their unpleasantness returned to them in spades!

Thinks well smoke up some more man the more you smoke the quicker you die and the better off the world would be. And how dare they make you wait 10 hours!!! just some some whiny bitch wont have you puffing poisons gas in her babies face! What is this country comming to i mean really.. .. And when my tax dollars are paying to your ass to be in a iron lung cause your lungs are so full of tar that you cant breath and your deaht is a slow suffication or a battle with cancer dont come bitching to me cause i should have the right not to make my taxes help you cause you killed yourself! Don't worry, no smoker should have to come to you. Smokers pay above and beyond what any medical expense cost. So the next time you need any treatment, go to your nearest smoker an thank them for smoking so that you can be treated.

FUCK....you beat me to it...I was gonna say THE SAME DAMNED THING!!!

Thank your nearest smokers for just about every public works and health insurance that exist, BECAUSE WE SMOKERS SHOULDER THE BURDEN OF PAYING FOR ALL OF IT!!

f---....you beat me to it...I was gonna say THE SAME DAMNED THING!!!

Thank your nearest smokers for just about every public works and health insurance that exist, BECAUSE WE SMOKERS SHOULDER THE BURDEN OF PAYING FOR ALL OF IT!!

And, at least where I live, you can add a thank you for your public schools and emergency services.

So you want proof that second-hand smoking is bad for you huh? When i was 10 about to be 11, i was in a restaurant with my little brother and parents. Within 5 minutes of our completion of our meal, a smoker sat at the table beside us. Now I have really bad asthma, so we immediately asked for the check and prepared to leave. Waiting for the check we finished our meal, and left after under 10 minutes. I was in the hospital for 1 month, 2 weeks, and 3 days. I now can hardly run without needing my asthma medicine, and i have a nebulizer at home for extreme cases. I had to quit the basketball team because i couldn't complete the exercise either in practice, nor the running in the game. All because some lazy-ass smoker couldn't wait through an hour and a half to smoke.

This has got to be the dumbest statement in the whole thread. You're saying that five minutes of secondhand smoke put you in the hospital and gave you asthma. :roll: The you blame it on "some lazy-ass smoker" instead of your lazy-ass parents who couldn't wait for a non-smoking table. Or maybe they're just pansies who were too afraid to ask him politely if he wouldn't mind waiting a few minutes.

Haven't any of you guys seen the South Park episode that dealt with anti-smoking people?