NationStates Jolt Archive

I won't bother you with an introduction or any smoking-related facts.

I just want to know how the NationStates community views this practice. Should it be legal? Does choosing to smoke fall under the "personal freedom" clause that the free world values so much? You know, those kinds of questions. What? You expected another "God" thread? Hah!

N0 "other" F0r j00! :p

it's disgusting and should be banned in public places

i used to smoke, and as far as im concerned banning it in public cases is a bad thing to do. just more government interference.

it's disgusting and should be banned in public places

I have to disagree. in any country that wants to call itself "free" [let's use America since we love to use that "Freedom" word] business owners need to be allowed to make their own policy decisions, and this includes whether or not smoking should be banned in said establishment. I think a blanket ban on smoking in every public place is a bad idea, since it obviously won't bode well for the businessman who caters to the smoker and chooses to allow him to light up in his establishment. I mean, if you don't smoke, are you really going to go to a smoke shop to hang out? Why should I be banned from smoking there when $NONSMOKER isn't even going to show up there in the first place?

If the proprietor whishes to ban smoking in his establishment, that's a different beast. His shop is his own property, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let anyone other than the owner make that decision for himself. If you like a restaurant but don't like the smoke, the responsible thing to do is to infomr the owner you won't come back if he continues to allow it, and hope enough other people come to him with the same complaint. Introducing legislation that tells him what to do with his business or his lifestyle is called "fascism."

I have to disagree. in any country that wants to call itself "free" [let's use America since we love to use that "Freedom" word] business owners need to be allowed to make their own policy decisions, and this includes whether or not smoking should be banned in said establishment. I think a blanket ban on smoking in every public place is a bad idea, since it obviously won't bode well for the businessman who caters to the smoker and chooses to allow him to light up in his establishment. I mean, if you don't smoke, are you really going to go to a smoke shop to hang out? Why should I be banned from smoking there when $NONSMOKER isn't even going to show up there in the first place?

If the proprietor whishes to ban smoking in his establishment, that's a different beast. His shop is his own property, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let anyone other than the owner make that decision for himself. If you like a restaurant but don't like the smoke, the responsible thing to do is to infomr the owner you won't come back if he continues to allow it, and hope enough other people come to him with the same complaint. Introducing legislation that tells him what to do with his business or his lifestyle is called "fascism."
restaurants never listen when you tell them that people smoking near you bothers you, they just make a stupid smoking area which is the most pointless thing I've ever seen in my life. Wherever i go I have to put up with people smoking around me, shops, cafes, everywhere, it drives me mad, if someone wants to slowly kll themselves then that's their choice but i shouldn't have to suffer because of it too! I was sat at a bus stop the other day and I've had a really bad chesty cough lately and yet the woman sat next me lit up and started smoking right there in front of me, didn't even ask if i minded, normally I'd start coughing like a maniac but i was already doing that anyway before she started, people like that really bug me

If someone wants to kill himself prior to the age or 40 or 50... I'm not going to stop anyone doing so.

If you drive a car, you're pumping far more and far worse pollutants into the air than the average smoker will put forth in a lifetime.

Hence, if you drive a car, but then complain about a ciggie, you're a hypocrite.

If you drive a car, you're pumping far more and far worse pollutants into the air than the average smoker will put forth in a lifetime.

Hence, if you drive a car, but then complain about a ciggie, you're a hypocrite.
well i can't drive so i can complain

If you drive a car, you're pumping far more and far worse pollutants into the air than the average smoker will put forth in a lifetime.

Hence, if you drive a car, but then complain about a ciggie, you're a hypocrite.
Damnit.

On the other hand, banning smoking in public places is an attainable goal. Banning fuelled transport isn't. :)

well i can't drive so i can complain

Maybe ... but I bet you will. I also bet you've never called a vehicle operator disgusting for it or called for vehicles to be banned in public places. :p

All I can say is read "The Runaway Jury" by John Grisham. Its a really good book about the fight over smoking.

Maybe ... but I bet you will. I also bet you've never called a vehicle operator disgusting for it or called for vehicles to be banned in public places. :p
cars have a use, fags don't

Smoking in public places was banned in Ireland last year and even though there was uproar about it at the time, people have adjusted to the new law and the majority have complied without a fight. Business in some establishments has in fact increased as opposed to what was predicted before the ban was put into place and I rarely hear smokers complain about having to smoke outside. Just to prove that it can be done without totally changing everything. It probably has decreased smoking numbers too because it's given people a reason to quite smoking. I'm all for it anyways :cool:

smoking is a vile and disgusting habit but if people want to smoke its their business

I don't give a shit if you want to destroy your health. As long as you don't blow the smoke on my face I'm fine but I hope that all you smokers quit because of what it does to enviroment.

I started to smoke (irregularly) when I was 11 and continued on and off 'til 01 when I finally quit. One of the smartest things I've ever done.

cars have a use, fags don't
That's the thing I never understood about smoking. It has little psychologic (which can be attained another way) and no medical value at all. How could it hold itself over centuries? I mean, we have a billion-dollar market for people to commit a slow suicide.

I for one have smoked for about ten years and it's about time us smokers file a lawsuit against non smokers for making us breath fresh air.

i only smoke tobacco in spliffs - not fags. i just don't see the point of smoking cigarettes at all, i mean, weed gets you stoned, fags just get you addicted. plus a all my friends who smoked said 'don;t take it up its not worth it'.

and being the authoritarian, 'nanny state' type, i'd like to see fewer people smoking tobacco (without weed) so either tax tobacco to hell or ban it (with the exception of using it to smoke weed). there's obviously a massive hole in the logic of that but meh... tobacco is seriously harmful (lethal) & addictive - it should not be allowed (to be supplied) just like other drugs like Heroin.

disagree with me at your pleasure

That's the thing I never understood about smoking. It has little psychologic (which can be attained another way) and no medical value at all. How could it hold itself over centuries? I mean, we have a billion-dollar market for people to commit a slow suicide.
kids still see it as 'cool' (why it's cool to have yellow fingernails and teeth and bad breath I'll never know :rolleyes: ) so they start smoking and then it's addictive so they can't stop. Although apparently the number of smokers in the UK is dropping

I do not smoke, I am allergic to cigarette smoke.
My mom continued to smoke all the time around me even though he (my doctor) asked her not to. Because of that, I suffered all of my teenage years.
So, I have a bit of a biased opinion.
My sisters smoke and all my nieces and nephews have asthma and health problems.
Smokers smell bad and have bad breath too. I know from experience with my family.

Smoking cigarettes really does affect those who do not do it.
Banning it in public places is a good idea... it helps the "helpless".

I mean, we have a billion-dollar market for people to commit a slow suicide.

Beats bein' in a hurry.

Ninja fetus approves of smoking.

http://bunnysnoog.cyborgcow.net/henry22.gif

why it's cool to have yellow fingernails and teeth and bad breath I'll never know :rolleyes:

For nearly 20 years I smoked. I've known people who have been smokers for their entire lives and are now in their 80s.

I have yet to see one yellow tooth or fingernail. Maybe it's a UK phenom?

For nearly 20 years I smoked. I've known people who have been smokers for their entire lives and are now in their 80s.

I have yet to see one yellow tooth or fingernail. Maybe it's a UK phenom?
I bet they have bad breath though and croaky voices and bad skin

For nearly 20 years I smoked. I've known people who have been smokers for their entire lives and are now in their 80s.

I have yet to see one yellow tooth or fingernail. Maybe it's a UK phenom?
I've smoked for about 10 years, and I can run most 20 year old men into the dirt, and I'm 44.

More people would quit smoking if they could imaging the difference it makes. When you have smoked 10 years you don't even remember what's like to breathe easily, smell or taste properly etc.

For nearly 20 years I smoked. I've known people who have been smokers for their entire lives and are now in their 80s.

I have yet to see one yellow tooth or fingernail. Maybe it's a UK phenom?
I smoked about 10 years and had very yellow fingertips (not nails). Just look a little bit closer at your right (or left) index and middle finger.

Or maybe it's a European phenom.

I bet they have bad breath though and croaky voices and bad skin

No ... actually they don't ... and neither do I.

Seems like you're getting your info from anti-tobacco propoganda. Hell, as long as I smoked, I never even had a mild cough and, like WL there, can go toe to toe with people 1/2 my age in most physical activity.

If a theory is disproven, it can't rightfully be called truth, now can it?

More people would quit smoking if they could imaging the difference it makes. When you have smoked 10 years you don't even remember what's like to breathe easily, smell or taste properly etc.

I've never had any problems and my fingertips are perfectly normal (with the exception of callouses from years of guitar playing, of course).

I breathe fine, smell properly, and have tastebuds that can tell you exactly what and how much of every kind of spice/herb was used in everything I eat.

I suppose, though, like any faction of the human condition: It can't be quantified!

No ... actually they don't ... and neither do I.

Seems like you're getting your info from anti-tobacco propoganda. Hell, as long as I smoked, I never even had a mild cough and, like WL there, can go toe to toe with people 1/2 my age in most physical activity.

If a theory is disproven, it can't rightfully be called truth, now can it?
you might not think you have bad breath but everyone who smokes does, you can't understand because you smoke yourself but kissing someone who smokes is awful, the taste is horrible, i know plenty of people who have bad skin and croaky voices, in fact, my grandad can't speak properly anymore because about 20 years ago he got cancer of the larynx from smoking and had to have his voicebox removed and now has a hole in his throat to help him breath

I've been smoking since I was ten. I'm not a pack-a-day smoker or something and let me tell you- there are way worse things you can do to yourself than smoking cigarettes.

If those horrible lung-cancer stories were as common as anti-tobacco propaganda makes it out to be, tobacco would have been banned long ago, and probably would be a big DEA concern.

I smoked for 37 years - from 13 to 50. It's now been 1,030 days since I had a cigarette.

And, of course, there are times that I still want one.

It's each individuals choice.

I recommend each individual choose not to smoke.

This sounds like a fun issue for nationstates :=)

I've been smoking since I was ten. I'm not a pack-a-day smoker or something and let me tell you- there are way worse things you can do to yourself than smoking cigarettes.

If those horrible lung-cancer stories were as common as anti-tobacco propaganda makes it out to be, tobacco would have been banned long ago, and probably would be a big DEA concern.
yeah, hardly anyone really dies from cancer due to smoking, I've only had 2 of my grandparents get cancer because they smoked, one of them resulting in death, it's all just a load of stupid propaganda :rolleyes:

I don't smoke, but have friends who do. It's entirely up to them in my opinion. However, I live in Manitoba, Canada, which has in the past two years introduced a ban on smoking in all indoor public places. This ban has both its ups and downs. I can definitely see how it hurts businesses, especially bars and restaurants. On the other hand, it is so great to go into a bar nowadays, and not leave at the end of the night with eyes burning from all the smoke. On a personal level, I applaud the ban, but I can sympathize with smokers and businesses. It's a muddled issue, with no perfect solution.

I suppose, though, like any faction of the human condition: It can't be quantified!
Agreed. All my friends who have quit, have been surprised by these changes. I guess it's true in most cases.

It's stupid to say that smokers are unhealthy because there are so many factors in health. I've been in my best physical condition when I smoked. (but in better condition now than when I quit.)

yeah, hardly anyone really dies from cancer due to smoking, I've only had 2 of my grandparents get cancer because they smoked, one of them resulting in death, it's all just a load of stupid propaganda :rolleyes:

see http://www.lcolby.com/

you might not think you have bad breath but everyone who smokes does, you can't understand because you smoke yourself but kissing someone who smokes is awful, the taste is horrible...
For some odd reason this is not always true. I know because I've kissed many many times a heavy smoker who did not taste like smoker at all. I was surprised.

I need an option for "I don't smoke, I think it's disgusting, and I think it's everyone's right to choose whether to smoke."

Of course, I should mention there that I consider it to be a violation of my right to choose whether to smoke when I have to walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke to get into the building where I work. I have not figured out how this works, but I seem to be allergic to cigarette paper smoke. I can handle being around cigars, pipes, or even cloves, but normal cigarettes send me into fits of coughing that sound like I'm about to hork up a lung.

yeah, hardly anyone really dies from cancer due to smoking, I've only had 2 of my grandparents get cancer because they smoked, one of them resulting in death, it's all just a load of stupid propaganda :rolleyes:
my granddad died from smoking (cancer) too :(

so how do you feel about the holy herb (weed)?
*bites nails*

*tokes up* :D

see http://www.lcolby.com/
I've seen first hand what smoking can do to people so there's no way that you can convince me that smoking really isn't all that harmful

... If a theory is disproven, it can't rightfully be called truth, now can it?

And if a theory is proven, it can rightfully be called truth.
My sister smokes... has for about 15-20 years... she smoke now more than ever.
She has just started coughing up black phlem.
I do not smoke and do not cough up black phlem.
Both of my sisters smoke and all of their kids have asthma and resp. probs.
I do not smoke and my children are perfectly healthy. :)

I know there are always exceptions to the rule.
You may be a smoker and healthy. But not all are.
I believe you are the exception to the rule. :p

you might not think you have bad breath but everyone who smokes does, you can't understand because you smoke yourself but kissing someone who smokes is awful, the taste is horrible,

And, yet, not a single complaint have I ever received. Go figure.

i know plenty of people who have bad skin and croaky voices, in fact, my grandad can't speak properly anymore because about 20 years ago he got cancer of the larynx from smoking and had to have his voicebox removed and now has a hole in his throat to help him breath

Okie dokie, so you know people who've suffered such affects and I know people who haven't. Once again, it proves that there is no universal truth when it comes to smoking. Some people suffer adverse health affects, others don't.

I have a nagging feeling that lifestyle and genetics play a strong role here somewhere.

my granddad died from smoking (cancer) too :(

so how do you feel about the holy herb (weed)?
*bites nails*

*tokes up* :D
don't do it around me and make sure you chew some chewing gm then it's your choice, i think weed is better than fags

Smoking should be illegal everywhere. Its just for ppl with serious issues and those that fall for peer pressure. :rolleyes:

Now let me qualify my vote.

I voted that I do not smoke, but people have the right to choose to or not.

That means, I do not support aggressive advertising that makes smoking look glamorous or cool. Strict regulations has managed to tone down such advertising in Canada, but I know in the less regulated Asian and Eastern European market, tobacco companies are sinking millions of dollars into the kind of ads we used to see back in the 80s. That, and paying attractive women to browse the bars, advertising and passing out samples of cigarettes is entirely too one-sided for there to be a real choice. What I mean is, there needs to be an equal emphasis on the negative side of cigarette smoking. So beside every hot Asian bar girl, there should be an old haggy smoker with lung cancer and brochures:). Too me, THAT is providing enough information for people to make an INFORMED choice.

I also want to provide this qualifier...people have the right to smoke...but not if it interferes with anyone's right NOT to breath in smoke. So do it at home, or outside, but keep it out of the workplace, and public space.

And if a theory is proven, it can rightfully be called truth.

That's not how the scientific method works. :p

And, yet, not a single complaint have I ever received. Go figure.



Okie dokie, so you know people who've suffered such affects and I know people who haven't. Once again, it proves that there is no universal truth when it comes to smoking. Some people suffer adverse health affects, others don't.

I have a nagging feeling that lifestyle and genetics play a strong role here somewhere.
well maybe you've just kissed a load of smokers and polite ladies, i for one would never actually complain to a guy that his breath was bad

well it's a risk i don't see the point in taking

well maybe you've just kissed a load of smokers and polite ladies, i for one would never actually complain to a guy that his breath was bad

well it's a risk i don't see the point in taking
I don't like kissing smokers... it doesn't taste as good...

well maybe you've just kissed a load of smokers and polite ladies, i for one would never actually complain to a guy that his breath was bad

*snicker* ... don't know too many American girls, do ya? If the breath is bad, they'll let you know.

well it's a risk i don't see the point in taking

Meh ... same could be said for mountain climbing or going to the mall on a saturday afternoon. Unnecessary risk taking is part of the human condition.

*snicker* ... don't know too many American girls, do ya? If the breath is bad, they'll let you know.



Meh ... same could be said for mountain climbing or going to the mall on a saturday afternoon. Unnecessary risk taking is part of the human condition.
wow, american girls must be rude


but those are risks worth taking, you actually get something out of going mountain climbing or going to the mall

Damnit.

On the other hand, banning smoking in public places is an attainable goal. Banning fuelled transport isn't. :)

or is it? how about either improvement of global public transport or banning petrol/deisel cars. Seen those smart cars? also i watched a program on hydrogen powered cars that are in development but too much money is made on petrol :(

Smoking, eh its bad for you, id smoke the odd one if ive been drinking, it probably could do with being banned mostly but allowed outdoors.

what about spilffs though? :P (my national animal would be devastated)

wow, american girls must be rude


but those are risks worth taking, you actually get something out of going mountain climbing or going to the mall
mmmm....beer, cigarette....mmmmm.....

No offence :)
I still dream about smoking every now and then.

*snicker* ... don't know too many American girls, do ya? If the breath is bad, they'll let you know.

Well, yeah... LOL. But, politefully so. :rolleyes:
I surely would want to know if mine was so that I could go and fix it. :D

If you drive a car, you're pumping far more and far worse pollutants into the air than the average smoker will put forth in a lifetime.

Hence, if you drive a car, but then complain about a ciggie, you're a hypocrite.
Ah yes, the eternal comparison that justifies having to breath in second hand smoke. Let's look at this, shall we?

Second hand smoke (and first hand smoke) contains over 4000 chemicals, some of which can cause cancer. Carbon monoxide is one of the gases given off in cigarette smoke, and is found in much smaller concentrations than in automobile exhaust Yes, carbon monoxide can kill you (rather painfully at that), and is terrible for the environment, BUT it does NOT build up in your system over long periods of time, and it does NOT cause cancer. Nor is a highly addictive substance (nicotine is more addictive than heroin at the same concentration) added to car exhaust. Now...you could argue that our entire lifestyle centers around an addiction to petroleum, and I would agree with you. However, facing one issue off against the other is counter productive and senseless. It isn't an either/or situation. They are separate issues. Or are you really saying that people who don't drive can complain about second hand smoke?

Driving cars around spewing out noxious gases infringes on everyone's right to clean air. That is a huge problem, and a complex one that touches on city planning (planned for cars, not people), national economies (based on fossil fuel productions and use) and wide societal attitudes (of waste and consumption). Fossil fuels will not be banned any time soon, because the entire economy of many nations centers around their use. Banning cigarette smoking in the work place, and in the public space of buildings (not outside, not in your home) would not cause things to grind to a halt.

People keep talking about freedom to choose, freedom to do this and that, but isn't the caveat always, "As long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others?" We ban drunk driving, even though alcohol and driving are not illegal seperately. We ban homicide, even though guns themselves are not illegal. We have traffic regulations, because driving is a social activity, and involves more than just one driver. Life is a social activity, and freedoms have to be exercised within that model. I shouldn't have to leave a restaurant to NOT breathe in cigarette smoke. I shouldn't have to move out of a city to NOT breath in harmful CO. One can issue can be dealt with without unduly compromising the rights of smokers (smoke out on the patio, in the warm sun...). The other is going to take a hell of a lot more work and planning.

don't do it around me and make sure you chew some chewing gm then it's your choice, i think weed is better than fags
ha i already chew gum after (when going out anywhere, you know)

And, yet, not a single complaint have I ever received. Go figure.



Or maybe it's because you don't really smoke?

No ... actually they don't ... and neither do I.

Seems like you're getting your info from anti-tobacco propoganda. Hell, as long as I smoked, I never even had a mild cough and, like WL there, can go toe to toe with people 1/2 my age in most physical activity.

If a theory is disproven, it can't rightfully be called truth, now can it?
Your anecdotal evidence does not disprove anything. I can counter with anecdotal evidence that my mother has terrible teeth from smoking (even though she gets them cleaned twice a year), and a horrible smoker's hack that has her coughing up phlegm every morning, and coughing like she has a cold all through the day. I hate the smell of her home, the yellowed walls and ceilings, and I hate the fact that she still thinks its okay to smoke in the car with me, as long as my babies aren't with us. Sure, there are people who smoke, and drink, and sleep around without using protection, and drive drunk, and abuse drugs, and eat way too much meat and so on and so forth that are still relatively healthy, and live 'to be 89'. That doesn't mean any of these behaviours are safe, or healthy.

You go ahead and champion your addiction. You have the right to be addicted. You do NOT have the right to infringe on the rights of those who have chosen to abstain from this habit. Would you shove meat down a vegetarian's throat? Would you force someone to get all pissed up and drive home? Would you go out and sabotage condoms so that people having sex aren't protected from STDs? I don't think you would. So why do you think it's okay to impose this unhealthy habit on others?

For nearly 20 years I smoked. I've known people who have been smokers for their entire lives and are now in their 80s.

While my grandfather died when he was 48 from throat cancer. My father is already older then that. My mom had to help my gandmother (who is
still with us) bring up 3 other girls.

My mom has told me the horror of watching her father, who was a strong man in the British Army waste away into nothing. Coughing up blood and black phlem. But I suppose this is all anti-smoking propaganda isn't it? There are never any real lives behind these stories, no one really dies do they?

That's what really get's me is the arrogance. I let my friends smoke. I tell them it's not bad for them 95% say they know and would like to quit but say they can't. Or quit for a while and go back. But to say a statement like smoking doesn't cause cancer. Then your burying your head in the sand. Not only that, you are insultng the thousands of people who have lost their life to cancer caused by smoking.

My mom has told me the horror of watching her father, who was a strong man in the British Army waste away into nothing. Coughing up blood and black phlem. But I suppose this is all anti-smoking propaganda isn't it? There are never any real lives behind these stories, no one really dies do they?


Ummm ... you don't know me. Hi. I'm James. I took care of my dad when I was 16 as he lay dieing of cancer at 43. Don't assume for 1 second that I don't have real life experience with this sort of thing. Your mom may have told you of the horror, but I've seen it first hand.

But to say a statement like smoking doesn't cause cancer.

It doesn't. Cancer isn't caught like a cold. It must be already existent and be aggrivated. Extreme doses of radiation can cause cells to mutate, but cigarettes aren't enough. My father smoked, yes, but every doctor I spoke to during his long illness - doctors whose opinions I trust far more than truth.com's - explained very carefully to me that a person must be born with certain genetic conditions. Without those conditions, a person could smoke 5 packs a day for 60 years and never get cancer.

Then your burying your head in the sand.

I hate it when people use that phrase. An ostrich doesn't bury its head in the sand to hide, it sticks its head in the sand to look for water.

Or maybe it's because you don't really smoke?

Anymore? No. I stopped smoking months ago. Made a thread about it. I figured I'd smoked enough.

However, I notice no difference between how I felt, smelled, or whatever then or now.

It doesn't. Cancer isn't caught like a cold. It must be already existent and be aggrivated. Extreme doses of radiation can cause cells to mutate, but cigarettes aren't enough. My father smoked, yes, but every doctor I spoke to during his long illness - doctors whose opinions I trust far more than truth.com's - explained very carefully to me that a person must be born with certain genetic conditions. Without those conditions, a person could smoke 5 packs a day for 60 years and never get cancer. Well, until there is a reliable way to know whether or not you have those existent conditions that would be prodded into full-blown cancer by smoking, wouldn't it be safest to avoid it? And limit exposure to second hand smoke?


I hate it when people use that phrase. An ostrich doesn't bury its head in the sand to hide, it sticks its head in the sand to look for water.
Ah, Keruvalia...don't fight it...this cliche is already to ingrained in our culture, regardless of its inaccuracy:).

So why do you think it's okay to impose this unhealthy habit on others?

I don't. What I refuse to agree with, though, is the automatic treatment of a person as a second class citizen because they smoke.

I smoke and it is okay. I agree with a lot of people that some places should be non-smoking, as sometimes I do not even like to smell it. But not all places. Like bars!
:sniper:

it's disgusting and should be banned in public places

I tired of waling around and having people blowing fing smoke in my face its disgusting >.<


/agree
/agree
/agree
/agree
/agree
/agree

I don't. What I refuse to agree with, though, is the automatic treatment of a person as a second class citizen because they smoke.
So do I. But keeping them from smoking around people who don't WANT to smoke is not treating them as second class citizens. It is simply curbing one freedom because it infringes on another.

If you drive a car, you're pumping far more and far worse pollutants into the air than the average smoker will put forth in a lifetime.

Hence, if you drive a car, but then complain about a ciggie, you're a hypocrite.
Source?

Smoking is a choice.

The options are either I don't go where smokers are or smokers aren't allowed where I go.

As to Smoking not being damaging, this has been tried in court and the cigarette manufacturers lost. So however good your argument for smoking, it is dangerous as far as doctors and the law is concerned.

If I by not smoking, do not damage the health of others and myself, I should not be penalised and barred from places that smokers frequent.

If you can find a way to smoke, (inhale) without exhaling the chemicals that are extra to your normal breath, then smoke away.

As to it depending on your genetic make-up, do you test everyone to make sure its safe for them to be around you before lighting up, if not isn't it a kind of assault?

As to it depending on your genetic make-up, do you test everyone to make sure its safe for them to be around you before lighting up, if not isn't it a kind of assault?
that is a very good point! did you know that 80% of smoke from a cigarette is breathed in by passive smokers?

Anything is acceptable in moderation. I've been a smoker for a year and a half and I'v stuck to the pack-a-week level that I started with. I don't feel that smoking is signifigantly dangerous at those levels to warrant my stopping, particularly since I have no other health conditions and am in good health overall.

Anything is acceptable in moderation. I've been a smoker for a year and a half and I'v stuck to the pack-a-week level that I started with. I don't feel that smoking is signifigantly dangerous at those levels to warrant my stopping, particularly since I have no other health conditions and am in good health overall.

And the health of those around you?

Or are one of those smokers who dont breath out?

Anymore? No. I stopped smoking months ago. Made a thread about it. I figured I'd smoked enough.

However, I notice no difference between how I felt, smelled, or whatever then or now.
ok :)
I just wondered as I checked the poll results and you'd chosen "I don't smoke" -option. Never saw your thread (or just don't remember it)

Anyway. Good for you, nature thanks a nature lover (old slogan from a toilet paper ad...)

about cars
Carbon dioxide is not the main problem. It's not really that bad for humans, it's bad for enviroment, not for us. The small amounts of carbon monoxide, nitrogen monoxide and unborn hydrogarbon are much worse eventhough those combined make less than 1% of the emission. Even worse are the extremely small pieces that car tyres detach of asphalt. Also traffic is the biggest polluter in towns and especially in cities.

I have nothing but harsh things to say about the smokers who flaunt their habits and who shove them down the throats of non-smokers.

Before anyone starts whining "oh that never happens," it's happened to me a number of times: 1) I've been the only non-smoker in a van heading to a job site and just about everyone lit up and didn't realise until after we got back from that site that I didn't smoke; 2) I started coughing around smoke at a restaurant when I was hanging out with a group of friends and one of them told me, and I quote: "you'll live"; 3) On a trip to West Chester, PA, my father told me he was going to light up in the car even though he knew I'm opposed to it and he knew I resented him every time he did it.

Bottom line: If you smoke, don't do it around me if I'm not going into an environment where I know smoking is going to happen.

Carbon dioxide is not the main problem. It's not really that bad for humans, it's bad for enviroment, not for us. The small amounts of carbon monoxide, nitrogen monoxide and unborn hydrogarbon are much worse eventhough those combined make less than 1% of the emission. Even worse are the extremely small pieces that car tyres detach of asphalt. Also traffic is the biggest polluter in towns and especially in cities.
First, I don't even know what you're quoting since you cut it so much. Secondly, I quite specifically said carbon monoxide was an environmental, rather than human health issue. So what are we even talking about here?

This should be multiple choice, so that I can choose that I don't smoke and smoking is disgusting but people should have the right to choose.

First, I don't even know what you're quoting since you cut it so much. Secondly, I quite specifically said carbon monoxide was an environmental, rather than human health issue. So what are we even talking about here?
oops, I read it hours ago and did not read it properly when I wrote back. Anyway I wanted to point out that cardon dioxide (which you did not mention at all) is not the "bad guy" in traffic emissions (to people) as many believe.

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up.

2) I started coughing around smoke at a restaurant when I was hanging out with a group of friends and one of them told me, and I quote: "you'll live"

you did, apparently.

If you drive a car, you're pumping far more and far worse pollutants into the air than the average smoker will put forth in a lifetime.

Hence, if you drive a car, but then complain about a ciggie, you're a hypocrite.

Erm, no. For several reasons

1) Most cars now have catalytic converters which deal with 70-80% of the toxins

2) People do not complain about smokers poluting the enviroment by contributing to the greenhouse effect (as they do with cars) but they complain for creating a disgusting enviroment for people to eat in/drink in

3) The health risks from breathing in fume ridden air are far less than those from smoking. To the best of my knowledge, car exaust is not carconagenoic.

I had to put "I smoke and it's okay."

This is not to say that I do it often. My smoking is confined to a cigar every once in a great while. I think they smell good, and frankly, taste good, too.

As far as the legality, I would not mind smoking being banned in an enclosed public place. Outside, I would find it absurd to ban, but in places where it could affect a medical problem of someone else, I can see why it would be banned.

If you drive a car, you're pumping far more and far worse pollutants into the air than the average smoker will put forth in a lifetime.

Hence, if you drive a car, but then complain about a ciggie, you're a hypocrite.

No, smoking is worse for the third party(why is the second party never mentioned?). It causes cancer (Which is bad) and there is no proof of the green house affect.

I do not smoke, but people have the right to choose whether to smoke or not, and to smoke whatever they want.

Although, I do think it is disgusting. I used to smoke heavily for about 7 years (2 packs a day for a while). Some smokers think that non-smokers are just being assholes when they get really bothered by someone smoking near them, but the truth is that it smells aweful and is really bothersome. I would hate just as much if people were passing horrendous gas constantly around me too. I also think that if you know that there is going to be smoking somewhere, like a bar or casino and it is going to bother you that much then you shouldnt go there in the first place.

3) The health risks from breathing in fume ridden air are far less than those from smoking. To the best of my knowledge, car exaust is not carconagenoic.

http://www.checnet.org/healthehouse/chemicals/chemicals-detail2.asp?Main_ID=274

automobile exhaust contains benzene. benzene is a carcinogen (or a carconagen, whichever).

In Italy, they write the killer smoke on the side and if you dont listen to that, it says that it would turn you ugly. Those vain Italians :p

http://www.checnet.org/healthehouse/chemicals/chemicals-detail2.asp?Main_ID=274

automobile exhaust contains benzene. benzene is a carcinogen (or a carconagen, whichever).

Then again, what doesnt cause cancer? Now genetic guy, there is this law right, it goes like If you are born with something it has conditions in order to be active, but nature could give someone who doesnt have it get it. OH MY A TIGER. Just to make it interesting.

I don't personally smoke, but it's none of my damn business if you do. As long as you aren't smoking in a public enclosed room (during which smoke can build up and affect other people), smoking should be legal everywhere. Yes, even in public parks and the like.

Also, I believe the rediculous taxes levied specifically on cigarettes should be repealed, in favor of the normal sales tax which applies to all things purchased. Targeted taxation is as bad as banning, and it leads to absurd situations such as the FBI breaking up cigarette smuggling rings.

I am in the process of quiting, and while I agree with the blanket ban on smoking in pucblic places to some degree, I do not fully back it. How can you ban smoking in places like bars or college campuses? People go to the bar to drink and smoke, and how many college students would put up with not being allowed to smoke on campus. I agree that places like restaurants should be smoke free. There needs to be a distinction between where and when it is acceptable to smoke in public. The government should not completely ban it, but should instead encourage public places to slowly ween it out in certain places.

I am in the process of quiting, and while I agree with the blanket ban on smoking in pucblic places to some degree, I do not fully back it. How can you ban smoking in places like bars or college campuses? People go to the bar to drink and smoke, and how many college students would put up with not being allowed to smoke on campus. I agree that places like restaurants should be smoke free. There needs to be a distinction between where and when it is acceptable to smoke in public. The government should not completely ban it, but should instead encourage public places to slowly ween it out in certain places.
There IS a distinction (in places where this is a moot issue, and already regulated). Either you are non-smoking, or you are an 18 and over ONLY establishment.

And there is no smoking in ANY public buildings (re, government buildings like libraries and gov't offices so on).

There IS a distinction (in places where this is a moot issue, and already regulated). Either you are non-smoking, or you are an 18 and over ONLY establishment.

And there is no smoking in ANY public buildings (re, government buildings like libraries and gov't offices so on).


My gf has asthma and works in a law office and the lawyers smoke at their desks :(

My gf has asthma and works in a law office and the lawyers smoke at their desks :(
Sue the bastards.

Sue the bastards.

can't - it's legal here

can't - it's legal here
Are you sure? Check into your workplace safety regulations, and I bet you could nail them there. Of course, it would be a vangard case, would take up all your time, money and energy, and has no guarantee of success, but it could make a serious political change...

Yeah, it's easier to just put up with it, I know. Frick.

People are too caught up about what rights they have to notice other people:
I would want my smoking friends to stop because of their health, not mine - they may have the right to smoke, but do they have a right to deprive me of a friend?
I would want people I don't know to stop because:
a) Fag ends on the floor - yuck
b) Passive smoking - inhaling tiny amounts of tar, but still inhaling tar
c) Accidentally burning someone with a cigarette! ouch. (What? it could happen!)

I voted: Do Not Smoke, but Pro-Choice.

However, I wanted to add, that I've smoked cigarettes. I did get a buzz off them. And I've danced in clubs with and without smoking bans. The smoke free dance clubs are nicer. I've been able to dance longer and hard core, whereas I've found the smoke filled clubs kinda seem nice (in that I can't __see__ everybody standing around), but that people tend to be less energetic. (It might help to know that I tend to be pretty high energy and appreciate seeing people being active.)

I've dated (for very short times) smokers, and it was disgusting. The smell and the taste was just too much.

With that in mind, I think people have a choice, and I'll defend that choice. But I do use my own _choice_ and tend to avoid places that allow smoking inside and I tend to avoid people who smoke. I have nothing against them, but I just find it really makes me ill and less energetic.

Are you sure? Check into your workplace safety regulations, and I bet you could nail them there. Of course, it would be a vangard case, would take up all your time, money and energy, and has no guarantee of success, but it could make a serious political change...

Yeah, it's easier to just put up with it, I know. Frick.

Yes I'm sure and sueing lawyers? no thanks.

as for cigarette butts ending up on teh floor - this pisses me off to no end. It seems most smokers don't realize they are littering when they do it. My last house I found butts flung all over the place in my front and back yard - despite having ashtrays for smokers.

My current house is brand new and we have had one smoker (my gfs father) visit for a weekend and I found about 20 cigarette butts around the house.

There IS a distinction (in places where this is a moot issue, and already regulated). Either you are non-smoking, or you are an 18 and over ONLY establishment.

And there is no smoking in ANY public buildings (re, government buildings like libraries and gov't offices so on).
Not in Europe, hun.

Anyone who says "it should be banned in public", should themselves be banned in public.. our tobacco taxes fund your health service you scumbags..

"I smoke..any of you that have a problem with this, i recommend taking a look around the world in which we live in and shutting your f**king mouth, either that or suffer a facial burn, as this is america the land of the free, and you have that option available to you." - Bill Hicks

Not in Europe, hun.
Notice I said that this was in places where it has already been regulated.

And Ireland is a part of Europe isn't it? last I heard there was a total smoking ban...

Anyone who says "it should be banned in public", should themselves be banned in public.. our tobacco taxes fund your health service you scumbags..

"I smoke..any of you that have a problem with this, i recommend taking a look around the world in which we live in and shutting your f**king mouth, either that or suffer a facial burn, as this is america the land of the free, and you have that option available to you." - Bill HicksUh-huh.

Perhaps you should calm down before you give yourself a stroke. I love the dichotomy of "shut up, we're free" by the way.

Banned in public generally means, banned in public buildings. Re: government buildings such as libraries, government offices, and the like. Not, "you can't step foot outside your house and smoke".

So...breath...in....out....calm....

If you drive a car, you're pumping far more and far worse pollutants into the air than the average smoker will put forth in a lifetime.

Hence, if you drive a car, but then complain about a ciggie, you're a hypocrite.
C'mon this is the worst logic I've ever seen. What grades did you have in philosophy? By walking on a street I'm not directly inhaling the smell of the exhaust gas, it may be polluting the atmosphere and probably doing more harm to the environment than ONE cigarette does although it bothers me more to have a person breathing cigarette's smoke next to me than 200 cars on a road.

And honestly, I find it disgusting to be talking like at a two-palm distance to a person who awfully stinks to cigarette smoke.

Getting back on topic ... I find awful to smoke in public areas and I think it should be banned unless the restaurant/bar/shop has a separate (i.e. with no air contact from one to another) room to non-smokers.

Well Look Listen I Smoke And U All Say Its Bad But Isent That Up To Me If Ppl Like Me And Others Want To Smoke Let Them Its Not You Who Could Get Cancer Its Us We R Responsilble For Ourselfs And Ill Carry On Smoking And That Is My Choice Not Yours

when I smoked I always had the common courtesy to move away from non-smokers (like at bus stops). if I was smoking during a conversation with non-smokers I would make sure to blow my smoke away from people and take note of wind conditions and such.

Well Look Listen I Smoke And U All Say Its Bad But Isent That Up To Me If Ppl Like Me And Others Want To Smoke Let Them Its Not You Who Could Get Cancer Its Us We R Responsilble For Ourselfs And Ill Carry On Smoking And That Is My Choice Not Yours
Remember folks...Only YOU can stop terrible spelling, grammar, abuse of upper case letters and run-on sentences.

Well Look Listen I Smoke And U All Say Its Bad But Isent That Up To Me If Ppl Like Me And Others Want To Smoke Let Them Its Not You Who Could Get Cancer Its Us We R Responsilble For Ourselfs And Ill Carry On Smoking And That Is My Choice Not Yours
Believe me, I don't give a damn with what you do to your life unless your actions start interfering with mine which is what I criticize.

By the way, IMHO, smoking should be formally considered as a suicide form (thousands of people die yearly because of it) and thus be punished like eutanasia is [wrongly in my opinion].

Anyone who says "it should be banned in public", should themselves be banned in public.. our tobacco taxes fund your health service you scumbags..


LOL SHOULD BE BANNED THEMSELVES in public thats hilarious! hilarious! pure comical genious :D

your tobbaco taxes are there because you smoke and pose a risk to everyone health including your own, increase them I say.

Smokers are just being stupid by killing themselves, they are killing people around them, and is that like murder as far as i am concerned

Remember folks...Only YOU can stop terrible spelling, grammar, abuse of upper case letters and run-on sentences.

lol
see I understood the point so it didnt bother me (well the spelling, grammar and stuff didn't)
although I will agree that all caps suck and am grateful for the converter function they have in place

lol
see I understood the point so it didnt bother me (well the spelling, grammar and stuff didn't)
although I will agree that all caps suck and am grateful for the converter function they have in place
Yeah, but you're an apologist for people too lazy to spell properly, so I simply dismiss your opinions and ignore you completely. :D

Some fun and interesting things I'd like to point out:

1] I'm told that smokers aren't being treated as second class citizens, but then I read a lot of posts where smokers are called disgusting, stupid, murderers, and all kinds of foul names. Condemning the habit is one thing, condemning the person is blatant assholery.

2] Everybody wants to ban cigarettes, but those same people want to abolish the War on Drugs. So I can't smoke around you or your kids, but shooting up heroine is ok? Nice.

3] The same people who want to ban cigarettes and condemn smokers for their murderous stupidity are the same people who believe alcoholics should be treated as compassionately as possible and given every opportunity to get treatement for their illness when, in fact, nicotine is far more addictive than alcohol and far more readily available.

4] Every time a major city wants to build a new sports arena, they build it by raising tax on cigarettes. Then they make the building non-smoking. Uh huh.

Strange lot.

restaurants never listen when you tell them that people smoking near you bothers you, they just make a stupid smoking area which is the most pointless thing I've ever seen in my life.

And what are you basing this information on? When was the last time you had a conversation with a restaurant owner on the suject? Sensible business owners listen to their customers. If they don't, they go our of business. They'll listen.

Wherever i go I have to put up with people smoking around me, shops, cafes, everywhere, it drives me mad, if someone wants to slowly kll themselves then that's their choice but i shouldn't have to suffer because of it too!

Boo hoo. We all have to put up with shit that we don't like: you're not a special case. See those appendages sticking out from underneath your belly? Those are legs. You can use them to get away from things you don't like.

I was sat at a bus stop the other day and I've had a really bad chesty cough lately and yet the woman sat next me lit up and started smoking right there in front of me, didn't even ask if i minded, normally I'd start coughing like a maniac but i was already doing that anyway before she started, people like that really bug me

Now this I just won't stand for. It's not really that easy to find a locale that's better ventilated than out-fucking-doors, yet some people still insist on supposing that others shouldn't be allowed to smoke outside or what-have you. The idea that she should have to ask first is ridiculously self centered and crude; and mind you, this is an Egoist telling you this. Remember those legs I told you about? Those come in handy here. You can figure out which way the wind is blowing and move round to the other side. Presto! No smoke in your face.

Furthermore, I find it a bit hard to believe that the concentration of smoke [you know, being that you were outside and all] was anywhere near enough to pose itself as a meaningful irritant. You're certainly allowed to dislike it, but overreacting to its presence is immature. If you're outside, and you're at a bus stop, I'd bet my left nut you're getting more exhaust than you are getting smoke.

EDIT: had to touch on this one too:

Smokers are just being stupid by killing themselves, they are killing people around them, and is that like murder as far as i am concerned

No evidence of that, Hoss. The 1993 EPA study that the government and every anti smoking group in the world got that info from was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1998 for deviating from standard accepted scientific procedure in order to reach a predetermined outcome. The phenomenon of secondhand smoke as a health hazard is likely a fantasy. Point to the numbers all you want: it doesn't matter. If you die of $CONDITION that may be linked to the consumption of cigarettes, and you're a non-smoker, the government automatically assumes that ETS was the reason you died when you did. This sort of fails to account for the hundreds of thousands of people who have been in the service industry for the majority of their working lives and don't have cancer. If secondhand smoke really was that much of a problem, we'd have seen service personnel mortality rates rise drastically in the last 5 or 10 years.

In short, there's nothing I've seen on the subject yet that seems predicated on the real world at all.

2] Everybody wants to ban cigarettes, but those same people want to abolish the War on Drugs. So I can't smoke around you or your kids, but shooting up heroine is ok? Nice.
Believe me, I'm not one of them. I do condemn smoking and I equally or mostly condemn drugs and all kind of addictive stuff which may directly or indirectly corrupt me or the society on which I'm into.

Some fun and interesting things I'd like to point out:

1] I'm told that smokers aren't being treated as second class citizens, but then I read a lot of posts where smokers are called disgusting, stupid, murderers, and all kinds of foul names. Condemning the habit is one thing, condemning the person is blatant assholery.

2] Everybody wants to ban cigarettes, but those same people want to abolish the War on Drugs. So I can't smoke around you or your kids, but shooting up heroine is ok? Nice.

3] The same people who want to ban cigarettes and condemn smokers for their murderous stupidity are the same people who believe alcoholics should be treated as compassionately as possible and given every opportunity to get treatement for their illness when, in fact, nicotine is far more addictive than alcohol and far more readily available.

4] Every time a major city wants to build a new sports arena, they build it by raising tax on cigarettes. Then they make the building non-smoking. Uh huh.

Strange lot.


nice way to generalize

1. not everyone is condemning the smokers - just a few zealots. The rest of us just dont want to have to stink and have our health threatened everytime we go into a public building

2. not everyone wants to ban ciggs - thats silly. I dont want smoking around me or my kids nor do I want drugs being done around me or my kids. does that clear it up for you?

3. not everyone believes that either. sheesh you are a generalizing fool today aren't ya? :p I think people who are addicted to anything shoudl get help if they want it.

4. i say we ban sports - god I hate sport. just kidding. no I'm not. :D

Some fun and interesting things I'd like to point out:

1] I'm told that smokers aren't being treated as second class citizens, but then I read a lot of posts where smokers are called disgusting, stupid, murderers, and all kinds of foul names. Condemning the habit is one thing, condemning the person is blatant assholery.
I agree. Which is why you will never catch me using any of those words. Some people are just getting weird here...murder? I mean...seriously.

2] Everybody wants to ban cigarettes, but those same people want to abolish the War on Drugs. So I can't smoke around you or your kids, but shooting up heroine is ok? Nice.
Not ban cigarettes. Ban smoking when it is going to affect people who choose not to smoke. And if heroine is legalised, that would not mean people could just shoot up next to you at Burger King...I imagine it would be regulated in much the same way as smoking should be, and alcohol is.

3] The same people who want to ban cigarettes and condemn smokers for their murderous stupidity are the same people who believe alcoholics should be treated as compassionately as possible and given every opportunity to get treatement for their illness when, in fact, nicotine is far more addictive than alcohol and far more readily available.
Well, I don't fit into this category, since I don't condemn smokers, and feel as much sympathy for them as I do for any addict.

4] Every time a major city wants to build a new sports arena, they build it by raising tax on cigarettes. Then they make the building non-smoking. Uh huh.
LOL...I've never heard of that happening, since in Canada, the tax on smokes is a federal one...and I think it's justified since smokers put a heavier burden on the health-care system than non-smokers....but then again, so do obese people, and before you ask, sure I'd support a junk-food tax!

Yeah, but you're an apologist for people too lazy to spell properly, so I simply dismiss your opinions and ignore you completely. :D

such a liar

you only ignore the points of mine that you cannot refute and use my horrible spelling/grammar as a scapegoat

cars have a use, fags don't

The nation state would crumble if wasn't for us altruistic patriots :p

such a liar

you only ignore the points of mine that you cannot refute and use my horrible spelling/grammar as a scapegoat

Bait. Don't.

Bait. Don't.


we're kidding with each other ;)

I had a thread about this yesterday

Bait. Don't.
That's why we include the smileys and such...to show we're kidding...but I suppose we could use tags...

Don't spank us, please. Not hard anyway :D

Oh shoot, now I'm confused...do those tags now make that mean I want to be spanked? :confused:

Back to the point...Keruvalia...do you object to the idea that smokers should have to smoke outside, or only in establishments that are designated as 18 and over (usually bars and such)?

I <3 Sinneryoohoo

your tobbaco taxes are there because you smoke and pose a risk to everyone health including your own, increase them I say.

Really? I thought it was becaus it was a very addictive substance so the gvt could rape smokers for all they have (under the guise of 'public health' of course, of course).

Some fun and interesting things I'd like to point out:

1] I'm told that smokers aren't being treated as second class citizens, but then I read a lot of posts where smokers are called disgusting, stupid, murderers, and all kinds of foul names. Condemning the habit is one thing, condemning the person is blatant assholery.

They condem smokers who persistantly see their right to smoke as more important than the other peoples right to health. I think you will agree that is wrong.


2] Everybody wants to ban cigarettes, but those same people want to abolish the War on Drugs. So I can't smoke around you or your kids, but shooting up heroine is ok? Nice.

I haven't met any such people


3] The same people who want to ban cigarettes and condemn smokers for their murderous stupidity are the same people who believe alcoholics should be treated as compassionately as possible and given every opportunity to get treatement for their illness when, in fact, nicotine is far more addictive than alcohol and far more readily available.

Again, its to do with smoking harming other peoples health as well as those who do it.


4] Every time a major city wants to build a new sports arena, they build it by raising tax on cigarettes. Then they make the building non-smoking. Uh huh.


That seems to me rather clever, increase tax on cigeretes as a detterant and use the proceeds for other things.

I have no problem with people making a conscious choice to use tobacco, alcohol, or even narcotics. People are allowed to do to themselves whatever they want.

However, when you smoke in an enclosed area, or your smoke gets into someone's face (drifting or blowing), you've taken away that person's choice, forcing them to breathe your nasty smoke whether they want to, or not.

To those people, I say, please go immediately and directly to the 9th circle of hell, you disgusting bastards.

Smoking in public is like deciding to fart for twenty minutes straight. You might enjoy it, but nobody else does. And nobody wants to be in a restaurant full of people farting. Blowing smoke into someone's face is like shoving their face right into your crack and letting one rip, and should be considered an extenuating circumstance in cases of assault upon smokers.

If you drive a car, you're pumping far more and far worse pollutants into the air than the average smoker will put forth in a lifetime.

Hence, if you drive a car, but then complain about a ciggie, you're a hypocrite.


You're not allowed to drive indoors. You shouldn't be allowed to smoke indoors, either.

Anyone who says "it should be banned in public", should themselves be banned in public.. our tobacco taxes fund your health service you scumbags..

And then you take many times the value of your tobacco tax contribution out of the health system to treat the problems caused by your smoking... with the nonsmokers paying the difference. Poor you. If it's so much of a burden, you can always choose to stop paying the tax... just stop buying cigarettes.

Really? I thought it was becaus it was a very addictive substance so the gvt could rape smokers for all they have (under the guise of 'public health' of course, of course).


thats conspiracy oriented BS

For example The extra taxes obtained from ciggies are mainly put into the NHS(public health service) in the UK in my belief, one which can be substantiated by viewing albeit in more detail that easily (relatively) available public documents which detail tax expenditure. If the government was really using ciggie tax for self gain someone would've spotted that extra tax not going to the NHS.....

I'm sure the situation is similiar in other democratic states. That tax may go to subsidise private health companies in the US however.

You're not allowed to drive indoors. You shouldn't be allowed to smoke indoors, either.

Why the hell do so many people think like this? Why is it an all or nothing issue? I'll be the first to agree that smoking is definately inappropriate in most places, but why the hell is the only option to ban smoking in all fucking public areas? Why should it be illegal for someone to make a smoke lounge? Why the hell would a non smoker go there anyway?

thats conspiracy oriented BS

Take me with a grain of salt.

For example The extra taxes obtained from ciggies are mainly put into the NHS(public health service) in the UK in my belief, one which can be substantiated by viewing albeit in more detail that easily (relatively) available public documents which detail tax expenditure. If the government was really using ciggie tax for self gain someone would've spotted that extra tax not going to the NHS.....

If the government wants to do something for self gain it cannot also benefit the NHS?

I'm sure the situation is similiar in other democratic states. That tax may go to subsidise private health companies in the US however.

Private health organizations are not subsidized in the US. That's why they're private. The US does have publicly-funded medical programs, though.

To give you an idea of the state of affairs... in 1998 the state of California collected about $1.18 billion in cigarette taxes, and spent $2.3 billion in Medicaid support for smoking-related illnesses and diseases. Those who did not receive Medicaid passed the extra expense on to their fellow insurance purchasers.

Ewww, smoking is so gross! I cannot STAND the smell, it makes me sick. How could anyone want to smell like that?? YUCK

If the government wants to do something for self gain it cannot also benefit the NHS?


Well its not self gain is it if it benefits the NHS (Which serves the PUBLIC as an NPO)

The NHS can treat more lung cancer victims better with more money cant it? Its not really self gain, if its benefiting the public, so smokers are indirectly paying for treatment of sick smokers via those taxes....dont you see?

No government emplyees are using the money to increase their saleries are they? So its not "self gain"! The public is gaining! arrggghhhhh

Why the hell do so many people think like this? Why is it an all or nothing issue? I'll be the first to agree that smoking is definately inappropriate in most places, but why the hell is the only option to ban smoking in all fucking public areas? Why should it be illegal for someone to make a smoke lounge? Why the hell would a non smoker go there anyway?

A smoking lounge as an extension of, say, a restaurant, only works if the lounge doesn't open into the rest of the restaurant, and doesn't share ventilation. It's not worth it to the restaurant owner.

If what you're after is a club where you're allowed to smoke, all you have to do is make it a members-only sort of organization... at which point it is no longer "public."

Well its not self gain is it if it benefits the NHS (Which serves the PUBLIC as an NPO)

The NHS can treat more lung cancer victims better with more money cant it? Its not really self gain, if its benefiting the public, so smokers are indirectly paying for treatment of sick smokers via those taxes....dont you see?

No government emplyees are using the money to increase their saleries are they? So its not "self gain"! The public is gaining! arrggghhhhh

I know all this.

It is possible for more than one interest to gain from something.

Not all gains are monetary.

Back to the point...Keruvalia...do you object to the idea that smokers should have to smoke outside, or only in establishments that are designated as 18 and over (usually bars and such)?

Depends on the weather. If it's warm and sunny outside, I have never had a problem with going outside ... whether to smoke or not. However, I do think it's very rude to force a person to go stand in the rain and cold because you (you, in general; not you, Sinuhue) don't like the way they smell.

*shudders at the statement he's about to make* It smacks of "whites only" bathrooms.

Incidently, what about people like me ... tobacco is sacred to my tribe.

Why the hell do so many people think like this? Why is it an all or nothing issue? I'll be the first to agree that smoking is definately inappropriate in most places, but why the hell is the only option to ban smoking in all fucking public areas? Why should it be illegal for someone to make a smoke lounge? Why the hell would a non smoker go there anyway?
Wow...you're the most vociferous and empassioned mod I've ever seen!

Most places do have well-ventilated smoking lounges...like in airports and such, and if they don't there are usually designated smoking areas (away from entrances and exits) for smokers. You're right...it shouldn't be an all or nothing proposition. it's unfortunate that people need to have laws or bylaws to force them to behave politely.

That seems to me rather clever, increase tax on cigeretes as a detterant and use the proceeds for other things.

And, yet, you constantly slam Saudi Arabia for putting a special protection tax against non-Muslims ... funny, that. A targetted tax is either clever or hateful. Can't have both.

Depends on the weather. If it's warm and sunny outside, I have never had a problem with going outside ... whether to smoke or not. However, I do think it's very rude to force a person to go stand in the rain and cold because you (you, in general; not you, Sinuhue) don't like the way they smell.

*shudders at the statement he's about to make* It smacks of "whites only" bathrooms.

Incidently, what about people like me ... tobacco is sacred to my tribe.

what about the effect it has on people like my gf who has asthma? should she go stand out in the rain because your smoking indoors throws her into a coughing fit? And if it's sacred, then smoke it for spiritual reasons in sacred places. The fact that you cannot wait till you are in a clear area or till teh rain dies has nothign to do with it's sacredness.

A smoking lounge as an extension of, say, a restaurant, only works if the lounge doesn't open into the rest of the restaurant, and doesn't share ventilation. It's not worth it to the restaurant owner.

If what you're after is a club where you're allowed to smoke, all you have to do is make it a members-only sort of organization... at which point it is no longer "public."

Neither. I'm talking about a public place that sells tobacco products and nothing else. Why would it be wrong to smoke there?

thats conspiracy oriented BS

For example The extra taxes obtained from ciggies are mainly put into the NHS(public health service) in the UK in my belief, one which can be substantiated by viewing albeit in more detail that easily (relatively) available public documents which detail tax expenditure. If the government was really using ciggie tax for self gain someone would've spotted that extra tax not going to the NHS.....

I'm sure the situation is similiar in other democratic states. That tax may go to subsidise private health companies in the US however.

here in texas, they use cigarette taxes to fill in budget shortfalls. on the other hand, we've no state income tax.

Depends on the weather. If it's warm and sunny outside, I have never had a problem with going outside ... whether to smoke or not. However, I do think it's very rude to force a person to go stand in the rain and cold because you (you, in general; not you, Sinuhue) don't like the way they smell.

*shudders at the statement he's about to make* It smacks of "whites only" bathrooms.

Incidently, what about people like me ... tobacco is sacred to my tribe.

Cry me a river. Nobody is forcing you to stand outside in the rain. You have the option of staying inside where it is warm. Just don't foul the air for everyone while you're in there. Is that so much to ask?

I think it's the height of arrogance for you to expect everyone in a public place to suck in your noxious fumes because going outside is a little inconvenient.

Don't even go there with the "whites only" nonsense.

Depends on the weather. If it's warm and sunny outside, I have never had a problem with going outside ... whether to smoke or not. However, I do think it's very rude to force a person to go stand in the rain and cold because you (you, in general; not you, Sinuhue) don't like the way they smell.

*shudders at the statement he's about to make* It smacks of "whites only" bathrooms.

Incidently, what about people like me ... tobacco is sacred to my tribe.
Ok, first I'll address the outside thing. Frankly, if you need a cigarette enough, and can't wait, then snow or rain, I'm sorry, but you'll have to brave it. Is it LESS rude than letting you smoke inside around people who don't want to breath it in? I say yes. It sucks, but if I smoked, I'd be willing to get my fix outside if I really had to. Should people who choose not to indulge in this habit be forced to stand outside just so they don't have to? Does that make sense?

As for the sacred thing.

Yes, tobacco is sacred to most natives. That means we don't abuse it and make it a habit. It means we use it in ceremonies, or we gift it to our elders. It is a way of reaching the creator, not a way of getting a fix, and I don't know about your tribe, but whenever we can, we avoid the mass-produced and heavily-polluted tobacco in favour of home grown tobacco.
We use tobacco much in the same way we use sweetgrass...for cleansing and healing. We don't generally do those things in a restaurant after a meal, or a bar on a Saturday night:).

Cry me a river. Nobody is forcing you to stand outside in the rain. You have the option of staying inside where it is warm. Just don't foul the air for everyone while you're in there. Is that so much to ask?

I think it's the height of arrogance for you to expect everyone in a public place to suck in your noxious fumes because going outside is a little inconvenient.

And its not the height of arrogance to walk into a restaurant and tell everyone--some of whom are smoking--that they need to stop right now because everything revolves around you?

I do think it's very rude to force a person to go stand in the rain and cold because you (you, in general; not you, Sinuhue) don't like the way they smell.

*shudders at the statement he's about to make* It smacks of "whites only" bathrooms.

Incidently, what about people like me ... tobacco is sacred to my tribe.

Tobacco is objectionable for more reasons than its smell. It has numerous health hazards associated with it.
To compare smoking bans in public places to the racist "whites only" areas is stupid, because unlike non-whites, smoking is a health hazard. Thus, it becomes a discussion of ones right to go in public without obvious health-hazards surrounding them, not the right of smokers to avoid discrimination.

Neither. I'm talking about a public place that sells tobacco products and nothing else. Why would it be wrong to smoke there?

What makes you think the only people who purchase tobacco products are smokers? Do people never buy them as gifts? Do they never make the purchase on behalf of others? Do non-habitual smokers not light up a cigar now and then? Do all dip and chew customers also smoke?

And if it's sacred, then smoke it for spiritual reasons in sacred places.

And what if my peoples' sacred place is now a Bennigan's or a Starbucks?

Who has more right to kick who out then?

Tobacco is objectionable for more reasons than its smell. It has numerous health hazards associated with it.
To compare smoking bans in public places to the racist "whites only" areas is stupid, because unlike non-whites, smoking is a health hazard. Thus, it becomes a discussion of ones right to go in public without obvious health-hazards surrounding them, not the right of smokers to avoid discrimination.

The health hazards you speak of are inclement upon the user only, not those around him. What happens when you smoke is the smoke does something kind of funny--I think the scientific term for it is called "dispersal."

The concept behind secondhand smoke as a health hazard has, as I've pointed out several times, been discredited by the highest court in the country. The American Cancer Society, Stand, and just about every group of people out there bitching about secondhand smoke uses this discredited 1993 EPA study as their primary source. Another popular source for this fantasy is a late nineties WHO press release; but if you actually read the study under said press release it claims that there's no significant ETS risk.

What makes you think the only people who purchase tobacco products are smokers? Do people never buy them as gifts? Do they never make the purchase on behalf of others? Do non-habitual smokers not light up a cigar now and then? Do all dip and chew customers also smoke?

So you're telling me that smokers in a smoke shop shouldnt light up because there's a small chance that someone who doesn't smoke will come in? That'd be like telling people at a bar to not drink because a prohibitionist might walk in. Sophistry.

And what if my peoples' sacred place is now a Bennigan's or a Starbucks?

Who has more right to kick who out then?

THen at that point you fight for your sacred land back. You don't harass the customers of that store with yoru stink because of soemthign the owner of the establishment has done. Or do you?

And its not the height of arrogance to walk into a restaurant and tell everyone--some of whom are smoking--that they need to stop right now because everything revolves around you?
Put it this way. When you smoke in a restaurant, you are infringing on the rights of people who choose not to smoke. Short of leaving, they can't avoid the exposure. It would be akin to going to a bar (smoking or non, irrelevant), and ordering water, but being forced to take alcohol in it, or leave. A smoker, however, can stand outside, enjoy their smoke, and come back in for their meal. They are not being forbidden their cigarette.

It has numerous health hazards associated with it.

So does frying food. It releases various things into the air that when breathed over time are detremental to your health. Should we ban fried foods in restaurants? Being born is a death sentence. Health issue arguments just don't work. Judging by this thread, it's primarily the "ick" factor.

To compare smoking bans in public places to the racist "whites only" areas is stupid, because unlike non-whites, smoking is a health hazard.

The whole philosophy behind eugenics is that the mixing of people with various ethnicities poses a threat to the national health. Hence, the argument is not "stupid", but rather a valid comparison.

What makes you think the only people who purchase tobacco products are smokers? Do people never buy them as gifts? Do they never make the purchase on behalf of others? Do non-habitual smokers not light up a cigar now and then? Do all dip and chew customers also smoke?

I view the smell of tobacco the same way I view BO or too much perfume. It's offensive, but I don't have the right to force a person to bathe, or put on less perfume. The issue is the health risk. Therefore, if you accept the health risk of smoking the occasional cigar or chewing tobacco, you can handle the health risk of spending five minutes in a smoky room.

And its not the height of arrogance to walk into a restaurant and tell everyone--some of whom are smoking--that they need to stop right now because everything revolves around you?

No. You're assuming a falacious scenario in which I am the only person in a crowded restaurant who chooses not to breathe in smoke. I may be the only person who says something, but others will silently support me. Smoking is a minority habit everywhere in the Western world except Eastern Europe.

Besides, your choice to smoke or not is not inhibited by me, but by smoking around me, you have stolen my choice.

Put it this way. When you smoke in a restaurant, you are infringing on the rights of people who choose not to smoke. Short of leaving, they can't avoid the exposure. It would be akin to going to a bar (smoking or non, irrelevant), and ordering water, but being forced to take alcohol in it, or leave. A smoker, however, can stand outside, enjoy their smoke, and come back in for their meal. They are not being forbidden their cigarette.

Restaurants are a different beast. As a general rule, I don't have a problem with no tsmoking in restaurants. Bars, clubs, smoke shops, and open air areas are where I have a problem with smoking bans.

The health hazards you speak of are inclement upon the user only, not those around him. What happens when you smoke is the smoke does something kind of funny--I think the scientific term for it is called "dispersal."

The concept behind secondhand smoke as a health hazard has, as I've pointed out several times, been discredited by the highest court in the country. The American Cancer Society, Stand, and just about every group of people out there bitching about secondhand smoke uses this discredited 1993 EPA study as their primary source. Another popular source for this fantasy is a late nineties WHO press release; but if you actually read the study under said press release it claims that there's no significant ETS risk.



So you're telling me that smokers in a smoke shop shouldnt light up because there's a small chance that someone who doesn't smoke will come in? That'd be like telling people at a bar to not drink because a prohibitionist might walk in. Sophistry.


Well I can attest to personal experiences regarding "dispersal" in clubs/bars. In Calif before the ban when I would go to a club I would often come out coughing and if not only having a sore throat the next day, I would have caught a light cold.

After the ban... no such problems.

Obviously it does something when you take it in second hand.

THen at that point you fight for your sacred land back. You don't harass the customers of that store with yoru stink because of soemthign the owner of the establishment has done. Or do you?

Meh ... depends on my mood. Smoking in a clearly marked no-smoking zone in Houston comes with a fine of $200.00. I can afford it. I have on many occasions paid the special $200.00 city tax to smoke wherever I bloody well felt like.

But, then, I'm an asshole that way.

The whole philosophy behind eugenics is that the mixing of people with various ethnicities poses a threat to the national health. Hence, the argument is not "stupid", but rather a valid comparison.

The difference is that mixing people of various ethnicities does not do any health damage whatsoever to average Joe living next door to a mixed couple, whereas smoking tobacco does hurt those in the immediate area.
Furthermore, I worked in a restaraunt ofr a number of years, as night-manager to help get me through university. We did not allow smoking, but if we had, I would have been forced to either
a) get another job (never an easy proposition, especially for a full-time student)
or
b) accept the risk of lung cancer
I can accept the smell. I shouldn't have to accept the danger.

So you're telling me that smokers in a smoke shop shouldnt light up because there's a small chance that someone who doesn't smoke will come in? That'd be like telling people at a bar to not drink because a prohibitionist might walk in. Sophistry.

Wrong.

First, the chances that someone who doesn't smoke are not small. It would be perhaps a minority of their customers, but it would happen, on a daily basis.

Second, your bar metaphor is flawed. When you walk into a bar, nobody shoves a funnel into your mouth and pours a beer down your throat. Even in Mexican bars where they pour tequila down your throat and blow a whistle in your ear, they won't try it if you tell them to bug off.

There is a sophist in this conversation, but that sophist is not me.

Smoking is a minority habit everywhere in the Western world except Eastern Europe.

And do you not agree that the rights of the minority should be protected from the tyrrany of the majority?

Meh ... depends on my mood. Smoking in a clearly marked no-smoking zone in Houston comes with a fine of $200.00. I can afford it. I have on many occasions paid the special $200.00 city tax to smoke wherever I bloody well felt like.
.

Ha, and I thought that smoking was an expensive habit in Britain. :D

I don't smoke, but if smokers want to kill themselves slowly, then more power to them, as long as they don't foul up the air inside public buildings.

The health hazards you speak of are inclement upon the user only, not those around him. What happens when you smoke is the smoke does something kind of funny--I think the scientific term for it is called "dispersal."

The concept behind secondhand smoke as a health hazard has, as I've pointed out several times, been discredited by the highest court in the country. The American Cancer Society, Stand, and just about every group of people out there bitching about secondhand smoke uses this discredited 1993 EPA study as their primary source. Another popular source for this fantasy is a late nineties WHO press release; but if you actually read the study under said press release it claims that there's no significant ETS risk.


That's odd. I personally know a women who worked twenty years as a waitress and did not smoke, but now she has lung cancer, and her lungs show the same signs as a smoker. "No significant risk" is not something she would agree with.

The difference is that mixing people of various ethnicities does not do any health damage whatsoever to average Joe living next door to a mixed couple, whereas smoking tobacco does hurt those in the immediate area.


The theory of 2nd hand smoke being dangerous has been completely debunked, you know. Melkor brought it up, so I won't repeat it ... just scroll back a few messages.

The health hazards you speak of are inclement upon the user only, not those around him. What happens when you smoke is the smoke does something kind of funny--I think the scientific term for it is called "dispersal."


Smoking during pregnancy has been shown to decrease the birth weight of babies. It is a contributing factor to cases of SIDS. CONTRIBUTING, meaning other conditions are likely exacerbated by the presence of second hand smoke. Second hand smoke also aggravates conditions such as asthma, emphysema, CPOD, and allergies. Long term exposure is hard to measure, but I'm going to err on the safe side on this one, and say that I'll buy that it's probably not good for you, or harmless. The link between cancer and ANYTHING is hard, if not impossible to make...but again, we tend to err on the side of caution and avoid things like saccharine, and other chemicals linked to cancer. Are you going to survey all the people in a restaurant first to make sure they have no pre-existing conditions that might be set off by your after-meal cigarette? Or does your 'right' to smoke superceed theirs? Should they just get used to staying home so they can avoid smoke?

I don't understand why this is such an issue. Any of the smokers I know are fine with having to smoke outside my home (because I hate the smell, and my kids don't need to be breathing it in. I suppose, were they willing, I might let them smoke directly under my range hood...but there'd have to be a damn good reason:). They are also fine with smoking AFTER we leave the restaurant, or sitting on the bar side (which has to be closed off from the main restaurant to prevent 'dispersal'). Hey, they get to avoid squalling kids there too.

Aggressively smoking to prove you have the freedom to impose on everyone is pointless...and no doubt the anger you're feeling while doing it is going to detract from the experience anyway. So why don't we all just try to be polite, smoke away from those who don't want to breath it in, not call smokers murderers, and step away from extremism? Hmmmm?

That's odd. I personally know a women who worked twenty years as a waitress and did not smoke, but now she has lung cancer, and her lungs show the same signs as a smoker. "No significant risk" is not something she would agree with.

Lung cancer can come from any number of things. Common household pollutants, severe allergies to airborn hystamines, exposure to asbestos (you did say she worked 20 years as a waitress, hence, I can assume she's probably old enough to have spent many a year inhaling asbestos).

The lungs would show the same signs as a smoker in all of the above scenarios.

That's odd. I personally know a women who worked twenty years as a waitress and did not smoke, but now she has lung cancer, and her lungs show the same signs as a smoker. "No significant risk" is not something she would agree with.
living or working in a major metropolitan area for 2 years causes pretty much the same damage to human lungs as smoking 10 cigarettes per day for the same length of time. smoke, cleaning products, and asbestos in kitchens are a serious cause of lung cancer in people who work in the food service industry for extended periods. there are so many carcinogens that it is impossible to make any conclusions about the woman you describe, particularly since you give us no information about how the diagnosis was made or what the salient features of her lung tissue were.

I don't understand why this is such an issue. Any of the smokers I know are fine with having to smoke outside my home (because I hate the smell, and my kids don't need to be breathing it in.

Your home is a completely different animal. I would never intentionally disrespect the sanctity of someone's home. Public property, however ... watch out!

Restaurants are a different beast. As a general rule, I don't have a problem with no tsmoking in restaurants. Bars, clubs, smoke shops, and open air areas are where I have a problem with smoking bans.
Hm. Okay. Open air areas...definately no problem there, as long, again, as you are being considerate. Bars and clubs...well, I'd really like it if some were and some weren't...but I can see how confusing that would be since many of my friends smoke...we wouldn't hang out together much:). Unfortunately, I've gotten more sensitive to smoke with age, and I end up not going out to bars and clubs to avoid the smoke:( It would be nice if, like a local pub of ours does, there was no smoking inside, only on the beautiful deck on the roof.

Meh ... depends on my mood. Smoking in a clearly marked no-smoking zone in Houston comes with a fine of $200.00. I can afford it. I have on many occasions paid the special $200.00 city tax to smoke wherever I bloody well felt like.

But, then, I'm an asshole that way.
Hard-headed silly face! (might that be your secret indian name? Mine's 'bitchy-feminist-woman-who-never-gives-up) :D

The theory of 2nd hand smoke being dangerous has been completely debunked, you know. Melkor brought it up, so I won't repeat it ... just scroll back a few messages.
No...but plenty of scientists payrolled by tobacco companies have tried to debunk it.

I can throw stats at you to prove the world is flat. Doesn't make it so. Use common sense. Do you seriously think tobacco smoke is benign?

I don't smoke, don't understand why people do but I have no problem with them doing so. My wife smokes and I would like her to quite for her health but I would never try to force her to.
As far as people who complain about smokers nearby, boo hoo. Sorry, it just isn't that bad. Anti-smoke nazis annoy me far more than smokers.

Hm. Okay. Open air areas...definately no problem there, as long, again, as you are being considerate. Bars and clubs...well, I'd really like it if some were and some weren't...but I can see how confusing that would be since many of my friends smoke...we wouldn't hang out together much:). Unfortunately, I've gotten more sensitive to smoke with age, and I end up not going out to bars and clubs to avoid the smoke:( It would be nice if, like a local pub of ours does, there was no smoking inside, only on the beautiful deck on the roof.
i don't see any problem with allowing private businesses, clubs, bars, and restaurants choose whether or not they will permit smoking. if you don't like smoke then you can choose not to go to places that allow smoking, and if your friends do smoke then they can either choose to accompany you and not smoke or they can choose to go to an establishment that allows smoking. i don't see why any private person or business should be prevented from allowing their guests or customers to smoke...if you don't like smoke, you can go some place else, and if they lose enough money because people stay away then they will either go out of business or change their policies.

good point sinner

i don't see any problem with allowing private businesses, clubs, bars, and restaurants choose whether or not they will permit smoking. if you don't like smoke then you can choose not to go to places that allow smoking, and if your friends do smoke then they can either choose to accompany you and not smoke or they can choose to go to an establishment that allows smoking. i don't see why any private person or business should be prevented from allowing their guests or customers to smoke...if you don't like smoke, you can go some place else, and if they lose enough money because people stay away then they will either go out of business or change their policies.Well this argument basically boils down to political philosophy of government intervention...I'm for it, you're against it, and I think we'll have to agree to disagree:). To me, it's not a big issue. I just can never fathom why people seem so intent on proving that smoking is harmless. Why bother? Seriously?

The theory of 2nd hand smoke being dangerous has been completely debunked, you know. Melkor brought it up, so I won't repeat it ... just scroll back a few messages.

Melkor also referenced the 1992 EPA report.

However the following reports:
M. S. Benninger. 1999. The impact of cigarette smoking and environmental tobacco smoke on nasal and sinus disease: a review of the literature. American Journal of Rhinology 13:435-438.

B. P. Lanphear, C. A. Aligne, P. Auinger, M. Weitzman and R. S. Byrd. 2001. Residential exposures associated with asthma in U.S. children. Pediatrics 107 (3):505-11.

D. M. Mannino, J. E. Moorman, B. Kingsley, D. Rose and J. Repace. 2001. Health effects related to environmental tobacco smoke exposure in children in the United States: data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 155 (1):36-41.

P. J. Gergen, J. A. Fowler, K. R. Maurer, W. W. Davis and M. D. Overpeck. 1998. The burden of environmental tobacco smoke exposure on the respiratory health of children 2 months through 5 years of age in the United States: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988 to 1994. Pediatrics 101 (2):E8.

D. R. Wahlgren, M. F. Hovell, E. O. Meltzer and S. B. Meltzer. 2000. Involuntary smoking and asthma. Current Opinions in Pulmonary Medicine 6:31-6.

A. Lindfors, M. V. Hage-Hamsten, H. Rietz, M. Wickman and S. L. Nordvall. 1999. Influence of interaction of environmental risk factors and sensitization in young asthmatic children. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 104:755-62.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2001. Cigarette smoking among adults—United States, 1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 50 (40):869-73.

stand witness to the fact that second-hand smoke does damage. So, please forgive me if I remain unconvinced that the argument has been rebuffed. In private clubs, cigarette shops, and the like, smoke yourselves to death. But in public places, kindly allow me not to breath that crap in.

No...but plenty of scientists payrolled by tobacco companies have tried to debunk it.

I can throw stats at you to prove the world is flat. Doesn't make it so. Use common sense. Do you seriously think tobacco smoke is benign?

i do. see melkor's posts. see the link i posted at the beginning of this train wreck.

Well this argument basically boils down to political philosophy of government intervention...I'm for it, you're against it, and I think we'll have to agree to disagree:).

meh, if you say so :).


To me, it's not a big issue. I just can never fathom why people seem so intent on proving that smoking is harmless. Why bother? Seriously?
i'm not arguing smoking is harmless. it's obviously harmful. so is noise polution. so is exhaust from automobiles. that's why i support giving people the choice about whether or not they wish to expose themselves to it; if they don't want to endure smoke, they can choose to not patronize establishments that allow smoking. if enough people decide they prefer this option then smoking venues will die out. if, on the other hand, enough people want the option of having a smoke, i see no reason why businesses should be forbidden to offer that option if the owners decided to do so.

to me, it's a lot like how some bars or clubs play music at a volume level that is actually dangerous to the human ear. i choose not to go to places that do that, because i value my hearing and don't want to risk my health just for the pleasure of paying $12 for a cocktail. but i'm not out lobbying to prohibit clubs from playing harmfully loud music, because nobody is forcing me to go to clubs that play it...i can express my opinion with my wallet, and support businesses that play better (and quieter) selections.

And do you not agree that the rights of the minority should be protected from the tyrrany of the majority?

I agree. However, the right to blow smoke in someone's face is not recognized by either the US Constitution or the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The right to choice is implied in the Constitution, and stated in the UN document. My right to choose not to smoke is therefore protected. So is your freedom to choose to smoke. But by smoking in an enclosed area, you are violating the rights of others.

I merely pointed out that smokers are in the minority to illustrate how far-fetched the restaurant scenario was.

I am fine with you smoking, it's giving my freind strange looks when he lights himself on fire that I mind. (the things that happen when you don't have a camera.it would have made a great antismoking ad.)

smoking was around before anti-smokers, thus, the smokers win.

Flawless logic.

irtehwin

smoking was around before anti-smokers, thus, the smokers win.

Flawless logic.

irtehwin

The British Empire was around before U.S. democracy, so the British Empire wins. Ha.
Crazy beliefs in magic were around before science, so magic wins. Ha.
The Bible was around before Darwin, so the bible wins. Ha.
Slavery of Africans was around before emancipation, so slavery wins. Ha.

Flawless logic or terminal stupidity?

Why the hell do so many people think like this? Why is it an all or nothing issue? I'll be the first to agree that smoking is definately inappropriate in most places, but why the hell is the only option to ban smoking in all fucking public areas? Why should it be illegal for someone to make a smoke lounge? Why the hell would a non smoker go there anyway?

First, I agree. If I had a resteraunt or club, I'd seriously like having to make a smoking area and would advert the hell out of it, hoping to attract smokers and their friends at my business.

But I wanted to talk about an interesting story about smoking on a German express train. A couple of years ago I was traveling from Paris to Leipzig when my train at Frankfurt had mechanical problems, and they doubled us up from one train into another. I was traveling 1st class, but since my train was FUBARed, I had to fight for any available seat in 2nd class. There were none, so I ended up sitting on the floor in the small 1st class cabin with somebody's pet dog and another half dozen people.

There was a baby with us, and a smoking guy. The guy smoked for the first few hours of the ride (the train ahead of us had mechanical problems and broke the electric power supply -- delaying most of the trains in East Germany). At one point a woman turned to the smoking guy and told him that there was a child in the cabin and that he *would* stop smoking immediately.

What I thought was interesting was that the woman came across as being very certain that this man would stop ... she had the "or else" look on her face. The guy immediately stopped smoking. No apology, but he did not look at all angered by the woman's demand (it was no request). In the US, I would have expected either an apology _or_ a snarky comment back. Neither happened.

I think that it actually is possible for there to be some middle ground.

Now my nitpicky part ... I hate it when I'm out and dancing at a concert and somebody else decides that my leg or butt makes an acceptable "asstray". *grrrrh* Not that a pair of BDUs can't handle a cigarette, but I think non-smokers sometimes go a bit over the top in their "demands" for smokers to cut us a bit of slack, because of the times (few or many -- I dunno) when smokers forget that there is a middle ground.

My point: both sides are guilty about acting "all or nothing".

I agree. However, the right to blow smoke in someone's face is not recognized by either the US Constitution or the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Nobody's talking about blowing it in your face, but if you're sitting across the room from me and you catch a wiff, deal with it.

Nobody's talking about blowing it in your face, but if you're sitting across the room from me and you catch a wiff, deal with it.
again, i am reminded of noise polution: if you're blaring your stereo at top volume while sitting a foot away then i get to tell you to turn it down, but if your walkman is turned up just loud enough for me to hear some of the baseline eminating from your earphones then i get to deal with it.

Nobody's talking about blowing it in your face, but if you're sitting across the room from me and you catch a wiff, deal with it.

If I happen to have gas and fart for thirty minutes continuously... deal with it.

Honestly... is it any wonder why nobody has any sympathy for your cause?

If I happen to have gas and fart for thirty minutes continuously... deal with it.
um, yes, actually he would have to deal with it. though it may be rude, it's perfectly legal to fart.

Honestly... is it any wonder why nobody has any sympathy for your cause?i guess i'm a nobody :(.

um, yes, actually he would have to deal with it. though it may be rude, it's perfectly legal to fart.
Only because farting for thirty minutes straight is a physiological impossibility. If it were commonplace, however, you can bet the smokers would be among those keen to ban it in public.

Only because farting for thirty minutes straight is a physiological impossibility.

Backpedalling?

If it were commonplace, however, you can bet the smokers would be among those keen to ban it in public.
Well it isn't as if naked flames and flammable gases are the healthiest combinations.

Only because farting for thirty minutes straight is a physiological impossibility.

sounds like a challenge to me!

seriously, though, you need to meet my Uncle Ted.

If it were commonplace, however, you can bet the smokers would be among those keen to ban it in public.
i don't know how you reach that conclusion, or how you plan to support it with actual evidence. also, you seem to believe that only smokers support these freedoms...i do not smoke, i have never been a smoker (though i have tried smoking several different things), and i don't ever intend to become a smoker, yet i fully and completely support their "cause." i believe private citizens and private businesses should be free to decide whether they want to allow smoking on their property. they should be free to decide if they want to allow farting on their property. they should be free to decide if they want to allow obnoxious anti-smokers on their property. if you don't like it you can avoid their property.

By the way, IMHO, smoking should be formally considered as a suicide form (thousands of people die yearly because of it) and thus be punished like eutanasia is [wrongly in my opinion].[/QUOTE]

Same here. If someone charged you to stick poison in your vein, would you?

Against smoking. It should be banned in pubic places.

if you don't like it you can avoid their property.
No, you can't. If every business has made the decision to allow smoking, the nonsmoking public is S.O.L.

When California passed a public smoking ban, the business community was in a panic, fearing people would stop coming to restaurants, bars, etc. Those fears proved to be completely irrelevant. However, if they hadn't been told to ban it, very few of them would have, for fear of the impact to business.

Can you make it multiple choice so I can put two? I think it's disgusting, but I also think people have the right to choose.

Official Plutonian Response:
Smoking is evil and must be banned!

I am the President of the Plutonian Empire, and I approve of this message.

No, you can't. If every business has made the decision to allow smoking, the nonsmoking public is S.O.L.
i thought "nobody" supported this cause. if "nobody" supports it, then why are you worried that every single business would choose to allow smoking?


When California passed a public smoking ban, the business community was in a panic, fearing people would stop coming to restaurants, bars, etc. Those fears proved to be completely irrelevant. However, if they hadn't been told to ban it, very few of them would have, for fear of the impact to business.
before California passed its public smoking ban, were there any non-smoking businesses? be careful when you answer, because i happen to know the truth in this case...

now, if there WERE non-smoking venues (which there were), and if smoking venues were still successful, then that means people were choosing to patronize those establishments even though they had the choice not to do so. let's think on that for a few moments, shall we?

EDIT: you also seem to be overlooking the possibility of establishments offering separate smoking and non-smoking sections, a practice that was very popular before the recent anti-choice crusades. with modern ventilation technologies, even the smoking sections weren't bad.

i worked as a bartender for quite a while, and the venue where i got my first job had a smoking lounge and a non-smoking lounge. you had to walk through non-smoking to get to smoking, and there would never be any reason why a non-smoker would have to walk through the smoking section. i asked to work only in the non-smoking lounge because i didn't want to be around second hand smoke all shift, but there were plenty of other 'tenders and waitresses who prefered the smoking lounge. i don't see why anybody would object to having choices available.

has anyone here heard the polution argument that is only one drop in a vast tank of water?

The smokers here are arguing the same case. "if you get a whiff of it the deal with it" quantify a whiff? Your acceptable level is vastly different to mine.

If you want to smoke fine, but I do not want to smoke. Therefore my rights not to breath in smoke need to be protected too. If you can contain every last bit of your smoke then, by all means smoke away. If not, put it out.

PS earlier someone posted that smokers all knew what they were doing and it was by choice, Did anyone go to the same schools as me peer pressure started two of my friends smoking, and they have found it very hard to quit. (incidentally niether will smoke in enclosed places other than thier own homes)

If I happen to have gas and fart for thirty minutes continuously... deal with it.

Honestly... is it any wonder why nobody has any sympathy for your cause?

If you fart for 30 minutes straight, see a doctor. There's something *seriously* wrong.

Anyway, plenty of people sympathise with my cause. The exception being the neocon republican communists who want to tell people how to run their businesses.

If you want to smoke fine, but I do not want to smoke. Therefore my rights not to breath in smoke need to be protected too.


I hate to tell you this, but you're inhaling all manner of toxins and pollutants right now. Probably in your very own home. Some of it is miniscule traces of someone somewhere's cigarette.

It is unavoidable.

I hate to tell you this, but you're inhaling all manner of toxins and pollutants right now. Probably in your very own home. Some of it is miniscule traces of someone somewhere's cigarette.

It is unavoidable.

Lots of polutants are unavoidable, cigarettes are not.
Absestos was widely used and was banned why not cigarettes?

Look, I don't think this argument is going to get anywhere. Keruvalia, you seem to be on the side that simply does NOT want the government to step in and regulate this. Despite some of your earlier comments, I highly doubt that you are the aggressive type of blow-smoke-in-your-face-cuz-I-can type. I suspect that the root of your argument is to let common sense reign, and allow smokers and non-smokers to interact in a respectful manner towards each other (not puffing your smoke into their booth at the restaurant, and not having them call you a disgusting murderer).

I, along with others here are on the side that we would like the government to regulate this, because we simply do not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke, regardless of how 'benign' or 'cancer-causing' it has yet been proven to be. This comes down, I believe, to a fundamental system of political beliefs that 'common sense' simply isn't good enough.

Point being, we aren't really arguing about smoking...we're arguing about who should tell us where to smoke...the individual, or the government. What side we take is based on our beliefs about how people interact.

By the way, as I review my stance, I am frankly shocked that I support government regulation in this, as in many other matters. Somedays I despair of governments ever being able to do something properly, and other days I want them to do it all. *sigh* I'm so confused.

Summary: if you just want to bicker, continue. If you truly want to change opinions, it probably won't happen, so let's move on:)

before California passed its public smoking ban, were there any non-smoking businesses? be careful when you answer, because i happen to know the truth in this case...


An tiny minority of establishments do not improve the civil rights of nonsmokers in any measurable way.

Meanwhile, the arguments for smoking in public from a certain someone just get ruder and stupider as the conversation goes on.

Anyway, plenty of people sympathise with my cause. The exception being the neocon republican communists who want to tell people how to run their businesses.

More fuel for the fire. You're in here being rude for the sake of defending a practice which is just plain rude. "Neocon republican communist" is just flamebait, and shows very little understanding of any of the three terms besides.

My argument against smoking in public places has revolved entirely around the fact that it is rude, and you're doing a remarkable job of demonstrating my argument for me.

I hate to tell you this, but you're inhaling all manner of toxins and pollutants right now. Probably in your very own home. Some of it is miniscule traces of someone somewhere's cigarette.

And this is an excuse for you to amplify the number of toxins in the air exponentially?

It is unavoidable.

Direct inhalation of second-hand smoke is perfectly avoidable. Take it outside. Problem solved.

You know what I don't miss when I go to the club and party till dawn? I don't miss my hair and clothes reeking. I don't miss the sore throat or the irritated eyes. I don't miss everything tasting like ash all night. I don't miss that hard-to-breathe feeling in my lungs that lasts through the following morning.

Remember, kids:

Smoking seriously shortens your cigarettes.

remeber kids, smoking makes you look cool.


oh wait... :headbang:

I don't smoke tobacco, and it doesn't really bother me, but I don't understand why people would want to smoke it, I mean, you can't even get high off of it.

I don't smoke tobacco, and it doesn't really bother me, but I don't understand why people would want to smoke it, I mean, you can't even get high off of it.
qutie. thats why i never started too :)

I only really smoke when i'm drunk.

I only really smoke when i'm drunk.

me too , and the worst thing is i can't figure out why cigarettes are so appealing at 3 in the morning while plastered! Plus the whole having to go outside the pub/club to smoke, as Ireland has the no-smoking-in-workplaces ban like some other places....

I don't smoke tobacco, and it doesn't really bother me, but I don't understand why people would want to smoke it, I mean, you can't even get high off of it.

Not true. You can get a nicotine buzz when you first get started. It's fairly mild and short-lived, but definitely noticeable. Once you become a habitual user, however, you build up your tolerance, and the buzz disappears. You still get to keep the smelly clothes and the irritable nature, though.

The British Empire was around before U.S. democracy, so the British Empire wins. Ha.
Crazy beliefs in magic were around before science, so magic wins. Ha.
The Bible was around before Darwin, so the bible wins. Ha.
Slavery of Africans was around before emancipation, so slavery wins. Ha.

Flawless logic or terminal stupidity?

it was joke, numbnuts.

but yes, the british empire always wins.

*cigarette hanging in the tip of lip*
It's banned in public places where I live for health considerations and well, whatever, as long as it doesn't become a discrimination issue. My body, I can do what I want.