NationStates Jolt Archive

I know that Canada for example put pictures of the damages of smoking on the packets, and in England I believe there's a ban on advertising, and Britain has banned smoking in public places, but except for that, I'm clueless. I'm doing a project on teenage smoking, and wondering what governments do to stop it.

EDIT: Please say what country you're from and what they're doing to reduce smoking. Thanks.

My government is a bunch of assholes who can't see past their own wallets.

and Britain has banned smoking in public places,

Sure you'r not thinking or Ireland. To the best of my knowledge smoking is still allowed in public places here.

My government is a bunch of assholes who can't see past their own wallets.
Thanks for that insight, what government would that be? :rolleyes:

In the US there's a Surgeon General's warning about the nasty things that can happen on all the products and advertising. Also a lot of local governments have banned smoking in public places.

Cigarrettes are no longer advertised on TV, and there is plenty of crap shoved down kids throats at schools about smoking. A group called "Truth" bombards many channels with quite good anti-smoking ads. It's also illegal to smoke in certian places in parts of this country. Oh, and cigarettes are illegal until one is eighteen.

Ireland and Norway have banned smoking in public places. Britain has not!

Sure you'r not thinking or Ireland. To the best of my knowledge smoking is still allowed in public places here.
Ireland I know, same for Scotland, sheep don't smoke so its irrelevant in Wales and I thought England did. :p

A number of Canadian provinces and/or cities have banned smoking in indoor public places, like workplaces, bars, and restaurants. We have the printed warnings on cigarette packs and the gross pictures, and cigarette manufacturers cannot sponsor events or advertise in print, radio, or television. Furthermore, the federal government produces a lot of anti-smoking tv ads, as do the heart and lung association guys.

Ireland has banned indoor public smoking throughout the country.

illegal to advertise on TV

subsidized anti-smoking propaganda on TV

illegal to sell to someone under the age of 18

in some places, illegal to smoke at or near a company or small business property

warning labels required on cigarette packs

two weeks of propaganda in the public schools

a tax totaling on the order of 50% in some places

Funny you should ask. In Sweden smoking will be banned in pubs, restaurants, clubs and other public venues from June 1.

Any sort of tobacco advertising (even those sorts of "clothes brands" they've been known to try to trick kids with) is already banned, it's illegal to sell tobacco to anyone under the age of 18, all packets carry large warning labels (text, but will be replaced by gruesome pictures as part of an EU initiative), and smoking has been banned in and around schools and in other public buildings (like workplaces and municipal buildings) for quite a while now. There are plans of creating a sort of "tobacco licence" for shops without which they will not be able to sell tobacco products, and which they can lose if they don't follow the law and sell to minors, just like alcohol licences for bars.

Tobacco products are also heavily taxed, and anti-smoking campaigns are run pretty much all the time.

In New York (the whole state, not just the city lol lol) it's illegal to smoke in restaurants and (I think) in enclosed businesses.

Sure you'r not thinking or Ireland. To the best of my knowledge smoking is still allowed in public places here.

It's still allowed in public places, but is banned in government buildings.

Cigarrettes are no longer advertised on TV, and there is plenty of crap shoved down kids throats at schools about smoking. A group called "Truth" bombards many channels with quite good anti-smoking ads. It's also illegal to smoke in certian places in parts of this country. Oh, and cigarettes are illegal until one is eighteen.

I assume you're talking about the US, though I am not familiar with the "Truth" program. Maybe I just don't watch enough T.V.

Britain hasn't banned smoking in public places yet. In Liverpool though there is a ban on smoking in public places coming into force soon (I think?!)

No, Ireland didn't ban smoking in public places.

Smoking is banned at the workplace here. And since there are people working in pubs, bars, restaurants, etc., somking is banned there. People have to smoke in front of the door.
Advertising for tobacco is not allowed and there is an anti-smoking campaign showing pictures of damager smoking does to internal organs. One of the pictures shows a disected brain, all the veins are black, doesn't look to healthy, and another ad on TV shows a surgeon pushing deposits out of a dead patients aorta. The adds are really drastic, but the concept seem to work.
About two months after the "smoking ban" was put in place, tobacco sales had gone down by 60%

No advertising, restricted public smoking, and put "Smoking kills" warnings on packets. Most deterring however are the high taxes.

*sigh*

The restrictions on smoking are beyond me. It's no big deal. Yes, it gives cancer, but so what? If you don't smoke you'll live forever? Things like driving and liquor kill way more people. Guilting the populace for indulging in a harmless (yes, I said harmless) habit is dangerous nonsense. Either ban it or let it go.

We've become such a cushy, wussy society that we make things up to be all worried about to make ourselves feel like we're still in a dangerous world. People who think smoking matters to anything should remind themselves of the times and places where war, famine and endemics are the real health issues.

P.S. : I don't smoke.

Please also state what country you are from, thanks!

No advertising, restricted public smoking, and put "Smoking kills" warnings on packets. Most deterring however are the high taxes.

*sigh*

The restrictions on smoking are beyond me. It's no big deal. Yes, it gives cancer, but so what? If you don't smoke you'll live forever? Things like driving and liquor kill way more people. Guilting the populace for indulging in a harmless (yes, I said harmless) habit is dangerous nonsense. Either ban it or let it go.

We've become such a cushy, wussy society that we make things up to be all worried about to make ourselves feel like we're still in a dangerous world. People who think smoking matters to anything should remind themselves of the times and places where war, famine and endemics are the real health issues.

P.S. : I don't smoke.

Well said!

Watch out for the flames.

Britain hasn't banned smoking in public places yet. In Liverpool though there is a ban on smoking in public places coming into force soon (I think?!)

I keep on hearing about it, but haven't seen anything about it actually happening.

No advertising, restricted public smoking, and put "Smoking kills" warnings on packets. Most deterring however are the high taxes.

*sigh*The restrictions on smoking are beyond me. It's no big deal. Yes, it gives cancer, but so what? If you don't smoke you'll live forever? Things like driving and liquor kill way more people. Guilting the populace for indulging in a harmless (yes, I said harmless) habit is dangerous nonsense. Either ban it or let it go.

We've become such a cushy, wussy society that we make things up to be all worried about to make ourselves feel like we're still in a dangerous world. People who think smoking matters to anything should remind themselves of the times and places where war, famine and endemics are the real health issues.



P.S. : I don't smoke.

But by allowing smoking in public places your forcing that opinion on others who may feel differently

Netherlands:
Packages contain various warning texts in big letters.
Tabacco is heavily taxed.
The sale of tabacco to people below 16 years old is illegal since december 1st 2004. Identification is required to purchase, shops that neglect that risk fines.
Since januari 1st 2004 every company is required to offer its employees a smokefree working place. This includes shared rooms like hallways and toilets. In essence this means that smoking indoors is prohibited outside special smoke rooms. Companies that do not obey will be fined. Only exceptions are venues like bars etc.
Smoking inside public transport is forbidden. The railroads have removed the special smoking cabines with ashtrays from the trains (in practice: removed the ashtrays). On railwaystations smoking on the waiting platforms is only allowed near the special "smoking poles".
There is no tv advertising of cigarettes. Billboard advertisements have the same warnings as packages in big letters.

The restrictions on smoking are beyond me. It's no big deal. Yes, it gives cancer, but so what? If you don't smoke you'll live forever? Things like driving and liquor kill way more people. Guilting the populace for indulging in a harmless (yes, I said harmless) habit is dangerous nonsense. Either ban it or let it go.

We've become such a cushy, wussy society that we make things up to be all worried about to make ourselves feel like we're still in a dangerous world. People who think smoking matters to anything should remind themselves of the times and places where war, famine and endemics are the real health issues.
"Harmless"? "It's no big deal"?

My paternal grandparents have smoked since they were young. They're in their 80's now and suffer from a host of problems caused by smoking. My grandfather, luckily or unluckily, had a severe lung problem that caused him to stop smoking. If he hadn't, he'd be dead. Even so, he still suffers from residual problems and from those caused by my grandmother's second-hand smoke.

You may think we don't live in a dangerous world, but we still have the government sanctioning dangerous drugs such as alcohol and nicotine. If we allow alcohol, which inhibits decision-making, why don't we allow marijuana or other, harsher drugs which can cause the same effects?

No advertising, restricted public smoking, and put "Smoking kills" warnings on packets. Most deterring however are the high taxes.

*sigh*

The restrictions on smoking are beyond me. It's no big deal. Yes, it gives cancer, but so what? If you don't smoke you'll live forever? Things like driving and liquor kill way more people. Guilting the populace for indulging in a harmless (yes, I said harmless) habit is dangerous nonsense. Either ban it or let it go.

We've become such a cushy, wussy society that we make things up to be all worried about to make ourselves feel like we're still in a dangerous world. People who think smoking matters to anything should remind themselves of the times and places where war, famine and endemics are the real health issues.

P.S. : I don't smoke.

Neither do I, but I was forced to grow up in a family that did. Mother, father, grandmother, both grandfathers and later on both my brothers. It is very likely that the slight asthma I have is closely related to that...

I really enjoy living in Ireland since the smoking ban was put in place. I can go out to the pub without having to bring my respirator, my clothes don't smell like an old ashtray the next day and neither does my hair.
Plus, many pubs have now opened beergardens for summertime, so people can smoke outside. That wasn't the case so much before, and I really enjoy that as well, sitting outside and having a pint.

No advertising, restricted public smoking, and put "Smoking kills" warnings on packets. Most deterring however are the high taxes.

*sigh*

The restrictions on smoking are beyond me. It's no big deal. Yes, it gives cancer, but so what? If you don't smoke you'll live forever? Things like driving and liquor kill way more people. Guilting the populace for indulging in a harmless (yes, I said harmless) habit is dangerous nonsense. Either ban it or let it go.

We've become such a cushy, wussy society that we make things up to be all worried about to make ourselves feel like we're still in a dangerous world. People who think smoking matters to anything should remind themselves of the times and places where war, famine and endemics are the real health issues.

P.S. : I don't smoke.

I think, generally speaking, that the concern is for what second-hand smoke does to people in the vicinity who are not voluntarily smoking but are still exposed. Smokers should have the freedom to smoke, but non-smokers should have the freedom not to have to inhale it.

Very few people do not indulge in driving, whether as an actual driver or as a passenger. Thus almost everyone is voluntarily choosing to get inside a vehicle. And yet, there are all these restrictive laws and tests regarding who is allowed to drive an automobile, and how they are allowed to drive the vehicle! And the insurance and tax on cars!

As for alcohol, let's see. It's restricted in use - only people of age are allowed to purchase it. You may only drink it in your home or in certain authorized public spaces. It is only sold in certain authorized public places. It's got high taxes as well. They may not yet have photos of destroyed livers on the bottle, but alcohol usage is restricted too.

The people who think smoking is bad are typically fortunate enough to live in places where war, famine, and pandemic disease is extremely rare. They have the luxury of having smaller concerns regarding what affects their personal health.

Netherlands:
Packages contain various warning texts in big letters.
Tabacco is heavily taxed.
The sale of tabacco to people below 16 years old is illegal since december 1st 2004. Identification is required to purchase, shops that neglect that risk fines.
Since januari 1st 2004 every company is required to offer its employees a smokefree working place. This includes shared rooms like hallways and toilets. In essence this means that smoking indoors is prohibited outside special smoke rooms. Companies that do not obey will be fined. Only exceptions are venues like bars etc.
Smoking inside public transport is forbidden. The railroads have removed the special smoking cabines with ashtrays from the trains (in practice: removed the ashtrays). On railwaystations smoking on the waiting platforms is only allowed near the special "smoking poles".
Thank you, this is the kind of post I want. Thanks Alma Mater.

But by allowing smoking in public places your forcing that opinion on others who may feel differentlySo?

If I'm talking loudly about how George Bush is a traitor/hero in a public place I'm also forcing my opinion, yet there are no laws against speaking loudly, or hell, generally being a nuisance to other people in a public place. Sure, it's rude, but is the law made to enforce good manners? Hell no!

Smoking in an enclosed place next to people who don't like cigarette smoke is rude, and if those people ask nicely the smokers should put out their cigarette. Does this mean there should be a law against public smoking? Unless you're a pregnant woman or you have asthma or you're an old man with only one lung or something, smoking is not a hazard but a mild annoyance (no matter how "disgusting" or "filthy" you think it is) and the law isn't meant to protect citizens against mild annoyances.

So?

If I'm talking loudly about how George Bush is a traitor/hero in a public place I'm also forcing my opinion, yet there are no laws against speaking loudly, or hell, generally being a nuisance to other people in a public place. Sure, it's rude, but is the law made to enforce good manners? Hell no!

Smoking in an enclosed place next to people who don't like cigarette smoke is rude, and if those people ask nicely the smokers should put out their cigarette. Does this mean there should be a law against public smoking? Unless you're a pregnant woman or you have asthma or you're an old man with only one lung or something, smoking is not a hazard but a mild annoyance (no matter how "disgusting" or "filthy" you think it is) and the law isn't meant to protect citizens against mild annoyances.

Are you permitted to drink alcohol wherever you want? What you mean their are laws against having a beer while standing in line for the bus! Shocking! And you're not even spitting beer in someone else's face!

I think, generally speaking, that the concern is for what second-hand smoke does to people in the vicinity who are not voluntarily smoking but are still exposed.

(snip)Oh please, don't talk to me about second hand smoke.

Would you rather sit next to a smoker or stare at a speeding car in the middle of the road?

Would you rather grow up with parents who smoke too much or parents who drink too much?

Smoking isn't hazardous.

Oh please, don't talk to me about second hand smoke.

Would you rather sit next to a smoker or stare at a speeding car in the middle of the road?

Would you rather grow up with parents who smoke too much or parents who drink too much?

Smoking isn't hazardous.

But the speeding car is also breaking the law.

And I'd rather have parents that drank a little than smoked a little indoors and in my presence. Obviously, I'd prefer if they did neither to excess.

But the speeding car is also breaking the law.

(snip)I meant speeding as in "picking up speed" not as in "over the speed limit." I assure you, you can still be crushed by a legal car.

Oh please, don't talk to me about second hand smoke.
Would you rather sit next to a smoker or stare at a speeding car in the middle of the road?

I would rather do neither. And, surprisingly enough, not wishing to inhale second hand smoke does not force me to jump under cars instead. So this comparison is meaningless.

Would you rather grow up with parents who smoke too much or parents who drink too much?

Again: neither, and again these wishes are not in conflict.

Smoking isn't hazardous.

Inhaling poison and tar at high temperatures is not hazardous ?
This goes against common sense - so prove it ;)

Surely though standing in the middle of the street is your choice, its the cars area, its your fault for being there. Its not your fault if a person sits next to you on the bus and starts blowing smoke into your face. One you can prevent, by not walking into the road, the other you can't because its someone else.

Oh please, don't talk to me about second hand smoke.

Would you rather sit next to a smoker or stare at a speeding car in the middle of the road?

Would you rather grow up with parents who smoke too much or parents who drink too much?

Smoking isn't hazardous.

I grew up with parents who smoked, and yes, if did affect my health. Considerably. Thank you.

Surely though standing in the middle of the street is your choice, its the cars area, its your fault for being there. Its not your fault if a person sits next to you on the bus and starts blowing smoke into your face. One you can prevent, by not walking into the road, the other you can't because its someone else.

As a smoker, I have to wonder where all my fellow smokers who blow smoke directly into non-smokers faces all the time are, and why the nonsmokers are incapable of settling such antagonisms diplomatically and are forced to restrict freedom via legislature.

You can prevent people from blowing smoke in your face (since all smokers like to do this, naturally) on the bus by not taking the bus, incidentally. Hell you could get a car, and pollute the air the COOL way!

I meant speeding as in "picking up speed" not as in "over the speed limit." I assure you, you can still be crushed by a legal car.

Fortunately, that car is limited in where it is permitted to drive. Yes accidents happen, but if everyone, including you, follows the rules, then no one gets hurt. Of course, there is still the problem with pollutants from cars which are in the same class as pollutants from cigarettes. But once again, nearly everyone volunteers to use some kind of motor vehicle to transport either themselves or the goods that they purchase, so most everyone has assented to the use of vehicles. Still many places have laws regarding vehicle emissions.

Cigarette smoking though - you still have non-voluntary, non-assenting (direct or implied) impact on others.

You can prevent people from blowing smoke in your face (since all smokers like to do this, naturally) on the bus by not taking the bus, incidentally


Explain to me why I should not take the bus because someone is there blowing smoke into my face? The smell of smoke hangs around for ages, so the smoker can buy a car and smoke in it as much as he wants, damaging only himself and whoever else is in the car, which they're doing voluntarily instead of smoking on the bus, where it'll harm tens of people throughout the day, people who aren't there voluntarily maybe, maybe they're too old, failed a driving license, or just don't like driving.

You can prevent people from blowing smoke in your face (since all smokers like to do this, naturally) on the bus by not taking the bus, incidentally. Hell you could get a car, and pollute the air the COOL way!

No, I can't because I don't have the money. I don't even have a driver's licence.

Why should I be forced to allow other people to damage my health even more than my family already did?
Why should I and other people with respiratory problems be forced to stay at home all the time just to avoid attacks caused by smokers?

As a smoker, I have to wonder where all my fellow smokers who blow smoke directly into non-smokers faces all the time are, and why the nonsmokers are incapable of settling such antagonisms diplomatically and are forced to restrict freedom via legislature.

Small point: why should the nonsmokers even need to attempt to settle these things diplomatically ? They are not the ones performing the undesireable action.
That said, the lawmakers indeed seem to assume that smokers enjoy causing misery to others.

You can prevent people from blowing smoke in your face (since all smokers like to do this, naturally) on the bus by not taking the bus, incidentally.
And again: why do nonsmokers have to make an effort while they are not the ones causing the problem ?

You can prevent people from blowing smoke in your face (since all smokers like to do this, naturally) on the bus by not taking the bus, incidentally


Explain to me why I should not take the bus because someone is there blowing smoke into my face? The smell of smoke hangs around for ages, so the smoker can buy a car and smoke in it as much as he wants, damaging only himself and whoever else is in the car, which they're doing voluntarily instead of smoking on the bus, where it'll harm tens of people throughout the day, people who aren't there voluntarily maybe, maybe they're too old, failed a driving license, or just don't like driving.

Explain to my why the laws of the entire nation have to change because you can't handle some asshole on a bus?

Apparently for people like you, dealing with such situations is too difficult - each of the undoubtedly many, many times they occur? I can handle someone being in my face. I can handle people who don't wish to be polite. Why can't you?

No advertising, restricted public smoking, and put "Smoking kills" warnings on packets. Most deterring however are the high taxes.

*sigh*

The restrictions on smoking are beyond me. It's no big deal. Yes, it gives cancer, but so what? If you don't smoke you'll live forever? Things like driving and liquor kill way more people. Guilting the populace for indulging in a harmless (yes, I said harmless) habit is dangerous nonsense. Either ban it or let it go.

We've become such a cushy, wussy society that we make things up to be all worried about to make ourselves feel like we're still in a dangerous world. People who think smoking matters to anything should remind themselves of the times and places where war, famine and endemics are the real health issues.

P.S. : I don't smoke.


It is all about money and the redistribution of wealth. Insurance companies dupe well intentioned liberals and business owners to do their bidding without having to bear the backlash themselves for yet another attack on individual freedom. There is huge money for "non-profits" (front groups), politicians, trial lawyers, Insurance companies, doctors, con artists, pharmacutical conglomerates, scientists (real or fake), universities (real or fake), actors and actresses, advertising agents, television stations, radio, newspapers. It is a scam to make money at the expense of the people under the guise of "for your own good."

South Africa:
No advertising except at point of sale.
Warning - on pack and POS advertising (like US surgeon-general's warning)
No sale to under 16 - widely disregarded.
No smoking in closed public places UNLESS 25% or less of the area is demarcated for smoking and has a "seperate air supply".
No smoking on public transport - first carriage of a train is unofficial smoking carriage.

I know that Canada for example put pictures of the damages of smoking on the packets, and in England I believe there's a ban on advertising, and Britain has banned smoking in public places, but except for that, I'm clueless. I'm doing a project on teenage smoking, and wondering what governments do to stop it.

EDIT: Please say what country you're from and what they're doing to reduce smoking. Thanks.

I know they keep raising the taxes on a product at least as addictive as heroin and kills or debilitates thousands of people each year. "Canada" did nothing (cost-wise) to place those warning photos on cigarette packages, they made it a requirement for tobacco manufacturers and knowing full well it will not deter future smokers nor convince current smokers to quit the fact remains they've been using tobacco as a cash cow for decades and what is really absurd is that if I had a heroin addiction problem I could get government funded methadone or in some cases real heroin, counseling, etc. while heroin is a highly illegal narcotic and tobacco is a socially acceptable killer. One day I expect it will be a prohibited substance once the parasitic Canadian goverments (provincial and federal) find some other human weakness to exploit just as would any streetcorner crack dealer. :mad:

Small point: why should the nonsmokers even need to attempt to settle these things diplomatically ? They are not the ones performing the undesireable action.
That said, the lawmakers indeed seem to assume that smokers enjoy causing misery to others.


And again: why do nonsmokers have to make an effort while they are not the ones causing the problem ?

Well if someone is blowing smoke in your face and you don't like it, you have several choices.

1) Diplomatic resolution. You ask nicely, or less nicely if it comes to that.
2) No resolution, but you decide to vote for more anti-smoking bills if and when they come up, in addition to ranting a lot about how evil smokers are, on an online forum.
3) No resolution, you just put up with it because you're statistically more likely to die because of the bus crashing than because of smoking caused cancer.

I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that you people aren't taking the most efficient routes. When in doubt, outlaw it! That seems to be the flavor of the millennium.

Over in Virginia, we had the "Y do you think" commercial series with people doing dumb things and equating it to smoking. Frackin' hated those commercials. Here in North Carolina there isn't as much as a visible effort to curb smoking, and I'm glad.


Smoking shouldn't be demonized cause it causes cancer. So does the sun. Should we stop everyone from going outside? So does peanut butter they say. Ban peanut butter?

Well if someone is blowing smoke in your face and you don't like it, you have several choices.

1) Diplomatic resolution. You ask nicely, or less nicely if it comes to that.
2) No resolution, but you decide to vote for more anti-smoking bills if and when they come up, in addition to ranting a lot about how evil smokers are, on an online forum.
3) No resolution, you just put up with it because you're statistically more likely to die because of the bus crashing than because of smoking caused cancer.

I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that you people aren't taking the most efficient routes. When in doubt, outlaw it! That seems to be the flavor of the millennium.

I dare you to show me ONE country that has outlawed smoking!

I grew up in Germany and I still hate going back there, just because the entire country smells like an ashtray.
As for asking people to stop smoking, ha-ha. I have tried that ever since I was diagnosed, and let me tell you, hardly anybody ever extinguished their cigarette. It just doesn't happen, and that meant - in my case - not being able to go to a bar or a restaurant on Friday or Saturday night. For no other reason than the inconsideration and impoliteness of smokers.

No, I can't because I don't have the money. I don't even have a driver's licence.

Why should I be forced to allow other people to damage my health even more than my family already did?
Why should I and other people with respiratory problems be forced to stay at home all the time just to avoid attacks caused by smokers?

...because you have respiratory problems.

Sorry, the world is not lung-friendly. I assure you that air pollution is far worse for your lungs, but I don't see you DEMANDING that everyone stop driving gas driven cars at the top of your lungs. Why not?

So let me ask you, how many times do people blow smoke into your face and they won't stop no matter what you say? Apparently it's a real problem, and I'm genuinely curious because no smokers I know - and I'll wager I know a bit more than you - do that kind of thing.

Finland:
# the Government must fund smoking prevention, health education, mass media information, research and monitoring using at least 0.45 % of the revenue from the tobacco excise tax
# the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs and municipalities have a responsibility to carry out measures to reduce smoking
# the maximum yield of tar and nicotine per cigarette are controlled
# the warning labels must be on every retail pack of tobacco products
# schools, public offices and transport are smoke-free
# employers have a duty to make sure that employees are not exposed to tobacco smoke
# all restaurants covering more than 50 square metres are required to have separate sections for smoking
# the age limit for buying tobacco is 18 years
# smoking is prohibited in the yards of child-care centres and such schools where students are mainly less than 18 years old
# + some other things i forgot

I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that you people
aren't taking the most efficient routes. When in doubt, outlaw it! That seems to be the flavor of the millennium.

Asking 1 smoker politely is easily done - unless you are shy. Asking several 100 different smokers throughout the year gets annoying. Allowing them to smoke without bothering anyone through law in other words is more efficient.

Firstly: these are quite graphic, so don't read or look if you don't want to.
http://www.ash.ie/health_effects.html
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/health/html/oral_files/image002.jpg
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/health/html/oral.html
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drobson26a.jpg
http://www.everlastinglife.net/health_tips/HealthHazard.gif (this is for pot, but the message is the same)
http://www.ncc.go.jp/en/statistics/1999/figures/f13/g13_2e.gif
http://www.nt.gov.au/health/healthdev/health_promotion/bushbook/volume2/chap1/body_smoking.gif
http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/smoking/cig_info.gif

Now: my grandfather smoked for most of his life. He died when I was two. My grandmother, on the other hand, is alive today. She didn't smoke.

My dad smoked for no more than two years in college. That's all. Now, he can't have anything with sugar in it except fruit. Cake, cookies, soda, ice cream - they all have to be sugar free, diet, or sugar substitute. And trust me when I say chocolate substitute is not a substitute for anything much at all (it's a diarrhetic, too). His thyroid was completely f***ed up by his tiny little two year period as a smoker. He's also at risk for heart, lung, brain, throat, gum, liver, and stomach cancer. My grandmother, though alive, is at risk for these too.

SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) is often caused by parents smoking near the baby. The fetus can be stillborn or malformed if the mother smokes while pregnant or lives with a smoker.

400,000 people die every year in the US from smoking related diseases. In the UK, 120,000, and the UK's population is not comparable, as a ratio.

Unlike driving (which is necessary), smoking does not serve any actual use. Driving is essential if you want to live in the modern world. Smoking will simply kill you. So the comparison is moot.

Also, drinking is not so comparable to smoking, as it has been shown that drinking in moderation can lower the risk of heart disease or heart attack. Smoking, obviously, will simply exacerbate the problem.

Most of the people I know who smoke at my school have grades well below mine, or have to cheat to maintain them. This applies to both nicotine and marijuana smokers.

Please think before you say the effects of smoking are overdramatized. Seriously.

Smoking shouldn't be demonized cause it causes cancer. So does the sun. Should we stop everyone from going outside? So does peanut butter they say. Ban peanut butter?

I don't go out in the sun much, but that is MY decision.
I don't eat peanut butter, again, MY decision.
But if the person next to me in a pub is smoking, I have to inhale it. NOT my decision.

Btw, most airlines have stopped giving out peanuts during their flights because they can cause seriuos allergic reactions. Some people are so allergic to them that opening a packet next to them will cause an allergic reaction (I saw that myself at one time). It's the same basis : if it hurts another person, don't do it.

...because you have respiratory problems.

Sorry, the world is not lung-friendly. I assure you that air pollution is far worse for your lungs, but I don't see you DEMANDING that everyone stop driving gas driven cars at the top of your lungs. Why not?

So let me ask you, how many times do people blow smoke into your face and they won't stop no matter what you say? Apparently it's a real problem, and I'm genuinely curious because no smokers I know - and I'll wager I know a bit more than you - do that kind of thing.

Well, let's start with my family, shall we? After all, it's thanks to them that I have those problems. Both my parents are smokers, so are both my brothers. Whenever I asked them to smoke a little less while I'm there, I get replies like "Don't make such a fuss, look, the window is open. No way this affects you that much".
When they come to my place and I ask them not to smoke inside but in front of the door, I get the same answers.

People don't have to blow the smoke in my face. The particles diffuse in the air, so if one or two persons at the table next to me smoke, I will feel that in about 10-15 minutes.

Edit:

About the cars. I'm trying to change things I can change. I cannot do away with pollution completely within 5 minutes, but I can make a start by supporting the smoking ban and not using a car unless absolutely necessary.
I know that a number of people depend on cars, so banning them would be beyond stupid. For that we need to create alternatives

I don't go out in the sun much, but that is MY decision.
I don't eat peanut butter, again, MY decision.
But if the person next to me in a pub is smoking, I have to inhale it. NOT my decision.

It was also your decision to stay in a pub where someone was smoking.

It was also your decision to stay in a pub where someone was smoking.

One person smoking in a pub... excuse me, but where exactly are you from? Have you ever been to a pub in Ireland BEFORE the smoking ban was put in place?
I think a good estimate would be that around 60-75% of the people present smoked. So, in a crammed pub that would make, say, 90-120 people, many of them chain-smoking. I couldn't go to ANY pub...

It was also your decision to stay in a pub where someone was smoking.So people who don't smoke should be segragated... wow thats kinda odd seeing as most of the people, at least where I live, don't even smoke. Sounds like your saying the majority should be kept in their own box because they care about their bodies, no?

as no one responded to my first post *grumble*, I'll say this:

smoking is voluntary. breathing is not.
your decision to destroy your health should not be a decision to destroy the health of others.
the things you keep saying are damaging (cars, the sun, alcohol) are, in order: necessary, and being made cleaner everyday; inescapable, so that point is moot; and healthy in moderation.

Bhutan has banned the sale of cigarettes, and imposed a huge tax on their import for personal use. And, I think, banned smoking in public places. As close to banning smoking as anyone has come.
Why should legislation ban smoking? Well, smoking is bad for you (duh...) If people get sick from it, they will have to be made better, which costs the government money. So, it makes sense to minimise the number of people exposed to second-hand smoke. And, because most people only smoke when they're out, it'll cut the numbers smoking, and thus public health expenditure too.
I like our smoking ban (I'm Irish, just like Cabra West). Despite the fact that nearly all my friends are smokers, and I was too (gave up recently - not because of the ban though). It means there's no smell of smoke inside, and if I don't wanna hang with them and get smoky, I don't have to. And if I want to hang around with them, it's outside, and thus less smoky.

But if the person next to me in a pub is smoking, I have to inhale it. NOT my decision.

Dude.... When you go to a pub they serve one thing mostly. Alcohol. So who cares if you get lung cancer as opposed to liver problems? We all die anyway. You go in a pub, you get what a pub allows.

Banning smoking from a pub is ludicrous and just plain selfish. If the owner DECIDES FOR HIMSELF to ban it, it's okay, but unless he does, it's just a sign of the darned populist regime that runs this country.

So people who don't smoke should be segragated... wow thats kinda odd seeing as most of the people, at least where I live, don't even smoke. Sounds like your saying the majority should be kept in their own box because they care about their bodies, no?

But what you are proposing is that people who DO smoke should be segregated. Hypocracy anyone?

Dude.... When you go to a pub they serve one thing mostly. Alcohol. So who cares if you get lung cancer as opposed to liver problems? We all die anyway. You go in a pub, you get what a pub allows.

Banning smoking from a pub is ludicrous and just plain selfish. If the owner DECIDES FOR HIMSELF to ban it, it's okay, but unless he does, it's just a sign of the darned populist regime that runs this country.

When you drink, you mess up your liver. When you smoke, you mess up my lungs too. Banning smoking is not selfish - it means more money for spending on sick people who DIDN'T decide to poison themselves.

I saw what you posted and sorry I didn't reply. I was... slightly shocked at the picture of the guy missing his face or where his cheek was.

When you drink, you mess up your liver. When you smoke, you mess up my lungs too. Banning smoking is not selfish - it means more money for spending on sick people who DIDN'T decide to poison themselves.

I shouldn't be forced to spend my money on people I don't know in the first place. You're talking to a libertarian here. These socialist ideas do nothing for me.

Firstly: these are quite graphic, so don't read or look if you don't want to.
http://www.ash.ie/health_effects.html
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/health/html/oral_files/image002.jpg
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/health/html/oral.html
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drobson26a.jpg
http://www.everlastinglife.net/health_tips/HealthHazard.gif (this is for pot, but the message is the same)
http://www.ncc.go.jp/en/statistics/1999/figures/f13/g13_2e.gif
http://www.nt.gov.au/health/healthdev/health_promotion/bushbook/volume2/chap1/body_smoking.gif
http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/smoking/cig_info.gif


Yes, the usual propaganda. Must take quite an effort, to find anti-smoking propaganda in this world. Good work!

Now: my grandfather smoked for most of his life. He died when I was two. My grandmother, on the other hand, is alive today. She didn't smoke.

My grandparents are dead. Neither smoked.


SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) is often caused by parents smoking near the baby. The fetus can be stillborn or malformed if the mother smokes while pregnant or lives with a smoker.

It's often caused by alcohol abuse too. Should we outlaw drinking in public, and/or in private?

400,000 people die every year in the US from smoking related diseases. In the UK, 120,000, and the UK's population is not comparable, as a ratio.

"Smoking related diseases" is another phrase for "blaming various diseases on smoking" and has the same amount of credibility as far as I'm concerned.

Unlike driving (which is necessary), smoking does not serve any actual use.

Oh really, so it's necessary that everyone who currently owns a car, drives that car, and owns it in the first place? You're saying no one in the USA drives a car for recreation, or without needing one of their own? Please. Everyone driving a car as they do, is about as necessary as me smoking - we want to do it, so we call it necessary.

Driving is essential if you want to live in the modern world. Smoking will simply kill you. So the comparison is moot.

See above. Also, I'd like you to tell my friend that smoking kills (she smoked) and cars are just essential for living in the modern world (she died in a car accident 1999).

Also, drinking is not so comparable to smoking, as it has been shown that drinking in moderation can lower the risk of heart disease or heart attack. Smoking, obviously, will simply exacerbate the problem.

I suppose you'll say that drinking is necessary to living in the modern world, too.

Most of the people I know who smoke at my school have grades well below mine, or have to cheat to maintain them. This applies to both nicotine and marijuana smokers.

Ohhh, and I guess you only achieve good grades because you don't smoke. Way to diminish your own achievements...

I shouldn't be forced to spend my money on people I don't know in the first place. You're talking to a libertarian here. These socialist ideas do nothing for me.
OK, I'm going to try to appeal to your sense of justice. Ignore the bit about extra money for sick people. Think instead about not getting the guy sitting beside you sick. A real person, not an abstract poor person scabbing off you. Your friend, maybe? How about now?

Dude.... When you go to a pub they serve one thing mostly. Alcohol. So who cares if you get lung cancer as opposed to liver problems? We all die anyway. You go in a pub, you get what a pub allows.

Banning smoking from a pub is ludicrous and just plain selfish. If the owner DECIDES FOR HIMSELF to ban it, it's okay, but unless he does, it's just a sign of the darned populist regime that runs this country.

Populist = doing what the population wants? Cool...

The difference between alcohol and cigarettes is, if I drink a pint, it's my liver that has to cope with it. If the guy next to me has a smoke, MY lung has to deal with it. I have a right to decide what kind of harm I want done to my body, I don't have to suffer lung problems because of the recreational drugs of others.

But what you are proposing is that people who DO smoke should be segregated. Hypocracy anyone?No... more so that there should be more consideration in public places for those of us who don't smoke. If you have chosen to smoke then maybe you should have some more consideration not segregate those who do! My friends smoke and they will go outside where the wind can blow it away not in a closed room.

Populist = doing what the population wants? Cool...


No... Populist: Majority rules. Minorities be damned. Populism is collectivism. Think Stalin, Marx, Smurfs, etc.

Smokers cause other people harm. Fact. Simple, straight-forward fact.
For what reason should they be allowed to do so?

England and Britian are practically the same... lol

No... more so that there should be more consideration in public places for those of us who don't smoke. If you have chosen to smoke then maybe you should have some more consideration not segregate those who do! My friends smoke and they will go outside where the wind can blow it away not in a closed room.

Man, what are you complaining about?! Restaraunts now need to put walls between smoking and non-smoking sections, theme parks now have designated smoking sections which are the only places you can smoke, some courts are trying to say parents who smoke have to do it outside only (or so I hear), most places ban smoking.... Yet y'all still find something to bitch about. It could be banned and ya'd be complaining that people pee in the ocean or something!

Jeez, people! Get a life.

No... Populist: Majority rules. Minorities be damned. Populism is collectivism. Think Stalin, Marx, Smurfs, etc.

Ok, legislation in Ireland: Smokers are not allowed to smoke in pubs and restaurants (explanation : Smoking at the workplace is not allowed and people work in pubs).
Everywhere else your are allowed to smoke. You can smoke in the street, you can smoke in the park, you can smoke in your house. Nobody is going to say anything.

Why is that in any way offending to smokers?

Smokers cause other people harm. Fact. Simple, straight-forward fact.
For what reason should they be allowed to do so?

So do factories. Get rid of them. Gays cause AIDS, let shoot em all. Violent movies cause you to turn into murderers, gotta stop those too. People with AIDS spread it.... lets just cut off all funding for finding a cure for that and kill the fuckers.

Smokers cause other people harm. Fact. Simple, straight-forward fact.
For what reason should they be allowed to do so?

People who practice Islam cause other people harm. Fact. Simple, straight-forward fact.

For what reason should they be allowed to do so?

And don't tell me that Muslims don't cause other people harm. I have 3,000 dead in the WTC that says otherwise! The 'fact' is not so simple as that, of course, not ALL Muslims are terrorists... and not every puff of smoke finds it's way into a cancer victim's lungs.

Yes, the usual propaganda. Must take quite an effort, to find anti-smoking propaganda in this world. Good work!



My grandparents are dead. Neither smoked.



It's often caused by alcohol abuse too. Should we outlaw drinking in public, and/or in private?



"Smoking related diseases" is another phrase for "blaming various diseases on smoking" and has the same amount of credibility as far as I'm concerned.



Oh really, so it's necessary that everyone who currently owns a car, drives that car, and owns it in the first place? You're saying no one in the USA drives a car for recreation, or without needing one of their own? Please. Everyone driving a car as they do, is about as necessary as me smoking - we want to do it, so we call it necessary.



See above. Also, I'd like you to tell my friend that smoking kills (she smoked) and cars are just essential for living in the modern world (she died in a car accident 1999).



I suppose you'll say that drinking is necessary to living in the modern world, too.



Ohhh, and I guess you only achieve good grades because you don't smoke. Way to diminish your own achievements...

Thanks Gaian, first of all.

The usual "propaganda," because it's true. Want to find me something that says smoking doesn't do all that? Be my guest. You'll just be wrong.

My grandfather, by the way, died because of lung cancer and liver cirrhosis. You've got to understnad me when I say "moderation." Try it: MODERATION. Drinking a little is fine. Alcoholism obliterates your liver. But, again, at least some alcohol can be healthy. Cigarettes can't. Ever.

Again, per alcohol abuse: abuse, not moderation. And I'd like to know how the infant is abusing alcohol. When a mother abuses alcohol, though, so does the fetus. When a mother smokes, so does the fetus.

"Smoking related diseases" means, "This person died of a disease that they were not genetically susceptible to, but resulted from the use of a substance that destroys the body."

I personally have the same view of recreation driving as I do on alcohol abuse, but only because most of the recreation drivers are racers or SUVers. Those two types produce more pollution than any other type of car on the market. But that's not the point. Cars can be useful. Cars can be necessary. CIGARETTES CAN'T.

Your last two points are simply nonsensical.

"A non-smoker exposed to second-hand smoke has a 25% increased chance of lung cancer. Increased chances of cancer of the sinuses, brain, breast, uterine, cervix, thyroid, as well as leukemia and lymphoma are also noted."
I don't like hurting people and smoking sure seems like it does a lot of hurt to people who have decided not to smoke.
I also see that drinking has some opposition in this thread too. Well, I don't approve of that either but drinking is your own decision. When you ruin your liver and face (don't you hate how drinkers have red noses?) its your choice. You have decided to put that alcohol down into your system.
So, when I decide to be with my smoker friends I'm choosing to pollute my system? Doesn't seem fair, now does it?
The original purpose of this thread was what governments erm well countries do to go against smoking and I think that thet could be doing so much more.

Man, what are you complaining about?! Restaraunts now need to put walls between smoking and non-smoking sections, theme parks now have designated smoking sections which are the only places you can smoke, some courts are trying to say parents who smoke have to do it outside only (or so I hear), most places ban smoking.... Yet y'all still find something to bitch about. It could be banned and ya'd be complaining that people pee in the ocean or something!

Jeez, people! Get a life.

And what country is that?
I'm quite happy with the way things are handled here in Ireland with the smoking ban for pubs and restaurants. But I know that back in Germany, the situation hasn't changed. People smoke basically everywhere... If you are from the USA or Canada, I don't think you have any concept on how bad exactly the situation there is.

Ok, legislation in Ireland: Smokers are not allowed to smoke in pubs and restaurants (explanation : Smoking at the workplace is not allowed and people work in pubs).
Everywhere else your are allowed to smoke. You can smoke in the street, you can smoke in the park, you can smoke in your house. Nobody is going to say anything.

Why is that in any way offending to smokers?

Dude, I live in the USA, not Ireland. Must have a common frame of reference to have an arguement, which we don't. In America, it's illegal to smoke at work in most places, it's illegal to smoke in most restaurants, no smoking in trains, no smoking in some pubs, no smoking in some cities even on walkways.

Ireland and Norway have banned smoking in public places. Britain has not!

And (in Norway); it's taxed heavily, there are periodic information/anti-smoking campaigns, and it's required to put warnings on all tobacco products.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if smoking was outlawed. But I'm ok with people smoking, as long as they're not doing it anywhere near me.

And what country is that?
I'm quite happy with the way things are handled here in Ireland with the smoking ban for pubs and restaurants. But I know that back in Germany, the situation hasn't changed. People smoke basically everywhere... If you are from the USA or Canada, I don't think you have any concept on how bad exactly the situation there is.

I live in the USA, yes, but I live in the south, which has less rules on smoking. I live in the same state that makes the Camel cigarettes. Used to live in the state that made Marlboros.

Banning smoking is just selfishness. You don't seem to want just to ban smoking in public, but altogether, which is just frackin' rude.

So do factories. Get rid of them. Gays cause AIDS, let shoot em all. Violent movies cause you to turn into murderers, gotta stop those too. People with AIDS spread it.... lets just cut off all funding for finding a cure for that and kill the fuckers.

Gays cause AIDS? Now, that's new to me. How do you cause a retrovirus?

People who practice Islam cause other people harm. Fact. Simple, straight-forward fact.

For what reason should they be allowed to do so?

And don't tell me that Muslims don't cause other people harm. I have 3,000 dead in the WTC that says otherwise! The 'fact' is not so simple as that, of course, not ALL Muslims are terrorists... and not every puff of smoke finds it's way into a cancer victim's lungs.PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE! Their choice of worship has nothing to do with it! Those Muslims that are responsible for those 3,000 dead were not the norm. They were radicalists! Do you include outlyers in statistics? No! You don't! So do not blame that just on Muslims everybody has there killer side not just those that worship Allah. You are wrong in your comparison every puff of smoke is harmful not every Muslim is. You have some nerve saying that.

Dude, I live in the USA, not Ireland. Must have a common frame of reference to have an arguement, which we don't. In America, it's illegal to smoke at work in most places, it's illegal to smoke in most restaurants, no smoking in trains, no smoking in some pubs, no smoking in some cities even on walkways.


I said that I was in Ireland in my first post on this thread. And I explained the smoking ban legislation in the same post. ;)

Uginin : I support the smoking ban in Ireland. I think it's fair and viable. Banning smoking altogether is pointless and ridiculous. What do I care how other people harm themselves? That's their business, not mine, as long as they don't harm others.

Gays cause AIDS? Now, that's new to me. How do you cause a retrovirus?

Shit, y'all people can't even take sarcasm. You're splitting hairs now.

I said that I was in Ireland in my first post on this thread. And I explained the smoking ban legislation in the same post. ;)

Uginin : I support the smoking ban in Ireland. I think it's fair and viable. Banning smoking altogether is pointless and ridiculous. What do I care how other people harm themselves? That's their business, not mine, as long as they don't harm others.

Okay then.... so what are we arguing about then?

Okay then.... so what are we arguing about then?

Dunno... somebody way back told me to stay out of pubs. That's when I started. What about you?

Since people have US regulations covered, I'll talk about CA, California has banned smoking in restaurants, factories, offices, and other enclosed workplaces since 1995, and recently smoking has been banned from Public Beaches. A sensible law if you ask me, if anyone wants to smoke, they can do it in their homes or in the fresh air of Los Angeles(other than public beaches that is). I really don't want to breathe the crap in that killed my aunt, while I'm at work.

Man, what are you complaining about?! Restaraunts now need to put walls between smoking and non-smoking sections, theme parks now have designated smoking sections which are the only places you can smoke, some courts are trying to say parents who smoke have to do it outside only (or so I hear), most places ban smoking.... Yet y'all still find something to bitch about. It could be banned and ya'd be complaining that people pee in the ocean or something!

Jeez, people! Get a life.Get a life... Wait a second whats that who else is in this forum... o yeah you are so who else is on the list of not having a life, eh?

Thanks Gaian, first of all.

The usual "propaganda," because it's true. Want to find me something that says smoking doesn't do all that? Be my guest. You'll just be wrong.


I can (http://www.lcolby.com/index.html), but I have no doubt you'll discredit it as being propaganda, just as I discredit your propaganda because it's just an appeal to authority. It is, after all.

My grandfather, by the way, died because of lung cancer and liver cirrhosis. You've got to understnad me when I say "moderation." Try it: MODERATION. Drinking a little is fine. Alcoholism obliterates your liver. But, again, at least some alcohol can be healthy. Cigarettes can't. Ever.

But drinking a lot isn't fine. Drinking a lot can't ever be healthy. What do you have to say about that? Nothing, right? No alcohol prohibition, yes?

Again, per alcohol abuse: abuse, not moderation. And I'd like to know how the infant is abusing alcohol. When a mother abuses alcohol, though, so does the fetus. When a mother smokes, so does the fetus.

Yes, but you want to ban cigarettes because of the fetus, and you don't want to ban alcohol for the same reason. That's inconsistant. But I guess because alcohol CAN be 'healthy,' that makes fetal alcohol syndrome just fine?

"Smoking related diseases" means, "This person died of a disease that they were not genetically susceptible to, but resulted from the use of a substance that destroys the body."

Luckily, cigarettes are the only substance that destroys the body, eh? Whew, that's a comfort.

I personally have the same view of recreation driving as I do on alcohol abuse, but only because most of the recreation drivers are racers or SUVers. Those two types produce more pollution than any other type of car on the market. But that's not the point. Cars can be useful. Cars can be necessary. CIGARETTES CAN'T.

Big deal. We don't outlaw things in this country based on how "useful" someone like you thinks they are. There isn't a "necessary" purpose to a vast majority of products on the market, but it's legal. Why? Because we're not totalitarian pragmatists.

Your last two points are simply nonsensical.

YOUR point was that YOU have better grades than some smokers in your school. Therefore...? What...? You're smarter than smokers? Smoking causes people to be so stupid they get worse grades than you? Whatever your point was there, it was pretty nonsensical. MY point was that getting grades is a result of effort, not of whether or not one smokes.

So do factories. Get rid of them. Gays cause AIDS, let shoot em all. Violent movies cause you to turn into murderers, gotta stop those too. People with AIDS spread it.... lets just cut off all funding for finding a cure for that and kill the fuckers.Im pretty sure that ANYONE can spread AIDS not just gays so where are you getting that its just gays that have it? Im pretty sure also that violents movies are seen as an outlet for one's agressive nature so if you weren't already a murderer then some images on a screen aren't going to change much.

Get a life... Wait a second whats that who else is in this forum... o yeah you are so who else is on the list of not having a life, eh?

Yeah, well I devote my time to college and futurism studies. If ya haven't noticed, IT'S MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND. It's not like I could have anything else to do. Get a life they say.... I'm not the one spending my time bitching about something that is what a pub is there for. I'm just here cause I'm bored as it's Memorial Day weekend and it's cloudy outside. I have a life, just it's halted today due to a holiday weekend.

Im pretty sure that ANYONE can spread AIDS not just gays so where are you getting that its just gays that have it? Im pretty sure also that violents movies are seen as an outlet for one's agressive nature so if you weren't already a murderer then some images on a screen aren't going to change much.

Try telling the thing about AIDS to the Republican Party, and the thing about violent movies to the Democratic Party.

Dunno... somebody way back told me to stay out of pubs. That's when I started. What about you?

I feel that I'm being attacked, that's why I started. I used to smoke, but quit because my best friend asked me to. Even before then, I obeyed all smoking regulations and stuff, but people still bitched at me for smoking. They'd come up near me and tell me I was messing up their lungs. Why someone would walk up to you and do that is beyond me, but they did. So I feel attacked about something I used to do that I liked doing.

I feel that I'm being attacked, that's why I started. I used to smoke, but quit because my best friend asked me to. Even before then, I obeyed all smoking regulations and stuff, but people still bitched at me for smoking. They'd come up near me and tell me I was messing up their lungs. Why someone would walk up to you and do that is beyond me, but they did. So I feel attacked about something I used to do that I liked doing.

Well, that's the other extreme, then. But I have to say I never noticed anybody doing that here or in Germany. Actually, I always was the only person complaining to my family about their smoking.
As I said, as long as smokers don't bother other people, they should be allowed to smoke all they like. But in contact with others (pubs, restaurants, busses, trains) they just shouldn't.
True, there's a number of other things causing damage (factories, cars, etc.) but they tend not to recreational and serve some other purpose than just polluting. and who says I'm not trying to do anything about that kind of pollution as well?

Well, that's the other extreme, then. But I have to say I never noticed anybody doing that here or in Germany. Actually, I always was the only person complaining to my family about their smoking.
As I said, as long as smokers don't bother other people, they should be allowed to smoke all they like. But in contact with others (pubs, restaurants, busses, trains) they just shouldn't.
True, there's a number of other things causing damage (factories, cars, etc.) but they tend not to recreational and serve some other purpose than just polluting. and who says I'm not trying to do anything about that kind of pollution as well?

But that's why we have smoking sections seperated by a wall and a door from the other people, though. Why do we have to ban it outright from those places? It passes health regulations, so why change it? It's easy to ban or pass judgement on something you aren't a part of or don't do.

I can (http://www.lcolby.com/index.html), but I have no doubt you'll discredit it as being propaganda, just as I discredit your propaganda because it's just an appeal to authority. It is, after all.



But drinking a lot isn't fine. Drinking a lot can't ever be healthy. What do you have to say about that? Nothing, right? No alcohol prohibition, yes?



Yes, but you want to ban cigarettes because of the fetus, and you don't want to ban alcohol for the same reason. That's inconsistant. But I guess because alcohol CAN be 'healthy,' that makes fetal alcohol syndrome just fine?



Luckily, cigarettes are the only substance that destroys the body, eh? Whew, that's a comfort.



Big deal. We don't outlaw things in this country based on how "useful" someone like you thinks they are. There isn't a "necessary" purpose to a vast majority of products on the market, but it's legal. Why? Because we're not totalitarian pragmatists.



YOUR point was that YOU have better grades than some smokers in your school. Therefore...? What...? You're smarter than smokers? Smoking causes people to be so stupid they get worse grades than you? Whatever your point was there, it was pretty nonsensical. MY point was that getting grades is a result of effort, not of whether or not one smokes.

It's not propaganda, its promotion of a book. He's also dealing selectively in facts.

Actually, you're right. Drinking a lot, at least at once, should be regulated. It is in America, at least. You can't say "prohibition" because that means any amount of alcohol, not just large quantities.

Um.... mothers shouldn't be allowed to drink when pregnant. They really shouldn't. The fact I didn't say so doesn't mean anything other than I didn't think it was pertinent.

By the way: notice how you didn't respond to my most important point, that of my father. Interesting.

We've now descended so far into straw man fallacies this is becoming an exercise in futility. Please excuse me while I go find something slightly less annoying, like shooting myself in the foot.

This is not me avoiding a conversation. This is me saving the last few remaining brain cells I have before they too shrivel away and die.

But that's why we have smoking sections seperated by a wall and a door from the other people, though. Why do we have to ban it outright from those places? It passes health regulations, so why change it? It's easy to ban or pass judgement on something you aren't a part of or don't do.

I wouldn't have minded that, either. That's the way it's handled in Canada, and I really appreciated it.
I can't say why the Irish geovernment went for the outright ban, but I think it had legal and practical reasons.
Practical because most pubs here would not have been able to create two seperate rooms, as they are simply to small. The same goes for many restaurants. The owners wouldn't have been able to meet the requirements.
Legal because, as I said before, the reason the government gave for introducing the ban was the already existing ban of smoking at the workplace. As people work in pubs, no smoking is allowed there. That way, no new law had to be created (might have taken years to pass that, many would have opposed it), but an existing law was given a new dimension. Simple.

So?

If I'm talking loudly about how George Bush is a traitor/hero in a public place I'm also forcing my opinion, yet there are no laws against speaking loudly, or hell, generally being a nuisance to other people in a public place. Sure, it's rude, but is the law made to enforce good manners? Hell no!

Smoking in an enclosed place next to people who don't like cigarette smoke is rude, and if those people ask nicely the smokers should put out their cigarette. Does this mean there should be a law against public smoking? Unless you're a pregnant woman or you have asthma or you're an old man with only one lung or something, smoking is not a hazard but a mild annoyance (no matter how "disgusting" or "filthy" you think it is) and the law isn't meant to protect citizens against mild annoyances.

What about young children? Do you honestly think any small child has the confidence to stand up to an adult smoker and ask them to stop while they are around? And how is smoking just a mild annoyance. I dont have the reference to hand but this week there was an article in the daily mail about a mother who has a son with the longs of a 45 year old due to passive smoking from her habit. Fortunately she acted on the doctors advice and quit. And as for your george bush point, does your talking about him physically damage another persons health? they can choose to ignore you but they cant with smoking

I live in Canada, and then my city (kingston ont) banned smoking everywhere but inside your own home. now the only thing peoplr smoke outside is drugs, and lots of them

As people work in pubs, no smoking is allowed there. That way, no new law had to be created (might have taken years to pass that, many would have opposed it), but an existing law was given a new dimension. Simple.

Most people that work in pubs around here own the place and most, as part of the interview, ask if you mind being around people who smoke. Say yes, you don't get the job. Say no, and you might.

I think our main problem here is me being a libertarian. I believe that people should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies, but harm to another's can be settled by suing the smoker in extreme cases.

I live in Canada, and then my city (kingston ont) banned smoking everywhere but inside your own home. now the only thing peoplr smoke outside is drugs, and lots of them

More or less the same here. You can't smoke a cigarette in the pub, but you can smoke dope on the top deck of the bus... :D

.... but harm to another's can be settled by suing the smoker in extreme cases.

Trust me, THAT would only work in the states. :D
No court here would ever accept a claim like that. The legal system here tends to be stricter about which claims are justified and which aren't. And the sentences and fines tend to be less extreme

I would say nothing has been done about smoking in the United States.

Belgium:

* Warnings on the packages (EU standard), like bad for your sperm, etc.
* No public commercing (nearly bankrupted Francorchamps, as you all knwo Schumachers favorite parcour).
*anti-smoking commercials, like showing a healthy and a smokers kidney on tv.
* Smoking in some places is restricted.

It's not propaganda, its promotion of a book. He's also dealing selectively in facts.


And your propganda are promotion of political idealogies. And don't tell me they don't deal selectively in facts!

By the way: notice how you didn't respond to my most important point, that of my father. Interesting.

You should have said it was an important point. I don't see how personal anecdotes are, though. I've offered a few of my own and no one's addressed them either.

We've now descended so far into straw man fallacies this is becoming an exercise in futility. Please excuse me while I go find something slightly less annoying, like shooting myself in the foot.

This is not me avoiding a conversation. This is me saving the last few remaining brain cells I have before they too shrivel away and die.

Heh, OK. Just don't blame the gun for the pain. ;)

What about young children? Do you honestly think any small child has the confidence to stand up to an adult smoker and ask them to stop while they are around? And how is smoking just a mild annoyance. I dont have the reference to hand but this week there was an article in the daily mail about a mother who has a son with the longs of a 45 year old due to passive smoking from her habit. Fortunately she acted on the doctors advice and quit. And as for your george bush point, does your talking about him physically damage another persons health? they can choose to ignore you but they cant with smokingPersonally, I find it a lot easier to ignore smokers than idiots.

There was this article this week? Oh my! The fact is that, if it does, second hand smoking kills as much as the sun or red meat which is to say for practical purposes, not at all. Everyone dies of something, and everything is bad for something. Smoking is, at best, a mild annoyance, and unless you've got asthma and are stuck in an elevator with a chain-smoker it isn't hazardous in any way.

Smoking does not kill.

Smoking is not disgusting.

It's just a habit, which can be unpleasant at best, and there is strictly no valid reason whatsoever for discriminating against it.

Personally, I find it a lot easier to ignore smokers than idiots.

There was this article this week? Oh my! The fact is that, if it does, second hand smoking kills as much as the sun or red meat which is to say for practical purposes, not at all. Everyone dies of something, and everything is bad for something. Smoking is, at best, a mild annoyance, and unless you've got asthma and are stuck in an elevator with a chain-smoker it isn't hazardous in any way.

Smoking does not kill.

Smoking is not disgusting.

It's just a habit, which can be unpleasant at best, and there is strictly no valid reason whatsoever for discriminating against it.

Everyone dies of something but why should you get to choose something to speed up the process? What about the millions of asthmatics who are affected by it? Should we just consider them too small a minority to matter. Biting my nails is just a habit but i dont go around grabbing other peoples hands and start munching away. Why should you be able to let your habit affect others? If you smoke your cigarettes in private away from others then I have no problem but when you force your habit onto others then it becomes a problem.

Sorry for the rambling but i havent eaten in a long time and my minds wandering

Personally, I find it a lot easier to ignore smokers than idiots.

There was this article this week? Oh my! The fact is that, if it does, second hand smoking kills as much as the sun or red meat which is to say for practical purposes, not at all. Everyone dies of something, and everything is bad for something. Smoking is, at best, a mild annoyance, and unless you've got asthma and are stuck in an elevator with a chain-smoker it isn't hazardous in any way.

Smoking does not kill.

Smoking is not disgusting.

It's just a habit, which can be unpleasant at best, and there is strictly no valid reason whatsoever for discriminating against it.

Balls. Smoking kills. It's responsible for the majority of lung cancers, the most common kind of cancer, as well as all sorts of other cancer (stomach, throat, mouth just off the top of my head...) And people die from these things.
You're contradicting yourself, first saying everything is bad for someone and everyone is killed by something, then you say smoking does not kill.

(Snip) What about the millions of asthmatics who are affected by it? Should we just consider them too small a minority to matter.All questions end with question marks.

Also, yes. Why should you be able to let your habit affect others? If you smoke your cigarettes in private away from others then I have no problem but when you force your habit onto others then it becomes a problem. Because humans live in a thing called society! We all interact with each other, and sometimes our habits and tendancies overlap with each other's. Unless it's dangerous or seriously abusive then it is no big deal. And second hand smoke is definitely no big deal. It should be impolite to annoy others, but not illegal, because then we are creating a- a tyranny and b- a world of sheltered, weak princesses and their peas.

All questions end with question marks.

Also, yes. Because humans live in a thing called society! We all interact with each other, and sometimes our habits and tendancies overlap with each other's. Unless it's dangerous or seriously abusive then it is no big deal. And second hand smoke is definitely no big deal. It should be impolite to annoy others, but not illegal, because then we are creating a- a tyranny and b- a world of sheltered, weak princesses and their peas.

Picky picky with the punctuation. As for the society point, that works both ways. The smokers should accept that a large proportion of the society in which they live do not smoke. Yes it is dangerous although its effects take longer to accumulate. If a car crash occured in slow motion would it be all that different to a normal one as the results are the same. Weird analogy ( i think) but its all i could think of. Removing a cause of disease does not make us weak or sheltered i'd like to point out. This is what society has always done

Smoking may not be the cause of death, but what it does to you does. Eating hambergers and drinking lard shakes may not kill you, but the heart attack caused by the chloresteral blocking the blood flow does. A drunk driver may not kill you, but being hit by his car while it is going at high speeds does. Smoking may not directly kill you, but having your lungs coated in tar and other toxins does. Suicide kills only one. Smoking can kill many. I don't trust someone who came out of nowhere. I trust doctors. I trust the Surgeon General. I basicly trust anyone who knows about the human body. I don't trust someone on the internet who could have been paid by big cigarrette companies. After all, they don't worry if you die or not. They worry if they're going to be billionaires.

"smoking is good for you"
-big tobacco corporation
-killing people for profit since 1895. Your death is their paycheck.

Smoking may not be the cause of death, but what it does to you does. Eating hambergers and drinking lard shakes may not kill you, but the heart attack caused by the chloresteral blocking the blood flow does. A drunk driver may not kill you, but being hit by his car while it is going at high speeds does. Smoking may not directly kill you, but having your lungs coated in tar and other toxins does. Suicide kills only one. Smoking can kill many. I don't trust someone who came out of nowhere. I trust doctors. I trust the Surgeon General. I basicly trust anyone who knows about the human body. I don't trust someone on the internet who could have been paid by big cigarrette companies. After all, they don't worry if you die or not. They worry if they're going to be billionaires.

"smoking is good for you"
-big tobacco corporation
-killing people for profit since 1895. Your death is their paycheck.

Well put

The smokers should accept that a large proportion of the society in which they live do not smoke.So, since they're a minority it's okay to make laws restricting their rights? Or am I reading this wrong?

Regarding the dangers of smoking, there's a bit of statistics/medical science that most people don't understand and that I'll explain. We don't know what causes cancer. So when researchers say "X causes cancer" what they really mean is that they grabbed two groups (A & B) of people, submitted group A to X and then observed that there were Y% more cancers among members of group A than on members of group B.

So when you're saying that X causes cancer you're not really saying "X is a direct cause of cancer. If you have X, you will get cancer." but simply that X increases your likelyhood of getting cancer. Why? How? We don't know, because cancer is one of the biggest mysteries of science. We know how to observe it and we're getting the hang of affecting it once it happens, but we don't know what causes it.

At this rate, practically everything raises your chane of getting cancer. The only thing which is pinpointed as a direct cause of cancer is heavy radiation because the effects of heavy radiation are similar to the effects of cancer. But for anything else, electricity, red meat, alcohol, the sun, cigarettes (dare I say it: all the good things in life), the effects are indirect and insufficient factors in a cancer.

What I'm saying is that cigarettes aren't a direct hazard to our health. They are hazardous in the sense that everything in the world can have an affect on our life, including shortening it. If we all lived according to the Benedictine rule, we would probably all live to be one hundred. But do you want to live like a monk?

Letting people smoke is not like letting tigers loose in the populace. It is their own responsibility for those which it affects directly, and it is just too little of a hindrance for those which it affects indirectly--I'm talking about second hand smoke here. So, it's impossible to ban it without seriously harming civil liberties and without turning a society of human beings into a herd of frightened little fawns.

Ireland and Norway have banned smoking in public places. Britain has not!

Also New Zealand has banned smoking in work places including Taxis, its illegal till your 18 and I never ever see any ads on tv for smokes but there are several govermental anti-smoking ads such as cutting open a brain to show a blood clot a 30 year old got from smoking... I wish everyone could stop smoking, war, starvation, racism, rape, murder, alcholism and just :fluffle:

:fluffle: So, since they're a minority it's okay to make laws restricting their rights? Or am I reading this wrong?

Regarding the dangers of smoking, there's a bit of statistics/medical science that most people don't understand and that I'll explain. We don't know what causes cancer. So when researchers say "X causes cancer" what they really mean is that they grabbed two groups (A & B) of people, submitted group A to X and then observed that there were Y% more cancers among members of group A than on members of group B.

So when you're saying that X causes cancer you're not really saying "X is a direct cause of cancer. If you have X, you will get cancer." but simply that X increases your likelyhood of getting cancer. Why? How? We don't know, because cancer is one of the biggest mysteries of science. We know how to observe it and we're getting the hang of affecting it once it happens, but we don't know what causes it.

At this rate, practically everything raises your chane of getting cancer. The only thing which is pinpointed as a direct cause of cancer is heavy radiation because the effects of heavy radiation are similar to the effects of cancer. But for anything else, electricity, red meat, alcohol, the sun, cigarettes (dare I say it: all the good things in life), the effects are indirect and insufficient factors in a cancer.

What I'm saying is that cigarettes aren't a direct hazard to our health. They are hazardous in the sense that everything in the world can have an affect on our life, including shortening it. If we all lived according to the Benedictine rule, we would probably all live to be one hundred. But do you want to live like a monk?

Letting people smoke is not like letting tigers loose in the populace. It is their own responsibility for those which it affects directly, and it is just too little of a hindrance for those which it affects indirectly--I'm talking about second hand smoke here. So, it's impossible to ban it without seriously harming civil liberties and without turning a society of human beings into a herd of frightened little fawns.


Does anyone but me notice that there used to be (even when they knew what it was) less counts of cancer and all the other diseses in the world maybe everone needs a :fluffle: oh etecpt for people with things like AIDS Clomidia Sysfillus and other sexual transmittered diseses

So, since they're a minority it's okay to make laws restricting their rights? Or am I reading this wrong?

Regarding the dangers of smoking, there's a bit of statistics/medical science that most people don't understand and that I'll explain. We don't know what causes cancer. So when researchers say "X causes cancer" what they really mean is that they grabbed two groups (A & B) of people, submitted group A to X and then observed that there were Y% more cancers among members of group A than on members of group B.

So when you're saying that X causes cancer you're not really saying "X is a direct cause of cancer. If you have X, you will get cancer." but simply that X increases your likelyhood of getting cancer. Why? How? We don't know, because cancer is one of the biggest mysteries of science. We know how to observe it and we're getting the hang of affecting it once it happens, but we don't know what causes it.

At this rate, practically everything raises your chane of getting cancer. The only thing which is pinpointed as a direct cause of cancer is heavy radiation because the effects of heavy radiation are similar to the effects of cancer. But for anything else, electricity, red meat, alcohol, the sun, cigarettes (dare I say it: all the good things in life), the effects are indirect and insufficient factors in a cancer.

What I'm saying is that cigarettes aren't a direct hazard to our health. They are hazardous in the sense that everything in the world can have an affect on our life, including shortening it. If we all lived according to the Benedictine rule, we would probably all live to be one hundred. But do you want to live like a monk?

Letting people smoke is not like letting tigers loose in the populace. It is their own responsibility for those which it affects directly, and it is just too little of a hindrance for those which it affects indirectly--I'm talking about second hand smoke here. So, it's impossible to ban it without seriously harming civil liberties and without turning a society of human beings into a herd of frightened little fawns.

Smoking is not a right, its a privilege. Asbestos is shown to increase cases of cancer so should we still allow its use in schools, etc? Would you prefer to live in a house made with asbestos or one without? That is how non-smokers feel. They could live in a world with one less unnecessary risk or they can live the way it is at present

There was an article in one of our local papers recently about a 4 year old child who was borught into hospital. He had to get part of his lung removed. Doctors compared his lungs to that of a old pensioner and said that it was due to his mothers heavy smoking.
I believe that smokers are taking away our right to a smoke free and healthier environment. I don't want to be breathing in someone elses smoke...whether it causes cancer or not...whether passive smoking has been irrefutably (sp) proven to be harmful to someones health is irrelevant to me. Personally it makes me feel ill for at least 24hrs

I know that Canada for example put pictures of the damages of smoking on the packets, and in England I believe there's a ban on advertising, and Britain has banned smoking in public places, but except for that, I'm clueless. I'm doing a project on teenage smoking, and wondering what governments do to stop it.

EDIT: Please say what country you're from and what they're doing to reduce smoking. Thanks.
In Ireland,

cigarette advertising is banned
government health warnings take up 40% of packet area
smoking is banned in workplaces, including restaurants and bars

Smoking is not a right, its a privilege. Asbestos is shown to increase cases of cancer so should we still allow its use in schools, etc? Would you prefer to live in a house made with asbestos or one without? That is how non-smokers feel. They could live in a world with one less unnecessary risk or they can live the way it is at presentYour counterexample plays right in my hand.

I don't care whether my house has asbestos and would very much like it if we used the billions we're pouring into removing asbestos from buildings in something actually useful. Asbestos "causes" cancer in people working on asbestos without protective masks, because asbestos is only dangerous when inhaled as volatile splinters which puncture holes in the lungs. Thus, once it's installed it's completely harmless, yet there's a psychosis about asbestos due to the scared little fawn syndrome I've talked about earlier.

Smoking isn't a right? Fine. But smokeless bars are? Nonsense.

cigarette advertising is banned

Ah, yeah, we got that as well (same goes for alcohol advertising).

Your counterexample plays right in my hand.

I don't care whether my house has asbestos and would very much like it if we used the billions we're pouring into removing asbestos from buildings in something actually useful. Asbestos "causes" cancer in people working on asbestos without protective masks, because asbestos is only dangerous when inhaled as volatile splinters which puncture holes in the lungs. Thus, once it's installed it's completely harmless, yet there's a psychosis about asbestos due to the scared little fawn syndrome I've talked about earlier.

Smoking isn't a right? Fine. But smokeless bars are? Nonsense.

Well then you can have an asbestos house all you want but dont decide to make everyone else do the same. People have the right to be able to choose a smokeless bar. That isnt to say that all bars should be smokeless but people should be allowed to live their lives in a smoke free environment. If that means allowing smoking only in certain areas then that would be a better compromise. That way smokers can choose an area where they can smoke and non-smokers can choose non-smoking areas. Please dont use smoking and non smoking seating in restaurants as an example of this as the smoke obviously spreads throughout the building. I mean a complete ban on smoking except in your own home or in specially designated areas

Yeah. There shouldn't be any new smokers allowed until the tobacco companies start caring about what their products do to people besides making them buy more. This is corporate greed. This is rich people getting richer by selling a product they know can cause lung and throat cancer to people who are either trying to fit in or are already addicted. Addiction is a condition in which the brain gets a "need" for something that isn't vital for life. Failure to cave in to addiction can cause bodily and psychological damage, making products, such as illegal drugs and cigarrettes, hurt you when you take them and when you don't take them.

Don't think cigarrettes are addictive? Here's a little assignment for you, then. Smoke some cigarrettes. I mean, smoke them. Then, stop smoking them. I don't mean use 3 instead of 4. I mean stop cold turkey. Don't smoke any at that point. Wait for a while. If you experience serious side-effects, congradulations. You are addicted and dependant on them now. Then, can you honestly say that they aren't addictive at that point? If you can, either the tobbacco companies have failed or you are a big liar. I expect the latter to be true.

Sure you'r not thinking or Ireland. To the best of my knowledge smoking is still allowed in public places here.
yeah im pretty sure england is fine with it. meh

Meh is right.

Don't think cigarrettes are addictive? Here's a little assignment for you, then. Smoke some cigarrettes. I mean, smoke them. Then, stop smoking them. I don't mean use 3 instead of 4. I mean stop cold turkey. Don't smoke any at that point. Wait for a while. If you experience serious side-effects, congradulations. You are addicted and dependant on them now.Then, can you honestly say that they aren't addictive at that point? If you can, either the tobbacco companies have failed or you are a big liar. I expect the latter to be true.

Wow, your grand "assignment" consists of smoking, and then seeing if you're addicted, and if you're not you're a liar. Great job, very impartial.

I can smoke a pack a day and stop cold turkey with no problems. Think I'm a liar? Think again.

I have that little thing called free will. I'm not a victim, I don't buy into your "the corporations are making us helpless slaves" attitude you're peddling. People like YOU incourage addiction, because you help create the BELIEF in addiction - the idea of helplessness. And hell, you're actually incouraging people to smoke right here... but then you blame The Tobacco Companies.

This "addiction" BS is just that - how many times have I heard crap about chocolate addictions, sex addictions, work addictions, internet addictions? Everyone is "addicted" to addiction in this society, addicted to the concept that what you do doesn't matter, you're actually just a slave to various addictions. That removes the responsibility of the smoker - for example I can say I'm an addict, therefore it's not really my choice, therefore you can't blame me when I blow smoke in your face! - and it removes the concept of responsibility of choice. Apparently I don't smoke because I choose to go out and buy packs of cigarettes, I'm drawn helplessly like a moth to fire - my muscles, forced beyond my will, to do the transaction and light up afterwards, while my eyes watch behind a prison bar of fear....

Bullshit. I smoke because I choose to. Everyone who does, chooses to. There aren't sex-aholics - there are sluts and players. There aren't workaholics - there are people who have a work ethic. There aren't cigarette addicts - there are people who smoke cigarettes. I've known people with real addictions, to real chemicals which produce real and devilishly impossible traps of dependency on the body. Every time people play the addiction card for cigarette smokers, is an insult to such anyone ever addicted to morphine or heroin.

If only you had emphasized the capability of human beings to make their own CHOICES, you might actually be able to persuade people to quit smoking. That after all is just a choice as well.

But i doubt you will - it's more fun to rage, after all, about how evil The Tobacco Companies are, how helpless cigarette addicts are, how deluded/lying anyone who doesn't buy into your addiction culture must be. Sigh.

I'm afraid Santa Barbara may have a point. I too smoke up to 10 ciggies a day... and can stop cold turkey whenever I choose (and have done so many times - some times for years, some times for months). That 'addiction' thing must be exaggerated... or I don't know. Anywho, I smoke because I choose to. I also choose to go smoke outside even if the pub I'm in allows me to smoke in their premises. To me, that is common courtesy.

Wow, your grand "assignment" consists of smoking, and then seeing if you're addicted, and if you're not you're a liar. Great job, very impartial.

I can smoke a pack a day and stop cold turkey with no problems. Think I'm a liar? Think again.

I have that little thing called free will. I'm not a victim, I don't buy into your "the corporations are making us helpless slaves" attitude you're peddling. People like YOU incourage addiction, because you help create the BELIEF in addiction - the idea of helplessness. And hell, you're actually incouraging people to smoke right here... but then you blame The Tobacco Companies.

This "addiction" BS is just that - how many times have I heard crap about chocolate addictions, sex addictions, work addictions, internet addictions? Everyone is "addicted" to addiction in this society, addicted to the concept that what you do doesn't matter, you're actually just a slave to various addictions. That removes the responsibility of the smoker - for example I can say I'm an addict, therefore it's not really my choice, therefore you can't blame me when I blow smoke in your face! - and it removes the concept of responsibility of choice. Apparently I don't smoke because I choose to go out and buy packs of cigarettes, I'm drawn helplessly like a moth to fire - my muscles, forced beyond my will, to do the transaction and light up afterwards, while my eyes watch behind a prison bar of fear....

Bullshit. I smoke because I choose to. Everyone who does, chooses to. There aren't sex-aholics - there are sluts and players. There aren't workaholics - there are people who have a work ethic. There aren't cigarette addicts - there are people who smoke cigarettes. I've known people with real addictions, to real chemicals which produce real and devilishly impossible traps of dependency on the body. Every time people play the addiction card for cigarette smokers, is an insult to such anyone ever addicted to morphine or heroin.

If only you had emphasized the capability of human beings to make their own CHOICES, you might actually be able to persuade people to quit smoking. That after all is just a choice as well.

But i doubt you will - it's more fun to rage, after all, about how evil The Tobacco Companies are, how helpless cigarette addicts are, how deluded/lying anyone who doesn't buy into your addiction culture must be. Sigh.

Yes! I agree wholeheartedly. I was a morphine addict and I am still a smoker.

(Doubter) Q:If you were 1) able to kick morphine and 2)cigarettes are so easy to kick, why haven't you stopped smoking?

(Myself) A: MOTIVATION! I smoke a pipe. I enjoy it, quite a bit. When I started doing Morphine and othe narcotics, I really enjoyed it. However, it got to the point where I couldn't really get high anymore and I was completely ruining my life and was in fact an imminent threat to my continued existence. I made choice, motivated by those factors. I choose to kick Morphine. There were a couple false starts, but I eventually succeeded.

I know smoking a pipe is not healthy and will lead to horrid complications to my health...years from now, but I continue to smoke because I enjoy it, not because I'm addicted. Beleive me, after kicking Morphine, putting up with the short 2 day long withdrawal from nicotine and a few months of psychologicly motivated cravings for pipeful of tobacco will be a walk in the park. I'll quit when I get married, because then my habit would be hurting people besides myself. And thats just ignorant.

I'm not an apologist for the tobacco companies. Making money from unhealthy products is not a nice thing. Cars are really dangerous and unhealthy too, and I see no popular movement to label the big 3 as supremely evil bastards. Its a matter of choice.

Personally I think the biggest factor in causing Cancer is the pollution that surrounds us, not a bunch of people who choose to enjoy a bad habit.

City of Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
-No sale of consumption of tobacco under 19
-50-60% Of packaging of tobacco is covered in grotesque pictures
-stupid.ca
-No smoking in workplaces, schools, public transit, trains, within 10 metres of enterances to public institutions
-tobacco is heavily taxed
-tobacco is esentially only allowed outside, in your own home or vehicle
I'm pretty happy about all of these measures...I can breathe easy!

(Living in Japan)

The government here has basically only given lip service to preventing smoking. Although there has been some action recently, to the WHO (http://www.wpro.who.int/media_centre/fact_sheets/fs_20020528.htm), says "Japan has some of the weakest anti-tobacco laws for a developed nation" .

There have been a few local ordinances against smoking on the street. Smoking on domestic airlines is allowed (although some carriers have banned it). Vending machines are both completely legal and common.

The fact that Japan Tobacco (the major producer with more than 60% of the market share) was a government monopoly, and the government still owns 50% of it's shares (mandated by law)

Why is everyone getting so riled up about cancer when there are quicker and more certain ways to cripple one's health with smoking? Nicotine causes the veins in the smoker's body to retract, reducing blood circulation and increasing blood pressure. Apparently, daredevil smokers responding in this thread bravely accept the increased risk of lung cancer (on their own behalf and on the behalf of passive smokers around them.) I expect they likewise fearlessly take on the increased risk of cardiovascular problems (cardiac arrest, for example,) that a higher blood pressure and poorer blood circulation *will* inflict on you.

In addition, inhaling smoke means you will get a good deal of carbon monoxide into your lungs. Carbon monoxide binds to hemoglobine in your blood, meaning one's blood won't be able to up as much oxygen as before. This will affect the performance of everything in your body which requires oxygen, which incidentally includes your brain, your muscles and anything else consisting of living cells. Ah, but who needs stamina anyway, when you can just drive around everywhere anyway? Be sure to point that out to any passive smoker you meet.

If you're one of those prissy half-arsed smokers who think it's "not very nice to detoriate other people's health" (and remember, they CHOSE to be somewhere where there might be other people,) but who still need your nicotine fix, there is an alternative. "Snus", as it is called in Scandinavia at least, is tobacco which is stuffed behind your upper lip and goes straight into the bloodstream due to the thin skin there. Sure, it's not as manly and cool as walking around with a friggen piece of burning paper sticking out of your mouth, but it will allow you to live "on the edge" smoker's style, without having all those sissy people complain that you're ruining their health.

Oh, and I live in Norway, so there's no smoking inside bars and restaurants here. This means smokers get to be even more manly, being in the great outdoors, like their hardy ancestors who crossed the Atlantic ocean in open boats, in addition to smoking.

If you're one of those prissy half-arsed smokers who think it's "not very nice to detoriate other people's health" (and remember, they CHOSE to be somewhere where there might be other people,) but who still need your nicotine fix, there is an alternative. "Snus", as it is called in Scandinavia at least, is tobacco which is stuffed behind your upper lip and goes straight into the bloodstream due to the thin skin there. Sure, it's not as manly and cool as walking around with a friggen piece of burning paper sticking out of your mouth, but it will allow you to live "on the edge" smoker's style, without having all those sissy people complain that you're ruining their health.

A similar product is popular in parts of the US as well (especially the South and western interior), where it's called snuff or Skoal (leading brand name). I do it occassionally, when I can get it (it's just about the only form of tobacco unavailable here in Japan). I was given a few cans earlier this month, and am enjoying some right now. :::spits:::

According to this (http://www.ndsn.org/nov94/snuff.html), 7.5 million use it, and it's use is on the rise.


BTW, it's often seen as manly - for example the brand names of Cougar, Grizzly, Kodiak, Timberwolf and Kayak all are pretty blatant appeals to that "manly outdoorsman" image. Advertising is also heavily associated with male athletes (NASCAR, baseball).

Chewing tobacco is another alternative, as is nasal snuff.

Bullshit. I smoke because I choose to. Everyone who does, chooses to.

May I ask why ? Smoking offers no benefits to the body, unless the body is addicted to it. So the only reason I see is having something in your hand (which is something I like to have too; though I tend to use a pencil).

And of course, as long as you bother noone with it, it is completely your choice even if there is no reason for doing it.

Well then you can have an asbestos house all you want but dont decide to make everyone else do the same.Actually I can't, because now it's illegal. People have the right to be able to choose a smokeless bar. That isnt to say that all bars should be smokeless but people should be allowed to live their lives in a smoke free environment. If that means allowing smoking only in certain areas then that would be a better compromise. That way smokers can choose an area where they can smoke and non-smokers can choose non-smoking areas. Please dont use smoking and non smoking seating in restaurants as an example of this as the smoke obviously spreads throughout the building. I mean a complete ban on smoking except in your own home or in specially designated areas"Smokers and non smokers: separate but equal." Discuss.

People have the right to have smokeless bars, sure, whatever, but does that mean it's the government's job to make bars smokeless? No! It's the job of anti-cigarette fascists like you to make smokeless bars and invite your other buddies into your smoke-free ghettos, instead of segregating against the smokers.

I know a woman, nay, a lady, she is the kindest, most polite person you could ever meet. She's also a relatively heavy smoker. Whenever someone was bothered by her smoke and would ask her to stop smoking, she would. Until a law separating smoking and non smoking areas was passed: now that there are designated areas for smoking, people who don't want smoke can move.

To go back to your asbestos example: nobody decided to make everyone live in houses with asbestos, it's just that it's the best means of insulation. However some day the government decided to make everyone remove asbestos and use other stuff that's more expensive and not as effective, for the same idiotic reasons that you want to force your smoke-free philosophy on the entire world.

(snip)I can smoke a pack a day and stop cold turkey with no problems. Think I'm a liar? Think again.

I have that little thing called free will. I'm not a victim, I don't buy into your "the corporations are making us helpless slaves" attitude you're peddling. People like YOU incourage addiction, because you help create the BELIEF in addiction - the idea of helplessness. And hell, you're actually incouraging people to smoke right here... but then you blame The Tobacco Companies.

This "addiction" BS is just that - how many times have I heard crap about chocolate addictions, sex addictions, work addictions, internet addictions? Everyone is "addicted" to addiction in this society, addicted to the concept that what you do doesn't matter, you're actually just a slave to various addictions. That removes the responsibility of the smoker - for example I can say I'm an addict, therefore it's not really my choice, therefore you can't blame me when I blow smoke in your face! - and it removes the concept of responsibility of choice.

(snip)Congratulations!

The addictive components in tobacco wash out of the body in 16 hours, so anything after that is all in your mind, and even then it's not like it's heroin.

You're completely right. Smoking is people's choice. People who are so up in arms about having smoke in their environment should take a lesson in not overreacting to every little unpleasant thing that happens in their life.

Congratulations!

The addictive components in tobacco wash out of the body in 16 hours, so anything after that is all in your mind, and even then it's not like it's heroin.

You're completely right. Smoking is people's choice. People who are so up in arms about having smoke in their environment should take a lesson in not overreacting to every little unpleasant thing that happens in their life.

The way addiction works is that you get certain chemicals into your bloodstream, nicotine for example, which irritate the body. This causes your body to start producing anti-chemicals to "blank out" the effect of the stuff you're getting into you. Keep in mind, though, that you still get the bad side effects to your blood system, the tar in your lungs and the increased risk of lung cancer, though. All the anti-chemicals do is protect you from getting high. The problem starts when you stop the intake of these addictive chemicals. Your body will be full of anti-chemicals, only nothing to counter them, resulting in physical discomfort unless you get more chemicals to counter your own anti-chemicals. If all the addictive stuff in tobacco has left your system after 16 hours, this means you'll reach the peak of chemical-to-anti chemical ration then. Congratulations if you're still able to easily go cold turkey. That means you're luckier than most tobacco users I know.

Also, the point is not that damaging your body with tobacco shouldn't be your own choice. The point is that when you smoke, you take that choice for everyone around you. Why is it so hard to see that? Why insist on smoking if, as you yourselves say, you can quit just like that? Especially since there are other, more effective ways to get nicotine into your bloodstream?

There is no cold turkey.

My history with smoking is this:

Both my parents are heavy smokers. When I was 3 I asked my mom for a cigarette, like all kids do when they see the grown-ups do some grown-up thing. Since she was smart she let me take a drag. I coughed and coughed and was disgusted with it.

When I was like 13 I secretely bought a pack and tried a couple cigarettes, like every teenager on the planet. Didn't like it.

Once when I was under stress I tried a cigarette. Found it didn't help with the stress yet, for some reason, I tried one more cigarette. Thirty days later I was smoking a few cigs every day. I thought it was silly so I enjoyed one last cig, put it out, haven't touched another since. Didn't feel any cold turkey, any withdrawal. Every once in a while I feel like smoking one, but then again every once in a while I crave an ice cream.

It is not addictive, not if you have some willpower. And I don't, most of the time. Heh.

No advertising, restricted public smoking, and put "Smoking kills" warnings on packets. Most deterring however are the high taxes.

*sigh*

The restrictions on smoking are beyond me. It's no big deal. Yes, it gives cancer, but so what? If you don't smoke you'll live forever? Things like driving and liquor kill way more people. Guilting the populace for indulging in a harmless (yes, I said harmless) habit is dangerous nonsense. Either ban it or let it go.

We've become such a cushy, wussy society that we make things up to be all worried about to make ourselves feel like we're still in a dangerous world. People who think smoking matters to anything should remind themselves of the times and places where war, famine and endemics are the real health issues.

P.S. : I don't smoke.

My grandfather died of black lung, and it didn't help that he smoked ><

Congratulations if you're still able to easily go cold turkey. That means you're luckier than most tobacco users I know.

I suppose these days, having a sense of self responsibility and individual choice IS a matter of luck...

Also, the point is not that damaging your body with tobacco shouldn't be your own choice. The point is that when you smoke, you take that choice for everyone around you. Why is it so hard to see that? Why insist on smoking if, as you yourselves say, you can quit just like that? Especially since there are other, more effective ways to get nicotine into your bloodstream?

Gosh, because I don't smoke just for the nicotine!

Why insist on doing something I like if I am able to stop doing something I like? Gosh, because I like doing it!

Because, gosh, I don't want to quit just because people like you want it!

Do you ever partake in recreational activities? That you're not addicted to? Well, why? Since you can quit at any time, why not?

Have you ever driven or ridden in a car to those recreational activities?

I'd just like to point out [again] that the 1993 EPA study which every major anti-smoking group in the country is using as their primary source to condem smoking was, in fact, thrown out by the Supreme Court in 1998 for "cherry picking their evidence and deviating from standard scientific procedure to arrive at a predetermined outcome."

Likewise, the WHO press release on a second study is a favord source for these folks, but the study itself admits no link between casual contact with ETS and lung cancer.

Anyone who seriously thinks sitting in a smoky restaurant for 45 minutes once or twice a week will give them cancer needs to have their head examined.

Smoking in Public Places is still legal here in Britain, but the Government is trying to pass a bill to make it illigal.

And it's illigal to sell Tobacco to children under 16.

I suppose these days, having a sense of self responsibility and individual choice IS a matter of luck...

Gosh, because I don't smoke just for the nicotine!

Why insist on doing something I like if I am able to stop doing something I like? Gosh, because I like doing it!

Because, gosh, I don't want to quit just because people like you want it!

Do you ever partake in recreational activities? That you're not addicted to? Well, why? Since you can quit at any time, why not?

Have you ever driven or ridden in a car to those recreational activities?

It's funny how you insist on that you could stop smoking any day, you just don't want to.

And I notice you keep dodging the core issue here, which is not whether or not you like to smoke (obviously you do,) but whether or not you should have the right to smoke in bars/pubs/restaurants where other people have to inhale the results of your self-indulgence and suffer the side effects you so courageously brave, or else stay away from public places (a bit of a bummer if you happen to work in one.) Especially since you also have the possibility of smoking outside, where wind and copious amounts of air will allow you to enjoy your smoke without having to share any of its fiery goodness with other people.

I don't mind people smoking. I have good friends who smoke, and I don't mind a bit. Because they realize that there is no need for them to insist on the right to smoke in places where people might take offense to it when they just as easily can go outside, or to a smoking room to do so.

As for recreation...
Imagine if people whos hobby was firing handguns started putting up bulls-eyes on walls in bars and restaurants. Why shouldn't they? If people didn't get between them and the wall, there would be no risk of getting shot. Yeah, there's the noise to consider, but all you have to do is get earplugs.
And why shouldn't people who owned small dogs be allowed to bring them into bars or restaurants? Yeah, so a dog might once in a while try to bite someone, but so what? It wouldn't have if it hadn't been offended, and how much damage would a small dog's bite cause anyway? True, they might occationally leave turds on the floor if they hadn't been trained properly, but who has ever been hurt by a little turd? Sure, a few people are allergic to dogs or afraid of them, but they don't need to go to bars or restaurants if they know there is a chance there might be a dog there.

Of course, if amateur marksmen and dog owners were to take their hobbies and animals to bars and restaurants where they might inconveniance other people, that would be somewhat inconsiderate.

It's funny how you insist on that you could stop smoking any day, you just don't want to.

And I notice you keep dodging the core issue here, which is not whether or not you like to smoke (obviously you do,) but whether or not you should have the right to smoke in bars/pubs/restaurants where other people have to inhale the results of your self-indulgence and suffer the side effects you so courageously brave, or else stay away from public places (a bit of a bummer if you happen to work in one.) Especially since you also have the possibility of smoking outside, where wind and copious amounts of air will allow you to enjoy your smoke without having to share any of its fiery goodness with other people.

I don't mind people smoking. I have good friends who smoke, and I don't mind a bit. Because they realize that there is no need for them to insist on the right to smoke in places where people might take offense to it when they just as easily can go outside, or to a smoking room to do so.

As for recreation...
Imagine if people whos hobby was firing handguns started putting up bulls-eyes on walls in bars and restaurants. Why shouldn't they? If people didn't get between them and the wall, there would be no risk of getting shot. Yeah, there's the noise to consider, but all you have to do is get earplugs.
And why shouldn't people who owned small dogs be allowed to bring them into bars or restaurants? Yeah, so a dog might once in a while try to bite someone, but so what? It wouldn't have if it hadn't been offended, and how much damage would a small dog's bite cause anyway? True, they might occationally leave turds on the floor if they hadn't been trained properly, but who has ever been hurt by a little turd? Sure, a few people are allergic to dogs or afraid of them, but they don't need to go to bars or restaurants if they know there is a chance there might be a dog there.

Of course, if amateur marksmen and dog owners were to take their hobbies and animals to bars and restaurants where they might inconveniance other people, that would be somewhat inconsiderate.

Well said! :)

It's funny how you insist on that you could stop smoking any day, you just don't want to.

And I notice you keep dodging the core issue here, which is not whether or not you like to smoke (obviously you do,) but whether or not you should have the right to smoke in bars/pubs/restaurants where other people have to inhale the results of your self-indulgence and suffer the side effects you so courageously brave, or else stay away from public places (a bit of a bummer if you happen to work in one.) Especially since you also have the possibility of smoking outside, where wind and copious amounts of air will allow you to enjoy your smoke without having to share any of its fiery goodness with other people.

I don't mind people smoking. I have good friends who smoke, and I don't mind a bit. Because they realize that there is no need for them to insist on the right to smoke in places where people might take offense to it when they just as easily can go outside, or to a smoking room to do so.



OK. I am an ex smoker. I did just quit one day, because I did not feel like smoking any more. I didn't want to do it. Not because of any pressure on me from outside (it is virtually non existant in Brazil), nor because of a health scare, or because of media knee jerk reaction, but because I decided, for me, that I didn't feel like smoking. (Before hand I had smoked for 20 years, up to 30 cigarettes a day. I was no casual light, social smoker).

It is possible that people smoke because they want to, and there is nothing that shows that people can not stop, when they want to. When they are pressured by meddling busybodies to stop doing something they enjoy doing, then it can be difficult to stop. When did you last try to cut out all the refined sugar and fat from what you eat? Did you do this because you wanted not to eat those items, or did you try to do it for some other external reason. If it was the former then you will have succeeded, the latter is very difficult (ask anyone on a diet).

Smoking in public places. These places are just what they say: public. This means that no one sector of the public should be able to impose their rules on these places without the agreement of at least the majority. Now ther are places that are thought of as public, but are not. They are private establishments. These include pubs, bars, restaurants, cinemas, art galleries, concert halls etc. that are not owned and run by the city, state or country. Now these, it should be up to the owner to decide whether smoking is to be permitted there or not. If they allow smoking, there is no reason for an anti-smoker to go to that particular place. If they do not, the smoker can choose to go elsewhere. This is not a matter for the government.

If the government wants to regulate the actions of everyone so that they do not put their own health at risk, then they have a duty to change our eating habits, our working routines, or transport methods, our accomodation arrangements and our entertainment sources, as well as our smoking, drinking, and gambling activities. I for one, prefer to be responsible for myself rather than be controlled and limited in every aspect of my life.

The recreation argument is just an extension of the personal liberty argument.

(And wanting to ban smoking in open air locations is just ridiculous, unless you want to make tobacco an illegal drug.)

It's funny how you insist on that you could stop smoking any day, you just don't want to.


Why is that funny, because you automatically assume I'm a lying, deluded addict? ;) Ha ha, yes, funny, but the funny part is I am telling God's honest truth and you think you know more about me than I do.

And I notice you keep dodging the core issue here, which is not whether or not you like to smoke (obviously you do,) but whether or not you should have the right to smoke in bars/pubs/restaurants where other people have to inhale the results of your self-indulgence and suffer the side effects you so courageously brave, or else stay away from public places (a bit of a bummer if you happen to work in one.)

Bars aren't public places. They're privately owned. Same with pubs and restaraunts. I know that's a bit of a shock. You also include, when you disagree that people be allowed to smoke "in public," that includes everything from the street to the beach.

And if as you seem to think, second hand smoke in public places causes the 'side effects' you say they do, and it's a choice between that and missing out on going to a BAR or a PUB and you go to the pub anyway, who's really at fault here? Seems to me if it's a choice between "a bit of a bummer" and "dying of lung cancer," you'd go for the former and be a brave little soldier and avoid places with lots of cigarette smoke.

Especially since you also have the possibility of smoking outside,

Not if it's banned "in public." Many on this thread want to ban smoking anywhere but in my own home or car. So I don't really have that choice either, if they get their way.

where wind and copious amounts of air will allow you to enjoy your smoke without having to share any of its fiery goodness with other people.

Incidentally, I do tend to avoid nonsmokers, and deliberately don't blow smoke in peoples faces. But, according to the antismokers on this thread, me and anyone else who smokes does little else but evilly blowing each cigarette's smoke directly in people's faces, constantly. And these same antismokers apparently do nothing about them. Personally, I'm inclined that setup is a bullshit story, an exagerration from that one asshole they met a few weeks back, or that they live with smokers so are not talking about random people allowed to smoke in public at all. No one blows smoke in MY face if I don't want them to, and I let them know - I don't go home and try to make them outlaws. That doesn't do much good even if it suceeded.

As for recreation...
Imagine if people whos hobby was firing handguns started putting up bulls-eyes on walls in bars and restaurants.

That kind of reminds me of dartboards, commonly available in many bars. A dart to the head will be pretty damn dangerous, let me tell you. Those bars need some good insurance and legal power just in case some idiot pricks himself and sues the bar. But anyway, going on...

Why shouldn't they? If people didn't get between them and the wall, there would be no risk of getting shot. Yeah, there's the noise to consider, but all you have to do is get earplugs.

I agree. Why shouldn't they?

Of course the real problem is it's illegal in most places to fire guns indoors, and most bars are close to places where it is illegal to fire guns near to. So it's already illegal, hence not really done, not a good argument for banning smoking.

And why shouldn't people who owned small dogs be allowed to bring them into bars or restaurants? Yeah, so a dog might once in a while try to bite someone, but so what? It wouldn't have if it hadn't been offended, and how much damage would a small dog's bite cause anyway? True, they might occationally leave turds on the floor if they hadn't been trained properly, but who has ever been hurt by a little turd? Sure, a few people are allergic to dogs or afraid of them, but they don't need to go to bars or restaurants if they know there is a chance there might be a dog there.

It's a little like going to Chuck E Cheeses and being surprised at all the children, isn't it? And there are plenty of public and private places where small dogs ARE allowed, and none of those arguments seem to prevent that...

Of course, if amateur marksmen and dog owners were to take their hobbies and animals to bars and restaurants where they might inconveniance other people, that would be somewhat inconsiderate.

Not least to the bar or restaraunt owner, who does get to set the rules on his own property.

Unless the government just outlaws smoking anywhere, and force that decision for them because some people have issues with smoking.

<snip>


You do know that the word "pub" is an abrieviation of the word "public house", don't you?

I don't mind people smoke in the street, because there it is really the often-cited "annoyance", but nothing that I experience as real problem.

Btw, when was the last time you smoked in a bakery, or a department store?

You do know that the word "pub" is an abrieviation of the word "public house", don't you?


You do know that "public house" means a private space that is open to the public, not a public space, don't you? Oh, and while you are about it, what do we call the owner of this private space? - A landlord. This means some one who is the Lord of the land that the "public house" occupies. A lord normally is able to establish his own rules.

You do know that the word "pub" is an abrieviation of the word "public house", don't you?

Well, no. But that doesn't mean pubs, as we take them to mean places to buy and drink liquor in the USA, are owned by the public.

I don't mind people smoke in the street, because there it is really the often-cited "annoyance", but nothing that I experience as real problem.

OK

Btw, when was the last time you smoked in a bakery, or a department store?

Never. But if a department store or bakery ever wanted to allow smoking inside, I think they should have the right to allow it!

Why is that funny, because you automatically assume I'm a lying, deluded addict? ;) Ha ha, yes, funny, but the funny part is I am telling God's honest truth and you think you know more about me than I do.

I haven't assumed anything at all about you personally... Not that I've written in a post anyway.


Bars aren't public places. They're privately owned. Same with pubs and restaraunts. I know that's a bit of a shock. You also include, when you disagree that people be allowed to smoke "in public," that includes everything from the street to the beach.

I'm terribly sorry if my use of the word "public" has confused anyone reading this thread. I did of course not mean that pubs and bars are or should be state owned. Merely that they are used by the general public. And I am equally sorry if my reckless use of the word "public" has resulted in someone thinking I believe smoking should be banned from all public places. I had hoped that pointing out the benefits of smoking outdoors instead of indoors would have made it clear that this is not the case.

And if as you seem to think, second hand smoke in public places causes the 'side effects' you say they do, and it's a choice between that and missing out on going to a BAR or a PUB and you go to the pub anyway, who's really at fault here? Seems to me if it's a choice between "a bit of a bummer" and "dying of lung cancer," you'd go for the former and be a brave little soldier and avoid places with lots of cigarette smoke.

And there we are. The air is free for all, and so smokers are in their full right to contaminate it on behalf of everyone else, for no better reason than that they can't be bothered to step outside. If anyone has a problem with that, they are welcome to enjoy the air in their own private home. If their job is in a bar or a restaurant, well too bad. After all, personal freedom is all about the right to be as inconsiderate as you want to be.

Not if it's banned "in public." Many on this thread want to ban smoking anywhere but in my own home or car. So I don't really have that choice either, if they get their way.

I don't think you have to worry too much about that ever happening. But what does that have to do with my post?

Incidentally, I do tend to avoid nonsmokers, and deliberately don't blow smoke in peoples faces. But, according to the antismokers on this thread, me and anyone else who smokes does little else but evilly blowing each cigarette's smoke directly in people's faces, constantly. And these same antismokers apparently do nothing about them. Personally, I'm inclined that setup is a bullshit story, an exagerration from that one asshole they met a few weeks back, or that they live with smokers so are not talking about random people allowed to smoke in public at all. No one blows smoke in MY face if I don't want them to, and I let them know - I don't go home and try to make them outlaws. That doesn't do much good even if it suceeded.

You make it sound like I've accused you of going around blowing smoke in people's faces. I haven't. And I've only skimmed through the rest of this thread, but the only people I remember mentioning "blowing smoke in people's faces" were smokers trying to ridicule or demonize antismokers's opinions.

Why shouldn't [people whos hobby was firing handguns start putting up bulls-eyes on walls in bars and restaurants]? If people didn't get between them and the wall, there would be no risk of getting shot. Yeah, there's the noise to consider, but all you have to do is get earplugs.

I agree. Why shouldn't they?

Of course the real problem is it's illegal in most places to fire guns indoors, and most bars are close to places where it is illegal to fire guns near to. So it's already illegal, hence not really done, not a good argument for banning smoking.

So if shooting on bulls-eyes indoors in bars is already illegal, presumably because of the health risks... That's not a good argument for banning smoking indoors in bars, which also carries with it serious health risks (you don't have to believe me; it's enough for me to have the majority of medical doctors with me on this one.)

It's a little like going to Chuck E Cheeses and being surprised at all the children, isn't it? And there are plenty of public and private places where small dogs ARE allowed, and none of those arguments seem to prevent that...

I can hardly imagine that there are many people who are allergic to children, and no matter how annoying they can be, they are a vital and irreplacable part of human society. Yet you compare them to dogs and cigarettes. Though in all honesty, I think considerate parents should not take small children to bars or normal restaurants if they can help it. And, as I said before, there are plenty of public places where I think smoking SHOULD BE allowed, and I think dogs should be allowed in most of them too. Though not in smoking rooms. That's just cruel.

Of course, if amateur marksmen and dog owners were to take their hobbies and animals to bars and restaurants where they might inconveniance other people, that would be somewhat inconsiderate.
Not least to the bar or restaraunt owner, who does get to set the rules on his own property.

Unless the government just outlaws smoking anywhere, and force that decision for them because some people have issues with smoking.

Alternatively, the government could outlaw smoking in bars and restaurants where people work throughout the day and where there aren't the same amounts of wind and air to take from as there is outdoors. Like they have done in my home country, Norway. So far, there haven't been any rallies to protect smoker's rights to be inconsiderate in bars and pubs if they so choose, which I take to mean the majority think it's quite alright not to have to choose between inhaling tobacco smoke and staying home. At least here.

Oh please, don't talk to me about second hand smoke.

Would you rather sit next to a smoker or stare at a speeding car in the middle of the road?

Would you rather grow up with parents who smoke too much or parents who drink too much?

Smoking isn't hazardous.

I will just ignore that statement for thew sake of not starting a flamewar.

But to paraphase an stand up comic who's name I can not remember
'I do not smoke, but I am thinking of learning the use of nunchukas
Sure it's pointless, dangerous to my own and others health, and a waste of money, but I want to do it and if people don't like it, they can just find someone else to stand.'

I will start a revolution!
Non smokers of the world unite!
Nunchuck with all your body and soul, FREEDOM :)