NationStates Jolt Archive

As you may know, Blair (priminister of England for those of you who dont know) is trying to stop smoking in all public places. I'm not for it, i'm not againsed it. What do you think on the matter?

As you may know, Blair (priminister of England for those of you who dont know) is trying to stop smoking in all public places. I'm not for it, i'm not againsed it. What do you think on the matter?


bout bloody time, shame it took two far smaller parliaments to make thicko see sense

I hope he does, cigarette smoke makes me sick and it reduces the lifespan or kills anyone who inhales it. It's too bad Blair isn't the Prime Minister of Canada and ban public smoking here.

In any democracy you always get the government you deserve.

I live in Canada and I believe Canada has passed the same kind of legislation or at least some provinces have and I think it is good to ban smoking in public places.

Why should someone breathe in another person's, not coming up with another word, stink and get cancer from second hand smoking.

I believe if you want to smoke, smoke in a private place. Outside somewhere far from anyone else.

Haven't some provinces banned public smoking. I believe Ontario did? But I agree, I don't think it's nationwide because I think the politicians complain that its a provincial matter.

I know this violates my belief that the government should piss up a rope...but W00T!

They did it in Edmonton, and I am quite enjoying being able to go to bars again.

I don't plan on defending my position by the way, MELKOR...I just like it. I'm not going to march in defence of smoker's rights.

As you may know, Blair (priminister of England for those of you who dont know) is trying to stop smoking in all public places. I'm not for it, i'm not againsed it. What do you think on the matter?

We're getting there, in this area. We've gotten smoking banned in public buildings, but people can still cloister around doors and smoke, forcing non-smokers to walk through their crowd of cancer sticks.
I'll only be happy when smoking can only be done on your own property, in your own car, or in the houses of those who allow smoking in their houses.
It's a disgusting habit, and I've been happy to learn that smoking is becoming less popular in the youth age bracket. Kids see adults hunkered down outside in the snow/rain, and say, "That's not cool."
It's the wrong reason to not start smoking, but at least it's a first step.

They did it in Edmonton, and I am quite enjoying being able to go to bars again.


Over here, some bars choose to remain smoke free, while others allow it. You can pick and choose.

I prefer that, to be honest.

As you may know, Blair (priminister of England for those of you who dont know) is trying to stop smoking in all public places.
Actually, Balir is officially backing the compromise, whereby it can continue in private members' clubs (so that those cigar/pipe-smoking Lords don't vote it down), and in pubs that don't serve food (so that Labour keeps the Nothern vote, apparently).

I used to live in a state where smoking was banned in most public places it was pretty nice (for me a nonsmoker) and sucked for my husband (who smoked)

eventually he was forced to quit :D

I don't think it is fair for the government to regulate where you can and can't smoke unless it is government property.

In any democracy you always get the government you deserve.
Nah, we get the government that the Mindless Majority chooses.

I agree that walking or "getting a blast" of someones breath isn't nice NEITHER is it good to live with one like my friend does.

I've been happy to learn that smoking is becoming less popular in the youth age bracket.

It's not...call it youthful stupidity or whatever (no longer a tobacco smoker myself), but i'd say the amount of young people that smoke is greater proportionally than people over thirty, or even twenty-five.

well, thanks for your thoughts everyone :D

send me a telegram if you got anymore ideas

Over here, some bars choose to remain smoke free, while others allow it. You can pick and choose.

I prefer that, to be honest.
To be honest, I don't...because that was an option before the ban, and I never did find a bar in Edmonton that banned it voluntarily.

To be honest, I don't...because that was an option before the ban, and I never did find a bar in Edmonton that banned it voluntarily.

I run into quite a few; concert venues as well. Just the other day, I saw someone thrown out by bouncers for lighting up a cigarette while I was watching a band. No idea why it wasn't working over there; "non-smoking" seems to be the in thing over here nowadays, compulsory or not. Even so, if I wanted to go to a bar that allows smoking, I could easily find one.

It is however banned in all government buildings. And most workplaces enforce their own anti-smoking policy (not sure whether there is legislation for that or not, though).

Personally, I don't see the fuss at all. I don't smoke tobacco, but I find exhaust emissions from cars, public flactulence and body odour to be equally if not more unpleasant...yet I see quite few regulations placed upon the latter two, especially. :p

In any democracy you always get the government you deserve.

So even the millions of people that voted against the current "leader" deserve the govt. that they didn't vote for? What about those that campaigned their asses off for soemone different? Why do they deserve it exactly? Because they didn't get their message out effectively enough? Because the corruption that they exposed got ignored?

I think that banning smoking indoors is good for those of us who don't smoke cuz its millions of times more enjoyable going out (I've experienced the goodness of it having lived in a couple states that did this - and I was a smoker while living in one of them *I finally quit after 7 years of heavy smoking w00t*) but I don't like how far they take it. They should allow places to have special areas/tables indoors for smokers to smoke if they really want to provided they make the necessary adjustments. On T.V. I saw these tables in Japan that were made for smokers and the ventilation system was set up to capture all the smoke at that table. It was neato.

...but I find exhaust emissions from cars, public flactulence and body odour to be equally if not more unpleasant...yet I see quite few regulations placed upon the latter two, especially. :p

I don't believe there are any studies that have been done on the fatalities that result from flatulence.

I'm sure that there are some fatalities, but there aren't any studies.

I don't believe there are any studies that have been done on the fatalities that result from flatulence.

I'm sure that there are some fatalities, but there aren't any studies.

Any chemistry students looking for a thesis topic? :D

As you may know, Blair (priminister of England for those of you who dont know) is trying to stop smoking in all public places. I'm not for it, i'm not againsed it. What do you think on the matter?
Outdoor public places as well??? :eek:

Any chemistry students looking for a thesis topic? :D
The problem is getting the grant.

Flatulence is mostly methane - but the really smelly ones DO contain hydrogen sulfide.

Which is, of course, poisonous. So there may be something to a really nasty gasser.

It's not...call it youthful stupidity or whatever (no longer a tobacco smoker myself), but i'd say the amount of young people that smoke is greater proportionally than people over thirty, or even twenty-five.

It has been here, anyway. I dunno how it is in Australia. :) My age bracket (20's-30's) is now the largest smoking group, and the teens are not picking up the habit as readily. Soon we won't have to sue the cigarette companies, because the smokers will die off, and the young won't be doing it... in an ideal world. :P

I don't smoke, but I think people should choose if they smoke or not

Cool, I wish they'd do that here, too.

I run into quite a few; concert venues as well. Just the other day, I saw someone thrown out by bouncers for lighting up a cigarette while I was watching a band. No idea why it wasn't working over there; Probably because the average Canadian city is about a ninth the size of your average US or European city? Not as much choice.

Personally, I don't see the fuss at all. I don't smoke tobacco, but I find exhaust emissions from cars, public flactulence and body odour to be equally if not more unpleasant...yet I see quite few regulations placed upon the latter two, especially. :p
Exhaust emissions I don't tend to be surrounded by in a place I go to enjoy myself. So I'm not up in arms against it being banned in clubs:). Flatulence, body odour...I'd add colognes and perfumes to things I also dislike...but I'll live with that. Smoking, I'm happy with being banned...too bad I can't go to a restaurant in my town without my food tasting like an ashtray though...I have to drive an hour and a half into the city for smoke-free eating and partying.

I am a smoker, but I am all for it. It is just another contributing factor that sends huge numbers fleeing our leftist ranks. As far as I am concerned any incursion on the way a person can run their business, do outside, or in their home is more than welcome. Keep up the good work regulating yourselves out of existance.

I am a smoker, but I am all for it. It is just another contributing factor that sends huge numbers fleeing our leftist ranks. As far as I am concerned any incursion on the way a person can run their business, do outside, or in their home is more than welcome. Keep up the good work regulating yourselves out of existance.

Ah, but if I only had more time I would turn this into an economic debate instead of one about smoking. Too bad I don't, and as such, I will keep this response moderately brief:

Let us look at the belov'd right wing, with halo'd brow and who in churches sing...While secretly plotting to kill me and take my money.

Now to view the left, where, whether they plot like this or not, don't have enough money to by the knife to stab me with.

I'd rather be surrounded by people from the second group.

Sincerely,

Number III

PS: I personally am in favor of Blair's actions on this point.

As you may know, Blair (priminister of England for those of you who dont know) is trying to stop smoking in all public places. I'm not for it, i'm not againsed it. What do you think on the matter?
It's great! :D :fluffle:

Smoking is evil. <_<

I am a smoker, but I am all for it. It is just another contributing factor that sends huge numbers fleeing our leftist ranks. As far as I am concerned any incursion on the way a person can run their business, do outside, or in their home is more than welcome. Keep up the good work regulating yourselves out of existance.
So you're saying the english labour party and the house of lords are leftist? :p

Ireland has a ban and a moderate rightist coalition government(despite comrade Bertie:D :p )

Outdoor public places as well??? :eek:
No working places.

I can understand an Indoor ban, but an outdoor ban is, IMHO, wrong and unjust.

So you believe that (for whatever reason) something that is "wrong" when done indoors is "right" when done outdoors? What I mean is, is there any real reason why smoking, if banned indoors, should not be banned outdoors as well, or is this just for the convenience of the smokers?

Sincerely,

Number III

Just a note.


Up here in Grand Forks, North Dakota. The city legislature voted (almost 80% in favor) of banning smoking in public places. This includes Government Buildings, Restraunts, Bars, and any other building that is open to the public. Although smoking outdoors is still allowable.

A building is a much more closed environment. People have the right to health, while at the same time having the right to their bodies. Smoking outside prevents a vast majority of the 2nd hand smoke that the health nuts are so compliaining about.

ban smoking full stop

So you believe that (for whatever reason) something that is "wrong" when done indoors is "right" when done outdoors? What I mean is, is there any real reason why smoking, if banned indoors, should not be banned outdoors as well, or is this just for the convenience of the smokers?

Sincerely,

Number III
Because the effect on others is miniscule outside and the effect of cars is much worse then cigeretts.(cars should be banned inside!!!:D ;) ) Outdoors it only effects the smoker (healthwise).

So you believe that (for whatever reason) something that is "wrong" when done indoors is "right" when done outdoors? What I mean is, is there any real reason why smoking, if banned indoors, should not be banned outdoors as well, or is this just for the convenience of the smokers?

Sincerely,

Number III
Because outside the smoke dissapates into the air, whereas inside it hangs about with nowhere to go.

ban smoking full stop
Why?

A building is a much more closed environment. People have the right to health, while at the same time having the right to their bodies. Smoking outside prevents a vast majority of the 2nd hand smoke that the health nuts are so compliaining about.

Because outside the smoke dissapates into the air, whereas inside it hangs about with nowhere to go.

Unless you're an observant Christian (this probably applies to Judaism and Islam as well, but I'm not certain), in which case you believe that your body is only "on loan", as it were, and is not "yours" any more than the Moon or the Earth or a rented video is "yours".

The only reason the fact that the smoke dissipates into the air would matter is if you believe that each person owns their body in the same way they own their shoes. This links in again to what I've said above.

Sincerely,

Number III

Unless you're an observant Christian (this probably applies to Judaism and Islam as well, but I'm not certain), in which case you believe that your body is only "on loan", as it were, and is not "yours" any more than the Moon or the Earth or a rented video is "yours".

Sincerely,

Number III


Well, I'm not.

And I don't see what that has to do with the physics of brownian motion (isn't it?) and a gas filling its container.

Sorry 'bout that... See my edit above. It ties in the dispersion factor.

Sincerely,

Number III

Sorry 'bout that... See my edit above. It ties in the dispersion factor.

Sincerely,

Number III
It really doesn't.

Seriously, what is the logical link between the Christian belief of borrowing your body, and the fact that a gas will dissapate to fill its container?

In any democracy you always get the government you deserve.
I wonder what this means :D

Well, I'm not.

And I don't see what that has to do with the physics of brownian motion (isn't it?) and a gas filling its container.

As an aside, Brownian Motion is the name for the fact that particles suspended in a fluid will never stop moving. It was eventually proved that this tendency was due to the movement and "bumping" (so to speak) of atoms. But I get your point.

Sincerely,

Number III

It really doesn't.

Seriously, what is the logical link between the Christian belief of borrowing your body, and the fact that a gas will dissapate to fill its container?

Because the fact that it dissipates, in and of itself, is irrelavent. The only way it is relevant is if it is better to damage your own body for no sensible reason than someone else's for the same, nonsensical, reason. If the body is not literally "your own", then it is equally evil to damage it wilfully as somebody else's. To put it another way: If your argument (that people should be able to do what they want with their bodies) was carried out to its fullest extent, then suicide, for example, should be legal, because they are only damaging "their" body. I hope this clarifies my position.

Sincerely,

Number III

Because the fact that it dissipates, in and of itself, is irrelavent. The only way it is relevant is if it is better to damage your own body for no sensible reason than someone else's for the same, nonsensical, reason. If the body is not literally "your own", then it is equally evil to damage it wilfully as somebody else's. To put it another way: If your argument (that people should be able to do what they want with their bodies) was carried out to its fullest extent, then suicide, for example, should be legal, because they are only damaging "their" body. I hope this clarifies my position.

Sincerely,

Number III

Yes, suicide should be legal. So should most drugs. If somebody wants to harm their own body, let them, as long as it doesn't harm anybody elses.

If you believe you don't own your body then don't harm it, but don't force your views onto other people.

Yes, suicide should be legal. So should most drugs. If somebody wants to harm their own body, let them, as long as it doesn't harm anybody elses.

If you believe you don't own your body then don't harm it, but don't force your views onto other people.

This belief leads us into an interesting quandry...If someone is forcing their beliefs on another, would that justify you to force your belief of "no forcing beliefs on others" on them? Similarly, if someone harms another (which you seem to condemn in your post), then would you be justified in forcing your belief that criminals should go to prison on them? If you attempt to leave out all morality beyond that given by populism*, you cannot sensibly call anything good or evil or right or wrong, which means that you have now given up all right to say that my viewpoint is immoral, indecent, or whatever equivalent word you would use for this.

On another note, I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone, currently, much less on you. I am merely forcing people to consider them.

Sincerely,

Number III

*Maybe "populism" is a bad word...If I can find a better one I'll edit again...You probably know what I mean anyway.

An hour had passed without anyone speaking, where before there had been lively chatter.

Number III waves his hand around like he's some kind of Jedi, saying into the air "You can go about your business."

An hour had passed without anyone speaking, where before there had been lively chatter.

Number III waves his hand around like he's some kind of Jedi, saying into the air "You can go about your business."

I can go about my business

Ireland did the whole smoking ban thing a while ago.worked well,only one pub fought the ban,and they lost.

Of course then the smokers went outside to smoke,and threw their butts on the ground,so it isnt all a garden of roses

I think that banning smoking in public places is a great idea. Smoking is addictive so they should also bann smoking.:)
The government in Georgia, USA has already banned smoking in places that serve food.

This belief leads us into an interesting quandry...If someone is forcing their beliefs on another, would that justify you to force your belief of "no forcing beliefs on others" on them?
But if you follow that idea then nobody is being forced to do anything they don't want.

Take a hypothetical situation; person A believes it's fine for people to smoke, person B might not believe it's fine for people to smoke.

If there's a law saying anybody can smoke if they want then people can choose to smoke or not. Now, if a law is implemented following what person B would want, then nobody can smoke, and that forces somebodys beliefs onto everybody, whereas the first case doesn't; it leaves everybody free to do what they believe to be right.

Smoking is addictive so they should also bann smoking.:)
That's a strange standpoint, and I've never seen anybody successfully back it up in the face of 'cross-examination'

Smoking is addictive so they should also bann smoking.:)

You might be interested to know that Germany, I think it is, established an 'Internet Addition Camp' a few years ago. You may also be interested to know that a lot of confectionery contains mildly addictive substances.

And if my father is anything to go by, TV is definitely addictive.

Ban those too?

Because outside the smoke dissapates into the air, whereas inside it hangs about with nowhere to go.

What my university has done is to create designated smoking areas. In this way, non-smokers don't have to walk through the crowd of those slowly ending their lives, and avoid the big cloud of noxious smoke. And smokers still get to smoke... they just have to get the hell out of the way of people who don't want them anywhere nearby. :)

California has already banned smoking in public places. Life is good. Seriously. It's no problem here. Unless you are a smoker of course, which you'll have to BOTHER and walk OUTSIDE (omg...).

Yes, suicide should be legal. So should most drugs. If somebody wants to harm their own body, let them, as long as it doesn't harm anybody elses.

If you believe you don't own your body then don't harm it, but don't force your views onto other people.

And how do you propose to stop people who aren't in their right mind because they're high on some drug from harming other people? Chain them up while they're on crack? Lock them in a room while they're shooting up? It's difficult to separate letting people do what they want and protecting innocent people.

And how do you propose to stop people who aren't in their right mind because they're high on some drug from harming other people? Chain them up while they're on crack? Lock them in a room while they're shooting up? It's difficult to separate letting people do what they want and protecting innocent people.
Let them get on with it. If they attack somebody when high then stick them away for a healthy stretch.

Your argument could be compared to alcohol. How do you propose to stop people who aren't in their right mind because they're drunk from harming other people?

Simple answer; you don't. You just make it difficult for them to do so.

But if you follow that idea then nobody is being forced to do anything they don't want.

Take a hypothetical situation; person A believes it's fine for people to smoke, person B might not believe it's fine for people to smoke.

If there's a law saying anybody can smoke if they want then people can choose to smoke or not. Now, if a law is implemented following what person B would want, then nobody can smoke, and that forces somebodys beliefs onto everybody, whereas the first case doesn't; it leaves everybody free to do what they believe to be right.

Let them get on with it. If they attack somebody when high then stick them away for a healthy stretch.

Your argument could be compared to alcohol. How do you propose to stop people who aren't in their right mind because they're drunk from harming other people?

Simple answer; you don't. You just make it difficult for them to do so.

Please forgive me for pointing this out, but you have rather badly misrepresented what I was saying in my post (indeed, you turned it around to make it look like I agreed with you, which I most certainly did not). Allow me to clarify my point with a brief example:

If person A (let's say, oh, Hitler) imposes his will upon person B (for hypothetical purposes take it as a given that person B is a Jew, a gypsy, or some other minority discriminated against by the aforementioned dictator), then are you, Nadkor, in the right to impose YOUR will on person A in order to prevent them from harming person B? If you answer "yes", then you have just imposed your will on person A, which your first post implies is immoral, or at least distasteful. If you answer "no", then, by knowingly allowing another person to be harmed, you are as equally at fault as person A, and have harmed another person, which is (I presume) equally bad.

In your second post, you have imposed your will upon the drunkard/druggy by (ahem) "sticking them away", which seems less than liberal, taking into consideration your previous statements.

Finally, let us say that I, Number III, am imposing my will against Idi Amin or Pol Pot because they are/were evil dictators who deserved to be punished for their crimes. Your arguments, carried to their logical conclusion, would say that I, of all people, am in the wrong on this count because I seek to impose my will on another. Forgive me for this, but I personally believe that 2,000-6,000,000 human lives are worth slightly more than one dictator's freedom. To apply this argument to the current context, let us say, hypothetically, that Ruler A, believing that "smoking" is really a method of systematically wiping out the people who don't know that this activity will likely kill them, and as such could be interpreted as genocide. This would put the corporations that manufacture cigarettes and similar items on the same level as Hitler and Pol Pot. Would Ruler A not be justified in bringing this genocide to a stop? Remember, this is purely hypothetical.

Sincerely,

Number III

Over here, some bars choose to remain smoke free, while others allow it. You can pick and choose.

I prefer that, to be honest.

I agree. In any country that exhibits the right to freedom of choice smoking should come as an option.

I agree. In any country that exhibits the right to freedom of choice smoking should come as an option.

Hah! Screw the smokers! If you want to smoke knock yourself out- do it outside where it can dissipate in the air, or do it in your car, or at home in privacy.

If I'm at work and I've got to breath in your shitty smoke for 8/9hrs a day 5 days a week you bet your ass it'll affect MY health. Why should I be forced to change jobs so you don't have to get up off your lazy arse and waddle the whole 5 yards to the door to light up!? :mad:

Its not about the freedom to smoke, its about the others you affect. The bar staff who serve you your drink and food with a smile all day deserve a bit of a health break. If not- SUE!

Here, after only 12/18 months already, the surveys are back in from bars and restaurants around the state showing that the health of bar staff has improved radically. That alone is justification for it.

Actually, Balir is officially backing the compromise, whereby it can continue in private members' clubs (so that those cigar/pipe-smoking Lords don't vote it down), and in pubs that don't serve food (so that Labour keeps the Nothern vote, apparently).

I thought they edited that decision because they thought pubs would just stop serving food.

Admittedly I haven't kept up to date with the anti-smoking thing,

Nah, we get the government that the Mindless Majority chooses.

Or in Britain's case, the mindless c.33% ;)


And if my father is anything to go by, TV is definitely addictive.

Ban those too?

On the case of TV, I would hardly get hot and bothered about it getting banned.

Outdoor public places as well??? :eek:

well.. hopefully not, otherwise smokers will go off thier head and riot.
( possible, i'm not saying it will :D )

ban smoking full stop
If smoking is banned full stop then smokers arn't going to get better! they'll just do it in thier own house...

But once again, thanks for your thoughts, keep 'em coming and stay safe people! :p

Yes, suicide should be legal. So should most drugs. If somebody wants to harm their own body, let them, as long as it doesn't harm anybody elses.

If you believe you don't own your body then don't harm it, but don't force your views onto other people.

Yes but surely, they CAN do what they want to themselves BUT it's what they might do to others that's the worry.. ( like running naked in the street! )

<(^-^)>

My overall opinion is that people smoke at thier own risk and should be able to smoke in thier own homes and outside in most areas. If smoking is banned it would get worse, if we let it continue then... Well, people will die but at thier own causes. few pubs should allow smoking as it is somewhere to go with mates or to watch football ect. Basically, if you dont like the laws of smoking, dont start. It isn't worth the life and money to most.

People have every right to smoke in their homes but the problem I have with people smoking in bars is that you are smoking in a closed area where other people are working. I'm all for the ban on smoking in bars and restraunts. People can go outside if they want a ciggerette. I can't think of many professions where smoking is still allowed in the workplace, bout time bars joined them.

In south africa it is illegal to smoke in public buildings, and in buildings, like malls and shops where the public goes. I fully support this, since to smoke or not tosmoke is a private matter, therfore the smokeshould be kept to yourself,if you choose to smoke :).There are closed smoking sections in restaurants though.

Also taking into matter, kising a smoker ( :fluffle: :D ) is not recommended unless your a smoker yourself. I rejected on a girlfriend because she started the habbit :(

Meaningless post for number 70 :headbang:

:D

So has anybody else got veiws on smoking? :rolleyes:

It's a good idea to ban it in public places, fairer on everyone else. If I have a joint it's always out of the way, but of course, that's for my own safety.

Good on you mate :p

I think a ban in enclosed, public spaces is okay, though I'd rather the decision of whether to allow smoking or not in the establishment be left completely up to the owner.

For instance, if the owners of a shopping mall decide they want to allow people to smoke in the mall, then people should be allowed to smoke in that mall, provided there are visible warnings at the entrances that there may be people smoking inside. Similarly, if the owners choose not to allow it, then people cannot smoke there, and there should be visible signs at the entrances that proclaim it a no-smoking area. For actual public (ie. government) buildings, it should be banned inside. Still, it's not so bad. As long as people can still go sit on a bench outside and light up, it's alright.

Banning it in outdoor areas is moronic, and I'm glad no-one seems to have done this yet. If smoking becomes banned in outdoor areas, I will demand that cars with internal combustion engines also be banned in public, outdoor places and that wood fires in homes that expel the smoke through a chimney into the open air also be banned.

As for banning is altogether... Meh. Wouldn't work, so there's no point. All that would happen is that the government wouldn't be able to tax it anymore and the money people paid for tobacco would fund shady, black market criminals rather than shady, corporate criminals.

dam, you sure know what your talking about. We need more veiws on people who do smoke....

I think a ban in enclosed, public spaces is okay, though I'd rather the decision of whether to allow smoking or not in the establishment be left completely up to the owner.

I can agree with that. I've never seen the need to smoke in a library or jail anyway. But its when people want to ban smoking in all "public" places - i.e, everywhere except 'home' - that I start getting the itch to march about angrily, puffing and blowing smoke everywhere, and burning peoples eyes out with flaming cigarettes.


Banning it in outdoor areas is moronic, and I'm glad no-one seems to have done this yet. If smoking becomes banned in outdoor areas, I will demand that cars with internal combustion engines also be banned in public, outdoor places and that wood fires in homes that expel the smoke through a chimney into the open air also be banned.

w00t! Glad to see like mind. People DO advocate just that sort of thing. Hyped up fear of secondhand smoke, downgraded fear of air pollution.

If person A (let's say, oh, Hitler) imposes his will upon person B (for hypothetical purposes take it as a given that person B is a Jew, a gypsy, or some other minority discriminated against by the aforementioned dictator), then are you, Nadkor, in the right to impose YOUR will on person A in order to prevent them from harming person B? If you answer "yes", then you have just imposed your will on person A, which your first post implies is immoral, or at least distasteful. If you answer "no", then, by knowingly allowing another person to be harmed, you are as equally at fault as person A, and have harmed another person, which is (I presume) equally bad.


Invocation of Godwin's Law. Loss - Number Three

Furthermore, your idea suggests that, logically, it should be illegal to go outside with a communicable disease, or a pet, or yellow shirt, just incase the Green Lantern is about.

While I like the ban, I can't agree with it.

EDIT:

Sincerely,

Number III

Personally i think blair need to get his head around things... Of course i'll give him the time to get up from the loss of one of his best from Labour

What constitutes a "Public place" in GB? Would this restrict smoking in Government buildings, civic centers, retail stores, shopping malls, resteraunts, bars, or outside? I know that in Austin, TX, it's gone so far as to be banned in bars.

Banning it in outdoor areas is moronic, and I'm glad no-one seems to have done this yet. If smoking becomes banned in outdoor areas, I will demand that cars with internal combustion engines also be banned in public, outdoor places and that wood fires in homes that expel the smoke through a chimney into the open air also be banned.

As for banning is altogether... Meh. Wouldn't work, so there's no point. All that would happen is that the government wouldn't be able to tax it anymore and the money people paid for tobacco would fund shady, black market criminals rather than shady, corporate criminals.

Just like the bans on certain (read: many) drugs?

Invocation of Godwin's Law. Loss - Number Three

Furthermore, your idea suggests that, logically, it should be illegal to go outside with a communicable disease, or a pet, or yellow shirt, just incase the Green Lantern is about.

While I like the ban, I can't agree with it.

EDIT:

Sincerely,

Number III

Makes me laugh! (No sarcasm intended). However, in your second paragraph you have summed up my belief system nicely. And as an aside, what exactly is "Godwin's Law"?

Sincerely,

Number III

I think that freedom means if you own a building, public or not, you should not be forced to ban or not ban smoking. You should be free to choose what you want in your own bar or restaurant. Smokers can choose the ones they like and non smokers can choose theirs. I am a non smoker, however a champion for FREEDOM!

It's my strong belief that smoking should be legal (I do smoke, albeit very rarely), however, ONLY in places that do not harm others. In other words, any home with children/etc. it should be illegal, since you are harming the other person (and it is quite rare that a child can stop their parents from smoking). It should be illegal in public places, which means places such as malls/etc., but not bars and other such places (making it up to the owners), since it's every persons choice to go to that bar (they are the ones deciding to be affected by second-hand smoke; they don't need to go to the bar/etc.).
Outdoors it should be allowed, provided you are not in the vicinity of a 'public' building. Which means those who hang around doors and such should be punished, as they are damaging others (you can't really get into a building other ways). I agree that if you ban smoking outdoors, you need to ban other things, since I find vehicle exhaust more nauseous that cigarette smoke (which I am by no means used to).

On the whole debate with forcing your belief on others. If you allow people to do what they want, (in other words, to be relevant with this thread, saying you can smoke if you want to), does not force any belief of anyone; since it's entirely your choice whether you smoke or not. HOWEVER, because society is so large and diverse, we have to make compromise, which basically comes to not effecting others with your belief. That means that those who do smoke (since they are the ones who harms others, whether through second-hand, or medical 'taxes' that they benefit from), need to be restricted in their ability to smoke. As long as it harms no one else, and the person takes full responsibility for it, smoking is fine.

(Sorry for the long and rambling post.)

It's my strong belief that smoking should be legal (I do smoke, albeit very rarely), however, ONLY in places that do not harm others. In other words, any home with children/etc. it should be illegal, since you are harming the other person (and it is quite rare that a child can stop their parents from smoking). It should be illegal in public places, which means places such as malls/etc., but not bars and other such places (making it up to the owners), since it's every persons choice to go to that bar (they are the ones deciding to be affected by second-hand smoke; they don't need to go to the bar/etc.).
Outdoors it should be allowed, provided you are not in the vicinity of a 'public' building. Which means those who hang around doors and such should be punished, as they are damaging others (you can't really get into a building other ways). I agree that if you ban smoking outdoors, you need to ban other things, since I find vehicle exhaust more nauseous that cigarette smoke (which I am by no means used to).

On the whole debate with forcing your belief on others. If you allow people to do what they want, (in other words, to be relevant with this thread, saying you can smoke if you want to), does not force any belief of anyone; since it's entirely your choice whether you smoke or not. HOWEVER, because society is so large and diverse, we have to make compromise, which basically comes to not effecting others with your belief. That means that those who do smoke (since they are the ones who harms others, whether through second-hand, or medical 'taxes' that they benefit from), need to be restricted in their ability to smoke. As long as it harms no one else, and the person takes full responsibility for it, smoking is fine.

(Sorry for the long and rambling post.)

I do believe you've forced me to compromise.

...
...
...

Good job.

Number III

Just a an extra note, so that my post is slightly clearer.
Where I said smokers ability to smoke needs to be restricted, it also needs to be respected. Which means that non-smokers, should have no reason to complain if they enter an area which allows smoking, since it's their choice to do so. As such, they can't really blame smokers for problems that come of it.

Just a an extra note, so that my post is slightly clearer.
Where I said smokers ability to smoke needs to be restricted, it also needs to be respected. Which means that non-smokers, should have no reason to complain if they enter an area which allows smoking, since it's their choice to do so. As such, they can't really blame smokers for problems that come of it.

I sort of took it that way when you mentioned the part about certain places being "open for smoking", as it were...

Nonetheless...

Good job!!!

Number III

I know that most people will understand what I was meaning, I wanted to make it clear for those that are not sure.

thanks for the replies, keep 'em coming!

let the smokers damage their health, where they want

If we let them smoke where they want then they'll just pass on second hand smoke to the people next to them, damaging both thiers and our health.

I smoked for 28 Years, and I am non-smoker since 2 month, and i don´t feel harassed by any smoker...but I think , that forbidding smoking in public buildings like pubs, it is the dead of the innkeepers

I smoked for 28 Years, and I am non-smoker since 2 month, and i don´t feel harassed by any smoker...but I think , that forbidding smoking in public buildings like pubs, it is the dead of the innkeepers

It might be a particular case as nothing will ever kill a pub in Ireland, but the smoking ban here worked unexpectedly well.

Being non-smoker, I find it has more than one advantage to me. I find it easier staying longer (as neither my throat nor my contact lenses will give me trouble any more), I like that fact that your clothes don't smell like an ashtray any more after a night out (I used to have to wash them twice to get the smell out) and the pubs now provide tables and chairs outside as well, which I particularly enjoy in summer.

so i do not smell of smoke anymore...and my kisses don´t smell of ashtrays anymore...abd my clothes don´t stink anymore too...

I dont smoke bt just like Petrol i enjoy the smell.

I find this whole smoking things highly amusing.

I smoke, because I enjoy the flavour of the smoke, I've become known as the local tobacco merchant because I carry Cigars a Pipe and Cigarettes on me most times.

I've no problem with non smoking inside public buildings such as offices and the like, and for as long as I've smoked I've always gone outside regardless of where I was. Fair enough too its harmful to others.

However New Zealand has passed the no smoking in public areas law recently and the one thing I've noticed is that the Smell of Smoke in pubs and bars has now been replaced by the 1000000000x more repulsive smell of the rest of you. Put some FUCKING deoderant on for Christs sake. Its disgusting and ruins my enjoyment of where ever I happen to be. I won't ruin your enjoyment of the venue by smoking in it so do me a favour and don't ruin my enjoyment by smelling worse than the sewage ponds.

As far as smoking outdoors in public places, you can all gangetfucked.

I'm outdoors your not going to get any 2nd hand smoke at all unless you suck the crap out of my lungs. You've got more to worry about from that HUGE American SUV slowly creeping pass in the traffic doing 0.0000001 mpg than from walking past me having a smoke on the pavement.

What I also find highly amusing is the fact that when I was still allowed to smoke in pubs, I would go there with a bunch of friends and then shift off into a corner by myself away from as many people as I possibly could and enjoy my cigar by myself... within 5 minutes all the non smokers that I had moved away from would come and join me. Not a single one complained about the habit. Quite a lot of them liked the aroma I generated with the fine tobacco I was smoking. Turns out people do prefer the smell of fine cuban tobacco of that of a whining bitch who hasn't taken pride in their appearance or smell ... odd ain't it ...

All you Non smokers are impinging on my rights to enjoy myself outdoors away from you. You don't like it fine with me, don't come near me, go sit by yourself, I've already moved away from you if you come near me again thats your own damm problem.

try not to swear, it's not nice and it's awfully rude( people might take offence to it :) ). Besides, it's only what other people think. ;)

that goes to everyone else too :p

We've had quite a few replies BUT we still want YOUR opinions :D

come one, come all, give your opinion!!

so i do not smell of smoke anymore...and my kisses don´t smell of ashtrays anymore...abd my clothes don´t stink anymore too...

now that's a dam good thing!

I personally would have no problem if all tobacco products were made illegal worldwide, anywhere... But I don't really care if you want to smoke; it's your life. Just don't make it part of mine by smoking in confined public areas, or when I'm forced to sit near you.

let the smokers damage their health, where they want

Problem with that is, because of the way society is set up, even if the act of smoking doesn't harm anyone, the smoker hurts others financially. When they go to the hospital or such and start using healthcare for problems that are caused by smoking, they are using other peoples money to pay for the consequences of their smoking.

What do you find more annoying:

People smoking in small places

Smokers saying abusive language when asked to go outside by the builders owner

Sitting next to a person blowing smoke in your face

Or something else (if so explain what)

thanks :D

Smokers saying abusive language when asked to go outside by the builders owner

That one probably bothers me the most, and the smoker would get a good lot of trouble if I was the owner.
Having a smoker blow smoke in my face would make me warn them, then take the cigarette away if they didn't stop.
As long as the 'small place' is not somewhere the smoker is not allowed to smoke, I don't have a problem with it.

Interesting opinion, but what if they were to get out those american cigars that are about as big as a pencil?

I cannot remember thier name.
Cigaretto.....

well, thier big and give out one hell of a puff! :mad:

well, thier big and give out one hell of a puff! :mad:
Well it cant be what i was thinking of i was thinking of a Pencil thin leaf.

So are you talking of a cigar that is about an inch in diameter?

yea pretty much, i know the pencil bit was wrong but "hey" it's something to call it :p

It can always be edited if needed :D

:eek: :sniper:

Strange...
politicians should not decide that kind of matter !
Or they have to declare tobacco a drug and stop taxing it.

On the paper still the amount of taxes on tobacco is higher than the health cost (???), tobacco is a good revenue.
Like alcool, like gambling, like guns somewhere else.

Parents are stupid and not good enough to rise up kids, why should politicians do the job ?

As you may know, Blair (priminister of England for those of you who dont know) is trying to stop smoking in all public places. I'm not for it, i'm not againsed it. What do you think on the matter?

ure wrong the smoking bsn is great it works so well in ireland
if you want to kill yourself do it in your own home
u can kill yourself,kill your family with second hand smoke but dont smoke around the rest of us non smokers

ure wrong the smoking bsn is great it works so well in ireland
if you want to kill yourself do it in your own home
u can kill yourself,kill your family with second hand smoke but dont smoke around the rest of us non smokers

How am i wrong? i'm not for the ban and i'm not againsed it :D

Strange...
politicians should not decide that kind of matter !
Or they have to declare tobacco a drug and stop taxing it.

On the paper still the amount of taxes on tobacco is higher than the health cost (???), tobacco is a good revenue.
Like alcool, like gambling, like guns somewhere else.

It may be a good revenue but with all those you have listed, they all have big ways that they can change/end peoples lives. To me this just isn't going to go well :headbang:

Comeon people, we need your opinions! :p

smoking is for losers, its disgusting, it smells, it does u harm and the people around u harm, smoking is bad, BAN SMOKING

Problem with that is, because of the way society is set up, even if the act of smoking doesn't harm anyone, the smoker hurts others financially. When they go to the hospital or such and start using healthcare for problems that are caused by smoking, they are using other peoples money to pay for the consequences of their smoking.

Yeah, and they join the ranks of everyone else who uses other peoples money to pay for the consequences of eating fast food, not exercising enough, drinking caffeine and alcoholic beverages, not looking both ways when crossing the street, driving or riding in a car, and breathing the air in busy american cities.

Maybe we should outlaw all those things yes? ;)

As for banning is altogether... Meh. Wouldn't work, so there's no point. All that would happen is that the government wouldn't be able to tax it anymore and the money people paid for tobacco would fund shady, black market criminals rather than shady, corporate criminals.
]Just like the bans on certain (read: many) drugs?

Pretty much, yeah. Pot is illegal, people still smoke pot. Gear is illegal, people still use gear. Smack is illegal, people still use smack. Crack is illegal, people still use crack. Ecstasy is illegal, people still drop pills when they go out partying. If smoking tobacco were made illegal, people would still smoke tobacco. They'd be more discreet about it, but they'd still do it.

smoking is for losers, its disgusting, it smells, it does u harm and the people around u harm, smoking is bad, BAN SMOKING

Well well well, looks like we have strong words :eek:

Yeah, and they join the ranks of everyone else who uses other peoples money to pay for the consequences of eating fast food, not exercising enough, drinking caffeine and alcoholic beverages, not looking both ways when crossing the street, driving or riding in a car, and breathing the air in busy american cities.

Maybe we should outlaw all those things yes? ;)
Not really, since most of those have a benefit; fast food feeds you, we all need food. Caffeine keeps you awake when you need it. Alcohol, not much of a benefit, but it does get rid of thirst. etc. etc. Smoking has all of what... no benefit.

In truth, I would have no problem banning most of those, yet that would not work in our society, since the people with the power to do so, are too stupid and lazy (as well as they do it themselves), to do so.

Not looking both ways when you cross the roads is understandable, as not everyone can be completely cautious all the time. Smoking however, is a conscious destructive behaviour; you don't just forget you're having a smoke.

Strange...
politicians should not decide that kind of matter !
Or they have to declare tobacco a drug and stop taxing it.

On the paper still the amount of taxes on tobacco is higher than the health cost (???), tobacco is a good revenue.
Like alcool, like gambling, like guns somewhere else.

Parents are stupid and not good enough to rise up kids, why should politicians do the job ?

A few minor issues with your arguments, kind sir:

1) Of course politicians should decide that sort of thing, the same way they should decide whether suicide should be legal or illegal or whether (name of country) should go to war.

2) We aren't talking about whether politicians should raise the kids (especially since kids aren't allowed to buy tobacco anyway), so that's beside the point.

3) Even if we were talking about how best to raise kids, the argument that "The parents are stupid and bad, so the politicians shouldn't raise the kids" seems a bit odd. This is why we have social services that will take the kids away from their bad, stupid parents.

Number III

Not really, since most of those have a benefit; fast food feeds you, we all need food. Caffeine keeps you awake when you need it. Alcohol, not much of a benefit, but it does get rid of thirst. etc. etc. Smoking has all of what... no benefit.


Smoking can help releave stress/pain to the minor amounts of people. Infact, it's helpfull to themselves. :p

As i just said, smoking can be benificial BUT also harmfull to them and others around them. It's a shame that some can actually be releaved from stress ect. from these "death sticks" (noting that death sticks are in star wars but these have more of a long term affect ;) )

need more posts people :D

need more posts people :D
Let the thread die already :mad:

Not really, since most of those have a benefit; fast food feeds you, we all need food. Caffeine keeps you awake when you need it. Alcohol, not much of a benefit, but it does get rid of thirst. etc. etc. Smoking has all of what... no benefit.


Bullshit. Caffeine keeps you awake when you need it? Ah, so you see the benefit of that particular drug. Good for you. Unfortunately you don't see that nicotine has the SAME benefit! Alcohol kills far more per year than secondhand smoke, but hey lets not discriminate against something a majority does when its easy to pound on those 20% who smoke right?

And in this country, we don't just ban things because they don't have a clearcut even-idiots-can-see "benefit," or else whats up with soap operas, reality TV and console games?


Not looking both ways when you cross the roads is understandable, as not everyone can be completely cautious all the time. Smoking however, is a conscious destructive behaviour; you don't just forget you're having a smoke.

Everyone CAN be completely cautious when it comes to crossing the roads. I mean, why couldn't they? No reason justifies being stupid and lazy like that. ;)

Kill the post?
i only want to see what the majority of people think :)

what's the worst experience you've had with a smoker?

Bullshit. Caffeine keeps you awake when you need it? Ah, so you see the benefit of that particular drug. Good for you. Unfortunately you don't see that nicotine has the SAME benefit! Alcohol kills far more per year than secondhand smoke, but hey lets not discriminate against something a majority does when its easy to pound on those 20% who smoke right?

And in this country, we don't just ban things because they don't have a clearcut even-idiots-can-see "benefit," or else whats up with soap operas, reality TV and console games?


Good for nicotine, get it some other way, don't smoke as to harm others. Alcohol kills more (which I don't have exact statistics, but I believe it), but that's because people do stupid things will under the influence, it's not the actual drinking that kills them. (Please note I'm not attacking the actual drug [nicotine], just the method in which it is taken, which harms others.)

Don't call me on discriminating on the "20%" of the population who smoke, but not those who drink. I discriminate against both (actually everything and anything, and therefore it's not really discrimination, since it's all equal)... oh and don't forget, *I* do both.

On the topic of clear cut benefit; it's not the benefit I always think of, I look at both sides. Smoking is more damaging to others than having caffeine. Ever gotten a case of second-hand caffeine?
In truth, I would be perfectly willing to ban TV related things, so sure, let's ban them too. Oh wait, there's no way that humanity would do that.

Everyone CAN be completely cautious when it comes to crossing the roads. I mean, why couldn't they? No reason justifies being stupid and lazy like that. ;)

They CAN be, my previous post doesn't contradict that. What I said was they can't be completely cautious ALL THE TIME. Tell me you are do everything right, ALL THE TIME. It just doesn't happen. It's human nature to be distracted; the person may be extremely tired, etc. etc.

what's the worst experience you've had with a smoker?

Never really had a really bad experience, just had smoke blown in my face; which is not often. It doesn't get any worse, since I make my stand on it perfectly clear to the person.

Smoking can help releave stress/pain to the minor amounts of people. Infact, it's helpfull to themselves. :p

I don't have a problem with smoking, as long as it's not harming others. So if 'the minor amounts of people' draw solace from smoking, alright, so long as they arn't doing it where it could harm others.

Yet still, they could find solace in doing other things, and it's not benefiting them much at all, since they'll need more and more to make themselves happy at all. It's more damaging than beneficial.

Good for nicotine, get it some other way, don't smoke as to harm others. Alcohol kills more (which I don't have exact statistics, but I believe it), but that's because people do stupid things will under the influence, it's not the actual drinking that kills them. (Please note I'm not attacking the actual drug [nicotine], just the method in which it is taken, which harms others.)

Yeah, it harms others just like driving a car harms others. Only nowhere near as much. Are you also wanting to ban cars too? That would be consistent and I would respect that... but too many people think smoking is unnecessary, and cars are necessary, and there's a 1-to-1 correlation with legality and necessity.

Frankly all the statistics that show how evil secondhand smoke is don't convince me given how polluted the very air we breathe is.

Don't call me on discriminating on the "20%" of the population who smoke, but not those who drink. I discriminate against both (actually everything and anything, and therefore it's not really discrimination, since it's all equal)... oh and don't forget, *I* do both.

You do both but you want to ban them both? That doesn't make much sense. But eh, okay, whatever doesn't work for you I guess.

On the topic of clear cut benefit; it's not the benefit I always think of, I look at both sides. Smoking is more damaging to others than having caffeine. Ever gotten a case of second-hand caffeine?

No, but I've never known anyone who died of lung cancer from sitting at a park bench or encountering smokers on a sidewalk, which is what a lot of anti-smokers seem to worry about having happen to them.

On the other hand, caffeine makes people do stupid things, and I have to put up with stupid people who are all wired and obsessed with their drug. Same with alcohol only far more prevalent.


In truth, I would be perfectly willing to ban TV related things, so sure, let's ban them too. Oh wait, there's no way that humanity would do that.

Right, because they appeal to a broader target market and the majority wins at the expense of the minority. Well, you seem to want to ban a lot of things, ever consider not only accepting but embracing the opposite concept?

They CAN be, my previous post doesn't contradict that. What I said was they can't be completely cautious ALL THE TIME. Tell me you are do everything right, ALL THE TIME. It just doesn't happen. It's human nature to be distracted; the person may be extremely tired, etc. etc.

I do everything right... ALL THE TIME!

No seriously, I always look both ways before crossing a street. I don't buy into that frail human nature crap when it comes to a choice between being distracted, or being crushed to death by a 45-mph, 2-ton hunk of metal.

I guess it's about risk taking. I take that risk just crossing the street, I risk lung cancer with every breath, and yes I risk lung cancer by smoking myself. If I didn't smoke, but I hung out with smokers, or worked in a bar that allowed and had lots of smoking, or lived with a smoker all the time, that too would be a risk *I* took.

What galls me is how people think that your choice to work a such-and-such a place, or hang out with such individuals, is nonexistant. And that if you come to misfortune having taken that risk, it's somehow not your fault.

"Waah I got lung cancer... just because I married and remained married to a cigarette smoker and sucked his exhaust fumes for 25 years!" Somehow, this doesn't illicit sympathy, let alone the feeling of personal shame accompanied by the intense desire to criminalize and eliminate the vile, evil habit of Cigarettes.

Yeah, it harms others just like driving a car harms others. Only nowhere near as much. Are you also wanting to ban cars too? That would be consistent and I would respect that... but too many people think smoking is unnecessary, and cars are necessary, and there's a 1-to-1 correlation with legality and necessity.

Not to be rude, but please keep it on the topic of banning smoking. For your information, if I had control, cars would be banned. MANY things would be, but the topic at hand is cigarettes.

Frankly all the statistics that show how evil secondhand smoke is don't convince me given how polluted the very air we breathe is.

I rarely look at statistics, since I know that statistics are a load of crap most of the time.

You do both but you want to ban them both? That doesn't make much sense. But eh, okay, whatever doesn't work for you I guess.

Just cause I do them, doesn't mean I think they should be done. At least not in certain circumstances. If you read my earlier posts, you'll see what I mean exactly by 'banning' them.

No, but I've never known anyone who died of lung cancer from sitting at a park bench or encountering smokers on a sidewalk, which is what a lot of anti-smokers seem to worry about having happen to them.

As above, I'm not against smokers smoking outside. Read my earlier posts if you want more detail on that.

On the other hand, caffeine makes people do stupid things, and I have to put up with stupid people who are all wired and obsessed with their drug. Same with alcohol only far more prevalent.

Caffeine gives people energy (for the most part), there are always those who overdo it; that's so for almost everything, people overdo it. As just a normal 'substance', it is quite beneficial to those who need to stay awake, or wake up.
I'm not really defending alcohol other than saying that, the drinking of it does not directly harm others. Smoking can. (Yes yes, I know, the actions of people while drunk can harm others, but that's the person's fault really. I have considerable control over myself while drunk; it's all a matter of forcing it so.)

Right, because they appeal to a broader target market and the majority wins at the expense of the minority. Well, you seem to want to ban a lot of things, ever consider not only accepting but embracing the opposite concept?

The minority always suffers, which is something I dislike. I do want to ban a lot of things, but in truth, if I was able to make the decisions, it wouldn't be an outright 'You can't do this...'. It would be more complex, and I don't particularily feel like explaining, since it doesn't matter.

I do everything right... ALL THE TIME!

I knew you'd say that. :p

No seriously, I always look both ways before crossing a street. I don't buy into that frail human nature crap when it comes to a choice between being distracted, or being crushed to death by a 45-mph, 2-ton hunk of metal.

If you look back (and were able to remember every time), you'd probably find some times when you didn't check. Even if that's not true (which I doubt, since no one is perfect), not everyone pays as much attention as you. (I don't always look, but I don't need to, sight is only once of the six senses.)

I guess it's about risk taking. I take that risk just crossing the street, I risk lung cancer with every breath, and yes I risk lung cancer by smoking myself. If I didn't smoke, but I hung out with smokers, or worked in a bar that allowed and had lots of smoking, or lived with a smoker all the time, that too would be a risk *I* took.

I completely agree, but what I don't like, is that at times, 'risks' can be forced on you. I would have smoking banned where you don't have a choice really to be.

What galls me is how people think that your choice to work a such-and-such a place, or hang out with such individuals, is nonexistant. And that if you come to misfortune having taken that risk, it's somehow not your fault.

"Waah I got lung cancer... just because I married and remained married to a cigarette smoker and sucked his exhaust fumes for 25 years!" Somehow, this doesn't illicit sympathy, let alone the feeling of personal shame accompanied by the intense desire to criminalize and eliminate the vile, evil habit of Cigarettes.

I agree, however, while it isn't nonexistant, it is limited in a lot of ways. Which is the fault of the way we have built society.
Well in truth, no it's not limited, if you want to say that lying down and dieing is a perfectly ok thing. That people don't get to live a life.

It's too bad Blair isn't the Prime Minister of Canada and ban public smoking here.

You're welcome to him...

Stop complaining. You're all socialists. Stop being hypocritical. You want everything to be even, so everyone should have to breathe in their fair share of smoke. If you don't want to breate in death-causing smoke:

Move to America :)

You're all socialists.

Take that back!

Take that back!

Fine. Almost all of you are socialists.

Stop complaining. You're all socialists. Stop being hypocritical. You want everything to be even, so everyone should have to breathe in their fair share of smoke. If you don't want to breate in death-causing smoke:

Move to America :)

I'm definitely not a socialist. And, no offense (to any Americans), moving to America is the last thing I want to do.

I'm definitely not a socialist. And, no offense (to any Americans), moving to America is the last thing I want to do.

Like me, i wouldn't want to move to america because of the minor uncivalised people like to... how should i put this... ?

"shoot at random people from other gangs".
and there's the health insurance which kinda sucks.

but just like scelestus, i'm not trying or meaning to be offence, i'm just saying what's on my mind :)

I don't have a problem with smoking in open public places, but enclosed public places should be banned.

I personally want the Australian government to make nunchuks allowed

"Sure they are dangerous, hazardous to both my health and the health of others, but it's my money and people can find somewhere else to stand"
~Can't remember who said that

I don't have a problem with smoking in open public places, but enclosed public places should be banned.

I personally want the Australian government to make nunchuks allowed

"Sure they are dangerous, hazardous to both my health and the health of others, but it's my money and people can find somewhere else to stand"
~Can't remember who said that

What if you're chasing them with your nunchuks?

For that matter, what if you're chasing them with your ciggarette? (spelling?)

Ban smoking? Ban cars. Ban anything that creates pollution. Ban anything that uses natural resources. Kill every living thing that exhales CO2 (including humans). Kill every living thing that farts (incuding humans). Destroy volcanoes. Ban alcohol. Ban prescrition drugs. Ban sugar. Ban fat. Ban salt. What the fuck, just ban everything.


I don't want to breath the shit your putting into the air by driving your cars. Ban them motherfuckers. They are far worse to your health.

OH, ban cell phones too. You are going to give me brain cancer by radiating all that microwave radiation while you talk on them damn mobile cancer machines.

Not to be rude, but please keep it on the topic of banning smoking. For your information, if I had control, cars would be banned. MANY things would be, but the topic at hand is cigarettes.


I can't help it, since most people I argue with give excuses for cars and give blame for cigarettes when they both (can) have the same health effect on a person.


I rarely look at statistics, since I know that statistics are a load of crap most of the time.


"There are three kinds of lies... lies, damned lies, and statistics."

- some guy


Just cause I do them, doesn't mean I think they should be done. At least not in certain circumstances. If you read my earlier posts, you'll see what I mean exactly by 'banning' them.

Hmm well you'd want to ban them from "malls," which, outdoor or indoor, seem to me to be privately (though collectively) owned places that should come to a consensus on whether they allow smoking there or not. People DO have a choice about going to a mall too, just like with bars.

You also suggest banning around the 'vicinity' of a public building, and give the example of smokers at the doors. OK, but the 'vicinity' in legal terms will probably come to mean "within 15 feet of the building," meaning in many cases smokers will have to have a smoke in the middle of the street. If it was just banning them say, within the entryway of a public building, I guess I could go with that. But people have strange ideas about what "public" is, like some people take the colloquial version of "public" and mean "somewhere where there are other people around." I take it to mean, state owned or operated.


Caffeine gives people energy (for the most part), there are always those who overdo it; that's so for almost everything, people overdo it. As just a normal 'substance', it is quite beneficial to those who need to stay awake, or wake up.

I guess, but what with it being addictive it's hard for many to not overdo it, or come to rely on it all the time. Anyway, all I am saying is cigarettes are just as beneficial.


The minority always suffers, which is something I dislike. I do want to ban a lot of things, but in truth, if I was able to make the decisions, it wouldn't be an outright 'You can't do this...'. It would be more complex, and I don't particularily feel like explaining, since it doesn't matter.

Alright.


I knew you'd say that. :p


:D


If you look back (and were able to remember every time), you'd probably find some times when you didn't check. Even if that's not true (which I doubt, since no one is perfect), not everyone pays as much attention as you. (I don't always look, but I don't need to, sight is only once of the six senses.)

I had it deeply ingrained since when I was 5 my cat died by getting run over. It's not about perfection so much as Pavlov really.

...wait, 6 senses? So you sometimes rely on telepathy to detect oncoming traffic?



I completely agree, but what I don't like, is that at times, 'risks' can be forced on you. I would have smoking banned where you don't have a choice really to be.

I guess I could agree with that, except I would disagree with what most people consider "choice."

Ban smoking? Ban cars. Ban anything that creates pollution. Ban anything that uses natural resources. Kill every living thing that exhales CO2 (including humans). Kill every living thing that farts (incuding humans). Destroy volcanoes. Ban alcohol. Ban prescrition drugs. Ban sugar. Ban fat. Ban salt.

[insert argument about how sugar, fat, salt, alcohol and prescription drugs don't kill people just by being used at a park]

[ignore fact that neither does smoking]

[insert argument about how pollution from cars is okay because cars are necessary]

[ignore the millions of fuckers with recreational vehicles, sports cars, needlessly large ultra-high-performance bullshit that makes them feel better about their sexual inabilities]

"There are three kinds of lies... lies, damned lies, and statistics."

- B. Disraeli (British PM)

:)

The Nazi Party banned public smoking.

Alright, I had a long post and lost it. So if my answers are vague or incomplete, blame the fact that I don't want to have to rewrite it all.

Hmm well you'd want to ban them from "malls," which, outdoor or indoor, seem to me to be privately (though collectively) owned places that should come to a consensus on whether they allow smoking there or not. People DO have a choice about going to a mall too, just like with bars.

While that may be true in a lot of places, in places that the mall is really the only place to get a lot of things, you don't have much choice. I live in a place where the mall is one of the few options, and it offers many things the other small stores don't.

You also suggest banning around the 'vicinity' of a public building, and give the example of smokers at the doors. OK, but the 'vicinity' in legal terms will probably come to mean "within 15 feet of the building," meaning in many cases smokers will have to have a smoke in the middle of the street. If it was just banning them say, within the entryway of a public building, I guess I could go with that. But people have strange ideas about what "public" is, like some people take the colloquial version of "public" and mean "somewhere where there are other people around." I take it to mean, state owned or operated.

By vicinity, I'm refering to places of frequent traffic, doors, etc. I would go with something along the lines of 15 feet from any entranceway (inside or out), etc.

I guess, but what with it being addictive it's hard for many to not overdo it, or come to rely on it all the time. Anyway, all I am saying is cigarettes are just as beneficial.

I'm not arguing all that much on the benefit of the drug, just the way it is taken. Smoking directly harms others, whereas drinking coffee does not. Even if it's only a little bit, every little bit adds up.

I had it deeply ingrained since when I was 5 my cat died by getting run over. It's not about perfection so much as Pavlov really.

As I said, even if you look all the time, many other people don't.

...wait, 6 senses? So you sometimes rely on telepathy to detect oncoming traffic?

I wouldn't call it telepathy, and as of yet I haven't used it to detect incoming traffic. :p
My other main sense for detecting traffic is hearing. Where I am it's not noisy, and so it's not hard to hear any vehicle coming.

I guess I could agree with that, except I would disagree with what most people consider "choice."

I did have a description on what I considered choice, but I lost it with my other post. If you want, I'll post it later.

[insert argument about how sugar, fat, salt, alcohol and prescription drugs don't kill people just by being used at a park]

But but but... every heard the story of the killer salt? ;)

The Nazi Party banned public smoking.

no way! they actually helped some people?

OH, ban cell phones too. You are going to give me brain cancer by radiating all that microwave radiation while you talk on them damn mobile cancer machines.

ah comeon, they aint that bad... :D

Just do what I do when I want to smoke but can't: throw in some Skoal or Cope, or a wad of Redman!

Alright, I had a long post and lost it. So if my answers are vague or incomplete, blame the fact that I don't want to have to rewrite it all.


OK.


While that may be true in a lot of places, in places that the mall is really the only place to get a lot of things, you don't have much choice. I live in a place where the mall is one of the few options, and it offers many things the other small stores don't.

Hmm. Things essential to survival?


By vicinity, I'm refering to places of frequent traffic, doors, etc. I would go with something along the lines of 15 feet from any entranceway (inside or out), etc.

I guess we could debate the specific wordings but I'd be OK with it in principle so don't feel like it.


I'm not arguing all that much on the benefit of the drug, just the way it is taken. Smoking directly harms others, whereas drinking coffee does not. Even if it's only a little bit, every little bit adds up.

Studies show likelihoods, not certainty. By no means does a puff of cigarette smoke automatically cause any harm at all. Secondhand smoke, over a long period of time - sure. But I don't think such a situation exists in most casual smoker encounters, ones that are totally unavoidable.



I wouldn't call it telepathy, and as of yet I haven't used it to detect incoming traffic. :p
My other main sense for detecting traffic is hearing. Where I am it's not noisy, and so it's not hard to hear any vehicle coming.

What would you call it? I'm interested since you mentioned 6 senses, and I'm sure it's not the ability to see dead people...


[I did have a description on what I considered choice, but I lost it with my other post. If you want, I'll post it later.


Sure, I'd be interested to read it.


But but but... every heard the story of the killer salt? ;)

Er... no? I know salt is very dangerous to snail and slug health, though. I've personally murdered several dozens using that particular weapon.


no way! they actually helped some people?

No, the banning of cigarettes helped mostly Adolf Hitler who was personally against the habit as being disgusting.

I doubt very much anyone else was helped by the ban since the smoke from the burning cities made up for any minor decrease in cigarette smoke.

god, i'm bored...

Hmm. Things essential to survival?

Is food essential to survival? That's the kind of thing I'm meaning. Remember, I agree with your 'it should be the group consensus by the mall owners', but in some places, the mall is the only place you can get things. And yes, things nescessary to survival, or at least very close to nescessary.

I guess we could debate the specific wordings but I'd be OK with it in principle so don't feel like it.

I don't feel like debating specifics either, since it doesn't really mean anything since what we say isn't being put in place. I do agree with your previous post though, that nowhere within 15 feet of the building would be a bad idea, since as you said, most of the time it would leave the person on the street, etc.

Studies show likelihoods, not certainty. By no means does a puff of cigarette smoke automatically cause any harm at all. Secondhand smoke, over a long period of time - sure. But I don't think such a situation exists in most casual smoker encounters, ones that are totally unavoidable.

That was all I was saying. The harm from one puff of smoke is insignificant, but it's still harm. I'm just saying that in time it'll add up. I'm not saying (and I know) you won't just drop dead since you pass by someone smoking. (And I'm mostly refering to being in the presence of a smoker for more than a brief time, not just walking by him/her.)

What would you call it? I'm interested since you mentioned 6 senses, and I'm sure it's not the ability to see dead people...

Never really thought of a name for it, but if I had to call it anything, I would call it [very...] limited omniscience. No dead people involved.

Sure, I'd be interested to read it.

By choice I'm refering to whether or not one can live an average life in society. One needs to have access to food, a job (although as you've said, you have a pretty good ability to choose where you work, so you can leave if you don't like it), and similar things.
In our society, one needs a education to get through with an average life. So in places such as schools, etc., you don't really have a 'choice'.
Beyond that, most anything is our choice, where we hang out, where we eat.

Er... no? I know salt is very dangerous to snail and slug health, though. I've personally murdered several dozens using that particular weapon.

You haven't read it, since it doesn't exist. Salt doesn't kill. (I was being sarcastic in my post :p )
It's really only dangerous to snail and slug health since it greatly (and quickly) dehydrates them. I hate killing them with salt, the stench is horrendous.

Is food essential to survival? That's the kind of thing I'm meaning. Remember, I agree with your 'it should be the group consensus by the mall owners', but in some places, the mall is the only place you can get things. And yes, things nescessary to survival, or at least very close to nescessary.

My god, thats almost as bad as communism. Having malls be the only places to get food that is. I'd explain, but I'm inebriated. It makes sense though./


I don't feel like debating specifics either, since it doesn't really mean anything since what we say isn't being put in place. I do agree with your previous post though, that nowhere within 15 feet of the building would be a bad idea, since as you said, most of the time it would leave the person on the street, etc.

Right on.


That was all I was saying. The harm from one puff of smoke is insignificant, but it's still harm. I'm just saying that in time it'll add up. I'm not saying (and I know) you won't just drop dead since you pass by someone smoking. (And I'm mostly refering to being in the presence of a smoker for more than a brief time, not just walking by him/her.)

OK, I just contend that banning cigarettes doesn't address those situations since those things are usually people living together etc, and the law has no place in the bedroom.


Never really thought of a name for it, but if I had to call it anything, I would call it [very...] limited omniscience. No dead people involved.

That's really strange to me, just cuz I've never heard of non-loonies who claimed such extrasensory-like abilities. Its good that dead people don't figure into it...


By choice I'm refering to whether or not one can live an average life in society. One needs to have access to food, a job (although as you've said, you have a pretty good ability to choose where you work, so you can leave if you don't like it), and similar things.
In our society, one needs a education to get through with an average life. So in places such as schools, etc., you don't really have a 'choice'.
Beyond that, most anything is our choice, where we hang out, where we eat.

I agree, except I add the public/private bit in. A private school should decide for itself whether it allows smoking, public schools should do as the voters want I suppose.


You haven't read it, since it doesn't exist. Salt doesn't kill. (I was being sarcastic in my post :p )
It's really only dangerous to snail and slug health since it greatly (and quickly) dehydrates them. I hate killing them with salt, the stench is horrendous.

I've never noticed, but then again I haven't done it in 10 years and my sense of smell may have blocked the memory due to trauma. :D

it's strange but this post is being led by Scelestus and santa. (also Number III)

:eek: :sniper: :D

OK, I just contend that banning cigarettes doesn't address those situations since those things are usually people living together etc, and the law has no place in the bedroom.

The only disagreement I have there is if the house had children, since the children have to live through it. They don't have much say, as they can't really tell there parent's to stop (they can, but the parent's are quite unlikely to listen). That brings in a whole lot of specifics that I don't want to bother getting into, since as elsewhere, it doesn't really matter.

That's really strange to me, just cuz I've never heard of non-loonies who claimed such extrasensory-like abilities. Its good that dead people don't figure into it...

I wouldn't claim that I had 'extrasensory-like abilities' any more than anyone else does, and I'd hardly say I was sane.

I agree, except I add the public/private bit in. A private school should decide for itself whether it allows smoking, public schools should do as the voters want I suppose.

I was really only meaning public schools, as I agree with your statement for the private.

Smoking is BAD! i know this because i had a friend that died 'cuz of second-hand smoke. :mad:

Note to all smokers: Please do your stuff somewhere where people cant get it into thier system. TRUST ME it aint nice... :(

Note to all smokers: Please do your stuff somewhere where people cant get it into thier system. TRUST ME it aint nice... :(

Sure, smokers (which includes me) should do their stuff where it doesn't effect others, but that's only if we are forcing others to smell the smoke. You come to the bar (or where ever), and it's your own fault that you breath in the smoke, you can't blame us.

hmmm, nice

send me a telegram (on nationstates....) if you have something to discuss personally. (if you dont know how to and you have a nationstates account then go to "world" and search "Red-Ness" then send me a telegram) :D

It is our right to do as we will with our bodies. I cannot enforce my morals on the will of everybody because that is intolerant. I do not smoke myself but it is their right and anyone who is too dumb to come the same realization should swan dive into the nearest wood-chipper because the consumer is aware of the dangers of using the product. It says right on the label that it causes cancer and death.

This also infringes on my right to run a smoking enviroment in a business.

It is our right to do as we will with our bodies. I cannot enforce my morals on the will of everybody because that is intolerant. I do not smoke myself but it is their right and anyone who is too dumb to come the same realization should swan dive into the nearest wood-chipper because the consumer is aware of the dangers of using the product. It says right on the label that it causes cancer and death.

This also infringes on my right to run a smoking enviroment in a business.

Only one arguement on your post, you talk about your rights. If you bring rights into it, those who don't smoke have the right to live in a smoke free environment. So while you have the choice (right) of smoking, it shouldn't harm others (unless they've made the choice to let it).

Note, I say this because your post comes across slightly as you have to right to smoke, even if it harms others. If that's not what you meant, then I don't have any arguement with you.

Deaths from smoking: 418,690 (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/health_consequences/mortali.htm)
Deaths from second-hand smoking: 38,000 (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422)

Honestly, you're not that likely to die of second-hand smoking, and walking through someone's puff as you enter a pub isn't going to give you cancer. I'm against this sort of Big Brother approach, but if the government wants to dictate morals then at least allow establishments where smoking is allowed.

Deaths from smoking: 418,690 (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/health_consequences/mortali.htm)
Deaths from second-hand smoking: 38,000 (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422)

Honestly, you're not that likely to die of second-hand smoking, and walking through someone's puff as you enter a pub isn't going to give you cancer.

Yeah, even going by the CDC one has a 0.01% chance to die of second-hand smoke in the USA. But it's the illusion of safety anti-smokers are after, not the reality. In fact, not to make a political digression, but it's also the illusion of safety that made everyone so pleased with invading Iraq because of 9/11.

It is our right to do as we will with our bodies. I cannot enforce my morals on the will of everybody because that is intolerant. I do not smoke myself but it is their right and anyone who is too dumb to come the same realization should swan dive into the nearest wood-chipper because the consumer is aware of the dangers of using the product. It says right on the label that it causes cancer and death.

This also infringes on my right to run a smoking enviroment in a business.

I'm not aware of any constitution that explicitly gives its citizens the right to run a smoking environment in a business, as you seem to contend...

However, to the thrust of your argument:

Since you won't enforce your morals on the wills of others, this also makes you unable to say that the people who are enforcing their morals are being intolerant or taking away your rights, because making everything open and free (at gunpoint) is also enforcing your morals; they're just more liberal morals.

In essence, you have argued yourself into the corner of saying that "I won't enforce my conservatism on others, only my liberalism", which, as I have already pointed out, is still forcing your moral system on them.

Sincerely,

Number III

Since you won't enforce your morals on the wills of others, this also makes you unable to say that the people who are enforcing their morals are being intolerant or taking away your rights, because making everything open and free (at gunpoint) is also enforcing your morals; they're just more liberal morals.

In essence, you have argued yourself into the corner of saying that "I won't enforce my conservatism on others, only my liberalism", which, as I have already pointed out, is still forcing your moral system on them.

Sincerely,

Number III

By the way, this guy/madam WILL get a point proved. and i think that's what just happened :D

it don't matter where you smoke really, it's if your blasting the crap in someones face. I like to go to pubs but i dont anymore... because i know it's full of smoke

Most pubs local to me are and even those that have stopped the smoking still stink of the stuff. I dont drink al-co-hol or do drugs OR watch sport but stil, the pub is a local place for anyone. For me, it's where i can go with mates :p

Just glad I still have enough of these around:http://www.cigarre24.de/images/cheneu.jpgViva la Revolution!

I'm paying way too much taxes on my cigarettes for anyone to tell me where I can light up or not. I just do.

Evil? So what! With all the other pollution in the air (which apparently nobody cares to reduce) I don't really care, all facts considered.

Light'em up if you got'em! http://www.smileyville.com/images/evil/sasmokin.gif

I like to go to pubs but i dont anymore... because i know it's full of smoke

I like to go to beaches but not anymore... because I know it's full of sand and water.

Just glad I still have enough of these around:http://www.cigarre24.de/images/cheneu.jpgViva la Revolution!

I'm paying way too much taxes on my cigarettes for anyone to tell me where I can light up or not. I just do.

Evil? So what! With all the other pollution in the air (which apparently nobody cares to reduce) I don't really care, all facts considered.

Light'em up if you got'em! http://www.smileyville.com/images/evil/sasmokin.gif

are you off your head? are you stoned!? that is the attitude that people like you take that kills others from second hand smoke! you dont seem to care and if you dont then i think you should get your mind sorted... :sniper:

I´ld gladly refrain from smoking in public, as long as others do so too:
no car fumes, no industrial fumes etc. But as long as there are so many air polluters able to spread loads of gases in quite large areas, namely gasoline-driven vehicles, I don´t think my 10 fags/ day make a difference to either your health or the environment.

I´ld gladly refrain from smoking in public, as long as others do so too:
no car fumes, no industrial fumes etc. But as long as there are so many air polluters able to spread loads of gases in quite large areas, namely gasoline-driven vehicles, I don´t think my 10 fags/ day make a difference to either your health or the environment.
Pretty much what I meant, only phrased more nicely. It's not the 2nd hand smoke from my cigarette that will give you disease, it's all the crap you breathe on a daily basis from all the cars and factories around. Smog isn't exactly caused by smokers.
http://www.smileyville.com/images/evil/sasmokin.gif

are you off your head? are you stoned!? that is the attitude that people like you take that kills others from second hand smoke! you dont seem to care and if you dont then i think you should get your mind sorted... :sniper:
Maybe you should smoke some 'cause you really don't seem relaxed. Chill!

As you may know, Blair (priminister of England for those of you who dont know) is trying to stop smoking in all public places. I'm not for it, i'm not againsed it. What do you think on the matter?
I don't think that smoking should be outlawed on the streets, but it shouldn't be allowed in indoor public spaces.

Maybe you should smoke some 'cause you really don't seem relaxed. Chill!

Yea well, you try being a teenager living with some god-forsaken familly :D

it aint easy..

Since you won't enforce your morals on the wills of others, this also makes you unable to say that the people who are enforcing their morals are being intolerant or taking away your rights, because making everything open and free (at gunpoint) is also enforcing your morals; they're just more liberal morals.

In essence, you have argued yourself into the corner of saying that "I won't enforce my conservatism on others, only my liberalism", which, as I have already pointed out, is still forcing your moral system on them.

Sincerely,

Number III

You argue that one cannot claim not to push his morals on someone but doing so in the process. Ok, so according to your view one cannot hold the view being against abortion in their own life but in favor of it as a law. I am not forcing any view on anyone with restrictive laws on either side of the spectrum, not just conservative or liberal. After all, my country enjoys freedoms in both economic and personal affairs.

After shooting down that arguement I will move on to rebut your other statement.

m not aware of any constitution that explicitly gives its citizens the right to run a smoking environment in a business, as you seem to contend...

It is not in any constitution, but it is a business owners right to run a business as he sees fit. You seem to contend that the it is the customer who has final say in how the business should be run. The customer obviously does not have say in how it is otherwise every customer would just pay what he'd like to pay for goods and/or services, this is obviously not the case. It is because of this that it need not be included in a constitution.

As you may know, Blair (priminister of England for those of you who dont know) ....


Don't you mean Prime Minister of Great Britain?

I had to quit smoking, so everyone else should have to as well !

Smoking should only be legal on the top of mountains over 10,000 feet ... and yes you have to walk up yourself ;)

Don't you mean Prime Minister of Great Britain?

England, Great britan... it's all good, he's still in England :D

I had to quit smoking, so everyone else should have to as well !

Smoking should only be legal on the top of mountains over 10,000 feet ... and yes you have to walk up yourself ;)
lol fat people who smoke would hate you so much. And 2nd hand smoke is nasty stuff, i go to indie night every now and then and practically everyone there smokes. Its like breathing in fluffy clouds of cancer and its not nice.

Well in my state it's illegal to smoke indoors. The majority of people are happy about it because non-smokers don't have to be enclosed in smoke everywhere they go. Although smokers were really upset about the ban when it was first put into action, they've gotten over it. It actually helps both sides.

sounds good, mabie a little too harsh. but then again when smokers try to sell the house it's going to be thier own fault if it stinks :D