NationStates Jolt Archive

Chicago 'Tobacco Lounge' Infuriates
Anti-Smoking Groups

(CNSNews.com) - As anti-tobacco groups press states to enact "smoke-free" bars and restaurants, it appears the tobacco industry has found a way around some of those laws. In Chicago, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. has opened a tobacco "lounge," a bar that is technically a tobacco retail shop because at least 65 percent of its sales come from tobacco products, the Washington Post reported. Anti-tobacco groups are furious.

Note: Why can't smokers just be allowed one little place in which to smoke? I fail to see why not. Your thoughts?

I think it should be banned entirely.

Anti smoking laws have recently been passed here in the UK and it will soon be illegal to smoke in public buildings. This will include bars, restaurants, waiting rooms etc. On one side, as a heavy smoker I am disgusted that the government would interfere with my life to such an extent. On the other side, it is probably one of the ways that I will ever quit smoking.

I wish you good luck quitting, Ollieland.

Chicago 'Tobacco Lounge' Infuriates
Anti-Smoking Groups

(CNSNews.com) - As anti-tobacco groups press states to enact "smoke-free" bars and restaurants, it appears the tobacco industry has found a way around some of those laws. In Chicago, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. has opened a tobacco "lounge," a bar that is technically a tobacco retail shop because at least 65 percent of its sales come from tobacco products, the Washington Post reported. Anti-tobacco groups are furious.

Note: Why can't smokers just be allowed one little place in which to smoke? I fail to see why not. Your thoughts?
As long as its a private establishment that informes the patrons that it is a smoking facility (though that should be pretty obvious)

I am all for alowing smoking bars or what have not

If you dont like smoking dont frequent the establishment simple as that

(this coming from a complete non/never smoker)

I wish you good luck quitting, Ollieland.

The laws havn't come in yet so I'm still happily puffing away on my 40 a day!:)

I live in country where smoking is banned inside all pubs, clubs and restaurants and it's the greatest thing ever. Before, people used to stay with their own group. Now though, they go outside to smoke and mix with all the other smokers. I now pull more women on the doorsteps of pubs than I do inside them.

Well, I HOPE you quit then. Seriously, do you know what that does to your lungs?

this is just a bit stupid...I mean, if you don't like smelling smoke, and don't want to be around it, would you really go into a store called "THE SMOKING LOUNGE"?!

this is just a bit stupid...I mean, if you don't like smelling smoke, and don't want to be around it, would you really go into a store called "THE SMOKING LOUNGE"?!
My point exactly.

Why would you want to smoke exactly? Sure, it makes you feel good (at least that's what I've heard-- I'ne NEVER, repeat NEVER smoked), but it also kills your lungs and causes a truckload of diseases.

Well, I HOPE you quit then. Seriously, do you know what that does to your lungs?
No.

Why? Nobody told me tobacco did anything to my lungs.

Next you'll be saying it causes heart problems, infertility and premature aging of the skin.

[/sarcasm]

People who say smoking should be banned entirely should just have a bullet put through their head. Put them out of their misery. Their argument only stands up if they don't drink, don't eat any fatty food and ensure they walk everywhere.

I think smoking lounges are a good idea and see no problem with such an establishment.

I do wish they would get smoking out of casinos,bars and restaurants here in Vegas though. I used to be a smoker and even then I was happy when they banned it from bars and restaurants back in the day.

Why would you want to smoke exactly? Sure, it makes you feel good (at least that's what I've heard-- I'ne NEVER, repeat NEVER smoked), but it also kills your lungs and causes a truckload of diseases.
It's not so much a matter of "want to" as it is a matter of extremely difficult to quit once you start.

Why would you want to take drugs? Why would you want to drink alcoholic beverages? Why would you want to eat things ( such as McDonald's nastyness ) that are obviously bad for you?

No.

Why? Nobody told me tobacco did anything to my lungs.

Next you'll be saying it causes heart problems, infertility and premature aging of the skin.

[/sarcasm]

People who say smoking should be banned entirely should just have a bullet put through their head. Put them out of their misery. Their argument only stands up if they don't drink, don't eat any fatty food and ensure they walk everywhere.

I don't drink, I eat very very little fatty food, and I walk a lot (of course I'm not walking 10 miles tere and back, but you know what I mean.) Also, those things you mentioned (other than drinking) are not exclusivly harmful. Smoking is incredibly bad for you.

And avoid threatening me next time. Also, Eutrusca, I don't want to do any of those.

I don't drink, I eat very very little fatty food, and I walk a lot (of course I'm not walking 10 miles tere and back, but you know what I mean.) Also, those things you mentioned (other than drinking) are not exclusivly harmful. Smoking is incredibly bad for you.

100% of non-smokers die too.

Yes, but non-smokers die later (unless they're murdered or something like that.) Take a smoker and non-smoker, and see who dies faster. 85% of the time, it's the smoker.

I don't drink, I eat very very little fatty food, and I walk a lot (of course I'm not walking 10 miles tere and back, but you know what I mean.) Also, those things you mentioned (other than drinking) are not exclusivly harmful. Smoking is incredibly bad for you.

And avoid threatening me next time. Also, Eutrusca, I don't want to do any of those.

You see that as threatening? Chill.
So not getting any exercise and eating fatty food isn't bad for you?
If you say so.

You see that as threatening? Chill.
So not getting any exercise and eating fatty food isn't bad for you?
If you say so.

No, I said I excersise and eat very little fatty food, nd I said that fatty food and low excersse is bad.

But I just don't like that kind of "bullet through head" refrece.

smoking is cool and makes you look cool,

end of story.

But seriously, the first Nation, the first Governemnt, to come out with Anti smoking *lies, and rules, and regluations was infact, Nazi Germany. The restrciction of any right is in opposition to the constitution of the united states of america.

Anti-smoking shit is jsut one small part of the larger move of the united states moving towards a police state.:sniper:

But seriously, the first Nation, the first Governemnt, to come out with Anti smoking *lies, and rules, and regluations was infact, Nazi Germany. The restrciction of any right is in opposition to the constitution of the united states of america.


Since when is there a right to smoke?

smoking is cool and makes you look cool,

end of story.

But seriously, the first Nation, the first Governemnt, to come out with Anti smoking *lies, and rules, and regluations was infact, Nazi Germany. The restrciction of any right is in opposition to the constitution of the united states of america.

Anti-smoking shit is jsut one small part of the larger move of the united states moving towards a police state.:sniper:

Are you that UN ambassadorship guy's puppet or something? That's exactly what he sounded like.

Anti-smoking shit is jsut one small part of the larger move of the united states moving towards a police state.:sniper:
Oh, horsecrap! Those are all state laws. The federal government has no authority to tell people they can or cannot smoke, or to tell restaurant owners they can't allow people to smoke or not smoke.

Since when is there a right to smoke?
I believe it is covered under
Amendment 10 in the US

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Since when is there a right to smoke?
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I believe it is covered under
Amendment 10 in the US

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Couldn't that be taken as a right to do anything?

Couldn't that be taken as a right to do anything?
Yup ... though the STATES have the right to restrict said freedom. Also if it is covered in the constitution it is out as well

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Beat you to it lol

Yup ... though the STATES have the right to restrict said freedom. Also if it is covered in the constitution it is out as well

Ah. That makes more sense.

smoking is cool and makes you look cool,

end of story.

But seriously, the first Nation, the first Governemnt, to come out with Anti smoking *lies, and rules, and regluations was infact, Nazi Germany. The restrciction of any right is in opposition to the constitution of the united states of america.

Anti-smoking shit is jsut one small part of the larger move of the united states moving towards a police state.:sniper:

Aww, you Godwinned all over the thread. Gross.

Also, those things you mentioned (other than drinking) are not exclusivly harmful

So not getting any exercise and eating fatty food isn't bad for you?

I said that fatty food and low excersse is bad

Do you see?

Beat you to it lol
:p

Whoops... sorry. I'll watch that next time.

No.

Why? Nobody told me tobacco did anything to my lungs.

Next you'll be saying it causes heart problems, infertility and premature aging of the skin.

[/sarcasm]

People who say smoking should be banned entirely should just have a bullet put through their head. Put them out of their misery. Their argument only stands up if they don't drink, don't eat any fatty food and ensure they walk everywhere.
So technically, that makes me able to say I think smoking should be banned completely.

"I believe smoking should be banned completely".

So technically, that makes me able to say I think smoking should be banned completely.

"I believe smoking should be banned completely".

There you go then.

*mini round of applause for the health freaks*

*runs out of breath, collapses*

So technically, that makes me able to say I think smoking should be banned completely.

"I believe smoking should be banned completely".
I believe non-prescription drugs should be outlawed completely.

And while we're banning things, ban trans-fat, fast-food and sweetened soft drinks! :p

I seriously don't see where the government gets the right to tell people what they can and can't allow in their own places of business.

I don't allow smoking in my house, even when my husband was a smoker he had to go outside, if I ever do get my restruant it will be non-smoking, because I think it's disgusting.

I don't want the government to tell me that I have to let people smoke in my place of business, so I sure wouldn't want them telling me that I couldn't allow them to do so either.

I believe non-prescription drugs should be outlawed completely.

And while we're banning things, ban trans-fat, fast-food and sweetened soft drinks! :p
I agree. All that coffee, alcohol, trans-fat and cigarettes are probably responsible for 75% of the most frequent health problems we encounter in western societies. If we only took a little time to watch what we eat and drink, you'd see those obesity, heart, liver and lung problems go poof in a generation, I'm sure.

I seriously don't see where the government gets the right to tell people what they can and can't allow in their own places of business.

I don't allow smoking in my house, even when my husband was a smoker he had to go outside, if I ever do get my restruant it will be non-smoking, because I think it's disgusting.

I don't want the government to tell me that I have to let people smoke in my place of business, so I sure wouldn't want them telling me that I couldn't allow them to do so either.
Well, I suppose the issue of whether or not there is a national health system in place is relevant here.

My taxes go toward funding hospitals to care for the sick, but I'd rather those taxes be spent on healing those who really need it, rather than those stupid enough to smoke. It was understandable 20-30 years ago when most people had no idea how unhealthy smoking was, but today's smokers have no excuse whatsoever.

I might moderate my point of view if smokers were to be required to pay their healthcare for diseases and cancers related to their smoking habit.

Smoking bans are more bullshit than censorship.

Let the smokers have a designated smoking area for god sake. If you smoke in a store dedicated to smoking, you shouldnt have some asshole butt-in-skies bothering you.

Buy a puppy and leave my habbits alone! :mp5:

People should not smoke. End of story. The government should do everything in its powers to discourage it.

Well, I suppose the issue of whether or not there is a national health system in place is relevant here.

My taxes go toward funding hospitals to care for the sick, but I'd rather those taxes be spent on healing those who really need it, rather than those stupid enough to smoke. It was understandable 20-30 years ago when most people had no idea how unhealthy smoking was, but today's smokers have no excuse whatsoever.

I might moderate my point of view if smokers were to be required to pay their healthcare for diseases and cancers related to their smoking habit.
I don't believe in " national healthcare for all " so I pretty much take the stance of "if you are going to deal with the consequences then do what you will" but, I do think it's disgusting, and unhealthy, and stupid to smoke, but I think that about a lot of things, and since I am not in the business of trying to make everyone like Smunkee I just try to ignore it.
;)

People should not smoke. End of story. The government should do everything in its powers to discourage it.
Not even cigars?

this is just a bit stupid...I mean, if you don't like smelling smoke, and don't want to be around it, would you really go into a store called "THE SMOKING LOUNGE"?!
Because there's really no choice. Get a grip on reality rather than babbling about your ideology of consumer choice. There is no choice: either a smoke-filled bar, or nothing. It's called market failure, a classical economic concept.

If smoking is allowed in the bars in the country, try to find one bar where smoking is not allowed. Not going to happen. It's either allowed, or not allowed - market forces in this case mean that the majority has to suffer from the minority's problem. So, if democracy works, the majority bans the minority from smoking.

Since when is there a right to smoke?

You have more of a right to smoke then the state has a right to ban you from smoking.

People should not smoke. End of story. The government should do everything in its powers to discourage it.
I hope you feel the same way about alcohol (which kills more people in the US btw), red meat (heart disease is huge) and all illicit drugs.

You have more of a right to smoke then the state has a right to ban you from smoking.
You win this thread.

puff puff puff

Ah, I'm in flavour country................

I believe non-prescription drugs should be outlawed completely.

And while we're banning things, ban trans-fat, fast-food and sweetened soft drinks! :p

And porn, because it causes eroto-toxins to decay your brain and make you a sex addict who will inveriably turn to rape, pedophilia and beastiality to fulfil his fantasies.

I say his because only men look at porn.

I hope you feel the same way about alcohol (which kills more people in the US btw), red meat (heart disease is huge) and all illicit drugs.

Tobacco kills alot more people then pot.

I hope you feel the same way about alcohol (which kills more people in the US btw), red meat (heart disease is huge) and all illicit drugs.
Red meat would still be okay with me. My reasoning is as follows: I draw the line over substances which cause addiction. It's perfectly possible to consume red meat in moderate amounts, without it being a threat at all to your health.

But it's not possible about cigarette: the tobacco companies make sure they're as addictive as possible to make sure people never stop.

Alcohol would be harder to define, seeing as some people get addicted and others don't *ponders*

Does anyone realize how much income the State makes from Tobacco tax? That, and the fact that the tobacco industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, just shows that banning smoking all together just doesn't make sense economically.

With that aside, I don't see any reason why we should ban cigarette smoking anywhere as long as there's a non-smoking section provided.

(First post from a Non-smoker)

Does anyone realize how much income the State makes from Tobacco tax? That, and the fact that the tobacco industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, just shows that banning smoking all together just doesn't make sense economically.

With that aside, I don't see any reason why we should ban cigarette smoking anywhere as long as there's a non-smoking section provided.

(First post from a Non-smoker)
Do you have any idea of how much income is generated by child labor? That, and the fact that companies using child-slave-workers are a billion dollar industry just shows that banning child labor all together just doesn't make sense economically.

In both cases, your argument is true, it doesn't make sense economically. And we don't care, because the ban is about health (in the case of smoking) and human rights(in the case of child labor). Economics aren't everything.

Because there's really no choice. Get a grip on reality rather than babbling about your ideology of consumer choice. There is no choice: either a smoke-filled bar, or nothing. It's called market failure, a classical economic concept.

If smoking is allowed in the bars in the country, try to find one bar where smoking is not allowed. Not going to happen. It's either allowed, or not allowed - market forces in this case mean that the majority has to suffer from the minority's problem. So, if democracy works, the majority bans the minority from smoking.
wow. And you completely miss what I said.

These are not "bars". These are not "restaurants". These are places that collect atleast 65% of their revenue from tobacco products, and are built for the expressed purpose of being a smoking place. It is like a cigar bar (the main reason why the 65% rule is in place is to allow for these). Would you, being a person who doesn't like smoke at all, go into a place that is named "The Smoking Lounge", and advertises that all it sells is tobacco and related products? These places cannot sell alcohol, as the cost of the drinks would make it so they would have to be non-smoking.

How about if YOU get a grip on reality, and read what I, and the article, said. These are buildings built for smokers. If I don't like seeing strippers, I don't go into a strip joint. If I don't like fast food, I don't go to McDonalds. If you don't like smoking, then you don't go to a place thats single purpose for existing is to allow smoking. This won't cause market failure...to say that is just...well....stupid.

And porn, because it causes eroto-toxins to decay your brain and make you a sex addict who will inveriably turn to rape, pedophilia and beastiality to fulfil his fantasies.

I say his because only men look at porn.
Lol thats great ... I think you just added 20 pages onto the thread (would have been more if it had gotten on the first page)

Tobacco kills alot more people then pot.
Of course. I'm not an idiot.
I'm sure it still causes some deaths, though. From lack of judgement, not overdose or anything.
But, hey, it should be banned, because it causes harm to people.
We should also ban firearms, pointy objects, sharks, cars and tall buildings.

Do you have any idea of how much income is generated by child labor? That, and the fact that companies using child-slave-workers are a billion dollar industry just shows that banning child labor all together just doesn't make sense economically.

In both cases, your argument is true, it doesn't make sense economically. And we don't care, because the ban is about health (in the case of smoking) and human rights(in the case of child labor). Economics aren't everything.
Sence when is it the governments job to baby its citizens just because they feel an act is not the most benificial.

People should have the right to do as they please except when it interferes with the right of others to do so (for the most part)

Of course. I'm not an idiot.
I'm sure it still causes some deaths, though. From lack of judgement, not overdose or anything.
But, hey, it should be banned, because it causes harm to people.
We should also ban firearms, pointy objects, sharks, cars and tall buildings.
It'd be more effective to just ban people. Problem solved.

Sence when is it the governments job to baby its citizens just because they feel an act is not the most benificial.

People should have the right to do as they please except when it interferes with the right of others to do so (for the most part)
Since my government pays up the bills for healthcare from all those lung cancers. I support my national healthcare system, but there are limits to even my goodwill: and spending billions of dollars curing those who smoke is wasted money. Especially when the only benefit this has is making tobacco industry richer.

I say this because only men look at porn.
Don't know very many women, eh? Tsk!

Of course. I'm not an idiot.
I'm sure it still causes some deaths, though. From lack of judgement, not overdose or anything.
But, hey, it should be banned, because it causes harm to people.
We should also ban firearms, pointy objects, sharks, cars and tall buildings.
And earthquakes, infectuous diseses, global warming, asteroids, comets, coronal mass ejections, hurricaines, tsunamis, tornados and cars ... especially cars!

The ban in the UK, anyway, wasn't about stopping people smoking, or pandering to the wishes of health conscious non-smokers who frequent pubs. It was about protecting the people who work in those places.

Since my government pays up the bills for healthcare from all those lung cancers. I support my national healthcare system, but there are limits to even my goodwill: and spending billions of dollars curing those who smoke is wasted money. Especially when the only benefit this has is making tobacco industry richer.

That is a case where I can see it being at least resonable

Personally I would go more for discluding them from certian benifits if they choose to continue smoking. Offer them help for sure but if ultimatly if they continue to put themselfs at risk they either have to pay an increased fee for healthcare or loose some of the benifits.

The ban in the UK, anyway, wasn't about stopping people smoking, or pandering to the wishes of health conscious non-smokers who frequent pubs. It was about protecting the people who work in those places.
All kinds of jobs have some risks ... you accept them when you choose to work there.

People should be allowed to harm themselves in whatever way they please, but in doing so, they should not be allowed to pose a risk to others.

Smoking, does just that. I think people should be allowed to go out and have a drink without the prospect of coming home smelling like cigarettes, and piss off with that "go somewhere else" crap, because it's also a workers rights issue, people who work in bars restaurants and other places such as that should have the right to be in a smoke-free environment.

No one is taking away the right to smoke. They just want people to do it outside. Why is there such a f*cking problem with that? Go have your cig outside, then come back inside and continue drinking.

If you want to smoke inside, do it at your house, no one is going to come after you for that.

People should be allowed to harm themselves in whatever way they please, but in doing so, they should not be allowed to pose a risk to others.

Smoking, does just that. I think people should be allowed to go out and have a drink without the prospect of coming home smelling like cigarettes, and piss off with that "go somewhere else" crap, because it's also a workers rights issue, people who work in bars restaurants and other places such as that should have the right to be in a smoke-free environment.

Just like people have a right to not patron an establishment that does not serve them in a way they wish. Workers are also allowed to choose to not work in envyroments that they do not feel comfortable with (as long as the working conditions are explained to them on hiring)


No one is taking away the right to smoke. They just want people to do it outside. Why is there such a f*cking problem with that? Go have your cig outside, then come back inside and continue drinking.

If you want to smoke inside, do it at your house, no one is going to come after you for that.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473073
Well if this was an accurate poll for an entire population 37 percent (roughly) would "come after" them for that

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473073
Well if this was an accurate poll for an entire population 37 percent (roughly) would "come after" them for that

Where in the poll does it ask anything but whether or not the voter supports a ban? Show me. I mean my vision is pretty good, but I could have missed it...

Where in the poll does it ask anything but whether or not the voter supports a ban? Show me. I mean my vision is pretty good, but I could have missed it...
"Total ban" maybe I assume too much that the voters relize a "total" ban includes the entirity of smoking including in ones home

So people who vote "Yes" are voting to compleatly ban smoking including in ones own home

Unless there is some different meaning to "total" that I do not understand

Don't know very many women, eh? Tsk!

I think you stepped in some sarcasm back there.
I don't think I've dated a girl who didn't look at porn.

Of course. I'm not an idiot.
I'm sure it still causes some deaths, though. From lack of judgement, not overdose or anything.
But, hey, it should be banned, because it causes harm to people.
We should also ban firearms, pointy objects, sharks, cars and tall buildings.

Animals, trees, hard objects, sports, sitting on the coach, work...

All kinds of jobs have some risks ... you accept them when you choose to work there.
All sorts of jobs have health and safety laws. This is just another.

It's amazing what propaganda can do.

Chicago 'Crack Lounge' Infuriates
Anti-crack Groups

(CNSNews.com) - As anti-crack groups press states to enact "crack-free" bars and restaurants, it appears the crack industry has found a way around some of those laws. In Chicago, The Pablo Escobar Crack Co. has opened a crack "lounge," a bar that is technically a crack retail shop because at least 65 percent of its sales come from crack products, the Washington Post reported. Anti-crack groups are furious.

Note: Why can't crack smokers just be allowed one little place in which to smoke? I fail to see why not. Your thoughts?

Chicago 'Crack Lounge' Infuriates
Anti-crack Groups

(CNSNews.com) - As anti-crack groups press states to enact "crack-free" bars and restaurants, it appears the crack industry has found a way around some of those laws. In Chicago, The Pablo Escobar Crack Co. has opened a crack "lounge," a bar that is technically a crack retail shop because at least 65 percent of its sales come from crack products, the Washington Post reported. Anti-crack groups are furious.

Note: Why can't crack smokers just be allowed one little place in which to smoke? I fail to see why not. Your thoughts?

Hehe cuz tobacco = crack! I get it!

Unfortunately, you failed to realize a few things.

1. Crack cocaine is so addictive most if not all addicts will resort to crime, even violent crime, to get more if they have no other option.
2. Crack cocaine is a powerful psychoactive. It alters the mentality of its users in a way totally unlike the effects of tobacco.
3. Cocaine is currently a Schedule II drug under the Controlled Substances Act. Tobacco is not.

Therefore: Your analogy is completely stupid and a perfect example of how people will gladly exagerrate and lie just to justify your puritannical anti-tobacco morality.

Chicago 'Crack Lounge' Infuriates
Anti-crack Groups

(CNSNews.com) - As anti-crack groups press states to enact "crack-free" bars and restaurants, it appears the crack industry has found a way around some of those laws. In Chicago, The Pablo Escobar Crack Co. has opened a crack "lounge," a bar that is technically a crack retail shop because at least 65 percent of its sales come from crack products, the Washington Post reported. Anti-crack groups are furious.

Note: Why can't crack smokers just be allowed one little place in which to smoke? I fail to see why not. Your thoughts?
I wonder (honestly) could this be concidered a strawman? I would think so

I wonder (honestly) could this be concidered a strawman? I would think so

I'm not sure. But it's a slippery slope argument, and if we're gonna play that game:

Hitler tried to ban smoking, just before invading Poland, starting WWII and gassing millions of Jews!

I'm not sure. But it's a slippery slope argument, and if we're gonna play that game:

Hitler tried to ban smoking, just before invading Poland, starting WWII and gassing millions of Jews!
mmm...revel in its godwinny goodness

Does that mean banning smoking is evil? No. Now, I absolutely, utterly, and completely HATE Nazis and Hitler (the rascist scum...), but banning smoking is a GOOd thing.

Does that mean banning smoking is evil? No. Now, I absolutely, utterly, and completely HATE Nazis and Hitler (the rascist scum...), but banning smoking is a GOOd thing.
I dont see how letting the goverment take on more of a "father knows best" role while restricting individual freedoms can be a good thing

Does that mean banning smoking is evil? No. Now, I absolutely, utterly, and completely HATE Nazis and Hitler (the rascist scum...), but banning smoking is a GOOd thing.

If crack can be reasonably equated with tobacco, banning smoking can be reasonably equated with Nazism.

You don't want to be a Nazi, do you? ;)

I dont see how letting the goverment take on more of a "father knows best" role while restricting individual freedoms can be a good thing

If that's wrong, then OH! It absolutely MUST be wrong to not allow murder! That's restricting freedom! [/sarcasm]

Freedom should only go so far. It shouldn't go there.

If crack can be reasonably equated with tobacco, banning smoking can be reasonably equated with Nazism.

You don't want to be a Nazi, do you?

No, it cannot. Nazism is rascism. Banning smoking is helping the population.

If that's wrong, then OH! It absolutely MUST be wrong to not allow murder! That's restricting freedom! [/sarcasm]

Freedom should only go so far. It shouldn't go there.



No, it cannot. Nazism is rascism. Banning smoking is helping the population.
individual freedoms end when you take someone elses. Your murder analogy falls in here.

If that's wrong, then OH! It absolutely MUST be wrong to not allow murder! That's restricting freedom! [/sarcasm]

Freedom should only go so far. It shouldn't go there.
snip
Strawman ... an old worn out one at that one.

Its pretty simple

Your rights end where someone elses start. Murder is trespassing on others rights to life liberty and persuit of happyness

No, it cannot. Nazism is rascism. Banning smoking is helping the population.

Nazism is a lot more than racism, my reading-challenged friend. Now read the first part of the statement you disagreed with again.

individual freedoms end when you take someone elses. Your murder analogy falls in here.
Ehhh it sure is a common straw man is it not

Ehhh it sure is a common straw man is it not
I almost feel like they need a law like Godwins for it.

I almost feel like they need a law like Godwins for it.
Yeah there are a few that need to have laws

Such as the first time pedophilia is compared to homosexuality.

Still, I see no positive effects from smoking other than a short-time high (NOTE: I have not smoked, but I've been told this by smokers.)

Still, I see no positive effects from smoking other than a short-time high (NOTE: I have not smoked, but I've been told this by smokers.)
yeah, there is no real positive effects that would outweigh the negative. However, the cigarette smoke is no worse than the fumes from cars, trains, boats, planes, factories, power plants, etc.

wOOt! Go big Tobacco!

Well, still, every little bit helps.

But we could just use hydrogen instead of gasoline and stuff for the other things...

yeah, there is no real positive effects that would outweigh the negative. However, the cigarette smoke is no worse than the fumes from cars, trains, boats, planes, factories, power plants, etc.
Except that you don't usually stick your mouth to your car's exhaust and draw in long breaths, savouring it.

And that your car's fumes aren't spiced with dozens of addictive ingredients.

So anti-smoking activists are wanting to ban smoking in an establishment solely devoted to smoking? I'm not sure that guy smoking the stogey is going to be worried about second-hand smoke.

Except that you don't usually stick your mouth to your car's exhaust and draw in long breaths, savouring it.


No, you only do that if you want to commit suicide.

Instead the cars, and there are millions more of them producing millions of tonnes more of exhaust than all the smokers in the world combined, produce toxic air pollution which contributes directly to global warming and which is totally unavoidable unless you wear a gas mask every day.

Much better!

And that your car's fumes aren't spiced with dozens of addictive ingredients.

Why would it need to be addicting... when driving itself is addictive and much, much more common?

Besides, not all tobacco products come with dozens of addictive ingredients.

Except that you don't usually stick your mouth to your car's exhaust and draw in long breaths, savouring it.

And that your car's fumes aren't spiced with dozens of addictive ingredients.
So the only difference is how much it is mixed with "clean" air, and how much you enjoy it? I have a cigarette. It takes me 5-7 minutes to finish. A campfire burns the same basic things, but over the course of many hours and in a much larger mass. A car burns a full gallon of gas every 20 miles or so. multiply by how many cars are in your area...starting to get the picture of how insignificant cigarettes are to second hand health?
And who cares that it isn't addictive? I've never met someone addicted to second hand smoke.

But you've met ones addicted to tobbaco, haven't you? Besides, it ruins health, and that's bad. Period. Cancer, lung disease, heart disease... endless. No matter how insignificant it is, it is still there, and thus should be removed as it is against good health.

No, you only do that if you want to commit suicide.

Instead the cars, and there are millions more of them producing millions of tonnes more of exhaust than all the smokers in the world combined, produce toxic air pollution which contributes directly to global warming and which is totally unavoidable unless you wear a gas mask every day.

Much better!

I take the bus or walk.


Why would it need to be addicting... when driving itself is addictive and much, much more common?

Besides, not all tobacco products come with dozens of addictive ingredients.
Not all tobacco products? Cigarettes certainly do. Don't tell me you haven't heard of all the scandals about the tobacco industry willingly adding addictive chemicals to their cigs. If cigarette wasn't addictive, who the fuck would be dumb enough to spend several dozen dollars a week on something that kills them slowly, for no benefit or advantage whatsoever?

But you've met ones addicted to tobbaco, haven't you? Besides, it ruins health, and that's bad. Period. Cancer, lung disease, heart disease... endless. No matter how insignificant it is, it is still there, and thus should be removed as it is against good health.
Again, so is McDonalds. It isn't the governments right to say I can't poison my own lungs if I so choose. I know the consequences, and accept them every time I light up.

I take the bus or walk.
Thats nice. Not everyone does.

Not all tobacco products? Cigarettes certainly do. Don't tell me you haven't heard of all the scandals about the tobacco industry willingly adding addictive chemicals to their cigs. If cigarette wasn't addictive, who the fuck would be dumb enough to spend several dozen dollars a week on something that kills them slowly, for no benefit or advantage whatsoever?
Cigarettes aren't the only tobacco product. And not all are factory made. There are, off the top of my head, cigars, cigarillos, cigarettes, pipe tobacco. Most of these are prized for the purity of their tobacco.

Cigarettes aren't the only tobacco product. And not all are factory made. There are, off the top of my head, cigars, cigarillos, cigarettes, pipe tobacco. Most of these are prized for the purity of their tobacco.
If it can be proven that they don't contain any addictives, then I don't mind their being legal, as long as the users consumes them in the privacy of his home. Kinda like alcohol or pot. *shrugs* I mainly support the smoking bans to protect non-smokers from second-hand smoke in public buildings, and because the cigarette industry should cease to exist. A business making billions out of slowly killing people while the state pays for their medical care doesn't deserve to be legal.

Chicago 'Tobacco Lounge' Infuriates
Anti-Smoking Groups

(CNSNews.com) - As anti-tobacco groups press states to enact "smoke-free" bars and restaurants, it appears the tobacco industry has found a way around some of those laws. In Chicago, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. has opened a tobacco "lounge," a bar that is technically a tobacco retail shop because at least 65 percent of its sales come from tobacco products, the Washington Post reported. Anti-tobacco groups are furious.

Note: Why can't smokers just be allowed one little place in which to smoke? I fail to see why not. Your thoughts?

Hey, if smokers want to gather and kill themselves off faster, without harming others, I'd be fine for that... I'm just against them smoking in places where non-smokers are.

Unfortunately, you failed to realize a few things.

1. Crack cocaine is so addictive most if not all addicts will resort to crime, even violent crime, to get more if they have no other option.
And nicotine isn't addictive? Sorry but I've yet to see crack addicts or junkies need to shoot up 30-40 times a day, unlike some nicotine addicts. I have to put up with and walk thru ppl standing around in front of the ferry pier puffing furiously on cigarettes before they board the (smoke-free) ferry for a 20 minute ride into town. Then I have to put up with and wade thru the same ppl immediately lighting up as soon as they get off the ferry (some literally have the ciggie in their mouth and lighter in their hand as they're waiting for the doors to open).
Something that a person can't last 20 minutes without is pretty bloody addictive, if you ask me.

2. Crack cocaine is a powerful psychoactive. It alters the mentality of its users in a way totally unlike the effects of tobacco.
As opposed to nicotine, which just gives you cancer.

3. Cocaine is currently a Schedule II drug under the Controlled Substances Act. Tobacco is not.In other words, the only major difference is that nicotine is a legal extremely addictive drug and cocaine isn't.

Therefore: Your analogy is completely stupid and a perfect example of how people will gladly exagerrate and lie just to justify your puritannical anti-tobacco morality.
So I think the analogy is a pretty sound hyperbole.
Though mainly it was aimed at Eutrusca's parting comment, about why can't smokers have their own place.

And nicotine isn't addictive? Sorry but I've yet to see crack addicts or junkies need to shoot up 30-40 times a day, unlike some nicotine addicts. I have to put up with and walk thru ppl standing around in front of the ferry pier puffing furiously on cigarettes before they board the (smoke-free) ferry for a 20 minute ride into town. Then if I have to put up with and wade thru the same ppl immediately lighting up as soon as they get off the ferry (some literally have the ciggie in their mouth and lighter in their hand as they're waiting for the doors to open).
If something that a person can't last 20 minutes without is pretty bloody addictive, if you ask me.

As opposed to nicotine, which just gives you cancer.
In other words, the only major difference is that nicotine is a legal extremely addictive drug and cocaine isn't.


So I think the analogy is a pretty sound hyperbole.
Though mainly it was aimed at Eutrusca's parting comment, about why can't smokers have their own place.
yes, nicotine is addictive. And when you can show me one time that someone has been killed over a cigarette, or the last time someone lost their house and/or family because of their smoking habit, then the crack reference will stand. There is a huge difference between the two.
Oh, and they could go without another cigarette. They choose not to. I can go days, weeks, or months without one when I want to. Other days I say "fuck it" and light up.

Tar in cigarettes gives you cancer, Not so much nicotine. Cocaine also creates holes in your brain. The comparison is like that of a childrens tylenol to a percocet.

People should not smoke. End of story. The government should do everything in its powers to discourage it.

I think the same thing could be said for people should not whine. I'd be more in favor of a ban on whining and I would encourage the government to do everything in its power to discourage it.

I think the same thing could be said for people should not whine. I'd be more in favor of a ban on whining and I would encourage the government to do everything in its power to discourage it.
Whining doesn't give cancer. Neither is it addictive. Neither does it give a handful of individual billions of dollar each year while slowly killing the clients of it's business.

Whining doesn't give cancer. Neither is it addictive. Neither does it give a handful of individual billions of dollar each year while slowly killing the clients of it's business.

Cancer? No. Addictive? Questionable. It is a quality of life issue though. I think people would enjoy life much more if they didn't whine about things and actually confronted the issues that were bothering them. Barring the willingness to confront issues, at least accept that they really don't want to do anything about it and get on with what they do consider worth doing. Quality of life is more important than length of life, IMO at least.

If it were proven that people could live to 100 if they ate nothing but twigs and berries, some people would be all for it. Some people would even seek to make it mandatory. Other people would just say "If you expect me to eat nothing but twigs and berries for the rest of my life, you might as well kill me now."

Whining doesn't give cancer. Neither is it addictive. Neither does it give a handful of individual billions of dollar each year while slowly killing the clients of it's business.
Yeah heaven forbid people have the ability to do something that might be bad for them

Yeah heaven forbid people have the ability to do something that might be bad for them
Heh, my state is usually qualified as "Father knows best state" for a reason.

Dang, I can't wait to get a political freedom issue to get rid of that damn innofensive centrist democracy label.

But you've met ones addicted to tobbaco, haven't you? Besides, it ruins health, and that's bad. Period. Cancer, lung disease, heart disease... endless. No matter how insignificant it is, it is still there, and thus should be removed as it is against good health.

Just think of it as Natural selection. The world is already getting overpopulated...we don't need people to get longer life spans. Besides...do you really want all these smokers who have quit and are now really uptight and pissed off and stressed out because they can't have a cigarette? Remember...stress causes health problems too.

Hey, if there are tobbaco lounges, that's fine. That's a good idea, actually, as long as they prevent the toxins released in second hand smoke from contaminating other establishments (just because you can't smell it, doesn't mean it isn't there).

However, smoking in public places, where the rest of us have to breathe in your toxins, is unnacceptable. If you aren't allowed to bring a gun into public and start killing people at random, why should you be allowed to bring a cancer-stick into public and kill them with it?

But if you wanna kill yourself in the privacy of a smokng lounge: go right ahead.

Hey, if there are tobbaco lounges, that's fine. That's a good idea, actually, as long as they prevent the toxins released in second hand smoke from contaminating other establishments (just because you can't smell it, doesn't mean it isn't there).

However, smoking in public places, where the rest of us have to breathe in your toxins, is unnacceptable. If you aren't allowed to bring a gun into public and start killing people at random, why should you be allowed to bring a cancer-stick into public and kill them with it?

But if you wanna kill yourself in the privacy of a smokng lounge: go right ahead.
Agreed ... along with any other clearly posted private establishments.

Personally I will just frequent other places unless there is something really intresting going on.

But thats how I will effect their pollicies ... with my wallet

Hey, if there are tobbaco lounges, that's fine. That's a good idea, actually, as long as they prevent the toxins released in second hand smoke from contaminating other establishments (just because you can't smell it, doesn't mean it isn't there).

However, smoking in public places, where the rest of us have to breathe in your toxins, is unnacceptable. If you aren't allowed to bring a gun into public and start killing people at random, why should you be allowed to bring a cancer-stick into public and kill them with it?

But if you wanna kill yourself in the privacy of a smokng lounge: go right ahead.
ironically, me and my friends wanted to market a brand of cigarettes called "Cancer Sticks". They would come in a black box with a silver skull and crossbones on it. We wanted to work in a way to give people orgasms too, but decided that should be a different brand.

ironically, me and my friends wanted to market a brand of cigarettes called "Cancer Sticks". They would come in a black box with a silver skull and crossbones on it. We wanted to work in a way to give people orgasms too, but decided that should be a different brand.
Listen to denis leary much? lol

Listen to denis leary much? lol
perhaps one of my friends does...I havent heard that one.

Now I'm all sad...I thought we had a good original product:(

perhaps one of my friends does...I havent heard that one.

Now I'm all sad...I thought we had a good original product:(
Just looked it up

He does not call them cancer sticks ... but simmilar rant

"as a matter of fact you could call them warnings " Edit: and "toumers" lol (it has the skull and crossbones on the cover though lol)

There's a guy- I don't know if you've heard about this guy, he's been on the news a lot lately. There's a guy- he's English, I don't think we should hold that against him, but apparently this is just his life's dream because he is going from country to country. He has a senate hearing in this country coming up in a couple of weeks. And this is what he wants to do. He wants to make the warnings on the packs bigger. Yeah! He wants the whole front of the pack to be the warning. Like the problem is we just haven't noticed yet. Right? Like he's going to get his way and all of the sudden smokers around the world are going to be going, "Yeah, Bill, I've got some cigarettes.. HOLY SHIT! These things are bad for you! Shit, I thought they were good for you! I thought they had Vitamin C in them and stuff!" You fucking dolt! Doesn't matter how big the warnings are. You could have cigarettes that were called the warnings. You could have cigarrets that come in a black pack, with a skull and a cross bone on the front, called tumors and smokers would be lined up around the block going, "I can't wait to get my hands on these fucking things! I bet you get a tumor as soon as you light up! Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm" Doesn't matter how big the warnings are or how much they cost. Keep raising the prices, we'll break into your houses to get the fucking cigarettes, ok!?

Just looked it up

He does not call them cancer sticks ... but simmilar rant

"as a matter of fact you could call them warnings "
huh...wonder how I never heard that sketch by him...

*sigh*...back to the drawing boards. Maybe I can do something with that orgasm thing.

huh...wonder how I never heard that sketch by him...

*sigh*...back to the drawing boards. Maybe I can do something with that orgasm thing.
Lol I am amazed me or someone else has not brought him up more in this sort of debate lol

Leave the decision to the business. If they wish to allow smoking, allow. If not, don't.

Non-smokers should not have the right to choose whether a business allows smoking or not.

Leave the decision to the business. If they wish to allow smoking, allow. If not, don't.

Non-smokers should not have the right to choose whether a business allows smoking or not.
Agreed that is up to the owner

Agreed that is up to the owner
I forget which chain, but one hotel just banned smoking in all its rooms. They discovered that even most smokers don't want to walk into a smoky room. They are still allowed to smoke in outdoor areas and some designated rooms.

Also, cruise ships have smoking areas, but have put the money into excellent ventilation. I wonder why other places couldnt do the same...

And nicotine isn't addictive? Sorry but I've yet to see crack addicts or junkies need to shoot up 30-40 times a day, unlike some nicotine addicts.

1. A cigarette smoker can quit cold turkey with only psychological discomfort as a result.
2. Crack addicts go through physical withdrawal.
3. Number of times one uses the drug has to do with the effects of the drug and their duration, not how addictive it is. Crack is far, far more powerful than nicotine and thus one doesnt need to do it as often to achieve the desired effect.
4. Chocolate is addictive, so is shopping, going online, working and sex. Addiction is overrated and overplayed. I call crack and smack "real" addictions, and chocolate and smoking "bullshit" addictions.

I have to put up with and walk thru ppl standing around in front of the ferry pier puffing furiously on cigarettes before they board the (smoke-free) ferry for a 20 minute ride into town. Then I have to put up with and wade thru the same ppl immediately lighting up as soon as they get off the ferry (some literally have the ciggie in their mouth and lighter in their hand as they're waiting for the doors to open).

Where's my violin? No seriously. This is the time for a sad, sad song.


Something that a person can't last 20 minutes without is pretty bloody addictive, if you ask me.

Who says they "can't" last 20 minutes without? Because they choose to do it? Believe me, they can. On the other hand, physical withdrawal from a real addiction - like heroine - can KILL you. Now THAT is addiction. What happens if a smoker doesn't get a smoke every 20 minutes? Uh... angst? Maybe a headache? Oh wow.

If people like you didn't keep overplaying how "addictive" it is, smokers and other "addicts" would feel less like "victims" and be able to control themselves more. But no, everyone's a fucking victim unable to control themselves, thanks to the handy excuse of "addiction." I can't control myself, I HAVE to eat chocolate, I'm a victimized addict!!!omg!


As opposed to nicotine, which just gives you cancer.

Pretty much everything causes cancer. And cancer's causes are not all known anyway. Have you been exposed to sunlight today? Because that causes cancer. Also, the air pollution from automobiles causes cancer. Not like you can just walk around a car and avoid it, either - it's everywhere. But you don't seem to mind that, do you?

In other words, the only major difference is that nicotine is a legal extremely addictive drug and cocaine isn't.

Cocaine is an addictive drug. Nicotine is bullshit. If you think those are the ONLY major differences, you're speaking from total ignorance and/or deliberately ignoring what I've written.


Though mainly it was aimed at Eutrusca's parting comment, about why can't smokers have their own place.

Well, now that I think about it, it'd be better to have crack addicts in one place where everyone would know about it and could monitor them. That way, less people are at home getting fucked up while the baby starves to death. Just give the baby up for adoption and go to the crack bar!

Not a bad idea, in all seriousness.

Better than just waving the magic "make it illegal and it goes away" wand and hoping for the best.

I take the bus or walk.


That's nice. Do you walk in, or near, a city, or highway, or road?

Not all tobacco products? Cigarettes certainly do.

Not every single brand. Not rolling your own. Not pipes or cigars.

If cigarette wasn't addictive, who the fuck would be dumb enough to spend several dozen dollars a week on something that kills them slowly, for no benefit or advantage whatsoever?

Why are you typing this? It doesnt get you any benefit or advantage. You do it because you like it - but do you know studies that show staring at a computer screen is bad for your health? Yeah, it kills you slowly. Also, your use of the word "fuck" indicates stress. Stress contributes to heart disease. Why are you killing yourself? Also, being as close to a glowing computer screen as you are - that may cause cancer. You're killing yourself slowly for no benefit or advantage! Everything you do is addictive!

Face it. We're humans, and not everything you do is for some clear competitive advantage. Some things we do for enjoyment. Shock horror!

And just because you say it's "killing them" doesn't mean they'll automatically die of it. This is really an example of the propaganda getting to everyone. Everyone, particularly nonsmokers but plenty of smokers, seems to believe smoking = cancer. Why don't they make the association with any of the other things that are suspected to contribute to cancer? No one ever describes suntanning as "killing yourself slowly." or breathing the normal, polluted air. Why not, hmm?

I forget which chain, but one hotel just banned smoking in all its rooms. They discovered that even most smokers don't want to walk into a smoky room. They are still allowed to smoke in outdoor areas and some designated rooms.

Also, cruise ships have smoking areas, but have put the money into excellent ventilation. I wonder why other places couldnt do the same...
Agreed ... I mean if the hotel found that on their property having smoking rooms do not pay off they have every right to disallow it in their rooms.

A nursing room I used to work for had a smoking room as well ... some awsome ventalation and clensers and it provides a safe WARM envyronment (rather then letting a 90 year old man wander outside to smoke in january in minnesota when it is anywhere from 50 to -40 F

Think sitting next to a smoker is anoying ... how do you think they feel having to be out in that (not to mention I bet it is hard to light up with the winter gusts we get)

That's nice. Do you walk in, or near, a city, or highway, or road?



Not every single brand. Not rolling your own. Not pipes or cigars.



Why are you typing this? It doesnt get you any benefit or advantage. You do it because you like it - but do you know studies that show staring at a computer screen is bad for your health? Yeah, it kills you slowly. Also, your use of the word "fuck" indicates stress. Stress contributes to heart disease. Why are you killing yourself? Also, being as close to a glowing computer screen as you are - that may cause cancer. You're killing yourself slowly for no benefit or advantage! Everything you do is addictive!

Face it. We're humans, and not everything you do is for some clear competitive advantage. Some things we do for enjoyment. Shock horror!

And just because you say it's "killing them" doesn't mean they'll automatically die of it. This is really an example of the propaganda getting to everyone. Everyone, particularly nonsmokers but plenty of smokers, seems to believe smoking = cancer. Why don't they make the association with any of the other things that are suspected to contribute to cancer? No one ever describes suntanning as "killing yourself slowly." or breathing the normal, polluted air. Why not, hmm?


Well to be fair aound here some do reffer to suntanning as such

And just because you say it's "killing them" doesn't mean they'll automatically die of it. This is really an example of the propaganda getting to everyone. Everyone, particularly nonsmokers but plenty of smokers, seems to believe smoking = cancer. Why don't they make the association with any of the other things that are suspected to contribute to cancer? No one ever describes suntanning as "killing yourself slowly." or breathing the normal, polluted air. Why not, hmm?
This is a big issue I have. A)I could be hit by a truck tomorrow. Unless it was because I stopped to light my cigarette, my smoking did nothing.
and B) Anyone who gets a cateract, who gets a certain lung cancer, etc. and smoked has the reasoning attributed to the smoking. Yes, smoking increases the risk, but there is still a natural number of people, both smokers and non, who will get this no matter what they do

Agreed ... I mean if the hotel found that on their property having smoking rooms do not pay off they have every right to disallow it in their rooms.

A nursing room I used to work for had a smoking room as well ... some awsome ventalation and clensers and it provides a safe WARM envyronment (rather then letting a 90 year old man wander outside to smoke in january in minnesota when it is anywhere from 50 to -40 F

Think sitting next to a smoker is anoying ... how do you think they feel having to be out in that (not to mention I bet it is hard to light up with the winter gusts we get)I'm up in Boston...windyest city in the US, and damn cold. It is miserable.

What impressed me on the cruise was that I was standing maybe 10 feet away from a cigar bar, where I could clearly see people smoking (and it was the same room, just partitioned into a bar area and the stairway landing) and I couldn't even get the slightest whiff of cigar. Additionally, no loud fan noises from the vents

I'm up in Boston...windyest city in the US, and damn cold. It is miserable.

What impressed me on the cruise was that I was standing maybe 10 feet away from a cigar bar, where I could clearly see people smoking (and it was the same room, just partitioned into a bar area and the stairway landing) and I couldn't even get the slightest whiff of cigar. Additionally, no loud fan noises from the vents
Reminds me of some of the crazy bathroom vents a friends parents put in their new house ... must have the fans on the out side

I mean I was sitting in a bathroom alone in the house DEAD silent

I could NOT hear the fan at ALL but it still would suck a piece of paper right to the celing vent

I was amazed (its hard to discribe how frigging quiet it was)

Reminds me of some of the crazy bathroom vents a friends parents put in their new house ... must have the fans on the out side

I mean I was sitting in a bathroom alone in the house DEAD silent

I could NOT hear the fan at ALL but it still would suck a piece of paper right to the celing vent

I was amazed (its hard to discribe how frigging quiet it was)
haha...I just got an image of someone throwing pieces of toilet paper into the air and watching them get sucked up, giggling, pulling it back down, and doing it again

anyway, its perfect proof that there is a way to have it both ways...but it would cost a little. At the same time, a business that could cater to smokers without the smell of smoke would cash in pretty well

This is a big issue I have. A)I could be hit by a truck tomorrow. Unless it was because I stopped to light my cigarette, my smoking did nothing.
and B) Anyone who gets a cateract, who gets a certain lung cancer, etc. and smoked has the reasoning attributed to the smoking. Yes, smoking increases the risk, but there is still a natural number of people, both smokers and non, who will get this no matter what they do

For me, I have major issues with the whole Health Obsession culture. Health is a good thing, but it should be taken in moderation. There's a point where people are running around, afraid of *everything* because there are studies that show *everything* causes [insert horrible death here]. The fervent health nuts, vegetarian crusaders and anti-smoking crowd really strike me as having some kind of collective hypochondria.

Well to be fair aound here some do reffer to suntanning as such

Yeah, but they'll still get a hardon looking at a gal with a nice tan walking around in a bikini. :p

haha...I just got an image of someone throwing pieces of toilet paper into the air and watching them get sucked up, giggling, pulling it back down, and doing it again

anyway, its perfect proof that there is a way to have it both ways...but it would cost a little. At the same time, a business that could cater to smokers without the smell of smoke would cash in pretty well
I bet they would specialy sence the system my friends have has a built in heat exchanger. Makes it cheep relitivly for this sort of area. (something like that on larger scale)

For me, I have major issues with the whole Health Obsession culture. Health is a good thing, but it should be taken in moderation. There's a point where people are running around, afraid of *everything* because there are studies that show *everything* causes [insert horrible death here]. The fervent health nuts, vegetarian crusaders and anti-smoking crowd really strike me as having some kind of collective hypochondria.



Yeah, but they'll still get a hardon looking at a gal with a nice tan walking around in a bikini. :p
For the most part :) though too dark of an obvous forced tan is actualy kind of a turnoff for me.

Something about the skin tone does not look like real sun when they get too far from their natural color

(though I dont mind white elfin beauties either)

For the most part :) though too dark of an obvous forced tan is actualy kind of a turnoff for me.

Something about the skin tone does not look like real sun when they get too far from their natural color

(though I dont mind white elfin beauties either)
you mean orange isn't a turn on?


How could you say no to this sexy beast?
http://thex.testing.chilitech.net/Portals/2/X-Team/Nipsey%20Earl%20and%20Jen/oompa%20loompa.JPG

Get off our backs. Smoking bars are a buisness. Non-smokers don't own the world, they share it with the smokers. We just want a place of our own to go smoke, and chill with people in a friendly enviornment. Why should we only be able to do it at home? Do any smokers advocate non-smokers having to stay home all day, or be a smoker? Obviously not a great comparison, but still. We want the liberty to do something we enjoy, that doesn't hurt others that don't choose to be involved in it(hence, smoking bars). Why can't you let us have our personal freedoms?

you mean orange isn't a turn on?


How could you say no to this sexy beast?
http://thex.testing.chilitech.net/Portals/2/X-Team/Nipsey%20Earl%20and%20Jen/oompa%20loompa.JPG
Lol yeah the spray on stuff lol

Sometimes just hardcore taning makes the skin look rough as well ... I dont know I can just tell when it has been pushed too far for the person

Get off our backs. Smoking bars are a buisness. Non-smokers don't own the world, they share it with the smokers. We just want a place of our own to go smoke, and chill with people in a friendly enviornment. Why should we only be able to do it at home? Do any smokers advocate non-smokers having to stay home all day, or be a smoker? Obviously not a great comparison, but still. We want the liberty to do something we enjoy, that doesn't hurt others that don't choose to be involved in it(hence, smoking bars). Why can't you let us have our personal freedoms?
Lol well I am a non (as in never was) smoker that has been fighting the entire thread for personal freedoms :)

Lol well I am a non (as in never was) smoker that has been fighting the entire thread for personal freedoms :)
yeah, I'm a smoker who is trying to quit (I swear Eut, I am. I will make good on my promise), yet still argue that it should be allowed, which would really just make my quitting harder.

yeah, I'm a smoker who is trying to quit (I swear Eut, I am. I will make good on my promise), yet still argue that it should be allowed, which would really just make my quitting harder.
Yeah there are a lot of things that I would like to change about myself ... and would be easier if it were not legal

But we relize we should not make laws that restrict freedoms just to motivate change for ourselfs

And just because you say it's "killing them" doesn't mean they'll automatically die of it. This is really an example of the propaganda getting to everyone. Everyone, particularly nonsmokers but plenty of smokers, seems to believe smoking = cancer. Why don't they make the association with any of the other things that are suspected to contribute to cancer? No one ever describes suntanning as "killing yourself slowly." or breathing the normal, polluted air. Why not, hmm?
Umm, actually they pretty much do say that about tanning. Most tanning booth places carry warnings that tanning can cause melanoma. In NZ every summer there's a nationwide advertising push on TV, radio and paper warning ppl not to spend too much time in the sun and to get any moles checked out.
Likewise breathing polluted air. Every day here in HK, they have pollution index and will warn against spending too much time outdoors if it's too high.
Kinda destroys your argument, don't it?
Anyway, that's an apples and oranges thing you're doing there. I can't help but be exposed to sunlight if I work outdoors. I can't help be exposed to polluted air if I live in a city. BUT no-one is making me smoke. That's my choice. Yet so doing makes everyone around me suffer.

And gee, you say And just because you say it's "killing them" doesn't mean they'll automatically die of it. This is really an example of the propaganda getting to everyone. Everyone, particularly nonsmokers but plenty of smokers, seems to believe smoking = cancer.
Well let's look at the stats:

Smoking causes at least 80% of all deaths from lung cancer, around 80% of all deaths from bronchitis and emphysema and around 17% of all deaths from heart disease.

Thirty per cent of all cancer deaths can be attributed to smoking. Cancers other than lung cancer which are linked to smoking include: Cervical cancer, cancers of the mouth, lip and throat, cancer of the pancreas, bladder cancer, cancer of the kidney, stomach cancer, liver cancer, leukaemia.

Smokers who smoke between 1 and 14 cigarettes a day have eight times the risk of dying from lung cancer compared to non-smokers. Smokers who smoke more than 25 cigarettes a day have 25 times this risk compared to non-smokers.
etc etc etc


I suppose next you'll tell us about your great grand uncle who smoked 60 cigarettes a day and lived til he was 90.
Speaking of which, my dad's father lived til he was 84 and smoked heavily all his life. Still managed to that age! Great innings etc etc. Proving all those anti-smoking nuts wrong, eh?
Except the last 10 years of his life he was bed-ridden, breathing thru a tube cause they'd cut one lung out and part of the other one. Great way to spend the remaining few years of your life.
My other granddad (mum's father) didn't smoke, lived til he was 93 and had a 1/2 acre vege garden he was still tending (and which supplied him with most of his vegetables) when he had a stroke.
Which end-of-life would you prefer to live? I know which one I'd choose.

Yeah there are a lot of things that I would like to change about myself ... and would be easier if it were not legal

But we relize we should not make laws that restrict freedoms just to motivate change for ourselfs
exactly. I made a promise to Eut and Zooke, and I fully intend to keep that promise. Yeah, if they made smoking illegal tomorrow, it would be much easier. But it also wouldn't be rewarding, and I wouldn't consider it fulfilling my promises.

I'm a big boy. I've made my choices. Maybe I don't like those choices much now, but I stand by them. Its called maturity and self respect. I don't need no steenking laws to tell me I'm an idiot:p

Umm, actually they pretty much do say that about tanning. Most tanning booth places carry warnings that tanning can cause melanoma. In NZ every summer there's a nationwide advertising push on TV, radio and paper warning ppl not to spend too much time in the sun and to get any moles checked out.
Likewise breathing polluted air. Every day here in HK, they have pollution index and will warn against spending too much time outdoors if it's too high.
Kinda destroys your argument, don't it?
Anyway, that's an apples and oranges thing you're doing there. I can't help but be exposed to sunlight if I work outdoors. I can't help be exposed to polluted air if I live in a city. BUT no-one is making me smoke. That's my choice. Yet so doing makes everyone around me suffer. you have the choice not to drive too, but the pollution it creates does impact you. Its the same. They could drive a hybrid and rapidly drop emissions.

And gee, you say
Well let's look at the stats:

Smoking causes at least 80% of all deaths from lung cancer, around 80% of all deaths from bronchitis and emphysema and around 17% of all deaths from heart disease.

Thirty per cent of all cancer deaths can be attributed to smoking. Cancers other than lung cancer which are linked to smoking include: Cervical cancer, cancers of the mouth, lip and throat, cancer of the pancreas, bladder cancer, cancer of the kidney, stomach cancer, liver cancer, leukaemia.

Smokers who smoke between 1 and 14 cigarettes a day have eight times the risk of dying from lung cancer compared to non-smokers. Smokers who smoke more than 25 cigarettes a day have 25 times this risk compared to non-smokers.
etc etc etc
these stats are flawed in the same way all stats are. Someone could smoke and never get cancer. Another person could never be exposed to any smoke and get cancer. This isn't accounted for. If someone smoked and got lung cancer, it is recorded as being caused by the smoking

I suppose next you'll tell us about your great grand uncle who smoked 60 cigarettes a day and lived til he was 90.
Speaking of which, my dad's father lived til he was 84 and smoked heavily all his life. Still managed to that age! Great innings etc etc. Proving all those anti-smoking nuts wrong, eh?
Except the last 10 years of his life he was bed-ridden, breathing thru a tube cause they'd cut one lung out and part of the other one. Great way to spend the remaining few years of your life.
My other granddad (mum's father) didn't smoke, lived til he was 93 and had a 1/2 acre vege garden he was still tending (and which supplied him with most of his vegetables) when he had a stroke.
Which end-of-life would you prefer to live? I know which one I'd choose.I'm not going to get into the emotional arguments because there is no good that can come out of them.

you have the choice not to drive too, but the pollution it creates does impact you. Its the same. They could drive a hybrid and rapidly drop emissions.


these stats are flawed in the same way all stats are. Someone could smoke and never get cancer. Another person could never be exposed to any smoke and get cancer. This isn't accounted for. If someone smoked and got lung cancer, it is recorded as being caused by the smoking

snip
To be fair legaly in the united states studies that get official goverment seal have to take that variation into account and report as such

Unlike a few of the reports from brittan pulled up in the total smoking band thread

The "deaths" in thoes were 100 percent of the deaths of any of the known conditions that smoking causes SOMETIMES

THOES are flawed studies

Anyways I would LOVE to get my hands on the raw data ... I have mini tab and SAS here so I would love to dig in and see

Too bad almost no studies come with so much as a complete ANOVA tables much less a more intence stats breakdown

To be fair legaly in the united states studies that get official goverment seal have to take that variation into account and report as such

Unlike a few of the reports from brittan pulled up in the total smoking band thread

The "deaths" in thoes were 100 percent of the deaths of any of the known conditions that smoking causes SOMETIMES

THOES are flawed studies

Anyways I would LOVE to get my hands on the raw data ... I have mini tab and SAS here so I would love to dig in and see

Too bad almost no studies come with so much as a complete ANOVA tables much less a more intence stats breakdowntrue, and I did mess up...the part where he said 1-14 cigs a day is 8x more likely to die from cancer is accurate.

My issue isn't with the people taking the stats, but the people who use them without the knowledge of how stats work (read: The news and most of the general population)

Anti smoking laws have recently been passed here in the UK and it will soon be illegal to smoke in public buildings. This will include bars, restaurants, waiting rooms etc. On one side, as a heavy smoker I am disgusted that the government would interfere with my life to such an extent. On the other side, it is probably one of the ways that I will ever quit smoking.
same thing happened in italt a while ago.
most people is happy about it, smokers included. the law allows for indoor smoking if the owner makes up a special smoking room, which must be isolated from the rest of the place and must have forced ventilation. heavy investement but apparently high returni rate since smokers do exist.
this arrangement suits me fine (i'm an ex heavy smoker). let the addicts have their place in the world as long as they don't bother me.

Anti smoking laws have recently been passed here in the UK and it will soon be illegal to smoke in public buildings. This will include bars, restaurants, waiting rooms etc. On one side, as a heavy smoker I am disgusted that the government would interfere with my life to such an extent. On the other side, it is probably one of the ways that I will ever quit smoking.

I'm disgusted that otherwise intelligent people have such idiotic lapses in judgement as to ever start smoking. It really makes my faith in humanity falter. Oh well. I suppose it's great fun to kill yourself at the taxpayer's expense.

Where I live, these kinds of laws have been in effect for about a decade or so. I can't even remember if there was a big hubbub about it. Stop whining.

Oh, and now for the less mean-spirited and nasty side of me. Good luck quitting. If you succeed, I think you'll feel a lot better.

true, and I did mess up...the part where he said 1-14 cigs a day is 8x more likely to die from cancer is accurate.

My issue isn't with the people taking the stats, but the people who use them without the knowledge of how stats work (read: The news and most of the general population)
Think that bothers YOU lol
I got a minor (class short of a major) in stats (technicaly computer networking is a "statistics major" so the stat load is almost as much as a real stats degree)

And when you get your masters ya had to take even more lol

same thing happened in italt a while ago.
most people is happy about it, smokers included. the law allows for indoor smoking if the owner makes up a special smoking room, which must be isolated from the rest of the place and must have forced ventilation. heavy investement but apparently high returni rate since smokers do exist.
this arrangement suits me fine (i'm an ex heavy smoker). let the addicts have their place in the world as long as they don't bother me.
What if the smokers want to have a place in this world without being bothered by you as well?

I see no reason they can not have their own establishments if they choose to do so

As long as its a private establishment that informes the patrons that it is a smoking facility (though that should be pretty obvious)

I am all for alowing smoking bars or what have not

If you dont like smoking dont frequent the establishment simple as that

(this coming from a complete non/never smoker)

I completely agree

Think that bothers YOU lol
I got a minor (class short of a major) in stats (technicaly computer networking is a "statistics major" so the stat load is almost as much as a real stats degree)

And when you get your masters ya had to take even more lol
haha...you win
*passes a beer*

Word of the wise: don't smoke. My dad had a stroke from that shit, and he needs an operation to clean out his arteries from smoking.

Umm, actually they pretty much do say that about tanning. Most tanning booth places carry warnings that tanning can cause melanoma. In NZ every summer there's a nationwide advertising push on TV, radio and paper warning ppl not to spend too much time in the sun and to get any moles checked out.
Likewise breathing polluted air. Every day here in HK, they have pollution index and will warn against spending too much time outdoors if it's too high.
Kinda destroys your argument, don't it?

Not in the least. A "warning" is NOT the same as "OMG UR KILLIN URSELF1!!!" There *isn't* a special interest group out to ban tanning, exposure to sunlight, or exposure to air. Mentioning that I have a tan doesn't get twenty responses from people who go "y r u so dumb u kill yourself slowly? omgz11!!" And you know it. Why? Because the anti-smoking lobby is far more fanatical and obsessed. They don't want "warnings that smoking can cause cancer." The want to criminalize 20% of the population.

Anyway, that's an apples and oranges thing you're doing there. I can't help but be exposed to sunlight if I work outdoors. I can't help be exposed to polluted air if I live in a city. BUT no-one is making me smoke. That's my choice. Yet so doing makes everyone around me suffer.

No one is making you be in the company of smokers. No one makes you go to a bar. No one makes you go to a SMOKING bar either. Drop the martyr act, it's getting old.


Smoking causes at least 80% of all deaths from lung cancer, around 80% of all deaths from bronchitis and emphysema and around 17% of all deaths from heart disease.

Thirty per cent of all cancer deaths can be attributed to smoking. Cancers other than lung cancer which are linked to smoking include: Cervical cancer, cancers of the mouth, lip and throat, cancer of the pancreas, bladder cancer, cancer of the kidney, stomach cancer, liver cancer, leukaemia.

Smokers who smoke between 1 and 14 cigarettes a day have eight times the risk of dying from lung cancer compared to non-smokers. Smokers who smoke more than 25 cigarettes a day have 25 times this risk compared to non-smokers.
etc etc etc

Wow! You can pull stats from an anti-smoking website! Good for you!

But it doesn't address the simple fact that its a RISK only. Smoking does not = cancer. The anti-smoking crowd seems to quite literally believe they'll get cancer if someone in the park smokes a cigarette.

I suppose next you'll tell us about your great grand uncle who smoked 60 cigarettes a day and lived til he was 90.

Well, I smoke and I don't have cancer, at least according to my doctor. But he's probably lying to me.

Smoking bans are more bullshit than censorship.

Let the smokers have a designated smoking area for god sake. If you smoke in a store dedicated to smoking, you shouldnt have some asshole butt-in-skies bothering you.

Buy a puppy and leave my habbits alone! :mp5:
Georgia has done this the right way. They banned smoking in public places, with the exception of establishments that don't allow anyone under 21 to enter. Those places can choose for themselves whether or not to allow smoking.

by the way, interestingly enough, there have been zero studies done to show what exactly the effects of second hand smoke are.

Personally I'm going along with the "things were fine the way they were and let people make their own minds up" argument. No smoking at the bar'll do for the staff in pubs, and no-smoking areas will doo for paranoid people. Blanket-banning smoking in all pubs, bars, public places, etc... is preposterous nannyism once again on the party of this "Labour" government.

Hell, you're paying for my NHS, and it's your life. Be my guest.

Note: Why can't smokers just be allowed one little place in which to smoke? I fail to see why not. Your thoughts?

its insane, what is wrong with people smoking, here it is theres a lobby for legalizing pot, but they are going to allow tobacco to fade away? id rather my docters, pilots, mechanics, accountants, teachers even to be tobacco smokers then pot smokers.

im not a smoker myself, but i dont see any harm in anyone making their own choice to smoke. and we as a society should stop going so insane on sensitivity, pretty soon cars are only going to be able to go 5 miles an hour and be covered in buble wrap

I see no problem in it IF they filter their exhaust from the A/C and heating. Don't let that crap get out. But they should be allowed at least one place though I don't see why you can't just go home to smoke...

Georgia has done this the right way. They banned smoking in public places, with the exception of establishments that don't allow anyone under 21 to enter. Those places can choose for themselves whether or not to allow smoking.
Personaly I would say lower that limit to something like 18 (the legal age to buy cigs)

I see no problem in it IF they filter their exhaust from the A/C and heating. Don't let that crap get out. But they should be allowed at least one place though I don't see why you can't just go home to smoke...
There are a lot of things you can also do from home but choose to do elsewhere sometimes

Such as eating

Why eat out when you can also eat at home

Or watching a sports game
Why go watch a sports game when you can watch it from home

The simple fact is sometimes people like being around other people. At thoes times they just may feel the urge to have a cig. Is it really that hard to understand ?

1. A cigarette smoker can quit cold turkey with only psychological discomfort as a result.
2. Crack addicts go through physical withdrawal.
3. Number of times one uses the drug has to do with the effects of the drug and their duration, not how addictive it is. Crack is far, far more powerful than nicotine and thus one doesnt need to do it as often to achieve the desired effect.
4. Chocolate is addictive, so is shopping, going online, working and sex. Addiction is overrated and overplayed. I call crack and smack "real" addictions, and chocolate and smoking "bullshit" addictions.

...

Who says they "can't" last 20 minutes without? Because they choose to do it? Believe me, they can. On the other hand, physical withdrawal from a real addiction - like heroine - can KILL you. Now THAT is addiction. What happens if a smoker doesn't get a smoke every 20 minutes? Uh... angst? Maybe a headache? Oh wow.

It's ignorant to claim nicotine doesn't cause physical withdrawl.


Repeat users of nicotine very often develop a physical dependency to the chemical. A report released on May 16, 1988, by United States Surgeon General C. Everett Koop stated that the addictive properties of nicotine are similar to those of heroin and cocaine; although many people do not agree with such a comparison.

Physical withdrawal symptoms include irritability, headaches, anxiety, cognitive disturbances and sleep disruption. These symptoms peak at around 48–72 hours and generally cease after two to six weeks.

...

In addition, nicotine increases dopamine levels in the reward circuits of the brain. Studies have shown that smoking tobacco inhibits monoamine oxidase (MAO), an enzyme responsible for breaking down monoaminergic neurotransmitters such as dopamine, in the brain. It is currently believed that nicotine by itself does not inhibit the production of monoamine oxidase (MAO), but that other ingredients in inhaled tobacco smoke are believed to be responsible for this activity. In this way, it generates feelings of pleasure. This reaction is similar to that caused by cocaine and heroin and is another reason people keep smoking: to sustain high dopamine levels.


Heroin withdrawl can't kill you, however withdrawl from alcohol or from barbiturates can.

Even if it can't kill you, opioid withdrawl can still be very unpleasant when done cold turkey.


The withdrawal syndrome from heroin (or any other short-acting opioid) can begin within 6 hours of discontinuation of sustained use of the drug: sweating, malaise, anxiety, depression, persistent and intense penile erection in males (priapism), general feeling of heaviness, cramp-like pains in the limbs, yawning and lacrimation, sleep difficulties, cold sweats, chills, severe muscle and bone aches not precipitated by any physical trauma, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, gooseflesh (hence, the term "cold turkey"), cramps, and fever occur. Many addicts also complain of a painful condition, the so-called "itchy blood", which often results in compulsive scratching that causes bruises and sometimes ruptures the skin leaving scabs. Abrupt termination of heroin use causes muscle spasms in the legs of the user (restless leg syndrome), hence the term "kicking the habit".

It's ignorant to claim nicotine doesn't cause physical withdrawl.



Heroin withdrawl can't kill you, however withdrawl from alcohol or from barbiturates can.

Even if it can't kill you, opioid withdrawl can still be very unpleasant when done cold turkey.
he never said there was no withdrawl. But the withdrawl is just psychological disturbance. You wont have cold sweats, shaking, etc.

why can't they have shear the smokeing and non smoking places or are people JUST stupid:upyours:

i am a smoker its my choce and pubs and bars are there to drinck alcohol thats bad so is smocking


Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Repeat users of nicotine very often develop a physical dependency to the chemical. A report released on May 16, 1988, by United States Surgeon General C. Everett Koop stated that the addictive properties of nicotine are similar to those of heroin and cocaine; although many people do not agree with such a comparison.

Physical withdrawal symptoms include irritability, headaches, anxiety, cognitive disturbances and sleep disruption. These symptoms peak at around 48–72 hours and generally cease after two to six weeks.

...

In addition, nicotine increases dopamine levels in the reward circuits of the brain. Studies have shown that smoking tobacco inhibits monoamine oxidase (MAO), an enzyme responsible for breaking down monoaminergic neurotransmitters such as dopamine, in the brain. It is currently believed that nicotine by itself does not inhibit the production of monoamine oxidase (MAO), but that other ingredients in inhaled tobacco smoke are believed to be responsible for this activity. In this way, it generates feelings of pleasure. This reaction is similar to that caused by cocaine and heroin and is another reason people keep smoking: to sustain high dopamine levels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa Barbara
1. A cigarette smoker can quit cold turkey with only psychological discomfort as a result.
2. Crack addicts go through physical withdrawal.
3. Number of times one uses the drug has to do with the effects of the drug and their duration, not how addictive it is. Crack is far, far more powerful than nicotine and thus one doesnt need to do it as often to achieve the desired effect.
4. Chocolate is addictive, so is shopping, going online, working and sex. Addiction is overrated and overplayed. I call crack and smack "real" addictions, and chocolate and smoking "bullshit" addictions.

...

Who says they "can't" last 20 minutes without? Because they choose to do it? Believe me, they can. On the other hand, physical withdrawal from a real addiction - like heroine - can KILL you. Now THAT is addiction. What happens if a smoker doesn't get a smoke every 20 minutes? Uh... angst? Maybe a headache? Oh wow.


AND what about alcohol

...

What? I still think alchohol and tobacco should be banned.