NationStates Jolt Archive

Of course. Legalize now!

Hey, this gets two birds with one stone - smokers could smoke and illegal drug users could smoke pot or crack...and the government could make even more money in taxes. It's all good...

Sorry, but he's just gonna go on his "They don't HAVE to work there" rant now.

Before he gets there (if this gets posted before he does), what about when all the jobs in non-smoking establishments are taken?

Unlikely.

They'll either have to work at the 'smoking' bars and die slowly from YOUR filthy habit, or go without work and die of hunger on the street.

Remember, on the street are automobiles that pollute and cause them to die slowly from their driver's filthy habit.

If you're going to look at the world in such a paranoid matter, you may as well realize that nowhere is safe.


You can still smoke, you just can't do it where it'll hurt other people. I really don't see the issue you whiners have with that. "Omg! I can't smoke in the bar and kill my neighbours, woe is me, bring back smoking!"

It's really the anti-smokers who are doing the whining. "You're hurting me." "You're killing me." "Ew, your habit is disgusting." "It's harming me." "I have red eyes." "I can't go to my favorite smoking bar without smelling like smoke." Sheeyit.

I've never seen a bar like that, so no, I'm not free to do so.
They didn't start building them like that until there was a smoking ban.

Besides, what if I as a bar owner WANT the whole place to be like aforementioned aquarium-like sectioned-off area?
They can't and keep it a bar. They can make it a private club and have people smoke all they want.

Are people going to still come and then complain because it is what it is? I bet they would. People have no perspective on the matter thanks to the heavy propagandizing about it.
Give me a fucking break. It's not like you physically have to smoke or like going outside will kill you.

As for your bicycle, I assume you've been to places because you were driven. If not, your bicycle was assembled elsewhere, and air pollution was caused in the moving of the parts to the store and/or to your residence. If not that, then pollution was almost certainly used in getting the raw resources from their location to the place where the bicycle was assembled. Yet do you consider that your bicycle is a cause of murder? Why not... unless you think air pollution doesn't cause negative health effects?
In which case, I really doubt you get to bitch about me contributing to the air pollution since you probably contribute as much or more than I do. Also, I'm not going to drive a car in a closed off building that you're standing in, I'd drive it in the open air, same place smokers are allowed to smoke, so cut the crap arguments.

Unlikely.



Remember, on the street are automobiles that pollute and cause them to die slowly from their driver's filthy habit.

If you're going to look at the world in such a paranoid matter, you may as well realize that nowhere is safe.



It's really the anti-smokers who are doing the whining. "You're hurting me." "You're killing me." "Ew, your habit is disgusting." "It's harming me." "I have red eyes." "I can't go to my favorite smoking bar without smelling like smoke." Sheeyit.
A) It really DOES hurt other people! Just because you have a death wish, doesn't mean the person sitting next to you does. Second-hand smoke KILLS. It probably kills and makes people seriously sick more than the first-hand smoking does, because more people breathe it in and it has higher numbers and concentrations of dangerous chemicals than what stays in your lungs first-hand. Your ignorance, or refusal to accept the facts of this matter, is no excuse for killing us.

B) Automobiles are moving toward cleaner alternatives, and this analogy is moot because automobiles, too, were made popular when people didn't know the real effects they had on the environment.

It's really the anti-smokers who are doing the whining. "You're hurting me." "You're killing me." "Ew, your habit is disgusting." "It's harming me." "I have red eyes." "I can't go to my favorite smoking bar without smelling like smoke." Sheeyit.
Hey, I'm not whining. I can go to any bar and not have to sit in the middle of a smoky room. It's great.

They didn't start building them like that until there was a smoking ban.

Huh. There's a ban here, but people just go outside to smoke. Of course, it's illegal to smoke within 15 feet of a building (unenforced, but seriously, I guess they want smokers to smoke in the middle of the street).


They can't and keep it a bar. They can make it a private club and have people smoke all they want.

Terminology issue: When I say "bar" I mean it as a privately owned establishment where drinks are served.


Give me a fucking break. It's not like you physically have to smoke or like going outside will kill you.

Strawman, I never said either.


In which case, I really doubt you get to bitch about me contributing to the air pollution since you probably contribute as much or more than I do.

Exactly. If we both contribute to air pollution, and thus people's health problems (assuming they breathe air), where do you get off trying to single out smokers?

Also, I'm not going to drive a car in a closed off building that you're standing in, I'd drive it in the open air, same place smokers are allowed to smoke, so stop being an idiot.

Smokers may be allowed to smoke in the open air now. But people such as yourself are pushing to make them more or less fully banned. The fact remains that both of us are causers of other people's health problems and deprive others of their "right to clean air," yet only one of us is described as "killing other people."

That would be known as an excuse, also known as a justification. She doesn't *want* to quit, so she doesn't. Thankfully, she has people like you who tell her she has no control over the matter, because she's a "victim" of "addiction," to provide her with a ready, out-of-the-box reason not to try quitting.

Quitting smoking is the easiest thing in the world if you want to.

And there are people who say they feel the "need" to shop or eat chocolate too. Are shopping, and chocolate, 'addictive?' I think not.

Propaganda? Ha. No, I don't have propaganda. Propaganda is what you are fed in grade school, junior and high school, and all through your life from anti-tobacco lobbyists. I make my own conclusions based on something you apparently don't have - experience, and the realization that the human will is not something dictated to by inert substances. Responsibility, in other words.

Feel free to disagree - it removes all the blame your mom and sister have for their own choices. Each time they light up, they can blame it on "addiction." Frankly, you and people like you are better adverts for tobacco than anything I could say. Because you mimic the Pringles motto: "once you pop, you can't stop."

Come now, even the tobacco companies admit that cigarette smoking is addictive.

Philip Morris USA (http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/addiction.asp) agrees with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking is addictive. It can be very difficult to quit smoking, but this should not deter smokers who want to quit from trying to do so.


U.S. Surgeon General's Report - Nicotine Addiction (http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/NN/B/B/Z/D/_/nnbbzd.pdf) (1988):

This Report explores in great detail another specific topic: nicotine
addiction. Careful examination of the data makes it clear that
cigarettes and other forms of tobacco are addicting. An extensive
body of research has shown that nicotine is the drug in tobacco that
causes addiction. Moreover, the processes that determine tobacco
addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such
as heroin and cocaine.

Nicotine Addiction (http://www.nida.nih.gov/researchreports/nicotine/nicotine.html) (National Institutes of Health, 2001):

Come now, even the tobacco companies admit that cigarette smoking is addictive.


And Pringles 'admits' the same too with their motto. It's a great marketing tactic.

Huh. There's a ban here, but people just go outside to smoke. Of course, it's illegal to smoke within 15 feet of a building (unenforced, but seriously, I guess they want smokers to smoke in the middle of the street).
No, they want people to smoke away from doors so first of all, you don't get people hitting smokers with doors and secondly, you don't get half the building smelling like smoke.
But yeah, they've got these glass walled rooms with separate ventilation systems for smokers now. It's probably healthier for the smokers too actually, as it moves the air out more than previously.

Terminology issue: When I say "bar" I mean it as a privately owned establishment where drinks are served.
Yeah, that's a bar. I don't mean privately owned club. I mean private club like, you need a membership.

Strawman, I never said either.
Ok. Then what's your problem with not being able to smoke inside.

Exactly. If we both contribute to air pollution, and thus people's health problems (assuming they breathe air), where do you get off trying to single out smokers?
I bitch about people driving SUV's and support and government bans on them too. You still going to accuse me of being a hypocrite? Also, as I said, you're getting pissy about not being able to smoke in a confined space, driving in an open air environment is a bit different. You can go smoke in an open air environment all you wish.

Smokers may be allowed to smoke in the open air now. But people such as yourself are pushing to make them more or less fully banned.
Strawman, I'm not trying to ban people from smoking altogehter. The tax money from cigarettes is useful.

The fact remains that both of us are causers of other people's health problems and deprive others of their "right to clean air," yet only one of us is described as "killing other people."
Again, you're also polluting the air with cars. Hell, do you think your cigarettes magically appear from thin air or do you think they're trucked accross the country?

And Pringles 'admits' the same too with their motto. It's a great marketing tactic.
Oh please, this has nothing to do with a marketing tactic, if it was, they probably wouldn't point out that cigarettes tend to kill people. You're just being rediculous now.

And Pringles 'admits' the same too with their motto. It's a great marketing tactic.

Not the same, but nice try. ;)

I presume the Surgeon General, the National Institutes of Health, etc, are all just perpetuating a massive conspiracy against smokers.

No, they want people to smoke away from doors so first of all, you don't get people hitting smokers with doors and secondly, you don't get half the building smelling like smoke.

A sign that says "no smoking around the door" would suffice, particularly in a bar type place where there are people who enforce it.

And I've never known a building that got to smell like smoke because of people smoking outside of it.


Ok. Then what's your problem with not being able to smoke inside.

If it's my place as in I own it, I should be able to make the rules concerning whether smoking can be done inside or not. Legislating it otherwise steps on my sense of freedom in the same way that the state gobbling up businesses directly does. It's not so much my particular problem with *me* not being able to smoke inside. I've never been in a region where that's legal in the first place, except for Mexico.


I bitch about people driving SUV's and support and government bans on them too.

But it isn't just SUV's either...

driving in an open air environment is a bit different. You can go smoke in an open air environment all you wish.

I wish more people honestly believed that, but they don't. I know people that honestly believe it should be a crime for me to smoke in a "public" place (like a street).

Strawman, I'm not trying to ban people from smoking altogehter. The tax money from cigarettes is useful.

Alright...


Again, you're also polluting the air with cars. Hell, do you think your cigarettes magically appear from thin air or do you think they're trucked accross the country?

Oh, I know I am, I just have enough perspective not to single out a single group of people for what everyone is doing with equal apathy.

Not the same, but nice try. ;)

I presume the Surgeon General, the National Institutes of Health, etc, are all just perpetuating a massive conspiracy against smokers.
Yeah, well, what if they are? What are you going to do, huh? SMOKE them to death? ......Well, I guess you could.......
SMOKING SUCKS!

I posted this earlier in the thread, but I think it bears repeating: The owners of the establishments in question should be allowed to make the decisions regarding smoking in their buildings. If the customers and employees decide that they'd rather not be around smoking, they can simply go to the non-smoking establishments that are certain to spring up as the result of consumer demand.

I'm certainly open to debate on this if someone is willing to provide good counter points.

Not the same, but nice try. ;)

I presume the Surgeon General, the National Institutes of Health, etc, are all just perpetuating a massive conspiracy against smokers.

Why not the same? Part of the allure of smoking has always been it's danger. Tobacco is legal, but smoking other things, like marijuana, is not. Seems that the conspiracy would actually be PRO-smoking, no?

What's similar about the Pringles slogan is that if believed, it provides one with an excuse (other than simple desire) to "not stop" either eating Pringles or smoking tobacco. It also, and I know this from not just my own experience, removes the motivation to stop smoking since it creates a wall of hopelessness.

Lastly, the placebo effect is also at play. I've not had an opportunity to do the experiment, but I would hypothesize that people given a placebo each day for a week, when told beforehand that it is a substance with a greater than even chance of causing addiction, would wind up experiencing psychosomatic withdrawals, cravings and expressed desire for that substance. After all, if one can be "psychologically addicted," then being informed that one is engaging in an addicting thing will actually wind up contributing to said psychological addiction. Makes sense, no?

A sign that says "no smoking around the door" would suffice, particularly in a bar type place where there are people who enforce it.
No, it really doesn't.

And I've never known a building that got to smell like smoke because of people smoking outside of it.
Smoking must have killed your sense of smell then. Once my roommates smoked right outside the door and the entire house smelled like smoke. I'm on the second floor and I could smell it. I've also been in buildings where it has been the case that a huge area in front of the door smells like smoke.

If it's my place as in I own it, I should be able to make the rules concerning whether smoking can be done inside or not.
Should you also get to make the rules concerning the sale of alcohol to minors or hard drugs to your customers too?

Legislating it otherwise steps on my sense of freedom in the same way that the state gobbling up businesses directly does.
No more than legislating on drinking and driving impinges on your freedom.

But it isn't just SUV's either...
But they're unnecessarily bad.

Oh, I know I am, I just have enough perspective not to single out a single group of people for what everyone is doing with equal apathy.
But is anyone showing inside your favourite bar with the engine of their car running all night?

Lastly, the placebo effect is also at play. I've not had an opportunity to do the experiment, but I would hypothesize that people given a placebo each day for a week, when told beforehand that it is a substance with a greater than even chance of causing addiction, would wind up experiencing psychosomatic withdrawals, cravings and expressed desire for that substance. After all, if one can be "psychologically addicted," then being informed that one is engaging in an addicting thing will actually wind up contributing to said psychological addiction. Makes sense, no?
You go get the funding, do the experiment, and see, but just because there's a slight placebo effect to anything does NOT mean that tobacco isn't addictive physically at all. Once again, you're remaining (I can only assume that it's purposeful) ignorant of the facts of the issue.

I say ban them completely. Make possession a criminal offense.

No, it really doesn't.


Why not? if it's enforced.


Smoking must have killed your sense of smell then. Once my roommates smoked right outside the door and the entire house smelled like smoke. I'm on the second floor and I could smell it. I've also been in buildings where it has been the case that a huge area in front of the door smells like smoke.

I doubt it. Must not be any wind in the area, is all I can suggest.


Should you also get to make the rules concerning the sale of alcohol to minors or hard drugs to your customers too?

Yes, one should, since the age for legal purchase of alcohol should be lowered (I'd say 18) and 'hard drugs' should be decriminalized.


No more than legislating on drinking and driving impinges on your freedom.


Well, yes more than that, because it is literally, more legislation. ;) And drinking and driving being illegal is not a limit on economic freedom in the sense of business rights.

But they're unnecessarily bad.

SUVs are unnecessary? Why? Some people might have use for them. Why can we suddenly and arbitrarily decide what is necessary or not, and ban whatever is not? Shit, we should ban Pringles too; they're not very nutritious and they're not necessary.

But is anyone showing inside your favourite bar with the engine of their car running all night?

No. But you see, I could kill myself by being in an enclosed space with a car engine running. I couldn't just by smoking indoors. One is an actual, tried-and-true method of suicide, the other is only labelled as such by the kinds of people who also label "meat is murder."

You go get the funding, do the experiment, and see, but just because there's a slight placebo effect to anything does NOT mean that tobacco isn't addictive physically at all.

Yes, but if the "slight" placebo effect is there, then hyping (as you are) how addictive tobacco is, actually winds up *contributing* to how psychologically addictive it is. Perverse, but all too true.

Once again, you're remaining (I can only assume that it's purposeful) ignorant of the facts of the issue.

I do not think so.

And tobacco's physical addictive properties are really quite laughable. Caffeine is worse.

SUVs are unnecessary? Why? Some people might have use for them. Why can we suddenly and arbitrarily decide what is necessary or not, and ban whatever is not? Shit, we should ban Pringles too; they're not very nutritious and they're not necessary.
S/he said unnecessarily bad, as in for gas consumption. An SUV uses more gas proportionate to its size than most other vehicles, AFAIK.

Why not the same? Part of the allure of smoking has always been it's danger. Tobacco is legal, but smoking other things, like marijuana, is not. Seems that the conspiracy would actually be PRO-smoking, no?

What's similar about the Pringles slogan is that if believed, it provides one with an excuse (other than simple desire) to "not stop" either eating Pringles or smoking tobacco. It also, and I know this from not just my own experience, removes the motivation to stop smoking since it creates a wall of hopelessness.

Lastly, the placebo effect is also at play. I've not had an opportunity to do the experiment, but I would hypothesize that people given a placebo each day for a week, when told beforehand that it is a substance with a greater than even chance of causing addiction, would wind up experiencing psychosomatic withdrawals, cravings and expressed desire for that substance. After all, if one can be "psychologically addicted," then being informed that one is engaging in an addicting thing will actually wind up contributing to said psychological addiction. Makes sense, no?

Get serious. Nicotine is a highly addictive drug and smoking tobacco is addictive. It's a fact. It's not a marketing jingle. It's not something you can dismiss with vague theories.

If your marketing theory is correct, why is it that tobacco companies fought so viciously for so long to deny that their product was addictive?

Cute hypothesis about the placebo effect. Unfortunately it ignores the available evidence -- not to mention "the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus"

Yes, but if the "slight" placebo effect is there, then hyping (as you are) how addictive tobacco is, actually winds up *contributing* to how psychologically addictive it is. Perverse, but all too true.



I do not think so.

And tobacco's physical addictive properties are really quite laughable. Caffeine is worse.
Cigarettes are "laughably" addictive? You really ARE remaining ignorant of the facts, good sir. I recommend doing some research. Look at how many recent studies prove that cigarettes are highly addictive, versus how many recent studies prove that they aren't. By recent, I mean the last 20 years or so.

whats your point?

It's an addiction...some people aren't slaves to the tobacco companies and don't want to be reminded of those who are...

Get serious. Nicotine is a highly addictive drug and smoking tobacco is addictive. It's a fact. It's not a marketing jingle. It's not something you can dismiss with vague theories.

Heroin is addictive. Tobacco is a joke. I rate tobacco as "addictive" as chocolate and shopping are.

If your marketing theory is correct, why is it that tobacco companies fought so viciously for so long to deny that their product was addictive?

Ignorance. The psychology and marketing sciences have evolved over time too, and they were likely not nearly aware of it the further back you go.

Cute hypothesis about the placebo effect. Unfortunately it ignores the available evidence -- not to mention "the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus"

Not at all. It doesn't even contradict the "consensus." There is no consensus about how the hyping of addiction can create more addiction. I doubt it's even been studied.

Cigarettes are "laughably" addictive? You really ARE remaining ignorant of the facts, good sir. I recommend doing some research. Look at how many recent studies prove that cigarettes are highly addictive, versus how many recent studies prove that they aren't. By recent, I mean the last 20 years or so.
And lets not forget the alarming cancer rates caused by the addictiveness in caffine :rolleyes: . He made one of the lamest arguements I have heard for pro-tobacco in quite some time.

Cigarettes are "laughably" addictive? You really ARE remaining ignorant of the facts, good sir. I recommend doing some research. Look at how many recent studies prove that cigarettes are highly addictive, versus how many recent studies prove that they aren't. By recent, I mean the last 20 years or so.

Yes. And there are studies that show being online is addictive too. You sir, are just an addict and since we're online, I can dismiss anything you might say here as just a way to continue feeding your addiction.

Yes. And there are studies that show being online is addictive too. You sir, are just an addict and since we're online, I can dismiss anything you might say here as just a way to continue feeding your addiction.
You can hide behind these other addictions all you want, but they are a completely different class. Tobacco is a deadly addiction. The internet is not. The statistics just dont say anything else.

Yes. And there are studies that show being online is addictive too. You sir, are just an addict and since we're online, I can dismiss anything you might say here as just a way to continue feeding your addiction.
Wow. I'm so not even going to bother continuing this "debate" anymore. Your statements are getting more and more ludicrous as you go.

ye olde addiction test:

place a unopened pack of cigarettes on the table in front of you... keep a lighter next to the pack...stair at the pack of cigarettes and think about the last time you had a puff of smooth flavor eminating from it's fumes...think about the first time you had one also...remain stairing at them...wait a few hours...if you don't smoke one good for you if you do smoke one you might be addicted!

You can hide behind these other addictions all you want, but they are a completely different class. Tobacco is a deadly addiction. The internet is not. The statistics just dont say anything else.
Tobacco is also both physically and psychologically addictive, as have been demonstrated in a number of studies over many years. The internet is only psychologically addictive. This guy is comparing two things that aren't even alike and treating them like they're the same. He's also extremely ignorant of the facts.

You can hide behind these other addictions all you want, but they are a completely different class. Tobacco is a deadly addiction. The internet is not. The statistics just dont say anything else.

That's exactly what you would say if your internet addiction was clouding your judgement! That's your internet talking, not you. (By the way, I am just using a favored anti-tobacco argument from a few pages back against you. I hope it annoys you as much as it annoys me!) ;)

And if the addiction is so deadly, why do you feed it by providing hype? Don't you realize there is something called psychological addiction, and as with many things psychological there is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Yes. And there are studies that show being online is addictive too. You sir, are just an addict and since we're online, I can dismiss anything you might say here as just a way to continue feeding your addiction.
Ma'am, damnit. Ma'am. Note the signature. I'd offer proof if you lived near me, but NOBODY lives near me on here.

I'm not an internet addict, either. I spend most of my day doing other, significantly more important things. I just happen to be able to check message boards for a couple of hours at a time.

Stop drawing poor analogies into the thread, Barb. Actually, better idea:

Everyone, stop feeding the troll. There, all done, and nothing could be easier. :)

Dakini are you smoking a cigarette right now?

Tobacco is also both physically and psychologically addictive, as have been demonstrated in a number of studies over many years.

My personal experience tells me different regarding the physical aspect.

The internet is only psychologically addictive. This guy is comparing two things that aren't even alike

Of course they're alike. They're both addictive, no?

and treating them like they're the same. He's also extremely ignorant of the facts.

Blah blah. I'm ignorant, I'm an idiot, I'm "just the nicotine talking," I'm getting tired of being insulted by antismokers.

That's exactly what you would say if your internet addiction was clouding your judgement!
No, thats exactly what I'd say if I had valid statistics to prove it.

I know santa barbara is

I'm not an internet addict, either. I spend most of my day doing other, significantly more important things. I just happen to be able to check message boards for a couple of hours at a time.

Heh. Yes, and I know smokers who aren't addicted, they just like to have a smoke every couple of hours and they spend most of their time not smoking.


Stop drawing poor analogies into the thread, Barb. Actually, better idea:

Everyone, stop feeding the troll. There, all done, and nothing could be easier. :)

And now we have the "troll" accusation/dismissal.

And your point? Criminals are just that--criminals. By smoking I have commited no crime, I have not put anyone into direct danger. There are no bars banning people with dandruff, and I don't want anyone's dandruff on my person.


Yes you have put people in danger with the second hand smoke. Go light up in your house so that noone has to get that second hand smoke.

.:upyours: Having a smoking section is a bar is like having a peeing section in a pool

My personal experience tells me different regarding the physical aspect.
And people who have devoted their lives to studying the addiction caused by nicotine say otherwise. I think I'll take lifetimes of research over your word anyday. I think I'll also put that against the physical addictions of friends and family members who have tried to kick the habit against yours.

Of course they're alike. They're both addictive, no?
No, there are a lot of differences.

Blah blah. I'm ignorant, I'm an idiot, I'm "just the nicotine talking," I'm getting tired of being insulted by antismokers.
Oh please, this act is so tired. :rolleyes:

.:upyours: Having a smoking section is a bar is like having a peeing section in a pool
Despite the smilie, congrats on the clever analogy!

Yes. And there are studies that show being online is addictive too. You sir, are just an addict and since we're online, I can dismiss anything you might say here as just a way to continue feeding your addiction.

Wow. You truly are desperate.

In your universe does the Sun revolve around the Earth?

Wow. You truly are desperate.


No more desperate than the fellow who dismissed any arguments opposing his as "just the nicotine talking." But you were a latecomer to this thread, so I forgive you.


In your universe does the Sun revolve around the Earth?

Not specifically, but the Earth does make the Sun wobble just a tiny bit.

I'm ignorant, I'm an idiot, I'm "just the nicotine talking,"
Duly noted.

Duly noted.

Hey, that was clever! I always like it when people like you pop into a thread for no other reason than to insult someone.

Well, if no one else has any ad hominems to make, I'll be retiring from this thread til tomorrow.

This may come off as a meaningless rant, but I'm tired of so many non-smokers. I'm tired of not being able to smoke indoors, at clubs, venues, etc. I can understand them not wanting smokers lighting up in front of them--I don't like the smell either--but you can deal with it. Stop infringing my civil rights! I want to smoke!

Questions? Comments? Smart remarks?

Do you realize that in the US alone, over 5,000 nonsmokers die every year from lung cancer due to second-hand smoke exposure?

No one cares that much about the smell. Yes, it's disgusting, but that's not what matters. What matters is that when I breathe in your cloud of airborne carcinogens, toxins, tar particles, and other lung pollutants, it has no less an effect on me because I'm not holding the cigarette to my lips. It hurts me and increases my risk of cancer too. Smoking where I can breathe it in when in an area that is not your property is equivalent to physical assault. You are directly, physically harming my body by your actions, and by virtue of the fact that it is a public place, I have no responsibility to leave the place I'm at; it's your responsibility not to pollute the commons.

This may come off as a meaningless rant, but I'm tired of so many non-smokers. I'm tired of not being able to smoke indoors, at clubs, venues, etc. I can understand them not wanting smokers lighting up in front of them--I don't like the smell either--but you can deal with it. Stop infringing my civil rights! I want to smoke!

Questions? Comments? Smart remarks?
Smart remark and question:
#1 Why do you smoke??
#2 I hate people who talk about their "civil rights" and their right ot do this and that

.:upyours: Having a smoking section is a bar is like having a peeing section in a pool
Analogy +6
Dumb Smilie -3
Total score=3

Smokers should be allowed to go wherever they're welcome.
They just shouldn't be allowed to smoke there.

I'm so happy they banned smoking in Ontario bars, when I come home I don't stink of smoke.

Yeah, you just come home smelling like a drunk. Ever been sober around someone who has been drinking? Pretty fucking foul. I'm a smoker, I know the shit stinks. I don't smoke in non smokers homes or cars. Wouldn't do it if they said, aww it's ok .. I don't mind. I'll not smoke or I will go outside. Unless I go out to a bar, I only smoke at home pretty much. Don't even smoke at work on breaks, even though it is allowed where I work. A lot of businesses don't allow smoking period while on the clock, and others are going as far as to fire smokers who don't quit all together. How in the hell can you fire someone who does something that is legal on their own time? Get drunk all you want, but don't smoke a fucking cigerette, cigar or pipe!

Google link to what I am referring to here (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=jyw&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=company+firing+employees+who+don%27t+quit+smoking&spell=1).
Probably some repeat stories, but you get the drift.

Do you realize that in the US alone, over 5,000 nonsmokers die every year from lung cancer due to second-hand smoke exposure?

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to back that up with a source. I'm well aware of the damage smoking can cause, but I've seen no evidence for such a claim.

Smoking where I can breathe it in when in an area that is not your property is equivalent to physical assault.

What if the owner of that property says it is ok? Isn't it up to the owner at that point?

Are you suggesting that the owner of a bar/restaurant should be able to smoke all she wants within the space, but no one else can, not even with her permission?

Pffft... smoker's aren't people! Damnit, smoker's work for subhuman wages and steal non-smoker jobs! I say, send them back to Smokeropolis!

Europe?

Do you realize that in the US alone, over 5,000 nonsmokers die every year from lung cancer due to second-hand smoke exposure?

I agree we could do with a source for this .

What matters is that when I breathe in your cloud of airborne carcinogens, toxins, tar particles, and other lung pollutants, it has no less an effect on me because I'm not holding the cigarette to my lips. It hurts me and increases my risk of cancer too. Smoking where I can breathe it in when in an area that is not your property is equivalent to physical assault. You are directly, physically harming my body by your actions, and by virtue of the fact that it is a public place, I have no responsibility to leave the place I'm at;

Firstly breathing in second hand smoke is at nowhere near any kind of concentration as a cigarette itself. If it was I wouldn't be buying any. I agree it may well increase your risk of cancer, so does everything else.

Do you wish for me not to drive near you, my car pumps out carcinogens you will breathe, not to mention all the other crap pumped into our air, mostly in major cities I admit.

Ever eaten a pork chop? 1 a week raises your chance of cancer (bowel not lung) by about the same amount as sitting next to me smoking once a week.

I know I don't force you to eat pork, but to suggest I am assaulting you with smoke when other factors equally raise your chances of cancer is ridiculous.

I agree smoking is horrible, and I have no problem with banning it indoors, but with all the risks we have in life please can people stop panicking about a little smoke.

This is rediculous. Smokers aren't banned from going into public places. Smoking is. If you can't handle not smoking for a few hours, then you have a major problem. Otherwise, you can stop filling our air with filth.

As for the sun causing cancer? I am fortunate to have been born with a high amount of melanin in my skin. Unless I stay out in the sunlight for an unnecessary amount of time (which I don't as I prefer sitting under trees) it will be close to impossible for me to develop problematic skin cancer. The odds of me getting lung cancer from second hand smoke are higher than the odds of me getting skin cancer from the sun if I keep up my current practices.

As for the air? It's not like the US is trying to cut down on toxic emmissions from vehicles and factories or whatnot. On particularly bad days, I wear a homemade filter. Even then, its only for a few minutes while I rush from building to building.

Seriously, though, smoking should not occur within public buildings, and even private businesses should be limited to smoking sections, if not banning them completely.

I am a non-smoker.
I am an asthmatic.
I am allergic to tobacco.

well of course EVERYTHING should be allowed in places logical for it.

cold blooded murderers are people too.
does that mean murder shouldn't be, if possible prevented?
or at least not encuraged?

ain't no ifs, ands or buts, that second hand smoke kills, period.
as much if not more then first hand.

hell if i know why, but the universe we live in doesn't depend on my knowing why about anything.

so i don't think anyone is banning smoking in anyplace it would not be "logical" to ban it from.

there used to be smoking cars on trains. there's no problem with that because unlike other partitioned interior spaces each car on a train that has seperate cars, has it's own atmosphere and circulation that only connects to any other through a vestibule and only when someone goes from one car into another.

but in most public places, positive atmosphere isolation is simply not possible.

=^^=
.../\...

I wouldn't mind it if there was a smoking section. The problem with that is that certain restaurants don't place the smoking sections in logical places. They place the bathroom in the smoking section, and, as a result, I must make a mad dash across the smoking section to get the bathroom, and I still end up choking by the time I get there. (I'm not asthmatic, just sensitive to smoke.) It's the same thing when people must smoke outside, though. I still have to make a mad dash into the building or away from the smoke to avoid coughing violently.

Should smoking be allowed in all logical places?
There's a loaded question. Who decides what is a logical place? It sounds like a question designed to get the answer the poster wants.

Personally, if people want to smoke they can smoke themselves stupid. Till they barf up a lung for all I care. I just don't want to have to share that journey with them. It's not just the obvoius health risks being foisted on me, it's the stink. With the recent smoking ban in public places in Scotland, the best aspect so far is that my clothes don't have to go straight into the laundry basket just because I popped into a bar for a pint.

The difference between all other vices and smoking is that when a junkie shoots up, an alcoholic downs a shot, etc it is the individual who is harmed and those round about don't have to imbibe anything. When someone lights up, everyone in the room is smoking whether they want to or not. That is a gross infringement of those peoples rights.

Frankly, smoking should only be allowed in peoples homes. What the do there is their own business.

Hey lets all litter the sidewalk/street with cigarette butts because we cant smoke inside.

Sounds like we need some anti-littering laws ... quick :) .