Smoking Bans

[KevlarPants]

Maybe this could be in Politics, but since it's a question, I'll put it here.

How do you feel about smoking bans?

In a socialist society, would these continue, or would they be abolished, for the freedom of the people?

Personally, I think I tolerate and even support (kinda) the smoking bans in restaurants, shops, etc. What I think is unacceptable is the smoking ban on bars. Bars are fucking designed for people to forget their life's hardships for a while, and smoke and drink and have fun.

Though, if I was in charge, I would lift all the bans and just let the people decide if they really want to annoy everyone around them with their own common sense and reason.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I feel good about them.

No productive capacity ought to be wasted on something like cigarettes; and smoking in public should not be allowed; should people absolutely have to smoke there ought to be special designated smoking areas in frequently travelled districts or they should keep to it at home (and please, not on the balconies).

[Obs]

No productive capacity ought to be wasted on something like sugar; and eating candy in public should not be allowed; should people absolutely have to eat candy there ought to be special designated snacking areas in frequently travelled districts or they should keep to it at home (and please, not on the balconies).
I'll smoke whereever I please, thanks.

[Nox]

Don't ban weed though ;)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Ban cigarettes in all public space and regulate them to strict outdoor use while leagalizing weed.In time people will forget that the tobacco death sticks ever existed in the first place.

I would support a ban though.

[Vanguard1917]

Have places for smoking, and places for not smoking. Let establishments (pubs, bars, restaurants, cafes) respond to the wishes of the people.

Grown men and women don't need the nanny state to decide for them whether or not they should smoke or be in the presence of smokers.

[Obs]

Ban cigarettes in all public space and regulate them to strict outdoor use while leagalizing weed.In time people will forget that the tobacco death sticks ever existed in the first place.

I would support a ban though.
Yeah because weed is a lot healthier than tobacco, amirite?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Yeah because weed is a lot healthier than tobacco, amirite?

By the amount of cancers it causes,yes,it is a improvement."Healthy" isn't the correct term but it is far better than tobacco cigarettes.

[DarkPast]

I'll smoke whereever I please, thanks.

Personally, I couldn't care less if somebody decide to smoke until they cough their lungs out, it's just that I don't want to die as well because of them.

[Obs]

Personally, I couldn't care less if somebody decide to smoke until they cough their lungs out, it's just that I don't want to die as well because of them.
Then don't go hang out with smokers.

[Nox]

Yeah because weed is a lot healthier than tobacco, amirite?

Yes, you are right.

[Obs]

Yes, you are right.
Nope (http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm)

[Vanguard1917]

By the amount of cancers it causes,yes,it is a improvement."Healthy" isn't the correct term but it is far better than tobacco cigarettes.

Depends on your criteria for 'healthy'. Most people certainly couldn't smoke 20 spliffs a day and lead a productive life.

More to the point, i find it interesting that weed smokers are often some of the biggest prohibitionists around. Legalise weed, call for restrictions on cigarettes (and alcohol).

[Nox]

Nope (http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm)

Are you seriously suggesting weed is more dangerous than tobacco?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Depends on your criteria for 'healthy'. Most people certainly couldn't smoke 20 spliffs a day and lead a productive life.

More to the point, i find it interesting that weed smokers are often some of the biggest prohibitionists around. Legalise weed, call for restrictions on cigarettes (and alcohol).

I never said anything in regards to production or health, nor have I ever smoked weed before so I do not know where you are getting these accusations.

I said I would support a ban but support doesn't explicitly mean 'fight for.'

[Kadir Ateş]

Maybe this could be in Politics, but since it's a question, I'll put it here.

How do you feel about smoking bans?

I couldn't care less, although I think they are dumb to be honest.


In a socialist society, would these continue, or would they be abolished, for the freedom of the people?

People themselves would decide if they want to smoke or not, and decisions as to bans will be done in a collective manner, I would imagine.


Personally, I think I tolerate and even support (kinda) the smoking bans in restaurants, shops, etc. What I think is unacceptable is the smoking ban on bars. Bars are fucking designed for people to forget their life's hardships for a while, and smoke and drink and have fun.

Under socialism, there wouldn't be "bars" or "restaurants" just places to drink and eat, without the use of money or exchange.


Though, if I was in charge, I would lift all the bans and just let the people decide if they really want to annoy everyone around them with their own common sense and reason.


If you were in charge, then we must still be under capitalism...no leaders in socialism.

[Smyg]

I feel bad from smoke. So, uhm, yeah...

[Zealot]

Well here's a novel idea, let the people decide democratically.

[DeBon]

Well here's a novel idea, let the people decide democratically.

Genius.

[Die Rote Fahne]

If people want to smoke, they should be allowed to. However, they shouldn't be allowed to smoke where it can cause health issues for other people (bars, restaurants, etc etc.).

[Vanguard1917]

I feel bad from smoke. So, uhm, yeah...

I feel bad when i hear tehno music, so let's please ban that next.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I feel bad when i hear tehno music, so let's please ban that next.
Unlike techno music, cigarette smoke is physically harmful.

[La Comédie Noire]

Well that depends on how the different respective communes would feel, wouldn't it? If a commune wants to invest the extra labor in long term care or assisted suicide for smoking related illnesses, let them. Most likely smokers will gravitate towards the communes that allow smoking where things like second hand smoke or want of nice smoking areas won't bother them.

[Vanguard1917]

Unlike techno music, cigarette smoke is physically harmful.

So is loud techno music if you suffer from migraines.

How about a reasonable response: People who suffer from migraines (or have taste in music) should not go to nightclubs where techo will be blaring, and people who can't tolerate the smell of cigarette smoke should not go to bars, club, cafes or restraurants which permit smoking?

[MustCrushCapitalism]

I don't mind smoking bans, drinking bans, etc, but I'm not big on them either... so, eh.

[Die Rote Fahne]

So is loud techno music if you suffer from migraines.

How about a reasonable response: People who suffer from migraines (or have taste in music) should not go to nightclubs where techo will be blaring, and people who can't tolerate the smell of cigarette smoke should not go to bars, club, cafes or restraurants which permit smoking?

First, I feel I must state that I am opposed to "banning" cigarettes. However, there are many things to take into consideration:



A majority of people at these settings will be, most likely, non-smokers. You may say the non-smokers should just leave, or not go there;
what about the workers? The bartender, clerk or the server who is being harmed by the second-hand smoke?
Why shouldn't the smoker just go outside, smoke, and come back in?
It is a person's choice to smoke, ergo they take on the fact that they should not be smoking inside bars, cafes, restaurants, etc.


Second, I must state that your comparison is absurd. You suffer from migraines, not because of techno music but because of some other health reason. People suffer -- if we are talking about those who do not smoke, and go to bars and such where smoking is permitted -- from lung cancer, emphysema, bronchitis, etc. as a direct result of extended/prolonged inhalation of second hand tobacco smoke.

If you do not want your migraine acting up, why are you going to a techno club in the first place? It is a place specifically for techno, is it not? More than techno will give you a migraine, I'm sure.

Bars are not specifically for smoking, nor are cafes or restaurants.

[Kamos]

So is loud techno music if you suffer from migraines.

How about a reasonable response: People who suffer from migraines (or have taste in music) should not go to nightclubs where techo will be blaring, and people who can't tolerate the smell of cigarette smoke, or have lungs and do not wish to get lung cancer should not go to bars, club, cafes, restaurants which permit smoking, or even outside of their own house (or anywhere where cigarette smoke may appear, such as every location on the Earth)?

Fixed.

[Vanguard1917]

A majority of people at these settings will be, most likely, non-smokers. You may say the non-smokers should just leave, or not go there;

Yes, if they don't like it. Of course, there would be bars, restraurants, etc. where smoking is not permitted. Therefore, it would be completely up to individual.


what about the workers? The bartender, clerk or the server who is being harmed by the second-hand smoke?

Well, firstly, if you can't tolerate a bit of cigarette smoke, then clearly you're unfit to work somewhere where people smoke -- just like if you can't tolerate loud techno because of your migraines, you're not really suited to work in a techno night club. That does not mean that techno nightclubs should be banned.

Secondly, modern ventilation technology can radically reduce smoke in the atmosphere of a bar. Any risk from second-hand smoke would be minimal.


Why shouldn't the smoker just go outside, smoke, and come back in?

Because they might not want to. They might want to enjoy their smoke at the table, indoors, in the warmth, over a drink, sitting down, with friends, with some good conversation, etc. They might not want to stand around outside by the road rushing a cigarette in the rain or cold for the hell of it.



Bars are not specifically for smoking


They were once upon a time -- a place where you went to wind down with a drink and, if you fancied, a smoke. Same goes for cafes.

[Misanthrope]

I feel good about them.

No productive capacity ought to be wasted on something like cigarettes; and smoking in public should not be allowed; should people absolutely have to smoke there ought to be special designated smoking areas in frequently travelled districts or they should keep to it at home (and please, not on the balconies).

Authoritarian socialist... oh now this post makes sense.

The state should have no say pre/post-revolution where you can and cannot do something. It's a blatant intrusion on rights.

[ColonelCossack]

Why should other people suffer from passive smoking?

Maybe you could have some "smoking" pubs, and some "non-smoking" pubs. Therefore everyone gets their needs met.

Of course, people can smoke in their own home. Everyone knows prohibition doesn't work; look what happened in the US when they tried to ban alcohol.

[DeBon]

So is loud techno music if you suffer from migraines.

How about a reasonable response: People who suffer from migraines (or have taste in music) should not go to nightclubs where techo will be blaring, and people who can't tolerate the smell of cigarette smoke should not go to bars, club, cafes or restraurants which permit smoking?

It really sucks, because I have asthma AND and electronic music triggers a massive head ache for me.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I'll smoke whereever I please, thanks.

It's nice that you are totally unconcerned with how your actions might affect others.


Authoritarian socialist... oh now this post makes sense.

The state should have no say pre/post-revolution where you can and cannot do something. It's a blatant intrusion on rights.

Who said it would necessarily have to be "the state", in whichever sense you mean that. Your argument is however flawed, because someone smoking in the face of someone that does not want that is equally an intrusion on their "right" not to have smoke blown in their face as someone wanting to smoke being prohibited to do so.

Ideally, people would not blow smoke in others faces and would be concerned not to intentionally or unintentionally do others harm or cause others duress, and would smoke where they would not bother non-smokers or people other than themselves. With attitudes like those of Obs, however, this unfortunately seems to be asking too much.

[Rusty Shackleford]

you'll have to pry my cigarette from my ashed upon yellow dead hand!

[Rufio]

I don't realy feel strongly either way on this. :closedeyes:

But, what is the point of tobacco smoking? Every smoker (at least after a certain period) seems to wish they never started. It just seems like a pointless addiction to me - an addiction without a high, the only good feeling from it is if you are already addicted?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Yes, if they don't like it. Of course, there would be bars, restraurants, etc. where smoking is not permitted. Therefore, it would be completely up to individual. So, 20 people should leave because 5 want to smoke? I mean, yes, there are bars (etc.) where smoking is not permitted, in some places it is all of them. It is better for the workers and the customers who are there. Smoking is a CHOICE. If you choose to smoke, you choose to not do it in these places.

Hypothetical: If smoking is allowed - I have asthma, I'm sitting at the bar enjoying my drink and chatting with a person next to me, some guy sits on the other side of me and lights up a smoke, I ask him to go somewhere else or stop smoking, he refuses. It's up to me to leave? It seems that this person's choice is infringing on my freedom to drink without having an asthma attack. I didn't choose to have asthma, he chose to smoke.


Well, firstly, if you can't tolerate a bit of cigarette smoke, then clearly you're unfit to work somewhere where people smoke -- just like if you can't tolerate loud techno because of your migraines, you're not really suited to work in a techno night club. That does not mean that techno nightclubs should be banned. You call a smoky bar, filled with smoke for your entire 8-12 hour shift, 6 days a week "a bit of cigarette smoke"? Or being in a smokey bar for more than an hour "a bit of cigarette smoke"? I remember when smoking was legal in bars here. You could barely see through the windows.

Ever hot box a car with a gram joint of marijuana? Not so thick you can't see, but you can see the smoke. It's like that in the bars, but with tobacco smoke. Though it doesn't dissappear when you open the window, because more and more cigarettes are being lit up over time.


Secondly, modern ventilation technology can radically reduce smoke in the atmosphere of a bar. Any risk from second-hand smoke would be minimal.Oh, really? Such as what? Loud and obnoxious fans? Expensive air filtration and exchange systems which working class bars probably can't afford?


Because they might not want to. They might want to enjoy their smoke at the table, indoors, in the warmth, over a drink, sitting down, with friends, with some good conversation, etc. They might not want to stand around outside by the road rushing a cigarette in the rain or cold for the hell of it. I might want to enjoy a drink in a bar without someone smoking next to me, or work in a bar without getting lung problems. I didn't choose for them to smoke, they chose to smoke, so they can go outside and smoke, or quit.


They were once upon a time -- a place where you went to wind down with a drink and, if you fancied, a smoke. Same goes for cafes.Well this isn't "once upon a time", it's 2011. The main purpose of a bar is to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages.

[Princess Luna]

I don't smoke but I find anti-smoking people tend to be really obnoxious, if you don't like smoking than don't fucking eat/work/hangout at a place that allows smoking, but stop pushing your fanaticism on me. Most anti-smokers are cut from the same cloth that gave birth to anti-alcohol, anti-drug, and anti fast-food* assholes.


*When I say "anti fast-food" I am not refering to the people who justly attack the fast-food industry based on how they treat their workers, I am talking about the liberal dipshits whose sole reason for loathing Mcdonalds is the fact they view it as 'unhealthy'

[tfb]

The only reason some of you people are considering lifting smoking bans is that it's already banned in so many places that smoking, as it's allowed right now, doesn't seem very bad. People used to smoke at work. People used to smoke on airplanes and buses. Do you think that should be allowed to again? Should people have to avoid smoke by not going to work or travelling by plane or bus? And what about pregnant women?

[tfb]

I don't smoke but I find anti-smoking people tend to be really obnoxious, if you don't like smoking than don't fucking eat/work/hangout at a place that allows smoking, but stop pushing your fanaticism on me. Most anti-smokers are cut from the same cloth that gave birth to anti-alcohol, anti-drug, and anti fast-food* assholes.


*When I say "anti fast-food" I am not refering to the people who justly attack the fast-food industry based on how they treat their workers, I am talking about the liberal dipshits whose sole reason for loathing Mcdonalds is the fact they view it as 'unhealthy'

When people drink in the same building as you they aren't also pouring alcohol down your throat. Necessarily.

[Leftsolidarity]

I like to smoke. I'll smoke where I want. I don't like to be obnoxious about smoking though. Let me decide where I shall and shall not smoke.

[RED DAVE]

I'll smoke whereever I please, thanks.I don't think so, Comrade. Not in a closed space where someone else has to inhale that stuff.

RED DAVE

[Die Rote Fahne]

I like to smoke. I'll smoke where I want. I don't like to be obnoxious about smoking though. Let me decide where I shall and shall not smoke.

I like to spray cans of axe body spray. I'll spray cans of axe body spray where I want. I don't like to be obnoxious about spraying axe body spray though. Let me decide where I shall and shall not spray axe body spray.

Why can't I do it at a bar or restaurant? Why should I be banned from doing that indoors?

[ThePintsizeslasher]

I read a very long time ago that local smoking bans in the US increase drunk driving accidents. People who drink and smoke would rather do both at the same time, so they drive over to the next county to do so, and their drive back is longer, increasing chances for accidents.

[ThePintsizeslasher]

A quick google search pulls up a sciencedaily article of a 2008 study about how the relationship between smoking bans and drunk driving.

I'd be against them even if it didn't.

[SHORAS]

I don't realy feel strongly either way on this. :closedeyes:

But, what is the point of tobacco smoking?


There is no point as such it is simply an addiction. As the guy from the film 'Insider' said cigarettes are a "nicotine delivery device".

I started as young as 12 on and off, not smoking very much at all but in my late teens and until mid 20s smoking regularly 10-20 a day. I would say the reason I started was purely influence from my dad who smoked. Not that he said here son, smoke it's cool or some nonsense like that. He was actually strongly against any of his children smoking - I would hide the fact that I was a smoker and never smoked with him. Anyway, it's the thing about seeing older people doing it, it being in films etc

We have since both quit but he only stopped due to medical advice. He would have probably never quit otherwise. There is a strong possibility I will smoke again as I have stopped from time to time, even as long as a year. But smoking is horrible in reality although it is possible to enjoy it as a smoker, I certainly thought I was having a good time!

Respect to those that never smoke in the first place! Though perhaps that shows you are very conservative?:D

[Thirsty Crow]

A majority of people at these settings will be, most likely, non-smokers. You may say the non-smokers should just leave, or not go there;
what about the workers? The bartender, clerk or the server who is being harmed by the second-hand smoke?
Why shouldn't the smoker just go outside, smoke, and come back in?
It is a person's choice to smoke, ergo they take on the fact that they should not be smoking inside bars, cafes, restaurants, etc.

First of all, I should say that I do smoke and that I am biased when it comes to this issue. However, I don't think that "extreme" positions are reasonable, ranging from advocating total bans on smoking in any kind of a public space (and preferably banning smoking on one's one balcony, as takayuki hinted) annd, on the other hand, advocating total disregard for people who do not smoke and are concerened for their health.

So, for me this whole issue starts with a simple premise: people should be able to socialize, go out and spend their time without having to worry for potential effects of actions which they themselves are not committing. So, it's kind of hard for me to see why special spaces within bars, cafes and restauransts couldn't be provided for people who wish to smoke (since going out to smoke in winter can be pretty irritating). Just as people who do not wish to smoke can choose to sit their asses down in the part where no one smokes. Also, I can't see why people working there would have to wait on their customers. Here's the bar, located in the non-smoking area, and you can take a short stroll, take a drking and go back to enjoy yourself. I think that would be reasonable, and it would also take care of the problem with workers' passive smoking (at least with respect to those people who object to it).
But I fail to see how the conclusion that smokers take on the fact that they shouldn't be smoking in bars follows from the premise that it's their choice in the first place. With healthy debate and collective decision making, I believe that compromises are possible whereby smokers could go out and light it up and non-smokers not be bothered by the smoke.



Bars are not specifically for smoking, nor are cafes or restaurants.
Bars are, at least currently, specifically for making a profit, and smoking here does not function as an a priori negative or positive, so I fail to see how this comment is relevant.

[SHORAS]

Just to take this in another direction...I can't see smoking in a communist society at least no where near the scale or content that exists currently. Apart from the disgusting production process there isn't gonna be much motivation for the production of billions of cigarettes! I would have thought other things might be a little bit more necessary.

[Fopeos]

All I can say is that I don't want to smell your smoke. If an odor-free cigarette can be developed, smoke away. I try not to give off noxious fumes while i'm in public and would appreciate the same courtesy.

[Leftsolidarity]

I like to spray cans of axe body spray. I'll spray cans of axe body spray where I want. I don't like to be obnoxious about spraying axe body spray though. Let me decide where I shall and shall not spray axe body spray.

Why can't I do it at a bar or restaurant? Why should I be banned from doing that indoors?

If you aren't obnoxious about it I don't see a problem.

[thefinalmarch]

I feel bad when i hear tehno music, so let's please ban that next.
I am seriously in favour of this.

When the revolution comes we should take steps at once to ban the production and distribution of, as well as the practice of listening to techno music.

[Princess Luna]

I like to spray cans of axe body spray. I'll spray cans of axe body spray where I want. I don't like to be obnoxious about spraying axe body spray though. Let me decide where I shall and shall not spray axe body spray.

Why can't I do it at a bar or restaurant? Why should I be banned from doing that indoors?
If the workers have no problem with it, and people coming in are warned that spraying axe body spray is allowed, than by god spray away!

[Fopeos]

The problem with smoking is that once exhaled, the smoke is everyones' to share whether they like it or not. And that it's filled with known carcinogens and toxic chemicals. Your rights to pursue happiness really only goes as far as it's not infringing on someone elses' pursuits of hapiness. I'm all for smoking at bars. Smoking and drinking go hand in hand and I know, if i'm going to a bar, that i'll be exposed to smoke. I wouldn't put a child in that environment, but i might choose to put myself there for a while. I would support the banning of smoking at a mall or other large, indoor public spaces.
What if we were talking about chewing tobacco? Sure, if I chose to chew, and swallowed all of the juice/spit by-product, it wouldn't be an issue. However, if I chose to spit on the floors, sidewalks, or tables in public spaces, it would be a nuisance and a potential hazard to others.
I guess my point is: Try to have consideration to the folks you're sharing space with.

[Die Rote Fahne]

If the workers have no problem with it, and people coming in are warned that spraying axe body spray is allowed, than by god spray away!
So people who have no choice in their illness, or in where to work, should be forced to not work at all or not go to the bar because some people who made the choice to smoke don't want to go outside...

Makes sense.

[Leftsolidarity]

So people who have no choice in their illness, or in where to work, should be forced to not work at all or not go to the bar because some people who made the choice to smoke don't want to go outside...

Makes sense.

You might want to read the OP and then re-read your post.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I do in some places like restaurants. Like c'mon, I'm trying to eat here I don't want to smell your smoke. But banning it at like parks? Nah.

[Klaatu]

Then don't go hang out with smokers.

Can't avoid them.

I have to "walk through the gauntlet" of self-inflicted nicotine-poisoning addicts whenever I enter any campus building... I have to hold my breath to avoid the incredibly putrid smell... an odor not unlike a rotting, maggot-infested carcass on a hot day stench, only worse, not to mention the unwanted, invasive poisons in the air (puke-smile-face) :eek:

[Rss]

To OP: In public indoor places, yes. Smokers should have designated smoking rooms for them though.

[Vanguard1917]

So, 20 people should leave because 5 want to smoke? I mean, yes, there are bars (etc.) where smoking is not permitted, in some places it is all of them. It is better for the workers and the customers who are there. Smoking is a CHOICE. If you choose to smoke, you choose to not do it in these places.

And if there is a pub nearby which is smoke-free by policy, those people have a choice to go there instead.

There would be places that cater to smokers and places that don't. That way, people will have a real choice, not the nanny-state 'choice' you have personally dished out for them.



Hypothetical: If smoking is allowed - I have asthma, I'm sitting at the bar enjoying my drink and chatting with a person next to me, some guy sits on the other side of me and lights up a smoke, I ask him to go somewhere else or stop smoking, he refuses. It's up to me to leave? It seems that this person's choice is infringing on my freedom to drink without having an asthma attack. I didn't choose to have asthma, he chose to smoke.


If it's a smoking establishment, he is in the right, not you.


I might want to enjoy a drink in a bar without someone smoking next to me, or work in a bar without getting lung problems. I didn't choose for them to smoke, they chose to smoke, so they can go outside and smoke, or quit.

And you can stop lecturing people and go to a smoke-free bar.

I want to go to a nightclub which doesn't play ear-splitting techno music, something which distresses me much more than a smoky atmosphere (I'm essentially a non-smoker, BTW, and not particularly a fan of smoky places). Good for me - i will go to a nightclub which is better suited to my tastes.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Can't avoid them.

I have to "walk through the gauntlet" of self-inflicted nicotine-poisoning addicts whenever I enter any campus building... I have to hold my breath to avoid the incredibly putrid smell... an odor not unlike a rotting, maggot-infested carcass on a hot day stench, only worse, not to mention the unwanted, invasive poisons in the air (puke-smile-face) :eek:

If smoking bans really were for the purposes of public health, then they would include provisions for smokers enabling them to enjoy their habit without having to hang around outside doorways and shit.

But instead smokers get a bunch of condescending hyperbole from the very types who ended up pushing them outside in the first place.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Agreed, I certainly don't think smokers only option should be going outdoors.

However, I still have concern, as someone studying occupational health and safety, for the health of the employees of bars in the long term. The effects of long term exposure to second hand smoke can range from slight irritation/sensitivity to the smoke, to causing severe asthma attacks, to lung/nasal and sinus cancer. It can cause permanent issues with the lungs, such as emphysema. To me, the point that "they can work somewhere else if they don't like the smoke" idea, puts me in mind of someone working where there is asbestos. Why should they be forced to quit, and suffer the effects of unemployment because of a problem that can be solved simply and efficiently.

On this point, my previous posts in which I mentioned smokers going outside, my point was, that if you choose to smoke, and there is a smoking ban, why are you smoking if going outside to do it is such a bother? Quitting can be hard, but it'll save you money and health in the long term. "But smoking...stresss....." smoking doesn't relieve stress unless you are already a smoker, in which the stress that is relieved is the craving that may coincide with a stressful event.

[Die Rote Fahne]

If you aren't obnoxious about it I don't see a problem.
What about those in the workplace, or the customers, who are sensitive/allergic to these things?

[piet11111]

Bars and restaurants should be able to decide for themselves if they allow smoking or not both under capitalism and socialism.

I am a non-smoker and i know that if i go to a bar there will be smokers (frankly since the smoking ban the bars stink like old sweat and stale beer please bring back smoking) but i never complained because i know there are non-smoking bars that i also could go to.

The last thing we want is some nanny state that forces us to do things "for our own good" i wouldn't accept a ban on alcohol so i why should i tolerate a ban on smoking even if it doesn't affect me.

Hell this could be a slippery slope where they ban all non electric cars for their exhaust fumes now then i would be massively pissed off.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Bars and restaurants should be able to decide for themselves if they allow smoking or not both under capitalism and socialism.It should be up to the workers.


I am a non-smoker and i know that if i go to a bar there will be smokers (frankly since the smoking ban the bars stink like old sweat and stale beer please bring back smoking) but i never complained because i know there are non-smoking bars that i also could go to.The bars I go to, don't smell of stale beer, or anything in particular. There are only two bars in my town. Both are lower class bars. One is frequented by older folks and the other by the younger crowds.


The last thing we want is some nanny state that forces us to do things "for our own good" i wouldn't accept a ban on alcohol so i why should i tolerate a ban on smoking even if it doesn't affect me.Good Sarah Palin impression.

Jokes aside, I agree that smoking should not be banned.

Do you think that drinking and driving should be banned, and why? Shouldn't other drivers just stay off the road?


Hell this could be a slippery slope where they ban all non electric cars for their exhaust fumes now then i would be massively pissed off.
The thing is that this is a bad comparison. They aren't banning smoking, but smoking in public places.

Yes, it is possible to eliminate vehicles that run on fossil fuels. It will happen under socialism, because under capitalism there is too much profit from fossil fuels.

[blackandyellow]

It's amazing how much anti-smokers can exagerate the smell and harmfulness of second hand smoke in these sort of discussions. You would think many have zero to no contact with smokers. If you get so worked up over a cigarete, i must say you probably arent the bar, club or pub type.

Sitting next to someone in a bar who is smoking is not going to kill you. If you asthma, then i feel sorry for you, but there are other everyday occurences that are a problem for people with some sort of medical condition, as Vanguard1917 pointed out, someone with migraines will suffer from loud noises. Someone with PTSD may face problem if a jogger runs past them, again i feel sorry for them, but should we then ban jogging incase someone you run past has PTSD? The limits are endless

[piet11111]

It should be up to the workers.

Indeed that is why it should be left to them instead of government ban.


Do you think that drinking and driving should be banned, and why?

:rolleyes:

There are already laws in place to deal with DUI without banning alcohol or vehicles.



Yes, it is possible to eliminate vehicles that run on fossil fuels. It will happen under socialism.

Fuck no stay the hell away from my car.

[blackandyellow]

The last thing we want is some nanny state that forces us to do things "for our own good" i wouldn't accept a ban on alcohol so i why should i tolerate a ban on smoking even if it doesn't affect me

Its more of bully state, that cant tolerate the 'dirty habbits' of the lower orders, with our sugary drinks, greasy kebabs, 'excessive' drinking and smoking, and wants to micromanage our lives, because we are just too stupid to look after ourselves apparently.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It should be up to the workers.

And where that's not possible, the State should step in?! :confused:


The bars I go to, don't smell of stale beer, or anything in particular.

This I cannot believe. Any establishment that serves alcohol as a matter of course will smell of it, and the customers will bring in their own unique bouquet on top of that. No matter how well-kept it is.


There are only two bars in my town. Both are lower class bars. One is frequented by older folks and the other by the younger crowds.

And if a large enough proportion of their clientele are smokers, why shouldn't those establishments be allowed to provide seperate areas/rooms for their smoking customers?

[Die Rote Fahne]

And where that's not possible, the State should step in?! :confused:Where it's not possible how?




This I cannot believe. Any establishment that serves alcohol as a matter of course will smell of it, and the customers will bring in their own unique bouquet on top of that. No matter how well-kept it is. Of course, but it isn't so strong that I notice it all the time or would wish for smoke to cover it up.




And if a large enough proportion of their clientele are smokers, why shouldn't those establishments be allowed to provide seperate areas/rooms for their smoking customers?They should, but that's kinda hard when it's easier for the owner to just not do it haha. Under socialism I can see it not being an issue at all.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Indeed that is why it should be left to them instead of government ban.Sure, but that doesn't always work.




:rolleyes: Smoking in bars can indirectly harm others. Drinking and driving indirectly harms others.


There are already laws in place to deal with DUI without banning alcohol or vehicles. We aren't talking about banning smoking or tobacco.





Fuck no stay the hell away from my car.

I'm talking about phasing out the production of gasoline engines.

[Klaatu]

If smoking bans really were for the purposes of public health, then they would include provisions for smokers enabling them to enjoy their habit without having to hang around outside doorways and shit.

But instead smokers get a bunch of condescending hyperbole from the very types who ended up pushing them outside in the first place.

Don't get me wrong; smokers have the freedom to poison themselves all they like. But please don't poison others in the process.

Also, studies show that it is actually healthier for the smoker to smoke outdoors, because smoking indoors has a recycling effect (breathing the same old stale, toxin-laden air over and over) :eek:

[KevlarPants]

Smoking in bars can indirectly harm others. Drinking and driving indirectly harms others.

The unprobable causation of extremely minor lung complications is indirect harm. Running over a child on a sidewalk with your car, however, isn't very indirect.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The unprobable causation of extremely minor lung complications is indirect harm. Running over a child on a sidewalk with your car, however, isn't very indirect.

Cancer, emphysema, bronchitis are all "extremely minor"?

Regular exposure to second-hand smoke increases the chances of contracting lung disease by 25% and heart disease by 10%.

You have a 30% chance of being involved in an alcohol related crash in your lifetime.

[Le Rouge]

I like to smoke. I'll smoke where I want. I don't like to be obnoxious about smoking though. Let me decide where I shall and shall not smoke.

I like to explode bombs. I'll put bombs where I want. Good logic sir.

[The Douche]

I smoke a pack a day. I support smoking bans in all indoor public spaces.

I would love to be able to smoke in my seat after a meal, or stay inside and smoke while I'm at the bar instead of dealing with rain/weather.

But its not right to force the staff of the establishment to the negative effects of secondhand smoke.

I also don't smoke inside my house, because my girl doesn't smoke and I won't subject her to it, and I certainly won't smoke inside if I ever have a kid, nor will I smoke with them in the car.

[Sasha]

I smoke a pack a day. I support smoking bans in all indoor public spaces.

I would love to be able to smoke in my seat after a meal, or stay inside and smoke while I'm at the bar instead of dealing with rain/weather.

But its not right to force the staff of the establishment to the negative effects of secondhand smoke.

I also don't smoke inside my house, because my girl doesn't smoke and I won't subject her to it, and I certainly won't smoke inside if I ever have a kid, nor will I smoke with them in the car.


this (although i myself stopped smoking ages ago). Tabacco is an drug thats harmfull to other people and excludes handicapped people like lung patients from acces to lots of social places (would you spray a can of mace into a bar just because you happen to be imune to its effects?), sure you can smoke, inside your own house/car/etc, a designated smoking room or outside that is.

and should there be an law about it in a post revolutionairy society? i hope not because if by then we cant even act socially enough to automatically and voluntarily take your adiction outside to not harm other people and be inclusive i dont have much hopes for that revolution

[Leftsolidarity]

I like to explode bombs. I'll put bombs where I want. Good logic sir.

Completely different and you know that.

Apparently you missed the not being obnoxious part of it? I can judge the situation and see if it is alright to smoke or not where I am. We shouldn't have blanket laws saying where we can and can't smoke.

[Klaatu]

Originally Posted by Leftsolidarity http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2247103#post2247103)
I like to smoke. I'll smoke where I want. I don't like to be obnoxious about smoking though. Let me decide where I shall and shall not smoke.
I like to explode bombs. I'll put bombs where I want. Good logic sir.

I like to masturbate. I will masturbate wherever I want. :p

[Sasha]

I can judge the situation and see if it is alright to smoke or not where I am.

no, in all likelihood you can not, i had a friend who was an serious lungpatient, everybody in squat scene knew this yet the same people who i would be conscious enough of too not even eat cheese in their view (if they where vegan) would light up while chatting to her.
i have the most tolerant people seen turn completely asshole when they felt someone tried to infringe on their addiction.
seriously, i know hardcore heroin junkies with plenty more social behavior in fixing up than most smokers.

[Property Is Robbery]

Then don't go hang out with smokers.
So I should stop hanging out with 90% of my friends?

same people who i would be conscious enough of too not even eat cheese in their view (if they where vegan)
Wow, you're a really nice guy :p I'm a vegan and I would never expect anybody to do that. I don't care the slightest when people eat animals products in front of me. Smoking cigarettes in my presence is another story.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I wonder how many people here actually have taken an introductory health class because comments like,"minor lung problems" really make me wonder.I learned in sixth grade how dangerous smoking was to you and everyone around you.If you are going to smoke then please take it outside.If you refuse than a law should be created so you have to.Poisoning others is not appropriate in my book.

[SHORAS]

It's amazing how much anti-smokers can exagerate the smell and harmfulness of second hand smoke in these sort of discussions.

When I was a smoker I found other people smoking disgusting (when I wasn't smoking at that particular moment). That may come across as strange but entirely true. Not the act itself but the smell mainly. In pubs or wherever I don't think it is as bad because those places have been so saturated with smoke and beer over the years it's not as noticeable. Pubs generally just tend to smell overwhelmingly of beer. Though smoking outside is obviously different, there is very little effect if any on other people. Unless of course you leave cigarette buts on the floor or flick ash around within a space.

I think it is pretty simple really, if you want to smoke respect other people and if others have a problem with you then do something about it. The onus is not on people to grin and bear it.

[Aleenik]

If people want to smoke then fine. That is their dumb choice. However, I feel they shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public areas. They are killing everyone else around them without their consent.

[Leftsolidarity]

I think it is pretty simple really, if you want to smoke respect other people and if others have a problem with you then do something about it. The onus is not on people to grin and bear it.

I agree, I just feel that it varies from situation to situation. Sometimes it could be fine to smoke inside, other times not so much. Smokers though are the ones that need to move when it is needed.

[Kitty_Paine]

Agreed, I certainly don't think smokers only option should be going outdoors.

However, I still have concern, as someone studying occupational health and safety, for the health of the employees of bars in the long term. The effects of long term exposure to second hand smoke can range from slight irritation/sensitivity to the smoke, to causing severe asthma attacks, to lung/nasal and sinus cancer. It can cause permanent issues with the lungs, such as emphysema. To me, the point that "they can work somewhere else if they don't like the smoke" idea, puts me in mind of someone working where there is asbestos. Why should they be forced to quit, and suffer the effects of unemployment because of a problem that can be solved simply and efficiently.

On this point, my previous posts in which I mentioned smokers going outside, my point was, that if you choose to smoke, and there is a smoking ban, why are you smoking if going outside to do it is such a bother? Quitting can be hard, but it'll save you money and health in the long term. "But smoking...stresss....." smoking doesn't relieve stress unless you are already a smoker, in which the stress that is relieved is the craving that may coincide with a stressful event.

I don't know. What idiot would get a job in a bar being concerned with the amount of second-hand smoke they might inhale? I mean I'm sure there are those out there but... I'm saying don't get a job at a bar if your worried about smoke; seems reasonable to me. And for the people working in bars, as long as they know the risks then let them do what they will. And on top of that... smoking should absolutely be aloud in bars, period. And as far as resturants go, I'd say let the owner decide...

The argument of saving money and your health, 9 times out of 10, isn't going to sway any smoker into quitting. Those are obvious and most smoker know that. People are all different and it can be drastically more difficult for one person to stop than another.

"Smoking doesn't relieve stress unless you are laready a smoker"??? I don't know about that, at least on a personal level. Have you ever been to a Hookah bar? I smoke cigarettes every once in a while because it comes with a nice buzz; which is incredibly relaxing. But by no means am I a "smoker"; at least in the standard definition. Smoking can be a great stress reliever though, even if you don't smoke regularly... at least for me. I'm not going to assume that it has the same effect on you though.

[Princess Luna]

I love some of the over-exaggerating going on in this thread, don't get me wrong cigarettes are bad for your health if you smoke for years on end, but if you listen to half the people in this thread a single wiff of tobacco smoke will cause you to keel over dead. My favorite is the person who called cigarettes "death sticks"

[Kitty_Paine]

If people want to smoke then fine. That is their dumb choice. However, I feel they shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public areas. They are killing everyone else around them without their consent.

When you say Public areas, what more specifically do you mean? Public out-door and indoor?

In terms of indoor I agree, there should be smoking areas. Because of poor ventalation and the smell of smoke tends to linger indoors. But outdoor areas like parks I think is getting a little crazy. Public places are public, there for everyone. Your talking about around 60 million people that smoke, a decent part of the population. And I realize second-hand smoke is a real issue. That's why there should be smoking areas indoors and dessignated smoking areas in some public areas. But to ban smoking in public completely is going to far. At least to me it is.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I love some of the over-exaggerating going on in this thread, don't get me wrong cigarettes are bad for your health if you smoke for years on end, but if you listen to half the people in this thread a single wiff of tobacco smoke will cause you to keel over dead. My favorite is the person who called cigarettes "death sticks"

That is the truth.They are death sticks: they cause millions to die and many others to suffer as a result of second-hand smoke.

[Le Rouge]

We should only ban smoking in closed areas. By closed areas i mean : airplanes, resto, bars, little buildings, etc.

[Kitty_Paine]

We should only ban smoking in closed areas. By closed areas i mean : airplanes, resto, bars, little buildings, etc.

I agree with this... mostly. But bars?

Bars ands clubs (assuming you mean clubs too) are were people go to relax, drink... and smoke. People can easily avoid some bars if they don't like the smoke. But as far as nightlife goes, banning smoking from bars and clubs only serves to upset people.

[Klaatu]

It is a pity that we need LAWS to force the smoker (purveyor of toxic waste) to simply venture outside.
In a polite society, such a person would just do that anyway, without even being asked.

Now I am wondering that we might actually need a law that requires people to flush public toilets (!)
(considering all of the assholes that don't) :eek:

[Die Rote Fahne]

I don't know. What idiot would get a job in a bar being concerned with the amount of second-hand smoke they might inhale? I mean I'm sure there are those out there but... I'm saying don't get a job at a bar if your worried about smoke; seems reasonable to me. And for the people working in bars, as long as they know the risks then let them do what they will. And on top of that... smoking should absolutely be aloud in bars, period. And as far as resturants go, I'd say let the owner decide...So if I have the skills to mix and serve alcoholic beverages, and had the option (because I need work right away) to work in a bar for $20/hour or work minimum wage, I should choose minimum wage because smokers enjoy poisoning other people?


The argument of saving money and your health, 9 times out of 10, isn't going to sway any smoker into quitting. Those are obvious and most smoker know that. People are all different and it can be drastically more difficult for one person to stop than another.
Nicotine addiction is considered harder than heroine addictions to quit. Ergo, the mentality is worse than a heroine junkie.


"Smoking doesn't relieve stress unless you are laready a smoker"??? I don't know about that, at least on a personal level. Have you ever been to a Hookah bar? I smoke cigarettes every once in a while because it comes with a nice buzz; which is incredibly relaxing. But by no means am I a "smoker"; at least in the standard definition. Smoking can be a great stress reliever though, even if you don't smoke regularly... at least for me. I'm not going to assume that it has the same effect on you though.I've smoked plenty. It does nothing for me. No buzz, sometimes it causes me to become lightheaded and nauseous. The "buzz" affect, doesn't last past the first month or so of steady smoking, according to the long term smokers I know.

Smokers often use the act of lighting and smoking a cigarette as a “time out” from thinking about or dealing with stress. Like any activity, smoking can distract a person from his or her troubles. Because smoking is often a social activity, some people find that lighting a cigarette brings to mind feelings of group support. This can comfort people in times of stress. Lastly, an addicted smoker will feel better after smoking because it relieves nicotine withdrawal symptoms.


The idea that smoking relieves stress is a myth, say psychologists.
Rather than help smokers relax, nicotine actually increases anxiety and tension, they claim.
The relaxing effect of smoking is a psychological addiction, warn researchers at the University of East London.
When combined with a chemical addiction to nicotine, levels of stress are heightened, not lowered. Psychologist Andy Parrott, whose findings have been published in the medical journal American Psychologist, explained: 'Regular smokers need nicotine to maintain normal moods as they suffer tension between cigarettes.'
Dr Parrott examined more than 30 international studies into smoking and stress. He said: 'Most smokers mistakenly claim cigarettes are helping to relieve stress.'
The psychologist said regular smoking halts the onset of withdrawal symptoms, creating a psychological link between cigarettes and feeling good.
He called on the Government's anti-smoking campaigns to shatter the myth that cigarettes relieve stress.
Dr Parrott said: 'This could help many people kick the habit.' His comments were backed by anti-smoking pressure group ASH.
Clive Bates, director of ASH, said: 'All that smokers experience is a relief from their addiction. This dependency gradually disappears when they quit.'
Nearly 13 million Britons smoke, despite more than 100,000 deaths each year from lung cancer, heart disease and respiratory illnesses caused by cigarettes.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-71864/Smoking-does-relieve-stress-say-doctors.html#ixzz1ZgYmgyvI

[Kitty_Paine]

It is a pity that we need LAWS to force the smoker (purveyor of toxic waste) to simply venture outside.
In a polite society, such a person would just do that anyway, without even being asked.

Now I am wondering that we might actually need a law that requires people to flush public toilets (!)
(considering all of the assholes that don't) :eek:

Ha, :p

A "polite" society is a matter of opinions and perceptions... so unfortuantely it is impossible. And even as obvious as something seems (like stepping outside to smoke to be polite) some don't get it and never will.

And unfortunately that is why we do need some laws because people would just step all over eachother if we didn't.

But I think buildings should just have smoking areas... seems like an easy fix... well kind of.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I agree with this... mostly. But bars?

Bars ands clubs (assuming you mean clubs too) are were people go to relax, drink... and smoke. People can easily avoid some bars if they don't like the smoke. But as far as nightlife goes, banning smoking from bars and clubs only serves to upset people.
Yes, the smokers who go outside in the bars I have gone too seem so pissed off... :rolleyes:

[Aleenik]

When you say Public areas, what more specifically do you mean? Public out-door and indoor?

In terms of indoor I agree, there should be smoking areas. Because of poor ventalation and the smell of smoke tends to linger indoors. But outdoor areas like parks I think is getting a little crazy. Public places are public, there for everyone. Your talking about around 60 million people that smoke, a decent part of the population. And I realize second-hand smoke is a real issue. That's why there should be smoking areas indoors and dessignated smoking areas in some public areas. But to ban smoking in public completely is going to far. At least to me it is.I'm talking about public indoor and outdoor areas. Even outdoors you can inhale smoke when nearby others. That problem is obviously more apparent in crowded places though.

[Kitty_Paine]

So if I have the skills to mix and serve alcoholic beverages, and had the option (because I need work right away) to work in a bar for $20/hour or work minimum wage, I should choose minimum wage because smokers enjoy poisoning other people?

That's the great thing about having freedom of choice :) (well somewhat, but that's another topic)

Plus I know first hand you can make good money at a lot of restuarant bars and in hotels, airports, etc. You can just generalize everything with one example.

And smokers enjoy poisoning other people? I'm assuming that's not actually what you think... :p

[Kitty_Paine]

Yes, the smokers who go outside in the bars I have gone too seem so pissed off... :rolleyes:

:p Come on... really?

I didn't mean they're trolling around fuming... but, especially at bars people prefer to able to smoke inside. It's irritating especially considering the fact that not to long ago people could.

I could relate it too having to go to an out house to use the bathroom instead of using it inside. Yes, you'd prefer to use it inside. Yes, you're not thrilled with it but you're not raising hell. And some don't agree with the reason why it was banned either so... it leads to some irritated people naturally. And a lot of people are raising hell about it too...

Maybe your just not at the right bars... :lol:

[Klaatu]

Yes, the smokers who go outside in the bars I have gone too seem so pissed off... :rolleyes:

They really do love the fresh air (smokers have actually told me that they hate to be inside, around all of that stinky, stale SH smoke)

I am not making this up :cool:

[Leftsolidarity]

I'm talking about public indoor and outdoor areas. Even outdoors you can inhale smoke when nearby others. That problem is obviously more apparent in crowded places though.

Fuck you, it's outside. There is a case to say that it isn't right to do it inside but for fuck's sake IT'S OUTSIDE!!!

[Leftsolidarity]

They really do love the fresh air (smokers have actually told me that they hate to be inside, around all of that stinky, stale SH smoke)

I am not making this up :cool:

You know what's funny? Smokers all have different likes and dislikes of where to smoke. Just because some smokers have told you certain things doesn't mean it represents smokers in general. I am a smoker and yes I personally like smoking outside more but most of my buddies prefer to smoke inside.

[Art Vandelay]

We are fighting for socialism to gain more freedoms not restrict more. Smoking is a personal choice. I agree no one should be subjected to it without their consent but come on. Why could there not be restaurants and bars where you can smoke and ones where you can not? No non smoker would ever have to be around it unless they chose and everyone would be happy. Obviously there needs to be places where people can not smoke, as well the correct information about the dangers of smoking need to be made known to everyone and have better help available to people trying to quit; but those who choose to make the decision to smoke should have their rights respected like anyone else.

Personally I smoke cigars from time to time and it is not as enjoyable standing outside for an hour and a half, freezing my ass off (live in Canada) all winter, truthfully it is a waste of a good cigar and those who smoke them know how expensive they can be.

[Die Rote Fahne]

We are fighting for socialism to gain more freedoms not restrict more. Smoking is a personal choice. I agree no one should be subjected to it without their consent but come on. Why could there not be restaurants and bars where you can smoke and ones where you can not? No non smoker would ever have to be around it unless they chose and everyone would be happy. Obviously there needs to be places where people can not smoke, as well the correct information about the dangers of smoking need to be made known to everyone and have better help available to people trying to quit; but those who choose to make the decision to smoke should have their rights respected like anyone else.

Personally I smoke cigars from time to time and it is not as enjoyable standing outside for an hour and a half, freezing my ass off (live in Canada) all winter, truthfully it is a waste of a good cigar and those who smoke them know how expensive they can be.
We are fighting for socialism to end the exploitation of the majority by a minority.

In socialism/communism, it wouldn't be an issue. It will be up to the workers councils to decide what happens.

However, this is capitalism. There's no way to make these smoker bars and non-smoker bars unless you are petit-bourgeois or bourgeois. It takes money, willing investors, etc.

So, within capitalism, these laws are necessary.

[Art Vandelay]

We are fighting for socialism to end the exploitation of the majority by a minority.

In socialism/communism, it wouldn't be an issue. It will be up to the workers councils to decide what happens.

However, this is capitalism. There's no way to make these smoker bars and non-smoker bars unless you are petit-bourgeois or bourgeois. It takes money, willing investors, etc.

So, within capitalism, these laws are necessary.

The op's question was in socialism would they be necessary? I was not talking about capitalism, nor do I have any interest in reforming it's laws. Also along with the end of the exploitation of a majority by a minority will also come with it the most free society the world is ever known and people saying that in socialism their would be no indoors places for people to smoke is ridiculous. Of course it would be up to the workers councils to decide but I think with the amount of smokers in the world its safe to say that there would be some that allowed it.

[Die Rote Fahne]

The op's question was in socialism would they be necessary? I was not talking about capitalism, nor do I have any interest in reforming it's laws. Also along with the end of the exploitation of a majority by a minority will also come with it the most free society the world is ever known and people saying that in socialism their would be no indoors places for people to smoke is ridiculous. Of course it would be up to the workers councils to decide but I think with the amount of smokers in the world its safe to say that there would be some that allowed it.

Yeah, the discussion has been, in the past few pages, regarding the current smoking bans in bars and other places.

You jumped in the middle haha.

[Art Vandelay]

Yeah, the discussion has been, in the past few pages, regarding the current smoking bans in bars and other places.

You jumped in the middle haha.

My fault, however I would still hold the same opinion. There is a movement in Canada to shut down hookah bars. It is simple, if you do not want to be around smoke do not go or get a job at a hookah bar. However in bars and public places that are not meant strictly for smoking it should be banned.

[Aleenik]

Fuck you, it's outside. There is a case to say that it isn't right to do it inside but for fuck's sake IT'S OUTSIDE!!!You can still inhale harmful/deadly chemicals while outisde.

Also, no need for the 'fuck you'. Tons of solidarity in that comment, eh?

[∞]

Listen, if you ban cigs, they will continue smoke em. Banning cigs, is outright reactionary and something I'd expect stromfront to support.

[Klaatu]

"You know what's funny? Smokers all have different likes and dislikes of where to smoke. Just because some smokers have told you certain things doesn't mean it represents smokers in general. I am a smoker and yes I personally like smoking outside more but most of my buddies prefer to smoke inside."

Generally, if at all possible, I try to FART in the appropriate places (the toilet) :lol:



Fuck you, it's outside...

"Fuck You" always weakens your argument (a lesson to be learned: You really wanna say it... but don't!) ;)

[SHORAS]

I don't know. What idiot would get a job in a bar being concerned with the amount of second-hand smoke they might inhale? I mean I'm sure there are those out there but... I'm saying don't get a job at a bar if your worried about smoke; seems reasonable to me. And for the people working in bars, as long as they know the risks then let them do what they will. And on top of that... smoking should absolutely be aloud in bars, period. And as far as resturants go, I'd say let the owner decide...

The argument of saving money and your health, 9 times out of 10, isn't going to sway any smoker into quitting. Those are obvious and most smoker know that. People are all different and it can be drastically more difficult for one person to stop than another.


Perhaps an idiot who cannot manage to find employment doing anything else? As you may (or may not of in your case) realised we do not live in a society full of choice, where people can do as they please and all needs are met. Why does the owner get to decide? Cos he owns the property?

In fact the cost of cigarettes was one of the primary reasons why I quit smoking! The country I happen to live in puts a huge tax on them and they increase in price constantly. In fact the last cigarettes I bought were delivered from another continent because they have become so expensive! The only reason my father quit was due to medical advice.


But maybe we are both stupid, we should have known all along the effects on our health and the money we were wasting. But that kind of view is silly....I can already think of one good reason to smoke. I used to be able to take several more breaks while at work because I was a smoker. Though at one job they stopped this and gave everyone one short morning break instead. Of course you can probably skive work through other methods but there is no denying it was/is a good one! And I will repeat cigarettes are a "nicotine delivery device" a very powerful addiction...it is very difficult to quit but that does not mean you cannot quit for the reasons I have given as me and my father have shown (and my sister who also quit in her 20's but for reasons unknown, I would guess health reasons - before they started putting pictures of babies dying or whatever on cigarette packs).

[Sasha]

My fault, however I would still hold the same opinion. There is a movement in Canada to shut down hookah bars. It is simple, if you do not want to be around smoke do not go or get a job at a hookah bar. However in bars and public places that are not meant strictly for smoking it should be banned.

offcourse, its insane that the smokingban here also applies to the coffeeshops and the hookah bars. but in an bar people come to drink, socialize and dance handicapped or even people just not willing to sit in toxic air should be given that opportunity, smokers just have to take it outside or in the smoking lounge.
if i would take drugs i would do it on the toilet too would i not? and those drugs are not even harmfull to others

people are more than welcome to smoke electronic cigarets, chew nicotine gum or wear nicotine patches inside, its not your adiction i have a problem with, its the poison you feel entitled to expose me too. "and if you dont want to be exposed to smoke you should not come to a bar" well fuck you... that reminds me of this house i came to be living and the guy already there didnt understand when i exploded on him because he didnt tell me there was asbesto's dust leaking from the ceilings.. exact quote: "of course i knew, but i want to be dead when i'm 30 anyway, why are you stressing?" euh maybe because i dont want to be dead at 30 you fuckface?

[Leftsolidarity]

"Fuck You" always weakens your argument (a lesson to be learned: You really wanna say it... but don't!) ;)

Wasn't much of an argument in that post. I have already posted my argument but banning smoking outside is ridiculous and a "fuck you" is just fine to me in that case.

[The Douche]

A lot of people in here arguing that the invisible hand of the free market can solve this problem. (if you don't want to be around smoke, find a different job) When did revleft become the Mises institute?

[Art Vandelay]

offcourse, its insane that the smokingban here also applies to the coffeeshops and the hookah bars. but in an bar people come to drink, socialize and dance handicapped or even people just not willing to sit in toxic air should be given that opportunity, smokers just have to take it outside or in the smoking lounge.
if i would take drugs i would do it on the toilet too would i not? and those drugs are not even harmfull to others

people are more than welcome to smoke electronic cigarets, chew nicotine gum or wear nicotine patches inside, its not your adiction i have a problem with, its the poison you feel entitled to expose me too. "and if you dont want to be exposed to smoke you should not come to a bar" well fuck you... that reminds me of this house i came to be living and the guy already there didnt understand when i exploded on him because he didnt tell me there was asbesto's dust leaking from the ceilings.. exact quote: "of course i knew, but i want to be dead when i'm 30 anyway, why are you stressing?" euh maybe because i dont want to be dead at 30 you fuckface?

Not once did I say that under our current system you should be allowed to smoke in bars. Thanks for that fuck you though, maybe try reading what I posted, but I have come to expect this level of discourse from the members of revleft but seeing it from a mod is especially sad. Have a rational discussion without falling back on "fuck you."

And just so you know I said in socialism it will be easy to have both bars and smoking lounges for smokers and ones for non smokers as well, but under capitalism the laws are necessary JUST NOT IN HOOKAH LOUNGES.

[Sasha]

Not once did I say that under our current system you should be allowed to smoke in bars. Thanks for that fuck you though, maybe try reading what I posted, but I have come to expect this level of discourse from the members of revleft but seeing it from a mod is especially sad. Have a rational discussion without falling back on "fuck you."

And just so you know I said in socialism it will be easy to have both bars and smoking lounges for smokers and ones for non smokers as well, but under capitalism the laws are necessary JUST NOT IN HOOKAH LOUNGES.


Dude, chill, I was agreeing with you....

[Vanguard1917]

offcourse, its insane that the smokingban here also applies to the coffeeshops and the hookah bars. but in an bar people come to drink, socialize and dance handicapped or even people just not willing to sit in toxic air should be given that opportunity, smokers just have to take it outside or in the smoking lounge.

And people who want to sit in 'toxic air' and enjoy their puffs in peace should be free to have bars, cafes, etc. that cater to them. And people such as yourself could have such places that cater to their no-smoking preferences. What's wrong with that? Why try to have the state impose your personal aversion to something on to everybody else?



offcourse, its insane that the smokingban here also applies to the coffeeshops and the hookah bars.


Why? Because those place are just for smoking (which is clearly not true in most cases -- 'coffee shops' (of the Dutch kind) and many hookah bars also serve food and drink)? Why do you assume that there aren't people who go to a bar to drink as well as smoke tobacco?



if i would take drugs i would do it on the toilet too would i not? and those drugs are not even harmfull to others



I'm sure that millions of people would rather go to a smoky bar or restaurant than somewhere where someone in the cubicle next to where they are washing their hands is putting heroin into their veins or coke up their nostrils. What's fine for you might not be fine for others, and vice versa. That's why it's never a good idea to try to dictate people's behaviour according to your own personal likes and dislikes.

[tir1944]

Anarchists and LibSocs being authoritarian about smoking...:laugh:

[Die Rote Fahne]

And people who want to sit in 'toxic air' and enjoy their puffs in peace should be free to have bars, cafes, etc. that cater to them. And people such as yourself could have such places that cater to their preferences. What's wrong with that? Why try to have the state impose your personal aversion to something on to everybody else? If you find it that big of a deal, quit. Are you going to build those bars for smokers? Or are you going to convert a bar that might have 30% of it's regulars as smokers and force the remaining to inhale poison? I'd rather have the state force a smoker outside than to force me to breathe unfiltered toxic smoke.

If smoking is allowed in bars so should smoking crack, spraying air freshener, using your own personal stereo and turning the volume to the point that it's deafening, Hell even drunk driving should be. Why should the government get to tell me where to drive. Why can't the road be for drivers who aren't sober. Lots of people like to drink and drive!

Why? Because those place are just for smoking (which is clearly not true in most cases -- 'coffee shops' (of the Dutch kind) and many hookah bars also serve food and drink)? Why do you assume that there aren't people who go to a bar to drink as well as smoke tobacco? Your primary reason is alcohol, or you'd be smoking at home.




I'm sure that millions of people would rather go to a smoky bar or restaurant than somewhere where someone in the cubicle next to where they are washing their hands is putting heroin into their veins or coke up their nostrils. What's fine for you might not be fine for others, and vice versa. That's why it's never a good idea to try to dictate people's behaviour according to your own personal likes and dislikes.At least that heroine and cocaine isn't entering my system and poisoning me. They'd still be doing it if it was a smoking allowed environment.

Nobody is dictating your behavior. They are "dictating" that you can't poison other people. Smoking is a choice, your choice to poison yourself should not be allowed to affect others. The same way they "dictate" that you can't go around assaulting people or putting rat poison in their food.

Everyone who has defended smoking in bars, sounds like an ancap.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Anarchists and LibSocs being authoritarian about smoking...:laugh:

Not being either I wouldn't know. But stop trying to start a tendency war.

[tir1944]

Nah i don't have any hidden intentions,it's just amusing to me.:cool:

[Klaatu]

Anarchists and LibSocs being authoritarian about smoking...:laugh:

That is a valid point, but at the same time, I do not think that protecting public health and safety is being "authoritarian."
For example, are laws against drunk driving authoritarian? no. Are laws banning anyone from drinking alcohol at home authoritarian? yes.

BTW don't miss Ken Burns' new film Prohibition on PBS (tonight is part 2)

[Leftsolidarity]

For example, are laws against drunk driving authoritarian? no.

Uh yeah. How is it not?

[Kitty_Paine]

Uh yeah. How is it not?

I don't think Authoritarianism describes drunk driving laws. Quite the opposite in fact. They're there to preserve basic human rights, which is the only reason why there should be a government in the first place and the only thing a large government should do.

But anyway...

Everyone should have the right to be able to drive without drunk dumbasses rolling around killing people. You can't argue that it's not a danger to other people's lives. So it's not Authoritarian in the fact that it's just preserving one's natural right to... well to just freaking live...

It's like saying you can't go into public blindfolded with a loaded gun and pop off a few rounds... would you call a law saying you can't do that Authoritarian?

[The Douche]

Uh yeah. How is it not?

Because drinking and driving puts others in danger, just like exposing them to second hand smoke does.

How is not authoritarian to seize property from the bourgeoisie?

When a community exercises its authority to protect its own interests it ought not to be opposed. Anarchists are not "anti-authoritarian" despite what many would like to think. They (we) just oppose the authority of the state/capitalists.

[tir1944]

Well i really wouldn't wanna live in an anarchist society...not enough freedom,too much restrictions.
:)

[Die Rote Fahne]

Well i really wouldn't wanna live in an anarchist society...not enough freedom,too much restrictions.
:)

I'll ask you to either make a valid contribution to the thread, or stop trolling/derailing. I'll gladly ask a mod to intervene.

[EvilRedGuy]

I like to masturbate. I will masturbate wherever I want. :p

I do that. ;)


Seriously, Socialism/Communism/Anarchy is about free choices, abilities and customization, and it dosen't matter what age you are.

If you want to smoke, do it.
If you want to inject (drugs, etc), do it.
If you want to masturbate, do it.
If you want to have sex, do it.
If you want to drink alcoholics, do it.
If you want to whatever, do it.

In outdoor places and selected indoor places (there would be places where you could this and this or this and this or only this and not this, etc) in your own home/place you sleep/you live or are currently, you can do any of this if you want, no restrictions because nobody owns any houses/apartments instead they are communally owned, same goes for cars etc which could be borrowed but as well as getting a personal one (if we have an abundance yet) so till we have enough apartments/houses in some places it has to be coommunally owned so everyone can get a home, that damn bourgie pig's Villa/luxurious house/whatever should get filled with people, etc.

Freedom/no restrictions = Awesome. True Anarki, this is why i hate exchange/money/currency/price whatever i want free access dammit. :thumbup1::thumbup1::thumbup1:

[Vanguard1917]

If you find it that big of a deal, quit. Are you going to build those bars for smokers? Or are you going to convert a bar that might have 30% of it's regulars as smokers and force the remaining to inhale poison? I'd rather have the state force a smoker outside than to force me to breathe unfiltered toxic smoke.

Listen to this very carefully: You don't have to go to a smokers' bar. You can go to a bar which is smoke-free. If smokers want a bar where they can go and smoke, who are you to tell them that they can't do that?

What about 'coffee shops' in Amsterdam? Do you think they should be shut down because many people don't like cannabis smoke?



Why can't the road be for drivers who aren't sober. Lots of people like to drink and drive!


Stupid comparison, as i'm sure you're sensible enough to realise.



Your primary reason is alcohol, or you'd be smoking at home.



And since the smoking ban in Britain, that's exactly what's been happening, as any pub landlord will tell you. Smokers are staying at home more and more precisely because what drew them to the pub in the first place was being able to relax with a drink and a smoke.

[tir1944]

Pretty much every 20th century communist (except Lenin) smoked...

[Vanguard1917]

I'll ask you to either make a valid contribution to the thread, or stop trolling/derailing. I'll gladly ask a mod to intervene.

The person clearly has a point...

[Die Rote Fahne]

Listen to this very carefully: You don't have to go to a smokers' bar. You can go to a bar which is smoke-free. If smokers want a bar where they can go and smoke, who are you to tell them that they can't do that?Like I said. In a socialist society where there is the means and supplies to build it, then smokers bars can be built.

However this is capitalism, and of you want it you have to do it yourself.

Who am I? I'm someone who doesn't want to be poisoned as a result of someone's addiction.

Who are you to tell me I can't drink and drive?


What about 'coffee shops' in Amsterdam? Do you think they should be shut down because many people don't like cannabis smoke?Thats a non-point. The purpose of those coffee shops are to purchase and smoke marijuana.


Stupid comparison, as i'm sure you're sensible enough to realise.You must explain why.


And since the smoking ban in Britain, that's exactly what's been happening, as any pub landlord will tell you. Smokers are staying at home more and more precisely because what drew them to the pub in the first place was being able to relax with a drink and a smoke.
You have a source for this?

What about the new customers who come as a result of no smoking, bet you didn't think of that.

[Leftsolidarity]

Because drinking and driving puts others in danger, just like exposing them to second hand smoke does.

How is not authoritarian to seize property from the bourgeoisie?

When a community exercises its authority to protect its own interests it ought not to be opposed.

I think we might agree.

It is "authoritarian" to impose laws on others (even if it is something good like drunk driving laws) or to seize property. That would be us (and the community) exerting authority onto someone or something else. That doesn't make it a bad thing though. You can't say "X" exerting its authority is authoritarian while "Y" exerting its authority is not. You might side with one or the other but they are both "authoritarian".


Anarchists are not "anti-authoritarian" despite what many would like to think. They (we) just oppose the authority of the state/capitalists.

I agree :thumbup1:

[Die Rote Fahne]

The person clearly has a point...

No he doesn't. Perhaps a mod can decide.

[Leftsolidarity]

No he doesn't. Perhaps a mod can decide.

Perhaps you should stop whining because he/she 's posts are not disruptive or trolling. Your complaining is a lot more disruptive than he/she 's comment (which I also feel had a point).

[The Douche]

I think we might agree.

It is "authoritarian" to impose laws on others (even if it is something good like drunk driving laws) or to seize property. That would be us (and the community) exerting authority onto someone or something else. That doesn't make it a bad thing though. You can't say "X" exerting its authority is authoritarian while "Y" exerting its authority is not. You might side with one or the other but they are both "authoritarian".



I agree :thumbup1:

Consistency, you have it.;)

[Die Rote Fahne]

Perhaps you should stop whining because he/she 's posts are not disruptive or trolling. Your complaining is a lot more disruptive than he/she 's comment (which I also feel had a point).

The topic of this thread is "smoking bans". Not "Oh look at how authoritarian these libsocs and anarchists are" or how "I wouldn't want to live in an anarchist society, too authoritarian".

His short comments have nothing to do with the topic and are trolling/derailment of the thread.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I imagine that smoking would naturally decrease due to the economic repurcussions of Socialism upon the tobacco companies.

If it didn't, i'd still not be in favour of a ban, unless it was democratically decided upon. Even then, i'd personally exercise my right to oppose it.

[Vanguard1917]

Like I said. In a socialist society where there is the means and supplies to build it, then smokers bars can be built.

There are means to build it now. In fact bars already exist. All we need to do is get rid of the current nanny-state law and replace it with something more reasonable.


Thats a non-point. The purpose of those coffee shops are to purchase and smoke marijuana.


Many 'coffee shops' also sell food and most sell drink (mostly non-alcoholic now). And smokers' bars will be the same, but for tobacco smokers.


You must explain why.

No. I have too much faith in your intelligence.


You have a source for this?


http://www.metro.co.uk/news/199152-over-1-000-pubs-shut-since-smoking-ban

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jul/06/fooddrinks.retail

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/3405482/Pub-trade-suffering-from-smoking-ban.html

[Die Rote Fahne]

There are means to build it now. In fact bars already exist. All we need to do is get rid of the current nanny-state law and replace it with something more reasonable.Perhaps the resources are there. However, smoking is a choice, therefore it should not be catered to with tax dollars.

The "nanny-state" is saving workers from years of exposure to dangerous toxins.


Many 'coffee shops' also sell food and most sell drink (mostly non-alcoholic now). And smokers' bars will be the same, but for tobacco smokers.Yes, the primary purpose is marijuana. And sure, you can have smokers bars, I'm not opposed to that.


No. I have too much faith in your intelligence.
If you can't explain why my logic is flawed, then you can't, it's that simple. Drinking and driving can harm/kill people who are on the roads.

Smoking can harm and result in the death of people in bars.


http://www.metro.co.uk/news/199152-over-1-000-pubs-shut-since-smoking-ban

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jul/06/fooddrinks.retail

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/3405482/Pub-trade-suffering-from-smoking-ban.html

Well, they made the choice to smoke. If you want to make a bar for smokers, a "smoking-bar" which specializes in tobacco and alcohol, I'm fine with that. However, the state shouldn't be doing it.

[tir1944]

The "nanny-state" is saving workers from years of exposure to dangerous toxins.I guess the state is then supposed to save us from ourselves...

[Vanguard1917]

Well, they made the choice to smoke. If you want to make a bar for smokers, a "smoking-bar" which specializes in tobacco and alcohol, I'm fine with that. However, the state shouldn't be doing it.


Finally we have progress.

And why would the state be doing anything? Last time i checked, bars under capitalism were private businesses. The less the state sticks its big nose into people's private lives, the better for all.

[jmpeer]

I'm surprised any of you defend a habit that comes purely from marketing. It shows you have little integrity and aren't very bright. There is no reason to allow people to smoke in public. It is no more necessary or beneficial than, say, sticking a bone through your nose. Suggesting accomodations like making special places to smoke is an attempt to rationalize the irrational. If one irrational habit can warrant its own accomodations, then there is no reasoning to prevent others from demanding their own. I don't care if this disappoints you. It should not only be banned in public places, but be discouraged like all unhealthy habits.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm surprised any of you defend a habit that comes purely from marketing. It shows you have little integrity and aren't very bright. There is no reason to allow people to smoke in public. It is no more necessary or beneficial than, say, sticking a bone through your nose. Suggesting accomodations like making special places to smoke is an attempt to rationalize the irrational. If one habit can warrant its own accomodations, then there is no reasoning to prevent others from demanding their own. It should not only be banned, but be discouraged like all unhealthy habits.

There's a difference between discouraging something via a public health campaign, because it is a public health hazard, and a top-down banning order on something, simply because some people have decided that 'x is bad'.

I don't really have a massive problem with a smoking ban in theory, but if you start allowing such top-down bannings, then you are leading down a slippery slope, and that is why I previously said that, in practice, i'd oppose a smoking ban.

[Vanguard1917]

I'm surprised any of you defend a habit that comes purely from marketing. It shows you have little integrity and aren't very bright. There is no reason to allow people to smoke in public. It is no more necessary or beneficial than, say, sticking a bone through your nose. Suggesting accomodations like making special places to smoke is an attempt to rationalize the irrational. If one habit can warrant its own accomodations, then there is no reasoning to prevent others from demanding their own. It should not only be banned, but be discouraged like all unhealthy habits.

Oh dear

[jmpeer]

There's a difference between discouraging something via a public health campaign, because it is a public health hazard, and a top-down banning order on something, simply because some people have decided that 'x is bad'.

I don't really have a massive problem with a smoking ban in theory, but if you start allowing such top-down bannings, then you are leading down a slippery slope, and that is why I previously said that, in practice, i'd oppose a smoking ban.

Nothing I said suggests any kind of order. You're imposing that because you disagree or are hesitant to agree with what I've said.

[Leftsolidarity]

I'm surprised any of you defend a habit that comes purely from marketing. It shows you have little integrity and aren't very bright. There is no reason to allow people to smoke in public. It is no more necessary or beneficial than, say, sticking a bone through your nose. Suggesting accomodations like making special places to smoke is an attempt to rationalize the irrational. If one irrational habit can warrant its own accomodations, then there is no reasoning to prevent others from demanding their own. I don't care if this disappoints you. It should not only be banned in public places, but be discouraged like all unhealthy habits.

You couldn't see it but when I read this my head tilted and I said "ah whaaaaaaaaa?.........."

Smoking comes purely from marketing? Yes, that damn marketing started with the native Americans long before colonization and with many other people across the entire globe.....before there was marketing.......:rolleyes:

Thank you for the completely foolishly looking insult though.

[Vanguard1917]

You couldn't see it but when I read this my head tilted and I said "ah whaaaaaaaaa?.........."

Smoking comes purely from marketing? Yes, that damn marketing started with the native Americans long before colonization and with many other people across the entire globe.....before there was marketing.......:rolleyes:

Thank you for the completely foolishly looking insult though.

And one is forced to ask, what marketing? The last time i saw a tobacco advert in Britain was probably around 15 years ago, and that was on a billboard.

It is beyond question that, at least in the West, the vast majority of the publicity tobacco gets nowadays is of the negative kind.

[Ose]

I'm surprised any of you defend a habit that comes purely from marketing. It shows you have little integrity and aren't very bright. There is no reason to allow people to smoke in public. It is no more necessary or beneficial than, say, sticking a bone through your nose. Suggesting accomodations like making special places to smoke is an attempt to rationalize the irrational. If one irrational habit can warrant its own accomodations, then there is no reasoning to prevent others from demanding their own. I don't care if this disappoints you. It should not only be banned in public places, but be discouraged like all unhealthy habits.
I'm pretty sure that tobacco smoking predates marketing as we know it. I enjoy smoking, as do a large number of other people (or at least, smokers significantly outnumber those who stick bones through their noses). Do you think nose-boning should be banned, by the way? And why can we not have facilities to accommodate all our reasonable desires? You say that smoking is irrational; for me that is certainly not the case - it makes me feel good, as does drinking (and bungee jumping, for some). As regards indoor public locations: as long as there are some where you can smoke and some where you can't, what's the harm? We'll keep our cigarettes out of your places, and you can keep your contempt out of ours. What's wrong with that?

[Vanguard1917]

I'm pretty sure that tobacco smoking predates marketing as we know it. I enjoy smoking, as do a large number of other people (or at least, smokers significantly outnumber those who stick bones through their noses). Do you think nose-boning should be banned, by the way? And why can we not have facilities to accommodate all our reasonable desires? You say that smoking is irrational; for me that is certainly not the case - it makes me feel good, as does drinking (and bungee jumping, for some). As regards indoor public locations: as long as there are some where you can smoke and some where you can't, what's the harm? We'll keep our cigarettes out of your places, and you can keep your contempt out of ours. What's wrong with that?

Hear, hear.

[jmpeer]

You couldn't see it but when I read this my head tilted and I said "ah whaaaaaaaaa?.........."

Smoking comes purely from marketing? Yes, that damn marketing started with the native Americans long before colonization and with many other people across the entire globe.....before there was marketing.......:rolleyes:

Thank you for the completely foolishly looking insult though.

They didn't smoke cigarettes, you don't know what smoking anything was like in their society at all, and anyone should be able to deduce when I said marketing, directly or indirectly, that implies socialization, which accounts for most of the behaviors of most people, including any smoking habits in their societies. It only appears as an insult because you paint what you don't understand enough to agree with in negative terms.

[jmpeer]

And one is forced to ask, what marketing? The last time i saw a tobacco advert in Britain was probably around 15 years ago, and that was on a billboard.

It is beyond question that, at least in the West, the vast majority of the publicity tobacco gets nowadays is of the negative kind.

Marketing doesn't need to be mainstream, nor in the form of television, internet, billboard, and such ads, for it to have a lasting, self-sustaining existence among people.

[Kitty_Paine]

I'm surprised any of you defend a habit that comes purely from marketing. It shows you have little integrity and aren't very bright. There is no reason to allow people to smoke in public. It is no more necessary or beneficial than, say, sticking a bone through your nose. Suggesting accomodations like making special places to smoke is an attempt to rationalize the irrational. If one irrational habit can warrant its own accomodations, then there is no reasoning to prevent others from demanding their own. I don't care if this disappoints you. It should not only be banned in public places, but be discouraged like all unhealthy habits.

It shows that we have little integrity and aren't very bright because we defend people's right to choose to do with their own body?

Smoking is an irrational habit we accomodate? Would you deny drinkers their bars? Gamblers their casinos? Masturbators of their porn? (:blink:)
People have been accomadating these "irrational" behaviors for as long as humans have lived. Why? Because people like to do it. You can't say you don't have any irrational habits...

The point I'm trying to make is people have been smoking for thousands of years - and a hell of a lot of other "irrational" things. Most of the stuff we do as humans during or life time is probably considered "irrational". It's called LIVING... and I'll be damned if someone tells me what I can and can't do with myself.

Plus, it is discouraged as an unhealthy habit... quite aggressively here actually.

Why all the hostility anyway? :bored:

[Kitty_Paine]

They didn't smoke cigarettes, you don't know what smoking anything was like in their society at all, and anyone should be able to deduce when I said marketing, directly or indirectly, that implies socialization, which accounts for most of the behaviors of most people, including any smoking habits in their societies. It only appears as an insult because you paint what you don't understand enough to agree with in negative terms.



Cigarettes have been attested in Central America around the 9th century in the form of reeds and smoking tubes. The Maya, and later the Aztecs, smoked tobacco and various psychoactive drugs in religious rituals and frequently depicted priests and deities smoking on pottery and temple engravings. The cigarette and the cigar were the most common methods of smoking in the Caribbean, Mexico and Central and South America until recent times.

- Robicsek, Francis Smoke; Ritual Smoking in Central America pp. 30–37

Just sayin'...

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Nothing I said suggests any kind of order. You're imposing that because you disagree or are hesitant to agree with what I've said.

I oppose the ban on smoking because it is a person's choice whether they smoke or not, and because I am fairly sure that the incidence of smoking (and thus its effect on health) would - and we might agree here - reduce or reduce dramatically in the instance of the tobacco companies (and their marketing campaigns) being expropriated/destroyed in the midst of Socialist revolution.

I don't have a problem with people smoking, I only have a problem when it becomes a public health hazard. Same argument with lots of drugs/fast food; all is okay in moderation. Capitalism is part of the problem because it breeds a conflict of interest - those who control our society, economically, are driven by the profit motive, and then lobby those who control our society politically, rather than support public health initiatives.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I oppose the ban on smoking because it is a person's choice whether they smoke or not, and because I am fairly sure that the incidence of smoking (and thus its effect on health) would - and we might agree here - reduce or reduce dramatically in the instance of the tobacco companies (and their marketing campaigns) being expropriated/destroyed in the midst of Socialist revolution.

I don't have a problem with people smoking, I only have a problem when it becomes a public health hazard. Same argument with lots of drugs/fast food; all is okay in moderation. Capitalism is part of the problem because it breeds a conflict of interest - those who control our society, economically, are driven by the profit motive, and then lobby those who control our society politically, rather than support public health initiatives.

Can you be clear on your opinion towards smoking in bars being banned? It's a health hazard to other patrons as well as the workers there.


I guess the state is then supposed to save us from ourselves...

The state also has things imposed such as the 8 hour work day, minimum wage, laws preventing unsafe conditions in the workplace, etc. It is a result of the labour movement, but the point remains that they are enforced by the "nanny state".

It is OBVIOUS AND A WELL KNOWN FACT that second hand smoke is more dangerous than the smoke inhaled by the smoker. It is a well known fact that second hand smoke can cause numerous health issues. It's a well known fact that the "nanny state" has numerous laws enforced that you are not complaining about.

So, keep your free market rhetoric to yourself or OI.


Finally we have progress.

And why would the state be doing anything? Last time i checked, bars under capitalism were private businesses. The less the state sticks its big nose into people's private lives, the better for all.

Your opposed to the state currently enforcing minimum wage, drinking and driving laws, enforcing health and safety at work: such as forcing roofers to supply harnesses and use them with their workers and enforcing the corporation from making workers work without proper PPE?

Once again, keep your free market views to OI or yourself.

[jmpeer]

Smoking is a completely social aspect. It serves no beneficial purpose. Its supposed pleasure is a combination of tolerance and the mind's way of rationalizing its addictive quality. If people would but rationalize their behaviors, rather than act like sheep following a herd all the time, they would realize this. As for public places, there's no reason to smoke in a there, aside from your own inconsiderate, self-indulgence, and because it can cause public discomfort, it should be banned. It's not a considerable inconvenience to smokers. It's not that big of a deal. It's courtesy. Get over it.

[Leftsolidarity]

Smoking is a completely social aspect. It serves no beneficial purpose. Its supposed pleasure is a combination of tolerance and the mind's way of rationalizing its addictive quality. If people would but rationalize their behaviors, rather than act like sheep following a herd all the time, they would realize this. As for public places, there's no reason to smoke in a there, aside from your own inconsiderate, self-indulgence, and because it can cause public discomfort, it should be banned. It's not a considerable inconvenience to smokers. It's not that big of a deal. It's courtesy. Get over it.

Sorry bro I'm not a robot. Rationalize your own damn behaviors.

[Kitty_Paine]

Smoking is a completely social aspect. It serves no beneficial purpose. Its supposed pleasure is a combination of tolerance and the mind's way of rationalizing its addictive quality. If people would but rationalize their behaviors, rather than act like sheep following a herd all the time, they would realize this. As for public places, there's no reason to smoke in a there, aside from your own inconsiderate, self-indulgence, and because it can cause public discomfort, it should be banned. It's not a considerable inconvenience to smokers. It's not that big of a deal. It's courtesy. Get over it.

And how would the social aspect not be considered beneficial? What if someone likes doing it because of the social aspect?

Plus it does give you a relaxing buzz, even if you've never smoked before. I smoke occasionally for the nice buzz it gives me; it feels good. I wouldn't care if I was the only person on earth, I'd still do it. And so would a helluva lot more people too.

You speak as if humans are rational beings to begin with. We try and act like it but we both know that's not really true. If we were rational, there would be very few murders and most people would live in peace around the world. If you or I were rational we wouldn't do half of the things we probably do on a daily basis. And I know you do a shit load of irrational things, just like everyone does. So attacking smokers for being irrational is very hypocritical.

And you say people smoking are like people "following the herd"?:lol:
Are you saying that most things you do aren't? You don't at all do you? You don't do anything because of the "social aspect" im sure...

And if you truely dont (somehow), then you must be a lonely person. There's nothing wrong with being HUMAN! There's nothing wrong with being "irrational" sometimes...

[pastradamus]

I oppose the ban on smoking because it is a person's choice whether they smoke or not, and because I am fairly sure that the incidence of smoking (and thus its effect on health) would - and we might agree here - reduce or reduce dramatically in the instance of the tobacco companies (and their marketing campaigns) being expropriated/destroyed in the midst of Socialist revolution.

I don't have a problem with people smoking, I only have a problem when it becomes a public health hazard. Same argument with lots of drugs/fast food; all is okay in moderation. Capitalism is part of the problem because it breeds a conflict of interest - those who control our society, economically, are driven by the profit motive, and then lobby those who control our society politically, rather than support public health initiatives.

I see where your coming from on this. At the time of the introduction of smoking bans in Ireland I was completely against them (as a 20-a-day smoker) but then I supported it. I was smoking less and I actually enjoyed the smoking rooms as they broke up the monotany of the pub and you could find an interesting person to chat with. Im now off smoking 9 months though I cant say that the smoking ban played any part in this.

Its nice now though to enter a place smokeless but to also have the option of smoking rooms if one feels like it.

[Ocean Seal]

I'll smoke whereever I please, thanks.
I personally don't care if you want to make spaces or clubs for smokers. But to the rest of us, your habit it really bothersome. I have a good number of friends who are smokers and you can't understand how much it bothers the rest of us. Smoke all you please, but not near me okay.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Can you be clear on your opinion towards smoking in bars being banned? It's a health hazard to other patrons as well as the workers there.





There should probably be a smoking area or something, that seems to work perfectly in clubs.

Other than that, i'm really don't find it a very appealing case to ban smoking in bars (or anywhere else) fully under Capitalism. It won't stop the actual incidence of smoking, since you're not dealing with the root problem of the profit-motive of the tobacco companies, and you're actually then supporting the empowerment of a bourgeois government to make such laws, which works against the class struggle (or means you are taking issues on a case by case basis, when we should oppose Capitalism in general instead).

And, as I said above and i'll repeat, I would hypothetically oppose a smoking ban under Socialism because it is likely that the root cause of the public health hazard - the tobacco companies - would be eliminated from the equation.

[blackandyellow]

I'm surprised any of you defend a habit that comes purely from marketing. It shows you have little integrity and aren't very bright.

Judging from your post, you probably arent a smoker. People dont smoke because of marketing. This assumes people are mindless idiots, just waiting to be duped by all controlling advertising companies. Even so, where is the Tobbaco advertising that is duping us all these days? This isnt Mad Men in the 1960s, there are massive restrictions on smoking advertisment now (or atleast in theUK), they blur out people who smoke in music videos, famous people who smoke often try to not been seen smoking (Obama, Nick Clegg etc), and now in the UK there is even talk of forcing all movies in which people smoke receive an 18+ viewing rating.

In reality, if you want to talk of slick marketing, its your lot thats best at it. I mean, my pack of menthol cigaretes has a fucking picture of a guy with his throat all messed up. I turn on the TV and i see some poor dieing smoker weezing and hooked up to a machine, or I see kids breathing out smoke and am told by the advert that if I smoke my kids (if i had any) will smoke too. The anti-smoking lobby is very powerful (and i hate them).



There is no reason to allow people to smoke in public. It is no more necessary or beneficial than, say, sticking a bone through your nose.

If someone wants to stick a bone through their nose, go for it. I'd think they look stupid, and if a friend considered it i would say dont do it, but its up to them.

But anyway, there are problems with the idea of everything having to be "necessary or beneficial". Smoking is not necessary, but I enjoy smoking, I enjoy going out for a smoke when im working or at uni, i enjoy going having a cigarete and a beer. So thats the benefit. In the long run, maybe the costs will outweigh the benefits, but I get enjoyment out of it now. Lots of personal consumption habits are similar. A chocolate bar is not particularly "necessary or beneficial", other than the fact that people enjoy it.


Suggesting accomodations like making special places to smoke is an attempt to rationalize the irrational. If one irrational habit can warrant its own accomodations, then there is no reasoning to prevent others from demanding their own.

Other 'irrational' habits such as drinking yourself to oblivion are accomodated for (a passtime i also take pleasure in). If the 'irrational' habits are as minimal and negligable as smoking is, i dont see why they cant be accomodated for. In my opinion vegetarianism is irrational, but if they are accomodated for, it does not matter.




I don't care if this disappoints you. It should not only be banned in public places, but be discouraged like all unhealthy habits.

Discouraged by who? The state? Since when should the state get involved in peoples personal comsumption habits? What sort of a communist society would micromanage peoples lives? Certainly not one I, nor do i think most people beyond the elitist left, would want that. Why do you feel it is your business to influence my personal habits? Judging by your statement that smokers are all just dupes tricked by marketing, i'm assuming you feel that the average person is stupid and are just ready to be molded and shaped by the right people. The capitalists molded us badly, now you want a go. How anti-working class

brb, going for a cigarete.

[jmpeer]

Sorry bro I'm not a robot. Rationalize your own damn behaviors.

I don't know how this sounded to you in your head, but this was a really dumb thing to say.

[Leftsolidarity]

I don't know how this sounded to you in your head, but this was a really dumb thing to say.

I think it's dumb to think that all of our behavior should be "rational" to you.

[ClearlyChrist]

I, As A Smoker, Believe That There Should Be Some Form Of Compromise Here. I Can Completely Understand The Stance Of Non-Smokers On The Matter, They Naturally Do Not Want To Be At Risk, By Being In The Presence Of Smokers, Which Is Fair. However, I Think Banning Smoking In Bars, Or What Have You, Is Not The Way To Go. Personally, I Think That There Should Be Designated Places Within Such Establishments, In Order To Facilitate Smokers, Which Would Cater To Both People. I Understand That This Wouldn't Be A Very Realistic Option, But Hey, It's An Idea.

[EvilRedGuy]

Smoke where you please, fuck where you please, masturbate where you please, go naked/be nudist where you please. Just don't harm(physical and discrimination/mentally) other people.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Smoke where you please, fuck where you please, masturbate where you please, go naked/be nudist where you please. Just don't harm(physical and discrimination/mentally) other people.

You can't "smoke where you please" and not harm other people. Some places need to be restricted to smoking.

[EvilRedGuy]

I meant outside actually, not near someone as well. Sorry.

There can be places where you could do this, this, and this, and places where only this and this and not this, etc. Different pubs/restaurants/whatever places. ;)

[blackandyellow]

Could people please name one person who has died of second hand smoke. As far as i know, all the numbers on deaths from environmental tobaco smoke are people who developed lung cancer and did not smoke. That in itself is not evidence that second hand smoke caused their death. It may have contributed partialy to it, but as did a load of other factors.

This study in the BMJ says "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed"

I cant pos the link to this article yet, however if you google the quote you will find it

Even so, there wasnt, in the UK atleast a big outcry and demand for smoking in bars etc to be banned. The UK Office for National Statistics found 68 per cent of people were opposed to a total ban. Now even if there is a chance that people will be harmed by exposure to second hand smoke when they go to the pub for a beer, most people didnt care (this is after a big campaign from the anti-smoking kill joys too). So basicaly the minority that wanted its ban, were not saving a population who could no longer bear to be exposed to smoke when theyre out for a drink or clubbing, but rather this minority positioned themselves as the guardians of the health of the stupid masses, despite most people wishing they would fuck off.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Could people please name one person who has died of second hand smoke. As far as i know, all the numbers on deaths from environmental tobaco smoke are people who developed lung cancer and did not smoke. That in itself is not evidence that second hand smoke caused their death. It may have contributed partialy to it, but as did a load of other factors.

This study in the BMJ says "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed"

I cant pos the link to this article yet, however if you google the quote you will find it

Even so, there wasnt, in the UK atleast a big outcry and demand for smoking in bars etc to be banned. The UK Office for National Statistics found 68 per cent of people were opposed to a total ban. Now even if there is a chance that people will be harmed by exposure to second hand smoke when they go to the pub for a beer, most people didnt care (this is after a big campaign from the anti-smoking kill joys too). So basicaly the minority that wanted its ban, were not saving a population who could no longer bear to be exposed to smoke when theyre out for a drink or clubbing, but rather this minority positioned themselves as the guardians of the health of the stupid masses, despite most people wishing they would fuck off.

If you are crazy enough to think that long durations of exposure to second hand smoke, which is not filtered like the inhaled smoke of the smoker, doesn't cause health issues, you probably need a reality check.


Smoking and Your Health

The Danger of Second Hand Smoke

Why is second hand smoke dangerous?

It contains over 4,000 chemicals. Fifty of these are known to cause cancer.

The more you are exposed to second hand smoke, the greater your health risk. If you live or work where there is second hand smoke, your risk is greater.

Workplaces that allow smoking have higher levels of cancer-causing materials in the air.

Non-smokers can inhale as much as two to three cigarettes a day.

It takes three hours to clear the air of the smoke from a single cigarette.

How does second hand smoke harm your health?

Second hand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer and other cancers and respiratory diseases.

It can double the risk of stroke in non-smokers.

It makes it harder for people to breathe, especially those with asthma and allergies.

Several hundred Canadians die each year from exposure to second hand smoke.

How does second hand smoke harm children?

Children exposed to tobacco smoke have a greater risk of getting asthma, pneumonia and ear infections, and are more likely to need hospital care.

Second hand smoke is dangerous to an unborn baby. Nicotine makes blood vessels smaller and interferes with the baby getting proper nutrition. It also speeds up its heart rate and slows down breathing movements.

Infants exposed to second hand smoke are more likely to die from crib death.

Children with asthma who are exposed to second hand smoke have more asthma attacks. - http://www.rqhealth.ca/inside/hlthy_live_learn/smoking_bylaw/danger.shtml

And if you want a different source:


Secondhand smoke: Avoid dangers in the air
Exposure to the toxins in secondhand smoke can cause asthma, cancer and other serious problems. Know what you're breathing — and consider practical steps for clearing the air.

By Mayo Clinic staff
You don't smoke because you understand the dangers — but what about secondhand smoke? Secondhand smoke causes or contributes to various health problems, from cardiovascular disease to cancer. Understand what's in secondhand smoke, and consider ways to protect yourself and those you love from secondhand smoke.

What's in secondhand smoke?

Secondhand smoke — also known as environmental tobacco smoke — includes the smoke that a smoker exhales (mainstream smoke) and the smoke that comes directly from the burning tobacco product (sidestream smoke). Secondhand smoke contains thousands of toxic chemicals, including:

Benzene
Carbon monoxide
Chromium
Cyanide
Formaldehyde
Lead
Nickel
Polonium
The dangerous particles in secondhand smoke can linger in the air for hours. Breathing secondhand smoke for a short time can irritate your lungs and reduce the amount of oxygen in your blood. Prolonged or repeated exposure to secondhand smoke is all the more dangerous. And it isn't just the smoke that's a concern. The residue that clings to a smoker's hair and clothing, as well as cushions, carpeting and other goods — sometimes referred to as thirdhand smoke — also can pose risks, especially for children. - http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/secondhand-smoke/CC00023


Second-hand smoke causes about 1% of worldwide deaths: WHO

Reuters
Friday, Nov. 26, 2010

by Kate Kelland

LONDON — Around one in a hundred deaths worldwide is due to passive smoking, which kills an estimated 600,000 people a year, World Health Organisation (WHO) researchers said on Friday.

In the first study to assess the global impact of second-hand smoke, WHO experts found that children are more heavily exposed to second-hand smoke than any other age-group, and around 165,000 of them a year die because of it.

“Two-thirds of these deaths occur in Africa and south Asia,” the researchers, led by Annette Pruss-Ustun of the WHO in Geneva, wrote in their study.

Children’s exposure to second-hand smoke is most likely to happen at home, and the double blow of infectious diseases and tobacco “seems to be a deadly combination for children in these regions,” they said.

Commenting on the findings in the Lancet journal, Heather Wipfli and Jonathan Samet from the University of Southern California said policymakers try to motivate families to stop smoking in the home.

“In some countries, smokefree homes are becoming the norm, but far from universally,” they wrote.

The WHO researchers looked at data from 192 countries for their study. To get comprehensive data from all 192, they had to go back to 2004. They used mathematical modelling to estimate deaths and the number of years lost of life in good health.

Worldwide, 40% of children, 33% of non-smoking men and 35% non-smoking women were exposed to second-hand smoke in 2004, they found.

This exposure was estimated to have caused 379,000 deaths from heart disease, 165,000 from lower respiratory infections, 36,900 from asthma and 21,400 from lung cancer.

For the full impact of smoking, these deaths should be added to the estimated 5.1 million deaths a year attributable to active tobacco use, the researchers said.

While deaths due to passive smoking in children were skewed towards poor and middle-income countries, deaths in adults were spread across countries at all income levels.

In Europe’s high-income countries, only 71 child deaths occurred, while 35,388 deaths were in adults. Yet in the countries assessed in Africa, an estimated 43,375 deaths due to passive smoking were in children compared with 9,514 in adults.

Ms. Pruss-Ustun urged countries to enforce the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which includes higher tobacco taxes, plain packaging and advertising bans, among other steps.

“Policy-makers should bear in mind that enforcing complete smoke-free laws will probably substantially reduce the number of deaths attributable to exposure to second-hand smoke within the first year of its implementation, with accompanying reduction in costs of illness in social and health systems,” she wrote.

Only 7.4% of the world population currently lives in jurisdictions with comprehensive smoke-free laws, and those laws are not always robustly enforced.

In places where smoke-free rules are adhered to, research shows that exposure to second hand smoke in high-risk places like bars and restaurants can be cut by 90%, and in general by 60%, the researchers said.

Studies also show such laws help to reduce the number of cigarettes smoked by smokers and lead to higher success rates in those trying to quit.

© Thomson Reuters 2010 - http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2010/11/26/second-hand-smoke-causes-1-of-worldwide-deaths-who

[pastradamus]

Could people please name one person who has died of second hand smoke. As far as i know, all the numbers on deaths from environmental tobaco smoke are people who developed lung cancer and did not smoke. That in itself is not evidence that second hand smoke caused their death. It may have contributed partialy to it, but as did a load of other factors.

You are correct on this. Second-hand or passive smoking has never been proven to kill anybody historically as it could have been a number of different factors. However it surely does contribute that someone breathing in a room full of cloudy smoke damage their lungs in some way. I know a family of 7 where 6 members of this family has asthma, one of which is chronic. They put this down to the father of the family and his chain-smoking 80-a-day. Anytime I entered the room where he smokes its just a plume of smoke so dense that one can barely see in it and even when I did smoke I found it very uncomfortable. 3 or the 7 in the family have developed asthma in the last 10 years and are all now in their 20's. So I think the theory that passive smoking does damage does definetly hold some water - though how much is unprovable I know.


This study in the BMJ says "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed"

I cant pos the link to this article yet, however if you google the quote you will find it

Even so, there wasnt, in the UK atleast a big outcry and demand for smoking in bars etc to be banned. The UK Office for National Statistics found 68 per cent of people were opposed to a total ban. Now even if there is a chance that people will be harmed by exposure to second hand smoke when they go to the pub for a beer, most people didnt care (this is after a big campaign from the anti-smoking kill joys too). So basicaly the minority that wanted its ban, were not saving a population who could no longer bear to be exposed to smoke when theyre out for a drink or clubbing, but rather this minority positioned themselves as the guardians of the health of the stupid masses, despite most people wishing they would fuck off.Yes. I smoked for 8 years and am now off the ciggies but there is nothing more annoying than the anti-smoking lobby. I really dont understand what angle they're coming from. Is it just that they think your smoking will harm them? -or is it that they dont like the smell? Don't get me wrong, I dont like being in a room full of smoke but I wont begrudge someone a smoke as I know how difficult an addiction it is (actually worse than Heroin).

The BMJ is an excellent journal and a trustworthy source but reserch like this changes all the time. Tomorrow there could be a resorce saying the exact opposite. Not to refute your comment and evidence but im always suspicious of once-off articles such as this.

Though they did phrase it well and balanced by saying that they dont rule out some effect: "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect".

[Klaatu]

I, As A Smoker, Believe That There Should Be Some Form Of Compromise Here. I Can Completely Understand The Stance Of Non-Smokers On The Matter, They Naturally Do Not Want To Be At Risk, By Being In The Presence Of Smokers, Which Is Fair. However, I Think Banning Smoking In Bars, Or What Have You, Is Not The Way To Go. Personally, I Think That There Should Be Designated Places Within Such Establishments, In Order To Facilitate Smokers, Which Would Cater To Both People. I Understand That This Wouldn't Be A Very Realistic Option, But Hey, It's An Idea.

Wow I've never seen anyone capitalise every word in a paragraph...
kind of the opposite of e.e. cummings' writings, where nothing is capitalised at all

Maybe he was an "anti-capitalist!" :lol:

[EvilRedGuy]

Should ClearlyChrist be restricted for supporting Capital? ;)


Are we Petty-Bourgeois for semi-using capital letters? :laugh:

[A Marxist Historian]

The problem with smoking is that once exhaled, the smoke is everyones' to share whether they like it or not. And that it's filled with known carcinogens and toxic chemicals. Your rights to pursue happiness really only goes as far as it's not infringing on someone elses' pursuits of hapiness. I'm all for smoking at bars. Smoking and drinking go hand in hand and I know, if i'm going to a bar, that i'll be exposed to smoke. I wouldn't put a child in that environment, but i might choose to put myself there for a while. I would support the banning of smoking at a mall or other large, indoor public spaces.
What if we were talking about chewing tobacco? Sure, if I chose to chew, and swallowed all of the juice/spit by-product, it wouldn't be an issue. However, if I chose to spit on the floors, sidewalks, or tables in public spaces, it would be a nuisance and a potential hazard to others.
I guess my point is: Try to have consideration to the folks you're sharing space with.

That's why spittoons were invented.

-M.H.-

[Dogs On Acid]

Is it that hard to build a smoking lounge in bars and restaurants? Keeps everyone happy.

[ClearlyChrist]

Wow I've never seen anyone capitalise every word in a paragraph...
kind of the opposite of e.e. cummings' writings, where nothing is capitalised at all

Maybe he was an "anti-capitalist!" :lol:

I See What You Did There.