Smoking In Public Places

[bunk]

In England this is a pretty hot issue. If you banned it then it would be reducing a persons civil liberties but smoking damages other people as well through passive smoking.
What do you think?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So you mean they won't be banning cars, trucks, buses, lorries, etc from public areas as well? What about the dust and smoke caused by roadworks? surely that's harmful too!

Banning smoking in public is the first step on the road to controlling our behaviour in public. Remember the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Postteen]

The places for the smokers and non-smokers they have, is I think a good idea.And yeah, there are other things(like NoXion said)which harm not only our health, but the environment too!Bunning is not a way to stop people smoking!

[commiecrusader]

Well since I only smoke socially a ban on smoking in public places would stop me smoking. This would be a good thing, although I do enjoy smoking over a beer with my friends (who's with me?). I think that the current smoking/non-smoking areas are enough, just put an extractor fan in the smoking areas.

[PRC-UTE]

Banning smoking in public is the first step on the road to controlling our behaviour in public.

our behaviour is controlled from the moment we begin socialisation in this life.

I've suffered a few illnesses from smokers. . . asthma, ear infections as a mite. Smokers can feck off to their own caravan and leave the rest well alone. Especially kids!

[herr_Nosferatu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 05:20 PM
So you mean they won't be banning cars, trucks, buses, lorries, etc from public areas as well? What about the dust and smoke caused by roadworks? surely that's harmful too!

Banning smoking in public is the first step on the road to controlling our behaviour in public. Remember the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Amen to that Noxion.

Two more provinces here have now banned smoking in public places, these places being bars, restaurants, work places, shopping centers.

Who is the government to tell the world under its grasp what to do, and what not to do..... Restaurants who feel that smoking would dampend their environments should be the sole people to establish rules for that area.

Bars are areas that smoking actually helps businesses, so banning these is both ridiculous and incomprehensible.

And to place 3500$ fines on these independant areas like small restaurants struggling to face big money earning chains like McDonalds, Burger King, and all those fucking filthy trash bins will, in the long run, destroy the last characteristics of small communities.

[truthaddict11]

as a person who has seen the affects of banning smoking in public places personally , i have to say hell no! we hardly ever have complaints about smoke at my resteruant, most times the only people in the place are smokers. Our place is big enough so you dont have to deal with the heavy smokers.

[NovelGentry]

It should be up to the owner of the places... If they want to allow smoking, fine... if people don't like it they can leave. If they want to ban smoking... same deal. If they want to deal with separate areas, that works too.

[redstar2000]

As I understand it, the mayor of New York City now wants to ban smoking outdoors in the borough of Manhattan.

Also, here in the United States, smoking is banned in many (most? all?) outdoor stadiums, outdoor elevated railway platforms, etc.

I'm also informed that smoking is now banned in airport lobbys/waiting areas...and, of course, in California prisons.

However, the "smoke-easy" has now emerged. Some people in loft apartments in Manhattan are operating small "underground" bars and restaurants where customers can smoke freely. :D

The struggle continues...

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Colombia]

This was a good plan. Not only will the complaints cease but perhaps smokers will smoke less and have a lower risk of lung cancer.

[Raisa]

Smoking is an acess that is dangerous to other people's health, I think if you want to kill yourself, fine, but dont bring the wrest of us into it by smoking in public places.

[Wiesty]

ya same here in saskatchewan canada there gonna be banning it from all public places

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I'm a smoker (used to smoke near a pack a day), and I woudn't mind a ban at all

I've been trying to quit, and just had my first cig in about 2 months this evening. . .and guess what, I got it from a friend of a friend at a coffe house (no, I don't like cafes, I was dragged there on a date)

I see people smoking, and I want one too

If there was a ban, I wouldn't have seen people smoking, and I wouldn't have done so myself. . .

[BOZG]

Smoking is banned in all sheltered work places in this country. Technically, if you have an electrician/plumber etc. in your house, you're actually not supposed to smoke for the duration of his work. Smoking in a company car is also technically illegal.

I support the idea completely, while working you should not have to be subjected to the bad habits of other people, not forgetting illness caused by passive smoking.

For the best part, all it means is that people have to stand outside the door of their job or outside of bars/restaurants and have a smoke. The only real complaints have come from smokers obviously but from owners of bars and restaurants who claim that their profit levels have dropped. They have, but they're already making a fortune on overpricing alcohol.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 09:39 PM
I'm a smoker (used to smoke near a pack a day), and I woudn't mind a ban at all

I've been trying to quit, and just had my first cig in about 2 months this evening. . .and guess what, I got it from a friend of a friend at a coffe house (no, I don't like cafes, I was dragged there on a date)

I see people smoking, and I want one too

If there was a ban, I wouldn't have seen people smoking, and I wouldn't have done so myself. . .
This, of course, is one of the most wretched of the anti-smoking arguments...and it's a fairly common one as well.

1. I want to stop smoking.

2. But I can't do it if I see other people smoking.

3. So call the pigs and make it illegal to smoke anywhere I happen to want to go.

Terrific idea. :o

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[bunk]

I think that most places should have areas for non-smokers and smokers also because someone damging your lungs is not their right.

[Hate Is Art]

Do you even care about other peoples health RS?

[NovelGentry]

Do you even care about other peoples freedom?

Look, it comes down to this. If you don't want to smoke, don't smoke, if you don't want to inhale smoke don't stand next to/sit by/befriend smokers. If it was the right of the owner of an establishment to decide then you could go to smoke free establishments only, and wouldn't have a problem. If you think your health is going to be seriously degraded cause some guy lights up a cigarette 10 feet away from you in the open air then you just have mental issues. Your health will be degraded about as much as the car that drives by you 10 feet away. So if you want to ban smoking in public, ban cars in public too.

Your argument holds about as much water as me saying people shouldn't have SUVs because the extra pollution kills me quicker. Which is very well may, but I know plenty of non-smokers who have SUVs and don't seem to think that's a problem to us people who drive more fuel effiecient vehicles.

Edit Note: I'm not saying pollution is right, I"m just saying if you're going to ban one thing because the pollution from it degrades your health you have to be willing to ban all other such pollutants that degrade your health.

[Hate Is Art]

If you don't want to smoke, don't smoke, if you don't want to inhale smoke don't stand next to/sit by/befriend smokers

Now, I smoke socially, but if someone asks me not to smoke I don't just go ahead and do it, I wouldn't want to harm anyone else cos I cave into peer pressure.

It's been proven that Passive Smoking is about half as damanging as regular smoking, which is pretty fatal. You can't stop most things that cause you cancer and other deseases, but this is something we can effectively prevent so I suggest we do it.

Freedom doesn't even come into it.

[NovelGentry]

It's not someone's position to ask you not to smoke in a public place. There's two kidns of public places, indoor and outdoor. Indoor implies it's an establishment of some sorts -- government funded establishments I can agree non smoking. Examples of these would include schools, courtrooms, yes even prisons. Private establishments that are open to the public, however, should be completely up to the owner. If the owner of a bar wants to have smoking in it, he should be able to. It's his decision, if he loses out on non-smoking customers, so be it, it's his own business decision. He will get all the smokers and the guy with the non-smoking bar will get all the non-smokers.

"passive smoking" -- under what conditions? indoors? Yes, I agree this can be fatal, but it is your decision to move indoors into a smoking area. If you choose to go to a restuarant with both smoking and non-smoking sections you are choosing to passively smoke. If you don't want that, go to a restaurant that is non-smoking only. As far as outdoors, open air, I'm willing to dispute those results with common logic. And once again, I think it would be as equatable to the exhaust from the cars passing you by.... in which sense if you're going to ban public outdoor smoking you should be willing to ban any form of public outdoor pollution.


Freedom doesn't even come into it.

It doesn't? What if I'm at a public camp ground and I want to light a cintranella candle to keep mosquitos away and someone there is allergic to it? How bout if I want to wear a certain cologne? Certain hand lotions alone cause my aunt's throat to swell up and she can barely breath that is when she has the time to since she's sneezing and coughing from it. So should we ban those such things to? Maybe we should ban hair spray because it's flammable and can be a fire hazard if someone is applying it in public. But maybe NONE of these things have to do with freedom... I must be mistaken as to what my freedom allows me to do. But I certainly consider the day when I can no longer do these things in a public place to be the day that I have lost a great deal of freedom.

[h&s]

Banning smoking in public places to better our health is a rediculous idea. Lets ban cars - due to their exhaust fumes, factories - because of their chimney fumes, mobile phones - due to the radiation they give off, and cows for passing wind - due to the methane it gives off increasing global warming, which will eventually lead to the flooding of south-east asia.
If you don't want to get something from passive smoking, stay away from smokers - it really is that simple.

[cheka]

Who is the government to tell the world under its grasp what to do, and what not to do..... Restaurants who feel that smoking would dampend their environments should be the sole people to establish rules for that area.
-some moron

HELLO, the only reason that restaraunt can run is because the government lets them. Obviously you don't understand the purpose of "government" figures, ignorant *****. We pay TAXES to be "protected" and so that our RIGHTS are and liberties are "protected." The government can do whatever the fuck they want, until they're overthrown or lose enough support. What a retarded statement. Don't ever, ever post again....

[cubist]

i don't care civil liberties or not i hate the smell of secondary fag smoke especially no i have quit

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The Arcadian [email protected] 2 2004, 01:32 PM
Do you even care about other peoples health RS?
Nah, fuck 'em!

Frankly, the spectacle of people whining about cigarette smoke while they happily look on and even participate in massive war crimes and crimes against humanity and even, possibly, the permanent destruction of part or all of the planet...it makes me laugh them to scorn.

I hope all those health-nazis live to be 100...the last 25 years of which is spent tied to a bed in their own filthy diapers in some stinking nursing "home".

Bastards!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 08:24 PM
It's not someone's position to ask you not to smoke in a public place. There's two kidns of public places, indoor and outdoor. Indoor implies it's an establishment of some sorts -- government funded establishments I can agree non smoking. Examples of these would include schools, courtrooms, yes even prisons. Private establishments that are open to the public, however, should be completely up to the owner. If the owner of a bar wants to have smoking in it, he should be able to. It's his decision, if he loses out on non-smoking customers, so be it, it's his own business decision. He will get all the smokers and the guy with the non-smoking bar will get all the non-smokers.

"passive smoking" -- under what conditions? indoors? Yes, I agree this can be fatal, but it is your decision to move indoors into a smoking area. If you choose to go to a restuarant with both smoking and non-smoking sections you are choosing to passively smoke. If you don't want that, go to a restaurant that is non-smoking only. As far as outdoors, open air, I'm willing to dispute those results with common logic. And once again, I think it would be as equatable to the exhaust from the cars passing you by.... in which sense if you're going to ban public outdoor smoking you should be willing to ban any form of public outdoor pollution.



It doesn't? What if I'm at a public camp ground and I want to light a cintranella candle to keep mosquitos away and someone there is allergic to it? How bout if I want to wear a certain cologne? Certain hand lotions alone cause my aunt's throat to swell up and she can barely breath that is when she has the time to since she's sneezing and coughing from it. So should we ban those such things to? Maybe we should ban hair spray because it's flammable and can be a fire hazard if someone is applying it in public. But maybe NONE of these things have to do with freedom... I must be mistaken as to what my freedom allows me to do. But I certainly consider the day when I can no longer do these things in a public place to be the day that I have lost a great deal of freedom.
There's no crestaraunt that I now of of htat's no smoking. Why should I be subjected to smoke when a muinority wabts it? f I want to go t oa bpub why should I be neglected ca8use some fucker wants to poisonn ihimself.?

[NovelGentry]

There's no crestaraunt that I now of of htat's no smoking. Why should I be subjected to smoke when a muinority wabts it? f I want to go t oa bpub why should I be neglected ca8use some fucker wants to poisonn ihimself.?

Even though what you said only borders making sense I think I can understand it. If there's no restaurant that's no smoking where you live then obviously the demand for such a place is not high enough. Don't blame me on that. If it is indeed the "muinority" who wants it, then the majority should get their act together and stop supporting these places. Once the businesses start losing money they'll figure out damn quick what the problem is. This of course depends on whether the government gives businesses the right to choose, but then again, that is what I'm arguing for.

You are not "neglected." I'm not sure where any type of government document gave you the "right" to a pub, let alone a smoke free one. This is like someone walking into a bar that is known to be filled with gay and lesbian couples and saying "why is it every time I come in here I'm getting hit on by the same sex!!!"

STOP GOING THERE!

[Urban Rubble]

I quit smoking 3 years ago and I have to say that I fucking hate going to bars where people smoke. I just don't enjoy it. With that said I think it should be up to the owners. However, I agree with a ban on indoor smoking in public areas. But a ban on smoking outdoors is the stupidest idea ever. I can't believe it's illegal to smoke at an outdoor stadium ! I actually enjoy the smell sometimes if it's outside.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 03:05 PM
This, of course, is one of the most wretched of the anti-smoking arguments...and it's a fairly common one as well.

1. I want to stop smoking.

2. But I can't do it if I see other people smoking.

3. So call the pigs and make it illegal to smoke anywhere I happen to want to go.

Terrific idea. :o

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
I don't want to make this into an argument, but if marijuana is going to be illegal (a drug that has the same side effects as a beer), then ban tobacco (a product that actually kills people)

Either ban cigarettes and booze, or legalize the chronic (preferably the latter)

[NovelGentry]

I'm all for the legalization of marijuana, I personally do not smoke it. So let me use this as an opportunity to say that I would never stop someone from smoking it in a public place had it been legalized, if I didn't like it I would simply move away. If there was a bar that allowed it, I would not go to that bar, plain and simple. This should be the same way cigarette smoke or any other kind of smoking is treated.

Although, I do think marijuana should be illegal to use while driving a vehicle. Much like alcohol is. But then again, if I'm not mistaken you're not allowed to drink alcohol in "public" either, that is, outside of a private establishment or your own home.

[apathy maybe]

You should be allowed to do anything you want, so long as you don't hurt someone else (unless the want you to) (or the environment).

Now lets see ... second-hand smoke is dangerous, so you smoking is hurting someone else, so you shouldn't be allowed to smoke around someone else.

Obviously this is a bit extreme, but not being allowed to smoke inside is absolutely fine with me. (Actually what would be better is if there were certain sections put aside, walled off and with strong fans. And the staff in the pubs would have to get paid "danger" money as well. You mustn't forget the worker in all this.)

Marijuana, Tobacco and Alcohol are all on the same level yes. So it is downright hypocritical to ban one but not the other two (I would advocate legalising all drugs of course, but that's just me).

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 03:37 AM

Even though what you said only borders making sense I think I can understand it. If there's no restaurant that's no smoking where you live then obviously the demand for such a place is not high enough. Don't blame me on that. If it is indeed the "muinority" who wants it, then the majority should get their act together and stop supporting these places. Once the businesses start losing money they'll figure out damn quick what the problem is. This of course depends on whether the government gives businesses the right to choose, but then again, that is what I'm arguing for.

You are not "neglected." I'm not sure where any type of government document gave you the "right" to a pub, let alone a smoke free one. This is like someone walking into a bar that is known to be filled with gay and lesbian couples and saying "why is it every time I come in here I'm getting hit on by the same sex!!!"

STOP GOING THERE!
Well actually the majority of people go to bars and restaurants for drinks or food, not for smoking. There's no 'non-smoking' restaurants because such a restaurant would have had less of a profit margin at the time. Most people will actually make the sacrifice of going to a place that does allow smoking because it's much easier to do so, but after smoking has been outlawed, they are less likely to. Not to mention that it represents a minor advancement in the working conditions of the staff.

[NovelGentry]

What people are willing to compromise do so on their own accord. Furthermore, what crowd is lost in those unwilling ot unable to enter a place where people smoke (some people do get very sick from it) the business would gain by being one of the few totally non-smoking establishments. It's a give and take type thing, assuming once again it's not controlled by government forces.

The fact is, what they lose in business from smokers they make up for in people who prefer to go to a place without smokers.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Ehh... fuck the anti-smoking folks.

I don't smoke, I’ve never smoked (not that I don't want to at least give it a shot), but I don't mind some cigarette smoke.

My argument is: Cigarette smoke is much less bothersome than farts, but we're not gonna ostracize people with gas and ban farting in public places are we? :lol:

[commiecrusader]

I think NovelGentry has the right idea. How can you counter argue? Any alternative action is an infringement on people's civil liberties, and as NoveGentry has pointed out, there is plenty of scope for any restauranters lookin to make a buck.

[Hate Is Art]

What people are willing to compromise do so on their own accord.

Like not quitting their job? Is that comprimise?

[NovelGentry]

We're not talking about quitting a job here, which can be needed to live... we're talking about people who willingly go out to eat or go out to drink at places where smoking is allowed. They don't need to go out and drink, and they don't need to go out to eat, they can make their own damn food or find a place where people don't smoke. Just like if it was the other way around people who smoke can make their own damn food or find a place where they're allowed to smoke.

You don't need to go out to eat to live, nor do you need to go out and drink to live.

Lastly I'd like to point out that I didn't say this WAS a compromise, I said what people are willing to compromise. Thus if you are willing to compromise your own health and well being by quitting your job, you do so on your own accord. Much like if you're willing to compromise your heatlh because you just have to eat at a certain bar or restaurant that allows smoking you're doing it on your own accord. Key words here are "willing to compromise" "on your own accord".... thus if you come back and argue "so if people get fired is that on their own accord"... the answer is no, because they are not making a willing compromise and it's not on their own accord to begin with.

If what you're asking me is that I think people should be forced into compromises.... no, but not one is forcing them to compromise their health for food, much like no one should force someone to have to compromise smoking for food. But when you're talking about luxuries this sort of thing simply doesn't apply, you have to make a decision whether or not that luxury is worth the cost, whether that cost be monetary, health, etc..etc.

[BOZG]

No, people do not have to go out to eat or drink, nor do people have to go out to eat and drink and smoke at the same time. If I'm eating, I don't want a mouthful of smoke at the same time. Neither should someone working be sujected to other peoples' smokes. Nor does anyone need to smoke to live.

Less people go to pubs during the week nowadays with the smoking ban here, they stay at home. Evidently, they're not that interested in going to pub so fuck them. Keep your cancer at home or outside.

It's ridiculous to argue that there should be non-smoking sections as this really does nothing to help at all because the carcinogens are still floating in the air.

[NovelGentry]

No, people do not have to go out to eat or drink, nor do people have to go out to eat and drink and smoke at the same time.

Then you are admitting that you have just as much right to tell them they can't smoke as they have a right to tell you they can. Hence why it should be left up to the owner of the establishment.


If I'm eating, I don't want a mouthful of smoke at the same time.

Don't eat a place where people smoke then, seriously, what is so difficult about that?


Neither should someone working be sujected to other peoples' smokes.

This is like arguing that people who work at a clothing store should not be subjected to the insane amounts of perfumes that their customers wear. Or that people who work at a night club should not be subjected to the music that people want to listen to.

When you get the job it should be clear what that job entails. If you're getting a job at a place that allows smoking then you should be well aware that they allow it and of the dangers to your health. It is something you must be willing to take as a risk of the job. You sound like someone who would get a job cleaning a house and then sue because you're desperately allergic to cats and the owner had one.


Less people go to pubs during the week nowadays with the smoking ban here, they stay at home.

Bravo for wherever the hell you are for destroying local business. Now the cappies have yet another excuse to lay off workers and cut paychecks.


Evidently, they're not that interested in going to pub so fuck them.

The same can be said about you when you fail to go because smokers are there. You'r damn quick to destroy your liver with a night out at the pub but don't let those lungs come to any harm! Who the hell needs a liver anyway?


Keep your cancer at home or outside.

My cancer? Who the hell said I smoked?


It's ridiculous to argue that there should be non-smoking sections as this really does nothing to help at all because the carcinogens are still floating in the air.

It's rediculous to argue that it should be regulated at all by the government. It's none of the governments concern, once again this is something that should be left up to the person who owns said private enterprise. Would you go to a goth nightclub and ***** that there's a bunch of goths there? No, so why would you go to a pub/restaurant that allows smoking and ***** that there's smokers there? It's ludacris to think that you should have some sort of say in how a person chooses to run their own establishment, particularly through government control. Like I said, the truly PUBLIC places, that's fine... but when it's a private enterprise there simply is no argument that is able to trump the decision of the person running the place. It's their business and they decide how things are done.... this is the same reason you can be rejected from a club for not wearing the right clothes, if you want to go there, you have to be willing to conform to what that business is willing to accept, plain and simple. If you don't want to conform, stop going there... more to the point, why the hell would you want to go somewhere people smoke anyway?

[Hate Is Art]

Don't eat a place where people smoke then, seriously, what is so difficult about that?

What about if you friends smoke? Or if everyone else wants to go to a place where there will be smokers? Or how about you want to go to Pub? Youd be hard pressed to find a smoke free pub.

The same can be said about you when you fail to go because smokers are there. You'r damn quick to destroy your liver with a night out at the pub but don't let those lungs come to any harm! Who the hell needs a liver anyway?

Beer in small ammounts has been proven to be good for you? Or maybe (because Steph isn't 18) he goes to the pub and has a glass of Orange Juice?

[BOZG]

Is it hard to grasp that there's a difference between carcinogenic smoke and music/perfume?

Your arguments amount to "I want to smoke, so fuck everyone else".

[redstar2000]

"I want to smoke, so fuck everyone else".

You got it! :angry:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[PRC-UTE]

I'm shocked by the reactionary charactar of this thread.

I almost died from smokers; they've certainly shortened the length of my life. Why is it their "right" to do that?

Even though we end up paying for their hospital treatment, I don't oppose people smoking - so long as they don't subject workers and other folks to their scabby behaviour.

[NovelGentry]

Don't eat a place where people smoke then, seriously, what is so difficult about that?

What about if you friends smoke? Or if everyone else wants to go to a place where there will be smokers? Or how about you want to go to Pub? Youd be hard pressed to find a smoke free pub.

The same can be said about you when you fail to go because smokers are there. You'r damn quick to destroy your liver with a night out at the pub but don't let those lungs come to any harm! Who the hell needs a liver anyway?

Beer in small ammounts has been proven to be good for you? Or maybe (because Steph isn't 18) he goes to the pub and has a glass of Orange Juice?

I've already explained the idea of being willing to compromise for luxury. If you can't handle that every luxury comes at a cost then you shouldn't be afforded luxury.


Is it hard to grasp that there's a difference between carcinogenic smoke and music/perfume?

Your arguments amount to "I want to smoke, so fuck everyone else".

It's not that it's difficult to grasp BOZG, the point is, you're willing to seek out a club that plays your style of music, but not to seek out a place to eat or drink that adheres to your standards of health. If you ask me that shows a little something about how much you really give a damn.

As far as the perfume issue, I already explained that I have an Aunt who when coming within even 20 feet of almost any scented body products, whether it be lotions, perfumes, whatever, has terrible attacks. It is without a doubt with the condition of her heart that one such attack could easily cause her death or great pain for the rest of her life. But you're not willing to recognize such people right? Because it's not "your" problem and because you probably believe you should have a right to wear such things. It's no different than a smoker saying that them lighting up is not "their" problem if it bothers you, and that they should have a right to do such things.

Lastly, I'm not sure how my argument can amount to that when I'm a cigar and pipe man (both of which common courtesy deems you don't smoke around others, not cause of health, but because of the sheer mass amounts of smoke and the odor). Furthermore, I would deem myself insane to ever light a cigar or pipe in an enclosed area with little ventelation.... so this so called "argument" that I'm making doesn't really apply to me. The fact is, unlike you I'm willing to recognize that the world is full of health risks, and if you want the government to start regulating every single one for the safety of the people then you're looking at a severe loss of freedom, whether it's a loss of your freedom or not is a different story, but that doesn't mean it's not a loss of freedom.


I almost died from smokers; they've certainly shortened the length of my life. Why is it their "right" to do that?

Why did you hang around smoke filled environments?


Even though we end up paying for their hospital treatment, I don't oppose people smoking - so long as they don't subject workers and other folks to their scabby behaviour.

The only people subjecting themselves to this behavior are those who don't walk away from such behavior, or those who are willing to work within it.

[commiecrusader]

What about if you friends smoke? Or if everyone else wants to go to a place where there will be smokers
You want to limit what your friends are allowed to do? That's not very nice. And if smoking is sooo bad then why would everyone else want to go to a place where there will be smokers?

[PRC-UTE]

Why did you hang around smoke filled environments?

I was a young boy, gobshite.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 07:24 PM
It doesn't? What if I'm at a public camp ground and I want to light a cintranella candle to keep mosquitos away and someone there is allergic to it? How bout if I want to wear a certain cologne? Certain hand lotions alone cause my aunt's throat to swell up and she can barely breath that is when she has the time to since she's sneezing and coughing from it. So should we ban those such things to? Maybe we should ban hair spray because it's flammable and can be a fire hazard if someone is applying it in public. But maybe NONE of these things have to do with freedom...
We cant help it if some people are allergic to some things, but the issue here isnt allergies, or things like that, its that smoking ruins everybodys lungs whether you are smoking or not. People dont have to smoke, I dont see what is so hard about showing some respect for the other people in the room and going outside with your "addiction".

[NovelGentry]

I was a young boy, gobshite.

Blame your parents, or whoever it was that kept you in a situation, not the entire world. No smoker is going to force you to sit/stand/whatever next to him while he smokes. So stop pretending this is the case. You have free will, USE IT!


We cant help it if some people are allergic to some things, but the issue here isnt allergies, or things like that, its that smoking ruins everybodys lungs whether you are smoking or not. People dont have to smoke, I dont see what is so hard about showing some respect for the other people in the room and going outside with your "addiction".

I'm not sure about "ruins" everybody's lungs. I'm not arguing that tobacco smoke does not have detrimental effects, but so does inhaling the chemicals from house cleaners and things like that. Furthermore it should be noted that not EVERYONE who smokes dies of a smoking related death, and I'm not just talking about accidents causing premature death. There are people who smoke who die of unrelated causes. For you to assume that everyone who breaths in smoke will DIE from it is just ludacris.

You argue that it's a preventable risk, and I argue simply that there are many other preventable risks that need to be made illegal in the case you truly believe smoking shold be banned.

[che's long lost daughter]

Here in my city, smoking in public places is banned. I think banning smoking in public places does not supress freedom. Banning smoking completely does. And confining smoking to smoking areas only would be a great benefit to non-smokers because second hand smoking offers more danger to other people than those who actually smoke.

[redstar2000]

There are people who smoke who die of unrelated causes. For you to assume that everyone who breaths in smoke will DIE from it is just ludicrous.

Indeed, NovelGentry, the truth is even worse.

No one knows how many people die "from" smoking, much less "from" second-hand smoke.

All the numbers thrown around so glibly are "estimates"...someone or some group made them up.

Usually, the proper determination of the cause of death involves performing an autopsy...but that actually happens with less than 10% of the deaths in the United States.

And what is easier than to attribute the death of any smoker to smoking? A 70-year old man has a heart attack and dies. The coroner's office guys note, while they are removing the corpse from his apartment, that there's a carton of cigarettes on his dresser.

Guess what he "died from"?

While I was living in San Francisco, there was a small fire in the apartment across the hall from me. The guy who lived there got home while the fire department guys were finishing up putting out the fire. He insisted that the cause was faulty wiring. The fire chief said, matter-of-factly, "Whenever we find cigarettes at a fire, we report the cause as an unattended lit cigarette".

I don't think the crusade for "a smoke free world" is really about "health" at all...otherwise, as you noted, there'd be far more stringent control of other and much more massive sources of urban air pollution than there are.

Since smoking is a "working class habit", I think the attack on smoking is really just another way of attacking the social status of the workers themselves.

In Marx's time, port and sherry were regarded as "civilized" drinks (expensive) while the cheap gin consumed by workers was considered "vile and disgusting".

The well-to-do in America today can go to "cigar bars" or private clubs and smoke as much as they wish...the cost is trivial to them. (Not to mention smoking in their limo, their private executive office, and even their private jet.)

But taxes can be raised infinitely high on the worker's pack of smokes -- "to discourage smoking" by the vulgar masses. (The legal retail price of a pack of premium cigarettes in Manhattan is over $7.00/pack.) The two places that the worker is most likely to spend most of his/her life (work and jail) prohibit smoking as do all forms of public transit.

There's even a bill pending in the U.S. congress that would prohibit tobacco companies from developing and marketing flavored cigarettes ("kids might like them and start smoking").

More importantly, perhaps, this bill would also place tobacco under the control of the Food & Drug Administration. Should that bill be signed into law, the next step is an obvious one: the FDA can place tobacco on the schedule of "bad drugs". It won't happen "soon"...but it will happen.

Woo hoo! A whole new "war on drugs" (or a drug).

And just as the existing "war on drugs" is mostly a war against people of color, the new war on drugs will mostly be a war against workers.

The neo-puritanical agenda has always been one of making "the lower classes shape up". Our role in life is not to enjoy ourselves but to work diligently for our masters and otherwise satisfy ourselves with vicarious "pleasure" -- watching the "golden boys & girls" on the dummyvision.

Watch and see: the neo-puritans will go after alcohol again too.

They also think we're "too fat"...if they can figure out a way to tax obesity, well...

Or maybe a law against "high calorie" foods.

Five years for possession of strawberry short-cake "with intent to eat"!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[NovelGentry]

Here in my city, smoking in public places is banned. I think banning smoking in public places does not supress freedom. Banning smoking completely does.

Are you people also banned to driving SUVs only on their own private roads because of their tendency to be unsafe and a danger to not only the people who drive the SUV, but to other people on the road? Hell, this doesn't even take into account the extra emmisions they have.

edit: I don't think you realize how frequently I'm run off the road by SUVs. And no, I'm not joking, I have literally had to swerve offroad or within inches of a guard rail and slam on my breaks to avoid being hit by SUVs -- even Mini Vans. I drive a small car in case you're wondering. I don't call to see these things banned though, even if it is a danger to my life (aswell as others).


second hand smoking offers more danger to other people than those who actually smoke.

This is some crazy logic... you're saying that second hand smoking is more dangerous to someone who doesn't smoke than to someone who does smoke?

It's equally as dangerous, the only difference is the person who smokes doesn't care about the dangers of it. This is like arguing that sticking your hand in hot coals is more dangerous to you than a fireman.

[che's long lost daughter]

Second hand smoking is more dangerous because the smoke (along with the nicotine and tar) is directly inhaled by the "second hand smoker" while the actual smoker have the benefit of a filter. I thought everyone knows about htis already????

[Fidelbrand]

Smokers should avoid smoking too close to a person who obviously hates somke.

Non-smokers should avoid getting oneself near a somking smoker.

It is advised that smokers should try to avoid smoking in congested areas (where the non-smoker is stationary.)

........ We don't need a bloody law in restricting people from smoking, that's absurd.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by che's long lost [email protected] 4 2004, 07:35 PM
Second hand smoking is more dangerous because the smoke (along with the nicotine and tar) is directly inhaled by the "second hand smoker" while the actual smoker have the benefit of a filter. I thought everyone knows about htis already????
i know & i agree with you.

[che's long lost daughter]

Novel Gentry does not seem to know it Fidel.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But the 'benefit' of the filter is eliminated as soon as the smoker breathes in the smoke s/he has exhaled. And what about people who smoke pipes or cigars? the only way in which smoking can be more harmful to bystanders is if the smoker is smoking through a gasmask, which I'm sure you will agree is highly unlikely. Not only that, but second-hand smoke has been passed through a crude filtration system; namely the smoker's lungs, in which the tar from the cigarette adheres, as well as numerous other chemicals.

I do not understand the logic behind this idea that second-hand smoke is more harmful when in fact second-hand smoke has less harmful chemicals than freshly drawn smoke.

[Fidelbrand]

Noxion,

The smoker's exhaled smoke is still the filtered smoke.
I don't quite understand the case-mask case.
Second-hand smoke includes both filtered, exhaled smoke + unfiltered (tar + chemicals, etc.) smoke off the lit ciggi.

[NovelGentry]

On the issue of second hand smoke being more dangerous to non-smokers:

You're missing the point. Second hand smoke can be inhaled by smokers and non-smokers alike, whether it's filtered or unfiltered. If you're talking about the smoke coming off the lit end of the cigarette, that is inhaled by smoker and non-smokers just the same, and is equally as dangerous to both. If you're talking about the smoke which is exhaled by the smoker (filtered or not) -- that smoke is inhaled by both, and is equally as dangerous to both.

You seem to be making the assumption that the smoker never reinhales the same smoke after it has been exhaled, or that because they're inhaling off one end they never breath in the smoke from the other end. This is idiotic, and it just goes to show how idiotic your logic is.


Second-hand smoke includes both filtered, exhaled smoke + unfiltered (tar + chemicals, etc.) smoke off the lit ciggi.

Yes, and all are equally dangerous to anyone who inhales them, whether they're the one smoking the cigarette or not. Furthermore, it's more likely that the smoker will get more of this as it will be most highly concentrated in their immediate vicinity.

[Fidelbrand]

This is idiotic, and it just goes to show how idiotic your logic is.

You might find someone else more idiotic if u look closer.

The smoker's exhaled smoke is still the filtered smoke.

Also, i never have the stupidest thought that "because they're inhaling off one end they never breath in the smoke from the other end." :lol:


Yes, and all are equally dangerous to anyone who inhales them, whether they're the one smoking the cigarette or not. Furthermore, it's more likely that the smoker will get more of this as it will be most highly concentrated in their immediate vicinity.

how about like this:

Smoker : Inhales a) Mainstream smoke+ sidestream smoke
Second-hand smoke inhaler: Inhales a) Mainstream smoke + Sidestream smoke + unintended/vulnerable damage to health.


it's more likely that the smoker will get more of this as it will be most highly concentrated in their immediate vicinity.

I see now, smokers don't blow smoke out to a distance, instead they puff around to keep smoke in their proximity. :ph34r:

[NovelGentry]

unintended/vulnerable damage to health.

This doesn't make it more dangerous to him. The smoke does exactly the same damage, you're just arguing intentions.


I see now, smokers don't blow smoke out to a distance, instead they puff around to keep smoke in their proximity.

I hate to tell you, but if you cut a fart, you're going to smell it before the guy standing 10 feet away. By this logic you should get as close to smokers as possible.

[apathy maybe]

I'm all for freedom, so long as it doesn't impinge on the freedoms of others (or the environment).

So sure, you can smoke, drink, inject whatever the fuck you like, but as soon as it starts damaging someone else (who didn't ask directly for that hurt), then no. Thats it.

So big cars and vans, sure you can drive them as much as you like (well no, but ignoring other reasons) except that they are as dangerous as all heck for other drivers.

As many freedoms as you want, so long as you don't hurt someone else. When you smoke, that smoke (and the shit inside it) doesn't stay around you, it wanders around. If someone is sitting at the next table (and they don't smoke) well there is the possibility that you are infringing on their freedoms. And that's a no no.

[Hate Is Art]

Let's take the example of my college for instance. Everyone who goes there is of the legal age to smoke so we dont have to worry about that.

You can't smoke in the quads or inside or in corridors, you can smoke in "cancer alley" or out back by the music rooms and the field.

Should we allow people to be able to smoke in lessons, in the canteen or in the corridors?

Clearly a no, sure we could go somewhere where no one is smoking though?

:P

[Scott M]

i believe in the concept of free will. everyone has it and has the freedom to exercise their own actions.

especially in the so called "land of the free" the banning of smoking in public places is a hypocrisy, as it takes away peoples right to that very will.

scott

[redtrigger]

i believe in the concept of free will. everyone has it and has the freedom to exercise their own actions.

especially in the so called "land of the free" the banning of smoking in public places is a hypocrisy, as it takes away peoples right to that very will.

This has already been covered previously in this thread. Just a suggestion, read the entire thread before posting <_< . Anyway, if you smoke around someone who doesn&#39;t like the smoke you are infringing their freedom. If you were there first then it is their choice to be by you, then by all means smoke if it tosses your jimmies. Hell, I am known to have a smoke over a drink with my friends. But if they were there first, and you just light up then you&#39;re the asshole and should move, or put it out.

[NovelGentry]

So big cars and vans, sure you can drive them as much as you like (well no, but ignoring other reasons) except that they are as dangerous as all heck for other drivers.

As many freedoms as you want, so long as you don&#39;t hurt someone else. When you smoke, that smoke (and the shit inside it) doesn&#39;t stay around you, it wanders around. If someone is sitting at the next table (and they don&#39;t smoke) well there is the possibility that you are infringing on their freedoms. And that&#39;s a no no.

so wait, are you saying that we should ban big cars, vans, and SUVs then?

Maybe your missing my point... I come close to dying at least once a month from SUV drivers, all it is going to take is for one day ot me run out of luck and be on a road where ther is no breakdown lane and the guy decides to do his laneshift a bit too fast. With that said, SUVs right now are more of a threat to me than second hand smoke, or even first hand smoke. So if you&#39;re gonna ban smoking in public places, ban these things from the road&#33;&#33;&#33; ban everything that&#39;s a threat to someone else -- and we will all live nicely inside our homes doing whatever we want, and never leaving the house because everything is banned.

[Scott M]

yeah, ok i agree i should perhaps have read the whole shebang, but four pages.....

:P

what you are talking about is called courtesy... just because someone should oblige his fellow men and smoke away from them, doesnt mean it happens....im sure your not nieve enough to believe that. i agree that it puts the other person at risk, and as a non-smoker, i do believe it shouldnt be carried out, but people are bastards, and if they dont wish to acknowledge their fellow man, then thats there choice through their own free will, and the world just kinda has to accept it, as harsh as that reality is....if you feel the need to kick the shit out of someone for it, then im not to going to try and stop you....i feel the same way

scott

[Xvall]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 05:20 PM
Remember the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Makes you wonder what the road to heaven is paved with, eh?

[Rasta Sapian]

hey yall, i was on a patio the other day, sitty by some friends, ladies, enjoying a beer and some fries. we lit up a couple smokes, chillin, and the waitress brought us an ashtry and said. Hey guys the smoking ban how now been in effect for a few days, so finish your smokes. this is not free will, there was no one else even at the patio man, bullshit

[apathy maybe]

If something is a danger to someone else (beyond a certain threshold) then yes it should be banned. Big cars like sports utility vehicles (we call them four wheel drives for some stupid reason) should be banned with in city limits. What do you need them for? They are just a menace.

[Anarchist Freedom]

FUCK em thats all i have to say&#33; :redstar2000:

[praxis1966]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 7 2004, 05:27 PM
If something is a danger to someone else (beyond a certain threshold) then yes it should be banned. Big cars like sports utility vehicles (we call them four wheel drives for some stupid reason) should be banned with in city limits. What do you need them for? They are just a menace.
This is by far the most ridiculous piece of logic in this thread. To do this, you would have to include in the ban all sports that involve one athlete coming into physical contact with another, i.e. baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer, football, rugby, etc. This would leave you with tennis, cricket, golf, and croquet as non-banned (if you can even call the last two of those actual sports).

[bunk]

Do you know 4*4 especially with bullbars will kill someone it knocks over instantly. Plus, how much fuel do they use up? Why would you need it in a city.

[Funky Monk]

You can die from Cricket. Think that should be banned too.

[bunk]

idiot.

[h&s]

Do you know 4*4 especially with bullbars will kill someone it knocks over instantly.
Thats why they are illegal.

[Yazman]

If they were to ban smoking in public places, it would be a great thing, but I&#39;m happy with the way it is here currently (no smoking in any public places, only in set aside areas.)

[Rockfan]

Smoking is a filthy habit.
im fitter that all mi smoking m8s and there way thinner thatn me
Bad 4 kids 2

[Vanilla Coke Kid]

I don&#39;t smoke anymore because I&#39;m probably unhealthy as it is, but that doesn&#39;t mean I&#39;m going to force 30% of the country to be like me. Besides, most smokers have an addiction (it IS more addictive than smack after all) so taking away the thing they&#39;re addicted to will just make things worse. Plus, it&#39;s not really other people&#39;s problem if others smoke.

[DaCuBaN]

I support the idea completely, while working you should not have to be subjected to the bad habits of other people, not forgetting illness caused by passive smoking.

I couldn&#39;t agree more. I myself have smoked from a relatively young age, but if you don&#39;t want my smoke around, ask&#33;. The problem doesn&#39;t lie in smoking - it lies in the kind of arseholes who refues to consider the thoughts of others.

There&#39;s a quote that sums my own thoughts on this up however:

"Health freaks are going to feel pretty damn stupid when they die of nothing"

As far as banning it in pubs/clubs and the like, I&#39;m on the fence. I&#39;m even starting to think that segregation would be the key :unsure:

[CPK]

I smoke, so what?
Mmm carcinogens...