Ban on smoking ?

[Coggeh]

Was going to put this somewhere else but i can only post in OI so ... anyway ,what do other leftists think about the ban on smoking in public areas ?

In an arguement i was watching a smoker was labelling the ban in the uk as an attack on his rights , anyone have any thoughts?

[Jazzratt]

It can go fuck itself, I've had to stand out in the pouring fucking rain to smoke and my mate lost his pocket to the ban (long story). The whole thing reeks of nanny government stepping in and telling me I'm a naughty boy. Fuck it all.

I'd love to see what the cappies say in support of it though.

[wtfm8lol]

I'd love to see what the cappies say in support of it though.

you'll find that the majority of us won't say anything at all in support of it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 12:55 pm

I'd love to see what the cappies say in support of it though.

you'll find that the majority of us won't say anything at all in support of it.
Oh yes a number of you are psuedo-libertarian spackers aren't you?

[wtfm8lol]

Oh yes a number of you are psuedo-libertarian spackers aren't you?

you could put it that way. if you were a ****, that is.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

WHat I don't like about the smoking ban is that it takes control completely out of the hands of the owners of an establishment.

In all seriousness, what is wrong with allowing the management to make a decision on whether or not they should allow smoking? As long as such establishments that do decide to allow smoking post easily visible signs saying "smokers welcome" or something to that effect and state in job vacancies that successful applicants will be working in a smoking environment, I don't see what the problem is.

I hope the local council snoops who nose around pubs get their just desserts in the form of cigarette burns to the genitalia.

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:10 am
WHat I don't like about the smoking ban is that it takes control completely out of the hands of the owners of an establishment.

In all seriousness, what is wrong with allowing the management to make a decision on whether or not they should allow smoking? As long as such establishments that do decide to allow smoking post easily visible signs saying "smokers welcome" or something to that effect and state in job vacancies that successful applicants will be working in a smoking environment, I don't see what the problem is.

I hope the local council snoops who nose around pubs get their just desserts in the form of cigarette burns to the genitalia.
well clearly then the proletariat is being handed its rights from the bourgeois pricks in the management. the only way to solve the problem is to take control of the establishments.

[Vanguard1917]

A ridiculous ban which shows that the government holds us in utter contempt.

(For example, if we can't even be trusted to decide for ourselves whether or not to smoke, can we really be trusted to democratically elect the next the government of this country?)

If you'd told people just 20 years ago that by 2007 there would be cameras everywhere (even public toilets) and that you'd be barred from smoking in pubs(!), they'd find that very hard to imagine.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:17 pm
well clearly then the proletariat is being handed its rights from the bourgeois pricks in the management. the only way to solve the problem is to take control of the establishments.
Don't be obtuse. I was looking at the issue from a present-day perspective, not from that of a hypothetical revolutionary future.

Now are you actually going to contribute to the discussion, or are you going to continue trolling?

[wtfm8lol]

Now are you actually going to contribute to the discussion, or are you going to continue trolling?

trolling, if its not too much of a problem

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 12:47 pm
It can go fuck itself, I've had to stand out in the pouring fucking rain to smoke and my mate lost his pocket to the ban (long story). The whole thing reeks of nanny government stepping in and telling me I'm a naughty boy. Fuck it all.

I'd love to see what the cappies say in support of it though.

I'd love to see what the cappies say in support of it though.

Why would a capitalist support it at all?

The logic only makes sense from a collectivist point of view, agreed?

Reasoning:
1. In a collectivist society, health care resources are collectively provided and disbursed.
2. Smoking increases the need of health care resources.
3. Since collective resources are provided according to need, smokers receive more health care resources.
4. Health care resources are scarce. A given unit of health care consumed by a smoker cannot also be consumed by someone else.
5. Therefore, smokers decrease the pool of health care available to others, leading to less health available health care or more resources sunk into expanding the pool.
6. Smoking has no collective benefit whatsoever.
7. CONCLUSION: Smoking is by definition a selfish, anti-social act that hurts the collective, and ought to be punished and banned.

From the capitalist point of view:
1. The costs of the increased health care needs incurred by smoking falls on the smoker.
2. The smoker is free to choose whether or not to incur those costs, or whether to smoke.
3. Thus, smoking or not is an entirely individual choice with entirely individual consequences, one that the rest of society has no interest in and consequently no justifiable control over.

[Amusing Scrotum]

You know, strangely enough, I actually had more disdain for the smoking ban before it came into place. Because, given that I smoke about 12 grams of tobacco a day -- roughly 25-30 cigarettes -- and, more or less, chain smoke when I'm drinking, I had visions of this ban being a real pain in the arse.

But, after a few months of not being able to smoke inside, I'm not that bothered.

Don't get me wrong, I still think the legislation is repressive. And I still think the scientific evidence in favour of passive smoking being a significant health risk is poor.* But I'm just not that annoyed with it all. Certainly not as annoyed as I was.

And this is because: (1) I now get to have a break every hour to smoke, whilst before I'd just have to stand at the end of the bar; and (2), I no longer have to wash ash trays at the end of the night, something I really didn't like doing.

And when then at the end of the night the doors of the pub are locked, and we all sit down with a drink and a snout -- you realise that it's quite funny how things turn out in the end. Certainly, in this case the results aren't as bad as I anticipated -- but that shouldn't be seen as an argument in favour of the ban.

*The largest studies on the issue, have found that the link between passive smoking and bad health is, well, somewhat exaggerated. Of course, many will say "Oh, but those studies were funded by the tobacco industry". Which they were.

But, what these people neglect to tell you, is that studies showing a link were funded by anti-smoking groups. Which is as big of a conflict of interest.

And what's more, one of the largest studies conducted -- the one conducted by Enstrom and Kabat, I think -- was initially funded by anti-smoking groups. But then promptly dumped by those same groups when the preliminary findings didn't have the right conclusions.

So the study was finished because of funding from the tobacco industry. Something the anti-smoking groups make a lot of noise about -- whilst, once again, keeping quiet about their own dealings.

[Vanguard1917]

So the study was finished because of funding from the tobacco industry. Something the anti-smoking groups make a lot of noise about -- whilst, once again, keeping quiet about their own dealings.

Even if passive smoking does carry some health risks, restaurants, pubs, bars and nightclubs aren't exactly supposed to be bastions of healthy living. They're places where people (usually adult people) go to eat, drink, smoke (once upon a time), chat and relax. If you don't want to be in such an environment, that's absolutely fine. Sit in the non-smoking section or go to a health spa.

This is the government basically telling the rest of us that we are in no position to make decisions about things as trivial as whether or not we should smoke or be in the company of smokers. Tells us a lot about how the ruling political elite views the rest of us, doesn't it?

[bezdomni]

The workers of bars/pubs/restaurants...etc should determine wether or not smoking would be allowed in their restaurant, or if they would prefer to work in the non-smoking section.

I hate not being allowed to smoke at work. I can only go out once for 15 minutes per 8 hour shift.

I'd rather have three 5-minute breaks.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 05:48 pm
The workers of bars/pubs/restaurants...etc should determine wether or not smoking would be allowed in their restaurant, or if they would prefer to work in the non-smoking section.

This is other point. The anti-smoking crusaders in government have tried to appeal to bar workers for support and they haven't really received any.

Bar workers have not exactly been taking to the streets calling for a ban. This is a ban which comes directly from above.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+July 06, 2007 06:04 pm--> (Vanguard1917 @ July 06, 2007 06:04 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2007 05:48 pm
The workers of bars/pubs/restaurants...etc should determine wether or not smoking would be allowed in their restaurant, or if they would prefer to work in the non-smoking section.

This is other point. The anti-smoking crusaders in government have tried to appeal to bar workers for support and they haven't really received any.[/b]

In my opinion, there's a good reason for this. A reason which ties into your earlier point about "restaurants, pubs, bars and nightclubs [not being] bastions of healthy living", and the people frequenting these establishments not expecting them to be either.

Basically, in general, the people that work in these industries, in my experience, aren't overly concerned with their health. Primarily because of the backgrounds of these workers; how they came to work in the industry, in other words.

That, really, can be split into two groups: (1) students who need a temporary money source; and (2) people who actually enjoy the work, and the social life surrounding it -- the late nights, drinking, etc., etc.

Students, of course, tend to party a lot. So the idea of measures protecting their health won't really interest them. And likewise, anyone who wants a career in this industry, will probably, as I say, enjoy the social life -- so again, they'll not be to bothered with protecting their health.

And the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people who work in the industry come from these two backgrounds, explains two phenomena. The first, as you point out, is that the government couldn't rally people in support -- nor could the unions, by the way. And the second, is that this explains why, in general, people in this industry drink more, and are more likely to do drugs and smoke.

Honestly, ask anyone who's work in this industry, and I'm sure they'll confirm what I'm saying.

Indeed, my old boss, who used to work for TGI Friday's, told me that one Friday's, in Exeter I think, was that "bad" that it actually ended up getting raided. And all three bartenders ended up getting done for possession -- I think, though don't quote me on this, that it was so much that they got done for possession with the intent to supply as well.

All of which, just kinda' indicates how poorly the government represents those it claims to represent.

[jasmine]

It can go fuck itself, I've had to stand out in the pouring fucking rain to smoke and my mate lost his pocket to the ban (long story). The whole thing reeks of nanny government stepping in and telling me I'm a naughty boy. Fuck it all.

I'd love to see what the cappies say in support of it though.

The nanny government - isn't that what Thatcherites call socialism?

Smoking causes lung cancer, at least that is what science - (yes, real, objective, knowledge, tells us) - and those of us who want to stay healthy have to pay for the idiots who ignore SCIENCE - Richard Dawkins blah, blah, fucking blah, - those morons who want to breathe tar into their lungs.

I thought you were a supporter of scientific knowledge. Or is that only when it supports your lifestyle?

Why should I pay for your oxygen tent?

[Red Rebel]

what do other leftists think about the ban on smoking in public areas ?

There should be a ban on public (inside) smoking. If I don't want to get 2nd hand smoke which causes cancer, I should have to be forced to be in that position. There is nothing wrong with stepping outside for a smoke.

[wtfm8lol]

there should be a ban on public property so this whole problem doesn't exist.

[Sentinel]

I think it's a good thing this thead is in Opposing Ideologies. Bacause this has already been discussed a long time ago, back when redstar still posted, on the general forums. Just run a search in the Theory and Politics forums, if you're interested of the various leftist viewpoints on the smoking issue confronted with each other.

But as this thread is in OI it brings something new to the subject: the rightist perspective. It will be interesting to hear their counterarguments to the libertarian-communist viewpoint already presented.


there should be a ban on public property so this whole problem doesn't exist.

So you say. But how could such a veritable world record in awful decisionmaking, from the proletarian perspective, possibly be a better idea than letting simply letting the workers, ie those concerned, decide who gets to smoke at their workplace? The customers can then choose whether to go to a smoking or non-smoking bar.

Problem solved. :cool:

[wtfm8lol]

well if it's a public place (meaning not owned privately), i should have as much say as the workers do whether or not smoking should be allowed. they work there and i consume there. neither of us can stake any claim to its ownership, so neither can claim to have more say over what's acceptable in there than the other. sure, i could go to another, but so could the worker.

[luxemburg89]

I think it's a bad idea but I don't smoke. I think they should lower the drinking age to 16 as a compromise, although that isn't really good enough either. In the rest of Europe (generally) the drinking age is lower AND they have far-less drinking-related problems, so the government can shove that up its arse. No one I know is paying attention to the law anyway lol.

[Coggeh]

I don't really know about this subject to be honest but I was thinking like , isn't it someones right to go out to a pub and not have to stuffer someone elses bad habit ?
If you smoking is effecting others choice not too and incurring health risks on them I think maybe it should be banned in pubs ,restaurants etc

[bezdomni]

That is why it should be voted on by the workers who work in the bars/pubs...etc.

Some places would attract workers who don't smoke, who don't like smoking or who, for sensitive health problems, should not be exposed to excessive amounts of smoke...this would also attract people who would prefer a smoke-free establishment.

However, I'd imagine most places would still allow smoking in at least part of the restaurant or pub if not in the entire place..because really, second-hand smoke isn't that bad. Especially if you are just going to a pub for a few hours. It's not like you're going to get lung cancer from sitting next to me. :P

As a smoker who works in a restaurant with a lot of other smokers in a city with a public smoking ban (Houston), I find it to be a huge pain in the ass. If it was up to us, people would be able to smoke in the restaurant.

If you don't like sitting next to a smoker or going to a smoky place...go to a different pub or sit somewhere else.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 07:12 pm
The nanny government - isn't that what Thatcherites call socialism?

It's what anyone calls the government taking repressive steps "for the common good".


Smoking causes lung cancer, at least that is what science - (yes, real, objective, knowledge, tells us) -

Yes, we know the point is rammed home daily. People smoke because they enjoy it and are willing to sacrifice their health for it. In the same way people take drugs or drink alcohol despite the health issues.


and those of us who want to stay healthy have to pay for the idiots who ignore SCIENCE - Richard Dawkins blah, blah, fucking blah, - those morons who want to breathe tar into their lungs.

Science tells us smoking increases the risk of contracting a plethora of diseases, it does not tell us not to smoke. At most what you could say is that we are told it is inadvisable to smoke. As for your laughable claim that you're paying for our health treatment it's simply a load of bollocks - given the taxes paid on cigarettes (which are extortionate) it is more likely that I will have paid for my own treatment and probably for someone else's as well.


I thought you were a supporter of scientific knowledge. Or is that only when it supports your lifestyle?

Yes I do support science and therefore understand precisely what a stand to gain on the disease front when I smoke yet I still choose to do it because I enjoy it. I do not see this as incongruous.


Why should I pay for your oxygen tent?

Because a lot of people will require that oxygen tent both smoker and non-smoker - medicine is there to cure you not to make a value judgement on how you contracted an illness.

[bombeverything]

Yeah I disagree with it. That is probably because I smoke. I can't see anything positive about it really.

[wtfm8lol]

Yes, we know the point is rammed home daily. People smoke because they enjoy it and are willing to sacrifice their health for it. In the same way people take drugs or drink alcohol despite the health issues.

no..most do it because theyre addicted to it and couldnt stop if they tried. you're probably on that boat but can't admit it to yourself.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:13 am

Yes, we know the point is rammed home daily. People smoke because they enjoy it and are willing to sacrifice their health for it. In the same way people take drugs or drink alcohol despite the health issues.

no..most do it because theyre addicted to it and couldnt stop if they tried. you're probably on that boat but can't admit it to yourself.
I most likely am addicted, given the amount of time I've spent smoking but I've never really given any thought to giving up. Also no one starts life addicted to cigarettes meaning that they have to choose to do it for some reason and this reason is enjoyment.

[bloodygolfclubs]

Where I live they have smoking and nonsmoking versions of the same restaurant. If I want to smoke then I go to the smokeng version if not then I dont. I agree that nonsmokers shouldnt have to deal with second hand smoke but at the same time smokers shouldnt have to be inconvenienced either. I deffinetaly agree with the buisness owner choseing whether their property is smoking or non.

[wtfm8lol]

Where I live they have smoking and nonsmoking versions of the same restaurant. If I want to smoke then I go to the smokeng version if not then I dont. I agree that nonsmokers shouldnt have to deal with second hand smoke but at the same time smokers shouldnt have to be inconvenienced either. I deffinetaly agree with the buisness owner choseing whether their property is smoking or non.

what about areas owned by city/state/national government?

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:32 am

I most likely am addicted, given the amount of time I've spent smoking but I've never really given any thought to giving up. Also no one starts life addicted to cigarettes meaning that they have to choose to do it for some reason and this reason is enjoyment.
smoking is drilled into peoples minds at a young age ,something like 80% of smokers started at 16 or before(Im not 100% on that statistic so feel free to check). Most people smoke because it "looks cool" or they enjoy the feeling of sparking up thats not to say they enjoy the taste if cigarettes didn't come with the addictive side then it would never sell seeing as you don't even get a buzz from it Lol.
Now in cases of alcohol and drugs you do get good feeling which is why people use them smoking cigarettes you don't people "enjoy" them because their addicted.


Another question : Is smoking as a parent around your children abuse ?

(I know im coming off as a nagging idiot sorry , i was just wondering it because it came up the same interview) :unsure:

[red team]

Another question : Is smoking as a parent around your children abuse ?

Of course not, what a stupid question. It's the parent's right to choose. If I want to smoke weed in front of my kids, it's my socialist right and my own damn business. If the kids complain tough luck! they can pack up and leave. It's my house, it's my rules and no ungrateful, spoiled rotten kid is going to tell me what to do. I work eight hours a day at my job bringing home the bacon. If that's not good enough for them they can just get their own damn place! :lol:

[Coggeh]

A fine , well thought out answer if ive ever seen one ... :P

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:07 am
smoking is drilled into peoples minds at a young age
Yes what's mainly drilled in is this message of "SMOKING GIVES YOU TEH CANCERZ!" or the like.


,something like 80% of smokers started at 16 or before(Im not 100% on that statistic so feel free to check). Most people smoke because it "looks cool" or they enjoy the feeling of sparking up thats not to say they enjoy the taste if cigarettes didn't come with the addictive side then it would never sell seeing as you don't even get a buzz from it

The claim that one doesn't get a buzz from it is an all out lie, I don't know where it comes from, true you don't start seeing the walls melting or become particularly high but nicotine does still have an undeniable and noticeable effect on brain chemistry.


Now in cases of alcohol and drugs you do get good feeling which is why people use them smoking cigarettes you don't people "enjoy" them because their addicted.

How do you become addicted to something you don't enjoy? You have to smoke a reasonably large amount before you become physically addicted to nicotine so why would you persist if you didn't enjoy it?

Regardless whether or not someone smokes is a matter of choice and informed consent - people are aware of the dangers and do it anyway.


Another question : Is smoking as a parent around your children abuse ?

Don't be silly, as AS pointed out earlier the "passive smoking" evidence is fairly shaky - not that there aren' any dangers in passive smoke (carbon monoxide for example) but that it's not dangerous enough to count as either abuse or negligence.


(I know im coming off as a nagging idiot sorry , i was just wondering it because it came up the same interview) :unsure:

As long as it's just curiosity rather than a condemnation of smokers.

[Janus]

Smoking (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60228&hl=smoking)
Smoking ban (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46450&hl=smoking)
Smoking ban (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46509&hl=smoking)
Smoking ban (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46380&hl=smoking)

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+July 07, 2007 01:00 pm--> (Jazzratt @ July 07, 2007 01:00 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 05:07 am
smoking is drilled into peoples minds at a young age
Yes what's mainly drilled in is this message of "SMOKING GIVES YOU TEH CANCERZ!" or the like.


,something like 80% of smokers started at 16 or before(Im not 100% on that statistic so feel free to check). Most people smoke because it "looks cool" or they enjoy the feeling of sparking up thats not to say they enjoy the taste if cigarettes didn't come with the addictive side then it would never sell seeing as you don't even get a buzz from it

The claim that one doesn't get a buzz from it is an all out lie, I don't know where it comes from, true you don't start seeing the walls melting or become particularly high but nicotine does still have an undeniable and noticeable effect on brain chemistry.


Now in cases of alcohol and drugs you do get good feeling which is why people use them smoking cigarettes you don't people "enjoy" them because their addicted.

How do you become addicted to something you don't enjoy? You have to smoke a reasonably large amount before you become physically addicted to nicotine so why would you persist if you didn't enjoy it?

Regardless whether or not someone smokes is a matter of choice and informed consent - people are aware of the dangers and do it anyway.


Another question : Is smoking as a parent around your children abuse ?

Don't be silly, as AS pointed out earlier the "passive smoking" evidence is fairly shaky - not that there aren' any dangers in passive smoke (carbon monoxide for example) but that it's not dangerous enough to count as either abuse or negligence.


(I know im coming off as a nagging idiot sorry , i was just wondering it because it came up the same interview) :unsure:

As long as it's just curiosity rather than a condemnation of smokers. [/b]
Ya, thats what it is .... damn smokers lol :ph34r:

"For any cross section of adults who smoke daily, 90 percent began using cigarettes before age 20"
http://www.communityhealth.dhhs.state.nc.u...bacco/facts.htm (http://www.communityhealth.dhhs.state.nc.us/tobacco/facts.htm)

I'm not sure to trust that site lol especially with the whole "community health" name but whatever .
Ya my questions and stuff have been answered , Thanks

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Coggy+--> (Coggy)something like 80% of smokers started at 16 or before[/b]


Coggy quoting some health site
For any cross section of adults who smoke daily, 90 percent began using cigarettes before age 20

I really don't know what you're trying to prove here. Maybe that because people tend to start smoking at an age when societal standards still define them as children, we need to do more to "protect" them? Which is an argument, just not a very good one. Because what this argument overlooks, is whether its foundations are solid -- whether societal standards are actually accurate.

And, unsurprisingly, societal standards are not accurate. Just replace the smoking references in that sentence with other "vices", and you'll see that that sentence could be used to describe just about anything.

For any cross section of adults who drink daily, 90 percent began using alcohol before age 20

For any cross section of adults who take drugs, 90 percent began using drugs before age 20

For any cross section of adults who have unprotected sex with different partners, 90 percent began doing this before age 20

I could go on, but I guess you get the point. Which is, of course, that people under 20 aren't children. Rather, they are taking their first steps towards adulthood -- whether bourgeois legal codes choose to recognise this, or not.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 02:01 am
what about areas owned by city/state/national government?

Depends on the area, doesn't it. After all, it would be foolish to treat a private hospital room, suitable for one patient, and a hospital ward, suitable for multiple patients, in the same manner.

[EwokUtopia]

In Canada, we have had the smoking ban as long as I have inhaled that sweet death into my lungs, but I just got back from Europe where I suddenly found the restrictions eased, and now Im pissed off at it. I narrowly avoided the ban in the UK, and in Bulgaria or Romania, there is no chance of a ban comming into effect anytime soon. But it really sucks shit in Canada, because the only time people really like to eat and drink inside is when its raining, or that little season we have where it snows like shit and gets fucking cold.

I oppose the smoking ban because everytime I want to fix my nicotine craving in January, it is not fair that I should have to risk frostbite.

And yes, I have seen several cases of smoking ban related frostbite, it aint pretty.

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by Amusing Scrotum+July 09, 2007 03:42 pm--> (Amusing Scrotum @ July 09, 2007 03:42 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected]
something like 80% of smokers started at 16 or before


Coggy quoting some health site
For any cross section of adults who smoke daily, 90 percent began using cigarettes before age 20

I really don't know what you're trying to prove here. Maybe that because people tend to start smoking at an age when societal standards still define them as children, we need to do more to "protect" them? Which is an argument, just not a very good one. Because what this argument overlooks, is whether its foundations are solid -- whether societal standards are actually accurate.

And, unsurprisingly, societal standards are not accurate. Just replace the smoking references in that sentence with other "vices", and you'll see that that sentence could be used to describe just about anything.

For any cross section of adults who drink daily, 90 percent began using alcohol before age 20

For any cross section of adults who take drugs, 90 percent began using drugs before age 20

For any cross section of adults who have unprotected sex with different partners, 90 percent began doing this before age 20

I could go on, but I guess you get the point. Which is, of course, that people under 20 aren't children. Rather, they are taking their first steps towards adulthood -- whether bourgeois legal codes choose to recognise this, or not. [/b]
How is smoking a step towards adulthood ?

I already said that the fact was questionable , but however i am trying to get across the point that people still view smoking as being cool hence why they start at a young age , alot of the time when people mature they can't stop .


whether bourgeois legal codes choose to recognize this, or not.
Big tobacco corporations want to drill home the message of smoking is cool , and its bourgeois to oppose it ? if a company wants to exploit a weakness of someone until hes addicted ?

I'm not saying we should ban smoking of course not or restrict people smoking.

Its a well pointed out thought on the drink/drugs/sex one but

Company's don't profit from drugs/unprotected sex

Drink has an effect , you get drunk the only thing you get from smoking is a relief when you have a craving, plus drinking mostly involves socializing with the lads or whatever smokers don't get around in droves to hang out when you get a joint or whatever you hang out and get a buzz off it .. all in good fun like .

and then when you try giving it up companies also make a profit from all this nicotine gum stuff , your stuck in a constant exploitation of human weakness it basically is a perfect example of how far capitalists will go making a profit .

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Coggy+--> (Coggy)How is smoking a step towards adulthood ?[/b]

I think you're missing my point here. I'm not saying that by choosing to smoke you become an adult, and that by not choosing to smoke you stay a child. Rather, I'm saying that when people start to think about and actually make these choices, then they are taking their first steps towards adulthood -- whether they choose to smoke or not.

And therefore, the fact that most people start smoking before they are 20, just shows that before you are 20 you make certain adult decisions which, in part, will dictate what kind of person you will become.

At this age you tend to choose your career, clarify your sexuality, decide whether you want to wait or not, decide whether you want to do drugs, decide whether you want to drink regularly... and decide whether you want to smoke or not. And by making these choices, adult choices, you start to become an adult.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Big tobacco corporations want to drill home the message of smoking is cool , and its bourgeois to oppose it ?

Again, you've missed my point. What I meant by the sentence "whether bourgeois legal codes choose to recognise this, or not", is that people will make these choices regardless of what the law says about them making these choices. In other words, they'll make these choices whether there are age restrictions in place or not.

For example, a 17 year old living in an American state which has a drinking age of 21, may well decide that they want to drink socially on a regular basis. And that the legal codes that are in place don't support this, just shows that the legal codes don't correspond with human development.


Coggy
Company's don't profit from drugs...

Lots of people profit from drugs, companies included.
_ _ _ _ _

As for your point about the merits of smoking, you're right, it does bring relief. But in a wider sense than you envisage -- that is, it doesn't just relieve you from a craving. It calms you; partially because it relieves a craving, and partially because the whole process of relaxing with a cigarette is calming.

It&#39;s hard to explain this to a non-smoker, and don&#39;t worry I&#39;m not going to ask you to start just so you can get my point. But trust me here, cigarettes are like a pet: they&#39;re always there for you and they make you smell bad. <_<

Seriously though, ask any smoker, whenever they are in a situation where they are nervous -- perhaps they don&#39;t know what to do with their hands, or they are just intimidated by something or someone -- a cigarette will bring great relief without getting you wasted.

Essentially, it&#39;s cocaine-light&#33; :lol:

[A-S M.]

imo when you smoke you have to take your responsibility and don&#39;t smoke around people who don&#39;t smoke, i choose not to smoke, so neither do i want some second hand smoke in my lungs, you can&#39;t undermine other people&#39;s rights because you want to smoke a sigaret

[pusher robot]

you can&#39;t undermine other people&#39;s rights because you want to smoke a sigaret

What rights? Where do these rights come from?

Everyone is so hung up on rights. This is, I think, needlessly complicating the problem by so trivially invoking a right - a preexisting privilege - to win an insignificant policy dispute. I propose the following:

1. There is no right to smoke anyplace outside of one&#39;s own property.
2. There is no right to be free of smoke anyplace outside of one&#39;s own property.

Everything else is simply a pragmatic policy question. I ask anyone who disagrees to explain where any such rights, for or against, would come from.

The only right that exists is the property right, by virtue of which one can set their own preferred smoking policy for that property which they own.

Now, of course, this is logical to me because I accept the existence of property rights, and I know that many of you do not. So - assuming there are no property rights, what rights are there? Is there anything preventing the prohibition of smoking in the communal bedroom you have been assigned? Or anything preventing requiring you to accept the presence of smoke in your communal living room? Without property rights, it seems everything becomes a simple policy dispute.

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 10, 2007 12:14 pm
Essentially, it&#39;s cocaine-light&#33; :lol:
:lol:

Ya ok i know what you mean ,well i don&#39;t but as you said i&#39;d have to start smoking to find out :blink: .lol

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by A&#045;S [email protected] 10, 2007 01:05 pm
imo when you smoke you have to take your responsibility
Which is exactly what we do by recognising we will get some hideous death-disease.


and don&#39;t smoke around people who don&#39;t smoke,

That depends on the people who don&#39;t smoke and the situation - take for example a building in which a majority of people smoke (making this relevant let&#39;s say a pub) - it falls to the non-smoker to realise that they will be in a smoky atmosphere and take responsibility for it, rather than force a large group of people outside.


i choose not to smoke, so neither do i want some second hand smoke in my lungs,

Well that&#39;s your problem, avoid smoky atmospheres I guess. Do you insist on people who are having a fag whilst walking down the street to put it out?


you can&#39;t undermine other people&#39;s rights because you want to smoke a sigaret

What "right" am I infringing on when I smoke a cigarette exactly?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by wtfm8lol+July 06, 2007 12:55 pm--> (wtfm8lol &#064; July 06, 2007 12:55 pm)
I&#39;d love to see what the cappies say in support of it though.

you&#39;ll find that the majority of us won&#39;t say anything at all in support of it. [/b]

Im asthmatic, so I think the ban is great. Fuck all you selfish bastard smokers.

Originally posted by Jazzrat+--> (Jazzrat)
Well that&#39;s your problem, avoid smoky atmospheres I guess. Do you insist on people who are having a fag whilst walking down the street to put it out?[/b]
It becomes greatly more difficult to simply &#39;avoid&#39; smokers if you&#39;re in enclosed public spaces like pubs restaurants or workplaces.


[email protected]

What "right" am I infringing on when I smoke a cigarette exactly?
the &#39;&#39;right&#39;&#39; to clean air, which i think greatly outweighs your right to slowly poison yourself and those around you with carcinogenic chemicals.
Anyway, think about this, whenever you smoke youre lining the pockets of those tobacco factcats. Non smoking is revolutionary.


EwokUtopia
And yes, I have seen several cases of smoking ban related frostbite, it aint pretty.
All the more reason to give up then.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by redteam
Of course not, what a stupid question. It&#39;s the parent&#39;s right to choose. If I want to smoke weed in front of my kids, it&#39;s my socialist right and my own damn business
Does the parents right to smoke outweigh the child&#39;s right to a pair of clean functioning lungs? I disagree, once you become a parent its through your own choice and when you do so you forfeit your right to hedonist lifestyles which poses a threat to the childs health and upbringing.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 10, 2007 08:07 pm
Im asthmatic, so I think the ban is great. Fuck all you selfish bastard smokers.
Why do you think an outright ban is acceptable rather than giving the option to people as to whether they want a smoking or non-smoking area - a blanket ban simply forces smokers out into the cold so people like you can enjoy your smug sense of superiority in the warmth.


It becomes greatly more difficult to simply &#39;avoid&#39; smokers if you&#39;re in enclosed public spaces like pubs restaurants or workplaces.

It depends on how the pub, restaurant or workplace is set out. Again why is it necessary to make all such places no smoking.


the &#39;&#39;right&#39;&#39; to clean air,

Do you drive a car? The fumes from those are a lot more dangerous and most people inhale a fuck of a lot more carbon monoxide through exhaust fumes. Which chemicals in the air designate it as "unclean" anyway?


which i think greatly outweighs your right to slowly poison yourself and those around you with carcinogenic chemicals.

Any other behaviours you think should be proscribed by society and punished by government simply because they are unhealthy for the individual partaking in them?


Anyway, think about this, whenever you smoke youre lining the pockets of those tobacco factcats. Non smoking is revolutionary.

When I eat I&#39;m lining the pockets of some of the most horrendously immoral exploiters in the world - especially if I eat foods imported from "third world" countries, when I buy clothes the chances are high I&#39;m lining the pockets of some pernicious garment manufacturers, hell when I buy anything there will be a fat cat with there pockets lined.. So being naked and starving is revolutionary?

[luxemburg89]

It depends on how the pub, restaurant or workplace is set out. Again why is it necessary to make all such places no smoking.


That&#39;s a pretty good point. I mean I don&#39;t support the ban but I do understand that many people who don&#39;t smoke can suffer it&#39;s effects, and that passive smoking CAN cause damage. In line with this, and I think this is what you are implying, that there should be certain bars that allow smoking, where you can go if you wanna smoke. If you don&#39;t want to smoke don&#39;t go that bar, go to one that is &#39;no-smoking&#39; because I&#39;m sure they will be around. Also I very much doubt this policy would cause segregation between smokers and non-smokers as the bars would not be exclusively smoking or non-smoking, it would just be a matter of choice of whether you want to be in a bar with smokers or not - personally it wouldn&#39;t bother me, so long as there&#39;s footy on TV :D .

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Jazzrat+--> (Jazzrat)
Why do you think an outright ban is acceptable rather than giving the option to people as to whether they want a smoking or non-smoking area - a blanket ban simply forces smokers out into the cold so people like you can enjoy your smug sense of superiority in the warmth. [/b]
Maybe if it wasnt for so many people being admitted to hospital for smoking related illnesses I wouldnt have to pay so much fucking tax.

Originally posted by Jazzrat+--> (Jazzrat)
It depends on how the pub, restaurant or workplace is set out. Again why is it necessary to make all such places no smoking. [/b]

Those areas will still require bar tenders and waiters, some of whom may be non smokers. Is it fair for them to have to breathe in smoke? BTW by in large, most establishments will be operating smoking areas, even post ban.


Originally posted by Jazzrat
Do you drive a car?
No, but thats beside the issue.


Originally posted by Jazzrat

The fumes from those are a lot more dangerous and most people inhale a fuck of a lot more carbon monoxide through exhaust fumes. Which chemicals in the air designate it as "unclean" anyway?
I blame the petrol capitalists and the pursuit of profit for that, which is a different debate. If the cappies had their way on this one, they would abolish the ban because this is hurting them in the pocket.

Originally posted by Jazzrat
Which chemicals in the air designate it as "unclean" anyway?Hydrogen cyanide, and Carbon monoxide are the ones that spring to mind. I could probably find more if i could be arsed to look it up on Google, which Im not.

[email protected]

Any other behaviours you think should be proscribed by society and punished by government simply because they are unhealthy for the individual partaking in them?
Smoking is unique because it is the only behaviour with &#39;passive&#39; effects. Anyway, the debate isnt about harm to the &#39;individual&#39; its about others receiving harm from &#39;individuals on an involuntary basis.

Jazzrat

When I eat I&#39;m lining the pockets of some of the most horrendously immoral exploiters in the world - especially if I eat foods imported from "third world" countries, when I buy clothes the chances are high I&#39;m lining the pockets of some pernicious garment manufacturers, hell when I buy anything there will be a fat cat with there pockets lined.. So being naked and starving is revolutionary?
Point taken, but its common knowledge that the tabacco tycoons are among the nastiest, more corruptable and least compassionate of all the fatcats out there.

[luxemburg89]

Maybe if it wasnt for so many people being admitted to hospital for smoking related illnesses I wouldnt have to pay so much fucking tax.


Well in the UK the smoker&#39;s actually pay a tax on their cigarettes that goes to funding the NHS. A drop in smoking would actually result in a drop in funding in the NHS and actually raise your taxes further I&#39;m afraid.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 09:24 pm

Maybe if it wasnt for so many people being admitted to hospital for smoking related illnesses I wouldnt have to pay so much fucking tax.


Well in the UK the smoker&#39;s actually pay a tax on their cigarettes that goes to funding the NHS. A drop in smoking would actually result in a drop in funding in the NHS and actually raise your taxes further I&#39;m afraid.
Does the amount of tax on their tobacco actually cover the cost of treating them?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+July 10, 2007 09:28 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ July 10, 2007 09:28 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2007 09:24 pm

Maybe if it wasnt for so many people being admitted to hospital for smoking related illnesses I wouldnt have to pay so much fucking tax.


Well in the UK the smoker&#39;s actually pay a tax on their cigarettes that goes to funding the NHS. A drop in smoking would actually result in a drop in funding in the NHS and actually raise your taxes further I&#39;m afraid.
Does the amount of tax on their tobacco actually cover the cost of treating them? [/b]
and then some.

[Dr Mindbender]

Will that &#39;some&#39; cover the cost of any diseases that I acquire as a result of passive smoking?

[Iron]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 05:04 am
Was going to put this somewhere else but i can only post in OI so ... anyway ,what do other leftists think about the ban on smoking in public areas ?

In an arguement i was watching a smoker was labelling the ban in the uk as an attack on his rights , anyone have any thoughts?
it depends on your view point as a smoking yes it is an attack on your rights to be told were you can and cannot smoke

but as a non-smoking its an attack on your rights to be exposed to smoke that will harm you

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Iron+July 15, 2007 06:20 pm--> (Iron @ July 15, 2007 06:20 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2007 05:04 am
Was going to put this somewhere else but i can only post in OI so ... anyway ,what do other leftists think about the ban on smoking in public areas ?

In an arguement i was watching a smoker was labelling the ban in the uk as an attack on his rights , anyone have any thoughts?
it depends on your view point as a smoking yes it is an attack on your rights to be told were you can and cannot smoke

but as a non-smoking its an attack on your rights to be exposed to smoke that will harm you [/b]
One is a direct attack on autonomy, the other is indirect damage to your physical health.

[Iron]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:34 pm

One is a direct attack on autonomy, the other is indirect damage to your physical health.
it is also an attack on autonomy of the non-smoking their freedom to good health. once again its all about your point of view. which is more important, freedom to make a choice that endangers other, or your freedom to good health. should freedom of choice go so far as to hinder someone else freedom?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+July 15, 2007 06:34 pm--> (Jazzratt @ July 15, 2007 06:34 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:20 pm

[email protected] 06, 2007 05:04 am
Was going to put this somewhere else but i can only post in OI so ... anyway ,what do other leftists think about the ban on smoking in public areas ?

In an arguement i was watching a smoker was labelling the ban in the uk as an attack on his rights , anyone have any thoughts?
it depends on your view point as a smoking yes it is an attack on your rights to be told were you can and cannot smoke

but as a non-smoking its an attack on your rights to be exposed to smoke that will harm you
One is a direct attack on autonomy, the other is indirect damage to your physical health. [/b]
the fact that taking heroin or ecstasy is actually illegal could be regarded as an attack on autonomy, yet its still an attack we permiss. At least class A drugs do not produce the passive effects, which i think is the elephant in the corner that the cancer club are ignoring.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 08:13 pm
the fact that taking heroin or ecstasy is actually illegal could be regarded as an attack on autonomy, yet its still an attack we permiss.
It&#39;s not an attack that I, personally, am comfortable with so who is this "we" (I&#39;m assuming that "permiss" means "permit")?


At least class A drugs do not produce the passive effects, which i think is the elephant in the corner that the cancer club are ignoring.

We&#39;ve been over the "passive smoking" thing, or did you choose not to read AS&#39;s post? I think this argument only really works if you&#39;re talking about smoking in, say, a hospital - but if you&#39;re going to force the majority of the clientèle out of a social building for a habit you personally find distasteful that is indefensible.

Iron


it is also an attack on autonomy of the non-smoking their freedom to good health. once again its all about your point of view.

A) It&#39;s not direct unless someone is blowing their fag smoke right down your throat.

B) Autonomy is freedom of action, being healthy is not an action.


which is more important, freedom to make a choice that endangers other, or your freedom to good health. should freedom of choice go so far as to hinder someone else freedom?

There should be a freedom from being coerced out of doing certain actions, legislating a ban on smoking is needlessly authoritarian.

[Iron]

Originally posted by jazzratt

A) It&#39;s not direct unless someone is blowing their fag smoke right down your throat.

B) Autonomy is freedom of action, being healthy is not an action.

There should be a freedom from being coerced out of doing certain actions, legislating a ban on smoking is needlessly authoritarian.


I didn&#39;t say anything about baning smoking just restricting it, from public areas. and some people do blow their smoking in your face even if they do not mean to. ok different example would i be allowed to blow asbestos into the air in a public place? telling me not to do this would be violating my rights, no?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Iron+July 15, 2007 09:48 pm--> (Iron @ July 15, 2007 09:48 pm)
jazzratt

A) It&#39;s not direct unless someone is blowing their fag smoke right down your throat.

B) Autonomy is freedom of action, being healthy is not an action.

There should be a freedom from being coerced out of doing certain actions, legislating a ban on smoking is needlessly authoritarian.


I didn&#39;t say anything about baning smoking just restricting it, from public areas. [/b]
Effectively banning it.


and some people do blow their smoking in your face even if they do not mean to.

Then politely inform them and ask them to smoke further away from you - do not demand that the government kicks them out into the cold.


ok different example would i be allowed to blow asbestos into the air in a public place? telling me not to do this would be violating my rights, no?

:wacko: That depends is the asbestos an unfortunate bi product of something you are doing for your personal pleasure or is the entire aim of the exercise to harm those around you?

[Iron]

Originally posted by jazzratt+--> (jazzratt) Effectively banning it.[/b]

not really just have designated smoking areas, similar to what we have now "in the us"


jazzratt
That depends is the asbestos an unfortunate bi product of something you are doing for your personal pleasure or is the entire aim of the exercise to harm those around you?

does it matter either way i am violating the rights of those around me by forcing them to be exposed to something harmful. maybe i like to go out in public and spray asbestos into the air for personal pleasure. would you allow me to do this?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Iron+July 15, 2007 10:04 pm--> (Iron @ July 15, 2007 10:04 pm)
jazzratt
Effectively banning it.

not really just have designated smoking areas, similar to what we have now "in the us" [/b]
Sorry your post implied it would be banned in every public place.


does it matter either way i am violating the rights of those around me by forcing them to be exposed to something harmful. maybe i like to go out in public and spray asbestos into the air for personal pleasure. would you allow me to do this?

Personally I would, as long as you didn&#39;t spray it into people. What&#39;s interesting is that it is actually legal to spray asbestos about in a pub but you can&#39;t light up a pipe :blink:

[RedStaredRevolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:11 pm
What&#39;s interesting is that it is actually legal to spray asbestos about in a pub
umm where the hell did you hear that?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by RedStaredRevolution+July 15, 2007 10:17 pm--> (RedStaredRevolution @ July 15, 2007 10:17 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 06:11 pm
What&#39;s interesting is that it is actually legal to spray asbestos about in a pub
umm where the hell did you hear that? [/b]
No one&#39;s made it illegal.

[Iron]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+July 15, 2007 10:51 pm--> (Jazzratt &#064; July 15, 2007 10:51 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:17 pm

[email protected] 15, 2007 06:11 pm
What&#39;s interesting is that it is legal to spray asbestos about in a pub
umm where the hell did you hear that?
No one&#39;s made it illegal. [/b]
accurately "in the US" it is illegal to use. but thats beside the point, i was using it as an example to show that if your rights violate someone else rights they should be null and void.

[Bilan]

It&#39;s interesting how here, in Australia, all pubs, cafe&#39;s, etc. have banned smoking but, casino&#39;s and places for the rich haven&#39;t.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Jazzrat+--> (Jazzrat)
It&#39;s not an attack that I, personally, am comfortable with so who is this "we"[/b]
Society in general.


Originally posted by [email protected]

(I&#39;m assuming that "permiss" means "permit")?
Whatever <_<


Jazzrat
It&#39;s interesting how here, in Australia, all pubs, cafe&#39;s, etc. have banned smoking but, casino&#39;s and places for the rich haven&#39;t.
how do they force the law on a &#39;class basis&#39;? Do the police simply turn a blind eye?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+July 16, 2007 11:44 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ July 16, 2007 11:44 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected]

It&#39;s not an attack that I, personally, am comfortable with so who is this "we"
Society in general. [/b]
Yeah but society in general is no way of judging anything currently. "Society in general" is all up for the continuation of class society.




Jazzrat

We&#39;ve been over the "passive smoking" thing, or did you choose not to read AS&#39;s post? I think this argument only really works if you&#39;re talking about smoking in, say, a hospital - but if you&#39;re going to force the majority of the clientèle out of a social building for a habit you personally find distasteful that is indefensible.
it also works in for example, the cafeteria of my workplace. I want to use this facility to eat my lunch without having to worry about an asthma attack because of smoke.I dont see why I should have to be the one to brave the cold just so a few selfish bastards can feed their nicotine cravings.

So you&#39;re saying that sitting a few metres from someone smoking is going to give you an asthma attack? I don&#39;t think someone with a constitution that fragile should be working, given that if they walk into somewhere where the air is worse, say the car park, there is a very serious danger of a fatal attack.

I&#39;m going to assume you&#39;re not as fragile as you claim to be and simply say if you can&#39;t stand a few people smoking that&#39;s your problem, you should not be rushing to the government for help.

[bretty]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+July 17, 2007 12:17 am--> (Jazzratt @ July 17, 2007 12:17 am)
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+July 16, 2007 11:44 pm--> (Ulster Socialist &#064; July 16, 2007 11:44 pm)
[email protected]

It&#39;s not an attack that I, personally, am comfortable with so who is this "we"
Society in general. [/b]
Yeah but society in general is no way of judging anything currently. "Society in general" is all up for the continuation of class society.




Jazzrat

We&#39;ve been over the "passive smoking" thing, or did you choose not to read AS&#39;s post? I think this argument only really works if you&#39;re talking about smoking in, say, a hospital - but if you&#39;re going to force the majority of the clientèle out of a social building for a habit you personally find distasteful that is indefensible.
it also works in for example, the cafeteria of my workplace. I want to use this facility to eat my lunch without having to worry about an asthma attack because of smoke.I dont see why I should have to be the one to brave the cold just so a few selfish bastards can feed their nicotine cravings.

So you&#39;re saying that sitting a few metres from someone smoking is going to give you an asthma attack? I don&#39;t think someone with a constitution that fragile should be working, given that if they walk into somewhere where the air is worse, say the car park, there is a very serious danger of a fatal attack.

I&#39;m going to assume you&#39;re not as fragile as you claim to be and simply say if you can&#39;t stand a few people smoking that&#39;s your problem, you should not be rushing to the government for help. [/b]
A lot of people are allergic to chemicals in cigarettes and yes it can give people asthma attacks. Are you also implying that if the smokers are harassed and kicked out of certain areas they shouldn&#39;t ask for places to smoke separately either? That argument is a double edged sword.

[RedStaredRevolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:17 pm
if you can&#39;t stand a few people smoking that&#39;s your problem
well mabye if you cant stand to be outside for 5 minutes thats your problem

[AnarchJim]

I&#39;m an non-smoker but I believe it should all come down to a personal choice, but also you should respect your surrounding and the people near by. Second Hand Smoke can damage other people in the same ways as smoking can so taking five minutes as RedStaredRevolution mentioned to go outside away from people who don&#39;t want to breathe in smoke would be a respectful and acceptable comprimise in my opinion.

[The New Left]

Smoking is a personal choice, but I think people are becoming smarter than before. However, cigarettes should be sold where they are out of view from people so that they do not have a impulse purchase. Also they should not allow smoking on public property.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 17, 2007 06:58 pm
Smoking is a personal choice, but I think people are becoming smarter than before. However, cigarettes should be sold where they are out of view from people so that they do not have a impulse purchase. Also they should not allow smoking on public property.

Also they should not allow smoking on public property.

Okay, but under communism, all property would be public property, or more precisely, communally owned property. So where would the line be drawn then?

[AnarchJim]

Okay, but under communism, all property would be public property, or more precisely, communally owned property. So where would the line be drawn then?

Very good question and I look forward to hearing peoples answers.

I myself would say that probably smoking in such places as playgrounds or school grounds would not be a good idea and might be were the line can be drawn, but I&#39;m sure some one else will mention something I have failed to.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Jazzrat+--> (Jazzrat)Yeah but society in general is no way of judging anything currently. "Society in general" is all up for the continuation of class society.[/b]
thats down to a lack of education on the part of Joe public, but in any case its an entirely different argument. Class society and passive smoking are harmful in different means.


Jazzrat

So you&#39;re saying that sitting a few metres from someone smoking is going to give you an asthma attack? I don&#39;t think someone with a constitution that fragile should be working, given that if they walk into somewhere where the air is worse, say the car park, there is a very serious danger of a fatal attack.
Im not saying its going to trigger an asthma attack but it certainly a factor which could help exacerbate one, and thats not mentioning the longer term potentially fatal ailments that could ensue over an accumulative time period. I dont see why anyone has the right to inflict that on me unneccessarilly. Regarding cars/car parks, the petrol monster and our inability to move to green fuels is an inditement of capitalism, not of the nihilist hedonism of the smoking brigade. I work in an office environment, which helps me keep down the risk factors more than if i worked say, in a factory or warehouse. So it isnt working thats the problem, its the selfish gets that want to smoke their way to an early grave.