|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Should Government impose ban on smoking in public?
with the style quotient attached to smoking, is the government imposed ban on smoking in public places going to make a difference in the present times?
Today's youth may try to always get what they want,but it is up to the government to regulate what they get access to. if the government wants people to cut down on smoking,then instead of restricting the places,it should bring in measures that drastically cut down the cigarette production & import. if one doesn't get a cigarette easily then no style , no harm to others through passive smoking & clean air for everybody to breathe. just because of some masses shouldn't suffer.
Today's youth may try to always get what they want,but it is up to the government to regulate what they get access to. if the government wants people to cut down on smoking,then instead of restricting the places,it should bring in measures that drastically cut down the cigarette production & import. if one doesn't get a cigarette easily then no style , no harm to others through passive smoking & clean air for everybody to breathe. just because of some masses shouldn't suffer.
No, no, no, NO!
The government's role should stop at informing people that it is bad for them. Any more than that is needless restriction of freedom.
Perhaps, in the interest of potential second-hand smoke victims, you could enact a law that says smokers must stop smoking in a public place when asked, but it should not be banned entirely- even in situations where nobody cares.
The government's role should stop at informing people that it is bad for them. Any more than that is needless restriction of freedom.
Perhaps, in the interest of potential second-hand smoke victims, you could enact a law that says smokers must stop smoking in a public place when asked, but it should not be banned entirely- even in situations where nobody cares.
In my country (Argentina) smoking is banned from closed enviroments. Nevertheless, smokers can do so outside.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| The government's role should stop at informing people that it is bad for them. Any more than that is needless restriction of freedom.
Perhaps, in the interest of potential second-hand smoke victims, you could enact a law that says smokers must stop smoking in a public place when asked, but it should not be banned entirely- even in situations where nobody cares. |
So equally then should we say that the freedom of murderers should not be restricted? I know this sounds extreme, but is that not just about the same thing? How long did Governments do just that, i.e. inform people that smoking is bad for them, and did it make any difference? I don't think so. So I am completely in favour of actively banning smoking in public places. The more banning the better.
Smoking is as bad for your health as they say, even worse. I am seriously worried about especially teenagers who are smoking as they need to be made aware off just how bad it is for their health. Which I believe, thankfully, there are many people who are doing just that. I would like the bans to be extended to all public places, also at bus stops, or any other public congregation sites outside buildings. Preferably smoking should be completely outlawed, but definitely in all public places.
Yes, yes, yes, YES! (Also, yes.)
Health concerns be damned there because are far worse offenders, but it stinks and really annoys me. Next on the list: under-use of deodorant on public transport? BAN IT! Overuse of deodorant anywhere at all? BAN IT. Casually littering on my sidewalk? REINSTATE THE DEATH PENALTY VIA INSTANT SNIPING.
Health concerns be damned there because are far worse offenders, but it stinks and really annoys me. Next on the list: under-use of deodorant on public transport? BAN IT! Overuse of deodorant anywhere at all? BAN IT. Casually littering on my sidewalk? REINSTATE THE DEATH PENALTY VIA INSTANT SNIPING.
I've got mixed feelings about this subject. I'm a great believer in personal freedoms and oppose unnecessary intrusions into people's lives. However, smoking is something that can have a very adverse effect on others. As such, I feel some restrictions should be in place. The question is how far those restrictions should go.
I cannot agree with a total ban in all public places including outdoors. Someone smoking in the middle of a recreation ground is doing no harm to anyone. However, 20 people huddled outside an office building smoking is a different matter; especially if you need to go past them to get into the building.
There were some rather spurious arguments put forward to support the smoking ban in pubs and clubs; notably that bar staff should not be subjectd to second-hand smoke. Whilst that is superficially true, it's a complete red herring as people who work in pubs and clubs do so of their own free will and knew before they started that there would be smokers there. It's the equivalent of enacting a law to stop firemen attending fires in case they get hurt. OK, that's extreme and very silly, but the logic of it is the same. If anyone doesn't want to breathe other people's smoke, don't work in a bar. Simple.
I also feel that it should have been left to landlords to decide whether their establishment should be non-smoking. Pubs already display large signs saying "Pool played here" or "Karaoke every Thursday". Why not display a sign saying "Smoking allowed here"? Anyone wanting to avoid smoke could then go to a non-smoking establishment.
Last edited by DoctorBeaver on Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
I cannot agree with a total ban in all public places including outdoors. Someone smoking in the middle of a recreation ground is doing no harm to anyone. However, 20 people huddled outside an office building smoking is a different matter; especially if you need to go past them to get into the building.
There were some rather spurious arguments put forward to support the smoking ban in pubs and clubs; notably that bar staff should not be subjectd to second-hand smoke. Whilst that is superficially true, it's a complete red herring as people who work in pubs and clubs do so of their own free will and knew before they started that there would be smokers there. It's the equivalent of enacting a law to stop firemen attending fires in case they get hurt. OK, that's extreme and very silly, but the logic of it is the same. If anyone doesn't want to breathe other people's smoke, don't work in a bar. Simple.
I also feel that it should have been left to landlords to decide whether their establishment should be non-smoking. Pubs already display large signs saying "Pool played here" or "Karaoke every Thursday". Why not display a sign saying "Smoking allowed here"? Anyone wanting to avoid smoke could then go to a non-smoking establishment.
Last edited by DoctorBeaver on Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
As far as I know, Indian Government has already imposed a ban on smoking in public places. And I entirely support the move, because the health of passive smokers are too affected, and this is all the better for them.
Yes, I think that government should impose ban on smoking in public. People who want to smoke should do it in small isolated areas. Smoking is an unhealthy habit that will probably kill the person doing it. It's time to change that habit.
Tobacco producers are trying to do all they can to let people continue smoking. However, I think that the day without tobacco is near!
Tobacco producers are trying to do all they can to let people continue smoking. However, I think that the day without tobacco is near!
| goutha wrote: |
| Yes, I think that government should impose ban on smoking in public. People who want to smoke should do it in small isolated areas. Smoking is an unhealthy habit that will probably kill the person doing it. It's time to change that habit.
|
The law, if any, should state that they must stop smoking if asked.
The government shouldn't interfere with people's choices about whether or not to harm themselves, and should only step in when needed to prevent them from harming others against their will.
I absolutely LOVED when our government imposed restrictions on smoking in public places... it made going out to bars, restaurants, malls, universities, etc. MUCH more pleasant. It's great being able to go see some live music and get home at the end of the night not reeking of stale cigarettes. It's fantastic being able to go out to eat and not have to compete with smoke to taste your food. It hasn't reduced the ability of smokers to go out and have fun in public; they just have to go outside to smoke once in a while... and really, it just makes the outside a social spot too.
I visited my family in the States a bit ago and was reacquainted with public smoking and it was, well, wholly unpleasant. Almost seems barbaric.
I visited my family in the States a bit ago and was reacquainted with public smoking and it was, well, wholly unpleasant. Almost seems barbaric.
| DoctorBeaver wrote: |
| I cannot agree with a total ban in all public places including outdoors. Someone smoking in the middle of a recreation ground is doing no harm to anyone. However, 20 people huddled outside an office building smoking is a different matter; especially if you need to go past them to get into the building. |
You also put it well about the importance of personal freedom and privacy. They are important to me too. But perhaps other people abusing their choice to smoke, especially when it has been scientifically proven that it is harmful to us, could also be an infringement of my right not to have to inhale other people's smoking.
here in our local goverment are running after two culprits: the irresponsible smokers, who puff their cigarettes in public and enclosed places; and the establishments that either tolerate these smokers or do not impose the smoking ban.The local police are usually tasked by the LGUs to go after these violators. Some cities have created special teams to do the task. Pasig City, for instance, has its Green Police that focuses on monitoring compliance of citizens and firms with the local environmental and sanitation laws, which prohibit smoking. The team, said Green Police coordinator Racquel Naciongayo, has around 200 members but only few of them are focused on apprehending smokers.
one officer mr. Flora Cayas, who has been with the Green Police for the almost a year, says people caught violating the ordinance usually say that they are not aware of the smoking ban. “Some of them even try to bribe us when they surrender their IDs or driver’s license.”
A Green Police, she says, apprehends an average of 10 violators a day. Most of them are jeepney drivers. “They usually smoke in their jeepney after having lunch.”
Drivers caught smoking inside their jeepney must surrender to the Green police their license and must claim it from the city environment and natural resources office (CENRO). Pedestrians, meanwhile, have to present valid identification cards. this is how our place strict in smoking in the city
one officer mr. Flora Cayas, who has been with the Green Police for the almost a year, says people caught violating the ordinance usually say that they are not aware of the smoking ban. “Some of them even try to bribe us when they surrender their IDs or driver’s license.”
A Green Police, she says, apprehends an average of 10 violators a day. Most of them are jeepney drivers. “They usually smoke in their jeepney after having lunch.”
Drivers caught smoking inside their jeepney must surrender to the Green police their license and must claim it from the city environment and natural resources office (CENRO). Pedestrians, meanwhile, have to present valid identification cards. this is how our place strict in smoking in the city
I think everything should have their own decisions. How about having a seperate room for people who smoke in non-smoking places?
| airh3ad wrote: |
| here in our local goverment are running after two culprits: the irresponsible smokers, who puff their cigarettes in public and enclosed places; and the establishments that either tolerate these smokers or do not impose the smoking ban.The local police are usually tasked by the LGUs to go after these violators. Some cities have created special teams to do the task. Pasig City, for instance, has its Green Police that focuses on monitoring compliance of citizens and firms with the local environmental and sanitation laws, which prohibit smoking. The team, said Green Police coordinator Racquel Naciongayo, has around 200 members but only few of them are focused on apprehending smokers.
one officer mr. Flora Cayas, who has been with the Green Police for the almost a year, says people caught violating the ordinance usually say that they are not aware of the smoking ban. “Some of them even try to bribe us when they surrender their IDs or driver’s license.” A Green Police, she says, apprehends an average of 10 violators a day. Most of them are jeepney drivers. “They usually smoke in their jeepney after having lunch.” Drivers caught smoking inside their jeepney must surrender to the Green police their license and must claim it from the city environment and natural resources office (CENRO). Pedestrians, meanwhile, have to present valid identification cards. this is how our place strict in smoking in the city |
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
The law, if any, should state that they must stop smoking if asked. The government shouldn't interfere with people's choices about whether or not to harm themselves, and should only step in when needed to prevent them from harming others against their will. |
so we should legalize Heroin, Cocaine etc? Coz its peoples own choice to harm themselves?
| mattyj wrote: | ||||
so we should legalize Heroin, Cocaine etc? Coz its peoples own choice to harm themselves? |
Actually, yes.
Legalizing and regulating it would eliminate many of the problems associated with it.
Taxing it would pay for rehab programs and treatment, and -perhaps- also pay for education programs about the danger of it.
Not only that, but you'd also free up prison space and police manpower, from reduced crime rates, reduced gang activity, and the elimination of most narcotics arrests. Which would allow the government to save money, and focus on more dangerous crimes.
I am not for complete government control over everything. However, there is a lot at stake for me regarding this particular point.
My grandfather is killing himself with cigarettes. I realize this is his freedom, but that doesn't make the emotional firestorm stop. I don't understand how cigarettes are legal, and other drugs are not. Where is the line? I wonder if the history behind the decision to keep smoking legal wasn't to do with popularity.
Also, there is a legitimate health risk to second-hand smoke, and it goes beyond the obvious. There are people who are susceptible to having asthma attacks, for instance, and they don't need to be in a smoky room to trigger their symptoms. All they need is one face-full of smoke--inside or outside--and it is enough to cause a major problem.
Smoking is disgusting and really never should have been legal.
My grandfather is killing himself with cigarettes. I realize this is his freedom, but that doesn't make the emotional firestorm stop. I don't understand how cigarettes are legal, and other drugs are not. Where is the line? I wonder if the history behind the decision to keep smoking legal wasn't to do with popularity.
Also, there is a legitimate health risk to second-hand smoke, and it goes beyond the obvious. There are people who are susceptible to having asthma attacks, for instance, and they don't need to be in a smoky room to trigger their symptoms. All they need is one face-full of smoke--inside or outside--and it is enough to cause a major problem.
Smoking is disgusting and really never should have been legal.
| JBotAlan wrote: |
|
Smoking is disgusting and really never should have been legal. |
That's exactly what I have a BIG problem with!
Laws should not be based on what's disgusting and what's nice.
What about gays? Should being gay be outlawed because some people think it's disgusting?
They should be based on ensuring that every individual has the smallest possible limitation of freedom.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Laws should not be based on what's disgusting and what's nice. |
I agree with you when it comes to the "disgustingness" being the only factor in making the law. I am all for allowing people to be free. I like freedom. However, when it begins impacting other people, that is when the behavior must be brought to a halt. For instance, I should have the freedom to come home from the bowling alley without smelling like an ashtray. That is disgusting, and encroaches on my freedom.
I suppose if I had simply posted the part you quoted as opposed to the entire post, I could understand how I would probably irritate many people. However, that is not by any means the only factor I brought into consideration.
| JBotAlan wrote: |
| I should have the freedom to come home from the bowling alley without smelling like an ashtray. That is disgusting, and encroaches on my freedom.
|
That should be up to the manager of the bowling alley, not the government.
It would usually come down to which group of customers is more important (numerous), the smokers who won't go if they can't smoke there, or the people who won't go there unless there is no smoking.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| The law, if any, should state that they must stop smoking if asked. |
That is a horrible idea for a law. You'd end up with nervous people still being afraid of asking a larger man to stop smoking, rude smokers pretending they didn't hear (and if something was contested, it would be a nightmare to prove in many situations), rude nonsmokers demanding they put it out even when they're just passing, people still being affected by the older smoke hanging around even when the smoker complies ...
| JBotAlan wrote: |
| I don't understand how cigarettes are legal, and other drugs are not. Where is the line? I wonder if the history behind the decision to keep smoking legal wasn't to do with popularity. |
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
That's exactly what I have a BIG problem with! Laws should not be based on what's disgusting and what's nice. What about gays? Should being gay be outlawed because some people think it's disgusting? They should be based on ensuring that every individual has the smallest possible limitation of freedom. |
See smoking at anytime is bad whether it is passive smoking or active smoking. I strongly condemn when people dont care for others and smoke in their very presence, endangering life of both the people. It is not that what we believe is correct, we should also respect what other believes to be true.
Because smoking has been proved dangerous because of its ill effects@ Tubeculosis, cancer etc therefore at a general scenerio a ban should be imposed at smoking in public places.
Because smoking has been proved dangerous because of its ill effects@ Tubeculosis, cancer etc therefore at a general scenerio a ban should be imposed at smoking in public places.
| ankitdatashn wrote: |
| See smoking at anytime is bad whether it is passive smoking or active smoking. I strongly condemn when people dont care for others and smoke in their very presence, endangering life of both the people. It is not that what we believe is correct, we should also respect what other believes to be true.
Because smoking has been proved dangerous because of its ill effects@ Tubeculosis, cancer etc therefore at a general scenerio a ban should be imposed at smoking in public places. |
I found the following Website with information on the harmful effects of smoking:
| Quote: |
| Side Effects of Smoking Cigarettes
Every year hundreds of thousands of people around the world die from diseases caused by smoking - Smoking KILLS. One in two lifetime smokers will die from their habit. Half of these deaths will occur in middle age. Tobacco smoke also contributes to a number of cancers. The mixture of nicotine and carbon monoxide in each cigarette you smoke temporarily increases your heart rate and blood pressure, straining your heart and blood vessels. This can cause heart attacks and stroke. It slows your blood flow, cutting off oxygen to your feet and hands. Some smokers end up having their limbs amputated. Tar coats your lungs like soot in a chimney and causes cancer. A 20-a-day smoker breathes in up to a full cup (210 g) of tar in a year. Changing to low-tar cigarettes does not help because smokers usually take deeper puffs and hold the smoke in for longer, dragging the tar deeper into their lungs. Carbon monoxide robs your muscles, brain and body tissue of oxygen, making your whole body and especially your heart work harder. Over time, your airways swell up and let less air into your lungs. Smoking causes disease and is a slow way to die. The strain of smoking effects on the body often causes years of suffering. Emphysema is an illness that slowly rots your lungs. People with emphysema often get bronchitis again and again, and suffer lung and heart failure. Lung cancer from smoking is caused by the tar in tobacco smoke. Men who smoke are ten times more likely to die from lung cancer than non-smokers. Heart disease and strokes are also more common among smokers than non-smokers. Smoking causes fat deposits to narrow and block blood vessels which leads to heart attack. Smoking causes around one in five deaths from heart disease. In younger people, three out of four deaths from heart disease are due to smoking. Cigarette smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of low birth weight, prematurity, spontaneous abortion, and perinatal mortality in humans, which has been referred to as the fetal tobacco syndrome. This list can only begin to convey the health effects of smoking cigarettes and why quitting makes sense. Next we consider reasons why smoking is bad those around you in the effects of second hand smoke. Effects of second hand smoke Passive smoking (also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), involuntary smoking or second hand smoke) occurs when the exhaled and ambient smoke from one person's cigarette is inhaled by other people. Non-smokers exposed to second hand smoke are at greater risk for many of the health problems associated with direct smoking. In 1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a review of the evidence available from epidemiological and other studies regarding the relationship between second hand smoke and heart disease and estimated that passive smoking was responsible for 35,000 to 40,000 deaths per year in the United States in the early 1980s1. Non-smokers living with smokers have about a 25 per cent increase in risk of death from heart attack and are also more likely to suffer a stroke, and some research suggests that risks to non-smokers may be even greater than this estimate. One recent study in the British Medical Journal found that exposure to second hand smoke increases the risk of heart disease among non-smokers by as much as 60 percent!2. Passive smoking is especially risky for children and babies and can cause low birth weight babies, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), bronchitis, pneumonia, and middle ear infections. Some controversy has attended efforts to estimate the specific risk of lung cancer related to passive smoking. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1993 issued a report estimating that 3,000 lung cancer related deaths in the US were caused by passive smoking every year. Tobacco industry lobbyists, such as the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, and industry-funded researchers, such as S. Fred Singer, aggressively attacked the EPA study as "junk science". In 2002, a group of 29 experts from 12 countries convened by the Monographs Programme of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded its evaluation of the carcinogenic risks associated with involuntary smoking, with second-hand smoke also being classified as carcinogenic to humans3. An earlier WHO epidemiology study also found "weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS". The fact that the evidence was described as "weak" has been interpreted by the tobacco industry and its supporters as evidence that the ETS-lung cancer link has been "disproven". More precisely, the "weakness" of the evidence stems from the fact that the risk of ETS for individuals is small relative to the very high risk of actually smoking, making it more difficult to quantify through epidemiology. In addition to epidemiology, moreover, several other types of scientific evidence (including animal experiments, chemical constituent analysis of ETS, and human metabolic studies) support the WHO and EPA conclusions. Most experts believe that moderate, occasional exposure to second hand smoke presents a low cancer risk to non-smokers, but the risk is more likely to be significant if non-smokers work in an environment where cigarette smoke is prevalent. For this reason, many countries (such as Ireland) and jurisdictions (like New York State) now prohibit smoking in public buildings. Many office buildings contain specially ventilated smoking areas; some are required by law to provide them. References: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/267/1/94 http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/bmj.38146.427188.55v1 http://monographs.iarc.fr/htdocs/monographs/vol83/02-involuntary.html Article History: Title: Effects of Second Hand Cigarette Smoke Year: 2005 Authors: Len Johnson. Derived from Wikipedia article: "Tobacco Smoking" Publisher: Quit-Smoking-Stop.com License: Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the GNU Free Documentation License |
Source: http://www.quit-smoking-stop.com/effects-of-second-hand-smoke.html
CDC also has some good information on the effects of smoking:
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/
In the first year of a smoking ban in Scotland there was a 17% fall in admissions for heart attacks.
Source
The benefits to health can't really be argued,not allowing smoking in public places seems fair to me,and the fact that smokers can't smoke in public places,means that they will smoke less,meaning health benefits to them and those around them who in the past have had to breathe in their smoke.
Less people at the hospitals from smoking related illness's,means money saved that can be spent elsewhere in the health services.
Source
The benefits to health can't really be argued,not allowing smoking in public places seems fair to me,and the fact that smokers can't smoke in public places,means that they will smoke less,meaning health benefits to them and those around them who in the past have had to breathe in their smoke.
Less people at the hospitals from smoking related illness's,means money saved that can be spent elsewhere in the health services.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
That should be up to the manager of the bowling alley, not the government. It would usually come down to which group of customers is more important (numerous), the smokers who won't go if they can't smoke there, or the people who won't go there unless there is no smoking. |
And what if you're in a position you need to be in, i.e. cannot avoid the smoker? I mean, I personally wouldn't mind if smoking was entirely banned in Australia (currently it's only banned in public places). Having had to wait on a regular basis at a public bus stop in the past, of which generally there were several people actively smoking in the vicinity, I have to ask why I should be forcefully subjected to their noxious gasses. They might as well be urinating all over the place. Indecency aside, they're forcing discomfort upon everybody else in the vicinity. You're neither presented with the option to walk away, nor is it possible to confront everybody in the vicinity and tell them to stop smoking.
So, is their right to smoke honestly greater than my right to exist in a healthy, non-disgusting atmosphere? Why is my right to exist in a healthy, non-disgusting atmosphere neglected here? Even if you're saying that "they should have the freedom to smoke in a public place", why shouldn't I have the freedom to exist in a public place without being repulsed by by some random person's cigarette smoke?
That's what it really comes down to, Hogwarts. Smokers have enjoyed the right to impose their bad choices upon those who have chosen to not smoke for decades... centuries, now the trend is for the tables to turn... to restrict smoking to private or fully open areas such that their choice doesn't infringe upon the rights of non-smokers. Smokers can smoke... but what gives them the right to foul the air for those who have chosen not to actively poison themselves. Smoking in public basically sends a strong message to those around you, "I'm selfish" and, "your rights/interests are not as important as nicotine". Kinda disgusting really.
As I mentioned in a prior post, smoking in public buildings was banned here. It's been banned for 5-6 years now, and it's wonderful to be able to be out in public without my rights to (moderately) clean air being stomped all over. I love not having to worry about the chemicals in smoke affecting my daughter's health (I've had asthmatic friends with smoking parents... it's amazing how parents can knowingly continue actions that actively harm their children)... There were tonnes of concerns when the law was being put forth concerning the economic prosperity of various institutions, like restaurants, bars and the like, fears of losing a demographic of their customer base... but guess what, smokers still like to go out and have fun and business has not declined... it may have even increased through greater patronage by people like me who avoided entering the smokey establishments.
As I mentioned in a prior post, smoking in public buildings was banned here. It's been banned for 5-6 years now, and it's wonderful to be able to be out in public without my rights to (moderately) clean air being stomped all over. I love not having to worry about the chemicals in smoke affecting my daughter's health (I've had asthmatic friends with smoking parents... it's amazing how parents can knowingly continue actions that actively harm their children)... There were tonnes of concerns when the law was being put forth concerning the economic prosperity of various institutions, like restaurants, bars and the like, fears of losing a demographic of their customer base... but guess what, smokers still like to go out and have fun and business has not declined... it may have even increased through greater patronage by people like me who avoided entering the smokey establishments.
| truespeed wrote: |
| ... the fact that smokers can't smoke in public places,means that they will smoke less... |
My personal observations indicate that bans on smoking in public places does NOT curb an individual's smoking rate; they smoke just as much, just have to excuse themselves from things more often to get their fix.
| Ankhanu wrote: | ||
My personal observations indicate that bans on smoking in public places does NOT curb an individual's smoking rate; they smoke just as much, just have to excuse themselves from things more often to get their fix. |
I agree with this so much, plus all you folks wanting a ban on smoking in public places are obviously non-smokers. Many of the non-smokers and former smokers I've met are fanatical about it, and want to force everyone into making the choice not to smoke, just like they have.
Me, I didn't start smoking until I was 42 years old. I had started on night shift, and started with just one or two a night with a stiff cup oc coffee to get through the really tired times when your body is rebeling against staying up all night. Thing is it went up from there. Until I was smoking a half a pack a night. After 8 years and having been such a healthy person all my adult life, I was bent on quiting, but it was so damn hard. I've read that they have more success getting people off of heroin than cigarettes.
I finally managed to quite 2 months ago and have been smoke free since, hopefully I can keep it that way, I had to get off the night shift to make it happen. Thing is 3 weeks ago my best freind and night shift companion for the last 10 years died in his sleep of a heart attack, he was 58 years old, and it was directly attributed to smoking 2 packs (40 cigerettes) a day for most of his adult life. This event sealed my desire to stay off them forever.
Thing is, when my smoking friends were in a place where they couldn't smoke for long periods of time, when they were able to smoke they would chain smoke to make up for the lost time that they couldn't smoke! It sure didn't curb their habit any.
Plus, my last comment, is, you shouldn't be so judgemental of those that smoke, it is awful, being addicted, knowing that it hurts your lungs, causes your heart to pound, gives you headachs, and makes your stomach wretch when it is empty, but your body craves them anyway, and no matter how much you may not want to smoke, your body does.....it's called an addiction! And if you have ever experienced it, you might be a hell of a lot less judgemental of those that are.
Trying to force them off of it, is useless! Now I understand not wanting it around you, and as a smoker I always respected non-smokers requests to refrain. But I was never a heavy smoker with a really bad habit, knowing those that are, they would complain about how difficult it was for them to refrain....it may not be that they are being arrogant about it, they just might be hopelessly addicted to it
| BigGeek wrote: |
| Thing is, when my smoking friends were in a place where they couldn't smoke for long periods of time, when they were able to smoke they would chain smoke to make up for the lost time that they couldn't smoke! It sure didn't curb their habit any. |
Hogwarths put it very well about waiting for public transportation and then having to endure lots of smoke by smokers. I find that very irritating too. I remember again while I was in England, and it was raining, and there was smoking around the shelters, I chose to keep my distance in the rain.
As a non-smoker, I am happy the government has stepped in. I like being able to breathe without inhaling second hand smoke.
| standready wrote: |
| As a non-smoker, I am happy the government has stepped in. I like being able to breathe without inhaling second hand smoke. |
Another, very wrong thing...
Just because you don't do something, doesn't mean you should disregard those who do. Political views should be based on principle, not on being selfish.
Just like how I don't own a gun, but I would be outraged if guns were banned. I don't smoke, but I respect the rights of smokers. I'm not gay, but I respect the rights of gays.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
Another, very wrong thing... Just because you don't do something, doesn't mean you should disregard those who do. Political views should be based on principle, not on being selfish. Just like how I don't own a gun, but I would be outraged if guns were banned. I don't smoke, but I respect the rights of smokers. I'm not gay, but I respect the rights of gays. |
for me, it doesn't mean that i am being selfish but rather i am concerned with my health and as well as the others' health...The goverment must do something to imply such law to banned smoking on public areas..they must have a non smoking zone...and if there is a smoking zone area, it should be very very far from the public....
in india:
medically yes...
economically no..
In a 1 km radius of my home, there are about 5 shops selling cigarettes and earning a living out of it.. ofcourse they sell other stuff, but bubble-gum and artificial sweetners aren't the real deal. To them, the stash of cash is in the cigarettes...
so, we're talking about 5 guys going unemployed..? nope. the whole population that helps in the production of 595400 tonnes/annum of cigz and its transportation are going to go unemployed, just in one country. In all around.. 50,00,000 tonnes of cigz are produced in around 6-8 countries per year...
so, basically.. we may be talking about 5 crore people going unemployed... (well maybe I'm exaggerating)
But still, its enough to create a whole lot of non-sense all around the world.
and at a time of recession, think about it twice...
medically yes...
economically no..
In a 1 km radius of my home, there are about 5 shops selling cigarettes and earning a living out of it.. ofcourse they sell other stuff, but bubble-gum and artificial sweetners aren't the real deal. To them, the stash of cash is in the cigarettes...
so, we're talking about 5 guys going unemployed..? nope. the whole population that helps in the production of 595400 tonnes/annum of cigz and its transportation are going to go unemployed, just in one country. In all around.. 50,00,000 tonnes of cigz are produced in around 6-8 countries per year...
so, basically.. we may be talking about 5 crore people going unemployed... (well maybe I'm exaggerating)
But still, its enough to create a whole lot of non-sense all around the world.
and at a time of recession, think about it twice...
| speeDemon wrote: |
| in india:
medically yes... economically no.. In a 1 km radius of my home, there are about 5 shops selling cigarettes and earning a living out of it.. ofcourse they sell other stuff, but bubble-gum and artificial sweetners aren't the real deal. To them, the stash of cash is in the cigarettes... so, we're talking about 5 guys going unemployed..? nope. the whole population that helps in the production of 595400 tonnes/annum of cigz and its transportation are going to go unemployed, just in one country. In all around.. 50,00,000 tonnes of cigz are produced in around 6-8 countries per year... so, basically.. we may be talking about 5 crore people going unemployed... (well maybe I'm exaggerating) But still, its enough to create a whole lot of non-sense all around the world. and at a time of recession, think about it twice... |
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Just like how I don't own a gun, but I would be outraged if guns were banned. I don't smoke, but I respect the rights of smokers. I'm not gay, but I respect the rights of gays. |
Freedom to own a gun is not the same as freedom to shoot somebody with it, as people have a right to go about their daily life remaining alive.
Freedom to use cigarettes is not the same as freedom to cloud public places in smoke, as people have a right to go about their daily life remaining healthy.
Freedom to be gay is not the same as freedom to homosexually rape someone, as people have a right to go about their daily life remaining unmolested.
The consequences in the case of smoking are subtler, but the principle is the same.
No, I don't think it's fair to the smokers, then again it isn't fair to themselves that they're smoking in the first place. There should be zones in which smoking is not permitted (which there already are) and that should be fine. Maybe adding more of those zones would be a good idea.
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
3.2 million people die annually worldwide from diabetes related causes, so why shouldn't we put a ban on sweets too? they kill too
I totally think they should, and have designated smoking areas just like everywhere else. Private property to be excepted, obviously. It'll be a sad day when you can't smoke on your own balcony.
Already banned here. You can't smoke at places where you can eat, you must go outside. It's also gonna be banned in other public places, very soon.
Btw; I totally agree. It should already have been done years ago.
Btw; I totally agree. It should already have been done years ago.
| Nameless wrote: | ||
Freedom to own a gun is not the same as freedom to shoot somebody with it, as people have a right to go about their daily life remaining alive. Freedom to use cigarettes is not the same as freedom to cloud public places in smoke, as people have a right to go about their daily life remaining healthy. Freedom to be gay is not the same as freedom to homosexually rape someone, as people have a right to go about their daily life remaining unmolested. The consequences in the case of smoking are subtler, but the principle is the same. |
My point is that these things should be decided on principle, not on a selfish sentiment like, "I don't smoke, so let's ban smoking."
I agree with the idea which is already proved good in our state as a good practice.
Our state has implemented it, and every one (except adicted) welcome it.
"Smoking in public place" is harmfull to the person as well as others.
So it should be banned by law.
Our state has implemented it, and every one (except adicted) welcome it.
"Smoking in public place" is harmfull to the person as well as others.
So it should be banned by law.
Government needs to butt out Sick and tired of them trying to regulate every little thing, and not caring how many rights of the people are taken away by doing so. Here they have already taxed the living crap out of a pack of cigarettes saying it would detour younger smokers...has it...NO. But that's just it...extra tax on cigarettes, not chewing tobacco etc...which is supposedly just as bad. What gives the government the right to tax ONE particular product out of millions of others because its deemed "bad for your health". There's plenty of things...sugar, fast food, pop, etc....they are all deemed bad for your health as well but I don't see a special tax being put on those items For cryin out loud...when I started smoking 4 years ago a pack of Marlboro's cost $3.25 a pack...today...$5.38 where I usually buy them...I've seen them up to $6.25 and higher in some spots. That increase...had nothing to do with inflation...pure tax. Greedy government wants more money and so they target 70% of our local population by increasing the cigarette tax...they don't care about the health of people like they preach....they only care about the tax revenue. 
The way I see it...if a business owner allows smoking in their building then that's his right, nonsmokers don't like it...there's plenty of other places they can go. Out of the 20+ food places in my little town only 4 of them you can have a smoke in, 1 of those is split in half with a full floor to ceiling wall...smoking only in the bar side. That leaves tons of places for nonsmokers to go...and that's quite an improvement...I'm only 21 but I remember the days...not so long ago either...every fast food place including McDonald's had a smoking section...and there was no walls to separate them.
There was a county to my east that banned smoking even in bars...you know what happened. Those places that had allowed it started to loose 50%-90% of their customers...they all went out of the county to places were you could smoke. To me that's not fair to those businesses in an economy that's already in the dumps....shut some of them down. There's a few that built special patios to allow smoking but for many places it was to expensive to go to that extreme.
I'm just sick of the people who don't smoke constantly complaining about those of us who do. Saying we are disgusting, and dirty....you know what...I'm sure you have some habits others would find just as disgusting but you don't here anyone complaining about those now do you.
Honestly...I don't know about other places...but around here there is VERY few places that allow smoking inside the building. And its not because some government ban...its just courtesy. The only places here are the 3 bars, one food joint, and one boot shop. So if your a non-smoker and won't be around it...you have tons of other places to choose from. So don't try to take away the rights of the rest of us. Bars are going to be smoky...hell have the people I know only smoke when they are at the bar...its just part of the atmosphere...don't like it then don't come in...banishing 95% of the crowd to the outdoors just so 5% can have their "Clean air" is really bad for business
As for the health concerns...Don't believe everything. Yes...smoking is bad, but not the only cause of health problems...its just the easiest to blame. There's smokers that live to be a 100+. I lived with a friends family in Taiwan for 3 weeks back in 2006. The entire time I was there her grandfather sat outside in a chair, chain smoking about 3 packs a day. He's now 97 years old...been chain smoking for over 50 years...and hasn't been to the doctor once, nor has any health issues....And there is other cases just like that anywhere you go....so don't sit here and blame smoking for every little health issue that comes along...because its not always the cause
My 2 cents. To people who think government should control every little thing because you don't like it....
....can't find my mooning smiley 
Sick and tired of them trying to regulate every little thing, and not caring how many rights of the people are taken away by doing so. Here they have already taxed the living crap out of a pack of cigarettes saying it would detour younger smokers...has it...NO. But that's just it...extra tax on cigarettes, not chewing tobacco etc...which is supposedly just as bad. What gives the government the right to tax ONE particular product out of millions of others because its deemed "bad for your health". There's plenty of things...sugar, fast food, pop, etc....they are all deemed bad for your health as well but I don't see a special tax being put on those items For cryin out loud...when I started smoking 4 years ago a pack of Marlboro's cost $3.25 a pack...today...$5.38 where I usually buy them...I've seen them up to $6.25 and higher in some spots. That increase...had nothing to do with inflation...pure tax. Greedy government wants more money and so they target 70% of our local population by increasing the cigarette tax...they don't care about the health of people like they preach....they only care about the tax revenue.
The way I see it...if a business owner allows smoking in their building then that's his right, nonsmokers don't like it...there's plenty of other places they can go. Out of the 20+ food places in my little town only 4 of them you can have a smoke in, 1 of those is split in half with a full floor to ceiling wall...smoking only in the bar side. That leaves tons of places for nonsmokers to go...and that's quite an improvement...I'm only 21 but I remember the days...not so long ago either...every fast food place including McDonald's had a smoking section...and there was no walls to separate them.
There was a county to my east that banned smoking even in bars...you know what happened. Those places that had allowed it started to loose 50%-90% of their customers...they all went out of the county to places were you could smoke. To me that's not fair to those businesses in an economy that's already in the dumps....shut some of them down. There's a few that built special patios to allow smoking but for many places it was to expensive to go to that extreme.
I'm just sick of the people who don't smoke constantly complaining about those of us who do. Saying we are disgusting, and dirty....you know what...I'm sure you have some habits others would find just as disgusting but you don't here anyone complaining about those now do you.
Honestly...I don't know about other places...but around here there is VERY few places that allow smoking inside the building. And its not because some government ban...its just courtesy. The only places here are the 3 bars, one food joint, and one boot shop. So if your a non-smoker and won't be around it...you have tons of other places to choose from. So don't try to take away the rights of the rest of us. Bars are going to be smoky...hell have the people I know only smoke when they are at the bar...its just part of the atmosphere...don't like it then don't come in...banishing 95% of the crowd to the outdoors just so 5% can have their "Clean air" is really bad for business
As for the health concerns...Don't believe everything. Yes...smoking is bad, but not the only cause of health problems...its just the easiest to blame. There's smokers that live to be a 100+. I lived with a friends family in Taiwan for 3 weeks back in 2006. The entire time I was there her grandfather sat outside in a chair, chain smoking about 3 packs a day. He's now 97 years old...been chain smoking for over 50 years...and hasn't been to the doctor once, nor has any health issues....And there is other cases just like that anywhere you go....so don't sit here and blame smoking for every little health issue that comes along...because its not always the cause
My 2 cents. To people who think government should control every little thing because you don't like it....
....can't find my mooning smiley | Triple_7 wrote: |
| There's plenty of things...sugar, fast food, pop, etc....they are all deemed bad for your health as well but I don't see a special tax being put on those items |
| Triple_7 wrote: |
| The way I see it...if a business owner allows smoking in their building then that's his right, nonsmokers don't like it...there's plenty of other places they can go. Out of the 20+ food places in my little town only 4 of them you can have a smoke in, 1 of those is split in half with a full floor to ceiling wall...smoking only in the bar side. That leaves tons of places for nonsmokers to go...and that's quite an improvement...I'm only 21 but I remember the days...not so long ago either...every fast food place including McDonald's had a smoking section...and there was no walls to separate them. |
| Triple_7 wrote: |
| There was a county to my east that banned smoking even in bars...you know what happened. Those places that had allowed it started to loose 50%-90% of their customers...they all went out of the county to places were you could smoke. To me that's not fair to those businesses in an economy that's already in the dumps....shut some of them down. There's a few that built special patios to allow smoking but for many places it was to expensive to go to that extreme. |
| Triple_7 wrote: |
| I'm just sick of the people who don't smoke constantly complaining about those of us who do. Saying we are disgusting, and dirty....you know what...I'm sure you have some habits others would find just as disgusting but you don't here anyone complaining about those now do you. |
| Triple_7 wrote: |
| As for the health concerns...Don't believe everything. Yes...smoking is bad, but not the only cause of health problems...its just the easiest to blame. There's smokers that live to be a 100+. I lived with a friends family in Taiwan for 3 weeks back in 2006. The entire time I was there her grandfather sat outside in a chair, chain smoking about 3 packs a day. He's now 97 years old...been chain smoking for over 50 years...and hasn't been to the doctor once, nor has any health issues....And there is other cases just like that anywhere you go....so don't sit here and blame smoking for every little health issue that comes along...because its not always the cause |
My 2-cents.
| Triple_7 wrote: |
| I'm just sick of the people who don't smoke constantly complaining about those of us who do. Saying we are disgusting, and dirty....you know what...I'm sure you have some habits others would find just as disgusting but you don't here anyone complaining about those now do you. |
As an additional counterpoint: Triple_7 is right, there are many other habits aside from smoking that many people find disgusting, from picking your nose to (reusing an example) homosexual sex. In all cases, you know that doing so in public* is going to cause conflicts with those who disprove, so complaints are inevitable and basically your fault - as there is still (and shouldn't be) anything stopping you doing the same in private instead, avoiding all problems. YOU are choosing to aggravate and force your habits on others where a simple, peaceful alternative exists, so the onus is on smokers to justify the allowance.
(*FWIW, I'm undecided over private businesses. In principle, they should be allowed to choose whether workers or patrons could smoke etc., but there are practical considerations for them not to - that's another argument, though.)
Ya know, the whole debate on whether government should regulate or not is really similar to the old debate on whether or not wearing a seat belt in a car should be law... I mean, now it just seems like common sense, but when they were being instituted there was a lot of resistance stemming around "my right"... only difference here is that your choice to continue with personally harmful activities extends to affect others in your immediate vicinity.
I can see opposition to regulation and the belief that personal liberties are at stake... but at the same time people are creatures of habit, and won't change unless forced to do so, even if the result is for their benefit.
I can see opposition to regulation and the belief that personal liberties are at stake... but at the same time people are creatures of habit, and won't change unless forced to do so, even if the result is for their benefit.
| Ankhanu wrote: |
| Ya know, the whole debate on whether government should regulate or not is really similar to the old debate on whether or not wearing a seat belt in a car should be law... I mean, now it just seems like common sense, but when they were being instituted there was a lot of resistance stemming around "my right"... only difference here is that your choice to continue with personally harmful activities extends to affect others in your immediate vicinity.
I can see opposition to regulation and the belief that personal liberties are at stake... but at the same time people are creatures of habit, and won't change unless forced to do so, even if the result is for their benefit. |
| Ankhanu wrote: |
| ... but at the same time people are creatures of habit, and won't change unless forced to do so, even if the result is for their benefit. |
And they shouldn't be forced, if it is at all avoidable. They should be able to decide for themselves what result is for their best benefit, not have the government tell them what's best for them.
The ONLY valid argument for a smoking ban is the health of second-hand smoke victims.
Inside enclosed buildings that are publicly owned and some people might be forced to go to: banning it makes sense.
BUT, I don't think the health risk of being briefly exposed to smoke in an open, well ventilated or outdoor area justifies an extreme inconvenience to smokers. Requiring them to go outside to greatly protect the health of non-smokers inside makes sense. Requiring them to search for, and perhaps not find, some place where they're allowed to smoke does not make sense.
In summary, my view on the subject:
Ban within private businesses and residences: Up to the owner of the establishment or house, and nobody else.
Ban in private outdoor areas: Up to the owner of the area.
Ban in public outdoor areas: Smoke dissipates fast enough to pose a minimal hazard to non-smokers; no ban (except in places extremely vulnerable to fire hazards).
Ban inside public buildings: Acceptable, to protect the health of others who might be exposed to concentrated smoke.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| No, no, no, NO!
The government's role should stop at informing people that it is bad for them. Any more than that is needless restriction of freedom. Perhaps, in the interest of potential second-hand smoke victims, you could enact a law that says smokers must stop smoking in a public place when asked, but it should not be banned entirely- even in situations where nobody cares. |
I also say No. I like the idea of being able to smoke in business until asked to stop by another patron. Smoking has been banned in bars, but I think that choice should be up to the business owner. And don't even get me started on not being able to smoke in one's car on company land; that's just silly. I've seen these employees that have to drive 5 min outside their employer's property to pull over and smoke. I think the car pollution is hurting more people than the second-hand smoke ever could.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
And they shouldn't be forced, if it is at all avoidable. They should be able to decide for themselves what result is for their best benefit, not have the government tell them what's best for them. |
I saw a "Boston Legal" TV show recently, and who knows, this may become real one of these days. The woman was working for a large conglomerate, and doing exceptionally well, winning lots of prizes for getting business in, so she must have been in sales. Anyway the Big Chief of the company decided to make a ruling that those who smoke have to stop smoking completely and that after X months their blood would be tested for nicotine and if positive would be fired on the spot. She could not stop, then got fired, and went to court to fight the right of her boss to fire her for this "cause". Think you would have liked Alan Shore's arguments, which were more or less like yours. But she lost the fight.
The reason the boss imposed this ruling was purely financial, to get a better deal for health coverage of his staff and save lots of money. Probably far-fetched, but I wonder whether this may become a reality for the future.
| deanhills wrote: | ||||
|
... Well, I also think people should be allowed to commit suicide if they want to.
I do think that the government should impose this law about non-smoking in public places. It's not for the safety of the smoker...but for the safety of the non-smoker sitting right next to him/her! I don't smoke and never have and I have to say that I enjoy so much more going out to bars and restaurants knowing that the air will be clean of cigarette smoke.
I really don't care what your choice is, I just don't want your smoke in my face.
I really don't care what your choice is, I just don't want your smoke in my face.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
... Well, I also think people should be allowed to commit suicide if they want to. |
... And only after they've arranged and paid for the disposal of their body and goods, made their intent clear beyond reasonable doubt so as not to waste police hours, and preferably have no disagreeing relatives or friends to be highly psychologically damaged by their action.
But that's getting off topic. I doubt there's anyone who regularly smokes that doesn't logically know that's it's a Bad Thing, but they've built up a dependency (physical or otherwise) that outweighs their logical reasoning. So if you forced these people to smoke only on private property after they'd become accustomed to smoking throughout the day, you'd end up with a lot of personal confrontations that MIGHT spark a epiphany or at least a practical reduction but ... probably they'd just get pissed and then adapt to their addiction. As for the rebel / nonconformist archetypes, they'd just get pissed and fined. Any NEW smokers I think would end up smoking less overall because they have less opportunities and thus won't reach the same level of dependency unless they were really going out of their way (aka revel archetype or a psyche messed up badly for other reasons).
| Quote: |
| I doubt there's anyone who regularly smokes that doesn't logically know that's it's a Bad Thing, but they've built up a dependency (physical or otherwise) that outweighs their logical reasoning. So if you forced these people to smoke only on private property after they'd become accustomed to smoking throughout the day, you'd end up with a lot of personal confrontations that MIGHT spark a epiphany or at least a practical reduction but ... probably they'd just get pissed and then adapt to their addiction. As for the rebel / nonconformist archetypes, they'd just get pissed and fined. Any NEW smokers I think would end up smoking less overall because they have less opportunities and thus won't reach the same level of dependency unless they were really going out of their way (aka revel archetype or a psyche messed up badly for other reasons). |
I'm going to try and be polite here...this is how your statement comes off to me...You just basically called every smoker a brainless idiot that can't think for themselves. Telling us we can't smoke somewhere automatically means we will go into a raging fit....that somewhere close to what you were actually trying to say
Kind of the way it sounds
| Quote: |
| In summary, my view on the subject:
Ban within private businesses and residences: Up to the owner of the establishment or house, and nobody else. Ban in private outdoor areas: Up to the owner of the area. Ban in public outdoor areas: Smoke dissipates fast enough to pose a minimal hazard to non-smokers; no ban (except in places extremely vulnerable to fire hazards). Ban inside public buildings: Acceptable, to protect the health of others who might be exposed to concentrated smoke. |
That seems perfectly reasonable type of regulation...but not really needed.
Private business such as a local restaurant or bar...up to the owner. Same with private outdoors.
Public outdoor areas...agree, no ban...but I would see it perfectly fit to ban in areas such as a playground or school where young children are present....I go to the park all the time but don't smoke there...not because its banned...just courtesy to those around and the kids. I'm a smoker too, but it bugs the hell out of me to see a mom or dad with a cigarette and chasing their kids around the playground equipment while 20 other kids are playing there as well.
Public buildings...I classify those as the unavoidable...everyone must go to at some point places...like grocery stores, state/government offices, etc. Not a problem since its already a standard thing...never seen someone at the local grocery or at the courthouse lighting up indoors.
------------------------------------------
I mainly smoke because I find it relaxing, not because I think I'm cool. A pack usually lasts me all week, unless its been stressful and then a pack might only last a couples days. Only exception is when I'm at the bar, tend to catch myself smoking a half pack or better in a few hours. Just something about sitting around and having a good time and a few beers makes that pack of smokes disappear rather quickly. There's some days I don't even light a single one...and don't even crave one. Really the only time I have a true urge is during a bad day.
I've only lost my temper once over a smoke. I had been on a 14.5 hour trans-Pacific flight from Taiwan to Los Angeles in a very cramped/uncomfortable economy seat, spent 2 hours getting reamed by crappy mooded customs officials to legally re-enter my own country. Knowing I had another 2 flights and 20 hours before I got home I just wanted a break. Had to switch terminals, which at LAX requires going outdoors. I didn't see any no smoking signs anywhere, found me a quiet little bench well away from any doors and other people, sat down, lit one up. The most relaxed I had been since boarding the plane in Taipei. Not halfway through my first cigarette a security guard came up and said I would have to put it out. When put it out and kindly asked if there was a place I could go he was rude and told me there was no smoking anywhere, which I knew wasn't true. Besides that...wheres the signs. Needless to say I wasn't so relaxed anymore...I just wanted a few minutes to myself and have a smoke before I went back into the hell known as LAX. I got a little irate over it...and amazed I didn't end up getting arrested. But just about every airport has a smoking section outside...so if you don't put up any signs to direct people to them, or any kind of "No Smoking Here" signs...then don't get rude with someone when they light up. Not like I was bothering anyone, the closest person before he showed up was some 30 feet away and the smoke was going strait up anyways.
Just a fair warning...if you ever see someone exit an international terminal and light one up, don't bother them...unless you have a death wish. Long haul flights suck, and airports are stressful enough, let alone getting hassled while going through customs. That is one situation where I can see a smoker going into a rage after being told to put it out...because I've been there.
I know its a bad habit, and I know what it can do, its MY CHOICE and I don't like being told what to do by someone who thinks they need to police the world and keep everyone safe from themselves. This country is already becoming a nanny state...lets not keep adding to that.
Government already has to much control... | Triple_7 wrote: | ||
I'm going to try and be polite here...this is how your statement comes off to me...You just basically called every smoker a brainless idiot that can't think for themselves. Telling us we can't smoke somewhere automatically means we will go into a raging fit....that somewhere close to what you were actually trying to say Kind of the way it sounds |
Au contraire, intelligence isn't the issue. It's a subconscious dependency that keeps most people smoking. For example, you mention needing a cigarette to de-stress. AFAIK there's nothing magical about cigarettes that removes stress, and other people use different methods or acts to achieve the same affect (myself, I'm known to reach for Picross DS and I'm sure you've heard of old slowly counting to 10 trick). If somebody was particularly stressed and unable to perform that action they've come to depend on, there's an mental struggle (often ending in anxiety or displeasure, as your own anecdote demonstrates) that has nothing to do with conscious intelligence or even smoking in particular.
If you disallow smoking in more areas, then people are likely to develop a more available (and probably healthier) stress reliever instead of starting to smoke and creating that undesirable dependency in the first place. Actually reducing or changing a dependency - especially for something physically addictive as nicotine - can be very hard, so in the case of those who do smoke I'd imagine they'd tend to suffer some unavoidable short term problems (cravings or miner irritation, realistically) before adapting and smoking the same amount elsewhere.
| Triple_7 wrote: |
| but I would see it perfectly fit to ban in areas such as a playground or school where young children are present... |
[sarcasm]Oh, but it's totally okay to be uncourteous and unhealthy towards adults.[/sarcasm]
It's very annoying when you get puffed at by some insensitive smoker walking around. I say ban smoking in public places. Go smoke in private areas so that you wont be able to harm anyone else.
| Nameless wrote: | ||||
Au contraire, intelligence isn't the issue. |
| ocalhoun wrote: |
|
Perhaps, in the interest of potential second-hand smoke victims, you could enact a law that says smokers must stop smoking in a public place when asked, but it should not be banned entirely- even in situations where nobody cares. |
Agreed. However, I do believe we should tax these people to death as they are definitely a risk for our healthcare system - perhaps we could just call them a waste of government resources.
Edit: Well stated deanhills. Give it to them straight, we're not going to pay for your sorry asses when you have lung cancer and decide you want a few more years.
| ProfessorY91 wrote: |
| they are definitely a risk for our healthcare system - perhaps we could just call them a waste of government resources.
|
Yet another reason not to have a government health care system...
I think businesses should be allowed to establish and advertize themselves as smoking-allowed environments. People who choose to smoke can go there. Others will just avoid that establishment.
I defintely feel the ban on smoking in open spaces such as parks is going too far.
I defintely feel the ban on smoking in open spaces such as parks is going too far.
I just think about people smoking around their children, especially in the car.
People shouldn't be able to smoke in closed environments, or near exterior doors.
In Illinois there is no smoking in commercial establishments (home or car is ok...), and you have to be at least 15 feet from an exterior door so you don't bother people coming in or out of a building.
People shouldn't be able to smoke in closed environments, or near exterior doors.
In Illinois there is no smoking in commercial establishments (home or car is ok...), and you have to be at least 15 feet from an exterior door so you don't bother people coming in or out of a building.
| Crazy_Canuck wrote: |
| I think businesses should be allowed to establish and advertize themselves as smoking-allowed environments. People who choose to smoke can go there. Others will just avoid that establishment.
I defintely feel the ban on smoking in open spaces such as parks is going too far. |
| deanhills wrote: |
| I think they should ban smoking in bus shelters as well. |
Quite possibly... Especially if they are mostly enclosed, and especially if they are municipally provided.
| Donutey wrote: |
|
In Illinois there is no smoking in commercial establishments (home or car is ok...), and you have to be at least 15 feet from an exterior door so you don't bother people coming in or out of a building. |
Really, I don't think that walking past a few people smoking outdoors for a distance of just 15 feet will harm your health in any measurable, noticeable, or significant way.
That's all it is: the more 'acceptable' group using the government to bother the less acceptable group to avoid being bothered themselves.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| That's all it is: the more 'acceptable' group using the government to bother the less acceptable group to avoid being bothered themselves. |
Key point here, of course, is that the smokers are bothering the nonsmokers first.
| Nameless wrote: | ||
Key point here, of course, is that the smokers are bothering the nonsmokers first. |
"But Mom he hit me first!"
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||||
"But Mom he hit me first!" |
Oh, come on. Now you're not even trying.
"Eww, gross Joe, stop picking your nose."
"Nuh-uh. It's my nose."
"But it's grossing me out! Stop it!"
"Oh yeah? Make me!"
"MOOOOOOM! Joe won't stop picking his nose and now he's getting a nose bleed and boogers all over my toys and it's really disgusting!"
"Now now, Joe. You know it's bad for you to pick your nose. But if you really have to, please do it in your room where it won't bother Sally."
"Uuuh! It's her fault for looking! I have a right to pick my nose here! This is a free house! Why do you always take her side? She's such a wuss for dobbing!"
"Young man, if you don't take your finger out of your nose right this minute I'll send you to bed without dinner!"
"I HATE YOU!"
[/Anvilicious!]
| Nameless wrote: |
|
"Eww, gross Joe, stop picking your nose." "Nuh-uh. It's my nose." "But it's grossing me out! Stop it!" "Oh yeah? Make me!" "MOOOOOOM! Joe won't stop picking his nose and now he's getting a nose bleed and boogers all over my toys and it's really disgusting!" "Now now, Joe. You know it's bad for you to pick your nose. But if you really have to, please do it in your room where it won't bother Sally." "Uuuh! It's her fault for looking! I have a right to pick my nose here! This is a free house! Why do you always take her side? She's such a wuss for dobbing!" "Young man, if you don't take your finger out of your nose right this minute I'll send you to bed without dinner!" "I HATE YOU!" [/Anvilicious!] |
I enjoyed this!
This is the "disgusting" part for me, where I have had a nice scrubbing session in the shower, feel clean and fresh, clothes fresh, and so you get to walk through this smoker's bubble and when you surface on the other end, and you hold your hand against your face, you can smell smoke off you, your hair smells like stale smoke, your clothes smell like smoke? All of a sudden you really feel dirty and itchy .... that's gross ...
! I'd prefer to have a choice in this ..."Ban smoking because it will make us all healthier"
So, you want the introduction of a law making attending a gym once a week compulsory? Ban all vehicle journeys of less than, say, 1 mile so that people are forced to walk? Make it illegal to consume more than x grams of fat per week?
"It costs the NHS billions of pounds every year"
According to the UK government's own figures, they collect more in tax revenues from the sale of tobacco products than it costs the NHS to provide care for those suffering from tobacco-related conditions.
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7654153.stm
Tax revenue from smoking in 2006/7 was Ł10billion. Quite a hefty profit, eh?
To the person who hates the disgusting atmosphere when someone is smoking at a bus stop - wear a face mask whenever you go out. That would prevent your having to breathe all that disgusting carbon monoxide from vehicle emissions, which is probably doing you a lot more harm. Check the incidence of childhood asthma for those living near busy roads.
"Smoking is long-term suicide". I assume whenever you are outdoors you ensure that not a single square inch of your body is exposed to the sun. Using your own logic, catching melanoma through willful exposure to sunlight amounts to suicide. And don't eat red meat because that would increase your risk of bowel cancer.
I hope none of you light candles at home. Paraffin wax (from which the vast majority of candles are made) gives off harmful emissions when heated.
And here's something for you all to think about. Should a farmer be allowed to smoke in his own fields? After all, some of them have public footpaths running through them.
Please, people. I appreciate that jumping on the no-smoking bandwagon is very trendy, but at least give some thought to what you say.
Before anyone asks, yes I am a smoker. I am in favour of restrictions on smoking but not a total ban. If I have non-smoking visitors at home I ask if they mind if I smoke & even then I sit by an open window whenever possible (English weather sometimes prevents open windows).
So, you want the introduction of a law making attending a gym once a week compulsory? Ban all vehicle journeys of less than, say, 1 mile so that people are forced to walk? Make it illegal to consume more than x grams of fat per week?
"It costs the NHS billions of pounds every year"
According to the UK government's own figures, they collect more in tax revenues from the sale of tobacco products than it costs the NHS to provide care for those suffering from tobacco-related conditions.
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7654153.stm
| Quote: |
| Treating smokers costs the NHS in England Ł2.7bn a year, compared with Ł1.7bn a decade ago, a report claims.
Anti-smoking group Ash says the cost would have risen to over Ł3bn had action to curb smoking not seen numbers fall from 12 million to nine million. |
Tax revenue from smoking in 2006/7 was Ł10billion. Quite a hefty profit, eh?
To the person who hates the disgusting atmosphere when someone is smoking at a bus stop - wear a face mask whenever you go out. That would prevent your having to breathe all that disgusting carbon monoxide from vehicle emissions, which is probably doing you a lot more harm. Check the incidence of childhood asthma for those living near busy roads.
"Smoking is long-term suicide". I assume whenever you are outdoors you ensure that not a single square inch of your body is exposed to the sun. Using your own logic, catching melanoma through willful exposure to sunlight amounts to suicide. And don't eat red meat because that would increase your risk of bowel cancer.
I hope none of you light candles at home. Paraffin wax (from which the vast majority of candles are made) gives off harmful emissions when heated.
And here's something for you all to think about. Should a farmer be allowed to smoke in his own fields? After all, some of them have public footpaths running through them.
Please, people. I appreciate that jumping on the no-smoking bandwagon is very trendy, but at least give some thought to what you say.
Before anyone asks, yes I am a smoker. I am in favour of restrictions on smoking but not a total ban. If I have non-smoking visitors at home I ask if they mind if I smoke & even then I sit by an open window whenever possible (English weather sometimes prevents open windows).
| DoctorBeaver wrote: | ||
| "It costs the NHS billions of pounds every year"
According to the UK government's own figures, they collect more in tax revenues from the sale of tobacco products than it costs the NHS to provide care for those suffering from tobacco-related conditions. from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7654153.stm
Tax revenue from smoking in 2006/7 was Ł10billion. Quite a hefty profit, eh? |
Sounds quite impressive, wonder how they work the stats to measure the costs of treating specifically tobacco related illnesses. Some illnesses could originate from a number of reasons, including but not specifically tobacco. I'm sure the stats must have been tested, but wonder how 100% accurate it could be. Not only with those stats that have been included, but the ones that have been excluded as they were difficult to measure. For example how do you measure the cost of a young family who have lost their father due to lung cancer or heart disease? They are stripped from a lot of opportunities they might have had in their lives, that are no longer there, not to mention the trauma of losing someone as close as that early in life. Mental health care costs, substance abuse, etc. could also be a consequence when children are unable to cope with loss of a family member due to cancer. This is just one example. I'm sure if one start to think about it, that one would easily end up with a much larger bill of cost than the one above.
| DoctorBeaver wrote: |
| To the person who hates the disgusting atmosphere when someone is smoking at a bus stop - wear a face mask whenever you go out. That would prevent your having to breathe all that disgusting carbon monoxide from vehicle emissions, which is probably doing you a lot more harm. Check the incidence of childhood asthma for those living near busy roads. |
| DoctorBeaver wrote: |
| "Smoking is long-term suicide". I assume whenever you are outdoors you ensure that not a single square inch of your body is exposed to the sun. Using your own logic, catching melanoma through willful exposure to sunlight amounts to suicide. And don't eat red meat because that would increase your risk of bowel cancer. I hope none of you light candles at home. Paraffin wax (from which the vast majority of candles are made) gives off harmful emissions when heated.. |
| DoctorBeaver wrote: |
| And here's something for you all to think about. Should a farmer be allowed to smoke in his own fields? After all, some of them have public footpaths running through them. |
| DoctorBeaver wrote: |
| "Please, people. I appreciate that jumping on the no-smoking bandwagon is very trendy, but at least give some thought to what you say. |
| DoctorBeaver wrote: |
| "Ban smoking because it will make us all healthier"
So, you want the introduction of a law making attending a gym once a week compulsory? Ban all vehicle journeys of less than, say, 1 mile so that people are forced to walk? Make it illegal to consume more than x grams of fat per week? |
The obvious difference here being that smoking a) is actively and entirely unhealthy (vs things like chocolate which can be healthy in small amounts, still being healthy with minimal exercise if you don't eat much ...) and b) easily enforceable (vs anybody driving short distances just claiming they were going further etc.)
Also, strawmanning and trying to distract from the issue at hand (smoking in public) will get you nowhere.
| DoctorBeaver wrote: |
| To the person who hates the disgusting atmosphere when someone is smoking at a bus stop - wear a face mask whenever you go out. |
Awesome. So when somebody is swearing in front of your children, just give them earplugs. And when you see ugly streakers, just put on a blindfold. The onus should not be on the innocent bystander to avoid negative behavior from other people, otherwise people could do pretty much everything up to rape because well, you didn't go out of your way to look ugly. The example is extreme, but the principle remains the same: if you are offending a large number of people - especially when you could easily carry out the same act in private without inconvenience or offending anyone - YOU need to justify and prevent that, not the random passerby.
That's a point a lot of people in this thread seem to be missing.
| DoctorBeaver wrote: |
| "Smoking is long-term suicide". I assume whenever you are outdoors you ensure that not a single square inch of your body is exposed to the sun. Using your own logic, catching melanoma through willful exposure to sunlight amounts to suicide. |
Sunlight in small doses is good for you. Smoking in small doses is still bad for you. Oh, and what logic were you saying we were using again?
| DoctorBeaver wrote: |
| Please, people. I appreciate that jumping on the no-smoking bandwagon is very trendy, but at least give some thought to what you say. |
Way to try and discredit valid arguments by assuming that people are merely jumping on them without thought. I can see that you, personally, are trying very hard to address the core issues of this debate and are certainly not instead trying warp and discredit the nonsmokers themselves in place of the actual arguments being made.
| Nameless wrote: | ||
Sunlight in small doses is good for you. Smoking in small doses is still bad for you. Oh, and what logic were you saying we were using again? |
If someone wants to kill themselves -- be it slowly or quickly --- it's none of your business.
Sure people might miss the suicidal person... But will you force that person to accept a fate (subjectively) worse than death just for the pleasure of his or her company?
^ Yeah, that's not the point I was refuting (and it's irrelevant to smoking in public specifically), rather that DoctorBeaver's logic and assumptions (or attributions thereof) were flawed throughout his post.
| Nameless wrote: |
| ^ Yeah, that's not the point I was refuting (and it's irrelevant to smoking in public specifically), rather that DoctorBeaver's logic and assumptions (or attributions thereof) were flawed throughout his post. |
Quite possibly, but I was using the same logic as previous posters merely to show the invalidity of their statements.
I know there are serious health consequences associated with smoking (and I don't wish to make light of the fact), but my flippant remark about face masks was intended to highlight the fact that cigarette smoke isn't the only harmful substance you inhale when out in the street. In fact, I would think it constitutes a very small proportion.
DoctorBeaver, what you were doing was misrepresenting the arguments of the previous posters, thus creating a Straw Man to beat down instead of the actual reasons against public smoking.
Also. Implying that you might as well smoke in public because there are worse pollutants is bad logic; car exhaust may be hazardous, but it's also irrelevant to what we're actually discussing. A small improvement in our air and comfort is still an improvement - you are trying to distract from the fact you have no real basis not to simply smoke in private instead.
Also. Implying that you might as well smoke in public because there are worse pollutants is bad logic; car exhaust may be hazardous, but it's also irrelevant to what we're actually discussing. A small improvement in our air and comfort is still an improvement - you are trying to distract from the fact you have no real basis not to simply smoke in private instead.
| DoctorBeaver wrote: |
| cigarette smoke isn't the only harmful substance you inhale when out in the street. In fact, I would think it constitutes a very small proportion. |
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Preventable_causes_of_death.png
We are all responsible for not smoking or not eating in excess, but if people are being bombarded by marketing schemes of the tobacco industry, that get people addicted to smoking, makes it look fashionable and great, and similarly with obesity, people being bombarded by food advertisements that make us eat food that has harmful substances and enslaves people by making them feel good, perhaps those who manufacture these harmful substances should be targeted to a greater extent. For example foods that taste great, such as Twinkies, if one lists the toxins in it, to make it taste good, and make it addictive, are about similar to tobacco smoking in its causes as well as addiction. Maybe one needs to tackle the source of it, and ban it completely. A good start already is making it compulsory for the food industry to list the ingredients in products like Twinkies. But perhaps they need to go further, like with tobacco, and list in big bold letters that twinkies can contribute to obesity, and obesity related diseases.
| Nameless wrote: |
| DoctorBeaver, what you were doing was misrepresenting the arguments of the previous posters, thus creating a Straw Man to beat down instead of the actual reasons against public smoking.
Also. Implying that you might as well smoke in public because there are worse pollutants is bad logic; car exhaust may be hazardous, but it's also irrelevant to what we're actually discussing. A small improvement in our air and comfort is still an improvement - you are trying to distract from the fact you have no real basis not to simply smoke in private instead. |
I didn't misrepresent anything. In fact, it is you who is so-doing. I did not imply that smoking in public is OK as there are worse pollutants. My point was that it is not only smoking in public that is injurious to public health and, actually, is nowhere near being the major pollutant.
The only straw man is the one constructed by people who want a total smoking ban but cannot come up with a valid argument for it & resort to words such as "disgusting" in an attempt to add weight their position. They merely regurgitate arguments put forward by others - arguments that, more often than not, do not stand up to close scrutiny - without giving the situation any thought.
People in favour of the smoking ban frequently resort to hyperbole that portrays second-hand smoking as the number 1 public health issue when it clearly is not. Do you hear those same people clamouring for a reduction in vehicle emissions in the same manner? Do you hear them crying out for more nuclear power stations so that we can do away with coal/oil-powered generators that pump who-knows-how-many millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year? (and before anyone raises the issue of renewable energy sources, every set of figures produced show that not to be a valid alternative; it can only supply a small proportion of the energy needed)
I stated previously, and I shall re-iterate for your benefit, I am in favour of restrictions on smoking in public but I think that a total ban is wrong. I fail to see the problem with giving the owners of clubs/pubs etc. the choice of whether to allow smoking. Members of the public will then have the choice of frequenting smoking or non-smoking establishments as they so wish. I have not yet heard a single convincing argument against that position.
Deanhills - that graph is very interesting but is a bit of a red herring. The figure it gives is for smoking per se, not second-hand smoking. I was raising the point that when out in the street the carbon monoxide from vehicle emissions that you breathe is probably doing you more harm than any second-hand cigarette smoke you may be unfortunate enough to inhale.
| Quote: |
| But perhaps they need to go further, like with tobacco, and list in big bold letters that twinkies can contribute to obesity, and obesity related diseases. |
I agree.
| Ashtray wrote: |
| In my country (Argentina) smoking is banned from closed enviroments. Nevertheless, smokers can do so outside. |
In Turkey too...
I know this has been dealt with, as most of the arguments presented were essentially strawman arguments (though seemingly intended otherwise), but I'd like to address this one:
As someone mentioned, exposure to sunlight is healthy (in moderation)... in fact, the lack of exposure to sunlight is insidiously unhealthy. Lack of exposure to sunlight results in Vitamin D deficiency, which causes all kinds of degenerative bone and muscle problems; osteoporosis, rickets, osteomalcia, and has been linked to a number of chronic diseases, including cancer, TB, MS, cognitive problems, and more... and it's pretty subtle about it too until it's too late. The likelihood of melanoma is pretty slim from moderate exposure to sunlight... of course watch the UV index and take appropriate precautions... but completely covering up is long term suicide.
Skin colour plays an important role in this as well, highly melanic races require more UV exposure than pale skin toned races to gain the same VitD benefits... of course the converse is also true that those with pale skin cannot tolerate as much exposure and are more prone to sin damage and melanoma.
___________________________________________________________________________________
As far as smoking BANS outright, I'm not exactly supportive of an all out ban. The sorts of smoking bans in effect here in Nova Scotia, Canada work pretty well for me; no smoking in public buildings (this includes businesses), smoking on/in your private property is fine, and no smoking within 20' of doorways.
The only real reason to ban smoking outright is due to health care costs... and this is only really relevant in nations with socialized health care systems (such as Canada). With these systems everyone pays the price for the diseases that have to be treated due to an entirely preventable cause. It wouldn't be so bad if, for example, smokers had to pay out of pocket for their preventable diseases, rather than taxing the system for their choices. This might put their choices into better perspective, and it might illustrate just how important a habit is for an individual...
It's kind of like imposing a cost in shops for the use of plastic bags, rather than using a reusable bag. We recently started charging 5cents per bag in the store I work in. Where people would insist on a bag for the smallest, most easily carried items (ie. a single pack of 2 small fuses), the very small cost of a bag makes people reevaluate whether they really need this item they've come to feel entitled to. As a result, there are a lot fewer plastic bags leaving our store, and those who do take one are making a conscious choice to do so, rather than just feeling entitled.
| DoctorBeaver wrote: |
| "Smoking is long-term suicide". I assume whenever you are outdoors you ensure that not a single square inch of your body is exposed to the sun. Using your own logic, catching melanoma through willful exposure to sunlight amounts to suicide. And don't eat red meat because that would increase your risk of bowel cancer. |
As someone mentioned, exposure to sunlight is healthy (in moderation)... in fact, the lack of exposure to sunlight is insidiously unhealthy. Lack of exposure to sunlight results in Vitamin D deficiency, which causes all kinds of degenerative bone and muscle problems; osteoporosis, rickets, osteomalcia, and has been linked to a number of chronic diseases, including cancer, TB, MS, cognitive problems, and more... and it's pretty subtle about it too until it's too late. The likelihood of melanoma is pretty slim from moderate exposure to sunlight... of course watch the UV index and take appropriate precautions... but completely covering up is long term suicide.
Skin colour plays an important role in this as well, highly melanic races require more UV exposure than pale skin toned races to gain the same VitD benefits... of course the converse is also true that those with pale skin cannot tolerate as much exposure and are more prone to sin damage and melanoma.
___________________________________________________________________________________
As far as smoking BANS outright, I'm not exactly supportive of an all out ban. The sorts of smoking bans in effect here in Nova Scotia, Canada work pretty well for me; no smoking in public buildings (this includes businesses), smoking on/in your private property is fine, and no smoking within 20' of doorways.
The only real reason to ban smoking outright is due to health care costs... and this is only really relevant in nations with socialized health care systems (such as Canada). With these systems everyone pays the price for the diseases that have to be treated due to an entirely preventable cause. It wouldn't be so bad if, for example, smokers had to pay out of pocket for their preventable diseases, rather than taxing the system for their choices. This might put their choices into better perspective, and it might illustrate just how important a habit is for an individual...
It's kind of like imposing a cost in shops for the use of plastic bags, rather than using a reusable bag. We recently started charging 5cents per bag in the store I work in. Where people would insist on a bag for the smallest, most easily carried items (ie. a single pack of 2 small fuses), the very small cost of a bag makes people reevaluate whether they really need this item they've come to feel entitled to. As a result, there are a lot fewer plastic bags leaving our store, and those who do take one are making a conscious choice to do so, rather than just feeling entitled.
| Ankhanu wrote: |
|
The only real reason to ban smoking outright is due to health care costs... and this is only really relevant in nations with socialized health care systems (such as Canada). |
Even then, you should ban smokers from the health care system, not ban smoking from health care system members.
Then, you just give them a choice; you can smoke OR you can have free health care... choose.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||||
If someone wants to kill themselves -- be it slowly or quickly --- it's none of your business. Sure people might miss the suicidal person... But will you force that person to accept a fate (subjectively) worse than death just for the pleasure of his or her company? |
It does not totally depends on the person who is smoking, as the studies have shown that the people who smoke also pose a health risk to the people who are in the close proximity to the smoker, so in a way he the smoker is not only commiting a long term suicide but a long term murder also!!
Isnt it making sense to ban smoking!
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
Even then, you should ban smokers from the health care system, not ban smoking from health care system members. Then, you just give them a choice; you can smoke OR you can have free health care... choose. |
There is that... but they should have the same access to treatment for medical issues not related to smoking. Of course, any kind of policy like this introduces a lot of cost, liability issues and the like... determining what is and isn't smoking related (particularly when a disease can be caused by other things as well as smoking), whether a doctor is right for charging in what circumstances, etc. It's not realistically feasible.
Plus the same issues arise as mentioned earlier with other activities that are harmful; where does one draw the line, and how slippery a slope are we building.
| Ankhanu wrote: | ||||
There is that... but they should have the same access to treatment for medical issues not related to smoking. Of course, any kind of policy like this introduces a lot of cost, liability issues and the like... determining what is and isn't smoking related (particularly when a disease can be caused by other things as well as smoking), whether a doctor is right for charging in what circumstances, etc. It's not realistically feasible. Plus the same issues arise as mentioned earlier with other activities that are harmful; where does one draw the line, and how slippery a slope are we building. |
| Ankhanu wrote: |
|
Plus the same issues arise as mentioned earlier with other activities that are harmful; where does one draw the line, and how slippery a slope are we building. |
Banning smoking for health care cost reasons takes you down the exact same slope.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
Banning smoking for health care cost reasons takes you down the exact same slope. |
Arguing even against myself, perhaps the US is getting over-legislated and really enriching the legal profession at its own expense. I wonder whether they should be taxing legal firms who make money out of the health cases, so that that could be put towards health care in the form of preventive health care through education, helping with smoke cessation etc.
| deanhills wrote: | ||||
|
There is a very simple distinction between the two:
People choose to smoke or not smoke.
Children have no choice but to go to school, and most don't have the option of private or home-school.
There's also the little issue of the constitution.
The constitution separates religion and government, but makes no provision for banning things like smoking.
yes government should impose ban on smoking in public.
smoking in public will lead to passive smoking .
therefore because of few irresponsible people ,many people suffers
smoking in public will lead to passive smoking .
therefore because of few irresponsible people ,many people suffers
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| The constitution separates religion and government, but makes no provision for banning things like smoking. |
| Quote: |
| 'God save the United States and this honorable court |
I guess next logical step will have to be another Act and rule and regulation to remove it from the Courts too? But then when they do, it is a few centuries too late to use the separation between state and religion argument for banning it from the courts.
life style of a person should solely rest in his own hands but it should in no way harm someone else's freedom to live so smoking at public places should be prohibhited... as passive smoking leads to so many feared deseases....like asthma,bronchoulcer etc.
| aakash_88 wrote: |
| life style of a person should solely rest in his own hands but it should in no way harm someone else's freedom to live so smoking at public places should be prohibhited... as passive smoking leads to so many feared deseases....like asthma,bronchoulcer etc. |
yes agreed, I completelt accord with your view, as we might be allowed to take our own life but we cannot have any right of life of other person.
| ankitdatashn wrote: |
| as we might be allowed to take our own life but we cannot have any right of life of other person. |
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
That may be so, but I have a problem with forcing people to endure a fate (in their eyes) worse than death, just for the benefit of their family and friends.
Attempting to dissuade someone from suicide is a fine goal, but forcibly preventing them is wrong.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Attempting to dissuade someone from suicide is a fine goal, but forcibly preventing them is wrong. |
Well said Ocalhoun. No one can take forced laws to stop something. For the governments, they use FORCE step in which they see will prevent certain actions/stuff to happen, they believe a quite old norm:
| Quote: |
| "The only real power comes out of a long rifle" -- Joseph Stalin |
Personally, I would choose the advised law over the forced one.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| That may be so, but I have a problem with forcing people to endure a fate (in their eyes) worse than death, just for the benefit of their family and friends.
Attempting to dissuade someone from suicide is a fine goal, but forcibly preventing them is wrong. |
Where I do not have a problem with suicide, is the assisted kind, where there is obviously no hope left, it is a rational decision, it was sorted out and discussed. That is different.
I just don't think suicide is normal behaviour for a human being who is healthy in body, but just temporarily deranged in mind. Every time someone commits suicide it worries me too that it sends out signals to the next person who has suicidal thoughts, but never quite got there. Especially teenagers.
| deanhills wrote: | ||
Where I do not have a problem with suicide, is the assisted kind, where there is obviously no hope left, it is a rational decision, it was sorted out and discussed. That is different. I just don't think suicide is normal behaviour for a human being who is healthy in body, but just temporarily deranged in mind. Every time someone commits suicide it worries me too that it sends out signals to the next person who has suicidal thoughts, but never quite got there. Especially teenagers. |
But who are we to decide if this is just a temporary depression, or if it is one of your 'acceptable' cases?
Seems to me that only the person considering it would be qualified to make that decision.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Seems to me that only the person considering it would be qualified to make that decision. |
It's terrible how you getting kickassed as smoker on this days. In Europe If you wanna smoke you must go out of an Restaurant, only in bars you can smoke. I would say it doesn't look good, if 5 smokers stand outside of an Restaurant and blowing the smoke in the air. It would seems like the kicked you out of the Restaurant and thats realy insulting.
I would like to know how the Tabac-company would think about this, maybe the could make the cigarettes price cheaper.
I would like to know how the Tabac-company would think about this, maybe the could make the cigarettes price cheaper.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Seems to me that only the person considering it would be qualified to make that decision. |
It's not good for smoking. so govnment shoud ban smoking in public.
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
Yes, dissuading them is fine. That is the rationale for organizations like 'suicide anonymous'.
Let's keep it on topic kids.
'
Guns and homosexuality are not comparable to smoking. People with guns don't run around the street shooting them - disturbing people with the noise and frightening/harming people. Homosexuals don't approach random members of the same sex and oblige them to "join in". (there are whack jobs, but I'm talking about 99.9% of the population).
Smoking, however, does obligate anyone in the immediate vicinity to breath in smoke. And there is no reasonable method of other members of the public avoiding breathing in that smoke if they must be in the same area as you.
Currently, in Australia, people are banned from smoking in enclosed public spaces. Not just in obvious areas (restaurants, workplaces, pubs, other indoor areas) but outdoor enclosed spaces such as covered areas of train stations, bus stops.
I don't think people should be banned from smoking in public outright (what are they supposed to do, drive home every time they have a craving?), but I'm happy with current regulations as it does reduce the second hand smoke being passed onto other members of the public. And limits the discomfort of non smokers, as one can only smoke where there's no roof to trap the smoke for any period of time.
I don't know how it works where you're from. But in Australia the reason cigarettes are expensive is that the government imposes heavey taxes on them. It's a deliberate move, as the theory is the more expensive they are the less people will be able to afford to smoke... and as we have public healthcare, the less the government has to fork out at a later date for the care/treatment of people who damage their own lungs.
Beyond discomfort to non smoking members of the public, I'd imagine no-smoking laws in public places are also to enourage people to quit.
This.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
Another, very wrong thing... Just because you don't do something, doesn't mean you should disregard those who do. Political views should be based on principle, not on being selfish. Just like how I don't own a gun, but I would be outraged if guns were banned. I don't smoke, but I respect the rights of smokers. I'm not gay, but I respect the rights of gays. |
Guns and homosexuality are not comparable to smoking. People with guns don't run around the street shooting them - disturbing people with the noise and frightening/harming people. Homosexuals don't approach random members of the same sex and oblige them to "join in". (there are whack jobs, but I'm talking about 99.9% of the population).
Smoking, however, does obligate anyone in the immediate vicinity to breath in smoke. And there is no reasonable method of other members of the public avoiding breathing in that smoke if they must be in the same area as you.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| No, no, no, NO!
The government's role should stop at informing people that it is bad for them. Any more than that is needless restriction of freedom. Perhaps, in the interest of potential second-hand smoke victims, you could enact a law that says smokers must stop smoking in a public place when asked, but it should not be banned entirely- even in situations where nobody cares. |
Currently, in Australia, people are banned from smoking in enclosed public spaces. Not just in obvious areas (restaurants, workplaces, pubs, other indoor areas) but outdoor enclosed spaces such as covered areas of train stations, bus stops.
I don't think people should be banned from smoking in public outright (what are they supposed to do, drive home every time they have a craving?), but I'm happy with current regulations as it does reduce the second hand smoke being passed onto other members of the public. And limits the discomfort of non smokers, as one can only smoke where there's no roof to trap the smoke for any period of time.
| ShareVok wrote: |
|
I would like to know how the Tabac-company would think about this, maybe the could make the cigarettes price cheaper. |
I don't know how it works where you're from. But in Australia the reason cigarettes are expensive is that the government imposes heavey taxes on them. It's a deliberate move, as the theory is the more expensive they are the less people will be able to afford to smoke... and as we have public healthcare, the less the government has to fork out at a later date for the care/treatment of people who damage their own lungs.
Beyond discomfort to non smoking members of the public, I'd imagine no-smoking laws in public places are also to enourage people to quit.
| Ankhanu wrote: |
| I absolutely LOVED when our government imposed restrictions on smoking in public places... it made going out to bars, restaurants, malls, universities, etc. MUCH more pleasant. It's great being able to go see some live music and get home at the end of the night not reeking of stale cigarettes. It's fantastic being able to go out to eat and not have to compete with smoke to taste your food. It hasn't reduced the ability of smokers to go out and have fun in public; they just have to go outside to smoke once in a while... and really, it just makes the outside a social spot too.
I visited my family in the States a bit ago and was reacquainted with public smoking and it was, well, wholly unpleasant. Almost seems barbaric. |
This.
Welcome back Blackheart. I was quite a newbie at the time when you last posted, but good to have your presence around again.
Totally agreed. Looks as though other countries in the world still need to catch up with "outdoor enclosed spaces". I did not realize that Australia had made progress as far as this. And yes, I imagine now with healthcare for chronic diseases becoming so very expensive that countries would soon work on ways to recoup their expenses by taxing tobacco companies even more, or to put restrictions on healthcare coverage.
| blackheart wrote: |
| Currently, in Australia, people are banned from smoking in enclosed public spaces. Not just in obvious areas (restaurants, workplaces, pubs, other indoor areas) but outdoor enclosed spaces such as covered areas of train stations, bus stops.
I don't think people should be banned from smoking in public outright (what are they supposed to do, drive home every time they have a craving?), but I'm happy with current regulations as it does reduce the second hand smoke being passed onto other members of the public. And limits the discomfort of non smokers, as one can only smoke where there's no roof to trap the smoke for any period of time. |
This is hard to say, Yes and No have their ups and downs.
Lets say YES: This would make a few issues rise. 1) the tabacoo industry brings MASSIVE amounts of money in the form of taxes to the government, if this was banded, we would lose a VAST amount of money as a whole. This also would start to remove the "freedom" in which should allow people to do what they want.... be this part brings us to ...
Lets say NO: Now we have one big issue here, yes they can do what they want, but what about the people who dont want to smoke, the people that are smart enough not to? Second hand smoking is just as if not more deadly. Yes you can limit it to not doing it in public? but what about little kids, they have NO choice at all, there life is being ruined cause of incompetent parents. For example one of my friends has a 9 year old sister, she has horrible asme (spelling) and her parents STILL smoke in the house... whats with that?
so both have their ups and downs.
Lets say YES: This would make a few issues rise. 1) the tabacoo industry brings MASSIVE amounts of money in the form of taxes to the government, if this was banded, we would lose a VAST amount of money as a whole. This also would start to remove the "freedom" in which should allow people to do what they want.... be this part brings us to ...
Lets say NO: Now we have one big issue here, yes they can do what they want, but what about the people who dont want to smoke, the people that are smart enough not to? Second hand smoking is just as if not more deadly. Yes you can limit it to not doing it in public? but what about little kids, they have NO choice at all, there life is being ruined cause of incompetent parents. For example one of my friends has a 9 year old sister, she has horrible asme (spelling) and her parents STILL smoke in the house... whats with that?
so both have their ups and downs.
| dipesh wrote: |
| with the style quotient attached to smoking, is the government imposed ban on smoking in public places going to make a difference in the present times?
Today's youth may try to always get what they want,but it is up to the government to regulate what they get access to. if the government wants people to cut down on smoking,then instead of restricting the places,it should bring in measures that drastically cut down the cigarette production & import. if one doesn't get a cigarette easily then no style , no harm to others through passive smoking & clean air for everybody to breathe. just because of some masses shouldn't suffer. |
I am far more worried about my prescription medications, than smoking.
It is getting rediculous with the ban this, ban that.
Know what else is dangerous for some?
walking and chewing gum.
BAN IT.
The government should not ban smoking in public per se, but definitely in crowded public places such as bus stops, and also preferably near schools and colleges.
| dipesh wrote: |
| with the style quotient attached to smoking, is the government imposed ban on smoking in public places going to make a difference in the present times?
Today's youth may try to always get what they want,but it is up to the government to regulate what they get access to. if the government wants people to cut down on smoking,then instead of restricting the places,it should bring in measures that drastically cut down the cigarette production & import. if one doesn't get a cigarette easily then no style , no harm to others through passive smoking & clean air for everybody to breathe. just because of some masses shouldn't suffer. |
I believe that smoking is the peoples choice and they have their rights, so the government would be corrupting our rights. Sure i can see why they woulod ban smoking in certain places like hospital but everyone should be able to go outside and be able to have a cigarette.
Why should the government ban smoking in public when the cigarette companys are seeling in public places??
Here in Quebec, we can't see ads about smoking (and we can't even see the cigarettes packs when we're going to buy some, they hide it).
Smoking is banned in every public places (you need to go outside or go in a special room to be able to smoke).
I like it !
I think that was really a good idea to ban it.
Smoking is banned in every public places (you need to go outside or go in a special room to be able to smoke).
I like it !
I think that was really a good idea to ban it.
we just banned it indoors in New Hampshire but nothing yet on outside
| pll wrote: |
| Here in Quebec, we can't see ads about smoking (and we can't even see the cigarettes packs when we're going to buy some, they hide it). |
It's the same here in Nova Scotia. Cigarettes, well, tobacco in general, has to be placed behind a closed door of some sort without windows. It seems a little extreme, but smokers know they're there and just have to ask (like they did before) to get what they want.
I hate people who smoke, but the government has no right to do this...
I think the government needs to butt out of our business. They already try to control too much of our lives - helmet laws, seatbelt laws, warning labels on just about everything - I mean seriously, anyone who can't figure out that they shouldn't use their hair dryer while they are still in the shower deserves their Darwin Award. Next thing you know they will be outlawing running with scissors, sharp sticks, and Red Ryder BB Guns (I mean, hey, you could put someone's eye out with that).
We expect the government to do everything for us, and we're starting to develop the idea that if there isn't a law against it it must be ok. What happened to plain old courtesy and common sense? If you are near a crowd of non-smokers, and you want to light up, it's only polite to move away from them. Don't huddle up near the door and smoke, it's rude.
We used to police ourselves, we used to care about other people. Once upon a time scowls and dirty looks were all it took to make a person feel ashamed of a social faux paus. Now it takes laws?
We don't need a nanny state - we just need to grow the hell up and develop a sense of responsibility. (I use 'we' not just to indicate our seemingly adolescent society, but each and every one of us individually - reference M. Jackson's Man in the Mirror for further instructions).
Social taboos are generally stronger than laws anyway, or at least they used to be.
We expect the government to do everything for us, and we're starting to develop the idea that if there isn't a law against it it must be ok. What happened to plain old courtesy and common sense? If you are near a crowd of non-smokers, and you want to light up, it's only polite to move away from them. Don't huddle up near the door and smoke, it's rude.
We used to police ourselves, we used to care about other people. Once upon a time scowls and dirty looks were all it took to make a person feel ashamed of a social faux paus. Now it takes laws?
We don't need a nanny state - we just need to grow the hell up and develop a sense of responsibility. (I use 'we' not just to indicate our seemingly adolescent society, but each and every one of us individually - reference M. Jackson's Man in the Mirror for further instructions).
Social taboos are generally stronger than laws anyway, or at least they used to be.
| Jinx wrote: |
| We don't need a nanny state - we just need to grow the hell up and develop a sense of responsibility. |
| Jinx wrote: |
| ... warning labels on just about everything - I mean seriously, anyone who can't figure out that they shouldn't use their hair dryer while they are still in the shower deserves their Darwin Award. Next thing you know they will be outlawing running with scissors, sharp sticks, and Red Ryder BB Guns (I mean, hey, you could put someone's eye out with that). |
Those are actually examples of private sector restrictions. All these ridiculous warnings and such are due to law suits against manufacturers/providers due to people misusing their products or not approaching life with a little common sense. Some bad judgment calls in the legal system have set a precedent where any idiot can win tonnes of money because they weren't told something that should be generally understood with half a second of thought... what do you mean my coffee is hot? I'm taking you to court for not warning me... the steam coming off the surface simply wasn't enough of a warning.
Liability can be a bitch.
| Jinx wrote: |
| We expect the government to do everything for us, and we're starting to develop the idea that if there isn't a law against it it must be ok. What happened to plain old courtesy and common sense? If you are near a crowd of non-smokers, and you want to light up, it's only polite to move away from them. Don't huddle up near the door and smoke, it's rude.
We used to police ourselves, we used to care about other people. Once upon a time scowls and dirty looks were all it took to make a person feel ashamed of a social faux paus. Now it takes laws? We don't need a nanny state - we just need to grow the hell up and develop a sense of responsibility. (I use 'we' not just to indicate our seemingly adolescent society, but each and every one of us individually - reference M. Jackson's Man in the Mirror for further instructions). Social taboos are generally stronger than laws anyway, or at least they used to be. |
Looking back on history, removing any kind of romantic notions of the "good ol' days" reveals that we've never been good at policing ourselves and people are no different today than they were back then. People are dicks to one another... always have been. We're also not smart... we're just smart enough to be dangerous to ourselves and one another.
I definitely agree that we (in both senses you mention) need to take responsibility for our own actions... but very few are willing to do so. How do we bring this sort of thing about? I can't think of any examples of this ever really happening, in anything other than perhaps subsistence living where you need the help of those around you just to continue living; therefore helping others and treating them well helps keep you from dying
In the meantime, perhaps some laws that say "hey, you! Stop being stupid!" aren't such a terrible thing.
| deanhills wrote: |
| but reality says people in general are pretty much focussed on short term gratification, no matter the long-term damage it causes. How do you intend to take care of the smokers when they develop heart disease and lung cancer, and of course society has to pay for it, |
You could make them pay for their own medical expenses... then they'd be forced to take personal responsibility for their own health.
A problem with these government charity programs is that they transform personal responsibility into government responsibility.
I'm sure I'm not the first to say this but here it goes anyways:
There will never be a smoking ban. Government officials smoke as well, and so of course it wouldn't work. There's no ending smoking, it's complete bullshit. I've seen a few good people turn to smoking cause it makes them look "cool?".. how the hell does it make you look cool.
Famous quote by none other than myself: PEOPLE ARE RETARDED. End of story. I'm retarded, your retarded.
There will never be a smoking ban. Government officials smoke as well, and so of course it wouldn't work. There's no ending smoking, it's complete bullshit. I've seen a few good people turn to smoking cause it makes them look "cool?".. how the hell does it make you look cool.
Famous quote by none other than myself: PEOPLE ARE RETARDED. End of story. I'm retarded, your retarded.
Chandigarh I India imposed ban on smoking at public places. But the law is being flouted with impunity. One can see people smoking away to glory at public places. And the local police is not doing anything. Interestingly, a case was registered against a noted film star for smoking in public as the cops wanted publicity. But no action is taken against the general public who smoke in public places.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
You could make them pay for their own medical expenses... then they'd be forced to take personal responsibility for their own health. A problem with these government charity programs is that they transform personal responsibility into government responsibility. |
| Diablosblizz wrote: |
| I'm sure I'm not the first to say this but here it goes anyways:
There will never be a smoking ban. Government officials smoke as well, and so of course it wouldn't work. There's no ending smoking, it's complete bullshit. I've seen a few good people turn to smoking cause it makes them look "cool?".. how the hell does it make you look cool. Famous quote by none other than myself: PEOPLE ARE RETARDED. End of story. I'm retarded, your retarded. |
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| No, no, no, NO!
The government's role should stop at informing people that it is bad for them. Any more than that is needless restriction of freedom. Perhaps, in the interest of potential second-hand smoke victims, you could enact a law that says smokers must stop smoking in a public place when asked, but it should not be banned entirely- even in situations where nobody cares. |
| QrafTee wrote: |
| How about smokers kill themselves in an enclosed area and I keep my asthma-afflicted lungs clean? |
There are more smokers than asthma victims... It would be less of a loss of life to kill all the asthma sufferers.
Neither suggestion is anywhere near moral... Learn to live with each other.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Neither suggestion is anywhere near moral... Learn to live with each other. |
Equally harmful of course are also emissions from motor vehicles and industrial areas, so asthma sufferers probably have to remove themselves from common sense harmful areas.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
Neither suggestion is anywhere near moral... Learn to live with each other. |
I think that smoking is an individual liberty.
Banning smokers from public spaces is not really a "democratic" solution. Instead, I think that we should have specific places where smokers can smoke freely, but not anywhere else.
Banning smokers from public spaces is not really a "democratic" solution. Instead, I think that we should have specific places where smokers can smoke freely, but not anywhere else.
| goutha wrote: |
| Banning smokers from public spaces is not really a "democratic" solution. Instead, I think that we should have specific places where smokers can smoke freely, but not anywhere else. |
This is a good point. If only smokers had some kind of area or perhaps specific property that they owned and were free to smoke in ... Wait.
Also if smokers were in the minority then banning smoking from public places would be democratic, because majority rule is the theoretically entire point of democracy. You know.
In public and in enclosed spaced it should be banned. It makes me feel really sorry for the baby in a car with the windows rolled up when the mother/father is smoking.
YES! AND YES AGAIN. it should be banned totally. its not healty.
| Greatking wrote: |
| it should be banned totally. its not healty. |
Hm, what else is not healthy?
Drinking, sodas, junk food, not working out every day, spending large amounts of time on TV/computer/video games, getting insufficient sleep, et cetera...
Shall we ban all of those other things while we're at it?
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
Hm, what else is not healthy? Drinking, sodas, junk food, not working out every day, spending large amounts of time on TV/computer/video games, getting insufficient sleep, et cetera... Shall we ban all of those other things while we're at it? |
| deanhills wrote: |
| Just imagine the savings, and I guess those people who are so much enriched by people's health problems, and the junk food and soda pop producers and junk TV and game designers and producers will have their profits go down in a straight line. |
Also watch personal freedom, personal independence, and personal responsibility 'go down in a straight line' as well...
Remember what I said about a 'care taker' government?
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
Also watch personal freedom, personal independence, and personal responsibility 'go down in a straight line' as well... Remember what I said about a 'care taker' government? |
| goutha wrote: |
| I think that smoking is an individual liberty.
Banning smokers from public spaces is not really a "democratic" solution. Instead, I think that we should have specific places where smokers can smoke freely, but not anywhere else. |
| deanhills wrote: |
| Somewhere among all of that there has to be a common sense middle ground? |
What, like private charity helping people who need it?
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
What, like private charity helping people who need it? |
| deanhills wrote: |
| How do you suggest society takes care of those who cannot take care of themselves without getting Government to do so or to legislate the conditions under which it can be provided? |
1: Government stops taking care of them.
2: If private charity cannot do so adequately with voluntarily given funds, use the tax money saved from step 1, and let each tax payer choose which approved charity to donate his/her money to.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
Hm, what else is not healthy? Drinking, sodas, junk food, not working out every day, spending large amounts of time on TV/computer/video games, getting insufficient sleep, et cetera... Shall we ban all of those other things while we're at it? |
*Healthy in moderation, practicality of bans, affects on others, etc, yawn.*
| Nameless wrote: | ||||
*Healthy in moderation, practicality of bans, affects on others, etc, yawn.* |
And perhaps cigarettes are healthy in moderation as well? Or at least not all that harmful.
My point is, you'll need a much better reason for banning it than health risks.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||||||
And perhaps cigarettes are healthy in moderation as well? Or at least not all that harmful. My point is, you'll need a much better reason for banning it than health risks. |
Its been proven without doubt to cause cancer, what other reason does there need to be exactly?
If smokers want to kill themselves let them do it in their own houses, why should i have to put up with the disgusting crap in a public place?
Why should my health be affected because smokers are allowed to smoke in public?
| mattyj wrote: |
| Its been proven without doubt to cause cancer, what other reason does there need to be exactly? |
| Quote: |
| Do you have any idea which smoking-related disease is the number one cause of death among smokers? If you're thinking it's lung cancer or COPD/emphysema, you're wrong. While both of these smoking-related diseases do claim a lot of lives, it is heart disease that holds the top slot in the list of diseases that kill smokers.
Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States today, and the leading cause of death among smokers. And, on a global level, researchers report that there were 1,690,000 premature deaths from cardiovascular disease among smokers in the year 2000. In contrast, there were approximately 850,000 lung cancer deaths during the same year, and 118,000 COPD deaths from smoking in 2001, worldwide. Smoking is hard on the heart, but the fact is, tobacco use plays a role in a multitude of diseases that ultimately lead to disability and/or death. Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds; 200 of which are known to be poisonous, and upwards of 60 have been identified as carcinogens. Viewed in that light, it's no wonder that the effects of smoking are so widespread and destructive. |
Source: http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/tobaccorelateddiseases/a/smokingrisks.htm
Yes, smoking should be illegal/banned. It not only has a negative impact on the person's health, but it effects those around them. I think smoking is disgusting and I hate when I walk past a smoker and I have to breathe it in.
There's no need to smoke when others are around you.....what ever happened to "treat people how you would want to be treated." When I play my music loud near the bus stops, people complain, but when smokers do their thing, no one says anything.
The quicker smoking is banned, the better it is going to be for me and my future children (if i have any)!
There's no need to smoke when others are around you.....what ever happened to "treat people how you would want to be treated." When I play my music loud near the bus stops, people complain, but when smokers do their thing, no one says anything.
The quicker smoking is banned, the better it is going to be for me and my future children (if i have any)!
| mattyj wrote: |
|
Its been proven without doubt to cause cancer, what other reason does there need to be exactly? |
Yes, it causes cancer... so does sunlight. There's a huge list of things that cause cancer, shall we ban them all?
| Quote: |
|
Why should my health be affected because smokers are allowed to smoke in public? |
Though the effects on your health of just occasional brief contact with smoke are probably very minimal, this is a legitimate concern.
Trying to ban it for the health of those who choose to smoke, however, is not legitimate; it is unwanted authoritarian meddling.
(And before anyone suspects me of ulterior motives, let me reiterate that I don't smoke and never have.)
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||||
Yes, it causes cancer... so does sunlight. There's a huge list of things that cause cancer, shall we ban them all?
Though the effects on your health of just occasional brief contact with smoke are probably very minimal, this is a legitimate concern. Trying to ban it for the health of those who choose to smoke, however, is not legitimate; it is unwanted authoritarian meddling. (And before anyone suspects me of ulterior motives, let me reiterate that I don't smoke and never have.) |
I never said to ban it, i said to ban it in public, which is a reasonable thing to do...like you said if people choose to smoke that's their prerogative, but why should the health of non smokers be put at risk because of their choice to kill themselves with cigarette smoke?
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||||
Yes, it causes cancer... so does sunlight. There's a huge list of things that cause cancer, shall we ban them all?
Though the effects on your health of just occasional brief contact with smoke are probably very minimal, this is a legitimate concern. Trying to ban it for the health of those who choose to smoke, however, is not legitimate; it is unwanted authoritarian meddling. (And before anyone suspects me of ulterior motives, let me reiterate that I don't smoke and never have.) |
| QrafTee wrote: |
| Yes, but sunlight also provides us Vitamin D, helps plants grow which provides us more nutrients, and it's something we cannot avoid outright (and shouldn't). Can you make the same argument for smoking? |
| mattyj wrote: |
|
I never said to ban it, i said to ban it in public, which is a reasonable thing to do...l |
davstar did; that's who I was mainly arguing with.
Related topics
 |