Poll: Equal Rights for Smokers

[Ninja_X]

Also, bring back smoking in clubs/pubs ands such. This whole anti-smoking thing is getting out of hand.

Sure, when I'm granted the legal right to spit on any smoker who comes within 15 feet of me. It's essentially the same thing really, if I have to put up with your disgusting, invasive, choice stealing habit, you should have to put up with the same type of treatment from non-smokers.

Here's a great example. You are unable to see that the problem is the ban, not the smoking or non-smoking and you illustrate that with such... I don't even know.
Banning smoking in places, other than places where it can be very bad like around oxygen tanks, is really the government taking away rights. These clubs, bars, restaurants, etc... should have the choice to allow it or not. I'm sure many, if given the option right now, would not start allowing smoking in their establishment. Some would though. Then, as a human that can make his/her own decisions, you can choose not to go to the places that allow smoking.
Why does everyone want to destroy/ban everything they don't like? Why can't you just stay away from it? Why does anyone, smoker or non-smoker, deserve to have their life interfered with due to someone else's wants? Why do so many non-smokers act so superior?

The amount of people that have voted "no" is disgusting.

So if one of you had a few drinks, fell down some stairs, and cracked your head open, you'd want a lower quality of health care because it's your fault?

What is wrong with you people? Thankfully the majority are good people, but it's a very slim margin.

You choose to get drunk, you choose to get into a situation where you are in danger.

No one here is saying that alcohol is any better.

The difference is you can't get secondhand drunk.

I didn't know you were forced to be around smokers and get second hand smoke. This does not happen to most people, most of us can choose to be around someone smoking or not. I am sorry for your plight.

I grew up with a few people who where forced to breath in the secondhand smoke of their parents because they don't have the decency to do it outside.

There should be a ban on smoking in public places so we don't all have to deal with the fumes. If you wanna smoke do it outside, we aren't banning the smoker, just the cigarettes.

But if all clubs, pubs and restaurants were smoking like they used to be you'd be taking my choice away from me, hence your choice to engage in an optional activity has stolen my right to clean air.

This,

You can't get all high and mighty about having your choice stolen when you yourself are stealing our choice. You choosing to smoke in a public place removes the choice of non smokers in the building. Besides, you choose yourself to get addicted THAT was your choice. No sense getting butthurt because non smokers are smarter in their choice and don't want to breath secondhand cancer.

I don't think smokers deserve worse healthcare though, that wan't my point.

 

[DemonI81]

But if all clubs, pubs and restaurants were smoking like they used to be you'd be taking my choice away from me, hence your choice to engage in an optional activity has stolen my right to clean air.

I agree with you, there does need to be places, of all kinds, that offer a smoke-free environment for those that do not smoke.
As I said, I think many places would stay smoke-free if given the option at this point.
I doubt any restaurant would go back to the old ways that really didn't do anything to make the non-smokers comfortable.
In New York the bars have fenced in patios to go smoke on, so you can have your drink and smoke. There's no heated smoking area for the winter time though, since the state wont allow it.
The way things are now, someone is always being "punished" for their choice. I think there are many better ways this could all be handled, where everyone could feel comfortable.

 

[Lexodus]

I, for one, am at about a pack a day, and I have been noticing more and more how smokers are treated like second class citizens. North Carolina will be inacting a public smoking ban come January, and I can't be more confused. We're THE tobacco state. There are cities called Tobaccoville and Winston-Salem. Having already reached a recession and the new Gov wants to limit one of our biggest sources of state (And federal) income. It doesn't make any sense.

There's also a lot of incongruencies in most smoking laws. The government has stated that people smoke for one reason alone, that reason being addiction. They classify addiction as a disability. So, not allowing people to smoke some places is like not having a wheelchair ramp.

I need a smoke.

Dude, you ARE second-class citizens, or at least should be. It's entirely your fault and you're endangering and annoying other people with your stupid, stupid habit. Although, a place called 'THE tobacco state' should be like a haven for you guys.

 

[ZeroMachine]

That's like saying that self harmers shouldn't get help, or we should leave all people attempting suicide to die.

It's bullshit

Smokers do pay for the healthcare that they may or may not need.

Have you seen how much tax is on cigarettes and tobacco?

Also, bring back smoking in clubs/pubs ands such. This whole anti-smoking thing is getting out of hand.

No, don't. Non-smoker's right to clean air supersedes smoker's rights to slowly kill themselves wherever they please.

These three comments basically sum up my view on smoker's rights.

They deserve the same help as everyone else, especially since they are already paying out the ass for their addiction, but they shouldn't be allowed to smoke around non smokers in a public place (such as a restaraunt/bar), or at the very least these places should have a designated and seperated smoking area.

They did, but this wasn't good enough for the whining soccer moms. Not to mention is a club/pub/resturant allows smoking.... don't go? No ones forcing you to eat at that resturant.

I agree that it was VERY stupid to get rid of the smoking/non smoking sections of a place, but there are two many issues with the "just don't go if they allow smoking" argument of things. What if a family absolutely loves the food in a specific restaraunt, but because they have children they don't want to bring them in because of the smoking? Should they have to miss out on amazing food because of that? Not only that, but the restaraunt itself would lose out on a lot of pontential customers. Smokers can go a meal without smoking. They can smoke when they leave. Non-smokers can't exactly go without breathing for a meal, so othey wouldn't go.

More people will avoid restaraunts because they allow smoking then will avoid it because they don't. Business-wise, it just doesn't make sense.

Back when people allowed smoking in resturants, the resturants were still packed, so that argument holds no ground. Also, what if said parents want to go to a bar where they love the music and people but they allow drinking? Oh dear god! Wait.. couldn't they just.. leave their kids with a baby sitter and go if they are worried about the kids? Or maybe they could not go to a bar and find somewhere that doesn't serve alchohal in such large quantities? The fact is, the "Well what if they like the food?" argument is a load of BS. What if someones allergic to seafood and this steakhouse is serving shrimp and salmon? Should we bann shrimp and salmon because some people might not be comfortable with it being around them AND that it could pose a potential health hazard if some of that food touches them? Infact, we should bann kids from resturants that are under a certain age because that ear piercing crying they can do is damaging to your ear drums (Proven) in such a close, and closed up enviroment. Or.. if you walk into a resturant and there is a loud brat crying, you can find ANOTHER resturant. Or if theres the potential that you might get accidentally served fried scallop bits rather then fried chicken bits then you might choose another resturant rather then bann seafood and children. I could even go into regular soda being banned because it might accidentally be served to a diabetic, but I won't, instead I will leave you with this....

Honestly, if a Company wants to deny service to a specific group in a non racial, religious, or sexist sense, it should. But the government should not force them to deny customers who have certain wishes of things to do at a resturant. It should be the resturant, pub, bars choice on wether or not it wants to bann smokers, NOT the governments.

Ok, first, you do realize I agree that they should have smoking/non smoking sections, right? You sound abnormally pissed about it. No reason to go on a such a long, heated rant.

Second, the reason that the whole smoking thing didn't effect people as much back then was because, and yes this is sad and pathetic, the world is a hell of a lot more paranoid these days. It wouldn't have effected a business back then, but it would nowadays.

Trust me, I wish it wasn't so stupid, but that's just the way the world is these days.

 

[Lexodus]

Also, bring back smoking in clubs/pubs ands such. This whole anti-smoking thing is getting out of hand.

Sure, when I'm granted the legal right to spit on any smoker who comes within 15 feet of me. It's essentially the same thing really, if I have to put up with your disgusting, invasive, choice stealing habit, you should have to put up with the same type of treatment from non-smokers.

Good point, but can you spit 15 feet?

 

[ZeroMachine]

I, for one, am at about a pack a day, and I have been noticing more and more how smokers are treated like second class citizens. North Carolina will be inacting a public smoking ban come January, and I can't be more confused. We're THE tobacco state. There are cities called Tobaccoville and Winston-Salem. Having already reached a recession and the new Gov wants to limit one of our biggest sources of state (And federal) income. It doesn't make any sense.

There's also a lot of incongruencies in most smoking laws. The government has stated that people smoke for one reason alone, that reason being addiction. They classify addiction as a disability. So, not allowing people to smoke some places is like not having a wheelchair ramp.

I need a smoke.

Dude, you ARE second-class citizens, or at least should be. It's entirely your fault and you're endangering and annoying other people with your stupid, stupid habit. Although, a place called 'THE tobacco state' should be like a haven for you guys.

Dude, a little fucking harsh there, don't you think?

I think smoking is stupid, disgusting, unhealthy to the smokers and everyone around them, but they're still humans. They shouldn't be treated with any less respect (unless they're the type of asshole where someone would ask them politely not to smoke and then they blow smoke in there face).

 

[WhiteTiger225]

I, for one, am at about a pack a day, and I have been noticing more and more how smokers are treated like second class citizens. North Carolina will be inacting a public smoking ban come January, and I can't be more confused. We're THE tobacco state. There are cities called Tobaccoville and Winston-Salem. Having already reached a recession and the new Gov wants to limit one of our biggest sources of state (And federal) income. It doesn't make any sense.

There's also a lot of incongruencies in most smoking laws. The government has stated that people smoke for one reason alone, that reason being addiction. They classify addiction as a disability. So, not allowing people to smoke some places is like not having a wheelchair ramp.

I need a smoke.

Dude, you ARE second-class citizens, or at least should be. It's entirely your fault and you're endangering and annoying other people with your stupid, stupid habit. Although, a place called 'THE tobacco state' should be like a haven for you guys.

Yep and because there are more black gang members then white gang members we should treat black people as second class citizens because they have the potential to be dangerous to others around them.

 

[Hawgh]

If we penalise people who've put themselves at an increased risk of illness, due to their increased strain on the system. Then by extending that logic, we should offer advantages to those who pay a more taxes. Because they infer more resources to the system.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

Second-hand smoke contains roughly 80% of the carcinogens of the stuff that is inhaled directly. People have a right not to be forced to breathe that.

They have the means to get away too, they're called legs.

Dude, you ARE second-class citizens, or at least should be.

You are everything that's wrong with today's society. Do you go up to fat people and say that too? Are is it not "cool" to rag on them?

 

[WhiteTiger225]

I, for one, am at about a pack a day, and I have been noticing more and more how smokers are treated like second class citizens. North Carolina will be inacting a public smoking ban come January, and I can't be more confused. We're THE tobacco state. There are cities called Tobaccoville and Winston-Salem. Having already reached a recession and the new Gov wants to limit one of our biggest sources of state (And federal) income. It doesn't make any sense.

There's also a lot of incongruencies in most smoking laws. The government has stated that people smoke for one reason alone, that reason being addiction. They classify addiction as a disability. So, not allowing people to smoke some places is like not having a wheelchair ramp.

I need a smoke.

Dude, you ARE second-class citizens, or at least should be. It's entirely your fault and you're endangering and annoying other people with your stupid, stupid habit. Although, a place called 'THE tobacco state' should be like a haven for you guys.

Dude, a little fucking harsh there, don't you think?

I think smoking is stupid, disgusting, unhealthy to the smokers and everyone around them, but they're still humans. They shouldn't be treated with any less respect (unless they're the type of asshole where someone would ask them politely not to smoke and then they blow smoke in there face).

^ This I agree with.

 

[Lexodus]

That was supposed to change the subject but OK. You've got me at people who drink alcohol excessively but there are a lot of people who don't it's takes a lot for simply being fat to be that harmful on someones health.

Being fat is harmful to your health. That's a fact. Also, I mentioned it because a lot of people get a lot of shit for being smokers, yet it seems to be completely taboo to tell someone who is fat to get off his ass and start exercising.

And don't give me any of that "it's genetic" crap.

To be fair, some (okay, like 1/1000000) people ARE fat due to genetic reasons. The other tubby bitches should start doing some push ups, pronto.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

SNIP

I just think that it should be left up to the patrons whether or not they want people to smoke in their establishment, not the government. And second-hand smoke is bullshit, it doesn't affect you in any way unless someone's smoking in your face for several hours a day everyday. Do you also get mad at cars that pass you by while you're walking on the sidewalk?

Just accept it, pubs and such were created to drink and smoke, banning smoking in such places is ridiculous. If you don't like, just go away.

So wait, me saying you have to smoke outside for five minutes is unfair, and you saying that I need to avoid bars all together isn't? Seriously? What? How is that even remotely logical?

No, when I'm allowed to spit on you if you come within 5 feet of me, then you can smoke inside again, it's the same thing as far as I'm concerned. Why not let the "patrons" decide that as well?

 

[Someperson307]

I fail to see why anyone would vote No. If you had a family member who smoked and eventually contracted emphysema (Spelling?), wouldn't you want health care for he/she? Sure, he/she did it to herself/himself, but that doesn't mean he/she shouldn't get treatment.

Edit: And really, I think a public smoking ban where I live would be AWESOME.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

To be fair, some (okay, like 1/1000000) people ARE fat due to genetic reasons. The other tubby bitches should start doing some push ups, pronto.

Genetic reasons my ass, I don't see any genetically fat people in Africa. That's all a lie we fat overconsuming westerners made up to make ourselves feel better about being shapeless slobs.

 

[WhiteTiger225]

That's like saying that self harmers shouldn't get help, or we should leave all people attempting suicide to die.

It's bullshit

Smokers do pay for the healthcare that they may or may not need.

Have you seen how much tax is on cigarettes and tobacco?

Also, bring back smoking in clubs/pubs ands such. This whole anti-smoking thing is getting out of hand.

No, don't. Non-smoker's right to clean air supersedes smoker's rights to slowly kill themselves wherever they please.

These three comments basically sum up my view on smoker's rights.

They deserve the same help as everyone else, especially since they are already paying out the ass for their addiction, but they shouldn't be allowed to smoke around non smokers in a public place (such as a restaraunt/bar), or at the very least these places should have a designated and seperated smoking area.

They did, but this wasn't good enough for the whining soccer moms. Not to mention is a club/pub/resturant allows smoking.... don't go? No ones forcing you to eat at that resturant.

I agree that it was VERY stupid to get rid of the smoking/non smoking sections of a place, but there are two many issues with the "just don't go if they allow smoking" argument of things. What if a family absolutely loves the food in a specific restaraunt, but because they have children they don't want to bring them in because of the smoking? Should they have to miss out on amazing food because of that? Not only that, but the restaraunt itself would lose out on a lot of pontential customers. Smokers can go a meal without smoking. They can smoke when they leave. Non-smokers can't exactly go without breathing for a meal, so othey wouldn't go.

More people will avoid restaraunts because they allow smoking then will avoid it because they don't. Business-wise, it just doesn't make sense.

Back when people allowed smoking in resturants, the resturants were still packed, so that argument holds no ground. Also, what if said parents want to go to a bar where they love the music and people but they allow drinking? Oh dear god! Wait.. couldn't they just.. leave their kids with a baby sitter and go if they are worried about the kids? Or maybe they could not go to a bar and find somewhere that doesn't serve alchohal in such large quantities? The fact is, the "Well what if they like the food?" argument is a load of BS. What if someones allergic to seafood and this steakhouse is serving shrimp and salmon? Should we bann shrimp and salmon because some people might not be comfortable with it being around them AND that it could pose a potential health hazard if some of that food touches them? Infact, we should bann kids from resturants that are under a certain age because that ear piercing crying they can do is damaging to your ear drums (Proven) in such a close, and closed up enviroment. Or.. if you walk into a resturant and there is a loud brat crying, you can find ANOTHER resturant. Or if theres the potential that you might get accidentally served fried scallop bits rather then fried chicken bits then you might choose another resturant rather then bann seafood and children. I could even go into regular soda being banned because it might accidentally be served to a diabetic, but I won't, instead I will leave you with this....

Honestly, if a Company wants to deny service to a specific group in a non racial, religious, or sexist sense, it should. But the government should not force them to deny customers who have certain wishes of things to do at a resturant. It should be the resturant, pub, bars choice on wether or not it wants to bann smokers, NOT the governments.

Ok, first, you do realize I agree that they should have smoking/non smoking sections, right? You sound abnormally pissed about it. No reason to go on a such a long, heated rant.

Second, the reason that the whole smoking thing didn't effect people as much back then was because, and yes this is sad and pathetic, the world is a hell of a lot more paranoid these days. It wouldn't have effected a business back then, but it would nowadays.

Trust me, I wish it wasn't so stupid, but that's just the way the world is these days.

I think someone said it best. "Today we live in the Salem witch trials"
Everyone is afraid of everything. Splenda causes cancer in mice! Great.. chocolate kills dogs, has any human died from chocolate intake outside of allergies? Alkaseltzer blows up ducks and rats when ingested, does that mean it will kill you?

People have been made SO afraid of EVERYTHING. Look at the big scare of Swine Flu. 2000 people dead... How many people are there in the united states alone? Do the percentile math here. I wish humans would get their act together and stop being paranoid of every small little statistic and also act like they have no freedom of choice to LEAVE the presense of a bad habit like smoking.

And the hate filled rant wasn't at you as much as at the general public XD

 

[Olikunmissile]

That is possibly one the worst structured arguments I've ever heard.

Also, bring back smoking in clubs/pubs ands such. This whole anti-smoking thing is getting out of hand.

Fuck yes! I can't stand being in my local and not being able to get out one of my cigars. (Though I don't smoke normally, while I'm out drinking I'll smoke the occasional.)

I believe though, that they deserve the same healthcare as non-smokers.

 

[Durahan2]

That was supposed to change the subject but OK. You've got me at people who drink alcohol excessively but there are a lot of people who don't it's takes a lot for simply being fat to be that harmful on someones health.

Being fat is harmful to your health. That's a fact. Also, I mentioned it because a lot of people get a lot of shit for being smokers, yet it seems to be completely taboo to tell someone who is fat to get off his ass and start exercising.

And don't give me any of that "it's genetic" crap.

To be fair, some (okay, like 1/1000000) people ARE fat due to genetic reasons. The other tubby bitches should start doing some push ups, pronto.

While in reality most people are endomorphs.

Smokers have every right to smoke, to say what they can and can't do is...just plain un-American. People have freedoms and just because you don't like doesn't mean it'll get banned. So get over yourself, no really get your head out of your ass.

 

[squid5580]

That is possibly one the worst structured arguments I've ever heard.

Also, bring back smoking in clubs/pubs ands such. This whole anti-smoking thing is getting out of hand.

As a smoker who lives in a country that doesn't allow smoking in any public enclosed area I don't care that I can't smoke in a bar or restuarant anymore. Just because you are in a bar or whatever doesn't mean you smoke. So why should they have to suck in my second hand smoke (for which they aren't paying for btw). My right to smoke doesn't mean that anyone non smoker has to endure it.