Poll: Equal Rights for Smokers

[Skeleon]

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.

One of the "made-up" conditions is called hypothyroidism, it's a hormonal disorder.

 

[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.

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

Ah, alright. Completely agree, too. Humanity needs to regrow it's backbone and stop being so worried about such little things.

Tis why I miss the 90s... was a simpler time... or maybe I was just too oblivious of a kid to see it.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I agree with you up to the point where organ transplants are involved. You save those precious organs for people who don't intend to abuse them. Admittadely it doesn't apply to smokers as much as drinkers...but those are my 2 cents.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

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?

Did you even read my post, or is your anti-smoker rage just making you understand what you want to understand? I said it should be up to the patrons to decide if they want people to smoke in their establishment. I didn't say you have to avoid bars altogether, just the one's where smoking is allowed.

And you can spit on me if you want, but if you think it's just going to end there, you've got another thing coming.

 

[Lexodus]

Say what you like, this topic is one on which I will not budge. I lost all my great-grandparents and my grandfather to lung cancer from smoking, and I happen to live in (and go to college in) cities where there are a lot of smokers, and second-hand smoke is just vile. I can't really protest if they're outside, less so on a cloudy day, but when they hang around in doorways (just outside) and the smoke drifts everywhere, it's just horrible.

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.

Ooooh, un-American. Well, fuck you. Firstly, I'm English, secondly, un-American is just a bullshit term used to describe anything you don't like.

 

[LockHeart]

That is actually a perfectly legitimate argument in countries were healthcare is publicly funded. Why should I be paying for the damage someone brought upon themselves of their own free will? (Note; self-harm due to suicidal depression is a symptom of a prior illness, not an illness in itself. Consequently, you can justify public funding for treatment for the condition).

The common argument the pro-smokers cite is that there is so much tax on cigarettes and tobacco products that the medical treatment can be paid for by the volume of tax revenue. However, in Australia, an investigation was performed over the last two years and it found that this is not the case. In fact, the costs due to smoking-related illness are roughly TWENTY times the tax accrued from cigarette purchases! Given that Australia has one of the highest taxation rates in the Western world, I can only assume it would be worse in other countries.

Erm, maybe because they're also being forced into paying for public healthcare? Also, if they're paying their own private premiums then it really isn't anyone else's business.

You can't force someone to pay into a system and then deny them coverage.

Sorry if my assumptions about Austalian public healthcare are incorrect, I'm basing my issues on the British NHS model.

 

[The Bandit]

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

Wait... if they're committing suicide, don't they generally want to be left to die?

It's generally accepted that suicidal people are mentally ill (or batshit insane, if you want to be more specific). You wouldn't let a batshit insane person eat their own poop, would you? They're batshit insane. They don't know what they're doing. Now substitute eating poo for suicide and it's the same deal.

And, no. I don't want to see anyone quoting me about suicidal people being mentally stable. I don't care. That's how doctors/psychiatrists/The Man sees them so that's how they're going to be treated, whether they're perfectly healthy or not.

 

[ZeroMachine]

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?

This is the wording I was trying to find! I completely agree. In a place that can't accomodate both by having seperate areas seperated by a wall, is it really that hard to step outside?

 

[Felated Show Pony]

Smokers have every right to smoke, so long as they don't harm those who dislike smoke with second-hand smoke.

Seriously, the anti-smoking crusade has gone way too far, though.

 

[DarkRyter]

I can't really decide my opinion on this.

I need to think it over a bit.

 

[Sethzard]

They get the same, but they have to quit.

 

[The Bandit]

Say what you like, this topic is one on which I will not budge. I lost all my great-grandparents and my grandfather to lung cancer from smoking, and I happen to live in (and go to college in) cities where there are a lot of smokers, and second-hand smoke is just vile. I can't really protest if they're outside, less so on a cloudy day, but when they hang around in doorways (just outside) and the smoke drifts everywhere, it's just horrible.

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.

Ooooh, un-American. Well, fuck you. Firstly, I'm English, secondly, un-American is just a bullshit term used to describe anything you don't like.

Actually, it pretty much means "anything that forces someone sacrifice certain liberties." Which is where this whole forcing smokers to do shit they don't wanna do falls in.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

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.

One of the "made-up" conditions is called hypothyroidism, it's a hormonal disorder.

Yeah, of course. And lo and behold, it's only us westerners who have it.

 

[Littaly]

Yes they should be treated the same, but the doctor should be allowed to faceplam at their lung cancer.

 

[johnman]

What if someone crashed a car becuase they were not paying attention to the road, they dont desevere medical attention as they bought it upon themselves. That kid who falls out a tree and break his arm, screw him he can learn the hard way.
That argument holds no weight.

 

[cobra_ky]

This is why i support taxes on tobacco products. Smokers should pay for adding to our health care costs, but if anything we want them to cut back on the smoking, not medical treatment.

 

[The Bandit]

What if someone crashed a car becuase they were not paying attention to the road, they dont desevere medical attention as they bought it upon themselves. That kid who falls out a tree and break his arm, screw him he can learn the hard way.
That argument holds no weight.

I thought you were serious for the first sentence. I really had no counter-argument. I was too stunned for words.

 

[DrDeath3191]

If I put a gun to my foot and pull the trigger, do you say 'Oh, that poor guy!' or do you say 'What a fucking moron!'? My guess is the latter. Smokers are knowingly harming themselves. I believe that they should be covered for things not concerning the side-affects of smoking. For the side-affects, no. It's money that you guys are spending that could be spent on someone who had an accident or someone else who's willing to help themselves a little.

 

[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.

SNIP

Did you even read my post, or is your anti-smoker rage just making you understand what you want to understand? I said it should be up to the patrons to decide if they want people to smoke in their establishment. I didn't say you have to avoid bars altogether, just the one's where smoking is allowed.

And you can spit on me if you want, but if you think it's just going to end there, you've got another thing coming.

The rage is from you telling me to "accept it" that "bars were created to drink and smoke...just go away" implied that I'm not allowed in pubs because I disagree with you, if I misinterpreted that I apologize, if not.. well... I'm going to try to be civil.

Again, I do agree that folks who own bars should be allowed to decide whether or not their establishment is smoking or non smoking, or has a seperate area for each.

Lastly, were I a violent person I would start fights with folks who smoked within 5 feet of me, it's gross, it makes my clothes and hair stink and is generally disgusting, so it's the same damn thing as far as I'm concerned and if its legal for you to do that to me, then well, it should be legal for me to do the same to you in my own way and since you don't find the effects of smoking unpleasant, then there needs to be something else.

 

[Skeleon]

Yeah, of course. And lo and behold, it's only us westerners who have it.

No?! Are you being sarcastic?

Dude, it's real. It can have various causes, one of them being auto-antibodies (antibodies that attack your own tissues; Lupus would be a more generalized example) destroying the thyroxine-producing cells. Others are about receptor-blockage or damage to your hypophysis.