Poll: Should smoking be made illegal?

[Luke Cartner]

given that smoking impacts the health of others in a negative way, I feel it is not covered by the normal personal responsibility caveats.

That is when you drink alcohol you are risking your own health, when you smoke you are risking your health, the health of those in your immediate environment and the health of those who will be in your immediate environment.

I am fine with a smoker shortening their own lives (except here in Australia they put a strain on the public health system); I despise that they are permitted to shorten the lives of those around them.

I guess if it was possible to ensure no one smoked anywhere a non smoker would visit (ever), the smoke didn't travel/blow to a location a non smoker would visit (ever) and cigarettes were taxed to the point where the tax income counter balanced the social and health costs I would be ok with smoking not being made completely illegal...

 

[The Ghost]

I as a libertarian agree with you on the fact people should be allowed to kill themselves slowly. However smoking isn't that simple. If smoking only affected the smoker I wouldn't give a damn if someone wanted to do it. However its because of second hand smoke that I believe a person should not be allowed to enjoy a cigarette. Sorry smokers.

 

[SovietSecrets]

No. If smoking is banned then drinking has to be banned as well.

Drinking doesn't harm your health unless you overdo it. Smoking harms you regardless of amount smoked.

No. If smoking is banned then drinking has to be banned as well.

I don't care what people do if it doesn't harm me or others. Smoking does inherently, drinking doesn't.

Oh right I forgot, because just because drinking doesn't harm you right away(lie), its a lot worse than smoking. Keep on drinking then and end up in the same boat with cancer as a smoker. Or keep on drinking and screw up and go drive. Like smoking over time will cause issues, so will drinking.

smoking = an ABSOLUTE RISK as smoking will cause cancer.

drinking = a potential risk dependent on personal judgment.

nice way generalizing everyone to be an idiot who will do stupid shit. that is the same argument against illegal drugs like pot saying "everyone who smokes pot will become gang bangers and shoot people". nice fucking generalizations there. care to do pot smokers too? what about heroine users? or cocaine users? alcohol gives cancer? talk about bull shit.

Are you a fucking idiot? Smoking is also based on personal judgement. Good job saying that everyone who smokes won't stop and will continue smoking for the rest of their lives. Nicely done there Detective Dipshit. Both are potential risks I hope you realize. If I were to smoke and drink for the rest of my life and anyone else as well, we would all end up with lung and liver cancer. Now before you cry to me about how wrong I am be sure to read the bottom of the post.

No. If smoking is banned then drinking has to be banned as well.

EDIT: Everyone who is quoting me are you all idiots or something? The bottom of this? Heres the bottom, drinking causes just as much problems as smoking. Ever hear of drunk driving, bar fights, abuse due to alcohol, poor judgement under the influence, or alcohol poisoning? Or do all of these just fly past your heads? You don't cancer right away from smoking, you get it later on. ITS THE SAME WITH DRINKING. IF SMOKING GETS BANNED THEN DRINKING SHOULD AS WELL. Fucking hell, think people think

Just to make sure everyone sees it before quoting me again.

Tobacco was the leading cause of death in 2000: 435,000
Alcohol was the third: 85,000

Congrats lets go back 10 years. Death is still death. People die from both, so just because one group dies more then another that means the other shouldn't be banned as well?

People also die from caffiene and prescription medications, so let's just ban those as well. And since people die from diabetes and lack of exercise, lets also get rid of all food that can possibly be fattening, and all food with any sugar added to it.

See now you are thinking how I was when I made this post. Do you understand? If one causes the death then the other abused substance should be banned as well. I just only extended it to alcohol because I would hope people would understand what you just came up with. Now read the bottom of this post as well please. You are the person who gets it.

No. If smoking is banned then drinking has to be banned as well.

EDIT: Everyone who is quoting me are you all idiots or something? The bottom of this? Heres the bottom, drinking causes just as much problems as smoking. Ever hear of drunk driving, bar fights, abuse due to alcohol, poor judgement under the influence, or alcohol poisoning? Or do all of these just fly past your heads? You don't cancer right away from smoking, you get it later on. ITS THE SAME WITH DRINKING. IF SMOKING GETS BANNED THEN DRINKING SHOULD AS WELL. Fucking hell, think people think

Just to make sure everyone sees it before quoting me again.

Lol the people quoting you are morons. You're actually slightly wrong in that the societal harm is significantly higher with alcohol than with cigarettes, not that those idiots will understand. Here's a study conducted by the ACMD (in the UK) before its head (David Nutt) had the audacity to put science ahead of toeing the Government's line, get fired, and signify the end of the ACMD as a trustworthy source of scientific enquiry and its rebirth as a really expensive rubber stamp for government policy: [a href=http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf]http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf[/a]. Skip to the graph on page ten if you can't be bothered to read the whole thing.

Thank you, I think I finally understand the problem with all the idiots who are quoting me.


My Post

I am not saying that drinking is worse then smoking. As the second person I quoted figured it out, I was saying if one harmful thing should be banned, then the others should be too as well. I was just using alcohol as an example of that because it was the next leading cause of death due to abuse that I know of. I just didn't extend that to all things. Now can you morons finally understand? Its just me saying if one harmful thing should be banned, then the rest should too. Thank you last two people who understand somewhat at what I was getting at.

nice argument, "everyone around cant recognize my genius"? did you come up with that all by yourself? you cite no research, and cite no damn evidence at all except "my genius" which isn't genius its redundant, failed logic.

What genius? What research do I need to cite? For what even? I made no claims. I simply said if one thing is banned because its bad for health and kills then everything should be banned for that same reason. I just used alcohol as an example and then every person (you included) jumped on my ass without even thinking about it. I assumed people would understand basic reasoning of if one thing is banned then the next thing should be banned and so on and so forth. I had to spoon feed it to you to finally get it, which you do now. Don't be mad because you couldn't figure out something so simple.

oh so we are idiots when you fly around your opinions without properly explaining them? i see how you have to constantly editing your posts to better explain things. don't blame other people when you cannot even explain your stance on the issues. so who is the idiot? the ones who get the wrong message from a badly worded opinion or the person who cant speak English well enough to explain what he is saying in the first place? then says we are the "idiots" and cant "understand your genius"? get a damn grip hypocrite. even the escapist's rules say "you have unlimited time to make a post, there is no excuse for badly worded posts". next time fully explain your stance otherwise people will get offended and the moderators will come down on you especially if you start insulting everyone in the damn thread.

I will gladly insult everyone this damn thread. Why were others able to figure it out? Oh let me answer that for you, they took the time to think about what I said and answered exactly how I wanted them to. Hell my friends could figure it out without reading the edits. Are you seriously gonna sit there and tell me my sentence was so beyond understanding that if you took a few minutes to think about the concept and apply it that you wouldn't get the same conclusion? You have a mind, fucking use it before you get high and mighty with you. I had to spoon feed it to your brain dead head in order for you to understand at as you are no longer arguing with me about it.

 

[lettucethesallad]

I have a friend who's a radical straight edge kid. We had a discussion on facebook the other day on smoking, and the fact that more people in our community have started smoking. My friend is of the opinion that smoking should be made illegal and classed as a drug, and that the state should step in to essentially protect people from themselves.

Me being a libertarian, I argued that people, knowing the dangers of smoking, should choose for themselves if they want to do it or not. I was immediately stormed by an angry mob of facebookers who showed their dislike with indignified comments.

Eager to get to the bottom of this, I thought I'd ask you guys.

Tl;dr: Should smoking be made illegal?

Who knew this would get close to 700 replies (so far) ?

I know, I'm a little overwhelmed Thanks guys!

 

[Julianking93]

No. It's been made fairly obvious that making things illegal doesn't do jack to keep people from doing it.

If anything, make more things legal and stop banning everything you think is bad because you don't like it.

 

[lettucethesallad]

1:'We had a discussion on facebook' - i loled

2: you are 12 and what is this

You smell of 4chan, my friend. I like it.

The cancer killed /b/ boys, your old memes are not exactly cool and edgy anymore.

/b/ was never good so how can it be killed but shitty memes since all memes are shitty?

I may be asking much for someone from 4chan, but how about speaking in full sentences?

 

[krimson_dropz]

No. If smoking is banned then drinking has to be banned as well.

EDIT: Everyone who is quoting me are you all idiots or something? The bottom of this? Heres the bottom, drinking causes just as much problems as smoking. Ever hear of drunk driving, bar fights, abuse due to alcohol, poor judgement under the influence, or alcohol poisoning? Or do all of these just fly past your heads? You don't cancer right away from smoking, you get it later on. ITS THE SAME WITH DRINKING. IF SMOKING GETS BANNED THEN DRINKING SHOULD AS WELL. Fucking hell, think people think

Just to make sure everyone sees it before quoting me again.

EDIT 2: I am not saying that drinking is worse then smoking. As the second person I quoted figured it out, I was saying if one harmful thing should be banned, then the others should be too as well. I was just using alcohol as an example of that because it was the next leading cause of death due to abuse that I know of. I just didn't extend that to all things. Now can you morons finally understand? Its just me saying if one harmful thing should be banned, then the rest should too. Thank you last two people who understand somewhat at what I was getting at.

Now is everyone ok? We all good? Your asses don't hurt anymore?

not to mention that if you do drink too much alchohol can kill you if you stop drinking.

 

[madman6656]

if u realy wont to put aban on smokin then i hope ur all ready for a massive tax raise to cover the loss of the tax on cigs. prises for evrything will go up an even ur own taxes will have to go up the ammont of money the goverments make on smokin is unberlivable.
an yes i no i spelt sum of that wrong!

 

[SovietSecrets]

No. If smoking is banned then drinking has to be banned as well.

Drinking doesn't harm your health unless you overdo it. Smoking harms you regardless of amount smoked.

No. If smoking is banned then drinking has to be banned as well.

I don't care what people do if it doesn't harm me or others. Smoking does inherently, drinking doesn't.

Oh right I forgot, because just because drinking doesn't harm you right away(lie), its a lot worse than smoking. Keep on drinking then and end up in the same boat with cancer as a smoker. Or keep on drinking and screw up and go drive. Like smoking over time will cause issues, so will drinking.

smoking = an ABSOLUTE RISK as smoking will cause cancer.

drinking = a potential risk dependent on personal judgment.

nice way generalizing everyone to be an idiot who will do stupid shit. that is the same argument against illegal drugs like pot saying "everyone who smokes pot will become gang bangers and shoot people". nice fucking generalizations there. care to do pot smokers too? what about heroine users? or cocaine users? alcohol gives cancer? talk about bull shit.

Are you a fucking idiot? Smoking is also based on personal judgement. Good job saying that everyone who smokes won't stop and will continue smoking for the rest of their lives. Nicely done there Detective Dipshit. Both are potential risks I hope you realize. If I were to smoke and drink for the rest of my life and anyone else as well, we would all end up with lung and liver cancer. Now before you cry to me about how wrong I am be sure to read the bottom of the post.

No. If smoking is banned then drinking has to be banned as well.

EDIT: Everyone who is quoting me are you all idiots or something? The bottom of this? Heres the bottom, drinking causes just as much problems as smoking. Ever hear of drunk driving, bar fights, abuse due to alcohol, poor judgement under the influence, or alcohol poisoning? Or do all of these just fly past your heads? You don't cancer right away from smoking, you get it later on. ITS THE SAME WITH DRINKING. IF SMOKING GETS BANNED THEN DRINKING SHOULD AS WELL. Fucking hell, think people think

Just to make sure everyone sees it before quoting me again.

Tobacco was the leading cause of death in 2000: 435,000
Alcohol was the third: 85,000

Congrats lets go back 10 years. Death is still death. People die from both, so just because one group dies more then another that means the other shouldn't be banned as well?

People also die from caffiene and prescription medications, so let's just ban those as well. And since people die from diabetes and lack of exercise, lets also get rid of all food that can possibly be fattening, and all food with any sugar added to it.

See now you are thinking how I was when I made this post. Do you understand? If one causes the death then the other abused substance should be banned as well. I just only extended it to alcohol because I would hope people would understand what you just came up with. Now read the bottom of this post as well please. You are the person who gets it.

No. If smoking is banned then drinking has to be banned as well.

EDIT: Everyone who is quoting me are you all idiots or something? The bottom of this? Heres the bottom, drinking causes just as much problems as smoking. Ever hear of drunk driving, bar fights, abuse due to alcohol, poor judgement under the influence, or alcohol poisoning? Or do all of these just fly past your heads? You don't cancer right away from smoking, you get it later on. ITS THE SAME WITH DRINKING. IF SMOKING GETS BANNED THEN DRINKING SHOULD AS WELL. Fucking hell, think people think

Just to make sure everyone sees it before quoting me again.

Lol the people quoting you are morons. You're actually slightly wrong in that the societal harm is significantly higher with alcohol than with cigarettes, not that those idiots will understand. Here's a study conducted by the ACMD (in the UK) before its head (David Nutt) had the audacity to put science ahead of toeing the Government's line, get fired, and signify the end of the ACMD as a trustworthy source of scientific enquiry and its rebirth as a really expensive rubber stamp for government policy: [a href=http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf]http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf[/a]. Skip to the graph on page ten if you can't be bothered to read the whole thing.

Thank you, I think I finally understand the problem with all the idiots who are quoting me.


My Post

I am not saying that drinking is worse then smoking. As the second person I quoted figured it out, I was saying if one harmful thing should be banned, then the others should be too as well. I was just using alcohol as an example of that because it was the next leading cause of death due to abuse that I know of. I just didn't extend that to all things. Now can you morons finally understand? Its just me saying if one harmful thing should be banned, then the rest should too. Thank you last two people who understand somewhat at what I was getting at.

nice argument, "everyone around cant recognize my genius"? did you come up with that all by yourself? you cite no research, and cite no damn evidence at all except "my genius" which isn't genius its redundant, failed logic.

What genius? What research do I need to cite? For what even? I made no claims. I simply said if one thing is banned because its bad for health and kills then everything should be banned for that same reason. I just used alcohol as an example and then every person (you included) jumped on my ass without even thinking about it. I assumed people would understand basic reasoning of if one thing is banned then the next thing should be banned and so on and so forth. I had to spoon feed it to you to finally get it, which you do now. Don't be mad because you couldn't figure out something so simple.

oh so we are idiots when you fly around your opinions without properly explaining them? i see how you have to constantly editing your posts to better explain things. don't blame other people when you cannot even explain your stance on the issues. so who is the idiot? the ones who get the wrong message from a badly worded opinion or the person who cant speak English well enough to explain what he is saying in the first place? then says we are the "idiots" and cant "understand your genius"? get a damn grip hypocrite. even the escapist's rules say "you have unlimited time to make a post, there is no excuse for badly worded posts". next time fully explain your stance otherwise people will get offended and the moderators will come down on you especially if you start insulting everyone in the damn thread.

I will gladly insult everyone this damn thread. Why were others able to figure it out? Oh let me answer that for you, they took the time to think about what I said and answered exactly how I wanted them to. Hell my friends could figure it out without reading the edits. Are you seriously gonna sit there and tell me my sentence was so beyond understanding that if you took a few minutes to think about the concept and apply it that you wouldn't get the same conclusion? You have a mind, fucking use it before you get high and mighty with you. I had to spoon feed it to your brain dead head in order for you to understand at as you are no longer arguing with me about it.

oh? so why did half the fucking escapist jump at you then? hell the escapist is called the smartest place on the damn internet for a reason. just because you can't speak proper English doesn't mean you can insult people. also what friends? for all we know you can be lying and making up shit.

Half the fucking Escapist did exactly what you did, they posted without fully thinking. The smartest place on the internet? Have you seen the posts and topics here? Or do you just make up bullshit to try and disprove me? This is far from the smartest place on the net. Friends, you know people who I know. Yet you don't so I will agree its null. Either way people understood it when they took the time to THINK BEFORE THEY POSTED. Something no one else did. Even you have to agree that its possible to come to the same conclusion if you think about my words. Someone else did. I will say it again do not get pissy at me because you couldn't use rational thinking.

 

[uchi mata]

teens would willingly get caught just to stick it to they're parents after some piss fit. You know that's the truth.

 

[SovietSecrets]

No. If smoking is banned then drinking has to be banned as well.

Drinking doesn't harm your health unless you overdo it. Smoking harms you regardless of amount smoked.

No. If smoking is banned then drinking has to be banned as well.

I don't care what people do if it doesn't harm me or others. Smoking does inherently, drinking doesn't.

Oh right I forgot, because just because drinking doesn't harm you right away(lie), its a lot worse than smoking. Keep on drinking then and end up in the same boat with cancer as a smoker. Or keep on drinking and screw up and go drive. Like smoking over time will cause issues, so will drinking.

smoking = an ABSOLUTE RISK as smoking will cause cancer.

drinking = a potential risk dependent on personal judgment.

nice way generalizing everyone to be an idiot who will do stupid shit. that is the same argument against illegal drugs like pot saying "everyone who smokes pot will become gang bangers and shoot people". nice fucking generalizations there. care to do pot smokers too? what about heroine users? or cocaine users? alcohol gives cancer? talk about bull shit.

Are you a fucking idiot? Smoking is also based on personal judgement. Good job saying that everyone who smokes won't stop and will continue smoking for the rest of their lives. Nicely done there Detective Dipshit. Both are potential risks I hope you realize. If I were to smoke and drink for the rest of my life and anyone else as well, we would all end up with lung and liver cancer. Now before you cry to me about how wrong I am be sure to read the bottom of the post.

No. If smoking is banned then drinking has to be banned as well.

EDIT: Everyone who is quoting me are you all idiots or something? The bottom of this? Heres the bottom, drinking causes just as much problems as smoking. Ever hear of drunk driving, bar fights, abuse due to alcohol, poor judgement under the influence, or alcohol poisoning? Or do all of these just fly past your heads? You don't cancer right away from smoking, you get it later on. ITS THE SAME WITH DRINKING. IF SMOKING GETS BANNED THEN DRINKING SHOULD AS WELL. Fucking hell, think people think

Just to make sure everyone sees it before quoting me again.

Tobacco was the leading cause of death in 2000: 435,000
Alcohol was the third: 85,000

Congrats lets go back 10 years. Death is still death. People die from both, so just because one group dies more then another that means the other shouldn't be banned as well?

People also die from caffiene and prescription medications, so let's just ban those as well. And since people die from diabetes and lack of exercise, lets also get rid of all food that can possibly be fattening, and all food with any sugar added to it.

See now you are thinking how I was when I made this post. Do you understand? If one causes the death then the other abused substance should be banned as well. I just only extended it to alcohol because I would hope people would understand what you just came up with. Now read the bottom of this post as well please. You are the person who gets it.

No. If smoking is banned then drinking has to be banned as well.

EDIT: Everyone who is quoting me are you all idiots or something? The bottom of this? Heres the bottom, drinking causes just as much problems as smoking. Ever hear of drunk driving, bar fights, abuse due to alcohol, poor judgement under the influence, or alcohol poisoning? Or do all of these just fly past your heads? You don't cancer right away from smoking, you get it later on. ITS THE SAME WITH DRINKING. IF SMOKING GETS BANNED THEN DRINKING SHOULD AS WELL. Fucking hell, think people think

Just to make sure everyone sees it before quoting me again.

Lol the people quoting you are morons. You're actually slightly wrong in that the societal harm is significantly higher with alcohol than with cigarettes, not that those idiots will understand. Here's a study conducted by the ACMD (in the UK) before its head (David Nutt) had the audacity to put science ahead of toeing the Government's line, get fired, and signify the end of the ACMD as a trustworthy source of scientific enquiry and its rebirth as a really expensive rubber stamp for government policy: [a href=http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf]http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf[/a]. Skip to the graph on page ten if you can't be bothered to read the whole thing.

Thank you, I think I finally understand the problem with all the idiots who are quoting me.


My Post

I am not saying that drinking is worse then smoking. As the second person I quoted figured it out, I was saying if one harmful thing should be banned, then the others should be too as well. I was just using alcohol as an example of that because it was the next leading cause of death due to abuse that I know of. I just didn't extend that to all things. Now can you morons finally understand? Its just me saying if one harmful thing should be banned, then the rest should too. Thank you last two people who understand somewhat at what I was getting at.

nice argument, "everyone around cant recognize my genius"? did you come up with that all by yourself? you cite no research, and cite no damn evidence at all except "my genius" which isn't genius its redundant, failed logic.

What genius? What research do I need to cite? For what even? I made no claims. I simply said if one thing is banned because its bad for health and kills then everything should be banned for that same reason. I just used alcohol as an example and then every person (you included) jumped on my ass without even thinking about it. I assumed people would understand basic reasoning of if one thing is banned then the next thing should be banned and so on and so forth. I had to spoon feed it to you to finally get it, which you do now. Don't be mad because you couldn't figure out something so simple.

oh so we are idiots when you fly around your opinions without properly explaining them? i see how you have to constantly editing your posts to better explain things. don't blame other people when you cannot even explain your stance on the issues. so who is the idiot? the ones who get the wrong message from a badly worded opinion or the person who cant speak English well enough to explain what he is saying in the first place? then says we are the "idiots" and cant "understand your genius"? get a damn grip hypocrite. even the escapist's rules say "you have unlimited time to make a post, there is no excuse for badly worded posts". next time fully explain your stance otherwise people will get offended and the moderators will come down on you especially if you start insulting everyone in the damn thread.

I will gladly insult everyone this damn thread. Why were others able to figure it out? Oh let me answer that for you, they took the time to think about what I said and answered exactly how I wanted them to. Hell my friends could figure it out without reading the edits. Are you seriously gonna sit there and tell me my sentence was so beyond understanding that if you took a few minutes to think about the concept and apply it that you wouldn't get the same conclusion? You have a mind, fucking use it before you get high and mighty with you. I had to spoon feed it to your brain dead head in order for you to understand at as you are no longer arguing with me about it.

oh? so why did half the fucking escapist jump at you then? hell the escapist is called the smartest place on the damn internet for a reason. just because you can't speak proper English doesn't mean you can insult people. also what friends? for all we know you can be lying and making up shit.

Half the fucking Escapist did exactly what you did, they posted without fully thinking. The smartest place on the internet? Have you seen the posts and topics here? Or do you just make up bullshit to try and disprove me? This is far from the smartest place on the net. Friends, you know people who I know. Yet you don't so I will agree its null. Either way people understood it when they took the time to THINK BEFORE THEY POSTED. Something no one else did. Even you have to agree that its possible to come to the same conclusion if you think about my words. Someone else did. I will say it again do not get pissy at me because you couldn't use rational thinking.

'

so you are gonna call 1/2 the escapists idiots? and insult everyone? when we use the report button and have dedicated mods? have fun with your mod wrath pal. you're gonna need it, and you call us idiots? wow.

Yeah I will because I don't need to turn to Mods and cry to them when I know I am wrong. I accept it gracefully and know that I was proven incorrect. I also think before I speak. Thank you for threatening and calling me an idiot because I stood up for my words and arguments. World needs more people who cry like you. Fin.

 

[Sikachu]

you do bring up a good point. but there is another option rather then turning off the music or smoking in a crowd. for the music the person could be asked to turn it down, just enough so that person can hear but not loud enough to bother everyone else. as for the smoking, the smoker could be asked to turn around so his/her back is to the non-smokers (inside) or stand down-wind (outside). i do aggree that you have just as much of a right to smoke as i do not to smoke, but the conflict arises when one violates the others' rights.

are you saying that you do not need cigarettes and only like the taste? if so good for you. but i would like to ask if you feel you need them.

Yeah, of course I agree that the actual right thing to do in these situations is for everyone to be reasonable and minimise annoyance. If you and I were in a bus shelter and I wanted to smoke the right thing for me to do is always to stand where least smoke will go near you, but I think both sides are a bit touchy because holier than thou non-smokers have become so aggressive in the last couple of years and smokers have been hounded out of being able to smoke in perfectly reasonable places (like ANYWHERE on an open train platform?!) and so often we're quick to over-react (because we are being persecuted).

Regarding my smoking, I wouldn't say I never need one in the same way I wouldn't say I never need a drink (incidentally, I drink less frequently than I smoke). Sometimes when I'm really pissed off or stressed out nothing will hit the spot like a ciggie, but those moments are relatively few and far between.

 

[Sikachu]

Guess what? Smokers aren't mind readers. Until the government start issuing out stickers to those they deem weak (shouldn't be too long after tobacco gets banned), there is no possible way we could know about your issues.

Must suck to have weak lungs, i have sympathy, but at the end of the day it's your job to take care of yourself. Sauntering through the street under the assumption that all smokers should give you a wide berth because they should know about your "condition" is silly.

Oh, I keep out of their way, but then a bunch of them get offended, which leads to all kinds of incredibly stupid problems.

I must apologise, I read the words you wrote, rather than skimming along the surface making stuff up - I guess that's reading too deeply. Allow me to walk you through the hysteria point.

You wrote:
"breathing in smoke puts me in hospital"

Then some other random sentence. Then you wrote:
"So if you smoke near me, you kill me."

This kind of high-speed exaggeration is exactly the sort of behaviour exhibited usually described as 'hysterical'.

Finally, 'in hospital' is not the same as 'dead'. That's the kind of hysteria I was askingnn you to dial down.

Now dealing with your new substantive points:
1. Carcinogens cause cancer, so unless each time you take this little hospital trip of yours they fix you up with a bit of chemo or radiotherapy, it's pretty unlikely that's relevent.
2. There's this amazing thing called medical science where they train doctors, and some of them practice medicine, and some of them do research on what causes disease and how to fight it. Rather than testing on yourself, this 'medical science' can often provide answers for you. When you are so severely allergic to something that either you must immediately go to hospital or you immediately die (depending on your particular level of hysteria at that time) these doctors usually make a pretty solid effort to work out what it is that causes the reaction. 4000 different chemical in cigarette smoke, and not a single one of them unique to cigarette smoke... you must live in fear of going near anything else that combusts. You know how many chemicals come out of a car exhaust? Probably not, that won't have been in the PSA you've been pulling your entire 'argument' out of.

Well what am I supposed to say? I get cigarette smoke, my lungs fill with mucous. End of.

I find it interesting how you complain about my "hysteria" making it hard to take me seriously, but then you take everything I say that potentially has a seam (in your mind) and attack it as hard as you can. I am also a person with an opinion that's just as valid as yours, and I'm forced to stop respecting anything you say because of your reactions.

You're supposed to have reacted like a normal human being and thought 'hmmmmm if I can be hospitalised/die from the tiniest bit of cigarette smoke, I wonder if there's anything else I should probably avoid?' and ask your doctor. None of the chemicals in cigarette smoke are unique to cigarette smoke, that's why I wanted to know what it was that you were claiming to be susceptible to. The fact that you are so blase about it being just cigarette smoke that causes this makes it look like you're lying. Your opinion isn't just as valid as mine because my opinion is the product of an enquiring mind, the sort of mind that when it gets threatened with death is compelled to find out a little more about how to avoid this.

But let us leave all that aside and assume that you will magically die if a particle of cigarette smoke reaches your lungs, why does that mean that the hundreds of millions of smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke on the street? What if (for argument's sake) I would instantly die if I saw an orange t-shirt? Would that be an argument for banning the public wearing of orange t-shirts, or an argument for me moving somewhere isolated so I can leave all the normal people to get on with their lives?

So first I'm hysterical, then I'm blase?

Not that it even means anything. I know tons of people who are blase about this sort of thing. It doesn't effect credence.

And lastly, I haven't gone to a doctor over it because it only flared up recently. I'm surrounded by crack smokers, not-remotely-green cars, and the like, but only cigarettes do it. Maybe I'm allergic to nicotine.

No, you were blasé when you had your mysterious 'death/hospital-trip' experience and weren't bothered to find out what it was that caused by and if there were other types of smoke you should be careful of. Then you were hysterical when you escalated the consequences of cigarette smoke being blown in your face from 'hospital trip' to 'death' in three sentences. This may not "effect credence" but it certainly does affect credibility as it is exceptionally unlikely that someone would behave the way you have described.

 

[Sikachu]

No, but we still need to stop rampant smoking among certain people. Even I like the prospect of being able to have a cigarette every once in a while, but it's an incredibly addictive substance/activity that's suited in some cultural norms which is creating a large burden to our society. Continue to get smoking away from being "the cool thing" and get more help (not more Nicorette products) for people that have problems with it. I have a similar view on Marijuana. People should have the choice, and it could be great for some people, but not in the way we see it today.

What's this burden that smoking is creating? Don't take this question as aggressive, I'm genuinely curious.

High disease rates meaning high costs to treat people who are statistically far more likely to get diseases such as cancer, which is also a big social issue as well as a matter of simple economics (isn't it great to have your smoking kids die before their parents?)

Also are the costs of general attractiveness. To a lot of people that don't smoke, just the odour that comes from a single person smoking is kind of offsetting which makes the public area a bit less attractive.

The matter of simple economics is that tobacco is a massive net gain for society. Ignoring the size of the industry in production and selling, and just looking at the people who get higher disease rates from smoking, the tax on cigarettes is sufficiently high that the average smoker's tax contribution just through buying cigarettes funds their entire healthcare (smoking and non-smoking related diseases) + the average cost of a non-smoker's healthcare. Add in factors like the rate of mortality amongst smokers only really being significantly different towards the end of the working life (meaning that smokers tend to work all their lives and then die either just before or just after retirement) and you're seeing an even greater contribution.

That you don't like to see it in a public space seems awfully unaccepting - there are massive groups of people in the world who think that seeing any part of a woman not covered up in a public place make that area a lot less attractive, and I'm sure you'd agree they'd be wrong to push their views on society.

 

[LostAlone]

...it's gotta be hard being libertarian in the UK. One of these days, Parliament's going to figure out that, thanks to all the pollution, air itself is bad for you...and subsequently ban that. :/

It depends really... Socially, Britain can be hugely accepting. Within my clique everything's pretty free and easy. Don't step on each others toes, and no-one minds what we do to ourselves. Its pretty awesome tbh.

However, dealing with wider society can be a huge problem. Over here it often seems, there are smokers who don't care if you smoke or not, and there are non-smokers who make vast assumptions both about your intelligence and character if you smoke, and there's nothing in between.

People love to form into groups, and particularly they like their own group to feel superior. Since you're not allowed (publicly) to hate on racial minorities we've started drawing into moral groups instead. Non-smokers, non-drinkers, non-drug users. Those who define themselves that way are by implication saying how much purer/morally better they are than those who do indulge.

Basically its ok to get all tribal against smokers, so they do. But that's their prerogative I guess. I try to just ignore them.

 

[Sikachu]

It should be banned in public (including outside) because it is fucking disgusting.

Disgusting is subjective and if we're going to start banning things on that basis you better get used to not leaving your parents' house ever again, I somehow doubt your face would pass my 'not disgusting' test.

Aw, now that's just mean. There's a difference between something that's unpleasant and something that inhibits my ability to breathe.

Have a nice day.

I was being facetious. However, you're changing your point - first you were saying it should be banned because you think it is disgusting, now you're claiming that me smoking in a park inhibits your ability to breathe, metres away (a demonstrable falsehood). So which is it?

 

[Sikachu]

...but open public spaces? ALL pubs? Why can't we have some pubs that are inclusive and so pubs that are for the health-conscious only?

I wasn't thinking of a ban on outdoor places. I'm not sure about the other bit though. Maybe it should be required to have to sections, like in some restaurants? Or do you think that would be impractical?

Some comedian made a good joke about having smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants being akin to having peeing and non-peeing sections in a swimming pool, which I thought was pretty funny. Not sure if it is true, but I would think it should be possible to have smoking and non-smoking areas. If it was impractically expensive though I'd much rather have all-smoking places and all-non-smoking places so that we don't get the halfway house where places pretend to accommodate both but really everyone gets smoke. I'm glad you agree about outdoor areas