So let's talk about smoking...

[Joa_Belgium]

Smoking has no advantages whatsoever, so I probably won't smoke anyway in the future. I'm also not allowed because of medical reasons and I don't feel the need to do it.

If someone else wants to smoke, that's their choice. But preferably not in my vicinity, I don't want to act in passive smoking. And definitely not in my face. I once had an arrogant person who blew his smoke in my face. I felt like ramming his cigarette down his throat.

 

[Flying Dagger]

yes. it is right for the government to decide these things for you. not smoking in public settings isnt that big of a deal.
and i was legally allowed to smoke at 16, illegal at 17 and legal again at 18, and when i hit 18 they introduced a ban on smoking in public settings...
trust me, its less of a deal then you'd think.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

No Drinking won't be next.

With that obvious bullshit aside.

Ever hear of Prohibition?

Is Washington State just immune to this "Bars being punished by nonsmoking" story? All the Bar Owners I've met haven't had any issues with sales. I think it has something to do with people still liking to drink.

England has seen certain villages go dry for the first time since records began because the pubs simply cannot compete with cheap supermarket booze and the smoking ban.

Overall it is simple. If you could smoke without it getting into other people's lungs nobody would be on your ass. That's why drinking won't be next, prohibition aside, no amount of someone else drinking will get me drunk.

This is wrong. Smoke exists. If we were following your ideal, then car exhausts would be illegal. One smoke won't cause me to punch someone but one drink might. Drinking causes more car accidents, unwanted pregnancies, liver disease and other problems than almost any other drug.

But it isn't the sole problem and should never be treated as such.

Neither's smoking. In fact I don't believe smoking can be taken as the sole problem in anything it's been demonized for. Even your "entering lungs" argument is taken down when you realise that it's ANY cigarette (no matter the constituents) within a range of a building.

What they object to is the smell, and whiskey/caffeine breath can be as bad as that.

My roommates all did weed in college and it was the same issue. I asked them to take up a more socially friendly drug like Heroine (somewhat jokingly of course).

Then you're a stupid idiot. Why would you even joke about ruining someone's life?

I have absolutely nothing against any kind of drug.

I have, HUGE amounts of scorn towards certain drugs, like thalidomide, viagra, paracetemol, chlormasipan(?)

But I -NEVER- want to be forced into taking the crap myself.

Never go near a hospital then. Or get ill. Or have pain.

Because some people can be near radioactive waste and not contract cancer does not mean that radioactive waste does not cause cancer. It means those folks are less susceptible to the effects of radiation than other folks.

That's correlation, not causation. Most things can cause cancer, just at different strengths. Sometimes cancer can appear from nowhere, given that it's just a misinformed RNA that can produce it.

I have never met a doctor who questions whether or not smoking is terrible for you.

I've met a lot of doctors who smoke.

Now I'll explain ...

Really really badly.

Does Second Hand Smoke Help people? No? Does it do absolutely nothing to them? No? So what is the only other reasonable assumption to be had? It isn't good for them.

Please. Take a course on logic. That's so flawed it's unreal.
Do sunsets help people? Does it not affect people? Sunsets aren't good for you.
Do aspirins help you? Does it not affect you? Aspirins are never bad for you.

Seriously, take a good look on some of the issues raised by smokers, some of the issues raised since the smoking ban (massive closure of pubs, airplanes having more polluted air, nightclubs having to employ more air freshners, smokers suffering from minor apartheid, smokers paying over 80% tax on a legal product that they're treated as criminals for using in places where it's not illegal, huge amounts of money spent on anti-smoking campaigns that simply don't work) Does that help people? Does it do absoloutely nothing for them? So, the smoking ban isn't good for them.

Making rules restricting smoking in public places is like making laws requiring the vaccination of children. It's not there to tell you how to raise your children, it's there to protect other children from your unvaccinated child.

Shall I introduce you to some of my friends who had the mandatory measles/rubella jab? It might take some time to get the wheelchair across though.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

But I have been around hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people all with working assholes who didn't fart on or in range of me.

Clearly you have never been informed of the "silent but deadly" kind of passed gas. : )

Haven't you ever stood in an elevator, subway train or a bus with a bunch of people and suddenly a smell of rotten eggs and shit reach your nose?

If you have, you can be damn sure that the particular gas has been in contact with the area around your mouth as well.

To answer you question, yes I have had people exhale right in my face as I am walking by them. It most often happens in cities where smokers sit against a wall and exhale towards the walkway where people *gasp* walk.

yet you don't mind all the drives who chokes your air (especially in cities) with exhaust fumes that are WAY more toxic than a small whiff of tobacco smoke will ever be. Go figure! : )

I suppose my better example would be this.

I really love masturbating. In fact I'd say that I have a compulsion to do so. However I can't masturbate in public. So we have an action someone enjoys, a desire to do that action, and a situation in which it isn't appropriate.

People say it is a matter of decency or health. Well all anyone needs to do is wear gloves and a face mask and my masturbation tendencies should never get them ill.

No, go ahead. I might think you're a bit gross and indecent for masturbating on the street, but I see no reason to stop you from doing it. As long as you don't assault me, you can jerk off all you want. I won't care. In fact, there's no reason for me to care.

Likewise if it is a matter of decency then wouldn't smoking equally be limited?

No. Because the law shouldn't control how "decent" you are or act. If you want to be a in indecent dick, then go ahead. Indecency is subjective anyway. For instance, I consider it indecent when people sit on the bus and chatter really loud in their cellphones, but I don't consider myself of having a right to stop them. Likewise do I find it indecent when whiny non smokers starts to ***** and complain to people who smoke.

Hence, outlawing "indecent" behaviour is futile and pointless, since there is no real concenus of what is decent or indecent, only subjective opinions. It's not fair or equal to outlaw some indecent behaviour while allowing other indecent behaviour.

So if you feel the need to walk naked on the street and jerk off at the same time, then go ahead. I have the option to look the other way if I don't want to see it. Likewise you have the option of not visiting resturants and pubs that want to cater to smokers and want to permit them smoking indoors.

Just seems to me if something I like to do requires that you gear up like a football player that perhaps what I like doing might be better done in my home.

If you want to gear up like a football player whilst jerking off in public areas, then go ahead. Whatever floats your boat.

Because really...how hard is it to NOT smoke every second of every day? If it is that hard shouldn't we be examining just how addictive the stuff is? I have friends who do opium (or is it opiates...whatever) and various other substances and they have no problem not doing it in public.

Really... How hard it it to NOT seek out people who smoke and take deep breaths of second hand smoke? REALLY... How hard is it to just stick to areas that want to cater to non smokers?

The way I see it, neither your points nor mine can really trump eachother. We could try to live side by side instead, but many governments have put a stop to that and just arbitrarily gone ahead with banning all smoking even in privately owned resturants and pubs...

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Just a few notes.

Because some people can be near radioactive waste and not contract cancer does not mean that radioactive waste does not cause cancer. It means those folks are less susceptible to the effects of radiation than other folks.

Got any percentage on exactly how many people are susceptible to the effects of radiation in contrast with those who aren't?

That being said, have you compared those percentages with how many people are susceptible to all the ill effects of tobacco smoke with those who aren't?

I have never met a doctor who questions whether or not smoking is terrible for you.

Me neither. But have you EVER met a doctor who can positively GUARANTEE that ANY smoking (second hand or not, several times a day or a few times a week etc.) WILL KILL you and everyone else exposed to it?

Because if you do, then that doctor is nothing short of a liar.

Now I'll explain why I've never met a doctor that says that. The reason is pretty simple. Smoke + Lungs = Bad. It doesn't matter if it is tobacco smoke, weed smoke, wood smoke, battery acid smoke, it is all bad. Now it is differing levels of bad but it is always ALWAYS bad.

Yes. So is volcanic gases, exhaust fumes, swamp gas, fart gas etc. etc. The very stuff that we are all exposed to, to a certain extent: EVERY DAY!

But you know what? The human body has this quite fantastic method of processing toxic and harmful substances we get exposed to. It's called an immune system. Not only does your body contain anti bodies and bacteria that preys on harmful bacteria entering your system, but also several organs that process toxic substances that you might ingest through the food you eat or the air you breathe.

While this immune system can certainly get overworked if subjected to a massive overload of these harmful substances. (like giving an exhaust of a blow job and taking really deep breaths, or chainsmoking constantly for 50 years), and this can certainly result in your demise. Minute and occasional intakes of these harmful substances is something that your immune system should be able to handle without causing you any serious health problems.

In fact, if you cough while breathing in second hand smoke, that is a good sign. It shows that your body is working like it's supposed to. It is the regular smokers who have smoked for so long that they have been able to surpress the coughing reflex while inhaling tobacco smoke into their lungs.

In fact, many studies have showed that the very reason people contract allergies is because their immune system hasn't had the opportunity of fighting the very substances that are harmful to the human body. Mainly because most people live such clean lifestyles and aren't subjected to bad substances often enough during childhood. This makes the immune system dysfunctional and it confuses certain chemical compounds in peanuts, glute, lactose, sea food and what not to be harmful agents and this causes an allergic reaction.

So in a way, the harmful substances we are supposed to get subjected to can actually be of benefit to your health.

That's no reason to go out and subject yourself to harmful substances needlessly of course, but take it as an advice to stop thinking that a small whiff of tobacco smoke is going to be the end of the world for your part.

There is no reason to ever assume that any foreign agent in your lungs is a good thing. I'm obviously excluding the gases that are actually expected to be in the lungs and I hope you understand that.

Yes I understand that. However you're breathing in foreign agents into your lungs as we speak. Unless you're sitting in a plastic bubble with air that has been filtered countless times of course.

Did you know that normal breathing air actually contains a small amount of mercury? : )

And what's better is the fact that mercury is a substance which the immune system can't really expell at all. In fact, all metals tend to just gather within the body and they never come out. Shouldn't that be more concerning than the substances that the body can actually handle? ; )

Now does the fact that car exhaust isn't equally feared make it any better? Not at all. You raise a fantastic point. Cars shouldn't be running on fuel anymore. The technology behind hydrogen and electric vehicles is easily far enough along to make it feasible for anything smaller than a semi truck. We should immediately adopt this and everyone would be the better for it.

Oh yes, I quite agree. The combustion engine is a really obsolete design. I mean it's been around for more than 100 years now. Something new should be developed. But that's more from a technological standpoint I think so rather than from any health issues.

All smoking does not cause death or disease, however all smoking, no matter where the smoke is from, facilitates a higher likelihood for an earlier death or susceptibility to disease. Period. It isn't fire that kills most folks when a house is burning, it is the smoke.

Yes, but you're being unrealistic if you think you can eliminate all factors that can facilitate a higher risk of dying. You take a risk by going outdoors every day. You facilitate the risk of being run over by some maniac behind the wheel. You facilitate the risk of being involved in a terrorist bombing, or just some nutcase going berserk with a machine gun.

You facilitate the risk of getting sick from breathing too many exhaust fumes from cars and industry.

I could try to write the entire list of how we facilitate the risk of our own deaths simply by living, but im afraid I don't have the energy to write such a long list.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: We can't wrap the entire world in bubbleplastic just to make it completely safe for everyone. You will die some day. Like Bill Hicks said:

Non smokers die... Every day.

You don't really have a choice in the matter. Something will kill you eventually. And safeguarding yourself from ONE potential source that could kill you, by infringing on the personal rights of other people and individual businesses won't prevent you from dying due to another gazillion sources out there.

If we could just accept these facts and stop deluding ourselves by entertaining these eternal life fantasies, we JUST MIGHT have a shot at making our limited lifespans WORTH living. And I guarantee you that bans and restrictions on such trivial topics do not serve this purpose at all.

What's the point in having all this freedom and democracy and shit if you can't even smoke, do drugs or fuck a volontary prostitute if you suddenly feel the urge to do it?

I like your posts and such and I imagine you might have been making some of the points I just said and didn't notice. But overall I just find myself utterly confused when folks question whether or not smoke is ever good for you.

The feeling is mutual. You seem to be one of the few people here capable of having a reasonable debate and you're not deluded by too much political propaganda either like some others are (not menitoning any names). And im not trying to question that smoking is bad for you.

I'll go ahead and say it so no one will feel confused:

The person who goes under the name "Housebroken Lunatic" on the escapist's messageboards and possibly on other places as well, is very much aware of the fact that SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOU. And he would certainly not question that fact.

There, I've said it. : )

But my points about smoking and smoking bans and such are not invalidated by the fact that I know smoking to be bad for your health.

Basically to me the question is simple.

Does Second Hand Smoke Help people? No? Does it do absolutely nothing to them? No? So what is the only other reasonable assumption to be had? It isn't good for them.

I'm sure that logic is flawed and I imagine I'll be given a reason (I hope a valid one) why. But it tends to be how I look at things.

Does breathing underwater help folks? Nope.
Does breathing underwater do nothing to them? No.
So what is the only other reasonable assumption to be had? It isn't good for them.

My basic thought being that if it doesn't help you and it doesn't do nothing to you it seems to me that it must be bad for you.

Yes, and I guess that's how a lot of people tend to look at activities, products and other phenomena that they are not actively involved with themselves.

But if we want to have any hope of co-existing at all, we have to try and see an activity, particular product or phenomena from all angles and not just favour the one we hold ourselves. We also have to compare this reasoning with how our laws and ideals of fairness and equality usually treats similar matters and do our very best to stay away from all forms of hypocrisy and delusions.

Or I could just be spouting bullshit right now, I'll leave that for you to decide. : )

 

[DrunkWithPower]

Let me stick my nose in here real quick like. *lights cigarette* So the FDA has put a ban on flavored cigarettes because it's "The gateway to smoking for teens". Menthol cigarettes are not included but will be debated on. *stamps out cigarette, blows smoke in faces*

 

[Malkavian]

snip/

Because it smells like shit to other people who don't smoke, try thinking of them. I like cigars, but people who smoke when your trying to eat, it's just goddam annoying.

Yes, it smells like shit to many non-smokers, but really, if that's your only concern, then I want laws that dictate what clothes people can wear, whether they can fart in public, how often they must shower, etc.

"There is no scientific proof correlating second hand smoke with death" Buddy, think before you post. You should change that right now. Smoking is something you do in private, and not around people who don't want to breathe it in.

No, he shouldn't. Instead of you just shouting out he's wrong, you should produce some evidence of your claim.

You don't really have a choice in the matter. Something will kill you eventually. And safeguarding yourself from ONE potential source that could kill you, by infringing on the personal rights of other people and individual businesses won't prevent you from dying due to another gazillion sources out there.

I'm just gonna quote this, since it is my favourite part of your post. And then I want to say: that, sir, was one hell of a good post.

 

[Flying Dagger]

i like the smell of smoke, whilst i'm smoking. i don't mind if it hangs onto my clothes for a bit afterwards as well. (though this happens a lot less with roll ups)
but it's like bacon. i like the smell of it when i'm hungry, but if somewhere stank of it non-stop i wouldn't enjoy it at all.
so i think the ban on indoor smoking we have in the UK makes perfect sense. not because of health risks or whatever, but because it means pubs and such no longer stink.

 

[ojm62]

Personally, I feel that a non-smoker's right to not have their lungs filled with crap seriously outweighs a smokers right to fill their own lungs with crap. People can do what they wish with their own bodies, but nothing gives them the right to inflict it on others. If a place is open to the public, then the risk of non-smokers entering is enough to justify banning smoking in said area.
As you can probably guess, I'm a non-smoker. I've been very anti-smoking since I noticed the wierd psycological affects the smell of it has on me. I don't the difference between smoking next to someone and punching them.

I'm with you on this. Not to mention the drain on medical resources smokers eventualy cause. If a place is open to the public, EVERYBODY should be able to go there, unless they break reasonable rules set by the owners. And as such everyone should be able to be there without having to breath in smoke.

 

[archvile93]

I'm for it because I get sick of going to restaraunts, and end up nearly coffing up a lung because of the dipshits next to me who can't go without a smoke for more than 30 seconds.

 

[Quick Ben]

You know, I think a lot of people in this topic forgets who really benefits from such bans. It's the people working in the bars. Now, it would be fine for the owners of a bar to decide whether or not people could smoke there if they were the only people working there.

But you see, the people working in a bar are usually not (only) the owners.) It's quite obvious that if the owners could decide, most of them would allow smoking because if brings in more profit (more potential customers.) But the people who work in the place, day out and day in, they won't have any say. Now, some of you might say: "Just get another job," but they might not have that option. These are the people who benefit from a ban.

It's scientifically proven that there is a correlation between working in smoke filled establishments for an extended amount of time, and the occurrence of lung cancer. I think it's worth it to inconvenience smokers if it hinders a few innocent people getting lung cancer.

 

[joe182]

Is it really right for a government to decide whether we smoke or not?

tl;dr: Should governments decide whether we smoke in private establishments? Should it be anyone's business except for yourself, whether you are destroying your body?

No it isn't, but thats the problem with smoking, you're not just harming yourself, but who evers walking behind you, or who evers sitting at the table beside you in a pub.. So I ask you, is it up to you to decide if they have to sit there inhaling your smoke? After all, 2nd hand smoke is worse than normal smoke, isn't it?

 

[FFTGeist]

I am a little different than most people.
I would be fine if the government stopped us from smoking and reimplemented prohibition of alcohol.

This is about the point i walk away dodging flaming torches and beer bottles thrown at me.

 

[Disaster Button]

Smoking sucks and is bad for your health and has no good sides. Stress relief? I can play on my DS for that, and I don't spend $3-5 for a pack of smokes AND get a throat/lung cancer + yellow teeth + awful breath.

Oh, and your face and hair will thank you when you quit smoking.

For a lot of people (including myself as of late) smoking doesn't suck is quite enjoyable. Even with the negative downsides. But people relieve stress in different ways, so playing a DS might not be an option for others. It also makes you feel better about yourself and more relaxed and in some peoples cases, more confident.

OT: I chose the wrong time to start smoking with all these bans going round..

 

[Abedeus]

Smoking sucks and is bad for your health and has no good sides. Stress relief? I can play on my DS for that, and I don't spend $3-5 for a pack of smokes AND get a throat/lung cancer + yellow teeth + awful breath.

Oh, and your face and hair will thank you when you quit smoking.

For a lot of people (including myself as of late) smoking doesn't suck is quite enjoyable. Even with the negative downsides. But people relieve stress in different ways, so playing a DS might not be an option for others. It also makes you feel better about yourself and more relaxed and in some peoples cases, more confident.

OT: I chose the wrong time to start smoking with all these bans going round..

Slowly killing yourself makes you feel better about yourself?

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Slowly killing yourself makes you feel better about yourself?

We're all slowly killing ourselves, regardless of whether we choose to smoke or not...

 

[Disaster Button]

Smoking sucks and is bad for your health and has no good sides. Stress relief? I can play on my DS for that, and I don't spend $3-5 for a pack of smokes AND get a throat/lung cancer + yellow teeth + awful breath.

Oh, and your face and hair will thank you when you quit smoking.

For a lot of people (including myself as of late) smoking doesn't suck is quite enjoyable. Even with the negative downsides. But people relieve stress in different ways, so playing a DS might not be an option for others. It also makes you feel better about yourself and more relaxed and in some peoples cases, more confident.

OT: I chose the wrong time to start smoking with all these bans going round..

Slowly killing yourself makes you feel better about yourself?

Not what I said. The effects of smoking make you feel better, not the negative health effects. Although some people will like it for those too.

But like Housebroken said below you. We're all slowly dying, might as well enjoy it

 

[Abedeus]

Slowly killing yourself makes you feel better about yourself?

We're all slowly killing ourselves, regardless of whether we choose to smoke or not...

No, we are not killing ourselves. Unless you count our lifestyle and so on, but then again, you might call living "kiling ourselves".

Not what I said. The effects of smoking make you feel better, not the negative health effects. Although some people will like it for those too.

But like Housebroken said below you. We're all slowly dying, might as well enjoy it

Yeah, those great effects of smoking that make you great...

Chronic cough, higher chance of various cancers, yellow teeth, horrible smell around you and problems with hair. There was something more, but I forgot.

Anyway, I have had too many experiences with people who have smoked their whole life.

Grandma - died of lung cancer.
Aunt - constant coughs (and she's still smoking...) every few minutes.
Another aunt - ...yeah, coughing again. Plus disgusting yellow teeth.
Neighbour - 50-year old woman with a voice of a drunken 65-year old guy with a cold. She's almost like Bale's Batman. It's often hard to understand what she's saying.

Also, I can pinpoint which girls in my school/class just by the ravages on their faces, the stink when they move past me and how they constantly go to the toilet (and got caught 2 or 3 times outside of the school smoking) because they can't go on without having a smoke for more than an hour.

Yeah, it's REALLY great to have an addiction.