So let's talk about smoking...

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I think that if somebody has the urge to slowly kill themselves, they should at least have the decency to do it in a place where they won't harm others as well.

See, this is indicative of certain people's attitude and why I still rally for smokers despite having given it up some time ago.

Despite having gone over all the material a long time ago, and having had people bring up new material, there's some basic facts which tend to get missed.

. Smokers already pay dearly for their habit before you talk about anything else. One day's cigarettes cost me £6 (Nearly $10). These same cigarettes cost 30p($.5) to make.
. Smoking provides the Government with a massive revenue towards Health care, which smoking related diseases only use up an eighth of.
. No unbiased survey of second hand smoking has been carried out because ministers wants people to think it is a good idea. It also smells, unlike carbon monoxide.
. Most MPs, Congressmen and other political officials not only have smoked but have rules allowing them to smoke at work while we can't.
. Smokers are well aware that the habit is harmful to them (that's why it's hard to give up because the narcotic nicotine prevents you feeling the tightness in your lungs)
. No other product (despite worse ill effects) has the hatred directed towards it that smoking does. Heroin addicts are welcomed into get their methadone.
. Smokers are, on the street, approached and told in no uncertain terms that they're killing people. What sort of outright intolerance is that?
. I have rarely, if ever, seen a smoker that deliberately blows smoke at a non-smoker, and I've spent nearly 20 years of my life around them. I can also say that the "smoker's corner" tends to have a better deal of etiquette than any other group of strangers.

. Flaws: You smell of death and decay (which you can't smell), you have a short temper when idiots start telling you that it's going to kill you.
. Flaws it doesn't have: Violence (drink), Fattening(In fact the reverse, it supresses appetite), Lack of concentration (drink etc.)

. Take a quick look through this, or any other, set of postings. Replace the word "smoker" with woman, black person, fat person, Asian, American, Englishman, child and see exactly how virulently you are treating someone you are likely never going to meet.

Now do you get why some of us smoke?

 

[Malkavian]

Why should I have to produce evidence of something that is common Knowledge if you have been alive for a day? Heres your homework assignment, I want you to go find a scientist that says smoking is not bad for your health. I in the meantime will poke my head out the window and shout "Does anyone think smoking has no negative effects for your health!? Anyone at all?"
And yes, It is your right to not have any common decency.
And if me not breathing in second hand smoke is gonna keep me alive for just a little while longer, then hell I'm taking it. I don't only safeguard myself from one thing. I wanna die by something more interesting.

And I'm gonna wrap this all up by saying, you don't need to smoke in public, You don't see people masterbating in public, and thats not hazardous to your physical health, only mental.

I've never said that smoking wasn't bad. I smoke, and I KNOW it's bad. We're talking second hand smoke here, and that's different.

Now, you're reproach of my statement makes no sense. It's basicly "nuh-UH, YOU find evidence!" But you represent the side with the claim: 2nd hand smoke is bad. So surely, the need to provide evidence must lie with you. BUT, since you are such a nice fella, let me me help you on the way: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+second+hand+smoking+bad

Among the results, this one has my interest: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n9_v46/ai_15249651/

 

[Biosophilogical]

Shine, I'm glad to see you this evening so we may continue. I hope I haven't offended-I do tend to get sarcastic and for that I apologize. Now then, to rebut your rebuttal!

Ah, that statement just made my day, mainly because the majority of the community makes the rest live by their opinions (of how they should behave) and the funny thing is that, as a human being, I am allowed to try an convince others to live by my standards (as this is part of my opinion) and you saying i can't is actually saying I am not entitled to my opinion (of influencing others twoards my other opinions). This isn't really part of my argument but thank you that actaully made me laugh when I read that.

I think a bit of miscommunication has occured. I really do believe you have the right to your opinion and to try and persuade people to come around to your way of thinking. But I took your post as literally saying noone should be allowed to smoke, ever. If you're persuading them not to smoke, fine. If you begin coercing them legally, physically, fiscally, whatever-THAT'S where I take issue. Is that what you're looking for, or did I in fact misinterpret?

No, there were no miscommunications, more like just the way i originally read your post made me think that.

I'm not sure I entirely follow you here. I'm not saying a business would necessarily be smokers ONLY, but at least smoker FRIENDLY. If you're a non-smoker but aren't bothered by second hand smoke you'd be welcome too. My point was not to exclude certain types (such as fat people, or combovers as in your other examples. Obviously if you have issues with smoke, or fat, or hair you're not going to want to go in there...so don't. There's plenty of other establishments that will suit your needs. As far as having businesses that cater to certain populations being bad, I don't see that. If I can make money giving the smokers someplace to hang out, then so can any other business owner who feels slighted. Of course, he'll get all the anti-smokers I'll lose out on so it balances out to me. It's like saying,"You can't have any gay bars, because it'll take all the gay business away from the regular bars". Except you can be gay in a "straight" bar, you can't be a smoker in a non smoking establishment.

I may have written my post in a bit of an obscure way, my main message was that, why should people who smoke get an establishment designed for them(and those that don't judge them, as I got from your post) when there are people who get judged on factors that aren't their choice and yet they have no place to feel accepted (kind of like helping people who hurt themselves before helping victims of (for example) rape, beatings, mugging, etc.). The main point was actually that, if people who get judged by things out of their control don't have a place then why should smokers (at least why should they get one first).

Well if the hunched back is a genetic deformity then, naturally, they wouldn't be alive to enter the establishment because, in the wild, they would have been killed. So, naturally, they shouldn't even be alive. But as long as they don't reproduce (pass on bad genetic material) then they aren't actually hurting anyone so why shouldn't they be allowed in???

I don't see what this has to do with anything. We don't live in the wild, and I don't think that keeping certain people from breeding is ethical. My point was that the vibe I was getting was that if you don't like something someone does/is we can shun them from society and I don't think that's fair. That aspect all boils down to morals and everybody's are different so unless you've got proof yours are right ones you don't get to make rules for the rest of us.

Admittedly I went off on a tanjent here, but my main point was that if they don't hurt anybody then they shouldn't be excluded (The whole reproducing thing was me getting side-tracked into reproductive-eugenics (basically controlling (to an extent) human reproduction to best benefit the species (people who carry harmfulk genetic defects shouldn't have kids because the issue could be carried into thousands of people (key word 'could))).
NOTE: A bit side-tracked and it has nothing to do with the argument.

Completely true, but smokers shouldn't be allowed to be free of the judging if people with judgable characteristics that cannot harm people aren't given their own establishments. So it isn't right to judge them but it would be wrong to judge them and not judge others, and seeing as no one is completely unjudging then why should smokers get a place to be judge free???

We actually agree here. I believe you have every right to tell a smoker he's an idiot who's just killing himself in the long run. I also believe he has the right to call you a sactamonious prick in response. Say what you want, just don't force him to change his behaviour when it's not affecting you.

Well for starters, you hurt yourself without any beneficial outcome that couldn't be achieved in some less harmful way. And secondly, if you do harm yourself without, for example, protecting someone else from harm through that act, or (example 2) getting large benefits for yourself (other than the joy of smoking (I'm assuming smokers enjoy it)), then maybe smokers need counselling cause, evolution-wise, self-harm for no reason isn't exactly a trait that would promote survival, and therefore is, most likely, a bad mental state which smokers should probably not have.

You posted this section in response to my asking why you have the right to stop me from doing something that doesn't affect you. If a smoker is only smoking in a designated smoking area (thus protecting someone else from harm through that act), why should you care? I don't get why smokers do it either. I think it tastes horrible, and the nicotine "high" is unpleasant. But if it feels good to them, great. Don't you have anything you do that's not good for you but is fun? Bacon is horrible for you, so should people who like it seek counseling?

Oh no, you were completely right about it not harming others, I was just saying that, IMO, smoking, even when it doesn't harm others, isn't exactly something people should do and the fact that they know they are killing themselves yet continue to do it doesn't sound like mental stability (more like a suicider who is in for the long run) (my examples tend to be towards the extreme to emphasise the point so please don't try and point out my relation of smokers to suiciders)

And no, I didn't find your post too long winded. I'm mildly offended you think I'm some ADD teen that can't read more than two minutes without twitching. As long as you care to discuss this topic and we don't start going around in circles I'll be more than happy to consider your side and refute what I don't agree with. So until then, good day sir!

This wasn't so much an attack at you so much as at me, cause I normally don't write such long posts as I rarely get to discuss such big issues with people (don't pick me up on calling it an issue, that is just my opinion of it). Oh and no offense taken whatsoever.

 

[Tdc2182]

Why should I have to produce evidence of something that is common Knowledge if you have been alive for a day? Heres your homework assignment, I want you to go find a scientist that says smoking is not bad for your health. I in the meantime will poke my head out the window and shout "Does anyone think smoking has no negative effects for your health!? Anyone at all?"
And yes, It is your right to not have any common decency.
And if me not breathing in second hand smoke is gonna keep me alive for just a little while longer, then hell I'm taking it. I don't only safeguard myself from one thing. I wanna die by something more interesting.

And I'm gonna wrap this all up by saying, you don't need to smoke in public, You don't see people masterbating in public, and thats not hazardous to your physical health, only mental.

I've never said that smoking wasn't bad. I smoke, and I KNOW it's bad. We're talking second hand smoke here, and that's different.

Now, you're reproach of my statement makes no sense. It's basicly "nuh-UH, YOU find evidence!" But you represent the side with the claim: 2nd hand smoke is bad. So surely, the need to provide evidence must lie with you. BUT, since you are such a nice fella, let me me help you on the way: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+second+hand+smoking+bad

Among the results, this one has my interest: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n9_v46/ai_15249651/

Im Not gonna continue this arguement because the google thing you did was actually pretty cool and kind of funny. So thank you good sir.

 

[Tdc2182]

My suggestion, shorten it down a bit. Propaganda is usually frowned upon, but that doesn't make it false. I am a mild smoker, meaning I smoke but not to much. Smoking is extremely bad for your health. Both my grandparents had lung cancer and now my grandmotherr has a hole in her throat. I have been thinking for myself for a while, and I'm usually ahead of the curb on most of this stuff. You are a dumbass, I repeat DUMBASS, if you believe that smoking doesn't have any negative effects, apart from making you look like a douche.
By the way I only skimmed through what you said so yet again, make it smaller.

You don't even bother reading an entire post and you're calling ME a "dumbass"? Oh the irony... XD

First of all, I've NEVER said smoking can't be bad for your health. I have stressed it in quite a few posts now and I really think the message should have gotten across. Therefor I hold any possible misunderstandings about this on the readers responsibility. And this is clearly a case where YOU should have read up a little before commenting, instead of bitching about a post being "too long" for you. Im not hear to please you with short enough posts for your low brow intellect to handle, if you want to counter my arguments in any way, read the entire post or just shut the fuck up...

I said I skimmed it, and my bad I should have made clear second hand smoke. It is basically the same as smoking, your just not taking in as concentrated as an amount as first hand smoke.

And I and most other people instantly lose respect an decency if you insult at the end of your post. Don'tinsult, it makes you look like yourhaving second thoughts on what your saying.

 

[Biosophilogical]

I think we're starting to compare apples and oranges a little bit here. Of course, victims of crime or disease or trauma should get the help they need before smokers are made to feel comfortable. But that requires a specialized counseling/treatment facility, and my argument is more along the lines of a restaurant or a bar having the right to choose what kind of clientele they cater to. Should the government create safe havens for smokers? Good lord, no! But if Johnny who runs Big Boys' Burgers down the street wants to make his restaurant smoke friendly, I don't think anyone has the right to tell him otherwise.

Yeah you are quite right that people shouldn't be able to stop someone from making a place 'smoke-friendly' and I will add that if it is clearly stated that the restuarant is smoker friendly (so no parents go in with their kids and inhale lungs full of smoke by accident) then I see no issue, my main thing was that I believe that smoking is unhealthy and stupid but you seemed to put it into perspective here ...

Ok, I see your point here. We just see it with differing levels of their "dysfunction". I think smoking is stupid as hell. But I totally understand the concept of trading time for pleasure. Smoking is actually a pretty extreme example, so I see where you (almost) put it in the category of a disorder. For me, I eat foods that have no nutritional value whatsoever and are purely for pleasure (mmmmm, Twinkies). Sure, I could lessen my risk of an early death from heart disease or diabetes by eliminating such things but the loss of enjoyment doesn't seem worth it to me. I'd rather have fun with sixty years than deprive myself for eighty. To me, life is about the individual making the most of it in their eyes. You may see smoking as a waste where that person could achieve so much more by being healthy but if the comfort of nicotine is what that person wants rather than running marathons, it's ultimately their choice, not ours.

Although I may never accept smoking, you are quite right that even non-smokers undertake similar activities (junk food analogy) but as long as there is the slightest chance that second hand smoke is responsible for harm to non-smokers I will never accept it as it seems (my' rents have smoker friends) that the addiction to smoking is what prevents smoking from being completely safe for non-smokers, as at family outings and what-not, they still end up smoking and it is ulikely that the non-smokers will be left completely unexposed to the second hand smoke.

BTW, I have enjoyed the debate very much and I can see the validity of your points from your perspective.

 

[inhuMANATEE]

the answer is no. The government has one actual responsibilities but they are on such a monumental scale that they necessitate bureaucracy; protection. Having an army and maintaining it which requires alot of shit, but it hasn't any authority to tell you what to do.
If some guy came up to you on the street and said "put out that death-stick" you'd probably tell him to fuck off. I suggest the same policy applied to the government.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I said I skimmed it, and my bad I should have made clear second hand smoke. It is basically the same as smoking, your just not taking in as concentrated as an amount as first hand smoke.

So you are seriously suggesting that smoking several times a day, and even being addicted to nicotine is the same thing as catching a whiff of smoke perhaps once or twice a week where you might encounter someone who smokes, but you otherwise stay away from tobacco smoke and don't actively inhale it yourself, like a regular smoker does?

Please, tell me you're joking. The very suggestion is so far from reality that it isn't even funny.

And I and most other people instantly lose respect an decency if you insult at the end of your post. Don'tinsult, it makes you look like yourhaving second thoughts on what your saying.

That's your opinion, and frankly I couldn't care less about it. Isn't that fairly obvious? If I refuse to cater to your tastes in "short and neat" posts, why would I care at all about how "decent" you think I am? This thread isn't about me as a person, so I suggest you stick to facing the arguments presented instead of giving me tips on how I should act in order to please you more. I don't care how little or how much my presentation pleases you, so don't even bother commenting on it, you're just wasting your breath...

 

[Tdc2182]

I said I skimmed it, and my bad I should have made clear second hand smoke. It is basically the same as smoking, your just not taking in as concentrated as an amount as first hand smoke.

So you are seriously suggesting that smoking several times a day, and even being addicted to nicotine is the same thing as catching a whiff of smoke perhaps once or twice a week where you might encounter someone who smokes, but you otherwise stay away from tobacco smoke and don't actively inhale it yourself, like a regular smoker does?

Please, tell me you're joking. The very suggestion is so far from reality that it isn't even funny.

And I and most other people instantly lose respect an decency if you insult at the end of your post. Don'tinsult, it makes you look like yourhaving second thoughts on what your saying.

That's your opinion, and frankly I couldn't care less about it. Isn't that fairly obvious? If I refuse to cater to your tastes in "short and neat" posts, why would I care at all about how "decent" you think I am? This thread isn't about me as a person, so I suggest you stick to facing the arguments presented instead of giving me tips on how I should act in order to please you more. I don't care how little or how much my presentation pleases you, so don't even bother commenting on it, you're just wasting your breath...

Hah, You think I'm gonna stop when your being a little dick about it. And no, second hand smoke is not as bad as smoking, As I clearly said, you are not taking in as concentrated amount. I know it is not as bad as first hand. It's just people put them at risk when you smoke. You also say thatthere are worse things to breathe in. Yeah there is. But we are not going to get people to stop driving any time soon. But we can eliminate parts of what are killing us off. One less thing to worry about.
And you should be trying to please me. Because I say so.