So let's talk about smoking...

[Mobung]

I don't feel that there's any problem with the government deciding to ban smoking in private establishments. If the government can ban asbestos in buildings, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to ban smoking too. They're both health hazards to everyone in the facility.

 

[EvilGamer89]

I myself smoke. My standing on this is that owners should be able to choose to let you smoke there or not, have signs outside the building that states weather or not it is a smoking establishment and you non-smokers can go bugger off to a non-smoking place if it bothers you so much. remember IT IS A CHOICE TO STAY BY SMOKERS. You can leave on your own free will. We are not forcing you to stay in the building where the owner has decided to allow us to smoke.

 

[hobo_welf]

I don't feel that there's any problem with the government deciding to ban smoking in private establishments. If the government can ban asbestos in buildings, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to ban smoking too. They're both health hazards to everyone in the facility.

The difference between asbestos and cigarette smoke is that cigarette smoke is known by everybody (nowadays) to be really super bad for you, whereas not everybody knows that asbestos can give you cancer.

Oh also because smoke is smokey, and asbestos is impossible to detect without taking great pains to do just that.

And lets face it, it's easy to walk out of a bar filled with smoke, hell, you don't even have to walk in. But walking into every building on a street with a mask over your face and a crowbar to rip down some drywall just to figure out which ones have asbestos in the insulation just isn't practical.

 

[Mobung]

I don't feel that there's any problem with the government deciding to ban smoking in private establishments. If the government can ban asbestos in buildings, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to ban smoking too. They're both health hazards to everyone in the facility.

The difference between asbestos and cigarette smoke is that cigarette smoke is known by everybody (nowadays) to be really super bad for you, whereas not everybody knows that asbestos can give you cancer.

Oh also because smoke is smokey, and asbestos is impossible to detect without taking great pains to do just that.

And lets face it, it's easy to walk out of a bar filled with smoke, hell, you don't even have to walk in. But walking into every building on a street with a mask over your face and a crowbar to rip down some drywall just to figure out which ones have asbestos in the insulation just isn't practical.

So it's okay to ban asbestos because it's an invisible threat, but not okay to ban cigarette smoke because you can see it trying to kill you?

Really, I feel that this shouldn't even be an issue. Everyone knows that cigarette smoke is dangerous; giving others cancer, lung disease, etc is just mean-spirited.

 

[hobo_welf]

I don't feel that there's any problem with the government deciding to ban smoking in private establishments. If the government can ban asbestos in buildings, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to ban smoking too. They're both health hazards to everyone in the facility.

The difference between asbestos and cigarette smoke is that cigarette smoke is known by everybody (nowadays) to be really super bad for you, whereas not everybody knows that asbestos can give you cancer.

Oh also because smoke is smokey, and asbestos is impossible to detect without taking great pains to do just that.

And lets face it, it's easy to walk out of a bar filled with smoke, hell, you don't even have to walk in. But walking into every building on a street with a mask over your face and a crowbar to rip down some drywall just to figure out which ones have asbestos in the insulation just isn't practical.

So it's okay to ban asbestos because it's an invisible threat, but not okay to ban cigarette smoke because you can see it trying to kill you?

Really, I feel that this shouldn't even be an issue. Everyone knows that cigarette smoke is dangerous; giving others cancer, lung disease, etc is just mean-spirited.

Alright alright, fair enough. But does that mean we should ban cars too since they can kill people? Or enact another prohibition?

As far as the first point, yes, asbestos should have been made illegal to use, because insulation is supposed to keep you safe, and alive, and instead it gave you cancer. Cigarettes originally were meant to open up your breathing (and menthols do), but it was soon found out that they killed you. Now that it says it on the package, and seeing as how you can choose not to buy it, or if you don't smoke, you can choose not to be around it, then yes, I'd say asbestos should be illegal, and cigarettes should be legal. If alcohol is, anyway.

Also, probably not necessary for me to say, but thanks for being civil in our discussion.

 

[Phenakist]

If smoking is ever remade to be allowed public again, I want the right to hit them in the face for knocking a few hours off my life.

That could have sent the wrong message, I have absolutely no problems with smoking, I mean if people want to spend money to kill themselves in the long run good for them, so long as I don't have to be affected by it it's all good.

And after you assault someone for smoking and get taken to jail, you will be missed, by someone, I'm sure.

And before you can say anything, blowing smoke in someones face is not illegal. For all you know it was an accident.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. As does something being an accident, I mean is manslaughter right? of course not. It's the same principal, I don't want to be affected by someone else's smoke accidentally or otherwise simply because I should be able to head down to the shops without having god knows what in my lungs thanks to someone else.

Obviously you didn't read my previous post right, I'll dumb it down, "If smoking made legal in public again, punching smoker's in face if smoke ends up in my face made legal too".

 

[Hitman 43]

Cigerette smoke is gross. Very happy it's being banned in public places. End of conversation.

 

[Redd]

If smoking is ever remade to be allowed public again, I want the right to hit them in the face for knocking a few hours off my life.

That could have sent the wrong message, I have absolutely no problems with smoking, I mean if people want to spend money to kill themselves in the long run good for them, so long as I don't have to be affected by it it's all good.

And after you assault someone for smoking and get taken to jail, you will be missed, by someone, I'm sure.

And before you can say anything, blowing smoke in someones face is not illegal. For all you know it was an accident.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. As does something being an accident, I mean is manslaughter right? of course not. It's the same principal, I don't want to be affected by someone else's smoke accidentally or otherwise simply because I should be able to head down to the shops without having god knows what in my lungs thanks to someone else.

Obviously you didn't read my previous post right, I'll dumb it down, "If smoking made legal in public again, punching smoker's in face if smoke ends up in my face made legal too".

Point, moot. Since smoking is legal and punching someone in the face for smoking is not. Thanks for trying.

 

[xplay3r]

I agree that it is not the governments decision. I am a smoker and I know it's bad for me, but so is alot of things I do. Yes most things probably arn't as bad for me as smoking but it doesn't matter it's MY choice no one else's.
I believe it should either be in designated sections or the owner it's self. If you don't want smokers in your bar...fine. You'll lose some and win some buisness. If you don't mind, same thing. The goverment stepping in and saying no on it is wrong. Imagine if the goverment stepped in and said "you are not allowed to eat something with peanuts in it at any public location because people might be allergic to it". Yes it's true if someone is exposed to peanuts they might die if they're allergic to it but then just don't go near someone eating a snickers. If you don't like second hand smoke, don't go near the smoking section or to a bar were you're allowed smoke. It's that simple.
If you want to ban everything that's bad for you then you've got alot more. Heres a of list of things you'd have to ban.

-all cars and trucks (Exhaust fumes)
-most potato chips (sugars, salts)
-farms (fumes from ferterlizers and methan from the animals)
-ice cream (see potato chips)
-fast food (at this point do I need to give a reason?)
-turduckins (a chicken, stuffed inside a duck, stuffed inside a turkey.....this one was a random thought sorry.)
-soda pop (see potato chips)
and plenty plenty of other things.
Yes some of these things serve a purpose (farms and cars/trucks obviously) but some don't like chips and fast food. You'd aurgue "Yes but i eat potato chips and ice cream and fast food for the taste" yes? Well I smoke for the feeling and the taste (I smoke camel crush's...yes they do taste good) You have the choice to eat what you want no matter how bad for your health it is. So why don't we have the right to smoke what we want no matter how bad for our health it is?

 

[xplay3r]

If smoking is ever remade to be allowed public again, I want the right to hit them in the face for knocking a few hours off my life.

That could have sent the wrong message, I have absolutely no problems with smoking, I mean if people want to spend money to kill themselves in the long run good for them, so long as I don't have to be affected by it it's all good.

And after you assault someone for smoking and get taken to jail, you will be missed, by someone, I'm sure.

And before you can say anything, blowing smoke in someones face is not illegal. For all you know it was an accident.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. As does something being an accident, I mean is manslaughter right? of course not. It's the same principal, I don't want to be affected by someone else's smoke accidentally or otherwise simply because I should be able to head down to the shops without having god knows what in my lungs thanks to someone else.

Obviously you didn't read my previous post right, I'll dumb it down, "If smoking made legal in public again, punching smoker's in face if smoke ends up in my face made legal too".

Point, moot. Since smoking is legal and punching someone in the face for smoking is not. Thanks for trying.

point indeed moot, for that reason but also another. There are WAY worse things going in your lungs, just from breathing out side, then lungs. Car fumes, gas fumes, methane, traces of agent orange and nuclear waste still floating around from years ago, hair, germs, bugs, smoke from other things then cigrettes, waste fumes, small pox, the flu, arisol spary, germs from melting snow being released into the air, and people coughing up germs.
and thats just what your breathing not to mention how mayn other ways you could get hurt/die something falling on you, cars hitting you, tripping and falling down a hill or something, a pshyco shooting you, or accidentaly getting caught on fire...in fact between what you breathing and the probability of you dieing some other way, I'd say cigreetes are the least of your problems.
hell they might even help you build up an immunity to somethings already in the air or something that might be airborn later

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Yes, I think it should be illegal to smoke at all. I for one am allergic to cigarette smoke and it does not just affect you, it affects me and everyone else around you. It's not cool at all and it makes me sick, literally.

Yes it's true if someone is exposed to peanuts they might die if they're allergic to it but then just don't go near someone eating a snickers. If you don't like second hand smoke, don't go near the smoking section or to a bar were you're allowed smoke. It's that simple.

Absolutely not at all. It's not like smoke just stays in one concentrated area or anything. Peanuts do. I don't go near people eating Snickers because I have the choice. I could be walking on the street and inhale smoke from yards away and start coughing and sneezing. At amusement parks, or at least the ones I go to, they have several smoking sections throughout the park and if I even walk past one I start to get sick. I don't want lung cancer, so I don't smoke. I don't want other people's choices to affect my health and this is something that is avoidable.

 

[dsau]

As far as I'm concerned, people should be allowed to do whatever they like to themselves (yes, this includes hard drug use, if the individual is so inclined) without it being against the law.

However, I do agree with the smoking ban in establishments and the like, because while smokers should have the right to fill their lungs with all the rubbish you get in cigarettes if they so wish, non-smokers should also have the right NOT to have to put up with second hand smoke in such establishments. Now, if said establishmests have a seperate smoking section where smokers can go so that they are not bothering the non-smokers with their habit, then that is fair enough.

i smoke and i agree completely. the government shouldnt tell me how to lead my life, so long as it does not directly impact the health of others

 

[ProfessorLayton]

i smoke and i agree completely. the government shouldnt tell me how to lead my life, so long as it does not directly impact the health of others

What you don't realize is that it DOES directly impact the health of others. If you are drinking alcohol, the alcohol does not travel over to me and go down my throat. I can do absolutely nothing if someone is smoking around me except move out of the way.

 

[dsau]

i smoke and i agree completely. the government shouldnt tell me how to lead my life, so long as it does not directly impact the health of others

What you don't realize is that it DOES directly impact the health of others. If you are drinking alcohol, the alcohol does not travel over to me and go down my throat. I can do absolutely nothing if someone is smoking around me except move out of the way.

ok im not gonna start flaming. although i believe second hand smoke is government propaganda i still dont smoke where im not supposed to. ill step outside. if someones got a problem with that.... fuck em

 

[Jurassic Rob]

As a smoker, the worst thing for me regarding smoking anyway, in an ex-smoker preaching to you! Just fuck off and let me have a cigarette in peace!

 

[ProfessorLayton]

ok im not gonna start flaming. although i believe second hand smoke is government propaganda i still dont smoke where im not supposed to. ill step outside. if someones got a problem with that.... fuck em

It's not government propaganda and I can prove it. I've been in a car full of smokers and my eyes started watering and I started coughing. I was completely healthy before I got into the car. I'm allergic to smoke and I know it. I inhale the smoke that smokers blow out. Saying that it doesn't exist makes no sense.

 

[dsau]

ok im not gonna start flaming. although i believe second hand smoke is government propaganda i still dont smoke where im not supposed to. ill step outside. if someones got a problem with that.... fuck em

It's not government propaganda and I can prove it. I've been in a car full of smokers and my eyes started watering and I started coughing. I was completely healthy before I got into the car. I'm allergic to smoke and I know it. I inhale the smoke that smokers blow out. Saying that it doesn't exist makes no sense.

i disagree. i wont say anything more. but i disagree entirely

 

[ProfessorLayton]

i disagree. i wont say anything more. but i disagree entirely

I fail to see how you can disagree with straight up proof that people inhale secondhand smoke.

 

[Tdc2182]

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.