Today the smoking ban on indoor areas (and partially enclosed areas such as bus shelters and train stations) came into effect all over the United Kingdom. The only indoor smoking which is now legal in the UK is the kind you do in your own home - And the government are trying to stomp that out, too.
I walked through a part of London this evening and passed four or five pubs/clubs. Each of them had around sixty people standing outside clutching cigarettes and beer, and complaining. The pubs themselves were entirely empty.
This is ridiculous. All private clubs are doing a disservice to their regulars and it's not even their fault. Private establishments have had the ability to ban smoking on their premises forever, and those that didn't take that path at least had the option of a no smoking zone. Now it's universal.
Good. Smoking is incredibly stupid and needs to be stopped. I suppose in private clubs/bars it should be allowed, with a clear sign outside that says smoking is allowed. But really, it needs to be banned on the streets as well. I hate walking past people sitting outside a grocery store smoking. That stuff is just nasty.
G[COLOR="Lime"]od da[/COLOR]mn I hate non-smokers like this guy above. BOO WOO a tiny bit of smoke got in my lungs. It's prissy *******s like yourself that have ruined most freedoms people have enjoyed for as long as we can remember, but then a few do good goodies show up and boss people around.
England and Wales* smoking ban.
We've had it for nearly three years. Nothing changed. Caf
Yeah, my mum told my brother about this.
My opinion? It's stupid, the ban. I personally don't like the smell of smoke but I can't tell people to just STOP. I'm not their mother. I let people do what they want as long as they don't get me into it (Personally anti-drug,alcohol,smoking for myself)
If this happens in the states people will go balistic.
I hope they get rid of that ban.
Nope, don't smoke, never will. :D
I enjoy smoking irregularly, but I've never felt a need to smoke in a restaurant or bar.
A similar ban has been in effect here for a while now. Like X said, not much has changed. I personally don't care for amoking tobacco at all, but the ban is a little excessive.
[QUOTE=netman;614601]The only indoor smoking which is now legal in the UK is the kind you do in your own home - And the government are trying to stomp that out, too.
Proof please. Haven't heard of this.
Smoking ban is a good thing. Including for smokers.
This doesn't make much sense if places have the option to make the establishment nonsmoking already. Smoking in a bar sounds pretty normal compared to smoking in an office building. Hookah is good stuff and a lot of people pay for it enough to make a business out of it. If customers can't smoke in a bar it is easy to see why some places would go out of business or slow down-- it's just too **** inconvenient.
The only thing that bothers me about smoking is when I'm in a public area and there is no designation for smoking. I really hate walking past a smoker. If I wanted to smell cigarette smoke I'd go to a bar, sir! OH WAI--
Banning smoking in your house? Yeah, right. This is just mindless propaganda from the OMFG WE LIVE IN A BIG BROTHER SOCIETY crew.
I'm not talking strictly bars, here!
My proposal still stands.
Although there is bound to be a decrease in money made from ciggerretes its only going to be slight. Besides in the long run it will be better for the economy. The NHS wont have as many lung cancer people to treat for one.
This doesn't mean they want to ban smoking at home. It's just the same advice as people saying 'hey don't drink too much alcohol'.
I support this. There's no point in exaggerating this into a bash-fest against smoking, as smoking is basically impossible to defend, so I won't even bother. Now, if you're talking rights, how about the right to go into an establishment and not have another person's right to smoke affect your health? Yeah, the stuff is extremely bad for you.
Smoking bans like this aren't new either. Austin and Beaumont, Texas (I grew up in one and live in the other) both have smoking bans in all establishments. It works well, but honestly, people still smoke in bars and that's not an issue to me at all. Banning smoking from bars is just silly.
I don't really care for cigarettes or smokers but honestly, if you're going to a bar, what do you expect? People should stop *****ing and complaining and deal with it. A little second hand smoke every once and a while is NOT going to kill you. People are exposed to plenty of carcinogens daily as it is, as many such substances are found in aerosol cleaners and can be easily inhaled or they may coat our cooking surfaces, such as the non-stick component of many non-stick pans. Most people, however, accept those dangers without complaint.
When I go into a bar, I expect smoke and deal with it. Bars are about smokes, alcohol, and maybe some pool. At least the smoking ban here mainly deals with smoking in restaurants, not bars or clubs. On the other hand, I was honestly surprised at the volume of smokers that could be found in Europe. I went to a small cafe in Covent Garden and the amount of smoke was almost overwhelming. But, I was in there for maybe 30 minutes and it didn't ruin my meal or my life. It was just a huge difference from here.
I don't smoke and I live in America, so this doesn't bug me.
If you dont want to be around smokers, then dont be. Doesnt give you the right to **** on their parade just bacause you're too much of a puss to deal with it.
A lot of places around here actually had to shut down because of the ban. Not too long ago even private clubs had to ban smoking, like the Veterans Club, and now that's on the verge of closing down. I personally have no problem with it, I don't enjoy smoking, never smoked, and I don't drink either. So I couldn't give a **** if bars started shutting down.
Not here. Apparently smoke in the air in a smoking club in which all the regulars are smokers is a horrible, terrible, dangerous thing.
I'm still seething nearly two days later.
The ordinance of my hometown use to ban smoking in establishments where more than 50% of the profit came from food, but it only lasted untill 11:00 pm inwhich then it was ok to smoke anywhere. Most resturant don't stay open that late so they had to ban smoking all together, which raised a lot of fuss.
Eventually the ban was dropped and resturants could do w/e the hell they wanted to again. But guess what!?! Resturants found that they made more money when the ban was inplace than befor, so they kept the smokers out.
Pushers for any ban should choke on glass.. Humans don't require "babysitters" and people to smack us on the backs of our hands and say "NO! that's bad for your health mister".
[quote=Sapphire Rose;615302]I do smoke and I live in Colorado (where a smoking ban has already took place [over a year ago]). I feel the UK's pain. :(
I do too, which I'm currently at a point of quiting. Because drinking doesn't make me cough quite as much.
Hey let's move to Singapore!
Possession of cannabis there usually leads to a lengthy jail sentence. If you have more than 15 grams, it's the death penalty.
Do they still enlist caning sentences?
Yep.
Oh, and carrying certain kinds of FRUIT in Singapore can get you arrested.
SWEET, ZERO TOLERANCE FOR BASIC HUMAN ACTION OF ANY KIND IS AWESOME TO THE MAX!
Hey Netty, let's cane Roger Smith and sentence him to a maximum penalty death sentence after a lengthy 100 year stay in prison.. Just think of all the gay sex he'll have.
EDIT: Oh, we'll do it for his bad PhotoShops.
[QUOTE=Down The Sun;615313]Pushers for any ban should choke on glass.. Humans don't require "babysitters" and people to smack us on the backs of our hands and say "NO! that's bad for your health mister".
The stupidty in this theory is immense. Do you honestly beleive if indivudals left to their own devices can co-exist peacefully?
The only important thing in this thread is that I didn't know netty lived in England.
Seriously, how long has that been going on.
[quote=WILLETH FOR MONTHS;615421]The only important thing in this thread is that I didn't know netty lived in England.
Seriously, how long has that been going on.
netman = Klarth.
I'm glad that laws in California don't allow smoking inside of bars. Most of them are poorly ventilated, and while I enjoy the occasional cigar or clove, I HATE the smell of traditional cigarettes, and being in a room filled with the smoke makes my eyes red, watery and irritated. I don't want to have to deal with that just to go out for drinks.
If they try to ban smoking at the outdoor section of bars, though... then it's on.
[quote=Shin-Ra;615360]The smoking ban is to protect the inarguably bad effects smoking has on non-smokers health. Do you seriously think "smoking sections" actually do anything? No and you're a fool if you do. It's about people's right to live in a smoke free environment, not about a person's right to smoke all they want. I mean christ, all they have to do is go outside and smoke. But like I said, smoking bans in bars is just silly.
I don't smoke indoors, anywhere, period. I have respect for the non-smoking community. Besides, it brings down the property value.
[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][COLOR="Yellow"]The ban is rediculous. People go to pubs and cafes to enjoy themselves, have a nice drink, and socialize. A good chunk of smokers are social smokers, and want to have a ciggie with thier friends. Why do they have to suffer now? non-smokers, who know full well they're going to a place where people smoke, and know the risks involved. So now, smokers are going to be punished even more for just being smokers. Its stupid.[/COLOR][/FONT]
facepalm
[quote=UncleYaris;616032][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=Yellow]The ban is rediculous. People go to pubs and cafes to enjoy themselves, have a nice drink, and socialize. A good chunk of smokers are social smokers, and want to have a ciggie with thier friends. Why do they have to suffer now? non-smokers, who know full well they're going to a place where people smoke, and know the risks involved. So now, smokers are going to be punished even more for just being smokers. Its stupid.[/COLOR][/FONT]
Non-smokers don't suffer when others smoke? oh lol
You're basically suggesting that people who don't smoke shouldn't go to places where smoking is allowed. Massive ****ing fail.
I know I'm like a broken record here... I can understand people feeling this way about pubs, but not in hookah bars or private clubs. :/
Private clubs? I dont understand. Why should this ban not apply to places where people pay an entrance fee. What?
Or the smoker could also not go out, ever. Great solution.
Your whole argument about social smoking is bull, too. Social smokers do it because their friends do; they enjoy taking part in something that everyone else is doing. Well now, their friends aren't going to be doing that, so the social smokers aren't affected at all.
[quote=UncleYaris;616395][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=Yellow]keep in mind that I'm also a non-smoker. the person who doesn't want to walk three feet has just the same right not to move as the person who doesn't want to have thier health damaged. wouldn't the easier solution just be to avoid these public places where they can get thier health damaged? [/COLOR][/FONT]
Walking three feet to avoid damaging someone's health? Is that such a discomfort?
You practically write our counter-arguments for us.
Is Shisha the **** that's derived from honeycomb or something? If so, I have no qualms about people smoking it near me.
[quote=UncleYaris;616419][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=Yellow]no, the disconfort is the fact that the smoker has to go out of his way to make the non-smoker happy. all I'm saying is whay can't it be the other way around?[/COLOR][/FONT]
There is no logic to your argument at all. Seriously.
Why should someone who's causing harm to others have allowances made for them by others who aren't causing problems?
It poison's my air, inwhich they have no right to do. If we all had to share a cup of water, and someone decided to take a **** in it, would you argue that person who ****ed in the cup had every right to do so?
so a smoker has the right to **** in everyone's air that they choose, and people should leave if they don't like it? hmm, yea, that doesn't work for the majority, after all, this is a democracy. There's more non smokers than smokers, so the few should help benafit the many. And as for forced to drink ****ed in water, no one is forcing them to ****. by the way... the **** is actually p i s s.
smokers are jokers.
Man I don't care about this stuff anymore, I'd just wish people on both sides would shut up. No, it wouldn't kill you to go outside for a quick smoke. Smoke IS bad for you, just because it doesn't kill you doesn't make it safe. I also find it odd that these people want to ban smoke in bar's because most likely they will go and damage their livers is beer purposely any how.
H[COLOR="White"]e[/COLOR]ll, if we were all a little more considerate to each other we wouldn't need ban's. But I guess thats why we share most of are DNA with chimps.
Why not make smokers sit in a separate room of said club, that is actually a sound-proof glass encased box?
[quote=Ant;616547]A local bowling alley here has that. Went in there to play one of those touchpad game things, the smoke was so **** strong I was choking on the air. But then, I started just going in there for fun.
So let me get this straight, you ran into a smoke-filled room for fun? Was it anything like that special day of boot camp where they run your silly little ass into the gas chamber and have you clear the mask while holding your breath and your god damned eyes are burning like crazy fuckin' hell?
This ban enforces politeness. Whats wrong with being nice? :)
Except we really can't do anything about the smog. It's going to take years and decades to remedy, so your point is completely moot. Plus, smoking ruins a dinning experience for a lot of non-smokers, and that's not what a restaurant wants.
It's more diluted, and thus, a hell of a lot more clean and less dangerous than cigarette smoke. Plus, it doesn't smell terrible.
UncleYaris - You're mindlessly defending points just to prove yourself right and you're failing at this. If you can't tell the difference between directly breathing in cigarette smoke and normal polluted air, then you don't even need to be posting your opinion right now because it's completely voided due to idiocy.
[quote=Average n00b;614619]If this happens in the states people will go balistic.
It's happening up where I live. I can see it being a good thing for certain places, but allow smoking to be done in bars and such. I can't stand when people smoke, but I don't really care if they do it. It's their own choosing. I just don't want to be around someone who smokes a lot. It would be nice if they outlawed smoking in most public places, which they have pretty much.
Anyways I can see the importance of the ban, people are just trying to stop smoking around public places. Some places should be alright to smoke around or in.
[quote=Tiptoegecko;616783]You can smoke and kill yourself, the smoking ban inside makes sure you dont kill us who are smart enough not to smoke
BIG FUCKING CLUE: Being a smoker has nothing to do with intelligence. GTFO!
Or does it?????????????.......... ;-0
Can I slap you around with my cock?!
lol no
Anyone calling smokers idiots has obviously never had an addiction.
it's typically kids who start smoking. They grow up, regret it, but live with it. Doesn't make them idiots, just immature at the time they started.
what is peer pressure?
It's the result of when Angels get their wings
Booze is tasty.
[quote=Tiptoegecko;617646]For me, it's really freaking easy. I have been offered countless times, I told them flat out no. I guess I don't have those issues other kids don't. And, I honestly don't care what people think of me, they can think that I am fag for not drinking/smoking or for anything else all they want, I am a friendly person, I can find another group and make friends with them.
Peer pressure isn't always flat out 'TAKE THIS DRUG/CIGARETTE/BEER YES OR NO EH EH EH'. I've been in a lot of situations where someone's encouraged me to take a cigarette/drug, and while not directly pressuring me, they've incessentANTly reminded me how harmless it is. (Case in point: shrooms.) Plus, there's a lot of media/advertising where people who are smoking look ****ing awesome. It's a confidence booster.
[quote=The X;617601]Anyone calling smokers idiots has obviously never had an addiction.
You're not addicted before you start and there's no sane reason to start. Therefore smokers were stupid a one point in their life and are very weak willed right now.
[quote=Speedfreak;627857]You're not addicted before you start and there's no sane reason to start. Therefore smokers were stupid a one point in their life and are very weak willed right now.
I challenge you to give up video games. Right now. Never play them again.
Ignoring all the well thought-out posts that everyone has already made, I honestly can't forsee this bill being enforced well at all. It's been some that's been around for such a long time, I don't understand why people would suddenly stop all of a sudden. Seems to be one of those petty "crimes" that everyone gets away with - not wearing helmets, ect (or at least where I live.)
let's be honest here. . . having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a "****ing section" in a swimming pool.
[quote=Velvet Nightmare;627936]Ignoring all the well thought-out posts that everyone has already made, I honestly can't forsee this bill being enforced well at all. It's been some that's been around for such a long time, I don't understand why people would suddenly stop all of a sudden. Seems to be one of those petty "crimes" that everyone gets away with - not wearing helmets, ect (or at least where I live.)
It's being enforced. Definitely.
Again, without reading back, what are the penalties, a fine or something?
Wow i'm not surprised, where I live smokeing is baned in the same places, but u can smoke 25ft from the location of wherever it is (in lots of places no one cares bout the rule they just smoke right in front of the location or somewhat near it.I don't think the government wants to ban it from homes though support it
[quote=The X;627918]I challenge you to give up video games. Right now. Never play them again.
So I guess you're my arch-rival, the King of S[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it Analogies.
Videogames are a pleasurable experience and have numerous mental benefits. Cigarettes give you no high whatsoever, the only thing they give is what they took away in the first place. Giving up something you enjoy for no good reason would take an immeasurable amount of willpower, giving up something that isn't pleasurable, having plenty of good reasons to do so and with only a chemical addiction to face wouldn't be as difficult. Mind over matter, motherf[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cker.
[quote=Speedfreak;628934]So I guess you're my arch-rival, the King of S[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it Analogies.
Videogames are a pleasurable experience and have numerous mental benefits. Cigarettes give you no high whatsoever, the only thing they give is what they took away in the first place. Giving up something you enjoy for no good reason would take an immeasurable amount of willpower, giving up something that isn't pleasurable, having plenty of good reasons to do so and with only a chemical addiction to face wouldn't be as difficult. Mind over matter, motherf[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cker.
It's pleasurable to some people. Personally, I find it calms me down quite a lot.
And video games are definitely bad for you. They bring out your aggressive side Speedy. :(
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;628954]Maybe not a high, but they calm you down and make the smoker feel good and secure typically. How you can say it's not a pleasurable experience blows my mind.
They don't calm you down. It actually has similar properties to caffeine and makes your pulse quicken. They make you feel secure because you're feeding the addiction that took away that secure feeling in the first place.
99% of smokers also think it tastes bad.
Doesn't sound pleasurable to me.
Its surely not a pleasurable experience to the person sitting next to 'em either.
If anything, an alltogether ban will just help people break the habit. It's not remotely good for people, and this extent of self-destructive behavior needs to be dealt with one way or another.
I support the ban, both as some one who knows many smokers and as some one who's likely to feel the effects of second-hand in a matter of years.
I used to like cigarette smoke because there was a strange thing I got out of it. It smelled good to me. Now I hate it because I know why it did.
The fines are hardcore, too. It's like a
Desperate measures are neccessary to put an end to permanent lung damage.
Edit: Sorry buddy, that was meant as a response to Speedfreak.
I'd rather spend $30 on a box of Nicorette for a month than $60+ for cigs.
Taking out the "merchants of death" with huge fines will hopefully deal an equally huge blow to the tobacco corporations and expedite the end of all smoking.
True. Maybe total annihilation of the habit is impossible, but a severe cut-back of it can be attained.
Eradication doesn't sound like a bad idea, to tell you the truth. :/
It isn't a bad idea but it's also not a very plausible idea. We can only hope.
Eradication of child pedophiles is a great idea too, but probably won't happen.
I agree with you all on your standpoints, though personally don't see how eradication is possible when it comes to smoking. It has been done throughout history. Though, as I said before, we were unaware of the dangers until the modern age. Now with recent technology, we are able to see why it is such a bad idea to inhale one cigarette, much less get hooked on them for life.
Eradication sounds great, but I know it won't happen. You know, laws, civil liberties, what have you. I figure if I'm walking down the street and some guy walks past me with a cigarette lit up I have the right to dropkick his face.
Its a shame. We really should ban alcohal, cigarettes and drugs altogether. What has it ever done for society?
Amen. The havoc these things have wreaked on society are in no way justifiable with the temporary pleasure they deliver.
Eradication seems a bit more effective than it would on other substances, since so many people smoke mostly in public.
Prohibition of alcohol was already attempted.
And failed because Congress decided it wasn't such a good idea. People have had it for years so taking it away sounds monstrous. A weaning would be a good choice.
Cigarettes are unneccessary air pollution. The ends justify the means with air pollution from factories and such though, as those industries exist to do things that are also beneficial for people. Second-hand smoke comes from various different sources, not just bars and such, and can't neccessarily be avoided all the time. City environments can. It's silly to compare the two.
Regardless of how unhealthy some one is, forcing them into an environment where a vital organ can become significantly damaged is equally bad than if they were healthier.
I can run a continuous mile but I can't lift ****. I must be unhealthy.
Also, I live in Austin now. :mad:
Its interesting how infant fatality rates are directly correlated to second hand smoking.
Yep. SIDS, mostly, right?
Or infants being exposed to bars constantly where smoke is constantly circulating through ventilation systems. Either way, it isn't always private you know.
I completely agree with Lord of Spam. I like how you guys all circle jerked there for a moment and then he came to rain on your parade. I also find it funny how I can find the correlations about how you feel on the smoking to how you mod the boards. Well, less funny, and more so creepy as hell.
Mm, I think that over the ages, the need might die as it becomes more culturally unacceptable.
Precisely. Cultural unpopularity as well as medical advancements are definitely what are causing the blows to the tobacco companies and ultimately contributing to their decreased productivity.
You guys can talk about "oh but in a perfect world blah blah *idiotic tripe*" all you want, but fact is it aint gonna happen. Why? because you apparently fail to understand that your perfect world isnt everyone else's. So stop being such egocentric ****s and learn to actually think in teh real world.
Of course its' not going to happen. In a perfect world, people wouldn't need harmful substances. Get it?
WHY DO YOU IDIOTS IGNORE ME WHEN I MAKE A GOOD POINT?
Earlier in this thread, I pointed out that people accept lots and lots of things which are carcinogenic, even if it's fairly common knowledge.
EXAMPLES:
Teflon coatings on pans? CARCINOGENIC.
Soaps, shampoos, and cosmetics that contain cocamide diethanolamine? CARCINOGENIC.
Cat litter and household cleaners that contain crystallized silica? CARCINOGENIC.
Adhesives that contain dioctyl phthalate? CARCINOGENIC.
Window cleaners that contain dioxane? CARCINOGENIC.
FLUORIDE, YES THAT STUFF THEY ADD TO WATER, IS A CARCINOGEN. It's also in your toothpaste.
Anything with lead in it is going to be CARCINOGENIC.
Cleaning products with petroleum distillates? CARCINOGENIC.
Plexiglass? CARCINOGENIC.
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)? CARCINOGENIC.
Oh yeah, some chemicals in cigarettes? CARCINOGENIC.
My point is you guys, especially Fate, who think walking by a smoker is a threat to your life that demands a punch to the face, are incredibly stupid. I guarantee every single one of you have been exposed to several of the things I listed, some of them on a daily basis. Every time you drink a glass of tap water in the United States, you're drinking down a glass of carcinogens. If you wash your hair with a certain shampoo, you're foliating with carcinogens. If you use the wrong type of tape or glue, you've just adhered two things together with carcinogens. Pressing your face against that plexiglass window at the exbihit is pretty stupid because it's carcingenic.
Yes, cigarettes are not only bad for the smoker, but they're bad TO AN EXTENT for those around, but think of all of the tens if not hundreds of products you are exposed to that can be carcinogenic or contain carcinogenic elements? Just walking down the street in the city is toxic to begin with, walking by a smoker is not making it any worse.
Also, the prohibition of alcohol proved itself to be incredibly stupid, and a prohibition of smoking in general probably would be as well. At least in America, you're supposed to be free to destroy your life. I am for smoking bans in most public areas (with the exception of bars, because alcohol isn't any less lethal than cigarettes, and is carcinogenic in high concentrations) but I will say that I am not amused with the overwhelming display of ignorance I have seen here.
Stop being stupid. I'm not begging you, I'm telling you.
ERADICATION, ERADICATION, ERADICATION, ERADICATION, ERADICATION.
[quote=Fate]Of course its' not going to happen. In a perfect world, people wouldn't need harmful substances. Get it?
CAPITAL LETTERS
My life is threatened all over the place. Hell, my life is threatened just by working in retail. I know dangers of the world. There's electric waves, there are car accidents, harmful UV rays, etc. wherever I go. Know what? I expose myself to that. Smoking? I don't. Smoking in public is not a good idea. Smoking in private facilities I'm fine with.
I've decided you guys suck.
I agree, though the need for private facilities isn't even that neccessary. As long as it's done outside, the smoke pollution isn't going to greatly affect people around it, as it would it an office or restaurant.
Miso: I understand they all contain carcinogens, but exactly how many of those come in contact with vital internal organs?
I have yet to hear one good argument on why this ban should not be enforced.
Ive been going to many a pub and club since the ban was put into affect and beleive me that whole "no one will go out/ ruin the atmosphere (which of course is kind of ironic in a way)" BS really hasnt happened. People still go out and spend money, people have no problem going to designated areas to smoke. So theres been so social problem or at least not as big as people feared.
My only concern with the entire issue, because I frankly don't give a **** either way (People killing themselves is none of my concern. Let them weed out their own genes.), is as follows: If you ban pot, ban cigarettes and alcohol. If you ban cigarettes, ban alcohol and pot. If you ban alcohol, ban pot and cigarettes. These are all very closely tied and either you go all the way or you don't go at all. There's no half-assing and double-standards when it comes to something like this. Making a moral stand is not exclusive to one of these substances, rather all of them.
Um, I merely want to punch the guy 'cause I think cigarettes are gross. I don't know what you're talking about. :/
I think you're gross. Should I find myself in texas I will take you up on the free facepunch! :cookie:
I think I am the only person here who has enough common sense to say "yes, I smoke" but agree that nobody, myself included, should be allowed to smoke. Smokers know it's bad for us. Smokers know we shouldn't do it. But why quit? We all have our reasons. Illegality is a good reason to quit, methinks. But I'm one of those "we can tell you what to do with your body" jerkoff types when it comes to seat belts, drugs, smoking, and abortion. You know, I'm consistent and everything. It's nice being consistent. You should try it.
Thats what annoying me here more than anything. Its not the OH NOES BAN CIGS, that I can take. its the OH NOES THIS ONE THING IS BAD FOR ME but oh well about the other stuff that is.
Cigarettes are more notorious and annoying than anything else mentioned in this thread. At least most of the other carcinogens mis0 listed serve practical purposes.
I don't really care about purpose. If you're scared enough of carcinogens, I'm sure you could potentially find a way to live and avoid most of them. It's the fact that you attack one carcinogenic product that ****es me off, especially because, like I said, you come into contact with so many of the others. It seems a bit hypocritical to say one carcinogen (cigarette smoke) is worse than the lot of what I posted, and a multitude of carcinogens I did not talk about (gasoline vapors are probably one you guys recieve regular exposure to, for example). And I find the hyperbolic reactions I've seen exhibited from many of you in this thread about the potential effects of carcinogens to be quite laughable. You're more likely to die in a car accident or be murdered than you are to develop cancer as a result of second hand smoke exposure (which, unlike sudden accidental death or being murdered, you could potentially survive). But really, let's concern ourselves with something that is so much less likely to occur to us, because it's an effective use of our time!
The amount of ignorance it must require to suggest some of the things I've heard in this thread is astonishing. Whomever it was who suggested a new prohibition really ought to go back to high school; had you learned anything, you'd know that things greatly worsened under the stupid act. Not to mention that it seems fundamentally un-American anyway.
lets see... i'm admitting i dont mind living with those other carcinogens because they all directly benefit my life while at the same time posing a risk. how do cigarettes - which do pose a risk - directly benefit my life? oh, right, they don't. lets see which one I support a ban for now.
LoS, can't you use better examples? Tying a television to cigarettes is stretching it. :(
Spam youre overreacting so much. Insisting one person excercise their right somewhere else is the best option.
Maybe because TVs are practical? :)
As I said, I havent watched any significant amount of TV in years, and am probably better informed abour global events than most of you. Its called a newspaper, look into it. :cookie:
Uh, actually what I was going to say has nothing to do with news, since it's certainly not exclusive to television.
TV is more practical because the severity of its effects are so much lower and it has meaningful uses. Unlike cigarettes, television isn't chemically addictive, and an unhealthy lifestyle caused by watching too much TV can be completely reversed with little effort. Cigarettes? Well, unless you get a lung transplant, your lungs will be permanently damaged. Besides, it's not so much watching TV that makes you unhealthy, it's eating while you do it and becoming too lazy to burn off the calories. Is every TV-viewer fat and lazy? Certainly not. Is every regular smoker doing permanent lung damage and voluntarily putting themselves at risk of cancer while hardly benefitting from the effects of cigarettes? Yes.
Here's a better comparison: Cigarettes are like cocaine. You can get somewhere around the same high from marijuana, but cocaine is ultimately worse for your health.
[quote=Bebop]Putting restrictions on one persons rights to protect another persons is the lesser of 2 evils. Lol wut?
You're American right? Lol like you really believe in that liberty crap. Newsflash sweetheart, rights are an illusions. Not pulling some faggy gothic anti-world thing here, but it really is the truth. My original point still stands, I have yet to hear a good argument.
Bebop: Shut up. You've revoked your own privilege to talk about anything intellectual.
LoS: A better analogy may be due. There are too many variables in the one you poised about television. Television can be used responsibly, cigarettes are very hard to use in that fashion. Equally, television, unlike cigarettes, is dependent wholly on the society. Our current society may abuse it, but technology is never inherently bad. Just like a gun, the way it's used is the difference between good and bad.
This argument turned into some weird jumble-**** of counter-arguments and lost inferences.
The point still stands that you guys are making exceptions for no viable reasons. Ok, these carcinogens are good, but these are bad. Uh, sorry, what? There are ways to get around pretty much anything that you could compare it to, but we dont. Why? Who ****ing cares, thats why. Oh noes, the risk went up a few tenths of a percent, woe is me. clearly that gives me the right to tell others how to behave.
This isnt going to be resolved, as at this points its not really the issue of smoking that we're reall;y discussing; its the view on how much civil liberty we are willing to give up in the name of living soft, cushy lives. I'd give up very, VERY little if any, whereas Iris and Co. are willing to wipe their *** with the constitution to get what they want.
Civil liberties can only go so far without infringing upon the rights of others. Who would figure that the right to partake in a disgusting and unhealthy habit doesn't outweigh the right for everyone in the area to breath cleaner air? I'm all for personal rights, but lighting up in public certainly affects those around you as well.
As for carcinogens, **** that. Everything causes cancer nowadays. The difference is that stuff like teflon and shampoo aren't meant to be ingested and normally aren't when used properly, and their potency is dictated by how much gets into your body. Carcinogens from cigarette smoke are going to be inhaled no matter how you smoke it, by both you and anyone near you. That's how cigarettes work. Honestly, is this such a difficult concept to understand?
The constitution hasnt exacltly been followed very well for along time Spam. A smoking ban in public places is hardly the tarnish on your civil rights when you look at reality.
[quote=Lord of Spam;630665]oh gee i dont know because a small group of immature people upset over the fact that what used to be their cool socialising tactic is now a disgusting, unhealthy turnoff is being forced to alter their way of life so that most people can go to their favourite hangout without it smelling like a[COLOR=lightgreen]s[/COLOR]s yet still retain the freedom to smoke somewhere not in public and drink enough alcohol to trash their liver. Civil liberties, you know, that whole mess?
Oh, no, wait. youre british. never mind. enjoy your police state. USA! USA! USA!
Fixed.
BOL, you think America has more freedom than here? You guys can't even drink til you're 21, your beer doesn't even have the percentage on the bottle because Captain America thinks you might go and get too drunk with the strong stuff. Oh, and don't forget those awful rude words you can't say on TV despite the fact that your precious 40-year-old-p[COLOR=lightgreen]i[/COLOR]ss soaked constitution is supposed to protect your freedom of speech! Be careful flying to any country that might actually want you, too, because America has too much liberty to allow more than 100ml of bottled water on the plane, and it certainly doesn't set up bag checks within 20 metres of eachother. But oh nos, Fox News said speed cameras are exactly like 1984 so let's ignore all our own country's bulls[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it for a second and make fun of the limeys. Hahaha, freedom, my a[COLOR=lightgreen]s[/COLOR]s; you don't know the meaning of the word.
Now excuse me while I legally download free music after walking home drinking the free beer I got from work (that you could drink from 16) before my sweary, taboo-filled show starts at 9.
The smoking ban isnt even removing your right to smoke anyway. You can still smoke. You still have the right to smoke so you cant use that "lol liberty or death" BS
The "if you dont like smokers leave" argument is retarded. It works both ways. If you cant smoke somewhere, whether it be due to a law, or up to the managers discretion, or even if your friend doesnt want you smoking in his house, go somewhere else.
[quote=Lord of Spam;631258]Again, second hand smoke, under most of the circumstances you are listing, has negligable hazards. As I already said, if you live anywhere NEAR a developed area, the air is already pretty much as bad as second hand smoke. And if you dont want to be around people that smoke? Guess what? LEAVE. Man, I know its crazy, but it just might work. For instance, I dont like kids, but I love video games. Do I go to arcades and ***** about the kids? No, I stay my *** at home and play there. Its a REALLY simple concept. Dont like smoke? Gtfo. bam, prob solved. And dont go for the "oh wah but i want a smoke free environment blah blah blah". If there was enough of a demand for smoke free areas, then the privat3e sector would move to fill that gap. but guess what? there isnt. Most places ban smoking only when told that they HAVE to.
Second hand smoke has the same hazards as first-hand smoke. Unless you're like 20 feet away and allow the smoke to dissipate, you're getting the same effect. Also, it's not negligible considering it takes a while of being around no smoke whatsoever to recover the slightest bit, and unless you're a hermit living in a house with no smokers, that's pretty **** near impossible. Yeah, taking a whiff of a cigarette very occasionally isn't going to kill you, but that's ****ing unrealistic and you know it. Also, don't give me the "don't like it, leave" bull****. Non-smokers are the majority here, and it's both biased and idiotic to require them to either live with it or go somewhere else simply because they wish to take a certain measure of protecting their health.
Also, if there wasn't enough demand for smoke-free public environments, this law wouldn't have been passed.
[quote]But now we've come full circle, because once again you're trying to draw distinctions between carcinogens when there is none. Like it or not, the vasst majority of things contribute to cancer. And even with that, the death rate is STILL rediculously low. Miso was talkign about death rates in the thousands out of all of america. 1.6x10^-5. Thats a rediculously low amount.
but i have to go now so ill finish this thought later
I never said there was a distinction between the carcinogens themselves. It's rather the likelihood of them getting into your system from all of those different products. Unless you eat cat litter and swallow your shampoo, none of those are likely to affect you. If you inhale any amount of cigarette smoke though, you're taking a direct hit to your lungs from the carcinogens found in the smoke. The whole "just as deadly" thing is complete bull****.
I don't know why we have to talk about death and cigarettes, since it's an extreme (yeah, I know people die, but it's over a long period of time). The ban isn't to save lives and all that crap, it's to keep smoking limited to those who smoke. Simple.
*** i love vgc
THE ONLY NEGATIVE TO SMOKING IS SECOND HAND SMOKE.
Wait...no.
I'm still wondering why things with positive AND negative effects are exactly the same, if not worse, than something with purely negative effects. Can someone explain that to me again without skipping over the part about how many carcinogens, while having a great potential to cause cancer, benefit lives in other ways compared to cigarettes, which have a great potential to cause cancer, benefit no lives in any significant way?
Yeah, cuz knocking out a huge, multibillion dollar a year industry will have no negative effects:cookie:
I guess I should actually say what I think should be done as opposed to just telling you all you're stupid. I'm down with the age of consent and all that. I'm down with limiting it in certain high risk areas (hospitals, areas with flamable material, etc). Aside from that, suck it up. If you dont want to be around smokers, fine, leave. Its that simple. Go somewhere else. If there is enough of a demand to warrant imposing your will on someone else, then there should be enough of a demand to have places voluntarily make themselves smoke free to attract the nonsmokers. But guess what? Most people either smoke or (more likely) dont give a **** if they inhale .03 micrograms of tar (exageration, not exact, so dont go AH HA I FOUND A MISTAKE). Its just pointless infringment on the rights of a group based on the fact that another group doesnt like them. And hell, I'm not even a **** smoker in public. I've smoked 5 cigars in the last month and a half, and they were always when I was drunk at parties on private residences.
If some guy sitting next to me waiting for a bus decides to light up, I think it's pretty rude if I just said to him moments before when he asked me for an extra cigarette, "I don't smoke." Sorry, bum guy, do you want me to put my gum under your shoes while you're not looking? It's not going to kill you, but it sure as hell doesn't benefit you and and sure is annoying.
You are right about that one, Fate. What's worse is when a hobo not only asks for a cigarette, but when they are looking down your shirt while asking.
That's a superb thing to say, Hyper.
Xenos: He did say I was purty after asking me for a cigarette. He even told his hobo friend across the street. :(
Hyper pretty much nailed it. It's not like non-smokers walk up to random people and yell at them to put their cigarettes out. It's usually people lighting up when you're already around them, and in most environments, it's poor manners on the smoker's behalf not to do it elsewhere.
Oh yeah, cigarette industries make lots of money. That justifies their product for sure!!
Hey, its worked for alcohol and numerous other products that kill :Cookie:
So you're saying that profiting from advertising and selling addiction to a harmful habit that doesn't do any good besides putting more money in the pockets of the industry is justified?