Smoking In Public

[Curiosityness]

I don't know why its even legal. Its literally destroying your body and endangering you and the people around you, not to mention the tons of ads on TV against it. Its like handing a baby a peice of candy every ten minutes while telling him/her that its extremely bad for you, although candy doesn't endanger other people and shouldn't be illegal. Just regulate smoking a bit, maybe only in the privacy of your own home?

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't know why its even legal. Its literally destroying your body and endangering you and the people around you, not to mention the tons of ads on TV against it. Its like handing a baby a peice of candy every ten minutes while telling him/her that its extremely bad for you, although candy doesn't endanger other people and shouldn't be illegal. Just regulate smoking a bit, maybe only in the privacy of your own home?

It's legal because smokers like it and want to do it, and you don't particularly have any reason to tell them what they can and cannot do to their own body. If you want to tax it to offset costs to the health industry, by all means.
As for the second hand smoke argument, it's largely bunk. The only incidents are either with extreme minors (Why did you bring your baby to a pub?) or with decade-long exposure in enclosed spaces, which is dealt with by having either smoking areas, or outside-smoking.

[Forsher]

The point of the Betamax example is that no-one uses them. Therefore, banning Betamax would have no effect.

The only reason Betamax died was because VHS was cheaper, and did the same job. Nothing else does the same job that cigarettes do, except for cigars. Snuff comes close, not nowhere near close enough, and e-cigarettes are shit.

To you other post: My mindset is "don't try if it won't work" and, let's face it, it will never work. It would be like tryin to reduce the demand for alcohol. Not happening.

But, you see, it's possible (to reduce demand for a good completely) and there are a number of factors at work (for example, substitute goods and advertising... VHS is a substitute for Betamax).

Ah, but it is working. There's a reason why there are fewer smokers than ever... (Although, I believe in the UK at least the decline has flatlined at about 20%... also, don't expect a rapid reply to any further posts... I should be doing homework.)

[Katganistan]

All I just did was show doubt on it. perhaps you should look at the ambiguity of my second sentence.

"Further, the possible health risk to others, which remains by far not very large, is not enough reason to ban smoking."

I'm saying that possible health risk to others is not enough reason to outright ban smoking, because it isn't. I can do what the fuck I want with my body.

But by doing so, you impede on the rights of others to keep their body healthy.

Walk away.

[Pillea]

I don't know why its even legal. Its literally destroying your body and endangering you and the people around you, not to mention the tons of ads on TV against it. Its like handing a baby a peice of candy every ten minutes while telling him/her that its extremely bad for you, although candy doesn't endanger other people and shouldn't be illegal. Just regulate smoking a bit, maybe only in the privacy of your own home?

It's legal because smokers like it and want to do it, and you don't particularly have any reason to tell them what they can and cannot do to their own body. If you want to tax it to offset costs to the health industry, by all means.
As for the second hand smoke argument, it's largely bunk. The only incidents are either with extreme minors (Why did you bring your baby to a pub?) or with decade-long exposure in enclosed spaces, which is dealt with by having either smoking areas, or outside-smoking.

What are ya gonna do, ban smoking in one's own home?
Cause lots of kids are raised in smoking homes. Which is wrong.
This coming from a smoker.

[Ostroeuropa]

There are wider societal effects to banning smoking. We'll see a lot of socialization that would have occured no longer occur.
It's one of the reasons i'm a huge supporter of the indoor ban. Prior to it, people would largely keep themselves to themselves at their respective tables. Now, every smoker knows every other smoker, and helps their groups interact when they come back in from the outside after having had a chat.
As a social bonding excercise it's a good one. Sharing of an activity? Yup. Exchange of "Gifts"? Yup. (Lighter pass arounds etc.)
I wouldn't be surprised if there were minor economic problems from banning smoking not just from the smoking industry, but other industries where inter-departmental socialization can lead to smoother operations and even streamlining, or new ideas and proposals.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's legal because smokers like it and want to do it, and you don't particularly have any reason to tell them what they can and cannot do to their own body. If you want to tax it to offset costs to the health industry, by all means.
As for the second hand smoke argument, it's largely bunk. The only incidents are either with extreme minors (Why did you bring your baby to a pub?) or with decade-long exposure in enclosed spaces, which is dealt with by having either smoking areas, or outside-smoking.

What are ya gonna do, ban smoking in one's own home?
Cause lots of kids are raised in smoking homes. Which is wrong.
This coming from a smoker.

If a parent is willingly smoking around their child, the smoke is the least of the childs problems.

[Mizrah]

Simple policy.

No smoking in public establishments.
Private establishments free to their own policies.
No taxes on tobacco.
No minimum age to purchase or use tobacco.
No advertising allowed.
No chemical additives allowed.

[Ostroeuropa]

Simple policy.

No smoking in public establishments.
Private establishments free to their own policies.
No taxes on tobacco.
No minimum age to purchase or use tobacco.
No advertising allowed.
No chemical additives allowed.

Woh woh woh, i'll ignore the no tax bit cos thats clearly ideological.
But why the hell would you ban chemical additives OUTRIGHT? Are you THAT untrusting of human progress?
Chemical doesn't = bad. Some, SOME, of the chemicals in tobacco are beneficial or neutral to the smoker and the cigarettes shelf-life and taste.

[Mizrah]

Simple policy.

No smoking in public establishments.
Private establishments free to their own policies.
No taxes on tobacco.
No minimum age to purchase or use tobacco.
No advertising allowed.
No chemical additives allowed.

Woh woh woh, i'll ignore the no tax bit cos thats clearly ideological.
But why the hell would you ban chemical additives OUTRIGHT? Are you THAT untrusting of human progress?
Chemical doesn't = bad. Some, SOME, of the chemicals in tobacco are beneficial or neutral to the smoker and the cigarettes shelf-life and taste.

How is it clearly ideological? I am a Socialist. For most, that would mean wanting to tax it. I choose not to because excise taxes are regressive in nature.

I simply believe that it should be tobacco only. There are many more harmful chemicals than there are good ones.

[Ostroeuropa]

Woh woh woh, i'll ignore the no tax bit cos thats clearly ideological.
But why the hell would you ban chemical additives OUTRIGHT? Are you THAT untrusting of human progress?
Chemical doesn't = bad. Some, SOME, of the chemicals in tobacco are beneficial or neutral to the smoker and the cigarettes shelf-life and taste.

How is it clearly ideological? I am a Socialist. For most, that would mean wanting to tax it. I choose not to because excise taxes are regressive in nature.

I simply believe that it should be tobacco only. There are many more harmful chemicals than there are good ones.

What about what you just said isn't ideological? And yeh, there probably are. So what. Why throw out the baby with the bath water?

[Mizrah]

How is it clearly ideological? I am a Socialist. For most, that would mean wanting to tax it. I choose not to because excise taxes are regressive in nature.

I simply believe that it should be tobacco only. There are many more harmful chemicals than there are good ones.

What about what you just said isn't ideological? And yeh, there probably are. So what. Why throw out the baby with the bath water?

Sarcasm and satire my friend.
They baby is the tobacco. The dirty bath water is the chemical. You are throwing away the chemicals (The dirty bath water), not the tobacco (The baby).

[Ostroeuropa]

What about what you just said isn't ideological? And yeh, there probably are. So what. Why throw out the baby with the bath water?

Sarcasm and satire my friend.
They baby is the tobacco. The dirty bath water is the chemical. You are throwing away the chemicals (The dirty bath water), not the tobacco (The baby).

You just admitted there are good chemicals too. Presumably you don't want to remove all water from the child, since we're overanalyzing the metaphor, usually a sign of a shit argument on your part.
Whats your justification for banning chemicals that prevent the tobacco becomming tainted? Are you one of those "its natural therefore it's good" arsenic chuggers

[Cameroi]

there is a moral aspect to risk. morally i believe everyone has a perfect right to put themselves, and only themselves, at risk. no one has, morally a right, to put at risk others, who do not choose that risk voluntarily.

that is the whole issue with smoking. so its not a question of in public, but ware in public. outside in a wide open space, where there is a large area of atmosphere to dissipate, i don't see where this should be restricted.

but any place where the smoke cannot be prevented from reaching anyone who does not knowingly and willingly accept the risk from it, i mean, common decency and consideration, we have laws, basically because some people choose to be too immature to be considerate of others. and where this thoughtlessness puts others at risk, then yes, it is reasonable and necessary, to have laws to forbid this kind of thoughtlessness when people refuse to be considerate of others without them.

this is why we have laws, or why we need to have some laws anyway, because there are always a few, who for whatever reason, are unwilling or unable to restrain themselves without them.

That must be why bars that explicitly wanted to be smoking bars are still banned. Makes total sense. If your beef is with putting others in danger, why that measure? Do you support it or not?

what i support and what i do not, is on the basis i have outlined. every individual situation is unique, to be judged on the basis here in outlined. a bar would seem to be a special case, a place where no one is there not wishing to put themselves at risk. but how well is that risk confined to that place, most be considered specifically for each place? and how exclusive is that place to those willing to accept that risk? there is no one size fits all rule, other then that of universal, mutual, consideration.

[Cosara]

What about what you just said isn't ideological? And yeh, there probably are. So what. Why throw out the baby with the bath water?

Sarcasm and satire my friend.
They baby is the tobacco. The dirty bath water is the chemical. You are throwing away the chemicals (The dirty bath water), not the tobacco (The baby).

1. WTF?
2. I believe that the baby would be the chemical in that situation.

[Mighty Qin]

Boy, this anti-smoking crowd is a bandwagon jumping, melodramatically asthmatic, self-righteous, "I don't like it so ban it," adults-can't-ever-be-adults, health Nazi, wheat grass sipping, long life destined bunch of boring pricks. Wild parties involving Scrabble, Fruit Smoothies, and Ice Cream going all the way to 11 PM before spending 45 worthless years of drudgery before a shoddy pension and death from colon cancer.

"I smelled smoke and was sick for an hour." "Smoke makes me wheeze uncontrollably, and kills 900,000 people every year." What a bunch of pantywaist, bs'ing ninnies. Be glad some people are considerate enough to pay shitloads of tobacco taxes and die promptly at 65 from smoking before becoming a burden to society for 20 years while telling wild tales of a mundane, useless life to anyone who'll listen. Obviously, smoking doesn't make one interesting whatsoever, but this health nut attitude is a virtual guarantee of a douche wanting a politically correct, G-rated world.

Careless smokers are also pricks and partly responsible for this backlash, though there was a time people weren't so incredibly whiny and quick to ban anything they could merely disagree with. Bertrand Russell loved his pipe and was a better man than these "ban this, ban that" dorks combined.

[Demirysis]

Boy, this anti-smoking crowd is a bandwagon jumping, melodramatically asthmatic, self-righteous, "I don't like it so ban it," adults-can't-ever-be-adults, health Nazi, wheat grass sipping, long life destined bunch of boring pricks. Wild parties involving Scrabble, Fruit Smoothies, and Ice Cream going all the way to 11 PM before spending 45 worthless years of drudgery before a shoddy pension and death from colon cancer.

"I smelled smoke and was sick for an hour." "Smoke makes me wheeze uncontrollably, and kills 900,000 people every year." What a bunch of pantywaist, bs'ing ninnies. Be glad some people are considerate enough to pay shitloads of tobacco taxes and die promptly at 65 from smoking before becoming a burden to society for 20 years while telling wild tales of a mundane, useless life to anyone who'll listen. Obviously, smoking doesn't make one interesting whatsoever, but this health nut attitude is a virtual guarantee of a douche wanting a politically correct, G-rated world.

Careless smokers are also pricks and partly responsible for this backlash, though there was a time people weren't so incredibly whiny and quick to ban anything they could merely disagree with. Bertrand Russell loved his pipe and was a better man than these "ban this, ban that" dorks combined.

I love you.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Because cars and buses make a tangible contribution to society. Cigarettes do not.

Tobacco companies pay millions in taxes each year. Smokers pay just as much in taxes, if not more, than non-smokers. And where do these taxes go? Into healthcare. Education. Road. Housing. Cigarettes as objects don't, because it's impossible for inanimate objects to contribute to society.

And what do the products of the tobacco companies do? What does the lifestyle of smokers do? Oh yeah, clog the health system.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Why the fuck would I walk right behind the exhaust pipe of a bus or any other motor vehicle?

Because you probably don't know anything better. After all, you are claiming that smokers are forcing you to breathe their smoke. And claiming smokers aren't easily seen.

Walking behind a bus or a car implies I'm walking on the road where I'm not supposed to be. I don't get to claim that I'm being forced to breathe in the fumes of cars and buses because I am choosing to walk somewhere I am not supposed to. What part of this is so fucking hard to understand?

Smokers are not easily identifiable.

Aren't they? Do they hide in bushes waiting for you to come along and them jump out and start smoking right in your face? Are their cigarettes invisible to you? News to me. Mainly because I could easily identify smokers simply because they had cigarettes between their fingers.

Damn these ninja smokers.

Yes, I always stare at the hands of people to make sure they aren't holding a fag. I always make sure I sniff people in front of me to detect any trace of cigarette smoke and make sure I dodge them like the plague if they do. I know you're from the country and have probably had minimal experience in any place where pedestrian density is high but you should actually spotting smokers in a crowd, when they can actually be obscured by other people but their smoke isn't.

More often than not you can't choose to not walk behind a smoker because you don't know they're a smoker.

Of course not. In saying that, you can probably smell the smoke on them or see them pulling out a cigarette smoke and lighter. In which case, if you don't want to inhale the smoke, you take evasive action to get away before they light up.

Yep, fortunately I always make sure I use my superhuman senses to detect any smoker anywhere and dodge them. I have nothing else worry about when walking the streets than dodging smokers and I'm always guaranteed to be able to get away from them. Yep.

When a smoker inconsiderately blows a cloud of smoke in the faces of others.

So these ninja smokers you speak of are not only stealthy, but they are also apparently rude and go around blowing smoke into people's faces. Very ninja-like.

Joking aside, when was the last time anyone saw a smoker walking down the street (or leaning on the side or sitting or whatever) blowing smoke into the faces of every single person that walked past?

I don't know, maybe every fucking time they blow a cloud of smoke in a crowd of people?

No, they don't have a choice.

Avoiding them would be a start. You seem to think you can avoid the fumes from buses and such (because you asked why you would walk behind a bus) so it wouldn't be unreasonable (and illogical) to simply avoid the smoker? If you actually gave a shit about your health (as some people apparently claim), would you not try to put as much distance as possible between yourself and the smoker in question?

Here's this shitty analogy again. Pedestrians walk on pavement. Buses drive on the road. I can easily avoid a bus by walking on the pavement where I'm fucking supposed to be. What happens if I want to avoid a smoker? Am I supposed to run onto the road? Into a building? Turn around and bolt through the crowd behind me? Jesus, it's so damn easy to avoid smokers now that I think about it!

Why? I don't find exhaust fumes as annoying as cigarette smoke.

Well at least you admit that this was the crux of your argument. Honestly, I find the smell of coffee irritating but you don't see me starting threads demanding that the consumption of coffee be banned in public. Annoyance is probably the worst excuse anyone can make when advocating the ban of something. Saying it'd be cruelty to moss would be more convincing.

Does coffee cause society health problems? No? Irrelevant.

Smoke because a car's exhaust doesn't pipe it straight to my face.

What happens when a bus or a truck goes past you and accelerates, throwing up a large plume of diesel smoke into your face, as happens more often than some smoker blowing smoke into people's faces because they are apparently rude ninjas.

I don't know, lets start with the fact a trucks exhaust is mounted to exit on top of the vehicle to prevent smoke and more often than not there is a full metre between road and pavement to make way for bike lanes and other parked cars, then let's consider that there isn't any verandas over the road of which to trap the fumes and impede ventilation. Yeah, totally not the same.

Furthermore, cars should not be allowed to enter areas of poor ventilation excluding car parks and tunnels.

Like where exactly? Cities? Valleys?

If you think city roads have poor ventilation, you obviously haven't seen city footpaths.

[Hammer Industries]

Restaurants are not public places. Just a thought.

[Costa Alegria]

Tobacco companies pay millions in taxes each year. Smokers pay just as much in taxes, if not more, than non-smokers. And where do these taxes go? Into healthcare. Education. Road. Housing. Cigarettes as objects don't, because it's impossible for inanimate objects to contribute to society.

And what do the products of the tobacco companies do? What does the lifestyle of smokers do? Oh yeah, clog the health system.

That they, and others, paid for. They pay for a system that they have every right to use. It'd be like refusing treatment to obese people or people with alcohol related conditions.

Walking behind a bus or a car implies I'm walking on the road where I'm not supposed to be.

Considering you claim smokers are difficult to identify, it wouldn't be a big jump to assume you like to play with traffic. Besides, have you never ever crossed a road with traffic stopped on it?

I don't get to claim that I'm being forced to breathe in the fumes of cars and buses because I am choosing to walk somewhere I am not supposed to.

Thing is, you still breathe in the fumes regardless of whether or not you are behind any of the vehicles in question. You're still inhaling all the lovely carcinogens and toxins that vehicles emit.

What part of this is so fucking hard to understand?

Your logic. You should really get that checked out. People really shouldn't be making a complete fuckup of an argument and yet here you are.

Yes, I always stare at the hands of people to make sure they aren't holding a fag.

As I said, damn those ninja smokers. But seriously, smokers are not that particularly difficult to find.

I always make sure I sniff people in front of me to detect any trace of cigarette smoke and make sure I dodge them like the plague if they do. I know you're from the country and have probably had minimal experience in any place where pedestrian density is high but you should actually spotting smokers in a crowd, when they can actually be obscured by other people but their smoke isn't.

Playing the parochialism card are we? You can claim that I'm some sort of country bumpkin all you want. That doesn't make your argument any better nor does it escape the fact that you appear to be blind as the bats themselves (and yes, I am aware bats use echos and whatnot to find their way around). But the fact is, I can at least tell who a smoker is and, if I can actually be bothered, take action to make sure my precious fat-filled body doesn't become contaminated with carcinogens that I'll end up breathing anyway from traffic and other air pollution.

Yep, fortunately I always make sure I use my superhuman senses to detect any smoker anywhere and dodge them.

Oh, so that's what you traded your brain for. Boy did you get ripped off.

Or you could use the superhuman sense of sight.

I have nothing else worry about when walking the streets than dodging smokers and I'm always guaranteed to be able to get away from them. Yep.

You make such a fuss over it, it's like you can't think of anything else. Probably explains why you're wandering around in traffic in the first place.

I don't know, maybe every fucking time they blow a cloud of smoke in a crowd of people?

Because all these ninja smokers are insensitive bastards? Want to know something? I haven't seen any of the actions you describe that apparently are traits of your average smoker.

Pedestrians walk on pavement. Buses drive on the road.

Congratulations. You officially know something that they teach you in kindergarten.

What happens if I want to avoid a smoker?

Walk around them perhaps? It's not a fucking massive cloud of smoke and most footpaths are wide enough for you to easily walk past without exposing your precious internal organs, provided that these ninja smokers haven't hidden in the crowds of people and are waiting to ambush you.

Jesus, it's so damn easy to avoid smokers now that I think about it!

Then perhaps we can transform words into actions.

Does coffee cause society health problems? No? Irrelevant.

The caffeine added to it does. But I find it annoying as you find cigarette smoke annoying. The difference is, I don't want it banned.

I don't know, lets start with the fact a trucks exhaust is mounted to exit on top of the vehicle to prevent smoke and more often than not there is a full metre between road and pavement to make way for bike lanes and other parked cars, then let's consider that there isn't any verandas over the road of which to trap the fumes and impede ventilation. Yeah, totally not the same.

Badly maintained, second hand Japanese truck (or bus) with side mounted, low-down exhaust pipe at a set of traffic lights where the cycle lanes are in the middle. Where I live, it's entirely within the realms of possibility.

If you think city roads have poor ventilation, you obviously haven't seen city footpaths.

I have seen city footpaths. There are more cars than smokers. You do the math. Oh, wait. You traded your brain for defective superpowers so that might be a little difficult.

Cars produce more air pollution that cigarettes. Ergo they should* be banned.

*Of course, that's not likely to happen and I am the last person that thinks they should be.

[Costa Alegria]

I maintain that banning smoking altogether should remain the ultimate goal. However, I also still maintain that reducing demand for smoking is a necessary first step.

Banning smoking in parks and zoos (and their kin) is the next step now that workplaces have been covered.

I agree, completely.

We need to ween society off of this bad habit.

So that means you're in favour of banning alcohol and caffeine.

[Veceria]

I don't mind smokers.
I just hate that my clothes smell of their 'exhaust fumes' after visiting a bar or club. As long as they don't exhale directly into my face in public (which may lead to a fist in the smoker's face after a while), I really couldn't care less.

[Eoghania]

Your point was that other things are in the air too. My response was to point out that I'm not much fond of them either.

My point was about exposing the gaping flaw in your argument.

What flaw? "You say ban this, what about these things that are similar?" "Yes, them too."

But those actions, unlike smoking, are illegal. Your point supports an argument of "things that infringe ought be illegal".

I'm saying if you're going to ban something, apply it to everything. Alcohol, outside of many Islamic states, is not illegal. You said you wanted to ban smoking and I said we should ban alcohol too, because it affects other people.

That's... that just makes no sense as an argument. Are you really saying "Ban one thing, might as well ban them all"? Smoking directly infringes on others. Drinking does not.

Passive smoke.

Which is like saying we should ban all motor vehicles because you breathe their exhaust fumes. Tell me, if someone farted in front of you and you smelled it, would you want flatulence to be banned also?

And as I said before, we should be working to get rid of exhaust fumes. Farts don't really last or have an impact on health. Smoke does.

Do you...do you know anything about how passive smoking works?

Yes, and it is not "forced". As I keep saying, no one is forcing anything upon you.

That you say it's not forced shows you don't understand how it works. Person lights up and makes someone else's options "leave" or "take that smoke". In a work environment, they don't have the "leave" option.

Good grief.

Indeed. It's amazing how thick some people are.

Let's not stoop to ad hominem, thank you.

If saying "my right to bodily sovereignty is greater than your right to infringe on it" is self righteousness and idiocy now, I hold out very little hope for humanity.

Bodily sovereignty? Is that your shitty excuse?

I quite like not having tar in my lungs just because someone else does, thank you.

[Eoghania]

Smoking (regardless of whether it's tobacco, weed, or anything else) ought be banned in public places - it infringes on others. Someone wants to drink, I'm not forced to drink. They want to inject, I'm not forced to inject. They smoke, and I get passive smoke forced on me. Which ain't cool.

Deal with it. Move away. Or have them go away. Or don't inhale nearby them.

Screw that noise. They want to have a cancer stick, they're the one that can move elsewhere.