Smoking In Public

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

Nah, I wouldn't support a ban on it. :v I'd just appreciate it if people kept their smoke away from me. If not oh well. :V
Mm, smoking does make me cough, but I don't over-exaggerate it. My lungs suck. Allergies, asthma, and I've had a nagging cough for about half a year now. :v

Usually if you ask really politely people smokers will move or atempt to avoid blowing in your face, at least here, I don't know where you are from. But yeah, sorry if I came across as an ass.

:V Well, I usually stay a ways away from them, so it's not like they're blowing in my face. It's just the area I wait in circulates the smoke for some reason.
Nah, you don't come across as such. Or at least that I noticed.

[Vitaphone Racing]

And you're also a lot further away from it.

No you're not.

Do explain how you are not further away from an exhaust pipe which is either a metre lower or a metre higher, not to mention at least half a metre away from you if you walk along the edge of the gutter and neglect the footpath on the other side of you.

And exhaust gas from cars is either emitted extremely low or extremely high to minimize the chance of someone breathing it in.

Bullshit. You breathe in more fumes from motor vehicles than you do from ninja smokers.

Yet cigarette fumes are far more harmful as I already pointed out.

Already complying to some regulations is a really poor excuse.

And your entire argument of "ban smoking because it annoys me" is apparently the single best argument put forward in the history of internet debates?

Where have I ever explicitly called for all smoking to be banned?

And roads, unlike many pedestrian footpaths, are not covered to trap exhausts.

Right, because every pedestrian footpath is covered.

Note the difference between the word I used (many) and the word "every".

I don't give a rats arse what you pay for smokes. There is no expressed legal right to smoke wherever you please therefore being allowed to legally smoke anywhere outside could change at any given minute.

Same thing goes for driving. You don't have a legal right to use a motor vehicle and pollute the atmosphere as you do so.

Highlight where I said such a right existed. Do it.

[Condunum]

No you're not.

Do explain how you are not further away from an exhaust pipe which is either a metre lower or a metre higher, not to mention at least half a metre away from you if you walk along the edge of the gutter and neglect the footpath on the other side of you.

Bullshit. You breathe in more fumes from motor vehicles than you do from ninja smokers.

Yet cigarette fumes are far more harmful as I already pointed out.

And your entire argument of "ban smoking because it annoys me" is apparently the single best argument put forward in the history of internet debates?

Where have I ever explicitly called for all smoking to be banned?

Right, because every pedestrian footpath is covered.

Note the difference between the word I used (many) and the word "every".

Same thing goes for driving. You don't have a legal right to use a motor vehicle and pollute the atmosphere as you do so.

Highlight where I said such a right existed. Do it.

He never claimed you did say such rights exist, he was using an analogy.

[Costa Alegria]

Do explain how you are not further away from an exhaust pipe which is either a metre lower or a metre higher, not to mention at least half a metre away from you if you walk along the edge of the gutter and neglect the footpath on the other side of you.

Traffic lights. Not particularly difficult.

Yet cigarette fumes are far more harmful as I already pointed out.

They are not.

Where have I ever explicitly called for all smoking to be banned?

You haven't.

Highlight where I said such a right existed. Do it.

You didn't. That doesn't necessarily make my point invalid.

They don't pay for it at all.

They do. The government doesn't simply pull money out of it's arse to pay for healthcare. Jesus Christ, do you really think smokers don't pay for the healthcare that they receive?

Is that like assuming that you can't debate for shit because you throw in an ad hominem every chance you get?

I can debate and I don't use personal annoyance as a base for an entire argument. I'm not petty.

Furthermore, cars are not allowed to park on pedestrian crossings, therefore your point is sort of moot.

Who says I was talking about crossing the street at a crossing?

I also suppose you haven't bothered to consider the exit points of exhausts for cars and trucks? Ie. either really low or really high to minimize the possibility that you can breath anything in? Maybe we already passed regulations to prevent this sort of pollution....

Actually, most of the regulations would be to minimize what is actually coming out of the exhaust rather than where the exhaust pipe is placed, not to mention the thousands, if not, millions of vehicles on the roads that do not meet these new emissions standards.

Cigarette smoke is worse than car fumes my arse.

Yeah, and I can choose to stay out of an area where I'm most likely to breath in these fumes. I don't have an area on the footpath I can go to in order to get away from smokers.

Yes you do. It's called the other side.

Plus, you should actually check the list of carcinogens emitted by the exhaust of a vehicle and then compare them against cigarette smoke.

I would do but I'd prefer being entertained by your terrible argument.

Watch the ad homs honey.

Can't really see how saying your argument is terrible is making a personal attack against you. You're probably capable of making compelling arguments but with this one, you failed miserably.

Although insinuating that I'm some sort of simple country bumpkin is considered one. Perhaps if you attacked the argument rather than pretending that living in a big city somehow makes you superior to other people, you'd have a better argument to put forward.

You broke my argument up into three distinct parts and still found a way to completely miss the point.

Point? What "point"? All I saw was a whine about how you don't like smokers and about how rude they are and how cigarette smoke annoys you. If there was a point to that other than expressing personal displeasure then please point it out.

Yes, because we all stare at people's hands when we walk don't we?

I do sometimes. But it really isn't difficult to see them unless you're staring at the ground.

Another ad hom!

I know right? Calling me a country bumpkin really doesn't seem to earn you brownie points does it?

You don't actually think that non-smokers who dislike cigarette smoke don't try to keep a distance from smokers do you?

Judging by your claims about how you can't see smokers and how they keep blowing smoke into your face, it doesn't seem like you bother trying.

Tell me more about your brilliant abilities to spot smokers everywhere, even when you can't see them.

It's called "not giving a fuck". You should try it.

What about when they aren't in your line of sight?

What? You think everyone walks around with blinkers on like horses? Because they might be spooked by something out of the ordinary? Jesus mate, you really sound paranoid. So what if they are out of sight?

Seriously, is this the argument you are trying to make? "Aha! He can't counter this!" That's because it's the stupidest suggestion I have seen on this topic.

See why I think you're a country bumpkin?

Because you are a hypocrite? Moaning about ad hominems and yet, here you are. Making them yourself.

If you had any experience in large crowds of people you'd actually understand. Get out more.

I would but I'm afraid that those ninja smokers might sneak up behind me and start blowing cigarette smoke in my face.

It's so cute how you argue a different point when you can't think of some other snappy retort.

Seems to be rubbing off on you.

Odd. Plenty of other people in this thread have. Get out more.

Plenty of other people in this thread also apparently think that they're being forced to breath smoke or that tobacco should be banned entirely. Doesn't mean that they are right.

If you didn't have a firm grasp on this concept, I wouldn't have needed to point it out, would I?

I'm not the one wandering around in traffic paranoid about ninja smokers that he cannot see.

You should learn how things behave in the gas state.

I do. I just have a feeling that you perhaps don't.

Let me know when you have a study that shows breathing in coffee can leave you with lung cancer.

I don't have a study.

I find that hard to believe since such a vehicle wouldn't be road worthy.

Then clearly, you have not seen vehicles on New Zealand roads.

The streets which accommodate central bike lanes but no parking lanes rarely if ever take pedestrians.

The intersections do. That's when the vehicles are closest to you and you are stationary for some period of time and when vehicles accelerate.

Remember how I was talking about ventilation? Yeah? That shit I said which you couldn't respond to? Yeah, that's why you're wrong.

I beg to differ. But you're entitled to your opinion.

Yeah, I totally made this argument about how air pollution something makes, certainly not the method of which it's made and the area of which it goes into. Normally I don't stoop so low as telling people to learn to read but it's something you obviously need telling.

Now now, attack the argument, not the poster.

[The Multiversal Species Alliance]

As an ashmatic individual, I'm of the opinion that smoking should be allowed anywhere, if the owners of the property it's done on allow it.

[Condunum]

As an asthmatic individual, I'm of the opinion that smoking should be allowed anywhere, if the owners of the property it's done on allow it.

Thank you for understanding that's what we want.

And I think I can speak for many smokers when I say: we do make an effort to not get in your way, or irritate you.

[Eoghania]

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

You never said anything about banning alcohol.

Because I was answering your "air pollutant". I addressed the alcohol point - the act of consuming it does not infringe on others, infringing consequences are illegal already.

That's... that just makes no sense as an argument. Are you really saying "Ban one thing, might as well ban them all"?

Why not? Why stop at smoking? Why not ban all drugs?

Because the issue is with the method (smoking), not the substance (tobacco).

Smoking directly infringes on others. Drinking does not.

Clearly you've never encountered drunk people.

Consequences of action are different to an action. How hard is that to understand?

Person lights up and makes someone else's options "leave" or "take that smoke".

Leave. No one is making you sit there and breathe the second hand smoke except yourself.

No. You leave. You wanted to smoke, you go elsewhere - you're the one infringing on others with your action.

In a work environment, they don't have the "leave" option.

Smoking is banned indoors, is it not?

Outdoor work environments exist.

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

And you won't get it. Instead, you'll get lung cancer and other interesting little lumps from breathing in traffic fumes and other air pollution.

Smoke begets tar.

[Catuskoti]

As an asthmatic I often curse, metaphorically of course, at smokers who either purposely or by accident blow their cigarette smoke in my face. What follows is usually a nasty cough and wheezing, which is always pleasant whilst walking through town or around my college. Luckily I usually only have to experience smoke all around me in the town centre or by my college as, here in the UK, ever since the smoking ban I can sit in restaurants and pubs, offices etc. without it. Thankfully none of my family smoke either.

However I was wondering-should we go further with smoking restrictions in public? In the UK and in a number of US states I believe, smoking bans inside public places such as bars and offices, but out on the street you are perfectly free to smoke. Should we restrict this further-smoking should only be permitted inside your own home or on other private property? Perhaps we shouldn't allow smoking in high streets-we have alcohol free zones where you can't drink, why not this?

I'll admit I'm biased in my view being an asthmatic, but I'd like perhaps smoke free zones in high streets or only allowing smoking in smoke shelters. I'd even stretch to only allowing smoking on private property, but nothing else. Do you agree or do you take a libertarian viewpoint on smoking-you can do it anywhere you like, regardless.

Thank you NS.

I think it's ridiculous to ban smoking based on this reason but to not ban other substances that can also induce an asthmatic attack (or create complications for those with chemical sensitivity). For example, heavy perfumes or diesel engines.

I'm not saying we should ban perfume and diesel trucks but singling out one group while neglecting other factors seem discriminatory to me.

[Veceria]

As an asthmatic I often curse, metaphorically of course, at smokers who either purposely or by accident blow their cigarette smoke in my face. What follows is usually a nasty cough and wheezing, which is always pleasant whilst walking through town or around my college. Luckily I usually only have to experience smoke all around me in the town centre or by my college as, here in the UK, ever since the smoking ban I can sit in restaurants and pubs, offices etc. without it. Thankfully none of my family smoke either.

However I was wondering-should we go further with smoking restrictions in public? In the UK and in a number of US states I believe, smoking bans inside public places such as bars and offices, but out on the street you are perfectly free to smoke. Should we restrict this further-smoking should only be permitted inside your own home or on other private property? Perhaps we shouldn't allow smoking in high streets-we have alcohol free zones where you can't drink, why not this?

I'll admit I'm biased in my view being an asthmatic, but I'd like perhaps smoke free zones in high streets or only allowing smoking in smoke shelters. I'd even stretch to only allowing smoking on private property, but nothing else. Do you agree or do you take a libertarian viewpoint on smoking-you can do it anywhere you like, regardless.

Thank you NS.

I think it's ridiculous to ban smoking based on this reason but to not ban other substances that can also induce an asthmatic attack (or create complications for those with chemical sensitivity). For example, heavy perfumes or diesel engines.

I'm not saying we should ban perfume and diesel trucks but singling out one group while neglecting other factors seem discriminatory to me.

Please stop using exhaust fumes of cars or factories when talking about smoking. It's not like you have to smoke. It's not like you can drive cigarettes or that cigarettes power your house, for example.

[Ostroeuropa]

I think it's ridiculous to ban smoking based on this reason but to not ban other substances that can also induce an asthmatic attack (or create complications for those with chemical sensitivity). For example, heavy perfumes or diesel engines.

I'm not saying we should ban perfume and diesel trucks but singling out one group while neglecting other factors seem discriminatory to me.

Please stop using exhaust fumes of cars or factories when talking about smoking. It's not like you have to smoke. It's not like you can drive cigarettes or that cigarettes power your house, for example.

You don't have to drive or heat your house either.

[Veceria]

Please stop using exhaust fumes of cars or factories when talking about smoking. It's not like you have to smoke. It's not like you can drive cigarettes or that cigarettes power your house, for example.

You don't have to drive or heat your house either.

Seriously? So you want to walk several hundred kilometers instead and want to freeze to death when it's cold outside?
Please think before you write such things.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Do explain how you are not further away from an exhaust pipe which is either a metre lower or a metre higher, not to mention at least half a metre away from you if you walk along the edge of the gutter and neglect the footpath on the other side of you.

Traffic lights. Not particularly difficult.

Yet cigarette fumes are far more harmful as I already pointed out.

They are not.

Where have I ever explicitly called for all smoking to be banned?

You haven't.

Highlight where I said such a right existed. Do it.

You didn't. That doesn't necessarily make my point invalid.

They don't pay for it at all.

They do. The government doesn't simply pull money out of it's arse to pay for healthcare. Jesus Christ, do you really think smokers don't pay for the healthcare that they receive?

Is that like assuming that you can't debate for shit because you throw in an ad hominem every chance you get?

I can debate and I don't use personal annoyance as a base for an entire argument. I'm not petty.

Furthermore, cars are not allowed to park on pedestrian crossings, therefore your point is sort of moot.

Who says I was talking about crossing the street at a crossing?

I also suppose you haven't bothered to consider the exit points of exhausts for cars and trucks? Ie. either really low or really high to minimize the possibility that you can breath anything in? Maybe we already passed regulations to prevent this sort of pollution....

Actually, most of the regulations would be to minimize what is actually coming out of the exhaust rather than where the exhaust pipe is placed, not to mention the thousands, if not, millions of vehicles on the roads that do not meet these new emissions standards.

Cigarette smoke is worse than car fumes my arse.

Yeah, and I can choose to stay out of an area where I'm most likely to breath in these fumes. I don't have an area on the footpath I can go to in order to get away from smokers.

Yes you do. It's called the other side.

Plus, you should actually check the list of carcinogens emitted by the exhaust of a vehicle and then compare them against cigarette smoke.

I would do but I'd prefer being entertained by your terrible argument.

Watch the ad homs honey.

Can't really see how saying your argument is terrible is making a personal attack against you. You're probably capable of making compelling arguments but with this one, you failed miserably.

Although insinuating that I'm some sort of simple country bumpkin is considered one. Perhaps if you attacked the argument rather than pretending that living in a big city somehow makes you superior to other people, you'd have a better argument to put forward.

You broke my argument up into three distinct parts and still found a way to completely miss the point.

Point? What "point"? All I saw was a whine about how you don't like smokers and about how rude they are and how cigarette smoke annoys you. If there was a point to that other than expressing personal displeasure then please point it out.

Yes, because we all stare at people's hands when we walk don't we?

I do sometimes. But it really isn't difficult to see them unless you're staring at the ground.

Another ad hom!

I know right? Calling me a country bumpkin really doesn't seem to earn you brownie points does it?

You don't actually think that non-smokers who dislike cigarette smoke don't try to keep a distance from smokers do you?

Judging by your claims about how you can't see smokers and how they keep blowing smoke into your face, it doesn't seem like you bother trying.

Tell me more about your brilliant abilities to spot smokers everywhere, even when you can't see them.

It's called "not giving a fuck". You should try it.

What about when they aren't in your line of sight?

What? You think everyone walks around with blinkers on like horses? Because they might be spooked by something out of the ordinary? Jesus mate, you really sound paranoid. So what if they are out of sight?

Seriously, is this the argument you are trying to make? "Aha! He can't counter this!" That's because it's the stupidest suggestion I have seen on this topic.

See why I think you're a country bumpkin?

Because you are a hypocrite? Moaning about ad hominems and yet, here you are. Making them yourself.

If you had any experience in large crowds of people you'd actually understand. Get out more.

I would but I'm afraid that those ninja smokers might sneak up behind me and start blowing cigarette smoke in my face.

It's so cute how you argue a different point when you can't think of some other snappy retort.

Seems to be rubbing off on you.

Odd. Plenty of other people in this thread have. Get out more.

Plenty of other people in this thread also apparently think that they're being forced to breath smoke or that tobacco should be banned entirely. Doesn't mean that they are right.

If you didn't have a firm grasp on this concept, I wouldn't have needed to point it out, would I?

I'm not the one wandering around in traffic paranoid about ninja smokers that he cannot see.

You should learn how things behave in the gas state.

I do. I just have a feeling that you perhaps don't.

Let me know when you have a study that shows breathing in coffee can leave you with lung cancer.

I don't have a study.

I find that hard to believe since such a vehicle wouldn't be road worthy.

Then clearly, you have not seen vehicles on New Zealand roads.

The streets which accommodate central bike lanes but no parking lanes rarely if ever take pedestrians.

The intersections do. That's when the vehicles are closest to you and you are stationary for some period of time and when vehicles accelerate.

Remember how I was talking about ventilation? Yeah? That shit I said which you couldn't respond to? Yeah, that's why you're wrong.

I beg to differ. But you're entitled to your opinion.

Yeah, I totally made this argument about how air pollution something makes, certainly not the method of which it's made and the area of which it goes into. Normally I don't stoop so low as telling people to learn to read but it's something you obviously need telling.

Now now, attack the argument, not the poster.

I'm getting a bit sick of addressing every nitpick and allowing you to continually miss the main point so I'm going to try this again. Read it once through before you start jumping in and stating shit, there's a good lad.

This study clearly outlines the comparison in relative harm between cigarette smoke and automotive exhausts. You claimed car exhausts are more harmful, here's the source which proves you wrong. This is about the only salvageable thing out of this clusterfuck of a post train.

And every chance you get, you've always brought it back to cars like that justifies everything. It does not actually matter the least little bit about what other forms of air pollution there are in the world because this is explicitly dealing with cigarette smoke. There is no god damn point demanding a solution to all forms of air pollution or just accepting things as the way they are with no attempt whatosever to address it. Why can we not have an intelligent debate about cigarette smoke and it's effects without having to mention cars? Cannot believe people here still have the audacity to demand an all or nothing approach to a problem after this particular approach has been blasted in near every other thread about any other public issue on this forum.

And you know what, I'd happily support any reasonable restriction which would reduce pollution from vehicle exhausts. In fact restrictions on automotive exhausts have been getting steadily tighter since the 70's, so it actually is something that we are actually working towards. Yet you still pretend that smokers should be immune to further regulation because you claim not to be bothered and say I'm the problem even though there have been several others in this thread, not to mention even the majority of the public thinks it's a problem, but no, what you say goes. Hell, if you say it isn't really a problem then people have no right to their own opinion.

Lastly, why do you go to extremes to misrepresent any argument which you disagree with? I mean, you've given me page after page of shit saying how I want all smoking banned because it annoys me when I haven't said anything of the such. If you can't debate properly, and by that I mean can't address the facts presented without pulling stuff out of your arse, then just piss off. Jesus, half the shit you've been bothered writing in the above posts and the ones previous aren't even related to the topic, but you're still an awesome debater. I guess you know how to spot a "terrible argument" when you see one, even though you still apparently are unable to grasp it.

[Ostroeuropa]

You don't have to drive or heat your house either.

Seriously? So you want to walk several hundred kilometers instead and want to freeze to death when it's cold outside?
Please think before you write such things.

Seriously? So you want to control what I can and cannot do with my body? You want to tell me one of the few calming activities I get up to isn't necessary? Please think before you write such things.

[Mkuki]

Please stop using exhaust fumes of cars or factories when talking about smoking. It's not like you have to smoke. It's not like you can drive cigarettes or that cigarettes power your house, for example.

You don't have to drive or heat your house either.

True, you don't have to, but, unlike cigarettes, cars and warm houses actually benefit society at large more than cigarettes ever could.

[Costa Alegria]

You don't have to drive or heat your house either.

True, you don't have to, but, unlike cigarettes, cars and warm houses actually benefit society at large more than cigarettes ever could.

Except that both these things can be done without the need to burn shit.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Please stop using exhaust fumes of cars or factories when talking about smoking. It's not like you have to smoke. It's not like you can drive cigarettes or that cigarettes power your house, for example.

You don't have to drive or heat your house either.

So apart from dropping dead at 65, what does smoking do that's beneficial for the community that makes it comparable to heating your house or driving a car?

[Costa Alegria]

I'm getting a bit sick of addressing every nitpick and allowing you to continually miss the main point so I'm going to try this again.

If there was an actual point to your argument other than it being about you expressing your displeasure of smoking and smokers. But there isn't, so I can't see how I can miss something that doesn't exist.

And every chance you get, you've always brought it back to cars like that justifies everything.

It does.

There is no god damn point demanding a solution to all forms of air pollution or just accepting things as the way they are with no attempt whatosever to address it.

No one asked for any ways. There are plenty, with some already being implemented.

Why can we not have an intelligent debate about cigarette smoke and it's effects without having to mention cars?

We can. I can easily rant on all day about the dangers of alcohol.

Yet you still pretend that smokers should be immune to further regulation because you claim not to be bothered and say I'm the problem even though there have been several others in this thread, not to mention even the majority of the public thinks it's a problem, but no, what you say goes.

Several others? I can count four who go into detail. Someone who thinks bodily sovereignty is something that applies to smoking and a couple of people who believe that you are being forced to breathe cigarette smoke by the smokers themselves (including those ninja ones you speak of) do not really present either a majority nor convincing arguments.

Also, one poll automatically represents what the majority of the public thinks does it? One poll in one city in one country. Interesting logic, is it not?

Hell, if you say it isn't really a problem then people have no right to their own opinion.

They do.

Lastly, why do you go to extremes to misrepresent any argument which you disagree with?

Any argument? I apparently "misrepresent" whatever "argument" you presented me with and you claim that I do this to everyone now?

If you can't debate properly, and by that I mean can't address the facts presented without pulling stuff out of your arse, then just piss off.

I can. I just don't have particularly good material to work with.

I guess you know how to spot a "terrible argument" when you see one.

Kinda stating the obvious right there, aren't we?

[Costa Alegria]

You don't have to drive or heat your house either.

So apart from dropping dead at 65, what does smoking do that's beneficial for the community that makes it comparable to heating your house or driving a car?

Paying taxes. Working for a living. You know, things that people like you do.

[Gothmogs]

So apart from dropping dead at 65, what does smoking do that's beneficial for the community that makes it comparable to heating your house or driving a car?

Paying taxes. Working for a living. You know, things that people like you do.

He/she said what does smoking do,not what do smokers do.

[Ostroeuropa]

Paying taxes. Working for a living. You know, things that people like you do.

He/she said what does smoking do,not what do smokers do.

Excercises my rights.

[Veceria]

Seriously? So you want to walk several hundred kilometers instead and want to freeze to death when it's cold outside?
Please think before you write such things.

Seriously? So you want to control what I can and cannot do with my body? You want to tell me one of the few calming activities I get up to isn't necessary? Please think before you write such things.

Oh come on ... I don't have anything against smokers, as long as they act like reasonable, mature human beings. You should read my first posts in this thread before assuming stuff.

So apart from dropping dead at 65, what does smoking do that's beneficial for the community that makes it comparable to heating your house or driving a car?

Paying taxes. Working for a living. You know, things that people like you do.

Smoking pays taxes and works for a living? I didn't know that. Really now, read what people write.
Yes, you pay high taxes for your cigarettes. But as I said before, you don't have to smoke.

[Vitaphone Racing]

I'm getting a bit sick of addressing every nitpick and allowing you to continually miss the main point so I'm going to try this again.

If there was an actual point to your argument other than it being about you expressing your displeasure of smoking and smokers. But there isn't, so I can't see how I can miss something that doesn't exist.

If that's my point then why have you been unable to find exactly where I've said it? You've stated this for god knowns how long and now it's getting really old. I'm calling you out. I'm asking you for anything which remotely suggests my argument is about my personal distaste for cigarette smoke. Either find anything to back your claims or leave this shitty argument of yours right here.

And every chance you get, you've always brought it back to cars like that justifies everything.

It does.

Are you going to explain why?

There is no god damn point demanding a solution to all forms of air pollution or just accepting things as the way they are with no attempt whatosever to address it.

No one asked for any ways. There are plenty, with some already being implemented.

Are you trying to say that people have already been asking for ways to reduce the issues of cigarette smoke to people who dislike it, and you've supported these arguments? This sort of sits really deeply at odds with you "b-b-b-but cars!!!" stance which we've had the last few pages of.

Why can we not have an intelligent debate about cigarette smoke and it's effects without having to mention cars?

We can. I can easily rant on all day about the dangers of alcohol.

Alcohol which you aren't allowed to consume in public? Lawl.

Yet you still pretend that smokers should be immune to further regulation because you claim not to be bothered and say I'm the problem even though there have been several others in this thread, not to mention even the majority of the public thinks it's a problem, but no, what you say goes.

Several others? I can count four who go into detail. Someone who thinks bodily sovereignty is something that applies to smoking and a couple of people who believe that you are being forced to breathe cigarette smoke by the smokers themselves (including those ninja ones you speak of) do not really present either a majority nor convincing arguments.

Also, one poll automatically represents what the majority of the public thinks does it? One poll in one city in one country. Interesting logic, is it not?

"This evidence doesn't say what I want it to so I can pretend it doesn't matter"

Hell, if you say it isn't really a problem then people have no right to their own opinion.

They do.

So why have you consistently told me and others that their concerns aren't warranted?

Lastly, why do you go to extremes to misrepresent any argument which you disagree with?

Any argument? I apparently "misrepresent" whatever "argument" you presented me with and you claim that I do this to everyone now?

Any argument I've stated anyway. I don't actually think you've replied to a poster in this thread without assuming they are in favour of a complete public ban.

If you can't debate properly, and by that I mean can't address the facts presented without pulling stuff out of your arse, then just piss off.

I can. I just don't have particularly good material to work with.

I know, you keep choosing sentences that have nothing to do with the main point which is smoking in public. I've just spent the last five minutes dealing with completely irrelevant nitpicks so you can dodge the main point of "why shouldn't smokers be able to be regulated more?"

You can answer that at anytime you know.

I guess you know how to spot a "terrible argument" when you see one.

Kinda stating the obvious right there, aren't we?

It is relieving to know you at least re-read what you write.

[Gothmogs]

He/she said what does smoking do,not what do smokers do.

Excercises my rights.

I would be okay with that, except that smoking is very hard to keep away from other people. What I don't understand is why people do it. Hot chemicals going into lungs=bad

[Vitaphone Racing]

So apart from dropping dead at 65, what does smoking do that's beneficial for the community that makes it comparable to heating your house or driving a car?

Paying taxes. Working for a living. You know, things that people like you do.

Smoking generates a revenue of $44.5 billion in the US. US health costs related to smoking are $96 billion. Smoking does not contribute to society until the smoker drops dead and stops claiming the pension or medical benefits.

[Fireye]

You don't have a legal right to smoke...

Last I checked, it wasn't illegal to smoke so long as you are of age. therefore, yes s/he does.