183 replies to this topic

[VictorBjoerk]

So what do you think.Many people want the right to damage their bodies as well as causing danger to other people through passive smoke.

I have a short horrible story to tell here.......

My grandmother has been married 4 times and everyone has died of lung cancer (of all different types of cancer)and every one has been asmoker.
This sounds completely unbelievable but it's actually true.
To watch someone die from lung cancer directly attributed to their smoking isn't very nice.

On the other hand we have the liberty that everyone should be allowed to what they want to their bodies.

please motivate why u voted as you did!!

[Live Forever]

The government should not legislate morality, imo.

[niner]

I voted 'only in public places' because I believe that everyone has a right to breathe clean air, and that right trumps the rights of drug addicts to fix anywhere they please. Your right to smoke, like your right to swing your fist, ends at my nose. I don't think smoking should be made completely illegal because that will just cause more problems than it fixes. I think a lot of drugs that are illegal now should be legal but regulated.

[forever freedom]

I voted yes but soon after i changed my opinion to no. I remembered what happens to drugs that get illegal... it funds drug trafficants.. especially here in brazil.

[Shepard]

It is impossible for me to vote against any type of smoking on this most awesome of days.

[niner]

It is impossible for me to vote against any type of smoking on this most awesome of days.

Shepard ftw! Best reply. Here's the documentation: http://www.wired.com...s/2002/04/51986

[Athanasios]

Sidestream smoke or passive smoke or secondhand is only damaging when done in an enclosed space. Many twist the studies results for their own ends. In an enclosed public space I would say ban but in open air, no.

[Shannon Vyff]

hah, I'd noticed it was 4-20 day, my husband didn't know what that meant there is a long history of celebrating that with quite public celebrations in Eugene OR, my decade there makes me take note amusingly of this day, even if there is nothing in the public realm or news here in Austin TX...


hey, I'd love to impose laws to make people eat healthy or be healthy (like removing trans fat) so I voted yes, but it is dream world here in reality I support people's right to kill themselves, just as long as it does not harm others (in the case of smoking--say doing it outdoors, in designated areas 50 feet from building entrances) but--if they can get nicotine from gum, or eating THC in their brownies for that matter--I'm much more in support of making those ways of accessing people's favorite comfort drugs, much more accessible.

[niner]

There's a lot of No's here, but since the question at the top is about "completely" banning smoking, maybe some of you are thinking more about that. The question about "only in public places" is not exactly consistent with "completely" in the title, so the whole thing is a little confusing. If you are in the camp of No banning at all, would you draw the line at any of these situations?

Banning smoking in:

A public park
An outdoor sports stadium everywhere
An outdoor sports stadium in the seats
Bars
Restaurants
Airplanes
Public Libraries
Your child's preschool, in the classroom
A pulmonary intensive care unit where a loved one was a patient

[bacopa]

I chose banning smoking only in public places.

[Heliotrope]

WHY WHY WHY? Why do ppl damage their bodies with smoke? Don't they realize they'd die from smoking too much


I refuse 2nd hand smoke, they make me cough , ppl try to pass it onto me, and i hate it. Years ago, i jogged across a little path , a few young teenagers 13-15 year olds were smoking something in a bushy area. one handed me a cig looking thing and said : "Hey man, want to smoke a joint?? Another kid chirped along, " yeah dude, [cough cough] it's rreally goood. free, on us." I shook my head a little, said no and ran away.

I should have either discouraged them, called thier parents (not that i know who their folks are), reported them to the police, or kicked their collective asses for offering it to me (i learned karate and kickboxing and was ~17 and bigger, fitter than any of them).

The last option wouldn't have worked well. They'd gang up on me and even with their smoke-weakened bodies, they'd beat me up seriously. Small surface wounds i'd recover, but if they knocked me to ground, stepped, kicked and ruptured my testicles, my future would be deleted. it's a serious concern. If i can't be immortal, i want children at least

at one school, one bully for apprently no reason at all kicked and punched all over a poor kid in the hallway, ruptured a TESTICLE and busted a kidney, all had to be removed with surgery. at another school, one big fat bully kid produced a knife in the public bathroom and said: " I'd cut all your little dickies off." The other kids were scared, a few threatened back, the rest ran out. The big bully poked the knife thru a couple of kids. One kid almost made it out of the school's gate, but was scared and tripped up in a pot-hole, the big bully caught up with him and stabbed that attempted-escapee too, before turning the knife on himself, because teachers and guards were running madly out of the building and screamign bloody murder and stop. no one died, but truly a scary story, very serious. From what i heard, that big bully even laughed maniacally after stabbing the pot-holed kid multiple times .. ..

Edited by HYP86, 21 April 2008 - 07:04 AM.

[VictorBjoerk]

Hmmm.....The overwhelming majority here doesn't like smoking and neither do I. Personally I tend to agree with Shannon.
but as it is right now it is quite difficult to avoid second hand smoke when e.g walking around in a town.
According to latest statistics,60% of smokers will die directly to smoking-related diseases not to mention what passive smoking causes

[platypus]

Hmmm.....The overwhelming majority here doesn't like smoking and neither do I. Personally I tend to agree with Shannon.
but as it is right now it is quite difficult to avoid second hand smoke when e.g walking around in a town.

It's even more difficult to avoid the exhaust from internal combustion engines while walking around town - let them ban those darn engines first as I'm pretty sure second-hand cigarette-smoke is a lot healthier than diesel exhaust.

Edited by platypus, 21 April 2008 - 10:28 AM.

[VictorBjoerk]

The most common cancer in Sweden is lung cancer and 95% of the lung cancer patients are smokers. such a obvious problem.

[VictorBjoerk]

WHY WHY WHY? Why do ppl damage their bodies with smoke? Don't they realize they'd die from smoking too much


I refuse 2nd hand smoke, they make me cough , ppl try to pass it onto me, and i hate it. Years ago, i jogged across a little path , a few young teenagers 13-15 year olds were smoking something in a bushy area. one handed me a cig looking thing and said : "Hey man, want to smoke a joint?? Another kid chirped along, " yeah dude, [cough cough] it's rreally goood. free, on us." I shook my head a little, said no and ran away.

I should have either discouraged them, called thier parents (not that i know who their folks are), reported them to the police, or kicked their collective asses for offering it to me (i learned karate and kickboxing and was ~17 and bigger, fitter than any of them).

The last option wouldn't have worked well. They'd gang up on me and even with their smoke-weakened bodies, they'd beat me up seriously. Small surface wounds i'd recover, but if they knocked me to ground, stepped, kicked and ruptured my testicles, my future would be deleted. it's a serious concern. If i can't be immortal, i want children at least

at one school, one bully for apprently no reason at all kicked and punched all over a poor kid in the hallway, ruptured a TESTICLE and busted a kidney, all had to be removed with surgery. at another school, one big fat bully kid produced a knife in the public bathroom and said: " I'd cut all your little dickies off." The other kids were scared, a few threatened back, the rest ran out. The big bully poked the knife thru a couple of kids. One kid almost made it out of the school's gate, but was scared and tripped up in a pot-hole, the big bully caught up with him and stabbed that attempted-escapee too, before turning the knife on himself, because teachers and guards were running madly out of the building and screamign bloody murder and stop. no one died, but truly a scary story, very serious. From what i heard, that big bully even laughed maniacally after stabbing the pot-holed kid multiple times .. ..

Well,such a tragedy smoking joints during that age. Society should force them to join a boy choir or something...

[VictorBjoerk]

That was my 100th post on this forum by the way.Does that mean something?

Edited by Shonghow, 21 April 2008 - 01:33 PM.

[Heliotrope]

WHY WHY WHY? Why do ppl damage their bodies with smoke? Don't they realize they'd die from smoking too much


I refuse 2nd hand smoke, they make me cough , ppl try to pass it onto me, and i hate it. Years ago, i jogged across a little path , a few young teenagers 13-15 year olds were smoking something in a bushy area. one handed me a cig looking thing and said : "Hey man, want to smoke a joint?? Another kid chirped along, " yeah dude, [cough cough] it's rreally goood. free, on us." I shook my head a little, said no and ran away.

I should have either discouraged them, called thier parents (not that i know who their folks are), reported them to the police, or kicked their collective asses for offering it to me (i learned karate and kickboxing and was ~17 and bigger, fitter than any of them).

The last option wouldn't have worked well. They'd gang up on me and even with their smoke-weakened bodies, they'd beat me up seriously. Small surface wounds i'd recover, but if they knocked me to ground, stepped, kicked and ruptured my testicles, my future would be deleted. it's a serious concern. If i can't be immortal, i want children at least

at one school, one bully for apprently no reason at all kicked and punched all over a poor kid in the hallway, ruptured a TESTICLE and busted a kidney, all had to be removed with surgery. at another school, one big fat bully kid produced a knife in the public bathroom and said: " I'd cut all your little dickies off." The other kids were scared, a few threatened back, the rest ran out. The big bully poked the knife thru a couple of kids. One kid almost made it out of the school's gate, but was scared and tripped up in a pot-hole, the big bully caught up with him and stabbed that attempted-escapee too, before turning the knife on himself, because teachers and guards were running madly out of the building and screamign bloody murder and stop. no one died, but truly a scary story, very serious. From what i heard, that big bully even laughed maniacally after stabbing the pot-holed kid multiple times .. ..

Well,such a tragedy smoking joints during that age. Society should force them to join a boy choir or something...

totally ...

[Wandering Jew]

at one school, one bully for apprently no reason at all kicked and punched all over a poor kid in the hallway, ruptured a TESTICLE and busted a kidney, all had to be removed with surgery. at another school, one big fat bully kid produced a knife in the public bathroom and said: " I'd cut all your little dickies off." The other kids were scared, a few threatened back, the rest ran out. The big bully poked the knife thru a couple of kids. One kid almost made it out of the school's gate, but was scared and tripped up in a pot-hole, the big bully caught up with him and stabbed that attempted-escapee too, before turning the knife on himself, because teachers and guards were running madly out of the building and screamign bloody murder and stop. no one died, but truly a scary story, very serious. From what i heard, that big bully even laughed maniacally after stabbing the pot-holed kid multiple times .. ..



What is the world coming to?

Edited by elrond, 22 April 2008 - 07:42 PM.
removed religious reference

[niner]

What is the world coming to? Praise JEsus the lord

This kind of barbarism never would have happened in the middle ages. Or even in the 1800's. Or 1900's. The centuries of gentleness. It must be Bill Clinton's fault.

[eternaltraveler]

If by "public places", you mean publicly owned land/buildings, then sure, ban smoking there. But I suspect by "public places" you in fact mean privately owned businesses like bars, restaurants etc. Banning smoking in the private places like the two I just mentioned is tyranny.

A public park
An outdoor sports stadium everywhere
An outdoor sports stadium in the seats
Bars
Restaurants
Airplanes
Public Libraries
Your child's preschool, in the classroom
A pulmonary intensive care unit where a loved one was a patient

the above list is full of red herrings. No hospital would allow smoking in a pulmonary intensive care unit whether it was publicly or privately owned. And if you send your kids to a classroom where smoking is permissible that is equally absurd.

Anti smoking legislation is presently becoming so absurd that there are people who aren't allowed to smoke inside their own homes. I would hope that one will not take too many court appearances to be struck down, but the world we are living in is increasingly against personal freedom.

[VictorBjoerk]

Guess which drug that kills most people in Europe and North america? It's not Crack,cigarettes or cannabis.It's actually sugar.

Increasingly many doctors does now admit that there exists such a thing as "sugar addiction" and many people in the western society is said to actually be addicted to sugar.

Yes the world we live in is increasingly against personal freedom on the war on drugs and such things. Just look where I live you can face years in prison being caught with a specific psychadelic mushroom in your hand.And it grows everywhere here when walking in the local forests in autumn!

Smoking is something that affects people around you when someone is smoking in the town giving them unwanted exposure to cancerogenic substances.However I think that people should be allowed to smoke in their houses if it doesn't affect any neighbours on basis of the personal freedom..

[VictorBjoerk]

"sugar provides you with hope comfort and happiness" was a commercial from the danish sugar company years ago...

It really sounds like they were trying to sell some kind of drug, lol

[amar]

It should only be outlawed if you want to start the next revolutionary war. Outlaw it! I dare ya. Only alcohol and tobacco are legal these days. I wonder how much less people would smoke and drink if other stuff was more permissable and people were less punitive of it, or how much more people would do other things. Probably not much change from the way they do it anyway. I heard more people smoke dank out west than do in Amsterdam. Most people don't much care about immortality, or even health. Many people kinda want to die. It's no surprise so many smoke. Hope is as transient as smoke in the air. It's also kind of enjoyable, but I've quit, for the love of air. By the way, I recently heard about a man who runs miles of track every day, and he's around 100 years old! How does he do it? He drinks nothing but alcohol, and smokes every day. No lie! Can't link a reference 'cause I heard it through another person.

[niner]

If by "public places", you mean publicly owned land/buildings, then sure, ban smoking there. But I suspect by "public places" you in fact mean privately owned businesses like bars, restaurants etc. Banning smoking in the private places like the two I just mentioned is tyranny.

Isn't there a concept in law that covers public accommodations? I think that such places have not been considered the same as a private abode for at least decades, if not centuries. We have tons of laws about what you can and can't do in a restaurant, including prohibitions against barring people on the basis of race or ethnicity. Outlawing smoking in such places is well within the precedent here. I know a lot of people are not happy about it, but if banning smoking in a restaurant is tyranny, then many other rules are as well, and most of they world has been a tyranny for a long time.

A public park
An outdoor sports stadium everywhere
An outdoor sports stadium in the seats
Bars
Restaurants
Airplanes
Public Libraries
Your child's preschool, in the classroom
A pulmonary intensive care unit where a loved one was a patient

the above list is full of red herrings. No hospital would allow smoking in a pulmonary intensive care unit whether it was publicly or privately owned. And if you send your kids to a classroom where smoking is permissible that is equally absurd.

I included the last two ridiculous ones in an attempt to find out exactly where, if anywhere, people would draw a line. I think that it's reasonable to ban smoking anywhere other people have a right to be and can't easily get away from the smoke. By that standard I would ban it in the seats at an outdoor stadium, (but not on the concourses) and everywhere on the list down from that. I can understand that a lot of people have a problem with banning smoking in bars. A very good argument can be made that if there are so many people who want a smoke-free bar, some enterprising bar owner would create a non-smoking bar, and people would flock to it. That doesn't seem to happen much if at all, yet according to what I've heard, everywhere smoking bans are put in place, the bar business gets better overall instead of worse. If that's true, then the lack of non-smoking bars represents some kind of bizarre market failure. I could speculate as to why it may be the case, but if the supposed improvement in business doesn't really happen, then maybe mandating smoke free bars really is tyrannical. I could argue that being prevented from breathing clean air in a bar by a minority of smokers was also tyrannical, so I vote my preference, which is both drinking and breathing.

[eternaltraveler]

I could argue that being prevented from breathing clean air in a bar by a minority of smokers was also tyrannical, so I vote my preference, which is both drinking and breathing.

no you cannot. You have the right to not go to a bar (which is private property). No one is holding a gun to your head, and saying, you must go to this business with the smoke filled environment. But someone is now holding a gun to the heads of bar owners and saying, no smoking on your own property or we'll fine you and take you to jail.

but if banning smoking in a restaurant is tyranny, then many other rules are as well, and most of they world has been a tyranny for a long time.

most of the world has always been tyranny.

The concept of private property really doesn't have meaning. Property taxes alone in some areas are so high you are essentially just renting the place from the government.

Edited by elrond, 24 April 2008 - 05:09 AM.

[JackCole]

As a recent ex-smoker - just now hitting a month - I say we ban smoking everywhere. Not just in public. Anywhere outside of private property.

Atleast, in America, we could have it that any private property could allow smoking - but if you're a business, college, restaurant - we should offer some sort of reward for choosing smoke free.

Smoking is an evil, evil, addiction and it kills quickly and silently.

[knite]

I live in California, so no smoking basically anywhere public(there are even some beaches that have banned it). So you can see how extreme it gets once you open the door a tiny crack. Anyway, no smoking in bars really doesnt affect much, you generally just have a patio area or separate room where smoking is allowed. And no smoking in restaurants I rather think is a smart idea, because smoke in the air will ruin the smells and tastes of a persons food. Oh I smoke by the way so really, I should be on the other side, but its reasonable to me (except for the beaches, ridiculous).

Edited by knite, 24 April 2008 - 11:55 PM.

[niner]

I could argue that being prevented from breathing clean air in a bar by a minority of smokers was also tyrannical, so I vote my preference, which is both drinking and breathing.

no you cannot. You have the right to not go to a bar (which is private property). No one is holding a gun to your head, and saying, you must go to this business with the smoke filled environment. But someone is now holding a gun to the heads of bar owners and saying, no smoking on your own property or we'll fine you and take you to jail.

But elrond, that's just like saying smokers have the right to not smoke; it's meaningless. Rights are social constructs, agreements among people in a society, and at the moment, all of us who are of age have by agreement the right to go into the bar. If we are being forced out by a smoking minority, then our rights are being taken away. A bar or a restaurant, even though the building and fixtures are owned by someone, are not "private property" in the sense that a private house is. Bars and restaurants are "public houses"; they occupy a special legal niche by societal agreement.

but if banning smoking in a restaurant is tyranny, then many other rules are as well, and most of they world has been a tyranny for a long time.

most of the world has always been tyranny.

The concept of private property really doesn't have meaning. Property taxes alone in some areas are so high you are essentially just renting the place from the government.

Really? Cause I'd kind of like to bulldoze my neighbor's house and put in a pool there. But seriously, I don't think that private property means what some of us think it means, or would like it to mean.

[eternaltraveler]

But elrond, that's just like saying smokers have the right to not smoke; it's meaningless.

this statement makes little sense. The bar owner has the choice to make his a smoking or non smoking establishment. If he decides to make it a non smoking establishment then smokers have no right to smoke there. Likewise he has the right to require everyone to wear shirts, or not. Or she can decide to play classical music, or hip hop; does society have the right to legislate the kind of music they play just because most people in society think classical music is lame?

Rights are social constructs, agreements among people in a society, and at the moment, all of us who are of age have by agreement the right to go into the bar. If we are being forced out by a smoking minority, then our rights are being taken away. A bar or a restaurant, even though the building and fixtures are owned by someone, are not "private property" in the sense that a private house is. Bars and restaurants are "public houses"; they occupy a special legal niche by societal agreement.

It's plain you don't think the person who actually owns the bar has "rights" in your society, and his purpose is to serve others how they see fit. You do realize that when most bar owners bought their bars these societal rules you think you can impose on them did not exist (well you don't think you can impose them, in actual fact you can and do impose them). This is analogous a contract that is changed after the fact with only one party to the contract having the right to change it (ie, an illegal contract).

And yes there is lots and lots of legal precedent for removal of just about every conceivable bit of individual freedom, and personal responsibility. How we differ is that I happen to view this as a bad thing.

If you think that smoking in bars is not what most people want, why not follow the capitalistic approach and start your own non smoking bar. Prove the success of your model and make money. Put the smoking establishments out of business.

Smoking is bad for you, yes. So is drinking. Why don't we just outlaw the bars all together? And sugar. And force people to exercise at least 3 times a week. CR is good for you too. So everyone should be strictly limited to 1900 calories a day. While we are fixing society and making it fair we can also consider 40% of the population doesn't pay any taxes at all, but there is no reason another 50% should pay taxes either. After all the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes today, but they are rich so they can handle another 30%. But the 90% of the people who then won't pay taxes should of course have 90% of the say on what we do with the tax money (just as the 40% who don't pay today have 40% of the say now).

Really? Cause I'd kind of like to bulldoze my neighbor's house and put in a pool there.

get enough other people to agree with you, vote in some politicians that support it, and you can.

[niner]

Rights are social constructs, agreements among people in a society, and at the moment, all of us who are of age have by agreement the right to go into the bar. If we are being forced out by a smoking minority, then our rights are being taken away. A bar or a restaurant, even though the building and fixtures are owned by someone, are not "private property" in the sense that a private house is. Bars and restaurants are "public houses"; they occupy a special legal niche by societal agreement.

It's plain you don't think the person who actually owns the bar has "rights" in your society, and his purpose is to serve others how they see fit. You do realize that when most bar owners bought their bars these societal rules you think you can impose on them did not exist (well you don't think you can impose them, in actual fact you can and do impose them). This is analogous a contract that is changed after the fact with only one party to the contract having the right to change it (ie, an illegal contract).

It's not what I think, it's what the law is. Bar owners have "rights", they just aren't unlimited. And it's not my society, it's our society. I'm talking about America. It's not a new thing, either; laws regarding public accommodations have been on the books for decades, probably centuries. Are you equally incensed over laws that require health inspections or take away the owner's right to deny service to "coloreds"? Why do you say that I "can and do impose them"? Do you mean "you" as in "people in general"? No one has made me king; I just live here.

If you think that smoking in bars is not what most people want, why not follow the capitalistic approach and start your own non smoking bar. Prove the success of your model and make money. Put the smoking establishments out of business.

I addressed that point in an earlier post. Let me ask you the same question: Why not create your own libertarian paradise somewhere where everyone can do whatever they please, and no one has to pay any taxes? If that kind of society is so optimal, I'd think people would flock to it.

Smoking is bad for you, yes. So is drinking. Why don't we just outlaw the bars all together? And sugar. And force people to exercise at least 3 times a week. CR is good for you too. So everyone should be strictly limited to 1900 calories a day. [hyperbole excised]

This isn't about legislating what's good for people. People can do whatever they want to themselves as far as I'm concerned, as long as they don't ask me to pay for it. What this is about is preventing people from injuring others.

This basically comes down to a contest between two groups; smokers who want the freedom to smoke in bars and restaurants, and nonsmokers who want the freedom to enter bars and restaurants without being injured by smoke. The smokers could reasonably step out for an occasional smoke, but the nonsmokers can't very easily step out to breathe. Thus the first party faces either inconvenience or denial of service. The second party faces either injury or denial of service. Without even taking into account the relative size of the two parties, thus removing any "tyranny of the majority" claim, it seems fairly obvious that avoidance of injury should trump inconvenience. I am leaving out the owners of the bars and restaurants on purpose. Public accommodations are not private homes. The bar and restaurant owners have traded some of their freedoms in exchange for the privilege of running such businesses in our society. If that's what you consider to be the real problem, then perhaps we should argue that bit of history, and separate it from the issue of smoking.