183 replies to this topic

[mike250]

nothing beats flavoured hookah/sheesha

AKA Nargila. Shisha will still give you lung cancer and all the horrible things that come with smoking.

But hey, it's fun seeing smoke come out of your mouth isn't it? Emphysema, slow, demeaning, constantly painful death... pah!

blah blah blah

[mike250]

on a more serious note I do smoke the stuff occasionally and yes I do like the flavour. However I don't share your doomsday scenarios predicting my horrific and slow death. I suggest you keep those scenarios to yourself Ben.

Edited by mike250, 25 July 2008 - 02:18 AM.

[niner]

you guys are making immortality sound like a fanatic's religion. Not everyone has to endorse living forever... part of genetics is variety, and sure it may seem misguided, but part of life is the ability to choose your actions and the consequences that come along with it. I can understand laws against public places so that people can decide their own actions, but when people begin to decide the actions of others based on their own conception of right and wrong... you don't think it's going too far?

Are you talking about the people who think it's wrong to smoke around children? That's not just someones random conception of right and wrong, it's well established that sidestream smoke is harmful. It's also well established in our society that harming children is wrong, so I don't see a problem there. If people can smoke without harming others, and they accept full responsibility for their actions, then I have no problem with it. Trouble is, they rarely do either of these, particularly taking financial responsibility for the costs that either society or their insurance pool has to bear.

[mike250]

you guys are making immortality sound like a fanatic's religion. Not everyone has to endorse living forever... part of genetics is variety, and sure it may seem misguided, but part of life is the ability to choose your actions and the consequences that come along with it. I can understand laws against public places so that people can decide their own actions, but when people begin to decide the actions of others based on their own conception of right and wrong... you don't think it's going too far?

Are you talking about the people who think it's wrong to smoke around children? That's not just someones random conception of right and wrong, it's well established that sidestream smoke is harmful. It's also well established in our society that harming children is wrong, so I don't see a problem there. If people can smoke without harming others, and they accept full responsibility for their actions, then I have no problem with it. Trouble is, they rarely do either of these, particularly taking financial responsibility for the costs that either society or their insurance pool has to bear.

why do you necessary tie the subject to children? Yes some do smoke around children and smokers were notoriously inconsiderate, once upon a time and some still are, but the issue is bigger than that. it also doesn't justify the government bullying bar owners into what they can or cannot do and disallowing offices/workplaces the right to offer smoking rooms for those so inclined. Are you also going to link this with children?

Look, the short answer is about treating adults like adults & allowing them to come to their own solutions. Why not put it in the hands of the establishments to allow or disallow smoking? why not have smoking and non-smoking bars? I have no doubt that some restaurants & cafes, etc, would have become smoke-free of their own volition. And that would have been a sales point for them. Did you ever offer the idea of your workplace becoming smoke-free?

Remember: just because you or I dislike something, doesn't mean it should be banned, and approval of something doesn't mean it should be made compulsive.

Edited by mike250, 25 July 2008 - 04:05 AM.

[niner]

you guys are making immortality sound like a fanatic's religion. Not everyone has to endorse living forever... part of genetics is variety, and sure it may seem misguided, but part of life is the ability to choose your actions and the consequences that come along with it. I can understand laws against public places so that people can decide their own actions, but when people begin to decide the actions of others based on their own conception of right and wrong... you don't think it's going too far?

Are you talking about the people who think it's wrong to smoke around children? That's not just someones random conception of right and wrong, it's well established that sidestream smoke is harmful. It's also well established in our society that harming children is wrong, so I don't see a problem there. If people can smoke without harming others, and they accept full responsibility for their actions, then I have no problem with it. Trouble is, they rarely do either of these, particularly taking financial responsibility for the costs that either society or their insurance pool has to bear.

why do you necessary tie the subject to children? Yes some do smoke around children and smokers were notoriously inconsiderate, once upon a time and some still are, but the issue is bigger than that. it also doesn't justify the government bullying bar owners into what they can or cannot do and disallowing offices/workplaces the right to offer smoking rooms for those so inclined. Are you also going to link this with children?

Look, the short answer is about treating adults like adults & allowing them to come to their own solutions. Why not put it in the hands of the establishments to allow or disallow smoking? why not have smoking and non-smoking bars? I have no doubt that some restaurants & cafes, etc, would have become smoke-free of their own volition. And that would have been a sales point for them. Did you ever offer the idea of your workplace becoming smoke-free?

Remember: just because you or I dislike something, doesn't mean it should be banned, and approval of something doesn't mean it should be made compulsive.

Some other people had been talking about people smoking around children above mysticpsi's post, so I thought that's what he was replying to. All of my workplaces over the past 20 years have gone smokefree of their own volition. Essentially all restaurants and now even some bars where I live are nonsmoking. I don't think cigarettes should be illegal, but I don't think people should smoke around others, especially kids who can't get up and walk away.

[mike250]

you guys are making immortality sound like a fanatic's religion. Not everyone has to endorse living forever... part of genetics is variety, and sure it may seem misguided, but part of life is the ability to choose your actions and the consequences that come along with it. I can understand laws against public places so that people can decide their own actions, but when people begin to decide the actions of others based on their own conception of right and wrong... you don't think it's going too far?

Are you talking about the people who think it's wrong to smoke around children? That's not just someones random conception of right and wrong, it's well established that sidestream smoke is harmful. It's also well established in our society that harming children is wrong, so I don't see a problem there. If people can smoke without harming others, and they accept full responsibility for their actions, then I have no problem with it. Trouble is, they rarely do either of these, particularly taking financial responsibility for the costs that either society or their insurance pool has to bear.

why do you necessary tie the subject to children? Yes some do smoke around children and smokers were notoriously inconsiderate, once upon a time and some still are, but the issue is bigger than that. it also doesn't justify the government bullying bar owners into what they can or cannot do and disallowing offices/workplaces the right to offer smoking rooms for those so inclined. Are you also going to link this with children?

Look, the short answer is about treating adults like adults & allowing them to come to their own solutions. Why not put it in the hands of the establishments to allow or disallow smoking? why not have smoking and non-smoking bars? I have no doubt that some restaurants & cafes, etc, would have become smoke-free of their own volition. And that would have been a sales point for them. Did you ever offer the idea of your workplace becoming smoke-free?

Remember: just because you or I dislike something, doesn't mean it should be banned, and approval of something doesn't mean it should be made compulsive.

Some other people had been talking about people smoking around children above mysticpsi's post, so I thought that's what he was replying to. All of my workplaces over the past 20 years have gone smokefree of their own volition. Essentially all restaurants and now even some bars where I live are nonsmoking. I don't think cigarettes should be illegal, but I don't think people should smoke around others, especially kids who can't get up and walk away.

I agree. My point was that you can't legislate for perfection.

Edited by mike250, 25 July 2008 - 04:24 AM.

[mentatpsi]

lol nah, that wasn't what i was commenting on. I was talking primarily about people wanting to make tobacco illegal. I partake in hookah once in awhile, i don't think that doing it once in a blue moon is that horrible, nor do i think people should condemn others through legal action for the choices they make if they only impact their own bodies and those who are in consensus with the effects. For instance, in a hookah bar would you not agree people are fine with the effects, perhaps even enjoy the social environment, effects, and the smells? Shall we make the decisions for these people based on our own ideologies? This is what i'm getting at.

I like what biknut posted earlier for the different risks of certain actions and why we shouldn't ban those as well. This is essentially what bothers me, people should be informed of different risks, but i think the decision should remain within the individual whether to take those risks.

Don't take away my illusion of free will damn it lol.

[Infernity]

The same way we can't make people stop using cars, we can't tell them not to smoke. But I do think that in public places, this should be illegal, you all know why.

I voted Only in public places

[RLvB]

The same way we can't make people stop using cars, we can't tell them not to smoke.

In the same way, can we also not tell them not to trade in heroin?

[DukeNukem]

The same way we can't make people stop using cars, we can't tell them not to smoke. But I do think that in public places, this should be illegal, you all know why.

I voted Only in public places

But we can tell people to stop using cars (at least, in many countries--usually the more modern ones), if they are abusing them (such as driving drunk).

Frankly, I LOVE smokers. I love the taxes the pay. And I know that they're so mind-f#cked by the addiction that they will keep smoking even if taxes are doubled. So, that's what I would do: jack up those taxes, and take advantage of the fact that most smokers can't quit!

And just maybe, this would have the nice little side effect of keeping more kids from falling into this expensive life-long weak-minded habit that has no positive benefit, except paying for huge houses and great vacations for the tobacco company execs.

Edited by DukeNukem, 25 July 2008 - 02:41 PM.

[happy]

He ran out of bubble gum :/

[lucid]

He ran out of bubble gum :/

Lmao. The more people Duke can convice to smoke with his badass game character, the better.

Frankly, I LOVE smokers. I love the taxes the pay. And I know that they're so mind-f#cked by the addiction that they will keep smoking even if taxes are doubled. So, that's what I would do: jack up those taxes, and take advantage of the fact that most smokers can't quit!

On a more serious note. I am not interested in having a government that taxes "Them" more than they tax "Me/Us". Supporting such taxing legislation with your vote contributes to the HUGE porkbarrelling problem we have in Washington. Everyone is trying to get everyone else to pay for their stuff. Unfortuneately its a Negative Sum Game where the outcome is supporting a larger beaurocracy to process everything and having a less ethical system of taxation.

For this reason I am opposed to most all vice taxes. Under the situation that we had universal healthcare, a smoking tax would be relavent if proceeds from the tax funded the portion medical costs associated with smoking. However, for such a system to have my approval, the tax could not be used for general revenue and could only be used to pay for the smoking medical expenses. You really have to be careful with this part. Frequently (as is done by Al Gore), a politician will point out an externality and say that we need to do something about it (TAX IT!). In the fine print, you find out that they don't use the revenue from taxing the externality to repair it as would make sense. (Gore purposes having a Carbon Tax replace income tax as primary means of revenue generation.)

For similiar reasons I don't support the GA lottery Tax. Why can't we agree on some tax system which can at least pretend to be ethical. When everyone plays $@#* each other, everyone gets $@#$ed.

[Cody]

I chose only in public places.

The reason I chose this is because I believe that you should have the right to choose what you want to do. As long as it doesn't affect others. The only problem with my belief in this is that a lot of people who smoke have children. If a parent chooses to smoke inside of the house where the child is, they're basically saying they don't care about his/her health. The only reason I'm being so blunt is because it's true. It's unfair to the kid. The best thing anyone can do is just quit. Not with the help of forced American law, but will power.

Either quit or go outside and spare your child years on their life.

[HereInTheHole]

Taxing smokers for the extra burden they place on health care system is fine -- if they use the health care system. It's a cost decision an individual should be allowed to make. Taxing something just because it's considered a vice creates some uncomfortable precedents. Vice is a loose term that's hard to define outside of culture. Like laws, taxes should be based on empirical logic only.

Obviously, I'm for allowing people to smoke (even though I despise the act).

[TianZi]

A personal story illustrating the dangers of second-hand smoke:

I grew up as an only child with a chain-smoking Dad. I spent a lot of time indoors with my Dad, inhaling the smoke he produced like a factory. I have never smoked a cigarette (or joint) in my entire life

While an undergraduate at UVA, I suffered a very severe wracking cough and debilitating sickness that forced me to withdraw for a semester. I could not move without being leveled by uncontrollable coughing. I did not respond to normal treatment, and was assigned to a specialist physician at UVA Hospital who ordered an X-ray of my lungs. He was shocked by the results, and asked me how long I had been smoking. At 20, I had the lungs of a person who'd been chain smoking for more than a decade. The doctor assumed I must have smoked since I was a very young child.

So yeah, I'm the kind of guy who takes very strong offense when someone smokes anywhere near me.

[missminni]

A personal story illustrating the dangers of second-hand smoke:

I grew up as an only child with a chain-smoking Dad. I spent a lot of time indoors with my Dad, inhaling the smoke he produced like a factory. I have never smoked a cigarette (or joint) in my entire life

While an undergraduate at UVA, I suffered a very severe wracking cough and debilitating sickness that forced me to withdraw for a semester. I could not move without being leveled by uncontrollable coughing. I did not respond to normal treatment, and was assigned to a specialist physician at UVA Hospital who ordered an X-ray of my lungs. He was shocked by the results, and asked me how long I had been smoking. At 20, I had the lungs of a person who'd been chain smoking for more than a decade. The doctor assumed I must have smoked since I was a very young child.

So yeah, I'm the kind of guy who takes very strong offense when someone smokes anywhere near me.

This is the perfect example of why I think it should be outlawed. An innocent child suffers from the ignorance of his own father smoking. I know someone who the exact same thing happened to but it was the father of children who smoke instead. At 69 years old he was told during an emergency visit to a hospital that he better stop smoking or he will get cancer. He never smoked a cigarette in his life, but his kids did and he spent a lot of time with them. It' so unfair.
I ended a long friendship with someone who insisted on smoking in my home, They would go by the window but it still would cause me to gag and cough and my throat would hurt for days after their visit. I was not about to get cancer because of their bad habit and since they lacked the self control to abstain from smoking while in my presence, I told them they were no longer welcome in my home. Of course if you're a child of a smoker, you don't have that option. It's really criminal. Harming oneself is one thing, but when you harm others, their should be a law.

[mike250]

A personal story illustrating the dangers of second-hand smoke:

I grew up as an only child with a chain-smoking Dad. I spent a lot of time indoors with my Dad, inhaling the smoke he produced like a factory. I have never smoked a cigarette (or joint) in my entire life

While an undergraduate at UVA, I suffered a very severe wracking cough and debilitating sickness that forced me to withdraw for a semester. I could not move without being leveled by uncontrollable coughing. I did not respond to normal treatment, and was assigned to a specialist physician at UVA Hospital who ordered an X-ray of my lungs. He was shocked by the results, and asked me how long I had been smoking. At 20, I had the lungs of a person who'd been chain smoking for more than a decade. The doctor assumed I must have smoked since I was a very young child.

So yeah, I'm the kind of guy who takes very strong offense when someone smokes anywhere near me.

This is the perfect example of why I think it should be outlawed. An innocent child suffers from the ignorance of his own father smoking. I know someone who the exact same thing happened to but it was the father of children who smoke instead. At 69 years old he was told during an emergency visit to a hospital that he better stop smoking or he will get cancer. He never smoked a cigarette in his life, but his kids did and he spent a lot of time with them. It' so unfair.
I ended a long friendship with someone who insisted on smoking in my home, They would go by the window but it still would cause me to gag and cough and my throat would hurt for days after their visit. I was not about to get cancer because of their bad habit and since they lacked the self control to abstain from smoking while in my presence, I told them they were no longer welcome in my home. Of course if you're a child of a smoker, you don't have that option. It's really criminal. Harming oneself is one thing, but when you harm others, their should be a law.

you can't paint all smokers with the same brush however. the last three examples show irresponsible and careless actions from some people but going from there to a total ban only harms others who wish to smoke and who carry that responsibility with them.

Edited by mike250, 21 August 2008 - 11:08 AM.

[Athanasios]

Think of it this way. If I beat my kid with an extension cord, does that justify a ban on extension cords? If someone is smoking out a child it should be treated as child abuse, IMO, but I think you are confusing the issues.

[mike250]

Think of it this way. If I beat my kid with an extension cord, does that justify a ban on extension cords? If someone is smoking out a child it should be treated as child abuse, IMO, but I think you are confusing the issues.

I'm not sure if this was directed at me but yes smoking around non-consenting adults would be, in this scenario, child abuse but what about the others who don't? what about the responsible people? A law that totally bans smoking will unjustly punish those people as well.

[missminni]

Think of it this way. If I beat my kid with an extension cord, does that justify a ban on extension cords? If someone is smoking out a child it should be treated as child abuse, IMO, but I think you are confusing the issues.

Extension cords do not cause harm to others. Cigarettes do. The object itself is harmful, not just the
way it is used. There are other substances that could be smoked that wouldn't cause harm. It's not the act of smoking that
causes the harm, but cigarette tobacco itself that does. I think you are confusing the issue.

[missminni]

Think of it this way. If I beat my kid with an extension cord, does that justify a ban on extension cords? If someone is smoking out a child it should be treated as child abuse, IMO, but I think you are confusing the issues.

I'm not sure if this was directed at me but yes smoking around non-consenting adults would be, in this scenario, child abuse but what about the others who don't? what about the responsible people? A law that totally bans smoking will unjustly punish those people as well.

Au contraire. It wouldn't punish them, it would help save from horrific lung cancer and save society from the enormous
medical expenses incurred by them. And furthermore, I don't know any "responsible smoker". If they were responsible they would consider their own health and not smoke. If they don't consider their health, why would they consider anybody else, including their children. I am an ex-smoker. I am speaking as someone who smoked 2 packs a day for twenty years. Once they came out with the proof that it caused cancer I stopped.
How can any self-respecting individual do otherwise?

[Athanasios]

Extension cords do not cause harm to others. Cigarettes do. The object itself is harmful, not just the
way it is used. There are other substances that could be smoked that wouldn't cause harm. It's not the act of smoking that
causes the harm, but cigarette tobacco itself that does. I think you are confusing the issue.[/font][/size]

Your argument is that it harms others. It does not harm others unless it is used carelessly, so I do not think it is confusing the issue. You seem to be using one line of reasoning to make up your mind that it should be banned and another to argue it. Shifting your reasoning back and forth is the equivalent of making an excuse. I am echoing mike250 here that a total ban would be flawed reasoning.

This is the perfect example of why I think it should be outlawed. An innocent child suffers from the ignorance of his own father smoking. I know someone who the exact same thing happened to but it was the father of children who smoke instead. At 69 years old he was told during an emergency visit to a hospital that he better stop smoking or he will get cancer. He never smoked a cigarette in his life, but his kids did and he spent a lot of time with them. It' so unfair.

If you don't think the extension cord analogy is justified, then think about cars and someone that is putting on make up while driving. Should we ban cars?

Edited by cnorwood, 21 August 2008 - 04:38 PM.

[mike250]

Think of it this way. If I beat my kid with an extension cord, does that justify a ban on extension cords? If someone is smoking out a child it should be treated as child abuse, IMO, but I think you are confusing the issues.

Extension cords do not cause harm to others. Cigarettes do. The object itself is harmful, not just the
way it is used. There are other substances that could be smoked that wouldn't cause harm. It's not the act of smoking that
causes the harm, but cigarette tobacco itself that does. I think you are confusing the issue.

You're equating irresponsible smokers with responsible smokers. I'm sure the responsible people are well aware of the risks they incur and they should be left to their own even when we don't like what they're doing to their bodies. Giving 2 scenarios exhibiting harmful behavior doesn't justify a total ban unless you actually know that the rest of the smokers behaved in that way. The ban will end up harming those who wish to smoke in peace and do no damage to anybody else except themselves.

Edited by mike250, 21 August 2008 - 04:39 PM.

[missminni]

Extension cords do not cause harm to others. Cigarettes do. The object itself is harmful, not just the
way it is used. There are other substances that could be smoked that wouldn't cause harm. It's not the act of smoking that
causes the harm, but cigarette tobacco itself that does. I think you are confusing the issue.[/font][/size]

Your argument is that it harms others. It does not harm others unless it is used carelessly, so I do not think it is confusing the issue. You seem to be using one line of reasoning to make up your mind that it should be banned and another to argue it. Shifting your reasoning back and forth is the equivalent of making an excuse. I am echoing mike250 here that a total ban would be flawed reasoning.

This is the perfect example of why I think it should be outlawed. An innocent child suffers from the ignorance of his own father smoking. I know someone who the exact same thing happened to but it was the father of children who smoke instead. At 69 years old he was told during an emergency visit to a hospital that he better stop smoking or he will get cancer. He never smoked a cigarette in his life, but his kids did and he spent a lot of time with them. It' so unfair.

If you don't think the extension cord analogy is justified, then think about cars and someone that is putting on make up while driving. Should we ban cars?

What you are missing here is that just like the person who is texting while driving, the person who smokes does not care about others welfare and they certainly don't care about their own. We have banned texting while driving. We should ban smoking in public places, even outdoors unless it is a safe distance from other people, and in homes where children live. Children whose parents expose them to cigarette smoke should be able to call a number to get help just as if they were being beaten. Curiously, I wonder if you or Mike are smokers.

[mike250]

Extension cords do not cause harm to others. Cigarettes do. The object itself is harmful, not just the
way it is used. There are other substances that could be smoked that wouldn't cause harm. It's not the act of smoking that
causes the harm, but cigarette tobacco itself that does. I think you are confusing the issue.[/font][/size]

Your argument is that it harms others. It does not harm others unless it is used carelessly, so I do not think it is confusing the issue. You seem to be using one line of reasoning to make up your mind that it should be banned and another to argue it. Shifting your reasoning back and forth is the equivalent of making an excuse. I am echoing mike250 here that a total ban would be flawed reasoning.

This is the perfect example of why I think it should be outlawed. An innocent child suffers from the ignorance of his own father smoking. I know someone who the exact same thing happened to but it was the father of children who smoke instead. At 69 years old he was told during an emergency visit to a hospital that he better stop smoking or he will get cancer. He never smoked a cigarette in his life, but his kids did and he spent a lot of time with them. It' so unfair.

If you don't think the extension cord analogy is justified, then think about cars and someone that is putting on make up while driving. Should we ban cars?

What you are missing here is that just like the person who is texting while driving, the person who smokes does not care about others welfare and they certainly don't care about their own. We have banned texting while driving. We should ban smoking in public places, even outdoors unless it is a safe distance from other people, and in homes where children live. Children whose parents expose them to cigarette smoke should be able to call a number to get help just as if they were being beaten. Curiously, I wonder if you or Mike are smokers.

I smoke the hooka on occasion at my home and I fully accept the risks that I'm incurring to myself. The ban in public places is a slippery slope and I think that's better left up to the property owners to decide rather than what the government or other people think. The problem is, once again, your painting all the smokers with the same brush. A few reckless scenarios doesn't mean that smokers are all careless individuals who don't give a damn about other people's welfare-- or in this case foolishly smoke around children----. That's too much of a generalization. Seriously it sounds like a bunch of do-gooders who think they know whats best for society and for others. A total ban is just as reckless as those 3 smoking scenarios you mentioned.

Edited by mike250, 21 August 2008 - 05:07 PM.

[Athanasios]

What you are missing here is that just like the person who is texting while driving, the person who smokes does not care about others welfare and they certainly don't care about their own. We have banned texting while driving. We should ban smoking in public places, even outdoors unless it is a safe distance from other people, and in homes where children live. Children whose parents expose them to cigarette smoke should be able to call a number to get help just as if they were being beaten. Curiously, I wonder if you or Mike are smokers.

I agree with all of the above statements but this is far from an outright ban. Now you have to show that an open air environment can harm others via sidestream smoke if you want to ban based on that reasoning. Also, realize that this line of reasoning also would allow private bars to choose to be smoking or not.

[missminni]

What you are missing here is that just like the person who is texting while driving, the person who smokes does not care about others welfare and they certainly don't care about their own. We have banned texting while driving. We should ban smoking in public places, even outdoors unless it is a safe distance from other people, and in homes where children live. Children whose parents expose them to cigarette smoke should be able to call a number to get help just as if they were being beaten. Curiously, I wonder if you or Mike are smokers.

I agree with all of the above statements but this is far from an outright ban. Now you have to show that an open air environment can harm others via sidestream smoke if you want to ban based on that reasoning. Also, realize that this line of reasoning also would allow private bars to choose to be smoking or not.

Private clubs can do that now. They are private, not public. But children shouldn't be allowed in them. Let them have
private smoke clubs where everyone can smoke till they drop dead, I do not care. I just don't want it in public where it affects non-smokers, or
in homes with children who can't fend for themselves.
We used to have a restaurant down the street called Tabac, a public place with the most god awful food that encouraged smoking while others were dining. They came around to the table to sell an asortment of tobacco products. They didn't last very long after the smoking ban.
Perhaps they are private now.
The other evening I was having dinner out in a public restaurant and there was a smoker outside smoking. His smoke was blowing through the open window right into our faces. I asked him politely to move and he did, but the person I was with would have suffered in silence as many others would too. Look, I'm not against smoking per se, or Mike smoking his hookah etc, but in public or when children are present, their should be a law. We have one in NYC and it works just fine.

[mike250]

What you are missing here is that just like the person who is texting while driving, the person who smokes does not care about others welfare and they certainly don't care about their own. We have banned texting while driving. We should ban smoking in public places, even outdoors unless it is a safe distance from other people, and in homes where children live. Children whose parents expose them to cigarette smoke should be able to call a number to get help just as if they were being beaten. Curiously, I wonder if you or Mike are smokers.

I agree with all of the above statements but this is far from an outright ban. Now you have to show that an open air environment can harm others via sidestream smoke if you want to ban based on that reasoning. Also, realize that this line of reasoning also would allow private bars to choose to be smoking or not.

Private clubs can do that now. They are private, not public. But children shouldn't be allowed in them. Let them have
private smoke clubs where everyone can smoke till they drop dead, I do not care. I just don't want it in public where it affects non-smokers, or
in homes with children who can't fend for themselves.
We used to have a restaurant down the street called Tabac, a public place with the most god awful food that encouraged smoking while others were dining. They came around to the table to sell an asortment of tobacco products. They didn't last very long after the smoking ban.
Perhaps they are private now.
The other evening I was having dinner out in a public restaurant and there was a smoker outside smoking. His smoke was blowing through the open window right into our faces. I asked him politely to move and he did, but the person I was with would have suffered in silence as many others would too. Look, I'm not against smoking per se, or Mike smoking his hookah etc, but in public or when children are present, their should be a law. We have one in NYC and it works just fine.

I do agree that those who smoke around children should be held responsible but it should not be at anybody's expense and certainly not at the expense of those who hold it responsibly. We have plenty of students who smoke outside our science library. Its a big open space and I simply don't see a problem with it. Unless somebody has an ultra-sensitive nose and can detect the smoke fumes from a distance. A total ban is not an option but it can easily become a case of Big-Brother.

[TianZi]

Extension cords do not cause harm to others. Cigarettes do. The object itself is harmful, not just the
way it is used. There are other substances that could be smoked that wouldn't cause harm. It's not the act of smoking that
causes the harm, but cigarette tobacco itself that does. I think you are confusing the issue.[/font][/size]

Your argument is that it harms others. It does not harm others unless it is used carelessly, so I do not think it is confusing the issue. You seem to be using one line of reasoning to make up your mind that it should be banned and another to argue it. Shifting your reasoning back and forth is the equivalent of making an excuse. I am echoing mike250 here that a total ban would be flawed reasoning.

This is the perfect example of why I think it should be outlawed. An innocent child suffers from the ignorance of his own father smoking. I know someone who the exact same thing happened to but it was the father of children who smoke instead. At 69 years old he was told during an emergency visit to a hospital that he better stop smoking or he will get cancer. He never smoked a cigarette in his life, but his kids did and he spent a lot of time with them. It' so unfair.

If you don't think the extension cord analogy is justified, then think about cars and someone that is putting on make up while driving. Should we ban cars?

Crack cocaine is a much better analogy. Crack cocaine poses a serious risk not just to the user but non-users as well. Should we legalize crack cocaine?

Should mandatory seat belt laws be revoked? How about laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets?

The government does have a vested interest in protecting its citizens from harm that unnecessarily puts a heavy financial burden on the state. The question is where that line should be drawn.

Should we ban mountain climbing as well? How about Twinkies? A rule of reason needs to be applied here. Due to the harm smoking causes to non-smokers, it should be banned in public places but permitted in one's own home, but not if children are present.

Taiwan, my current country of residence, will implement a very strict anti-smoking law countrywide starting in 2009. The Taiwan government has clear interest in reducing smoking as the country has a national health care system. Smoking will no longer be permitted in any enclosed public place (this includes restaurants, bars, discos etc.; I'm unaware of any special exemption for "members only" establishments) unless it is a special room set aside for smokers, completely sealed off from the rest of the establishment, with a separate ventilation system. Outdoors, smoking will not be permitted in the vicinity of a host of public locations: within [x] meters of a school, MRT station, bus stop, library, museum, etc. etc. It will be wonderful to not have to choke on smoke wafting over from the smoking section in every restaurant, as if often currently the case.

Edited by TianZi, 21 August 2008 - 05:58 PM.

[mike250]

Extension cords do not cause harm to others. Cigarettes do. The object itself is harmful, not just the
way it is used. There are other substances that could be smoked that wouldn't cause harm. It's not the act of smoking that
causes the harm, but cigarette tobacco itself that does. I think you are confusing the issue.[/font][/size]

Your argument is that it harms others. It does not harm others unless it is used carelessly, so I do not think it is confusing the issue. You seem to be using one line of reasoning to make up your mind that it should be banned and another to argue it. Shifting your reasoning back and forth is the equivalent of making an excuse. I am echoing mike250 here that a total ban would be flawed reasoning.

This is the perfect example of why I think it should be outlawed. An innocent child suffers from the ignorance of his own father smoking. I know someone who the exact same thing happened to but it was the father of children who smoke instead. At 69 years old he was told during an emergency visit to a hospital that he better stop smoking or he will get cancer. He never smoked a cigarette in his life, but his kids did and he spent a lot of time with them. It' so unfair.

If you don't think the extension cord analogy is justified, then think about cars and someone that is putting on make up while driving. Should we ban cars?

Crack cocaine is a much better analogy. Crack cocaine poses a serious risk not just to the user but non-users as well. Should we legalize crack cocaine?

Should mandatory seat belt laws be revoked? How about laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets?

The government does have a vested interest in protecting its citizens from harm that unnecessarily puts a heavy financial burden on the state. The question is where that line should be drawn.

Should we ban mountain climbing as well? How about Twinkies? A rule of reason needs to be applied here. Due to the harm smoking causes to non-smokers, it should be banned in public places but permitted in one's own home, but not if children are present.

Taiwan, my current country of residence, will implement a very strict anti-smoking law countrywide starting in 2009. Smoking will no longer be permitted in any enclosed public place unless it is a special room set aside for smokers, completely sealed off from the rest of the establishment, with a separate ventilation system. Outdoors, smoking will not be permitted in the vicinity of a host of public locations: within [x] meters of a school, MRT station, bus stop, library, museum, etc. etc.

what about private places? Are the property owners free to decide.