Smokers Vs. Anti-Smokers


Alright, I need everyone from every perspective on this situation about smoking here. It seems to be getting ridiculously out of hand as just about every post on this board is generally the same thing: A debate about smoking.
I'd like to start by saying that the smokers number one enemy in the smoking bans isn't the government, it's the anti-smokers (much different from non-smokers.)

An anti-smoker I've run into a couple times at my community college courtyard before the college decided to give in to the ridiculous "smoke-free environment" fiasco. These are the people that walk right by a huge smoker's circle and start fake coughing or shouting things like "you're ruining everyone else health!" but they never seem to have the time to talk about it reasonably for a minute.

Another thing that I'm pretty angry about is the "smoke-free zone" crap. Alright, you don't want me smoking in your building (mainly due to LAW), but when I'm out side, where my evil second hand smoke dissipates quicker than you have the chance of running into contact with it, I'm still told I can't even smoke out doors, or I have to walk half a mile to get to the sidewalk. And I can't walk too well because of a very bad knee injury.

One thing I want to point out as well is the amount of "quit smoking" commercials I see on T.V. all the time. It's getting ridiculous now. Too many of them. I can't speak for everyone, but I know full well the vast majority of smokers aren't stupid enough to say "smoking isn't bad for your health." I'm a smoker, and I know it's a risk. But that doesn't mean I have to be treated like an idiot and watch these commercials constantly telling me I have to quit, when I don't want to. If a smoker wants to quit, I'm sure they know the process to go through without having to be given 50 phone numbers on t.v.

I live in New York, upstate Rochester/Buffalo/Syracuse area. New York State passed a smoking ban law in the early 2000s. I hadn't even thought about smoking yet and I remember thinking "Oh great, another infringement on people's rights." And that's exactly what this is. Cigarettes are a legal, store bought product. The smoking ban here serves NO purpose. Before, people had the right to choose between smoking, and not smoking. But after the anti-smoking-nazis rolled in, they're constantly barraging everyone with the "evils" of smoking, which is exactly what the tobacco companies used to do to get people to start smoking. (Another quit smoking commercial just come on by the way. Just pointing it out.)

Banning smoking from bars is the dumbest thing a legal system can do. Every bar I pass by now usually has about half the patrons standing outside throughout the night at any given moment. Probably even more than half. This is completely unnecessary.

Restaurants? I think that's debatable. I never heard anybody complain about smoke until this whole anti-smoking fascism ramped up, then it seemed like everyone was a whiner. Michigan allows smoking in restaurants and nobody ever seems to complain.

This anti-smoking garbage has to stop. It's getting a little out of hand.
The biggest ignorant excuse I hear that makes me very angry is when I hear an anti-smoker claim that second hand smoke is so horrid for people's health (usually talking about their own.) OK, lets put this into some perspective here. Walking by a smoker and inhaling just a portion of unfiltered smoke from the tip of the cigarette is not going to give you cancer and kill you, so stop acting like it will. You have a greater risk of getting hit by a bus and killed than getting cancer from passing by a smoker.

If you work in or around people who smoke cigarettes all the time and are constantly surrounded by smoke, I can understand the much higher risk, and the complaining. BUT, what happens at that point should be up to the manager/owner of the business, not the legal system.

Bottom line for me is this: for one, the legal system has no constitutional right to regulate what private businesses customers do in their building. So the legal smoking ban has to be eliminated. For two, if anti-smokers want what they want, and smokers want to smoke a damn cigarette every once in a while in a restaurant, then how about letting there be a bar for choice, and a bar for non-smoking. Because all I've seen since the anti-smoking nazism has started has been the appeasement of all the anti-smokers, while the smokers have to freeze outside in the cold like animals.

I know this was a long post, but these feelings have been building with me for a few years and I thought this would be a good forum to start so we can talk about our views and the other posts can get on with talking about the movie itself.

I'd like this to be a place we can all speak openly and freely, as I did above.
I hope this ends up going somewhere.
"The rest of the world is involved."
"I don't care about the rest of the world."

reply

I agree with you. It should be up to the owner of a business whether or not smoking is allowed or not - not governments. The whole ban is because of the anti smoking lobby groups and their "passive smoking" argument but studies into passive smoking show no statistical significance between smoking related illness and ETS... and if you think about it, why would there be? We inhale far more carcinogenic toxins in the form of pollution from the time we're born to the time we die, the amount of ETS a non smokers inhales pales in comparison.

”I like a girl who eats & brings it up. A sassy little frassy with bulimia”

reply

some people are dicks... those people you speak of are like all the raging peta vegan people who flip out over the smallest things. they're annoying and all the normal non ocd people would probably be better off without them in society.
On that note I can't stand homos who are always in your face about equality, I have friends who are gay goddamnit its not that your gay i hate you its cuz your friggin annoying. Some people just don't understand stuff like that i guess.

reply

completely agree with everything said here. i think the whole country is just getting ridiculous now. the need to appease everyone means a lot of people are being treated unfairly. it would be intereting to see how the economy would survive if everyone in UK quit smoking, as it seems the government wants us to.

reply

I totally agree.

What possible positive contribution to an optimistic society can people who inhale poisonous smoke possibly make ??

As for the endless warnings -bans- prohibitions etc etc -agree -waste of time and money- line them up against a convenient wall- call up the NRA and get them to "take care of business"- everyone wins.

Cut out the need for wasting health service time and money. You smoke -you die- don't believe it- just try. Ban smokers from all hospitals and clinics- build open air well-ventilated open-air pens and place them in there-securely.

Schools would organise visits to see the dying smokers- major tourist attraction

Psychopaths and psychotic killers would be attached to bars and restaurants and anyone caught smoking would be "passed " to the hired hand who would satisfy their murderous urges at no danger to the public.Murder rate drops dramatically .

Health service wins-bars win-restaurants win- public wins- schools win and smokers get to satisfy their deep desire for an early death.

By the way - thoroughly enjoyed the film.

Love and peace to all my readers.

reply

I personally don't mind walking through someones smoke cloud on the street. But I do like the ban on smoking inside buildings. Inside walls smoke sticks to furniture, it's smelly, bad for your (and everyones) health... I think it's good that smokers don't get to choose anymore whether to smoke or not inside buildings. I don't care that smokers smoke, they just shouldn't be allowed bothering others by doing it inside the office, bar, whatever... Just light one outside then... I don't mind if you just open the door a little and smoke in the doorway (unless you're forming a group and then block the entrance, that again can be quiet bothering). For me you don't have to walk miles and miles to smoke one...

So in my opinion the legal system has the right to approve of bans. We do live in a democracy, don't we?(well I do, live in Belgium but I presume you do to)The fact that the ban came through only means that most people found it bothering enough to vote yes on anti-smoking laws. Where a mojority wins, there's always a minority left unsatified. But don't get angry when some people are rude to you. Not everyone who's against smoking is an A-hole you know? Enjoy your cigarette...just do it outside and lighten up!

For as far the anti-smoking commercials are concerned, my guess is you feel frustrated by constantly being looked upon by all these "smoking haters". Well, don't be. If you want to quit smoking, then quit. Otherwise just don't pay attention to these nonsense. I'm not very much against these commercials though, because it might influence kids to either not start smoking or to quit it quickly. Unlike adults, kids cannot yet held responsable for their own choices. We should encourage the youth to live healthy. Once they're grown up (18?) and they want to smoke like mad, who's going to stop them?

reply

I agree with the poster. I'm a heavy smoker...15 years, 2 packs a day, full flavored Pall Malls ( filtered)...yes, I know the risk, I breathe pretty heavy these days...oh well...those suckers sure are relaxing though. But I never could figure out why the non-smokers had more say than the smokers, forget about that majority crap, doesn't mean anything (Bush got President from the majority, that say's a lot about majority huh?). A smoker is hurting nobody but hisself. I don't think the "bad second-hand smoke" theory was credible enough to kill one parties rights over another. The things that have been happening in this country (U.S.A.) over the last few decades makes me think of one word..."communism". Odd as it sounds, that's the word that comes to mind. The words "spoiled", "uppety" and the line "I'm better than you because I don't like what your doing, so I'm gonna put a stop to it" automatically popped up right after.

There's plenty of things that people do in public that "I" don't like...I see it all the time. But not once have I ever thought about there being a law against the stuff, never.

I personally don't like to see people chewing tobacco, dipping etc. (It's actually the spitting that I don't like to see), my cousin dips, walks around all day with an empty Pepsi bottle spitting in the damn thing. But when I see people doing this, I try to ignore'em, no big deal. No sense in running to congress about it.

And I think I can speak for most (if not all) smokers when I say, "WE DO KNOW THE RISKS OF SMOKING". Hehehe, I learned about the risk way back in elementary school, health class. You guys remember the pictures in those "Health" books??? The black lung on the left, the healthy pink lung on the right??? It didn't matter to me none. I'd still light'em up and let'em hang, make James Dean proud.

I guess I'll close now, but before I do I'd like to leave the anti-smokers with a little something to let them know how the damn nickel rolls:

"IF YOU'D TEND TO YOUR OWN BUSINESS, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TIME TO TEND TO ANYBODY ELSE'S"................AND NO, MY SECOND-HAND SMOKE IS NOT YOUR BUSINESS, IT'S MINE, BOUGHT AND PAID FOR.

reply

" AND NO, MY SECOND-HAND SMOKE IS NOT YOUR BUSINESS, IT'S MINE, BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. "

How's that exactly? So you mean you if you've paid to kill everyone in the room, they should just turn their backs and allow it? o_O Now I don't like people spitting either but they're not bringing anyone's health in danger. Plus it doesn't ruin the indoor smell either. And even if there were as many tobacco spitters as there are smokers and as many non-tobacco spitters hating it as there are anti-smokers then there would come a law against tobacco chewing to sooner or later.

Bush's terrible policy made Obama president, the first black president in United States history who is furthermore dedicated to putting an end to the war in Iraque... the majority has spoken, and it always will.

I'm not at all against smoking though... I smoke myself from time to time but always do it outside. It's too nasty a habbit to start bothering others by practising it. And, honestly, is it that big a deal to smoke outside or by an open window?

reply

"Bush's terrible policy made Obama president, the first black president in United States history who is furthermore dedicated to putting an end to the war in Iraque... the majority has spoken, and it always will."

Obama did NOT win by majority vote. He won because the electoral college wanted him to win so THEY voted him in, not US. in fact, i only know 2 people who voted for Obama.

As for the actual topic. I agree with the OP. I smoke, it took awhile to get over EVERYONE telling me how nasty i was for smoking but i made it through. Now, I don't smoke cigarettes (my mom does though) I do however smoke; Cigars, Shisha (flavored pipe tabaco for Hookahs. not to be confused with Hashish), and Pipe tobbaco. I work out regularly and eat fairly healthy. So basicly maybe its all about balance. Just a theory.

TEAM 'STACHE


BTW if it was good enough for; Lewis, Tolkien, and Chesterton then its good enough for me.

reply

in fact, i only know 2 people who voted for Obama

Wow, that proves absolutely nothing.

reply

That's funny, everyone that I knew that saw Sarah Palin as VP nominee for McCain voted Obama.

reply

There's plenty of things that people do in public that "I" don't like...I see it all the time. But not once have I ever thought about there being a law against the stuff, never.


It's not about anyone NOT LIKING the fact that you smoke. It's about the fact that you cock sucker barge in and force others around you to be exposed to the toxic crap that comes billowing out of your cigarette, not for one second thinking about anyone but yourself.

If you want to kill yourself please do. In fact, if you could, get someone to videotape it and post your suicide on YouTube so I can watch a worthless, inconsiderate piece of horse *beep* die. However, I will not sit back and passively allow you worthless pieces of *beep* pollute my air and my lungs just because you don't give a flying *beep* about anyone or anything but you.

reply

CowboyDan,

in your 6/20/09 reply to DavidPittman you said...

It's not about anyone NOT LIKING the fact that you smoke. It's about the fact that you cock sucker barge in and force others around you to be exposed to the toxic crap that comes billowing out of your cigarette, not for one second thinking about anyone but yourself.

If you want to kill yourself please do. In fact, if you could, get someone to videotape it and post your suicide on YouTube so I can watch a worthless, inconsiderate piece of horse *beep* die. However, I will not sit back and passively allow you worthless pieces of *beep* pollute my air and my lungs just because you don't give a flying *beep* about anyone or anything but you.


I totally agree with you. The bottom line is that smoking is a dirty, filthy disgusting habit.

That being said, however, I do not hate smokers in general. Several of my family members and friends are smokers. I still love them all. And all of them are respectful of others with their smoking. They don't smoke around me or around other family members or friends who are non-smokers. I realize that they are addicted to tobacco. Many of them have tried or are trying to quit smoking. I DO have compassion for them, and I have great respect for them.

However, I do hate smokers whose attitude is, "I have a right to smoke anytime and anywhere and around whomever I want to. I don't give a damn if my tobacco smoke could harm anyone else, or smell up their hair, their clothes, their cars or their homes. And I don't give a damn if my kids start smoking because I smoke. My rights as a smoker supersede anyone else's rights to clean air and good health."

I've met a few of those. They can all rot in hell as far as I'm concerned.

reply

I've always supported banning smoking in those arenas where there is no choice. Courtrooms, government offices, etc. But I don't see the problem when a proprietor chooses to allow and in fact welcomes smokers into his/her establishment as part of the ambiance/atmosphere or catering to a solid portion of their customer base.

I don't see how that option damages those who choose to not to enjoy or partake in that recreational activity.

But that's me. I value freedom enough to allow others to enjoy what they enjoy. I don't like seeing two men kiss. I don't like the strong smell of perfumes or pine cleansers which make me ill. Loud music damages hearing.

I go elsewhere. I don't enlist the majority mob or the government or the insurance companies to stomp on freedom simply because it's inconvenient to exercise my own freedom to go elsewhere.

So we should probably force all musicians, users of stereophonic equipment, movie theaters and ringtones kept down to a nice, safe 80 decibels.

And your baby, crying at 100 decibels will simply have to leave the park.


"Atlas Shrugged- Part 2"- Coming in 2012! --The saga continues!

reply

There are certain aspects of the OP that I agree with and ones that I do not agree with.

Yes, smoking is a choice. To be honest, though, it makes me sick just smelling it. In a bad moment (if I was already feeling a little bit nauseous), it can make me feel genuinely awful. I don't think I am the only one, and I do think that I have the right to take steps to avoid it.

How far I have to go to avoid is the main issue I am concerned with here. If I have to turn down nights with my friends (eg going to the bar or out to supper) to avoid it, that makes me rather upset. You could make the argument that I could go to a bar without smoking, or sit in the non-smoking section of a restaurant. My opinion on this is a grey area: I turned drinking age only after my province banned smoking inside buildings, so I don't know how many bars were available to go to that did not have smoking, and I'll leave out an opinion on that. In restaurants, unless there is a separately ventilated area, telling me to sit in a non-smoking area is a very weak proposition. I can still smell the smoke, and I will probably come out of the restaurant feeling light-headed and nauseous.

Out on the streets, it's very different. If I can hold my breath walking past a smoker, or give a wide enough berth that I don't have to smell the smoke, then fine. It's annoying but manageable.

There was some mention of anti-smoking advertisements. I really cannot agree with anyone who says these are unnecessary. Even if you are a smoker, knowing the full health detriments of smoking, are you going to encourage other people to smoke? Commercials such as those are efforts to stop people from make bad decisions that will leave them with a difficult, unhealthy addiction. They are meant to inform people, in response to a culture that encouraged smoking as cool without shedding light on its detriments. You can argue that everyone knows that cigarettes are unhealthy, and that may be true, but people need reminders, and it's not just about information; it's about culture. The government ads are attempting to foster a culture where smoking is known for the unhealthy habit that it is: a culture of health. This is not a heinous thing for a government to do. It's the same as the government commercials encouraging people not to drink and drive, or to steal copyrighted material (not that I'm trying to open up a bag of worms here; that's another debate).

reply

What Smokers seem to not believe is that if smoking makes them feel so good, why does it make others feel sick ... they must be sissies. They seem to ignore something scientific called 'Tolerance'.

I AGREE that to go out of your way to ask - or even show discomfort - someone on the street 'passing' by to stop smoking, or take actions towards it, is rediculous.

That being said, smoking in 'closed' spaces CAN hurt others. I'm not talking about 'cancer' or 'heart attacks' ... etc., I'm talking about what the poster above me mentioned. Why would you force me to feel dizzy, and about to throw up, and have that smoke smell stick to my clothes the rest of the day, and my heart bump up in discomfort, and MOST important of all ... my nasal allergies kick in, just so that YOU feel comfortable and happy. Simply put, that's called ... selfishness.

I haven't heard a single smoker argue his case without appearing 100% fanatic and aggressive and selfish. He just wants his fix and that's about it, nothing, and no-one else matters.

Sure, there's a ton of polution around us, but, we grew a tolerence for it, and we are FORCED to get used to it. I want to take a breath from the exhaust in the street when i finally reach my destination and enter a building, but a smoker doesn't allow me to, I, again, run into smoke, and polution. Where can i have a break?!

I can go on all day about cigarettes and their effect, but the problem is simple ... discard ALL the health hazards everyone is talking about and consider this ... Smoking: purely selfish, you smoke and others inhale, they feel 'discomfortable' and you don't care, what does that say about YOU.

My only arguement about smoking has ALWAYS been that ... selfishness causing discomfort to others. (Not even mentioning the increase in blood pressure some migh suffer from, including me, which causes pain sometimes. I just tried to make it a simple arguement without too much detail)


________________________
Ahmed Mohamed el-Sawalhy

reply

"Sure, there's a ton of polution around us, but, we grew a tolerence for it, and we are FORCED to get used to it."

...unless the gouvernment manages to pass a law which prohibits the use of cars and launches use-your-bycicle!- ads. I agree this sounds extreme and most probably impossible, but this is how smokers feel about the anti-smoking laws. In a world where they were always left the choice to smoke anywhere and where health ads didn't exist... they grew rather comfortable in this free position. And why wouldn't they have? They could smoke where ever they want and smoking was even considered "cool". So I agree with saraka-1. It's all about culture changing. You can whine about it, but what good would that do? I think it's only a natural response of smokers when they tend to say "smoking is my business, now leave me alone!" However selfish this might sound, their right to put up a cigarette wherever they like is just as justified as your need to walk and talk through clean air. Cultural changes require adaptations from both sides... Keep in mind that not every smoker is a selfish intolerant person.

reply

Here's the thing though, without cars life would be MUCH slower, production and transportation would be horribly slow, and most of the population would actually be more upset than happy. Also, cars are used by everyone in the city, even 'healthy environment' advocates (?), so it's a bigger issue. On the other hand, the government SHOULD prohibit the use of fossil fuel, and switch to other (actually WORKING) alternatives, even if it costs a fortune.

For a smoker it costs him a fortune (supposidly mentally) to actually quit smoking, but in return he's not harming others (i explained what kind of harm in a previous post), is that too much to ask?

You said that people had a completely free choice, if not coerced choice, back when the media was showing how smoking is so cool, and that to force them to quit all of a sudden isn't right. And that i shouldn't whine (or did you mean the smokers)? ...

Culture might say 'ok' to bad things for a while, does that give an excuse for 'adults' to actually do those things, God gave them a brain >.>. It's not our fault that some had a weak personality. I grow up around my father smoking ALL day, ALL my friends smoke ALL kinds of stuff. Been offered, manipulated, judged a TON, and despite all that, i never gave in. Thought i'd give you a 'personal' example.

Bad cultural changes require extermination, not adaptation ;). It's the duty of the people to root out the bad ideas out of the community if they know what's good for them.

I have to agree that not all smokers are selfish, i've seen people ashamed of what they do, and admit it, and never smoke around someone who doesn't. But i'm talking about the majority that doesn't care, growing numb to self-sacrifice and compassion (in a sense).

Finally, I gave up on debating a lot of stuff, including ... smoking, terrorism, globalization, war on 'terror', world government, compassion ... etc. They're all just, well, i have to say, out of my simple speach skills' league :). But i thought i'd still throw in my '2c' once in a while :).

"Their right to put up a cigarette wherever they like is just as 'justified' as your need to walk and talk through clean air", heh, it's not that it doesn't sound selfish, it IS selfish ;). And i don't see how it might be justified, considering clean air doesn't actually harm its addicts or otherwise :P.

________________________
Ahmed Mohamed el-Sawalhy

reply

"You said that people had a completely free choice, if not coerced choice, back when the media was showing how smoking is so cool, and that to force them to quit all of a sudden isn't right. And that i shouldn't whine (or did you mean the smokers)? ... "

Yeah I meant the smokers :) Sorry, my English is not quite good enough to make my point of view utterly clear, I guess. I just don't like it how two camps in a debate point the finger at each other and call each other selfish and intolerant. Next to smoking being cool I find it also a bad cultural development that smokers feel constantly watched. Hence te OP f.e. getting upset over the informal ads.

Let's say you're in a bar and someone bothers you by smoking. The good thing to do is ask him kindly to stop, and maybe buy him a drink and chit chat for a minute. What the anti-smoking laws comes down to is yelling at that man in the bar: "hey we don't like smokers around here, get outta here!". How tolerant is that really? Smokers are upset over this and I don't blame them. Those people might have lungs black as coal but they have hearts to.

reply

Here's the thing though, without cars life would be MUCH slower, production and transportation would be horribly slow, and most of the population would actually be more upset than happy. Also, cars are used by everyone in the city, even 'healthy environment' advocates (?), so it's a bigger issue. On the other hand, the government SHOULD prohibit the use of fossil fuel, and switch to other (actually WORKING) alternatives, even if it costs a fortune.

That's the problem though. The government turns their heads on regulating unhealthy or unsafe things that make them enough money before the issue goes public to enough extent. Sure, there's research and development in alternative fuel sources but it's going to be many more years before the government gives a big push to electric powered cars and we switch totally over (if we ever do). It's not because it's hard to put a big rechargeable battery into a car and make it go. It's because OIL=$$$$
Anyone who thinks the government's first priority is the people it governs must be pretty naive.
So why is it now that the FDA regulates tobacco in the U.S. (that's right, tobacco has gone federal, next we know, so will everything to do with firearms).
Now, the federal government can make all the tax money off of cigarettes.
(I paid 8.50 for a pack of smokes a couple weeks ago. Used to be 4.35 just a few months prior.)
My original point in all this was the response to the statement I quoted above.
Basically what it implies is that as long as it keeps the world turning and makes everyone's lives easier and quicker, we should all just deal with the fumes and worse health risks from the crap that comes out of the millions of tail pipes every day. But if it doesn't do anything to help you get to work every day then we might as well just ban it altogether. Or at least keep pushing it into a tighter corner until it's totally eliminated.
See, the government knows that nicotine is addictive. So do smokers. And us smokers are very aware of their real plan. Tax the hell out of an addictive substance until we all either start growing it at home (which would be taxed as well somehow I guarantee) or quit. But then where will the politicians make their money?
Eventually they'll tax something everyone needs on a regular basis. Then what will you say? "Well, it's the law, there's nothing I can do."
All us Americans live in this country where eventually even our 'freedoms' will be taxed.
"Oh. You want to speak freely in a public forum? Sure. You can say whatever you want as long as it's not against us. You have 3 hours. And that will cost you...300 dollars."
It may sound extreme, but it could very well happen.
I know I went a little off topic there, but they were all things I felt needed to be said.

"The rest of the world is involved."
"I don't care about the rest of the world."

reply

"the government SHOULD prohibit the use of fossil fuel, and switch to other (actually WORKING) alternatives, even if it costs a fortune."

What a great idea. Let's cripple the economy to stop the earth's climate from going up 1 degree in the next 50 years.

reply

Of course, giving no thought to the air we breathe, or the effect it has on plants and creatures that we use for sustenance. Obviously, using more efficient and intelligent measures is a waste of a fictitious resource (money) and should be looked down upon. Stupid heretics and such. I'm with you. Anyone who plans for stupid things like "the future" is silly.

reply

"My only arguement about smoking has ALWAYS been that ... selfishness causing discomfort to others"

So I suppose you've never been drunk then, or cut someone off in traffic, gossiped freely about someone...etc. Human nature consists of many traits derived from selfishness that cause discomfort to others. A person having a cigarette on the street isn't smoking to cause discomfort to another, that's an ignorant statement. It's the exact same as having a drink after work, or that naughty bit of chocolate with a coffee, it just isn't everyones taste.

reply

so it bothers you there were not ENOUGH non-smoking bars before the ban? but now it doesn't there's NO bar at all, anymore, for smokers? what's that for democracy.
and the so-called "culture of health" that originated in California, US, spreading to Europe and the rest of the world, is no culture, but a *dictatorship* of health.
wanna be immortal? become a god.

reply

as a light smoker (pack a week) i understand anti smokers, when i havent had one in a couple days i realize the stench, and i do know the health issues, infact its the number one preventable health hazard, so theyre banning cigareetes from places, and theyre taxing the living hell out of us smokers.

want to know the second most preventable health hazard? obesity, im gunna get flammed for this but im anti obesity, im tired of looking at all the fat people in this country they utterly disgust me, if you're a little chubby its ok i dont mind infact im about 25 pounds over, but we should tax every preventable health hazard, if we're gunna tax smoking (alcohol, obesity, smoking, ect.) every undesireable thing if we're gunna tax cigarettes to death. yes folks im talking about a fat tax, if you're over a certain BMI you should be forced to pay a respectable amount of money to taxes, hey not only will the government get more money to hire construction crews for bridges ect, it may force the obese americans to get up and lose weight making your life better. im tired of looking at em, most fat people smell horrible, im hate the way they waddle, i hate everything about obese people, im tired of having some big ol tubby sitting by me on the bus, plane, train ect while were both wheezing, them cuz they are too big to breath properly, and me because theyre squeezing the hell out of me. im sick and tired of this America, this beautiful country should frown upon fat people as they do smokers, alcoholics ect ect ect.

you know why we havent imposed a fat tax yet i bet its because people are sensetive about their rolls, and big ol government is soft for peoples feelings, but not jobs

im not going to keep up with this thread i am done if you choose to flame me, or praise me email me at [email protected]

reply

[deleted]

I guess you'll just have to sit home and cry about it. Smoking has been going on for thousands of years, all around people who don't smoke. They found a way around it. Guess what? If you have a brain, you can too!

reply

Right on man, I agree with everything you say. When I worked at Wal Mart they put in a cool little smoking room with fans and vents in the employee lunchroom. It was fairly expensive to put in as far as I know. Then a couple months later they put in a smoking ban in my state (Washington). Now the workers have to freeze their asses off outside and the smoking room is boarded up.

reply

ok i just have to say, that OP you are almost completely wrong.

Just to let you know, im not an "anti-smoker". most of my friends smoke, and do it next to me, i dont complain about it (usually).

but you are complaining for the wrong reasons.

1) SMoke bans in pubs/bars is absolutely brilliant. Every time i used to go out with my friends, when i would get home, i wouldnt be able to wear my clothes again, because they would absolutely stink of smoke from cigarrettes. This was really annoying.
And in general when you are in such small cramped environments, there will be smoke all around you which is annoying for people who dont smoke.

even the majority of my smoking friends are in favour of this ban. IT also adds a good opportunity to socialise outside clubs/bars, where it is quieter and easier to talk to other people, and it gives u an excuse to do so.

2) Government intervention. This is important, despite what you say.
Governments need to intervene in order to benefit society and to improve living standards for the population as a whole. This point alone would require a lot of writing and study, but ill keep it short.
Basically not ALL people are in the situation you are in. A lot of smokers do infact want to quit, but find it hard, or sometimes need extra motivation, and this is exactylu the target for these anti-smoking ads u see everywhere.
just because it doesnt effect people like you, who are informed of the risks and do not want to quit, it doesnt mean its useless, and i dont see why it bothers you, since these ads dont bother me, and im not even a smoker and dont care what others do.
Likewise, businesses do not always have its staff in its best interest, and instead all they want to do is maximise profit. Without government intervention, there would be constant health risks...a perfect example is pollution and chemical waste. without government control, businesses would create endless damage to our enviornmnent just to make money, therefore governments need to control it.

anyway this is something which i could talk much more about but since i cant talk, only write, ill leave my arguments as they stand.

reply

[deleted]

To put it in a (overly, perhaps) simple way: smoking itself is stupid. There's no real logical reason, having weighed up the pros and cons, to actually smoke, unless of course you genuinely have no concerns about the health effects, for example. Of course, if you have such a self-destructive mentality, you'd do so through any other means, not solely tobacco, so the point is moot.

However, there's also no real right for the government to dictate what people to with themselves, as long as they don't harm other people. So, if a person chooses to smoke, outside, and not in front of their children, where is the problem? We are all in control of our own destinies, not the government nor any "god". If we wish to consume massive quantities of fat and salt, smoke cigarettes, do drugs, or have casual sex with HIV positive people, that is all our individual prerogative.

Perhaps, though, the government could choose to be seen as not condoning such behaviour by refusing to give, assuming the country we're talking about has a nationalised health service that is publically funded, medical treatment or attention to people who are suffering from afflictions or problems clearly proven to be linked to such habits. If you want to die of coronary heart disease from eating 50 burgers a day (or, say, drink a bottle of whisky a day), be our guest, as long as you don't encourage your children to do the same, or expect any of us to shell out for your treatments once you change your mind.

reply

[deleted]

Twiggy232, to address your point -

'Smoke bans in pubs/bars is absolutely brilliant. Every time i used to go out with my friends, when i would get home, i wouldnt be able to wear my clothes again, because they would absolutely stink of smoke from cigarrettes. This was really annoying. And in general when you are in such small cramped environments, there will be smoke all around you which is annoying for people who dont smoke.'

I understand your sentiments here, but the problem I have with that argument is you imply the ban is 'brilliant' purely because it fits your interests as a non-smoker. It may be brilliant from your perspective, but that's just the issue that infuriates so many persecuted smokers: in enforcing the ban, only one party of the two is catered for: the non-smoker. Instead of appeasing both sides with a compromise (ie. seperate, sealed off smoking areas INSIDE pubs and restaraunts), the ban simply casts all smokers outside of the premises with no consideration whatsoever. I understand why you're happy with the ban, I would be too in your shoes, but surely by definition a 'brilliant' solution would've satisfied both parties.

However, where the ban gets REALLY ridiculous is in private businesses. Take this example: before the ban, workplaces across the country had smoking rooms, where smokers could light up in peace, polluting no one but themselves. These rooms had a closed door and an extractor fan. Now, smokers have to loiter outside like idiots because the government ban determines that there is no smoking AT ALL in business premises, so the smoking rooms are gone.

This creates a hilariously farcical situation, namely that instead of smoking in private rooms, we smokers now congregate outside bars, workplaces and restaraunts, in the streets where we're actually far more visible and - most ironic of all - there are non-smokers walking past, potentially inhaling our evil smoke. Just where is the logic in that?

reply

why does my reason not qualify for smokers too? i know you guys like smoking, but does that also mean you like your clothes to smell of smoke every time you go out as well?

also are you sure about these smoking rooms? maybe a few business' had them, but i doubt all of them had rooms just for smokers with extractor fans....

reply

A lot has been said so I'll try and cover it all. First off, I don't even smoke cigarettes. I enjoy a cigar once every week or two but because cigars and cigerettes have been lumped together I've been forced to defend all smokers. Which means I've done a lot of research on both cigarette and cigar smokers.

Smoking a pack of cigarettes a day does increase your chances of getting a number of illnesses. Smoking 2 or more cigars a day does increase your chances of getting a number of illnesses. However, smoking 4-6 cigarettes a day and smoking 6 or less cigars a week has statistically no significant increase in any health affects. You can deny this all you want, but I recommend you do the research first. The problem is most cigarette smokers do in fact smoke more than 6 cigarettes a day, so the point is moot. However, most cigar smokers smoker less than 6 a week and they don't inhale, significantly decreasing their risks. That's the gist of first hand smoking.

Most people who smoke know the risks and are comfortable with them. Anyone who says their is no good reason to smoke or no logical reason to smoke is obviously stating their opinion from their biased point of view. I could just as easily say having kids is the stupidest thing anyone could do because it's a waste of money and time. It's easy for me to say that because I don't have any kids. Despite this, people don't need a good reason to do something. Jumping out of a perfectly good airplane seems to be ridiculous to me but people skydive all the time and they do it for a fix of adreneline.

Now, on to what you're probably thinking next. "Yes, but skydiving is only dangerous to the people doing it not anyone else. Second-hand smoke kills blah blah blah..." Second Hand Smoke or Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS). Without going into too many details on how poor the "science" is that is being used with second hand smoke I can simply tell you that it's junk science and you should do your own research. The fact that they've lowered the accepted Risk Ratio number to consider a correlation significant for passive smoking surveys should raise red flags. The fact that federal judges have thrown out EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) studies and even the UN's WHO (World Health Organization) had to make retractions on their own reports because fault assumptions and poor studies were being made.

Basically, when it comes down to it, most studies done on ETS show typical exposure from going to bars or having a significant other or someone you live with smoke show no signicant increase in risks. Studies for the most part of conclusively shown a high increased risk in newborns when parents smoke around them. So don't smoke around your newborn. Aside from newborns, everyone else fairs just fine. Don't believe? Go ahead and look at any ETS study. The number you're looking for is the RR value of the study, the Risk Ratio. It needs to be 2 or higher to be considered a significant increase. Most ETS studies are below 2. None of the reports take into account new studies showing the human papilloma virus is a strong cause of lung cancer.

And I know what you're thinking. I'm probably just referencing studies paid for by Big Tobacco, but that's not the case. As I mentioned above, these are studies done by the WHO and the EPA. Even cancer research institutes. The problem is they come to poor concluses despite the evidence to the contrary. And if you say to yourself "But they're scientists and doctors, they know what they're talking about." Yeah, well, there's also common sense. A scientist said there is "no save level of tobacco smoke exposure". No safe level? Despite that being bogus since tobacco smoke is made up of hundreds of components, he'd have to identify which ones have no safe level of exposure. He's saying one individual particle of tobacco smoke entering your lungs will increase your risk. If that's true, there's no safe level of exposure to car exhaust or your HVAC system. You basically can't breath anywhere. There's also another scientist that said hurricaine force winds couldn't clear the smoke out of the room. I'd hope most of you are smart enough to understand why that's ridiculous. They said it so that ventilation of bars couldn't be an option. If you can't understand why these smart people would say such stupid things, look into the world of research grants and what people have to do to get them.

And finally, assuming you at least do the research on ETS and realize the risks are greatly exaggerated we come on to the "being selfish", "stinks", "allergies", "annoying" arguements. Which is basically two arguements "it's annoying" and "I'm allergic to smoke".

I'll start with people allergic to smoke. I'm sorry, people who claim to be allergic to smoke. Yes, that's right. There is no tobacco smoke antigen. I'm sorry, but it's just fact. Many studies done testing the body's response to tobacco smoke exposure have shown no anti-body reaction. The problem is people who have other allergies do "the cough" around smokers, the same "the cough" that non-allergy-ridden people do around smoke, and then claim to be allergic to tobacco smoke too. Unfortunately it's unfounded in science. I do however apologize that you have trouble breathing around smoke and would always be more than happy to move or attempt to blow smoke away from you if you simply politely ask.

Now, finally on to "it's annoying!" and smokers are being selfish. If you want to ban things because they're annoying we're going to have to make a list. Potent purfumes, hand loations, chewing with your mouth open, playing with your gum, crying babies, screaming kids, smelly diapers, people who talk loud on their cell phones, people with weezy voices, etc etc. I can-not-stand people who abnoxiously chomp on their gum with their mouth open. It's my own person pet peeve. If gum could be banned, I'd be all for it. But should it? Of course not. What about the smell? You don't want your clothes to stink? What about people with disgusting perfume and hand lotions? What about eating at Subway? My clothes friggin stink like baked bread. But I still go there because I like the subs. Just like I don't like stinky clothes but I still go to bars because I like to go to bars. And I don't know about you people, but I only wear my clothes once and then wash them. Jackets? The smoke smell goes away after a day or two. You can't ban things because they annoy you, it's as simple as that.

And the most important thing to remember is there isn't one option or the other in this whole sitatuion. It isn't "let people smoke every where or don't let them smoke at all". There is compromise. Make bars or restaurants seperate their smoking areas and properly ventilate them. It is possible and it is that easy and everyone is happy.

reply

Oh, I forgot. For all you "tobacco smokers serve no purpose in this world" people. Tobacco smokers are single-handedly responsible for the new Children's Healthcare bill that yours truly just passed. And if you want all those 26 year olds who's parents are making $80,000 a year to keep getting free healthcare you better hope we keep smoking.

You're welcome.

reply

[deleted]

Really? You make an attack statement and don't even try to back it up?

There are many cases where government involvement has helped people. The examples that come to my mind are occupational health and safety codes, and pension plans, which help people make it through their career intact, and take care of them at the end of it, respectively. The issue is not that people are dependent on the government, the issue is that the government has a mandate to decide on what's best for the populace it governs. I won't claim they always get it right, and I will even say that many governors have lost sight of this mandate. However, rules, regulations, and laws are a necessary force in today's world, and many of them are created to, as that poster said, improve living standards and benefit society.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

As a non-smoker, I think the television ads are a waste of money. If people want to quit, they will find a way to quit. If they want to start, a don't smoke advertisement won't stop them from starting.

I was happy when the smoking bans were passed because it benefits me and other non-smokers. I don't have any pity towards smokers having to go outside to smoke anywhere they go. I only have pity for the businesses that lose customers because they can't go without a cigarette for a few hours.

reply

[deleted]

My state made it illegal to smoke in a business about 3 years ago (Washington). People have found ways to get around the ban. A few people in my town opened hooka bars, and smoking bars that are not public; no one is allowed in without a membership. Typically it is a flat rate membership of about $1. That is the way they can get around the smoking bands. I have recently joined a place downtown, and I don't have to stand out in the snow now.

reply

[deleted]

I do not want to breathe in your cigarette smoke. EVER. It stinks, and it closes up my nasal passages. If I don't want to inhale your smoke, and I'm in a public place, don't I have that right?

There is a reason why non-smokers are being appeased and not the other way around; non-smokers are being slighted by smokers. By the act of you smoking in public, you're inconveniencing people. By the act of me NOT smoking in public, I'm not inconveniencing anyone. Therefore it makes sense that the laws would favor those being inconvenienced rather than those who are doing the inconveniencing.

If I'm sitting on a bench, and you walk past me with a lit cigarette, guess what, you just infringed upon my rights. Just because you have a knee injury is no excuse.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]


What peeves me off is the smokers who are so selfish that they do it while their kids are in the car. There is absolutely no excuse for that.

reply

[deleted]

LOL. My Mom smoked in the car with me. Honestly, it made me dislike cigarettes so much that I never smoked them. I smoked plenty of pot, but never liked cigarettes, probably from being subjected to it at a young age.

reply

[deleted]

---"I do not want to breathe in your cigarette smoke. EVER."---

Really? Well, your perfume isn't the best smelling thing in the world. But I'm not going to confront you about it. You know why? Because I'm a nice guy and your free to do whatever you want. I'll put up with it.

---"It stinks, and it closes up my nasal passages."---

What a coincidence...so does your perfume. Or, it could possibly be your body spray or any other of a number of things you females douse yourselves with. Oh well, do what you want...it's a free country (at least for the time being anyway).

---" If I don't want to inhale your smoke, and I'm in a public place, don't I have that right?"---

hmmm...good point. But, don't I also have the right not to smell (or see) your baby's dirty diaper? Why do "MOTHERS" insist on changing their kids diapers wherever they want. Most places have areas for that sort of thing...their called "RESTROOMS". I'm not going to confront you about it though. If I had to confront you...I'd have to confront all mothers and I sure don't have the time to take on that chore. So I'll just forget about it.

---"There is a reason why non-smokers are being appeased and not the other way around; non-smokers are being slighted by smokers."---

Nah, you've got that backwards.

---"By the act of me NOT smoking in public, I'm not inconveniencing anyone."---

hehehe...I wish I had a nickel for every inconvience that a non-smoker caused me, I'd be rich.

---"Therefore it makes sense that the laws would favor those being inconvenienced rather than those who are doing the inconveniencing."---

Actually it needs to favor everybody equally and show no favoritism whatsoever.

---"If I'm sitting on a bench, and you walk past me with a lit cigarette, guess what, you just infringed upon my rights. Just because you have a knee injury is no excuse."---

I hope you have a wipe handy, that perfume is giving me a headache. Could you wipe it off please so I may sit down on this public bench without my sinuses throbbing. I could find another bench but this one is a lot more accessible to my hurt knee. I'm sure we can negotiate if your nice about it. I'll put out my cig if you'll wipe off that hellish stench...you may like it but I don't.


reply