A lot of smokers seem to be complaining on these boards about being hassled by non-smokers and having their "right to smoke" denied by restrictions and bans.
If you are a genuinely considerate smoker who makes a real effort not to inflict cigerette smoke onto non-smokers then you are not the cause of the problem.
Can I suggest that instead of blaming non-smokers, you should blame all the inconsiderate smokers that smoke in doorways, leave their butts on the ground and smoking around their children. It is the actions of these smokers that annoy non-smokers and led to the bans and restrictions you hate so much.
So do yourselves a favour and start hassling the inconsiderate smokers that are giving you a bad name.
yeah, but you can flip that around. Suppose that I was in a park, away from the play areas and other people, smoking away and minding my own business and some guy walks over and tells me that I need to move because he wants to throw the football with his son and he doesn't want his son to breathe cigarette smoke, don't I have the right to tell him to piss off or deal with it, since I was there first?
I am a non-smoker and I like smoke free pubs but I despise the fact that it's the law.
You say it's only stubborn gits who moan about the "nanny state" but where do you draw the line? What choice would have to be removed from you before you thought that your liberties were being eroded?
Do you like drink? How many units? Would it be sensible if a pub would only serve you your daily limit? 21 units a week and 4 a day! That's a pint of lager a day.
Or maybe the government could restrict what foods you can buy and in what quantities - perhaps all kids with a BMI over 20 should be taken into care?
Should all cars be fitted with speed limiters and motorbikes outlawed?
Where does personal responsibility start?
Ah but, smoking affects those around you, you say. So does obesity, we all pay for the NHS; Speed kills and exhaust fumes choke our cities. If I run a business and it is my choice to cater to smokers then surely I should be able to do that, particularly if I clearly sign post my premises as not a smoke free zone.
What about my employees? Well I would only employ those who understand that this workplace is not smoke free. I am not making them work there it their choice to apply for work in my bar therefore why should I be liable?
If I as a non-smoker make a decision to enter a pub that is not smoke free surely I am responsible for the consequences of my actions.
Sorry this is turning into a bit of a rant but a nanny state robs of choice and tells us that we are not responsible for our actions. Just makes me angry.
Smoking is not being outlawed and your consumption of cigarettes is not being limited, so I think your analogies are off.
First off, alcohol does not affect other people like second hand smoke. So if someone sitting next to me in a pub wants to drink a beer and I don't want to then that will not affect me health negatively like second-hand smoke does.
Also, where we consume alcohol is regulated. I cannot drink a pint in a library, so there are already regulations despite alcohol not having an effect like second-hand smoke.
Why do you mention a government restriction on food quantities when the government is not regulating the number of cigarettes you buy? Bring up unhealthy foods is valid to some degree because they are also bad for your health and therefore cost society. The main difference is that eating fatty foods does not directly harm the health of people in the vicinity in the way smoking does.
Regarding fitting cars with speed limiters and motorbikes being outlawed I fail to see the comparison. You can still buy cigarettes, but the places you can smoke are still limited. Just like there are limits on where you can drive cars and how fast you can drive. You can't actually drive your car in a park or on a sidewalk. You also can't drive your car 140 miles per hour or even 60 miles per hour in a 30 miles per hour area. There are limits placed on their use, just like cigarettes. There are loads of things limited in this regard.
Just like I can have sex or masturbate in my home, but I can't have sex next to you at the bus stop and then finish up by emptying my load on the ground next to you.
Lastly, you cannot infringe the rights of your employees just like you can't require them to work for below minimum wage or work under unsafe conditions. As an employer you are required to provide safe working conditions.
I understand you are upset your desire to smoke is outweighed by societies increasing desire to limit smoking. But you should also understand than socieity has a right to limit harmful actions others take against that society, such as the effects of second-hand smoke.
In general I don't think you have really listed any valid arguments. One argument you did not take up that is quite valid would be any ban on a non-tobacco like cigarette that did not produce harmful second-hand smoke.
look, i am a smoker, i have been for a long time. I am very considerate when it comes to others, if I am in the city centre, i go smeplace quiet and out of the way to smoke, i hate when people breath smoke all over me and i am a smoker, so i dont want to imagine what it must be like for non smokers and former smokers.
i dont smoke in my house, i go out to the garden, i dont smoke in doorways, i dispose of my cigarette ends responsibly i chew gum and spray a little deodorant on me when i am in company. now, is that being considerate? yes, i think so.
so why do people think it is ok to come up to me and tell me that i am wasting their tax money in healthcare (85% tax on a pack of smokes, I think that about covers it, dont you). would you go up to a morbidly obese person and tell them to lose weight? no, so to all you PC busybodies out there, leave us alone. if we want to stop, we will sooner or later, if we dont then why do you care.
"First off, alcohol does not affect other people like second hand smoke. So if someone sitting next to me in a pub wants to drink a beer and I don't want to then that will not affect me health negatively like second-hand smoke does"
Hmm, I imagine that anyone working for the police, A&E or the ambulance service may disagree. The drinking of alcohol may not directly harm others but it does lead to anti-social behaviours that lead to thousands of third party injuries every year.
"Also, where we consume alcohol is regulated. I cannot drink a pint in a library, so there are already regulations despite alcohol not having an effect like second-hand smoke. "
You're incorrect: Where a person can consume alcohol is not regulated (with the exception of the Tube system in London), where it can be sold is - much like cigarettes. If you drink a beer in a library you may well be asked to leave as it contravenes library rules but you are not breaking the law.
"Why do you mention a government restriction on food quantities when the government is not regulating the number of cigarettes you buy? Bring up unhealthy foods is valid to some degree because they are also bad for your health and therefore cost society. The main difference is that eating fatty foods does not directly harm the health of people in the vicinity in the way smoking does. "
This is a fair point as eating badly does not affect the health of those nearby. It does however affect society by creating a imbalnce in the health system....smokers die earlier and they pay for the NHS.
"Regarding fitting cars with speed limiters and motorbikes being outlawed I fail to see the comparison. You can still buy cigarettes, but the places you can smoke are still limited. Just like there are limits on where you can drive cars and how fast you can drive. You can't actually drive your car in a park or on a sidewalk. You also can't drive your car 140 miles per hour or even 60 miles per hour in a 30 miles per hour area. There are limits placed on their use, just like cigarettes. There are loads of things limited in this regard. "
Speeding motorists kill thousands of third parties every year and while there are laws in place to limit speed motorists are given the opportunity and choice to ignore them, as many clearly do. I don't have anyway of proving this but I do suspect that more people die yearly as direct result of s'second hand speed' than second hand smoke.
"Lastly, you cannot infringe the rights of your employees just like you can't require them to work for below minimum wage or work under unsafe conditions. As an employer you are required to provide safe working conditions. "
Hang on, many people work in unsafe conditions and nobody is forcing anyone to apply for a job in a bar where you can smoke. Once again this down to personal choice. If person doesn't wish to work in a smokey environment they don't have to take that job. Essentially this comes down people being told what they can and can't do and having the choice taken away from them. I do realise that such things are open to abuse but then any situation where people have an opportunity to make a choice can be exploited.
"I understand you are upset your desire to smoke is outweighed by societies increasing desire to limit smoking."
I don't smoke. I prefer smoke free pubs, I genuinely do. I don't like my choices being removed.
"But you should also understand than socieity has a right to limit harmful actions others take against that society, such as the effects of second-hand smoke"
An individual also has the right to decide whether to take part in a dangerous activity or not. A person also has the right to make a living and if smoker wishes to open a bar where people have the choice to smoke or not I am all for that choice.
Your argument about limiting harmful actions against that society could be used to justify speed limiters in cars as or indeed public transport only as any action that kills and maims as many as driving and costs financially and environmentally as much as motoring, is by definition harmful to a society. The same could be said about obesity.
If I were a publican why should I be prohibited from allowing my customers the pleasure of cigarette on my property? Especially if the fact that the environment is smokey is clearly sign-posted, outside and in, so those who do not wish to smoke or breath the smoke of others don't have to.
Two observations on the right-to-smoke vs the-right-to-avoid-smoke-from-others:
1. I went into a bar in Holland, where smoking is permitted only in sealed "gas chamber" areas. The place was empty, except for the barman, who was having a cigarette in the gas chamber. So much for the rationale of protecting the staff.
2. I love smoke-free pubs. As a musician, I had no choice before. Now I can go home without stinking of smoke, and I can bring my kids to pub music sessions.
I love smoke free pubs - I have a young daughter and my wife and I can have a drink in our local on sunday afternoon because she can come with us (without this we'd never get to go).
I just believe that there should be a choice. An additional smoking licence if you like.
The difference is that the pollution that cars cause is a natural part of their operation; they need gasoline to be able to operate and the pollution that ensues is a result of the emission of fumes from gas that the car NEEDS to operate. The only possible wah that you could NEED cigarettes to live is if you stupidly got yourself hooked, in which case is YOUR fault and nobody else's.
you dont have to drive any cars. its as much of a choice as smoking is. anyways, how much damage is being around a smoker for a couple of minutes or even hours gonna do? i understand if you have asthma or something but you can in most circumstances just move from where you are.
So bmalone do you lead an incredibly healthy lifestyle then. Do you run, eat haelthy, tee total? Well thats fantastic, but some people live their life differently, and its their choice, you are a shining example of all the morons who try to impose their anti-smoking opinion on the rest o us. Smoking is bad, it kills people, nobody should smoke. Shut up.
These pretzels.... are making me thirsty. George Costanza - Seinfeld
It's a matter of personal liberty. Smoking IS being outlawed in every bar, restaurant, and entertainment venue I can think of. I am an American, and I will smoke cigarettes, because it is my personal choice. Do you think I'm a moron? Great. Go for it. That's your opinion. It's not going to change anything. I will still smoke. You still won't. And if you are dumb enough to hang around smokers and then complain about it, that's YOUR problem, not mine. Go lobby about something worthwhile, please.
You are a worthless douchebag who defends one of the biggest groups of worhtless douchebags on the face of this planet: inconsiderate smokers, and you call ME a troll?!
What you need to do now is find a gun, place it agianst your skull and pull the trigger becasue it will be the ONLY positive conribution you will EVER make to society. I'm not trying to start a fight just to start a fight here; I'm merely tired of absolutely worthless people not commiting suicide.
If I had a car and saw you crossing the street, I wouldn't slow down I'd accelerate and then reverse back over you.
He's a sailor,he's in New York.We get this guy laid we won't have any trouble reply share
You're forgetting one important thing cowboy, smoking is gooooooooooooooooooood! if I ever see you, I will be sur to blow a huge puff of delicious marlboro right into your face
My family doesn't have an SUV because we're inconsiderate, it's because there are six people and we need the space for our clothes and such. We also need the power to pull our camper, as we do wilderness camping quite frequently. A hybrid car or a minivan just cant hold 6 people, 2 dogs and a *beep* of outdoor supplies. So please dont think everyone who drives an SUV is inconsiderate. Its not really an option to have anthing else.
As long as someone smokes in their own home it is only harming that individual and indirectly the people who care about that persons health whereas driving a SUV has more harmful effects on the environment.
That being said, I am still in support of the smoking ban because of the second-hand smoke.
But a cigarette cause pollution as a natural part of its operation surely?
I did forget that cars grew on trees and are therefore natural beings with a right to life whereas cigarettes are man made therefore not natural (despite essentially being a plant).
Basically this line of argument is moronic. You clearly like mechanised transport and feel that it improves your quality of life therefore it is good (and natural?). The smokers i know like smoking but you don’t so what they do is bad.
Why should you be able to have something in your life that causes far more pollution than smoking but smokers be made to feel that they are polluters?
I have as much right to smoke as you do to drive, eat junk food, fly and drink alcohol. all of these things have negative ramifications for others and the environment
if you are away from the play areas and other people and some guy does that, absolutely you are entitled to tell him to go find another spot because you were there first. Unless your sitting in the middle of a football oval when you do it, that would just be inconsiderate as you could easily go smoke somewhere else in the park.
Well maybe if you weren't making an incredibly idiotic decision by smoking in the first place, it wouldn't be a problem. Smoking is one of the stupidest things anyone can do. It's been proven that smoking causes lung cancer and other respiratory problems yet people still do it.
Who are you to tell anyone else what they are doing is idiotic? Who raised you? Don't you realize that part of living in a free country is to make your own choices without being hassled by douchebags with too much free time on their hands? Why don't you mind your own business? Is it really giving you lung cancer seeing that guy down the street blow smoke in the air? We might as well ban cooking outside on the grill, too. Or campfires. Do you have a fireplace in your home? It's all the biproducts of combustion....I guess we should shut down every factory and destroy all motorvehicles, too, huh? Same principle.
Whenever I'm smoking and someone tells me its bad for me/the environment/those around me, I say "No Sh!t"...BTW 9 times out of 10 I smoke by myself or with fellow smokers and NEVER around kids, but I do get offended when I'm sitting down and having a smoke and people will come sit at the next table or bench and ask me "do you mind"...I'll say yes, they'll give me the "unhealthy" speech and I'll say..."NO SH!T"...it's funny and they usually move...
Understadable arguement, and I usually say something to "inconsiderate" smokers. On the same token, compare the ratio of inconsiderate/considerate smokers to say, parents with loud children. If I asked a parent to politely quiet their child or to move some where else, how often do you think they will or will not do so? Compare that to how many smokers won't put out a cigarette. It's gotten to the point where most smokers are more gracious when comes to being accomedating to non-smokers. Also, I don't blame "non-smokers". Most of the non-smokers I know don't care about smoking policies one way or the other. It's the "smoke police" who use shabby junk science to push their political agendas or perch themselves on a mountain of self-righteousness.
i personally don't think there should be a widespread ban on smoking in public places like there currently is in New York City....however, businesses individually should be given the choice on whether or not they should allow customers to smoke...if a lot of customers who don't smoke complain to the owners at a resturaunt or other public place and it seems as if the majority of their customers are complaining about a few smokers then a ban should be put in place in their business....on the other side, a place like a bar where a lot of people usually do a smoke, a ban should not be put in place...in other words, businesses should take it in their own discretion on whether or not they will allow smoking....
in a public place such as a park--the parks department should put up signs against smoking near playgrounds or other areas where there are a lot of children.....
by the way, i am not a smoker, but i tend not to complain about smokers when i go to parties...however most smokers i know are considerate and go outside to smoke....when they can't go outside, they make sure that the smoke is not going in my direction...i wear contact lenses so my eyes are kind of sensetive to my eyes...but if i go to a party where a lot of people smoke, i would never tell people to stop smoking on my behalf...it wouldn't be fair.....i always bring my glasses with me or eye drops.....i have no problem with it....
Oh, bravo, what a thoughtful response. Because, as we all know, everyone has endless job opportunities, unemployment does not exist, and no one has ever been forced to settle for a *beep* job in order to feed their family. What kind of fairy land do you live in?
Employers are, by the by, legally bound to provide a SAFE working environment.
If there are few non-smoking hospitality jobs available, guess what?
That tends to mean that businesses have few demands for a non-smoking business. Which tends to put a dent in your minority lobby groups demanding anti-smoking legislation.
A safe working environment is available. However their environment revolves around some light-second hand smoke (which is easily taken care of through fans above and in the bar area that keep smoke away from staff, as most places in the first world have done for years before smoking bans) and that is their working environment.
When you take a job, you enter into a contract with your employer that details what your job is, what dangers/hazards are involved, and terms of compensation. If an employer opens a business where they allow people to smoke inside of their establishment, then their employees have no right to complain about the aforementioned smoke.
Think of it this way: I am an atheist, so if I work in a bookstore, should I get offended if my boss decides to sell religiously-themed books? To me, religion is as offensive as smoking is to non-smokers, yet somehow, I manage to survive don't I?
Tell that to the Jews who lived during the Spanish Inquisition Or tell that to the sacrifices of the Aztecs Or tell that to the high priest of Babylon (every year, the high priest was required to recite a 30,000 line poem, without error, and completely from memory; any mistake would cost him his life).
Religion has caused adverse health effects throughout history (namely death).
Also, I never argued that smoking is good for the health. I only argued that non-smokers should realize when smokers are being considerate (they can express their gratitude by not saying anything and getting lost), and that no non-smoker has the right to complain about cigarette smoke if THEY choose to go into an area where they know that cigarette smoke will be present.
But hey! Why should anyone accept responsibility for their own actions?
I'm not sure how indirect and distant political rather than religious practices figure in your bookstore analogy, but it tells me quite clearly that arguing sense with you is beating a dead horse.
On a conciliatory note, I like your taste in anime.
You misunderstand what can go into a contraact. There are safety regulations that employers need to follow. There are tons of examples of this. Requirements for disabled workers, requirements for fire safety standards, etc. You aren't going to have much success in wining an argument that employers should not be subjected to any regulations.
If you are an atheist you have the right to be offended if you work in a book-store selling religious books. But being offended by a book is not going to directly harm your health in the way that second-hand smoke does.
It's in your head. Funny how non smokers cough as soon as someone lights up a cigarette yet have no trouble breathing when sitting in traffic with the windows down when you are inhaling far more toxic chemicals than you would from a few burning tobacco leaves.
”I like a girl who eats & brings it up. A sassy little frassy with bulimia”
I sort of agree with this. I'm not entirely convinced of the dangers of second-hand smoke.
I mean, I could go into my garage, tape up every crack, and smoke for a week. I'd stink, but that'd be about it. Try that with your car running.
Everybody in my city could chain-smoke, and it wouldn't put a smudge on the skyline like the one that's already there.
Now, I'm not saying that smoking is good for you, any more than sucking from your tailpipe would be. But it seems obvious to me that what's coming from our vehicles should be of far more concern to the general population than is what little smoke wafts from the end of cigarettes and then is diluted in the air before being inhaled.
Also, it seems to me that if a non-smoker dies of a heart attack or lung cancer, then that's what he's said to have died from; but if a smoker dies of the same thing, then it was a "smoking-related death". Not that smoking doesn't contribute to those things, but obviously, if people who aren't smokers get these diseases, then it doesn't automatically follow that smoking caused them in any particular smoker's case. But try finding a doctor who will tell a smoker with lung cancer that it might not have been caused by his smoking.
*shrug* I'm not claiming it's healthy. But I do think that, particularly in the case of 2nd-hand smoke, it's blown way out of proportion, and has become something of a sacred cow.
If you're not a smoker, I don't blame you if you don't want to smell it or whatever. But don't act like I'm an axe murderer if your child gets a whiff of my cigarette before you bundle the little tyke into your SUV and drive off to plow tunnels through the Los Angeles smogscape.
That is a valid point that car exhaust and automobiles are dangerous.
The big difference of course is that cars do have a very positive effect on society. The transportation function they serve fills a huge gap in our public transportation system that trains, subways, buses, etc cannot fill. Without cars many modern societies would be crippled.
Society will also be weighing the positives versus the negatives. Unfortunately for smokers, cigarettes have few benefits and way more negatives that even affect those not smoking, which means that the uses are naturally going to be more limited.
Also, we are not ignoring the risks of car exhaust or accidents. We actually have emission standards, and many states are tightening them even more so (California for example). America has quite restricted traffic laws as well and a rather low speed limit because our politicians are unwilling to accept the number of deaths a rise in the speed limit would entail.
I agree we could do more in regards to driving safety, and am quite shocked at the low standards on the driving tests and the age of drivers in America after having moved to Sweden. I also think w should do more about obesity. But just because we have other problems does not mean we should therefore ignore the effects of smoking.
I dont like having to breathe it in when im not smoking, any more than I imagine you look having a crying baby sitting in front of you on a bus. Its the same principle. have some respect for the people around you and dont force your life choices onto them.
Thats why I am for smoking AND non-smoking bars. If you like smoking, go to the smoking bars, but dont complain you cant smoke in the non-smoking ones and visa versa.
Say I suddenly decided I wanted to start taking large mouthfuls of water and spinning around and spitting the water around the room. And you were sitting next to me. its not hurting you if the water hits you, youre just getting wet. But its an encroachment on your personal space, just like smoking is an encroachment on mine. you having to wait for your clothes to dry out is the same inconvienience that I have to put up with if I have to wash my clothes to get the smell of your cigarette smoke out of them. A little smoke wont hurt me, but have the respect to realise that other people might not appreciate it.
Then don't go to a bar that allows smoking. If the owner of the bar realizes that he/she is losing more customers than they are gaining, then they will adjust their policy to either have a smoking section/room, or to have a non-smoking bar altogether.
Legislation should never be used to protect the sensibilities or morality of any segment of the population, whether that segment is in the majority or not.
Plus if you're spending enough time in a bar to have your health seriously affected by secondhand smoke, you're probably not that health-concious anyway...
i've just quit smoking (4 days and counting) but the thing that really annoyed me is the apparent need to stop people smoking. we dont have health labels on alcohol, yet we now have pictures on packets of cigarettes. we know the health risks for gods sake (i say we, because i still consider myself a smoker who is trying to quit) it seems rather patronising to be honest and i understand those who say that our right to smoke is being violated.i no longer wish to smoke and i agree with a previous poster that it became more of a dull habit than something i enjoyed (though i would kill for one right now, lol) but i believe that anyone has a right to smoke if they want to. you cant tell me passive smoking is going to permanently harm someone who has walked past you in a park. like i say, i no longer wish to smoke, but i will defend a person's right to smoke. sorry if this sounded like a rant. just wanted to give my 2 cents.
A good way round all smoking bans would have been to have some totally "smoking" pubs and bars. So landlords/bar owners would be smokers as would the bar staff. I guess they'd sign a waiver or whatever when they took the job so they couldn't sue the owner's arses off later, and then people would have no grounds to moan. But of course that would never let that fly because they'd all be doing a roaring trade whilst the non-smoking ones would be going out of business. I'm the only smoker amongst my friends, and whilst they weren't exactly massive fans of it, they agree it should be people's choices....
Great film by the way. I was expecting it to be a lot more one-sided. Loved the scene with the MODS where they're arguing figures over which industry kills more people.
It's hard to guess whether some of the comments here are serious. You shouldn't smoke in an area of a park where children play? All the parks I've ever seen have been in the open air for God's sake.
but you shouldnt sit and drink alcohol in a children's park either and that has nothing to do with what your exhailing. kids who want to play football shouldnt have to be interrupted if they go to the park and have some douche sitting there because he wants to exercise his civil liberties. There are plenty of places to such things where your not bothering anyone. Go there.
I'm pretty sure parks are public, and outside, so a smoker has every right to smoke there. Unless of course you believe smoker's are not given the same rights as non-smokers, which is infact an act of discrimination. What harm has smoking caused to the population anyways? Of course there is death... but guess what, we all die! Surprise! Smoking feeds the economy, controls population, keeps you busy,(instead of mindlessly eating or doing something pointless else out of boredom) and gives you the chance to be more social instead of sitting on the computer argueing about smoking. Hell, whats a better ice breaker than: "Got a light?"
<<<A concept so simple it is difficult to grasp>>>
It wasn't the inconsiderate smokers, it was all the BS statistics and "research" the EPA did in the early '90s that was ignored by the federal government because it was unfounded and bias. Since then however, a lot of organizations and other people in the local and state level picked up that same report to base their conclusions and pass laws against smokers.
"The rest of the world is involved." "I don't care about the rest of the world."
Oh, you mean because we have been BANNED from smoking in indoor public places?
>...leaving their butts on the ground...
Because here in Los Angeles circa 1980 our City Council and County Board of Supervisors decided to remove the public ashtrays from parks, beaches and public places in order to discourage smoking. BTW, the special extra cigarette taxes back then were used to pay for government-provided ashtrays at City and County parks, beaches and public places, and the janitors to maintain them. Those taxes were not used to pay for antismoking programs, tobacco control, children's programs, or for Rob Reiner's fat mouth. Unfortunately for us smokers, with the passage of Prop 13 and the subsequent loss of property tax revenue to our State and local governments, the special State cigarette taxes that were meant to provide ashtrays and janitorial services was conveniently converted to offset the revenue shortfall.
Thirty years later, with nowhere else to put our butts, we are banned from public smoking due to 'littering'. Would you prefer we put our cigs in THE PAPER TRASHCANS?
>...and smoking around their children.
WHAT? You mean at home? The only certain legal place left for people to smoke? Who is the family and WHO ARE YOU? We don't need other people destroying our Parental Rights.
And while we are on the topic of "For the Children", isn't it strange how the antismoking pressure groups who invade The Internet pushing for State and Federal programs such as SCHIP which is currently financed by a recent hike in federal tobacco taxes, including a whopping 2000%+ INCREASE in the federal excise tax on loose cigarette tobacco "For the Children", are so quick to tax the smokers to death "For the Children" and yet NEVER MANAGE TO TAX THEMSELVES FOR THESE PROGRAMS, ALWAYS THE SMOKERS OR PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THEIR GROUP? What does children's heath insurance have to do with tobacco given the fact that only the smokers are paying for it?
As for smoking and non-smoking bars and restaurants, the City Council of The City of Los Angeles and our City Attorney is currently drafting a proposed smoking ban in outdoor patio areas of bars and restaurants, so if you happen to be living in the City of Los Angeles area, and God help you if you are, then you might want to call your Councilperson ASAP and let them know what you think. Years ago, the antismoking pressure groups started with the idea of banning Involuntary Exposure to second-hand smoke. All of the usual organizations have been lobbying in L.A. for this ban, and I guess they really mean to ban Voluntary Exposure to smoking now, but please, as a non-smoker, do not run inside a smoker's bar begging of your need for 'clean fresh air'. Just go back outside, or go to Denny's or any of the hundreds of smoke-free restaurants and bars in L.A.
Stormyv120 it's not necessarily about inhaling smoke, 'tought the answer to your question is pretty simple: people who smoke enjoy it.
What I mean is, for the "greater good" people are being forced to stop doing all sorts of things, smoking being just one of them
Violence in movies, smoking, eating at fast-foods, all these things...
I just think freedom is being underrated nowadays...Freedom is being treated as something that can be supressed, either for health reasons or for social reasons or whatever...
Do you have any idea how hard it would have been for movies like Pulp Fiction, Casablanca, A Clockwork Orange, The Good The Bad and The Ugly, etc, to be realeased nowadays, with all these activists and groups protesting against violence and cigarette in movies?
Can you imagine Humphrey Bogart with a bottle of diet coke and a lollipop going: "Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world..."
That's what Casablanca would look like if it were released nowadays
Does smoking really cause cancer though? How dangerous is it really to smoke for your adult life. Before you laugh and cue up a cutting response consider this. I was looking at UK cancer statistics the other day, if you consider the fact that in 1950 smoking was enjoyed by 70%-80% of the population and now its well under 50%, yet cancer rates have not dropped.
If there are 30% less smokers there should be 30% less deaths from cancer then in the 1950s, but there are not.
Same here in the States it's just different forms of cancers but the rate is pretty steady. Though you never know how much those numbers are massaged or by whom. The real risk is heart disease which the risk does increase if you smoke though. Regardless, I'm comfortable with my mortality so I'll continue to enjoy my Lucky Strikes thank you very much. If you don't want my second hand smoke stay away from me.
These smoking/cancer figures you see everywhere seem a little ridiculous. And besides, doesn't EVERYTHING cause cancer these days? Last I heard, processed cheese causes cancer...
I have been smoking for a long time, and will continue to smoke for a long time. If someone has a problem with that, too *beep* bad. Ask me to move and I'll ask you to hold your breath.
People have been doing it for thousands of years, and we seem to be doing fine. I'm not even convinced that it is all that bad for you when done in moderation, I smoke and I'm in perfect health...
Sure, they are all made up by a evil company that wants everybody to be healthy and live longer, what a squid you are, my grandfather started smoking drinking at 14 he is now 86 and not a major problem but his body is a rare machine and not everybody gets the same luck. you might find sooner than you think.