I'm quite sure most people would choose the most logical option. However, smoking is addicting.. I don't think any of us can quite understand what these people are going through.. I mean, I'm addictied to Dr. Pepper.. just can't help myself ;)
Also, we don't know why they started.. be it peer pressure or whatnot. The fact is they were hooked, and it is very difficult to stop..
>I guess that's your way of looking at it.
No, I said something I don't really believe because I wanted to confuse you. :icon_rolleyes:
No worries, you didn't confuse me at all. I just wanted to make fun.
>You're defending the right for smokers to smoke in
>public places where it puts other lives at risk. Duh?
I'm not defending anyone. I'm all for making smoking illegal in indoor public places. What I'm doing is attacking your high and mighty attitude. :)
Then why were you making it such a big deal if you believe in the same thing? Oh wait, you enjoy doing that... nevermind.
Nicotine rivals heroin in terms of addictive power. This in itself makes it difficult to just stop. The rest of equation comes from the psychological adaptations ingrained into the smoker - the "self-brainwashing" if you will. Until someone has smoked for a period of time, they cannot know the extent to which it can become ingrained into your life: your mundane daily routines, self-image, stress coping mechanisms, sense of satisfaction, and many other areas we don't usually consciously give a lot of thought to.
Do not discount the difficulty of giving up nicotine for most people. Many of us smokers keep smoking wishing we could quit; that one day we would just magically stop. We can quit of course, but it really screws with your head for a few weeks and is very stressful.
Personally, I've been "seriously going to quit" for about nine months now - and the quit date stays the same - "soon".
Keep in mind, every smoker eventually quits.
In the same vein that all bleeding stops - eventually...
*deep breath*
Since I abruptly left this thread last night and so much time has passed, I wrote this in advance before taking a look at subsequent replies. Sometimes I get carried away with my playing, and I left things last night with more loose ends than I should have.
Before I get caught up and carried away again, these are some of the things I was playing with in my head last night. It mostly started because I'd caught a quick glimpse of what I thought was Josh making some comment about smoking and the kids, and then my chat crapped out. So my original motivation was to somewhat poke Josh with a stick to bring a few things up.
Happily a number of them did. One element was with regard to stereotyping of the younger folks now here at DainWeb. Sure, we've been guilty of stereotyping y'all, but several folks were quite quick to apply one to me: that I was directly endangering my own kids' health. That was fun to play, but also to make a point.
I also brought up a couple of absurdities: partly to be absurd and partly to try to make a few more points. "Outlaw cheeseburgers" was probably the first one. I remember when bacon and eggs were healthy, then they were unhealthy, and now maybe or maybe not. The point here is health studies seem to come up with different conclusions from time to time.
Another absurdity was whether smoking is really harmful. Of course it is. But when it comes to second-hand smoke, there has been some bad science:
Still, the EPA was determined to prove that ETS was a serious carcinogen that justified stringent regulation. To do that, it simply set aside 19 of the original constellation of 30 ETS studies and then, defying all scientific standards, simply changed the "confidence levels" in the statistical analysis from 95 percent to 90 percent. When the highly manipulated smaller sample finally "confessed" that passive smoking was a health risk, the EPA proudly announced it had "proven" its preconceived conclusions.
And the sordid tale gets worse. The EPA chose to omit entirely from its analysis two recent U.S. ETS studies that had determined that passive smoking was NOT a statistically significant health risk. Worse for the EPA, including those studies with the "cherry-picked" 11 produces a result that shows no statistically significant health risks associated with passive smoking, even at reduced confidence levels. In short, even employing the EPA's own corrupt methodology, ETS was simply not a "Group A Carcinogen," as the agency had boldly asserted.
The point here is that this makes it seem at least less than a proven fact that second-hand smoke "kills". And this was to highlight the possibility that statistics can be manipulated.
The last absurdity about gay sex I really should have left out, and I really hope that didn't derail this. That was thrown out there to be a tie-in with "health issues". Like the cheeseburgers, which are an allusion to (possibly bad) science affecting the private sector; this one was in regard to the public sector. It could be shown that, while sex ed may be taught in public schools, some might consider there to be evidence of known health risks in particular with gay sex that may or may not be brought up. As in, when in public schools are kids taught safe smoking?
Well that and a slight tie of liberals and particularly the gay community to "keep government out of my bedroom". If government can impose regulation on private property, that's pretty close to my whole house -- it hasn't yet happened that way.
But it was probably a bad choice since my point was poorly dropped in. This was half intentional, in part also because I was trying to see if I would be immediately stereotyped as gay bashing rather than trying to work the health risk or government intrusion tie-ins.
And lastly, I was trying to mess with Josh a little about science. Not to be mean, but to get him to consider that science doesn't always get everything right. And for other folks to carefully choose where their information comes from, and leave open to consideration that other information may refute it. I do this as best I can with a lot of the links I've posted, but when you come right down to it I just maintain a healthy skepticism of any information source.
(Well all that and to have a little fun with non-smokers, of course!)
Now then, I've got some catching up to do...
They just passed a law in Ohio making it illegal to smoke in indoor public places. I'm glad. If you can't go one meal in a restaurant without smoking you need to start backing off of it some.
It's like that here in New South Wales, Australia and has been for a while. It's allowed in certain areas of pubs, clubs and bars. You are allowed to smoke in the al fresco dining area if the cafe or restaurant has one.
But up in Queensland you're not allowed to smoke on the premesis of anywhere that serves food. Which is kind of annoying when you want that morning after coffee and cigarette fix. I hope things don't go that way here.
>If people's choices are hurting others then yea, it is our
>business, and we can tell them how to live their lives>When it endangers other lives. Of course!
And naturally you're qualified to make that choice. :icon_rolleyes: Tell me, have you ever thought to ask a smoker not to smoke around you? I have, and to date nobody has ever refused to give me space or put out their cigarette when I asked politely. Most of the time they immediately put it out and don't light up again while I'm around. Smokers aren't evil people who intentionally try to hurt you, so stop trying to act righteous.
This was a reply that struck me most.
When I'm standing outdoors having a smoke and kids come around, I'm constantly trying to maintain a 10' radius and be aware of the wind. I don't go into my neighbors' yards with a heater lit quite often even if no one is in the yard at the time. I've already had to walk across a couple hundred yards and at least one 5' snowdrift to place myself on public streets when it's below zero to effect no one.
I was pleased that at least someone can appreciate that some folks willingly accept 2nd class citizenship.
Aw.. you didn't reply to my post.. :-/
>I don't recall being forced to go to public places. Do you really choose to hang out in places where people smoke when you clearly don't like it?
haha.. you're funny. So, basically you're saying that we should just not go to places where smoking inside is legal..
For me I'm just asking the opposite: why shouldn't I be allowed to go there? Especially if one day it is my home I am referring to?
Fine, here you go:
Smoking has been proven to cause cancer and even death to those who choose to smoke.
Second hand smoke can also cause cancer and death to those who DO NOT smoke.
Could you please point me in the direction of this scientific evidence? I am truly curious.
Is smoking really that good? I mean... if you had a contract that said:
Live for 80 years with healthy lungs but you can't smoke
or
Live for 75 years with possible cancerous lungs but you can smokewould you honestly choose the later? just curious..
Actually, I would consider it. If odds stand that I might be killed in a car accident tomorrow, it just may be a bet worth taking.
[edit]Passing thought: in the past several years, I've noticed that the latest regulations have REALLY killed wedding receptions. This I find sad.
Actually, I would consider it. If odds stand that I might be killed in a car accident tomorrow, it just may be a bet worth taking.
I think Duki might have under exaggerated in his post. Smoking leads to serious illnesses that are long-term and fatal. And sometimes it takes several years off of your life, not just 5.
If you died in a car accident, it wouldn't be your choice. It would just be a deadly tragedy that took you by surprise. However, smoking is the complete opposite. Every time you inhale that cigarette smoke into your lungs, you know what the risks are and you understand the consequences that it will eventually bring.
Dad smoked for 40 or 50 years. He outlived the doctor that said he had to be insulin dependent (about a decade before he was finally convinced to do so). And he's got Alzheimer's.
[These may be in my future. Tee-hee.]
My best friend was riding his motorcycle one night. A guy turned left in front of him. He can't even remember half of the list of issues. After he got past the separated aorta and what not in his description to me, he found out a month or so later that he'd also had a punctured lung... About the time he finally called back because he could.
[If one can feel like an ass for not receiving a call-back, I learned the lesson.]
(He is now happily married with a little girl he has been highly in charge of due to medical issues with his wife -- he got to spend the better part of her early life being the almost sole care giver. !!)
Celebrate life however you choose. Try not to dictate to others that you will rain on their parade intentionally to spite them.
--
Try not do project limited experiences of life upon others, if that is fortunately your lot. And I do understand that each has her own.
Celebrate life however you choose. Try not to dictate to others that you will rain on their parade intentionally to spite them.
Okay, I agree with this.
But it's everyone's choice to remain healthy as much as possible. That way, the life expectancy for humans will continue to increase. ;)
Okay, I agree with this.
But it's everyone's choice to remain healthy as much as possible. That way, the life expectancy for humans will continue to increase. ;)
And mentally counts as well.
*deep breath*
Since I abruptly left this thread last night and so much time has passed, I wrote this in advance before taking a look at subsequent replies. Sometimes I get carried away with my playing, and I left things last night with more loose ends than I should have.
Before I get caught up and carried away again, these are some of the things I was playing with in my head last night. It mostly started because I'd caught a quick glimpse of what I thought was Josh making some comment about smoking and the kids, and then my chat crapped out. So my original motivation was to somewhat poke Josh with a stick to bring a few things up.
Happily a number of them did. One element was with regard to stereotyping of the younger folks now here at DainWeb. Sure, we've been guilty of stereotyping y'all, but several folks were quite quick to apply one to me: that I was directly endangering my own kids' health. That was fun to play, but also to make a point.
I also brought up a couple of absurdities: partly to be absurd and partly to try to make a few more points. "Outlaw cheeseburgers" was probably the first one. I remember when bacon and eggs were healthy, then they were unhealthy, and now maybe or maybe not. The point here is health studies seem to come up with different conclusions from time to time.
Another absurdity was whether smoking is really harmful. Of course it is. But when it comes to second-hand smoke, there has been some bad science:
The point here is that this makes it seem at least less than a proven fact that second-hand smoke "kills". And this was to highlight the possibility that statistics can be manipulated.
The last absurdity about gay sex I really should have left out, and I really hope that didn't derail this. That was thrown out there to be a tie-in with "health issues". Like the cheeseburgers, which are an allusion to (possibly bad) science affecting the private sector; this one was in regard to the public sector. It could be shown that, while sex ed may be taught in public schools, some might consider there to be evidence of known health risks in particular with gay sex that may or may not be brought up. As in, when in public schools are kids taught safe smoking?
Well that and a slight tie of liberals and particularly the gay community to "keep government out of my bedroom". If government can impose regulation on private property, that's pretty close to my whole house -- it hasn't yet happened that way.
But it was probably a bad choice since my point was poorly dropped in. This was half intentional, in part also because I was trying to see if I would be immediately stereotyped as gay bashing rather than trying to work the health risk or government intrusion tie-ins.
And lastly, I was trying to mess with Josh a little about science. Not to be mean, but to get him to consider that science doesn't always get everything right. And for other folks to carefully choose where their information comes from, and leave open to consideration that other information may refute it. I do this as best I can with a lot of the links I've posted, but when you come right down to it I just maintain a healthy skepticism of any information source.
(Well all that and to have a little fun with non-smokers, of course!)
Now then, I've got some catching up to do...
Wow. I've got to respond to this be4 moving on to the other posts (It's so long anyway). Firstly, I just want to say that this post is well written, and includes tons of excellent textual support...
As for the part about science, true, scientists have gone back on a few theories here and again.. but if you look at all of science as a whole.. our accuracy has drastically increased over the years.. There is plenty of scientific evidence to back-up the idea that smoking is harmful.. The same is true for second hand smoke.. I mean, come on. Look at it logically: Someone breaths in all those chemicals, then exhales some back into the air! Besides, you've got to consider the fact that smoking was a huge fad in the past.. Almost everyone smoked, and no one considered it bad. My point? Obviously, people would not have stopped if there wasn't some validity to the scientist's arguments. In this particular incidence, science overturned a fad.. and had a huge affect on the sociological aspect of our culture. Anyway, I am certain that the evidence against smoking is numerous and valid.. I have seen a few research srticles myself. And even if second hand smoke isn't a threat.. why take that risk?
Now to catch up on what I've missed..
Dad smoked for 40 or 50 years. He outlived the doctor that said he had to be insulin dependent (about a decade before he was finally convinced to do so). And he's got Alzheimer's.
[These may be in my future. Tee-hee.]
My best friend was riding his motorcycle one night. A guy turned left in front of him. He can't even remember half of the list of issues. After he got past the separated aorta and what not in his description to me, he found out a month or so later that he'd also had a punctured lung... About the time he finally called back because he could.
[If one can feel like an ass for not receiving a call-back, I learned the lesson.]
(He is now happily married with a little girl he has been highly in charge of due to medical issues with his wife -- he got to spend the better part of her early life being the almost sole care giver. !!)
Celebrate life however you choose. Try not to dictate to others that you will rain on their parade intentionally to spite them.
--
Try not do project limited experiences of life upon others, if that is fortunately your lot. And I do understand that each has her own.
Yes, I agree that life is short.. and it's best to make the most of it while you can (Carpe Diem!). I have no problem with people doing things that are fun and thrilling.. People who enjoy smoking, drinking, eating everything they can see, speeding, etc. It is their life, so they can choose how to live it. Personally, I would rather not live to be too old (so that I'm a hunched back old man with broken bones, weakened immune system, and aches and pains every which way).. I'd certainly rather be dead than diagnosed with Alzheimer's.. What's my point? We should live life to the fullest, as this is the only one we get! No regrets!
However...
When one's personal choices conflict with another's life, then that changes everything. Dave, you have yet to contradict me on this one. Why should some suffer, because of the choices of others? Why the hell should I fear going into a restaurant, because I know the atmosphere is harmful to me? Now, look.. I have no problem with people smoking on private property.. But, if it's somewhere public, then that is just not right. It is your choice to smoke, correct. But it is also ours to live. Ah, heres a nice metaphor: Someone decides to party it up, and get drunk (hell, nothing wrong with having a good time). Then, this person decides to drive a car (ohh, bad choice). He ends up in a fatal car crash that kills 3 innocent people, and yet he remains unscratched (It always seems to happen this way, doesn't it?). Now look.. It was his choice to drink and drive, but his choice killed innocent people who did not choose to drink and drive. Is this fair? NO! Which is why it is illegal to drink and drive. What's the difference between this and smoking? Smoking simply kills over a longer time interval. Thats it. There is no other difference. If others suffer because of your choices then you are probably doing something illegal- or inhumane.
My point is: If you want to smoke, fine. But, you infringe upon the rights of other human beings when you choose to smoke in a public facility. Smoking kills. Debate this if you want, but WHY take the risk?
However...
When one's personal choices conflict with another's life, then that changes everything.
M'kay show us all the scientific evidence.
Why should some suffer, because of the choices of others?
No. I've tried to introduce you to possible logical fallicies.
Why the hell should I fear going into a restaurant, because I know the atmosphere is harmful to me?
Why should I leave my personal liberties at the door?
Now, look.. I have no problem with people smoking on private property.. But, if it's somewhere public, then that is just not right. It is your choice to smoke, correct. But it is also ours to live.
What if the "to live" part takes the metaphor too far?
Ah, heres a nice metaphor: Someone decides to party it up, and get drunk (hell, nothing wrong with having a good time). Then, this person decides to drive a car (ohh, bad choice). He ends up in a fatal car crash that kills 3 innocent people, and yet he remains unscratched (It always seems to happen this way, doesn't it?).
Then that is the responsibility of the one that made that decision.
Now look.. It was his choice to drink and drive, but his choice killed innocent people who did not choose to drink and drive. Is this fair? NO! Which is why it is illegal to drink and drive.
Fair.
What's the difference between this and smoking? Smoking simply kills over a longer time interval. Thats it. There is no other difference. If others suffer because of your choices then you are probably doing something illegal- or inhumane.
unless the other side, given the length of time, does not represent the situation correctly.
My point is: If you want to smoke, fine. But, you infringe upon the rights of other human beings when you choose to smoke in a public facility. Smoking kills. Debate this if you want, but WHY take the risk?
Why post online?
M'kay show us all the scientific evidence.
He's talking about second hand smoke.
M'kay show us all the scientific evidence.
I know you can't be serious. As you even said yourself, there is a plethora of scientific data that proves smoking is bad.. and the same with second hand smoke. Just google it! Tell ya what, find me some evidence proving that smoking is not harmful. At the most, you will find evidence that supports neither. But quit trying to come up with excuses to save your ass. Even if second hand smoke isn't harmful.. Smoking is. You still harm your family by causing harm to yourself.
Why should I leave my personal liberties at the door?
Your liberties end where someone else's begin.
Then that is the responsibility of the one that made that decision.
Exactly. It is the responsibility of the smoker.
I know you can't be serious. As you even said yourself, there is a plethora of scientific data that proves smoking is bad..
Good.
and the same with second hand smoke.
Bad?
Your liberties end where someone else's begin.
Damn straight. What if someone else is exaggerating?
..
I had just noticed that one of my quote attempts does not appear to appear.
Lemme try again:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/9-28-98.html
Still, the EPA was determined to prove that ETS was a serious carcinogen that justified stringent regulation. To do that, it simply set aside 19 of the original constellation of 30 ETS studies and then, defying all scientific standards, simply changed the "confidence levels" in the statistical analysis from 95 percent to 90 percent. When the highly manipulated smaller sample finally "confessed" that passive smoking was a health risk, the EPA proudly announced it had "proven" its preconceived conclusions.
And the sordid tale gets worse. The EPA chose to omit entirely from its analysis two recent U.S. ETS studies that had determined that passive smoking was NOT a statistically significant health risk. Worse for the EPA, including those studies with the "cherry-picked" 11 produces a result that shows no statistically significant health risks associated with passive smoking, even at reduced confidence levels. In short, even employing the EPA's own corrupt methodology, ETS was simply not a "Group A Carcinogen," as the agency had boldly asserted.
Sorry I missed that. [But obviously we'd all read that.]
Aw.. you didn't reply to my post.. :-/
>I don't recall being forced to go to public places. Do you really choose to hang out in places where people smoke when you clearly don't like it?
haha.. you're funny. So, basically you're saying that we should just not go to places where smoking inside is legal.. Oh, okay. So, if we want to go to our favorite restaurant, or shop at the mall, or go get some ice cream, etc. then too bad for us? Hell, no.. We should NOT be punished simply b/c others choose to smoke. Why should we be forced out of establishments simply b/c others choose to smoke??
Wait a second: if you don't like cigarette smoke so much, why is your favorite restaurant the one that has smoke lingering in the air? Are you retarded, or do you just get off by acting that way around others?
It was his choice to drink and drive, but his choice killed innocent people who did not choose to drink and drive. Is this fair? NO! Which is why it is illegal to drink and drive. What's the difference between this and smoking?
In the interest of giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to pretend that's not a rhetorical question. The difference is the following: the reason drinking and driving is wrong is not that it kills people who did not choose to drink and drive. It's that it kills people who did not choose to get killed by drunk drivers, and in fact did not choose to risk getting killed.
With regard to smoking, suppose you're willfully visiting a restaurant that allows smoking and has people inside it who like to smoke. You've chosen to go there and sit amid the carcinogenic fumes! See the difference there? It's called freedom.
(smoking!=party animal)
That's wrong for two reasons
1. Humans are 100% animal, there's no "partly" about it.
2. I have never seen another creature on this planet who smoked. Humans are the only creatures that do it, and we are supposed to be intellectually superior to all others :-O
(smoking!=party animal)
That's wrong for two reasons
1. Humans are 100% animal, there's no "partly" about it.
Either you are dyslexic or you ought to change your spectacles. Or I missed the joke.
2. I have never seen another creature on this planet who smoked. Humans are the only creatures that do it, and we are supposed to be intellectually superior to all others :-O
Actually humans started smoking because they ARE of superior intelligence.
Either you are dyslexic or you ought to change your spectacles. Or I missed the joke.
.
LOL: You're right, I misread it. Oh well, I'm glad I quit smoking 6 years ago because I feel a lot better now that I live in a smoke-free home.
Wait a second: if you don't like cigarette smoke so much, why is your favorite restaurant the one that has smoke lingering in the air? Are you retarded, or do you just get off by acting that way around others?
In the interest of giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to pretend that's not a rhetorical question. The difference is the following: the reason drinking and driving is wrong is not that it kills people who did not choose to drink and drive. It's that it kills people who did not choose to get killed by drunk drivers, and in fact did not choose to risk getting killed.
With regard to smoking, suppose you're willfully visiting a restaurant that allows smoking and has people inside it who like to smoke. You've chosen to go there and sit amid the carcinogenic fumes! See the difference there? It's called freedom.
Maybe it's his favorite restaurant because he just likes the food a lot? Should he be forced to stay away from it because he endangers his health for being there? Absolutely not. He has the same right to enjoy that food just as all the smokers do. Why should he give up his personal liberties to good health as soon as he enters the door? Secondly in regard to the willfull visiting of a restaurant, it would also be true in the anaology that you willfully drive on the road when it is possible that there are drunk drivers on the road. It's no different. And he doesn't willfully enter a restaurant with smokers, he just believes he should be able to without endangering his health.
>Why should he give up his personal liberties to good health as soon as he enters the door?
Interesting. So you want to protect the personal liberties of a non-smoker by suppressing the personal liberties of smokers? Let's chop off all of the health arguments and look at what this really boils down to: You don't smoke. You don't like being around smoke. Therefore, you want to force everyone around you who smokes not to smoke.
You can attach as much reason as you want to it, like research on health effects of second hand smoke, but talking about your own personal liberties while squashing the personal liberties of others is somewhat hypocritical.
Just some random thoughts from someone who smokes for pleasure. It is possible I am deluded and that it's just an addiction. But I certainly lack the desire to give up.
I can't believe not a single mention has been made about all the other things that put carcinogens into the atmosphere like vehicles, power stations, aeroplanes. Industry that poisons the water.
Pollen effects the health of millions of people but we're not about to ban flowers from restaurant tables.
Everyone has liberties, but there are a lot of people with a lot of liberties and you can never satisfy them all. So in a democratoc society that leaves majority rule, and sorry smokers; your out-voted and that's it. this doesn't mean we're wrong though, and it doesn't mean non-smokers are wrong either.
Every minute of your life you might think you might be saving by removing cigarette smoke from a public enclosure, is immediatly nullified the moment you wind down the window on the freeway , or swim in the river in my opinion. So why all this micro management?
Living is detrimental to health in general. If you're not wearing your body out in some manner, well you're already dead.
Should A smoker be forced out into the cold, or should non-smokers be forced to wear gas-masks in public places ?
Wait a second: if you don't like cigarette smoke so much, why is your favorite restaurant the one that has smoke lingering in the air? Are you retarded, or do you just get off by acting that way around others?
I'm sorry that I enjoy restaurants that are inhabited by smokers.. I enjoy restaurants just as much as anyone else here.
In the interest of giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to pretend that's not a rhetorical question. The difference is the following: the reason drinking and driving is wrong is not that it kills people who did not choose to drink and drive. It's that it kills people who did not choose to get killed by drunk drivers, and in fact did not choose to risk getting killed.
The same risk is true for the driver.. If you are out driving at around 3AM (or whenever the bars close), then you know there is a much higher risk of being in an accident with a drunk driver. The same is true for the restaurant. Before you enter, you do not know how many smokers there are or how high the chance is of damaging your own health.
LOL: You're right, I misread it. Oh well, I'm glad I quit smoking 6 years ago because I feel a lot better now that I live in a smoke-free home.
hehe.. see, Ancient Dragon did it!
Maybe it's his favorite restaurant because he just likes the food a lot? Should he be forced to stay away from it because he endangers his health for being there? Absolutely not. He has the same right to enjoy that food just as all the smokers do. Why should he give up his personal liberties to good health as soon as he enters the door? Secondly in regard to the willfull visiting of a restaurant, it would also be true in the anaology that you willfully drive on the road when it is possible that there are drunk drivers on the road. It's no different. And he doesn't willfully enter a restaurant with smokers, he just believes he should be able to without endangering his health.
Exactly.. Should have read this first be4 replying to Rashakil..
>Why should he give up his personal liberties to good health as soon as he enters the door?
Interesting. So you want to protect the personal liberties of a non-smoker by suppressing the personal liberties of smokers? Let's chop off all of the health arguments and look at what this really boils down to: You don't smoke. You don't like being around smoke. Therefore, you want to force everyone around you who smokes not to smoke.
Narue, Narue, Narue.. you aren't comprehending the situation. First of all, it is in a public restaurant where many other people are. There are many laws that are in place at public facilities (No sex, no walking around naked, etc.). I'm only going to say this one more time.. It is the smoker's right to smoke. It is his liberties. However, his rights end where another's begin. A smoker does not have the right to smoke at a public place (here, anyway) in the same manner that someone is not allowed to shoot someone else. It is the non-smoker's right to live, and go places such that his/her health is not affected. This is not a matter of sheer scientific evidence as you say Narue, but of constitutional rights. If people do not want to go to restaurants with smokers, then so be it. Smokers have no right to smoke around those (in a public place) who believe it is affecting their health. Majority rules, minority rights protected.. such that no one else's rights are infringed upon.
>However, his rights end where another's begin.
If that's the case, why are you ignoring the fact that your rights also end where another's begin? ;)
>A smoker does not have the right to smoke at a public place (here,
>anyway) in the same manner that someone is not allowed to shoot
>someone else.
If the law says so, there's nothing we can do about it. But since we're discussing this, I'm assuming we're talking about places where it's not already illegal to smoke in a public place. And if legality is a valid reason, why don't you just say "it's the law" and be done with it?
>This is not a matter of sheer scientific evidence as you say Narue, but of constitutional rights.
I guess I'm not up to date on the Constitution. Could you quote the part that says non-smokers have more of a right to go to public places than smokers?
Smoking in public is banned in the UK.
Smoking in public is banned in the UK.
I assume this is indoor public areas? Any allowances for pubs?
>Why should he give up his personal liberties to good health as soon as he enters the door?
Interesting. So you want to protect the personal liberties of a non-smoker by suppressing the personal liberties of smokers? Let's chop off all of the health arguments and look at what this really boils down to: You don't smoke. You don't like being around smoke. Therefore, you want to force everyone around you who smokes not to smoke.You can attach as much reason as you want to it, like research on health effects of second hand smoke, but talking about your own personal liberties while squashing the personal liberties of others is somewhat hypocritical.
Absolutely not. A smoker can step outside to smoke. Simple as that. They are not being deprived. Both the smoker and the nonsmoker get to enjoy the restaurant and both the smoker and the nonsmoker get to make their own decisions on their personal health. I am not being one sided at all. For all you know, maybe I do smoke.
>If the law says so, there's nothing we can do about it.
Not true. In Ohio it was voters that decided to have this law.
>I guess I'm not up to date on the Constitution. Could you quote the part that says non-smokers have more of a right to go to public places than smokers?
I think in some states it is an amendment to the state constitution that bans smoking in public places.
THE ADVENTURES OF ALYSSA P. HAIRYLEGS: EPISODE 1
A group of people decided to meet together in some building and enjoy some great food made by a neighbor of theirs. They all smoke and they're all happily enjoying a night of food. It's good and they pay their neighbor for the service of cooking it. Their neighbor decides to make this a regular thing, so he renovates his building's kitchen, adds tables, asks a few folks if they'd like to waitress there in exchange for money. They agree. The establishment has great food, lots of cool people, a nice view overlooking the western horizon and such.
Then Alyssa P. Hairylegs happens by and decides that this seems like it might be a nice place to eat. She waltzes in, foxtrots over to a table, tangos into a chair and opens a menu. She looks for any vegetarian entrées but can't find any. Approvingly, she orders a steak and lights up a cigar.
It's getting late, and the sun is setting. The building's interior is bathed in light from the setting sun. Alyssa asks a waitress if the windows could be shaded so that she doesn't have sunlight fall on her. The waitress tells her that there are no shades for the windows. Alyssa stands up and shouts, "I DEMAND TO SEE THE MANAGER! NOW!!!1"
The manager walks out of the manager's closet and asks her what the problem is.
Alyssa replies, "THE SUN IS ON ME! IT'S GIVING ME SKIN CANCER! I DEMAND THAT YOU SHADE THE WINDOWS!" People around her look at her as if she were some kind of self-obsessed psychopath. They like the sun and don't mind bathing in a few of its cancer-inducing rays. But Alyssa hypersensitively understands that this restaurant is violating her right to life.
Alyssa marches out of there stressed out and unhappy, pulls out her cellphone, and calls her therapist. But it turns out she misdialed, and the person on the other end was none other than Jim McCreepy, neo-prohibitionist congressman of the twenty-first century. She complains of her problems, and he replies, "In this post-9/11 world, can we really trust people to make decisions for themselves?" McCreepy starts a new campaign to ban living, as it causes death.
NEXT EPISODE: Alyssa visits Atlantic City, demands that the beach be shaded in the interest of public health! "Shouldn't non-sunloving-volleyballers deserve the same access to the beach as everybody else?"
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.