Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Smoking Bad, or Good? Options · View
Selynar
Posted: Monday, June 04, 2012 4:17:34 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/6/2011
Posts: 26
I'm posting this because various factions in Canadian Government has been stepping up anti-smoking policies. Recently it has become illegal to smoke on patios, public parks, or with in 9 meters(about 30ft), from public entrances.

They've had a campaign in place for years about putting anti-smoking, and smoke kills, advertisements on the packs themselves for years, and now its stepped up to taking up about 3/4s of the pack, and they've removed the ingredient list.

As a smoker I have to question why a government would do this. In Ottawa we pay $9-$13 per pack of 25 cigarettes depending on brand and where you buy them. No if you figure half of that is taxes(its probably more), then that's a minimum of $4.50 a pack to the government. I like $5 as an average number.

So lets assume the average smoker smokes a pack a day. And lets assume that 1/10th of the population smokes. Thats $5 a day, for 100,000 people. 365 days a year....

(5 x 100,000) x 365 = $182,500,000

That's just one city... for a year in tax money.

Where will the money come from if people actually quit since it will be to expensive?

The same people that complain about smoking now will bitch and moan when their property tax, gas tax, and all those other taxes go up.

Now as for smoking causing cancer, and sterilty, and impotence, and pregnancy issues, etc etc etc.

I would love to know where they get these facts. Its the leading cause of lung cancer... Really? So all the chemicals you put into your body from a single cigarette are the equivalent, or of higher potential poisoning, than breathing in the air in a city with over 500.000 vehicles each in different working condition... or the hundreds of factories that pour out god knows what into the air...

But its a single cigarette, that lasts 3-8 minutes, that will kill you. Not the constant pollution from other sources... like a car, that puts out more poisonous exhaust in about 2 minutes than all of your smokes for the day? Or a factory that in about 2 minutes puts out more than you're going to smoke in a year.... but again. Cigarettes leading cause.

I'd like to get some thoughts on whether people think it IS as bad as it is made to sound, or if people disagree.

I'm not asking if its clean, or dirty, or disgusting.... just good or bad, and why?

Please actually think about it and not just respond with a go to answer.

I would go on but it would take all day to write and read. ;) But you get the idea.
LadyX
Posted: Monday, June 04, 2012 5:13:33 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Welcome Shawn! hello2

Great topic. Here's a thread on the same topic that went on for a good while Smoking Ban. I'll bump it up so we can continue that one, if it's okay with you.

Lwinking

Selynar
Posted: Monday, June 04, 2012 6:17:48 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/6/2011
Posts: 26
LadyX wrote:
Welcome Shawn! hello2

Great topic. Here's a thread on the same topic that went on for a good while Smoking Ban. I'll bump it up so we can continue that one, if it's okay with you.

Lwinking



Ahhh definitely and thank you.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Monday, June 04, 2012 6:30:38 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Selynar wrote:

But its a single cigarette, that lasts 3-8 minutes, that will kill you. Not the constant pollution from other sources... like a car, that puts out more poisonous exhaust in about 2 minutes than all of your smokes for the day? Or a factory that in about 2 minutes puts out more than you're going to smoke in a year.... but again. Cigarettes leading cause.


I'm curious as to where you get your figures. I'm sure most factories have different levels of emissions when compared to each other, but if they're in good repair, car exhaust gases are actually quite clean. The days of committing suicide by locking yourself in your garage with your car's engine running are long gone, unless your garage is so air-tight that the combustion uses up all the oxygen inside. Are you actually trying to make a point that smoking is good for you? Or just that it's less harmful than other environmental factors at work in modern life? I can show you cases where people have dies from exercising. Should we try and make the point that nobody should exercise because exercise is bad for you? If money's the only factor, think of all the money your government will save by not having to pay for the health issues of all those former smokers.

As a former smoker, I can personally attest that you're worse off when smoking than not. Anecdotal evidence, sure, and a sample size of only one, but still...

Selynar
Posted: Monday, June 04, 2012 6:43:21 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/6/2011
Posts: 26
Factories, and car emissions are good, but as you said when in good repair. And the majority may be, but what about say the 100,000 bad ones that arent'?

That point was mainly for this whole focus on cigarettes being the leading cause of this, and this and this... I do think that is total BS.

I've made a similar point to yours MrNudie, about excersising, but about taking a shower. "People have slipped and died in a shower, or drown in a bath... does that mean we should stop bathing."

I personally am an advocate for people to not start smoking. It is a nasty habit to get into, and now that I think on it I'm pretty sure I labelled the title of this topic wrong.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Monday, June 04, 2012 7:04:26 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Do you have any reason to believe that those statistics are wrong, or misrepresented in any way? If so, I'd love to hear it. As long as it wasn't paid for by R.J. Reynolds or Phillip Morris, that is.

Selynar
Posted: Monday, June 04, 2012 7:07:55 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/6/2011
Posts: 26
Nope. I'm having a hard time finding the statistics on cigarettes, and cigarette smoke. I only seem to get pages on the affect cigarette butts have when they're littered.

But realistically would it be hard to imagine that a car or factory puts out more pollutants than a cigarette? Or even hundreds?
MrNudiePants
Posted: Monday, June 04, 2012 7:15:59 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
If you had a pipe leading directly from the factory's chimney to your mouth, and spent five minutes out of every half-hour sucking the fumes directly into your lungs, I can see how it could be more harmful. As it is, though, I give the nod to directly inhaling the carbon-monoxide and various carcinogens.

Selynar
Posted: Monday, June 04, 2012 7:17:43 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/6/2011
Posts: 26
Fair enough. :)
keoloke
Posted: Monday, June 04, 2012 7:57:21 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/12/2010
Posts: 599
Location: United States
Smoking Bad, or Good?

June 2012...Unbelievable question!

Choose n Practice Happiness

Life is simple; we are what we eat and what we read. Talk is superfluous.
ReleaseMe4034
Posted: Monday, June 11, 2012 8:35:48 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 5/24/2010
Posts: 31
Location: west of worcester, United States
I personaly dont smoke and never would. IDK about the taxes and all that stuff. But if its true what you said about the taxes and how others would complain if property tax went up and etc. Well I feel I would rather have my property tax go up and l live a extra 10 to 15 years than to go through the hassel and B.S. of dealing with threatments for second hand smoke.

lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, June 11, 2012 9:07:50 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,376
Location: Alabama, United States
I am on record as being against these legislated smoking bans. Especially outdoors smoking bans. Smoking indoors is easily regulated by popular sentiment on the issue. Most restaurants will/would ban smoking as a smoke filled eatery would cause the much larger non-smoking population avoid eating there. While at the same time som courageous business owners could promote and serve the smokers and have a pretty good business doing so. The free market would lead most business owners to ban smoking in their establishments. Which would be their right.

Outdoor bans are unnecessary. You question whether or not sucking on a cigarette is as harmful to your health as car and factory emissions. Of course the direct cigarette smoke/tar/cyanide-to lung inhalation is more damaging, but that's your choice. In a public park full of fresh air, is the smoke from a cigarette 100 meters/yards away from a non smoker going to cause a second hand smoke cancer scare? Probably not. Probably less likely than the car and factory emissions you're talking about.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Monday, June 11, 2012 12:48:17 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,300
Location: West Coast
lafayettemister wrote:

Outdoor bans are unnecessary. You question whether or not sucking on a cigarette is as harmful to your health as car and factory emissions. Of course the direct cigarette smoke/tar/cyanide-to lung inhalation is more damaging, but that's your choice. In a public park full of fresh air, is the smoke from a cigarette 100 meters/yards away from a non smoker going to cause a second hand smoke cancer scare? Probably not. Probably less likely than the car and factory emissions you're talking about.


You're thinking of a public park with lots of open space and green hills. A park in the city is a different story - they can get congested with people huddling on benches and seating areas, dog parks with groups of people standing around, people waiting at street-meat stands or laying on a blanket getting some sun in the middle of the day just a few feet away from someone else. If people are chain-smoking (and one would reason that parks are a perfect place to escape to for a smoke break), other park-goers are going to notice it. It's not just from a health perspective, it's also from a "ciggy-stank" perspective. Sorry to the smokers out there, but it's the equivalent of dumping a rancid bottle of CK One on yourself and going out in public. People don't want to smell it or be around it.

I don't care about smokers and their own personal choice regarding their health. If they want to sit at home or in their car and puff through an entire pack, it doesn't bother me at all. I'd just rather not be around it and smell it on my clothes or have to wash my hair for the second time that day when I get home. Oddly enough the less smoking is tolerated in society, the more sensitive I get when I'm around it. I'm not an anti-smoking nazi by any stretch of the means (I worked as a promotions girl for a tobacco company while in university) and some of my friends are casual smokers when they're drinking. I'll tolerate it if I have to, but if I have the choice I'd far prefer to not have to deal with it.





sprite
Posted: Monday, June 11, 2012 12:53:33 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,656
Location: My Tower, United States
lafayettemister wrote:
I am on record as being against these legislated smoking bans. Especially outdoors smoking bans. Smoking indoors is easily regulated by popular sentiment on the issue. Most restaurants will/would ban smoking as a smoke filled eatery would cause the much larger non-smoking population avoid eating there. While at the same time som courageous business owners could promote and serve the smokers and have a pretty good business doing so. The free market would lead most business owners to ban smoking in their establishments. Which would be their right.

Outdoor bans are unnecessary. You question whether or not sucking on a cigarette is as harmful to your health as car and factory emissions. Of course the direct cigarette smoke/tar/cyanide-to lung inhalation is more damaging, but that's your choice. In a public park full of fresh air, is the smoke from a cigarette 100 meters/yards away from a non smoker going to cause a second hand smoke cancer scare? Probably not. Probably less likely than the car and factory emissions you're talking about.


i don't smoke. period. i hate the smell of it and yes, i can smell it when i'm outside and someone nearby is smoking. it's an awful smell. thank god i don't have asthma or other breathing problems. or a young child or a baby. can you imagine what that would be like, being subjected to someone else's smoke? if you want to smoke and you do it where i don''t have to smell it, great - if i go into a club that allows smoking, that's my choice (i will usually take my business somewhere else) but if you're intruding on MY space and smoking, that's just rude and if we have to make laws because people don't care if they are being rude to protect MY lungs, then tough. should have been more thoughtful in the first place - now you're paying the price.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
Buz
Posted: Monday, June 11, 2012 1:01:43 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,834
Location: Atlanta, United States
Through the science of agriculture, plant genetics, etc. the tobacco companies have dramatically increased the nicotine content of their cigarettes increasing the addiction level to their product. It is a very dangerous product.

Smoking cigarettes does look sexy in the movies, but it kills in a long drawn out painful miserable manner.

I enjoy a fine cigar every now and then but use common sense in doing so. I will not smoke one where it would bother anyone. Some people can't stand to smell them and I would not subject them to that.

The banning of cigarettes in public places in some ways flies in the face of my libertarian views but then again I hate to be subjected to cigarettes also. So that is one regulation I don't complain about.

I also hate to deal with a rude person that lights up regardless of the laws. Sometimes you have to warn them that they are about to swallow that cigarette if they don't put it out.

Now an occasional doobie in a private setting. hmmmmm

Regaeman Man

Kitanica
Posted: Monday, June 11, 2012 8:24:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 881
Location: The Sprawl, United States
Bad bottom-line, our lungs are designed for air. Anything but that is technically wrong. to the OP, as for your question, why is money and taxes more important than your health? Tell the government to take the taxes out of their salary, private jets and mansions don't help them do their jobs.
i don't need advertising or warnings to know it's bad for me. anti smoking campaigns are as ludicrous as the "secret pro smoking agenda" that they claim exists all around us. I don't care what people do in their own home, but it should be illegal in public. as far as I'm concerned it's on par with rape. (that's my own personal opinion) They don't have consent, then every breath someone takes is violating their choice, personal space, and rights. If they have a problem with being told they can't smoke they don't have to smoke in the first place. With that choice comes the knowledge you will be rightfully discriminated against. just curious but doesn't maritime law say that if a captains not fit to lead he will be relieved of command? Same thing, but on land your making an unhealthy choice therefore your not medically fit to make your own decisions in public.

Buz has the right idea, regarding the occasional accidentally-ingested cigarette lol
asleep
Posted: Monday, June 11, 2012 10:31:04 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/30/2011
Posts: 3,215
Location: United States
I am a TOBACCOHOLIC. Started smoking 52 years ago. The last time I lit up was 5-31-2011 at 11:45PM. I haven't QUIT...I just have not lit one in over a year.

Rick

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/love-stories/exit-33-trust.aspx

elitfromnorth
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:28:28 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
I'm a smoker. I've tried quitting once, lasted about a month or so before crumbling. Have a hope to try again sometime soon, simply because it's way too bloody expensive. But most of it is taxes here, probably more tax than you have in Canada. So once I've payed for my bag of tobacco I'd like to be able to sit outside and enjoy my smoke. People bitch about me not taking care of myself and that I will eventually cost the health care system a lot of money. I'm not denying that, but it's rather ludicrous that the same people who makes these claims are the ones spending more time chewing down burgers and chocolate than dragging their fat ass out of the couch and just taking a walk. Later today I'm gonna head to my uncle and do some good old farm labour that's pretty much a full body work out. I'm gonna be doing this for several hours, a type of work that would tire out most health freaks.

I'll admit that I'm a health risk to myself and maybe nearby children if I blow the smoke straight at their face when outside, but I'm no bigger risk to a kid in a city park than the cars running on petrol and diesel all around, spewing out Nox gasses and all the other crap. I don't think I'm that big of a risk as everyone make it out to be. Why? Because the biggest health risk to people today isn't the smoking, but the lack of activity. The number of smokers that will intentionally blow the smoke in other people's faces is so small that it's not really mentionable.

And if we're talking about making it difficult for other people to breathe indoors, then why are no one reacting to people who shower themselves with perfume/cologne? There are several people with asthma who reacts and can have troubles breathing if the person next to them uses perfume and so forth excessively, but who here will walk up to the smellycat and go "Hey, your excessive use of perfume are causing other people trouble." Of course we wouldn't, because that's rude. But it's not rude to walk up to a smoker and go "that's unhealthy you know". Smokers have become the group that it's pretty much accepted and legal to bully.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
sprite
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:53:44 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,656
Location: My Tower, United States
elitfromnorth wrote:
I'm a smoker. I've tried quitting once, lasted about a month or so before crumbling. Have a hope to try again sometime soon, simply because it's way too bloody expensive. But most of it is taxes here, probably more tax than you have in Canada. So once I've payed for my bag of tobacco I'd like to be able to sit outside and enjoy my smoke. People bitch about me not taking care of myself and that I will eventually cost the health care system a lot of money. I'm not denying that, but it's rather ludicrous that the same people who makes these claims are the ones spending more time chewing down burgers and chocolate than dragging their fat ass out of the couch and just taking a walk. Later today I'm gonna head to my uncle and do some good old farm labour that's pretty much a full body work out. I'm gonna be doing this for several hours, a type of work that would tire out most health freaks.

I'll admit that I'm a health risk to myself and maybe nearby children if I blow the smoke straight at their face when outside, but I'm no bigger risk to a kid in a city park than the cars running on petrol and diesel all around, spewing out Nox gasses and all the other crap. I don't think I'm that big of a risk as everyone make it out to be. Why? Because the biggest health risk to people today isn't the smoking, but the lack of activity. The number of smokers that will intentionally blow the smoke in other people's faces is so small that it's not really mentionable.

And if we're talking about making it difficult for other people to breathe indoors, then why are no one reacting to people who shower themselves with perfume/cologne? There are several people with asthma who reacts and can have troubles breathing if the person next to them uses perfume and so forth excessively, but who here will walk up to the smellycat and go "Hey, your excessive use of perfume are causing other people trouble." Of course we wouldn't, because that's rude. But it's not rude to walk up to a smoker and go "that's unhealthy you know". Smokers have become the group that it's pretty much accepted and legal to bully.


i don't wear perfume, only rarely, as does my girl, only on special occasions, and then, lightly - and that's part of the reason why - did you know that, in Oncology offices, they WILL ask you to leave if your perfume is too heavy? and i have no compunction about saying something if i'm trapped in a finite space with someone who is too liberal with their fragrance and don't get me started on perfume samples in magazines - that said, second hand perfume doesn't cause cancer, last time i checked.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
Nikki703
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:06:46 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/7/2009
Posts: 12,683
Location: The Other Side Of The Mirror
I am not a smoker and never have been. I have tried cigarettes when i was younger because I thought it was a cool adult thing but once I did I just didnt get the appeal. Ill admit I have smoked other things which are not good for you but that is for another thread. LOL. I grew up in a home where both my parents smoked. And eventually my dad died from lung cancer.

I am not one for taking away a persons right to do what they want as long as they are not hurting anyone else or infringing on their rights. I am all for banning smoking in restaurants, bars and other closed in public spaces. As for outdoor parks, I am not really sure how I feel about that. If it is a large outdoor space with plenty of open space then the threat of second hand smoke is probably very small. But if it is a small city park or playground, then the threat maybe real.

My real question is WHY? For those who smoke, I know it is hard to stop. But do you really enjoy it? You know what you are doing to your lungs, your gums, your teeth. The cost of cigarettes is outrageous. What does it really get you, do you like having your clothes smell of stale smoke? I know the same can be said for drinking, eating sweets, most any "addiction". I am not judging anyone who smokes, it is your right to do so. But I just dont understand why!!
MelissaH
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:13:50 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 10/17/2010
Posts: 53
Location: Neston, United Kingdom
Smoking is bad !!!!!!

Unless it's caused by friction ;)

Melissa xxx
redlips
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:27:09 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/21/2011
Posts: 144
Of course smoking is bad for you; stinky, obnoxious, messy, ughhh......BUT, should the government take away your freedom to be stinky, obnoxious, messy, and ughhh if you want to? I personally have had very little trouble with smokers if I ask them nicely to refrain until I am elsewhere. Most smokers understand that nonsmokers may find it offensive. If they don't, then call Buz, but don't let governments take away freedoms. I believe history proves that is not a good idea.

If you ignore beauty, you will soon find yourself without it.................Frank Lloyd Wright

I always practice obedience, when it's in my best interest.
Pelicanbill
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:45:16 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/13/2011
Posts: 304
Location: Top Of The South
BAD!!!!!!! I have now got emphysema, am on oxygen 24/7. Unfortunately, when I started it was espoused as being the epitome of cool.
Many years later I finally gave up - too late to avoid where I am now.
DirtyMartini
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:50:01 AM

Rank: Purveyor of Poetry & Porn

Joined: 10/19/2009
Posts: 5,791
Location: Right here on Lush Stories..., United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:


Sorry to the smokers out there, but it's the equivalent of dumping a rancid bottle of CK One on yourself and going out in public.



Lol...is cigarette smoke really that bad? Btw, I happen to think smoking is good...Regaeman Man

Speaking of which, things are actually improving in that matter in my part of the world...

Bill to decriminalize marijuana possession is advanced by N.J. Assembly committee
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/05/bill_to_decriminalize_marijuan_1.html



You know you want it, you know you need it bad...get it now on Amazon.com...
Lush Erotica, an Anthology of Award Winning Sex Stories

ArtMan
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:24:11 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/29/2011
Posts: 640
Location: South Florida, United States
Quite frankly cigarettes are rank. They make one stink, stain teeth brown, dry out the skin, cause fine line wrinkles around the mouth, age a person beyond their years, and are a very expensive habit. Not to mention that cigarettes cause lung cancer and emphysema and can end your life several decades sooner.

Go ahead and make a rancid mess of yourself and die young, but you do not have the right to endanger my life with your cigarette smoke.

You are invited to read Passionate Danger, Part II, a story collaboration by Kim and ArtMan.
http://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/passionate-danger-part-ii.aspx

lafayettemister
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 8:24:01 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,376
Location: Alabama, United States
It seems to me that the prevailing thoughts on smoking bans are the fears of our health concerns from secondhand smoke. The banning of smoking in public places is ok because it affects innocent non-smokers' health. Through no fault of our own, someone else is causing harm or sickness or death to us. That is a slippery slope.


Some stats about Secondhand Smoke Source: Secondhand Smoke


-Yearly, there are 46,000 deaths from heart disease to non-smokers. What percentage of that is from secondhand smoke or other unhealthy heart issues such as high fat or sodium diet isn't described. But I'd be willing to bet most of it comes from poor diet and lack of exercise. And actual smokers.
- 3400 non smokers die of lung cancer
- Asthma is up to 1 million children
-Between 150k-300k lower respiratory tract infections young children resulting in 7500-15000 hospital visits


*What happens if 10 years from now, after all of these smoking restriction laws have been in place, these numbers for child asthma and respiratory infections remain the same or increase? Do we concede that secondhand smoke ISN'T the culprit and that maybe other environmental reasons are causing the problem?



Some stats about Drunk Driving (0.08% blood alcohol level) Source: Drunk Driving Stats

-In 2009 there were 10,839 traffic deaths due to alcohol. *even if only half of those are innocent drivers that were killed by someone else's irresponsibility, it's still more than deaths from secondhand smoke.
-254k injuries from alcohol related accidents
-Drunk drivers kill someone every 48 minutes. *roughly one death per hour = 9125 deaths to innocent drivers per year
-An average drunk driver will driver 87 times before being pulled over
====================
If our government officials were actually interested or worried about "our" safety, then maybe they should ban the consumption of alcohol in public. Those couple of glasses of wine that people have a dinner, it should be banned. Going to the park for a family reunion, or a baseball game.. no more booze. Bars and nightclubs will be alcohol free. In my home state, drive thru daquiri shops will close. All those people drinking have to drive home and there aren't nearly enough taxicabs. Yes, drinking and driving IS illegal. But judging from the numbers above, that law isn't working. The only way to ensure my and my kids safety is to ban public consumption of alcohol.


The numbers don't lie. You have a much greater risk of death or injury from a drunk driver than you do from secondhand smoke. And these numbers only reflect statistics from actually legally drunk drivers over 0.08% blood alcohol level. How many other thousands of deaths happen from a driver that is just a "little" impaired and only has 0.05-0.07% blood levels?


What would you rather, sit in a park with someone smoking a cigarette? Or share the road with someone who is drunk? I'll take the cigarette smoke.


If secondhand smoke is THAT bad for us, which I believe it is, then it should be banned altogether. It's illegal for someone to smoke in a park and endanger innocent non-smokers. But it isn't illegal for a parent to smoke inside their home while raising children? An infant or child has no say so in the matter and is exposed to high greater levels of secondhand smoke AND in a confined space, but that's OK, right?


Is smoking a bad habit? Hell yes. Is a smoker being rude or irresponsible for lighting up in public and exposing anyone within nose-shot of their smoke? Yea, maybe. Should they be legally bound to not affect MY safety? No.


Smoking has become socially unacceptable, so people feel enabled to discriminate against them. Drinking is still very socially acceptable. Even encouraged. Smoking = nasty and evil Drinking = cool and hip. Funny how you're far more likely to die or get hurt because of the cool/hip thing.






When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
1curiouscat
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 8:51:53 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2011
Posts: 1,144
Location: São Paulo , Brazil
Agurments as to whether it is right or wrong to ban smoking are going to last forever. People should be able to do whatever they want - I agree. However, we as a society have been completely manipulated to become smokers. The depency to cigarets is man made by the companies that produce the cigarettes. Tabacco in itself does not cause depency - i think this is the real issue.

furthermore, cigarettes are absurdly disgusting. I used to smoke for 10 years, loved every second of the ACT. Today when I think about what I was doing I get somewhat depressed at the level of disrespect to my own body and principally to the people around me.

No one should have to ingest over 4000 chemicals just so another company can make a few billion dollars.

The smoking industry is bad.... smoking in itself not as much.




Overwhelming Reality

From Across the Room
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:10:18 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,300
Location: West Coast
lafayettemister wrote:


What would you rather, sit in a park with someone smoking a cigarette? Or share the road with someone who is drunk? I'll take the cigarette smoke.




I would rather sit in a park with a drunk person and share the road with someone who is smoking in their own car.

In the reverse - both are bad and just because the degree of bad is relative to comparison doesn't make it any better. That's like saying would you rather share the road with someone who is drunk or be walking down a dark alleyway alongside a pathological serial killer. Sure one is worse, but I'd rather not have to deal with either scenario.

Personally I don't think that either smoking or drinking should be banned. People should be free to enjoy their vices in a responsible way, provided that it doesn't infringe upon the health, safety and quality-of-life of another person (or embryo).


cherryrebel
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:29:24 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/24/2010
Posts: 336
Location: whispering in your ear, United Kingdom
Lets face it, we ALL know smoking is bad for us and for some it will probably be our demise...

But weve all got to die of something and if even healthy people people die of terrbible things then why deny ourselves something we enjoy??

If you dont want to be around someone who smokes, then dont be around them...

I wont smoke all over you if you dont lecture me about quitting...

Also smoking is coool and i happen to think very hot! (if youve seen fight club you'll know what i mean! Xxxx
lafayettemister
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:34:20 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,376
Location: Alabama, United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:


Yes, of course. I totally agree, both are bad. But if our health, safety, and quality-of-life are in danger, why are we accepting of banning the lesser of two evils.


They're not banning it. They're banning it in places where it affects the quality-of-life of other people. Being in a room with a bunch of drunk people doesn't directly impact me. Being in a room with a bunch of smokers puffing away does. And yes, like I said before - It annoys me in a city park as well, and while I agree in the small doses of me being around a smoker on a park bench isn't going to cause second-hand smoke damage, it does affect my enjoyment of the park.

I'm all for personal choice - just do it responsibly to minimize the impact of people that don't want to be impacted.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.