The Benefits of Smoking

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You can provide all the links to all the studies in the world - sources developed and posted by clear anti-smoking advocates with extreme bias and believe that you have "proved" me wrong.

But you still can't answer the question - why do smoking bans need enforcement 10 years after they are implemented. Why are they still controversial, as evidenced by the New Orleans debate?

Because people like you exist. Duh... You can't make everyone understand the benefits. Obviously thick headed people exist who can't be arsed to change their ways to accommodate other people. Trends in the younger populations show that smoking has is at an all time low. The younger population has embraced these laws. You are old hat and most of the controversy surrounding these laws comes from the older populations. No surprise there since older populations are the most resistant to change no matter how much it makes sense.

PS. I'm 30, if you think I'm a kid then you must be pretty old.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Smoking is in no relation to other pollution.
Even drinking water from a plastic bottle expose one to bisphenols.
So aiming at smoking is a politial and social thing while there are much worse offenders.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

you are younger than my youngest child so calling you "kid" is quite appropriate. calling me a dirty filthy stinking smoker with a closed view of the world and utterly involved with only myself is NOT!

I have been nothing but polite to you during our discussion and you insist on disrespecting me personally at every turn.

Are you unable to have a civil debate?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: VonDutch

hint: Its a money-maker!

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is another fallacy. Again - you just can't deal with the logic can you?

If I walked into a bar that sincerely wanted to be non-smoking, the bouncer would bounce my old ass. It is only in buildings and establishments where the OWNER does not wish to comply with the smoking ban that will not bounce a smoker.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: VonDutch
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Smoking is in no relation to other pollution.
Even drinking water from a plastic bottle expose one to bisphenols.
So aiming at smoking is a politial and social thing while there are much worse offenders.

No it is a matter of correcting a problem that can be corrected. Just because there are worse offenders out there is no excuse not to fix a problem that we have the capability to fix that isn't as severe.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Not once have I said these words, "dirty filthy stinking smoker". I've called you selfish for not respecting other people's health so you can partake in a vice in comfort because that IS selfish whether you like to admit it or not. Also, don't play dumb with me. You've done your fair share of disrespecting me. Calling me kid is one of those things because it shows you liken my opinion to that of a child's.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is another fallacy. Again - you just can't deal with the logic can you?

If I walked into a bar that sincerely wanted to be non-smoking, the bouncer would bounce my old ass. It is only in buildings and establishments where the OWNER does not wish to comply with the smoking ban that will not bounce a smoker.

Tired of Control Freaks

Well the bouncer would bounce your ass if you refused to not smoke in the building. He wouldn't kick you out just because you happen to smoke cigarettes. He'd do the same thing if you went in and started hitting people too since it's also illegal to hit people in bars. That doesn't mean they throw punch happy people out of bars on site though.

You just created a strawman there. You get thrown out if you break the rules. If you obey the rules, you have no problems. Seeing as how you can smoke outside, you can even partake in your vice of choice, then come back in when you are done.

As I said, any adult is welcome to smoke and people should be able to choose to smoke or not.
But just don't make out like it's not harmful, poisonous and deadly.....'cos it is.
I'm not an anti-smoking nazi or anything, smoke... no probs at all.


But it is very bad for you... worse than all of the things I listed put together.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is no straw man here!

If the owner believes that operating a non-smoking business was good for his bottom line, he would voluntarily ban smoking.

New Orleans is a prime example - many bars already ban smoking. they didn't need a law to do it. They wanted to. They put up a sign and anyone who lit up a cigarette was invited to put it out or leave. No choices.

The new smoking ban is to FORCE those bar owners who didn't want the smoking ban because they believed it was bad for business. These are the businesses that will not voluntarily comply with the law and require enforcement. And when you have to enforce prohibition, you have already lost. The profit motive for some businesses lean toward allowing smoking.

The history of prohibition in the United States says it all! The population did not want to stop drinking, the bars did not want to stop selling it. The law required enforcement. Guess what! Enforcement didn't work and neither did prohibition.

Tired of Control freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: FyreByrd

Yes I understand the distinction between public and private venues - do you?

A public venue is one where the government has chosen to invest tax dollars for the entertainment of all. If the venue should lose money in any given year, the taxpayer must pay the losses.

A private venue is one where a private person or a group of private people have chosen to invest their money into a business venue. Should the venue lose money, it is the loss to a private person and not the taxpayer.

An accounting office is open to the public and all may enter BUT it is a private business. The public may enter a bar but that doesn't mean the public owns it.

Tired of Control Freaks

No, that is patently incorrect. It's not about ownership - it's about the clientele.

A private club - privately owned with members only - can do as they wish. Once an establishment opens up to passing patrons - it becomes a PUBLIC VENUE. It has nothing whatsoever to do with ownership, or investment of public funds.

Please, please find a private, members-only, remedial school that allows smoking in the classroom and do some learning.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is another fallacy. Again - you just can't deal with the logic can you?

If I walked into a bar that sincerely wanted to be non-smoking, the bouncer would bounce my old ass. It is only in buildings and establishments where the OWNER does not wish to comply with the smoking ban that will not bounce a smoker.

Tired of Control Freaks

You use words very poorly. A 'Bar' can't have wants or intentions. It's a thing. An Object without feelings or desires. And as to Owner's desires if they truly want a smokers establishment they can turn their place into a private members-only clubs but I suspect most small bars wouldn't survive such a restriction otherwise, being a PUBLIC venue seeking PUBLIC sales, they are required to follow the law.

Their are smoking establishments, I understand. Cigar clubs were you can smoke - but they are members-only.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
The new smoking ban is to FORCE those bar owners who didn't want the smoking ban because they believed it was bad for business. These are the businesses that will not voluntarily comply with the law and require enforcement. And when you have to enforce prohibition, you have already lost. The profit motive for some businesses lean toward allowing smoking.

Being on the fence about a matter doesn't mean you aren't going to comply if a law goes into effect that forces your hand. Many of those bars that still allow smoking will just switch to non-smoking and go about their business. What will happen is that a small, select few bars and restaurants won't comply

The history of prohibition in the United States says it all! The population did not want to stop drinking, the bars did not want to stop selling it. The law required enforcement. Guess what! Enforcement didn't work and neither did prohibition.

Tired of Control freaks

This isn't prohibition though. This is a restriction. You are still allowed to smoke. It's not like anyone will fine you or throw you in jail for smoking a cigarette, so this comparison fails.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

yes I can be fined for smoking a cigarette in a public park, if its too close to a playground or if the city is doing some festival in the area.

Krazysh0t - you may not think this is prohibition but it has all the earmarks of prohibition. And if it walks like a duck.....

n a 100 % ban area - smokers are prohibited from gathering together in a public place for the purpose of socializing and smoking together. Whether the government prohibits smoking or taxes tobacco to the point where the average man can no longer afford it, then we have prohibition.

en.wikipedia.org...

this link includes a description of prohibition and what happened to cause the 18th amendment to be repealed. Notice in the first paragraph where it states that drinking was NOT prohibited. It was manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol that was prohibited.

Consumer demand, however, led to a variety of illegal sources for alcohol, especially illegal distilleries and smuggling from Canada and other countries. It is difficult to determine the level of compliance, and although the media at the time portrayed the law as highly ineffective, even if it did not eradicate the use of alcohol, it certainly decreased alcohol consumption during the period. The Eighteenth Amendment was repealed in 1933, with the passage of the Twenty-First Amendment, thanks to a well organized repeal campaign led by Catholics (who stressed personal liberty) and businessmen (who stressed the lost tax revenue).[52]

Do you really really believe that there is no consumer demand from smokers for a place to socialize and smoke?? The owner of the bar is not in business for his health. He is in business for a profit. He will do whatever he needs to do to make a profit.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Krazysh0t

yes I can be fined for smoking a cigarette in a public park, if its too close to a playground or if the city is doing some festival in the area.

Krazysh0t - you may not think this is prohibition but it has all the earmarks of prohibition. And if it walks like a duck.....

No, it is restriction. Plain and simple. It is no different than not being allowed to drink alcohol in a park. I don't see you complaining that you aren't allowed to stroll through a park with an open bottle of Jack Daniels in your hand. Just because you aren't allowed to smoke in some places, doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to smoke at all. THAT is what prohibition is, being unable to smoke at all. You have a long way to go before that happens.

If you think you are being mistreated by the state for your vice, drug users have a word to say to you. They know a thing or two about REAL prohibition. Your faux prohibition is just silly.

n a 100 % ban area - smokers are prohibited from gathering together in a public place for the purpose of socializing and smoking together. Whether the government prohibits smoking or taxes tobacco to the point where the average man can no longer afford it, then we have prohibition.

en.wikipedia.org...

this link includes a description of prohibition and what happened to cause the 18th amendment to be repealed. Notice in the first paragraph where it states that drinking was NOT prohibited. It was manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol that was prohibited.

I know all about prohibition. I use those arguments to argue against the war on drugs. Not to mention, I've already told you that I'm not trying to completely ban cigarettes. YOU. ARE. STILL. ALLOWED. TO. SMOKE. DESPITE. THESE. BANS.

Do you really really believe that there is no consumer demand from smokers for a place to socialize and smoke?? The owner of the bar is not in business for his health. He is in business for a profit. He will do whatever he needs to do to make a profit.

Tired of Control Freaks

I really believe that I don't care. If that place isn't outdoors then it doesn't matter. Those people can congregate indoors once they are done smoking. You don't need to have a cigarette in your hand 24/7 anyways, and even if you do, then I guess you better get used to the outdoors.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

During prohibition - drinking was not prohibited. You could still drink if you had a prescription and you got your drink from the pharmacy.

Drinking was restricted - not prohibited!

But we still got all the negative effects of prohibition anyway. All the corruption, violence, smuggling, poisoning etc.

How did that happen when drinking was not prohibited?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: SLAYER69

I'm a smoker as well,

Dude? How are you not vaping and still smoking?

I'm bummed, even I vape now.

When are you going to start vaping?

I dont think smoking have any benefits. Smoking allows anyone the ability to fast forward through their body's physical life. While this usually means early death and/or chronic disease, many smokers take the risk. The "aged smoker" look, as shown above, is apparently all the rage.

I go through periods where I smoke, and then I quit for a few years, back and forth.

I have noticed something strange- on one side of my family, asthma is a problem. My siblings, aunts, uncles and mother all have it (mother died of an asthma attack). I only have had it when I was a nonsmoker. If I start smoking again, I have no trace of asthma, ever.

I can't explain this. I just observe it as a definate pattern. (now that I think about it, my mom didn't even develop asthma until she had been a non-smoker for several years).

The lung cancer argument has no more impact on me. I have had too many people close to me die of lung cancer though they were not ever smokers, nor lived with one.

a reply to: Bluesma

Many asthmatics find that smoking a cigarette eases asthma. Some say it works better than a puffer. There are chemicals in Tobacco that relieve asthma

Here is a historical history of the use of tobacco to treat asthma

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Tired of Control Freaks