It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Should Smoking Be Banned?

page: 16
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Buddy420

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Buddy420
I wouldn't care if cigarettes killed within a week of their inhalation. You will never convince me to give up my liberty to do as I please, and yes that means my liberty to do things which are considered very unhealthy. I will fight for people's right to decide for themselves how healthy a life they want to live. Would you want people telling you you're not allowed to eat red meat, ride a motorcycle, swim in the ocean, etc.. I know most of this has already been posted, but I don't understand why some can't understand such a simple concept.

Well here's the difference.
When person A eats red meat in excess, it doesn't DIRECTLY affect person B's health as it does with cigarettes.

Now let me be clear AGAIN, I am not in favor of banning cigarettes but there needs to be some type of regulation to prevent smokers and non-smokers conflicting in public, enclosed spaces.

If you read my post, you must realize I agree smokers, like me, should respect peoples right to not have to breath smoke in confined areas. Some people are suggesting I am infringing on their rights by smoking outside and I disagree with that.since smoke of anykind dillutes into the atmosphere pretty fast.

I appreciate the fact that you respect those around you and honestly if more people thought like you, we probably wouldn't even be here talking about this right now. A lot of people in general could learn alot from your curteousy for others.

Here's an example regarding how prolific smoke can be. If I'm driving down the highway at 70 mph, I can smell cigarette smoke from another car ahead of me and 3 lanes over. This example has nothing to do with health considerations and I'm not suggesting cigarettes should be banned in vehicles. My point is that cigarette smoke doesn't dissipate as quickly as smokers.

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 04:51 PM
Reading this thread has been kind of like seeing a train wreck in progress. It keeps getting worse and you want to look away but you just can't....

1) Tobacco is not the problem. As far back as the 60's people were pointing fingers at additives in cigarettes (specifically sugar, which is questionable when eaten or drunk and probably isn't healthy burned and inhaled), and it's only gotten worse. There's a lovely little list around of the 599 chemical additives used in commercial cigarettes. Some of them are FDA approved as food additives while others are known carcinogens, but none of them have been effectively studied for the effects of burning and inhaling them. So the guy just trying to have a smoke isn't the primary problem. HE didn't put all those chemicals in his cigarettes and probably would prefer it if most of them weren't there. Do you know all the chemicals and toxins that are in those twinkies and oreos and lunchables when you give them to your kids?

2) Let's be honest. You think smoking is a nasty habit. You find it to be dirty, smelly, and disgusting, and those are your REAL reasons for wanting it banned. You know about other nasty stuff people do behind closed doors, but you don't have to see it so you can ignore it. All this fuss about "second hand smoke" being a health risk is a smokescreen (ha ha I punnied!!) for "I don't like your nasty smelly habit and I don't want you to be able to do it anywhere where I can see or smell it."

Concerned about people who endanger your health? Really? Then have a look at drunk drivers, people who talk on their cell phones while driving, people who don't wash their hands after toileting and then prepare food for the public, people who show up for work in the food industry when they're SICK, and etc. etc. You will never see most of these people or know about them, but every day they endanger your health far more than the few breaths of second hand smoke you get from walking by someone who' smoking a cigarette.

3) It is about personal freedom. Last month it was a ban on pit bulls. This month it's a ban on smoking. Next month it'll be a ban on guns. And you will be cheering because you don't like pit bulls, smoking, or guns. But they will keep taking the freedoms away, one by one, until they hit some that affect YOU - like banning private schools maybe, or banning dogs altogether, or another round of alcohol prohibition. By then it will be too late for you; the people who still believe in freedom and respecting other peoples' rights and not trying to tell them how they should live are already in prison, in hiding, dead, or too angry at you for all the times you let something be taken away from them to help you. As I've said before in other threads, remember that every time you allow anyone to take a right or freedom away from someone else, you are implicitly giving up all comparable freedoms yourself. For example, if you let your town ban pit bulls you should be prepared to give up all of your pets if someone decides they don't like them. Allow women to be forced to have unwanted children ( i.e. ban abortion) and you allow DHS the right to take your children away from you if they decide you aren't raising them right.

Freedom means allowing other people the freedom to do things you don't approve of so that they will allow you freedom to things they don't approve of. Trust me, there's something you do or have that someone dislikes and disapproves of just as much as you dislike and disapprove of smoking.

Mutual respect IS the key. I enjoy smoking. Respect that it's something I enjoy and and work with me a little, and I'll do my best to respect your desire for air that doesn't smell like smoke. But that "ban smoking because all smokers are inconsiderate jerks" attitude - well, that won't win you any respect, points, favors, or consideration.

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 04:55 PM

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by zysin5

Although I completely disagree with your health conclusions, I agree with the whole respect idea on both sides. As a matter of fact, one of the proposals Michigan, USA is looking at passing is as follows:
Ban all smoking in public buildings except bars and cigar store type establishments AND if a diner or resturaunt wants to purchase a "smoking license" for a yearly fee, they can have smoking in their establishment.

I like this idea because it requires the posting of a sign at the door so you know what you're getting into BEFORE you walk in.

Seems like a decent compromise to me. I don't want to see either the smokers or non-smokers rights trampled on if possible.

I can honestly say, I fully agree with you here. I think the term that has been irritating me is banned. Maybe regulated is just a euphemism, but it makes me feel a lot better. Good post jfj123

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 04:58 PM

I agree with you on the fact that cigarettes can worsen migraine. I was also not suggesting you throw anything away just pointing out that strong odors of any kind can be harmful to others. The other point I was making was simply that in the posts directed to me, you said you would vote for a ban. I do know you have been repeatedly stating that you are against a ban of any kind, but was pointing out you were saying the exact opposite, or saying both you would vote for a ban, and you weren't saying you wanted a ban to me. That's all.

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 05:01 PM

As much as I want to scream you are so full of it, when I quit smoking I could smell it too. Mainly when I was on my motorcycle though. But yes I did smell it from other cars. Quit making good points so I can argue with you again

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 05:17 PM
A different look

I don't know who posted this a page or two back, but bravo
Now granted it is an editorial, but it chock full o' sources. I'm not going to say this will convert non smokers thinking, but maybe give just enough doubt to do a little more research. What you have been told and known to be true may not be. Of course I too look at this and others like it with a grain of salt. But at least the person that posted this earlier put something up to give a lot more insight and a wealth of sources to go by. Thank you! It was a very enlightening read.

For the non smokers, don't just blow by another link like many of you have. This merits your attention, and invokes some really good discussion points.

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 06:16 PM
reply to post by stinger94

I appreciate the feedback. I know you weren't suggesting that I throw away my colognes however you made a great point I never even knew about. Now that I know this is a real problem, I want to be proactive about it since, as you accurately pointed out, I don't know who does and does not have this problem.

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 08:07 PM
i think that people have the choice to choose and plus they probably know that it isn't good for them.
and i also think that all those little groups or whatever try making the cigarette industry look bad and they try preventing people from smoking.
i think people have the choice and shouldn't be banned.

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 12:08 AM

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 10:06 AM
What ever...and cars have nothing to contribute to these deaths id rather suck on a smoke that an exhaust pipe and the reason why they are attackin cigs is because the automobile industry is too powerful and makes the governments more money..!

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 11:17 AM
reply to post by stinger94

I would believe a lot more of the studies that disprove smoking links to cancers if the "funders" weren't pro-tobacco. Moreover, the "junk science" guru who keeps supplying the statistics (ignoring the overwhelming majority of studies to focus on the few that prove his point) used to work for the tobacco lobby.

If people smoked only in their own homes I have no problem with it. I don't care what people do on their own property. I only have a problem with it in public. I grew up in a house of smokers, lived with perpetual sinusitis, chronic headaches, etc. that was treated with antibiotics near non-stop until I grew immune to them. Once I went off to college and was in a non-smoking dorm my problems magically cleared up.

However, to this day if I even pass by someone smoking my left nostril closes up on me, and if I were to go to a bar where smoking is allowed I couldn't breathe within ten minutes.

Now, I can certainly avoid the bars, but should I have to avoid a public sidewalk? Should asthmatic kids have to deal with parents who smoke?

If you are living alone or with other smokers I have no problem whatsoever with it. Smoke pot if you like. Have kinky sex. I don't care. Your home, your business. But when you are outside your home it becomes my business.

BTW, I also agree with the people who talk about insane amounts of perfume. However, most of the people I know who wear that amount of perfume, ironically, smoke. I think they've lost their sense of smell, or maybe are trying to cover up the smoke odor.

I don't think smokers are bad people. I think they have an addiction to a substance that is a stimulant that they are unable to let go of. If you think about the cost of smoking just monetarily in this economy you can see that they, too, are affected.

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 01:39 PM
smoking is so gross...we should judt stick to dip and chew

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 01:55 PM
What they should do is ban the sales of cigarettes.
Problem with that is the government makes too much money from all the sales see, so it will never happen.

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 02:03 PM
Certainly, the argument that tobacco/cigarettes are bad for the user's health and therefore drives up the cost of healthcare is a good one, but it's also bad for people to eat too many Double Whoppers, so they should be banned, also.

Yeah, cigarette smoke is obnoxious to anyone who isn't a smoker, but in small doses it doesn't really cause any harm to anyone who isn't really allergic to it.

What would really be good is if some enterprising inventor could come up with a little device maybe the size of a cigarette pack, you could stick a cigarette into and through some wet chemical process extract the nicotine from it. No smoke involved. It could have a little nipple on it for people to suck on without bothering anybody. It could even be used in "smoke free" environments.

A more sophisticated device could even remove most of the other nasty chemicals such as formaldehyde that makes a cigarette burn all the way out if unattended. It would satisfy the nicotine habit, the oral fixation habit, and the giving the user "something to do with their hands" thing.

Such a device, if it wasn't regulated against, would be worth billions of dollars. If I was a chemist/inventor, and not just a lazy bum, that's what I'd work on in my spare time.

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Nohup
What would really be good is if some enterprising inventor could come up with a little device maybe the size of a cigarette pack, you could stick a cigarette into and through some wet chemical process extract the nicotine from it. No smoke involved. It could have a little nipple on it for people to suck on without bothering anybody. It could even be used in "smoke free" environments.

They already have... Have a look...

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Nohup
Yeah, cigarette smoke is obnoxious to anyone who isn't a smoker, but in small doses it doesn't really cause any harm to anyone who isn't really allergic to it.

Hey, Nohup. Thanks for reminding me of the other point I forgot to make.
Allergens and immunogens are either proteins or polysaccharides (complex carbohydrates). Cigarette smoke contains neither; it is therefore not possible for cigarette smoke to create an immune response. Therefore, it is not possible for anyone to be "allergic" to cigarette smoke.

Some people might be more sensitive to the odor or the irritating effect of inhaling smoke, I suppose, but anyone who tells you they are "allergic to cigarette smoke" is lying.

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 03:50 PM
reply to post by Heike

Here is some info about cigarette smoke allergy

Cigarette smoke contains a number of toxic chemicals and irritants. People with a cigarette smoke allergy may be more sensitive to cigarette smoke than others, and research studies indicate that smoking may aggravate allergies.

Smoking does not just harm smokers but also those around them. Research has shown that children and spouses of smokers tend to have more respiratory infections and asthma than those of non-smokers. In addition, exposure to secondhand smoke can increase the risk of allergic complications such as sinusitis and bronchitis.

Symptoms of Cigarette Smoke Allergy
Common cigarette smoke allergy symptoms include:

* Burning or watery eyes
* Nasal congestion
* Coughing
* Hoarseness
* Shortness of breath presenting as a wheeze.


Secondhand cigarette smoke worsens symptoms in children with asthma. Section on Allergy, Canadian Paediatric Society.

Just thought I'd pass this allergy info along.

and here's some additional info that shows people with certain common allergies, are more sensitive to cigarette smoke.

People allergic to typical triggers such as ragweed may be especially bothered by cigarette smoke, a new study says.

Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, studied 19 people who were allergic to ragweed. Participants had their nasal passages rinsed with a solution, and the fluid was collected and examined so that researchers could measure levels of an allergy-linked antibody called IgE.

After the rinsing, patients were exposed to either secondhand cigarette smoke or smoke-free air, and their nasal passages were then rinsed and studied again. The process was repeated with exposure to ragweed and uncontaminated air, and fluids were again examined.

At the four-day point, levels of IgE had risen 16.6 times higher in patients exposed to ragweed plus cigarette smoke, as compared to those only exposed to ragweed and clean air. Histamine levels were also 3.3 times higher in participants who breathed the ragweed and smoke.

The results suggest that people with allergies are especially affected by cigarette smoke and should avoid smoking, the research team said. They should also reduce their exposure to secondhand smoke.

SOURCES: American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, news release, June 14, 2006

[edit on 17-12-2008 by jfj123]

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 03:56 PM
reply to post by jfj123

Next time you might want to read your own source. ALL of your own source.

Allergies Versus Chemical Sensitivity
Some people have allergy-like reactions to the chemicals found in a wide variety of synthetic and natural substances. These substances can include things like:

* Paints
* Carpeting
* Plastics
* Perfumes
* Cigarette smoke
* Plants.

Although a person's symptoms may resemble those of allergies, sensitivity to chemicals does not represent a true allergic reaction involving IgE and the release of histamine or other chemicals. Rather than a reaction to an allergen, the person is experiencing a reaction to a chemical irritant. People with allergies may have a greater sensitivity to chemicals than those without allergies.

From page 4 of your first link above.

[edit on 17-12-2008 by Heike]

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 04:06 PM
There are also people who get allergic reactions from cats.. dogs.. seeds from grass and trees.. you name it, some people will be allergic to it..

Do you hear anybody suffering from allergic reactions to pollens make a case about cutting down all trees, and maybe pour concrete over the grass?

Imho, people who are truly allergic to cigarettes are a minority of a minority.. and I wouldn't smoke around somebody who has such a condition if he respectfully explained his predicament. (just as I wouldn't smoke around someone who just respectfully says he doesn't like the smoke.. only the ones who think they have a right to boss me around tend to get a kneejerk opposite reaction from what they aimed for..)

But if we give one more inch of ground to non-smokers asking for even more restrictions on our habits, soon we will have to ask NASA if we can't participate in some colonization project for Mars or something.

The few true fanatic non-smokers I have met won't quit untill they've succeeded in total abolishment.. and they'll use medical exceptions to 'prove their plight'.

and when they started out, they also said things like 'I'm not wanting it totally banned, just here, and there, and how about that place?'

they wouldn't want to alienate any support by appearing fanatical, after all.

our leaders cave in, and soon those same people are finding new arguments to continue their pet project, finding new places to ban it from..

Like I said before, we, the smokers, are getting the boiled-frog treatment.

[edit on 17-12-2008 by Phatcat]

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 04:08 PM
reply to post by Heike

Yes, I noticed after I posted that there was a difference

The part you reposted for me is interesting though

I know there's a difference but for the individual person, ALLERGIC LIKE and an ALLERGY is the same when the symptoms occur.

new topics

top topics

<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in