It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

NJ woman chides NYC smoker, gets stabbed with pen (smoking verses non smoking)

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
+9 more 
posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jefferton
reply to post by HabaneroPepper
 


People walk by me a thousand times a day blowing smoke at me, is there a special out doors just for lame people like me who like breathing?


You bring up a good point. You are allergic, yet you live. In times past if you had a deformity, something that hurt you but didn't hurt others, you died. This was natural selection at work. It also made the species stronger because the stronger more adaptable specimens survived where the weak ones did not. But in today's world modern medicine keeps people like you alive and further, we all must accommodate your deficiencies in order to keep you alive. Thus we move to the lowest common denominator. In the fifties, for example, if someone smoked and you couldn't handle it, you moved. Today, you expect everyone to conform to your issues.

Can we eat peanuts? Nope. Someone who is allergic might smell them and go into convulsions. Can we wear perfume? Nope. Those sensitive people are allergic so we now must work in a scent-free environment. We even are forced to accommodate people who insist they need service animals like pigs and snakes on airplanes to make sure they don't have an anxiety attack.




posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 

They are not rights if they can be taken away...
We are too precious, too PC and less and less tolerant of anyone and everything these days. This is not a good trend.
Some are also not considerate enough and not willing enough to compromise - on both sides.
I might suggest that smoking in close quarters with non-smokers is disrespectful but that catching the odd whiff of smoke (or for a short time) is a compromise we make to share space in a free society.
It isn't about rights...



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Jefferton
 


would you like to breathe if a guy with major b.o. came and stood next to you, should we have b.o. free zones and bring in the b.o. police to sniff armpits and evict any offending parties? seriously complaining about smoke indoors is fair enough, but outdoors? where the hell can smokers smoke without people whining about it?



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by Jefferton
 


would you like to breathe if a guy with major b.o. came and stood next to you, should we have b.o. free zones and bring in the b.o. police to sniff armpits and evict any offending parties? seriously complaining about smoke indoors is fair enough, but outdoors? where the hell can smokers smoke without people whining about it?



That's just it. They're pushing for weak minded, physically weak generation. Easier to control that way.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
exactly, it goes with the schoolyard gamers being banned for being 'too dangerous'
make our kids fat, lazy and docile



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Like I said in my OP, it was just that kind of story that has proven lines are getting to taught.I mean, who knows as none of us where there, maybe the smoker guy just found out some really bad news and he was beyond the who care point. I think most of us have had that day in our lives somewhere along the line. Maybe the non smoker was just the "Hair the Broke the Camel" ( no pun intended of course).

Actually I am kind of glad no video has surfaced of this situation, which is rather surprising in itself. If people saw the actual players all kinds of judgments would be made of who was right or wrong. At least this way, all was have to do is deal with the Issue.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
In this day and age, if you choose to confront someone about anything, you need to be prepared for violence.

I let most things just slide by, because they just aren't that important.

If I choose to not let something slide then I am prepared to do battle right then and there. That's not nice but it is a reality.

So, just let most things slide.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by onehuman
 





maybe the smoker guy just found out some really bad news and he was beyond the who care point.


The man could have smoked before getting on the train or when getting off....Like I said it's no secret that there is absolutely no smoking on NYC buses, trains, or platforms. Im sure he knew he was in the wrong but just didnt give a crap, it is very rare to see someone around here with enough balls to light up one on the train.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by WeBrooklyn
 


No matter what the woman said she should not have been attacked. I smoke and always try to respect other people. To be attacked is way over the line.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Yikes thats a bit extreme!! he must have really needed that smoke!

personally ban or not i wouldnt smoke on a train, out of courtesy really, I respect non smokers wishes and think smoking shouldnt be allowed on public transport.
Train platforms however i don't see why not, if its in the open air then whats the problem? I have never had a problem with the smoking ban in indoor places. Fair enough really it is unfair to make others breathe your smoke. My parents were heavy smokers and I was raised in a house full of smoke. I have kids of my own now but dont smoke in the house. Its my choice to inhale, not my kids!

Yes the little "cough cough" SO annoying!! Your already outside, No-ones breathing it in except for the smoker! whats the problem?


Originally posted by Jefferton
reply to post by HabaneroPepper
 


Breathing makes me happy, holy hell.

What about my rights?


Hasnt smoking been banned in public places already? What more do you want? Its your rights that are being listened to, not the smokers. Non-smokers will never be happy!!

Lets say an epileptic who knowingly goes to a club that happens to have strobe lights has a fit. Whos fault is it, his or the club owners? I know, lets ban strobe lights in ALL clubs!! Then everyone else loses out because one person didnt take responsibility for himself! Its the persons fault for going in there in the first place knowing that his epilepsy could be triggered. I know its not the same but you see my point?



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by HabaneroPepper
Well first, no one has ownership of the outside environment ( provided not on a state owned park etc). So why should non-smokers have any more leverage over those that do. No one owns the air either.


In other words, it's OK for someone to release any kind of noxious chemicals into the atmosphere that may lead to someone's death, because no one owns the outside environment ?

I realise that your view, as a smoker, may be slightly slanted, but every issue such as this needs to be looked at objectively and with as little bias as possible.

Firstly, it needs to be ascertained whether smoke fumes can cause discomfort or illness to an unwilling bystander. And then, if there are reasonable grounds to suggest that negative effects to other people do occur, it needs to be calculated whether the benefits of the activity outweigh the disadvantages.

Considering that the motivation for smoking is purely due to self-indulgence and self-gratification, then it can't be reasonably argued that there are any benefits to the habit other than to the person who actually smokes the cigarette or cigar.

Therefore, seeing as there are no benefits to anybody else by inhaling someone else's smoke, and there are many studies that indicate, at the very least, some harmful implications from inhaling second-hand smoke, it seems logical for the law to favour the prohibition of smoking in public places.



Originally posted by HabaneroPepper
Why does the right for those who dont smoke, trump the rights of those who do?

( see how I did that? yeah i just did that to your argument)


You haven't done anything with my argument !

In fact, you are just echoing and reinforcing my point.

You originally said to another poster: ''Infringing on others rights to make you happy, does that seem logical to you?'', in which I questioned why your ''right'' to exhale smoke fumes trumps the ''right'' of others to not exhale them.

You are attempting to use emotive phrases such as: ''Infringing on others rights'', despite the fact that there are two sides of the coin to this ''right'' that you are supposedly defending.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by KoolerKing
 





No matter what the woman said she should not have been attacked. I smoke and always try to respect other people. To be attacked is way over the line.


I never stated I agree with the man, he is wrong in every way. I wanted to make it clear that it is well known here that smoking is prohibited since the earlier posts were asking if smoking was allowed here. If it's a crowded train in downtown manhatten and someone lights up a smoke, someone is bound to say something, in most cases fight over it.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by KoolerKing
 


the way i read it, he retaliated as they were ATTACKING HIM



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by WeBrooklyn
 


I know, thats why Im saying, maybe he just reached a point ahd she pushed the wrong button at the wrong time. I mean face it, when one is stressed, they will turn to whatever their form of comfort may be. For some it may be a bottle, others a pill, and after watching a tabo show or two, it could just be about anything at this point. Non smokers have to remember that in a time past, and not that long ago, it was ok to smoke. That light got switched off as fast as a green light goes to a red light. Something someone has done for years to all the sudden be told No it isnt ok anymore, well, that is a hard adjustment for some.

I dont condone the stabbing, but to reach a point of knowing something is excepted as a not ok to do, to who cares I need this right now... well... why cant the subway have smoking and non smoking cars? Is that really so hard to do?



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Lets see if I can (try) to make a case for both sides on this one. If a non smoker has the right to say that they shouldn't be bombarded with toxic fumes, how is that any different from all of the other toxins that are currently being shoved down all of our throats? Is it just cigarettes that your upset about? Or is it the air? Period?!

For smokers, besides smoking, (either you enjoy it, are a light smoker, or addicted), can there really not be a way to not smoke around others? Can we (the smokers) of course see that what we do to our bodies is our business, but there are some out there that are actually very concerned about second hand smoke. Even though we as smokers have (for whatever your reason) decided to not really care about the (possibly) consequences, can we not find a common ground?

As far as the assault, I agree, you get in someones face, I dont care who you are, you have to deal with the consequence of whatever comes. If this person was being held down, they probably used more force then if the women confronted him alone. Words, not actions.

Peace, NRE.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 





I realise that your view, as a smoker, may be slightly slanted


Actually Im not a smoker!


But what I do know is that non-smokers rights do not exceed or " trump " as you stated smokers rights. There have been numerous changes to eateries, school functions etc, that cater to the non-smokers. Hell, an outside football game, and you cant smoke, without being pent up like sheep in the " smoke zone".



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by onehuman
 


the reason they dont is when all the nonsmoking cars are full a nonsmoker has to go in a smoking car and whine like a little pansy about how the smoke is hurting them



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by onehuman
 


In nyc that would be very hard to do. They have a hard enough time keeping up on rush hour. When someone describes a crowded train in nyc, it's usually shoulder to shoulder with no room to move, especially in downtown and midtown Manhatten (this was downtown), with plenty more people waiting to get on. I understand when a person can reach a breaking point, but to be on a crowded train and do that, im sure he expected someone to say something, to me thats looking for trouble.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
You can apply that same same logic to car exhaust fumes.


The same logic is applied to exhaust fumes.

You appear to be arguing in support of one harmful action because another action also causes harm.

This is erroneous, as you are attempting to equate two completely different activities.


While people should cut down on frivolous and lazy use of their cars, there is no doubt that motor vehicles have a practical benefit to the driver and other people.

Smoking, on the other hand, is purely about self-gratification and has no benefit to anybody, other than the user. And - while there's nothing wrong with a bit of self-gratification every now and again
- if that activity has potential harmful effects, then it is only reasonable and civilised to just partake in it in private or only when other consenting adults are in the vicinity.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 





it needs to be ascertained whether smoke fumes can cause discomfort or illness to an unwilling bystander.


Said bystander has the ability to remove themselves from said environment.




it needs to be calculated whether the benefits of the activity outweigh the disadvantages.


Who do suggest get to be the one to make that calculation? The government? great, more intervention.



t seems logical for the law to favour the prohibition of smoking in public places.


Again, who decides whats best for the person? the person who smokes, ( who ultimately decides ) or someone who doesn't smoke and puts their slant or bias towards the habit?



Originally posted by HabaneroPepper Why does the right for those who dont smoke, trump the rights of those who do? ( see how I did that? yeah i just did that to your argument)


Actually I spun the question. Which you have yet to answer.



that there are two sides of the coin to this ''right'' that you are supposedly defending.


Though there are two sides to the coin, the right of the person to smoke or not smoke should be deemed up to that party. If the non-smoker can remove themselves from the toxins, let them use their legs. If the smoker wishes to be considerate, allow that person to leave.

Therefore, my argument of infringing on rights still holds merit.




top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join