It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by HabaneroPepper
reply to post by RicoMarston
one who is doing nothing to harm or annoy those around them, and one who is performing a conscious action which does annoy and harm those around them,
Again, can the non-smoker remove themselves from said situation? odds are yes. The fact still remains people, that those whom do not smoke, can in 99% of all situations, get up and leave. So whats the problem. If a smoker wants to smoke, that his/her right. If the a non-smoker doesnt like it...leave. Not a difficult concept to grasp?
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
There's a certain inevitability to where this thread is going, so I might as well ask...
Why do you believe that you have the ''right'' to emit potentially harmful chemicals on unsuspecting and non-consenting members of the public ?
Why does your self-proclaimed ''right'' to indulge in this activity trump the ''right'' for people to walk about without needlessly being subjected to harmful toxins ?
Originally posted by thedeadtruth
No evidence.... How about intelligence ?
(1) The first day you ever went to school, the first thing they ever teach you is if there ever is a fire, " get on the floor and crawl out because the smoke will kill you " It is part of a global curriculum for children.
Are you suggesting you never went to any school in any county ? ( If so it might account for your absence of intellect ).
(2) Smoke is an irritant, even outside. The first logical thing you would do is make sure you are downwind of everyone else before lighting up.
Manners + Intelligence = non-issue.
No manners + lack of intelligence = this conversation.
Important point...... So you ignore the above and site " no research " blah blah blah....What would you do if research was released showing it does kill people. Offer to set yourself on fire in public out of shame for hurting innocent people your whole life.
I think not. I think you just don't care for anyone but yourself.
Originally posted by leo123
I can guarantee you that non-smokers, "emit (FAR MORE) potentially harmful chemicals on unsuspecting and non-consenting members of the public", through their regular daily activities such as driving and the pollution caused by the goods they consume - than any smoker does.
How would you like it if some zealot took away your right to drive a car using the same logic they used to ban smoking?
edit on 21-4-2011 by leo123 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by kdog1982
Why don't they just ban cigarettes?
They banned my clove cigarettes ,as soon as Obama took office.
Then I got them imported from overseas,as long as customs didn't find them.
Then a few months later,they found a loop hole and made little clove cigars.
It's ok to have flavored cigarettes as long as they are wrapped in tobacco
and not paper.
What kind of idiocy is that??????
If the goverment wants to ban cigs from almost everywhere,
why not just make them illegal?
Because of money.