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.


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

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:42 PM
reply to post by regor77

Hell, junk food might eventually become illegal. Then people would rob and steal in order to supply their addiction to black market twinkies.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:49 PM

Originally posted by HabaneroPepper
reply to post by RicoMarston

I understand what your saying, the argument could in fact go both ways. My point was that non-smokers rights should not trump the rights of smokers.

sure, and my point is that the public health should trump people's addictions.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:52 PM
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist

It's sad isn't it. I've changed my behaviors to the point that cigs are my last vice and now they have hit the endangered list too. If it wasn't for my kids I would have almost nothing left to live for lol.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 07:05 PM
reply to post by RSF77

Yes, it was a question.

I'm curious to know what you think my opinion actually is that makes it so dangerous? I agree with everything that you have said. I think that it is ridiculous for some things to be illegal when smoking and drinking are somehow perfectly fine. How is that opinion dangerous?

Common thought should say that if alcohol is legal, and if smoking is legal, then marijuana should be legal, and prostitution should be legal. If done in a safe environment and if done in moderation, then smoking becomes the most harmful behavior out of the other listed behaviors.

So really, smoking actually is more dangerous to people's lives than my opinion is because I'm actually in favor of smoking not being banned anymore than it already has been.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 07:08 PM
reply to post by regor77

I'm not much for telling someone how to live their life or anything, but imo having kids should be the prime reason for a parent to live for, and should also be another prime reason as to why a parent should not smoke... for a few reasons at that. Children learn things from their parents.

But then again isn't an addictive personality genetic? Not saying you're addicted or anything. For all I know you could be a casual smoker. I smoke once in a while myself.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 07:26 PM
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist

Getting more casual all the time mostly because of society's new limitations but I have picked up and put down many more dangerous habits seemingly at will. Nicotine is the devil but I have no desire to be 100% pure. I have voiced my desire to my children to abstain but I know in the end they will be faced with the same decision that I faced and tho i hope they will chose better than I, ultimately I will have to respect their decision when they reach adulthood. Also I cant imagine what is going to be controlled and illegal at that time. I'm sure it will not be the same world I grew up in by any means. Maybe that is a good thing, maybe it is not. Only time will tell.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 07:39 PM
Typically pathetically stupid answer from a smoker, but unfortunately the kind you expect from someone desperate to justify the unjustifiable ........

People die from Aspirin, should we ban all aspirin? ---- But people get saved from aspirin, no-one gets saved from smoking
People die from traffic accidents, should we ban all cars? ------ From people who drive recklessly and hurt others yes.
People die from alcohol, should we ban all alcohol? -------- When you drink you only damage your own liver. Not the person next to you.
People die from horse riding, should we ban horse riding? ------ They are called accidents idiot.
People die from skiing, should we ban skiing? ------------ Again called an accident . Really that the best you got.

The thing with smoking is "it is killing you", even in the smallest amounts. There is no accident or medicinal benefits being pursued. It is a suicidal activity you think is ok to force other people to do. No different than drinking then driving and running into someone.

The only difference is it is less dramatic, you get to kill yourself and others slowly.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 07:39 PM
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist

Because opinions aren't always necessarily in everyones interest, just the person with the opinion and the people that he influences. An opinion or a principle can catch on with a group of people regardless of how honest its intentions are, take the history of African American's for example: both lynch mobs and desegregation are both born from a group of peoples opinions, not both of those are ethically justified. The one that is was done in good intentions and is not invasive (it is rather the opposite) of a persons freedom is the only one that went down in the books as "a good thing".

I'm saying that everywhere you go (even the internet), you may influence people to think they have the right to invade on another persons life, and this is dangerous. So, everyone jumps on the "no smoking" bandwagon and makes it their personal goal to liberate everyone around them from the horrors of smoking. I see people do this first hand all the time just like the lady that decided to make it her personal crusade and step up to a guy that for anyone knows in todays restrictive world, on a bad day, may have killed someone.

These bans on everything based on peoples bad opinions are dangerous, impede the progress of our society and our ability to perform as a country and raise the level of danger as people will get more violent and rebellious. Not too mention how I already said it is unethical and even unconstitutional, because it invades another persons freedom and even their business establishment's (right to prosper).

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 07:49 PM
I have Cystic Fibrosis and find it incredibly uncomfortable to have to walk behind or near anyone walking down the sidewalk while smoking.

I personally think smoking should be banned in all public places. However, private establishments should have the option to either allow or disallow smoking in said establishment.

If I don't want to be around smoking, then I won't go to a smoking establishment.

But when I'm at college and encounter numerous jerks smoking next to various school buildings' doors (where it clearly states: "Don't smoke within 25 feet of doors), I get extremely angry, as do my lungs.

On the other hand, I also find that car exhaust seriously irritates my lungs, so either way I'm screwed!

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 07:57 PM
reply to post by onehuman

I fully endorse what this smoker did.
Said "crime" would have only been an infraction, one not fit for a citizens arrest.
There are people who train to make these arrests, and she was not one, so...
Good for him!
I think i'll mail him $100 for his fees.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 08:18 PM
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist

Broadening the subject, banning substances just makes a black market and breeds ignorance and glamour around the banned substance.

I seriously think all psychoactive substances should be at least decriminalized. They will be available and feed a criminal underclass and avoid taxes regardless of how many nannies there are out there.

If not a legal matter, but rather a health matter, then real information regarding the substance can be forthcoming and steps taken to preempt usage that doesn't involve prison. If abused and harmful, then real medical and psychiatric help can be made available without the legal concerns.

Do you know how many overdose deaths occur because a companion doesn't want to get busted? Most all. Some people think that's fine and it's evolution in action, but then how can you argue that you want to ban something for the common good?

It is a health matter and for many substances, not even that. Just one person's morality trumping anothers, and sometimes not even the majorities'.

People should stop imprisoning other people who make choices for their own bodies and minds that aren't generally popular. The pragmatic models in Europe where they have legalized and regulated harder drugs have resulted in a significant decrease in petty theft, disease and overdose deaths. Simply put, it works. Many junkies, for example, when able to get their "fix" at a minimal price and in clean environments actually become productive members of society. Shocking, but true.

Invoking another failed prohibition model is just creating more problems. Some people will want to change their consciousness (or just smoke), regardless of what other people want. Deal with it moralists and would be do-gooders.

Oh, arbitrary-I arbitrarily used your post... sorry 'bout that.

edit on 4/21/2011 by Baddogma because: adendumb

edit on 4/21/2011 by Baddogma because: and too many chemicals in the 80's

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 08:21 PM
Argh, now that I left lurker-dom and became a poster I have to say that in these early days of "sharing opinions" I get nervous how I will come across and everything! Reading the volleys back and forth and being shocked and/or laughing in private were so much easier! :-)

Anyway, I am a non-smoker. I have many friends that smoke (cigarettes among other things!) and I don't usually care. They are all polite when they visit and always take breaks from our discussions (that sometimes resemble ATS Threads! ) to take their smoke breaks out on the deck and I appreciate that. At their homes, I would never expect them to smoke outside though on several occasions they have asked if I preferred that and I have never said yes - it's their house!

When we go out to bars and clubs (or I guess I should say "when we WENT out" since I'm getting to be a boring old fogie and haven't been to a bar in years now - I just realized that, wow time flies!) - I just grinned and would bear it that I would be choking in the smokey environment and of course exposing myself to the countless cancer-causing toxins of which those helpful package labels educate us. And to be thorough - nearly 100% of the time, I'd also be exposing myself to alcohol, unhealthy snacks, the risk of altercations with drunk people, and other vices and dangers in addition to the smokey air - all of my own volition of course (not drunk driving - we did have Des Drivers and Cabs!). But back to the smoke, bad air, burning eyes, etc - Those things were gross, and even annoing at times, but I knew the deal and thus never bothered me that bad.

However, I will add - so no one thinks I'm all pro-cigarettes or anything - I am absolutely and completely grossed out by ashes, ash trays, butts, etc. I can't even touch/move an ashtray off a table we might grab at a club - my smoker friends would always have to move it for us, and usually laugh at my phobia. If I set a drink down to go dance or something (assuming I got drunk enough to do that), I never pick it back up, as I get paranoid someone could spit in it, put drugs in it (tho pretty sure if someone is going to risk incarceration for date rape, they'll pick someone hotter than me). And partly because several years ago a friend of mine told me a story about someone he was with who took drink a beer that he had set down - I literally can't think of it or I'll throw up - but to those who club - if you ever set down a drink - consider it done! For real! Subject change now -!

One last thing, of course I always knew the next morning when I woke up to pinch my nose if I forgot to dump my clothes in the hamper when I got home from the bar or club - that smell was REALLY nasty! And I'd even get a clean pillow case if I didn't shower when I got home because of the smoke smell in my hair (and I'm a dude with a super short hair!). So yes, plenty about the activity completely grosses me out.

And I say all that to show that not everyone who is a non-smoker has it out for smokers, and not all the behavior is based on ostensibly logical reasons (i.e. fear of cancer over repulsion at smoke smelling clothes and such). In other words, you can detest smoking and still respect the person.
So as bizarrely phobic as I am of certain aspects of smoking, I still got - and get - along with my friends who are smokers just fine. Sure, it is nasty at times, and the second hand smoke can be dangerous. So are car exhaust fumes and twinkies in abundance. But I don't see too many zealots banning cars or avoiding parking garages, or changing their diet and getting off their butts (behind butts) to a gym to get in shape. It's much easier to yell and blame someone for such things. Like some religious freaks, it often seems people love citing rules or commandements or such that back up their particular/current point or belief or desire....but don't necessarily count the BIG picture as meaningful or valid.

And to those who suggest going back to a world more free - but perhaps more clearly defined for those debating whether to enter an establishment for example- I think that is reasonable and actually a bit nostalgic for those more care free days. But of course I still think a world where we are all nice and kind to one another, to animals and to the world seems grand - yet it seems such a strange and ridiculous idea to so many others. It's so simple - be nice to everyone - but no, that's crazy talk.

I will add one last thing, and unfortunately this may initially sound a bit harsh for the smokers, but I'm not saying it mean-spiritedly. And that is simply - we have all the rules and regulations to protect so many from the apparent danger of cigarette smoke. But as other have pointed out above - even in the worst case scenario no one was forced to stay in a bar or smoking restaurant, etc. But the one place these rules don't reach (and shouldn't) is homes, and for people with spouses, children, and even pets (because yes, I care about animals and I know that perplexes and angers some of you) - these are the areas where these people and creatures you care about usually can't leave. And I am NOT trying to start some big debate or get down on smokers, not at all - I'm just saying that those who probably need rules passed for protection the most - kids - aren't helped by these laws because they don't go to clubs (Lohan offspring aside) and can't leave homes. So all I'm saying here is, as always,be considerate of those you care about, but like many government rules, ultimately = Fail!

In summary - enjoy your vices provided they aren't directly/adversely affecting someone else (can't really enjoy them unless that's the case anyway, so no big thing really!). And not all non-smokers are against all smokers, nor do we all think you are sad, addicted slaves to nicotine (I mean you may well be, but that's not how I see you). :-) you're just enjoying one of life's guilty pleasures and very few of those come without some sort of risk somewhere along the line - for anyone! And if we could all just be considerate of and genuinely kind to one another, such things wouldn't be an issue anyway.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Unit541

However, if you bum a ride from me, then complain when I light up, I'll be testing my new Knight Rider ejection seat. Come to a backyard barbecue at my place, and ask me, nicely or not, to not smoke, and you'll be shown the exit with a puff of smoke and a middle finger.

A car is closed space. Your passenger cannot safely get out until it has stopped moving.

How about politely letting your passenger know it has been 20 miniutes since your last cigarette, the lung cramps are coming on, you're feeling light-headed, vision is getting blurred, the only cure is another smoke, and you'd rather have that cigarette than crash your car for not lighting up in time! That way, they can make an informed choice between staying in your car while you smoke and asking you to pull over so they can get out before all hell breaks loose in there.

Your back yard and home are another matter. If they don't want to be exposed to the smoking they are free to leave with or without your permission or just move a safe distance away from the smoking area.
edit on 4/21/2011 by dubiousone because: spelling correction.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 09:32 PM
I won't get into debating the issue since the article describes absolutely nothing besides her getting hurt.

Like what if he was out near the end of the platform smoking the correct area and she just came up and kicked him in the balls and started screaming at him not to smoke.

What about if he was in the wrong place under the roof where it would have floated around to everyone and not out near the edge where there is no roof and you can just breath.

I have seen both of these happen with my own eyes.

Even on the first example the guy smoking was still arrested because she said he touched her breasts.

But my real point of all this is, Why did he go for a pen to attack with why didn't he go "Sure" Then put it out in her eye?


edit on 21-4-2011 by Gestas because: Other peoples ignorance.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 10:05 PM

Originally posted by onehuman
Ok, first I will post what brought me to making this thread and yes, once again I used the original title of article out of respect, but I really have more to say on the subject.

NEW YORK – A New Jersey woman was stabbed in the face with a pen on a New York City subway train after she tried to stop a man from lighting a cigarette. The assault occurred on a crowded No. 3 train near the Chambers Street station during Tuesday's morning rush. Witnesses told the Daily News and the New York Post that an argument quickly escalated when Evelyn Seeger asked the man not to smoke. The witnesses say two riders were trying to restrain the man when he pulled out a pen and slashed Seeger's face. Seeger, of Nutley, N.J., was treated at a hospital and released. Police charged the man with felony assault and criminal possession of a weapon.

Yes I quoted it all, but that is only because that was all there was to it, but here is the link if you must read it for itself. LINK

Now, do I agree with this? No. It is way over the top and uncalled for. The stabbing in the face part at least. Now I wasn't there and don't know all the factors of this particular situation, but I will venture a guess and say I highly doubt the non smoker said "Please if you don't mind." After all, this is Jersey and New York we are talking about here.

So, before I go any further, let me be the first to admit I am a smoker. I come from a time of owning a bar and even if I didn't, I could pretty much smoke anywhere. Then, one day, someone decided after years of it being ok, it wasn't. Just like that, and over night.

The non smokers have been heard and the laws changed. We went from one extreme to the other in a blink of the eye.

Now usually I am pretty aware of my surroundings if I am smoking and I mean this from the time when it was ok to smoke. If I knew it bothered someone, I did my best to keep it away from them. Out of respect and just being polite.

So lets us move forward so this isnt all long and drawn out. Now, I spend most of my time outside if I am out with friends be it a bar or out for dinner. My comfort zone and good time moment is pretty shot basically. For a smoker in that kind of environment is uncomfortable. For so long one was used to beer and cigs. go together. A smoke while out enjoying a meal relaxing, being yourself was a nice comfort zone. Getting up between beers or a serving is just as stressing I suppose as the ones that had to put up with the smokers to being with.

I am sure many of the smokers have run across that person that makes it obvious they don't like your smoking even in a place you can by waving their hands in front of their nose or the little cough cough thing. That is pretty annoying too.

I could go on and on here, the pros and cons, and yes I could quit and settle the problem, but the thing is, I don't Want to quit. If I did, I Would.I happen to Like Smoking period.

I sure dont go out as much now just because it is such a hassle to try and relax when I know I can't be myself. Screw that, Ill just stay home, no fuss, no muss.

What I really dont get it IS
why dont they just compromise? Put a sign on the door,"This is a smoking establishment," or This is a "Non Smoking establishment." Then water can seek its own level and the smokers wont bother the non smokers and visa versa. Is it really that tough to make it that simple? Or, this is a smoking flight and this one isn't. Book your preference.

I just dont think one extreme to the other is the answer when it could be settled so easily with a simple catering sign on the door.

Have we goten so complex that simplicity has fallen to the wayside?
edit on 20-4-2011 by onehuman because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-4-2011 by onehuman because: (no reason given)

This really doesn't warrant any discussion. The women asked him to stop smoking on a crowded sub way train and rightfully so. Smoking in such an environment is hazardous to everyone else's health; a very selfish act. As for you speculating if she was not polite about it, that is just your bias as a smoker. There is no indication that she was nothing but polite when dealing with the man. Lets assume she was rude, is putting everyone's health at risk just for your satisfaction, or some one saying knock it off conveyed in some arbitrary rude sentence so they don't have to breath in your poison more rude?

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 10:07 PM
Haha he was a crazy homeless man smoking a blunt (as he put it) and this woman wouldn't leave him alone.

Anyway with the smoking issue. I've seen many instances that favor both sides of smokers and non-smokers.

I've seen smokers chased to little out of the way smoking areas while the non-smokers even invade those areas and eventually succeed in getting the "smoking area" banned as well even though it was well away from them. I used to smoke and once while on some trails hiking I lit up at the end of a dead end trail (very much out of the way) and someone noticed I was smoking and made remarks about air quality and all. The thing is when this person noticed I was smoking he could have stayed away but, he came up within 10ft pretend coughing and gagging while complaining. He originally was well enough away where the smoke did not bother him.

I even had a lady bang on my car window while I was inside my car smoking in a parking lot and trying to get me to stop. I showed her a can of mace and she threw up her hands and gave up. In a lot of instances I've seen where non-smokers are merely being busy bodies and trying to dictate some sort of morality on smoking.

Most smokers I know these days are contentious and smoke away from others or try to. A lot of problems are they are their own worst enemies and they really litter up their smoking areas. In one company I worked for the smokers had a nice climate controlled/filtered room to smoke but, it was torn down and completely banned because they would not use the ashtrays and put the butts out on the floor and such as that. Nearly every designated smoking area that I have seen is like that. Companies do not like littered smoking areas at all. If you are a smoker and say other smokers do not toss butts on the ground you are lying.

I quit because the cigarettes cost too much with taxes on them continually going up. Strangely many of those "old lady" perfume types (overly floral/loud) makes me have strong allergic reactions but, not cigarettes. I passed out in the 80's when a girl in front of me at school was wearing "Electric Youth" (Debbie Gibson brand). I couldn't breathe and fainted.

This issue also makes me believe that eventually we are going to be pretty much controlled via insurance on all deemed risky behavior. My friend's workplace already does this (hospital). They cut out smoking and then went after weight and starting to add caffeine. First they offered incentives for not smoking, then banned it. They then offered incentives for weight reduction, then they have to weigh in for insurance evaluation and get reduced coverage for being overweight. Now they have incentive to reduce caffeine and have even considered removing coffee/snack machines. I suppose next they will examine your bar habits and sleeping partners eventually. As far as more smokers quitting, "Who is going to pick up that huge tax on cigarettes?" Why the fat people next on high calorie/sweets food. (my belief). They are also supposedly a burden to the public as well with heart disease, diabetes, etc. and special care when they become too obese to move on their own. I've noticed much more government action to get calories and such displayed at restaurants.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 10:40 PM
I would like to start this with, I am a smoker.
I agree with the sign policy someone mentioned it makes complete sense. If someone around you is smoking and you dont like it, move.
If you can't move, ask them politely if they cant put their smoke out. It's just plain stupid to get aggressive over someone asking you not to smoke.
This guy obviously has some problems, he wasn't going to die without a smoke.
Sure it's a free country, but seriously people you aren't going to die.

Oh and if people walking by you are smoking and you dont like it, quit being a baby, walk faster or a different way. Sheesh.
Smokers like breathing as much as non smokers.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 10:43 PM
reply to post by octotom

yeah, whatever. Lets see them go tax booze like that. Nobody is forcing me to buy tobacco, but they are forcing me to pay the tax. And what about people with mental disorders? They NEED smokes.

edit: and i don't care what you say, there is romance in them.

edit on 21-4-2011 by jetflock because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 10:50 PM

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
Typically pathetically stupid answer from a smoker, but unfortunately the kind you expect from someone desperate to justify the unjustifiable ........

People die from Aspirin, should we ban all aspirin? ---- But people get saved from aspirin, no-one gets saved from smoking
People die from traffic accidents, should we ban all cars? ------ From people who drive recklessly and hurt others yes.
People die from alcohol, should we ban all alcohol? -------- When you drink you only damage your own liver. Not the person next to you.
People die from horse riding, should we ban horse riding? ------ They are called accidents idiot.
People die from skiing, should we ban skiing? ------------ Again called an accident . Really that the best you got.

The thing with smoking is "it is killing you", even in the smallest amounts. There is no accident or medicinal benefits being pursued. It is a suicidal activity you think is ok to force other people to do. No different than drinking then driving and running into someone.

The only difference is it is less dramatic, you get to kill yourself and others slowly.

Last time I checked, most smokers don't enclose themselves and others in a small space, and smoke the life out of others. As for the alcohol statement, how many people have been killed in drunk driving accidents? Or been very injured in drunken fights? etc. Just about everything can kill you and others. If people want to kill themselves let them. If you dont want to be around smoke then move. If you choose not to move that's your choice to be killed slowly.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 11:45 PM
reply to post by jetflock

" Last time I checked, most smokers don't enclose themselves and others in a small space, and smoke the life out of others."

Yes the selfish bastards did. Which is why we had to pass laws to actually stop them. We have had to force them to be decent and polite.

"As for the alcohol statement, how many people have been killed in drunk driving accidents? Or been very injured in drunken fights?"

Yes and both of those actions are illegal ??????

A question for the retard smokers on here that have tried in vain to put up an argument....

Where you stupid before you started smoking, or did it make you stupid ? ( kinda chicken or the egg question )

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in