Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Smoking in public....should this be banned?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Ban it.

I will not endure the side effects from the habits of others.




posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
Ban it.

I will not endure the side effects from the habits of others.


Devils Advocate.

Then should you benifit from the tax revenue generated?



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Teller
The only premise to deny them the job is unsuitability


If youre a scientist who doesnt like working on lab rats you dont apply for a job were you do. You just find another position which is more suitable. You dont get hysterical about it saying their discriminating against me because i dont like working with lab rats. Its pathetic. The army in the UK runs an ad, which states if your not a certain kind of person then you need not apply.

No one is going to discriminate against a non smoker he should simply be asked if he minds working in a smoking environment, if he replys yes then he should be asked why he is applying for a job in a smoking environment "Because Mr non-smoker this is a smoking environment where people, who do and dont smoke, come to enjoy themselves". I find it very oppressive for anti smokers to do what they are doing. I have no problem with smoking in the work place in general, but this is a place of relaxation where people should be allowed to enjoy a smoke and a drink and a chat in an environment, which is relaxed.

Smoking in parks and outdoor places is even more ridiculous because there is no way that you would inhale enough second hand smoke to cause any harm. It was said earlier about a woman with her baby who moved out of the way of a smoker who had lit up on a pavement outside. That child would have already been inhaling poisonous fumes from the industrial world around him/her. This is an example of hysteria. The smoke would have wafted up, well it could have wafted anywhere, but the chances of it wafting into the mouth up the noise of that child and causing the child any harm..... [Of course i accept that the child may have had a health problem, but i would expect it was more to do with hysteria].

Which is the reason im using the word hysterical because that is what it is. IMHO

If they do ban it [which they will] then they must ban it in prisons as well. In fact they might as well ban it altogether. Some free world we live in eh.

As for the tax generated from smokers maybe they could use some of it to subsidise the pubs and clubs to install better ventilation systems.

Ill just say it again,

"The nail in the coffin for smokers will be as i said earlier. The ex smokers, as their numbers start to grow their misery and nastiness will force this ban into effect. It will be the same crowd that will agree to ID cards the same crowd that will let the governments stick veri chips in them. You see this crowd have been pressurized into quitting. They have been beat."

You see i know from experience and from the ex smokers i have met that the craving for a smoke never really goes away. To some ex smokers watching someone else light up is hellish.

The people who have just quit because of the resent publicity may have just sealed the fate of the free world. They have been beaten into submission. They may be healthier and richer but you have given in to government generated media pressure. Now they have done this they will do what they like.

Btw i do ride my bike about 10 miles a day and i smoke about 8 or 10 roll ups a day. A couple of those i enjoy with a drink.


Originally posted by The Teller
Oh right so Neanderthal man went outside his cave at 11am for a cigarette break then did he?
God I need a smoke!!!!!




1000 BC People start using the leaves of the tobacco plant for smoking and chewing. How and why tobacco was first used in the Americas no one knows. The first users are thought to have been the Mayan civilisations of Central America. Its use was gradually adopted throughout the nations of Central and most of North and South America.

6000 BC Tobacco starts growing in the Americas. Tobacco in its original state is native only to the Americas.


Link

Now they dont really know how far back smoking goes for all we know Neanderthal man might have gone outside and chucked a tobacco plant on the fire and inhaled. But it certainly goes back a lot further then the modern day cartels. It was my choice to smoke. No one forced me or brainwashed me. When i had my first smoke yes i may have thought it was cool at the time but as years went on i just found it was relaxing and a pleasure for me.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 12:58 PM
link   
IF THEY DO IT I WILL START SMOKING!!!!!



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kode


1000 BC People start using the leaves of the tobacco plant for smoking and chewing. How and why tobacco was first used in the Americas no one knows. The first users are thought to have been the Mayan civilisations of Central America. Its use was gradually adopted throughout the nations of Central and most of North and South America.

Oh that is right Americans only believe the world began a few centuries ago I forgot. Duh!
And my point about being able to take a potential employer is correct. To state you will not partake in experiments on Rats if you are a scientist is absurd. I forgot that there are a slew of scientists out there so conscientious about rats that they do not further any experiments.
The point is it would be illegal to deny somebody a job at a place of work if they did not smoke. This is LAW. It is not about suitability. You are not suitable to be a brain surgeon if you never took an exam in your life. That is suitability by skill. To be denied employment due to preference is against the law. It is the same as saying black people cannot apply for jobs at right wing clubs. If there went for that job and were told because of race they could not have the job it would be a solid legal case against the said club.
Figure this out. Smoking kills, second hand smoke kills. Smoking causes plenty of different diseases to smokers and non smokers. If you dismiss this then you are lying to yourself and are the worst kind of fool; a fool in denial due to his own mental weakness.
Cheers mate, have a ciggy on me.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I do not deny smoking causes serious harm. You should read my posts more carefully before you start calling me a fool, as your starting to sound hysterical. Mate.

As for the law well i dont know too much about that, and never claimed i did. But its ridiculous that they cannot come to some kind of arrangement where both parties are happy. Especially when it comes to pubs and clubs.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I have read your posts and was only citing the perception that you appear to making.That smoking is bad but so what, tough luck if you are a non-smoker, I don't care I will smoke regardless of what implications that has upon you.
And to say I was sounding hysterical is truly the funniest thing I have heard all weekend. To distance yourself from fact to assimilate an argument is the essence of hysteria. A look closer to home may prove a better model of this behaviour.
I too think there should be a sensible outcome to this problem. And my idea is this: If you want to smoke, fine it is your right, it is your money , it is your body. But to push that decision of accepting a drug that kills others upon the public is just wrong. So smoke in your own home, smoke in a friends house who thinks its okay, but keep it out of my lungs and let me work, socialise and dine in the air that is already polluted enough thank you



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Let me have a pint and a smoke in peace dont come to my bar open your own non-smoking bar, and let people make up there own minds.

So do you believe if your out in a park and someone is smoking 20ft away from you on an occasion that this will harm your body?



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Agreed The Teller ,

I am soon to be a recovering smoker , dad just was diagnosed with lung cancer that is NOT smoking related as far as him not being a smoker and not being in smoking environments . Mom will NOT accept my smoking , and it is my obligation to not kill myself in front of her .

I keep my smoking outdoors in social situation as to not impose my bad habit and second hand smoke on others . I do not smoke around children . It is an insideous and disgusting habit that has absolutely no good qualities and I am amazed that it is not a controlled substance . I became a smoker at age 30 , and for no good reasons . (Not that there is a good reason to smoke at all)

actually , I am not amazed ... There are billions of dollars to be made from addicts of all types , and the lobbyists and donations from tobacco companies add to the monitary corruption of our government . We are unlikely to see any changes in our lifetimes . It is up to the individual to do the right thing .

Should I be able to sue McDonalds if I am obese ? NO ! Should I be able to sue Phillip Morris for an addiction I have that they provide the substance for ? NO ! ( but I can stop buying KRAFT products in protest , another unhealthy mass marketed Phillip Morris product line) My choices are my responsibility , and it takes a strong will to JUST SAY NO to any addictive substances or habits I may have personaly formed .

In the mean time , while I ween myself from this killer habbit , I will keep my second hand smoke out of your lungs .

Like the old CSNY song says : " Teach your children well , their parents health will slowly go by "



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Public smoking IS banned in Utah..............
Cant smoke in parks! Youll get a ticket.
Cant do it on the street, or in certain bars and clubs.
All public buildings....smoking is a BIG no no.

MOST the bars and clubs have the ability to control the rules inside the club, so alot of clubs and bars allow for smoking. It brings them in alot of new customers who just want a coffee and a smoke.........
You CAN smoke in your car while driving but they will ticket you if they catch you tossing out a butt.
The streets ARE alot cleaner, and this has helped with litter quite a bit, and even though I am a smoker I never liked the litter.

I live in Utah and I am used to this now, for its been a few years since the ban was voted in.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Teller
If you dismiss this then you are lying to yourself and are the worst kind of fool; a fool in denial due to his own mental weakness.



While I agree that its pretty well founded now that smoking and second hand smoke have negative and deadly effects of the human body, I must still caution your insults to other members not in agreement with you. I realize you kinda danced around directly calling him a fool and mentally weak by sticking in a condition at the beginning but yes, we can all read between the lines.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 07:49 AM
link   
"Ban it.

I will not endure the side effects from the habits of others"

ya, just park your car and get into the habit of walking then!!!

I happen to like polar bears and really hate the idea that they won't be around to enjoy in about a century because of your bad habit. And, well, I am not reallly looking forward to having my insurance hiked up astonomically because all these rich idiots decide to rebuild their million dollar homes on coastland that often gets blown away by hurricanes or flooded and well according to the scientists will probably soon be under water because of this nasty dirty habit!

In other words take the 2x4 out of your own eye before you worry about the small sliver in mine!



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep

Originally posted by The Teller
If you dismiss this then you are lying to yourself and are the worst kind of fool; a fool in denial due to his own mental weakness.



While I agree that its pretty well founded now that smoking and second hand smoke have negative and deadly effects of the human body, I must still caution your insults to other members not in agreement with you. I realize you kinda danced around directly calling him a fool and mentally weak by sticking in a condition at the beginning but yes, we can all read between the lines.

I must protest an amount of innocence here. I was not insulting a member or any particular persons thoughts. The reason I did add the condition to the start of the sentence was to dispell this from the outset.
My comment was about the general wave of opinion that is surfacing in society that the effects of passive smoking are some kind of myth like unicorns or pots of gold at end of rainbows.
It was to say if you do deny these effects then you could be killing yourself andothers and only a fool would AGREE to this being a fair way to live. If I upset anybody then I am sorry, But the only message between the lines was that a large and growing portion of society are being fooled by Pro Smoking lobbies that what they are doing is A OK and the detremantal effects are a Big Lie.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Teller
It was to say if you do deny these effects then you could be killing yourself andothers and only a fool would AGREE to this being a fair way to live.

Okay.. I smoke, but I only smoke outside.. and I know what it will do to my health if I don't eventually quit. The thing is that air pollution seems to irritate my lungs alot more than the smoking does. If I go into the CBD I'm guarenteed to suffer from asthma for the next couple of days as the air is so poisoned you can actually see it [for some reason the smoking doesn't trigger asthma for me]. I can't turn around and tell people not to drive.. and when I catch public transport I can't tell the women who's saturate themselves with perfume to the point where it's offensive to leave.. [though I can tell the little giggleling little brats who spray the crap on the tram to stop or I'll ram it down their thoats]. There is a nasty chemical in some deoderants and it makes my lungs sting and I'll start gasping for air and have had to on occasional get of at the next stop.. yet despite all this.. I'll still cop greasy looks [for smoking] from someone standing ten metres away who's completely oblivious to the fact that they're breating in carsonegenics regardless. Sound fair?
If a non smoker gets cancer they'd be foolish to just blame it on smokers.. everything has chemicals and toxins in it.. you probably double your chances of getting cancer just by living in the city.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:08 AM
link   

by riley. you probably double your chances of getting cancer just by living in the city.

Yeah you're right. Why do you think that is? Denser population, more smokers, more confined spaces. I whole heartedly agree about the other points of pollution you mention too. But I think citing driving a car is a bit tenuous though. The FACT is that the PROOF shows smoking kills thousands and thousands of people directly and indirectly. It also causes many more ailments like heart disease etc. My only concern is that if you want to smoke then go ahead, I agree with your right to choose that option. However I do not agree that it is your right to pass that onto me if I choose not to smoke. To say well there is other pollution too why don't we ban everything is a cynical parrying of the argument that is used by smokers. What next murder is bad too so why don't we ban that...oh yeah we do, because it is not right for people to kill other people with no regard for their victims lives. Please don't address this saying I am spelling out between the lines that smokers are murderers either, I'm not. But if you know your INDIVIDUAL actions will harm or even kill an innocent person, tell me how call that be acceptable in a modern society??????



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Teller

by riley. you probably double your chances of getting cancer just by living in the city.

Yeah you're right. Why do you think that is? Denser population, more smokers, more confined spaces.

More smokers?! How about fuel emmisions, factories, air conditioners, electricity towers, phone towers and even houshold detergent etc. [i could list a thousand things and wouldn't have even begun.] A smoker wouldn't even make a dent in the pollution.

I whole heartedly agree about the other points of pollution you mention too. But I think citing driving a car is a bit tenuous though. The FACT is that the PROOF shows smoking kills thousands and thousands of people directly and indirectly. It also causes many more ailments like heart disease etc.

Do you really think governments that depend on people driving to work every day and truckers getting their deliveries in in order to keep society moving are really going to turn around and announce "hey by the way the pollution is highly toxic and could kill you."? Cigarrettes are poisonous but as far as govenment is concerned they are expendable.. oil is not.

My only concern is that if you want to smoke then go ahead, I agree with your right to choose that option. However I do not agree that it is your right to pass that onto me if I choose not to smoke. To say well there is other pollution too why don't we ban everything is a cynical parrying of the argument that is used by smokers. What next murder is bad too so why don't we ban that...oh yeah we do, because it is not right for people to kill other people with no regard for their victims lives. Please don't address this saying I am spelling out between the lines that smokers are murderers either, I'm not. But if you know your INDIVIDUAL actions will harm or even kill an innocent person, tell me how call that be acceptable in a modern society??????

Er.. I did say I smoke outside.. if someone walks past I don't exactly blow smoke in their face and it'd be a bit ridiculous for them to turn around twenty years later and mark me as the cause of their ails because they saw me with a smoke in my hand.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by riley]



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   
to riley. You seem to be arguing against points with me that I agreed with you about. I do feel there is far too much diverse pollution in our cities and countries as a whole. I do agree fuel emissions from cars is toxic. So what is your point?
YOu say you stated you only smoke outside. I was not addressing you personally , but smokers as a whole. To enforce individual life threatening habits upon bystanders is a moral crime, so why not a lawful crime?
And by the way I don't think there is a need to ban smoking outdoors, this thread is about smoking in PUBLIC places. But I stiill find it annoying when I am in a park enjoying the fresh air it is ruined by some impolite smoker blowing their smoke in my face. I think ban it in enclosed public places, and smokers accepting there is a duty to smoke responsibly in outdoor spaces.Simple, I don't see the problem with that.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Smoking ban is scuppered 15th November 2004

I am pleased, but its not good enough. I still adhere to what i said earlier about ex smokers, so i know this wont last forever. They reckon [and im not a big believer in polls] that 42% of the public backed the smoking ban in pubs. Establishments will have to posses a license permitting them to allow people to smoke, but smoking in restaurants will be banned and in pubs that serve prepared food. [Which i have no problem with]

I do agree with you on one point. Blowing smoke in someones face is wrong and not something most smokers would do. Certainly not something i would do. I do respect people who dont smoke, but also ask they respect me to, and have a little knowledge about how low the risk of harm to them is, when around a person who is smoking near them, in a reasonably ventilated space.

You have said [The Teller] that second hand smoke or passive smoking is harmful to non-smokers. In part you are right but not as right as you would like to be. Although the effect of smoking on the individual who smokes has been proven to be fatal for some, the effects to the health of non-smokers through passive smoking have always been controversial. Sure you may be able to find me several respected reports that confirm passive smoking does harm, but it will always be controversial because of the differances within the scientific results.

The link below is an essay by a doctor regarding passive smoking and also covers anti-smokers.

The parallels - and differences - between Nazi Germany's 'war on cancer' and New Labour's crusade against the evil weed. 15th November 2004



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 06:22 PM
link   
smoking makes me mad i almost died from it i culd not get a breath cuss i whas coughing so hard and all i remember whas me looking in a mirror and i whas so pale i looked like a ghost i think smoking shuld be band.


[edit on 15-11-2004 by bloodlust11009]



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by kode

I do agree with you on one point. Blowing smoke in someones face is wrong and not something most smokers would do. Certainly not something i would do.

Yes I know you and probably most smokers would not do this intentionally. But do you realise how often just out shopping, or walking you walk past a person and get a mouthful of their smoke, Maybe this is only something non-smokers realise. Maybe smokers see it a quick freebie.




You have said [The Teller] that second hand smoke or passive smoking is harmful to non-smokers. In part you are right but not as right as you would like to be.

I find this comment immature and patronising. To suggest I am looking for reasons or scapegoats to bolster my opinion is incredible. I feel like most people on here whatever their opinion on whatever subject; they like to deal in facts, not fantasy. I have no wish to believe a huge lie that I know is wrong to use as a statistic to enable my argument. I wish it was wrong. I wish there were no such thing as passive smoking, or cancer even to smokers. But I'm afraid the only way I will achieve that wish is if smoking was never introduced in the first place.

And yes there are differences between individual scientist and scientific groups to the extent of the results of passive smoking. If I were you I would try and research which scientists and scientific communities were endorsed, even through back channels by the large Tobacco industries.
I mean anti smoking equated to the Nazi ideology. Give me a break and not a cigarette break either.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join