Should Smoking Be Banned?

Originally posted by ObamasLoveChild
Tough. At this point going outside is hazardous to your health. Just because you don't like someones actions doesn't give you a right to infringe upon them.

Oh, the irony.

What's with all the anti-smoking stuff recently?

Over the last week, I've noticed a huge increase in anti-smoking threads and commentaries on about 10 different boards/newsblogs. Is there a campaign on or something? Or is it just one of those internet things, where everyone does the same thing at the same time for no reason?

reply to post by prototism

Irony? That's it? You rant and rave about your rights, poo on mine, and the best you can do is point out the irony of the situation.

I'll give you irony: I'm not a smoker. I'm sure not going to give away my choices to become so. I can understand that, like it or not, other people have the right to make choices that I don't agree with.

Like I said, if the business you choose to patronize allows smokers, it's your very own personal right not to shop there.

I used to smoke on and off until about 2 years ago. I havent had a cigarette since. I stopped because i like to keep fit and smoking was making me cough up phlem after every workout. And it was nearly £5 for a packet of 20, and i thought it wasn't worth it.

But the way I see it, I dont want to smoke. Other people DO want to smoke, and it is there choice. I aint going to stop them, most smokers are considerate enough. As long as they dont smoke when im eating or in the car with the window up Im happy.

I dont think the amount of people have quit that the government say, more people just smoke imports now. You can get 200 cigs for £20 'under the counter' but I bet its over £50 in the shops. So more and more people buy it imported. Cant blame them either!!

The real problem is that you want to control other peoples behavior by dictating what they can and can not do.

Banning smoking around non-smokers is perfectly OK. Controlling what people do to themselves in private is not OK.

If smoking were outlawed you would just move on to something else because the real truth is that you are a crusader. You would continue to find new things in other peoples behavior you want to control.

We see examples of this all the time. Taking peoples children because they are overweight. Campaigns to control what people eat and what they can buy to eat. Bullying people who are overweight or different.

Skiing, snowboarding and things like mountain climbing kill people. Are you an advocate of outlawing those activities. When mountain climbers die and they often do, where is the outcry because they leave spouses and children behind and it costs a small fortune trying to rescue them?

When you are opposed to something that has no direct impact on you, it is bigotry by control freaks, not concern for their welfare. You get off on the control aspect of it.

I don't know about the UK, but in the US smokers pay far more in taxes than the costs of their health care. That is the dirty little secret the anti-smoking people hide. When the States sued the tobacco companies, they used the added health care costs as a reason but ignored the fact that smokers pay more than enough in added taxes to cover it. They even lie to themselves about those facts so they don't have to face the truth about themselves. The truth that they just get off on controlling other people.

The States who got all that money DID NOT spend it on smokers health care. They use it in their general fund to benefit things and people who have nothing to do with smoking. They lied in court to get it and then do not use it to benefit the victims? Come on now. How transparently full of crap do they have to be?

This whole concept of control is out of control. Atheists are trying to eliminate religion. Fat people are discriminated against at a level equal to any the Blacks ever experienced and it is just as evil; just as wrong.

I've learned to ignore and even pity these people because their own self-esteem must be almost nonexistent for them to have so much hate towards anyone seen as being different.

When you look at a smoker ask yourself, do you look past that before you judge them or do you stick your nose up in the air and assume they are beneath you? When you meet a fat person, do you treat them with the same attitude and regard you would a fit athletic person. That will tell you if you truly care or if your true motive is to control others because you consider yourself superior or if you are covering for your own lack of self-esteem.

Originally posted by ObamasLoveChild
reply to post by prototism

 

Irony? That's it? You rant and rave about your rights, poo on mine, and the best you can do is point out the irony of the situation.

I'll give you irony: I'm not a smoker. I'm sure not going to give away my choices to become so. I can understand that, like it or not, other people have the right to make choices that I don't agree with.

Like I said, if the business you choose to patronize allows smokers, it's your very own personal right not to shop there.

Generally, I don't disagree with anything you say. But when it comes to second hand smoke, I do not want to breathe it in.

I don't deny that more and more smokers are becoming more and more considerate. There are just a few die-hards (no pun intended), and Devil's Advocates who first fail to see the difference in speaking in generalities vs speaking specifics, and second, fail to see that their choices can and do affect others' physical health.

If you think I am saying they should not smoke at all, not even in private, you are sadly mistaken. They can do whatever the hell they want in private. I will not be there. They cant affect my health in private. Then again, if they have a family, does that give them the right to harm their own family? Do the children have rights to their own health?

[edit on 12/13/2008 by prototism]

reply to post by Blaine91555

Much more eloquently put, and my point exactly. As I've watched each constitutional right vanish, I seem to get more and more testy about the remaining few.

Sorry to get the hackles up.

reply to post by Blaine91555

sorry double post.

[edit on 13-12-2008 by ObamasLoveChild]

reply to post by WyrdeOne



Thanks for this post, it said much of what i was thinking. i would be very interested to know if at all possible, of any diseases caused directly by smoking that occured prior to the modern processing og tobacco.
For example, did native americans have incidents of cancer (of any type come to think of it) as a result of smoking tobacco.
Anyone got info ?

Right their has been alot of talk about the facts i have got and that they are apparently false and if that is the case i do hereby apologize for that because the last thing that i want to di is spread around false information i just want to state my belief that smoking in my opinion shouldnt be around anymore because of what it does to you

and yes if you want to smoke that is intirely your choice i just want everyone to know what they are doing to themselves when they are smoking

I see no one talking about car exhaust here. There are more cars than smokers, which means more harmful fumes and every time the smoking debate comes up, cigarette smoke is painted as such a god-awful thing. The fact of the matter is, millions of people have smoked for CENTURIES and second hand smoke has only now become a catch phrase for people (kind of like global warming :lol.

Non-smokers are so quick to get rid of cigarettes because they are not giving anything up. Lets be fair here, if smokers give up cigarettes then non-smokers give up fossil fuel burning engines whether it be a car or lawn mower. As the arguement goes, I shouldn't have to breathe in your car fumes, as I am a non-driver.

Note: I do not support the banning of anything mentioned here. Everything is just for arguements sake, even though the tobacco banning individuals will disregard this and say it is completely different issue, which it is not.

This has nothing to do with governments concern for citizens and everything to do with trying to see how far into peoples private lives they can get. Why does the government have the right to go into your business and tell you that you can't allow smoking when they themselves are making money off it. What hypocrites! If it's that deadly BAN IT! It's just little by little, bit by bit people falling into line and becoming the sheeple the governments want.

"When they came for the Jew's I didn't care I wasn't Jewish..."

Originally posted by Blaine91555
This whole concept of control is out of control. Atheists are trying to eliminate religion. Fat people are discriminated against at a level equal to any the Blacks ever experienced and it is just as evil; just as wrong.

I've agreed with you on the smoking part, but not this specific paragraph.

Atheists are trying to eliminate religion? Where? Do you mean on a personal level, or a law/constitutional change kind of level? The first, maybe, but I've never seen atheist politicians trying to ban religion. Point me to some evidence of atheists trying to eliminate religion.

Are you seriously saying that fat people have received the same amount of discrimination as black people have? Have fat people been used as slaves? Have fat people been denied usage of facilities because they are fat? Have fat people been separated from average/skinny people in schools?

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
You want to entertain the illusion that our shopping malls and bars and restaurants will be healthy once all the smokers are gone, knock yourself out, but for God's sake, leave the policy-making to people with active, firing neurons.

Actually, proprietors of Australian entertainment venues who were against the indoor smoking bans have been amazed to find their patronage has increased.

They had no idea how many non-smokers had been avoiding going out because they couldn't enjoy themselves in the smoke-filled environments.

Originally posted by Kailassa
Actually, proprietors of Australian entertainment venues who were against the indoor smoking bans have been amazed to find their patronage has increased.

They had no idea how many non-smokers had been avoiding going out because they couldn't enjoy themselves in the smoke-filled environments.

I would like to see some info corroberating this. In Canada places have been going out of business because of the smoking ban that the gov't presses on them.

reply to post by ninthaxis
Oh come on. The "pollution" argument is ridiculous. Both smokers and non smokers are suffering from factors beyond our individual control, beyond our individual choice. The difference is black and white.

One is an individual choice that affects others (one group directly, one group indirectly) [smoking], while the other is not an individual choice that affects both groups equally [pollution]. Those are some fundamental differences, that can simply not be ignored by any rationally thinking person.

In other words, according to the smokers logic, if we non smokers should stay inside, or away from public places because of their smoke, we all should stay inside to avoid the existing pollution. Both sides would agree that that is a preposterous notion.

[edit on 12/13/2008 by prototism]

reply to post by Anti - Government


Everyone who smokes DOES know what they are doing to themselves, and it is still their choice to do so. Trust me, smokers know the "statistics" and the "results" and the "health concerns" far better than most non-smokers do.

why? Because they're hit by them all the freakin time by people who feel they have a right to throw their opinions in their faces every time they hear a lighter strike.


Want some interesting facts on bans and how they affect people?

In the town i live in, we have MANY bars. We're known as the city of bars and churches, for a reason lol. We have, literally, a bar on every corner, and a church on the other side, on every street in our town.


5 years ago, the city imposed smoking ordinances. They changed the laws so that bars and restaurants which wished to cater to smokers still could, provided they made an area seperate for smoking. The bars and restaurants here spent a VERY large amount of money to renovate their buildings to provide seperate smoking and non-smoking areas for their customers.

Many had to take out loans to do so, and are still paying for them.

Last year, they once again changed the laws, this time banning smoking from public places altogether. And those bars and restaurants which renovated to cater to the changes that had been made previously were now completely out their money. Thing is, two members of the city council came out with the information that the council originally wanted it to be a total ban as it is now, but decided that the public would outcry too much about it, and so the partial ban was put into place.

So these people knew 5 years in advance of their new law, that they would eventually put it into place, and did a partial ban in the meantime, which cost their constituent businesses a large amount of funds.

5 miles away from our town is another town, not very large, but thriving. This town has quite the number of bars and restaurants as well, though of course not as many as our town has. That town has no bans, whatsoever, and refuses to do so (good on them, its personal choice). Give you one guess as to what has been happening here?

There have been a large number of restaurants and bars in our town which have had to close down because of lack of business, and the town over there? You guessed it.. they're thriving. Why? Because people can drive a simple 5 miles away to be able to smoke where and when they wish. All the smokers businesss has gone over there.


Here's my opinions, in relation to restaurants and bars. Restaurants, if they choose to ban smoking in their place, is understandable, and I have no issue with either rests. or bars choosing on their own to have smoking or not in their business. IT IS THEIR CHOICE as a business. Many non-smokers complained that the bars needed to be non-smoking because they did not "want to share the air" with smokers. And yet, isn't that a choice they could make on their own? Why have a need for a banning on a governmental level?

There were rests. and bars here that had non-smoking, and yet people did not cater to them. That was their choice, but they could have gone there.

If you go to a bar, you are obviously over the age to choose to smoke or not. If you take your kids to a restaurant, you could argue they have no choice but to breathe in the smoke, because they are forced into the situation.. BUT if you go to a bar, you obviously cant take the kids there, and its totally YOUR CHOICE to go or not.


*sigh*

I have seen my town go downhill in a big way because of banning smoking, and I have seen the town 5 miles away THRIVE since the day the ban was put into place. And it is beause of non-smokers feeling they had a "right" to force THEIR personal choices on everyone else that it is happening.


People need to see it for what it really is.

[edit on 13-12-2008 by Jomina]

Originally posted by prototism
In other words, according to the smokers logic, if we non smokers should stay inside, or away from public places because of their smoke, we all should stay inside to avoid the existing pollution. That is preposterous.

No. What's ridiculous is that businesses are being forced to run their business, not as they wish but at the hands of the anti-smoking lobby because they might want to go there. Try to have a smoking location and see what happens.

[edit on 13-12-2008 by intrepid]

Yes, ban smoking in all public places.

In your own home do as you want.
Likewise I agree with the poster who says growing your own tobacco and hemp should be legal. And selling or giving it to your friends, yes.
Making a business of it raises some questions tho.

I understand that tobacco leaves are an excellent source of B Vitamins and can be used on food in small amounts.
Anyone know about this?
I've not been able to find a source of seeds.
Are there different kinds of tobacco?
Indian tobacco? Is that the same thing?

reply to post by Jomina


An interesting side-note to the bars and the bans here, is that there is one bar which refuses to comply with the smoking ban here and has to pay a daily fine for non-compliance.

They are famous around the country and a large number of big bands, comediants, etc come to that entertainment place to perform. They're exceedingly popular in the town, biggest place here.

Anyhow, i find it interesting that they're refusing to comply, and have found their business has gone up in numbers in almost the exact same way as the other bars in the other town i mentioned have. Like exact percentages, since the day of the ban.

And yet the city council says that those numbers are arbitrary and mean nothing, and that the ban has proven to increase the amount of revenue generated by the city.