I don't know if there's any posters out there that are dealing with this kind of thing, but there's much talk in the local council to ban smoking in all public places here in Saint John. Fredericton, the capital of NB, has already passed the bylaw which will take effect in the spring. I think that the local council is going to wait and see what happens in Fredericton before passing any bylaws here. This would mean that there'd be no smoking in any restaurants or bars in the city. I personally think this is a great idea, but there are a lot of people that are against the idea, smokers and non. What's your opinion on this?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
It is passing through the US also, soon here anyplace that serves food will be smoke free.... except for burnt food....
As long as they don't go overboard and try making it so you can't smoke outside, which I have heard someplaces have tried or done. Forcing people to quit smoking is all they are doing, diesel exhaust is also a carcinegen, so we should force those off the market....
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
The world would be better off without cigarette companies.
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
They should just ban cheap cigarettes.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Delaware passed legislation banning all indoor smoking in public areas last year, and it went into effect about a month ago. From what I've heard some people are still pissed about it, but I'm quite glad. Secondhand smoke irritates the hell out of me; I wish they'd just ban cigarettes completely and be done with it.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
So, you want to tell me that I can not smoke in my own home??? WTF...
Joining up with Homeland Security next???
Diesel exhaust is just as bad for you, so you better get those trucks off the road to, since it isn't safe for you.....
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher: I don't know if there's any posters out there that are dealing with this kind of thing, but there's much talk in the local council to ban smoking in all public places here in Saint John. Fredericton, the capital of NB, has already passed the bylaw which will take effect in the spring. I think that the local council is going to wait and see what happens in Fredericton before passing any bylaws here. This would mean that there'd be no smoking in any restaurants or bars in the city. I personally think this is a great idea, but there are a lot of people that are against the idea, smokers and non. What's your opinion on this?
I think it's a FANTASTIC idea!! They've banned all smoking in areas where people eat here - but some places you've still got people outside smoking. It's like WTF - hello it travels!
I wish they would ban it in public. I espcially hate how thoughtless idiots chuck cigarette buts out car windows. That's how many bushfires get started.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: So, you want to tell me that I can not smoke in my own home??? WTF...
Joining up with Homeland Security next???
Diesel exhaust is just as bad for you, so you better get those trucks off the road to, since it isn't safe for you.....
Well you don't have exhaust fumes just cropping up anywhere and everywhere. Want to get down behind a car and suck in the fumes - that's up to you. Thoughtless bastards who blow their feral smoke over you are everywhere. It's a manners thing - people should retaliate on smokers and fart on them! LOL!
And if you want to smoke at home - make sure it doesn't frigging blow over the fence and into the next door neighbour's house. We had these chain-smokers that used to live next door to us. They'd go outside to smoke, except the smoke just used to blow straight into my fekking room. Bastards.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: They'd go outside to smoke, except the smoke just used to blow straight into my fekking room. Bastards.
Garden Hose!!
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: So, you want to tell me that I can not smoke in my own home??? WTF...
I never said anything about a private home, and I would not approve of such a law anyway -- it would violate the principle of a person's home being their "castle."
However, smoking in any outdoor public areas should be banned as well -- mainly because now that people can't smoke in indoor public spaces, they decide to smoke right outside the front door that I have to go through to get where I'm going -- basically forcing me to be exposed to that same awful, irritating secondhand smoke.
And don't tell me to hold my breath when I walk past. That's annoying as hell.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Bollocks.
It's the most un-enforcible law ever. If smokers wish to smoke outside, they will, and they should. Who's gunna stop them? This is a violation of rights, surely.
If this law is to be passed, then all foreign airborn pollutants should be banned - factory smoke for example, car fumes.
quote:Well you don't have exhaust fumes just cropping up anywhere and everywhere.
Er, just go outside anywhere, in any built up area in the world! The pollution is there, everywhere, even though you might not smell it always. And they can be far more dangerous, far more toxic.
quote:Thoughtless bastards who blow their feral smoke over you are everywhere
That's completely different. It is, as you said, a manners thing. If they deliberately blow smoke on you, and you don't like it, it's their thoughtless fault. Punch them. Most sensible people are thoughtful enough to be descrete.
If you don't like it, it's too bad. Catching an occasional smell of smoke on the free airs of the outside world will not hurt you. It may simply be an irritant. As are cellphones. Some things in life just suck. I'm afraid most of us just have to deal with it.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
while its obnoxious, i dont think that we should have the government do anything about it.
do you want the gov't to restrain the citizens any more? i dont support many gov't limitations on citizen conduct. this needs to be done on the level of the community, or by the building.. basically, the building's best interest is to make sure that smokers and non-smokers can enter and operate with minimal annoyance.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Right. We can end the 'smoking in public' problem by good old-fashioned vigilanteism. Who's got the board with a nail in it? Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
vigilanteism is hardly the answer.. businesses should want to keep there doors clear for those who want to enter. the knowledge that their policy is losing them money would be more incentive for a building to ban doorway smoking than a government regulation.. public buildings would of course be regulated by a government policy on the matter, but having the government step in and straitjacket private businesses or even worse, private homes, is a fearful concept for me. we need less regulation and more responsibility.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
If that law was passed where I live I would leave the friggin country. I'm serious. It would be a violation of rights, indicative of a dictatorship. What law would be next? CapMike is correct, this would be quite frightening.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Red Admiral: Bollocks.
It's the most un-enforcible law ever. If smokers wish to smoke outside, they will, and they should. Who's gunna stop them? This is a violation of rights, surely.
Sorry, but, how's it bollocks? In many places it's illegal to drink out in public. How's that different? Or laws against going out in public naked?
I don't think there was anything in the oh so amazing constition about smoking. Thereby your rights are determinded by current law. And if a law is passed banning smoking in public, then you don't have a right to smoke in public.
quote:If this law is to be passed, then all foreign airborn pollutants should be banned - factory smoke for example, car fumes.
In the same way that because marijuana is illegal, all drugs of any sort should be made illegal? Factory smoke is a by product of industry. Car fumes are a by product of people driving cars. Smoking is a side product of someone trying to give themselves cancer. There's a difference.
quote:Originally posted by The Red Admiral: If that law was passed where I live I would leave the friggin country. I'm serious. It would be a violation of rights, indicative of a dictatorship. What law would be next? CapMike is correct, this would be quite frightening.
What? More of a dictatorship than the banning of drinking in public? Or the fact that your postman might be spying on you?
Also, really, are you serious? Cause if so, I'll quite happily have a bet of seven thousand pounds that if the law passes, you'll still be living in the US 1 year later.
(As an aside, I should point out that I may or may not agree with this law. But silly shouting about some sort of imagined rights is plainly silly.)
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
You must understand that smoking isn't obnoxious, nor drinking, it is in the unfortunate event that someone who is irresponsible or indiscrete, in such an event, that is.
This means that those that aren't irresponsible, who are indiscrete with it, who are penalised. That is what I'm against.
Also, I do not live in the US, but in the UK. Such laws as bans on smoking and drinking in public are generally frowned upon as being an act of depiriving us of our civil liberties. And don't pull the contitution card on me, I'm not bound by it.
And yes. I will see that bet. If such an insane law came to my shores, then I will smoke, happily, until I get a criminal record, and then bye bye, I will leave. I refuse to live under such oppression. But that won't happen. A), because our government have neither the nerve, pettiness, or public support to impose such a law, and B), the police would not waste a minute of their precious time apprehending people who happen to be smoking in public. If they did, there would be a civil war, I tell you!
Ban handguns for f*** sake. Spend some time thinking over that issue why don't you.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
As it stands around here, the only opposition to the bylaw is really smokers and owners of bars who get a lot of business from smokers...
I myself won't visit bars for the main reason that they're just too smoky. Most of the patrons in the bar smoke and it just hangs in the air and doesn't go anywhere. Most of the places around here have an airlock at the front entrance so you can wipe your feet and not let cold air in in the winter, so the smoke doesn't even get a chance to go outside.
Another thing that may decide to pass the bylaw is how much business the newest bar in the city gets. It's a non-smoking facility from the get-go. Now that bar I might go to. Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Red Admiral: You must understand that smoking isn't obnoxious, nor drinking, it is in the unfortunate event that someone who is irresponsible or indiscrete, in such an event, that is.
Except, well, it is. Have you ever been at the bus stop next to someone who is smoking? Or walking down the street? You get a lungful of obnoxion right there.
quote:Also, I do not live in the US, but in the UK. Such laws as bans on smoking and drinking in public are generally frowned upon as being an act of depiriving us of our civil liberties. And don't pull the contitution card on me, I'm not bound by it.
Actually, most people I know of don't mind the anti drinking in public rule (except outside of pubs and stuff, obviously). The smoking is a bit more varied, usually depending on whether the person as asthma or not.
And, er, I'm also in the UK.
quote:And yes. I will see that bet. If such an insane law came to my shores, then I will smoke, happily, until I get a criminal record, and then bye bye, I will leave. I refuse to live under such oppression. But that won't happen. A), because our government have neither the nerve, pettiness, or public support to impose such a law, and B), the police would not waste a minute of their precious time apprehending people who happen to be smoking in public. If they did, there would be a civil war, I tell you!
In the same way that there was when lots of cities banned drinking on the streets?
Also, I have memories of several people swearing blind that they'd leave the country if Labour ever got back into power. Strangely, 5 years later, they still seem to be here.
quote:Ban handguns for f*** sake. Spend some time thinking over that issue why don't you.
Fuck. Although shouldn't that be f***'*? And, er, I'm still British. So, y'know, calm down.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Red Admiral: [QB] You must understand that smoking isn't obnoxious, nor drinking, it is in the unfortunate event that someone who is irresponsible or indiscrete, in such an event, that is.
No? Tell me, if someone parked a huge truck next to you and left it running, and the exhaust was just wafting around... wouldn't you be pissed off and want them to stop?
Smoking is even worse, for that matter -- because it's something people choose to do for whatever idiotic reason. If they wanted to try some other method of getting their nicotine fix, I certainly wouldn't approve of it, but at least I wouldn't be forced to share it with them.
quote:This means that those that aren't irresponsible, who are indiscrete with it, who are penalised. That is what I'm against.
The whole problem with smoking anywhere in public is that it IS irresponsible, it IS indiscrete, and it IS offensive to others.
Also, have you ever heard of the Eighteenth Amendment of the US Constitution? It never worked that well and was certainly a bit of an overreaction in some respects (not to mention was eventually repealed by the 21st Amendment), but it's a historical precedent in the US.
The point is that secondhand smoke is offensive and a condition that is inflicted on someone by others. I don't care if they blow it directly at my face or simply stand upwind from to me -- they're still causing me harm.
As for your analogy of truck exhaust, that's not completely applicable because it's a byproduct of machinery for various operations. Certainly it's not the most desirable situation, and I would not object to any laws encouraging cleaner systems -- but there's no reason in that to forbid any ban on public smoking. They're two wholly separate situations.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Banning cigarettes? How on Earth are we supposed to afford Gulf War 2 without sin tax revenue?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Ten years ago I moved from Minnesota, where indoor antismoking laws are very strict because of the cold weather, to Japan, a veritable smoker's paradise. I was used to being able to go an entire day without having to smell smoke and get the stink in my hair and clothing. But in Japan, smokers light up everywhere: in hospitals, restaurants, train platforms etc. You can't escape the smell. Even 40% of doctors smoke. The streets are littered with butts and phlegm hacked up by smokers. While walking down the street you run the risk of getting burned by cigarettes waved around by oblivious smokers (this has happened to me several times). However, the adult male smoking rate has finally fallen below 50% and we are starting to see more nonsmoking areas in restaurants and offices. One area of Tokyo has even instituted nonsmoking zones in the streets. City employees (in teams to resist the wrath of smokers) will force you to pay a 2000 yen (16 dollar) fine on the spot if they catch you smoking in a outdoor nonsmoking area.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Wow, a bit more of a reaction than I had anticipated....
By banning my smokes you are, indeed, dictating what I can and can not do in my own home, and even though I don't smoke marijuana, I feel the same about that.
Banning it because it is an unhealthy irritant is beyond comprehension to me, in that if you start there where do you draw the line, the cigarettes is it, why there, when the diesel is equally as bad, alcohol kills far more people on roadways than cigarettes. Now we need to re-ban that also. Those dang irritating Canadian chemical factories across the St. Clair River from me need to be shut down. All autos need to be banned also.
The autos and the factories do invade my home with there smells and dust, on a constant basis, so that is where I will draw the line, when all things that spill forth noxious, obnoxious, and, or toxic fumes is included in your ban.
Oh, yeah, say good bye to the majority of the electric, since a lot of that still comes from that clean air producing coal....
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Relatively strict anti-smoking laws have also come to effect in the Nordic countries. Indoor public places in Finland are theoretically smoke-free, while private indoor locations need not be. The major question is balconies...
In theory, a balcony of a flat is both "indoors" and "private", although cigarette smoke isn't literate on such definitions. In practice, there have been cases where balcony smokers have been smoked out of their flats, by making their lives hell by any means necessary and (by some interpretation at least) legal. Given the current atmosphere, I wouldn't wonder if a total smoking ban came to effect in the near future.
Public drinking outdoors was banned here in Finland only very recently, and the ban isn't really enforced during the major boozing holidays yet. It will probably be much, much harder to get that to work than it would be to ban all public smoking.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I think that people should be able to smoke (tobacco or pot or anything they want) if they don't bother other people. So, smoke as much as you want at home. Just don't force me to smell your smoke or get your smoke on me by polluting indoor and outdoor public spaces.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
quote:Except, well, it is. Have you ever been at the bus stop next to someone who is smoking? Or walking down the street? You get a lungful of obnoxion right there.
Yes, I have, and in some instances it can be unpleasant if its particualy overwhelming, I agree. But they have every right to smoke there, it's outside in the free air, not in my front room. If they were to cough, or sneeze near me, it's just as obnoxious. And like smoking, they can't help it. Believe me, please.
It is an addiction that is amazingly difficult to kick. I started smoking 17 years ago. Shit, it frightens me saying it like that, but yes, 17 years, and I am neither pleased, happy, or proud of that fact. I started, and I cannot stop. I'm hooked. It was own dumbass fault as a teenager. But it is just like being hooked to anything else in this world that is pleasant and satisfying, yet bad for you.
quote:Actually, most people I know of don't mind the anti drinking in public rule (except outside of pubs and stuff, obviously). The smoking is a bit more varied, usually depending on whether the person as asthma or not.
And, er, I'm also in the UK.
Yeh, I thought were a Brit, PsyLiam. But do I support public drinking? Only for youths, that hang around outside pubs and clubs and supermarkets late at night. They should be in bed, particularly on school nights! We get a lot of late night loiterers round here, and they get right on my nerves. Where are their parents!
But again, this quite sensisble law has penalised it for everyone else. I quite enjoyed sitting on the grass in the Italian gardens near the seafront in summer, sipping a can of beer. Now I can't, but I guess a sacrifice the case of common civil order must be made for the good of the majority.
-----------
quote:No? Tell me, if someone parked a huge truck next to you and left it running, and the exhaust was just wafting around... wouldn't you be pissed off and want them to stop?
First off, no. It is a parked vehicle, making a delivery perhaps. It has to be there, it has a right to be there. If it pisses me off, guess what, I move away. Why should the truck leave? I don't own the pavement on which I stand.
But in another sense, yes, I would be annoyed, and it precisely proves my original point. It would the driver that is being irresponsible in this scenario, not the truck. So one can't really condemn, or ban all truck drivers simply because of this one person's indiscretion.
quote:The whole problem with smoking anywhere in public is that it IS irresponsible, it IS indiscrete, and it IS offensive to others.
So are cellphones, yet we all carry them. So is sneezing, or coughing, or cycling on the pavements (sidewalks), and a ton of other stuff. Yes, life can be a pain in the ass.
But like I said, smoking, I can't help it. I will not do it inside, if someone is against it. But outside, in a free domain, I will continue to excercise my rights to smoke if I wish. If someone doesn't like it, then they can bother to move a few feet away, or stand upwind.
quote:Also, have you ever heard of the Eighteenth Amendment of the US Constitution?
No, sorry I haven't.
-------------------
To conclude, I agree with Ritten wholeheartedly. Non-smokers may find cigarettes obnoxious, smokers do not. Non car-drivers, pedestrians, find cars obnoxious and irritating, it's a similar thing. Both are necessary and desirable to the user. Both are annoying and a pain in the ass to non-user. Both can harm you, even kill you, etc etc. Life is full of these things. But they cannot be eliminated. Cars are necessary, obviously. But so is tobacco - to those that use it. If you were a smoker, you would understand this.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
The Eighteenth Amendment was the Prohibition (of alcohol). It lasted all of about 15 years. But it's still a legal precedent (though of mixed indications).
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I don't smoke, but I feel strongly that if your in a crowded public place, then you should not smoke.
I'm an ahsmatic (I can never spell that) and I've had a couple attacks come on from people smoking. I don't bitch at them, I just walk a few meters away. ( and most realize that it's bothering me and snuff it out as a courtesy)
I like to smoke a cigar every so often. And cigar smoke smells alot better than second hand I'll tell ya. Too bad it seems to be a little more irritating if you breath it in after, so I smoke when I'm alone, and theres a good wind...
Anyways. I feel that if someone wants to smoke that's thier decision, but they should show some common courtesy.
Posted by The Red Admiral (Member # 602) on :
Ah, Prohibition, yes, I know of prohibition well enough. Each 'Amendment' as they stand in your Constition I couldn't name or list - being not American, but British, and surely you forgive me not knowing them. But I think Prohibition, as a precendant is riduclous - a violation of basic freedom, and thankfully this has gone the way of the witch-hunt. As it ought to.
If a ban on smoking in public was passed today, I would, heart on my sleeve, defy it, just like if Prohibition existed, I would immediately go to the first available speakeasy. 'Land of the free' it should be - with a limit. Both these, as a statute law, would go beyond it.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Prohibition failed like an Arianne rocket, but I'm not sure I see why a ban on something like alcohol or tobacco is uniquely worthy of your civil unrest. I mean, not that I'm saying it is or isn't. Just that it seems like it isn't the most grevious threat to liberty imaginable. Maybe not even in the top ten, you know?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Sol, it is the 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile' thing. A snowballing effect....
I have gone without smoking in the great outdoors, when I go to church functions, as I am either the only smoker, or the only one that will smoke, but after walking away to a place where it won't bother anyone. But that is jus me....
Passing laws for the health and welfare are, for the most part, taking things too far. This cheesecake I am eating isn't healthy, and some people I know can stand the smell of it, or the looks, let alone the taste, so it falls in to the same category.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
"How dare you deny me my right to poison myself!" Of all the things to get indignant about. Jeez...
And never mind asthmatic, what about allergic? We have a wonderful downstairs neighbour who likes to leave her patio door open about a foot at night, and her cigarette smoke wafts out and gets pulled right into our apartment. I just love waking up at 3am to discover my throat feels like someone's gone at it with a cheese grater.
I believe people have the right to do whatever the hell they want, so long as it doesn't have a negative impact on those around them. Even though she is smoking in the privacy of her own home (except when she strolls just outside for her morning smoke), I'm the one who has to go around slamming windows and turning on the fans to try and alleviate her stench.
I don't know if smokers realize how insidious and tenacious that shit is. By the time our neighbour's smoke wakes me up, it's thoroughly impregnated my pillows and blankets and the only thing I can do is wash the whole mess, and even then it's still detectable.
When two habits clash, the one that is more harmful should yield to the one that isn't. My non-smoking habit is a lot less damaging to your health than your smoking habit is to mine. If you want to turn your lungs into malignant lumps of carbon, do it where I can't smell it.
*grr*
--Jonah
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
And Ritten? Your cheesecake analogy doesn't hold up. As much as some people may be nauseated by the sight or smell or taste of cheesecake or mushrooms or whatever, merely being in the same room with those objects usually doesn't have an adverse affect on their health. Until someone discovers the scent of cheesecake is a carcinogen, I have little sympathy. In the meantime, I don't want to have my cancer risk heightened because of your addiction, and appreciate your courtesy.
--Jonah
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I agree with some of you guys that many smokers "just don't get it" about how foul many nonsmokers find cigarette smoke. Smoker basically cover themselves with smoke, so probably don't even notice the smell any longer and can't even imagine what the smell is like to nonsmokers. It's nothing like the smell of cheesecake. It spreads, it clings, it stays around in a room after the smokers have gone. It has to be washed out of your hair and clothing. I might suggest an analogy to someone wearing too much cheap perfume, but cheap perfume isn't being continuously produced by the wearer and doesn't stick to you.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
SKUNK MUSK!
It's stinky, sticks to stuff, and you carry it where ever you go. And no I'm not saying this from personal experience Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Why do people object to Cigarettes being banned being used in public? I mean people don't shoot-up in public.
And I couldn't agree more about how it sticks to you and your hair and your clothes - it's not a MINOR annoyance - it's a MAJOR annoyance. I hate if you got to a public toilet - and someone is smoking in there - there is like NO air - and your in there for 1 minute and come out smelling like a 60-a-day person. BAH!
Smoking isn't a 'self-contained' thing. It affects a WHOLE lot more people - probably moreso than the user.
I was also think - people don't like exhaust fumes, and burning forests etc. But think of the amount of cigarrettes smoked in 1 day alone and group them all together - that's millions and millions and millions. Now think of the amount of smoke 1 lets off. Now think of that group of cigarrettes - and light them ALL. That's a lot of smoke. No doubt it has to contribute something to the bad-state of the planet? I mean think of the intensity of the fire of all those cigarettes burning at once.
Not to mention the damage they do when idiots throw them out the car window in the bush. Causing huge blazing infernos.
I reckon a good idea would be to have people dob drivers who throw the butts out the window in to say the radio stations. That'll put a stop to these fire-bugs. (Well - at least some of them). Funny that the smokers don't want to litter their OWN CAR with thier OWN cigarrette butts. Most of you in Europe and Canada etc won't appreciate the danger that 1 cigarrette can have to thousands of square kms of bush, the animals that live in them, and the people and their homes that surround it.
Andrew
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Why do people object to Cigarettes being banned being used in public? I mean people don't shoot-up in public."
Not that I disagree in principle, but your logic is a bit flawed. People don't shoot up in public because it's illegal all-around. Get a bill passed to legalize heroin, methamphetamines, etc. and see if people still take them only in private.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Again, it isn't that I'm denying the validity of the argument that banning smoking leads directly to wealthy fascists personally eating our children, but it just seems to me that there are other, perhaps more serious, threats to liberty that are worthy of attention.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Inch and mile Sol...
Frankfurt, mid 1989, small underground mall, heroine addicts shooting up in the neck, cuase their arms would do it anymore.... Yeah, so it was 3:00 am and I had been in Sax.... It was still distrubing...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Red Admiral:
quote:The whole problem with smoking anywhere in public is that it IS irresponsible, it IS indiscrete, and it IS offensive to others.
So are cellphones, yet we all carry them. So is sneezing, or coughing, or cycling on the pavements (sidewalks), and a ton of other stuff. Yes, life can be a pain in the ass.
...
But outside, in a free domain, I will continue to excercise my rights to smoke if I wish. If someone doesn't like it, then they can bother to move a few feet away, or stand upwind.
...
Non-smokers may find cigarettes obnoxious, smokers do not. Non car-drivers, pedestrians, find cars obnoxious and irritating, it's a similar thing. Both are necessary and desirable to the user. Both are annoying and a pain in the ass to non-user. Both can harm you, even kill you, etc etc. Life is full of these things. But they cannot be eliminated. Cars are necessary, obviously. But so is tobacco - to those that use it. If you were a smoker, you would understand this.
Except that there are a fair few smokers who have managed to give up. So it's not necessary for anyone. I'm sympathetic, but your argument has as much merit as "Oh, dad, if you took heroin you'd understand why I need it, so just let me carry on, okay?" Cars are primarily a form of transport, and are necessary as such. Smoking is for pleasure. There's a world of difference there.
And yes, mobile phones are annoying. But standing next to someone using a mobile doesn't make you start coughing up. Standing even a foot away from someone sneezing doesn't affect you at all. Same with coughing. Smoking though can hit from a fair distance.
And regarding: "If someone doesn't like it, then they can bother to move a few feet away, or stand upwind."
Why should they have to? As you point out, it's a free world. That means that people have the right to stand where they want without getting a lung full of carcinogenics. You could bother to only smoke indoors. And you might claim that you need to smoke there, but what about people who need to smoke 60 a day? Or 100 a day? Should they be allowed to smoke on planes, because it's "necessary"?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
You know, it is far easier to give up the alcohol than it is the cigarettes....
No AA, but I haven't had a drink in 3.25 years....
VP, people can give up cars and go by bicycle or foot...
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"Why do people object to Cigarettes being banned being used in public? I mean people don't shoot-up in public."
Not that I disagree in principle, but your logic is a bit flawed. People don't shoot up in public because it's illegal all-around. Get a bill passed to legalize heroin, methamphetamines, etc. and see if people still take them only in private.
LOL! True. "Excuse me waiter, can I have a new spoon".
OK, what about Urinating in public?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten:
VP, people can give up cars and go by bicycle or foot...
Liam. Not Lee. Different.
Yes, they could. But it'd take a lot longer for me to get from London to Liverpool on a bicycle.
Yes, I know, public transport. Which I'm generally in favour of. But there are some situations where it's not practical.
Cars fulfil a transportation requirement. This is useful.
Also, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm far less bothered standing a few feet away from a car that's running than standing a few feet away from a smoker.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The car usually isn't puffing out its toxins at face level.
I'm wondering if insurance companies will wise up and stop giving smokers health insurance. They're a bad risk.
I see no reason to make my premiums higher to pay for the illnesses of people who enjoy breathing carcinogens.
It's like asking us to pay for the head injury treatment of nitwits who play russian roulette.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
I believe that taking away the ability for smokers to smoke in public will make it more inconvenient for people to smoke, so perhaps more people will quit. Also, the price of cigarettes is increasing quite a bit here in NB. Currently they're $9/pk and aobut $60/ctn. I think that my dad may finally be considering quitting after smoking for 35+ years. He just can't afford it anymore.
Posted by Free ThoughtCrime America (Member # 480) on :
God, Non-smokers are a bunch of pussies.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Wait... Remind me again which group consists of people who are too weak to overcome chemical dependency?
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Absolutely. We just aren't manly enough to willfully restrict our physical stamina and lung capacity, and knock decades off our lives. We don't have the willpower to flush such a huge chunk of our hard-earned cash down the crapper by spending it on pack after pack of self-administered poison. And we just by God don't have the constitution to suck dose after dose of concentrated toxins deep into our lungs several times a day.
We are such pussies...
When I'm a hundred and six and still fencing, I am so going to laugh at your pathetic, emphyzema-riddled, one-lunged, can't-make-it-up-the-stairs-hauling-your-ventilator-without-running-out-of-breath ass... That is, if you haven't died of lung cancer or a massive heart attack forty years previously...
--Jonah
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
</sarcasm> Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
So where's the link to the Bill Hicks .mp3?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Looks like you were a little early there, Cartman.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)