Tell that to all the people who have died from drunk drivers, while my smoking will kill you in maybe 20 yrs or so! Death have no age.
I'm not saying smoking is good, but I believe the gov't should just outlaw tabacco and stop coming up with all these crazy laws, u can't smoke here and there.
If they outlaw tobacco then they need to get rid of liqour as well. It'll never happen, too much of an economy booster.
yes toxins harm people..... but not when they are in miniscule concentrations
as I said there are deadly toxins in drinking water..... there are deadly toxins in the shirt you are currently wearing..... there are deadly toxins in the keyboard youre typing with
if you were locked in a chamber filled with nothing but second hand smoke and forced to breathe it for 50 years then yes you MIGHT have health complications from it
but there is no scientific evidence that second hand smoke has ever posed a serious health risk in the outdoors..... and certainly not more of a risk than naturally or otherwise occurring toxicants already in the air
if someone is standing beside a doorway that you must enter smoking then do one of two things....... ask him to step away and abide by the current laws or hold your breath for the .3 seconds it takes to walk past him and let him know hes an arsehole for being rude.... or of course theres the 3rd option..... stop pretending its harming you and deal with it for the .3 seconds
there are already rules in place to make sure the whiney are accomodated...... these rules make it completely and easily possible for them to never have to smell smoke again....... if someone is not following these rules then deal with that persons violation directly........ dont try to create more rules that accomplish nothing simply for the sake of your personal hatred for smokers in general
its not exactly easy to avoid tomatoes if I want to eat at a restaurant........ which leaves me with limited options:
never eat at a restaurant
eat at a restaurant that I can be certain will not make a mistake
have the laws changed to abolish tomatoes
which of those options sounds most appropriate while still allowing me the freedom of going out to eat?
does this pose somewhat of an imposition in my life...... sure...... I would like to eat at a Taco Bell once in a while...... but guess what..... they put tomatoes on everything..... and the tomatoes in the back touch everything at some point...... so I have to avoid Taco Bell...... is this an infringement on my rights? should I sue taco bell because they refuse to stop using tomatoes....... no I SIMPLY AVOID eating there..... and you can simply avoid smokers
for the record I personally find the habits of some smokers quite disgusting... not a fan of smokers at all... and for their sakes (1st hand smoke.... which has been factually proven to be dangerous) I wish they would give it up..... and Im glad they banned it indoors for my own selfish reasons...... hated coming home from a bowling alley or something and having to immediately wash my clothes so they dont stink up the house...... but I also think that making that a law was out of line
I also think the law banning indoor smoking is out of line. Who is the government to tell people they can't smoke indoors? If it's a government owned building, sure! Great!
But privately owned buildings.. private businesses.. really? I think each building should have the opportunity to decide whether or not smoking is allowed in their building. The anti-smoking ban is actually the law doing the infringing on personal rights, not the other way around.
If you don't like the indoor smoking in a building? Either don't go in the building, or deal with it. Nobody is forcing you to be there.
The person/entity that owns the building should be able to decide for themselves, not the other way around.
The Following User Says Thank You to IOWA For This Useful Post:
the thing about drunk driving killing people is .... well they broke the law, it IS against the law to drive drunk, sure that doesn't stop a lot of people but it's still against the law, some of you are talking about it like its not because it happens.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Covert_Death For This Useful Post:
the thing about drunk driving killing people is .... well they broke the law, it IS against the law to drive drunk, sure that doesn't stop a lot of people but it's still against the law, some of you are talking about it like its not because it happens.
I guess the key point is whether alcohol and cigarettes are used responsibly or not. I've no doubt ElasticNinja was talking about the former when he made his point on the previous page.
The fact it is listed as a carcinogen in no way proves any actual incidences of second hand smoke causing cancer. In fact I find many of the government statistics suspect, seriously flawed and motivated strictly by lobbyists whether for their own belief of doing good or for profit. A good example, ozone which has a set limit of acceptable exposure but there are no laws barring the sale of ozone generators that are purported by the manufacturers to provide numerous health benefits despite the fact that most of them are capable of exposing you to over ten times the safe limit set by the EPA.
__________________
Have you seen me in a kilt? Site Rules/Guidelines
Use the !Report button to report spam or objectionable posts.
If you find a post helpful please use the button!
Last edited by SamuraiBigEd; January 15th, 2012 at 03:32 PM.
is cancer the only thing we consider sick now? i consider being sick if you health is sub-par in any way, i being around second hand smoke deteriorates lung tissue... which it does, i consider that a health issue
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Covert_Death For This Useful Post:
Device(s): Galaxy Note II (stock.... for now)
Acer Iconia A100 (stolen by a 2 year old:p)
Carrier: Death Star
Thanks: 208
Thanked 139 Times in 116 Posts
My sister has a reaction to cigarette smoke. She gets red in the face and it looks like she has the flu. She manages to stay away from it. If she passes someone smoking on the street and passes them nothing happens to her. Minor inconvenience maybe because of the smell but im sure there are many things with bad smells that bother people. If i were to be smoking in my room my sister would stay away. If my sister is out on the porch i step further out. This all seems reasonable. It seems like people are getting a little too carried away with this and making a mountain out of a mole hill. What next, i cant heat up my lunch in the break room at work because it has fish and someone might find fish to smell badly? My boss should stop wearing massive amounts of perfume because it annoys the crap out of me? Lets make a law banning excessive amounts of perfume. Who's with me?
The Following User Says Thank You to kool kat2 For This Useful Post:
My sister has a reaction to cigarette smoke. She gets red in the face and it looks like she has the flu. She manages to stay away from it. If she passes someone smoking on the street and passes them nothing happens to her. Minor inconvenience maybe because of the smell but im sure there are many things with bad smells that bother people. If i were to be smoking in my room my sister would stay away. If my sister is out on the porch i step further out. This all seems reasonable. It seems like people are getting a little too carried away with this and making a mountain out of a mole hill. What next, i cant heat up my lunch in the break room at work because it has fish and someone might find fish to smell badly? My boss should stop wearing massive amounts of perfume because it annoys the crap out of me? Lets make a law banning excessive amounts of perfume. Who's with me?
Excessive amounts of perfume is annoying and some people do have allergies to them. I think that is a valid comparison.
and lets not forget a simple fact about perfumes/colognes......... they have been proven to release far more toxic fumes than second hand smoke
the chemicals inhaled with perfume do far more damage to the human body than second hand smoke could possibly compare to..... the same goes for air fresheners to an even higher degree
I declare Febreeze and Chanel No5 to be unconstitutional because theyre violating my human rights..... DOH
the whole 'health' issue surrounding 2nd hand smoke is just a lame excuse used by people who dont like to smell it
I agree that its not a pleasant smell......... I personally dont like smelling it either.......... but instead of trying to spread misinformation and create laws to prohibit an activity that I personally selfishly dont like........ I put on my bigboy pants and avoid smokers
I also think the law banning indoor smoking is out of line. Who is the government to tell people they can't smoke indoors? If it's a government owned building, sure! Great!
But privately owned buildings.. private businesses.. really? I think each building should have the opportunity to decide whether or not smoking is allowed in their building. The anti-smoking ban is actually the law doing the infringing on personal rights, not the other way around.
If you don't like the indoor smoking in a building? Either don't go in the building, or deal with it. Nobody is forcing you to be there.
The person/entity that owns the building should be able to decide for themselves, not the other way around.
So I guess I could just coop myself indoors for the rest of my life? Thats crazy. The ban on indoor smoking has been one of the best pieces of legislation implemented in the last 10 years. People shouldnt be smoking in places that arent well ventalated and people need access to to live their lives.
My boss should stop wearing massive amounts of perfume because it annoys the crap out of me? Lets make a law banning excessive amounts of perfume. Who's with me?
I agree, off with their heads. Sometimes the stench is overpowering.
We can ban smoking and many would agree. But when we go after other things that others feel should be banned, suddenly it is so unfair. Go after them but leave me alone is the general sentiment.
So I guess I could just coop myself indoors for the rest of my life? Thats crazy. The ban on indoor smoking has been one of the best pieces of legislation implemented in the last 10 years. People shouldnt be smoking in places that arent well ventalated and people need access to to live their lives.
Is anyone forcing you to go in these buildings? Nope...
The government shouldnt have any say on what people do inside/on thier own property.
absolutely correct............ and your access to living life is more important than everyone elses right?
they should alter their lifestyle to suit yours
Odd that we are being forced to live our life "your" way; you are doing to us, what, apparently, we are doing to you. Not you personally, Copestag. You say we should change because it affects you and we say you are doing the same thing. No sure we move forward when both sides are stuck.
People should meet in the middle. I will not smoke around you and you stop trying to take away my cigars. Otherwise, good luck finding any support when "they" want to take away something of yours, like salt shakers in the local diner, glorious trans-fats and perhaps your kids because you raised fat ones destined for all manner of purgatory.
I often go to the local park and smoke. At 3:00 am, nobody 'cept Bob is being harmed. I'll pay whatever tickets I get and I will still smoke.
I am pissed because Utah raised the price of cigars to more than 80% of their suggested retail price. Because of the increase, they loose 100% of the tax I once paid. I went out of state and use FedEX.
Perhaps they need to raise the cost, tax or ban everything proven to be bad and we can discuss why salt is gone, fat is gone, red meat, fish, all manner of birds no longer gracing my bone china plates. We can eliminate OTC drugs, hunting, perfume, double bacon cheeseburgers, super sized fries, motorcycles, automobiles, beer and everything else.
Or let one live his or her life his or her own way and pay whatever the costs might be.
Device(s): Galaxy Note II (stock.... for now)
Acer Iconia A100 (stolen by a 2 year old:p)
Carrier: Death Star
Thanks: 208
Thanked 139 Times in 116 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja
So I guess I could just coop myself indoors for the rest of my life? Thats crazy. The ban on indoor smoking has been one of the best pieces of legislation implemented in the last 10 years. People shouldnt be smoking in places that arent well ventalated and people need access to to live their lives.
I would imagine that restaurants and stores would place a no smoking sign somewhere in order to please customers. But say i own an upholstery shop or something. What if i want to allow smoking in there, for employees, customers, myself ? Shouldn't i be able to do that. Im sure leaving it up to each person or owner of a building wouldn't alienate the people who don't like it. Im sure that if that were the case we wouldn't suddenly see a sudden surge in people smoking like crazy all over the place. I don't even see it now,the only smokers i see regularly are my boss and a coworker, other than that, i hardly ever see it in public)(at least not enough to notice it apparently)
So I. Say we do what bob says and meet in the middle. Its fair to everyone.... But i say we leave the issue of bacon cheeseburgers alone for the time being.
The Following User Says Thank You to kool kat2 For This Useful Post:
Odd that we are being forced to live our life "your" way; you are doing to us, what, apparently, we are doing to you. Not you personally, Copestag. You say we should change because it affects you and we say you are doing the same thing. No sure we move forward when both sides are stuck.
People should meet in the middle. I will not smoke around you and you stop trying to take away my cigars. Otherwise, good luck finding any support when "they" want to take away something of yours, like salt shakers in the local diner, glorious trans-fats and perhaps your kids because you raised fat ones destined for all manner of purgatory.
I often go to the local park and smoke. At 3:00 am, nobody 'cept Bob is being harmed. I'll pay whatever tickets I get and I will still smoke.
I am pissed because Utah raised the price of cigars to more than 80% of their suggested retail price. Because of the increase, they loose 100% of the tax I once paid. I went out of state and use FedEX.
Perhaps they need to raise the cost, tax or ban everything proven to be bad and we can discuss why salt is gone, fat is gone, red meat, fish, all manner of birds no longer gracing my bone china plates. We can eliminate OTC drugs, hunting, perfume, double bacon cheeseburgers, super sized fries, motorcycles, automobiles, beer and everything else.
Or let one live his or her life his or her own way and pay whatever the costs might be.
Unfortunetly Bob, many people can't see past their own blinders until they've been on both sides of the fence. Being an ex-smoker, I understand both sides of the equation. Ironically, the smell of cigarette smoke today repulses me, but that doesn't mean my rights as a non-smoker should infringe on someone else's right to smoke on their personal property, business or home alike.
However if they are in my home or business(regardless of industry), I can ask them to not smoke or leave. That's the way it should be, period.
Unfortunetly Bob, many people can't see past their own blinders until they've been on both sides of the fence. Being an ex-smoker, I understand both sides of the equation. Ironically, the smell of cigarette smoke today repulses me, but that doesn't mean my rights as a non-smoker should infringe on someone else's right to smoke on their personal property, business or home alike.
However if they are in my home or business(regardless of industry), I can ask them to not smoke or leave. That's the way it should be, period.
I agree. Unfortunately, the laws against smoking are based on BS or faulty science. To me that is unfair. A very large EPA study some time ago concluded that second hand smoke does not represent a serious health issue
If I own a bar, you cannot smoke in the bar and neither can I. That is wrong. It is my bar, those I would hire would know it is a smoking bar and patrons can choose to patronize me or not.
I agree. Unfortunately, the laws against smoking are based on BS or faulty science. To me that is unfair. A very large EPA study some time ago concluded that second hand smoke does not represent a serious health issue
If I own a bar, you cannot smoke in the bar and neither can I. That is wrong. It is my bar, those I would hire would know it is a smoking bar and patrons can choose to patronize me or not.
Kind of ironic the owner of a building, be it a bar, warehouse, or other business cant smoke in his own building, that his money paid for, because someone might be offended by entering. Those people do not have to enter. They do not have to patronize the business. Instead, they cry to congress and the government happily obliges because it sets a precent to rob other freedoms from land owners.
Not to throw this thread off topic, but an example of this is people are now being raided, arms drawn and all as if it were a drug bust, for growing illegal(illegal!) gardens on thier own property. Precedent is a dangerous thing and people should be more careful what they ask for. If they need someone to tell them what they can not do, they should hire a babysitter.
button.
button!
