Should Smoking Be Banned?, page 3

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 05:18 PM

link

reply to post by intrepid

I actually live in a suburb of San Diego, that has recently not only banned smoking indoors, but has made it so that smokers can not even stand within a certain distance of the places of entry/exit.

On one hand, I feel for the smokers. I do. But on the other hand, I feel for myself, and others who want to minimize the chances at second hand smoke.

Hell, I enjoy hookah occasionally, but those places are BUILT for that. You don't go in to a hookah bar to just read a book, haha.

intrepid

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 05:25 PM

link

Originally posted by prototism
On one hand, I feel for the smokers. I do. But on the other hand, I feel for myself, and others who want to minimize the chances at second hand smoke.

So you are all in favor of establishments for smokers only then?

Hell, I enjoy hookah occasionally, but those places are BUILT for that. You don't go in to a hookah bar to just read a book, haha.

In the States? I seriously doubt that.

Not to mention that's against the T&C.

WyrdeOne

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 05:26 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

There's no doubt that many people would rather drink in a bar without smokers. That's fine, and I support their right to put their money where their mouth is.

Here's the thing - it's not illegal to run a non-smoking establishment. I rent apartments, and I'm legally entitled to prohibit smoking in the building. I'm fine with that.

Except now it's illegal to run a smoking establishment. That is what I'm NOT fine with. Non-smokers have no intrinsic right to come to my place of business and force out other paying customers. It's so typical of the non-smoker mentality that they believe their own rights somehow outweigh the rights of others.

Personal liberty is important to these people, as long as you're only talking about their rights. Once someone else's rights come into question, that's a different story...

Bar owners should be able to make their own decisions for the health of their businesses.

If I was a bar owner, I would want smokers smoking, and if the non-smokers didn't like it, they could drink elsewhere. There will always be plenty of non-smoking establishments - mainly because of the insurance.

I haven't gone to a bar since the smoking took effect. I refuse to give my money to a business that actively discriminates against me (even if their hand was forced by legislators).

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

prototism

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 05:32 PM

link

reply to post by intrepid

By all means, YES. If that happened, you smokers can be free from us non smokers and our "self righteous" opinions.

Hookah involves flavored tobacco that you inhale though a hose. Sorta like a bong (just don't call it that literally, believe me), but involving no marijuana. However, there is controversy as to if it is more or less harmful than "smoking".

[edit on 12/13/2008 by prototism]

IAF101

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 05:38 PM

link

Well smoking should be discouraged but not banned.

I live in NYC and a pack of smokes here is nearly $10. With prices so high, most people quit. But in other places cigarettes are much cheaper that doesnt give people any real incentive to quit.

I think more taxes should be levied on cigarettes and cigars.

Smoking is a dying habit that within 200 odd years will disappear. Already people today smoke less than what they did just 50 years ago. In 150-200 years there wont be anybody producing or buying cigarettes.

IAF101

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 05:46 PM

link

Originally posted by intrepid

Hell, I enjoy hookah occasionally, but those places are BUILT for that. You don't go in to a hookah bar to just read a book, haha.

In the States? I seriously doubt that.

Not to mention that's against the T&C.

Hookah is a popular middle eastern tobacco inhaling device that is quite popular in urban clubs and bars in America. I happen to have one at my residence as well though its not used. It is a form of relaxation as the tobacco is flavored.

Is it against the T&C of this site to discuss Hooka ?

civilized mammal

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 05:53 PM

link

Originally posted by D1Useek
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..."

The militant anti-smoking activists display a very destructive hominid trait which is similarily generally not found in nature, except during mating rituals. One can observe an inherent desire, if not an actual need, to control the behaviour of other members of the human species. Often to merely further ones personal preferences and desires. Is the militant non-smoker really all that different fom a Nazi? The borderline is IMO not black and white, yet consistent. Does the militant non-smoker require the dismantling of carcinogenous causing pollutant industries? No. It would exact the end of a comfortable "everything is disposable" society which is readily enjoyed. It should be noted that pesticide free cigarettes CAN be manufactured. This hasn't happened even today! Even though scientists are aware that pesticides and other added chemicals are largely responsible for the any incidents of cancer. Smokers are merely scapegoats.

Hugues de Payens

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 05:54 PM

link

Nuttin like smokin' Nazis

RFBurns

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 05:56 PM

link

Originally posted by ninthaxis
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
.

Go to page 1. I certianly did mention hours spent in slow moving traffic during heavy drive times and sitting at busy intersections breathing in exaust from diesel and gas engines, which includes all those public transportation busses that throw out TONS of toxins each day!

Fact is that second hand smoke is cleaner smoke than what got breathed in by the smoker! Our lungs trap most of the stuff these non smokers gripe about, and what is so funny, is that they will gladly stand at a corner waiting on the cross walk light to turn green, all the while breathing in all that "second hand smog" being blown right into their faces! Do we hear them crying wolf over that?

Nope!

Its all about control and quite frankly...its people who have absolutely nothing better to do than to infringe upon others rights because their lives have become so dull, boaring and controlled that it pains them to see other people unwilling to be tied to a control leash.

Cheers!!!!

theindependentjournal

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 05:59 PM

link

reply to post by Anti - Government

Sure let's ban smoking and farting and drinking liquor and fat chicks in spandex...

I think all of them have dangers...

prototism

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 06:00 PM

link

reply to post by RFBurns

Originally posted by prototism
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.

[edit on 12/13/2008 by prototism]

[edit on 12/13/2008 by prototism]

Anti - Government

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 06:11 PM

link

reply to post by theindependentjournal

Come on cant you act seriously for once here we all know smoking is a serious danger

(Second Line)

Trayen11

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 06:18 PM

link

Smoking is bad for ou, and can cause problems for people you smoke around, hence why I dont smoke in my house, car. That being said though, If i am sitting outside enjoying my day and i feel the need to light up a smoke I will do so, if a non smoker walks by and asks me to put it out because it's dangerous to them, then they can just take a wide berth around me. Will i purposley walk to a bench and spark up a smoke next to a person i dont know? No, because they may no smoke and that just seems like the polite thing to do, I'll walk away about 15 feet and light up there. But dont ask me to move if you walk to where I am. That in my eyes is not right, I was there first.

On a side note, I see all these people talking about smoker negativley and saying it should be banned completley....well what about alchohol then? How many people have died directly from people drinking....I would have to say alot...there is no difference from the dangers of smoking as opposed to a drunk who decides to shoot someone or get into his car because his judgment is impared...it's just as dangerous.

Bann it indoors and on private propery thats fine, there is no way hell you can tell mt i cant smoke in a public area outside. Thats just wrong in my eyes.

prototism

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 06:19 PM

link

reply to post by Trayen11

Although everything else you said makes you out to be a considerate and fair person, your last paragraph has its logic backwards.

[edit on 12/13/2008 by prototism]

Trayen11

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 06:22 PM

link

reply to post by prototism

How so?

RFBurns

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 06:24 PM

link

I remember that stuipd attempt to ban smoking in homes and in cars out there in Ca. I even heard once that one of the reasons for banning smoking in your own home was because the neighbor may have their window open and your smoke would travel into their window!! ROFLMAO!!

So if the smell of your pet's waste all over your yard is traveling through my open window, can I push for a ban on your pet going pee or poop in your yard too??

YEAH why not!!!!

Cheers!!!!

Trayen11

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 06:26 PM

link

Allthough I will agree with the new bann coming into effect here in my home town which makes it illegal to smoke in a vehicle with any child under 16. I do tend to agree with that one.

ANTHONY33

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 06:27 PM

link

reply to post by Anti - Government

Dude!
Whats your beef with Marijuana? It never killed no one.

Trayen11

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 06:30 PM

link

reply to post by ANTHONY33

Tell that to one of the my classmates who was hit by some idiot all cooked up on Pot......when they asked the kid why he didn't try to break the kids answer was...."I was so high i thought I was just seeing things"

Yeah Pot is so safe.

prototism

posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 06:34 PM

link

reply to post by Trayen11

You basically said you're okay with the government telling you what you can or cant do in your own private home. Most smokers (and anybody for that matter) would have a problem with that.

It just doesn't make sense.

reply to post by Trayen11

You are obviously biased, and either can't see the issue objectively, or don't understand the idea of "moderation", or both.

[edit on 12/13/2008 by prototism]