NJ woman chides NYC smoker, gets stabbed with pen (smoking verses non smoking)

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by onehuman

 

Smoking cigarettes/cigars in a closed environment is an IMMORAL thing to do unless you are alone in your own residence/vehicle or have the permission of EVERYONE around you including the OWNER of the residence/vehicle.

You might as well be addicted to wrapping plastic bags around people's heads.

It's just as immoral.

Only difference being, wrapping plastic bags around people's heads was never socially acceptable, as smoking once was.

edit on 4/22/2011 by JPhish because: (no reason given)

You need a reality check.

reply to post by AndrewJay


Maybe you need to work for 1 week in a mortuary, so you can get a reality check yourself.

Smoking is a mistake, and everyone is allowed a few But it is only if you repeat any mistake over and over again, are you considered a fool. Correct ?

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
reply to post by AndrewJay

 

But it is only if you repeat any mistake over and over again, are you considered a fool. Correct ?

So is that how you roll? You call people fools in a passive-aggressive manner?

Why are you debating fools anyway? Do you not have what it takes to engage with those you consider intelligent?

reply to post by onehuman

criminal possession of a weapon.

So the pen really is mightier than the sword...

reply to post by thedeadtruth


So smokers die... non smokers die, too. Would I want to live to 85 as a mumbling burden, or die at 65 with some wits? It's all a crapshoot, or it's fate, or it's a mix, but either way smoking is something I enjoy, and if done in moderation and politeness I don't think it's entirely fair to call me a "retard."

I have no wish to die of lung/throat cancer... or die at all! I know smoking can increase the risk of a myriad of health issues... but I'm gonna die, regardless of how I live trying to avoid that sad/happy fact.

I have a friend who used to chide me about smoking, became a clean living doctor and started a family and noticed the mole that had always been on his shoulder was growing. Three weeks later he was dead and I was talking to my smoking, heroin addicted friend at his funeral... go figure.

But if one wants to stop what they enjoy to fix the odds a few hundreth percentage points in their favor, then that's fine, too... just saying. People's choices should be tolerated unless forced to. People who smoke around other people who find it offensive just aren't very nice.

Originally posted by Jefferton
I am highly allergic to cigarette smoke. If I breath it in my breathing immediately becomes difficult. That might be the "cough cough" thing you find so annoying.

I find not breathing annoying. I guess it depends on your point of view.

The downside of modern technology is that people who have severe illnesses who wouldn't survive one winter are allowed to endure and drag the strong down with them. Kind of like reverse Darwinism.

reply to post by thedeadtruth

Smoking is a mistake, and everyone is allowed a few But it is only if you repeat any mistake over and over again, are you considered a fool. Correct ?

why is it considered a mistake? is sky diving considered a mistake? or any other dangerous activity, what if smoking was a sport? is it less harmful than other substances? what if i get benefical factors out of it?
it's only ever a mistake to the person that does it if the person who does it, regrets it. you cannot just say it's a mistake because you think it is. it depends on what people like or want.

my mother once stop to light a fag, when it was lit she went to walk forward and a car mounted the pavement infront of her, if she had not stopped or did not smoke, she may of been gone a long time ago, but she is still here, due to smoking

Originally posted by trouble_every_day
That's some strong advocating language to convey that the issue is settled and that other opinions are just wrong.
Statements like "clear from a logical view", "objective analysis", "it becomes apparent" and "fairest and most logical" reduce a discussion to a subset of possible discussion points and perspectives.

If you disagree with any of my assertions, then you can attempt to counter them.

I never said that other opinions are wrong, as I refer you to my above sentence.

Originally posted by trouble_every_day
With respect to fellow human beings we should consider the concept of sufficient harm, not the concept of no harm whatsoever.

And how would you legally define ''sufficient harm'' ? It sounds all too arbitrary and subjective, to me.

There are many assaults that do not cause any real harm but are illegal due to the fact that the victim has suffered some unnecessary harm, as opposed to none.

If smoking is prohibited in public, then there is no legal way that someone can inhale potentially harmful toxins from cigarettes. If smoking is allowed, then there is the potential for someone to inhale potentially harmful chemicals and toxins from cigarettes. Weigh this up against the fact that smoking causes absolutely no benefit to society and only benefits the person who is indulging in the habit, then it's unreasonable to expect that a someone should be able to exhale cigarette smoke in a public place.

Originally posted by trouble_every_day
Non-consenting people as you put it, when confronted with an issue which conflicts with their own personal preference or choice should take action as they see fit within the bounds of the common law, not as some statutory authority dictates.

It's not about personal preference or choice, it's about being harmed by another's actions.

If there wasn't evidence to suggest that inhaling cigarette smoke caused harm to people, then I'd agree that smoking should be permitted in public places, and that people should just ostracise smokers for their anti-social and inconsiderate behaviour.

Originally posted by trouble_every_day
An unsuspecting "victim" who inhales a bit of smoke is not done sufficient harm to warrant a public smoking statute. There are other ways to deal with this.

Again, that would depend upon one's personal interpretation of what constitutes ''sufficient harm''.

If someone walks right up to another person and sprays an aerosol right under their face, then that also would not cause ''sufficient harm''. Yet, I can't imagine too many people who support ''smokers' rights'' would appreciate someone doing so.

reply to post by ldyserenity


I didn't mean that it caused discomfort to all asthma sufferers.

Asthma differs in its level of severity and, as you have mentioned, different causes can trigger an attack in one person, but not in another.

However, cigarette smoke is a common trigger that can cause discomfort amongst many asthmatics, and that was my overall point.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

If someone walks right up to another person and sprays an aerosol right under their face, then that also would not cause ''sufficient harm''. Yet, I can't imagine too many people who support ''smokers' rights'' would appreciate someone doing so.

Lolwhut?

What's in the can? Is it a can-free zone?

Because if someone gets sprayed in the face in an area where that goes on, maybe they shouldn't be there - in a designated can free zone, I can see someone having the right to whinge about that.

If this was like the article, the canman would never even have sprayed the woman. She would have seen the can and attacked, just like how she saw the unlit cigarette and attacked. So your analogy has to include that.

So replace cans with cigarettes and what you have is a man being violently assaulted because he had a can - he wasn't spraying anyone or planning to, he just had a can. Just like our hero had a cigarette, but wasn't smoking it or even about to smoke it when he was violently assaulted.

Originally posted by leo123
I can guarantee you that non-smokers, "emit (FAR MORE) potentially harmful chemicals on unsuspecting and non-consenting members of the public", through their regular daily activities such as driving and the pollution caused by the goods they consume - than any smoker does.

But smokers also drive cars and consume goods and go that bit extra and emit harmful cigarette smoke.

The argument that ''these things cause pollution and harmful emissions so that justifies any other activity that causes pollution and harmful emissions'' is a rather fallacious line of reasoning.

Originally posted by leo123
How would you like it if some zealot took away your right to drive a car using the same logic they used to ban smoking?

Firstly, I don't drive.

Secondly, you are not using the same logic that is applied when advocating the banning of cigarette smoking in public places.

A modern, technologically advanced society is always going to pollute, but most of the pollution are caused by things such as cars and factories which are largely beneficial to society. Smoking benefits nobody other than the person who is smoking. If smoking was banned in public, then all smokers require is a modicum of self-control, until they find a place where smoking is permitted and tolerated.

Motor vehicles and factories benefit everybody, directly or indirectly.

While, of course, this is not to say that car manufacturers and factories should have a free reign to pollute the atmosphere because they are providing something useful to society. People should cut down on needless car journeys, and steps are being taken to reduce harmful emissions.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Lolwhut?

What's in the can? Is it a can-free zone?

It's a canister of air freshener, perfume, eau de toilette, deoderant etc.

A product which contains chemicals that you would not intentionally inhale.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Because if someone gets sprayed in the face in an area where that goes on, maybe they shouldn't be there - in a designated can free zone, I can see someone having the right to whinge about that.

Public spaces aren't a smoke-free zone. If you venture off private property then you have no choice but to potentially breath in cigarette smoke right under your nose.

I find it hard to believe that you would accept somebody's ''right'' to spray perfume right under your face in a street, making it unavoidable that you'd breath in some of the chemicals that they had sprayed.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
If this was like the article, the canman would never even have sprayed the woman. She would have seen the can and attacked, just like how she saw the unlit cigarette and attacked. So your analogy has to include that.

Having read other reports about the incident since my earliest post on the thread, then, if the eyewitness reports are true, she clearly overstepped the mark and shouldn't have grabbed the lighter out of his hand.

My analogy was addressing the broader point that is being discussed in this thread: namely, the ''right'' for a smoker to subject unsuspecting people to his or her smoke fumes vs the ''right'' for people not to needlessly inhale these fumes.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
So replace cans with cigarettes and what you have is a man being violently assaulted because he had a can - he wasn't spraying anyone or planning to, he just had a can. Just like our hero had a cigarette, but wasn't smoking it or even about to smoke it when he was violently assaulted.

I don't disagree with you on the actual incident in the OP.

Both people involved seemed to be at fault, and neither of them covered themselves with glory if the reports are to be believed.

As you say, if the man had a lighter in his hand and appeared to on the verge of sparking up, then this woman had absolutely no right to preemptively attempt to physically interfere with him.

However, the reports also state that two other men were attempting to restrain this man, suggesting that he was the one who was exerting the most aggression. He could easily have remonstrated with the woman's actions verbally, yet he opted to slash/scratch/stab her face with the nearest implement that he had to hand.

It can't really be argued that his alleged actions were proportionate to the personal affront that he felt from the woman's arrogant behaviour.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

It can't really be argued that his alleged actions were proportionate to the personal affront that he felt from the woman's arrogant behaviour.

Well I'm 75 and a woman or teenage girl could probably kill me quite easily.

We don't know the mans age, but in the US people have a right to defend themselves from bodily harm and they often use weapons to do that. That is what this man did, but we cannot say the same for the woman; she was not defending herself as the thief/assailant has no such right..

Without that pen of his, he might be dead. I know that unarmed, I would be.

*Even if he was actually smoking the cigarette (omg), that still wouldn't justify her cigilante actions.

Just because the law is the law, I hope she is charged with property damage (to the cigarette). Since there are no witnesses who saw him smoking, the cigarette was probably new and that means it was worth 50 cents at least. Should people be allowed to go around committing thefts of fifty cents or less? No, and that is why the attacker must be punished.

reply to post by thedeadtruth


I said MOST smokers dont.

Why do you suppose smokers are idiots? Back up your accusations.

The arrogant, ignorant answers given by smokers on this forum has only hardened my resolve more that they are ill mannered imbeciles that deserve my distain.

Smokers, can you say weak willed, how about zero self respect. Continue fooling yourself with stories of smokers who live long healthy lives, instead of the reality of the long agonizing, cancer and infection filled death you will actually have. Not some accident or fate that death normally is,( and rightfully comes to us all ) , but yours is a controlled deliberate suicide.

First day at school you were told smoke will kill you. No excuses for not knowing after that day, right ?

And the sick thing is, you actually think its ok to inflict others with your shear stupidity under the guise of "personal choice" . Laws shouldn't be needed to be passed to protect us from you, you should have the decency to control yourself. What's the problem, too lazy to far remove yourself from the non-smoking public before lighting up ? Funny enough but "lazy and stupid" is the reason most laws exist.

Every smoker that has ever lit up around someone without thinking, is GUILTY of creating the opinion you do not give a # about anyone but yourself. The pseudo indignation you project when someone calls you on it fools no-one but yourself.


You still don't think smoking makes you stupid. Then why does every ex-smoker I know openly admits is the dumbest thing they ever started doing ? Not second dumbest, THE DUMBEST.

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
Then why does every ex-smoker I know openly admits is the dumbest thing they ever started doing ? Not second dumbest, THE DUMBEST.

Maybe because of how you are.

It probably isn't the dumbest thing, but when you are around they say it is because of how cigarettes get you all whingey.

Did you tell them it was the dumbest thing? Were they just agreeing with you when you suggested it?

You are argumentative, so maybe they wanted to shut you up. If you are like this online, lord only knows how you sound irl.

No. My father was the first person I personally knew who use to smoke ( cigarettes and cigars ) and quit ( he quit when I was about 10 ). I am 43 now so this was years before smoking became anti-social.

He was a Funeral Director and a Justice of the Peace, involved in local and national government. Overall a very smart man on most subjects. But told me smoking was the dumbest thing he had ever done. Obviously no input from me at that age ( he was a big guy ).

Since then I have lost count of the times I have heard that from ex-smokers. As opposed to any telling me it was a smart move.

So either you are....

(a) A genius, and see something positive about smoking no-one else can.

(b) Or you are in denial about how stupid you are on the subject and are too weak willed to give up.

Sorry, no third choice I can think of

PS.

IRL I do not suffer fools. So why start now ?

Originally posted by thedeadtruth

Sorry, no third choice I can think of

That's not something to be proud of or admit.

As a grown man, you should be able to do better than that - unless you are just using your 'two choices' as passive aggressive insults, which makes sense given your track record.

reply to post by Exuberant1


He was just outright calling everyone stupid a few pages back, in his quest for intelligence I don't think he made it past his internet ego.

All argument aside, both the woman and the smoking guy on the subway were in the wrong as far as I'm concerned. The woman should have less spite towards complete strangers (blind hatred) and the man should have controlled himself (becoming emotional and violent). This is just a confrontation between two people and if it wasn't a cigarette or joint it would have been something else with someone else. IMO this is no reason to expend money and resources taking away our own rights and those of others.

You know when you were in primary school and one person went and screamed about johnny having a piece of gum and not sharing, next thing you know nobody gets gum like it or not... it's like that but with adults, how sad.