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

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

Firstly, it needs to be ascertained whether smoke fumes can cause discomfort or illness to an unwilling bystander. And then, if there are reasonable grounds to suggest that negative effects to other people do occur

i don't like b.o. it causes me great discomfort and makes me feel sick. where do we draw the line with this reasoning? pertrol smells give me headaches to.

guess how i solve those problems? pretty simple, it does not require a law or someone to enforce 'order', i simply move to another area or away from the smell. theres is lots of space outside.

reply to post by lifeform11


Exactly, and thats whats upsetting. There are those, ( regardless if its smoking or other topics ) who wish to preach there like/dislikes and if it impacts them, instead of that person making changes, they want everyone else to change to accommodate their wants and desires.

Originally posted by lifeform11
i don't like b.o. it causes me great discomfort and makes me feel sick. where do we draw the line with this reasoning? pertrol smells give me headaches to.

You are not comparing like for like.

''Discomfort'' was probably a poor choice of word on my part, I'll admit. I was actually thinking of physical discomfort caused to people such as asthma sufferers, who can have their pre-existing illness exacerbated by inhaling smoke fumes.

Smelling someone else's b.o may be unpleasant, but, unless they are infected with some highly contagious disease, I doubt that it'll have any adverse effects to your health.

Originally posted by lifeform11
guess how i solve those problems? pretty simple, it does not require a law or someone to enforce 'order', i simply move to another area or away from the smell. theres is lots of space outside.

Why should you have to move somewhere else because of somebody else's harmful and anti-social habit ?

The pro-smokers ''right'' lobby are ignoring the fact that smokers are needlessly subjecting non-consenting strangers to potentially harmful toxins and chemicals.

reply to post by trouble_every_day


Well, I'm certainly not in favour of overzealous PC legislation, but just because something is endorsed by PCers, doesn't automatically make it wrong.

I strongly believe that when considering the fairest option to take on any issue that involves non-consenting people, cultural and societal biases and preconceptions should be left aside.

On the issue of public smoking, it's clear from a logical view, that it only benefits the smoker and it has the potential to harm other non-consenting people.

Following on from an objective analysis of the issue, it becomes apparent that the fairest and most logical way to legislate for this, is to prohibit smoking in a public place.

Smokers just need to exert self-control and smoke in a situation where their smoke will not be inhaled by unsuspecting strangers.

Why should you have to move somewhere else because of somebody else's harmful and anti-social habit ? The pro-smokers ''right'' lobby are ignoring the fact that smokers are needlessly subjecting non-consenting strangers to potentially harmful toxins and chemicals.

yes your right, does that mean we can start complaining about all the other harmful toxins and chemicals people produce, do you know what a slippery slope is? and yes why should i move, i should start calling for legislation and tagging it as anti social because i am to lazy to move away from things that bug me.

god knows where this line of thinking ends, but i'll remember when we get there certain people were asking for it.

by the way you think somebody effecting your air is someone who thinks of themselves and are not thinking of others? well i think those who decide what freedoom i am aloud soley based on their minor inconvenience are selfish and only thinking of themselves and their own freedom, own life, etc.

i have done this subject to death in the past, so i am not going to keep replying. so all i will say is enjoy the future you are helping to make.

As far as I know there is no smoking on the NYC trains/subways. If there are signs posted, I have no idea, have not been on either in quite some time.

He was in the wrong but I highly doubt she was nice or polite about it and his actions are extreme.

What really grinds my gears is when I am outside smoking and someone walks up to me and tells me I am polluting their clean air. I usually tell them to get bent, or not to breathe.

Pretty soon you will only be able to smoke in your non-moving car under a blanket in a cleared, designated area of the woods 50 miles from anyone. Damned ridiculous id you ask me. I am done catering to non smokers every whim because even if I try to be polite and smoke somewhere out of the way, people still come over to me. They go out of their way to come near me, so now I don't care anymore unless it's children.

i am a smoker,its legal the government loves the revenue ,i respect the non smokers,i am hooked addicted i cant help it..i light up my smokes and enjoy *snip*

People need to know when to pick thier battles imo.

Being a x-smoker I know how ppl can get when having a bad day. This guy must have been having a real bad day to light up a smoke knowing it was illegal on the train.

He was probably pissed to the point where he became self distructive and was looking for a conflict.

This lady fell right into his trap of loathing and anger and he took it all out on her face.

Not the right thing to do by all means but people need to know when to pick thier battles and when to lay down thier cards.

We are human animals anyone can go nuts at anytime its the nature of the beast.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

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.

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

reply to post by onehuman


What the man did was wrong because common sense dictates that most subway trains are non-smoking areas.

Trying to turn this into a smoking vs non-smoking debate is missing the whole point. If there are signs up (which there most likely are), then the logical thing is to not light up!

First off the guy wasn't smoking a cig he was smoking whackey-tobaccy! So everyone can drop the righteous anger Check out this link Here Now this changes the whole discussion.

Wow that is to the extreme! That guy must have some serious anger issues to resort to that kind of behavior. Even if the lady was rude about it a simple screw you or mind your own business would have been a better chioice here or just ignore her. But to stab her?? That is just insane!!

reply to post by ucantcme


Yep, he sure could have handled it better...We are all just so angry these days. Bring me my soma.

reply to post by trouble_every_day


Unfortunately thats true. People seem to snap over the smallest things. Not always violently either a lot of people just start yelling really loud and make a fool out of themselves over what really amounts to nothing.

It's bad enough that smokers are punished with obscene taxes on cigarettes that go directly to the politicians who make back-door deals with the tobacco industry in the first place.
The only thing worse than non-smoker/anti-smokers are ex-smoker/anti-smokers. Self-righteous jerks.
I'm not going to lie, I think this story is awesome.

reply to post by hangedman13


Oh.
I wasn't aware of that.
*sigh* That makes the story boring.
Aw shucks.
*kicks dirt*

I agree that he should have not been smoking on the train..but on the other hand your worried about cigarette smoke, what about the Chemtrails? you don't breathe that everyday right Can't we all just get alonga(o she should have not been slashed in the face)

I was in a casino. You can smoke in casinos. A lady sitting a couple of seats away threatened to throw up on me if I didn't put my cigarette out. I asked her why she was gambling in the smoking section if she didn't like smoke. She didn't have an answer for that one. Then she started making noises like she was going to throw up. I laughed and she gave me a real mean look. I laughed again. She got up and moved.

awesome. people are way too picky about smoke.

reply to post by onehuman


Smoking is dumb and ugly. Why any beautiful (because we are all beautiful) and intelligent human would deliberately smoke an addictive and fundamentally destructive substance is beyond me.

People know it is dumb to smoke. People know its stinks, stains your teeth, makes your breath foul.
People know it destroys your general health, ages you, and makes you prone to numerous disease.

Non smoking People know second hand smoke also carries risks.
That is why it is banned in places.
That is why people on trains ask smokers not to smoke.

The smoking debate is a lost battle for smokers, you lost, and whats worse is that you were duped by the conspiracy of the elite multinationals who lied for decades, and who couldn't give a rats about you but for your dollar.
And you pay them. Gladly, to simply behave dumb and ugly. Like good sheep, only you are smoking the cool aid.

I'm not surprised that a smoker acted so irrationally. Especially given the behavior of smoking, that started the incident, is basically irrational.

Smoke that.