Posted February 3, 2011 They banned smoking in populated public places, not smoking itself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 See, this argument is flawed big time. Smoking in crowds? I'm assuming you'll be on the move, as it's illegal to smoke in many buildings e.g football grounds etc. So how would passing through smoke for all of 2secs affect you? Same with smoking at entrances for that matter. How about having some courtesy for smokers who have already had to stand outside in the rain to enjoy a cigarette because laws have been past to say that they can't stay inside and light up. Non-smoker btw I see your argument a little flawed too. Why can't they not have a cigarette before entering the stadium and have one after? They would be sitting there for over two hours, knowing they will be in a crowd full of people around them, wouldn't it be manners not to light up around people? As I said, little kids and elderly people would be around them, wouldn't it be courteous not to light up when they're around crowds? Little kids can get asthma fairly easy because of second-hand smoke and some elderly people don't have the strongest of lungs. Smokers half of the time choose to stand out in the rain. I have been in a few places where there's a smoking hut/shack/whatever out back and they still choose to smoke in the entrance. What's the difference? Also, why should I have courtesy for smokers who CHOOSE to do this. They don't HAVE to do it. There isn't really a good reason why they can not use the smoking shack/hut/whatever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 The problem with your argument is that you say its not hurting anyone, but it is. Secondhand smoke is harmful, perfume isnt. It's hardly harmful. Studies have concluded that virtually almost no problems have arisen from it. So it's really a question of selfishness for the most part. Perfume might damage someone if he's allergic to a component. The probability of it happening is infinitely small, but then again so is the prob that second hand smoking will affect you in any meaningful way. Constant exposure may lead to some complications, but that's really up to the victim. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 I see your argument a little flawed too. Why can't they not have a cigarette before entering the stadium and have one after? They would be sitting there for over two hours, knowing they will be in a crowd full of people around them, wouldn't it be manners not to light up around people? As I said, little kids and elderly people would be around them, wouldn't it be courteous not to light up when they're around crowds? Little kids can get asthma fairly easy because of second-hand smoke and some elderly people don't have the strongest of lungs. Smokers half of the time choose to stand out in the rain. I have been in a few places where there's a smoking hut/shack/whatever out back and they still choose to smoke in the entrance. What's the difference? Also, why should I have courtesy for smokers who CHOOSE to do this. They don't HAVE to do it. There isn't really a good reason why they can not use the smoking shack/hut/whatever. You can't legally smoke IN the crowd. They have chose to have a cigarette BEFORE entering the stadium...but your still complaining about that. That's what i'm saying, you can't have it all your own way. They have a right to smoke, deal with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 It's hardly harmful. Studies have concluded that virtually almost no problems have arisen from it. So it's really a question of selfishness for the most part. Perfume might damage someone if he's allergic to a component. The probability of it happening is infinitely small, but then again so is the prob that second hand smoking will affect you in any meaningful way. Constant exposure may lead to some complications, but that's really up to the victim. You say that studies have concluded that no problems arise from it, looking that up myself I find the complete opposite. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 It's hardly harmful. Studies have concluded that virtually almost no problems have arisen from it. So it's really a question of selfishness for the most part. Perfume might damage someone if he's allergic to a component. The probability of it happening is infinitely small, but then again so is the prob that second hand smoking will affect you in any meaningful way. Constant exposure may lead to some complications, but that's really up to the victim. Almost no problems is still more than no problems. Should we ban nuts too because people are allergic? Allergies don't count because the substance itself is not harmful, but the reaction the bodies creates to fight the harmless substance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 You say that studies have concluded that no problems arise from it, looking that up myself I find the complete opposite. Was about to point this out. Of course secondary smoke is harmful! It's obvious! If it makes you choke, how is it not? Why you'd want to inhale smoke in the first place is beyond me though... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 It's hardly harmful. Studies have concluded that virtually almost no problems have arisen from it. So it's really a question of selfishness for the most part. Perfume might damage someone if he's allergic to a component. The probability of it happening is infinitely small, but then again so is the prob that second hand smoking will affect you in any meaningful way. Constant exposure may lead to some complications, but that's really up to the victim. And other studies have shown the exact opposite. Studies are pointless. Arguments along the lines of "yeah but people drink annoys me loads so that should be banned" are flawed for two reasons: 1) Drinking is already banned outdoors. You aren't allowed to have alcohol open in most public spaces. 2) Drinking may cause the person to be annoying, and it may harm them, but it doesn't harm anyone else. Obviously you could say 'they harm people when they get into fights' - that's a small minority. All smokers who smoke around people/in crowds are harming everyone around them. It's like saying every drunk person in a crowd goes round to each person individually and punches them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 You say that studies have concluded that no problems arise from it, looking that up myself I find the complete opposite. Show me. And I mean real problems. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 I don't know about you guys but I'm feeling a little deja-vu... Didn't I create a thread about smoking in the past? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 Because some people are happier that way and the difference it makes in your/our life is very little. Compromise is essential. Well I'd be happier if I didn't see cigarette butts everywhere. And from what I gather, other people in this thread would also be happier with the ban, so why is a smokers happiness more important? Especially when non smokers, quite frankly, have made the sensible choice to not take up/quit smoking? As far as I'm concerned, there is a compromise. Smoking is still legal, just not in parks and busy areas. I wouldn't support a full ban, but I agree certain areas should be smoke free. Smokers chose to start and they choose to continue. They'll never get any sympathy from me. Ever. All the smokers I know (including both my parents) are fully aware of the consequences of smoking, but continue anyway. That's their choice, but others shouldn't have to put up with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 Show me. And I mean real problems. http://smokefree.nhs.uk/why-quit/secondhand-smoke/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking Those are the main 2 i'll bother posting, Wikipedia may not be the most reputable site in the world but its getting the point across. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 Was about to point this out. Of course secondary smoke is harmful! It's obvious! If it makes you choke, how is it not? Why you'd want to inhale smoke in the first place is beyond me though... I don't want to. But they do, and it's their right to do so. Stop being a self centered pseudo-fascist and respect other people's wishes in life. It's not your decision how other people live their life, Dazz-o. :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 What I don't get is, if people are addicted to the nicotine and not the cigarettes, why do they need the cigarettes in the first place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 It's hardly harmful. Studies have concluded that virtually almost no problems have arisen from it. So it's really a question of selfishness for the most part. Perfume might damage someone if he's allergic to a component. The probability of it happening is infinitely small, but then again so is the prob that second hand smoking will affect you in any meaningful way. Constant exposure may lead to some complications, but that's really up to the victim. Wait, what? Studies are pointless. Wait, what? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 I don't want to. But they do, and it's their right to do so. Stop being a self centered pseudo-fascist and respect other people's wishes in life. It's not your decision how other people live their life, Dazz-o. :p It's not their right to do it in a public place where they can harm others. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 What I don't get is, if people are addicted to the nicotine and not the cigarettes, why do they need the cigarettes in the first place. Maybe they taste good. I wouldn't know...I never smoked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 Why can't they not have a cigarette before entering the stadium and have one after? With the ban, they can't. That's one of our points. Almost no problems is still more than no problems. Should we ban nuts too because people are allergic? Allergies don't count because the substance itself is not harmful, but the reaction the bodies creates to fight the harmless substance. I'm not sure for which side of the debate you're arguing anymore. EDIT: Ah, fuck it. This is moving too fast for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Show me. And I mean real problems. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS http://www.buzzle.com/articles/passive-smoking-harmful-effects-second-hand-smoke.html That enough? Those were the first three results. It can cause lung cancer, asthma and other diseases. 3,400 lung cancer deaths and they were non-smokers. I know somebody who was one of them. Never smoked in his life. I don't want to. But they do, and it's their right to do so. Stop being a self centered pseudo-fascist and respect other people's wishes in life. It's not your decision how other people live their life, Dazz-o. :p I didn't say it was my decision but why should I respect their wishes when they can't respect other people's and keep the smoke away? lol. I know I sound like a bit of a dick on here but I just get so tired of people coming up to me, telling me "Why don't you show respect for smokers?". I mean, fair enough if you were from the old days and you had no clue of the harm it did to you but in the 80s onwards, everybody was aware and they carried on. Why on earth would you want to inhale disgusting smoke? I also get fed up of people saying "I will quit" all the time and then never even bother trying in the first place. That annoys me a little too. === Actually, questions to all smokers on this thread: How did you start smoking? Why do you carry on smoking? Why did you want to start? Do you like the taste? Do you want to stop? Do you realise it's harming you as well as others? If you said yes to the above, why not try your hardest to stop by using other things like electronic cigarettes or patches? Edited February 3, 2011 by Animal Automerged Doublepost Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 With the ban, they can't. That's one of our points. I'm not sure for which side of the debate you're arguing anymore. EDIT: Ah, fuck it. This is moving too fast for me. Still the same side. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 (this should contain more references than anyone needs - p. 1189 onwards for passive smoking) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 I don't think you sound like a dick, Dazz. Your stating your opinion quite fairly. Being called a pseudo-facist is oxigen's way of saying he likes you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 http://smokefree.nhs.uk/why-quit/secondhand-smoke/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking Those are the main 2 i'll bother posting, Wikipedia may not be the most reputable site in the world but its getting the point across. I take no bullshit from sites like smoke-free. It states without sources, that's as unreliable as it gets, not to mention biased (smoke free, yeah, that sounds really impartial). As for wikipedia, it's only reinforcing my point... it arises problems in spouses/close relatives of smokers. But the victims made a conscient choice to be exposed to this smoke, it wasn't involuntary. Except for kids, whose parents were irresponsible. But those will still exist with this new law, since you can still smoke at home. Basically, my point that second hand smoke you catch on the street (ie involutarily) does not pose an active threat to you. To quote myself: Constant exposure may lead to some complications, but that's really up to the victim. All problems that studies have demonstrated arise from second hand smoke are cases of prolonged exposure. Which doesn't apply here... at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 Maybe they taste good. I wouldn't know...I never smoked. Nope they don't. I smoked 1 cigarette and it tasted awful. A lot of smokers I know say they hate the taste and smell too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 3, 2011 There are a lot more of these studies now being posted for you to ignore as well, Oxigen. Can you post the ones that you mentioned, about passive smoke not being harmful, please? Just so we can see both sides rather than lots of proof on one side and you just calling it all bullshit :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
