Smoking in public, a right or a controlled priviledge?

Pages: 1 2 3

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Smoking in public, a right or a controlled priviledge?

Poll

Do smokers have rights, or controlled priviledges?? in a free society?

yes	39%	39% - 25
no	60%	60% - 39
Total: 64

2006-05-29 01:18:46

Cougar: Banned; +1,962|7004|Dallas

KingLou wrote:
I'm sorry.....but to not show the common courtesy to step outside is simply pure selfishness.

KiL

Yeah.......I'm a selfish bastard. Sue me. The owner of the resturant installed a smoking section and I intend to use it. If you don't like it, eat somewhere else. The only person missing out is the owner, who, installed the smoking section in the first place. So in theory, he cares more about me than you, so deal with it.

TrollmeaT wrote:
Cougar:

That was an episode of the original star trek with kirk, she was his leading lady for 1 show lol.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … eTrisk.jpg

OHH!! OK, lol. The tiny picture you posted before looked like a scene from a cheesy porno. But thats cool she was a leading lady on Star Trek, sorry for the loss.

2006-05-29 01:27:10

TheFlyfisher: Member; +0|6871

*** WARNING : I may slip into rant mode and go of a tangent after this warning***

I would have to say as a smoker and as a human that it is my right to smoke or do anything I please within the law of the land. I live in Scotland where 2 months ago they introduced a smoking ban in all enclosed public places which I strongly disagree with. The only place I do agree there should be absolutely no smoking is in places that serve food, only because I myself find eating while someone is smoking unpleasant.

I do not have any medical knowledge, but from the limited research I have done regarding smoking and health issues supposedly caused by smoking I haven't come across any hard and fast data to suggest that it causes lung cancer it's all presumptions and speculation "smoking MAY cause lung cancer" "smoking MAY harm your child during pregnancy" "we BELIEVE there is a link between smoking and cancer" and plenty more ifs and buts that are being said about tobacco products, no credible medical authority or agency in this country has come up with any hard and fast data in my opinion to prove their theories. Even less evidence exists to prove that passive smoking actually exists. In my opinion and I have no facts to back it up it just is more plausible and makes more sense to me, but i believe the rise in lung cancer cases in this country is more likely to be linked in the rise in usage of the motor car. All I have read in response to this thread is about air pollution, I'm sorry but do none of the non smokers drive vehicles or use public transport ? I think you will find that your mode of transport will be pumping out more pollution than I ever will while enjoying the pleasures of a packet of cigarettes.

At the end of WW2 90% of the adult male population in Britain smoked, so by going on todays medical theories there should have been a cancer epidemic in the 60's and 70's it just didn't happen.

Before the ban there were places that were non smoking so people who didn't smoke had the choice if they wished to frequent those establishments rather than ones where smoking was permitted, Now there is no choice, just a blanket ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces. They have taken away, I feel my freedom of choice and i upsets me that my government has taken this step. I am big enough and ugly enough to make my own choices. I believe in this country it is a working mans right to go for a pint and a smoke, but my government has taken away that right. They ban the usage of tobacco in enclosed public places but still allow the sale of it and continue to fund government policies from the taxes gained from the product which completely staggers me.

*** RANT OVER ***

If you have links to facts that may change my opinions and/or enlighten me please post them.

2006-05-29 01:33:37

KingLou: Banned; +79|6864|Las Vegas

Cougar wrote:
so deal with it.

No.

KiL

2006-05-29 01:40:49

Cougar: Banned; +1,962|7004|Dallas

KingLou wrote:
Cougar wrote:
so deal with it.
No.

KiL

Ok, hopefully someday we will meet in a resturant and I can blow smoke in your face. But since you won't deal with it, you will:

A: Start a scene by whining, crying and bitching at me.

B: Do something stupid and get beat up.

C: Sit there and take it like a bitch.

2006-05-29 01:52:36

Xietsu: Banned; +50|6796

TheFlyfisher wrote:
*** WARNING : I may slip into rant mode and go of a tangent after this warning***

I would have to say as a smoker and as a human that it is my right to smoke or do anything I please within the law of the land. I live in Scotland where 2 months ago they introduced a smoking ban in all enclosed public places which I strongly disagree with. The only place I do agree there should be absolutely no smoking is in places that serve food, only because I myself find eating while someone is smoking unpleasant.

I do not have any medical knowledge, but from the limited research I have done regarding smoking and health issues supposedly caused by smoking I haven't come across any hard and fast data to suggest that it causes lung cancer it's all presumptions and speculation "smoking MAY cause lung cancer" "smoking MAY harm your child during pregnancy" "we BELIEVE there is a link between smoking and cancer" and plenty more ifs and buts that are being said about tobacco products, no credible medical authority or agency in this country has come up with any hard and fast data in my opinion to prove their theories. Even less evidence exists to prove that passive smoking actually exists. In my opinion and I have no facts to back it up it just is more plausible and makes more sense to me, but i believe the rise in lung cancer cases in this country is more likely to be linked in the rise in usage of the motor car. All I have read in response to this thread is about air pollution, I'm sorry but do none of the non smokers drive vehicles or use public transport ? I think you will find that your mode of transport will be pumping out more pollution than I ever will while enjoying the pleasures of a packet of cigarettes.

At the end of WW2 90% of the adult male population in Britain smoked, so by going on todays medical theories there should have been a cancer epidemic in the 60's and 70's it just didn't happen.

Before the ban there were places that were non smoking so people who didn't smoke had the choice if they wished to frequent those establishments rather than ones where smoking was permitted, Now there is no choice, just a blanket ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces. They have taken away, I feel my freedom of choice and i upsets me that my government has taken this step. I am big enough and ugly enough to make my own choices. I believe in this country it is a working mans right to go for a pint and a smoke, but my government has taken away that right. They ban the usage of tobacco in enclosed public places but still allow the sale of it and continue to fund government policies from the taxes gained from the product which completely staggers me.

*** RANT OVER ***

If you have links to facts that may change my opinions and/or enlighten me please post them.

Smoking can cause asthma and lung damage that will decrease your respiratory function even without asthma! So chew tobacco instead and screw up your gum/teeth/jaw! Rwaawrawrawar!

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-05-29 01:52:47)

2006-05-29 01:54:38

anzus: Wheres the trigger?; +34|6883|Wangaratta, Australia

I am a smoker and I go out of my way not to annoy other people with it. eg if at a party in someones yard I will actually go for a walk down the street, even if there are other smokers there. I agree smoking is a health issue & I have chosen to ignore it but that gives me no right to harm someone else specially since we all know about the dangers of second hand smoke. What makes me even madder is seeing some dumb fuck parent sitting at the traffic lights smoking with a baby in the back seat and all the windows wound up, makes me wanna get out of the car and smash the dumb fucks! sorry but that really piss's me off! Where is thats child right! he/she cant protest about it and only have the option of legal action after the damage has been caused.

Last edited by anzus (2006-05-29 01:55:33)

2006-05-29 03:10:41

KingLou: Banned; +79|6864|Las Vegas

Cougar wrote:
KingLou wrote:
Cougar wrote:
so deal with it.
No.

KiL
Ok, hopefully someday we will meet in a resturant and I can blow smoke in your face. But since you won't deal with it, you will:

A: Start a scene by whining, crying and bitching at me.

B: Do something stupid and get beat up.

C: Sit there and take it like a bitch.

I choose B.

KiL

2006-05-29 03:29:04

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

Can I just have some clarification here? Does 'yes' mean a privilege or a right - the question is a little ambigous.

My feeling is you can do the hell whatever you want to yourself - but I'll be fucked the day you're allowed to do whatever you can to someone else. The main problems I have with smoking:

1. The more direct, easily preventable way: passive smoking. I seriously don't see that much of a problem with this - just leave wherever, or ask politely for them not to smoke (and you have asthma - I do). Most people I've asked have said 'Oh, sorry,' and put out their cigarette. Most people are generally very decent.

2. The MAIN, less direct problem: Smoking-related disease cost the health system hundreds of millions of dollars every year (not sure of the exact figures). Who has to front this massive cost? We (taxpayers) do!

So, mostly for the second reason, I think smoking should be curtailed in every reasonable (and I emphasize that word, reasonable) way.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2006-05-29 03:29:33

Xietsu: Banned; +50|6796

I think his first reference, A, is most likely a lapse in logical perception by Cougar. A whine, bitch, or cry is one that is in vain. A complaint is a valid issue with a certain status quo. I would think that such a confrontation would be in the contexts of complaint-ship. =P

2006-05-29 03:39:59

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

TheFlyfisher wrote:
*** WARNING : I may slip into rant mode and go of a tangent after this warning***

I would have to say as a smoker and as a human that it is my right to smoke or do anything I please within the law of the land. I live in Scotland where 2 months ago they introduced a smoking ban in all enclosed public places which I strongly disagree with. The only place I do agree there should be absolutely no smoking is in places that serve food, only because I myself find eating while someone is smoking unpleasant.

I do not have any medical knowledge, but from the limited research I have done regarding smoking and health issues supposedly caused by smoking I haven't come across any hard and fast data to suggest that it causes lung cancer it's all presumptions and speculation "smoking MAY cause lung cancer" "smoking MAY harm your child during pregnancy" "we BELIEVE there is a link between smoking and cancer" and plenty more ifs and buts that are being said about tobacco products, no credible medical authority or agency in this country has come up with any hard and fast data in my opinion to prove their theories. Even less evidence exists to prove that passive smoking actually exists. In my opinion and I have no facts to back it up it just is more plausible and makes more sense to me, but i believe the rise in lung cancer cases in this country is more likely to be linked in the rise in usage of the motor car. All I have read in response to this thread is about air pollution, I'm sorry but do none of the non smokers drive vehicles or use public transport ? I think you will find that your mode of transport will be pumping out more pollution than I ever will while enjoying the pleasures of a packet of cigarettes.

At the end of WW2 90% of the adult male population in Britain smoked, so by going on todays medical theories there should have been a cancer epidemic in the 60's and 70's it just didn't happen.

Before the ban there were places that were non smoking so people who didn't smoke had the choice if they wished to frequent those establishments rather than ones where smoking was permitted, Now there is no choice, just a blanket ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces. They have taken away, I feel my freedom of choice and i upsets me that my government has taken this step. I am big enough and ugly enough to make my own choices. I believe in this country it is a working mans right to go for a pint and a smoke, but my government has taken away that right. They ban the usage of tobacco in enclosed public places but still allow the sale of it and continue to fund government policies from the taxes gained from the product which completely staggers me.

*** RANT OVER ***

If you have links to facts that may change my opinions and/or enlighten me please post them.

I won't flame you for these - all you have posted are hard facts and I cannot dispute them. I will merely try to explain them.

Cigarettes of all kinds contain thousands upon thousands of chemicals - most of them unnatural, many harmful and a lot of CARCINOGENS. These are chemicals which actually DAMAGE the GENETIC MAKEUP of paticular cells.

The reason cancer epidemics do not occur is simple: The human genome is veeeeeeery long. The only thing that is required - the only thing that can cause - cancers are these two:

1. Removal of the 'suicide' code - the automated process of death is removed.

2. Removal of the 'stop creating' code - the removal of the genetic code which tells the cell that its reproduced enough, and should stop now.

So once you have these two gone - just two! (Remember, it's easy as changing a single letter in a single gene) you have long-lasting, division-mad cells - causing a cancer.

The thing is, the human genome is loooooong - and to a paticular cell, most of it is useless anyway (each cell - save sex cells - contain the entire human genome). So the chances that the right gene and the right amino acid will be damaged, are, well... low.

On top of that, the body has some defenses to ensure cancers never form (they're not elaborate enough, as our body hasn't had time to adapt to the sludge of chemicals we're filling it with)

So that's why it takes a LOT of cigarettes to INCREASE the chances of cancer - that's a lot of carcinogens being pumped into your lungs - and a helluva lot of damage to your genome (in your lungs).

And for Cougar's question - I choose D - which is move to another table and laugh silently at the guy who will have to for out a lot of money to get his foot cut off because he's smoked too much and it's gone gangrenous.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2006-05-29 04:10:18

rh27: Not really a Brit; +51|6836|England

The only reason smoking isn't illegal full stop is it makes a lot of money in taxes for the government, full stop. It's not "oh it doesn't actually cause harm", bullshit, the threat from passive smoking is very real.
I'm not one to deny you your right to harm yourself, but I'll be damned if you're going to do it where it could cause harm, or even just inconvenience to others.
What annoys me most is when I see parents smoking around their own young children. In many cases I have actually gone and told them to stop. Most are curtious, and will. Although chances are they'll start again when I've gone. Occasionally someone refuses, or gives me backtalk. Once I almost got in a fight. However, I'll keep doing it, because it is not your right to impose harm onto others.
The sooner England starts it's law to ban smoking in public places, the better.

2006-05-29 04:18:23

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6795

Controlled privilege. I also think cigarettes should be renamed 'Cancersticks' for public health reasons and to influence public perception of cigarettes.

2006-05-29 04:32:18

Xietsu: Banned; +50|6796

I think they should be called kansur-stikks for a little bit of a discrete tie-in. THAT WAY, IT WILL BE LIKE OMFG IT'S LIKE ALMOST CANCER STICK BUT NOT!

2006-05-29 04:59:52

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6801

Cougar wrote:
If your dumb enough to walk into the smoking section of a resturant and sit down as opposed to asking for a non-smoking seat, then you deserve to get lung cancer. Now shut up.

Because it's not like smoke is airborne or anything. Oh, wait........

Volatile_Squirrel wrote:
You drawing parallels between smoking a beating people with bats tells me that your insane, and once again extremely biased-this has been a complete waste of my time as usual - I'M OUT!

Both do nothing but cause harm.

Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-05-29 05:00:30)

2006-05-29 05:50:54

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6891|USA

Volatile_Squirrel wrote:
What I want to know is why it is beyond your capacity to not go into an establishment that allows this. Why must you force your ideals on everyone else.

Well, I will side with you on this.........I am a non-smoker, and I don't go to bars for this very reason. People smoke in them, I know this, so if I choose to go in then I should have no complaints. I will go to a sports/bar type restaurant and drink there where they have sectioned off areas for smokers.

2006-05-29 05:52:15

Sydney: 2λчиэλ; +783|7083|Reykjavík, Iceland.

Smokers are a waste of oxygen.

2006-05-29 05:54:37

Xietsu: Banned; +50|6796

Not really. Oxygen isn't really that great a percentage of air, and even so, air is so vastly abundant. In order to "waste" anything, a near-crisis circumstance must be present. This is most definitely not the case. So when anyone claims whomever is a waste of elements intregal to your respiratory system, just write them off as a fool incapable of logical reasoning. And then be like...omgghzzz bunny wiff pankayk on head!!!! LawL. ~_~'

2006-05-29 05:54:49

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6795

I think in Europe the situation is different from in the US. European governments, such as that of Ireland, have started to introduce smoking bans in the workplace as a way of reducing government health spending in the long term. Everybody is entitled to free medical treatment here so the less people with throat/lung cancer the cheaper it is for the government.

2006-05-29 05:55:47

Mason4Assassin444: retired; +552|6902|USA

lowing wrote:
During recent debates over freedoms, and the fact that that I was behind a smoker in line today getting pissed off that I had to breathe his smoke. I got to pondering whose rights or prililedges were being infringed upon? His, right or priviledge to smoke, or my right or priviledge to breathe the otherwise clean air next to us??

Is smoking a right or a priviledge that can be governed?

Whatcha guys think about this issue??

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/64/72529.htm

As annoying as second hand smoke may be to people, it is harmless. You are not ingesting any of the chemicals or sediments from the actual product. And it is a legal product so in my opinion, if people can make trillions from a product, I damn sure have the right to use it as I see fit. Seperated resteraunts and such with non-smoking and smoking designated areas is cool. But this shit around the country of outlawing/banning smoking in places is fucking ridiculous. More hypocrisy in the USA thats all. Make it illegal, then you have a say.

2006-05-29 06:03:57

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6891|USA

Spark wrote:
Can I just have some clarification here? Does 'yes' mean a privilege or a right - the question is a little ambigous.

My feeling is you can do the hell whatever you want to yourself - but I'll be fucked the day you're allowed to do whatever you can to someone else. The main problems I have with smoking:

1. The more direct, easily preventable way: passive smoking. I seriously don't see that much of a problem with this - just leave wherever, or ask politely for them not to smoke (and you have asthma - I do). Most people I've asked have said 'Oh, sorry,' and put out their cigarette. Most people are generally very decent.

2. The MAIN, less direct problem: Smoking-related disease cost the health system hundreds of millions of dollars every year (not sure of the exact figures). Who has to front this massive cost? We (taxpayers) do!

So, mostly for the second reason, I think smoking should be curtailed in every reasonable (and I emphasize that word, reasonable) way.

read down a few post from the top. I realized after I posted the poll that it wasn't clear at all..

yes..smokers have rights

no..it should be a controlled priviledge.

2006-05-29 06:08:44

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6891|USA

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
lowing wrote:
During recent debates over freedoms, and the fact that that I was behind a smoker in line today getting pissed off that I had to breathe his smoke. I got to pondering whose rights or prililedges were being infringed upon? His, right or priviledge to smoke, or my right or priviledge to breathe the otherwise clean air next to us??

Is smoking a right or a priviledge that can be governed?

Whatcha guys think about this issue??
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/64/72529.htm

As annoying as second hand smoke may be to people, it is harmless. You are not ingesting any of the chemicals or sediments from the actual product. And it is a legal product so in my opinion, if people can make trillions from a product, I damn sure have the right to use it as I see fit. Seperated resteraunts and such with non-smoking and smoking designated areas is cool. But this shit around the country of outlawing/banning smoking in places is fucking ridiculous. More hypocrisy in the USA thats all. Make it illegal, then you have a say.

Yeah, I heard about those findings......But that aside, there is no disputing that it does make a non-smoker hard to breathe, or at keeps them from at least breathing comfortably. Again, I am not talking about times when non=smokers and smokers have a choice. I am talking about times when there is no choice, long lines, sitting on a long flight, on a bus...etc..

2006-05-29 06:10:07

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6801

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/64/72529.htm

As annoying as second hand smoke may be to people, it is harmless. You are not ingesting any of the chemicals or sediments from the actual product. And it is a legal product so in my opinion, if people can make trillions from a product, I damn sure have the right to use it as I see fit. Seperated resteraunts and such with non-smoking and smoking designated areas is cool. But this shit around the country of outlawing/banning smoking in places is fucking ridiculous. More hypocrisy in the USA thats all. Make it illegal, then you have a say.

Did you even read the article you linked to? It lists problems with the study, which used data that was not researched to look at second hand smoke, and is being called flawed by a current and, probably, and ex-surgeon general. And you say that that one study debunks everything else? It was funded through a tobacco company ffs!

2006-05-29 06:19:17

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6891|USA

TrollmeaT wrote:
Cougar:

That was an episode of the original star trek with kirk, she was his leading lady for 1 show lol.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … eTrisk.jpg

off topic..

I was a fan of the old star trek........is she still with us??

2006-05-29 06:24:02

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6801

TrollmeaT wrote:
my aunt died of cancer,

Dunno

2006-05-29 06:25:54

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6891|USA

Bubbalo wrote:
TrollmeaT wrote:
my aunt died of cancer,
Dunno

Well gee Bubbalo, I missed the post. looks like you can chalk one up in the ole' win column.

TrollmeaT, I am sorry for your loss.

Last edited by lowing (2006-05-29 06:28:34)

Pages: 1 2 3

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Smoking in public, a right or a controlled priviledge?

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Smoking in public, a right or a controlled priviledge?

Poll

KingLou wrote:

TrollmeaT wrote:

Cougar wrote:

KingLou wrote:

Cougar wrote:

TheFlyfisher wrote:

Cougar wrote:

KingLou wrote:

Cougar wrote:

TheFlyfisher wrote:

Cougar wrote:

Volatile_Squirrel wrote:

Volatile_Squirrel wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

TrollmeaT wrote:

TrollmeaT wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

TrollmeaT wrote:

Board footer