Cigarette Smoking In Public: Why You're Opinion Is Wrong

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 17 Jul 2006 15:11

You're really dumb Switch Kicker, and I think everyone on modified knows it.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 17 Jul 2006 23:28

Perhaps it been dealt with earlier in the thread already, but the way I see it, just as anyone has the right to smoke, anyone has the right to breathe in air free from smoke. Neither a smoker nor a non-smoker has an inherently greater right to public space. All things being thus equal the problem remains who has the right to breathe in their chosen manner in a public space. It seems to me that in democratic societies the majority wins. The cost of having to exercise the will of the majority is the potential to undermine the notion of "good" within the concept of "greater good". So long as smokers have plentiful places to smoke in peace, I don't think the good is unacceptably undermined - because the non-smoking majority is not enforcing their will in a manner which shows no consideration for the right of the smoker to breathe smoke. Ideally the amount of public space devoted to smokers would be proportionate to the size of their population, however this gives no consideration to the fact that some areas of public space are more valuable than others - perhaps public space could be divided into tiers of value and smokers would get a proportionate amount of each teir - such a task would be close to impossible though, so in the end its better if we allocate 'sufficient' space and get on with it.
If it were the other way around - if smokers were a majority, and in some communities they are, the situation would be similar, I think they would need to be careful not to smoke in a manner that showed no consideration for the non-smoker - ie they would need to provide a way for the non-smokers to go about their daily lives avoiding smoke. In this case there would simply be alot more public space in which smoking was acceptable, but there would still need to be designated spaces free from smoking.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 18 Jul 2006 00:07

Sorry for the double post - obviously I haven't spoken specifically to the "legality" of banning smoking in public, but hopefully it is clear that I feel that laws reflect the system of goverment and its constituents. Its not so simple as saying people don't have the right to breathe clean air otherwise industrail and other polution would be banned, because the majority negotiates their rights to gain certain privlages - ie we forego entirely clean air so we can reap the benifits of industial society.
AS for in private while I agree that the goverment should not have unfettered power to impose bans on activities within private places, I think it also has a responsibility to the public to provide a situation in which they can participate in a range of social activities - I'm unconvinced leaving it down to market forces is the right way to allow smokers and non smokers this sort of participation - I think the goverment should facilitate the eventual balance between smoking and nonsmoking commercial (specifically private commercial) spaces as required by the market, and see legislation regarding the rights of people to smoke in private places as one justifiable and legal means by which they can do this.
Currently in the city in which I live, the goverment has taken the next step in implementing a ban on smoking within pubs and clubs. Now it is resticted to a single designated part of the pub. Eventually there will be a total ban, as there is in Dublin for example. I don't mind the total ban as long as people will be allowed to set up "Smokers Clubs" and said clubs will be allowed to serve alcohol and food. I think implimenting such a ban is a reasonable way to allow the private sector to adjust to a situation in which the market needs to designate different public spaces for smokers and non smokers.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 21 Jul 2006 10:39

Dylander, I've already responded to all of your points in different posts. Like I said, you guys are going round in circles.

gangsta · Post by **gangsta** » 25 Jul 2006 12:46

Sure, banning smoking (anywhere) is a step towards a totalitarian government. In fact, every law and regulation is a step towards totalitarianism. However, ALL laws and regulations, including the smoking ban, are for the well being of the populace.

Of course vehicles, and factories produce pollution. None of this pollution is released indoors, however. How would you like it if I ran my car inside Your house, or place of business, even for just a few seconds? Probably the same way I would feel if you lit a cigarette in my house: Mad as fuck, and nauseous/dizzy from the toxic chemicals.

Smoking in someones privately owned business? What kind of jackass would pollute a persons place of business with foul, toxic, staining, smelly smoke anyway?! Maybe an addict...

"What?! I Can't smoke in the bowling alley?! But I need a cigarette NOW! WTF! Now I have to wait 30 extra seconds to get my fix, and walk all the way outside! How inconvenient. I'll be wheezing and coughing by the time I make it outside. This so unfair!"

In my opinion, cigarettes should have never been legal in the first place (we all know the reasons why). So now you have to smoke outside or in a designated smoking area... Don't you feel oppressed? The only reason smokers Care about this, is because they're addicted.
You should be THANKING the government for discouraging the disgusting, unhealthy habit of smoking.

I for one am glad smoking isnt allowed in the local pool hall; I can actually breathe, and see. Plus, I don't stink like shit when I leave.
They do allow smoking in a closed off room however (I went in there once and it smelled soooooooo bad)

Yes, the government should be able to ban smoking cancer-sticks.

Please don't smoke in my house/business, you weak-willed, chemical-addicted, evil-tobacco-company supporting, cancer-ridden, yellow-teethed, wheezing folks, with an expected shorter lifespan, and unhealthy, less-satisfying lives. (You know who you are)

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 25 Jul 2006 20:10

I disagree I think there simply needs to be better regulation so that people can make their choices regarding the matter with as little affect upon others as possible. I'm sure there are lots of other things that people do that you find equally disgusting but you don't desire the goverment to make them stop because they don't affect your health. O.K so someone elses smoking does affect your health - that doesn't necissitate a total ban, it simply means you need to be seperated from smokers and vica versa.

gangsta · Post by **gangsta** » 26 Jul 2006 05:03

dyalander wrote:I think there simply needs to be better regulation so that people can make their choices regarding the matter with as little affect upon others as possible.

What kind of 'regulation?' Like, a smoking ban in public places?

dyalander wrote:I'm sure there are lots of other things that people do that you find equally disgusting but you don't desire the goverment to make them stop because they don't affect your health.

Im not sure what youre getting at here....

dyalander wrote:O.K so someone elses smoking does affect your health - that doesn't necissitate a total ban, it simply means you need to be seperated from smokers and vica versa.

So you agree that smokers shouldn't be able to smoke in a restaraunt/bowling alley/etc?

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 26 Jul 2006 15:36

my earlier posts make my views on the subject fairly clear.

dyalander wrote:
I'm sure there are lots of other things that people do that you find equally disgusting but you don't desire the goverment to make them stop because they don't affect your health.

Im not sure what youre getting at here....

What I'm getting at is that just because something disgusts you, doesn't give you the right to totally ban it. Obviously it affects your health so you have the right to be able to avoid it but you have no right to totally prevent others from doing by rendering it illegal provided it's done amongst those who also smoke, or in the privacy of their own home.

gangsta · Post by **gangsta** » 27 Jul 2006 11:48

dyalander wrote: What I'm getting at is that just because something disgusts you, doesn't give you the right to totally ban it. Obviously it affects your health so you have the right to be able to avoid it but you have no right to totally prevent others from doing by rendering it illegal provided it's done amongst those who also smoke, or in the privacy of their own home.

I concur.

Also, I do not have the right to ban anything at all, or make anything illegal. However, I do have the right to Vote on the issue, if I ever get the chance. I'm not against people smoking in the privacy of their own homes (or homes of other smokers), or in designated smoking areas.

Some things that disgust me, that are also banned: Defecating in public, being naked in public, and running a vehicle without emission control equipment, such as a catalytic converter.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 29 Jul 2006 19:05

Sure, banning smoking (anywhere) is a step towards a totalitarian government. In fact, every law and regulation is a step towards totalitarianism. However, ALL laws and regulations, including the smoking ban, are for the well being of the populace.

All laws and regulations are for the well being of the populace? You might want to think that through considering the implications you make.

Of course vehicles, and factories produce pollution. None of this pollution is released indoors, however. How would you like it if I ran my car inside Your house, or place of business, even for just a few seconds? Probably the same way I would feel if you lit a cigarette in my house: Mad as fuck, and nauseous/dizzy from the toxic chemicals.

Though you may be right to say no pollution caused by factories or vehicles is released indoors, you have to remember that pollution travels (Wait for it) through the air. Houses and businesses in major cities are pollution traps, and you're better off walking around on the sidewalk with me smoking infront of you.

Smoking in someones privately owned business? What kind of jackass would pollute a persons place of business with foul, toxic, staining, smelly smoke anyway?! Maybe an addict...

You're foolish and you probably young and missed my point. Many businesses would like to allow smoking to continue, because smoking bans have an incredibly negative effect on particuliar businesses and the economics of a city. I live in Seattle, where you can't smoke within 25 feet of a public doorway, and also cannot smoke inside any business, not mattering what the owner thinks or wants. This, is Totalitarianism. I'm not against the 25 feet of a doorway law, because sidewalks are public property (Meaning owned by the State), but telling a business owner that he can't allow smoking to continue in his bar, restaraunt, or cigar bar, is fucked up.

"What?! I Can't smoke in the bowling alley?! But I need a cigarette NOW! WTF! Now I have to wait 30 extra seconds to get my fix, and walk all the way outside! How inconvenient. I'll be wheezing and coughing by the time I make it outside. This so unfair!"

I smoke about half a pack a day, while still playing Squash and Basketball atleast five times a week. Smoking definitely doesn't help you athleticly, but making caricatures out of a particuliar minority group isn't kosher.

In my opinion, cigarettes should have never been legal in the first place (we all know the reasons why). So now you have to smoke outside or in a designated smoking area... Don't you feel oppressed? The only reason smokers Care about this, is because they're addicted.
You should be THANKING the government for discouraging the disgusting, unhealthy habit of smoking.

No, I have never heard a good reason why cigarette's should be illegal. Why should the government determine what goes into my body? If I want to kill my lungs or liver or brain, it isn't any business of the governments, BECAUSE THEY'RE MY ORGANS. MY ORGANS.

Besides, people do disgusting things in public all the time. Go to a McDonald's and see people eating food with no nutritional value whatsoever, and realize how gross that is. And the government makes money off that shit, as they should. Also, disgusting is a matter of personal opinion. Some people find cigarette's attractive. Some people find coffee atrocious. Still, their are places people can go all over the world to get their caffiene fix.

Please don't smoke in my house/business, you weak-willed, chemical-addicted, evil-tobacco-company supporting, cancer-ridden, yellow-teethed, wheezing folks, with an expected shorter lifespan, and unhealthy, less-satisfying lives. (You know who you are)

Hahahahaha

SandWraith · Post by **SandWraith** » 29 Jul 2006 19:31

Off-topic topic title talk: You know it's "your" and not "you're," right?

gangsta · Post by **gangsta** » 29 Jul 2006 20:47

BainbridgeShred wrote: All laws and regulations are for the well being of the populace? You might want to think that through considering the implications you make.

Can you name a law/regulation that is not beneficial to the populace? What did I imply that is not fact?

BainbridgeShred wrote: Though you may be right to say no pollution caused by factories or vehicles is released indoors, you have to remember that pollution travels (Wait for it) through the air. Houses and businesses in major cities are pollution traps, and you're better off walking around on the sidewalk with me smoking infront of you.

Im better off with you smoking infront of me? Can you elaborate on that? More toxins is NOT better; especially when the air is overpolluted already. Why would you even suggest that?! That's just ridiculous.

BainbridgeShred wrote: You're foolish and you probably young and missed my point. Many businesses would like to allow smoking to continue, because smoking bans have an incredibly negative effect on particuliar businesses and the economics of a city. I live in Seattle, where you can't smoke within 25 feet of a public doorway, and also cannot smoke inside any business, not mattering what the owner thinks or wants. This, is Totalitarianism. I'm not against the 25 feet of a doorway law, because sidewalks are public property (Meaning owned by the State), but telling a business owner that he can't allow smoking to continue in his bar, restaraunt, or cigar bar, is fucked up.

Just like telling the people they cant smoke weed, snort coke, or inject heroine? Im just looking for a little consistency. It's not like it's necessary to smoke while you're shopping. It can definitely wait, unless of course, you're addicted...

A business owner that allows smoking in their place of business will only receive business from the smoking minority. Any business man will tell you, this is not smart business. Majority = more people = more business. Minority = least amount of people = less business.
Foolish and young?? Assumptions. Rude assumptions, with no place in this debate.

BainbridgeShred wrote: I smoke about half a pack a day, while still playing Squash and Basketball atleast five times a week. Smoking definitely doesn't help you athleticly, but making caricatures out of a particuliar minority group isn't kosher.

Half a pack a day, is half a pack too much. I reccomend you stop smoking, for your own benefit. Why do you smoke anyway?! WHY!!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!! STOP IT!!! wtf.... wtf....

BainbridgeShred wrote:No, I have never heard a good reason why cigarette's should be illegal. Why should the government determine what goes into my body? If I want to kill my lungs or liver or brain, it isn't any business of the governments, BECAUSE THEY'RE MY ORGANS. MY ORGANS.

Do you believe that cocaine, marijuana, opiates, amphetamines, and other drugs, should be legal? You're post implies that you do. Tobacco is just as addictive and harmful as any other Drug. That's right, tobacco is indeed a drug, druggie.
The drugs that I mentioned are illegal because they harm the body (not so much Marijuana...) Tobacco Undeniably harms the smoker's, and innocent bystander's bodie's. If you have not heard a good reason why cigarettes should be illegal, then you obviously have not been paying attention. Period.

BainbridgeShred wrote: Besides, people do disgusting things in public all the time. Go to a McDonald's and see people eating food with no nutritional value whatsoever, and realize how gross that is. And the government makes money off that shit, as they should. Also, disgusting is a matter of personal opinion. Some people find cigarette's attractive. Some people find coffee atrocious. Still, their are places people can go all over the world to get their caffiene fix.

Some people do find cigarettes attractive; cigarette addicts. Although people may find coffee's taste gross, drinking coffee does NOT release toxins into the air. Besides, many of the people that find coffee to be disgusting, drink other kinds of caffinated beverages (caffeine kills about 2,000 people/year, BTW...) Why do you feel the need to resort to strawmen arguments?

By the way, fast food does contain protein, which is essential... Fast food definitely is not the best choice, however.

Please don't smoke in my house/business, you weak-willed, chemical-addicted, evil-tobacco-company supporting, cancer-ridden, yellow-teethed, wheezing folks, with an expected shorter lifespan, and unhealthy, less-satisfying lives. (You know who you are)

BainbridgeShred wrote:Hahahahaha

It's funny because it's true

Can you deny any of these points? You're weak willed because you continue to smoke tobacco; which means your addicted to the chemical nicotine. You support the tobacco companies because you buy their product. Tobacco causes cancer (of the mouth, throat, lungs, of you and others). The tar from tobacco stains teeth (fact). Smoker's lungs undeniably are less efficient/healthy than non-smokers. Tobacco Undeniably decreases life-expectancy/quality... FUNNY STUFF!!! YOURE RIGHT! HAHAHAH!

Someday, when you're not too old, and dieing from emphazema, cancer, etc, you'll see the light. I hope it doesn't take a terminal illness for you to come to your senses.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 30 Jul 2006 06:34

Not really arguing either way but perhaps the reasoning should be reversed and the same concern applied to smoking should be applied to all polution. Non smokers who are really serious about their health can give up their cars and ride bikes, stop using air-con and just put on more/less clothes instead, which would need to be hand made because otherwise the textile factories would be poluting the air an the wearer of the product would shoulder the responsibility for that polution. Of course this is ludicrous, smokers are simplyhighly visible poluters with a direct link between the polution and the repsonsibility for it, and we see them every day, whereas all those industrial poluters hide behind the contributions they make to society in the form of the products and luxuries they provide and responsibility for the polution gets dilluted across the consumer and the producer. Its easier to just hate smokers and forget about industrial polution.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 30 Jul 2006 06:43

Lol Gangsta, go tell Vindicator that you've taken his spot as the dumbest person on modified. Cigarettes a drug? Oh geez. I guess I never thought about it like that.

It really sounds like your parents are giving you lectures on drugs and you're turning around and coming on here and posting. I may get to your "points" later.

gangsta · Post by **gangsta** » 30 Jul 2006 08:34

BainbridgeShred wrote:Lol Gangsta, go tell Vindicator that you've taken his spot as the dumbest person on modified. Cigarettes a drug? Oh geez. I guess I never thought about it like that.

It really sounds like your parents are giving you lectures on drugs and you're turning around and coming on here and posting. I may get to your "points" later.

Dan Feary,

What did I say that was 'dumb?' Calling names in a civillized argument is childish. That, is dumb (and so is smoking cigarettes!) Childhood is not an age, it is a state of mind.

It sounds to me like you have lost this argument, not only because you do not know how to debate, but you feel like you must resort to Name calling (dumb, childish).

You never thought about cigarettes being a drug? That's right, it IS a drug. Show me how it's not... It causes changes in behavior, its addictive, unecessary, Very harmful to everyones health, etc.

Again, you're making assumptions on my age and personal character. I've been an adult for many years, and tried many drugs (most of which I like!) But that has no bearing in this argument. So why did you even bring it up? To try to destroy my credibility, because you obviously were defeated long ago?(not that anybody ltakes you seriously anymore. What happened to your credibility?)

You'll get to my points later? Need some time to think and research? Or maybe you just need a smoke break, or are too chonged-out to think straight.

Please refute my points, if you think you can handle it.

sniikeri · Post by **sniikeri** » 31 Jul 2006 08:49

Okay, let's keep cigarette smoking legal but raise the tax percentage to, hmm, 50-75%. Because, as far as I know cigarettes have no nutritional value whatsoever, government should make a lot of money off that shit.
This would really be an act for the well being of the populace:
- the poor smokers would have to choose between the pack of cigarettes and food: if they choose food, they can't afford to smoke and are healthier; if they choose the cigarettes, they die faster which probably increases the competitivity of the nation in the long run. Someone might think this way of thinking is close to national socialism, but as nazism is totalitarianism this is freedom of choice - natural selection. Remember, they are YOUR organs, not the government's. (One might ask why the poor smokers were poor in the first place: because of the structure of the society or their own actions or something else?)
- the rich smokers would still have money for both, cigarettes and food. They'd probably also have the money for their own health care and would still live fairly long, bringing loads of tax money to the government and the (smoking or not) populace.

gangsta · Post by **gangsta** » 31 Jul 2006 08:57

Good idea Sniikeri! The US national debt would be paid off in No time, and people would be living healthier lives. It's a win-win situation.

beenjammin · Post by **beenjammin** » 31 Jul 2006 12:03

If only the government officials read modified this country would be the best. Gangsta knows what he is talking about, he is a bonified genius, he knows almost everything about everything. His mind is like a steel trap no matter how stoned he was when he recieved info(trust me i have been his brother for 17 years). Smoking cigarettes is retarted, but nobody has the power to make any do or not do anything. Smokers should smoke only when they are secluded from other people who could possibly be harmed by second hand smoke. Blow smoke in my face smokers i dare you. Man im hungry im gonna go eat some pizza.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 31 Jul 2006 12:51

Can you name a law/regulation that is not beneficial to the populace? What did I imply that is not fact?

Ever hear of a little thing called Eminent Domain? That was just right off the top of my head. Most drug laws too. Taxing in any way more than a flat tax is not beneficial to the populace either, and if you don't pay your taxes, you get fucked.

Im better off with you smoking infront of me? Can you elaborate on that? More toxins is NOT better; especially when the air is overpolluted already. Why would you even suggest that?! That's just ridiculous.

This is why I call you an idiot. Read what I said in context, and don't use snippets of my sentences. It's more hazardous for your health to hang around in a city shop doing whatever than it is for a smoker to be walking infront of you for a few seconds.

Just like telling the people they cant smoke weed, snort coke, or inject heroine? Im just looking for a little consistency. It's not like it's necessary to smoke while you're shopping. It can definitely wait, unless of course, you're addicted... A business owner that allows smoking in their place of business will only receive business from the smoking minority. Any business man will tell you, this is not smart business. Majority = more people = more business. Minority = least amount of people = less business.

The point you missed, whether by ignorance or intention, is that particuliar businesses get effected by the ban, and thus it should be up to the business owner to decide whether or not smoking is allowed in his store/bar/restraunt. It's aggravating arguing with someone like you because your whole thought process is very simplistic.

Do you believe that cocaine, marijuana, opiates, amphetamines, and other drugs, should be legal? You're post implies that you do. Tobacco is just as addictive and harmful as any other Drug. That's right, tobacco is indeed a drug, druggie.
The drugs that I mentioned are illegal because they harm the body (not so much Marijuana...) Tobacco Undeniably harms the smoker's, and innocent bystander's bodie's. If you have not heard a good reason why cigarettes should be illegal, then you obviously have not been paying attention. Period.

Most drugs should be legal to do in the privacy of their own homes, or in other privately owned areas. When I play dumb about not knowing cigarettes are a drug, I'm just doing it to make fun of you, but you missed that aparently.

Also, you're dumb if you don't think Marijuana harms the body, and then go around preaching about the dangers of cigarettes. Weed smoke is worse for you.

Cigarette's should be legal because it isn't the governments posistion to tell me what to put into my body. What you're arguing for is government control of your will and health decisions, and that isn't right. I smoke cigarette's because they help me relax.

It's funny because it's true Can you deny any of these points? You're weak willed because you continue to smoke tobacco; which means your addicted to the chemical nicotine. You support the tobacco companies because you buy their product. Tobacco causes cancer (of the mouth, throat, lungs, of you and others). The tar from tobacco stains teeth (fact). Smoker's lungs undeniably are less efficient/healthy than non-smokers. Tobacco Undeniably decreases life-expectancy/quality... FUNNY STUFF!!! YOURE RIGHT! HAHAHAH!

Someday, when you're not too old, and dieing from emphazema, cancer, etc, you'll see the light. I hope it doesn't take a terminal illness for you to come to your senses.

I laugh because I've been preached to my entire life by idiots like you, and I'm still healthy and strong and in fine shape and attractive. I laugh because you're so concerned about your health and what everythings going to be like when you're old. Stop worrying about it, and try a little harded not to miss my points.

gangsta · Post by **gangsta** » 31 Jul 2006 15:23

BainbridgeShred wrote: Ever hear of a little thing called Eminent Domain? That was just right off the top of my head. Most drug laws too. Taxing in any way more than a flat tax is not beneficial to the populace either, and if you don't pay your taxes, you get fucked.

It's arguable that eminent domain is not beneficial to the populace. But that is a good point.

BainbridgeShred wrote: This is why I call you an idiot. Read what I said in context, and don't use snippets of my sentences. It's more hazardous for your health to hang around in a city shop doing whatever than it is for a smoker to be walking infront of you for a few seconds.

Show me some proof. That is an assumption.

BainbridgeShred wrote: The point you missed, whether by ignorance or intention, is that particuliar businesses get effected by the ban, and thus it should be up to the business owner to decide whether or not smoking is allowed in his store/bar/restraunt. It's aggravating arguing with someone like you because your whole thought process is very simplistic.

If only select restaurants/etc ban smoking, then of course they will lose business. In my opinion, places like Bars, and clubs should be allowed to have smoking, because there are no children, or teens present. Restaurants and stores are not the place to be smoking; that's just rude.

BainbridgeShred wrote: Most drugs should be legal to do in the privacy of their own homes, or in other privately owned areas. When I play dumb about not knowing cigarettes are a drug, I'm just doing it to make fun of you, but you missed that aparently.

Also, you're dumb if you don't think Marijuana harms the body, and then go around preaching about the dangers of cigarettes. Weed smoke is worse for you.

Doing it to make fun of me? How mature... I mentioned that Marijuana is not as harmful as other drugs (the only part of marjuana that is harmful is the actual smoking part). How is weed smoking worse for you? Do you have proof?

BainbridgeShred wrote: Cigarette's should be legal because it isn't the governments posistion to tell me what to put into my body. What you're arguing for is government control of your will and health decisions, and that isn't right. I smoke cigarette's because they help me relax.

You wouldnt need cigarettes to help you relax if you didn't already smoke them. Im arguing that exposing non-smokers to smoke is morally wrong. If it takes the government's intervention, then that's what should be done.

BainbridgeShred wrote: I laugh because I've been preached to my entire life by idiots like you, and I'm still healthy and strong and in fine shape and attractive. I laugh because you're so concerned about your health and what everythings going to be like when you're old. Stop worrying about it, and try a little harded not to miss my points.

Again, what's with the name calling? You would be healthier if you didn't smoke! What's so funny about me being concerned about my health? Are you not concerned about yours? If you need help, I can reccomend some good therapists that can help you quit smoking.