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

[FlexThis]

I recently quit smoking.

... again


I live in CA where the laws are cracking down.

1.) I choose not to smoke because it makes me feel better in the mornings not to cough up flem from the day before.

2.) My kids prefer that I don't smoke.

3.) I smell nicer

4.) I am not wasting $5/ day (gotta love CA - the tax on smokes is more expensive than the pack itself )

5.) I am now less irritated by common things that generally bother me

_______________________________________

Yet I still agree with BainbridgeShred that the choice is up to the individual and not the govt. to decide.

Some people want to die - for whatever reason (Mel Gibson made that clear when he got drunk in public and ranted on anti-semantically), but death by your own hands is illegal right?

Wrong!!! Lots of things that are legal can kill you. You just have to find the loop hole around the laws.

Whats bothers me about this discussion is all the ignorant preaching on the subject. Not everyone gives 2 shits about their health, their looks, or other people in general. Yet they feel forced to comply because a few health conscience people want to twist the arm of the law.

Damn - I need a smoke - jk

Anyways, if you are not a smoker, don't hang around smokey corners.

There is a law that just passed on certain beaches in CA stating that you can't smoke. The reasons are second-hand smoke and litter. Litter I agree with, but there are more toxic fumes from automobiles waiting at a cross walk on any given street in America, than in a room full of heavy smokers. Hell the gasoline alone at the pump causes more damage than second-hand smoke.

Not to mention that at the beach it is so damn windy out that it really makes no difference. The smoke is gone and disappated within 2 feet of the smoker.

So don't worry, little Billy Jr. is safe from the cloud.

I quit because I wanted too - not cause they told me too.

~peace

[gangsta]

I recently quit smoking.

... again

You're a smart man!

Anyways, if you are not a smoker, don't hang around smokey corners.

Likewise, if you're a smoker, don't hang around (well, just don't smoke..) in 'non-smokey corners.'

Litter I agree with, but there are more toxic fumes from automobiles waiting at a cross walk on any given street in America, than in a room full of heavy smokers. Hell the gasoline alone at the pump causes more damage than second-hand smoke.

This may be true, depending on the cross-walk, and the room of heavy smokers. According to Dan, a building without smokers is more polluted than any given street corner. I don't feel the need to quote it, but this is in direct conflict with your statement.

Not to mention that at the beach it is so damn windy out that it really makes no difference. The smoke is gone and disappated within 2 feet of the smoker.

Absolutely true. I think that beach-smoking regulation is ridiculous. It's a different story altogether indoors, however.

So don't worry, little Billy Jr. is safe from the cloud.

Not only is he safe from 'the cloud' outside, but now he is also safe from 'the Cloud' inside too, because of the regulation's we're debating.

I quit because I wanted too - not cause they told me too.

Mad Propz!

[gangsta]

Studies that show the ban is Not harming any business financially, and actually, the opposite is true; business is better than ever:

http://www.adn.com/opinion/compass/stor ... 0354c.html

http://www.nwanews.com/nwat/News/43031/

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5307a2.htm

http://www.newswatch50.com/news/state/s ... C6AA2BB8E4

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/news/20 ... evenue.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban

http://www.no-smoking.org/june03/06-20-03-1.html

http://www.healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/D ... on=Staging

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... ng17m.html - This report claims some businesses were hurt, and other are booming more than ever


As for the indoor pollution... It seems the number one factor to indoor pollution is cigarette smoke:

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/a ... r_air.html

"OC&PA: What are the major indoor contributors to pollution?

TJB: Number one, cigarette smoke. If there’s one thing to change, that would be it because cigarette smoke contains pollutants across the whole spectrum of harmful compounds: particulate matter, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides—these compounds will overwhelm almost any other pollutants that seep in from outdoors."


Dan, your only point that May be valid is that the ban is a step towards totiltarianism. A small step perhaps, and definitely not the beginning of any type of conspiracy to turn our democracy into some kind of socialist republic.
You're right, the government does not have the right to tell you what to/not-to put into your body, and, with cigarettes, theyre not. Smoke all you want.

The majority of americans are For the ban. Studies show that the air is much cleaner (no duh), and that businesses are not hurt by it (Except phillip morris, who claims their sales have gone down, and more people have quit smoking.)

[BainbridgeShred]

The majority of americans are For the ban.

Here's the fundamental point that you're missing. Smoking bans are fine by me, so long as they are implemented by the company or business, and not by the government. If most people want the bans, the market will adapt and start implementing them. It's called Capitalism.

A small step perhaps, and definitely not the beginning of any type of conspiracy to turn our democracy into some kind of socialist republic.

When did I say we were headed to that? Don't point words in my mouth.

[gangsta]

Here's the fundamental point that you're missing. Smoking bans are fine by me, so long as they are implemented by the company or business, and not by the government. If most people want the bans, the market will adapt and start implementing them. It's called Capitalism.

Thanks for being civilized this time Dan.

Yep, that's your opinion allright. I'm not going to say it's wrong, or call you anything derogatory.

Businesses have tried to ban smoking, but they lost business, because the smokers went elsewhere. I think the government-imposed ban was necessary, and I don't think the market would've adapted, due to the reason I stated in the first sentence of this paragraph. The ban doesn't harm capitalism anymore than the The Fair Labor Standards Act. That's my opinion.

The Fact is, with the government imposed ban, noone loses business, smokers can still smoke, the indoor air is cleaner, and non-smokers are happier and healthier. All of your supporting/other arguments have been smashed, and you're left with an opinion (a good opinion at that).

When did I say we were headed to that? Don't point words in my mouth.

You didn't, and I didn't say you did. I was just pointing that out. However you did say: "I've said it before and I'll say it again; government not allowing a private business to permit smoking, is Socialism."

P.S: When Im out of basic training, I will more than likely be stationed in the N.E. U.S, protecting smokers and non-smokers alike. Hopefully we can shred then.

[BainbridgeShred]

the government-imposed ban was necessary, and I don't think the market would've adapted,

If the market didn't think it necesary to adapt, then it probably wasn't needed. America needs to decide whether or not we want to live in a Capitalistic society or one where the government is trying to protect everyone every minute of their lives. Both forms of society can't coexist, and thus stems most of the problems we are faced with today.

The Fact is, with the government imposed ban, noone loses business,

I just read a huge article in the Seattle PI about how some businesses are virtually empty/ruined by the smoking ban. It's really pretty simple, if you don't want to deal with smoke, you don't have to go into businesses where smoking is allowed. It's simple Capitalism for God's sake. It's supposedly the system we run under. Nit wit's like yourselves don't understand that you (As in, your own being, not the government or anyone else) can make decisions that will alter everything about your life, and choosing to go into a smoking establishment is one of them.


PS: What branch are you in? My brother just enlisted Army Airborne. Definitely not getting stationed in the Northeast

[gangsta]

If the market didn't think it necesary to adapt, then it probably wasn't needed. America needs to decide whether or not we want to live in a Capitalistic society or one where the government is trying to protect everyone every minute of their lives. Both forms of society can't coexist, and thus stems most of the problems we are faced with today.

Probably? These are Opinions, as they cannot be proven. The only thing that has been proven, is that the ban works.

I just read a huge article in the Seattle PI about how some businesses are virtually empty/ruined by the smoking ban.

Yep, I posted that article. Can their downfall be directly linked the smoking ban? If you say it is, show some proof.
SOME businesses, eh? The majority are doing better than ever.

It's really pretty simple, if you don't want to deal with smoke, you don't have to go into businesses where smoking is allowed. It's simple Capitalism for God's sake. It's supposedly the system we run under. Nit wit's like yourselves don't understand that you (As in, your own being, not the government or anyone else) can make decisions that will alter everything about your life, and choosing to go into a smoking establishment is one of them.

This has already been dealt with, and is a moot point. Got anything else?

Assuming that I don't understand I can make decisions by myself? lolol You're assumptions are very amusing.

Name calling again!? Now I get it, you bash people when you feel threatened.
It's really is simple; if you want to smoke, step outside.

Again, the fact is the ban works, the majority supports it, and smokers are just slightly inconvenienced. Capitalism is as strong as ever.
Smokers are inconvenienced, and that is the only 'problem' caused by this ban, and smokers are the only ones who are po'd.

PS: What branch are you in? My brother just enlisted Army Airborne. Definitely not getting stationed in the Northeast

Coast Guard. I got halfway through college, and ran out of funds/motivation. I'd rather get paid to be a badass anyway.

[Texta]

I don't know what the statistics are like in the rest of the world, but I read a report that was written for the Australian Government that put the total cost to Australia from smoking at in excess of AU$8,000,000,000 which is pretty significant (thats taking into account revenue from tax etc), but a more recent report put the cost of smoking in Victoria (a State in Australia) at AU$4,000,000,000 so that first figure could probably be expanded.

The point is that if you live in a country where the government contributes to hospitals and medical expenses than your taxes are going to look after people that have got themselves sick through a completely avoidable action and that's not cool.

While, I appreciate the idea that people should chose how they live their lives, I think that firstly Governments need to be consistant and if they're going to ban other drugs because of the risk that is involved in taking them then they have a duty to include cigarettes too. Secondly, I think that the cost to society from smoking is so great and the benefits so small that governments need to legislate against it.

[gangsta]

The point is that if you live in a country where the government contributes to hospitals and medical expenses than your taxes are going to look after people that have got themselves sick through a completely avoidable action and that's not cool.

While, I appreciate the idea that people should chose how they live their lives, I think that firstly Governments need to be consistant and if they're going to ban other drugs because of the risk that is involved in taking them then they have a duty to include cigarettes too. Secondly, I think that the cost to society from smoking is so great and the benefits so small that governments need to legislate against it.

Exactly.

[Texta]

Except, with less, commas. God, I suck.

[HighDemonslayer]

Maybe because governments spend so much on healthcare, they should restrict more of the things people like to do.


Obesity, for example, costs many billions, perhaps comparable to smoking.

Fat people could be weighed regularly, by a government inspector, and be issued a tax. Or maybe they can be ticketed, or imprisoned for "obesing in public".

Especially if they offend vegetarians, by gorging themselves with meat.

------------------

Im sure statistics are available for the governmental healthcare costs incurred to fight AIDS. And I bet if you asked around, everyone would say they need to spend more.

So clearly, following the smoking model, gay sex should be banned, or taxed out of existence.

--------------------------

What about this?:

We know smokers have to pay more for health insurance, or can be denied insurance. They can be denied employment, solely on the basis of healthcare costs the employer will incur.

Should obese people pay way more, or be denied insurance, or employment outright?

Should gays, depending on the AIDS prevalence of their communities, pay more, or be denied coverage, or employment?

--------------------------

Think about all that , instead of celebrating the next time smokers get screwed.


-n

[gangsta]

Im sure statistics are available for the governmental healthcare costs incurred to fight AIDS. And I bet if you asked around, everyone would say they need to spend more.

So clearly, following the smoking model, gay sex should be banned, or taxed out of existence.

.....................

Should gays, depending on the AIDS prevalence of their communities, pay more, or be denied coverage, or employment?

There is not an adequate emoticon available to express the hilarity i'm feeling!

[Texta]

Maybe because governments spend so much on healthcare, they should restrict more of the things people like to do.


Obesity, for example, costs many billions, perhaps comparable to smoking.

Fat people could be weighed regularly, by a government inspector, and be issued a tax. Or maybe they can be ticketed, or imprisoned for "obesing in public".

Especially if they offend vegetarians, by gorging themselves with meat.

------------------

Im sure statistics are available for the governmental healthcare costs incurred to fight AIDS. And I bet if you asked around, everyone would say they need to spend more.

So clearly, following the smoking model, gay sex should be banned, or taxed out of existence.

--------------------------

What about this?:

We know smokers have to pay more for health insurance, or can be denied insurance. They can be denied employment, solely on the basis of healthcare costs the employer will incur.

Should obese people pay way more, or be denied insurance, or employment outright?

Should gays, depending on the AIDS prevalence of their communities, pay more, or be denied coverage, or employment?

--------------------------

Think about all that , instead of celebrating the next time smokers get screwed.


-n

Yeah, I would distinguish homosexuality from smoking in that, sex itself doesn't cause AIDS while smoking acutally does cause cancer.

The answer definitely isn't to make people pay for health care if they're smokers. The answer is to ban smoking for the exact same reasons that you can't buy hard drugs and that we have speed limits and safety standards.

[gangsta]

And just for the record, any kind of sex (in public) has already been banned.

[BainbridgeShred]

"The answer is to ban smoking for the exact same reasons that you can't buy hard drugs and that we have speed limits and safety standards."

Speed limits and safety standards are in regards to harm ones property or dangerous driving could do to OTHER people. Cigarette's and hard drugs are harm inflicted by the individual.

[SandWraith]

Not true. Cigarette smokes harms OTHER people. "Hard drugs" often lead to violence and crime, which can harm OTHER people and their property.

[HighDemonslayer]

Yeah, you make a good point that AIDS is more likely spread thru gay sex, but not caused by it.



Cigarettes probably should have be banned since learning their devastating effects.

But state, and perhaps federal governments very existence, depends on tobacco tax.

Government LOVES tobacco, despite what they tell you.


Money trumps life...every time.


-n

[james_dean]

But would the savings in health costs balance the tax gain? I guess probably not, because people would still smoke illegally.

[Texta]

But state, and perhaps federal governments very existence, depends on tobacco tax.

I don't know what it's like in other countries, but I read a study commissioned by the Australian Government that gave a conservative estimate that in 1998 smoking cost Australia about AU$12 billion and had a net gain of AU$4 Billion. So certainly in Australia, smoking costs a lot more than it gives.

[gangsta]

"The answer is to ban smoking for the exact same reasons that you can't buy hard drugs and that we have speed limits and safety standards."

Speed limits and safety standards are in regards to harm ones property or dangerous driving could do to OTHER people. Cigarette's and hard drugs are harm inflicted by the individual.

Both of you are correct. Dangerous driving Can harm the individual And others. Cigarettes Definitely harm the individual, and definitely harm others. Same with illegal drugs, as they do harm the individual, and can cause dealers/addicts/cops to hurt people.

Texta: Those are some great statistics about the costs a government incures from cig. smoking. Clearly, cigarettes are a lose-lose situation, except for Tobacco companies... and the ban is clearly a win-win situation, except for the tobacco companies...

Philip-Morris has reported a decline in profits since the ban(s) were put into effect, and more people have quit smoking.