Wow, I had no idea Canada was this facist. They really should be mindfull of how they're percieved, because they're heading for uncivilised and authoritarian (well, more uncivilised than Canada normally is...) I won't bother getting into the arguments about private businesses and establishments having the right to decide if smoking is done on their property, and how people have the right to leave those establishments if they don't like it. Oh and Naokaji, we shouldn't have to ban everything that's bad for people just because some people are too pathetic to give it up. Those of us who take responsability for our lives shouldn't have to suffer because there are those without any will power.
How about we draw a closer comparison: if you can't use a mobile phone in a car, you shouldn't be allowed to converse with a passenger. Or another: if you can't smoke in a car, you shouldn't be allowed to drink in one either. That's a pretty big if you planted your beliefs on
bit of a difference there, talking on a phone requires thought, where as smoking just requires you to breathe. too pathetic to give it up? yeah, im pathetic because I dont slowly kill myself. and if you aren't smart enough to see that smoking will kill you then you shouldn't be allowed to be respnsible for your own life. and the people who have will power, are the ones who either dont smoke, or did and quit. by the way, smoking makes you smell bad.
Umm, try reading what I said. Now read it again. Understand it yet? Smoking might kill a smoker, driving might kill a driver. Does that mean a driver is stupid also? As for the idea that someone shouldn't be allowed to choose the way they live their life because you dislike their choices. You sir, really are a facist. Well done! By the way, facism makes people hate you.
can you honestly look at me and tell me that driving isn't necessary? can you honestly look at me and tell me that smoking is necessary? no we cant do away with everything that may kill us. but we can do away with the things that simply are an unnecessary risk. and what are the benefits of smoking anyway? Try looking at this with logic, smoking, no benefits, driving, many benefits. oh yeah, and if you are going to call me a facist, back it up and post a definition of the word. one other thing, I'm not telling someone that they cant smoke, just that they cant smoke where it affects other people. You may think that you have rights, and you do, but you don’t have the right to on purpose negatively affect my lifestyle.
Fact: every smoker dies. Fact: not every smoker dies from smoking. I believe that smoking may (note the "may") increase your chances of dying from some throat/lung-related thing. I also believe that drinking a lot may increase your chances of dying of liver failure. I also believe that eating too much fatty foods may increase your chances of whatever cause of death. I also believe that living healthy will not decrease your chances of dying from some freak-ass disease. (Oh, and fat people smell too. Not just smokers.) I am a smoker, and I am not planning to give up. I smoke because I like it. I smoke within the bounds of the law and with consideration of other people - but I am not and never will be a little doormat for every non-smoker. As for being responsible: I am responsible for my own life. I choose to smoke. I may be a pain in the arse for the NHS in twenty or thirty years, who knows. I may get hit by a truck next week. I may decide that apart from being a smoker and a drinker I also want to be a fatty. I don't give a **** about my "health" (although, when it's cold, I do wear a coat!), so why do you think you're supposed to care (about my health, that is). And before we get into the "second-hand smoke" debate: my smoke is mine. I do not share. Someome may get a distant whiff once in a while, but that's about it. Right now I'm going to light up, sit back, imagine that sweet sweet smoke filling my lungs, penetrating my bloodstream, hugging every cute little bloodcell it can hug and relax. And then I'll think about all the stressed-out anti-smokers/"health" advocates (aka the new Jehovah's Witnesses) and go "ahhhhhh" whilst exhaling smoke into the air, which will go out of the window, and will most likely (according to the New Religion) give some innocent, cute little baby lung cancer, AIDS, and a sore ankle in fourty years.
dont misunderstand, I dont care about your health. smoke all you want. but as I have said before, when it affects me, it becomes my business. and have you ever heard of second hand drinking? no? me either. Thoes points are kind of, well, pointless. if you drink in public it doesn't hurt anyone else unless you do something to physically or verbally hurt them. and then guess what? you goto jail. and yes you may get hit by a truck next week but thats why my parents tought me to look both ways when I cross the street. I cant control where the wind will blow smoke, but thankfully, we can control where people are allowed to smoke up.
The difference is smoking comes with zero advantages, apart from the fact it generates a lot of tax money and profits for cigarette companies.
Apart from the arseholes who don't care about anyone else, and who probably get off on blowing smoke in people's faces (if they didn't smoke, they'd probably pee on your shoes or something - you know the type), how does smoking affect you? How can you be bothered by smoking on the street? I find the smell of certain restaurants appalling. I find the smell of exhaust uncomfortable. But... it's in open air - it'll disappear. But I can control where and when I exhale my smoke. Like I said, I am considerate (and I don't like sharing). Unless by accident (walking around corners and fun stuff like that) nobody has ever gotten a faceload of smoke from me. How, one may ask? Well, kind squire, I may reply: I don't exhale near other people. I find that to be quite a nice thing, as I'd love to stab those people in the face just because they are invading my personal space (but hey, it's public territory...). Ah well, the smoking debate is never going to stop, I guess. As long as there's enough idiots (not you, btw) who believe everything they get thrown at them in regards to "health", who believe that they will live to be a hundred if they just get their diet and all that crap right, and who do not believe in personal responsibility - it'll go on. Just another line on the list of "why I advocate human extinction but do not want to start with myself". Pleasure, maybe? It's a luxury product after all. I do not need to drink Diet Coke but I enjoy it - that's why I'd rather drink Diet Coke (most of the time) than water.
That cannot be true. Humans are incapable of doing that which has no advantage. You can argue that the (in your opinion) meagre benefits people get from smoking are not worth the serious health implications of the drug, but it cannot be said that it has absolutely no advantages for the smoker.
Smoking has zero health benefits is what I think he means. Of course it does relieve stress. I'm on the fence for this one. On the one hand personal liberty etc. should let you smoke where the **** you want. On the other hand, a lot of people are arseholes and have to be forced not to smoke near a bunch of kids or whatever.
Again, untrue. Smoking has been shown to have benefits for those with neurological illnesses, because nicotine is a mild but effective stimulant, it can help rehabilitation of brains that have had neurological problems and need to adjust to increased stimulus. As you say, it can also relieve stress. But medical benefits shouldn't be the only thing it's judged on. Car's don't have medical benefits and yet calling them to be banned just because they only contribute negatively to ones health would be laughed at.
True, however cars have other benefits that ciggies just don't have. Stress relieving/making you feel good factor of them is the only positive thing I can think of. Then again, this is mostly about the effect on other people, and I don't know about you but I don't feel better when some 60 year old granny blows smoke into my face.
So ask her not to. Or move. Or intimidate the crap out of her (you're a teenager dude, it's easy as pish to intimidate the old) without actually doing anything. Just the same as it's nasty when some old banger (/peugeot) drives past you, you have options. Accept that some people are assholes, not just smokers, not just non-smokers, and that there are people who will do unpleasent things around you in life. Do not punish massive groups of people just because of the asshole group having some crossover into it (for the asshole group has crossover into every group).
Then they should be given nicotine in some other form, that way they don't turn their lungs into a road at the same time. I'm not against cigarettes in general, people can do what they like to themselves so long as it doesn't effect me. I don't like them personally, I didn't really feel any benefit from smoking one, and all I got was a very nasty taste in my mouth. However, I think the public ban is a good thing (at least, how it's implemented here), if you really want to smoke your death sticks, then go somewhere else and do it. If I went into a pub and went around asking everyone to put out their cigarettes, I'd get met with a lot of abuse and probably get beaten up. Yeah, I could go find another pub, but I'd be met with exactly the same thing in every one. TBH, if you're a nice smoker, you wouldn't be lighting up around people who don't smoke anyway, or at least ask the people around you. You wouldn't just start smoking in someone's house who you know doesn't smoke now would you, you wouldn't light up in a hospital or office even if smoking were allowed, but for some reason as soon as you go into a pub that changes. Why? It shouldn't, you'd meet the same people there as you do in any of the other places, and taking away smoking doesn't make it any less social.
I'll say a big "amen, brother!" to that! I think it's a bad idea to limit the "liberties" in a part private, part public place such as a pub. It is a public place, yes - but it is also a private establishment, as it is not owned by the government/nation/general public but by the landlord/pub owner. That's why the ban annoys me. As for the rest, I don't mind going outside for a *** - either I'm in the pub garden chatting to some people, or I'm on the pavement looking at pretty girls' arses.
It's funny how all the anti smoking nuts are so concerned about the smoker being considerate of thier rights, but offer no consideration for the smoker's rights and freedoms. I smoked for several years, and have quit for several years, but I say the insanity of the antismoking lobbies is ridiculous. "You can't smoke here, here, here, here, in public, in private, in your car, around me, ect ect." If an establishment wants to allow smoking, they should be able to. If nonsmokers don't want to deal with the smoke, they go elsewhere. The establishment either survies on smokers, goes under, or changes their policy. If I want to smoke in my car, house, on the sidewalk, in the park, so be it. You don't like it, stay out of my car, my house, walk on the other side of the street, pass me quickly, sit at another bench, go to another park.
So if I happened to like a whiff of benzene every now and then (technically non-toxic, I dont care) and just happened to blow some in your face then that'd be fine with you would it? It's public land after all.
Benzene is highly toxic Ramble... But regardless, the point is that we trade vices as a society, and you have to accept that other people will harm you a little when you are on public property. Demonising one group that harms a minute ammount simply because you dislike their habit is wrong. Overall though, I could accept a ban on smoking in public places (meaning places that are publicly owned). The ban on smoking in privately owned areas of our country is of course though, sickening. The rights of the property owner should not be infringed on such matters, and the "greater good" mentality smacks of plenty of very very nasty regimes in history.
