Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on December 15, 2004, 04:18:05 pm
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=1845&e=1&u=/cpress/20041215/ca_pr_on_na/ont_smoke_free
the Nanny State strikes back with a vengance.
The new Smoke Free Ontario act would prohibit smoking in all workplaces and public places - bars, restaurants, casinos and legion halls among them - and also restrict the display of tobacco products in stores.
"The bill. . . would protect all Ontarians from the deadly effects of cigarette smoke, whether they are in their office, at a restaurant, in the laundry room of their apartment building, on the floor of a factory, in an underground parking garage or at a shopping mall," Health Minister George Smitherman told the legislature.
-
Not to sound like I support the restricting of people's rights (:p), but how is this different from pollution controls?
-
Sounds like a good thing to me.
-
Does "public places" include the outside?
-
Because pollution affects everyone. You can't just put pollution into a corner somewhere and it won't bother anyone.
With smoking however, you just go into the smoking deisgnated room, or step outside, and voila - you're only harming yourself. And to prempt the ravings of certain inidividuals, I'm not saying the danger is 0, I'm saying is negligble enough to be considered safe.
Seriously, this is just the government and certain groups trying to impose their views on everyone else. They say smoking is bad, so if you smoke you are a depraved monster that must be stopped.
Its like the Demolition Man movie....except we don't have the 3 little shells...yet.
-
*moves to Ontario*
EDIT: Has anyone figured out what the heck those three little shells were for, anyway?
-
Meh, believe me, you don't want to work in a State with <>160,000 people of which <>40,000 will be in forced nicotine withdrawal?
That stuff's more addictive than heroine you know, would you want to be around 40,000 heroin addicts in withdrawal?
It's going to be messy :(
-
Finally...I've been waiting for this.
I've actually only been able to go to certain bars because the smoke is just too overwhelming in others. I'm not a smoker and I can't tolerate the smell or the choking sensation when its confined into a building. I also know people who are alergic to smoking. So while some people are going to be restricted...it means myself and others who don't like it or others who are alergic to it have more freedom.
No...this is a smart thing. Second hand smoking is dangerous...possibly even more dangerous than the actual smoking of a cigarete. And look...I have plenty of friends with smoking addicitons and they just simply go and do it outside. They've worked it into their schedule...and these people go to bars and party it up and the whole deal. No problems that I'm aware of and they have never complained.
So its not going to be messy, bars are not going to loose their customers (they just have to step outside for a bit), and people like myself gain some freedom...or at least some more choices.
Oh and by the way....The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a little bit different than the American Constitution/Laws. There is a little less absolute freedom and a little more emphasis on protecting the public good...its very similar to the British system actually.
-
Its funny how things which become life-threatingly perilous these days weren't even an issue like 20 years ago.
Sorry, but it just seems to me that people are getting way too sensitive and just finding new stuff to ***** about. What's wrong with having an smoking section and a non-smoking section?
"Civilization is sterilization"
:doubt: :doubt:
-
It depends on the definition of a 'Public Place' Icefire, which is one of the forbidden zones mentioned. If it means 'anywhere in public' then it means your friends can't go outside and have a cigarette, and can't stay inside either, unless they are lucky enough to have a car-park or the like, which is private land.
If Public place doesn't include highways and byways then yes, I'm in favour of this even though I myself am a smoker. And yes, I smoke outside :D
-
IMO it should be up to the owner of the various business establishments to decide to allow or disallow smoking in their buildings.
-
In the UK it is decided by insurance, it is far far more expensive to insure a company building if you intend to allow smoking in it because of the fire risk. That way, most companies opt to be no-smoking. It's an rather clever idea, I must admit ;)
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Finally...I've been waiting for this.
I've actually only been able to go to certain bars because the smoke is just too overwhelming in others. I'm not a smoker and I can't tolerate the smell or the choking sensation when its confined into a building. I also know people who are alergic to smoking. So while some people are going to be restricted...it means myself and others who don't like it or others who are alergic to it have more freedom.
No...this is a smart thing. Second hand smoking is dangerous...possibly even more dangerous than the actual smoking of a cigarete. And look...I have plenty of friends with smoking addicitons and they just simply go and do it outside. They've worked it into their schedule...and these people go to bars and party it up and the whole deal. No problems that I'm aware of and they have never complained.
So its not going to be messy, bars are not going to loose their customers (they just have to step outside for a bit), and people like myself gain some freedom...or at least some more choices.
Oh and by the way....The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a little bit different than the American Constitution/Laws. There is a little less absolute freedom and a little more emphasis on protecting the public good...its very similar to the British system actually.
*agrees*
Second-hand smoke, btw, IS more dangerous than regular smoke. At least if you smoking the damn thing, it's getting filtered...slightly. People around the smokers don't have that kind of luxury :doubt:.
I actually have an 'agreement' with my parents (although they think I was joking). If My brother or myself get lung cancer or some **** because of them, I will never let them live it down.
Not that I'll live very long, in all likelihood.
-
Yeah that's why its called private property. But that doesn't seem to bother certain people.
-
Brought it in here a while back, people grumbled a bit then got on with things. If you're a smoker its a good thing, cut back on them big time.
-
Well, if a company is able to set up a smoking area on private land, then that would be legal, it is not, to the letter, a public place, but what about companies that don't have the luxury of that kind of room? That's why highways and byways are important.
Gank,what are the laws there for that, isn't it pubs, bars and restaraunts? You can still smoke in most public places like in the street iirc?
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Finally...I've been waiting for this.
I've actually only been able to go to certain bars because the smoke is just too overwhelming in others. I'm not a smoker and I can't tolerate the smell or the choking sensation when its confined into a building. I also know people who are alergic to smoking. So while some people are going to be restricted...it means myself and others who don't like it or others who are alergic to it have more freedom.
I agree. There are way more non-smokers than smokers, why should the minority have more freedom then the majority, especially when it involves harmful 'freedom'.
Bars and restaurants and the like won't lose customers but likely gain customers, non-smokers that were turned away by smoking.
-
At the moment my position on this subject is somewhat undecided. I've not heard of any studies showing the effects of second hand cigarette smoke other than certain sets of numbers that seem to have been pulled out of a hat at random.
However I know the chemicals that make up cigarette smoke and I know precisely how nasty many of them are.
Originally posted by Bri_Dog
IMO it should be up to the owner of the various business establishments to decide to allow or disallow smoking in their buildings.
Let me give you an analogy.
Suppose I go to work in a chemical lab. I work with PAHs all day long. Just because I'm employed by a company that has situated the lab on private property doesn't mean that they can say "We choose to ignore the government mandated limits on PAH concentrations in air"
The fact is that the Health and Safety Executive would come down on any company that suggested this like a ton of bricks. The fact that the company wants to ignore the limits doesn't matter. The HSE would look at the expose levels of the workers and say "We don't care if all your workers agree to work in higher than legal concentrations of potent carcinogens like PAHs. We don't even care if you offer them extra pay for doing so. You're compromising your workers safety and therefore we're shutting you down"
Now cigarette smoke contains pretty high levels of PAHs too. The question that needs answering here is should I have less rights to worker protection if I'm a barman who works in a pub than if I'm a scientist working in a lab?
You see the problem here is not the rights of the smokers in the bars but the rights of people who work in the bars.
-
See, thats where I disagree. If someone willingly works in areas where there are dangerous chemicals kicking around, that's their thing. I can decide for my self, and whether the incentive is money or anythng else, the government can't take that choice away.
I don't think bar/restaurant employees are too happy about this though, they stand to loose lots of tip money and/or their jobs. And even if you are only protecting the workers, what about all the other places where its banned? Car parks, malls etc.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Its funny how things which become life-threatingly perilous these days weren't even an issue like 20 years ago.
Sorry, but it just seems to me that people are getting way too sensitive and just finding new stuff to ***** about. What's wrong with having an smoking section and a non-smoking section?
"Civilization is sterilization"
:doubt: :doubt:
They didn't become life-threatening, they always were life-threatening. It's just that it takes a bit for people to die from the effects, whether they realize it or not.
What's wrong with having a smoking section and a non-smoking section? Unfortunately, smoke fails to comply with laws or regulations regarding where it may or may not be. Setting aside a smoking "section" does very little; the smoke just drifts over into the non-smoking section. If it's a room, things are onlya little better.
Finally, while smoking may infringe on freedom, it's the same way that laws on rape, drunk driving, and hazardous waste infringe on freedom, it protects a group against the hazards of another group's decisions.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
It depends on the definition of a 'Public Place' Icefire, which is one of the forbidden zones mentioned. If it means 'anywhere in public' then it means your friends can't go outside and have a cigarette, and can't stay inside either, unless they are lucky enough to have a car-park or the like, which is private land.
If Public place doesn't include highways and byways then yes, I'm in favour of this even though I myself am a smoker. And yes, I smoke outside :D
Quote from the article: "The new Smoke Free Ontario Act would, if passed, prohibit smoking in all workplaces and public places, including bars, restaurants, casinos and legion halls, leaving smokers with a lone indoor refuge: their own homes."
I haven't looked at nor feel the need to actually have a look at the actual law...but my friends will not be affected by this in any way. Furthermore, there is already a partial smoking by-law in my area anyways. Plus the University strictly forbids smoking in any building. But that doesn't stop people from smoking outside...which is what they do. So no, my friends will not be hurt by this in any way...most of them are used to it.
They aren't going to prevent people from smoking outside...thats rediculous and this is not some backwards country (despite what the people they interview on CNN and FOX have to say) so I'm certain that this is probably fairly reasonable to a point. Smoking is a public health issue and should be dealt with as such.
-
When it comes to crap like cigarettes, where they not only endanger themselves but those unfortunate enough to be around them, screw their 'right.' No one should be allowed to force others to stay out of a place for fear of their health and comfort.
I fail to see why cigarettes aren't illegal like heroin or cocaine.
-
Your right to breathe dangerous chemical ends at my lungs.
The city I live in has actually banned smoking in public places. The people who pushed this change were the workers in bars and restaurants, not just the people who go to them. As far as economic losses... at first the bars and restaurants lost some customers. However, there were people who were more willing to go since there wouldn't be any smoking and the loss was more or less made up for.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Your right to breathe dangerous chemical ends at my lungs.
The city I live in has actually banned smoking in public places. The people who pushed this change were the workers in bars and restaurants, not just the people who go to them. As far as economic losses... at first the bars and restaurants lost some customers. However, there were people who were more willing to go since there wouldn't be any smoking and the loss was more or less made up for.
Exactly...several places have since gained my business and dollars where before they would not have.
-
Honestly, how much smoke can drift under a closed door? Enough to poison people standing in a large, generally ventialted room over the period of, at most, a few hours?
I think you guys are overstating the danger. Yes, second hand smoke is an issue if you are exposed to it constantly (as in: living with parents who each smoke a pack a day for 19 years) but don't start acting like the mere smell of smoke will cause your lungs to explode. If you get a wiff in passing every now and then, big deal.
And what about displaying cigarettes in convenience stores? How is that harmful to your health? Oh wait, its not, its just the government trying to be everyone's concerned mother.
-
"The new Smoke Free Ontario Act would, if passed, prohibit smoking in all workplaces and public places, including bars, restaurants, casinos and legion halls, leaving smokers with a lone indoor refuge: their own homes."
Ah, I put a mental comma between the lone and indoor, which completely changed the meaning of that sentence. :)
Edit : Oh, and can I just add that I wasn't implying you were a backward country, to be honest, I would be inclined to go the hardline route and just make it illegal, were it not for the fact that such prohibition has been proven not to work. Even though I would suffer myself, it would be for my own benefit.
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
Second-hand smoke, btw, IS more dangerous than regular smoke. At least if you smoking the damn thing, it's getting filtered...slightly. People around the smokers don't have that kind of luxury :doubt:.
Ah, yes, the second hand smoke bull****. Do you really think the actual smoker doesn't inhale the non-filtered smoke? Also, the non-filtered smoke is MUCH thinner then the filtered smoke because it dissipates in the air.
Second hand smoking is only more dangerous if you put a cigarette up your nose the wrong way. :doubt:
-
Still, Tiara, second hand smoke IS bad, and it's definately NOT good for your health. It has been proven that people have gotten lung cancer from it, so it makes sense that someone would want to ban it.
I support this thingamabob.
-
Thing is, whilst this is, in general, a good idea for the smokers themselves, if you really wanted to do something good for everyones lungs, you'd ban cars. Those things chuck out all kinds of crap, the pollution in Central London, even with the Conjestion charge, is equal to 15 fully smoked cigarettes a day per person.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Ah, yes, the second hand smoke bull****. Do you really think the actual smoker doesn't inhale the non-filtered smoke? Also, the non-filtered smoke is MUCH thinner then the filtered smoke because it dissipates in the air.
Second hand smoking is only more dangerous if you put a cigarette up your nose the wrong way. :doubt:
Of course the smoker inhales some of the non-filtered smoke. But most of what they do inhale IS filtered. Most of what the people around the smoker inhale is NOT filtered.
I've gotten used to cigarette smoke to the point where I could probably smoke a cigar like 10-year regular. I hate the very notion, and am angered beyond words that it has gotten that bad. All smokers should be forcibly weaned off the stuff, IMO.
-
What right do you have to tell other people how they should behave?
That's the whole point, its their choice. What's next, banning alchohol because its bad for you? Oh wait, already tried that.
IMO, all drugs should be legal, from alchohol to tobbaco to weed to opium. As long as no one is harmed but the people using the drugs. And if someone is harmed, well, you deal with that on a case by case basis.
Individual rights, people. have we forgotten what that word means?
-
I don't know how I feel about this because I've never actually found definitive data that explains exactly how harmful second-hand smoke is.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Your right to breathe dangerous chemical ends at my lungs.
Kam said it best Rictor.
And I couldn't give 2 ****'s about their right to smoke around me, or force me out of a place because of it. Besides, IIRC, this doesn't say they can't smoke. They just can't smoke around other people.
IIRC, a good percentage of the people who've had their vocal cords removed never smoked a day in their life. Can you guess what happened?
-
They worked with asbestos or PVC or MDF or around Sulphur emissions or in dusty conditions like building sites etc? :nervous:
I do however agree that if the smoke is hurting someone else, even slightly, then that is no better than passing on any other drug to an unwilling recepient. But throat cancer is a relatively rare side-effect of smoking, far higher levels of it exist in the manufacturing and building industries.
-
Information and links about second hand smoking, taken from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking).
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1993 issued a report estimating that 3,000 lung-cancer related deaths in the US were caused by passive smoking every year.
In 2002, a group of 29 experts from 12 countries convened by the Monographs Programme of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded its evaluation of the carcinogenic risks associated with involuntary smoking, with second-hand smoke also being classified as carcinogenic to humans.
http://monographs.iarc.fr/htdocs/monographs/vol83/02-involuntary.html
An earlier WHO epidemiology study also found "weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS."
http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jnci;90/19/1440
One recent study in the British Medical Journal found that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of heart disease among non-smokers by as much as 60 percent.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/bmj.38146.427188.55v1
-
Penn and Teller did an episode of "Bull****" that had a lot of data supporting the opposite, so I'm just confused.
-
I don't take Penn and Teller seriously most of the time.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
What right do you have to tell other people how they should behave?
That's the whole point, its their choice. What's next, banning alchohol because its bad for you? Oh wait, already tried that.
IMO, all drugs should be legal, from alchohol to tobbaco to weed to opium. As long as no one is harmed but the people using the drugs. And if someone is harmed, well, you deal with that on a case by case basis.
Individual rights, people. have we forgotten what that word means?
Alchohol is actually ok for you. Infact its been somewhat proven that its actually beneficial to drink a little bit of alochohol. Its definately not bad for you unless you:
1) Drive drunk
2) Drink excessively
3) Get alochohol poisoning
So, I try and have a little bit here and there. Sometimes I have a little more than required but thats ok. The stuff is one of the best studied and well recognized substances that people consume...at least of the stuff that makes you behave in ways you wouldn't normally. Plus, you can stand next to a completely drunk person and not be affected by the alochol in their system one bit...not in any physical manner anyways.
Smoking on the other hand is pure toxicity. Regardless of it being the smoker or the people nearby in an enclosed area.
Personally, I think its "bull****" to assume that toxic and otherwise foreign substances being pumped into a confined airspace is anything but safe. Not that its any different than living downwind of a industrial site but obviously there's some differences.
Again, I'm in total support of these anti-smoking laws.
-
Well I'm happy. I mean, how do you think ppl with asthma have had to live their lives, inhaling second hand smoke all this time.
Believe me, getting an asthma attack is NOT fun.
And another thing, even though we had "designated smoking rooms," the filtering wasn't always that great. I remember a café near my house that had one and there was always a slight linger of cigarette smoke in the non-smoking area. Looking up-oh joy!-a pipe with vents in the smoking room, and beside, a vent above us.
Yeah I'm happy in Ontario. :rolleyes:
-
Listen to Ice and Marauder...they speaks sense.
*EDIT*
-
Places that have designated smoking areas don't keep smoke away from the non-smokers all there is a wall between the two areas.
whether or not second-hand smoke is bad for people or not (I think it is) it's still not the most pleasant smell.
The city I live in has been smoke free for a few years now although bars and club establishments still have the right to make their own rules regarding smoking AFAIK. I find that restaurants have a cleaner atmosphere now that smoking is prohibited in public establishments
-
Congrats to the Ontario lawmakers then. My state's (Western Australia) pollies have finally stopped dragging their feet and we're banning most indoor smoking sometime early next year, and Pub/Club smoking by 2006. Can't wait for it meself.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I've not heard of any studies showing the effects of second hand cigarette smoke other than certain sets of numbers that seem to have been pulled out of a hat at random.
yeah well please don't pull the "cigarette smoke isn't bad for you... that's just hype" card. that's not debatable at the moment.
and the idiot that said we should outlaw alcohol because alcohol's bad for you... do some research: alcohol that's abused and in excess is bad for you. as was mentioned, drinking in moderation is not bad for you, i remember a study a while ago that said a glass of wine every day reduces the chance of heart attack by **%, although i don't know if that's true, but i do know there's never been anything to prove that alcohol in moderation damages the body.
Kamikaze's quote sums it up "Your right to breathe dangerous chemical ends at my lungs."
-
so, I want to own a bar, and I'm a smoker so I want it to be a place were people like me can relax and enjoy ourselves. what am I to do?
hypothetical BTW, I think people who smoke are idiots.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
*moves to Ontario*
EDIT: Has anyone figured out what the heck those three little shells were for, anyway?
Freakin' priceless.
Originally posted by Bobboau
so, I want to own a bar, and I'm a smoker so I want it to be a place were people like me can relax and enjoy ourselves. what am I to do?
hypothetical BTW, I think people who smoke are idiots.
Don't do it in Ontario?
Besides.... since when do smokers make good pilots? :P
-
I think they were for one of those jets of ass cleaning water things.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
yeah well please don't pull the "cigarette smoke isn't bad for you... that's just hype" card. that's not debatable at the moment.
Did you not read the sentence I wrote underneath that? I know how bad the chemicals involved in cigarette smoke are. As I said many of the chemicals are potent carcinogens but like I said the data I have seen on second hand smoking is badly flawed. The number of deaths attributed to second hand smoke are particularly bad. Feel free to check up on the methodology used if you don't believe me.
Originally posted by Rictor
See, thats where I disagree. If someone willingly works in areas where there are dangerous chemicals kicking around, that's their thing. I can decide for my self, and whether the incentive is money or anythng else, the government can't take that choice away.
So you'd have no problem with multinationals exploiting the poor in order to save money involved in maintaing safety standards?
That's quite an impressive reversal of your usual position on matters like this.
Originally posted by Rictor
I don't think bar/restaurant employees are too happy about this though, they stand to loose lots of tip money and/or their jobs. And even if you are only protecting the workers, what about all the other places where its banned? Car parks, malls etc.
Like I said I'm in two minds about the whole thing. While part of me does tend to believe that occupational health and safety standards should apply to this sort of thing another part of me tends to believe that some people have exploited this to stop other people from continuing a habit just because they don't like it.
Personally I think that the solution is a ban on smoking in places like pubs and bars where the atmosphere of smoke can be very strong but no involentary restrictions on "open air" places like car parks etc where there is sufficient ventilation to prevent dangerous levels building up.
-
That's the whole point, its their choice. What's next, banning alchohol because its bad for you? Oh wait, already tried that.
One person drinking alcohol doesn't mean that everyone else around them is going to experience the effects of it as well. The same is not true for smoking.
Why would you want to smoke anyway? I can see the reasons for drinking, or even getting high off a drug of choice, but as far as I know cigarretes don't have any sort of chemicals that produce endorphins or cause any sort of 'feel-good' reaction in the brain.
-
In a certain episode of Yes Minister (UK sophisticated political comedy in the 80s) there was a great line by Humphrey Appleby concerning the costs to the NHS of smoking in relation to treatments for cancer. "But minister, these people are national benefactors! By prematurely laying down their lives before natural causes take effect we save a fortune from the healthcare and social security benefits they would otherwise have." It was meant as a joke to show how horrible and money-grubbing the civil service was, of course, but I often wonder how much truth there is to that...
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Did you not read the sentence I wrote underneath that?
that's why i said "please don't pull the ..... card". because i know with what you said, some moron will come along and say "but cigarette smoke doesn't hurt other people!!11"... it was coming, which is why i said please no one go that direction. ;)
-
how can you guys say any of this?
i live in the US and can say this:
first off, 'rights' are made-up 'rules' that are there only to keep the people from rioting and finding out how badly the government is actually exploiting them.
the same goes for the 'law'. the US is just a corperate dream...
smoking is a prime example. does the governmetn make any attempt to put them all out of business? no.
funny how smoking is perfectly legal, as is convinceing someone else to smoke, but killing them with nerve gas isnt. spooky that.
dont get me started on the whole car industry. its insulting.
i dont understand how its possible for this nation to last so long. its been around like 150 years (is my math wrong? i dont think so) im surprised.
the US IS a paradox. a bleeding stupid one at that.
plus, matters arent helped by that idiotic wart-on-the-face-of-the-earth we have for president right now. [sarcasm]oh, i feel SO safe because that DANGEROUS iraq cant hurt me now.[/sarcasm] ooh, what were they going to do? now were prolly going to totally decimate another country that hasnt DONE any-f^cking-thing to us, and then fill yet ANOTHER space on the world with this travasty of a nation! :mad:
sooo... no. you dont have rights. isnt america wonderful? *primes weapon* HAH! DIE you corperate BASTARDS!
ggrrrrr.... *is shaking with rage*
-
I thought this was about canada... :nervous:
-
Grim, take a Valium. You'll feel better.
And that safety/not-safety argument has always amused me. You're not safe now. You never were safe. And you never will be safe.
-
yes. thats what im saying.
except that youre not safe HERE because those idiots trying to RUN this place are out to get you.
-
I think Grimloq might actually be angrier than Kazan.
-
no ****.
-
Come to Canada...live through a few winters here in Southern Ontario...or move to Winterpeg...I mean Winnipeg. Then you'll feel better...and slightly more chilled out.
-
*sigh* *is a little more calmed down now*
there been some problems. im currently in a suicidal hate-driven bloodlust. you have been warned.
-
I welcome public smoking bans. It makes my life more comfortable, and it makes it easier for me to convince my mum to drop the cancer sticks (it's a long-running battle, but I'll get there in the end).
-
Ok... now ban fast-food restaurants and fatty foods because they cause Excess Weight Linked to 90,000 US Cancer Deaths Annually (http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=overweight+deaths&btnG=Zoeken&lr=)
3000 lung cancer deaths? 90000 overweight related deaths BY CANCER IN THE US ALONE. YEARLY. That's not even counting the non-cancer related deaths involving overweight.
Sorry, but smoking is a mere inconvenience compared to the other problems.
I find it purely hypocritical to ban smoking while allowing far more dangerous practices go on just because iot bothers other poeple. Well, I'm bothered by obese bastards that smell like rotten cheese and sit next to me in the bus. BAN FAT FOOD!
:rolleyes:
-
Smoking bans are not because of the harm done to people who smoke, but because of the people around them who don't.
As for cars, they've become essential to the way our society operates. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it makes banning them totally impossible. We don't get from Point A to Point B with cigarettes.
-
Cars can be traded in for public transit very easily but it's just VERY costly. And when something costs money, it just won't happen. :ick:
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Ok... now ban fast-food restaurants and fatty foods because they cause Excess Weight Linked to 90,000 US Cancer Deaths Annually (http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=overweight+deaths&btnG=Zoeken&lr=)
3000 lung cancer deaths? 90000 overweight related deaths BY CANCER IN THE US ALONE. YEARLY. That's not even counting the non-cancer related deaths involving overweight.
Sorry, but smoking is a mere inconvenience compared to the other problems.
I find it purely hypocritical to ban smoking while allowing far more dangerous practices go on just because iot bothers other poeple. Well, I'm bothered by obese bastards that smell like rotten cheese and sit next to me in the bus. BAN FAT FOOD!
:rolleyes:
The difference is that fat people don't cram burger and chips down your throat when you sit near them.
-
Cars can be traded in for public transit very easily but it's just VERY costly. And when something costs money, it just won't happen.
Unfortunately, the way much of America is set up makes this very difficult, my hometown being a prime example. In the suburbs, everything is spread out, making it impossible to walk anywhere, but putting in a railroad system so people can get from their houses to the center of town, or from one town to another, is a little ridiculous. Even if I want to take a train into the city, I still have to drive from my house to the station, which is a couple of towns over.
I'm not defending the way this works, but the fact is that changing our mode of transportation is not something easily done.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The difference is that fat people don't cram burger and chips down your throat when you sit near them.
But the fast-food chains practically do. They have made fast-food mainstream and are continuing to do so. They are basically cramming it down your throat. A large part of the US population is considered OBESE (Not fat but obese) because fast-food has become so mainstream. Instead of a healthy meal it has become a simple take-out order or a trip to the nearest Mac for a fat juicy burger. It has become a national medical problem. Moreso then smoking and second hand smoking combined.
I'm sorry, but ever since they started banning tabacco advertising I began to hate that hypocritical bull****.
-
AT LEAST PEOPLE HAVE CONTROL OVER WHAT THEY DO OR DO NOT EAT.
If a bunch of fat ****'s want to cram ten pounds of grease, meat, and cheese down their throats, well, kudos to them. But when a person smokes around you, they endanger not only themselves, but THOSE AROUND THEM.
Hurting yourself = Ok, to an extent.
Hurting yourself and those around = Die, mother****er
-
But the fast-food chains practically do. They have made fast-food mainstream and are continuing to do so. They are basically cramming it down your throat. A large part of the US population is considered OBESE (Not fat but obese) because fast-food has become so mainstream. Instead of a healthy meal it has become a simple take-out order or a trip to the nearest Mac for a fat juicy burger. It has become a national medical problem. Moreso then smoking and second hand smoking combined.
I'm sorry, but ever since they started banning tabacco advertising I began to hate that hypocritical bull****.
bull****.
people have a choice whether or not to eat fast food. granted with all the advertisements and locations it's very easy to eat it, but you still have that choice whether you want to or not. i mean, why not ban cars in America too, because with all those car commercials, people are a lot more inclined to buy a car, and therefore sacrifice money that may have gone to getting their kids a better education, or putting food on the table...
see, you have a choice whether you want to eat fast food... you don't have a choice when it comes to inhaling the smoke from the idiot sitting next to you on the bus that's puffing away.
EDIT: Grimloq: chill out dude... you're over-reacting. no one has the right to do something that may (or in this case: does) damage other people. sorry, but when the Constitution talks about citizen's rights, etc. it's not talking about the right to do anything you want... because that's stupid. when your rights start putting others at risk, that's unacceptable.
Just like freedom of speech... remember yelling "Fire" in a crowded place? yeah... you'll get arrested for it. Why? because it's putting other people's lives and well-being in danger.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
But the fast-food chains practically do. They have made fast-food mainstream and are continuing to do so. They are basically cramming it down your throat. A large part of the US population is considered OBESE (Not fat but obese) because fast-food has become so mainstream. Instead of a healthy meal it has become a simple take-out order or a trip to the nearest Mac for a fat juicy burger. It has become a national medical problem. Moreso then smoking and second hand smoking combined.
I'm sorry, but ever since they started banning tabacco advertising I began to hate that hypocritical bull****.
I can walk past a McDonalds (etc) without going in for food. I would not go into a pub to inhale smoke, I would go in for a pint. There's a fundamental issue of choice there.
Also, fast food (or any food) does not cause obesity unless it is over-eaten; i.e. a responsible person (i.e. myself) can easily control intake. But cigarettes if used atall will cause damage.
furthermore, you can't just blame fast food for it; you have to blame the educational system that is obviously failing to educate children over healtyh eating, and the companies which advertise and sell in shops, etc; whilst I don't think the likes of McDonalds are particularly likeable or ethical companies, the reasons for banning them are far, far less solidly grounded than that of banning public smoking IMHO.
NB: Ford - don't you have buses?
-
choice. that's the keyword there.
Cars can be traded in for public transit very easily but it's just VERY costly. And when something costs money, it just won't happen.
but there's an issue of practicality too... under the "equal rights" doctrine... if cars were to be banned, and public transportation the only practical method of long-distance transportation (by that i mean anything too far to walk or ride a bike), then you'd have to provide equal transportation opportunities for people living hundreds of miles outside city limits... (which would cost a FORTUNE). either that or FORCE everyone to live within the city's limits, but then there goes all the ranching, farming, and agriculture of the nation. see, as was mentioned... cars are too deeply rooted into our society now.
-
this argument sucks.
were all wrong, the world sucks. now, that will either make you guys realise that trying to find logic is a waste of time, or will make you depressed and hide from the face of the earth for the rest of yer natural life >_<
-
So you're admitting you're wrong then?
-
You remind me so much of a Christian friend of mine. His motto is 'Humanity sucks.'
-
As far as I know, fast food doesn't secrete calories into the air. You could work at a McDonald's and not experience ill effects from the fat in the food (aside from being grossed out now and then, perhaps). Your parents could chain-eat McDonalds daily for 19 years and you probably wouldn't get any fatter as long as you didn't eat it too. (Although they could probably be Jabba the Hutt next Halloween with no additional costume...provided they live that long.)
Fast food may be a health hazard but only to those who choose to expose themselves to the risk. (Also, as stated above, in moderation it isn't too bad.)
-
Well, it does. But it gives me a lot of souls to devour :D
Anyway, it might be a matter of choice but it is also a matter of principle. I'm sorry, but I just cannot grasp the hypocracy of a government that would ban smoking but allows various other things to go on that are far more harmfull.
I'm not saying that it is right that others should be bothered by smokers. Not at all. But the mere fact that so much time and effort is thrown into an issue that is nothing more then an inconvenience compared to the various other problems in society just pisses me off.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Well, it does. But it gives me a lot of souls to devour :D
Anyway, it might be a matter of choice but it is also a matter of principle. I'm sorry, but I just cannot grasp the hypocracy of a government that would ban smoking but allows various other things to go on that are far more harmfull.
I'm not saying that it is right that others should be bothered by smokers. Not at all. But the mere fact that so much time and effort is thrown into an issue that is nothing more then an inconvenience compared to the various other problems in society just pisses me off.
and once again, i say that i honestly don't see any other issues in which innocent people are getting hurt just by going about their day to day lives, as relevant as smoking. ;)
-
Then you, sir, are blind. Blind to the passive persuasions of every day life. But I've noticed that many people actually are ignorant of the things that are going on around them.
-
I see what you mean. The thing is, fast food is still food, and you can get it fast (thus the name). It still has some positive benefits, peple burn fat at significantly different rates, etc. I could see the point in banning consumption of certain types of food depending on your body weight/heart rate, but I doubt I'd support it. That's a little more information than I want McDonalds or Burger King knowing.
I don't think it's hypocritical of the government to ban smoking but not fast food unless you look at it from a very simple perspective of the numbers of deaths per year. In which case the government might have to end up banning having children, driving cars, flying, maybe even certain types of jobs due to the number of deaths being more than those resulting from various crimes to prevent from being hypocritical. Heck, a lot of people die from various diseases...should the government ban having those diseases and impose severe penalties if you get/have one?
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Well, it does. But it gives me a lot of souls to devour :D
Anyway, it might be a matter of choice but it is also a matter of principle. I'm sorry, but I just cannot grasp the hypocracy of a government that would ban smoking but allows various other things to go on that are far more harmfull.
I'm not saying that it is right that others should be bothered by smokers. Not at all. But the mere fact that so much time and effort is thrown into an issue that is nothing more then an inconvenience compared to the various other problems in society just pisses me off.
I think fast food is a cultural issue. The US has developed a culture around fast food and unhealthy foods. It's a cultural issue when parents feed their children fast food and unhealthy foods from when they're young.
Governments don't control culture (and shouldn't). Of course there're also some gray areas, such as the integration of more diet-oriented health education in schools.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Then you, sir, are blind. Blind to the passive persuasions of every day life. But I've noticed that many people actually are ignorant of the things that are going on around them.
yup, i'm blind.
i just wish i could see how obese people (thanks to fast food) are slowly killing each and every one of us :( :(
noooooot. face it. you're looking at two completely different issues: one one side of the ring we have people's choice, that affects their lives. on the other side we have people's choice, that affects their lives, but also the lives of people that are around when they smoke. hardly comparable...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
So you're admitting you're wrong then?
Robert Frost once defined a liberal as someone "too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel."
-
well how about this I drive a car, it produces polution, polution that emitts carcagens into the atmosphere comperable to tobaco smoke in concentrations large enough to effect the global ecology in just 50 years of major use, does anyone sudgest banning cars?
well yes, but they are generaly consitered nuts.
-
Cars, at least, have an important use.
There are no important uses for Cigarettes. Not one.
-
other than enjoying yourself.
and now that I think of it, I seem to recall something about a study that found smokers had a massily reduced rate of... some nurological disorder... lue gehrig's maybe
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
well how about this I drive a car, it produces polution, polution that emitts carcagens into the atmosphere comperable to tobaco smoke in concentrations large enough to effect the global ecology in just 50 years of major use, does anyone sudgest banning cars?
well yes, but they are generaly consitered nuts.
That's because you can have cleaner-burning cars. You just need cleaner electric plants.
Cars are also used by pretty much everyone in the US and serve a useful function.
-
so? I'm doing something that is detromental to other people.
-
I think you've entered into 'practical morality.'
While, ideally, it'd be possible to have cars and not realease harmful gases, it's not happening - because it's cheaper to produce stinky, smelly cars.
I can see why you'd own a car - it can get you a lot of places, fast. But why smoke? Why should it be allowed any more than starting fires in restraunts or public places?
-
becase you like doing it
and I feel I'm going to have to dig up an article about perceptions of morality soon.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
other than enjoying yourself.
and now that I think of it, I seem to recall something about a study that found smokers had a massily reduced rate of... some nurological disorder... lue gehrig's maybe
Nope. Cigarettes produce no 'feel good' reaction. They make you stressed and irritable when you don't have it, and bring you back to normal levels when you do take it. This comes only AFTER you're addicted.
1. I doubt that second part.
2. Even if it's true, the detrimental effects of cigarettes FAR outweigh these 'positive' effects.
-
"Even if it's true, the detrimental effects of cigarettes FAR outweigh these 'positive' effects."
yes, I wassn't asserting that they were good for you, just that there were one or two pebles of good things to go along with the vast mountan of bad things.
the point is the people want to do it, why they want to do it is not our concern.
-
I don't care why they want to do it. What I want, is for them to stop that disgusting, dangerous habit around me when I go out to public places.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
so? I'm doing something that is detromental to other people.
Bob: never, ever light a fire. in fact, never cook food, because fires produce carbon monoxide, which is deadly to man.
see where this is going? why not ban all plastics, because plastic is bad for the environment.
EDIT: bob, i just realized... you're arguing in favor of cigarette-smoking. this is unbelievable *shakes head*... i never thought i'd see the day :-/
-
Originally posted by Stealth
yup, i'm blind.
i just wish i could see how obese people (thanks to fast food) are slowly killing each and every one of us :( :(
noooooot. face it. you're looking at two completely different issues: one one side of the ring we have people's choice, that affects their lives. on the other side we have people's choice, that affects their lives, but also the lives of people that are around when they smoke. hardly comparable...
...
:doubt:
I never thought people could be this dense. You didn't even get what I was saying. :blah:
-
Stealth.. ask yourself.
Has your life's work been a fools crusade?
-
Small group A wants to smoke and are willing to accept shorter lives as a consequence.
Larger group B wants to live long, healthy lives.
Whose right to live life as they want it is more important? Is it group A? Or is it groups B? Because that's really what you're making it come down to. If the government doesn't allow smoking, it is denying that liberty to group A. If the government does allow smoking, it is denying group B the liberty to live smoke-free.
the point is the people want to do it, why they want to do it is not our concern.
If someone is in such bad health that they can't survive nicotine withdrawal, that's a whole lot different than some kid who wants to smoke just to piss off his parents. When you have two groups who want things that are pretty much exclusively different, you have to look at the reasons behind why people want what they do so that you can at least make an effort at compromising. Otherwise, the majority will constantly win out due to simple practicality because a government that becomes deadlocked over every decision, simply because of a dissenting minority, will not get anything done. (See the US government before the constitution, the 'Articles of Confederation' one IIRC)
The only real way to compromise is to give both groups roughly equal amounts of what they want. Otherwise, it's not a compromise.
Thus, if you see that most people who smoke would most like to do so at home, and most people who don't want to deal with smoke usually find it in restraunts, you might end up with a bill similar to the above. Neither group's rights would really be fulfilled, but they would be protected.
If you look at things from moral point of view - on the one hand. a person can help kill themself as well as all nearby people, help the economy a little, and maybe get a little pleasure out of it.
On the other hand, you can not help kill all of said people, buy something else to help the economy (or donate to charity), and maybe get a little pleasure out of that.
I think for most moral codes, hastening another person's death is generally at the top of the "not-to-do" list.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
...
:doubt:
I never thought people could be this dense. You didn't even get what I was saying. :blah:
EDIT: not going to say anything i'll regret.
so please, if i don't get what you were saying, explain what you were trying to say. as far as i could tell you were saying:
1) fast food is another problem we should worry about, because thanks to advertising and availability, everyone's subject to it
2) society has far worse problems than cigarette smoking to worry about.
right? what am i missing.
thx
-
It's better to tackle at least some of the problems than tackle none, though.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
EDIT: not going to say anything i'll regret.
so please, if i don't get what you were saying, explain what you were trying to say. as far as i could tell you were saying:
1) fast food is another problem we should worry about, because thanks to advertising and availability, everyone's subject to it
2) society has far worse problems than cigarette smoking to worry about.
right? what am i missing.
thx
Then, I apologize. It's just that your last reply didn't exactly convey a sense of understanding about what I was trying to say.
In any case, I am not saying it's bad that they are fighting public smoking because as Aldo said, it's bnetter to fight some problems then none. However, I find it completely hypocritical that this is made such a big issue that far, far, FAR bigger problems are simply... forgotten. Or at the very least disregarded.
Example;
"OH NO! PUBLIC SMOKING! GET OUT OF MY FACE!!!!1111oneoneone"
*jumps in the car to go 2 streets further*
That is the kind of **** that makes me angry. In that little distance that person drove, he produced more toxic gasses then 50 smokers combined while just as easily one could've taken a bike or *SHOCK* walk there.
I'm not against banning public smoking, I'm just against the fact that it overshadows far greater problems.
I hope this makes my point a bit clearer. :)
-
OK in that case let me tackle both points (see my previous post) :)
1) i understand what you're saying about fast food. you're saying that advertising has made fast food so available, and seems so enticing, that it makes it a lot easier for people to become obese (obesity becoming one of the nation's largest (pun intended ;) ) problems). i agree with you, it's a shame that nothing's really being done about that (on a side note, have you watched Super Size Me? if not, i recommend it, it puts things in perspective, also i think it was an awakening call for a lot of people and companies), but you've got to understand where they're coming from. While fast food is a problem, you've got to understand what perspective people are looking at smoking from: while fast food is a danger to society, it's not a physical danger, as is smoking... you've got to sympathize with them. ;)
2) cars, yes, the biggest problem to mankind, and i actually agree with you. since i started college, very often if it's a nice day and the forecast is good, i'll leave an hour earlier, and ride my bike there... there's nothing wrong with walking/bicycling, and college has taught me that. i've driven my car less and less unless it's crucial, or i'm late, or whatever. although think about it: no one's banning smoking OUTSIDE... someone can step outside anywhere and smoke, but cars aren't allowed to be run in-doors (no they're really not, it's illegal), or if they are, it has to be a ventilated area to specification. so while car fumes are damaging the environment a lot, they're not damaging people as much. people aren't forced to eat, work, or socialize with car fumes floating around, but they are with cigarette smoke, you see what i'm saying?
although i agree that car pollution is a big problem, that should be tackled as hard as cigarette smoking. car pollution's come a long way, since the EPA's introduction of emission standards in the 70s, and then toughening them through the 80s to today, where if you compare and contrast the contaminants a car outputs to a car 50 years ago, you'll be amazed (i remember reading somewhere a long, long time ago that a V8 idling for 10 seconds puts out more pollution damaging the environment than someone smoking 12 boxes of cigarettes, or some crazy number like that. it made it seem that cigarettes damage humans more than they damage the environment) but even so, pollution IS a big problem, that should be tackled in some way... but cars are rooted so deep in society, there's no way they'll ever be removed. you can't remove something that every member in society relies on, from kids all the way to the retired :-/ sad, but true :(
EDIT: taking automechanics makes you realize just how much pollutant a car puts out. just a LITTLE fine-tuning, and a car can put out levels over twice as high... and we all know that not every car driving down the highway is perfectly tuned :-/
-
my point with the cars was that someone smoking twenty feet away from you is produceing less nasy gasses than a car idleing at the same distance. the health effects of banning smoking are going to be lets say four months more life, when your getting five to ten years cut off becase of polution from cars, the effects are relitivly negigable and as such they do not copnstitute the neseity of violateing a persons right to make a choice for themselves.
I am not arguing in favor of smokeing I am arguing against restricting someone elses rights becase you are uncomfortable with them.
there is no unavoidable situation were your health will be seriosly impacted with regards to smoking.
-
well see, you could say that cars are only running outdoors, where there's plenty of ventilation (to take the harmful fumes up into the atmosphere, to damage it there :p )... but smoking is indoors a lot, where you can't get away from it. there's people smoking in the cubicle next to you at work, on the elevator on the way down, sitting in the subway station, sitting in the subway with you, etc. you know?
-
you are not requiered to be in any of those places, and each of them has the option to set there own pollocies regarding the issue, I have no prolbem with private busnesses haveing a smokeing ban as a matter of corperate pollocy, same thing with the subway, and there they could have a smoking car.
-
i was in a McDonalds the other day and a guy in line was smoking... you really can't avoid it... i, personally, can't go through a day without walking at least at one point next to someone who's smoking. for one, i can't walk into the college without passing through a cloud of smoke from all the people outside smoking.
now remember, i'm not saying that it's possible for people to avoid car fumes, because there's no way anyone can do that, no matter how cautious they are. and also remember i agreed with you that pollution's another problem, but i don't see it going away ever, because cars benefit people, smoking definately doesn't :-/