[aldo_14]

If I get into power, I will burn oil company executives as a non-renewable fuel source.

[castor]

Tried it couple of times... couple of times it made me throw up... got the message alright.
So, No - but i do not mind SHS (though I normally try and avoid SHS, too).

[Nico]

I smoke. And in fact I smoke a lot, these days.
Don't smoke joints tho, not coz there's not around ( it's illegal in France but you can still find it about anywhere ), just that I don't like the taste.

[Gortef]

No (not even intend trying it) - but I don't mind that much SHS (depends on the situation)

[Darkage]

I smoke and some pot from time to tome, but not in cars or in public places like bars and offices.

Or when i am at other peoples homes i do not smoke unless i am allowed to. Or i'll just go outside.

And when i do light a cig in a bar i allways blwo the smoke upwards.

I also smoke allot less then i did a year ago.

[Rictor]

But Darkage, going outside is not enough. If you are standing within 100m of Kazan, you are violating his sacred rights! They ought to haul your ass off to jail, you bad, bad man.

Seriously Kaz, if you want to life in those conditions, move to a deserted island somewhere. The real world does not revolve around you and your whims.

[Kazan]

Rictor: "The real world does not revolve around you and your whims" NOR DOES IT REVOLVE AROUND YOU AND YOUR IMMATURITY

So human rights are "Kazan's Whims" Now? Why don't you go and become a citizen of some dictatorship

[Rictor]

I don't oppose your beliefs, just the extremes to which you take them

I think that people have a right not to breathe in SHS. So indoor public places should have a smoking area and a non-smoking area. Maybe, if you really wanna be extreme, make a sheltered smoking area which is outside.

But thats not enough for you. You wan't seperate air filtration for smoking areas. You want smokers to not come within 100m of you. In short, you want to subject the world to a tyranny, where smokers are treated like criminals and second class citizens and have to hide in the depths of their basement when having a smoke, just so you don'y get 1 molecule of nicotene in your system.

edit: Doesn't it simpy make more sense to come up with cigartettes which are not harmful?

[Kazan]

Rictor: seperating "smoking area" and "non-smoking area" has been shown to be wholly ineffective

"world to a tyranny" so public health is a tyranny now - you libertarians are all illogical - "second class ctiziens" - um, no criminals because it's ILLEGAL

It's called PUBLIC HEALTH issues - you don't like it TOUGH **** - you don't have the right to smoke, that's license

re:edit - that is impossible, for one the nicotine itself is harmful, for two it's completely impossible to alter the tabacco plant to eliminate all the combustion biproduct chemicals

[01010]

Originally posted by Rictor
I don't oppose your beliefs, just the extremes to which you take them

I think that people have a right not to breathe in SHS. So indoor public places should have a smoking area and a non-smoking area. Maybe, if you really wanna be extreme, make a sheltered smoking area which is outside.

But thats not enough for you. You wan't seperate air filtration for smoking areas. You want smokers to not come within 100m of you. In short, you want to subject the world to a tyranny, where smokers are treated like criminals and second class citizens and have to hide in the depths of their basement when having a smoke, just so you don'y get 1 molecule of nicotene in your system.

edit: Doesn't it simpy make more sense to come up with cigartettes which are not harmful?

Unfortunately you can't, even nicotine is a poison that is addictive in miniscule doses.

I'm with you all the way on this though, Kazan is all for rights and freedoms as long as they are his rights and his freedoms, if yours don't comply then **** you, your a moron, retard, or whatever insult is his flavour of the month (think it was asshat a few weeks ago) and while he is an intelligent guy, his complete and utter lack of people skills does not help his argument any.

[Kazan]

01010: you do not have the right to poison other people - I am all for rights, "if yours don't comply then **** you" means "If your 'rights' infringe upon the rights of others, then it's not a 'right' by definition"


My complete and utter lack of "people skills" is a complete and utter lack of patience for people who accuse me of being fascist for promoting real rights

You do not have the 'right' to smoke, plain and simple - it's not a right

[ChronoReverse]

Well, nicotine itself isn't that bad, but each cigarette does put out a LOT of carcinogens.

Enough that even small amounts of SHS increases the risk of lung cancer from low to very high.  It's a concern since SHS can cause so much damage to people around the smoker.

Now, I don't always agree with Kazan, but a personal attack has no place here.

What Kazan states is based on the fact that your rights cannot include stuff that harms others around you.  Smoking harms others around you.  In fact it harms those around you more than yourself AND it often annoys the others.  Therefore smoking should not be a right.

However, I do sympathize with those who are addicted.  So it would do a lot more good to start to push the tobacco companies hard rather than simply banning smoking.

[01010]

Originally posted by Kazan
01010: you do not have the right to poison other people - I am all for rights, "if yours don't comply then **** you" means "If your 'rights' infringe upon the rights of others, then it's not a 'right' by definition"


My complete and utter lack of "people skills" is a complete and utter lack of patience for people who accuse me of being fascist for promoting real rights

You do not have the 'right' to smoke, plain and simple - it's not a right

I'm a perfectly functioning human being, I have whatever rights I deem fit to give myself and no I don't smoke cigarettes, however I don't believe that people who are systematically targetted with advertising from tobacco companies from an incredibly young age should be villified for smoking.

Like I said twice already, you want to stop smoking then picket the slimy corporate ****s that prey on the young to line their pockets with blood money.

[Kazan]

"In high doses, nicotine blocks the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, which is the reason for its toxicity and its effectiveness as an insecticide."

Wikipedia, on Nicotine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine

[ChronoReverse]

I'm a perfectly functioning human being, I have whatever rights I deem fit to give myself

Try again, there's a mistake in this sentence.


@Kazan

I didn't say it wasn't toxic, but that there's worse stuff in cigarettes.  Nicotine is one of the worse though since it's the addictive component.

[01010]

Originally posted by ChronoReverse



Try again, there's a mistake in this sentence.

No, just a difference in world view. I think each and every person is completely free to do whatever the hell they like, they just have to deal with the consequences of their actions. If that means having to deal with people who find their actions offensive then so be it.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by 01010
however I don't believe that people who are systematically targetted with advertising from tobacco companies from an incredibly young age should be villified for smoking.

so since they were advistered to and had incredibly weak self control they should be forgiven for violating my rights and introducing poisonis into my body against my will


how about: Um no, that's no freaking excuse

it's called QUIT - and I don't care how addictive ANYTHING is, quitting is an act of willpower nothing more

[ChronoReverse]

Let me get this straight.  You believe in amoralism, that is, anyone can do whatever they want?

In that case, you don't even have to bother to argue.  Laws can be passed banning cigarettes since _somebody_ wanted to do that.  You just have to deal with it.  If they want to arrest you, that's too bad since they felt they should do that.

Those who continue to smoke should since they want to.  And since they'll live with consequences, they can suffer under the law (if such a law was passed).

Sheesh, hasn't existentialism been discredited yet?

[Kazan]

Originally posted by 01010
I think each and every person is completely free to do whatever the hell they like

so poisoning other people is perfectly acceptable


by this logic it's also perfectly acceptable to:

Rape
Kill
Molest
Mutilate
Destroy
Damage
Steal
.....

[01010]

Originally posted by Kazan


so since they were advistered to and had incredibly weak self control they should be forgiven for violating my rights and introducing poisonis into my body against my will


how about: Um no, that's no freaking excuse

it's called QUIT - and I don't care how addictive ANYTHING is, quitting is an act of willpower nothing more

I don't dispute that but it would make a lot more sense to target a problem at it's source would it not?

There are millions upon millions of smokers who's opinions and addictions your ranting will not change, there are far fewer tobacco companies, all who have a product to sell, you hit them where it hurts and you'd see a hell of a lot less people being inclined to start smoking in the first place.