Debate: Smoking Ban in all public places

[Awesome]

It's a big idea, banning smoking in all public places. Government have tried to stop smoking by raise smoking taxes, stop advertising and putting warnings on packets. Should smoking be banned in all public places?

NOTE: I'm referring to to USA in this form because I know all countries have different laws on smoking.

My opinion is yes. If affects everyone's health, second hand smoking and many people face serious injuries or even death because of it. Smoking needs to banned in all public places leaving you to only be allowed to smoke at home, or a cigar outlet.

Whats your opinion? Are you For or Against a ban of smoking in public places. Please explain why.

[HaydenM]

I am not american and I will say that from the start.

I do however believe that it should be banned in public. If I walked around smoking anthrax I'm pretty sure someone would have something to say about it.

It kills that person smoking it but they make the conscious decision to do it. The people around should not be inadvertently killed by one persons decision.

[DerBear]

I do not support smoking but i am going to make a vailid point

if we ban smoking we should also ban

petrol run cars as the fumes can kill people
heavy machines that work on the roads as they cause duest and release toxic fumes
We should also shut down factories that burn products as the gases can cause death to wildlife and humans

if your going to ban smoking in public places then ban all these as well to be fair these are just as likely to affect the planet and us as humans

[Awesome]

I do not support smoking but i am going to make a vailid point

if we ban smoking we should also ban

petrol run cars as the fumes can kill people
heavy machines that work on the roads as they cause duest and release toxic fumes
We should also shut down factories that burn products as the gases can cause death to wildlife and humans

if your going to ban smoking in public places then ban all these as well to be fair these are just as likely to affect the planet and us as humans

Well we actually need those, as for smokes. You could completly go without them.

[DerBear]

Well we actually need those, as for smokes. You could completly go without them.

Just because we need them does not mean its right

[Guillermo]

I guess I'd have to say I'm against because usually smokers don't seem to create that much of a problem out in public. I mean usually they smoke in secluded areas and if people don't want to be next to that then they don't have to be...And I am totally against the government "trying to stop smoking" or whatever (but I don't think that this would ever happen, anyway) because then my dad wouldn't have a job - which would really suck.

[DoctorWho]

I say it should but then parents would have to smoke in the house while children are around

[Jakezilla]

I think so, but I don't think it should be wrong in your car or at home. They are your own proporty and you should be able to do what you please in both.

[DoctorWho]

But still its a child hazard if you have one

[SimplyTom]

yep i agree that it should be banned in public places in the US just as it is already here in the uk. I don't have to walk through a cloud of smoke which i cant stand nor the smell so yeah i agree it should be banned

[CaliKid24]

Most public places, if not all, in California have it banned. And it should be something only done in private, secondhand smoke kills so why put innocent people through that.

[Unlucky_Leprechaun]

Most public places, if not all, in California have it banned. And it should be something only done in private, secondhand smoke kills so why put innocent people through that.

I agree, however in Alabama there is no statewide smoking ban, however, local municipalities can enact a more stringent law if passed by the local legislation.
I am for a statewide ban for all PUBLIC places including restaurants and bars..

I have read that only approx 15% of a cigarette only gets inhaled by the smoker...the rest is released as secondhand smoke.

Secondhand smoke kills...period.

[Syvelocin]

The only issue is that smoking isn't just something fun someone does to relax. You get addicted to it. It could be problematic if a smoker isn't able to be in private for an extended period of time. It's a drug, and removing the addictive substance from a person with a physical addiction to it causes them to go through withdrawal. Tobacco withdrawal isn't as bad as, say, heroin withdrawal, but it isn't all that fun. So the choice then is suffer or do something illegal. Guess which I'd pick.

I do like the point Derri brought up.

Second-hand smoke is bad for you. Sure. But I don't come into contact with that many smokers on a daily basis. Maybe one or two a week if any if we count the people smoking in their cars with the windows open, and occasionally someone outside a store taking a drag. I think some people are making a big deal out of very minimal exposure. You'll die much later than I will if all due to cigarettes, trust me. Unless you have a parent or sibling blowing smoke in your face all day I really wouldn't worry about it.

And I don't know about everyone, but some of us actually try to be polite about it. For instance, my mum. She is the most careful person over where and when she smokes. And not without reason, she had me to take care of and my two half-siblings now. Very rarely do I even smoke around people who don't mind it. You guys also have feet as well, if I recall correctly. You can use them to walk away. Like Will said, usually smokers don't go into a completely crowded area and start smoking. I try to be courteous and stand a bit back when I do. I try to smoke at home, outside though. But when I can't I'm polite.

[DerBear]

Has anyone also came to the fact that if we bannded smoking in public places that they would have too smoke in home where possibly children are about

[judahtics]

california has pretty decent laws now. you can't smoke within so many feet of a door to a business and you can't smoke on certain properties, like a hospital.

[Jimmy Page]

We have a law on that in Norway,you are not allowed to smoke on public places unless there is a sign saying you can,and you can not smoke inside buildings(malls,stores,hospitals,restaurants and such)
Im supporting a law like that,but not a full ban of smoking in public places.

[Jonathon]

We already have enough places where smoking is banned, it's pretty hard to catch a smoker unless you're driving by or are in front of a supermarket.

[DoctorWho]

yep i agree that it should be banned in public places in the US just as it is already here in the uk. I don't have to walk through a cloud of smoke which i cant stand nor the smell so yeah i agree it should be banned

Ya it should and say your child is at home then maybe you can go into your yard and smoke that would be better

[Tango]

Ew I can't stand smoking. I don't think it needs to be banned from public, but people need to be more sensitive about it. A lot of people just smoke wherever. Or they go far away, but the wind blows the smoke into a group of people.

I think restaurant that have bars, need to put the bars in the back through a door so the whole place doesn't smell like smoke. Me and my friend has to walk through a bar to get to the bathroom, there was no ventilation in there and we got stuck in there for at least 20 minutes. I couldn't stop coughing for the rest of the night.

People just need more common sense when they smoke and need to keep other medical needs into consideration.

[Korashk]

How about instead of banning smoking in public, you people stop invading the personal space of smokers. Seriously, this is only an issue if you're actually close to said smoker. Just stay away from them.

[Angel Androgynous]

The only issue is that smoking isn't just something fun someone does to relax. You get addicted to it. It could be problematic if a smoker isn't able to be in private for an extended period of time. It's a drug, and removing the addictive substance from a person with a physical addiction to it causes them to go through withdrawal. Tobacco withdrawal isn't as bad as, say, heroin withdrawal, but it isn't all that fun. So the choice then is suffer or do something illegal. Guess which I'd pick.

I do like the point Derri brought up.

Second-hand smoke is bad for you. Sure. But I don't come into contact with that many smokers on a daily basis. Maybe one or two a week if any if we count the people smoking in their cars with the windows open, and occasionally someone outside a store taking a drag. I think some people are making a big deal out of very minimal exposure. You'll die much later than I will if all due to cigarettes, trust me. Unless you have a parent or sibling blowing smoke in your face all day I really wouldn't worry about it.

And I don't know about everyone, but some of us actually try to be polite about it. For instance, my mum. She is the most careful person over where and when she smokes. And not without reason, she had me to take care of and my two half-siblings now. Very rarely do I even smoke around people who don't mind it. You guys also have feet as well, if I recall correctly. You can use them to walk away. Like Will said, usually smokers don't go into a completely crowded area and start smoking. I try to be courteous and stand a bit back when I do. I try to smoke at home, outside though. But when I can't I'm polite.

How about instead of banning smoking in public, you people stop invading the personal space of smokers. Seriously, this is only an issue if you're actually close to said smoker. Just stay away from them.

This. Leave smokers alone. My mother smokes once in a while, and when she does, she is cautious of people around her. When she smokes in out apartment, she goes out on the balcony and closes the door so that no smoke would come into the living room. (Though, I honestly don't mind and kind of like the smell but that's not the point) It's not like smokers are standing 3 feet away from you blowing smoke in your face. ._. I understand why it would be banned from hospitals, and such, but everywhere in public? No. Just no.

[Amnesiac]

I don't really see the point of banning smoking "in all public places," whatever a public place is. Leave it to the businesses and landowners to bad smoking on their own property. That's their choice, and if you don't want to be exposed to smoking in a restaurant or something, don't fucking go there. As for banning smoking in open spaces like plazas and sidewalks, there's plenty of open space and fresh air; banning smoking there is just a pointless exercise.

Of course, it should be illegal to go up to people and blow smoke in their faces. But if a smoker is minding their own business, there's no reason to prosecute them for it. "Smoking is bad" isn't an excuse.

[andrew_]

they band it in indiana and its wonderful

[Awesome]

How about instead of banning smoking in public, you people stop invading the personal space of smokers. Seriously, this is only an issue if you're actually close to said smoker. Just stay away from them.

No, I have a right to be where I want to be, im not going to walk around because of a smoker. They smoke everywhere so your telling me I can't go anywhere. There the problem, not the innocent bystanders

[Tristin.]

its stupid. we are supposed to live in a fee state not a nanny state. its not your choice if someone smokes, its theirs. you breathe in car fumes etc daily, so what harm will some tar and nicotine do?

[Awesome]

its stupid. we are supposed to live in a fee state not a nanny state. its not your choice if someone smokes, its theirs. you breathe in car fumes etc daily, so what harm will some tar and nicotine do?

We need cars to get around, we dont need smokes to live.

[Angel Androgynous]

But cars pollute the air nonetheless... (MUCH MUCH more than cigarettes)

And you can use public transportation to get around....

[Tristin.]

IT IS NOT YOUR CHOICE end of. i dont smoke, i hate it, but i will not stop others from smoking so that i feel better. its their choice

[Awesome]

IT IS NOT YOUR CHOICE end of. i dont smoke, i hate it, but i will not stop others from smoking so that i feel better. its their choice

They kill people and if there were no smokers then there would be far less deaths. They smoke at home or in their backyard.

[Tristin.]

yes, because the world population is falling at a fast rate due to 2nd hand smoking?

also, i think the world has larger problems than smoking and a lot bigger killers.
cancer, war, heart disease and many more killers. your exaggerating a point to try and prove your own slightly misguided one.

i can see the point of not in a public building like a resteraunt, cafe or shopping centre, but nothing more, let hem smoke in he streets, parks, beer gardens and car parks etc, its outside. but a total ban in all areas outside thier own homes? too far

[Angel Androgynous]

._. Inhaling a little cigarette smoke once in a while isn't going to do anything to you. You people are just being paranoid, for one thing, for another thing, smokers smoke in secluded areas. The world isn't going to live to please you.

[Awesome]

._. Inhaling a little cigarette smoke once in a while isn't going to do anything to you. You people are just being paranoid, for one thing, for another thing, smokers smoke in secluded areas. The world isn't going to live to please you.

They why the hell do I find my self always surronded by smokers. I feel like I've smoked 10 trillion packs of smokes, its not my fault.

[Tristin.]

stop being paranoid and move on, unless you are smoking, the danger is very small.

my grandmother smoked 50 a day for what must have been close to 70 years, she died aged 93. so, you have been near smokers, if she is any example, your going to be fine

[Korashk]

No, I have a right to be where I want to be, im not going to walk around because of a smoker.
Yeah, you do have a right to be where you want to be on public property. And so should they. If you really want to get somewhere that's behind where a person is smoking you're going to have to make a choice. Either take a few extra seconds to walk around them, or walk through the smoke and MAYBE get ONE mouthful of smoke.

They smoke everywhere so your telling me I can't go anywhere.
They why the hell do I find my self always surronded by smokers. I feel like I've smoked 10 trillion packs of smokes, its not my fault.
Calm down there Mr. Drama Queen. Let's keep this discussion rational and full of logic.

[Angel Androgynous]

stop being paranoid and move on, unless you are smoking, the danger is very small.

my grandmother smoked 50 a day for what must have been close to 70 years, she died aged 93. so, you have been near smokers, if she is any example, your going to be fine

My great grandfather smoked like a chimney and he lived to 100 or so. x) Come on people, stop being paranoid...

[Awesome]

Ok now why are you all defending smokers

[Amnesiac]

Ok now why are you all defending smokers

Because they have a right to smoke, and they're not really harming anybody by doing it in public.

[Angel Androgynous]

Because I am fucking tired of people picking on smokers!


Boo fucking hoo, you think it's disgusting/unhealthy/deadly, so what? Let them fucking live their lives. If you don't like to inhale smoke, don't go where smokers are. They aren't all up in your face.....

[HeartCoreHannah]

I personally do not agree with banning it. If you don't like the smell or being around the smoke, then don't stand beside someone who is smoking. I think everyone should have the right to be able to smoke in public.

[huginnmuninn]

Ok now why are you all defending smokers

theres a difference between defending the people and defending the rights of the people

[Korashk]

Ok now why are you all defending smokers
I am a smoker, but that's beside the point. Also what Lithium said.

[Genghis Khan]

No, I have a right to be where I want to be, im not going to walk around because of a smoker. They smoke everywhere so your telling me I can't go anywhere. There the problem, not the innocent bystanders

If you have a right to be where you want to be so do they, from the posts you've made on this thread I gather you're being a little impractical, paranoid and perhaps not too well informed on to what limit smoking can actually harm someone. If one were to pass by a smoker, you won't drop dead, the most it will do is annoy you a little, it's not pleasant but one can deal with it.

The bystanders in most cases have a choice, your only concern is they shouldn't have to choose because smoking is a menace.

They kill people and if there were no smokers then there would be far less deaths. They smoke at home or in their backyard.

If there were no drinkers they'd be far less deaths, if there was no religion there'd be far less deaths, if swimming on small shark beaches was banned, there'd be less deaths. Come on. Far less deaths is a far fetched claim, being victim to some passive smoking isn't going to annihilate you. Seriously, that is the most fatuous, moonstruck thing I've heard.

They why the hell do I find my self always surronded by smokers. I feel like I've smoked 10 trillion packs of smokes, its not my fault.

What you feel is irrelevant if you're trying to prove a point.

P.S: You may have guessed I'm a pretentious liberal twat that thinks everyone has the freedom to make choices such as these.

Oh.. how dare I...

[HaydenM]

._. Inhaling a little cigarette smoke once in a while isn't going to do anything to you. You people are just being paranoid, for one thing, for another thing, smokers smoke in secluded areas. The world isn't going to live to please you.


((I think this is the first think I have blatantly disagreed with you about))

There have been many cases of people contracting and dieing from lung cancer, people who haven't smokes a cigarette in their life, because of second hand smoke. It has adverse affects on people's health. If I could use my analogy I used before, If I walked around the street smoking anthrax (something science has proven is bad for me) then by the logic the "pro smokers" on the thread would be saying that anyone around me getting second hand anthrax would just have to walk around me, or simply suck it in and deal with the adverse health affects I have caused them.

is that right?

[Tristin.]

ITS NOT YOUR CHOICE

im sorry, at the end of the day, in a DEMOCRATIC and FREE societyy (haha do they even exist any more?) every person living in it can make thier own choice, it has nothing to do with you, its their life, their choice. NOT YOURS.

so please, be realistic and face the truth, its not your choice so shut it and governments will never ban it compleatly because they make a fortune off the tax that is on them. so man up and stop complaining. im not going to tell you you cant go on the computer (which can screw your eyes) so dont telll other what they can and can not do.

[Korashk]

There have been many cases of people contracting and dieing from lung cancer, people who haven't smokes a cigarette in their life, because of second hand smoke.
Infrequent and brief exposure to secondhand smoke is not going to give you lung cancer. Show me a study saying otherwise and I'll relent.

If I could use my analogy I used before, If I walked around the street smoking anthrax (something science has proven is bad for me) then by the logic the "pro smokers" on the thread would be saying that anyone around me getting second hand anthrax would just have to walk around me, or simply suck it in and deal with the adverse health affects I have caused them.
Poor analogy. From what I'm reading anthrax smoke is harmless (well, not harmless, but it won't give you anthrax) and burning is the recommended way to decontaminate fabric tainted with it.

[Angel Androgynous]

((I think this is the first think I have blatantly disagreed with you about))

There have been many cases of people contracting and dieing from lung cancer, people who haven't smokes a cigarette in their life, because of second hand smoke. It has adverse affects on people's health. If I could use my analogy I used before, If I walked around the street smoking anthrax (something science has proven is bad for me) then by the logic the "pro smokers" on the thread would be saying that anyone around me getting second hand anthrax would just have to walk around me, or simply suck it in and deal with the adverse health affects I have caused them.

is that right?
Smokers in public don't go around and blow smoke in your face every five minutes, therefore your chances of getting lung cancer are very slim... If smoking is banned in public places, then they will have to smoke privately....around their children..... Gee.... who has a bigger chance of contracting lung cancer now? Little Billy in his crib while his mommy smokes a cig in the same room every day...or some dude who just walked by some dude smoking and was barely exposed to the smoke? You tell me.

[deadpie]

No. Don't ban smoking in public. Really the only time I EVER have problem with people smoking is when a parent does it with a child in the car and the windows are rolled all the way up. Is that really fucking necessary you dumb cunts?

Smokers have lost enough rights. Are we really going to ban this when tobacco was something America had to live off making for money back in the ol' saddle of the days? Really. What was the first thing used as a cash crop for the first american colony in Jamestown? You guessed it - Tobacco.

Funny, eh? Smoking has killed many lives, but it also saved lives. Well, it still saves if you count the current people who profit off of it too. Then you'll say, "Those people are helping the cause and killing people!" Well, yeah, so do people in the war and many other jobs.

I can't stand douchebags who literally feel like they have to obnoxiously cough or say something when there's a smoker present. Man the FUCK UP and get over it. If a smokers want to kill themselves slowly then why do you need to give a flying motherfuck? Oh, because the unpleasant smell for that brief ten seconds of them walking by bothers you?

You're kidding right? Have you lived on a fuckin' farm? Most of my entire family did. You literally are raised to the smell of pure nasty rotting feces from cows, horses, and all types of animals. That's something you just have to deal with. It's shitty, but fuck off. This world can't always be crystal clear perfect and clean as possible for you.


If smoking is banned in public places, then they will have to smoke privately....around their children..... Gee.... who has a bigger chance of contracting lung cancer now? Little Billy in his crib while his mommy smokes a cig in the same room every day...or some dude who just walked by some dude smoking and was barely exposed to the smoke? You tell me.

Even though your grammar and spelling is bad, this is such a good fucking point I should of brought up, so +rep. I really want people to read what Angel says right here. Really, this is what's the outcome. You anti-smokers want to make good examples and protect children by doing this apparently, while it will probably do just the opposite.

And don't just say, "Well, they could just quit smoking!" Yeah, they could, but they shouldn't have to because the government decides they want to just piss off smokers.

[huginnmuninn]

Smokers in public don't go around and blow smoke in your face every five minutes, therefore your chances of getting lung cancer are very slim... If smoking is banned in public places, then they will have to smoke privately....around their children..... Gee.... who has a bigger chance of contracting lung cancer now? Little Billy in his crib while his mommy smokes a cig in the same room every day...or some dude who just walked by some dude smoking and was barely exposed to the smoke? You tell me.

how about mommy just blow the smoke out a window instead of smoking in the room with little billy in it??? seems like the smart thing to do.
that being said let the smokers smoke where they want they have the freedom to do that and if theyre killing themselves well that seem like their problem. if they are killiing other people... well to be honest Earth is already over populated by people so... it happens get over it

[Angel Androgynous]

how about mommy just blow the smoke out a window instead of smoking in the room with little billy in it??? seems like the smart thing to do.


I was just trying to make a point, because it happens. People do that. They smoke in the same room that their kids are...

[Suicune]

Well in my state we already have a law that bans smoking in any public building or property such as a hospital or government building. I feel that that's a good enough law and would be a better alternative than banning smoking in any public place, because who really cares if somebody smokes on the sidewalk? You can easily avoid a smoker if you're so afraid of breathing in their smoke.

[HaydenM]

Infrequent and brief exposure to secondhand smoke is not going to give you lung cancer. Show me a study saying otherwise and I'll relent.


Poor analogy. From what I'm reading anthrax smoke is harmless (well, not harmless, but it won't give you anthrax) and burning is the recommended way to decontaminate fabric tainted with it.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/TobaccoCancer/secondhand-smoke
http://www.alopecianmuse.com/lifestyle/second-hand-smoke-causes-lung-cancer-fact-or-fiction/

How is that? that is 2 seconds searching and I found that. And as for the "Anthrax" analogy I am sorry for the discrepancy, I merely used anthrax as the first deadly chemical that came to my mind.

Smokers in public don't go around and blow smoke in your face every five minutes, therefore your chances of getting lung cancer are very slim... If smoking is banned in public places, then they will have to smoke privately....around their children..... Gee.... who has a bigger chance of contracting lung cancer now? Little Billy in his crib while his mommy smokes a cig in the same room every day...or some dude who just walked by some dude smoking and was barely exposed to the smoke? You tell me.

Well these people shouldn't be smoking around anybody who does not consent to inhaling toxic and deadly fumes.


And as for what tristan said, YES, it is my choice whether i live or die because of somebodies bad and deadly adiction being pushed onto me.

[JackShephard]

I feel that maybe there shouldn't be restrictions placed on the smokers, but rather the tobacco companies. I think that only someone who owns the property has the right to make it a non smoking area as well. So no, I disagree as much as I know how much damage smoking can do to a person.


[url]
Well these people shouldn't be smoking around anybody who does not consent to inhaling toxic and deadly fumes.


And as for what tristan said, YES, it is my choice whether i live or die because of somebodies bad and deadly adiction being pushed onto me.

People are going to have to bend at least just a little to live in society. You might as well pass a law that bans being sick on public property to prevent other people from catching a cold. And I doubt that walking past a person who is smoking will make you terminally ill. I understand if someone has asthma, don't blow smoke in their face but people shouldn't have to conform to a million rules because no matter what, somewhere somehow, someone will be unhappy about something.

[HaydenM]

I see your point Seth, but I cannot help a having a cold, I can't turn my cold off and on at will. I never chose to "get a cold". These people can smoke on their private property, no one has anything against that. These people chose to start smoking and I don't believe that when I am on public land, land that we essentially pay for that we should have to put up with people giving us disease.

[JackShephard]

I see your point Seth, but I cannot help a having a cold, I can't turn my cold off and on at will. I never chose to "get a cold". These people can smoke on their private property, no one has anything against that. These people chose to start smoking and I don't believe that when I am on public land, land that we essentially pay for that we should have to put up with people giving us disease.

Good point. Honestly, I think that smoking is one of the nastier things you can do. Overall, I think that if someone is going to decide weather or not smoking should be banned on public property, it should at least be up to the city. The issue is too small for Washington.

[Korashk]

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/TobaccoCancer/secondhand-smoke
http://www.alopecianmuse.com/lifestyle/second-hand-smoke-causes-lung-cancer-fact-or-fiction/

How is that? that is 2 seconds searching and I found that.
That's all well and good. However, that's not what I asked you to provide.

That is two sources saying that secondhand smoke can cause cancer, while saying nothing else or going into detail, and a third criticizing that the EPA's Meta Analysis of secondhand smoke studies, basically a counter to the assertion that secondhand smoke causes cancer.

Not a single one of them sates how much smoke one must be exposed to in order to be at risk.

[Angel Androgynous]

Well these people shouldn't be smoking around anybody who does not consent to inhaling toxic and deadly fumes.


And as for what tristan said, YES, it is my choice whether i live or die because of somebodies bad and deadly adiction being pushed onto me.

I certainly didn't consent to inhale toxic and deadly fumes......



from cars.

And I said it before and I will say it again:
Smokers in public do not blow smoke in everyone's faces.
Just like it's your choice to walk right past them, it could also be your choice to... Oh I dunno, cross the street and avoid them.

[huginnmuninn]

if youre so worried about it buy a respirator or dust mask to protect you from the fumes


http://www.discountsafetygear.com/respiratory-protection-disposable-dust-masks.html?gclid=CICcu4Wk0qoCFUdgTAodvwID0g

[HaydenM]

The problem is they are the ones doing something that harms me, I as a law abiding and respectful citizen shouldn't have to go out of my way to escape the smoke.

And as for smokers not "blowing smoke in people's faces" that is something you cannot guarantee and it has been done to me many times.


That's all well and good. However, that's not what I asked you to provide.

That is two sources saying that secondhand smoke can cause cancer, while saying nothing else or going into detail, and a third criticizing that the EPA's Meta Analysis of secondhand smoke studies, basically a counter to the assertion that secondhand smoke causes cancer.

Not a single one of them sates how much smoke one must be exposed to in order to be at risk.

do you have any studies that state that any amount of second hand smoke has no affect on a person's health?

[Korashk]

The problem is they are the ones doing something that harms me, I as a law abiding and respectful citizen shouldn't have to go out of my way to escape the smoke.
Are they really harming you? Let's say you live in a city. Car exhaust is EVERYWHERE. Much moreso than cigarette smoke

do you have any studies that state that any amount of second hand smoke has no affect on a person's health?
YOU are the one claiming that trace amounts of cigarette smoke can give people lung cancer. I'm asking you to at least give an estimate of exactly how much smoke that is. Unless you're going to claim that any amount can give you lung cancer.

[HaydenM]

well considering that the smoke once inhaled can kill a cell and cause a cancerous cell which can spread and create more cancerous cells. Although I do care to make assumptions it could be assumed that any amount of smoke COULD, cause a cancerous outbreak.

And whether or not it causes cancer, it also causes emphysema and other respiratory diseases.

[oscar14]

smoking is nasty

[Angel Androgynous]

smoking is nasty

Your point being?
How does this contribute to the debate?
I think porter potties are nasty... no one is banning those in public places. :P

[deadpie]

You know, I think it's about time we had some fun on VT. Go grab your fucking popcorn, sit back and relax. It's time to watch: PENN AND TELLER!


kGApkbcaZK4

wAfKYWianso

[Mewp]

As someone who regularly smokes tobacco, I think it's an unacceptable and inconsistent attack on individual rights. Smoking bans in confined spaces is something I can accept and understand - it explicitly damages non consenting individuals via second hand smoke.

However, by smoking in say a public park, how is do I negatively affect anyone else? Unlike a liquor ban, where law and order concerns are primary, a smoker is unlikely to go about assaulting people or destroying property after consuming a pack.

[HaydenM]

They might not damage property but us members of the non smoking public still have to inhale your toxic deadly cigarette fumes.

[Mewp]

They might not damage property but us members of the non smoking public still have to inhale your toxic deadly cigarette fumes.

However, by smoking in say a public park, how is do I negatively affect anyone else? Unlike a liquor ban, where law and order concerns are primary, a smoker is unlikely to go about assaulting people or destroying property after consuming a pack.

Then move away, in an open air public area perhaps? :yes:

[Dorsum Oppel]

How about instead of banning smoking in public, you people stop invading the personal space of smokers. Seriously, this is only an issue if you're actually close to said smoker. Just stay away from them.

I hate the fact that the government tries to put a cap of smokers. If they're okay with the effects it has on their health, and willingly decide to start smoking, who fucking cares? It's their choice.

[Angel Androgynous]

They might not damage property but us members of the non smoking public still have to inhale your toxic deadly cigarette fumes.

Who says that you HAVE too inhale the fumes? If you are inhaling fumes, then you are more than likely close to a smoker. It was your choice to go near them instead of walking around them....meaning you consented to inhaling their fumes. Take a few extra seconds to fucking walk around if you are so worried about inhaling those oh so deadly fumes. It's not like they are following you and blowing smoke into your face every minute of every day.

[LivierGleek]

Im FOR the ban, because smokers not only kill themselves, they kill everyone around them

[HaydenM]

Ida, why dont the smokers just take a few extra steps and not do it in a public full of people who don't want to die of cancer or be affected by emphysema. When I am walking on a 2 meter wide path infront of the shops and a smoker is smoking I cannot walk around the smoke. And as a public citizen I shouldn't have to go out of my way to stop these people passing on their disease.

[Genghis Khan]

Ida, why dont the smokers just take a few extra steps and not do it in a public full of people who don't want to die of cancer or be affected by emphysema. When I am walking on a 2 meter wide path infront of the shops and a smoker is smoking I cannot walk around the smoke. And as a public citizen I shouldn't have to go out of my way to stop these people passing on their disease.

Why don't you try your best to avoid smokers as much as possible if you're really that conscious of your health. Actually, there's two things I want to point out in your post, one also referring back to something you previously said that Korashk addressed.

Your first point I'm going to address with a really good point someone made:

theres a difference between defending the people and defending the rights of the people

If non-smokers have the right to be wherever they want, so should smokers, there's really no reason why the government needs to put more restrictions on smoking. This goes to your next argument which is passive smoking can cause lung cancer, as previously mentioned by you as well:

There have been many cases of people contracting and dieing from lung cancer, people who haven't smokes a cigarette in their life, because of second hand smoke.

You do realize that passive smoke is just one of the factors? (http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Cancerinformation/Cancertypes/Lung/Aboutlungcancer/Causesriskfactors.aspx)

Plus: Cigarette smoking is the cause of most lung cancers

While that may be true, as far as Passive Smoking goes the risk is far far less, possibly even less than the risk of being exposed to Radon gas.

It's even been established that age is a risk, as you grow older, your chances of being diagnosed with lung cancer increases, should the government put a ban on letting us grow up too? Srsly.

I mean, really, the major thing [this is my impression] that bothers most people when it comes to public smoking is the irritation. They don't like the smoke on their face. So what? People I knew lived in the city, there were fumes everywhere, deal with it.

Since there's such [and yes, this is what has been established] a small risk and so many other factors come in to play, it can be safely concluded that putting such a ban on an individual's rights really isn't worthwhile, trust that if the risk was much higher I'd be more inclined towards it but really, if the risk is as much a risk as Age, Radon, Asbestos there is no point.

[crazyhyperway]

I say yes.
It is a harm to peoples health whether its an old man or a young child.
They at least should have a specifically designated area for smokers to smoke.

[Genghis Khan]

I say yes.
It is a harm to peoples health whether its an old man or a young child.
They at least should have a specifically designated area for smokers to smoke.

How? What kind of designated area would this be?

[HaydenM]

If I was on the street with a can of cancer causing chemicals and let it off, would you just say to everybody "Don't worry, he has the right to do that, just go out of your way, cross the road, cover your mouth and continue to let him spread his disease" ? No, I would be arrested and rightly so. What is the difference?

[Korashk]

If I was on the street with a can of cancer causing chemicals and let it off, would you just say to everybody "Don't worry, he has the right to do that, just go out of your way, cross the road, cover your mouth and continue to let him spread his disease" ? No, I would be arrested and rightly so. What is the difference?
Your analogies only apply to substances that are directly related to a negative substance. Anthrax for example. Anthrax powder gives people anthrax. Period. Cyanide gas kills people. Period. There is no in-between. You are no going to get lung cancer from breathing in a mouthful of cigarette smoke.

However, the pack a day smoker can go his entire life without ever suffering from any type of lung disease. The lumberjack who spends his entire life in the woods working with his hands can get lung cancer and die without ever inhaling aything but food, water, and clean mountain air.

EVERYBODY in urban environments breathes in toxins much more deadly than cigarette smoke in greater quantities. Car exhaust, industrial fumes, etc. However, almost NOBODY (as a percentage) in those environments contracts lung cancer. That's the thing about cancer. It doesn't just have a cause.

Why should those companies get to make things, they're releasing toxins into the air that I have to breathe? Why should those people get to drive cars, they're releasing toxins into the air tat I have to breathe?

The fact of the matter is, you are not (realistically) going to get cancer or another lung disease just because you walked past a guy who was smoking a cigarette. Just like you aren't going to get cancer because of the exhaust in the air.

[crazyhyperway]

How? What kind of designated area would this be?

ex. In a park it should be away from other people and have a sign warning people telling people that they have a non-smoking area up ahead, or a smoking area to your right.

BUT, for example an owner of a diner should decide if they want the diner to be a smoke free zone or a smoking area.

Oh and deadpie, I think what they said is bullshit


Edit(Thor): Please don't double post. Use the 'Edit' button next time.

[HeroesAndCons]

No it shouldn't, as a smoker i have the right to light up anywhere outdoors
But if i smoke in public i usually ask people I don't know if it bothers them thats a nice thing to do too, most people don't do that.

[crazyhyperway]

Well, you have to remember, not everyone that smokes is like you

[Sebastian Michaelis]

Yes, smoking has NO heath benefits for anyone, but it does have finical benefits for the companies. It should defiantly be banned in public at least. If I'm forced to be near a person smoking then it isn't fair for me because it is a health risk that could have been avoided.

[HaydenM]

Heather, you are one of the select few. 99.9999999% of people just light up and let the people around then (those who dont mind and those who mind alike) to suffer the consequences alike. I have nothing really against you smoking, you do what you want, but when people just light up beside me they are doing no good to anyone, Including me. That is what I care about.

[Genghis Khan]

ex. In a park it should be away from other people and have a sign warning people telling people that they have a non-smoking area up ahead, or a smoking area to your right.

BUT, for example an owner of a diner should decide if they want the diner to be a smoke free zone or a smoking area.

Did you not read of my earlier posts? Korashk just posted a point telling us how the risk of getting Cancer from passive smoking doesn't even equate to the bigger risk factors [and yes those factors are outside, in the natural environment too].

Your analogies only apply to substances that are directly related to a negative substance. Anthrax for example. Anthrax powder gives people anthrax. Period. Cyanide gas kills people. Period. There is no in-between. You are not going to get lung cancer from breathing in a mouthful of cigarette smoke.

However, the pack a day smoker can go his entire life without ever suffering from any type of lung disease. The lumberjack who spends his entire life in the woods working with his hands can get lung cancer and die without ever inhaling aything but food, water, and clean mountain air.

EVERYBODY in urban environments breathes in toxins much more deadly than cigarette smoke in greater quantities. Car exhaust, industrial fumes, etc. However, almost NOBODY (as a percentage) in those environments contracts lung cancer. That's the thing about cancer. It doesn't just have a cause.

Why should those companies get to make things, they're releasing toxins into the air that I have to breathe? Why should those people get to drive cars, they're releasing toxins into the air tat I have to breathe?

The fact of the matter is, you are not (realistically) going to get cancer or another lung disease just because you walked past a guy who was smoking a cigarette. Just like you aren't going to get cancer because of the exhaust in the air.

Making separate areas for smokers would be extremely disadvantageous finance-wise too, because with that logic, you'd have to get rid of the Radon Gas too, and other substances omitted by vehicle exhaust pipes. Even then, you wouldn't be preventing cancer.

Heather, you are one of the select few. 99.9999999% of people just light up and let the people around then (those who dont mind and those who mind alike) to suffer the consequences alike. I have nothing really against you smoking, you do what you want, but when people just light up beside me they are doing no good to anyone, Including me. That is what I care about.

You're missing the bigger picture though. That smoke around you for a brief moment doesn't equate to being outside all day. Again, Cancer doesn't have a cause. Minimizing the risk factors by banning smoking in public isn't going to help.

[HaydenM]

Did you honestly just say cancer doesn't have a cause, you must be fucking with me. Of coarse it has a cause. It has multiple causes. If you believe cancer doesn't have a cause there is something wrong with you.

[Kujiro]

It's a big idea, banning smoking in all public places. Government have tried to stop smoking by raise smoking taxes, stop advertising and putting warnings on packets. Should smoking be banned in all public places?

NOTE: I'm referring to to USA in this form because I know all countries have different laws on smoking.

My opinion is yes. If affects everyone's health, second hand smoking and many people face serious injuries or even death because of it. Smoking needs to banned in all public places leaving you to only be allowed to smoke at home, or a cigar outlet.

Whats your opinion? Are you For or Against a ban of smoking in public places. Please explain why.

In Singapore, they have been practicing that for quite abit, and well it does not affect me much, not that im not smoking, but i just find the stupid irony of banning it in public places, yet still selling them at astronomical prices.

IF they are really so concerned about our well being, then just ban it.
They are putting in so much emphasis on contraband ciggrettes, so that we are forced to buy the local taxed versions, which is 5x the prices we get them off tax free.

Guess they are not interested in our health, which is just an excuse for exploiting the local's money.
Afterall the smoking population is larger than the non smoking population.
Considering that it is illegal to smoke under 18 and i know most of my mates do.

Personally, i find the ban should be placed on certain conditions, but "anywhere where there is a shelter you cannot smoke" is ridiculous.
Sooner of later, everyone can only smoke at home, just like watching porn.

[Infidelitas]

In Hobart, We have banned smoking in the mall, bus mall, and all areas related to eating

[Amaryllis]

In australia it's illegal to smoke in public and to smoke in a car with kids. I think that should be global. I mean, yes, I get that, like my relationship with food, smoking isn't something you can just stop. Smokers need it. But still, smoking isn't just abusing you - it's abusing the people around you. I have friends who smoke and I love 'em but that's me. Some people would like to live long, smoke-free lives. And especially kids. Their immune systems aren't exactly spot on yet. And there are some people with illnesses and the cigarette smoke could kill them.

[Genghis Khan]

Did you honestly just say cancer doesn't have a cause, you must be fucking with me. Of coarse it has a cause. It has multiple causes. If you believe cancer doesn't have a cause there is something wrong with you.

You missed the point. By a cause I meant one ultimate cause. By the way, those factors I listed show correlation, not causation. So they aren't exactly 'causes'.

[HaydenM]

Rawal, the problem is there is something positive about cars, transport, industry, but honestly what is positive about smokes besides the money the government and big business saps out of the people.

Faith, since when has it been illegal to smoke in Aus. I'm an Aussie and walking around Melbourne for a day I reckon I got a lung full of cancer from them all.

[Genghis Khan]

Rawal, the problem is there is something positive about cars, transport, industry, but honestly what is positive about smokes besides the money the government and big business saps out of the people.

I've already accepted this point and I wasn't even referring to it. You've missed out on several other factors though. How do you plan on stopping them if you really want to rid lung cancer?

[Korashk]

Rawal, the problem is there is something positive about cars, transport, industry, but honestly what is positive about smokes besides the money the government and big business saps out of the people.
- Reduces stress in smokers
- Acts as a appetite inhibitor to aid weight loss
- Nicotine is a natural laxative
- In the case of cigars and pipes they taste and smell great.

There are more. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_benefits_of_smoking)

[themanhimself]

I'm Irish and that law has been in place since 2004 and it works brilliantly. It improved people's attitudes to smoking as well.

[HaydenM]

- Reduces stress in smokers
- Acts as a appetite inhibitor to aid weight loss
- Nicotine is a natural laxative
- In the case of cigars and pipes they taste and smell great.

There are more. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_benefits_of_smoking)

and increases the stress of non smokers (which make up the majority of society)

[Genghis Khan]

and increases the stress of non smokers (which make up the majority of society)

Get over it. We've already repeated the facts about the risk not being high, and the many other factors. If that still stresses you, it isn't the smoker's or anyone else's problem.

[Korashk]

and increases the stress of non smokers (which make up the majority of society)
Reduces stress to the point where it treats anxiety and depression.

Also, since you seem to not have read the source, smoking reduces a smoker's risk to get:

- Ulcerative colitis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulcerative_colitis), a condition where sores form in your colon
- Aphthous ulcers, open mouth sores
- Kaposi's sarcoma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaposi's_sarcoma), a form of herpes
- Pre-eclampsia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-eclampsia)
- Breast Cancer
- Uterine fibroids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uterine_fibroids)
- Endometriosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endometriosis)

In addition to lowering the risk for those conditions, smoking treats Parkinson's Disease and Schizophrenia.

The level of risk one had to contract some of these diseases is directly correlated with how much they smoke.

[HaydenM]

Reduces stress to the point where it treats anxiety and depression.

Also, since you seem to not have read the source, smoking reduces a smoker's risk to get:

- Ulcerative colitis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulcerative_colitis), a condition where sores form in your colon
- Aphthous ulcers, open mouth sores
- Kaposi's sarcoma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaposi's_sarcoma), a form of herpes
- Pre-eclampsia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-eclampsia)
- Breast Cancer
- Uterine fibroids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uterine_fibroids)
- Endometriosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endometriosis)

In addition to lowering the risk for those conditions, smoking treats Parkinson's Disease and Schizophrenia.

The level of risk one had to contract some of these diseases is directly correlated with how much they smoke.


Well if you had read my comments you will see that I have nothing against people smoking, just in public. If they want to smoke on their private residence then go for it. Just not in public where there is the ability for people to get sick and die from their choice.

[louisgray]

In think non smokers should have the upper hand in situations

If someone is smoking next to them,they shudnt have to move away,the smoker should

[Genghis Khan]

Well if you had read my comments you will see that I have nothing against people smoking, just in public. If they want to smoke on their private residence then go for it. Just not in public where there is the ability for people to get sick and die from their choice.

http://www.myfacewhen.net/uploads/338-squidward-doesnt-care.jpg

I cease every ounce of effort left to convince people on this thread that that argument is illogical, invalid, baseless, fallacious, null, void and furthermore... stupid.

[HaydenM]

well even if there is just a chance that we will get sick and die from others smoking that risk shouldn't be taken. They should just butt out.

[Korashk]

well even if there is just a chance that we will get sick and die from others smoking that risk shouldn't be taken. They should just butt out.
If you apply this consistently nobody should be allowed to do anything ever. Which is why you have to consider the level of risk involved. The risk is so small as to be inconsequential, especially since secondhand smoke is much less toxic than other things in the air that you AREN'T calling to end.

[Angel Androgynous]

well even if there is just a chance that we will get sick and die from others smoking that risk shouldn't be taken. They should just butt out.

There is a risk in bungee jumping, sky diving, riding in a plane, in a train, in a car... What if the glass that you drink your water from falls out of your hands and it lands in your eye and you can never see again? Should we stop using glass? What if someone was standing next to you? Should we not drink from glass in public restaurants? The risks are small. When we are born there is a risk to be murdered, raped, and die from horrible diseases. Should we not be born at all? Well guess what? That's what life is... a risk.

[Genghis Khan]

well even if there is just a chance that we will get sick and die from others smoking that risk shouldn't be taken. They should just butt out.

Say there's a minor chance that if I go outside a cat will run up and into my asshole, I can do 2 things:

1. Stay at home, wallow in grief and fear of this tiny risk.

2. Come to the realization that this risk is minimal and very very unlikely to happen, and I am in fact, being an idiot.

[Lethe]

Why should I have to improvise my time just because you decided to expose your bad habit in public? I shouldn't have to avoid you in a public place just because think it's a great idea to smoke in a place where other people can inhale the fumes from your cigarette. I'm all for the ban. Smoke at home, where you can kill yourself and only yourself. Don't put others at risk, especially people with asthma and other respiratory problems. It's just rude.

[Korashk]

Why should I have to improvise my time just because you decided to expose your bad habit in public? I shouldn't have to avoid you in a public place just because think it's a great idea to smoke in a place where other people can inhale the fumes from your cigarette. I'm all for the ban. Smoke at home, where you can kill yourself and only yourself. Don't put others at risk, especially people with asthma and other respiratory problems. It's just rude.
You people need to quit exaggerating the amount of effort it takes to avoid smokers. Seriously, take two, maybe three extra steps and go around the smoker. This is not difficult. Hell, it can't even rationally be called inconvenient.

[louisgray]

You people need to quit exaggerating the amount of effort it takes to avoid smokers. Seriously, take two, maybe three extra steps and go around the smoker. This is not difficult. Hell, it can't even rationally be called inconvenient.

but we shouldnt have to,you should

[Angel Androgynous]

Fuck...how many times do I have to say this? Smokers. Smoke. In. Secluded. Areas. If you are inhaling these fumes, then you are probably in the smoker's personal bubble. If they were there first, then how about you take a few steps to move the fuck away? Non-smokers are not special... they are not better than smokers and they are not gonna get special treatment. Smokers are not second class citizens. If you see a smoker in public... don't go near them! Is it really that fucking hard?

[HaydenM]

sorry Ida but no they don't, I walk down the main street and they are right in front of the shop-fronts, and saying that I cannot go outside because a cat might attack me is ridiculous. That would prevent me from being part of society, and living me life that I don't want cut short by cancer or disease.

[Korashk]

but we shouldnt have to
You don't have to. Nobody is forcing you to walk around smokers.

[Syvelocin]

sorry Ida but no they don't, I walk down the main street and they are right in front of the shop-fronts, and saying that I cannot go outside because a cat might attack me is ridiculous. That would prevent me from being part of society, and living me life that I don't want cut short by cancer or disease.

Yeah. They were staying put to have a smoke. You MOVED into their general vicinity, willingly. You could have even crossed the street to the other side even, within the five minutes it took to approach the smoker. Or just stepped around them if you're not as whiny. I used to hold my breath when I passed smokers as a kid.

Like everyone else has said though, a little second-hand smoke will not kill you. Think of how much smoke I inhale on a daily basis, for six years so far. And I don't have lung cancer yet. At the most you probably breathe in 1% of the cigarette smoke I do in one day if you aren't stupid and actually avoiding breathing it in. I REALLY wouldn't worry about dying over it.

[Travis Is Losing It]

yah i disagree. the polution in most cities is worse then cigs

[HaydenM]

You don't have to. Nobody is forcing you to walk around smokers.

But they are the problem here, if they don't smoke then there is no problem and we all live happily ever after.

Yeah. They were staying put to have a smoke. You MOVED into their general vicinity, willingly. You could have even crossed the street to the other side even, within the five minutes it took to approach the smoker. Or just stepped around them if you're not as whiny. I used to hold my breath when I passed smokers as a kid.

Like everyone else has said though, a little second-hand smoke will not kill you. Think of how much smoke I inhale on a daily basis, for six years so far. And I don't have lung cancer yet. At the most you probably breathe in 1% of the cigarette smoke I do in one day. I REALLY wouldn't worry about dying over it.

I was commenting on Ida's post saying they smoke in a secluded area away from the general public. And I shouldn't have to go out of my way to get away from a small niche of people.

[Syvelocin]

I was commenting on Ida's post saying they smoke in a secluded area away from the general public. And I shouldn't have to go out of my way to get away from a small niche of people.

And people still sometimes have to go out of their way to, say, lower their cholesterol, eat a healthy diet, get their nutrients, take their medication. Really, it's even simpler than all that, avoiding the same types of issues. I'm curious as to why you care so much but you are so lazy to avoid it.

[HaydenM]

We dislike smokers because it is a choice that we must all take the brunt of. If someone is obese, being around them won't make me fat. If someone doesn't exercise it doesn't mean I won't, but if someone smokes they are making the choice for me to smoke whenever I am walking down the street.

[Genghis Khan]

Fuck...how many times do I have to say this? Smokers. Smoke. In. Secluded. Areas. If you are inhaling these fumes, then you are probably in the smoker's personal bubble. If they were there first, then how about you take a few steps to move the fuck away? Non-smokers are not special... they are not better than smokers and they are not gonna get special treatment. Smokers are not second class citizens. If you see a smoker in public... don't go near them! Is it really that fucking hard?

Unfortunately not many people on this thread have absorbed the fact that passive smoking doesn't count as much as other factors do when it comes to getting heart disease and even if you are really that self-conscious, it isn't hard to avoid cigarette smoke.

In fact, if they're that careful with what chemicals they don't want entering their body, they probably shouldn't even go outside, as they'll be exposed to all kinds of gases, god forbid a hint of smoke kills them instantly. Driving cars is another choice, why can't people rely on public transport if they want to get around fast? Just because having your own car is more convenient? There we go! Let's ban cars and force people to use public transport, maybe if people want to use cars we should make them a special place for them to drive around because I can't suck it up and realize that the risk is minimal and there are what... probably hundreds of other factors that lead to you being diagnosed with a deadly disease.

if they don't smoke then there is no problem and we all live happily ever after.

That has to be the most intelligent thing I've ever heard in my life. No, really. Well done.

[HaydenM]

Its basic logic that if you remove the instigator then the problem ceases.

[Levi scott]

Is it really that hard to walk around a person though? I mean really now. I know I smoke not in the middle of everyone if your coming near me it's your fault.

[Genghis Khan]

Its basic logic that if you remove the instigator then the problem ceases.

It's basic logic to consider the counter-arguments for this that have been posted, oh I don't know...


EIGHT TIMES ALREADY

Second-hand smoke is bad for you. Sure. But I don't come into contact with that many smokers on a daily basis. Maybe one or two a week if any if we count the people smoking in their cars with the windows open, and occasionally someone outside a store taking a drag. I think some people are making a big deal out of very minimal exposure. You'll die much later than I will if all due to cigarettes, trust me. Unless you have a parent or sibling blowing smoke in your face all day I really wouldn't worry about it.

But cars pollute the air nonetheless... (MUCH MUCH more than cigarettes)

And you can use public transportation to get around....

._. Inhaling a little cigarette smoke once in a while isn't going to do anything to you. You people are just being paranoid, for one thing, for another thing, smokers smoke in secluded areas. The world isn't going to live to please you.

Infrequent and brief exposure to secondhand smoke is not going to give you lung cancer. Show me a study saying otherwise and I'll relent.

Your analogies only apply to substances that are directly related to a negative substance. Anthrax for example. Anthrax powder gives people anthrax. Period. Cyanide gas kills people. Period. There is no in-between. You are no going to get lung cancer from breathing in a mouthful of cigarette smoke.

However, the pack a day smoker can go his entire life without ever suffering from any type of lung disease. The lumberjack who spends his entire life in the woods working with his hands can get lung cancer and die without ever inhaling aything but food, water, and clean mountain air.

EVERYBODY in urban environments breathes in toxins much more deadly than cigarette smoke in greater quantities. Car exhaust, industrial fumes, etc. However, almost NOBODY (as a percentage) in those environments contracts lung cancer. That's the thing about cancer. It doesn't just have a cause.

Why should those companies get to make things, they're releasing toxins into the air that I have to breathe? Why should those people get to drive cars, they're releasing toxins into the air tat I have to breathe?

The fact of the matter is, you are not (realistically) going to get cancer or another lung disease just because you walked past a guy who was smoking a cigarette. Just like you aren't going to get cancer because of the exhaust in the air.

Get over it. We've already repeated the facts about the risk not being high, and the many other factors. If that still stresses you, it isn't the smoker's or anyone else's problem.

If you apply this consistently nobody should be allowed to do anything ever. Which is why you have to consider the level of risk involved. The risk is so small as to be inconsequential, especially since secondhand smoke is much less toxic than other things in the air that you AREN'T calling to end.

Yeah. They were staying put to have a smoke. You MOVED into their general vicinity, willingly. You could have even crossed the street to the other side even, within the five minutes it took to approach the smoker. Or just stepped around them if you're not as whiny. I used to hold my breath when I passed smokers as a kid.

Like everyone else has said though, a little second-hand smoke will not kill you. Think of how much smoke I inhale on a daily basis, for six years so far. And I don't have lung cancer yet. At the most you probably breathe in 1% of the cigarette smoke I do in one day if you aren't stupid and actually avoiding breathing it in. I REALLY wouldn't worry about dying over it.

MINIMAL risk dude.

Summary:

1. Being diagnosed with lung cancer is multifactorial, i.e - several factors, this includes cigarette smoke and several others.

2. Infrequent and brief exposure to smoke isn't going to give you lung cancer just as exposure to Radon Gas won't either. Neither will little exposure to microwave radiation give me cancer.

3. Transport i.e. cars, are also one of the factors, should cars be banned and everyone should start using public transport from here on?

4. There are in fact advantages to cigarette smoke too, if you ever say transport has advantages too.

5. If you apply this logic consistently in other situations then you won't be allowed to do anything, ever.

6. If cigarette smoke reduces the stress of smokers and increases your stress, then that is your own problem, even having been told several times about its minimal risk from minimal exposure you still decide to stress over it, your bad. Not the smoker's.

[AppealToReason]

This arguing has been going on for 4 pages and no one is getting anywhere...
I will say, you're crazy if you truly believe people smoking in public are going to kill you. Some are acting like cigarettes are the only way to get lung cancer...and I doubt the effects of second-hand smoke are as bad outside in a large area like a park as they are inside a small room in a house.
Though, I'll be damned if you expect me to walk away from you if I were there first just because you don't feel like you should go around me.

[Angel Androgynous]

Smoking is bad. People who smoke are fools. I say yes, ban it.

Smoking causes health issues for yourself and those around you, and it's low class IMO.

/facepalm

Did you read at least half of the posts in this thread?

[AppealToReason]

Smoking is bad. People who smoke are fools. I say yes, ban it.

Smoking causes health issues for yourself and those around you, and it's low class IMO.

Lol, that's a new one. Don't believe I've ever been called low class due to smoking even when no one else is around...

[Cybercode]

I don't smoke and I never will. I say let them smoke if they want to, I can't control that and I don't want to. The way I look at it, they are basically committing a slow suicide. But they don't have the right to fill the air of parks and public places for those who don't smoke. It's just common sense. Even though I'm not a father, I would not want people to smoke around a place where my kids can safely play like a park.

But that is my opinion. If they wan to smoke, do it somewhere else. Not at public places, especially with little kids.

[Nihilus]

Hell yeah I want it. I don't want to get lung cancer by hanging out in public places with some random stranger giving me second hand smoke. The smell reeks too.

[Genghis Khan]

Hell yeah I want it. I don't want to get lung cancer by hanging out in public places with some random stranger giving me second hand smoke. The smell reeks too.

http://www.myfacewhen.net/uploads/338-squidward-doesnt-care.jpg

You... haven't read through this thread at all, have you?

[Wicked_Syn]

What they should do is just make a place for smokers to go and do all that crap if they want. Like an in door building, not to big or anything - millions of them - where they can go and smoke [kind of like a gas station across from your work place, where you go for lunch or break!]

It's their choice if they want to smoke cigarettes. I don't myself smoke, and I don't like it that when I walk across a side walk and there are a group of workers on break smoking standing 50 feet from the hospital entrance smoking. They should just be in a place where they can gather, that way I don't need to inhale a cloud of second hand smoke

[mike3_1]

Smokers have every right to smoke wherever they want. If you don't like the fact that a smoker is smoking at a public place, then don't go there. And some of you saying to ban smoking have no common sense what so ever.

[Joe1996]

Ok, yes. It would be good if all smoking was banned, better health and what-not.
Here's the main thing, when something is illegal people often sneak it into the country and sell it illegally (just like drugs).
If smoking was banned, there would be 'cigaret dealers' who would carry weapons to protect themselves. All the smokers would be moody because they're going through withdrawal. The government would loose lots of money because cigarets are a good income of tax, which would be completely lost.

In summary, if cigarets were banned; There would be more crime, more weapons on the street, lowered performance and mood in smokers for a few months and much less tax would be gained, therefor the tax on other goods would go up significantly.
The only benefit would be, people would smell nice and not have health problems caused by smoking.

I think a country with a 100% smoking ban is very bad idea.

[HaydenM]

I think there should be smoking areas, not non smoking areas. If they want to do it, okay with me. It is something that is regardless of how much tobacco funded research you give me, detrimental to my health. Have them smoke in a specific area. And we (the majority) will not smoke in the non smoking areas.

[Genghis Khan]

I think there should be smoking areas, not non smoking areas. If they want to do it, okay with me. It is something that is regardless of how much tobacco funded research you give me, detrimental to my health. Have them smoke in a specific area. And we (the majority) will not smoke in the non smoking areas.

While you're at it would you like to get rid of all the other gases in the air that could possibly be detrimental to your health?

[HaydenM]

well people are not made uncomfortable by these gases, we are made uncomfortable by smokers.

[Angel Androgynous]

well people are not made uncomfortable by these gases, we are made uncomfortable by smokers.

I am made uncomfortable by those gases....

Make them illegal nao.


I am not bothered by smoke at all.

[Genghis Khan]

we are made uncomfortable by smokers.

That doesn't give you a right to ban smoking.

[huginnmuninn]

a person has rights unless what a person is doing is interfering with another persons rights or health. and second hand smoke interferes with another persons health

[HaydenM]

^^ Exactly. and if you have never driven a car, never eaten meat, never used electricity, never farted then you can comment on the 'other gases', oh wait you cant, because the beloved cigarettes use those gases to be grown, cut, trasported, packaged, transported etc..

[Genghis Khan]

a person has rights unless what a person is doing is interfering with another persons rights or health. and second hand smoke interferes with another persons health

Brief exposure to cigarette smoke, as mentioned before, is not detrimental to one's health.

[HaydenM]

prove it with a study not funded by tobacco companies.

[Genghis Khan]

prove it with a study not funded by tobacco companies.

It isn't up to me to prove it doesn't cause cancer, it's up to you who's making the claim to justify it with evidence.

[TayTay]

Smoking shouldn't even be legal in the first place. (Neither should alcohol or any other of those things.)

[huginnmuninn]

if the tobacco companies wouldnt put toxic chemicals in the cigarettes i honestly wouldnt give a shit.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm

no secondhand smoke isnt bad at all

[Amaryllis]

if the tobacco companies wouldnt put toxic chemicals in the cigarettes i honestly wouldnt give a shit.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm

no secondhand smoke isnt bad at all

Oh noes!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bAIZPjDtT_Q/TNjVw95qE6I/AAAAAAAAGd8/7pSzenBkA5U/s1600/baby.jpg

Yeah, secondhand smoking is pretty terrible. In Australia, smoking in public or in a vehicle with a child is illegal. But I have friends who smoke and I know how hard it is not being able to.

Sure, there are fumes from cars and whatnot. If you wanted to keep yourself safe from all the toxic gases, you should live in a rubber suit with an oxygen tank.

I do think they should ban smoking in some areas though. Just not everywhere.

You can't ban smoking. I mean, some drugs are illegal, people still get their hands on it, in fact, it makes kids want it even more. We want what's forbidden. The more you say no, the more people will say yes. Put restrictions but don't go to the extreme.

Smoking shouldn't even be legal in the first place. (Neither should alcohol or any other of those things.)
My mama says I should drink wine. O.O

That's not possible, sweetheart. Do you know what chaos that would cause? The riots? Protests? People refusing to pay their taxes? The black marketing? The bunch of people that will rip money from alcoholics? Everyone drinks!

The more forbidden something is, the more people will want it.

People will find some way of getting it or they'll turn to something much worse.

[HaydenM]

Thankyou Z, but about it being banned in Aus that is not true (or not enforced) i was in melbourne the other day and i could smell the cancer :P

[Amaryllis]

Thankyou Z, but about it being banned in Aus that is not true (or not enforced) i was in melbourne the other day and i could smell the cancer :P

Oh, the law's just there. Who ever said you actually had to abide it? ;P

[HaydenM]

Oh, the law's just there. Who ever said you actually had to abide it? ;P

or for the coppers to enforce it, seings as their pay partly comes from cigarette tax :P

[Jupiter]

i think people are allowed to do what they want.

[HaydenM]

i think people are allowed to do what they want.

at the expence of other's lives?

[embers]

at the expence of other's lives?

How many times do people have to drill the insignificance of secondhand smoke into your head?

[HaydenM]

How many times do people have to drill the insignificance of secondhand smoke into your head?


well even if you were to throw that issue aside, who likes having a skinking smoker beside them, if i were to walk down the street doing something that made people feel uncomfortable then it would be jumped on or illegal, but smoking for some damn reason is perfectly fine (because the pussy government wants their money)

[embers]

well even if you were to throw that issue aside, who likes having a skinking smoker beside them, if i were to walk down the street doing something that made people feel uncomfortable then it would be jumped on or illegal, but smoking for some damn reason is perfectly fine (because the pussy government wants their money)

Waaaaaaah I get discomforted by the presence of smokers, make it illegal

[HaydenM]

If I walked to work in the middle of the city nude i would get arrested, why? because it makes people uncomfortable and they dont want to be around someone nude, well smoking makes me uncomfortable and I and many others do not want to be around them, ergo, valid reason.

[backtobackawesome]

If I walked to work in the middle of the city nude i would get arrested, why? because it makes people uncomfortable and they dont want to be around someone nude, well smoking makes me uncomfortable and I and many others do not want to be around them, ergo, valid reason.

i know if you walked in my room nude id be like :yeah:

[embers]

If I walked to work in the middle of the city nude i would get arrested, why? because it makes people uncomfortable and they dont want to be around someone nude, well smoking makes me uncomfortable and I and many others do not want to be around them, ergo, valid reason.

Then again, I'm one of those freaks who thinks there isn't that valid a reason for public nudity to be banned (not that I want to be naked in public). My reason still stands - this guy drinking a Pepsi today by the bus stop discomforted me, because his drink is manufactured by viciously greedy corporations. Quite a few people feel the same way. Can we ban Pepsi in public?

[PureReality]

It's a big idea, banning smoking in all public places. Government have tried to stop smoking by raise smoking taxes, stop advertising and putting warnings on packets. Should smoking be banned in all public places?

NOTE: I'm referring to to USA in this form because I know all countries have different laws on smoking.

My opinion is yes. If affects everyone's health, second hand smoking and many people face serious injuries or even death because of it. Smoking needs to banned in all public places leaving you to only be allowed to smoke at home, or a cigar outlet.

Whats your opinion? Are you For or Against a ban of smoking in public places. Please explain why.

Have you ever heard of someone you personally known dying from 'secondhand smoke'? Sure, there are 'statistics' but have you? I understand where you are coming from which is why there should be smoking and non-smoking areas in places where you dine. Now, out in public, like at a park, it should be legal of course; secondhand smoke won't affect someone outside. It just dissipates.

[HaydenM]

Then again, I'm one of those freaks who thinks there isn't that valid a reason for public nudity to be banned (not that I want to be naked in public). My reason still stands - this guy drinking a Pepsi today by the bus stop discomforted me, because his drink is manufactured by viciously greedy corporations. Quite a few people feel the same way. Can we ban Pepsi in public?


:D if you can find me as many people who hate sitting next to a pepsi drinker as those who hate sitting next to a smoker, we can talk about it :P

[abdheuuuchjc]

Yes... It isn't fair that ur health has to he hurt so someone can feed their addiction

[embers]

:D if you can find me as many people who hate sitting next to a pepsi drinker as those who hate sitting next to a smoker, we can talk about it :P

I won't, because people are too bothered by something that is blown way out of proportion.

[abdheuuuchjc]

I hate being round smokers they smell like shite

[AppealToReason]

I hate being round smokers they smell like shite

Why smokers? Shouldn't you hate being around anyone who smells like shit?
Plus, do you truly believe we all smell like shit? :rolleyes:

[PureReality]

Yes... It isn't fair that ur health has to he hurt so someone can feed their addiction

Once again, has someone you personally known died from 'secondhand smoke'? Plus, outside, it's not like it'll be affecting you -- it will just dissipate into the air within like 15 seconds. If you're inside, and someone inside is smoking near you, just move away; most restaurants have non-smoking and smoking sections anyway.

+ I'm sure for 'secondhand smoke' to affect somebody, they must constantly be around someone who does smoke.

[HaydenM]

Once again, has someone you personally known died from 'secondhand smoke'? Plus, outside, it's not like it'll be affecting you -- it will just dissipate into the air within like 15 seconds. If you're inside, and someone inside is smoking near you, just move away; most restaurants have non-smoking and smoking sections anyway.

+ I'm sure for 'secondhand smoke' to affect somebody, they must constantly be around someone who does smoke.

this still goes on the issue of why the victim must move while the instigator continues. Would it not be simpler for the instigator to simply stop.

[Perseus]

The only place it should be banned is in restaurants because smoking and non smoking sections do no work at all. I'm glad Georgia has no smoking in restaurants and buildings because where I'm from in Mississippi it did not have it when I was growing up and having the two sections made no difference. Public smoking is fine since I can just go around it.

[PureReality]

this still goes on the issue of why the victim must move while the instigator continues. Would it not be simpler for the instigator to simply stop.

No, compared to quitting a highly addictive habit and even life-style, it would not be easier; of course, me, when I smoke around people, most of the time I ask them if it's okay. If they aren't a smoker, I will fan the smoke away for them. :whoops:

[Amaryllis]

I hate being round smokers they smell like shite
And car fumes smell like flower petals.

[SosbanFach]

And car fumes smell like flower petals.

You can't ban cars; they're an essential part of modern life for many people. Smoking does nobody any good, really. I would disagree with a total ban, however. Inside public buildings, yes, but not in open outdoor areas, or on the street.

[DerBear]

Well I am mixed on this I posted saying they should have the right to do what they please but over the last month or so I met a 2 really great people who have came to be good friends. They are highly asmatic so when they breath in the second hand smoke it makes them cough like hell. So therefore I am kinda changing my mind not fully but it has made me see this matter in a diffirent way.

[Efflorescence]

I hate being round smokers they smell like shite

I think you meant 'shit'. And whoa, whoa , whoa.....excuse me? I take extra precautions not to smell like 'shit'. When I smoke I put on a jacket at times and then remove it after I've finished. I wash it myself because mum hates the smell.

And it's not like we smokers do not have a head you know. I won't go smoking in people's faces especially if there are children around. We are not the insensitive brutes you make us to be.

i know if you walked in my room nude id be like :yeah:

http://www.telecoms.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2011/05/troll.jpg

[Rawwwrr]

Just say "That's your spot to smoke in. If you smoke outside that spot, you'll be fined, because your smoke could be deadly to a passerby with, for example, asthma". Not too unreasonable, I think, considering smoking is a personal choice.

[tHe_Jester1080]

I would like it to be banned, but I think the minimum on prices on them should sky rocket so if people want to smoke and risk others' health it will come at a price

[Bath]

I would like it to be banned, but I think the minimum on prices on them should sky rocket so if people want to smoke and risk others' health it will come at a price

That's a completely different topic lol

[HaydenM]

The problem with smoking is you do not know what affect it will have on people. I would not go around rubbing peanut butter on people, to most people it will just be inconvenient, but some could have Anaphylaxis and they could die. Same goes with somebody with a breathing condition.

[DerBear]

I would like it to be banned, but I think the minimum on prices on them should sky rocket so if people want to smoke and risk others' health it will come at a price

ALSO just to say in the UK the minium pricing on tobaco products has went up already and it has improved the health of the UK and taken some strian of the NHS

But like one person said another topic for another thread

[pineinchneis]

i think a smoking ban is a good idea
we have it the uk (only inside tho) but it needs to be extended to outside areas (streets etc)

[Cybercode]

I seen a commercial on this issue and if I find it I will put it on here. But here is the website it advertises.

http://allintoclearair.com/