Smoke a smoker in self defence

[Webbeardthepirate]

Here is a topic for deabte. If second hand smoke kills, are you justified in using foce against some one who is smoking at you? Is it self defence to use deadly force to save yourself and others from deadly second hand smoke? If not, then does this mean second hand smoke isn't bad after all?

[CoffeeBeak]

I do not feel that it warrants violence. Self defence is using equal force. That would mean blowing smoke back at them, at most. Otherwise it's assault.

It doesn't warrant anything more violent than that, because it is a slow-acting death which builds up over time. One puff of smoke isn't going to give you cancer.

[BillyWitchDoctor.com]

you have the birth right to be able to speak to anything, so you can definitaly tell the person either to please stop or at least go somewhere else because second hand smoke does kill after time. Violent force would be unlawful and very agressive because second hand smoke is not like a gun which could kill you in a second. It takes time, so violent force, no you cant use that.

[redcar]

yes second hand smoke can cause you to become very sick adn you may die, also too big a n intake of calories can kill you as well, so by using violence against someone who is smoking around you would be like using violence against someone who offers you a a very calorie filled cake or the like. its pointless cause you can always walk away.

[kolte]

yeah that person is not forcing you to stand by them. I mean come the fuck on, I hate it when people get hard headed about smokers, if you don't like them, get the fuck away from them, don't be a pansy.

[redcar]

although kolte in some situations its imposible to get away and thats why i totally support smoking bans in workplaces. like the nice one we have in Ireland, its nice going out to a restraunt etc and not having to be exposed to second hand smoke. plus its safer for the people who work there.

[Webbeardthepirate]

so, because it is slow you don't need to act in self defence? What if they were running arounf wildly sloshing carbolic acid at folks randomly. It may or may not get on anyone. But if it does it eats down to the bone, and is untreatable and often fatal. How is smoking different? It only takes one cell turning cnacerous to kill you. Or is it possible that the second hand smoking dangers are exagerated? If you can't use force to protect yourself, how dangerous can it really be?

[redcar]

everything could kill us, walking down the street a car could knock us down, we could get atacked by a dog. however we must take these risks. although with smoking governments across the world are taking action by introducing smoking bans. thats the defense.

[serial-thrilla]

it take many many many years of people constantly smoking around you before theres even a chance you'll get cancer.

[kolte]

it take many many many years of people constantly smoking around you before theres even a chance you'll get cancer.

yeah. cows emit harmful methane, and prolonged methane exposure can cause cancer. but you don't see people murdering cows in self defense, be logical.

[redcar]

it take many many many years of people constantly smoking around you before theres even a chance you'll get cancer.

yeah. cows emit harmful methane, and prolonged methane exposure can cause cancer. but you don't see people murdering cows in self defense, be logical.

but normally people arent with cows for prolonged periods in enclosed spaces.

[Webbeardthepirate]

Methane smells bad, and its poisonous, but I have never heard any one claim it causes cancer. Are you sure about that one? A high fiber diet should increase your risk of getting intestinal and colon cancer. People who live near swamps and peatbogs would have higher cancer rates too. We'd have to drain the wetlands as a public health measure. No, I do not think methane causes cancer.

There are lots of things that don't cause cancer actually. Arsenic doesn't cause cancer. It causes you to be dead, but it doesn't cause cancer. Water doesn't cause cancer. Sugar doesn't cause cancer. Iron doesn't cause cancer. Silicon and other silicate based materials don't cause cancer, glass, sand, silicone etc. Hydrocloric acid doesn't cause cancer. Hellium, Neon, Argon don't cause cancer either. Gold, Silver, Aluminum, Lead don't cause cancer. Single Oxogen atoms, but not oxogen molocules CAN cause cancer. Magnetic fields and radio waves also don't cause cancer.

Smoking does cause cancer. Its not one hundred percent but it is more cancerous then any of the above. The most cancerous substance is burn't meat. Pyrolized protiens they are called. They are the single most cnacerous substance known, and are used to cause cancers in labrats for study. You don't get them when you fry meat, only when you flame broil them. Burning tobacco pyrolizes the plant protiens, which are not alot in most plants, creating the tars and such.

But my question is, how much are other people allowed to imperil your life before you are allowed to take steps to MAKE them stop. In the example of being hit by a car, you are allowed to use force to protect yourself from irresponsible drivers. Police practice swiping cars so that they will spin out of control potentially KILLING the driver in order to protect others.

If smokeing is bad enough to ban in ALL public places including sidewalks and parks like they just did in Britain, isn't it bad enough to protect yourself with violence. Pulling the cig from the offenders mouth and stamping on it at a minimum. Hitting them if they try and stop you, shooting them if they hit you back? Isn't it? Self defense it the minimum reasonable force needed to protect yourself or others from harm, or the reasonable expectation of harm. If smokeing is so bad that it should be forbidden in Parks outdoors, don't you have to protect yourself and others from harm?

Regarding the car example, are you saying people who don't want to be hit by drunk drivers should stay off the road, that they don't have to stay around some one driving erratically and irresponsibly, that they can always ask such a person to stop, and if they won't you can just not use the roads? Is that REALLY what you mean to say?

[serial-thrilla]

you dont just hit people for smoking around you. thats mean and stupid and theres a good chance they wont take very kindly at all to it. if someone is smoking around you and you dont like it leave. plain and simple.

[Englishkid]

lol thats a very irrational view on the situation, and a total over exageration of the dangers of second hand smoking. Self defense is for people in imediate danger someone smoking is not a imediate threat. It will take years to die from second hand smoke not one puff of some guys cigarette. your pretty much saying if you buy a pack of cigarette it paints a sign on your head saying punch me :roll:

[Waiting]

too much carbon dioxide is fatal
does that mean if i breathe near you, you should kick my ass?
jeez...

[Underage_Thinker]

too much carbon dioxide is fatal
does that mean if i breathe near you, you should kick my ass?
jeez...

Ya that is what i am thinking, everything everybody dose around you has the possiblity to kill you. Dose that make it right for you to punch everybody around you :?:

[Webbeardthepirate]

OK, so yes, your not in immidiate danger, and maybe somedya there will be a cure for lung cancer. Actually there are all sorts of cures for cancer. The english are just tired of paying for them so they are making it as hard as possible to smoke. As you have all figured out, the danger is exagerated, and the public health argument is a screen to opress people and control their behavior.

And no, I don't kick your ass for breathing near me, I sue you for causing hurricanes with your emission of global warming gasses.

[serial-thrilla]

i dont think you can sue people for that

[redcar]

I sue you for causing hurricanes with your emission of global warming gasses.

huricanes are acts of god and you cant sue acts of god.

[beautifullytragic]

Would someone ALSO please correct the spelling of defense on the title of this topic?

[kolte]

Would someone ALSO please correct the spelling of defense on the title of this topic?

actually....I'm not going to, cuz I'm a bitch :P :twisted: :P no, really, I'm not, stop cryin' bout it and live with it man, learn to deal with it

[beautifullytragic]

No, Kolte, I'm a BITCH! Sorry...having a bad day...bleh...stupid me...yes I know..."Maria, why don't you just go fuck yourself?"....

[Webbeardthepirate]

actually, you can sue any one for any reason. There are a number of resons that the judge then dimisses the law suit. Usually they would say it lacks merrit. Sometimes the issue is moot, because the problem is now gone, or they say it isn't ripe meaning the problem doesn't exist yet. They can also dismiss the suit because the plantiff lacks standing. You can't sue MacDonald's for makeing some one else fat.

Now I need to go paint de fence.

[Webbeardthepirate]

Apparently arsenic may actually be a carcinogen at low doses. My bad.