Nope not at all, I personally think it's a pretty dumb choice to make, however it's your choice which is much more important. If restaurnts want to make their places smoke free go for it, if bars do go for it. But leave it up to the individual establisments.
Well, I do have plenty of days where I think people shouldn't be allowed to have kids until they can prove they're fit for it. Unfortunately, that'll take a Big Brother type program and I just haven't figured out how to spin it positively yet. But then I can make sure people who beat children, neglect them, smoke around them, etc. won't have any.
You're not thinking of the children with parents who smoke. They desperately need a total ban.
We know smoking is as bad or worse than drugs for the person who smokes, but is far worse in the effects of those around the smoker.
As for the car analogy, care pollution is primarily a concern of global warming. That has to do with the total extinction of life as we know it, not localized actions by individuals. These days, lead-free gasoline and other advances makes car pollution's worsest effect asthma.
You're not thinking about the children killed in turf wars over illegal drugs.
You're not thinking about the children killed in turf wars over illegal drugs.
Once you control for socioeconomic status, these "turf wars" disappear. You're confusing cause with result. If drugs arew made legal, they'll just find something else to fight about. Our society just doesn't care about them--Bush cut headstart and other federal programs into these neighborhoods much like Clinton had his "war on mothers" devastating welfare cuts.
It's YOU who is not thinking about them
{Edit: Don't forget the gun component. If handguns were banned and production halted to the most minimal levels, many of these injries in these turf wars would be far less severe implying far fewer deaths. }
i wonder if it isn't a stretch to assume equivalency amongst booze, drugs and cigarettes.
Drugs and alcohol provide a very desirable service above and beyond their potential for addiction. Social lubricant, ease the pain, get you laid, etc.
A cigarette (or perhaps nicotine) doesn't seem to be very pleasurable in and of itself. People have to learn to smoke to get over the nausea hump, and it is only after you are acclimated that the "pleasure" of smoking (alleviation of withdrawal symptoms) becomes operative.
Moreover, while it is very possible to enjoy a lifetime of "recreational" drug and alcohol use, with few if any harmful effects, cigarette smoking leads inevitably to addiction and disease.
People will always crave intoxicants, which is why prohibition doesn't work. But are cigarettes really "intoxicants", or are their ongoing use based on a feed-back loop between social norms and addiction?
In which case prohibition type schemes might work just fine, once the currently addicted die off.
I'm so sick of the BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT attitude. Seriously, go find a cave to crawl into and leave me the hell alone. I've had enough of you people.
Ban what? Other than stuff like, I don't know, mercury in the water and military style assault rifles for one and all, what things are we all clamoring to have banned?
As far as "leaving you the hell alone", you are posting on an internet forum, presumably voluntarily .
If they can make a Patriot Act over the deaths of 3000 americans, why can't they ban smoking over the deaths of 35k+ people a year? It seems a ban on smoking, like drugs, would be far more effective than the Patriot Act ever was in saving lives.
you act like the war on drugs has been successful. it costs millions and millions more every year, and people are still using. honest, hard working americans who would go to work, come home, buy shit and feed their kids and the economy, are sitting in jail for years because they were holding a little pot. banning tobacco may reduce the amount of smoking (i doubt it'll make a huge stab at the number for a while), and certainly public smoking, but it will still be out there. i smoke pot, despite its illegality; and i'll continue to smoke tobacco when/if its made illegal. cigarettes, according to a study several years ago which surveyed drug users, are the most addictive drug out there. if u made it illegal, i'd still have a strong urge to smoke, and i would find a way to get that fix covered. there are millions and millions of smokers across america. u can't just suddenly make them all criminals.
Quote:
Originally posted by Naderfan
What I think would be interesting is if "smoking only" establishments opened up (do they already exist?)
yes. there are hookah bars, and cigar bars, which even through ny's ban, have survived. their primary business is smoke, so clearly they survive the ban (well not existence's proposed ban, but ny's current ban). funnily enough, you're not really allowed to smoke cigarettes at the hookah bars i go to. they ask u to put it out if ur near the front, by the windows. ur not required to smoke at these smoking establishments either, but people rarely go to a hookah bar just for the expensive drinks and expensive mid eastern food. u go to a hookah bar because u want to smoke a hookah.
I'm so sick of the BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT attitude. Seriously, go find a cave to crawl into and leave me the hell alone. I've had enough of you people.
Ironically-- that's the same train of thought we anti-smoking advocates have. Leave my lungs the hell alone and find some yellow tar covered cave to light up in.
Ironically-- that's the same train of thought we anti-smoking advocates have. Leave my lungs the hell alone and find some yellow tar covered cave to light up in.
That's not what existence says. He wants smoking outlawed everywhere.
Ban what? Other than stuff like, I don't know, mercury in the water and military style assault rifles for one and all, what things are we all clamoring to have banned?
As far as "leaving you the hell alone", you are posting on an internet forum, presumably voluntarily .
Drugs, prostitution, naughty words, smoking, alcohol if you are under 21 but able to have your limbs shot off in war, and numerous other things.
As far as leaving me the hell alone, I mean just that. I wish people would stop trying to pass legislation to restrict my rights. You don't want to smoke? good. Don't. You don't want to have an abortion? Good. Don't. You don't want to hear Stern talk about sex? Good. Don't.
You and George W Bush are two sides of the same evil coin that needs to tossed away.
As far as leaving me the hell alone, I mean just that. I wish people would stop trying to pass legislation to restrict my rights. You don't want to smoke? good. Don't. You don't want to have an abortion? Good. Don't. You don't want to hear Stern talk about sex? Good. Don't.
Drugs, prostitution, naughty words, smoking, alcohol if you are under 21 but able to have your limbs shot off in war, and numerous other things.
As far as leaving me the hell alone, I mean just that. I wish people would stop trying to pass legislation to restrict my rights. You don't want to smoke? good. Don't. You don't want to have an abortion? Good. Don't. You don't want to hear Stern talk about sex? Good. Don't.
You and George W Bush are two sides of the same evil coin that needs to tossed away.
Moi? I favor prostitution, drugs, naughty words, alcohol, abortion, etc. As do most of the posters here, it looks like.
Smoking is another matter, since its effects (and I don't mean its far reaching, societal effects, but immediate, physiological effects) don't stop at the border of your lungs.
Drugs, prostitution, naughty words, smoking, alcohol if you are under 21 but able to have your limbs shot off in war, and numerous other things.
As far as leaving me the hell alone, I mean just that. I wish people would stop trying to pass legislation to restrict my rights. You don't want to smoke? good. Don't. You don't want to have an abortion? Good. Don't. You don't want to hear Stern talk about sex? Good. Don't.
You and George W Bush are two sides of the same evil coin that needs to tossed away.
I don't want to breathe your smoke-- yet many times I must. Unless I creep around to hopefully unlocked side entrances of buildings to avoid the inevitable swarm of smokers puffing up on the sidewalks leading to and just outside of main building entrances. Unless I run away from home and break the emotional and familial bonds with my parents just for the right to smell lasagna without the pungent smoke odor. I guess you're right. I should zig zag across busy big city streets like a crazed Reggie Sanders-type who looks at emphysema-stricken autopsied lungs for a living- just to avoid the "too cool" restaurant patrons who take Britney Spears' "Toxic" a bit too literally. I'll respect your rights, man.
I don't smoke. I hate smoke. If a restaurant wants to allow smoking, I won't go there. It's not the government's place to take that choice away from me.
Point taken-- for the third time (counting just me), what about the rights of non-smokers upon whose rights are inevitably infringed by smokers? Point not taken. Point not even responded to. Point lonely- need friend! (non smoker, please)
Comments
Originally posted by msantti
I assume you are a smoker.
Nope not at all, I personally think it's a pretty dumb choice to make, however it's your choice which is much more important. If restaurnts want to make their places smoke free go for it, if bars do go for it. But leave it up to the individual establisments.
Originally posted by Existence
You're not thinking of the children with parents who smoke. They desperately need a total ban.
We know smoking is as bad or worse than drugs for the person who smokes, but is far worse in the effects of those around the smoker.
As for the car analogy, care pollution is primarily a concern of global warming. That has to do with the total extinction of life as we know it, not localized actions by individuals. These days, lead-free gasoline and other advances makes car pollution's worsest effect asthma.
You're not thinking about the children killed in turf wars over illegal drugs.
Originally posted by BR
You're not thinking about the children killed in turf wars over illegal drugs.
Once you control for socioeconomic status, these "turf wars" disappear. You're confusing cause with result. If drugs arew made legal, they'll just find something else to fight about. Our society just doesn't care about them--Bush cut headstart and other federal programs into these neighborhoods much like Clinton had his "war on mothers" devastating welfare cuts.
It's YOU who is not thinking about them
{Edit: Don't forget the gun component. If handguns were banned and production halted to the most minimal levels, many of these injries in these turf wars would be far less severe implying far fewer deaths. }
Drugs and alcohol provide a very desirable service above and beyond their potential for addiction. Social lubricant, ease the pain, get you laid, etc.
A cigarette (or perhaps nicotine) doesn't seem to be very pleasurable in and of itself. People have to learn to smoke to get over the nausea hump, and it is only after you are acclimated that the "pleasure" of smoking (alleviation of withdrawal symptoms) becomes operative.
Moreover, while it is very possible to enjoy a lifetime of "recreational" drug and alcohol use, with few if any harmful effects, cigarette smoking leads inevitably to addiction and disease.
People will always crave intoxicants, which is why prohibition doesn't work. But are cigarettes really "intoxicants", or are their ongoing use based on a feed-back loop between social norms and addiction?
In which case prohibition type schemes might work just fine, once the currently addicted die off.
Originally posted by BR
I'm so sick of the BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT attitude. Seriously, go find a cave to crawl into and leave me the hell alone. I've had enough of you people.
Ban what? Other than stuff like, I don't know, mercury in the water and military style assault rifles for one and all, what things are we all clamoring to have banned?
As far as "leaving you the hell alone", you are posting on an internet forum, presumably voluntarily .
Originally posted by MajorMatt
Time is killing me! AH!!!
Yes, but without time would we really be alive in the first place?
Originally posted by Existence
If they can make a Patriot Act over the deaths of 3000 americans, why can't they ban smoking over the deaths of 35k+ people a year? It seems a ban on smoking, like drugs, would be far more effective than the Patriot Act ever was in saving lives.
you act like the war on drugs has been successful. it costs millions and millions more every year, and people are still using. honest, hard working americans who would go to work, come home, buy shit and feed their kids and the economy, are sitting in jail for years because they were holding a little pot. banning tobacco may reduce the amount of smoking (i doubt it'll make a huge stab at the number for a while), and certainly public smoking, but it will still be out there. i smoke pot, despite its illegality; and i'll continue to smoke tobacco when/if its made illegal. cigarettes, according to a study several years ago which surveyed drug users, are the most addictive drug out there. if u made it illegal, i'd still have a strong urge to smoke, and i would find a way to get that fix covered. there are millions and millions of smokers across america. u can't just suddenly make them all criminals.
Originally posted by Naderfan
What I think would be interesting is if "smoking only" establishments opened up (do they already exist?)
yes. there are hookah bars, and cigar bars, which even through ny's ban, have survived. their primary business is smoke, so clearly they survive the ban (well not existence's proposed ban, but ny's current ban). funnily enough, you're not really allowed to smoke cigarettes at the hookah bars i go to. they ask u to put it out if ur near the front, by the windows. ur not required to smoke at these smoking establishments either, but people rarely go to a hookah bar just for the expensive drinks and expensive mid eastern food. u go to a hookah bar because u want to smoke a hookah.
Originally posted by BR
I'm so sick of the BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT attitude. Seriously, go find a cave to crawl into and leave me the hell alone. I've had enough of you people.
Ironically-- that's the same train of thought we anti-smoking advocates have. Leave my lungs the hell alone and find some yellow tar covered cave to light up in.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Ironically-- that's the same train of thought we anti-smoking advocates have. Leave my lungs the hell alone and find some yellow tar covered cave to light up in.
That's not what existence says. He wants smoking outlawed everywhere.
Originally posted by addabox
Ban what? Other than stuff like, I don't know, mercury in the water and military style assault rifles for one and all, what things are we all clamoring to have banned?
As far as "leaving you the hell alone", you are posting on an internet forum, presumably voluntarily .
Drugs, prostitution, naughty words, smoking, alcohol if you are under 21 but able to have your limbs shot off in war, and numerous other things.
As far as leaving me the hell alone, I mean just that. I wish people would stop trying to pass legislation to restrict my rights. You don't want to smoke? good. Don't. You don't want to have an abortion? Good. Don't. You don't want to hear Stern talk about sex? Good. Don't.
You and George W Bush are two sides of the same evil coin that needs to tossed away.
Originally posted by Existence
They desperately need a total ban.
Existence, come on man. Where's the cave-smoking exception we talked about?
Originally posted by BR
As far as leaving me the hell alone, I mean just that. I wish people would stop trying to pass legislation to restrict my rights. You don't want to smoke? good. Don't. You don't want to have an abortion? Good. Don't. You don't want to hear Stern talk about sex? Good. Don't.
Libertarians of the world, UNITE!
Originally posted by BR
Drugs, prostitution, naughty words, smoking, alcohol if you are under 21 but able to have your limbs shot off in war, and numerous other things.
As far as leaving me the hell alone, I mean just that. I wish people would stop trying to pass legislation to restrict my rights. You don't want to smoke? good. Don't. You don't want to have an abortion? Good. Don't. You don't want to hear Stern talk about sex? Good. Don't.
You and George W Bush are two sides of the same evil coin that needs to tossed away.
Moi? I favor prostitution, drugs, naughty words, alcohol, abortion, etc. As do most of the posters here, it looks like.
Smoking is another matter, since its effects (and I don't mean its far reaching, societal effects, but immediate, physiological effects) don't stop at the border of your lungs.
Originally posted by BR
Drugs, prostitution, naughty words, smoking, alcohol if you are under 21 but able to have your limbs shot off in war, and numerous other things.
As far as leaving me the hell alone, I mean just that. I wish people would stop trying to pass legislation to restrict my rights. You don't want to smoke? good. Don't. You don't want to have an abortion? Good. Don't. You don't want to hear Stern talk about sex? Good. Don't.
You and George W Bush are two sides of the same evil coin that needs to tossed away.
I don't want to breathe your smoke-- yet many times I must. Unless I creep around to hopefully unlocked side entrances of buildings to avoid the inevitable swarm of smokers puffing up on the sidewalks leading to and just outside of main building entrances. Unless I run away from home and break the emotional and familial bonds with my parents just for the right to smell lasagna without the pungent smoke odor. I guess you're right. I should zig zag across busy big city streets like a crazed Reggie Sanders-type who looks at emphysema-stricken autopsied lungs for a living- just to avoid the "too cool" restaurant patrons who take Britney Spears' "Toxic" a bit too literally. I'll respect your rights, man.