How old were you when you started smoking ?.

[cookiecutter]

- Owners of establishments have the obvious right to decide what goes on in those establishments.

Not when it non-consensually negatively affects the health of others.

- Smoking is much less harmful than media portrays it as. Second-hand smoking is basically entirely without risk unless it is constant and heavy (living with a very heavy smoker).

For the sake of argument I'll accept your unsupported claim. It is still poisonous. Even if it's a little harmful doesn't change the fact that it's harmful. I don't want to be harmed when going out to a restaurant, even a little bit.

 

[Έρεβος]

Yeah. Um, post a link or something to prove that you actually aren't full of shit.

I don't need to site common knowledge. If it was an abstract study, sure, but it isn't. It is a deduction arrived at rather easily with very basic knowledge of studies done on cigarette smoke. Nearly everyone is exposed to second-hand smoke, especially those in the city, but the ones that get sick from it live with heavy smokers.

 

[CF87]

If you did not start smoking how do you apply to this thread. This thread is really basic and should have stayed that way and all people do here is argue.

 

[Έρεβος]

Not when it non-consensually negatively affects the health of others.

Great, please move to Nazi Germany. =)

 

[Matt]

I don't need to site common knowledge. If it was an abstract study, sure, but it isn't. It is a deduction arrived at rather easily with very basic knowledge of studies done on cigarette smoke. Nearly everyone is exposed to second-hand smoke, especially those in the city, but the ones that get sick from it live with heavy smokers.

 

[cookiecutter]

I don't need to site common knowledge. If it was an abstract study, sure, but it isn't. It is a deduction arrived at rather easily with very basic knowledge of studies done on cigarette smoke. Nearly everyone is exposed to second-hand smoke, especially those in the city, but the ones that get sick from it live with heavy smokers.

Weren't you the one that said "The research is all wrong?". The common knowledge is that smoking is very harmful.

Great, please move to Nazi Germany. =)

Ha! I hope you realize the irony of this post.

 

[thisisaformicatable]

The motivation for the state to discourage smoking is quite clear in a place where universal health care is the norm. That is, having the populace addicted to a known to be harming substance sucks countless funds out of a health care system where diseases/ailments that were not caused by a personal choice should take precedence. Not only does this lead to a healthier society it could also allow the government to save more funds and even reduce taxes.

I'd simply rather they shit or get off the pot as it were - make it illegal if it's so bad. Slowly marginalizing it while monitoring the cost/benefit ratio is gutless, government should take a stand. Even announcing their plan to eventually eliminate it would be preferable.

Regarding smoking in restaurants I am all for it being banned. However I am not a smoker, nor will I ever be so it is an extreme inconvenience for me to know that my health could be harmed (in the long run) by simply choosing to eat at a public restaurant.

So long as smoking remains sort-of-legal, smokers are being unfairly marginalized by not having places to go - we have dance clubs, rock clubs, jazz clubs, gay clubs, strip clubs, etc. Adding a regulated number of smoking clubs to that list doesn't harm nonsmokers, and allows smokers a place to enjoy their activity.

 

[cookiecutter]

I'd simply rather they shit or get off the pot as it were - make it illegal if it's so bad. Slowly marginalizing it while monitoring the cost/benefit ratio is gutless, government should take a stand. Even announcing their plan to eventually eliminate it would be preferable.

It's pragmatic, and the level of smokers is nearing a record low point. So it's working.

 

[Έρεβος]

Ha! I hope you realize the irony of this post.

Not really. Only fucked up fascisms would tell business owners people can't smoke in the building they own. I mean, do you even get the concept of ownership? I own my body, hence I can inhale smoke into it as I please. Businessmen own their establishments, hence they can allow smoke in them as they please. This harms no-one, except those that choose to enter the establishments, and that is their choice. When they enter a building belonging to someone else, they must accept what goes on there or leave. How can you honestly challenge that?

 

[skeptik]

Open a bar and paint the walls with asbestos. See what the government has to say about that.

You can't do whatever the fuck you want once you buy a place. You don't seem to be aware of this. You are responsible for the health and well-being of the patrons who enter your establishment. You also don't seem to be aware of this either. When you own a building you must accept what the government says could go on there or leave your own establishment. How can you honestly challenge that?

And resorting to callings of fascism once you run out of a relevant argument (which actually was pages ago) is amusing at best, pathetic at worst.

 

[Έρεβος]

Open a bar and paint the walls with asbestos. See what the government has to say about that.

You can't do whatever the fuck you want once you buy a place. You don't seem to be aware of this. You are responsible for the health and well-being of the patrons who enter your establishment. You also don't seem to be aware of this either. When you own a building you must accept what the government says could go on there or leave your own establishment. How can you honestly challenge that?

Such does not apply to smoking, as an individual entering a smoking establishment knows there is smoking and can make the decision for his or her self. Comparing smoking with asbestos is pathetic at best.

 

[skeptik]

Thank you for addressing the irrelevant part of my post.

 

[thisisaformicatable]

It's pragmatic, and the level of smokers is nearing a record low point. So it's working.

But gutless. And I'm not even going to get into the racist angle. Anyway, I stand firm supporting designated smoking bars so long as smoking remains legal.

 

[Έρεβος]

Thank you for addressing the irrelevant part of my post.

You are most graciously welcome.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Call yourself a man? You're a fucking pussy!

do you smoke?
if so, you're the fucking pussy.

 

[The Heartbreak Kid]

Yeah, im a badass filthy smoker. I can take the smoke, im no pussy.

 

[supseudonymous]

Yeah, im a badass filthy smoker. I can take the smoke, im no pussy.

 

[cookiecutter]

But gutless. And I'm not even going to get into the racist angle. Anyway, I stand firm supporting designated smoking bars so long as smoking remains legal.

In theory this sounds good, but it is impractical. What criteria must you meet to have a smoking establishment? How clear must you make it? How would it be enforced? How would nonsmoking patrons know if someone was smoking illegally or not?

 

[Death Aflame]

So long as smoking remains sort-of-legal, smokers are being unfairly marginalized by not having places to go - we have dance clubs, rock clubs, jazz clubs, gay clubs, strip clubs, etc. Adding a regulated number of smoking clubs to that list doesn't harm nonsmokers, and allows smokers a place to enjoy their activity.

This wouldn't be a problem if I wasn't paying for the extensive health care that many smokers may eventually go through via my tax dollars. However, If I lived under an exclusively privatized health care system I could care less if you killed yourself with smoking insofar that I wouldn't be bothered by it by eating in a public restaurant or whatnot.

 

[Έρεβος]

This wouldn't be a problem if I wasn't paying for the extensive health care that many smokers may eventually go through via my tax dollars. However, If I lived under an exclusively privatized health care system I could care less if you killed yourself with smoking insofar that I wouldn't be bothered by it by eating in a public restaurant or whatnot.

You kidding? The tax dollars we pay on buying cigarettes more than covers smokers' freaking health care.