How old were you when you started smoking ?.

[V.V.V.V.V.]

lol 17 year old smoker

 

[Death Aflame]

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

Instead of throwing these claims out there it would be helpful if you could back them up with a link to a reputable article/site that refutes my point.

Edit: I see you are from the US. So I assume you are covered by private insurance so wouldn't the insurance company be far more likely to charge you (much) more for a plan if they knew you were an avid smoker?

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

I reiterate: learn to read

Here's the funny part. This feeble excuse for an argument:

There are easily hundreds of things most of us do every day that have risks as high as smoking. Should airplanes be illegal? Cars? Factories? They all impart a small risk on others, but that risk is small enough to be logically irrelevant, just as with smoking in establishments.

Has already been shot to the ground. Planes, cars and factories all- now take your time with this- are necessary. Smoking is not. End of story.

Smoking is not dangerous... But getting paranoid about it, or any such things with mild risks, is no way to live.

Ha! Oh, man. I get paid to be funny every couple of weeks but I think I'll start sending it to you because this is fucking rich. Same goes for the "hurrr business owners should not be regulated" horse shit.

 

[The Ozzman]

Here's the funny part. This feeble excuse for an argument:



Has already been shot to the ground. Planes, cars and factories all- now take your time with this- are necessary. Smoking is not. End of story.



Ha! Oh, man. I get paid to be funny every couple of weeks but I think I'll start sending it to you because this is fucking rich. Same goes for the "hurrr business owners should not be regulated" horse shit.

At least not without letting them state their case.

Whoever had the idea of designated smoking bars, I really like that idea.

 

[Έρεβος]

Has already been shot to the ground. Planes, cars and factories all- now take your time with this- are necessary. Smoking is not. End of story.

Are you completely daft? In what fucking way are any of those necessary, except of course for destroying the planet?

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

Are you completely daft? In what fucking way are any of those necessary, except of course for destroying the planet?

You must be joking.

From now on, you can just go ahead live without using cars, planes or anything manufactured. Sure, you can do it, but you'll just have to get the fuck of the computer. And forget about that bike or yours, and probably the books you use to educate yourself. Oh and I guess you'll have to start growing your own tobacco and making your own paper to roll it in... I mean unless you can more people who want to live without anything manufactures and help you with this, I think you'll have to put that whole "home schooling yourself" thing on hold.

And it is necessary to function as a global society? Why? So culture, national identity, etc. etc. can be destroyed by globalism? Nice try.

I believe that word I'm looking for here is "lol".

 

[Έρεβος]

You must be joking.

From now on, you can just go ahead live without using cars, planes or anything manufactured. Sure, you can do it, but you'll just have to get the fuck of the computer. And forget about that bike or yours, and probably the books you use to educate yourself. Oh and I guess you'll have to start growing your own tobacco and making your own paper to roll it in... I mean unless you can more people who want to live without anything manufactures and help you with this, I think you'll have to put that whole "home schooling yourself" thing on hold.

Righto. Because we are too lazy to think of non-damaging solutions to the problems of transportation, aye? Grow up. It is also extremely easy for states to become self-reliant, and not have mass transit as a necessity at all.

These are simple examples, anyway, and being brought down to the very base (currently grandiosely unrealistic) levels because you can't seem to get simple concepts.

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

Righto. Because we are too lazy to think of non-damaging solutions to the problems of transportation, aye? Grow up.

If you want to get to work on that, go right ahead. Maybe you can offer some of your brilliance to the people who have been working on environmentally friendly transportation options for years, since they are obviously too lazy to get it right. I mean, your Daddy is trying to get you into a school for the Highly-Gifted, right?

These are simple examples, anyway, and being brought down to the very base (currently grandiosely unrealistic) levels because you can't seem to get simple concepts.

You mean simple concepts like "smoking is a deadly and digusting habit and if other people don't want to inhale your putrid smelling poison"?

 

[skeptik]

Those things are necessary for us to function as we have. Learn to understand a little something called context. Necessity within a given frame (name the frame in which we exist) requires certain things, and in this particular frame, cars, planes, trains, factories, etc., are necessary to maintain the way of life that we currently enjoy. We're not looking to change the status quo. We're not getting into the issue of whether or not what we have is good. We're working with the paradigm that we have. Going beyond that to speak of the evils of globalism is exercising ideas far more ambitious than are suitable for this thread.


So to make sure that you've got it in your head this time, necessity within the given context is what we're dealing with, namely maintaining the status quo. Whether or not you think maintaining the status quo is a good thing is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Are you following so far? Finally, with this context in mind, it is logical to conclude that the aforementioned "comforts" that you allude to are necessary in maintaining the society in which we life, whereas smoking cigarettes is not. And the argument is made even weaker when you consider the fact that you don't have to smoke a cigarette at a given time. You choose when to smoke a cigarette. If you cannot wait to smoke a cigarette in a suitable place, then you have an addiction and thus have bigger issues to deal with than whether or not you should be allowed to smoke in a particular bar.

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

Oh, and Έρεβος: What the fuck bars are you going to?

 

[thisisaformicatable]

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?

Impractical? It wouldn't be much different than the way they regulate liquor or strip bar licenses, I imagine. Your questions are minor concerns that would obviously be legislated into bureaucratic oblivion like everything else, after which we'd be all set.

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.

This is the tricky part; in the states as said who gives a shit but in Canada you'd have to strike some sort of balance where the amount smokers are taxed pays for their health care - the tobacco itself is already taxed at a ridiculous rate though I doubt they've hit the ceiling, you could also tax the hypothetical smoking bars. I'll write my member of parliament and ask him to put forth a motion funding a feasibility study so we can see if it'd work. If it'll break even the government should do it, it's not like they actually care about our health.

 

[Valerie]

It takes years of constant smoking to seriously harm a smoker, so how can second-hand smoke (pay attention here, this is important) which gets inhaled indirectly (hence the name second-hand) possibly harm a non-smoker who stands within 10 feet of someone who is smoking, for only a couple of minutes? That's right. It can't.

You people act like indirectly inhaling a diluted puff of smoke that's passed through someone else's body will permanently damage your lugs. It won't.

That being said, people who are addicted to cigarettes don't necessarily need to quit, but definitely need to discipline themselves and be able to put it down when they need to.

And to everyone who says there's no need to smoke, well you're right, but think about this: there's really no reason to do anything that isn't related to keeping yourself alive. There's no reason to listen to music, there's no reason to draw a picture, there's no reason to sky dive, there's no reason to punch a random person in the face, there's even no reason for me to be posting this. Then why do people do anything? Because they can.

 

[skeptik]

Actually the level of smoke found in bars and restaurants has been found to be greater than that found in households including smokers and in office workplaces. Frequenting any of these places can cause new problems or exacerbate old problems. Not to mention the fact that one has the right to breathe clean air without the negative effects of breathing in smoke. Thousands of people die yearly from secondhand smoke. I'm pretty sure that is more than what should be acceptable.

And you're not "indirectly inhaling a puff of smoke," since second hand smoke also includes the smoke coming directly from the cigarette itself and not merely the smoke from the smoker's lungs. The likelihood of minor amounts of short exposure to smoke causing very serious problems is slim, but that doesn't mean that it should be ignored, nor should the fact that people are entitled to an establishment with clean air. As for the "reason" argument, all of those things are done at the appropriate times, and so should smoking; namely, not in places in which it is banned. In one's own home, outside of facilities, and within the confines of designated smoking areas.

 

[thisisaformicatable]

From now on, you can just go ahead live without using cars, planes or anything manufactured. Sure, you can do it, but you'll just have to get the fuck of the computer. And forget about that bike or yours, and probably the books you use to educate yourself. Oh and I guess you'll have to start growing your own tobacco and making your own paper to roll it in... I mean unless you can more people who want to live without anything manufactures and help you with this, I think you'll have to put that whole "home schooling yourself" thing on hold.

Tu quoque?

 

[Valerie]

I'm all for having seperate smoking and non-smoking areas in places, and I understand not wanting to be in a room with people smoking, however, when you're outside that's somewhat different. Not only do you have more room to move around in (thus avoiding a smoker) but the smoke also disipates more easily. There really isn't much more to say that hasn't been said in 14 pages, I just wanted to get my opinion across. Because I can.

 

[Valerie]

I forget which city, but some city in the Bay Area here in California has public smoking banned.

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

Tu quoque?

No.

 

[Satanstoenail]

"Amount of research" is inconsequential. Drugs are a huge taboo in our society, hence there are thousands of studies with the sole intent of showing them unhealthy. Obviously this is an incredibly intellectually dishonest way of studying anything.

Cigarettes are obviously damaging to smokers' health, but no-where near to the level media tries to portray them. A very small percentage of heavy smokers EVER develop a life-threatening or disabling ailment, and an infinitesimal percentage of light smokers EVER develop any ailment. And second-hand smoke is far less damaging than light smoking.

Writing off all clinical research into the effects of smoking as exaggeration and media beat up is not only incredibly naive, it's dangerous. Are you a doctor? Have you ever worked in a cancer ward? How do you know all these amazing facts that completely derail the notion that smoking is harmful, and infact point to smoking being a very low risk pastime, even if you're a heavy smoker?

All-in-all, cigarette smoke truly has much less to do with any of the diseases associated with it than simply taking care of yourself (as most people fail horridly to do today). People smoking around others are not increasing the danger of ailment in any real way; rather, people not taking care of their bodies and then being around cigarette smoke are opening the door to death. I smoke (both clove cigarettes lightly and pot heavily) and my lungs are in nearly perfect condition (better than nearly all my non-smoking family), due to exercising and maintaining a basic healthy lifestyle.

So quit bitching and start running; you'll be perfectly safe around smoke then.

Christ, the level of delusion here is incredible. You're fucking 17 years old! Of course your lungs are ok now! How long have you been smoking? Do you really think that it's going to have no effect on your health in the long term?

 

[Ender Rises]

@ this thread.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Satanstoenail: Exactly. This fucking kid thinks he knows all the truths behind smoking (and is a smoker at such a young age...given that he is "INTELLIGENT11!!!" he should probably understand that the decision to smoke is a horrible one)...