Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cars and trucks emit exhaust fumes. Millions of cars every day. When you walk down a public sidewalk next to a street with regular traffic, you are breathing unhealthy emissions.
Are you going to claim that you have the right to walk down a street without any cars driving by, emitting petrol fumes and other emissions?
?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurtsman
Bringing up alcohol, or MJ, is a slippery slope argument. Please avoid slippery slopes. They are a logical fallacy. Neither is akin to smoking, as neither is permitted on a public sidewalk.
The issue is that smoking in public is like bringing up a toxic brew in a febreeze bottle and spraying it as you walk through downtown. That isn't acceptable, but because the companies producing the smoking product spend heavily on lobbying, we continue to allow smoking in public. People should be free to smoke. Yes, it will kill them, but it is their choice. They should not be free to blow it in my face as I walk down a publicly owned street. It's that simple, I'm not free to spit on them, and they shouldn't be free to blow smoke at me. I would welcome a law prohibiting smoking on public properties, along with actual enforcement of that law. What you do in your own home is your business, so long as you are not damaging a rented home, but the sidewalk is not your home. No, not even if you are homeless, it is still the publicly owned sidewalk.
The OP'd love it here. Cigarette smokers continue to be vilified and treated like pariahs while more and more states are passing "Pot For Stoners" laws--pot, BTW, that's allowed to be smoked in public.
No one ever smoked in our family, and I'm glad because I think it's a smelly, harmful habit. That said, it's a legal product, so I'm not about to get on cigarette smokers' backs. What really stinks is how, in many municipalities, they're relegated to smoking outside of their workplaces, hanging around the buildings as if they were vagrants--and the cigarette Nazis still aren't happy because... they can smell the smoke on entering/exiting. Give me a break.
Newsflash: Smokers are not second-hand citizens, and the increasing number of control freaks in this country had better realize that theirs is a fruitless mission: you can't control everything you see, hear, and smell, including fragrances, cleaning chemicals, and smoke.
Get off people's backs.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 06-20-2014 at 06:23 PM..
Reason: No eye rolls
Its all that needs to be said. I find it even weirder when they ban ecigarettes in public.
But local cities should be able to ban whatever they want on their streets. Unless its constitutionally protected, its up to the municipality, the county, and the state. I believe that Marijuana and other drug legalization should be the same way.
Not to mention the way it can make some people extremely happy and relaxed, but extra hostile once its effects have subsided.
Yah, that comedown from a joint can be wicked. Sure.
I only smoke maybe three cigarettes per year. I smoke the hookah maybe six times a year. But I do like to hang out in a smoky bar once a while. I enjoy it. There's atmosphere. My body ain't some temple of purity.
Let me refer you, savina, to the second sentence of your argument as to the issue of drinking and driving. You know, the one in which you state ,"But that is illegal." And there you have the big hole in your argument against cigarette smoking. It is NOT illegal.
The Tobacco Lobby is a very strong one and the taxes accrued from the sale of cigarettes is a big benefit to the government. When the legislature decides to ban cigarettes, not just smoking them in specific places but an outright ban on cigarettes, you can anticipate a hellacious increase in your taxes. There will be tobacco farmers put out of business. There will be the businesses that hang and cure the harvested tobacco. There will be the auctioneers who are responsible for the sale of the cured tobacco. There will be the manufacturers of the paper that wraps the cigarettes, not to mention the manufacturers of the packages. The shippers that transport the finished product to the warehouses that store and re-ship the product to the stores that sell the product and the maintenance people whose job it is to sweep up the butts that uncaring smokers throw on the sidewalk. All of these people, employed somehow in the cigarette industry, will no longer have jobs in that industry and in addition to the revenue (quite substantial) from the manufacture and sale of the cigarette, there will now be less tax money flowing into the government coffers (Yes! a pun!) now that all those ex-employees of the industry will not be paying income tax.
If and when the government decides it is in your best interest to declare cigarette smoking illegal, rest assured that will not be the end of cigarette smoking. I have a sense that you are too young to remember Prohibition, the act that pronounced the sale of alcohol to be illegal. That didn't fly.
May I suggest that you hang on for a while longer. The number of smokers has gone down in recent history, partly because there are fewer people starting the habit; there are more people quitting because the "it's not good for you" message has penetrated or because they can no longer afford the habit; and finally, because all that toxicity will cause the remaining offenders to die off and you will no longer have to walk down the street breathing in all that smoke.
This message brought to you by an ex-smoker.
Driving drunk is illegal because it is very likely to cause a quick death or injury. It is not done all the time.
Cigarette smoking--as much as the user desires--is legal, although it causes a slow death, in addition to various health problems, not only for the user but for all organisms surrounding. It is done all the time.
Cigarettes should not be allowed in dense urban spaces.
Bringing up alcohol, or MJ, is a slippery slope argument. Please avoid slippery slopes. They are a logical fallacy. Neither is akin to smoking, as neither is permitted on a public sidewalk.
The issue is that smoking in public is like bringing up a toxic brew in a febreeze bottle and spraying it as you walk through downtown. That isn't acceptable, but because the companies producing the smoking product spend heavily on lobbying, we continue to allow smoking in public. People should be free to smoke. Yes, it will kill them, but it is their choice. They should not be free to blow it in my face as I walk down a publicly owned street. It's that simple, I'm not free to spit on them, and they shouldn't be free to blow smoke at me. I would welcome a law prohibiting smoking on public properties, along with actual enforcement of that law. What you do in your own home is your business, so long as you are not damaging a rented home, but the sidewalk is not your home. No, not even if you are homeless, it is still the publicly owned sidewalk.
Yes, whenever I bring up the issue of cigarettes, people seem to jump on the opportunity of bring up all sorts of unrelated issues (car pollution, alcoholism, marijuana). It seems like quite a challenge for anyone to stay on topic.
When the US government bans certain chemicals from cosmetics products, like lead, I wonder if this happens all the time.
This is a side note, but maybe it's an American thing--which would make a lot of sense. The EU has banned 1,328 chemicals, while the FDA has banned 11. I think the concept of preventing the public from doing/ingesting something, even if its ultimately for their own good, is pretty difficult for an average American to swallow.
In Vancouver, actually, you're now technically free to smoke anywhere on sidewalks. There is a bylaw here that says you're not to smoke within 6 meters of doorways/windows. But I see people violating this smart rule all the time. Recently, I even left a restaurant mid-meal because a diner continuously stood directly outside the (open) door, allowing her smoke to waft into the enclosed place (not so appetizing).
Driving drunk is illegal because it is very likely to cause a quick death or injury. It is not done all the time.
Cigarette smoking--as much as the user desires--is legal, although it causes a slow death, in addition to various health problems, not only for the user but for all organisms surrounding. It is done all the time.
Cigarettes should not be allowed in dense urban spaces.
What in pray tell are you talking about? Drunk driving is not done all the time? I have an idea. Pick up some stats regarding Wisconsin, we've got a gigantic rate of drunk driving. It's pretty impressive. And that is just what we know, the people who have been arrested. Just think of how many drunk drivers are out there that don't get caught? I should know because I used to do it all the time. Last time I drove drunk was in 2008. So yes, it does happen all the time. Literally, every time you're on the road someone is most likely on the road with you drunk, no matter what time of day or night.
I love all the benefits that come with living in a city. But more recently, living in Vancouver, BC, it seems I cannot take a stroll outside of my home or go shopping without being bombarded by cig smoke from all directions. This has brought me to the consideration that maybe my only option, if I want to breathe relatively clean air (all vehicle emissions and other forms of pollutants aside the point) is to live far from the city, and do a lot of my shopping online. The irony of that is would also contribute further to pollutants. Living in a city (with a lot of efficient lightrail and rapid transit service which is electric and thus doesn't emit pollutants) is really the way to go.
I know it will be a long time, if ever, the general public is to come to the 'duh' moment that cigarette smoking was never a good idea, for themselves or for anyone. The only option for those of us who get that it seems is to keep complaining. Well, whenever I do, people come up with the same old arguments, which if you really use some thought, are pretty weak. I thought I would list them, just so the cigarette smoking supporters can save their (precious) breath. Let's take a moment to consider this critical, polarizing issue which is constantly endangering our species...and which really makes me frequently come to the sad realization that the movie "Idiocracy" resembles reality pretty darn closely.
The Tired List in Defense of Urban Cigarette Smoking
1. there are lots of annoying things everywhere (though many that aren't optional and that don't cause cancer, like listening to headphones.. which you can evade by putting on headphones yourself, although it is much more difficult to evade smoke)
2. cigarette smoke kills you slowly, not instantly
3. people will do whatever they please
4. you can't make people stop doing something very harmful to the health of others, even something that is optional
5. car pollution is bad too (even though it isn't quite so optional; many places you have no choice but to drive a vehicle because of inadequate public transportation, esp. that which is electric)
6. if i don't like cigarette smoke i should live in the middle of nowhere because that is the only option
7. other things are bad for you too (completely unrelated to cigarette smoke - see non sequitur argument fallacy )
8. i'm just a whiner and a health freak for complaining about having to smell people's cig smoke nonstop if i want to live in a city
9. cigarette smoke isn't really bad for you, or not that bad (the person saying this very rarely actually bothers compiling any compelling evidence on this...and seriously why bother? that is quite a daft assertion...regardless of what they come up with, you cannot contest with the widely known fact there are more than 70 known carcinogens in cigarette smoke...I will provide a Canadian source: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/pubs/to.../index-eng.php)
10. You're a control freak if you think people should not smoke without regard to the harm it brings to those around them, even though it's unnessary and has no benefit to themselves or anyone except greedy and unethical cigarette corporations, and puts a real damper on others' experience of urban life (hey, why not just allow drunk driving too? I guess the main difference there is death is a little more instant...)
11. There's no real harm in cigarette smoke. It's all in your head! You're crazy/paranoid for even thinking something with 70 carcinogens can be harmful! (Might I remind you that death is real, and that people are brought to a hastened death from second hand smoke exposure as well..."Since 1964, 2.5 million nonsmokers have died from exposure to secondhand smoke" CDC - Fact Sheet - Secondhand Smoke Facts - Smoking & Tobacco Use)
12. Smoke is dispersed, so the harmful effects are too negligible to be considered (anything that is harmful that is consumed repeatedly over time is harmful. In my experience, walking along one city block of a busy part of the city, I am constantly inhaling smoke from several smokers. Add this up and and yes, clearly there is a problem. This is a very simple concept; that a bad thing is more bad with frequent exposure).
13. Everyone dies anyway, so who cares. Gotta say, this is the worst argument of them all.
Am I forgetting anything?
Insurance companies charge more money to smokers for insurance.
This weekend, I may smoke a couple cigs while walking down main street in honor of this thread.
My mother died at 83 with her last butts of Marlboro in an ashtray in the sink...she practiced great fire control. She died quietly in her sleep.
And cigarette smoking didn't kill her.
I understand many people don't want cigarette smoking around them...NO problem. But these are the same people that have bought into the PERFECT safe world...
No eating at McDOnalds.
No shopping at Walmart.
Eat only healthy food.
Then, if you aren't working at starbucks, and have a good job...watch a jet fly into your window.
They all think they will live forever living a HEALTHY lifestyle.
My mother died at 83 with her last butts of Marlboro in an ashtray in the sink...she practiced great fire control. She died quietly in her sleep.
And cigarette smoking didn't kill her.
I understand many people don't want cigarette smoking around them...NO problem. But these are the same people that have bought into the PERFECT safe world...
No eating at McDOnalds.
No shopping at Walmart.
Eat only healthy food.
Then, if you aren't working at starbucks, and have a good job...watch a jet fly into your window.
They all think they will live forever living a HEALTHY lifestyle.
BS..all around
Your odds of living a longer better life are higher if you don't smoke, drink minimally, exercise & eat healthy. That's basically fact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
