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.
First things first. I have no objection to people smoking outside.
Second, its not logical to expect a non-smoker to put out a cigarette they are not smoking.
But if I was in the area first, let's say a park bench for example, and you as a non-smoker come by and expect me to put out my cigarette, how is that fair? I was there first.
The vast majority of the argument for smoking bans in America basically boils down to "I don't like it and it should be banned" and that is the actual argument in many countries.
You see, Americans are supposed to believe in "freedom" (at least in theory) and it is generally considered bad form (especially among liberals) to support outlawing or heavily regulating something if it doesn't harm other people. The way around this is to claim that an activity is harming another person. Why do you think that with fewer people smoking and with smoking bans becoming more prevalent that anti-smoking groups come up with more and more sensational claims?
A little bit off topic, but isn't it kinda funny how if you switch "marijuana" with "tobacco" that liberals and conservatives sound almost exactly the same?
Except smoking isn't banned. You can still smoke to your heart's content, just not indoors at businesses. So really the smoker's argument comes down to "I don't want to have to move my ass and go outside for a few minutes when I want a smoke."
And the freedom argument is b.s. Every municipality has zoning laws, ordinances, liquor license processes, etc. but you rarely see anyone arguing about those infringements on freedom. If I buy the house next door to you I can't turn it into a strip club, right? If I buy the building next to a school or church, I can't turn it into a bar, right? If I buy the Empire State Building, I can't tear it down and build a Walmart, right? It's just part of living in a society...and the Federal Government has not been involved, so this is a State's rights issue. Don't like it? Move to Oklahoma.
But if I was in the area first, let's say a park bench for example, and you as a non-smoker come by and expect me to put out my cigarette, how is that fair? I was there first.
Read my last post. If you are sitting on a park bench, for example, I do not expect you to put out your cigarette.
The 'freedom' argument cuts both ways. Freedom to smoke but also freedom not to have to smell or breathe someone else's smoke. The problem with the current discussion is that nobody is prepared to give any ground either way. That is why there is a ban. Because in the absence of a reasonable compromise it is the only thing that works.
"Freedom from that which offends me" is a common refuge of a bigot. People who hate homosexuals demand freedom from same sex marriage or public displays of affection between gay couples. The xenophobic demand the freedom from being exposed to different languages and cultures. Anti-pornography activists also demand freedom from viewing stores that sell pornography and pornography on the internet. Racists used to demand the freedom from not having to sit next to someone of a different race.
I have been wrong all this time! I used to think that a "free society" meant that you were free to do things that might offend other people. Your Orwellian interpretation of freedom intrigues me. It reminds me of a comment said by a young Nazi (who were the first to institute modern smoking bans BTW), "We wish to be free of freedom".
There was a reasonable compromise: Smoking and Non-Smoking Sections. Now anti-smoking movement is going after smoking in private residences and anti-smoking activists are lobbying to have references to smoking removed from old television shows, movies, and songs. I guess that is the anti-smoking movements next claim: References to smoking kills non-smokers.
The 'freedom' argument cuts both ways. Freedom to smoke but also freedom not to have to smell or breathe someone else's smoke. The problem with the current discussion is that nobody is prepared to give any ground either way. That is why there is a ban. Because in the absence of a reasonable compromise it is the only thing that works.
That freedom is retained.
In a public space, it means you remove yourself from those that may offend you.
In private space, it means you avoid such establishments that allow it.
Everyone's freedom is then respected.
What you seem to be implying is that people have the freedom to never encounter such to where they would have to make that choice and the only way to establish such is to infringe on the freedom of others by telling them what they can and can't do.
We do not have the freedom to expect that we will never encounter things that offend us. If this were the case, then the natural progression of public space would be to ban everyone from entering it as there is always something that another finds offending of another.
Except smoking isn't banned. You can still smoke to your heart's content, just not indoors at businesses. So really the smoker's argument comes down to "I don't want to have to move my ass and go outside for a few minutes when I want a smoke."
No. It's a property rights issue. Not every friend I have smokes and I don't smoke in their home or car if they do not allow it. This might even shock you, but I don't even smoke in my own house. If I wake up late at night and decide to have a cigarette I just go outside.
And the fact of the matter is that they not stop at "indoors at businesses". They have moved onto apartment blocks, private clubs, nursing homes, and even owner-occupied single family homes.
And the freedom argument is b.s. Every municipality has zoning laws, ordinances, liquor license processes, etc. but you rarely see anyone arguing about those infringements on freedom. If I buy the house next door to you I can't turn it into a strip club, right? If I buy the building next to a school or church, I can't turn it into a bar, right? If I buy the Empire State Building, I can't tear it down and build a Walmart, right? It's just part of living in a society...and the Federal Government has not been involved, so this is a State's rights issue. Don't like it? Move to Oklahoma.
Pretty much everything you said I disagree with. Well, not factually, but from the point of view that a lot of zoning regulations are unneeded and stupid.
And the fact of the matter is that the anti-smoking movement actively lobbies around the country to enact smoking bans. Look up James Repace, Stanton Glantz, and John Banzhaf (to name three). Even if you state or city doesn't have a smoking ban, they eventually come and try to force it by whatever means possible. Via legislation, vote, or litigation. Anti-smoking activists have made it clear that getting their way is the most important and whatever means they get it legitimizes it.
My text is in bold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001
Read my last post. If you are sitting on a park bench, for example, I do not expect you to put out your cigarette.
At least we can agree on that.
I know I can be aggressive on this issue, but I am not inconsiderate in person. If I am smoking outside, I try to avoid non-smokers (or people who might be non-smokers) by either walking around or going to a non-populated area and I avoid littering even if it means having to cross the street to throw away the butt.
While I do not think that I would be violating the right of a non-smoker who might walk by; there is no reason to be a dick. The funny thing is that some anti-smokers have tried to use my behavior as evidence that smoking is some type of deviant and anti-social act. I have had several exchanges that are virtually identical to this (and several posters on this thread can back me up):
Anti-Smoker: "Oh, so you DO try to avoid poisoning non-addicts with your noxious pollution?! So you KNOW that smoker filth fumes KILL people?!"
Me: "No, it doesn't. I just know it bothers some non-smokers, so I avoid smoking in areas where it is difficult to avoid. Just like I don't play my music at the highest volume possible."
Anti-Smoker: "You just admitted that it is an inconsiderate, obnoxious behavior that you willingly engage in because you are a degenerate junkie who prostitute his mother (who obviously didn't raise her son right) for a pack of cancer sticks, but try to sooth your drug addled brain's barely existent conscience into justifying your behavior?"
Me: "It's not necessarily inconsiderate. Just like the music example. Music isn't obnoxious, but playing really loud or in inappropriate places is. Smoking is not inherently or even mostly anti-social. There is a time and a place for it. However, YOUR side is the one who is actively trying to make it harder to find an appropriate place. You ban smoking in bars and then complain about people smoking outside the bar. You ban smoking in airport smoking rooms (I guess some non-smoker will somehow accidentally find "
Anti-Smoker: "There is no appropriate place to smoke if you can get that through your nicotine stained skull. You are violating my rights! It's the same if you raped me or held me down to defecate in my mouth or if you gouged my eyes out."
Me: "Rape? Defecating in your mouth? Gouging out your eyes? Okay, I now know I am talking to a f--king moron. If you honestly believe that someone smoking around you is the physical or moral equivalent to any of those actions you are delusional and quite possibly mentally ill. If you are using hyperbole than anything you saw can be called into question because you are exaggerating to the point where what you are talking about bares little resemble to the real world. Whatever. I'm done. I have better things to do than waste my time arguing with some annoying self-righteous twit."
Anti-Smoker: "Moron? Mentally ill? Self-righteous twit? I'm just trying to have a debate here and you're bringing insults into it, but I guess that what happens when you try to reason with one of the dregs of society."
It is not though and if you are willing to accept what they claim is proven, then I can make anything and everything "proven" harmful. The problem with their "proven" is that it is nothing more than poor application of statistical evaluation.
You know the saying about the three types of lies? "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics".
Forum Monitor: This text may be reproduced freely. Please credit the National Cancer Institute as the source. Any graphics may be owned by the artist or publisher who created them, and permission may be needed for their reuse.
Quote:
Does secondhand smoke contain harmful chemicals?
Yes. Among the more than 7,000 chemicals that have been identified in secondhand tobacco smoke, at least 250 are known to be harmful, for example, hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, and ammonia.
At least 69 of the toxic chemicals in secondhand tobacco smoke cause cancer (1, 5, 6). These include the following:
Many factors affect which chemicals are found in secondhand smoke, such as the type of tobacco, the chemicals added to the tobacco, the way the tobacco product is smoked, and, for cigarettes and cigars, the material in which the tobacco is wrapped (1, 3, 4)
Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?
Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have all classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (a cancer-causing agent) (1, 3, 5, 7).
Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (4, 5). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). The U.S. Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent (4).
Some research also suggests that secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults and the risk of leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors in children (4). Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers.
I don't miss it a bit. I wish they would ban smoking permanently or at least fine those idiots who drop their cigarettes on the ground especially at corners and stoplights.
I know I can be aggressive on this issue, but I am not inconsiderate in person. If I am smoking outside, I try to avoid non-smokers (or people who might be non-smokers) by either walking around or going to a non-populated area and I avoid littering even if it means having to cross the street to throw away the butt.
While I do not think that I would be violating the right of a non-smoker who might walk by; there is no reason to be a dick. The funny thing is that some anti-smokers have tried to use my behavior as evidence that smoking is some type of deviant and anti-social act. I have had several exchanges that are virtually identical to this (and several posters on this thread can back me up):
Anti-Smoker: "Oh, so you DO try to avoid poisoning non-addicts with your noxious pollution?! So you KNOW that smoker filth fumes KILL people?!"
Me: "No, it doesn't. I just know it bothers some non-smokers, so I avoid smoking in areas where it is difficult to avoid. Just like I don't play my music at the highest volume possible."
Anti-Smoker: "You just admitted that it is an inconsiderate, obnoxious behavior that you willingly engage in because you are a degenerate junkie who prostitute his mother (who obviously didn't raise her son right) for a pack of cancer sticks, but try to sooth your drug addled brain's barely existent conscience into justifying your behavior?"
Me: "It's not necessarily inconsiderate. Just like the music example. Music isn't obnoxious, but playing really loud or in inappropriate places is. Smoking is not inherently or even mostly anti-social. There is a time and a place for it. However, YOUR side is the one who is actively trying to make it harder to find an appropriate place. You ban smoking in bars and then complain about people smoking outside the bar. You ban smoking in airport smoking rooms (I guess some non-smoker will somehow accidentally find "
Anti-Smoker: "There is no appropriate place to smoke if you can get that through your nicotine stained skull. You are violating my rights! It's the same if you raped me or held me down to defecate in my mouth or if you gouged my eyes out."
Me: "Rape? Defecating in your mouth? Gouging out your eyes? Okay, I now know I am talking to a f--king moron. If you honestly believe that someone smoking around you is the physical or moral equivalent to any of those actions you are delusional and quite possibly mentally ill. If you are using hyperbole than anything you saw can be called into question because you are exaggerating to the point where what you are talking about bares little resemble to the real world. Whatever. I'm done. I have better things to do than waste my time arguing with some annoying self-righteous twit."
Anti-Smoker: "Moron? Mentally ill? Self-righteous twit? I'm just trying to have a debate here and you're bringing insults into it, but I guess that what happens when you try to reason with one of the dregs of society."
See the bolded. At that point I would have ended the conversation with a f*** you! Maybe even a fist, considering they threw a back handed insult at me about my mother. But yeah, they're out there. I remember going to the first Browns game upon their return to Cleveland, and sitting in the new Dawg Pound. If you know anything about the reputation of the old Dawg Pound it wasn't for the faint hearted. At any rate, the new open air stadium built on the backs of taxing smokers and drinkers BTW did have designated smoking areas. I digress. Well someone lit up a cigarette in the stands, and this guy stands up and starts yelling at him "HEY put out your cigarette!" Well, the guy wasn't too happy about it and ignored him, so he called an usher, and was pointing at him like a little kid on the playground tattling on someone. My thoughts were, you know, the smoker broke the rules, but I also live by the old saying "snitches get stitches!" In other words, I tend to mind my business over something trivial like that.
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.
At any rate, the new open air stadium built on the backs of taxing smokers and drinkers BTW did have designated smoking areas. I digress. Well someone lit up a cigarette in the stands, and this guy stands up and starts yelling at him "HEY put out your cigarette!" Well, the guy wasn't too happy about it and ignored him, so he called an usher, and was pointing at him like a little kid on the playground tattling on someone. My thoughts were, you know, the smoker broke the rules, but I also live by the old saying "snitches get stitches!" In other words, I tend to mind my business over something trivial like that.