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.
Why is it always cigarettes? I Just feel sorry for the pipe lovers. Smokers and the tobacco industry are so ridiculously demonized these days, and they are left stranded.
.
Awwww poor tobacco industry! Poor intellectual pipe smokers discussing socrates with the undergrads!
Why is it always cigarettes? I Just feel sorry for the pipe lovers. Smokers and the tobacco industry are so ridiculously demonized these days, and they are left stranded.
Classy intellectual guys who just like to go out and puff their pipes, clear their minds, ponder the universe. Now all their favorite private tobacconist shops are going out of business and it seems like soon they will be forced to smoke in their basements. I understand public buildings, but parks? Streets? C'mon on. I don't even smoke pipes but I have friends who do and it sucks to see them get lumped in with the cigarette smokers.
But what's the difference, aside from one being wrapped in papers and a filter vs. loose tobacco sitting in a pipe? They both give off smoke.
I actually don't agree with outlawing smoking in public streets, parks, etc. I just don't see the risk being high enough. Motor vehicle exhaust is far more of an issue IMO (where's the outrage there?). Any time you empower the government to go on a witch hunt, you endanger other organizations, industries, and individuals of being accused of being a witch.
But what's the difference, aside from one being wrapped in papers and a filter vs. loose tobacco sitting in a pipe? They both give off smoke.
I actually don't agree with outlawing smoking in public streets, parks, etc. I just don't see the risk being high enough. Motor vehicle exhaust is far more of an issue IMO (where's the outrage there?). Any time you empower the government to go on a witch hunt, you endanger other organizations, industries, and individuals of being accused of being a witch.
your argument is missing the point. Perhaps it is indeed worse for your health to be smelling car exhaust. But prohibiting that would be more difficult than prohibiting cigarettes. It would be great if there was a law against people idling their car when they could easily turn it off, but not for when people are caught in traffic. People need to transport themselves and good public transportation isn't available everywhere. But prohibiting people from smoking in public, an act that is completely unnecessary and a detriment to not only the financial and bodily health of the one puffing away but others surrounding, makes a whole lot more sense.
You're saying just because one thing is bad for you what's the point of eliminating a different, unrelated bad thing (that would be easier and more sensical to eliminate)? Sounds like a fallacy.
your argument is missing the point. Perhaps it is indeed worse for your health to be smelling car exhaust. But prohibiting that would be more difficult than prohibiting cigarettes. It would be great if there was a law against people idling their car when they could easily turn it off, but not for when people are caught in traffic. People need to transport themselves and good public transportation isn't available everywhere. But prohibiting people from smoking in public, an act that is completely unnecessary and a detriment to not only the financial and bodily health of the one puffing away but others surrounding, makes a whole lot more sense.
You're saying just because one thing is bad for you what's the point of eliminating a different, unrelated bad thing (that would be easier and more sensical to eliminate)? Sounds like a fallacy.
I personally just think our government has no business making these kinds of rules, and I consider myself to be fairly liberal and pro-government. I'm all for banning smoking in restaurants, places of work, etc. where people would have no choice but to be subjected to second hand smoke, particularly indoors where they can breath it and be affected by it. But on a city street? Seems like an overreach (like the cup size ban in NYC).
I think you are blowing the health effects out of proportion - I'd love to see some studies that show second hand smoke from passers-by has noticeable negative health consequences.
Me and my husband say smoking should be banned all the time. There are other ways for people to get their nicotine. Why cant they use those electronic cigarettes? Everyone in our apartment building smokes, and they might as well be in our apartment doing it with how much smoke gets inside. It effects our health and the health of our daughter.
your argument is missing the point. Perhaps it is indeed worse for your health to be smelling car exhaust. But prohibiting that would be more difficult than prohibiting cigarettes. It would be great if there was a law against people idling their car when they could easily turn it off, but not for when people are caught in traffic. People need to transport themselves and good public transportation isn't available everywhere. But prohibiting people from smoking in public, an act that is completely unnecessary and a detriment to not only the financial and bodily health of the one puffing away but others surrounding, makes a whole lot more sense.
You're saying just because one thing is bad for you what's the point of eliminating a different, unrelated bad thing (that would be easier and more sensical to eliminate)? Sounds like a fallacy.
How is it missing the point? The point is that if it can be proved that it's really affecting others' health, then it can be accepted that it's infringing on someone else's right to breathe fresh air. As someone who walks and bikes most places, I hardly ever have issues with outdoor smokers, even near bars. Once you determine that smoking outdoor proves to be a real threat to others, then let's talk.
Also, I'm not sure how you plan to manage what's necessary and what's not. Who should determine what's necessary? Is it necessary for me to breathe your car's exhaust so you can drive to the store and buy cigarettes? How about milk? Work? Once you start to make these subjective determinations without good cause, you risk too much governmental control which will inevitably micromanage your life. Is say "no thanks".
I personally just think our government has no business making these kinds of rules, and I consider myself to be fairly liberal and pro-government. I'm all for banning smoking in restaurants, places of work, etc. where people would have no choice but to be subjected to second hand smoke, particularly indoors where they can breath it and be affected by it. But on a city street? Seems like an overreach (like the cup size ban in NYC).
I think you are blowing the health effects out of proportion - I'd love to see some studies that show second hand smoke from passers-by has noticeable negative health consequences.
Exactly. IMO, people are too quick to look to the government for "safety". If someone's smoking outside and you don't like it, walk the **** around it. People in this thread keep mentioning smoke being blown in people's faces. Is that really happening that much? I would guess that it's not.
Exactly. IMO, people are too quick to look to the government for "safety". If someone's smoking outside and you don't like it, walk the **** around it. People in this thread keep mentioning smoke being blown in people's faces. Is that really happening that much? I would guess that it's not.
Exactly and well said. My feeling is this, instead of banning cigarette smoking. Ban the sale of cigarettes completely. But this will not happen because it is taking Tax Money away from the Government.
what about folks passing gas? I'd rather be standing behind a smoker than that. Plus gas is just an areosol version of 'you know what,' so it carries germs. There's good reason for the body's instinctive reaction to avoid such air.
It could be controlled by controlling people's diet. It could be solved, via measures along the lines of what Mayor Bloomberg's efforts. People scoff but it just seems like a logical continuation if you're going to keep harrassing and haranguing the smokers.
what about folks passing gas? I'd rather be standing behind a smoker than that. Plus gas is just an areosol version of 'you know what,' so it carries germs. There's good reason for the body's instinctive reaction to avoid such air.
It could be controlled by controlling people's diet. It could be solved, via measures along the lines of what Mayor Bloomberg's efforts. People scoff but it just seems like a logical continuation if you're going to keep harrassing and haranguing the smokers.
What an insipid analogy.
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.
