Lets face it. This isn't enough. Cigarettes should be banned from the face of the earth. It's dangerous and it smells like crap. And this affects the non-smokers too.

Yeah, then you turn smoking into another vice along with prostitution and drugs, and we end up with more crime, gang violence, organized crime, smuggling, et cetera.

Increase taxes on the junk if you want people to quit. Make the hazard label bigger and blunter (In other countries it just says "SMOKING KILLS", that's about right), but you can't outright ban it.

I could give a *CENSORED* if you're smoking outside, that's fine. As long as it's not up in my face, or clogging up the air in a restaurant where I'm eating, I'm fine. But second hand smoke is a *CENSORED*, and I do have a smoker's cough not because I'm a smoker, but because my dad is. It sucks, a lot.

zeroone506 wrote:

Actually, a question - when you sit next to a smoker, but the smoke blows into an opposite direction, and the people there are so far away that the concentration of the smoke becomes minimal (in case it doesn't flow up to the sky anyway) - what's the buzz? Is it damaging then?

Yes.

And I'm not sure where you live, but in Houston, Indiana, Germany, and Belgium, the wind has this odd habit of changing directions at random times.

Fatmop wrote:

Huslah wrote:

I also half think the whole smoking thing is a cover up for the real culprit of lung cancer.  When you think about it, the air is already very polluted by burned gasoline, home heating oil, coal fired power plants, forest fires, and hundreds of years of industrialization.  I know if I were to put a pack of cigarettes next to a gallon of gasoline, the gallon of gas would be like 20 times (or more) the size.  They both release carcinogens (cancer causing agents) when burned.  I burn like 3 or 4 gallons a day, so do millions of other people.  All that exhaust isn't  going into space.  Could that be an alternative explaination as to why people who don't smoke still get lung cancer?  Nah, I'm sure it's that second hand smoke outside, these new laws will win the battle against lung cancer for sure.

Apparently, someone doesn't trust the findings of well-documented scientific studies.

Oh I certainly do trust scientific study.  It's been scientifically proven that the billions of gallons of oil burned in one form or another over the course of the year releases carcinogens.  That doesn't take into account all of the trash and coal that's incinerated. 

I also believe cancer is caused by the Sun, and by ELFs (extremly low frequency electromagnetic emmisions) and VLFs (very low frequency electromagnetic emmisions).  All kinds of electronic devices put out these cancer causing waves.  People should stop using cell phones, radio, satellite broadcast, florescent lights, computers, monitors, laser printers, televisions, etc around me.  I don't see any bans on those. 

I'd be willing to conduct an experiment with anyone who doesn't believe that automobile emissions are more harmful.  The skeptic can burn two gallons of gasoline in a closed garage, and I'll burn two packs of smokes in an identical closed environment.   The person still alive at the end wins, gasoline gets to go first.

It's also ironic that so many of these patrons with health concerns about smoke are obese.  They're negatively impacting my health by driving up healthcare premiums to address problems caused by obesity.  They should make a law where they put a scale at the door, and have the calipers for a Body Mass Index test at the door of every restraunt.  If people are too obese fine them.  That will solve more health problems than an outdoor smoking ban.

(Also to Marsnova, since the response was along the same lines)

Your laundry list of carcinogens and other health issues that can be found daily is nice.  It is not pertinent to this discussion.  Smoking a cigarette contributes nothing to society, and its smoke is proven dangerous to bystanders.  Therefore, restricting the use of cigarettes in enclosed public areas is a health benefit that comes at relatively little cost to society.  Restricting the use of ELF-emitting devices, cell phones, or gasoline has much larger implications for the way our economy runs, and while I don't disagree that they're dangerous (though I've never seen studies pointing to laser printers as sources of carcinogenic radio frequencies or whatnot), so are cigarettes.  Cigarettes are the most easily restricted dangerous carcinogenic substances among that list, and we would do well to prioritize that restriction.

To Mars: It is scientifically proven that standing near a smoker outdoors, where there's 'wind and stuff' (derka durrrr) causes harm by raising the overall level of carcinogenic material in the air.  Your ability to smoke causes others harm when they are around you, and you don't have the right to force them to move.

Fatmop wrote:

zeroone506 wrote:

Actually, a question - when you sit next to a smoker, but the smoke blows into an opposite direction, and the people there are so far away that the concentration of the smoke becomes minimal (in case it doesn't flow up to the sky anyway) - what's the buzz? Is it damaging then?

Yes.

And I'm not sure where you live, but in Houston, Indiana, Germany, and Belgium, the wind has this odd habit of changing directions at random times.

When the wind changes direction, you see it and can go sit somewhere else. That wasn't the question.

NHS have now brought out a new Pill to stop people from smoking. Good thing right?

Wait theres more, the Pill will be free, another good thing right?

ah heres the catch they will cost the NHS £2 per person they give them to at a time.

In my opinion, that money is not being used right, theres far more important things

NHS have now brought out a new Pill to stop people from smoking. Good thing right?

Wait theres more, the Pill will be free, another good thing right?

ah heres the catch they will cost the NHS £2 per person they give them to at a time.

In my opinion, that money is not being used right, theres far more important things

deviljonny wrote:

NHS have now brought out a new Pill to stop people from smoking. Good thing right?

Wait theres more, the Pill will be free, another good thing right?

ah heres the catch they will cost the NHS £2 per person they give them to at a time.

In my opinion, that money is not being used right, theres far more important things

Smoking in my opinion is drug, its addictive and provides a sort of "Buzz" for the user that can help them calm down or relax in a situation. Spending £2 per person do help a person fight an addiction against a drug is not money being wasted in my opinion.

supersdcurge wrote:

deviljonny wrote:

NHS have now brought out a new Pill to stop people from smoking. Good thing right?

Wait theres more, the Pill will be free, another good thing right?

ah heres the catch they will cost the NHS £2 per person they give them to at a time.

In my opinion, that money is not being used right, theres far more important things

Smoking in my opinion is drug, its addictive and provides a sort of "Buzz" for the user that can help them calm down or relax in a situation. Spending £2 per person do help a person fight an addiction against a drug is not money being wasted in my opinion.

Yet theres people who have problems that they didnt ask for, either born with it or happened during life, yet smokers had the choice to smoke in the first place

Huslah wrote:

Fatmop wrote:

Huslah wrote:

I also half think the whole smoking thing is a cover up for the real culprit of lung cancer.  When you think about it, the air is already very polluted by burned gasoline, home heating oil, coal fired power plants, forest fires, and hundreds of years of industrialization.  I know if I were to put a pack of cigarettes next to a gallon of gasoline, the gallon of gas would be like 20 times (or more) the size.  They both release carcinogens (cancer causing agents) when burned.  I burn like 3 or 4 gallons a day, so do millions of other people.  All that exhaust isn't  going into space.  Could that be an alternative explaination as to why people who don't smoke still get lung cancer?  Nah, I'm sure it's that second hand smoke outside, these new laws will win the battle against lung cancer for sure.

Apparently, someone doesn't trust the findings of well-documented scientific studies.

Oh I certainly do trust scientific study.  It's been scientifically proven that the billions of gallons of oil burned in one form or another over the course of the year releases carcinogens.  That doesn't take into account all of the trash and coal that's incinerated. 

I also believe cancer is caused by the Sun, and by ELFs (extremly low frequency electromagnetic emmisions) and VLFs (very low frequency electromagnetic emmisions).  All kinds of electronic devices put out these cancer causing waves.  People should stop using cell phones, radio, satellite broadcast, florescent lights, computers, monitors, laser printers, televisions, etc around me.  I don't see any bans on those. 

I'd be willing to conduct an experiment with anyone who doesn't believe that automobile emissions are more harmful.  The skeptic can burn two gallons of gasoline in a closed garage, and I'll burn two packs of smokes in an identical closed environment.   The person still alive at the end wins, gasoline gets to go first.

It's also ironic that so many of these patrons with health concerns about smoke are obese.  They're negatively impacting my health by driving up healthcare premiums to address problems caused by obesity.  They should make a law where they put a scale at the door, and have the calipers for a Body Mass Index test at the door of every restraunt.  If people are too obese fine them.  That will solve more health problems than an outdoor smoking ban.

(Also to Marsnova, since the response was along the same lines)

Your laundry list of carcinogens and other health issues that can be found daily is nice.  It is not pertinent to this discussion.  Smoking a cigarette contributes nothing to society, and its smoke is proven dangerous to bystanders.  Therefore, restricting the use of cigarettes in enclosed public areas is a health benefit that comes at relatively little cost to society.  Restricting the use of ELF-emitting devices, cell phones, or gasoline has much larger implications for the way our economy runs, and while I don't disagree that they're dangerous (though I've never seen studies pointing to laser printers as sources of carcinogenic radio frequencies or whatnot), so are cigarettes.  Cigarettes are the most easily restricted dangerous carcinogenic substances among that list, and we would do well to prioritize that restriction.

To Mars: It is scientifically proven that standing near a smoker outdoors, where there's 'wind and stuff' (derka durrrr) causes harm by raising the overall level of carcinogenic material in the air.  Your ability to smoke causes others harm when they are around you, and you don't have the right to force them to move.

The way I see it is, the right to smoke in public ends when the public's right to clean air begins. 

Bull.

It's respect.

Florida has had smoking banned from in-door establishments whos businesses deal in 30% food or more for around three or four years now. That's fine. You can still smoke if it's an open-area environment (read: outside), which means the smoke disperses better. You may smell it and you may even breathe in some of it, but it's not life-threatening. I really hate how smokers are treated as though they have some sort of wretched addiction that must be kicked or they looked upon as inferior. It's the same condescending tone you get from overly-religious people speaking their mind about how LOST or CONFUSED you are because you're "not saved." Alcoholics have a disease, but smokers have an addiction = LOL.

But in public, I have the right to smoke a cigarette. If you think I don't have the right to smoke a cigarette OUTSIDE (or within an outdoor environment), then I regretfully inform you that you have the right to shut the eff up. I am not going to actively look for you to breathe smoke in your face, just as you shouldn't actively seek to keep me from smoking a cigarette OUTSIDE. Chances are you're breathing in more garbage that you can't see that is harmful to you than the plume of smoke emitting from me that you can see. Your right to clean air stopped a long time ago when industrialization began, which was long before you were born. We pump so much garbage into the air that you breathe constantly and you're worried about a few breaths taking in some of my cigarette smoke?

You car emits more noxious fumes than my cigarette does, and that's something that you pump into the air frequently when, for example, you drive your *CENSORED* four blocks up the road so you can purchase a diet soda and a candybar. BTW, artificial sugars like asparthame, found within diet soda, is worse for you than drinking a regular soda. You're consuming something as artificial as the Matrix itself. Yet people have it marketed to them and as such they believe that it's better for them than the regular stuff. TBH, anything outside of moderation is bad for you...

A little smoke is not going to kill you.

Smokers should not have rights.

Second-hand smoking kills, too. I have rights to a healthy life, and these idiots are ruining my chances.

That being said, I hope you:

- Don't drive a car.
- Don't eat meat or non-organic fruits/vegetables.
- Don't consume artificial sugar.
- Exercise daily (or weekly, at the very least).
- Sleep 8 hours a night.

Reasons:

- Cars pollute the air you breathe.
- Domestic cattle (in the US) are raised on steroids; meat is not digested properly by the human body.
- Fruits and vegetables grown via pesticides can cause allergic reactions and longterm health conditions such as cancer (in certain studies).
- Artificial sugar is just plain substituting a natural sweetener with synthetic compounds (of which the longterm affects aren't certain).
- You do know the benefits of exercise, right?
- The human body can operate off of 4 hours of sleep, but that is the MINIMUM. Operate and function properly are not the same thing.