Jump to content

Smoking Ban


Dallasaurora
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

hooka bars should just be burned to the ground and everyone chased out unless they have papers to prove whythere in this country.

 

depending on the area some places can't be smoked in, and in general you can't smoke in malls or offices.

 

I don't mind smoke really, is it bad, yes, but it doesn't warp the mind, it greatly offends me people parade around mocking law of society and are not skinned aline on the spot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BHR, sadly, I agree with. People get offended by smoke(rs), yet they fail to realize that smokers generally only harm themselves. And these same people go home every night and have a few drinks. Smoking may shorten my life (statistically speaking), but, it won't ruin it. Look at any drinker and their lives are a complete waste. Smokers can drive after smoking, pay their bills, go to work, and not destroy their family life. Of the three major vices, it's the least destructive one (smoking, drinking, drugs).

 

While on the topic, people need to realize that smoking doesn't guarantee cancer or other diseases: increases the probability of getting them, yes, but not guarantee them. I think a lot of people don't realize that. I would guess that at least 95% of non-smokers that get lung cancer say "but I've never smoked in my life" the second they find out about their illness. Too many people have allowed themselves to be shaped by the media.

 

Furthermore, why hasn't alohocl been banned anywhere, aside from the middle east? I'm not sure on the stats exactly, but I would venture that alohocl harms/kills more people (uninvolved parties) than tobacco. If tobacco products are banned, and drugs are almost universally banned, why isn't alohocl on the list? I know the all or none theory is a philosophical fallacy, but I feel it fully applies here. I know there will be some that feel it encroaches on their (antiquitated) constitutional rights, but they wouldn't be so vocal if it were their child that was killed by a drunk driver. Yes, Renboy's Canada would be a very different Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alas your response is seriously flawed as you have used several arguments indiscriminately:

 

Smokers don't generally harm themselves, they harm others too. If someone lights up a cigarette in the presence of other people, then some will suffer from the effects of passive smoking and the fumes produced etc. However if someone knocks back a glass of vodka or whatever or takes some illegal substance, ultimately all they do is harm themselves.

 

The problem is that because *This reference banned by MW* and drugs are more prone to abuse/excess, the resultant effects are usually more devasting i.e. drunk driving, delusion, domestic violence, crime, dependance etc, etc. Smoking is not the least destructive of the three...just the least abused and hence the least culpable of serious harm in those situations.

 

People do realise that smoking doesn't guarantee cancer but at the same time they also acknowledge the fact that it does affect health either directly or indirectly. Which is why it is being banned in public places. However, *This reference banned by MW* is only destructive to OTHERS when used excessively which is why we are NOT allowed to drive once we have consumed a certain amount. It is only when this is abused that the effects of drink driving that you speak of manifest themselves. The fact of the matter is that when used in moderation as all vices should be, smoking is the only one that has a secondary effect which is why it is banned in public places.

 

Drinking and even the use of drugs when used 'responsibly' will not have the same secondary effect. So while it is perfectly fine to have a pint of *Reference banned from MW* or glass of whatever and not bother anybody, it is only until someone has abused this and drunk to excess that the young child ends up killed by some drunk driver. Thus the issues are not the same.

 

To use your argument Ren, you are saying that we should ban sex because of all the crimes, diseases, murders, unwanted pregnancies etc. that are caused because of it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To those who have asthma, smoke is harmful.

 

It takes my breath away and I cannot breathe or it causes an attack.

 

The severity of an attack can send an asthmatic person to the ER for a breathing treatment and or an overnight stay in the hospital.

 

I happen to be partial to breathing...:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dallas, I wasn't clear, what I meant was that smokers don't start fights over cigarettes, and don't rob people to support their habit. Long term effects of second hand smoke are irrefutable, that's not what I was trying to address. Take England for example (since you're a Brit). Iirc they recently changed the law so that bars could close when they wanted to rather than a set 'last call' time. The reason for this was that there were huge problems in the streets because all the dumb/violent drunks would leave the bars at the same time and cause problems (fighting and other bullshit). I have yet to see a fight in a smoking 'pit' for no obvious reason. And junkies are in a league of their own. Have you ever seen/heard a smoker break into someones house, steal their shit, and sell it to buy smokes?

 

I agree with Troy, ban it all. If you like the taste of *Reference banned from MW*, why not buy *This reference banned by MW* free *Reference banned from MW*?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...