Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Quote

Construction can occur without asbestos. You lose some fire resistance, but I'm living in a home built without asbestos so it looks like it's possible to make a building without it. Therefore Asbestos is not an integral part of a construction project.

But by that logic, smoking is not an integral part of a bar. The purpose of a bar is to drink. All other things, such as smoking, darts, pool, ect, are just peripherals.

Quote

I'm saying that in an establishment that sells itself as a place where you can go to smoke, smoking is an integral part of said establishment.

I've never seen a bar use smoking as it's main draw to customers. I've never seen it used as a draw, period. Now wet t-shirt contests are a different matter entirely....




--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Quote (The Ancient @ 22nd November 2006 16:11)

I'm saying that in an establishment that sells itself as a place where you can go to smoke, smoking is an integral part of said establishment.

Did I lose you? Continuing on....

Construction can occur without asbestos.  You lose some fire resistance, but I'm living in a home built without asbestos so it looks like it's possible to make a building without it.  Therefore Asbestos is not an integral part of a construction project.

*woosh*

Again the point blows by you. Are you purposely mis-representing the argument? Not once did I object to smoking being integral. It's a red herring that I will not waste time on. Yet you spend an entire post talking about it and telling me I don't understand your point.

Let's try this again:

Explain why smoking 'being integral' overrides the health and safety of workers.

--------------------

Visions of Peace - Four Generals, One Empire, and the Returners caught in the middle.

I think a ban on smoking is a good idea. I think it shoudl be banned completely but the government makes too much money for taxing smokers for them to want to do that even though smokers waste more money than theyre taxed i dont think they should get treated with tax because its their own choice to smokeand we cant choose to not smoke when they do becuase we have to go somehwere else or breathe there smoke.

Smoking is hardly an integral part of a bar. But here in Quebec, it may as well be so. Unlike other countries where it has been a success, it's killing business. And many employees are more concerned with losing their jobs than dealing with second-hand smoke.

This thread brings up an interesting point though: people really view this differently in other countries, and even other regions of the same country. While it may be destroying bars here in Quebec and in our neighbouring provinces (ie, Ontario), it seems to be a really good move in other countries.

Somehow I doubt it really has caused anyone to stop smoking, despite claims in this thread. Frankly, if you ARE a well-established "experienced" smoker, this experience is not going to make you quit. I knowa few people who have quit - it's a terrifyingly difficult thing, and requires a hell of a lot more than just being told you can't smoke in a place you only go to on weekends. An addiction is powerful. I'm not calling anyone a liar, but I very much doubt the validity of certain claims - either some vital part of the story is being left out, or it's just a made-up attempt to argue the point in one's favor. Either way, this law may be a benefit to the lungs of some, but it will not cause a "real" smoker to quit just like that.

I'm curious what causes the widely-varying views and degrees of success to, well, vary so much. Admittedly, Quebec, particularly Montreal, has a much more relaxed crowd when it comes to objectionable behavior (pot is practically legal here - that really tells you something about the kind of attitude we take towards narcotics, doesn't it. ) Perhaps this is why bars are suffering so much from this law here - because it's seen as a much more acceptable behavior. Most, if not all, members of the personel of the bars I hang around never had any problems with this - up until when it started costing them their jobs, that is. Then again, it's not as though we signed for Kyoto - kinda makes you wonder why this is more of a priority for the government...

Anyone willing to bet they'll lay down restrictions on which kinds of cocktails can be served after hours, soon? ("I'm sorry sir, we can't serve you an Old Fashioned - the alcoholic contents are too high and it's too late at night. Would you care for a Shirley Temple instead?")

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

Quote (Silverlance @ 22nd November 2006 22:21)

Somehow I doubt it really has caused anyone to stop smoking, despite claims in this thread. Frankly, if you ARE a well-established "experienced" smoker, this experience is not going to make you quit.

That's probably true. But a smoker is still a smoker. Even though I only smoked 10 or 20 a weekend, it still did damage. So it did cause me to stop smoking.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (Hamedo @ 22nd November 2006 15:30)

I've never seen a bar use smoking as it's main draw to customers.

As I've said in previous posts...I'm not talking about just any bar, if I support a general ban with the allowance to obtain a license to allow smoking then once a place obtains a license it becomes a place where being able to smoke is a draw.

Quote

Explain why smoking 'being integral' overrides the health and safety of workers.

Because, in the scenario I described and have been describing, being around smoke is part of your job. You can't make the statement that noone can be an animal trainer because people can be mauled by animals. You can do things to alleviate the possiblity of that happening...which I fully support.

People have the right to smoke. And they have the right to gather together and do so. And a business should have the right to cater to customers who have that desire. And a business which caters to customers who smoke, should have the right to employ people who are willing to work around smoke.

When dealing in the realm of civil liberties, most issues are not black and white. That's why it's important to actually listen to an opposing opinion.

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

Quote (The Ancient @ 22nd November 2006 19:47)

Quote

Explain why smoking 'being integral' overrides the health and safety of workers.

Because, in the scenario I described and have been describing, being around smoke is part of your job. You can't make the statement that noone can be an animal trainer because people can be mauled by animals. You can do things to alleviate the possiblity of that happening...which I fully support.

'Alleviate'? Such a soft word. Since we're getting somewhere, let me ask you this:

Should a business owner take absolutely every precaution in order to guarantee the health and safety of his/her employees?

Quote (The Ancient @ 22nd November 2006 19:47)

People have the right to smoke.  And they have the right to gather together and do so.  And a business should have the right to cater to customers who have that desire.  And  a business which caters to customers who smoke, should have the right to employ people who are willing to work around smoke.

So long as the workers' health and safety concerns are regulated by the government, which is the case in Canada, then your statements are factually correct.

Quote (The Ancient @ 22nd November 2006 19:47)

When dealing in the realm of civil liberties, most issues are not black and white. That's why it's important to actually listen to an opposing opinion.

Where do you get the nerve to hypocritically lecture me on this? I've been asking you questions the entire time and as you stated, was deadset [sic] in debating with you. You were the one who was reluctant to respond:

Quote (The Ancient @ 22nd November 2006 16:11)

I'm only responding because you are so deadset to argue against me directly but here you go since you missed the connection:

--------------------

Visions of Peace - Four Generals, One Empire, and the Returners caught in the middle.

Quote

Anyone willing to bet they'll lay down restrictions on which kinds of cocktails can be served after hours, soon? ("I'm sorry sir, we can't serve you an Old Fashioned - the alcoholic contents are too high and it's too late at night. Would you care for a Shirley Temple instead?")

I doubt that's ever happen in America, the government learned it's lesson with prohibition.
WASPs need alchohal now all joking aside, I'd be very pissed off if that ever did happen, and it surprised me that it did once happen.

On to the topic of smoking in bars. as much as I like to promote people's rights and freedoms, I hate smoking, all forms of it. I've lost numerous relatives to lung cancer and all i can say is good riddance. Any bar that has lost business will eventually gain it back.

.

--------------------

"Have you ever seen a baby do that before?"

As a smoker, allow me to say that the trampling of my rights by the holier than thou arts of the world has been nothing short of infuriating. Being a smoker gets more and more difficult everyday, and if anything it's encouraging me to smoke MORE from the stress it causes.

Allow me to also say that I just got in to New Jersey, and on the way we stopped to eat in PA. This allowed me the opportunity to smoke in a restaurant and I daresay it may have been one of the best dining experiences of my life. Note that the people who didn't want to smoke were perfectly fine with sitting over on the otherside of the restaurant which was ventilated in such a way that the atmosphere wasn't smokey.


I believe this was why there was a smoking and non-smoking section. To keep you chaps out of our tar-filled clouds.


I'd also like to say that as somebody who knows alot of people who work in restaurants, and as somebody who DID work in a restaurant, most of the workers in the food industry are smokers.

As to bars- Come on. The stats speak for themselves. It's total bullshit.


Get out of my business BigBrother. Don't legislate what should be a choice by owners.

I think I'm gonna go have a cigarette.

And by-the-way: Anybody who thinks banning the practice completely is a good idea can take their opinion and cram it. Nobody is making you smoke, so don't lecture me on it, because I REALLY don't want to hear it. I recently wrote those bastards over at "thetruth.com" a very strongly worded Email due to their helping in the banning of Camel Exotic blends. It's friggin ridiculous.

Edit: To Address why it overcomes the health and safety of workers, how about this: Nobody is making them work in a bar. It's a risk that comes with the job, like being shot when you're a cop, or being arrested when you deal drugs.

This post has been edited by MogMaster on 23rd November 2006 03:24

--------------------

If you've been mod-o-fied,
It's an illusion, and you're in-between.
Don't you be tarot-fied,
It's just alot of nothing, so what can it mean?
~Frank Zappa

Sins exist only for people who are on the Way or approaching the Way

Smoking being banned outright is a concept that I can both support on moral grounds, and oppose on practical grounds and the fact it is an intrusion by the government into a place it has no real right to intrude.

On one hand, smoking is a high cause of death and illness in Scotland: Lung cancer, asthma, otherrespiratory illness, other cancers, heart disease, etc... Plus the growing numbers of underage smokers. There's also the poverty aspect of it: People spending £4 or more for a packet of 20, when some people have a 40 a day habit? It adds up. Assume the average person on minimum wage earns about 130 after tax, national insurance, council tax, rent. Then take into account other needs, like food, transport. That £56 you smoked just made a huge hole in your budget. Slap more on for booze, because this is a country where they walk hand in hand. End result is the average person has about £40 to spend on food and clothes and other nessecites, which barely can strech sometimes.

I'd go so far as to say that in Scotland, the number one contributer to the poverty cycle is smoking and alcohol

On the other, really, people can be dumb if they like, and they do pay NI contributions (in theory) and the extra tax on their ciggies, so NHS treatment shouldn't be denied them when they hack their lungs up eventually.

--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.

Quote (Del S @ 21st November 2006 18:47)

I'm all for the smoking ban introduced in Scotland, myself. It's not so much the right to the smoker to ruin their own lungs, its the right to the poor bastards who get thiers ruined from passive smoke I favour. In fact, it's had the opposite effect from your area: Takings are up in many bars and pubs and the legislation has mostly been a success.

It's even spreading to England and Wales next year.

Yeah I live in Scotland and i'm really glad of the smoking ban.

You see I work in a large bar and everyone who goes there smokes;
before the ban I used to come home from work with my eyes stinging and feeling quite sick really.

Now the ban has come in I actually enjoy my job now

At first the trade lost profit and custom but that only lasted for about two months and now buisness is roughly the same as last year. Except now non smokers have a choice of not harming themselves by going out

EDIT: re The Ancient: you cannot blame barstaff for breathing in passive smoking and saying it's part of the job, It is currently quite difficult to find employment in Scotland and bar staff can't just quit their job and not be able to support their families and pay the rent.

It's like blaming coal miners who go blind because of job hazards,
or blaming builder in the past generations who worked with asbestos

you are correct by saying smokers should have a choice whether to smoke or not,
but by smoking indoors in bars they are removing that choice for non-smokers

This post has been edited by john aiton on 27th November 2006 11:45

Experts say that smoking ban in Scotland could "eradicate' lung cancer within 20 years.

Sounds a bit too much to hope for, in my opinion. Other things contribute to lung cancer besides smoking, such as air quality and other factors.

Still, no smoking whatsoever would be a great start.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

I doubt it's going to have the semi-utopian effect they predict, but what it will do, is certainly reduce the numbers a little.

The biggest flaw with a smoking ban is that people aregue their right to smoke money away, and when you start on that road, you ban booze, fatty foods, sugary foods, etc, and it all snowballs into a nightmare scenario where everyone has to eat weetabix all the time, which is generally why I agree the government should only ever act in the public intrest, and in cases where there is a conflict of rights like public smoking, it's public intrest.

The "No one makes them work in a bar" thing too, is kind of bunk. It may very well be that's the only job available to people either by circumstances or for other reasons. I have a job, yes, but when I was in the job centre having a look if there was anything better perhaps, all there was that anyone really looking for a job where I live who probably has rubbish qualifications? Bar staff.

I agree that there should be some leeway, say, smoking rooms with extractor fans should be okay, as well as members-only clubs and such being allowed to put it to members if they should allow smoking or not, but in public areas, I support complete banning of smoking. And come to think of it, I'd also ration booze and cigges rather than an outright ban on them.

--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.

An earlier arguement was the whole "workplace safety" issue brought up, comparing asbestos to cigarettes. The difference is, the dangers of asbestos were discovered and the dangers of cigarettes are known. They have been known for a long time. I read Angela's Ashes, an autobiography that took place during the Great Depression and early part of WWII, and in it were discussions of how cigarettes would be the death of them. Heck, in history class, I heard the King of England tried banning the farming of tobacco in the colonies shortly after it was discovered.
Point is, an asthmatic will know not to look for a job where there will be smoking. They go into the workforce knowing their limitations and the dangers of smoking. The dangers of asbestos weren't discovered until asbestos was already in most buildings.

A smoking ban has been in effect for a while in Florida. I think I may have been in middle school when it happened. All I really remember about it was "Starting June 1st, smoking is banned in any place that makes more than 15% of its profits off of food, and there is NO grace period." Shortly after, the law was extended to all public places except where smoking is part of the atmosphere (bars, etc.)

I don't smoke. I never have. I have alot of smokers in my family, and they all pay for it. I hate cigarettes and everything about them. I think they shouldn't exist. That being said, I do not support a smoking ban. I am going to side with the ideal of rights of the business owner here.

Unless I have it wrong (which is likely, seeing as the law doesn't directly affect me and I haven't heard anything about it in years) I like Florida's position. If the business is designed as a place for smokers, then let them smoke. If not, no smoking. But I also like the idea of issuing a business lisence for smoking. Would be kind of like issuing a liquor lisence.

--------------------

"I had to write four novels before they let me write comic books."
-Brad Meltzer

I can't wait for this law to come out. A complete ban would be fantastic. I'm sure it would be considered if it weren't for the fact that the government make so much money from it.

Maybe we'll get smoking in public competely banned in a few years if we're really lucky.

--------------------

'Let that be a lesson to all oppressive vegetable sellers.'

Quote (fatman @ 30th November 2006 14:15)

I can't wait for this law to come out. A complete ban would be fantastic. I'm sure it would be considered if it weren't for the fact that the government make so much money from it.

Maybe we'll get smoking in public competely banned in a few years if we're really lucky.

Out of curiousity, what is your reasoning behind this? Is it merely a matter of personal preference (ie, you don't like the smell of cigarettes), a feeling it's your business to meddle in others' affairs (admittedly, the negative connotation this one has is intentional), or an other reason?

I for one would really feel concerned by a total ban on smoking. For one thing, the government would be overstepping its boundaries by trying to get people to do what it wants them to do and like/dislike what it wants them to like/dislike.

For another, there's the matter of contraband. People will always continue to smoke. In the days of prohibitions (booze and such) people started bootlegging alcohol. Not only did it remain in circulation, it was, in fact, absolutely aweful stuff (and some would believe, the start of cocktails - mixtures were necessary to be able to choke down the foul swill that people bootlegged.) Imagine the kinds of cigarettes we'd get if the same thing happened with smoking? If anything, smoking being legal is a good thing, because it allows a measure of control over what people end up smoking.

The distinction between controlling what is available to people and what they can/can't do is much larger than meets the eye. Blurring the line would be bad.

(Not that this has anything to do directly with bars - I suppose it's still related in a way.)

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

Quote (Silverlance @ 30th November 2006 14:37)

I for one would really feel concerned by a total ban on smoking. For one thing, the government would be overstepping its boundaries by trying to get people to do what it wants them to do and like/dislike what it wants them to like/dislike.

So I assume that you're in favor of the legalization of other drugs?

I'm with you--a total ban on smoking would be completely inappropriate. Picking on cigarettes as the one great evil to prohibit is just asinine.

--------------------

Veni, vidi, dormivi.

Actually, in an ideal world where people are smart enough to know their limits and their capacities, yes, I would be. But this isn't the case, and because of that people can't make very responsible use of drugs. Or they're simply too uninformed to avoid conscequences.

Admittedly, going from cigarette to cocaine is a major leap. Not sure how that came to be.

I have, at certain times, tried hard drugs. My life isn't any worse for it, they were extremely enjoyable moments, and I never turned into a rampaging dope freak. And while I won't name any, I have done some rather heavy things - definately not something as tame as pot (which, for that matter, is practically legal here. Will it lead to other things being acceptable? Frankly, I hope not.)

Regardless we don't live in an ideal world and people rarely make the right decisions regarding these things. For that reason, I think things are fine the way they are right now.

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

I have to go with fatman, a ban would be a good thing. It's just because cigs and drink are taxable that the government continue with it, and that smoking is a traditional thing to do. The country would be healthier if there was a ban on smoking there's no doubt there; unless the NHS suffered through tax losses...

I suppose a compromise would be if the government sky-rocketed the taxes on cigarettes: this would please the people who don't want the government interfering too much in their lives, the people (like me) who want to see smoking decline, and hopefully the decrease in cigarette/cigar sales would be balanced by the tax hike into a fine equilibrium - and therefore not damage any public services. Sounds good in theory. Still, I'd prefer a complete ban.

This post has been edited by sweetdude on 30th November 2006 22:28

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote

I suppose a compromise would be if the government sky-rocketed the taxes on cigarettes: <snip> Still, I'd prefer a complete ban.

Sorry to interrupt, but that right there... It's not really fair. Y'know, some people smoke because they *gasp* want to, and they probably want to do so in peace. Smokers can't smoke in many public places at all as it is, and I guess that's okay, seeing as it's in the best interest of other people and all, but if they want to smoke in the privacy of their own home or yard, alone, not affecting anyone else, they shouldn't have to pay an arm and a leg to do so.

This post has been edited by Celes of Blades on 30th November 2006 23:28

--------------------

Come with me so I can show you how to live
Burning the candle at both ends
I’m gripping at the walls around me
Don’t complicate it
I’m addicted to this life
I’ll be your token of attention
All my lies come down to this
-Orgy, "Beautiful Disgrace"

The more anti-smoking laws the better. People have had to put up with it long enough. I, for one, have allergic reactions to cigarette smoke and I feel like I can't breathe when I'm around it. I'm also tired of having people all around me die from smoking and maybe these laws will be enough to make people quit.

Edit

As of Dec. 1, here in Nova Scotia smoking is banned in all public places. That includes smoking within a certain distance of public buildings. Looks like the non-smokers are winning as this is the 6th province in Canada to do this.

This post has been edited by King Eddy on 1st December 2006 21:29

--------------------

Why, hello guys! Haven't been around here in a loooong time!
http://dragcave.net/user/LadyTwi
http://www.backloggery.com/ladytwi

I'm an asthmatic, so no smoking in public places is a-okay with me. Private homes? I could care less.

I find that most anti-smoking opinions are based, deep-down, on smoking being viewed as "immoral," not actally because it's unhealthy (though that's what people claim). If we're talking bad for one's health, cars are a whole lot worse for you. You're a lot more likely to die from secondhand driving (= drunk driving) than secondhand smoke, but cars aren't considered deviant.

All this "the country would be healthier if we banned smoking" stuff makes me headsigh. The country would also be healthier if we didn't let people eat McDonalds, binge drink, sit in front of the couch playing video games for hours on end, etc. However, we have the -- GASP -- choice to put bad things in our bodies if we want to, and I for one am glad. Who the heck are you to say that I can't live a non-Lance-Armstrong lifestyle? Stuff it in your ear. Smokers, do as you please, just not around me.

Also, by far, perfume, cologne, and incense have been so much worse for my lungs than smoking has ever been. Let's ban those too.

--------------------

Some ghost of me might greet my son
the day he is delivered.


Eternal Sleep, Track 1-1: The Blue Planet

Quote (L. Cully @ 30th November 2006 18:43)

I find that most anti-smoking opinions are based, deep-down, on smoking being viewed as "immoral," not actally because it's unhealthy (though that's what people claim). If we're talking bad for one's health, cars are a whole lot worse for you. You're a lot more likely to die from secondhand driving (= drunk driving) than secondhand smoke, but cars aren't considered deviant.

Have you considered that cars serve a *slightly* different function than smoking?

--------------------

SPEKKIO: "GRRR...That was most embarrassing!"

Quote (Silverlance)

For another, there's the matter of contraband. People will always continue to smoke. In the days of prohibitions (booze and such) people started bootlegging alcohol

...

pot (which, for that matter, is practically legal here. Will it lead to other things being acceptable? Frankly, I hope not.)

I haven't quoted everything here, but you've touched on a bunch of points I've mentioned in real life.

I don't smoke, and I don't like cigarettes. I'm all for a ban in public places like restaurants, but I think when you go to a bar you go there under the assumption that there will be smokers. You're also going there to drink. You're health at a bar is usually not your primary concern. As for the employees, I also believe they should expect it in that kind of environment. It's like working in skyscraper construction and not being aware that you could fall to your death.

Besides, in NYC, which is about my only experience with this, I think Bloomberg pushed it mostly on health conscious issues. It's one of those rare times...the only time?...I agreed with Ann Coulter because I remember as a smoker she said why should we have to follow the rules set out by our health conscious mayor. And on the issue of speakeasies...I remember hearing of a few "smoker speakeasies" popping up in NY, where they would lower the windowshades, put up a closed sign, and smoke away.

Which brings me to your total ban on smoking/total ban on drugs point. I agree with you there too. And that's mostly what I've been discussing with other people. I don't think hard drugs, which I classify as just about anything other than pot, should be legal. But for the life of me I can't understand how pot, which does not have nearly the same statistical domestic abuse and reckles death causes as alcohol, can still have the stigma it does. I've also heard the "gateway drug" arguments, but to me the gateway is also the result of criminality. Much like prohibition gave rise to organized crime, if pot were regulated the way it is in Holland then you wouldn't have to buy it, as I'm sure is true in most inner city cases, from the same people that can introduce you to harder drugs.

Quote (The_Pink_Nu1 @ 30th November 2006 19:21)

Have you considered that cars serve a *slightly* different function than smoking?

From the amount of deaths they cause, to the amount of taxpayer money they require (building/maintaining roads and bridges, injuries, insurance, etc), to the absurd amount of fuel they guzzle (leading to a complete dependence on foreign oil and multiple wars and general screwd-upedness of the world), any useful purpose cars have would be completely nullified by now -- if, or course, we were using the "cigarettes are detrimental" logic here.

The difference is that, instead of banning them outright, so many people use and need cars on a regular basis that the car itself is adjusted instead. Safety devices are added, laws are created, hybrid engines developed, etc. But cigarettes and smoking, while once almost as popular as cars, have been condemned by a (primarily baby-boomer) backlash which basically equates smoking with Satanism. Almost no one talks about making cigarettes safer anymore -- only an outright ban on the evil things is acceptable for the D.A.R.E., "Just Say No" generation.

As for the argument that cigs don't have any benefits, I think a smoker would argue with you on that. The benefit is that they give pleasure or ease or something to do with one's hands or a social in. I think these "benefits" are stupid, myself, but no stupider than the urge to eat Big Macs, or drink eight shots of liquor, or have casual sex. The point is that the government isn't our mom. I doesn't get to forbid people from doing stuff that may be unhealthy for them. Or at least, it shouldn't be able to.

(Note: this is about smoking in privacy, remember.)

--------------------

Some ghost of me might greet my son
the day he is delivered.


Eternal Sleep, Track 1-1: The Blue Planet

Quote (L. Cully @ 1st December 2006 02:31)

I doesn't get to forbid people from doing stuff that may be unhealthy for them. Or at least, it shouldn't be able to.

Yet hard drugs are illegal... I see what you're saying but there is no use for cigarettes - other than the tax on them. Cars are an integral part of our society and are too valuable to lose. What you're saying about "making cigarettes safer"... the only way to make cigarettes safer is if people stopped smoking them! When people have smoking-related diseases they regret it. My step-father has a serious illness now (50 years old), he's been smoking since 14. Now we don't know if he'll live to see his sons age 10. If there was a ban, he and thousands like him wouldn't be in this sad situation.

The point is that the consequences are real and horrific, not just another thing condemned because of what it is; like homosexuality or something. And a key point to remember is that smokers aren't continuing because they want to in many cases. Nicotine is a potent drug, people try and give up but can't. It doesn't become their choice anymore. This is where the government is needed - to force people to quit because they can't themselves.



--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

there have been a lot of good points made here

The smoking in public ban will always be controversial,

If only the government made more of an effort to help people stop
smoking instead of discriminating against them

They make smokers pay an incredibly large amount of tax on cigarettes
then deny them healthcare payed for by tax because they smoke

hopefully one day in the future there will be no smokers,
and no more big tobacco companies

Quote (sweetdude @ 1st December 2006 03:44)

If there was a ban, he and thousands like him wouldn't be in this sad situation.

Not saying it is incorrect, but do you have any proof of this statement?

Quote

Yet hard drugs are illegal

Hard drugs usually have mind altering effects. I think that's usually the reason they are banned despite the fact that Nicotine is more addicting to many of them. Yes they both kill and tobacco almost certainly kills more, but I don't think it's fair to draw a comparison all the time like people do. You don't see people leaping off buildings thinking they can fly on a tobacco trip. Or even imparing their driving for that matter.



--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

Quote (The Ancient @ 1st December 2006 15:38)

Not saying it is incorrect, but do you have any proof of this statement?

If he hadn't smoked his lungs wouldn't be black and there would be no disease. His case is not unique. The doctor drew the link between his heavy smoking and the disease.

If you mean would a ban have stopped him smoking: yes it would. And again, people like him wouldn't smoke were it illegal. He's a fairly ordinary guy.

Quote (The Ancient)

I don't think it's fair to draw a comparison all the time like people do

The link I made between hard drugs and tobacco wasn't that they're very similar, it was used to prove that the government have already passed laws prohibiting a drug.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote

Yet hard drugs are illegal......

That's true. I argue that they shouldn't be, and the "War on Drugs" is a horrific failure that's caused untold conflict and death due to drug trafficking and organized crime (like Prohibition did), and has succeeded in doing absolutely nothing for the American people.

But I think I'm like a libertarian or anarchist or some crap in that respect, so.

Quote

When people have smoking-related diseases they regret it. My step-father has a serious illness now (50 years old), he's been smoking since 14. Now we don't know if he'll live to see his sons age 10. If there was a ban, he and thousands like him wouldn't be in this sad situation.

Please don't take this the wrong way: I don't care. I'm sure you're very upset about your stepfather, and if I knew him I'd be sad too, but the fact is that your opinion about what's best for the unhealthy people in America frankly doesn't matter a whit to me. I have lots of very strong opinions about how people could live better, healthier lives -- I'm not aiming to get them put in the law books. You see what I'm saying?

Quote

Nicotine is a potent drug, people try and give up but can't. It doesn't become their choice anymore.

Maybe so. Same thing could be said of alcohol. Or of caffeine, even. Or tons of other addictions. People get over them every day. The solution is not to outlaw these eeeevul addictive substances, but to start making people take responsibility for their own choices. The more you outlaw "unwanted" substances, or actions, or whatever, because people "can't help themselves," the farther you sink into a freedomless society. Dramatic-sounding, but true.

This post has been edited by L. Cully on 1st December 2006 17:23

--------------------

Some ghost of me might greet my son
the day he is delivered.


Eternal Sleep, Track 1-1: The Blue Planet