This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Smoking and the Law.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gnoktish
I want the laws to be more strict. Smoking has been around so long and is such a huge company, becoming illegal would result in many arrests and angry groups. I'd like the laws to atleast be more strict so it influences people to watch where they smoke. I'm honestly tired of smelling it in my clothes, having the smoke right in my face, and watching my family smoke freely infront of my cousins. Smoking has caused more problems to one's health and it simply disgusts me to see they allow such crap be influenced.
My parents have smoked my entire life and the amount of cash we could save would be able to save enough so we wouldn't have to go a week or two without a decent meal in reach.
Post by
Squishalot
I'm with Jubilee on this one. In public, stamp it out. In private, do what you want (and suffer your own consequences).
The only issue comes with the definition of public vs private. Is your backyard private? Should it be considered as public, in the context of second-hand smoke wafting over the fence?
Post by
gnomerdon
A) Smoking should be illegal
From a macro standpoint, it is causing second hand smoke to non-smokers, unhealthy, cancer, breathing problems, and more.
It damages everyone in the long run and short run.
I stand firm!
And yes, I've smoked 1 cigarette before and stopped.
Post by
343569
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
About smoking in public ( open ) areas , banning this is plainly ridiculous, you might aswell ban cars since it falls under the same principle which is harming people around you.Does cigarrete smoke really annoy you?
Car exhaust isn't
nearly
as bad for you as cigarette smoke.
Post by
Squishalot
About banning smoking in private places, honestly i dont have words for this.
Committing suicide is generally illegal, even if done in private places.
The point is, harmful actions being done to oneself still impact on others via the cost of healthcare. In a 'fair' world, the people who are in hospital for intentionally self-committed injuries would be dumped out for people who needed hospital beds for 'not at fault' injuries, because at least, they didn't have a choice about the burden they're placing on others.
Post by
343569
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
xaratherus
About smoking in public ( open ) areas , banning this is plainly ridiculous, you might aswell ban cars since it falls under the same principle which is harming people around you.Does cigarrete smoke really annoy you?
Car exhaust isn't
nearly
as bad for you as cigarette smoke.
Chain-smoking in enclosed space for an hour won't kill you from carbon monoxide poisoning. Well, it might kill
you
, specifically, because of your asthma, but someone without such a condition likely wouldn't have much of a problem.
Given the inconclusive nature of the studies that correlate harm from "sidestream" smoke, this is the exact sort of "scare fact" that prompted my earlier post. Ban or limit smoking because it's clearly harmful to asthmatics and others with sensitive respiratory conditions? Okay. Ban or limit it because there is inconclusive data that it might have other effects? No.
Committing suicide is generally illegal, even if done in private places.
The point is, harmful actions being done to oneself still impact on others via the cost of healthcare. In a 'fair' world, the people who are in hospital for intentionally self-committed injuries would be dumped out for people who needed hospital beds for 'not at fault' injuries, because at least, they didn't have a choice about the burden they're placing on others.
While I see your point, it's not really a hugely apt comparison. Suicide, when done properly, is intended to result in death. On the other hand, there are loads of people who smoke their entire lives who never develop lung cancer, heart disease, or emphysema.
If we're really debating the banning of an action because it could potentially be harmful, where do we draw the line? For instance, cholesterol-laden foods arguably kill more people each year than cigarettes, due to heart attack; do we ban them as well? How about caffeine? It has solid data showing that it can exacerbate high blood pressure, leading to death due to cardiac problems or stroke. Alcohol leads to cirrhosis, kidney failure, lots of other problems; no more drinking, then?
Re-reading this, I guess I should clarify, because the point I'm driving at is somewhat abstract: In regards to law, something should be done for the right reason; if you do the right thing, but for the wrong reason, then it sets a possible precedent that could be used later in such a way that the wrong thing is done for the wrong reason. So again, by all means, limit smoking or ban it, but because of the risks that we are very certain of, not the ones that are based on inconclusive data that, at best, shows correlation (not causation).
Post by
Squishalot
xaratherus, I know where you're coming from. I've made my point earlier about the fact I think private consumption shouldn't be regulated. All I was doing was attempting to draw attention to the fact it's not simply a black-and-white question of saying (paraphrased) "that's such an incredibly stupid idea that I'm not going to bother saying why", because as an idea, it does bear thinking about.
Edit: Also, I'm fairly certain that the cigarette / cancer studies have demonstrated causation, not just correlation.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Lenience
If smokers want to smoke, then they can. The graveyard will be getting some new additions.
Committing suicide is generally illegal
But if these suicidal people were successful (meaning they've pretty much killed themselves), I don't think it would matter. Would it?
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
115812
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ZombieJesus
I don't really care tbh, I used to smoke weed and cigarettes. I won't lie I only did it because my friends were.
But, I'd say don't allow it in front of people who don't want to be surrounded by it. That would include people who can't decide for themselves (toddlers).
The problem is it's hard to regulate.
Fun fact, there used to be a law in South Africa that said you may not kiss a person under the age of 13. Uhm, okay? Like how are you supposed to know when someone is 13? You get an ID at age 16 here. Also, I could just lie or kiss behind closed doors.
Not like that law stopped me anyways.
It's the same with smoking, it's hard to 'police' it when no one with the authority is around to do it.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Morec0
I'd love to say it should be illegal, but that would only make people want to smoke more (Forbidden Fruit Syndrome). I also agree that infront of children and pregant women it should be prohibited. What I would say to the whole "I didn't see the kid/pregant women!" argument: get more observant. Of course, that would warrent some sort of "1 warning first" policy. In the end though, I really just don't want to have to smell it anywhere I go. As long as you keep it away from me I'm fine.
Post by
pezz
I'd love to say it should be illegal, but that would only make people want to smoke more (Forbidden Fruit Syndrome). I also agree that infront of children and pregant women it should be prohibited.
What I would say to the whole "I didn't see the kid/pregant women!" argument: get more observant.
Of course, that would warrent some sort of "1 warning first" policy. In the end though, I really just don't want to have to smell it anywhere I go. As long as you keep it away from me I'm fine.
Here are some pictures I found after typing the creepiest thing I've ever typed into Google.
Now, I'm not hugely familiar with pregnancy (thank God and all the saints), so I'm probably worse at this than most people. However, I'd say there's a definite point where you can say 'that woman's stomach is too spherical to just be a fat deposit,' as well as a middle ground where you aren't sure if she's chubby or pregnant.
On the site I linked, for me personally, that middle ground is 26 weeks, and that point of 'there's no way that's fat' is 32 weeks.
Even assuming I err on the side of caution (which I would definitely do in a situation where I'd be breaking a law to smoke around pregnant women) I personally wouldn't suspect pregnancy until shortly after 22 weeks. There's a
long
period of time where you won't be able to tell a pregnant stranger on the street or in the restaurant is pregnant, even if you aren't as clueless as me.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.