This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Smoking and the Law.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MrSCH
Well, we managed for over a million years without them, something tells me it's not exactly impossible ;)
That's a pretty broad use of the word "manage", but if you're going to be glib then you can have a lecture. :P Before the car came along the world's largest cities were essentially on the brink of ecological crisis, from horses. At the turn of the century New York alone was producing 2.5 million pounds of horse manure every day, mostly left in the streets where it dried into a fine powder that got into everyone's lungs, spread typhus and cholera, caused diarrhea that tended to kill children, and bred legions of flies that spread more disease. Plus you had a couple of dozen horses dying each day, which were often left in the street to putrefy because it made them easier to dispose of. Not such a messy thing, the car, given the alternatives.
Winky face implies jest my man! I know all of these things :P
Well I couldn't have given you a figure for horse manure.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Jubilee
Its funny it is the only industry that knowingly sells death to its clients.
The fast food industry is doing quite well =P
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Firallon
My problem with anti smoking laws is that they are designed with cigarettes in mind. Cigarettes are nasty, disgusting, smelly things, the tobacco is no good, and they feel like pure poison. Fine tobacco on the other hand (cigars, some pipe tobacco) are quality. Its like the difference between going to McDonalds and a 4 star steak house. Yes, they're both beef, but one is worse for you then the other.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
xaratherus
Doctor lore I am not saying refuse anyone treatment.
Save where they are unable to pay for it?
You say that you don't want to refuse anyone treatment. But let's say that the pack-a-day smoker can't afford his chemotherapy - after all, for the drugs alone you're looking at a charge of anywhere from $1,000 for a single course (for older drugs) or up to $10,000 (for newer, more effective drugs).
According to the National Cancer Institute, the average cost for a full chemotherapy treatment for lung cancer is around $40,000. So, do we let him die because he can't afford it and he doesn't have insurance?
Let's continue on with the scenario: How do you
prove
that the cancer resulted from smoking?
Let's say that we do let him die because he can't afford the $40,000 for treatment, and he doesn't have insurance, either privately or through his job. A month after his death his family discovers that the outdated home in which they're living had asbestos insulation. Now, did you just let him die from cancer related to his voluntary action of smoking, or did you just condemn him to death because, unbeknownst to him, his was breathing asbestos every time he went into his attic?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Cyonisper
Everyone makes a big deal about smoke; how if you see a smoker its like he has 2 heads and is doing something indescribable in front of your very eyes.
I have been a cigar smoker for years now, and have been stomped on, yelled at, and thrown out of quite a few relationships because of it. I have never smoked in front of children, nor in an inside location aside from my own home. One of my exes even went as far as to burn about $120 worth of premiums just to get me to stop.
If I enjoy doing something which is not harming anyone around me, what gives other people the right to take that away from me? Is my smoke bothering you? Then back the hell off and don't stand next to me.
What we should be focusing on are bloody outdoor fires... every other night my neighbor burns her garbage in her back yard that gives off fumes which smell god awful. And the people behind me use gas powered mowers to mow there lawns which give off trace amounts of CO2 which have on more then one occasion set off my fire alarms.
If we restrict smoking, we should also restrict anything which gives off harmful gasses/odors.
In other words, kiss everything you know and love goodbye.
Post by
952951
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Sas148
I assume we're referring to cigarettes so I'll comment on that.
I think it's up to the individual if they can smoke, not the government. However, the location of said smoke should be limited to one's own car (as long as it's not being exposed to others) or their own home or an assigned area.
Just because you CAN smoke doesn't mean you SHOULD around others who may not want it there and are too polite or private to express concern.
I'm pissed off all the time when I'm forced to walk through a cloud of smoke to enter a store/restaurant or frankly any public place. I smoke hookah, at home or at friends houses... it's not very portable so I'm not really put in the situations I mentioned before but I wouldn't bring one out and start using in front of Starbucks or something either.
All that being said... those who choose to smoke should understand the consequences and be able to seek help to stop if so inclined. However, if they become ill due to their prolonged decision, they should financially be responsible for their illness (other than their own insurance and such). That's not to say that I don't believe we should use some of the cigarette tax money to research cures for various cancers caused by smoking. California will be voting to increase the tax on cigarette's by $1 a pack this June to increase funding for cancer research. I mean, those who buy cigarettes are funding it so I suppose they should benefit from it if something happens. :P
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
UnholyDeciever
Smoking laws are entirely unnecessary.
If you're worried about second-hand smoke, there should be laws about assault or pollution that already cover that. I.e., putting carcinogens in someone's lungs against his/her will is some kind of assault on another person's body, surely*. We already have laws covering such things. In any other circumstances, such behavior would be illegal. It's no like it's only okay in some contexts to poison people against their will. Anything else is the individual's choice. There's no need to ban certain private institutions from allowing or disallowing smoking; plenty of bars, restaurants, etc, already made the choice to ban smoking or have designated smoking sections and they were very clear about these rules. Individuals can make the choice to do business with non-smoking institutions or not, and the market can decide how many non-smoking bars, restaurants, etc., we need or don't need.
*If, as xara pointed out, it actually turns out to be dangerous. Laws based on spurious scientific data harm personal freedom for absolutely no benefit to anyone. I'm not saying I'm working for a tobacco lobby and trying to get your kids to smoke via Wowhead. I'm just saying if we're going to restrict personal freedoms (which smoking laws do, make no mistake) we'd best be damn sure we have a good reason to do so.
I do not smoke either and I find this to be true with beliefs.
Post by
Rystrave
I would like smoking laws to be tightened, but not against the will of an establishment.
Living in a town where smoking in bars is still allowed, I often decline invites to go out because:
I don't like smelling smoke
I don't like smelling like smoke
I don't have like having a sore throat in the morning because of smoke
But I do understand that there are a TON of people that, when they drink, they smoke. I think an establishment should be able to choose if they will be converting to smoking or non-smoking. Or better yet, to have separate sections for both.
If they serve food, on the otherhand,I don't think smoking should be allowed (which I think is the law now anyway).
edit: kinda repeated myself
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.