This law bans smoking in your own car with no passengers present. I'll say it again; if somebody driving by you with a lit cigarette is going to make you sick, you should consider looking for a deserted island to buy.
I think the reasoning behind that particular ban wouldn't have anything to do with the people you drive past as you smoke, but rather to do with smoke lingering in the car after you've left. Not that I agree with the law.
I just can't help but get the impression that you support the law in the OP not because of any effect second-hand smoke has on you, but because you want to punish all smokers for all the times you've been made sick by it. Otherwise why would you care if somebody is smoking while driving down the street or on their front lawn?
That's not it at all. This is not some sort of revenge kick. I never even said that I agreed with the law because of my particular illness, it was an example. I tend to agree with this law because I think the negatives of cigarette smoking significantly outweight the positives, both for the people who choose to smoke and those who do not but are affected anyway, and it will save a significant number of lives if cigarettes are simply not available.
And before we get back into the 'Well, does that mean you want to ban everything which is bad for you", no, I don't. Because the greater majority of those things, while dangerous, also have a number of positive effects. No one, either within this discussion or outside of it, has been able to give me a single positive effect of smoking beyond "It calms me and I like it". Given all the many negatives, how is that good enough? The only answer I received when I asked that question earlier was "Why the hell do I have to justify myself to you?" That's not an answer, it's just defensiveness. If there were a really good reason for smoking, my opinion would change drastically.
Why the hell do you care what people put in their bodies? Its their own body for fuck's sake.
Basar on
i live in a country with a batshit crazy president and no, english is not my first language
This law bans smoking in your own car with no passengers present. I'll say it again; if somebody driving by you with a lit cigarette is going to make you sick, you should consider looking for a deserted island to buy.
I think the reasoning behind that particular ban wouldn't have anything to do with the people you drive past as you smoke, but rather to do with smoke lingering in the car after you've left. Not that I agree with the law.
Unless you're driving a zipcar, that doesn't really seem to be a terribly valid reason. I mean, yeah, the hobo who sleeps in my car at night might theoretically have some weird tobacco sensitivity, but that's what homeless shelters are for. They don't seem to have the same issue with people smoking in their homes, either.
Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
This law bans smoking in your own car with no passengers present. I'll say it again; if somebody driving by you with a lit cigarette is going to make you sick, you should consider looking for a deserted island to buy.
I think the reasoning behind that particular ban wouldn't have anything to do with the people you drive past as you smoke, but rather to do with smoke lingering in the car after you've left. Not that I agree with the law.
Unless you're driving a zipcar, that doesn't really seem to be a terribly valid reason. I mean, yeah, the hobo who sleeps in my car at night might theoretically have some weird tobacco sensitivity, but that's what homeless shelters are for. They don't seem to have the same issue with people smoking in their homes, either.
Judging from the anti-smoking ads I've seen, their concern is that people will smoke in a car, leave all the windows rolled up, and later drive cherub-faced children around in that same car.
And before we get back into the 'Well, does that mean you want to ban everything which is bad for you", no, I don't. Because the greater majority of those things, while dangerous, also have a number of positive effects. No one, either within this discussion or outside of it, has been able to give me a single positive effect of smoking beyond "It calms me and I like it". Given all the many negatives, how is that good enough?
I really see no positive effects of things like sugared soda or doughnuts. They aren't nutritionally impressive, they contribute to obesity which contributes to a whole host of other issues, and it's be easy enough to just ban them. The only arguments I can come up with for doughnuts or sugared sodas is "they're tasty and I like them." I think we could save a significant number of lives if we went ahead and banned doughnuts, sugared sodas, and plenty of other foods which are pretty much entirely bad for us.
Now, the negatives of regular doughnut eating obviously aren't as bad as those to a regular cigarette smoker. We'll go ahead and disregard effects to non-doughnut eaters, as I've already stated I favor some pretty comprehensive smoking bans (just not the one in the OP) to protect nonsmokers. However, considering they have no positives either, why shouldn't we ban them?
You're correct, there's no good reason for smoking. Similarly, there's no good reason for drinking alcohol, eating doughnuts, or skydiving...or a host of other things, many of which are also harmful. I didn't think we had to have good reasons to allow things, but rather that good reasons were generally required to disallow them.
In case you need some sort of position statement, so you know exactly where I'm coming from, I favor smoking bans in the following areas (though probably some others as well):
-Outdoor venues, ranging from concerts to sports events to outdoor patio seating for restaurants to anywhere people are lining up to enter a public venue.
-Within reasonable distance (25 feet? 50 feet? I'm flexible) of the entrance to any public building. This would include sidewalks in dense urban areas.
-In public parks, outside designated smoking areas. Those areas should be sparse, and far enough from any sort of facilities (such as water fountains) that non-smokers should be able to avoid them.
-Inside any public building, to include bars, casinos, and clubs. The only exceptions I could think of are possibly clubs specifically formed for cigar/cigarette smoking, or smoke shops.
-Any sort of bus stops, outdoor train stations, or basically any other public venue where people are likely to be waiting around a while...basically a continuation of the first.
-Inside any dwelling where all parties living there don't consent to it. Minors, particularly those living with parents/family, would not be allowed to consent.
EDIT: Ah yes, forgot one. Inside any private vehicle where all parties do not consent. Minors not allowed to consent, of course.
Basically I favor banning smoking in pretty much anyplace where it's likely to have any affect on non-smokers...even the most sensitive nonsmokers, such as you. Anything beyond that, in my opinion at least, infringes on the right of people to make an informed decision to slowly kill themselves for their own pleasure...which I firmly believe in.
Judging from the anti-smoking ads I've seen, their concern is that people will smoke in a car, leave all the windows rolled up, and later drive cherub-faced children around in that same car.
Again, though, these same people apparently have no issue with people smoking in the house where these cherub-faced children sleep with all the windows closed. I somehow doubt that's their reasoning unless they're under the impression that no single-family stand-alone dwellings ever contain children.
Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
I just can't help but get the impression that you support the law in the OP not because of any effect second-hand smoke has on you, but because you want to punish all smokers for all the times you've been made sick by it. Otherwise why would you care if somebody is smoking while driving down the street or on their front lawn?
That's not it at all. This is not some sort of revenge kick. I never even said that I agreed with the law because of my particular illness, it was an example. I tend to agree with this law because I think the negatives of cigarette smoking significantly outweight the positives, both for the people who choose to smoke and those who do not but are affected anyway, and it will save a significant number of lives if cigarettes are simply not available.
And before we get back into the 'Well, does that mean you want to ban everything which is bad for you", no, I don't. Because the greater majority of those things, while dangerous, also have a number of positive effects. No one, either within this discussion or outside of it, has been able to give me a single positive effect of smoking beyond "It calms me and I like it". Given all the many negatives, how is that good enough? The only answer I received when I asked that question earlier was "Why the hell do I have to justify myself to you?" That's not an answer, it's just defensiveness. If there were a really good reason for smoking, my opinion would change drastically.
Why the hell do you care what people put in their bodies? Its their own body for fuck's sake.
Okay, firstly, you need to calm right down. I'm not attacking you personally, and I would appreciate the same from you.
That is a prime example of the answer every time I ask that question. It's not a reason at all, it's just a deflection. If it were simply a case of, "I'll put whatever I want in my body if I want to", I wouldn't give a good goddamn. But it's expensive, it's polluting, and it kills people. Unless there's a really good reason for those negatives to be justified, I just don't get it.
Do you have an answer to my question? What is the benefit of smoking, beyond "I just like it"?
And before we get back into the 'Well, does that mean you want to ban everything which is bad for you", no, I don't. Because the greater majority of those things, while dangerous, also have a number of positive effects. No one, either within this discussion or outside of it, has been able to give me a single positive effect of smoking beyond "It calms me and I like it". Given all the many negatives, how is that good enough?
I really see no positive effects of things like sugared soda or doughnuts. They aren't nutritionally impressive, they contribute to obesity which contributes to a whole host of other issues, and it's be easy enough to just ban them. The only arguments I can come up with for doughnuts or sugared sodas is "they're tasty and I like them." I think we could save a significant number of lives if we went ahead and banned doughnuts, sugared sodas, and plenty of other foods which are pretty much entirely bad for us.
Now, the negatives of regular doughnut eating obviously aren't as bad as those to a regular cigarette smoker. We'll go ahead and disregard effects to non-doughnut eaters, as I've already stated I favor some pretty comprehensive smoking bans (just not the one in the OP) to protect nonsmokers. However, considering they have no positives either, why shouldn't we ban them?
You're correct, there's no good reason for smoking. Similarly, there's no good reason for drinking alcohol, eating doughnuts, or skydiving...or a host of other things, many of which are also harmful. I didn't think we had to have good reasons to allow things, but rather that good reasons were generally required to disallow them.
Put simply, you can't get passive obesity. If you eat a donut, the one and only person you are affecting is yourself. If you choose to go skydiving, the only person who has to potential to go *splat* is you. The same cannot be said of cigarettes.
You get mad at smokers for smoking around them, yet you don't tell them that it bothers a real medical condition so they don't know to move away or stop.
I know my dad probably would. In fact, the only time I see him smoking around people is...guess what...smoking buddies. Otherwise he goes off alone and smokes a quick one if it's a place where people walk by a lot.
I know if I were a smoker I'd put it out or move away; if we were in a queue, I'd perhaps ask you to hold my spot and then go off and smoke and come back.
But, judging by your e-persona, you'd ask with such a nasty attitude that maybe I'd probably inhale deeply, blow in your face, and say "fuck off."
Well, maybe not. But I'd be tempted to.
Wait, I'm the dick here? I've never said I get mad at smokers, I said their smoking makes me sick. As previously discussed, I actually go out of my way not to start a potential argument about it (sorry, I tend to have a pessimistic view of other people, and this conversation isn't remedying that opinion), and just suffer through the consequences. That makes me a dick? Thanks very much. Next time I'm cramping in silence, I'll remember what a selfish bitch I am.
Do I turn around and ask him to put out his cigarette, because if he doesn't, there's a good chance I'm going to get ill? He'd tell me to fuck right off, as pretty much every apparent smoker in this forum is doing. So where exactly does that leave me?
(I love how you generalize about something you self admittedly haven't even tried btw) Oh here it is again:
Do you honesty think I should turn around and say, "Excuse me, could you please put that out because you're giving me stomach cramps?" I don't, because I know what the answer would be.
And you be the one to tell the burly tattood guy behind you that he can't smoke. Given the reactions here, I doubt it would have been received well. So I basically have the option of getting sick, or being punched in the face. Great choice
Wow, pre judging and generalizing on a body type now. Let's do skin color too while we're at it!
Not directly, but it's easy to see you have a lot of bitterness directed at them as illustrated by your huge generalizations that actually remind me of intense racism.
So yeah, you are a dick because you automatically assume that all smokers are inconsiderate pricks who shouldn't smoke because it causes people like you to get stomach cramps.
I'm pretty sure everyone has their little biological problems; I've learned to deal with mine; you need to learn to deal with yours instead of being bitter towards everyone who smoke for polluting your air because you might get stomach cramps out of it.
If you eat a donut, the one and only person you are affecting is yourself. If you choose to go skydiving, the only person who has to potential to go *splat* is you. The same cannot be said of cigarettes.
Obese people affect everyone who may at some point pay taxes or need medical care, skydivers who go *splat* don't always hit nothing but ground and don't always die before racking up tens of thousands of dollars in medical care, etc. Cigarettes are taxed to an insane degree, and much of that money is fed back into the health care system to relieve stresses placed on it by smokers. The same is not true of McDonald's, donuts, and pork rinds. There is pretty much nothing out there that affects only the person doing it.
Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
And before we get back into the 'Well, does that mean you want to ban everything which is bad for you", no, I don't. Because the greater majority of those things, while dangerous, also have a number of positive effects. No one, either within this discussion or outside of it, has been able to give me a single positive effect of smoking beyond "It calms me and I like it". Given all the many negatives, how is that good enough?
I really see no positive effects of things like sugared soda or doughnuts. They aren't nutritionally impressive, they contribute to obesity which contributes to a whole host of other issues, and it's be easy enough to just ban them. The only arguments I can come up with for doughnuts or sugared sodas is "they're tasty and I like them." I think we could save a significant number of lives if we went ahead and banned doughnuts, sugared sodas, and plenty of other foods which are pretty much entirely bad for us.
Now, the negatives of regular doughnut eating obviously aren't as bad as those to a regular cigarette smoker. We'll go ahead and disregard effects to non-doughnut eaters, as I've already stated I favor some pretty comprehensive smoking bans (just not the one in the OP) to protect nonsmokers. However, considering they have no positives either, why shouldn't we ban them?
You're correct, there's no good reason for smoking. Similarly, there's no good reason for drinking alcohol, eating doughnuts, or skydiving...or a host of other things, many of which are also harmful. I didn't think we had to have good reasons to allow things, but rather that good reasons were generally required to disallow them.
Put simply, you can't get passive obesity. If you eat a donut, the one and only person you are affecting is yourself. If you choose to go skydiving, the only person who has to potential to go *splat* is you. The same cannot be said of cigarettes.
Good fucking lord, did you read where I favor the strict enforcement of policies to make sure that cigarettes only harm the smoker? You realize through less stringent policies than the ones in the OP, SHS risks can be minimized, right?
Explain to me how my smoking in my car with no passengers while driving down the street has any significant impact your health.
Please, pick a position. Either you favor banning smoking everywhere but inside single-family dwellings because people shouldn't be allowed to smoke anyway because it has no positive effects and harms the smoker, or you favor it because of the risks SHS poses to others. If it's the former, I simply fail to agree...but this last statement suggest that it isn't the former. If it's the latter, then I'm telling you that there are less restrictive methods to accomplish the same goal (protecting the rights of nonsmokers), and those should be used in order to protect the rights of the smoker. No need to use a sledgehammer when knocking will do.
If you eat a donut, the one and only person you are affecting is yourself. If you choose to go skydiving, the only person who has to potential to go *splat* is you. The same cannot be said of cigarettes.
Obese people affect everyone who may at some point pay taxes or need medical care, skydivers who go *splat* don't always hit nothing but ground and don't always die before racking up tens of thousands of dollars in medical care, etc. Cigarettes are taxed to an insane degree, and much of that money is fed back into the health care system to relieve stresses placed on it by smokers. The same is not true of McDonald's, donuts, and pork rinds. There is pretty much nothing out there that affects only the person doing it.
No, she's talking about second-hand smoke. Hence the "passive obesity" comment.
Which is fucking retarded, especially as a response to me, for the reasons I outlined above.
Do you have an answer to my question? What is the benefit of smoking, beyond "I just like it"?
Unless you have Parkinson's, there aren't many benefits. Cigarettes are for entertainment purposes only.
The point here is that, even if something is really shitty for you, it shouldn't simply be banned. We tried that with prohibition and it failed miserably. At least the government can share in the revenues this way.
And a law banning smoking outdoors, which affects only allergy/IBS sufferers*, is overkill. It's outside, which is pretty well ventilated iirc. At some point we have to stop shitting on smokers. That point is where the health effects on others are nil for the most part.
*unless someone can cite a study looking at outdoor secondhand smoke inhalation. I tried looking but had no luck.
I just can't help but get the impression that you support the law in the OP not because of any effect second-hand smoke has on you, but because you want to punish all smokers for all the times you've been made sick by it. Otherwise why would you care if somebody is smoking while driving down the street or on their front lawn?
That's not it at all. This is not some sort of revenge kick. I never even said that I agreed with the law because of my particular illness, it was an example. I tend to agree with this law because I think the negatives of cigarette smoking significantly outweight the positives, both for the people who choose to smoke and those who do not but are affected anyway, and it will save a significant number of lives if cigarettes are simply not available.
And before we get back into the 'Well, does that mean you want to ban everything which is bad for you", no, I don't. Because the greater majority of those things, while dangerous, also have a number of positive effects. No one, either within this discussion or outside of it, has been able to give me a single positive effect of smoking beyond "It calms me and I like it". Given all the many negatives, how is that good enough? The only answer I received when I asked that question earlier was "Why the hell do I have to justify myself to you?" That's not an answer, it's just defensiveness. If there were a really good reason for smoking, my opinion would change drastically.
Why the hell do you care what people put in their bodies? Its their own body for fuck's sake.
Okay, firstly, you need to calm right down. I'm not attacking you personally, and I would appreciate the same from you.
That is a prime example of the answer every time I ask that question. It's not a reason at all, it's just a deflection. If it were simply a case of, "I'll put whatever I want in my body if I want to", I wouldn't give a good goddamn. But it's expensive, it's polluting, and it kills people. Unless there's a really good reason for those negatives to be justified, I just don't get it.
Do you have an answer to my question? What is the benefit of smoking, beyond "I just like it"?
Because I enjoy smoking my nargile much more than eating a donut, a pizza, or drinking a coke. I enjoy it much more than arguing with people on the internet (i am smoking it right now). I enjoy much more than watching retarded movies of modern age.
So in other words, I enjoy smoking my nargile, and I am sure its the same for cigarette smokers.
God, I seriously hope Ege comes in to take the pressure off you.
Basar on
i live in a country with a batshit crazy president and no, english is not my first language
And before we get back into the 'Well, does that mean you want to ban everything which is bad for you", no, I don't. Because the greater majority of those things, while dangerous, also have a number of positive effects. No one, either within this discussion or outside of it, has been able to give me a single positive effect of smoking beyond "It calms me and I like it". Given all the many negatives, how is that good enough?
I really see no positive effects of things like sugared soda or doughnuts. They aren't nutritionally impressive, they contribute to obesity which contributes to a whole host of other issues, and it's be easy enough to just ban them. The only arguments I can come up with for doughnuts or sugared sodas is "they're tasty and I like them." I think we could save a significant number of lives if we went ahead and banned doughnuts, sugared sodas, and plenty of other foods which are pretty much entirely bad for us.
Now, the negatives of regular doughnut eating obviously aren't as bad as those to a regular cigarette smoker. We'll go ahead and disregard effects to non-doughnut eaters, as I've already stated I favor some pretty comprehensive smoking bans (just not the one in the OP) to protect nonsmokers. However, considering they have no positives either, why shouldn't we ban them?
You're correct, there's no good reason for smoking. Similarly, there's no good reason for drinking alcohol, eating doughnuts, or skydiving...or a host of other things, many of which are also harmful. I didn't think we had to have good reasons to allow things, but rather that good reasons were generally required to disallow them.
Put simply, you can't get passive obesity. If you eat a donut, the one and only person you are affecting is yourself. If you choose to go skydiving, the only person who has to potential to go *splat* is you. The same cannot be said of cigarettes.
Then why have you been throwing the argument of cigarettes having no benefits?
Seriously...
Basar on
i live in a country with a batshit crazy president and no, english is not my first language
And a law banning smoking outdoors, which affects only allergy/IBS sufferers*, is overkill. It's outside, which is pretty well ventilated iirc. At some point we have to stop shitting on smokers. That point is where the health effects on others are nil for the most part.
Oh hell, even a ban in outdoor locations where it might effect allergy/IBS sufferers is reasonable. But a ban on anywhere but inside single-familiy (in other words, freestanding) homes is overkill. This isn't about protecting nonsmokers from SHS...it's about punishing smokers.
It essentially says that unless you can afford your own freestanding house, you are no longer legally allowed to smoke. And even then, you must smoke inside and not in your yard on your own property.
Good fucking lord, did you read where I favor the strict enforcement of policies to make sure that cigarettes only harm the smoker? You realize through less stringent policies than the ones in the OP, SHS risks can be minimized, right?
Explain to me how my smoking in my car with no passengers while driving down the street has any significant impact your health.
Please, pick a position. Either you favor banning smoking everywhere but inside single-family dwellings because people shouldn't be allowed to smoke anyway because it has no positive effects and harms the smoker, or you favor it because of the risks SHS poses to others. If it's the former, I simply fail to agree...but this last statement suggest that it isn't the former. If it's the latter, then I'm telling you that there are less restrictive methods to accomplish the same goal (protecting the rights of nonsmokers), and those should be used in order to protect the rights of the smoker. No need to use a sledgehammer when knocking will do.
mcdermott, perhaps she is not talking about the legality of it yet.
No, she's talking about second-hand smoke. Hence the "passive obesity" comment.
Yes, I know, but there really isn't anything that's bad for you that is going to ultimately affect only you. You can't get passive obesity, but you can get taxed from hell to breakfast to pay for Fatty McEatsalot's quadruple bypass is he makes it to medicare age. Yeah, you're probably the only one who's going to buy it if your chute fails, but that's hardly a given, what with the number of people who drift off course before impact or make it to the hospital before expiring. Saying we should ban smoking because it hurts other people and is bad for you, but we shouldn't ban other things because olol they're only bad for you is an exercise in sophistry.
Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
Oh hell, even a ban in outdoor locations where it might affect allergy/IBS sufferers is reasonable.
This is something I can agree with, especially in outdoor venues or cafes where people would be in close confines for a long time. Banning it on the sidewalk, parks, in a car, et cetera is insanely restrictive, however.
So yeah, you are a dick because you automatically assume that all smokers are inconsiderate pricks who shouldn't smoke because it causes people like you to get stomach cramps.
Now who's making generalisations? I think nothing of the sort, stop putting stupid words in my mouth to try and discredit my opinion.
skydivers who go *splat* don't always hit nothing but ground
"Let's just hope he lands on Yahoo Serious." - TV's Frank
Taking your argument about medical expenses and running with it, we'd all be wearing heart monitors that tattle-tale on us to our insurance carrier and employer for not getting our pulse up with a heart-healthy workout the prescribed number of times, and prescribed duration per week.
Fuck that. If this trend of outlawing "unhealthy" choices continues, we'll soon outpace third-world dictatorships in our rollback of civil liberties and basic human rights.
Wow, pre judging and generalizing on a body type now. Let's do skin color too while we're at it!
Look, I'm a girl. I'm taught to not start altercations with large guys with tattoos.
Why do you think that the dude would start altercating at you simply because you asked him to please put out the cigarette, it was making you ill? You haven't answered this. You just said "burly man with tattoos honoes" like Australian men with tattoos are some breed of real ultimate power ninja that seize on any excuse they can find to start beating unknown women in the middle of the street. What the hell makes you think that politely asking him to put out the cigarette would have resulted in some sort of big down under melee?
Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
Good fucking lord, did you read where I favor the strict enforcement of policies to make sure that cigarettes only harm the smoker? You realize through less stringent policies than the ones in the OP, SHS risks can be minimized, right?
Explain to me how my smoking in my car with no passengers while driving down the street has any significant impact your health.
Please, pick a position. Either you favor banning smoking everywhere but inside single-family dwellings because people shouldn't be allowed to smoke anyway because it has no positive effects and harms the smoker, or you favor it because of the risks SHS poses to others. If it's the former, I simply fail to agree...but this last statement suggest that it isn't the former. If it's the latter, then I'm telling you that there are less restrictive methods to accomplish the same goal (protecting the rights of nonsmokers), and those should be used in order to protect the rights of the smoker. No need to use a sledgehammer when knocking will do.
mcdermott, perhaps she is not talking about the legality of it yet.
She has expressed support for a law that bans it everywhere except inside single-family freestanding residences. So yes, she has basically supported legally disallowing it in privately owned vehicles.
She starts with SHS, and her IBS. We (or at least I) concede that we should probably do what we can to disallow it anywhere that's likely to be an issue (including lines to comedy clubs in back alleys filled with burly tattood guys). So then she still supports it, because causing smoking to be as inconvenient as possible, even when it doesn't harm non-smokers (directly), is great because it will discourage people from smoking in the future. So I mention that we shouldn't disallow people people from doing things that only hurt themselves, provided they are making informed decisions for their own pleasure. I mention other pleasurable things that have no positive effects. So she goes back to SHS.
Wow, pre judging and generalizing on a body type now. Let's do skin color too while we're at it!
Look, I'm a girl. I'm taught to not start altercations with large guys with tattoos.
Why do you think that the dude would start altercating at you simply because you asked him to please put out the cigarette, it was making you ill? You haven't answered this. You just said "burly man with tattoos honoes" like Australian men with tattoos are some breed of real ultimate power ninja that seize on any excuse they can find to start beating unknown women in the middle of the street. What the hell makes you think that politely asking him to put out the cigarette would have resulted in some sort of big down under melee?
For the love of crap, when did this become all about me? This is not what I want.
I don't turn around because I stand there instead and hope I'll be okay and not have to ask the poor bastard to put out his light. Because I want to think he's a nice guy, and know that that is probably the last cigarette he's going to have for a couple of hours because he's going into the same show I am. Because there's enough of a chance he won't react well that I don't want to be put in a situation where both my husband and I are going to be embarrassed, especially since (in the example I've been giving), I'm standing in front of this guy in a queue and can't walk away from him if he does turn out to be an ass.
Ban petroleum as well. The smell gives me insane headaches.
Ban tofu, the smell fucks up my stomach.
Ban hardwood floors, they don't isolate my upstairs neighbour's high heel noise.
Ban ...
See Krysa?
All I see is someone who has no actual point and is just enjoying shitting on someone else's opinion.
Look, I'm going home now. This has been entertaining enough while I've been doing fuck all at work, but you people are absolutely determined to completely discontrue everything I'm trying to say. So enjoy your smokes, and I hope you don't die from them.
I don't turn around because I stand there instead and hope I'll be okay and not have to ask the poor bastard to put out his light. Because I want to think he's a nice guy, and know that that is probably the last cigarette he's going to have for a couple of hours because he's going into the same show I am.
So it's because you're a terribly considerate person who's willing to risk potential physical suffering so as not to ask a stranger to voluntarily mildly inconvenience himself, not because you were afraid of starting an altercation.
Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
I don't turn around because I stand there instead and hope I'll be okay and not have to ask the poor bastard to put out his light. Because I want to think he's a nice guy, and know that that is probably the last cigarette he's going to have for a couple of hours because he's going into the same show I am.
So it's because you're a terribly considerate person who's willing to risk potential physical suffering so as not to ask a stranger to voluntarily mildly inconvenience himself, not because you were afraid of starting an altercation.
I see.
Yet at the same time she's okay with banning him from smoking pretty much anywhere...or quite literally anywhere, provided he doesn't own his own freestanding home. Even in places where his second-hand smoke couldn't possibly hurt anybody.
So she's real considerate to his face, but behind his back she's a total vindictive bitch. Check.
EDIT: Okay, that was unreasonable. Better to say she' so considerate she's unwilling to so much as politely ask him to put it out or step away from her while smoking it...but has no problem letting the government prevent him from smoking anywhere ever again. Makes perfect sense.
Also, the reason this has become all about you, Krysanthemum, is because it is people like you who allow bans like the ones in the OP to occur, and who support them when they do.
Lastly, if it's about her being considerate to the guy and not because of some sort of fear of his reaction, then why is his state of burliness or the number of tattoos he has relevant?
Look, I'm a girl. I'm taught to not start altercations with large guys with tattoos.
I'm a skinny asian nerd with thick horn-rimmed glasses. I've asked guys to stop smoking near me before.
I never got any shit for it.
Besides, where are you going that the people only for miles around are large tattooed men? My friend Aaron smokes, and he's about 5'6" and 110 pounds. In fact, most of my friends are like that. Almost all of them smoke. A lot of women smoke.
I mean, even at a metal show, there are mostly skinny dudes with long hair and sometimes chains smoking.
Look, I'm a girl. I'm taught to not start altercations with large guys with tattoos.
I'm a skinny asian nerd with thick horn-rimmed glasses. I've asked guys to stop smoking near me before.
I never got any shit for it.
Besides, where are you going that the people only for miles around are large tattooed men? My friend Aaron smokes, and he's about 5'6" and 110 pounds. In fact, most of my friends are like that. Almost all of them smoke. A lot of women smoke.
I mean, even at a metal show, there are mostly skinny dudes with long hair and sometimes chains smoking.
Don't you get it? We smokers are murderers! Everytime we light up a cigarette and a random passerby walks through our second-hand smoke, we jump them and knife their bitch-asses in the back while yelling "woot!" over and over.
Look, I'm a girl. I'm taught to not start altercations with large guys with tattoos.
I'm a skinny asian nerd with thick horn-rimmed glasses. I've asked guys to stop smoking near me before.
I never got any shit for it.
Besides, where are you going that the people only for miles around are large tattooed men? My friend Aaron smokes, and he's about 5'6" and 110 pounds. In fact, most of my friends are like that. Almost all of them smoke. A lot of women smoke.
I mean, even at a metal show, there are mostly skinny dudes with long hair and sometimes chains smoking.
Don't you get it? We smokers are murderers! Everytime we light up a cigarette and a random passerby walks through our second-hand smoke, we jump them and knife their bitch-asses in the back while yelling "woot!" over and over.
Look, I'm a girl. I'm taught to not start altercations with large guys with tattoos.
I'm a skinny asian nerd with thick horn-rimmed glasses. I've asked guys to stop smoking near me before.
I never got any shit for it.
Besides, where are you going that the people only for miles around are large tattooed men? My friend Aaron smokes, and he's about 5'6" and 110 pounds. In fact, most of my friends are like that. Almost all of them smoke. A lot of women smoke.
I mean, even at a metal show, there are mostly skinny dudes with long hair and sometimes chains smoking.
Don't you get it? We smokers are murderers! Everytime we light up a cigarette and a random passerby walks through our second-hand smoke, we jump them and knife their bitch-asses in the back while yelling "woot!" over and over.
You have to admit that would be pretty goddamn satisfying.
Look, I'm a girl. I'm taught to not start altercations with large guys with tattoos.
I'm a skinny asian nerd with thick horn-rimmed glasses. I've asked guys to stop smoking near me before.
I never got any shit for it.
Besides, where are you going that the people only for miles around are large tattooed men? My friend Aaron smokes, and he's about 5'6" and 110 pounds. In fact, most of my friends are like that. Almost all of them smoke. A lot of women smoke.
I mean, even at a metal show, there are mostly skinny dudes with long hair and sometimes chains smoking.
Don't you get it? We smokers are murderers! Everytime we light up a cigarette and a random passerby walks through our second-hand smoke, we jump them and knife their bitch-asses in the back while yelling "woot!" over and over.
You have to admit that would be pretty goddamn satisfying.
Better than nicotine.
That's what I meant.
Salvation122 on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
If you choose to go skydiving, the only person who has to potential to go *splat* is you. The same cannot be said of cigarettes.
Unless you have bad aim.
And has anyone proposed the idea of a smoking section at outdoor sporting events? Like a section of the stadium or arena completely dedicated and reserved for smokers, so as to allow them to indulge without fear of annoying any sensitive non-smokers.
If you choose to go skydiving, the only person who has to potential to go *splat* is you. The same cannot be said of cigarettes.
Unless you have bad aim.
And has anyone proposed the idea of a smoking section at outdoor sporting events? Like a section of the stadium or arena completely dedicated and reserved for smokers, so as to allow them to indulge without fear of annoying any sensitive non-smokers.
"It wouldn't help," apparently, since smoking outdoors apparently doesn't do anything at all to lessen the impact of second-hand smoking.
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
If you choose to go skydiving, the only person who has to potential to go *splat* is you. The same cannot be said of cigarettes.
Unless you have bad aim.
And has anyone proposed the idea of a smoking section at outdoor sporting events? Like a section of the stadium or arena completely dedicated and reserved for smokers, so as to allow them to indulge without fear of annoying any sensitive non-smokers.
"It wouldn't help," apparently, since smoking outdoors apparently doesn't do anything at all to lessen the impact of second-hand smoking.
I could see a problem with it if someone tried to bring their kids there, but that could easily be avoided by simply not allowing children into the section.
If you choose to go skydiving, the only person who has to potential to go *splat* is you. The same cannot be said of cigarettes.
Unless you have bad aim.
And has anyone proposed the idea of a smoking section at outdoor sporting events? Like a section of the stadium or arena completely dedicated and reserved for smokers, so as to allow them to indulge without fear of annoying any sensitive non-smokers.
Having an actual section of seating probably wouldn't work, because if you packed that many smokers into one area the smoke would probably build up and drift in quantities sufficient to affect the occasional statistical outlier like Krysanthemum.
You could create some sort of smoking area(s) outside the seating area, on the concourse, which was seperated from walkways and had some sort of ventilation to take the smoke out of the arena. Basically, smokers would have to take a break from the action to go smoke, but could do so if the need truly arose.
This is irrelevant, however, because then somebody like Krysanthemum (or, well, Krysanthemum) would still defend absolute bans because smoking has no positive effects on society and people just shouldn't do it anyway. Then you'd argue that people should be allowed to harm themselves for their own pleasures, as they are already allowed to in many other ways. Then she'd bring second-hand smoke back up, as though that hadn't already been covered and accommodations suggested to minimize or completely eliminate its impact on non-consenting nonsmokers.
Speaking of sanctimonious Bay Area city officials and people of infirm constitution:
[quote=SF Gate]WE'RE A little puzzled at all the fuss over the cookie-scented signs in bus shelters. It's true that weird commercial intrusion is upon us. Consider buses shrink-wrapped to look like sneakers, and football bowl games named after pizza chains and car mufflers. We get all that.
But, sorry, how can a bus shelter made to smell like a fresh-baked cookie be such a bad thing? Anyone who thinks outdoor air is a sanctuary from aroma advertising hasn't been within a half-mile of a KFC or barbecue joint -- or stopped to smell the incense on Telegraph Avenue.
A grand total of five shelters were slapped with cookie-scent strips to promote milk for a month. This is not the invasion of the corporate mind-snatchers. Even if that's what you think it is, there is plenty of room six feet away in a doorway while waiting for Muni.
The stunt is an exercise in zany branding, and, we submit, a joke on malodorous San Francisco and its stained sidewalks. It's a pity that the city caved to the fist-shaking over cookie odors, but it's not surprising. If a group exists to be appeased, this town can find the leaders to do so.
Along with the usual cries about commercialism went at least one new one. A group speaking for the "environmental illness community" said the odors could harm their members. Stamping out cookie odors on behalf of the oppressed would bring the city "one step closer to its greener, healthier and more sustainable present and future." Cookie scents apparently are moving into the territory of SUVs and coal-fired power plants.
It's hard to not to wonder if this wasn't a Madison Avenue lab test. Come up with a goofy idea, nudge it into a hyper-sensitive town and savor the pleasing scent of free publicity. It worked. Now, pass the milk, please.[/quote]
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Smoking outdoors lowers the quality of air I am breathing, both increasing my chances of getting cancer, but also pissing me off. I shouldn't have MY quality of life worsened by irate addicted bastards who want to smoke outside because it won't harm the children. Here's the dirty little secret. When you die from 5 years of grueling illness battling cancer, your children will thank you then that you smoked outside instead of near them. Idiots.
Stop trying to defend your habit. Unlike video games, or soda or casual sex smoking actually kills people. A lot of people. All the fucking time.
Smell is the least of my concerns when I am near a smoker. How fucking narrow minded to think that I would be worried about smell. One thing that annoys me more than anything is smokers trying to somehow defend what they do by saying 'im not doing it near you or whatnot'. Sure, I'm not about to breach your human rights by stopping you doing what you want, unless it starts breaching my fucking rights to live in a smoke free world. Britain is banning all public smoking next year (Scotland has already, Wales and England follow suit in 2007) and I am all for it. Smoke indoors all you fucking want, it isn't harming me there. But outside, be it at a roadside cafe, on a street corner or anywhere where other people pass by is just not going to happen anymore.
The reason the law is understandable is because smokers choose to smoke. They make a pact when they buy and smoke cigarettes to face the consequences, the main of which is cancer. The warnings are on the packet, they cannot sue tobacco companies for not telling them about the health risks. However, non smokers do not make this commitment. If, say, I caught cancer from passive smoking, in a pub or at work because another person chose to smoke how can I be compensated. In this respect the law to ban public smoking is not only understandable, its fucking common sense.
I don't care about the smokers, they can do whatever they want. It is he non smokers who should not be fucking victimised by people who think that a law is unjust, when it is completely reasonable. Man, I don't give a shit anymore. Non of my friends nor family smoke, in fact, I know of very few people who do. So you guys can all die in a fire for all I care, it is a disgusting habit and trying to defend it by saying 'it's hard to quit' is so fucking lame. I knew someone who quit smoking, sure it was hard but when he was faced with the prospect of an early and painful death it was a no brainer.
tl:dr -- I have no qualms with smokers smoking in their own homes, or anywhere else. As long as it is not a public place where non smokers are at risk of passive smoking. That is vergin on breaching their human rights ergo the law you so passionately oppose is not only legal, but a good idea.
Err, I know it's probably been said...
But smoking INDOORS lowers the quality of air INSIDE where I CURRENTLY RESIDE a good 80% of the winter.
Well, even if we include work and friends, then it's more like 40% of my time spent indoors. Fucking New England and it's goddamn snow.
Anyway, I've lived with two smoking parents and used to get a ride to school with a smoking sister and her smoking friend.
Trust me, it's a lot healthier to have someone smoking a few yards away in open air than across the house inside.
Along with the usual cries about commercialism went at least one new one. A group speaking for the "environmental illness community" said the odors could harm their members. Stamping out cookie odors on behalf of the oppressed would bring the city "one step closer to its greener, healthier and more sustainable present and future." Cookie scents apparently are moving into the territory of SUVs and coal-fired power plants.
But...fresh baked cookies are delicious.
What.
"It wouldn't help," apparently, since smoking outdoors apparently doesn't do anything at all to lessen the impact of second-hand smoking.
Don't be naive, VC.
It's not like the outside has wind, or a lot more air than any house. Or a lot more people breathing in.
Along with the usual cries about commercialism went at least one new one. A group speaking for the "environmental illness community" said the odors could harm their members. Stamping out cookie odors on behalf of the oppressed would bring the city "one step closer to its greener, healthier and more sustainable present and future." Cookie scents apparently are moving into the territory of SUVs and coal-fired power plants.
But...fresh baked cookies are delicious.
What.
Yeah, but the strips might not have actually smelled like fresh baked cookies so much as cookie-scented ass. People can generally roll with that if it's because a person they're waiting with is wearing that as a perfume because they think it smells ten kinds of awesome, or because people have been throwing away bags of ass and bags of cookies in the trashcan right next to it, but not so much when it's a passive advertisement for something that's not even cookies.
Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
If people want to be fucking idiots and die of cancer, let them.
Ban it indoors, ban it where it affects people who aren't complete fucking morons, and leave them be otherwise.
What do I care if someone smokes in their home? What do I care if someone smokes in their car? I don't give a flying fuck for the same reason I don't give a fuck if people sit around in their homes cutting themselves or ingesting arsenic.
Posts
Why the hell do you care what people put in their bodies? Its their own body for fuck's sake.
I really see no positive effects of things like sugared soda or doughnuts. They aren't nutritionally impressive, they contribute to obesity which contributes to a whole host of other issues, and it's be easy enough to just ban them. The only arguments I can come up with for doughnuts or sugared sodas is "they're tasty and I like them." I think we could save a significant number of lives if we went ahead and banned doughnuts, sugared sodas, and plenty of other foods which are pretty much entirely bad for us.
Now, the negatives of regular doughnut eating obviously aren't as bad as those to a regular cigarette smoker. We'll go ahead and disregard effects to non-doughnut eaters, as I've already stated I favor some pretty comprehensive smoking bans (just not the one in the OP) to protect nonsmokers. However, considering they have no positives either, why shouldn't we ban them?
You're correct, there's no good reason for smoking. Similarly, there's no good reason for drinking alcohol, eating doughnuts, or skydiving...or a host of other things, many of which are also harmful. I didn't think we had to have good reasons to allow things, but rather that good reasons were generally required to disallow them.
In case you need some sort of position statement, so you know exactly where I'm coming from, I favor smoking bans in the following areas (though probably some others as well):
-Outdoor venues, ranging from concerts to sports events to outdoor patio seating for restaurants to anywhere people are lining up to enter a public venue.
-Within reasonable distance (25 feet? 50 feet? I'm flexible) of the entrance to any public building. This would include sidewalks in dense urban areas.
-In public parks, outside designated smoking areas. Those areas should be sparse, and far enough from any sort of facilities (such as water fountains) that non-smokers should be able to avoid them.
-Inside any public building, to include bars, casinos, and clubs. The only exceptions I could think of are possibly clubs specifically formed for cigar/cigarette smoking, or smoke shops.
-Any sort of bus stops, outdoor train stations, or basically any other public venue where people are likely to be waiting around a while...basically a continuation of the first.
-Inside any dwelling where all parties living there don't consent to it. Minors, particularly those living with parents/family, would not be allowed to consent.
EDIT: Ah yes, forgot one. Inside any private vehicle where all parties do not consent. Minors not allowed to consent, of course.
Basically I favor banning smoking in pretty much anyplace where it's likely to have any affect on non-smokers...even the most sensitive nonsmokers, such as you. Anything beyond that, in my opinion at least, infringes on the right of people to make an informed decision to slowly kill themselves for their own pleasure...which I firmly believe in.
Okay, firstly, you need to calm right down. I'm not attacking you personally, and I would appreciate the same from you.
That is a prime example of the answer every time I ask that question. It's not a reason at all, it's just a deflection. If it were simply a case of, "I'll put whatever I want in my body if I want to", I wouldn't give a good goddamn. But it's expensive, it's polluting, and it kills people. Unless there's a really good reason for those negatives to be justified, I just don't get it.
Do you have an answer to my question? What is the benefit of smoking, beyond "I just like it"?
Put simply, you can't get passive obesity. If you eat a donut, the one and only person you are affecting is yourself. If you choose to go skydiving, the only person who has to potential to go *splat* is you. The same cannot be said of cigarettes.
(I love how you generalize about something you self admittedly haven't even tried btw) Oh here it is again:
Wow, pre judging and generalizing on a body type now. Let's do skin color too while we're at it!
Not directly, but it's easy to see you have a lot of bitterness directed at them as illustrated by your huge generalizations that actually remind me of intense racism.
So yeah, you are a dick because you automatically assume that all smokers are inconsiderate pricks who shouldn't smoke because it causes people like you to get stomach cramps.
I'm pretty sure everyone has their little biological problems; I've learned to deal with mine; you need to learn to deal with yours instead of being bitter towards everyone who smoke for polluting your air because you might get stomach cramps out of it.
Good fucking lord, did you read where I favor the strict enforcement of policies to make sure that cigarettes only harm the smoker? You realize through less stringent policies than the ones in the OP, SHS risks can be minimized, right?
Explain to me how my smoking in my car with no passengers while driving down the street has any significant impact your health.
Please, pick a position. Either you favor banning smoking everywhere but inside single-family dwellings because people shouldn't be allowed to smoke anyway because it has no positive effects and harms the smoker, or you favor it because of the risks SHS poses to others. If it's the former, I simply fail to agree...but this last statement suggest that it isn't the former. If it's the latter, then I'm telling you that there are less restrictive methods to accomplish the same goal (protecting the rights of nonsmokers), and those should be used in order to protect the rights of the smoker. No need to use a sledgehammer when knocking will do.
Which is fucking retarded, especially as a response to me, for the reasons I outlined above.
Unless you have Parkinson's, there aren't many benefits. Cigarettes are for entertainment purposes only.
The point here is that, even if something is really shitty for you, it shouldn't simply be banned. We tried that with prohibition and it failed miserably. At least the government can share in the revenues this way.
And a law banning smoking outdoors, which affects only allergy/IBS sufferers*, is overkill. It's outside, which is pretty well ventilated iirc. At some point we have to stop shitting on smokers. That point is where the health effects on others are nil for the most part.
*unless someone can cite a study looking at outdoor secondhand smoke inhalation. I tried looking but had no luck.
Because I enjoy smoking my nargile much more than eating a donut, a pizza, or drinking a coke. I enjoy it much more than arguing with people on the internet (i am smoking it right now). I enjoy much more than watching retarded movies of modern age.
So in other words, I enjoy smoking my nargile, and I am sure its the same for cigarette smokers.
God, I seriously hope Ege comes in to take the pressure off you.
Then why have you been throwing the argument of cigarettes having no benefits?
Seriously...
Oh hell, even a ban in outdoor locations where it might effect allergy/IBS sufferers is reasonable. But a ban on anywhere but inside single-familiy (in other words, freestanding) homes is overkill. This isn't about protecting nonsmokers from SHS...it's about punishing smokers.
It essentially says that unless you can afford your own freestanding house, you are no longer legally allowed to smoke. And even then, you must smoke inside and not in your yard on your own property.
Yes, I know, but there really isn't anything that's bad for you that is going to ultimately affect only you. You can't get passive obesity, but you can get taxed from hell to breakfast to pay for Fatty McEatsalot's quadruple bypass is he makes it to medicare age. Yeah, you're probably the only one who's going to buy it if your chute fails, but that's hardly a given, what with the number of people who drift off course before impact or make it to the hospital before expiring. Saying we should ban smoking because it hurts other people and is bad for you, but we shouldn't ban other things because olol they're only bad for you is an exercise in sophistry.
This is something I can agree with, especially in outdoor venues or cafes where people would be in close confines for a long time. Banning it on the sidewalk, parks, in a car, et cetera is insanely restrictive, however.
Also:
Thanks, I have actually tried it (pre-IBS days). It wasn't for me.
Look, I'm a girl. I'm taught to not start altercations with large guys with tattoos.
Now who's making generalisations? I think nothing of the sort, stop putting stupid words in my mouth to try and discredit my opinion.
Fuck you, Basar, I am nothing like him.
"Let's just hope he lands on Yahoo Serious." - TV's Frank
Taking your argument about medical expenses and running with it, we'd all be wearing heart monitors that tattle-tale on us to our insurance carrier and employer for not getting our pulse up with a heart-healthy workout the prescribed number of times, and prescribed duration per week.
Fuck that. If this trend of outlawing "unhealthy" choices continues, we'll soon outpace third-world dictatorships in our rollback of civil liberties and basic human rights.
Ban petroleum as well. The smell gives me insane headaches.
Ban tofu, the smell fucks up my stomach.
Ban hardwood floors, they don't isolate my upstairs neighbour's high heel noise.
Ban ...
See Krysa?
She has expressed support for a law that bans it everywhere except inside single-family freestanding residences. So yes, she has basically supported legally disallowing it in privately owned vehicles.
She starts with SHS, and her IBS. We (or at least I) concede that we should probably do what we can to disallow it anywhere that's likely to be an issue (including lines to comedy clubs in back alleys filled with burly tattood guys). So then she still supports it, because causing smoking to be as inconvenient as possible, even when it doesn't harm non-smokers (directly), is great because it will discourage people from smoking in the future. So I mention that we shouldn't disallow people people from doing things that only hurt themselves, provided they are making informed decisions for their own pleasure. I mention other pleasurable things that have no positive effects. So she goes back to SHS.
So what the fuck?
For the love of crap, when did this become all about me? This is not what I want.
I don't turn around because I stand there instead and hope I'll be okay and not have to ask the poor bastard to put out his light. Because I want to think he's a nice guy, and know that that is probably the last cigarette he's going to have for a couple of hours because he's going into the same show I am. Because there's enough of a chance he won't react well that I don't want to be put in a situation where both my husband and I are going to be embarrassed, especially since (in the example I've been giving), I'm standing in front of this guy in a queue and can't walk away from him if he does turn out to be an ass.
All I see is someone who has no actual point and is just enjoying shitting on someone else's opinion.
Look, I'm going home now. This has been entertaining enough while I've been doing fuck all at work, but you people are absolutely determined to completely discontrue everything I'm trying to say. So enjoy your smokes, and I hope you don't die from them.
I see.
So she's real considerate to his face, but behind his back she's a total vindictive bitch. Check.
EDIT: Okay, that was unreasonable. Better to say she' so considerate she's unwilling to so much as politely ask him to put it out or step away from her while smoking it...but has no problem letting the government prevent him from smoking anywhere ever again. Makes perfect sense.
Also, the reason this has become all about you, Krysanthemum, is because it is people like you who allow bans like the ones in the OP to occur, and who support them when they do.
Lastly, if it's about her being considerate to the guy and not because of some sort of fear of his reaction, then why is his state of burliness or the number of tattoos he has relevant?
I never got any shit for it.
Besides, where are you going that the people only for miles around are large tattooed men? My friend Aaron smokes, and he's about 5'6" and 110 pounds. In fact, most of my friends are like that. Almost all of them smoke. A lot of women smoke.
I mean, even at a metal show, there are mostly skinny dudes with long hair and sometimes chains smoking.
And has anyone proposed the idea of a smoking section at outdoor sporting events? Like a section of the stadium or arena completely dedicated and reserved for smokers, so as to allow them to indulge without fear of annoying any sensitive non-smokers.
Having an actual section of seating probably wouldn't work, because if you packed that many smokers into one area the smoke would probably build up and drift in quantities sufficient to affect the occasional statistical outlier like Krysanthemum.
You could create some sort of smoking area(s) outside the seating area, on the concourse, which was seperated from walkways and had some sort of ventilation to take the smoke out of the arena. Basically, smokers would have to take a break from the action to go smoke, but could do so if the need truly arose.
This is irrelevant, however, because then somebody like Krysanthemum (or, well, Krysanthemum) would still defend absolute bans because smoking has no positive effects on society and people just shouldn't do it anyway. Then you'd argue that people should be allowed to harm themselves for their own pleasures, as they are already allowed to in many other ways. Then she'd bring second-hand smoke back up, as though that hadn't already been covered and accommodations suggested to minimize or completely eliminate its impact on non-consenting nonsmokers.
Then you'll want to punch a kitten.
[quote=SF Gate]WE'RE A little puzzled at all the fuss over the cookie-scented signs in bus shelters. It's true that weird commercial intrusion is upon us. Consider buses shrink-wrapped to look like sneakers, and football bowl games named after pizza chains and car mufflers. We get all that.
But, sorry, how can a bus shelter made to smell like a fresh-baked cookie be such a bad thing? Anyone who thinks outdoor air is a sanctuary from aroma advertising hasn't been within a half-mile of a KFC or barbecue joint -- or stopped to smell the incense on Telegraph Avenue.
A grand total of five shelters were slapped with cookie-scent strips to promote milk for a month. This is not the invasion of the corporate mind-snatchers. Even if that's what you think it is, there is plenty of room six feet away in a doorway while waiting for Muni.
The stunt is an exercise in zany branding, and, we submit, a joke on malodorous San Francisco and its stained sidewalks. It's a pity that the city caved to the fist-shaking over cookie odors, but it's not surprising. If a group exists to be appeased, this town can find the leaders to do so.
Along with the usual cries about commercialism went at least one new one. A group speaking for the "environmental illness community" said the odors could harm their members. Stamping out cookie odors on behalf of the oppressed would bring the city "one step closer to its greener, healthier and more sustainable present and future." Cookie scents apparently are moving into the territory of SUVs and coal-fired power plants.
It's hard to not to wonder if this wasn't a Madison Avenue lab test. Come up with a goofy idea, nudge it into a hyper-sensitive town and savor the pleasing scent of free publicity. It worked. Now, pass the milk, please.[/quote]
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Err, I know it's probably been said...
But smoking INDOORS lowers the quality of air INSIDE where I CURRENTLY RESIDE a good 80% of the winter.
Well, even if we include work and friends, then it's more like 40% of my time spent indoors. Fucking New England and it's goddamn snow.
Anyway, I've lived with two smoking parents and used to get a ride to school with a smoking sister and her smoking friend.
Trust me, it's a lot healthier to have someone smoking a few yards away in open air than across the house inside.
But...fresh baked cookies are delicious.
What.
Don't be naive, VC.
It's not like the outside has wind, or a lot more air than any house. Or a lot more people breathing in.
If people want to be fucking idiots and die of cancer, let them.
Ban it indoors, ban it where it affects people who aren't complete fucking morons, and leave them be otherwise.
What do I care if someone smokes in their home? What do I care if someone smokes in their car? I don't give a flying fuck for the same reason I don't give a fuck if people sit around in their homes cutting themselves or ingesting arsenic.
Let them.
Free country and all that.