In response to Hedgemistress
Well i have heard that from many reliable sources, like news programs, science channel, places like that. I was simply noting that heterosexuals are no worse when it comes to spreading STD's than any other life style choice.
In response to Scoobert
What about banning smoking on the street, or in parks?

-Dagolar
In response to Gughunter
Do you think smokers have an uncontested right to force second-hand smoke on other people? Suppose two people walk into a Burger King. The first guy lights up and the second guy gets angry and is basically "forced" to smoke, himself. Who takes precedence here and why?

-Dagolar
In response to Geminidomino
In the past, anyway, the majority of businesses chose not to ban smoking. Modern concerns for personal health have created a lot of protest to smoking in public indoor places. Do you think this is a fair reason for government intervention?

-Dagolar
In response to Scoobert
Yes, it's mainly health concerns that have gotten the governments of many municipalities to address second-hand smoke. From my research, it's not smoking itself that is being address; it's the infliction of second-hand smoke.

-Dagolar

(p.s. I responded with another question in a response listed above. [Health concerns])
In response to Scoobert
well, don't believe everything you see on T.V. especially news programs that are known to speak vague statements or backpedal more than I do.
In response to Dagolar
Alot of non-smokers/quiters do not enjoy the smell or thought of their bodies being polluted by a substance they do their best to avoid. While going to these public resource buildings non-smokers believe they should not have to pass through a crowd of locusts just to go through their daily business.

Regardless of care, these people are killing themselves and all they smoke around, however slowly that may be. Due to how vague this slow killing product acts and how infrequent diseases actually occur in smokers/non-smokers there is no proof that any single person you've been around actually caused that illness, so no legal matters may be taken.

So yes, this is the best way to deal with the problem before it gets bigger.. to create out of the way smoking areas that non-smokers never have to pass to enter a building.

However, if the use of cigarettes became absolutely illigal, i would turn my family members in without blinking an eye. They've been hurting me more than they could ever know or care about.
In response to Dagolar
Dagolar wrote:
Do you think smokers have an uncontested right to force second-hand smoke on other people? Suppose two people walk into a Burger King. The first guy lights up and the second guy gets angry and is basically "forced" to smoke, himself. Who takes precedence here and why?

The restaurant owner takes precedence. If the owner doesn't allow smoking, people who want to smoke should avoid the restaurant; if the owner allows smoking, people who don't like smoke should avoid the restaurant.

And note that nobody is "forcing" the second guy to go into a smoky restaurant any more than anyone is "forcing" him to go into a church or into an adult bookstore. If a person walks into a privately-owned venue and sees that it doesn't offer the kind of environment he wants, common sense dictates that he should take his business elsewhere. It's quick and easy, and it doesn't require government intervention.
In response to NeoHaxor
"Why!?" is a question to smokers that unfortunantly cannot be answered. They seem to have a good reason behind it (hopefully), Ive even asked a smoker that very same question here is his reply:

"Why die in some random accident when you can die happy smoking? Your life doesnt last that long you know."

A reasonable answer? I'd like some feedback on this please, tell me what you think of this so called "reason". I for one this this is absurd, smoking shortens your lifespan and not to mention, not many people like it (like me). I know some very poor people who have been struggling to quit smoking, and never did, and they died. Smoking is a bad thing kiddos! =-(.
In response to Asguard
A reasonable answer? I'd like some feedback on this please, tell me what you think of this so called "reason". I for one this this is absurd, smoking shortens your lifespan and not to mention, not many people like it (like me).

Maybe it's not a good reason, but it's unrealistic to expect people to have good reasons for most of the things they do. And everything that people do carries some element of risk. One person smokes, another overeats, another swims, another skateboards, another sleeps around. You pays your money and takes your chances.
In response to Asguard
Like I said, it's a trade-off... I don't smoke, I eat unhealthy foods because I enjoy them... a better diet would probably add at least a decade to my "natural" lifespan, but I'm more interested in enjoying the decades I have than I am in adding colorless, flavorless years to the end. I don't understand the appeal of smoking, but it evidently has some.
In response to Dagolar
I think anyone who runs a business should have the right to chose if smokers are allowed or not... I don't allow it in my offices - of course I'm backed up by German law in this case...
In response to Gughunter
Gughunter wrote:
That about sums up my own position. One can make at least a plausible case for some limitations on the use of private businesses (for example, forbidding exclusion of customers based on race), but banning smoking seems pretty arbitrary -- especially in the case of bars.

Outside of not being forced to endure smoke in enclosed places (theaters, etc) I'm neutral on the subject -- a good friend comes over and smokes in our flat while he's here, though only after having made sure we were okay with it, and always with the courtesy to open a window and stay near it for the duration.

Anyway, I found it interesting that when a local ban on smoking in bars was enacted, the bar owners made dire predictions about how this would kill their business.

In fact, after the ban, bar attendance went up.
In response to Deadron
Really? I've never heard of that. Why would attendance go up, do you think? Bars have often represented a real link between smoking and drinking...

-Dagolar
In response to Hedgemistress
I have yet to see a fat guy cause harm to the others around him by merely eating himself into bad health (Unless of course he steps on your toe accidentally or something along those lines), I wouldn't have any problem with people smoking if it had nothing to do with me health wise, I could just as easily deal with the smell of it as I could with the sounds of an obese person eating like they have never eaten before. I do understand that it is human nature to harm yourselves and others in order to achieve pleasure, but it is not very moral.

-=Ken=-
In response to Deadron
In fact, after the ban, bar attendance went up.

Interesting! I wonder what percentage of bar owners would go back to permitting smoking if given the chance.
In response to NeoHaxor
A fat guy is no less harmful to you than people smoking in a bar that you're not in... as long as alternatives exist and are clearly marked, you have a choice: go into this bar/restaurant which you may enjoy and knowingly risk be harmed by the environment, or not.
In response to Hedgemistress
Should people have to "deal" with smoking in these places? Do they have a right, for health concern, to protest against people from engaging in their nicotine habit in an indoor public place, regardless of whether or not they should be allowed inside?

-Dagolar
In response to Dagolar
The question here is the definition of a public place. Is a private business automatically a public place because you let people in to do business? If I set up a wet bar in my home, serve drinks to my friends, and ask that they chip in with the cost, then I get to choose whether or not people can smoke. If I turn it into a commercial venture, then nothing has in essence changed, but all of sudden my private place has somehow become public.

Again, the government has an interest in preventing business owners from maintaining an atmosphere that's harmful to health, so I wouldn't say the government can't restrict smoking... that would undermine their ability to protect us from hazardous chemicals used in paints, cleaners, etc. At the same time, though, there's got to be some common sense used... while I believe the government should have the power, that doesn't mean it's always appropriate for them to use it.

If we as non-smokers have alternative venues we can use, and smoking establishments are clearly and externally marked, then the choice is ours: enjoy the venue to the detriment of our health, or abstain.
In response to Hedgemistress
True, but why should there be a "smoke barrier" surrounding places you may wish to go to? Either dealing with it or just not going, people still suffer (however mildly it may be) due to the ignorance of smokers. I dont find problems with general public smoking, just inside any businesses or public buildings. If smoking was kept outside of these places, than I would find it acceptable completely. My parents are both smokers, and never have I seen them find it necessary to smoke around children or indoors, even within the car they can deal with a break from it.

-=Ken=-
Page: 1 2 3 4