Ban On Indoor Smoking - For & Against

» Home » Health

Ban On Indoor Smoking

If a smoker wants to endanger their health that's their business but not around any person who does not smoke. Passive smoke kills and therefore should be banned in all indoor public places across the country.

balvanera

10 Aug 2008 16:53

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

Cancer stick! Wooo

Balance_92

16 Nov 2008 14:07

Add a Comment

Second hand smoke has been proven to cause cancer; only the mentally retarded debate that fact. But even if smoking didn't cause cancer, it causes non-smokers to stink like smokers, it ruins clothes, inflames asthma, dries eyes, causes people to cough and causes pollution and garbage. Smokers who create their filth in front of non-smokers are like perverts who masturbate in public - most people don't want to see it, and shouldn't have to endure it.

Smokers are filthpigs, and we should legalize the immolation of those who smoke in the presence of non-smokers. If you don't know what immolation means, look it up; I am suggesting that it become legal for non-smokers to do to smokers what some people want to do to flag burners.

Edit:

* Yawn * Another infantile imbecile uttering empty threats.

You wouldn't show up even if someone paid your way here.

11 Aug 2008 04:31

1 Comment

Please speak up more in public. I'm looking forward to blowing smoke in your face. I just need to find you.

Cons_Lies

12 Aug 2008 01:38

Comment

Where I live smoking is banned in all indoor public places, and its great. There's no reason not to, the people who don't like smoking are free to breath clean air, and the smokers only have to take a step outside to get a puff of that irresistible chemical death stick.

verum

11 Aug 2008 01:20

Add a Comment

Smoking is ridiculous.

sander

11 Aug 2008 01:09

Add a Comment

Never mind a ban on indoor smoking, let's have a ban on outdoor smoking, too. In fact lets ban smoking altogether! I refer to Stuart Mills theory of liberty to protect our citizens from physical harm...

SMOKING KILLS, AND IF YOU ARE KILLED BECAUSE OF SMOKING, THEN YOU HAVE LOST A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF YOUR LIFE!

joe9

10 Aug 2008 21:05

26 Comments

Which part would that be?

Cons_Lies

12 Aug 2008 01:36

Comment

Kirsty08 how can you possibly state that It's harmful propaganda! It is evidential photographs of cancer stick smoking related illnesses. You even agree in the second paragraph of your last comment, that there is factual evidence that SMOKING CANCER STICKS can lead to horrible horrific illnesses. Hence, CIG SMOKE is harmful to both smokers, and non-smokers in general. The object of your Mr. Mill's essay, 'On Liberty', was, (and I quote directly): 'is to assert the simple principle that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection-that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against THEIR WILL, is to prevent harm to others, either by their action or inaction'. Therefore, Kirsty08, YOUR ARE HOISTED BY YOUR OWN PETARD, and your own man Mr. Mills destroys your own stance in this debate! Game set and Match! How can you possibly refute the former?...;-)

Comment

You are aware the John Stuart Mills argued for a person's right to be able to take drugs, right?

The "harm principle" would actually work in your favour if smoking really did harm non-smokers. However the evidence suggests otherwise:

No deaths have been recorded worldwide as being due to passive smoking

For every study that shows passive smoking to be a risk, six show it to be no risk at all.

The largest study on passive smoking ever conducted (Enstrom and Kabat) found no risk

The committee that advised the British Government on smoking bans was made up of 16 people, 14 of them were connected to the pharmaceuticals industry or the anti smoking movement.

The 1992 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study that has been used to impose many smoking bans around the world was criticised by many scientists and a U.S. Judge for:
- cherry picking data
- publishing the results before the study was started
- failing to account for bias

When the huge Oak Ridge Laboratories tested the difference in air quality between the none smoking section of a ventilated bar and a completely none smoking restaurant it found no difference between the two

(Personally, I think you're in over your head joe9)

Comment

Sorry Kirsty08, you are now like a worm wriggling on the end of a hook...;-) And, the point what got you hooked is your own former second paragraph comment...;-) The simple thing is like you suggested, smokers don't need statistics to tell or photographs to show them that smoking is harmful to them, they know it is harmful. THEY ARE NOT STUPID, as you pointed out! Smokers know this first thing in the morning when the majority cough their guts up, before their first cigarette. THEY ARE NOT STUPID! They know that their habit is disgusting, and is detrimental to their own health, when their teeth turn black, gums rot, lungs rot, and when they die an horrific death. THEY ARE NOT STUPID! They don't need to see laboratory test to show them the difference in air quality. They know, when they are gasping for breath because smoking has ruined their lungs. THEY ARE NOT STUPID???Therefore, as I have pointed out to you, your Mr. Mills essay 'On Liberty', is most relevant. As I have stated you are hoisted by your own petard, and no matter have much you try and wriggle off of your own point, (try and change the subject...;-), (you can't get away from this fact.!!!..;-) (Personally, I think you are a lot better getting into a debate over your head when fishing for a result, because fishermen get debated, if you get my drift? And, you took the bait hook, line and sinker...;-) I rest my case!;-0)

Comment

If we are talking about all indoors areas then I will disagree. I believe that some places prefer to accomodate smokers and it should be up to the individual bar, restaurant, office, etc. Just expect to loose or gain business as a result of your decisions.

Specter87

16 Nov 2008 20:09

Add a Comment

The same people who argue this point think nothing of lighting up a joint in the same room with kids or anyone else. I just don't see it and as a non smoker who quit smoking 22 years ago, I think the busy buddies who worry about what someone else is doing should take a look at their own habits.

Brighteyes

11 Nov 2008 22:53

Add a Comment

A rational solution would be to issue smoking licenses to those Establishments willing to pay for the privilege, the same as liquor licenses. The free-market approach of offering smokeless environments didn't work, so bans were enacted based primarily by the decree of old people who don't go to bars anyway.

I must add that potatoes have killed more people than second-hand smoke. Theoretically, of course, it seems that extreme exposure to smoke would be unhealthy, but research studies have been unable to find the "smoking gun" evidence they so desperately try to generate.

The propaganda campaign, however, has been quite successful. About 88% of persons under the age of 25 believe second-hand smoke is dangerous, compared to 44% of those over 50.

I know you'll insist I'm wrong, but this is one of my areas of research. I discourage smoking, but I detest the manipulation of scientific research for political purposes.

What I can't figure out, however, is what do they have to gain?

Lynn

12 Aug 2008 20:25

1 Comment

Since you mention manipulation of data I would guess you are talking about the EPA second hand smoke ‘super study’. I think they got the award for most imaginative manhandling of the margin of error, for that study

finsch

13 Aug 2008 23:21

Comment

I actually agree with the first half of Joe9's post. However, until that happens, and it never will because people like K9 are simply in the wrong, I have to opine on the side of civil rights.

If an establishment chooses to be non-smoking, then by all means it should be respected. If an establishment chooses to allow it, that too should be respected.

It's pretty simple math, isn't it? If I don't like football I should not walk into a football stadium on Sunday and demand that everyone stop playing. More people get hurt playing football than they do from smoking. I could justify it based on genuine, non-purchased, non-media-spun statistics. Of course if I did walk into a stadium on a Sunday and make such a demand, I should also expect to get my ass kicked.

Non-smokers have no more right to clean air than smokers.

Cons_Lies

12 Aug 2008 01:45

2 Comments

I'm just Curious Would you Be Interested In Running The Country?
I Reckon You'd Do A Better job Than Most

ScottyRAWR

12 Aug 2008 01:47

Comment

They banned smoking indoors where I live about a year ago. An old cigar shop that has been here for 40 years is going out of business because people can’t smoke in… the… cigar… shop. Can you really tell me this isn’t the height of p.c. Ridiculousness? I went to my favorite pub Friday night and there were 3 people outside in the tiny little smoking area on the street for every one that was inside and the overall business was sixty percent of what it was a year ago. And this was a pub that already had a top of the line well ventilated nonsmoking section. So explain to me again how this makes sense. I hope you all remember what I said when they take away whatever is bad for you that you like, and you can see if I shed a tear for your hypocrisy filled, self righteous, pompous little butts. All the real problems in this world and this is what you guys spend your time worrying about?

finsch

11 Aug 2008 02:36

3 Comments

I halfly agree with you.. I mean if the public place has a top of the line ventilated nonsmoking section then there is no reason for people who disagree with smoking to complain.

verum

11 Aug 2008 05:28

Comment

Sign In

Sign Up?

Login and Debate!
Username:
Password:
Forgot your Password?