• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Smoking ban leads to major drop in heart attacks

I believe that cigarettes would be outlawed, but the government can't do it cause there are still so many who smoke. This would make them criminals, so they've been tip-toeing around it for many years.

Isn't Obama a closet smoker? I can't see him taking up the issue if he's lighting up too.
 
I believe that cigarettes would be outlawed, but the government can't do it cause there are still so many who smoke. This would make them criminals, so they've been tip-toeing around it for many years. There is revenue made from them too, but I don't think that's why it's still legal it's more because of the addicting properties of it, and so many just can't kick the habit.

I think it's got a lot more to do with the following:

  • Tobacco is still a cash crop
  • Both the growers and the cigarette makers have a lot of money to throw around
  • Various state governments (like NY, for example) have figured out that taxing tobacco is a great revenue generator

In New York, for example, cigarette tax money is used to fund health care programs for low-income children and adults.
 
Holy crap.

We agree.

Crap, the end-times are coming!

;)
I believe the end times are coming (and I believe the election of Obama will move this forward), but it has absolutely nothing to do with us agreeing, although it is nice to see! :cool:
 
And if anyone is going to respond to my post, please provide an example of second hand smoke being forced on someone. But since you can't because one does not exist, I don't expect any responses at the same time.

1. Growing up, my parents forced second hand smoke on me nearly every day of my childhood.

2. I worked for a company a few years ago that required its employees to attend a monthly working lunch. While smoking was prohibited in the workplace, it wasn't (at that time) prohibited in the restaurant. My boss (despite the fact that NO ONE else lighted up), choose to smoke, blowing his smoke everyone in the room when we were having our working lunch.

3. Many times, I have been in a public place, minding my own business, when a smoker would come, sit next to me and light up. He was forcing his poison on me.

4. Once when I was a grad students at the University of Georgia, I was working on an essay in the computer lab when a girl (fat and ugly) sat next to me REEKING of cigarette smoke. It was absolutely disgusting.

This is only a FEW instances where smokers showed a lack of respect for the rights of me as a non-smoker. I am so much looking forward to the new laws taking effect here next Sunday. I will report ANY place I see not enforcing the law to the local authorities.
 
Just waiting for those who defend the government forcing people who are smoking a legal substance to only smoke where they say it's okay to smoke it to show up in this thread. Oh wait, you freedom haters are already here.

:2wave:

The government places restrictions on a LARGE NUMBER of legal substances.
 
So if a majority of a business's customers are allergic to a certain type of perfume, the government should be able to ban it? It's a public safety issue and their customer's health is at risk. Businesses are their to serve others but they should also be allowed to run their business the way they want to within the law, and last I checked cigarettes are still legal. For instance you say they have to take in all of their customers not just a few, for lots of businesses it's the other way around. Most of their customers are smokers and a few are not. So they now have to accomodate their few customers instead of the majority because of a law that forces them to.

There is a stark difference between an allergy and a POISON!
 
The government places restrictions on a LARGE NUMBER of legal substances.


Always nice to see people who support the right of government to tell me what I can or cannot put into my body. Heck it's not like I own myself or any such nonsense.
 
From the OP:



I have an alternate interpretation which none of the smoker-haters have considered.

Perhaps what this study means is that, in the absence of life-giving second-hand cigarette smoke, 40% of the people who normally would've made it as far as the hospital when they had a heart attack instead flat-out dropped dead.

:lol:

This is what happens when you rely on anecdotal evidence to make your case.

That is all. :cool:

That is your interpretation. Remember, this article only gave numbers and some basic conclusions. Personally, I would like to find the actual published study. I trust the doctors and scientists on this. There is SO MUCH evidence that second hand smoke is harmful that those who deny it are approaching deserving of tin hat status.
 
link



Of course, I have been called an anti-smoking Nazi or other such things, but I will not tolerate those who will force their poison on me.

No one should be allowed to smoke in public places, or in places where children are forced to be (ie schools, homes with children or cars with children as passengers.)

Taiwan is nine days away from relatively strict anti-smoking laws coming into effect. I, for one, am going to celebrate January 11, 2009 as a day of liberation from smokers who have no regard for the rights or health of non-smokers.
If the state does not want people to smoke in public places then that is fine but that means actual public owned property not private property. The wishes of private property owners should not be overridden in this way. If you want to go to a bar which doesn't allow smoking then start one or frequent one like this.
 
It's okay to deny others their liberty if it's for a good cause. Obviously this study proves out everything and we should take it as holy writ!

Let's all celebrate the day Liberty was denied!

Where is the right to pollute with a known toxin guaranteed in the Constitution?
 
Where is the right to pollute with a known toxin guaranteed in the Constitution?

It isn't polluting because as far as I know no one is suggesting that many outside the area where people are smoking is being harmed. It isn't as if the smoke from bars gathers around the city and harms those miles away. As for within private property, well that is your choice, if you don't want to breathe the air then don't go inside.
 
Bully for those who wish to live in a city where the government nanny rules. If someone wants to smoke, it's their business and not the government's, unless the smoker is causing non-smokers to breath his smoke. Here, it looks like the Nazis DID take over.

Where did you get the right to breathe out your toxin in a place where the public congregates?
 
Where did you get the right to breathe out your toxin in a place where the public congregates?

When the property owner gave you permission.

Private property is not sovereign but it should carry a lot of rights with it including whether you allow people to smoke on it.
 
Isn't Obama a closet smoker? I can't see him taking up the issue if he's lighting up too.

State and local governments have taken the lead on this in the US (as they should.) This is NOT an issue for the Federal government.

Here in Taiwan, the national government set the new law, but the local governments are working on enforcement schemes. Many are going to make it possible for local residents to report restraurants and other public access places that don't enforce the laws with photographic evidence and share the fine with those reporting them. This could be quite the cottage industry in these tough economic times.
 
That is your interpretation. Remember, this article only gave numbers and some basic conclusions. Personally, I would like to find the actual published study. I trust the doctors and scientists on this. There is SO MUCH evidence that second hand smoke is harmful that those who deny it are approaching deserving of tin hat status.

The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke

Gio Batta Gori - The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke - washingtonpost.com

If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth.

FORCES International - The Evidence - Second Hand (Passive)Smoke

A federal court has taken a look at the Environmental Protection Agency's science on secondhand smoke and called it junk

COURT RULES AGAINST EPA ON SECONDHAND SMOKE

Not saying you are wrong, but it is worth looking at.

I agree in the case of children by the way.
 
Always nice to see people who support the right of government to tell me what I can or cannot put into my body. Heck it's not like I own myself or any such nonsense.

My objection here isn't about what you put in your body, it is what you put in the air that others are breathing.
 
If the state does not want people to smoke in public places then that is fine but that means actual public owned property not private property. The wishes of private property owners should not be overridden in this way. If you want to go to a bar which doesn't allow smoking then start one or frequent one like this.

The next thing, will you advocate that business owners be allowed to deny service to black people again?

The government has long regulated what can and can not be done in places of public access. Live with it. Regulating the use of a POISONOUS substance is WELL WITHIN the rights of the government.
 
My objection here isn't about what you put in your body, it is what you put in the air that others are breathing.

If you are on private property then it is your right to do what is allowed by the owner, not the government.
 
It isn't polluting because as far as I know no one is suggesting that many outside the area where people are smoking is being harmed. It isn't as if the smoke from bars gathers around the city and harms those miles away. As for within private property, well that is your choice, if you don't want to breathe the air then don't go inside.

What about forcing your poison on your children at home? What about the pollution of this poison in parks where children are playing?

Also, business ARE places of public access. In the US, the courts have LONG ruled that the government has the right to regulate these businesses, especially as it comes to substances that are potentially harmful.

Yes, cigarette smoke IS pollution. It is poison. The government has a compelling interest. Look at the reduction of heart attacks in just three years in this one community. The health benefits alone are a compelling interest for the government to step in.

Personally, I think tobacco should be banned. The behavior of cigarette smokers is abmoninable.
 
The next thing, will you advocate that business owners be allowed to deny service to black people again?

That is nothing but an outrageous strawman argument. Shame on you.

The government has long regulated what can and can not be done in places of public access. Live with it.

Still advocating the case for the government to tell me what to do with my body eh?

Regulating the use of a POISONOUS substance is WELL WITHIN the rights of the government.

Like I said, good thing we have government to tell us what we can do with our own property.

All hail the mighty state!
 
The next thing, will you advocate that business owners be allowed to deny service to black people again?

The government has long regulated what can and can not be done in places of public access. Live with it. Regulating the use of a POISONOUS substance is WELL WITHIN the rights of the government.
Personally I think that businesses should be able to serve who they choose.

The gov't has long encroached on liberty indeed, tha is not a good thing and this is not secret poisoning this is the open allowance of smoking. One cannot really respect private property and be for these bans, they are a complete deprivance of the rights of private property. What is basically said is that the non-owners who come onto the property freely in the knowledge of what is in store of them can override the rights of the property holder to that do allow an act which only effects those on the property, if that.
 
When the property owner gave you permission.

Private property is not sovereign but it should carry a lot of rights with it including whether you allow people to smoke on it.

If there are children in your home, you are not sovereign. Children should have the right to grow up in a smoke free home.

Places of public access have long been regulated by the government. Prohibiting smoking in these places is in the CLEAR PUBLIC interest. I am sorry that you think you can terrorize people with your cigarette smoke, but increasingly, people are rebelling against the tyranny of the smokers!
 
If you are on private property then it is your right to do what is allowed by the owner, not the government.

Unless it is a place of public access. Then the courts have long held that the government has a compelling interest to regulate what happens in such places.
 
That is nothing but an outrageous strawman argument. Shame on you.

Same legal principle at work.

Still advocating the case for the government to tell me what to do with my body eh?

Nope, advocating the case for the government to tell you what you can not pollute the air people breathe with.

Like I said, good thing we have government to tell us what we can do with our own property.

Business owners CHOOSE to make their "private property" a place of public access which the government has a compelling interest to regulate.

Do you think you have the right to pollute the air your children breathe at home and in your car?
 
Back
Top Bottom