• 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!

New Yorkers Have Mixed Feelings About Ban on Smoking in Parks(edited)

I don't consider it worthwhile or necessary to tell people those things. Smokers know it's unhealthy. Fat people know it's unhealthy. Telling them so is redundant and antagonistic. There's no reason to bother, unless you want someone to dislike you.

I don't like knowing there are people with guns walking around. Guns have a much higher second-hand death rate than cigs. In fact, between the two, they have the only proven second-hand death rate.

You think there's no good reason to smoke? You're very wrong. Bare with me.

Highly intelligent and highly successful people are prone to two things. Mental illness, and smoking. Why? Because the latter helps the former more consistently than just about anything I'm aware of. It actually improves concentration, and is an anti-depressant.

There are smokeless, spitless alternatives I think more smokers should be aware of - they carry a fraction of the risk and almost as much efficacy (because there's no doubt that while it may help your brain, smoking kills your body). Nicotine is being investigated as a Parkinson's drug, and a psychiatric drug. MAOI's, the other main drug in tobacco, is already a prescribed anti-depressant. And the only type that's proven to actually work. Nicotine also helps with ADD/ADHD, reduces risk of Alzheimers, and all sorts of other things. The only risk of nicotine by itself is that it's a stimulant in the same league as coffee, and thus a mild vasoconstrictor. It's combining it with combustion that makes it deadly

Tobacco is actually a very medically useful substance.

I'm not debating smoke sucks. I'm not debating it will probably kill you eventually. But, I am offering an often-overlooked aspect to it. Simply for your consideration of debate. ;)
 
MistressNomad said:
I don't consider it worthwhile or necessary to tell people those things. Smokers know it's unhealthy. Fat people know it's unhealthy. Telling them so is redundant and antagonistic. There's no reason to bother, unless you want someone to dislike you.
Click to expand...

You make it sound like I desire to be liked by smokers... I don't.

I don't like knowing there are people with guns walking around. Guns have a much higher second-hand death rate than cigs. In fact, between the two, they have the only proven second-hand death rate.
Click to expand...

Well, don't have that issue where I live. Still, that second-hand death rate from guns you refer to is predominately due to illegal use of the product. I would suggest that smoking cigarettes should be illegal in areas where non-smokers and especially children congregate.

You think there's no good reason to smoke? You're very wrong. Bare with me.

Highly intelligent and highly successful people are prone to two things. Mental illness, and smoking. Why? Because the latter helps the former more consistently than just about anything I'm aware of. It actually improves concentration, and is an anti-depressant.
Click to expand...


Most intelligent, successful people I know are non-smokers. Then again, I will admit to a selection bias here in that many of my friends are competitive athletes (we don't smoke as a general run) and I do not seek out the friendship of smokers.

There are smokeless, spitless alternatives I think more smokers should be aware of - they carry a fraction of the risk and almost as much efficacy (because there's no doubt that while it may help your brain, smoking kills your body). Nicotine is being investigated as a Parkinson's drug, and a psychiatric drug. MAOI's, the other main drug in tobacco, is already a prescribed anti-depressant. And the only type that's proven to actually work. Nicotine also helps with ADD/ADHD, reduces risk of Alzheimers, and all sorts of other things. The only risk of nicotine by itself is that it's a stimulant in the same league as coffee, and thus a mild vasoconstrictor. It's combining it with combustion that makes it deadly

Tobacco is actually a very medically useful substance.

I'm not debating smoke sucks. I'm not debating it will probably kill you eventually. But, I am offering an often-overlooked aspect to it. Simply for your consideration of debate. ;)
Click to expand...

If you want to smoke, do it in places where you won't affect non-smokers. It is that simple. If you don't have children at home, do it there or in your car. Don't do it in a park or on the beach where families are trying to enjoy themselves... and by all means don't do it in a sporting venue where athletes are putting forth maximum athletic effort... drives me nuts...
 
Many of the same phonies that want to ban smoking everywhere are for legalizing weed which is worse...Bloomberg is a flaming lib phony himself
 
ludahai said:
You make it sound like I desire to be liked by smokers... I don't.

Well, don't have that issue where I live. Still, that second-hand death rate from guns you refer to is predominately due to illegal use of the product. I would suggest that smoking cigarettes should be illegal in areas where non-smokers and especially children congregate.

Most intelligent, successful people I know are non-smokers. Then again, I will admit to a selection bias here in that many of my friends are competitive athletes (we don't smoke as a general run) and I do not seek out the friendship of smokers.

If you want to smoke, do it in places where you won't affect non-smokers. It is that simple. If you don't have children at home, do it there or in your car. Don't do it in a park or on the beach where families are trying to enjoy themselves... and by all means don't do it in a sporting venue where athletes are putting forth maximum athletic effort... drives me nuts...
Click to expand...

You also have selection bias because you seem to think you are superior to smokers. Well, I happen to think I'm superior to people with superiority complexes. ;)

Since that is pretty much all you said (various shades of "you're evil you're evil you're evil, smokers aren't people and I'm the best") I don't feel a need to address any more of this than that.
 
lpast said:
Many of the same phonies that want to ban smoking everywhere are for legalizing weed which is worse...Bloomberg is a flaming lib phony himself
Click to expand...

You got a link for that statement? I think smoking cigarettes and marijuana are both unhealthy. Cigarettes are the more addictive of the two. So where do you come up with such trash?
 
spud_meister said:
What's worse about weed?
Click to expand...

Not only is weed smoke just as carinogenic as cigarettes it kills brain cells and alters your psyche....all the things you already know along with the rest of the heads that would never admit it
 
lpast said:
Not only is weed smoke just as carinogenic as cigarettes it kills brain cells and alters your psyche....all the things you already know along with the rest of the heads that would never admit it
Click to expand...

Weed also happens to have an anti-carcinogenic agent that cancels out the effects of inhaling smoke. Pot smokers, even heavy ones, are a lot less likely to get lung cancer. Marijuana actually isn't proven to permanently damage your brain, though it does cause a dip in mental function while you're high.

In full disclosure, no, I don't smoke weed. I hate the effect it has on me. But that doesn't mean it's more harmful than cigarettes, which I smoke. It's not.
 
I don't agree with most outside smoking bans but I really can't work up a lot of animosity toward them. I am a non-smoker and can't stand to have smoke around me and especially hate it around my sons and it isn't always easy to just move away. I just think it is going to dissipate pretty quickly out in the open so it really isn't a big deal to have smokers in a park, especially if they have smoking areas of the park. It seems especially dumb to just outlaw it altogether instead of setting up smoking areas, like the government does on its properties and they do at many amusement/theme/water parks.
 
roguenuke said:
I don't agree with most outside smoking bans but I really can't work up a lot of animosity toward them. I am a non-smoker and can't stand to have smoke around me and especially hate it around my sons and it isn't always easy to just move away. I just think it is going to dissipate pretty quickly out in the open so it really isn't a big deal to have smokers in a park, especially if they have smoking areas of the park. It seems especially dumb to just outlaw it altogether instead of setting up smoking areas, like the government does on its properties and they do at many amusement/theme/water parks.
Click to expand...

Honestly why is it that smokers seem to be looked upon as non-citizens with no rights? I mean this is suppose to be a free country and now in some places they gonna fine us for smoking in PUBLIC Places? This is just not right as smoking is NOT illegal.

I am starting to think that smokers should ban up and sue the hell out of our gov.
 
Kali said:
Honestly why is it that smokers seem to be looked upon as non-citizens with no rights? I mean this is suppose to be a free country and now in some places they gonna fine us for smoking in PUBLIC Places? This is just not right as smoking is NOT illegal.

I am starting to think that smokers should ban up and sue the hell out of our gov.
Click to expand...

You are a minority now. Less than 1/4 of americans smoke. I can not stand the smell of it. It ruins a car's interior as well as a house.
I realize there are some courteous smokers who make attempt to avoid smoking around others.

But as I was told when I was a teenager, "You are judged by the friends you keep". If you look around at our sidewalks and streets you see the debris from smokers. Before you go off on about other litter that is a problem too no doubt. But in pure number of debris the butt is the leader it often seems.

No matter what good points some may bring up here, the smoker is the next dinosaur.
It is hard to find any sympathy for one's addiction. Cowboy up and go cold turkey or continue to become more and more frustrated. Of course the more you become frustrated the more you need a cig and the cycle continues.......
 
MistressNomad said:
You also have selection bias because you seem to think you are superior to smokers. Well, I happen to think I'm superior to people with superiority complexes. ;)

Since that is pretty much all you said (various shades of "you're evil you're evil you're evil, smokers aren't people and I'm the best") I don't feel a need to address any more of this than that.
Click to expand...

Well, if you are stupid enough to smoke then well perhaps non-smokers ARE superior to you...
 
Kali said:
Honestly why is it that smokers seem to be looked upon as non-citizens with no rights? I mean this is suppose to be a free country and now in some places they gonna fine us for smoking in PUBLIC Places? This is just not right as smoking is NOT illegal.

I am starting to think that smokers should ban up and sue the hell out of our gov.
Click to expand...

And of course, smokers don't have the right to enjoy public places without being inundated with cigarette smoke? Legal products can and are regulated and restricted in their use all the time.
 
Kali said:
Honestly why is it that smokers seem to be looked upon as non-citizens with no rights? I mean this is suppose to be a free country and now in some places they gonna fine us for smoking in PUBLIC Places? This is just not right as smoking is NOT illegal.

I am starting to think that smokers should ban up and sue the hell out of our gov.
Click to expand...

What specific right am I trying to keep you from? Last I checked, there are plenty of things that people cannot do in a public place that are completely legal to do at home/in other places. Most public places do not allow you to drink, but it is legal to do at home/in other places. Most public places do not allow you to get naked and/or require that you have on a minimum amount of clothing, while you are completely able to get naked in private. Many public places do not allow you to have dangerous items or potentially dangerous items in the area, such as glass containers, needles, knives, etc. (depending on the place), but these things are all legal to own. Many public places do not allow a gun to be displayed, some do not allow a gun at all, while owning a gun is protected specifically by the Constitution. Riding a bike, scooter, skateboard, or being on skates except in certain designated areas is prohibited in many, many places, yet owning all these things and doing all these activities are legal.

I have said that I really don't agree with outdoor smoking bans, for the most part, but that if they are implemented, there should at least be a designated smoking area. What we can and cannot do in public or in certain public places is restricted all the time for the prevention of harm to others. You are not being singled out, nor is their not a reason to have smoking bans, it is just that some of them go too far. You don't like, get together and try to get it changed instead of complaining about how people are trying to treat you as a second-class/non- citizen because of your (potentially dangerous to others) bad habit. No specific rights, guaranteed rights are being denied to you, no more than the bicyclists, skater, out-of-a-glass-bottle or alcohol drinker, nudist, and others.
 
roguenuke said:
What specific right am I trying to keep you from? Last I checked, there are plenty of things that people cannot do in a public place that are completely legal to do at home/in other places. Most public places do not allow you to drink, but it is legal to do at home/in other places. Most public places do not allow you to get naked and/or require that you have on a minimum amount of clothing, while you are completely able to get naked in private. Many public places do not allow you to have dangerous items or potentially dangerous items in the area, such as glass containers, needles, knives, etc. (depending on the place), but these things are all legal to own. Many public places do not allow a gun to be displayed, some do not allow a gun at all, while owning a gun is protected specifically by the Constitution. Riding a bike, scooter, skateboard, or being on skates except in certain designated areas is prohibited in many, many places, yet owning all these things and doing all these activities are legal.
Click to expand...


Just because it was done to other things it is alright?
 
Henrin said:
Just because it was done to other things it is alright?
Click to expand...

Some are, some aren't. Depends on what they are in place for and if they relate to protection of the public. Protection of the public is always going to be a gray-area issue because it involves the rights of one group of people (those who want to do an activity that could potentially affect others) vs. the rights of another group of people (those who would potentially be negatively affected by the other group's activity).

Unfortunately, some of our actions do affect others, especially in public, and some people do not want to accept responsibility for those actions. That is why it is necessary to regulate some of those actions to ensure the safety of others. Very few people would argue that shooting a gun randomly in public without a specific threat should be outlawed, yet the action alone is not always going to lead to some innocent person being harmed.
 
ludahai said:
Well, if you are stupid enough to smoke then well perhaps non-smokers ARE superior to you...
Click to expand...

What a snobby reply:( Just because somone smokes does not mean you are superior to them in any way. At. All.
 
Smoking is legal and until it is not? I will keep smoking in public outside and will not visit places that do not allow smokers to smoke outside. Does not seem right as nobody OWNS the public streets or the AIR there!

Tell me exactly where the hell is a visitor to NY suppose to smoke? You cannot do it outside in parks, in bars, hotels, etc? So where are the visitors suppose to legally smoke? They have no private home as they are there to visit dumbass!!!!
 
Kali said:
Smoking is legal and until it is not? I will keep smoking in public outside and will not visit places that do not allow smokers to smoke outside. Does not seem right as nobody OWNS the public streets or the AIR there!

Tell me exactly where the hell is a visitor to NY suppose to smoke? You cannot do it outside in parks, in bars, hotels, etc? So where are the visitors suppose to legally smoke? They have no private home as they are there to visit dumbass!!!!
Click to expand...

Too bad. Smokers have brought this upon themselves... Their arrogant attitude and not having respect for the rights of non-smokers have resulted in the majority of the people who does not smoke to act to protect their rights and the rights of their children. Perhaps you shouldn't smoke. It would be better for you in so many ways, anyway...
 
Kali said:
Smoking is legal and until it is not? I will keep smoking in public outside and will not visit places that do not allow smokers to smoke outside. Does not seem right as nobody OWNS the public streets or the AIR there!

Tell me exactly where the hell is a visitor to NY suppose to smoke? You cannot do it outside in parks, in bars, hotels, etc? So where are the visitors suppose to legally smoke? They have no private home as they are there to visit dumbass!!!!
Click to expand...

Kali sweetie please don't smoke...it kills your lungs and your wallet.
 
ludahai said:
Too bad. Smokers have brought this upon themselves... Their arrogant attitude and not having respect for the rights of non-smokers....
Click to expand...

So, basically, you say smokers brought it upon themselves based on taking the act of a certain % of smokers, and making a blanket generalization about everybody who smokes? And somehow that %'s actions mean there can be no compromise, and the smokers should be forced to endure absurd taxation, ridicule to the point of slander in some cases, and all sort of other nasties?

I think people with that attitude brought it upon smokers if anything - often smokers want compromise to make it work - imperial evidence I have to support this is the reaction to the new smoking ban policy at the college I go to - where starting in the fall one can only smoke in his or her car, with the windows up. So far, a lot of the smokers, and *SOME* non-smoers [including myself] have been pushing for compromise, whereas a lot of the non-smokers are too stubborn to even look at compromise.
 
Last edited:
Travelsonic said:
So, basically, you say smokers brought it upon themselves based on taking the act of a certain % of smokers, and making a blanket generalization about everybody who smokes? And somehow that %'s actions mean there can be no compromise, and the smokers should be forced to endure absurd taxation, ridicule to the point of slander in some cases, and all sort of other nasties?

I think people with that attitude brought it upon smokers if anything - often smokers want compromise to make it work - imperial evidence I have to support this is the reaction to the new smoking ban policy at the college I go to - where starting in the fall one can only smoke in his or her car, with the windows up. So far, a lot of the smokers, and *SOME* non-smoers [including myself] have been pushing for compromise, whereas a lot of the non-smokers are too stubborn to even look at compromise.
Click to expand...

And such a compromise is fine. I specifically listed a compromise that I preferred over this ban, which was smoking areas, which seem to work well for both the military and amusement parks. I got accused of trying to take away rights of smokers despite having the compromise in my first post. That irritates me because it makes me believe that, at least some smokers don't want to compromise but rather just complain about how they can't smoke whereever they want to.

Also, some don't want to recognize that there is good evidence that their smoking does affect others negatively. That is the good reason for limiting where they can smoke.

Banning it altogether is not a good way to deal with this but calling people names and not arguing based on what they are saying is not going to help the smokers' side.
 
Travelsonic said:
So, basically, you say smokers brought it upon themselves based on taking the act of a certain % of smokers, and making a blanket generalization about everybody who smokes? And somehow that %'s actions mean there can be no compromise, and the smokers should be forced to endure absurd taxation, ridicule to the point of slander in some cases, and all sort of other nasties?
Click to expand...

Smokers deserve to be derided for the simple fact that they are stupid enough to smoke. The rest of us should not have to be subjected to the stupidity of such smokers. Yes, they should be taxed heavily for two reasons: 1. to discourage young people from taking up the habit and 2. replenish government funds used to treat smokers. And what 'slander' is being perpetrated against smokers?

I think people with that attitude brought it upon smokers if anything - often smokers want compromise to make it work - imperial evidence I have to support this is the reaction to the new smoking ban policy at the college I go to - where starting in the fall one can only smoke in his or her car, with the windows up. So far, a lot of the smokers, and *SOME* non-smoers [including myself] have been pushing for compromise, whereas a lot of the non-smokers are too stubborn to even look at compromise.
Click to expand...

What compromise do you want? I have no problem with smoker areas. However, many smokers don't care about that. They think they have the right to light up whereever and whenever they want. You don't. If you think you have the right to light up in the presense of non-smokers, then the non-smokers will respond by telling you that you don't. If you want the "freedom" to be enslaved to an addictive poison, perhaps you should form your own ghettos so you don't subject the rest of us to your poison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom