• 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!

Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

Moot said:
Sorry, but yes they do. Millions of people who lived and worked in buildings with smokers were getting cancer from the second hand smoke and dying. Thats a fact. Who knows where that extra cigarette tax really goes, I don't, do you? Because one thing is for sure, the insurance rates still went up. So do you think a higher tax on fast food, sodas and twinkies would cover the cost of the chronically obese medical care as well? Even if it did, which it wouldn't, we would all still have to pay the higher tax plus the increased insurance rates to cover their medical costs. Not to mention the fast food and soda business would object to the government intrusion on their business.

You've heard the old saying, an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure? Programs that help people quit smoking or lose weight or get off drugs are a helluva lot cheaper than paying for their medical costs or incarcerating them.
Click to expand...

The evidence contradicts your claim.

Yes I do know where cigarette taxes go.
They go to programs like SCHIP, where high middle income families get subsidized medical insurance for their children.
Irresponsible if you ask me.

Not all prevention is less expensive.
Common sense sayings aren't always true.
 
reefedjib said:
There is absolutely no connection between smoking, a legal activity, and drunk driving. Stop being a dick.
Click to expand...

No connection, but there are parallels.

*addiction
*selfishness
*public safely
*and families have to live with the consequences. Something you should think about.
 
hazlnut said:
No connection, but there are parallels.

*addiction
*selfishness
*public safely
*and families have to live with the consequences. Something you should think about.
Click to expand...

The same is true of skiing.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
This is where it gets complicated. Smoking is a choice made by an individual that is proven to have a serious negative impact on the health of others. Eating a peanut in someones presence can cause them a severe allergic reaction?
Click to expand...

I keep seeing this and keep shaking my head....

Have a read....

Davehitt.com: The EPA Report

The ruling from the judge talked about in the Davehitt.com article

In other words...the EPA's "study" on "passive smoking" is bullchit.
 
Orion said:
When perfume can cause cancer then I'll care. Until then, apples and oranges. We're not talking about offensive body odours but a product containing hundreds of known and verified carcinogens. I shouldn't have to move because some jerk nearby wants to poison himself. If you want to consume poison then just go drink some, or snort it. Do it in any other way where I don't have to breathe your toxic and disgusting exhaled breath.
Click to expand...
BZZZZT! :2razz:

You stated, and I quote,

It isn't just about getting cancer.
Click to expand...

You should notice what I responded to with my post. After the above, you went on to whine about allergies:

People have allergies to cigarette smoke (myself included) and a minute's worth of exposure is enough to trigger sniffles, so please don't lecture me about loss of logical and rational thought.
Click to expand...
Sniffles? Seriously?

People's cologne gives me ****ing migraines. MIGRAINES. And yet because you get sniffles you want smoking banned?

Pahlease.

Air pollution is a problem in cities but it is fairly dilute compared to the smoke that comes out of some jerk's mouth who decides to light up mere feet away from my friend and I as we are leaning on a railing watching the water. Why should I have to move because some jerk has no consideration for others?
Click to expand...
Because it's YOUR health. And YOUR health is YOUR responsibility. If the smoke bothers you, move.


Yeah boo hoo I can't take responsibility because I don't want to walk down the street walking behind someone who is puffing on a cancer stick. How about YOU take personal responsibility for YOUR addiction and smoke at home where people who actually value healthy lifestyle won't have to smell your noxious fumes?
Click to expand...
Don't walk behind someone smoking. Be responsible for your own health, not dependent on the govt to mandate it for you.
 
reefedjib said:
The same is true of skiing.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Everyone who steps on a hill voluntarily takes the same risk.

When people light up in a crowed public space like Times Square, they are selfishly risking the health of others.

I will say this, from my own observation, the majority of American smokers I encounter these days are more than polite. They go out of their way to make sure the smoke isn't blowing in the non-smokers direction--very respectful and courteous.

The Europeans, not so much.

On the rare occasion, when a smoker goes out of his/her way to be a loud jackass, blowing smoking my way, daring me to say something, I just take comfort in knowing the demoralizing death that will come sooner than they think.

Here's a question for conservatives: Should health issues directly related to smoking be covered under Medicare? Should life-long smokers get free preventative Meds and life-sustaining treatment like oxygen tanks? If, at age 65, a doctor examines a person and determines that smoking is a direct cause to his major health issues, then the financial burden should fall on him.
 
hazlnut said:
Not at all. Everyone who steps on a hill voluntarily takes the same risk.

When people light up in a crowed public space like Times Square, they are selfishly risking the health of others.

I will say this, from my own observation, the majority of American smokers I encounter these days are more than polite. They go out of their way to make sure the smoke isn't blowing in the non-smokers direction--very respectful and courteous.

The Europeans, not so much.

On the rare occasion, when a smoker goes out of his/her way to be a loud jackass, blowing smoking my way, daring me to say something, I just take comfort in knowing the demoralizing death that will come sooner than they think.

Here's a question for conservatives: Should health issues directly related to smoking be covered under Medicare? Should life-long smokers get free preventative Meds and life-sustaining treatment like oxygen tanks? If, at age 65, a doctor examines a person and determines that smoking is a direct cause to his major health issues, then the financial burden should fall on him.
Click to expand...

Medicare shouldn't cover anything directly related to self causing medical problems.

Obesity related causes, smoking, riding motorcycles, being OTR truck drivers, eating foods high in saturated fats.
If you restrict it down, we can completely save Medicare. ;)
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Medicare shouldn't cover anything directly related to self causing medical problems.

Obesity related causes, smoking, riding motorcycles, being OTR truck drivers, eating foods high in saturated fats.
If you restrict it down, we can completely save Medicare. ;)
Click to expand...

If I am not covered, I am not paying. When will I get my refund?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Medicare shouldn't cover anything directly related to self causing medical problems.
Click to expand...

But it does.

Obesity related causes, smoking, riding motorcycles, being OTR truck drivers, eating foods high in saturated fats.
If you restrict it down, we can completely save Medicare. ;)
Click to expand...

Perhaps.

Why motorcycles and OTR accidents, why not all car accidents? Sports cars are higher risk and so are SUVs. Boating accidents are usually more serious. I don't think you can pick and choose--unless they're intoxicated or trying some Jackass-type stunt, then accidents are accidents.

Remember, getting on the motorcycle isn't what kills you... it's being thrown off the bike at 60mph.

Obesity is closer to smoking, in that doctors can show direct links to health issues.
 
hazlnut said:
But it does.
Click to expand...

But it shouldn't.

hazlnut said:
Perhaps.

Why motorcycles and OTR accidents, why not all car accidents? Sports cars are higher risk and so are SUVs. Boating accidents are usually more serious. I don't think you can pick and choose--unless they're intoxicated or trying some Jackass-type stunt, then accidents are accidents.

Remember, getting on the motorcycle isn't what kills you... it's being thrown off the bike at 60mph.

Obesity is closer to smoking, in that doctors can show direct links to health issues.
Click to expand...

OTR drivers develop back injuries directly related to their job.
Motorcycle riders expressly expose themselves to unwarranted risk of bodily injury.

I want to make sure the list is full of self caused problems so we don't act all prejudiced against one group but all people.
All people engage in some potentially dangerous acts.

We shouldn't keep beating up the smoker boogie man.
 
Republic_Of_Public said:
Though, of course, the liberal idiots who want to ban tobacco smoking on the grounds of personal freedom for passive smokers, also would want pot legalised - for reasons of personal freedom of course!
Click to expand...

You better not be painting me with that broad brush... I don't support criminalization of tobacco (for now) but it should be kept in your own home (providing you don't have captive children at home)
 
Kal'Stang said:
I understand that you hate to share public spaces with smokers. I can even respect that. But smokers have rights also. I would rather them out right make it illegal than do what they are doing now. Because as it stands with it being legal they should have no right to tell you where you can/can't smoke...except on federal property, that I don't mind them telling me no. But when it comes to public property or a private buisness? That is an invasion of privacy and rights as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...

Your rights end where they reach my nose.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If that's the case, I want a ban on fat people in revealing clothing, loud music, unleashed dogs, food, unsupervised children, etc.

The list is very long of **** that I want banned in the park.
Click to expand...

After my trip to a U.S. beach last summer, I am with you on the fat people in revealing clothing. Thankful I live in a country with few truly obese people... and where I live, unleashed dogs in most parks is already illegal...
 
ludahai said:
After my trip to a U.S. beach last summer, I am with you on the fat people in revealing clothing. Thankful I live in a country with few truly obese people... and where I live, unleashed dogs in most parks is already illegal...
Click to expand...

Smokers should no more be burdened with these type of things, if we aren't going to do it to everyone.
 
ludahai said:
You better not be painting me with that broad brush... I don't support criminalization of tobacco (for now) but it should be kept in your own home (providing you don't have captive children at home)
Click to expand...

Nah....you just want it hidden like they use to do with lepers. :roll:

As for the "captive children" bit? My dads father smoked since before my dad was born. My dad smokes and has since I was born. (I'm 35 and my dad is 66) Neither one of them had/has lung cancer. Neither do I. I left some links about the EPA and their "study" in my last post...I'd suggest ya read it before ya believe all the hype about second hand smoke.
 
rivrrat said:
Wait wait wait... you mean you're actually able to physically move yourself from a location wherein someone's presence is odorously offensive? All by yourself? Without calling the government to come and ban the person's presence? How do you manage that? Do you have special abilities that allow you to actually think and move for yourself? You're one of those Hero dudes, aren't you?


:lol:
Click to expand...

If I am enjoying myself with my family, we are settled down, enjoying a dinner or a conversation, why should WE have to move because an addict who is a slave to a weed decides to light up? I love how people say smokers have rights, but your rights end where they meet my nose. Nicotine is a known poison. Right, POISON. You are defending the right of people to casually spread poison in public areas. Sorry, I have absolutely NO sympathy for those people, NONE AT ALL... and if you can't accept restrictions to shield the rest of us from your slavery to the weed, then ban it...
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Both of us can move to separate areas, it is of no consequence.

I hate the smell of diesel vehicles, really hate it.
No one is banning them from the road.
Click to expand...

But the diesel is regulated as is the pollution emitted from them -- though I support stronger restrictions... furthermore, those vehicles serve a vital purpose to society, which smoking does not... but, if we want to ban diesel vehicles, or all pollution emmiting vehicles, I am sure I would get along better than most... I would have no problem getting on my bike every day to the countryside to get veggies and other foods or to work or to other places to get daily necessities... could you do that? I suspect most smokers could not do that so well and the Americans who are so fat that they can't even see their feet would not fare so well either... so BRING IT ON!!!
 
Ikari said:
It's easy for YOU to go somewhere else as well.
Click to expand...

Why should I have to go somewhere else simply because a selfish smoker chooses to light up where I am enjoying myself with my friends and/or my family? Perhaps it is the addict to the weed who should move!
 
Kal'Stang said:
I've said it before and now it's happening. It always starts out small. Just a little thing. Then it grows bigger and bigger. Pretty soon it becomes a way of life in which people have forgotten what it either was like or what it should have been like. I'm sure you're wondering what I'm talking about. Well at this point in time I'm talking about smoking. Though what I said above can certainly be applied to lots of other things. But for now, lets stick with smoking.

It started out by banning smoking in federal buildings. Then it moved onto buisnesses like grocery stores. Oh sure they were understandable. After all smoking IS a hazardous habit for more than just the smoker. So fine, we accepted that. Then came the ban on smoking in restaurants and bars. Using the same excuse. No matter that there were bars and restaurants that were non-smoking. They said that non-smokers "didn't have a choice". Yes those were the exact words that I have heard used. And now comes the next step in getting rid of smokers. The banning of smoking in the outdoors. Yeah you heard it right. New York's mayor wants to ban smoking "in parks, beaches, marinas, boardwalks and pedestrian plazas throughout the city". Including Times Square.

CBS: Smokers Beware! Proposed New York City Smoking Ban Targets Outdoor Facilities

This folks is what is called "baby steps". The government has been doing it for a long time, and will no doubt continue to do so. In the end this is how they get the populous to do what they want it to do. This is how the once meant to be small federal government has grown into "Big Brother". IE Big Government. And I would bet $1,000 dollars that once smoking is gone they will move onto drinking beer or some other "bad" thing.
Click to expand...

I love to smoke. But I'm not a habitual smoker.

Yet I have no problem with the government banning it.

Odd - does that make sense? No, it doesn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom