• 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

It's pompous and arrogant to say SHS can't cause cancer when clearly it does, and the law agrees.

I have never stated that SHS can't cause cancer. I have stated that the chance of it doing so is negligable. As in remote. As in the chances are small. (at the very least smaller than what many anti-smokers would have you beilieve) I wonder if you are really reading and comprehending what it is I am saying....

I don't use cleaning products. I use vinegar, baking soda, and water. Nothing else is needed.

So you don't use dish soap to wash your dishes? Amazing.

You can't think of examples of things I do in parks that harm others sitting near me. Smokers do just that.

That is not what my challenge stated. My challenge was....

If you want I'll even make a list of things that are not needed in society but are just creature comforts...and is the cause of lots of the pollutants that you say you are against.

That includes every single thing that you use or have. Shall I make that list? Or are you finally willing to admit that you are a cause of needless toxins in the air also?
 
Last edited:
RR's argument still stands. This thread was started because non-smokers are trying to ban smokers from smoking in common areas such as parks. So they are as much apart of this discussion as are smokers. Trying to limit this whole debate to the supposed "irresponsibility" of smokers is disengenous. Especially when you seem to want to make a blanket statement about the whole group. A false blanket statement at that. For proof I give you...me. I never throw my cigarette onto the ground. I rub out the cherry and pocket the butt until I have time to put it in the garbage. I have not smoked on a sidewalk in about 5 years now. I don't smoke any where near other people unless I know them to be smokers also. If someone comes to my house and I know that they are non-smokers I show them respect by not lighting up until after they leave.

Sorry bud, but your blanket statement is quite false.
Oh please, spare me your condensending attitude. In case you didn't read, I'm a smoker too and have commented for and against both sides of the arguement. I'm also every bit as conscientious and a considerate smoker as you, if not more so, because I don't even smoke in my own damn house and I make my guests smoke outside, too. And as for LA having a smog problem, again you are wrong. Although not 100%, the air is nowhere near as bad as it used to be since they've been putting additives in the gasoline and with the low emission vechicles. In fact, there are far worse polluted cities in the US than LA is or ever was. So that tells me that either you and/or your information are severly outdated. So save yourself the embarrassment and do try to keep up, luv.
 
RR's argument still stands. This thread was started because non-smokers are trying to ban smokers from smoking in common areas such as parks. So they are as much apart of this discussion as are smokers. Trying to limit this whole debate to the supposed "irresponsibility" of smokers is disengenous. Especially when you seem to want to make a blanket statement about the whole group. A false blanket statement at that. For proof I give you...me. I never throw my cigarette onto the ground. I rub out the cherry and pocket the butt until I have time to put it in the garbage. I have not smoked on a sidewalk in about 5 years now. I don't smoke any where near other people unless I know them to be smokers also. If someone comes to my house and I know that they are non-smokers I show them respect by not lighting up until after they leave.

Sorry bud, but your blanket statement is quite false.

Using anecdotal evidence on a message board as a means of proof is a fallacy. So i have little doubt you agree with RR (by being a smoker and user of fallacies).
 
In LA huh...a place known for its smog. I respect that you think that it was cigarette smoke that caused the cancer. But I'm sorry, I'm still not convinced that it couldn't have been one of the many other ways in which lung cancer can be gotten. Especially being in a city that is as dirty as LA.

In anycase, I do want you to know that I am under no delusion as to thinking that SHS is not the cause of cancer in people. I just don't think that it is the cause of as much as so many anti-smokers claim. The facts don't really support it.

Also, I am sorry for your loss.
Aahhh jeez, I answered the wrong post. Pay no attention to the dingy broad in post #277. :3oops: It's late and I should have gone to bed hours ago, so my apologies for saying you were "condensending."

Well, of course I can't prove my friend died of SHS and I'm not about to dig her up just to win an argument on a forum. So we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. But thank you for your sympathy.
 
Using anecdotal evidence on a message board as a means of proof is a fallacy. So i have little doubt you agree with RR (by being a smoker and user of fallacies).

:roll:

Aside from my use of ancedotal evidence what I said still stands. This thread is about both smokers and non-smokers. I should know since I am the one that started the thread.
 
Aahhh jeez, I answered the wrong post. Pay no attention to the dingy broad in post #277. :3oops: It's late and I should have gone to bed hours ago, so my apologies for saying you were "condensending."

Np. :D

Well, of course I can't prove my friend died of SHS and I'm not about to dig her up just to win an argument on a forum. So we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. But thank you for your sympathy.

oof, I definately wouldn't want you to do something that drastic. :) I just wish that more doctors/scientists wouldn't just assume about stuff or would publish more findings than just the few cases they want you to look at. Agenda based statistics are the worst form of statistics imo.

But I will easily agree to disagree with ya here. :) It's been a pleasure debating with you. :2wave:
 
No, the attitude that got smoking banned from private establishments was the holier-than-thou ***** attitude of people who couldn't accept personal choice. There is no just reason to infringe upon property rights the way that anti-smoking POS law went ahead and did. If people can't accept the responsibilities of freedom, I say get out of the gene pool.

private facilities should have the right to choose to allow smoking. truly public facilities should be smoke free.
 
private facilities should have the right to choose to allow smoking. truly public facilities should be smoke free.

Only if you assume people who do not like smoke will stop going to facilities where smoking is allowed. This however is not always true.

Off topic:

There was a show on the other day where they did a little experiment. They had an actor who had down syndrome stand in for a bagger at a grocery store. They then had another actor play the part of a customer who would heckle and make fun of him to other customers. The results? Even though (by testimony from interviews following the experiment) an overwhelming majority of people thought it was wrong, hardly anyone said a thing to the actor portraying the bigot. Here's what gets interesting; when they had an intimidating looking actor play the bigot part, it was only the women who stood up to him!
 
:roll:

Aside from my use of ancedotal evidence what I said still stands. This thread is about both smokers and non-smokers. I should know since I am the one that started the thread.

Do you want a cookie or something? Your statement is garbage because it is made under the basis of a fallacy.
 
Only if you assume people who do not like smoke will stop going to facilities where smoking is allowed. This however is not always true.

Meaning that it's not that big of an issue to the people that patronize these establishments.
 
Only if you assume people who do not like smoke will stop going to facilities where smoking is allowed. This however is not always true.

Off topic:

There was a show on the other day where they did a little experiment. They had an actor who had down syndrome stand in for a bagger at a grocery store. They then had another actor play the part of a customer who would heckle and make fun of him to other customers. The results? Even though (by testimony from interviews following the experiment) an overwhelming majority of people thought it was wrong, hardly anyone said a thing to the actor portraying the bigot. Here's what gets interesting; when they had an intimidating looking actor play the bigot part, it was only the women who stood up to him!
I believe that.
 
Only if you assume people who do not like smoke will stop going to facilities where smoking is allowed. This however is not always true.
And that is their choice.....

*shrug*
 
Don't knock it if you haven't tried it...

It's not habit forming, doesn't bum users out, and is a boon to those in pain and alleviates other medical problems...

ricksfolly

It doesn't make it something that's really good for you though. If it's what you need to make you happy then you've got some psychological problems that need to be dealth with.

I'm not talking about you specificially, just using the word you in general.
 
Smoking anything isn't good for you, whether it's wacky tobacky or plain tobacco. Smoke inhalation is bad. That should be common sense.
 
Smoking anything isn't good for you, whether it's wacky tobacky or plain tobacco. Smoke inhalation is bad. That should be common sense.

So then let people decide whether or not they want to be around it.
 
Here's a thought: consider that businesses have to find enough labor fit enough to work and if the majority of working age folks in the community have chronic emphizema, or are obese, or addicted to drugs, or alcoholic, or even uneducated, then businesses will either go somewhere else or go out of business rather than hire people who are unfit to work. And if a enough people in the community can't get hired or get a job, they will either resort to crime or go on the dole and then the entire community can become destabilized. And thats when the government should care, because at the end of the day, the government is the people and it's the people who want security and a healthy environment to live and a place to work, so they won't have to resort to crime or go on the dole. So I guess the moral of my story is if people made healthy lifestyle choices in the first place, we wouldn't need the government to ban cigarettes, booze, drugs, and monitor caloric intake so we can be fit enough to work.
 
Don't knock it if you haven't tried it...

It's not habit forming, doesn't bum users out, and is a boon to those in pain and alleviates other medical problems...

ricksfolly

MJ when used as a medicine is not smoked. It is taken in pill form or as a tea. No doctor tells their patients to smoke MJ.
 
Do you want a cookie or something? Your statement is garbage because it is made under the basis of a fallacy.

:roll: grow up. I don't really care if you think it is garbage. Weather you want to admit it or not this thread was started because non-smokers want to put more restrictions on smokers. Therefore this thread is about non-smokers.
 
Here's a thought: consider that businesses have to find enough labor fit enough to work and if the majority of working age folks in the community have chronic emphizema, or are obese, or addicted to drugs, or alcoholic, or even uneducated, then businesses will either go somewhere else or go out of business rather than hire people who are unfit to work. And if a enough people in the community can't get hired or get a job, they will either resort to crime or go on the dole and then the entire community can become destabilized. And thats when the government should care, because at the end of the day, the government is the people and it's the people who want security and a healthy environment to live and a place to work, so they won't have to resort to crime or go on the dole. So I guess the moral of my story is if people made healthy lifestyle choices in the first place, we wouldn't need the government to ban cigarettes, booze, drugs, and monitor caloric intake so we can be fit enough to work.

But here's the thing. The government is suppose to be "of the people". Not just a select group of people that happen to save it money because they are more healthy than others.

And what you seem to be advocating here is a nanny state government. Yet the US is suppose to be about freedom. Freedom and a nanny state government is not compatible. Yeah it may be stupid to smoke or drink or eat until you're 500lbs, but that is a persons right.

Also, what you said in your post is not what has been shown to be true in reality. People have smoked cigarettes, been obese, done drugs, and drank alchohol for centuries. Yet society has not been destabilized because of it.
 
You should be able to smoke anything you want, as long as you do it outdoors and downwind.
 
MJ when used as a medicine is not smoked. It is taken in pill form or as a tea. No doctor tells their patients to smoke MJ.

That's not true. In BC I can prescribe cannabis (its real name) to people and I recommend they vaporize it. Lung inhalation remains the fastest way to deliver drugs to the blood.
 
And what you seem to be advocating here is a nanny state government. Yet the US is suppose to be about freedom. Freedom and a nanny state government is not compatible. Yeah it may be stupid to smoke or drink or eat until you're 500lbs, but that is a persons right.

Well, you know what they say. If you don't need a nanny, you shouldn't act like a child. IMO, when people act like kids, they ought to be treated like them. I don't see why a Nanny State is a bad thing, when so many adults act like irresponsible, stupid children. People cannot really handle "freedom", nor do they really want that. They perform best under an illusion of self-direction and abundant choice and freedom, while they actually need and want structure, rules, and limitations in their lives. Adults NEED a nanny state. It's fundamental to the human psyche. Too much choice and freedom is bad for you, so what people say they want isn't really what they want. They just think they want "Freedom," because they don't know any better.

When people have too much freedom, they hurt themselves, society, and then regret it later. But then it's too late.

Also, what you said in your post is not what has been shown to be true in reality. People have smoked cigarettes, been obese, done drugs, and drank alchohol for centuries. Yet society has not been destabilized because of it.


There certainly have been fat people throughout history, but there hasn't been the epidemic of obesity until recently. It's not that people have not been fat, but not on the scale and scope of today.
 
Last edited:
Well, you know what they say. If you don't need a nanny, you shouldn't act like a child. IMO, when people act like kids, they ought to be treated like them. I don't see why a Nanny State is a bad thing, when so many adults act like irresponsible, stupid children. People cannot really handle "freedom", nor do they really want that. They perform best under an illusion of self-direction and abundant choice and freedom, while they actually need and want structure, rules, and limitations in their lives. Adults NEED a nanny state. It's fundamental to the human psyche. Too much choice and freedom is bad for you, so what people say they want isn't really what they want. They just think they want "Freedom," because they don't know any better.
If you can't handle freedom, that's your problem. Check yourself into a nursing home if you're really serious about it.

It doesn't give you the license to start revoking my freedom, though. Some of us are actually mature enough to deal with life.
 
That's not true. In BC I can prescribe cannabis (its real name) to people and I recommend they vaporize it. Lung inhalation remains the fastest way to deliver drugs to the blood.

There is a big difference between vaporizing and smoking. (and yes I know its real name..MJ is just quicker :) )
 
Back
Top Bottom