• 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 Smoking Ban Good or Bad?

What of the New Ban.

  • Good

    Votes: 19 27.1%

  • Too far

    Votes: 49 70.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 2 2.9%
  • Total voters
    70
Kal'Stang said:
Cars and factories spew out far more toxic crap into the air than smokers do. I don't hear you ranting against them wanting them illegal. Oh wait...cars are more useful huh? Who gives a crap? They're both legal and as such its bull crap to ban them in the open air.
Click to expand...

Government regulates them, as they should. I support STRONGER emissions controls... so, you can't get me there...
And it is NOT bull crap to regulate them in public spaces. Government has LONG assumed that right and responsibility, and this has a LONG tradition in common law that predates the very existance of the United States...


Oh boo hoo. Grow thicker skin. It was probably your crappy attitude towards smokers that got the smoke blown in your face. Not because they were inconsiderate.
Click to expand...

Actually, once upon a time, I was rather tolerant toward smokers of cancer sticks. If you light up in the presense of non-smokers, you are being rude and discourteous... the same if you light up among children. Sorry, people have the right to use a public space without having smoke from cancer sticks blowing in my face. If I have been enjoying the beach with my family for two hours, we are settled on our towels and enjoying lunch, why should WE have to move because some blowhard with an addiction to a weed wants to light up his cancer stick next top me and my children. HE should move not us. However, this attitude amongst smokers is not uncommong, hence the growing movement to restrict their use.
 
ludahai said:
ANd I would file charges for assault... and in many jurisdictions, a case could be made on that basis...

And those rights I point to are NOT non-existant... as can be seen by an increasingly growing consensus that non-smokers DO have rights... And if you have children in your home, you darn well better believe that smoking in their presense IS child abuse... and you do NOT have an inalienable right to smoke in public in the presense of others... and it is the attitude of people like yourself that make these laws ever more palatable for the majority of people who find your attitude and actions to be disgraceful...
Click to expand...

Good luck making that case. So ****ing sue me.

Smokers also have rights and I'll defend them. I won't blow smoke in your face because I am inconsiderate. I go out of my way to accommodate people who don't smoke and don't care to smell my smoke. I agree with no smoking indoors in public places (office, movie theater, trains, planes, etc.). If someone approaches me and asks me to stop in a nice way, I stop or move.

If someone comes at me with your attitude? **** you.
 
ludahai said:
Government regulates them, as they should. I support STRONGER emissions controls... so, you can't get me there...
And it is NOT bull crap to regulate them in public spaces. Government has LONG assumed that right and responsibility, and this has a LONG tradition in common law that predates the very existance of the United States...
Click to expand...

No matter how strong the emmision controls are there will always be a pollutant coming from cars and factories. It is the nature of the beast.


ludahai said:
Actually, once upon a time, I was rather tolerant toward smokers of cancer sticks. If you light up in the presense of non-smokers, you are being rude and discourteous... the same if you light up among children. Sorry, people have the right to use a public space without having smoke from cancer sticks blowing in my face. If I have been enjoying the beach with my family for two hours, we are settled on our towels and enjoying lunch, why should WE have to move because some blowhard with an addiction to a weed wants to light up his cancer stick next top me and my children. HE should move not us. However, this attitude amongst smokers is not uncommong, hence the growing movement to restrict their use.
Click to expand...

I have never ONCE seen one single smoker light up when they were standing next to a non-smoker (or anyone else for that matter) without first asking if they minded. Unless they were 5 feet or more away. In which case that is well outside your personal space. And if a smoker sits down next to you on a beach I would move too. Not because they are a smoker, but because I'd be more worried about a pervert. I'd move even if they weren't a smoker.
 
ludahai said:
You don't have to breathe the effects of an attitude that was caused by the inconsiderate actions of the smokers of cancer sticks...
Click to expand...

No but that kind of attitude would make me want to punch the person, which is against the law. So its only fair that bad attitudes are banned also. After all...they both cause negative effects...right?
 
Here is some stuff for you ludahai.

The EPA Report on Second Hand Smoke (SHS) - The Facts
Myth: Secondhand Smoke Is a Killer - ABC News
Smoking and Your Health | Your Doctor's Orders

lucky%20strike.jpg
 
reefedjib said:
Good luck making that case. So ****ing sue me.
Click to expand...

Actually, the case would be easier than you think.

Smokers also have rights and I'll defend them. I won't blow smoke in your face because I am inconsiderate. I go out of my way to accommodate people who don't smoke and don't care to smell my smoke. I agree with no smoking indoors in public places (office, movie theater, trains, planes, etc.). If someone approaches me and asks me to stop in a nice way, I stop or move.
Click to expand...

And non-smokers have rights and I will defend them... In my experience, smokers who are courteous are the distinct minority.

If someone comes at me with your attitude? **** you.
Click to expand...

My attitude was a creation of the inconsiderate attitude of smokers over the decades...
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
No matter how strong the emmision controls are there will always be a pollutant coming from cars and factories. It is the nature of the beast.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that we shouldn't work to reduce them as much as possible? Industry is vital to the economy of the country. Frankly, the U.S. and many other industrial countries are over-reliant on cars. I am a bicycle commuter and if more people commuted by bicycle and made less use of automobiles, the city would be cleaner and people would be healthier.

I have never ONCE seen one single smoker light up when they were standing next to a non-smoker (or anyone else for that matter) without first asking if they minded. Unless they were 5 feet or more away. In which case that is well outside your personal space. And if a smoker sits down next to you on a beach I would move too. Not because they are a smoker, but because I'd be more worried about a pervert. I'd move even if they weren't a smoker.
Click to expand...

I see it and experience it all the time... And BTW, I can easily smell the smoke from at least 30 meters away, especially during a race. And if a smoker sat on a park bench next to me, I would report him to the police station nearby as it is illegal where I live... so THERE...
 
Kal'Stang said:
No but that kind of attitude would make me want to punch the person, which is against the law. So its only fair that bad attitudes are banned also. After all...they both cause negative effects...right?
Click to expand...

I love the stretchs to which smokers and their apologists will go...

I am actually a pretty amiable person. My attitude regarding the users of cancer sticks comes directly from the attitudes of those smoking them. Also, if I have a bad attitude, it isn't causing you any direct harm. However, if you light up in my presence or the presence of my children, you ARE causing direct harm to others...

Ohh... you punch me (assuming you can get the punch through), you will face charges... I may be a little guy, but I often surprise people with how quick and strong I am... so watch who you hit...
 
cpgrad08 said:
Here is some stuff for you ludahai.

The EPA Report on Second Hand Smoke (SHS) - The Facts
Myth: Secondhand Smoke Is a Killer - ABC News
Smoking and Your Health | Your Doctor's Orders
Click to expand...

Now, for information from a REAL website...

Health Effects | Smoke-free Homes Program | US EPA

What is Secondhand Smoke?

Secondhand smoke is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe, or cigar, and the smoke exhaled by smokers. Secondhand smoke is also called environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and exposure to secondhand smoke is sometimes called involuntary or passive smoking. Secondhand smoke contains more that 4,000 substances, several of which are known to cause cancer in humans or animals.

EPA has concluded that exposure to secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer in adults who do not smoke. EPA estimates that exposure to secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year in nonsmokers.
Exposure to secondhand smoke has also been shown in a number of studies to increase the risk of heart disease.
Serious Health Risks to Children

Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of secondhand smoke because they are still developing physically, have higher breathing rates than adults, and have little control over their indoor environments. Children exposed to high doses of secondhand smoke, such as those whose mothers smoke, run the greatest relative risk of experiencing damaging health effects.

Exposure to secondhand smoke can cause asthma in children who have not previously exhibited symptoms.
Exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.
Infants and children younger than 6 who are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke are at increased risk of lower respiratory track infections, such as pneumonia and bronchitis.
Children who regularly breathe secondhand smoke are at increased risk for middle ear infections.
Health Risks to Children with Asthma

Asthma is the most common chronic childhood disease affecting 1 in 13 school aged children on average.
Exposure to secondhand smoke can cause new cases of asthma in children who have not previously shown symptoms.
Exposure to secondhand smoke can trigger asthma attacks and make asthma symptoms more severe.
Click to expand...

More at the link provided...
 
cpgrad08 said:
1992 Report has been dis-proven by multiple studies. Also if the EPA said the sky is black would you believe it.
Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger - by Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D. - Environment & Climate News
Click to expand...

If you read the link, there is far more cited than the 1992 report.

If you so stubbornly want to hold on to the myth that second-hand smoke is harmless, be my guess. Just further confirmation that so many in the GOP just love to ignore the findings of science...
 
cpgrad08 said:
1992 Report has been dis-proven by multiple studies. Also if the EPA said the sky is black would you believe it.
Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger - by Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D. - Environment & Climate News
Click to expand...

So you're saying that:
* The World Health Organization.
* The U.S. National Institutes of Health
* The Centers for Disease Control
* The United States Surgeon General
* The U.S. National Cancer Institute
* The United States Environmental Protection Agency
* The California Environmental Protection Agency
* The American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and American Cancer Society
* The American Medical Association
* The American Academy of Pediatrics
* The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council
* The United Kingdom Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health

Are all wrong in their consensus that second hand smoking is dangerous?
 
ludahai said:
If you read the link, there is far more cited than the 1992 report.

If you so stubbornly want to hold on to the myth that second-hand smoke is harmless, be my guess. Just further confirmation that so many in the GOP just love to ignore the findings of science...
Click to expand...

If you want to hold on to the beliefs of SHS dangers which many scientist and doctors have disapproves just because you don't like smoking then be my guest.
 
spud_meister said:
So you're saying that:
* The World Health Organization.
* The U.S. National Institutes of Health
* The Centers for Disease Control
* The United States Surgeon General
* The U.S. National Cancer Institute
* The United States Environmental Protection Agency
* The California Environmental Protection Agency
* The American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and American Cancer Society
* The American Medical Association
* The American Academy of Pediatrics
* The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council
* The United Kingdom Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health

Are all wrong in their consensus that second hand smoking is dangerous?
Click to expand...
Just plain good sense says that smoking is harmful and that second-hand smoke is a bit less harmful.
IMO, a "conservative" or right wing think tank is an oxymoron.
 
Can be Second hand smoke be a danger sure, but everyone of those organizations exaggerate there findings. There plenty of studies that show people exposure to SHS indoors and outdoors with no effects on there health. So I would have to say yes I believe there wrong.
 
cpgrad08 said:
Can be Second hand smoke be a danger sure, but everyone of those organizations exaggerate there findings. There plenty of studies that show people exposure to SHS indoors and outdoors with no effects on there health. So I would have to say yes I believe there wrong.
Click to expand...

Yeah... and some people smoke from the time they're 12 and live to 112, does not mean that smoking doesn't cause cancer...

And what is up with that underlined sentence man? You said it's not a danger at all, now you're saying it could be but everyone is exaggerating?

Are you a real person?
 
cpgrad08 said:
Can be Second hand smoke be a danger sure, but everyone of those organizations exaggerate there findings. There plenty of studies that show people exposure to SHS indoors and outdoors with no effects on there health. So I would have to say yes I believe there wrong.
Click to expand...

So what? The ones refuting them are somehow more authoritive? And I would like to see where their funding comes from, I have a feeling the source could be less than unbiased.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Yeah... and some people smoke from the time they're 12 and live to 112, does not mean that smoking doesn't cause cancer...

And what is up with that underlined sentence man? You said it's not a danger at all, now you're saying it could be but everyone is exaggerating?

Are you a real person?
Click to expand...

Yes am a real preson, am admitting to the fact that SHS can be a danger but to do the degree that some of these groups say that it is. Do you really think if I smoke around you for 30 mins outside that you are going to get cancer or ur chance of getting it increasing.
Isn't a debate a chance to present facts to change other opions? At first I said that SHS is no danger but with the info presented I concide that there is a danager. But also if the Info I researched no the degree that those groups mention aboved and anti-smoking agencies say that it is. Also I was piss off being called heartless demon cause I smoke.
 
cpgrad08 said:
No on said that for word just look at early post and that feeling I got from some posters.
Click to expand...

you got a "feeling"...

k...

I really don't think anyone thinks you're a heartless demon for smoking.
 
reefedjib said:
If you came up to me and bitched about it I would smile and blow smoke in your ****ing face.
Click to expand...

Another internet tough guy.
What is know is that you have restricted your lung's ability to exchange air and with the increased fatty buildup in your vascular system I would think your stamina has been greatly reduced. So for being a tough guy you better hope you can take them out with a single punch as it is doubtful you could go a full round.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom