• 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

Wessexman said:
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.
Click to expand...


Exactly, and as our forefathers envisioned, the rights in the US Constitution are based on property. If the non-smokers wish to break the Constitution by forcing private property owners to bend to the collectivist will, then let them move to a country that is more to their liking, like Communist China.
 
ludahai said:
There are some, no argument. I have some friends who are. However, I would say that the majority, in my experience, are not.
Click to expand...

Well at least you will admit there are some cause a lot of the anti-smoking freaks refuse to admit it:)
 
danarhea said:
Exactly, and as our forefathers envisioned, the rights in the US Constitution are based on property. If the non-smokers wish to break the Constitution by forcing private property owners to bend to the collectivist will, then let them move to a country that is more to their liking, like Communist China.
Click to expand...

Not the best idea.

Taking a single breath in Beijing is the equivalent of smoking a carton of cigarettes.
 
aps said:
Are you one of them, Kali? What constitutes a courteous smoker?

99% of the time I am driving, I see at least one smoker throw his/her cigarette butt out the window.

When I do a clean-up of my neighborhood, 90% of what I pick up are cigarette butts.

When I cross in a crosswalk at a stop light, I see at least 20 cigarette butts on the ground.

When I enter and leave the subway system (which doesn't allow smoking), I see 30 to 40 cigarette butts right outside the entrance/exit.

Smokers sure are courteous, aren't they? :roll:
Click to expand...

Yes.. I am one and would never dream of tossing my butts out the window! Birds can DIE from ciggy butts. :( I also have a tinfoil like ashtray thingy (more like a little pocket thing and hard to describe) I keep in my purse to use to put my ciggy's out in public if I cannot find a public ashtray:2razz:

I totally respect my non-smoking friends by not smoking around em unless they tell me it is o.k. ;)
 
Last edited:
aps said:
Supposedly, only 20% of people smoke. So we're supposed to bow down to 20% of people and let them smoke wherever they want? No thank you.
Click to expand...

Who has advocated allowing people to smoke wherever they want?

I don't mind stepping outside to smoke, but I do mind when the government tells owners of private property that people no longer have the right to smoke on it.

That said, I do believe that every airport needs a smoking section. I got stuck in Phoenix Sky Harbor for 3 hours and they wouldn't let me go outside because of all the fear of hijacking. That's bull****, smokers pay billions of extra dollars in taxes every year ye not-as-patriotic non-smokers do so, yes, smokers should get some rights.
 
Last edited:
Kali said:
I totally respect my non-smoking friends by not smoking around em unless they tell me it is o.k. ;)
Click to expand...

I have a couple of smoking friends who are like this, which is why I did not say ALL smokers were so insensitive to the rights of non-smokers. Even though we may disagree, I always try to be honorable.

Thank you for respecting the rights of non-smokers in practice.
 
ludahai said:
And its even worse when you enter their cigarette-smoke filled restaurants.
Click to expand...

See that's one thing I can't stand. I will go somewhere else if a restaurant allows people to smoke inside, despite being a smoker myself. Especially if it has crappy ventilation and the smoke from the crowd smoking just sits there and burns your eyes after a while.
 
Joby said:
See that's one thing I can't stand. I will go somewhere else if a restaurant allows people to smoke inside, despite being a smoker myself. Especially if it has crappy ventilation and the smoke from the crowd smoking just sits there and burns your eyes after a while.
Click to expand...

I haven't been to northern China in a while, so perhaps it is better, but it is hard to find a restaurant there that is not filled with cigarette smoke. An estimated 300 MILLION Chinese men smoke.
 
ludahai said:
If people smoke in a park where children are playing, yes that is tyranny.
Click to expand...

So you should not be able to be smoke outside? If it is a public place? I do not see the big deal and having said that? I would make sure if I was in an area where there were kids to step off somewhere to myself to smoke. I would NOT be smoking in an area full of kids but at the same time? I should be allowed as a free citzen in this country to find a smoking spot in a Public Park and be able to smoke my ciggy in peace. ;)
 
aps said:
I'm not a control freak. I just hate smoking and smokers.
Click to expand...

Please do not hate me cause that would break my heart. For real:(
 
ludahai said:
Good for you. One of the best decisions you ever made.



Actually, I am not a control freak. However, we are talking about a highly carcigonenic poison. You should hear what a friend of mine here who is a cancer research says about the poisons in second-hand smoke.
Click to expand...

Totally off topic but this thread kinda reminds just how much "second hand" religion can harm kids:lol:
 
ludahai said:
Private property rights are not and never have been absolute. That is even more so when you make it public access.



They can smoke at home if they have no children and it is not entering the living space of their neighbors. Other than that, keep your nasty habit away from the civilized people of the world who don't smoke a cancer stick.
Click to expand...

Since you feel that homeowners that are smoking parents should not be allowed to smoke in their own home? I wonder if you feel that parents should not be allowed to eat fatty foods and drink things that could be detrimental to their health? Because that could damage the whole family unit simply over selfish choices the crappy food the parents bring into the home.

If you drop dead because you are making bad food choices is that not kinda the same thing and what message are you sending your kids from eating and feeding them crap daily?
 
Kali said:
So you should not be able to be smoke outside? If it is a public place? I do not see the big deal and having said that? I would make sure if I was in an area where there were kids to step off somewhere to myself to smoke. I would NOT be smoking in an area full of kids but at the same time? I should be allowed as a free citzen in this country to find a smoking spot in a Public Park and be able to smoke my ciggy in peace. ;)
Click to expand...

Not if you are violating the rights of non-smokers, ESPECIALLY children.
 
Kali said:
Since you feel that homeowners that are smoking parents should not be allowed to smoke in their own home? I wonder if you feel that parents should not be allowed to eat fatty foods and drink things that could be detrimental to their health? Because that could damage the whole family unit simply over selfish choices the crappy food the parents bring into the home.

If you drop dead because you are making bad food choices is that not kinda the same thing and what message are you sending your kids from eating and feeding them crap daily?
Click to expand...

There is no second-hand fat, no second-hand sugar.
Also, there are safe amounts of sugar. There is no such thing as a safe amount of nicotine and the other POISONS in tobacco smoke.
 
ludahai said:
Private property rights are not and never have been absolute. That is even more so when you make it public access.
Click to expand...
Who said they were? You however are completely overriding property rights; people are able to choose whether they want to enter a bar which allows smoking. This pretext for collectivism could be used to basically allow any abuse of property by the state for spurious purposes. I mean if you think that rights can be overruled because people can't decide for themselves whether to go into a smoking bar what wouldn't you believe they could be overruled for.

They can smoke at home if they have no children and it is not entering the living space of their neighbors. Other than that, keep your nasty habit away from the civilized people of the world who don't smoke a cancer stick.
Click to expand...
Keep your greedy, socialist habit from civilised property owners.:2razz:

I don't smoke btw.
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
Public health care is FAR from non-existant in the United States.
Click to expand...

Well, comparatively non-existent. That better?

ludahai said:
If people want to smoke in the privacy of their own homes, so long as they aren't affecting any one elses rights (including minor children) have at it. However, the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the health and rights of those who do not in public and public access spaces.
Click to expand...

If cars and factories want to pollute the same air I beathe with cancer causing agents and particles that affect my breathing, then they can shut down or move their operations to a planet that I'm not inhabiting. Oh, wait...

Most times if you politely ask a smoker to step outside, they'll listen to you. That is the definition of civility right there. You won't get catered to if you go to a bar or pub, where smoking is usually part of its recreation. Civility is not denying other people the ability to do what they want, as you propose.
 
Wessexman said:
Who said they were? You however are completely overriding property rights; people are able to choose whether they want to enter a bar which allows smoking. This pretext for collectivism could be used to basically allow any abuse of property by the state for spurious purposes. I mean if you think that rights can be overruled because people can't decide for themselves whether to go into a smoking bar what wouldn't you believe they could be overruled for.
Click to expand...

Forbidding smoking in public access spaces is not collectivism. The government pays the bills for many people who come down with tobacco related illnesses (either first or second hand). The government has a legitimate interest in the regulation of poison.

Keep your greedy, socialist habit from civilised property owners.:2razz:

I don't smoke btw.
Click to expand...

I have been called a hippie and a socialist on the first four days of the year. Incredible.
 
Orius said:
Well, comparatively non-existent. That better?
Click to expand...

I think people simply don't realize how much governments in the US spend on health care. It is far more than many people think.

If cars and factories want to pollute the same air I beathe with cancer causing agents and particles that affect my breathing, then they can shut down or move their operations to a planet that I'm not inhabiting. Oh, wait...
Click to expand...

1. Governments DO regulate the emissions of industry, though in my opinion, not as strictly as they should.
2. Industry is FAR more productive to the economy than tobacco is.

Most times if you politely ask a smoker to step outside, they'll listen to you. That is the definition of civility right there. You won't get catered to if you go to a bar or pub, where smoking is usually part of its recreation. Civility is not denying other people the ability to do what they want, as you propose.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Incivility is the intentional spewing of poison into the air that you share with other people. I note the point on auto emissions, but I support stricter emissions controls on automobiles. As I have noted earlier, I am a cycle-commuter and rarely use a car.
 
ludahai said:
Forbidding smoking in public access spaces is not collectivism. The government pays the bills for many people who come down with tobacco related illnesses (either first or second hand). The government has a legitimate interest in the regulation of poison.
Click to expand...
You contradict yourself here, you claim you aren't espousing collectivism when the second sentence is collectivism.

Public access is bull**** word used as excuse for depriving people of property rights. The fact that the public can come into a bar does not make it not private property any more or mean that these people can't decide for themselves whether to go into that property.

People are capable of deciding these things for themselves, they don't need tthe state to deprive the rights of property owners.

I have been called a hippie and a socialist on the first four days of the year. Incredible.
Click to expand...
Well it was tongue in cheek as it was obviously a praphrase of your own comments but you are attacking private property and if the shoe fits...
 
Shewter said:
I've yet to see a case of someone being harmed by second hand smoke.
Click to expand...

So? Is that supposed to mean that second-hand smoke doesn't cause others harm? Okay. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom