Should Smoking Be Banned?

[Persol]

Hell, I actually take 'smoke breaks' at work even though I don't smoke. I go down with a couple of the other guys for 10 mins... but they realize I don't smoke and are polite enough to stand downwind. If they didn't, I wouldn't go with them.

Some other smokers though seem to care less and will light up in a crowded train, in the bathroom, whereever... and not seem to care that their smoke and ash are both blowing on you. Makes me wish I could fart on command.... maybe then they'd realize why it's rude to subject someone else to your fumes.

 

[laughing weasel]

The government continues to try to gain more power and control because it attracts people who like to be in charge. Outlawing smoking because it is a health hazard is just one step next will be the outlawing of guns and the restrictions on food and clothing. It is probably paranoia talking but who would have thought that you could be sued by a burglar who broke through your sky light. If you want to feed an elephant to a kitten you can't do it all at once you'll end up with one dead kitten. You feed it to the kitten one bite at a time.

 

[jadedflower]

Dreamwalker: the "Seig" bit I didn't know. What does it mean anyway?? I just hear it a lot. And the Führer was a spelling mistake. See? I even remembered the ü


Nasor: Okay, point taken. Voting was a bad example. But I still stand by my statment that smoking is NOT and never will be... a human right. (ditto driving)

 

[Nasor]

It is probably paranoia talking but who would have thought that you could be sued by a burglar who broke through your sky light.

Urban legend.

 

[Persol]

Actually no... this happened in the UK. It was recently on one of those urban legend shows. Basicallt they thought that it was the equivalent of a 'trap'.

 

[Dreamwalker]

the "Seig" bit I didn't know. What does it mean anyway?? I just hear it a lot. And the Führer was a spelling mistake. See? I even remembered the ü

Well, it basically is a wish for victory(=Sieg) in the coming battles. The Heil-part is just a wish that the Führer stays healthy. Originally it was just like the english word "hail" and could be employed the same way. The third Reich did just gave many german words and expressions a bad connotation.

 

[Thor]

"Hell, I actually take 'smoke breaks' at work even though I don't smoke. I go down with a couple of the other guys for 10 mins... but they realize I don't smoke and are polite enough to stand downwind. If they didn't, I wouldn't go with them."

If smoking and ultimately smoke breaks were banned, do you believe that productivity would increase or would you just dos about anyway?

"Urban legend."
No, Urban fact. I have already said this before on this forum but I'll say it again. In the eyes of the law (in the UK anyway) property owners are liable for the saftey of an guests. Be these wanted or unwanted. So if a burgular cuts his hand on something he's trying to steal, he has the civil right to sue. Property owners have been told to remove things that prevent people from breaking in i.e. smashed glass protruding from walls.

Uhm. Just a thought. If property owners are liable for their guests safety, that would mean that smoking is technically illegal as it effects the health of others. I know it isn't seen as illegal but if you bend a few straws it could be.

 

[SwedishFish]

why would you feed an elephant to a kitten? poor kitten and por elephant. give her some whiskas instead.

 

[laughing weasel]

Kittens like elephants. I have never heard any kittens that I fed elephants to complain.

 

[ddovala]

Wtf, so if i just walked into your appartment and started taking stuff right in front of you, you coudnt intervene because it would be threatening my safety? Ha! say goodbye to your tv.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

How many people do you think farting has killed, first and second hand?

Compare that to the number which cigarettes have killed, first and second hand.


Smoking is a choice, whereas sexual orientation and color are not.

As for "greed"... people aren't really persecuted for that, and I don't know what prompted you to write it down.

i think he meant creed not greed I dont think he was saying you could die from the color of you skin allthought it has been known .it was a connection to the prejustice in the thread
you can get cancer from numerous things cant you
sexual orientation is a choice sorry your wrong
I would'nt wonder at the amount of people who've died of gas inhalation or related deaths first hand or second there are no recorded case of smoking causing cancer or an other illness second hand if there is it i would like to se the evidence.

 

[jadedflower]

Well, it basically is a wish for victory(=Sieg) in the coming battles. The Heil-part is just a wish that the Führer stays healthy. Originally it was just like the english word "hail" and could be employed the same way. The third Reich did just gave many german words and expressions a bad connotation.

Thanks I like German... I just wish I could make more sense of it

 

[Padma]

Okay, I don't smoke...anymore, but I really don't mind other people smoking around me except while I eat, yuck. I live near Del Mar, a beach city in So. Calif. known for it's Thoroughbred racetrack, and it is illigal to smoke OUTSIDE in public. Nice, huh?

 

[Nasor]

No, Urban fact. I have already said this before on this forum but I'll say it again. In the eyes of the law (in the UK anyway) property owners are liable for the saftey of an guests. Be these wanted or unwanted.

Sorry, I meant that there had been no such case in the United States. How ethnocentric of me.

The British legal system seems to have been set up in a way that discourages self defense. People are apparently supposed to rely solely on the police for protection from violent criminals. There have been all sorts of cases in Britain of people being charged with crimes for defending themselves against violent attacks. Is anyone surprised that violent crime is skyrocketing in Britain?

 

[coolsoldier]

Regarding the "Rights of Restaurant Owners" to allow people to smoke on their property:

Tobacco smoke is poisonous. This is a proven fact. Restaurant owners (and property owners in general) are not within their rights to expose guests to poisonous or toxic substances. For an extreme example, let's say a restaurant owner decides to release mustard gas in his "private property". Would that be his "right" as a property owner, or can we accept that it is within the bounds of the law to place restrictions on what you can do on property where you allow guests?

 

[Nasor]

Regarding the "Rights of Restaurant Owners" to allow people to smoke on their property:

Tobacco smoke is poisonous. This is a proven fact. Restaurant owners (and property owners in general) are not within their rights to expose guests to poisonous or toxic substances.

Restaurant owners serve alcohol, don’t they? That’s also a toxic substance.

For an extreme example, let's say a restaurant owner decides to release mustard gas in his "private property". Would that be his "right" as a property owner, or can we accept that it is within the bounds of the law to place restrictions on what you can do on property where you allow guests?

The restaurant patrons all implicitly consent to eat in a smoking environment by walking in the door. This means that they accept the risk associated with eating in the smoky restaurant. It’s your right to voluntarily engage in a risky activity. Presumably no one would consent to being exposed to mustard gas.

 

[coolsoldier]

Restaurant owners serve alcohol, don’t they? That’s also a toxic substance.The restaurant patrons all implicitly consent to eat in a smoking environment by walking in the door. This means that they accept the risk associated with eating in the smoky restaurant. It’s your right to voluntarily engage in a risky activity. Presumably no one would consent to being exposed to mustard gas.

Alcohol, unlike cigarette smoke, is only consumed by people who request it.

As for implicit consent, walking into a restaurant is not a consent to breathe poisonous substances. Releasing poisonous substances into the air in other cases (rightly) requires explicit consent and full disclosure of known and potential risk (under US law, at least), both because airborne substances can't be detected until you have already been exposed to them, and because the health risks of exposure aren't immediately obvious (and are in many cases, including smoking, not entirely known).

The restaurant asking for explicit consent to be exposed to cigarette smoke, and providing full disclosure of all of the potential risks of being exposed to each of the toxic components of cigarette smoke before entering the restaurant would be an appropriate replacement for an all-out ban, but of course, I suspect few nonsmokers would consent.

 

[Nasor]

As for implicit consent, walking into a restaurant is not a consent to breathe poisonous substances.

If you know that you’ll be exposed to poisonous substances when you walk into a place, then yes, simply going in is implicit consent. I wouldn’t have a problem with mandatory “Warning: this facility allows smoking” signs.

Releasing poisonous substances into the air in other cases (rightly) requires explicit consent and full disclosure of known and potential risk (under US law, at least), both because airborne substances can't be detected until you have already been exposed to them, and because the health risks of exposure aren't immediately obvious (and are in many cases, including smoking, not entirely known).

The restaurant asking for explicit consent to be exposed to cigarette smoke, and providing full disclosure of all of the potential risks of being exposed to each of the toxic components of cigarette smoke before entering the restaurant would be an appropriate replacement for an all-out ban, but of course, I suspect few nonsmokers would consent.

Actually the standards for determining whether or not a company needs to warn people about something (like being exposed to poisonous chemicals) in the United States is whether or not a ‘reasonably prudent’ person would be aware of the risk. For example, car dealers don’t need to explicitly warn people about the dangers of dieing in a car crash because any reasonably prudent person would be aware of the risk of injury when driving a car. Similarly, any reasonably prudent person would realize that they’re taking a slight health risk when they eat in a restaurant that allows smoking.

 

[coolsoldier]

Similarly, any reasonably prudent person would realize that they’re taking a slight health risk when they eat in a restaurant that allows smoking.

To repeat myself from the previous post:

"airborne substances can't be detected until you have already been exposed to them, and ... the health risks of exposure aren't immediately obvious (and are in many cases, including smoking, not entirely known)."

 

[Nasor]

To repeat myself from the previous post:

"airborne substances can't be detected until you have already been exposed to them

Hence the 'warning: smoking allowed' sign on the door.

and ... the health risks of exposure aren't immediately obvious (and are in many cases, including smoking, not entirely known)."

Please. Everyone over the age of 13 (and most people under 13, as well) know that second hand smoke in a restaurant is slightly dangerous.