Smoking set to be banned nationwide in the Philippines - Polidicks

with how crazy things are in the Philippines i doubt this will be effectively emforced unless hes encouraging another set of vigilante enforcements

[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;51185163]You guys remember the prohibition? I think that's enough proof that this isn't going to work.[/QUOTE] the alcohol prohibition is often rolled out where its not needed to bolster arguments which fall flat this isn't like prohibition at all [editline]11th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=matt000024;51186420]Neither does cigarettes as long as you aren't living with a smoker.[/QUOTE] secondhand smoke causes cancer though, hence the ban in pubs and shit

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51186448]Can't believe so many people are cheering for the revocation of freedoms. Limiting smokers to their own homes and assuming they have yards or balconies to smoke on is assumptive to say the least and surely an endangerment of the smoker and their family who isn't going to quit but instead chain smoke inside? It's a very short sighted move to make[/QUOTE] Pretty much, if you don't at least make dedicated public smoking zones people who live in apartments will smoke inside, making the effect of second-hand smoking worse because their family will endure it constantly and in an enclosed space.

I do not like people who smoke but I think this is taking it too far and this guy is still crazy. Only allowing smoking indoors will only increase the chances of being harmed by second hand smoking. If somebody wants to smoke, go ahead, they can harm their own body if they really want to, but please not near others. Designated smoking areas OUTSIDE buildings would be great, and not right near where everybody walks. I hear that smokers in our country have "good manners"... but that only means that they are smoking in the designated areas, which are not very well placed. I have seen a few that are right beside large sidewalks where lots of people walk, and it seems completely pointless, it smells like shit every time I walk by them... Same with these "smoking sections" or "smoking rooms" in buildings, you can clearly smell them, and with the latter, a door is pointless when there are lots of people going in and out...

It's fucking stupid either way. This just gives phillipino cops an even bigger reason to be dicks.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;51186895]Woah lotta people in here who don't like smoking who think banning people from doing something they don't like is a good idea. Fuck off, it's not up to the state to tell me what I can and cant put in my body.[/QUOTE] You smoking in the street is detrimental to people around you.

[QUOTE=daigennki;51187236]I do not like people who smoke [/QUOTE] Well, we collectively dont like you either. Joke's aside. You make some ok points with your smoking zone's. However, complaining that a smoking area is too close to a sidewalk is just Nitpicking. You are not going to get cancer from walking by, and there are a gazillion more things that smell, make noise or are annoying on or near sidewalks. [editline]11th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=eirexe;51187650]You smoking in the street is detrimental to people around you.[/QUOTE] No it isn’t. If you are walking so close to a smoker that you are continuously inhaling is smoke. You either know the person and can ask him to stop or are a creepy stalker walking way too close for monutes on end. You being annoyed at catching the occasional whif of cigarette smell doesn’t warrant banning smoking altogether.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51187657] Almost everyone has a window, and people can smoke on the streets anyway. Its just a matter of finding a lonely spot. Anywhere.[/QUOTE] It doesn't sound like you can smoke on the street. Locking people to smoking by their home windows is not going to work out. You people are so anti smoker you forget basic things like 1) the smoker doesn't care that you're anti smoking 2) the smoker isn't going to quit just because you inconvenience them and 3) they likely have families or such and those people will suffer being stuck in a room or home with smoke that only leaves through a window. It's just nuts how far some of you will go. If you're okay with banning smoking, than shouldn't we be banning all activities one can opt into that make you unhealthy? Don't bring up second hand smoke because you have to be in the vicinity for that, which this kind of law will force a lot of people to suffer through.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;51186895]Woah lotta people in here who don't like smoking who think banning people from doing something they don't like is a good idea. Fuck off, it's not up to the state to tell me what I can and cant put in my body.[/QUOTE] The state has every right to tell you what you can or can't put in your body when they're the ones spending resources on treating cancers and other diseases caused by smoking or any other damaging addiction, you can smoke yourself to death for all I care as long as you don't go running to the NHS expecting them to treat you, thankfully we're now slowly moving in the direction where you will be forced to wait for treatment.

[QUOTE=Chryseus;51188047]The state has every right to tell you what you can or can't put in your body when they're the ones spending resources on treating cancers and other diseases caused by smoking or any other damaging addiction, you can smoke yourself to death for all I care as long as you don't go running to the NHS expecting them to treat you, thankfully we're now slowly moving in the direction where you will be forced to wait for treatment.[/QUOTE] Then they god damn better be controlling [B]every[/B] one of your choices, and making sure you [B]always[/B] make the healthiest choices possible. Anything else would be irresponsible, and wrong by your own definition here. You basically are admitting you're okay with the concept of never eating unhealthy foods, always getting in the right amount of exercise, not sitting for over a certain length of time a day, not doing certain activities that intentionally put you at risk. You're saying that this is all valid for the government to step right in, and control. If they don't, then it's irresponsible to use your money to fix people who could have otherwise had preventable issues. This is the logical conclusion of your mentality, and you can argue it isn't, I'll appreciate if you do, but that really is ultimately it. You're okay with restricting one unhealthy choice, then you must be okay with stopping all unhealthy choices. They all contribute. Does a person who smokes hurt their health as much as a person who compulsively over eats, over sits, and develops severe heart issues and other issues that cost the tax payer hundreds of thousands? A driver who intentionally speeds on the road and injures himself and others would be in the same boat, even going just 5 or 10 kilometres over the posted limit. Really, truthfully, i wish more of you would run these conclusions all the way to the end before quickly deciding that revocations of freedoms of a few are okay just because you have a personal agenda.

[QUOTE=Chryseus;51188047]The state has every right to tell you what you can or can't put in your body when they're the ones spending resources on treating cancers and other diseases caused by smoking or any other damaging addiction, you can smoke yourself to death for all I care as long as you don't go running to the NHS expecting them to treat you, thankfully we're now slowly moving in the direction where you will be forced to wait for treatment.[/QUOTE] And you wonder why there are a LOT of people in the US who don't want single payer healthcare lmao.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51188406]And you wonder why there are a LOT of people in the US who don't want single payer healthcare lmao.[/QUOTE] that's because americans like to waste money on things that don't really provide them any benefit, like healthcare insurance and Mighty Putty!™ or Kaboom!™

[QUOTE=Marbalo;51188525]McDonalds killed more people than tobacco.[/QUOTE] over 100 million?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51188379]Then they god damn better be controlling [B]every[/B] one of your choices, and making sure you [B]always[/B] make the healthiest choices possible. Anything else would be irresponsible, and wrong by your own definition here. You basically are admitting you're okay with the concept of never eating unhealthy foods, always getting in the right amount of exercise, not sitting for over a certain length of time a day, not doing certain activities that intentionally put you at risk. You're saying that this is all valid for the government to step right in, and control. If they don't, then it's irresponsible to use your money to fix people who could have otherwise had preventable issues. This is the logical conclusion of your mentality, and you can argue it isn't, I'll appreciate if you do, but that really is ultimately it. You're okay with restricting one unhealthy choice, then you must be okay with stopping all unhealthy choices. They all contribute. Does a person who smokes hurt their health as much as a person who compulsively over eats, over sits, and develops severe heart issues and other issues that cost the tax payer hundreds of thousands? A driver who intentionally speeds on the road and injures himself and others would be in the same boat, even going just 5 or 10 kilometres over the posted limit. Really, truthfully, i wish more of you would run these conclusions all the way to the end before quickly deciding that revocations of freedoms of a few are okay just because you have a personal agenda.[/QUOTE] There is a big difference between people who eat unhealthy food and those who smoke, one is largely influenced by genetic factors the other is an addiction to a substance we don't need, I have no problem at all with the government restricting smoking or drinking since at the end of the day everyone benefits from it, also there is no point moaning about lost freedom since no one really has true freedom in any civilized country, everything you do is restricted in some way or another including the way you live your life, it's the governments job to do what's best for the population and you can't tell me that there is anything positive to be gained from smoking, even heavy taxation doesn't fix the cost in human lives, so yes I applaud the decision of the Philippines government and hope more countries follow their example (not their crack down on drugs of course that's just plain crazy).

[QUOTE=matt000024;51184496]Reason is the lack of ashtrays/disposal cans in areas where people often smoke. Honestly though, more personal freedoms for a bit more litter is a good trade-off.[/QUOTE] Cars - at least older ones - often come with removable ash trays and people still throw their cigarettes out the window. Look at the curb in the leftmost lane of a stop light and it'll probably be covered in their disgusting garbage.

[QUOTE=Chryseus;51189084](not their crack down on drugs of course that's just plain crazy).[/QUOTE] why are two drugs (alcohol and tobacco) so evil while the rest of them shouldn't be cracked down on? you just revealed that your whole argument is based on bias alone

[QUOTE=Chryseus;51189084]There is a big difference between people who eat unhealthy food and those who smoke, one is largely influenced by genetic factors the other is an addiction to a substance we don't need, I have no problem at all with the government restricting smoking or drinking since at the end of the day everyone benefits from it, also there is no point moaning about lost freedom since no one really has true freedom in any civilized country, everything you do is restricted in some way or another including the way you live your life, it's the governments job to do what's best for the population and you can't tell me that there is anything positive to be gained from smoking, even heavy taxation doesn't fix the cost in human lives, so yes I applaud the decision of the Philippines government and hope more countries follow their example (not their crack down on drugs of course that's just plain crazy).[/QUOTE] That's a false dichotomy if I ever heard one. We posses no freedom because [U]some[/U] restrictions exist? That's simply untrue. Do you sit for around 6 hours a day? Then the government should intervene, and stop you from doing that.

[QUOTE=butre;51189171]why are two drugs (alcohol and tobacco) so evil while the rest of them shouldn't be cracked down on? you just revealed that your whole argument is based on bias alone[/QUOTE] Because other drugs are already being cracked down on ? You're going to have to be more specific. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51189282]That's a false dichotomy if I ever heard one. We posses no freedom because [U]some[/U] restrictions exist? That's simply untrue. Do you sit for around 6 hours a day? Then the government should intervene, and stop you from doing that.[/QUOTE] Yes they probably should, unfortunately they've yet to invent chairs that call the bobbies round when I've sat in them for too long. People certainly have some freedom, however I believe no one should be free to destroy their bodies because it's other people that end up cleaning up the mess, particularly with our national health system which ends up with the burden.

I'm glad we banned smoking in public places and pubs in Ireland in 2004. It really helped improve the situation in my opinion. You can actually go into a pub and not die now.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51188794]over 100 million?[/QUOTE] Literally every single death that happens to any smoker to heart or lung disease (the PRIMARY cause of death in most of the world) is attributed to cigarettes. It's not a good metric. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;51187159] secondhand smoke causes cancer though, hence the ban in pubs and shit[/QUOTE] Occasionally breathing in smoke secondhand won't harm you, the real harm comes if you're living with a smoker. [editline]s[/editline] I think that smoking is gross and that smoking cigarettes especially is extremely nasty and is OBVIOUSLY horrible for you but let's be realistic here

[QUOTE=Chryseus;51189290]Because other drugs are already being cracked down on ? You're going to have to be more specific. Yes they probably should, unfortunately they've yet to invent chairs that call the bobbies round when I've sat in them for too long. People certainly have some freedom, however I believe no one should be free to destroy their bodies because it's other people that end up cleaning up the mess, particularly with our national health system which ends up with the burden.[/QUOTE] so a person doesn't actually have any rights to their own body, their own mind, personhood, or anything else in your world? I'm fucking praying people like you never end up in power frankly.

[QUOTE=Saber15;51189100]Cars - at least older ones - often come with removable ash trays and people still throw their cigarettes out the window. Look at the curb in the leftmost lane of a stop light and it'll probably be covered in their disgusting garbage.[/QUOTE] My car comes with this fucking thing for some reason [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/OQhaNnj.jpg[/IMG] [editline]11th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Chryseus;51189290] Yes they probably should[/quote] You literally believe that the government should be able to jail you for sitting around too much? What the fuck? [quote] I believe no one should be free to destroy their bodies because it's other people that end up cleaning up the mess, particularly with our national health system which ends up with the burden.[/QUOTE] I agree that it's [I]bad[/I] that people destroy their bodies and that they should maybe be shamed for it (and we should work to fix the core problem), but you literally believe that the government should be able to step in and force your to live in a healthy manner? Seriously? If it makes you feel any better, smokers don't have that much of an impact on healthcare because they die way sooner than regular folks and their health issues are usually incredibly aggressive.

[QUOTE=phygon;51189884]If it makes you feel any better, smokers don't have that much of an impact on healthcare because they die way sooner than regular folks and their health issues are usually incredibly aggressive.[/QUOTE] And at least here around 90% of the price of a pack of cigarettes is taxes. If someone smokes a pack a day (rare these days) it's like giving 5€ to the government every day. That's close to two grand each year. Not all smokers die of cancer or other conditions, and the ones that do usually smoke for decades. If anything it seems like smoking is generating tax revenue rather than being expensive to society and healthcare. One of the reasons why governments usually are reluctant to ban it outright.

I think if you have the money to seek treatment, or have the insurance that will cover it, so the fuck what? It's not like our hospitals are maxed out with people. If you have insurance or money, you should be able to get the same quality of treatment that everyone else gets.

[QUOTE=Chryseus;51189290] People certainly have some freedom, however I believe no one should be free to destroy their bodies because it's other people that end up cleaning up the mess, particularly with our national health system which ends up with the burden.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's [i]a lot[/i] of things getting banned with that kind of mindset.

[QUOTE=Megadave;51190078]I think if you have the money to seek treatment, or have the insurance that will cover it, so the fuck what? It's not like our hospitals are maxed out with people. If you have insurance or money, you should be able to get the same quality of treatment that everyone else gets.[/QUOTE] Ours aren't but in countries where healthcare is publicized it's another story. You have to remember that most other countries bear the burden of everyone's shitty decisions and they are effectively charged for it- it's the downside of national healthcare.

[QUOTE=phygon;51189874]Literally every single death that happens to any smoker to heart or lung disease (the PRIMARY cause of death in most of the world) is attributed to cigarettes. It's not a good metric.[/QUOTE] that's 100 million over the past century i think you're underestimating just how prevalent smoking was in the west until only very recently [quote]Occasionally breathing in smoke secondhand won't harm you, the real harm comes if you're living with a smoker[/quote] uh yes it will, smoke contains carcinogens regardless of how much you take in.

[QUOTE=taipan;51187712] No it isn’t. If you are walking so close to a smoker that you are continuously inhaling is smoke. You either know the person and can ask him to stop or are a creepy stalker walking way too close for monutes on end. You being annoyed at catching the occasional whif of cigarette smell doesn’t warrant banning smoking altogether.[/QUOTE] except when you're walking down a crowded street, downwind, and one guy many feet ahead of you is smoking, you are constantly inhaling the smoke. theres no real way to get around that. public smoking is a nuisance and should only be done in private away from other people. the fact that you can potentially get a life threatening disease from someone elses problem isn't cool.

[QUOTE=Naught;51190179]except when you're walking down a crowded street, downwind, and one guy many feet ahead of you is smoking, you are constantly inhaling the smoke. theres no real way to get around that. public smoking is a nuisance and should only be done in private away from other people. the fact that you can potentially get a life threatening disease from someone elses problem isn't cool.[/QUOTE] adding onto this, you can get physically sick or cough from somebody blowing fag smoke in your direction (i.e secondhand). it's not fun for asthma sufferers at all

Is there precedent for banning smoking in any and all public places, streets included? Because I would think that's an easy way of starting the zombie apocalypse.