[QUOTE=TraderRager;28511053]It doesn't hurt everyone /= Doesn't hurt everyone.[/QUOTE]
If it doesn't kill everyone, then can you really generalize and say it kills everyone?
Late on this, but Canada already has this. I don't smoke, so it doesn't affect me all that much. Smokers weren't affected either, they just go to the same 24/7 and buy bigger cigarettes pack.
Obviously, cigarrettes are bad for health, and there's no real reasons to smoke them anymore unless you're already addicted. It's not considered cool anymore, and it's not about being part of the majority either. It's just plain stupid. Pot took the place for that, a lot of teenagers I know do it because it's "cool" to do so.
Alcohol advertising could be banned as well, it shares the same valid points as the cigarrettes. However, I don't think that would do anything. A lot of parents drink wine/beer, and you can't really get addicted to alcohol (not in the same way cigarettes do, anyway). So it's generally okay for parents to hand some to their teenagers.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28511010]Same boat. My dads smoked a pack a day for 55 years almost now, and he smoked around me all my life, and I'm healthier than most of my friends. It's not bullshit, but it's not conclusive to say second hand smoke kills.[/QUOTE]
We know it increases the chance of cancer and a lot of other health problems but its hard to argue with you when we are in a smoking thread.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28511010]
Same boat. My dads smoked a pack a day for 55 years almost now, and he smoked around me all my life, and I'm healthier than most of my friends. It's not bullshit, but it's not conclusive to say second hand smoke kills.[/QUOTE]
Different people can react to the smoke and an infection can occur in those with weaker systems to deal with the smoke.
It would be ridiculous to say "Smoke kills you", because it doesn't affect most people who smoke... "Smoking has a chance of causing an infection inside your lungs", is viable. :buddy:
[QUOTE=Feuvert;28511103]Late on this, but Canada already has this. I don't smoke, so it doesn't affect me all that much. Smokers weren't affected either, they just go to the same 24/7 and buy bigger cigarettes pack.
Obviously, cigarrettes are bad for health, and there's no real reasons to smoke them anymore unless you're already addicted. It's not considered cool anymore, and it's not about being part of the majority either. It's just plain stupid. Pot took the place for that, a lot of teenagers I know do it because it's "cool" to do so.
Alcohol advertising could be banned as well, it shares the same valid points as the cigarrettes. However, I don't think that would do anything. A lot of parents drink wine/beer, and you can't really get addicted to alcohol (not in the same way cigarettes do, anyway). So it's generally okay for parents to hand some to their teenagers.[/QUOTE]
Alcohol is a lot different to cigarettes, in a way it can help people relax just like weed does and sure it's bad for you but pretty much most things that are fun are bad for your body in some way. Cigarettes have no effect on the human mind, do not enhance anything in your body and all it does it cause negative effects on your body, which is probably why the government chose to ban tobacco displays and not alcohol ones.
[QUOTE=AK'z;28511373]because it doesn't affect most people who smoke[/QUOTE]
Well it doesn't effect most people in a deadly way.
[QUOTE=lockdown6;28507451]I think they should just be illegal, I guess this is one step closer to that[/QUOTE]
because having and underground tobacco trade would be awesome right. It works so well for other drugs.
This was done here in Canada. It's pretty pointless. It was done to make the anti-smoking groups think the government is doing something about smoking while real smokers are aware that it really makes no difference. This accomplishes nothing and is a waste of time.
[QUOTE=Fkpuz Version 1;28511448]because having and underground tobacco trade would be awesome right. It works so well for other drugs.[/QUOTE]
Even though it probably would be harder to market then drugs that have an almost instant feel good effect.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28511500]Even though it probably would be harder to market then drugs that have an almost instant feel good effect.[/QUOTE]
it's not like all the people who regularly smoke will suddenly go "Oh dear, smoking is banned now, I guess I'll continue on my normal day".
Cant we just leave smokers alone
[QUOTE=Sanius;28509111]If they're going to make cigarette displays illegal, they may as well make alcohol displays illegal. Alcohol is easier to obtain, cheaper, and has even worse short-term and long-term effects. Fuck, they may as well go all out and ban every beverage but water, since they know what's good for us and are only trying to help.[/QUOTE]
Alcohol actually has health benefits in small amounts, the amount you would need to consume to sustain similar damage to most drugs is very high
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28511083]If it doesn't kill everyone, then can you really generalize and say it kills everyone?[/QUOTE]
I never said it kills everyone, now did I? But it DOES kill people, and yet is for some reason legal.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28509453]
In England is alcohol limited to liquor stores and bars only, or can you buy it in supermarkets like the states?
If the former, alcohol displays kind of already are illegal.[/QUOTE]
You can buy Alcohol in supermarkets.
[QUOTE=TraderRager;28511834]I never said it kills everyone, now did I? But it DOES kill people, and yet is for some reason legal.[/QUOTE]
Cheeseburgers kill people
Potato Chips kill people
People kill people
[QUOTE=s0beit;28508972]Alright, full-stop, when your country opts into the universal healthcare business you can't also complain about the people's rights to choose freely what they do to their bodies.
Then you'd just be advocating almost full control over a person's life under the guise of saving money in taxes.[/QUOTE]
Universal health care was supposed to make treatment available to everyone, not just those who can afford it, so if you end up with health problems you don't have to spend a small fortune just to stop yourself from dying. However I feel that if you knowingly destroy yourself with smoking you should be exempt from free health care
[QUOTE=Fkpuz Version 1;28511883]Cheeseburgers kill people
Potato Chips kill people
People kill people[/QUOTE]
Yes but you wont get killed because someone else ate a cheeseburger.
you won't die because someone else smoked unless you're near them in the same house for long long periods of time
[editline]9th March 2011[/editline]
it's not like you walk by someone smoking and you just drop dead or get cancer immediately
They've already done this where I live in Alberta.
They never put the ciggerettes into plain packs, but they've made it so that ciggerettes are not visable to customers.
[QUOTE=Fkpuz Version 1;28511947]you won't die because someone else smoked unless you're near them in the same house for long long periods of time
[editline]9th March 2011[/editline]
it's not like you walk by someone smoking and you just drop dead or get cancer immediately[/QUOTE]
Yea but it does increase the chances. If you have to walk somewhere every day with a lot of smokers it will also increase by an important percent.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28512036]Yea but it does increase the chances. If you have to walk somewhere every day with a lot of smokers it will also increase by an important percent.[/QUOTE]
where are these places? almost everywhere but your home it is banned. Even if you walk by 10 people who are smoking and they all blow it right in your face at the same time you'll still be fine. Second hand smoke is real and shouldn't be treated like nothing, but it's not for cases like this. It is for if you are in a house every day with a smoker who smokes inside every day.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28512036]Yea but it does increase the chances. If you have to walk somewhere every day with a lot of smokers it will also increase by an important percent.[/QUOTE]
I think that sounds completely ridiculous. I understand that people think that smoke is annoying in restaurants and such, and that's what anti-smoking laws should be based on -- it's annoying. Not "everybody is going to get cancer and die if they are near a smoker or breath in smoke."
Yeah, I have no idea what scare tactics they use in school these days but it seems to be working
Second hand smoke can potentially increase your risk for cancer if you live in a bar where people smoke all day, every day until you start growing tumors.
The first study done by the EPA in 1993 was tossed out because of it's lack of proper scientific procedure in the study and I'm not completely sure about the other studies (especially the one that said smoking causes 600,000 deaths per year, seriously?)
In any case, i think people should be able to smoke in places that allow it including their homes, businesses specifically catering to smokers (why would you get a job at a smoking bar and then try to ban smoking in it? That's stupid).
I don't mind them being banned from public places (tax payer property). Trust me, if businesses see they're losing business because people refuse to come into a smoke filled environment, they'll stop supporting smokers. That simple.
As for people worried about second-hand smoke, if you want to err on the side of caution then don't enter places made specifically for smoking, don't hang around people who smoke constantly in your presence and you should be absolutely fine. The damage it could potentially do provided you follow those instructions is unmeasurable (in the small way).
[QUOTE=Sanius;28512271]I think that sounds completely ridiculous. I understand that people think that smoke is annoying in restaurants and such, and that's what anti-smoking laws should be based on -- it's annoying. Not "everybody is going to get cancer and die if they are near a smoker or breath in smoke."[/QUOTE]
I never said you will. but it does increase the chances to were at least 53800 die a year from it. And then there are the other lessor things like ashma. I don't want smokers to stop smoking but I would like if they didn't smoke in front of people.
[editline]9th March 2011[/editline]
It is all about the chances. Every time you are by something that can mutate you you have a small chance of getting cancer. Its not as bad as living with people who smoke but it can cause cancer. Like I said before just try to make sure you don't smoke in a place with a lot of people.
[QUOTE=Sanius;28512271]I think that sounds completely ridiculous. I understand that people think that smoke is annoying in restaurants and such, and that's what anti-smoking laws should be based on -- it's annoying. Not "everybody is going to get cancer and die if they are near a smoker or breath in smoke."[/QUOTE]
"Hey, lead in paint is annoying when kids lick it, but if they don't lick it - no problem!"
You can't ignore scientific evidence that people are susceptible to cancer via second hand smoke. Sure, some people breathe in smoke all day and die at 80, but others breathe in smoke and die at 36 - I'm willing to put up with smoking being legal, but cut the 'I've been around smokers all my life, I'm 20 and I'm perfectly fine! What gives!?" bullshit.
nobody here is even arguing with that
Second hand smoke exists, you have great danger of health issues if you are around smokers all the time / live in a house with people smoking in it.
What we were arguing was if someone was smoking, let's say on a bench on campus, and you walked by them then you would get cancer. You won't. Even if you walk by that same person every day for a year, you won't. If you walk over to that person, talk to him for 10 minutes every day for a year, while he is puffing away then you might (but it's still very unlikely).
[QUOTE=Fkpuz Version 1;28512789]What we were arguing was if someone was smoking, let's say on a bench on campus, and you walked by them then you would get cancer. You won't. Even if you walk by that same person every day for a year, you won't. If you walk over to that person, talk to him for 10 minutes every day for a year, while he is puffing away then you might (but it's still very unlikely).[/QUOTE]
I never said anyone would. That's not what I'm arguing against. That's why I'm not a banning advocate. Hell, you breathe in car fumes all day long - but Sanius was talking about restaurants baning being made purely on an 'annoyance' basis.
[QUOTE=Fkpuz Version 1;28512789]nobody here is even arguing with that
Second hand smoke exists, you have great danger of health issues if you are around smokers all the time / live in a house with people smoking in it.
What we were arguing was if someone was smoking, let's say on a bench on campus, and you walked by them then you would get cancer. You won't. Even if you walk by that same person every day for a year, you won't. If you walk over to that person, talk to him for 10 minutes every day for a year, while he is puffing away then you might (but it's still very unlikely).[/QUOTE]
you dont seem to get how mutations work. they are random. You have a chance to get them ever time you walk next to them. sure you will probably not get them the times you are around them but its chance so while some will could get it just by walking near a guy smoking while other who live with people who smoke all there life might not. So 2nd hand public smoke does contribute a lot to people getting cancer.
driving contributes a lot to people getting cancer, stay away from cars
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
