Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[x2yzh9]

I want to smoke wherever it doesn't bother anyone, so mind all you like 

or morphine, and without a medical use.

I agree, without a medical use i believe ya know.. Ya.
On the topic of medical use, my father used to use it. He had cancer[not really confined to one place, at the end it was all over his body], agent orange wich was employed by the Vietnamese in the war. Anyway, if he didn't take it along with his at least 20 other daily meds he just couldn't get up without that constant pain. So yes, i think those things should be employed for medical use only-Except for smoking. People in todays age are stressed, and i've seen the effects of certain things-Alcohol is by far means worse then smoking. It destroys familys, kills people[Yea, smoking does too but its over a long, long period of time], ruin lives, etc. My sister is addicted to it and it's become such a problem that 2 weeks ago we were forced to have her move, and she just had a fit. She always came home drunk & bla bla bla. Anyway, she's in her 40s, and we didn't just kick her out, as she had the life insurance money.

[Strife26]

Hate to nick-pick, but I'm pretty sure that Orange was used against charlie, not by him. It's a possibly internationally illegal chemical for killing trees, which would help US more than them.


I've got very few problems with smoking. Or drinking. Of course, about half of the people at my place of occupation smoke, and most have them have solemnly cautioned me against it.

[nil]

Exactly; you can smoke in private all you like, the objection occurs when you smoke in public.

People's definitions of "public" here differs, though, and the trend seems to be towards expansion.  How far away should smokers have to be from entrances?  What if you live in an apartment?  What if I own a restaurant and live upstairs?  What if my restaurant is a hookah bar?  At the least, business owners should have the option of using ventilation systems in the place of bans.

I get the arguments of the pro-ban folks, but they're all predicated on the idea that either there's a right to smoke everywhere in public or nowhere in public.  Wouldn't the best option be to have both non-smoking and smoking establishments, allowing those who are concerned about second-hand smoke to easily avoid it without coercing the people who couldn't care less?

[G-Flex]

That leads to strange economic situations.

For instance: When it's possible for a bar/restaurant to disallow smoking or allow it, as it chooses, how many smoking-banned bars/restaurants do you actually see?

The problem here is that the people who are seriously bothered by the smoke are in the minority, including those who have severe health problems that are exacerbated by second-hand smoke, and the dangers of secondhand smoke/poor indoor air quality as a result aren't always apparent enough to the average joe for him to care, even when he should.

Regarding the minority bit: Places having to be handicapped-accessible requires more resources, planning, etc. to be spent on the design and construction and upkeep of an establishment. If you just allowed placed to NOT be handicapped-accessible, then barely anyplace would be, because they make up enough of a minority that nobody would care. The same goes for people who have serious reactions to cigarette smoke.

[Neruz]

Exactly; you can smoke in private all you like, the objection occurs when you smoke in public.

People's definitions of "public" here differs, though, and the trend seems to be towards expansion.  How far away should smokers have to be from entrances?  What if you live in an apartment?  What if I own a restaurant and live upstairs?  What if my restaurant is a hookah bar?  At the least, business owners should have the option of using ventilation systems in the place of bans.

I get the arguments of the pro-ban folks, but they're all predicated on the idea that either there's a right to smoke everywhere in public or nowhere in public.  Wouldn't the best option be to have both non-smoking and smoking establishments, allowing those who are concerned about second-hand smoke to easily avoid it without coercing the people who couldn't care less?

I dunno about you guys; but that is the case down here. The problem is smoking in places like streets and corridors.

For instance: When it's possible for a bar/restaurant to disallow smoking or allow it, as it chooses, how many smoking-banned bars/restaurants do you actually see?

Most of them actually; generally they provide a small outdoor area for smoking, and ban it everywhere else.

[nil]

Just provide tax benefits to non-smoking establishments, adjusting the rate until you have a nice mix.

I dunno about you guys; but that is the case down here. The problem is smoking in places like streets and corridors.

Wait, are you saying you want to ban smoking in the streets?

[Neruz]

Just provide tax benefits to non-smoking establishments, adjusting the rate until you have a nice mix.

I dunno about you guys; but that is the case down here. The problem is smoking in places like streets and corridors.

Wait, are you saying you want to ban smoking in the streets?

Actually i don't want to ban smoking anywhere, i would much rather smokers just give some respect to the people around them before they light up.

But as that is extremely unlikely, i'll settle for banning it everywhere except where it says you can.

[ChairmanPoo]

I wouldnt ban it on the street. Not much point in that. The issue with passive smoking is in enclosed spaces, in principle.

[atomicwinter]

First, no, I do not have a responsibility to do what you tell me.  It's your responsibility to convince me to stop.  Or convince the legislature to make me stop.

You do, however, have a responsibility to not violate my fundamental rights, like my right to privacy, or my right to breathe.

Otherwise; it should be fine if i go pipe bonfire smoke into your house; after all, i don't have any responsibility to not do that do i?

No one has any rights. Nothing is to say any rights should be given to anyone. Be thankful that you even breath this very moment.

[Neruz]

First, no, I do not have a responsibility to do what you tell me.  It's your responsibility to convince me to stop.  Or convince the legislature to make me stop.

You do, however, have a responsibility to not violate my fundamental rights, like my right to privacy, or my right to breathe.

Otherwise; it should be fine if i go pipe bonfire smoke into your house; after all, i don't have any responsibility to not do that do i?

No one has any rights. Nothing is to say any rights should be given to anyone. Be thankful that you even breath this very moment.

Fraid it doesn't work like that.

[ChairmanPoo]

No one has any rights. Nothing is to say any rights should be given to anyone.

Someone failed law 101. 

[atomicwinter]

No one has any rights. Nothing is to say any rights should be given to anyone.

Someone failed law 101. 

I am not saying that in this collection of country's that no one has any rights. But what is to say anything should have any right? Nothing. People thought of the concept and so it became.

[ChairmanPoo]

That's an oxymoron.

[Neruz]

No one has any rights. Nothing is to say any rights should be given to anyone.

Someone failed law 101. 

I am not saying that in this collection of country's that no one has any rights. But what is to say anything should have any right? Nothing. People thought of the concept and so it became.

People decided that people should have rights. Poof, we now have rights.

People decided that people should build skyscrapers. Poof, we now have skyscrapers.

[G-Flex]

For instance: When it's possible for a bar/restaurant to disallow smoking or allow it, as it chooses, how many smoking-banned bars/restaurants do you actually see?

Most of them actually; generally they provide a small outdoor area for smoking, and ban it everywhere else.

Really? Weird. When I was a kid, it was never like that, and it was irritating. By "kid" I mean until relatively recent years, actually.


I think atomicwinter's just saying that rights are defined by people and aren't divinely handed down or anything like that; we decide which rights people should have based on our system of ethics and blah blah blah.