UK Public Smoking Ban - July 1st

[Ennui]

Opinion. Mine is different. I believe all forms of deliberate smoke inhalation should be forgotten. The children of the generation that sees this will not be missing anything. This alone justifies my stance.

It justifies your stance, yes, because any opinion exists merely as a product of itself. Unfortunately, this is an argument in which we are required to back up our opinions with logical reasoning, which you are not doing correctly. I'm not arguing your opinion, I'm arguing your reasoning. When I said that "smoking should not be limited", I'm saying this because it is the only logical, reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the current debate, based off the arguments of both sides. I was not stating my own opinion. I don't even really agree with much of what I'm saying here, but I'm arguing based off logic and how I think the government should regulate (or not regulate) its citizens.

Semantics. FDA. Enough said.

Insufficient response. That is, not enough said. Respond to it, instead of dismissing it.

That depends on your exposure, now doesn't it?

Obviously, though I'm willing to bet that exposure to pollution for the AVERAGE person is far higher than exposure to secondhand smoke.

Tell that to all of the children who have no choice but to be around their chain-smoking parents.

I do not think that it is within a parent's right to subject their children to that. I'm arguing off the basis of outdoor smoking or generalized smoking bans anyway, not on indoor ones. Stop trying to skew the thread by bringing in little cry-me-a-river stories like that where they're out of context.

Explain how legality is everything in this situation. Get caught smoking pot while driving, go to jail. Get caught drinking while driving, go to jail. Smoke in public, go to jail. Drink in public outside the bounds of an establishment, get fined or go to jail. Do these things behind closed doors, nobody knows or cares.

Legality is everything because it's the only delineating factor here between alcohol and cigarettes, and marijuana. Pot is illegal, but it is less harmful than either of the other two, which are both legal. Thus, legality is everything, but must also be disregarded (which is what I was saying) because it's obviously not reasonable in this situation, and we should look merely at individual safety/health for each substance instead of comparing their legal statuses. You brought that up, not me.

You are an exception to the rule, probably because you are young and resilient.

Fantastic. I was merely stating my case, though, not trying to argue. I'm not trying to say that cigarettes aren't addictive. I know they are. I'm defending people's right to smoke them anyway.

Another opinion, and only smokers think this. For me and other non smokers (not saying all) there is a very tense, uncomfortable atmosphere having to breathe something that makes my eyes water, my throat parched, and skin itch, and the person who's talking to me breath stink.

I meant it as social interaction soley between smokers or people who smoke occasionally. Thus, both people have a cigarette, and it's not one person smoking and breathing death all over some poor, helpless victim who can hardly see for the sweat pouring down his face from how uncomfortable the cigarette of the other person makes him.

It is what it is, but it doesn't have to be that way forever. When big tobacco falls, nothing will change. The money people used to spend on smokes? It will just be spent on other habits and hobbies. I'm betting ethanol companies will make good use of the recovered farmland.

When big tobacco falls, nothing will change. So start with something that WILL evoke change and stop trying to make a big deal out of this. Like I said, in our economy, businesses are encouraged to NOT give a shit about society, or anything but money, really.

It is your decision. It's your right. It's also my decision and my right to criticize you if that's what you do. If you don't want to be criticized, don't do it.

I'm not defending myself, you halfwit. I'm defending smoking from a "give me liberty or give me death" standpoint. I said those things because they're all within my rights as an individual... I'm not trying to protect myself from your criticism.

Books contain useful information and are not consumable. They usually spend decades sitting on shelves. Cigarette paper is made for the purpose of being burned. It's wasteful.

If you're trying to argue that cigarettes are the only source of wasteful paper use, I'm not going to even touch this one because I'm afraid it's quite self-evident. Books were an example... but tons and tons of paper is wasted daily and I doubt cigarettes make a dent in that.

I don't care about your legality. These are all valid reasons to abolish smoking.

You're being horrendously idealistic. I'm being realistic. I don't think smoking is good either, but I'm not going to impose my own opinion on someone else just because I think I'm smarter than them, at least not in a situation like this. I'm saying it's someone's own damn decision and the effects on other people are negligible and generally result in discomfort rather than harm, which is why it should be a matter of courtesy, as I said like two pages ago. We're arguing on a logical basis... which means we're within the confines of the legal system.

I read every post before making mine. I thought about your viewpoint. I think it's stupid. If you don't want to debate me, don't debate me. You are not obligated at all to respond to me. In fact, only the first two comments were even directed at you. The rest was my viewpoint.

I kind of enjoy telling you why you're wrong, though. You're making overarching, extremely negative generalizations towards all smokers, which is what Absinthe takes offense to. I merely disagree with your opinion and as such am reasonably debating you on logical ground. What I said there is just an addendum... your argument blows.

I agree. I am a strong opponent of alcohol as well. It's a completely useless, dangerous substance that I am probably allergic to.
But the reason Mj is illegal is because it is uncontrolled. Big G can't tax it so they make money arresting you for possession. They can't sell it legally because there would be a strong public outcry from the Neo Cons, so the situation remains unchanged and you just have to live with it, or get glaucoma. Whichever is easier.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Absinthe]

Addiction.

Apparently the MMORPG genre is something not known to you.

Harming of those other than yourself, etc etc.

Here's where we need to make a distinction between smokers who don't give a damn and smokers who are respectful of others. The non-smokers I have hung out with honestly did not give a damn, and I have always asked others if it was okay with them when on their property.

I am a health risk only to those who accept it.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Go get your coffee and donut, this on is a doozy.

If it WAS legal it would be Controlled. It being uncontrolled is a requirement of it being illegal.

You are using circular logic. If the substance was controlled and legal it would still be illegal under certain circumstances. It can still be legal and uncontrolled.

And playing computer games is productive?

Alcohol can grease the wheels of social contact. Computer gaming, beyond personal gratification, doesn't actually do that much for you. It's got health risks too. Tell me, beyond the point that cigarettes harm you more, what difference is there?

As a very irregular cigar smoker, I'll tell you that the one thing more irritating than people trying to force their opinions on other people because they have a habit they don't like is one of the few things that can cause me to truly hate a man.

"I hate smokers, they're useless and I don't want them to smoke because I don't smoke and they shouldn't need to"

"I hate homosexuals, they're useless and I don't want them to like men because I don't like men and they shouldn't need to"

-Angry Lawyer

- Gaming cannot physically disable you or lead someone to kill you out of
intoxication of it's substance.
- Social skills can and do "grease the wheels" of social contact. Social drinkiers often use the excuse of drinking as their only means of appearing "fun". I have had my fun with alcohol and I do enjoy it's loosening effect, but the children of the generation whom forgets about consuming it will miss nothing. It is not integral to anything. It's uselessness is only compounded by it's adverse effects, unlike gaming or other forms of entertainment which have few, if any.
- There is no reason for you to hate me, because I would never force my opinion on anyone, nor would I deny anyone's right to do whatever they want. I do however, believe very strongly in what I think is right and will defend against all odds until death.

If there is miscommunication here, it is due to a lack of clarity on your end.

I agree. What I said was pretty vague. Since we see eye to eye on this, let's move on.

Good for you. That's highly irrelevant since there is a market for cigarettes. Your subjective idea of what's useful for society really doesn't matter since people want cigarettes and are willing to spend their money on them. Besides, the people working at these places pay their taxes. They have families. They may give to charity. You have defined them as people by their positions of employment, and that is absolutely ridiculous. You should do better than that.

What's ridiculous is that the market exists.

Your belief is insulting and retarded. If you were Jewish and I expressed the belief that the Holocaust was one of the best things to happen in the 20th century, offense would be entirely justified.

Your belief that my belief is insulting and retarded is both retarded and insulting. If you expressed the belief that the Holocaust was one of the best things to happen in the 20th century, I wouldn't give a damn what you think and I would ignore you.

Don't worry, I read it. And I think it's one of the more ridiculous things you've said thus far in this topic. To be quite honest, it sounds like something that would come from a clueless twit that has never had a drop of alcohol in his life and is missing out on a not-insignificant area of life experience.
To be more clear, I don't know why anybody would think of alcohol as useless. Dangerous is a given, assuming we're talking stupidly high quantities. But that's an issue with the person drinking it.

I've had plenty and that's how I know I don't like it. I also know the vast majority of people like myself live life completely without it for at least 2 decades of their life. Explain to me why it should suddenly become useful at that point? Social occasions? Body and mind liberation? I can accept you and others here think of it as a tool to further your social engagements but you cannot sit here and tell me it is a necessity. It is not. Couple this fact with the fact it has destroyed far more than it has created, and don't spin me that "but there's a huge market" crap. It's not a market of socialism, it's market of intoxication and inebriation, of addiction and of peer pressure.

When I said that "smoking should not be limited", I'm saying this because it is the only logical, reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the current debate, based off the arguments of both sides.

Only? Are you sure? Are you even sure it is a logical conclusion? Are you saying this because your friends smoke? None of my friends smoke. Your conclusion is completely illogical to me.

Insufficient response. That is, not enough said. Respond to it, instead of dismissing it.

Silly boy. The Food and Drug Administration regulates food and drugs. Yes, a government agency regulates what we eat! Imagine that. This is true unless you only eat from your own garden.

Obviously, though I'm willing to bet that exposure to pollution for the AVERAGE person is far higher than exposure to secondhand smoke.

The average person? The average smoker or the average non-smoker or the average non-smoker who lives with or works with a smoker? I myself am exposed to very little pollution. At my las job I was exposed to far more cigarette smoke than pollution. This is pointless however, since we all have the right to wear a bubble around our heads. Maybe smokers should invest in bubbles for their heads so they can smoke wherever they want and not bother anyone.

I do not think that it is within a parent's right to subject their children to that. I'm arguing off the basis of outdoor smoking or generalized smoking bans anyway, not on indoor ones. Stop trying to skew the thread by bringing in little cry-me-a-river stories like that where they're out of context.

That comment was directly relative to yours of their being no less harmful dangers than smoking. For the "average" household there is nothing more dangerous to a child. Indoors, outdoors, what does it matter? If an outdoor smoking ban is levied what do you think will happen? More people will smoke indoors. The context of this issue extends farther than your narrow self-supporting view.

...we should look merely at individual safety/health for each substance instead of comparing their legal statuses. You brought that up, not me.

The legal status exists because of health and safety. Prohobition caused gang crime and death, so alcohol was legalized. Illegal marijuana causes 16 year old kids to whine and complain, so it remains illegal.

Fantastic. I was merely stating my case, though, not trying to argue. I'm not trying to say that cigarettes aren't addictive. I know they are. I'm defending people's right to smoke them anyway.

Though I disagree with the act, I too will defend your right to do it. I have never once told anyone they should stop, though some might construe it as the inverse as I shout my position of the substance from the rooftops. I will praise a smoking ban, but I will not levy it upon you.

I meant it as social interaction soley between smokers or people who smoke occasionally. Thus, both people have a cigarette, and it's not one person smoking and breathing death all over some poor, helpless victim who can hardly see for the sweat pouring down his face from how uncomfortable the cigarette of the other person makes him.

If these people wish to segregate and relegate themselves to their own kind, so be it. I don't often, if ever see people getting together just tto light up. The people I know who, do it often do it in private, like I said earlier, on their breaks or in their cars.

When big tobacco falls, nothing will change. So start with something that WILL evoke change and stop trying to make a big deal out of this. Like I said, in our economy, businesses are encouraged to NOT give a shit about society, or anything but money, really.

I'm not trying to do anything but pass time and make words on my magical light box. This is not important to me at all. I'm not in the UK, what do I care if there is a ban?
I will however, encourage you and everyone else here to give a shit about society, or more than a shit, because it is the only one we have.

I'm not defending myself, you halfwit. I'm defending smoking from a "give me liberty or give me death" standpoint. I said those things because they're all within my rights as an individual... I'm not trying to protect myself from your criticism.

Come now, I can't possibly be a "haflwit" and be evoking such dramatic response. Everything I do is calculated though you may misconstrue my use of the word "you" is if I am talking about you Ennui specifically, and though you may overlook the word "if". It is a really small word. I understand if you think I thought you were defending yourself from something.

If you're trying to argue that cigarettes are the only source of wasteful paper use, I'm not going to even touch this one because I'm afraid it's quite self-evident. Books were an example... but tons and tons of paper is wasted daily and I doubt cigarettes make a dent in that.

Well that would just be utterly stupid and ignorant wouldn't it? I mean, you must think I am utterly stupid and ignorant to think it is the only source of paper waste. Well, you already think I am a "halfwit" so I would not put it passed you to judge me so.

You're being horrendously idealistic. I'm being realistic. I don't think smoking is good either, but I'm not going to impose my own opinion on someone else just because I think I'm smarter than them, at least not in a situation like this. I'm saying it's someone's own damn decision and the effects on other people are negligible and generally result in discomfort rather than harm, which is why it should be a matter of courtesy, as I said like two pages ago. We're arguing on a logical basis... which means we're within the confines of the legal system.

Oh, courtesy. Now you guys are making sense. We should trust you (there's that word again) to keep a comfortable distance from "us" even while harboring these thoughts of blowing smoke in our faces just to appease your (their) sadistic urges.
Notice you (we?) have broadened the scope of the argument again. We are talking about the effects on other people only outside or in private? I don't know. If people only smoked in private and kept their curteous distance from non-smokers, I imagine they would not be in this outdoor ban predicament.

I kind of enjoy telling you why you're wrong, though. You're making overarching, extremely negative generalizations towards all smokers, which is what Absinthe takes offense to. I merely disagree with your opinion and as such am reasonably debating you on logical ground. What I said there is just an addendum... your argument blows.

K.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

And I suppose you are a certified expert on history and economics and the will of the majority to be saying such a thing?

 

[Solaris]

I think what we need to do hear for us all to agree is make sure we all support the principle:

"You should be free to do what you want, until that restricts on the freedoms of other people"

Once we accept that, we can apply it to smoking, You should be able to smoke when and where-ever you want, until you force your smoke onto other people who don't want to breath it.

yes?

 

[ComradeBadger]

Which is precisely what happens when you're in a cramped club/pub/bar enviroment.

( I don't have a problem with it in fairly open places, it's when the club/pub is small that it annoys me. Smokers are quite the rarity amongst the student population anyway)

 

[Zeus]

Here in NY they banned smoking in bars and restaurants...thankfully. Smoking in a restaurant, totally inconsiderate as well as ridiculous. Take it outside and go destroy your own lungs is how I see it.

 

[Solaris]

Which is precisely what happens when you're in a cramped club/pub/bar enviroment.

( I don't have a problem with it in fairly open places, it's when the club/pub is small that it annoys me. Smokers are quite the rarity amongst the student population anyway)

I agree, I'm all for banning it in such places.

 

[CptStern]

I'm a smoker and I dont mind that you cant smoke in pubs ...I dont go anymore ..but when I did i hated wading into a hot sweaty smokey bar


that said, militant non-smokers bug me ..sure you have a right to not inhale smoke, but stfu about it, some of you preach as if it's the second coming of christ, even when there's no one around smoking

_Z_Ryuken: from what I remember you cant drink because of the medication you take (again if memory serves me correctly) ..oh and alcohol in moderation is good for you

 

[Absinthe]

What's ridiculous is that the market exists.

Who cares.

Your belief that my belief is insulting and retarded is both retarded and insulting. If you expressed the belief that the Holocaust was one of the best things to happen in the 20th century, I wouldn't give a damn what you think and I would ignore you.

Kudos to you. That doesn't change the fact that many others would take immeasurable offense to such a statement, and they would be fully justified in doing so.

Just because you don't care if somebody insults you doesn't make the words any less offensive, nor does it mean that people who recognize them as such are of a fragile mentality.

I've had plenty and that's how I know I don't like it. I also know the vast majority of people like myself live life completely without it for at least 2 decades of their life. Explain to me why it should suddenly become useful at that point? Social occasions? Body and mind liberation? I can accept you and others here think of it as a tool to further your social engagements but you cannot sit here and tell me it is a necessity. It is not. Couple this fact with the fact it has destroyed far more than it has created, and don't spin me that "but there's a huge market" crap. It's not a market of socialism, it's market of intoxication and inebriation, of addiction and of peer pressure.

I never said alcohol was a necessity.

Since when was something required to be a necessity for it to be deemed useful? Or how about just fun?

Unless you can prove to me that the majority of people who ingest alcohol are suffering from it, you are only talking out of your ass.
(Hint: You can't)

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

I agree with Solaris. A women lit up outside the door of a building I was exiting (illegal) and I was forced to pass through her smoke. Though there was a strong breeze and I could not see it, I could smell it and feel my throat burn. Though what I inhaled was neglible my senses were offended as if I had been slapped in the face as I exited the building. If she had waited 10 seconds to get to where she would be standing I might not care as much.

_Z_Ryuken: from what I remember you cant drink because of the medication you take (again if memory serves me correctly) ..oh and alcohol in moderation is good for you

I don't take medication. I don't know if you are joking or thinking I am someone else (probably the latter), but I am anti-med. I just am for no particular reason. I do not believe I need them.
I do believe alcohol in moderation can have benefits for your heart or whatever they say it does, but my body really will not tolerate it. Ever since I binged one night (only 5 cans, vomited everywhere) and more recently was tricked into drinking 12 shots (they were 6 double, not 12 singles, spent the night in a friends bathroom) I get physicaly ill just being around alcohol.

Kudos to you. That doesn't change the fact that many others would take immeasurable offense to such a statement, and they would be fully justified in doing so.
Just because you don't care if somebody insults you doesn't make the words any less offensive, nor does it mean that people who recognize them as such are of a fragile mentality.

I believe finding offense in mere words is a waste of energy. I find I am alone in this belief.

I never said alcohol was a necessity.
Since when was something required to be a necessity for it to be deemed useful? Or how about just fun?

Sure I agree that it's fun. I do know people think it is useful. I think these people can get along just fine without it. I do not like people using it as a crutch at social gatherings, if they believe it is the only way to fit in or be considered normal. This is how alcoholism starts.
I as a non-drinker am outcast by various people because they think drinking is so important anyone who does not do it is weird or a reject from society.
There is a mindset especially with today's youth that alcohol is an all important factor in being considered adult. This is an image I wish to destroy. I'm not saying everyone is like that, I am not putting words in your mouth, this is just an observation pertaining to my experience that happens to be causing a problem in my life and I feel relief explaining it to complete strangers.

Unless you can prove to me that the majority of people who ingest alcohol are suffering from it, you are only talking out of your ass.
(Hint: You can't)

The people whom really suffer from the effects of alcohol do not usually live very long to tell about it or are relatives of these people, but I was not insinuating anyone suffers from it's consumption, granted it is common sense that most people do at least once, at some point, for a short time.
If we ignore the fact that people just tend to "have a good time" using it (something they could and do have otherwise), alcohol serves no purpose and is dangerous. After sitting here thinking about it I guess my biggest problem with it, the thing that sets it apart from other dangerous recreations, is that it makes you stupid and/or belligerant. Sure you could limit your ingestion to a small amount but then what is the point? I do not see the point in a light intoxication and that is probably my problem in fitting in with this scene, and why we will never understand each other or come to terms on this issue.

I tried to put a neutral spin on these comments to limit any further confrontation.