Belmont banned smoking everywhere

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Molondo

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Molondo

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Molondo

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Molondo

Originally posted by: Cookie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Cookie
PS. I don't believe all the doomsday talk either.
Banning public smoking will not cause all other freedoms to crumble beneath us.

Translation: I'm so almighty holier-than-thou that I just know that I don't do anything that others could consider offensive.

Does that have ANYTHING to do with what I said?

Don't worry about him, Trolls are attention whores.

Oh really? So now it's uncalled-for personal attacks, eh?

You smell like ass. Should we ban you?

Translation: I'm so almighty holier-than-thou that I just know that I don't do anything that others could consider offensive.

Just thought id return the favour.
Anyways, Go start a lobby group because smoking will eventually be banned everywhere. There is nothing you can do. Majority don't like it, it smells horrible and its a health risk.

Enjoy your fascist state. Don't worry, they will come for you next. And whatever it is, it'll be nothing less than you deserve.

😀 😀 😀 its just smoking dude 😀 😀

This attitude is exactly the problem. I don't smoke. I don't like smoke. But I defend the rights of others as I defend my own rights. You OTOH are ready and willing to strip anyone else's rights provided it doesn't interfere with your own. So, like I said, don't be surprised when they come from you and your holier-than-thou attitude, because they will. Sooner or later, it'll be your turn, and those smokers you picked on will remember you. This is what happens when you play politics and the law like a game of screw-your-neighbor.

You just love putting words in my mouth?

You OTOH are ready and willing to strip anyone else's rights provided it doesn't interfere with your own.

I just like to see whats best for society. There is a law against youth smoking, or drinking, would that count as triping their freedom?
If they passed a law that you can't talk on street then yea its a fascist state, but its SMOKING. They are doing it for you. Just as parents decide for their kids whats best for them. I can see why you are getting worked up over this. But trust me, this country is not going to turn into 1930s germany.

Uhh... having government decide what it thinks is best for the adult citizens that comprise its citizenry, as though parents deciding for children, is pretty much the definition of social fascism. You are deeply confused about the nature of authority. Youth are not adults, adults are not youth.

 

[Molondo]

Then your kids should call you fascist daddy in that case.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Molondo
Then your kids should call you fascist daddy in that case.

Bwahahahahahah.

Because of responses like this, I fear for America's future.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Molondo
Then your kids should call you fascist daddy in that case.

Wow... the stupid is stong in this one.

You must be some kid. Look, when you grow up, you'll realize that government is the people and the people is composed of, well... people. Nothing more than. The concept that "daddy knows best" applies to government will fall away from your mind as you (hopefully) mature.

I'm done with this thread. Thanks for calling me a troll when you obviously are one.

 

[Molondo]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Molondo
Then your kids should call you fascist daddy in that case.

Bwahahahahahah.

Because of responses like this, I fear for America's future.

Take a number, it seems this whole country is in fear of something.
Anyways, you can argue all you want and call me a fascist. I am gonna go outside and enjoy my tobacco free air. That is all.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Molondo

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Molondo
Then your kids should call you fascist daddy in that case.

Bwahahahahahah.

Because of responses like this, I fear for America's future.

Take a number, it seems this whole country is in fear of something.
Anyways, you can argue all you want and call me a fascist. I am gonna go outside and enjoy my tobacco free air. That is all.

Fear alleviated, you're Canadian. Just stay north of the border, eh?

 

[Cookie]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Molondo
Then your kids should call you fascist daddy in that case.

Wow... the stupid is stong in this one.

You must be some kid. Look, when you grow up, you'll realize that government is the people and the people is composed of, well... people. Nothing more than. The concept that "daddy knows best" applies to government will fall away from your mind as you (hopefully) mature.

I'm done with this thread. Thanks for calling me a troll when you obviously are one.

Come back when you are capable of a debate without resorting to slander and personal attack.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Cookie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Molondo
Then your kids should call you fascist daddy in that case.

Wow... the stupid is stong in this one.

You must be some kid. Look, when you grow up, you'll realize that government is the people and the people is composed of, well... people. Nothing more than. The concept that "daddy knows best" applies to government will fall away from your mind as you (hopefully) mature.

I'm done with this thread. Thanks for calling me a troll when you obviously are one.

Come back when you are capable of a debate without resorting to slander and personal attack.

:roll:

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Cookie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Molondo
Then your kids should call you fascist daddy in that case.

Wow... the stupid is stong in this one.

You must be some kid. Look, when you grow up, you'll realize that government is the people and the people is composed of, well... people. Nothing more than. The concept that "daddy knows best" applies to government will fall away from your mind as you (hopefully) mature.

I'm done with this thread. Thanks for calling me a troll when you obviously are one.

Come back when you are capable of a debate without resorting to slander and personal attack.

It's quite simple. If you actually trust the government to do what's best for you, why aren't you willingly giving up the rest of your personal freedoms? Do you feel comfortable giving the government interest free loans every year in the form of taxes/refunds? Why not let the government tell you which cars to buy (only hybrids, natural gas, or biodiesel because of the environmental concerns), what foods to eat, and what to spend your money on?

What this really is, is a way for the government to assert their control and strengthen their power, while limiting the freedoms of it's citizens and reaping the benefits of already ridiculous taxes on cigarettes, on a product that the payers of those taxes cannot even use freely. On top of that, cigarette taxes actually go to fund state and federal initiatives that try to solve a vast amount of non-tobacco problems.

 

[Cookie]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Cookie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Molondo
Then your kids should call you fascist daddy in that case.

Wow... the stupid is stong in this one.

You must be some kid. Look, when you grow up, you'll realize that government is the people and the people is composed of, well... people. Nothing more than. The concept that "daddy knows best" applies to government will fall away from your mind as you (hopefully) mature.

I'm done with this thread. Thanks for calling me a troll when you obviously are one.

Come back when you are capable of a debate without resorting to slander and personal attack.

:roll:

No, I'm serious. I've been trying to have a normal conversation and you keep calling names and correcting typos and making gross generalizations about what you think I am trying to say without actually trying to understand or contribute to this conversation. I have yet to attack your character or tell you that your opinion is irrelevant, OR correct your typos. Tell me... is that what you consider a normal debate?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Cookie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Cookie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Molondo
Then your kids should call you fascist daddy in that case.

Wow... the stupid is stong in this one.

You must be some kid. Look, when you grow up, you'll realize that government is the people and the people is composed of, well... people. Nothing more than. The concept that "daddy knows best" applies to government will fall away from your mind as you (hopefully) mature.

I'm done with this thread. Thanks for calling me a troll when you obviously are one.

Come back when you are capable of a debate without resorting to slander and personal attack.

:roll:

No, I'm serious. I've been trying to have a normal conversation and you keep calling names and correcting typos and making gross generalizations about what you think I am trying to say without actually trying to understand or contribute to this conversation. I have yet to attack your character or tell you that your opinion is irrelevant, OR correct your typos. Tell me... is that what you consider a normal debate?

So was I. You began in this thread by claiming that you support (not only support, but would push for) the outlawing of a particular activity for no other reason that that it offended you. That IS irrelevant. That you actually think it's relevant tells volumes about your character (or lack of). I corrected your typo to make a point, which you obviously missed (and continue to miss).

 

[Cookie]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Cookie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Molondo
Then your kids should call you fascist daddy in that case.

Wow... the stupid is stong in this one.

You must be some kid. Look, when you grow up, you'll realize that government is the people and the people is composed of, well... people. Nothing more than. The concept that "daddy knows best" applies to government will fall away from your mind as you (hopefully) mature.

I'm done with this thread. Thanks for calling me a troll when you obviously are one.

Come back when you are capable of a debate without resorting to slander and personal attack.

It's quite simple. If you actually trust the government to do what's best for you, why aren't you willingly giving up the rest of your personal freedoms? Do you feel comfortable giving the government interest free loans every year in the form of taxes/refunds? Why not let the government tell you which cars to buy (only hybrids, natural gas, or biodiesel because of the environmental concerns), what foods to eat, and what to spend your money on?

What this really is, is a way for the government to assert their control and strengthen their power, while limiting the freedoms of it's citizens and reaping the benefits of already ridiculous taxes on cigarettes, on a product that the payers of those taxes cannot even use freely. On top of that, cigarette taxes actually go to fund state and federal initiatives that try to solve a vast amount of non-tobacco problems.

I hope when you say 'you' that you mean in a general sense and not actually me.... because I didn't bring up the government thing at all. As for your point, I agree that giving the government complete control is a bad idea. I think people should have choices, but I also think those choices should respect the choices of other people as well. The smoking laws are tricky because either way, someone's rights are going to be infringed upon.

Your hybrid car example will probably eventually happen too, and the 'what you can eat' example is already happening in New York with transfats. But this will not prevent people from driving and eating, just making them do so in a more healthy manner.

I'd love to continue this discussion, but I'm going home now. And Vic, sorry but I don't have time to check for typos. I'm sure you can point them out for me 😉

 

[Molondo]

It's quite simple. If you actually trust the government to do what's best for you, why aren't you willingly giving up the rest of your personal freedoms? Do you feel comfortable giving the government interest free loans every year in the form of taxes/refunds? Why not let the government tell you which cars to buy (only hybrids, natural gas, or biodiesel because of the environmental concerns), what foods to eat, and what to spend your money on?

What this really is, is a way for the government to assert their control and strengthen their power, while limiting the freedoms of it's citizens and reaping the benefits of already ridiculous taxes on cigarettes, on a product that the payers of those taxes cannot even use freely. On top of that, cigarette taxes actually go to fund state and federal initiatives that try to solve a vast amount of non-tobacco problems.

What do you want me to say? I like this ban because it will make the air i breathe cleaner. I still don't think this has anything to do with power tripping and strengthening their grasp.
Some people will agree some will dissagree.

 

[Cookie]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Cookie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Cookie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Molondo
Then your kids should call you fascist daddy in that case.

Wow... the stupid is stong in this one.

You must be some kid. Look, when you grow up, you'll realize that government is the people and the people is composed of, well... people. Nothing more than. The concept that "daddy knows best" applies to government will fall away from your mind as you (hopefully) mature.

I'm done with this thread. Thanks for calling me a troll when you obviously are one.

Come back when you are capable of a debate without resorting to slander and personal attack.

:roll:

No, I'm serious. I've been trying to have a normal conversation and you keep calling names and correcting typos and making gross generalizations about what you think I am trying to say without actually trying to understand or contribute to this conversation. I have yet to attack your character or tell you that your opinion is irrelevant, OR correct your typos. Tell me... is that what you consider a normal debate?

So was I. You began in this thread by claiming that you support (not only support, but would push for) the outlawing of a particular activity for no other reason that that it offended you. That IS irrelevant. That you actually think it's relevant tells volumes about your character (or lack of). I corrected your typo to make a point, which you obviously missed (and continue to miss).

PS. I'm sorry you misunderstood my intent. I don't think my opinion is relevant to what Belmont does. I don't think Public smoking should be banned based SOLELY on me being offended. I never claimed to PUSH FOR anything. I merely welcome it. Your pointing out your opinion of my 'lack of character' is resorting to slander again. I don't think a typo is relevant to this conversation.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Molondo

It's quite simple. If you actually trust the government to do what's best for you, why aren't you willingly giving up the rest of your personal freedoms? Do you feel comfortable giving the government interest free loans every year in the form of taxes/refunds? Why not let the government tell you which cars to buy (only hybrids, natural gas, or biodiesel because of the environmental concerns), what foods to eat, and what to spend your money on?

What this really is, is a way for the government to assert their control and strengthen their power, while limiting the freedoms of it's citizens and reaping the benefits of already ridiculous taxes on cigarettes, on a product that the payers of those taxes cannot even use freely. On top of that, cigarette taxes actually go to fund state and federal initiatives that try to solve a vast amount of non-tobacco problems.

What do you want me to say? I like this ban because it will make the air i breathe cleaner. I still don't think this has anything to do with power tripping and strengthening their grasp.
Some people will agree some will dissagree.

I'm sorry that you can't see the actual politics or implication behind an initiative such as this.

What I love is how nobody gives a damn and supports initiatives until it's their bull getting gored.

How about something that may hit a little close to home:

What if the Canadian government imposed drastic restrictions on the interest rates that real estate companies can offer their customers on home loans. I'm sure this would severely cut into the profits of the broker and company, but hey, it'll help stimulate the economy because people will be able to afford housing better and have more money to put into other sectors of the economy. Should the Canadian government go ahead and do that?

 

[Mogget]

Most people here seem to think smoking is as undeniable a right as breathing...

Just because it has been the norm for a good part of history doesn't make it an intrinsic personal freedom. Sexism and racism fell into that category too (not the same thing of course, but you get my drift).

Fact is smoking, both active and passive, has been proved (yes, proved) to be extremely damaging. Take a look at the Wikipedia article on passive smoking if you think there's no evidence for it being harmful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking. Skip to the footnotes if you want the hard evidence.

Personally I think this particular law is clumsy, but if you take a look at the 'big picture' as you personal freedom people keep pointing out, this is the inevitable course the law will take. It's not a slippery slope, it's recognising a serious health issue and following a path to eradicate it. It's unfortunate that smoking is so entrenched in society, but anyone with any foresight can see it has to go sooner or later. If you think your government can't tell the difference between basic personal freedom and getting rid of a health risk, maybe you need to take a look at how your country is run ? not just blame the smoking issue.

In New Zealand we've done the opposite, which in my opinion makes more sense: "To protect people from the health effects of second-hand smoke, smoking in most public areas including shopping malls, public transport, pubs, bars and restaurants is prohibited in New Zealand. All workplaces are smokefree. If you smoke, please remember to smoke outside."

There was the same general outcry here too, but it works just fine.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Mogget
Most people here seem to think smoking is as undeniable a right as breathing...

Just because it has been the norm for a good part of history doesn't make it an intrinsic personal freedom. Sexism and racism fell into that category too (not the same thing of course, but you get my drift).

Fact is smoking, both active and passive, has been proved (yes, proved) to be extremely damaging. Take a look at the Wikipedia article on passive smoking if you think there's no evidence for it being harmful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking. Skip to the footnotes if you want the hard evidence.

Personally I think this particular law is clumsy, but if you take a look at the 'big picture' as you personal freedom people keep pointing out, this is the inevitable course the law will take. It's not a slippery slope, it's recognising a serious health issue and following a path to eradicate it. It's unfortunate that smoking is so entrenched in society, but anyone with any foresight can see it has to go sooner or later. If you think your government can't tell the difference between basic personal freedom and getting rid of a health risk, maybe you need to take a look at how your country is run ? not just blame the smoking issue.

In New Zealand we've done the opposite, which in my opinion makes more sense: "To protect people from the health effects of second-hand smoke, smoking in most public areas including shopping malls, public transport, pubs, bars and restaurants is prohibited in New Zealand. All workplaces are smokefree. If you smoke, please remember to smoke outside."

There was the same general outcry here too, but it works just fine.

:roll:

Listen, you're a newbie, and we've had the same argument about the harmful effects of second-hand smoking since this board was created.

Linking Wikipedia is your first mistake.

Your second mistake is not providing any peer-reviewed, independent studies showing that second hand smoke is harmful.

Your third mistake is comparing the NZ ban to this ban, which doesn't even allow people to smoke outside, or in their own homes in certain cases.

 

[Molondo]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Molondo

It's quite simple. If you actually trust the government to do what's best for you, why aren't you willingly giving up the rest of your personal freedoms? Do you feel comfortable giving the government interest free loans every year in the form of taxes/refunds? Why not let the government tell you which cars to buy (only hybrids, natural gas, or biodiesel because of the environmental concerns), what foods to eat, and what to spend your money on?

What this really is, is a way for the government to assert their control and strengthen their power, while limiting the freedoms of it's citizens and reaping the benefits of already ridiculous taxes on cigarettes, on a product that the payers of those taxes cannot even use freely. On top of that, cigarette taxes actually go to fund state and federal initiatives that try to solve a vast amount of non-tobacco problems.

What do you want me to say? I like this ban because it will make the air i breathe cleaner. I still don't think this has anything to do with power tripping and strengthening their grasp.
Some people will agree some will dissagree.

I'm sorry that you can't see the actual politics or implication behind an initiative such as this.

What I love is how nobody gives a damn and supports initiatives until it's their bull getting gored.

How about something that may hit a little close to home:

What if the Canadian government imposed drastic restrictions on the interest rates that real estate companies can offer their customers on home loans. I'm sure this would severely cut into the profits of the broker and company, but hey, it'll help stimulate the economy because people will be able to afford housing better and have more money to put into other sectors of the economy. Should the Canadian government go ahead and do that?

No i can acutally see. I just don't think it will hurt the way we live our lives. There has been bans on certain drugs and it never made "resctriction on rights" list. As cookie mentioned, "welcoming it".

And maybe i am socialist, because i would welcome the canadian government to do that only if its within reasonable range. Maybe that is the issue here, i live in canada and we have a slightly different mind state up here regarding society as whole. Therefore i don't think we will ever settle this.

On january 1st, Ban on smoking is coming into effect in calgary. There is not alot of opposition to it. Even smokers are agreeing to this, its a great way to quit the habbit.

 

[Mogget]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Mogget
Most people here seem to think smoking is as undeniable a right as breathing...

Just because it has been the norm for a good part of history doesn't make it an intrinsic personal freedom. Sexism and racism fell into that category too (not the same thing of course, but you get my drift).

Fact is smoking, both active and passive, has been proved (yes, proved) to be extremely damaging. Take a look at the Wikipedia article on passive smoking if you think there's no evidence for it being harmful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking. Skip to the footnotes if you want the hard evidence.

Personally I think this particular law is clumsy, but if you take a look at the 'big picture' as you personal freedom people keep pointing out, this is the inevitable course the law will take. It's not a slippery slope, it's recognising a serious health issue and following a path to eradicate it. It's unfortunate that smoking is so entrenched in society, but anyone with any foresight can see it has to go sooner or later. If you think your government can't tell the difference between basic personal freedom and getting rid of a health risk, maybe you need to take a look at how your country is run ? not just blame the smoking issue.

In New Zealand we've done the opposite, which in my opinion makes more sense: "To protect people from the health effects of second-hand smoke, smoking in most public areas including shopping malls, public transport, pubs, bars and restaurants is prohibited in New Zealand. All workplaces are smokefree. If you smoke, please remember to smoke outside."

There was the same general outcry here too, but it works just fine.

:roll:

Listen, you're a newbie, and we've had the same argument about the harmful effects of second-hand smoking since this board was created.

Linking Wikipedia is your first mistake.

Your second mistake is not providing any peer-reviewed, independent studies showing that second hand smoke is harmful.

Your third mistake is comparing the NZ ban to this ban, which doesn't even allow people to smoke outside, or in their own homes in certain cases.

I'd much prefer to be a newbie than an idiot. Please don't try to patronise me without refuting my argument.

I don't care how much you've argued the issue, it's fundamentally important to what's being argued here. Do you think the ban was instigated just for the hell of it?

I admit, Wikipedia isn't the most impressive source, but it does reference internationally recognised studies on passive smoking, and I did point you to the footnotes; if you can't come up with a reason these aren't valid, don't say anything.

How about you find some 'peer-reviewed, independent studies' showing that passive smoking isn't harmful. Demanding quality evidence while having none of your own is no way to prove a point.

Lastly, I made it perfectly clear that I thought this ban was clumsy. Having said that, I provided an example of how anti-smoking laws have been differently, and successfully, implemented. After all, I was discussing the big issue (which you pro-smokers seem so keen on) beyond this particular ban.

Do me a favour and don't try to dismiss people's arguments with specious and hypocritical reasoning. It makes you look like a 'newbie'.

 

[jjones]

?You can?t walk down the street with a beer, but you can have a cigarette,? Warden said. ?You shouldn?t be allowed to do that."

lol, not being able to drink anywhere in public is one of the reasons I left the States. Can't have a beer at the beach, can't have a beer in the park, can't do anything anymore because the soccer moms and mad mothers make all the rules now. Enjoy the facism, I'm done with it.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Mogget

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Mogget
Most people here seem to think smoking is as undeniable a right as breathing...

Just because it has been the norm for a good part of history doesn't make it an intrinsic personal freedom. Sexism and racism fell into that category too (not the same thing of course, but you get my drift).

Fact is smoking, both active and passive, has been proved (yes, proved) to be extremely damaging. Take a look at the Wikipedia article on passive smoking if you think there's no evidence for it being harmful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking. Skip to the footnotes if you want the hard evidence.

Personally I think this particular law is clumsy, but if you take a look at the 'big picture' as you personal freedom people keep pointing out, this is the inevitable course the law will take. It's not a slippery slope, it's recognising a serious health issue and following a path to eradicate it. It's unfortunate that smoking is so entrenched in society, but anyone with any foresight can see it has to go sooner or later. If you think your government can't tell the difference between basic personal freedom and getting rid of a health risk, maybe you need to take a look at how your country is run ? not just blame the smoking issue.

In New Zealand we've done the opposite, which in my opinion makes more sense: "To protect people from the health effects of second-hand smoke, smoking in most public areas including shopping malls, public transport, pubs, bars and restaurants is prohibited in New Zealand. All workplaces are smokefree. If you smoke, please remember to smoke outside."

There was the same general outcry here too, but it works just fine.

:roll:

Listen, you're a newbie, and we've had the same argument about the harmful effects of second-hand smoking since this board was created.

Linking Wikipedia is your first mistake.

Your second mistake is not providing any peer-reviewed, independent studies showing that second hand smoke is harmful.

Your third mistake is comparing the NZ ban to this ban, which doesn't even allow people to smoke outside, or in their own homes in certain cases.

I'd much prefer to be a newbie than an idiot. Please don't try to patronise me without refuting my argument.

I don't care how much you've argued the issue, it's fundamentally important to what's being argued here. Do you think the ban was instigated just for the hell of it?

I admit, Wikipedia isn't the most impressive source, but it does reference internationally recognised studies on passive smoking, and I did point you to the footnotes; if you can't come up with a reason these aren't valid, don't say anything.

How about you find some 'peer-reviewed, independent studies' showing that passive smoking isn't harmful. Demanding quality evidence while having none of your own is no way to prove a point.

Lastly, I made it perfectly clear that I thought this ban was clumsy. Having said that, I provided an example of how anti-smoking laws have been differently, and successfully, implemented. After all, I was discussing the big issue (which you pro-smokers seem so keen on) beyond this particular ban.

Do me a favour and don't try to dismiss people's arguments with specious and hypocritical reasoning. It makes you look like a 'newbie'.

Bwahahaha.

So where were those studies again? You are the one that asserted that it has been scientifically proven that both active and passive smoking is extremely dangerous. You didn't even say that passive smoke was potentially dangerous, or was danerous in large quantities. No no no, you threw out the statement that plain and simple, passive inhalation of smoke is extremely dangerous.

So after making such a profound and serious statement, where is your proof? Nowhere did I say what my stance on the dangers of second hand smoke was. I didn't assert anything. YOU are the one that made the claim, now back it up. Of course you won't though.

As for the Wikipedia footnotes, might as well have told me to just google "passive smoke dangers". Do yourself a favor and look under Controversy in the Wiki article. See that EPA section? Yes, that's why you need to provide peer-reviewed, independent studies. Do a little research on the EPA and see how brazenly the agency distorted the facts and research.

And calling me a pro-smoker? That's rich. I don't even smoke! I'll occasionally have a cigarette or two every few months when I drink, but by no means am I a smoker. I also don't approve of other people smoking around me in a non-drinking environment. What I am, is someone who realizes what a slippery slope this is. If the government was so interested in our health, they'd already be instituting regulated diets, ban alcohol, initiate huge infrastructure projects, and move away from using toxic chemicals.

Anyway, I'm not turning this into another second hand smoke debate, so I won't be commenting again about the dangers of second hand smoke.

Just some of the threads that second hand smoke was debated ad nauseum:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1276233&enterthread=y&arctab=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1259552&enterthread=y&arctab=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1275111&enterthread=y&arctab=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...&STARTPAGE=5&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1186779&enterthread=y&arctab=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1166007&enterthread=y&arctab=y

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Mogget

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Mogget
Most people here seem to think smoking is as undeniable a right as breathing...

Just because it has been the norm for a good part of history doesn't make it an intrinsic personal freedom. Sexism and racism fell into that category too (not the same thing of course, but you get my drift).

Fact is smoking, both active and passive, has been proved (yes, proved) to be extremely damaging. Take a look at the Wikipedia article on passive smoking if you think there's no evidence for it being harmful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking. Skip to the footnotes if you want the hard evidence.

Personally I think this particular law is clumsy, but if you take a look at the 'big picture' as you personal freedom people keep pointing out, this is the inevitable course the law will take. It's not a slippery slope, it's recognising a serious health issue and following a path to eradicate it. It's unfortunate that smoking is so entrenched in society, but anyone with any foresight can see it has to go sooner or later. If you think your government can't tell the difference between basic personal freedom and getting rid of a health risk, maybe you need to take a look at how your country is run ? not just blame the smoking issue.

In New Zealand we've done the opposite, which in my opinion makes more sense: "To protect people from the health effects of second-hand smoke, smoking in most public areas including shopping malls, public transport, pubs, bars and restaurants is prohibited in New Zealand. All workplaces are smokefree. If you smoke, please remember to smoke outside."

There was the same general outcry here too, but it works just fine.

:roll:

Listen, you're a newbie, and we've had the same argument about the harmful effects of second-hand smoking since this board was created.

Linking Wikipedia is your first mistake.

Your second mistake is not providing any peer-reviewed, independent studies showing that second hand smoke is harmful.

Your third mistake is comparing the NZ ban to this ban, which doesn't even allow people to smoke outside, or in their own homes in certain cases.

I'd much prefer to be a newbie than an idiot. Please don't try to patronise me without refuting my argument.

I don't care how much you've argued the issue, it's fundamentally important to what's being argued here. Do you think the ban was instigated just for the hell of it?

I admit, Wikipedia isn't the most impressive source, but it does reference internationally recognised studies on passive smoking, and I did point you to the footnotes; if you can't come up with a reason these aren't valid, don't say anything.

How about you find some 'peer-reviewed, independent studies' showing that passive smoking isn't harmful. Demanding quality evidence while having none of your own is no way to prove a point.

Lastly, I made it perfectly clear that I thought this ban was clumsy. Having said that, I provided an example of how anti-smoking laws have been differently, and successfully, implemented. After all, I was discussing the big issue (which you pro-smokers seem so keen on) beyond this particular ban.

Do me a favour and don't try to dismiss people's arguments with specious and hypocritical reasoning. It makes you look like a 'newbie'.

hmm. Wiki is not one ot link for an argument. on some things it is biased. so if you can link a argument to back up your claimes that would be good.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Molondo

You OTOH are ready and willing to strip anyone else's rights provided it doesn't interfere with your own.

I just like to see whats best for society.

Now that's a near-lethal dose of ironic sentiment for ya.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Molondo

You OTOH are ready and willing to strip anyone else's rights provided it doesn't interfere with your own.

I just like to see whats best for society.

Now that's a near-lethal dose of ironic sentiment for ya.

ironic? to tell the truth it scares the ****** out of me. it scares me that people are willing to take/give up rights for some so called safety.

 

[Mogget]

Originally posted by: BigJ
Bwahahaha.

So where were those studies again? You are the one that asserted that it has been scientifically proven that both active and passive smoking is extremely dangerous. You didn't even say that passive smoke was potentially dangerous, or was danerous in large quantities. No no no, you threw out the statement that plain and simple, passive inhalation of smoke is extremely dangerous.

So after making such a profound and serious statement, where is your proof? Nowhere did I say what my stance on the dangers of second hand smoke was. I didn't assert anything. YOU are the one that made the claim, now back it up. Of course you won't though.

As for the Wikipedia footnotes, might as well have told me to just google "passive smoke dangers". Do yourself a favor and look under Controversy in the Wiki article. See that EPA section? Yes, that's why you need to provide peer-reviewed, independent studies. Do a little research on the EPA and see how brazenly the agency distorted the facts and research.

And calling me a pro-smoker? That's rich. I don't even smoke! I'll occasionally have a cigarette or two every few months when I drink, but by no means am I a smoker. I also don't approve of other people smoking around me in a non-drinking environment. What I am, is someone who realizes what a slippery slope this is. If the government was so interested in our health, they'd already be instituting regulated diets, ban alcohol, initiate huge infrastructure projects, and move away from using toxic chemicals.

Anyway, I'm not turning this into another second hand smoke debate, so I won't be commenting again about the dangers of second hand smoke.

Oh very nice. Sit on the fence and say "oh, I don't actually have an opinion, I just have an extravagant belief that it's all a slippery slope", and expect me to provide copious evidence. Debates are a two-way affair ? if you want to criticise my arguments please do it from a credible position, and be willing to contribute evidence of your own.

My point, which you seem to fail to grasp, is that restricting smoking is not a blow to personal freedom. Rather it's the mature inevitability considering the medical consensus. Simply put: restricting a widespread harmful practice = not a danger to personal freedom; restricting a widespread non-harmful practice = potentially dangerous to personal freedom, slippery slope etc.

Would my argument have been more credible if I had individually sited Wiki's sources? Like this?

WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
http://www.who.int/tobacco/framework/WHO_FCTC_english.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General", 2006
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke

etc., etc.

Most of which similarly conclude: "Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke." -- The latter of the two quoted sources. Also, I am somewhat confused as to why you think an international convention ? WHO for example ? adopted by 192 countries and signed by 168, isn't 'peer-reviewed'. I thought it would be, by definition.

I admit that I can't really be bothered spending hours digging up the sort of studies you want. But you aren't contributing anything here either, so I hardly feel guilty.

Frankly, I was just making the point that there's an overwhelming amount of evidence on the harmful effects of smoking. I wasn't saying that my evidence was irrefutable ? not that you've done anything to refute it.

And calling me a pro-smoker? That's rich. I don't even smoke! I'll occasionally have a cigarette or two every few months when I drink, but by no means am I a smoker. I also don't approve of other people smoking around me in a non-drinking environment. What I am, is someone who realizes what a slippery slope this is. If the government was so interested in our health, they'd already be instituting regulated diets, ban alcohol, initiate huge infrastructure projects, and move away from using toxic chemicals.

Sorry, considering your arguments I presumed you were a smoker. But as you're arguing from a smoker's position, it comes to the same thing.

"Non-drinking environment"? What? The whole point is that smoking harms those exposed to it! In fact, drinking environments are some of the most harmful where passive smoking is concerned. You're surely missing the issue entirely there.

And as for that stuff about diets etc., try a little realism. Those would be breaches of personal freedom, but don't you think there's a slight difference?