-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
What should be outlawed that isn't in the USA?
Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I didn't say that the "whiff of smoke" I get when I walk in the streets is going to kill me. I said it makes me cough, it irritates my lugns and it makes my clothes smell. And that one whiff may not kill me but what about the one I'll run in to 30 seconds later? Or the one I run in to after that? Or after that? It all adds up.
Again, I ask: Whose rights are greater: Smoker right to smoke, or non-smokers right to breathe air that is not contaminated by tobacco-smoke? Or you could ask it like this: Whose right are greater: smokers rights to slowly poison himself to death, or non-smokers rights not to be poinoned? I haven't hear any answer to that one yet.
I am done with this thread after this post, no more trying to save myself. It got out of hand, what started out as a somewhat half joke half serious thing when I said smoking to begin with turned ugly when all these people expressed their opinions that I do not agree with. I am entitled to my opinion and you certainly are entitled to yours. When people make the claim that Second Hand Smoke clearly does not kill, I'm gonna speak up because I believe otherwise. When people call me stupid, retarded, or an idiot, I'm gonna fend up for myself.
I see flaws in many of the points people make for smoking and people see flaws in the points I make against smoking, as simple as that. At first it seemed it was like the WORLD vs RedShirt as everyone was arguing against me and I knew others in the world felt the same as me, and finally some people started to agree with me.
We are each entitled to our opinions, but I have been called all of the following without ever calling anyone else anything cruel.
Things I have been called:
- Nazi
- bonafied commi
- stupid (actually the exact context was "Is that what you blame your stupidity on?"
- 12 year old
- rollover and die
- fvcking stupid
- self-indulgent
I have also had words placed in my mouth by FoBoT that I 100% strongly disagree with.
I am entitled to my opinion and you are not going to completly change it. I'm just some guy in Iowa, you don't have to personally attack me, because I, RedShirt, sitting at his computer in Iowa thinks smoking should be outlawed. I will say one thing that I have changed my mind about, if people want to smoke in their own homes, that is fine, in their own yards, that is fine. With children in the house? NO! I don't give a crap now as long as it doesn't effect anyone else. But I still am angry when someone blows smoke into my face while walking on campus (usually the winds fault, the person didn't do it purposly). And I am still upset when I see parents smoking in their house when they have children, and I am still upset with some of the people that have posted in this thread, especially ones who called me those names above and FoBoT. Some people are out of line... I'm sure others think I am out of line just for having my opinion, but I am entitled to it and those that think I am not are just as guilty as surpressing freedom as they think I am doing.
Peace Out!
StattlichPassat
Banned
Democrats.
ThunderGirl
Senior member
I am not saying I am for banning smoking in public places. I have just as much of an option to not go by someone who is smoking as they do to go by a non smoker. I choose if I go to a place full of smoke or someone's home no different than a smoker who choses to go somewhere non smoking.
However, a note on the second hand smoke. When I was 18 and pregnant w/ my son. I didn't smoke, I didn't allow smoking in my home, I rarley went to establishments that had people smoking, but I did have a mother who smoked. I was not around her much but it was enough that when my son was born they could tell by the placenta that I had been around 2nd hand smoke. As the inside of the placenta bag was a shiny silver. My son had to have his belly sucked w/ this tube like 3 or 4 times before they could get all the access mucus out that was caused from my being around 2nd hand smoke. I have never felt to guilty in my life that my being around a smoker maybe not even 1 a week it caused that to my baby.
I have made sure since w/ my other 3 girls I have never been around a smoker while I am pregnant. I ask the person to not smoke or to move far enough away I can not breath it at all. I have found most smokers are considerate when they ask why and I tell them. When outside and the wind shifts so it blows towards me either I more or they move. It is no big deal.
Dude you need to chill and just move from a person on the street smoking. They have just as much right to be there as you. YOU are choosing to stay next to them while they smoke and you choose to not ask them to blow it the other direction.
NOTE: I think we have enough laws already that are not inforced we don't need anymore.
BreakApart
Golden Member
RedShirt, poses a good argument against smoking, ok great what's the harm. But why does your ignorant behind have to; not only bring religion into this thread you do it in a condescending manner? 🙄
Keep making such ignorant posts, and i may buy a bible to beat you with.
ShotgunSteven
Lifer
Originally posted by: RedShirt
Originally posted by: ShotgunSteve
Originally posted by: RedShirt
Is that what you blame your stupidity on?
Thanks for the personal attack on me, It shows how smart you really are.
Smarter than you, if this Thread of yours is any indicator.
ShotgunSteven
Lifer
The issue as far as I can see is not so much smoking, that was just a handy example. The issue is your apparent need to make laws against things you do not like, regardless of whether or not you are affected by the actions said law concerns.
Sometimes a victimless crime is not a crime at all.
BreakApart
Golden Member
Are you smoking crack along with your cigarettes?
What is to be concluded if smokers get lung cancer, what will second hand smoke cause? *sigh* There is only (1) possible answer.
So you call it a Victimless crime? That's interesting, i guess cancer and emphysema are fake? 🙄
ShotgunSteven
Lifer
1. I do not smoke.
2. Cancer. Did I say otherwise?
3. I never called smoking a victimless crime. I made two seperate statements that you decided to mistakenly interpret as one.
There are no unbiased studies that show second-hand smoke to be dangerous to others (the one that was posted seems like it was connected to the Canadian gov't--definitely not unbiased being made up of pantywaist, bootlick, bedwetting socialists of the worst stripe)--the smoke is just too dilute by the time it gets to others. The fact is that people have smoked just about anything that grows at some time or another just to see what happened. Now that we know what works, it won't change no matter the utopians' wishes.
However, I do think that smoking in a closed house with young children should be an offense under child abuse statutes--not any smoking-specific law.
As far as smoking in restaurants goes, only corporate chains could possibly be subject to be required to be non-smoking via incorporation rules as they are artificial entities dreamed up by gov't. S-corp, and sole prop restaurants' policies should be totally up to the owners (anyone here ever heard of property rights???). Such owner might be required to post notice at each entrance that his place allows smoking. You then have the choice to vote with your feet and $$$. If you go in, then STFU. In upstate NY, about 40% of the adults are smokers. Small restaurants would have to really struggle if such a law were to pass--or they would all become 'Private Clubs' with some token membership fee of $2.-$5.00 just like with liquor when some states were still dry after prohibition was repealed.
I agree with others here that 80+% of current laws should be repealed (we need to be rid of gov't of, by and for the lawyers!!!)--all crimes that everyone agrees are crimes would easily be covered by the remainder.
.bh.
However, I do think that smoking in a closed house with young children should be an offense under child abuse statutes--not any smoking-specific law.
As far as smoking in restaurants goes, only corporate chains could possibly be subject to be required to be non-smoking via incorporation rules as they are artificial entities dreamed up by gov't. S-corp, and sole prop restaurants' policies should be totally up to the owners (anyone here ever heard of property rights???). Such owner might be required to post notice at each entrance that his place allows smoking. You then have the choice to vote with your feet and $$$. If you go in, then STFU. In upstate NY, about 40% of the adults are smokers. Small restaurants would have to really struggle if such a law were to pass--or they would all become 'Private Clubs' with some token membership fee of $2.-$5.00 just like with liquor when some states were still dry after prohibition was repealed.
I agree with others here that 80+% of current laws should be repealed (we need to be rid of gov't of, by and for the lawyers!!!)--all crimes that everyone agrees are crimes would easily be covered by the remainder.
.bh.
ShotgunSteven
Lifer
I do not necessarily agree about second-hand smoke being non-damaging. If you are in an enclosed area, and there is nowhere for the smoke to go, it has time to build up and achieve a density capable of causing damage. Non-smoking airline stewardesses exposed to years of second hand smoke on airlines were determined to have been made ill by that second hand smoke.
If it is an open/public area, to ban people from smoking smacks of fascism, since those that do not want to be around second hand smoke need not be in the immediate area. As for enclosed areas, stores, restaurants, etc., I agree with what someone said earlier. Why should the government be able to tell the owner that they cannot allow smoking? If people do not want to be exposed to the smoke, then they can go elsewhere. If the business owner starts losing money due to allowing smoking, they will change their policy or go out of business. We do not need some governmental Nanny telling us what we can and cannot do in such cases, the capitalist system will solve the problem by offering alternative choices for non-smokers to patronize.
As for parents that smoke, I do not think they should be allowed to do so around their children. The kids do not have the option to pack up and go elsewhere in most cases.
If it is an open/public area, to ban people from smoking smacks of fascism, since those that do not want to be around second hand smoke need not be in the immediate area. As for enclosed areas, stores, restaurants, etc., I agree with what someone said earlier. Why should the government be able to tell the owner that they cannot allow smoking? If people do not want to be exposed to the smoke, then they can go elsewhere. If the business owner starts losing money due to allowing smoking, they will change their policy or go out of business. We do not need some governmental Nanny telling us what we can and cannot do in such cases, the capitalist system will solve the problem by offering alternative choices for non-smokers to patronize.
As for parents that smoke, I do not think they should be allowed to do so around their children. The kids do not have the option to pack up and go elsewhere in most cases.
NikPreviousAcct
No Lifer
Besides you? Um... fscking stupid, hard headed, narrow minded, hard of hearing, asshole imbiciles. But, then again, we wouldn't have a country left to kick them out of.
nik
I really hate breathing second hand smoke, and I hate smokers who throw their butts around anywhere, and I look forward to the day that smoking is a thing of the past.
HOWEVER, I don't think you can find a single shred of real, hard scientific data that DIRECTLY relates second hand smoke to cancer and death.
The way these organizations (and governments in some cases) put out this info is like this
1. For WHATEVER reason, John Doe dies of cancer.
2. Smoking (and breathing second hand smoke in some circles) is listed as a possible cause of cancer
3. These organizations list John Doe's death as "smoking related"
It's pure BS
HOWEVER, I don't think you can find a single shred of real, hard scientific data that DIRECTLY relates second hand smoke to cancer and death.
The way these organizations (and governments in some cases) put out this info is like this
1. For WHATEVER reason, John Doe dies of cancer.
2. Smoking (and breathing second hand smoke in some circles) is listed as a possible cause of cancer
3. These organizations list John Doe's death as "smoking related"
It's pure BS
NikPreviousAcct
No Lifer
It's not BS, smart guy. One cig isn't going to give you cancer. Not if you're not already prone to it - in which case you're already screwed. If John Doe is making the choice to hang around with smokers or work in a place that accepts it and doesn't make means for regular workers to avoid second hand smoke, then he's partly responsible for actually dying from smoking related consequences.
nik
Oh Yeah, I forgot...
Gov't (so-called public) schools through high school (since they are mostly too far gone to be saved), teacher's unions and the US Dept. of Education should be outlawed. The decline in quality of gov't school education directly correlates to the increase in political activity of teacher's unions, which also lead to the creation of the US Dept of Ed in the late '60s. If we really want quality ed. in the US, it will all have to be privatized.
.bh.
Gov't (so-called public) schools through high school (since they are mostly too far gone to be saved), teacher's unions and the US Dept. of Education should be outlawed. The decline in quality of gov't school education directly correlates to the increase in political activity of teacher's unions, which also lead to the creation of the US Dept of Ed in the late '60s. If we really want quality ed. in the US, it will all have to be privatized.
.bh.
NikPreviousAcct
No Lifer
You, sir, deserve an award. 🙂 😛
nik
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
