Should smoking of cigarettes be illegalized in the publicity?

[Moira]

How? The limit of exposure in an outdoor environment is like three feet, unless you're molesting them you're not going to be receiving secondhand smoke, even in negligible quantities.

Now imagine how they feel being herded around into tight, small areas where they are still hounded constantly.

If you think smoking in public places should be heavily restricted, yes, you are completely out of touch with reality.

The city I'm in, they're on every street corner with the bars. I'd have to take a wonky path to avoid the hotspots. and crossing the street every time is not a good idea with cars. And no, the sidewalks are not big enough to circumvent contact.

They probably don't care because they're not herded, they choose to go there. There's nothing preventing them from going anywhere else in a public space. And if you think they're being herded through the glares of others, why would they choose such heavily populated spots, especially where people are waiting?(bus stop).

I haven't been very specific but it's pretty dependent on location. I'm sure you could make it so that there are easy access smoking areas and many routes to avoid them. to be honest this works better for smokers because in most areas the way it is now they'll get harassed by people coughing loudly and glaring. If they have their own area, then nobody has a reason to complain if they walk through it.

[Esau of Isaac]

The city I'm in, they're on every street corner with the bars. I'd have to take a wonky path to avoid the hotspots. and crossing the street every time is not a good idea with cars. And no, the sidewalks are not big enough to circumvent contact.

Holy shit if this is such a deal hold your breath three feet from the person, exhale and inhale again after passing them. You're walking by a bar, seriously where do you expect these people to be smoking?

They probably don't care because they're not herded, they choose to go there. There's nothing preventing them from going anywhere else in a public space. And if you think they're being herded through the glares of others, why would they choose such heavily populated spots, especially where people are waiting?(bus stop).

Dude, this very topic is discussing the banning of smoking in public. You have posted multiple times about how apparently difficult it is for you to walk a few feet away from someone when in public. What are you trying to suggest if not that they should be herded?

I haven't been very specific but it's pretty dependent on location. I'm sure you could make it so that there are easy access smoking areas and many routes to avoid them. to be honest this works better for smokers because in most areas the way it is now they'll get harassed by people coughing loudly and glaring. If they have their own area, then nobody has a reason to complain if they walk through it.

You mean like a bar, perhaps?

[Moira]

I was only using bars as an example. There is a state-wide law that bans smoking in all places of work. so, outside of every place of gathering in the city, there are people smoking. My city has the second most bars per capita in the U.S, they're very common and having smokers gathering outside of them would make a small blockade on the sidewalk. I believe that the level of annoyance they cause shouldn't have to be dealt with, just like noisy neighbors and people being generally obnoxious. I have some tolerance, but not enough for smokers. I believe freedom of choice, so long as it doesn't disrupt other people's lives. This is my opinion, and like I said before, the best thing to do is to take a vote, because if more people are being negatively impacted, then it shouldn't be allowed.(obviously the best solution is to compromise in a way that makes most people happy) It's ok to be on either side. It's not ok to feel the other people are just "overreacting" and "out of touch with reality" and to throw insults. Have an opinion, but don't be rude about it.

[Esau of Isaac]

I was only using bars as an example. There is a state-wide law that bans smoking in all places of work. so, outside of every place of gathering in the city, there are people smoking. My city has the second most bars per capita in the U.S, they're very common and having smokers gathering outside of them would make a small blockade on the sidewalk.

I call bullshit. You show me a picture of these smokers that form a blockade on a public sidewalk that offers less than three feet of space or enough time for the average person to comfortably hold their breath for a few seconds. Show me that this is such a consistent problem that you can't even walk down the street without having to literally maneuver through a crowd of smokers, because that's the kind of density that would be required for you to be subject to secondhand smoke. It doesn't exist. You're complaining about some kind of smog-like cloud of death that doesn't exist. At all.

I believe that the level of annoyance they cause shouldn't have to be dealt with, just like noisy neighbors and people being generally obnoxious. I have some tolerance, but not enough for smokers. I believe freedom of choice, so long as it doesn't disrupt other people's lives. This is my opinion, and like I said before, the best thing to do is to take a vote, because if more people are being negatively impacted, then it shouldn't be allowed.(obviously the best solution is to compromise in a way that makes most people happy) It's ok to be on either side. It's not ok to feel the other people are just "overreacting" and "out of touch with reality" and to throw insults. Have an opinion, but don't be rude about it.

"It's okay to have an opinion, just as long as I don't think it's too wrong"

I think you're overreacting. I think your viewpoint is without merit and borderline retarded. That's my opinion. Sorry I'm not going to wear a face of tolerance when the person I'm arguing against is anything but. You're complaining about a problem that doesn't exist to support negative measures that won't help anyone.

[Moira]

I call bullshit. You show me a picture of these smokers that form a blockade on a public sidewalk that offers less than three feet of space or enough time for the average person to comfortably hold their breath for a few seconds. Show me that this is such a consistent problem that you can't even walk down the street without having to literally maneuver through a crowd of smokers, because that's the kind of density that would be required for you to be subject to secondhand smoke. It doesn't exist. You're complaining about some kind of smog-like cloud of death that doesn't exist. At all.

"It's okay to have an opinion, just as long as I don't think it's too wrong"

I think you're overreacting. I think your viewpoint is without merit and borderline retarded. That's my opinion. Sorry I'm not going to wear a face of tolerance when the person I'm arguing against is anything but. You're complaining about a problem that doesn't exist to support negative measures that won't help anyone.

I meant if that was the only place of gathering for smoking. If bars were the only place, they'd probably take up the entirety of the sidewalk.

I don't know who are what you're quoting, but it's completely different from what I said. You refuse to budge from this mindset that I'm just completely intolerant and that you have every right to be insulting. Insulting is not the best way to persuade people.

[Esau of Isaac]

Which only serves to harm your argument more. If smokers were banned from public spaces except one area, then it'd be kind of hard to walk straight through them. Alas, it still remains that maintaining a meter of distance is manageable. Unless and until the world becomes Coruscant I think we're pretty alright with deathsticks in open-air areas.

And I'm not trying to persuade you. The point isn't to change the other person's mind in a debate. Even if I were, being gentle about something doesn't necessarily make for persuasiveness.

[Moira]

Which only serves to harm your argument more. If smokers were banned from public spaces except one area, then it'd be kind of hard to walk straight through them. Alas, it still remains that maintaining a meter of distance is manageable. Unless and until the world becomes Coruscant I think we're pretty alright with deathsticks in open-air areas.

And I'm not trying to persuade you. The point isn't to change the other person's mind in a debate. Even if I were, being gentle about something doesn't necessarily make for persuasiveness.

I did say areas that are easily avoidable.I'm benevolent enough to go out of my way once for smokers. Maybe specific places for smoking, like a smoking bar so they can just stay inside and don't even have to go outside. Heck, that'd probably give smokers more freedom assuming they don't completely ignore these places. I know this idea isn't perfect and you can bring up concerns about it, but you act like your judgement on this is perfect and that there's no possible chance that anyone could be doing anything other than overreacting because you don't think it should bother us.

What is your goal then? You've been posting a lot so I'm curious to know. I'm explaining my thoughts and reasoning behind my opinion.

[Esau of Isaac]

Why can't any business just say "Hey we're going to let smokers smoke here if you don't like it then you're free to not come here"? Or why can't they just smoke everywhere in public since they are no danger to anyone in public?

My goal is to show that there is no logic behind banning smoking in public. I've been posting a lot because you've been replying a lot.

[Moira]

Why can't any business just say "Hey we're going to let smokers smoke here if you don't like it then you're free to not come here"? Or why can't they just smoke everywhere in public since they are no danger to anyone in public?

My goal is to show that there is no logic behind banning smoking in public. I've been posting a lot because you've been replying a lot.

They're not allowed to due to a statewide ban of smoking inside a place of work. It's being counterproductive, the business should be able to choose. The only ones that are exempt were pre existing places specifically for smoking, and there aren't many of those.

This obviously may not apply everywhere.

Edited May 1, 2014 by n00srac

[Esau of Isaac]

I am aware, I was simply arguing against the idea of making specifically designated smoking areas rather than leaving the decision up to the business owner.

[eclipse]

I think you're overreacting. I think your viewpoint is without merit and borderline retarded. That's my opinion. Sorry I'm not going to wear a face of tolerance when the person I'm arguing against is anything but. You're complaining about a problem that doesn't exist to support negative measures that won't help anyone.

COOL IT. We get it, this is something you feel strongly about. But badgering people for their opinion doesn't make your side look better.

[Esau of Isaac]

I'm not badgering them for their opinion, just criticizing their viewpoint. I guess I've attacked their character a couple times, so my apologies in that regard. But it's a stupid position, without question, and I'm not going to bother dressing it up in a flowery way.

How many people on this board have said utterly insane viewpoints and dressed it up in roundabout ways to seem acceptable? And people are expected to seriously pretend it's valid at all when they think it's completely bananas?

[eclipse]

I'm not badgering them for their opinion, just criticizing their viewpoint. I guess I've attacked their character a couple times, so my apologies in that regard. But it's a stupid position, without question, and I'm not going to bother dressing it up in a flowery way.

How many people on this board have said utterly insane viewpoints and dressed it up in roundabout ways to seem acceptable? And people are expected to seriously pretend it's valid at all when they think it's completely bananas?

Feel free to disagree. Feel free to rip their logic apart from your PoV. However, opinions are just that - if the other side was trying to actually introduce legislature to ban smoking outright (as opposed to discussing this as a hypothetical on some random forum), I could understand why you'd be as vocal about it as you are. You've made it very clear that you're very much against a smoking ban, and the reason(s) behind a smoking ban, and I'm fine with that stance.

I'm eh on the matter - on one hand, I don't care for smokers who are jerks about it/leave their butts all over the ground, but on the other hand, if I'm going to make a huge hissy fit about air quality, I'd fight for less cars on the road. In the end, I'm perfectly happy with how Hawaii handles it (no smoking indoors or close to building entrances, and don't leave your rubbish all over the place).

Edited May 1, 2014 by eclipse
My grammer are the worst

[ClevelandSteve]

Ideally, smoking should be banned entirely and anyone caught smoking should be forced to pay heavy fines or face prison time, but that wouldn't work (and not just because the tobacco lobby is too powerful to allow it). It would just lead to even more prison overcrowding and would give more power to the gangs and cartels who make huge profits off of making and selling drugs illegally, just like what happened when alcohol was banned during Prohibition and what's happening now with the War on Drugs. Restrictions on smoking are good. I hate going to restaurants or bars when I visit my sister in Tennessee because their laws aren't as strict as Ohio's. However, the only way we're ever going to end tobacco smoking altogether is if we make the tobacco plant extinct, which would require a colossal effort, would be hugely unpopular, and people would probably hide a few plants to keep the species alive, so that's still just an impossible pipe dream.

[Moira]

I think the most ideal thing would be a cigarette that removes all the negative effects on health/smoke and whatnot, while still providing whatever it is that people like them for. Then people can still use them.

[Tryhard]

I think the most ideal thing would be a cigarette that removes all the negative effects on health/smoke and whatnot, while still providing whatever it is that people like them for. Then people can still use them.

Which is why I brought up electronic cigarettes earlier. They have been reported to have no or little effect from second-hand smoke (or at least compared to regular cigarettes), but they haven't really been popular. Maybe because the technology might not be there yet, they don't have the same stress-relieving effects as regular cigarettes, or people are just unaware. Though, it is still unclear whether it is healthier for the person smoking at all at this moment.

In the UK it's somewhat a trend, I've seen a certain store specifically for electronic cigarettes.

"In an interview, the director of the Office on Smoking and Health for the U.S. federal agency Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that there is enough evidence to say that switching to electronic cigarettes would likely be healthier than smoking. However, due to the lack of regulation of the contents of the numerous different brands of electronic cigarettes and the presence of nicotine, which is not a benign substance, the CDC has issued warnings."

[Phoenix Wright]

Ideally, smoking should be banned entirely and anyone caught smoking should be forced to pay heavy fines or face prison time, but that wouldn't work (and not just because the tobacco lobby is too powerful to allow it). It would just lead to even more prison overcrowding and would give more power to the gangs and cartels who make huge profits off of making and selling drugs illegally, just like what happened when alcohol was banned during Prohibition and what's happening now with the War on Drugs. Restrictions on smoking are good. I hate going to restaurants or bars when I visit my sister in Tennessee because their laws aren't as strict as Ohio's. However, the only way we're ever going to end tobacco smoking altogether is if we make the tobacco plant extinct, which would require a colossal effort, would be hugely unpopular, and people would probably hide a few plants to keep the species alive, so that's still just an impossible pipe dream.

i'm sorry--fucking what?

[MP2E]

Prohibition doesn't work. Throughout history, people have tried to make mind-altering substances illegal and all it does is create a strong demand for said substance. The black market can then rise and the funds can easily promote organized crime.

Illegalizing any substance just destroys innocent lives. I've seen it happen all around me, and any of you who can seriously vote "yes" to this poll are immature. Why does it matter to you what I do in my free time?

I believe in a right that, unfortunately, was never written in the constitution. That is the Right to Freedom of Cognition. Freedom of Cognition is the ability to think however one wishes, whether under the influence of drugs or otherwise.

If your argument is "waah everyone will do drugs" then you are both a cynic and incorrect. Look at Portugal, they legalized all drugs a decade ago and they have only seen decreases in use since.

Please stop the misinformation, instead of demonizing people and substances you should instead learn about it from a scientific perspective and create a view based on that.

Now as for where you are allowed to smoke.. I am not 100% about that one. I think anywhere outdoors should be fine but indoors should be restricted.

I look forward to debating these points.

[Moira]

Which is why I brought up electronic cigarettes earlier. They have been reported to have no or little effect from second-hand smoke (or at least compared to regular cigarettes), but they haven't really been popular. Maybe because the technology might not be there yet, they don't have the same stress-relieving effects as regular cigarettes, or people are just unaware. Though, it is still unclear whether it is healthier for the person smoking at all at this moment.

In the UK it's somewhat a trend, I've seen a certain store specifically for electronic cigarettes.

"In an interview, the director of the Office on Smoking and Health for the U.S. federal agency Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that there is enough evidence to say that switching to electronic cigarettes would likely be healthier than smoking. However, due to the lack of regulation of the contents of the numerous different brands of electronic cigarettes and the presence of nicotine, which is not a benign substance, the CDC has issued warnings."

So what it needs is regulation and popularity, as well as some data on its effects. But it really should be a lot better with all the stuff in cigarettes that's not in e-cigs.

Refills for e-cigs are about 1.50$ per unit. From what I'm reading, you get about 150-250 "puffs" per each of these. Now, this might not be the most accurate data, but I'm seeing around 10-20 puffs per cigarette. The average pack of cigarettes has 20 inside, so a total of 200-400 puffs per pack, so about 1.5-2 e-cig refills per pack. It seems that average cigarette pack is around 6$, but it has a lot of variation, from what I see. ultimately, it seems e-cigs are half as expensive after the initial cost of the e-cig, at least for the moment. And i don't claim to have the most accurate data so numbers could be slightly off.

[Knight]

Cigarette taxes fund my country's health care, I honestly don't care what they do with smoking, although I think the law is pretty lax on youth smokers.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Knight

[peener weener]

Ideally, smoking should be banned entirely and anyone caught smoking should be forced to pay heavy fines or face prison time, but that wouldn't work (and not just because the tobacco lobby is too powerful to allow it). It would just lead to even more prison overcrowding and would give more power to the gangs and cartels who make huge profits off of making and selling drugs illegally, just like what happened when alcohol was banned during Prohibition and what's happening now with the War on Drugs. Restrictions on smoking are good. I hate going to restaurants or bars when I visit my sister in Tennessee because their laws aren't as strict as Ohio's. However, the only way we're ever going to end tobacco smoking altogether is if we make the tobacco plant extinct, which would require a colossal effort, would be hugely unpopular, and people would probably hide a few plants to keep the species alive, so that's still just an impossible pipe dream.

please read your post again

[eclipse]

Prohibition doesn't work. Throughout history, people have tried to make mind-altering substances illegal and all it does is create a strong demand for said substance. The black market can then rise and the funds can easily promote organized crime.

Illegalizing any substance just destroys innocent lives. I've seen it happen all around me, and any of you who can seriously vote "yes" to this poll are immature. Why does it matter to you what I do in my free time?

I believe in a right that, unfortunately, was never written in the constitution. That is the Right to Freedom of Cognition. Freedom of Cognition is the ability to think however one wishes, whether under the influence of drugs or otherwise.

If your argument is "waah everyone will do drugs" then you are both a cynic and incorrect. Look at Portugal, they legalized all drugs a decade ago and they have only seen decreases in use since.

Please stop the misinformation, instead of demonizing people and substances you should instead learn about it from a scientific perspective and create a view based on that.

Now as for where you are allowed to smoke.. I am not 100% about that one. I think anywhere outdoors should be fine but indoors should be restricted.

I look forward to debating these points.

If you want to debate the finer points of stuff that's not cigarettes, make another topic for it.

[CyberNinja]

Is smoking bad for you?

Yes

Is it bad for the people around you?

Yes

Should we have people point guns at people for smoking?

NO.

[Rapier]

I'm almost sure I'm contributing to the necro... I'll just pretend I don't know anything.

I'm a smoker myself and I like doing it outside, so my answer would be no. I do think people should at least consider their surroundings though. I think its perfectly okay to do so in a wide area, but I would never light one in a crowded area since that's kind of rude.

This sums my opinion. Restrict smoking to certain areas without prohibiting the practice in public. In my opinion, it should only be prohibited in closed spaces with no ventilation.

Oh, a libertarian! A debate about it ought to be fun. Too bad I'm not well informed enough for one.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Rapier

[Phoenix Wright]

Oh, a libertarian! A debate about it ought to be fun. Too bad I'm not well informed enough for one.

how do you feel about it?