|
Post by Star City on Nov 18, 2005 23:31:59 GMT
And banning smoking alltogther is as stupid as it is impossible. A far more absurd concept involves paying multinational corporations to kill you with little sticks you set on fire and inhale. A certain sign of acute addiction.
|
|
Isben
Voting Comrade
Posts: 8
|
Post by Isben on Nov 19, 2005 4:39:43 GMT
A better question would be, "Why would I do something detrimental to myself?" Because its relaxing, and nothing I do is good for myself anyways. Eating has carcinogens, car exhaust is far more dangerous than cigarette smoke, and not to mention microwaves. Cigarettes are unhealthy, and this is a risk I assume while smoking, knowingly. Its not that I concern about, its the proven effects of second hand smoke comrade! Then you can avoid me, its not terribly difficult, I'm in the smoking section.
|
|
Grothistan
Military Diplomat
Prime Minister of the Equilism Commonwealth
Posts: 66
|
Post by Grothistan on Nov 19, 2005 11:43:57 GMT
And banning smoking alltogther is as stupid as it is impossible. A far more absurd concept involves paying multinational corporations to kill you with little sticks you set on fire and inhale. A certain sign of acute addiction. How about paying corporations to make you temporarily stupid, and make you loose braincells? That, on the other hand, is completely rational. But why do (far the majority of the people in western europe) get drunk, then? Because it's fun. And why do many of us smoke? Because it's relaxing, and quite enjoyable when you get used to it. But I'm sure your petty attempts at mockery will not only help millions stop smoking, but also buy you a lot of friends. People really like it when you try to ridicule them, you know. Another topic for debate, is whether parents should have the right to expose their children to second-hand smoke. I know it's insanely hard to regulate, but I find it a much greater concern than smoking in restaurants, where people atleast have the choice to not go.
|
|
|
Post by Star City on Nov 19, 2005 16:27:52 GMT
Eating has carcinogens, car exhaust is far more dangerous than cigarette smoke, and not to mention microwaves. Food is not predominantly composed of carcinogens. No-one sticks a car exhaust in their mouth. No-one sticks their head in the microwave.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Nov 19, 2005 17:37:42 GMT
Smoke at home, fine if you must (but dont expect me to pay for your medical fees). In public places no, the problem is that the smoke does not stay in the no-smoking area, it drifts about! And you must take into account the poor workers who have to work in that enviroment constantly even if they dont smoke.
|
|
Dalioranium
Voting Comrade
Leader of Daliorania
Posts: 504
|
Post by Dalioranium on Nov 19, 2005 17:43:07 GMT
I do not smoke cigarettes as I find them gross, addictive, and rather ugly. I however, enjoy a fine cigar or pipe every so often. Not very often, mind you, but its quite nice when I do. Especially the pipe - flavourful with no bad aftertaste the next day. Cigars are nice at the time however.
Anyways. Smoking.. shouldn't be banned.. but cigarettes and "uncultured" (yes I said it) forms of smoking should be. People need to learn how to enjoy it properly - sucking down 2 packs a day is hardly a good thing for anyone. In fact, it is downright stupid and unless they do it separated from others (except perhaps smokers) and do not expect the state (in my case, Canadian healthcare) to pay for their stupid choice, cigarettes should be banned. That choice can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of care, and that is 100% unreasonable to expect the rest of the nation to pay for your bad choice. So there ya go. Smoke if you want, but do not expect to get any support from us when badness comes a'knocking.
|
|
Grothistan
Military Diplomat
Prime Minister of the Equilism Commonwealth
Posts: 66
|
Post by Grothistan on Nov 19, 2005 17:43:37 GMT
RM>
Employ effective aircondition. Require that the people in the smoking department must go to the bar and get their food and drinks themselves.
|
|
Isben
Voting Comrade
Posts: 8
|
Post by Isben on Nov 19, 2005 18:39:14 GMT
Food is not predominantly composed of carcinogens. No-one sticks a car exhaust in their mouth. No-one sticks their head in the microwave. Just standing near a microwave has proven to be detrimental to health, the car exhaust constantly spewed into the air is a lot more dangerous to you than being in a smokey atmosphere, and the fact that food doesn't contain a lot of carcinogens doesn't disprove the fact that they do contain carcinogens. Smoke at home, fine if you must (but dont expect me to pay for your medical fees). In public places no, the problem is that the smoke does not stay in the no-smoking area, it drifts about! And you must take into account the poor workers who have to work in that enviroment constantly even if they dont smoke. I have a better idea. If you are uncomfortable with second-hand smoke leaving the smoking section, don't go to a restaurant that has a smoking section. Everybody then makes an informed choice about what they are taking, inadvertently or willingly, and everybody gets along. There are a ton of non-smoking restaurants that I don't go to. About the workers. It is certainly true that no one should have to risk their health to make a living. However, there are certainly ways for me to smoke and not endanger others. The first being only smokers have to wait on smoking tables (a smoking waitor/waitress is not hard to find). And Grothistan has a point in making us go to the bar to get our food. But then again, since I advocate complete self-governence, the best way is to make sure that the workers are making an informed choice by requiring that all restaurants with a smoking section instruct the workers as to health dangers they would assume if they took the job. I cannot tolerate taking choice and self-governence away from anyone. Personal contracts (instead of a social contract) are the only ones that I, for my Bakuninist part, acknowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Star City on Nov 19, 2005 19:11:01 GMT
Just standing near a microwave has proven to be detrimental to health Cite your sources. the car exhaust constantly spewed into the air is a lot more dangerous to you than being in a smokey atmosphere There's a lot more air in the sky than air in a room. the fact that food doesn't contain a lot of carcinogens doesn't disprove the fact that they do contain carcinogens. But nowhere near the level of cigarettes.
|
|
Isben
Voting Comrade
Posts: 8
|
Post by Isben on Nov 20, 2005 6:16:19 GMT
Just standing near a microwave has proven to be detrimental to health Cite your sources. www.ask.com/web?q=health+risks+of+microwaves&qsrc=0&o=0the car exhaust constantly spewed into the air is a lot more dangerous to you than being in a smokey atmosphere There's a lot more air in the sky than air in a room. Yes, but there's a lot more exhaust in the sky than there is smoke in a room. the fact that food doesn't contain a lot of carcinogens doesn't disprove the fact that they do contain carcinogens. But nowhere near the level of cigarettes. Still, if we are banning things based solely on health risk, then the fact that food contains carcinogens (however much less than cigarettes do) establishes the fact that food must be banned on the same grounds.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Nov 20, 2005 21:10:37 GMT
Only if you believe in absolutes, smokeing is at the end of a very long sliding scale!
As luck would have it the sky causes the fumes to be diluted down considerably.
Smoking in non public places I say!
edit: IS WRONG..ahem
|
|
Isben
Voting Comrade
Posts: 8
|
Post by Isben on Nov 22, 2005 6:42:45 GMT
Only if you believe in absolutes, smokeing is at the end of a very long sliding scale! But food is still dangerous to health. As luck would have it the sky causes the fumes to be diluted down considerably. Would you mind explaining how global warming came to be then? Smoking in non public places I say! edit: IS WRONG..ahem Oh, that just convinced me there. That is your opinion, and when talking about inacting laws prohibiting (compelling people against their will) something, I would hope that there would be more than sheer tyrannical moralism behind it.
|
|
|
Post by Star City on Nov 22, 2005 15:27:58 GMT
Would you mind explaining how global warming came to be then? The mechanics of Global Warming are seperate from the arguement that air pollution was more [directly] threatening [to health] than cigarette smoke - it's threatening in an entirely different way.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Nov 22, 2005 17:52:25 GMT
Thankyou ST, also I would add that food is only very very raraely dangerous to health mostly due to unfortunate incidents like being past its sell by data!
There is more behind it, you smoke in public you damage other peoples health as well as your own, is it right that you damamge other lungs just for some to be quite frank dirty and unessasary habit?
|
|
Isben
Voting Comrade
Posts: 8
|
Post by Isben on Nov 23, 2005 3:53:20 GMT
The mechanics of Global Warming are seperate from the arguement that air pollution was more [directly] threatening [to health] than cigarette smoke - it's threatening in an entirely different way. They are both valid arguments. Now, which is more dangerous to the world: global warming or cigarette smoke? Thankyou ST, also I would add that food is only very very raraely dangerous to health mostly due to unfortunate incidents like being past its sell by data! No, McDonalds food does terrible stuff your system, as does any food with preservatives. There is more behind it, you smoke in public you damage other peoples health as well as your own, is it right that you damamge other lungs just for some to be quite frank dirty and unessasary habit? Because, as I've said earlier, nobody is requiring you to go into a smoker-friendly establishment. If you enter one (a smokerfriendly-restaurant, bar, etc.) then you assume the risks. If the place has a smoking section then it means that smokers are part of their desired clientele, and you are not. Don't like it then don't go. But eliminating these places from allowing smokers and smoking just for your own convenience and concerns--bear in mind that this is all whilst you have many other options of non-smoking restaurants--is downright selfish.
|
|