Wetcoaster Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Smoking is not a good habit, that is true. People start for whatever reason and then they are pretty much hooked, and it's very hard to get unhooked. To call it dumb is unfair however in my opinion. People get addicted to lots of things and smoking might be one of the least harmful if you look at the big picture. I'd rather be hooked on smokes than crack, heroin, cocaine, fast food, or gambling for example. These are habits that many people have and I personally consider all of them to be more harmful than cigarettes. If a person has no bad habits whatsoever then they can consider themselves very fortunate, but just about everybody has one bad habit which is hard to break. You say if someone smokes next to you then they have taken away your right not to smoke, I disagree. Unless the smoker has handcuffed you to them or immobilized you in some other way, you can most often quite easily remove yourself from the situation if you feel strongly enough about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Smoking is not a good habit, that is true. People start for whatever reason and then they are pretty much hooked, and it's very hard to get unhooked. To call it dumb is unfair however in my opinion. People get addicted to lots of things and smoking might be one of the least harmful if you look at the big picture. I'd rather be hooked on smokes than crack, heroin, cocaine, fast food, or gambling for example. These are habits that many people have and I personally consider all of them to be more harmful than cigarettes. If a person has no bad habits whatsoever then they can consider themselves very fortunate, but just about everybody has one bad habit which is hard to break. This entire train of thought is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if there are "other things as bad as smoking"....we're addressing smoking so it simply is deflecting from the issue at hand. And gambling can be detrimental to one's financial status, but doesn't really pose a threat to one's health (apart from the lifestyle associated with it). Plus, my neighbour's gambling habit isn't affecting me, so it's really none of my business. You say if someone smokes next to you then they have taken away your right not to smoke, I disagree. Unless the smoker has handcuffed you to them or immobilized you in some other way, you can most often quite easily remove yourself from the situation if you feel strongly enough about it. So why does the "it's all about me" attitude apply to you but not the person standing beside you? If you are the one causing the problem (and yes, second hand smoke is), shouldn't you be the one to be removed/inconvenienced? It's all about meeting in the middle, with more of the emphasis placed on the smokers as they are the ones engaged in something that poses a risk to others. Pretty simple really. Unless you're a pigheaded mule stuck on having things your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 It's all about meeting in the middle, with more of the emphasis placed on the smokers as they are the ones engaged in something that poses a risk to others. Pretty simple really. Unless you're a pigheaded mule stuck on having things your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 It's all about meeting in the middle, with more of the emphasis placed on the smokers as they are the ones engaged in something that poses a risk to others. Pretty simple really. Unless you're a pigheaded mule stuck on having things your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I can understand the rationale for banning smoking indoors at restaurants and clubs and such, but I don't understand why it is illegal to allow smoking inside, and not just a choice for the owner of the venue. If the owner doesn't care, and he hires employees who do not care, and obviously the patrons would not care, then where is the harm in that? I enjoy the occasional cigar, but would never smoke cigarettes, my dad put too much work into quitting for me to end up getting hooked on them. Still, I have a few friends who smoke, and when they do it personally does not bother me, I can either just walk away or stand upwind from them. To a certain degree I think the onus should be on the smoker to move if they are disturbing others (specifically in locations such as bus stops and other tight areas), but at the same time, how hard is it to just walk away if it really bothers you that much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamero89 Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 What one does to their own body, is their business IMO, but I don't think smokers should be allowed to smoke around children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Pardon me but I dont believe my stance on smoking is that unreasonable. Smokers have been ejected from all places indoors, which is fair enough. Now we are being told where and where we cannot smoke outdoors which I believe is not fair. Non-smokers have gotten their way with regard to smoking indoors and I understand that, but I believe my idea of a middle ground is fair. Straight down the middle, non-smokers get the indoors, smokers get the outdoors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Ya, you and your buddy sound like a couple of real Victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Ya, you and your buddy sound like a couple of real Victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I believe my idea of a middle ground is fair. Straight down the middle, non-smokers get the indoors, smokers get the outdoors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowest common denominator Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I'm sorry was there a reason you capitalized "victims"? I cannot tell if you're attempting to be snide but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 You are trying to play the victim, I am agreeing that you come across as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Pardon me but I dont believe my stance on smoking is that unreasonable. Smokers have been ejected from all places indoors, which is fair enough. Now we are being told where and where we cannot smoke outdoors which I believe is not fair. Non-smokers have gotten their way with regard to smoking indoors and I understand that, but I believe my idea of a middle ground is fair. Straight down the middle, non-smokers get the indoors, smokers get the outdoors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I can understand the rationale for banning smoking indoors at restaurants and clubs and such, but I don't understand why it is illegal to allow smoking inside, and not just a choice for the owner of the venue. If the owner doesn't care, and he hires employees who do not care, and obviously the patrons would not care, then where is the harm in that? I enjoy the occasional cigar, but would never smoke cigarettes, my dad put too much work into quitting for me to end up getting hooked on them. Still, I have a few friends who smoke, and when they do it personally does not bother me, I can either just walk away or stand upwind from them. To a certain degree I think the onus should be on the smoker to move if they are disturbing others (specifically in locations such as bus stops and other tight areas), but at the same time, how hard is it to just walk away if it really bothers you that much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Very well said indeed. As far as a crack posted by another individual regarding "impossible to have an informed opinion" unless you happen to know the context of the law...I have to admit he's right...my opinion isn't...in that context "informed"...however..since this individual doesn't live in the same county(or even country) as I do and does not understand what kind of crapola my smoker friends go through on a semi-regular basis...namely harassment...his assessment of the situation, namely whether or not it was "fair"...is also uninformed and thereby useless in this situation. While I thank the gentleman for being so adept when it comes to the law and being able to cite statutes and regulations, I want to make it known that I was venting when I opened discussion about my friend's fine, and quite frankly I didn't ask for an answer to the opening post. No matter how much my friend was "technically" in violation of some code or ordinance for being a scant 3 feet off his property line and having a cigarette after we walked his dog, there was no one around who lodged a complaint, no real reason for Deputy Dawg to be so confrontational..frankly I think the reason he messes with us is because we are nonviolent and will not fight back physically when we are being harassed. This serial doughnut murderer has a lot more things to do than to harass a couple of hippies for minding their own business in front of one of their homes and one of them smoking a cigarette. It's uncalled for, it's profiling, and it's wrong, any way you slice it. Was it against the law? Admittedly, yes, it was...but the punishment here most certainly did not fit the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 You are trying to play the victim, I am agreeing that you come across as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 What did the law actually say? Does it require someone to make a complaint? Who is "the serial doughnut murderer" and what does that description mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I agree. That does seem pretty clear from the content of the posts. There is a simple solution of course... do not break the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Because secondhand smoke is an occupational health hazard and we do not allow workers to be exposed to health hazards? Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke. ~ The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General was prepared by the Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I have mentioned the Deputy I have been referring to numerous times...this guy is a fat, out of shape, greasy pig who spends most of his day at the Krispy Kreme in the middle of town...in his spare time, he harasses hippies. I think "serial doughnut murderer" speaks for itself. Along with bear claws, danishes, fritters.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.