Should they ban smoking cigarettes in all public places?

OhPeeOhPee Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited December 2011 in For The Grown & Sexy
Would a ban help smokers quit?

Would consumption decrease if smokers are forced to only smoke in private?

Your thoughts.
«1

Replies

  • HurumaHuruma Posts: 2,284 ✭✭✭
    edited December 2011
    Yes, smoking should be banned in public places. Inhaling second hand smoke is even worse for your health than actually smoking is.
  • OhPeeOhPee Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2011
    Huruma wrote: »
    Yes, smoking should be banned in public places. Inhaling second hand smoke is even worse for your health than actually smoking is.

    i've heard this a million times before, I still don't fully understand how. Then again i've never done any research.
  • atribecalledgabiatribecalledgabi Posts: 9,876 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2011
    if they want people to stop smoking then they should stop selling cigarettes. but cigarette companies make too much money so they front and act like they care.
  • northside7northside7 Posts: 21,545 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2011
    if they want people to stop smoking then they should stop selling cigarettes. but cigarette companies make too much money so they front and act like they care.

    This. The stupidity of people....
  • MindstarterMindstarter Posts: 492
    edited December 2011
    No. I live in an apartment building and I can smell the cig & weed smoke from my neighbors apartment. I could only imagine how much worse it will get if smoking was banned in public places.
  • GoonerGooner Posts: 9,587 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2011
    no matter of fact they shud unban smoking in bars for a start
  • MindstarterMindstarter Posts: 492
    edited December 2011
    no matter of fact they shud unban smoking in bars for a start

    I have to agree wit dis one, alcohol and cigs go together...like peanut butter & jelly
  • T. SanfordT. Sanford Trill Doggy Dogg Posts: 22,482 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2011
    they should ban all women from smoking
  • Exell_doeExell_doe Posts: 253
    edited December 2011
    Its already banned in some cities.I know in Hayward, CA its A city ordinance and you can be get a ticket that will cost you $50. People still walk down the street smoking it just gives the police a reason to fuck with people.
  • GoonerGooner Posts: 9,587 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2011
    T. Sanford wrote: »
    they should ban all women from smoking

    this too...and if ur a faggot who cant stand smoke dont go to a fucking bar then
  • (UNKNOWN)(UNKNOWN) Posts: 787
    edited December 2011
    buy the year 2020 niggas go have to take a trip to the moon to smoke a cigarettes.
  • birdcallavelibirdcallaveli Posts: 6,508 ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2011
    i dont have a problem with no cigs in restaurants and shit, but its stupid that they are banned from bars.
  • hautehaute Posts: 11,581 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2011
    *havent had to deal with smoke in years because I live in nys post*
  • Will MunnyWill Munny I eat pussy on the 1st date. Posts: 27,529 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2011
    Huruma wrote: »
    Yes, smoking should be banned in public places. Inhaling second hand smoke is even worse for your health than actually smoking is.

    I be damned, I agree with Huruma on something.
  • Will MunnyWill Munny I eat pussy on the 1st date. Posts: 27,529 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2011
    T. Sanford wrote: »
    they should ban all women from smoking

    But how do you tell the regular girls from the slutty ones then?

    If she smokes, she pokes.
  • tru_m.a.ctru_m.a.c Posts: 9,081 ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2011
    kai_valya wrote: »
    anti-smoking legislation is draconian at best. despite what many people think, there really is no significant risk associated with second hand smoke, not one scientific study has shown such. the largest and longest study (Enstrom & Kabat) followed more than 35,000 subjects for almost 40 years and found no significant risk associated with second-hand smoke. the WHO has also done a 7 years of research and reached the same conclusion.

    the study that most of this type of legislation is based on is one done by the EPA released in 1993, which stated that approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths of non-smokers associated with passive/second-hand smoke. but in '98 a federal court basically said the epa study was a bunch of b/s to put it plainly because they had cherry-picked their data, ignoring any data that would contradict their already preconceived outcome.

    if you choose not to smoke that's your choice, but i don't think anyone should have the right to stop someone from in engaging in a legal habit that is not harming you at all. don't be quick to believe something is bad/evil with out all the evidence just because it's the popular thing to champion

    huh? what? I call bullshit on this

    seriously there is no way environmental groups would let a sham like that continue for so long with the way they love to decipher policy and studies

    secondly, in order to get life insurance you have to take a blood test for smoking....that right there would mean they are charging a higher price based on faulty information. Which means that if you have that study you should forward it to me right now so that we can all sue and take down these insurance companies.....

    but I'm pretty sure that has been tried already and the case has been thrown out because a scientific study did hold up......
  • tru_m.a.ctru_m.a.c Posts: 9,081 ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2011
    Myth #4: Smoking is a Constitutional Right. The Truth: The following information is quoted from "There is no Constitutional Right to Smoke" handout produced by the Public Health Institute: Technical Assistance Legal Center. "Proponents of the right to smoke often claim that smoking falls within the fundamental right to privacy, by arguing that the act of smoking is an individual and private act that government cannot invade. Courts consistently reject this argument. The privacy interest protected by the U.S. Constitution includes only marriage, contraception, family relationships and the rearing and educating of children. Very few private acts by individuals qualify as fundamental privacy interests, and smoking is not one of them. Generally, the Supreme Court requires a protected group to have "an immutable characteristic determined solely by the accident of birth." Smoking is not an "immutable characteristic" because people are not born as smokers, and smoking is a behavior that people can stop. Because smokers are not a protected group, laws limiting smoking usually will be judged only on whether the law is rational, or plausibly justified."

    A simple google search ppl..........
  • Already Home_17Already Home_17 Posts: 12,373 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2011
    OhPee wrote: »
    i've heard this a million times before, I still don't fully understand how. Then again i've never done any research.

    Second-hand smoke has over 4,000 chemicals; many of them cause cancer.
    Two thirds of the smoke from a cigarette is not inhaled by the smoker, but enters the air around the smoker.

    Second-hand smoke has at least twice the amount of nicotine and tar as the smoke inhaled by the smoker
    It has five times the amount of carbon monoxide, a deadly gas that robs the blood of oxygen
    It also contains higher levels of ammonia (better known as window cleaner) and cadmium (also found in batteries)
    The concentration of hydrogen cyanide (a poisonous gas that attacks respiratory enzymes) in tobacco smoke is considered toxic
    It contains nitrogen dioxide which is measured at fifty times higher than the standard for harm
    Non-smokers who breathe in second-hand smoke can get many serious diseases. It can cause lung cancer, heart disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (emphysema and chronic bronchitis) asthma and other diseases
    Regular exposure to second-hand smoke increases the risk of lung disease by 25% and heart disease by 10%

    http://www.lung.ca/protect-protegez/tobacco-tabagisme/second-secondaire/index_e.php
  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,654 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2011
    Ban them and kill the violaters.

    Think of the children.

    It's the only way.
  • lighthearted25lighthearted25 Posts: 1,307
    edited December 2011
    My college campus is getting ready to be smoke free, good thing I live off campus. Oh and to answer T/S's question....fuck no!
  • Will MunnyWill Munny I eat pussy on the 1st date. Posts: 27,529 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2011
    If you were born past 1986 and you smoke, ur a retarded loser follower.
  • dirtyrodneydirtyrodney Posts: 556
    edited December 2011
    No, No they shouldn't ban it, they should stop trying to impede on peoples rights to do what the fuck they want. I wonder if this country ever really tried to protect our freedoms or just make us think they was. I dont smoke cigarettes for the record
  • -Vincenzo--Vincenzo- Posts: 3,375 ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2011
    if you ask me, they could ban smoking altogether. like it does any good...
  • fuc_i_look_likefuc_i_look_like Posts: 8,892 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2011
    Banning cigarette smoking in public aint gonna help smokers quit. Cigarette fiends don't give a fuck, they'll just get their niccotine fix elsewhere.

    Chain smokers rival crack heads when they're unable to get their ciggarette fix, so banning public smoking aint gonna do a damn thing but make the world populated with more aggravated, up tight, pissed off assholes.

    Shit, Newports could increase to $10 a pack, and niggas still gonna smoke regardless. At the end of the day, if people wanna kill their lungs, let them. It's their life.
  • HurumaHuruma Posts: 2,284 ✭✭✭
    edited December 2011
    kai_valya wrote: »
    anti-smoking legislation is draconian at best. despite what many people think, there really is no significant risk associated with second hand smoke, not one scientific study has shown such. the largest and longest study (Enstrom & Kabat) followed more than 35,000 subjects for almost 40 years and found no significant risk associated with second-hand smoke. the WHO has also done a 7 years of research and reached the same conclusion.

    the study that most of this type of legislation is based on is one done by the EPA released in 1993, which stated that approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths of non-smokers associated with passive/second-hand smoke. but in '98 a federal court basically said the epa study was a bunch of b/s to put it plainly because they had cherry-picked their data, ignoring any data that would contradict their already preconceived outcome.

    if you choose not to smoke that's your choice, but i don't think anyone should have the right to stop someone from in engaging in a legal habit that is not harming you at all. don't be quick to believe something is bad/evil with out all the evidence just because it's the popular thing to champion


    In 2004, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded:

    These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#Evidence

    Even if you don't trust wikipedia, citation was provided (http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/index.php). Second hand smoke has also been linked with nicotine poisoning in non-human animals and many other health conditions. There's a lot of evidence to support this.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.