Should they ban smoking cigarettes in all public places?

OhPeeOhPee Posts: 819
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: 819
    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: 4,852
    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: 16,104
    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: 7,480
    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 Posts: 10,911
    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: 7,480
    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: 11,510
    edited December 2011
    *havent had to deal with smoke in years because I live in nys post*
  • Will MunnyWill Munny Posts: 21,718
    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 Posts: 21,718
    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.
  • kaikai Posts: 20,864
    edited December 2011
    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
  • kaikai Posts: 20,864
    edited December 2011
    Young-Ice wrote: »
    just when i thought you couldn't get any cooler

    i'm just a geek that likes to read
  • tru_m.a.ctru_m.a.c Posts: 9,063
    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: 9,063
    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: 7,147
    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
  • kaikai Posts: 20,864
    edited December 2011
    Young-Ice wrote: »
    reference

    Chia-Fang, W., Nan-Hsiung, F., Inn-Wen, C., Kuen-Yuh, W., Chien-Hung, L., Jhi-Jhu, H., & ... Ming-Tsang, W. (2010).
    Second-hand smoke and chronic bronchitis in Taiwanese women: a health-care based study. BMC Public Health, 1044-53.

    that just shows more likely hood of bronchitis in people that have chronic shs, as in they're cooped up with smokers all day every day of their lives, and even they don't get cancer, just increased risk of bronchitis. how little shs are people who aren't around smokers being exposed to, very little.
  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,655
    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 Posts: 21,718
    edited December 2011
    If you were born past 1986 and you smoke, ur a retarded loser follower.
  • numbaz...80's babynumbaz...80's baby Posts: 23,963
    edited December 2011
    No, they just need to do a better job at isolating smoke areas. You have ne idea how many ppl woul get shot/ass kicked/cussed out becuz sum1 couldnt have a smoke? Cigs maintains the peace.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.