Should they ban smoking cigarettes in all public places?

OhPee · December 2011

Would a ban help smokers quit?

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

Your thoughts.

Huruma · December 2011

Yes, smoking should be banned in public places. Inhaling second hand smoke is even worse for your health than actually smoking is.

OhPee · 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.

atribecalledgabi · 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.

northside7 · December 2011

atribecalledgabi wrote: »

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....

Mindstarter · 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.

Gooner · December 2011

no matter of fact they shud unban smoking in bars for a start

Mindstarter · December 2011

The_Invincibles wrote: »

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. Sanford · December 2011

they should ban all women from smoking

Exell_doe · 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.

Gooner · 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) · December 2011

buy the year 2020 niggas go have to take a trip to the moon to smoke a cigarettes.

birdcallaveli · December 2011

i dont have a problem with no cigs in restaurants and shit, but its stupid that they are banned from bars.

haute · December 2011

*havent had to deal with smoke in years because I live in nys post*

Will Munny · 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 Munny · 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.

kai_valya · 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

kai_valya · 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.c · 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.c · 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_17 · 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

kai_valya · 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_money · December 2011

Ban them and kill the violaters.

Think of the children.

It's the only way.

lighthearted25 · 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 Munny · December 2011

If you were born past 1986 and you smoke, ur a retarded loser follower.

numbaz...80's baby · 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.

AllHipHop.com

Forums

Should they ban smoking cigarettes in all public places?

Replies