Smoking & Smokers?

[Dee]

The reason why smoking is banned in public places is because of second hand smoke. When someone is in the presence of a smoker then they get to smoke too regardless if the cigarette is in their mouth or not. The reason why it's justified to strip the rights of smokers to smoke in places such as stores, restaurants, etc. is because the right to do so strips someone of the right to not inhale your smoke via secondhand smoke. A smoker can't fully control where their smoke is going and who inhales it no matter how much they might think they can.

Smoking is a filthy destructive and addictive habit that hasn't one benefit to its name. I don't see why any rights should be granted to smokers if that right is going to infringe on the rights of others namely the right to not get smoke into your lungs via being around smokers in enclosed public areas such as a store, restaurant, etc.. The right to smoke in your own home, car, or outside doesn't infringe on the rights of non smokers so I don't see why you shouldn't be able to.

It is a privately owned business. It is not the governments place to tell the business who should smoke or not smoke. Dont like smoke go somewhere else. I would bet by this time if it had been left up to the free market there would be places for smokers to go to and shop or eat and there would be stores who cater to smokers as well. The only place government should be telling people they have no rights to smoke is in government buildings and property.

Before long with this slippery slope government will deem something you enjoy doing or eating in public will be banned also. How dare we make others suffer and endure the smell of popcorn that make some sick to the stomach!

The smell of popcorn doesn't make people fat and has no scientifically proven negative effect on the people who eat it or sit around others who do, so that example is over exaggerated and without merit. I can understand, however, if a private business who owns the land and the establishment creates a rule that smoking is allowed, that non-smokers should simply not visit those establishments.

Neither does man made global warming but yet the government wants to infringe on our rights and has convinced some that its true even though it is not. Believe me if government or a determined radical group wants to convince enough idiots that smelling popcorn is bad for you it will happen regardless of scientific proof. And in todays America the minority must be catered to regardless if it destroys the rights of the majority.

Wait, what? I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. xD

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

The reason why smoking is banned in public places is because of second hand smoke. When someone is in the presence of a smoker then they get to smoke too regardless if the cigarette is in their mouth or not. The reason why it's justified to strip the rights of smokers to smoke in places such as stores, restaurants, etc. is because the right to do so strips someone of the right to not inhale your smoke via secondhand smoke. A smoker can't fully control where their smoke is going and who inhales it no matter how much they might think they can.

Smoking is a filthy destructive and addictive habit that hasn't one benefit to its name. I don't see why any rights should be granted to smokers if that right is going to infringe on the rights of others namely the right to not get smoke into your lungs via being around smokers in enclosed public areas such as a store, restaurant, etc.. The right to smoke in your own home, car, or outside doesn't infringe on the rights of non smokers so I don't see why you shouldn't be able to.

It is a privately owned business. It is not the governments place to tell the business who should smoke or not smoke. Dont like smoke go somewhere else. I would bet by this time if it had been left up to the free market there would be places for smokers to go to and shop or eat and there would be stores who cater to smokers as well. The only place government should be telling people they have no rights to smoke is in government buildings and property.

Before long with this slippery slope government will deem something you enjoy doing or eating in public will be banned also. How dare we make others suffer and endure the smell of popcorn that make some sick to the stomach!

The smell of popcorn doesn't make people fat and has no scientifically proven negative effect on the people who eat it or sit around others who do, so that example is over exaggerated and without merit. I can understand, however, if a private business who owns the land and the establishment creates a rule that smoking is allowed, that non-smokers should simply not visit those establishments.

Neither does man made global warming but yet the government wants to infringe on our rights and has convinced some that its true even though it is not. Believe me if government or a determined radical group wants to convince enough idiots that smelling popcorn is bad for you it will happen regardless of scientific proof. And in todays America the minority must be catered to regardless if it destroys the rights of the majority.

Wait, what? I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. xD

I guess what my point is government needs to stop controlling our lives and deciding whats good for us and whats bad for us. People need to stop whining about every issue in life and wrongly expect government should fix every little issue in life. Because at the end of the day every fix from government gives ten more bad consequences from that supposed needed law happens.

 

[DrLeftover]

If the "ban" is about Second Hand Smoke.

Then why are 'electronic cigarettes' banned as well?


For example:

Smoking Policy

All Amtrak trains, Thruway buses and stations are entirely non-smoking. No one may smoke anything in any area on trains, on Thruway services, in stations or in any other location where smoking is prohibited. This includes:

Electronic smoking devices, such as electronic cigarettes.
Marijuana. The use or transportation of marijuana for any purpose (including medical use) is prohibited.

http://www.amtrak.com/smoking-policy

 

[Dee]

If the "ban" is about Second Hand Smoke.

Then why are 'electronic cigarettes' banned as well?

E-cigarettes can still cause harm to people around the smokers as it still contains nicotine, and it reacts to the air when breathed out, causing other carcinogens to be released like a regular cigarette would produce. While they are typically regarded as less harmful, they still release detectable amounts of toxins into the air, especially indoor air.

 

[DrLeftover]

Not all "e-cigs" have nicotine in them.

And some normal city air has more carcinogens in them than the vapor coming out of these things.

 

[Dee]

Not all "e-cigs" have nicotine in them.

And some normal city air has more carcinogens in them than the vapor coming out of these things.

I get that. However, e-cigarettes are relatively new and classified by the FDA as a "tobacco product". Do not ask my why they classified e-cigarettes that way. I am not part of the FDA nor will I ever claim (or want) to be. It's just how it is. I mean, using that logic, you would think that nicotine patches, gum, inhalers (all for smoking) would be classified that way, too, but they're not. They are considered pharmaceuticals. I'm not here trying to tell you my opinion on the matter because frankly I don't care as long as no one's blowing any kind of smoke in my direction. I'm just stating the facts. xD

 

[+paradox]

The reason why smoking is banned in public places is because of second hand smoke. When someone is in the presence of a smoker then they get to smoke too regardless if the cigarette is in their mouth or not. The reason why it's justified to strip the rights of smokers to smoke in places such as stores, restaurants, etc. is because the right to do so strips someone of the right to not inhale your smoke via secondhand smoke. A smoker can't fully control where their smoke is going and who inhales it no matter how much they might think they can.

Smoking is a filthy destructive and addictive habit that hasn't one benefit to its name. I don't see why any rights should be granted to smokers if that right is going to infringe on the rights of others namely the right to not get smoke into your lungs via being around smokers in enclosed public areas such as a store, restaurant, etc.. The right to smoke in your own home, car, or outside doesn't infringe on the rights of non smokers so I don't see why you shouldn't be able to.

let me take away all of your fossil fuel automobiles due to me breathing in your nasty smoke that i breathe and pollutes the air... (;

 

[Bluezone777]

The reason why smoking is banned in public places is because of second hand smoke. When someone is in the presence of a smoker then they get to smoke too regardless if the cigarette is in their mouth or not. The reason why it's justified to strip the rights of smokers to smoke in places such as stores, restaurants, etc. is because the right to do so strips someone of the right to not inhale your smoke via secondhand smoke. A smoker can't fully control where their smoke is going and who inhales it no matter how much they might think they can.

Smoking is a filthy destructive and addictive habit that hasn't one benefit to its name. I don't see why any rights should be granted to smokers if that right is going to infringe on the rights of others namely the right to not get smoke into your lungs via being around smokers in enclosed public areas such as a store, restaurant, etc.. The right to smoke in your own home, car, or outside doesn't infringe on the rights of non smokers so I don't see why you shouldn't be able to.

let me take away all of your fossil fuel automobiles due to me breathing in your nasty smoke that i breathe and pollutes the air... (;

Let's not forget everything else that runs on that fuel such as the power plants, the trucks that bring in all the things stores have in stock and we shall see how bad you want that to become reality. The difference between smokers and fossil fuel burning in cars, trucks, etc. is I can point to the fossil fuel burning due to vehicle and power creation and see value in the price that is paid by having that smoke in the air but nothing is gained from smoking other then failing health, rising health costs for the smoker and a possibly quickened trip to the grave.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

The reason why smoking is banned in public places is because of second hand smoke. When someone is in the presence of a smoker then they get to smoke too regardless if the cigarette is in their mouth or not. The reason why it's justified to strip the rights of smokers to smoke in places such as stores, restaurants, etc. is because the right to do so strips someone of the right to not inhale your smoke via secondhand smoke. A smoker can't fully control where their smoke is going and who inhales it no matter how much they might think they can.

Smoking is a filthy destructive and addictive habit that hasn't one benefit to its name. I don't see why any rights should be granted to smokers if that right is going to infringe on the rights of others namely the right to not get smoke into your lungs via being around smokers in enclosed public areas such as a store, restaurant, etc.. The right to smoke in your own home, car, or outside doesn't infringe on the rights of non smokers so I don't see why you shouldn't be able to.

James Foley,
let me take away all of your fossil fuel automobiles due to me breathing in your nasty smoke that i breathe and pollutes the air... (;

Let's not forget everything else that runs on that fuel such as the power plants, the trucks that bring in all the things stores have in stock and we shall see how bad you want that to become reality. The difference between smokers and fossil fuel burning in cars, trucks, etc. is I can point to the fossil fuel burning due to vehicle and power creation and see value in the price that is paid by having that smoke in the air but nothing is gained from smoking other then failing health, rising health costs for the smoker and a possibly quickened trip to the grave.

Except smokers do not infringe on other peoples rights.

 

[+paradox]

The reason why smoking is banned in public places is because of second hand smoke. When someone is in the presence of a smoker then they get to smoke too regardless if the cigarette is in their mouth or not. The reason why it's justified to strip the rights of smokers to smoke in places such as stores, restaurants, etc. is because the right to do so strips someone of the right to not inhale your smoke via secondhand smoke. A smoker can't fully control where their smoke is going and who inhales it no matter how much they might think they can.

Smoking is a filthy destructive and addictive habit that hasn't one benefit to its name. I don't see why any rights should be granted to smokers if that right is going to infringe on the rights of others namely the right to not get smoke into your lungs via being around smokers in enclosed public areas such as a store, restaurant, etc.. The right to smoke in your own home, car, or outside doesn't infringe on the rights of non smokers so I don't see why you shouldn't be able to.

let me take away all of your fossil fuel automobiles due to me breathing in your nasty smoke that i breathe and pollutes the air... (;

Let's not forget everything else that runs on that fuel such as the power plants, the trucks that bring in all the things stores have in stock and we shall see how bad you want that to become reality. The difference between smokers and fossil fuel burning in cars, trucks, etc. is I can point to the fossil fuel burning due to vehicle and power creation and see value in the price that is paid by having that smoke in the air but nothing is gained from smoking other then failing health, rising health costs for the smoker and a possibly quickened trip to the grave.

you may not pick and choose...

and no take backsies... (;