'Second hand smoke' myth

Quote:

Originally Posted by GommeInc

I don't care about the harm it does. It's a disgusting habit that should never of happened. There are zilch benefits when it comes to smoking, and people stupid enough to take up the habit should seperate themselves and smoke outside to respect others. It's forcing respect onto people who partake in a stinky, dirty habit, because they're too selfish to remvoe themselves from the company of people who do not want to leave a place after a night out stinking of tobacco smoke.

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

It's all a myth, they say it can kill people and give them lung cancer, but i really don't think it does. If it's sooooo bad for people because of them being in a room full of smoke, how come no one gets addicted to smoking after being in the environment full of smoke?

They shouldn't ban smoking in pubs, because that's just the tradition of smoking and drinking. It feels great to light one up while having a beer. They should unban smoking in pubs and put signs on the front doors saying "SMOKING ALLOWED" so people that don't want to be caught in the smokey environment don't have to be there. Now i can understand banning smoking in a bar thats also inside a restaurant that everyone including kids can visit, but not in standalone bars! Come on!

Why has no-one just said outright that cancer isn't the only negative effect of tobacco smoke and left it at that? Even if 2nd hand smoking doesn't cause the same disease that literally everything in the modern world is claimed to cause, there are other proven adverse effects and I find it hilarious that someone who believes themself to be a libertarian doesn't think that something which actively affects other people ought to be regulated.

Hey Dan guess what? Cancer is not the only harmful thing in the world, nor is it the only thing that tobacco smoke is said to cause - yet it IS the only thing which is contested in this "proof" video. I'm fully for pubs and clubs that allow smoking so in terms of legislation we're probably on the same page, but claiming that there is no negative effect of second hand smoke is preposterous, especially when it's based on a video that only serves to cast doubt on the chances of it causing lung cancer and not taking anything else into consideration

Quote:

Originally Posted by GirlNextDoor15

Banning smoking completely won't help to solve the problem. What needs to be done is to educate them about the disadvantages of smoking.

Why not go the whole hog and regulate sex to prevent the spread of HIV/STDs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GirlNextDoor15

How can you enjoy cancer free life when you consume junk food and smoke pot? Smoking IS a DIRTY HABIT. But, it is not the only reason why you get lung cancer etc. How can marijuana increases brain cells? :S If you want a healthy life, I suggest you to backpack and live in the mountain. :L

I don't smoke pot, I never have and have no intention of doing so just as I have never even taken a puff of a cigarette and do not intend to and why? because I think they are both stupid and not to mention expensive. But do I have a right to tell others not to smoke in a pub of which I do not own? no, I do not.

In the same way I have no right to bar militant homosexuals from staging parades.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ajthedragon

Does it effect the way you smell? Oh wait no, so it's not the same argument, different example.

I couldn't care less how you smell, you could smell of BO for all I care - is that any of my business or the business of the state? no. Is it your business or the business of the state that people smoke and sometimes the smell lingers on your clothes because you were too stupid to move away? no, of course not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ajthedragon

It's effecting my smell (people often ask if I smoke, to which I rage), therefore I shouldn't have to breathe it or have to smell of it.

I shouldn't have to look at your clothes, smell the aftershave you wear or smell body odours which might arise from you. But then the thought occurs to me that actually, I don't run society and would never intend to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don

Wow... What a laughable comparison, i'm leaving this debate as you are clearly wrong which is why you've resulted to using ridiculous comparisons. Even if your argument was slightly justified (which it is not) the people around them wouldn't pick up on the health tab due to the NHS. If, however, people eating fatty foods did directly affect those around them, then yes, I would be in favor of banning fatty foods in public areas but considering this isn't the case and the fact that you've got such skewed beliefs and are clearly too ignorant to reason with, i'm leaving the debate.

The money comes out of my wallet for people eating fatty foods/salty foods. This directly affects me as the government is removing money from my wallet and my family to pay for the health treatment of these people. To claim this doesn't affect me assumes that you think the government owns what we earn.

I'd urge you and others to be careful of what you wish to tell others to do and how to do it, because one day a government might attempt to severely restrict some of the things you do under a whole banner of excuses just like the ones you trot out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FiftyCal

It's all a myth, they say it can kill people and give them lung cancer, but i really don't think it does. If it's sooooo bad for people because of them being in a room full of smoke, how come no one gets addicted to smoking after being in the environment full of smoke?

They shouldn't ban smoking in pubs, because that's just the tradition of smoking and drinking. It feels great to light one up while having a beer. They should unban smoking in pubs and put signs on the front doors saying "SMOKING ALLOWED" so people that don't want to be caught in the smokey environment don't have to be there. Now i can understand banning smoking in a bar thats also inside a restaurant that everyone including kids can visit, but not in standalone bars! Come on!

Oh no you see, most of this lot support proposals such as legalising illegal drugs (as do I) which will have an effect on some people if it were legalised, but don't think that we are capable of walking out of a bar if we don't approve of the smoke. They're all so concerned for their health, yet i'm betting the majority stuff their faces with bad foods, get wasted every weekend, get spliffed up and no doubt sleep around - and i'm supposed to take them seriously when they fret to me about the myths of second hand smoke.

Question anything in their orthodoxy (like gay marriage, like legalising drugs) and they'll turn around and accuse you of interfering in the lives of others which is true yet they appear to think that its just fine for them to use government to keep their clothes from smelling of smoke (which frankly, I couldn't care less as I don't recall there being a mandate for government to regulate smells).

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Why has no-one just said outright that cancer isn't the only negative effect of tobacco smoke and left it at that? Even if 2nd hand smoking doesn't cause the same disease that literally everything in the modern world is claimed to cause, there are other proven adverse effects and I find it hilarious that someone who believes themself to be a libertarian doesn't think that something which actively affects other people ought to be regulated.

Then you don't understand what libertarianism is about. It is the opposite of libertarianism to suggest that some things which affect people (by choice of walking into a bar) ought to be banned by the state.

The role of the state is the bare minimum, to provide courts in which actions such as theft and murder are dealt with (a conclusive and proper action which directly affects others) and to provide the national defence. It is not to regulate trivial things such as whether or not smoking can be allowed. Because if you are to legislation on the grounds of every single risk posed to human beings, then we'd have no freedoms left and every company would be bankrupt due to claims of death/health deterioration from fats, to salts, to dyes.

A libertarian says - judge yourself whether to walk into the smokey bar, don't let the government do it for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Hey Dan guess what? Cancer is not the only harmful thing in the world, nor is it the only thing that tobacco smoke is said to cause - yet it IS the only thing which is contested in this "proof" video. I'm fully for pubs and clubs that allow smoking so in terms of legislation we're probably on the same page, but claiming that there is no negative effect of second hand smoke is preposterous, especially when it's based on a video that only serves to cast doubt on the chances of it causing lung cancer and not taking anything else into consideration

I don't pretend that somebody with a bad throat walking into a smoky bar won't have health problems, indeed it could bring on other health problems there and then and result in immediate death. But the problem lies with the fact that that person took the risk and went into the smoke-free bar in the first place, not with the smokers or anyone else. The same logic applies to somebody with a heart condition who took the risk to go on a rollercoaster/a loud event and dies from a heart attack.

We all take risks and so we should, because its right to have the freedom to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don

It's not hard to go outside of a pub/club/bar to have a quick smoke and it's much more convenient, so in that sense, it should be banned from inside public places.

I agree with this, its just being lazy not to...

I think you can do what you want whenever you want.

I have a story related to this. I was in this outdoor bar in kenya a year back. Me and my friend start smoking a joint. We were having a great time when this sonuva came over to us and ordered, not asked, ordered us to stop. Well i was having none of this. Me and my friend calmly told this guy to *REMOVED*, and that it was outside so he should mind his own business.

Anyway the guy left. But 5 minutes later he came over with 3 more of his "asociates" and asked us more agresively to stop. Well we had no choice at this point. He marched us out of the bar, and i think one of the men was inclined to the male side as he would only push me out by pushing my ass. To make things worse, my idiot of a friend had left 2 grams of weed back on the table at the bar that we were just kicked out of.

Tl;dr , Stupid intolerant fools ruined my day.

Edited by Infectious (Forum Moderator): Please do not avoid the filter!