|
Post by Erik-El on May 16, 2011 20:19:11 GMT -5
There is no arguing what I am saying. It is a fact.
It is impolite and inconsiderate to knowingly produce offensive and poisonous gasses in public. I do not know anyone that would even try to argue otherwise except smokers.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 16, 2011 20:20:46 GMT -5
As someone who suffers from asthma and allergies, I find it inconsiderate when those I know purposely choose to smoke near me, instead of seeking other options (another room, outside, etc).
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on May 16, 2011 20:25:10 GMT -5
I do not come to get shit blown into my lungs. Everyone does include smokers but it does not mean they need to light up there. Then you can choose your seat strategically, then everyone is happy. He can smoke and you get no smoke. It is not an imposing of will to demand that I not be subjected to poisonous gas. I have no idea why you think otherwise. Actually I do know why you think otherwise. I get the same arguments from every smoker that thinks they have a right to light up in a public place. So tell me, how would you feel if I came up to you in any public place and produced the most foul of farts. And not only that, but I kept you within smelling distance. I guarantee you would have a problem with that. I smoke. I'm not ashamed of it, I shouldn't have to hide because of it either. Your analogy to farts is a prime example of the problem with both a lot of smokers and non-smokers. Smokers should not smoke in a manner that would intentionally bother others. Hence why they should smoke outside or in a smoking section. By the same regard, non smokers should not try and stop people from smoking or get pissed when a little smoke flutters their way, in an open air place when they are perfectly capable of choosing a spot where the smoke won't reach them. Smoke flies in the air it's true but as people, we need to give each other as equal space as possible. Sometimes that means a non smoker should choose another place then the one he wants. Sometimes that means a smoker needs to wait until a better time to light up.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on May 16, 2011 20:31:15 GMT -5
I do think smokers should stop completely. There is no intelligent reason to smoke at all.
But since that will never happen, smokers should absolutely not be allowed to smoke where their smoke can drift to others. It is in every sense of the word, impolite. It is not about smokers having the right to be in said public place. It is not about where they are allowed to be at all.
It is about common courtesy to your fellow man to not subject them to offensive and harmful odors. If every smoker would just realize this very simple and basic principle, I know for a fact that much less people would have problems with smokers in general.
Oh and the fart analogy is a perfect example which is why I used it.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on May 16, 2011 20:32:26 GMT -5
It is not that hard to just smoke in your own home, where no one except you is harmed or made to smell bad.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 16, 2011 20:38:43 GMT -5
I do think smokers should stop completely. There is no intelligent reason to smoke at all. But since that will never happen, smokers should absolutely not be allowed to smoke where their smoke can drift to others. It is in every sense of the word, impolite. It is not about smokers having the right to be in said public place. It is not about where they are allowed to be at all. It is about common courtesy to your fellow man to not subject them to offensive and harmful odors. If every smoker would just realize this very simple and basic principle, I know for a fact that much less people would have problems with smokers in general. Oh and the fart analogy is a perfect example which is why I used it. You'd loathe New York City. Whenever I go for a walk during work, I end up eating someone's second hand smoke. There are no smoking signs in front of virtually major building, but that never stops people. I always see a handful of people smoking just a few feet away and no one cares--- or at least speaks out about it.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on May 16, 2011 20:40:13 GMT -5
I do think smokers should stop completely. There is no intelligent reason to smoke at all. Sure there is. Liking the rich taste and smell for one. Because it is relaxing for another. As long as a person is aware of the risk and smokes in a smart manner. Then they aren't less for enjoying it. same with alcohol. But since that will never happen, smokers should absolutely not be allowed to smoke where their smoke can drift to others. It is in every sense of the word, impolite. It is not about smokers having the right to be in said public place. It is not about where they are allowed to be at all. Which is not what I'm saying at all. What I'm arguing is that non-smokers should respect the right of smokers to smoke. That means choosing a different seat if the smoker was here first and he is smoking in a place he is allowed to smoke lawfully. And the smoker, if he is second there, asking to see if it's ok to smoke when he arrives. And when he does choosing a place where his smoke will drift away from others. Oh and the fart analogy is a perfect example which is why I used it. I never said it wasn't I said it exposed exactly the problem for both parties (smoker and non-smoker).
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on May 16, 2011 20:44:29 GMT -5
1) Those are not intelligent reasons to poison yourself. I also find it very hard to believe anyone likes the smell of cigarette smoke. But I suppose it is possible. There are some people out there that like the smell of assholes. *Shrugs shoulders*
2) Or just not smoking where one would know that non-smokers are regardless on who arrived first.
3) Oh I see. I misunderstood what you meant about the analogy then.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on May 16, 2011 20:47:53 GMT -5
1) Those are not intelligent reasons to poison yourself. By that logic people should not eat junk food, stay up late to party or any number of things that aren't "healthy". Hell that means we shouldn't have petroleum cars, or be allowed to eat more then a set amount of red meat. 2) Or just not smoking where one would know that non-smokers are regardless on who arrived first. in this scenario, you give more rights to one group over another.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on May 16, 2011 20:50:13 GMT -5
I do think smokers should stop completely. There is no intelligent reason to smoke at all. But since that will never happen, smokers should absolutely not be allowed to smoke where their smoke can drift to others. It is in every sense of the word, impolite. It is not about smokers having the right to be in said public place. It is not about where they are allowed to be at all. It is about common courtesy to your fellow man to not subject them to offensive and harmful odors. If every smoker would just realize this very simple and basic principle, I know for a fact that much less people would have problems with smokers in general. Oh and the fart analogy is a perfect example which is why I used it. You'd loathe New York City. Whenever I go for a walk during work, I end up eating someone's second hand smoke. There are no smoking signs in front of virtually major building, but that never stops people. I always see a handful of people smoking just a few feet away and no one cares--- or at least speaks out about it. You should start taking people's cigarettes out of their mouths and hands and THROW THEM ON THE GROUND!
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on May 16, 2011 20:51:24 GMT -5
1) Those are not intelligent reasons to poison yourself. By that logic people should not eat junk food, stay up late to party or any number of things that aren't "healthy". Hell that means we shouldn't have petroleum cars, or be allowed to eat more then a set amount of red meat. 2) Or just not smoking where one would know that non-smokers are regardless on who arrived first. in this scenario, you give more rights to one group over another. 1) If you read my earlier posts, I actually do agree with most of that anyway. 2) No I am not. I am giving equal rights to both. Both do not have the right to smoke in a public place.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on May 16, 2011 20:53:31 GMT -5
1) If you read my earlier posts, I actually do agree with most of that anyway. Well, thankfully then people live in a democratic society. Because restricting people's right to things as simple as how much red meat they want to eat is oppressive. 2) No I am not. I am giving equal rights to both. Both do not have the right to smoke. Yes you are, you are taking away the rights of one group and favoring another.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on May 16, 2011 20:57:12 GMT -5
1) And because such restrictions do not exist, we have a severe problem with disgustingly obese people constantly on the rise. But I digress by a wide margin.
2) Again no I am not. Neither one should have the right to smoke in a public place. Both parties have equal restrictions. One is just okay with such restrictions and the other insists on having the right to poison others.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on May 16, 2011 21:02:43 GMT -5
2) Again no I am not. Neither one should have the right to smoke in a public place. Both parties have equal restrictions. One is just okay with such restrictions and the other insists on having the right to poison others. There are ways to arrange and build public places so smokers can smoke without bothering others and sometimes that is not even necessary. Provided everyone uses their brain. So I disagree with you, outright banning of smoking in public places is taking away one groups rights. As to the growing problem of obesity, well that is not a problem that should be solve by punishing people who do not actually abuse red meat and only sometimes like to eat like crazy. Like at a barbecue. Besides, morbidly obese people don't get fat just because of their diet but because of their entire lifestyle.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on May 16, 2011 21:08:54 GMT -5
You are right, it is not necessary. They should just not smoke in public at all. Problem solved.
It is not taking away one group's rights. It is an equal restriction on everyone. Again, it applies to everyone it is just that one group of people would be okay with said restriction and the other would insist on the rights to poison everyone else.
Red meat does not cause obesity. I was talking about fast food. People usually dramatically lose weight on an all red meat diet, it just is unhealthy as fuck. See Atkins Diet.
Not really true. You can take any two people and give them the same regimen of inactivity and the one living on fast food will undoubtedly be considerably more obese than the other. The other may not even be obese, they may just be overweight. See Supersize Me.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on May 16, 2011 21:12:19 GMT -5
You are right, it is not necessary. They should just not smoke in public at all. Problem solved. It is not taking away one group's rights. It is an equal restriction on everyone or simply ways. Again, it applies to everyone it is just that one group of people would be okay with said restriction and the other would insist on the rights to poison everyone else. since there are easy ways to arrange public places so that smokers can smoke there without hurting anyone that is simply not true. And in some places just strategic thinking is enough. It is taking away smokers rights to smoke. you are wrong. Not really true. You can take any two people and give them the same regimen of inactivity and the one living on fast food will undoubtedly be considerably more obese than the other. The other may not even be obese, they may just be overweight. that may be true, but it is no reason to punish everyone who likes fast food.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on May 16, 2011 21:15:46 GMT -5
1) That is not true. You previously admitted that drift smoke is inevitable. That being said, the clear solution is no public smoking.
2) Is it really a punishment to force people to stop killing themselves? Suicide is illegal after all. It should apply to both immediate and long term methods.
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on May 16, 2011 21:19:22 GMT -5
1) That is not true. You previously admitted that drift smoke is inevitable. All of which can be controlled with proper arrangement of public spaces and strategic thinking. That being said, the clear solution is no public smoking. No the clear solution is for public places to be better arranged and for people to think before they act and give consideration to everyone equally. 2) Is it really a punishment to force people to stop killing themselves? Suicide is illegal after all. It should apply to both immediate and long term methods. Except what such control would entail, the costs etc means that people who enjoy those things without killing themselves doing it will be punished by those restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on May 16, 2011 21:24:52 GMT -5
1) Not true. Even IF somehow they managed to contain every shred of free drift smoke in the air, smokers still carry the stench with them when they leave this sci-fi drift-smoke area.
2) The clear solution is to ensure the public safety. Something that can easily be done with the use of manners.
3) Not really. Even people that do not become obese off that sludge are still polluting their bodies in a way that would take months of clean eating to repair. The rules should apply to everyone regardless of how disgusting they let themselves visibly get.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on May 16, 2011 21:32:35 GMT -5
|
|