I'd say probably 99% of my friends are smokers, and never has their smoking tried to convert me to be a smoker. Honestly, I find it very hard to believe that second-hand smoke is really SO DANGEROUS that it will KILL YOU if you are exposed to it. I'm exposed to it around my friends and at work, and while I don't like the smell of cigarette smoke, I'd consider myself a very tolerant person.

I sort of meant it more metaphorically, in the sense that the religion and the smoking are pushed upon the bystander without their consent or desire.
While I do think that some could withstand second-hand smoke in large quantities and be relatively unharmed, just as the people who smoke and drink every day and live to be 100 years old, there are others that have a different ending to their story. There are also those who do not smoke and are around second-hand smoke from their parents that develop lung cancer and die at the age of 20. Or the smokers that develop emphysema and can't walk three or four steps without wheezing and needing to take a break.

What I'm trying to say is, there are two sides of every coin, and I personally know that I'm on the side that needs to get up and walk outside if I'm around smoke too long. Otherwise, coughing fits ensue, and that, being forced upon me, is what makes me angry with those who smoke in public. Why should I have to leave the area while enjoying a meal to protect my health?

Eating junk food is much more likely to kill you (and probably will) than second-hand smoke. I'd say in that case a majority of people eat junk food regularly, and they're the ones at risk. Why is nothing being done about that eh? Because it would be retarded that's why. Too many people eat junk food for it to be banned (part of why alcohol prohibition failed so badly... lots of people like to drink). Since smokers are a minority, it's easier to push them around... that's kinda the point I was making.


And I would agree with you wholeheartedly if every time I ate a bag of potato chips or some french fries, some got shoved down your throat too. Because my junk food is entirely self contained and there is no risk to you, I feel that you have neither the privilege nor the right to complain about it.



Bottom line is if people want to kill themselves with substance abuse, be it alcohol, junk food, cigarettes, illegal drugs, or snorting bleach, then there is nothing to stop them, and it's none of my business. But the second any of those activities, performed by others involves or endangers me without my consent, then that is where it pisses me off. Therefore, public smoking ban = good thing for me and my family.

Smokers can kill themselves in private all they want. Power to them and all that.

QFE. That's exactly how I feel.


HOWEVER, those nonchalantly trying to discredit Aash Li's post is going to be in for a major shocker if they keep letting these things pass quietly. Make noise gang, even for the little things you disagree with.. otherwise, you're not going to like the alternative. She's right and you've got blinders on if you think otherwise.

I completely agree with ChAiNz, and I do intend to speak out against those regulations that are unfair, even if they have no effect on me. In this instance, however, this is a change that helps to protect both my health, and the health of everyone close to me. So carry on, legislation of England. Go figure that I live in the US.


_EW_

When I no longer have the right to smoke in my own house or on my own property, then we'll start getting out the pistols.. :lol:
QFE!

Yeah, another smoker here, adding my two cents...

So, I smoke. Am I proud of it? No, absolutely not. I wish I could stop anytime I wanted to, but I've tried and it is a very hard habit to break, believe me! I can only wish that I had never started in the first place, and try my best to keep my habit to under a pack a day, when possible.

Do I mind a smoking ban? Yes, in a way I do. But, if it is the law then I will smoke my cigarettes outside if I can't smoke wherever I am. Fortunately, this is England we're speaking of here. :D And also, here in the state I live (Alabama) there hasn't been a statewide smoking ban introduced (yet) as there has been in the surrounding states (Florida and Louisiana) but I doubt it will remain that way for long. :rolleyes:

Like I wrote, though--if it's the law, I'll smoke in whatever designated area I am forced to because this is, after all, MY habit, noone else's, and I wouldn't dare dream of smoking around our son or in any non-smoker's face. But--with all due respect to non-smokers--it is very easy to pass judgement on smokers if you, in fact, don't smoke yourself. You don't know what it's like, wanting to quit a habit that you know is bad for you, but is so hard to give up. But, the fact remains that I don't like being told by anyone, especially the government, that smoking is bad for me. I know that, thank you very much. But, forcing me to smoke in a designated area, or not smoke in a public place at all is NOT going to make me quit my habit. If I could quit that easily I would have done so a long time ago.

I completely understand a smoking ban from a non-smoker's POV. I didn't always smoke and I can remember when my dad smoked and the smoke went into my face, so I know what it is like and I would never do that to someone else intentionally. So I can understand a smoking ban from a non-smoker's POV. BUT! When the government starts regulating something like smoking for citizens, then where does it ever end? Now it's smoking, but what's next?

Eh, as long as I can still smoke in my own home (away from our son), on my own property, and in my own car, then everything is okay, but what if the government takes that away as well? So, I'll ask again... what's next?

Hmm yay we banned smoking now all the women and children at home who have a smoking man/women who used to go to a pub will come back and kill them...

Imo, smoking falls in the same category as drugs. It is created to make people addicted.
Alcohol falls in a different category. Although you an be addicted to alcohol, it isn't created for that soul purpose.

There are many people with astma and other longue disseases out there. If people smoke, the ones with sensitive longues will suffer. Just because someone wants to pave his longues, other people suffer.

And that's my whole point:
There are so many people out there who hate the smell of smoke in their cloths when they wak up the next day. Or how your longues feel after a party where people smoke.
If someone drinks alcohol, you don't have the smell of it in your clothes. Nor will people with a weak liver (lame reference to weak lungs) suffer the consequenses.

To conclude:
Smoking isn't just bad for the user; but also for all the people around.

It's going too far in my opinion. And igyman why would you ban alcohol?
I didn't say I'd ban alcohol, did I? I actually drink alcohol on some occasions, though I try not to get drunk. That said, even though I probably wouldn't ban it, I do think some control should exist when it comes to alcohol. The thing I'll never understand is drinking alcohol for the sake of simply getting drunk (which is becoming more and more ''popular'' round these parts). When I drink alcohol, I drink just enough to be slightly more relaxed, I thought that was the point of it.

What does Trafficking have to do with it?
It was an example. Just like kissing has nothing to do with it.

But yes, I do think it is a good idea to Legalize drugs, as least the less deadly ones. I mean, people are using it.
This is where we disagree. I don't think something like drugs should be legal simply because people are using it.

"Its bad for you" simply is not a good way to ban something.
How about: ''It's bad for everyone''? Seriously, like others have said, smokers don't do harm to just themselves when they light a cigarette, they jeopardize the health of others in their proximity as well. Now, why is it good to ban smoking altogether? Because, if people have the right not to tolerate smoking in public places, why should they not have the right to not tolerate it in their homes? Smoking was banned from some public places, or there were separate areas for smokers to reduce the damage tobacco does to people's health. But if you want to eliminate the damage to the health of others, you have to ban smoking altogether, because we all know that most (is not all) smokers don't really care if their smoking bothers the rest of their family in their homes. A parent will often light a cigar, even if their children are in the room. The people who live with smokers have the right not to have their lungs polluted with tobacco, right?

so don't write off my disbelief because you think I'm a republican.
:lol: I never presume, nor really care what are someone's political beliefs. I never thought political beliefs had so much to do with that particular topic.

A pub w/o smoking? Isn't that like a rock concert w/o weed?
Now that's a stereotype, if I've ever seen one. I've been to the Red Hot Chili Peppers concert last week and enjoyed it with no weed whatsoever, just like the rest of the audience. :D

What next, banning alcohol? Banning kissing? Banning eating off someone elses plate? Where does it end? Banning sex? Banning cars (global warming Oh no the climate elevated .05% in the last 100 years!)? All those things except the global warming nonsense, and perhaps eating off anothers plater, are just as dangerous as smoking if you think about it.Kissing is as dangerous to smoking now:confused:? Seriously, though, none of those things cause immediate harm to anyone near you, except, of course, spewing out Co2 by driving your car when you're one of the many who could perfectly well ride a bus, bike, or, shock and horror, walk it.

Oh, and invoking the slippery slope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope) is logically unsound. Not to mention: 'Your questions can go the other way around: What's next, legalizing drugs? Legalizing prostitution? Trafficking? Where does it end?' You can invoke the slippery slope in one direction, just like I can invoke it in the other direction and say that legalizing smoking in public places is just one more step towards anarchy, and that it's not the State's job to let people do whatever they please. See how it works?

No thanks, while I dont like being in smoke filled rooms or work places, I also dont like governments telling me what I can and cant do (with in reason its ok)...The point here is that second-hand smoking is bad for people near you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-hand_smoking#Long-term_effects), so your smoking does not only affect you.

As for baning cigarettes altogether, I'm not at all for it as it'd create a black market much the same way alcohol prohibition did back in the old days.

The climate of the globe is cyclical [and so on]See my sig'. All your questions answered;).

Imo, smoking falls in the same category as drugs. It is created to make people addicted.

If that were true, then why do people buy the product? Do people go and buy cigs because they want something to be addicted to? I really don't think people buy it for that purpose. Maybe once someone IS addicted, then they're buying it because of the addiction. But why do people start smoking cigs, or even start smoking again after they've quit before? And not all drugs are addictive BTW (i.e. weed).

If someone drinks alcohol, you don't have the smell of it in your clothes.

Yeah, maybe not, but you may have their vomit on your clothes. And I'd personally prefer smoke to vomit.

Nor will people with a weak liver (lame reference to weak lungs) suffer the consequenses.

Suffer the consequences?? You mean like drunk driving?

If that were true, then why do people buy the product?
This is a very interesting question. I would say the answer is good marketing. Think about it, even though there are no direct cigarette commercials nowadays, the tobacco industry is brimming with profit. Good marketing. And the best marketing they can have isn't the one you see in your everyday commercials, it's the one you see in the movies, TV shows, etc. How many movie, TV series, video game, or comic book characters that you consider to be cool smoke a cigarette? Seriously, I think this can have a huge impact on the wide public today. Of course, back in the days the tobacco industry first started, there were no bans and restrictions and they could have advertised themselves in any way they wanted to and could have made money much more easily. Today, every cigarette pack must have a huge warning that states that they are dangerous to your health (which is a good thing, but, IMO, not very effective), they can't advertise on TV directly, but if you see a movie and you notice a character smoking a particular brand of cigarettes, be sure that the manufacturer of that brand is a sponsor of that movie. This is no conspiracy theory, it's simply a way to stay on the market.

Originally Posted by Totenkopf
A pub w/o smoking? Isn't that like a rock concert w/o weed?


Now that's a stereotype, if I've ever seen one. I've been to the Red Hot Chili Peppers concert last week and enjoyed it with no weed whatsoever, just like the rest of the audience.

I know, I was being tongue in cheek there igy. ;)

Losing freedoms, however useless, one by one. The government has no place in peoples homes or businesses. these bans should be voluntary, in my opinion.

Omes? There is no ban on smoking in homes. They ban it in restaurants so those who work there have better health. Granted, I do think that there should be an applicatable exemption license for some places.

Losing freedoms, however useless, one by one. The government has no place in peoples homes or businesses.

Exactly as Ayn Rand would have said it. :D

Omes? There is no ban on smoking in homes. They ban it in restaurants so those who work there have better health. Granted, I do think that there should be an applicatable exemption license for some places.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=566)

Don't know where you live, but my brother lived in maryland and they've tried enacting laws that regulate when/whether you can smoke at home. Not much different from Bloomberg trying to ban trans fats in NY. I say that the products should have the relevant health info imprinted on them and let the market decide what it wants and doesn't. We don't live forever, neither will their decisions "on our behalf" change that. Pretty soon, between govts and insurance companies we'll have to just "sit on Pete's couch" (PSA reference)and watch the world go by b/c we might hurt ourselves if we actually tried to make a decision on our own. :rolleyes:

What next, banning alcohol? Banning kissing? Banning eating off someone elses plate? Where does it end? Banning sex? Banning cars (global warming Oh no the climate elevated .05% in the last 100 years!)? All those things except the global warming nonsense, and perhaps eating off anothers plater, are just as dangerous as smoking if you think about it.Since when is kissing harmful to others around? Since when is having sex harmful to others around?

Also, speaking of the climate change, I think it would happen anyway. But the fact that we pollute the air and whatnot should definitely add up to that process. Should we ban cars because of that? Probably not. But we also should not be absolute idiots and use the car to get to the next block when it's not necessary.

I think the point is rather to reduce smoking and any risks connected to it, especially in public places to reduce health risks for anybody around, to reduce pollution of public places and thus to reduce the costs of cleaning them, to reduce air pollution, also it makes them more secure because no one must use any form of "open" fire and no one throw glowing cigarettes away. I'm not sure how to achieve the same with a ban on kissing.

Yes, smoking is bad for your health, but I dont think governments should be banning stuff like that as a matter of federal law. Its just bringing you one step closer to communism.You know I grew up in a communist/socialist country, and you know what - neither smoking, nor cars, nor alcohol, nor sex, not even guns were forbidden by law. Now would you be so kind and show me how exactly banning any of the aforementioned would bring anyone closer to communism in any way?

They start with the little things, guns, hunting, smoking, tobbacco in general, then its unhealthy foods, then they go up to things like free speech, gathering peacably in public...Guns and tobacco are little things? I'd say the multi million dollars industry behind those and the massive number of deaths directly related to those are suggesting otherwise.

No thanks, while I dont like being in smoke filled rooms or work places, I also dont like governments telling me what I can and cant do (with in reason its ok)...Yes, and to "force" people to respect the health of those who around them *is* within reason. Yeah, I know, those who don't like it can stay away from the smoke. :dozey: But to continue your example, next thing after allowing and encouraging smoking in public places is to allow the public use of guns. Anyone who does not want to get shot can simply stay away.


[edit]

If that were true, then why do people buy the product? Do people go and buy cigs because they want something to be addicted to?
Because (A) they are taught not better by their smoking parents/friends/idols and (B) because the industry does not straightly inform about the facts of smoking.

I really don't think people buy it for that purpose. Maybe once someone IS addicted, then they're buying it because of the addiction.I'd swear people people buy cigarettes to smoke them, and for no other reason. :p

But why do people start smoking cigsBecause of wrong images, informations and ideas they have about smoking cigarettes.

or even start smoking again after they've quit before?Did you read what you wrote? :dozey:

I mean, did they really quit smoking successfully when they "start again"? Or did they try to quit and fail after some time due to an addiction?

And not all drugs are addictive BTW (i.e. weed).Every drug can cause addiction, and thus even weed is addictive. It depends strongly to the mental and physical condition of the user and how the drug is used, how that addiction finally manifests.

In CA, in divorces and debates about who gets the kids, the government will actually lean more to a parent that does not smoke to one who does because they consider second-hand smoke a form of child abuse by the parent in a home.

I don't think this will lead to things like banning kissing and such. Does kissing kill you and those around you? No, it does not. The next thing I would see going would be alcohol, but the chances of that happening are incredibly slim because even though it is abused a lot of people use it respectfully. Same with guns. While drinking it, the people around you are not drinking the same thing. While smoking, you share your smoke with everybody around you from the babies, to the teens, to the adults, and the elderly. Smoking is one of the few manufactured goods that kill as intended by the manufacturer and user, meaning the company that sells it knows it is killing you and those who spend a lot of time around you.

Smoke. Smoke all you want. Smoke till you are breathing out of a tube in your throat for all I care. If you smoke it is obvious you care little for your health, so I do not care at all. Just don't take down people with you. That is the reason for this ban, to protect people in public. You can compair this to alcohol usage, but alcohol is not made singularly under the fact that it is manufactured knowing it will kill 600 million of its current 1.3 billion users, 1 ever 6 seconds.

When your baby has a bunch of toys, it has the right to play with all those toys. When baby tries to swallow toy or hurt itself or others with toy, toy is taken away and the right to use it is no longer there. If it does it with another toy, another toy is taken away and so on. So, should we punish the parent for not giving the child the right to play with the toy because she is turning her house into a totalitarian leadership? Or is she doing the right thing in taking the toy away from the baby to keep it from hurting itself and others?

Also, does that mean baby loses that toy forever? No. When baby grows up a little more and learns more, the parent may give the toy back to baby to play with again. Maybe baby even gets more and different toys in the process. Maybe, maybe not.

Believe it or not, but sometimes your government does take away some of your rights for an acceptable reason. Yes, you get 1 right taken away. And then a year later, another right is taken. That is not turning into "communism", that is the government adapting to culture and society and taking away things that its people abuse.

The government is your parent in some ways. It gives you boundaries, it gives you rules, and it gives you limits, and then lets you play with the toys it gives you until you abuse one and it is taken away. Society, us people, are children. When you were a child, even a teen, would you ever trust yourself to run free everywhere? No, because you would hurt and probably kill yourself or someone else. Parents (at least for some of us) keep us safe and in control so we have boundaries to work and play in.

Will it turn into communism? I freaking hope so, because communism is utopia. But utopia is not mentally or physically possible for humans, so you can rule that out. If I hear one more person call what Russia or China did "communism" I will throw them out a window.

Will it turn into a totalitarian leadership? If we children keep abusing the toys given to us, maybe it will. But, that will only prove Hobbes right in saying that human beings are incapable of being trusted in any government but a totalitarian leadership. That a "land of the free" is an incredibly stupid idea made by short-sighted and naive people.

Be a "down with government!" person if you want. Think you can do better? I-dare- you to try. Get a large group of people together, run your government, and I can 100% guarantee you will find that you will need to put rules into place to turn chaos into order.

In CA, in divorces and debates about who gets the kids, the government will actually lean more to a parent that does not smoke to one who does because they consider second-hand smoke a form of child abuse by the parent in a home.Now that I have a child of my own, I can understand that viewpoint.

because the industry does not straightly inform about the facts of smoking.

Isn't the warning right there on the box?

Did you read what you wrote? :dozey:

Yes. It's exactly what I meant to say.

I mean, did they really quit smoking successfully when they "start again"?

Yes.

Or did they try to quit and fail after some time due to an addiction?

No.

It's more of a circumstantial thing. My brother used to smoke cigs, then quit for quite some time. Then he started again when he got a new job, but has since quit again. Maybe it's because the work is hard, or all of the other workers smoke, but the point is, there are people who actually like cigs. It's not just that people are "tricked" into smoking and then can't stop. Smoking is a personal choice and should be respected, not treated as some kind of illness that must be stopped.

My mom smoked cigs when she was younger. Then quit for a few decades as she raised my brother and I. Then she recently started smoking again when my brother started smoking. She has since quit smoking again.

Every drug can cause addiction, and thus even weed is addictive. It depends strongly to the mental and physical condition of the user and how the drug is used, how that addiction finally manifests.

Physical and mental addictions are different. Cigs and hard drugs like heroin cause physical addictions. Mental additions are strictly due to the person. People have mental additions to the internet, to RPG's, to junk food, etc... doesn't mean these things should be banned because they're addictive.

The asthma rate for children living in homes with a smoker goes up rather dramatically, which is why there's a concerted effort to put children with the parent who does not smoke and to get people to quit smoking around kids. Second hand smoke makes my asthma really flare up so I'm glad when there are restaurants that don't allow smoking.

Warnings on cigarette packages were never there until the government forced them to put them on. I remember seeing some cigarette ads on TV when I was very young--the Marlboro man was never depicted coughing or hacking in the morning when he woke up. The reason there have been a number of successful suits against cigarette companies is because they admitted to intentionally manipulating the nicotine content of cigarettes in order to cause addiction. The tobacco companies were very intentional in manipulating people into buying more of their product--it was disingenuous at best and fraudulent at worst. This isn't just a matter of people having freedom of choice, because in this case tobacco companies secretly weighted the scales in their favor.

If you really want to make an 'informed decision' on the effects of smoking, I recommend you go visit someone who has end-stage emphysema from smoking for years. After you've watched them a couple hours struggle to breathe even on oxygen, being pretty much confined to home because walking more than 20 feet exhausts them, and listened to them choke up mouthfuls of mucous, _then_ you can make an informed choice. One of my more vivid memories when I worked in an ICU when I was still in school is of a nurse coming out to the nurse's desk and saying "I can't hear any air movement in this lady's lungs." The lady had been a smoker for years and was dying from her emphysema. She was on a respirator, but had so little working lung left that the respirator couldn't push the air anywhere. She died a couple hours later.

If you really want to make an 'informed decision' on the effects of smoking, I recommend you go visit someone who has end-stage emphysema from smoking for years. After you've watched them a couple hours struggle to breathe even on oxygen, being pretty much confined to home because walking more than 20 feet exhausts them, and listened to them choke up mouthfuls of mucous, _then_ you can make an informed choice. One of my more vivid memories when I worked in an ICU when I was still in school is of a nurse coming out to the nurse's desk and saying "I can't hear any air movement in this lady's lungs." The lady had been a smoker for years and was dying from her emphysema. She was on a respirator, but had so little working lung left that the respirator couldn't push the air anywhere. She died a couple hours later.

Very good point and well said you had me close to tears. Try watching someone you love in this condition. I’ve actually watched my father struggle for his last breathe and trust me it was just as Jae described. Smokers it is your right to smoke, but a least think about quitting if not for yourself then for those that love you. My father had been a non-smoker for 13 years before his death. Those 13 years did not make up for the 34 years he was a smoker. We buried my step-mother just last year, she was not a smoker, but died of lung cancer all the same.

My grandfather died of lung cancer, but I still support the right of people to smoke. I agree that there should be no-smoking areas for those who are bothered by it. Many restaurants and other businesses started banning smoking from their property long before there was a governmental push for it. However, when the government starts saying, "No, you can not smoke anymore because we have made it illegal for you to do so," you will find that people will be buying their tobacco on the black market and smoking it anyway. Look at marijuana. Its illegal, but I doubt anyone could say that the "War on Drugs" has done anything to stop, or even slow, its consumption in the United States. When something is banned, it opens up for other things to be banned, and then we have black markets and the rise of Fascism.

Now back to my grandfather...on his death bed, he made me promise that I would never smoke. I will admit that I broke that promise, but at least I have never made it a habit. I can't stand cigarettes....never have. But I do like a good cigar once every blue moon. I think that his words influenced me to live healthier than he had. Point is, it was a loved one, not the government, that had the influence. Blood is thicker than politics.

Now, think about this for a minute. As we go about banning smoking, and trans-fats, and whatever else have you, consider for a moment that PETA gains the upper hand in lobbying for outlawing the sale and consumption of animal foods. What would your reaction be? I think that scenario will hit home with most people because, lets face it, most people like their steak, chicken, and seafood. It wouldn't bother me in the least because I haven't eaten meat in almost 20 years. However, I am not a militant animal rightist. I would see the wrong because of government interference into people's private lives. I would love to see everyone stop harming animals for dinner, but I would rather that happen by persuasion by friends and family rather than Big Brother Government.

Warnings on cigarette packages were never there until the government forced them to put them on. I remember seeing some cigarette ads on TV when I was very young--the Marlboro man was never depicted coughing or hacking in the morning when he woke up. The reason there have been a number of successful suits against cigarette companies is because they admitted to intentionally manipulating the nicotine content of cigarettes in order to cause addiction. The tobacco companies were very intentional in manipulating people into buying more of their product--it was disingenuous at best and fraudulent at worst. This isn't just a matter of people having freedom of choice, because in this case tobacco companies secretly weighted the scales in their favor.

I don't think there's anyone in America at this time that isn't aware that cigarettes are known to be addictive, known to cause lung cancer, known to deteriorate your body, and can be a very expensive addiction. And, there is no pro-smoking advertising on TV anymore.

So why do people STILL start smoking?

I don't think there's anyone in America at this time that isn't aware that cigarettes are known to be addictive, known to cause lung cancer, known to deteriorate your body, and can be a very expensive addiction. And, there is no pro-smoking advertising on TV anymore.

So why do people STILL start smoking?

There's still a ton of print advertising going on, and some kids think it's a cool way to rebel against Da Rulez.

There's still a ton of print advertising going on, and some kids think it's a cool way to rebel against Da Rulez.

You can't buy cigarettes unless you're 18... so perhaps this is more of a parental problem if minors are smoking.

And how are people SO influenced by whatever advertising there still is that they take up an addiction that is proven to be life-threatening and very expensive? I think people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions, and not just blame the big bad tobacco companies. Never has a cigarette been forced into your mouth. Smokers made the decision for themselves to put it there. Ultimately it is the individual's decision and therefore their responsibility.

(I really need to find a link to the South Park episode on smoking...)

TK, I'd say there are probably two factors that definitely affect this. One is the utter impressionability of teens (peer pressure, glamorization of smoking,etc....) and the insane mentality that they are somehow indestructible. Face it, we're pretty stupid in our teens....

If people want to smoke, let them smoke. It's their own life.If it really was that simple, the world would be a lot better a place to live. It isn't, though. First of all, it's the second-hand smoking that's uncomfortable to others, makes clothes smell, and carries with it a health risk. Then there's the fact that when you people get smoking-related health problems, they take up space in the health system. And finally, there's the grief of loved ones if you die from lung cancer.

Note that I'm not against the right to smoke. I'm not for the banning of cigarettes or other types of tobacco. I'm just saying that it has effects on more people than you.

So why do people STILL start smoking?Peer pressure also plays a big part.

TK, I'd say there are probably two factors that definitely affect this. One is the utter impressionability of teens (peer pressure, glamorization of smoking,etc....) and the insane mentality that they are somehow indestructible. Face it, we're pretty stupid in our teens....

Yes we are, but our parents still have control over us in those years, and they have the ability to stop their teen from smoking. Plus, it's rare that teens (except eighteen-year-olds) smoke in public... considering that it's illegal for minors to smoke cigs, although a lot do.

Check out this South Park episode on smoking:

http://video.glath.com/view/southpark.Butt_Out)

I think it would be better to say they have some measure of influence over us, which diminishes as we get older (ie teens), where the school of hard knocks ends up having a greater degree of control than our parents. The best any parent can really do is sit you down and try to stear you away from things that are bad for you, occasionally disciplining you in hopes that the lessons will sink in before any point of no return. Also, if they practice what they preach, at least they won't undercut themselves. Once we get out into the real world, we have to make those decisions for ourselves. If we have good parents, and have taken what they've said to heart, then we can probably avoid a lot of pitfalls. But, you ever notice that parents can have several children that are "good", but still some that aren't?

Yes we are, but our parents still have control over us in those years, and they have the ability to stop their teen from smoking.



While that might work for you or me, those that have one parent or parents, who might be not around because they're working two jobs or whatnot, or those who fight with their kids, will actually push them to smoke more. Sometimes it can be a form of rebellion and sometimes parents just don't notice or care or smoke themselves or are the ones giving their kids tobacco.


Plus, it's rare that teens (except eighteen-year-olds) smoke in public... considering that it's illegal for minors to smoke cigs, although a lot do.


I absolutely disagree. 100%.

_EW_

I absolutely disagree. 100%.

_EW_
That's not really an argument. Do you have sources, examples....?

While that might work for you or me, those that have one parent or parents, who might be not around because they're working two jobs or whatnot, or those who fight with their kids, will actually push them to smoke more. Sometimes it can be a form of rebellion and sometimes parents just don't notice or care or smoke themselves or are the ones giving their kids tobacco.

This is an unfortunant occurance, but perhaps once these rebellious/uncontrolled/etc. teens grow up to be reasonable adults, they may quit smoking if they wish to. If they've created an addiction, that's even more unfortunant, but quitting smoking is not impossible.

I absolutely disagree. 100%.

Perhaps you are partly right, but I know for a fact I'm not entirely incorrect. Now, I cannot speak for everywhere in this country, but in the hick town I live in, teens don't smoke in public. This is due to all the cops in my town who do nothing but harass teens (and black people, but that's a given).

Maybe the places you live have teens smoking cigs in public, but I can safely say that teens are not smoking cigs in public where I live.

My parents both started smoking because 'it was cool'. My dad started sneaking cigarettes when he was a teen and hid his smoking from his parents--not that hard to do.

Plenty of teens get an older sibling or friend to buy the cigarettes for them, and if they have a friend who works at a convenience store, well, there's an easy way to cigarettes, too. If parents smoke, they sneak them from their parents, and some parents actually buy the smokes for their kids on the theory that they don't want their kids trying to buy them illegally. I won't comment on the odd logic behind that.

TK, maybe in your small town kids don't smoke in public, but in my rather large city and in every other place I've lived (which has been quite a lot, small towns and big cities), teens smoked openly. Yours is actually the first town I've ever heard of that does that.

Is it possible to create some sort of mask that will prevent all the secondhand smoke to come to other people? Like, only the person who smoke get the secondhand smoke? I worry that I may be endangering the health of the person who is smoking, but prehaps secondhand smoke is...at least semi-pleasurable? Maybe that could entice someone to use such a mask?

Then how do you propose they eat while wearing the mask, seriously I have to agree with the smoking ban because second hand smoke is more dangerous than actually being the one smoking. Alcohol at least doesn't give people in the same room as you an increased risk of cancer, that's why a smoking ban is legit. Because the smoker is infringing on the rights of everyone else in the room.

Second-hand smoke triggers my asthma, as it does for many others. It also increases the chances of asthma development in children. I prefer not to wheeze and cough through my dinner, struggling to breathe because my bronchioles have decided to constrict down from the reaction to cigarette smoke (that's not the only trigger but that's one of the big ones for me). It's quite difficult to eat dinner through a mask, and I don't think it's unreasonable to consider clean air a right. Alcohol is different--there is no such thing as second-hand drinking except babies of pregnant/nursing women, so that should not be an issue.

I think this is BS. Nobody forces anybody to smoke, and smoking has been an age old tradition. Smoking brings people together. I understand no smoking in most public facilities, but when you can't smoke outside then that's just a breach of rights.

Then how do you propose they eat while wearing the mask
*eat*

*put on mask*

*Smoke*

*take off mask*

*eat a bite*

*put on mask*

*smoke*

*ad nadmsum*

I'd assume a mask for smokers is much better than the altenative of having to deal with smoking bans. At least you get the right to smoke wherever you want without the inconvince of having to be segerated to another place.

[...] hid his smoking from his parents--not that hard to do.

o rly?

I'd imagine doing so would be fairly difficult if your parents pay really any attention to you at all. Unless the teen is getting the cigs for free, the parents may notice that the teen is losing money rapidly for no apparent reason, which is suspicious. Next, your clothes smell like cigarette smoke. A lot. I go home from eating at a restaurant by the bar and I smell like smoke, so I find it hard to believe that a smoker can disguise the smell (and if the teen wears a lot of perfume or whatever to cover it up, that's suspicious as well). Lastly, smokers have a very distinct cough that produces a lot of phlegm. My brother hacked up the nastiest crap into our sink when he was smoking.

I think this is BS. Nobody forces anybody to smoke, and smoking has been an age old tradition. Smoking brings people together. I understand no smoking in most public facilities, but when you can't smoke outside then that's just a breach of rights.

I don't have an issue with people smoking in private or outside, as long as it's away from vent intakes or doors. I just don't want it inside.

TK--my dad grew up in the 50's and 60's when you could buy cigarettes at pretty much any age. His parents also smoked so they didn't notice the smell as much, and they both worked outside the home. He hid it quite well for several years, actually, and his mom and dad were not stupid--he was just very creative.

Honestly, TK, even your parents have to sleep. ;)

TK--my dad grew up in the 50's and 60's when you could buy cigarettes at pretty much any age. His parents also smoked so they didn't notice the smell as much, and they both worked outside the home. He hid it quite well for several years, actually, and his mom and dad were not stupid--he was just very creative.

IMO it would be quite hypocritical for parents to forbid a child from smoking when they themselves are smokers.

IMO it would be quite hypocritical for parents to forbid a child from smoking when they themselves are smokers.

My parents were both smokers (both quit after many, many years). They explained to us kids that while they smoked, they'd learned that it was an unsafe habit, and they were having a lot of trouble quitting. They didn't want us to go through what they were going through, and I understood that. Of course, my dad having a heart attack and open heart surgery when I was 14 pretty much sealed the deal.

Sorry for reviving a dead thread. Still, this may serve as some useful commentary (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29141) on the smoking issue.