New Anti-Smoking Law on the table

[Zoop]

I don't see how bias affects the results on studies about whether or not second-hand smoke is harmful or not. It might influence them, but I can't imagine it's going to change the answer from a no to a yes or vice versa.

And I don't mind them policing it either. It's a rather unpleasant habit that shouldn't be allowed to affect non-smokers. Smokers can smoke all they want, just do it where I don't have to inhale it.

[B4warn3d]

even though either side is entering it with a bias rendering the findings pretty much useless.

Whether or not it is actually harmful, and to what extent, depends on which side is doing the testing.

I don't agree with this at all, the effects of tobacco consumption (smoking cigarettes) has been the most extensively researched form of consumption in the world. Even IF biased scientists conducted a test in the effects of smoking, the fact is that smoking has been proven by multiple other tests and studies to be harmful to your health and does cause cancer. There is no argument about that. So far, I have yet to come across any test/study that tries to make the claim that smoking cigarettes has no negative effect at all. So basically, no, It doesn't matter "which side is doing the testing", either way, cigarettes do pose a serious health risk as proven by the hundreds of tests and studies.

I am talking about all the resources used to enforce a law like this.

Laws like these are in use in various countries to great effect.

[MonGooS]

I don't even know where the argument it. Its simple.

-I have the right to a healthy lifestyle.
-You have the right to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm the people around you.
-Smoking in public harm's those around you (it doesn't matter how much, the fact is it harms them)
-Your right to smoke in public is automatically cancelled, but not the right to smoke in the privacy of your home.

How can a smoker even begin to claim the right to smoke in public? I am not saying don't smoke, but why insist on doing it around other people? Would you like it if I walked around spitting in your face? No. Its not killing you, but its causing you discomfort, so why can you walk around causing me discomfort?

[Zoop]

They're not insisting on smoking in public though, they're more trying to say we should avoid them and the places where they smoke. Which is bull****.

[MonGooS]

I suppose it would depend on which smokers you talk to. All my friends who smoke say they should be able to smoke anywhere they want.

[nukehead]

You guys are missing the point completely so I'll smoke bomb this.

I don't think laws/legislation are necessary.

But elevate away...

[Zoop]

Why aren't they necessary? Smokers aren't going to learn courtesy without them.

[nukehead]

An inconsiderate ******* is still an ******* with or without the smoke.

Seriously though... *woooosh*

[Zoop]

Then explain your point and get done with it, because despite what you might think, you're not making sense.

The legislation is there to prevent people from smoking where it harms others, now you're saying that the legislation isn't necessary in the first place because *******s will be *******s. Forgive me for saying this, but if an ******* gets fined for smoking in public, he's not going to do it. If he doesn't get fined for it, he's going to smoke where he wants, when he wants.

How is legislation not necessary?

[Legion]

Lets be fair, my lungs are mine.
I have no right to effect your lungs by smoking next to you. "not that a hour standing in traffic would do even more damage"

It's not fair that i cannot enjoy a meal at a mall anymore, even though i was already in the smoking section.
"go count how many smoking sections existed in malls and how many there are now"
While you enjoy breakfast at your leisure, i have to eat, drink and get out.

All i'm saying is you are losing nothing.
We are gaining less and less as smokers.

I went paint balling the other day... was told to never smoke on the open field because of some bum that saw smoke and had a child fit.

So be that child.

[Zoop]

While you enjoy breakfast at your leisure, i have to eat, drink and get out.

To be fair, that's nobody's fault but your own. I'm honestly not sure why you want to blame a restaurant for dropping its smoking section all because you can't go an hour without smoking.

[B4warn3d]

You guys are missing the point completely so I'll smoke bomb this.

I don't think laws/legislation are necessary.

But elevate away...

If such legislation wasn't necessary, then they wouldn't exist. Nuke, you're just making nonsensical statements... First claiming that all studies done on the effects of cigarettes are "useless" because people are biased and now claiming that such legislations aren't needed...but the thing is...they ARE needed. If you have a look at the ten leading causes of deaths excluding infectious diseases, then these are Ischaemic Heart Didease, Cerebrovascular Disease, Trachea, bronchus and lung cancers, Alzheimer and other dementias and Lower respiratory infections, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Colon and Rectum cancers, Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertensive Heart Disease, Breast Cancer. It has been proven that smoking cigarettes is the major contributer to 6 of these diseases.

To both nuke and legion

These legislations aren't just there to protect the non-smoker's rights you know. These legislations are also put in place to make a deliberate effort in trying to get people to stop smoking or at least try to smoke less, you still have the right to choose to smoke if you want, however non-smokers can't choose to stop breathing when you decide you want to smoke. This isn't the only reason these laws are put in place, the other reason is that with more people deciding to stop smoking/smoking less, you can expect a reduction in health care costs and increased life expectancy. Also, having a ban on smoking also tries to shift the social norms away from the acceptance of smoking...especially true in younger individuals. When these laws are implemented effectively, the most important change that I believe they are trying to achieve is to influence people to move away from cigarette smoking in favour of a healthy lifestyle.

So in a nutshell, the reasons I believe the banning of smoking exist?
Protect non-smokers rights
Medical reasons
Air Quality
Public Health
Lower Tobacco Consumption
Economical Benefits

It's not our fault you can't enjoy a meal anymore because you have to grab a ciggy while/after eating. Remember, smoking is a choice/optional and breathing isn't. It's simple, try to kick the habit. There are many options available to help you smoke less or better yet, to help you quit smoking. Maybe call up a doc and ask him about Zyban.

[Kharrak]

I don't even know where the argument it. Its simple.

-I have the right to a healthy lifestyle.
-You have the right to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm the people around you.
-Smoking in public harm's those around you (it doesn't matter how much, the fact is it harms them)
-Your right to smoke in public is automatically cancelled, but not the right to smoke in the privacy of your home.

Hmmmm...

So you're in general favour of putting people in house arrest if they become ill with any sickness? (no going to visit doctors!)

Your argument also clashes with the idea of using petroleum based transportation. Ban it all?

Also, discrimination is fun :D

[brazed]

Why not ban smoking completely?

Restaurants (for the most part) have completely complied with smoking laws, even so far that new ones being built have plans and drawn up in accordance too, and then built to spec. Smokers have to smoke inside a small little glass cage with air filters, is this not enough? Or do the non-smokers feel they should have the right to go sit in there without being subjected to the smoke?

Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that smoking has been relegated to small alcoves in stadiums and banned from the inside of malls, and especially stores. The fact that it's still legal to smoke, makes it rather absurd that laws surrounding it are becoming more draconian. Why just not ban it completely and be done with it? Or is it a case of the government wanting to be the good guy, and still get their pound of flesh off of sin taxes?

Oh, and let's just get one thing straight, this whole thing about smoking being a choice: very few people I've ever met started because they purely felt like it, there were MANY reasons surrounding it, and telling people to simply stop because it's just a choice/habit is moronic at best. I don't like some smoker's attitudes either (I am one, or rather, I'm a down-from-20-a-day-to-1-every-2-days), but you get *******s everywhere.

[Zoop]

Kharrak, I think something such as illness (which you have no control over) cannot really be compared to something such as smoking, which you do recreationally and which is entirely optional. Your analogy isn't extremely accurate.

Oh, and let's just get one thing straight, this whole thing about smoking being a choice: very few people I've ever met started because they purely felt like it, there were MANY reasons surrounding it, and telling people to simply stop because it's just a choice/habit is moronic at best. I don't like some smoker's attitudes either (I am one, or rather, I'm a down-from-20-a-day-to-1-every-2-days), but you get *******s everywhere.

I'm not saying smoking is a choice. I smoked for about a year a few years back. I'm just saying that non-smokers shouldn't have to cater to or simply 'deal with' smokers if they don't want to. I'm aware that kicking the habit isn't the easiest thing in the world, but that's no excuse for trying to force non-smokers to deal with it, like some people in this thread seem to want.

As for the glass cages for smokers, most restaurants have started removing them to make their restaurants a totally smoke-free zone. It's not like they actually helped much anyway. Waiters/customers would always leave the doors open anyway.

[GeometriX]

I have never before heard the argument that smoking isn't a choice. Frankly, the idea is astounding, and I just can't believe it. I know I started due to a choice, and I can't think of a single person among my group of friends who didn't choose to have that first cigarette. While it's entirely possible to become addicted to nicotine due to second-hand smoke, the decision to actually take a cigarette, put it in your mouth, light it and inhale the smoke from it is always one that's chosen, surely?

Let's assume you're right, though, the choice to continue to smoke is being made every day. The chemical addiction is mild at best; it's the decisions that people make - the lies they tell themselves every day - that keeps them smoking.

[Legion]

Depressingly goes outside to smoke.
Takes a sip from his coffee.
Looks at his son.. "i remember when air was free...."

I live far outside the big cities for a reason, air is way more breathable.
It's the exhaust fumes from cars, my allergies alone cannot stand it.
And yet a cigarette has never made me cough or itchy.

But 5 mins in heavy joburg traffic... i will look like i'm dying.

[B4warn3d]

Brazed, so what you're saying that smoking isn't/wasn't a choice? So how exactly do people start smoking then? Do they just wake up one day and need/crave a smoke? Making the argument that is isn't/wasn't a choice is moronic. It doesn't matter how long you've smoked, the fact is that it was a choice when you started. 90% of my smoker buddies started in school by choice, they weren't forced. So eventually the social smoking developed into a mild addiction and most of them still smoke today. (Only one of my friends stopped after varsity). Also, no one said they must stop smoking, I said they should try to smoke less or better yet try to stop. And as said before, if you can lower your chances of getting cancer today from 53% to 52% then you should already know what choice to make.

[Zoop]

Depressingly goes outside to smoke.
Takes a sip from his coffee.
Looks at his son.. "i remember when air was free...."

I live far outside the big cities for a reason, air is way more breathable.
It's the exhaust fumes from cars, my allergies alone cannot stand it.
And yet a cigarette has never made me cough or itchy.

But 5 mins in heavy joburg traffic... i will look like i'm dying.

And just as many non-smokers cough when they get in the vicinity of smokers. The disgusting smell of cigarettes is enough to make me gag. It cannot be compared to exhaust fumes, imo, because exhaust fumes don't go clinging to your clothes, your hair, the back of your throat. I've never come home and been told 'phew, you smell like exhaust', but I've come home numerous times and been told I stink of smoke.

Stop making yourself out to be a victim, Legion. Smokers are anything but.

Let's assume you're right, though, the choice to continue to smoke is being made every day. The chemical addiction is mild at best; it's the decisions that people make - the lies they tell themselves every day - that keeps them smoking.

It all comes down to willpower. I've always said those people who have issues quitting cigarettes only do so because they're weak-willed. If you really want to quit smoking, you will.

[Legion]

Stop making yourself out to be a victim, Legion. Smokers are anything but.

Everyone is allowed a opinion.
So relax.