Yes and it's bad for electrical components also, but NASA engineers didn't know that when most of them smoked in the Houston Control room during the Apollo missions.
Imagine that...send a man to the moon and not know that smoking should be banned in a high tech environment....

Like I said, it's just not feasible. There's just way too much money to be made by continuing to get people addicted your products. Addiction in itself isn't so much the problem I have with it, But more that it's the health hazards associated with it.

We can debate the extent of the hazards of second hand smoke till we're blue in the face, but my stance is that if what you put in your lungs is going to kill you with cancer, then it certainly isn't going to be doing my lungs any favors. To be fair, if my exposure to second hand smoke is in limited doses, then those risks should be minimal. That still doesn't mean that I should be subjected to it wherever I go.

^ No no, I was taking offence at the notion that tobacco should be banned altogether regardless of whether non smokers are being harmed by it, which you strongly implied.


No, I was contesting that idea. Disagreeing with, arguing with, pointing out the flaws in etc etc.

Then, as tragic as this is (and really, nobody is more qualified to say this given that I've lived in a smoking household all my life and I think that it smells disgusting), I think you have to concede that this is an unsolvable situation if education will not work at all (more on that later). It is not right to treat often hard working and benign people as criminals over relatively minor misdemeanours and it is impossible to enforce any kind of law on the matter and, regardless, trying to do so would be a gross waste of public resources.

As for whether education would work, I think you place too little faith in parents. Many are just straight up bad and don't care, sure, but their kids have problems waaaay past second hand smoke (such as, I don't know, procuring a half decent education, which would be a better use of public money than arresting and fining their parents and making them resentful of the state from a young age ). Many other parents, however, would I'm sure be genuinely horrified at the (up for debate) level of harm that second hand smoking causes their children and would at the very least smoke out of the window if they thought that it was significantly better for their child (which it may well be). Regardless, improved education's surely a better policy to introduce instead of immediately clamping down on smokers as criminals when the only education they've had on the matter has been overblown and hysterical. Baby steps, jeez.

Why ban smoking in bars? Why? If shop owners want to allow smoking, let them, its their shop. If the customer doesn't want it, they can voice their displeasure by taking their money elsewhere.

For instance, there was once this one restaraunt that allowed smoking. The customers did not approve so the store reversed the policy, that is how it should be handled.

I agree with this sentiment, but its more than that. its a working hazard to employees.
and you cant say "just dont work here" though i think you should abe able to..
I mean, its not as if the nuclear reactor worker doesnt realize hes being exposed to some radiation.
then again, I imagine they have much better insurance.

Yes it may be a little too harsh to ban all smoking outside, and I think that if what you say about yourself is true then you are mighty considerate. But how would you propose you keep those who are not so considerate from smoking around others without making up some sort of a rule that ends up punishing those who may not deserve it too ? It′s not like we can have a "Responsible smoker license" or anything like that, it would be far too much effort to keep such a close eye on every single individual who smokes.

So indeed, what is there to be done instead ?

Double post fail. Ignore this.

Yeah, if they're going to do that then vehicle emissions testing needs to get a lot more strict as well. I personally find myself choking on the fumes from old beaters and trucks a lot more often than cigarette smoke. Not to mention those ultra-loud exhaust pipes (or "[censored] nozzles," as I call them).

Really, unless someone is blowing smoke right in your face you don't notice at all. Banning it in buildings is fine, because people shouldn't have to breathe in smoke if they choose not to, but outside its really easy to avoid it. I don't smoke often, but its great to have a few at the bar, or sometimes with a morning coffee. Why should that tiny pleasure be taken away?

Another thing I seem to see from non-smokers, is that they don't understand the concept of occasional smoking.

While i do wish more were considerate, at the same it, i am of the philosophy that the world is a bumpy place.
Think about the impact on your life from working at a job you dont like. Stress of finances, doing something that you genuinely dislike. how that physically effects you, shortening your lifespan.
yet we will never all find the job we love.


if walking past people that smoke makes your throat sore, I am sorry.
If it bothered me that much, i might wear a mask. (i wear earplugs to concerts, so i dont damage my hearing, sunglasses so the sun doesnt cause vision problems)
I know that sounds callous and you're probably thinking, "why should I be forfced to don a mask?"
but i would say that youre not being forced. youd be doing it for yourself.

that is the crux of it.
people dont like being forced to do something or to not do something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9ySCcnoo3c

I know, right? Stoopid Drivers Ed. :meh:

Everyday when I walk into work I am subjected to second hand smoke from the folks that are smoking outdoors because smoking is (IMO rightfully) banned indoors. I can tell you this now, as an ex smoker, you can and do notice it. Cigarettes have a very distinctive smell. This is something that smokers don't understand, because their sense of smell has been compromised from smoking.

And do you honestly believe that that brief moment of contact, outside, each day is so harmful to you and others that the civil liberties of smokers should be restricted further? Because frankly I consider that selfish.

I think you've missed the point of my last post.

No I know that you were simply arguing that you do notice second hand smoke outdoors. However, if that is the worst extent to which you experience second hand smoking I do believe you're making mountains out of molehills.

If cigarettes get banned outside completely I will dance in a chicken suit playing a ukulele and post it in the forums. If it was banned anywhere, I actually would rather it get banned indoors, then outdoors. There is more air outdoors.

and seriously. I smoke occasionally, and I still have people that come up to me, think that I smoke 3 packs a day, and tell me I am rude to be smoking outdoors. All I do is smile and say "Well I could be smoking inside the store if you would like." They give me a glare, tell me I am ruining my body, and walk away. Little do they know, that has been my only cigarette in a couple of weeks.

@greatcarbuncle- what you say has a lot of sense in it. I am just still unsure that people will change just because someone shows them that it is bad. baby steps would be a good thing for some, but for some it won't be. the issue will never be solved IMO.

No I'm not, because second hand smoke is real, and it poses real dangers to people's health every day. I don't drink alcohol anymore, so I don't frequent bars, I also live in a state that has banned smoking (rightfully) in many locations. I support those bans fully...In fact, I voted in favor of them and would do it again in a heartbeat.

If you believe that then don't advocate further legislation and criminalisation of largely innocent people. It's utterly counter-intuitive. Just sayin'.

Did I do that? No. All I said was that you had some sense. I backed off. Your turn.

I'm only pasting BarrettsFloyd's quote because Syd Barrett RULED and Pink Floyd is the greatest band EVER IN HISTORY.

Regarding the new cigarette box labels: I predict tobacco sales will PLUMMET by approximately ZERO PERCENT. And smokers will trade these things like they're baseball cards.

"Hey, wanna trade? I'll give you my 'rotted teeth' for your 'lung cancer corpse.' I can't find that one anywhere!"

and because it makes a lot of sense!

haha that's a..... different way to look at it.

Although several have mentioned it, "they" will never ban tobacco- at least in the US. They say they want these new labels to cut down on smoking, but that is misleading. They are doing it as a sop to a certain constituancy. If people really stopped smoking, they could no longer collect the ridiculous taxes. There are too many programs that depend on the income from tobacco taxes.

The price has also been mentioned. Tobacco is cheap. The real cost is added tax. Here, a pack of a national brand is about $6. That includes $2 state tax and over $1 federal tax. Over half the cost of a pack is taxes.

They'll make a big show about the new labels, but they can't afford to actually have many people quit.

BTW, I've been smoking for 40 years and have fewer health problems than the non-smokers I work with.

It's not just misleading, it's an outright lie. As previously stated (without going into forbidden subjects) there is far too much money to be made in this industry.

Maybe my statement of banning tobacco altogether was a bit extreme (You know what they say about ex smokers? They are the worst of the bunch).

Smoking for forty years and still having fewer health problems than non smokers won't last you forever. Smoking will catch up to you...if it hasn't already. it is possible however, that you could be one of those freaks of nature that can smoke two packs a day and still live to be one hundred years old.

Just switched to electronic and lower the dosages till I quit. Doesn't affect me, other than having to look at tossed out pictures.