BAN ON SMOKING

[[Phill]]

[ QUOTE ]
Welcome to the United Nanny States of America, where your rights don't mean [censored].

Get used to it. You're gonna lose more and more rights as an American/free thinking human.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whilst im not sold on quite how dangerous passive smoking is, it would be impossible to try and make a case that it is 100% not dangerous.

Your 'rights' as a smoker should never infringe on the rights of a non smoker.

Im not against smoking, im not even that big on avoiding smokers (my housemate smokes and one of my close friends does too and ive no problem with them smoking when im in the room or anything). But nobody truly chooses to smoke passively when in public, and so i have no problem whatsoever with such a ban.

Smoke in your car, smoke in your home. Move house if you cant smoke in your home. Whatever. Banning smoking is 100% right on every level.

[I_AM_EVIL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Welcome to the United Nanny States of America, where your rights don't mean [censored].

Get used to it. You're gonna lose more and more rights as an American/free thinking human.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whilst im not sold on quite how dangerous passive smoking is, it would be impossible to try and make a case that it is 100% not dangerous.

Your 'rights' as a smoker should never infringe on the rights of a non smoker.

Im not against smoking, im not even that big on avoiding smokers (my housemate smokes and one of my close friends does too and ive no problem with them smoking when im in the room or anything). But nobody truly chooses to smoke passively when in public, and so i have no problem whatsoever with such a ban.

Smoke in your car, smoke in your home. Move house if you cant smoke in your home. Whatever. Banning smoking is 100% right on every level.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 'rights' of a non smoker should never infringe on the rights of a smoker.

There's 2 sides to every coin.

[NU Star]

I sorta wish they'd take a double standard and ban cigarettes everywhere but allow cigars.

[[Phill]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Welcome to the United Nanny States of America, where your rights don't mean [censored].

Get used to it. You're gonna lose more and more rights as an American/free thinking human.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whilst im not sold on quite how dangerous passive smoking is, it would be impossible to try and make a case that it is 100% not dangerous.

Your 'rights' as a smoker should never infringe on the rights of a non smoker.

Im not against smoking, im not even that big on avoiding smokers (my housemate smokes and one of my close friends does too and ive no problem with them smoking when im in the room or anything). But nobody truly chooses to smoke passively when in public, and so i have no problem whatsoever with such a ban.

Smoke in your car, smoke in your home. Move house if you cant smoke in your home. Whatever. Banning smoking is 100% right on every level.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 'rights' of a non smoker should never infringe on the rights of a smoker.

There's 2 sides to every coin.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you dont see why someones right to not smoke cancerous chemicals is more important than the rights of those who wish to do so, you should probably take yourself out of the gene pool for the good of the species.

[I_AM_EVIL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Welcome to the United Nanny States of America, where your rights don't mean [censored].

Get used to it. You're gonna lose more and more rights as an American/free thinking human.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whilst im not sold on quite how dangerous passive smoking is, it would be impossible to try and make a case that it is 100% not dangerous.

Your 'rights' as a smoker should never infringe on the rights of a non smoker.

Im not against smoking, im not even that big on avoiding smokers (my housemate smokes and one of my close friends does too and ive no problem with them smoking when im in the room or anything). But nobody truly chooses to smoke passively when in public, and so i have no problem whatsoever with such a ban.

Smoke in your car, smoke in your home. Move house if you cant smoke in your home. Whatever. Banning smoking is 100% right on every level.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 'rights' of a non smoker should never infringe on the rights of a smoker.

There's 2 sides to every coin.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you dont see why someones right to not smoke cancerous chemicals is more important than the rights of those who wish to do so, you should probably take yourself out of the gene pool for the good of the species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh, non smokers aren't smoking the cigs.

I think that there should be laws on smoking inside of public buildings or inclosed public areas but there shouldn't be laws against smoking outside. If someone is smoking, all a non smoker has to do is move so the smoke doesn't float towards them.

As a smoker I try to make sure that my smoke doesn't go towards the non smokers that are around me. But if I'm smoking outside, with the wind blowing the smoke away from a non smoker and they start making a scene(coughing, talking to their friends about how bad it is) I make an effort to move so the smoke goes towards them. Yes, I can be an [censored]. They always have the option of moving.

[mikecrooks]

You really believe that second hand smoke as you walk by me for 3 seconds is really dangerous. This is [censored]. The 50 SUVs bariling down the road are putting all sorts of carcinogens into the freaking air.

Plus Im not sure if you read all the way threw. If you live in an appartment or condo you can not smoke inside or outside of your home.

[DING-DONG YO]

again, I am so glad I don't live within a thousand miles of the fruitty nutty d-baggy nannery of anything "cal".

[4_2_it]

Don't Californians support a lot of nanny state causes? Why is this such a surprise?

[Quagmyer]

Looks like you voted for the wrong person

[Chump Change]

[ QUOTE ]
... someones right to not smoke cancerous chemicals...

[/ QUOTE ]

Fun fact:

Cigarette smoking has never been scientifically proven to cause cancer.

It's practically a moot point though, because cigarette smoking and extreme second-hand smoke has been scientifically linked to a number of other diseases, emphysema being the big one. The big problem is that there will probably never be a way to do a practical study, because the average person, smokers included, are exposed to far more carcinogens from other sources in their everyday life. The studies were all down with lab rats, exposing them to far more smoke than any person could ever hope to be exposed to. There are carcinogens in cigarettes ldo, but scientifically this is a very different statement than saying smoking cigarettes causes cancer. It's the difference between saying 'the radiation used in an x-ray machine is cancer causing' and 'x-ray machines will give you cancer'.

I think people just latched on to THE BIG SCARY C because emphysema is a tricky 4-syllable word.