Originally posted by lord xyz
I hope they're also for non-mobile phone restaurants, non-drug abuse restaurants, non-profanity restaurants, non-religious restaurants etc. Because those things are just as distracting and disturbing to some people as smoking.
The smoking ban is do mainly to health issues associated with 2nd-and smoke not annoyances caused by smoking. The non-drug one is obvious, drugs are illegal etc. etc. etc and the profanity one is also obvious as most countries have profanity laws though they are rarely enforced. But if 2nd-hand religion or mobile phone use caused someone harm, then yes, it could be banned.
Here in California, a law just passed (but has yet to go in effect) where it will soon be illegal to use a cellphone sans headgear while driving, why you ask? Because it is dangerous to other people on the road. Personally, I almost get hit or I get severely cut-off by some piece of shit paying more attention to whomever they are chatting with than driving at least one a month where I live.
Originally posted by Robtard
The smoking ban is do mainly to health issues associated with 2nd-and smoke not annoyances caused by smoking. The non-drug one is obvious, drugs are illegal etc. etc. etc and the profanity one is also obvious as most countries have profanity laws though they are rarely enforced. But if 2nd-hand religion or mobile phone use caused someone harm, then yes, it could be banned.Here in California, a law just passed (but has yet to go in effect) where it will soon be illegal to use a cellphone sans headgear while driving, why you ask? Because it is dangerous to other people on the road. Personally, I almost get hit or I get severely cut-off by some piece of shit paying more attention to whomever they are chatting with than driving at least one a month where I live.
I say bah to the 2nd hand some one, Drinking causes more harm than smoking and thats socially more acceptable because of the scare tactics involved with smoking, but I agree with cellphones, although if you live in California you're still gonna have assh*oles cut you off, and rearend you because nobody in that state knows how to drive.
Originally posted by wuTa
I say bah to the 2nd hand some one, Drinking causes more harm than smoking and thats socially more acceptable because of the scare tactics involved with smoking, but I agree with cellphones, although if you live in California you're still gonna have assh*oles cut you off, and rearend you because nobody in that state knows how to drive.
Say "bah" all you like, it doesn't change the fact that 2nd hand smoke can be dangerous to others and it has nothing to do with being more or less socially acceptable. If drinking a beer had the potential to somehow give someone in your proximity liver disease, then that would/should be banned too. Odd that you agree with 'cellphone use while driving' because it is dangerous to others, but you disagree with smoking in certain areas... You're a biased smoker?
The dangers of second hand smoke have been greatly exagerated by many interest groups, and the main study referenced by them has been proven to be flawed and ultimately invalid and outdated.
Second hand smoke can be dangerous, yes, but you aren't going to suddenly get lung cancer by being around second hand smoke for a bit. You won't get lung cancer from sharing a bus station with some guy who's smoking every now and then. And if you do get lung cancer, it's probably developed on it's own and has little to do with the second hand smoke.
Originally posted by BackFire
The dangers of second hand smoke have been greatly exagerated by many interest groups, and the main study referenced by them has been proven to be flawed and ultimately invalid and outdated.Second hand smoke can be dangerous, yes, but you aren't going to suddenly get lung cancer by being around second hand smoke for a bit. You won't get lung cancer from sharing a bus station with some guy who's smoking every now and then. And if you do get lung cancer, it's probably developed on it's own and has little to do with the second hand smoke.
Correct, the chance of getting lung cancer or a lung sickness from a smoker smoking next to you one time or one hundred+ times is almost nil, but it still poses a risk and why should nonsmokers be at risk for a pleasure they willfully do not partake it? Smoking is dangerous, if you want to smoke, that is certainly a right you should have, but it shouldn't put others at risk.
Originally posted by Robtard
Say "bah" all you like, it doesn't change the fact that 2nd hand smoke can be dangerous to others and it has nothing to do with being more or less socially acceptable. If drinking a beer had the potential to somehow give someone in your proximity liver disease, then that would/should be banned too. Odd that you agree with 'cellphone use while driving' because it is dangerous to others, but you disagree with smoking in certain areas... You're a biased smoker?
Nope, I don't smoke, are you a biased nonsmoker? Getting a lung disease from 2nd hand smoke or smoking is based more off your genetics, any doctor or scientist I talked agreed with me on this. All this hoopla about how dangerous 2nd hand smoke is dangerous to your health is more of a smokescreen to try and ban ciggerattes imo. Sure, if your DNA is vurneralbe to smoke diseases, and your around smoke, than you may inquire some health problems, but you have to be around smoke on a consistent basis for that to happen. If you don't want to be around smoke, than don't, why should there be so many smoking laws that benefits nonsmokers, like banning smoke in bars, or restaraunts, what ever happen to the nonsmoking section?
Originally posted by wuTa
Nope, I don't smoke, are you a biased nonsmoker? Getting a lung disease from 2nd hand smoke or smoking is based more off your genetics, any doctor or scientist I talked agreed with me on this. All this hoopla about how dangerous 2nd hand smoke is dangerous to your health is more of a smokescreen to try and ban ciggerattes imo. Sure, if your DNA is vurneralbe to smoke diseases, and your around smoke, than you may inquire some health problems, but you have to be around smoke on a consistent basis for that to happen. If you don't want to be around smoke, than don't, why should there be so many smoking laws that benefits nonsmokers, like banning smoke in bars, or restaraunts, what ever happen to the nonsmoking section?
I do not smoke, but the smell of smoke has nothing to do with it, that aspect doesn't bother me.
WTF? Yes, genetics do play a role in cancer and sickness, but do you seriously think there are people with a "anti-tobocca-cancer-gene"? That is a lame argument.
Have you ever been in a nonsmoking section? Smoke still travels there. As far as why so many laws to protect nonsmokers, that goes back to the the health issues, why should a nonsmoker potentially have to suffer health problems for pleasure he/she doesn't partake in?
I don't care about getting lung cancer from 2nd hand smoke as I think that's a 1 in a million chance but I don't like going home after a night at the pub smelling like an ashtray. Having said that, since they banned it in pubs here in scotland the only thing you can smell in them is dampness and sweat...
Originally posted by Robtard
Correct, the chance of getting lung cancer or a lung sickness from a smoker smoking next to you one time or one hundred+ times is almost nil, but it still poses a risk and why should nonsmokers be at risk for a pleasure they willfully do not partake it? Smoking is dangerous, if you want to smoke, that is certainly a right you should have, but it shouldn't put others at risk.
Well, if they stand around a smoker, knowingly breathing in smoke, they ARE choosing to partake in it. Most places don't allow smoking now, anyways. Restaurants, bars, busses, planes, government buildings, museums, etc. They have nearly infinite amount of options to avoid second hand smoke, if they're too stupid to utilize them, then they have no one to blame but themselves.
Also, there are obviously a number of people with varying degrees of resistance to the dangers of second hand smoke. There are many bartenders or restaurant owners, who worked around second hand smoke for nearly half a century, and their lungs are fine and dandy, while there are some people who get lung cancer regaurdless of second hand smoke.
The problem is, if someone gets lung cancer, and they were around a smoker, people automatically assume that the smoke caused the cancer, when there is not real evidence that that's the case. Just being lazy/bias on their part.