Public smoking ban.

[Jebus]

So, they outlawed smoking in all public places in Ireland - including bars.

Let's face it, guys, smokers are kinda the modern jews. Discriminated and percecuted, coughing and hacking they drag themselves through life untill their last refuge has been taken from them. Will they even take bars away from them?

Allright, smoking kills you. But shouldn't it be one's own choice wether or not to smoke? Granted, it's a shame a lot of young people pick up smoking -even though they know the risks involved- but does the government really have anything to say about how you should treat your own body? If I were to chose quality of life over quantity, and prefer to live my days enjoying all kinds of positive impulses I can get, even if they would be harmful to my health, then it's my choice.

Agreed, smoking also affects people around you. But should that really mean an all-out smoking ban? What if they would just regulate existing laws on seperation of smoking- and non-smoking sections better? What if they would just install better suction-devices?

Because now matter how you put it- this stays a kind of discrimination. And it's just not fucking fun to have to go outside, in the cold, just to smoke a cigarette...

 

[SkynetV4]

Well, I would ditch the idea of a public smoking ban if you could somehow install plastic bags around the heads of smokers so they re-inhale all the noxious fumes back. I absolutely hate the smell of tobacco and loathe people who throw their cancer smoke in my face.

 

[Johns Volition]

Hehe that's an easy thing to say for a smoker... But see it this way, non smokers, who are the majority of the irish people do profit, and belive me, it's just not fucking fun to smell like an ashtray...

So it is rather discriminating that we non smokers have to stand your smoke

 

[Starseeker]

LOL

Move to China.

No, seriously. Canada went through the same thing.

China is quite liberating. Smoking people go smoke themselves out in smoking establishments, and non smoking people go to non smoking places.

That would be easier -
Big sign outside bar : Smokers only!
Big sign outside subway : Non smokers and non carbs people only!

 

[Brother None]

Jebus, there are other drugs far less dangerous and addictive than tobacco that are banned in countries like Ireland. What differentiates smoking from other drugs? Simply that smoking is a culturally accepted habit.

But figure this; if another drug popped up with the same addictive and lethal influences on the user, it would be banned in all countries ('cept maybe Holland) outright. Why? Because those kind of drugs are simply against the law.

So what makes tobacco different? Nothing! They're just integrated into society, an old habit that's hard to shake.

But there's nothing, absolutely nothing, to defend smoking with. If you want to keep smoking legal on the long run, you'll have to make other drugs with similar or lighter effects (mirahuana first) legal as well. If not, you'll have to accept that this is a violent and dangerous drugs and like all dangerous drugs needs to be banned.

 

[Montez]

But there's nothing, absolutely nothing, to defend smoking with.

If that's true, then there's nothing to defend the consumption of anything but food, and everything consumable besides food should be banned. Alcohol, coffee, and tea should all be banned in all countries.

If not, you'll have to accept that this is a violent and dangerous drugs and like all dangerous drugs needs to be banned.

I understand the dangerous part, but how is smoking violent or in any way related to violence?

 

[Brother None]

If that's true, then there's nothing to defend the consumption of anything but food, and everything consumable besides food should be banned. Alcohol, coffee, and tea should all be banned in all countries.

And doubtlessely on the long run they will be. Alcohol, certainly.

The main problem I have with tobacco is, next to that it directly hurts others as well (which is also true for more things, like driving), is that it is a much addictive and harmful drug than mirahuana, while tobacco is legal everywhere, and weed only legal/allowed in a few countries.

These double standards simply make no sense

I understand the dangerous part, but how is smoking violent or in any way related to violence?

Just wiggling my eyebrows in emphasis

 

[Jebus]

If you want to keep smoking legal on the long run, you'll have to make other drugs with similar or lighter effects (mirahuana first) legal as well.

I've got no problem with that. As long as the smoking of marihuana happens in seperate weed-smoker-zones. As tobacco-smoker could be put into a smoker-zone... It's all rather simple, really. You don't have to kick them out, ffs, just put them into a different section if you don't want the non-smokers to inhale their smoke.

Same with trains, really. Does it really bother anybody if a completely seperate, closed wagon is dedicated to smokers? I don't think so...

If not, you'll have to accept that this is a violent and dangerous drugs and like all dangerous drugs needs to be banned.

Aye! Smaking tobacco makes you kill people!

Now get out of me way, matie! Argh!

 

[Brother None]

I've got no problem with that. As long as the smoking of marihuana happens in seperate weed-smoker-zones. As tobacco-smoker could be put into a smoker-zone... It's all rather simple, really. You don't have to kick them out, ffs, just put them into a different section if you don't want the non-smokers to inhale their smoke.

Same with trains, really. Does it really bother anybody if a completely seperate, closed wagon is dedicated to smokers? I don't think so...

there are many drugs which are addictive and hurt only the users, they are banned as well. Why should smoking be different? "It is a less heavy drug" is a valid argument on the short-run, but on the long run it still has to go

 

[Jebus]

there are many drugs which are addictive and hurt only the users, they are banned as well. Why should smoking be different? "It is a less heavy drug" is a valid argument on the short-run, but on the long run it still has to go

Then alcohol, sleeping pills, cola, coffe, etc. etc. should be banned as well, in the long run...

 

[Brother None]

there are many drugs which are addictive and hurt only the users, they are banned as well. Why should smoking be different? "It is a less heavy drug" is a valid argument on the short-run, but on the long run it still has to go

Then alcohol, sleeping pills, cola, coffe, etc. etc. should be banned as well, in the long run...

Yes. I've said as much

PS: sleeping pills, for insomniacs, as in medicinal purpose, would survive, naturally

 

[Rohan]

But there's nothing, absolutely nothing, to defend smoking with.

If that's true, then there's nothing to defend the consumption of anything but food, and everything consumable besides food should be banned. Alcohol, coffee, and tea should all be banned in all countries.

Wrong. All these help people in some way. Tea helps not to fall asleep, alcohol in small quantities is not harmful, even it helps to keep health; white wine as I remember cleans the organism of some oxydants. Tea is not harmful at all.

If not, you'll have to accept that this is a violent and dangerous drugs and like all dangerous drugs needs to be banned.

I understand the dangerous part, but how is smoking violent or in any way related to violence?

It kills, violence kills, too! While smoking you harm people around you. They may like it, if they are smokers, but if they're not, it's disrespecting their need to long live.

I absolutely support Ireland in this case - I think if it was not so conservative, it would be a nice country to live in.
I am not smoking but everytime I go to school, I have to pass a cloud of cigarette smoke. I usually stpop my breath - it may be funny, but I prefer that than smell it or end up like my grandfather.


Ps: seems like Kharn was first, but whatever

 

[WaterGirl]

You don't have to kick them out, ffs, just put them into a different section if you don't want the non-smokers to inhale their smoke.

They tried that. First thing you used to be asked when you walked into a restaurant was "smoking or non?" But what about the groups where two people smoke and two people don't? Then what? Do the smokers suck it up and deal without cigarettes for the next hour or do the non smokers succomb to the second hand smoke?

Tucson found a way to deal with this... They banned smoking in all restaurants, or something like that. I don't smoke, so I didn't pay attention to the law. From what I know, only bars can petition for a smoking license. Dove may be able to clarify on this a little better when he wakes up...

 

[Brother None]

Wrong. All these help people in some way. Tea helps not to fall asleep, alcohol in small quantities is not harmful, even it helps to keep health; white wine as I remember cleans the organism of some oxydants. Tea is not harmful at all.

I disagree. If the way society is developing continues in the same way, alcohol will be banned, since it is addictive and causes harmful behaviour. Much the same goes for coffee and tea (teïne (sp?) is a drug)

 

[Montez]

The main problem I have with tobacco is, next to that it directly hurts others as well (which is also true for more things, like driving), is that it is a much addictive and harmful drug than mirahuana, while tobacco is legal everywhere, and weed only legal/allowed in a few countries.

Everyone I know who smokes pot has been smoking it every day, throughout the day, for years. The only time they stop is when they've reached a plateau where they can barely get high from a few joints, at which point they stop for a few days and then start up again. Maybe they aren't "addicted" to it in the same way smokers are, but with this level of consumption what's the difference? I know more people who have quit smoking cigarettes than quit smoking pot, and more people who have quit cigarettes than alcohol. Cigarettes are more addictive though? That doesn't make sense.

People hate cigarette smoke for the smell and to a much smaller extent being in a room filled with smelly smoke - the tiny tiny chance of lung cancer from second hand smoke is just a bit of rhetoric that gets used to further their position. Non-smokers just don't like washing the smell of cigarettes out of their clothes, and that's the extent of it. You are more likely to have health problems from consuming sugar than you are from being exposed to second hand smoke, and you are more likely to be run over by a drunk driver than develop cancer from second-hand smoke.

Also, you won't get a contact high from cigarette smoke. Sit in a room full of pot smokers - you get all the same effects as cigarette smoke, plus you will get high. Pot smoke contains carcinogens as well - but it's ok because it's a slightly lesser amount? Alcohol would be as illegal as pot if you could get drunk from sitting in the same room as people drinking. You can smoke a cigarette or be around a cigarette and not have your senses impaired - can you say the same for pot?

I've argued pretty poorly, but what I'm trying to say is that anyone who consumes one thing which carries health-risks but condemns another is a hypocrite. You can't defend alcohol, pot, or even caffiene and condemn tobacco, because they are all in the same boat. So I agree with you about the double-standard, I just don't like the tobacco hate.

Just wiggling my eyebrows in emphasis

As soon as I finish this cigarette I'm coming to get you.

Wrong. All these help people in some way.

A few puffs of a cigarette will wake you up more than a cup of coffee. Nicotine is a stimulant along the same lines as caffeine, the difference being it doesn't taste good when boiled with water.

 

[MrMarcus]

I actually wished resteraunts had a no-children section. I hate having to listen to a baby caterwaul and scream while I'm trying to eat. I shouldn't leave a resteraunt with a splitting headache unless I've yelled at the manager about crappy food.

 

[Rohan]

Of course, mindless abusing of any of this is bad, but the point is if the people know how to use their goods. Alcohol does all it becayse of abuse. People don't want to stop or they stop too late. You can't watch everyone if he's drinking too much - the only way is to ban alcohol or lift its prices that it can't be abused.

Caffeine - it's bad for health, so I think it should be banned, too...
Teine - I don't know if it causes harm, but if yes, see above, if not, then I don't see anything wrong in tea.

 

[Jebus]

I actually wished resteraunts had a no-children section. I hate having to listen to a baby caterwaul and scream while I'm trying to eat.

See! See! They should ban babies instead! They're smelly, they seem to be everywhere, they can completely destroy your fun if somebody brings them along to a pub, and they're damn hard to get rid of once you get one!

BAN TEH BABIES!

 

[Brother None]

Everyone I know who smokes pot has been smoking it every day, throughout the day, for years. The only time they stop is when they've reached a plateau where they can barely get high from a few joints, at which point they stop for a few days and then start up again. Maybe they aren't "addicted" to it in the same way smokers are, but with this level of consumption what's the difference? I know more people who have quit smoking cigarettes than quit smoking pot, and more people who have quit cigarettes than alcohol. Cigarettes are more addictive though? That doesn't make sense.

Then that is their problem. I know only a handful of people that smoke pot that much, most people I know are leisure smokers, who smoke only occasionally.

People hate cigarette smoke for the smell and to a much smaller extent being in a room filled with smelly smoke - the tiny tiny chance of lung cancer from second hand smoke is just a bit of rhetoric that gets used to further their position. Non-smokers just don't like washing the smell of cigarettes out of their clothes, and that's the extent of it. You are more likely to have health problems from consuming sugar than you are from being exposed to second hand smoke, and you are more likely to be run over by a drunk driver than develop cancer from second-hand smoke.

I don't hate cigarette smoke, and my issues with tobacco being legal have nothing to do with second-hand smoke

Thought it's a pretty poor argument to compare sugar-consumption, in which you have a choice, with second-hand smoke, in which you have often have no choice

Also, you won't get a contact high from cigarette smoke. Sit in a room full of pot smokers - you get all the same effects as cigarette smoke, plus you will get high. Pot smoke contains carcinogens as well - but it's ok because it's a slightly lesser amount? Alcohol would be as illegal as pot if you could get drunk from sitting in the same room as people drinking. You can smoke a cigarette or be around a cigarette and not have your senses impaired - can you say the same for pot?

No, but that's only a reason to make public pot smoking illegal, not pot whole.

I've argued pretty poorly, but what I'm trying to say is that anyone who consumes one thing which carries health-risks but condemns another is a hypocrite. You can't defend alcohol, pot, or even caffiene and condemn tobacco, because they are all in the same boat. So I agree with you about the double-standard, I just don't like the tobacco hate.

This is, in fact, the third time I've said this: I believe that on the long run alcohol, pot and even cafiene will all be banned, assuming that society's standards keep developing like they have been developing

Also notice that I don't hate smoke. My parents have smoked all their lives and its never bothered me much. As long as you don't blow smoke in my face, I don't mind. I never got angry at my colleagues when they smoked in the back of the store, even if I was working there. Personally, I have no problem with smoking, I just don't like societies irrational acceptances of the habit.

IAs soon as I finish this cigarette I'm coming to get you.

Bring it on, smoke-boy.

 

[Montez]

Bring it on, smoke-boy.

*Cough* *Cough*

As soon as I catch my breath, I'm gonna rip you a *cough* new one.