Author Topic: Smoking: Another debate that's over. (Read 3123 times)

Jackal1 · « **Reply #75 on:** June 29, 2006, 09:43:30 AM »

Another good ban might be to ban people who can`t handle their booze to the point of cracking boats up on rocks while blasted from speaking on the subject of what is and isn`t safe for everyone else.

Just a thought.

lazs2 · « **Reply #76 on:** June 29, 2006, 02:36:14 PM »

nielsen... your drinking does indeed harm other people... you crashed a boat because you were drunk....

You could drink legally and still die of liver disease.... but not before you cost us a fortune.... you can drink legal amounts and still be belligerant.

drunks are annoying and potentialy dangerous yet..... I am forced to be around them in public places.. they don't even have to be legally drunk to cause problems.

Should not all bars and homes have a limit? say......08? That is the limit that you are impaired to drive... I bet it would stop a lot of deaths and domestic violence and expense to just limit the legal amount in any public place or private residence that had other people living in it to .08

What would be wrong with that? You have no right to go around impaired if it endangers or annoys others.....

What gives you the right to tell a private business that it can't allow smoking? You do have the right to not enter and patronize.

Would you be ok with smokeing if they put in those magic filters that gambling joints use to filter out all the smoke and make them exempt from the laws?

lazs

Nilsen · « **Reply #77 on:** June 29, 2006, 02:58:22 PM »

I crashed my own boat.. how does that harm anyone lazs?

Dunno how things are over were you live, but if you bother people here drunk you get driven home, or put in jail til you sober up and then fined. Are one allowed to bother others were you live and behave as one pleases towards others?

Smoking in a bar, pub, resturant or whatever here is illegal now. That is great. Some places it is allowed to smoke indoors, but only if there is a non-smokin area available and the people that work at the place never have to enter or leave the room.

We may not have the same "freedoms" here as you have, but we have the "freedom" to go were we like without beeing subjected to second-hand smoking. You can take your family and kids to any place and be sure that nobody will light up next to you. You may not like it, but I dont really care that much. The vast majority of the people here like the new law, and since we live in a democracy then it proves that the system works.

Since the law has passed the ammount of tobacco sold has really gone down alot and more people than ever have quit. That is a good thing.

Bronk · « **Reply #78 on:** June 29, 2006, 02:59:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2

Would you be ok with smokeing if they put in those magic filters that gambling joints use to filter out all the smoke and make them exempt from the laws?

lazs

Only if they pay the "magic filter" tax.

Bronk

weaselsan · « **Reply #79 on:** June 29, 2006, 03:16:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
no doubt that alcohol is bad for you.

here 398 died of alcholo related injuries, while 4669 died of tobacco related injuries or diseases in 2002

Give me the name of one person that the cause of death was second hand smoke. Or show me one person that went to prison for killing someone while under the influence of cigarettes. I don't know about your country, but no one here is incarcerated for harming anyone by cigarettes, But we have locked up an awful lot of people for harming or killing children while under the influence of alcohol. By your logic we should deny pregnant women the right to indulge in a perfectly lawful product, would this be before or after they chose to kill the baby by aborting it?

Nilsen · « **Reply #80 on:** June 29, 2006, 03:24:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by weaselsan
Give me the name of one person that the cause of death was second hand smoke. or show me one person that went to prison for killing someone while under the influence of cigarettes. I don't know about your country, but no one here is incarcerated for harming anyone by cigarettes, But we have locked up an awful lot of people for harming or killing children while under the influence of alcohol. By your logic we should deny pregnant women the right to indulge in a perfectly lawful product, would this be before or after they chose to kill the baby by aborting it?

Dont know were to find names of individuals weaselsan.. sorry. But you knew that.

Nobody is put in jail here either for for harming anyone wiht cigs, and yes they are for alcohol related stuff.

Yes, and my logic is sound. Pregnant women should not be allowed to smoke even if its a legal product. But here is a twist... You have to be 18 here to be allowed to smoke. A fetus is not 18, but it gets the nicotine and stuff thru the mother.

Hangtime · « **Reply #81 on:** June 29, 2006, 03:30:16 PM »

4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.

Hangtime · « **Reply #82 on:** June 29, 2006, 03:40:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen

Yes, and my logic is sound. Pregnant women should not be allowed to smoke even if its a legal product. But here is a twist... You have to be 18 here to be allowed to smoke. A fetus is not 18, but it gets the nicotine and stuff thru the mother.

No, your logic is not sound. Fact: Millions of people smoked when I was a kid.. far and away the majority of the population. And they bore children. None of 'em popped out with three heads, black lung and a 2 pack a day nicotine habit. Never saw a baby buying smokes at the drug store.

Now, being a young parent, naturally you want the best for your kids. That's great. But, that does not give you the right to make decisions for anybody else.

So.. protect YOUR kid. Admonish if you like foolish people that endanger their young by smoking... but don't assume that passing a law is gonna make that endanged child safer. That's the parents responsibilty. A law does not make irresponsible people responsible.

Society needs to grow some testicles.. some dickwad steps on your rights, caution the guy.. he gets nasty about it, punch his bellybutton out.

Simple, really.

BTW · « **Reply #83 on:** June 29, 2006, 03:47:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
no doubt that alcohol is bad for you.

here 398 died of alcholo related injuries, while 4669 died of tobacco related injuries or diseases in 2002

Er, how many died of alcohol related disease (e.g., diabetes, stroke, heart disease, domestic violence etc.)?

Are you claiming ignorance of the many alcohol related diseases that plague the world?

Nilsen · « **Reply #84 on:** June 29, 2006, 03:50:00 PM »

Well.. sure, many made it even if the parents smoked. But there is damage done to the fetus that may not manifest itself until later in life.

Read this, or google for yourself.

http://www.hazelden.org/servlet/hazelden/cms/ptt/hazl_alive_and_free.html?sf=t&sh=t&page_id=25436

Nilsen · « **Reply #85 on:** June 29, 2006, 03:52:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BTW
Er, how many died of alcohol related disease (e.g., diabetes, stroke, heart disease, domestic violence etc.)?

Are you claiming ignorance of the many alcohol related diseases that plague the world?

The number is there BTW.. didnt you see it?

Where have I defended alcohol? Its not even an issue in the debate. We are talking about second-hand smoking

BTW · « **Reply #86 on:** June 29, 2006, 04:01:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
The number is there BTW.. didnt you see it?

Where have I defended alcohol? Its not even an issue in the debate. We are talking about second-hand smoking

Yea I saw the number but if you note in the quote you qualify the alcohol number as "alcohol injuries" and the smoking number as "tobacco injuries and disease."

If the 398 number includes all the alcohol related disease, I'd be very suspicious. That's awfully low. Aside from being responsible for about 1/3 or ALL (not just auto accidents) accidents, it is responsible for many diseases as posted before. That 398 seems low in comparison to the 4000+ you posted as tobacco related. I'd investigate it to see if a group is cooking the books - unless no one actually wants to know..

BUG_EAF322 · « **Reply #87 on:** June 29, 2006, 04:04:18 PM »

Ban smokers while u can get 2 liter coke and super mega sized hamburgers.
Im just waiting for the fat bann smoke banning is getting oldschool.

And remember if u where born between the 60-80 our parent took us to places where everybody smoked.

Its to late anyway.

Another option is the bann on alcoholics wich is hard drugged poison
common guys we got to be consequent.

Vulcan · « **Reply #88 on:** June 29, 2006, 04:28:50 PM »

<--- taking great pleasure in the squeeling of the filthy smoker brigade

karma....

Nilsen · « **Reply #89 on:** June 29, 2006, 04:37:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BTW
Yea I saw the number but if you note in the quote you qualify the alcohol number as "alcohol injuries" and the smoking number as "tobacco injuries and disease."

If the 398 number includes all the alcohol related disease, I'd be very suspicious. That's awfully low. Aside from being responsible for about 1/3 or ALL (not just auto accidents) accidents, it is responsible for many diseases as posted before. That 398 seems low in comparison to the 4000+ you posted as tobacco related. I'd investigate it to see if a group is cooking the books - unless no one actually wants to know..

well ok i may have formulated myself wrong.. the 398 is total and those books are not cooked. They are dull statistics from the SSB. Maybe drinking culture is different or more people smoke here than there.