There’s nothing quite like going home at 2:00 with a 10 and waking up at 10:00 with a 2.
Yeah!
Smoking, snuffing, and dipping, make that happen!!!
:smack: :mad:
Are you fucking kidding?
Read the thread first, asshole.
Wait - having a picture of a skeevy lung on your package of smokes is a blow against your human rights because having an attractive package of smokes is a basic human right?
Thats an…interesting point of view.
Um…yeah, okay.
My post was related to the OP, which did not focus on SHS, nor did I make any message of SHS. While it is certainly nasty stuff, YOU are the only source of a SHS smoke argument related to my post. Pictures of the results of tobacco use tend to drive home the message in ways that written warnings do not.
Sure, everyone KNOWS tobacco is bad for you. SEEING that it is bad for you is another matter. The OP appeared to be pitting the use of gruesome images to drive home the point. The point of my post was that while the OP may not like the images, they seem to be a very effective way of delivering the message.
Hey, go light up another nicotine pacifier, you fuckin’ crybaby.
I figure it’s too late for adults who smoke, but I’ll cheerfully support efforts to de-romaticize tobacco to teenagers, who rather stupidy assume it’s an adult and cool thing to use.
What Bryan said. It’s not about the addicts, it’s about stopping children from becoming addicts.
Of course, some children are going to become addicts precisely because there are gruesome images on the packet, just to show what tough (as in “thick”) dumbasses they are. The only shame being that they won’t die of smoking related disease before breeding, thus cheating Darwin of his rightful reward.
I guess you misread my post.
It had nothing to do with skeevy pics on packs, which we don’t have yet in the US.
I’d be fine with that.
I just want to smoke in bars.
Oh right. So smoking in bars is a basic human right. Well, I’ll be sure to notify the UN - they’re gonna have to modify some of their literature for sure.
Sigh…here we go again.
If a bar owner wants to allow his patrons to smoke in his establishment, he should be allowed to do that.
You (general you) do not have the right to tell the owner how to run his/her business.
If there are so many non-smokers who want to go to bars, there should be tons of market space for non-smoking bars, so that smoking bars can still exist.
Did I remember everything?
Sure we do. We have the right to require the owner to have her employees wash their hands and deal with the food in a sanitary way, pay a certain minimum wage, and lots of other regulations of import to public safety and policy.
Preventing customers from spraying poison into the air seems to be a logical next step.
Nobody’s forcing you to go to that bar. Nobody’s forcing you to breath in that smoke. When you walk into a bar and see people smoking, you can leave and go elsewhere.
You’re not being ostracized by this, either. Nobody’s discriminating against non-smokers by allowing smoking in their establishment.
Again, nobody’s forcing you to breathe in the poison they’re “spraying” in the air, as you put it.
I never said she shouldn’t.
I just don’t think that smoking in bars is a basic human right. I’m wacky that way.
Smoking in bars may not be a “basic human right”. Running your business they way you want is, or should be if it’s not.
This sounds a LOT like one of the major plot points of Thank You for Smoking. Sadly, as rediculous as it was in the movie, this is even stupider and more graphic.
These comparisons to handling food and paying a minimum wage are not analogous to smoking. Food handling is required as a matter of having a state license to serve food as a business. Paying a minimum wage is required as part of having legal. Smoking is part of the reason people go to bars; people go there to poison their bodies: alcohol, smoking, drugs, promiscuous sex. That’s the basic business model of a bar; they help people have fun poisoning themselves. Really, in a place where they serve you poison in a glass, how does it make sense to not let them breathe it in too?
Now, I am not a smoker and I’m not a fan of bars either precisely because of the debauchery. Even if more bars were non-smoking, I seriously doubt I’d go any more often than I do now, because the basic atmosphere doesn’t change. And for those who don’t smoke, but already like bars, why the hell do we need to change it for them? They already accept the risk. Its not like they don’t have a choice about second hand smoke (like someone might if a smoker lights up in a restaraunt); they go to bars with the expectation that there will be smokers.
People, people, you’re thinking too small. In the future, each beer bottle had an e-ink label and an RFID reader. When your hand goes to grab a beer, the reader reads the embedded tag in your hand and forehead and displays the ugliest drunken hookup you’ve ever had.
Yep, the beast is one evil motherfucker.
By the same token, you are perfectly free to choose whether you prefer not to smoke or not to enter an establishment where smoking is prohibited by law. Nobody’s forcing you to smoke constantly, thereby preventing you from entering the bar.
In other words, if smoking is permitted, I can choose between being poisoned and not entering the bar; if it’s prohibited, you can choose between not poisoning others and not entering the bar. And between your “right” to poison me and my right not to be poisoned, I know which one I like better.
I’m not interested in drawing a moral equivalency between your preference to harm others and my preference not to be harmed by others. Thank heavens we’re sensible about such things in this province.
And in this province and other sensible locales, prohibiting smoking is similarly required as a condition of doing business as a restaurant, bar, or other establishment. It’s no less logical than any other health regulation, and more logical than several.
I don’t think the good Lord says he prefers to harm others.
Ideally of course, and we don’t live in an ideal world, if a bar owner wishes to allow smoking and the staff are aware of this when they join the payroll and he has a Big Sign outside which says that smoking is permitted then I don’t see a problem.
Everybody knows where they are, including you.
It’s sad that smoking kills. It’s sadder that a good proportion of people I have seen with lung cancer (and you see a lot of those in a month on a cardio-thoracic surgery unit) gave up 10-15-20 years ago. Of course, the reason they’re on that ward is because their cancer is operable, most of the inoperable lung cancers are still smoking at diagnosis.
People never believe the worst will happen to them. Unless something fundamental about humanity changes, that simple fact is not going to alter and no amount of horrible pictutes is going to change that.
Sorry I typed the OP and then ended up going away for the weekend. I’m sorry I have never responded to your point before.
Prohibition doesn’t work that is clear, we don’t have an argument there. Where I do do disagree with you is ‘socially acceptable’ drugs. Prohibition didn’t work with alcohol in America because it was a drug ingrained in the social fabric. Several years ago NZ lowered the drinking age from 20 to 18 according to SOME of the population the country has gone to hell in a hand basket since then and this week politicians will vote on keeping 18 or going back to 20. Because many of them are idiots they will probably go back to 18.
Meanwhile smoking is perfectly legal after 16.
I don’t agree with putting the drinking age up…18 yr olds want to go and watch bands (they can’t watch bands in pubs unless they are of drinking age), they want to drink. If they are drinking while watching aband they are not hooning around. I have no interest in stopping them.
Some of them want to smoke…the fewer the better as far as I’m concerned.
Some of them want to smoke dope (and will) but OH DEAR IT’S ILLEGAL!
Why the difference? I’m not advocating dope smoking (it never really agreed with me) but if smoking one weed is illegal why not the other? The reason? Tobacco is socially acceptable (or was)! But that is the point it WAS socially acceptable it no longer is. Every smoker in the Western world feels like a pariah now! It is pretty much unacceptable to smoke anywhere. So it is much easier to get rid of.
OK now I have “thought” out my answer to you I realise prohibition makes no sense but as a hard bitten smoker maybe it makes sense to ME. Increased tax take certainly didn’t, I just paid more for my cigs. People moaning about me using tax dollars for my future health didn’t (I paid more tax then them). Scare tactics don’t affect me.
Banning smoking would affect me and many like me. I’m the law abiding type. I can tell you honestly that if smoking became illegal this week I may possibly commit GBH but I would become a non smoker, I would just SUFFER in the quitting.
Yes some would try to cheat the system…the same people who would buy heroin, cocaine and other illegal drugs …not your average smoker though.
We are slaves to the drug not law breakers.