Oh yeah? I don’t care for the reek of death coming off of your meat burrito (as a vegetarian…don’t get me started on having to endure the clouds of smoke from your order of fajitas as I try to enjoy my meal in the NON-SMOKING section) , the perfume you are wearing OR the exhaust coming out of your car as you drive by me on the street (never ceases to amaze me how many times I witness people bitching and putting on some big show of choking/being disgusted or distressed by a passing whiff of tobacco when they are next to a stream of passing cars, buses, trucks spewing fumes which they don’t seem to notice or be offended by :rolleyes:)
Of course, the approach you propose is the trend. Where I live, it is “illegal” to smoke in many outdoor areas, even those well away from areas where people HAVE to be (entrances to buildings, bus stops, communal areas and the points of entry/exit…it is expanding to include entire areas of the exterior space (the entire campus, say…which sets aside like, 2 smoking areas…most ignore the rules and just continue to smoke CONSIDERATELY, well away and downwind from others and most could give a shit about them doing so).
And of course, the push is on to ban smoking in your HOME, your CAR, etc…
Look, if what you and others like you want to illegalize tobacco, go for it. Just stop trying to illegalize SMOKING instead. And by the time you DO manage to do it, we’ll all be smoking POT legally instead.
I have been both a smoker and a nonsmoker (currently a very moderate smoker in the process of quitting). I am extremely considerate in my nasty little habit and do NOT toss my butts on the ground…EVER.
Because, again, it isn’t nearly as noticeable or unpleasant as tobacco is. Even after spending some years living in the country, while the reduced air quality in a city surrounded by cars was noticeable, it never approached the one-whiff-and-my-throat-burns level that tobacco has.
Originally Posted by Susanann View Post
A law like this might work in Canada, England, France, Italy, China, Australia, Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, etc,… but not in the United States.
Not hardly!
Smoking Bans: A History
1575: Mexico:
The first recorded passing of legislation prohibiting the use of Tobacco occurs when the Roman Catholic Church passes a law which prohibits smoking in any place of worship throughout the Spanish Colonies
1617: Mongolia
Mongolian Emperor prohibits the use of tobacco. People breaking the law face the death penalty.
1620: Japan
bans the use of tobacco
1633: Turkey:
Sultan Murad IV bans smoking and as many as 18 people a day are executed for breaking his law.
1634: Russia
Czar Alexis bans smoking. Those found guilty of a first offence risk whipping, a slit nose, and exile to Siberia. Those found guilty of a second offence face execution.
1638: China
The use and supply of tobacco is made a crime punishable by decapitation for those convicted
Smoking Bans and the Third Reich
Hitler was a fervent anti smoker and a crusader for the anti-smoking cause. He personally funded research into the dangers of smoking and little wonder those results given the nature of his regime tended to support his assertions that smoking was an evil the Aryan race must be rid of. Many of the studies carried out during the Third Reich are the basis for the arguments put forward today by those seeking the imposition of repressive smoking bans.
Originally Posted by Susanann
A law like this might work in Canada, England, France, Italy, China, Australia, Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, etc,… but not in the United States.
So? So what?
Besides, if the punishment is made harsh enough, you wont have to arrest even half of the Koreans before they get the message.
Originally Posted by Susanann
A law like this might work in Canada, England, France, Italy, China, Australia, Mexico, Indonesia, Korea, etc,… but not in the United States.
Which is EXACTLY! why a total ban on smoking should begin in Italy, and other countries that have a lot of smokers.
Do the ban where smoking is more prevalent, and not in the United States.
The history of the last 30 years certainly suggests that anti-smoking laws are becoming far more prevalent and restrictive in the U.S. Many municipalities and states have laws that prohibit smoking in certain areas, mostly workplaces and restaurants. When was the last time you saw an ashtray inside a store? Even bars, of all places, are in many locations prohibited from allowing smoking.
Smoking is prohibited in the open air in parks in some California town whose name slips me. Most zoos and stadiums now prohibit smoking, most of those due to local laws.
Your suggestion that the U.S., of all nations, will fight anti-smoking laws to the death is not supported by the evidence. Evidence which clearly demonstrates that the U.S. is and has been leading the world in the current swing of the pendulum.
Do me a favor? Cite the last two sentences here, please. Certainly Hitler was anti-smoking, but he was not personally rich, and most arguments I’ve read for opposing smoking are based on research that has occurred since the 1960s.
I’ll add here, for your information, that I have been a smoker for about 40 years.
Hah! That’s quite funny. But I think it’s sensible to keep the discussion to modern nations, not medieval times! The US didn’t even exist then - and they all rescinded those bans before the modern age!
Because you acted all butthurt when someone mentioned your dead relatives, after it was you who brought them into the discussion in the first place, just to score some cheap points in righteousness.
No one cares that it burns your nose and throat, that’s your problem. It clearly doesn’t affect everyone that way and your point is just nonsensical, as a result.
So I assume the OP would be okay with his next door neighbour (Jewish, Muslim, Hindu) keeping him from BBQing ribs, as the smell is so offensive. Next he’ll want to regulate the cooking of fish or curry in apartment towers, sheesh.
Wanna bet he’s also a republican who spends his time screaming about big government and high taxes? Stupid unenforceable laws, like littering and the 15’ rule are just to appease the whiners, which is why they are only very rarely enforced.
:rolleyes: No, you’re wrong. If I’m inhaling it, it’s causing harm to me. Being in an enclosed environment surely makes it worse, but it’s nonsensical to state that cigarette smoke dissipates immediately and completely outside, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place.
It’s particularly aggravating having to make my way through a phalanx of smokers blocking the entrances and exits of public buildings. Inhaling all that second-hand smoke day after day is surely harming me and everyone else exposed to it.
Trying to minimize a known carcinogen like cigarette smoke by comparing it to body odors or the smell of cooking food is what’s absurd.
Squink sneered at them for “genetic weakness”, he didn’t “mention them”. And I brought them up to explain my feelings.
Of course not, this is a mostly American board and America is a nation largely composed of near-sociopaths. I wouldn’t expect most people to care if I was dying in agony.
If you’re dying in agony by wiffing some second hand smoke outside, then you should stay indoors, pretty clearly.
But expecting the rest of us to change our ways to meet your ever so sensitive needs is ridiculous, even for you.
He did not sneer, this is the internet, nor did he mock, he simply pointed out that your dead relatives have nothing to do with this argument. And no you didn’t, you brought them up to score righteousness points, and it’s incredibly disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Don’t be silly, I meant (obviously) that most people wouldn’t care if I was dying in agony regardless of the reason.
No, it’s honest of me to do so. But it is disingenuous of you to pretend that showing disdain for the death of people because of their alleged “genetic weakness” is anything other than sneering and mockery. On or off the internet.
Perhaps we read this differently. I interpreted the OP as a call to ban smoking on the street nation-wide. We often forget how different things are between large cities, small cities, suburbs, and rural areas. I’ve seen debates on this board where people seemed ready to lynch jaywalkers. Makes sense on a busy main street in a major city. Doesn’t make sense in a quiet neighborhood where the nearest moving car is often several blocks away.
Since we’re in GD, would you care to cite that smell has been around longer than touch?
I named you because your arguments seemed more focused on health issues than foul odors.
It is most certainly subjective. I’ll happily sit in the middle of a group of people smoking pipes, but one diesel engine running 10 feet away makes my eyes burn. I quite dislike cigarette smoke in enclosed areas, but strong perfume is much worse.
Searching, but I’m not sure where to look. “Sense of smell oldest sense” gets me lots of articles and posts at places like answers.com mentioning that smell is the “oldest sense” and that it connects to the oldest parts of the brain, but no actual science articles. It seems to be well known enough that no one bothers to cite it.
The problem with the whole smokers vs. non-smokers issue is there are still too many smokers. Pretty much everyone agrees on eliminating known, commonly reviled health hazards, driving, farting, etc. Once enough of the smokers are dead and not replaced by similary breathing-challenged offspring, the issue will become a moot point after public smoking is completely banned and tobacco products strictly controlled and taxed to the point of unobtanium.
May never happen, but something to work towards, anyway methinks.
