Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfarer
Either that or you people could stop crying about inhaling a little bit of smoke at a concert. It's a fu ckin' concert for Christ sake. One night. You're not going to get some horrible disease and die because of a guy smoking a couple of cigarettes next to you during a live show.
And I must agree with Voice, there's no reason it shouldn't be up to the owners. It's private property. No different from saying whether or not someone is allowed to smoke in your house.
And as far as smoking outside being banned goes, that's just absolutely fucking ridiculous. How someone could actually believe that a person smoking a cigarette across the street from them could even potentially cause them harm is beyond me. Hell, I can't even understand how someone could think that me standing, say, six feet away from them at a park and smoking a cigarette could cause them harm. Yeah, there's no doubt in anyone's mind that cigarettes aren't good for you, but the dangers are certainly exaggerated. The same can be said about second-hand smoke.
The risks of smoking are greatly exaggerated
Also, there's a point I'd like to bring up from the smoking argument in the Worst Trends thread: some people smoke for years and live to be ninety, while some others don't smoke a day in their lives and end up with cancer at thirty. It would seem that, simply, some people's bodies can weather all of those carcinogens and UV rays and the like, and some people's bodies can't. The thing is, at this point, there is no way of knowing who can withstand those risk factors, and who can't. To me, this renders virtually anything health-related nugatory, at least when we're talking about cigarettes. If you smoke, you might get cancer, if you don't smoke, you might get cancer. It's the equivalent of saying there's a 50% chance of rain, to me. So what it all comes down to is, what? Discomfort? Some people just don't like the smell, or the smoke makes them cough. Alright, fine, that's understandable - but surely mild discomfort in some is not nearly reason enough for the government to begin infringing upon people's civil liberties? Oh, apparently it is. |
I guess this as close as there is to an argument...but I could care less about a ban, or no. It's the hypocrisy of it all that pisses me off.
1.) It's the smell and not the health issue:
I wish they could make a cigarette that instead of smoking, it atomized (or some such sh1t) vitamin C (or some such healthy sh1t) as the second hand smoke it produced. Something that was super healthy for everybody, but the smoke from these new cigarettes smelled like sad dead fish.
2.) It's the money and not the health issue:
If there was a sincere effort to inconvenience smokers to quit (by taxes, or ban) there would be legislation to create a progressive age requirement to buying cigarettes (next year you'd have to be 19, the next year 20, so no one could start).
There's more, but that's enough.