The Smoking ban (country, hardcore, house, metal, Europe) - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-22-2007, 12:29 PM   #1 (permalink)
Registered Abuser
 
Wayfarer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 573
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword View Post
You don't need the smoke. You just don't go if you feel you do need it.
Either that or you people could stop crying about inhaling a little bit of smoke at a concert. It's a fuckin' 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 fu
cking 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.

Last edited by Wayfarer; 11-22-2007 at 01:04 PM.
Wayfarer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2007, 02:45 PM   #2 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 92
Default

I smoke. I'm glad they banned smoking in clubs and music venues because I love the smell of body odour, vomit, and urine. Seriously, banning smoking in pubs was a bad idea - smoking and drinking go together. I laugh at all the non-smokers who laugh at us all smoking outside pubs in the rain because I know one day when their "little Suzie" has cancer the doctors won't be able to help her because the tax from cigarettes which funded ALL cancer research ended because most people quit due to the smoking ban. I know that sounds harsh but most non-smokers seem to forget that most of the money given to cancer research comes from us smokers (in the U.K. anyway).
I do agree with the ban of smoking in all eating places. As much as I love to smoke, I don't want to smell that **** whilst I'm eating.

It will take a lot more than a smoking ban to make me quit smoking. My dad was diagnosed with lung cancer 3 weeks ago and I still have not quit.
I'm not stupid - I know smoking is bad for you. It makes my breathe and clothes stink. I'm addicted so I can't stop. I have very little or no willpower.
weleasewoger72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2007, 08:19 PM   #3 (permalink)
Existential Egoist
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfarer View Post
Either that or you people could stop crying about inhaling a little bit of smoke at a concert. It's a fu[color=black]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.
Unfortunately for some of us we aren't able to do that because of health conditions. I am not against smoking, or any type of drug. I just feel that they aren't needed. I mean a lot of positive things have happened because of drugs, but I believe that with enough control over my mind I will be able to put myself in the state that people reach through doing drugs. In fact I have heard people who do drugs describe how their brain was changed after they did them, and I find similarities between them and what happened to me after I started doing things to open my mind such as meditation, and a lot of self-reflection.

You could argue for me not to go to the concert, and I wouldn't really know how I would answer that.

And a quote from Bill Hicks for no reason:

"Non-smokers die, everyday."
Inuzuka Skysword is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 12:41 AM   #4 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
ItsRed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 48
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfarer View Post
Either that or you people could stop crying about inhaling a little bit of smoke at a concert. It's a fuckin' 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 fu
cking 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.
__________________
Dark Circle : They're here. Rocking your black night world since 2007.
http://www.unsignedbandweb.com/music/bands/7789/
ItsRed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 07:11 AM   #5 (permalink)
Pow!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,673
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsRed View Post
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.
It Just went up to 18 by me....although i know a lot of people aren't happy and i don't know anyone under the age who it's actually stopped.

It should have given a 2 year warning, people who were addicted legally at 16 have been forced to quit and to me that seems unreasonable.
littleknowitall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 08:57 AM   #6 (permalink)
Groupie
 
fool on the hill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Memphis, Tenn and occasionally Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 44
Thumbs up I like the ban

Personally, I'm happy with the ban. I don't give a damn about whether smoking is unhealthy or not, or how much second-hand smoke may or may not affect a non-smoker's health-- I know only one thing (being a non-smoker): Its VERY unpleasant, like needles going into my eyes.

Maybe because I don't smoke my olfactory glands work better, but I can smell the smoke on people's clothes and it doesn't just stink-- it has a physical effect on my eyes and nasal passages. When I visit my parents, who smoke, that smell is in my clothes & my eyes burn long after I have gone.

Stink I can deal with, but not the physical pain from being around people who could care less and light up anyway. For that reason alone, I welcome the ban. Smokers should keep that unpleasantness to themselves.

~ josh
__________________

Grabbed my suitcase that said to me,
"Dreams are free and so are we."

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
fool on the hill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 03:10 PM   #7 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
ItsRed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 48
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fool on the hill View Post
Personally, I'm happy with the ban. I don't give a damn about whether smoking is unhealthy or not, or how much second-hand smoke may or may not affect a non-smoker's health-- I know only one thing (being a non-smoker): Its VERY unpleasant, like needles going into my eyes.

Maybe because I don't smoke my olfactory glands work better, but I can smell the smoke on people's clothes and it doesn't just stink-- it has a physical effect on my eyes and nasal passages. When I visit my parents, who smoke, that smell is in my clothes & my eyes burn long after I have gone.

Stink I can deal with, but not the physical pain from being around people who could care less and light up anyway. For that reason alone, I welcome the ban. Smokers should keep that unpleasantness to themselves.

~ josh
Amen brother! And perfume wearers and pet owners and halitosis suffers and all of those raised as free farters and all those who annoyingly talk about celebrity gossip (they make me physically ill). Everybody should just stay in their hole.

I'm joking, I actually commend you for at least being honest about it, although I don't think you understand the full breadth, the full implications of you're position (it's honest, but myopic).
__________________
Dark Circle : They're here. Rocking your black night world since 2007.
http://www.unsignedbandweb.com/music/bands/7789/
ItsRed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 03:01 PM   #8 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
ItsRed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 48
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by littleknowitall View Post
It Just went up to 18 by me....although i know a lot of people aren't happy and i don't know anyone under the age who it's actually stopped.

It should have given a 2 year warning, people who were addicted legally at 16 have been forced to quit and to me that seems unreasonable.
Yeah, you're right, but is it going to continue to go up to 20 and so on.

My stupid little point is that there are several industries that profit from cigarette smokers as well as the government and that's why it will only be bastardized (by bans and crud) rather than outlawed.

So, either it's legal, or it's not. The rest kind of comes down to consideration on the part of the individual.
__________________
Dark Circle : They're here. Rocking your black night world since 2007.
http://www.unsignedbandweb.com/music/bands/7789/
ItsRed is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads



© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.