Cigarette ヽ(#`Д´)凸
 

CTV.ca | N.S. town moves to ban smoking in downtown district

Although I am part of the smoke Ghestappo, I have to wonder if cigarette banning hasn't gone too far. I rejoiced when cigarettes were banned from bars and restaurants; according to popular bars and restaurants in Quebec City, there are even more people!

Now, not only are cigarettes hidden behind opaque panels (over which some are advertizing beer), but now we are told that THIRD-hand smoke (that sticks to clothes) is toxic

Cigarette a legal product sold (usually) to consenting adults for consciously know it's killing them.

How is ban on cigarette where you live? Is it enough? too much?

Here in Ontario [I'm not sure if the law is federal, or provincial, or even regional], smoking in public places outside is allowed, so long as you're 30 feet/10meters away from building entrances. There's usually designated smoking areas; but as long as you're far enough away from the doors, you're okay.

Inside public buildings [that is to say--a building that isn't somebody's home, or say, an apartment building's hallway] is not allowed. This includes things like taxis or work vehicles [like snowplows and such].

I noticed they started putting the opaque panels over the cigarettes in stores about a year ago, but I never understood why. People still know there's smokes behind them--except now, behind the counter you see ugly white steel panels instead of the colourful array of cigarette packaging.

To protect children's innoncent eyes :p


CTV.ca | Rights group blasts 'non-smoker' stipulation for job

And I thought language discrimination in Quebec was the worst thing...

Would you keep an employee away if he smoked?

Well, I can't argue the legality of it but it seems kind of predictable that an anti-smoking group wouldn't want to hire smokers. I mean, you wouldn't expect the AA to hire a bartender.

My problem with the nonsmoking laws around here is more the fact that theres no stipulations for some kind of smoke-friendly bars. All of the places I use to haunt suffered greatly when people decided to stay home after the smoking laws were put into affect.

I heard they also recently made a law in Ontario that bans smoking in a vehicle if anyone under 16 is present. Very good law imo.

I'm all for anti-smoking laws. Of every kind. I'm the guy who would ban all sale of cigarette everywhere, and ban smoking... everywhere.

I'd avoid my own brother if he smoked. If you smoke, you reek. If you reek, you're unpleasant to be around. That's without even getting into any possible health considerations of second or third hand smoke, and the detrimental effect on the mood and image of a place that's staffed by employees that are always outside being an eyesore with their cigs.

How's the war against Eurasia coming along, Big Brother?

I assume you smoke - your post stinks.

Oh that's cute, you read the newspaper like a grownup. Health concerns based on the smell of someone's clothing. In a world powered by petroleum, I call shennanigans.

Actually, you know what, I take that back. It must be frustrating when you go in the bathroom at school and it's full of smoke. It's been so long since I've been in high school that I nearly forgot how frustrating it is when you only have five minutes to take a leak and you have to deal with that shit.

Well, although all smokers stink, not all people who stink... smoke.

Really, there is no legitimate reason for allowing smoking, at least not while so many less harmful things are banned. There is a definite double-standard here. A society that bans things like weed but allows tobacco?

The only reason that smoking is still around is because it's embedded in the country economically, and because so many people are hooked on killing themselves and those around them that to try to ban it is more or less out of the question. I for one think that forcing everyone to go cold turkey, and ruining a few small convenience store businesses, would be a worthwhile price to pay. It'd be over soon.

Of course, that's not feasible and probably never will be, so I content myself with being very happy with the laws banning it in public places.

EDIT:

I only brought up the third-hand smoke because a poster before me did. It never even occurred to me to worry about it before that, and I haven't done enough research on the subject to judge whether it's a legitimate concern or not.

Oh, my bad. I don't tend to read Janus' posts.

t Janus: you can bitch about third hand smoke when we're running purely off of solar panels, windmills and the power of Jesus' love. Be more concerned about relaxed environmental regulation that results in salmonella in your God-damned peanut butter.

Are you even faintly serious?

Yes, nobody outside the United States has ever touched a cigarette in their lives.

Yes, banning an addictive drug would, in fact, actually force people to stop taking it. That always works. A black market definitely wouldn't spring up.

Yes, you can resolve a double standard by curtailing liberty even further.

Come on, man. Think. The whole notion that something should be banned because you can hurt yourself by doing it is absurdist. How the hell do you think the automobile industry stays in business?

To be fair, I don't particularly like cigarettes or weed. But if I had my choice between somebody that just smelled like tobacco, or somebody that smelled like weed and ACTED LIKE A COMPLETE FUCKING RETARD WHILE DOING SO.

I'd have to take the cigs on this one buddy.

Not to derail, but the argument above is completely and utterly stupid that you provide Shadow. Any dumbfuck pot smoker (I'm looking at you) who says that weed is 'less harmful' could be right in the sense that it does not do much harm to oneself, but I'm pretty sure weed has been responsible for as many injuries or fatalities as oh, let's say drunk driving.

And, if knowing you are a piss ant pot head like I think you are, you undoubtedly also drink. So therefore, if you want smoking banned because it makes your nose go 'ew' you can rightly take your fist and shove it up your ass buddy. You're a god damn hypocrite.

My favourite pub went out of business simply because of this. My friends and I have always stipulated since the 07 ban on smoking in enclosed public places that they should segregate non-smoking and smoking pubs. Far too many places have suffered from the ban for my liking.

I heard about a pub in Eire where they allow smoking inside but only if you pay £1 (or the euro equivalent) to cover the cost of the fine.

My town(s) (B/CS, TX) just recently passed a smoking ban that kicks in Feb 1st I believe. No smoking in bars, restaurants, etc. What I find really silly is that this should be left up to the owners of the god damned establishments.

I'm not a smoker, but I really don't like how folk are curb-stomping smokers so crazily. Then again, I'm biased; I actually LIKE the smell of cigarette smoke :psyduck:

My country did ban smoking ads, and I'm hearing that them politicians are trying to put an anti-smoking law. There are anti-smoking areas, usually public places, but for the most part people are pretty much smoking here and there. I guess being a 3rd world country, laws such as this don't apply, especially in rural areas and places outside the city.

Well, for one thing, it's not a single universal smell. It comes down to the quality and the brand and all that. If the smokers you know are all rockin' cheapshit Kools they got down at the bodega then yeah, that's not so pleasant. "Smokers" don't smell bad, stupid people pinching their pennies smell bad. And they do that without any help from their cigarettes, because they've been wearing the same suit 6 days in a row to save on dry-cleaning.

It's just like beer, really; people who don't know much about it will say oh, I don't drink beer, it tastes awful. Yeah, because you're drinking awful beer!

It's not a matter of which one I'd rather be around, it's a matter of which one makes more sense to illegalize. Sad as it is, people acting like dumbfucks can't be regulated. Weed does tend to attract that sort. But unlike tobacco, weed doesn't directly impact the user's health.

And no, I don't touch weed with a ten foot pole. It may not have any long-term health risks (although I'm not entirely sold on that point either), but everyone I've ever been around who smokes it is a fucking retard. Regardless if that has anything to do with the weed or not, I'd rather not be associated with that crowd.

As for the drinking, I don't drink much or often. I brought up weed to contrast tobacco with an example of something that IS prosecuted and illegalized in the US for far less reason. Try to contain your need to run off with baseless assumptions and judgments in the future.

One of the new regulations that we have at the daycare center that I work at is that when ever anyone goes out for a cigarette, they need to either change their shirt or wear a smock. When this was brought up at our big meeting in September, it stirred things up quite a bit among the smokers present as it just sounded like a nuisance. Luckily it doesn't really affect the center that I work at since none of us smoke (we have five centers in our area).

Oink oink there you capitalist pig. Geeze, why should buisness owners have any say in the way they run their establisments? It's up to the state to come in and save us from ourselves...and corporations, and greed, and oil, and we need to find another bandwagon to jump on and, and, and...Somone should make some "organic" cigarettes that smelled like burt's bees and sell them at wild oats so we wouldn't have an issue. ;)


I have plenty of friends that smoke who I wish would quit, but ultimately, it's a vice/pleasure that they choose. Business owners used to be able to choose if they allowed smoking at their place of business, but now they can't. The decision has been made for them for the sake of the "greater good." The result: a bunch of anxiety ridden folks who need a smoke who will live forver who can't even set the rules at their own bar.

-10 freedom points

Did they really have a choice, though? Commercially speaking, banning smoking in your bar when all the other bars in town allowed it would have been disastrous. Nobody ever did that around here before the universal ban was passed. There's no real freedom of choice when one of the two options means one-way trip to bankrupcy, is there?

I can't believe there's no market for at least a single smoke-free bar in town. You say nobody ever did that, but did anyone actually go out of business while attempting to do it? I dunno. Most people don't smoke, so why would they choose to boycott a bar where they don't have to breathe in other people's fumes?

Bars never went non-smoking because nobody cares. Surprise surprise, people who frequent bars don't consider their health a priority.

I just heard about this for the first time the other day. I think it actually was JUST started within the past few weeks or so.

Soon they're going to be placing laws that say you can't even smoke in your own home.

Yeah, I agree. My best pal in college loved Menthols (which smelled fine to me), but on occasion, he smelled like fucking ASS. Absolutely horrid. My old man smokes regularly as well (Marlboro Light 100s, used to be Camel), and I've never found any sort of smell around him to make me want to gag. I dealt with my buddy's handicap by not getting within five feet of him on the bad days :V

It is a scandal that I cannot smoke my cigars in the casino anymore. That's like taking a shower without water.

The best is when unemployed people tell me that smoking cigars is bad for my health. Yeah, you fucking idiots, guess what, I finance your slovenly life with my tobacco taxes.

I not necessarily for banning cigarettes entirely, but I do think they need to be controlled more. Where people smoke is the big issue - I personally can't stand the smell of cigarettes and have a hard time breathing without coughing like crazy anytime I inhale any secondhand smoke. I usually have to hold my breath walking into a mall if there are smokers around to avoid coughing and hacking. I know that it's your choice to smoke, just be respectful toward those of us who don't handle it so well.

ITT: No one disputes the assertion that all people who smoke weed are stupid. Despite the fact that over 40% of people have smoked weed by the time they graduate high school.

Not everyone who smokes weed wanders around in tie-dye muttering about the true nature of the universe, man.

But please, back to your explanations about how cigarettes should be illegal because they smell bad, smart guy. Sure is good you don't smoke weed, else you'd be a catatonic retard, presumably. Given your unhindered level of intelligence being in the fucking toilet as is.

uhh...

Denicalis, your unrelenting vitriol is difficult to take seriously. I sometimes wonder if you're actually a really nice guy somewhere who comes to GFF solely to experience his perception of life as an ass. Then I remember who I'm thinking about.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is, so I'll contest the one part of your post that seems to be relevant: You appear to be operating under the impression that I think smoking should be banned because it smells bad.

Yes, smoking and smokers tend to smell bad (although someone brought up a good point when they mentioned that that will depend in part on the brand of cigarette), and second-hand smoke should never be something that we have to suffer through in public areas. But I'm mainly against it because of the horrible health repercussions, both on the user and on anyone who is around them often. Like children of parents who smoke, for instance. I'm against smoking in all forms because it is a terrible addiction that causes early death and long-term health issues.

If it was something that only affected the people smoking, I wouldn't care. If they don't value their own health, then why should I value it, after all? But the second-hand smoke effects everyone around them. The money they spend on cigs is money that won't be spent on improving their lives or the lives of their family and children. Sure, some of it will go towards the government and maybe, maybe make it back to the family in some shape or form, but that's hardly a comfort to those whose minimum-wage parents are throwing away their limited funds on the cigs. And then there is the simple fact that even people who don't value their own health are generally loved and valued by someone else, usually family.

My children will likely not know their grand parents well, because they'll die an early death because of their addiction. And if they don't, well... I won't let them spend much time with them anyways, because I can't allow them to look up to a smoker as a role model or authority if I can at all help it. And that is a damn shame.

My god, you're a joke.

You want to ban something because its not good for them? You want to take away personal choice for someone's own good? Well we're at it, let's ban any form of literature that might insight someone to actions against the good of the majority. I mean, sure it might be bad for them to read it, but other people might overhear someone talking about it, thus harming other people as well!

Your Crash impression is adorable, by the way. Paragraphs on paragraphs saying nothing. Unfortunately for you, most of us can read and are able to understand what you're actually saying: If anything could possibly maybe hurt the people around us, we shouldn't do it. (You should do your homework, by the way, the research on second hand smoke damage is largely based on one study, which has been shown to overstate the facts by a very large margin. Reading, it's always better than rhetoric.)

So I guess no one should ever get behind the wheel of a car, because there's a chance that someone might get hurt when they do. No one should dress in a way that makes other people uneasy. Everyone should do only what makes everyone around them comfortable at all times, and we can all live in a nice bubble and be miserably uninteresting. Just like you.

You may think I'm harsh, but I think you're a bloody idiot. And I'll take a smoker over a halfwit any day.

Your children will never know their grandparents because your children don't exist and never will because chicks don't dig whiny assholes that like to tell other people what to do.

Are you going to address the automotive exhaust parallel anytime in the next week, you dodgy cunt?

The one thing that gave bar bans credence was that the concentration of second hand smoke in a closed environment presented health problems for workers.

Banning consumer goods because it's bad for you isn't going to get you anywhere. Anti-smoking activists would be much better served to regulate the smoking industry in order to create products that are less harmful and not as addictive.

What I don't understand is how they can go about banning cigarettes from bars and what not because of the 'implications' of health hazards they produce, and yet at the same time they allow McDonald's to serve the nastiest, most disgusting food that, which based on the eating habits of morbidly obese people, turn out to be just as hazardous to other people's health that smoking supposedly risks.

What I'm trying to say is, why should smoking be banned in bars and yet everyday I see VERY fat people steal motorized carts away from the elderly due to unhealthy eating habits.

It makes more sense when you frame it in the context of labor rights. People who work at McDonald's aren't forced to eat the food, but if you work in a bar you are pretty much forced to inhale all that second hand smoke.

So what you're saying is they should ban fat people?

We already tossed Elixir.

You and I are next on the chopping block. La Terreur de Graisse.

And while I was working at Wal-mart I was at constant risk of huge TV's falling on my head because some jackass thought it'd be cute to put the HEAVIEST electronic equipment up on the highest shelf.

People who work in bars are forced to inhale cigarette smoke, people who work at McDonalds, somewhere along the lines, will get burned from the fry machine or suffer some other type of hazard.

No work place is 100% safe. Even if you work at a bubble wrap factory.

Don't be a dumbass.

Maybe this is a little flip but the solution might be "don't work in a bar" as opposed to "use the force of law to convert all bars into something that suits you better".

Of course solution A comes into play anyway when the original clientele abandons the bar, ha ha

Automated looms have a danger of catching your fingers? Don't work in a textile factory.

But you can improve the safety of the loom without directly impacting the quality of the end product. So, you know, nice analogy there.

ITT: telephone linemen complain about dangerous heights, have all telephone poles reduced to 3' high maximum

Solution: Ban all textiles.

Yeah, it is a nice analogy, because what the loom produces is immaterial to the safety of the worker. Just like what a bar produces (nothing) is immaterial to the safety of the worker.

The primary function of a bar is to serve drinks, not cigarettes. If you were demanding smoking bans in a smoke house you might have a point.

Except that multiple examples of bars suffering massive loss of business due to smoking bans have been posted in this very thread, which would tend to indicate that allowing smoking is in fact a significant part of a bar's business model. Running a successful business is somewhat more complex than just putting your goods in a basket and holding out your palm for the money. A place that merely "serves liquor" isn't necessarily a bar. Sometimes it's just a liquor store. Nobody is saying people should be allowed to smoke in a liquor store, because that would be silly. Hell, I wouldn't even smoke in a smokes shop. There are distinctions here.

It's like saying that the function of a grocery store is to sell food, not to provide carts or cashiering services. This is true! A grocery store with no carts or customer service is still a grocery store. It's just not a very successful one, generally.

What a bar produces is entertainment, you nudnik

Instead of banning smoking, the government should impose an additional tax on bars where smoking is allowed and use those funds to develop health cigs. Problem solved.

Ok, how about this.

Nobody should be forced to earn a living by exposing themselves to an external hazard. I.e. the smoke that customers bring in to a bar.

They aren't being forced, bartenders just choose to walk on the wild side... In the Old West it was even worse, drunk cowboys could smash up your bar or have a shootout with bandits and you couldn't do shit. Don't get into this business if you can't handle the heat.

I concur. We definitely should not round people up and force them to work in dangerous places. I will shut down my forced-labor smoke inhalation camps immediately.

"That's just the way it is" is no justification for poor working conditions.

No we're not.

If it's fat guys by mass, it has to be Mo0. He's like a fishing trawler with legs.

If it's fat guys we hate, it has to be Dope. Because really. No one likes him.

No, but "that's the way it has to be if we want the business to flourish" is.

It's pretty fuckin' hot in a steel mill. You run a significant risk of heat prostration on a daily basis. You could theoretically run a steel mill at a cool, refreshing 70 degrees F, but I don't expect a lot of steel would get produced that way.

I'm not sure why this line has to be drawn in the sand. Certain professions have certain expectations of risk. It's like saying that we need to ban sick people from hospitals to make sure none of the poor poor doctors catch anything from them.

Getting sick isn't a voluntary activity, it's not like smoking that you can easily avoid by just not doing it... Analogies suck anyway, they get more and more inane as they escalate. Just say no to analogies.

I'm just saying it's wildly absurd to put a constraint on the common liberty for the sake of the health of a handful of individuals.

Liberty, Security, deserve neither, lose both, etc, etc :(

Hitler was a fan of analogies he used them for his propaganda just like Brady

Now that Godwin's Law is out of the way can everybody please go back to laughing at people who hate smokers? The thread was funnier then.

You said something similar like this before, and I don't feel it was adequately covered, so I'll take the honors;

Die in a fire.

Your parents smoke so they're effectively dead to your children? Have you no respect for the people who worked long hours to put a roof over your head and food in your stomach? No appreciation for two independent people who sacrificed their independence in order to raise you right?

Did your parents rape you?
did they abandon you, either literally or figuratively through neglect?
Did they teach you poor eating habits, turning you into a giant hambeast in your teenage years?
Did they indoctrinate you into a cult, a legitimate real-life cult, something tragic like the Branch Davidians or something more mild like Scientology?
Were they addicted to hard drugs like heroin or cocaine? Were you born addicted to crack?

Have some goddamn respect you self-absorbed kid.

Additional Spam:
And love your brother too, even though he committed the grievous sin of smoking and becoming addicted to it. There are very few relationships you will have in your life that will have the depth and resilience as the one you have with your siblings, and giving that up over something as trite as his smoking habit is a damn shame indeed.

But they reek, lurker! Stale smoke is soooo twentieth century.

As much as I hate to admit, it, give the browbeating methods you guys use to convince people around here, banning them outright like I was saying is probably a bit... extreme. It's not feasible, it's not fair to the addicts, and it's a bit too big brother. You guys are right. On that issue, at least. I'll address a couple things before I bow out:

Lurker: I wasn't referring to my own parents; it was my fiance's. Not that that makes much of a difference, I'm sure, since the same arguments could just be leveled at her. Despite this, a parent's #1 concern is generally going to be their children's well-being. Exposing them frequently to an authority figure or role model that smokes is contrary to the parent's need to raise their kids to not smoke. And said kids' future is more important than the feelings of the grandparents. Grandparents who, at least in the case of my fiance's parents, will understand and respect the reasoning behind it, even if it pains them.

Moving on, my brother does not smoke. If he did, I would not break off the relationship, for the reasons you so elegantly pointed out. I would likely not spend as much time with him though, and the same reasoning that applied to the kids and grandparents would apply to him.


I'm not familiar with the automotive exhaust dangers. I have no opinion, and won't until I know enough to justify opening my mouth on the subject. You understand, I'm sure.

Yeah. Imagine that.

I'm from a state that has banned smoking (chewing tobacco, as far as I know, are not banned from indoors) in most all public / corporate business areas for a good decade or so now. I've been around the world enough where anti-smoking laws aren't put to place as strongly, and contrasting those smoker-friendly areas to where I live, I can honestly say that I'm glad we do have the anti-smoking laws we have here. I appreciate it. I'm glad that it's been a while enough that smokers have now learned to deal with going outside to smoke without too much complaint and that non-smokers can enjoy fresh air when they're eating / working.

I don't think it's necessary to put a ban on cigarettes. Those who buy and consume them know what they're getting themselves into and it's a choice. While the habit, much like drinking can be policed, it's very difficult to ban the product itself. It's better to raise the taxes / general price of tobacco products to discourage usage, but as long as the person purchasing the product is A) of legal age to do so, and B) is doing it in a space that is considered courteous to others (i.e., designated smoking areas in wide open spaces or in their private quarters or generally away from other non-smokers), I personally don't have a problem with people buying the products themselves.

My friends, yes, I threaten them that I will kick their balls for smoking in front of me, but that's because they are my friends and they should know it's because I genuinely care. Generally if I don't see them smoking, I leave them be. People on the internet I meet whom I consider friends, I also don't care. I do care about them trying to be healthier and will support them, but I know that smokers need to realize for themselves in order to quit and no amount of outsiders yapping and nagging is going to make them stop, so I'm not going to bother being a nuisance. I care about them, I do wish that they'd consider quitting, but unless they're going to wake up each morning determined to quit, I will leave them be until they decide to quit.

I just find it's usually not my business to try to control the way another person chooses to live their life. Given that it's their's, you know, and, well, not mine. If something they choose to do has no effect on me, who am I to berate them to do otherwise?

But I dunno. That's just me.

The fact that it's been proven that second hand smoke directly contributes to the deterioration of non-smokers health kinda renders your post moot. When someone near me is smoking to me, it's having a negative effect on my health. If you'd like to argue that second hand smoke doesn't actually cause non-smokers in the vicinity to experience shortness of breath, headaches, coughing/sneezing, or any other unwlecome side effects, please feel free to do so.

I mean, you're going to come off sounding like a complete jackass, but please, feel free. When you smoke within any proximity of another person, you're having an effect on their health. If you're trying to speak about the subject in some larger context? Fuck me, all apologies.

(For the record, Delaware outlawed smoking in all public businesses a few years back. For the record, I did not agree with it then, nor do I agree with it now. That asie, arguing that second hand smoke doesn't effect non-smokers is just damn silly.)

I don't know what kind of people you hang around with, but anytime I want to light up around a group of friends, I always ask if they mind. If it's a very public place and I'm alone, I go off to the side with the rest of the smokers.

My smoking has no effect on my friends, and I do my best to make sure it has no effect on the rest of the people around me. Not quite sure where I explicitly spelled out I was arguing the position of second-hand smoke being harmless, but you do seem awful convinced so I'll cede the argument. And besides, it's cute when you get all blabbery and repetitive.

I hate being told to stop doing something for my own health. To be honest, I'd rather have a load of fun until I'm 50 and drop dead than have a really fucking boring life and live to 90, given that from 65 onwards I'll probably have bad bones and dementia and shit anyway. Until medical science has advanced to the point where being old isn't incredibly shit, I'll stick to the fags, booze and drugs cheers.

It always makes me laugh when non-smokers claim that smoke free bars mean they go out more. There were a few no smoking bars in Brighton long before the retarded ban kicked in and none ever lasted more than six months. By banning smoking in bars the government has cut their income from tobacco taxes, cut income from booze taxes and increased the unemployment benefits pay-outs when all the barmen and landlords lose their income. The resulting cost far outwieghs any benefit to the cost of the health service.

There were moves to ban cigarette advertising in the Czech Republic a few years back which was swiftly ended when the tobacco companies pointed out that revenue from tobacco taxes were five times the cost of smoking related illness to the heath service.

So wait. Smoking is BAD?

I didn't hear this from anyone, ever.

Yeah, both you and your fiancee are douchebags.

Consider: if you cut family out of your life because they smoke*, you are teaching your children that it's okay to cut family out of their lives over tiny slights. Better not plan on depending on them for anything, ever.

* and only visiting them when you absolutely have to is essentially cutting them out of your life, Mr. Pedant For Rules

After reading the last few posts in this thread, I went back to see if this was actually what you meant. It's unbelievable that it is.

Cutting someone out of your kids' lives is serious, especially when it's the grandparents. You need to lighten the hell up sir, and learn to compromise. You could very easily just tell her parents that you don't want the kids breathing second hand smoke from them, and to please not smoke near the kids. I'm sure these people are reasonable enough to take it to a different room, or outside so they can keep seeing their grandchildren.

What you fail to see here is that you're being overly strict, and not blinking an eye about cutting out close family over something that is not that serious. If you try to be this controlling in general as a parent it will blow up in your face. When kids are young, they have little choice as to what you do to control their environment, but do you think for a minute that when one of those kids hits about 14 or 15 years old (if it even takes that long) he/she won't tell you to fuck right off and tell you what a jerk you are for keeping them from grandma and grandpa just because they're smokers?

It's also a fantastic way to start a marriage. Alienating one set of parents right off the bat, letting them know they'll likely never see their future grandchildren because of something like this. I'd like to point out also that you're concerned about how a kid would turn out when they have smokers for role models, but you see nothing lacking in your fiancee, who was raised by smokers. I have no idea how old you are, nor do I care, but you are far too immature for marriage.

f'real

Smokers are fucking awful people, don't you know that guys? They're the WORST THING you can expose your child to!

This kid is a young internet tough guy who doesn't know jack shit about anything in the real world if he's this worried about smokers.

I think, Lord of Whatever, that you should possibly take your female friend and go hide out in a cabin in the woods, far far away from everyone. If you take issue with family over such a miniscule thing, you're going to have a HELL OF A TIME raising children. I really hope you reconsider bringing a child into this world, because frankly, you're unfit.

Honestly, you should be more worried about the non-smokers who think that second-hand smoke is THE BOMB than smokers.



I AM A HORRIBLE FUCKING ROLE MODEL, CUNTERS.

Aside from my grandmother - who died last year as a result of chaining unfiltered cigarettes for nigh on half a century - my family is entirely non-smoking. Without counting school lectures on the dangers involved, I had no exposure to the habit as a kid. I can't remember ever not being aware of the health risks. I've seen a string of new laws creep in over the past few years - laws that irritated me even before I started smoking. The ban on advertising, the ban on indoor smoking, the legal age for buying tobacco products being raised to 18 and now the impending (and frighteningly stupid) ban on displaying cigarettes in shops.

Despite all this, both my brother and I smoke. Why? Blame the public school thing. It's a pleasurable activity. We both acknowledge the health effects. We don't smoke in the presence of people who find it offensive. I can't see any rational justification for lowering your opinion of someone as a whole on the basis of their being a smoker. Judge people on their own merits, not on some stupid fucking niggling thing you disagree with.

Simply put: don't be a prick. It's not cool.

I'm not sure what's worse - the government telling me what's bad for me, or self-righteous fucks getting antsy about something that needn't affect them at all.

YouTube Video

He says it better than I ever could.


In all seriousness tough, like most of the smokers in this thread, I'll very rarely light up before asking those around me if they mind or not, and whenever I'm in a public place I respect that 10 meters distance law they have over here. I try to be as much out of the way of people walking on the street as possible.

But when somebody goes out of their way to come up to me and tell about how I shouldn't smoke cause it's bad for me and think of the money and etc. In all honesty that is about as annoying a person can get in my book. If I somehow would not be conscious of all these things, I'd already be a lost cause anyway so I don't see how their preaching is gonna change anything. I've had this happen a number of times while I was outside my apartment having a smoke and I honestly cannot understand what possesses a person to do this.

I think I'd rather have someone ring my doorbell at seven in the morning to tell me how good their book is than have to go through that again. At least them religious types make for good entertainment.

I'd have thought it was obvious that I was under the influence and misinterperted your post, sure seems that way to me. Kudos to you for taking steps to ensure your smoking has no adverse effect on your friends.

Awfully silly to assume every smoker takes those same steps though.

I think you can make a mildly educated guess based on people committing suicide by leaving the car on in a closed garage or the constant weeping about greenhouse gases. I daresay that car exhaust will have a greater impact on your hypothetical children's lives than the smoking habits of your future parents-in-law.

Or are your parenting skills so pathetic that you can't bother to explain why smoking is bad, despite their grandparents doing it?

I myself smoke, but I'm (strangely) still for banning smoke from at least most public areas. I don't want to bother others with it I mean. And why are cigarettes still legal to sell and use anyway...
god, I wanna quit =p

I'm with lord-of-shadow, I think we should ban everything.

Then fucking do it. There are so many avenues for people who actually WANT to quit out there that whining about it just makes you seem like a douche.


Also, they're legal because the tobacco industry is so far up the government's ass that it's fucking Howdy Doody time in there.

Did you know, statistically you lose half of your audience for every 11 seconds a webpage takes to load. On that basis, you're probably the only person who's ever seen whatever's loading up on that page.

Interestingly enough, it loaded fast enough for me to not lose interest HOWEVER I dropped out when I saw it was a flash video.

Maybe my brain is addled because my parents let me visit my grandmother, who smoked. Talk about irresponsible...

Blame European internet filters.

Sorry I got here late, guys! :):):)

I just want to respond to some dead shit because you're all assholes.
Yeah because withdrawal from currently legal substances can never be any more difficult than, say, crack. Because withdrawal never causes permanent or semi-permanent damage on the body, right? Right? It just has to be easy as hell, right?
Yeah because you can totally do thorough and impartial scientific studies on illegal substances whenever you feel like it. Disregard those who have severe THC allergies.
Laughing my ass off here. Why do you talk?
Let's sum up a response to this gem with a simple chat quote. <+Benjamin> NO SMOKE IN MY BAR "fuck u we'll go someplace else" ::goes out of business::
Your imaginary kids are going to grow up wonderfully.
Do you live in Tunisia or something?


On a personal note, I smoke. I'm embarrassed about it. But the withdrawals are kind of a bitch. There's alot of will that goes into quitting cold turkey, but I've got better things to do at the moment, and far bigger worries. Unlike most silly meatbags, I'm not afraid of death, and I'm willing to let my life run its course while I go at my own pace, instead of dying from stress at 30.

Shit son, I don't even smoke when I'm not at home

Also, nice posting in a thread that deals with substance addiction, Frank. You can get a new liver faster than a new set of lungs, after all.

I know a dude who needed new lungs, and I know a dude who needed a new liver. Crash got his shit first.

Just sayin'.

I like how the choices are quitting smoking or dying at 30 from too much stress.

Well, he's got other "options," but I'm going to be cryptic and leave it at that.

I wish I had something more clever than "fuck you," for the implication, but at the moment I'm too drunk to care.

God I <3 you forever, Frank~

I vote this becomes Frank's permanent unchangeable usertitle

I sort of wish they would ban smoking in more places where I live! I always get annoyed when I'm at a pool hall or bowling alley where everyone is smoking.

I remember one pool hall I went had this visible thick cloud of smoke from about 4 feet off the floor all the way to the ceiling. It was so bad I almost got physically sick by the end of the pool tournament I was playing there -- needless to say I never went to that establishment again...

I really don't see why the people who regulate smoking give so much leeway to smokers; they shouldn't have the right to inconvenience other people with their addiction in my opinion...

So, when you decided to reply to this thread, did you take a moment to look at the rest of the thread's posts? In particular, did you notice the sort of reception another poster got when he espoused the sort of attitude you're promoting?

A pool hall should be full of smoke. Smoke, beer, and salty snacks. If people wanted to be healthy they'd go and play some fucking tennis. But no, you have to be that rarest creature: the health-conscious billiards enthusiast. Who's inconveniencing who, exactly?

I'm fine with the beer and salty snacks part but with smoking on the decline I feel such establishments should try to cater more towards the majority of the population rather than the small minority of smokers. I would be fine with something like a smoking and non-smoking area even. A thick cloud of smoke that makes someone feel sick just being there is a little too much though...

...and no, I got bored after reading the first page or two of replies and just skipped to posting a reply -- I need to stop doing that... *sigh*

The only catch is that there seems to be a larger percentage of smokers amongst billiards players than those who do not smoke. And the non-smoking billiards players are rather accepting of smoke as part of the environment of the game they so enjoy. Telling these establishments to go smoke-free is telling them to alienate the larger percentage of their loyal customer base. It's just bad for their business.

Christ, dude, I'm a strictly non-smoking guy and I fully accept that some places are meant to be tobacco zones. Seedy bars, off-track betting parlors and pool halls are all the kinds of places where I expect cigarettes to be, because those kinds of people generally smoke. It's not a slight against them, just an observation.

But it's also why I stay out of places like that, no matter how much I like a good game of darts. It's why I purchased a home dartboard. It's why you can buy beer and salty snacks in the grocery store also.

It's why people keep billiards tables in their own homes rather than go out in a cloud of smoke.

If you don't like it, don't go there and find another way to enjoy the game with people who feel similarly. That's what I've done.

I'm fine with people who post here and people who stick to the concert hall - but with people being fucking stupid on the internet on the rise, I feel that you should shut the fuck up and leave the majority of this website's population alone.

Yeah, I guess it is part of the culture; and for the most part I've grown to accept that and I am usually willing to put up with smokers.

I've always wondered how much business bowling alleys and pool halls would lose if smoking was banned in all establishments. I couldn't see anyone joining bowling leagues anymore; there is always a nice thick cloud of smoke hovering around whenever the leagues near where I live end. I can't really imagine pool halls either without smokers. A smoking ban would probably put most of those establishments out of business. It seems pool halls around me are already going out of business left and right as it is now.

I wish somehow an acceptable compromise could be found; something a little more than just the hour or so of "smoke free bowling" alleys here offer.

ヽ(#`Д´)凸

Yeah well どんだけ大毅のカタ持つんだよ凸(ﾟДﾟ#) つーか、これだけ亀田寄りの実況しといて to you too, buddy.

щ(ﾟДﾟщ)

(*´Д`)ﾊｧﾊｧ

ヽ(´ー｀)ノ　　

Hate smoke, maybe we should do what Japan is doing, set up smoke cafe for smokers only, that way if you want a smoke, step inside and only other smokers are effected.

Japan isn't goddamned clean even. Hell, office workers smoke cigs like most of the day too.

Do you ever have a solution that doesn't involve "hey let's do it like the Japanese"? I'm just curious. Because you're a weeaboo and all.

And also, if you think Japan is smoke free, you should fucking go there. Japan that you imagine isn't the real Japan. Come to terms and move on. Go love something else that will disappoint you in the end. Like Sweden. Or maybe Indie rock.

^

Dude, if hes going to whine like Shinji, let him go there on his own accord and find out there really aren't any EVA units too.

She. This is a skirt.

A skirt who is white and got married in full kimono and Japanese face make-up.

Yeah.

She also wants to kill half the world's population to ease concerns over over-population. One wonders why she isn't for more widespread smoking.

If we killed half the world there'd be more room for the Japanese.

There's still plenty of room for the Japanese.

They're not very big.

Japanese make-up?

So she was in a bukkake movie.

Looked like it to me.

I don't remember any previous posts saying "lets take this idea from japan" other then the one in this thread. I may be a fan of japanese culture, doesn't mean that we have to be like them.

Never said it was.

YouTube Video

That and your obsession with eliminating as many Chinese as possible.

But if we got rid of the Chinese, who would kill the children of the world with lead paint?

The Chinese do that as an instinct. They reproduce like fucking jackrabbits so their natural instinct is to provide a population balance. Think of it as cutthroat eugenics.

I always skip past her posts, so I never realized she was Angel of Light's wife.

Holy hell.

Not trying for a thread derailment here but, Chibi, dear, it is REALLY not cute when your husband is talking in a group on-air and you try to chime in from the background.

Knock it the fuck off.

In the town where I come from (resideence) there is a tabacco shop and some shops where I can get smoking utility. Then I go home and smoke the tabacco in the pipe but before I have to put the tabbaco inside. When I have time I invite some friends like Перевод and перевестиN . They don`t smoke but it`s only for companion.

Everyone else realises this kid is fake, yeah?

But he's a hilarious Russian.

I mean, the kid invented the word "celebreathe" and posted shit like this:

Shut up, Term. What the fuck do you know about CARBONATE SCIENCE?

Or move to California, and never have to go into a smokey pool hall or a bowling alley again!

You'll likely not have the disposable income to go out to drink after paying half your income in rent, another quarter in insurance and taxes and the rest on food, but still, you won't ever have to inconvenience yourself with other smokers in public again.