|
smoking
Jun 26, 2005 7:52:05 GMT -5
Post by feckarse on Jun 26, 2005 7:52:05 GMT -5
true!
i only smoke when i run really fast ;D
|
|
|
smoking
Jun 26, 2005 15:48:35 GMT -5
Post by Rain on Jun 26, 2005 15:48:35 GMT -5
I think it should stay banned in buildings or be banned all around
|
|
|
smoking
Jun 26, 2005 21:19:19 GMT -5
Post by Kamikazi on Jun 26, 2005 21:19:19 GMT -5
I think it should stay banned in buildings or be banned all around All around banning would just make Marlboro the largest drug dealer in the world Smoking's not about to just disappear
|
|
|
smoking
Jun 26, 2005 23:40:12 GMT -5
Post by Rain on Jun 26, 2005 23:40:12 GMT -5
well... I don't like indoor smoking and I can not stand parents smoking around there kids
|
|
|
smoking
Jun 27, 2005 0:51:16 GMT -5
Post by J.Velvert on Jun 27, 2005 0:51:16 GMT -5
I'm a smoker and am offended by all this discriminating on the grounds of that fact.
I dont like horse-shit so I dont visit farms that often. I dont like shit music so I dont go to 'hip' places for a night-out. Some people think otherwise and I'm cool with that. Do whatever you wanna do, just leave me out of it. Clothes smell after pub? I dont usually think about that sort of shit because of hangover. Take your clothes outside. Some parfymes stick forever, no complaints.
Some people like eating hamburgers, some like to smoke, get on with it.
|
|
|
smoking
Jun 27, 2005 3:36:06 GMT -5
Post by Rain on Jun 27, 2005 3:36:06 GMT -5
2nd hand smoke more deadly then smoking a cig yourself. That enough for me to say smoking in buildings or around your kids shouldn't happen. I don't care what people say your kids shouldn't put up with it or around it. I was around it as a kid and now I have lung problems, because of it.
|
|
|
smoking
Jun 27, 2005 3:57:51 GMT -5
Post by Black Rebel Motorcycle Pixie. on Jun 27, 2005 3:57:51 GMT -5
I agree with the fact that you shouldn't smoke around your kids - just for the rolemodel thing in the first place.
But I still think in the pub you should be allowed - I even think it's absurd you can't.
|
|
|
smoking
Jun 27, 2005 10:37:07 GMT -5
Post by Nicola on Jun 27, 2005 10:37:07 GMT -5
i dont smoke and i would prefer it to be banned but i'm not one of them people who cough very loudly every time a smoker is near me.
|
|
|
smoking
Jun 27, 2005 13:50:44 GMT -5
Post by Bizzle on Jun 27, 2005 13:50:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
smoking
Jun 27, 2005 16:03:12 GMT -5
Post by Nicola on Jun 27, 2005 16:03:12 GMT -5
god and you're the religious one too ......... ;D
|
|
|
smoking
Jun 27, 2005 16:15:21 GMT -5
Post by Bizzle on Jun 27, 2005 16:15:21 GMT -5
Hey, I'm not crazy about religion. I just believe in most of the stuff in it.
|
|
|
smoking
Jun 27, 2005 17:40:50 GMT -5
Post by feckarse on Jun 27, 2005 17:40:50 GMT -5
I'm a smoker and am offended by all this discriminating on the grounds of that fact. I dont like horse-shit so I dont visit farms that often. I dont like shit music so I dont go to 'hip' places for a night-out. Some people think otherwise and I'm cool with that. Do whatever you wanna do, just leave me out of it. Clothes smell after pub? I dont usually think about that sort of shit because of hangover. Take your clothes outside. Some parfymes stick forever, no complaints. Some people like eating hamburgers, some like to smoke, get on with it. that's a knob-arse argument as i've stated above, i'm nothing about the health issues or anything.... i just think it's reasonable if someone wants to smoke, they should just do it outside. Common courtesy.
|
|
|
smoking
Jun 28, 2005 0:27:47 GMT -5
Post by J.Velvert on Jun 28, 2005 0:27:47 GMT -5
that's a knob-arse argument as i've stated above, i'm nothing about the health issues or anything.... i just think it's reasonable if someone wants to smoke, they should just do it outside. Common courtesy. Why exactly is it a knob-arse argument? So we're talking about pubs and what is reasonable to do inside them, health issues not a concern. Pubs are about having a good time, to me it involves smoking. In Finland there are separate areas for smokers and non-smokers, so you can choose wether you're in the company of smokers or not. Needless to say the non-smoker areas are always empty. That's a system I consider worth keeping, sadly health-fascists are trying to fuck that up. It all comes down to 'If I'm not having a good time neither will you.'
|
|
|
smoking
Jun 28, 2005 17:02:51 GMT -5
Post by albertzz on Jun 28, 2005 17:02:51 GMT -5
it's not a knob-head argument - it is a selfish argument.
I posted the follwoing argument before and no one responded, so here it is again:
You're imposing a cost on others. You should (normatively) compensate them for this or not do it.
I like kicking can I go wherever I want and kick? No. Well, perhaps if I compensated people.
- the having separate places is something I'd be perfectly content with -
|
|
|
smoking
Jun 29, 2005 0:19:52 GMT -5
Post by J.Velvert on Jun 29, 2005 0:19:52 GMT -5
it's not a knob-head argument - it is a selfish argument. I posted the follwoing argument before and no one responded, so here it is again: You're imposing a cost on others. You should (normatively) compensate them for this or not do it. I like kicking can I go wherever I want and kick? No. Well, perhaps if I compensated people. - the having separate places is something I'd be perfectly content with - Well cigarettes are heavily taxed, aren't they? Consider that as compensation. By no means am I trying to come off as unselfish, it's just that vices that affect other people are human. It's also selfish to act like an idiot when being drunk or being on the dole if you're able to work and so on. Everything gets compensated when you think of large numbers.
|
|
|
smoking
Jun 29, 2005 11:25:55 GMT -5
Post by albertzz on Jun 29, 2005 11:25:55 GMT -5
Yeah, cigarettes are highly taxed and in a way that is compensation.
But I hate cigarette taxes because the demand for cigarettes is fairly inelastic in the short and long term so while you'll raise a lot of money by taxing them, very few people will stop smoking because of the tax. And so, all you're doing is heavily punishing people for engaging in an activity that is perfectly legal due merely to paternalistic reasons. Further, it's regressive because most smokers tend to be lower-income. So I hate the cigarette taxes and even then they're a dumb way of compensating because you're taxing all those whosmoke period regardless of whether they are bothering other people in so doing (ie - if they smoke in private)
|
|
|
smoking
Jun 30, 2005 0:48:33 GMT -5
Post by J.Velvert on Jun 30, 2005 0:48:33 GMT -5
Yeah, cigarettes are highly taxed and in a way that is compensation. But I hate cigarette taxes because the demand for cigarettes is fairly inelastic in the short and long term so while you'll raise a lot of money by taxing them, very few people will stop smoking because of the tax. And so, all you're doing is heavily punishing people for engaging in an activity that is perfectly legal due merely to paternalistic reasons. Further, it's regressive because most smokers tend to be lower-income. So I hate the cigarette taxes and even then they're a dumb way of compensating because you're taxing all those whosmoke period regardless of whether they are bothering other people in so doing (ie - if they smoke in private) There's a slight contradiction there, you're complaining about taxing because it doesn't stop smoking, yet you used the 'to compensate' argument before. And it seems you're ok with people smoking privately. This is a common view, it's ok to smoke 'cos it makes money to the state, but still it shouldn't be seen anywhere. Just like the good customer at the bar: drinks a lot but doesn't get drunk. You might spot that there's no point in that kind of behaviour for the smoking/drinking individual. I admit your view is a bit different, but it's not like you mentioned some kind of an alternative to taxing. You still wanted smoking to be unseen and compensated for. This I'm saying on the grounds that us smokers rather not be unseen. And Of course children shouldn't be exposed to it, meaning parents shouldn't smoke inside their apartment or car. At restaurants the areas where food is served smoking shouldn't be allowed if it bothers other customers and waiters. Bars sould be divided so that it's possible not to be 'a passive smoker.' I find that smokers can use common sense in public places and it's possible for us all to get along, there's just too much health-facism going on these days.
|
|
|
smoking
Jun 30, 2005 2:57:48 GMT -5
Post by albertzz on Jun 30, 2005 2:57:48 GMT -5
I don't think there is a contradiction.
I'm not complaining about cigarette taxes because it doesn't stop smoking. I'm saying that even if that were it's goal it doesn't achieve that. Further, iI find it's goal to be highly paternalistic.
As in, I am ok with people smoking privately. I think to say it's bad is paternalistic. And I think cigarette taxes to make them stop is not only paternalistic but ineffecitve (because the demand is inelastic).
What I am not cool with is public smoking. Your final paragraphs are fairly fine there.
|
|
|
smoking
Jun 30, 2005 3:47:22 GMT -5
Post by J.Velvert on Jun 30, 2005 3:47:22 GMT -5
Hole picking but here goes:
I think taxing is not aimed at stopping smokers, it's for getting money. Everyone (at least the ones who decide on these matters) knows how economics function. It's a bit of a taboo, but as it's a similar product to alcohol (any drug for that matter) and by looking into how taxing alcohol floats around depending on the circumstances it's kinda evident.
But I guess we're on the same lines on the topic, just thought you might have an alternative to good old taxing.
|
|
|
smoking
Jun 30, 2005 9:38:26 GMT -5
Post by albertzz on Jun 30, 2005 9:38:26 GMT -5
yeah, maybe it is just a money grab...but usually they tax things extra because they don't like them or to make up for externalities like gasoline
|
|
|
smoking
Jun 30, 2005 12:59:12 GMT -5
Post by feckarse on Jun 30, 2005 12:59:12 GMT -5
Further, iI find it's goal to be highly paternalistic. As in, I am ok with people smoking privately. I think to say it's bad is paternalistic. And I think cigarette taxes to make them stop is not only paternalistic but ineffecitve The word is Patronising P-A-T-R-O-N-I-S-I-N-G
|
|
|
smoking
Jul 10, 2014 17:38:48 GMT -5
Post by Rain on Jul 10, 2014 17:38:48 GMT -5
bump again
|
|
|
smoking
Jul 10, 2014 19:58:22 GMT -5
Post by Elie De Beaufour 🐴 on Jul 10, 2014 19:58:22 GMT -5
Grew up around it, and hated it as I was beaten up with siding with my grandfather over grandma's smoking (30 a day kills eventually).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 2:23:15 GMT -5
Addiction to anything is weakness. I try and live by that mantra.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jul 24, 2014 20:40:05 GMT -5
bump again Only took you nine years! Still haven't changed my mind since '05 about it, by the way. I wear contacts, so the smoke stings my eyes. Plus, the smell is nasty, and it won't get out of the clothes you're wearing around smoke for ages (if ever). I honestly don't know how, in an age where everyone is warned about the dangers of smoking from childhood, anyone can smoke (let alone afford it). Frankly, anyone in my generation who gets cancer because of smoking won't get my sympathy, and shouldn't deserve yours either. They knew the risks, but did it anyway.
|
|