Smokers free at their own homes only

[Radojica]

In two days smoker shall have to change their smoking habits. When the Law on protection of population against cigarette smoke comes in force cigarette smoking shall be not allowed at work, in lifts, corridors, waiting rooms, schools, faculties, hospitals, cinemas… any more. There shall even be no room for smokers.
As of Thursday smoking shall not be allowed in public traffic, i.e. busses, trolleybuses, trams, taxes, planes and other official vehicles. In two days passionate smokers shall have to choose cafes, restaurants and bars to go to since in many of them there shall be a ‘no smoking’ sign.

A citizen who violates the Law shall have to pay a fine of 5,000 Dinars. Fines for company owners (30,000 to 50,000 Dinars) and companies (from a half to one million Dinars) are considerably larger.



http://english.blic.rs/Society/7077/Smokers-free-at-their-own-homes-only




How about a law of protection of poverty, against the state which citizens are dying of hunger, where more than 10% of citizens are living with less than 100 euros per month?



I would like to get caught by one of them and to be told that I have to pay for smoking. I will puff the smoke into his or her face and tell her to fuck off. Prison? Good, I'll have free meals for 10 days :coffee:

[Guapo]

Welcome to demoncracy.

[Fortis in Arduis]

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID9377/images/nazi_anti-smoking-campaign.jpg

The UK ban was an improvement. Smoking caused non-smokers a lot of extra laundry.

It's a nasty smelly American product which causes cancer. Fuck tobacco.

Poor Serbian smokers, having to go to a specific cafe to enjoy their cancer sticks. :cry

[Magister Eckhart]

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID9377/images/nazi_anti-smoking-campaign.jpg

The UK ban was an improvement. Smoking caused non-smokers a lot of extra laundry.

It's a nasty smelly American product which causes cancer. Fuck tobacco.

Poor Serbian smokers, having to go to a specific cafe to enjoy their cancer sticks. :cry

Your stance would make more sense if you recognised the distinct difference between cigarettes and other forms of tobacco products. Like most anti-smokers, however, this seems to get glossed over with a standard "tobacco bad" line of thinking. The reality is that the health hazards of cigar and pipe tobacco consumption are roughly equal to those of normal consumption of alcohol, while the health hazards of cigarette smoking are more akin to alcoholism. The reason why smoking can be damaging is because too much will kill you, and the addictive property of cigarettes will prevent you from stopping if you need to stop (or make it damned difficult).

The cigar smoker, on the other hand, can throw out his cigars one day and never pick them up again - he has no chemical dependency to them. Cigars, taking longer to smoke and of a higher quality (and higher price) are also enjoyed in far greater moderation than cigarettes (if you can call a cigarette "enjoyment"), meaning that consumption is restricted to a far greater degree. Furthermore, the general higher quality of cigar-related tobacco products means that they become a delicacy, like fine wine or caviare or aged whiskey. No one goes out and buys Johnny Walker blue label every week unless they have the money to do that, and the only people with the money to do that make up that infamous bogeyman "the top 1%".

Likewise with the consumption of cigars; for the moderately wealthy (middle-class) they are something one buys and then smokes maybe once or twice a month, savouring them. No one can afford to buy a box of cigars every day - hell, even a tin of cigarillos in the US is three times the cost of our most expensive cigarette brand; it's not the cost of tobacco taxes that are driving up those prices, either. Cigars have always been far more expensive than death-sticks, and will remain so.

While I am not necessarily antipathetic to the idea of eliminating cigarettes, which I find vulgar and proletarian, delicacies such as cigars and pipe blends should by no means be any more restricted than they already are.

I might add, in regards to your laundry comment, that if you are complaining about having to wash an article of clothing after wearing it for a day, the problem isn't with the smokers. Laziness and poor hygiene is not an excuse to punish others. If you don't wash your hair regularly and wear your clothes more than two days in a row, you should expect them to smell like many worse things than cigarettes.

[Loki]

Cigars stink. Yuk.

[Debaser11]

Oooohh smoking. How evil and terrible. Anti-smokers are mostly self-righteous windbags who wouldn't know hypocrisy if it bit them in the ass.

[Fortis in Arduis]

I might add, in regards to your laundry comment, that if you are complaining about having to wash an article of clothing after wearing it for a day, the problem isn't with the smokers. Laziness and poor hygiene is not an excuse to punish others. If you don't wash your hair regularly and wear your clothes more than two days in a row, you should expect them to smell like many worse things than cigarettes.

You are quite right about cigarettes being a particularly nasty product, but it is all the same nasty foreign import at the end of the day.

When I visit my mum, I have to take a bin bag and put my leather jacket and bag into it at the door.

The smoking world is oblivious to how smelly they are, because they are the smell.

As for shedding tears for the poor Serbs who will no longer be able to smoke on public transport... who did these people think that they were in the first place? :eek:

Smoking in public has always been bad manners, just like eating in the street.

[Debaser11]

Well, at a bus station or in a subway terminal is one thing, but what if I own a restaurant? Should I not be able to decide the smoking policy? No one is forcing anyone to visit OR WORK in my establishment.

[Óttar]

Why don't they just make it illegal for companies to put poisons in their product (shards of glass, strychnine, ammonia, 100s of other toxins) ? Companies aren't allowed to put those in a can of beans, why cigarettes?

[Debaser11]

Why don't they just make it illegal for companies to put poisons in their product (shards of glass, strychnine, ammonia, 100s of other toxins) ? Companies aren't allowed to put those in a can of beans, why cigarettes?

You act like you're the only one that knows this information. There's full disclosure. They tell you what's in the product. If people want poison their bodies, why do you think the government should stop them? Should the government outlaw any product it deems to be unhealthy? They'd have a long list, I'm sure.

[Radojica]

Most of you do not know the fact that Serbs are one of the biggest smokers in Europe where 38% males and 34% women are smoking.Now, we are forced to pay big penalties from the money barely of us have. up to 50.000 dinars? That's salary 90% Serbians are dreaming of :....

[Alison]

It's about consideration for others. I smoke, but I don't smoke around others. What burns me is when I see people smoking in their cars and they have their children in the car with them.

It's OK for adults to choose for themselves, but I draw the line where children are exposed to those poisons.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Yeah, boo hoo, Serbia bans smoking in schools.

That's such an infringement of civil liberties.

Rad, everybody knows that poor people tend to smoke more, so what point were you trying to make?

[Radojica]

Yeah, boo hoo, Serbia bans smoking in schools.

That's such an infringement of civil liberties.

Rad, everybody knows that poor people tend to smoke more, so what point were you trying to make?

MY POINT IS THAT THIS SHITTY GOVERNMENT SHOULD TAKE CARE MORE ABOUT MORE SERIOUS SUBJECTS, NOT FUCKING SMOKING!! OUR COUNTRY IS FALLING APART AND THEY ARE FORBIDDING SMOKING!! WELL, FUCK THAT!!! I'll SMOKE UNTIL I DIE AND THEY CANNOT MAKE ME TO STOP WITH THEIR SHITTY LAWS (AND 90% OF THEIR LAWS ARE SHITTY)

[Debaser11]

Well, that's one point I didn't consider. I do think there's an argument that children should be protected by law since they are at the mercy of their parents. That still doesn't change my view about private establishments. They should be able to determine smoking policies. If I run a joint and allow smoking and you want to eat but have a kid with you--tough. Eat somewhere else.

[Radojica]

Another more thing: my town is one of the most polluted in EUrope, but nobody gives a crap to make a law which is forbidding that poisoning. Jesus Christ, I am waiting for a day when grass is going to start growing instead of my hair, but hey, that's making a lot of money to this shitty government, so nobody cares. Cancer rate in my town is so big that it's terrifying, but refinery, petrochemical and nytro plant have to work and make the money, right, but please, punish all those evil smoker who smoke a ciggarette in public place. They just talk and talk and that's where the story ends. I am sicken of hypocrisy of this government. If this is democracy, I choose smoking and getting killed by that instead of poisons from industrial zone.

[The Journeyman]

Another thing to consider is the effect smoking has on healthcare costs. So it effects others indirectly in that respect. The government is probably trying to give smokers an incentive to quit or limit their habits.

[Alison]

Well, that's one point I didn't consider. I do think there's an argument that children should be protected by law since they are at the mercy of their parents. That still doesn't change my view about private establishments. They should be able to determine smoking policies. If I run a joint and allow smoking and you want to eat but have a kid with you--tough. Eat somewhere else.

Well said. Here, they have smoking sections in restuarants and pubs. No child under the age of 18 is allowed in the no smoking area. We simply sit in the smoke free area with the children. It doesn't kill me.

[Debaser11]

Right. Excellent point, White Pony. If you're for government-run healthcare, I think you really can't complain about this stuff. Does anyone now not see why people on the right have a problem with giving the government all this power even if "free healthcare" sounds good?

[Alison]

Another thing to consider is the effect smoking has on healthcare costs. So it effects others indirectly in that respect. The government is probably trying to give smokers an incentive to quit or limit their habits.

Healthcare costs to the government for smoking related diseases are astronomical. I don't think it gives smokers an incentive to quit, but it does make life healthier for non smokers.

[Debaser11]

Well said. Here, they have smoking sections in restuarants and pubs. No child under the age of 18 is allowed in the no smoking area. We simply sit in the smoke free area with the children. It doesn't kill me.

Yeah, those sections seem reasonable enough. I've never had the smoke from the smoking section bother me while sitting in the non-smoking section. Though others have complained about it happening. It's simple. If it's bothering you that badly, leave. However, I think the trend in the U.S. is to ban all smoking indoors within major cities. Non-smokers think that will solve all the world's problems and then some.

[Radojica]

Another thing to consider is the effect smoking has on healthcare costs. So it effects others indirectly in that respect. The government is probably trying to give smokers an incentive to quit or limit their habits.

You know, in case they were stealing less money production and economy of this country would be much better than it is. Unemployment rate is above 20%. As Fortis said, poor society tend to smoke more and I agree. Do you get what I mean? in the last 10 years Serbian government took more than 10 billion euros credits, but people are loosing their jobs en masse and nobody can see where that money went. One thing is following another. One fresh news is that Serbia is getting another 250 million euros credit for financing Ratko Mladic haunting. It's ridiculous. Smoking habit goes much deeper in Serbia than most of you think, so it's senseless to argue with you guys from other states. People will smoke regardless this new law and it's more individual thing than anything else. I am smoking for 11 years. I quit for 3 years and started to smoke again. I do not think about quitting again. I'll do it when I want, not when government says I have to. our politicians should give as an example by implementing their own laws which are breaking constantly, so why should I obey to? I do not need law to tell me I should not smoke in presence of children, because I am not doing that nor I was before this law. How about making a law (like it was before 2005) where people have free social health care, or implementing law against corruption? That is not in their favour so they don't give a crap about that.

[Debaser11]

^That's all good and well dude but if you're for government-run healthcare, you can't blame the government for trying to keep costs under control. Furthermore, under such a system, the nonsmokers (who would be more healthy on average) would be subsidizing the smokers. As someone who used to smoke fairly regularly, no one is putting a gun to your head and telling you to "light up."

[Treffie]

A good friend of mine is a community domiciliary care worker and she's a smoker. By law, the person in her care is not permitted to smoke (at their own property) while she's present and delivering care. :rolleyes:

[Radojica]

A good friend of mine is a community domiciliary care worker and she's a smoker. By law, the person in her care is not permitted to smoke (at their own property) while she's present and delivering care. :rolleyes:

You see how absurd that is? I am anti-drinker. Should I ask for law which forbid drinking in my presence? Alcohol made many bad things to my family, what's more I blame alcohol and it's effects for I almost got killed when I was 7 years old, for the lost of my father, for my parents divorce, but nobody don't fucking care about that. My example is one of millions.

[Treffie]

You see how absurd that is? I am anti-drinker. Should I ask for law which forbid drinking in my presence? Alcohol made many bad things to my family, what's more I blame alcohol and it's effects for I almost got killed when I was 7 years old, for the lost of my father, for my parents divorce, but nobody don't fucking care about that. My example is one of millions.

There's no such thing as passive drinking though

[Radojica]

There's no such thing as passive drinking though

No there is not, but there's passive victims, which is even worst. How many people died in car accidents who were sober, but driver who caused accident was drunk? How many innocent people got beaten by drunk ones?

[Aramis]

The Serbian authorities seem not to care about their country falling apart? Instead they do more of their EU arse kissing.

[Piparskeggr]

As a former smoker (3 packs a day for over 20 years) I think there should be a compromise position, not a total ban.

Aside from this one habit (which I don't mind others having) smokers do have the same rights as anyone else and their freedoms should not be curtailed if they choose to smoke.

There is some evidence that second hand smoke can cause illness in those susceptible (just as smoking will). One of my great aunts died of lung cancer. She never smoked, but my great uncle did; it is possible that her exposure to his "exhaust" did her in.

Enclosed areas, most certainly have designated smoking areas with good ventilation requirements.

Open areas, small "buffer zones" around the entrances to businesses that voluntarily choose to go smoke-free (here in Illinois, the buffer is 15' {about 4 1/2 m}), common areas designated as smoke free in parks, especially around children's play areas, and the like. A little bit of social space so those who do not enjoy tobacco smoke can have their freedom of movement and accommodation, too.

And "Mr Nobody" has a point, industrial pollutants will cause greater harm and cost to the overall population over a much longer time period. My grampa Harold died from lung disease triggered by his long exposure to soot and asbestos during his working life.

An overall policy of regaining clean air, water and land is much better than targeting a segment of society for a habit that some do not like.

[Debaser11]

No there is not, but there's passive victims, which is even worst. How many people died in car accidents who were sober, but driver who caused accident was drunk? How many innocent people got beaten by drunk ones?

You're conflating cars with alcohol which is not what you want to do when evaluating the act of drinking and the act of smoking in and of themselves which is what the laws would be addressing. I'm assuming it's illegal to drink and drive in Serbia too, no? Like I've stated, I'm a former regular smoker who has the occasional jazz cigarette. The *act* of actually smoking *can* cause harm to the health of those near by. The *act* of drinking itself does not. That's the difference.

If there's no government healthcare, I'd tell the government to buzz off for the most part. If you insist on the government healthcare, you're inviting all sorts of problems for yourself on this matter. It's a Pandora's Box on your freedom.

[Radojica]

And "Mr Nobody" has a point, industrial pollutants will cause greater harm and cost to the overall population over a much longer time period. My grampa Harold died from lung disease triggered by his long exposure to soot and asbestos during his working life.

An overall policy of regaining clean air, water and land is much better than targeting a segment of society for a habit that some do not like.


You're conflating cars with alcohol which is not what you want to do when evaluating the act of drinking and the act of smoking in and of themselves which is what the laws would be addressing. I'm assuming it's illegal to drink and drive in Serbia too, no? Like I've stated, I'm a former regular smoker who has the occasional jazz cigarette. The *act* of actually smoking *can* cause harm to the health of those near by. The *act* of drinking itself does not. That's the difference.

If there's no government healthcare, I'd tell the government to buzz off for the most part. If you insist on the government healthcare, you're inviting all sorts of problems for yourself on this matter. It's a Pandora's Box on your freedom.

a_hfjoneJCg

XRT-RTVlelM

Ri1lYK__dWE

I mean, just read this :....


Straight out of Serbia comes their first zombie flick, Zone of the Dead. By the looks of it, they are already planning for two sequels, the last of which, Reign of the dead, sounds like it will be post apocalyptic! The trailer is pretty awesome, and here's the synopsis:

"In the industrial town of Pančevo a dangerous biochemical toxine becomes airborne in the middle of the night, poisoning the inhabitants. The infection spreads all over the town and it seems like the Armageddon is happening.

Meanwhile, a police-escorted prisoner transport supervised by Interpol sets off to Belgrade. A seemingly routine assignment escalates into a hellish fight for survival. The route leads the transport through Pančevo, where they encounter an ecological disaster and infected people who are trying to kill them. Interpol agent Mortimer Reyes soon realizes that their only chance for escape from the zombie hordes lies in allying with the dangerous, mysterious prisoner."
And then we are talking here about some freedom of others from smoking while Serbia is deliberately poisoning more than 150.000 citizens?

Give me a break...

[Debaser11]

That has nothing to do with the matter of cigarettes. That's like saying "why are you angry at me for shoplifting when there are tons of murders out there you could catch?"

You're conflating a bunch of shit that doesn't go together.

[Radojica]

That has nothing to do with the matter of cigarettes. That's like saying "why are you angry at me for shoplifting when there are tons of murders out there you could catch?"

You're conflating a bunch of shit that doesn't go together.

You don't get my point!!!

My point is that government is allowed to poison it's citizens, while I am forbidden to smoke in front of someone who do not smoke while at the same time that non-smoker live next to me and gets poisoned just like I am. Do you really think that Serbian government care about it's citizens? Don't be a fool, it's only about the money so they can steal more.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/images/0504-02.jpg

After this, they should close all those factories, but no, they continued to work. What NATO did not menage to do, they'll finish. Same situation is in all industrial cities in Serbia. You don't know what's the situation in Serbia and why I am so annoyed by this shitty law.

[Magister Eckhart]

That has nothing to do with the matter of cigarettes. That's like saying "why are you angry at me for shoplifting when there are tons of murders out there you could catch?"

You're conflating a bunch of shit that doesn't go together.

Although there is some value in that line of questioning - when policemen in a city spend more time handing out speeding tickets than arresting drug-dealers, while drug-dealing is on the rise and speeding violations are static, the citizens have justification to question if law enforcement's priorities are flawed.

I would say likewise when the growing problem of real industrial pollution on a level we here in America have not seen since the days of Upton Sinclair is ignored and laws are passed about where one can light a cigarette, the government does rather seem to be poorly prioritizing issues.

I will also repeat my plea earlier that ultimately there needs to be a more nuanced approach to the problem of cigarette smoking. Tobacco consumption in general seems to me to be a widely debatable issue on grounds no one ever raises. For example, a ban on tobacco products would also (and has) affected the sale of snuff, chewing tobacco, and (for you Scandinavians) snus, none of which can be accused of the same level of victimisation that cigarettes have.

Attacking cigarette smoking and then using the dangers of cigarettes to call for a ban on tobacco is rather like criticising Nazism for the Holocaust and then using that to call for censoring all nationalist or authoritarian beliefs. It is uncritical and typical of our unthinking, democratic, vulgar age.

[Debaser11]

You don't get my point!!!

I mean this with all due respect, but disagreeing with you does not necessarily mean I don't get your point. And I never said the government cared about you. I'm trying to keep their feelings on the matter out of it because it's beside the point concerning the matter of whether the government is right or not to regulate your tobacco use in such a way.



Although there is some value in that line of questioning - when policemen in a city spend more time handing out speeding tickets than arresting drug-dealers, while drug-dealing is on the rise and speeding violations are static, the citizens have justification to question if law enforcement's priorities are flawed.

Understood, but I'm weary of conflating issues when it comes to debating whether or not the government "has a right to do something" or should or shouldn't take a certain course of action.

That being said, Mr. Nobody, you do have a right to outraged at the hypocrisy you perceive within your government. But I was never challenging those legitimate feelings to begin with.

[Magister Eckhart]

Understood, but I'm weary of conflating issues when it comes to debating whether or not the government "has a right to do something" or should or shouldn't take a certain course of action.

I would generally agree there. After all, government by definition operates on authority, not "rights". The whole issue of "rights" seems conflated if I can be brutally honest. I'm far beyond the point where I've simply thrown out the whole concept as a flawed hiccup in the history of Western political thought.

[Fortis in Arduis]

If Serbia has environmental problems and widespread poverty then the last thing that the country needs is for its population to be smoking like chimneys and dying of expensive smoking-related diseases.

It may also be a sad truth that the polluting industries of Serbia are necessary for Serbia's economy, and that the damage that they cause is offset by the wealth that they generate.

Allowing people to smoke inside designated cafes, pubs and restaurants despite the ban is really quite liberal as well.

I cannot really see anything here other than positive social engineering and one man's ranting and selfish moans about not being allowed to smoke a fag when and wheresoever he chooses to.

[Radojica]

If Serbia has environmental problems and widespread poverty then the last thing that the country needs is for its population to be smoking like chimneys and dying of expensive smoking-related diseases.

It may also be a sad truth that the polluting industries of Serbia are necessary for Serbia's economy, and that the damage that they cause is offset by the wealth that they generate.

Allowing people to smoke inside designated cafes, pubs and restaurants despite the ban is really quite liberal as well.

I cannot really see anything here other than positive social engineering and one man's ranting and selfish moans about not being allowed to smoke a fag when and wheresoever he chooses to.

This is quite hypocritical, but I am not in the mood to explain you why and to go deeper in discussion. Maybe some other time, but just for the note, I wrote this.

[Heretik]

Ah, british moralizing as always...

[Radojica]

Ah, british moralizing as always...

What conclusion we made today? When we Slavs (Balkanians especially) get wasted we fuck and kiss ugly girls, when Brits do that, they do it with their friend's dogs :D :D.

And then come and start giving us moral lectures how we should not go so low :o

[Austin]

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID9377/images/nazi_anti-smoking-campaign.jpg

The UK ban was an improvement. Smoking caused non-smokers a lot of extra laundry.

It's a nasty smelly American product which causes cancer. Fuck tobacco.

Poor Serbian smokers, having to go to a specific cafe to enjoy their cancer sticks. :cry


I went to a bar last night with some friends and smoked like 10 cigs. How much did my cancer risk go up?

[Radojica]

I went to a bar last night with some friends and smoked like 10 cigs. How much did my cancer risk go up?

You are already dead



:fpope:


:rip:

[Raikaswinþs]

good. glad to hear that. I hate smoker's habit of raping everybody else's lungs for the sake of their disgusting addiction.

PD: I do smoke. At the comfort of my balcony , or in certain Dutch coffee shops :P

[Troll's Puzzle]

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID9377/images/nazi_anti-smoking-campaign.jpg

The UK ban was an improvement. Smoking caused non-smokers a lot of extra laundry.

It's a nasty smelly American product which causes cancer. Fuck tobacco.

Poor Serbian smokers, having to go to a specific cafe to enjoy their cancer sticks. :cry

I agree.

Incidentally, there was little demand for cigarettes (it was considered effeminate for men, and masculine for women) until the tobacco industry created a demand for its product via advertising and other PR (they practially wrote the book on modern mass media manipulation in the process).

I view smoking bans as a government Right, protecting the people from the Wrong inflicted on them by the greed and profiteering of tobacco companies, using the weaknesses of human psychology as a tool to peddle their poisonous product to their poor victims :(

[Radojica]

I agree.

Incidentally, there was little demand for cigarettes (it was considered effeminate for men, and masculine for women) until the tobacco industry created a demand for its product via advertising and other PR (they practially wrote the book on modern mass media manipulation in the process).

I view smoking bans as a government Right, protecting the people from the Wrong inflicted on them by the greed and profiteering of tobacco companies, using the weaknesses of human psychology as a tool to peddle their poisonous product to their poor victims :(

http://www.slowtrav.com/blog/bge/Blow%20in%20her%20face.jpg

:swl

[Wölfin]

Wouldn't quitting smoking just save more money for the individual Serbs who already struggle with poverty? I understand and agree that perhaps this ban is not the first step that should have been taken but I don't necessarily see it as a negative thing if you're expecting government funded health care and government funded poverty aid. If the goverment really wanted to make more money, they'd not ban cigarettes, to the contrary they'd encourage their production and tax the shit out of them, lord knows how much money they'd make that way.

That being said, I've been a lot healthier since the smoking restrictions here (although they are far from being as severe as the ones described in this thread). I am highly allergic to cigarette smoke to the point where it is hazardous to my very life. It causes a reaction that makes my throat and mouth inflame to the point where I can literally no longer breathe and need imediate medical aid. That is if I stay exposed to it continuously for a long time (an hour or more). Not to mention the smell is foul and repeat exposure will break down my immune system and cause me to be badly ill for a couple of days. On the other hand I always try to compromise in the presence of smokers, i.e. try to change my position according to the wind, ask them politely and explain why I'd prefer if they could blow their smoke in an other direction etc.

I think the laws in my province are a good compromise. You can't smoke in buildings, but you can go outisde to do it. To accomodate, many establishments have outside heaters so that smokers can take their time. This way they don't have to freeze their asses off in winter, and the non-smokers don't have to be exposed. Everybody's happy!

[Magister Eckhart]

I think the laws in my province are a good compromise. You can't smoke in buildings, but you can go outisde to do it. To accomodate, many establishments have outside heaters so that smokers can take their time. This way they don't have to freeze their asses off in winter, and the non-smokers don't have to be exposed. Everybody's happy!

I actually rather like that idea; the problem with most smoking bans, aside from their lack of a nuanced approach to tobacco, is that they claim to "be considerate of everyone" but what they in fact do is punish the smoker and reward the non-smoker, and rarely give even the slightest consideration to the smoker. If efforts were put forth to be more considerate to smokers themselves, I feel like resistance to smoking bans would be considerably smaller.

I still think, though, that cigarettes are the only form of tobacco that should be banned.

[Austin]

I see girls who smoke as trashy and easy but then I think most guys do.

[Loki]

I still think, though, that cigarettes are the only form of tobacco that should be banned.

We're not really talking about banning cigarettes, though. Just in public places. Smoking cigarettes is not like taking other drugs like alcohol, for example. It pollutes the immediate air and spoils the atmosphere for other people who don't smoke. It is a very selfish thing. What about the rights of non-smokers to be able to breathe fresh air? The only acceptable public consumption of tobacco is smokeless tobacco.

[kaliyuga]

Your stance would make more sense if you recognised the distinct difference between cigarettes and other forms of tobacco products. Like most anti-smokers, however, this seems to get glossed over with a standard "tobacco bad" line of thinking. The reality is that the health hazards of cigar and pipe tobacco consumption are roughly equal to those of normal consumption of alcohol, while the health hazards of cigarette smoking are more akin to alcoholism. The reason why smoking can be damaging is because too much will kill you, and the addictive property of cigarettes will prevent you from stopping if you need to stop (or make it damned difficult).

The cigar smoker, on the other hand, can throw out his cigars one day and never pick them up again - he has no chemical dependency to them. Cigars, taking longer to smoke and of a higher quality (and higher price) are also enjoyed in far greater moderation than cigarettes (if you can call a cigarette "enjoyment"), meaning that consumption is restricted to a far greater degree. Furthermore, the general higher quality of cigar-related tobacco products means that they become a delicacy, like fine wine or caviare or aged whiskey. No one goes out and buys Johnny Walker blue label every week unless they have the money to do that, and the only people with the money to do that make up that infamous bogeyman "the top 1%".

Likewise with the consumption of cigars; for the moderately wealthy (middle-class) they are something one buys and then smokes maybe once or twice a month, savouring them. No one can afford to buy a box of cigars every day - hell, even a tin of cigarillos in the US is three times the cost of our most expensive cigarette brand; it's not the cost of tobacco taxes that are driving up those prices, either. Cigars have always been far more expensive than death-sticks, and will remain so.

While I am not necessarily antipathetic to the idea of eliminating cigarettes, which I find vulgar and proletarian, delicacies such as cigars and pipe blends should by no means be any more restricted than they already are.

I might add, in regards to your laundry comment, that if you are complaining about having to wash an article of clothing after wearing it for a day, the problem isn't with the smokers. Laziness and poor hygiene is not an excuse to punish others. If you don't wash your hair regularly and wear your clothes more than two days in a row, you should expect them to smell like many worse things than cigarettes.

Cor, TW, you really are a pretentious wanker, aren't you?:lightbul:

[Heretik]

We're not really talking about banning cigarettes, though. Just in public places. Smoking cigarettes is not like taking other drugs like alcohol, for example. It pollutes the immediate air and spoils the atmosphere for other people who don't smoke. It is a very selfish thing. What about the rights of non-smokers to be able to breathe fresh air? The only acceptable public consumption of tobacco is smokeless tobacco.

This is the problem with "positive discrimination", I can agree with ban in some places (schools, hospitals and similar) but in bars and similar, bars should be able to choose if they wanted smokers or not. What I mean, smokers and non-smokers could choose if they wanted to go to a specific bar/club depending on their wishes and not to be forbidden everywhere just because they smoke. Here, most bars are smoke free so I take my cup of coffee and go outside for a smoke but I should be able to go to a bar, sit down on a rainy morning, light up my cigarette, take a sip of coffee and read the morning newspapers.

TL;DR to each their own bar :D


What conclusion we made today? When we Slavs (Balkanians especially) get wasted we fuck and kiss ugly girls, when Brits do that, they do it with their friend's dogs :D :D.

And then come and start giving us moral lectures how we should not go so low :o

:laugh:
Though, the guy's name is Joel... :D

[Psychonaut]

The only acceptable public consumption of tobacco is smokeless tobacco.

This all depends on your definition of what constitutes 'public,' though. In so much of the US now, you can't smoke in bars, which has always seemed, to me, to be utterly absurd. I can see no reason why a private establishment should not be allowed to decide what typed of (legal) behaviors are acceptable within its walls. In state owned locations, this kind of legislation makes sense, but not at all when applied to truly private businesses.

[Loki]

This all depends on your definition of what constitutes 'public,' though. In so much of the US now, you can't smoke in bars, which has always seemed, to me, to be utterly absurd. I can see no reason why a private establishment should not be allowed to decide what typed of (legal) behaviors are acceptable within its walls. In state owned locations, this kind of legislation makes sense, but not at all when applied to truly private businesses.

It should only be acceptable in bars if the bar in question is explicitly and openly just for smokers. Otherwise, smokers will probably lure their non-smoking friends into that foul environment by peer pressure or something alike. The vast majority of bars, therefore, should be non-smoking.

It's more sensible for a smoker to abstain from smoking in a bar, than for a non-smoker to involuntarily inhale smoke via passive smoking. If people want to damage their lungs and shorten their lifespans, they should do it in the privacy of their own homes, away from where they can harm others. I just pity their children in their homes, though. :(

[Magister Eckhart]

Cor, TW, you really are a pretentious wanker, aren't you?:lightbul:


Politics: Aristocratist



It should only be acceptable in bars if the bar in question is explicitly and openly just for smokers. Otherwise, smokers will probably lure their non-smoking friends into that foul environment by peer pressure or something alike. The vast majority of bars, therefore, should be non-smoking.

It's more sensible for a smoker to abstain from smoking in a bar, than for a non-smoker to involuntarily inhale smoke via passive smoking. If people want to damage their lungs and shorten their lifespans, they should do it in the privacy of their own homes, away from where they can harm others. I just pity their children in their homes, though.

You use the word "foul" as if it's a universal: I know a number of non-smokers who do not even share my disdain for cigarettes, and are not bothered by them in the least. They don't want to partake, but that doesn't mean they're going to force other people not to partake. This isn't "peer pressure" (which is a modern myth meant to excuse irresponsibility), it's a conscious decision on their part.

As I said, if there is going to be a ban on cigarette smoking inside buildings, concessions should be made to the smokers, otherwise no one who is anti-smoking can pretend in the least to be protecting anyone's "rights" or being egalitarian, which most do try to do. A smoking ban with no concessions to smokers is authoritarian, plain and simple.

Do I think that authoritarianism is a negative thing? No, but on that token, I do think hypocrisy is a negative thing, and acting authoritarian while preaching "freedom", "rights", and "fairness" is bald-faced hypocrisy.

[Óttar]

You act like you're the only one that knows this information. There's full disclosure. They tell you what's in the product. If people want poison their bodies, why do you think the government should stop them? Should the government outlaw any product it deems to be unhealthy? They'd have a long list, I'm sure.
Food doesn't have ammonia, strychnine, and shards of glass in it. Why can't it just be plain tobacco with nicotine as nicotine is a natural element in the plant as it belongs to the classicification (species?) nicotiana. Smokers don't have the option of getting tobacco the way the Native Americans procured it. Clearly your reasoning is taking the concept of "libertarianism" too far, and I suspect you are making this argument merely to follow ideology blindly.

[Loki]

Do I think that authoritarianism is a negative thing? No, but on that token, I do think hypocrisy is a negative thing, and acting authoritarian while preaching "freedom", "rights", and "fairness" is bald-faced hypocrisy.

It does not always work that way. It's more complex. Here's a crude example: everyone should be free to have as much sex as they want, but preferably not in public.

[Magister Eckhart]

It does not always work that way. It's more complex. Here's a crude example: everyone should be free to have as much sex as they want, but preferably not in public.

I would argue that protecting a person's right to practise whatever sexual perversions they desire (including exhibitionism) is still fundamentally tied to the liberal fetish of the "civil right". I would in fact argue that we as a society are marching towards a time when rampant sex in public between even the most perverse persons will become commonplace precisely because it is in fact, according to philosophical liberalism, which is fundamentally selfish and individualist, a "civil right".

As an authoritarian myself, I wish to see consistency in banning cigarettes outright - in fact I endorse complete ban of their sales in favour of respect for delicacies for those of more refined taste, to encourage refinement and elevate the culture on even this admittedly lower level. Since the environment in which a cigar is consumed is fundamentally different, I would argue, from that in which a cigarette is consumed, to speak of cigars and cigarettes as the same thing is in fact an error, because the social role they play is fundamentally different.

I fear I have been unclear in my comments in this thread, and apologise for any confusion that may have arisen. My protest is not the ban on cigarettes, but that the outright ban is hypocritical of people preaching the fetish of the "civil right". As I said above, if concessions were made and liberals were consistent, then they might find they have more luck convincing people of their anti-smoking policies. I continue to endorse a nuanced view of tobacco consumption and control, which is absent in the critique originating in liberal circles.

[Debaser11]

Food doesn't have ammonia, strychnine, and shards of glass in it.

No, it doesn't. Do you not accept that people should have domain over their own bodies, though? If the tobacco companies were saying that cigarettes were healthy or lying about what was actually in their product (that you are free NOT to purchase), then you may have a point. No one is making people light up. They have free will, no?


Why can't it just be plain tobacco with nicotine as nicotine is a natural element in the plant as it belongs to the classicification (species?) nicotiana.

Well, if the demand is there, there will be an economic incentive for people to start selling it. Clearly, there is a large market for cigarettes. And they're terrible for you. But what do you want to do? Make it illegal for people to smoke cigarettes because you want tobacco?


Smokers don't have the option of getting tobacco the way the Native Americans procured it.

Well, so what? No one has a right to tobacco. Again, if there is an economic incentive, someone will eventually act on it. I mean, where else is the stuff going to come from if not someone deciding it's a good business move to sell it?

Actually, I see tobacco at the store (Walmart even carries it here) and am thinking about getting a pipe to substitute for the occasional Friday night jazz cigarette I'm partial to having.


Clearly your reasoning is taking the concept of "libertarianism" too far, and I suspect you are making this argument merely to follow ideology blindly.

Clearly, my foot. How am I following anything blindly? Having a philosophical motivation is following something blindly? Having a libertarian motivation to one's actions is not an ornamental fad like some silly political bumper sticker advocating that I "Go Green" or something. The reason people seek out philosophical frameworks as the basis for their beliefs is because they actually have application for questions we encounter in the real world. I'm more partial to believing that not having a philosophical framework with which to assimilate information causes a person to act blindly. Ad hoc approaches to issues absent deep justifications cause inconsistencies and makes hypocrites out of people without them even realizing it.

[Magister Eckhart]

Well, if the demand is there, there will be an economic incentive for people to start selling it. Clearly, there is a large market for cigarettes. And they're terrible for you. But what do you want to do? Make it illegal for people to smoke cigarettes because you want tobacco?

I am not sure if this is necessarily true.

The predatory nature of cigarette companies in the national and international market largely prevent the very self-correction that you reference here. Even Cigars are controlled by large corporate cartels that dictate exactly what kind of tobacco reaches the market. If the demand is truly for cigarettes, then destruction of major cigarette companies will prove it; if the demand is artificial and the cigarette companies control the market, then there can only be universal benefit by destroying them through continued legal measures against cigarettes.

In this spirit, it seems that for both the capitalist who wants to see the market correct itself and the anti-cigarette parties who want to see this garbage replaced with higher-quality tobacco products, the best course of action is to endorse a government effort to smash cigarette companies and create "a cleaner market and cleaner air."

[Óttar]

But what do you want to do? Make it illegal for people to smoke cigarettes because you want tobacco?
No. I want them to make it illegal for companies to put ammonia, strychnine and shards of glass in their product. Nicotine, on the other hand, is a natural part of the tobacco leaf. :coffee:

[Debaser11]

No. I want them to make it illegal for companies to put ammonia, strychnine and shards of glass in their product. Nicotine, on the other hand, is a natural part of the tobacco leaf. :coffee:

Why? Because those things are harmful? If the answer is "yes," what across the board standard do you propose for the government to be able to act in order to stop people from harming themselves by consuming unhealthy products? You never addressed my point that people have free will.
(You also really didn't address most of my reply to you, but whatever.)


I am not sure if this is necessarily true.

The predatory nature of cigarette companies in the national and international market largely prevent the very self-correction that you reference here. Even Cigars are controlled by large corporate cartels that dictate exactly what kind of tobacco reaches the market.

Perhaps, but people know what cigarettes do to them, for the most part. It's not some cryptic mystery when someone develops cancer from smoking even in third world shit holes (personal experience). This is not 1940. There is nonetheless still a huge market for them. I don't necessarily approve of the cartels doing what you allege but I think your emphasis is still slightly out of line. It sort of reminds about the people who bitch about consuming trans-fats or high-fructose corn syrup as if they had no other choice but to consume such things. Want to get around the cartels? Don't consume their product.



If the demand is truly for cigarettes, then destruction of major cigarette companies will prove it;

Well, we do know that the demand is high enough where people are willing to put all those things in their bodies Óttar listed over not doing it. That in and of itself is not negligible. Again, I don't know where you live, but tobacco (maybe it's not pure?) is not hard to find, either. And it is an alternative to cigarettes. Want to know my take as a former regular smoker? I know this sounds sick, but the convenience of cigarettes versus carrying around a pipe and tobacco affected and still slightly affects my choice. But I am aware that personal anecdote is the lowest tier of substantive evidence in these types of discussions. Just food for thought.


if the demand is artificial and the cigarette companies control the market, then there can only be universal benefit by destroying them through continued legal measures against cigarettes.

The demand could be inflated but given what I said above, I won't accept that it's totally artificial.


In this spirit, it seems that for both the capitalist who wants to see the market correct itself and the anti-cigarette parties who want to see this garbage replaced with higher-quality tobacco products, the best course of action is to endorse a government effort to smash cigarette companies and create "a cleaner market and cleaner air."

Well, any sort of shenanigans the cartels are up to that you described should be investigated. I still remain skeptical absent concrete evidence due to burden of proof. I'm not sure enough proof can be provided to legitimately "smash" these entities, either. After all, the punishment must fit the proven crimes.

[Fortis in Arduis]

This is quite hypocritical, but I am not in the mood to explain you why and to go deeper in discussion. Maybe some other time, but just for the note, I wrote this.

I think that you were due for a cigarette break. ;)

[Piparskeggr]

The ill effects of tobacco smoking have been known since the mid 1600's (according to an extract I saw from a medical text of the time). I do not know anyone old enough to pre-date that.

It is the nature of man to engage in behavior, which is contra-survival; I believe we are the only animal that does that.

[The Lawspeaker]

I think that this law is completely overdone and stupid.

However I understand it when smoking is prohibited in public buildings and public transport. When it comes to small restaurants and pubs it should be left to the owner and when it comes to bigger restaurants and bars it should be divided up in smoking and non-smoking.

I am a smoker myself but sometimes I do enjoy sitting in a smoke-free environment. Besides: public spaces and public transport ought to be smoke-free (unless you add a nice train car that is dedicated to smokers) because everyone has to use it. Not so for pubs or restaurants as you go to one because you want too.

[Ognisty]

I live in Poland, here recently, is that right not to smoke in public places. It created a special room for smokers. The benefit of this is because it earns the police (people can not stop and smoke in public places = mandate) and the people who do not smoke. I think this is good, for example for me (I do not smoke).