Public Smoking Bans

[Josh/Devilman88]

For, 2nd hand smoke is worst the smoking it self. I don't want to get cancer because other people are stupid.

[Ebowed]

For, 2nd hand smoke is worst the smoking it self. I don't want to get cancer because other people are stupid.

Man, the anti-smoking campaign really gets through to some people.  How can secondhand smoke be worse than direct inhalaction of the cigarette?  Any secondhand smoke will be filtered through the air and be considerably weaker.

[Reluctant Republican]

For [R]. While I tend to favor the right of the individual to police their own health, This is the one issue where I think the goverment has a right to get involved in.

[Josh/Devilman88]

For, 2nd hand smoke is worst the smoking it self. I don't want to get cancer because other people are stupid.

Man, the anti-smoking campaign really gets through to some people.  How can secondhand smoke be worse than direct inhalaction of the cigarette?  Any secondhand smoke will be filtered through the air and be considerably weaker.

The smoke from the cigarette has all the harmful things in it.

[Ebowed]

For, 2nd hand smoke is worst the smoking it self. I don't want to get cancer because other people are stupid.

Man, the anti-smoking campaign really gets through to some people.  How can secondhand smoke be worse than direct inhalaction of the cigarette?  Any secondhand smoke will be filtered through the air and be considerably weaker.

The smoke from the cigarette has all the harmful things in it.

I know that.  I'm asking how the passive smoke can be worse than the direct inhalation, the "first-hand" smoke.

[Josh/Devilman88]

For, 2nd hand smoke is worst the smoking it self. I don't want to get cancer because other people are stupid.

Man, the anti-smoking campaign really gets through to some people.  How can secondhand smoke be worse than direct inhalaction of the cigarette?  Any secondhand smoke will be filtered through the air and be considerably weaker.

The smoke from the cigarette has all the harmful things in it.

I know that.  I'm asking how the passive smoke can be worse than the direct inhalation, the "first-hand" smoke.

The filter on the cigarette filters out alot of the chemicals. 

[Ebowed]

The filter on the cigarette filters out alot of the chemicals. 

a.) Filters don't really do anything
b.) A lot of cigarettes don't have filters
c.) Direct inhalation into the lungs will be worse regardless of the placement of a filter than sitting near someone who is smoking and possibly catching a couple breaths of smoke-tainted air.

[Josh/Devilman88]

The filter on the cigarette filters out alot of the chemicals. 

a.) Filters don't really do anything
b.) A lot of cigarettes don't have filters
c.) Direct inhalation into the lungs will be worse regardless of the placement of a filter than sitting near someone who is smoking and possibly catching a couple breaths of smoke-tainted air.

Do you live with someone that smokes?

[Ebowed]

Do you live with someone that smokes?

Not relevant.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Do you live with someone that smokes?

Not relevant.

Yes it is. I do, when they get done smoking I can sit there and blow smoke out of my own lungs for 10 mins. The fact isn't if 2nd hand smoke is more harmful the 1st hand, the fact is you still get the smoke into your lungs causing the risk of cancer. I don't know about you but I don't want to get cancer.

[Ebowed]

Yes it is. I do, when they get done smoking I can sit there and blow smoke out of my own lungs for 10 mins. The fact isn't if 2nd hand smoke is more harmful the 1st hand, the fact is you still get the smoke into your lungs causing the risk of cancer. I don't know about you but I don't want to get cancer.

You can't blow smoke out of your lungs for 10 minutes after someone smokes a cigarette.

If they smoke outside, you probably won't get any secondhand smoke at all, or an extremely small amount.

They shouldn't be smoking inside, but if they are, just don't sit near them.

You won't get cancer from secondhand smoke, unless you're sitting in a closed room with a group of smokers for hours a day.  If you are asthmatic, the smoke could have a negative affect on you.  Otherwise, you shouldn't really worry about it, and the idea that secondhand smoke is more unhealthy than firsthand smoke is quite silly.

[John Dibble]

Yes it is. I do, when they get done smoking I can sit there and blow smoke out of my own lungs for 10 mins. The fact isn't if 2nd hand smoke is more harmful the 1st hand, the fact is you still get the smoke into your lungs causing the risk of cancer. I don't know about you but I don't want to get cancer.

You can't blow smoke out of your lungs for 10 minutes after someone smokes a cigarette.

Agreed, and I have lived with smokers. I've known people who have smoked all my life and I've been with them when the smoke - indoors and outdoors. Yes I've breathed a bit every now and then, but I've never noticeably breathed out smoke.

[Hatman 🍁]

This is not relevant, and probably just me going insane, but I have experienced craving a cigarette after inhaling second hand smoke even though I've never smoked before. I wonder if that's possible?

[Ebowed]

This is not relevant, and probably just me going insane, but I have experienced craving a cigarette after inhaling second hand smoke even though I've never smoked before. I wonder if that's possible?

You can't get physically addicted to something you've never tried.

[Hatman 🍁]

This is not relevant, and probably just me going insane, but I have experienced craving a cigarette after inhaling second hand smoke even though I've never smoked before. I wonder if that's possible?

You can't get physically addicted to something you've never tried.

I "tried" second hand smoke.

[Ebowed]

I "tried" second hand smoke.

Which is basically the same as sniffing a clump of burning firewood.

You can't get cravings from secondhand smoke unless you're already an addicted smoker and the smell of cigarette smoke reminds you that you want a cigarette.  Addiction doesn't work like you're describing it.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

Against (R)

The government (on the most local level) can, and should, ban smoking in public areas and government buildings like parks, libraries, community buildings, couthouses, etc.  But to ban smoking in private places of business is absurd.  That is a decision best kept to the business owner.   

[Person Man]

Against (D)

[Ebowed]

parks

Why would you ban smoking in a park?

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

parks

Why would you ban smoking in a park?

Public places paid for by taxpayers (smoker and non-smoker alike) should be free from second hand smoke which could be hazardous to others, and is a completely optional habit.  If you want to have a smoke, go to some other place instead of public parks where kids are playing. 

That said, any smoking ban should be implemented at the lowest possible level of government and only applied to those public places previously mentioned.

[Hash]

For (I). I don't want to be sick become some douchebags smoke in front of my face in public spaces.

[Ebowed]

Man, the left is really insane on this issue.

No one is going to get sick from breathing second hand smoke in a park.

[7,052,770]

All tobacco executives should be sent to Guantanamo Bay, as they are the real terrorists...

Think about it...Al Qaeda has killed around 3500 Americans ever.

Tobacco kills 1200 Americans EVERY DAY.

[Michael Z]

I wasn't enthusiastic when they initially introduced a public smoking ban in London, but, man, it does make a difference. Now I no longer reek of f***ing tobacco when I come back from the pub - it's nice not having to do the bloody laundry four times a week. Not to mention waking up the next morning without a frigging migraine and a retching cough because of all the second-hand smoke I inhaled the night before. No, definitely For.

Yeah, so it's a selfish point. So what. Screw you.

[John Dibble]

Tobacco kills 1200 Americans EVERY DAY.

Alcohol kills a lot of people too. EVERY DAY. They must be in league with each other - THEY MUST BE STOPPED!