Posts by Jessica Kelly4

Anthony Kim18 said:If people want to poison themselves, we should discourage it,
not go as far as banning them from poisoning others!

I agree. I don't think that contradicts anything I've said. I just find your use of the word "discourage" to be a bit soft.

Justin Fox said:My main point is this: if a smoker is allowed to light up in a restaurant, then a non-smoker should be just as entitled to light a piece of Styrofoam on fire or spill some foul-smelling liquid. It pollutes the air for everyone else and puts their health at risk, just like cigarette smoke does.

Nobody is asking for smokers to be allowed to light up next to non-smokers. Read what’s already been said.

talia said:So, should people who pay alcohol taxes be allowed to drink on the job since they contribute to the treasury?

Sure. But we aren't going to let them. 😁

Sandra Hayes88 said:Why on earth should we provide smoking areas for smokers?
Should we also accommodate smokers in doctor's offices, hair salons, buses, movie theaters, grocery stores, theaters, banks, etc.?

Because smokers pay taxes just like everyone else, and they have the right to demand what matters to them. It's not just a handful of people that you can just ignore by force of the massive majority.

dustycanyon6 said:Look, I don't care whether smokers get their own designated areas or not—my only concern is not having to breathe in smoke. If a public building can set up a smoking room that doesn't impact the rest of the space, fine by me. But honestly, that’s usually impossible to pull off, so I'd rather they just ban smoking in public buildings altogether. If it actually works, though? No complaints from me.

At least we agree on the main point.🙂

dustycanyon6 said:When you look at the big picture, there isn't really a specific reason to protect indoor smoking conditions. Is there? Then just expose them.

What have we even been arguing about for the last hundred posts? You've got a whole crowd of people trying to enjoy a habit that the government has been heavily exploiting for tax revenue. It’s fine to ask that they don't jeopardize others, but labeling them as total villains all at once is overkill. Habits—most of which aren't healthy—are a massive part of life. Smokers contribute to the economy just as much as non-smokers, and they have every right to demand what they consider essential. Besides, it's not your job to decide if something is too expensive or if it makes sense to spend money on a habit you don't get (honestly, I don't either, but I accept that everyone is different). Whether this actually passes or if people have the backbone to fight for it is another story entirely.

Honestly, I doubt you actually want to understand or accept that while you're on this angry crusade of yours. Just try not to let the exhaust fumes make you cry; otherwise, nobody would dare drive through Washington, D.C. anymore. 😁

dustycanyon6 said:- employees working in smoking sections are getting poisoned, and maybe they wouldn't want that happen

What kind of work in a smoking section are we talking about here? We're discussing designated ventilated areas where smokers can do their thing. If you mean bars or restaurants labeling themselves as smoking lounges, then yeah, you'd need staff who can actually handle the smoke or don't mind being around it.🙂

dustycanyon6 said:- social polarization, plus the fact that smokers HAVE to light up, which will just pull non-smokers toward the smoking side

I don't get this at all. Are smokers supposed to be some kind of ultra-charismatic icons that make it impossible to even take a break around them? You're exaggerating...

dustycanyon6 said:If someone smokes alone without anyone else around, they're just exercising their own freedom.

Then why are you against passing laws that protect those conditions so that person can actually keep exercising that freedom? If you're so convinced that liberty shouldn't be infringed upon, this feels like we're just running in circles.

John Perez85 said:That kind of law would help both smokers and non-smokers. It gives smokers a reason to quit, and gives non-smokers actual clean air to breathe!

Here comes another early bird. 👍

Maybe you're right. We'll see. Time will tell. Either way, reducing the number of smokers is better, assuming this law doesn't backfire. What are the trends looking like in countries that already passed this stuff?

fadedtrucker19 said:This minority is acting to the detriment of everyone else. Period.

Personal freedom ends where someone else's begins.

fadedtrucker19, you're slippery. I gave you plenty of examples where a minority acts against the majority, and you didn't counter them—you just hid behind empty slogans about liberty. It seems like you actually think banning smokers is going to make honey and milk flow through the streets of America! 😁

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that "freedom ends where others begin" line isn't reality. In practice, we cross that line all the time because it’s impossible to force everyone to agree on what life, freedom, or morality even means. To maintain some semblance of order, and driven by whoever has the most lobby power in a modern democracy, almost every law we pass encroaches on someone's "freedom." Maybe it's hard for you to grasp, but people see the world in ways that are fundamentally opposed to one another. While you see smoking as pure evil, someone else sees it as a lifestyle choice. By pushing your views, you're effectively stripping away their freedom (and your medical arguments don't change that fact here). The only real move is to find like-minded people, build enough political clout, and flip the laws in your favor. As for the whining about liberty... leave that to the elementary schoolers.

Anthony Kim18 said:I just finished a cigarette, so I figured I'd write this.
The fear bar owners have about losing customers is total nonsense.
Smokers will eventually ditch the coffee shops and places like that.
Actually, it’s quite the opposite—coffee shops are just going to get even more crowded.
It won't happen instantly or overnight, but in the long run, it definitely will.

Get real. Won't the number of people hanging out in coffee shops stay exactly the same?

Anthony Kim18 said:It’s just like those restaurant owners whining about losing business because of a zero-tolerance law. Total nonsense.
If you can afford dinner and wine at a restaurant, you can definitely afford a taxi.

We've seen a dip for now. Maybe things will level out eventually, but despite all the effort, the government still hasn't provided any solid proof that this law actually makes sense.

fadedtrucker19 said:Why?

Being addicted to cigarettes is a personal matter.
Why should a company be forced to provide smoking areas for smokers?

And here’s another thing that gets annoying: when a non-smoker takes a five-minute break, they’re "slacking off." A smoker uses that time to smoke, so it’s fine.

Gross.

Because there are tons of smokers out there, making up a huge chunk of the population. It's just basic math. Plus, I keep hearing people on this forum preach about minority rights being the foundation of democracy. Well, smokers are a minority too—or maybe they aren't if you count the occasional smoker, making them the majority 😁.

As for those cigarette breaks, I'm with you. Either everyone gets a five-minute break, or nobody does.

dustycanyon6 John Perez85 said:He-he. Don't you see that education just doesn't make sense these days? 😬 Just look at illegal drugs. People know more about them now than ever before, yet everyone is getting high more often. Education isn't going to fix this. Maybe people will stop smoking once they start getting sick, or when every second person starts having severe allergic reactions to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Or maybe just through laws. 😉

Most guys try drugs simply because they're obsessed with anything forbidden. As for drug education... everything I've seen has been incredibly uninspired and totally out of touch with what kids actually face. It’s basically just brainwashing.

Ri§ said:No, if they share space with non-smokers, then they shouldn't be allowed to smoke.

Sure, absolutely, but we need laws that guarantee smokers actually have a designated spot to go. Someone here mentioned a great example of an airport where smokers get their own area with top-tier ventilation—nobody gets poisoned, and nobody feels discriminated against either. We should also let the market decide which bars or restaurants are smoking-friendly, non-smoking, or mixed. Smoking should die out naturally through educating the younger generation, not by forcing it through legislation.

nimblestag31 said:We need laws. There wasn't even a rule against conducting experiments on walls sixty years ago. Right?

I’m calling foul on this way of arguing; it’s just beneath contempt. You're talking about hundreds of thousands of people being brutally murdered. That isn't something to joke about or trivialize.

nimblestag31 said:I feel like this isn't really what this thread is about. 🙂

So you think I'm a fool? How am I supposed to back up my claims about government hypocrisy if I'm only allowed to talk about cigarettes? 😁

brighteagle38 said:exhaust fumes are harmful, but at the same time, everything is being done to minimize that harm

So you think you know more than the rest of us?

brighteagle38 said:at the end of the day, I see a million different benefits in a car for everyone, unlike a cigarette.

The real question is fundamental: how much control should the government have over our lives, and what principles guide that control? If the principle is protecting people from potentially dangerous substances, then they should act across all sectors. If they only selectively target one thing, it's not a principle anymore. And if you try to justify those selective actions using general principles, then it's just hypocrisy.

dustycanyon6 said:You have to admit cigarettes are used purely for pleasure—there’s zero other benefit to them. And they harm everyone, both smokers and bystanders. You can't really compare the two directly.

Fair point, those are two qualitatively different issues. But I hate how our "philanthropic" government plays dirty here. By the way, anyone living in a major metro area knows exactly what I mean; we've been fighting to move toxic polluters out of the city center for decades. The government, obsessed with public health, has a simple answer: it’s too expensive (unless it's right before an election, then suddenly they're willing to move mountains just to grab a few more votes).

dustycanyon6 said:I'm not suggesting smokers should give up their little pleasures. I'm saying everyone else needs to stop poisoning themselves with theirs. For me, drinking a Pepsi is a joy—does that mean I'm toxic or bothering anyone just by having one?😕

We aren't debating you or what you want to do.🙂 We're talking about laws that are way too restrictive and don't even allow for separate smoking areas in public indoor spaces—they just go straight to a total ban.