Smoking ban in all public spaces

I'm also all for that zero-tolerance BAC law.

dustycanyon6 said:I honestly don't get some people... What kind of twisted logic is that? Your username is pretty ironic, isn't it? 😁 Look, if anyone is actually "doing" anything to someone else, it's the smokers. Smoking is an action; not smoking isn't an action. A non-smoker is just an "observer"—they aren't doing anything to anyone. So, if we want a world where nobody does anything to anybody, let's go back to zero. Zero is just air without smoke. If you move from that status quo into an active state—meaning you light up a cigarette—you're the one taking action, and you're doing it at the expense of yourself and everyone else. How can we even talk about banning something that shouldn't have been allowed in the first place? I’ve already proposed a solution: let's grab coffee a few times a week. You can poison me with your smoke, and I'll drop an Ariella spoon into your coffee. Sound fair? That way, we're both being "active," instead of you being the actor while I just sit here as an observer.

You shouldn't have taken that part of my post literally—read it again. If that sounded serious to you, then you really 🙂 😉

Ri§ said:I'm a passionate smoker, yet I'd totally ban smoking in all public spaces—including
bars, pubs, restaurants, and nightclubs!

You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about when it comes to smoking. 👋

So, I just had a cigarette,
and honestly, I’ve got some thoughts on the whole thing...

Look, I'm all about diversity, different lifestyles, and personal freedom.
That includes the freedom to smoke and even the freedom to mess with your own health.
I don't think anyone should be stripping people of their right to smoke.
But hey, this law isn't really about limiting smokers, is it?
It’s more about making sure non-smokers have the right to stay healthy and aren't breathing in carcinogenic smoke.
Nobody's forcing anyone to light up. But if you're sharing space with non-smokers, you shouldn't be doing it there.
You can always step out of a public area to grab a smoke. You can puff on as much tobacco as you want, whenever you want.

Jose Chase2 said:You don't know the first thing about smoking👋

Depends on what kind of smoking we're talking about, right? And what exactly is being smoked...

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.

John Perez85 said:We should let smoking just die out naturally through education rather than trying to force it with laws.

He-he. Don't you see that education doesn't really work these days? 😬 Just look at illegal drugs—people know more about them now than ever before, yet everyone seems to be using them more. So... education isn't going to end anything. Maybe people will finally quit when they start getting sick, or when every other person starts having massive allergic reactions to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Or maybe we just need laws. 😉

Reverse psychology—just put Kaćunko on TV and have him start preaching about how smoking is actually a healthy habit for good Christians, and that non-smokers are just wicked little devils. Everyone would become non-smokers in a heartbeat, wouldn't they?

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.

John Perez85 said:Most kids try drugs simply because they're drawn to the forbidden fruit aspect of it. As for drug education programs... from what I've seen, they’re pretty uninspired and totally out of touch with how young people actually think—it's basically just mindless lecturing.

Prika 🙏🙏🙏

dustycanyon6 said:He-he. Don't you see that education in this day and age has become an exercise in futility? 😬 Just look at the illegal drug scene—people today seem to have more information about substances than ever before, yet everyone is getting high more frequently.

You really need to work on your logic. 🙂

It is an undeniable reality that drug use is on the rise, yet this trend doesn't serve as a validation of our current approach; rather, it proves that education alone isn't yielding the expected impact and that prohibition is equally ineffective at curbing the issue. If we were to follow the flawed logic of your reasoning, we would be forced to conclude that whenever a specific tool fails to produce the immediate desired outcome, the tool itself must be declared utterly useless. 😁

Or perhaps we could simply... reform it? 😉

The only logical conclusion left to draw is that our current approach to education—given its abysmal form and hollow content—is an absolute failure and demands a complete overhaul, especially since we are fundamentally stuck with prohibition regarding drugs. These drug prevention campaigns are nothing more than a collection of blatant falsehoods masquerading as truth under the guise that "all drugs are evil," leaving children to be lectured by hypocritical authorities like that fraud Kosor, who looks them straight in the eye and lies without a second thought. They simply refuse to believe it..

The situation with smoking is much the same. This entire thread serves as a perfect illustration of how discussions regarding smoking frequently devolve into moralizing lectures and stigmatizing rhetoric rather than being grounded in actual scientific facts. Naturally, this approach triggers exactly the opposite reaction of what was intended. It is telling that not a single participant in this debate has bothered to provide even one credible link or source to scientifically back up their claims. This speaks volumes about the caliber of discourse happening here—it’s a depressing reflection of our educational programs, which, unfortunately, aren't much better.

Whether someone decides to smoke, use drugs, or drink is entirely a matter of personal liberty—that much is indisputable. Society holds a responsibility to provide accurate, unbiased information regarding the benefits and hazards of such choices, ensuring individuals are properly informed rather than merely indoctrinated, so they can make decisions based on reality. An individual being in a position to make an informed decision..

That should be the fundamental objective of any educational initiative, yet current prevention programs targeting smoking and other addictions fall nowhere near the necessary standards of accuracy or impartiality. Instead, they rely on a tired loop of moralistic mantras repeated ad nauseam, bolstered by a staggering amount of misinformation.

The inescapable conclusion here is that we must overhaul and elevate our educational programs to ensure they actually meet modern standards, thereby restoring the trust of those they are meant to serve. Such initiatives hold immense value, provided they are built upon a legitimate and sound foundation.

John Perez85 said:I really object to this kind of reasoning—it just feels wrong. You're talking about hundreds of thousands of people being brutally killed, and I don't think that should be treated as a joke or put in this kind of context.

I actually mentioned right below that it was horrible,
but it just popped into my head as an example of what happens when there are no laws—I definitely wasn't trying to make light of it
for God's sake
sorry

Scott Smith said:This whole thread just goes to show how often people jump into discussions about smoking with moralizing, judgmental attitudes instead of actually sticking to the scientific facts.

That's true—we definitely could use more actual science and less opinion.
but...
the thing is, a huge chunk of smokers already know all about the risks—they know their lungs are getting trashed, they've seen the graphic warnings, and they read all those scary messages on the packs—but somehow none of that really hits home.
everyone seems to think (well, we all seem to think) you only live once, so why not indulge a little?
it’s kind of like how we eat junk food or stay glued to the couch too much... it's just how it goes, I guess.

Of course, education should be improved, but I'm worried it might not make much of a difference in the end.😢

John Perez85 said:I actually smoked myself,
so I have some thoughts on this too...

I’m usually the first one to stand up for diversity—you know, different lifestyles and personal freedom.
And that includes the freedom to smoke, even if it means poisoning oneself—I guess.
I don't think we should really be limiting people or their right to smoke.
But honestly, this law isn't even about restricting that right.
It’s more about making sure non-smokers have a right to their health and staying protected from carcinogens in the air.
Nobody is forcing anyone to pick up a cigarette. But, maybe, when they're sharing space with non-smokers, they shouldn't be smoking then.
They can always just step out of a public area to light up. They can smoke as much as they want, whenever they want.

man, 😘
I love smokers like that 🙂

Jose Chase2 said:Man, you non-smokers can be such a pain—honestly! It's not like I go around lecturing anyone for not smoking when we're grabbing coffee, right? Sure, it feels a little weird when I'm out with four friends and I'm the only one not lighting up, but I don't judge them for it 😢 He’s still a good guy even if he doesn't smoke! Why won't you just let us live our lives? Give us our freedom 🙂

So, are you actually joking or do you really feel that way???
i wonder... 🙄

c'mon, just think about it for a sec 😉
I guess someone already explained the issue pretty well in another post, so I won't bore you with it again

Or, like, imagine you're at coffee with five buddies who all happen to smell strongly of garlic. Or maybe onions—you know, healthy stuff, but you wouldn't want to smell like that, right? It'd be kind of rude. And I bet you'd say something to them. But with this, you're acting like it's fine

Scott Smith John Perez85 said:You really need to work on your logic... 🙂

It’s true that more people are using drugs these days, but honestly, that doesn't mean education isn't working, nor does it prove that prohibition is a failure. If we follow your logic... whenever we don't get the exact result we wanted, we just decide the whole method is pointless... and that's a slippery slope... 😁

Maybe we could just... shake things up a bit? Like, reform it? 😉

They didn't have a choice—they just had to...

Scott Smith said:It’s pretty much the same deal when you talk about smoking. Looking at this thread, it seems like people jump straight into being all moralistic and judgmental instead of just sticking to the actual science. It honestly backfires... it just makes people dig their heels in more. And honestly? Not a single person in this whole discussion has even bothered to drop a link to a real study or a credible source to back up what they're saying...

What claims? You mean about how smoking is bad for you? That’s just common sense... everyone knows that.

Scott Smith said:Whether you choose to smoke, use drugs, or drink... that's entirely on you. It’s a personal choice, plain and simple. No question there. I just think society has this responsibility to provide honest, unbiased information—not indoctrination, mind you! We need to know the pros and the cons of these choices so we can actually make up our own minds... Just so an individual can actually make an informed decision....

That’s supposed to be the whole point of education, isn't it? But honestly, looking at today's prevention programs for smoking and other addictions... they aren't even close to being accurate or unbiased. Not even close. Instead, they just lean heavily on these tired, moralistic mantras that they repeat until you're blue in the face... along with a massive amount of misinformation.

So, the bottom line is we really need to overhaul and step up these educational programs. They’ve got to meet actual standards if we want the people they're meant for to actually trust them... These kinds of programs definitely make sense, though, provided they're built on the right foundation...

Look, my main concern here is just basic individual freedom. When you're out there smoking around someone else, you're essentially stripping them of their own liberty. You're poisoning them, bothering them... it’s just not right. But hey, I guess that's perfectly legal according to the law! 😲That’s why smoking shouldn't be allowed in public spaces. And honestly, it’s not even about education... because even when people are well-informed, they can still choose whether or not to light up—and usually, they just decide to keep going. I don't have anything against anyone doing what they want... as long as they do it on their own time and only hurt themselves, instead of everyone else...

To wrap things up—I honestly believe that getting rid of bans on smoking in public places is primarily about building a more democratic and free society. That should be the main goal, and everything else is just a secondary way to tackle personal health issues... The thing is, some people (and let’s be real, most smokers) don't give enough thought to the health consequences of their habits. Without these laws, they’re just going to keep bothering everyone else. With this kind of legislation in place, they only end up hurting themselves. And hey, that's their choice to make. But nobody else should have to suffer for it...

dustycanyon6 said:What claims? About how smoking is harmful? That’s just common knowledge.

This is a textbook example of uncritical acceptance—simply nodding along to anything that happens to align with your existing biases. A Nazi propaganda minister once made a rather pithy observation: if you repeat a lie often enough, it eventually morphs into truth. 😉

When we attempt to quantify exactly how much smoking kills, the answer isn't absolute, primarily because it fails to account for those outliers—people who smoke their entire lives and never suffer a single smoking-related ailment. While that certainly doesn't prove smoking is harmless, any legitimate discussion regarding its impact must be conducted within the rigorous framework of actual science, rather than relying on myths, prejudices, or what you consider to be "common knowledge"—which, from your perspective, seems to have been granted total immunity from scrutiny or debate. There is no such thing as "common knowledge" here; if the debate were truly settled, smoking would be illegal, just like hard drugs.

Regarding secondhand smoke—the very cornerstone used to justify bans in public spaces—the argument for its harm is even more tenuous.

The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
link

We found a rather remarkably low SMR [standardized incidence ratio] for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this group. Smoking during airplane flights was permitted in Germany until The mid-1990s, and smoking is still not banned on all charter flights. The risk of Cardiovascular Disease mortality for mali and Female Air Crew was surprisingly Low (reaching statistical significance among women).
link

In contrast to the results of previous studies, this study found no association between exposure to ETS and female breast cancer mortality. The results of Our study ara particularly compelling because of its prospective design as compared with most earlier Studies , The relatively large number of exposed Women with breast cancer deaths, and the reporting of exposure by the spouse rather than by proxy.
link

There has long been a common assumption that secondhand cigarette smoke heightens the risk of developing active asthma, yet to this point, scientific studies have failed to provide any convincing evidence for such a connection.
link

Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke during childhood showed no correlation with an increased risk of lung cancer. The odds ratio for lifetime exposure to a spouse's Environmental Tobacco Smoke sat at 1.16. Furthermore, no distinct dose-response relationship could be established regarding cumulative exposure to a spouse's Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Regarding occupational hazards, the odds ratio for lifetime exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in the workplace was 1.17, though there was some potential evidence suggesting a rising risk linked to longer durations of exposure. Notably, no increase in risk was observed in individuals whose exposure to either spousal or workplace Environmental Tobacco Smoke had ceased more than 15 years prior. Finally, lifetime exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke from any other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk.
link

In short, all the findings presented above are subject to scrutiny, and I am challenging you to provide a reasoned, evidence-based rebuttal to these highlighted scientific studies if you are truly as certain of your claims as you pretend to be.

Personally, I am of the mind that active smoking is in certain instances harmful, but I remain unconvinced regarding the dangers of secondhand smoke—certainly not to the extreme degree that most non-smokers (a group I belong to) accept as an absolute truth or "poisoning." To claim that both active and passive smoking are equally and absolutely hazardous is, in my view, irresponsible and nothing more than unscientific myth-mongering masquerading as fact.

A high-quality debate on any issue necessitates the inclusion of both sides regardless of which camp you happen to fall into.

By presenting your stance as an absolute certainty while stumbling through several elementary logical fallacies, you have unfortunately discredited yourself as a serious interlocutor.

I'm all for banning smoking in public places.
If the gentlemen who insist on smoking want to freeze their butts off, they can go head out outside away from us non-smokers.😁

I honestly think when it comes to that—and really just about life in general—you’ve gotta stay flexible. Being rigid or closed off never ends well.

Scott Smith said:Here’s a perfect example of what I mean by non-critical acceptance—just swallowing anything that happens to line up with what you already believe. You know, the Nazi propaganda minister in Germany once said something pretty clever... if you repeat a lie often enough, it eventually becomes the truth. 😉

He's absolutely spot on. I mean, just look at religion!... 😬

Scott Smith said:By insisting you're 100% right while tripping over a few basic logical fallacies, you've pretty much lost all credibility as someone worth talking to...

What exactly do you mean by "absolutely correct"? Are we talking about how smoking around other people is morally wrong? Because if so, that’s where I stand, and I’m pretty damn sure I’m right about it. You didn't actually say anything that contradicts that... Besides, the smoke itself just wrecks me. It makes my throat ache, my nose starts bleeding, my eyes water... it's a mess. Honestly, it even messes with my head. So whenever I can, I steer clear of it. Which basically means I’m sentenced to "social isolation" just to stay sane. And don't even get me started on what it does to your clothes and your skin... They stink... Smoke... yeah, that's nasty. I mean, if I walk into a coffee shop and just start spraying deodorant all over everyone else, what am I even doing? What would happen to me? Honestly, I’d probably just get jumped... you know? Just a beatdown.

And as for the health implications—look, first give me some actual studies from this millennium... then maybe we can have a conversation like that! 😉

Kids growing up around smokers at home face a much tougher road ahead... we're talking a three times higher chance of developing lung cancer later in life compared to kids from non-smoking households. There was this massive study that tracked more than 123,000 people over a seven-year stretch. It’s pretty eye-opening... some of them had never touched a cigarette themselves, and others had actually quit, but they all shared that same history of being around Environmental Tobacco Smoke as children. Just something to think about...

Accumulating evidence on passive and active Smoking and breast cancer risk... turns out there's more to this than people realize. It’s all starting to come together.