What are your opinions on Smoking and drinking? I personally think smoking should be banned and drinking should be restricted. Islam bans both, and I think I’m quite ok with it (ignoring the reasons why islam banned it)
I think your an ass who tries to legeslate his own morality onto others so go fuck yourslef. All we need is more cops ruining more lives, collecting more revenue for bullshit ordinances like smoking in public. If I own a fucking restaurant you have no fucking business at all telling me who I can and can not serve. Go fuck yourself. If you don’t want to eat there eat someplace else. Using the government to strong arm me into following your fucking rules is bullshit. The government has no business legeslating morality and people like you need to go find their safe space and hide out.
Drinking is restriceted. There are restrictions on it all across America. In california a bartender who serves someone under the influence can be jailed. In Utah, no drink is sold with more than 1.5 oz of alcohol. The drinking age is 21. DUI fines and punishmets are severe. They can mean jail time, loss of employment and more.
YOU, quite ignorantly, don’t have a fucking clue what you are talking about. And by the way, drinking happes in all Islamic countries. While six months in jail for having an unregistered glass of wine sounds bad, it could be worse. In Saudi Arabia alcohol related crimes (possession, consumption and distribution) are regularly cited as the second most commonly charged crimes in the entire country.
Second most commonly cited crime in the country? SOMEONE IS FUCKING DRINKING!
1 Like
I want to get “drinking” out of the way. I don’t give a shit what anyone does as long as it does not cause harm to others. And when you mix alcohol (or one of many other drugs) and driving, I am firmly opposed to that.
But both the government and religion are intrusive, they attempt to control every aspect of a person’s daily life.
Although I am not a fanatic fan of Elon Musk, and this comment applies to engineering …
In my ideal world there would be no religion and a extremely minimalist government.
2 Likes
Oh, boy! This should be fun. 
… Well, here’s my two cents worth…
Smoking: Personally, I have never smoked. I don’t like it. Can’t stand it. Grew up during a time when practically EVERYBODY smoked. And people could smoke ANYWHERE. In restaurants, on planes, in theaters, in high schools, and even in hospitals. Couldn’t go anywhere without smelling it. I hated it. That being said…
Who the hell am I to say other people should not be allowed to smoke? That’s just plain STUPID. A person wants to inhale a bunch of toxic chemicals into their lungs, that is his/her choice to make, not mine. And certainly no government’s. All I ask is that they have a little common courtesy if smoking in public. Of course, I do believe it should be restricted in certain public places. (Hospitals and commercial flights, for example.) However, I also believe a private business (retail store, restaurant, etc.) should be allowed to determine their own smoking policies. The government should keep its big nose out of that. Speaking of which, I don’t like marijuana, either. But I don’t think the government should be allowed to ban it. (But that’s another can of worms on its own.)
Drinking: Seriously? As Cog said, that is already highly regulated. Ridiculously so in many cases. My “favorite” regulation is the “Can’t sell alcohol on Sunday” law in many places. Apparently, god gets offended if people buy alcohol on Sundays. And in many places it is only between certain hours it cannot be sold. Like, for example, between 2a.m. and noon Sunday. I guess god wants everybody to be sober when going to church Sunday morning? Hell if I know… (shrugging shoulders)… Oh, here is another favorite here in the U.S. (You know, Home of the “Free”.) A young man/woman can enlist in the military at seventeen, and be sent off to training to learn how to kill people by the age of eighteen, and then be shipped off to a combat zone to put that training to use while being under constant threat of getting shot and blown up themselves. But don’t you DARE allow that child to drink a beer to celebrate when (IF) he/she finally makes it back home to their family/friends. You AND that combat veteran could go to jail for such criminal activies, as the legal drinking age is 21. So fucking stupid it’s beyond comprehension… (shaking my damn head)… Anyway, where was I?.. Oh…
Don’t drink and drive. Don’t drink while operating heavy equipment. Don’t drink while using firearms. Basically, don’t drink when doing ANY activity where your mental impairment could put the safety/life of others at risk. There’s your “restrictions”. Pretty basic common sense. Otherwise, the government needs to fuck off.
1 Like
The incontinency…incongruence…INCONSISTENCY of the laws here are baffling. At 18 you’re an adult, and you can vote, you are economically and legally your own master, you can drive a vehicle (even from the tender age of 16?), buy weapons, vote, join the armed forces, be elected to public offices, take out a loan, etc., but you cannot touch alcohol. It’s mindboggingly stupid.
Not that the laws where I live are perfect, though; at 18 you can vote, drive a vehicle, etc (lots of other shit), AND you can legally be sold or given alcohol. Though it is limited to beer, wine and other alcoholic drinks up to 22% by volume. With stronger drinks you’ll have to wait until 20. But please note that here, it is not illegal to BUY or DRINK alcohol as a minor, but it is illegal to make alcohol available to minors, by selling or giving it. Which means that a person below the age of 18 could brew his or her own beer or wine and drink it, legally.
I’ve never consumed alcohol my entire life, and it’s for a good reason, it all tastes terrible. Beer is the worst, just the smell turns my stomach, wine and the hard stuff are just as bad. I think that anyone who gets behind the wheel of a car drunk and either hurts or kills someone else should lose not only their license, but their vehicle for a year to start. A second offense get’s you 5 years in prison. There was a woman up here in Wash. state a couple of years ago that had 6 previous DUI’s and was still driving drunk until she hit someone and killed them.
Really fucked up. If others want to drink, I have no problem with it, they’re supposed to be grownups.
Smoking makes me sick also, I can smell a lit cigarette from a hundred feet away, I’m glad it’s banned in stores and restaurants here in the US.
Just curious, and going out on a tangent: Do you get this reaction with other types of food or drink? If so, could it be that you’re a supertaster?
I’m the same, through not with the smelling. Give me a drink of anything containing ethyl alcohol, though, and I’ll start feeling nauseous as soon as it hits my pyloric valve.
I have considered seeing if the nausea might subside with further consumption, but if the choice is between feeling ill and simply not consuming a substance that converts to acetaldehyde inside of you in the first place…
1 Like
I can’t eat anything with cheese on or in it anymore. As a kid, my mom told me that I’d eat mustard and cheese sandwiches or a grilled cheese every single day until I got sick of it around the age of 5.
Now I can’t/won’t touch anything with cheese. I’ve been a meat and potatoes fan ever since.
Same here, but with one caveat. Despite how much I dislike smoking, I still believe it should be left up to the business owners to set their own smoking policies. May sound crazy, I know. But our fucking government has way over-reached its “authority”, in my opinion. I have no problem with the bans on public mass-transit, or in hospitals, or in government buildings. But a private business owner should be allowed to set the policies by which he/she runs their own establishment. If they allow smoking in the building and I don’t like it, then I’ll simply find another place to do get/do what I need. It’s called Freedom of Choice.
You “think” you are OK with islam banning smoking and drinking? Why?
And isn’t the reasoning VERY important?
1 Like
Hmmm… 
… Do you like to masturbate? I’m something of a fan of it, personally. However, there are some folks out there who HATE masturbation. Do you think you would be okay with those folks getting together to ban masturbation?
By the way, where the hell are you? You started a thread, but then refuse to make any replies or answer any questions. You not getting the responses you wanted?
1 Like
All fine…until you are an employee who really needs that job, or it is the only employer in the area, and is surrounded by toxic fumes every working day, all the working day.
Then in the US contracts a respiratory disease caused by secondhand smoke fumes, and who the fuck do they sue? Do we charge the business owner with manslaughter as he/she KNOWS the risks and yet continues?
In this case the Governments (like in Australia) legislated for the GREATER GOOD…as they are meant to, and charged to do at the election.
Personally, ban tobacco smoking.
Touch my wine and I bash your face.
Then don’t work there. You don’t own the business and you don’t get to say what happens in the business. The owner paid money for his business. He worked and slaved to make his business work. And now you come along and think you can start making rules? I have a problem with that. If the rules are that unreasonable, no one will work for the man and he will have to change the rules or go out of business. Another scenerio would be, you are the top man in your field and he really wants you to work for him, so you actually do have some power, and you get it written into your contract that no one will smoke in the building and the owner agrees to it and changes his rules for you. It’s a private business and the government has no business legeslating morality.
POINT IS - The fucking government needs to butt out! If you are the only man in the area, as in your scenario. If the man needs you, he will change the rules for you. You don’t have a right to employment.
3 Likes
Business owners being held liable for secondhand smoke exposure of the business’s occupants has indeed happened in the U.S., and on numerous occasions, even before the smoking ban. And prosecuted on numerous legal grounds.
This isn’t even considering secondhand smoke that floats over into a business location contiguous to another, for instance.
I admit it’s possible to mandate all businesses in the country be physically sealed from other businesses and the exterior environment to facilitate smoking within them. It may or may not be less costly to just have people not smoke inside of them, though.
Since 1964, the report said, 2.46 million non-smokers have died from exposure to secondhand smoke. AND HERE IS THE FAMOUS QUESTION TO ASK!
How does the government calculate its numbers?
The most famous Surgeon General report of the linked smoking cigarettes with dangerous health effects, including lung cancer and heart disease based on a one-year study. I’m sorry but that is an impossible conclusion based on a one-year study.
Scientists don’t keep a count of deaths by secondhand smoke as recorded in death certificates. (Death certificates don’t list “secondhand smoke” as a cause of death.)
I am not arguing that secondhand smoke is not harmful. Anything you ingest into your lungs can be harmful. I am asserting there is a whole lot of hype in government statistics and a whole lot of panic among the public.
Parliament by Oxford epidemiologist Richard Peto. Peto, who has studied the causes of cancer and the effects of smoking, testified that he could not quantify deaths from secondhand smoke because "these hazards cannot be directly measured."
I reiterate: I am in no way claiming that cigarette smoking is not harmful. Anything you put into your lungs can be harmful. I am AGAINST government intervention. I am 100% pro social pressure. If the government wants to build smoking areas in public facilities like airports, that is their choice. If smokers want to use them, that is their choice. Light up in public and face the scorn, looks, and comments of your peers. NOT THE POLICIES AND FEE EXTRACTION OF THE GOVERNMENT. The idea that the government floats itself on the cash it extorts from its citizens is OFFENSIVE. More offensive than secondhand smoke. The idea that a man can come up to you, throw handcuffs on you, toss you into the back of a car, and kidnap you for lighting up a fucking cigarette in public is fucking offensive. The idea that a representative of the government can steal food from your children by fining you for lighting up a cigarette is offensive. Government intervention in the daily lives of citizens is OFFENSIVE.
2 Likes
Well that is all good. I shall sashay naked down the street brandishing my loaded AR15, blowing smoke at passing perambulators while singing offensive rugby songs at the top of my voice, urinating on fire hydrants and holding up the traffic while I display my liberty.
Fucks sake there are a myriad studies about the effects of smoking and secondhand smoke. In the countries where there is a decent health system even the revenue from tobacco taxation was not enough to cover the damage smoking caused.
Smoking is not a libertarian issue. it is a public health issue, like street defecation, urination, spitting, quarantine for certain diseases.
It is not for the boss to say Its my business I shall do as I like otherwise we would still have 10 year olds in the mines and 6 year olds being mangled in cotton sheds. All businesses have countless regulations and licenses to operate, they are necessary for the safety of employees and the public. No smoking is just one in a long list.
Smoking is harmful, it has been proven so, The governments of most advanced countries have legislated against it.
I smoked, I enjoyed it, mostly, now my city is clean, no dog ends in the gutter, no cigarette packets discarded wherever, no nicotine stained walls. No filthy ashtrays and far fewer people hacking their lungs out in smoke laden cafes and pubs. My clothes do not stink at night.
I do not feel sick from inhaling secondhand smoke all day, my voice has lost its “gravel”. I do not spend the first part of the morning coughing and spluttering while my airways are attacked by offensive secondhand smoke. I can taste my food at the pub and enjoy the aroma of my shiraz.
You chose the wrong hill to die on Cog. You are just plain wrong. It is a public health issue not a “libertarian” issue.
2 Likes
Who gives a fuck about Islam. I thought you were an Atheist?
You declared yourself an Atheist in your profile. Are you lying?
Why do you care about what Islam or what any fucking religion cares about exactly?
I could care less what Christians think. I just do what I want when I want. Those religions are all about what you can’t do. If you sit down to watch a specific movie that a religion frowns on, that’s a sin. If you listen to a specific rock band, you’re sinning. If you fuck your girlfriend and you’re not married. It’s a sin.
If I sat there and worried about every little fucking thing that religion nit picks at. I’d drive myself fucking nuts!
But I don’t because I’m a fucking Atheist. I could care less what the religtards whine about. I could care less who smokes or drinks. As long as they’re not hurting anyone. Who gives a fuck!
3 Likes
The second amendment covers your AR-15 as long as you do not ‘brandish’ it. Carry it with you all you like. Shouting for your favorite rugby team is protected by the first amendment. Have fun. Blowing smoke would be a simple assault and not the same thing as smoking. Blowing smoke at someong might get you punched, and you would deserve it. And in a perfect world, no one would be arrested for a mutual altercation. (Two peopel who agree to fight each other.) We actually have that now with illicit street fighting and cage matches. As far as nudity goes. I’m not against it. Carry a towl with you and don’t rub your ass on public transportation or seating. I’m convinced that the only reason we wear cloting is to hide out humanity. It might be freeing to just be able to walk to the local store to pick up a pack of cigarettes in the nude, and sing about my favorite rugby team along the way.
I don’t care about the studies. Government needs to butt out. Police departments don’t need to waste time, effort and money busting smokers. They should be focusing on home burglaries, rapes, serious vandalism, auto theft, strong arm robberies, and shit where there is an actual victim that has been harmed. If someone locks you in a room and forces you to breath second hand smoke, then you have a case against them.
2 Likes
Ooh, ya this counts me out of the conversation.
To be fair the thread title contains the word “Opinions,” but if consulting extant scientific studies and reviews on a subject for which we now certainly have these is eschewed (even in potential combination with personal values and opinions), dialectic on the matter will always be frustrated.
So it goes.
2 Likes