I think he’s meaning when sarthakii was stating he wants both banned and was heavily complimenting Islam over it. Just because a religious group of people bans something doesn’t make it okay.
LOL, It’s not about studies. I gave you; ‘Cigarette smoking is harmful.’ It’s making laws and legeslating morality that is the issue. Using police to enforce social norms is bullshit. I don’t smoke and I could care less what people who smoke do. I don’t need to be around them if I don’t want to be. The government needs to butt out of the lives of people.
1 Like
Since we’re jettisoning research and going with personal opinions specifically…
In my view, the banning of smoking in public places (or the high tax on tobacco products) isn’t entirely about the damage to others from secondhand smoke. Or reducing the revolting litter of cigarette butts. Or even stopping the people whose situational awareness switch is shut off in the name of exercising a personal freedom and plop down and light up close to me and my kids at a beach or riverfront, for instance.
I believe its about contributing to the denormalization of smoking in general. Of making it a peculiar behavior. Of having a meaningful effect on quit rates. Of flat out making it more difficult for people to smoke, or to start.
Public health officials simply coming out and saying these things, though, would likely elicit howls of “nanny state,” so they forward more palatable, less honest points instead.
2 Likes
So WHO should get to decide laws then?
I don’t see how you can have legal law without putting someone’s morality over someone else’s. It’s all a giant grey painting of human junk.
And I fully agree that you should be able to express your opinion along with millions of other people. That in itself is enough to change smoking habits. We do not need the ‘Feelings Police’ running about, stealing money from people for petty shit. Lets say smoking is illegal. You are telling me that a man who steps out into the street at 1AM when no one is around to light up and take a quick smoke should be arrested and fined. I find that offensive. But this is the result of making smoking illegal. Even a person who is completely respectful of others can find himself the target of police interaction. And for what? Where is the victim? The Government needs to butt the fuck out. Similarly, If I have my business and I want to allow smokers to come into it, you don’t have to patronize my establishment. Obviously, you are not my target customer. I have a severe problem with Government Intervention and no problem at all with you or a million other people voicing opinions. Using the government to legislate moral behavior is WRONG! Social pressure and establishing mores is perfectly fine. Imagining that every smoker is somehow bothering you is just bullshit. Expecting politeness, a certain amount of distance, and not to have to pick up a smoker’s butts, is perfectly reasonable. USING THE POLICE IS NOT!
1 Like
HERE IS A THOUGHT. Do you know what a police department is? What is the job of a police officer? It has nothing at all to do with solving crimes or protecting the public. Police departments are revenue generators for the city. ‘They have no duty to protect or serve.’ This is a lie you have been fed. They do not solve crimes unless one falls into their lap. They target the poor to increase their arrests on the books and get promotions. They target the middle class because they pay for their tickets and have no time to go to court and challenge them.
HERE IS A FACT: Spending money and time to solve a crime is called expenditure. It is a deficit. Writing tickets is called ‘Profit.’ The more cops on the street writing tickets, the more money the city makes. And with ‘Forfeiture Laws’ if they find drugs in your car, they keep the car and get a warrant for your house. They find drugs in your house and they keep that too. Carry more than 300 dollars on you and the Highway Robbers will pull you over and keep that. They simply declare it is drug money and they know full well you are not going to hire an attorney for thousands of dollars in court costs to get your 300 dollars back. Robbery by police departments is rampant in this country at the moment.
" Following last February’s shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, some students claimed local government officials were at fault for failing to provide protection to students. The students filed suit, naming six defendants, including the Broward school district and the [Broward Sheriff’s Office ], as well as school deputy Scot Peterson and campus monitor Andrew Medina.
On Monday, though, a federal judge ruled that the government agencies " had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody."
" An Arizona man drowned in a reservoir as three police officers watched, refusing to step in and save him.
…
Sean Bickings pleaded for help as he struggled to stay afloat in a reservoir in Tempe, Ariz., late last month. But Tempe police officers watched without intervening as Bickings went underwater and did not come back up, according to city officials and a transcript of body-camera footage. (THERE IS NO DUTY TO PROTECT OR SERVE)
"The Tempe Officers Association, the city’s police union, said in a statement Monday that Bickings’s drowning was “an awful loss of life.” The union argued, however, that the officers were not trained or equipped for water rescue and said that an attempt to rescue Bickings from the reservoir would have been dangerous.
Police department are revenue generators for the city in which you live and nothing more. All they want to do is write as many tickets as they can. They DO have quotas no matter what the departments claim. Promotions and raises are based on these quotas (Guidelines). The only way to meet them is to target the innocent. No one has the time (Or Intelligence) to solve a crime. Most police officers have HS education.
“Becoming a police officer doesn’t rely heavily on formal education; in fact, a high school diploma is often the minimum formal education required.” An associate’s, bachelor’s or graduate degree is rarely mandatory. Instead, they send you to an academy and train you like a dog to follow rules. Police departments do not want to hire people who think. They want people who will follow orders.
There is no official or universal bar or cutoff for IQ scores across the nation, but in at least some states, it is legal for police departments to reject applicants who score “too high” on intelligence tests.
In 2000, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld the city of New London, CT’s ;decision to reject Robert Jordan as a candidate for the police force after he scored 33 points, or the equivalent of a 125 IQ, on their qualifying exam.
The 1967 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice recommended that all police officers nationwide have a bachelor’s degree by 1982. That recommendation, however, has not been met.
Police do not work for you. They work for the Government. No cop ever goes to court and argues for your release. No cop ever goes to court and explains to the judge that you just made a mistake. We have an adversarial court system. You against the State. Giving your enemy power if just fucking insane. And that is exactly what banning smoking and allowing police to intrude in our personal lives does.
Police do not care about you. They are not here to protect you. They do not serve you. Giving them power if just fucking insane.
2 Likes
My personal opinion on this is short and simple: Do what you will but harm none.
If you want a more detailed answer just ask me if you wish.
Smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol are personal choices that any adult should be free to make. Smoking cigarettes is absolutely idiotic, since it can (and likely will cause addiction and even death). Drinking alcohol CAN create the same negative outcomes, but at least it offers pleasant benefits if it is not abused. Regardless, adults are—and must be—free to “choose their poison” in a free society, as long as their actions are not immoral or harmful to others.
4 Likes
Late to the question OR … 
I smoke. Love it. Have no desire to quit. That said - whether it’s me or the era, I don’t smoke around others, am an “outside smoker” and generally respect those who don’t want my habit in their space - so even if it were “legal”, can’t imagine myself lighting up inside after a meal or at work 
I despise alcohol abuse. Mind you, I despise abuse of about all types. Grew up around alcoholism and I get a knotted sick feeling in my stomach around drunks - that said, I enjoy a drink. Allow my boys to indulge.
I also support the legalization of drugs. I don’t do them, but it’s being done in society, so legalize it, make $$$, support programs - and cut out “organized crime” (as far as possible). Same with the sex trade.
4 Likes
It’s not a question of morality…it’s a question of health and safety. And the government does have a strong interest in regulating that because private businesses certainly don’t.
2 Likes
smoke 'em if ya got 'em
do what you will but harm none
We’ve come a long way, baby, as a society with respect to public smoking. When I was a kid, smoking was ubiquitous everywhere–you couldn’t get away from it.
Heck, the Red Cross even gave out free cigarettes in hospitals once upon a time.
As Killer Mike said, “I support the sex workers unionizing their services.”
You just keep giving up your freedoms and see where it gets you. It is not up to the Government to enforce such sanctions. We live in a capitalist economy. When businesses allow smoking, they are targeting a specific customer. They lose other customers. When they go to insure their business, they pay more because they allow smokers on the property. When they go to sell their business, they limit possible buyers. There are sufficient consequences in place to limit the smoking behavior of people, and certainly to make them aware. It IS a government issue. We live in a FREE COUNTRY. We don’t need the moralistic Right telling our children to wear helmets on bikes or pay a fine to the city. Don’t smoke or pay a fine to the city. Drop a piece of paper, pay a fine to the city. Come to a slow roll at a stop sign, pay a fine to the city. The government is intrusive and has NO INTEREST IN PROTECTING YOU OR YOUR RIGHTS. I have shown you that. Police are not there to make things safe. THEY HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO PROTECT YOU OR YOUR FAMILY. THEY HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO SERVE YOU. They will stand by and let you drown. They will watch a school shooting take place and NOT interven. They have no obligation to intervene. Their whole purpose of existing is to generate revenue for the thier city. They exist TO MAKE MONEY for the city. This is CAPITALISM. This is what capitalism does to police departments. IT IS A GOVERNMENT ISSUE. And you are building a Jail around yourself by giving up your human rights and allowing DADDY government to come in and dictatate how we live. You are building a prison society and encouraging Government Overreach.
3 Likes
Hate to be the one to break it to you, Soda, but the U.S. “government” does not give a single goddamn drop of rat piss about your safety/health, nor mine, nor that of any other average citizen out there. Let me repeat: The politicians and the government officials DO… NOT… CARE about the safety and health of the general public. Period. And anybody out there who is actually naive enough and delusional enough to believe the government DOES have our best interest at heart needs to pull their head out of their ass and remove the rose colored glasses that keep them from seeing the truth. It’s just that simple.
3 Likes
It was not that long ago. In 1968 I was serving in the naval reserve on the West coast. So I spent a week in the military hospital in Victoria. And I distinctly recall smoking while sitting in my bed in a large ward.
Indeed. I was in the hospital in 1971 from a car accident and I was allowed to smoke in my room and a friend of mine brought me a portable record player and the Woodstock album, which we played loudly and filled the room with smoke until the nurse finally put a stop to the frivolities. (BTW my doctor smoked)
Again in 1973, different hospital, Denver, allowed to smoke and was in a room with 3 patients, who all smoked as well. I even had two visitors who both smoked in the room with me.
It is a great example of how radically things can change when there are multiple lines of information campaigns. Once the tobacco industry’s promotional presence was surpassed by the educational approach, change became inevitable. The multiple lines of school programs, public service message campaigns, broadly available peer reviewed research papers, changes in family doctor attitudes, etc., along with legal liability issues of the tobacco companies, provided the impetus.
I’m glad for the changes. My father died when I was six, from what is now referred to as COPD. He had smoked since he was a kid. I was never told that his condition was largely or even entirely caused by smoking. All men around me smoked, so I used that as an excuse to repeat that behavior for about fifteen years. I know. No, really, I know…
All that said, I am still opposed to regulating people’s behavior beyond what can be readily identified as “likely harmful to others”. Beyond that, social pressure is probably sufficient to modify common practices. (speculation).
The few friends I have who still smoke have clearly modified their behavior to accommodate current “mores”.
Edith
2 Likes
Early 1976, at the ripe old age of 7, I was in the hospital for several weeks due to a lawnmower accident. (Missing two toes on my right foot, by the way.) Anyway, it seemed like damn near EVERYBODY smoked in that place. Pretty sure even my doctor came into my room smoking a couple of times. And I distinctly remember seeing the “No Smoking. Oxygen In Use.” signs on the doors of the patient rooms where the big oxygen tents were set up over the patient’s bed. (Anybody remember those?.. chuckle…) I’m guessing smoking was not allowed in the surgical areas or the surgical recovery ward, but I’m only guessing. Otherwise, the hospital was full of cigarette smoke. I hated it.
So, while I am indeed delighted the hospitals and mass public transport services no longer allow smoking, I still believe PRIVATELY OWNED businesses should be allowed to dictate their own policies in that area. If they want to allow smoking, but end up losing customers and employees as a result, then that should be their choice. Not really sure why that is so difficult to comprehend… (scratching my head)…
(Edited for spelling and lack of basic math skills.)
2 Likes
At the risk of appearing obsequious, I couldn’t agree more….also the irony of a bar or restaurant succeeding or thriving because they cater to smokers is… well it is kind of “beautiful”…
Edit for spats
Sorry, eh - I disagree.
Public Health and Safety is important. There are too many that don’t give a fuck and others get the short end of the stick.
Smoking has health hazards. It’s legal. It’s confined- as is smoking pot - as is drinking alcohol. As is kitchen health standards.
Defining these over time and the public response or impact of decisions happens when attention is brought to certain areas and reasons are given.
Driving legal. Drinking legal. Drunk driving - nope. In Canada drunk driving was first illegal in about 1920… but defining it took time. When an accident happened - it was determined by “falling down drunk”. That changes in the ‘60-70s and then MADD in 1989.
The idea that restaurants or any business adjusts to “better” to attract business??? Hahahaha - yah … for profit always spend more for better quality instead of cutting corners, hiding shit, poor quality (flour use to be cut with sawdust so bakers could make more $$$).
No thanks.
I have no confidence in trusting businesses to “do the right thing” to attract or maintain business. They fuck over their workers and customers as often as possible.
3 Likes