Planning a smoking area?

[Elrandhir]

I've already been through that experience.
I survived it <shrug>
You live as long as you're alive & once you're dead you're dead.
Worrying about it or trying to change it seems pointless to me.
Maybe some other form of existance comes afterwards maybe not.
So yes, I think I can safely say I probably won't care if I'm dead.

& ... "there is a big chance that those smoking end up (dead), even though that aint always the case."
Actually it IS always the case
& the chance that those not smoking end up dead is exactly equally big
<runs away & hides>

Not saying that you will care when you'r dead, because thats rather hard, but if you don't care about dying earlier then needed(even though this could happen without smoking, thats no good argument to begin with), then I guess you don't think you have much to live for.

I have never said anything about worrying, but why shorten you'r life, as I said in another thread if you'r all alone, then sure go ahead and do whatever, because noone will miss you when you'r gone, but if you have a family that needs you, then it's a very selfish thing to do.

[Elrandhir]

But smoking does directly damage others that's just it. Even ignoring the debate about whether it effects people's health, if someone sprayed you in paint or some disgusting odour you'd probably feel that these people need to be discriminated against in some way, you probably feel these people shouldn't have the freedom to do that, so why do you feel smokers have the right to cover people in smoke chemicals and smells?

You've even mentioned that you don't smoke around your daughter, so you obviously accept there's something wrong with forcing other people to suffer your smoking because if there was no effect then it wouldn't matter if you smoked around her.

I agree fully, and I actually do think that those arguing about it with you do also.

[Gahn]

Well, it's about respect really, if someone starts smoking next to me I don't appreciate it which sounds arrogant, but how would the smoker feel if I went and stood by them and sprayed some repulsively smelling, toxic chemical in front their face ?

I really have no problem with smokers if they go and do it out the way tbh and most do to be fair. It's those that don't and those arguing they should be able to do it where they want that frankly ruins it for the smokers who are respectful.

Doh u are really full-bore in excess as usual, but i guess u had my point

[Sharkith]

Unfortunately however Sharkith, too many people believe that because something isn't 100% proveable, in this case that smoking harms health, too many people assume that this means the opposite - that smoking doesn't harm health. This is precisely why a lot of people treat something that's 99.999999% proven as being 100% proven, because there are those who simply don't understand otherwise. Essentially and rather unfortunately you really do have to dumb down the science for these kind of discussions, particularly when held in public.

This is precisely where we differ. I do not think that we should jump to a technological solution I feel we should be clear about these things and promote good quality public deliberation. The arguments about direct damage got the smoking debate no-where. It was when the discourse started to discuss risks and potential harm that suddenly support was found from all over society for the ban on smoking. I feel strongly that you do the argument more harm by clinging to the style of argument produced by public health professionals when these styles are nakedly political even to the point of being non-scientific.

But smoking does directly damage others that's just it. Even ignoring the debate about whether it effects people's health, if someone sprayed you in paint or some disgusting odour you'd probably feel that these people need to be discriminated against in some way, you probably feel these people shouldn't have the freedom to do that, so why do you feel smokers have the right to cover people in smoke chemicals and smells?

Once more I completely disagree. There is no proof once more that it does direct harm. You are slipping into scare tactics.

It is better to agree with OohhoO that smoking 'might' potentially put his daughter at risk.

In this respect the ethical principle of first do no harm is always better than the distinct lack of scientific proof that harm would definitely follow.

At the end of the day it seems the public on this board know a lot more about the arguments than you give them credit for.

[OohhoO]

so why do you feel smokers have the right to cover people in smoke chemicals and smells?

You've even mentioned that you don't smoke around your daughter, so you obviously accept there's something wrong with forcing other people to suffer your smoking because if there was no effect then it wouldn't matter if you smoked around her.

I already stated on several occasions in this thread that I go out of my way not to inflict my smoke on other people.

On the other hand...
Why do you drive a car?
Statistically you're extremely likely in a lifetime of cardriving to have an accident in which either yourself or some 3rd party(ies) are either seriously injured or killed, on top of which the exhaust fumes are just as bad as passive smoking not only for yourself but everyone on the planet.
On top of which it's extremely expensive both for you personally & for society which needs to constantly expand the infrastructure required let alone the unneccesary medical costs.
& then the incredible stink!
& just at the height of small childrens noses mostly =/

Do the planet a favour & ban personal private motorised transport.
We can come to some temporary arrangement for companies delivery vans etc ...


Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?
Discriminating against car-drivers sounds just as ridiculous to me as discriminating against smokers.
why do you feel drivers have the right to cover people in chemicals and smells?

[Xest]

Once more I completely disagree. There is no proof once more that it does direct harm. You are slipping into scare tactics.

I think you've either misinterpreted my point or are really abusing the same "you can't be 100% sure about anything, ever" argument to the absolute extreme. Even if we ignore the debate about it causing cancer, asthma and so forth we can be completely sure it can make you smell bad, discolour your teeth, harm your skin.

If it is the latter, that you really are abusing the we can never be 100% sure about anything argument then it really pushes to the extreme the question of why we should care about anything at all. Why should I care about America causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's? it might not even be true after all according to that logic. Why did we bother to deal with Hitler? Maybe he actually had a nice seaside holiday camp for the jews. Sometimes you have to just accept that 99.99...% is proof enough.

[Xest]

Do the planet a favour & ban personal private motorised transport.
We can come to some temporary arrangement for companies delivery vans etc ...


Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?
Discriminating against car-drivers sounds just as ridiculous to me as discriminating against smokers.

Well, you have to remember I was on the pro-vehicle tracking argument side so I'm not entirely opposed to that kind of thing, particularly as the digital age moves forward I do rather agree that we should work towards making cars greener or at least decreasing car pollution the best we can.

Despite that view I do feel that smokers are different from car drivers and in a way you hit on the point earlier, banning driving completely would take us back to the stone age, banning smoking would have a negligible negative impact and a noticeable positive impact for society. As I pointed out previously in the thread, smoking is a target because it is expendable, I do even sympathise somewhat that this sucks a lot for those who enjoy but it's just the way it is.

[<ankh>]

Im with you on that one Xest.

/Ankh

[OohhoO]

I have never said anything about worrying, but why shorten you'r life, as I said in another thread if you'r all alone, then sure go ahead and do whatever, because noone will miss you when you'r gone, but if you have a family that needs you, then it's a very selfish thing to do.

Well being a parent is a hard & stressy job, & you're not going to get everything right (& it would probably be a disaster if you did). You have to make choices & compromises & only time will end up telling wether or not you made a good job of it.

Looking at my daughter & her personality I think we've done a pretty reasonable job thus far - not perfect, but not bad. My smoking 3-5 ciggies an evening on the balcony is a small thing compared to parents who for instance stuff their children full of sweets & biscuits or feed them out of tins & the freezer & microwave rubbish & oven chips & <shudder> McDonalds & coca-cola & other sweet drinks. Or people who have kids at 16 or earlier just so they can scrounge as much as possible off the state & completely ignore their kids development into mature human beings. Or parents who beat their kids up or sexually abuse them or spend every evening at the pub & stagger home stinking of beer or work until their kids are in bed or spend half their evenings screwing their secretary or let their kids stay out with the chavs until midnight every night.
Did I already cover the majority of modern parents?

[Sharkith]

I think you've either misinterpreted my point or are really abusing the same "you can't be 100% sure about anything, ever" argument to the absolute extreme. Even if we ignore the debate about it causing cancer, asthma and so forth we can be completely sure it can make you smell bad, discolour your teeth, harm your skin.

If it is the latter, that you really are abusing the we can never be 100% sure about anything argument then it really pushes to the extreme the question of why we should care about anything at all. Why should I care about America causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's? it might not even be true after all according to that logic. Why did we bother to deal with Hitler? Maybe he actually had a nice seaside holiday camp for the jews. Sometimes you have to just accept that 99.99...% is proof enough.

Now your misconstruing what I am saying in the same way that you are deliberately misconstruing the level of proof that currently exists in relation to passive smoking. In fact your just being dishonest in the rush to be right. I don't get why your so insecure about it just accept that you over egged the argument and let it be.

The simple fact is the vast majority posting here seem to accept the ethical principles underlying the argument. Why you insist on beating people over the head with it I guess I will never know.

/shrug