Planning a smoking area?

Post by **Xest** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:06 am

OohhoO wrote:Some Swiss counties have already rejected a ban on smoking in puplic places, which will make it impossible for those counties to introduce a ban for about the next 20 years. Their arguements? - (1) Unnecessary legislation. (2) Swiss tradition of freedom. (3) Tolerance > Discrimination.

But Switzerland is a prime example of why freedom and neutrality aren't always good things when in World War II, Switzerland being a neutral country meant that it sold weapons and ammunition to the Nazi's whilst being unable to supply weapons to the Allies due to obvious supply problems.

Being neutral and allowing absolute freedom isn't always a good thing. Again, in the most extreme examples, what about murderers? What about paedophiles? Do you feel there should be no "discrimination" against these groups?

Gahn wrote:smoking prohibition in public places/offices = ok.
ppl who wanna ban smoking in my house or at fresh air either = needs a mental check.

Fresh air smoking (as you put it

), is acceptable providing the smoker is a far enough distance away from other people for the smoke not to be an issue, unfortunately fresh air doesn't somehow neutralise the chemicals, they spread just the same as they would anywhere else so the issue would be that to smoke outside without any effect on anyone else you'd have to be stood fairly remotely from other people as the spread is still quite far.

OohhoO · Post by **OohhoO** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:13 am

Xest wrote:So unfortunately, whilst the smokers here might like to believe Sharkith is right, and whilst they're welcome to that view, the evidence that they're incorrect is overwhelming. I realise it would be nice to believe, that if you do smoke, that you can smoke freely forever and not suffer any health effects and if you do believe that that's okay, however don't subject the rest of us to it.

He's saying 99% the same as you, just more accurately, which makes him 1% more right than you, & his tone is 99% better than yours, which therefore makes him a grand total of 100% more right than you.

Are you a Taurus by any chance?

I don't believe I can smoke without any ill effects to my health, I just don't give a shit if there are any or not. There are loads of reasons why I might smoke or not smoke. The possible effects on my health don't even enter into the equation.

<ankh> · Post by **<ankh>** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:19 am

OohhoO wrote:I don't believe I can smoke without any ill effects to my health, I just don't give a shit if there are any or not. There are loads of reasons why I might smoke or not smoke. The possible effects on my health don't even enter into the equation.

Fair enough, unfortunatly its selfish by the people who use this as an argument to why they should be able to smoke around other people making them passive smokers. Not aimed at you btw, aimed at the ones using it as an excuse.

/Ankh

OohhoO · Post by **OohhoO** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:27 am

Xest wrote:Being neutral and allowing absolute freedom isn't always a good thing. Again, in the most extreme examples, what about murderers? What about paedophiles? Do you feel there should be no "discrimination" against these groups?

erhmm...
Xest...
I'm not a murderer
or a paedophile
or a rapist
or a terrorist
I'm a guy who likes to smoke 3-5 cigarettes on his balcony every evening well away from anyone else
That's not the same BTW
Altho in your eyes it apparently is

Elrandhir · Post by **Elrandhir** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:27 am

OohhoO wrote: I don't believe I can smoke without any ill effects to my health, I just don't give a shit if there are any or not. There are loads of reasons why I might smoke or not smoke. The possible effects on my health don't even enter into the equation.

I don't think you are honest tbh, then you could aswell say that you don't care if you'r dead, because there is a big chance that those smoking end up so, even though that aint always the case.

I don't care to turn anyone with my words or anything like that, Im just saying what I think, also I aint perfect myself, but there is no point in lying to yourself, noone belives they will get sick and thats about it, when and if you do, well you wont be so tuff then.

Post by **Xest** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:32 am

OohhoO wrote:erhmm...
Xest...
I'm not a murderer
or a paedophile
or a rapist
or a terrorist
I'm a guy who likes to smoke 3-5 cigarettes on his balcony every evening well away from anyone else
That's not the same BTW
Altho in your eyes it apparently is

That's not what I asked. You've suggested that there should be no discrimination at all, therefore I was asking how you feel we deal with people who are paedophiles or murderers in that preventing them following through with paedophilia or murder is equally discrimination if preventing people from smoking is. Are you suggesting that somehow preventing murderers killing isn't discrimination but preventing smokers from smoking is? Or are you saying some discrimination is acceptable but only if it suits you and your beliefs?

Post by **Xest** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:34 am

OohhoO wrote:He's saying 99% the same as you, just more accurately, which makes him 1% more right than you

But that's just it, he's not saying it more accurately when following through the masses of evidence I provided, however I do think it's something he and I will have to agree to disagree on if we're to avoid going round in circles. Also, as a side note just because you believe something doesn't mean it's right, therefore this comment was in itself absolutely full of the bad attitude you seem to be annoyed at me over. Practice what you preach.

Quinlan · Post by **Quinlan** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:13 am

A the joy of written conversation leading to misunderstandings

How about you all take a deep breath (Close or far from a smoker ;p) and think what you are trying to say instead of getting stuck in personal feelings and trying to prove your point disregarding the other person points.

Passive smoking most likely is dangerous. But there is absolutely no conclusive evidence to support this. But common sense says it is not smart to inhale chemicals that are not natural to the environment. Trying to prove on this forum that is is good or bad is rather futile.

People have different values on smoking and smokers. Which is natural. But currently it is pick on the smokers time. Fine do as you wish but realise that there are alot worse things in this world that are far more likely to kill you then passive smoking..

Satyn · Post by **Satyn** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:32 am

Quinlan wrote:
People have different values on smoking and smokers. Which is natural. But currently it is pick on the smokers time. Fine do as you wish but realise that there are alot worse things in this world that are far more likely to kill you then passive smoking..

thank you

OohhoO · Post by **OohhoO** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:56 am

Xest wrote:That's not what I asked. You've suggested that there should be no discrimination at all, therefore I was asking how you feel we deal with people who are paedophiles or murderers in that preventing them following through with paedophilia or murder is equally discrimination if preventing people from smoking is. Are you suggesting that somehow preventing murderers killing isn't discrimination but preventing smokers from smoking is? Or are you saying some discrimination is acceptable but only if it suits you and your beliefs?

If you can't differentiate between paedophilia, murder & smoking or see the obvious differences between them then you seriously have a problem which I'm not qualified to treat. Fortunately I'm sure you can, so you're just trolling, which is OK