Never saw a "sealed" one, but it's probably more expensive too do rather than just simply ban it in restaurants and pubs etc, most allow you to smoke outside anyway.

Sure shit can go to far, but it's like drink driving, people have proven themselves time and time again that they can and will do stupid shit at the cost of others.
Should we ban drink because of the stupid people? no, those that enjoy drinking/smoking whatever without harming others is totally fine for me, i believe in freedom, but laws end up being in place because some people can't respect other peoples freedom and their choices.


If people were taught to respect others and their choices the world would be a whole lot better. Fuck this love peace bullshit, just respect life.

1. Some places had glass/etc walled off sections for their smoker customers. And they did it to keep the business(some smokers want to eat inside and not have to eat outside esp. during winter/etc), yet some states including mine have banned even that.

2. Drunk driving kills WAY more people than secondhand smoking will, though, and usually more quickly/horrifically.

3. I agree with respecting freedom but other people's freedom(imo) shouldn't be impacted severely to allow others to have more freedom(i.e. making one group a privileged "class" over another). Also non-smokers have always had many choices of places to frequent even before such bans.

(Disclosure: I am a non smoker and even support smoker's rights still)

4. Peace is good and i'd rather people respect life of their own free will rather than being forced to do so.

As a smoker you're impacting the choice of those that don't smoke when you simply walk by, as a smoker you are responsible to a high degree. You still have the freedom to smoke, but don't expect people to accept it 'cause you decided to smoke in a crowded public place.

I know what fairness is and i know how many smokers don't give a shit about being fair.

It's like anything that can be considered dangerous to others, sure drunk driving can kill more people, but does that matter if even a single person can be killed by passive smoking? a life is a life, you don't think well oh thats ok only 5-10 die a year from passive smoking when a few hundred say die from drink driving... jeebus.

As for respecting life it's something you learn and should be taught in school, it needn't be forced just the thought of "would you like your life and existence to be snuffed out with a click of a finger?" the answer being no, so fucking respect that of all things.



But with the amount of ignorant fucks a bullet can be used, if someone breaks into my home i'll sure as hell make sure he regrets it and learns the meaning of respect.

My Stanley Cup Champions shirts came today.

A MONTH LATE! :P

Just happy to be alive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZFTUtbn1RU

1. Poeple who don't smoke(like me) can simply steer clear of such people....it's not that hard. Also as I said before: Smog/car exhaust/etc is much worse and cannot be as easily avoided(sadly).

2. I think some do and also no one should be punished for the di*k actions of some members of that group(imo).

3. I go by the numbers when determining what I think should be limited/banned/tackled in society. To me such small numbers are small potatoes when looking at the bigger problems/picture.

This may make me sound callous but this is how(imo) society should be run....not on trying to save/placate every single person but doing the best one can and tackling bigger problems first.

4. I respect life.....I just think one should be allowed the chance to make that choice and not forced to do so....as to me that person that might be forced isn't likely doing such out of genuine empathy/etc and hasn't changed but is being forced to do so.

5. Whoa....how did we go from cig smoking in public to breaking and entering and home defense? :\

Just happy to be alive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Sqi-AvRiC8

Where does it hurt?

Not when the person is smoking by the bike racks and you need to lock/retrieve your bicycle. Also, if there's someone smoking right outside the entrance to the building.


The problem is that such an approach results in discrimination against minorities, which by definition are in small numbers.

1. True, but one can ask them to move for a minute....also outside the smoke dissapates more easily into the surrounding air(Plus as I said the smog/etc outside is much worse).

Plus where are they supposed to smoke? Nowhere? They should be legally entitles to enjoy themselves just as much as those who are entitled to be able to avoid such, imo.

2. This is not necessarily 100% true......some who are not minorities can also advocate for such issues, and such can be tackled IF they are truly important***(and not just the standard complaints about halloween costumes[so called cultural appropriation] or someone saying something one finds offensive as a one off comment).

(*** Clarification: Truly important things, to me, would be getting rights in countries for some groups who lack them still, preventing people from hurting/worse such people, etc.)

Also called democracy, could also be known as "tyranny of the majority" and "mob rule".

I don't know what scares me most, authoritarian dictators or tyranny of the majority/mob rule fueled by self-righteousness and the current moral fad. People in groups are whimsical, short-sighted and tyrannical since there is no responsibility involved. The means justify the ends too often since no-one feels responsible for the tyrannical means.

One can't ask them to go move without getting close and therefore being exposed to the smoke. Also, the smoke still doesn't dissipate instantly; after the person moves there will still be some smoke lingering.

As for where they are supposed to smoke, I would actually say nowhere, and that cigarettes should actually be banned. Failing that, however, smoking should be done only in extremely out of the way places where one wouldn't have any reason to even go near except for smoking, but only if it's absolutely necessary.

Usually there are checks/balances in place to prevent misuse of the majority will/rule.....also I prefer it over minority(size of group kind) rule we have going via social media small groups pushing/pressuring companies/etc nowadays. Also it's miles better than ACTUAL mob rule where there's no law/due process and people hurt/worse others who are under SUSPICION of bad acts while being ruled by emotion and jumping the gun on things.
1. I have found that one can easily shout/speak loudly and their voice will carry a good distance. Also a small bit of smoke(as I said) is much less worse than what else is in the air currently.

2. Imo that sounds a bit too much like the Seaquest DSV world ruleset, where anything deemed "bad" was banned(including alcohol/smoking.red meat)......I also think anyone should be able to partake in whatever they choose so long as it harms no one severely/immediately. That includes smoking anywhere outside(with some exceptions like near hospital/school entrances and grounds perhaps).

(I'd much rather people tackle the big issue of smog/vehicle exhaust first.)

Also I have to say that non-smokers have been given a good amount of concessions.....no smoking in public/gov't buildings and also then restaurants/stores/etc. I would think any other non-smoker should be happy with that and enjoy such places and not try to ban smoking everywhere as they have already gotten enough out of the deals/plans they were pushing through over the years.

* That requires extra energy, which might not always be available.

* It also doesn't work well for those who have trouble with their voices; for example, someone who has a hoarse voice today or someone who is mute or nonverbal.

* Also, shouting at a stranger from a distance is often considered rude.

* Also, there might be doors in the way, which would likely block the sound.

* There's also the issue of targeting the shouting.

Smoking does harm other people by its very nature. This is unlike, say, drinking alcohol, which doesn't harm anyone else if done in private and the person does not go out before becoming sober.

Also. while the harm might be small to some people, for others (like those who already have other lung conditions) it can be quite serious.

1. These issues aside one can usually find a way(even non-verbally) to indicate they want someone to move/stop doing something if one truly wants to do so.

2.a. Smoking causes less immediate deaths than drinking through secondhand exposure(drunk driving). Also, as I said: Secondhand smoke is usually a very small part of outdoor pollution and one people can usually avoid for the most part if not entirely. With drunk drivers if one is in their path and cannot react they are usually hurt very severely in a short period of time.

2.b. Again, as with 1 above people are usually not that impacted by it(for the most part)....also most times the smokers can be avoided, and even for sickly individuals don't get affected as much as with other pollutants.

============================
In the end I will say this: I think everyone's freedom should be respected and people should all be treated fairly, BUT(and it's an important one) NOT at the cost of unfairly taking away rights and freedoms from others to too high or disproportionate of a degree.

To me, the current no smoking laws give non-smokers plenty of spaces to enjoy themselves and plenty of options to do things as well. Most remaining spaces are private homes/etc which one shouldn't NEED to be able to have smoke free access to to live their lives and enjoy such, and are private property and should be respected as such. To ask for more restrictions against smokers(to me) is a violation of their rights to give rights to those who feel they don't have enough when they do already(in first world countries with such laws).

Now if we were/are talking about lands with no such laws in place already then I could get behind that 100%.