Support NeoGAF

[Mael]

This is a somewhat fresh take on an old false equivalency, but no, there is a worthy distinction to be made between the "nanny state" is not equivalent to the "night watchman state."

I try to avoid being stale like the rank air of a place where people smoke.

If you walk into a bar owned by somebody else and the bar doesn't restrict smoking, you completely accepted that when you came in to order a drink. To claim otherwise would be ridiculous. Without a law, there could already be bars where smoking was and wasn't allowed, now all you do with intervention is force out anyone that enjoyed their stupidly dangerous with chronic use ethanol with their stupidly dangerous with chronic use tobacco.

The same way I like it when cities put in places for dogs to crap so that the streets arent littered with dog crap (hello Paris), I like it when they put regulation in place that make it so I don't have to plan like for a wedding for a single get out with some friends.
Life is now easier and as it should be, smokers can join in but they don't have to ruin it for everyone, and isn't that awesome there's actually MORE people going out now.
That people smoking indoors are shamed out of town is clearly a good thing whatever the means used, now onto the fucking dogs...

edit :

Is COPD srs bzness but Cirrhosis is hunky dory for UHS dollars? Do children not see colorful beer bottles?

dollars I don't know but as far as euro goes, drinking is actually more economically viable and a way bigger industry than smoking.
Same reason we don't ban unhealthy junk food, really.

 

[JayDubya]

That people smoking indoors are shamed out of town is clearly a good thing whatever the means used, now onto the fucking dogs...

Darn right! Those subhuman idiot lung-killing bastards should be banned from places where you and your friends want to go so you can imbibe neuron-and-hepatocyte-killing poison that impairs reflexes and judgement! Well said!

Vices are vices and people have them. When you compare vices that under normal circumstances don't hurt anyone but the user, there's not really some tier where yours are awesome and should be protected and theirs should be banished.

 

[Jasup]

Then either a) the market of you, you, and you wasn't big enough for someone to make a bar so you probably ought to drink at home

or

b) you might want to consider opening a bar since lots of people apparently want to go to your smokefree one that doesn't exist yet.

Either way, there was no problem to solve... but bureaucrats seem to exist for things like that.

The bar smoking bans are more an issue from the workplace safety and labour rights point of view. The workers in the bar are exposed to huge amounts of second hand smoke every day, and even if they do not smoke themselves they have heightened risk of smoking related diseases. Many of the smoking ban initiatiatives in bars are actually a result of labour unions rather than health officials.

 

[Jenga]

nanny state

 

[JayDubya]

The bar smoking bans are more an issue from the workplace safety and labour rights point of view. The workers in the bar are exposed to huge amounts of second hand smoke every day, and even if they do not smoke themselves they have heightened risk of smoking related diseases. Many of the smoking ban initiatiatives in bars are actually a result of labour unions rather than health officials.

Still the same bullshit for still the same reason, magnified: you walk in the bar once, you accept you're likely going to get exposure to smoke; you apply for a JOB there and you're accepting that you're going to be in that workplace environment every day.

 

[Jasup]

Still the same bullshit for still the same reason, magnified: you walk in the bar once, you accept you're likely going to get exposure to smoke; you apply for a JOB there and you're accepting that you're going to be in that workplace environment every day.

In a state of permanent labour shortage that could be the case.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

One step closer to smoking being completely banned. Nice.

 

[Mael]

Darn right! Those subhuman idiot lung-killing bastards should be banned from places where you and your friends want to go so you can imbibe neuron-and-hepatocyte-killing poison that impairs reflexes and judgement! Well said!

Vices are vices and people have them. When you compare vices that under normal circumstances don't hurt anyone but the user, there's not really some tier where yours are awesome and should be protected and theirs should be banished.

How hard is it to understand that the ban from the public places lead to an increase in people actually going out and injecting money in the economy for restaurants and others?
If the places actually did that, they would be marginalised pretty quickly and simply closed.
Leaving people without a place to go to anyway (even discounting the fact that no single place could provide the service wanted anyway).
With the ban, the smokers actually stayed because they had no fucking choice, and the non smokers actually could go out.
And that's not only for bars, that's for concert, restaurants, cinema....Pretty much any place to go out have been made smoke free, that is NOT a bad thing (and actually it touches way more places than simply bars people go)
Seriously on the economic side there's no reasons to treat boose like cigs.
Cigs company are no longer state company anyway, they would be banned faster than you can spell the word if it didn't bring that much revenue to the state.
The catch is there's actually no need to ban them, as they've been made so unattractive that people will eventually stop.

Still the same bullshit for still the same reason, magnified: you walk in the bar once, you accept you're likely going to get exposure to smoke; you apply for a JOB there and you're accepting that you're going to be in that workplace environment every day.

Actually don't bother, read this instead

 

[Taiser]

Maybe I think homosexuals are disgusting, can we ban that as well? How about we ban every activity that I deem to be below my moral standards?

i don't care if you are an addict... you can fill your lungs with tar, give yourself cancer and accelerate the aging process of your skin all you want.
it's about imposing cigarette smoke on others... it is disgusting because you taint other peoples health and the environment with your activity/addiction.
it's not just some subjective bigoted moral intuition... it's a blatant fact that i can smell the smoke on my clothes and see the yellow smoke stains on the wall.

 

[KevinCow]

I hate cigarettes, smoking, and smokers, but this is pretty fucking stupid.

 

[Dead Man]

i don't care if you are an addict... you can fill your lungs with tar, give yourself cancer and accelerate the aging process of your skin all you want.
it's about imposing cigarette smoke on others... it is disgusting because you taint other peoples health and the environment with your activity/addiction.
it's not just some subjective bigoted moral intuition... it's a blatant fact that i can smell the smoke on my clothes and see the yellow smoke stains on the wall.

Indeed.

 

[Jenga]

i don't care if you are an addict... you can fill your lungs with tar, give yourself cancer and accelerate the aging process of your skin all you want.
it's about imposing cigarette smoke on others... it is disgusting because you taint other peoples health and the environment with your activity/addiction.
it's not just some subjective bigoted moral intuition... it's a blatant fact that i can smell the smoke on my clothes and see the yellow smoke stains on the wall.

you must know some jerk smokers :lol

 

[Stumpokapow]

Still the same bullshit for still the same reason, magnified: you walk in the bar once, you accept you're likely going to get exposure to smoke; you apply for a JOB there and you're accepting that you're going to be in that workplace environment every day.

There are a continuum of risks. Historically, post-industrial societies have deemed some of those risks as acceptable for employees to consent to, while other such risks are not acceptable. We tend to call the distinction between these as part of a system called "Occupational Health and Safety".

If you reject all Occupational Health and Safety -- IE a firm should be able to have powertools with no guards, it should be fine for people to use poor electrical wiring, etc. It should be okay for offices to have no access to fresh air. It should be okay for chemical firms to provide in adequate ventilation hoods. Firms who deal with radiation should not have to provide geiger counters to employees for safety verification. Employees should be able to consent to these conditions if they find them appropriate, and all OHS unjustly limits the freedom of employees to choose to work or not work in a given environment -- you should make that clear in advance.

The reason is I think there are a lot of people who would like to talk about whether smoking bans are just in the name of OHS for barmaids, but very few that really want to talk about safety in general. By making it clear in advance, no one wastes their time replying to a position they otherwise wouldn't have replied to and you don't have to waste time replying back to people who don't want to have the conversation you want to have.

In this case Mael is replying to you assuming that you accept the general principles of legislative protection of employee safety, but disagree with it in the case of second-hand smoke. I don't get the impression he'd be replying to you otherwise.

 

[Kermit The Dog]

Cigerettes are awsome , i smoke them every friday night. and only on a friday night.

Self control people , also your going to die one way , not smoking is only gonna give you an extra few years of life, years you will be spending in a nursing home anyway.

The feeling of being in a great conversation with a cigerette in your hand, just chatting so much , a perfect flow of words and smoking.

i only smoke when i'm drunk.

I'm seriously considering this to be one of the worst posts I've ever read on a forum. :lol

 

[msv]

Still the same bullshit for still the same reason, magnified: you walk in the bar once, you accept you're likely going to get exposure to smoke; you apply for a JOB there and you're accepting that you're going to be in that workplace environment every day.

You're acting as if people who have a job in a company have no say what goes on. Fact is, companies have an unfair advantage over solicitors - companies are united, solicitors are not. Unions leveraging with the employment of the people in the union, that is practically the same as having not enough people who are prepared to work in a smoking environment to hire.

 

[dyls]

I stopped smoking a few years back, but I still hate this sort of shit. If you want to try and ban them, go ahead, but these sideways attempts at getting people not to smoke are just so stupid, and in the end I believe they will backfire. Nothing is more alluring to kids than adults continually telling them not to do something.

But my main concern is that once smoking is no longer the leading cause of preventable death, something else will be. And if you think the do-gooder save the world types will stop once smoking is banned, you've got another think coming. Wait til they're talking about banning video games because most of society considers them nothing but a detriment, then we'll see how happy GAF is about it. The movement to sanitize the world will not end with cigarettes, believe me.

 

[Goron2000]

Mothereffers are gonna put me out of a job!

Spoiler

brand account exec at an ad agency for lucky strike here -_______-

I fucking love Lucky Strike. Thank you for taking my money and slowly killing me J. M. Romeo.

Spoiler

No but seriously thank you

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Has anyone ever attempted to study how much in revenue from taxes, jobs (lost and retraining and replacement) indirect economic benefits (say trucking, advertising jobs, paper supplies, treatments for health issues (the cost gets paid to someone, etc) would be lost in the US alone from a total ban on all tobacco manufacturing and sale? I'm not trying to say its more than public and private health costs. I'm just wondering if anyone has tried (as I have heard the health care costs at times) to estimate the loss.

 

[brianjones]

it's about imposing cigarette smoke on others... it is disgusting because you taint other peoples health and the environment with your activity/addiction.
.

oh whatever.. unless you're smoking in a house with other people how are you tainting other peoples health? you're not going to get cancer walking by someone who's smoking.. jesus

 

[Goron2000]

Men aren't really deterred by the idea of cancer, apparently. Replace those pictures of fucked-up lungs a big warning reading "SMOKING CAUSES LIMP DICK." They'll kick the habit soon enough.

These images are on every cigarette packet in the UK, I can confirm that nobody cares.

 

[Hari Seldon]

You can package the tobacco in used feminine hygiene products and I'm still going to get that shit!!!! FUUUUUUUUUU

Spoiler

Only smoke e-cigs now though. Wife.

 

[Naked Snake]

that's good news. i started to smoke because of the pretty colours on the packets.

:lol

 

[vas_a_morir]

Last time I checked homosexuality wasn't something you got to choose.

I don't know if I buy that. We have some measure of choice over our genetics. I'm not saying every gay person chose to be gay, but certainly someone without a genetic propensity to be gay can develop homosexual attraction over the course of his life. I don't know why you would want to deny someone the choice to be gay. The way some people talk about it, you'd think homosexuality is a disease. To me, it's like liking bondage porn. Are we born liking that kinky latex stuff in our genetics, or was it something we developed through exposure to various psychological stimuli? Sexual attraction is a compelling force, but the specifics of it are not contained solely to genetic predispositions. It's just predisposition, not inescapable fate.

I admit, I'm pulling "county knowledge (AKA Horse-sense)" on ya, also known as subjective anecdotal evidence. So, maybe I'm wrong.

 

[GaimeGuy]

you must know some jerk smokers :lol

I get asked all the time by friends and coworkers if I smoke because the smell from my dad's car when I go out to dinner or travel to sporting events with him lingers on me and my stuff. The second-hand smoke stains/stench latches on easily :/

 

[vas_a_morir]

Furthermore, Cigarette smoking is not something you choose, exactly. You get addicted, and your rationality is overcome by physical and mental dependence. If we are to believe what they say about how 2nd hand smoke is as bad as first hand smoke, one could argue that people are exposed to addictive chemicals without consent all the time, leading to a compulsion to smoke. Therefore, the argument of "You chose to smoke that first cigarette, so it's your fault" is not a logical argument.

OR... they are exaggerating how addictive and dangerous smoking is. One or the other, homies.

 

[Dead Man]

I don't know if I buy that. We have some measure of choice over our genetics. I'm not saying every gay person chose to be gay, but certainly someone without a genetic propensity to be gay can develop homosexual attraction over the course of his life. I don't know why you would want to deny someone the choice to be gay. The way some people talk about it, you'd think homosexuality is a disease. To me, it's like liking bondage porn. Are we born liking that kinky latex stuff in our genetics, or was it something we developed through exposure to various psychological stimuli? Sexual attraction is a compelling force, but the specifics of it are not contained solely to genetic predispositions. It's just predisposition, not inescapable fate.

I admit, I'm pulling "county knowledge (AKA Horse-sense)" on ya, also known as subjective anecdotal evidence. So, maybe I'm wrong.

Even if you are not genetically pre disposed, it does not mean you have a choice. How many people into bondage sat down and made a choice? It is a result of their environment.

Furthermore, Cigarette smoking is not something you choose, exactly. You get addicted, and your rationality is overcome by physical and mental dependence. If we are to believe what they say about how 2nd hand smoke is as bad as first hand smoke, one could argue that people are exposed to addictive chemicals without consent all the time, leading to a compulsion to smoke. Therefore, the argument of "You chose to smoke that first cigarette, so it's your fault" is not a logical argument.

OR... they are exaggerating how addictive and dangerous smoking is. One or the other, homies.

Wow, you just keep going with false dichotomies, don't you.

 

[Kurtofan]

.

OR... they are exaggerating how addictive and dangerous smoking is. One or the other, homies.

Or those measures are destined towards young people who didn't start smoking yet as a deterrent.

 

[ronito]

well fuck it, if I can't have a logo on my cigarette pack then it's just not worth lung cancer anymore.

 

[PflargBlarg]

That doesn't work, too many people do it.

Also FWIW it is economically beneficial for the majority of EU countries to ban ciggies since the healthcare/lost labour day costs far outstrip the tax revenue.

Actually that's not true. Smokers cost less to society, because they are taxed heavily and die younger, which saves healthcare money and the ammount of money they receive for their retirement.

Seriously guys, you can't just throw this crap out without any references to a source or a study or SOMETHING. For all I know you're just making stuff up because it supports your particular position. If you're trying to posit something as a fact make sure that you actually have some sort of presentable evidence.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Camelflage.

 

[avatar299]

A lot of people in this thread hate cigarettes but love pot. Kinda weird.

 

[vas_a_morir]

Wow, you just keep going with false dichotomies, don't you.

You speak as if logical fallacies are not effective rhetorical devices.

 

[Platy]

These images are on every cigarette packet in the UK, I can confirm that nobody cares.

I love how they can show borderline gore things but need to show a bending cigarette to display impotence

 

[KAL2006]

I think they should ban companies using shiny packaging.

The gold and silver packaging is what temped me to cigarettes in the first place

 

[FabCam]

How about governments stop trying to tell people how to live all the damn time? If people want to smoke, let them. Eveyone knows of the health risks, if someone still wishes to smoke they should be allowed to. I condemn parents smoking around their children but none of these changes will stop that except a full out ban.

 

[Dead Man]

How about governments stop trying to tell people how to live all the damn time? If people want to smoke, let them. Eveyone knows of the health risks, if someone still wishes to smoke they should be allowed to. I condemn parents smoking around their children but none of these changes will stop that except a full out ban.

Can I punch you in the mouth if you don't stop smoking around me?

 

[Flek]

lets just hope they use Helvetica Neue and not Helvetica or even Arial !!!!

 

[I <3 Memes]

I think we should do this with food too. Hey if reduces the number of fatties in this world even 1% it will have been worth it.

 

[WickedAngel]

A lot of people in this thread hate cigarettes but love pot. Kinda weird.

Pot has a few redeeming medicinal qualities. There isn't really a problem that cigarettes solve that they don't cause themselves.

 

[FabCam]

Can I punch you in the mouth if you don't stop smoking around me?

I really don't see that as an issue though. I very very rarely am walking so close behind a smoker that I'm inhaling his second hand smoke. Maybe in major cities it's an issue, I'm not sure.

I'm one of those bullshit "social" smokers. Why did I start? Coz my parents, school and government were like "don't do it don't do it don't do it" so being a typical teenage ragamuffin I started. Thing is that no half arsed EU laws would even make me question the habit. I know the risks as do all smokers. Just let them be.

 

[louis89]

Somehow, I think that the design of the packaging has very little if anything to do with kids who start to smoke. Kids start doing drugs, which doesn't even have packaging. Kids don't walk into shops, see colourful cigarette packets, and think oooh, I want to try that. Maybe that works with chocolate bars, but people start smoking because it's cool and their friends do it. Nothing to do with packaging.

 

[captmorgan]

I remember when pictures on cigarette packs first came out everyone wanted to collect the whole set

I really wish the government would ban them.... so that I could make a fortune bootlegging them.

I remember growing up beside a bunch of indian reserves, since they don`t pay tax on smokes the resale value was huge.

 

[BocoDragon]

Furthermore, Cigarette smoking is not something you choose, exactly. You get addicted, and your rationality is overcome by physical and mental dependence.

I smoked a pack a day for 5 years. I quit on a dime. The physical addiction aspect is way overblown.

Somehow, I think that the design of the packaging has very little if anything to do with kids who start to smoke. Kids start doing drugs, which doesn't even have packaging. Kids don't walk into shops, see colourful cigarette packets, and think oooh, I want to try that. Maybe that works with chocolate bars, but people start smoking because it's cool and their friends do it. Nothing to do with packaging.

If that's the case, then the cigarette industry wouldn't care less about minimal packaging. But I'm sure they'd protest it. Why is that? Because packaging does matter.

 

[richiek]

A lot of people in this thread hate cigarettes but love pot. Kinda weird.

Not really, considering the health risks for cigarettes are far greater than pot.

 

[captmorgan]

I think we should do this with food too. Hey if reduces the number of fatties in this world even 1% it will have been worth it.

We should also do this with video games, if it even gets 1% of children outside and active again it will have been worth it.

 

[Dead Man]

I smoked a pack a day for 5 years. I quit on a dime. The physical addiction aspect is way overblown.

For you maybe. I had a hell of a time quitting. It wasn't until my grandmother was dying of lung cancer and I had to look after her for 6 months that I managed to quit. So it's nice you had an easy time, but your experience is not everyones.

 

[KevinCow]

I really don't see that as an issue though. I very very rarely am walking so close behind a smoker that I'm inhaling his second hand smoke. Maybe in major cities it's an issue, I'm not sure.

I'm one of those bullshit "social" smokers.

Well, see, you're a smoker. You're not really the best judge on how horrible the stuff is. To us non-smokers, even so much as being in an area where someone has smoked in the last few minutes is pretty awful. That's to say nothing for people who smoke right outside the entrances to public stores, or being inside a building with smokers where the smoke has nowhere to go.

 

[Devolution]

I smoked a pack a day for 5 years. I quit on a dime. The physical addiction aspect is way overblown.

You are the paragon of what every smoker should be, good for you.

/sarcasm

Some people smoke as a means of replacing other addictions. I would know this because my dad does. He traded alcoholism for smoking. I'd rather he not smoke as much as he does, but he's been clean and sober for over 18 years now. Ideally he'd learn how to break addiction completely but part of not being a self-righteous tool is realizing others don't always have self-control on the same level as yourself.

I really don't see that as an issue though. I very very rarely am walking so close behind a smoker that I'm inhaling his second hand smoke. Maybe in major cities it's an issue, I'm not sure.

Lived with two. Dad and grandma. My clothes reeked constantly of smoke and everyone at school thought I smoked too. I grew to just deal with it but even I can't stand how god damn selfish smokers are. I don't care how harmless or not second hand smoke is, it's rude to force people to deal with it.

 

[I <3 Memes]

We should also do this with video games, if it even gets 1% of children outside and active again it will have been worth it.

That would be fine with me too. Of course I am a PC gamer who buys all of my games through digital distribution so this wouldnt affect me, unlike the lower caste of console gamers.

 

[Deku]

I really don't think the epeen contest on whose drug labels are more disgusting is going to solve the problem.

Advocates admit themselves that the packaging lose their effect after some number of years.

At this rate, were moving towards criminalization of cigarettes, which is counterproductive.