Smoking in public: what you won't be able to do ... in 2015

[Sathias]

It seems to me that some people can smoke like a train for 50 years and never get lung cancer, and some people can have brief contact via passive smoking and get it regardless. It just seems like some people are more pre-disposed to lung cancer than others. As such, even if tobacco was wiped off the face of the earth tomorrow, those people would still be in a high risk group from some other toxin, of which there are plenty.

Like Marius I am a non-smoker as well but I have a lot of friends that do, and it really doesn't bother me much. I just get a bit wary of people rampantly calling for nanny state protections, then screaming blue bloody murder because the same way of thinking bans something that they enjoy.

Some people think violent video games are harmful, but banning them is totally unjustified and an unwanted intrusion into our lives, right?

[psychofruiterer]

It's not nanny state thinking when it is proven to be extremely harmful, and the argument of people should be able to do what they like as long as it isn't hurting others is **** in the case of tobacco, as it ends up costing the rest of us millions and millions of dollars every year in anti smoking ad's,government quit programs, and medical treatment directly for the ailments caused by smoking.Not to mention cleaning up butts that are everywhere on the streets.

So, it is impacting other people whether or not they breathe your smoke.

Some people think violent video games are harmful, but banning them is totally unjustified and an unwanted intrusion into our lives, right?

Except in that case, it doesn't cost the public anything by you using videogames, nor have they been proven to be harmful, let alone fatal.

[Disco LT]

It's nanny state thinking when the Government thinks it knows best and starts restricting individual freedoms.

Lets use your exact argument on alcohol, we've spent millions of dollars in anti drinking and safe drinking advertisements, government quit programs, and medical treatment directly for the ailments caused by drinking, not to mention cleaning up broken bottles, vomit, and vandlism that is everywhere and emergency services time wasted in breaking up fights, patroling alcohol hotspots..etc.

So I gather you're 100% behind banning alcohol, as well?

[Jez]

Unfortunately we hit up against a brick wall here - that everyone has the right to do what they please within their own home.

Not to the extent that you can chain smoke constantly with the smoke entering somebody else's apartment. I guess we'll see whether or not this brick wall of yours stands when the court decides whether his neighbours and the managers/owners of the apartment block are liable for his cancer.

There comes a point when you've got to take responsibility for your health rather than sticking obstinately to your guns and demanding people act the way you want them to.

I think trying to get them to stop is a fairly reasonable step to take. Maybe he was reassured that the smell was just unpleasant and not harmful by the people he complained to?... There seem to be no shortage of smoking apologists around.

If that means compromising your position and moving out, then so be it. Good health is more important than winning a lawsuit.

I agree that that's what I would have done in the same situation. However, I hope that he wins his case and that people are not free to smoke with impunity when their smoke is entering other people's residences.

Medicine also suggests that most carcinogens can be offset by people improving their diet (anti-carcinogens and all that). But most people who are so concerned about environmental carinogens put in no effort themselves. I'd like to more see a society where people take responsibility for their own lives, rather than expect controls on other people to keep them healthy.

I think one of the ways people can take responsibility is by lobbying the government to place reasonable restrictions on the use of tobacco when it is liable to affect the health of non-smokers.

After all, if you're not doing what will keep you safe from occasional passive smoke exposure (a fairly low protection threshold - eat some chillis or something for the anti-carcinogens), then you're probably going to die early anyway. It just won't be smoke that kills you. Rather, it will be one of the many other thousands of naturally occurring diseases or poisons that you're not guarding against.

Some people think violent video games are harmful, but banning them is totally unjustified and an unwanted intrusion into our lives, right?

The sticking point being that none of those people can point to peer-reviewed studies or the medical bodies of multiple OECD countries to back up those beliefs. Not to mention regardless of whatever psychological effect one may think that a video game is having on the player, there's no way for that effect to take on a gaseous form and waft across to somebody else's residence.

[Disco LT]

My parents smoke, my friends smoke, then I smoked. I had no idea how truly god awful the smell is until now I've quit. It took a few months, but now when someone comes in from the office after having a smoke ...

I still support their right to smoke

[Mekon]

Some people think violent video games are harmful, but banning them is totally unjustified and an unwanted intrusion into our lives, right?

The sticking point being that none of those people can point to peer-reviewed studies or the medical bodies of multiple OECD countries to back up those beliefs. Not to mention regardless of whatever psychological effect one may think that a video game is having on the player, there's no way for that effect to take on a gaseous form and waft across to somebody else's residence.

The argument is that video games make people more violent/agressive, which will ultimately impact on others (ie. Columbine, etc). There are plenty of peer-reviewed studies that do allegedly show that there are harmful effects form video games (one linky among many).

You're on a slippery slope, even if you don't realise it.

NOTE: I'm not arguing that video games should be banned and I'm certainly not convinced that they have an effect... but there are many peer-reviewed studies indicating such.

[Jez]

The argument is that video games make people more violent/agressive, which will ultimately impact on others (ie. Columbine, etc). There are plenty of peer-reviewed studies that do allegedly show that there are harmful effects form video games (one linky among many).

You're on a slippery slope, even if you don't realise it.

NOTE: I'm not arguing that video games should be banned and I'm certainly not convinced that they have an effect... but there are studies indicating such.

Some studies have indicated an increase in non-clinical 'aggression', but I would argue that that comes about from almost any competitive or challenge-based activity, and that it is not harmful. Compare it to people getting pumped up watching a close football game.

Ultimately in a free society we should have conclusive evidence when we choose to restrict something, we have this for smoking, we do not have anything like this for video games.

[Marius]

Not to the extent that you can chain smoke constantly with the smoke entering somebody else's apartment. I guess we'll see whether or not this brick wall of yours stands when the court decides whether his neighbours and the managers/owners of the apartment block are liable for his cancer.

Perhaps you've not seen just how intractable neighbourhood disputes can go to.

Maybe the court will find the neighbours liable, but that's after the fact. I was referring to the situation that it's almost impossible to coerce a neighbour to do something they don't want to do while the damage is happening.

[Jez]

Not to the extent that you can chain smoke constantly with the smoke entering somebody else's apartment. I guess we'll see whether or not this brick wall of yours stands when the court decides whether his neighbours and the managers/owners of the apartment block are liable for his cancer.

Perhaps you've not seen just how intractable neighbourhood disputes can go to.

Maybe the court will find the neighbours liable, but that's after the fact. I was referring to the situation that it's almost impossible to coerce a neighbour to do something they don't want to do while the damage is happening.

Well I'm fortunate enough to live in a free-standing house rather than an apartment.

But my point was more that maybe if this guy is successful people will think more carefully about when and where they light up if they know they could get sued.

[MuscularTeeth]

they should either ban it completely because it is unsafe, or if they wish to continue making money off it then it should be free to use.

im a nonsmoker. (err of tobacco).

both my parents smoked when i was a young child. my dad still chain smokes.

[GoToadGo]

Ban it from outdoor areas completely. I'm so **** sick of going out on a beautiful day/night and wanting to hang out outside but not being able to due to every person out there being a chain smoker. Why do I need to adjust to them because they feel like killing themselves?

[Disco LT]

I love tobacco, and still enjoy the odd cigar but I've given cigarettes the complete flick, never to return.

MT - I don't see them ever banning it completely, I'd love to know what sort of dollar figure the Gov't makes off tobacco sales each year, if they did ban smoking they'd just move them onto something else anyway.

GoToadGo - I think thats the plan really, but I also think as someone else here said earlier if a vanue chooses to be open to smokers as well as non smokers, then non smokers should STFU and go elsewhere if they don't like it.

[Tas]

I dont give a monkeys if people wanna kill themselves, but smokers puffing that **** next to me at bus stop, or sitting in beer garden at pub, is a big nono. I tell em to put it out or go somewhere els. I dont want freakin cancer because they are too ignorant of other people.

[Tas]

It's nanny state thinking when the Government thinks it knows best and starts restricting individual freedoms.

Lets use your exact argument on alcohol, we've spent millions of dollars in anti drinking and safe drinking advertisements, government quit programs, and medical treatment directly for the ailments caused by drinking, not to mention cleaning up broken bottles, vomit, and vandlism that is everywhere and emergency services time wasted in breaking up fights, patroling alcohol hotspots..etc.

So I gather you're 100% behind banning alcohol, as well?

But its ok for you to stand 3 feet from me, an blow clouds of "proven" cancer causing chemicals at me?..... You wanna smoke, awesome, do it in your own home where you cant kill anyone els. You wanna drink, go nuts, do it where you cant kill anyone when you run them over....

I have a neabor who stands outside his front door 10 times a day an smokes, an the cloud of **** comes straight in my front door an window. I have had to tell him so many times to **** off with that ****, an he usually goes inside. But still, I shouldn't be subjected to that ****.

People usually complain about big brother when it involves stopping them doing something that ruins things for others. They want to be allowed to breath tobacco all over that baby at bus stop, "its my right".
They wanna get smashed an drive a car into a bunch of school children on street, "it's my right!!"...

Yes I know those are extreme but doesn't make it any less true.

I dont think people should be stopped from smoking an drinking, they are not children if they wanna **** their lives then more power to them. Sad part is, it's rest of us have to pay for them when they get sick, an pick up pieces after.

[Nekosan]

Gotta agree with Tas in this case, people can mainline heroin for all i care, as long as they do that **** at home where they can't harm anyone else.

I can't believe some of you are arguing that we already breathe in a lot of carcinogens so a little more doesn't matter, if I breathe in particles from car exhaust then that's almost unavoidable, second hand smoke is not. I really thought that all those campaigns in the 90's were enough to educate people on the dangers of second hand smoke, guess not.