|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: These activities and many others also produce airborne carcinogens.
That is true. However, there is a lot of good that also comes from those items. There is not a single good thing that comes from smoking in public.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Some smokers claim that smoking relaxes them. Some claim that it helps improve their thought processes. Most claim to enjoy it.
Who are you to claim that their needs are less valid than your need to barbeque?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Some smokers claim that smoking relaxes them. Some claim that it helps improve their thought processes. Most claim to enjoy it.
Then let them do it somewhere it does not infringe on my rights.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Smokers have the same right to peacefully use the public areas that you do. Given that no harm to others has been demonstrated by secondhand outdoor smoke, how do you justify limiting their use of public areas?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Given that no harm to others has been demonstrated by secondhand outdoor smoke
You're kidding right? 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
No, I am not. The OP started this thread because of a proposal to ban smoking in a park, of all places. I, for one, find it difficult to believe that a person smoking a cigarette in the park is a significant public health hazard.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: cigarette in the park is a significant public health hazard.
But to claim that secondhand outdoor smoke does not harm others is just insane. Granted if they are at the same park but 500 yards away from me, I won't likely have any effects, but it's much easier to ban all outdoor smoking than to have "bubbles" of distance a smoker must keep away from other people. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: But you shouldn't have the right to throw cancer at me
You just have no concept of science and real world physics do you? Where exactly do you think that the smoke from that single cigarette, on the beach, goes? Are you supposing that it is a guided missile that launches from that cigarette right up your nose?
And for comparisons sake what do you think that the last group of people that sat in the spot of sand that you decided to sit in, did in exactly on that spot? Or the last 1000 groups of people?
Do you touch anything else on the beach? A bathroom? A rail on the stairs? Maybe a stool at the concession stand? What about the, likely tens of thousands of people who have touched that very thing. Do you believe that is absolutely safe?
Does anyone throw a football on the beach? A Frisbee? A baseball? Ever have one of those slam into your head? Or your eye?
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Where exactly do you think that the smoke from that single cigarette, on the beach, goes?
Well, if you're in range, it goes right up your nose, duh.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Well, if you're in range, it goes right up your nose, duh.
Not surprising you have no grasp of physics nor the ability to assess real world risks. I should have realized that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since catalytic convertors and lead free petrol there is absolutely no question that cigarette smoke is far and away the most toxic substance routinely released into the atmosphere with hundreds of individual toxins in the mix. You can, of course, argue that there is insufficient volume to have any real effect in open spaces although that is not by any means the clincher that you clearly imagine it to be especially as we now know that visible smoke only makes up 20% of gases and vapours released. There is absolutely no question that a smoker would fail (spectacularly) the standard emissions test for cars in the UK!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member 9082365 wrote: Since catalytic convertors and lead free petrol there is absolutely no question that cigarette smoke is far and away the most toxic substance routinely released into the atmosphere with hundreds of individual toxins in the mix.
I never claimed that tobacco smoke is healthful; only that the cost of complete removal is higher than can be warranted. This is especially true if you include the cost to personal freedom.
Member 9082365 wrote: There is absolutely no question that a smoker would fail (spectacularly) the standard emissions test for cars in the UK!
So would chili eaters. That is no excuse for banning chili. The standard car emissions tests are designed for cars, not human beings.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Already banned in parts of Britain - all public transport in London for example, and some city centres.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Especially, drinking and driving.
Have seen people who feel as though having the right to "drink and drive". Can cause "drink and die" for them and others.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not a smoker, but I think that anti-smoking laws have gone too far. Given the other environmental hazards present in our lives (car and other air pollution, water pollution, etc.), I would say that bans on outdoor smoking fail the "public interest" test.
I agree with those who say that tobacco smoke is foul-smelling, but if we ban all foul smells, perhaps we should start with those suffering from exccessive body odour, the over-users of perfume, etc. I find them much more annoying than tobacco smoke.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: the over-users of perfume,
Gawd, yes!
My neighbours kid has just turned 13 and discovered "instead-of-shave" 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: honesty of politicians
Can these words exist in the same sentence without the 'dis' prefix?
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Public interest is determined by marketing-money, advertising budget, and the dishonesty of politicians.
FTFY 
Seriously, in a rational world we would have much higher priorities than eliminating secondhand smoke outdoors.
<insert your own list here>
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Seriously, in a rational world we would have much higher priorities than eliminating secondhand smoke outdoors.
I have always found the argument that small problems may/should be ignored in order to devote more time to big problems unconvincing (well, asinine, to be honest). It is certainly the last thing one would expect a programmer to be advocating!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
In an ideal world. we would have sufficient resources to fix all problems. In our non-ideal world, we must prioritise. I believe that the eradication of secondhand smoke is given much too high a priority.
If you want to stop people smoking, social (rather than legal) pressure is much more effective. For an example, see the popularity of spitoons in the 19th century U.S. vs. their popularity today.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: I believe that the eradication of secondhand smoke is given much too high a priority.
You're suggesting that something more important is not being done because we spent time passing a law to ban public smoking. So, what did not get done because of that law?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: So, what did not get done because of that law?
All laws have a hidden cost. Given that legislative time is finite, some law was not passed or amended. Given that law-enforcement resources are finite, some other law was de-prioritised.
The question is not whether a law is beneficial, but whether the benefits of the law are greater than the costs. I believe that in this case - the costs "win".
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
