Should smoking be legal?

[Ørion]

I feel that this is a very important and tough issue that will be important for many many years to come. Speaking from an economic stand-point, banning or even restricting smoking would destroy the entire industry and collapse a good deal of agriculture. However, speaking from a personal stand-point, I have lost a relative to smoking and have another who is very sick, almost certainly because she has smoked her entire life.

My first instinct would be to just give those already addicted a license of some sort to allow them to buy cigarettes/cigars while keeping anyone from starting to smoke. However, there is historical evidence in the temperance movement that this would probably lead to an illegal black market for cigarettes or cigars being formed. However, smoking's long term health effects are very often just as fatal as the effects of illegal drugs can be.

The best conclusion I can come up with is to increase what they are already doing with smoking awareness. Hopefully, if everyone knows exactly how much damage smoking does to your body, many will not start. What does everyone else think of this issue?

 

[Firus]

Personally, with smoking Tobacco, I think making it illegal is sort of unnecessary.

I am sorry about your relatives, but in all honesty, it was their decision to smoke. As long as it is common knowledge that smoking can kill you eventually, I see nothing wrong with letting someone choose whether or not they want to. There are options to quit if you want to, and unlike with illegal drugs, your mind is not affected in any way, so you're not going to be affecting other people.

I think the tobacco industry is a little sick; I think it's sort of disturbing that they basically get people addicted so that they keep buying their product. However, that's not really reason to illegalize smoking tobacco.

 

[cF=)]

There are options to quit if you want to, and unlike with illegal drugs, your mind is not affected in any way, so you're not going to be affecting other people.

Don't back stab me like that, I had to show you drugs don't turn you psychotic in the other thread. And I disagree with your second point, tobacco smoke does affect people around you, hence when we had to outlaw smoking in public places. If you want to smoke, don't throw your lungs full of chemicals at my face.

I think the tobacco industry is a little sick; I think it's sort of disturbing that they basically get people addicted so that they keep buying their product. However, that's not really reason to illegalize smoking tobacco.

It's sick, but who do you think gets money out of it? Tobacco industries fund the government and donate their profits at the right places to avoid, delay or block future laws that could reduce their profit margin.

It's sick, but it's politics.

 

[The Executive]

Don't back stab me like that, I had to show you drugs don't turn you psychotic in the other thread. And I disagree with your second point, tobacco smoke does affect people around you, hence when we had to outlaw smoking in public places. If you want to smoke, don't throw your lungs full of chemicals at my face.

It's sick, but who do you think gets money out of it? Tobacco industries fund the government and donate their profits at the right places to avoid, delay or block future laws that could reduce their profit margin.

It's sick, but it's politics.

cF=)'s right. Cigarettes at a store are about threefold price what the manufacturer charges because the government implements a ludicrous tax on all smoking pamphernalia to profit off of people who make stupid decisions. It works, too, because people still buy them and the gov't gets its money.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Personally, with smoking Tobacco, I think making it illegal is sort of unnecessary.

I am sorry about your relatives, but in all honesty, it was their decision to smoke. As long as it is common knowledge that smoking can kill you eventually, I see nothing wrong with letting someone choose whether or not they want to. There are options to quit if you want to, and unlike with illegal drugs, your mind is not affected in any way, so you're not going to be affecting other people.

I think the tobacco industry is a little sick; I think it's sort of disturbing that they basically get people addicted so that they keep buying their product. However, that's not really reason to illegalize smoking tobacco.

I agree with this post, however:

Smoking can harm people. I live on a fixed income, and my mother smokes. If she didn't smoke, everyone's health who lived with us would be better and we would be more financially stable.

 

[cF=)]

Smoking can harm people. I live on a fixed income, and my mother smokes. If she didn't smoke, everyone's health who lived with us would be better and we would be more financially stable.

Were cigarettes jumping in your mother's hand when she went to the store? Probably not, SHE made the choice to smoke and spend her money on it rather than quitting to afford whatever needs you had. If she went on a shopping rush every weekends to spend money on clothes, would you ban clothes because she was irresponsible?

Is everybody using the same fallacies or what?

 

[mr_kennedy44]

Smoking should in fact stay legal. Personally I can't stand them. I hate the fact that my mom smokes but all I can do is not start myself. Yes they are harmful to yourself and the people around you but making them illegal would raise taxes by a huge amount.

The government makes billions in taxes from cigarettes. Making them illegal would make the price of everything else rise to compensate for the lost tax money. I personally believe that the reason they have not been made illegal is simply because of the fact that they are so heavily taxed.

 

[Firus]

Don't back stab me like that, I had to show you drugs don't turn you psychotic in the other thread. And I disagree with your second point, tobacco smoke does affect people around you, hence when we had to outlaw smoking in public places. If you want to smoke, don't throw your lungs full of chemicals at my face.

I'm not talking about making you psychotic, I'm saying they affect your mind, which you agreed with me on. They do affect you, just not necessarily make you psychotic.

As for your other point, I disagree as well. Both of my mother's parents smoked; her dad was a three-packs-a-day kind of guy, apparently. However, my mom doesn't have any sort of lung disease, nor do either of my mom's siblings. If secondhand smoke affects you that much, wouldn't you think that someone living with two smoking parents would get a lung disease?

It's sick, but who do you think gets money out of it? Tobacco industries fund the government and donate their profits at the right places to avoid, delay or block future laws that could reduce their profit margin.

It's sick, but it's politics.

Yeah, and politics (as well as politicians) are sick...

Again, though, this is the same thing I said in the other thread; as great as it would be to illegalize tobacco to screw the government, it's not really a good reason to do so. Plus, legislation would never get passed, since the aforementioned politicians would have to pass the legislation, and they would never agree to something that would hurt them.
That's one huge gap in this government system.

 

[cF=)]

which you agreed with me on.

Indeed I did, but perhaps I said it didn't necessarily affected you in a negative way.

If secondhand smoke affects you that much, wouldn't you think that someone living with two smoking parents would get a lung disease?

Absolutely not !

There's a huge difference between causation and correlation, and this is where your mistake is made. We do know that there is a correlation between the amount of industrial tobacco you smoke and cancers of all sort, however, there is no direct causation proved. It means that even if you were exposed to secondhand smoke in your youth, you might not develop cancer but your chances of having cancer are higher than usual.

 

[Firus]

Indeed I did, but perhaps I said it didn't necessarily affected you in a negative way.

You did agree that it can hinder your driving, which means it can affect you in a negative way.

Absolutely not !

There's a huge difference between causation and correlation, and this is where your mistake is made. We do know that there is a correlation between the amount of industrial tobacco you smoke and cancers of all sort, however, there is no direct causation proved. It means that even if you were exposed to secondhand smoke in your youth, you might not develop cancer but your chances of having cancer are higher than usual.

Isn't it possible that it's just coincidence that some people who get cancer are exposed to secondhand smoke? If it's just a pattern we're picking out, and it's inconsistent, maybe it isn't a pattern at all; maybe we're just looking for one and finding one by coincidence. Humans want to find patterns, and will do so where they don't exist.

Keep in mind that my mom and her siblings are not exactly young; and since there are three of them, that's saying out of THREE exposed to secondhand smoke, NONE of them have a lung disease of some sort.

I can see that it has some effect, but it can't have a large enough effect to use secondhand smoke as a reason to illegalize it.

 

[cF=)]

You did agree that it can hinder your driving, which means it can affect you in a negative way.

If you see it like that. I meant 'it affects your driving, so don't drive' instead of 'it affects your driving, it then carries a negative connotation'.

Isn't it possible that it's just coincidence that some people who get cancer are exposed to secondhand smoke?

Not when you work on bigger scales. In statistics especially, the amount of people you use for a survey will directly affect your mathematical formula, and 3 siblings is faaar from being a representative sample. If you don't personally know anybody who developed cancer from secondhand smoke, you're the lucky guy. It's not the other way around.

 

[Firus]

If you see it like that. I meant 'it affects your driving, so don't drive' instead of 'it affects your driving, it then carries a negative connotation'.

This wasn't really a point I was trying to get involved in the debate...

My point was merely that those drugs CAN affect your mind (whether or not something bad happens wasn't a point of mine) while tobacco can't. That's all I was saying. It was more of a 'it can't even do this' than a 'this can, but this can't'

Not when you work on bigger scales. In statistics especially, the amount of people you use for a survey will directly affect your mathematical formula, and 3 siblings is faaar from being a representative sample. If you don't personally know anybody who developed cancer from secondhand smoke, you're the lucky guy. It's not the other way around.

You're probably right, but I still find it odd that people claiming secondhand smoke (just from people smoking in public!) kills, while these three people I know who LIVED with TWO parents smoking haven't been affected at all.

But I also have another question for you; are you just refuting the points of mine that you find inaccurate, or are you actually for illegalizing tobacco? It seems to me that if you're for legalizing drugs, making tobacco illegal is a little odd. Wouldn't that fit in with the 'just smoking with a couple of friends at a party' concept you kept saying in the other thread?

 

[sheepyman]

Second-hand smoke can cause your chances of getting cancer to increase, but so can excessive sun exposure, tomatos (high carcinogenic content) and various other perfectly natural and normal things. Lead is still quite real and used for various things, toxic substances and chemicals are bought and sold in commonplace convenience stores. Technically speaking, one is infringing on many peoples' rights when he smokes because he/she is putting them "at risk," but so are the cars, factories, and airplanes that pump toxic cancer-causing chemicals into the air too, so unless you want to ban all of them, there's no reason to stop people from smoking.

If anything legal should be banned, it should be alcohol, but nobody wants that, especially not me . Many illegal drugs are actually a lot "safer" than alcohol, but that's not the discussion here.

 

[cF=)]

But I also have another question for you; are you just refuting the points of mine that you find inaccurate, or are you actually for illegalizing tobacco?

I find tobacco's current situation to be perfect the way it is.

 

[Wolfang]

If slow suicide taste so good, I don't think smokers would mind if the already prospering tobacco industries jacked up the price a little. I'm pretty sure they would still pay. I don't think we can just outlaw something thats dangerous just because its properties, but you can always filter out the abusers to achieve the same goal. If its banned, people have the tendency to turn to insurgency and find a way around it.

 

[Firus]

Second-hand smoke can cause your chances of getting cancer to increase, but so can excessive sun exposure, tomatos (high carcinogenic content) and various other perfectly natural and normal things. Lead is still quite real and used for various things, toxic substances and chemicals are bought and sold in commonplace convenience stores. Technically speaking, one is infringing on many peoples' rights when he smokes because he/she is putting them "at risk," but so are the cars, factories, and airplanes that pump toxic cancer-causing chemicals into the air too, so unless you want to ban all of them, there's no reason to stop people from smoking.

If anything legal should be banned, it should be alcohol, but nobody wants that, especially not me . Many illegal drugs are actually a lot "safer" than alcohol, but that's not the discussion here.

You bring up a good point; I should've thought of that myself.

I find tobacco's current situation to be perfect the way it is.

Okay. Just curious.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Were cigarettes jumping in your mother's hand when she went to the store? Probably not, SHE made the choice to smoke and spend her money on it rather than quitting to afford whatever needs you had. If she went on a shopping rush every weekends to spend money on clothes, would you ban clothes because she was irresponsible?

Is everybody using the same fallacies or what?

I wasn't condemning cigarattes, I was condemning the act of smoking when faced with responsibility. In no way did I mention the idea of banning cigarrates. In fact, I agreed with another in the same post reguarding why it should stay legal. Seemingly, you have no reguard of responsibility. Following this logic, I could essentially see the justifying child neglect and times when smoking could be detrimental to everyone (such as when you're around propane tanks.)

 

[slartibartfast42]

Secondhand smoke is definitly bad enough to make a case to ban smoking. However, while I seriously dislike smoking and hate going places where you can smell smoke, I feel that the decision to completely ban smoking would be very unfair to those who are already addicted, forcing withdrawal symptoms on the smoking population would be pretty cruel. I think that the best route to take would be to ban smoking in areas that are either owned by the government or (libraries, parks, etc.), and then give people the freedom to ban smoking on their own property and have offenders punishable by law. Smokers would be able to smoke on their own property and on properties that are designated for smoking as much as the want. This system makes it so that smokers can smoke and people who don't won't ever be exposed to smoke except by their own fault.

Also, I think that the programs that are being run to educate people on the harmful effects of smoke are great and need to continue, soon this won't be an issue as smoking will no longer exist at a significant level.

 

[WuTangDude]

At this point, we have to keep smoking legal. America (even the world) is weening itself of smoking.

Believe or not, smoking has dramatically decreased over the last 50 years, and rates are only going lower. America is smartening up on this. The smoking population is too large to ban cigarettes as of now, but in say another 50 years from now, it could be possible since the smoking population will be wayyy smalller than.

Plus, in the state of America's current economy, banning a major source of revunue wouldn't be a smart move.

 

[blazedaces]

Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Objective To measure the relation between environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, and long term mortality from tobacco related disease.

Design Prospective cohort study covering 39 years.

Setting Adult population of California, United States.

Participants 118 094 adults enrolled in late 1959 in the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study (CPS I), who were followed until 1998. Particular focus is on the 35 561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits.

Main outcome measures Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals for deaths from coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease related to smoking in spouses and active cigarette smoking.

Results For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.

[highlight]Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.[/highlight]

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full...=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1,2,3,4,10

This is an extremely reliable study (it's an actual paper form a peer-reviewed medical journal).

If anyone from now on is going to suggest the opposite I want actual data that shows otherwise. I'm not talking about a site which says it's true. Unless you can show real proof, a real study, or real data that proves conclusively there's a significant correlation between second-hand smoke and serious detriment to your health stop claiming that's the case.

-blazed

 

[AbsoluteKing]

Yes! Every day I have to walk to school usually with people in front of me that smoke. Now growing up with smoking parents, I have gained a sensitive nose to the smoke and am easily irritated. Lots of people are out there like me. Even with designated smoking areas, the smell or smoke still affects us. While it does minimal damage to the environment, it STILL DOES DAMAGE! The environment needs all the help it can get.

 

[Steck]

People will keep doing it even if it is made illegal and the prison system is already over crowded- all that can be done is to make sure people know what the effects of smoking are.
Some drugs are so dangerous that it is better to ban them (try to keep them out of reach), heroin comes to mind, but others (though harmful) trying to ban them would tax society's resources more than the drugs' affects would hurt people- having black market tobacco doesn't seem like a good idea- At least the government can regulate it if its legal

 

[Yeniths]

I do not see a reason why as to smoking should be illegal. As long as these said smokers do so in side there own house, i see no problem, the problem comes when they smoke in areas where it is clearly affecting other people, with almost the "look at me" feel.

 

[Biggie Smalls]

I feel that this is a very important and tough issue that will be important for many many years to come. Speaking from an economic stand-point, banning or even restricting smoking would destroy the entire industry and collapse a good deal of agriculture. However, speaking from a personal stand-point, I have lost a relative to smoking and have another who is very sick, almost certainly because she has smoked her entire life.

My first instinct would be to just give those already addicted a license of some sort to allow them to buy cigarettes/cigars while keeping anyone from starting to smoke. However, there is historical evidence in the temperance movement that this would probably lead to an illegal black market for cigarettes or cigars being formed. However, smoking's long term health effects are very often just as fatal as the effects of illegal drugs can be.

The best conclusion I can come up with is to increase what they are already doing with smoking awareness. Hopefully, if everyone knows exactly how much damage smoking does to your body, many will not start. What does everyone else think of this issue?

Yes, I agree. I just don't see why smoking cigarettes and cigars were banned with illegal drugs all together. Beer is fine to me, because you're not giving anyone medical risks around you, I just hate when people smoke right by you, it's a disgusting smell. They should just drop smoking and label it illegal, or at least in the public completely. We don't need another temperance movement.

 

[derek.haines]

Beer is fine to me, because you're not giving anyone medical risks around you,

But what about when that beer-drinker decides to drive home and takes out the family in the minivan? I'd call that a pretty significant medical risk.

Second-hand smoke is among the most overblown risks there is. Check this out:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full...=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1,2,3,4,10

This is an extremely reliable study (it's an actual paper form a peer-reviewed medical journal).

If anyone from now on is going to suggest the opposite I want actual data that shows otherwise. I'm not talking about a site which says it's true. Unless you can show real proof, a real study, or real data that proves conclusively there's a significant correlation between second-hand smoke and serious detriment to your health stop claiming that's the case.

-blazed

He's got it right. Like the majority of smoking-related diseases, the risk from second-hand smoke has been severely overblown by the anti-smoking groups and soccer moms.

 

[Biggie Smalls]

But what about when that beer-drinker decides to drive home and takes out the family in the minivan? I'd call that a pretty significant medical risk.

Second-hand smoke is among the most overblown risks there is. Check this out:




He's got it right. Like the majority of smoking-related diseases, the risk from second-hand smoke has been severely overblown by the anti-smoking groups and soccer moms.

Yeah, I know what you mean, but plain and simple smoking in a public place is disgusting in general, it shows lack of respect and utter rudeness. If you're on the habit, we should know from you telling us, not you smoking it in front of us. I don't need to smell that when I'm on a date or doing any errands or even just with friends. Some of my friends smoke crack, but they don't do it with people that know they don't want them doing what they do there.

 

[derek.haines]

Believe it or not, I agree with you to an extent. I'm pro-Marijuana, but I don't want someone lighting up a fat blunt while in front of me at the movies. But the idea that smoking should be banned from public places simply because some amongst the population don't like it is something I will never support. I can't say that I particularly like having people make out around me in public, but I'll defend their right to do it until the bitter end.

I'm not saying that smokers should be lighting up in front of schools or outside Gymborees, but if someone is in the park surrounded by like-minded individuals then I see no reason why they cannot smoke.

 

[Biggie Smalls]

Believe it or not, I agree with you to an extent. I'm pro-Marijuana, but I don't want someone lighting up a fat blunt while in front of me at the movies. But the idea that smoking should be banned from public places simply because some amongst the population don't like it is something I will never support. I can't say that I particularly like having people make out around me in public, but I'll defend their right to do it until the bitter end.

I'm not saying that smokers should be lighting up in front of schools or outside Gymborees, but if someone is in the park surrounded by like-minded individuals then I see no reason why they cannot smoke.

Yes, I see we have the same mentality. The only thing is that..well you don't need some amputated creep smoking by a woman with her baby taking a stroll around the park. There should be smoker designated places, so people who don't want smoke in their face don't go there and have no excuse to ***** about second hand smoking.

 

[derek.haines]

Wait... why amputated? Lol, hasn't the poor guy been through enough already?

But in all seriousness it really does seem as though designated smoking facilities and areas in high traffic portions of cities are probably the best way to go. The thing is, they really need to be more than just phone booth-like structures or a singular bench near the dumpsters. The vast majority of "designated smoking areas" are clearly anti-smoker, and are uncomfortable and out of the way.

The problem becomes how we define areas where such places are necessary. Malls and other shopping centers are an obvious choice, but what about parks? Can a person walking down the sidewalk in their neighborhood smoke if they like?

 

[cF=)]

The smoker also has rights, so why couldn't he smoke in the park? If smoke disturbs you that much, you can walk a little bit to the right while the smoker avoid blowing his load in your face. It's all about mutual respect from what I see. Perhaps it's harder to avoid second-hand smoke in closed areas (restaurants, malls, etc.), but on a widely open field, I don't see how it's detrimental to anybody.

About smell, do we ban bad perfumes and arrest people who don't gauge correctly the amount they put on them? No, and I remember cases of teachers walking by me, while I was sitting in class, that gave me headaches.

 

[Biggie Smalls]

The smoker also has rights, so why couldn't he smoke in the park? If smoke disturbs you that much, you can walk a little bit to the right while the smoker avoid blowing his load in your face. It's all about mutual respect from what I see. Perhaps it's harder to avoid second-hand smoke in closed areas (restaurants, malls, etc.), but on a widely open field, I don't see how it's detrimental to anybody.

About smell, do we ban bad perfumes and arrest people who don't gauge correctly the amount they put on them? No, and I remember cases of teachers walking by me, while I was sitting in class, that gave me headaches.

Still it's completely rude, closed or not. There need to be smoking areas. In closed areas I beleive they should be banned completely.

Please, don't be a smart ***. Perfumes are minor, all they do is trigger sniffing allergies at most and they don't go all over a closed in area. Your last example was..well what the hell are you talking about?

 

[cF=)]

Still it's completely rude, closed or not.

Tell me why, I'm holding my position until you refute what I said.

In closed areas I beleive they should be banned completely.

It currently is, and I don't see any problems with that. I gave my opinion about an open field.

Please, don't be a smart ***. Perfumes are minor, all they do is trigger sniffing allergies at most and they don't go all over a closed in area.

Perfumes are minor for which reasons? Do you actually give arguments or do you think I'll bow down to your opinion? Perfume molecules easily travel in the air, especially when you got circulation going on. May it be in a subway, a classroom or anywhere else where you have people walking around, you can smell it.

I just hate when people smoke right by you, it's a disgusting smell.

Now that a study has been posted about the false negative effects given to second-hand smoke, how are both any different since only the smell seems to disturb you?

 

[Biggie Smalls]

Tell me why, I'm holding my position until you refute what I said.

It currently is, and I don't see any problems with that. I gave my opinion about an open field.

Perfumes are minor for which reasons? Do you actually give arguments or do you think I'll bow down to your opinion? Perfume molecules easily travel in the air, especially when you got circulation going on. May it be in a subway, a classroom or anywhere else where you have people walking around, you can smell it.

Now that a study has been posted about the false negative effects given to second-hand smoke, how are both any different since only the smell seems to disturb you?

.. Are you one of those people in the debate hall that object to common sense and just try to annoying?

 

[cF=)]

.. Are you one of those people in the debate hall that object to common sense and just try to annoying?

Common sense, for Hitler, was to kill jews. If you don't support what you say with anything else than an opinion, you don't belong in the debate hall.

 

[AltF4]

Cf=) and Blazed:

... umm, you know that study you posted was funded by the tobacco companies. They publish bogus "studies" constantly that say things about how smoking and second-hand smoke is perfectly safe. It's a load of crap. Try providing something that ISN'T funded by tobacco companies. Ever hear of "conflict of interest"?

But it doesn't matter because even if you manage to find one, I can list 10 showing the damaging effects of smoking and second-hand smoke for everyone one you find. The studies are not in your favor.

 

[cF=)]

Cf=) and Blazed:

... umm, you know that study you posted was funded by the tobacco companies. They publish bogus "studies" constantly that say things about how smoking and second-hand smoke is perfectly safe. It's a load of crap. Try providing something that ISN'T funded by tobacco companies. Ever hear of "conflict of interest"?

But it doesn't matter because even if you manage to find one, I can list 10 showing the damaging effects of smoking and second-hand smoke for everyone one you find. The studies are not in your favor.

I'm not necessarily supporting a biased study, but common sense tells me that the amount of second hand smoke absorbed by someone's lung when I smoke in an OPEN FIELD is completely negligible, especially if you I don't blow the smoke directly in someone's face or if the person complaining is walking by at 1,4 m/s. You'd also have to be breathing at the exact same time I pull the smoke out, which statistically brings the amount even lower.

Why would someone see himself restricted from smoking outside in a mannered way?

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Still it's completely rude, closed or not.

Since when is being rude a violation of someone's constitutional rights? The only reason to outlaw something is if it is so. PRIVATE places can do whatever they want, and I'm just as happy as you to see them ban smoking.

.. Are you one of those people in the debate hall that object to common sense and just try to annoying?

Common sense is just the sum of prejudices you acquire in your lifetime. I think it is an objectionable thing.

 

[AltF4]

I'm not necessarily supporting a biased study, but common sense tells me that the amount of second hand smoke absorbed by someone's lung when I smoke in an OPEN FIELD is completely negligible, especially if you I don't blow the smoke directly in someone's face or if the person complaining is walking by at 1,4 m/s. You'd also have to be breathing at the exact same time I pull the smoke out, which statistically brings the amount even lower.

Why would someone see himself restricted from smoking outside in a mannered way?

I have nothing against smoking in outdoor public places, or anywhere in private. Snex and I had a lengthy debate some time ago about this, though.

Note: Goldshadow provided some really good info in the PRoom smoking thread about how much smokers cost the US, irregardless of whether they do it indoors or out. Interesting to think about.

 

[blazedaces]

ignore this post please, posted by mistake...

-blazed

 

[AltF4]

Posted by mistake indeed, blazed... I just hadn't finished replying yet.