Actually, that's a great point. The more limits you set, the harder they'll rebel.Originally Posted by Hachifusa
Actually, that's a great point. The more limits you set, the harder they'll rebel.
Kaycee says (12:06 AM):
whos' obama?
A lot of people drank on principle during the Prohibition, so the logic is there.
Are you sure? Cause frankly, I think it does the inverse effect in most cases. Specially with the case of tobacco, I mean, setting limits to things like cocaine is different, most people know cocaine is more risky, it can kill you in less time, and completly screw you up, and it's adulterated or you are not in a good condition, it can even kill you instantly. Cigarrettes are different, truth is they can kill you, but being a smoker dosen't mean you have to end up with cancer, it just means you have more probabilities. Well, your probabilities are probably 90% if you smoke two packs of 20 cigarrettes a day, but those are extreme cases.
Something is always more fun when its banned. Like cheating in big sports matches and not getting caught. The breaking of the rules is the enticement, its jus not as fun when your allowed to do it.
It's important to remember that while a lot of people might smoke more cigarettes if they are banned (and they feel that that is unjust), that is not the reason to make cigs legal - it's that the government doesn't have the right to tell me that I can't smoke.
I think that if you're old enough to take a fully informed decision (16? 18? 21? whatever is used usually in your country), then if you want to smoke, fine. Same goes with drinking and non addictive drugs (marijuana), or driving, or having sex.
As for the places, I'm for keeping closed public places smoke free (eg: libraries, museums, town hall...), for open public places (parks, streets...), as long as you don't blow the smoke right in my face and throw the cig butt in a trashcan/sewer gutters but not on the grass/pavement, it doesn't matter to me. Private places, it's up to the owner (though I like restaurants that have both sections).
And then there is Death
"How is it not limited to the user? I don't smoke." passive smoking, smell, dry air and eyes (hate that in the staf room), asthma sufferers etc.
"hahahaha. It's kind of hard for people with no legal authority to do any 'opressing'." you can oppress without legal authority. you restrict were the majority who don't want lung cancer or to smell when they go home can go and enjoy themselves.
I'd be happy. Let the damn smokers go through their withdrawl. I wouldn't have to go through that delimma of whether I care more about my health or hanging out with family. I like to breathe without some nasty stench entering my nasal passage. Wreaking havoc on my allergies. Doing god knows what to my lungs. I've known too many people that contract lung cancer without being a smoker. I've often sworn allowed if I'm ever one of them, whether or not it was directly caused by smoke or not, I'm gonna make sure they're aware that I blame them. I will hunt down as many people as I can that smoked around me and point that guilty finger at them. I'm glad restraunts aren't allowed to allow smokers in a lot of areas. There is no "non-smoking" section.
well i'm off to uni in afew weeks time (the 10th of september) and smoking is banned in all buildings on campus. even in the union and residences. yeah!!!
Posting Permissions
