I've seen doctors take a smoking break. It's bad sure, but so is driving, and flying, going on a ship, ect. One mistake will kill you.
Driving, flying, going on a ship -- all have practical solutions with the only shortcomings being the lack of positive exercise you receive, which is more of a "neutral" element.
Smoking has practical applications with undoubted shortcomings, but those applications are to such small extent and are able to be substituted with being a genuinely smart person who can manage his / her problems more effectively.
As in, actually solving them, instead of trying to burn off a by-product (that can be avoided) of that problem without doing anything else.
3. No, I think you'll find being a soldier is a lifestyle choice that leads to death,
"One of"
Yes, smoking leads to death, or at least a (significantly?) shortened lifespan.
seconded by driving.
Seconded by idiocy.
Do you drive a car? A lot of people do and a lot of people die. BAN CARS!!!!
Smoking is an effector on everyone doing it, and even second-hand (you have no right to make me do anything, to please your negative habit without me suffering -- that in itself is negative, so EnterOrions idea of me moving upwind can get lost) is dangerous. The problem is that the mobility granted by a car is instrumental for so many things, the amount of time saved on it is pretty astonishing, as is the time used in it (and the opportunities presented by it). Should I bring up that smoking again has no practical applications for stress that can't be substituted?
Hell, try meditation.
Oh lovely, an anti-smoker. Let the fun begin.
Also known as someone who is not stupid.
1. I already said I don't smoke around other people **** wit.
It's a viable reason to bring up -- whom's to say he was directing it at you, "****" wit?
2. My wife smoked, and my kids are strong healthy kids. Shove your propaganda where the sun don't shine.
Is there any actual denial of its effects? It need not be as prominent of devastating to note that it is actually there.
Any idea how many non-smokers get cancer? Research it, and get some knowledge.
How about you show it to me. You're consistently someone who shines out with statistical nonsense that I can only ask that you actually put the money where your mouth is.
Same for No.5.
6. Non-smokers live longer do they? Do they? Go on, grab me those statistics? Show me them in black and white! Go ahead, I've got all night!
I've got plenty of time.
Not to mention that statistics are that which you've not provided. What is already presented by tar, carbon monoxide and other properties of cigarettes should be enough evidence to tell you that, hello? It's bad.
I have trouble believing this, unless you're one of those people who can't tolerate any smoke, tobacco or not.
Let me ask you.
Why should he tolerate it? Make an honest point that justifies you influencing others in a way where they need to make the effort to nullify a negative effect. You've no right.
I dunno about that. My mother did a pretty good job, and she's been smoking since she was 11.
It's a battle of wills. Smoking is an easy, relaxed way of letting out stress for people. As opposed to other methods that take more effort or more discipline to handle. It's annoying to see others unable to handle themselves, apparently "due to stress" that can easily be because of poor perception.
Ummm... no.
With my previous reasoning, it's a yes until you prove otherwise.
Am I? Or am I just blowing it out of my mouth?
Wind has a direction you know. It's not hard to smell the trail of someone who is smoking 8 yards in front of you.
If I go in some shop and someone other than shopkeeper tells me to put it out , my answer is only tw words which i wont write here as i cant afford another ban
Fortunately, I don't mind getting banned for this, because this is reasonable.
You, if you actually believe this, are an ignorant ******* or an arrogant prick.
What makes you honestly think you have that right, to inconvenience others for what is NO good reason? To show utter disrespect towards people whom asked you to nullify a negative effect you YOURSELF created?
I'll repeat those two words you likely say. **** you.
Or is it "off"? I'd appreciate if you didn't ask whether I cared or not. You disgust me.
so is drinking, people do stupid things while drunk but no one puts a ban on drinking
It's genuine to the people and the moderation of the drug itself. People die from overdoses, should they ban paracetamol entirely?
No, it's effective, has positive applications.
Alcohol? Not so much, not formal ones at all, either -- but consider that it also doesn't need negative effects attached, if the people drinking can handle it without being stupid. Which is often (bad stories are told more than good ones).
It's surprisingly irritating how arrogant and inconsiderate you guys seem to be to defend your poor habit. You can't say it's a good or even "neutral" one either, so why bother? It sounds more like you're defending genuine smokers because the majority are nowhere near under poor enough conditions to require such easy stress relief. Even the PERCEPTION of things can aid in relieving stress, not looking at things so badly, or getting angry with things that can't be changed... a lot of this is derived from common flaws in humans. NOT human nature.
South Park handled this situation with a degree of professionalism that I haven't seen from anybody on either side of this argument.
I'm not of professional nature but that does not mean anything in terms of the strength of my point.
i could never understand why he started. and im sure that his problem is (or maybe was) his weak will and not actual addiction
Addiction is very... strange, to say the least. There are behavior and drug addictions in people that I've never had for myself. Granted, I've never attempted to have a cigarette and very bluntly refuse to anyone offering me one if they're my friends or family. Even if they're joking, I don't like the idea of my smoking one bit, "just try one" is rightfully responded to with a "No thanks", and of course something to elaborate that I would never touch one -- the idea of forcing that on me would end poorly for that person, I would think.
You know, because I can run and they can't catch me. Weyyyy! Smack-talk for the win!
No, but seriously, I would respond with whatever I could if someone attempted to put a cigarette in my mouth.
Who are we to tell them what legal and non-legal actions they can do? If you don't like them smoking, then walk away.
Legal and illegal actions do not define what is morally acceptable. Would you allow a gamer's laziness or addiction to games to force another to bring him essentials like food and water? No, you would turn off the console, and make him do it himself. This can stand for most addictions or negative habits, and legal or illegal dictations do not stand for ANYTHING aside from the consequences. Frankly, I'm annoyed they haven't been so aggressive in their reduction of smoking over the years.
I guess it's a good thing you aren't inhaling all of it, isn't it?
You would be wrong.
It would be less of a bad thing.
Yes, this IS relevant. Don't think I'm being picky for the sake of inconveniencing your day, I'm doing it on a mathematical level to make it fair -- and fairness says that it's not AS bad as it could've been. Either way, you've no right to let that negative effect hit them anyway, being as you actively create it around them.
If somebody is still standing there while inhaling all of it, I would call an ambulance. They're probably having a heart attack.
So you're saying someone... I guess "not stupid" and "non-smoker" would move out of the way. Nope, you should.
- H
