1
2350
2351

What is something you wish was illegal? (self.AskReddit)

submitted by SASProgramAllDay

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]elegancja 32 ポイント33 ポイント

Cigarettes....

[–]AnotherIdiotOnTheWeb 135 ポイント136 ポイント

Oh boy I really hate to be that guy, but if I want to slowly kill myself, I think I should have the right to. However, I agree with you 100% about second hand smoke. It's my choice to smoke and that should be okay as long as it only effects me. It's plain unacceptable to expose others to the risks I'm taking

[–]joshkg 45 ポイント46 ポイント

I don't see why we think it's okay to restrict what people want to put into their bodies.

If it's deadly, so what? Who are we to say they can't do what they want?

[–]skeever2 8 ポイント9 ポイント

Then all drugs should be legal (not that I disagree with that).

[–]theshrewd 5 ポイント6 ポイント

Personally I think it's a question of education and power. If you truly understand the dangers before you start, you should be able to do whatever you want. But more often someone who doesn't understand the full danger is being marketed to by someone with a lot of money. Banning things like cigarettes, trans fats, or even large sodas sold as single servings is actually a regulation of someone else's ability to sell you shit that will kill you because you don't have as much information as they have money. With trans fats for example no one is saying you can't make something in your own kitchen that has them, just that you can't be sold them.

But then, it's a question of your perspective.

[–]joshkg 2 ポイント3 ポイント

That's actually a really interesting way to look at it. I'm glad you shared this. In a perfect world, consenting adults would be educated enough and know the risks. But since we live in such an imperfect world, the marketing companies basically fool you into getting hooked.

It's a nice change of perspective for me. I like to see it from all sides.

[–]theshrewd 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Glad I could provide an alternate perspective! It's something I'm really interested in/debating doing as a job (health policy) and I think that people get really hung up on "I should be able to do what I want!" and ignore "Medical advice says that what you want to do is incredibly dumb, but they have less money than the corporations selling you things, so maybe you should reconsider your choices?"

[–]Gnarwhalrus 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I feel like it's near impossible to not know cigs are bad for you at this point

[–]momzill 0 ポイント1 ポイント

At this point yes, I agree.

That was not always the case though.

[–]zaklein 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Because what one individual puts into their body can negatively affect other innocent individuals. Forget about a car accident caused by a drunk driver, addiction of any kind can result in unnecessary financial and emotional strains on people (such as the addict's kids) who are helpless to remove themselves from the situation or do something to combat the addiction. I respect the libertarian point of view, but is this kind of regulation really that hard to understand?

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that a lot of vaccinations are already de facto mandatory. Going to summer camp? You need certain vaccines. Going to college/university? You need certain vaccines. You want to exercise your right to not vaccinate? Fine. But then every other reasonable person or organization will exercise their right to keep you as far away from them as possible.

[–]Brookx5 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Is the most appropriate way to solve these social issues to criminalize the drug-using individual?

[–]zaklein 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I am not saying that. I recognize that there are many problems with the legal system's treatment of drug use, at least here in the States, and criminalization of drug use--at least, criminalization alone without meaningful rehabilitation or a medical approach towards addiction--is probably not the answer. I was simply providing some perspective on why there is a compelling reason to regulate what goes into an individual's body and restrict that individual's right to control what does or does not enter his/her system.

[–]AllSurfingEndsInCats -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

Try this, "Ya know those things will kill me?"

It is incredibly unfair that I have to get fucked over by your uncontainable, unnecessary bad habit. Notice how no one bitches about each other's consumption of coffee? That is because your coffee addiction isn't harming me. But oh my god, knock it the fuck off with those stupid cigarettes.

Ha, what a world it would be if a cigarette were replaced by 9 minutes of ... clean air.

[–]brodermund -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

jesus christ shut up. you have no idea what what people were going through when they started smoking. you have no right to judge when there are a thousand fucking places you can go where smoking is illegal

[–]FANGO 2 ポイント3 ポイント

jesus christ shut up. you have no idea what lung diseases he has contracted because of people other than him who were smoking around him. you have no right to judge when smoking fucks over people who had no consent in the matter.

[–]brodermund -1 ポイント0 ポイント

it is pretty much illegal to smoke inside now and there is not enough smoke from 50 cigarettes to give you any problems when you are outdoors.

respect my decision to smoke and ill respect your decision not to.

[–]FANGO 1 ポイント2 ポイント

First of all, no it is not illegal to smoke inside, it is illegal to smoke in public buildings, restaurants and bars in many places, but not all places. There are a lot of places where it is not illegal to smoke, but where the owner rightly wants people not to smoke, because in the absence of those policies self-righteous smokers such as yourself would probably ruin the place for everyone, and would drive away business. It is notably not illegal to smoke in apartment buildings (in most places), despite the fact that there is research showing that apartment-dwellers show long-term effects of secondhand smoke exposure even if nobody who lives in their apartment smokes, but someone elsewhere in their building does. And yes, that does give apartment-dwellers problems, so even if you only smoke in your own apartment, or on your balcony, or on the stoop in front of your building, your smoke gets into other apartments and they are affected by your smoke.

Second, "you have no idea" how many cigarettes it takes to affect a person "outdoors." People with sensitive lungs which otherwise do not breathe smoke all the time will be affected much quicker than you would think. You may not think that a cigarette affects your lungs that terribly because you've already fucked them beyond belief and there's little damage left to be done, but for other people, this can cause problems. Which is just so respectful of you.

Third, what kind of respect is "jesus christ shut up"? You flew in here guns blazing and are asking for respect? Your addiction is tainting your rationality here. This happens every time restrictions on smoking come up - smokers freak the shit out about infringement of "their" rights, when your hobby always affects others, no matter what you do about it, unless you're smoking with a box around your head, which you are not. So as long as you don't give the rest of the world the respect of smoking with a box around your head, why should I show you the respect of smiling while I wheeze through your shitty addiction which your weak mind is working overtime to justify? Respect my ass. Get a little perspective before you use that word. Like the other poster said, this isn't a coffee addiction we're talking about here, this is something which necessarily affects others. so quit it with this "my decision" stuff.

[–]Themistocles1 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

If you're seriously arguing that me smoking OUTSIDE ON THE BALCONY is giving someone on the other side of the building lung cancer then you're beyond any rational debate. Give me a fucking break. I never smoke anywhere near anyone else, I take great pains to go as far away from anyone when I smoke. I do not affect anyone else with my smoke and that is a fact. You cannot argue that it is impossible to smoke without affecting anyone else. That is just not true. If you go a reasonable distance away, no one will be affected by your smoke and that is what just about every smoker on the planet does because they hate dealing with hysterical babies crying about "second-hand smoke" There's no such thing as second-hand smoke unless someone is smoking indoors or they're blowing it in your face. Give me a fucking break, seriously.

Oh and why don't you post this study that shows someone smoking OUTSIDE OF A BUILDING will give someone INSIDE THE BUILDING cancer.

Seriously, I'm fucking outside, 200ft away from the door, there isn't a person in sight and somehow I'm still giving you cancer?

[–]FANGO 0 ポイント1 ポイント

If you're seriously arguing that me smoking OUTSIDE ON THE BALCONY is giving someone on the other side of the building lung cancer

No, I'm not "arguing" that. Research has found that.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/the-elusive-smoke-free-home/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

There are plenty of other stories covering that study and others if you are interested in looking at the actual data, instead of just getting angry about how it's your god-given right to fuck other people over. Here is the actual study. This is science. Not opinion, not "hysterical babies crying," but actual research, done here in reality, using measurements (instead of "feelings of persecution," which seems to be your preferred measurement), which shows that what you have just said is wrong. Other people are affected by your smoke. It's nice that you think you try to make sure they're not, and we're all glad that you do (if you actually do - I'm not convinced, given that you've shown a detachment from reality in your comments), but they are.

It would be one thing if you were in the middle of a park, but no, you're on the balcony, next to these things called windows. Do you genuinely not understand how that might affect the air supply for your building? Really?

Seriously, this is what addiction does to you. It makes you irrational. You're looking for any justification you can come up with, you're grasping at straws.

200ft away from the door

Your balcony is not 200 ft long. Balconies are like 3-8 feet long. And probably not more than 10 feet or so from the next closest balcony door, or window, or some other way for your smoke to get into another person's apartment.

[–]fatty_has_arrived -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Because smoking is the leading cause of preventable illnesses. In most cases, these illnesses are treated with the help of taxpayer funding, particularly outside of the US.

[–]SilentStream -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I'd agree until the costs of your health care become socialized. If you are willing to pay for your care without subsidy, do whatever self detrimental things you want.

[–]dforderp -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

That's what I'm saying! Let natural selection do its job. Maybe we could cut down on overpopulation.

[–]Brookx5 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I agree. Probably the most poignant counter is that if there is any sort of public healthcare in place, allowing people to easily harm themselves puts strain on the healthcare system which outweighs the benefits of allowing people to harm themselves.

[–]smoothaspaneer -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I agree we should be able to put what we want in our bodies but when it comes to government funded healthcare why should tax payers pay for the billions spent on healthcare due to disabilities and illness of smoking?

[–]psykiv 1 ポイント2 ポイント

The problem with that is that it becomes a very slippery slope very quickly.

So we don't take care of drug users because they did this to themselves. So let's not take care of fat people because they could have ate healthier and they wouldn't be here. Let's not take care of factory and construction workers with respiratory problems because hey they could have had another job. Let's not take care of people with any kind of std because they could have not had sex or used that dirty needle. Let's not take care of that guy that broke his leg in a bicycle accident because he could have found another way to get some cardio that wouldn't break his leg. Let's get rid of mothers giving birth because that's a choice too. In fact let's get rid of all late stage cancer treatments because if they world have been seen before cancer got a chance to do Real damage they could be cancer free right now saving money.

Do you see how this could get messy fast?

[–]Themistocles1 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

I'd agree if we cut off fat people too. I'd rather be a thin smoker than a fat non-smoker. At least nicotine is a highly addictive drug. Food is not. And yeah, people can become "addicted to food" those people are known as fatasses.

[–]nmek19 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

What happens when you get really high on crack, do something stupid and become paralyzed so now the government pays thousands of dollars to give you disability.

[–]BaseballNerd 1 ポイント2 ポイント

How about we just expect people to use crack (, or heroin, or meth, or whatever your taboo drug of choice is) responsibly and arrest those who cannot. This would be no different than DUI and public intoxication laws for alcohol. If you can't hold your shit in public, choose to endanger someone else by operating a vehicle, or otherwise commit a crime while intoxicated, then that is what should be punished.

Personally, I'd prefer that all drugs were legalized and regulated with the caveat that you'd need to pass a test about each drug you wish to purchase. That way proper research could be done on each drug so we could acknowledge which ones are truly batshit crazy (bath salts, PCP), which are dangerous but reasonable during sporadic informed use of pure, regulated chemical (cocaine, heroin, meth), which can be used with relative infrequency or low dosages and remain safe (MDMA, alcohol, LSD, ketamine, tobacco), and finally those which can be consumed regularly in low doses without considerable side effect (psilocin, caffeine, cannabis, khat). Plus users know exactly what is going into their bodies so the risk of overdose and additive effects.

[–]bruinbruin -1 ポイント0 ポイント

What happens when you are not high on crack and do something stupid and crash your car?

Why not allow cigarettes, weed, etc. but ban crack/meth/other "bad" drugs?

[–]DrGiggleFairies -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

A man is pointing a shotgun at his leg about to pull the trigger. You're watching and you know that what he will do is going to screw himself up. Another person comes along and says "don't do that! You'll regret it!" And tries to take the gun away from him. Would you stop them from doing so because it's that guy's choice if he wants to seriously injure himself? He would be much better off if we took the gun away from the man. He would be able to walk and run and jump, things he won't be able to do if he shoots his leg. He will be so happy that you took the gun away from him afterwards. You can either lead him in the right direction by taking the gun away, making him more productive and happier in life, or you can let him blow his leg off because he wants to at that moment, which will mess him up and make him unhappy. Are we really at a point where it's not our jobs to help better the other people around us? Why allow stupidity to happen when you can stop it in the first place by banning the sales of cigarettes. Imagine the lives saved in the future because we didn't stand idly by letting people do what they wanted in those few moments

[–]joshkg 0 ポイント1 ポイント

It's not my place to tell people what is right and what is wrong. I had a friend that committed suicide. In the weeks after I felt that I could and should have done something to stop him. I get so much guilt, but I realized it isn't my job, or anyone else's to patrol someone 24/7. It's my understanding that if my friend, or this man wanted to shoot himself, that they should be able to if that is what they want.

[–]DrGiggleFairies 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Is this honestly what we've come to? You're not gonna worry and try to stop people from doing stupid things? Why should you care if it's their decision? They're going to kill themselves. Stop them from killing themselves. Just because they want it in the moment doesn't mean that it's the right thing for them

[–]Ju_are_the_bhessst -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

Smoking doesn't just affect the smoker. It affects everyone around the smoker. If someone is smoking around children or asthmatics or any other non-consenting individuals and giving them 2nd-hand symptoms because of their shitty decision, that should absolutely be illegal.

[–]FANGO -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

Yeah and if I want to put deadly things into other people's bodies, I should get to do that too, right?

I'm glad that you noted a change in perspective below, but realize that smoking does not solely affect the smoker. It's crazy to me that so many people think this is the case, because it's not in the slightest.

[–]Themistocles1 0 ポイント1 ポイント

God people act like smokers run up an exhale in their faces. Every smoker I've ever known goes very far away from anyone else to smoke. There are clearly designated smoking sections, if you don't like it then don't stand there. For every rude smoker, there are 10 bitchy losers who do that fake cough shit or complain about "their health" when the smoke doesn't even come within 50 ft of their precious baby lungs. And frankly, complaining about a little cigarette smoke when you're outside and cars are constantly driving by blowing exhaust right at you is the ultimate in pathetic whining.

99 times out of 100 Yes, the smoking only affects the smoker.

[–]FANGO -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Your addiction is clouding your mind. First of all, "10 bitchy losers who do that fake cough shit" do not exist. You think they do, because your mind is fucked with addiction and that has caused you to think that everyone is out to get you. Second of all, do you genuinely not understand that other people might cough when they're around smoke, you know, because they want to get it out of their lungs? Or because they have sensitive lungs? Or an allergic reaction? Maybe you've forgotten, because your dumbass addiction has fucked your lungs so bad and your brain is now doing everything it can to justify your idiot choices, but people with sensitive lungs will generally want to get smoke out of them, rather than put smoke into them.

Further, I will bet that more than 1% of occasions that people smoke happen in or around apartment buildings. And, of course, research has shown that people who live in apartment buildings and don't smoke, and live with people who don't smoke, will still have increased levels of exposure to smoke simply from living in the same building as someone who smokes. As for cars, it's really clever that you think you know anyone's position on car exhaust before asking them, and people do cough when a particularly dirty one goes by, and also, if you haven't noticed, there are controls on emissions from cars. Do you sit there and whine about your freedom being taken away every time a car drives by, or are you just ranting like an idiotic loser, desperately grasping at straws to justify something you know is wrong?

But by all means, continue with your self-righteous bullshit crusade to exercise your freedom on everyone else, or to come up with any number of the same bullshit reasons that all of you addled losers mix up in your heads and which have no overlap with reality. The only one "whining" here is you, and your whining is motivated by an attempt to lash out at the world because you're stuck in a cage with your addiction, too weak to do anything about it, and trying to pretend that it's all the world's fault but your own. Enjoy your pathetic, weak-willed existence.

[–]Themistocles1 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Oh my god. You think you're clever, hahaha. Look man, I'm not trying to force my smoking on anyone. Like I said, I go as far away from anyone as possible when I smoke, because I respect other people. I think that's pretty reasonable. I don't smoke on sidewalks, I don't smoke in front of door-ways and I don't smoke in my car if there are non-smokers with me. But yeah, I guess I'm still giving you second-hand cancer or whatever, haha.

And uhh... I'm not the one on a "self-righteous bullshit crusade". The fact that you accuse me of that, while typing up this insane pussy rant is beyond hilarious. I'll go enjoy my "pathetic weak-willed existence" thank you very much. I can just picture the sweat dripping on your keyboard from typing up that scathing rebuttal.

[–]FANGO -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

I don't smoke in front of door-ways

Except on your balcony, which by definition is feet away from a doorway, and part of an apartment building, where what you are doing affects people who live near you, most especially children, and that assertion is backed by actual science.

I'm not the one on a "self-righteous bullshit crusade"

Yes, absolutely you are. You are trying so hard to crusade for your right to fuck over everyone else, and you know that your choices are fucking over everyone else, and there are mountains of research to show that your choices are fucking over everyone else, and yet you are crusading, self-righteously, speaking about your "rights" to make your own decision, and portraying everyone else, whose positions are backed by research, as "whiners." And your mind, addled by addiction, is working as hard as it can to paint yourself as the righteous one, and everyone else as terrible. You are delusional - you absolutely are on the self-righteous bullshit crusade. So, you can keep telling yourself whatever you like - you're going to anyway, because that's how the addicted mind works. Enjoy the prison you've put yourself in. I'm sure those around you, the children in nearby apartments who you are harming with your addiction, will enjoy it plenty as well, asswipe.

while typing up this insane pussy rant

mmmhmm, continue your complete lack of self-awareness, mister "10 bitchy losers who do that fake cough shit." Pussy rant, indeed. What a joke of an excuse for a human being.

[–]lazyburners 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Do you think we should extend that philosophy to cocaine and heroin?

[–]AnotherIdiotOnTheWeb 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I want to say yes (since the war on drugs is an absolute joke) but I'm really reluctant. I'm not as educated as I should be on other drugs to make that decision. However, if they were to become legal, I believe the penalties for wrong doing while under the influence should be very harsh.

On a side note, I don't understand why the gubment doesn't take all this money they're waisting on enforcement and redirect it to education or rehabilitation. It's clear that this "war" on drugs has been a failure and ineffective. take that money and create an anti - drug campaign that is effective and doesn't use cheesy fucking scare tactics.

[–]Draconax 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I'm with you on this. Anything I decide to do with my own body should be my concern and no one else's. I'm all for second-hand smoke laws, but if I want to smoke cigarettes, weed, do coke, whatever, that should be all on me and nobody else.

[–]br0deo 2 ポイント3 ポイント

I agree. Guidelines on where people can smoke need to be stricter.

[–]ICDT 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Thing is, many people aren't really conscious of the harm they're doing to themselves when they start, and when they finally decide that they don't want to keep poisoning themselves, they just can't leave it.

[–]h3lme7 3 ポイント4 ポイント

I think the giant surgeon general warning should be a nice clue.. This argument could have held its ground in the 60's and 70's, but everyone knows smoking is bad for you now.

[–]Smarag 0 ポイント1 ポイント

But prohibition doesn't help this issue. What helps is better & true education.

[–]OMGBLACKPOWER -1 ポイント0 ポイント

This is just utter bullshit. It's impossible for someone not to know the harms of smoking unless they live under a fucking rock. You still can't tell people what they can or can't put into their bodies.

[–]SpasticWalker 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Not only is it unhealthy for me to be breathing in peoples disgusting habit, if I'm exposed to it for too long I smell like shit too.

[–]AnotherIdiotOnTheWeb 7 ポイント8 ポイント

I agree 100%. It's not fair that you smell like smoke because I couldn't wait until I got somewhere private to smoke. But I don't like the government playing mom and dad when it comes to tobacco use or any other drug use for that matter. If someone wants to kill themselves, let them. As long as the rest of the public doesn't have to suffer the consequences.

[–]StankPuss 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Smoking has absolutely no redeeming qualities. I'm sure that, as a smoker, you would disagree... but it's true. By taking away the option, the government could save the lives of those too naive to see how bad it is (such as teenagers).

[–]gorillasarehairyppl 5 ポイント6 ポイント

Define redeeming qualities.

It gives me a pleasant psuedo-high and provides the opportunity for additional socialization with the 'smoker's group'.

It's stupid yes, I fully understand that. But there is redeeming qualities.

You start telling people what stupid things they can and can't do and where does it end? Maybe I think some of the things you do have no redeeming qualities, that doesn't give me the right to stop you from doing it, providing you're not hurting anyone else.

[–]FANGO 1 ポイント2 ポイント

providing you're not hurting anyone else.

That's the important part, and that's the part where smoking is different. Because it does hurt other people, unless the smoker has a box around his head or something. Here's a study I've linked elsewhere, showing that people who live in smoke-free apartments still get affected by people in their buildings who smoke.

[–]gorillasarehairyppl 1 ポイント2 ポイント

There seems to be contention based on differing definitions of second hand smoke. I'd like to make clear that the second hand smoke I'm saying has 'no danger' is the type from such scenarios as someone smoking outside a building.

What I'm taking issue with is people using studies showing the dangers of second hand smoking in enclosed areas (such as apartments) and using it to justify banning smoking in any public area.

I understand that it is unpleasant to walk past a smoker and get that gust of smoke but I honestly think it is ridiculous to think that your health is at risk from such minor exposure.

EDIT: I think the confusion might arise from the fact that smoking inside is already banned in my home country (Australia) so I am taking the answer of 'smoking' to the question (what would you make illegal) as to mean smoking outdoors near people. I don't know what is the case in the US or other countries.

[–]OMGBLACKPOWER -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Yeah no, as said multiple times in this thread, just because YOU don't like cigarettes or what they do to people does NOT mean you can tell other people that they can't smoke. Teens or adults. It's their decision.

[–]StankPuss 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Then drunk driving should be legal too.

[–]OMGBLACKPOWER -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Logical fallacies out the ass my friend. You aren't gonna speed and swerve and kill people by smoking a cigarette then going for a drive. Smoking hurts the individual smoking, whereas drunk driving harms everyone else who might be driving. So once again, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's hurting you nor that it should be illegal.

[–]StankPuss 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I'm just saying that second-hand smoke can, in fact, harm others (not to mention yourself), just as drunk driving can. It's not a sure thing that anybody will be harmed, but the potential is still there.

I'm not trying to convince anybody to quit, and I know that smoking will most likely stay legal. I'm just giving my opinion.

[–]FANGO 0 ポイント1 ポイント

As long as the rest of the public doesn't have to suffer the consequences.

Unless the smoker has a box around his head, then the public does have to suffer the consequences. This is not a matter of personal freedom.

[–]AnotherIdiotOnTheWeb 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I'm not sure if I'm ignorant or miss-informed but in the few times I have gone to a metropolitan area, rarely do I see people walking down the sidewalk smoking. I almost never smoke outside of my vehicle or off my property and when I do, I try my best to go someplace where I can't bee seen. To be honest, I'm embarrassed to smoke in public because I know people judge. It's just not worth lighting up when I'm out and about.

Edit: sometimes I type like my username

[–]FANGO -1 ポイント0 ポイント

As I've linked in response to some other people, merely living in the same building as smokers harms people, even if their apartment is smoke-free. So if you live in a non-detached unit, despite the greatest care you take, it's likely that your smoking is still affecting others. You mention your "property" so perhaps this isn't the case with you, but if you have a townhome then it still is.

And thankfully, yes, there aren't that many people smoking in public, and maybe less than there have been in the past, but people certainly do it often enough, and there are certainly enough cigarette butts around to show the evidence of this happening. And I think it's good to hear that you feel somewhat self-conscious about smoking, because smokers do, despite the beliefs of many of them, generally reduce the quality of life for those around them, and unfortunately, usually the smokers turn this into some sort of situation of self-righteousness, where they need to strike back for their right to degrade the quality of life of the people around them, as if it's a personal decision that affects nobody other than themselves, and somehow think that everyone is judging them, that the judging is wrong, that anyone who coughs within their vicinity is doing it sarcastically, or whatever else. Not saying you do this, but if you look at the comments around here, you will see that many other smokers do. Also, it is often hard for smokers to understand the sensitivity of non-smokers to your smoke, because smoking reduces the sense of smell and makes the inhaling of smoke seem normal, when that is not the case for those who do not smoke.

[–]PoisonSnow 6 ポイント7 ポイント

Restricting where people are allowed to smoke is not nearly the same thing as banning cigarettes altogether.

You may dislike smoking and what it does to people, but at some point you have to realize that banning things because you personally don't like them is not how lawmaking works.

[–]FANGO 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Good thing that's nobody's justification for banning smoking.

[–]gorillasarehairyppl 3 ポイント4 ポイント

I completely get your point, and I agree with you except I have to be a Pedantic Peter and say second hand smoke in a public setting does not put you in any danger.

Unless you are doing something like hot-boxing with a 3-pack-a-day smoker inside of a sleeping bag for a week straight you are not going to have any bad effects except for the smell.

[–]SpasticWalker 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Although it is not much of an issue now days, second hand smoke would still effect people in the the service industry. One might say to find a different job, but there are not many jobs out there that can make you a decent wage for the amount of hours put in, and is really beneficial for students.

[–]gorillasarehairyppl 0 ポイント1 ポイント

In an enclosed area definitely. I suppose it's in the definition of second hand smoke where we are divergent in opinion.

I'm from Australia and currently in Australia it is illegal to smoke in an enclosed area. I agree with this, and it's not what I'm saying is not dangerous.

It is not illegal to smoke in a public setting such as a sidewalk, front of a pub etc. There are a number of people currently trying to make this illegal also. This is the type of second hand smoke I am arguing is 'not damaging'. I understand some people don't like the smell of a smoker and hence within that they have a case for prohibition.

However I cannot brook any argument that that kind of second hand smoke is dangerous. Put simply, it's not and there is absolutely no evidence that says it is.

[–]-DisobedientAvocado- -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

I'm sorry but just move away from the person smoking.

[–]h3lme7 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Seriously, I don't smoke and I never have an issue finding a place to enjoy whatever I'm doing away from smokers.

[–]-DisobedientAvocado- -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I do smoke but I stay away from my few friends that don't smoke while I'm doing it. Like I'll stand downwind and 5 ft from them. The they walk over to me because it's awkward to be so far apart, and complain about the smell of smoking.

[–]FANGO 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Do you live in an apartment? If you ever smoke in or near your apartment, everyone else in the building is living with your smoke. Yes, there is science backing this up.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/the-elusive-smoke-free-home/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

[–]-DisobedientAvocado- 0 ポイント1 ポイント

No I live 50 ft from any other people. Canadian living space y'all.

[–]h3lme7 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Pretty soon all smokers are going to have to carry around a personal bubble with air filters installed..

I say fuck it. I'm not going to stand close enough for secondhand smoke to be an issue, and as long as they are ten feet from the door, away from babies, and doing all they can to be respectful, the only person they are harming is themselves. People just like to complain.

[–]-DisobedientAvocado- 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I do everything I can to be respectful while smoking. People even think I'm weird because I tilt my head back to blow the smoke upwards. I just don't want people to suffer from my shitty desicion.

[–]VividLotus 0 ポイント1 ポイント

The problem is that it's almost impossible for cigarette smokers to completely avoid affecting others with secondhand smoke, especially if they live in a city. And before some diehard smoker shows up and tells me that you "won't get lung cancer from being around someone smoking for a minute", I know that. The problem is that cigarette smoke is a trigger for many people who have asthma.

[–]tacomcnacho -1 ポイント0 ポイント

E-cigs may make you look like a douche but I think that if they smoking illegal it would catch on pretty quick.

[–]Doctor_Taco -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Smoking should be fine in moderation, I've read that it can prevent onset Parkinson's and Obesity (although I have no idea how credible that research is). Smoke away fellow Redditor, just don't make me smoke it too :)

[–]FANGO -1 ポイント0 ポイント

This is why I think smoking should only be legal if smokers have a box around their heads. You can talk about personal freedom all you want, but it's not personal freedom if you're affecting everyone else.

[–]DoctorImperialism 21 ポイント22 ポイント

But then you run into the same problems that popped up during Prohibition. I think it's shitty that people can willingly expose others to the consequences of their own bad habits, though, and I'd support the idea of banning smoking in all public areas.

[–]Snors -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

And I'd support the banning of driving in public places, as I shouldn't have to breath in all those nasty exhausy fumes when I'm outside having a smoke.

[–]ricree 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Eh, I'm fine with the current state of things. Tax them, keep them out of pubic, and limit the heck out of their advertising, but don't drive them underground with stupid pointless drug-war nonsense.

[–]agentlightning 12 ポイント13 ポイント

They're horribly unhealthy, they pollute, and secondhand smoke damages the health of people around you. Unfortunately, tobacco is such a huge part of the economy of a lot of states. Sigh. Money seems to come before human health and the environment.

[–]combuchan 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Oh, because the government has excelled so much at keeping people off drugs, we should now ban a new substance?

Making these sorts of substances illegal is contrary to human health.

[–]Lurking_Alone 15 ポイント16 ポイント

Hypocrisy of the government. "We protect you from all drugs and substances that might kill you, except for this one."

[–]thatwhichdangles 14 ポイント15 ポイント

Government be like a bouncer at a nightclub "Tobacco you good, Painkillers its about time, Alclohol FUCK YEA, Xanax glad to see you buddy, whoa whoa whoa hold the fuck up pot, get your jive ass outta here we aint havin none of your shit."

[–]gorillasarehairyppl 2 ポイント3 ポイント

There is absolutely 0 evidence that second hand smoke does any damage to people in a non-enclosed area (for the record, the evidence for enclosed areas is somewhat shaky in itself also).

At least where I'm from smoking is banned in enclosed areas and so, if I'm not hurting anyone else why can't i do it?

The pollution thing? I don't think I have to list the examples of things that do a lot more polluting than cigarettes and are not illegal.

[–]VividLotus -5 ポイント-4 ポイント

There is absolutely 0 evidence that second hand smoke does any damage to people in a non-enclosed area

Wow, so suddenly asthma doesn't exist, and/or cigarette smoke has magically stopped being a common asthma trigger? I'm so happy to hear that!

[–]gorillasarehairyppl 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Second hand smoke is not the sole cause of Asthma, nor is there any evidence that the smoke in open areas (as per the definition of second hand smoke that I am using for the purpose of this discussion) even contributes to the perpetuation of the disease.

I grant you it is a trigger, however I do not equate this do doing 'damage'. there are many things that can trigger asthma and for the purpose of the argument I would say that simply being a trigger is not indicative of any serious damage occuring.

I'm happy to hear any disagreements you have with what I've said. You seem to have come into this aggressively sarcastic, which isn't really conducive for a rational discussion. Do me a favour, dial that back a bit, present why you feel differently, and this will work better.

[–]VividLotus 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Smoke is a common trigger of asthma attacks. That's an entirely different thing from being a cause of asthma.

[–]gorillasarehairyppl 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I know, that's why I addressed smoke as a trigger in my second paragraph...

To re-iterate, yes I accept that smoke is a trigger. However I don't see that as a serious health concern. Lots of things trigger asthma attacks such as dust and even physical exercise, yet we don't ban either of those things.

If smoke doesn't actually cause the asthma disease to get worse but rather just triggers the symptoms then I feel like it is not serious enough to warrant a ban. It's really not that hard to move away from the smoker.

[–]brisingfreyja 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Yeah I know, I was amazed to hear that my lifelong battle with ear aches (which about 7 doctors have blamed on my dad's second hand smoke, and he smoked outside), and lots of other possible problems that are on a list somewhere that start (or are worsened) by second hand smoke don't actually exist. Thanks random Internet person who changed my life. (in case my sarcasm isn't working, I'm not yelling at you but the dip shit above you). My dad would smoke outside, but you could smell him across the house. Menthols, 2 packs a day.

[–]IncompleteBreakfast 1 ポイント2 ポイント

How does that work? Your dad smoked outside and you...got ear aches? Confirmed by seven doctors you say?

[–]brisingfreyja 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Because he constantly smelled of it. It was coming off his clothes and we would sit on the couch together. I have had 4 sets of tubes, and each time the doctor would ask about my environment, and we would tell him that my dad smoked outside and they would always blame it on that. Once I moved away, they got better. Never had problems again, until my bf was smoking around me.

[–]Llama_7 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Wouldn't you think the burden of evidence would be with the guy wanting to use a drug that has been linked to cancer amongst other things, to prove that it is perfectly safe for others around him/her rather than the person who doesn't enjoy the smell/physical smoke/potential health risks?

I'm just saying, I walk to work in London and have people in front of me smoking cigarettes all the time, and the wind blowing it back into my face just feels horrible even before I think of the potential health risks of being around so many smokers.

[–]littleotterpop 9 ポイント10 ポイント

This, so much. I hate to be "that person" but I don't understand why it's legal for people to subject others to the negative affects of their bad habits. I shouldn't have to breathe in other people's cigarette smoke because they make poor decisions. And don't even get me started on smoking around young children/babies......

[–]aboutaprettysunset 8 ポイント9 ポイント

Even worse, smoking while you're pregnant.

[–]Viperbunny 2 ポイント3 ポイント

I saw two women in a parking lot today. They were smoking...and at there feet, where they were blowing the smoke, an infant car seat that one of the women was rocking to appease her baby. I'm pregnant. I get mad when people think they know better than I do (like telling me to not have caffeine when my doctors have told me it's okay, or questioning everything I eat). I know it can be annoying. That said, I understand why people get upset over smoking and drinking.

[–]brisingfreyja 2 ポイント3 ポイント

This should be transferred over to alcohol. I don't want to get into a car crash because some dip shit decided he was "sober" enough to drive home..

My mom's friend was in a car accident with a drunk driver and her daughter (age 4) was mentally disabled from it.

Also my friend in elementary school was driving across the tracks (his dad had had a few) in the back of a truck when a train hit and killed him.

And my uncle and his wife were completely fucking drunk 1 mile from their house (at a bar) and she drove home, buckled herself but not her husband. Hit a tree and he was killed instantly.

And some of my ex's friends were walking home from a friends house and a drunk driver didn't turn his lights on and hit and killed them.

Shit I have a lot of these.

My friend was driving a girl home from school, and a drunk driver hit and killed her, but not him.

My boyfriends friend was run over on a major fucking Highway in broad daylight by a drunk driver and paralyzed. And after many months in the hospital, he's doing kind of okay.

My boyfriend was over at a party, all the teens were drunk (if I remember correctly) and a kid shot himself (kind of an accident/on purpose)

Alcohol isn't even that great. It makes people puke, lose their judgment , do stupid shit, die in certain cases, and in the morning you feel like absolute hell, or even if I drink 3 beers, I feel like death for 2 days.

I know that cops are "cracking down" but I am constantly seeing people leaving bars (and not walking very well) and driving the fuck home. They should make it illegal to even be in the drivers seat of a running car at pretty much any level of blood alcohol.

Crap, I have another. My "friends" in high school thought it would be hilarious to go smash pumpkins or mail boxes or something in the back of a truck while smashed. Drunk driver and passengers standing in the back of a truck. Kid fell out and bust his head open (he was fine).

[–]RPGillespie6 1 ポイント2 ポイント

But screw it. Let's legalize every single drug including ones with even worse second hand smoke than tobacco!

[–]combuchan 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Using that logic I should be able to ban vehicles because they pollute the air I'm breathing.

It wouldn't put me at a disadvantage, I take a train everywhere that's powered by hydroelectricity.

[–]poopmonster666 0 ポイント1 ポイント

As a smoker, I would say it should be regulated a little better. You can smoke around smokers in your own home, car, or in a designated smoking area if you must smoke in public. Once you're addicted, you can't stop harming your body. If I were to quit smoking, I would be so stressed out, eat a lot more, chew gum, etc. I'm done when it comes to health, but I do not wish to subject others to possible cancer. With all of that said, I don't want to quit smoking, I know I'm addicted, but I also like to do it.

[–]fuckujoffery 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I shouldn't have to breathe in other people's cigarette smoke because they make poor decisions

if you walk a few meters around someone who is smoking, then you're not harming yourself.

[–]waldron76 0 ポイント1 ポイント

"I shouldn't have to breathe in people's car exhausts because they made the poor choice of not getting an electric car and they're too fucking lazy to walk."

[–]BobProphecy 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Where are you forced against your will to locate yourself next to someone smoking?

[–]shutupmimsey -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Close your eyes and think about all the people you know that have died from secondhand smoke. That number is 0. I'm not pro tobacco by any means, but I have noticed people are becoming bigger pussies as time goes on and secondhand smoke is always a top concern amongst the biggest of said pussies.

[–]tm0nks 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I don't personally know anyone that has died from second hand smoke, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. According to the CDC around 42,000 people die a year due to lung cancer and heart disease related to second hand smoke.

[–]OMGBLACKPOWER -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Okay, sure. Smoking around kids is despicable BUT just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Period. If you don't wanna be around secondhand smoke then go somewhere else. There are already a TON of restrictions on smoking. Think about how it would've been back in the days where smoking on a plane was legal? Grow up

[–]maxpenny42 -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

You don't have to be around smokers. Most places seem to have banned them indoors anyway.

[–]VividLotus 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Plenty of people do have no choice but to be around smokers-- even if they don't want to, or even if they already have a health problem that is exacerbated by smoke. Children, people living in apartment buildings (yep, even buildings where smoking is banned, because people still do it), people living in cities, anyone who ever has to walk in or out of an office building, people who have the misfortune of living next door to an asshole smoker whose windows face theirs.

[–]waldron76 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I feel the same way about car exhausts, but I don't think cars should be banned.

[–]maxpenny42 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Nobody is smoking in your apartment or house unless you let them. Smoking outside a building or in another apartment is not affecting you health. Smoke dissipates outside and your just walking past it anyway. There are very few people that legitimately have a condition that is inflamed by such limited and casual exposure to smoke. Children was your only answer that had any validity and children are exposed to much worse by equally bad parents.

[–]VividLotus 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Oh what a great point! You're right, only 25 million people in the U.S. alone have asthma, and that's definitely "very few" people.

You obviously don't have asthma, or are close to anyone who does.

[–]Horntailflames 0 ポイント1 ポイント

No, because people will end up smoking anyway, getting the cigarettes through a black market and the government will also lose tax revenue from cigarettes.

[–]ryanrealm -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

Can't we make licenses available to everyone able to smoke, which will make it legal for them to consume cigarettes and cigars until they die, and make it illegal for everyone who was not eligible to get a license?

[–]DrewDiligence 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Solid way to create a black market.

[–]VividLotus 1 ポイント2 ポイント

That would do nothing to solve the problem of people being unwillingly exposed to secondhand smoke, among other issues.

[–]nudistvampire -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

oh please..

let them make donuts and sugary drinks illegal first. Driving too, so many people are killed by car accidents they should ban cars.