Ca. city to ban ALL smoking

[Scoop 0]

Just to get my comment in, I hate it. I really feel uncomfortable when people are smoking around me. Especially the smell. I don't care what anyone says, it is harmful to others around you. The fact that the effects may be negligible is not relevant, my body is for my own sculpting (or lack thereof).

Fucks me off that when I'm trying to keep myself in relative good shape or in one of my fitness phases working hard that some pikey tosser can light up next to me in the street.

Ban it in public definately.

As a side note when I go to peoples houses for work I refuse to work if they are smoking as that place temporarily becomes my place of work and I'm not subjecting myself to their filthy habbit. If nothing else, being in a room of smokers all trying to tell me their story makes me stink and my eyes hurt

My parents used to smoke and growing up I was really confused why they did, I've never even tried smoking.

Why would you smoke in your car anyway? Thats disgusting. I know that when I'm looking for a second hand car theres nothing I like more than a stained, discoloured smelly car Even most smokers I know don't smoke in their cars.

In short if it affects others (in public) ban it.
In own home, let them crack on with killing themselves. If its a rented house though, I wouldn't allow smokers in my property and that would be firmly on the contract with a clause for professional redecoration fees going to the offending occupants.

[sfc 0]

Quote

More people die from skin cancer (where there's a much more measurable cause and effect) every year than the subjectively estimated number of ETS lung cancer deaths each year.

Whatever should be do? Require everyone to cover up?

Do you favor the banning of trans fats?

How about installing breathalizers in all cars?

Banning dodgeball?

How about trampolines? Make them illegal?

The point I'm trying to make is any health benefit of this ban is probably so small it wouldn't be measurable.

Meanwhile, 25 percent of the population is being told by the government that something they do, that is very much a part of their day to day life, is now illegal... banned... VERBOTEN!!!

So basically you argument is because there are other things that are more dangerous we should do nothing about this. Very weak.

The smokers will get over it, they'll just have to find somewhere else to go and enjoy their habit or quit and save other taxpayers having to pay for Medicaid when they are dying of cancer at 65.

The smoking bans are only going to get stronger over time, fewer and fewer people are listening to the kinds of arguments you are making.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

More people die from skin cancer (where there's a much more measurable cause and effect) every year than the subjectively estimated number of ETS lung cancer deaths each year.

citation, please.

There aren't remotely that many cases of melanoma out there (thought sadly, one of my close friends), and you're yielding to whatever number is used by the American Lung Association.

Outside of transfats, the rest of your comparisons are ridiculous.

I'm quite sure you'd get a measurable effect on smoking rates. Same as the not passed proposal in CA to add $2.60 per pack. I just don't think the means justify such a result.