• Life Advice & Visual Arts Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    🌌 Share Your Dreams! 🌌
    📸 15 Years of Photo Contests 📸
  • LAVA Moderator: Shinji Ikari

For or against the smoking ban?

lacey k said:
I think we should have a ban of loud music in clubs, becuz it just aint fair that people who want to go out clubbing have to deal with that high volume and possibly damage their hearing. Secondhand noise is extremely dangerous. And you know maybe people want to go out but they dont want to seem lame, or they feel like they aint got no choice, so they go out and subject themselfes to that but they really dont want to go out and come home with their ears ringing for a hour afterwards. Its a health risk and its people and their stupid fuckin habit that they are pushing on me, and that aint right. it aint fair that the noise pollution from your loud music got to affect MY ears. Why should you have the right to affect my hearing health becuz you like to listen to your music pumped up all loud? Its rude and inconsiderate and people need to respect the rights of others. i want to see a law passed that restricts the level of volume in every club, so people in the club wont get their ears damaged, and even so people outside the club cant hear the music, becuz it aint fair that anyone else should have to hear their music when they aint even in the club for the music and they are just in the nearby area.


8) Sound a lil familiar......
Click to expand...

perhaps if i were retarded..... moreso, ya cheeky sheila ya :) what the heck is second hand noise?

i think we should ban farting :p
 
i lost a lot of my sense of smell due to living with 3 smokers for awhile. now that my b/f smokes outside it's come back.

i dont even want to know what other damage it caused.

that being said, i only support bans in private places, i dont think the government should ban it in public areas.
 
BA said:
Not true?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=second+hand+smoke+more+dangerous&btnG=Google+Search

Page after page, story after story, saying it's true. One article even says those subjected to second hand smoke have a 60% greater risk of heart attacks.
Click to expand...

that's all just media articles citing faulty studies if citing sources at all. and as you probably know when it comes to drugs and the media credibility goes out of the window. i have read some studies (including those from the WHO that everyone against smoking - including the EU commission - loves to cite), and all of those i have read either show no significant correlation between second hand smoke and diseases or are obviously faulty. i would be really interested in seeing a study with credible methods (no trickery with the level of significance, no biased sample acquirement, large enough sample size, no meta-study taking data from other studies, where the authors of those studies say that taking data from their study can only lead to false results, …). i have myself searched quite a bit for an unbiased study that proves the dangers of second hand smoke but haven't found a single one. maybe you can find one?
 
Bowser22 said:
I have to take you up on that.....

I'm in Ireland where a packet of ciggys costs 7.45 euro. or $11.83 cents.... which is rather expensive in anyones book. Of that price 80% is tax...pure and simple. So If i smoke a 20 pack a day for ten years that means i pay 21754 euro or $34541 in tax in addition to my income tax and vat that everyone pays.

I won't be held to account as "clogging" the health service.

We smokers are the only bloody thing keeping it going imo:p
Click to expand...

fine!


...smellyhead. ;)
Black said:
that's all just media articles citing faulty studies if citing sources at all. and as you probably know when it comes to drugs and the media credibility goes out of the window. i have read some studies (including those from the WHO that everyone against smoking - including the EU commission - loves to cite), and all of those i have read either show no significant correlation between second hand smoke and diseases or are obviously faulty. i would be really interested in seeing a study with credible methods (no trickery with the level of significance, no biased sample acquirement, large enough sample size, no meta-study taking data from other studies, where the authors of those studies say that taking data from their study can only lead to false results, …). i have myself searched quite a bit for an unbiased study that proves the dangers of second hand smoke but haven't found a single one. maybe you can find one?
Click to expand...

are you claiming that second hand smoke cause zero damage?
 
24042008070pr3.jpg


;)
 
L2R said:
are you claiming that second hand smoke cause zero damage?
Click to expand...
to my knowledge there's no evidence that points in the other direction. if you know some real evidence i would be grateful for you posting it here.
 
by "the other direction" do you mean:

it actuualy does zero damage

or

it does damage although not as much as claimed


??
 
i am in agreement that BARS should be allowed to have smokers at the owners' discretion, and if you know the bar allows it and it bothers you, then go to one of the other 100 nearby. pretty simple.

any building that is considered a food establishment or where children would be present, should not be allowed to have smokers. imo of course.
 
So I take it that no one here is like me... I wouldn't mind a totalitarian-style ban on cigarettes and stinky cigars but allowing pipe tobacco? ;)
 
L2R said:
by "the other direction" do you mean:

it actuualy does zero damage

or

it does damage although not as much as claimed


??
Click to expand...

I believe they are saying it does not damage as much as claimed.
 
faris said:
i am in agreement that BARS should be allowed to have smokers at the owners' discretion, and if you know the bar allows it and it bothers you, then go to one of the other 100 nearby. pretty simple.
Click to expand...

toa$t said:
we already had an "optional system" in place before any "new legislation" started allowing bars to choose whether or not to allow smoking. bars were free to choose not to allow smoking before... and look how many did so. Why? I think the an$wer is obviou$. Many non-smokers are not passionate about going to a bar which doesn't allow smoking, whereas for a smoker going to a non-smoking bar is like jerking off without porn. Thus people simply end up at smoking bars, non-smoking bars lose money and are forced to repeal their rule.
Click to expand...

bars already have the option of not allowing smoking. they just choose not to because it isn't financially feasible. If you are in favour of an optional system regarding smoking in bars, then you are in favour of smoking in bars, plain and simple. there is no difference.
 
I'm all for people getting to do what they want, and put whatever they'd like into their bodies, but when it infringes on me, I have a problem with it. I don't like the smell of cigarettes, and don't think people should be allowed to smoke indoors or around food/restaurants (patios included). I don't care if you smoke out in the open anywhere else, that's fine.
 
^Yes, let's ban everything we don't like. :p

toa$t said:
bars already have the option of not allowing smoking. they just choose not to because it isn't financially feasible. If you are in favour of an optional system regarding smoking in bars, then you are in favour of smoking in bars, plain and simple. there is no difference.
Click to expand...

If there was such a big market for non-smoking bars there would be non-smoking bars. Pretty simple really.
 
As people have already mentioned on this thread, we should be able to choose what drugs to take but not inflict drugs upon other people, or affect other people by our drug-use. This is why it's OK to get drunk in private, or in public if you can handle yourself (you're not disorderly or incapable,) but to get behind the wheel on a public road would be irresponsible because you're endangering others. If we want to smoke something this is our right, but we also have the right to be able to go to a public bar and not have had to breath in other peoples' smoke all evening.
 
Finder said:
I believe they are saying it does not damage as much as claimed.
Click to expand...

Some damage is still tooo much. Should people be allowed to go around punching each other in the face? sure, it doesn't kill them, but it does *some* damage, and perhaps a very small percentage will die too. :\

Finder said:
^Yes, let's ban everything we don't like. :p
Click to expand...

what if we don't like bans?? what do we do then?!
11.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top