StarGateWars Forums

I believe smoking should be banned entirely. No good comes from it


Recent Topic News - http://health.msn.com/health-topics/art ... &GT1=31020

I agree with you jack. Smoking should be up to the individual.
There has been *no* proven fact that second hand smoke causes any cancer or other illness associated to smoking.
People can link to any site saying it does but they must realize that none of it is widely regarded as true in the scientific society.
If you do not believe me or are hung up by the lies fed to you by the media and a small percentage of the population using fake data to push their own moralities on others, I suggest you watch Penn and Tellers episode on the smoking ban.

I agree with Jack for the most part. But a scenario comes to mind:

Say you run a 24hr diner/café that functions as a rest stop for long-distance coach-lines. Now, some passangers - who've been on a bus for the last 4 hrs - want to be able to have a smoke with their coach-stop food. Whereas, others - having sat on a bus for 4 hours - would like to have a meal without having smoke blown in their faces (Now, non-smoking sections don't work. Smoke doesn't obey signs, and will always drift to areas where there is no smoke).

Who gets their way?? They can't ask the coach-lines to double their stops. Especially since there is usually one major stop along with a number of shorter stops to take on and drop off passengers. Who gets the long stop? Do we make the smokers scramble to get food at a 5-minute stop, or do we ask the non-smokers to bring their own tofu on rye-bread and bottled water if they don't want to eat in a smoky diner? Should the decision be left to the owner of the diner that all of these people have no choice but to either dine at or go hungry?

Personally, I don't care either way. I'm a non-smoker who doesn't mind being in a smoky environment.

Jack wrote:what I am against is it being legal to purchase but not legal to use.

I agree. Firstly, i smoke. Therefore everything i say from this point onwards i would willingly apply to myself without question or complaint. Now, i should rightly first point out that there is no law against smoking whatsoever. If you don't understand why here is a "matchbox" explanation. The ban on smoking is an "act", not a law. Acts and statutes are not recognised in common law. Anything which is considered under a Trial by Jury has to be common law. Since the signing of the Magna Carta it is your right as a living entity to be judged by your peers and that alone:

The Magna Carta Article 39 wrote:No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, and or by the law of the land.

(translation by John Lysander).

So, basically, if you demand a trial by jury in accordance with article 39 of the Magna Carta you will not even be required to turn up to court in honesty as the case would be seen as "frivolous".

Aside from that i completely agree with Jack. For the most part the act is given the fiction of law through statutory legislative process on the premise of ethics. If it really were an ethical decision surely the ban would be outright? Of course, who on earth would suggest ethics over capitalism? That would be complete madness, right?

As a smoker i feel i should add that i find smoking to be a most disgusting habit from a non-smoker's perspective and as an existentialist thinker i must never find myself lacking the mind of the other. I have never in my years smoked in the presence of someone eating and i always ask before i smoke in the presence of anyone i have not yet seen smoking themselves. I have never smoked in front of a child and i forbid the word cigarette to be used in my house without very good call. Lisa's children have a limited knowledge of smoking and Xander is old enough to say the word cigarette however, when the rare occasion arises and he does mention it, he is told that he is too young to understand and therefore should not be talking about it. I tell him that one day, when he is old enough to understand, i will talk to him about it. In short, i am a fanatically responsible smoker. Responsible, of course, to everyone but myself who i might well be killing slowly but that is my choice.

-Goo™

in response to the hypothetical "diner" situation above; your smokers must go outside. What is missing in this discussion is a simple basic fact.

No one chooses not to smoke!!* It's absolutely prepostorous to insinuate anything other than this. You are not born with a cigarette in your mouth. "Not smoking" is a natural state of being and therefore has, fundamentally, a higher consideration. The choice is to smoke. If you choose unnatural behaviour you have a moral obligation to curb your enthusiasm in the presence of natural behaviour. Smoking is unnatural behaviour.

-Goo™

*unless, of course, they were once a smoker.

I was, however, born naked, but that works best in a tropical environment...

Edit: I'm not implying anything, but rather considering the inherent implications of the above consideration.

Agapooka

Agapooka wrote:I was, however, born naked, but that works best in a tropical environment...

Probably the most straightforward thing I've ever heard you say.... and a profoundly apt response to the previous post.

What you label as "straightforward" may more accurately be called "concise". My arguments aren't usually concise, are they? That's usually due to the fact that more complex arguments require more premises. But anyway, my statement isn't necessarily in contradiction to Goo's argument, although it could be interpreted that way.

It could also be interpreted as implying that if less consideration is given to the unnatural state of being clothed than is given to the natural state of nudity, perhaps that evidences to a fundamental problem within the system that manages the proportion of consideration that is given within this particular dichotomy.

That problem may very well be nudity's automatic association with copulation within our society, whereas other animals, which, might I add, are blessed with a perpetual state of nakedness, might not make such an association between the two. Sexuality, in turn, has problematic connotations because of the immaturity with which it is viewed, understood and, indeed, expressed.

Agapooka

All in favour??

AYE!!!!

Jack wrote:Pookie, I believe, has just voted for mandatory declothing of all beautiful women, to which a motion I must second.

Agapooka wrote:That problem may very well be nudity's automatic association with copulation within our society [...] Sexuality, in turn, has problematic connotations because of the immaturity with which it is viewed, understood and, indeed, expressed.

No offence, folks...

Agapooka wrote:I was, however, born naked, but that works best in a tropical environment...

Sig worthy?

well this thread is all over the place isnt it....

i seriously doubt i would be able to debate my feelings as well as you guys but simply put smoking is a choice and if you make that choice, if you choose to smoke you must accept both the good and the bad, good being i dunno whatever release smoking provides the bad being obvious at this point.

i think smokers should just accept it though at the same time i dont think it should be enforced, it should be up the the owners of the bars and stuff, family friendly places should be allowed to stop people smoking, while places like pubs and such should be allowed to let smokers cloud up the place, i dont think its fair to take that choice away from them.

Was it not for certain religious fantasies it would be generally considered in society that nakedity has more consideration that clothedness. It was, in fact, the easiest way for religion to impose itself upon our natural being. It made us feel guilty about our very nature. Or, at least, that is how organised religion would have it understood.

The esoteric message behind the very same occurance was actually in favour of nudity as we were punished ultimately for covering our natural form.

People will always understand things any way they please (and in no place more than houses of the holy) but as with nudity, to smoke or not to smoke is a frivolous argument. Only a fool would argue that (unless you have at some point been a smoker) not smoking is a choice. Nudity is exactly the same - the choice is to wear clothes.

Being, as outlined by the veritable bard, is the killer - "To be or not to be?"
Is there a choice? Which state has the higher consideration? If you believe you only came into being at birth and you have not yet died you have no grounds to pose the question as being is the natural state. All things that can be considered as non-being immediately fall into lesser consideration. However, if you feel you have an inalienable right to "not be" you must, essentially, quantify your being as having been before. Of course, this is nonsense, and it's brilliantly put by Shakespeare...if a little fanciful on it's face.

-Goo™

I am right behind these laws. If these things can actually be harmful to the people around you (second hand smoking) than I think it's a bloody good step by any government for a 'greater good'.

On a similar point though.. to reverse my implied position on the government. If they're banning cigarettes in public places this week.. are they going to be banning social drinking and then even driving the next? When does it stop... Although I would agree to a lot of limitations because.. well.. humans are very stupid animals on the hole... it's a path that needs to be walked with a tremendous amount of caution to make sure every leisure liberty we have does not go flying out the window with that confused blind thunderous applause we're so good at.

Laissez-faire.....

...so, i got beaten up by a drunk, i have two lateral facial scars to prove it, once MOST prominent. I've dealt with it...but...why did i have to? Due to goverment sponsored alcohol.

Passive smoking?
Passive drunking.

Alcohol should be banned because it deformed my face without my even touching a drop. This is a true story, by the way.

-Goo™