Norway finds smoking to be a human right

[Bobo Adobo]

Originally Posted by A Chimp with a stereotypical american attitude

Oh, you poor muffin! However do you live? If you don't like the ads, you don't have to watch them.

Egg-Fucking-Zactly! But the thing I don't have the choice to change when there is a cigarette ad, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO FUCKING CIGARETTE ADS.

Originally Posted by A Chimp with a stereotypical american attitude

Your attitude shows that you feel that people should have to accomodate whatever you decide to do just because you can do it. If you want to light up, dammit, you can light up and all the fuckers that were there before you can move if they don't like it. Then you all scratch your heads and wonder why people hate America.

Yes, thats what us Americans do, we just light our cigarette and have no respect for anyody. We don't ask to light up, or go outside when we are at a non-smoking estabolishment. We just light up because we can, its our freedom, we have no respect. :/

[AChimp]

Thank you for your valuable contribution to this thread, Brandon

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by AChimp

Thank you for your valuable contribution to this thread, Brandon

You're welcome, pumpkin.

[AChimp]

Bobo, have you ever looked at the back of the National Enquirer? Yeah, 99% of the time that's a cigarette ad.

Yes, thats what us Americans do, we just light our cigarette and have no respect for anyody. We don't ask to light up, or go outside when we are at a non-smoking estabolishment. We just light up because we can, its our freedom, we have no respect.

You are taking things out of context. Your individual rights have no right to infringe on another's individual rights.

[The_Rorschach]

Rights versus Liberties. Really, smoking fits the classic definition of a Liberty and is not a Right at all.

[AChimp]

Does that mean you're on my side?

[Bobo Adobo]

Yes I read a variety of magazines, and that is the ONLY place I EVER see cigarette ads. Never see billboards, and never see T.V. Commercials. Tell you what I do see when driving down the interstate, A big black disgusting looking cancer ridden lung. That might turn you on, but I would rather see a cowboy in the sunset next to a surgeon general warning.

Please tell me. Why is having your own section in restaurants, increasing tobacco taxes, having surgeon general warnings on cigarettes, and outlawing most cigarettes ads not enough? Whos infringing who?

Do you also believe in banning alcohol in public places?

[Baalzamon]

Alcohol only has a health effect for the person drinking it. Safety is of course an issue if you get drunk and start hurting people.

I personally think the banning cigarrette ads is stupid.

The only thing I care about is banning it in indoor public places.

other than that people should be able to smoke all they want, and advertise for it as well.

[Bobo Adobo]

Originally Posted by Baalzamon

Alcohol only has a health effect for the person drinking it. Safety is of course an issue if you get drunk and start hurting people.

Whats the big difference? An raging alcoholic will kill a person faster than any form of cancer.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by AChimp

You are taking things out of context. Your individual rights have no right to infringe on another's individual rights.

Which is exactly why your right to eat can't infringe on my right to property.

Stop the exploitation. END TAXATION NOW.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Baalzamon

Public buildings where both smokers and non smokers go should not be allowed to fill up with smog just to satisfy your habbits.

Who's arguing against that? I don't think anyone is. But most buildings are privately owned, and it should be the buisness owner's decision, not the state's. That is all I'm saying.

[Ant10708]

Can it also be the owner's decision to fill up the building with other toxins then?

[AChimp]

Originally Posted by Bobo Adobo

Whats the big difference? An raging alcoholic will kill a person faster than any form of cancer.

Which is exactly why there are laws against public drunkeness.

OH NO! THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT BE DOING SOMETHING TO PROTECT PEOPLE! BE AFRAID! BE PARANOID!

You can't compare alcohol consumption to smoking because, like Baalzamon already stated, it's only affecting the person drinking it. The liquor doesn't travel from your liver into mine.

But most buildings are privately owned, and it should be the buisness owner's decision, not the state's. That is all I'm saying.

What don't you people understand about public health? If I may get back to my burger analogy, according to your reasoning, because it's his own private property, the restaurant owner can prepare food any damn way he pleases, even if that means sliding the meat along the floor. Why do health codes even exist, if business owners could do whatever they wanted on their own private property?

[Bobo Adobo]

You really have a passion for knowing whats good for people don't you. Whats so wrong with designated places for smokers to go and relax and drink/smoke? Especially when the Owner and employees are OK with it?

Sure you can preach about your public health and whatnot. But If people somehow liked eating bacteria infested meat, and knew that an estabolishment offered such a thing. The government would probably be Ok with it, as long as they were fully informed of the risks. But there isn't any because food poisoning infects you alot harshly than exposure to second hand smoke. You won't get lung cancer if you go to a bar every weekend or after work for a drink.

Hell, I've worked in a few Bar/Grills and most of the Employees smoked. The ones that didn't knew they were exposing themselves to it, and they had the choice to work there. I only rarely hear about that people that get cancer from exposure to 2nd hand smoke. And usually they are close to or way past there retirement age.

You say I have this stereotypical American point of view, but it is really you that has it. You have that "it can't possibly be my fault" mentality that plagues america today. Its the knid of mentality that makes it "ok" to sue McDonalds because you are overweight.

You are responcible for your own short comings, not Joe Camel.

PS...And yes there are regulations for public drunkeness. But I shit still happens. There are surgeon general warnings on cigarette packs, but people still die of lung cancer.

Thing is all you health zealots preach about banning smoking, But in the heat of it all you fail to be rational. Maybe funding research into air purification systems, or talking to congress to require owners of smoking estabolishments to require a certain amount of ventalation in there building. But No, you know whats good for people, you have the right to be an irrational twit.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by AChimp

What don't you people understand about public health? If I may get back to my burger analogy, according to your reasoning, because it's his own private property, the restaurant owner can prepare food any damn way he pleases, even if that means sliding the meat along the floor. Why do health codes even exist, if business owners could do whatever they wanted on their own private property?

Health codes exist to protect comsumers from unsafe buisness practices. This is something entirely different. We're talking about consumer behaviors. Business owners should have the right to decide whether or not smoking is allow on the premises. Public health codes should require the business owners to clearly mark their establishment as smoke-free or smoke-friendly, so that consumers may make a decision. We shouldn't need the government to hold our hands here.

For what it's worth, I don't smoke while eating, and prefer non-smoking restaraunts, but I fully support a restaraunt owner's right to provide a smoking section.

Originally Posted by Bobo

"Whats so wrong with designated places for smokers to go and relax and drink/smoke? Especially when the Owner and employees are OK with it?"

Exactly!

[AChimp]

The government would probably be Ok with it, as long as they were fully informed of the risks. But there isn't any because food poisoning infects you alot harshly than exposure to second hand smoke. You won't get lung cancer if you go to a bar every weekend or after work for a drink.

That's like saying there's no risk of choking when you swallow. The government would NOT be okay with someone selling diseased food for human consumption, at least the Canadian government wouldn't be.

And who's talking specifically about lung cancer? There are dozens of other lung conditions that are caused and/or exacerbated by cigarette smoke, like asthma, allergies, and emphysema.

I only rarely hear about that people that get cancer from exposure to 2nd hand smoke. And usually they are close to or way past there retirement age

And I suppose getting lung cancer when you're old is better than getting it when you're young?

Smoking-related diseases cost hundreds of millions of dollars to deal with. Maybe in the U.S. where you all pay your own healthcare costs, and if you get sick it's your own fault, that's not a big part of the issue, but here it's everyone's problem because that money comes out of all our pockets.

You say I have this stereotypical American point of view, but it is really you that has it. You have that "it can't possibly be my fault" mentality that plagues america today. Its the knid of mentality that makes it "ok" to sue McDonalds because you are overweight.

So it's going to be my fault for breathing in the remnants of your habit? Again, you're taking an example of an individual effect--getting fat from fast food--and applying it to this situation. When I eat a burger, the fat and cholesterol doesn't jump into your blood veins.

The fatbodies who sue McDonald's are retarded, anyways. If this thread was about ridiculous lawsuits, they'd be on top of my list of people to laugh at.

Thing is all you health zealots preach about banning smoking, But in the heat of it all you fail to be rational. Maybe funding research into air purification systems, or talking to congress to require owners of smoking estabolishments to require a certain amount of ventalation in there building. But No, you know whats good for people, you have the right to be an irrational twit.

The fact of the matter is that your freedoms should not infringe on my freedoms. Making me change my lifestyle to accomodate your addiction does just that.

BTW, ventilation does very little to affect cigarette smoke, unless you're talking about putting your restaurant in a wind tunnel. The big donut chain here, Tim Horton's, put those fancy ventilation systems in most of their new shops and it still stunk like shit.

You always talk about how non-smokers can just go somepleace else... the bar that is all non-smoking, the restaurant that is all non-smoking. Maybe you and Ziggy could come here and we'll go back in time 12 months so you can show me where all those places were. Ironically, the only restaurants that were completely non-smoking were the big fast food joints.

Since the ban was put in place, business at restaurants and bars has increased, and all the people who were complaining about how it would infringe on their rights have been left with their foots stuck firmly in their mouths. The only person still whining is one bumtown hotel owner who is trying to scapegoat the results of his crappy business practices on the smoking ban.

I can actually get a seat in the mall food court now, too! The smoking section isn't filled with people who sit for two hours nursing their 99 cent cup of coffee, while people like me who will buy an entire $8.00 meal have to walk around and eventually decide not to bother at all. If you told the smokers to leave back then, well, you were infringing on their rights as a paying customer!
Everyone eats in 10-15 minutes and makes room for the next wave of customers. Dollars sure make people forget their previous complaints.

[ziggytrix]

You always talk about how non-smokers can just go somepleace else... the bar that is all non-smoking, the restaurant that is all non-smoking. Maybe you and Ziggy could come here and we'll go back in time 12 months so you can show me where all those places were.

Since the ban was put in place, business at restaurants and bars has increased, and all the people who were complaining about how it would infringe on their rights have been left with their foots stuck firmly in their mouths.

Sounds like either someone was missing out on a really good business model, or your assumption of causality is horrbily flawed. Just think, if these non-smoking establishments are so much better, and do such better business, simple economics would have made smoking establishments obsolete! You could have been rich by being the first to start a smoke-free bar.

You keep mentioning restaraunts, and I would like to clarify that I don't care about smoking prohibitions there. It's government placing restrictions on bars, establishments who cater specifically to vice, that I'm against.

Again, I'd like your response to Bobo's question "Whats so wrong with designated places for smokers to go and relax and drink/smoke? Especially when the Owner and employees are OK with it?".

[AChimp]

Willful endangerment still costs taxpayers in the end. It's the same reason why there are laws that say you have to wear a seatbelt. Sure, you can forget about wearing one, and accept the risks, but sometimes you will get unlucky and wind up splattered across the streets.

Same goes for working in a smoking environment. The taxpayer foots the bill when Joe Bartender needs a respirator in 50 years; it doesn't matter if he's "near" or "past" retirement age.

The government doesn't let you work with hazardous materials like chemicals, asbestos, etc. without the safety equipment, regardless of whether or not you're okay with the potential risk of burning your face off... unless you're doing it on your own property.

The smoking ban doesn't extend into your own home. If you want to smoke there, you're still quite welcome to. It'll cost you, though, because cigarettes cost $12/pack now.

The ban applies to anywhere that is open to the public. Businesses, even though they are private establishments, are still open to the public. There are numerous laws that already extend into this realm, like the health codes that I mentioned earlier.

If you want to count as completely private, you have to start charging for membership and be selective about who you let in; no one has done that because the smokers here have just accepted the fact that the vast majority of people think their habit is disgusting. It might fly here, but why pay when you can go for free, even if you can't smoke while you drink?

Why should 3/4 of the population be beholden to 1/4 of the population?

[Bobo Adobo]

Originally Posted by AChimp

Willful endangerment still costs taxpayers in the end. It's the same reason why there are laws that say you have to wear a seatbelt. Sure, you can forget about wearing one, and accept the risks, but sometimes you will get unlucky and wind up splattered across the streets.

Here in America we pay for our health insurance. You communist pig! j/k

Things like ultimate fighting,football and boxing are still legal( and yes they have saftey precautions). To be involved in those sports is willfull endangerment. "Taxpayers" have to pay for every single dislocated shoulder, not to mention the amount of serious injuries that still happen. Do you want to outlaw them too?

Originally Posted by Achimp

The government doesn't let you work with hazardous materials like chemicals, asbestos, etc. without the safety equipment, regardless of whether or not you're okay with the potential risk of burning your face off... unless you're doing it on your own property.

Exactly, but the governemt usually doesn't ban the use of such materials. They help come up with ways to make the work environment safer.

The thing is, America was built on something called "Free Market Economy". Meaning you own property and your place of business can actually be the same thing!

Tell me what would the difference be of just having a bunch of people over on your property who happened to smoke, than opening a bar and allowing people to smoke in it?

Both are your property, one just happens to be open to the public. Here in America, in our free market economy, people can choose what businesses they can go to/support. And the Business can choose who they do business with. you don;t have to go to place were all those dreadful smokers hang out.

Whats wrong with restaurants having a non-smoking section. Almost every restaurant has one here. Are you telling me you can't be within 20 feet of the dreadful second hand smoke?

Originally Posted by Achimp

The smoking ban doesn't extend into your own home. If you want to smoke there, you're still quite welcome to. It'll cost you, though, because cigarettes cost $12/pack now.

12$!! Jesus, You actually think thats the answer to smoking, to charge a ridiculous price? Your just asking for another Al Capone.

Originally Posted by AChimp

Why should 3/4 of the population be beholden to 1/4 of the population?

Because in countries like America, and Canada 1/4 of the Population is a HUGE chunk of the country. If Everything was decided by the Majority, things like slavery and segregation, would have lasted a lot longer. Smoking Tobacco is a privialge that has been around almost forever. A huge amount of people do it, and they know the risks of doing it.

Originally Posted by Achimp

And who's talking specifically about lung cancer? There are dozens of other lung conditions that are caused and/or exacerbated by cigarette smoke, like asthma, allergies, and emphysema.

No shit sherlock, but tell me again. Which one of those is the equivelent to the "black death"? And which one of those doesn't appear on the surgeon general's warnings?

Keep Preachin' Rhiner.

[AChimp]

Things like ultimate fighting,football and boxing are still legal( and yes they have saftey precautions). To be in those sports is willfull endangerment. "Taxpayers" have to pay for every single dislocated shoulder, not to mention the amount of serious injuries that still happen. Do you want to outlaw them too?

So are you going to argue now that smoking is a profession? You can't compare something that people get paid to do with smoking, and you know what I mean when I said taxpayers. Everyone in the world knows about Canada's public healthcare system. With wrestlers/boxers/etc, if they get hurt in a fight then their sponsors pay for it.

I doubt the WWF punishes it's wrestlers by making them put a splint on their own leg.

Exactly, but the governemt usually doesn't ban the use of such materials. They help come up with ways to make the work environment safer.

The government hasn't banned the use of tobacco, you just can't smoke it in public places. Wanna chew it?

12$!! Jesus, You actually think thats the answer to smoking, to charge a ridiculous price? Your just asking for another Al Capone.

The Al Capone of cigarettes... When the price is that high in almost every province? Cross-border smuggling isn't that profitable, either.

A lot of smokers already roll their own rather than buying packages up here. For $3 more, you can get a pouch that will make twice as many smokes as the 25 that come in a package.

Because in countries like America, and Canada 1/4 of the Population is a HUGE chunk of the country. If Everything was decided by the Majority, things like slavery and segregation, would have lasted a lot longer. Smoking Tobacco is a privialge that has been around almost forever. A huge amount of people do it, and they know the risks of doing it.

Now you're going to liken the anti-smoking lobby to the supporters of slavery? That's grasping at straws. The majority isn't always right, yeah, but everyone agrees that smoking is bad for everyone, smokers and non-smokers alike. You'd be hard-pressed to find evidence that slavery is good for both the slave owners and the slaves themselves.

Smoking isn't a privilege. You make it sound like the smoking of today is a grand old tradition. Seth's pipe is tradition. The Marlborough Man is a twat. Westerners haven't been smoking for all that long, and I don't think you'd ever find chain-smoking Natives 600 years ago.

No shit sherlock, but tell me again. Which one of those is the equivelent to the "black death"? And which one of those doesn't appear on the surgeon general's warnings?

You haven't seen our warnings, huh? They take up half the package, on both sides.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/tob.../warnings.html

[Bobo Adobo]

"You haven't seen our warnings, huh? They take up half the package, on both sides."

No Wonder your Brainwashed.

Owners and Employees of bars are being paid for being in an and operating a willfully endangering environment. Even if its a non-smoking bar. The Patrons are paying to be in it. Whats the big diff?

Whats the sense in paying so much for a pack, and not so much for rollable tobacco? Does working harder for your nicotine fix make it better? :/

Smoking IS a privilage and a tradition. It is the cash crop the helped build America. Natives were the first people in America to grow an sell tobacco. And even used it for medicinal purposes. Its a tradition in there culture. Which is the true North American culture.

[Guderian]

As unpopular as Malthus is these days, people are still dying left and right from easily preventable diseases for a reason, you know.

[AChimp]

Whats the sense in paying so much for a pack, and not so much for rollable tobacco? Does working harder for your nicotine fix make it better?

My mistake, a pouch of tobacco is $19 now after taxes. I haven't worked in a grocery store for almost six months now.

Anyways, bulk is always cheaper. Anyone who shops at Costco knows that.

Smoking IS a privilage and a tradition. It is the cash crop the helped build America. Natives were the first people in America to grow an sell tobacco. And even used it for medicinal purposes. Its a tradition in there culture. Which is the true North American culture.

It sure is medicinal alright! Smoking is the Natives' version of Montezuma's Revenge.

[Bobo Adobo]

Hey, I didn't say it is medicinal, the natives thought it was. I could see why, smoking real tobacco can be quite relaxing.

[AChimp]

Maybe that's why they let white man take over so easily. :/