Any Smokers?

[Seiben 0]

Wow, that's sad. :P But if they did that here and the vendor sold them the cigarettes, then he'd be liable to get a $4000 fine if he ever got caught selling cigarettes to minors. Not to mention, the price of a pack of cigaretteshave soared high enough for young people to have difficulties affording them. So, I guess there's light at the end of the rainbow aferall. :o

[Dumbass 0]

So, I guess there's light at the end of the rainbow aferall. :P

No, light shining through water produces the rainbow. There is *gold* at the end of the rainbow.

[Seiben 0]

Eh.. :P

[Zephrah 0]

What's really sad is that I have cought minors running past the store front, and grabbing the ends of the cigarets out of the ash tray!

Also with the main topic, even if smoking tobaco does go out in the future, then something just as bad or worse will take its place. Throught history people heve had there bad habits, and I don't think that this will ever change.

[WxMurray 0]

Also with the main topic, even if smoking tobaco does go out in the future, then something just as bad or worse will take its place. Throught history people heve had there bad habits, and I don't think that this will ever change.

One such bad habit would be holodiction, which we have seen Reg Barclay a victim of.

[Images 0]

:angry: :lol: :lol:

Well shouldn't you be an example to those poor little kids who are killing themselves? It brought a tear to your eye but it sure don't stop you from polluting our planet and victimizing those around you through second-hand smoke. <_<

 

My personal thoughts of smoking and the future: There's still going to be smokers in the future {TEXT REMOVED TO AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS}

In the words of many a man. Do as I say, not as I do.

 

Just kidding.

 

No, what brought a tear to my eye was the fact these kids were 8. My opinion is that someone can do what they want with their life but for Pete's sake, they should do it once they're old enough to make those choices. Kids are growing up way too fast. You go out to a club and you see girls there who are at such a young age that they should be playing with barbies, not wearing clothes that would make Paris Hilton blush and drinking more than twice what everyone else is. Sure, experiment, heck I drank under-age and did a few stupid things but there's a limit.

 

Everyone has their vices, I think Roddenberry's dream was that it's humanity's goal to get rid of them although he realised that there will always be new ones popping up to fight against. Case and point, that addictive game that Wesley (damn Wesley) had to stop everyone playing.

[Dumbass 0]

Case and point, that addictive game that Wesley (damn Wesley) had to stop everyone playing.

Yeah, Wesley had a chance to nail Ashley Judd in that episode! And what does he do instead? Plays video games. <_<

[Images 0]

Yeah, Wesley had a chance to nail Ashley Judd in that episode! And what does he do instead? Plays video games. <_<

What a strange young boy that Wesley was.

[Grom 0]

Sure, experiment, heck I drank under-age and did a few stupid things but there's a limit.

 

Lost you right here. I've never once experimented with drugs, alcohol or tobacco and I don't feel like I've missed out on anything in this life. :angry:

 

Anyway, as someone who loves and works a lot with children, I think we ought to recognize that 1) children have basic reasoning abilities to make choices a lot younger than we might expect and 2) children are influenced by their upbringing and the culture around them. If these children's parents don't place any limits on their children and if the culture around them does nothing to discourage their actions, then it is only reasonable for children to pursue the course of action that you have described. It's quite a difficult argument to make that people should be allowed to do whatever they want in life, yet that limits should be imposed in certain circumstances. It's like you recognize the need for morality, yet, you desire to keep it at arms length. Such is the tension in a post-modern society. <_<

[Images 0]

Lost you right here. I've never once experimented with drugs, alcohol or tobacco and I don't feel like I've missed out on anything in this life. :angry:

 

Anyway, as someone who loves and works a lot with children, I think we ought to recognize that 1) children have basic reasoning abilities to make choices a lot younger than we might expect and 2) children are influenced by their upbringing and the culture around them. If these children's parents don't place any limits on their children and if the culture around them does nothing to discourage their actions, then it is only reasonable for children to pursue the course of action that you have described. It's quite a difficult argument to make that people should be allowed to do whatever they want in life, yet that limits should be imposed in certain circumstances. It's like you recognize the need for morality, yet, you desire to keep it at arms length. Such is the tension in a post-modern society. <_<

Well I didn't say it was good for kids to experiment with stuff but I can understand that some might and that's okay. Its just when things get way out of hand that I complain.

 

Kids are kids. I don't care how mature they are for their age, or how mature they think they are for their age, they're still kids. I didn't touch a cigarette till I was seventeen, over the legal age limit. There's a reason we've set these laws, because we've realised that though kids have a right to free choice they may not be old enough to realise what the right choice might be. I'm not saying smoking was one of those right choices, heck I know it wasn't but I was old enough to make it and have the responsibilty to accept that choice. If I have kids I've promised myself to give up the habit. I would feel a right fool telling my kids that smoking's bad whilst puffing away myself.

 

Anyway, as a smoker, I have no qualms about sitting in a different area of a bar or having to go outside at a restaraunt but some of the new laws coming in. Scary. There's trying to consider others and there's clamping down on my rights. People have the right to drink, something that is incredibly unhealthy, I just think I should have the right to smoke. I won't do it round others if it bothers them but I think that being ostracised isn't that fair.

 

Anyway, its just one of those vices I guess one day we'll all be clever enough to stop giving in to.

[Vex Xiang 0]

Anyway, as a smoker, I have no qualms about sitting in a different area of a bar or having to go outside at a restaraunt but some of the new laws coming in. Scary. There's trying to consider others and there's clamping down on my rights. People have the right to drink, something that is incredibly unhealthy, I just think I should have the right to smoke. I won't do it round others if it bothers them but I think that being ostracised isn't that fair.

 

Well...thats true. They are taking away your right to smoke, but its because you are taking away their right to breathe healthy air. If someone stuck a hose in their tailpipe and brought it into a restaurant because they like sucking on car fumes, I'm sure you'd have a problem with that.

 

And the drinking argument just doesnt hold up...they aren't spraying the liquor on you or making you drink it. By smoking around others, you are forcing them to smoke. The reason you're being 'ostracized' isn't because they're trying to make life hard on you for your choices, or because they want to 'stamp you out'...its just because you are infringing on the rights of others. You cant help that your smoke fills an entire room, but the managers of the store you are in can help it by forcing you to smoke away from their guests.

[Images 0]

Well my answer? Meh.

 

*lights up and drinks a beer on the enterprise bridge ala Dumbass*

[Dumbass 0]

::Hands Images an ashtray and a coaster::

 

We are forgetting a key issue here that is central to the debate of whether smoking should be allowed: Property rights.

 

Smokers don't own the air in a restaurant, bar, or whatever. But neither do the nonsmokers.

 

The only people who have the right to tell smokers and nonsmokers what they have to put up with are the owners of the bars and restaurants. They are the ones who are taking an economic risk by letting customers smoke or telling them not to - and both are risky since whatever decision is made will alienate potential customers.

 

If you advocate government intervention, such as passing or enforcing an ordinance, you are not taking away the rights of smokers or nonsmokers. Since neither group owns the air they didn't have these rights to begin with. You are, however, taking away the property rights of the owner of the business to run that business as they see fit.

 

So when you vote for a law to ban smoking in bars or restaurants you are not just trying to force smokers to smoke elsewhere, you are telling the business owners "We don't like the way you are running your business, so we are going to force you to change" even though the business owner had been acting within the law up to that point.

[Images 0]

::Hands Images an ashtray and a coaster::

 

We are forgetting a key issue here that is central to the debate of whether smoking should be allowed: Property rights.

 

Smokers don't own the air in a restaurant, bar, or whatever. But neither do the nonsmokers.

 

The only people who have the right to tell smokers and nonsmokers what they have to put up with are the owners of the bars and restaurants. They are the ones who are taking an economic risk by letting customers smoke or telling them not to - and both are risky since whatever decision is made will alienate potential customers.

 

If you advocate government intervention, such as passing or enforcing an ordinance, you are not taking away the rights of smokers or nonsmokers. Since neither group owns the air they didn't have these rights to begin with. You are, however, taking away the property rights of the owner of the business to run that business as they see fit.

 

So when you vote for a law to ban smoking in bars or restaurants you are not just trying to force smokers to smoke elsewhere, you are telling the business owners "We don't like the way you are running your business, so we are going to force you to change" even though the business owner had been acting within the law up to that point.

Nicely said man. Much better argument.

[Nemesis 0]

Well here in Canada, I think it's a far different issue than in America. Our health care is paid for by the government so people who smoke raise our health care costs about 5 billion dollars that's far more than the amount that we collect from the cigarette taxes mainly because it affects non-smokers aswell as smokers. This is where we're coming into true problems, not only are you by smoking hurting my personal health but also limiting the services in which my government can provide and draining my tax dollars for your own selfish gain.

[Seiben 0]

Well here in Canada, I think it's a far different issue than in America. Our health care is paid for by the government so people who smoke raise our health care costs about 5 billion dollars that's far more than the amount that we collect from the cigarette taxes mainly because it affects non-smokers aswell as smokers. This is where we're coming into true problems, not only are you by smoking hurting my personal health but also limiting the services in which my government can provide and draining my tax dollars for your own selfish gain.

Geez, me agreeing with Nem, what's the world coming to? <_< But I have to agree. Our healthcare system is already suffered from so many cutbacks lately. The extra $5 billion smokers cost our government could go along way to pay for more doctors in our severely shorthanded hospitals, or something like that. I wholeheartedly stand by my government in their recent crackdown of cigarette smoking in public establishments. So, now if you want to smoke here, you gotta do it outside in the -10 degree weather, and 20 cm of snow.

[Grom 0]

Geez, me agreeing with Nem, what's the world coming to? <_< But I have to agree. Our healthcare system is already suffered from so many cutbacks lately. The extra $5 billion smokers cost our government could go along way to pay for more doctors in our severely shorthanded hospitals, or something like that. I wholeheartedly stand by my government in their recent crackdown of cigarette smoking in public establishments. So, now if you want to smoke here, you gotta do it outside in the -10 degree weather, and 20 cm of snow.

I'm going to agree with Van Roy on this one...forbidding private businesses from conducting their business as they choose is an abridgment of fundamental private property rights.

 

Second, if I may be permitted to paraphrasing Bastiat, there are always economic consequences to government invervention. What is seen may be $5 billion dollars added to the Canadian National Healthcare system. What is unseen, however, needs also to be considered. Say instead of people going out to pubs and restaurants, they decide to begin hosting their own gatherings in their homes for example. People aren't just going to stop smoking (as much as the government hopes)...they are going to pursue other avenues in which they can. In the end, pubs and restaruants will receive less revenues as a result, which means they won't be able to employ as many people, which means that jobs will be lost, which means that you will have more people unemployed who aren't paying into the heath care system, which means that you have less revenues in order to provide quality health care. That's just one domino effect. Sometimes the ends don't justify the means (or in this case the sacrifices). What may look good on paper, may actually be disastrous for an economy. In this case, I would argue that based upon basic economics, the health care system will probably hurt in the long run more than it benefits.

 

My two cents...plus 1/2 for taxes.

[Travis Kroells 0]

I think, that by the time we really dive into space flight, smoking wont be around, but then, when we find that species that loves our ancient cigaretes so much they take us over for it, we'll see whos laughing then.

 

::spoken like a true blue doin in since he was 13 smoker::

[Travis Kroells 0]

So, now if you want to smoke here, you gotta do it outside in the -10 degree weather, and 20 cm of snow.

Hehe, the metric system is so backwards. Thats what, like 20 degrees and 8 inches of snow? Sheesh, Canada seems like a summer resort right now then.

[WxMurray 0]

Hehe, the metric system is so backwards. Thats what, like 20 degrees and 8 inches of snow? Sheesh, Canada seems like a summer resort right now then.

That would be about 7.874 inches at 14 degrees Fahrenheit, so, yeah, you were close.

[Cougar 0]

mmmmmmmm....free Health Care <_<

[Vex Xiang 0]

Hehe, the metric system is so backwards. Thats what, like 20 degrees and 8 inches of snow? Sheesh, Canada seems like a summer resort right now then.

 

I would love it if the US would finally switch to the metric system. Its so orderly, and makes sense...our system is just completely arbitrary. It's silly we're still teaching it and using it.

 

In the metric system water freezes at 0 and boils at 100. It's 30-somethingF and 212F, just no logic to it.

 

The rest of the world uses metric and we're too stubborn to follow up. Besides I'd prefer not to have to buy 2 sets of tools to work on my car, thank you very much.

[WxMurray 0]

I would love it if the US would finally switch to the metric system. Its so orderly, and makes sense...our system is just completely arbitrary. It's silly we're still teaching it and using it.

 

In the metric system water freezes at 0 and boils at 100. It's 30-somethingF and 212F, just no logic to it.

 

The rest of the world uses metric and we're too stubborn to follow up. Besides I'd prefer not to have to buy 2 sets of tools to work on my car, thank you very much.

It make it easy on the meteorologists. We get observations reported in Celsius and meters and have to convert it to Fahrenheit and miles to tell the public.

[Nemesis 0]

I'm going to agree with Van Roy on this one...forbidding private businesses from conducting their business as they choose is an abridgment of fundamental private property rights.

 

Second, if I may be permitted to paraphrasing Bastiat, there are always economic consequences to government invervention. What is seen may be $5 billion dollars added to the Canadian National Healthcare system. What is unseen, however, needs also to be considered. Say instead of people going out to pubs and restaurants, they decide to begin hosting their own gatherings in their homes for example. People aren't just going to stop smoking (as much as the government hopes)...they are going to pursue other avenues in which they can. In the end, pubs and restaruants will receive less revenues as a result, which means they won't be able to employ as many people, which means that jobs will be lost, which means that you will have more people unemployed who aren't paying into the heath care system, which means that you have less revenues in order to provide quality health care. That's just one domino effect. Sometimes the ends don't justify the means (or in this case the sacrifices). What may look good on paper, may actually be disastrous for an economy. In this case, I would argue that based upon basic economics, the health care system will probably hurt in the long run more than it benefits.

 

My two cents...plus 1/2 for taxes.

Ok then lets play it that way, what about employee rights? Should it be fair for someone to work amid all that smoke that is harmful to their health?

[WxMurray 0]

Ok then lets play it that way, what about employee rights? Should it be fair for someone to work amid all that smoke that is harmful to their health?

Well, sorta. I think that if smokers want to smoke at work, they can do so outside and on a smoke break. Also, nonsmokers must ba allowed a break equal to that of the the smoke break. I worked at Arby's for two years, and there were only a few of us that didn't smoke. We usually got screwed over, being the ones nominated to hold the fort while the smokers went out and puffed away. Luckily, some of my managers understood this and so sometimes I would go out and yap with them while they smoked. At that point, I was more concerned about getting a few minutes work-free than being smoke-free.