Blaze - It would be bullying if I said you can't smoke in your own house, but it does in no-way constitute bullying to tell people that they cannot taint air with unhealthy substances. Please let me stress that one more time... unhealthy substances.
No matter how considerately you try to smoke, if you smoke in public you have taken a risk that the unhealthy by-product of your hobby will travel and cause harm to others. That is not a risk that you should be allowed to take. No-one has the right to risk others for their hobby. It's like throwing rocks off a motorway bridge. You put the driver of car in danger, and therefore infringe his or her rights. If you smoke in public you put anyone who could potentially breathe in your smoke at danger. That should never have been your judgement call.
Equality is only equality if both sides are treating people equally. A smoker who smokes in public takes a risk and subjects others to that risk. A person who does not smoke in a public place does not do that. It is people who choose themselves over others that are intolerant and anti-equality, not me.
And that analogy simply doesn't work. A theme park doesn't have the risk of hitting those who have not expressly gone to the theme park out of their own free will. Smoking in public always has the risk of effecting those who do not want to be exposed to the smoke.
As for addiction, yes it's a serious problem that should be dealt with, with the highest possible care. I'm not treating addicts with disdain, they have an illness, but that doesn't justify the reckless smoking in public. Since when has opposing smoking in public been attacking addicts? That's a very odd position to take.
And just because your experience to date is that city air is tainted doesn't mean we shouldn't as a society be aspiring to have cleaner air. By dismissing the notion, you are dismissing progress.
When it comes to smell... I don't care about smell. I'm talking about substances that can do you internal harm, which cigarette smoke does. The likening of the two is to completely miss the point. I don't like the smell of Branston pickle but I would never suggest banning it in public. The difference is that smoke is physically harmful. It's not a preference thing, it's that I don't think it's right that others can choose to expose others to physically harmful substances, like radioactive uranium.
Novas - The environmental problem has less to do with the carbon footprint, although I'm most certain a case could be made in reference to that, but it more to do with the health of humans and animals in which is a danger to ecology.
And no-matter what the quantity a cigarette output is, it is a risk to others that the physically substances could be inhaled by people or animals. Surely if nothing else, I would have thought the basic principle that people shouldn't be allowed to put others at risk for no good reason is enough for any reasonable person to come to a conclusion that smoking in public should be outlawed.
As for your posting style, I find it often to be just Trollish. I mean what the hell did insinuating that I'm boring or don't 'get laid' have to do with anything? It was clearly just an attempt to stir up trouble, something that seems to be a pattern in your posts.
Funky_Monk - As far as I am aware electric cars are no worse for the environment at the moment, but they are definitely better for air quality on streets. You do have a point about our horrendous out-dated fossil fuel energy system which would make the overall improvement minimal, but I fully support moving over to a carbon-neutral renewable energy economy, in which case would make electric cars a very viable alternative.
No matter how considerately you try to smoke, if you smoke in public you have taken a risk that the unhealthy by-product of your hobby will travel and cause harm to others. That is not a risk that you should be allowed to take. No-one has the right to risk others for their hobby. It's like throwing rocks off a motorway bridge. You put the driver of car in danger, and therefore infringe his or her rights. If you smoke in public you put anyone who could potentially breathe in your smoke at danger. That should never have been your judgement call.
Equality is only equality if both sides are treating people equally. A smoker who smokes in public takes a risk and subjects others to that risk. A person who does not smoke in a public place does not do that. It is people who choose themselves over others that are intolerant and anti-equality, not me.
And that analogy simply doesn't work. A theme park doesn't have the risk of hitting those who have not expressly gone to the theme park out of their own free will. Smoking in public always has the risk of effecting those who do not want to be exposed to the smoke.
As for addiction, yes it's a serious problem that should be dealt with, with the highest possible care. I'm not treating addicts with disdain, they have an illness, but that doesn't justify the reckless smoking in public. Since when has opposing smoking in public been attacking addicts? That's a very odd position to take.
And just because your experience to date is that city air is tainted doesn't mean we shouldn't as a society be aspiring to have cleaner air. By dismissing the notion, you are dismissing progress.
When it comes to smell... I don't care about smell. I'm talking about substances that can do you internal harm, which cigarette smoke does. The likening of the two is to completely miss the point. I don't like the smell of Branston pickle but I would never suggest banning it in public. The difference is that smoke is physically harmful. It's not a preference thing, it's that I don't think it's right that others can choose to expose others to physically harmful substances, like radioactive uranium.
Novas - The environmental problem has less to do with the carbon footprint, although I'm most certain a case could be made in reference to that, but it more to do with the health of humans and animals in which is a danger to ecology.
And no-matter what the quantity a cigarette output is, it is a risk to others that the physically substances could be inhaled by people or animals. Surely if nothing else, I would have thought the basic principle that people shouldn't be allowed to put others at risk for no good reason is enough for any reasonable person to come to a conclusion that smoking in public should be outlawed.
As for your posting style, I find it often to be just Trollish. I mean what the hell did insinuating that I'm boring or don't 'get laid' have to do with anything? It was clearly just an attempt to stir up trouble, something that seems to be a pattern in your posts.
Funky_Monk - As far as I am aware electric cars are no worse for the environment at the moment, but they are definitely better for air quality on streets. You do have a point about our horrendous out-dated fossil fuel energy system which would make the overall improvement minimal, but I fully support moving over to a carbon-neutral renewable energy economy, in which case would make electric cars a very viable alternative.
