everybody sucks

nuffingman

TriumphantAngel wrote:

lol @ the waiting for someone to take it farther than the immediacy of the actual issues. i fell for it, you baited me!

in all seriousness tho, i agree that not everyone who drives after drinking in a bar will kill you, but one person is killed every 39 minutes in the US by a drunk driver. something like 18,000 people a year.

if i had a choice of sitting with a smoker while they had a smoke or jumping into a car with a drunk driver, i know what i would choose.

i'm not a smoker and i'm definitely not defending peoples right to smoke wherever they like as i do think that people who are smokers should be considerate to others when they are smoking. (don't smoke in confined areas or at bus stops etc to use Catefrances example, where you know there is a good chance there will be non smokers because that's just ignorant and selfish). the thing is, smokings pretty much banned from most enclosed areas these days. don't you ever hear people bitching and moaning about smokers just because they can? even when they are not affecting them? i have. that's what i have a problem with.

i've heard people complain at work because they have to walk past the smoking area outside that has been designated for the smokers. even though their workmates are already standing outside, some of them still have to bitch and moan about it. it's simple. don't walk out that door, you don't have to walk past them, take another exit and walk around. it might take a few minutes more but so what. think about how much better it will be for your heart to get that few minutes extra excercise. cause if they are so worried about their health it shouldn't be such a big deal for them.

My favourite post. Well said.

pandora

Pepe Silvia wrote:

pandora wrote:

cippociappo wrote:

Mmm... what about drinking outside on the streets?

signed - an european that lives in the USA

Are you for or against that and how does that relate to smoking? I'm missing the correlation.

sheesh, who took the jam out of your donught?

i think their point was in europe you can walk around with an open container but in the states you can only do it in certain placed like new orleans or certain events and usually you have to buy a wristband or something to allow you to drink.

although, i think a bigger difference is europe has better public transit systems or at least i don't think as many europeans drive home drunk, some countries in europe have pretty stiff drunk driving laws

I've never had the pleasure to be in Europe, wasn't sure what their laws were but figured more carefree.
I know I wish we had better transit where we live.. it is Vinos taxi only here

Pepe Silvia

pandora wrote:

I've never had the pleasure to be in Europe, wasn't sure what their laws were but figured more carefree.
I know I wish we had better transit where we live.. it is Vinos taxi only here

i've never been either, well not since i was 3 but that doesn't really count. but i was friends with a foreign exchange student in high school and he said the drunk driving laws were very strict

pandora

Pepe Silvia wrote:

pandora wrote:

I've never had the pleasure to be in Europe, wasn't sure what their laws were but figured more carefree.
I know I wish we had better transit where we live.. it is Vinos taxi only here

i've never been either, well not since i was 3 but that doesn't really count. but i was friends with a foreign exchange student in high school and he said the drunk driving laws were very strict

There is a sensibility in Europe I think. And I say this really just from feeling not with fact. But I believe the old school, the tried and true, the earned wisdom seems to lie there in their culture. The way sex and drinking is viewed/ accepted/ taught seems to make much more sense than here in America. These subjects approached with teaching responsibility where as here its more of an abstinence- taboo approach.

nuffingman

Pepe Silvia wrote:

pandora wrote:

I've never had the pleasure to be in Europe, wasn't sure what their laws were but figured more carefree.
I know I wish we had better transit where we live.. it is Vinos taxi only here

i've never been either, well not since i was 3 but that doesn't really count. but i was friends with a foreign exchange student in high school and he said the drunk driving laws were very strict

Drink driving laws are extremely strict. There are also areas where you can't drink alcohol publicly... in the street for example. You also can't smoke in any public place, restaurants / bars etc. You can't even smoke at stadium shows, football matches etc. Some pubs don't even let you smoke in their gardens. The UK I believe is treating alcohol far more seriously than smoking.

MG79478

pandora wrote:

Becasue the smoker has basic rights... that should be recognized. Hysteria over second hand smoke has taken the laws too far...no shock there... to include open air on the street ???? Smokers pay taxes, are the same human beings as non smokers, yet they are being made to feel something is wrong with them if they choose to smoke, that they have no rights even when they are not endangering others.
In the future this will carry to the overweight, to weed smokers, to people who drink. Its a slow process but just another way to judge and control people for not living their lives the way someone thinks they should.

Yes, the smoker does have basic rights. But when the basic rights of the smoker (who choses to be a smoker) conflict with the basic rights of the non-smoker, the non-smoker wins. This is the key you miss in all of your arguments. I don't care if people eat what they want to eat, as long as it doesn't impact others. It does impact others on an airplane, so force them to buy another seat. I don't care if people drink, as long as it doesn't impact others. It does impact people if they decide to drive, so there are laws against it.

I don't even care about the health concerns from second hand smoke, I just think it stinks. Some people have enough trouble breathing with seasonal allergies and asthma, to have to put up with tobacco smoke too. You might change your tune if your child had asthma.

How are they being made to feel like something is wrong with them? They are allowed to smoke in their car, in their homes, or in designated areas. I'll flip your argument on you. If smokers are allowed to smoke outside anywhere they please, why are non-smokers treated like second class citizens that just have to deal with the smoking class?

Godfather.

MG79478 wrote:

pandora wrote:

Becasue the smoker has basic rights... that should be recognized. Hysteria over second hand smoke has taken the laws too far...no shock there... to include open air on the street ???? Smokers pay taxes, are the same human beings as non smokers, yet they are being made to feel something is wrong with them if they choose to smoke, that they have no rights even when they are not endangering others.
In the future this will carry to the overweight, to weed smokers, to people who drink. Its a slow process but just another way to judge and control people for not living their lives the way someone thinks they should.

Yes, the smoker does have basic rights. But when the basic rights of the smoker (who choses to be a smoker) conflict with the basic rights of the non-smoker, the non-smoker wins. This is the key you miss in all of your arguments. I don't care if people eat what they want to eat, as long as it doesn't impact others. It does impact others on an airplane, so force them to buy another seat. I don't care if people drink, as long as it doesn't impact others. It does impact people if they decide to drive, so there are laws against it.

I don't even care about the health concerns from second hand smoke, I just think it stinks. Some people have enough trouble breathing with seasonal allergies and asthma, to have to put up with tobacco smoke too. You might change your tune if your child had asthma.

How are they being made to feel like something is wrong with them? They are allowed to smoke in their car, in their homes, or in designated areas. I'll flip your argument on you. If smokers are allowed to smoke outside anywhere they please, why are non-smokers treated like second class citizens that just have to deal with the smoking class?

why are smokers treated like second class citizens ? are these rights over lapping each other ? I agree with being polite and not smoking in a place with non smokers but I won't move if I am having a smoke by myself and somebody walks up and asks me to put it out then I tell them to piss up a rope..and yes it has happened more than once to me.

Godfather.

Pepe Silvia

MG79478 wrote:

There is nothing in the constitution about the government providing healthcare, yet they rammed that down our throats.

except the government is not providing anyone with healthcare, they are forcing us to BUY health INSURANCE or be fined, just like with car insurance.

pandora

MG79478 wrote:

pandora wrote:

Becasue the smoker has basic rights... that should be recognized. Hysteria over second hand smoke has taken the laws too far...no shock there... to include open air on the street ???? Smokers pay taxes, are the same human beings as non smokers, yet they are being made to feel something is wrong with them if they choose to smoke, that they have no rights even when they are not endangering others.
In the future this will carry to the overweight, to weed smokers, to people who drink. Its a slow process but just another way to judge and control people for not living their lives the way someone thinks they should.

Yes, the smoker does have basic rights. But when the basic rights of the smoker (who choses to be a smoker) conflict with the basic rights of the non-smoker, the non-smoker wins. This is the key you miss in all of your arguments. I don't care if people eat what they want to eat, as long as it doesn't impact others. It does impact others on an airplane, so force them to buy another seat. I don't care if people drink, as long as it doesn't impact others. It does impact people if they decide to drive, so there are laws against it.

I don't even care about the health concerns from second hand smoke, I just think it stinks. Some people have enough trouble breathing with seasonal allergies and asthma, to have to put up with tobacco smoke too. You might change your tune if your child had asthma.

How are they being made to feel like something is wrong with them? They are allowed to smoke in their car, in their homes, or in designated areas. I'll flip your argument on you. If smokers are allowed to smoke outside anywhere they please, why are non-smokers treated like second class citizens that just have to deal with the smoking class?

Being able to smoke on the street I think is what we were talking about. I have no problem with smoker sections/ areas, banning in enclosed areas like the workplace/ bars.
I'm a non smoker and feel smokers get trampled on even when they are causing no harm. Its the politically correct thing to do nowadays which is crap.
I don't feel the non smoker wins walking down a public street, sorry that is taking the laws way too far.
If my child had asthma I would not think it was the smoker who should be making concessions in outdoor public areas such as the street. I think that would be up to me to protect my child as I would from ozone, pollutants, and questionable environments.

MG79478

pandora wrote:

Being able to smoke on the street I think is what we were talking about. I have no problem with smoker sections/ areas, banning in enclosed areas like the workplace/ bars.
I'm a non smoker and feel smokers get trampled on even when they are causing no harm. Its the politically correct thing to do nowadays which is crap.
I don't feel the non smoker wins walking down a public street, sorry that is taking the laws way too far.
If my child had asthma I would not think it was the smoker who should be making concessions in outdoor public areas such as the street. I think that would be up to me to protect my child as I would from ozone, pollutants, and questionable environments.

It's not the PC thing to do, the PC thing to do would be to cater to the much smaller smoking crowd. Political correctness is never associated with the majority.

Maybe I should stand outside of where you work and just as you exit, spray something that smells really terrible. Let say something that smells like skunk. Why would I do such a thing? Doesn't seem like a reasonable thing to do, yet neither does smoking. Sure it may really suck for you to have to walk through that terrible odor every day, but I like spraying it. I know it's not the norm, but it's a choice I made and you HAVE to cater to me. That's a bit of an extreme example, but it proves a point. The rights of one person should not infringe upon the rights of another.

Godfather.

MG79478 wrote:

pandora wrote:

Being able to smoke on the street I think is what we were talking about. I have no problem with smoker sections/ areas, banning in enclosed areas like the workplace/ bars.
I'm a non smoker and feel smokers get trampled on even when they are causing no harm. Its the politically correct thing to do nowadays which is crap.
I don't feel the non smoker wins walking down a public street, sorry that is taking the laws way too far.
If my child had asthma I would not think it was the smoker who should be making concessions in outdoor public areas such as the street. I think that would be up to me to protect my child as I would from ozone, pollutants, and questionable environments.

It's not the PC thing to do, the PC thing to do would be to cater to the much smaller smoking crowd. Political correctness is never associated with the majority.

Maybe I should stand outside of where you work and just as you exit, spray something that smells really terrible. Let say something that smells like skunk. Why would I do such a thing? Doesn't seem like a reasonable thing to do, yet neither does smoking. Sure it may really suck for you to have to walk through that terrible odor every day, but I like spraying it. I know it's not the norm, but it's a choice I made and you HAVE to cater to me. That's a bit of an extreme example, but it proves a point. The rights of one person should not infringe upon the rights of another.

so then who do we afford these rights to ? where I work we had a smoking area but then the company turned the whole plant into a smoke free facility and told the smokers that they have to smoke outside by the street well this a busy street with joggers just a bout all day and now they run around us going into the street and thats not right but the smokers were forced into that situation, the smokers have as much right as the joggers to use that sidewalk and I agree it's not very polite but there is no where else for the smokers to go at break.

Godfather.

Jeanwah

pandora wrote:

Its a slow process but just another way to judge and control people for not living their lives the way someone thinks they should.

That's what I think of it all. I think now that smoking health hazards are risky with repeated 2nd hand smoke, of course one side is going to attempt to control the situation. A situation that shouldn't be controlled as long as cigarettes are legal.

ETA: Shouldn't it all be about choice, anyway? Unless you are physically blocked where you can't escape, (I agree with no-smoking in small spaces) you have the choice of how you handle the situation in a public area. As a non-smoker, you can get away from the smoke, as well as the smoker being considerate enough to others in their space.

MG79478

Godfather. wrote:

the smokers were forced into that situation, the smokers have as much right as the joggers to use that sidewalk and I agree it's not very polite but there is no where else for the smokers to go at break.

The smokers were forced to smoke? Seems that if they quit, they wouldn't have a problem.

nuffingman

MG79478 wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

the smokers were forced into that situation, the smokers have as much right as the joggers to use that sidewalk and I agree it's not very polite but there is no where else for the smokers to go at break.

The smokers were forced to smoke? Seems that if they quit, they wouldn't have a problem.

Perhaps the joggers should quit jogging. It's bad for the knees you know.

pandora

MG79478 wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

the smokers were forced into that situation, the smokers have as much right as the joggers to use that sidewalk and I agree it's not very polite but there is no where else for the smokers to go at break.

The smokers were forced to smoke? Seems that if they quit, they wouldn't have a problem.

ah ha there you go...knew that was coming.
You see the control here over anothers choice's, correct? that is what it comes down to...you don't like it so don't do it.
This is the basis of the problem and of a ridiculous law to keep people from smoking on the street.
I still believe it is falling under the politically correct, that doesn't have to be a minority or majority it is just lets jump on THE band wagon.
Yes your skunk spray was over the top... Have you ever had the pleasure?
you'd be wishing it was just cig smoke

mikepegg44

Pepe Silvia wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

There is nothing in the constitution about the government providing healthcare, yet they rammed that down our throats.

except the government is not providing anyone with healthcare, they are forcing us to BUY health INSURANCE or be fined, just like with car insurance.

states force car insurance because they have police powers, not the feds.

I hate cigarette smoke more than anything, but if I am following someone on a side walk with a cigarette I can either speed up or slow down to get away from the smoke. Public places are just that, public, you can choose to go there or not, it isn't up to the Government to legislate personal health choices like this...wanna smoke, go ahead, want to eat yourself to diabetes, go ahead, wanna jump off a building with a parachute...who gives a shit what someone else does...

The only thing that drives me crazy is when people toss their butts out of the window while driving. I cannot stand it. it would be like me throwing a can of soda out the window when I was done. Why is that not considered littering?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

free society sucks sometimes, don't it? I mean, really, banning smoking in public? that's ludicrous. If people are actually arguing that, then they should ban all smelly people in general. Going for a run and all out of pit stick? TOO FUCKING BAD, get off the street! You stink and it's making me ill! I'm a non-stinker so my rights are the ones being infringed upon!

Fucking ludicrous.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

I believe it is, it's just not enforced. It's a huge problem in Winnipeg. 6 months worth of butts sit on the snow and then the snow melts and Winnipeg becomes a fucking living ashtray. it's disgusting.

mikepegg44 wrote:

The only thing that drives me crazy is when people toss their butts out of the window while driving. I cannot stand it. it would be like me throwing a can of soda out the window when I was done. Why is that not considered littering?

TriumphantAngel

mikepegg44 wrote:

The only thing that drives me crazy is when people toss their butts out of the window while driving. I cannot stand it. it would be like me throwing a can of soda out the window when I was done. Why is that not considered littering?

Paul David wrote:

I believe it is, it's just not enforced. It's a huge problem in Winnipeg. 6 months worth of butts sit on the snow and then the snow melts and Winnipeg becomes a fucking living ashtray. it's disgusting.

it is disgusting.

not only is it disgusting but those idiots cause bushfires too. i wonder if they ever consider that.

gimmesometruth27

mikepegg44 wrote:

The only thing that drives me crazy is when people toss their butts out of the window while driving. I cannot stand it. it would be like me throwing a can of soda out the window when I was done. Why is that not considered littering?

or it would be like throwing one of these out the window...



"this burrito is delicious, but it is filling..."