Smoking ban is a good thing, the non smokers smell cleaner and also it has been proved that pass on smoking does affect people. Maybe not as much as the say in the media but they're still getting less crap in their body.
I think the smoking ban is fair. Non smokers shouldn't suffer from our smoke.
The tax money goes to take care of all the health problems the smokers cause to themselves and others. Or wait, are all the scientific research proving that cigarettes causes and increases the risks of all kinds of disease also "exaggerated"?
@8ntO They are exaggerated. Besides, with technology the way it is, business owners could have been required to install smoke eaters and dust attractors to clear the air, in addition to having separate smoking sections. They could have done SOMETHING besides take away our freedoms.
@Challagar I guess the teachers teaching me the fundamentals in healthcare really don't know anything then. Since according to them, about half of the diseases we went through had smoking as a risk factor.
Smoke eaters wouldn't help much since people would be breathing the smoke in before they could take care of them.
Also you're making a mistake in using freedom as an argument. It's a bit more complicated than allowing people the freedom to smoke anywhere they wish since their smoking...
@8ntO ... affects other peoples freedom to not have to breath in cigarette smoke. You're still free to smoke, just not inside. Go outside if you want to exercise your freedom to smoke, that way you don't infringe on other peoples right to the freedom of not having to breath in the waste of your addiction.
@8ntO google "cancer linked to toxins in drinking water" Also substitute autism for cancer in that same search. You can't seriously blame the astronomical increase in autism to smoking can you? There is alot the government isn't telling us about what we take for granted and they are shifting the blame for it onto the people. You seriously think that second hand smoke is worse than first hand smoke when we, the smokers, are inhaling that same smoke in concentrated quantities?.....
@8ntO I stand by my statement that the results are exaggerated. Something is causing the increase in cancer and autism and it isn't second hand smoke. Now that we have the smoking ban, time will tell if the number of occurrences of cancer drops. Wanna bet it doesn't, but keeps rising?
mmmmk, let's pretend the affects have second-hand smoke aren't complete exagerations and it really is an extreme detriment to the health of the general public, or at least for the people who CHOOSE to expose themselves to it and then complain about it, and we can just completly ignore everything that the smokers do for local governments by purchasing cigarettes with extremly high taxes that go right back to pay for things that society needs!!!!
Can you post the interview?
IOwnGingers09 2 years ago
@IOwnGingers09 ?
IOwnGingers09 1 year ago
Smoking ban is a good thing, the non smokers smell cleaner and also it has been proved that pass on smoking does affect people. Maybe not as much as the say in the media but they're still getting less crap in their body.
I think the smoking ban is fair. Non smokers shouldn't suffer from our smoke.
ReaperOfInsanity 3 years ago
The tax money goes to take care of all the health problems the smokers cause to themselves and others. Or wait, are all the scientific research proving that cigarettes causes and increases the risks of all kinds of disease also "exaggerated"?
8ntO 3 years ago
@8ntO They are exaggerated. Besides, with technology the way it is, business owners could have been required to install smoke eaters and dust attractors to clear the air, in addition to having separate smoking sections. They could have done SOMETHING besides take away our freedoms.
Challagar 10 months ago
@Challagar I guess the teachers teaching me the fundamentals in healthcare really don't know anything then. Since according to them, about half of the diseases we went through had smoking as a risk factor.
Smoke eaters wouldn't help much since people would be breathing the smoke in before they could take care of them.
Also you're making a mistake in using freedom as an argument. It's a bit more complicated than allowing people the freedom to smoke anywhere they wish since their smoking...
8ntO 10 months ago
@8ntO ... affects other peoples freedom to not have to breath in cigarette smoke. You're still free to smoke, just not inside. Go outside if you want to exercise your freedom to smoke, that way you don't infringe on other peoples right to the freedom of not having to breath in the waste of your addiction.
8ntO 10 months ago
@8ntO google "cancer linked to toxins in drinking water" Also substitute autism for cancer in that same search. You can't seriously blame the astronomical increase in autism to smoking can you? There is alot the government isn't telling us about what we take for granted and they are shifting the blame for it onto the people. You seriously think that second hand smoke is worse than first hand smoke when we, the smokers, are inhaling that same smoke in concentrated quantities?.....
Challagar 10 months ago
@8ntO I stand by my statement that the results are exaggerated. Something is causing the increase in cancer and autism and it isn't second hand smoke. Now that we have the smoking ban, time will tell if the number of occurrences of cancer drops. Wanna bet it doesn't, but keeps rising?
Challagar 10 months ago
mmmmk, let's pretend the affects have second-hand smoke aren't complete exagerations and it really is an extreme detriment to the health of the general public, or at least for the people who CHOOSE to expose themselves to it and then complain about it, and we can just completly ignore everything that the smokers do for local governments by purchasing cigarettes with extremly high taxes that go right back to pay for things that society needs!!!!
yandr92 3 years ago
jack make this vid! lol
ToneTheShamble 4 years ago