Sadib
Time Lord Victorious
Don't you dare compare cigarettes to coffee! The only way coffee can affect someone else negatively is if you spill it on them.
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Smoking And Today's Society
- Thread starter SwiftSoul
- Start date
Don't you dare compare cigarettes to coffee! The only way coffee can affect someone else negatively is if you spill it on them.
randomspot555
Well-Known Member
How does someone smoking in their own private residence, in a bar that only serves adults, or in a cigar or hookah bar, affect you?
We're all going to die someday, why should we bother taking care of our health at all? Silly argument.
I never debated in favour of a complete ban on cigarettes, only that if you choose to smoke them it is your responsibility to make sure it doesn't affect anyone else, just as with any activity that takes place in a shared area. Sort of like a legislated requirement to be courteous.
Last edited:
Snorunt conservationist
Banned
Marioguy is becoming the new Mattj.
Sadib
Time Lord Victorious
What is the basis of that statement? That's like saying that you are becoming the new Muhammad Yunus. Not only is your post invalid, it is also irrelevant.
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
Not really a silly argument, because the whole implicit idea is silly. Nobody needs to justify how they manage their health to any authority, not even a majority opinion. That only goes on between a physician and a consenting person.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Quit calling people names and spamming the thread with allegations.
I assumed that chuboy means holding one's own health as a concern would be a part of that individual's goals, not that it had to be justified to anyone else. Presumably people want to be alive for their own sakes, if only to experience more of the pleasures of cigarette smoking, so the occasionally-made point of "so what if it does us harm, we die at the end anyway" or any of its hydra head variants, is useless and unhelpful. The point of health being a reasonably expected premise (for one's own sake if not for the sake of one's loved ones, or perhaps functioning civilization as a whole) and thus justified as a counterargument to health-corrupting activities isn't as silly as this response implies it is.
Quite, but please just report it next time. And marioguy, a reminder: replying to comments that are not meant to be helpful is frequently just as unhelpful.
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
Yeah I know better, but I slipped, sorry. >_< From now on, it's 'don't retort, report!'
As a personal piece of advice, I suppose it is valuable and not silly at all, and it comes off as a bit callous to call it as much - but I was being defensive politically. Looking at the greater picture, however optimistic it is to preserve the motivation for ideal health and life in everyone and support that unconditionally, we all have our reasons for doing things that erode our health, just to fufill a satisfying habit or routine. I don't believe the 'do what you want and die happy' ideal is silly at all, any more than chuboy's perspective that health is ideal is silly, which is probably why I called it silly right back, which was silly -- the point is, it's a nice premise and it's well-intended, but intention is not really the point. There are a vast variety of people in a vast variety of situations and one set of political beliefs cannot govern all of them, so that's why we operate under the idea that people essentially have the freedom to be alone and take their own risks with their health without being intervened in or, like I said, having to justify what they choose to do with their health.
So sorry, I now realise my post should have contained a quote to Korusan's post - at the time I believed it was going to appear directly underneath it but I was ninja'd. I have added the relevant quote so hopefully that puts my comments into better context.
My position, to be clear, is that you have a right to maintain your own health in whatever way you see fit but you must always consider the health/safety/comfort of others first.
Lethal Llama
Random Trainer
When I saw this debate I had to have an input because I'm so egocentric I love to see the whole world being swayed by my words XD
Firstly, I'll start with personal opinion. I despise smoking. It is a bane on society and is revolting, unhealthy and serves as a gateway drug to weed, which is a gateway drug in itself. I may be only in the middle of my teens but I have seen many a good person ruined by smoking, including a once good friend of mine. The fact that the OP made a rational choice to smoke at 18 greatly saddens me for his future but it was his/her choice and I will respect it. In short, if I was basing this on personal opinion alone, I would love to see smoking banned.
Now on to the more solid stuff. I don't think smoking should be banned. Not because smoking itself is so great (sarcasm), but because of what it implies for the rest of society. If the government were to ban smoking, why not start banning all the things they disapprove of? We'd lose our freedom to drink, to chew gum, to swear, to not do our homework. Before we know it speaking against our almighty rulers would be outlawed. Admittedly that is an exaggerated outcome, but you get my point. If the government outlawed something because it will be good for you, it sets a precedent that other outlawings can be based upon.
However I would like to see a greater clamping down on smoking and minors, especially minors smoking themselves and smoking in the presence of young children and babies. Just like drinking, minors aren't mature enough to choose to smoke. It's not fair to let youths sign themselves up to an addiction that can have a massive impact on their lives. And smoking in the presence of young children and babies should definitely be an offence under child abuse. Just because we can avoid smoke does not let us assume that babies can walk on the grass to avoid it. They're helpless and should be therefore protected. I'm not a law encyclopaedia so if these laws exist in some form already disregard what I've said.
This is just my two cents on the matter. You don't have to support my way of thinking but it would be good of you to consider it before making up your mind on the matter.
Firstly, I'll start with personal opinion. I despise smoking. It is a bane on society and is revolting, unhealthy and serves as a gateway drug to weed, which is a gateway drug in itself. I may be only in the middle of my teens but I have seen many a good person ruined by smoking, including a once good friend of mine. The fact that the OP made a rational choice to smoke at 18 greatly saddens me for his future but it was his/her choice and I will respect it. In short, if I was basing this on personal opinion alone, I would love to see smoking banned.
Now on to the more solid stuff. I don't think smoking should be banned. Not because smoking itself is so great (sarcasm), but because of what it implies for the rest of society. If the government were to ban smoking, why not start banning all the things they disapprove of? We'd lose our freedom to drink, to chew gum, to swear, to not do our homework. Before we know it speaking against our almighty rulers would be outlawed. Admittedly that is an exaggerated outcome, but you get my point. If the government outlawed something because it will be good for you, it sets a precedent that other outlawings can be based upon.
However I would like to see a greater clamping down on smoking and minors, especially minors smoking themselves and smoking in the presence of young children and babies. Just like drinking, minors aren't mature enough to choose to smoke. It's not fair to let youths sign themselves up to an addiction that can have a massive impact on their lives. And smoking in the presence of young children and babies should definitely be an offence under child abuse. Just because we can avoid smoke does not let us assume that babies can walk on the grass to avoid it. They're helpless and should be therefore protected. I'm not a law encyclopaedia so if these laws exist in some form already disregard what I've said.
This is just my two cents on the matter. You don't have to support my way of thinking but it would be good of you to consider it before making up your mind on the matter.
Do you have any proof to support these claims? None of the people I know that smoke cigarettes have even touched Marijuana.
Lethal Llama
Random Trainer
Aside from personal experience, no I don't. Most of the smokers I know use Marijuana regularly. But you did spot that that sentence was right after "I'll start with personal opinion.", right? I said that to make sure people understood I had no facts to back it up, it's just what I thought.
Lethal Llama
Random Trainer
It's OK. It's actually quite refreshing to see someone admitting to being wrong on the internet. That's good of you.
Snorunt conservationist
Banned
Or not, as if we banned everything that can hurt those around them, we'd lose many good things.
Equally stupid is your inability to grasp the point, which picked up upon your farcical reasoning re smoking and cancer, which I tied in to the issue of abuse and of course, implicitly, personal freedom.
No it isn't.
TBF if I was in a conversation with you I'd be begging for that smoke regardless of whether I did or not.
Also, of course there are more polite ways to get out of it.
"Dear sir/madam, I'm afraid that I must now take my leave, for the transport which is responsible for the departure of my corpus from this establishment is now ready to fulfill its duties. Fare thee well sir, fare thee well madam, let me consummate our discussion with my finest, most sincere bow and gratitudes.
In all seriousness though, going out for a smoke is not at all impolite. Indeed, it is the opposite, as you aren't lighting up around them (which according to people like you is among the most heinous of all crimes). Smoking is facilitating the civility of the situation.
The general inanity of your posts as picked up earlier in the thread. I mean honestly, anyone who ahs seen me post regularly and still thinks that I would post http://www.serebiiforums.com/showpost.php?p=13813033&postcount=317 that in a serious way is someone to be intellectually dismissive of.
Unnecessary white knight to the rescue! Note in response to this I won't report the post where you personally attacked me.
Last edited:
I believe we should illegalize tobacco, Marijuana, and Alcohol. Obviously we can't just one day make it illegal, or else it will be the American Prohibition all over again. We need to have a nice and slow process that leads to tobacco and other drugs illegal and society will have no use for them. Don't ask me how to do it though, I'm not a doctor.
In order for that to happen, I suppose the values of society would have to change so that the majority of people found tobacco, alcohol and marijuana abhorrent enough to warrant a ban.
What do you suppose would make a nice slow transition? Educating the public? Even with all the facts there are people that will not care about their well being regardless. It also doesn't seem to me like more people are in favor of prohibition these days.
Even if the majority of society had no use for these products, I would still not issue a ban. I suppose it would be ideal if people did not drink, smoke, etc. But social engineering is not the way to accomplish this. You're just meddling in the personal lives of others if you do so.
What do you suppose would make a nice slow transition? Educating the public? Even with all the facts there are people that will not care about their well being regardless. It also doesn't seem to me like more people are in favor of prohibition these days.
Even if the majority of society had no use for these products, I would still not issue a ban. I suppose it would be ideal if people did not drink, smoke, etc. But social engineering is not the way to accomplish this. You're just meddling in the personal lives of others if you do so.
Sadib
Time Lord Victorious
For the same reason why people aren't allowed to carry plutonium around with them.