I do agree with your idea in fact, but I said "no way" because i don't like what this kind of thinking can inevitably lead to. I think the current measures to ban smoking in public places is as far as it should be taken. If people choose to smoke in the privacy of their own home, and are reminded not to do it at the expense of other's health, then smoking is fine. it's no different from alcohol, or anything else one can take out of moderation

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Drinking alcohol doesn't directly affect the people around you, though. It indirectly affects them by what the product makes you do, but it's not from the product itself. Cigarettes have the product itself harm you and the people around you. There is no effect coming from the consumer except for them breathing out the poisonous toxins.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What about the mom who chooses to smoke in her own home like you said, while constantly having that smoke in and around her 3 month old child, who will obliviously suffer from her actions for years to come until someone does something or they get old enough to. If she was an alcoholic she may or may not be indirectly abusing her child through a product, as a smoker the product itself is directly killing her child. A product that is proven to kill 1 in 3 of it's consistent users should have as many restrictions as possible

by Anonymous 11 years ago

This girl I know was arguing on facebook about how if she wanted to smoke no one should be able to stop her and everyone should mind their own business. (It's illegal for her to smoke but whatever) And then she said that she didn't believe in second-hand smoke. How could you not "believe" in second hand smoke?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

She's obviously really stupid and it's best to ignore her and her high-horse.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Smokers gonna smoke.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I agree that smoking cigarettes is harmful and stupid, but this panic about secondhand smoke is getting out of hand. You have to breathe //a// //lot// of secondhand smoke for your health to be affected. A lot. Don't think I'm defending cigarettes, I'm not. As I said, I think smoking is harmful and stupid. But secondhand smoke is not as big of a health concern as people like to think. In some cases of constant exposure, it can be. But it's almost never a serious threat to one's health.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You also have to breathe in a lot of normal smoke. One cigarette won't kill you, a thousand won't either. If you're always around smokers, you may as well also be a smoker. It's only less harmful because you're not always surrounded by burning cigarettes. To clarify, a pound of second hand smoke particles will be just as harmful a s a pound of first hand smoke particles to your health.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes, but it takes a lot more time and exposure for secondhand smoke to harm you. You get a pound of smoke from directly smoking cigarettes a hell of a lot faster than you get it from secondhand smoke. I could be wrong, but I think that secondhand smoke is less harmful because it gets spread out in the air. It's diluted. Smoke from a cigarette is concentrated, but once it goes into the air it disperses and becomes less concentrated.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

well it depends; young childre/babies and the elderly, people with asthma. I dont think it would take much fore them to be negatively affected.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Then there should be regulations against smoking near extra sensitive people like babies, the elderly, and people with asthma.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Secondhand smoke is unpleasant and annoying, and I would support restrictions on smoking in public based on that.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I personally think cigarettes should be illegal. By doing this, less people would smoke and risk their health, and there would be no second hand smoke issues. Besides, if marijuana is illegal (not trying to defend marijuana in any way), tobacco should be too as it's even more harmful.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Thank God you have no political influences then. I feel this thinking could easily get the uneducated vote.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Reading it again I think I could have worded that much better, and it doesn't really show my actual opinion at all. I am against tobacco use, but the argument I used there had very little credibility. I only brought up marijuana because I hear that point all the time from people trying to legalize it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And if you're just going to call what I said stupid and not explain your opinion, you can just downvote it and not bother commenting.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Better not drive a car then, it harms those around you much more than any cigarette will.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Bad argument. Cars have the intention of getting you from place to place safely and the only harm coming from it is from the consumer itself, not the product (unless it's faulty, but in that case it's an accident, while cigarettes are not accidentally harmful). Cigarettes have harm coming from the product and harm others as well, and although the outcome is similar (both second parties don't want to be harmed), the actions leading to that outcome are different (one is reliant on the consumer's responsibility, the other is reliant on the consumer's usage of their product). Also because both parties for the cars are willingly driving both. Cigarettes has one party willing and the second party unwilling yet still being affected.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Your argument is that it is a bad product because it gives unwanted side effects to people who don't want anything to do with the product. Cars do the exact same along with fucking up entire ecosystems. Ever been to a huge city? The air is almost unbreathable to people who live in areas where there is a minimal use of cars. Next to the damage that cars do, cigarettes are nothing.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I've been to New York City. I even went to the slummish part. It wasn't that polluted, even when I was surrounded by car-filled streets. Cars have a better use, however. And as time passes by, the technology, safety, and eco-friendliness of cars become better and better. Compare a car to today to a car from 20 years ago. Much more sufficient. Cigarettes don't do that. There is nothing to evolve with cigarettes. They're reliant on nicotine to keep the users coming and they have absolutely no societal benefit.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's why there are laws to limit where you can smoke. People are getting so ridiculous about smoking. Secondhand smoke isn't really going to affect you unless you're around it all the time.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Do some actual research. Has smoking been proven harmful to the smokers health? Yes. Has smoking been proven to be harmful to non-smokers health? Definitely NOT. This isn't to say that health issues from others cigarette smoke could never exist, but that it has not ever been proven. All the (mis)information you hear about "second hand smoke disease" was from a SINGLE study that was thrown out of court for containing falsified and biased results. If you read the study that everyone quotes including the American Cancer Assosiation and the Center for Heart Disease, you will find that the quotes came from the misleading made-up parts denied by the court. The actual findings were that there was no difference in the health between a person who had never been around cigarette smoke and a person who had grown up in a house full of indoor smokers. If the smell of smoke bothers you, tell the smoker that instead of perpetuating the bullshit that has been repeated so many times people think it's true without ever questioning it. I dont smoke and I don't appreciate smoke blown in my face, but I'm not going to claim the smoker is giving me a disease.

by Anonymous 11 years ago