http://www.mychoice.ca - Fighting for smoker's right...

[dlowe93]

Originally posted by iaskwhy
You couldn't name a person who ever died of second hand smoke inhalation if your own life depended on it, so why use it in an arguement?

Your right on that one. I can, however, name a good friend who just had to go through extensive kemo to reduce the size of the tumor in his lung to a point where it was operable. Fortunately he's healthy and cancer-free now. It only cost him a third of his left lung.

Dude is 36 years old, never smoked a day in his life. He did grow up with a chainsmoking parent. Coincidence i'm sure.

d.

[dlowe93]

I guess my issue with smokers is not with the considerate ones, of which there are many, it's with the people who feel that they have a god-given right to smoke whenever or wherever they please.

True story: this summer i was pushing my two-year old on the swings at the park, and two women came up, planted their kids in the swings next to us, and promptly lit up.

Now work with me here. On what grounds is this even remotely acceptable?

When i had the nerve to suggest that a playground probably wasn't the best place to smoke, you should have heard the response i got. Good thing i don't swear in front of my kids.

It's bad enough that you are poisioning your own kids, but don't even think for a second that you are going to poison mine. At the very least i should be able to put a few drops of cleaning fluid into their kids' juice cups to even out the exchange, right?

d.

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

Originally posted by dlowe93
Your right on that one. I can, however, name a good friend who just had to go through extensive kemo to reduce the size of the tumor in his lung to a point where it was operable. Fortunately he's healthy and cancer-free now. It only cost him a third of his left lung.

Dude is 36 years old, never smoked a day in his life. He did grow up with a chainsmoking parent. Coincidence i'm sure.

d.

Of course there's no coincidence. I didn't really think the harm caused by second hand smoke was debatable. If so, then that's another argument altogether.

But if we assume it is harmful, then as has been said numerous times (but once more for the dummies): laws are introduced due to people abusing the freedoms we all have. Easy concept, and unfortunately smokers have abused the fact that they can smoke wherever they please, hence they must now have restrictions placed on them within public places.

Just like restrictions that are placed on every other facet of our lives that cause harm to others - including the level of pollution coming out of that bus that was brought up earlier. That also has to adhere to environmental laws.

You know, the only thing smokers are saying by arguing against these laws are that they should have the right to cause somebody ill health if they choose to. And what sort of selfish fool would want that?

Unfortunately Me Lowe's story of people lighting up like that are not exceptions to the rule, hence the reason for the laws.

So smokers, get over it and realise that people don't want to be poisoned by your fumes. Go picket the tobacco companies to develop non-poinsonous cigarettes rather than say that we don't have the right to breathe cleaner air.

Poison yourself all you want - that is your choice - but don't poison me or my kids. End of story.

(and cigarrette butts could be a whole other discussion. Show me a polluted area that doesn't contain hundreds of butts.... )