Originally Posted by Reaver

In an area where air is well circulated, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will "get high" from inhaling some of the smoke.

Originally Posted by JavaBlack

What sense does that make? Outlaw one form of secondhand smoke but legalize one that is less filtered, harsher on the lungs, and can cause passers by to get high when in contact.

I'm for legalizing weed and keeping cigarettes legal. However I also say you only have the absolute right to smoke either on your own private property.
And if one does so abusively, not taking into account the people around him, I think society should do more to stigmatize this person as the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) he is!

Originally Posted by Eldedu

There is this whole fashion of insulting people who smoke just for indulging in a vice. Why do you not curse at gamblers who throw away their familys earnings? At obese people who often have obese children too (you're eating habits are moulded on those of your parents)?

Originally Posted by Eldedu

Because its fashionable to get all righteous and pissed off at law abiding citizens who wish to smoke. Don't get me wrong, i don't and never have, I just don't feel like calling people all sorts of names just because he chooses to do something I don't. 30 seconds with a smoker in a lift, twice a day, will not cause you ANY long term problems. So instead of doing the whole "Sir! put that (*)(*)(*)(*)ing cigarette out!" let him do his thing.

Originally Posted by Eldedu

As for the harsher on the lungs? What messed-up anti-tobacco but somehow more anti-marijuana lobby do you work for? Harsher on the memory, perhaps, but only slightly. Nobody got any sort of cancer ever from smoking joints. The worst they got was a little more forgetful..

Originally Posted by Eldedu

Second hand smoke will kill you over time, if exposed to it for huge periods of time (i.e. living in a family where both parents are smokers will hurt the kids, but only large doses such as the above mentioned)

Originally Posted by Eldedu

however, with a joint: You do not get high from passing by someone smoking a joint. you do not get high from standing right next to someone smoking a joint for any length of time out in the open. Have a restricted section in restaurants and bars, and thats that.

Originally Posted by Eldedu

in fact, if I think about it, I don't even think you should bother banning cigarettes. just legalize marijuana. get rid of half of the drug trade in the US, get rid of a lot of crime, and free up a lot of needed space in our jails.

Originally Posted by JavaBlack

I would tend to agree that those behaviors are also bad.
But they do not force me to gamble away my money, nor do they force me to eat their food.

As for the insultingness... I regularly see smokers light up wherever they want, get pissy when they're told they can't, litter their butts all over floors and nature.
I don't see too many fat people vaocally and dramatically complaining because they have to hold off eating at someone's house, eating in the middle of an inappropriate place (except on TV), or throwing chicken bones all over public floors and my yard.

I realize not all smokers are rude (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s... but I really love to (*)(*)(*)(*) off the ones that are. That's my vice.

hey, if a guys a bastard, call him on it. just don't assume all smokers are bastards

The problem is that half the time if these self-important smokers are lighting up in the type of place where one might have such a complaint, he is sending out a nonverbal "People with asthma, smoke allergies, or who just want to breathe clean air ARE NOT WELCOME HERE".
I can deal with these people mistaking an addiction for freedom, but believing that their addiction entitles them to subject other people to it is arrogant.

Maybe he hasn't thought of that. Try asking him nicely to go somewhere else before you get all pissed off, that's all I'm saying

People don't smoke pot as often as nicotine, as it is not physically addictive or as available.

You'd be surprised

So they don't end up as often with cancer.
But the smoke is unfiltered and harsh. Unit by unit there are at least some studies that show it to be a larger cause of lung cancer... cancelled out by the fact of less exposure over time.
It wasn't all that important. I was just trying to get across how bizarre it sounds to outlaw cigarettes but not pot.

Bizarre because it hasn't been done perhaps? Anyway, I'm sure there's some way to filter marijuana without weakening it


You're overlooking the public workplace. Smoking is most common amongst low-salary employees. Rules about smoking places are typically ignored. And there is usually no point in the non-smoking employee complaining... nor are there a surplus of non-smoking workplaces for the low-skilled.

I had not considered lower-skilled workplaces. Good point


I could agree with a restricted section (and better regulated than current smoking sections... a line in the floor does not magically stop smoke)... but my point was again the strangeness of outlawing cigarettes and not pot.
Pot smoke will eventually cause cancer with enough exposure.
And, yes, contact buzzes do happen. Even out in the open, if there is enough smoke around.

Not to me they haven't. But maybe I've just built up a resistance :P


At least now, that's consistent.
I believe in keeping both legal, but regulating public use (ie more meaningful division of sections in resturaunts; licensing like liquor, beer, and wine for establishments; banned from public-owned parks and buildings) and possibly a ban on some of the chemicals they put in cigarettes to increase the addiction rate.

Originally Posted by JavaBlack

What sense does that make? Outlaw one form of secondhand smoke but legalize one that is less filtered, harsher on the lungs, and can cause passers by to get high when in contact.

Originally Posted by Skinny.

Wait, you can get high just from being around someone smoking weed? BRB, jazz club (I'm going to save a bundle this way).