Scenario 3

A safe type of cigarette has been invented. It has no negative effect on health, which means that no one who smokes these cigarettes can become ill as a result, and there is no passive smoking as we know it with these new cigarettes. It is also as satisfying to the smoker as current cigarettes are.

However, the smoke itself may still be irritating to some people, just as current cigarettes can be. All cigarette manufacturers have switched to making only this new type of cigarette.

Should there be a smoking ban?

It is still passive smoking if there is smoke involved, and there is no such thing as smoke that is safe to breathe.
You are creating an impossible hypothetical here.

Why dont you just answer the question? You know its hypothetical so just go with it.

What is the point as it's not possible?

The point is that your real answer would be :

"I guess there wouldnt be a need at all for a smoking ban".

But you dont want to say that. You would rather avoid the question at all costs. You are happy to answer other hypothetical questions but not this one. I find that very telling.

The scenario clearly states that there wouldnt be passive smoking "as we know it", and its clear that this means that although you may inhale some smoke, it would be like inhaling air, it would be like inhaling nothing.

This means that your personal reason (YOUR reason, not even every antis reason, just your own) would no longer exist. This scenario threatens you.

If you cant answer a simple question based on a hypothetical scenario which we all can see isnt going to be a reality any time soon, how can you be expected to honestly answer questions based on actual reality which is happening now?

My answer would be, let there be no smoking bans, except (maybe) in situations where it might be a fize hazard. But obviously i disagree with the ban anyway on other grounds.

So whats your answer?

In this scenario there are no cigarettes in excistence other than 100% safe cigarettes. It is a completely hypothetical scenario, yes.

Lilachamster is clearly afraid to admit that if a completely safe cigarette was the only type sold and smoked, that there would be no excuse left to have a smoking ban. Watch as she tries to avoid having to honestly answer the question. Its embarassing to witness.

Safe cigarette = no ones health is even remotely at risk, not the smoker, not the people around them. The only issue that would remain is the fact that some people (including me, i bet that comes as a surprise, hamster) would be irritated by smoke, some more than others. But thats neither here nor there. Bottom line : no excuse left for a ban.

The hamster will argue that if it irritates, then its a health issue. I will then tell her that the only irritation would be aesthetic, nothing harmful. Just an annoyance to some people, nothing more, totally safe. Like an annoying sound.

When she fails, shell then say that its all hypothetical and whats the point (as she already had done). I will then tell her to stop avoiding the question, and that it is clearly hypothetical but worth answering in order establish some facts.

But oh, how she will dream up a new way of avoiding facing this. I wonder what the next excuse will be. Or will she just run away and pretend that this thread doesnt exist?

Since you are so sure you know what I will answer, I don't think I can be bothered frankly..

Ok ok, i got carried away there. Im sure you can relate to that. But that doesnt mean you shouldnt answer, does it? When youre ready.

If smoke is irritating to someone's yes, nose or throat or lungs, of course it is a health issue, I've never been around anyone smoking an e-cigarette so no idea what they are like, I cannot say much until I know can I?

Its funny how you dont have to be a fortune teller to predict what some people will say. Even when they act as if your prediction is incorrect, they then proceed to prove that it was correct.

Hamster, listen : Irritation = irritation. Health issue = health issue. Irritation sometimes can be a health issue, other times it is not. Do you want proof? Here it is : Many things irritate you but they arent a health issue.

Its been made very clear that in this scenario, the cigarettes are 100% safe, which means no health issues whatsoever. They may still irritate, just like a fog machine might irritate some people, just like some medicines have harmless side effects, but again, there are no health issues, no matter how irritating they may be to a minority of people.

You have acted just as i predicted. Do you really want to make a fool of yourself by doing it again?

The question is clear. Dont avoid it, answer it. And dont start acting all hurt and patronised just because the question is uncomfortable. You keep avoiding questions (and not just on this thread) so you need to be reminded.

Again I must clarify that in this scenario, the cigarettes are 100% harmless.

Hamster? Your response? Please dont walk away from every single discussion.

I'm afraid I can't agree about the '100% safe' e-cigarette.

Such has been the success of the 'smoking kills' campaign that almost every smoker seems to have lost sight of why they continue smoking. We're told it's all about the nicotine. It isn't.

Unless you try a naturally-cured, whole-leaf tobacco you will have little idea of the wholesomeness of smoking. This is, to the average smoke, what home grown, freshly picked vegetables are to that limp stuff you find at the supermarket. Smoked without a filter, it is a perfectly balanced tonic for health and well-being. I have no idea if there are 4,000 chemicals in cigarette smoke or not. However many there are, I like them all and it seems really wasteful to single out just one - nicotine. Isn't that a bit like extracting the cod liver oil and binning the fish?

Having said that, I have occasionally 'vaped' my husband's e-cig, but only in places where you wouldn't normally smoke, like Wickes and the library. It's very good for winding up antis who, for some reason, have no sense of smell and quite poor eye-sight.