NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright. I know that certain people on this forum (Melkor baby, I'm looking at you!) are very against a government imposed ban on smoking. (We don't seem to make such a big deal about it in Canada though, most people, smokers included just go, 'meh' to the whole thing and move on). However, if a referendum is held in a municipality, and the decision is made by the majority, would you be happy with the way that the ban was implemented? Is it just that you don't want a government unilaterally imposing this restriction? Would it be better if the majority in a particular area did?

Edit: to clear up confusions, I'm talking about banning smoking in the workplace, whether privately or publicly owned. You could still smoke outside, or in your home.

I would prefer if the ban was held by referendum. (Actually, I'd prefer everything to be held by referendum.) But I think the best way would be for it to be banned, and smokers sentenced to rehab as opposed to jail. (And extend this to all other drug users, as well.)

We have too many laws already. The last thing we need is a war on cigarettes to go along with all of our other losing and expensive wars on our own citizenry.

(Actually, I'd prefer everything to be held by referendum.) Ditto.



But I think the best way would be for it to be banned, and smokers sentenced to rehab as opposed to jail. (And extend this to all other drug users, as well.)Uh, no. Sorry. No agreement:).

We have too many laws already. The last thing we need is a war on cigarettes to go along with all of our other losing and expensive wars on our own citizenry.
I don't see how the smoking bans in my country have caused any serious problems...

I'm all for strict quality standards for all smoking-related products, so that people won't die from the poisons they're sucking in. That would vastly improve things.

I'm definitely not for a smoking ban.

I'm all for strict quality standards for all smoking-related products, so that people won't die from the poisons they're sucking in. That would vastly improve things. Yeah, like that would ever happen...good luck getting the smoking lobby to clean up their product.

I'm definitely not for a smoking ban.
Even when people in a particular area decide that's what they want?

I'm undecided, but the other drug bans have been such utter failures, I'm seriously doubtful about enacting another one.

A couple enters a restaurant and the waiter approaches them.
Waiter: "Smoker or passive smoker?"

As a militant non-smoker, I say BAN IT! I don't have a problem with people screwing up their livers when they drink, because they can do so without endangering my health in the process. If smoking is so damn unhealthy, it should be restricted to air tight compartments with special ventilation.

Uh, no. Sorry. No agreement:).
So would you prefer drug users being sent to jail? Or do you think drugs should be legal, regardless if the majority of people voted to ban them?

Yeah, like that would ever happen...good luck getting the smoking lobby to clean up their product.

Sadly, it probably won't happen. We have way too many Capitalist/Consumerists with the collective intellect of a cockroach running things.

Even when people in a particular area decide that's what they want?

Take a look at my Political Compass standings, then make your own decision on where I stand on this issue.

*I'm not one for tyranny of the majority, and bans like this are a part of it.

I'm undecided, but the other drug bans have been such utter failures, I'm seriously doubtful about enacting another one.
A smoking ban would entail a ban on smoking in workplaces, not a ban on smoking at all. You could smoke outside, or in your home.

I think smoking should be banned in enclosed spaces, work places, restaurants and what not..

HOWEVER, you can apply for a (very expensive) liscence that allows such spaces to allow smoking. However there'll be regular check-ups to ensure the place is well ventilated, offer smoking and non-smoking areas and what not.

So would you prefer drug users being sent to jail? Or do you think drugs should be legal, regardless if the majority of people voted to ban them?
I think we're talking about different things, sorry if I was unclear. I don't support banning all smoking. It would never work. And it would be silly. I mean, banning smoking in any workplace (public or privately owned).

Stop me from smoking in public for reasons of pollution, and I'll push for a ban on private automobiles. As a pedestrian, I really don't appreciate all the one body/car commuters I see. I don't pollute nearly as much as you all do.

In Germany, what's been reducing the number of smokers is the rising taxes on cigarettes. It's been so successful, in fact, that our finance minister isn't getting the tax revenue he counted on and he can't really tell people to go out and smoke more, can he? :D

I'd support banning smoking in offices, and give companies the right not to hire smokers. Productivity and money are wasted due to the health costs, the wasted time, and the overall negative effects of smoking, and act as nothing more than a drag on the economy for the benefit of one industry, the tobacco industry.

I'd also legalize marijuana and put it to the same standards; that would more than make up for the damage done to the tobacco industry.

Stop me from smoking in public for reasons of pollution, and I'll push for a ban on private automobiles. As a pedestrian, I really don't appreciate all the one body/car commuters I see. I don't pollute nearly as much as you all do.
Blah blah blah. This argument is so common, and so tiresome. Automobile emissions versus smoking. Whatever. If a municipality wants to ban automobiles in favour of bikes, sure. No need to make ill-fitting comparisons. What's next...bumping it up to talk about banning factories? :rolleyes:

Stop me from smoking in public for reasons of pollution, and I'll push for a ban on private automobiles. As a pedestrian, I really don't appreciate all the one body/car commuters I see. I don't pollute nearly as much as you all do.

We don't have private automobiles in my neighbourhood. The difference between where I live and the city is really obvious. It's so beautiful.

I think smoking should be banned in enclosed spaces, work places, restaurants and what not..

HOWEVER, you can apply for a (very expensive) liscence that allows such spaces to allow smoking. However there'll be regular check-ups to ensure the place is well ventilated, offer smoking and non-smoking areas and what not.Why should the liscence be expensive? I would patronise restaurants that allowed me to smoke, and non-smokers would eat in smoke-free restaurants. It should be up to the owner of the restaurant or bar to decide, and there is a demand for both smoking and non-smoking.

I'd try to stop the big, tobacco corporations from getting sny new costumers. The last thing people need is a psychological need for a cancer-causing stick of poisons. You'd be surprised how much rat poison is in a single cigarette. Cigarrettes are too addictive to be good. I'd say we need stricter laws concerning teens smoking. Send them to juvy before their prison term starts. i don't want some punk giving me cancer.

Alright. I know that certain people on this forum (Melkor baby, I'm looking at you!) are very against a government imposed ban on smoking. (We don't seem to make such a big deal about it in Canada though, most people, smokers included just go, 'meh' to the whole thing and move on). However, if a referendum is held in a municipality, and the decision is made by the majority, would you be happy with the way that the ban was implemented? Is it just that you don't want a government unilaterally imposing this restriction? Would it be better if the majority in a particular area did?

Edit: to clear up confusions, I'm talking about banning smoking in the workplace, whether privately or publicly owned. You could still smoke outside, or in your home.
Heh. I could tell right away just looking at the thread title that this one was meant for me. I will oblige and offer my two cents:

Banning smoking in the workplace is a decision to be handled by the proprietor of the individual establishment rather than a blanket government policy. There are hundreds of smoke-free restaurants in every city in the nation, yet many municipalities are making smoking bans mandatory. This bothers me in principle because as a general rule I have a problem with the government stepping in and telling the private sector what to do.

Even if there is a health risk involved [the EPA study cited by Stand and the ACS, among others, was thrown out by a US court in 1998; to date no other organizations have bothered to do any real research], the decision should still be placed in the hands of the indiviudal, not the masses. If the individual should happen to make a decision that the masses don't agree with, they're welcome to find another place to eat. If business falls off because of it, the owner will ban smoking right-quick.

Stop me from smoking in public for reasons of pollution, and I'll push for a ban on private automobiles. As a pedestrian, I really don't appreciate all the one body/car commuters I see. I don't pollute nearly as much as you all do.Well, the problem is that standing next to a smoker sucks more for a non-smoker than seeing and smelling and hearing cars as a pedestrian. I'm both, and the former is the worse situation. And it's not like cars drive through the restaurant, bar, club, house, office, school, you're at...

*snip snippity snip*
So what you'd like to see is non-smokers becoming more militant, and picketing businesses that allow smoking?

Why should the liscence be expensive? I would patronise restaurants that allowed me to smoke, and non-smokers would eat in smoke-free restaurants. It should be up to the owner of the restaurant or bar to decide, and there is a demand for both smoking and non-smoking.

If it wasn't expensive then what's the point in the ban?

Why should the liscence be expensive? I would patronise restaurants that allowed me to smoke, and non-smokers would eat in smoke-free restaurants. It should be up to the owner of the restaurant or bar to decide, and there is a demand for both smoking and non-smoking.

Exactly. People need to vote on this issue with their dollars. If people refused to go to smoking restaurants and bars instead of running to the government, then the businesses would listen.

I would not support a ban, but maybe restrict smoking to non-enclosed areas where all that 2nd hand smoke does not recycled around.

And I wouldn't stop people smoking at home - it's their choice to pollute their own home.

Blah blah blah. This argument is so common, and so tiresome. Automobile emissions versus smoking. Whatever. If a municipality wants to ban automobiles in favour of bikes, sure. No need to make ill-fitting comparisons. What's next...bumping it up to talk about banning factories? :rolleyes:Um, if I had my way, we would ban factories. Considering that we still burn coal for energy in Ontario, I get a little pissed off when people start bitching about my cigarettes.

So what you'd like to see is non-smokers becoming more militant, and picketing businesses that allow smoking?
Heh. No, not exactly. I'd like to see them grow a brain. Seriously, a lot of anti-smoking people are fuckin' nuts. I ran into one once that tried to tell me that smoking a cigarette outside posed an unacceptable risk to him. You should have seen the look on my face.

But no, really, the real issue here is proprietorship: if people want to waste their lives trying to change the habits of others they're more than welcome to try, and most business owners would probably acquiesce to them if thir business fell off significantly.

However, the fact of the matter is [if restaurant attendance is to be any indicator], most people don't seem to have a problem with sitting 30 feet away from a smoker once a week for a meal. Since this is generally the limit of exposure for people who take pains to avoid smokers, I fail to see how this will give anyone cancer.

Besides, even if the EPA study is to be believed, the chances of getting cancer from ETS are a lot lower than most things we accept in life.

Even if there is a health risk involved [the EPA study cited by Stand and the ACS, among others, was thrown out by a US court in 1998; to date no other organizations have bothered to do any real research], the decision should still be placed in the hands of the indiviudal, not the masses. If the individual should happen to make a decision that the masses don't agree with, they're welcome to find another place to eat. If business falls off because of it, the owner will ban smoking right-quick.Yes, lets trust the market to regulate itself. :rolleyes:
The problem isn't only that it's a health problem, but it's not just a health problem for the person smoking. It's a health problem for the people near him/her, and even more so, because THEY DON'T HAVE FILTERS!!!

Public areas: If there is sufficient evidence that short-term secondhand smoke causes harm to others, than smoking should be banned in public areas. You should not be able to infringe on another individuals well-being while in a public area.

Private businesses: Utterly rediculous, and insulting to the intelligence of business owners and patrons alike. This is a matter of simple economics: If a business owner primarily caters to smokers, why should he be forced to change his business model for the worse? People should have the freedom to choose whether they will go to a smoking or nonsmoking resteraunt, club, bar, or other business. Nanny-state legislation like this is insane.

I don't think it's a complicated issue.

Though I'm not a smoker, I'm dead against a ban. They pay for the NHS, and Oxwana raises a good point on the air pollution/cars front.

Public areas: If there is sufficient evidence that short-term secondhand smoke causes harm to others, than smoking should be banned in public areas. You should not be able to infringe on another individuals well-being while in a public area.

Private businesses: Utterly rediculous, and insulting to the intelligence of business owners and patrons alike. This is a matter of simple economics: If a business owner primarily caters to smokers, why should he be forced to change his business model for the worse? People should have the freedom to choose whether they will go to a smoking or nonsmoking resteraunt, club, bar, or other business. Nanny-state legislation like this is insane.

I don't think it's a complicated issue.

*agrees*

Exactly. People need to vote on this issue with their dollars. If people refused to go to smoking restaurants and bars instead of running to the government, then the businesses would listen.In my municipality, it is already illegal to smoke in restaurants and bars.
There is talk of making it illegal for us to smoke in the covered patios that the bars have spent a lot of money to build just recently. It is at least understandable that we smoke in the open air. Making us smoke out in the rain (and snow) is just ridiculous.

A couple enters a restaurant and the waiter approaches them.
Waiter: "Smoker or passive smoker?"

As a militant non-smoker, I say BAN IT! I don't have a problem with people screwing up their livers when they drink, because they can do so without endangering my health in the process. If smoking is so damn unhealthy, it should be restricted to air tight compartments with special ventilation.
What about drunk drivers? Drunk people cause a lot of problems.

Leave other people alone, even if it does annoy you. Just stop bitching and ignore it (I dont' smoke, by the way). If the owner of a piece of property wants to ban smoking there, then it's their choice. However, the government has no place banning it in private places. An attempted ban in general would also be wrong.

A smoking ban would entail a ban on smoking in workplaces, not a ban on smoking at all. You could smoke outside, or in your home.

Oh, then it's what we already have here. It works nicely, so I guess I'm not undecided any more. :eek:

Blah blah blah. This argument is so common, and so tiresome. Automobile emissions versus smoking. Whatever. If a municipality wants to ban automobiles in favour of bikes, sure. No need to make ill-fitting comparisons. What's next...bumping it up to talk about banning factories? :rolleyes:

It's not that ill-fitting a comparison, which is a reason why the analogy comes up so much (and independently too).

Here's why. One of the major reasons anti-smokers wish to put bans on smoking (usually even on public smoking too) is held to be because smoke pollutes the environment with noxious substances, which are held to cause cancer to a reasonable percentage of anyone who happens to inhale them.

One of the accusations made by anti-smokers to the pro-smoking crowd is that the pro-smokers are just "addicted" and that therefore their entire argument is biased as being a result of chemicals and not, for example, a desire for liberty.

So it's only natural to turn that particular "insight" mirror around on the anti-smokers (most of whom are not anti-automobile) and call into question why they feel automobiles are necessary (since they pollute) and, in fact, the very concept of "addiction" itself. If being a smoker makes you an addict, does being a driver make you one too? This seems ridiculous, but so is the "anything that might cause cancer should be banned" argument, and that's the point.

Sure, no one "needs" cigarettes, but humanity doesn't "need" automobiles either. Humanity would be fine with banning both. But those anti-smokers seem less concerned with pollution than they are in preventing smokers from smoking at all. It's a position of hypocrisy, and it's made worse when people start trying to discredit the opposition on the basis of psychological conditions assumed to be held.

Anyway, that doesn't apply here since you're only talking about a limited ban.

I still think if a "workplace" wants to have a no smoking rule, they should have every right to expect it enforced without a Law decreeing smoking is banned in all workplaces. It's the same if a business wants to forbid people who aren't wearing shirts or shoes, or wants to reserve the right not to sell to a customer. Government intervention is not required unless people harass or abuse the workplace in question. In a public employment situation it's the same thing. It's a decision that should be made at the lowest level, where it's more likely to be relevant.

Yes, lets trust the market to regulate itself. :rolleyes:
The problem isn't only that it's a health problem, but it's not just a health problem for the person smoking. It's a health problem for the people near him/her, and even more so, because THEY DON'T HAVE FILTERS!!!

The risk of damage from second hand smoke for people who go to restaurants and sit in the nonsmoking section is pretty much 0. Second hand smoke damage occurs from regular, prolonged, and concentrated exposure. E.G. someone who is married to a smoker who is inconsiderate enough to smoke in the house every day.

Yes, lets trust the market to regulate itself. :rolleyes:
The problem isn't only that it's a health problem, but it's not just a health problem for the person smoking. It's a health problem for the people near him/her, and even more so, because THEY DON'T HAVE FILTERS!!!
You really, really don't want to get into an argument with me about the health effects of second hand smoke.

I'm serious. You won't last very long.

Although I would be remiss in pointing out that there is a very real possibility that the threat does exist, but it has not to date been properly researched as far as I am aware. Furthermore, your response does nothing to answer to the fact that [even accepting the EPA study] you're far more likely to be in a serious automobile accident than you are likely to contract lung cancer from ETS.

Both of these things can be caused either by the self or by other people, and both typically result in death. However, neither example justifies that cigarettes should not be smoked or cars should not be driven.

I'd support banning smoking in offices, and give companies the right not to hire smokers. Productivity and money are wasted due to the health costs, the wasted time, and the overall negative effects of smoking, and act as nothing more than a drag on the economy for the benefit of one industry, the tobacco industry.ok, Benito.
So I can decide not to hire meat-eaters? Or people who drink? You cannot control what I do when you are not paying me. Smoking is banned in offices where I live, as it should be. What I do on my breaks is none of your goddamn business.

Heh. No, not exactly. I'd like to see them grow a brain. Seriously, a lot of anti-smoking people are fuckin' nuts. I ran into one once that tried to tell me that smoking a cigarette outside posed an unacceptable risk to him. You should have seen the look on my face.It actually does pose an unacceptable risk if you're standing upwind from him...

But no, really, the real issue here is proprietorship: if people want to waste their lives trying to change the habits of others they're more than welcome to try, and most business owners would probably acquiesce to them if thir business fell off significantly.

However, the fact of the matter is [if restaurant attendance is to be any indicator], most people don't seem to have a problem with sitting 30 feet away from a smoker once a week for a meal. Since this is generally the limit of exposure for people who take pains to avoid smokers, I fail to see how this will give anyone cancer.
The problem with that is, there isn't really any alternative restaurant around to visit. The "market regulates itself" idea is totally pointless. I have a problem with sitting 30 feet away from a smoker while eating, but since there aren't any laws against it yet, I'm not going to bitch at them. And this completely fails to address the issue that passive smoke affects someone who doesn't smoke. If someone wants to commit prolonged suicide, be my guest, but don't involve me in it.

Exactly. People need to vote on this issue with their dollars. If people refused to go to smoking restaurants and bars instead of running to the government, then the businesses would listen.
Democracy through capitalism:) I'm not a huge supporter of that. It has limited use. (you can only get so far with boycotts)

I think we're talking about different things, sorry if I was unclear. I don't support banning all smoking. It would never work. And it would be silly. I mean, banning smoking in any workplace (public or privately owned).Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. :)

Stop me from smoking in public for reasons of pollution, and I'll push for a ban on private automobiles. As a pedestrian, I really don't appreciate all the one body/car commuters I see. I don't pollute nearly as much as you all do.I have no problem with banning cars, provided there is a sufficient form of public transportation.

In Germany, what's been reducing the number of smokers is the rising taxes on cigarettes. It's been so successful, in fact, that our finance minister isn't getting the tax revenue he counted on and he can't really tell people to go out and smoke more, can he? Interesting. Here in the US, such taxes don't really do much to curb smoking. Perhaps yours in Germany are higher, comparitively?

Why should the liscence be expensive? I would patronise restaurants that allowed me to smoke, and non-smokers would eat in smoke-free restaurants. It should be up to the owner of the restaurant or bar to decide, and there is a demand for both smoking and non-smoking.Why should the employees of those establishments be forced to breathe in secondhand smoke?

Um, if I had my way, we would ban factories. Considering that we still burn coal for energy in Ontario, I get a little pissed off when people start bitching about my cigarettes.
Corporate pollution and personal pollution are not directly comparable...though I'm with you on the coal front. And frankly, I would fully support a ban on hydrocarbon-burning vehicles...but I doubt most people would back me up on that. Frankly, it's another issue altogether that can not be addressed alongside the smoking question.

It actually does pose an unacceptable risk if you're standing upwind from him...

What's unacceptable about it? You accept all the risks of breathing in automobile fumes whenever you're near one of those, and there are of course far more automobiles and streets than there are smokers.


The problem with that is, there isn't really any alternative restaurant around to visit.

Terrible. Of course you can live without attending restaraunts, can't you?

What about drunk drivers? Drunk people cause a lot of problems.

Leave other people alone, even if it does annoy you. Just stop bitching and ignore it (I dont' smoke, by the way). If the owner of a piece of property wants to ban smoking there, then it's their choice. However, the government has no place banning it in private places. An attempted ban in general would also be wrong.This is a discussion on banning smoking, so if my opinion sounds like bitching to you, get over it. I don't bitch at people in public, but I'll damn well do it here.

It actually does pose an unacceptable risk if you're standing upwind from him...
That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my entire life. It would only be a risk if I fucking shotgunned a hit to him. If you notice, when people blow out smoke, it tends to disperse, meaning that unless he's less than 10 inches from my face, the smoke will be so sparse that the only notable effects would be limited to a momentary foul odor.

I seriously doubt anyone stnading any meaningful distance away fould inhale more than, say, a tenth of a percent of my hit. And if he's such an anti-smoking person, he shouldn't be up in my face when I'm smoking in the first place.

The problem with that is, there isn't really any alternative restaurant around to visit. The "market regulates itself" idea is totally pointless. I have a problem with sitting 30 feet away from a smoker while eating, but since there aren't any laws against it yet, I'm not going to bitch at them. And this completely fails to address the issue that passive smoke affects someone who doesn't smoke. If someone wants to commit prolonged suicide, be my guest, but don't involve me in it.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that you can't find a non-smoking restaurant in your city? And you expect me to believe that?

How about talking to the owner instead of going straight to the government? Why can't private citizens solve their own problems anymore?

Why should the employees of those establishments be forced to breathe in secondhand smoke?
They aren't forced to do so. They can simply find another job.

It actually does pose an unacceptable risk if you're standing upwind from him...My cigarette does not spew nearly as much "unacceptable" pollution as a car, or even a city bus. Pollution is pollution, and if we are going to outlaw some of it based on it's health risks, we should outlaw all of it.
No more cars, factories, fireplaces, barbecues... I'd be a happy girl.

They aren't forced to do so. They can simply find another job.I disagree. Smoking should not be permitted in workplaces and public buildings. Private establishments are a different matter.

Heh. No, not exactly. I'd like to see them grow a brain. Seriously, a lot of anti-smoking people are fuckin' nuts. I ran into one once that tried to tell me that smoking a cigarette outside posed an unacceptable risk to him. You should have seen the look on my face.I think you're allowing radicals to paint the rest of us with nasty brushes:). My husband, my parents, my inlaws, my friends all smoke. I don't feel any need to persecute them for a problem that is affecting them more seriously than it is me. But they also respect the right of non-smokers, and don't puff around them. And none of them have any problem with going to the patio of the bar to smoke. Though come winter, that could change...we'll see...

But no, really, the real issue here is proprietorship: if people want to waste their lives trying to change the habits of others they're more than welcome to try, and most business owners would probably acquiesce to them if thir business fell off significantly.

However, the fact of the matter is [if restaurant attendance is to be any indicator], most people don't seem to have a problem with sitting 30 feet away from a smoker once a week for a meal. Since this is generally the limit of exposure for people who take pains to avoid smokers, I fail to see how this will give anyone cancer.

Besides, even if the EPA study is to be believed, the chances of getting cancer from ETS are a lot lower than most things we accept in life.
Cancer is not the issue for me...not with as little exposure as I get. But even my husband, the filthy smoker he is, agrees that trying to eat while breathing in nasty smoking fumes is not pleasant. So when we refuse to eat in this town (where smoking is allowed) and choose to eat in the city (where it's banned), we're making a choice...but not one that is going to significantly alter the smoking regulations in our town. Consumer power is a myth.

I disagree. Smoking should not be permitted in workplaces and public buildings. Private establishments are a different matter.

Many, if not most workplaces are privately owned. So when you say private establishments, do you actually mean houses?

ok, Benito.
So I can decide not to hire meat-eaters? Or people who drink? You cannot control what I do when you are not paying me. Smoking is banned in offices where I live, as it should be. What I do on my breaks is none of your goddamn business.

Well, in a private company, they can simply deny hiring to smokers or anyone they want as long as there is justifiable reason for it; if a person takes a break on company time, the company should have the right to place limits on what they can do, for productivity and liability reasons.

It is at least understandable that we smoke in the open air. Making us smoke out in the rain (and snow) is just ridiculous.
Agreed.

Smoking and passivly smoking are dangerous to your health, I don't see why 75% oof the population have to suffer in Britain just because 25% want to slowly kill themselves.

Ban it and make all public spaces nicer places to be.

Well, the problem is that standing next to a smoker sucks more for a non-smoker than seeing and smelling and hearing cars as a pedestrian. I'm both, and the former is the worse situation. And it's not like cars drive through the restaurant, bar, club, house, office, school, you're at...That is totally subjective, and I disagree. Which is "worse" cannot be objectively determined, and so either both or neither should be banned (for reasons of disturbing fellow citizens).

You really, really don't want to get into an argument with me about the health effects of second hand smoke.

I'm serious. You won't last very long.
I won't last long anyway, my battery is at 33%. Consider it an opportunity to attempt to convince me.

Although I would be remiss in pointing out that there is a very real possibility that the threat does exist, but it has not to date been properly researched as far as I am aware. Furthermore, your response does nothing to answer to the fact that [even accepting the EPA study] you're far more likely to be in a serious automobile accident than you are likely to contract lung cancer from ETS. So you admit that a threat does exist. To be honest, it doesn't matter if it's been researched or not. On such an issue, it's better to be safe than sorry. As for the accident comparison: You're far more likely to be in a serious automobile accident than a lot of other things. It's not an excuse.

Both of these things can be caused either by the self or by other people, and both typically result in death. However, neither example justifies that cigarettes should not be smoked or cars should not be driven.I'm pretty sure there's more benefits derived from driving a car than from smoking a cigarette. What good does a cigarette do? It calms you down. That seriously isn't enough to compensate for the bad it does, and since that can't just be restricted to the smoker, I'd prefer if it got banned in public. You can't seriously be comparing cars to cigarettes. I've never seen a cigarette used to transport kids to school or anything similar.

So when we refuse to eat in this town (where smoking is allowed) and choose to eat in the city (where it's banned), we're making a choice...but not one that is going to significantly alter the smoking regulations in our town. Consumer power is a myth.

Not really. If enough people were as passionate about it as you are, things would change. And if they aren't, then why should the government trample over the rights of others to make you happy?

Smoking should be banned in all public areas.
My logic here is that a smoker's right to smoke does not trump a non-smoker's right to fresh air.

Smoking should NEVER be banned in people's cars or homes, ala some Californian laws (among others) have attempted to do.
My logic here is that it's your own property, you should be able to do whatever you want in/on it.

Further, the local government MUST allow smoking optional establishments. For example, if the local pub decides it wants smoking, it must become a "smoking" bar and pay for a smoking license, just as they must pay for a liquor license.
My logic here is that having a total ban on smoking in any privately owned establishment is unreasonable. It should be enforced only if it is decided to BE a non-smoking establishment.

It's not that ill-fitting a comparison, which is a reason why the analogy comes up so much (and independently too).

Here's why. One of the major reasons anti-smokers wish to put bans on smoking (usually even on public smoking too) is held to be because smoke pollutes the environment with noxious substances,
I'm just going to stop you there (before I read the rest. No. That is not the argument. Only a complete nutjob would say that smoking harms the environment in any significant way. It's not about the environment, it's about fellow humans in enclosed spaces, with significant exposure. The health issue isn't even about patrons of a smoking establishment...it's about the workers there. And yeah yeah yeah, they choose to work there...like there are so many non-smoking places for waiters and waitresses to choose among. Anyway...don't try to make this about the environment.

That is totally subjective, and I disagree. Which is "worse" cannot be objectively determined, and so either both or neither should be banned (for reasons of disturbing fellow citizens).It would be "subjective" if smoking was limited to places that cars had access to. Since I'm not confronted with car exhausts in bars or restaurants, I tend to view smoking as the greater evil.

Many, if not most workplaces are privately owned. So when you say private establishments, do you actually mean houses?Places I pay to go to. Smoking and non-smoking movie theatres, restaurants, bars. Non-smoking churches, workplaces, malls.

Smoking benefits no one except for tobacco farmers and tobacco companies. The smoker suffers from addiction, lung damage and increased likeliness of getting almost every form of cancer. The people around the smoker have to deal with the smell of the smoke which is horrible and second hand smoking which can be bad for individuals especially those with asthma and the like. The environment around the smoker has to deal with the smoke this includes the environment. I would go so far as to claim that we should completely ban smoking because it hurts society very much, or we could not only allow it but also establish a "Crack for Kids" program that teaches kids the economic and sociological benefits of crack and tells them that smoking crack is part of liberty.

I think you're allowing radicals to paint the rest of us with nasty brushes:).
Yeah, it's an unfortunate trend. I have to admit that while I have some philosophical sympathies with these people , I have absolutely no respect for the manner in which they go about accomplishing their goals.

My husband, my parents, my inlaws, my friends all smoke. I don't feel any need to persecute them for a problem that is affecting them more seriously than it is me. But they also respect the right of non-smokers, and don't puff around them. And none of them have any problem with going to the patio of the bar to smoke. Though come winter, that could change...we'll see...
Right. If someone tells me that they don't like smoke, I won't smoke around them. If it upsets them and I am unable to relocate, I will not make myself an imposition. I do, however, have a problem with people trying to tell me that every time I light up a cigarette I'm killing other people. Not being 21, the city-wide smoking ban in bars doesn't affect me yet, and I will acclimate myself to a smoke free bar environement to begin with. Technically, I'm not missing out on anything.


Cancer is not the issue for me...not with as little exposure as I get. But even my husband, the filthy smoker he is, agrees that trying to eat while breathing in nasty smoking fumes is not pleasant. So when we refuse to eat in this town (where smoking is allowed) and choose to eat in the city (where it's banned), we're making a choice...but not one that is going to significantly alter the smoking regulations in our town. Consumer power is a myth.
A valid complaint to be quite sure, but like I keep saying there are hundreds of smoke free restaurants in every city: in fact, most of them [unless they're chains] don't allow smoking at all, ban or no ban. Hell, the ones that [i]do allow smoking generally don't have fantastic food to begin with. The mom and pop restaurants are where it's at.

What good does a cigarette do? It calms you down.Not to nitpick, but nicotine is a stimulant. It only calms people down because they think it does.

It would be "subjective" if smoking was limited to places that cars had access to. Since I'm not confronted with car exhausts in bars or restaurants, I tend to view smoking as the greater evil.Polluted air is not limited to places that cars have access to.

Places I pay to go to. Smoking and non-smoking movie theatres, restaurants, bars. Non-smoking churches, workplaces, malls.
Movie theaters, restaurants and bars are all workplaces. You need to think this through a bit.

... program that teaches kids the economic and sociological benefits of crack and tells them that smoking crack is part of liberty.
Heh, funny that you should use this as an exaggeration because.... well, it is. When you're talking about psychoactive drugs, you're essentially talking about what goes on inside your head, the ability to direct such a phenomenon you'd figure would be a pretty basic right.

A free society allows its citizens to make the wrong choices as well as the right ones.

I'm just going to stop you there (before I read the rest. No. That is not the argument. Only a complete nutjob would say that smoking harms the environment in any significant way. It's not about the environment, it's about fellow humans in enclosed spaces, with significant exposure. The health issue isn't even about patrons of a smoking establishment...it's about the workers there. And yeah yeah yeah, they choose to work there...like there are so many non-smoking places for waiters and waitresses to choose among. Anyway...don't try to make this about the environment.

It IS about the environment. "Second hand smoke." In this case they're more concerned with the environmental damage to humans rather than the ecosystem, but it's still a concern about nasty chemicals floating around in the air.

And I don't know what you're talking about about how there's not enough nonsmoking places to work at. I've never seen anyone smoke inside at all for a long time. It's been illegal here, so we're forced to smoke outside. (Technically you have to be 15 feet away from a building. That means it's technically legal to smoke IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET.) And yet, there are plenty of nutjobs who'll argue against even that limited freedom. Just watch.

Sure, no one "needs" cigarettes, but humanity doesn't "need" automobiles either. Humanity would be fine with banning both. But those anti-smokers seem less concerned with pollution than they are in preventing smokers from smoking at all. It's a position of hypocrisy, and it's made worse when people start trying to discredit the opposition on the basis of psychological conditions assumed to be held.Nope, sorry. Being concerned about smoking does not make you equally responsible to be concerned about all other harmful emissions in the world (and you're making the false assumption that the political non-smokers don't care about automobiles or pollution). Just like being concerned about a neighbours dog shitting on my lawn (die you little bastard) doesn't make me equally responsible for the out-of-place shit of all other animals.

And banning automobiles is not an issue of 'those that want to drive' and 'those that don't want to drive'...and those that don't want, wanting those that do, to not do it :confused: Anway...smoking doesn't fuel the economy, make the transport of goods possible, etc etc etc. Do I want cities to be built for people instead of cars? YUP! Do I want hydrocarbons to be replaced by cleaner methods? YUP! Do I have to try to deal with that issue at the same time as smoking just so you don't call me a hypocrite? There aren't enough hours in the day. In any case, I'm not politically active on this issue...I'm more active on the automobile front...funny....do I have to start making smoking a real life political issue now?

Anyway, that doesn't apply here since you're only talking about a limited ban.

I still think if a "workplace" wants to have a no smoking rule, they should have every right to expect it enforced without a Law decreeing smoking is banned in all workplaces. It's the same if a business wants to forbid people who aren't wearing shirts or shoes, or wants to reserve the right not to sell to a customer. Government intervention is not required unless people harass or abuse the workplace in question. In a public employment situation it's the same thing. It's a decision that should be made at the lowest level, where it's more likely to be relevant.
Ok...what about not having a workplace ban, but rather an extension of the safety rules...meaning that workers must be protected from hazardous working conditions? So proper ventilation would be required, and enforced. Would that be okay?

Movie theaters, restaurants and bars are all workplaces. You need to think this through a bit.I have. Trust me, I really have. I'm just giving my opinion here. An office filled with 150 people in wee cubes is a workplace, and only a workplace. That, and it would be dangerous if we were all smoking in there.

Just a little background. I was once a smoker. And even though I have quit due to my own personal reasons, I feel that it is wrong to ban. Studies done to show second hand smoke was harmful failed miserably. The quotes given are quotes taken out of context (sounds a bit like the government doesn't it?) and blown up to give anti-smokers ammunition. False ammunition. Yes, under aged people should not smoke, they are too young to understand what it does to you, I know, I was one. Yes, maybe some stricter regulations should be put on tobacco products so less poison (chlorine, etc) is present, but smoking in a business or in other public domains should be up to the PRIVATE owner. This includes corporations, small businesses, homes, churches, bars, restaurants, etc. The government should not have the right to place bans. It is up to the private citizens to decide where they work, eat, sleep, and live. If you do not like smoking, fine, go some where else. If you feel the urge to comment to a smoker, fine. They have as much right to ignore you.

ok, Benito.
So I can decide not to hire meat-eaters? Or people who drink? You cannot control what I do when you are not paying me. Smoking is banned in offices where I live, as it should be. What I do on my breaks is none of your goddamn business.
Agreed. Smoking is not a legitimate reason to deny someone employment. Well, unless you're hiring the person to do an anti-smoking campaign, in which case, you might run into some PR problems :D

I believe we need to ban smoking completely. it is killing off our population. And is not healthy jack squat. The adults smoking are setting a bad example for the chilren. Kids as young as 7 years old are smoking. We need to put a stop to this... NOW!

I have. Trust me, I really have. I'm just giving my opinion here. An office filled with 150 people in wee cubes is a workplace, and only a workplace. That, and it would be dangerous if we were all smoking in there.
OK. Well, maybe you need to be specific then. Maybe "workplaces not open to the public"?

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you can't find a non-smoking restaurant in your city? And you expect me to believe that?


I'm telling you exactly that, though of course, I live in a small town. Yet we're not talking the occasional smoker here, we're talking thick clouds hovering over the tables. I can't eat or drink in this town without smelling like an ashtray and feeling shallow-breathed the next day. I boycott the town's restaurants and bars...hasn't done a whit of good. In fact, every town I've lived in over the past 10 years has been similar. Not one non-smoking eatery (or drinkery). And before the smoking ban in Edmonton, I couldn't name a single restaurant or bar that was non-smoking.

Agreed. Smoking is not a legitimate reason to deny someone employment. Well, unless you're hiring the person to do an anti-smoking campaign, in which case, you might run into some PR problems :D

Why? It costs money, wastes company time, and the negative health effects hurt worker productivity as well as morale; the company should have the right to deny hiring to someone if their personal habits have a negative effect on the company and/or those they work with.

Damn. I had a nice post on one of Melkor's but it got screwed up during posting. My battery is almost dead so I'll call a retreat and can't type it up again. It was nice debating, but I won't have the chance to retaliate anymore.

Not really. If enough people were as passionate about it as you are, things would change. And if they aren't, then why should the government trample over the rights of others to make you happy?
Because contrary to the myth, most non-smokers are not going to be assholes about it, yell at the managers and owners of restaurants, and picket. Yet that is essentially what you are saying we should do...I can just imagine the words you would have if people really did that. That doesn't mean we 'don't care enough to protest'. We just see that the way trends are going, the bans will come in anyway, thankfully.

I believe we need to ban smoking completely. it is killing off our population. And is not healthy jack squat. The adults smoking are setting a bad example for the chilren. Kids as young as 7 years old are smoking. We need to put a stop to this... NOW!

I beleive we need to ban alcohol completely. It's killing off our population. And it's not halthy jack squat [?] The adults drinking are setting bad examples for the children. Kids as young as 7 years old are drinking [somewhere, probably]. We need to put a stop to this... NOW!

Seriously, we can't possibly ban every 'bad' substance or lock up everyone who is miserable due to a bad decision. Also, I'm cautious of your implication that children cannot think for themselves. I don't remember thinking "Gee, I can't wait until I can smoke" when I was 10 years old: the pressure to smoke comes from within your age group, it is not an independent mental construct or a product of adult interference. Beleive it or not, most children don't actually emulate every adult they see. God knows I didn't.

Besides, smoking will never be banned completely, at least not while I'm alive. The tobacco lobby is far too powerful to allow something like that, and the industry and tradition are far too ingrained in our culture to dispose of so easily.

Not being 21, the city-wide smoking ban in bars doesn't affect me yet, and I will acclimate myself to a smoke free bar environement to begin with.
You young pup you! (resists urge to make annoying comment about how you'll grow up and 'see the light':), then smacks own self for even thinking of saying such a thing...)

I'm telling you exactly that, though of course, I live in a small town. Yet we're not talking the occasional smoker here, we're talking thick clouds hovering over the tables. I can't eat or drink in this town without smelling like an ashtray and feeling shallow-breathed the next day. I boycott the town's restaurants and bars...hasn't done a whit of good. In fact, every town I've lived in over the past 10 years has been similar. Not one non-smoking eatery (or drinkery). And before the smoking ban in Edmonton, I couldn't name a single restaurant or bar that was non-smoking.
Hm. Odd. It might be a cultural thing, then. Canada borrows heavily from French culture in many places [though I doubt Edmonton is one of them], and those cats smoke all the time. All I know is that before the smoking ban in my city, the vast majority of restaurants were already non-smoking establishments. Basically, they passed the act to do away with the 20 or so percent that weren't. When you already have the majority of the options in one area, it's ridiculous to limit the rest.

You young pup you! (resists urge to make annoying comment about how you'll grow up and 'see the light':), then smacks own self for even thinking of saying such a thing...)
Heh... I've been a libertarian since my early teens; I'd say I already have :p

Nope, sorry. Being concerned about smoking does not make you equally responsible to be concerned about all other harmful emissions in the world (and you're making the false assumption that the political non-smokers don't care about automobiles or pollution). Just like being concerned about a neighbours dog shitting on my lawn (die you little bastard) doesn't make me equally responsible for the out-of-place shit of all other animals.

It should when the people "concerned" about smoking like to go around berating smokers for being rude, inconsiderate, chemically addicted baby-killers. And don't tell me they don't, cuz all too many of them do. And they don't go around berating anyone who drives or rides in a car, for any reason.

Anway...smoking doesn't fuel the economy, make the transport of goods possible, etc etc etc. Do I want cities to be built for people instead of cars? YUP! Do I want hydrocarbons to be replaced by cleaner methods? YUP! Do I have to try to deal with that issue at the same time as smoking just so you don't call me a hypocrite? There aren't enough hours in the day.

Well it simply amazes me how many hours some people do have to criticize smoking on the basis of danger but ignore far more dangerous things.

And smoking does fuel the economy. It's a product, and a lot of workers use it ever since chopping someone's head off became illegal. Does it fuel the economy as much as cars, or oil, or war? No, but it's a lot safer to the general public.

Ok...what about not having a workplace ban, but rather an extension of the safety rules...meaning that workers must be protected from hazardous working conditions? So proper ventilation would be required, and enforced. Would that be okay?

Maybe. Aren't there already laws to that effect?

I beleive we need to ban alcohol completely. It's killing off our population. And it's not halthy jack squat [?] The adults drinking are setting bad examples for the children. Kids as young as 7 years old are drinking [somewhere, probably]. We need to put a stop to this... NOW!

Seriously, we can't possibly ban every 'bad' substance or lock up everyone who is miserable due to a bad decision. Also, I'm cautious of your implication that children cannot think for themselves. I don't remember thinking "Gee, I can't wait until I can smoke" when I was 10 years old: the pressure to smoke comes from within your age group, it is not an independent mental construct or a product of adult interference. Beleive it or not, most children don't actually emulate every adult they see. God knows I didn't.

Besides, smoking will never be banned completely, at least not while I'm alive. The tobacco lobby is far too powerful to allow something like that, and the industry and tradition are far too ingrained in our culture to dispose of so easily.

Props!!
http://www.cigar-club.co.yu/images/zslike/jony-i-cigara.jpg

(I agree: banning anything doesn't work. Prohibition failed, the war on drugs failed, and this new war on smoking *will* fail.)

And I don't know what you're talking about about how there's not enough nonsmoking places to work at. I've never seen anyone smoke inside at all for a long time. It's been illegal here, so we're forced to smoke outside.
How long have you had that ban? The ban in Edmonton came into effect July 1st. And I'm not talking about all non-smoking workplaces....a waitress can make a hell of a lot more money working in a bar than she can in a non-smoking bookstore...so she should take a pay cut to avoid smoke?

And there are still plenty of places where smoking is not banned, where there are not, despite Melkor's belief, hundreds of non-smoking restaurants and bars. Remember, Canadian cities are not that big...we don't seem to offer the choice that you may perhaps find in the US.

Because contrary to the myth, most non-smokers are not going to be assholes about it, yell at the managers and owners of restaurants, and picket. Yet that is essentially what you are saying we should do...I can just imagine the words you would have if people really did that. That doesn't mean we 'don't care enough to protest'. We just see that the way trends are going, the bans will come in anyway, thankfully.
I didn't say you needed to picket. Just stop going. The owner of that restaurant knows exactly how many people come in every night. If his receipts started going downhill, he would look up and realize that there were no non-smokers in his restaurant. It would help if you called or sent a postcard saying "Hey, I won't eat at your restaurant until you go non-smoking." A business owner is going to do whatever he needs to to protect his bottom line.

How long have you had that ban? The ban in Edmonton came into effect July 1st. And I'm not talking about all non-smoking workplaces....a waitress can make a hell of a lot more money working in a bar than she can in a non-smoking bookstore...so she should take a pay cut to avoid smoke?

.
She could make even more money blasting rock in a mine. But she takes a pay cut to avoid being blown up.

Hm. Odd. It might be a cultural thing, then. Canada borrows heavily from French culture in many places [though I doubt Edmonton is one of them], and those cats smoke all the time. Dude, when is the last time you were in France? The times they are a changing. They are much better about not seeing smoking as a character flaw than North Americans, but they don't smoke a lot anymore. You used to be able to assume that it was ok to smoke in a private home, or restaurant (and be correct). Now, many restaurants are non-smoking, and it is as rude to smoke in someone's home without asking permission as it is here.
Spain is where it's at.

Why? It costs money, wastes company time, and the negative health effects hurt worker productivity as well as morale; the company should have the right to deny hiring to someone if their personal habits have a negative effect on the company and/or those they work with.
Bullshit. Then you could justify not hiring drinkers, gamblers, people who visit prostitutes, homosexuals (if you think their personal habits are negative), slackers, idiots, clutzes, people who listen to loud music...sorry, but no. Unless their activity on the job is illegal, you have no right to deny someone employment based on their habits.

How long have you had that ban?

Can't quite remember, actually. The ten or fifteen-foot rule was fairly recent, within the last fifteen years, but no one I know walks 15 feet from any building just to have a smoke, and I've never heard of that enforced. Even in idyllic Santa Barbara the cops have more important things to worry about.

The ban in Edmonton came into effect July 1st. And I'm not talking about all non-smoking workplaces....a waitress can make a hell of a lot more money working in a bar than she can in a non-smoking bookstore...so she should take a pay cut to avoid smoke?

Yes, if she cares so much about the effects of smoke.

And there are still plenty of places where smoking is not banned, where there are not, despite Melkor's belief, hundreds of non-smoking restaurants and bars. Remember, Canadian cities are not that big...we don't seem to offer the choice that you may perhaps find in the US.

It's not that your cities aren't big, it's all the overregulation. :p

Besides, smoking will never be banned completely, at least not while I'm alive. The tobacco lobby is far too powerful to allow something like that, and the industry and tradition are far too ingrained in our culture to dispose of so easily.Smoking tobacco is a sacred thing in my culture (better minus all the shit put into it). And even for those of you for whom this is not sacred, I would never countenance trying to ban it full out. Nope. Legalise it all...but just restrict where it can be done. You can't drink alcohol in a nursery, or in the street. Why is it so horrible to restrict where people smoke? At the very least, restrict smoking to places where you have to be old enough to drink (and old enough to make the choice to inhale).

Edit: to clear up confusions, I'm talking about banning smoking in the workplace, whether privately or publicly owned. You could still smoke outside, or in your home.


= Canada.


And no it shouldnt be like this.

Hm. Odd. It might be a cultural thing, then. Canada borrows heavily from French culture in many places [though I doubt Edmonton is one of them], and those cats smoke all the time. All I know is that before the smoking ban in my city, the vast majority of restaurants were already non-smoking establishments. Basically, they passed the act to do away with the 20 or so percent that weren't. When you already have the majority of the options in one area, it's ridiculous to limit the rest.
You and your stereotypes of my French brethren! Pah!

Nope. Edmonton establishments started phasing out smoking only when they knew the exact date of compliance. Not before that. Give me options, give me non smoking bars and non-smoking restaurants to choose from, and I'd probably not support a ban. Otherwise..BAN ON!!!! *needs a bloodthirsty smiley*

Heh... I've been a libertarian since my early teens; I'd say I already have :p
I know...I just get to hear (still) this stupid comment that lack of years means lack of knowledge, and conservatism is the inevitable 'next step'. *gives those people the finger* If anything, I've become more radical with each passing year, so FUCK Y'ALL!

Maybe. Aren't there already laws to that effect?
Nope.

She could make even more money blasting rock in a mine. But she takes a pay cut to avoid being blown up.
No, she doesn't go blasting in the mine because she lives in a city, and has no training. (since we're making the scenarios even sillier) And she doesn't crab fish in Alaska because, hell, she's 3000 km away from Alaska, and has no one to look after her kids.

Smoking tobacco is a sacred thing in my culture (better minus all the shit put into it). And even for those of you for whom this is not sacred, I would never countenance trying to ban it full out. Nope. Legalise it all...but just restrict where it can be done. You can't drink alcohol in a nursery, or in the street. Why is it so horrible to restrict where people smoke? At the very least, restrict smoking to places where you have to be old enough to drink (and old enough to make the choice to inhale).
Very good point, but smoking a cigarette is hardly the least healthy thing you can do in a bar, for example. I think it should be allowed in certain public places too, just like alcohol or [in the Netherlands] weed.

Yes, if she cares so much about the effects of smoke.
Guess what. For the working poor, the money is often more important than the risks.



It's not that your cities aren't big, it's all the overregulation. :p
Huh? There were no smoking bans...and no non-smoking restaurants or bars. How does overregulation cause lack of non-smoking establishments again?

(nice to have you back by the way...I missed your blustering :D )

Nope.

Hmm. What about this (http://www.gov.on.ca/LAB/english/hs/ohsaguide/ohsag_2.html)? We're moving away from my expertise (raging against anti-smokers) and into an area I know very little about (Canadian legal system), so I'm just throwing that out there.

Very good point, but smoking a cigarette is hardly the least healthy thing you can do in a bar, for example. I think it should be allowed in certain public places too, just like alcohol or [in the Netherlands] weed.
Alright, so bars are a no-brainer, all adults, so whatever (provided there is good ventilation, with the health of the staff foremost in mind). But restaurants could be non-smoking unless the clientele is restricted to adults...how's that?

Absent some state or local law to the contrary, employers can already refuse to hire smokers, as smokers are not a protected class under employment discrimination laws. Most businesses don't, however, as they are more concerned with ability and work ethic than they are with what someone does in their private life. Limiting your hiring pool limits the number of talented hard-working people available.

No, she doesn't go blasting in the mine because she lives in a city, and has no training. (since we're making the scenarios even sillier) And she doesn't crab fish in Alaska because, hell, she's 3000 km away from Alaska, and has no one to look after her kids.
I lived in a city at one time where there were nearby mines, and lots of people went to work in them. But whatever the case, there are lots of jobs much more dangerous than waiting tables at a smoking restaurant. The people who do them accept the risk as part of the job.

Hmm. What about this (http://www.gov.on.ca/LAB/english/hs/ohsaguide/ohsag_2.html)? We're moving away from my expertise (raging against anti-smokers) and into an area I know very little about (Canadian legal system), so I'm just throwing that out there.
This is for Ontario, but their act is similar to all acts across Canada. The reason it doesn't protect workers from smoke is because smoke has not been demonstrated sufficiently to pose health risks (not that it doesn't, just that they don't think there is enough justification yet to follow up). Now, this act is being used in some places as the justification behind banning smoking, rather than requiring and enforcing proper ventilation. Part of the reason for that is, no one knows how much is dangerous. They could put in ventilation, and think, ok, we're done, and then get hit with lawsuits 10 years down the road when they find out it wasn't enough. Either they enforce the act with a full ban, or not at all right now...or face future litigation. Some areas are taking the stance that not knowing means smoking is not covered under the act. Others are deciding it does...but once you invoke the act, you'd better make damn sure it's enforced, and this is they way they've chosen to enforce it.

I believe we need to ban smoking completely. it is killing off our population. And is not healthy jack squat. The adults smoking are setting a bad example for the chilren. Kids as young as 7 years old are smoking. We need to put a stop to this... NOW!


Tylenol is one of the most dangerous drugs. And it is available over the counter. Not only that, but we are encouraged to take it for every little ache and pain. Don't like tylenol? How about some Ibuprofen? enjoy your stomach bleeding. Tylenol is the #1 method for suicide in England (this may be an old stat, but I know for sure it is high on the list here in the states as well). Actually, tylenol, ibuprofen, advil, etc. all have almost no, if not any, health benefits. They simply block pain, not cure it. Most would not pass FDA restrictions.

My point is, just because something is essentally benefit-less and causes some level of harm is no reason to ban it. We have the choice to use these drugs. Should non-smokers be able to work/eat without dealing with smoke? yes. Should I be able to enjoy a cigarette with my dinner or coffee? yes. Simple solution would be to keep the smoking and non-smoking sections, or better, seperate rooms if possible.

Also, never approach a person smoking and tell them they are killing themselves. I had that happen twice this week. The first one I told "Its a bigger health risk to piss off someone with a lit cigarette in their hand while you are in striking distance". The second one, I spit it out, screamed "WHY DON'T PEOPLE TELL ME THESE THINGS?! YOU WOULD THINK THEY WOULD HAVE WARNING LABLES ON BOXES! oh wait. they do." and proceeded to light another two, one for each hand.

Hmm. What about this (http://www.gov.on.ca/LAB/english/hs/ohsaguide/ohsag_2.html)? We're moving away from my expertise (raging against anti-smokers) and into an area I know very little about (Canadian legal system), so I'm just throwing that out there.
Oh yeah, that also affects the right of a worker to refuse work (because of lack of safety in regards to smoke). They can't do that right now and not lose their job, because smoking is not recognised yet in all places as a legitimate health risk. And yet, contradictions abound...in some places it IS. *shrugs*

Alright, so bars are a no-brainer, all adults, so whatever (provided there is good ventilation, with the health of the staff foremost in mind). But restaurants could be non-smoking unless the clientele is restricted to adults...how's that?
That makes sense to me, but I would appreciate the viewpoint more if it's proponents were a bit more honest about their reasons. "ETS causes cancer" isn't a scientifically verified fact [yet], but "I don't like smoke" is a perfectly valid rationale.

Absent some state or local law to the contrary, employers can already refuse to hire smokers, as smokers are not a protected class under employment discrimination laws.
Neither are drinkers or gamblers...could a company really get away with not hiring someone on that basis? Or not hire someone who is overweight, or underweight, or just ugly? Come on...unless these things impact the job, how could they possibly get away with using these things as criteria not to hire (or to fire)?

Neither are drinkers or gamblers...could a company really get away with not hiring someone on that basis?
Well, I know for a fact that there are several companies that do not hire smokers. All of Ted Turner's businesses come immediately to mind. They get away with it because there are no laws forbidding it (that I know of, some jurisdictions may have laws of this sort.)

That makes sense to me, but I would appreciate the viewpoint more if it's proponents were a bit more honest about their reasons. "ETS causes cancer" isn't a scientifically verified fact [yet], but "I don't like smoke" is a perfectly valid rationale.
Not really...was it you who brought up the flatulence example last time for not liking smoke as not being a good enough reason?

SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! Well, anyway, if you restrict it to places where kids aren't exposed, I'd be just as happy...though it would still mean I couldn't go to any bar and not stink like smoke. No, Melkor, there were no non-smoking bars in Edmonton...nor any other city in Canada I've been to (that didn't have bans). But fuck it. I like drinking in my back yard anyway.

Well, I know for a fact that there are several companies that do not hire smokers. All of Ted Turner's businesses come immediately to mind. They get away with it because there are no laws forbidding it (that I know of, some jurisdictions may have laws of this sort.)
Somehow I question the legality of writing on a form, "Ms. X not hired because of her small breast size" or "Mr. V not hired for being a filthy smoker". I think they just come up with other reasons not to hire...

"Also, never approach a person smoking and tell them they are killing themselves. I had that happen twice this week. The first one I told "Its a bigger health risk to piss off someone with a lit cigarette in their hand while you are in striking distance". The second one, I spit it out, screamed "WHY DON'T PEOPLE TELL ME THESE THINGS?! YOU WOULD THINK THEY WOULD HAVE WARNING LABLES ON BOXES! oh wait. they do." and proceeded to light another two, one for each hand." By Vaitupu

Wish I had thought of those. My pet peeve is when the non smoker after being asked if it was alright if you lit up and they say yes and they start with the little mini "coughs".

I always tried offering a cigarette to them. Figured that maybe they just wanted me to share.

Somehow I question the legality of writing on a form, "Ms. X not hired because of her small breast size" or "Mr. V not hired for being a filthy smoker". I think they just come up with other reasons not to hire...

Well, the first would be be sex discrimination and highly illegal, the second is very much the case. In fact, it's a publicized policy of the organization in many cases. I believe that some people attempted to sue recently and the case didn't make it past the pleadings stage.

Guess what. For the working poor, the money is often more important than the risks.

Well if person A values money more than the risk, who am I to say otherwise? They're capable of making their own decisions. This isn't a case of poor children working in coal mines or anything. There ARE viable alternatives.

Huh? There were no smoking bans...and no non-smoking restaurants or bars. How does overregulation cause lack of non-smoking establishments again?

Overregulation in general, puts a clamp on the economy and tends to discourage business. Discouraged business means there are fewer businesses (leading to more monopolization, in this case monopoly* of smoking vs nonsmoking restaraunts). Fewer businesses means there are fewer choices, i.e nonsmoking restaraunts to cater to the anti-smoking market demographic.


(nice to have you back by the way...I missed your blustering :D )

*blusters*

This is for Ontario, but their act is similar to all acts across Canada. The reason it doesn't protect workers from smoke is because smoke has not been demonstrated sufficiently to pose health risks (not that it doesn't, just that they don't think there is enough justification yet to follow up). Now, this act is being used in some places as the justification behind banning smoking, rather than requiring and enforcing proper ventilation. Part of the reason for that is, no one knows how much is dangerous. They could put in ventilation, and think, ok, we're done, and then get hit with lawsuits 10 years down the road when they find out it wasn't enough. Either they enforce the act with a full ban, or not at all right now...or face future litigation. Some areas are taking the stance that not knowing means smoking is not covered under the act. Others are deciding it does...but once you invoke the act, you'd better make damn sure it's enforced, and this is they way they've chosen to enforce it.

Hmm. Well as you say, smoke hasn't been demonstrated sufficiently to pose health risks. And yet there is a long history of largely anti-smoking administrations and organizations designing studies (blatantly nonscientific or falsified ones in several notable cases) to prove how unhealthful smoking is. They (government) should either be truly conclusive one way or the other, or refrain from being half-assed when it comes to legislature.

Problem for me is I don't really trust the government that much. My government anyway is kinda known for, well, not being entirely honest about everything. ;)

Wish I had thought of those. My pet peeve is when the non smoker after being asked if it was alright if you lit up and they say yes and they start with the little mini "coughs".

I always tried offering a cigarette to them. Figured that maybe they just wanted me to share.
Or quote Bill Hicks and tell them "That's one hell of a cough you got there. Good thing you don't smoke". :D

Not really...was it you who brought up the flatulence example last time for not liking smoke as not being a good enough reason?
Not sure, but I vaguely remember it.

SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! Well, anyway, if you restrict it to places where kids aren't exposed, I'd be just as happy...though it would still mean I couldn't go to any bar and not stink like smoke. No, Melkor, there were no non-smoking bars in Edmonton...nor any other city in Canada I've been to (that didn't have bans). But fuck it. I like drinking in my back yard anyway.
Bars are generally not non-smoking facilities unless there's municipal ban in that area, so that part doesn't confuse me. What confuses me, however, is the lack of non-smoking restaurants in your city. I could understand if you didn't have anything except chains [IHOP and Steak n Shake, for example, allow smoking when possible], but it baffles me that the smaller etablishments would still allow smoking. Most small restuarants, in order to increase their family appeal [and thus their revenue] typically don't allow smoking. At least not in this country.

It is my belief that it is in absolutely no way the government's responsibility to tell me where I can and cannot smoke with the exception of government buildings and the rules of private business owners. As far as the outdoors go and in my car as well as in my own home how can the government possible have the right to tell me I can't smoke there. If I am driving in my car and I want a cigarette how are you going to stop me?
They think courthouses have too much to do now? Wait until they start fining people for smoking outside and in their cars.
If they're going to confine people to smoke in their homes and no where else, they had better supply each and every smoker with a free maid, courtesy of the government because tar is a pain in the ass to clean off of everything in your house.
Almost everyone around me, including myself smokes but a lot of those people (once again, including myself) do not smoke in their homes simply because of the smell and cleaning factor. :p

Well, the first would be be sex discrimination and highly illegal, the second is very much the case. In fact, it's a publicized policy of the organization in many cases. I believe that some people attempted to sue recently and the case didn't make it past the pleadings stage.
What about a person who prefers salt to sugar? Could you not hire them for that?

There is a clause in most labour and human rights laws that address Bona Fide Occupational Requirements. You can not refuse to hire someone for doing something that does not impact their job performance. Now, a case against smoking might be made, but I can't see it truly holding up...not unless you could make the same case for an obese person in a position where certain physical tasks were not required.

I lived in a city at one time where there were nearby mines, and lots of people went to work in them. But whatever the case, there are lots of jobs much more dangerous than waiting tables at a smoking restaurant. The people who do them accept the risk as part of the job.Yes, but miners also have a certain measure of safety equipment to help protect them when on the job. Perhaps a compromise would be to allow smoking establishments, but give all of the employees there gasmasks to wear?

Overregulation in general, puts a clamp on the economy and tends to discourage business. Discouraged business means there are fewer businesses (leading to more monopolization, in this case monopoly* of smoking vs nonsmoking restaraunts). Fewer businesses means there are fewer choices, i.e nonsmoking restaraunts to cater to the anti-smoking market demographic.

Try to prove that, provide stats and studies please, relevant to Canada :D

I think our smaller population has MUCH more to do with it that overregulation.

I always find it strange that (let's face the obvious) it's usually left-wingers who want to enforce smoking bans. If it weren't for smokers, social programs like Medicaid and Social Security would have imploded a long, long time ago.

Most small restuarants, in order to increase their family appeal [and thus their revenue] typically don't allow smoking. At least not in this country.
I guess maybe in some ways, you yanks are actually more polite then us then! Seriously...if you ever hear of a non-smoking restaurant in a smoking-ban-free city, please let me know!

It is my belief that it is in absolutely no way the government's responsibility to tell me where I can and cannot smoke with the exception of government buildings and the rules of private business owners.
Then you must HATE the laws that regulate where you drink.

I haven't read through the 8 pages of post. But I did read the original post. I believe that if we ban smoking, then we are discriminating against people who choose to smoke. Beside, it should be up to the business owner if he wants smokers in his place of business. See, if you just let the business owner do this instead of the state doing it, then the economy will take care of itself. Like lets say in a certain city, the majority are non-smoker. The business owner lets smoker in the place. That business would go out of business because it would loose the majority of the market. The same goes vice versa. See, most of our problems CAN solve itself, you don't need government telling us what to do left and right. This is why I hate the nanny state the United States has become. Also my dad works for a cigarette company as supervisor, and we don't need people like the "Truth" assholes putting him out of a job. Be a good liberal and don't discriminate against people who made the personal choice themselves.

I always find it strange that (let's face the obvious) it's usually left-wingers who want to enforce smoking bans. If it weren't for smokers, social programs like Medicaid and Social Security would have imploded a long, long time ago.
Hahahahhaaa...smokers keep healthcare going!

And bullshit on the 'left-wingers wanting to ban smoking'. One of the biggest anti-tobacco lobbies in Canada is conservative.

I guess maybe in some ways, you yanks are actually more polite then us then! Seriously...if you ever hear of a non-smoking restaurant in a smoking-ban-free city, please let me know!
Macaroni Grill, Akron, Ohio
Bob Evans, Akron, Ohio
Northstar Cafe, Columbus, Ohio [pre ban, we have one now]
The Blue Danube, Columbus, Ohio [also pre ban]
Ken Stewart's Grill, Akron, Ohio
Hyde Park Grill, Akron, Ohio
Any fast food restaurant under the sun, except for a McDonalds I found in Richfield. I still have the Smoking Section sign.
J. Alexanders, Columbus Ohio [pre ban]
Fuddruckers, Columbus Ohio [pre ban]
Champps, Columbus, Ohio [pre ban]

I could probably go on. Since Akron and Columbus are the only two cities I've dined out in consistently, they're my only frame of reference.

Hahahahhaaa...smokers keep healthcare going!

And bullshit on the 'left-wingers wanting to ban smoking'. One of the biggest anti-tobacco lobbies in Canada is conservative.

Well in the USA, its the liberal driving the smoking ban bus.

I See, most of our problems CAN solve itself, Yes, that's worked SO well in the past. (seriously, read the rest of the thread...it's good stuff).


Also my dad works for a cigarette company as supervisor, and we don't need people like the "Truth" assholes putting him out of a job.
Oh heavens no, that would just be terrible!

To quote some other posters on this thread...your dad chooses where to work. If tobacco goes bust (yeah right) and he loses his job, tough. He can work somewhere else.

Or quote Bill Hicks and tell them "That's one hell of a cough you got there. Good thing you don't smoke". :D

My uncle's doctor told him to keep smoking. Said the coughing was the only exercise he got.

*snip*
Sorry, I should've made it clear I meant in Canada. Since I'm not one for trips to the US just so I can go to a smokefree restaurant :D

What about a person who prefers salt to sugar? Could you not hire them for that?

There is a clause in most labour and human rights laws that address Bona Fide Occupational Requirements. You can not refuse to hire someone for doing something that does not impact their job performance. Now, a case against smoking might be made, but I can't see it truly holding up...not unless you could make the same case for an obese person in a position where certain physical tasks were not required.
Well, once again, obesity is considered a disability, so that is covered under the ADA.

That kind of requirement might apply to government employees, who have a whole host of other regulations to protect them, but private employers can discriminate on anything that doesn't fall into one of the catergories established by statute.

Well in the USA, its the liberal driving the smoking ban bus.
Ah, you guys don't have liberals. You have mini-conservatives and big-conservatives :D Your liberals ARE our conservatives!

Yes, that's worked SO well in the past. (seriously, read the rest of the thread...it's good stuff).



Oh heavens no, that would just be terrible!

To quote some other posters on this thread...your dad chooses where to work. If tobacco goes bust (yeah right) and he loses his job, tough. He can work somewhere else.

Yes he could, but hes getting old and he can't do the back breaking jobs he once can. That why he took this job, it has an Air Conditioned factory and after he gets done with college he can move up in the company. I don't smoke myself, but I don't go around telling other people not to smoke. I don't dream up of ways for the government to control its masses. See this is what George Orwell was warning us about. He was warning us of a government that would dicate what the masses did. The liberals are taking away our freedom one at a time. This is why I stop being a Democrat and become a Conserative Libertarian.

Hahahahhaaa...smokers keep healthcare going!
Not that they "keep healthcare going", that's not an issue. It's that smokers die before collecting near as much of these benefits as nonsmokers, although they've paid as much in taxes (and then some considering cig taxes).
I thought that was the obvious implication, and so I didn't spell it out.

And bullshit on the 'left-wingers wanting to ban smoking'. One of the biggest anti-tobacco lobbies in Canada is conservative.
Why do you always think we Yanks care about Canada? :D
Really, kidding aside, to quote Scott from The Kids In the Hall--

"Most people know as much about homosexuals as Americans know about Canadians!" :p
I love his gay bar skits.

You know, I can't wait till smokers start suing the government for discrimination. I would be laughing for days. Remember it was Thomas Jefferson that said "Government is Best Which Governs Least."

Why do you always think we Yanks care about Canada? :D
Really, kidding aside, to quote Scott from The Kids In the Hall--

"Most people know as much about homosexuals as Americans know about Canadians!" :p
I love his gay bar skits.
Wait...Scott was playing a gay in those skits? :confused: :D

Sorry, I should've made it clear I meant in Canada. Since I'm not one for trips to the US just so I can go to a smokefree restaurant :D
Heh. I haven't been to Canada in years, and when I was there it was just at the trendy Niagra Falls spot that all the Americna tourists flock to like flies on shit. I wish I could furnish you with some local examples, though.

Smoking is banned in all public areas in california. Bars, night clubs, restaurants....ya cant even smoke in amusement parks...well in designated areas only and they are a pain to get to. i am not a smoker and i would love for there to be more regulations on smoking. in high school we created a law that only allowed you to smoke in the privacy of your own home and your vehicle. anywhere in public you were not allowed. of course that is far fetched but it did sound very nice.

as someone stated earlier (to lazy to go back and find the quote) drinking alcohol may not harm me while they are physically doing so like smoking does, but there are very irresponsible people that will drive while drunk and possibly kill me.

its a no win situation. government needs to feed us some sort of vice

Wait...Scott was playing a gay in those skits? :confused: :D
Playing? If what I know is correct, he was hardly even acting. ;)

Alright. I know that certain people on this forum (Melkor baby, I'm looking at you!) are very against a government imposed ban on smoking. (We don't seem to make such a big deal about it in Canada though, most people, smokers included just go, 'meh' to the whole thing and move on). However, if a referendum is held in a municipality, and the decision is made by the majority, would you be happy with the way that the ban was implemented? Is it just that you don't want a government unilaterally imposing this restriction? Would it be better if the majority in a particular area did?

Edit: to clear up confusions, I'm talking about banning smoking in the workplace, whether privately or publicly owned. You could still smoke outside, or in your home.

I am in favor of banning smoking in all public buildings and in the workplace because second-hand smoke is harmful to others. As long as a law is put in place to protect the health and safety of people and not just for arbitrarily controlling them, I'm okay with it. Personally, I get bronchitis at the drop of a hat, and all I have to do is walk into a smoky room for a few minutes and I seem to get it. Why should other people have the freedom to make me ill?

Yes he could, but hes getting old and he can't do the back breaking jobs he once can. That why he took this job, it has an Air Conditioned factory and after he gets done with college he can move up in the company. I don't smoke myself, but I don't go around telling other people not to smoke. I don't dream up of ways for the government to control its masses. See this is what George Orwell was warning us about. He was warning us of a government that would dicate what the masses did. The liberals are taking away our freedom one at a time. This is why I stop being a Democrat and become a Conserative Libertarian.


You poor poor child. I agree with the don't ban smoking, mostly because I believe the government shouldn't have that much power. But you need to relearn the meanings of the different political parties. Democrats and liberals are not the same. Conservative, neo-cons and libertarians are also very very different. Orwell = Libertarian, Bush Jr = Neo con, McCain = Conservative. Just to give some examples.

Sorry, I'll get off my soap box. Kudos to your dad for going to college. My dad did it late, loved it, and now has a posh career.

God you people and second hand smoke. You know, most of you people have LEGS, and I assume FEET. You can just WALK away. Jeez, I am sooo looking foward to a class action suit by the smokers agaisnt the liberals and government. Also, there are no scienctific studies that verifies the dangers of second hand smoke. I mean comon, your more in danger of smoke that comes from your average camp fire than you are from a tiny cigarette.

The best way forward is definately the Dallas Airport way. The smoking roon is a small cramped little contraption with no roof and is slap bang in the middle of the airport where everyone can see it and see copius amounts of smoke rising up to the extractor fan in the ceiling. My dad who had just flown for 12 hours was desperate fora ciggy but refused to go in their cos of how miserable itlooked. Rooms like these should be in restaurants too, so smokers have to eat their dinner in a small cramped room with all the other smokers, keeping them safely away from the clean lunged sensible public.

Presumably this would be helpful to smokers because then they'd be the ones getting second hand smoke which u'd think they would be grateful for cos it means they wont have to waste another fag.

Playing? If what I know is correct, he was hardly even acting. ;)
I'm just kidding. He's as gay as they come:) I just love the Kids in the Hall though...aside from the oh-so-Canadian humour, it was the first time that openely gay actors (people could convince themselves that they were just pretending to be gay if they wanted to) and gay-skits were mainstream, and not totally derogatory. Brilliant comedy too.

You poor poor child. I agree with the don't ban smoking, mostly because I believe the government shouldn't have that much power. But you need to relearn the meanings of the different political parties. Democrats and liberals are not the same. Conservative, neo-cons and libertarians are also very very different. Orwell = Libertarian, Bush Jr = Neo con, McCain = Conservative. Just to give some examples.

Sorry, I'll get off my soap box. Kudos to your dad for going to college. My dad did it late, loved it, and now has a posh career.

At least we can agree that "ban smoking" would be wrong and it would just have a slipperly slope effect. I mean if we ban smoking. Their would be a huge line of people who would want to ban fat people, ban handicapp people, ban ugly people. Etc etc. If a city ban smoking, they are discriminating and they are taking away freedom of a business to choose if it wants to have smokers in its pace of business.

God you people and second hand smoke. You know, most of you people have LEGS, and I assume FEET. You can just WALK away. Jeez, I am sooo looking foward to a class action suit by the smokers agaisnt the liberals and government. Also, there are no scienctific studies that verifies the dangers of second hand smoke. I mean comon, your more in danger of smoke that comes from your average camp fire than you are from a tiny cigarette.

Why should they be forced to walk away to protect their health?

The best way forward is definately the Dallas Airport way. The smoking roon is a small cramped little contraption with no roof and is slap bang in the middle of the airport where everyone can see it and see copius amounts of smoke rising up to the extractor fan in the ceiling. My dad who had just flown for 12 hours was desperate fora ciggy but refused to go in their cos of how miserable itlooked. Rooms like these should be in restaurants too, so smokers have to eat their dinner in a small cramped room with all the other smokers, keeping them safely away from the clean lunged sensible public.

That was one of the reasons I quit! At least I got to smoke, and my sweet non smoking friends didn't have to, I was in a room where no anti-smoker would dare set foot (safety for all) and NO ONE could complain about it!

God you people and second hand smoke. You know, most of you people have LEGS, and I assume FEET. You can just WALK away.
Ditto with you smokers. You can walk away until you no longer are smoking in my face.

Then again most smokers and most non-smokers are reasonable people who do these things. Assholes on both sides are in the minority. But thanks for representing.

The best way forward is definately the Dallas Airport way. The smoking roon is a small cramped little contraption with no roof and is slap bang in the middle of the airport where everyone can see it and see copius amounts of smoke rising up to the extractor fan in the ceiling. My dad who had just flown for 12 hours was desperate fora ciggy but refused to go in their cos of how miserable itlooked. Rooms like these should be in restaurants too, so smokers have to eat their dinner in a small cramped room with all the other smokers, keeping them safely away from the clean lunged sensible public.

Presumably this would be helpful to smokers because then they'd be the ones getting second hand smoke which u'd think they would be grateful for cos it means they wont have to waste another fag.

Thats a good idea. Next we can do that to the fat people. Let put the fat people into a cramp little glass room and lets watch them stuff their faces everyday!

Yes lets hulimate the smokers by putting them on display. Let us taunt them and make fun of them like they were leapers. You know smokers are human too you idiot. They don't deserve to be treated like a freak show just because they smoke.

At least we can agree that "ban smoking" would be wrong and it would just have a slipperly slope effect. I mean if we ban smoking. Their would be a huge line of people who would want to ban fat people, ban handicapp people, ban ugly people. Etc etc. If a city ban smoking, they are discriminating and they are taking away freedom of a business to choose if it wants to have smokers in its pace of business.
And what is you problem with restricting drinking to specific areas then?

Why should they be forced to walk away to protect their health?

Why should the smokers be forced to give up their freedom to smoke just because of a few whiney people?

Why should they be forced to walk away to protect their health?

People choose to eat or not eat at McDonalds, and we all know how bad that is for you. Same with smoking. It is a choice. A personal one. You can walk away, drive away, live away from it. It is not like a smoker is barging into your house chain smoking an entire pack in your face telling you why you should have to smoke. Oh wait, that sounds like the anti-smokers, with the pamphlets and picketing and taking your pack (theft of personal property) from you. That happens in places. Disgusting isn't it?

Why should the smokers be forced to give up their freedom to smoke just because of a few whiney people?
Why should non-smokers be forced to give up their freedom to not breathe in cigarette fumes because of a few whiney people? :rolleyes:

God you people and second hand smoke. You know, most of you people have LEGS, and I assume FEET. You can just WALK away. Jeez, I am sooo looking foward to a class action suit by the smokers agaisnt the liberals and government. Also, there are no scienctific studies that verifies the dangers of second hand smoke. I mean comon, your more in danger of smoke that comes from your average camp fire than you are from a tiny cigarette.

So non-smokers who don't want to put their health at risk shouldn't go to work (not to mention other places)???? Part of the question had to do with banning smoking in the work place, in case you weren't paying attention. And if you were a non-smoker who got bronchitis (and sometimes even pneumonia) as easily as I do, I don't think you'd appreciate being called a liberal for objecting to others making you sick with their disgusting habit - not to mention that it just plain stinks! Steve Martin once did a comedy skit where he compared smoking with farting (mind if I "light up"?) - which would be a pretty good comparison, except for the fact that smelling second-hand farts doesn't kill anyone or even make them sick.

Why should the smokers be forced to give up their freedom to smoke just because of a few whiney people?

The non-smokers are not actively damaging the health of others

And what is you problem with restricting drinking to specific areas then?

Eh my argument for restricting smokers to specific areas also applies to doing the same to drinkers. Look, you can't tell people what to do and not do. I mean for christ sakes they are ADULT. Do you know what that means? That means they can make their own choices. They know what the consquences are, they don't need the liberal and nanny government "protecting them". What we need to do is just let them make their own choices, and try to scale back the government power, by alot.

People choose to eat or not eat at McDonalds, and we all know how bad that is for you. Same with smoking. It is a choice. A personal one. You can walk away, drive away, live away from it. It is not like a smoker is barging into your house chain smoking an entire pack in your face telling you why you should have to smoke. Oh wait, that sounds like the anti-smokers, with the pamphlets and picketing and taking your pack (theft of personal property) from you. That happens in places. Disgusting isn't it?

If I sit down in a restaurant and am half-way through my meal when a smoker comes in and lights up should I be forced to leave the restaurant?

People choose to eat or not eat at McDonalds, and we all know how bad that is for you. Same with smoking.
No, not the same. Eating a disgusting BigMac next to me does not emit any harmful fumes. Many people eating disgusting BigMacs doesn not pose a health risk for the workers of McDonalds.

Wow...these guys jump in, and where we once had a reasonable discussion, with some agreement, we now have silliness and going-over-the-top.

Part of the question had to do with banning smoking in the work place, in case you weren't paying attention.
He wasn't. It drives me nuts when people jump into the thread without reading first.

The best way forward is definately the Dallas Airport way. The smoking roon is a small cramped little contraption with no roof and is slap bang in the middle of the airport where everyone can see it and see copius amounts of smoke rising up to the extractor fan in the ceiling. My dad who had just flown for 12 hours was desperate fora ciggy but refused to go in their cos of how miserable itlooked. .
That place is a shithole. When I am in that airport I just walk outside to avoid that horrible place.

Eh my argument for restricting smokers to specific areas also applies to doing the same to drinkers. Look, you can't tell people what to do and not do. I mean for christ sakes they are ADULT. Do you know what that means? That means they can make their own choices. They know what the consquences are, they don't need the liberal and nanny government "protecting them". What we need to do is just let them make their own choices, and try to scale back the government power, by alot.
So people should be able to drink wherever they want? And do you support an age limit or not? If so, then why should there not be an age limit on smoking? AND...if you equate drinking with smoking, why should minors be exposed to EITHER when they are not adult enough to make the choice to be exposed or not?

If I sit down in a restaurant and am half-way through my meal when a smoker comes in and lights up should I be forced to leave the restaurant?

You aren't being forced to leave. You are leaving on your own free will. Besides, most restaraunts, at least in the part of the world I am in, have designated seating areas. Sit in the non smoking side.

So non-smokers who don't want to put their health at risk shouldn't go to work (not to mention other places)???? Part of the question had to do with banning smoking in the work place, in case you weren't paying attention. And if you were a non-smoker who got bronchitis (and sometimes even pneumonia) as easily as I do, I don't think you'd appreciate being called a liberal for objecting to others making you sick with their disgusting habit - not to mention that it just plain stinks! Steve Martin once did a comedy skit where he compared smoking with farting (mind if I "light up"?) - which would be a pretty good comparison, except for the fact that smelling second-hand farts doesn't kill anyone or even make them sick.

*sigh* You COULD look for a job that doesn't allow smoking. See this is what I was talking about in my original post back in page 8. If you just let the place of business make the smoking ban instead of the government. Then the economy and supply and demand will kick in and it will just take care of itself. Go back to my post on page 8 for the complete detail. Is it a disgusting habbit. Yes, but guess what. Its still their choice, and we still have no right to restrict them just because we feel threatened.

You aren't being forced to leave. You are leaving on your own free will. Besides, most restaraunts, at least in the part of the world I am in, have designated seating areas. Sit in the non smoking side.

Is there a vacuum between the non-smoking area and the smoking area to prevent air circulating?

You are forced to leave if you do not want to damage your health, especially in the case of an asthmatic such as myself

So people should be able to drink wherever they want? And do you support an age limit or not? If so, then why should there not be an age limit on smoking? AND...if you equate drinking with smoking, why should minors be exposed to EITHER when they are not adult enough to make the choice to be exposed or not?

Do we REALLY have to define Adult for you people? I mean comon, lets try to deal with the issue at hand instead of trying to do the You agree with A, A is equal to B, so you must agree with B. MINORS should not drink or smoke, because they do not yet understand the consquences of their actions. They haven't matured enough. Theres a diffrent between adults and minors.

No, not the same. Eating a disgusting BigMac next to me does not emit any harmful fumes. Many people eating disgusting BigMacs doesn not pose a health risk for the workers of McDonalds.

Wow...these guys jump in, and where we once had a reasonable discussion, with some agreement, we now have silliness and going-over-the-top.


I want to know the health risks! Ventilated areas get rid of the smoke build up, which is what contains the chemicals, so all that is left is smell. Most buildings that are open to the public have to have regulations on ventilation, air flow, etc. So you are not shut in a little box of a room with no ventilation. So it sounds like the main arguement is smell.

Do we REALLY have to define Adult for you people? I mean comon, lets try to deal with the issue at hand instead of trying to do the You agree with A, A is equal to B, so you must agree with B. MINORS should not drink or smoke, because they do not yet understand the consquences of their actions. They haven't matured enough. Theres a diffrent between adults and minors.
Nice dodge. You didn't ask my question. I didn't specify what age constitutes adult or minor, I'm going with whatever exists in your area. The question stands...you say that minors should not drink or smoke (you support an age restriction on these activities)...so, should they be exposed to drinking and smoking when they are not of the age to make the legal choice to be exposed or not? As in...should you allow drinking and smoking in daycares or schools or other areas children frequent? If not, you are supporting RESTRICTIONS.

Wow...these guys jump in, and where we once had a reasonable discussion, with some agreement, we now have silliness and going-over-the-top.
You're so right. I'm waiting to hear (from either side now) the first comparison of smoking to nuclear warheads. :rolleyes:

I want to know the health risks! Ventilated areas get rid of the smoke build up, which is what contains the chemicals, so all that is left is smell. Most buildings that are open to the public have to have regulations on ventilation, air flow, etc. So you are not shut in a little box of a room with no ventilation. So it sounds like the main arguement is smell.
You are wrong about the ventilation issue (which has already been discussed in this thread...care to read it instead of wasting time going over the same argument? I thought not.) There are no requirements under the occupational health safety act in most places to ensure proper ventiliation. Admiting that smoking is a health hazard usually means an outright ban, rather than ventilation, as it is still unclear how much is dangerous. To avoid future litigation, outright bans, or no bans are used.

I'd try to stop the big, tobacco corporations from getting sny new costumers. The last thing people need is a psychological need for a cancer-causing stick of poisons. You'd be surprised how much rat poison is in a single cigarette. Cigarrettes are too addictive to be good. I'd say we need stricter laws concerning teens smoking. Send them to juvy before their prison term starts. i don't want some punk giving me cancer.

Actually there is none. You were misled as was everyone else who was convinced that the governments star witness Jeffrey S. Wigand was being honest in his testimony during the lawsuit against big tobacco. Mr Wigand was the individual that made this claim and he later in the governments case to disgorge the compaines of their profits, admitted that he misrepresented the claim and that he knew it was not true when he testified. Mr Wigand also admitted that he lied under oath about how much money he had made as a result of the origional lawsuit. He claimed that he was reimbursed less than 100,000 dollars but it turned out he had diverted several million from groups who stood to profit from the scam, into his own personal front organization as donations.
Besides, why would you wish to impose your will on the personal freedoms of others? What gives you the right to do this?

You're so right. I'm waiting to hear (from either side now) the first comparison of smoking to nuclear warheads. :rolleyes:
When you smoke around me, it's like you're pointing a nuclear warhead right in my face!!! :D Happy?

Nice dodge. You didn't ask my question. I didn't specify what age constitutes adult or minor, I'm going with whatever exists in your area. The question stands...you say that minors should not drink or smoke (you support an age restriction on these activities)...so, should they be exposed to drinking and smoking when they are not of the age to make the legal choice to be exposed or not? As in...should you allow drinking and smoking in daycares or schools or other areas children frequent? If not, you are supporting RESTRICTIONS.

Schools tend to be government owned, so yes, the government can decide to ban that. On all privately owned institutions the owner should be the one to decide what is allowed and not allowed. My day care did not allow smoking. Before bans were even thought of. Now the workers had a "workers only" area that obviously allowed them, ash trays being there. It was separate from the out side children's area. The last two sentences are for example, by the way. So try not to twist their content and meaning around too much.

Nice dodge. You didn't ask my question. I didn't specify what age constitutes adult or minor, I'm going with whatever exists in your area. The question stands...you say that minors should not drink or smoke (you support an age restriction on these activities)...so, should they be exposed to drinking and smoking when they are not of the age to make the legal choice to be exposed or not? As in...should you allow drinking and smoking in daycares or schools or other areas children frequent? If not, you are supporting RESTRICTIONS.

Look, I don't support restriction by the GOVERNMENT. Lets get that clear right now. I believe that the GOVERNMENT should have very little to do in our daily lives. With that being said. While I don't agree with government restriction. I do believe that a business such as a daycares, schools (private schools are considered business), should be allow to have these restriction. Let me play alittle seniario here.

Lets say there are two Daycares. Daycare A, and Daycare B. Daycare A bans smoking, when Daycare B does not. Responsible parents do not want their children to be exposed to smoking. So Daycare B loses alot of customer, to Daycare A. If the trends of loosing customers contiune Daycare B will go out of business because of poor business choices. See, you got to have more trust in the masses. This is why I don't like liberals or the democratic party. They don't have trust in the masses. Well I do. I believe that if a business makes a poor business decision. The masses will let that business know by not bringing their business to that business.

You are wrong about the ventilation issue (which has already been discussed in this thread...care to read it instead of wasting time going over the same argument? I thought not.) There are no requirements under the occupational health safety act in most places to ensure proper ventiliation. Admiting that smoking is a health hazard usually means an outright ban, rather than ventilation, as it is still unclear how much is dangerous. To avoid future litigation, outright bans, or no bans are used.

I have read them all, and here it is necessary, due to OSHA. So I guess it all depends on what country you are from. OSHA: Occupational Safety and Hazard Association.

Schools tend to be government owned, so yes, the government can decide to ban that. On all privately owned institutions the owner should be the one to decide what is allowed and not allowed. My day care did not allow smoking. Before bans were even thought of. Now the workers had a "workers only" area that obviously allowed them, ash trays being there. It was separate from the out side children's area. The last two sentences are for example, by the way. So try not to twist their content and meaning around too much.Look who is talking about twisting words.

You know what, I'm not going to bother. We've already dealt with the things you're bringing up. Your laziness is no reason for me to repeat myself, and others.

Ban it. Cigarette smoke really irritates me in the way that I start sneezing, my nose runs, my eyes start watering, etc. It isn't fair on me, or other non-smokers, when someone decides to light up and blow smoke around the room. Obviously, we could just move away, but judging by our already being there, the smoker decided to light the cigarette after we were there.

Besides. Smokers really stink because of the smoke. That same smoke lingers in the room and it isn't pleasant.

I usually say smokers should be shot, and banned all together (imagine how many lives it would save), but where else do doctors get their income from?

Look, I don't support restriction by the GOVERNMENT. Lets get that clear right now.
Then answer my original question about drinking. Should there be government imposed age restrictions on drinking, and government imposed restrictions on where you can drink?

I have read them all, and here it is necessary, due to OSHA. So I guess it all depends on what country you are from. OSHA: Occupational Safety and Hazard Association.
Quote the passage that specifically deals with cigarette smoke please.

Banning smoking altogether is a great idea. It worked so well with alcohol, drugs, prostitution...

Ban it. Cigarette smoke really irritates me in the way that I start sneezing, my nose runs, my eyes start watering, etc. It isn't fair on me, or other non-smokers, when someone decides to light up and blow smoke around the room. Obviously, we could just move away, but judging by our already being there, the smoker decided to light the cigarette after we were there.

Besides. Smokers really stink because of the smoke. That same smoke lingers in the room and it isn't pleasant.

I usually say smokers should be shot, and banned all together (imagine how many lives it would save), but where else do doctors get their income from?
And here we have the nuclear-weapon-equivalent post. Happy Eichen??

Banning smoking altogether is a great idea. It worked so well with alcohol, drugs, prostitution...

LOL, I like you lol.

Ban it. Cigarette smoke really irritates me in the way that I start sneezing, my nose runs, my eyes start watering, etc. It isn't fair on me, or other non-smokers, when someone decides to light up and blow smoke around the room. Obviously, we could just move away, but judging by our already being there, the smoker decided to light the cigarette after we were there.

Besides. Smokers really stink because of the smoke. That same smoke lingers in the room and it isn't pleasant.

I usually say smokers should be shot, and banned all together (imagine how many lives it would save), but where else do doctors get their income from?

Doctors will still find ways to make money. They're generally better at that than they are at medicine, anyway. So, we can still shoot smokers, or, better yet, deny them medical care when they get lung cancer or emphezema and let them die in agony. Some may even shoot themselves, then, and save us the trouble. :)

Quote the passage that specifically deals with cigarette smoke please.

I will have to go find it, but I should be able to get it to you. Might take me a bit though. Considering the book is the size of several novels.

Banning smoking altogether is a great idea. It worked so well with alcohol, drugs, prostitution...
Don't start constructing straw men now, the people who want to ban smoking all out are few, and pretty powerless. Restricting smoking to specific areas (outside, private homes) is what is being discussed (or requiring proper ventilation, I like that solution even better...but I suspect it would be more expensive, maybe that's why it's not being done? Who knows...). Much like restricting alcohol consumptions to specific areas. And prostitution...well, there's another one that should be legal, but restricted to certain areas.

Then we could go to the Red Light District, fuck, smoke and drink, not necessarily in that order :D

Pipe smoking is so far superior, I don't even know why people smoke cigarettes.

*puffs on pipe*

Banning smoking altogether is a great idea. It worked so well with alcohol, drugs, prostitution...


That's because we're too lenient with them. Start shooting drunks, drug users, hookers, etc. and the problem is solved. :sniper:

I will have to go find it, but I should be able to get it to you. Might take me a bit though. Considering the book is the size of several novels.
It should be on the web, shouldn't it? I'm interested, because our Occupational Health Safety Acts don't mention many specifics. Our MSDS manuals do...but cigarette smoke is not in them. It isn't really officially recognised as a toxic substance. Doing so would require action, and some places are really trying to avoid that.

Pipe smoking is so far superior, I don't even know why people smoke cigarettes.

*puffs on pipe*
Ah, chewing tobacky is even better! (spits foul-smelling goo into a spitoon and rubs crotch)

Don't start constructing straw men now, the people who want to ban smoking all out are few, and pretty powerless. Restricting smoking to specific areas (outside, private homes) is what is being discussed (or requiring proper ventilation, I like that solution even better...but I suspect it would be more expensive, maybe that's why it's not being done? Who knows...). Much like restricting alcohol consumptions to specific areas. And prostitution...well, there's another one that should be legal, but restricted to certain areas.

Then we could go to the Red Light District, fuck, smoke and drink, not necessarily in that order :D

Yea lets just restrict smoking, drinking, prostitution to certain area. Then after we're done with that. We can do the same to the fat people, then to the blacks, white, asian. Why don't we just do that to our entire society??? I tell you why not, because that is FACISIM! Restricting people based on their own choice is not only discrimination, its facisim.

Don't start constructing straw men now, the people who want to ban smoking all out are few, and pretty powerless.

Well, there are at least three in this thread, so I'm responding to them.

Banning smoking altogether is a great idea. It worked so well with alcohol, drugs, prostitution...

I'd say it would be better to model something on the Irish Republic smoking ban

Edit : It was pretty funny though that BUPA (private healthcare company) cancelled its annual conference in ireland because 41% of its doctors, nurses, etc were smokers

I'd say it would be better to model something on the Irish Republic smoking ban
What are the specifics on that ban?

(Wow...this thread has grown way faster than the sex thread...sheesh you people, where are your priorities?? Smoking. Sex. It SHOULD be a no brainer!)

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9734

What are the specifics on that ban?

(Wow...this thread has grown way faster than the sex thread...sheesh you people, where are your priorities?? Smoking. Sex. It SHOULD be a no brainer!)

If customers are caught smoking in pubs, restaurants and other enclosed workplaces, proprietors will now face fines of up to 3,000 euros (£2,000).

Just think of all the money smokers give to the gov't in the form of excise tax.... I havnt heard of any workplaces that let you smoke inside...so to smoke you have to go outside...so I dont see any real change, except for bars and whatnot....which is part of what is a bar.... (or a pub, rather....)

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9734
Hmmm...I'm seeing provisions on abrasive blasting, grinding, spray finishing, but nothing on smoking...? Am I missing it?

Yea lets just restrict smoking, drinking, prostitution to certain area. Then after we're done with that. We can do the same to the fat people, then to the blacks, white, asian. Why don't we just do that to our entire society??? I tell you why not, because that is FACISIM! Restricting people based on their own choice is not only discrimination, its facisim.
:rolleyes:

Look, make up your mind. Restrict drinking, and smoking (let's leave prostitution out for the time being, okay) or don't. That means, you restrict access based on age, or you don't. If you can support that, what is the big deal with supporting restrictions as to areas you can engage in these activities?

*sigh* You COULD look for a job that doesn't allow smoking. See this is what I was talking about in my original post back in page 8. If you just let the place of business make the smoking ban instead of the government. Then the economy and supply and demand will kick in and it will just take care of itself. Go back to my post on page 8 for the complete detail. Is it a disgusting habbit. Yes, but guess what. Its still their choice, and we still have no right to restrict them just because we feel threatened.

So if my company suddenly decided to allow smoking, I should have to quit my job of the last 18 years and go look for another job? Why should the right of smokers to risk the health of others be greater than my right not to be put at risk?

Well, there are at least three in this thread, so I'm responding to them.
Na. They're thread streakers is all. Don't give them credit they're not due.

:rolleyes:

Look, make up your mind. Restrict drinking, and smoking (let's leave prostitution out for the time being, okay) or don't. That means, you restrict access based on age, or you don't. If you can support that, what is the big deal with supporting restrictions as to areas you can engage in these activities?

Because restriction on age and restriction on where you can do it is not the same thing. Stop trying to make it the same thing. I already told you why I support the age ban. We shouldn't restrict it to certain places, because its discrimination. Jeez you think a group that fought against discrimination in the 60's would be fighting this form of discrimination. I guess you guys are picking and choosing too.

So if my company suddenly decided to allow smoking, I should have to quit my job of the last 18 years and go look for another job? Why should the right of smokers to risk the health of others be greater than my right not to be put at risk?

Ok, lets go through the economy side of it AGAIN. Since you people are not getting it. Lets say their are two companies. Company C and Company D. Company C does not allow smoking, however company D does. Company C has a clean working enviorment and minnimum health risk. The employees are able to work longer hours and years. However in Company D. Health is a problem due to the smoking, employees are having trouble working their shift and have to retire early due to health problem. Company D has to shell out tons of money for mediaid, and lawsuits by people who don't like the smoking. At the end Company C is more proftiable than Company D. In the near future, Company C will buy out Company D. So you can go work for another company that doesn't allow smoking, and you'll be happier there. Trust me.

Because restriction on age and restriction on where you can do it is not the same thing. Stop trying to make it the same thing. I already told you why I support the age ban. We shouldn't restrict it to certain places, because its discrimination. But the age issue is very much linked. I've asked others this, so now I'll ask you. Would you support a rule that said, drinking and smoking can be done inside, but only in areas where children are not allowed? This way, minors, who are not deemed mature enough to decide, are not exposed?


Jeez you think a group that fought against discrimination in the 60's would be fighting this form of discrimination. I guess you guys are picking and choosing too.
First of all, shove your assumptions in your ear. You don't know me, you don't know my politics, you don't know my age, you don't know my affiliations. Secondly, you also clearly don't know that the anti-smoking lobby is not a 'liberal creature of the black lagoon'. To repeat myself, yet again, for someone who doesn't bother to read a thread before barging in, the most powerful anti-smoking lobby in Canada is conservative. And saying that it's 'Liberals' trying to ban smoking is as assinine and fallacious as saying that conservatives are the ones who do all the smoking.

Ah, chewing tobacky is even better! (spits foul-smelling goo into a spitoon and rubs crotch)

Can I help you with that?

Can I help you with that?
Sure! Clean the spitoon while I rub my crotch! :D

Because restriction on age and restriction on where you can do it is not the same thing. Stop trying to make it the same thing. I already told you why I support the age ban. We shouldn't restrict it to certain places, because its discrimination. Jeez you think a group that fought against discrimination in the 60's would be fighting this form of discrimination. I guess you guys are picking and choosing too.

Pot, meet kettle. You're choosing which restrictions you support (age) and which you do not (location). Whether or not your reasons for supporting the age ban are sound, you cannot come across as anything but a hypocrite if you say one form of restriction is okay and another is fascism.

But the age issue is very much linked. I've asked others this, so now I'll ask you. Would you support a rule that said, drinking and smoking can be done inside, but only in areas where children are not allowed? This way, minors, who are not deemed mature enough to decide, are not exposed?

You just don't get it do you. You don't You don't realize that the economy of business WILL take care of this. I am TRYING to tell you that if a business makes a bad decision, it will pay for it. If a business allows smoking, and drinking and minors. That parents will not go to that place of business, the business will loose revunes and will go out of business if the trends contiune. Its so freakin simple why are you people NOT getting it????



First of all, shove your assumptions in your ear. You don't know me, you don't know my politics, you don't know my age, you don't know my affiliations. Secondly, you also clearly don't know that the anti-smoking lobby is not a 'liberal creature of the black lagoon'. To repeat myself, yet again, for someone who doesn't bother to read a thread before barging in, the most powerful anti-smoking lobby in Canada is conservative. And saying that it's 'Liberals' trying to ban smoking is as assinine and fallacious as saying that conservatives are the ones who do all the smoking.
[/qoute]

And you should realize that I am an American, not Canadian. I have no problem with Canada or Canadians. Its just that here in USA its the liberals that are driving the ban bus. Not the conserative.

Sure! Clean the spitoon while I rub my crotch! :D

How about I do both?

You just don't get it do you. You don't You don't realize that the economy of business WILL take care of this. I am TRYING to tell you that if a business makes a bad decision, it will pay for it. If a business allows smoking, and drinking and minors. That parents will not go to that place of business, the business will loose revunes and will go out of business if the trends contiune. Its so freakin simple why are you people NOT getting it????
You know, rather than ranting on, you could answer a yes/no question with a yes, or a no. It'd save me the trouble of reading a repeat of a flawed argument.

And here we have the nuclear-weapon-equivalent post. Happy Eichen??
Oh my. I mean, really Sin... Oh my. :rolleyes:
I didn't think there'd be a nuke comment that soon.

You know, I do believe we can tell by the devolving conversation that school is out now. :p

Pot, meet kettle. You're choosing which restrictions you support (age) and which you do not (location). Whether or not your reasons for supporting the age ban are sound, you cannot come across as anything but a hypocrite if you say one form of restriction is okay and another is fascism.

No I am not a hypocrite. Because once again. Minors = do not understand the consquences of smoking and rinking. Adults= do understand the consquences of smoking and drinking. See, your just playing a mind game, and you're just playing lawyer ball.

Pot, meet kettle. You're choosing which restrictions you support (age) and which you do not (location). Whether or not your reasons for supporting the age ban are sound, you cannot come across as anything but a hypocrite if you say one form of restriction is okay and another is fascism.
Yup. To take his writing style in vain:

You DON'T GET IT youdon't GET IT do you that you CAN'T HAVE IT ALL your way, with SOME restrictions here and none there!!!! Business sucks at SELF-REGULATION!!!!

You know, rather than ranting on, you could answer a yes/no question with a yes, or a no. It'd save me the trouble of reading a repeat of a flawed argument.

How is it flawed? Please tell me, how is it flawed? I can't wait to hear this.

But the age issue is very much linked. I've asked others this, so now I'll ask you. Would you support a rule that said, drinking and smoking can be done inside, but only in areas where children are not allowed? This way, minors, who are not deemed mature enough to decide, are not exposed?

Here's the question again. Maybe you can actually answer it. Either you think that children are not mature enough to smoke or drink, or you think they are. If you don't think they are, you can not support allowing them to be in places where they are exposed to these things (especially the smoke).

Yup. To take his writing style in vain:

You DON'T GET IT youdon't GET IT do you that you CAN'T HAVE IT ALL your way, with SOME restrictions here and none there!!!! Business sucks at SELF-REGULATION!!!!

You REALLY need to take an economic class. Seriously. Its the ECONOMY that regulates business. Its the CUSTOMERS and the MONEY that regulate business. Not the business itself.

I'm comletely in favor of banning smoking in workplaces and in public, and also in prohibiting places of employment from giving smoking breaks unless they give non-smokers the same number of breaks as well.
I have nothing against someone smoking in the privacy of their own home. No one else lives your life except you and there's no reason to intrude on someone's privacy unless they're threatening others. But in public, all of us deserve to be able to breath clean air free of that foul-smelling stuff.

You know, I do believe we can tell by the devolving conversation that school is out now. :p
Mmhmm. Certain people are getting rather frothy and frantic. I think I'll leave until a decent conversation is possible again. :p

No I am not a hypocrite. Because once again. Minors = do not understand the consquences of smoking and rinking. Adults= do understand the consquences of smoking and drinking. See, your just playing a mind game, and you're just playing lawyer ball.

And you're making an arbitrary distinction. What does an 18 year old understand that a 17 year old doesn't? You're trying to justify making restrictions based on your own personal views. You can't support one form of restriction and then call people fascists for supporting another.

Ok, lets try again. With your professor in the wonderful art of a Libertarian style government, Oak Trail.

Would you support a rule that said, drinking and smoking can be done inside, but only in areas where children are not allowed?

See, this is already a carefully designed question. Your trying to get me to counter myself. But, seeing that I am smarter than the average bear, I will have to say no. I will not support this rule. Because I believe that most parents are smart enough to keep their own kids out of those places. I believe that its the parent responsibility to take care of their children, not the government, and not the business. However the business does have the right to make these provision. If a business does, it'll probably attracts more customer than the business that does not.

You REALLY need to take an economic class. Seriously. Its the ECONOMY that regulates business. Its the CUSTOMERS and the MONEY that regulate business. Not the business itself.
You REALLY need to take a political class. Seriously. It's the PEOPLE that push for regulation. It's the PEOPLE and their REPRESENTATIVES that regulate business. Not the business itself.

If your country wanted to truly be capitalist, and allow business to make the rules, it would be. Clearly, that is not the case. Live with it.

See, this is already a carefully designed question. Your trying to get me to counter myself. Paranoid much? It's a simply question. But maybe it's just a tad too complicated for you?

But, seeing that I am smarter than the average bear, I agree. Bears aren't that smart.

I will have to say no. I will not support this rule. Because I believe that most parents are smart enough to keep their own kids out of those places. I believe that its the parent responsibility to take care of their children, not the government, and not the business. However the business does have the right to make these provision. If a business does, it'll probably attracts more customer than the business that does not.
Then, realising you've contradicted yourself, you must withdraw your support of an age limit for drinking and smoking, and leave it in the hands of parents to decide. Otherwise, you remain a hypocrite.

You REALLY need to take a political class. Seriously. It's the PEOPLE that push for regulation. It's the PEOPLE and their REPRESENTATIVES that regulate business. Not the business itself.

If your country wanted to truly be capitalist, and allow business to make the rules, it would be. Clearly, that is not the case. Live with it.

No I won't live with it because Its restricting freedom, and if we let the government restrict freedom on one front. What will stop them on another front. See this whole ban smoking thing is a slipperly slope.

Businesses do make the rules, just see the DCMA and ever corrupted Patent OFfice as examples.

But on the topic, yes I do suppose public workplace, bar, and whatever else bans. Can't live with that? Tough, go kill yourself at home, one cig at a time.

No I won't live with it because Its restricting freedom, and if we let the government restrict freedom on one front. What will stop them on another front. See this whole ban smoking thing is a slipperly slope.
Uh-huh...so you don't support the restriction of minors to smoke and drink anymore? Alright. Contradiction resolved.

Paranoid much? It's a simply question. But maybe it's just a tad too complicated for you?

I agree. Bears aren't that smart.


Then, realising you've contradicted yourself, you must withdraw your support of an age limit for drinking and smoking, and leave it in the hands of parents to decide. Otherwise, you remain a hypocrite.

Tell me, if you are soo scared of people smoking, and your agrument that it endangers the health of the people. Should we ban Fast food resturant. Should we ban chocolate? I mean they endangers the health of the people. Why don't we just ban drugs that makes you drowsy. Because God knows a drowsy person behind the wheel of a car is a danger to other people health. You know childrens shouldn't be allow to run and play. They may fall and scrape their knee. The scrape on their knee could be an endangerment to their health. Maybe we should ban playgrounds and recess in schools.

I would prefer if the ban was held by referendum. (Actually, I'd prefer everything to be held by referendum.) But I think the best way would be for it to be banned, and smokers sentenced to rehab as opposed to jail. (And extend this to all other drug users, as well.)


Referendums are terrible ideas, most people are too stupid to vote in general elections, never mind on laws that directly affect others.

Smoking should definitely be banned in enclosed public spaces like restaurants and offices, but if people want to smoke in their own homes or outside who cares?

Tell me, if you are soo scared of people smoking, and your agrument that it endangers the health of the people. Should we ban Fast food resturant. Should we ban chocolate? I mean they endangers the health of the people. Quit making shit up. Someone working in a place where fast food is consumed is not harmed. Someone working in a place where smoking is rampant, is. Period. And yes, by all means, completely ignore the fact that two people on this thread have called you a hypocrite for supporting age limits. Don't actually respond, just go off on a totally unrelated tangent.

Uh-huh...so you don't support the restriction of minors to smoke and drink anymore? Alright. Contradiction resolved.

Your words not mine. You know, in large. Yea I do believe that its the parents responsibility to keep smokes and beer out of their child hands. Ok, I'd give you that. If a kid decides to get his own smoke. If the business sells the kids smoke. If the words get out, then yadda yadda yadda. I've been over the business decision scenario before. Fine, I don't support any smoking or drinking ban. Lets see what else you can label me.

Quit making shit up. Someone working in a place where fast food is consumed is not harmed. Someone working in a place where smoking is rampant, is. Period. And yes, by all means, completely ignore the fact that two people on this thread have called you a hypocrite for supporting age limits. Don't actually respond, just go off on a totally unrelated tangent.

You mean like you did with the age limit, and banning smoking in public places?

You REALLY need to take a political class. Seriously. It's the PEOPLE that push for regulation. It's the PEOPLE and their REPRESENTATIVES that regulate business. Not the business itself.

If your country wanted to truly be capitalist, and allow business to make the rules, it would be. Clearly, that is not the case. Live with it.
Alright, alright. Now you guys are taking advantageous potshots at libertarianism and free-market capitalism, simply because this guy is not the best debator amongst us. Shame on you! :p

Your words not mine. You know, in large. Yea I do believe that its the parents responsibility to keep smokes and beer out of their child hands. Ok, I'd give you that. If a kid decides to get his own smoke. If the business sells the kids smoke. If the words get out, then yadda yadda yadda. I've been over the business decision scenario before. Fine, I don't support any smoking or drinking ban. Lets see what else you can label me.
Alright, now we know. You don't support any restrictions on smoking or drinking. Thank you. We're done now. Kids drinking and smoking are the parent's responsibilities, and adults drinking and smoking around children are the parent's responsibility. Thanks for clearing that up. (Hey kid, want a smoke? it's not illegal to give you, or sell you one! Want a beer? I got a case! Yeah, you want to see my amusement park too? Then you can sleep over! I'll even sing you Thriller! :eek: )

My last, then I must go.

Thanks for the arguement, even Sinihue, who wins. I couldn't find anything in OSHA that specifically states ventilation rules for indoor smoking other than a return remark to a question about smoking in dorms. They told that questioner to check with the EPA.

As for government being able to ban smoking in public accessed areas, I still say the gov't should only have this ability for government ran or owned places. Everything that is privately owned should have the right to make their own rules.

Bye!

Edit: to clear up confusions, I'm talking about banning smoking in the workplace, whether privately or publicly owned. You could still smoke outside, or in your home.
Smoking was banned in Irish workplaces on 29th March 2004. Like most Irish people, I support the ban. It makes things so much more pleasant for the non-smoking majority of people. Before the ban, people who worked in pubs suffered terribly from the effects of passive smoking.

Of course, citizens still have the freedom to smoke outdoors and in private, which I support.

If marijuana were legalised, as I hope it will be, I think that the workplace smoking ban should apply to it as well.

I would prefer if the ban was held by referendum. (Actually, I'd prefer everything to be held by referendum.) But I think the best way would be for it to be banned, and smokers sentenced to rehab as opposed to jail. (And extend this to all other drug users, as well.)
I thought you were pro-legalisation. :confused:

Alright, alright. Now you guys are taking advantageous potshots at libertarianism and free-market capitalism, simply because this guy is not the best debator amongst us. Shame on you! :p
I'm just yelling (capitalising excessively) and being mocking. I smoke pot...I don't shoot it...I'm confused??? ;)

Alright, now we know. You don't support any restrictions on smoking or drinking. Thank you. We're done now. Kids drinking and smoking are the parent's responsibilities, and adults drinking and smoking around children are the parent's responsibility. Thanks for clearing that up. (Hey kid, want a smoke? it's not illegal to give you, or sell you one! Want a beer? I got a case! Yeah, you want to see my amusement park too? Then you can sleep over! I'll even sing you Thriller! :eek: )

LOL see, I knew this was going to happen. Wow, why do I even bother. If I say one thing, you label me one thing. If I say another, you label me another thing. Theres no way to win with you people instead of going with your ideology. I just made that last post to see what you would say. I still support age limits. So :p

You mean like you did with the age limit, and banning smoking in public places?
Hon, you're the only one who doesn't see the contradiction inherent in your position...though you've flipflopped, and admitted you can't justify supporting an age regulation.

Hon, you're the only one who doesn't see the contradiction inherent in your position...though you've flipflopped, and admitted you can't justify supporting an age regulation.

No thats not flip flopping. That was just toying with you and letting the public see that no matter what stance you take (beside your own) that you can't win. So thank you for exposing yourself.

LOL see, I knew this was going to happen. Wow, why do I even bother. If I say one thing, you label me one thing. If I say another, you label me another thing. Theres no way to win with you people instead of going with your ideology. I just made that last post to see what you would say. I still support age limits. So :p
Hey...you're the one going on about slippery slope...so I'm giving one. You seem to like them. Consider it a present!

But seriously, I want you to think about this, and solidify your views. That's what these conversations are for...not just for kicking you in the balls for debating poorly (no, really...that's just a bonus). Now, I don't seriously think that you have to be against smoking restrictions AND age restrictions. But if you really want to explore libertarianism, you have to ask yourself some questions. If you think that age restrictions are valid, or not...you should also ask, are laws about selling minors smokes and alcohol valid? Why or why not? Who should be held responsible, who should take action, and where exactly do you draw the line between government involvement, and private involvement? You don't seem to have that line clear in your mind yet, and hey, that's okay. But think about it.

Your words not mine. You know, in large. Yea I do believe that its the parents responsibility to keep smokes and beer out of their child hands. Ok, I'd give you that. If a kid decides to get his own smoke. If the business sells the kids smoke. If the words get out, then yadda yadda yadda. I've been over the business decision scenario before. Fine, I don't support any smoking or drinking ban. Lets see what else you can label me.
This is the point that I have to interject here. You're really making we libertarians and laissez-faire capitalists look as bad as the heavyhanded statists.
Since a child cannot and should not be expected to be an informed consumer, selling these items to them constitutes fraud, because the child in question cannot yet make an educated choice.

If your arguments are based on the assumption that a free market can operate when force and fraud are punished, you are indeed making a hypocritical statement.

The only question that is relevant is, at what age can a minor be considered appropriately responsible for his choices as a consumer in the aforementioned free market?

This is the point that I have to interject here. You're really making we libertarians and laissez-faire capitalists look as bad as the heavyhanded statists.
Since a child cannot and should not be expected to be an informed consumer, selling these items to them constitutes fraud, because the child in question cannot yet make an educated choice.

If your arguments are based on the assumption that a free market can operate when force and fraud are punished, you are indeed making a hypocritical statement.

The only question that is relevant is, at what age can a minor be considered appropriately responsible for his choices as a consumer in the aforementioned free market?

Relax, I still support Age restriction on smoking and drinking. It was just a trap to expose the fact that no matter what stance you take with these "ban everything" people. They will always label you something. Such as a hypocrite, or apparently Michael Jackson when I made that post. Now as for the age thing. I actually support current laws that are in place. The reason, Drinking and driving.

Relax, I still support Age restriction on smoking and drinking. It was just a trap to expose the fact that no matter what stance you take with these "ban everything" people. They will always labe you something. Such as a hypocrite, or apparently Michael Jackson when I made that post.
Hi Pot, meet Kettle. You're both black.

I'm going to label people and then complain they label me! Yay!

No Oak. You are not clear on your position. The only thing clear, is exactly that.

Now as for the age thing. I actually support current laws that are in place. The reason, Drinking and driving.
???? Age restrictions have what to do with drinking and driving?

Hi Pot, meet Kettle. You're both black.

I'm going to label people and claim they label me! Yay!

No Oak. You are not clear on your position. The only thing clear, is exactly that.

Then allow me to make it clear then.

I do not support ban on smoking in PUBLIC places. I do not support GOVERNMENT ban. I do support an age ban because like my libertarian friend stated, a minor cannot make the decision to smoke or drink. I am for the free market, I am for a minnimum interferance by the government. I am a Conserative libertarian. So my libertarian friend do not need to worry.

Alright. I know that certain people on this forum (Melkor baby, I'm looking at you!) are very against a government imposed ban on smoking. (We don't seem to make such a big deal about it in Canada though, most people, smokers included just go, 'meh' to the whole thing and move on). However, if a referendum is held in a municipality, and the decision is made by the majority, would you be happy with the way that the ban was implemented? Is it just that you don't want a government unilaterally imposing this restriction? Would it be better if the majority in a particular area did?

Edit: to clear up confusions, I'm talking about banning smoking in the workplace, whether privately or publicly owned. You could still smoke outside, or in your home.
Austin (Where I live) recently passed an anti-smoking law that prohibits smoking in all public restraunts, which is great.

Frankly, I think smoking should be banned altogether, but since that's unlikely, I'd settle for a ban on smoking, except for in one's own private residence or car. All other areas should be off limits, in my mind.

Austin (Where I live) recently passed an anti-smoking law that prohibits smoking in all public restraunts, which is great.

Frankly, I think smoking should be banned altogether, but since that's unlikely, I'd settle for a ban on smoking, except for in one's own private residence or car. All other areas should be off limits, in my mind.
And thus you create a whole new crime and a whole new class of criminals.

I think that banning smoking in most workplaces is fine - generally with some sort of covered smoking area provided outside. If an area votes to ban it in public buildings, I think that is fine as well.

In restaurants, bars, etc., I think it should be up to the owner of the establishment. They can either have smoking/non-smoking sections, or they can be completely smoke-free, or they can be completely smoking areas. If a smoker doesn't want to go somewhere they can't smoke, they can avoid the smoke-free places, and the same goes vice versa.

And thus you create a whole new crime and a whole new class of criminals.
Sir, you've just made the first intelligible comment I've read in several pages of irrational rhetoric. Thank you.

Alright. I know that certain people on this forum (Melkor baby, I'm looking at you!) are very against a government imposed ban on smoking. (We don't seem to make such a big deal about it in Canada though, most people, smokers included just go, 'meh' to the whole thing and move on). However, if a referendum is held in a municipality, and the decision is made by the majority, would you be happy with the way that the ban was implemented? Is it just that you don't want a government unilaterally imposing this restriction? Would it be better if the majority in a particular area did?

Edit: to clear up confusions, I'm talking about banning smoking in the workplace, whether privately or publicly owned. You could still smoke outside, or in your home.

I really do not think the government should have any say whatsoever over the matter in terms of private business, I don't care if it's federal, state, or local. Any law they pass regarding such, is illegal. And will not be obeyed.

I really do not think the government should have any say whatsoever over the matter in terms of private business, I don't care if it's federal, state, or local. Any law they pass regarding such, is illegal. And will not be obeyed.

THANK YOU!

Sadly, it probably won't happen. We have way too many Capitalist/Consumerists with the collective intellect of a cockroach running things.



Take a look at my Political Compass standings, then make your own decision on where I stand on this issue.

*I'm not one for tyranny of the majority, and bans like this are a part of it.

actually, most business people are fairly intelligent.

as for banning smoking, hell no. try to take the cigarette out of my hands and i'll...

I really do not think the government should have any say whatsoever over the matter in terms of private business, I don't care if it's federal, state, or local. Any law they pass regarding such, is illegal. And will not be obeyed.
Yes. Let's toss out all the fraud laws, all the safety regulations in regards to their products, let them be accountable only to themselves!!!

OR you can stop making absolute statements, and qualify yourself.