NationStates Jolt Archive

This may come off as a meaningless rant, but I'm tired of so many non-smokers. I'm tired of not being able to smoke indoors, at clubs, venues, etc. I can understand them not wanting smokers lighting up in front of them--I don't like the smell either--but you can deal with it. Stop infringing my civil rights! I want to smoke!

Questions? Comments? Smart remarks?

Then I have every right to go into a club/bar/etc and fart gratuitously.

Violent criminals are people too. What's your point?

I think smokers should be allowed to kill themselves outside, but indoors, the smoke collects. Even without being near smokers, if I go to a pub, I come home with my clothes all smelling of smoke.

Then I have every right to go into a club/bar/etc and fart gratuitously.
Yes you do, and I'm sure you do anyways.

Damn right I do.

Violent criminals are people too. What's your point?

I think smokers should be allowed to kill themselves outside, but indoors, the smoke collects. Even without being near smokers, if I go to a pub, I come home with my clothes all smelling of smoke.
And your point? Criminals are just that--criminals. By smoking I have commited no crime, I have not put anyone into direct danger. There are no bars banning people with dandruff, and I don't want anyone's dandruff on my person.

Pffft... smoker's aren't people! Damnit, smoker's work for subhuman wages and steal non-smoker jobs! I say, send them back to Smokeropolis!

Stop infringing my civil rights! I want to smoke!
You don't have a right to smoke.

Others, however, do have a right to not have to inhale your poisonous, carcinogenic smoke.

And I'm a smoker.

edit: What exactly are "logical" areas? Is this some kind of philosophical question?

i dont know why smokers dont organize and work against these laws.

its kinda silly to expect non smokers to get all up in arms about the right to smoke.

I don't smoke verey often, but just yesterday i went to Denny's and asked to sit in the smoking section, the lady replies "we don't allow smoking until 3 pm and only on certain days" and this was in the morning.

I dont smoke, but i dont like how noone is allowed to smoke inside anymore (I live in New Jersey). I live in a very urban area, where theres 3 bars on every block. Now, instead of people smoking inside, you have a group of people smoking outside. People passing by now have to succumb to the smoke. Not only that, what about the people that live ABOVE the bar? smoke easily comes through their windows. Hell, it comes through mine and I dont live that close to one.

It doesnt matter, if people smoke, theres going to be smoke, regardless of where. Designated smoking sections worked just fine.

And your point? Criminals are just that--criminals. By smoking I have commited no crime, I have not put anyone into direct danger. There are no bars banning people with dandruff, and I don't want anyone's dandruff on my person.

My point is that saying "X are people" doesn't mean that X should be able to do anything they like.

As for dandruff, it doesn't float around in the air like smoke, and it doesn't damage people's health.

And your point? Criminals are just that--criminals. By smoking I have commited no crime, I have not put anyone into direct danger. There are no bars banning people with dandruff, and I don't want anyone's dandruff on my person.
Dandruff brushing onto your clothes doesn't have the bulk of scientific evidence saying it can be fatal.

You don't have a right to smoke.

Others, however, do have a right to not have to inhale your poisonous, carcinogenic smoke.

And I'm a smoker.

edit: What exactly are "logical" areas? Is this some kind of philosophical question?
Maybe I don't, but they don't have the right to tell me where I can. If one has respect for others, or, as childish as it sounds, was asked to relocate, that's one thing. But banning it? It's unnecessary. If non-smokers are really so offended by it, why don't they go somewhere else. The key to freedom is tolerance.

Logical areas as in, you know, common sense. I don't think a Doctor should light up in the middle of surgery, or should anyone spark their smoke while filling the gas tank..... though, common sense is fleeting nowadays.

This may come off as a meaningless rant, but I'm tired of so many non-smokers. I'm tired of not being able to smoke indoors, at clubs, venues, etc. I can understand them not wanting smokers lighting up in front of them--I don't like the smell either--but you can deal with it. Stop infringing my civil rights! I want to smoke!

Questions? Comments? Smart remarks?

Smoke all you want. Just don't exhale. :)

Dandruff brushing onto your clothes doesn't have the bulk of scientific evidence saying it can be fatal.
Neither is standing in a bar filled with smoke for a few hours. Smoking a pack a day for 20 years is.

Neither is standing in a bar filled with smoke for a few hours. Smoking a pack a day for 20 years is.

Tell that to the bartender.

Maybe I don't, but they don't have the right to tell me where I can. If one has respect for others, or, as childish as it sounds, was asked to relocate, that's one thing. But banning it? It's unnecessary. If non-smokers are really so offended by it, why don't they go somewhere else. The key to freedom is tolerance.
Why don't they go somewhere else?

Because they're not the ones who are doing the harming. If you want to exhale poisonous gases it's up to you to ensure that nobody could be harmed by them.

If I stood outside your house shouting in the middle of the night, and you complained, would "why don't you go somewhere else?" be an acceptable response from me? Of course not.

Logical areas as in, you know, common sense. I don't think a Doctor should light up in the middle of surgery, or should anyone spark their smoke while filling the gas tank..... though, common sense is fleeting nowadays.
Doctors smoking during surgery would certainly be unusual.

Neither is standing in a bar filled with smoke for a few hours. Smoking a pack a day for 20 years is.
A few hours being maybe 5 or 6 several, or all, days a week, most weeks of the year.

Those at most risk are the staff. Not the patrons.

This may come off as a meaningless rant, but I'm tired of so many non-smokers. I'm tired of not being able to smoke indoors, at clubs, venues, etc. I can understand them not wanting smokers lighting up in front of them--I don't like the smell either--but you can deal with it. Stop infringing my civil rights! I want to smoke!

Questions? Comments? Smart remarks?
My parents were practically chain smokers for approximately the first nine years of my life, and I spent more or less all that time trying to stop them. I have asthma and occasional bronchitis now because they smoked. The thing that finally stopped them--and also changed their diets and exercise habits--was my dad's nigh fatal heart attack he suffered in 1996.

So, you want to kill yourself? Fine. Go do it where you can't harm anyone else either.

Secondhand smoke is a product of the liberal media to hinder the growth of big tobacco corporations.

Secondhand smoke is a product of the liberal media to hinder the growth of big tobacco corporations.
Second-hand smoke is the product of money-grabbing tobacco corporations, designed to murder ordinary people.

Or maybe a product of smoking...geez

Secondhand smoke is a product of the liberal media to hinder the growth of big tobacco corporations.

True, true. Those wisps and clouds of noxious vapors are loaded with vitamins. :)

True, true. Those wisps and clouds of noxious vapors are loaded with vitamins. :)

Breathe that smoke in little by little and you will eventually become immune. Secondhand smoke is a "vaccine" for cancer.

Breathe that smoke in little by little and you will eventually become immune. Secondhand smoke is a "vaccine" for cancer.

Mmmhmm. That's nice. And all disease is spread by the miasma and if you hold a bunch of posies you'll be OK.

Breathe that smoke in little by little and you will eventually become immune. Secondhand smoke is a "vaccine" for cancer.

Dammit! You mean I ate all that oatmeal for nothing?!? :mad:

This may come off as a meaningless rant, but I'm tired of so many non-smokers. I'm tired of not being able to smoke indoors, at clubs, venues, etc. I can understand them not wanting smokers lighting up in front of them--I don't like the smell either--but you can deal with it. Stop infringing my civil rights! I want to smoke!

Questions? Comments? Smart remarks?
Non-smokers have civil rights too you know. We have a civil right to NOT inhale your filthy pollution!

You should have the right to kill yourself. You shouldn't have the right to annoy/damage everyone within a 20 foot radius for the next 7 minutes while you do it.

Stop crying, put on a coat, and go smoke outside.

Mmmhmm. That's nice. And all disease is spread by the miasma and if you hold a bunch of posies you'll be OK.
Lol, I got a definition of miasma and one of the examples of it used in a sentence was 'wreathed in a miasma of cigarette smoke.'. Amusingly appropriate.

It's funny how a lot of smokers seem to think that what they are doing doesn't affect those around them, or that it shouldn't matter. I'll put it to them this way; Compare it to fellatio. You like to do it, great. But if I had to taste it or get the smell of it on my clothes, then my no-fellatio in public spaces sign would be up in a hurry.

Yeah, I dont have a problem wtih people who smoke indoors around me. So I say yes to this one.

Dammit! You mean I ate all that oatmeal for nothing?!? :mad:

Yes. Next time you see any oatmeal you should throw it at somebody smoking because, well beacuse you're Lunatic Goofballs. Do you need a better reason?

My only question here is this: Why shouldn't the owners of the establishments in question be able to decide whether to allow smoking or not?

My only question here is this: Why shouldn't the owners of the establishments in question be able to decide whether to allow smoking or not?

Very good point. A gold star for you :)

My only question here is this: Why shouldn't the owners of the establishments in question be able to decide whether to allow smoking or not?
Because they have a duty to ensure the health and safety of their customers and employees.

why do people smoke in the first place? yea its your body and if you wanna die at the age of 50 fine by me. its not my buisiness how you kill yourself. but dont bring me down with you. i know people whose parents smoke and now they've got the smoker's cough even though they've never touched a cigarette. and smoking has no positive effects at all. why people willingly kill themselves in a slow and painful way i dont know. but if you insist on commiting suicide through cigarettes, please dont do it near me, i'd rather live a full life.

Then I have every right to go into a club/bar/etc and fart gratuitously.
You do, and I bet you abuse that right. Anyway.. I think smokers should be allowed to smoke publicly sidewalks/bars/clubs/ect..

If I ever had someone bitch at me because I was smoking in the area of that person.. I would tell them to fuck off. They don't want to smoke? Good for them. Leave me the fuck alone.

Because they have a duty to ensure the health and safety of their customers and employees.

...whether they like it or not...

I think we should summarily get rid of tobacco companies and distribute their earnings to the families of smoking victims.

/puts on anti-flame suit

You do, and I bet you abuse that right. Anyway.. I think smokers should be allowed to smoke publicly sidewalks/bars/clubs/ect..

If I ever had someone bitch at me because I was smoking in the area of that person.. I would tell them to fuck off. They don't want to smoke? Good for them. Leave me the fuck alone.

How mature.

...whether they like it or not...
Absolutely.

Yes. Next time you see any oatmeal you should throw it at somebody smoking because, well beacuse you're Lunatic Goofballs. Do you need a better reason?

I already do. :p But Imagine how much more I could've thrown had I not eaten of much of it. :)

You do, and I bet you abuse that right. Anyway.. I think smokers should be allowed to smoke publicly sidewalks/bars/clubs/ect..

If I ever had someone bitch at me because I was smoking in the area of that person.. I would tell them to fuck off. They don't want to smoke? Good for them. Leave me the fuck alone.

Somehow I think the number of people you are pissing off by smoking is greater than the number of people(just you really) that gets pissed off when people tell you to stop smoking. They win.

well here in britain I think it should be ilegal full stop due to the fact we have a national health service and I don't want to be paying for some idiot smoker to take up space that could be used for people who haven't done something they know to be harmfull.

Man, you people are way too into the bad hype about smoking.

Yeah, people die from smoking, but i guarantee you that percentage is miniscule compared to the percentage of people that smoke/are exposed to secondhand smoke. Me? I consider living in New Jersey more of a health risk.

Because they have a duty to ensure the health and safety of their customers and employees.

Because carcinogenic smoke is being viewed less and less as an 'occupational hazard' and more and more as a preventable one.

Silly, isn't it?

I think we should summarily get rid of tobacco companies and distribute their earnings to the families of smoking victims.

/puts on anti-flame suit
That begs the question, how do you prove someone died because of smoking? Presumably that would be necessary to know when distributing the earnings.

Still, should people have to die because of some selfish pillock who's doing a chimney impression?

How mature.
And it's mature to whine like a little bitch when you are in the presence of a smoker?

That begs the question, how do you prove someone died because of smoking? Presumably that would be necessary to know when distributing the earnings.
Well, we can't. That's why I'll have to keep all of the money in my bank account to make sure nothing happens to it until we can definitely prove whose lung cancer/heart attack/tuberculosis/nicotine poisoning came from smoking or inhaling secondhand smoke, not anything else. ;)

Man, you people are way too into the bad hype about smoking.

Yeah, people die from smoking, but i guarantee you that percentage is miniscule compared to the percentage of people that smoke/are exposed to secondhand smoke. Me? I consider living in New Jersey more of a health risk.
I think you'll find that every single smoker and everyone that was ever exposed to second hand smoke will/has die/d ;)

And it's mature to whine like a little bitch when you are in the presence of a smoker?
If someone was doing something that annoyed or irritated you, say singing the badger badger...etc thing over and over again really really loudly, would you be a little bitch to ask them to stop? Now if that something they were doing had considerable scientific proof that it is harmful to your health(the badger song still works as an example ;) ) would you be a little bitch to ask them to stop?

And it's mature to whine like a little bitch when you are in the presence of a smoker?

The mature thing to do when you see someone smoking is to assume he is on fire and smother him with a rug. :)

Well, we can't. That's why I'll have to keep all of the money in my bank account to make sure nothing happens to it until we can definitely prove whose lung cancer/heart attack/tuberculosis/nicotine poisoning came from smoking or inhaling secondhand smoke, not anything else. ;)
Well since we can't trust you we'll have to leave the money in my high interest earning deposit account until you prove yourself. It'll probably take 20-30 years. But I don't mind holding onto the money.

I think you'll find that every single smoker and everyone that was ever exposed to second hand smoke will/has die/d ;)

Yep. Rocks fall...Everyone dies

Somehow I think the number of people you are pissing off by smoking is greater than the number of people(just you really) that gets pissed off when people tell you to stop smoking. They win.
They have no business telling me what to do. If I'm smoking in front of your holyness, get over it.

If you have your nose that far up in the air you wont even notice me smoking.

They have no business telling me what to do. If I'm smoking in front of your holyness, get over it.

If you have your nose that far up in the air you wont even notice me smoking.

Yeah, well the smell of all that crap coming out your mouth isn't pleasant either.

If the bar you're drinking at looks like this: http://www.specialevent.com/Coyote%20Ugly%20Grand%20Opening.jpg You should be able to smoke in it.

They have no business telling me what to do. If I'm smoking in front of your holyness, get over it.

If you have your nose that far up in the air you wont even notice me smoking.
Amen to that.

They have no business telling me what to do. If I'm smoking in front of your holyness, get over it.

If you have your nose that far up in the air you wont even notice me smoking.

You are damaging their health by doing so, it most certainly is their business.

If someone was doing something that annoyed or irritated you, say singing the badger badger...etc thing over and over again really really loudly, would you be a little bitch to ask them to stop? Now if that something they were doing had considerable scientific proof that it is harmful to your health(the badger song still works as an example ;) ) would you be a little bitch to ask them to stop?
But if it is only affecting me and not them (say.. I'm standing outside a bar as they go in, not right next to them) and they still do it. I woud be quite offended. But if I'm right there, in their face, I wouldn't be smoking in the first place.. just to be nice. I'm not a heavy smoker, hardly 3 cigs a week.. I enjoy it, not suck them down.. I don't know where I'm going with this do I'll start a new paragraph..

I know they are bad for me, but I don't think telling me to stop.. god damnit.. you're right.. but if it's not affecting them for more than a second.. why bother making a huge deal about it?

Nice example btw :)

The mature thing to do when you see someone smoking is to assume he is on fire and smother him with a rug. :)
:p

I agree.

Yeah, well the smell of all that crap coming out your mouth isn't pleasant either.
I have minty chewing gum on hand of course ;)

We should leave smoking and nonsmoking up to the discretion of the owners of private property and ban it in all indoor public places. If you own or operate the place and it's your decision to allow or ban smoking, that should be totally up to you.

Smoking is a health hazard both to the smoker and to those around them and therefore should not be allowed in indoor public places because there is no way for the smoke to diffuse without impacting the nonsmokers, and since it is a public place there is no reason why the health and safety of others should be compromised for the convienence of smoking indoors.

We should leave smoking and nonsmoking up to the discretion of the owners of private property and ban it in all indoor public places. If you own or operate the place and it's your decision to allow or ban smoking, that should be totally up to you.

Smoking is a health hazard both to the smoker and to those around them and therefore should not be allowed in indoor public places because there is no way for the smoke to diffuse without impacting the nonsmokers, and since it is a public place there is no reason why the health and safety of others should be compromised for the convienence of smoking indoors.

Include indoor places of employment and you've got a deal. Tolerating smoke is a health risk, not an occupational hazard.

This is actually an interesting study in how cultural norms change, and how to change them in the future.

Prohibition failed because there was no effort to change the culture before it became illegal.

Now the system is down we can use the same steps to change other aspects of culture.

Actually the same system has been used by conservatives to change the culture over the last 25 years. Most of those on this forum don't even remember the ole culture.

We should leave smoking and nonsmoking up to the discretion of the owners of private property and ban it in all indoor public places. If you own or operate the place and it's your decision to allow or ban smoking, that should be totally up to you.

Smoking is a health hazard both to the smoker and to those around them and therefore should not be allowed in indoor public places because there is no way for the smoke to diffuse without impacting the nonsmokers, and since it is a public place there is no reason why the health and safety of others should be compromised for the convienence of smoking indoors.

Sounds good to me.

I don't support the laws that are popping up around the country now that ban it in all establishments, because I think the owner of a bar/restaurant should be able to make that decision themselves. If they want to cater to smokers, so be it. If enough of their customers leave for non-smoking places, they'll either go under or go non-smoking (or vice versa).

Smoking is a health hazard both to the smoker and to those around them and therefore should not be allowed in indoor public places because there is no way for the smoke to diffuse without impacting the nonsmokers, and since it is a public place there is no reason why the health and safety of others should be compromised for the convienence of smoking indoors.

Sure. Just add indoor private places and I'm good with that as well. You can go kill yourself and your family in the privacy of your own home.

Include indoor places of employment and you've got a deal. Tolerating smoke is a health risk, not an occupational hazard.
It should especially be illegal in bars where everyone is drinking a poison, quite often including the bartenders. Can't let that terrible second hand smoke get in the way of destroying that kidney.

But if it is only affecting me and not them (say.. I'm standing outside a bar as they go in, not right next to them) and they still do it. I woud be quite offended. But if I'm right there, in their face, I wouldn't be smoking in the first place.. just to be nice. I'm not a heavy smoker, hardly 3 cigs a week.. I enjoy it, not suck them down.. I don't know where I'm going with this do I'll start a new paragraph..

I know they are bad for me, but I don't think telling me to stop.. god damnit.. you're right.. but if it's not affecting them for more than a second.. why bother making a huge deal about it?

Nice example btw :)

Well if they are just walking by you smoking or vice cersa and they tell you to stop then they are sticking their nose into your business and you should tell them to just fuck off. Since the smoking ban came into affect in Ireland the smokers all congregate outside the pubs or in the beer garden. If someone started telling them all to stop, well they'd probably get seven shades of shite kicked out of them.

"Smokers are people too!"
Yeah people who smoke!

Smokers aren't people as long as non-smokers are.
Keep 'em out of public places, I say. If you want to kill yourself in the privacy of your own space, fine. But don't poison everyone else because you feel like you're being discriminated against.

It should especially be illegal in bars where everyone is drinking a poison, quite often including the bartenders. Can't let that terrible second hand smoke get in the way of destroying that kidney.
Meh, at least there's some benefit from drinking(i.e. getting drunk). And I'm not even gonna go near second hand drinking, ewwwww.

Meh, at least there's some benefit from drinking(i.e. getting drunk). And I'm not even gonna go near second hand drinking, ewwwww.
Nicotine does give you a buzz, though you have to smoke pretty irregularly to get it. Do body shots count as second hand drinking?

It should especially be illegal in bars where everyone is drinking a poison, quite often including the bartenders. Can't let that terrible second hand smoke get in the way of destroying that kidney.

Ah, good point. Alcohol, which requires that you actively consume the poison yourself is so similar to clouds of smoke that are inhaled by everyone nearby that we certainly wouldn't want to confuse the two. :p

Nicotine does give you a buzz, though you have to smoke pretty irregularly to get it. Do body shots count as second hand drinking?

I once hosed people down with a supersoaker filled with vodka. Does that count?

Ah, good point. Alcohol, which requires that you actively consume the poison yourself is so similar to clouds of smoke that are inhaled by everyone nearby that we certainly wouldn't want to confuse the two. :p
Yet in a situation where nearly everyone is consuming alcohol(which can be far more detrimental to your health a lot quicker then smoking, like alcohol poisoning) and in a bar it is probably safe to assume that people are there to drink, that second hand smoke would not be the chiefest of the health concerns.

Well if they are just walking by you smoking or vice cersa and they tell you to stop then they are sticking their nose into your business and you should tell them to just fuck off. Since the smoking ban came into affect in Ireland the smokers all congregate outside the pubs or in the beer garden. If someone started telling them all to stop, well they'd probably get seven shades of shite kicked out of them.
Yay you agree!

I think smoking and eating is just.. don't do it. It's making the food taste like shit.. but if they want to do it, that's what smoking sections are for.

But, yeah, you agree!

I once hosed people down with a supersoaker filled with vodka. Does that count?
That is a fantastic idea...I am definitely going to do that at some point in the near future.

My only question here is this: Why shouldn't the owners of the establishments in question be able to decide whether to allow smoking or not?

For the same reason they can't decide on their own how often to clean their kitchens/toilets, or at what temperature they can store their meats, or whether their employees have to wash their hands after using the toilet, or if they can have a few rats or roaches running around, or if they can have slippery floors. It's a public health issue. In your own home, sure. Do as you wish there. But not in a place that caters to the public.

What I don't get is why people start in the first place. I mean it's not just the health thing, it's expensive as well. Why bother?

(My reasoning)
I'm an ex-smoker. I don't like the smell of smoke anymore, I don't like seeing people smoke, I don't support the decision to smoke, I won't buy cigs for minors, I even get annoyed at finding butts littering my morning walk...

But I don't go to a bar expecting to smell potpourri, a coffee shop for the clean air, nor do I stand next to an ashtray waiting for an opportunity to call them "coffin nails" or "cancer sticks." Honestly, if you want to get drunk without smelling smoke, go drink at home. If you hate smoking sections in McDonalds, get drive-through (In some areas, this solution works with liquor stores!). If you just can't stand the smell no matter what, breathe through your mouth. Most smokers will try to stay out of high-traffic areas anyway(for example, leaning against a grimy dumpster behind their workplace. Yech.) because you glare at them like they're deliberately trying to hurt your lungs. Give the the courtesy of letting them smoke in peace.

(the pro-choice reasoning)
Isn't "my body my choice" the staple of a huge movement in America? Keep your laws off my body? Anyone? Don't tell me this is different, because if anything, it applies more to smokers; There's no belief that your lung is a separate entity. Don't tell me this isn't about my choice, but about how it affects others; If my wife got an abortion without talking with me, I'd have issues (our predominanty Catholic extended family might suffer multiple heart attacks).

Seriously, what's the problem? If there's a smoker outside the door of your business, and you have to get through, it's not like they're constantly spewing smoke. Wait until the blow out some smoke, take a breath, and walk by. Problem freakin' solved.

I once hosed people down with a supersoaker filled with vodka. Does that count?
Well for it to be second hand you would have had to drink the vodka first.

smoke pot in the privacy of your own home, the end. everyone wins.

That is a fantastic idea...I am definitely going to do that at some point in the near future.
*puts goggles on*

Whoever owns the property should be able to decide if smoking is to be allowed or not.

Non-smokers should not have the right to force the property owner to not allow smoking.

Yet in a situation where nearly everyone is consuming alcohol(which can be far more detrimental to your health a lot quicker then smoking, like alcohol poisoning) and in a bar it is probably safe to assume that people are there to drink, that second hand smoke would not be the chiefest of the health concerns.

I'd be more concerned of going to a restaurant and having to deal with some other person smoking their cancer stick. Thank you I just want to eat not suck in your toxic fumes.

Include indoor places of employment and you've got a deal. Tolerating smoke is a health risk, not an occupational hazard.

I've been sort of mixed on that one; I think it would be easier to require employers to disclose that as a possible health risk and then leave the option up to the prospective employee as to whether or not to work there.

However, smoking should definitely be banned in the preparation areas as well as staff rooms, break rooms, and offices regardless of the rules for the patrons. It makes no sense to ban smoking in the restaurant while employees are exposed to it constantly in the preparation area and break rooms in a much higher concentration.

Yay you agree!

I think smoking and eating is just.. don't do it. It's making the food taste like shit.. but if they want to do it, that's what smoking sections are for.

But, yeah, you agree!
Yes, smoking sections, the place with no better ventilation than any other area, but it's behind an open wall and that makes it an entirely different state of being.

I'd be more concerned of going to a restaurant and having to deal with some other person smoking their cancer stick. Thank you I just want to eat not suck in your toxic fumes.
A restaurant is quite different from a bar. A restaurant is likely to be a family atmosphere, a bar is not. By the way, I don't smoke.

Sure. Just add indoor private places and I'm good with that as well. You can go kill yourself and your family in the privacy of your own home.

Absolutely. If a person wants to do it in their home they should be 100% free to do so.

smoke pot in the privacy of your own home, the end. everyone wins.
Lets be friends.

:D

A restaurant is quite different from a bar. A restaurant is likely to be a family atmosphere, a bar is not. By the way, I don't smoke.

I don't either. Nor drink. I would suppose that heavy drinkers wouldn't care less about second hand smoke. I feel though that anything indoors that invites in the public should not allow smoking to take place.

Yes, smoking sections, the place with no better ventilation than any other area, but it's behind an open wall and that makes it an entirely different state of being.

Having a smoking section in a resteraunt is like having a peeing section in a pool.

(the pro-choice reasoning)
Isn't "my body my choice" the staple of a huge movement in America? Keep your laws off my body? Anyone? Don't tell me this is different, because if anything, it applies more to smokers; There's no belief that your lung is a separate entity. Don't tell me this isn't about my choice, but about how it affects others; If my wife got an abortion without talking with me, I'd have issues (our predominanty Catholic extended family might suffer multiple heart attacks).



Yes, but it can't endanger the life of someone else. Like if I think putting my hand over someone's face and shooting my palm would be fun I shouldn't be allowed to do it, not because I am being discriminated against, but because it may injure or kill someone else.

You should be allowed to do what you wan't as long as no one else is being harmed.

I'd be more concerned of going to a restaurant and having to deal with some other person smoking their cancer stick. Thank you I just want to eat not suck in your toxic fumes.

But if the establishment chose to be a smoking establishment, you wouldn't be required to go and eat there. You could choose the place across the street that didn't allow smoking - encouraging such decisions by only eating at such places. Those that wanted to smoke after a meal, however, would be at a different restaurant that catered to their wishes.


Yes, smoking sections, the place with no better ventilation than any other area, but it's behind an open wall and that makes it an entirely different state of being.

Hehe. It seems silly, but the smoke does still tend to concentrate in a smoking area. I used to wait tables at a place with a smoking section. I never had to work the section, but I had to take food there every now and then and there was a definite difference between being there and the other sections as far as the amount of smoke.

Edit: It might not make a difference to the patrons, but the employees can tell the difference - that was my point.

This may come off as a meaningless rant, but I'm tired of so many non-smokers. I'm tired of not being able to smoke indoors, at clubs, venues, etc. I can understand them not wanting smokers lighting up in front of them--I don't like the smell either--but you can deal with it. Stop infringing my civil rights! I want to smoke!

Questions? Comments? Smart remarks?

Yeah, you have a right to endanger your own life by smoking, but us non-smokers don't like it when you endanger our lives too, as we made the decision not to smoke but we're still getting lung cancer from your fumes! We can't win.

I think there should be places for smokers to go and smoke but there should be a health warning on the door, like 'Caution:Tobacco Smoke - may cause health problems' and the number of these places should be regulated by the government to make sure that there are places for non smokers as well. Also, they should have an age limit on these places so kids can't get affected by the smoke fumes.

I've no problem with smoking in general, but wake up people. Get something other than cigarettes, or, smoke real cigarettes. You know, Cigar-ettes? Small cigars?

If you are going to fill the air with smoke, fill it with something that actually has the potential to smell great, and isn't filled with rat poison.

*puts goggles on*
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/Thegogglesdonothing.jpg

But if the establishment chose to be a smoking establishment, you wouldn't be required to go and eat there. You could choose the place across the street that didn't allow smoking - encouraging such decisions by only eating at such places. Those that wanted to smoke after a meal, however, would be at a different restaurant that catered to their wishes.

Restaurants should be more concerned with their customers health. Besides it shouldn't be the non-smokers who have to go look for someplace where they can be healthy. The smokers who wish to slowly kill themselves and everyone around them should be the ones who take their tobacco elsewhere.

I've no problem with smoking in general, but wake up people. Get something other than cigarettes, or, smoke real cigarettes. You know, Cigar-ettes? Small cigars?

If you are going to fill the air with smoke, fill it with something that actually has the potential to smell great, and isn't filled with rat poison.

Nice to know how the government is looking out for our welfare. :rolleyes:

http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotineinhaler/a/cigingredients.htm

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/Thegogglesdonothing.jpg
:eek:

YES!

But if the establishment chose to be a smoking establishment, you wouldn't be required to go and eat there. You could choose the place across the street that didn't allow smoking - encouraging such decisions by only eating at such places. Those that wanted to smoke after a meal, however, would be at a different restaurant that catered to their wishes.

Same could be said about employees washing their hands. Let's get rid of that silly rule and let the customers decide if they want to eat at a place where some of the employees don't wash their hands after using the toilet. They don't have to eat there after all. And it infringes on my rights not to wash my hands if I chose not to. Who cares about public health and saftey. My rights come first.

...whether they like it or not...

But the thing is, these businesses are private establishments. I am all for not allowing smoking in public establishments, but I think that forcing businesses to go no-smoking shouldn't be allowed. Nobody's making you go the bar, nobody is making you go to that restaurant. If you don't want to be around cigarette smoke, then don't go to the places that allow it.

Restaurants should be more concerned with their customers health. Besides it shouldn't be the non-smokers who have to go look for someplace where they can be healthy. The smokers who wish to slowly kill themselves and everyone around them should be the ones who take their tobacco elsewhere.

You are missing the point. It isn't that nonsmokers have to look for a different place. It would just be an either-or. Many people who want to be healthy don't go to Waffle House because the food there is unhealthy - does that mean we should close down all Waffle Houses?

The demand is obviously there for non-smoking establishments. Thus, they will be there as long as they are allowed. The demand is obviously there for smoking establishments. There is no reason to not allow it. It has nothing to do with restaurants being concerned for their customers health because the customers *choose* to go to an establishment that allows smoking.

If you allow the owner of the establishment (just like the owner of a home) to decide whether or not smoking will be allowed, then you will end up with some places that allow it and some that don't. Those who really want to smoke will go to the smoking places. Those who definitely don't want it will effectively "boycott" those places - making it evident that they don't wish to support the owner's move. Those who don't care - well, either way. Most of the time, I'd rather be in a non-smoking place, but if I happen to be with a smoker, I'd go into a smoking area. Of course, if I wasn't cool with it, they'd either have to go to the non-smoking place or not eat meals with me. And so on....

Same could be said about employees washing their hands. Let's get rid of that silly rule and let the customers decide if they want to eat at a place where some of the employees don't wash their hands after using the toilet. They don't have to eat there after all. And it infringes on my rights not to wash my hands if I chose not to. Who cares about public health and saftey. My rights come first.

In my experiences working in food service, the employees don't wash their hands as often as they should. If you were to be allowed to hang around in the back of the house at your favorite restaurant, I'd think you'd be suprised at how blase a lot of employees are about that (and other) health laws.

Same could be said about employees washing their hands.

No, it couldn't. But the same could be said of patrons washing their hands. You seen any laws that require all customers at a bar/restaurant to wash their hands?

Smokers aren't people. They're idiots.

The reason why that I think that it is a good Idea that smoking isn't allowed in such places as clubs, bars, reataurants, etc. are listed thusly...

Not everyone wants to smell it, of course you may be used to it because you're the one smoking but other people aren't. Second hand smoke is more toxic than what you're getting through that filter, so you're giving those forced by circumstance to be around you worse than what you're getting. There are also people who are highly allergic to the smoke as well as those who have asthma, these people's health concerns aren't their choice - your smoking is yours. Not to mention the fetuses women who are pregnant or small children, who if forced to endure the dregs left behind from your's and other's smoking habits could endure serious developmental complications, because hey! You want to smoke in lots of public places!

Not to mention the physical damage that would be done to the buildings that you and others smoked in. The increased risk of fire if someone gets careless, the discoloration of the walls since they're being systematically covered in chemicals and tar from the air that's saturated in tabacco smoke (My neighbor who smokes walls were yellow by the time he moved out, they had origanally been white.) Not to mention that the stench that would drive a lot of clients/customers/visitors away because most people don't smoke.

Those are the reasons why you are resticted on where you can pursue your habit, and hopefully you will continue to be restricted.

No, it couldn't. But the same could be said of patrons washing their hands. You seen any laws that require all customers at a bar/restaurant to wash their hands?

Patrons not washing their hands doesn't pose a harm to other patrons. Partons smoking does pose a harm to other patrons in much the same way an employee not washing up does.

I have no problem with people smoking. I grew up with most of my family doing so. But public areas and places catering to the public should be no smoking zones due to the public health issues to patrons and workers alike.

Nice to know how the government is looking out for our welfare. :rolleyes:


Additives create addicts. And they're addicted for the wrong reason.
I'm a hardcore chocolate addict, because it tastes delicious. For that same reason, I have the occasional Partagas cigar. Hand rolled, pure tobacco, where the only additives are sunlight and the sweat of underpaid workers. That's a different issue though.


Regardless, they're damn delicious. Cigars, cigars... not the underpaid workers.

You are missing the point. It isn't that nonsmokers have to look for a different place. It would just be an either-or. Many people who want to be healthy don't go to Waffle House because the food there is unhealthy - does that mean we should close down all Waffle Houses?

The demand is obviously there for non-smoking establishments. Thus, they will be there as long as they are allowed. The demand is obviously there for smoking establishments. There is no reason to not allow it. It has nothing to do with restaurants being concerned for their customers health because the customers *choose* to go to an establishment that allows smoking.

If you allow the owner of the establishment (just like the owner of a home) to decide whether or not smoking will be allowed, then you will end up with some places that allow it and some that don't. Those who really want to smoke will go to the smoking places. Those who definitely don't want it will effectively "boycott" those places - making it evident that they don't wish to support the owner's move. Those who don't care - well, either way. Most of the time, I'd rather be in a non-smoking place, but if I happen to be with a smoker, I'd go into a smoking area. Of course, if I wasn't cool with it, they'd either have to go to the non-smoking place or not eat meals with me. And so on....

Well given I live in America and the independent restaruant seems to be pretty much dead there is left the monster restaruant chains and they have all turned non-smoking or have designated smoking areas so I really have nothing to complain about really.

And I mean REAL smoking areas not just one side smoking and the other side non. As if that does anything. :rolleyes:

In my experiences working in food service, the employees don't wash their hands as often as they should. If you were to be allowed to hang around in the back of the house at your favorite restaurant, I'd think you'd be suprised at how blase a lot of employees are about that (and other) health laws.

That has been my experience as well. I never eat in a place staffed only with teenagers having worked in such places when I was a teen. Blech! The things they do.

But the laws still exist even if not followed like they should be. And if someone is caught breaking them, they are punished for it. The same would be true of a smoking ban. Not everyone would follow it, but they would eventually find themselves cited, fined or even closed down.

Additives create addicts. And they're addicted for the wrong reason.
I'm a hardcore chocolate addict, because it tastes delicious. For that same reason, I have the occasional Partagas cigar. Hand rolled, pure tobacco, where the only additives are sunlight and the sweat of underpaid workers. That's a different issue though.


Regardless, they're damn delicious. Cigars, cigars... not the underpaid workers.

As long as people don't try to compare fat cells to tobacco I will remain sane. Or when Hershey decides to put nicotine or ammonia or arsenic and the like in my chocolate then we can talk...

The government seems to have no trouble that tobacco puts poison in its products. This should be reason enough to ban smoking in all public places. These additives kill but what the hell? It brings in lots of money!

The reason why that I think that it is a good Idea that smoking isn't allowed in such places as clubs, bars, reataurants, etc. are listed thusly...

Technically, those aren't really "public" places - they are privately owned. And no one ever forces you to be there, so you are never "forced" to be exposed to it.


Patrons not washing their hands doesn't pose a harm to other patrons.

Sure it does. If I use the bathroom and then don't wash my hands, I then touch the door on the way out. The next patron to come in there will touch that behind me. Same goes for any table/chair/wall/etc. I touch. Anyone who does not wash up after using the bathroom is spreading germs around the restaurant.

Partons smoking does pose a harm to other patrons in much the same way an employee not washing up does.

No, not "in much the same way" at all. Only in being exposed to it long-term will it really cause harm at all, unless you are allergic. Not washing up and then handling food, on the other hand, can cause acute and direct damage - infections of various types.

The same types of infections could be caused by patrons who choose not to wash up, but such infections are less likely since other patrons don't directly handle your food.

As for the smoking, if it were up to the owner to decide whether to be a smoking or non-smoking establishment, there would be non-smoking establishments for those who didn't want to endanger their health in this way. If they didn't want to be around smokers, they wouldn't go to establishments that allow patrons to smoke.

No one is suggesting that the employees should be smoking, especially not while handling food.

I have no problem with people smoking. I grew up with most of my family doing so. But public areas and places catering to the public should be no smoking zones due to the public health issues to patrons and workers alike.

A restaurant or bar is a private establishment. You choose to be there. As such, the owner should be allowed to decide what types of customers to cater to.

Some restaurants won't allow people who are bare-footed. Others wil. It's a matter of who the place wants to cater to. Some have dress codes. Some don't allow children. And so on...

But the laws still exist even if not followed like they should be. And if someone is caught breaking them, they are punished for it. The same would be true of a smoking ban. Not everyone would follow it, but they would eventually find themselves cited, fined or even closed down.

Regardless, until places start passing laws that require patrons to wash their hands before returning to their tables, the analogy just doesn't work.

As long as people don't try to compare fat cells to tobacco I will remain sane. Or when Hershey decides to put nicotine or ammonia or arsenic and the like in my chocolate then we can talk...

The government seems to have no trouble that tobacco puts poison in its products. This should be reason enough to ban smoking in all public places. These additives kill but what the hell? It brings in lots of money!

Genau. The real problem, as it is on many occasions, is the government.
I say, ban not the smoking; ban the burning of carcinogenic chemicals.

Not every fire fighter or park ranger has cancer. Not all smoke is problematic.

Genau. The real problem, as it is on many occasions, is the government.
I say, ban not the smoking; ban the burning of carcinogenic chemicals.

Not every fire fighter or park ranger has cancer. Not all smoke is problematic.

I unfortunately don't know anything about the making of cigarettes but one would assumet that all that crap is in there for a reason. You would think if they could make something that burns the tobacco cleanly thereby keeping their customers alive they would do it.

I fully agree with you there

At least give smokers a place to smoke, I have to go out in the cold struggling to light a cigarette because the of wind when I want to enjoy a cigarette.

Believe me I avoid people who don't smoke because I know they'll lecture me on the health issues I've heard so many times.

I'll avoid you if you avoid me

I'm a person being discriminated because I enjoy a cigarette, a cigar or even a roll up cigarette

I unfortunately don't know anything about the making of cigarettes but one would assumet that all that crap is in there for a reason. You would think if they could make something that burns the tobacco cleanly thereby keeping their customers alive they would do it.


They save money by filling terrible tobacco with things like Hydrogen Cyanide and ammonia to make it burn more evenly. At that point, the tobacco itself is the binder; now used like a sponge to keep in all the chemicals.

Using quality components would raise the price, both making people reevaluate their habit, and make it "healthier". I use that term lightly, even though I myself smoke.

This may come off as a meaningless rant, but I'm tired of so many non-smokers. I'm tired of not being able to smoke indoors, at clubs, venues, etc. I can understand them not wanting smokers lighting up in front of them--I don't like the smell either--but you can deal with it. Stop infringing my civil rights! I want to smoke!

Questions? Comments? Smart remarks?
Stop poisoning our air! You might want lung cancer, but I certainly don't.

Wow, so many things I want to comment on. So let's begin:


By smoking I have commited no crime, I have not put anyone into direct danger.

Yes you are. I have asthma and may actually die right by you.

If non-smokers are really so offended by it, why don't they go somewhere else.
Honestly, if you want to get drunk without smelling smoke, go drink at home.
This came out often. The people who cause problems to fellow people should leave. End of story. If I slap you while you eat, I should leave the place and not you for being offended by my doings.

Neither is standing in a bar filled with smoke for a few hours. Smoking a pack a day for 20 years is.

Repeating myself from the above comment, your smoke can kill me in 1 hour if I just stay besides you.

Tell that to the bartender.
I would add to the bartender who does not want to smoke.Of course he has no right to not want to smoke because it violates the right of the ones who do. That's funny.

It should especially be illegal in bars where everyone is drinking a poison, quite often including the bartenders. Can't let that terrible second hand smoke get in the way of destroying that kidney.

Yes, because it is common knowledge that when I drink a beer, I am also forcing everyone in a 20 feet radius to kneel down, open their mouths and swallow some too. And not even the same quality drink that I am having, the one I vommit afterwards because my stomach couldn't handle (the smoke a smoker exhales is actually the worst part of the smoke that he inhales).

My only question here is this: Why shouldn't the owners of the establishments in question be able to decide whether to allow smoking or not?
Whoever owns the property should be able to decide if smoking is to be allowed or not.
Because they would force the employers who do not have a choice to inhale toxic fumes. Imagine a bar owner installing a device that disperses Anthrax in the air every 5 minutes and make this his bar policy. Now imagine him not putting up any signs about it and actually hiding the device in a place where noone can see. Should this man be in jail or not?

If I ever had someone bitch at me because I was smoking in the area of that person.. I would tell them to fuck off. They don't want to smoke? Good for them. Leave me the fuck alone.
This one must win the stupidest remark of the thread award. I will get an atomic bomb and go and detonate in the US' most public shopping mall. You don't want to be disintegrate? Good for you. Now fuck off.

Isn't "my body my choice" the staple of a huge movement in America? Keep your laws off my body? Anyone?
Read the above statement. I was holding the atomic bomb against my OWN body. Fuck off.

Wait until the blow out some smoke, take a breath, and walk by. Problem freakin' solved.
Good point about people smoking outdoors. Now try holding your breath in a bar where the smoke NEVER dissolves. Now imagine having asthma while doing that.

Not everyone wants to smell it, of course you may be used to it because you're the one smoking but other people aren't. Second hand smoke is more toxic than what you're getting through that filter, so you're giving those forced by circumstance to be around you worse than what you're getting. There are also people who are highly allergic to the smoke as well as those who have asthma, these people's health concerns aren't their choice - your smoking is yours. Not to mention the fetuses women who are pregnant or small children, who if forced to endure the dregs left behind from your's and other's smoking habits could endure serious developmental complications, because hey! You want to smoke in lots of public places!

Not to mention the physical damage that would be done to the buildings that you and others smoked in. The increased risk of fire if someone gets careless, the discoloration of the walls since they're being systematically covered in chemicals and tar from the air that's saturated in tabacco smoke (My neighbor who smokes walls were yellow by the time he moved out, they had origanally been white.) Not to mention that the stench that would drive a lot of clients/customers/visitors away because most people don't smoke.

Those are the reasons why you are resticted on where you can pursue your habit, and hopefully you will continue to be restricted.

This one gets the points-stated-in-the-clearest-manner-possible award of the thread.

Technically, those aren't really "public" places - they are privately owned. And no one ever forces you to be there, so you are never "forced" to be exposed to it.

I am sorry but a place is considered public when anyone who wants to can walk right in. Pubs, clubs and restaurants are such places. The places you refer to are called Private clubs or private homes.

If I use the bathroom and then don't wash my hands, I then touch the door on the way out.
This, along with a number of other remarks will make me state this. There is no law against you sneezing on me and this is clearly not very healthy for me. But if you do sneeze on my face, and you do it on purpose, and you do it all the time I will beat the living crap out of you. Period.

Sorry about the long post.

Repeating myself from the above comment, your smoke can kill me in 1 hour if I just stay besides you.

Then perhaps you should only frequent non-smoking establishments, just as you should only visit non-smoking friends at their homes (or at least people who don't smoke in the house).

I would add to the bartender who does not want to smoke.

Unless said bartender is a pretty awful bartender, he can find bartending employment at a non-smoking establishment.

Because they would force the employers who do not have a choice to inhale toxic fumes.

I'll assume you mean "employees", since the employers would be the one making the choice.

Tell me, is slavery legal where you live? Because if it isn't, then employees aren't forced to work anywhere. I have chosen not to work at places because I didn't like their policies. This would be no different.

Imagine a bar owner installing a device that disperses Anthrax in the air every 5 minutes and make this his bar policy. Now imagine him not putting up any signs about it and actually hiding the device in a place where noone can see. Should this man be in jail or not?

Are you suggesting that whether or not a place allows smoking is hidden? I would think it was fairly obvious, actually.

I am sorry but a place is considered public when anyone who wants to can walk right in. Pubs, clubs and restaurants are such places. The places you refer to are called Private clubs or private homes.

The question shouldn't be can you "walk right in", but do you have to do so. As long as you are not forced to go there, and you are not paying for the place to be run, there is no reason that the establishment in question cannot decide to cater to smokers. That may alienate your business, but that is the business choice they would make.

I think a smoker would find it offensive if I walked up to them and farted in their face, but they smell worse. And farts don't cause cancer.

This may come off as a meaningless rant, but I'm tired of so many non-smokers. I'm tired of not being able to smoke indoors, at clubs, venues, etc. I can understand them not wanting smokers lighting up in front of them--I don't like the smell either--but you can deal with it. Stop infringing my civil rights! I want to smoke!

Questions? Comments? Smart remarks?

Meaningless, no. Selfish? Yes. So you chose to smoke and endanger your health? Good for you. I didn't, and I don't want you making that choice for me.

Meaningless, no. Selfish? Yes. So you chose to smoke and endanger your health? Good for you. I didn't, and I don't want you making that choice for me.
*applauds*

... but they're dirty people.

:X.

This may come off as a meaningless rant, but I'm tired of so many non-smokers. I'm tired of not being able to smoke indoors, at clubs, venues, etc. I can understand them not wanting smokers lighting up in front of them--I don't like the smell either--but you can deal with it. Stop infringing my civil rights! I want to smoke!

Questions? Comments? Smart remarks?

I'll tell you what, if you can find a way to smoke without exposing anyone else to the fumes, then you can go ahead and smoke wherever you like. Until then, you're going to have to accept that some people don't like breathing poison.

This may come off as a meaningless rant, but I'm tired of so many non-smokers. I'm tired of not being able to smoke indoors, at clubs, venues, etc. I can understand them not wanting smokers lighting up in front of them--I don't like the smell either--but you can deal with it. Stop infringing my civil rights! I want to smoke!

Questions? Comments? Smart remarks?


Oh God not this thread again?

I am an ex-smoker and even when I smoked I had no problem going outside to smoke whenever I was in a restaruant or bar. I would do everything I could to keep my smoke from even coming close to others. And now that I quit I am extreemely happy to go into non-smoking restaurants and bars.

It sucks to go into a casinos or bars and having to inhale all the disgustingness. Not only do I reek when I leave, but my eyes and throat burn. Suuuuuuure it's harmless. Kill yourself, I don't care but I don't want my health ruined because you have a problem with being considerate of other people.

Here's how I see it:

For the smoker, it is pleasurable, but carries a significant health risk, a small financial cost, and small social stigma. For bystanders, it is a significant annoyance, and only a minor health hazard except for people with allergies or certain medical conditions where it becomes more significant. For society in general, it carries moderate direct and indirect costs from health care and lost productivity. The tobacco itself is mildly toxic, carcinogenic, radioactive, and addictive.

So where is a reasonable place to do it?

In private, the only costs are personal to the smoker and the societal cost. That seems reasonable, since all people engage in some risky behavior, and any monetary societal costs deemed excessive can be recovered with a tobacco tax. Able's right to damage his health by smoking balances Baker's right to do so by being a couch potato.

In front of your children? Now you add bystander cost to your children, which by defninition they aren't competent to accept. Here we pit your parental rights (to raise your children as smokers) against your parental responsibilities (to reasonably safeguard your children). Probably impractical to do anything about, and I object to legislating private behavior on principle.

In front of other people? Here you are pitting the smoker's convenience against things like parents' desire to control the experiences of their children and the freedom of movement of sick or allergic people. You can create specially ventillated or enclosed smoking huts out of sight of public walkways, but that seems to serve very little purpose (in areas where I've seen that done, the smokers and non-smokers both hate them). I'd draw the line here honestly, but it might make sense to permit it as a transitional step.

In a public building you add involuntary bystander costs to the mix. In a pub, for example, the employees have little choice but accept the bystander cost, and other patrons must choose between the bystander cost or abandoning their meal or whatever.

So: No, you shouldn't smoke in public at all, and I'd support a law to that effect - provided the cost of enforcement would not exceed the combined societal and bystander costs. You also shouldn't smoke in front of your own children, or non-smoking SO for that matter, but I would oppose legislation in that area on the basis of cost and invasion of privacy.

Can any smokers out there make a case for a public good or even an equitable exchange made by your lighting up in public?

This may come off as a meaningless rant, but I'm tired of so many non-smokers. I'm tired of not being able to smoke indoors, at clubs, venues, etc. I can understand them not wanting smokers lighting up in front of them--I don't like the smell either--but you can deal with it. Stop infringing my civil rights! I want to smoke!

Questions? Comments? Smart remarks?

Do you realise that other people die because of secondhand smoke? It's not just the smell; it's our life.

I have the right to go into any public place--restaurants and bars are public places, as shown by the fact that they can't put up a sign banning all african americans--and not have my body assaulted. Even if I put a sign up outside my restaurant saying enter here and you might be slapped in the face or kicked in the balls, I still can't do it. Allowing people to smoke is the same thing; even if I say someone might be smoking in here, it doesn't change the fact that it is open to the public, and people have the right to not be harmed by cigarrette smoke.

People like my little sister have CHRONIC Bronchitis, she can't be around people who smoke for her health. Now if we decide to go to a restaurant god forbid if somebody NEEDS to smoke there to put her health in danger. I don't fare well with smoke neither, I nearly vomit at times. But smoking outside is fine with me, you have a right to smoke. Just not at the expense of my health, my little sister, and other people's.....

Because they have a duty to ensure the health and safety of their customers and employees.
They can do that by posting that it is a smoking establishment and making that clear to new employees not by forcing private busness to change policy

I am a smoker. I don't mind having to smoke outdoors. I'm not allowed to smoke indoors at home due to the protestations of my significant other, and not allowed to smoke indoors at work, in restaurants, bars, shopping malls, etc.

No problem. Really.

Accustomed as I've become to smoking outdoors, even in the chill of winter, there are one or two things I can't bear:

1) exterior designated smoking areas, like the one behind my workplace. Why? 'Cause they reek. You see, I've always been painfully aware of the unpleasant aspects of smoking, not the least of which is the clinging odour of burnt tar and chemical by-product. Nasty stuff. Back in the days of smoking indoors, I was forever covering it up with incense, deodourizers, scented candles - the lot. This brings me to my second point:

2) social smokers. The sort who'll pop 'round your desk or call your extension to see if you want to step outside for a smoke. Invariably, this entails going to an exterior designated smoking area (see point 1 above) and they'll proceed to make smalltalk and drag out the ritual to great lengths - all the while, blowing tobacco smoke onto my clothes, hair and exposed skin. And here again, I find myself in the position of being anti-social. Accustomed as I've been to being the sole smoker in certain circles, I use the occasion of a smoke break to collect my thoughts, consider solutions to work-related quandries (most of which are related to animation, so there's no small amount of math and geometry that comes into play), and other ways of inadvertently, quietly staring off into the distance. I don't smoke for some tribal sensibility; I smoke for seclusion, for solitude.

Frankly, I wish they'd just go and make it illegal. I'm hopelessly hooked on the damned stuff.

Then perhaps you should only frequent non-smoking establishments, just as you should only visit non-smoking friends at their homes (or at least people who don't smoke in the house).

I will never tell someone what to do in his house. His house is not a public place. A bar is.


Unless said bartender is a pretty awful bartender, he can find bartending employment at a non-smoking establishment.

It's not a matter of personal preference. If a job includes health risks as part of it, it should be labelled so and paid accordingly. Anyone can choose to work in an office or as a bunjy-jumping rope tester. But for every test jump he makes, he gets paid for risking his life. Are bartenders getting paid more in smoking bars?


I'll assume you mean "employees", since the employers would be the one making the choice.

Yes I did mean employees:)


Tell me, is slavery legal where you live? Because if it isn't, then employees aren't forced to work anywhere. I have chosen not to work at places because I didn't like their policies. This would be no different.

No, slavery I think is illegal in the UK. But please read my answer to your second point.



Are you suggesting that whether or not a place allows smoking is hidden? I would think it was fairly obvious, actually.

I am suggesting that there is no health-risk notice anywhere, while there is a health-risk. If the bar was radioactive, there would be a sign stating so outside wouldn't it?


The question shouldn't be can you "walk right in", but do you have to do so. As long as you are not forced to go there, and you are not paying for the place to be run, there is no reason that the establishment in question cannot decide to cater to smokers. That may alienate your business, but that is the business choice they would make.
No, you don't have to go. But you do have to go to work, if you actually work there. And, as mentioned before, a public place is responsible for the health of anyone who walks in there. There are laws for kitchen health issues, there are laws for people who work there, laws that exist to protect people that are allowed to be there, even though they don't have to be there. Banning smoking should be no different.

This may come off as a meaningless rant, but I'm tired of so many non-smokers. I'm tired of not being able to smoke indoors, at clubs, venues, etc. I can understand them not wanting smokers lighting up in front of them--I don't like the smell either--but you can deal with it. Stop infringing my civil rights! I want to smoke!

Questions? Comments? Smart remarks?

I find the response once used in a Stephen Fry sketch works. Once they start making noises loudly about how disgusting smoking is, walk up to them and say that you are sorry, but you are concerned about "passive fascism" - "look, i'm just worried that the effects of your narrow minded bigotry and wish to impose a certain viewpoint on the world may rub off on me after a certain amount of exposure to it, leading me to spout forth endless self justificatory banalities as an excuse for being rude".

Smoking in an enclosed area, I agree shouldn't be allowed. But when there is ventilation(not filtration) there shouldn't be a problem. I understand not wanting to be in a car with the windows up with someone smoking, an enclosed room, a restaurant without proper ventilation. But when people start bitching about smoking outside they just have an axe to grind. There are different types of smokers. Ones like myself will not smoke in an enclosed non ventilated area. I can't stand 'standing' smoke. But yet I have no problem with inhaling it deep in my lungs. Imagine that. My mother however could sit in a enclosed 4x4 box and smoke all day and the smoke would not bother her. The reason I kept earaches and sorethroats when I was little was because of her ignorant ass.. smoking in enclosed areas smothering in the shit. I only smoke when there is proper ventilation, for my own preference and most of all I wouldnt dare smother kids in smoke. There actually is such a thing as clean and nasty smokers, as ironic it may seem.

I find the response once used in a Stephen Fry sketch works. Once they start making noises loudly about how disgusting smoking is, walk up to them and say that you are sorry, but you are concerned about "passive fascism" - "look, i'm just worried that the effects of your narrow minded bigotry and wish to impose a certain viewpoint on the world may rub off on me after a certain amount of exposure to it, leading me to spout forth endless self justificatory banalities as an excuse for being rude".
"Narrow-minded bigotry and wish[es] to impose a certain viewpoint on the world" don't give you cancer, emphysema, or any of the other nasty side effects of second-hand smoke.

IS there even a good reason for smoking in the first place? That's something I'd like to hear, actually. It kills directly and indirectly, it doesn't really alter your perceptions in the way marijuana or alcohol do, and it messes with your brain chemistry in such a ridiculously invasive way. Can there be justification for doing that to yourself?

"Narrow-minded bigotry and wish[es] to impose a certain viewpoint on the world" don't give you cancer, emphysema, or any of the other nasty side effects of second-hand smoke.

IS there even a good reason for smoking in the first place? That's something I'd like to hear, actually. It kills directly and indirectly, it doesn't really alter your perceptions in the way marijuana or alcohol do, and it messes with your brain chemistry in such a ridiculously invasive way. Can there be justification for doing that to yourself?

Yeah. I enjoy it.

Breathing kills, directly or indirectly. Don't believe me?

Wait...

Yeah. I enjoy it.

Breathing kills, directly or indirectly. Don't believe me?

Wait...
There are more effective, cheaper things to enjoy that don't have the nasty side effects I listed on you or the person next to you.

I dont smoke, but i dont like how noone is allowed to smoke inside anymore (I live in New Jersey). I live in a very urban area, where theres 3 bars on every block. Now, instead of people smoking inside, you have a group of people smoking outside. People passing by now have to succumb to the smoke. Not only that, what about the people that live ABOVE the bar? smoke easily comes through their windows. Hell, it comes through mine and I dont live that close to one.

It doesnt matter, if people smoke, theres going to be smoke, regardless of where. Designated smoking sections worked just fine.

Not allowing smoking in bars is just stupid. Do you have any idea of how many people only smoke when they drink? Now if they make a decent sized section with pool tables, juke box etc for smokers that's fine, but they may as well make it the largest part of the bar, cause thats where most people are gonan be, smoker or not. .. but making them hit the pave is ridiculous. I'd tell them to stick it.

Ventilation .. should be everywhere period. Regardless of smoking or not, its not good to breath enclosed, rebreathed, suffocated air.

There are more effective, cheaper things to enjoy that don't have the nasty side effects I listed on you or the person next to you.

Thing is, everyone knows about smoking. Any adult human being in the Western world who smokes today and doesn't know of the dangers, and any adult human being in the Western world who chooses to spend time with smokers and doesn't know about the dangers, is so stupid they shouldn't be allowed a lighter, let alone a cigarette.

Yeah, protect children. I agree. Yeah, segregate smokers from non smokers, i agree. Make government buildings non smoking, i agree. Place ventilation in smoking areas, i agree.

But don't tell me what i can do with my body, and don't practice apartheid based around my personal habits. I don't make comments about the damage car exhaust fumes are doing to my lungs (and the lungs of the world), despite being a non driver.

snip
Whoa, I just asked if there was any real justification for doing that to yourself. I'm not going around telling you to stop, I just wanted to know why you'd do it. Sorry for any misunderstanding, but try not to jump down people's throats so easily. Some of us are just genuinely curious. o.o;;

hmm... I say, if you want to kill yourself, go ahead, just don't kill me too! :headbang:

hmm... I say, if you want to kill yourself, go ahead, just don't kill me too! :headbang:

When I trap you in an enclosed room and chain smoke, and chain smoke and chain smoke for about 20 years. Then you come talk to me about killing you.

Whoa, I just asked if there was any real justification for doing that to yourself. I'm not going around telling you to stop, I just wanted to know why you'd do it. Sorry for any misunderstanding, but try not to jump down people's throats so easily. Some of us are just genuinely curious. o.o;;

Nah, sorry, that wasn't aimed at you.

Justification? Not really. I know it kills me (at some points in my life,when i have felt more nihilist, that was part of the attraction, little 5 minute slices of self destruction, because i wouldn't allow myself any more - there was a brand of cigarettes called "Death" who capitalised on that vibe). But then there is no justification for a lot of what humans do, from skateboarding (i mean, c'mon, it's standing on a BLOCK OF WOOD WITH WHEELS) to voting Republican.

Some people will always do it though. I find smoking to be way less objectionable than the latter ;)

When I trap you in an enclosed room and chain smoke, and chain smoke and chain smoke for about 20 years. Then you come talk to me about killing you.
It doesn't take 20 years to develop fairly serious complications from second-hand smoke. If it does, how do you explain kids with serious lung issues at 7-10 years old, solely from the smoke their parents breathed out?

We don't have the problem whre there is all the people outside bars smoking. We have laws that they can't smoke some yards away form something... I really don't know...:confused:

That's just silly. If you want to poison yourself, fine. Do it in your home or car with other smokers or by yourself. Doing it in public endangers everyone around you.

Smoke all you want. You say that your civil rights are being violated, but what about all the people around you. Its a health risk and makes you smell, so I think if there are a bunch of people around you that are unwilliningly being exposed to the smoke, then it infringes on their civil rights more than yours. You can just go outside, or wait, or just quite for that matter. You have the right to smoke, but its bad for you and then you wont have to worry about things like this:) . So either suck it up, be a public disturbance and get kicked out, or quit.

When I trap you in an enclosed room and chain smoke, and chain smoke and chain smoke for about 20 years. Then you come talk to me about killing you.
lol

"Narrow-minded bigotry and wish[es] to impose a certain viewpoint on the world" don't give you cancer, emphysema, or any of the other nasty side effects of second-hand smoke.

IS there even a good reason for smoking in the first place? That's something I'd like to hear, actually. It kills directly and indirectly, it doesn't really alter your perceptions in the way marijuana or alcohol do, and it messes with your brain chemistry in such a ridiculously invasive way. Can there be justification for doing that to yourself?

Yes, smoking creates a state of calm and alertness without altering one's perceptions.

Face it, no matter how healthy a lifestyle anyone leads, everyone's chance of death is 100%.

Smokers are inhuman, mindless followers of the Deacon. They sit on their old oil tanker and search for their "promised land". In the process they use up tons of resources and destroy everyone else's lives. I say we sick a fish-man on them.


Seriously though, I think people should be able to ban smoking on their property if they wish to, but it certainly isn't the government's buissines.

Fact: Many drugs are banned in the U.S., typically drugs that are harmful to the person, and often addictive.

Fact: Many other drugs with medicinal purposes are availiable by prescription only.

Fact: Tobacco is a drug, is addictive, and is very harmful to the user and those around him. To my knowledge (and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong) tobacco has no medicinal purposes. However, tobacco is completely legal.

Does anyone know why tobacco is not banned when a multitude of other drugs are, when tobacco is deadly, addictive, et cetera? Why is tobacco not grouped with the illegal drugs, when it is harmful?

Fact: Many drugs are banned in the U.S., typically drugs that are harmful to the person, and often addictive.

Fact: Many other drugs with medicinal purposes are availiable by prescription only.

Fact: Tobacco is a drug, is addictive, and is very harmful to the user and those around him. To my knowledge (and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong) tobacco has no medicinal purposes. However, tobacco is completely legal.

Does anyone know why tobacco is not banned when a multitude of other drugs are, when tobacco is deadly, addictive, et cetera? Why is tobacco not grouped with the illegal drugs, when it is harmful?

Because large portions of your economy were based around it during the War of Independence?

It doesn't take 20 years to develop fairly serious complications from second-hand smoke. If it does, how do you explain kids with serious lung issues at 7-10 years old, solely from the smoke their parents breathed out?


I went through sorethroats and earaches cause of my mom smoking in enclosed areas around me. But suffered no long term problems. Maybe I just had better genes, maybe a better immune system .. who knows. Is there really anyway to indicate these children wouldn't have had problems anyway? Like I posted in my previous post, ventilation.. ventilation. Children, elderly and the weak are always more susceptible. Ventilation! No parent should smoke in enclosed areas around their little kids. Where I use to work there was a fellow smoker that use to complain about her sons always getting sorethroats and earaches/infections I told her to stop smoking around them! If you dont have proper ventilation.. get it! If you dont want to get it.. don't smoke in a room your kid will be in.

I went through sorethroats and earaches cause of my mom smoking in enclosed areas around me. But suffered no long term problems. Maybe I just had better genes, maybe a better immune system .. who knows. Is there really anyway to indicate these children wouldn't have had problems anyway? Like I posted in my previous post, ventilation.. ventilation. Children, elderly and the weak are always more susceptible. Ventilation! No parent should smoke in enclosed areas around their little kids. Where I use to work there was a fellow smoker that use to complain about her sons always getting sorethroats and earaches/infections I told her to stop smoking around them! If you dont have proper ventilation.. get it! If you dont want to get it.. don't smoke in a room your kid will be in.
Ventilation isn't always an option for poorer families unless they give up smoking (Hah!), and smoking in a different room will still allow the smoke to diffuse throughout the house/flat and affect the kids. And just because there haven't been studies yet to the effect of "These kids did/didn't have higher risk factors for lung diseases" does NOT excuse the parents hurting their children. Even if they were more prone, the smoking most certainly triggered or made the problem MUCH worse than it would have been.

Smoking is a choice. You may choose to smoke if you so wish. But not smoking is also a choice. Being a smoker I must say that I wish I could smoke where ever I pleased. But non-smokers don't like it. They have civil rights too. This should not be an arguement. If you smoke. Smoke with other smokers or outside. I smoke and I know that if I am around a non-smoker I ALWAYS ask if they mind. If they do, I don't smoke. It is simply a matter of pride and selfishness.

The Leader of,
The Holy Emprire of the Protestant IRA

<snip>

Your name makes me laugh. A bit.

Because large portions of your economy were based around it during the War of Independence?

Well, large portions of it were also based around slavery.

What happened to that?

Ventilation isn't always an option for poorer families unless they give up smoking (Hah!), and smoking in a different room will still allow the smoke to diffuse throughout the house/flat and affect the kids. And just because there haven't been studies yet to the effect of "These kids did/didn't have higher risk factors for lung diseases" does NOT excuse the parents hurting their children. Even if they were more prone, the smoking most certainly triggered or made the problem MUCH worse than it would have been.


Have a window? have a fan? thats all you need. That is what I do! that is my ventilation. Someone can walk into this room(ofcourse I keep the door shut) they can't even tell I been smoking. It's being sucked out the window. For bars, restaurants etc, ofcourse they need a real ventilation system, and ofcourse they can afford it. but ventilation is ventilation. In a car roll down the freakin windows even if you are the only one in it, if its raining and you dont want your precious car interior to get wet don't smoke or tell the passengers they are gonan have to deal with it or walk lol. a fan in a window .. sucking air out will clear a normal sized room of smoke quick.

Smoking is a choice. You may choose to smoke if you so wish. But not smoking is also a choice. Being a smoker I must say that I wish I could smoke where ever I pleased. But non-smokers don't like it. They have civil rights too. This should not be an arguement. If you smoke. Smoke with other smokers or outside. I smoke and I know that if I am around a non-smoker I ALWAYS ask if they mind. If they do, I don't smoke. It is simply a matter of pride and selfishness.

The Leader of,
The Holy Emprire of the Protestant IRA

This isn't a roleplay forum, if you want to act in character, go the Nationstates or International Incidents sub-forums.

Well, large portions of it were also based around slavery.

What happened to that?

People realised it was harmful sooner?

Does anyone know why tobacco is not banned when a multitude of other drugs are, when tobacco is deadly, addictive, et cetera? Why is tobacco not grouped with the illegal drugs, when it is harmful?

Because of stuff like this: reference (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163728,00.html)

"When smoking was banned in Maine prisons, it led to a 400 percent increase in assaults. That spurred Vermont and New York to ease up on their anti-tobacco policies."

Do you really want a 400 percent increase in assults nationwide?

People realised it was harmful sooner?

It wasn't the harmful side, from a pure economic standpoint, slavery is a great way to go, it's the moral and racial issue that caused it to be banned.

My only question here is this: Why shouldn't the owners of the establishments in question be able to decide whether to allow smoking or not?
Because that would be too reasonable. Too convenient. Too much like capitalism. And we can't have that.

I hate government.

Have a window? have a fan? thats all you need. That is what I do! that is my ventilation. Someone can walk into this room(ofcourse I keep the door shut) they can't even tell I been smoking. It's being sucked out the window.
If you live in an area that tends to be very cold, or alternatively if you live in an area that experiences the 'winter' season, you can't always just open the window, and turning on a fan doesn't decrease the amount of smoke in the air, it just moves it around a little, and that's no better than letting it sit stalely in the room. It may even make the smoke reach the kids faster.

It wasn't the harmful side, from a pure economic standpoint, slavery is a great way to go, it's the moral and racial issue that caused it to be banned.

Nah, from an economic side, slavery is a mistake. It leads to dependence on an uneducated workforce with no social mobility. Marx and Adam Smith both pointed this out.

Well, large portions of it were also based around slavery.

What happened to that?

Well although I do hope we don't fight a civil war over smoking, I do agree it should be made illegal. In a way, it makes the user a slave to the nicotine, with its addictive properties.

A question to anyone who has quit smoking: Is it as hard as I have heard it is? I have never smoked and therefore never quit, however I have heard that it is a hellish proccess. Any thoughts on the matter?

This may come off as a meaningless rant, but I'm tired of so many non-smokers. I'm tired of not being able to smoke indoors, at clubs, venues, etc. I can understand them not wanting smokers lighting up in front of them--I don't like the smell either--but you can deal with it. Stop infringing my civil rights! I want to smoke!

Questions? Comments? Smart remarks?

Should I be able to spray tear gas in your face just because I want to?
I'm asthmatic, and smoke can trigger an attack, and spraying tear gas in your face is about the closest equivilant I can think of.

Well although I do hope we don't fight a civil war over smoking, I do agree it should be made illegal. In a way, it makes the user a slave to the nicotine, with its addictive properties.

A question to anyone who has quit smoking: Is it as hard as I have heard it is? I have never smoked and therefore never quit, however I have heard that it is a hellish proccess. Any thoughts on the matter?

An ex friend who was a heroin addict and smoker told me cold turkey was easier...

Fact: Many drugs are banned in the U.S., typically drugs that are harmful to the person, and often addictive.

Fact: Many other drugs with medicinal purposes are availiable by prescription only.

Fact: Tobacco is a drug, is addictive, and is very harmful to the user and those around him. To my knowledge (and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong) tobacco has no medicinal purposes. However, tobacco is completely legal.

Does anyone know why tobacco is not banned when a multitude of other drugs are, when tobacco is deadly, addictive, et cetera? Why is tobacco not grouped with the illegal drugs, when it is harmful?

That question is rhetorical. Everyone knows that smoking isn't banned because it has always more or less been accepted by mainstream society. That's the same reason alchohol, which is far worse than a drug like marijuana, isn't banned. Drugs are banned, with few exceptions, only when they are used by a minority or fringe group and their use isn't widespread or condoned by mainstream society. Cocaine was banned because it was used by blacks(and their was a media frenzy of cocaine-crazed negroes), marijuana was banned because of it's use by mexicans, opium for it's use by Chinamen, LSD for it's use by the counter-culture, and many drugs for their use by the 'rebellious youth'. The regulation of drugs has nothing to do with concern for public safety and everything to do with concern for being reelected.

Someone may have made this point already, but...

What about people with asthma/other lung conditions? My grandmother has a lung condition and has had part of one of her lungs removed. Cigarette smoke makes her cough. And then she starts coughing up blood. Is it fair for her to have to stay out of some establishments because people want to smoke indoors when they can easily go outside to do so?

If you live in an area that tends to be very cold, or alternatively if you live in an area that experiences the 'winter' season, you can't always just open the window, and turning on a fan doesn't decrease the amount of smoke in the air, it just moves it around a little, and that's no better than letting it sit stalely in the room. It may even make the smoke reach the kids faster.

I'm talking about a fan in the window facing the opposite way .. meaning instead of pulling air from the outside in, it is blowing air from the inside out. I'm not talking about a celiing fan. I'm talking a poor mans air conditioner. You just turn it around. If it's so freaking cold outside that you are worried about all that cold air coming inside your house and blasting your power bill then walk your ass outside in your best burly winter coat. But if you got problems with the bit it would up your power bill, maybe you should think about quitting smoking for good, since they are quite expensive.

A question to anyone who has quit smoking: Is it as hard as I have heard it is?

Nope.

You often hear bullshit - mostly from people who don't know anything about the subject - about how smoking is the "most addictive substance known to mankind11!!1omg"

It isn't. Not by a long shot.

Quitting smoking is pretty much the easiest thing in the world, if you want to do it. Trouble is, if you don't really want to quit, it'll be pretty much impossible for you to try.

Most people who "try to quit" are actually just caving in to peer pressure, NOT that they actually want to stop.

I will never tell someone what to do in his house. His house is not a public place. A bar is.

A bar is privately owned. If a bartender wants to smoke in his bar, he should be allowed.

It's not a matter of personal preference. If a job includes health risks as part of it, it should be labelled so and paid accordingly. Anyone can choose to work in an office or as a bunjy-jumping rope tester. But for every test jump he makes, he gets paid for risking his life. Are bartenders getting paid more in smoking bars?

They certainly could be, if it were up to the owner whether or not to allow smoking. If most of the workers were trying to get jobs at the nonsmoking places, they could demand higher payment or even better health benefits for working in a smoking bar.

As it is, everyone is trying to legislate it instead.

No, slavery I think is illegal in the UK. But please read my answer to your second point.

Then no one is forced to work there.

I am suggesting that there is no health-risk notice anywhere, while there is a health-risk. If the bar was radioactive, there would be a sign stating so outside wouldn't it?

And if smoking v. non-smoking were an option, most places would post that, for a number of reasons - not the least of which would be to demonstrate to those they wish to cater to that "This is the place to be," as it were.

No, you don't have to go. But you do have to go to work, if you actually work there.

And you choose where to work - where to apply, what wages to accept, etc. A person can refuse to take a job because of health risks, or can demand higher wages to take said job. In truth, I could refuse to take a job because I didn't like the scheduling policy - or ask for higher wages because of it. If I don't get them, that person doesn't employ me, and I have no reason to go there.

And, as mentioned before, a public place is responsible for the health of anyone who walks in there.

No, they aren't - not to any full extent. They are responsible to a certain extent. Normal, safe handling of food does not involve putting bodily fluids on it - hence the washing your hands. These are restrictions, however, on the *employees and owners*, not on the patrons. Any restrictions placed on the patrons are placed by the owner, not by the law.

Anyone walking into a smoking establishment has chosen to put their health in danger, either because they want to smoke, want to hang out with smokers, or just don't care. A person walking into a restaurant does not choose to get food poisoning. See the difference?

Someone may have made this point already, but...

What about people with asthma/other lung conditions? My grandmother has a lung condition and has had part of one of her lungs removed. Cigarette smoke makes her cough. And then she starts coughing up blood. Is it fair for her to have to stay out of some establishments because people want to smoke indoors when they can easily go outside to do so?

I'm not sure why your grandmother would want to be in a nightclub anyway. So yes, it's fair. If she doesn't want to be around smokers, don't go to an establishment that allows indoor smoking. Simple.

Someone may have made this point already, but...

What about people with asthma/other lung conditions? My grandmother has a lung condition and has had part of one of her lungs removed. Cigarette smoke makes her cough. And then she starts coughing up blood. Is it fair for her to have to stay out of some establishments because people want to smoke indoors when they can easily go outside to do so?
Is it fair for your grandmother to go to those establishments and kick out the smokers when she can easily go somewhere else?

If you live in an area that tends to be very cold, or alternatively if you live in an area that experiences the 'winter' season, you can't always just open the window, and turning on a fan doesn't decrease the amount of smoke in the air, it just moves it around a little, and that's no better than letting it sit stalely in the room. It may even make the smoke reach the kids faster.

Oh and btw, what you thought I was meaning was circulation, not ventilation. Big Difference.

Smoking is a choice. You may choose to smoke if you so wish. But not smoking is also a choice. Being a smoker I must say that I wish I could smoke where ever I pleased. But non-smokers don't like it. They have civil rights too. This should not be an arguement. If you smoke. Smoke with other smokers or outside. I smoke and I know that if I am around a non-smoker I ALWAYS ask if they mind. If they do, I don't smoke. It is simply a matter of pride and selfishness.

The Leader of,
The Holy Emprire of the Protestant IRA

And if I decide that I want to open a bar in which smoking will be allowed, that is my choice. Every person who chooses to work there has that choice. Every person who chooses to frequent there has that choice.

The world is full of choices.

If most people choose not to come to my bar because I allow smoking, I have two choices. I will either go under for lack of business, or I can stop allowing smoking.

Considering that this can work itself out without infringing on anyone's choices, why must the government legislate on it?

Someone may have made this point already, but...

What about people with asthma/other lung conditions? My grandmother has a lung condition and has had part of one of her lungs removed. Cigarette smoke makes her cough. And then she starts coughing up blood. Is it fair for her to have to stay out of some establishments because people want to smoke indoors when they can easily go outside to do so?

Is it fair that people with food allergies have to avoid eating certain meals or at certain places because of the contents of the food?

Someone may have made this point already, but...

What about people with asthma/other lung conditions? My grandmother has a lung condition and has had part of one of her lungs removed. Cigarette smoke makes her cough. And then she starts coughing up blood. Is it fair for her to have to stay out of some establishments because people want to smoke indoors when they can easily go outside to do so?
Is it fair that budgie jumpers go jumping when bedridden people can't?
Is it fair that smart people go to collage while retards live in the streets?
Is it fair that healthy people go to smokey bars while asthmatic people can't?

Life's not fair.

I am not going to go through 13 pages.
I did about 6, but its too time consuming.

Heres what i think
Public+Closed Area=Ban
Residence=No Ban
Private(i.e. pub)+closed=Smoking liscense
Public+open area=Depends on local laws(i.e. may be a smoking ban for htat area)


funnily enough. same beliefs i have for pot

And if I decide that I want to open a bar in which smoking will be allowed, that is my choice. Every person who chooses to work there has that choice. Every person who chooses to frequent there has that choice.

The world is full of choices.

If most people choose not to come to my bar because I allow smoking, I have two choices. I will either go under for lack of business, or I can stop allowing smoking.

Considering that this can work itself out without infringing on anyone's choices, why must the government legislate on it?



Is it fair that people with food allergies have to avoid eating certain meals or at certain places because of the contents of the food?

The government has to legislate it because they need to make it an issue for people in order to gain their support in elections. The government does not function to help people, but to empower politicians. The system only helps people because it is set up so that the people's interests coincide with those of the politicians, but it isn't difficult to manipulate what people think and want, especially when it costs nothing to them. The problem with representative democracy is the gap between people's interests and politicians'.

I'm just jumping in because I don't have the time to scan past the first three pages, so I apologize if I mention something that's already been mentioned. I live in Reno where smoking is allowed almost everywhere, but I come from California where it's been almost entirely banned from public places. I used to be avidly against smoking until I was sixteen and picked up a pack out of curiousity. I haven't been able to successfully quit since even though I'd like to and imagining BBQ lungs doesn't help.

We also happen to be doing a survey at my job (just finished it tonight actually) that asked for opinions from smokers and non-smokers about tobacco use. For example, the survey stated: Smoking should be allowed in day care centers. The people we spoke to were supposed to respond with a level of agreement or disagreement to that statement. So there's an obvious place, if you ask me, where smoking absolutely should NOT be allowed.

I don't think that cigarette smoking will ever be illegal because the government makes too much money from the tax, even though doctors would prefer a woman smoke marijuana over tobacco and marijuana is still illegal here (I haven't figured that part out).I think places that allow designated smoking should have walled-off rooms that are well ventillated and seperated from non-smoking areas so that non-smokers aren't inconvenienced.

I also think there should be smoking places and non-smoking places. For example, you can smoke at this Denny's, but not that one. You can smoke in this casino, but not that one. Of course some places, for obvious reasons, should be strictly non-smoking. A place that allows smokers should have a sign that clearly displays so. That way a non-smoker can see the sign and think "Oh no, I might get bitchy if I'm here, I'd better go somewhere else" and the same for non-smoking establishments. A smoker can walk up, see the "We don't want to die from cancer" sign and say, "Oh no, if I don't have nicotine I might get bitchy -better go somewhere else."

Maybe I don't, but they don't have the right to tell me where I can. If one has respect for others, or, as childish as it sounds, was asked to relocate, that's one thing. But banning it? It's unnecessary. If non-smokers are really so offended by it, why don't they go somewhere else. The key to freedom is tolerance.

Logical areas as in, you know, common sense. I don't think a Doctor should light up in the middle of surgery, or should anyone spark their smoke while filling the gas tank..... though, common sense is fleeting nowadays.

1. Second-hand smoke is dangerous to health.
2. Non-smokers are now in the majority in the United States. The needs of the many outweigh the desires of the few (or at least they should).
3. Smoking hasn't been banned, just restricted to areas where it has the least impact on the majority.
4. If, in the interests of resistance, you light up in the presence of people who are made ill by your bad habit, don't be surprised if you are bodily removed from the area. It is, after all, their right, and they will be doing you less harm then you are doing to them.

You speak of common sense and yet, in the face of all evidence that smoking can kill you, you light up.

1. Second-hand smoke is dangerous to health.

So is the air you breathe whenever you go outside. So is the sunlight.

2. Non-smokers are now in the majority in the United States. The needs of the many outweigh the desires of the few (or at least they should).

The *desires* of the many is what you're talking about. Don't act like you have a *need* to go to a pub and get blitzed without smelling like an ash can.


4. If, in the interests of resistance, you light up in the presence of people who are made ill by your bad habit, don't be surprised if you are bodily removed from the area. It is, after all, their right, and they will be doing you less harm then you are doing to them.

And they shouldn't be surprised if I defend my right to go where I want within the law. Anyone trying to "bodily remove me" just because they feel icky is going to find out what it feels like to have a burning cigarette melt the jelly from their eyeball.

You speak of common sense and yet, in the face of all evidence that smoking can kill you, you light up.

And in face of all the evidence that sunlight causes cancer, you happily go outside, probably every day, without wearing sunblock. Shame on you, you suicidal little person!

talking only for america here. anything that is publicly owned. ie city owned state owned or federal owned should be fine to smoke in (the government is for the people by the people and of the people. so we own it) as for private property. they can choose as they like. go with what suits them. if not allowing smokers is good for buisnes then ban it. if you just dont like it then ban it. but what about the people who cater to the smokers. isnt the govenment banning smoking in bars a infringment of the owners rights. even if they agree it should be up to them to ban is not the governmants choice. and saying that the majority want it is the stuppidest argument. the majority of people could want the lesser group killed doesnt make it right. what about all those eqaulity laws. you know the ones that are there to protect the minoritys. just because the smokers are in the minority doesnt mean we ignore their rights.

2. Non-smokers are now in the majority in the United States. The needs of the many outweigh the desires of the few (or at least they should).

Who *needs* to go into a particular bar or restaurant?

All sorts of establishments cater to "niche crowds". Why shouldn't the owner of a particular establishment be able to choose to cater to smokers?

3. Smoking hasn't been banned, just restricted to areas where it has the least impact on the majority.

Do the majority of people have to go into every privately owned establishment?

talking only for america here. anything that is publicly owned. ie city owned state owned or federal owned should be fine to smoke in (the government is for the people by the people and of the people. so we own it) as for private property.

I disagree here. Truly public buildings are generally places that people go because they *have* to, not because they want to. I may have to go to a courthouse or a DMV or so on - with very little choice in the matter. As such, those who wish to light up should do so elsewhere. Non-smokers cannot avoid these areas and should not be exposed to the smoking habits of others just for the hell of it.

And if I decide that I want to open a bar in which smoking will be allowed, that is my choice. Every person who chooses to work there has that choice. Every person who chooses to frequent there has that choice.

The world is full of choices.

If most people choose not to come to my bar because I allow smoking, I have two choices. I will either go under for lack of business, or I can stop allowing smoking.

Considering that this can work itself out without infringing on anyone's choices, why must the government legislate on it?

The downtown area in my town is quite lively, with lots of options for food, drink and entertainment. A non-smoking bar was opened up in the downtown area several years ago...it was the only bar in the downtown area that was strictly non-smoking. Theoretically, if non-smokers were so concerned about the issue, they would have flocked to this bar in droves.

The bar closed in less than a year due to lack of buisness.

The reason that anti-smoking advocates are trying to impose their point of view through legislation is because they know that if left to a system of choice as you described, the vast majority of public establishments would still allow smoking.

My grandfather never smoked in his life, though went to a very smokey pub a lot. He died of lung cancer.

If you want to smoke then do it outside. I smoke weed but I don't expect to be able to do it wherever I like - not everyone may want to inhale what I do.

Smokers can burn in f*ing hell. That'll light their cigarettes. On a whole, I find smokers to be disrespectful, angry, and asses. There are of course exceptions, but the VAST majority of smokers can kiss my ass for all that I'm gonna pass a law saying they can breathe smoke in my face.:upyours:

Better to kill most of them.:sniper:

For all you smokers defending yourselves- smoking.is.an.addiction.
why.the.hell.should.we.have.to.suffer.for.your.fuckup.?

And I hope that the periods made it slow enough for you to understand with your nicotine-slowed reactions.

If I haven't made myself clear enough, I'll leave it to this: My friend, a perfectly normal kid, has a smoking father. His parents had 5 babies die before one lived, and not stillborn. The father smoked around them. Can you all sense a correlation? And yet, when he cut his packs to only 12 or so cigs a day, a baby lived, even though he grew up woth asthma and some health problems.

Smokers aren't people, and I'm willing to fight anyone who disagrees. Provided you live within CA.

You don't have a right to smoke.

Others, however, do have a right to not have to inhale your poisonous, carcinogenic smoke.

And I'm a smoker.

edit: What exactly are "logical" areas? Is this some kind of philosophical question?

My views exactly.

You should quit Nadkor, I don't want you to die like of lung cancer like my uncle did when I was a little kid. Horrible way to go.

Smokers can burn in f*ing hell. That'll light their cigarettes. On a whole, I find smokers to be disrespectful, angry, and asses. There are of course exceptions, but the VAST majority of smokers can kiss my ass for all that I'm gonna pass a law saying they can breathe smoke in my face.:upyours:

Better to kill most of them.:sniper:

For all you smokers defending yourselves- smoking.is.an.addiction.
why.the.hell.should.we.have.to.suffer.for.your.fuckup.?

And I hope that the periods made it slow enough for you to understand with your nicotine-slowed reactions.

If I haven't made myself clear enough, I'll leave it to this: My friend, a perfectly normal kid, has a smoking father. His parents had 5 babies die before one lived, and not stillborn. The father smoked around them. Can you all sense a correlation? And yet, when he cut his packs to only 12 or so cigs a day, a baby lived, even though he grew up woth asthma and some health problems.

Smokers aren't people, and I'm willing to fight anyone who disagrees. Provided you live within CA.

You do realize that this rant doesn't strengthen your position at all.

Im a smoker.

If Im at a non-smoker friends house, I go outside to smoke.
Simple as that.
I dont mind, becuase I understand that there are a number of reasons that people may not like it in thier house.

I can deal with that.

Nor do I mind going to a non-smoking restaraunt.
I also understand why many people wouldnt like to smell it when they eat.
If I need to smoke that badly, I'll simply step outside.

I can deal with that as well.

What I cannot deal with, are obxoxious, self righteous pukes who walk up to any smoker they see, and inform them just how disgusting they happen to find the habit of smoking.

I for one, dont give a flying fuck what you think about my habits, or behaviour.
Im going to smoke, until I dont enjoy it anymore, and nothing anyone says is ever going to make my mind up for me.

I dont smoke to impress anyone, and have no desire to explain my reasoning for smoking to anyone.
Im willing, as an attempt to be a decent person, to minimize any impact my smoking has on anyone else, but I will never allow anyone to tell me what I can or cant do with my own body, as long as Im not hurting anyone else.

I envision a day soon, when I quit smoking, but until that day, I ask anyone who has a problem with my choice, to merrily piss off.

Smokers can burn in f*ing hell. That'll light their cigarettes. On a whole, I find smokers to be disrespectful, angry, and asses. There are of course exceptions, but the VAST majority of smokers can kiss my ass for all that I'm gonna pass a law saying they can breathe smoke in my face.:upyours:

Better to kill most of them.:sniper:
Well, go fuck yourself up the ass with a rusty knife, will you?

I believe that there should be pubs catering to smokers. If all employees are smokers and all patrons are smokers, whose business is it to forbid it? No one is forced to go to a pub, if they cant stand the smoke, just keep outside.

Otherwise i heartily agree with Backwood.

Ooooo...what a healthy looking troll....come here troll! :)

Smokers can burn in f*ing hell. That'll light their cigarettes. On a whole, I find smokers to be disrespectful, angry, and asses.

Funny...disrespectful, angry, and ass-like are three words that jump into my head when reading your post...

There are of course exceptions,

Not in this instance, it seems...

but the VAST majority of smokers can kiss my ass for all that I'm gonna pass a law saying they can breathe smoke in my face.:upyours:

Funny, I don't recall hearing about smokers trying to get laws passed that allow them to smoke. I simply keep hearing about all these smokers complaining about laws being passed that keep them from smoking where once they could.

Non-smokers may be "victims" of secondhand smoke and it's effects, but don't pretend your the victim of any kind of legislation when you clearly aren't.

Better to kill most of them.:sniper:

I think this comment speaks for itself. :rolleyes:

For all you smokers defending yourselves- smoking.is.an.addiction.
why.the.hell.should.we.have.to.suffer.for.your.fuckup.?

And I hope that the periods made it slow enough for you to understand with your nicotine-slowed reactions.

If you understood what an addiction was, you'd know it's not a "fuckup".

As for why you should suffer...nobody makes you go anywhere...if people are smoking at a place, don't go to that place.

Vice versa for smokers...nobody makes you go anywhere, if smoking isn't allowed at a place, don't go to that place.

If I haven't made myself clear enough, I'll leave it to this: My friend, a perfectly normal kid, has a smoking father. His parents had 5 babies die before one lived, and not stillborn. The father smoked around them. Can you all sense a correlation? And yet, when he cut his packs to only 12 or so cigs a day, a baby lived, even though he grew up woth asthma and some health problems.

Disregarding the possibility of other additional factors in the death of these infants, there is no excuse for smoking around small children. NONE. The actions of one particular asshole, however, do not justify the generalizations you have applied to all smokers.

Smokers aren't people, and I'm willing to fight anyone who disagrees. Provided you live within CA.

Funny...I think people who marginalize others based on trivial differences aren't people, and I'm willing to fight anyone who disagrees. Sadly, I don't have the time to fly out to California, otherwise I might take you up on your offer.

I'll have to settle for the smile on my face whenever I hear about smog/wildfires/pollution in California. I wouldn't want you to miss out on your daily required amount of carcinogens. ;)

Smokers can burn in f*ing hell. That'll light their cigarettes. On a whole, I find smokers to be disrespectful, angry, and asses. There are of course exceptions, but the VAST majority of smokers can kiss my ass for all that I'm gonna pass a law saying they can breathe smoke in my face.:upyours:

Better to kill most of them.:sniper:

Gosh, it's a good thing you are not a disrespectful and angry ass.


Smokers aren't people, and I'm willing to fight anyone who disagrees. Provided you live within CA.

Ooh! An internet tough guy! Aren't you cute, shaking your widdo fist and pwomising to hurt teh bad evil smokers!

The downtown area in my town is quite lively, with lots of options for food, drink and entertainment. A non-smoking bar was opened up in the downtown area several years ago...it was the only bar in the downtown area that was strictly non-smoking. Theoretically, if non-smokers were so concerned about the issue, they would have flocked to this bar in droves.

The bar closed in less than a year due to lack of buisness.

The reason that anti-smoking advocates are trying to impose their point of view through legislation is because they know that if left to a system of choice as you described, the vast majority of public establishments would still allow smoking.

That would depend on the demand. It would appear that there was little to no demand for a non-smoking bar in the downtown area of your city. (Either that, or the bar just wasn't fun for some reason, but I can't comment on that). In some places, there is more demand, so there would be more non-smoking bars. I would venture a guess that there is much more demand for non-smoking restaurants than there is for non-smoking bars, so maybe you could even get a few of those in your town.

Im a smoker.

If Im at a non-smoker friends house, I go outside to smoke.
Simple as that.
I dont mind, becuase I understand that there are a number of reasons that people may not like it in thier house.

I can deal with that.

Nor do I mind going to a non-smoking restaraunt.
I also understand why many people wouldnt like to smell it when they eat.
If I need to smoke that badly, I'll simply step outside.

I can deal with that as well.

What I cannot deal with, are obxoxious, self righteous pukes who walk up to any smoker they see, and inform them just how disgusting they happen to find the habit of smoking.

I for one, dont give a flying fuck what you think about my habits, or behaviour.
Im going to smoke, until I dont enjoy it anymore, and nothing anyone says is ever going to make my mind up for me.

I dont smoke to impress anyone, and have no desire to explain my reasoning for smoking to anyone.
Im willing, as an attempt to be a decent person, to minimize any impact my smoking has on anyone else, but I will never allow anyone to tell me what I can or cant do with my own body, as long as Im not hurting anyone else.

I envision a day soon, when I quit smoking, but until that day, I ask anyone who has a problem with my choice, to merrily piss off.


I agree with you. I've never told a smoker that I don't like their habbit. I just don't care enough:) As you said, as long as he's not hurting me. I wish all smokers were like you. The question in this forum is exactly that though, should we, non-smokers, 'bitch' at people who smoke in public places (thus, hurting us).

It's really funny. What I totally understand is that addiction can prevent logic. Ask any heroin addict about anything remotely logical, like getting fresh and clean needles to use. They just can't use logic, the drug is everywhere in the brain where oxygen should be for it to function properly. Same as nicotine.
Now, let's keep the argument simple. Let's say I own a bar. Me and another friend of mine enjoy getting into his garage, starting up the car and smelling the fumes. We love it. We are even addicted to it. We then search online and see that other people like it too. Wait a minute. I own the bar right? So I ask my friends to bring their cars and start them up inside my bar. We like it. Now imagine a couple of people who were regulars in my bar dying. They actually drop dead right in there. Well, too bad for them. They chose to be there. Starting up a car is not illegal, it is my bar and I haven't died from it. So it's their fault. The government has nothing to do with this, right? Wrong. This is a deliberate criminal action and the patrons who caused the deaths are to be held responsible. So is the owner of the bar. It was his 'choice' that caused the deaths. Not people's choice to be there. People have the right to be there, and that is why the owner actually has a license to operate that bar. He has the license because he allows everyone to be there. If he had a sign outside stating 'No jews or dogs allowed in here' his license would be revoked. If he allowed people to assault any Jew who entered the bar, it would be both the assaulters and his fault.

Happily, I live in New Jersey, where it is now illegal to smoke in most public places.

:)

Now, where did I put my bong...?

It's really funny. What I totally understand is that addiction can prevent logic. Ask any heroin addict about anything remotely logical, like getting fresh and clean needles to use. They just can't use logic, the drug is everywhere in the brain where oxygen should be for it to function properly. Same as nicotine.

I would wager money that you haven't asked a heroin addict anything in your life, let alone held a conversation with them.

Nicotine, and heroin for that matter, do not replace oxygen in any way shape or form. If you're going to argue from logic, get your basic fucking facts straight, that way your conclusions won't be based on false assumptions.


Now, let's keep the argument simple. Let's say I own a bar. Me and another friend of mine enjoy getting into his garage, starting up the car and smelling the fumes. We love it. We are even addicted to it. We then search online and see that other people like it too. Wait a minute. I own the bar right? So I ask my friends to bring their cars and start them up inside my bar. We like it. Now imagine a couple of people who were regulars in my bar dying. They actually drop dead right in there. Well, too bad for them. They chose to be there.

Pretty much, yes. Though I'm wondering how you managed to get a car into the bar into the first place.

Of course, breathing in car fumes is far more deadly than being around cigarette smokers.

Starting up a car is not illegal, it is my bar and I haven't died from it. So it's their fault. The government has nothing to do with this, right? Wrong. This is a deliberate criminal action and the patrons who caused the deaths are to be held responsible.

Yes, it's criminal to keep running a car in a place like that. Of course it's not criminal to smoke indoors, so your entire analogy here is full of shit, just like you.

People have the right to be there, and that is why the owner actually has a license to operate that bar.

People do not have a "right" to be there. You can refuse to sell (that includes kicking people out at the door) to anyone for any reason. Caveat empor. You acting like you have a "right" to be in a privately owned establishment is yet another example of your complete ignorance on the subject.

He has the license because he allows everyone to be there. If he had a sign outside stating 'No jews or dogs allowed in here' his license would be revoked.

Jews yes, dogs no. There are no pro-dog groups that will sue you for everything you've got if you dare defame canines. It's perfectly legal to prohibit dogs from being allowed in your establishment.

If he allowed people to assault any Jew who entered the bar, it would be both the assaulters and his fault.

Yes, but now you're really reaching. Smoking in a place that allows smoking, is equivalent to being an accomplice in anti-semitic physical assaults? Whatever man. Get a grip on reality.

Yes, it's criminal to keep running a car in a place like that. Of course it's not criminal to smoke indoors, so your entire analogy here is full of shit, just like you.

Indeed. Running your *own* car like that in your *own* garage would be considered either a suicide attempt or a criminally negligent act (if anyone else was there). Smoking in your own home, on the other hand, is considered neither.

"I want to smoke" That's the nicotine talking. Your addiction must be ended. Also, I don't like the smell of smoke and really don't want to suffer in a restaurant because some weakling couldn't resist peer pressure in high school.

Smokers can burn in f*ing hell. That'll light their cigarettes. On a whole, I find smokers to be disrespectful, angry, and asses. There are of course exceptions, but the VAST majority of smokers can kiss my ass for all that I'm gonna pass a law saying they can breathe smoke in my face.:upyours:

Better to kill most of them.:sniper:

For all you smokers defending yourselves- smoking.is.an.addiction.
why.the.hell.should.we.have.to.suffer.for.your.fuckup.?

And I hope that the periods made it slow enough for you to understand with your nicotine-slowed reactions.

If I haven't made myself clear enough, I'll leave it to this: My friend, a perfectly normal kid, has a smoking father. His parents had 5 babies die before one lived, and not stillborn. The father smoked around them. Can you all sense a correlation? And yet, when he cut his packs to only 12 or so cigs a day, a baby lived, even though he grew up woth asthma and some health problems.

Smokers aren't people, and I'm willing to fight anyone who disagrees. Provided you live within CA.
Why am I not surprised that this person lives in California? :p

"I want to smoke" That's the nicotine talking. Your addiction must be ended. Also, I don't like the smell of smoke and really don't want to suffer in a restaurant because some weakling couldn't resist peer pressure in high school.

Would you walk into a person's home and say, "You can't smoke in here! I'm here!"?

If not, what makes you think you can walk into a person's restaurant and say, "I make the rules here! You can't smoke because I happen to be here!"?

"I want to smoke" That's the nicotine talking. Your addiction must be ended. Also, I don't like the smell of smoke and really don't want to suffer in a restaurant because some weakling couldn't resist peer pressure in high school.


Once again, speaking from total ignorance. As usual from anti-smokers, you believe all the propaganda. You don't know what addiction is if you really think smoking is addictive. Try heroin and get back to me.

For all your talk of "weakling," look at you whine! Oh you poor baby, SUFFERING in a restaraunt! To me it looks like your lungs are made of what, very thin cardboard? That's what I call weakling.

Let's face it, if you can breathe the air filled with automobile pollution - and you do - you can survive being in the same room with a smoker. And if you can't, if you're really so WEAK, well, here's a shocking thought - don't go to a restaraunt that allows smoking.

It's the same way how if I didn't want to be around whiny assholes, I wouldn't come to your birthday party and shit in your punch bowl.

Once again, speaking from total ignorance. As usual from anti-smokers, you believe all the propaganda. You don't know what addiction is if you really think smoking is addictive...

Smoking IS addictive. My mother has smoked over 27 years, and she has tried to quit and has failed. She tells me she doesn't like to smoke, but she feels the need to. so don't believe all your anti-anti-smoker propaganda.
My sister is in the same boat.

Smoking IS addictive. My mother has smoked over 27 years, and she has tried to quit and has failed. She tells me she doesn't like to smoke, but she feels the need to.

That would be known as an excuse, also known as a justification. She doesn't *want* to quit, so she doesn't. Thankfully, she has people like you who tell her she has no control over the matter, because she's a "victim" of "addiction," to provide her with a ready, out-of-the-box reason not to try quitting.

Quitting smoking is the easiest thing in the world if you want to.

And there are people who say they feel the "need" to shop or eat chocolate too. Are shopping, and chocolate, 'addictive?' I think not.


so don't believe all your anti-anti-smoker propaganda.
My sister is in the same boat.

Propaganda? Ha. No, I don't have propaganda. Propaganda is what you are fed in grade school, junior and high school, and all through your life from anti-tobacco lobbyists. I make my own conclusions based on something you apparently don't have - experience, and the realization that the human will is not something dictated to by inert substances. Responsibility, in other words.

Feel free to disagree - it removes all the blame your mom and sister have for their own choices. Each time they light up, they can blame it on "addiction." Frankly, you and people like you are better adverts for tobacco than anything I could say. Because you mimic the Pringles motto: "once you pop, you can't stop."

I would wager money that you haven't asked a heroin addict anything in your life, let alone held a conversation with them.

You would lose that bet. You don't know me.

Nicotine, and heroin for that matter, do not replace oxygen in any way shape or form. If you're going to argue from logic, get your basic fucking facts straight, that way your conclusions won't be based on false assumptions.

Misunderstanding. I didn't literally want to say that it replaces oxygen. But if that's what you got from the sentence and not the fact that it's the nicotine speaking and not you, fine.


Pretty much, yes. Though I'm wondering how you managed to get a car into the bar into the first place.

That was not the issue, once again.

Of course, breathing in car fumes is far more deadly than being around cigarette smokers.

Of course it is, never said otherwise. It was a far fetched example to make my point.



Yes, it's criminal to keep running a car in a place like that. Of course it's not criminal to smoke indoors, so your entire analogy here is full of shit, just like you.

Typical behaviour. Logic is running out. Let's start with the 'you are shit' logical arguments. You don't know me man, and your saying weaken your non-existing points. What you said in the above sentence was "You are wrong, you suck" which really doesn't convince anyone.


People do not have a "right" to be there. You can refuse to sell (that includes kicking people out at the door) to anyone for any reason. Caveat empor. You acting like you have a "right" to be in a privately owned establishment is yet another example of your complete ignorance on the subject.

So someone actually has the right to kick black men out of bars? Where?



Jews yes, dogs no. There are no pro-dog groups that will sue you for everything you've got if you dare defame canines. It's perfectly legal to prohibit dogs from being allowed in your establishment.

I know, but these signs were actually hung out of stores just before WW2. Of course you wouldn't have to know that.



Yes, but now you're really reaching. Smoking in a place that allows smoking, is equivalent to being an accomplice in anti-semitic physical assaults? Whatever man. Get a grip on reality.
No, but in both cases the patrons AND the owner have a share of responsibility for the incident. That's what I said before too.

You would lose that bet. You don't know me.

I may not know you, but I know people like you who feel like generalizing about others, dismissing them as people, suggesting that everything they do is a result of chemicals they may use. And usually you don't know jack shit.

Misunderstanding. I didn't literally want to say that it replaces oxygen. But if that's what you got from the sentence and not the fact that it's the nicotine speaking and not you, fine.

Again, a way to dismiss arguments is to claim they are not in fact made by people with rational minds, but "nicotine." Hence anyone not anti-tobacco is just an "addict" and they are not actually speaking, but "nicotine" is. Apparently nicotine is a fucking sentient being now, but not smokers. I know full well what you mean.


Of course it is, never said otherwise. It was a far fetched example to make my point.

And the far-fetchedness is what kills any point you had. You're using slippery slope arguments to equate being in a room where someone is smoking with being in a room with a car engine running. Huh-uh. Not comparable.


Typical behaviour. Logic is running out. Let's start with the 'you are shit' logical arguments. You don't know me man, and your saying weaken your non-existing points. What you said in the above sentence was "You are wrong, you suck" which really doesn't convince anyone.

Right, and your ad hominem blanket dissmissal of any argument any smoker could make is perfectly logical? My fat ass it is. Don't cry about logic when you're happy to make fallacies yourself.

And I notice you ignore the actual point I made. Thus you can say I have non-existing points... since la la la, you don't see them! It's amazing what you don't see when you close your eyes, isn't it?


So someone actually has the right to kick black men out of bars? Where?


Being a black man doesn't guarantee you the right never to get kicked out of bars.

So yes, people do have the right to kick black men out of bars. Shocking isn't it?

I know, but these signs were actually hung out of stores just before WW2. Of course you wouldn't have to know that.

Interesting factoid that is completely irrelevant.


No, but in both cases the patrons AND the owner have a share of responsibility for the incident. That's what I said before too.

Because an assault that takes place on your premises is a crime. Smoking is not. One is an act of violence against the other even without criminality: smoking is not.

Better luck next time.

I may not know you, but I know people like you who feel like generalizing about others, dismissing them as people, suggesting that everything they do is a result of chemicals they may use. And usually you don't know jack shit.


Read what you wrote. You actually said: "I don't know you, but I know all the people like you, and you are all the same and I am not generalizing".


Again, a way to dismiss arguments is to claim they are not in fact made by people with rational minds, but "nicotine." Hence anyone not anti-tobacco is just an "addict" and they are not actually speaking, but "nicotine" is. Apparently nicotine is a fucking sentient being now, but not smokers. I know full well what you mean.

Addiction clouds judgmenent when it comes to stuff that has to do with the addiction itself. It's a fact. Sorry.


And the far-fetchedness is what kills any point you had. You're using slippery slope arguments to equate being in a room where someone is smoking with being in a room with a car engine running. Huh-uh. Not comparable.

It is quite comparable. I have asthma, both can kill me in 1 hour. Period.


And I notice you ignore the actual point I made. Thus you can say I have non-existing points... since la la la, you don't see them! It's amazing what you don't see when you close your eyes, isn't it?

I try to respond to your arguments while you call me full of shit. That's our difference. I read everything you read. Without singing. I have to admit I laugh a little though.



Being a black man doesn't guarantee you the right never to get kicked out of bars.

So yes, people do have the right to kick black men out of bars. Shocking isn't it?

If someone is refused service in a civilized country, he can be fined and has his license removed. I believe that in the US you can still refuse service. So, my point exactly.


Interesting factoid that is completely irrelevant.

I was just pointing out that from what I said you understood that dogs should be allowed everywhere.



Because an assault that takes place on your premises is a crime. Smoking is not. One is an act of violence against the other even without criminality: smoking is not.


Well, where I currently live, smoking in a bar is a crime too. What makes up a crime? The laws do, not your thoughts and opinions. Smoking hurt me more than a punch in the face. And I have a saying in that since I am the one you are hurting either way.

We've banned smoking in pubs here in New Zealand and so far noone's kicked up a major stink about it (no pun intended).

All those who are sick of cigarette smoke, come to New Zealand! Share the love! :fluffle:

You can smoke indoors as soon as we start putting little closets in the corners of rooms with tubes that lead to the roof.Smoke all you like in a 2' x 2' x 7' space.

That would be known as an excuse, also known as a justification. She doesn't *want* to quit, so she doesn't. Thankfully, she has people like you who tell her she has no control over the matter, because she's a "victim" of "addiction," to provide her with a ready, out-of-the-box reason not to try quitting.

Quitting smoking is the easiest thing in the world if you want to.

And there are people who say they feel the "need" to shop or eat chocolate too. Are shopping, and chocolate, 'addictive?' I think not.


Did...did I read that right? You're saying smoking isn't addictive?

Nicotine is a highly addictive drug. Smokers can get hooked very quickly and it can take years and a huge effort to kick the habit.

It's well known that nicotine is addictive. And if that isn't enough, what about psychological addiction (which, actually, could cover the shopping and chocolate addictions too, I guess :s)?

Yes, some people find it easy to quit. Others find it very difficult, not because they don't want to, but because their body and their mind is craving nicotine.

Read what you wrote. You actually said: "I don't know you, but I know all the people like you, and you are all the same and I am not generalizing".

No, thats actually not what I said. I am generalizing though, yes. I'm generalizing based on my experience with people who dismiss all smokers as just "thats the nicotine talking." So far you're not really straying from the line.

Addiction clouds judgmenent when it comes to stuff that has to do with the addiction itself. It's a fact. Sorry.

You're assuming anyone who smokes is addicted. That's not a fact. Sorry.

It is quite comparable. I have asthma, both can kill me in 1 hour. Period.

Most people don't have asthma so bad that apparently being in the same room with a smoker causes death within an hour. So you are an exception we can ignore.


I try to respond to your arguments while you call me full of shit. That's our difference. I read everything you read. Without singing. I have to admit I laugh a little though.


I called your argument full of shit. You yourself may be full of something else.

And your argument so far as been ad hominem. Why should I treat you differently?

If someone is refused service in a civilized country, he can be fined and has his license removed. I believe that in the US you can still refuse service. So, my point exactly.

Yes, you can still refuse service to people. Uh, how is this your point? Go real slow, it must be my nicotine speaking.


I was just pointing out that from what I said you understood that dogs should be allowed everywhere.

But they shouldn't and aren't.


Well, where I currently live, smoking in a bar is a crime too. What makes up a crime? The laws do, not your thoughts and opinions. Smoking hurt me more than a punch in the face. And I have a saying in that since I am the one you are hurting either way.

One is assault, the other is not. Surely even you can see the difference.

Did...did I read that right? You're saying smoking isn't addictive?

You read it wrong. But I do assert that it's addictiveness is vastly overrated. To the point where people (see above) think that anyone who smokes cigarettes is an addict who cannot use sound judgement. People even compare it with heroin and I've heard the claim "most addictive substance known to man" before. This is absolute bullshit.

I also have basically no sympathy or recognition for the concept of "psychological addiction."

They have smoking sections for a reason, so you liberal yuppies who have nothing better to do than complain dont have to sit near us smokers. There are obviously logical places where you shouldn't smoke, but bars and clubs are for smokers too, and if we're not gonna segregate black people, quit segregating us smokers and making us smoke outside.

Smokers should be allowed to go wherever they're welcome.
They just shouldn't be allowed to smoke there.

I'm so happy they banned smoking in Ontario bars, when I come home I don't stink of smoke.

They have smoking sections for a reason, so you liberal yuppies who have nothing better to do than complain dont have to sit near us smokers. There are obviously logical places where you shouldn't smoke, but bars and clubs are for smokers too, and if we're not gonna segregate black people, quit segregating us smokers and making us smoke outside.
Having a smoking section in a restuarant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.

Smokers should be allowed to go wherever they're welcome.
They just shouldn't be allowed to smoke there.

I'm so happy they banned smoking in Ontario bars, when I come home I don't stink of smoke.

Yeah, instead you come home smelling like beer, sweat, piss and puke. Much better!

I didn't take the time to read the whole thread, as it is already 15 pages in length. I am not a smoker, and I do feel that in public indoor areas (i.e. those owned and operated by a city or likewise governmental organization) smoking should be prohibited. However, when it comes to private facilities, the issue of smoking should be left up to the owner of the establishment in question. It's their place, let them do with it what they want, and if you don't like it, you can leave.

This may come off as a meaningless rant, but I'm tired of so many non-smokers. I'm tired of not being able to smoke indoors, at clubs, venues, etc. I can understand them not wanting smokers lighting up in front of them--I don't like the smell either--but you can deal with it. Stop infringing my civil rights! I want to smoke!

Questions? Comments? Smart remarks?
I want my civil rights, to. Your smoking hurts my lungs because of second hand smoke. You are infringing on my rights by smoking outside your home. Get used to it.

wow, this is the most retarded post I have ever seen.
Ever heard of second hand smoke? That hurts people more than you smoking your own cig.
The people around you are affected more than anyone else.
Do YOU want to be the reason someone dies of black lung?

And it isn't the SMELL that bugs people. Smoke is smoke and it fills your lungs to the point where you can't breathe...
When you are coughing up blood in a few years don't complain...
it ruins your body and hurts others too.

It's called being considerate of people who DON'T want to kill themsleves.

I want my civil rights, to. Your smoking hurts my lungs because of second hand smoke. You are infringing on my rights by smoking outside your home. Get used to it.

I want my civil rights. Your dependency on automobiles hurts *my* lungs because of auto pollution. You are infringing on *my* rights by driving, riding in a car or depending on one. Get used to it.

And it isn't the SMELL that bugs people.

Yes, yes it is.

I'm so happy they banned smoking in Ontario bars, when I come home I don't stink of smoke.

I can guaran-fucking-tee you that most nonsmokers want smoking banned cuz ewww, it smells bad.

I admit the anti-smoking propaganda that has them afraid they're getting cancer anytime someone 50 feet away lights up, has something to do with it as well.

Damn, all this anti-smoking crap is pissing me off. I'm gonna start smoking right now.

And then I'm gonna blow the smoke in some kid's face. Heh.

Okay that last part was a lie. But I'm totally gonna start smoking.

I want my civil rights. Your dependency on automobiles hurts *my* lungs because of auto pollution. You are infringing on *my* rights by driving, riding in a car or depending on one. Get used to it.
How do you know I even dry a car? Can you prove that?

How do you know I even dry a car? Can you prove that?

That's why I added "or depend on one," meaning you do depend somehow on automobiles. Failing that, the electricity you are using involves air pollution which is interfering with my right to clean air!

You murderer!

[insert guilt trip here]

That's why I added "or depend on one," meaning you do depend somehow on automobiles. Failing that, the electricity you are using involves air pollution which is interfering with my right to clean air!

You murderer!

[insert guilt trip here]Yes, but electricity has a positive effect. Smoking does not.

Yes, but electricity has a positive effect. Smoking does not.

So it's okay to infringe on someones right to clean air as long as it has what you describe as a positive effect?

I say, smoking is recreational; recreation is a positive thing.

The trade in tobacco helps the US economy; a strong economy is a positive thing.

The taxes smacked onto all cigarette and tobacco sales helps the US government keep funded; a government that has funds to use is a positive thing.

Ergo, smoking is positive and therefore we can overlook whatever negative effects on the "right" to clean air it may have.

So it's okay to infringe on someones right to clean air as long as it has what you describe as a positive effect?

I say, smoking is recreational; recreation is a positive thing.

The trade in tobacco helps the US economy; a strong economy is a positive thing.

The taxes smacked onto all cigarette and tobacco sales helps the US government keep funded; a government that has funds to use is a positive thing.

Ergo, smoking is positive and therefore we can overlook whatever negative effects on the "right" to clean air it may have.
Recreational drugs would also have a positive effect on the economy if legalized. Do you suggest it be legalized?

Recreational drugs would also have a positive effect on the economy if legalized. Do you suggest it be legalized?

Of course. Legalize now!

Of course. Legalize now!
Well, that's extreme. What next? Give crack free to all Kindergarteners?

Well, that's extreme. What next? Give crack free to all Kindergarteners?

I'm a capitalist, I don't believe in giving things away free. :p

No, I'm OK with regulation. You can't smoke cigarettes until 18 years old anyway, and even then tobacco is taxed heavily. Same with other drugs would be just fine.

I'm a capitalist, I don't believe in giving things away free.

Amen to that! :p

I'm a capitalist, I don't believe in giving things away free. :p

No, I'm OK with regulation. You can't smoke cigarettes until 18 years old anyway, and even then tobacco is taxed heavily. Same with other drugs would be just fine.
I thought it was 21...

18 in the US

I thought it was 21...

18 for cigarettes, legal adulthood, voting, registering for the draft.

21 for alcohol.

Doesn't really make much sense does it...

18 for cigarettes, legal adulthood, voting, registering for the draft.

21 for alcohol.

Doesn't really make much sense does it...
I never understood that either. Shouldn't achoholc be 18?

Yeah, instead you come home smelling like beer, sweat, piss and puke. Much better!
I've never left a bar smelling like sweat, piss or puke. Beer once or twice just becuase sometimes people do spill their drinks.

I don't know what kinds of bars you go to. But I love not stinking of other people's filthy habits when I get home and not having a sore throat the next day.

I want my civil rights. Your dependency on automobiles hurts *my* lungs because of auto pollution. You are infringing on *my* rights by driving, riding in a car or depending on one. Get used to it.
I ride a bicycle.

What now?

I've never left a bar smelling like sweat, piss or puke.

Then you're not doing it right. ;)

But I love not stinking of other people's filthy habits when I get home and not having a sore throat the next day.

And I love freedom. Guess we all have our preferences.

I can guaran-fucking-tee you that most nonsmokers want smoking banned cuz ewww, it smells bad.
No, a lot of employees of bars appreciate it as well, they can work and breathe comfortably at the same time. Before the smoking ban, the air in some places just didn't look healthy, it was filled with dense smoke. Now you can see clearly in the bars, you don't leave with dry, red eyes and a sore throat from the smoke. The employees won't have to worry about emphesema as much later in life either.

I admit the anti-smoking propaganda that has them afraid they're getting cancer anytime someone 50 feet away lights up, has something to do with it as well.
My great grandmother got emphesema from my great grandfather's smoking. He died of lung cancer...

Then you're not doing it right. ;)
Or I'm just not going to bars where people piss on each other.

And I love freedom. Guess we all have our preferences.
Funny, you are free, to step outside or into the large aquarium like sectioned off area of the bar with the other smokers while I'm free to breathe my nice, clean air.

Also, the smoking ban in bars has helped many kick their habits entirely, which is also good.

The employees won't have to worry about emphesema as much later in life either.
Sorry, but he's just gonna go on his "They don't HAVE to work there" rant now.

Before he gets there (if this gets posted before he does), what about when all the jobs in non-smoking establishments are taken? They'll either have to work at the 'smoking' bars and die slowly from YOUR filthy habit, or go without work and die of hunger on the street.

You can still smoke, you just can't do it where it'll hurt other people. I really don't see the issue you whiners have with that. "Omg! I can't smoke in the bar and kill my neighbours, woe is me, bring back smoking!"

No, a lot of employees of bars appreciate it as well, they can work and breathe comfortably at the same time.

As with customers, they chose to be there knowing ahead of time what it was like. If they were deliberately kept disinformed about what the conditions in the place would be like, then I can see where they might have a reason to complain.


My great grandmother got emphesema from my great grandfather's smoking. He died of lung cancer...

But your great grandmother didn't get emphesema from going to bars. Going to a bar is different from living with someone for years on end.

Funny, you are free, to step outside or into the large aquarium like sectioned off area of the bar with the other smokers while I'm free to breathe my nice, clean air.

I've never seen a bar like that, so no, I'm not free to do so. Besides, what if I as a bar owner WANT the whole place to be like aforementioned aquarium-like sectioned-off area? Are people going to still come and then complain because it is what it is? I bet they would. People have no perspective on the matter thanks to the heavy propagandizing about it.

As for your bicycle, I assume you've been to places because you were driven. If not, your bicycle was assembled elsewhere, and air pollution was caused in the moving of the parts to the store and/or to your residence. If not that, then pollution was almost certainly used in getting the raw resources from their location to the place where the bicycle was assembled. Yet do you consider that your bicycle is a cause of murder? Why not... unless you think air pollution doesn't cause negative health effects?

This may come off as a meaningless rant, but I'm tired of so many non-smokers. I'm tired of not being able to smoke indoors, at clubs, venues, etc. I can understand them not wanting smokers lighting up in front of them--I don't like the smell either--but you can deal with it. Stop infringing my civil rights! I want to smoke!

Questions? Comments? Smart remarks?

I don't understand why there are not smoking bars and non-smoking bars, and the same for restaurants. I don't like to be in a smoky place when I'm eating or drinking, but why should people who don't mind this or who smoke not have a place to go? Let people vote for these places with their pocketbooks - and I bet the last few remaining smokers would indeed be customers of such places...