NationStates Jolt Archive

So is farting in a crowd, i want legislation that requires corks in everyones asses in public and in bars and restraunts.
O come on, don't make urself ridiculous. You too know there is a difference between a normal non-deadly bodely function, and a nicotine involving inhaling and exhaling burning products. Haven't we beaten that dead horse enough by now?
But it's not about singing voices, I just find 1 thing wierd: why the héll do smokers even wánt to light up a sigarrete knowing other people will be affected by there smoke. I really don't understand why.

those tube things with the air volume measurer.

Peak flow meter

O come on, don't make urself ridiculous. You too know there is a difference between a normal non-deadly bodely function, and a nicotine involving inhaling and exhaling burning products. Haven't we beaten that dead horse enough by now?

No what we have done is have 4 or 5 people ignore the fact that there is NO evidence that one breath of highly diluted smoke has ANY ill effects on a person at all, voice or otherwise. Yelling it does so does not make it so. Since i cant prove a negative it is incumbent on YOU all to show that a single breath of highly diluted smoke from outdoors has any ill effect on anything. Eating a large handful of rat poison will kill you. Eating 1/100 th of one gram wont do a single thing to you. Ill be waiting for your proof.

You said: And now they're telling us not to smoke in our cars if there's a minor in there?

Do you really think that, say, a toddler can be like, "Hey dad, I'm really not comfortable with you smoking in the car?" No. And sometimes even older minors don't have control of say, one of their parents smoking in the car because their parents will just tell them to shut up and deal with it.

Do these people really want to breathe in tobacco smoke? I'm pretty sure they don't. Do they have a choice as is? No. I would think it would be common sense not to smoke w/ kids in the car, but legislation like this is needed so that stupid people don't endanger their kids who don't have a say for themselves.

I do, however, agree with you about the whole smoking in restaurants and bars thing. It's really the owner's choice.

If you could tell the difference listening to the singing of a person who walked thru a doorway for 2 seconds with a smoker loitering about, and someone who walked thru a doorway without a smoker then i will vote for you as most amazing human ever, cause you will have the ability to do something that noone else can.

Gee, then I'm amazing, too. Shit, that's an occupational requirement for me, pal.

Im saying walking thru a doorway thats OUTDOORS for 2 seconds, not 4 hours in a Bingo hall.

Yeah, and one lungful of any irritant causes both airway irritation, which causes coughing, which further irritates the airway. What does a sensitive membrane in the airway do when it's irritated by smoke or other particulate matter? It secretes mucus to lock down the particulate matter and enable the lungs to cough it out. That whole process can put a vocalist off their A-game for 30 minutes to an hour. Longer in folks with pre-existing sensitivites (allergies, athsma).

They'll still be able to produce pitches, but their tone and timbre will be compromised, and if I were walking into that hall an hour before my graded recital or my vocal juries (applied lesson assessment, and one of the most stressful finals I ever had to take three times a year) and some fucktard blew smoke in my face for even two seconds when he'd been repeatedly and politely asked to smoke somewhere else, I'd be hard pressed to resist the urge to plait his dome with a tire iron.

bullshit.. not from 2 seconds of exposure... minutes, yes.. hours even days due to various points of exposure.. yes but 2 seconds.. not a chance in hell!

Remind me to play poker with you if that's how you assess probablility. You are wrong, plain and simple. You're talking like those people who are callous enough to not believe that people with severe, anaphylactic allergies are in genuinely life-threatening situations around their particular allergen.

Exeton, you've already shown this thread that you don't know what you're talking about on one point. Why press your luck?

I hate to burst your bubble but taking one breath OUTDOORS near a doorway with light smoke did NOTHING to your voice or your ability to sing or your ability to do anything but complain about it.

Been there, failed that. "It doesn't happen to me" != "it doesn't happen at all."

Might i suggest a plastic bubble? You may just simply be too delicate to coexist with other humans.

And you too selfish.

ok, so the bs bit was harsh.. should have been an I dont think so but, an alergic reaction will not be suffered by all non smokers.

With the Asthma it triggered a pre existing condition. With the coughing, its a reflex action and it shouldnt affect you for more than a few minutes tops - if it does, go see your doctor.

Anybody with voice training, the difference would be inadudible to a normal audience..

But 2 seconds really isnt that much of a factor....

Yes it is. Sorry to disabuse you of your false notion.

No what we have done is have 4 or 5 people ignore the fact that there is NO evidence that one breath of highly diluted smoke has ANY ill effects on a person at all, voice or otherwise. Yelling it does so does not make it so. Since i cant prove a negative it is incumbent on YOU all to show that a single breath of highly diluted smoke from outdoors has any ill effect on anything. Eating a large handful of rat poison will kill you. Eating 1/100 th of one gram wont do a single thing to you. Ill be waiting for your proof.
Fact is you force your addiction on other people, thát's what matters. Besides, tell that to astma-patients will you

I hate moralist nannies. Two days ago I had a guy pull over on the side of the road while I was walking from class with a cigarette, just to yell "Aw, cmon man, smoking kills," at me. I told him its not as fast as Id kill him if he doesnt get the fuck away from me.

Im losing my patience with these people.

As seen in this post, smoking also causes anger issues. Ban smoking, and hopefully tormented people such as Knights of Liberty may be free from anger and fit in society again.

Fact is you force your addiction on other people, thát's what matters. Besides, tell that to asthma-patients will you

fixed

Besides, tell that to astma-patients will you

Only if you can cite the legions of athsma sufferers that have keeled over dead in doorways of office buildings around America.

Only if you can cite the legions of athsma sufferers that have keeled over dead in doorways of office buildings around America.
So it's only ok if they die hmm? My Gód are you really that bad?

@Dyakovo:
Thanks ;)

So it's only ok if they die hmm? My Gód are you really that bad?

@Dyakovo:
Thanks ;)

Die? LMAO im saying the exact opposite, it does NOTHING. Nobody is getting cancer or having thier throat sieze up or anything else from a single highly diluted breath of outdoor air with some smoke in it. Your being absurd.

Die? LMAO im saying the exact opposite, it does NOTHING. Nobody is getting cancer or having thier throat sieze up or anything else from a single highly diluted breath of outdoor air with some smoke in it. Your being absurd.
What I mean, is that you would only accept it if they die on the spot, apperantly, wich is complete bullshit. Just ask my grandma. It sticks, it's dirty, and there are enough people with breathing/airway problems. Even I instantly start coughing when someone in my vicinity starts blowing smoke to me, wich especially happens on the train station.
Let me ask again: why the héll do you want to force other people your addiction? Why don't you care that other people are annoyed because of your smoke?

Die? LMAO im saying the exact opposite, it does NOTHING. Nobody is getting cancer or having thier throat sieze up or anything else from a single highly diluted breath of outdoor air with some smoke in it. Your being absurd.

Erm, did you miss me discussing someone having a severe asthma attack from trying to pass through a doorway full of smokers? You know, in the post you've been attacking all this time without any evidence? It's a bit odd to argue against a specific example of something happening by saying, "That's NEVER happened!"

What I mean, is that you would only accept it if they die on the spot, apperantly, wich is complete bullshit. Just ask my grandma.

Your grandma walked thru a doorway with a smoker in it and it killed her later?

Your grandma walked thru a doorway with a smoker in it and it killed her later?
Again, apperantly it's only a problem for you when people die because of it. No, she doesn't, she gets something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeehWsHKH4w&feature=related
But heej, who cares right, she doesn't die. Tard.

Erm, did you miss me discussing someone having a severe asthma attack from trying to pass through a doorway full of smokers? You know, in the post you've been attacking all this time without any evidence? It's a bit odd to argue against a specific example of something happening by saying, "That's NEVER happened!"

Did you mean like 7 pages back when you said..."Near the end of my semester at that school, a freshman attempting to enter the music building had an asthma attack after some of the smokers blew their smoke in her face for shits and giggles." ?

Now does that sound like someone got an asthma attack from outdoor highly diluted smoke or did it sound like someone got blown in the face by multiple people and received a high and concentrated dose?

Under the conditions i have clearly stated, my comment still appears to be valid. Its all about dosage. In the same way you can eat a small amount of rat poison and be perfectly and 100% fine but if you eat alot you die.

Again, apperantly it's only a problem for you when people die because of it. No, she doesn't, she gets something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeehWsHKH4w&feature=related
But heej, who cares right, she doesn't die. Tard.

Your grandmother could trigger an athsma attack by the very act of even walking to the building if you are prone to attacks. My brother had athsma, inhalers the whole bit. Absolutley anything or simply nothing could bring them on. You have to do alot better on proving a direct causal relationship between your grandmothers attacks and a smoker loitering outdoors near a door to serve as proof of your claims. Maybe there were flowers next to the building and she got athsma from that or any of a hundred other sources.

Gah. Ran through the entire 18-page thread.. and the same arguments are being rehashed over and over and over again!
But an interesting question...why aren't those fuckers addicted? Maybe for the same reason they aren't smokers in the first place?
'cause addiction may not only be chemical, it can also be psychological addiction. Like NSG. :D

Really?! Dammit, I better free those serfs I have then...
:eek::eek::eek:OH NO! NOT THE RATS!

Did you mean like 7 pages back when you said..."Near the end of my semester at that school, a freshman attempting to enter the music building had an asthma attack after some of the smokers blew their smoke in her face for shits and giggles." ?

Now does that sound like someone got an asthma attack from outdoor highly diluted smoke or did it sound like someone got blown in the face by multiple people and received a high and concentrated dose?

Under the conditions i have clearly stated, my comment still appears to be valid. Its all about dosage. In the same way you can eat a small amount of rat poison and be perfectly and 100% fine but if you eat alot you die.

Well, the "conditions you have clearly stated" have nothing to do with the conditions under which you have accused me of, as recall, wanting to "call a WAAAAAAAAAAmbulance." As I have stated several times now, the issue was not with one smoker standing 15 feet from the door occasionally. The issue was with about ten smokers standing in the doorway itself (which musicians had to pass through 10-20 times a day) constantly. That is not "outdoor highly diluted smoke."

Your grandmother could trigger an athsma attack by the very act of even walking to the building if you are prone to attacks. My brother had athsma, inhalers the whole bit. Absolutley anything or simply nothing could bring them on. You have to do alot better on proving a direct causal relationship between your grandmothers attacks and a smoker loitering outdoors near a door to serve as proof of your claims.
Really, it's easy: smoke from smoking contains lots of dirty crap, see here: http://www.eastcambsandfenland-pct.nhs.uk/images/library/Smoking/Whats-in-a-cigarette.gif
Is it thát hard to understand why smoke, be it cigarete smoke or smoke from a fire, causes an asthma attack? Please...

Really, it's easy: smoke from smoking contains lots of dirty crap, see here: http://www.eastcambsandfenland-pct.nhs.uk/images/library/Smoking/Whats-in-a-cigarette.gif
Is it thát hard to understand why smoke, be it cigarete smoke or smoke from a fire, causes an asthma attack? Please...

Or how about the pollen producing flowers next to the building or one of the many other things your just not considering as a possible source of the attack?

Well, the "conditions you have clearly stated" have nothing to do with the conditions under which you have accused me of, as recall, wanting to "call a WAAAAAAAAAAmbulance." As I have stated several times now, the issue was not with one smoker standing 15 feet from the door occasionally. The issue was with about ten smokers standing in the doorway itself (which musicians had to pass through 10-20 times a day) constantly. That is not "outdoor highly diluted smoke."

Understood then, im responding to signs ive seen posted that you cant go within 15-20 feet of the entrance of the building. That, i thought was going overboard.

Understood then, im responding to signs ive seen posted that you cant go within 15-20 feet of the entrance of the building. That, i thought was going overboard.

I'd say that's a little too far, but they shouldn't be allowed to loiter right in front of the doors. I don't mind people smoking outside near a building as long as there's good ventilation in the area.

Or how about the pollen producing flowers next to the building or one of the many other things your just not considering as a possible source of the attack?

Ah, so we're back to the "other things are also bad!" argument. Didn't that get debunked half a dozen times already in this thread?

Let's go through this one more time: no one in their right mind can honestly allege that inhaling smoke has no potential to harm one's respiratory system. Not even tobacco companies argue something so silly. No one who knows even the most basic things about how air and sound production work could argue that getting even small amounts of irritants in one's throat could not affect one's ability to sing. You've had quite a lot of people, including smokers and professional musicians, tell you this, and have not presented any evidence to the contrary besides, "Well, I don't think so." Regardless of whether other things can also cause negative effects, it is simply and utterly absurd to continue arguing that it is unreasonable for singers and asthmatics to wish to avoid inhaling smoke.

What the hell is smoking?

This is kind of an example of how overboard things are though. My girlfriend is from Pennsylvania, where you can smoke in bars. She had a cigarette in her hand and walked into a reasturant/bar in my town in NY and my god you would have thought she had walked in with a machine gun and a bomb taped to her head. She didnt get 3 feet in the door and was instantly swarmed by 3 employees telling her she couldnt smoke in there. She actually recoiled in fear at first because she didnt realize why she was being swarmed all around from out of the blue. She of course apologized and put it out and it was an innocent mistake but you have got to be kidding me. Shouldnt we be saving these kind of reactions for more important things?

Did you mean like 7 pages back when you said..."Near the end of my semester at that school, a freshman attempting to enter the music building had an asthma attack after some of the smokers blew their smoke in her face for shits and giggles." ?

Now does that sound like someone got an asthma attack from outdoor highly diluted smoke or did it sound like someone got blown in the face by multiple people and received a high and concentrated dose?

Under the conditions i have clearly stated, my comment still appears to be valid. Its all about dosage. In the same way you can eat a small amount of rat poison and be perfectly and 100% fine but if you eat alot you die.

Personally, I don't even need smoke being blown in my face. If I enter the house of a smoker and stay for more than a few minutes, even if they don't smoke while I'm there, I will likely have an allergic reaction.

Last time my husband went out drinking, he had a few cigarettes with his friends. When he got in the car, he smelled of cigarette smoke. I immediately began having difficulty breathing and my eyes welled up with tears to the point that it was difficult to drive. I was sick for the next two days, coughing and sneezing and having an all-round hard time of it.

I wouldn't say I'm the norm, but I think it's silly to suggest that it is impossible for a small dose of smoke to cause problems for someone.

Oh don't say that. He quite clearly is capable of putting his hands over his ears and singing, 'lalalalala, I'm not listening!' :D

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/lolcat5900150.jpg

Shouldnt we be saving these kind of reactions for more important things?
Like when you encounter threats to ones health and when you find people breaking the law all in one go?

Ah, so we're back to the "other things are also bad!" argument. Didn't that get debunked half a dozen times already in this thread?

No im argueing that if your going to point to one thing as a cause for a reaction its only fair and proper to look at the other possible sources in order to make sure your applying blame where its due. Are you denying that other sources couldnt have been the cause of her athsma? What other possibilities and sources that could have caused the same athsma attack have you considered and rejected? Its a rational and required analysis in order to proceed intelligently.

Let's go through this one more time: no one in their right mind can honestly allege that inhaling smoke has no potential to harm one's respiratory system...No one who knows even the most basic things about how air and sound production work could argue that getting even small amounts of irritants in one's throat could not affect one's ability to sing.

Im only going thru this one more time only because you keep making me. Of course inhaling smoke can harm your respitory system. No arguement whatsoever. We can also agree, that to pick a silly and overly large number, 1 part per trillion of smoke vs normal air would obviously have no effect because its insanely and almost immesurably small. So we do know that there is a certain level of smoke that simply will continue to have no effect on the inhaler almost by definition. So is it 3 parts per trillion? 5 parts per billion? 100 parts per million? The density of smoke thats outdoors? Indoors? Its all about dosage.

Or how about the pollen producing flowers next to the building or one of the many other things your just not considering as a possible source of the attack?
Like is sad loads of time before: the fact that there are other causes isn't an excuse to bring in another cause for an attack. Also, the fact that there are other forms of air pollution, isn't an excuse to bring in another form of air pollution. There really is no logic in that argument, it fails.
Shouldnt we be saving these kind of reactions for more important things?
More important things? Imagine if someone like Dempublicents1 was sitting there, not serious enough?

But really, Intestinal fluids, explain to me why the héll you want to bother other people with your addiction? Really, I have no idea why you would, since it's not trouble at all to just furfill your need for nicotine somewhere else, where other people won't be botherd from you.
For example, would you smoke here: http://www.justreservations.com/counties/grafton_street.jpg
Or would you smoke while waiting on the bus, while lots of other people wait for the bus.

Personally, I don't even need smoke being blown in my face. If I enter the house of a smoker and stay for more than a few minutes, even if they don't smoke while I'm there, I will likely have an allergic reaction.

Last time my husband went out drinking, he had a few cigarettes with his friends. When he got in the car, he smelled of cigarette smoke. I immediately began having difficulty breathing and my eyes welled up with tears to the point that it was difficult to drive. I was sick for the next two days, coughing and sneezing and having an all-round hard time of it.

I wouldn't say I'm the norm, but I think it's silly to suggest that it is impossible for a small dose of smoke to cause problems for someone.

Interesting point but ive personally seen alot of psychsomatic behavior around smoke and smells in clothing so id tend to be skeptical. If you gag from the smell of dogshit and when someone puts a log under your nose, you have difficulty breathing, it doesnt mean your allergic to dogshit. Im also skeptical that such a small dose would incapacitate you for days and leads me to believe your illness was from another source.

But really, Intestinal fluids, explain to me why the héll you want to bother other people with your addiction? Really, I have no idea why you would, since it's not trouble at all to just furfill your need for nicotine somewhere else, where other people won't be botherd from you.
For example, would you smoke here: http://www.justreservations.com/counties/grafton_street.jpg
Or would you smoke while waiting on the bus, while lots of other people wait for the bus.

I believe i mentioned i dont smoke, i just dont like the Nazi fevor ive seen leveled at smokers.

Ok, let's change it to: Would you do it, if you would smoke? But again, no one is against smokers here, we're only against a-social pricks who don't care about the people who have to be bothered with your smoke. No one here (I think) is against the fact that they have an addiction, we're only against the fact that they bother lots of people with there addiction: just do it somewhere private, outside, inside, private or public, I don't care.

Interesting point but ive personally seen alot of psychsomatic behavior around smoke and smells in clothing so id tend to be skeptical. Im also skeptical that such a small dose would incapacitate you for days and leads me to believe your illness was from another source.

You can believe that all you like, but you would be wrong. Although I didn't say I was incapacitated for days. I said I was sick for days.

The problem is that any insult to my respiratory system settles in. Something that might start out as a temporary irritation becomes a days-long problem. A simple upper respiratory infection nearly always develops into (or towards, if I catch it early enough) bronchitis.

It's not even just cigarette smoke. I used to (and still do, in certain rooms), have a rather violent reaction to my in-laws' home. After an hour or so there, I'd have to take a couple of benadryl and go to sleep for an hour. We couldn't figure out what might have been causing it for quite a while. Turns out that their fireplace tends to blow smoke into the room and it had set into the carpets, walls, and furniture. Even without actually smelling or being aware of it, the irritants that had set into the room were irritating my allergies.

If second hand smoking does affect your voice, can you tell me how at age 9 i was a perfect male child soprano chosen for most solos in my school and church youth choirs?

Uh, because you were nine and likely not around smoke during the rehearsals? Also, nobody has said that it STOPS your ability to sing, rather that even minor exposure irritates the vocal tract and shaves off endurance, notes off the extreme ends of range and keeps the full tone from appearing. Also, boy voices phonate differently than adult voices. Smaller vocal folds, smaller resonance cavity, different parts of the folds vibrating. You could be a "perfect male child soprano" (was the term "boy soprano" somehow too gauche?) at nine because I'm assuming your parents or others in your household smoked and you were used to it. Young voices are also fantastically resillient compared to adult (that is, done growing) voices. Again, it doesn't stop you from singing, but it curtails your vocal longevity. And for those who go out of their way to keep themselves away from irritants like smoke and dust (I knew of a few instructors and aspiring opera singers who would use masks when the wind in my college town kicked up and it was dry, in order to avoid sucking dust -- the wind can't be helped, smokers can).

Going from an irritant-free environment into one with even a low-level presence of irritants can be more than just annoying to a trained vocalist.

Now after my voice broke, i took no training and I took up smoking at 16, now be 23, no amount of vocal lessons will get me a decent voice... however, my daily excercise routine does keep me fit and mylung capacity at a half decent level for a smoker as in my doc doesn't bother refering to my smoking after blowing into those tube things with the air volume measurer.

That's fine, but your smoking ruined your voice...so...what was your point again? Oh yeah, you're fit as a fiddle to the point where your doctor doesn't even mention your smoking. I'd wager that's because he figures the information has already been relayed and you're an adult capable of making his own decisions. Tell you what though, talk to us in 10 years and see if you're as fit as you could be if you continue smoking. I'm thinking the doc will re-load the Stop That gun and let you have both barrels.

This is kind of an example of how overboard things are though. My girlfriend is from Pennsylvania, where you can smoke in bars. She had a cigarette in her hand and walked into a reasturant/bar in my town in NY and my god you would have thought she had walked in with a machine gun and a bomb taped to her head. She didnt get 3 feet in the door and was instantly swarmed by 3 employees telling her she couldnt smoke in there. She actually recoiled in fear at first because she didnt realize why she was being swarmed all around from out of the blue. She of course apologized and put it out and it was an innocent mistake but you have got to be kidding me. Shouldnt we be saving these kind of reactions for more important things?

Now in that case, you're absolutely right. I don't go for paranoid, overzealous enforcement of petty authority. Ask politely instead of bum-rushing someone, and they're going to be a lot more receptive to your request.

Like is sad loads of time before: the fact that there are other causes isn't an excuse to bring in another cause for an attack. Also, the fact that there are other forms of air pollution, isn't an excuse to bring in another form of air pollution. There really is no logic in that argument, it fails.



The fact that there are/could be other causes means is every reason to bring it in... Its all part of process.

There is no logic behinf not including other forms when smoking is being lambastred around as causing this that and the other. It is illogical to not allow them in. This is why the debate goes around in circles between smokers and non-smokers.

Smokers continually bring up other harmful activities and pollutants. Non-smokers continually say but its not the same, has no place in this argument etc..

For fun, lets get a group of 30 scientifically minded non-smokers and 30 scientifically minded smokers and set them the task of investigating the factors that can cause lung cancer and other smoking related cancers.. Lets see what the group as a whole could come up with..

This would probably never happen but if it did, we could all probably know one way or another with the information and the facts avaliable wether smoking really is as dangerous/moredangerous/less dangerous for the smoker and the people around them than the other factors.

With what we know about cancer at the moment it would end up being a supposition rather than fact.

Anti-tobacco activists need to pull their head out of their ass and realize some people are content with breathing in smoke. No one is saying it's healthy, some people just like it.

Rant over.

I can't help but notice you're use of the word 'some' twice, which makes you're entire rant pointless. Sure some people like breathing in smoke, and nobody is trying to stop them. They are however, trying to stop those 'some' people from making everyone else breathe in smoke.

When I went to restaurants that allowed smoking (even if they only allowed it in part of the establishment) my right to decide whether or not I want to smoke is revoked. My right is taken away by the restaurant, for allowing smokers to be using the same air as me. I'm sure if restaurants, and bars sealed off their smoking/non-smoking sections in different air-tight compartments, it would be less of an issue, because of dispersement, however, this is not so.

It's called the "Freedom to Breathe Act" (here in MN), because it grants me the freedom to breathe what air I choose, if I want to smoke, I can stay in my house, and endanger fewer strangers who have not wronged me. However, you are saying that should I want to go out somewhere to get something to eat, I should not have the right to breathe healthy quantities of Oxygen, because other people need their right to harm themselves. I'm sorry, but you're argument, and the logic that backs it up are both void after examination.

Interesting point but ive personally seen alot of psychsomatic behavior around smoke and smells in clothing so id tend to be skeptical. If you gag from the smell of dogshit and when someone puts a log under your nose, you have difficulty breathing, it doesnt mean your allergic to dogshit. Im also skeptical that such a small dose would incapacitate you for days and leads me to believe your illness was from another source.

Or... (http://www.ourlittleplace.com/mcs.html).

I believe i mentioned i dont smoke, i just dont like the Nazi fevor ive seen leveled at smokers.

What does Nazism have to do with smoking bans?

Or where you attempting some sort of cultural relevance, and just happened to fall on your face?

I can't help but notice you're use of the word 'some' twice, which makes you're entire rant pointless. Sure some people like breathing in smoke, and nobody is trying to stop them. They are however, trying to stop those 'some' people from making everyone else breathe in smoke.

When I went to restaurants that allowed smoking (even if they only allowed it in part of the establishment) my right to decide whether or not I want to smoke is revoked. My right is taken away by the restaurant, for allowing smokers to be using the same air as me. I'm sure if restaurants, and bars sealed off their smoking/non-smoking sections in different air-tight compartments, it would be less of an issue, because of dispersement, however, this is not so.

It's called the "Freedom to Breathe Act" (here in MN), because it grants me the freedom to breathe what air I choose, if I want to smoke, I can stay in my house, and endanger fewer strangers who have not wronged me. However, you are saying that should I want to go out somewhere to get something to eat, I should not have the right to breathe healthy quantities of Oxygen, because other people need their right to harm themselves. I'm sorry, but you're argument, and the logic that backs it up are both void after examination.

I've been to several casinos and bingo parlors that do exactly that. Works just fine, everyone's happy (and losing money).

It's called the "Freedom to Breathe Act" (here in MN), because it grants me the freedom to breathe what air I choose, if I want to smoke, I can stay in my house, and endanger fewer strangers who have not wronged me. However, you are saying that should I want to go out somewhere to get something to eat, I should not have the right to breathe healthy quantities of Oxygen, because other people need their right to harm themselves. I'm sorry, but you're argument, and the logic that backs it up are both void after examination.

I would accept that logic if you can explain to me how that logic fails to hold on every other product that produces pollution to the air you want to freely breath. Certainly if your going to make a law it should be fairly and equally applied to all things that incurr on our freedom to breath no?

I've been to several casinos and bingo parlors that do exactly that. Works just fine, everyone's happy (and losing money).

Literally sealed off?

I couldn't argue, if a bunch of smokers want to kill each other (by smoking), and lose money, while not endangering the health of those just looking for poverty (non-smokers, implicitly) then what argument can I have.

If a friend invites me over to his personal residence, and he happens to smoke in the house (and I know it), then it is my choice to enter a personal residence where I should expect there to be smoke.

The same should not be said of restaurants, and other such venues.

Interesting though, do you happen to know which casino this was, I kinda want to look it up, seems like a good idea to me.

The argument from the pro-smoking-wherever-the-fuck-I-feel-like side sounds very much like a cold sufferer having no problem sneezing or coughing on a healthy person simply because they are already suffering from the virus. The smokers just don't know what it's like for us healthy people who do get sick from their habit, because they are so used to the effects of smoking, they just don't feel them anymore.

And you know what? Perhaps a tiny dose of rat poison wont kill you, but a tiny dose of rat poison EVERY DAY perhaps SEVERAL TIMES every day will, most certainly end up having adverse effects on a person's health.

I can't believe how ass retardedly blind some people can be when something interferes with their convinience.

I would accept that logic if you can explain to me how that logic fails to hold on every other product that produces pollution to the air you want to freely breath.


We're working on lessening pollution from cars and industrial plants. I agree with anything that helps us have cleaner air, indoors and out.

Ive seen casinos with smoking and non smoking areas but nothing thats hermetically sealed or anything.

I would accept that logic if you can explain to me how that logic fails to hold on every other product that produces pollution to the air you want to freely breath. Certainly if your going to make a law it should be fairly and equally applied to all things that incurr on our freedom to breath no?

Smoking emits a lot of specifically toxic fumes into the air, and that builds far more in an enclosed building than say: a bus in the city (in the open air).

Additionally, the smoke from smoking tabacco is cultural seen as something that is offensive, and so, of course, it carries more weight than said bus, which is quicker to disperse, less toxic, and less longevitus.

Uh, because you were nine and likely not around smoke during the rehearsals?

Both my parents were smokers, im sure i mentioned that.. I had been passive smoking right up until i took it up myself

Also, nobody has said that it STOPS your ability to sing, rather that even minor exposure irritates the vocal tract and shaves off endurance, notes off the extreme ends of range and keeps the full tone from appearing.

No counter argument here. A very valid point


Also, boy voices phonate differently than adult voices. Smaller vocal folds, smaller resonance cavity, different parts of the folds vibrating. You could be a "perfect male child soprano" (was the term "boy soprano" somehow too gauche?) at nine because I'm assuming your parents or others in your household smoked and you were used to it.

How does being used to it change anything. Smoking/passive smoking still alters ones ability to sing apparently.

Young voices are also fantastically resillient compared to adult (that is, done growing) voices. Again, it doesn't stop you from singing, but it curtails your vocal longevity.

Surely in a smokey environment though it would? i mean forget the fact the voice is developing and smoke etc damages your ability to sing, your lung capacity etc

And for those who go out of their way to keep themselves away from irritants like smoke and dust (I knew of a few instructors and aspiring opera singers who would use masks when the wind in my college town kicked up and it was dry, in order to avoid sucking dust -- the wind can't be helped, smokers can).

Relevance? Dust is not the same as smoking though the effects can be.. Why bring dust into the cross examination of my post? (using another argument counter talking about anything ese but smoking here... considering it pushing to poke holes in an otherwise sound argument)


Going from an irritant-free environment into one with even a low-level presence of irritants can be more than just annoying to a trained vocalist.

That means stepping outside of there house can be more than annoying!


That's fine, but your smoking ruined your voice...so...what was your point again? - proves smoking affects ones ability to sing

Oh yeah, you're fit as a fiddle to the point where your doctor doesn't even mention your smoking. I'd wager that's because he figures the information has already been relayed and you're an adult capable of making his own decisions. - You'd be wrong. my lung capacity is actually close to that of a healthy non smoking adult. I have a low pulse rate meaning even when I exert myself during exercise my heartrate is never to fast. I can basically do the vast majority of things non-smokers can do.

Tell you what though, talk to us in 10 years and see if you're as fit as you could be if you continue smoking. I'm thinking the doc will re-load the Stop That gun and let you have both barrels.

You'd be wrong again. I lead a balanced lifestyle. I eat healthily, excercise regularly, dont drink to excess. The only thing that bothers me is that according to scientists im at a greater risk of cancer than non-smoking joe bloggs next door.

When I went to restaurants that allowed smoking (even if they only allowed it in part of the establishment) my right to decide whether or not I want to smoke is revoked. My right is taken away by the restaurant, for allowing smokers to be using the same air as me. I'm sure if restaurants, and bars sealed off their smoking/non-smoking sections in different air-tight compartments, it would be less of an issue, because of dispersement, however, this is not so.

I have to disagree with you here. As much as smoke irritates me these days, I don't believe a private restaurant/bar/etc. should be legally required to accommodate me.

Your right to avoid smoke is not somehow revoked if a restaurant allows smokers, because you are not compelled to be there. You don't have to frequent restaurants in which smoking is allowed.

The fact that there are/could be other causes means is every reason to bring it in... Its all part of process.

There is no logic behinf not including other forms when smoking is being lambastred around as causing this that and the other. It is illogical to not allow them in. This is why the debate goes around in circles between smokers and non-smokers.

Smokers continually bring up other harmful activities and pollutants. Non-smokers continually say but its not the same, has no place in this argument etc..

For fun, lets get a group of 30 scientifically minded non-smokers and 30 scientifically minded smokers and set them the task of investigating the factors that can cause lung cancer and other smoking related cancers.. Lets see what the group as a whole could come up with..

This would probably never happen but if it did, we could all probably know one way or another with the information and the facts avaliable wether smoking really is as dangerous/moredangerous/less dangerous for the smoker and the people around them than the other factors.

With what we know about cancer at the moment it would end up being a supposition rather than fact.
:headbang: Christ...the fact that there are certain types of air pollution, is no reason at all to justify even móre types of air pollution being brought in the air. Besides, just read this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6312-cigarettes-more-polluting-than-diesel-exhaust.html
I would accept that logic if you can explain to me how that logic fails to hold on every other product that produces pollution to the air you want to freely breath. Certainly if your going to make a law it should be fairly and equally applied to all things that incurr on our freedom to breath no?
We're talking about people with an addiction here, not transport. Explain to me why people with an addiction are allowed to bother other people with there addiction, why would those people even wánt to bother people with there addiction, although I see it happen pretty often.
You'd be wrong again. I lead a balanced lifestyle. I eat healthily, excercise regularly, dont drink to excess. The only thing that bothers me is that according to scientists im at a greater risk of cancer than non-smoking joe bloggs next door.
You are, do you know what cigarette smoke contains? Just check this little list: http://www.eastcambsandfenland-pct.nhs.uk/images/library/Smoking/Whats-in-a-cigarette.gif
Is it that wierd to say that those things increase your risk on cancer and lots of other diseases?

When bars were left to the owners to decide about smoking, everyone had a choice (remember freedom of choice, America?). If you didn't want to go to a place with heavy smoker populations, you went to the places that decided to go smoke free or who had plausible non-smoking sections. And when the non-smoking section was full up, I took a table

What about the people who work there? Don't we have other laws that protect them from health hazards while at work? Why should it be any different for them whether that hazard is cigarette smoke or something else? If you want to eat there, its your choice but the workers deserve protection despite your beliefs.

If a friend invites me over to his personal residence, and he happens to smoke in the house (and I know it), then it is my choice to enter a personal residence where I should expect there to be smoke.

The same should not be said of restaurants, and other such venues.

Why not? Is it not your personal choice to enter a restaurant or other such venue?

it carries more weight than said bus, which is quicker to disperse, less toxic, and less longevitus.

You think burnt petrolium byproducts are less toxic then burnt tobacco? I dont know for sure but i have my doubts.

Bus fumes quicker to disperse? Ive sat behind a bus , inside my own car, many many times and been simply gagged by the bus fumes in front of me. However, never once did i ever smell someone smoking a cigarette in the bus from my car.

What about the people who work there? Don't we have other laws that protect them from health hazards while at work? Why should it be any different for them whether that hazard is cigarette smoke or something else? If you want to eat there, its your choice but the workers deserve protection despite your beliefs.


Ok, now all you need to do is show me the killing fields of dead waitresses from second hand smoke. They must all be buried somewhere. And to quote Doug Stanhope, if youve been a waitress for so many decades that second hand smoke is adversley affecting your health, then youve probably been dead on the inside now for a long time anyway :)

Sometimes I like tossing small vials of anthrax germs into the air around me. It helps me relax while I'm drinking or just after a meal. I don't understand the complaints or evil looks that people around me give. They're my germs and I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to enjoy them where I please. If they don't like it, maybe they should go to a germ-free bar or restaurant. Besides, my anthrax germs are perfectly safe. Do you know what the chances are of catching anthrax from my second-hand germs? Astronomical! More to the point, my anthrax germs are clearly safer than the germs everybody already breathes on a regular basis just walking down the sidewalk. Leave my germs alone! :mad:

I smell people smoking in their cars from my car everyday (even when my window is rolled up). It's actually more than just a little annoying.

:headbang: Christ...the fact that there are certain types of air pollution, is no reason at all to justify even móre types of air pollution being brought in the air.

We're talking about people with an addiction here, not transport. Explain to me why people with an addiction are allowed to bother other people with there addiction, why would those people even wánt to bother people with there addiction, although I see it happen pretty often.

Excuse me, this type of air pollution has been around much longer than cars etc!

You failed to see my point didn't you. That you cannot hold out other forms of pollution from a discussion about the smoking ban as they also add to the problem..

A simple Yes we know they are harmful to us but we have no choice.. thats why we went after you, the smoker would do to me.

Failure to recognise that the smoker feels persecuted because everyday when (s)he walks down a busy street (s)he is already ingesting harmful pollutants and dismissing that as irrelevant is what pisses a smoker off.

Yes things are being done about car emissions but, at the moment, they are still harmful even with these new measures...

My main point was why the argument goes round in circles and rather than aknowledge that, you continued the circle!

Ok, now all you need to do is show me the killing fields of dead waitresses from second hand smoke. They must all be buried somewhere. And to quote Doug Stanhope, if youve been a waitress for so many decades that second hand smoke is adversley affecting your health, then youve probably been dead on the inside now for a long time now anyway :)
Christ man, is the ónly way to accept that problem is to see lots of people die?? Isn't airway problems good enough?

Excuse me, this type of air pollution has been around much longer than cars etc!

You failed to see my point didn't you. That you cannot hold out other forms of pollution from a discussion about the smoking ban as they also add to the problem..

A simple Yes we know they are harmful to us but we have no choice.. thats why we went after you, the smoker would do to me.

Failure to recognise that the smoker feels persecuted because everyday when (s)he walks down a busy street (s)he is already ingesting harmful pollutants and dismissing that as irrelevant is what pisses a smoker off.

Yes things are being done about car emissions but, at the moment, they are still harmful even with these new measures...

My main point was why the argument goes round in circles and rather than aknowledge that, you continued the circle!
And smokers DO have a choice. Also, like you say, smokers are a part of the problem, 1 wich is much easely regulated then cars. And yes, in a busy street I am indeed breathing in polutants from other sources, then some guy with an addiction comes and gives me another source of polution right in my face, thank you. The fact that there are móre sources of polutants isn't an excuse to do nothing about the polution from smoking. We don't have to wait untill every car just emits water to do something about smoke in your face, now do we?

And smokers DO have a choice. Also, like you say, smokers are a part of the problem, 1 wich is much easely regulated then cars. And yes, in a busy street I am indeed breathing in polutants from other sources, then some guy with an addiction comes and gives me another source of polution right in my face, thank you. The fact that there are móre sources of polutants isn't an excuse to do nothing about the polution from smoking. We don't have to wait untill every car just emits water to do something about smoke in your face, now do we?


My wife and I were in the mall, sitting on a bench resting. Some guy sits next to us and lights up. My wife started coughing and having an asthma attack and he gives us a dirty look and sighs in annoyance as if my wife is being a bitch but continues to sit there smoking, basically forcing us to either get in a confrontation with him or go somewhere else. Smoking is allowed in the mall so we should have just stayed home because people have a right to smell bad and give other people asthma attacks and we have the freedom to choose to stay home.

And smokers DO have a choice. Also, like you say, smokers are a part of the problem, 1 wich is much easely regulated then cars. And yes, in a busy street I am indeed breathing in polutants from other sources, then some guy with an addiction comes and gives me another source of polution right in my face, thank you. The fact that there are móre sources of polutants isn't an excuse to do nothing about the polution from smoking. We don't have to wait untill every car just emits water to do something about smoke in your face, now do we?

Ah, a reasonable response. I really don't like the fact that people went after smokers because they were easy. We feel peresecuted as I said and whilst it wasn't banned, you felt persecuted (or at least, thats the gist i'm getting)

No we don't have to wait, but an outight ban in public places in the uk hit the 25% of people (or near enough) that are paying the most towards the nhs to combat said problems. There were other reasonable ways to combat the problem..

Charge smokers entry to the pub (a smoking tax) - Probably not suitable but, a suggestion.

Have it down to owers choice - more practical but more likelyhood of no changes

Ban smoking in public places but lower tax duties - Practical but from a health standpoint liable to result in a backlash

Do nothing - No where near as many people were anti-smoking before the ban.. or if they were they stayed in their closets.. it was just pressure groups.. no vast majority.

Yes, and my statement was relevant in that I provided absolutely no proof for it :PDang, well I'm lazy but this site (http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm) should provide the evidence to back that statement,at least i hope so petal :p

Awesome! Then you can provide me with a source showing me how many smoke-free pubs there were prior to prohibition! Thanks in advance:) You see, I'm not about to take it on faith that market forces act the way you claim they do my little buttercup.
That my point, if there was a market for smoke free pub there would have been some! Wetherspoons (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/leisure/article1765373.ece)
had a 4% drop in profit after the ban!

Except your theory gets all messy when you start looking at situations where unemployment is high. Then, wages depreciate (generally) and you don't have to work that hard to get people to take employment in less than ideal situations.[QUOTE]
My theory still stand as the depreciation is across the board, so non-smoking (i.e less risky job) will go down by (roughly) the same perentage. In situations where employment is high, the economy is in resesstion, therefore any job is better then none.

[QUOTE=Neesika;13634874]Geez...it's like 'the market' is all complex and shifty and stuff!
Well my G.C.S.E in business studies never taught me that :eek:
I honestly don't know. With some people it seems to be 'I MUST SMOKE IN COMFORT OR I CAN'T SMOKE AT ALL!'

To which I go *shrug*.
Thats because people are arseholes, if they want to smoke in doors that badly they should just smoke at home. Don't you agree dollface?


Imagine a place where there would be smoking and non-smoking pubs. Picture it. Now, guess what would happen to the non-smoking bars when someone realizes they are discriminating (against smokers) in a public environment. Imagine the massive lawsuits and the closing of said non-smoking pubs.

Free market has failed, yet again.
Not if lesisation is in place that allows non-smoking pubs, there's lessistation
that allows anne summers to hire only females, so why not for pubs? There rule for afrimitive action in some countries, so why not do the same for pubs.
To get a drink and smoking licsence would be ore expensive then just a drinks licsence but you would (in theory) have greater trade to counter this.

And smokers DO have a choice. Also, like you say, smokers are a part of the problem, 1 wich is much easely regulated then cars. And yes, in a busy street I am indeed breathing in polutants from other sources, then some guy with an addiction comes and gives me another source of polution right in my face, thank you.

Are smokers a greater source of pollutants then say people who go out for a joy ride on a nice sunny day? Those drivers certainly have a choice not to dump pollutants into the air. Do they have a lesser responsibility because one chooses to burn a plant and one chooses to burn dead dinosaur to get thier specific pleasure?

What about the people who work there? Don't we have other laws that protect them from health hazards while at work? Why should it be any different for them whether that hazard is cigarette smoke or something else? If you want to eat there, its your choice but the workers deserve protection despite your beliefs.

Uh...piece of advice. When reading a long thread, read the whole thing, okay? You'll find I was reminded of that by Neesika some ten pages ago and I recanted. But hey, why be considerate when you can post already debunked posts and make yourself appear foolish?

Both my parents were smokers, im sure i mentioned that.. I had been passive smoking right up until i took it up myself

If you'd mentioned it, I did not remember -- my apologies.

No counter argument here. A very valid point

Well, there's a first time for everything! Yay me!

How does being used to it change anything. Smoking/passive smoking still alters ones ability to sing apparently.

Okay. Being used to any irritant gets you inured to its effects. That's why you cough like crazy when you quit smoking. Your body is re-growing the cilia in your airway that you burnt off and it's getting back to the job it had before being so burned -- marching irritants back out the airway to be hacked up and expectorated. If you have a relatively untouched airway/vocal tract, even minor irritants can cause a noticable reaction.

Relevance? Dust is not the same as smoking though the effects can be.. Why bring dust into the cross examination of my post? (using another argument counter talking about anything ese but smoking here... considering it pushing to poke holes in an otherwise sound argument)

Uh...I sometimes have difficulty understanding why you fly off the handle like that. The relevance is that those who commit themselves to keeping their vocal tract as clear of irritants as possible (professionals in most cases) will go to what seems like extreme measures to keep it that way. That being the case, their relatively pristine tracts are susceptible to even minor irritations from things like smoke AND dust and even perfumes or chemicals of any kind. I once toured a winery and got a strong snoutful of sulphur dioxide (used to condition wine casks). I was coughing for about 10 minutes afterward. Thankfully, I'm only a semi-professional vocalist and don't take it all that seriously.

Why bring dust into it? Because it was relevant to vocal irritation. Now why did you get so needlessly defensive?

That means stepping outside of their house can be more than annoying!

Sometimes that's true. During dry months around here (okay, they're all comparatively dry, but bear with me), enough dust and topsoil can get blown around that it can get me hacking a bit. A habituated smoker would probably weather that a lot better. The choices we make affect how we react to irritants later in life. Choosing to inure yourself to them sacrifices a little bit of range and tone quality (and only those in the field would notice, and only then if they'd heard a "before" example). Choosing to protect yourself means sacrificing some social scenes and being at least mildly paranoid about your voice. I kinda go in between those extremes. I don't smoke, but I don't wear a dust mask, either.

You'd be wrong. my lung capacity is actually close to that of a healthy non smoking adult. I have a low pulse rate meaning even when I exert myself during exercise my heartrate is never to fast. I can basically do the vast majority of things non-smokers can do.

"The vast majority" -- like I said, you're young. The vast majority will, over time gradually shrink. If you're okay with that, then so am I, so long as I don't have to deal with your smoke in an unventilated area.

You'd be wrong again. I lead a balanced lifestyle. I eat healthily, excercise regularly, dont drink to excess. The only thing that bothers me is that according to scientists im at a greater risk of cancer than non-smoking joe bloggs next door.

Well, chronic exposure to the toxicity of cigarette smoke (benzene, anyone?) over years increases your risk, but your other lifestyle choices keep that balance relatively moderated. Not nearly as much as if you didn't smoke, but that's the choice you make. The point is that you get to make that choice for you up to the point where your smoke irritates someone else. Then you're making the choice for others. No, it doesn't mean that those others suddenly multiply their risk of illness because of one minor exposure to you, but it's still you introducing the chemical irritant. Therefore, it's you who should have to moderate his behavior to irritate the least number of people possible.

That said, some people go out of their way to be irritated (applies to everyone from non-smokers to atheists to PETA to fundamentalists to name your hypersensitive group). Personally, I can take the smell of cigarette smoke for a few minutes and never get bent out of shape when my smoking friends ask to light up. Some brands actually smell good, 'specially the pricey ones or some kinds of cigars. However, some people can't. I figure if I were a smoker and I was asked politely to refrain, I would. Were I treated poorly, I'd be less likely to, though I probably still would (karma and all that).

I'm not here to change anyone's behavior beyond a simple respect for others' space. If both smokers and non-smokers could weed out the assholes from thier respective midsts, the whole issue would be a non-starter. But we're human, and we can't be expected to be that rational. Hence, legislation. It sucks, I know, but there it is.

Literally sealed off?

I couldn't argue, if a bunch of smokers want to kill each other (by smoking), and lose money, while not endangering the health of those just looking for poverty (non-smokers, implicitly) then what argument can I have.

If a friend invites me over to his personal residence, and he happens to smoke in the house (and I know it), then it is my choice to enter a personal residence where I should expect there to be smoke.

The same should not be said of restaurants, and other such venues.

Interesting though, do you happen to know which casino this was, I kinda want to look it up, seems like a good idea to me.

Sealed and everything. Smoke-free rooms for poker and table games, and I think slots as well. Vegas and Reno casinos just have ass-kicking air circulators so that smokers don't even look like they're smoking real cigarettes 'cause the smoke is sucked upward in the constant draft. The Peppermill in Reno had a system that was ridiculous. I thought it was a non-smoking place until I saw glowing embers on white sticks in mouths at the blackjack tables.

I believe it was the Tulalip Casino in Marysville (north of Seattle), Washington, USA. The Bingo hall is Dakota Skies Bingo in Bismarck, ND.

Ah, a reasonable response. I really don't like the fact that people went after smokers because they were easy. We feel peresecuted as I said and whilst it wasn't banned, you felt persecuted (or at least, thats the gist i'm getting)

No we don't have to wait, but an outight ban in public places in the uk hit the 25% of people (or near enough) that are paying the most towards the nhs to combat said problems. There were other reasonable ways to combat the problem..

Charge smokers entry to the pub (a smoking tax) - Probably not suitable but, a suggestion.

Have it down to owers choice - more practical but more likelyhood of no changes

Ban smoking in public places but lower tax duties - Practical but from a health standpoint liable to result in a backlash

Do nothing - No where near as many people were anti-smoking before the ban.. or if they were they stayed in their closets.. it was just pressure groups.. no vast majority.
Well, technically yes, it's because they are easy. They are an easy form of polution to tackle. Now those options have the downside of most likely not changing anything, raising the price from cigarettes didn't help much as well (at least here in Holland), so I doubt a smoking-tax in bars and restaurants would work as well. Remember that we're dealing with drug addicts here (sounds harsh, but that's a simple fact).
Are smokers a greater source of pollutants then say people who go out for a joy ride on a nice sunny day? Those drivers certainly have a choice not to dump pollutants into the air. Do they have a lesser responsibility because one chooses to burn tobacco and one chooses to burn oil to get thier specific pleasure?
When I talk about smoker polution, I mean those people who are near you just start smoking, like when I'm waiting for the bus for example. If I see a guy on a bench smoking 50 meters from me, you won't hear me bitching. Cars are a completly differnt matter anyway, because they're a pretty important part of our society, it's not just a drug addiction like smoking (yes indeed, I'm placing smoking under the same catagory as cocaine, nicotine is also a drug and véry addictive).

But please, do remember: I don't have anything against smokers in general, having such an addiction is fine really, pléase just don't bother other people with it. That's the core of MPOV about smoking.
Sealed and everything. Smoke-free rooms for poker and table games, and I think slots as well. Vegas and Reno casinos just have ass-kicking air circulators so that smokers don't even look like they're smoking real cigarettes 'cause the smoke is sucked upward in the constant draft. The Peppermill in Reno had a system that was ridiculous. I thought it was a non-smoking place until I saw glowing embers on white sticks in mouths at the blackjack tables.
Now those are the things I like as well, I really don't need an all-out ban. If ventilation systems like that would've been made mandatory or something, I would've been happy as well. As long as the smoke doesn't bother me.

-SNIP-

The poking holes was literally I could not think of anything better than what I said. It was based off non-smokers saying air polluytion has no place in this debate.

Your rebuttle to it more than satisfied my curiosity and (kind of) proves my point that there is room for discussing other factors that cannot be helped when talking about smoking.

Your later statement then prooves the difference between air pollution and smoking.

As I said earlier, I moved away when politely asked to when I lit up in a pub, I never lit up in a restaurant (smoking before/during eating is disgusting.. ruins the meal), I always asked permission to light up in other public areas where smoking was permitted and never even asked if i could light up at a non smokers house (I always went outside)

-SNIP-

The poking holes was literally I could not think of anything better than what I said. It was based off non-smokers saying air polluytion has no place in this debate.

Your rebuttle to it more than satisfied my curiosity and (kind of) proves my point that there is room for discussing other factors that cannot be helped when talking about smoking.

Your later statement then prooves the difference between air pollution and smoking.

As I said earlier, I moved away when politely asked to when I lit up in a pub, I never lit up in a restaurant (smoking before/during eating is disgusting.. ruins the meal), I always asked permission to light up in other public areas where smoking was permitted and never even asked if i could light up at a non smokers house (I always went outside)

Well then, you are clearly a decent and considerate fellow. Thank you.

[QUOTE=Intangelon;13636004]-SNIP-QUOTE]

The poking holes was literally I could not think of anything better than what I said. It was based off non-smokers saying air polluytion has no place in this debate.

Your rebuttle to it more than satisfied my curiosity and (kind of) proves my point that there is room for discussing other factors that cannot be helped when talking about smoking.

Your later statement then prooves the difference between air pollution and smoking.

As I said earlier, I moved away when politely asked to when I lit up in a pub, I never lit up in a restaurant (smoking before/during eating is disgusting.. ruins the meal), I always asked permission to light up in other public areas where smoking was permitted and never even asked if i could light up at a non smokers house (I always went outside)

You sir, are a gentleman.

The poking holes was literally I could not think of anything better than what I said. It was based off non-smokers saying air polluytion has no place in this debate.

Your rebuttle to it more than satisfied my curiosity and (kind of) proves my point that there is room for discussing other factors that cannot be helped when talking about smoking.

Your later statement then prooves the difference between air pollution and smoking.

As I said earlier, I moved away when politely asked to when I lit up in a pub, I never lit up in a restaurant (smoking before/during eating is disgusting.. ruins the meal), I always asked permission to light up in other public areas where smoking was permitted and never even asked if i could light up at a non smokers house (I always went outside)
Good, it would really help if all smokers would be like you then. That's really all we ask for. Sadly, for a certain group of people, that's already too much to ask for. And that's what the laws are for, purely against those people.

Well, technically yes, it's because they are easy. They are an easy form of polution to tackle. Now those options have the downside of most likely not changing anything, raising the price from cigarettes didn't help much as well (at least here in Holland), so I doubt a smoking-tax in bars and restaurants would work as well. Remember that we're dealing with drug addicts here (sounds harsh, but that's a simple fact).



A smoking tax may have kept only the most hardcore of smokers smoking inside. I know I wouldnt have paid extra to go into a pub to smoke...

But then again.. it wouldn't really fix the problem.

Indeed, drug addicts is the correct term, same for those who feel the need to have a pint or a glass after work everynight (though possibly not in the same manner)

A smoking tax may have kept only the most hardcore of smokers smoking inside. I know I wouldnt have paid extra to go into a pub to smoke...

But then again.. it wouldn't really fix the problem.

Indeed, drug addicts is the correct term, same for those who feel the need to have a pint or a glass after work everynight (though possibly not in the same manner)
The tax would perhaps be worth trying for half a year or something, but it sure feels as another way of milking out the smoker, something I'm against a lot. It's indeed about how to fix the problem, and the 2 really viable solution is, I think, banning it like happens now or mandatory ventilation systems. I'm more happy with the ventilation, because it bothers smokers less, but I guess a ban is less costly.
And indeed, in a certain way those people are drug addicts as well, alcohol in that case. Ofcourse, every addiction has it's edge-cases. People who smoke 2 packages of cigs a day, people who drink 3 bottles of scotch a day. Laws are mainly, if not alwayse, against those edges. The downside is, the people who do nothing wrong and just mind there own busniness suffer from it. With smoking, that's harder to see, because smoking affects other people a lot easier. I'm glad to see that there are still nice smokers, like you or my other grandma, but sadly there are enough of them who are not.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=7oNExTAw3ng (ignore the stupid messege after the clip)
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=JrwE3sdlQ8k&feature=related

I think it should be made law that any smoking relating conditions (cancer etc) will NOT be treated at Hospitals, and that anyone who comes to a clinic or hospital with a smoking related condition will be refused care. Mark my words, the smoking rate will be lowered then.

I think it should be made law that any smoking relating conditions (cancer etc) will NOT be treated at Hospitals, and that anyone who comes to a clinic or hospital with a smoking related condition will be refused care. Mark my words, the smoking rate will be lowered then.

How will you know if its from smoking? One can get lung cancer, and any of those other conditions, without ever having been near a cigarette in their life.

I don't know about anyone else, but the anti-tobacco groups are really pushing it. I don't even smoke. I probably have had less than 30 cigarettes in my whole life. Only on rare occassion do I ever light up.

Who thought we'd get to a point in the USA where legislation telling people that they can't allow smoking on the property that they own would become common? People seem to have misinterpreted "public place". If there's government property that your tax dollars are going into, by all means you can ban smoking there. But a restaurant or a bar or any type of business is not "public". There are plenty of places that ban smoking. If you want clean air, go to a restaurant where the person who owns it prohibits smoking.

And now they're telling us not to smoke in our cars if there's a minor in there? You have got to be fucking shitting me.

Anti-tobacco activists need to pull their head out of their ass and realize some people are content with breathing in smoke. No one is saying it's healthy, some people just like it.

Rant over.

Sounds to me like you're an in denial addict. Would you like us to call the waaaaaaambulance for you?

I think it should be made law that any smoking relating conditions (cancer etc) will NOT be treated at Hospitals, and that anyone who comes to a clinic or hospital with a smoking related condition will be refused care. Mark my words, the smoking rate will be lowered then.

Oh these are my favorites! Ok! Then can we deny medical care to people that are over 100lbs overweight? then can we lower it to 50lbs? Then can we lower it to 20? Then can we deny medical care to anyone that doesnt excercise 10 min a day? Then can we move that up to an hour? Then can we deny medical care to gay people because thier lifestyles give them all sorts of gross diseases. Then can we deny medical treatment to...............

Cigerattes lowers risk for certain illness. It all in the study you read.


That's not what the study says. The study says that a chemical found in tobacco likely lowers risk of developing Parkinson's Disease. And since there are an enormous number of ways to use tobacco aside from smoking...

I think it should be made law that any smoking relating conditions (cancer etc) will NOT be treated at Hospitals, and that anyone who comes to a clinic or hospital with a smoking related condition will be refused care. Mark my words, the smoking rate will be lowered then.

Urmm, so you would deny healthcare to those who pay lots of tax to smoke..

Thats a great idea.... No really it is....

In a country like the uk, despite only 25% of the populus smoking tha would spark a very angry demonstration at the least.. what with health care being 'free' thanks to Ni contributions and tax from smokers and drinkers...

Most of the anti-smokers would be horrified if you told them you don't favor legalizing marijuana. 'Nuff said about them.

The fact is, many people need a nice, safe issue to be active about, simply for appearance's sake.

There was a guy today outside of the building I had class in this morning wearing a homemade t-shirt that said "Smoking kills" with a skull and crossbone on it. He was standng right by where all of us usually congregate to smoke and by all the ash trays. Just standing there. His own little protest. When I walked outside I went over there, and took the time to obviously read his shirt.

Me: Wow, I did not know smoking kills, thank you for telling me that. Ive never heard that before. *takes out a camel and lights up while looking directly at him*

Him: Youre a jackass.

Me: *Shrug* Meh, what are ya gonna do? *walks off*



I hate moralist nannies. Two days ago I had a guy pull over on the side of the road while I was walking from class with a cigarette, just to yell "Aw, cmon man, smoking kills," at me. I told him its not as fast as Id kill him if he doesnt get the fuck away from me.

Im losing my patience with these people.

If you actually listened to them, you'd probably tack on a few extra years to your life.

If it IS dangerous, it deserves a ban.

Another statement I whole heartedly disagree with. As I said before, it is frankly ridiculous to try to ban EVERYTHING that is dangerous to people. Apparently your ideal world would entail people living in bubbles.

We're talking about vocalists here, not singers in punk bands, hon.

As am I. What a presumptuous thing to say to someone.

The best part? Actually, I win. You can't smoke in a pub. *giggles*
OMG! So it was your doing that I haven't been allowed to smoke in bars since last spring? o.O How dare you?! :P

The poking holes was literally I could not think of anything better than what I said. It was based off non-smokers saying air polluytion has no place in this debate.

Your rebuttle to it more than satisfied my curiosity and (kind of) proves my point that there is room for discussing other factors that cannot be helped when talking about smoking.

Your later statement then prooves the difference between air pollution and smoking.

As I said earlier, I moved away when politely asked to when I lit up in a pub, I never lit up in a restaurant (smoking before/during eating is disgusting.. ruins the meal), I always asked permission to light up in other public areas where smoking was permitted and never even asked if i could light up at a non smokers house (I always went outside)

If a restaurant allows smoking, I'll smoke. My friends and I smoke one before the meal, and one or two after the meal.

We are in the smoking section. If someone has a problem with that they can kiss my ass. I'll smoke in the smoking section if I want to.

Now, I never smoke inside houses-unless the owner says its alright, so we go outside.

When out and about I smoke away from doorways, so I won't be bitched at. And, if someone happens to bitch at me, I'll tell the them to fuck off, as I've been courteous enough to smoke away from the buildings. Yelling at me when I'm 20 feet from the building is retarded.

If I'm walking on the sidewalk smoking and people are walking towards me a wait until the pass by to inhale/exhale.

People are very anal about smoking. It is not assault, as others have said in this thread. Second hand smoke is not that bad, as long as its not in an enclosed space. Fumes from busses, cars, trucks, etc are worse than second hand smoke.

And about workers at places that smoke:

Most waitresses smoke.
They chose to work there.
They could wear a friggin gas mask if they are really concerned about it.

This isnt anti-smoking arrogance. If you inhale any smoke it makes singing hard.

Not for metal singers.

:cool:

Not for metal singers.

:cool:

Indeed, the prospect of killing your voice is great if your a black metal vocalist. My band's vocalist is a heavy smoker. Doesnt hurt him.


Cant call black metal vocalist "singers" though:p

Not for metal singers.

:cool:

Actually, it makes it much harder especially for metal vocalists. There's a pretty high chance of you tearing permanent damage into your vocal chords doing raspy vocals with a throat full of smoke.

I haven't the words to articulate what's wrong with this statement because I'm too busy looking out my office window at the legion of white smokers outside after lunch.
You ever worked in a grocery store? Over half the staff of just about every one in a solid blue state like Minnesota with a smoking ban in "public places" are smokers. Quite a few bartenders are also smokers. See, not everyone can afford a vacation house in Newport, Cancún, or Honolulu.

I see, so no matter where you choose to light up, I have to move. Fuck that. And what of the bartender and server working in the bar? Are they to be stripped of their right to breathe smokeless air for your personal choice? Doing something that fouls the air AUTOMATICALLY makes it more than personal. How is that difficult to understand? I walk in and sit down. You choose to burn dried leaves and fill the neighboring areas with smoke and stench. Even if I'm there first, according to you, I have to leave. Right. Glad you're not in charge.
As I'm sure has already been pointed out to you, many bar workers are smokers themselves. Besides, no one has ever forced a bar owner to permit smoking on his or her property. It's more like going to a bar where someone is playing loud music you don't like. You can complain to the management and if they value your patronage they'll ask those responsible to lower the volume, otherwise you can leave. Bans on smoking have already hit bars and pubs hard, forcing many to close and many others to cut back significantly. These bans are an infringment on civil liberties and damaging to the economy forced upon a a minority of society by the tyrannical majority. Two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch; enjoy it for now because there will come a day when you find yourself the lamb and want to contest the vote.

Okay, you smoke, but what ARE you smoking? You're less likely to develop Alzheimers? Great. So when you get lung cancer and hypertension, you'll remember why. Excuse me, but how does any fractional reduction of a handful of disorders (I'd like to see links on ALL of those, by the way) balance the multifold increase in heart disease, high blood pressure, lung cancer and the host of definitely-linked ailments that cigarette smoke is known for a fact to cause and exacerbate? That's like saying that chronic third-degree sunburns slightly lower your risk of pimples...nevermind the skin damage and melanoma.
Actually I don't smoke. And what I described is something of a smokers paradox. It's true that the people with most of the dissorders listed could probably get the same effect from nicotine patches because that is usually the cause of the beneficial effect, it being a stimulant, but the point is that smoking is no more harmful than alcohol or pot yet like those drugs it has some medicinal qualities.

And now they're telling us not to smoke in our cars if there's a minor in there? You have got to be fucking shitting me.

Seriously, next they'll be telling us we can't have a drink on the drive home after a long day, either. Alcohol and cigarettes are legal, people! Get out of my business!

Seriously, next they'll be telling us we can't have a drink on the drive home after a long day, either. Alcohol and cigarettes are legal, people! Get out of my business!

As as smoker, I must say a cigarette has never impaired my driving skills, unless its the first cigarette of the day, and I wait a few minutes (like 5) after I smoke it to drive.

Anti-smoking activism is going WAY too far. "Smoking is bad for you though, and everyone else around you. <sniffle>" Deal with it! What is next? The government controlling our diet to make sure we "eat healthy and don't do anything that might hurt us <sniffle>" Pretty soon we won't be able to get a double quarter pounder with cheese because there is too many calories. I can't believe the audacity of some people to push their views on others.

Lets keep America a country of choices, and not a surveillance society. You always have the choice to walk away from someone who is smoking, but by enacting anti-smoking bans you are TAKING AWAY someone else's freedom, and even though you might not care about the loss of that freedom, the next freedom we lose you might have a different opinion about.

Cheers.

Sometimes I like tossing small vials of anthrax germs into the air around me. It helps me relax while I'm drinking or just after a meal. I don't understand the complaints or evil looks that people around me give. They're my germs and I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to enjoy them where I please. If they don't like it, maybe they should go to a germ-free bar or restaurant. Besides, my anthrax germs are perfectly safe. Do you know what the chances are of catching anthrax from my second-hand germs? Astronomical! More to the point, my anthrax germs are clearly safer than the germs everybody already breathes on a regular basis just walking down the sidewalk. Leave my germs alone! :mad:Quoted for posterity. :D

Might i suggest a plastic bubble? You may just simply be too delicate to coexist with other humans.

I've managed to survive well over 3 decades, thank you. Despite having a mother who smoked through pregnancy and considered it perfectly ok, despite having parents that both smoke and two brothers who smoke.
And, yes, getting cigarette smoke blown into my face still makes me cough.

As am I. What a presumptuous thing to say to someone.

Well, let's put it this way : the vocalists I know, most of them classically schooled, will not even eat nuts as it can be damaging to their airways.
And you claim you know some who actually smoke? Seriously?

How will you know if its from smoking?
Yes, it's a complex medical procedure called 'smell them'...;)

Well, let's put it this way : the vocalists I know, most of them classically schooled, will not even eat nuts as it can be damaging to their airways.
And you claim you know some who actually smoke? Seriously?

I have to say I have known classically trained (opera) vocalists who smoke. Presumably talent is not synonymous with common sense

Whether they will still be singing and smoking all the way through their career is another question though, and I haven't kept in contact so I'll never know.

I think it should be made law that any smoking relating conditions (cancer etc) will NOT be treated at Hospitals, and that anyone who comes to a clinic or hospital with a smoking related condition will be refused care. Mark my words, the smoking rate will be lowered then.

Remove the tax then it is all good.

Otherwise it is just petty

Smoking bans in pubs drive me crazy as well.

But I'd concede smoking should be banned in some places. Cancer wards, say.

You're the one with the deadly addiction, now it's 1 thing that you practice such an addiction, I really don't mind, but would you mind not bothering other people with your deadly addiction? Just not caring about other people, is plain arrogant, a-social. I don't see why it would be so much to ask, that if you want to smoke you just wait untill you're away from the mass. Besides, it's not just not liking, ask astma-patients, or people with other breathing conditions. Remember that you're the one with the really bad habit, I am not. Why would you even want to bother people with your addiction?

Which brings us back neatly around in a circle again where I get to ask you that question you have not yet answerd.

How much 'pollution' do you get from walkinging pas a group of smokers outside?

Unless you can show me that it is a significant amount all of your talk about deadly addiction counts for nothing.

How much damage are we causing you if we smoke in the street?

Some peolple are just plain arrogant, such as non smokers asking asking smokers if we wouldn't mind please, not smoking in the street incase a non smoker walks past. Do you then count yourself as antisocial?

Asking me to stop because you don't like it, is arrogant, do you not think?

Smoking bans in pubs drive me crazy as well.

But I'd concede smoking should be banned in some places. Cancer wards, say.

Smoke in your own home, if you want to get cancer no need to expose other people to your disgusting habits. Do it in the privacy of your own home if you must.

Which brings us back neatly around in a circle again where I get to ask you that question you have not yet answerd.

How much 'pollution' do you get from walkinging pas a group of smokers outside?

Unless you can show me that it is a significant amount all of your talk about deadly addiction counts for nothing.

How much damage are we causing you if we smoke in the street?

Some peolple are just plain arrogant, such as non smokers asking asking smokers if we wouldn't mind please, not smoking in the street incase a non smoker walks past. Do you then count yourself as antisocial?

Asking me to stop because you don't like it, is arrogant, do you not think?
Ofcourse I don't know how much polution I recieve, I only know it makes me starts coughing, and when it's worse (like when someone infront of me at the bus stop starts smoking) I get teary eyes. Now again, you are the one with the deadly addiction, I'm totally cool with that, but be a gentlemen and don't bother other people with your crap. That's the only thing we ask for, how the hell is that arrogant? Really, what's arrogant about not wanting to get smoke containing tar, carbone monoxide, butane, ammonia, radon, cadmium, acetone, arsenic, hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde and nicotine get blown in your face. Would you mind not blowing several types of poison in my face? We're only asking to keep your poison with you, that's all, is that so much?

Ofcourse I don't know how much polution I recieve, I only know it makes me starts coughing, and when it's worse (like when someone infront of me at the bus stop starts smoking) I get teary eyes. Now again, you are the one with the deadly addiction, I'm totally cool with that, but be a gentlemen and don't bother other people with your crap. That's the only thing we ask for, how the hell is that arrogant? Really, what's arrogant about not wanting to get smoke containing tar, carbone monoxide, butane, ammonia, radon, cadmium, acetone, arsenic, hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde and nicotine get blown in your face. Would you mind not blowing several types of poison in my face? We're only asking to keep your poison with you, that's all, is that so much?

Why? Because you don't like it. Meh if we could all do that, ask people to desist in behaviour we just don't like.

You have a choice not to stand next to a smoker at the bus stop, or walk away and stand elsewhere.

What other things would you like to impose your wants against others wants on?

Why? Because you don't like it. Meh if we could all do that, ask people to desist in behaviour we just don't like.

You have a choice not to stand next to a smoker at the bus stop, or walk away and stand elsewhere.

What other things would you like to impose your wants against others wants on?
It's poison, what gives you the right to blow poison in my face? Why should I, the "smart" (well not that I'm really smarter, I just don't poison myself for pleasure, that's all I mean, ofcourse you could have a Ph.D or something) person be the one who should give room to the addicted person? Aren't you the one who's arrogant then? Not caring about the people around you, and just do what you like?

Smoking bans in pubs drive me crazy as well.

But I'd concede smoking should be banned in some places. Cancer wards, say.

Isn't that rather shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted?

It's poison, what gives you the right to blow poison in my face? Why should I, the "smart" (well not that I'm really smarter, I just don't poison myself for pleasure, that's all I mean, ofcourse you could have a Ph.D or something) person be the one who should give room to the addicted person? Aren't you the one who's arrogant then? Not caring about the people around you, and just do what you like?

Okay first things first, I'm talking about smoking in the street. How you get from that to blowing smoke in your face(I would never do that BTW) I don't know.

How you equate the act of delibratly blowing smoke in somebodys face, with smoking in the street I just don't get, and remember your first posts in this thread where all about how we should not smoke in crowded streets but hide away somewhere else.

Anti-smoking activism is going WAY too far. "Smoking is bad for you though, and everyone else around you. <sniffle>" Deal with it!
We ARE dealing with it. We are banning it in more and more places. You don't how we are going about it<sniffle>? Deal with it!


What is next? The government controlling our diet to make sure we "eat healthy and don't do anything that might hurt us <sniffle>" Pretty soon we won't be able to get a double quarter pounder with cheese because there is too many calories.
1- It's gonna get there. IT's already beginning with bans on junk food in school cafeteria.
2- It's not the point of the thread.


I can't believe the audacity of some people to push their views on others.
Like those filthy smokers who want to light up wherever they please?


Lets keep America a country of choices, and not a surveillance society.
Pet peeve of mine: America is a continent, not a country.

You always have the choice to walk away from someone who is smoking,
Fuck that! I'm sitting here eating my lunch, you want to smoke, go over there! You're the one who want to do something, you're the one who's gonna have to work to do it.

but by enacting anti-smoking bans you are TAKING AWAY someone else's freedom, and even though you might not care about the loss of that freedom, the next freedom we lose you might have a different opinion about.

Cheers.
Once again, we are not taking away your freedom since you can still smoke. Besides, it's a classic battle between your freedom to kill yourself and my freedom to be healthy. One way or the other, a freedom is gonna be curltailed. Better be yours, from where I'm standing.

Cheers

As as smoker, I must say a cigarette has never impaired my driving skills, unless its the first cigarette of the day, and I wait a few minutes (like 5) after I smoke it to drive.

Well which is it? Never or no?

But that's not the point. It isn't about impaired driving skills (although I kinda doubt you're not impaired when one hand is used to hold a cigarette, especially if you have to shift gear, but that's really a minor impairment.) it's about the adverse health effect it has on your passengers, especially the young ones.

Won't somebody please think of the children!!!!

I think it should be made law that any smoking relating conditions (cancer etc) will NOT be treated at Hospitals, and that anyone who comes to a clinic or hospital with a smoking related condition will be refused care. Mark my words, the smoking rate will be lowered then.

Prove that the cancer was directly caused by the smoking, and not a genetic predisposition or the additives in the food that they eat or the alcoholicism etc...

All diseases cause by smoking, an be casued by other mean, so stopping N.H.S health care (in which they have also paid into) is wrong in less you can prove it was caused by smoking

One day we'll reach a consensus on who has the right of way in this situation.... one day.

Like those filthy smokers who want to light up wherever they please?



Pet peeve of mine: America is a continent, not a country.


Fuck that! I'm sitting here eating my lunch, you want to smoke, go over there! You're the one who want to do something, you're the one who's gonna have to work to do it.


Actually, North and South America are continents. There is no single continent called America. So you shouldn't correct trivial mistakes while making them yourself.

And on topic, if you were sitting there first, then yes it would be rude for someone to light up next to you. But I've seen anti-smoking assholes actually come to somewhere where everyone else is smoking and act like it's the smokers' obligation to go away.

Actually, North and South America are continents. There is no single continent called America. So you shouldn't correct trivial mistakes while making them yourself. Haha, not where I live. :D
The division of America into two separate continents is most definitely not universal.
And on topic, if you were sitting there first, then yes it would be rude for someone to light up next to you. But I've seen anti-smoking assholes actually come to somewhere where everyone else is smoking and act like it's the smokers' obligation to go away.Never seen that happen, while the former happens a lot.

I highly doubt more than maybe 1/5 of anti-smoking activists have actually reserached the effects of cigarettes for themselves. It's not surprising though. In every single school you're fucking indoctrinated with anti-tobacco propagandha from age 6 on. I think more kids smoke just because of the social taboo on cigarettes.

You're right, all this 'in a public place' stuff is silly.

We should just ban smoking altogether and be done with the things.

Or we could, you know, put the responsibility on the individual to make an informed choice and then accept the consequences.

I'd have no problems with excluding illnesses and conditions induced by smoking from the aegis public healthcare, nor doing the same for alcohol related conditions, or injuries incurred when committing a crime. Not to be excessively condascending, but it is called personal responsibility; the sooner the individual is required to take as much responsibility for their own life as possible, and required to accept the consequences, the better.

Or we could, you know, put the responsibility on the individual to make an informed choice and then accept the consequences.

I'd have no problems with excluding illnesses and conditions induced by smoking from the aegis public healthcare, nor doing the same for alcohol related conditions, or injuries incurred when committing a crime. Not to be excessively condascending, but it is called personal responsibility; the sooner the individual is required to take as much responsibility for their own life as possible, and required to accept the consequences, the better.

Would a similar action involve a charge for using health services if intoxicated then?
I can see the appeal that would have and it might make people think twice before drinking too much. but this would effectively cut any profits made from large companies selling alcohol, and it's likely they would try to stop this action from being passed in parliament, not to mention the amount of people this would infuriate.
Considering that because the government already has programmes in place to help those dealing with alcohol or smoking problems, i'm not sure how effective this charge would be.
Also the actual implementation of this would be difficult again, because you'd have to have police in hospitals.

As much as it sounds nice, people don't have as much personal responsibility for a number of things they engage in that you might think.
perhaps a more effective action would involve cutting advertisments of alcohol and ciggarettes from Television, and reversing the norm that alcohol is fun.
even then there would be further issues with people wanting to drink and smoke, and the percieved idea the government is slowly controlling all our actions. In short any action from a government on alcohol or smoking would reduce confidence in that government.

Well which is it? Never or no?

But that's not the point. It isn't about impaired driving skills (although I kinda doubt you're not impaired when one hand is used to hold a cigarette, especially if you have to shift gear, but that's really a minor impairment.) it's about the adverse health effect it has on your passengers, especially the young ones.

Won't somebody please think of the children!!!!

QFT. I shared ONE car ride with a good friend in elementary school, and never accepted one again because her mother chain-smoked with all the windows rolled up. Wouldn't let us crack 'em because it was cold outside. I thought I was going to vomit, and that was one 20-minute car ride. Imagine the years of abuse her daughter's lungs took?

Yeah, the anti-smoking activists can eat my asshole.

I used to be a nice smoker. What did I get? Nothing. I'd be considerate, smoke away from obvious non-smokers, even put them out if asked. But the thing is, anti-smokers are not considerate. They won't ASK me to put out a smoke. Oh no! I'm so evil, I don't deserve communication. They'll just make little sniffing sounds and polite-coughs and allow me to conclude, as if reading the subtle hints of strangers is something I do all the time, that they would like me to put it out. Well, fuck that! If you can't be bothered to talk to me, I can't be bothered to interpret your hints. For all I know you're just coughing because of the crack you smoke.

And of course there's all the folks who are SO peeved at my evil, filthy, disgusting habit! that they want to make it illegal, make me a criminal. I guess that would save them the trouble of coming up with subtle gestures and polite-coughs.

I'm a smoker, and I'm proud of it.

Wow... whatta thread.

First off, I find it amazing that people say they smoke yet won't smoke indoors/in their cars/at home because they don't want their furniture to smell of cigs. yet it seems they don't mind the smell on their clothes, hair and skin.

Second. those ranting about the freedom of choice... you choose to smoke yet the non-smokers cannot choose to avoid your smoke without leaving. If the smokers balk at lighting up outside, why should non-smokers have to leave?

Third. Those who said that smokers would gladly move if they were asked nicely. At a Casino in Vegas, a dealer asked some smokers to move to the other end of the table (downwind from her... same table, just on the other side.) no one was sitting there, and their smoke would waif away from the dealer and other players. their response? they lit up and blew their smoke at her. THEN they went to the pit boss and complained about her saying "she won't let us smoke at the table" fortunatley, I was sitting there the whole time and was more than willing to let the pitboss know what happened. so if you're pissed about the bans, then don't blame the non-smokers, but assholes like them who, so graciously complied with a request to move.

Fourth. I grew up with a heavy smoker (father) and YES, I can tell smokers by walking next to them. I can smell the smoke on their clothes, on their breath, etc. for me, however, it's not a bother, but I do know somepeople who will be affected by that.

Fifth. Many people do not have the luxury of choice when it comes to where they work. but here in the USA, we have OSHA which looks after the health and safety of the workers and their environment.

Here in Hawaii there is a ban that prohibits smoking 20 ft from any vent, door, window or any opening to any public building. It prohibits smoking in any mall, open, enclosed or partically enclosed mall. It prevents smoking in any public building and school. and it's prohibited on any healthcare property.

sure there were alot of balks, complaints and "oh, no, my business will suffer" when this went into effect, but no business went out of business because of it.

Wow... whatta thread.

First off, I find it amazing that people say they smoke yet won't smoke indoors/in their cars/at home because they don't want their furniture to smell of cigs. yet it seems they don't mind the smell on their clothes, hair and skin.

Second. those ranting about the freedom of choice... you choose to smoke yet the non-smokers cannot choose to avoid your smoke without leaving. If the smokers balk at lighting up outside, why should non-smokers have to leave?

Third. Those who said that smokers would gladly move if they were asked nicely. At a Casino in Vegas, a dealer asked some smokers to move to the other end of the table (downwind from her... same table, just on the other side.) no one was sitting there, and their smoke would waif away from the dealer and other players. their response? they lit up and blew their smoke at her. THEN they went to the pit boss and complained about her saying "she won't let us smoke at the table" fortunatley, I was sitting there the whole time and was more than willing to let the pitboss know what happened. so if you're pissed about the bans, then don't blame the non-smokers, but assholes like them who, so graciously complied with a request to move.

Fourth. I grew up with a heavy smoker (father) and YES, I can tell smokers by walking next to them. I can smell the smoke on their clothes, on their breath, etc. for me, however, it's not a bother, but I do know somepeople who will be affected by that.

Fifth. Many people do not have the luxury of choice when it comes to where they work. but here in the USA, we have OSHA which looks after the health and safety of the workers and their environment.

Here in Hawaii there is a ban that prohibits smoking 20 ft from any vent, door, window or any opening to any public building. It prohibits smoking in any mall, open, enclosed or partically enclosed mall. It prevents smoking in any public building and school. and it's prohibited on any healthcare property.

sure there were alot of balks, complaints and "oh, no, my business will suffer" when this went into effect, but no business went out of business because of it.

Excellent post. *applauds*

Wow... whatta thread.

First off, I find it amazing that people say they smoke yet won't smoke indoors/in their cars/at home because they don't want their furniture to smell of cigs. yet it seems they don't mind the smell on their clothes, hair and skin.

Second. those ranting about the freedom of choice... you choose to smoke yet the non-smokers cannot choose to avoid your smoke without leaving. If the smokers balk at lighting up outside, why should non-smokers have to leave?

Third. Those who said that smokers would gladly move if they were asked nicely. At a Casino in Vegas, a dealer asked some smokers to move to the other end of the table (downwind from her... same table, just on the other side.) no one was sitting there, and their smoke would waif away from the dealer and other players. their response? they lit up and blew their smoke at her. THEN they went to the pit boss and complained about her saying "she won't let us smoke at the table" fortunatley, I was sitting there the whole time and was more than willing to let the pitboss know what happened. so if you're pissed about the bans, then don't blame the non-smokers, but assholes like them who, so graciously complied with a request to move.
Fourth. I grew up with a heavy smoker (father) and YES, I can tell smokers by walking next to them. I can smell the smoke on their clothes, on their breath, etc. for me, however, it's not a bother, but I do know somepeople who will be affected by that.

Fifth. Many people do not have the luxury of choice when it comes to where they work. but here in the USA, we have OSHA which looks after the health and safety of the workers and their environment.

Here in Hawaii there is a ban that prohibits smoking 20 ft from any vent, door, window or any opening to any public building. It prohibits smoking in any mall, open, enclosed or partically enclosed mall. It prevents smoking in any public building and school. and it's prohibited on any healthcare property.

sure there were alot of balks, complaints and "oh, no, my business will suffer" when this went into effect, but no business went out of business because of it.

Number 3 is just as applicable for anti-smoking activists. More so, I'd imagine.

Number 4 is equally true for people with terrble body odour, unwashed clothes or, for that matter, anything that smells. It is irrelevant.

Number 4 is equally true for people with terrble body odour, unwashed clothes or, for that matter, anything that smells. It is irrelevant.

Not really. It can depend on allergies and the like.

I'll be very annoyed by someone near me with terrible body odor, but it doesn't cause a physical reaction. Being in close quarters with a person whose clothing is inundated with smoke, on the other hand, can cause my eyes to water while my nose and throat are extremely irritated. If I'm not lucky, the effects from that contact can last into the next day or beyond.

Number 3 is just as applicable for anti-smoking activists. More so, I'd imagine.


How so?

Number 3 is just as applicable for anti-smoking activists. More so, I'd imagine.true, but my point is that it's NOT just the ASA's that are being assholes but some smokers are as well.

Number 4 is equally true for people with terrble body odour, unwashed clothes or, for that matter, anything that smells. It is irrelevant.except I am specifically mentioning that I can track a smoker (or a person who lives with a smoker) by their smell. And if you notice, I said "For me, however, it's not a bother" which means it's not a complaint. ;)

Or we could, you know, put the responsibility on the individual to make an informed choice and then accept the consequences.


Silly Chris, the government isnt supposed to treat us like adults:p

true, but my point is that it's NOT just the ASA's that are being assholes but some smokers are as well.

except I am specifically mentioning that I can track a smoker (or a person who lives with a smoker) by their smell. And if you notice, I said "For me, however, it's not a bother" which means it's not a complaint. ;)

I agree that both can be equally obnoxious. However, you suggested that somehow smoking making one smell, and thus noticable to you, is relevant. It isn't to the debate at large.

Not really. It can depend on allergies and the like.

I'll be very annoyed by someone near me with terrible body odor, but it doesn't cause a physical reaction. Being in close quarters with a person whose clothing is inundated with smoke, on the other hand, can cause my eyes to water while my nose and throat are extremely irritated. If I'm not lucky, the effects from that contact can last into the next day or beyond.

What with that being a normal reaction, of course...unlike every other allergy.

I like being able to go to the bar and not have to breathe second hand smoke. Especially when I'm dancing.

I like being able to go to the bar and not have to breathe second hand smoke. Especially when I'm dancing.

Excpet...if youre going to a bar youre drinking a toxin anyway.

I agree that both can be equally obnoxious. However, you suggested that somehow smoking making one smell, and thus noticable to you, is relevant. It isn't to the debate at large.

Smoking does make one smell. and because I grew up with it, I do notice it. Heck, I walk into a bar when no one was currently smoking (but did allow smoking before the ban) that cigerette stink sticks to my clothes and I can smell it on me.

the point, as to why it's relevant, is because the smell will be there, and possibly all the chemicals associated to second hand smoke inhalation. that's why the 'non-smoking' areas tend not to work unless the two sections are hermatically sealed.

Then theres alot of people here who also posted "I won't smoke in the car/home because I don't want that smell on my furniture"

What with that being a normal reaction, of course...unlike every other allergy.and do you force someone who is allergic to peanuts to bathe in peanut oil?

Excpet...if youre going to a bar youre drinking a toxin anyway. which is a voluntary choice. however, breathing in Second Hand Smoke isn't something I can choose to do. now if your smoker would wear an airtight bubble that would prevent any of their smoke from infringing of my choice to breathe clean air while I injest my toxin of choice... then I wouldn't complain.

What with that being a normal reaction, of course...unlike every other allergy.

I didn't say it was normal. But there's no doubt that being in close quarters with a smoker adversely affects my health, whereas being in equally close quarters with a person who hasn't showered will simply be annoying.

Thus, they are not necessarily comparable.

Excpet...if youre going to a bar youre drinking a toxin anyway.

Not necessarily. I could choose not to drink. That's the important bit: the choice. If I go to a bar where people are smoking, I can't choose not to ingest the smoke, unless I leave. In which case I can't be dancing, can I?

So, now I can go dancing at the bar and choose which toxins I put in my body!

Excpet...if youre going to a bar youre drinking a toxin anyway.

Not necessarily. And even if he was, drinking isn't linked with causing cancer is it? Nor can someone get the toxin from his drinking second hand just by standing near him while he drinks. Also the smell of alcohol doesn't get in your clothes and hair just from standing near someone who is drinking. Besides, he gets to choose what toxins he puts in his body unless someone is smoking near him and then it becomes involuntary.

Exactly and isn't there a wider issue here? Smoking should be banned totally anywhere any time, it's bad for you and smoking kills it's not to be considered lightly!! It's a mass killer we are talking about!!

As a non-smoker I get two choices where I live if I want to go out drinking/dancing. Go out and end up smelling nasty and feeling sick in my throat for a couple of says and my wife having asthma attacks... or stay home. Ahhh the freedom.

It was nice in Los Angeles when they banned smoking in bars. I wish we had gone that far here in Vegas but the Casino lobby is way too strong.

Exactly and isn't there a wider issue here? Smoking should be banned totally anywhere any time, it's bad for you and smoking kills it's not to be considered lightly!! It's a mass killer we are talking about!!


That goes way too far. People should have the right to live an unhealthy lifestyle as long as it doesn't infringe on another persons right to live a healthy lifestyle.

Exactly and isn't there a wider issue here? Smoking should be banned totally anywhere any time, it's bad for you and smoking kills it's not to be considered lightly!! It's a mass killer we are talking about!!

Yes! Ban everything that can kill us! Cars! Guns! Foods we might choke on! Alcohol! In fact, other people are the greatest cause of human deaths! Lets ban humans from interacting!

I didn't say it was normal. But there's no doubt that being in close quarters with a smoker adversely affects my health, whereas being in equally close quarters with a person who hasn't showered will simply be annoying.

Thus, they are not necessarily comparable.

For you.

As a non-smoker I get two choices where I live if I want to go out drinking/dancing. Go out and end up smelling nasty and feeling sick in my throat for a couple of says and my wife having asthma attacks... or stay home. Ahhh the freedom.

It was nice in Los Angeles when they banned smoking in bars. I wish we had gone that far here in Vegas but the Casino lobby is way too strong.

They've banned smoking in bars here in Montreal. *coughCanadacough*

They've banned smoking in bars here in Montreal. *coughCanadacough*

We're seriously considering putting together a trip. First fly to NY, rent a car to drive up to Niagara Falls, then Toronto and then Montreal and fly out from there.

As a non-smoker I get two choices where I live if I want to go out drinking/dancing. Go out and end up smelling nasty and feeling sick in my throat for a couple of says and my wife having asthma attacks... or stay home. Ahhh the freedom. and now smokers have that freedom of Choice. either go outside and smoke, or stay at home. ahh, sharing the freedoms!

That goes way too far. People should have the right to live an unhealthy lifestyle as long as it doesn't infringe on another persons right to live a healthy lifestyle.*nods*
and that is the point of the bans. (for those who still don't understand it) because one cannot controll where the smoke goes, smoking in enclosed areas (using Hawaii as an example, not familiar with smoking bans in other areas) is banned because one unhealthy lifestyle is being forced upon others.

and now smokers have that freedom of Choice. either go outside and smoke, or stay at home. ahh, sharing the freedoms!

I wish we gave smokers in Vegas that particular freedom. :mad: :p

As a non-smoker I get two choices where I live if I want to go out drinking/dancing. Go out and end up smelling nasty and feeling sick in my throat for a couple of says and my wife having asthma attacks... or stay home. Ahhh the freedom.

Do you have a right to go to enter someone else's establishment and drink/dance?

My problem with blanket bans like this is that I don't really see a difference between banning smoking in a private bar and doing so in a private home. You aren't compelled to go out to a bar or restaurant.

I think it should be up to the owner of the establishment what the rules will be in that establishment. There are certainly enough people these days who are bothered by smoke to put pressure on individual establishments to ban smoking.

I think it should be up to the owner of the establishment what the rules will be in that establishment. There are certainly enough people these days who are bothered by smoke to put pressure on individual establishments to ban smoking.

This.


"Zomg I hatez teh filthy smokerz!"


So go to a non-smoking area. Go to a bar that is smoke free.

I wish we gave smokers in Vegas that particular freedom. :mad: :p

agreed... I did like the fact that more Non-Smoking tables were present in my last trip to Vegas... but while that helps... :(

So go to a non-smoking area. Go to a bar that is smoke free.

and now, the smokers can go outside and smoke then come back in to have a drink.

so what's your problem?

Do you have a right to go to enter someone else's establishment and drink/dance?

My problem with blanket bans like this is that I don't really see a difference between banning smoking in a private bar and doing so in a private home. You aren't compelled to go out to a bar or restaurant.

I think it should be up to the owner of the establishment what the rules will be in that establishment. There are certainly enough people these days who are bothered by smoke to put pressure on individual establishments to ban smoking.

Apparently there aren't enough in Vegas because everywhere here is smoking.

I never said I had a right to drink and dance at a private establishment, but I wish I had more choices than to either go out and get sick or stay home.

I don't feel sorry for the smokers where there are bans though because it's never been a bother for me to smoke outside when I was a smoker. I preferred it.

and now, the smokers can go outside and smoke then come back in to have a drink.

so what's your problem?

It should have been up to the business owner.


Here is a perfect example. Denys. People in IL can no longer smoke in a Denys. That kills them. Who the fuck goes to Denys for any reasons other than to drink bad coffee and smoke with their friends at 3 AM?

Here is a perfect example. Denys. People in IL can no longer smoke in a Denys. That kills them. Who the fuck goes to Denys for any reasons other than to drink bad coffee and smoke with their friends at 3 AM?
Did that Deny's shut down after the ban?

Can you prove that If that Deny's did shut down, it was Solely because of the smoking ban?

How many smokers do you know stopped because management asked them to?

Did that Deny's shut down after the ban?

I dont know, I went back to college shortly after the ban took effect. The waitress I was talking to however said management was really worried theyd have to shut down.

How many smokers do you know stopped because management asked them to?

What kind of idiotic statement is this? Of course they stopped. Its the law now, we get fined.

What kind of idiotic statement is this? Of course they stopped. Its the law now, we get fined.
so you're saying that it takes it becoming a law to get people to stop smoking at a place and not because management asks...

so you're saying that it take it becoming a law to get people to stop smoking at a place and not because management asks...


I dont recall saying that. In all honosty, it would depend on the people, like with EVERYTHING. It was never an issue however as we were always allowed to smoke.

I don't know about anyone else, but the anti-tobacco groups are really pushing it. I don't even smoke. I probably have had less than 30 cigarettes in my whole life. Only on rare occassion do I ever light up.

Who thought we'd get to a point in the USA where legislation telling people that they can't allow smoking on the property that they own would become common? People seem to have misinterpreted "public place". If there's government property that your tax dollars are going into, by all means you can ban smoking there. But a restaurant or a bar or any type of business is not "public". There are plenty of places that ban smoking. If you want clean air, go to a restaurant where the person who owns it prohibits smoking.

And now they're telling us not to smoke in our cars if there's a minor in there? You have got to be fucking shitting me.

Anti-tobacco activists need to pull their head out of their ass and realize some people are content with breathing in smoke. No one is saying it's healthy, some people just like it.

Rant over.

I agree with you, though I do not smoke in my car so it won't lose value and I don't smoke in my apartment because it's against their policies... I can understand that they have to think about the smell of the place after I leave.

Smoking and nonsmoking sections in restaurants and other areas have been accepted for years, now suddenly because some crackpot junk scientist claimed that "20 to 30 seconds of exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke causes irreparable damage!" We can't light up anywhere, really... Frankly, I think if cities are going to ban smokers from public places, smokers shouldn't have to pay taxes for public places. Banning someone from a public place defeats the whole purpose of public areas... Everybody pays for it through taxes and everybody has access.

Not only that, but the direct taxes on cigarettes (the irony is, that's what we had a little Revolution over back in 1776) are getting outrageous. It's not the government's job to legislate personal health and the science behind secondhand smoke damage is questionable at best. I work for a largely science oriented University and, while I work in the history department, a friend of mine who teaches biology says secondhand smoke damage is bullshit.. If I'm not mistaken, he wrote his dissertation on the subject, so I'm inclined to see him as pretty well informed on the topic.

If governments spent half the time they used crusading against tobacco companies and smokers and towards improving education and the like, we might not have as many problems in America today. I've actually considered starting a smokers rights movement, because part of the problem is smokers don't fight for their rights anywhere near hard enough.

Either give us an area to light up or don't make us pay for public spaces and accept the fact that restaurants and bars will lose money like crazy.

On a side note, the government trying to get me to quit is part of the reason why I still smoke... I know it's bad for me but the premise of the government telling me what to do with my body really ruffles my feathers. Some say I never got over my, "Stick it to the man" phase... Oh well.

I don't know about anyone else, but the anti-tobacco groups are really pushing it. I don't even smoke. I probably have had less than 30 cigarettes in my whole life. Only on rare occassion do I ever light up.

Who thought we'd get to a point in the USA where legislation telling people that they can't allow smoking on the property that they own would become common? People seem to have misinterpreted "public place". If there's government property that your tax dollars are going into, by all means you can ban smoking there. But a restaurant or a bar or any type of business is not "public". There are plenty of places that ban smoking. If you want clean air, go to a restaurant where the person who owns it prohibits smoking.

And now they're telling us not to smoke in our cars if there's a minor in there? You have got to be fucking shitting me.

Anti-tobacco activists need to pull their head out of their ass and realize some people are content with breathing in smoke. No one is saying it's healthy, some people just like it.

Rant over.

I don´t know. You see, cigarettes almost killed my mom. She smoked chronically for many years and because of that, got 2 nasty bouts of bronchitis that sent her to the hospital twice in a year. I hate cigarettes with a passion and these ads just raise awareness. But still, there´s something called a right to choose and, if someone choses to smoke 40 cigarettes in a day (and I´m exaggerating), who am I to stop them?

As for banning smoking in public areas, I´m all for it. I don´t have to inhale your smoke while at work, regardless of your taxpayers money. The club/bar things a bit more sensitive. This is just me, I don´t go to a club to smoke, I go to a club to dance. Of course, the club setting almost always goes in tandem with the smoking crowd.

I do accept that some ads are plain stupid like the one about the magical amount with the unicorns and all. Or the one about the typo with those 2 retards dancing. But awareness has to be raised. But yes, the activism can get a bit too far, on both sides.

The only reason anti-smoking activists are resorting to such inefficient methods of protests is that they know they'll never have a chance lobbying against it, this is due to the considerable influence the Tobacco industries wield among politicians(i.e. We fund your next campaign if you support us).

I dont recall saying that. In all honosty, it would depend on the people, like with EVERYTHING. It was never an issue however as we were always allowed to smoke.

so 1) you don't know if people respected an owner's right to ask people not to smoke, 2) Until such laws were passed, it was up to the owner to ask people not to smoke, 3) such laws were passed because of the appearance of the problem of people smoking in such establishments and the health hazards they gave.

The owners asking people not to smoke was the norm and the problem persisted.

so leaving it up to the management did not work.

Frankly, I think if cities are going to ban smokers from public places, smokers shouldn't have to pay taxes for public places. Banning someone from a public place defeats the whole purpose of public areas... Everybody pays for it through taxes and everybody has access.


Luckily, no one has proposed banning smokers from public places. They've proposed banning smoking from public places, which is more than a little bit different. I like going naked while I'm taking a shower, but I'm not allowed to do so in Central Park. I like having a cocktail before bed, but I'm not allowed to do so while driving. Somehow, I suffer through these terrible restrictions. I rather suspect you can, too.

so leaving it up to the management did not work.

What bull. Prove it. If you smoked in a resteraunt where management didnt want you smoking, and you persited, they could kick you out.

What bull. Prove it. If you smoked in a resteraunt where management didnt want you smoking, and you persited, they could kick you out.

the proof is in the fact that such laws were passed.

if people respected management's desires and requests (when such were made) then the law wouldn't be needed.

also, check out my post about the dealer in Las Vegas. she didn't ask the people to stop smoking but to move to a different area.

or does the right to ask people only apply to the owners and not the workers as well?

however the point's moot since smoking also makes the enclosed area unhealthy to both customers and workers.

Apparently there aren't enough in Vegas because everywhere here is smoking.

It may be that the people who don't like it simply haven't put on th pressure.

I never said I had a right to drink and dance at a private establishment, but I wish I had more choices than to either go out and get sick or stay home.

And you should. But those choices should be provided by the people who own the establishments, not forced by the government.

I don't feel sorry for the smokers where there are bans though because it's never been a bother for me to smoke outside when I was a smoker. I preferred it.

It isn't the smokers I feel bad for. They have no more right to be in a bar, etc. than non-smokers. It's the fact that the owners of a given establishment are being legally required to prohibit an activity - one that is not illegal - on their private property.

If the government wants to ban smoking in actual publicly owned buildings, I'm fine with that. In fact, I'd even support it.


so you're saying that it takes it becoming a law to get people to stop smoking at a place and not because management asks...

The management wouldn't have to ask. They could tell customers that they must either stop smoking or leave if they chose to prohibit smoking there.


Frankly, I think if cities are going to ban smokers from public places, smokers shouldn't have to pay taxes for public places. Banning someone from a public place defeats the whole purpose of public areas... Everybody pays for it through taxes and everybody has access.

Smokers aren't being barred from any public spaces. They are being barred from smoking in public buildings, just as they are often barred from carrying a weapon there.

Do you think gun owners should refrain from paying taxes because they aren't allowed to carry a hunting rifle into the IRS building?


The owners asking people not to smoke was the norm and the problem persisted.

What makes you think that was the norm?

A person who is asked to quit smoking in an establishment that bars it can be forcibly removed if they refuse to comply.

so leaving it up to the management did not work.

Not because they didn't ask, though. It was because they chose to allow smoking in their establishments.

the proof is in the fact that such laws were passed.

if people respected management's desires and requests (when such were made) then the law wouldn't be needed.



Thats not why the law was passed. At all. It was passed because people didnt like that they could still smell the smoke from the smoking section. This was the reason said by the IL Senate and Governer. How much do you actually know about this? Not much Id wager.


I have never, in my life, seem someone smoke in a building where smoking was prohibited. And management reserved the right to remove you if you did smoke where it was. Non-issue.

Personally I don't see any problem with smoking being banned in places such as bars and restaurants.

the proof is in the fact that such laws were passed.

if people respected management's desires and requests (when such were made) then the law wouldn't be needed.

Where are you getting this nonsense?

The laws force the owners of establishments to disallow smoking. They have nothing to do with owners who decided to do so on their own.

also, check out my post about the dealer in Las Vegas. she didn't ask the people to stop smoking but to move to a different area.

or does the right to ask people only apply to the owners and not the workers as well?

Depends on the rules at that particular establishment.

however the point's moot since smoking also makes the enclosed area unhealthy to both customers and workers.

Smoking or allowing others to smoke in my home would make the area unhealthy both to myself and any guests I had. It would also be unhealthy for the Orkin man and anyone else who I might employ to work in my home. It's still up to me whether or not to allow it.

The management wouldn't have to ask. They could tell customers that they must either stop smoking or leave if they chose to prohibit smoking there. Management also has the right to refuse service. yet when one instance of that happens gets on the news... how many people here rally against management?

What makes you think that was the norm? it was the norm before the law was applied. what do you think it was before such laws were put into action?

A person who is asked to quit smoking in an establishment that bars it can be forcibly removed if they refuse to comply. yet how many times when that happens do you see threads here talking about the management doing the right thing?

Not because they didn't ask, though. It was because they chose to allow smoking in their establishments. even to the point of ignoring employee complaints about smoking.

Thats not why the law was passed. At all. It was passed because people didnt like that they could still smell the smoke from the smoking section. This was the reason said by the IL Senate and Governer. How much do you actually know about this? Not much Id wager. and IL Senate governs all 50 states of the USA as well as other countries. :rolleyes: IF YOU READ my posts, you would've seen me saying I'm basing my posts about the HAWAII laws.

I have never, in my life, seem someone smoke in a building where smoking was prohibited. And management reserved the right to remove you if you did smoke where it was. Non-issue.and in HAWAII, it was more than an issue of smell, but also one of Health (as other posters said concerning the laws in their state... you know. the places that are NOT IL.)

Where are you getting this nonsense?

The laws force the owners of establishments to disallow smoking. They have nothing to do with owners who decided to do so on their own.
and before those laws were passed, who could declare their establishment smoking or non-smoking? the management. were these requests universally accepted by the customers? who knows. but the fact that there have been areas where management failed to support their claim, if they made it, shows leaving it up to management fails.

Depends on the rules at that particular establishment. it also depends on the management of that particular establisment also. In that case, it took another customer (me) to back up the employee side.

Smoking or allowing others to smoke in my home would make the area unhealthy both to myself and any guests I had. It would also be unhealthy for the Orkin man and anyone else who I might employ to work in my home. It's still up to me whether or not to allow it.
and thank you for pointing out ONE big difference between private access property and public access property.

now shall we go over the differences between a business owner and their employees and a private citizen with a contract job with a business?

I highly doubt more than maybe 1/5 of anti-smoking activists have actually reserached the effects of cigarettes for themselves.

While I can understand it would be incredibly annoying to have some idiot going "Ya know, one puff on one o' those sticks and you gat yourself some cancer right there", it is still a pretty safe assumption that smoking is a bad thing, and as many people as possible should be discouraged from it and informed of all the risks associated with it.

It's not surprising though. In every single school you're fucking indoctrinated with anti-tobacco propagandha from age 6 on.

You think anti-tobacco posters and such are a BAD thing?

How did you possibly get to that conclusion?

Anything that helps discourage children from smoking in their lifetime is basically a good thing.

What sort of monster would want to teach children the PROs of smoking?

Although to be fair, you'd have to fabricate them.

I know I sound bigoted but what possible PROs of smoking are there?

CONs: Numerous health risks for you and those around you, plus it socially disadvantages you as you smell disgusting. Plus ut manufactures a need for itself by making you even more stressed when you don't smoke.
PROs: ???

If it informs children that smoking is an inherently bad thing, discourages them from taking it up, and informs them of all the health risks involved then what can you possibly have against it?

Would it be better to encourage more children to become trapped in an addiction that will only damage their health?

Yeah, the anti-smoking activists can eat my asshole.

I used to be a nice smoker. What did I get? Nothing. I'd be considerate, smoke away from obvious non-smokers, even put them out if asked. But the thing is, anti-smokers are not considerate. They won't ASK me to put out a smoke. Oh no! I'm so evil, I don't deserve communication. They'll just make little sniffing sounds and polite-coughs and allow me to conclude, as if reading the subtle hints of strangers is something I do all the time, that they would like me to put it out. Well, fuck that! If you can't be bothered to talk to me, I can't be bothered to interpret your hints. For all I know you're just coughing because of the crack you smoke.

I'm a smoker, and I'm proud of it.

It's annoying when people do the whole subtle hints thing rather than outright asking you, but I think the majority of people who are bothered by smokers would expect either to be ignored when they ask the smoker to move away or put out the cigarette, or worse, an abusive response. I mean, if the smoker if inconsiderate enough to be smoking around other people, or in public, then you can't really blame people for assuming that the smoker's couldn't give a shit about anyone else.

Also, if smoking causes you as much stress as it seems to in your above post, why not just give up? It looks like it would save you a lot of bother and stress you out less in the long term.

You certainly don't sound proud of it. It seems like something that causes you a lot of unnecessary hassle.


And of course there's all the folks who are SO peeved at my evil, filthy, disgusting habit! that they want to make it illegal, make me a criminal. I guess that would save them the trouble of coming up with subtle gestures and polite-coughs.

Is 'smoker' really how you define yourself to the extent that you see potential legislation against smoking, in order to benefit the health of the nation, as an attack on you personally?

Surely you have better things to find your identity in other than 'smoker'?

Ofcourse I don't know how much polution I recieve, I only know it makes me starts coughing, and when it's worse (like when someone infront of me at the bus stop starts smoking) I get teary eyes. Now again, you are the one with the deadly addiction, I'm totally cool with that, but be a gentlemen and don't bother other people with your crap. That's the only thing we ask for, how the hell is that arrogant? Really, what's arrogant about not wanting to get smoke containing tar, carbone monoxide, butane, ammonia, radon, cadmium, acetone, arsenic, hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde and nicotine get blown in your face. Would you mind not blowing several types of poison in my face? We're only asking to keep your poison with you, that's all, is that so much?

Why? Because you don't like it. Meh if we could all do that, ask people to desist in behaviour we just don't like.

You have a choice not to stand next to a smoker at the bus stop, or walk away and stand elsewhere.

What other things would you like to impose your wants against others wants on?

I'm completely with Dawn on this one.

If you're the one who is inconsiderate enough to jeopardise the health of others in a public place just for your own selfish whim then it's you who is in the wrong and it's you who should move. Lighting up in a public place, especially somewhere like a bus-stop, is more than rude, it's inconsiderate, selfish and thoughtless, verging on malicious.

If you're smoking next to a non-smoker then it's you who should move away, rather than them. The non-smoker isn't putting anyone else's health at risk so they have the freedom to do and go where they want. The smoker is the one with the problem and thus they are the one who should be restricted, ie, not being able to smoke in pubs.

The non-smokers rights should come first in smoking-related-issues as they are the ones who aren't hurting anyone, the same cannot be said for the smoker. You've lost the right to complain.

Once again, we are not taking away your freedom since you can still smoke. Besides, it's a classic battle between your freedom to kill yourself and my freedom to be healthy. One way or the other, a freedom is gonna be curltailed. Better be yours, from where I'm standing.

Well said.

And on topic, if you were sitting there first, then yes it would be rude for someone to light up next to you. But I've seen anti-smoking assholes actually come to somewhere where everyone else is smoking and act like it's the smokers' obligation to go away.

Never seen that happen, while the former happens a lot.

Yup.

I don't see where people get this whole "my freedom to smoke in public" bullshit.

If you wanted to start distributing radioactive material in public, or spray DDT around in the street, is it right that you should have the freedom to do that? And just say "Well, I enjoy doing this, and anyone who doesn't want to be around this stuff will just have to not go out. So everybody wins! Umm.."

And now they're telling us not to smoke in our cars if there's a minor in there? You have got to be fucking shitting me.

You'd fight for your right to smoke in a car with a minor in there?

Are you joking?

What the hell is wrong with you?

There was a guy today outside of the building I had class in this morning wearing a homemade t-shirt that said "Smoking kills" with a skull and crossbone on it. He was standng right by where all of us usually congregate to smoke and by all the ash trays. Just standing there. His own little protest. When I walked outside I went over there, and took the time to obviously read his shirt.

Me: Wow, I did not know smoking kills, thank you for telling me that. Ive never heard that before. *takes out a camel and lights up while looking directly at him*

Him: Youre a jackass.

Me: *Shrug* Meh, what are ya gonna do? *walks off*



I hate moralist nannies. Two days ago I had a guy pull over on the side of the road while I was walking from class with a cigarette, just to yell "Aw, cmon man, smoking kills," at me. I told him its not as fast as Id kill him if he doesnt get the fuck away from me.

Im losing my patience with these people.

I can see how that would be incredibly annoying and patronising.

But, to be honest, if you're stupid enough to smoke, then you should expect people to hassle you with this sort of stuff all the time.

If you wilfully smoke cigarettes then you can't really blame people for assuming that you're thick.

To be fair though, you do have the right to kill yourself whatever way you want to, and no one should be forcing you not to.

However the minute you start smoking anywhere near someone else, you're automatically an asshole.

Freedom of choice ends when your choice harms others. We don't allow people to 'choose' to work in asbestos-removal without proper safety equipment. Nor should we allow workers to 'choose' to not work in smoke-filled bars.

Well said.

Although I did rather enjoy watching all the smokers huddle outside in the rain/snow when they were still allowed to smoke on the patio. You get no bar service out there, so I don't see why they didn't just continue allowing that.

I remember walking in the street when it was raining and seeing a group of huddled smokers wilfully standing outside a warm club in the freeaing rain just to get their pathetic suck on a piece of tobacco. I didn't want to laugh at other people's misfortune, but seeing as they're doing that of their own free will it was pretty hilarious.

And yet, when I drink coffee, it doesn't magically fill the mouths of the people beside me drinking water...

Haha.

Yeah I don't see a problem with being allowed to smoke outside, as long as you don't have to walk through a thick fog of cigarette smoke to get inside.

That's unfortunately what always happens where I live. In the main shopping centre every single entrance is clogged with smokers, and because of the way the wind blows the inside of the shop is usually filled with smoke. Wonder if it makes them feel big.

Plus the smokers do it at my old school too. They congregate at the entrance so

a) all the children have to walk inhale their smoke as they come in to school, and

b) the children always see the 'cool' sixth formers smoking every day.

They even did it when we had a group of primary school children come to the school for a tour.

I hope they're proud of themselves.

If someone is moronic enough to say 'I'm going to remain addicted because you say it's bad for me, and get all up in my face about it', then power to them. But claiming that asshole non-smokers are making smokers continue smoking...even insinuating it...is laughable.

"Oh yeah!? Well well...well I'm going to start smoking crack! Ha! See that non-smoker! Boy, too bad you didn't shut up huh!? Yeah, watch me now bitch! I'm smoking crack! Woohooo! I would have quit smoking if you didn't bug me but look out! Crack smoker here!":eek:

Haha!

Bottom line:

If you want to smoke, fine, do it in private.

If you do it in public, you have to accept that you don't have the moral high ground in any way.

And it's right to bring in legislation to protect the non-smokers, especially when minors are involved, such as the example in the first post of not being allowed to smoke in a car with a minor.

It's your choice to do what you want with your own health, but not with other people's.

We have laws to protect children from other things, and I see no problem with laws to protect children from second hand smoke.

*snip*

I don't know where all your hate comes from, but seriously, calm down. I know that smoking is unhealthy, but really, so is the amount of anger that you seem to have towards those who smoke (did smoking kill someone close to you? If so, I'm sorry. You still need to calm down).

snip

Haha!

Your posts about smoking are always so funny to read! Your so angry about it! You need to light one up and calm down, man!

*lights up cigarette and blows smoke towards m-mmYumyumyumYesindeed and the rest of the anti-smoking nutjobs*


Oh, and the pro side of smoking:
calms you down
makes you feel good
it is a good time to relax
is a good time socialize
and it is cool ;)

Haha!

Your posts about smoking are always so funny to read! Your so angry about it! You need to light one up and calm down, man!

*lights up cigarette and blows smoke towards m-mmYumyumyumYesindeed and the rest of the anti-smoking nutjobs*


Oh, and the pro side of smoking:
calms you down
makes you feel good
it is a good time to relax
is a good time socialize
and it is cool ;)

Also, it's a semi decent laxative. Learned that bit from House.

Oh, and the pro side of smoking:
calms you down
makes you feel good
it is a good time to relax
is a good time socialize
and it is cool ;)

I am not sure if the pros outweigh the cons. No matter how objectively I look at it.

At least for me personally, I can calm down and feel good without inhaling burning carbon, as well as relax. It is also hard for me to socialize with something in my mouth. As for cool, it's so cool it destroys your lungs.

Plus, it is addicting and people develop a dependency for them. I really don't want to be dependent on more things than vitally necessary to my survival.

Also, it's a semi decent laxative. Learned that bit from House.

On some people.

I have a strong stomach, and bowels, I guess!

I am not sure if the pros outweigh the cons. No matter how objectively I look at it.

At least for me personally, I can calm down and feel good without inhaling burning carbon, as well as relax. It is also hard for me to socialize with something in my mouth. As for cool, it's so cool it destroys your lungs.

Plus, it is addicting and people develop a dependency for them. I really don't want to be dependent on more things than vitally necessary to my survival.

You obviously aren't cool. :D

I am not sure if the pros outweigh the cons. No matter how objectively I look at it.

At least for me personally, I can calm down and feel good without inhaling burning carbon, as well as relax. It is also hard for me to socialize with something in my mouth. As for cool, it's so cool it destroys your lungs.

Plus, it is addicting and people develop a dependency for them. I really don't want to be dependent on more things than vitally necessary to my survival.

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but I don't think anyone is making you take up smoking (and it's quite obvious where you stand). People do try to make smokers stop though (as we've seen ALL THE TIME), so I can certainly understand why people who smoke would become frustrated.

Oh, and the pro side of smoking:
calms you down
makes you feel good
it is a good time to relax
is a good time socialize
and it is cool ;)

You only need to be calmed because you smoke. If you didn't smoke, you would perpetually be at the level of calm gained by smoking.

I've never actually ever heard a smoker say it makes them feel good. Quite the opposite. It's more a case that not smoking makes them feel bad. Yet again, if you didn't smoke, you'd perpetually be in a state of feeling good.

When the act you perform automatically excludes 75% of the population or so from participating, I'd call that a good time to a-socialize.

Finally, no, it's not cool. It's not cool when the otherwise nicely smelling air I get to breathe is fouled by some idiot who choose to get addicted to a pesticide.

You only need to be calmed because you smoke. If you didn't smoke, you would perpetually be at the level of calm gained by smoking.

I've never actually ever heard a smoker say it makes them feel good. Quite the opposite. It's more a case that not smoking makes them feel bad. Yet again, if you didn't smoke, you'd perpetually be in a state of feeling good.

When the act you perform automatically excludes 75% of the population or so from participating, I'd call that a good time to a-socialize.

Finally, no, it's not cool. It's not cool when the otherwise nicely smelling air I get to breathe is fouled by some idiot who choose to get addicted to a pesticide.



I don't need a cigarette to feel normal. I want a cigarette because it does feel good. It is nice and relaxing, especially after a stressful day.

Oh noez!!! You smell a bad smell for less than 30 seconds I walk by! Poor youz!

You only need to be calmed because you smoke. If you didn't smoke, you would perpetually be at the level of calm gained by smoking.

I've never actually ever heard a smoker say it makes them feel good. Quite the opposite. It's more a case that not smoking makes them feel bad. Yet again, if you didn't smoke, you'd perpetually be in a state of feeling good.

When the act you perform automatically excludes 75% of the population or so from participating, I'd call that a good time to a-socialize.

Finally, no, it's not cool. It's not cool when the otherwise nicely smelling air I get to breathe is fouled by some idiot who choose to get addicted to a pesticide.

It's reassuring to know that public service announcement campaigns do have some effect on the population if they are hammered into your brains for long enough.

Now if we can only start a PSA campaign to annex Canada's natural resources...

Just attended one of minnesotas famous "play" smoking bars ... the play was "before the ban" :-P

I dont smoke they were having an Otep Concert in the place (The Rock in Maplewood) but I had no issue with it whatsoever

*lights up cigarette and blows smoke towards m-mmYumyumyumYesindeed and the rest of the anti-smoking nutjobs*
*injects Trollgaard with arsenic*
Oh, and the pro side of smoking:
An oxymoron.
calms you down
In the short-term. In the long-term it makes you even more tense than you would have done without smoking. So you have another cigarette to relax you from the stress the previous cigarettes caused you, which later makes you more stressed as you withdraw from the nicotine.
makes you feel good
it is a good time to relax
It actually releases unecessary adrenalin into your system so you feel more tense later on, plus it narrows your arteries so your heart has to work harder than it should do at rest.
is a good time socialize
Not exactly an argument for smoking though is it? If no-one smoked, then no-one would spontaneously say "hey, let's start smoking so we can socialise"
and it is cool ;)
To smell like an ashtray and have yellow teeth and fingernails? Yeah, I bet you get a lot of respect for proving how stupid you are to the world.

Your so called 'pro' side of smoking does not exist.

It could only be considered a pro if you were aiming to get cancer, emphysema, or cardiovascular disease.

If you are, then smoke all you want, you're onto a winner!

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but I don't think anyone is making you take up smoking (and it's quite obvious where you stand). People do try to make smokers stop though (as we've seen ALL THE TIME), so I can certainly understand why people who smoke would become frustrated.

You don't sound like a jerk, but you are being a tad irrelevant.

I was just stating what I personally would and do...do.

I haven't done/said anymore (and possibly a bit less) than the people here that do smoke and are 'pro-smoking' so to speak.

You don't sound like a jerk, but you are being a tad irrelevant.

I was just stating what I personally would and do...do.

I haven't done/said anymore (and possibly a bit less) than the people here that do smoke and are 'pro-smoking' so to speak.

Oh, I wasn't talking about you in particular, but it seems like in all areas of society there are dozens of people who are more than willing to condemn smoking for every smoker who will stand up for their habit. That has got to wear on them, and while it's a more complicated issue than having a lot of people on one side and not that many on the other, it's not a smart idea to patronize the smokers, or to even try and convince them to not smoke (no one that I've ever met has tried to get me to smoke cigarettes, but I haven't met a Marlboro exec yet).

*snip*

Your so called 'pro' side of smoking does not exist.

It could only be considered a pro if you were aiming to get cancer, emphysema, or cardiovascular disease.

If you are, then smoke all you want, you're onto a winner!

Yes, that's a valid argument, the ol' NO UR STOOPID, UR ARGUMENT DOSNT COUNT stance. Haven't seen that for a while, but it was due for a comeback.

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but I don't think anyone is making you take up smoking (and it's quite obvious where you stand). People do try to make smokers stop though (as we've seen ALL THE TIME), so I can certainly understand why people who smoke would become frustrated.

Well, to be fair if you're going to make a public display of stupidity then you've got to expect people to be patronising.

You only need to be calmed because you smoke. If you didn't smoke, you would perpetually be at the level of calm gained by smoking.

I've never actually ever heard a smoker say it makes them feel good. Quite the opposite. It's more a case that not smoking makes them feel bad. Yet again, if you didn't smoke, you'd perpetually be in a state of feeling good.

When the act you perform automatically excludes 75% of the population or so from participating, I'd call that a good time to a-socialize.

Finally, no, it's not cool. It's not cool when the otherwise nicely smelling air I get to breathe is fouled by some idiot who choose to get addicted to a pesticide.

Well said.

I don't need a cigarette to feel normal. I want a cigarette because it does feel good. It is nice and relaxing, especially after a stressful day.

I just don't see the point of chasing a short-term thrill to the great detriment to the whole rest of your health, and to how you come across to others when you stink like stale fags.

It's reassuring to know that public service announcement campaigns do have some effect on the population if they are hammered into your brains for long enough.

Now if we can only start a PSA campaign to annex Canada's natural resources...

It's re-assuring to know that people are stupid enough to assume indoctrination.

I'm a student. I study chemistry. I know what most of those things do to you. I also have access to quite a lot of studies done on the matter. You can measure heart-rate before and after.

If this is propaganda, it's damn well necessary, because people like you are clearly too stupid to understand science. Or maybe, as I've seen, you're just in denial?

Yes, that's a valid argument, the ol' NO UR STOOPID, UR ARGUMENT DOSNT COUNT stance. Haven't seen that for a while, but it was due for a comeback.

What on earth are you talking about?

If you had bothered to read my post you would have seen that I gave valid reasons against each of the points put forward.

How was I saying his argument "didn't count"? I was just disproving it with valid arguments.

You might consider thinking before you post in the future.

*injects Trollgaard with arsenic*

An oxymoron.

In the short-term. In the long-term it makes you even more tense than you would have done without smoking. So you have another cigarette to relax you from the stress the previous cigarettes caused you, which later makes you more stressed as you withdraw from the nicotine.

It actually releases unecessary adrenalin into your system so you feel more tense later on, plus it narrows your arteries so your heart has to work harder than it should do at rest.

Not exactly an argument for smoking though is it? If no-one smoked, then no-one would spontaneously say "hey, let's start smoking so we can socialise"

To smell like an ashtray and have yellow teeth and fingernails? Yeah, I bet you get a lot of respect for proving how stupid you are to the world.

Your so called 'pro' side of smoking does not exist.

It could only be considered a pro if you were aiming to get cancer, emphysema, or cardiovascular disease.

If you are, then smoke all you want, you're onto a winner!

Since I smoke, I have a tolerance for arsenic, beotch!

Well its a good way to make a friend is by bumming out a cigarette. My friends and I smoke- and sometimes have deep conversations while smoking-other times we just sit and relax, or have funny conversations.

Smoking may stress you out more if you are a pack or two pack a day smoker...I smoke about 6 a day...so I don't get stressed from smoking...

Dude, the only smokers that smell like ashtrays are people who smoke about a pack a day. Sure, some of my clothes may have a slight hint of smoke on them at the end of the day-but I wash my clothes! I brush my teeth, and wash my hands....no yellow nails for me!

I don't need a cigarette to feel normal. I want a cigarette because it does feel good. It is nice and relaxing, especially after a stressful day.

Oh noez!!! You smell a bad smell for less than 30 seconds I walk by! Poor youz!

Actually, you do need a cigarette to feel normal. Try measuring your heart rate before you have a smoke. Try measuring it after. Now, if you'd measured it before you started smoking, you'll find your heart rate is lower.

If you exercise a lot, you can get your heart-rate back to normal, but if you keep smoking, you'll never get as good a heart-rate as those who exercise and don't smoke. Again, you can look up various scientific studies as proof of this. You can perform this study on yourself too.

Oh, finally, stop being childish: Oh noez!!! You can't have a smoke for the five minutes we both have to wait for the bus! Poor you!

Face it, it's more important that people don't smoke than it is that they do. I wouldn't see any reason why smoking shouldn't just be phased out - every year, make the legal age of smoking one year higher. After two-three generations, few people, if any, will be smoking anymore.

It's re-assuring to know that people are stupid enough to assume indoctrination.

I'm a student. I study chemistry. I know what most of those things do to you. I also have access to quite a lot of studies done on the matter. You can measure heart-rate before and after.

If this is propaganda, it's damn well necessary, because people like you are clearly too stupid to understand science. Or maybe, as I've seen, you're just in denial?

Well said.

Whenever anyone points out how stupid it is to smoke, the smokers come back with "Oh no, the government brainwashed you too?"

Their arguments are much more akin to
NO UR STOOPID, UR ARGUMENT DOSNT COUNT
than mine.

Well, to be fair if you're going to make a public display of stupidity then you've got to expect people to be patronising.


I try to make it a rule to expect people to be polite. I can see that you don't, and have decided to be rude in return.

I know that there is a lot of research out there about smoking, but your whole argument seems to be based on the idea that people walking by on the street (the only public place where smoking is allowed in the US these days) are going to die from second hand smoke. It takes long term exposure to second hand smoke to develop physical symptoms, not ten seconds.

I try to make it a rule to expect people to be polite. I can see that you don't, and have decided to be rude in return.

I know that there is a lot of research out there about smoking, but your whole argument seems to be based on the idea that people walking by on the street (the only public place where smoking is allowed in the US these days) are going to die from second hand smoke. It takes long term exposure to second hand smoke to develop physical symptoms, not ten seconds.

Actually, I'd just like to point out you've come across as quite rude.

I ignore people who are polite. People who choose to be rude and light up while we're waiting for the bus, however, aren't being polite, as an example.

People saying you've been indoctrinated isn't being very polite either.

There have been a number of polite smokers in this thread. If every smoker was like them, there wouldn't be this freaking issue in the first place.

Actually, you do need a cigarette to feel normal.

I can't say I know much about the medical aspect of this, but if one's most prevalent and persistent state of being and heart rate is consistently lower, but is raised when one has a cigarette, I would consider the lower heart rate and feeling normal. The effects of the cigarette would therefore be outside the norm for the individual and hence it could be argued that the people do feel normal without it and happier when they smoke. This 'normal' feeling may just be slightly worse than their previous 'normal'.

It's re-assuring to know that people are stupid enough to assume indoctrination.

I'm a student. I study chemistry. I know what most of those things do to you. I also have access to quite a lot of studies done on the matter. You can measure heart-rate before and after.

If this is propaganda, it's damn well necessary, because people like you are clearly too stupid to understand science. Or maybe, as I've seen, you're just in denial?

I guess I was making an assumption. It's kinda suspicious when you quote the same stats and reasoning of every anti-smoking campaign that I've ever seen though. Is it too much to ask for people to think for themselves?

Since I smoke, I have a tolerance for arsenic, beotch! not that much of a tolerance...

Well its a good way to make a friend is by bumming out a cigarette. My friends and I smoke- and sometimes have deep conversations while smoking-other times we just sit and relax, or have funny conversations. gee, my friends and I have deep conversations, we sit and relax and also joke around without the need to beg for cigs from strangers.

Smoking may stress you out more if you are a pack or two pack a day smoker...I smoke about 6 a day...so I don't get stressed from smoking... is that 6 PACKS a day? Just wondering :p

and query... how long have you been smoking?

I try to make it a rule to expect people to be polite. I can see that you don't, and have decided to be rude in return.

I know that there is a lot of research out there about smoking, but your whole argument seems to be based on the idea that people walking by on the street (the only public place where smoking is allowed in the US these days) are going to die from second hand smoke. It takes long term exposure to second hand smoke to develop physical symptoms, not ten seconds.

I wasn't necessarily talking about passive smoking when I said smoking was a public display of stupidity.

And I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just pointing out a fact - that smoking is a stupid thing to do, and thus, smoking is a public message that you aren't acting that cleverly.

I know that there is a lot of research out there about smoking, but your whole argument seems to be based on the idea that people walking by on the street (the only public place where smoking is allowed in the US these days) are going to die from second hand smoke. It takes long term exposure to second hand smoke to develop physical symptoms, not ten seconds.

and the point is before the bans, smoke filled bars, Pool Halls, Resturants, etc... were areas where people will be exposed to second hand smoke for long periods of time and not just the 10 seconds walking in the street which is what it is now. A good thing yes?

Your so called 'pro' side of smoking does not exist.


What on earth are you talking about?

If you had bothered to read my post you would have seen that I gave valid reasons against each of the points put forward.

How was I saying his argument "didn't count"? I was just disproving it with valid arguments.

You might consider thinking before you post in the future.

I did read the post. You gave reasons, and I appreciate that. However, theres a difference in saying that their reasoning is flawed, or that it wouldn't convince you, and saying that it doesn't exist.

and the point is before the bans, smoke filled bars, Pool Halls, Resturants, etc... were areas where people will be exposed to second hand smoke for long periods of time and not just the 10 seconds walking in the street which is what it is now. A good thing yes?

I never said it wasn't. M-mmYumyumyumYesindeed is on a crusade to end smoking everywhere, forever. I don't think that is a rational reaction to the issue.

I just don't see the point of chasing a short-term thrill to the great detriment to the whole rest of your health, and to how you come across to others when you stink like stale fags.

If I smoked a pack a day for twenty years I'd be worrying. I smoke about 6 a day, though and can be as little as 0, or as much as 10, so I don't worry about it.

And hey, I try to enjoy life. If a die a few years earlier, oh well. Who wants to be old anyway?

And as I said before, with the amount of cigarettes I smoke I don't stink. At the end of the day sometimes my clothes will have a faint smoky smell to them, but it goes away after I wash them!

I guess I was making an assumption. It's kinda suspicious when you quote the same stats and reasoning of every anti-smoking campaign that I've ever seen though. Is it too much to ask for people to think for themselves?

Have you ever considered that the anti-smoking campaigns actually give factual evidence? :p If those statistics are what smoking does to you, it shouldn't matter how many studies you do - you should find yourself neatly within that range every single time thus providing you with very similar statistics.

I'll admit that I haven't studied smoking in particular, but I can. I just don't want to, but the smell alone is enough to tell me it's bad. The fact that, from a chemical point of view, nicotine is a pesticide doesn't make it better. We know what pesticides do, they kill bugs and animals and hence can kill us too. Arsenic is a known poison. It's presence in disturbingly large numbers compared to other places (such as say, water, where yes, there is arsenic too) means that, in theory, if you smoked enough and then stopped, you'd die from your addiction to arsenic.

Those two last tidbits are pieces of information very much gathered outside of anti-smoking campaigns. The part about arsenic from Agatha Christie.

I can't say I know much about the medical aspect of this, but if one's most prevalent and persistent state of being and heart rate is consistently lower, but is raised when one has a cigarette, I would consider the lower heart rate and feeling normal. The effects of the cigarette would therefore be outside the norm for the individual and hence it could be argued that the people do feel normal without it and happier when they smoke. This 'normal' feeling may just be slightly worse than their previous 'normal'.

I'm fairly certain that it causes the heart rate to fall momentarily while smoking and then rise to a higher level after smoking, hence the addiction. I could be wrong.

I did read the post. You gave reasons, and I appreciate that. However, theres a difference in saying that their reasoning is flawed, or that it wouldn't convince you, and saying that it doesn't exist.

Having, in my opinion, disproved the pro arguments, then in my opinion there is no pro side, as there are no valid arguments.

You say you read the post, but you responded to it as if I'd only written the last sentence and hadn't written my counterarguments.

Their arguments are much more akin to
NO UR STOOPID, UR ARGUMENT DOSNT COUNT
than mine.

Hey look, they can quote me out of context too!

Having, in my opinion, disproved the pro arguments, then in my opinion there is no pro side, as there are no valid arguments.

You say you read the post, but you responded to it as if I'd only written the last sentence and hadn't written my counterarguments.

I didn't have any problems with the rest of the post. Perhaps it was a bit misleading of me to only quote the last bit of your post. Still, it was a shady tactic at best on your part to discredit the entire argument of the other side because you disagreed with them.

I never said it wasn't. M-mmYumyumyumYesindeed is on a crusade to end smoking everywhere, forever. I don't think that is a rational reaction to the issue.

Sorry?

What the hell are you on about?

Bottom line:

If you want to smoke, fine, do it in private.
It's your choice to do what you want with your own health, but not with other people's.

You're extending my argument way beyond the point to which I've argued to draw an irrational conclusion which you can thus disprove.

I may as well say that Honsria is talking crap because he is insisting that babies should be forced to smoke!


I'd really appreciate it if you didn't decide what I think for me.

Actually, you do need a cigarette to feel normal. Try measuring your heart rate before you have a smoke. Try measuring it after. Now, if you'd measured it before you started smoking, you'll find your heart rate is lower.

If you exercise a lot, you can get your heart-rate back to normal, but if you keep smoking, you'll never get as good a heart-rate as those who exercise and don't smoke. Again, you can look up various scientific studies as proof of this. You can perform this study on yourself too.

Oh, finally, stop being childish: Oh noez!!! You can't have a smoke for the five minutes we both have to wait for the bus! Poor you!


Um, no I don't. I feel just fine without a cigarette.

not that much of a tolerance...

gee, my friends and I have deep conversations, we sit and relax and also joke around without the need to beg for cigs from strangers.

is that 6 PACKS a day? Just wondering :p

and query... how long have you been smoking?

More tolerance than you!

We don't beg for cigs either. We have jobs and buy our own. I am the one usually giving away cigs.

No! 6 cigarettes a day! 6 packs would be insane!

And I have been smoking for about a year and half. Little less than that, I think.

I didn't have any problems with the rest of the post. Perhaps it was a bit misleading of me to only quote the last bit of your post. Still, it was a shady tactic at best on your part to discredit the entire argument of the other side because you disagreed with them.

I wasn't discrediting his entire argument on smoking.

He gave as many reasons as he could for why smoking was a good thing, and I provided a counterargument to each one of them.

I wasn't discrediting his entire argument based only on the "Is there a pro side to smoking?" part, I was simply discrediting the "Is there a pro side to smoking?" part.

It seems to be more of a "shady tactic at best" on your part to try and change what I said.

Um, no I don't. I feel just fine without a cigarette.

Forgive me if I continue to be extraordinarily skeptical to this.

Especially since, as I explained, you wouldn't know the difference, because you're already addicted.

Forgive me if I continue to be extraordinarily skeptical to this.

Especially since, as I explained, you wouldn't know the difference, because you're already addicted.

Lmao!

Yeah right!

I've been weeks without smoking before, and I haven't gone through withdrawls...

I'm fine buddy.

Lmao!

Yeah right!

I've been weeks without smoking before, and I haven't gone through withdrawls...

I'm fine buddy.

Glad to hear that.


But quit before it's too late!!1!!11!11!1!!!1!????!1//1//1!!??!

Lmao!

Yeah right!

I've been weeks without smoking before, and I haven't gone through withdrawls...

I'm fine buddy.

Uh huh...

A physically addictive substance with a very real reason for addiction (unlike moderate alcohol or sugar) and you're saying you're not addicted?

You sound just like my brother did a few years ago.

Glad to hear that.


But quit before it's too late!!1!!11!11!1!!!1!????!1//1//1!!??!

Nah.

I'll just stick to less than half a pack a day. (a pack of 20 cigs lasts 3ish days).

it was the norm before the law was applied. what do you think it was before such laws were put into action?

Before such laws were put into action, most establishments voluntarily allowed smoking, although many had restricted smoking and non-smoking areas.

So, once again, what makes you think it was the norm that most establishments asked customers not to smoke?

now shall we go over the differences between a business owner and their employees and a private citizen with a contract job with a business?

I don't see any relevant difference here. Smoking is not illegal. With a few obvious exceptions (basically, places where customers cannot choose not to go), there is no reason that private business owners should not be able to determine whether or not to allow smoking on their private property.

Also, it's a semi decent laxative. Learned that bit from House.

IIRC, it was the nicotine gum that was acting as a laxative, not smoking. And it was doing so because of the artificial sweetener in it.

They can't totally ban smoking in the US because

1) The tobacco companies have oodles of capital and a strong lobby. Quite a few politicians live on those contributions and wouldn't dream of endangering themselves.

2) We all know how well the war on drugs is doing...right? And we know from our history books how well prohibition worked. (I remember in 71' when the french connection came out that smack was $35 a bag and was ~5-10% pure. Now, adjusting for inflation of course, that same $35 from 1971 is about $187 today. Today, smack is $4-5 a bag and is 80-90% pure...So concidering drugs are cheaper, more potent and easier to get we can see how the War on Drugs is laughable.)

3) Too many american's depend on the Tobacco industry for their wages. Not only direct employees of the Tobacco companies, but also the tobacco bar owners and the smoking supply companies.

They can pass laws restricting it, but they wouldn't ban it outright...but concidering what they tried (and failed to learn) with booze, marijuana and even hard drugs...I guess I shouldn't be surprised if they do try banning it.

I don't see any relevant difference here. Smoking is not illegal. With a few obvious exceptions (basically, places where customers cannot choose not to go), there is no reason that private business owners should not be able to determine whether or not to allow smoking on their private property.

Okay, customers have choices but what about the works? Do we let them work in environments with health hazards? Isn't that infringing on their individual liberties if they can't get work in other places?

Ok, now all you need to do is show me the killing fields of dead waitresses from second hand smoke. They must all be buried somewhere. And to quote Doug Stanhope, if youve been a waitress for so many decades that second hand smoke is adversley affecting your health, then youve probably been dead on the inside now for a long time anyway :)

Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.

- California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005.

People die from it, why should they be exposed to it?

Okay, customers have choices but what about the works? Do we let them work in environments with health hazards? Isn't that infringing on their individual liberties if they can't get work in other places?

I've heard this argument before and it always seemed a bit slinky to me. Workers are exposed to many different sorts of dangers on a job. Construction workers can fall off roofs, businessmen can crash their cars during their commute, researchers work with carcinogens...

Hazards are an accepted part of work. You can't legislate for all of them. Why should cigarette smoke be given such high legal notoriety?

I've heard this argument before and it always seemed a bit slinky to me. Workers are exposed to many different sorts of dangers on a job. Construction workers can fall off roofs, businessmen can crash their cars during their commute, researchers work with carcinogens...

Hazards are an accepted part of work. You can't legislate for all of them. Why should cigarette smoke be given such high legal notoriety?

Generally because it doesn't have to be part of their work. To work there are certain risks that are unavoidable, this will vary from job to job however when you can protect people from unnecessary risks that have a good chance of impacting their health negatively (even if it's not death just the breathing problems that I know I get if I spend an hour in a room with more than one smoker, I don't know what most people's tolerances are, and than there are the death rates but I don't think I need to cite those). With a construction worker, measures must be taken to prevent unnecessary risks but for there job there will obviously be things that you can't legislate if you want the job done. For people working in bars/pubs/restaurants/whatever that risk doesn't need to be there so why not get rid of it?

Sorry for the block of text I'm a little tired and I tend to get a little incoherent come midnight so you might need me to clarify everything a couple time, hopefully my brain with function until I'm done my assignment, though.

I've heard this argument before and it always seemed a bit slinky to me. Workers are exposed to many different sorts of dangers on a job. Construction workers can fall off roofs, businessmen can crash their cars during their commute, researchers work with carcinogens...

Hazards are an accepted part of work. You can't legislate for all of them. Why should cigarette smoke be given such high legal notoriety?

Because it is avoidable.

Construction workers have to go up on roofs to construct them - that can't be avoided. Commuters have to commute. But we nonetheless require that construction workers be provided with hard hats, and that commuters drive under the speed limit. The rules are quite consistent - you cannot place your employees in any unnecessary risk. Cigarette smoke has long been the exception, but not in the way that you think. A restaurant owner cannot force his employees to work in a building without an adequate sprinkler system. He can't force them to work in a building where the oven leaks CO. He can't force them to work in a building where the wiring is faulty and might cause a fire. But, in many places, he can still force them to work in a building whose air is polluted with some seriously nasty stuff, provided the seriously nasty stuff comes from cigarettes.

Because it is avoidable.

Construction workers have to go up on roofs to construct them - that can't be avoided. Commuters have to commute. But we nonetheless require that construction workers be provided with hard hats, and that commuters drive under the speed limit. The rules are quite consistent - you cannot place your employees in any unnecessary risk. Cigarette smoke has long been the exception, but not in the way that you think. A restaurant owner cannot force his employees to work in a building without an adequate sprinkler system. He can't force them to work in a building where the oven leaks CO. He can't force them to work in a building where the wiring is faulty and might cause a fire. But, in many places, he can still force them to work in a building whose air is polluted with some seriously nasty stuff, provided the seriously nasty stuff comes from cigarettes.

There, what I was trying to say only this way it makes sense.

Because it is avoidable.

Construction workers have to go up on roofs to construct them - that can't be avoided. Commuters have to commute. But we nonetheless require that construction workers be provided with hard hats, and that commuters drive under the speed limit. The rules are quite consistent - you cannot place your employees in any unnecessary risk. Cigarette smoke has long been the exception, but not in the way that you think. A restaurant owner cannot force his employees to work in a building without an adequate sprinkler system. He can't force them to work in a building where the oven leaks CO. He can't force them to work in a building where the wiring is faulty and might cause a fire. But, in many places, he can still force them to work in a building whose air is polluted with some seriously nasty stuff, provided the seriously nasty stuff comes from cigarettes.

Obviously it's impossible to run a bar, club or restaurant without smoking.

I agree with you, though I do not smoke in my car so it won't lose value and I don't smoke in my apartment because it's against their policies... I can understand that they have to think about the smell of the place after I leave.

I'd just like to point out that your car and apartment are not the only things that are affected by smoke.

and it is cool ;)

If you were truly cool you'd be smoking cigars.

1) The tobacco companies have oodles of capital and a strong lobby. Quite a few politicians live on those contributions and wouldn't dream of endangering themselves.Actually, Dole lost the election against Clinton partially because he did support the tobacco industry.
3) Too many american's depend on the Tobacco industry for their wages. Not only direct employees of the Tobacco companies, but also the tobacco bar owners and the smoking supply companies.Indeed, but as with lead gas, it doesn't mean it can't be banned.

If you were truly cool you'd be smoking cigars.Pipes, man, pipes. If it was good enough for Sherlock Holmes...

:headbang::headbang:I am a smoker. Yes, we all know smoking kills and all of the other one-liners given by every single one of the non-smokers to at least 3 smokers a week. WE KNOW.Period. However, you reminding us, and banning us from everywhere is a *eh* Banning won't help, or even stop smokers. Reminding us that the smoke is slowly killing us, won't. The up-age of tax on cigarettes wont stop us either, as everyone has probably noticed. We'll still smoke, when, where, and how we want or we will decide to quit. SO, just lay off. Your wasting your breath.:headbang::headbang:

:headbang::headbang:I am a smoker. Yes, we all know smoking kills and all of the other one-liners given by every single one of the non-smokers to at least 3 smokers a week. WE KNOW.Period. However, you reminding us, and banning us from everywhere is a *eh* Banning won't help, or even stop smokers. Reminding us that the smoke is slowly killing us, won't. The up-age of tax on cigarettes wont stop us either, as everyone has probably noticed. We'll still smoke, when, where, and how we want or we will decide to quit. SO, just lay off. Your wasting your breath.:headbang::headbang:It's not supposed to help you, it's supposed to help the people who don't smoke.

Pipes, man, pipes. If it was good enough for Sherlock Holmes...

And Galdalf. *nod*

:headbang::headbang:I am a smoker. Yes, we all know smoking kills and all of the other one-liners given by every single one of the non-smokers to at least 3 smokers a week. WE KNOW.Period. However, you reminding us, and banning us from everywhere is a *eh* Banning won't help, or even stop smokers. Reminding us that the smoke is slowly killing us, won't. The up-age of tax on cigarettes wont stop us either, as everyone has probably noticed. We'll still smoke, when, where, and how we want or we will decide to quit. SO, just lay off. Your wasting your breath.:headbang::headbang:
In that case, tax cigarettes more and cut VAT. If you're going to smoke regardless, I'll be quite happy to have lower prices for what I buy.:)

Pipes, man, pipes. If it was good enough for Sherlock Holmes...

And Galdalf. *nod*

This needs its own thread, but I'm too lazy to make it.

I don't know about anyone else, but the anti-tobacco groups are really pushing it. I don't even smoke. I probably have had less than 30 cigarettes in my whole life. Only on rare occassion do I ever light up.

Who thought we'd get to a point in the USA where legislation telling people that they can't allow smoking on the property that they own would become common? People seem to have misinterpreted "public place". If there's government property that your tax dollars are going into, by all means you can ban smoking there. But a restaurant or a bar or any type of business is not "public". There are plenty of places that ban smoking. If you want clean air, go to a restaurant where the person who owns it prohibits smoking.

And now they're telling us not to smoke in our cars if there's a minor in there? You have got to be fucking shitting me.

Anti-tobacco activists need to pull their head out of their ass and realize some people are content with breathing in smoke. No one is saying it's healthy, some people just like it.

Rant over.

Ok, so you don't want to protect yourself and you feel that you have the right to impose your unhealthy behavior on a child who has no say. They didn't tell you not to smoke in your car at all, they just want you to stop when kids are present, since, it appears that most smokers lack both the common sense and courtesy to stop without being told.

First off, I find it amazing that people say they smoke yet won't smoke indoors/in their cars/at home because they don't want their furniture to smell of cigs. yet it seems they don't mind the smell on their clothes, hair and skin.

Hair and skin and clothes can be easily washed of the scent, but a car or house cannot. This would be less amazing to you if you had thought more.

Second. those ranting about the freedom of choice... you choose to smoke yet the non-smokers cannot choose to avoid your smoke without leaving.

It's kind of like how as a Jew with freedom of religion, I might have the freedom to wear a yarmulke in public. And sadly, people who hate Jews do not have the freedom to go without seeing Jews and Jewishness in public, without leaving.

Third. Those who said that smokers would gladly move if they were asked nicely. At a Casino in Vegas, a dealer asked some smokers to move to the other end of the table (downwind from her... same table, just on the other side.) no one was sitting there, and their smoke would waif away from the dealer and other players. their response? they lit up and blew their smoke at her. THEN they went to the pit boss and complained about her saying "she won't let us smoke at the table" fortunatley, I was sitting there the whole time and was more than willing to let the pitboss know what happened. so if you're pissed about the bans, then don't blame the non-smokers, but assholes like them who, so graciously complied with a request to move.

Yeah, your questionable and highly anecdotal story is sure evidence that smokers won't move if asked nicely and how that means legislation is required.

That was sarcasm by the way.

Fourth. I grew up with a heavy smoker (father) and YES, I can tell smokers by walking next to them. I can smell the smoke on their clothes, on their breath, etc. for me, however, it's not a bother, but I do know somepeople who will be affected by that.

Some people have halitosis and perfume. I can smell bad things on their breath, their clothes, etc. Now is this a call for extra legislation and diminishing personal liberty via use of government power? Or is it just a fact of life that some people should suck up and deal with, like the rest of us?

Frankly, I'm not impressed with any movement rooted in the deep political philosophy of "ew, icky!!! GO AWAY!"

It's kind of like how as a Jew with freedom of religion, I might have the freedom to wear a yarmulke in public. And sadly, people who hate Jews do not have the freedom to go without seeing Jews and Jewishness in public, without leaving.Correct me if I'm wrong, but are cigarettes not slightly more unhealthy than seeing a yarmulke?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are cigarettes not slightly more unhealthy than seeing a yarmulke?

Walking down the street, seeing someone with a cigarette or even walking near them for a few seconds is not significantly more unhealthy. At least I don't know of any health studies that were done on that kind of situation.

I mean, most anti-smokers I know of are not people who even live with a heavy smoker... they aren't at risk. So what is their main reason? "Ew, it's icky." A personal preference.

Ok, so you don't want to protect yourself and you feel that you have the right to impose your unhealthy behavior on a child who has no say. They didn't tell you not to smoke in your car at all, they just want you to stop when kids are present, since, it appears that most smokers lack both the common sense and courtesy to stop without being told.

I can't believe that it's taken this long for me to realise that utterly ridiiculous part of the OP, I can hardly believe that that's written there. And yet it is :(

Walking down the street, seeing someone with a cigarette or even walking near them for a few seconds is not significantly more unhealthy. At least I don't know of any health studies that were done on that kind of situation. Try walking behind a smoker.
I mean, most anti-smokers I know of are not people who even live with a heavy smoker... they aren't at risk. So what is their main reason? "Ew, it's icky." A personal preference.Haha. Educate yourself, please. Living with a heavy smoker is hardly the only risky situation you could get in.

Haha. Educate yourself, please. Living with a heavy smoker is hardly the only risky situation you could get in.

It's the situation that we're talking about. Try not to be so condescending.

Try walking behind a smoker.

How is that relevant to the health issue? You may as well say, "Try living in a neighborhood with Jews" for all the weight that carries.

Most smokers are stationary, too. Movement typically makes the thing burn out quicker, and most smokers you'll see are on some kind of break and tend to be clumped together chatting it up with each other.

And most people, if walking behind someone they'd rather not be, have both the free will and the physical ability to change that situation.

Haha. Educate yourself, please. Living with a heavy smoker is hardly the only risk.

It's certainly the main risk with the most research behind it, for anti-smokers. But perhaps you can give me some nice studies - educate me, in other words - about the negative health effects of walking behind a cigarette smoker.

Okay, customers have choices but what about the works? Do we let them work in environments with health hazards? Isn't that infringing on their individual liberties if they can't get work in other places?

Ah, now that's an argument that makes more sense. While I'm not sure that I agree with its conclusion, I can certainly see where it's coming from.

I would say that, if we are really going to go down that road, we would also have to outlaw smoking in your own home if you employ, for instance, a maid. That would probably be taking it a bit far.

As it stands, I still go with the argument that, as long as smoking is legal, the owner of a private establishment can determine whether or not she will allow it on her property. Now, if we wanted to mandate some level of protection for workers - perhaps a circulation system to quickly draw smoke out of the room (IIRC, they do have them) - for establishments that allow smoking, I could certainly get behind that.


Some people have halitosis and perfume. I can smell bad things on their breath, their clothes, etc. Now is this a call for extra legislation and diminishing personal liberty via use of government power? Or is it just a fact of life that some people should suck up and deal with, like the rest of us?

Frankly, I'm not impressed with any movement rooted in the deep political philosophy of "ew, icky!!! GO AWAY!"

Again, regardless of what you may think of movements to ban smoking in various areas, comparing it to bad breath or body odor simply doesn't cut it.

Perfume, on the other hand, is a possible comparison. Just like with smoke, some people have very immediate and fairly severe reactions to strong perfume.

Are those reactions enough to support legislation? Probably not. But they are something that smokers and non-smokers alike should consider. The effects that you can have on those around you are worse than "Ew, icky!!"

Again, regardless of what you may think of movements to ban smoking in various areas, comparing it to bad breath or body odor simply doesn't cut it.


Doesn't "cut it" for what? It's true. Most people are nonsmokers, and most nonsmokers simply don't like the smell. Personal preference against the smell of smoke, just like a personal preference against bad breath. I'm simply pointing out what I see as their motivation.

Perfume, on the other hand, is a possible comparison. Just like with smoke, some people have very immediate and fairly severe reactions to strong perfume.

Are those reactions enough to support legislation? Probably not. But they are something that smokers and non-smokers alike should consider. The effects that you can have on those around you are worse than "Ew, icky!!"

In all my years of smoking, I have only once been asked to refrain on the premise of asthma or similar condition.

If there were many or even any others similarly effected by my smoking, they apparently didn't care enough to communicate about it. I figure if people have a genuine concern about my smoking they'll let me know. If they don't, I figure they don't.

Doesn't "cut it" for what? It's true. Most people are nonsmokers, and most nonsmokers simply don't like the smell. Personal preference against the smell of smoke, just like a personal preference against bad breath. I'm simply pointing out what I see as their motivation.

But we aren't talking about something that is necessarily just a matter of the smell. Some of us have very strong and near-immediate physical reactions to smoke - even on someone's clothing. It can include most of the symptoms of an allergic reaction, including swelling and watering of the eyes, runny nose, sore throat, and difficulty breathing. It can trigger asthma attacks in some people.

As bad as halitosis or body odor can be, I've never heard of anyone having the type of reaction to it that I have to smoke.

In all my years of smoking, I have only once been asked to refrain on the premise of asthma or similar condition.

If there were many or even any others similarly effected by my smoking, they apparently didn't care enough to communicate about it. I figure if people have a genuine concern about my smoking they'll let me know. If they don't, I figure they don't.

If they aren't especially close to you, they probably would just try and keep away from you.

I'm not saying you should quit smoking on this basis or that the majority of people have these types of problems. I just think you should be aware that some of us do. And, for us, a comparison to body odor simply doesn't make sense. Being in close quarters with a person who is smoking or who smells heavily of smoke isn't a mere annoyance to me. Unless I've recently taken medication to avoid it (and sometimes even then), I can have a physical reaction to it that, if I don't get out of the situation quickly, can affect me for days.

But we aren't talking about something that is necessarily just a matter of the smell. Some of us have very strong and near-immediate physical reactions to smoke - even on someone's clothing. It can include most of the symptoms of an allergic reaction, including swelling and watering of the eyes, runny nose, sore throat, and difficulty breathing. It can trigger asthma attacks in some people.


We are talking about, for the majority, a matter of smell and preference.

I am rather skeptical of this severe reaction as I've never observed it, but it's clearly not something the majority of anti-smokers experience.

If they aren't especially close to you, they probably would just try and keep away from you.

I'm not saying you should quit smoking on this basis or that the majority of people have these types of problems. I just think you should be aware that some of us do. And, for us, a comparison to body odor simply doesn't make sense. Being in close quarters with a person who is smoking or who smells heavily of smoke isn't a mere annoyance to me. Unless I've recently taken medication to avoid it (and sometimes even then), I can have a physical reaction to it that, if I don't get out of the situation quickly, can affect me for days.

Some do. Most don't. So the comparison is all well and fine in a general sense, and is inapt when taking into account all the exceptions, but then get detailed enough and any analogy will fail.

More tolerance than you! growing up with second hand smoke... We could put that to a challange. :p

We don't beg for cigs either. We have jobs and buy our own. I am the one usually giving away cigs.except "Bumming off a cig" is begging a cig off a stranger. since that is the method you said you use to meet people.

So you ask people for a cig (or light) when you have one yourself?

No! 6 cigarettes a day! 6 packs would be insane! just making sure... :p it did kinda sound like you inferred packs.

And I have been smoking for about a year and half. Little less than that, I think. So not that long... (when compared to other smokers who were doing it for years on end.) ;)

Pipes, man, pipes. If it was good enough for Sherlock Holmes...

So was cocaine.

Before such laws were put into action, most establishments voluntarily allowed smoking, although many had restricted smoking and non-smoking areas.

So, once again, what makes you think it was the norm that most establishments asked customers not to smoke? before the law, the norm was that the establishment could ask people not to smoke. the "it should be up to the owner/manager" argument. there have been places where no smoking signs have been put up and there are instances where the signs were ignored. same with people asking smokers to move or to not smoke in certain areas.

that was the norm before the law. what do you think the norm was before the ban?

I don't see any relevant difference here. Smoking is not illegal. With a few obvious exceptions (basically, places where customers cannot choose not to go), there is no reason that private business owners should not be able to determine whether or not to allow smoking on their private property. and they could BEFORE the ban. just like they can refuse service for any reason. yet how many people here argued that they don't have that right?

what was that sign that got so many people riled up? this is america, order in english?

before the law, the norm was that the establishment could ask people not to smoke. the "it should be up to the owner/manager" argument. there have been places where no smoking signs have been put up and there are instances where the signs were ignored. same with people asking smokers to move or to not smoke in certain areas.

I'm sure there were sometimes rude customers who tried to ignore the rules of given establishments. I'm also sure that many of them were kicked out of said establishments.

You, however, have been asserting that the norm was that people were asked not to smoke in an establishment and continued doing it anyways and that this is why we needed the law. I see no reason to believe that is true. The law was passed because most establishments chose not to prohibit smoking and thus had to be forced to do so if restaurants, bars, etc. were going to be completely non-smoking.

and they could BEFORE the ban. just like they can refuse service for any reason. yet how many people here argued that they don't have that right?

They have had their right to make that decision taken away by laws that make the choice for them.

So, in essence, you are arguing that they don't have that right by supporting laws that force them to prohibit smoking, whether they want to or not.

I've heard this argument before and it always seemed a bit slinky to me. Workers are exposed to many different sorts of dangers on a job. Construction workers can fall off roofs, businessmen can crash their cars during their commute, researchers work with carcinogens...

Hazards are an accepted part of work. You can't legislate for all of them. Why should cigarette smoke be given such high legal notoriety?

Construction workers wear harnesses and othe safety gear.
Cars are equipped with airbags, crumple frames and other safety gear
Researchers also have safety equiptment including breathers when working with dangerous gasses, safety suits for other hazzardous materials.

in the USA, there's a little thing called OSHA (http://www.osha.gov/).

so why should cigarette smoke be ignored?

How is that relevant to the health issue? You may as well say, "Try living in a neighborhood with Jews" for all the weight that carries.

Most smokers are stationary, too. Movement typically makes the thing burn out quicker, and most smokers you'll see are on some kind of break and tend to be clumped together chatting it up with each other.

And most people, if walking behind someone they'd rather not be, have both the free will and the physical ability to change that situation. Yeah, but pushing people out of the way to get past the smoker, particularly when the sidewalk is rather crowded, is a rather assholish thing to do. Besides, wearing a yarmulke around people that hate jews is a dipshit comparison. You're not forcing the people to wear the yarmulkes because you're wearing one, are you?
It's certainly the main risk with the most research behind it, for anti-smokers. But perhaps you can give me some nice studies - educate me, in other words - about the negative health effects of walking behind a cigarette smoker.Please read what I wrote again, since you've apparently managed to misinterpret what I wrote:
Haha. Educate yourself, please. Living with a heavy smoker is hardly the only risk.I bolded the relevant sentence and underlined the relevant word for you.

In all my years of smoking, I have only once been asked to refrain on the premise of asthma or similar condition.

If there were many or even any others similarly effected by my smoking, they apparently didn't care enough to communicate about it. I figure if people have a genuine concern about my smoking they'll let me know. If they don't, I figure they don't.That's what we're doing now. Just because most non-smokers are considerate enough not to tell you to put out your cig doesn't mean it doesn't bother them.

For instance, when someone lights up in the underground in Berlin, I usually don't tell them to put it out, mainly because someone inconsiderate enough to risk a 15 € fine might just be inconsiderate enough to punch me for asking them to refrain from smoking.

I'm sure there were sometimes rude customers who tried to ignore the rules of given establishments. I'm also sure that many of them were kicked out of said establishments.

You, however, have been asserting that the norm was that people were asked not to smoke in an establishment and continued doing it anyways and that this is why we needed the law. I see no reason to believe that is true. The law was passed because most establishments chose not to prohibit smoking and thus had to be forced to do so if restaurants, bars, etc. were going to be completely non-smoking. wrong. I said the norm was that it was up to the establishment.

and as I said, that worked sooo well before those laws.

Example 1 (http://tedeboy.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/set108_07_02.jpg)

Example 2 (http://philip.greenspun.com/images/200709-istanbul/smoking-under-no-smoking-sign-1.1.jpg)

example 3 (http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/02_1/SmokingBanR_228x276.jpg)


They have had their right to make that decision taken away by laws that make the choice for them.

So, in essence, you are arguing that they don't have that right by supporting laws that force them to prohibit smoking, whether they want to or not.

no, I never said that. I said the owners had the right before the law and it did little in improving the health and welfare for both customers and workers.

wrong. I said the norm was that it was up to the establishment.

Did you? Then why exactly did you try and claim that the law was necessary because rude smokers wouldn't quit when asked by the establishment?

and as I said, that worked sooo well before those laws.

Depends on what you mean by "worked". It certainly didn't mean that most establishments completely prohibited smoking.

Example 1 (http://tedeboy.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/set108_07_02.jpg)

Example 2 (http://philip.greenspun.com/images/200709-istanbul/smoking-under-no-smoking-sign-1.1.jpg)

example 3 (http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/02_1/SmokingBanR_228x276.jpg)

Cute! You found pictures of people breaking rules! That never happens, right?

And I'm sure no one tries to light up in places now that they are legally required to prohibit it instead of choosing for themselves, right? Sort of like how nobody speeds, or jaywalks, or listens to loud music after hours.

no, I never said that. I said the owners had the right before the law and it did little in improving the health and welfare for both customers and workers.

In other words, the results you are looking for is that all establishments prohibit smoking. You are saying that the owners of the establishments do not have the right to make that decision for themselves, and that they must be forced by the law to prohibit smoking.

If you were truly cool you'd be smoking cigars.

I smoke those occasionaly.

Pipes, man, pipes. If it was good enough for Sherlock Holmes...

I also have a pipe, and smoke it every so often.
growing up with second hand smoke... We could put that to a challange. :p

:)

except "Bumming off a cig" is begging a cig off a stranger. since that is the method you said you use to meet people. Well, what I meant was giving out cigs when people ask for one when you are out smoking. I've met some cool people that way

So you ask people for a cig (or light) when you have one yourself? No. I meant, as a said above, I'll give out cigarettes to people who ask to bum one.

just making sure... :p it did kinda sound like you inferred packs. 6 packs a day would be too expensive, and not fun to go through...

So not that long... (when compared to other smokers who were doing it for years on end.) ;)

Its not that long, I guess.

So was cocaine.

And he was an extremely productive member of society.

And he was an extremely productive member of society.Many fictional members of society are.

A possible solution:
If necessary remove the bans.
increase the cost of tobacco products by 50% immediately, and then introduce a forced increase of 20%+CPI every year. - and make patches and other items used to quit free from government sources.

Within a few years almost everyone will have quit - then we can put the ban back if it had to be removed.

That's what we're doing now. Just because most non-smokers are considerate enough not to tell you to put out your cig doesn't mean it doesn't bother them.

Right. It's so dangerous, it'll kill us all, help help and it smells... but we're too considerate to mention it.

That's not consideration. That's simple stupidity and lack of communication. Apparently it's not that important or dangerous or whatever, or they'd get over being shy.

For instance, when someone lights up in the underground in Berlin, I usually don't tell them to put it out, mainly because someone inconsiderate enough to risk a 15 € fine might just be inconsiderate enough to punch me for asking them to refrain from smoking.

Yeah, now the smokers are all potentially violent criminals. Commit one crime, might commit another! You know, maybe we're Nazis too... someone inconsiderate enough to punch you just might kill a few million people in concentration camps!

Yeah, but pushing people out of the way to get past the smoker, particularly when the sidewalk is rather crowded, is a rather assholish thing to do.

You could stop walking for a few goddam seconds.

Or cross the street.

You don't have to push people away either.

You're just making up bullshit here, like apparently there's just NO choice and NOTHING anyone can do if there's a smoker in front of you. Help, my feet won't stop moving. Cry me a river.

Besides, wearing a yarmulke around people that hate jews is a dipshit comparison. You're not forcing the people to wear the yarmulkes because you're wearing one, are you?

I'm forcing people to perceive through their senses (visual) something (Jew, icky!) they find offensive. Similar to perceiving through your senses (olfactory) something (ew, icky!) you find offensive. I don't think that's a dipshit comparison.

A possible solution:
If necessary remove the bans.
increase the cost of tobacco products by 50% immediately, and then introduce a forced increase of 20%+CPI every year. - and make patches and other items used to quit free from government sources.

Within a few years almost everyone will have quit - then we can put the ban back if it had to be removed.

If you did that I, along with many others, would buy smuggled cigars; then you would not get a damned penny!