NationStates Jolt Archive

South Park prehaps says it best... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adFMLiQUJNI&feature=related)

I find it amusing that the people who are all about tolerating people's life choices are so quick to lay the hate on smokers by promoting bans all over creation... Honestly, people, banning it airplanes and public transport is one thing, banning it in bars and resturants is another. It's a funny thing, consumer choice... If you don't like the policies of a select resturant and bar, DON'T GO THERE! If you like the food too much to stop going, then act like an adult and suck it up.

Some crackpot "scientist" claims that second hand smoke is bad for you based off of questionable findings and suddenly, cigarettes are public enemy number one.... I don't question the fact that smoking is bad for the individual doing it, but it's for the individual to decide... Not the government.

Rant over.

whine

Awwww... does somebody need to call the waaaaaambulance?

Awwww... does somebody need to call the waaaaaambulance?

No, but if people keep smoking around me I may need an actual one. For medical emergencies.

Of the lungs.

Awwww... does somebody need to call the waaaaaambulance?


High school called, it wants its joke back.

i dunno but since my sister finally quit smoking (chantix is a miracle drug) im happy to not have to put up wiht smoke any more

but yeah, i see no reason not to allow smoking sections in restaurants with good ventilation requirements.

High school called, it wants its joke back.

Creationism called, they want their crackpot scientists back

Creationism called, they want their crackpot scientists back

....Beautiful, now this is going to turn into a creation vs evolution thread.

Funny you should pick the Panda...

The Panda is one of the more stupid and stubborn creatures in this world, one that would have been extinct ages ago if there was only a decent predator around. They're not meant to eat bamboo and only sit around doing bugger all in the heat eating all day because they need to eat a vast amount to gain any real nutrition. They're far more suited to rock and ice, hence their camouflage, and a diet of fish and small animals.

Yet no, too stupid and lazy to go up the mountain as the ice receded, better to sit on their fat asses and turn to bamboo as their sole form of sustenance, sitting in their stubborn, stupid ways as an insult to evolution. They are nature's recipients of the Darwin Award.

Similar with smokers, despite all the evidence showing the harm it causes to you, your offspring and those around you, let alone the smell, which smokers really don't get but is painfully obvious to others, you sit in your stubborn ways and demand the right to smoke as you desire.

I, for one, welcome the no-smoking in public rules, I love the fact that HK has enforced this.

Want to ruin your health? Do it in your own time and space please.

High school called, it wants its joke back.

I never heard a waaaaambulance reference in high school.

No matter the joke, you appear to be in need of said emergency vehicle.

Frankly, I support smoking bans in government facilities and hospitals. Beyond that, it should be left up to the establishment whether or not they want to allow smoking in their facilities. I personally like not always being surrounded by cigarette smoke, especially during meals, which means I'm inclined to choose places that don't allow smoking indoors.

Speaking as a fellow smoker, I personally find it rather sad that anyone needs to smoke so badly that they can't have a meal or a drink without a cigarette. I can do so without difficulty, and if you cannot it's a pretty damn good sign it might be time to cut back.

And let's not get in to the health aspects of smoking. We know it's dangerous, but we enjoy it and do it anyway. If we want to quit, we will, but a lot of people just plain don't want to...not that we're in "denial" or "hopelessly addicted", we just like to smoke. In terms of the risk involved, it's little different from people who binge drink, sleep around, race cars, climb mountains or eat fast food despite the clear and present health risks included in every activity. Truth be told, I personally enjoy smoking and I'd rather do something I enjoy than constantly live in fear and worry about what medical condition will threaten me next. Barring a medical miracle, we're all going to be dead anyways.

South Park prehaps says it best... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adFMLiQUJNI&feature=related)

I find it amusing that the people who are all about tolerating people's life choices are so quick to lay the hate on smokers by promoting bans all over creation... Honestly, people, banning it airplanes and public transport is one thing, banning it in bars and resturants is another. It's a funny thing, consumer choice... If you don't like the policies of a select resturant and bar, DON'T GO THERE! If you like the food too much to stop going, then act like an adult and suck it up.

Some crackpot "scientist" claims that second hand smoke is bad for you based off of questionable findings and suddenly, cigarettes are public enemy number one.... I don't question the fact that smoking is bad for the individual doing it, but it's for the individual to decide... Not the government.

Rant over.

Sorry, but when in public, and your "right" to smoke infringes upon anothers right to a healthy life, you should expect to be asked to refrain your habit until you're in your own home.

I cannot stand others smoke when I'm dining or drinking. Not only does it spoil the taste of my meal, it doesn't help my asthma, and it's just simply unpleasant.

You can easily go to a resteraunt or bar, have a drink and/or meal without smoking, then puff away all you like when you get home.

It's not as easy for me to filter out all your emissions, except with perhaps a gas mask.

Funny you should pick the Panda...

The Panda is one of the more stupid and stubborn creatures in this world, one that would have been extinct ages ago if there was only a decent predator around. They're not meant to eat bamboo and only sit around doing bugger all in the heat eating all day because they need to eat a vast amount to gain any real nutrition. They're far more suited to rock and ice, hence their camouflage, and a diet of fish and small animals.

Yet no, too stupid and lazy to go up the mountain as the ice receded, better to sit on their fat asses and turn to bamboo as their sole form of sustenance, sitting in their stubborn, stupid ways as an insult to evolution. They are nature's recipients of the Darwin Award.

Similar with smokers, despite all the evidence showing the harm it causes to you, your offspring and those around you, let alone the smell, which smokers really don't get but is painfully obvious to others, you sit in your stubborn ways and demand the right to smoke as you desire.

I, for one, welcome the no-smoking in public rules, I love the fact that HK has enforced this.

Want to ruin your health? Do it in your own time and space please.

It's a South Park quote, actually... I don't think they let pandas into graduate school.

Well, if a bar owner says I can do it in his space... I should be allowed to do so. Places where non-smokers cannot avoid going is fine, but private resturants and bars is a different story. If they say people can't smoke in private bars and resturants, then the next thing on the agenda is to ban it in private homes.

Besides the science, if you can call it that, behind second hand smoke is shakey at best. People act as if cigarette smoke is the only way to get lung cancer.

Some crackpot "scientist" claims that second hand smoke is bad for you based off of questionable findings and suddenly, cigarettes are public enemy number one.

Not to quibble, but Bullshit with Penn&Teller did one about secondhand smoke, and they dismissed secondhand smoke as well.

However, later after further research, they rescinded that point and acknowledged that second-hand smoke does actually do statistically significant stuff.


EDIT: I would like to add, however, that I am vehemently against smoking bans.

People who don't know how to properly record TV/Movies off of their TV (hint, you don't use a cam-corder) makes me a sad Wilgrove.

Sorry, but when in public, and your "right" to smoke infringes upon anothers right to a healthy life, you should expect to be asked to refrain your habit until you're in your own home.

I cannot stand others smoke when I'm dining or drinking. Not only does it spoil the taste of my meal, it doesn't help my asthma, and it's just simply unpleasant.

You can easily go to a resteraunt or bar, have a drink and/or meal without smoking, then puff away all you like when you get home.

It's not as easy for me to filter out all your emissions, except with perhaps a gas mask.

If you don't like places that allow smoking, don't go to them... Consumer choice wins again!

Sorry, but when in public, and your "right" to smoke infringes upon anothers right to a healthy life, you should expect to be asked to refrain your habit until you're in your own home.

I cannot stand others smoke when I'm dining or drinking. Not only does it spoil the taste of my meal, it doesn't help my asthma, and it's just simply unpleasant.

You can easily go to a resteraunt or bar, have a drink and/or meal without smoking, then puff away all you like when you get home.

It's not as easy for me to filter out all your emissions, except with perhaps a gas mask.

Since when is one right more important than the other?

I really don't mind destroying my own health. I smoke a lot, I drink far too much, and I do a fair amount of drugs, before I met my current BF I slept around, I drive too fast, and I listen to music far too loud. I have a fairly healthy (lawl) self-destructive streak. I'm the sort of girl your dad would kill you for going near. But, fuck it, I enjoy myself.

No way am I going to force anybody else to enjoy myself. If someone works in a bar then they shouldn't have to deal with my smoke, I have no problem with going outside.

If you don't like places that allow smoking, don't go to them... Consumer choice wins again!

I am not going to be restricted from eating and drinking where I choose just because a smoker can't summon the willpower to go through a meal or a night out with the guys without a smoke.

Of course, this is coming from a Scot who lives in a country with an enclosed public space smoking ban.

So really I don't have to worry too much about smokers, except when I go abroad. However, I'd press for similiar bans across Europe.

No need to start cursing, Maekir... Though I thank you for taking my side, let's not make this personal.

I really don't mind destroying my own health. I smoke a lot, I drink far too much, and I do a fair amount of drugs, before I met my current BF I slept around, I drive too fast, and I listen to music far too loud. I have a fairly healthy (lawl) self-destructive streak. I'm the sort of girl your dad would kill you for going near. But, fuck it, I enjoy myself.

No way am I going to force anybody else to enjoy myself. If someone works in a bar then they shouldn't have to deal with my smoke, I have no problem with going outside.

Exactly.

Since when is one right more important than the other?

...when your 'right' causes harm and/or discomfort to another, that's when.

It's my right to enjoy torturing people, it's your right not to be tortured - guess who wins when I shove a red hot poker up your ass.

Well, the US military wins I guess but that's another subject... :)

I find it amusing that the people who are all about tolerating people's life choices are so quick to lay the hate on smokers by promoting bans all over creation... Honestly, people, banning it airplanes and public transport is one thing, banning it in bars and resturants is another.

Most lifestyle choices don't force others to deal with the consequences. I don't want to have to smell the stench of your smoke from across the restaurant when I'm enjoying a night out. I don't want to have my hair and clothes smell like smoke when I come back from a bar, I don't want to risk getting burnt by cigarettes crossing a dance floor.

It's a funny thing, consumer choice... If you don't like the policies of a select resturant and bar, DON'T GO THERE! If you like the food too much to stop going, then act like an adult and suck it up.

The thing is that before smoking was banned in restaurants and bars with legislation, no place would ban it in their establishment because it would deter some customers. Who is going to get more business, the place where everyone can go and do whatever (even if some of the people have to put up with the fact that they'll stink later) or the place where only non-smokers who have all non-smoking friends will go?

Some crackpot "scientist" claims that second hand smoke is bad for you based off of questionable findings and suddenly, cigarettes are public enemy number one.... I don't question the fact that smoking is bad for the individual doing it, but it's for the individual to decide... Not the government.

Yeah, the individual can decide to slowly kill themselves while they sit outside a minimum of 10 metres away from the door.

...when your 'right' causes harm and/or discomfort to another, that's when.

Discomfort to another? Let's ban farting in public then... The smell makes me uncomfortable.

Where did my last post go?

Discomfort to another? Let's ban farting in public then... The smell makes me uncomfortable.
Farting isn't much of a choice, smoking is.

...when your 'right' causes harm and/or discomfort to another, that's when.

Hey, if people are stupid enough to not realize that they can go to a different resturant or bar that either has a seperate smoking section or no smoking at all, then let's just say the gene pool is being cleaned. *nod*

Hey, if people are stupid enough to not realize that they can go to a different resturant or bar that either has a seperate smoking section or no smoking at all, then let's just say the gene pool is being cleaned. *nod*

Smoking sections did nothing to keep the smoke on the other side of the room.

The only smoking sections that were any good were the ones that had the smokers in a fishbowl with a separate ventilation system... those were funny and disgusting to look at.

And hey, if smokers are too stupid to start up clubs that charge membership fees but are really effectively bars that circumvent the law (especially when membership fees include coupons good for a free drink of the same price) then they're too stupid to smoke in public.

The thing is that before smoking was banned in restaurants and bars with legislation, no place would ban it in their establishment because it would deter some customers. Who is going to get more business, the place where everyone can go and do whatever (even if some of the people have to put up with the fact that they'll stink later) or the place where only non-smokers who have all non-smoking friends will go?


Not necessarily true... Even if it was, non-smokers could make a non-smoker club... That would be easy enough to do.

However, if a smoker opened up a smoker club where only smokers can go... The government would shut that place down in a New York minute.

Discomfort to another? Let's ban farting in public then... The smell makes me uncomfortable.

Does it make you sick, or cause potentially lasting damage to your health? If so, feel free to throw that farter out, and send him off home, so he can fart as much as he likes. Not that farting is particularly non-compulsary.

Also, I wouldn't thank such a rude, and stupid person simply for taking your side. He doesn't deserve any recognition if all he can do is insult, rather than debate reasonably.

Hey, if people are stupid enough to not realize that they can go to a different resturant or bar that either has a seperate smoking section or no smoking at all, then let's just say the gene pool is being cleaned. *nod*

The argument, frankly, has nothing to do with customers; it has everything to do with staff.

In an ideal world, the staff would be free to work wherever they wanted without the threat of inhaling smoke.

We don't live in an ideal world, unfortunately people end up having, against their every wish, to work in a bar, a restaurant, or a pub. They could be unable to find another job that they can fit around their university timetable, or maybe they can't find another job that can be accomodating towards raising their child. Surely they deserve to not have to inhale carconigenic smoke just because they were unable to find another job? Are we to punish them for not just giving up and claiming benefits off the government?

And I think I've made it fairly clear where on the "how much you can screw yourself over if you want, it's your body after all" scale I stand.

Snip
Want to ruin your health? Do it in your own time and space please.
It IS the owners of the bars space and time ... its their private property

Dont get me wrong the effect is nice to not have to be annoyed with the smell going downtown but thats not enough to overcome the dislike for restricting what people allow on their own private property

The argument, frankly, has nothing to do with customers; it has everything to do with staff.

Indeed, I think court cases were instrumental in having this law in place where it is in place.

Not necessarily true... Even if it was, non-smokers could make a non-smoker club... That would be easy enough to do.

The thing is that there's usually at least one smoker in any sufficiently large group of friends... and until the legislation here was put in place, everyone else had to put up with what the one smoker wanted for the sake of going out. Now we don't have that.

However, if a smoker opened up a smoker club where only smokers can go... The government would shut that place down in a New York minute.

There are smoking clubs. It's like a bar, but you pay a "membership fee" and with your membership package, you get a free drink (which is the same cost as your membership anyways). It can be claimed to be a private club, so smoking is allowed.

And it's funny that smokers aren't really so determined to smoke indoors afterall and are generally happy going outside for their smokes.

And hey, if smokers are too stupid to start up clubs that charge membership fees but are really effectively bars that circumvent the law (especially when membership fees include coupons good for a free drink of the same price) then they're too stupid to smoke in public.

Shoot, why not just designate certain times when smoking is allowed? I'm pretty sure it would satisfy both sides, or at least the moderate people on both sides.

It's a terrible habit, but it's the choice of the smoker, not of the government. If someone's too dumb to ignore the myriad of health issues, that's their problem, not ours, but like you said, when you do it in an airplane it's just annoying and damaging to others.

And just when I thought the topics on these forums couldn't get any drier and/or more repetitive...

Farting isn't much of a choice, smoking is.

polite people go where they cant be smelled to do either.

Does it make you sick, or cause potentially lasting damage to your health? If so, feel free to throw that farter out, and send him off home.

Also, I wouldn't thank such a rude, and stupid person simply for taking your side. He doesn't deserve any recognition if all he can do is insult, rather than debate reasonably.


It's a potential fire hazard.

I don't support him cussing you out... That was totally wrong. But at the same time I don't totally alienate people on my side... Especially in an argument where I seem to be one of the only ones in favor of individual liberty.

Indeed, I think court cases were instrumental in having this law in place where it is in place.

In fact, I'm fairly certain that in the UK the legislation came about almost as a direct consequence of employee health and safety legislation (the Health and Safety Act 1974 the most obvious, and most important) being ruled upon in the various courts.

Those who say "if you don't like the smoke, find another job" are, in my eyes, not very much removed from the Victorian factory owners who said "if you don't like the smoke, find another job."

Shoot, why not just designate certain times when smoking is allowed? I'm pretty sure it would satisfy both sides, or at least the moderate people on both sides.
Why would that satisfy anyone? So I can only go to the bar around noon... omg, I totally think that would be awesome, drinking in the middle of the work day and then at home if I want to drink later.

How does this satisfy the employees who work in the bar either?

The thing is that before smoking was banned in restaurants and bars with legislation, no place would ban it in their establishment because it would deter some customers. Who is going to get more business, the place where everyone can go and do whatever (even if some of the people have to put up with the fact that they'll stink later) or the place where only non-smokers who have all non-smoking friends will go?

That's kind of funny, you do know there are a lot of different restaurants in the world? I'm sure the cunning businessman could own one where there's no smoking permitted, while the other cunning businessman down the way allows smoking in his establishment. That is catering to the needs of the consumer and making money from it. I can think of plenty of places that banned smoking before the legislation was adopted in this state and they thrived.

The owner owns the business, he should run it as he sees fit.

The argument, frankly, has nothing to do with customers; it has everything to do with staff.

In an ideal world, the staff would be free to work wherever they wanted without the threat of inhaling smoke.

We don't live in an ideal world, unfortunately people end up having, against their every wish, to work in a bar, a restaurant, or a pub. They could be unable to find another job that they can fit around their university timetable, or maybe they can't find another job that can be accomodating towards raising their child. Surely they deserve to not have to inhale carconigenic smoke just because they were unable to find another job? Are we to punish them for not just giving up and claiming benefits off the government?
What about other jobs that have a high risk situations associated with them (higher then average not unreasonable)

In the end the people who choose to work in such a place make that choice

As much as we would like the world to be fair and level to all removing the freedom of some people to make up for the potential problems of people finding employment seems to be a non ideal solution

Maybe the public or the owners of the bars that allow smoking should be required to help employees that choose to not work in a smoking bar for health reasons find new jobs elsewhere

I mean, I totally see the side of the smokers here...

And now if we could just get those damned non-drunk drivers off the road so that the drunk ones wouldn't kill any of them!

The thing is that there's usually at least one smoker in any sufficiently large group of friends... and until the legislation here was put in place, everyone else had to put up with what the one smoker wanted for the sake of going out. Now we don't have that.



There are smoking clubs. It's like a bar, but you pay a "membership fee" and with your membership package, you get a free drink (which is the same cost as your membership anyways). It can be claimed to be a private club, so smoking is allowed.

And it's funny that smokers aren't really so determined to smoke indoors afterall and are generally happy going outside for their smokes.

If someone owns the land, it's private property... A person shouldn't have to pay a monthly fee to smoke inside a club if the owner says flat out that it's geared towards smokers.

Um, have you ever lived in a lovely state called Wisconsin where it gets below zero in the winter? I did my undergraduate studies up there... It isn't fun having to risk frostbite simply because someone doesn't like the smell of cigarette smoke.

What about other jobs that have a high risk situations associated with them (higher then average not unreasonable)

In the end the people who choose to work in such a place make that choice

As much as we would like the world to be fair and level to all removing the freedom of some people to make up for the potential problems of people finding employment seems to be a non ideal solution

Maybe the public or the owners of the bars that allow smoking should be required to help employees that choose to not work in a smoking bar for health reasons find new jobs elsewhere

No, no you don't understand. I regularly force people at gunpoint to work at unfavorable places. I think it is delightful sport. In fact, this afternoon, I abducted a family of four and forced to work in the local coal mine! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

I really don't mind destroying my own health. I smoke a lot, I drink far too much, and I do a fair amount of drugs, before I met my current BF I slept around, I drive too fast, and I listen to music far too loud. I have a fairly healthy (lawl) self-destructive streak. I'm the sort of girl your dad would kill you for going near. But, fuck it, I enjoy myself.

No way am I going to force anybody else to enjoy myself. If someone works in a bar then they shouldn't have to deal with my smoke, I have no problem with going outside.

See, I'm from California. Everyone I know in my generation who smokes takes it as a matter of course that it's something they go outside to do. Sometimes it is used by people at a party or just hanging out with a group of people as an excuse to have a more private discussion. The idea of smoking in a restaurant is an alien concept to people I know.

Why would that satisfy anyone? So I can only go to the bar around noon... omg, I totally think that would be awesome, drinking in the middle of the work day and then at home if I want to drink later.

How does this satisfy the employees who work in the bar either?

It's most likely the smoking times would be designated as the least busy, like during the day. A lot of people who smoke are probably not going to have a problem with doing so outside, leaving only a few hardcore types to do so indoors. Chances are, those types are the ones most likely to be long-term customers, allowing them to retain that business without posing a real challenge to the rest of their operations.

That being said, I think it would be up to the business to determine how to handle the employee aspect.

Snip

And it's funny that smokers aren't really so determined to smoke indoors afterall and are generally happy going outside for their smokes.

Tell that too all the people freezing their ass off outside of bars when it is -40 F up here

Glad its not me

Given legality, heroin is less addictive and less dangerous than nicotine - it's the illegal lifestyle that kills with heroin, smoking is legal, more harmful yet socially acceptable.

Want the choice to do what you want? I fully support you, smoke away - but please don't infringe on everyone's right to not have to deal with the byproduct of your habits.

I'd love to see the reaction of people where a chemical factory is plopped next to their house, all sorts of rights would be called for then. Smoking turns you into an individual chemical factory, keep it away from the public.

Most smokers I know are fine, even appreciate smoke free restaurants and bars, they can pop out in a small group and there's a bonding. I used to smoke and remember popping out the office with others to gossip and catch up, take a break from the day.

Look at the advantages of no-smoking, a total excuse to leave work for 10 minutes, to leave a boring debate at dinner.

No one needs to smoke in a bar, and many people don't enjoy it when you do.

Someone brought up farting, well it's polite not to fart in company, people don't, why smokers feel they have some special exemption...

What about other jobs that have a high risk situations associated with them (higher then average not unreasonable)

In the end the people who choose to work in such a place make that choice

As much as we would like the world to be fair and level to all removing the freedom of some people to make up for the potential problems of people finding employment seems to be a non ideal solution


When you say what you have said in your post you ignore the realities of life. Sometimes people have to take jobs against their better judgement because they have to have money coming in. In the UK you can't get unemployment benefit if you are at university; as a result many students take jobs in bars because that's all they can get that will fit around their university timetable.

They haven't chosen to take those jobs; they have had to take those jobs, because they were all that they could get that would work out for them.

I pick students as an example because it's an obvious example, and it illustrates my point. The same can apply to the unqualified who simply can't find another job because there are no others going. Even the qualified who end up doing such jobs because there are no others going.

You seem to live in some idealised world where there are plenty of choices of jobs for all and nobody gets into a job just because it's their only way of making money, and they have no options for moving to another job.

Maybe the public or the owners of the bars that allow smoking should be required to help employees that choose to not work in a smoking bar for health reasons find new jobs elsewhere

So essentially your plan is that the owners and patrons of smoking bars should be required to help people who decide not to work in said bars for health reasons, even when it was their last resort, find a job?

Or to freeze your ass off in the middle of the winter if you live in the upper midwest like I used to...

SNip

Someone brought up farting, well it's polite not to fart in company, people don't, why smokers feel they have some special exemption...
What? Thats a horrible analogy

People fart in public all the time ... it may be looked down upon but they do and its not illegal like smoking is in many places

I fail how they are seeking any exemption they are not asking for it to not be frowned upon like farting in public

Most smokers I know are fine, even appreciate smoke free restaurants and bars, they can pop out in a small group and there's a bonding. I used to smoke and remember popping out the office with others to gossip and catch up, take a break from the day.

Look at the advantages of no-smoking, a total excuse to leave work for 10 minutes, to leave a boring debate at dinner.

No one needs to smoke in a bar, and many people don't enjoy it when you do.

To be honest, I've found that food and drink (with the exception of coffee, mysteriously) just plain don't taste as good when combined with tobacco. The smell of stale smoke doesn't help either so it's really the best for everyone involved if smoking is relegated to outside or somewhere where it won't affect other patrons.

Smoking bans make me a sad panda, too.

Smoking before and after a meal is so damn satisfying...

When you say what you have said in your post you ignore the realities of life. Sometimes people have to take jobs against their better judgement because they have to have money coming in. In the UK you can't get unemployment benefit if you are at university; as a result many students take jobs in bars because that's all they can get that will fit around their university timetable.

They haven't chosen to take those jobs; they have had to take those jobs, because they were all that they could get that would work out for them.

I pick students as an example because it's an obvious example, and it illustrates my point. The same can apply to the unqualified who simply can't find another job because there are no others going. Even the qualified who end up doing such jobs because there are no others going.

You seem to live in some idealised world where there are plenty of choices of jobs for all and nobody gets into a job just because it's their only way of making money, and they have no options for moving to another job.

People take all kinds of jobs sure some are riskier then others some are not

It would be nice if the world was all fair and level but it is not, I have worked dangerous jobs for the money in the past and would again if push came to shove but it was my choice to do such reguardless of the pressures forcing me to do so

Restricting freedoms to bring everyone down to a restricted state just to level the playing field specially when it is on non public property seems like a bad idea to me


So essentially your plan is that the owners and patrons of smoking bars should be required to help people who decide not to work in said bars for health reasons, even when it was their last resort, find a job?

Possibly a lot of the local bars had been doing that for years around here of their own volition

Smoking before and after a meal is so damn satisfying...

Okay, now that I can agree with. Nothing better than that relaxing one right after a good meal, especially if the weather cooperates and it's one of those great nights for just kicking back.

Well, anyway, I have to finish up some of my notes and get out of my office... Campus Safety is starting to get pissy at me. Afterwards, hey, the smoking hours for bars are in effect... I think I'll go to a bar and light up next to some non-smokers and hope they show a strong amount of visible discomfort.

What? Thats a horrible analogy

People fart in public all the time ... it may be looked down upon but they do and its not illegal like smoking is in many places

I fail how they are seeking any exemption they are not asking for it to not be frowned upon like farting in public

It is a horrible analogy but most people know that farts tend not to smell so great and, when in company, they'll move away.

Yet with smoking, people seem to not care at all, they'll smoke away in public next to people they don't really know when the effects are far worse.

Most smokers I know move away as well, even in the days when smoking was allowed in restaurants, most of my friends would leave the table.

Some people refuse to, some people think it's their right to smoke anywhere they damn well please, I'd say it's these people most smokers should be pissed off with since they screw things up for the others.

I doubt most people would mind the occasional smoke for convenience, I rarely stop someone when they ask, but those who just don't care tend to taint the entire lot.

Well, anyway, I have to finish up some of my notes and get out of my office... Campus Safety is starting to get pissy at me. Afterwards, hey, the smoking hours for bars are in effect... I think I'll go to a bar and light up next to some non-smokers and hope they show a strong amount of visible discomfort.

Wow. That's just actively pursuing an agenda to infringe upon their right to a healthy life, and a good night out. I have to say you're really not helping your case at all with this little closing statement.

To be honest, I've found that food and drink (with the exception of coffee, mysteriously) just plain don't taste as good when combined with tobacco. The smell of stale smoke doesn't help either so it's really the best for everyone involved if smoking is relegated to outside or somewhere where it won't affect other patrons.

A different, yet quite important angle on the issue. If I'm going to spend the money to go out to eat, I want the food to actually taste as good as possible.

Not to mention the fact that a lot of smoke in the air makes my nose run and having a runny nose dulls my sense of taste.

Well, anyway, I have to finish up some of my notes and get out of my office... Campus Safety is starting to get pissy at me. Afterwards, hey, the smoking hours for bars are in effect... I think I'll go to a bar and light up next to some non-smokers and hope they show a strong amount of visible discomfort.

Wow. What a dick.

right to a healthy life

What a wonderful argument. After we ban smoking, we can do cars and buildings over three stories tall.

I'm just imagining all the things that infringe my right to a healthy life.

Come to think of it, the whole lot of you can turn out to have your lives confiscated, since you're making me want to puke.

A different, yet quite important angle on the issue. If I'm going to spend the money to go out to eat, I want the food to actually taste as good as possible.

Not to mention the fact that a lot of smoke in the air makes my nose run and having a runny nose dulls my sense of taste.

Save it for before or after, IMHO. I for one don't light up at all during a meal, as mentioned before both out of courtesy and out of a desire to make my food taste as good as possible. Tobacco tastes good, but not when combined with food.

Well, anyway, I have to finish up some of my notes and get out of my office... Campus Safety is starting to get pissy at me. Afterwards, hey, the smoking hours for bars are in effect... I think I'll go to a bar and light up next to some non-smokers and hope they show a strong amount of visible discomfort.

On occasion, I think every smoker finds a small amount of dark hearted joy from watching non-smokers become uncomfortable around smoke. I know I have, and probably will in the future- usually to people who were dicks to me, or when I'm generally in an angry mood.

Though if I'm an a restaurant that allows smoking, I'll smoke. Period.

Especially places like IHOP and Waffle House that are open all night. Going out with some buddies and grabbing a snack and spending an hour or so talking and smoking is really fun.

I think South Park said it best, lol...

I never actually smoke unless im at a party or something, but those still get on my nerves, its bullshit...

Its all about getting government grants anyway...vultures...

Yeah, well good for whoever made the smoking ban. Seriously, ever thought about quitting or at least smoking at home where other people aren't as affected?

If you quit soon, you'll live a lot longer. =)

If you quit soon, you'll live a lot longer. =)

Yeah, but then ill have to read more of your posts, and who really wants that?

one question for all you smokers out there. Why do you smoke? I mean I've tried it once and it did nothing at all for me plus it will kill you eventually so . . .why?

one question for all you smokers out there. Why do you smoke? I mean I've tried it once and it did nothing at all for me plus it will kill you eventually so . . .why?

For me it has one effect that has several uses...It clears the mind, like, whatever chemical makes you worried or depressed or angry, i think it replaces it with Nicotine...

So, you can relax, or concentrate better, or whatever else requires a clear head...

thats just me though...

EDIT: Besides its not very likely to kill you if you only smoke like once or twice a month like me, I dont habitually smoke...

[I find it amusing that the people who are all about tolerating people's life choices are so quick to lay the hate on smokers by promoting bans all over creation...

Do you support the right to cut oneself ? Or to have unprotected sex with strangers ?
Yes ?
Do you support the right to cut oneself or to have unprotected sex with strangers in public ? You know, in places where kiddies can see it being done ?
No ?

Voila. Just think of the children. There is no need to let them see adults do things that can be harmful to themselves - especially since they might start to copy the behaviour.

*yawn*

So, there's this crazy idea out there that employers shouldn't be able to subject their employees to unnecessary health risks. You can't keep the temperature in your office below freezing, even if you think it's comfortable that way. You can't make your employees work in a building with a CO leak. You can't let the premises get overrun with rats, even if your customers really like rats. It's your property, and your business, but you are simply not allowed to demand that your employees work for you under those conditions - and somehow, no one seems to defend an employer's god-given right to do those things.

So why on earth should this change ONLY for restaurants and ONLY for smoking? Anyone with half a brain acknowledges that inhaling smoke is unhealthy, and there is no logical reason why employment carrying plates to and from tables should inherently involve smoke inhalation. It is, therefore, an unnecessary health risk, and employers do not get to submit their employees to those.

By the way, I get very sick of the "people who support public bans really want smoking to be banned in private homes" strawman. It's silly. I'm also opposed to people taking a crap in the middle of my dinner table at a restaurant. Clearly, this means I want to outlaw defecation. :rolleyes:

Do you support the right to cut oneself ?
Yes ?
Do you support the right to cut oneself in public ? You know, in places where kiddies can see it being done ?
No ?

Voila. Just think of the children. There is no need to let them see people harm themselves - especially since they might start to copy the behaviour.

You know, when i was a kid i watched people piloting mechs and destroying monsters, and Anthropomorphic Turtles living in sewers...

Yet, strangely ive yet to copy that behavior in the slightest...

Besides, where's the law that states you cant cut oneself in public?

South Park prehaps says it best... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adFMLiQUJNI&feature=related)

I find it amusing that the people who are all about tolerating people's life choices are so quick to lay the hate on smokers by promoting bans all over creation... Honestly, people, banning it airplanes and public transport is one thing, banning it in bars and resturants is another. It's a funny thing, consumer choice... If you don't like the policies of a select resturant and bar, DON'T GO THERE! If you like the food too much to stop going, then act like an adult and suck it up.

Some crackpot "scientist" claims that second hand smoke is bad for you based off of questionable findings and suddenly, cigarettes are public enemy number one.... I don't question the fact that smoking is bad for the individual doing it, but it's for the individual to decide... Not the government.

Rant over.

South Park can be really funny but it is also riddled with Ad hominum attacks and tends to take a cynical view of any cause, regardless of merit. Not, in short, a reliable source in an argument.

I'm a fence sitter on the debate over weather smoking bans have gone too far, though I'd personally rather no one smoked. But please do back up that "crackpot "scientists"" claim with some evidence to show that they are not real scientists or that their claims are not valid.

Yeah, but then ill have to read more of your posts, and who really wants that?

Well, I'm glad you have such a positive attitude even though none of that post was directed at you. :)

But seriously though, I may not be speaking for all non-smokers, but I think cigarette smoke smells like shit. If someone personally enjoys that stuff within the confines of their home, then it's their health that they're putting at risk. But please, don't share it. ;)

If you quit soon, you'll live a lot longer. =)

Maybe a decade at most; besides, a lot of longevity is genetic which means I could end up screwed no matter what I do. Further compounding it is the simple reality that there's still a hell of a lot that can kill you far faster, far easier, and far more often than cigarette smoking. You could be the epitome of health and still die at any time. Honestly, I'd rather just take my chances and do something I enjoy rather than give it up; maybe if there were clear signs of it interfering with other activities I enjoy I'd reconsider, but otherwise I'm not going to change.

That being said, I only gamble with my life, not others'.

You know, when i was a kid i watched people piloting mechs and destroying monsters, and Anthropomorphic Turtles living in sewers...

Yet, strangely ive yet to copy that behavior in the slightest...

Strangely enogh, reality has taught us that children DO copy smoking behaviour, even though they do not copy cartoons. Odd, innit ?

Besides, where's the law that states you cant cut oneself in public?

Good point. Then again, you are sure to be arrested if you cut yourself to gushing and splatter the red stuff all over other people.

But seriously though, I may not be speaking for all non-smokers, but I think cigarette smoke smells like shit. If someone personally enjoys that stuff within the confines of their home, then it's their health that they're putting at risk. But please, don't share it. ;)

Well, i was mostly joking...

But, you know what i think stinks, Farts, you know what gets on my nerves, Babies Crying...

You know what i dont want in my restaurants, both of those things...

Maybe we should ban those too...Oh, and talking, i hate it when i hear other people talking...

For me it has one effect that has several uses...It clears the mind, like, whatever chemical makes you worried or depressed or angry, i think it replaces it with Nicotine...

So, you can relax, or concentrate better, or whatever else requires a clear head...

Not really - the only thing smoking does is inject nicotine - and other fun substances - into your body.

The relief, relaxation etc., comes from alleviating nicotine withdrawal, that's all.

No one who doesn't smoke needs this, are smokers magically different? Yes they are, they've a nicotine addiction, one that needs to be fed otherwise they become restive, irritable and distracted.

Give a non-smoker a cigarette and see if it helps relax them.

Not really - the only thing smoking does is inject nicotine - and other fun substances - into your body.

The relief, relaxation etc., comes from alleviating nicotine withdrawal, that's all.

No one who doesn't smoke needs this, are smokers magically different? Yes they are, they've a nicotine addiction, one that needs to be fed otherwise they become restive, irritable and distracted.

Give a non-smoker a cigarette and see if it helps relax them.

Question is, how do you experience nicotine withdrawal when you havent smoked for a month? If you were truly addicted to nicotine, wouldnt it be a little late by then?

And, yes, ive done that, and it did help relax them...after having been sent to basic for three months...and guess what? they didnt magically become addicted to nicotine afterwards...

If nicotine didnt do something besides just get into the body, no one would do it...

Its the same with alcohol, you can be addicted to alcohol and you'll probably feel like shit without drinking on a regular basis...But, if your not addicted to Alcohol, your still going to get drunk when you drink it, your just not going to crave it all the time...

Give a non-smoker a cigarette and see if it helps relax them.

It relaxes me, which is why I continue to enjoy doing so in strict moderation. After all, none of us are born smokers and we're not born nicotine addicts. With careful control of your intake and a good understanding of how it works, you can do a pretty good job of completely averting any kind of chemical addiction to nicotine. Psychological addiction itself is meaningless from a smoking standpoint; you can be psychologically addicted to almost anything, so it's probably best to get some kind of counseling if you're using tobacco as a way of relieving a psychological addiction.

It's absurd to argue that there are absolutely no effects from nicotine; it's a CNS stimulant that produces some pretty clear effects on those unused to it, especially if you do something stupid like inhale a cigar. Is there a risk of addiction at any level? Sure, but it's a risk that is possible to contain if you are well-informed about the substance involved.

Second-hand tobacco smoke makes me sick, but I still can't understand why a restaurant or bar can't set its own policies regarding smoke. If I want to see naked women while I drink, I can go to titty bars. If I wanted to smoke while I drink, I should be able to go to a smoking-permitted bar. How do venues that permit smoking affect me? I won't go there, so there is no harm in their smoking.

My only objection is when it involves people smoking inside or near the entry to a public building, such as at a school, college, courthouse, or the DMV. A bar, while open to the public, is not really a public space. It's a private business, and the proprietor should have the right to run it as he sees fit as long as he isn't defrauding his customers.

There is no one more irksome than the man who insists he's going to help you whether you want it or not. Government has become a collective of bureaucratized busybodies who have the ability to use force in order to get their way. It's time for the people to flip off the bastards and say, "We never gave you any authority to micromanage us! This isn't government of the people, by the people, for the people anymore, so you're fired!"

My only objection is when it involves people smoking inside or near the entry to a public building, such as at a school, college, courthouse, or the DMV.

Thats another thing i dont get about these bans...If you ban smoking inside the building, then you automatically force them all to go right outside the entrance...

Thereby forcing everyone to experience it anyway...why not let them have their own table or section and be done with it?

Thats another thing i dont get about these bans...If you ban smoking inside the building, then you automatically force them all to go right outside the entrance...

Thereby forcing everyone to experience it anyway...why not let them have their own table or section and be done with it?

Typically, smoking bans ban smoking within a certain distance of the buildings as well.

Thats another thing i dont get about these bans...If you ban smoking inside the building, then you automatically force them all to go right outside the entrance...

Thereby forcing everyone to experience it anyway...why not let them have their own table or section and be done with it?

Not untrue - here in HK we have something a little worse - every bin has a built-in ashtray on top. The effects of everyone going outside and smoking means that stubs are not put out effectively - no real fault of the smoker, hard to stub out a cigarette on another 200 cigarettes - and this causes the entire thing to smoulder, slowly catching fire.

So you have large smoke machines now and then, it's not an effective solution overall but I can see the problems with putting in airport style smoking lounges on the streets :)

Typically, smoking bans ban smoking within a certain distance of the buildings as well.

Not where i work, Cinemark bans it inside the building, but everyone smokes right out side the door, hell, there are ashtrays on the garbage cans right by the box office...

Crazy, lol...

But, regardless, everyone going to the building would get the same thing, making it all the more pointless...

Not where i work, Cinemark bans it inside the building, but everyone smokes right out side the door, hell, there are ashtrays on the garbage cans right by the box office...

Crazy, lol...

But, regardless, everyone going to the building would get the same thing, making it all the more pointless...

Yep. That's a pretty silly way of doing things.

Typically, smoking bans ban smoking within a certain distance of the buildings as well.

It's 50 feet here (+/- 12m for those of you who use metric)

[QUOTE=Barringtonia;13919269]Not untrue - here in HK we have something a little worse - every bin has a built-in ashtray on top. The effects of everyone going outside and smoking means that stubs are not put out effectively - no real fault of the smoker, hard to stub out a cigarette on another 200 cigarettes - and this causes the entire thing to smoulder, slowly catching fire./QUOTE]

Genius...they could just use one of these:

http://ecolad.com/img/products/10650BRB.jpg

Cigarette butts sort of just disappear down the memory hole until the receptacle has to be emptied. No muss, no fuss, and pretty much no smoke comes from them even if the whole thing went up. Cleaning's probably easier too.

Yep. That's a pretty silly way of doing things.

I just think bans in general are a bad way to deal with things, they should be managed and dealt with on an individual level, not shut away entirely...

Which is generally where im going with this, lol...

South Park prehaps says it best... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adFMLiQUJNI&feature=related)

I find it amusing that the people who are all about tolerating people's life choices are so quick to lay the hate on smokers by promoting bans all over creation... Honestly, people, banning it airplanes and public transport is one thing, banning it in bars and resturants is another. It's a funny thing, consumer choice... If you don't like the policies of a select resturant and bar, DON'T GO THERE! If you like the food too much to stop going, then act like an adult and suck it up.

Some crackpot "scientist" claims that second hand smoke is bad for you based off of questionable findings and suddenly, cigarettes are public enemy number one.... I don't question the fact that smoking is bad for the individual doing it, but it's for the individual to decide... Not the government.

Rant over.

Majority rules. Here in the US, only a minority smoke. So the non-smokers win. It doesn't matter what the studies say, one way or the other.

Most non-smokers just don't like the smell - they find it really annoying. So, even if there wasn't a study that said it was a bad thing, they still would want a smoke-free public.

First time I saw the thread title I thought he had written "Smoking Beans Makes Me a Sad Panda".

First time I saw the thread title I thought he had written "Smoking Beans Makes Me a Sad Panda".

Why, oh why, Ohio?

Majority rules. Here in the US, only a minority smoke. So the non-smokers win. It doesn't matter what the studies say, one way or the other.

Most non-smokers just don't like the smell - they find it really annoying. So, even if there wasn't a study that said it was a bad thing, they still would want a smoke-free public.

This, more or less.
It's pretty much the same as not being allowed to be naked in public. It annoys most people, apparently, so it's not allowed.
You can go naked where no one sees you, and you can smoke where it doesn't affect people as much.

You know, come to think of it, smokers still have it way better than naturalists.

South Park prehaps says it best... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adFMLiQUJNI&feature=related)

I find it amusing that the people who are all about tolerating people's life choices are so quick to lay the hate on smokers by promoting bans all over creation... Honestly, people, banning it airplanes and public transport is one thing, banning it in bars and resturants is another. It's a funny thing, consumer choice... If you don't like the policies of a select resturant and bar, DON'T GO THERE! If you like the food too much to stop going, then act like an adult and suck it up.

Some crackpot "scientist" claims that second hand smoke is bad for you based off of questionable findings and suddenly, cigarettes are public enemy number one.... I don't question the fact that smoking is bad for the individual doing it, but it's for the individual to decide... Not the government.

Rant over.
Ah, yes, crackpot "scientist" claims. I guess that explains the bronchitis I got while I was a kid, my reduced lung capacity and such and such that I suffered while my parents were smokers...wait...

Okay, seriously though, smoking bans don't have anything to do with hatred of smokers so much as it is courtesy for the rest of us. I honestly don't care if people smoke, so long as they have the courtesy not to do it near me(the very whiff of a cigarette makes me feel violently ill.) Unfortunately most smokers tend not to have that courtesy and will usually get pissed off if people request it from them in a kind manner, so smoking bans go into place.

(And I DID have bronchitis as a kid.)

The only two times I've ever gotten bronchitis is when I was working at a casino. The first time was at Foxwoods, as a cage cashier. The second time was at Mohegan Sun, as a slot attendant. Both casinos allow smoking throughout almost all of the casino (though both casinos have small non-smoking areas).

Well, if a bar owner says I can do it in his space... I should be allowed to do so. Places where non-smokers cannot avoid going is fine, but private resturants and bars is a different story. If they say people can't smoke in private bars and resturants, then the next thing on the agenda is to ban it in private homes.

Not forgetting all the while that the idea behind banning smoking in these places is to protect the health of those who work there.


Besides the science, if you can call it that, behind second hand smoke is shakey at best. People act as if cigarette smoke is the only way to get lung cancer.

I think there is now a large body of evidance to back up claims of second hand smoke and the damage it can do.

We all know that smoking is a dangerous persuit, I smoke, I also know the danagers. I see no harm at all in banning it from public places or places in which people are employed, really to think otherwise is just selfish.

It is a horrible analogy but most people know that farts tend not to smell so great and, when in company, they'll move away.

Yet with smoking, people seem to not care at all, they'll smoke away in public next to people they don't really know when the effects are far worse.

Most smokers I know move away as well, even in the days when smoking was allowed in restaurants, most of my friends would leave the table.

Some people refuse to, some people think it's their right to smoke anywhere they damn well please, I'd say it's these people most smokers should be pissed off with since they screw things up for the others.

I doubt most people would mind the occasional smoke for convenience, I rarely stop someone when they ask, but those who just don't care tend to taint the entire lot.

What you are talking about is courtesy I agree it is rude and makes others unhappy but why should we legislate courtesy on other peoples private property?

Not untrue - here in HK we have something a little worse - every bin has a built-in ashtray on top. The effects of everyone going outside and smoking means that stubs are not put out effectively - no real fault of the smoker, hard to stub out a cigarette on another 200 cigarettes - and this causes the entire thing to smoulder, slowly catching fire.

So you have large smoke machines now and then, it's not an effective solution overall but I can see the problems with putting in airport style smoking lounges on the streets :)

They should build in a drop down style, they use them outside of the university buildings and they do alright (little top long tube down to the storage area ...) helps keep the smoke to a minimum

You know, come to think of it, smokers still have it way better than naturalists.

So you're totally boned if you're a naturalist smoker...

They should build in a drop down style, they use them outside of the university buildings and they do alright (little top long tube down to the storage area ...) helps keep the smoke to a minimum

I personally like them because I don't have to worry about inadvertently setting things on fire in the process.

If the government doesn't let me allow my clientèle to throw starving wolverines at my employees then other businesses shouldn't get to allow things that put their workers in harms' way.

Smoking ban thread? Haven't had one of them in a while.

Gay sex harms nobody.

Smoking harms everyone nearby.

Why can't we treat smoking the way Bhutan treats smoking?

Gay sex harms nobody.

Smoking harms everyone nearby.

Why can't we treat smoking the way Bhutan treats smoking?

How does Bhutan treat smoking?

You can easily go to a resteraunt or bar, have a drink and/or meal without smoking, then puff away all you like when you get home.



And you can easily go somewhere else and enjoy a smoke-free meal, should you so choose. If a business wants to allow their customers to smoke, who do you think you are to tell them they are wrong? Vote with your pocketbooks, not by attempting to abridge others freedoms in the search of "yours"

If a business wants to allow their customers to smoke, who do you think you are to tell them they are wrong?
The government?

Government makes laws. Don't like the laws? Oh well.

Majority rules. Here in the US, only a minority smoke. So the non-smokers win. It doesn't matter what the studies say, one way or the other.

Most non-smokers just don't like the smell - they find it really annoying. So, even if there wasn't a study that said it was a bad thing, they still would want a smoke-free public.

And if a majority of the people said they don't like black people, would you suddenly support that?

Same exact argument. You cannot allow a tyranny of the majority to decide everything. Rational thought and common sense must apply. The common sense here, especially as it applies to the US, is that this is an individual issue for businesses to decide. City/State/Federal law has no right to decide this sort of issue. If I care to own a building, and run a business in it, then it IS my right to choose whether people can smoke in them.

If a business wants to allow their customers to smoke, who do you think you are to tell them they are wrong?

Who indeed? Clearly employees have no right to a workplace that is as safe as possible.

And if a majority of the people said they don't like black people, would you suddenly support that?

Same exact argument.
If you say so.

You cannot allow a tyranny of the majority to decide everything.
You mean.... like.... democracy?

City/State/Federal law has no right to decide this sort of issue. If I care to own a building, and run a business in it, then it IS my right to choose whether people can smoke in them.
City/State/Federal law begs to differ. But hey, knock yourself out challenging it.

The government?

Government makes laws. Don't like the laws? Oh well.

Same thing they should have told gay people about marriage, right? "Well, Government made the law, best just to forget about it and get back to work". Just because it's a law does not mean that it's a GOOD law. Repression of simple rights, such as the right of a business owner to run their business how they see fit, is one of the most anti-American things there is.

If I care to own a building, and run a business in it, then it IS my right to choose whether people can smoke in them.

It's your right to decide that a percentage of your employees will be exposed to significantly increased cancer risk?

Wiggy.

And if a majority of the people said they don't like black people, would you suddenly support that?

Same exact argument. You cannot allow a tyranny of the majority to decide everything. Rational thought and common sense must apply. The common sense here, especially as it applies to the US, is that this is an individual issue for businesses to decide. City/State/Federal law has no right to decide this sort of issue. If I care to own a building, and run a business in it, then it IS my right to choose whether people can smoke in them.

If a smoking ban is in violation of a city, state or federal law, then you should have no trouble in challenging it. Let us know how that goes.

And if a majority of the people said they don't like black people, would you suddenly support that?

Same exact argument. You cannot allow a tyranny of the majority to decide everything. Rational thought and common sense must apply. The common sense here, especially as it applies to the US, is that this is an individual issue for businesses to decide. City/State/Federal law has no right to decide this sort of issue. If I care to own a building, and run a business in it, then it IS my right to choose whether people can smoke in them.

Indeed! Just like it's your right to choose whether to perform necessary maintenance on the building, or whether to let cockroaches run through its kitchen, or whether to let people shoot each other on the premises, or whether to ventilate the building properly, or whether to serve children alcohol in the building, or whether to let your customers sell each other cocaine, or...oh, wait.

It's your right to decide that a percentage of your employees will be exposed to significantly increased cancer risk?

Wiggy.

No employee is forced to work anywhere. If they choose to work there, that's their right. Removing people's right to work in a dangerous job is a very, very bad road to start down for the economy. Just because I'm hooked on the show right now, I'm very willing to bet that working in a bar/restaurant that has smoking is less hazardous to the health than fishing for crabs (like Dangerous Catch or whatever it is). Do you feel these people should be out of a job too?

No employee is forced to work anywhere. If they choose to work there, that's their right. Removing people's right to work in a dangerous job is a very, very bad road to start down for the economy. Just because I'm hooked on the show right now, I'm very willing to bet that working in a bar/restaurant that has smoking is less hazardous to the health than fishing for crabs (like Dangerous Catch or whatever it is). Do you feel these people should be out of a job too?

And they have have right to work in an environment that is as safe as their employer can make it.

A trawler Capt. makes his crew wear life preservers and harnesses. You gonna bitch about that infringing on his 'business' rights too?

And they have have right to work in an environment that is as safe as their employer can make it.

A trawler Capt. makes his crew wear life preservers and harnesses. You gonna bitch about that infringing on his 'business' rights too?

If a trawler Captain chooses to do that, that's how he chooses to run his business. The person in charge can of course run it anyway he wants. If people don't like it, they won't work there or buy things from there or go from there. The market will fix the problem. Or do you honestly feel enough people are so stupid to work in a situation that is so unsafe that we have to write laws against it like they were mentally-deficient?

If a trawler Captain chooses to do that, that's how he chooses to run his business. The person in charge can of course run it anyway he wants. If people don't like it, they won't work there or buy things from there or go from there. The market will fix the problem. Or do you honestly feel enough people are so stupid to work in a situation that is so unsafe that we have to write laws against it like they were mentally-deficient?

You have no grasp of history. Shame really.

No employee is forced to work anywhere.
Yes they are, though not in the way that you mean. People may be forced into a certain job because they can't find employment anywhere else. Well, I suppose they have the choice to not make enough money to support themselves and their family, but that's not really a choice at all, is it?
If they choose to work there, that's their right. Removing people's right to work in a dangerous job is a very, very bad road to start down for the economy. Just because I'm hooked on the show right now, I'm very willing to bet that working in a bar/restaurant that has smoking is less hazardous to the health than fishing for crabs (like Dangerous Catch or whatever it is). Do you feel these people should be out of a job too?

It isn't possible to go fishing without the risk of the ship sinking, or someone falling overboard in a storm or whatever. It is possible to have a bar or restaurant without anybody smoking in it. In fact, I can't think of any kind of business that cannot exist without someone smoking tobacco on the premises.
Or do you honestly feel enough people are so stupid to work in a situation that is so unsafe that we have to write laws against it like they were mentally-deficient?
I'd like to introduce you to the real world. A world of bills and loan repayments. If someone needs they money they'll work anywhere, regardless of the risks. If they can't get a safe job they'll get an unsafe one. You know, like people did around the time of the industrial revolution, before employees forced employers to respect their rights.

In fact, I can't think of any kind of business that cannot exist without someone smoking tobacco on the premises.

Hookah bar.

You have no grasp of history. Shame really.

Yes yes, argue the person. If you don't have a real response, it's better to not troll.

Yes yes, argue the person. If you don't have a real response, it's better to not troll.

It is a real response, you're just not well educated enough to see it. That's okay though. You're "special" in your own way. Now run along, you're annoying your betters.

Hookah bar.

Well, there you go. I'm sure any reasonable government would allow a hookah bar to be exempt from a workplace ban on smoking, assuming such things were legal before the ban.

Yes yes, argue the person. If you don't have a real response, it's better to not troll.

Khadgar is right. You obviously don't know know the safety regulations and where and why they exist. (i.e you don't know your history)

I hate smokers... but I think that restaurants should have a smokers section. A very very small smokers section, separated from the normal section. That way we non-smokers can watch smokers, make fun of them and throw them peanuts.

Since when is one right more important than the other?

Since...

Um..

Damn, when was the concept of human rights invented again? It was around that time.

Also, I'm happy with the smoking ban and I would never change it. I see no reason to do so either.

I'm extremely glad that there is a smoking ban in restaurants where I live now. I still remember having to run through the smoking section holding my breath because they put the bathrooms in the smoking section, and then having to cough in the bathroom for a few minutes (and I don't even have any problem that would affect my breathing! I just grew up in a house where no one smokes...). It's nice to be able to eat at a restaurant and actually be able to breathe.

My mom told me a story about when I was 3 and in a restaurant. Someone started smoking at the table next to us and I couldn't breathe and looked really cute-sadhttp://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-cry.gif: "Ma'am, do you want me to die? The secondhand smoke is hurting me."; that sort of thing.
Of course they stopped smoking and offered to buy me ice cream. :D

I'm extremely glad that there is a smoking ban in restaurants where I live now. I still remember having to run through the smoking section holding my breath because they put the bathrooms in the smoking section, and then having to cough in the bathroom for a few minutes (and I don't even have any problem that would affect my breathing! I just grew up in a house where no one smokes...). It's nice to be able to eat at a restaurant and actually be able to breathe.

My mom told me a story about when I was 3 and in a restaurant. Someone started smoking at the table next to us and I couldn't breathe and looked really cute-sadhttp://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-cry.gif: "Ma'am, do you want me to die? The secondhand smoke is hurting me."; that sort of thing.
Of course they stopped smoking and offered to buy me ice cream. :D

Awwwwwwwwwwww, that's so adorable! :fluffle:

I used to smoke - heavily - even then I supported smoking bans in bars and restaurants

I was well aware of how nasty it smelled to non smokers and I had the courtesy to smoke in well ventilated outdoor areas.

I don't feel sorry at all about those having to be a bit inconvenienced when they want to have a smoke instead of ruining the atmosphere for the rest of us.

Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it.

Since people seem fixated on the idea of non-smokers having a choice not to work/patronize an establishment that allows smoking, what about the smoker's choice? They can chose not to light up around other people. It's not like smoke is the only thing they can suck in. I kind of have to breathe. It's a requirement. I'd like to be breathing clean air. A smoker who choses to be inconsiderate to indulge their habit and dirty up the air around me in a confined space is being kind of an asshole IMO. Surely they can go a couple hours breathing smoke free air too. I wasn't aware it was toxic to them.

How does Bhutan treat smoking?

They have a countrywide ban on smoking.

They have a countrywide ban on smoking.

Bhutan is crazy. *nods*

Although if you are caught with ciggs in Bhutan they give you like a $5 fine or something - if I remember right

and besides that... whats wrong with a complete ban.

It worked with alcohol in the 20's

and besides that... whats wrong with a complete ban.

It worked with alcohol in the 20's

Well, for Al Capone at least. Smokeasies would be a nice touch, but I don't want to deal with the risks associated with bootleg tobacco...

If someone owns the land, it's private property... A person shouldn't have to pay a monthly fee to smoke inside a club if the owner says flat out that it's geared towards smokers.

Who said anything about a monthly fee? Most places do a lifetime deal for $5.

Um, have you ever lived in a lovely state called Wisconsin where it gets below zero in the winter? I did my undergraduate studies up there... It isn't fun having to risk frostbite simply because someone doesn't like the smell of cigarette smoke.

I live in Canada. I don't even live in the cold part of Canada and it gets well below 0 in the winter. I have a friend who went to Winnipeg in the winter whose drink froze while he was out having a smoke. I also have friends who have respiratory issues. Should they have to forgo a night out because some inconsiderate assholes can't be chilly for five minutes?

Tell that too all the people freezing their ass off outside of bars when it is -40 F up here

Glad its not me
I have pretty much the same climate you do, quit yer bitching and put on a coat.

Thats another thing i dont get about these bans...If you ban smoking inside the building, then you automatically force them all to go right outside the entrance...

Unless you ban smoking right outside the entrance (as is the case here).

Thereby forcing everyone to experience it anyway...why not let them have their own table or section and be done with it?

The only kind of smoking sections that are in any way tolerable for those who don't want to be in them are the kind with separate ventilation systems. Otherwise, everyone else still has to smell the stench of smoke.

The fact is that the United States is in the midst of a health care crisis, due in no small part to an entire generation of smokers now on Medicare draining that system's financial resources. It's cold, and you can argue that a government doesn't have the right to limit personal choice, but the government is going to do whatever it can to prevent itself from being crippled financially. It may be authoritarian, but if banning smoking in public places keeps even one person from adding to the already immense burden our health care system has, then the government is going to ban public smoking.

If you're so opposed to these sorts of laws (and I can understand why someone could be), then advocate alternatives. If you're such a huge proponent of personal choice, advocate laws that would allow health care providers to deny coverage for illnesses related to tobacco use. Advocate laws that would remove Medicare's responsibility for smoking-related illness treatment. After all, it's about personal choice, right? Those people chose to smoke; they should deal with the consequences as well. I guarantee you that a few public smoking bans are a lot more politically and publically palatable than anything that would have a real impact.

What. the. ----?

If someone owns a restaurant, and wishes to serve a specific clientele such as smokers, what right do you have to tell him he can't run such a business? If he has a smoking-permitted restaurant, and there is no requirement for you to ever enter, WHY THE ---- DO YOU CARE???

"B-b-b-but the laws...."

Ever thought that maybe the laws are BAD? When the government at any level decides to infringe on the property rights of a land owner who is not actively harming the person or property of another, it is tyranny. So what if you think smoking is self-destructive? Does your opinion, whether based in fact or otherwise, give you the right to interfere with another person's choices? The employees of such an establishment are free to look elsewhere if the don't want to be in a smoky environment, and people who like to smoke would be ready to take a job there immediately. Let the market decide.

Nicely put Sdaeriji

.

LMAO.

All you anti-smokers are adorable, and just for the spite:

*lights up*

*breaths smoke all over thread*

How do you like them apples?!

Seriously though. Smoking sections, anyone? Can't smokers have their own section? Or maybe smoking after, 9PM or something?

If a restaurant allows smoking, how is smoking in the smoking section being a dick? (several posters seem to think it is...)

Consumer choice is fine, but my problem is that employees need to have a safe working environment. If that means an indoor smoking ban is needed to ensure that employees are not exposed to cigarette smoke then thats fine.

Consumer choice is fine, but my problem is that employees need to have a safe working environment. If that means an indoor smoking ban is needed to ensure that employees are not exposed to cigarette smoke then thats fine.

According to my observations, there are plenty of restaurant workers who smoke. They don't seem to mind the first-hand variety, so the second-hand probably wouldn't bother them. besides, a somewhat more 'exclusive' restaurant with a gauranteed clientele for as long as people continue to smoke tobacco might be able to pay more than minimum wage.

LMAO.

All you anti-smokers are adorable, and just for the spite:

*lights up*

*breaths smoke all over thread*

How do you like them apples?!

Seriously though. Smoking sections, anyone? Can't smokers have their own section? Or maybe smoking after, 9PM or something?

If a restaurant allows smoking, how is smoking in the smoking section being a dick? (several posters seem to think it is...)

*fuels up my flamethrower and lights up Trollgaard* There you have it...now move th the smokers section of this thread.:p

According to my observations, there are plenty of restaurant workers who smoke. They don't seem to mind the first-hand variety, so the second-hand probably wouldn't bother them. besides, a somewhat more 'exclusive' restaurant with a gauranteed clientele for as long as people continue to smoke tobacco might be able to pay more than minimum wage.

That doesn't mean that all of them should be exposed to smoking. If a construction worker engages in extreme sports in his spare time it doesn't allow the company he is working for to provide substandard safety precautions. And wages for people in catering have always sucked, even when restaurants could choose to allow smoking.

....Beautiful, now this is going to turn into a creation vs evolution thread.

We need something like Godwin's law for this, it happens so often.

What. the. ----?

If someone owns a restaurant, and wishes to serve a specific clientele such as smokers, what right do you have to tell him he can't run such a business? If he has a smoking-permitted restaurant, and there is no requirement for you to ever enter, WHY THE ---- DO YOU CARE???

"B-b-b-but the laws...."

Ever thought that maybe the laws are BAD? When the government at any level decides to infringe on the property rights of a land owner who is not actively harming the person or property of another, it is tyranny. So what if you think smoking is self-destructive? Does your opinion, whether based in fact or otherwise, give you the right to interfere with another person's choices? The employees of such an establishment are free to look elsewhere if the don't want to be in a smoky environment, and people who like to smoke would be ready to take a job there immediately. Let the market decide.
No.

The marked needs regulation. The workers need protection.

And the laws aren't bad. Quite the opposite, in fact.

LMAO.

All you anti-smokers are adorable, and just for the spite:

*lights up*

*breaths smoke all over thread*

How do you like them apples?!
Just fine - since I know that out in the Real World that doesn't happen anymore.

How do you like that dose of reality? :wink:


Seriously though. Smoking sections, anyone? Can't smokers have their own section? Or maybe smoking after, 9PM or something?

If a restaurant allows smoking, how is smoking in the smoking section being a dick? (several posters seem to think it is...)
Because of the health risk it poses to the workers.

Because of the health risk it poses to the workers.

Idea: hire workers who smoke. If they are willing to work a smoking section during a particular time of day, then you could create a special period in which smoking is permitted. If you can't find the workers, you don't offer the option.

That being said, I'm still baffled that there are people who need to smoke so badly they can't take the time to have a smoke-free meal. I'm certainly not that desperate, and neither are any of the other smokers I know. If it were an alcoholic drink instead of a cigarette, you'd probably be at an AA meeting. Honestly, perhaps it's time to cut back a little...

That being said, I'm still baffled that there are people who need to smoke so badly they can't take the time to have a smoke-free meal. I'm certainly not that desperate, and neither are any of the other smokers I know.

There are smoker poachers these days. People against smoking who go out of their way to hunt down anyone who smokes. I've seen people get cigarettes ripped from their puffing lips and stamped out in the street. Now more than ever do smokers need the relative safety of a crowded establishment to smoke in peace. We need to think of more than our lungs and the lungs of our loved ones. We need to think of the smokers lungs. Lungs which may or may not be able to collapse in short order because of those who take from them their primary arsenal in a War. A War for decreased lung capacity.

This is why we fight.

There are smoker poachers these days. People against smoking who go out of their way to hunt down anyone who smokes. I've seen people get cigarettes ripped from their puffing lips and stamped out in the street. Now more than ever do smokers need the relative safety of a crowded establishment to smoke in peace. We need to think of more than our lungs and the lungs of our loved ones. We need to think of the smokers lungs. Lungs which may or may not be able to collapse in short order because of those who take from them their primary arsenal in a War. A War for decreased lung capacity.

This is why we fight.

Those bastards...I knew it wasn't good enough to smoke away from people, outdoors, throwing away my butts in the trash and even asking if I'm bothering other people nearby. We are an oppressed minority, a small band left to defend the honor of Joe Camel against our foes.

And it is our time to fight. We shall smoke fight on the beaches, we shall smoke on the landing grounds, we shall smoke in the fields and in the streets, we shall smoke in the hills; we shall never surrender!

Those bastards...I knew it wasn't good enough to smoke away from people, outdoors, throwing away my butts in the trash and even asking if I'm bothering other people nearby. We are an oppressed minority, a small band left to defend the honor of Joe Camel against our foes.

And it is our time to fight. We shall smoke fight on the beaches, we shall smoke on the landing grounds, we shall smoke in the fields and in the streets, we shall smoke in the hills; we shall never surrender!

Yea brutha! And I say to you!

I say to you!

We will OVERCOME!

I for one agree that the health of the workers should be protected. Smoke in the environment presents a health risk and should be eliminated completely.

Also, the use of automobiles presents a health risk to workers and should be eliminated completely. Every time I see yet another corporate car-addict, puffing away with the tailpipe, recklessly endangering himself, his passengers, other drivers, pedestrians, the environment, the global energy crisis loose on the streets - why, that just sticks in my craw!

Now someone is going to raise a finger and go, "Oh ho, Clomata-san, but the automobile is necessary! Your cigarette is not necessary!" And I'm going to reply nicely that the argument I am addressing said nothing about how 'necessary' you thought something was. The argument pretended - feigned, I should say - to consider nothing but what's best for the health of employees. (And of course, to incriminate anyone who disagrees as not caring about said employees' health.) If you're going to start hedging, "Well, the employee's health is super-important, but so is my ability to have pizza delivered to my front door in 30 minutes or less!" you've already destroyed your own argument.

And frankly, this disgusting self-righteous attitude of superiority - denigrating cigarette smokers, dismissing their arguments as the result of addiction, mocking them, calling them whiners, gloating, cackling masturbatorially about the glorious day when there are no more icky, icky cigarette smokers and high-fiving each other - that makes me sick. I may smoke cigarettes, but I'm a fucking human being, as presumably are you, and you are NOT incouraging courtesy in smokers by painting us as stupid, addicted enemies. Quite the opposite.

And what irks me particularly is this "Stop whining, you tobacco-addicts!" haughty crap. It's not US who's whining. It's not US who's crying to the federal government to punish others for your inability to refrain from attending a particular drinking or eating establishment. It's not US who's complaining about how icky and awful and smelly it is (oh NO! you have to BATHE at some point after hanging out with us! That's a fucking crime against humanity, that is! You might even have to wash your clothes! Oh SHIT HELP!). And it's not US who's hypochondriacally accusing smokers of being "murderers" or complaining (whining) that we're giving you lung cancer right now. You people are giving me stomach cancer with all your bellyaching, yet you have the conceit to call US whiners!

See I can rant too. Pretty good if I say so myself.

I'm all for phasing out all forms of pollution that forces the general public to breath/drink/absorb through skin against their will

that includes dirty polluting automobiles

I believe we are already on that path too

You smokers could switch to chewing tobacco if it is imperative that you have a steady intake of nicotine while inside public buildings - you still get the nicotine and the cancer - it's win/win for everybody

I believe it would be a good idea to negate health care to smokers.

I'm all for phasing out all forms of pollution that forces the general public to breath/drink/absorb through skin against their will
that includes dirty polluting automobiles

I agree.
I believe it would be a good idea to negate health care to smokers.
I disagree.

It leads to a slippery precipice. What about people who always eat fatty foods and never excersize? What about people that never put on sun tan lotion? How about those that don't drink half the amount of water they should?

Don't people pay for health care anyway?

Well... we could do like insurance companies do. discriminate according to life styles. You are a fatto that doesn't exercises and smokes all day, well health care is only going to cover only a small percentage of your expenses.

I'm all for phasing out all forms of pollution that forces the general public to breath/drink/absorb through skin against their will

that includes dirty polluting automobiles

Heh. But. You don't go around villifying people who drive automobiles the way you villify cigarette smokers. And you certainly don't villify people who are dependent, one way or another, on dirty polluting things. (Since that would include everyone.)

And I can see you're already hedging here with "dirty polluting" automobiles, as if there's actually a way to manufacture combustion vehicles (and drive them around constantly, in the millions) without polluting. Huh-huh. But this way you can still feel justified that your car or preferred bus or whatnot doesn't pollute *as much*, so you can still have those SUV drivers to demonize.

Well. That's your choice.But it's not a very persuasive position for me.


You smokers could switch to chewing tobacco if it is imperative that you have a steady intake of nicotine while inside public buildings - you still get the nicotine and the cancer - it's win/win for everybody

People smoke to smoke, not to "get a steady intake of nicotine."

You might as well suggest to people who enjoy wine drinking to get an IV for their alcohol need.

It's insulting and naive.

People smoke to smoke, not to "get a steady intake of nicotine."

You might as well suggest to people who enjoy wine drinking to get an IV for their alcohol need.

It's insulting and naive.

So people don't smoke because they are addicted to the nicotine?

I mean, why is it so hard to not smoke in certain areas then? Patience is a virtue.

You smokers could switch to chewing tobacco if it is imperative that you have a steady intake of nicotine while inside public buildings - you still get the nicotine and the cancer - it's win/win for everybody

Truth be told, I'd still smoke even if tobacco contained zero nicotine (in fact, I kind of wish it did...).

So people don't smoke because they are addicted to the nicotine?

I sure don't, since I'm not physically addicted and don't believe in avoiding self-responsibility by referring to the largely mythical 'mental addiction,' a category of 'addiction' which seems to want to place "chocoholics" and "workaholics" and "people who play World of Warcraft too much" on the same level as heroin addicts and crazy crackheads.

I smoke because I buy cigarette packs, open them, put the cigarettes between my lips, ignite the tips and inhale.

Some people are physically addicted though, no doubt. But even then it's their choice and it will never help to paint them as victims of external forces beyond their control. One, they will perceive themselves in a deluded way. Two, they will not be as psychologically prepared to quit smoking if they want ("I'm a victim" in this case also translates to "Oh well, I'll just sit here and be victimized then"). And three, it incourages this mentality of no self-responsibility, in general.

Woops, I didn't mean to rant there... pet peeve of mine though.

I mean, why is it so hard to not smoke in certain areas then? Patience is a virtue.

I don't even smoke indoors. But I oppose bans in privately owned establishments or public areas because they do not make sense to me, not because it inconveniences me. And because they seem like designed slippery-slopes - the people who give most support to these initiatives are against tobacco in general and are trying to "phase out" rather than outright prohibit its use. In other words, just these little baby-steps, which I'm supposed to either not notice or not see where they're headed for.

But I do and I do, so I oppose them just as much as I would a single, inclusive prohibition. It's the same end the anti-smokers want. Because tobacco smoke smells bad to them.

South Park prehaps says it best... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adFMLiQUJNI&feature=related)

I find it amusing that the people who are all about tolerating people's life choices are so quick to lay the hate on smokers by promoting bans all over creation... Honestly, people, banning it airplanes and public transport is one thing, banning it in bars and resturants is another. It's a funny thing, consumer choice... If you don't like the policies of a select resturant and bar, DON'T GO THERE! If you like the food too much to stop going, then act like an adult and suck it up.

Some crackpot "scientist" claims that second hand smoke is bad for you based off of questionable findings and suddenly, cigarettes are public enemy number one.... I don't question the fact that smoking is bad for the individual doing it, but it's for the individual to decide... Not the government.

Rant over.

Cigarettes are far more harmful than marijuana and other controlled substances. The only difference is the tobacco special interest groups have lobbyists. I've seen the conditions and effects of tobacco first hand (with children in the house).

I personally feel that cigarettes should be replaced with Khat or another less harmful and less addictive stimulant. But the government has no right to interfere unless it is in the welfare of a child. Seeing the conditions that the parents' children were living in (the whole house smelling like cigarettes and the air feeling clogged up). I feel that cigarette smokers should not have ANY children or, if not that extreme, not be able to keep them unless it is fifteen years after the last cigarette they have smoked.

Cigarettes are far more harmful than marijuana and other controlled substances. The only difference is the tobacco special interest groups have lobbyists. I've seen the conditions and effects of tobacco first hand (with children in the house).

No, tobacco and marijuana are equally as dangerous. The only difference is that marijuana isn't addictive, which means you're certainly not going to be exposed to the harmful compounds anywhere near as often. However, if you smoke marijuana on a frequent-enough basis equivalent to tobacco, you're definitely going to suffer similar health effects.

I feel that cigarette smokers should not have ANY children or, if not that extreme, not be able to keep them unless it is fifteen years after the last cigarette they have smoked.

Or they could be responsible parents and not smoke around their children. Frankly, given the risks associated with smoking during pregnancy you'd have to be pretty stupid to continue doing so if you're planning to have kids.

I have a problem with tobacco smoke, because it interferes with my development into adolescence (impairs my lung functions) and also because I have asthma. Yeah, tobacco and alcohol should be banned.

The difference between chocoholics/workaholics (side-A) and alcoholics/smokers (side-B) is that side-B is physically harming and mentally harming the people around them. Side-A does not or does little to harm people around them (the people they love) mentally/emotionally.

Therefore, because side-B harms and side-A does not, side-B should be banned. It's simple logic. If it were up to me, smoking would be banned or smokers would all have to go to a certain part of the country away from non-smokers.

The difference between chocoholics/workaholics (side-A) and alcoholics/smokers (side-B) is that side-B is physically harming and mentally harming the people around them. Side-A does not or does little to harm people around them (the people they love) mentally/emotionally.

Workaholics don't harm people around them? What about the fact that they ignore their wives, extended family and children in favor of their career? What about the ones that lash out brutally, even physically at coworkers and aforementioned family when they fail to meet their goals or, God forbid, impede them in their work? What about the eventual health costs inflicted on other people from the stress and emotional abuse?

True addictions, no matter what they are, are destructive to other people. That's the defining aspect of an addiction. However, they are an individual problem that must be dealt with on that level. Otherwise, you're denying people the ability to do things they enjoy rather than actually fixing the problem.

I have a problem with tobacco smoke, because it interferes with my development into adolescence (impairs my lung functions) and also because I have asthma. Yeah, tobacco and alcohol should be banned.

The difference between chocoholics/workaholics (side-A) and alcoholics/smokers (side-B) is that side-B is physically harming and mentally harming the people around them. Side-A does not or does little to harm people around them (the people they love) mentally/emotionally.

Why should alcohol be banned? Not all drinkers are alcoholics, most drinkers drink in moderation, which does not physically or mentally harm people around them. Further, to say that an addiction to message boards, WoW, Everquest, sexy chat or work doesn't hurt people's families is silly and ignoring the fact that people who are addicted to these things do harm their families and friends in much the same way that alcoholics or drug addicts do.

We're also not even talking about banning smoking entirely, just banning smoking from enclosed areas accessible to the public.

Why should alcohol be banned? Not all drinkers are alcoholics, most drinkers drink in moderation, which does not physically or mentally harm people around them.

That's just like how not all smokers are rude bastards that think their right to smoke trumps the right of everyone else to clean air. Like I said, if you're so hooked on tobacco to the point where you can't respect common courtesy or go smoke-free long enough to have a meal, you've got serious problems.

if you don't like the regulations of your city. move to a different city. or at least go to bars and restaurants there.

There was little need for the current smoking bans. If you were in a restaurant or similar public building you just had to ask nicely the person smoking to put it out and they would. Most pubs had a smoking bar and a non-smoking bar. Separated by a door, a door which stopped the majority of smoke.

And the workers in the bar, well they can’t have hated the smoke that much or they would've quit.

Common courtesy people, it does exist and most people have it. Don’t just assume all smokers, and all people for that matter, are arse holes.

There was little need for the current smoking bans. If you were in a restaurant or similar public building you just had to ask nicely the person smoking to put it out and they would. Most pubs had a smoking bar and a non-smoking bar. Separated by a door, a door which stopped the majority of smoke.

And the workers in the bar, well they can’t have hated the smoke that much or they would've quit.

Common courtesy people, it does exist and most people have it. Don’t just assume all smokers, and all people for that matter, are arse holes.

For of men it may generally be affirmed that they are thankless, fickle, false, studious to avoid danger, greedy of gain, devoted to you while you are able to confer benefits upon them, and ready, as I said before, while danger is distant, to shed their blood, and sacrifice their property, their lives, and their children for you; but in the hour of need they turn against you.
--Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XVII.

if you don't like the regulations of your city. move to a different city. or at least go to bars and restaurants there.

Such a cowardly position.

Idea: hire workers who smoke. If they are willing to work a smoking section during a particular time of day, then you could create a special period in which smoking is permitted. If you can't find the workers, you don't offer the option.
And expose them to even bigger potential health risks? Doesn't strike me as the best idea.

If a restaurant allows smoking, how is smoking in the smoking section being a dick? (several posters seem to think it is...)

Because amazingly enough, cigarette smoke isn't this intelligent, courteous beast that you seem to think it is, that will see the no smoking sign and then not drift into said section. See, there's this thing called "physics".

And expose them to even bigger potential health risks? Doesn't strike me as the best idea.

I seriously doubt they are not exposed to at least some quantity of second-hand smoke on a regular basis already. However, even if they aren't, if they want to work that kind of shift there is no reason to preclude them from doing so. If you fully disclose the health risks of that kind of work, it should be treated like any other potentially dangerous occupation.

I seriously doubt they are not exposed to at least some quantity of second-hand smoke on a regular basis already.
Strange assumption.

However, even if they aren't, if they want to work that kind of shift there is no reason to preclude them from doing so.
I don't preclude them from working - I preclude the employers from having a smoke filled venue. The personell should be able to work without having to accept the risk.

If you fully disclose the health risks of that kind of work, it should be treated like any other potentially dangerous occupation.
Indeed - and thus closed because of an unnecessary health risk, as would happen in other occupations as well.

Well, if a bar owner says I can do it in his space... I should be allowed to do so. ah, but the problem occurs when the owner of the establishment says you cannot smoke in this space.

Places where non-smokers cannot avoid going is fine, but private resturants and bars is a different story. If they say people can't smoke in private bars and resturants, then the next thing on the agenda is to ban it in private homes. never heard that. I know it was talked about banning it near children under a certain age, but nothing about banning it at private homes.

Besides the science, if you can call it that, behind second hand smoke is shakey at best. People act as if cigarette smoke is the only way to get lung cancer. again, no one said Cigarette smoke is the ONLY way. but it is ONE of the frequent causes.

Since when is one right more important than the other? when one's right poses a health risk to others. If I love to fire a gun, do I have the right to fire a gun reguardless of who's around me?

Discomfort to another? Let's ban farting in public then... The smell makes me uncomfortable.agreed. good luck trying to identify the source of the fart.

What about other jobs that have a high risk situations associated with them (higher then average not unreasonable) such as...

As much as we would like the world to be fair and level to all removing the freedom of some people to make up for the potential problems of people finding employment seems to be a non ideal solution agreed. then lets remove the ban of having religious icons at government workplaces. after all, the discomfort of a few non-religous people is nothing compared to the freedom of worship for those religous persons who choose to work there. hey, I'll even agree to say that any icon has to be purchased by the employee's own funds and they themselves have to pay for any 'upkeep and maintenance'.

Maybe the public or the owners of the bars that allow smoking should be required to help employees that choose to not work in a smoking bar for health reasons find new jobs elsewhere so increase the cost to find jobs for people who don't want to work at a location that poses a health risk is better than just removing the risk from the location?

Um, have you ever lived in a lovely state called Wisconsin where it gets below zero in the winter? I did my undergraduate studies up there... It isn't fun having to risk frostbite simply because someone doesn't like the smell of cigarette smoke. then why not stop smoking untill the weather improves?

unless smoking is an irrisistable compulsion that forces you to stand out in below zero weather...

What? Thats a horrible analogy

People fart in public all the time ... it may be looked down upon but they do and its not illegal like smoking is in many places yet are people farting in such quatities that it actually causes a haze to form?

Yeah, but then ill have to read more of your posts, and who really wants that? too bad there is no option to IGNORE any poster... perhaps something like that should be made for those forced to read other people's posts :tongue:

Not where i work, Cinemark bans it inside the building, but everyone smokes right out side the door, hell, there are ashtrays on the garbage cans right by the box office... is that Cinemark doing the ban? if so, then once off their property, they have no control.

Seriously though. Smoking sections, anyone? Can't smokers have their own section? Or maybe smoking after, 9PM or something? there is a smoking section. it's been relocated to OUTSIDE the building. :tongue:

If a restaurant allows smoking, how is smoking in the smoking section being a dick? (several posters seem to think it is...)Because amazingly enough, cigarette smoke isn't this intelligent, courteous beast that you seem to think it is, that will see the no smoking sign and then not drift into said section. See, there's this thing called "physics".
I sometimes wonder how people think a sign will stop air currents from moving smoke from one area into the other...

I sometimes wonder how people think a sign will stop air currents from moving smoke from one area into the other...

Maybe if it's a very big sign?

when one's right poses a health risk to others. If I love to fire a gun, do I have the right to fire a gun reguardless of who's around me?

The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.
- Oliver Wendell Holmes.

I have seen this discussion in other places, and I have always been wondering about one thing: why do people want to smoke in bars and restaurants and such in the first place? (other than catering to their addiction). Maybe some smokers here could answer me?

South Park prehaps says it best... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adFMLiQUJNI&feature=related)

I find it amusing that the people who are all about tolerating people's life choices are so quick to lay the hate on smokers by promoting bans all over creation... Honestly, people, banning it airplanes and public transport is one thing, banning it in bars and resturants is another. It's a funny thing, consumer choice... If you don't like the policies of a select resturant and bar, DON'T GO THERE! If you like the food too much to stop going, then act like an adult and suck it up.

Some crackpot "scientist" claims that second hand smoke is bad for you based off of questionable findings and suddenly, cigarettes are public enemy number one.... I don't question the fact that smoking is bad for the individual doing it, but it's for the individual to decide... Not the government.

Rant over.


So the fact that people have developed lung illnesses from second hand smoke is a filthy lie then?

I have seen this discussion in other places, and I have always been wondering about one thing: why do people want to smoke in bars and restaurants and such in the first place? (other than catering to their addiction). Maybe some smokers here could answer me?

I am a smoker, and I do not (or pre-ban did not) smoke in restaurants, I have never liked to smoke and eat...As far as bars? I love drinking in a dark, dank, smoke-filled cave. Without the smoke, it seems to defeat the purpose. Plus, one is a vassel-constrictor, and the other a vassel-dialator, a winning combo if there ever was...

What. the. ----?

If someone owns a restaurant, and wishes to serve a specific clientele such as smokers, what right do you have to tell him he can't run such a business? If he has a smoking-permitted restaurant, and there is no requirement for you to ever enter, WHY THE ---- DO YOU CARE???
Basic respect for human rights.

"B-b-b-but the laws...."
Grow up.

Ever thought that maybe the laws are BAD? When the government at any level decides to infringe on the property rights of a land owner who is not actively harming the person or property of another, it is tyranny.
The owner of the property is allowing an unnecessary risk to the health of his/her employees. Sounds like harm to me.
So what if you think smoking is self-destructive? Does your opinion, whether based in fact or otherwise, give you the right to interfere with another person's choices?
The fact that their self-destructive habit impacts on my health and the health of others gives me the right to interfere. It's the same basic principle as defending yourself against someone attacking you.
The employees of such an establishment are free to look elsewhere if the don't want to be in a smoky environment, and people who like to smoke would be ready to take a job there immediately. Let the market decide.
Of course, they're fucked if they can't find a job. Why do you think little kids work in sweatshops? They really need the money. But I guess if that's what the market has decided it can't be that bad, can it?

Seriously though. Smoking sections, anyone? Can't smokers have their own section?
It's called outside.
Or maybe smoking after, 9PM or something?
Does the smoke magically lose its harmful properties after 9pm?

If a restaurant allows smoking, how is smoking in the smoking section being a dick? (several posters seem to think it is...)
How is this relevant to whether a smoking ban is right or wrong?
There was little need for the current smoking bans. If you were in a restaurant or similar public building you just had to ask nicely the person smoking to put it out and they would.
Unless they were a dick.
Most pubs had a smoking bar and a non-smoking bar. Separated by a door, a door which stopped the majority of smoke.
In your opinion. I've never seen such a pub.

And the workers in the bar, well they can’t have hated the smoke that much or they would've quit.
Unless they needed the money and couldn't get a job anywhere else.

Basic respect for human rights.

I see where we differ. All rights are property rights. If you seek to interfere with someone else's use of their property, you are the transgressor. If the establishment that permits smoking is polluting someone else's property, the owner of that establishment is the transgressor. 'Human rights' are nonexistent except for the right of each human to do as he pleases so long as he harms no one else's person or property.

Government is a fictional entity. It is nothing more than a group of people who claim the authority to do to others that which would be immoral for an individual to do to another individual. Might does not make right, iirc.

*edit* So far as your worries about employee health is concerned, remember that employment is always voluntary, the risks are readily apparent, and you have no right to interfere with another person's choice of employment. If someone who regularly inhales firsthand smoke wants to work in a secondhand smoke environment, I see no increased risk to their health.

If you are concerned that "society will be forced to bear the burden of their health care costs", remember that 'society' is also a fictitious entity, and cannot bear any responsibility for the actions of people. I am not responsible for your health care costs, and you are not responsible for mine. If I engage in dangerous activities, I expect to pay for my own expenses, or at least pay a higher insurance premium. No one else is responsible. the insurance policy is a voluntary exchange, and far better than the coercive exchange of government healthcare by taxation.

I am not responsible for your health care costs, and you are not responsible for mine

you realize that taxes get spent on health. Therefor people pay for the lifestyles of others. This includes many things. Fat food, no exercise, alcohol and it definetly includes smoking

Dont you realize that the public hospital runs off public money?

you realize that taxes get spent on health. Therefor people pay for the lifestyles of others. This includes many things. Fat food, no exercise, alcohol and it definetly includes smoking

Dont you realize that the public hospital runs off public money?

This is the problem with government interference in any aspect of the marketplace: It always creates a need for an ever-expanding sphere of influence, interference, and coercion. I avoid government benefits to the fullest extent possible under the system I find myself living within.

Not all hospitals are public. I am willing to pay more if that is what it takes to avoid the 'public health system' because there is always a significant hidden cost to everything provided 'free' or at a subsidized price. This thread points out one of the most dastardly of those hidden costs: the erosion of personal choice. If you are required to pay my medicals expenses, you do have cause to demand that I change my behavior. However, those who clamor for public health care never realize that they are surrendering far more than they are gaining due to higher taxes, more regulated personal lives, and substandard service that ALWAYS comes along with a government program. seriously, do you want the same system as the DMV in charge of your hospital? "Take a number and wait."

I see where we differ. All rights are property rights. If you seek to interfere with someone else's use of their property, you are the transgressor. If the establishment that permits smoking is polluting someone else's property, the owner of that establishment is the transgressor. 'Human rights' are nonexistent except for the right of each human to do as he pleases so long as he harms no one else's person or property.
All rights are property rights, and human rights don't exist.
Except that you can't harm someone else's person - which isn't a property right, but a human right. So basically, you're trying to say both things at once.

And where do you draw the line? What constitutes "harm"? And how do you define a "person"?

Government is a fictional entity. It is nothing more than a group of people who claim the authority to do to others that which would be immoral for an individual to do to another individual. Might does not make right, iirc.
Yet governments exist, and many of them are given power to execise authority by people through democratic processes which gives them legitimacy and a power that goes beyond "might makes right".

*edit* So far as your worries about employee health is concerned, remember that employment is always voluntary, the risks are readily apparent, and you have no right to interfere with another person's choice of employment.
So crime and exploitation of workers is yay OK! Drug dealing? No problem. Working in sweat shops for dimes? You can't outlaw or regulate that, it's the choice of the employee! Working in dangerous environments without proper safety precautions? Pfft! That's your choice and your risk, the employer shouldn't be burdened with such trifling details, because all over the world we see that people never are desperate enough to be willing to work in dangerous jobs without proper security and safety. I mean, if you're unlucky and fall into an unsecured pool of acid... That's your problem. And if you're willing to work in an asbestos filled environment, well, the risks are readily apparent, as they've always been. Everybody has always known that asbestos was dangerous.

:rolleyes:

If someone who regularly inhales firsthand smoke wants to work in a secondhand smoke environment, I see no increased risk to their health.
Just because you choose to close your eyes...

Property rights begin with ownership of one's own person. All other property rights are simply an extension of this basic fact. My objection to the concept of 'human rights' is that it contains an implicit claim uponh another person that does not in fact exist.

Status quo does not equal legitimacy. Furthermore, no group can legitimately acquire powers that do not belong to the individuals that comprise the group

Crime and exploitation? No. Actively harming the person or property of another person is a crime. In a free market, those who exploit would be crowded out of the market because exploitation always results in a low-quality product.

I have little problem with deregulating narcotics. If drugs are deregulated, the price drops and associated crimes that fund drug habits cease. A druggie commits no crime unless he harms the person or property of another. Should he do so, he bears the full responsibility of the crime same as if he were sober and faces the same consequences.

Regarding your complaint that a free market would result in an explosion of unsafe working conditions, remember that an employer who is negligent would still be responsible for injuries to employees due to breach of contract since any employee would establish a contract with the employer to define the safety procedures provided at the job site. there are numerous other possibilities as well, such as private insurance companies. Government is wholly unnecessary for most of the duties it has assumed.

Everybody has always known that asbestos was dangerous.

Fail. The harmful effects are a recent discovery.

Finally, a smoker is vastly more at risk than someone who experiences secondhand smoke, the additional cancer risk of secondhand smoke when compared to preexistent firsthand smoke is negligible.

you smoke it, you breathe it. no mater how supposedly unintentional, forcing your carcinogens on someone else IS manslaughter, and ought to carry comperable manditory felony hard time.

"Finally, a smoker is vastly more at risk than someone who experiences secondhand smoke, the additional cancer risk of secondhand smoke when compared to preexistent firsthand smoke is negligible."

absolutely false on both counts.

Crime and exploitation? No. Actively harming the person or property of another person is a crime. In a free market, those who exploit would be crowded out of the market because exploitation always results in a low-quality product.

I don't see how that follows. I can't see a logical reason why exploitation would do this (in fact, if my only source of income was endangered by the quality of what I produced, I would produce damn high-quality stuff so my family didn't starve)

Besides, low-quality products sell if they are cheaper, and products can be made cheaper through exploitation of the workforce.

Or lower-quality products provide a greater profit, allowing the producer to spend that profit giving their product an advantage; marketing, buying competition etc.


Regarding your complaint that a free market would result in an explosion of unsafe working conditions, remember that an employer who is negligent would still be responsible for injuries to employees due to breach of contract since any employee would establish a contract with the employer to define the safety procedures provided at the job site. there are numerous other possibilities as well, such as private insurance companies. Government is wholly unnecessary for most of the duties it has assumed.

But who has the power when negotiating those contracts? Not the potential or actual employee, especially if the market has a surfeit of labour and a lack of jobs. Even with regulation my employment contract sucks.

And who is going to maintain an impartial legal system in case of breach of contract?

Property rights begin with ownership of one's own person. All other property rights are simply an extension of this basic fact. My objection to the concept of 'human rights' is that it contains an implicit claim uponh another person that does not in fact exist.
Again you're saying both things at once: Human rights don't exist, but there are some rights you get because you can own stuff - since you are human.

Status quo does not equal legitimacy.
No, but to claim that governments are a ficticious entity is to ignore reality.


Furthermore, no group can legitimately acquire powers that do not belong to the individuals that comprise the group
...which is why the individuals willingly has given up those powers - for the greater good.

Crime and exploitation? No. Actively harming the person or property of another person is a crime. In a free market, those who exploit would be crowded out of the market because exploitation always results in a low-quality product.
Like how Nike (http://www.organicconsumers.org/clothes/nike041505.cfm) produces shoes of sub-par quality, and how they've been crowded out of the market after exploiting their workers. Right.

Your views aren't founded in reality, but seem more like an ideal day dream - just like communism, it's a nice idea that just doesn't work in Real Life.

You would open up for exploitation and crime by leaving the market unregulated. You would hurt both workers and consumers in the process, and you would not end up with superiour products.

I have little problem with deregulating narcotics. If drugs are deregulated, the price drops and associated crimes that fund drug habits cease. A druggie commits no crime unless he harms the person or property of another. Should he do so, he bears the full responsibility of the crime same as if he were sober and faces the same consequences.
Not drug addicts - drug dealers. Since one takes drugs voluntarily, the drug dealer should be in the clear and bear no responsibiliy, according to your view.

Regarding your complaint that a free market would result in an explosion of unsafe working conditions, remember that an employer who is negligent would still be responsible for injuries to employees due to breach of contract since any employee would establish a contract with the employer to define the safety procedures provided at the job site. there are numerous other possibilities as well, such as private insurance companies. Government is wholly unnecessary for most of the duties it has assumed.
You seem to forget that the employer would be in a position of power in an unregulated market, and can easily dictate the terms of the contract thus making himself immune to liability. The employer has the money, and thus the lawyers to aid him too. The employee does not have that kind of backing in an unregulated market.

And your idea of how private insurance companies can take over the role of government seems also based on the assumption that the worker can affoard to use them.


Fail. The harmful effects are a recent discovery.
If the first century AD counts as "recent"...

Finally, a smoker is vastly more at risk than someone who experiences secondhand smoke, the additional cancer risk of secondhand smoke when compared to preexistent firsthand smoke is negligible.
Is it? Can you back that up?

Finally, a smoker is vastly more at risk than someone who experiences secondhand smoke, the additional cancer risk of secondhand smoke when compared to preexistent firsthand smoke is negligible.

Smokers inhale through a filter.

The smoke coming from the lit end is unfiltered.

.....Government is a fictional entity.....

So your problem isn't with the smoking ban, it's with the government. Fine, but off topic.

I sure don't, since I'm not physically addicted

I am at a loss for words.

I avoid government benefits to the fullest extent possible under the system I find myself living within.

You might. I dont know you. But other people dont.

If smokers never smoked near me so im not poisoned, their children (who are too young to voice an opinion) and also never asked for any public money to pay for the medical expences that occur sooner or later I wouldnt see a problem with it at all.

The problem with smoking is that in any western society is that smokers smoke in rooms with their children who have no say in the matter, smoke in public areas where I am around despite no smoking signs and take money from public hospitals. I have no doubt that there is a random smoker out there who does none of these things but the vast vast majority do not.

Smoking effects other peoples health and wallets. That is what is wrong with smoking

I am at a loss for words.

As hard as it might be to believe, there are people who smoke who are not addicted to nicotine. In fact, I would rather there be little or no nicotine in tobacco so that those of us who enjoy tobacco smoking simply for the smell and taste of tobacco don't have to risk addiction.

Smoking effects other peoples health and wallets. That is what is wrong with smoking

And that's why I pay $4.00/pack. Somebody has to cover the public health costs of smoking, and I'd rather it be us that shoulder the burden than people who have nothing to do with it.

As always, of course, I stringently oppose using these taxes as a kind of sumptuary law or a way of funding other obligations by penalizing smokers unfairly. There's a line between proper funding of our cost to society and penalizing us above and beyond that level. Unfortunately, more than a few governments end up making that mistake and effectively create a black market that screws everybody over.

And that's why I pay $4.00/pack

I doubt $4 a pack covers all the health costs.

And that's why I pay $4.00/pack. Somebody has to cover the public health costs of smoking, and I'd rather it be us that shoulder the burden than people who have nothing to do with it.
Makes sense.

I wouldn't get too worked up about your cost per pack, though. I pay £6.06 per pack at the moment which, by my reckoning, works out at a little over US$11 :eek:

Dontcha find it odd that during all of the debate about tobacco, the lawsuits against tobacco companies, the howling about threats to public health, and the calls for banning smoking outside the home that the federal government still subsidizes the tobacco farmers? I don't like it when the government simultaneously props up an industry and demonizes those who use its products. Remember that the market reacts to prices. Let's allow the market to determine the proper price for tobacco products by ending tobacco subsidies.

If smokers never smoked near me so im not poisoned, their children (who are too young to voice an opinion) and also never asked for any public money to pay for the medical expences that occur sooner or later I wouldnt see a problem with it at all.

I can't help but notice that the first thing you point out is your own inconvenience, your own hypochondriac fear, your own distaste.

To me that says the other reasons are mere justifications. You don't really care about the medical expenses, nor should you. It's not like your taxes will increase based on how many smokers there are. And the children thing is a non-issue except for parents, which neither I nor most of the smokers I know are.

The problem with smoking is that in any western society is that smokers smoke in rooms with their children who have no say in the matter

How is this qualitatively worse than parents who let their kids watch TV?

smoke in public areas where I am around

Oh, the real crime: you don't like it.

and take money from public hospitals

Do you know what "public" means?

. I have no doubt that there is a random smoker out there who does none of these things but the vast vast majority do not.

Oh really, the "vast majority" of smokers even have children?

Let's see some statistics on that one. But we both know you have none. This "vast majority" you refer to is a fiction.

Smoking effects other peoples health and wallets. That is what is wrong with smoking

Many, many things affect people's health and 'wallets.' But you only complain about cigarettes. Why? Cuz, you don't like it.

Like most of the antitobacco crowd, your primary reason for your anti-tobacco attitude is your own personal preference.