NationStates Jolt Archive

So, here's the deal. I'm attending Penn State University at the moment, and I have to say, it's a wonderful place. Green grass, beautiful buildings, blue skies, and clean air....whoops! Wait a minute, perhaps not that last one, according to a student organization that's pushing for a smoke free campus.

Naturally, hearing this, I wondered what NSG's take on this might be.

Here's the rundown. Currently, smoking is lightly restricted on campus, meaning that no smoking is allowed near building entrances where it might enter poorly ventilated spaces. In cases of being near multiple buildings at once, there are designated smoking areas. Obviously, indoor smoking is out.

But this group feels that smoking should be banned everywhere on campus.

Personally, I find myself siding with the smokers on this. Occasionally, I'll take a short breath of smoke, but rarely do I get stuck in a situation where I'm "forced" to breath it in, i.e. walking behind someone smoking. And if I do, I generally just move away from that area.

So, what are your takes on this? Do both sides have rights, smokers to smoke seeing as this isn't an illegal substance, and non-smokers to breath smoke-free air? Or does one side take precedence?

I support Status Quo on this one...Its the same at my school...And I dont have a problem with it...

The Anti-Smoking Crusade needs to chill a bit...

Normally I am for the idea of letting smokers smoke outside, as long as it is done away from the building entrances or open windows... that said, I HATE getting caught behind someone puffing like a smoke stack and oblivious to the fact that his or her smoke is going right into everyones' faces.

Trying to force people to not smoke at all on campus is just ridiculous. If they don't like it they can move out of the way being outdoors and all. I don't smoke, hell I can't stand cigarette smoke, its causes me extreme discomfort, but if someone is smoking outside I just get the hell out of the way, problem solved. Just find the people at the root of this idiocy and bop them on the forehead for me.

I have mixed feelings about this. I would support, I suppose, a limited ban on outdoor smoking - for example, if there's an outdoor eating space, I could see banning smoking there. Or, possibly banning smoking in a place where people are standing in line and can't conveniently leave. But banning smoking in all outdoor places would be difficult at best. Perhaps the best compromise would be to have designated smoking areas which the non-smoking public can avoid.

Perhaps the best compromise would be to have designated smoking areas which the non-smoking public can avoid.

To be more accurate, this is actually what My school has...

Speaking as someone who's badly allergic to cigarette smoke, that sounds like overkill. That said, on many campuses, it seems like the smoking rules that exist are poorly enforced or not enforced at all, and that also is a problem. It is therefore possible that this is simply an effort to make it harder for jerks to break pre-existing rules, but, again, I don't think it's the right way to go about it.

ban it. smoking bad. instead lets all dip and spit it everywhere.

ban it. smoking bad. instead lets all dip and spit it everywhere.

OH GOD NO!!!

When I was workin at the Movie Theater people were always leaving their goddamn spit cups in the cup holders....And idk if youve ever had to reach in a dark space for a cup and ended up with someone's dip soaked spit all over your hand....


But, its really not pleasant.....At least the smokers used the trashcan/ashtray....or threw where i wouldnt have to pick it up, lol..

There is no enumerated right to smoke wherever you want. Smoking is unhealthy and it is the role of the government to provide for the well being of its citizens. Even if its a personal choice, the government doesn't let you make other poor decisions in the interest of liberty. The only reason smoking is frowned upon more by the government is Big Tobacco.

Ban it.

Ban it.

May I direct you towards Prohibition?....Maybe the numerous other Drugs that are supposedly "banned"......

It never seems to work out well.....

May I direct you towards Prohibition?....Maybe the numerous other Drugs that are supposedly "banned"......

It never seems to work out well.....

I was talking about on that particular campus. I also think we should ban it in restaurants and public places. Make it ridiculously inconvenient to do, hopefully with the end result of reducing the rates of smokers.

I was talking about on that particular campus. I also think we should ban it in restaurants and public places. Make it ridiculously inconvenient to do, hopefully with the end result of reducing the rates of smokers.

That's all well and good, but remember, it is a legal substance, and no one is forcing non-smokers to stand there and take it in. If you don't like smoke in a particular place, no one forces you to stay there, you can get up and move.

That's all well and good, but remember, it is a legal substance, and no one is forcing non-smokers to stand there and take it in. If you don't like smoke in a particular place, no one forces you to stay there, you can get up and move.

No no no. Your timeline is confused. The so-called "rights of smokers" do not trump the so-called "rights of non-smokers". The default position is that everyone stands in a public place doing nothing, and then we go from there. You can't argue that your neighbors should go out for the night because you want to be loud. Their rights trump yours because they aren't the ones creating the "disturbance".

May I direct you towards Prohibition?....Maybe the numerous other Drugs that are supposedly "banned"......

It never seems to work out well.....
The idea isn't to stop people from smoking, just to stop them from smoking around non-smokers. I don't have people shooting heroin around me. That's working out very nicely.

I was talking about on that particular campus. I also think we should ban it in restaurants and public places. Make it ridiculously inconvenient to do, hopefully with the end result of reducing the rates of smokers.

Yeah, they tried that here...All the bars and poolhalls said fuck it and everyone smoked anyway...

I imagine that will happen across campus there...With enough of a population its just impossible to enforce...

Yeah, they tried that here...All the bars and poolhalls said fuck it and everyone smoked anyway...

I imagine that will happen across campus there...With enough of a population its just impossible to enforce...

Where would we be if we always took that attitude! Where's your American spirit!

... I'm being told that Americans generally say fuck-you to health experts and do whatever they want, so scratch that last comment.

Where would we be if we always took that attitude! Where's your American spirit!

... I'm being told that Americans generally say fuck-you to health experts and do whatever they want, so scratch that last comment.

What else could explain our 1 in 3 obesity?

But, on topic, while I don't disagree with banning smoking in many places, such as indoor areas, or areas with low ventilation or mobility, is it reasonable to ban it everywhere outside, even in areas with good mobility?

((By mobility, I mean the ability to move away from a smokey area at will with little interference with one's actions))

One thing I always thought should happen is that bar and pub owners should have the right to choose whether smoking is allowed at their venue. It seems farcical that there's no smoking allowed at the Cigar Bar.

One thing I always thought should happen is that bar and pub owners should have the right to choose whether smoking is allowed at their venue.
The city, etc. has the right (duty) to choose whether it grants that venue a license.

The city, etc. has the right (duty) to choose whether it grants that venue a license.

I'm not sure how it works where you're from, or to be honest, how it works where I'm from.

One thing I always thought should happen is that bar and pub owners should have the right to choose whether smoking is allowed at their venue. It seems farcical that there's no smoking allowed at the Cigar Bar.

Because the majority of bars would keep smoking, I dont think there are any numbers, but Id bet that Smokers frequent bars more than non smokers a good 2 to 1...

And the Anti-Smoking Agenda cant have people choosing whether they smoke or not anyway...

The city, etc. has the right (duty) to choose whether it grants that venue a license.

I think that, seeing as it's private property and a private establishment, the owner should have the right to choose whether or not to allow smoking.

I'm not sure how it works where you're from, or to be honest, how it works where I'm from.
I'm just saying, basically, that it's not a private property issue. (I don't know if that's the way you're looking at it.) A business owner does not have the right to make his own rules on "his own property". It's a public facility and the rules are made by some level of government.

We've had an indoor smoking ban around here for a couple of years. In my (subjective) opinion, even the Casino seems to have more business, not less. Bars are allowed to have an outdoor smoking patio. (It's -19 C tonight so I don't know how popular that is.)

I think that, seeing as it's private property and a private establishment, the owner should have the right to choose whether or not to allow smoking.

And I think, seeing as it's a business, it should be subject to the same regulations that all other businesses are subject to.

I think that, seeing as it's private property and a private establishment, the owner should have the right to choose whether or not to allow smoking.
But it's not private property. It's a public facility, licensed by the government in the public interest.

I think that, seeing as it's private property and a private establishment, the owner should have the right to choose whether or not to allow smoking.

For bars generally how it works in the states is they pull your right to sell alcohol.
for restaurants they consider it a health code violation and pull their right to sell food.

So, here's the deal. I'm attending Penn State University at the moment, and I have to say, it's a wonderful place. Green grass, beautiful buildings, blue skies, and clean air....whoops! Wait a minute, perhaps not that last one, according to a student organization that's pushing for a smoke free campus.

Naturally, hearing this, I wondered what NSG's take on this might be.

Here's the rundown. Currently, smoking is lightly restricted on campus, meaning that no smoking is allowed near building entrances where it might enter poorly ventilated spaces. In cases of being near multiple buildings at once, there are designated smoking areas. Obviously, indoor smoking is out.

But this group feels that smoking should be banned everywhere on campus.

Personally, I find myself siding with the smokers on this. Occasionally, I'll take a short breath of smoke, but rarely do I get stuck in a situation where I'm "forced" to breath it in, i.e. walking behind someone smoking. And if I do, I generally just move away from that area.

So, what are your takes on this? Do both sides have rights, smokers to smoke seeing as this isn't an illegal substance, and non-smokers to breath smoke-free air? Or does one side take precedence?

I know too little about the layout and use of that campus to be able to judge on this one.

However, I can honestly say that I hate walking behind smokers, or having to wait at a bus stop with smokers. In both cases there's very little I can do to avoid the stink, especially in the bis stop example. If it's raining, you basically have the choice between smelling like an ashtray for the rest of the day, or get soaked. :(

Yeah, they tried that here...All the bars and poolhalls said fuck it and everyone smoked anyway...

I imagine that will happen across campus there...With enough of a population its just impossible to enforce...

They did it here, and it worked. Pub sales went down for a bit during the first 6 months, but went back to normal again after that.
Cigarette sales are down quite dramatically.

I'm a smoker but am all for the ban on smoking indoors. I prefer to eat in a restaurant with clean air, as do my family.
I don't even smoke inside my house as it stinks the place up.
However, smokers should be provided some external facility to light up if they please. We have a little shelter at work which I use, which is the best place for all the gossip.
What I object to is the smoking Nazis who want an outright ban (I've heard they are trying to ban it on some council owned golf courses, which is taking it a bit too far for me)

I hate those anti-smoke Nazis.

They moan about all but still drive in their SUV's.
They moan about ‘the cost to the society' but still eat their quadruple kingburgers with extra cheese.

I just hate anti-smoke Nazis.

My University just recently did this (banned smoking anywhere on campus) frankly, I like it better than the way things were before. Previously you were not supposed to smoke directly outside of a door, so guess where every smoker on campus smoked? right outside the busiest doors on campus, over which is a walkway, so that it was actually smokey for about 50 feet in any direction of the door (including extending a way into the building).

While I can't say I completely agree with the ban, but if it stops people from smoking in places where a non-smoker may need to pass through, then I guess that is what happens when people habitually break the rules.

EDIT: bus stops and walking behind smokers are the worst.

I hate those anti-smoke Nazis.

They moan about all but still drive in their SUV's.
They moan about ‘the cost to the society' but still eat their quadruple kingburgers with extra cheese.

I just hate anti-smoke Nazis.

No car - check
Don't eat burgers, and virtually no cheese - check.

Hmm... I can't be an anti-smoking Nazi then. Although I do support stronger restrictions on smoking.

I'm fairly happy the way things are in the UK with regard to the smoking ban, means I can actually go and have dinner somewhere without a few select people making my food taste like ash or clogging my throat and lungs with more crap.

Means I can go to the pub with a couple of severely asthmatic friends without them not being able to breathe.

I'm fairly happy the way things are in the UK with regard to the smoking ban, means I can actually go and have dinner somewhere without a few select people making my food taste like ash or clogging my throat and lungs with more crap.

Means I can go to the pub with a couple of severely asthmatic friends without them not being able to breathe.

And its nice to get from the pub and NOT have to put all your clothes straight in the wash because they stink

On bad thing is that you can start to smell the actual people now (that heady mix of BO and strong aftershave.....nice:()

And its nice to get from the pub and NOT have to put all your clothes straight in the wash because they stink

On bad thing is that you can start to smell the actual people now (that heady mix of BO and strong aftershave.....nice:()

This is true but at least I'm not choking as much.
;P

What is Alcohol? Well...it's a toxin. It destroys nerve tissue, digestive tissue, damages blood vessels, injures the liver and kidneys, causes reduced judgemental capacity, slows reaction times, and, in sufficient quantity, will kill an otherwise healthy person. (Yup, you CAN drink yourself to death).

Alcohol is the leading factor in deadly automotive accidents, and a leading contributor to violent death in crime statistics, is often noted as being consumed at Domestic Disturbance sites (Beaters often drink their 'courage'). It has both long term and short term health effects.

And, of course, there's bar-fights, Party-fiohts, and camping fights associated with the consumption of alcohol, including one or two incidents where someone is murdered either because they got drunk and belligerent, or their assailant got drunk and belligerent.

Cigarrette Babies may have an increased risk of Asthma, but Fetal Alcohol babies tend to be mentally deficient as well as having most of the same physical deformities that smoker's babies have.

Now, we're talking about banning the smoking of Cigarettes from a place that serves...

Alcohol.

Now, let me get this straight-we're going to ban smoking in a place that distributes a known toxin that regularly and proveably (without the need for bending the rules or broad extrapolation) kills people every year, both its users, and those around them...because smoking is poisonous, and can have an adverse medical reaction in less than one percent of the population after sustained exposure?

People knowingly ingest and abuse Alcohol, people knowingly ingest and use Tobacco.

Tobacco can cause emphasyma, lung cancer, birth defects, mouth and jaw cancer, and is highly addictive.

Alcohol WILL, with sustained use, damage your liver, blood system, kidneys, and brain. It impairs your judgement, it proveably lowers inhibitions, often to the point of releasing violence, while it kills the normal pain response that makes most people reconsider before taking a swing at someone. Half a million people a year are injured, or die in car accidents resulting from the consumption of Alcohol, this isn't extrapolation, it's raw data-one driver was drunk, he swerved, ran into somebody, didn't hit his brakes, mistook the headlights for taillights, whatever. A drunk gets mean, hits someone over the head with a pool-cue and kills them, or a drunk comes home (miraculously missing the chance to kill some other innocent bystander) and, in an argument with his old lady, beats her to the point of death. this is COMMON. Look around carefully-by the time you're thirty, you'll know at least one person who's made a mess of their life with the bottle.

And we're worrying about Cigarettes? in Bars??

The priority is all screwed up here. Alcohol, a known toxin that is a known factor in violent crime, property crime, domestic violence, and lethal 'accidents', versus Tobacco, which is known to potentially cause health problems after sustained and prolonged exposure, we're going to ban the Tobacco, and keep the Vodka.

For public health reasons. Put it the way it really is-Drunks are funny until they try to pound your face in, but smokers smell bad no matter what. Being reasonably consistent on the "Public Health" angle, you should be talking about banning BARS, not banning smoking-in-bars.

I do think that it's reaching the point where we have to decide whether we're going to keep smoking legal or not. If it is to remain legal, then we have to be sensible about when and where people can smoke. This attempt to make it impossible to smoke while still selling cigarettes is becoming silly.

I do think that it's reaching the point where we have to decide whether we're going to keep smoking legal or not. If it is to remain legal, then we have to be sensible about when and where people can smoke. This attempt to make it impossible to smoke while still selling cigarettes is becoming silly.

I'd be fine with banning it altogether, but I think most governments wouldn't want to see one of their tax sources dry up just like that....

What is Alcohol? Well...it's a toxin. It destroys nerve tissue, digestive tissue, damages blood vessels, injures the liver and kidneys, causes reduced judgemental capacity, slows reaction times, and, in sufficient quantity, will kill an otherwise healthy person. (Yup, you CAN drink yourself to death).

Alcohol is the leading factor in deadly automotive accidents, and a leading contributor to violent death in crime statistics, is often noted as being consumed at Domestic Disturbance sites (Beaters often drink their 'courage'). It has both long term and short term health effects.

And, of course, there's bar-fights, Party-fiohts, and camping fights associated with the consumption of alcohol, including one or two incidents where someone is murdered either because they got drunk and belligerent, or their assailant got drunk and belligerent.

Cigarrette Babies may have an increased risk of Asthma, but Fetal Alcohol babies tend to be mentally deficient as well as having most of the same physical deformities that smoker's babies have.

Now, we're talking about banning the smoking of Cigarettes from a place that serves...

Alcohol.

Now, let me get this straight-we're going to ban smoking in a place that distributes a known toxin that regularly and proveably (without the need for bending the rules or broad extrapolation) kills people every year, both its users, and those around them...because smoking is poisonous, and can have an adverse medical reaction in less than one percent of the population after sustained exposure?

People knowingly ingest and abuse Alcohol, people knowingly ingest and use Tobacco.

Tobacco can cause emphasyma, lung cancer, birth defects, mouth and jaw cancer, and is highly addictive.

Alcohol WILL, with sustained use, damage your liver, blood system, kidneys, and brain. It impairs your judgement, it proveably lowers inhibitions, often to the point of releasing violence, while it kills the normal pain response that makes most people reconsider before taking a swing at someone. Half a million people a year are injured, or die in car accidents resulting from the consumption of Alcohol, this isn't extrapolation, it's raw data-one driver was drunk, he swerved, ran into somebody, didn't hit his brakes, mistook the headlights for taillights, whatever. A drunk gets mean, hits someone over the head with a pool-cue and kills them, or a drunk comes home (miraculously missing the chance to kill some other innocent bystander) and, in an argument with his old lady, beats her to the point of death. this is COMMON. Look around carefully-by the time you're thirty, you'll know at least one person who's made a mess of their life with the bottle.

And we're worrying about Cigarettes? in Bars??

The priority is all screwed up here. Alcohol, a known toxin that is a known factor in violent crime, property crime, domestic violence, and lethal 'accidents', versus Tobacco, which is known to potentially cause health problems after sustained and prolonged exposure, we're going to ban the Tobacco, and keep the Vodka.

For public health reasons. Put it the way it really is-Drunks are funny until they try to pound your face in, but smokers smell bad no matter what. Being reasonably consistent on the "Public Health" angle, you should be talking about banning BARS, not banning smoking-in-bars.

Difference is, when I go for a pint after work, and you're sitting next to me having a soda, my pint isn't going to jump over and force itself down your throat.

Pubs and restaurants serve alcohol, yes. But you can always choose to drink something non-alcoholic when socialising.

What is Alcohol? Well...it's a toxin. It destroys nerve tissue, digestive tissue, damages blood vessels, injures the liver and kidneys, causes reduced judgemental capacity, slows reaction times, and, in sufficient quantity, will kill an otherwise healthy person. (Yup, you CAN drink yourself to death).

Alcohol is the leading factor in deadly automotive accidents, and a leading contributor to violent death in crime statistics, is often noted as being consumed at Domestic Disturbance sites (Beaters often drink their 'courage'). It has both long term and short term health effects.

And, of course, there's bar-fights, Party-fiohts, and camping fights associated with the consumption of alcohol, including one or two incidents where someone is murdered either because they got drunk and belligerent, or their assailant got drunk and belligerent.

Cigarrette Babies may have an increased risk of Asthma, but Fetal Alcohol babies tend to be mentally deficient as well as having most of the same physical deformities that smoker's babies have.

Now, we're talking about banning the smoking of Cigarettes from a place that serves...

Alcohol.

Now, let me get this straight-we're going to ban smoking in a place that distributes a known toxin that regularly and proveably (without the need for bending the rules or broad extrapolation) kills people every year, both its users, and those around them...because smoking is poisonous, and can have an adverse medical reaction in less than one percent of the population after sustained exposure?

People knowingly ingest and abuse Alcohol, people knowingly ingest and use Tobacco.

Tobacco can cause emphasyma, lung cancer, birth defects, mouth and jaw cancer, and is highly addictive.

Alcohol WILL, with sustained use, damage your liver, blood system, kidneys, and brain. It impairs your judgement, it proveably lowers inhibitions, often to the point of releasing violence, while it kills the normal pain response that makes most people reconsider before taking a swing at someone. Half a million people a year are injured, or die in car accidents resulting from the consumption of Alcohol, this isn't extrapolation, it's raw data-one driver was drunk, he swerved, ran into somebody, didn't hit his brakes, mistook the headlights for taillights, whatever. A drunk gets mean, hits someone over the head with a pool-cue and kills them, or a drunk comes home (miraculously missing the chance to kill some other innocent bystander) and, in an argument with his old lady, beats her to the point of death. this is COMMON. Look around carefully-by the time you're thirty, you'll know at least one person who's made a mess of their life with the bottle.

And we're worrying about Cigarettes? in Bars??

The priority is all screwed up here. Alcohol, a known toxin that is a known factor in violent crime, property crime, domestic violence, and lethal 'accidents', versus Tobacco, which is known to potentially cause health problems after sustained and prolonged exposure, we're going to ban the Tobacco, and keep the Vodka.

For public health reasons. Put it the way it really is-Drunks are funny until they try to pound your face in, but smokers smell bad no matter what. Being reasonably consistent on the "Public Health" angle, you should be talking about banning BARS, not banning smoking-in-bars.

All quite valid points - unfortunately, smokers make me cough, smell disgusting, force smoke (sometimes it isn't even tobacco ffs) within my body that I don't want to happen and make me smell disgusting too. I'd rather choose to drink alcohol than not be able to choose whether throat and lungs get filled with smoke.

Difference is, when I go for a pint after work, and you're sitting next to me having a soda, my pint isn't going to jump over and force itself down your throat.

Pubs and restaurants serve alcohol, yes. But you can always choose to drink something non-alcoholic when socialising.

Ever smell someone's breath after a night out? Ever smelled someone's CAR?

Here's the thing-you go into a bar, you're ordering poison. You're consuming a drug that lowers your inhibitions, damages your thinking-meat, damages your liver, kidneys, and a host of other things that won't grow back...EVER.

I'm not worried about your pint jumping down my lungs, I'm more concerned about your ass getting behind the wheel of a car and killing someone, or your frustrations from work erupting and maybe you feeding your empty but now sharp and broken bottle to someone because they argued with your opinion on the latest football match.

These things don't wash off.

Soap and a shower won't make someone who's had their back broken by a drunk walk again. They WILL remove bad smells, and not going into a bar where smoking's allowed can certainly protect you from having to mix your toxins both lung-and-rest-of-body.

What I'm trying to get at, is that if there is ANY PLACE (outside of a private residence or automobile) where smoking is permitted, it should be restricted to BARS, much as public drinking is-and for the same reasons-a Bar is a place where people go to deliberately ingest poisons that have severe, long-term, effects.

There are two main carcinogenics, benzopyrene being the main. To put things in perspective, half an hour of time spent over a bbq would be the equivalent of passive smoking for 10 hours a day for a month on average. So there is clearly a health hysteria surrounding passive smoking. Before the smoking ban the lengths to which non-smokers go to object by forced coughing and flapping their hands in the air is astounding.

In the UK, the tobacco industry generated over £10bn in tax revenue in 1998, enough to pay for three quarters of the Education and Employment Budget.

Also within the UK, the rate of pubs closing is now over 1 a day.

A better compromise must be reached.

The non-smokers must think with their heads not just emotionally.

The non-smokers must think with their heads not just emotionally.

We are thinking with our heads - If you want to poison yourself, you can do it outside and leave us out of it.

Freedom of choice may give you the right to pollute your own body, but it doesn't give you a right to inflict that on those around you.

Ever smell someone's breath after a night out? Ever smelled someone's CAR?

Here's the thing-you go into a bar, you're ordering poison. You're consuming a drug that lowers your inhibitions, damages your thinking-meat, damages your liver, kidneys, and a host of other things that won't grow back...EVER.

I'm not worried about your pint jumping down my lungs, I'm more concerned about your ass getting behind the wheel of a car and killing someone, or your frustrations from work erupting and maybe you feeding your empty but now sharp and broken bottle to someone because they argued with your opinion on the latest football match.

These things don't wash off.

Soap and a shower won't make someone who's had their back broken by a drunk walk again. They WILL remove bad smells, and not going into a bar where smoking's allowed can certainly protect you from having to mix your toxins both lung-and-rest-of-body.

What I'm trying to get at, is that if there is ANY PLACE (outside of a private residence or automobile) where smoking is permitted, it should be restricted to BARS, much as public drinking is-and for the same reasons-a Bar is a place where people go to deliberately ingest poisons that have severe, long-term, effects.

I don't drive. And I don't follow football.
The last time I hit somebody was my little brother well over 2 decades ago now.

I think you need to get a perspective on things : Not everybody enjoying a pint in the evening is instantly going to turn into a drunk-driving, beer-bottle swinging violent maniac.
Most people enjoy their pint and then go home for a good sleep.

Before the smoking ban the lengths to which non-smokers go to object by forced coughing and flapping their hands in the air is astounding.

No, that's me actually dieing.

I don't drive. And I don't follow football.
The last time I hit somebody was my little brother well over 2 decades ago now.

I think you need to get a perspective on things : Not everybody enjoying a pint in the evening is instantly going to turn into a drunk-driving, beer-bottle swinging violent maniac.
Most people enjoy their pint and then go home for a good sleep.

You must be from outside the U.S... Yanks don't drink "just" one pint-they drink a six, ten, or twelve-pack-they drink to get drunk, then weave their way homeward, praying the cops don't spot them. I've been there, I did that, I know-and I don't do it any more (no accidents, just no more drinking. Smoking's going to end pretty soon too, but not for "health" reasons-it just tastes like shit now and it costs too much-besides, I really don't feel like contributing extra taxes to children's health-care programmes, state police, and road maintenance while my elected representatives spend the general fund to build football stadiums and redecorate the state Capitol.)

Americans drink to "Loosen Up" and "Get a Buzz", which means to get tipsy, to get drunk, hammered, even. Then, they drive, or they get into a loud sloppy argument, they puke, too... I had a buddy in the service who slept with a mop-bucket next to his head...because we were tired of cleaning his vomit off the barracks floor.

You must be from outside the U.S... Yanks don't drink "just" one pint-they drink a six, ten, or twelve-pack-they drink to get drunk, then weave their way homeward, praying the cops don't spot them. I've been there, I did that, I know-and I don't do it any more (no accidents, just no more drinking. Smoking's going to end pretty soon too, but not for "health" reasons-it just tastes like shit now and it costs too much-besides, I really don't feel like contributing extra taxes to children's health-care programmes, state police, and road maintenance while my elected representatives spend the general fund to build football stadiums and redecorate the state Capitol.)

Americans drink to "Loosen Up" and "Get a Buzz", which means to get tipsy, to get drunk, hammered, even. Then, they drive, or they get into a loud sloppy argument, they puke, too... I had a buddy in the service who slept with a mop-bucket next to his head...because we were tired of cleaning his vomit off the barracks floor.

All of them? Wow. How many millions are there, altogether?

No, that's me actually dieing.

that kind of lung problem is probably at least partially genetic, and stay away from areas that have a lot of pollen, cars, woodstoves, campfires, chemical cleaners (including bleach and or ammonia), incense, perfume... If you're really dying then you're too fragile to live outside a sterile bubble.

All of them? Wow. How many millions are there, altogether?

Go to a bar, Cabra, be the designated driver. Watch the People Around You, and drink nothing but coffee for a few hours.

Watch the behaviour, watch the body language, and tell me after you do this a few dozen times, that I'm dead wrong on that.

I feel that you have the right to smoke wherever you want. In exchange, I have the right to assume you're on fire and blast you with a fire hose. :)

that kind of lung problem is probably at least partially genetic, and stay away from areas that have a lot of pollen, cars, woodstoves, campfires, chemical cleaners (including bleach and or ammonia), incense, perfume... If you're really dying then you're too fragile to live outside a sterile bubble.

Its my throat. Cigarette smoke, and cigarette smoke only, causes my throat to close up, restricting my airways and causing me to choke. It has been this way since they removed my tonsils.

Or, do a couple of ride-alongs with your local cops. There's a reason the back-seats of police cars are designed to be cleaned with high-pressure hoses.

Go to a bar, Cabra, be the designated driver. Watch the People Around You, and drink nothing but coffee for a few hours.

Watch the behaviour, watch the body language, and tell me after you do this a few dozen times, that I'm dead wrong on that.

I'm not always drinking alcohol in bars, sometimes I just have soft drinks for a few months or so. I've seen the behaviour. They get louder, find everything funny and start to grope each other more. That's about it.

I don't know what kind of bars you hang out in.

Go to a bar, Cabra, be the designated driver. Watch the People Around You, and drink nothing but coffee for a few hours.

Watch the behaviour, watch the body language, and tell me after you do this a few dozen times, that I'm dead wrong on that.

You're watching a few people and assuming it applies to everyone.

I don't drink, but I go out to the pub with my friends all the time. They are all capable of having just a couple of drinks. If you watch those around then yes, there are a few who are completely gone, but you'll notice that most people come in, have a few, and then leave again.

Its my throat. Cigarette smoke, and cigarette smoke only, causes my throat to close up, restricting my airways and causing me to choke. It has been this way since they removed my tonsils.

What an interestingly narrow reaction. You've been to an Allergist? It's either an allergic reaction you're describing (which usually isn't caused by surgery, it's usually something that grows with time), or a psychologically generated pseudo-reaction (that is, you've convinced yourself you're allergic to something when you aren't).

If it's an allergic reaction, you've got a serious problem-because it's never going to 'get better', only worse-eventually it CAN kill you.

You need to see a doctor regardless. Psychosomatic symptoms can kill you just as dead as the real thing-just by more indirect means.

I'm not always drinking alcohol in bars, sometimes I just have soft drinks for a few months or so. I've seen the behaviour. They get louder, find everything funny and start to grope each other more. That's about it.

I don't know what kind of bars you hang out in.

Generally cheap ones-the kind my friends can afford, the places that have a Karaoke night on fridays, a pool table, and "Dollar pitcher night".

.

What an interestingly narrow reaction. You've been to an Allergist? It's either an allergic reaction you're describing (which usually isn't caused by surgery, it's usually something that grows with time), or a psychologically generated pseudo-reaction (that is, you've convinced yourself you're allergic to something when you aren't).

If it's an allergic reaction, you've got a serious problem-because it's never going to 'get better', only worse-eventually it CAN kill you.

You need to see a doctor regardless. Psychosomatic symptoms can kill you just as dead as the real thing-just by more indirect means.

It don't change that in my own opinion my right to breathe outweighs your right to smoke; but I don't care if you smoke as long as you do it where its not going to cause me very real and painful harm.
The point I'm trying to make is that smokers need to show some consideration too, I wasn't to thrilled when people decided that suddenly you weren't allowed to smoke indoors and I think its dreadfully stupid for people to try and prevent it out of doors on a public campus.

There is no enumerated right to smoke wherever you want. Smoking is unhealthy and it is the role of the government to provide for the well being of its citizens. Even if its a personal choice, the government doesn't let you make other poor decisions in the interest of liberty. The only reason smoking is frowned upon more by the government is Big Tobacco.

Ban it.

Indeed, after all, heaven forfend we should be accorded the right to do as we please with our lives, and transgress against your own utopianism.

Regarding the more worthwhile issue of smoking within pubs, Labour's legislation was, unsurprisngly, excessively strident. A blanket, universal prohibition was been to the great detriment of pubs.

Its my throat. Cigarette smoke, and cigarette smoke only, causes my throat to close up, restricting my airways and causing me to choke. It has been this way since they removed my tonsils.

Get over it.

I'm not always drinking alcohol in bars, sometimes I just have soft drinks for a few months or so. I've seen the behaviour. They get louder, find everything funny and start to grope each other more. That's about it.

I don't know what kind of bars you hang out in.

I've always rather enjoyed going out not drinking.

All of them? Wow. How many millions are there, altogether?

There's 310 million of us, and yes, we all go out en masse after work, each drink a case of Bud Light, then get behind the wheel of a car and drive into a group of also-drunk preschoolers. That's the United States, didn't you know?

There's 310 million of us, and yes, we all go out en masse after work, each drink a case of Bud Light, then get behind the wheel of a car and drive into a group of also-drunk preschoolers. That's the United States, didn't you know?

Theres your problem. American lager becomes more drinkable the more you drink. Regular beers (especially ales) behave in the opposite way.

Here's the rundown. Currently, smoking is lightly restricted on campus, meaning that no smoking is allowed near building entrances where it might enter poorly ventilated spaces. In cases of being near multiple buildings at once, there are designated smoking areas. Obviously, indoor smoking is out.

Seems like a well thought out plan where no one gets hurt. Why change it.

There is no enumerated right to smoke wherever you want.
It doesn't have to be "enumerated"--are you unfamiliar with the concept of natural rights.

If it's private property, that's one thing, but Penn State is a government institution.

Smoking is unhealthy
Irrelevant.

and it is the role of the government to provide for the well being of its citizens.
No, it isn't.

Even if its a personal choice, the government doesn't let you make other poor decisions in the interest of liberty.
And it has no legitimate authority to do what it already does; it certainly does not possess legitimate authority to do more.

If it's private property, that's one thing, but Penn State is a government institution.

It is private property. Don't confuse "government owned" with "public".

You can't argue that your neighbors should go out for the night because you want to be loud.

The only relevant issue is "whose property?"

If you and I go visit a third party's property, then whether or not smoking is allowed is properly the decision solely of the property owner. Either one of us is free to refuse to patronize the property of a third party.

Your analogy fails because my noise is going onto YOUR property, in which case you are obviously entitled to do something about it. You are entitled to be on your own property. You are not entitled to be on someone else's property.

Maybe alcohol is more problematic than tobacco... but in most jurisdictions, consumption of alcohol is prohibited in public streets, etc.

I think it's inevitable that smoking will be banned in public areas outside as well as inside.

The city, etc. has the right (duty) to choose whether it grants that venue a license.

Except no government has any legitimate authority to require a license as a condition of doing business in this case.

Except no government has any legitimate authority to require a license as a condition of doing business in this case.
Since when do you dictate what governments have the authority to do?

I don't; objective moral principle does.

Since when do you dictate what governments have the authority to do?

He doesn't. Ayn Rand does. You would do well to familiarize yourself with her writings. A equals A.

A EQUALS MOTHERFUCKING A

I don't; objective moral principle does.
Even if there was such a thing as "objective moral principle", it doesn't really matter. We're not talking about what "should be" here. We're talking about what is.

Fact is, governments do exercise authority.

We're not talking about what "should be" here. We're talking about what is.
No, we're not. Governments are human creations, and therefore are within human control. The proper solution is not for government to expand and continue its exercise of illegitimate authority, but to stop it.

No, we're not. Governments are human creations, and therefore are within human control. The proper solution is not for government to expand and continue its exercise of illegitimate authority, but to stop it.
And that's not what we're talking about. This thread is about smoking/n0n-smoking rights as defined by governments. It is not about what governments should "properly" do.

...The proper solution is not for government to expand and continue its exercise of illegitimate authority, but to stop it.

Prove it.

It doesn't have to be "enumerated"--are you unfamiliar with the concept of natural rights.
I see. So you have a natural right to smoke wherever you want? I'm not sure you understand what natural rights are.

Ever smell someone's breath after a night out? Ever smelled someone's CAR?

Here's the thing-you go into a bar, you're ordering poison. You're consuming a drug that lowers your inhibitions, damages your thinking-meat, damages your liver, kidneys, and a host of other things that won't grow back...EVER.

For pity's sake, stop. You're not helping anything by going into hysterics and posting false and exaggerated information.

Yes, there are risk associated with alcohol use. Yes, alcohol is a drug. No, it's not time for us all to panic and run about flailing in terror over this HORRIBLE POISON that is KILLING OUR INSIDES.

Pretty much ANY substance is a "poison" if consumed in sufficient quantity. In the forms most commonly consumed, alcohol is not poisonous, nor does it cause any permanent damage to the human body when consumed the way the average person consumes it.

Freaking out and acting like alcohol itself is a deadly horrible liquid of doom does not help anything. It confuses the issue and distracts from genuine problems with alcohol abuse and over-dosing.

Oh, and for the record, the liver DOES regenerate, and is amazingly awesome.


I'm not worried about your pint jumping down my lungs, I'm more concerned about your ass getting behind the wheel of a car and killing someone, or your frustrations from work erupting and maybe you feeding your empty but now sharp and broken bottle to someone because they argued with your opinion on the latest football match.

These things don't wash off.

Soap and a shower won't make someone who's had their back broken by a drunk walk again. They WILL remove bad smells, and not going into a bar where smoking's allowed can certainly protect you from having to mix your toxins both lung-and-rest-of-body.

Frankly, you should be more concerned about the fact that 49% of the population is constantly under the influence of above-average levels of a substance that is known to increase risky and violent behaviors, and which is directly responsible for significantly shorter lifespans among those who show high levels of this substance in their systems. This substance is linked to suppressed immune function, as well, and is known to impair the body's ability to combat illness and repair after injury in many cases.

I'm talking about testosterone, for the record.

Clearly, it's time for us all to panic.


What I'm trying to get at, is that if there is ANY PLACE (outside of a private residence or automobile) where smoking is permitted, it should be restricted to BARS, much as public drinking is-and for the same reasons-a Bar is a place where people go to deliberately ingest poisons that have severe, long-term, effects.
By this logic, bars should also be the only place where guns are permitted. I mean, all those pub-crawlers are really just guzzling down LETHAL POISONS according to you, so clearly they aren't concerned with their health. They won't mind having deadly weapons thrown into the mix.

*snip irrelevant rant about alcohol*

That's nice. And as soon as one is forced to consume another person's alcohol simply by being in the same room as them, you will actually have a point.

That's nice. And as soon as one is forced to consume another person's alcohol simply by being in the same room as them, you will actually have a point.

drink it bitch!

drink it bitch!

....man, I so need the perv smiley from GM to respond to this. :tongue:

My right to smoke a cigarette ends with your right to stand right next to a smoking guy and then have the audacity to complain about the smoke!

My right to smoke a cigarette ends with your right to stand right next to a smoking guy and then have the audacity to complain about the smoke!
Sometimes it's really easy to tell who is a city kid and who isn't.

Sometimes it's really easy to tell who is a city kid and who isn't.

Sometimes it's really easy to be totally condescending for no bloody reason at all.

Sometimes it's really easy to be totally condescending for no bloody reason at all.Sometimes everyone is looking down on you because you're really small.

This game is fun!

Sometimes everyone is looking down on you because you're really small.

This game is fun!

I'm not "really" a KID, city or otherwise. So I'm not "really small," and you are just "looking down" on me for your own silly reason.

Game over.

For the record, PSU's administration just made it known that unless this group garners much, much more support ((i.e. a good majority of the student body and/or student body organizations)), they see no reason to change their current policy.

I'm not "really" a KID, city or otherwise. So I'm not "really small," and you are just "looking down" on me for your own silly reason.

Game over.
Chill, gramps, it's called "humor." I'm sure you'll be able to find an uppity youngster playing on your lawn who can explain it to ya.

For the record, PSU's administration just made it known that unless this group garners much, much more support ((i.e. a good majority of the student body and/or student body organizations)), they see no reason to change their current policy.

Good. Moralists are moralists no matter what guise they take.

For the record, PSU's administration just made it known that unless this group garners much, much more support ((i.e. a good majority of the student body and/or student body organizations)), they see no reason to change their current policy.
For whatever it's worth, my own university had this same kind of thing pop up every year, and it never went far.

Most colleges have their hands full dealing with drinking and illegal drug use on campus. As long as they can keep smoking confined to smoking lounges and outdoor areas, they're not gonna bother with much else.

For whatever it's worth, my own university had this same kind of thing pop up every year, and it never went far.

Most colleges have their hands full dealing with drinking and illegal drug use on campus. As long as they can keep smoking confined to smoking lounges and outdoor areas, they're not gonna bother with much else.

Pretty much. We're the number 1 party school in the US. I think the admin. have more important things on their plates ;)

The VP of Student Affairs, the one who issued the statement, cited the University of Indiana's failed policy as reason for not trying to implement it here. I haven't yet had time to check into all of that, but I'll do that soon.

One thing I liked was that my college had a rule about the out-door smoking patios:

If the maintenance staff bitched about having to clean up all the butts, then the patio would be closed the following day.

I don't have a problem with people choosing to smoke, but I find it really fucking disgusting the way some smokers drop their butts everywhere they go. That's GARBAGE, assholes, put it in a trash can.

It was nice that our administration simply made it clear to the smokers that they were expected to use the damn bins and ashtrays so that the ground didn't become a mass of soggy butts. :D

On the one hand, one's right to swing one's fist ends where another's face begins. But then again, society doesn't seem to base its "permissiveness" on that approach; or at least consistently so. It's ironic that people would ban public smoking within a particular region because it's "everyone's air" when someone may happen to have smoke blown their way whether by a smoker themself or by the wind, yet cars are allowed despite that they contribute to urban smog, and urban smog is something harder to get away from than second-hand smoke. (It's easier to walk away from a building entrance than from an entire city)

I'm guessing it's because smokers are the easy target, and car-drivers are not. We see the former with arguably condescending propaganda about how stupid smokers are, and we see the latter with people who blame oil companies for gas prices without considering that people driving cars indicates demand, and the use of a non-renewable resource reduces supply.

So, here's the deal. I'm attending Penn State University at the moment, and I have to say, it's a wonderful place. Green grass, beautiful buildings, blue skies, and clean air....whoops! Wait a minute, perhaps not that last one, according to a student organization that's pushing for a smoke free campus.

Naturally, hearing this, I wondered what NSG's take on this might be.

Here's the rundown. Currently, smoking is lightly restricted on campus, meaning that no smoking is allowed near building entrances where it might enter poorly ventilated spaces. In cases of being near multiple buildings at once, there are designated smoking areas. Obviously, indoor smoking is out.

But this group feels that smoking should be banned everywhere on campus.

Personally, I find myself siding with the smokers on this. Occasionally, I'll take a short breath of smoke, but rarely do I get stuck in a situation where I'm "forced" to breath it in, i.e. walking behind someone smoking. And if I do, I generally just move away from that area.

So, what are your takes on this? Do both sides have rights, smokers to smoke seeing as this isn't an illegal substance, and non-smokers to breath smoke-free air? Or does one side take precedence?
You know as an ideal I dislike the idea

In practice at my old apartment having someone for two years that goes outside and smokes right below your window 5+ times a night is really really fucking annoying

I dont mind the smell in bars, or downtown but when you are in your own place and having to smell the smoke or get up and close the windows when it is 90+ degrees out just to avoid it is annoying

On the one hand, one's right to swing one's fist ends where another's face begins. But then again, society doesn't seem to base its "permissiveness" on that approach; or at least consistently so. It's ironic that people would ban public smoking within a particular region because it's "everyone's air" when someone may happen to have smoke blown their way whether by a smoker themself or by the wind, yet cars are allowed despite that they contribute to urban smog, and urban smog is something harder to get away from than second-hand smoke. (It's easier to walk away from a building entrance than from an entire city)

I'm guessing it's because smokers are the easy target, and car-drivers are not. We see the former with arguably condescending propaganda about how stupid smokers are, and we see the latter with people who blame oil companies for gas prices without considering that people driving cars indicates demand, and the use of a non-renewable resource reduces supply.

It could be that one in many cases has a reasonable primary usage and the side effect is smoke and the others primary effect is the smoke itself?

As a general observation society is more permissive of things that are beneficial (or at least APPEAR beneficial) to society as a whole (there are of course exceptions to this but overall ...)

It could be that one in many cases has a reasonable primary usage and the side effect is smoke and the others primary effect is the smoke itself?

As a general observation society is more permissive of things that are beneficial (or at least APPEAR beneficial) to society as a whole (there are of course exceptions to this but overall ...)
But I think some of the reasons people percieve cars as being beneficial have a bit to do with society's "addiction" to cars, (ie. people living far enough away from where they need to go on a daily basis that they'll need to use their cars to get there) much like how people who percieve their own cigarettes as being beneficial to them (ie. supposedly relieves anxiety in the very short term) have a bit to do with those addictions. I think the problems at the root of both issues are at least similar.

I'll smoke outside if it's that a big deal. Not really a problem and never has been. That being said, any attempt to ban smoking entirely will fail and it will fail as spectacularly as Prohibition or the War on Drugs. People like to smoke, and the goal is not to use oppressive force to try to engineer their behavior but rather to achieve a reasonable balance between both sides. They also forget that it's not like smoking is some vacuum that just sucks away money with no benefit; a significant chunk of the US economy is tied to the tobacco and hospitality service industries, and clamping down too hard on smoking will just drive business underground and cause economic difficulty for many hundreds of thousands of people.

I think eventually they're going to bump up against the Constitutional protections regarding unreasonable search and seizure and/or interstate commerce and the result will be considerable erosion of the beneficial aspects of smoking bans. People need to realize that there is a limit to how far the government should regulate personal behavior; right now, that limit is right at its optimal level in many cases (although I do think bans on smoking in private establishments need to be relaxed, perhaps in exchange for some kind of "tax" paid by businesses that permits it) and anything more than this will end in disaster.

I'll smoke outside if it's that a big deal. Not really a problem and never has been. That being said, any attempt to ban smoking entirely will fail and it will fail as spectacularly as Prohibition or the War on Drugs. People like to smoke, and the goal is not to use oppressive force to try to engineer their behavior but rather to achieve a reasonable balance between both sides. They also forget that it's not like smoking is some vacuum that just sucks away money with no benefit; a significant chunk of the US economy is tied to the tobacco and hospitality service industries, and clamping down too hard on smoking will just drive business underground and cause economic difficulty for many hundreds of thousands of people.

I think eventually they're going to bump up against the Constitutional protections regarding unreasonable search and seizure and/or interstate commerce and the result will be considerable erosion of the beneficial aspects of smoking bans. People need to realize that there is a limit to how far the government should regulate personal behavior; right now, that limit is right at its optimal level in many cases (although I do think bans on smoking in private establishments need to be relaxed, perhaps in exchange for some kind of "tax" paid by businesses that permits it) and anything more than this will end in disaster.
Well said. Raise taxes on things whose use damages people's health, instead of trying to ban their use under certain circumstances. Even if it doesn't necessarily discourage the behaviour, at least they'll be paying for the medical costs they'll cause, which is more than I can say for quite a few other things in our society...

... any attempt to ban smoking entirely will fail and it will fail as spectacularly as Prohibition or the War on Drugs.
As I mentioned earlier, controlling smoking is not like Prohibition or the War on Drugs. The goal is not to prevent people from smoking but to prevent their smoking from bothering other people.

Get over it.

Oh yeah like its that easy!:rolleyes:

You know whats easier? Smoking somewhere away from someone who has that kind of reaction.

I don't see why smoking should be banned out of doors anywhere, except if there's a fire risk.

I don't see why smoking should be banned out of doors anywhere, except if there's a fire risk.

Put it this way : You're not allowed to shit anywhere you please, either.

I don't see why smoking should be banned out of doors anywhere, except if there's a fire risk.

I don't either, but I'm starting to see why some people should be banned from smoking.

Put it this way : You're not allowed to shit anywhere you please, either.

Shit doesn't dissipate into the air.

Shit doesn't dissipate into the air.

Neither does cigarette smoke.

Shit doesn't dissipate into the air.

Neither does ash or cigarette butts.

Neither does ash or cigarette butts.

You're not allowed dump ash or cigarette butts anywhere you please.

You're not allowed dump ash or cigarette butts anywhere you please.

Well, then you're effectively not allowed to smoke anywhere outside either... or do you always carry a portable ashtray with you?

I always found it odd that poisoning everyone around you is illegal except when it's done by way of nicotine & tar.

And even then, only by smoking. I mean, injecting the kid next to you with nicotine by way of a syringe would be deemed horrible. But if the dosis is provided through passive smoking, it's apparently 'Freedom' or some such thing.

No, that's me actually dieing.

We are thinking with our heads - If you want to poison yourself, you can do it outside and leave us out of it.

Freedom of choice may give you the right to pollute your own body, but it doesn't give you a right to inflict that on those around you.


You have just proved my argument about over reacting.

You aren't going to die (I've given you the reason on my original post)
If you're concerned about poison, prioritise. As modern food preparation containing additives, preservatives has increased, so to has the increase in cancer in younger and younger people. Passive smoking is a drop in the ocean compared to this. Campaign to have better food, ban many modern mass production techniques, re-instate local abattoirs. etc

You have just proved my argument about over reacting.

You aren't going to die (I've given you the reason on my original post)
If you're concerned about poison, prioritise. As modern food preparation containing additives, preservatives has increased, so to has the increase in cancer in younger and younger people. Passive smoking is a drop in the ocean compared to this. Campaign to have better food, ban many modern mass production techniques, re-instate local abattoirs. etc

Read deeper into the thread... I really am dying.

Read deeper into the thread... I really am dying.

Then perhaps it's for the better. I'm sorry, but your genes are obviously too weak for the pool.

In part I'm joking, because it never fails to amuse me how radical non smokers seem so much weaker than mild smokers. They're always ill, colds etc, and seem to just lack what the ozzies refer to as "spunk". Put simply, a whingers mentality. It doesn't stop at smoking, it's everything. I know plenty of smokers that think I'm crazy walking 5 miles to work most days (and back). It takes me an hour (in the snow the last 2 days). I was told I was mad..."it's too cold". Most didn't go in on Monday.

For goodness sake... you don't have to smoke but have some backbone!

Then perhaps it's for the better. I'm sorry, but your genes are obviously too weak for the pool.

In part I'm joking, because it never fails to amuse me how radical non smokers seem so much weaker than mild smokers. They're always ill, colds etc, and seem to just lack what the ozzies refer to as "spunk". Put simply, a whingers mentality. It doesn't stop at smoking, it's everything. I know plenty of smokers that think I'm crazy walking 5 miles to work most days (and back). It takes me an hour (in the snow the last 2 days). I was told I was mad..."it's too cold". Most didn't go in on Monday.

For goodness sake... you don't have to smoke but have some backbone!

I'm perfectly healthy and rarely sick. But when I breathe in cigarette smoke it chokes me; every single time. So knock off the fucking jibes, I can't/won't do anything about your smoking and I don't care to but I can demand that you show some respect to non smokers because I'm not the only one with a real and painful reaction to that shit.

I have mixed feelings about this. I would support, I suppose, a limited ban on outdoor smoking - for example, if there's an outdoor eating space, I could see banning smoking there.
BUT!

Sitting outside with mah uni pals drinking snakebite, eating lasagna and chips and smoking is one of the great pleasures of my education.

I'm perfectly healthy and rarely sick. But when I breathe in cigarette smoke it chokes me; every single time. So knock off the fucking jibes, I can't/won't do anything about your smoking and I don't care to but I can demand that you show some respect to non smokers because I'm not the only one with a real and painful reaction to that shit.

Not that you prove my argument or anything:

1) You're swearing... flapping

2) perfectly healthy? ....real and painful reaction to that shit

Backbone my lad, get some backbone.... I'm not the one swearing

Not that you prove my argument or anything:

1) You're swearing... flapping

2) perfectly healthy? ....real and painful reaction to that shit

Backbone my lad, get some backbone.... I'm not the one swearing

Your not the one who has to suffer that kind of torment, imagine a vice closing around your neck every time some inconsiderate person lights up. I'm using strong language because I feel strongly about it. On top of it is it shit, its waste products, tar, ash, toxic chemicals, its the waste product of burning the tobacco, waste products = shit.

While I'm at it I do have a backbone; its included in my basic biology.

Do I support banning smoking in public places? Sure I can breathe when I go to a restaurant or movie now, happy days!

Do I support banning smoking in public? No, that's ridiculous.

Do I think people that smoke should think about the effect it has on other people? Yup, absotively.

Do I let people smoke in my home? No, I have a porch.

Have I ever tried to stop people from smoking by acting like an ass? No, when I can breathe I politely ask them to go somewhere else, it almost always works.

I always found it odd that poisoning everyone around you is illegal except when it's done by way of nicotine & tar.
Oh really? People are allowed to drive cars, despite how that contributes to urban smog, poisoning the air of big cities like Toronto. Meanwhile, people who walk or ride bike to get where they're going have to breathe the same air that the car-drivers just polluted.

I hate it when people get their double standards backwards.

And even then, only by smoking. I mean, injecting the kid next to you with nicotine by way of a syringe would be deemed horrible. But if the dosis is provided through passive smoking, it's apparently 'Freedom' or some such thing.
Yeah, the libertarian interpretation of "freedom" seems to be almost dogmatic nowadays. I think the best phrase to describe this would be "one's right to swing one's fist ends where another's face begins" and to remind people when one person doing what they do affects others whether they intend to affect others or not...

Your not the one who has to suffer that kind of torment, imagine a vice closing around your neck every time some inconsiderate person lights up. I'm using strong language because I feel strongly about it. On top of it is it shit, its waste products, tar, ash, toxic chemicals, its the waste product of burning the tobacco, waste products = shit.

While I'm at it I do have a backbone; its included in my basic biology.

Do I support banning smoking in public places? Sure I can breathe when I go to a restaurant or movie now, happy days!

Do I support banning smoking in public? No, that's ridiculous.

Do I think people that smoke should think about the effect it has on other people? Yup, absotively.

Do I let people smoke in my home? No, I have a porch.

Have I ever tried to stop people from smoking by acting like an ass? No, when I can breathe I politely ask them to go somewhere else, it almost always works.

I feel strongly to, and yet I'm not swearing.
Your "backbone" as an expression of toughness not biology. Why did you include that commment? you knew that's what was meant.

You didn't mention pubs (the ones that are going out of bussiness at a rate of more than 1 a day).

Outside on a quite train platform is a public place - this is banned.
A restaurant with a garden area surrounded but without a roof (open-air) - this is banned.
The House of Lords where they pass these bills have a bar where smoking is allowed. - How nice for them.

I argue for a better compromise.

I don't see why smoking should be banned out of doors anywhere, except if there's a fire risk.

Well, because "out of doors anywhere" includes places like "right next to a doorway lots of people have to walk through."

I don't see any reason it should be banned if you are actually away from other people (except those who want to be near you, obviously) and buildings, though.

Well, because "out of doors anywhere" includes places like "right next to a doorway lots of people have to walk through."

I don't see any reason it should be banned if you are actually away from other people (except those who want to be near you, obviously) and buildings, though.

That's what I was trying to get across in my OP. It is banned near buildings. But it's not banned elsewhere in the open. The group was trying to get it banned [i]everywhere[/p].

I don't see any reason it should be banned if you are actually away from other people (except those who want to be near you, obviously) and buildings, though.

Exactly. That's why I have no problem with most smoking bans, but the concept of a smoke free campus is downright bullshit unless they're going to ban other sources of air pollution (most of which are a far bigger cause of health problems than smoking) as well. Whereas passive smoking can be eliminated or marginalized for most people by banning it near entrances to buildings, smog and other pollutants from vehicles remain in the air and can produce massively dangerous consequences over a large area. Unless you're going to tackle the big boys that are responsible for respiratory problems, it's nothing more than a joke.

You reach a point where the costs outweigh the benefits and I'm pretty sure most indoor bans are already at that point. Anything more will lead to problems and might even increase smoking rates due to the fact that it's becoming marginalized, and nothing pleases a lot of people more than pissing off the nanny state when it intrudes beyond a reasonable point.