# No Smoking Laws



## Rich Parsons (Dec 23, 2007)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071223/hl_afp/lifestylefrancehealthtobacco


At the above link the following article canbe found:



> *                                         France prepares to stub out smoking in cafes*




I also know that the city of Chicago will do the same 1/1/2008 as France is doing. 

1) Do you think this is a good thing? 

2) Will this cause a problem for economies or bars etcetera?

3) Will the problems be only short term if there are any?


*************

Pesonally, I do not like smoking. In today's society I cannot find one study to show the benefits of smoking tobacco. (* Medicinal usages of other substances is another thread please *). I can find studies that show in moderation that alcohol is good for people. 

I think that some people will create a backlash effect, but as we have seen the non-smoking sections grow to be larger than smoking sections, I think over time (* 6 months to 9 months *) that the bars and cafes will still be able to make a profit.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Dec 23, 2007)

I think the decision to make an establishment smoking or smoke free should be up to the owner.  Anyone who doesn't like being in a smokey environment can easily choose not to go.

If California is a good example, it won't hurt the bars for very long.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 23, 2007)

In England we've had no smoking in public buildings since July 1st and it's been longer in Scotland and it's brilliant! It's fine to say if you don't like smoke don't go where people are smoking but what if you work somewhere where there's smoking? don't say don't work there because the economic times we are in mean you have to work where you can.
 Already health benefits are being felt by bar staff.
From Wikipedia Quote   _Researchers at the __University of Dundee__ found significant improvements in the health of bar staff in the two months following the ban. They tested bar workers' __lung function__ and __inflammatory__ markers a month before the ban came in, and again two months after it had been introduced. The number showing symptoms related to passive smoking fell from more than 80% to less than half, with reduced levels of nicotine in the blood and improvements in lung function of as much as 10%.[40]_
_A 2007 study of the effect of the ban in Scotland showed that there was 17% year-on-year drop in heart attack admissions since the ban was_ _introduced in March 2006_. Unquote 

It hasn't hurt pubs and clubs at all, people who want to smoke just have to go outside now, there's nearly always a shelter for them now provided by the premises. it's accepted by everyone now. The only problem is in the workplace where people who smoke seem to have more breaks than those of us who don't smoke!!


----------



## tellner (Dec 23, 2007)

If you can't smoke crack in an establishment there's no reason you should be able to use even more harmful and addictive drugs


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 23, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> In England we've had no smoking in public buildings since July 1st and it's been longer in Scotland and it's brilliant! It's fine to say if you don't like smoke don't go where people are smoking but what if you work somewhere where there's smoking? don't say don't work there because the economic times we are in mean you have to work where you can.
> Already health benefits are being felt by bar staff.
> From Wikipedia Quote   _Researchers at the __University of Dundee__ found significant improvements in the health of bar staff in the two months following the ban. They tested bar workers' __lung function__ and __inflammatory__ markers a month before the ban came in, and again two months after it had been introduced. The number showing symptoms related to passive smoking fell from more than 80% to less than half, with reduced levels of nicotine in the blood and improvements in lung function of as much as 10%.[40]_
> _A 2007 study of the effect of the ban in Scotland showed that there was 17% year-on-year drop in heart attack admissions since the ban was_ _introduced in March 2006_. Unquote
> ...



A few years ago to address the "Extra" breaks all the non-smokers would get up form their desks or meetings at 3:00 PM exactly and go get an ice cream bar or pop and talk about non work stuff. It was nice and it made a point about the interruptions smoking was causing.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 23, 2007)

I like the idea of a $10 tax per pack, and no smoking in workplaces or public buildings, or 100 feet around them.

Now, if they could just mandate that smokers wash the stink off themselves and their clothes, my eyes would feel better...


----------



## newGuy12 (Dec 23, 2007)

Its just another way for the nanny state to take care of you.  People cannot run their own lives, they need the assistance of Big Brother, and are getting it.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 23, 2007)

So, the property owner/proprietor isn't allowed to regulate what LEGAL activities are done in his place of business? I worked in a bar and visited many when CA enacted it's ban of smoking in bars. The vast majority of bartenders and cocktail waitresses smoked. The idea that cocktail waitressing is the only job someone could get is foolish at best. Freedom means that you don't have to approve of everything everyone else does. If you don't like the atmosphere, as a client or an employee, go elsewhere, no one is stopping you. 
There is a restaurant in Sacramento which had a separate smoking section, double doors, separate heating and ventilation, etc, the only people who went, and btw, worked in the smoking section were those who chose to. But, freedom is only for popular things, I guess...


----------



## grydth (Dec 23, 2007)

newGuy12 said:


> Its just another way for the nanny state to take care of you.  People cannot run their own lives, they need the assistance of Big Brother, and are getting it.



There are few things more despicable than the nanny state, which supposedly keeps us safe in return for killing our spirit and freedom. It is based on the notion that the large majority of those reading this are so incompetent as to not be able to manage their own affairs or make their own decisions. But a few demigods - guess who? - can decide for the rest of us.

I find smoking to be a costly and disgusting activity - but should I be able to enforce my own tastes upon everyone else?   Wait until the martial arts are deemed too dangerous and unacceptable for sheeple to engage in. Think that won't come - and sooner rather than later?

To the extent that a business owner wants to run - and clearly post - his shop as being for adult smokers, consenting adults should be able to visit.

The fact that France and California are doing something should present a clear warning to the sane portions of the planet.


----------



## Omar B (Dec 23, 2007)

They have the non smoking law here in NY and my friend who owns a bar gets hosed because of it.  He's got a small bar and it's main selling point is the large deck that looks out on the East River and he used to give out free cigars.  It's such a pain to enforce that he doesn't usually bother.  If you are out at a bar on a Saturday people are gonna be drinking and smoking, if you don't like it don't go out.  I don't see people going to crack houses and complain about the crack.

There's no force involved, people smoke by choice, the non-smoking majority has no right to determine what smokers do.  It is after all legal right?  A majority vote does not make it right to strip away someone's freedom.


----------



## Bigshadow (Dec 23, 2007)

Well, a smoking area or smoking section is much the same as a pissing area or section of a pool.  Would you like to swim in the that sort of pool?

Not me!!!

In fact those laws have been in place in Florida for years!!!!


----------



## Drac (Dec 23, 2007)

They passed the No Smoking law here last year, and the bar scenes *NEVER *recovered..All those people that said they would go out more often if there was no smoking *LIED..*They were running radio spots saying that the party is going on and to come and check it out..It didn't help


----------



## Bigshadow (Dec 23, 2007)

Omar B said:


> They have the non smoking law here in NY and my friend who owns a bar gets hosed because of it.  He's got a small bar and it's main selling point is the large deck that looks out on the East River and he used to give out free cigars.  It's such a pain to enforce that he doesn't usually bother.



Out on decks, it isn't a big problem in my opinion unless I get seated downwind from one of those nasty things.  Or they seat someone upwind from me.  If I seat myself, I will likely move if one rudely sits up wind from me, [sarcasm] aghast!!!... since it would be rude for me to say something to them, being that I was seated first[/sarcasm]


----------



## Drac (Dec 23, 2007)

The patio bars here are making a killing...If non-smoking is so today the why is it there is always an hour wait( or more) for a seat there????


----------



## Bigshadow (Dec 23, 2007)

Drac said:


> The patio bars here are making a killing...If non-smoking is so today the why is it there is always an hour wait( or more) for a seat there????



Patios are popular no matter whether one smokes or not.  Of course that is region specific.  Many places here in Florida, during most of the year, you don't want to be on a patio for very long, especially in the evening!    Better bring some bug repellant! :lol:  But then again all the cigarette smoke might run the bugs off.


----------



## ktaylor75 (Dec 23, 2007)

I am in Massachuetts and when they first passed the smoking ban in this area, many people complained.  But now it is just accepted as commonplace and not so many complaints are being voiced.  I must say that I rather enjoy being able to go out to eat with my children and not having my kids inhale cigarette smoke with each swallow of their food.  Unless there were walls and doors dividing the restaraunt, having a smoking/non-smoking side did not accomplish anything as the smoke still drifted.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 23, 2007)

When your business model and financial success is based on allowing your customers to engage in a habit that is harmful not only to them but all your other customers and employees... I would expect from a purely ethical point of view you would want to change your business model.

I don't think it should be illegal.

I think it should be common courtesy


----------



## tellner (Dec 23, 2007)

The only thing more despicable is the Abusive Daddy State. 

It makes you afraid in order to make you eager to give up your freedoms.

It makes you poor to enrich the wealthy and makes you disgustingly grateful for the privilege.

It makes you less safe, less secure, poorer and sicker and claims that that is "freedom".

It destroys whatever we hold in common in order to make its owners happy.

It believes that morality is a club to beat the little people with but an unnecessary encumbrance for the powerful.

It believes in the Market. But only as a way of keeping anyone who works for a living desperate and destitute. The rich and its corporate Masters get to shove both trotters in the public trough.

It tells you that women, the workers, the poor, the ill, the mad, the hungry, the naked and those who value civil liberties are "special interests". But trans national conglomerates, the fabulously wealthy, the recipients of its tax-fattened largesse and religious whack jobs who want to turn the country into a theocracy are "Real Americans" and "a community".

It keeps dildos out of vaginas on pain of twenty five years of hard prison time. But it fights tooth and nail to keep lead in toys and put it back into the air.

To the Abusive Daddy State you are a surplus unit of production. You have no rights. You are a nuisance and need to be kept under its heel on fear of imprisonment, torture and death.

That's Conservatism. That's large-L Libertarianism once you scratch off the shiny paint. That's Christian politics.

That is hell with the fire put out.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 23, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> When your business model and financial success is based on allowing your customers to engage in a habit that is harmful not only to them but all your other customers and employees... I would expect from a purely ethical point of view you would want to change your business model.
> 
> I don't think it should be illegal.
> 
> I think it should be common courtesy


 
Nice post! it's fine people sounding off about the freedom to smoke, no one is actually stopping them smoking, they can smoke till their lungs turn black if they wish just don't do it in a public building where it can damage others. It's not just bars and pubs, its any public building here. Why should we have to put up with second hand smoke on trains, buses,the underground, workplaces etc. Its not places we can chose whether to go to, its places we have to go to in order to work and lead a normal life that we should be free to breathe in. I fail to see how it's Big Brother when it's protecting us from those that feel we should share their habit! 
Omar B says that you don't go to a crack house then complain about people using crack but what if the crack users come into your workplace, your child's nursery and school, doctors waiting rooms, sit on the bus next to you? would you have your childrens taught with the teacher  having a fag stuck in her mouth? the nurse giving you medications puffing away? being served in the deli along with clouds of cigarette smoke? All these people have the right to smoke don't they?


----------



## Omar B (Dec 23, 2007)

FearlessFreep said:


> When your business model and financial success is based on allowing your customers to engage in a habit that is harmful not only to them but all your other customers and employees... I would expect from a purely ethical point of view you would want to change your business model.
> I don't think it should be illegal.
> I think it should be common courtesy



A business model that encourages a harmful habit?  Like everything else that goes on at a bar?  It's just smoking nazi's trying to to exert some level of control over another person's life and choices.  

My bud who owns a bar has seen since the laws have passes his business drop considerably.  Even I've been hanging out with people and when i suggested "Lets go over to Jimmy's" the response many times is negative because they can't smoke there anymore or have to go outside in the winter cold to smoke.  Meanwhile, where are all these people who don't go to bars because they are filled with smoke?  That's right, they never came.  The same people hanging out before the law are the same people hanging out now, just with the smokers not there, it's exclusionary.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 23, 2007)

tellner said:


> The only thing more despicable is the Abusive Daddy State.
> 
> It makes you afraid in order to make you eager to give up your freedoms.
> 
> ...


That is an amazingly bigoted post.


----------



## Omar B (Dec 23, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Omar B says that you don't go to a crack house then complain about people using crack but what if the crack users come into your workplace, your child's nursery and school, doctors waiting rooms, sit on the bus next to you? would you have your childrens taught with the teacher  having a fag stuck in her mouth? the nurse giving you medications puffing away? being served in the deli along with clouds of cigarette smoke? All these people have the right to smoke don't they?



Well crack's an illegal drug so I don't expect to see it  in my workplace.  Besides, I work from home so a crack smoker in my house would bother me.

I don't have a child so children are th least of my concern.  I didn't chose that life and I don't expect to spend my life catering to parents when I've decided I don't want kids.  Frankly kids bother the hell out of me.

I've eaten in delis, restaurants, diners filled with smoke and it didn't bother me.  If you don't want your kids to be around smoke don't bring them to places where smokers are, you don't try to change the world to suit you at the expense of screwing with everyone else.

I will always be on the side of the business who wants to allow a legal activity within his own establishment.  I don't subscribe to the government knowing better than I do on what's good for me.  We all have a faculty of choice, if you don't wanna be around smokers don't go to a bar that allows smoking, you don't wanna have your kids around smoking then eat at Chuck E Cheese or some crap like that.  And what's with every time a smoking thread kids come up, where are these parents so keen on bringing their kids to the bar?  

No one is bound to go to the same bar or eating establishment, that's the great part about a capitalist economy, a myriad of choices!


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 23, 2007)

Omar B said:


> Well crack's an illegal drug so I don't expect to see it in my workplace. Besides, I work from home so a crack smoker in my house would bother me.
> 
> I don't have a child so children are th least of my concern. I didn't chose that life and I don't expect to spend my life catering to parents when I've decided I don't want kids. Frankly kids bother the hell out of me.
> 
> I've eaten in delis, restaurants, diners filled with smoke and it didn't bother me. If you don't want your kids to be around smoke don't bring them to places where smokers are, you don't try to change the world to suit you at the expense of screwing with everyone else.


 
I see. You only read the bits of a post that you want to. My post wasn't about children it was about the freedom to live without someone abusing you by blowing smoke into your face as you go about your everyday life. I shan't bother trying to put my opinion any further as obviously you can't debate a subject without becoming personal. The thread seems stuck on being in bars!

Tellne'rs post wasn't in the least bigoted, he was merely pointing out the problems you get with a certain type of government.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 23, 2007)

Big Don said:


> That is an amazingly bigoted post.


I dunno.... I tend to see things much the same way at times.



I can tell when a heavy smoker is near.  They stink. It's a very specific stink, made worse if what they are wearing happens to become wet. They smell nothing.  It's like BO, you get used to your own and tune it out, but god forbid someone else has it.

The smell and other crap that comes from smoking is hell to remove from fabrics.
Special cleaners are needed to really remove it from walls, and carpets.  Fabreeze just masks it for a little while.

We worry about carbon monoxide and buy costly detectors, then puff away at chemically enriched with toxin addictives.  The tobacco in your cancer-stick has thousands of additives. Addictive, harmful, deadly.

http://www.tobaccofacts.org/tob_truth/whatsinsmoke.html

Here's some of em:
*Toluene *&#8212; Toluene is highly toxic. It is commonly used as an ingredient in paint thinner.
*Benzo[a]pyrene* &#8212; You'll find it in coal tar and cigarette smoke. It is a chemical likely to cause cancer in humans.
*Arsenic *&#8212; This deadly poison causes diarrhea, cramps, anemia, paralysis and malignant skin tumors. It's used in pesticides.
*Acetone *&#8212; It's one of the active ingredients in nail polish remover.
*Lead *&#8212; Lead poisoning stunts your growth, makes you vomit and damages your brain.
*Formaldehyde *&#8212; It causes cancer, and can damage your lungs, skin and digestive system. Embalmers use it to preserve dead bodies.
*Cadmium *&#8212; It causes damage to the liver, kidneys and brain, and stays in the body for years.
*Ammonia *&#8212; Scientists have discovered that ammonia lets you absorb more nicotine - keeping you hooked on smoking.
*Benzene *&#8212; It's found in pesticides and gasoline.

Who in their right mind would want to purposefully injest this crap?

Most of those, when you buy them off the shelf come with huge warnings, cautions and safety notices.  They are required to be listed in most MSD books.

You have a product, purposefully engineered to be addictive, using toxins with known side effects....and people want to complain about laws restricting their use?

I want more anti-smoking laws. I want it banned, out right, or taxed to the rafters.  Make a pack of poison sticks cost $45. Make a carton cast $500.  
Make it a criminal offense to smoke in front of your children or expose them to tobacco smoke.

Child Services would roast you alive if you left your kids play in the store room at the nail parlor, or let them guzzle whiskey all night long, why should this be any different?



Won't happen though.  Too many in congress in the pay of Big Tobacco.
Too much money in the industry period.


As for me, smoke free work space, and always will be.


I went to a bar once with friends.  Was there 4-5 hours. I didn't drink anything.
Took a week for my eyes to stop burning and not be bloodshot.
4 washings to destink my clothes, and my jacket still has hints of it now.
The smoke was -that- thick in there. (Yay Toronto)

So, yeah, I'm very biased against the crap.

You want to smoke, go ahead, but don't do it by me. I'll share a meal, I'll share a ride, I'll even share a bed, but your toxic habbit is all yours my friend.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 23, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I dunno.... I tend to see things much the same way at times.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Read this http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/secondhandsmoke/a/secondhandsmoke.htm
Then tell me again how your right to self-poisoning trumpss my right to live a healthy life or choose that my kids (should I have them) do the same?

Some exerpts.



> *
> The Risks of Secondhand Smoke to a Child*
> 
> * Low birthweight for gestational age
> ...



So, your desire for a momentary high is likely to cost me significantly in medical bills and lost time, as well as increase my and my kids chances of long term health issues, and you insist you have a right?


I think I should have the right to spray you in the face with a can of pure oxygen whenever you light up by me.

Guess what that'll do to your smoldering weed?


----------



## Omar B (Dec 23, 2007)

Ok, then tell me how people can ethically ban something that is legal and people do by choice?  You can't go around not liking people's choices and then remove said choice, the world's not made for non smokers alone and frankly taking the right to smoke from people in private establishments is just fascism wearing a smile.  If a businessman wants his bar, restaurant, club, etc to allow smoking then he should be able to do so, he pays the bills.  As consumers in a capitalist economy we have choice and if we don't smoke there are many places you can go that offer a smoke free environment.  What next, government telling you what you can and cannot do in your own home?  Maybe if enough vegans get together and complain enough about meat we'll not have that anymore too.  Poor vegans, poor non smokers.

Are people usually blowing smoke at you all day?  Well that's a shame but I do think that if you are on the street walking and someone's smoking then you've got the both the choice to movie and the legs to move with.  If smoking is an abuse to your lungs then don't hang out where people are smoking.  I don't like christians so I don't hang out in a church, it's not hard to avoid something you don't agree with.  It's not as if someone's coming to the door and blowing smoke under it.

Besides, I think there's much more crap in the air from cars, industrial exhaust and livestock.


----------



## Kreth (Dec 23, 2007)

I'm a smoker, and I support no smoking in a restaurant. For a bar, I think it's a stupid idea. As for the anti-smoking Nazis (for example, the morons here who wanted to ban smoking outdoors in City parks ),  well, I can't give my usual response here without turning my post into a bunch of asterisks...


----------



## Omar B (Dec 23, 2007)

Kreth said:


> I'm a smoker, and I support no smoking in a restaurant. For a bar, I think it's a stupid idea. As for the anti-smoking Nazis (for example, the morons here who wanted to ban smoking outdoors in City parks ),  well, I can't give my usual response here without turning my post into a bunch of asterisks...



Non of these anti-smoking people realize that with all these studies out on the effects of smoking people know.  You know, I know but we choose to because we like it.  It's not up to the rest of the public at large to decide how, when and if I smoke.  Out on the street I'm gonna smoke, in the park, I'm gonna smoke.  If people are so worried about their health and the health of their kids then look out for the smokers and keep away, just like you look out for any other danger.  As for it's effects on my health, mind your own business, I know what smoking does now bugger off.  Just like the religious folk worrying about my soul, screw you, it's my soul, go stroke your own damn soul.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 23, 2007)

_ It's just smoking nazi's trying to to exert some level of control over another person's life and choices._

Then I guess I'm a farting nazi because I would appreciate the courtesy of you not dong that around me either.  I don't think we should pass a law to keep you from farting, but I would expect that some sort of sense of decency would motivate you to be more a but more judicious.

I don't think we need laws to force people to be respectful, but I guess it's pretty sad then that some would find mutual respect for those in the area to be a nusiance


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 23, 2007)

Omar B said:


> Ok, then tell me how people can ethically ban something that is legal and people do by choice?  You can't go around not liking people's choices and then remove said choice, the world's not made for non smokers alone and frankly taking the right to smoke from people in private establishments is just fascism wearing a smile.  If a businessman wants his bar, restaurant, club, etc to allow smoking then he should be able to do so, he pays the bills.  As consumers in a capitalist economy we have choice and if we don't smoke there are many places you can go that offer a smoke free environment.  What next, government telling you what you can and cannot do in your own home?  Maybe if enough vegans get together and complain enough about meat we'll not have that anymore too.  Poor vegans, poor non smokers.
> 
> Are people usually blowing smoke at you all day?  Well that's a shame but I do think that if you are on the street walking and someone's smoking then you've got the both the choice to movie and the legs to move with.  If smoking is an abuse to your lungs then don't hang out where people are smoking.  I don't like christians so I don't hang out in a church, it's not hard to avoid something you don't agree with.  It's not as if someone's coming to the door and blowing smoke under it.
> 
> Besides, I think there's much more crap in the air from cars, industrial exhaust and livestock.


It's illegal to serve alcohol to minors.
It's illegal (in many places) to talk on your perfectly legal cell phone while driving.
It's illegal for you in many places to get dressed, read your paper, or make a snack while driving a car.


It's totally legal to walk around bare foot.
Except in food prep areas.

It's legal to go shirtless in most places (for men) and some (for women)
Yet I see many places with signs that deny people entry.

I've even seen places that deny you entry and service should you not be wearing the correct type of attire. (Jacket and Tie Required).

But no, I do not frequent anyplace where smoking is allowed. bars, nightclubs, restaurants, casinos, strip clubs, etc.

But I also feel I shouldn't have to walk through the gaggle of addicts puffing away to get in and out of the mall, or the store, or the office either.

As to the other crap in the air, that's a different discussion, but maybe people should start paying attention to the easily bought idiots they've been putting into office in the US the last 20 years, who have sold us out to polluters and poisoners for campaign contributions.

As to this: "It's not as if someone's coming to the door and blowing smoke under it."
Actually, I have had that problem. They also spliced into my cable and electric too, and the landlord did nothing.



And Kreth, thanks for wearing the pine tree at the 05 meet n greet. I'm thinking of making it mandatory next year for everyone after hour 4.  (little pine trees with the MT logo on em, with that new gm scent.) LOL


----------



## Omar B (Dec 23, 2007)

Fearless Sleep.  I hear ya man, but there's a difference between acting with courtesy and making a law.  I wouldnt smoke in a daycare center, but then it's the last place I would be because I don't like kids and when I'm at a bar I fully expect that I can smoke because if you are at a bar as an adult you should know what goes on, drinking, smoking, foul language, maybe even some gambling.  Doesn't mean if you don't like it you can form a group and pacify the world for you and yours while stripping away other people's right to live their lives how they see fit.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 23, 2007)

Omar B said:


> Non of these anti-smoking people realize that with all these studies out on the effects of smoking people know. You know, I know but we choose to because we like it. It's not up to the rest of the public at large to decide how, when and if I smoke. Out on the street I'm gonna smoke, in the park, I'm gonna smoke. If people are so worried about their health and the health of their kids then look out for the smokers and keep away, just like you look out for any other danger. on *As for it's effects* *my health, mind your own business*, I know what smoking does now bugger off. Just like the religious folk worrying about my soul, screw you, it's my soul, go stroke your own damn soul.


 

I have no objections to anyone smoking in parks, their own homes,cars etc feel free, I just don't want you smoking while you are either treating me, teaching me, serving me etc. I will avoid you as a smoker but you had better avoid me too. As for health, as Americans you pay for your own health care so your health is your own business but here in the UK we all pay for the NHS and so we pay for smokers who become ill through smoking therefore that does become my business. I'm paying for people who have heart and lung conditions, amputated legs etc through their own choices (and yes we pay for alcoholics, drug addicts and other self abusers too) they block beds that should be for people who become ill through no fault of their own, they take up resources that could be better used.
Omar I really don't think you have to be so offensive.


----------



## ont (Dec 23, 2007)

In Ontario we have had the ban in public buildings for years and it is very nice not to be not to be bothered by smoke everywhere you go. But now they are thinking of banning smoking in cars if you have children it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 23, 2007)

Omar B said:


> Non of these anti-smoking people realize that with all these studies out on the effects of smoking people know.  You know, I know but we choose to because we like it.  It's not up to the rest of the public at large to decide how, when and if I smoke.  Out on the street I'm gonna smoke, in the park, I'm gonna smoke.  If people are so worried about their health and the health of their kids then look out for the smokers and keep away, just like you look out for any other danger.  As for it's effects on my health, mind your own business, I know what smoking does now bugger off.  Just like the religious folk worrying about my soul, screw you, it's my soul, go stroke your own damn soul.


Actually Omar, to be honest, I know you know...and I know you know that I know that you know.

But see, it's not your health I care about.  
(Note I say "your" here generically.  This isn't personal)

It's mine.

You want to smoke, go ahead. Smoke.
Do crack, pot, acid, lick toads, have unprotected sex in SE Asia or South America, use lead paint, hook up 27 things to 1 ungrounded electrical outlet, join the Polar Bear club, or leave your mayo out on the counter for a month til it turns plaid then make tuna salad with it.
I don't care.

Until it directly impacts me.
Then I care.

Stop second hand smoke, and I'll even buy you a pack of those $45 camels.


I like the idea of a self-contained helmet with filters.
All smokers would be required to wear them (just like we now require helmets for extreme sports, motorcycles and kids).
They would trap the smoke within allowing you, the smoker to not waste any of it (since so much of it just blows away for others to "enjoy" now).

You can use them everywhere, even in the shower!


----------



## Omar B (Dec 23, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> It's illegal to serve alcohol to minors.
> It's illegal (in many places) to talk on your perfectly legal cell phone while driving.
> It's illegal for you in many places to get dressed, read your paper, or make a snack while driving a car.
> It's totally legal to walk around bare foot.
> ...



It's illegal (in many places) to talk on your perfectly legal cell phone while driving. - That's a safety issue, just like drinking and driving.

It's totally legal to walk around bare foot.  Except in food prep areas.  - That's a food safety issue but then I've never found that common practise for chefs to go around barefoot.

It's legal to go shirtless in most places (for men) and some (for women)
Yet I see many places with signs that deny people entry. -  That's not a law, it's a choice that management makes just like they should be able to chose if they want smokers or not.  

But I also feel I shouldn't have to walk through the gaggle of addicts puffing away to get in and out of the mall, or the store, or the office either. - Walk around the gaggle of addicts, you don't have to walk through them, avoid it like any other danger.  If you see smoking as an assault just like a physical assault then avoid it like you would a rapist.  I don't complain about the christians handing out pamphlets on the sidewalks, I walk around them and I don't get pamphlet all over me.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 23, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Actually Omar, to be honest, I know you know...and I know you know that I know that you know.
> 
> But see, it's not your health I care about.
> (Note I say "your" here generically.  This isn't personal)
> ...


Side bar: I realize I'm coming across a bit hard *** here and want it clear, I'm not going for Omar (or anyone elses) throat, and hope he (and they) also aren't taking it personally. At the end of the day, I'd hope we'd all still be able to sit down and enjoy something cold and refreshing together.


----------



## Kreth (Dec 23, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> At the end of the day, I'd hope we'd all still be able to sit down and enjoy something cold and refreshing together.


Only if the bar allows smoking...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 23, 2007)

Omar B said:


> But I also feel I shouldn't have to walk through the gaggle of addicts puffing away to get in and out of the mall, or the store, or the office either. - Walk around the gaggle of addicts, you don't have to walk through them, avoid it like any other danger.  If you see smoking as an assault just like a physical assault then avoid it like you would a rapist.  I don't complain about the christians handing out pamphlets on the sidewalks, I walk around them and I don't get pamphlet all over me.



Sometimes, you don't have the option of going around em, especially this time of year.  When I left the mall on Friday, there were about 20 of em standing there, basically blocking the entrance. Options were, push through, or try another way in, which I could see was also similarly crowded.

As to the pamphlets...well, I ignore most, but the insistent ones get invited back to the coven for a baby BBQ.


----------



## Omar B (Dec 23, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> I have no objections to anyone smoking in parks, their own homes,cars etc feel free, I just don't want you smoking while you are either treating me, teaching me, serving me etc. I will avoid you as a smoker but you had better avoid me too. As for health, as Americans you pay for your own health care so your health is your own business but here in the UK we all pay for the NHS and so we pay for smokers who become ill through smoking therefore that does become my business. I'm paying for people who have heart and lung conditions, amputated legs etc through their own choices (and yes we pay for alcoholics, drug addicts and other self abusers too) they block beds that should be for people who become ill through no fault of their own, they take up resources that could be better used.
> Omar I really don't think you have to be so offensive.



I just don't want you smoking while you are either treating me, teaching me, serving me etc. - Dude, who does that?  People smoke when they are relaxing, not when they are working.  If they do then it's that specific person's problem.  When I do go into the office I don't sit at my boss's desk and smoke though I could.  It's just not the time or the place, your sentence is analogous to going a doctor, teacher, chef who's drinking while trying to function at their job.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 23, 2007)

Kreth said:


> Only if the bar allows smoking...


Not in my county...unless we hit a native run one. They're exempt from health and labor laws here.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 23, 2007)

Omar B said:


> I just don't want you smoking while you are either treating me, teaching me, serving me etc. - Dude, who does that? People smoke when they are relaxing, not when they are working. If they do then it's that specific person's problem. When I do go into the office I don't sit at my boss's desk and smoke though I could. It's just not the time or the place, your sentence is analogous to going a doctor, teacher, chef who's drinking while trying to function at their job.


 
That's precisely the point I'm trying to make! I don't want you smoking when it affects me that's all. Do what you like at all other times!

I don't know if 'bugger off' if offensive to you btw but it's very offensive where I come from.


----------



## Omar B (Dec 23, 2007)

Well then we are talking about an issue of manners, not something you can legislate.  If you don't want a Dr who smokes then walk out if the office if he lights up and go find a new Dr.  Simple as that.  You can't make rules about manners and employers usually have rules about smoke breaks so you don't have people smoking in your face because that's handled on breaks.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 23, 2007)

Omar,

I'm home sick with a nasty cold. I've pretty much isolate myself from my family since I don't want them to get it. I want them to be healthy. If they were to get my cold, they would be sick in a few days, and it would last a few days. Maybe something more serious for my newborn. That's why I'm staying isolated.

Now, with smoking, the side effects take longer to surface, but those side effects are even more severe. As one who has watched loved ones die slowly from smoking related diseases, its not pleasant. Would I want that curse on anyone? Even on strangers? I isolate myself from others, even non-family, when I am contagious. Same thing here, I would imagine. Is it strictly illegal for me to socialize w/ a cold? of course not, but its sure not smart, kind or considerate.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 23, 2007)

So much of the anti smoking stuff is non-sensical. I went to a Chargers game a few years ago in the OPEN AIR seating smoking was forbidden. Where was smoking allowed? In the enclosed (tunnel like) corridors behind the seating. Gee, what is more of a hazard, smoking in the OPEN AIR where the breeze carries it away, or confining the smoking to a big concrete pipe, that everyone, whether they are smokers or not have to travel through?


----------



## Omar B (Dec 23, 2007)

That's graet that you are considerate.  If you've read my last few replies you'll notice that I have no problem with being considerate of others.  The topic of the thread is about laws though, not consideration.  If we were to get a law to outlaw everything we tought was inconsiderate it would be a pretty uptight world.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 23, 2007)

Omar B said:


> Walk around the gaggle of addicts, you don't have to walk through them, avoid it like any other danger.  If you see smoking as an assault just like a physical assault then avoid it like you would a rapist.  I don't complain about the christians handing out pamphlets on the sidewalks, I walk around them and I don't get pamphlet all over me.



In many places, you can't simply "walk around" the gaggle.  They're hovering around the entrance, nearly blocking access.  This often despite posted policies or even laws that smoking is prohibited within some number of feet of the entrance...

You say smoking in a car isn't dangerous?  I'll counter that with several issues.  I've worked crashes (note that it is multiple, as in more than one) where a smoker wasn't paying attention to the road as they tried to find a cigarette, light the cigarette, or dropped the cigarette or lighter.  I'm constantly amazed we don't have more from smokers throwing butts out the window; I know several motorcyclists who have been burned, and nearly crashed as a result of a carelessly discarded butt -- and I've had more than one incidence where the butt "splashed" on the windshield of my car, obstructing my view momentarily.  At 60 mph... it doesn't take a long momentary disruption to cover a lot of ground...

There's not a good, fair way to do a restaurant smoking ban.  The fairest way would be state or nationwide; at least then, you won't see (as has happened) customers from county A where it's banned going to county B, or the like.  And I realize that many people on restaurant staffs smoke; they aren't being subjected to something they don't do themselves by working.  But there's also no way to have a "smoking area" and "non-smoking area" without expensive air handlers and filters, and physical barriers.


----------



## donna (Dec 23, 2007)

Here in Australia they have just recently made it illegal to smoke in Bars.
 We now have the problem of increased violence and attacks on bouncers, as the crowd of intoxicated smokers hang around the front entrances to get their nicotine fix. The bouncers are threatening to go on strike for New Years eve celebrations, as they are sick of being the target of mindless drunk smokers.
It is illegal here to smoke indoors in any public place. The new legislation at the moment is debating a bill that will make it illegal to smoke in your car if children are present, and they are talking about making it an offence to smoke in your own home if children are present.
The thing that alarms me is that New Scientist recently reported that the government has allowed the cigarette companies to increase the level of nicotine in cigarettes over the past few years by 10%. This increases the addictive  component and makes it more difficult to quit!!


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 23, 2007)

Omar B said:


> I just don't want you smoking while you are either treating me, teaching me, serving me etc. - Dude, who does that?  People smoke when they are relaxing, not when they are working.  If they do then it's that specific person's problem.  When I do go into the office I don't sit at my boss's desk and smoke though I could.  It's just not the time or the place, your sentence is analogous to going a doctor, teacher, chef who's drinking while trying to function at their job.



There are plenty of people who smoke in between patients/customers, or sneak out the back for a moment, then come back in still exhaling smoke when they greet the new customer.

And... regarding smoking at work...  I once counted up the time, over several days, and realized that the smokers were getting an extra hour, minimum, and often more, of break time that non-smokers weren't.  Because they'd "take a smoke break" entails a trip to a designated smoking area, a minimum of about 10 minutes, several times over a day.


----------



## Omar B (Dec 23, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> In many places, you can't simply "walk around" the gaggle.  They're hovering around the entrance, nearly blocking access.  This often despite posted policies or even laws that smoking is prohibited within some number of feet of the entrance...
> 
> You say smoking in a car isn't dangerous?  I'll counter that with several issues.  I've worked crashes (note that it is multiple, as in more than one) where a smoker wasn't paying attention to the road as they tried to find a cigarette, light the cigarette, or dropped the cigarette or lighter.  I'm constantly amazed we don't have more from smokers throwing butts out the window; I know several motorcyclists who have been burned, and nearly crashed as a result of a carelessly discarded butt -- and I've had more than one incidence where the butt "splashed" on the windshield of my car, obstructing my view momentarily.  At 60 mph... it doesn't take a long momentary disruption to cover a lot of ground...
> 
> There's not a good, fair way to do a restaurant smoking ban.  The fairest way would be state or nationwide; at least then, you won't see (as has happened) customers from county A where it's banned going to county B, or the like.  And I realize that many people on restaurant staffs smoke; they aren't being subjected to something they don't do themselves by working.  But there's also no way to have a "smoking area" and "non-smoking area" without expensive air handlers and filters, and physical barriers.



Well that's just distracted driving, just like looking for a phone or putting on make up while driving.  People throwing their butts out the window is rude, it's not something I do, but then I'm not a litterbug.  

When talking about people working in an environment with smoking when they don't smoke.  Well that's their problem, if you don't like smoking don't work somewhere people smoke.  Like I said, I don't like christians, I wouldn't go looking for a job in a church as a result.  Everything we do has some inherent risk, you have to decide for yourself if it's acceptable.  If someone has asthma or some such disease and takes a job at a cigar bar then who's the problem lie with.


----------



## Kacey (Dec 23, 2007)

I don't smoke.  Cigarette smoke, even secondhand from 20 or 30 feet away, makes me nauseous.  And then, of course, my grandmother died of emphysema, my mother's best friend of lung cancer (both smokers) and my mother developed asthma (also a smoker) which finally caused her to quit.  I have asthma as well - and my doctor believes that the secondhand smoke I breathed all through my childhood (my mother quit when I was in my early 30s) has a great deal to do with my developing asthma.

That's why I'm so glad Denver outlawed smoking in public places several years ago - including an _enforced_ ban on smoking within a certain distance of entries to places where smoking is illegal.

The only exception in Denver is, reasonably enough, cigar bars... so those bars that want to allow smoking have all started small cigar shops in their buildings, applied for an exemption as cigar bars, and don't care what (legal) item you are smoking.

Cigarettes are legal, yes - unless you're under a certain age, or in certain locations - the same can be said for alcohol, and I don't see any reason to differentiate between them.  Secondhand smoke will kill more slowly than being hit by a drunk driver - but dead is dead.


----------



## newGuy12 (Dec 23, 2007)

Big Don said:


> So, the property owner/proprietor isn't allowed to regulate what LEGAL activities are done in his place of business? I worked in a bar and visited many when CA enacted it's ban of smoking in bars. The vast majority of bartenders and cocktail waitresses smoked. The idea that cocktail waitressing is the only job someone could get is foolish at best. Freedom means that you don't have to approve of everything everyone else does. If you don't like the atmosphere, as a client or an employee, go elsewhere, no one is stopping you.
> There is a restaurant in Sacramento which had a separate smoking section, double doors, separate heating and ventilation, etc, the only people who went, and btw, worked in the smoking section were those who chose to. But, freedom is only for popular things, I guess...



Your protest falls on deaf ears!

In this day, when faced with a choice between FREEDOM and SAFETY, the overwhelming majority will choose SAFETY. 

The ready acceptance for government to take care of EVERYTHING for us just disgusts me! (And I am a freaking *Democrat*!) 

People need to read the book 1984.  You'll see that cigarettes and coffee were both verboten.

I'm just glad that I don't have any children who will see the fruit of all of this government "help"!!!


----------



## Drac (Dec 23, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> You say smoking in a car isn't dangerous? I'll counter that with several issues. I've worked crashes (note that it is multiple, as in more than one) where a smoker wasn't paying attention to the road as they tried to find a cigarette, light the cigarette, or dropped the cigarette or lighter. I'm constantly amazed we don't have more from smokers throwing butts out the window; I know several motorcyclists who have been burned, and nearly crashed as a result of a carelessly discarded butt -- and I've had more than one incidence where the butt "splashed" on the windshield of my car, obstructing my view momentarily. At 60 mph... it doesn't take a long momentary disruption to cover a lot of ground...


 
I too have worked my fair share of MVA's and have NEVER found that cigarette smoking was the cause..Mostly cell phone useage..


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 23, 2007)

I had an experience a while back where some losers tossed out the window cancer stick landed in my back seat and burned a hole in the fabric.  Since then, I insist on cars with AC and run with the windows up.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 23, 2007)

Here's a novel approach:





Weird, but novel.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 23, 2007)

Drac said:


> I too have worked my fair share of MVA's and have NEVER found that cigarette smoking was the cause..Mostly cell phone useage..


Don't get me wrong...  For the literal handful I've worked where someone was fumbling for a cigarette or whatever smoking-related activity caused them to look away from the road (and they either admitted it or there was clear evidence for that being the cause), cell phones and changing or adjusting the radio far, far outnumber them.  But I have worked several who did admit that they weren't looking at the road because they'd dropped a cigarette or the lighter... and at least one by recollection where a cigarette thrown out the window caused a crash.

And, yes, the cause in the crashes often went down as "driver inattention" or "following too close", not "smoking."  Our crash reports didn't even capture the nature of the distraction until recently, and even now, I don't recall (I'm a detective; I haven't worked a crash in 2 years except to assist other officers in some technical crash investigations) that it would require an explanation beyond "driver distraction - other."


----------



## Big Don (Dec 23, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> I don't recall (I'm a detective; I haven't worked a crash in 2 years except to assist other officers in some technical crash investigations) that it would require an explanation beyond "driver distraction - other."


I could see dropping a lit cigarette in one's crotch being very distracting...


----------



## temagami (Jan 21, 2008)

We've had no smoking all throughout Ontario for about a decade now (except for Windsor for some strange reason).... anyhow, the bars took a hit in for about 2 months and that was it.  They noticed all the people who did not go to the bars, started to go.  Restaurants/pubs who tried buffets and failed, suddenly became successes.  After all, if you walk into a restaurant on a Sunday morning for brunch and it reeks of smoke from the night before - you'd just turn around and walk out. The new clients tipped more, ate more and drank higher-end booze.  The pubs have never had a higher success rate.  We've even seen a lot of places putting big $$ into their decor to keep the "Rubby-Dubs" out, and families in.  Now if we could only  do something about the cell phones.......


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 21, 2008)

I read something once where the bars complained that the cigarette ban was costing them revenue from food sales.  Apparently, when the perpetual shroud of smoke dissipated, the underlying stench of stale beer was making people sick.  :rofl:


----------



## Big Don (Jan 21, 2008)

> The first modern, nationwide tobacco ban was imposed by the Nazi Party in every German university, post office, military hospital and Nazi Party office, under the auspices of Karl Astel's Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research, created in 1941 under direct orders from Adolf Hitler himself. Major anti-tobacco campaigns were widely broadcast by the Nazis until the demise of the regime in 1945.


But, this was one of his _good ideas_, right?


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 22, 2008)

I'll tell you what... I am going to have to stick to the 1 post rule on this one. That is, 1 post and I am done.

This is because I cannot express the level of frustration this issue brings me. This is because I am not a selfish person, and I am not a dishonest person. My point of view may not always be right, but you can bet that I am at least being honest about it, and that I am at least not being selfish.

But because most people do not operate that way with issues like this, I therefore get extremely angry. If I post on this much more, I will likely get really pissed, and probably get myself suspended or banned. That said, I apologize in advance for the borderline offensive but honest point of view that is about to ensue. Don't take it too personally, as I am speaking in generalities here...

I strongly feel that most people are stupid, selfish, oppressive muther ****ers when it comes to issues like this. It all comes down to the fact that far too many people are happy to oppress others freedoms if it is with something they don't agree with, or they don't like. Sadly, many of you (and if the shirt fits wear it) are selfish ****s, and are crybabies. And it is people like you that I hope to the god I pray too that our countries constitution will deliver us from.

Here is my point of view on Second Hand Smoke (SHS) and this issue adequately expressed in another thread:



> 1st off, there is a "conspiracy," if one wished to call it that. The fact is that the majority of people out there are non-smokers. There are enough of these people who are selfish enough to inflate statistics to serve their agenda of erradicating smoking from the planet. This issue is very politically driven, as politicians can be venerated by the public for "cracking down" on smokers, rather then questioned as to why they aren't doing more productive things. It's a non-issue that can distract voters from the real problems.
> 
> The only real reason why government websites and government sponsered organizations tout the "dangers" of second hand smoke is because it is _popular_. And that is about the only reason, besides money interests and so forth.
> 
> ...



My full opinion had been detailed in this thread: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45197&highlight=smoking+ban

Now, if after reading all that, you still strongly believe that smoking should be banned, then here is food for thought:

I'll agree on your smoking ban, if I can get you to agree on federally mandated nutrition programs. See, because statistically speaking, many of you posting and reading this thread are fat asses. This is just the statistical probability based on the obesity numbers in America. And we all know that obesity is actually approaching tobacco as the top cause of death: http://www.doctorslounge.com/primary/articles/obesity_death/ 

You see, obesity is not just a danger to those who are, but it is a danger to society as a whole. My insurance premiums and health care costs skyrocket because those of you who are fat asses can't seem to live a healthy lifestyle. You, with all your health problems associated, are a strain the system. And of course, you are a nussiance. I mean, nobody wants to sit next to you on a plane or a bus, or even be near you at a restaraunt,  or stuck behind you in the grocery  isle  as you  slowly  meander along on  your  motorized cart.  And lets  face it; most fat people  smell weird, and are not just unsightly, but are lazy as well. This all is extremely bothersome to the rest of us who not only have to witness obesity daily, but who have to pay for it too.

So no more trips to the fast food joint for you, fatty Mcfat. Because I pledge that if you ban smoking, then by golly the same should apply here. We need to publically outcry and mandate healthy diets for fat asses once and for all!!

*Or... we can simply worry about ourselves, let people live their own lives, and work to maintain individual rights, even if it doesn't always benefit us.* But that require us to not be selfish, now wouldn't it?

C.

PS. Obviously, I have nothing against people who are overweight; I am simply making a point, because the ridicules logic is identical.

PSS. Incidently, I am not a cigarette smoker, and I don't like cigarettes. I do enjoy the occasional cigar. So, this really isn't about me needing or wanting to smoke. It really is about principles. 

PSSS. Interesting link on this topic: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/21/6/142?ck=nck


----------



## LuzRD (Jan 22, 2008)

Cruentus said:


> I'll tell you what... I am going to have to stick to the 1 post rule on this one. That is, 1 post and I am done.
> 
> This is because I cannot express the level of frustration this issue brings me. This is because I am not a selfish person, and I am not a dishonest person. My point of view may not always be right, but you can bet that I am at least being honest about it, and that I am at least not being selfish.
> 
> ...






:cheers: :highfive:


----------



## Big Don (Jan 22, 2008)

The thing about second hand smoke, though, is there is no way to prove it. Because everyone has been exposed, if not to tobacco smoke than to car exhaust, etc.


----------



## Kreth (Jan 22, 2008)

Just a note to the rabid anti-smokers. If you get in my face and ***** about my smoking while I am outside a bar obeying the NY public smoking ban, *I* am far more likely to kill you than second-hand smoke.



:uhyeah:


----------

