No Smoking Laws

[Tez3]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Here's a novel approach:

Weird, but novel.

 

[jks9199]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

I would like to refer you to a decent website that explains some if these things in laymens terms. We can start with statistics:

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epid.html
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epid2.html

When they come up with these stats regarding second hand smoke, they use all sorts of biases to get the results that they are looking for. When they say "67,000 deaths occur from second hand smoke in a year," they are estimating these numbers by taking a sample size, finding out how many people died from "smoking related diseases" (heart problems, lung disease, etc.), find out how many of those people have been "around" SHS, and from that they determine what percentage people die from SHS. Then they multiply that number to fit the population.

The problem with this should be obvious to any logical person. Correlation does not equal causation. If I ate bananas the other day, and developed a foot fungus today, does that mean that bananas cause foot fungus? Even if I did a study by taking a sample of people who have foot fungus, find out how many of them ate bananas before the time of the fungus, and come up with a statistical correlation, would that then prove that foot fungus is caused by bananas?

Of course not. Yet, this is how the media will find junk science every week to back up why "broccoli could make your balls shrink....news at eleven!" You could make a correlation with just about anything.

And this is what they do to back up outragous claims against SHS. And people aren't realizing that correlation does not equal causation.

Why don't you read how the famous '93 EPA report that supposedly proved the health risks of SHS was conducted?
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

The studies to back up these claims are junk science, garbage studies. Plain and simple.

Studies by places like Oak Ridge National Labratories that actually hooked up monitors to people who live or work in "smokey" environments with a significant amount of SHS (bars, factories, etc.) demonstrate consistantly that if one were to work in such a place year round, the amount of SHS damage would equate to about 6 cigarrettes per year.

The fact is, unlike actual smoking which is a health hazard, second hand smoke in smokey environments are not direct enough to do any significant damage to ones health. Most of the smoke rises and disipates in the air, dispite maybe an unpleasent smell.

But, if you still can't wrap your head around this, then do the "name 3 test." If 67,000 people per year are dying from second hand smoke, that would equal over a 1/2 a million people who died from it in a decade. That is a lot of people. So, we should all be able to name at least 3 people who have died from SHS, right? I mean, we can name people who died from actual smoking based on causation and correlation, so how about SHS?

The fact is, you can't name 3 people where it is proven that the cause of death is second hand smoke. Again, cause, not correlation. Here is a nice article on the topic:

http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html

Yet, despite all this, we are ignoring one major fact that totally debunks any need for a government sponsered smoking ban. And that is that because smoking is relatively unpopular and not done by the majority, there are enough places to go where smoking is not allowed in the establishment if you don't want to be around it. Plain and simple. If you had a surgury or have allergies or what have you, and you are adversly affected by SHS, then you have only yourself to blame for that, in my opinion.

Personal choice is a factor here. It is both selfish and oppressive to want to take away peoples choices just because you find something unfavorable. If you can't see that not allowing a business owner decide what kind of workplace they want to have (smoking or non, etc.) is an infringment on freedom, then you don't know what it means to be free.

But, that is fine. Some of you who don't want to utilize critical thinking would rather believe the junk science because it supports your agenda. Well, then I can find a link to a website that "proves" that 9-11 was caused by remote control planes piloted by the Bush administration, too.

People will believe what they want to believe, no matter what is actually true, unfortunatily...

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