http://www.carolinajournal.com/jhdailyjournal/display_jhdailyjournal.html?id=5349
I don't care if anyone smokes. I do care when the smoker thinks that I want to smell like cigarettes or that I want to breathe in the poison. It is my freedom that is on the line, not the smoker's. The smoker can still smoke, just not around me. One person's freedom stops when it infringes on the freedom of another.
Also, why should a non-smoker have to put up with smoking in restaurants, bus stops, doorways to stores/malls, parks, and anywhere else we want to be?
So smokers get ostracized. What about the bars and resturants that have had their right to target their own customers' tastes taken away?
Since Iowa enacted one of these smoking ban laws, I've found myself rather unconcerned for non-smokers. Iowa made $135 million in extra taxes on cigarettes added the year before they banned smoking indoors. So they're concerned about our health so much that they're making us go outside in -30 fahrenheit weather to consume a product that they make money on? Outside those doors, it's legal to smoke, I'll be standing right there along with other smokers making sure there's a nice cloud for you to walk your pretty, pleasant-smelling clothes and virgin lungs through.
It should also be noted that as more people do quit smoking, tax income will begin to fall off. With an average smoker paying around $8 in state and federal exise taxes in a single day how do you propose to replace that income?
There is also the legal culpability issue. With the states filing suit against the tobacco companies claiming that "smoking kills in no uncertain fact", profitting from that act, even after the fact is criminal. The legislature that passed this newest tax and the president that enforces it are indeed, under the letter of the law just as guilty of a crime as the tobacco companies.
and The Gund Arena (now Quicken Loans Arena (or "The Q" - yay again ;)). So smokers paid more than non-smokers to aid the construction of these facilities. And then they were promptly told that they were not allowed to smoke in them. An arena I can kind of understand. But an open baseball field? They're more than willing to take your money to help pay for stuff you won't be able to utilize as you'd like. It's sickening.The anti-smoking crap is so painfully hypocritical it makes me angry just thinking about it.
How is it hypocritical? The smokers chose to buy cigarettes and pay the extra in tax. No one made them do it.
Those of you in North Carolina may have noticed this somewhat (but not quite) D&D-related newspaper editorial by conservative John Hood:
http://www.carolinajournal.com/jhdailyjournal/display_jhdailyjournal.html?id=5349
I agree with this completely.
Frankly I think this total ban on smoking nonsense has gotten way out of hand.
I do think that there should be smoking and non smoking sections at restaurants and what not. That's just good sense because everyone has a choice as to where they sit.
I don't smoke, for the record. It's a lifestyle choice that I think is a rather unhealthy one and while when I was younger and far more stupid I thought that smoking in public should totally be banned I have since grown wiser and older. Smoking to me is no more unhealthy or displeasing than someone that is fifty or sixty pounds over weight. Actually I find it less displeasing than people that have to wear large sized clothes so that their gut isn't spilling out in all of it's cellulite glory for all the world to see.
Personally I think there should be a ban on being stupidly over weight long before smoking. It's no different nor anymore disgusting or offensive as someone to smoke as it is for someone else to stuff their face with yet another cheeseburger.
There should be smoking and non smoking areas. Whether or not there is a smoking ban in place should be a voluntary process in privately owned businesses and homes. It should not be mandatory. Yet legally if I were a store owner or what have you I'm not allowed to out right ban you because your too fat to effectively fit in my store without knocking **** over. Nor have a "fat people section" so you should be thankful for the courtesy of having a non smoking area in the first place.
"WAH WAH WAH I SMELL SMOKE WALKING DOWN THE STREET!" Yeah well Wah wah wah. I see your fat ass walking down the street or through the parking lot so stuff it. Let alone your fat ass clogs up the entire aisle and makes it a pain to get by you.
Smoking doesn't prohibit mobility. Other people needing a wide load sign for their ass does.
Furthermore no one wants to hear your life story while you jibber jabber on the cell phone while waiting in checkout. No one wants you stopping in the middle of the aisle talking on said phone and then looking at ME rudely when I need to get by you when I politely say Excuse me. There should be a ban on cellphones in public places because they disrupt more than smoking does. There should also be a ban on being a total and utter douchebag to others and not having manners....
Now realistically speaking.
You really can't enforce this kind of crap in other areas of life. Yet smoking... ugh.
It's called grow up and stop being so overly sensitive.
How is it hypocriftical? The smokers chose to buy cigarettes and pay the extra in tax. No one made them do it.
By taking their money - specifically their money - to fund projects and then disallowing smoking at those failities, that's how. If it's good enough to pay the bills, they should be allowed to use what they paid for how they'd like.
Micha also raises a great point. Obesity is a far worse problem in America (where the article is concerned as well). So ban fast food joints, too. Sound insane? Well, certain cities have already tried. Thing is, this over-control sought out by the gov't was seen for what it was and I don't think these issues passed. For whatever reason, people don't see smoking bans as gov't infringement. Why? Cuz they don't happen to like smoking. And that's BS.
By taking their money - specifically their money - to fund projects and then disallowing smoking at those failities, that's how. If it's good enough to pay the bills, they should be allowed to use what they paid for how they'd like.
Micha also raises a great point. Obesity is a far worse problem in America (where the article is concerned as well). So ban fast food joints, too. Sound insane? Well, certain cities have already tried. Thing is, this over-control sought out by the gov't was seen for what it was and I don't think these issues passed. For whatever reason, people don't see smoking bans as gov't infringement. Why? Cuz they don't happen to like smoking. And that's BS.
No one is taking the smokers money. The smoker chooses to pay for their tobacco products. If the tax is included in the cost, the smoker is still choosing to pay it. If they don't like it, don't buy it. We all pay taxes, but we don't get to decide what the money is spent on.
Except that the taxes smokers pay is far in excess of what it should be.
Imagine buying a D&D book but having to pay four times the sales tax (or more depending on your state) and -then- yet another sales tax ontop of it?
How are fat people hurting you? They arn't. Sure, they might be displeasing to the eye, but it's not harming the you. Smoking does harms people around it. As Bob said, why should I have to tolerate smoke blowing in my face and the stink of cigarettes? Just so someone can get their nicotine fix? No thanks.
By clogging up the aisle.
I'm sorry, but how is SITTING IN A NON SMOKING SECTION, going to have a guy blowing smoke in your face? Hell you can't even smell the smoke that far away.
Again it should be a voluntary practice for stores and the like. Not a public ban.
Let alone you being oh I don't now outside. Just move some where else. somewhere where the smoker is down wind from you.
Short of me not going into outside world at all I can't avoid Fat People.
You chances are do far more unhealthy things in your life than be near a smoker. You don't complain about those do you?
No one is taking the smokers money. The smoker chooses to pay for their tobacco products. If the tax is included in the cost, the smoker is still choosing to pay it. If they don't like it, don't buy it. We all pay taxes, but we don't get to decide what the money is spent on.
They were smoking long, long before the taxes were raised to such ridiculous amounts. The taxes are an effort to legislate morality. We don't like smoking so we'll make it as impossible to buy them as we can. Oh wait, that's a bad idea. We'll just make them as expensive as possible while still keeping them affordable so we can bleed the addicted masses dry. It's crap. This is a specific tax used for a specific project and full access to that project is then denied to the people that paid the most for it.
Does anyone here honestly understand what freedom means? I mean this. It seems that so many of us decide that as long as we like something, it's ok. As soon as we don't, though, well too bad for you. How anyone can be comfortable watching another group being persecuted and losing their freedoms is beyond me.
And then they in an effort to appease the now overly fat masses and government that came down hard on them. Because "your burgers and fries made us fat!" they took away superior quality ingredients which tasted better. (even though this is only a minor reduction in fattening qualities, and then negated completely and made worse by increased portion size)
Rather than the fat slob masses admitting that it was their own damn fault that they eat fast food morning, noon and night and stuff their faces with candy for snacks.
How are fat people hurting you? They arn't. Sure, they might be displeasing to the eye, but it's not harming the you. Smoking does harms people around it. As Bob said, why should I have to tolerate smoke blowing in my face and the stink of cigarettes? Just so someone can get their nicotine fix? No thanks.
People don't want you to smoke because the treatments for smoking related illness drive up the cost of insurance. That's why your insurance company asks if you're a smoker - it's an excuse to charge you more. Well, guess what. Obesity also has some pretty nasty costs associated with it. Diabetes, heart disease, etc. If you think that obesity has no negative impact on your life, you're dreaming.
The reason you should tolerate it is because we are supposed to be a free country. Just because you don't happen to like something does not make it ok to disallow everyone that does from doing it. This should be a simple concept. Besides, the same argument can be used against you. Don't like smelling like smoke or having it "blown in your face" (never happened to me, but whatever)? DON'T GO PLACES WHERE PEOPLE SMOKE!! What about your rights, you ask? Too bad. Sound harsh? It should. But it's also exactly what you're advocating.
I hate smoking and am extremely sensitive to cigarette smoke, but I have no problem with smokers as long as there is a non-smoking section with plenty of ventilation. It's alright and makes sense to ban smoking in front of hospitals and the like, but a restaurant should be up to the decision of the owner.
You stay on your side and I stay on mine. Put a couple fans in there. Bam. Problem solved. I don't drive in cars with drunks, I don't get mad at people who eat steaks because I'm a vegetarian, and I don't sit next to smokers. As long as I can live according to my personal lifestyle, why jump down anyone else's throat?
If the government was really going to do something about smoking to promote moral health, they should be making the cigarette companies take the unnecessarily addictive properties out of the cigarettes.
Annnd, that's about the limit of political discussion I can stomach. Peace.
By clogging up the aisle.
I'm sorry, but how is SITTING IN A NON SMOKING SECTION, going to have a guy blowing smoke in your face? Hell you can't even smell the smoke that far away.
Again it should be a voluntary practice for stores and the like. Not a public ban.
Let alone you being oh I don't now outside. Just move some where else. somewhere where the smoker is down wind from you.
Short of me not going into outside world at all I can't avoid Fat People.
You chances are do far more unhealthy things in your life than be near a smoker. You don't complain about those do you?
I have never been blocked or delayed from anything, because someone was too fat.
And what if the waiter/ress doesn't want to be around smokers in the restraunt, but needs the job? Most people just can't go find a new job. I think that law was made more for the workers than the other customers.
And your saying I should move so someone can smoke? It's the same argument, just from the other side.
People don't want you to smoke because the treatments for smoking related illness drive up the cost of insurance. That's why your insurance company asks if you're a smoker - it's an excuse to charge you more. Well, guess what. Obesity also has some pretty nasty costs associated with it. Diabetes, heart disease, etc. If you think that obesity has no negative impact on your life, you're dreaming.
The reason you should tolerate it is because we are supposed to be a free country. Just because you don't happen to like something does not make it ok to disallow everyone that does from doing it. This should be a simple concept. Besides, the same argument can be used against you. Don't like smelling like smoke or having it "blown in your face" (never happened to me, but whatever)? DON'T GO PLACES WHERE PEOPLE SMOKE!! What about your rights, you ask? Too bad. Sound harsh? It should. But it's also exactly what you're advocating.
Well no one has ever walked up to me and blown it in my face, but still it has been blown around me. And smoking is a very harmful freedom. I smoke occasionally, but I have no problem with the government putting penalties on it. It doesn't bother me to have to do it in privacy.
I have never been blocked or delayed from anything, because someone was too fat.
And what if the waiter/ress doesn't want to be around smokers in the restraunt, but needs the job? Most people just can't go find a new job. I think that law was made more for the workers than the other customers.
And your saying I should move so someone can smoke? It's the same argument, just from the other side.
It's called it comes with the job. When I work in a machine shop there's an accepted risk that something catastrophic might happen which results in my person being seriously injured. Be it losing a finger, a limb or my life.
When I service an automobile, there's a chance that something catastrophic could happen (such as the car lift breaking or something bad like that and me being crushed.... or something as mundane as getting cut open on a piece of sheet metal, or a battery exploding).
You want money? There's risk involved.
Hell you have more chance of dying from slipping in the shower or an accident in the kitchen than what you get from being around smokers.
Well no one has ever walked up to me and blown it in my face, but still it has been blown around me. And smoking is a very harmful freedom. I smoke occasionally, but I have no problem with the government putting penalties on it. It doesn't bother me to have to do it in privacy.
How many illnesses or other maladies have you contracted from being exposed to smoke that you have not personally decided to inhale? ;) It can be harmful, yes. But so can a whole lot of other stuff. I'd actually bet that you're far more likely to be injured or killed by an accident in a vehicle that you aren't responsible for than to die from someone else - even a whole bunch of someone elses - smoking in your vicinity. Shall we ban driving? Maybe just driving in public ....
First, a disclaimer. I am not a smoker. I have never smoked. I have never felt any inclination to smoke. I have never stood in the cold huddling to try and keep warm while getting my nicotine fix. I don't like the smell of smoke, and it gives me a mild headache if I'm around it too long.
All that said, I think the way the government is trying to make smoking all but illegal is damn right silly. On government or private property? Fine, it's government property so it is their choice. But handing down a demand from above on private businesses? That triggers every freedom-loving-button I've got. Heck, it basically comes down to the government saying "I like smoking just fine, just not in my backyard".
I suppose what it comes down to, for me, is this: freedom means suffering the things you don't like to be allowed the things you do. So I may not like walking through clouds of smoke, and I may not like what people are doing to their bodies, but I sure as hell don't want to infringe on that persons right to do so because that's a dangerous precedent.
I'm hesitant to weigh in on this, but what the hell.
I suppose what it comes down to, for me, is this: freedom means suffering the things you don't like to be allowed the things you do. So I may not like walking through clouds of smoke, and I may not like what people are doing to their bodies, but I sure as hell don't want to infringe on that persons right to do so because that's a dangerous precedent.
You sir have just joined my list of Forum Heroes.
It's called it comes with the job. When I work in a machine shop there's an accepted risk that something catastrophic might happen which results in my person being seriously injured. Be it losing a finger, a limb or my life.
When I service an automobile, there's a chance that something catastrophic could happen (such as the car lift breaking or something bad like that and me being crushed.... or something as mundane as getting cut open on a piece of sheet metal, or a battery exploding).
You want money? There's risk involved.
Hell you have more chance of dying from slipping in the shower or an accident in the kitchen than what you get from being around smokers.
In a Machine Shop, the risk is necessary to do the job. Smoking isn't necessary for anything.
How many illnesses or other maladies have you contracted from being exposed to smoke that you have not personally decided to inhale? ;) It can be harmful, yes. But so can a whole lot of other stuff. I'd actually bet that you're far more likely to be injured or killed by an accident in a vehicle that you aren't responsible for than to die from someone else - even a whole bunch of someone elses - smoking in your vicinity. Shall we ban driving? Maybe just driving in public ....
And that's why we have to get a drivers liscense and pay car insurance. You have to pay extra money to drive, so I see nothing wrong with paying extra money to smoke.
In a Machine Shop, the risk is necessary to do the job. Smoking isn't necessary for anything.
then by your logic we should all live in safety bubbles with robots that provide us food on a regular basis because everything can be dangerous to your health.
When working with people you have to deal with their habits. When I deal with customers there's always a chance they can just go ape **** crazy and start punching people (because they need their nicotine fix and can't legally light up), or I could get robbed while working the counter.
That's the nature of working with people you have to deal with their habits.
reading your last post.
Well there you go then. Smokers already pay the right to smoke. Why should they be stripped of that right?
1) Smoking =/= being obese. Smoking has always been a conscious decision. Being obese, for some people, is not. Without knowing anything about the person, you can't simply assume they eat too much and exercise too little. What if they are on a life-saving medication with a side-effect of weight gain? Did you know that I take 6-8 medications (some are as needed) and over half cause weight gain? Without those medications I would be dead in less than 5 years as my organs systematically shut down. For some of us, being obese isn't a choice and we fight against it.
2) Smoking sections in restaurants don't do anything to prevent the non-smokers from inhaling smoke they never wanted in the first place. Now if the facility has a separate, closed off room, then I would have no problem with this. Since the very high majority do not, then those of us who do not want the poison in our system win. If you want to smoke and eat, that's your choice. If I don't want to smoke and eat, it is my choice. If you want to smoke around me while I eat, then you are in the wrong. Your choice is directly affecting me in a negative way. It decreases my health. It makes my food taste nasty. It makes me stink. All because someone else decided to light up. My choice to not light up has had no affect on them. Take a look at other locations where smoking sections have failed: airplanes, bowling alleys, and break rooms/areas (I worked at one place where you had to walk through the smoking break room to get to the non-smoking). None of them addressed the non-smoker reasonably. Now that the non-smoker is getting some attention, smokers are up in arms. I don't think they should be pushed outside into the rain, snow, wind, whatever. That only increases health care costs as they get sick from the weather. When they don't come into work because of that, I have more work to do or business find it more difficult to take care of my needs. That isn't a feasible work around. We need a better option.
3) I don't know how it is everywhere else, but I can tell you that around here I see smokers light up around people at bus stops. The non-smoker shouldn't have to put up with that. When I used to bus the smokers didn't care if the smoke blew my way or not. I have seen too many people on oxygen ask smokers, politely I might add, to smoke away from them and the smoker responded with a simple f-you. Since too many smokers can't figure out that some of us don't want to smoke, then they need to be forced to not smoke around us.
4) Taxing cigarettes to pay for health care costs affected by smoking isn't really much of an issue. If less people smoke, then there are fewer costs affected by smoking. Simple formula. Now I am not naive enough to think that things will be all great if no one smokes. We will still have plenty of health issues from inhaling poisons. The point is that we will have less. As transportation becomes more eco-friendly (I really hate that term but everyone knows what it means), we will see fewer health issues related to inhaling poisons.
5) Fast Food isn't really the problem with obesity but it certainly contributes. The problem is far more pervasive than a few eating establishments. Healthy food costs more than unhealthy food. I can buy 50% or more unhealthy food than I can healthy food. This needs to be addressed by lowering the cost of healthy foods and increasing the cost of unhealthy foods. Taxes would work great here. Give tax break incentives to companies that sell healthy foods and increase taxes (both sales taxes and corporate taxes so consumers are hit twice) on unhealthy foods. Add in incentives from companies so workers can afford gym memberships and we'd be off to a great start.
6) The US has gotten out of hand with it's sin taxes. I am not advocating taxing everything I disagree with. I do think that personal freedom is important. Anything that only affects us as individuals should not be hindered. I don't think smokers should be told they can't smoke at home. I don't think they should be told they can't smoke in their own vehicles. I don't think they should be told they can't light up while walking down the street. Sin taxes are wrong and should be avoided. With freedom comes the right to make poor choices as well as good ones. We should not be taxed because someone else dislikes what we are doing.
7) Smoking is not a choice that only affects the smoker. The non-smoker ends up having to smoke if there is a smoker nearby. The same does not hold true for obesity. The non-obese person doesn't gain weight because there is an obese person nearby. My eating a twinkie does not cause weight gain in people nearby. Someone else's smoking can increase my chances of lung cancer, heart disease, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Even if it's only a small amount (I've seen numbers ranging from 1% to 30%), it should be my choice not some stranger's.
And contrary to Fat People's beliefs 90 percent of the time it is their fault and a direct result of them sitting on the couch after work instead of excercise, and eating 4 cheeseburgers, fries and a shake for dinner. Rather than just eating maybe one.
It also isn't more expensive to eat healthy, that's a big bold faced lie. If you regulate what you eat, buy fruits instead of candy, stop chugging down that two liter that you call a Large sized beverage you'll do just fine. If you eat healthily you won't be spending three times as much on food to start with. I eat the same things many people eat, but I'm alot more fit and trim. Because I exercise and choose not to stuff my face with 4 times as much food as I need to live.
Fat people have no self control.
Rather than exert some, people would rather the government do it for them. Which is stupid, and if it ever comes to that case where that rules over -every aspect of life- in this country then we deserve to fall harder than Rome.
Well there you go then. Smokers already pay the right to smoke. Why should they be stripped of that right?
We place restrictions on people's rights all the time. You can pay your alcohol tax but you'd be breaking the law if you got behind the wheel of a car while drinking to your freedom. When someone else's choices have a significant negative impact on others, then it's time for restrictions. I am not an advocate for outright banning. I think smokers should light up until they (or nature) decides it's time to stop. I don't think their decision to lower their life expectancy should also lower my life expectancy. That should be my choice.
Actually with the increased size of food portions from manufacturers it -does- make it worse for non fat people.
And contrary to Fat People's beliefs 90 percent of the time it is their fault and a direct result of them sitting on the couch after work instead of excercise, and eating 4 cheeseburgers, fries and a shake for dinner.
It also isn't more expensive to eat healthy, that's a big bold faced lie. If you regulate what you eat, buy fruits instead of candy, stop chugging down that two liter that you call a Large sized beverage you'll do just fine.
Fat people have no self control.
Rather than exert some, people would rather the government do it for them. Which is stupid, and if it ever comes to that case where that rules over -every aspect of life- in this country then we deserve to fall harder than Rome.
I suppose you HAVE to eat all that extra food that FORCES you to work out more. Somehow I seem to be doing just fine with all these fat people ruining everyone's lives.
We place restrictions on people's rights all the time. You can pay your alcohol tax but you'd be breaking the law if you got behind the wheel of a car while drinking to your freedom. When someone else's choices have a significant negative impact on others, then it's time for restrictions. I am not an advocate for outright banning. I think smokers should light up until they (or nature) decides it's time to stop. I don't think their decision to lower their life expectancy should also lower my life expectancy. That should be my choice.
You run -higher- risks of someone else lowering your life expectancy just by getting in your car and driving to work than from someone smoking.
Heck there's more chance of your wife giving you food poisoning.
Actually with the increased size of food portions from manufacturers it -does- make it worse for non fat people.
Actually, the portion sizes are not an issue because you can choose to stop eating at any time. You don't have to eat the whole thing. Now if they put something in the food that made you hungrier then there would be a problem.
And contrary to Fat People's beliefs 90 percent of the time it is their fault and a direct result of them sitting on the couch after work instead of excercise, and eating 4 cheeseburgers, fries and a shake for dinner.
I work in the health care field and I can tell you that you are right. Maybe not on the percentage but certainly on the conclusion. I see people with type-2 diabetes who buy candy and forgo their insulin. These same people don't even walk to the mailbox to check their mail. They end up getting worse and worse until they can't work anymore. Then they end up getting state assistance and I have to pay for it. There is no denying that this is very self-centered of them. I myself have tried to lose weight yet I keep gaining. I eat as healthy as I can afford. I try to walk to work when the weather permits. When fighting against the medications that I need to stay alive, it's very discouraging. Couple that with the fact that I am nearly always hungry (even after a full meal) and I am fighting a battle that feels like Custer's Last Stand.
It also isn't more expensive to eat healthy, that's a big bold faced lie. If you regulate what you eat, buy fruits instead of candy, stop chugging down that two liter that you call a Large sized beverage you'll do just fine.
Really? It's a lie? I buy food for just me, no one else. I can buy a bag of 10 burritos for $2 or I can buy the supplies to make 10 burritos for $20. I can buy 20 frozen chicken strips for $5 or I can buy the supplies to make 20 frozen chicken strips for $10. I can buy frozen vegetables I will never eat (peas, lima beans, shredded spinach, etc) for $2 or I can buy the same quantity of vegetables I will eat for $5 with the added caveat that they will go bad sooner. I can eat frozen meals for a whole day at $2 per meal, so $6 total or I can prepare the same meals for more than double the cost. I do think that if you are feeding 2 or more people then the costs end up being better for buying healthy.
Fat people have no self control.
Wrong. Many obese people have no self control. More accurately, they don't really care. Many obese people are fighting things like hyperthyroidism, depression, diabetes, chronic lung problems, etc. Some of these may have been the result of obesity and some may have been the precursor to obesity. Did you know that many of the same medications to treat diabetes also cause moderate weight gain?
Rather than exert some, people would rather the government do it for them. Which is stupid, and if it ever comes to that case where that rules over -every aspect of life- in this country then we deserve to fall harder than Rome.
I do not, and will never advocate government getting involved in every aspect of our lives. I do not think that is the role of government at all. People should be allowed to make whatever decisions they choose, for good or ill, until it significantly has a negative impact on others.
You run -higher- risks of someone else lowering your life expectancy just by getting in your car and driving to work than from someone smoking.
Heck there's more chance of your wife giving you food poisoning.
We don't know that for sure. The difference is that when something happens because of an automobile incident it is clearly obvious and immediate. The other major difference is that when we get on the road, we accept the risks involved. When I am on the sidewalk, I do not accept the risks involved with driving.
Really? It's a lie? I buy food for just me, no one else. I can buy a bag of 10 burritos for $2 or I can buy the supplies to make 10 burritos for $20. I can buy 20 frozen chicken strips for $5 or I can buy the supplies to make 20 frozen chicken strips for $10. I can buy frozen vegetables I will never eat (peas, lima beans, shredded spinach, etc) for $2 or I can buy the same quantity of vegetables I will eat for $5 with the added caveat that they will go bad sooner. I can eat frozen meals for a whole day at $2 per meal, so $6 total or I can prepare the same meals for more than double the cost. I do think that if you are feeding 2 or more people then the costs end up being better for buying healthy.
The burritos that you make are generally larger in size (and what kind of burritos are you making? Seriously? Gigantos or something? Doesn't cost me nearly that much to make 10 burritos)
Home made food also tends to be more filling than store bought food so you eat less and end up putting more back in the fridge. Also when you make your own food you tend to make far more food than you do when preparing frozen premade food so you can feed more people more efficiently. (of course there's also the benefit of home making food giving you yet more physical activity as you make it depending on the food).
And it also tastes far far better and tends to be healthier.
And that's why we have to get a drivers liscense and pay car insurance. You have to pay extra money to drive, so I see nothing wrong with paying extra money to smoke.
And people do. They pay in taxes and they pay in higher insurance rates - if they can even get certain types after a certain age. So they're even then, no? Why then, do you feel it is necessary to punish them further by telling them where they can use a product that they are paying extra to buy?
We don't know that for sure. The difference is that when something happens because of an automobile incident it is clearly obvious and immediate. The other major difference is that when we get on the road, we accept the risks involved. When I am on the sidewalk, I do not accept the risks involved with driving.
Except that you can still be splattered by someone in a car when on a sidewalk. Heck you could even be splattered while in your own home.
Just living is a risk that's dangerous to your health.
And people do. They pay in taxes and they pay in higher insurance rates - if they can even get certain types after a certain age. So they're even then, no? Why then, do you feel it is necessary to punish them further by telling them where they can use a product that they are paying extra to buy?
It isn't punishing them. It's protecting the people who don't want others smoking around them. If the smokers don't like the rules, they can just quit.
It isn't punishing them. It's protecting the people who don't want others smoking around them. If the smokers don't like the rules, they can just quit.
Says a man that's apparently never been addicted to the most addictive substance on the planet. I've had a battle with addiction, it's very hard to overcome. As far as addictions went mine wasn't so bad nor was the habit that long. I can sympathize with an addict.
And yes it's punishing them. When they are already punishing themselves by continuing to smoke.
Frankly the smoker has every right to light up as you do to stuff your face with yet another cheeseburger.
Or the same right to get in a car and drive unrestricted even though you are probably a terrible driver.
Says a man that's apparently never been addicted to the most addictive substance on the planet.
And how did they become addicted? Oh yeah, they started smoking, and decided to continue.
It isn't punishing them. It's protecting the people who don't want others smoking around them. If the smokers don't like the rules, they can just quit.
Isn't punishing them? It's a sin tax. Justify it however you want, it still comes down to taxing something because people don't think it's right.
Like most government policies when it comes to drugs, the policies aren't based on scientific evidence or reality, they're based on what people think is moral and right. They might be justified by facts and numbers, but that's not the reason for them.
It isn't punishing them. It's protecting the people who don't want others smoking around them. If the smokers don't like the rules, they can just quit.
Well, if we're worried about them quitting, why not use all that tax money we're raping them for to set up some sort of stop smoking program instead of using it to fund projects that non-smokers will enjoy more? ;)
And, again, I can just flip this. If you don't like smokers, you can just stay the hell away from places that they frequent. Why can't you see how silly this all sounds? Not to mention incredibly selfish ...
The rules were that smokers could smoke where they damn well pleased. Selfish non-smokers changed the rules. That's something I think you need to keep in mind, too. ;)
And how did they become addicted? Oh yeah, they started smoking, and decided to continue.
By the time someone is finished with their first pack or two, they usually get addicted. After that you all but can't stop even if you want to.
Smoking bans don't help people quit either. Nor do they do anything to prevent people from starting the addiction as it is.
The burritos that you make are generally larger in size (and what kind of burritos are you making? Seriously? Gigantos or something? Doesn't cost me nearly that much to make 10 burritos)
It was an example and not meant to be dissected. That being said, I buy the small tortillas ($3), cheese ($5), 90% lean ground beef or turkey (I really like the turkey) ($4), refried beans ($3), tomatoes ($3), lettuce ($2), seasoning ($1), salsa ($3). The biggest cost is in the meat and cheese. I usually have cheese, tortillas, and salsa left over for quesadillas later. That's 1-2 more meals. It's obvious that I can "share" some ingredients for other meals but even then the cost is still $20+ for 3 meals or $6 for three meals.
Home made food also tends to be more filling than store bought food so you eat less and end up putting more back in the fridge. Also when you make your own food you tend to make far more food than you do when preparing frozen premade food so you can feed more people more efficiently. (of course there's also the benefit of home making food giving you yet more physical activity as you make it depending on the food).
The act of cooking doesn't really seem to burn that many calories. At least not anything significant. I was assuming that I would eat a few burritos, 2-3, regardless of how I got them. I have found that making my own food tend to be much better for my digestive system. When I eat frozen burritos I have all kinds of problems. I haven't had frozen burritos in years.
And it also tastes far far better.
This is very very true. I am a very good cook and I would say that if I had 10 of my homemade burritos next to 10 frozen burritos the homemade would be eaten by my friends before anyone even considered the frozen ones. I do enjoy cooking and I try to have a few BBQs each year. The last two cost me over $500 in food for 20+ people for each one (I had two last year).
Except that you can still be splattered by someone in a car when on a sidewalk. Heck you could even be splattered while in your own home.
Just living is a risk that's dangerous to your health.
That's why driving on the sidewalk is illegal. You aren't supposed to drive where people are walking except in designated areas.
And yes it's punishing them. When they are already punishing themselves by continuing to smoke.
Frankly the smoker has every right to light up as you do to stuff your face with yet another cheeseburger.
Or the same right to get in a car and drive unrestricted even though you are probably a terrible driver.
Except when they smoke around me they are harming me. Even it its unmeasurable, breathing in the smoke sure isn't going to help me. Eating a cheesburger in front of me has no effect on me.
And you are restricted to drive if you are more likely to harm others. And I'm accepting the risks involved with driving by choosing to drive or ride in a vehicle. I am not going to accept the risks of people smoking around me.
By the time someone is finished with their first pack or two, they usually get addicted. After that you all but can't stop even if you want to.
Smoking bans don't help people quit either. Nor do they do anything to prevent people from starting the addiction as it is.
I've heard about a lot of people who quit cold turkey.
Also I tend to eat only one burrito and a couple of sides. (just for example)
If you make your own tortillas or bread it burns calories :P especially in a hot kitchen. That said I don't make my own. (not worth the effort.. even if it tastes mouthwateringly better)
Stompie: sure so have I.. but compared to the amount of people that tried to quit and couldn't? It's a far smaller number.
I wouldn't say you are restricted if you are more likely to harm others. Most people can't drive worth crap. This is a fact. Most people are barely competent enough to only passably operate a vehicle.
Also, if the smoke bothers you just fess up, or find another spot. Heck being out in the sunlight is harmful to you.. do you avoid the sun?
Well, if we're worried about them quitting, why not use all that tax money we're raping them for to set up some sort of stop smoking program instead of using it to fund projects that non-smokers will enjoy more? ;)
This is something I would support 100%. I have no problem with something like this at all and I believe that some of the tax money does go towards smoking cessation programs.
And, again, I can just flip this. If you don't like smokers, you can just stay the hell away from places that they frequent. Why can't you see how silly this all sounds? Not to mention incredibly selfish ...
So if I want to go to Safeway to purchase groceries, I'm selfish when I ask that they not smoke in the doorway? When I need to take the bus because my car is in the shop, I'm selfish when I ask them to not smoke under the covered bus stop, especially when I was there first? If I was a 4-year child and my parents want to take me out to dinner, I need to just suck it up because I could have eaten somewhere else?
The rules were that smokers could smoke where they damn well pleased. Selfish non-smokers changed the rules. That's something I think you need to keep in mind, too. ;)
That's not entirely true. In fact many of us non-smokers vote against these restrictions. Here in Washington, it is illegal to smoke in bars. It's illegal to smoke in a cigar bar. That's just completely down right stupid. If a non-smoker goes to a cigar bar and complains about the smoke, he's an idiot. It was one of the primary reasons I voted against it. I think some parts are fine (no smoking within 25 feet of an entrance, no smoking in most eating establishments). I know many smokers who voted for it. I have no idea why.
I wouldn't say you are restricted if you are more likely to harm others. Most people can't drive worth crap. This is a fact. Most people are barely competent enough to only passably operate a vehicle.
I agree with this. I can't count the number of times I've been almost run over while in a crosswalk while I had the right-of-way in the middle of broad daylight. I'm 6'2" and over 300 pounds. Quite often I hear, "Sorry, I didn't see you there." Note this is while I'm walking 2 miles to work wearing a giant red shirt.
Also, if the smoke bothers you just fess up, or find another spot. Heck being out in the sunlight is harmful to you.. do you avoid the sun?
Actually, I do avoid the sun when I need to. I wear sun block. I have been known to wear long sleeves, pants, and a hat in the sun just to protect myself. I also tend to keep myself very hydrated which helps with the heat. When I was in the Army I was stationed in the desert for 4 years.
This is something I would support 100%. I have no problem with something like this at all and I believe that some of the tax money does go towards smoking cessation programs.
I doubt it would ever happen, though. Too much money to be made, I'm afraid.
So if I want to go to Safeway to purchase groceries, I'm selfish when I ask that they not smoke in the doorway? When I need to take the bus because my car is in the shop, I'm selfish when I ask them to not smoke under the covered bus stop, especially when I was there first? If I was a 4-year child and my parents want to take me out to dinner, I need to just suck it up because I could have eaten somewhere else?
At Safeway, you're only passing through the entrance for, what? 30 seconds? Suck it up.
The bus stop thing is a little more complicated. I'd say you can ask that they refrain, but they have the right to tell you no. They should have the right to smoke there.
The dinner example. Wow. Uhh. Well, at 4 you have no say over where you eat. That's a fact. But your parents do. If they decide to take you somewhere that smoking is allowed, then too bad. You're 4. You must live with the decisions your parents make for you.
That's not entirely true. In fact many of us non-smokers vote against these restrictions. Here in Washington, it is illegal to smoke in bars. It's illegal to smoke in a cigar bar. That's just completely down right stupid. If a non-smoker goes to a cigar bar and complains about the smoke, he's an idiot. It was one of the primary reasons I voted against it. I think some parts are fine (no smoking within 25 feet of an entrance, no smoking in most eating establishments). I know many smokers who voted for it. I have no idea why.
The major issue I have is that - by gov't decree - private businesses have restrictions placed upon them because some people just don't like smoking. That's crap. Let the business owner decide what's best for him. And let the customers have their say, too. There's nothing forcing a non-smoker to eat in a place that does not have a non-smoking section ot to go to a bar that allows smoking. Nothing. So, if enough decide not to go, the owner will probably have to change his policy. That's how this stuff is supposed to work. It's not supposed to be gov't mandate based upon the popularity of the act.
Stompie: sure so have I.. but compared to the amount of people that tried to quit and couldn't? It's a far smaller number.
And sure it sucks for them, but maybe they should accept the consequences of their actions. It's not like they started smoking because someone tricked them into it, or didn't know cigarettes are addictive.
Also, why are you so eager to defend smoking when you were so quick to blast fat people?
The major issue I have is that - by gov't decree - private businesses have restrictions placed upon them because some people just don't like smoking. That's crap. Let the business owner decide what's best for him. And let the customers have their say, too. There's nothing forcing a non-smoker to eat in a place that does not have a non-smoking section ot to go to a bar that allows smoking. Nothing. So, if enough decide not to go, the owner will probably have to change his policy. That's how this stuff is supposed to work. It's not supposed to be gov't mandate based upon the popularity of the act.
This is the big thing here. Government and public property, fine. I can accept restrictions on those without complaint.
But on private property the government is handing down restrictions when there are alternative options for people that don't like dealing with smoke. It is unreasonable to expect a private business to conform to the predilections of every possible customer.
This is the big thing here. Government and public property, fine. I can accept restrictions on those without complaint.
But on private property the government is handing down restrictions when there are alternative options for people that don't like dealing with smoke. It is unreasonable to expect a private business to conform to the predilections of every possible customer.
Yep. My friend's mom owns a bar. And I knew the owners of another really well at the time Ohio made smoking in bars illegal. Every bar owner I knew wanted to keep smoking allowed in their bars. And both of these bars took legal risks when it first went into place to try and keep their bars running as they wanted them to. Well, the risk was too great. In Ohio, you can be fined more heavily for smoking a cig in a bar than if you were to spark up a bong. And so can the owner. So they capitulated. Were this law ever reversed, they'd have ashtrays out the minute it was official. Because they want their customers to be happy. And drinkin' an' smokin' gave gone together since there's been drinks to drink and smokes to smoke. ;)
And sure it sucks for them, but maybe they should accept the consequences of their actions. It's not like they started smoking because someone tricked them into it, or didn't know cigarettes are addictive.
Also, why are you so eager to defend smoking when you were so quick to blast fat people?
Sure, but remember alcohol is addictive to people too. But mildly so. I think most people that smoke really didn't understand just how addictive it is until they are already a foot in the grave.
I'm not really blasting fat people. I'm trying to illustrate how stupid the argument against smokers is, by picking something more legitimate to demonize. Something that actually is an Ill upon society rather than one that is imagined by prissy people unwilling to "stomach" it.
I'm pretty sure being Fat is worse for your health than cigarettes or cigars is. I'm pretty sure Fatness kills more people per year.
Hell I'm sure more people die in a year or get skin cancer from being exposed to sunlight every year than second hand smoke. Yet people go out into the sun without protection, hell they go to tanning booths. Yet I don't see bans on non protected skin because it is a "health issue".
Face it, it's as insane as if I were to propose that we should ban Fat People from being allowed out of their homes because I don't like the appearence/smell of them or the image it creates.
It's been proven that second hand smoke is harmful.
... to lab rats. ;)
... to lab rats. ;)
And honestly, given how large a cig is compared to a lab rat that data isn't really even valid.
If I stood next to a huge burning barrel all day for five years I bet I'd get bad health effects too.
I believe it was back in the 1920's or 30"s that cigarettes’ were once called cancer sticks. Just wanted to throw that in, but once again people want to make laws that take away some ones civil rights like smoking in a public place so it's all about choice folks. Where I live they just passed a smoking ban in restaurants and bars, funny thing is in the downtown area before the law went into affect the businesses were already catering to non-smokers and smokers alike. Some bars downtown prohibited smoke while other allowed smoking. So the state decided that they need to pass a smoking ban to save all of us from second hand smoke. Now there has been no reported evidence that anyone has gotten cancer from second hand smoke but someone said it may be harmful so let's ban it. Now we have third hand smoke, this is the particles from the smoke that gets stuck on the walls, carpeting, furniture and the like, that once again may or may not be harmful. As of yet there has been no evidence. So now they want to ban smoking in cars, especially cars with children in them. So the question is where does the lunacy stop?
This is exactly why I, as a non-smoker, vote against the very high majority of smoking bans. I have no problem with smokers. I do have a problem with smokers who think I want to smoke with them. I don't care if they smoke in their cars, homes, backyards, street corners, or anywhere else that I am not forced to join in with them. We do know that second hand smoke increases the chances of several different medical conditions. We don't fully understand the extent yet. Third hand smoke? That's simply the dumbest thing I've heard of in a long time. I can agree that it is disgusting to see nicotine come through several coats of paint. I have seen it in several apartments. I think licking it could be dangerous. I don't think viewing it is going to do anything other than make me want to get another coat of paint.
As for smoking in cars with children in them, I guess an argument can be made once all cars have zero emissions. Until then, I don't know if there's much difference between inhaling gasoline exhaust an inhaling cigarette smoke. We know more about cigarette smoke than car exhaust. We do know that cigarettes produce more air pollution than diesel engines. What we don't know is how many smokers compared to diesel engines there are. Anyway, as I was saying, I think banning smoking in vehicles is stupid.
Basically you as a bar owner have no right to put your employees in situations where they risk significant harm to themselves, and working 8-12 hours a day in a smoke filled room is considered one of those situations.
I'm a smoker and I personally don't see a problem with it. Banning smoking entirely does seem a bit draconian, and in some states, like California, you can have a smoking room (that has no drink service) if you also sell cigars behind the bar.
Stepping outside, even in NYC or Boston where I have smoked most of my life, is not so bad. If you really don't want to go outside, you can just not smoke a cigarette, which is not a bad thing. Basically I agree with Bob Loblaw, but I think the freedom of the employees is more important than the comfort of the patrons in this case.
I'm not really blasting fat people. I'm trying to illustrate how stupid the argument against smokers is, by picking something more legitimate to demonize. Something that actually is an Ill upon society rather than one that is imagined by prissy people unwilling to "stomach" it.
The difference is that you don't get fat from being around a fat person. You don't smell fat after they leave. You aren't demonstrating anything other than we should focus on more than just smoking, assuming that "health" is the reason for all the bans. I don't think that's the reason though. I do think it's because some people are too self-righteous and feel the need to impose their opinion on others' rights.
I'm pretty sure being Fat is worse for your health than cigarettes or cigars is. I'm pretty sure Fatness kills more people per year.
Currently, the evidence is showing that they are about equal. There is still no evidence that obesity causes health problems in people who are not obese. There are studies that show non-smokers are at greater risk for health problems if they are around smokers.
Hell I'm sure more people die in a year or get skin cancer from being exposed to sunlight every year than second hand smoke. Yet people go out into the sun without protection, hell they go to tanning booths. Yet I don't see bans on non protected skin because it is a "health issue".
There are actually people who want to ban tanning booths. I don't care one way or the other about the tanning booths but I do think that people should be informed of the dangers so they can make an informed decision.
Face it, it's as insane as if I were to propose that we should ban Fat People from being allowed out of their homes because I don't like the appearence/smell of them or the image it creates.
It's not the same thing though. If you stood next to me you wouldn't gain weight and you wouldn't smell like you'd been around me. I don't have that "greasy fat" smell that I have smelled on others. It's gross. From what I've read on it, the smell is actually coming from sweat and dead skin cells that are decomposing along with whatever may be caught in the folds of the flesh. This actually can be a major health problem, causing skin ulcers which can get infected. Still, someone standing next to them will not get the ulcers nor will they smell like sweaty death the rest of the day.
Here's something else to consider with second-hand smoke: those people with breathing problems are at even greater risk. Second hand smoke can induce asthma attacks. It can make breathing more difficult for people on oxygen.
I still don't think that we should have full-on smoking bans.
Smoking in businesses is banned for the protection of the health and comfort of the employees, not for the patrons.
... So, you're saying that people that took a job knowing full well they would be exposed to smoke pretty frequently need to have the government step in and say "that isn't right" for them? I'm sorry, but accepting the risks is part of employment.
And honestly, given how large a cig is compared to a lab rat that data isn't really even valid.
If I stood next to a huge burning barrel all day for five years I bet I'd get bad health effects too.
Studies have also been done on monkeys and in much better controlled environments. They have shown that the pollution from cigarettes places the second hand smoker at an unacceptable risk. We don't have to use humans for every study. We just need to make sure that the studies are done properly. We can't put a monkey in a room, fill it with smoke and nothing else, watch the monkey die and say that pot is bad (this is one official study). I can do the same thing with water and get the same results.
We can do things in the proper proportions and see how they affect cellular growth and apoptosis.
... So, you're saying that people that took a job knowing full well they would be exposed to smoke pretty frequently need to have the government step in and say "that isn't right" for them? I'm sorry, but accepting the risks is part of employment.
Accepting some risks is part of the employment. Exposing your employees to tangential, thoroughly avoidable risks just so that you can make a quick buck is generally frowned upon.
The risk of respiratory disease and the imposition of smoking are not necessary components of most jobs.
And non-smokers shouldn't be unable to work in a given building just because some employer doesn't care enough to protect their health from other employees.
... So, you're saying that people that took a job knowing full well they would be exposed to smoke pretty frequently need to have the government step in and say "that isn't right" for them? I'm sorry, but accepting the risks is part of employment.
I agree with you for the most part. I have a problem when people didn't expect any such risk, such as the breakroom problem I mentioned earlier. I can also see a problem occurring when the jobs are not plentiful. However, this is not really a reason to ban smoking overall. Some places, such as bars, shouldn't be affected by a smoking ban. Eating establishments, sure. I want to enjoy my steak not Jerry's Marlboro. I don't want to choke on smoke.
I agree with you for the most part. I have a problem when people didn't expect any such risk, such as the breakroom problem I mentioned earlier. I can also see a problem occurring when the jobs are not plentiful. However, this is not really a reason to ban smoking overall. Some places, such as bars, shouldn't be affected by a smoking ban. Eating establishments, sure. I want to enjoy my steak not Jerry's Marlboro. I don't want to choke on smoke.
The thing is, it should be the owner of the business who makes this decision - not the gov't.
Nearly every smoking ban I've heard of hit bars, too. What the excuse for that is I'll never understand. Smoking is (was) part of the bar experience. Everyone knows that. Everyone. Oh, there's also no need to go to a bar. More BS, I guess.
I agree with you for the most part. I have a problem when people didn't expect any such risk, such as the breakroom problem I mentioned earlier. I can also see a problem occurring when the jobs are not plentiful. However, this is not really a reason to ban smoking overall. Some places, such as bars, shouldn't be affected by a smoking ban. Eating establishments, sure. I want to enjoy my steak not Jerry's Marlboro. I don't want to choke on smoke.
Hence the smoking room laws in California, which protects the employees (because there's no drink service they never have to go in the smoking room) without banning smoking entirely. I'm not sure what's up with the cigar component. I think it might be exploiting some pre-existing loophole in the law that nobody has bothered to close.
But whether or not you expect something does not mean that it isn't infringing on your livelihood. I can hire you to clean up toxic waste with a pitch fork and overalls. Telling you about it in advance doesn't make it legal, moral, or safe.
The thing is, it should be the owner of the business who makes this decision - not the gov't.
Nearly every smoking ban I've heard of hit bars, too. What the excuse for that is I'll never understand. Smoking is (was) part of the bar experience. Everyone knows that. Everyone. Oh, there's also no need to go to a bar. More BS, I guess.
If you're going to exempt bars, you need to explain why bartenders and waitresses do not deserve the protections the rest of us do.
If you're going to exempt bars, you need to explain why bartenders and waitresses do not deserve the protections the rest of us do.
Nobody needs these protections. All parties involved are adults that are aware of what goes on in these establishments. The idea that people willingly going into a place of business - whether to work or patronize - need protection from known behavior at that establishment is ludicrous. I don't know about you, but I don't need the gov't holding my hand that much. Now, if we could get some crossguards employed by the gov't - complete with sunglasses, suits and ear radios - to make sure I get across ok, I'd be down with that. ;)
Ultimately, you are responsible for your own safety - especially where all potential dangers are known.
Nobody needs these protections. All parties involved are adults that are aware of what goes on in these establishments. The idea that people willingly going into a place of business - whether to work or patronize - need protection from known behavior at that establishment is ludicrous. I don't know about you, but I don't need the gov't holding my hand that much. Now, if we could get some crossguards employed by the gov't - complete with sunglasses, suits and ear radios - to make sure I get across ok, I'd be down with that. ;)
Ultimately, you are responsible for your own safety - especially where all potential dangers are known.
I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. If a business forces you to be in a certain place at a certain time, the business is legally responsible for your safety.
The argument for banning smoking is exactly the same as banning other unnecessary risks. Arguing that the behavior is "known" is only skirting the issue. It is "known" that body piercing and tattoos can give you AIDS or other blood-borne diseases if the proprietor doesn't use clean needles, but that won't protect a tattoo artist who doesn't use clean equipment. If anything, the fact that it is well known is more damning.
The fact is there is absolutely no benefit for anybody to allowing smoking in businesses, and the only infringement of your or anybody else's rights is that you have to go outside to poison yourself.
And I'm saying I don't see why we need to 'protect' people from making decisions for themselves. You want to work in a job with known risks? Fine, make sure the employees are fully informed. But let the owner decide for their establishment, and let people decide where they work. People have chosen riskier jobs over safer jobs all of human history, I don't see why we need to start treating them like children now.
What would happen is that people who are willing to work in smoke-filled environments will get work, and people who are not will not. Almost every job would be a risky job, so there would be very little choice left over for those who don't want to breathe smoke all day.
For example, if your field is reporting, a field where I observe (anecdotally) that there is a higher than average percentage of smokers, and all of the newpapers in the area allow smoking in their offices, you are essentially forced to make a decision to choose another field or put your health at risk. That makes no sense.
I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. If a business forces you to be in a certain place at a certain time, the business is legally responsible for your safety.
The argument for banning smoking is exactly the same as banning other unnecessary risks. Arguing that the behavior is "known" is only skirting the issue. It is "known" that body piercing and tattoos can give you AIDS or other blood-borne diseases if the proprietor doesn't use clean needles, but that won't protect a tattoo artist who doesn't use clean equipment.
The fact is there is absolutely no benefit for anybody to allowing smoking in businesses, and the only infringement of your or anybody else's rights is that you have to go outside to poison yourself.
Wow. The business is not forcing anyone to be anywhere. You don't like your job or don't feel safe, quit. Again, it comes down to you. You are responsible for yourself. If you feel comfortable letting someone else field that responsibility, I can't even begin to understand the thoughts in your mind.
No benefit, eh? Basically your entire last paragraph boils down to the following: I don't like you smoking and don't care how that feeling may inconvenience you - suck it.
Really, the main focus of this whole damned debate is where EE is trying to steer us back to. Let the owner of the business and the patrons - existing and potential - hash this out. The gov't should not step in.
For example, if your field is reporting, a field where I observe (anecdotally) that there is a higher than average percentage of smokers, and all of the newpapers in the area allow smoking in their offices, you are essentially forced to make a decision to choose another field or put your health at risk. That makes no sense.
So, a person should assess all aspects of their chosen field before making it a career, including the habits of others in that field and possible hazards? Gee, that sounds like such a burden. Should we have a disclaimer at medical schools that you will likely live a very high-stress life, raising your blood pressure? Should we warn people that want to be dentists that people will always come in unhappy to see you, and that you will be at an increased risk of suicide because of your chosen vocation? Maybe we should mandate that all employees have to love their boss so the boss doesn't feel the emotional burden of being hated by their employees?
I'm sorry, but there are risks and hazards with every job, and not all of them are integral to the work itself, but happen anyway. It's a fact of life.
Wow. The business is not forcing anyone to be anywhere. You don't like your job or don't feel safe, quit. Again, it comes down to you. You are responsible for yourself. If you feel comfortable letting someone else field that responsibility, I can't even begin to understand the thoughts in your mind.
"Quit?" Really? Basically you want to turn back every worker safety law passed, ever? Have you read anything about the last two industrial revolutions?
No benefit, eh? Basically your entire last paragraph boils down to the following: I don't like you smoking and don't care how that feeling may inconvenience you - suck it.
No, it boils down to "The fact is there is absolutely no benefit for anybody to allowing smoking in businesses, and the only infringement of your or anybody else's rights is that you have to go outside to poison yourself." If you disagree, name one benefit. So far the only thing anybody can come up with is that smokers have to get off their asses and go outside. Since they're engaging in the very behavior that puts the people around them at risk of severe illness or death, that sounds to me more like a positive than a negative.
Really, the main focus of this whole damned debate is where EE is trying to steer us back to. Let the owner of the business and the patrons - existing and potential - hash this out. The gov't should not step in.
This is one of the government's primary roles. The reason we have the Department of Labor and OSHA is because otherwise most people will be working 12 hour days at unsafe jobs for no benefits and pitiful pay.
So, a person should assess all aspects of their chosen field before making it a career, including the habits of others in that field and possible hazards? Gee, that sounds like such a burden.
Breathing second hand smoke is not an unavoidable hazard of doing any job, except maybe work in a smoke shop.
Should we have a disclaimer at medical schools that you will likely live a very high-stress life, raising your blood pressure? Should we warn people that want to be dentists that people will always come in unhappy to see you, and that you will be at an increased risk of suicide because of your chosen vocation? Maybe we should mandate that all employees have to love their boss so the boss doesn't feel the emotional burden of being hated by their employees?
That all sounds like nonsense. I think if dentists are being driven to suicide as a result of unsafe working conditions that are easily avoided with no cost to anyone, then we should do something to protect them.
I'm sorry, but there are risks and hazards with every job, and not all of them are integral to the work itself, but happen anyway. It's a fact of life.
Breathing your coworker or customer's smoke is not a fact of life.
No point in continuing this. You don't think people can make choices for their own lives. I think people should be given the freedom to choose for themselves, even if that choice includes unhealthy options.
I guess I'm just old-fashioned... thinking people should have freedom of choice.
/sigh
No point in continuing this. You don't think people can make choices for their own lives. I think people should be given the freedom to choose for themselves, even if that choice includes unhealthy options.
I guess I'm just old-fashioned... thinking people should have freedom of choice.
For the people against smoking, it's the freedom to choose not to allow second hand smoke around them. Sure the non smokers can just leave if they don't like it, but so can the smokers. And luckily for the non smokers, the gov is on their side.
"Quit?" Really? Basically you want to turn back every worker safety law passed, ever? Have you read anything about the last two industrial revolutions?
Alright, then. We'll go with the same answer EE gave. Look into what you'll be doing before you sign up. Jeebus. People smoke in bars. If you want to waitress but can't stand smoke (or fear for your life cuz you're a li'l white mouse), maybe a bar ain't the place for you to ply your trade? We simply must place some onus on the individual. Or would you be down with my crossing guard division, too?
No, it boils down to "The fact is there is absolutely no benefit for anybody to allowing smoking in businesses, and the only infringement of your or anybody else's rights is that you have to go outside to poison yourself." If you disagree, name one benefit. So far the only thing anybody can come up with is that smokers have to get off their asses and go outside. Since they're engaging in the very behavior that puts the people around them at risk of severe illness or death, that sounds to me more like a positive than a negative.
Inconveniencing a patron is never a good idea, is it? Look, if you know the place you're going to eat allows smoking and you don't like smoke, it's your *******ed fault for going there - not the smokers. Seems like it's a hell of a lot easier than even asking someone to take it outside, no? You know the "risk". Accepting it or not is on you. And your "statement" of not going to establishments that permit smoking may even cause some owners to change their policy. You know, exactly how the marketplace is suposed to work. ;)
This is one of the government's primary roles. The reason we have the Department of Labor and OSHA is because otherwise most people will be working 12 hour days at unsafe jobs for no benefits and pitiful pay.
Actually, you can thank unions for that.
It's still on the individual to decide whether or not to work for a business. It's on you to understand what you're getting into. I left one job because of several reasons. One of those was the risk of severe injury (I had a few minor injuries and one pretty damned close call). A year after I left, a 21 year old kid got killed there. It was a company that put windows together. He was wearing all of his gear and was following the proper safety procedures. Obvsiously, he felt that the risk wasn't all that bad. And he died there on the concrete floor after the large piece of glass he and his cutting partner were carrying split and fell onto his neck. Should we ban glass? The gov't should step in and protect these people, no?
/sigh
No point in continuing this. You don't think people can make choices for their own lives. I think people should be given the freedom to choose for themselves, even if that choice includes unhealthy options.
I guess I'm just old-fashioned... thinking people should have freedom of choice.
I really don't understand what you're saying. Banning smoking in businesses increases freedom of choice for just about everybody, because you no longer have to factor in the possibility of dying from an asthma attack when choosing your employer.
Only the owners of business-zoned buildings have their choices infringed in any way. Since smoke bans don't lead to a decrease in profits and protect their tenants and employees from a significant health hazard, I would say there is a net gain in choice.
I can't answer for them, but I'll why I don't like it (again, in case it isn't perfectly clear by now). Because it's the government putting their finger in and giving orders about something. It's the government taking away the freedom of choice. People already had a choice to not go to those places, to not work at those places, and there were plenty of smoke-free establishments. But people having a choice of whether or not to go to a place that allowed their vice, and people having a choice of whether or not to suffer the vices of others, wasn't good enough. So it became government mandate that it wasn't allowed anywhere.
So no, there is no net gain in choice. People had a choice. Now it isn't even a question.
Is my stance on this in any way vague, unclear, or hard to understand?
Is my stance on this in any way vague, unclear, or hard to understand?
No, it's just people disagree. My opinion is that most people could care less about smoking bans or are in support of banning it.
No, it's just people disagree. My opinion is that most people could care less about smoking bans or are in support of banning it.
You don't frequent many bars or know many bar/restaraunt owners, do you? ;)
You don't frequent many bars or know many bar/restaraunt owners, do you? ;)
I used frequent bars in PA every couple of weeks. They didn't have smoking in them and I remember people getting along just fine. In fact, the lack of smoking encourages me to start going again whenever I move back.
I used frequent bars in PA every couple of weeks. They didn't have smoking in them and I remember people getting along just fine. In fact, the lack of smoking encourages me to start going again whenever I move back.
See, I started goin' to bars when you were still allowed to smoke. It was a huge issue when the law came out. And if you'd ask, you'd find that people still ain't happy about it.
Alright, then. We'll go with the same answer EE gave. Look into what you'll be doing before you sign up. Jeebus. People smoke in bars. If you want to waitress but can't stand smoke (or fear for your life cuz you're a li'l white mouse), maybe a bar ain't the place for you to ply your trade? We simply must place some onus on the individual. Or would you be down with my crossing guard division, too?
Saying "People smoke in bars" is like saying "Factories are dangerous" as an explanation for the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. some onus will always remain on the individual, and I am not advocating transferring your personal sense of responsibility to your employer. However, employers make significant money by paying their employees to enter situations they otherwise would not. Therefore some of the legal onus must be on the employer. We do this by means of safety regulations, worker's comp., and additional pay for high risk jobs.
Inconveniencing a patron is never a good idea, is it? Look, if you know the place you're going to eat allows smoking and you don't like smoke, it's your *******ed fault for going there - not the smokers. Seems like it's a hell of a lot easier than even asking someone to take it outside, no? You know the "risk". Accepting it or not is on you. And your "statement" of not going to establishments that permit smoking may even cause some owners to change their policy. You know, exactly how the marketplace is suposed to work. ;)
The problem is that the marketplace doesn't work that way, as has been demonstrated repeatedly for a couple hundred years now. And again, I'm talking about the employees' safety, not the patrons. The market will not act to protect employees, because protecting employees is costly.
Actually, you can thank unions for that.
You can thank unions for organizing workers into voting blocks that would make a government that had been literally bought by industrialists listen.
It's still on the individual to decide whether or not to work for a business. It's on you to understand what you're getting into. I left one job because of several reasons. One of those was the risk of severe injury (I had a few minor injuries and one pretty damned close call). A year after I left, a 21 year old kid got killed there. It was a company that put windows together. He was wearing all of his gear and was following the proper safety procedures. Obvsiously, he felt that the risk wasn't all that bad. And he died there on the concrete floor after the large piece of glass he and his cutting partner were carrying split and fell onto his neck. Should we ban glass? The gov't should step in and protect these people, no?
No, but we should require a company that puts him at risk like that to have proper safety procedures and safety gear, which that company obviously does. Adding, "In addition, employees will not be subject to 8 hour baths in carcinogens" is only a tiny extension of those same regulations.
See, I started goin' to bars when you were still allowed to smoke. It was a huge issue when the law came out. And if you'd ask, you'd find that people still ain't happy about it.
Trust me, I understand your argument, but I disagree. I love and hate smoking if you know what I mean, but it's not something I enjoy enough to miss.
Trust me, I understand your argument, but I disagree. I love and hate smoking if you know what I mean, but it's not something I enjoy enough to miss.
I love smoking, too. But I quit. I still believe that it's the right of the private business owner to make the decision to allow smoking in their establishment or not - not the gov't.
See, I started goin' to bars when you were still allowed to smoke. It was a huge issue when the law came out. And if you'd ask, you'd find that people still ain't happy about it.
As far as I know, the basic pattern has been that business drops off initially after a smoking ban is passed, but then picks up again to even more than it was before, as non-smokers who prevoisly avoided bars begin going to them and smokers return. Whether or not a bar allows smoking does not seem to impact whether or not smokers will go there.
However, it has been argued that the pick up is because establishments that previously made most their money from smokers had to close their doors during the slump and never reopen, so there are few places to go.
As far as I know, neither side has conclusive evidence.
"You must wear safety glasses, steel toed boots and all other proper safety gear for your position" doesn't infinge on anyone's rights. "You can't use your 100% legal product here" does.
Smoking in doors is not a right, especially when it puts other people at risk. It violates the "breaks your leg" half of the "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" test of whether something is a presumed right or not.
Guns are 100% legal, too, but you can't walk into a bar and shoot up the dartboard.
As far as I know, the basic pattern has been that business drops off initially after a smoking ban is passed, but then picks up again to even more than it was before, as non-smokers who prevoisly avoided bars begin going to them and smokers return. Whether or not a bar allows smoking does not seem to impact whether or not smokers will go there.
However, it has been argued that the pick up is because establishments that previously made most their money from smokers had to close their doors during the slump and never reopen, so there are few places to go.
As far as I know, neither side has conclusive evidence.
Well, we can agree on that much. ;)
What I saw was a dramatic dropoff in business at first. Now, levels have returned to about the same as they were before. There were some casualties, though, that limit the choice of venue a bit. I do not think they closed from loss of smoker business, though. The thing is, even when the establishment has made comfy provisions (heated outdoor areas shielded from the elements as much as possible with TVs - and only the busiest bar in town could afford that - luckily it's also my friend's mom's place :D), the smoker patrons would rather be able to smoke where they wish. If the law was reversed, business would remain the same.
Smoking in doors is not a right, especially when it puts other people at risk. It violates the "breaks your leg" half of the "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" test of whether something is a presumed right or not.
Guns are 100% legal, too, but you can't walk into a bar and shoot up the dartboard.
It's should be up to the business owner to decide whether you can smoke in their place of business or not. That's the main point of contention, I guess, and not one that we're going to come to terms on any time soon.
Well, we can agree on that much. ;)
What I saw was a dramatic dropoff in business at first. Now, levels have returned to about the same as they were before. There were some casualties, though, that limit the choice of venue a bit. I do not think they closed from loss of smoker business, though. The thing is, even when the establishment has made comfy provisions (heated outdoor areas shielded from the elements as much as possible with TVs - and only the busiest bar in town could afford that - luckily it's also my friend's mom's place :D), the smoker patrons would rather be able to smoke where they wish. If the law was reversed, business would remain the same.
Right. Business would remain the same, and the staff would be risking their health.
So we're back to you arguing that a minor inconvenience to smokers is more important than protecting employees from life-threatening diseases.
My two favorite bars in LA and San Francisco both had smoking rooms. All that meant was that I had to get up and go to the bar to refresh my drink rather than have the waitress do it for me. If that protects her from health risks, it seems like an exceptionally minor trade.
It's should be up to the business owner to decide whether you can smoke in their place of business or not. That's the main point of contention, I guess, and not one that we're going to come to terms on any time soon.
I guess. But I still feel like your point boils down to a bald assertion with no justification, while mine has the health, safety, and protection of millions of people to back it up.
Frankly, what makes even less sense than smoking bans, and which I oppose far more passionately, is the fact that I can't sit in the park, smoke a blunt, and drink a beer. Who exactly am I hurting by doing that? I'd much rather other substances were treated like tobacco.
People already had a choice to not go to those places, to not work at those places, and there were plenty of smoke-free establishments.
This has not been my experience, but I started going to bars in the late '90s, when smoking bans were already common. Both California and Boston (but not the rest of MA) had bans in place. My impression is that smoking in restaurants was quite common through the 1980's, and still occurs in other places of business (such as my own) despite the ban. I know that smoking in bars in San Francisco and New York is also quite common still.
According to wikipedia, the first smoking ban was enacted in 1590, when the Pope announced that Catholics could be excommunicated for smoking indoors, or even on a porch.
The thing is, even when the establishment has made comfy provisions (heated outdoor areas shielded from the elements as much as possible with TVs - and only the busiest bar in town could afford that - luckily it's also my friend's mom's place :D), the smoker patrons would rather be able to smoke where they wish.
Those comfy provisions would make the space indoors and therefore a violation of Iowa's version of this crap law.
Here's another fun one. According to the law, you can't be within 20' of an entrance. The bars downtown are less than 40' from one front door to the next, and therefore you can't smoke in the space between them. The sidewalks extend 8' from the front of the buildings. So the only place you can legally smike in the entirety of downtown Cedar Rapids, Iowa is in a traffic lane.
These are just a few of the little problems I have with the law as written. But the big one is a whopper. The governor's mansion is state property. His office is in the building. Apparently the smoking ban doesn't apply to his wife that smokes. Can you smell the hypocracy? It's bloody palpable, it is.
According to wikipedia, the first smoking ban was enacted in 1590, when the Pope announced that Catholics could be excommunicated for smoking indoors, or even on a porch.
There you go. If the Catholics banned it, everybody and their brother should be smoking.
I guess. But I still feel like your point boils down to a bald assertion with no justification, while mine has the health, safety, and protection of millions of people to back it up.
Cigarette smoke, second hand, contains less nicotine than you get eating a tomato. It has the same level of carcinogens that you're exposed to refueling your car or breathing while you drive on a busy street.
One of the only real advantages to smoking is that smokers tend not to develop Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and Hodgkins disease. Nobody knows why. Since the AMA's position is that "smoking is bad, mm-kay", they won't properly accredit any study into the anecdotal evidence that suggests there might be a link. According to the survey by the surgeon general's office in question, pipe smokers that don't inhale live an average of 10 years longer than non-smokers.
Another thing to consider is longevity. As a smoker, I'll probably develop some sort of cancer that will spread rapidly or I'll die when my heart gives out because of the smoking. What I won't be doing is lying in the bed next to you wasting away and drawing on the medical community's already limited resources. I won't be confined to a wheelchair because diabetes caused them to have to amputate one or both of my legs. I won't wander around the alzheimer's wing meeting new and interesting people day after day because I kept my body at the peak of health all my life. And they certainly won't have to cut away one of the walls of my house to use a crane to hoist me out of my bed because I could jam another twinkie in my gullet, but I couldn't get up to go to the bathroom. So how is it that smokers cost more?
Those comfy provisions would make the space indoors and therefore a violation of Iowa's version of this crap law.
Here's another fun one. According to the law, you can't be within 20' of an entrance. The bars downtown are less than 40' from one front door to the next, and therefore you can't smoke in the space between them. The sidewalks extend 8' from the front of the buildings. So the only place you can legally smike in the entirety of downtown Cedar Rapids, Iowa is in a traffic lane.
These are just a few of the little problems I have with the law as written. But the big one is a whopper. The governor's mansion is state property. His office is in the building. Apparently the smoking ban doesn't apply to his wife that smokes. Can you smell the hypocracy? It's bloody palpable, it is.
I completely agree that there have been ham-fisted and outright idiotic implementations of smoking restrictions. Generally I oppose any ban on smoking outside or on private property, as well. Smoking has been demonized of late and it's led to some of these laws being enacted more swiftly than was necessary, which means poor wording, loopholes, and over- or under-reacting on the part of the legislature. I do believe that there are some sound, rational reasons for restricting where and when a person can smoke, though.
Cigarette smoke, second hand, contains less nicotine than you get eating a tomato. It has the same level of carcinogens that you're exposed to refueling your car or breathing while you drive on a busy street.
Imagine doing those things for eight hours a day straight, assume that there is more than one person smoking for that time, and assume you are in an enclosed space with them.
I know that cabbies drive on busy streets for eight hours a day and gas station attendants fill cars with gas all day, but those are unavoidable, inescapable hazards of those jobs. The same is not true of bartending and cigarette smoke.
There you go. If the Catholics banned it, everybody and their brother should be smoking.
It's kind of like oral sex that way.
I know that cabbies drive on busy streets for eight hours a day and gas station attendants fill cars with gas all day, but those are unavoidable, inescapable hazards of those jobs. The same is not true of bartending and cigarette smoke.
Conveniently I am a cabbie. It's closer to 15 hours a day, by the way.
I'd rather be around somebody smoking than having to dodge the schmucks that polish off a six-pack in under an hour and think they can drive well enough to go get more. The laws against that have been on the books for years, but they don't put breathalizers in every car, do they? They don't make bars and taverns responsible for their patrons getting home safe.
Smoke-free regulations are silly by comparison. The fact they're the hot new thing means that they're being zealously enforced. I'm just waiting to see what happens when someone dies of exposure outside a bar having a smoke. This is Iowa, the winters around here can be lethal very quickly.
then by your logic we should all live in safety bubbles with robots that provide us food on a regular basis because everything can be dangerous to your health.
When working with people you have to deal with their habits. When I deal with customers there's always a chance they can just go ape **** crazy and start punching people (because they need their nicotine fix and can't legally light up), or I could get robbed while working the counter.
That's the nature of working with people you have to deal with their habits.
reading your last post.
Well there you go then. Smokers already pay the right to smoke. Why should they be stripped of that right?
Cpt. Micha, you are aware this argument is nonsensical, right? You do not "have to deal" with people punching you, robbing you, or hitting you with a car. Thoes are all legaly prohibited activites. Saying 'sometimes people break laws' makes no sense when your argument is 'we shouldnt outlaw this particular thing'.
Here are some of the changes in industrial safety regulation brought about by OSHA:
Guards on all moving parts - By 1970, there were guards to prevent inadvertent contact with most moving parts that were accessible in the normal course of operation. With OSHA, use of guards was expanded to cover essentially all parts where contact is possible.
Permissible exposure limits (PEL) - Maximum concentrations of chemicals stipulated by regulation for chemicals and dusts. They cover around 600 chemicals. Most are based on standards issued by other organizations in 1968 or before.
Personal protective equipment (PPE) - broader use of respirators, gloves, coveralls, and other protective equipment when handling hazardous chemicals; goggles, face shields, ear protection in typical industrial environments
Lockout/tagout - In the 1980s, requirements for locking out energy sources (securing them in an "off" condition) when performing repairs or maintenance
Confined space - In the 1990s, specific requirements for air sampling and use of a "buddy system" when working inside tanks, manholes, pits, bins, and similar enclosed areas
Hazard Communication (HazCom [4]) - Also known as the "Right to Know" standard, was issued as 29CFR1910.1200 on November 25, 1983 (48 FR 53280), requires developing and communicating information on the hazards of chemical products used in the workplace.
Process Safety Management (PSM [5]) - Issued in 1992 as 29CFR1910.119 in an attempt to reduce large scale industrial accidents. Although enforcement of the standard has been spotty, its principles have long been widely accepted by the petrochemical industry.
Bloodborne Pathogens (BBP [6])- In 1990, OSHA issued a standard designed to prevent health care (and other) workers from being exposed to bloodborne pathogens such as hepatitis B and HIV.
Excavations and Trenches - OSHA regulations[7] specify that trenches and excavations wherein workers are working 5 feet or more down must be provided with safeguards in addition to proper sloping and storage of excavated material in order to prevent collapses/cave-ins.[8]
Exposure to asbestos - OSHA has established requirements in 29 CFR 1910.1001 for occupational exposure to asbestos. These requirements apply to most workplaces - most notably excepted is construction work. "Construction work" means work for construction, alteration and/or repair including painting and decorating. Occupational exposure requirements for asbestos in construction work can be found in 29 CFR 1926.1101.
Wether or not it is the responsability of a business owner to reduce the amount of smoke employes are exsposed too should be a matter for OSHA. It would depend on the typical amount of the smoke toxins present, what PPE the bartenders and waitstaff are requiered to wear, and how long their shifts are.
Hence the smoking room laws in California, which protects the employees (because there's no drink service they never have to go in the smoking room) without banning smoking entirely. I'm not sure what's up with the cigar component. I think it might be exploiting some pre-existing loophole in the law that nobody has bothered to close.
But whether or not you expect something does not mean that it isn't infringing on your livelihood. I can hire you to clean up toxic waste with a pitch fork and overalls. Telling you about it in advance doesn't make it legal, moral, or safe.
These bars are actually for smoking cigars and drinking scotch. It's the entire purpose of the bar. Anyone who works there or patronizes the establishment needs to deal with the smoke. If people can't figure out that cigar bars have people smoking cigars that shouldn't be the owner's problem. It can't be infringing on people's rights in these cases. If you go watch Snoop Dog live and hear foul language, you don't have the right to be offended. That's what he does and it is well known. Now if you go to watch a christian rapper and Snoop Dog comes out, then you have the right to be offended.
I can't answer for them, but I'll why I don't like it (again, in case it isn't perfectly clear by now). Because it's the government putting their finger in and giving orders about something. It's the government taking away the freedom of choice. People already had a choice to not go to those places, to not work at those places, and there were plenty of smoke-free establishments. But people having a choice of whether or not to go to a place that allowed their vice, and people having a choice of whether or not to suffer the vices of others, wasn't good enough. So it became government mandate that it wasn't allowed anywhere.
To be fair, at least here in Washington, it was decided on by the voters. The majority of people made the decision. The voters decided to place it on the ballot. The voters got together and made a decision. While I think that many of them voted with their hearts rather than their brains, I do have to say that they made a choice. It wasn't forced on them as a whole.
Studies have also been done on monkeys and in much better controlled environments. They have shown that the pollution from cigarettes places the second hand smoker at an unacceptable risk. We don't have to use humans for every study. We just need to make sure that the studies are done properly. We can't put a monkey in a room, fill it with smoke and nothing else, watch the monkey die and say that pot is bad (this is one official study). I can do the same thing with water and get the same results.
We can do things in the proper proportions and see how they affect cellular growth and apoptosis.
Actually we do have human studies, since cigarettes have been around in bars and restaurants there is no conclusive evidence that second hand smoke is harmsful:
American Cancer Society:
Death rates for all cancer sites combined decreased 1.6 percent per year between 1993 and 2003 in males, and by 0.8 percent in females between 1992 and 2003.
Lung cancer incidence rates are declining in men and appear to be plateauing in women after increasing for many decades.
Among males age 40 and under, leukemia is the most common fatal cancer, while cancer of the lung and bronchus predominates in men 40 and over.
Yes, it's true that Surgeon General Richard Carmona claimed, "even brief exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer." However, there is not one finding in his own report — none — to back this up.
anti-smoking activist Dr. Michael Seigel. He supports government action to discourage smoking, but he also supports science and common sense.
Yes, if you live with a smoker for 20+ years, there is a small increase in your risk of cancer, but that's not what happens to customers in bars. Saying "there's no safe level of exposure to cigarette smoke" is as dumb as saying there's no safe amount of beef because it's possible to choke to death on a single bite of sirloin.
There is no "causal relationship between exposure to [passive smoke] and tobacco-related mortality" (British Medical Journal, 2003), and that sitting in the smokiest bar is equal to just 0.004 cigarettes an hour
This is exactly why I, as a non-smoker, vote against the very high majority of smoking bans. I have no problem with smokers. I do have a problem with smokers who think I want to smoke with them. I don't care if they smoke in their cars, homes, backyards, street corners, or anywhere else that I am not forced to join in with them. We do know that second hand smoke increases the chances of several different medical conditions. We don't fully understand the extent yet. Third hand smoke? That's simply the dumbest thing I've heard of in a long time. I can agree that it is disgusting to see nicotine come through several coats of paint. I have seen it in several apartments. I think licking it could be dangerous. I don't think viewing it is going to do anything other than make me want to get another coat of paint.
As for smoking in cars with children in them, I guess an argument can be made once all cars have zero emissions. Until then, I don't know if there's much difference between inhaling gasoline exhaust an inhaling cigarette smoke. We know more about cigarette smoke than car exhaust. We do know that cigarettes produce more air pollution than diesel engines. What we don't know is how many smokers compared to diesel engines there are. Anyway, as I was saying, I think banning smoking in vehicles is stupid.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-08-06-thirdhand-smoke-usat_x.htm
Once again no evidence but why wait?
Personally, I don't have many friends, and those that I do have are all non-smokers. I just can't be around smokers, they stink, and they're dangerous for my health. So is driving to an extent, but hey, why compare? Driving and smoking are 2 completely different things. I find it funny when people compare and say something like "if we ban smoking in public places because it's dangerous for other people's health, let's also ban driving because it's also dangerous for other people's health."
That's nonsense, if we're talking about driving, let's talk about driving. It's a pathetic argument. Smoking and driving are 2 different things. It's like comparing apples and oranges. It makes no sense...
If the problem at hand is smoking, let's deal with smoking until we can find a solution. Driving again? Let's discuss it after we've dealt with smoking first ok?
You can't possibly compare these 2 things, as I said it's like comparing apples and oranges. Plus it brings the whole discussion to an idiotic level.
These bars are actually for smoking cigars and drinking scotch. It's the entire purpose of the bar. Anyone who works there or patronizes the establishment needs to deal with the smoke. If people can't figure out that cigar bars have people smoking cigars that shouldn't be the owner's problem. It can't be infringing on people's rights in these cases. If you go watch Snoop Dog live and hear foul language, you don't have the right to be offended. That's what he does and it is well known. Now if you go to watch a christian rapper and Snoop Dog comes out, then you have the right to be offended.
Umm. How can you not apply this same line of thought to normal bars? For as long as there have been bars and smokes, people have smoked in bars. I knew this as a child even though I had never been in one. Ever. So why do standard bars have to change their policy but not cigar bars? What you're saying here is part of the argument against these bans as a whole. If you know people smoke in bars (which they did since the dawn of bars) and you go to a bar or work in one, you should not be be upset by the smokers. So, if you don't like smoke, avoid cigar bars. Oh, and regular bars, too. ;)
Personally, I think the word "freedom" has been misunderstood by most people. To many people the word freedom means "I can do whatever I want, no matter the consequences."
Personally, I don't have many friends, and those that I do have are all non-smokers. I just can't be around smokers, they stink, and they're dangerous for my health. So is driving to an extent, but hey, why compare? Driving and smoking are 2 completely different things. I find it funny when people compare and say something like "if we ban smoking in public places because it's dangerous for other people's health, let's also ban driving because it's also dangerous for other people's health."
That's nonsense, if we're talking about driving, let's talk about driving. It's a pathetic argument. Smoking and driving are 2 different things. It's like comparing apples and oranges. It makes no sense...
If the problem at hand is smoking, let's deal with smoking until we can find a solution. Driving again? Let's discuss it after we've dealt with smoking first ok?
You can't possibly compare these 2 things, as I said it's like comparing apples and oranges. Plus it brings the whole discussion to an idiotic level.
Umm. Did you somehow miss the last couple of posts that actually linked studies that showed that the "danger" from second hand smoke has been largely exaggerated? How about the one listing possible benefits of smoking? Before deciding how "dangerous" these people are to your health, maybe you should understand what you're talking about. Cuz they ain't. Walking down the street with a smoker, you inhale more harmful agents from the cars passing by than you do the smoker. I'm not going to tell you about how that makes cars more dangerous since you feel that line of thought is invalid (though it isn't - danger is danger, after all), but I will ask you this: Are you worried about dying from inhaling these fumes? Have you heard of anyone that has died from inhaling too much car exhaust while walking down the street? If you aren't and you haven't, it makes absolutely no sense to fear for your health when you're around smokers. ;)
Umm. Did you somehow miss the last couple of posts that actually linked studies that showed that the "danger" from second hand smoke has been largely exaggerated? How about the one listing possible benefits of smoking? Before deciding how "dangerous" these people are to your health, maybe you should understand what you're talking about. Cuz they ain't. Walking down the street with a smoker, you inhale more harmful agents from the cars passing by than you do the smoker. I'm not going to tell you about how that makes cars more dangerous since you feel that line of thought is invalid (though it isn't - danger is danger, after all), but I will ask you this: Are you worried about dying from inhaling these fumes? Have you heard of anyone that has died from inhaling too much car exhaust while walking down the street? If you aren't and you haven't, it makes absolutely no sense to fear for your health when you're around smokers. ;)
I did miss them, in fact. I did not rad the whole thread. I was just saying I find the comparisons silly. I'm not itching to get involved into this discussion really, because I know how this kind of thread ends up. One person presents an argument, and another has a counter argument. Round and round we go...
As far as inhaling the smoke and all goes, I do believe it is harmful to one's health, but that's just me, I'm not here to argue on that point
Although I still could say that the smell bothers me insanely (it does), because it just stinks.I just can't be around smokers, they stink, and they're dangerous for my health.
The same holds true for me and perfume. However the medical evidence says that I am allergic to perfume. Can you say the same?
I guess that means that we have to outlaw perfume and cologne because it makes some people physically sick? Yeah, when my eyes are tearing up and I can't breathe because you want to smell like you work in a french bordello, is that kind like you think of smoking?
Guess what, Tinkerbell, I don't care. Since the law prohibits me smoking indoors, I'm gonna smoke wherever and whenever I want outside those doors. I'll have lighter in hand while I'm walking out them sometimes. And if one of you poofters has the unabashed gaul to ask me to put out my cigrette in the only place I have left to smoke, you'll have to worry about a more significant health hazard than the smoke.
I did miss them, in fact. I did not rad the whole thread. I was just saying I find the comparisons silly. I'm not itching to get involved into this discussion really, because I know how this kind of thread ends up. One person presents an argument, and another has a counter argument. Round and round we go...
As far as inhaling the smoke and all goes, I do believe it is harmful to one's health, but that's just me, I'm not here to argue on that point
How dare you, sir!??! I am outraged ... outraged at this ... this ... whatever it's supposed to be! You are not above this argument, sir! Now get back here and repeat yourself over and over again like the rest of us! ;) :P
EDIT: Just wanted to add that I once again agree with the goblin. Not that I smoke any longer, but if I did you could expect the same reaction out of me (I also have occasional trouble with perfumes, etc.). I have no clue why it's so damned acceptible to persecute smokers. Oh yeah, the sheep find it en vogue to do so. Yeah. I remember now. ;)
The same holds true for me and perfume. However the medical evidence says that I am allergic to perfume. Can you say the same?
I guess that means that we have to outlaw perfume and cologne because it makes some people physically sick? Yeah, when my eyes are tearing up and I can't breathe because you want to smell like you work in a french bordello, is that kind like you think of smoking?
I hate all kinds of cologne and perfume for 2 reasons. Firstly, it's not my style. Secondly, I don't wanna bother people with the smell because not everyone enjoys the smell of let's say, lemon...or orange or whatever. Insert any smell you want, it doesn't really matter. I also know some people have asthma and other medical conditions so I don't use perfume, cologne or whatever. Same with those old ladies that get into buses. They always have some kind of perfume and they think that everyone enjoys it...Same goes for cigarette smoke.
I'm a thoughtful person, usually, and I try not to bother others with my behavior. Most smokers, sadly, aren't like that. Most of them think that everyone loves them smell.
Besides, you really have to agree that the smell of cigarettes is worse than most perfumes. In my life I've come across enough people who used a lot of perfume and it wasn't nice. But that's not really an everyday occurrence. It happens every now and then. But cigarette some is. It's almost everywhere you go.
But don't blame me. I'm thoughtful of other people's medical conditions and other problems. I try to mind my manners always, and show some respect. But I do expect a dose of that from others. But when this doesn't happen, problems arise
Guess what, Tinkerbell, I don't care.
Who the hell is tinkerbell? o_O
Since the law prohibits me smoking indoors, I'm gonna smoke wherever and whenever I want outside those doors. I'll have lighter in hand while I'm walking out them sometimes. And if one of you poofters has the unabashed gaul to ask me to put out my cigarette in the only place I have left to smoke, you'll have to worry about a more significant health hazard than the smoke.
My, a physical threat on the internet
Most smokers, sadly, aren't like that. Most of them think that everyone loves them smell.
Wha? Try again. Most smokers are just normal people trying to live their lives without other people attacking their lifestyle choice and making baseless assumptions about them. Kind of like everyone else. Funny, that.
Wha? Try again. Most smokers are just normal people trying to live their lives without other people attacking their lifestyle choice and making baseless assumptions about them. Kind of like everyone else. Funny, that.
Didn't you just agree with goblin about cologne and perfumes? Just asking
Cologne can stink to some people, so can other perfumes, but so can cigarette smoke. People who use cologne can also say they are trying to live a normal life. But people with asthma or other medical conditions may be severely affected by these smells.
As I said, it's the reason I don't use cologne or perfume at all. I don't wanna bother people around me.
Why is it so hard to do something nice for others?
My, a physical threat on the internet
Remember what I said about violence in direct result of denial of satisfaction of nicotine addiction?
Remember what I said about violence in direct result of denial of satisfaction of nicotine addiction?
I remember lol.
I had this one incident on the gas station I was working on. I had given 2 packs of cigarettes to a guy I didn't even know. Decided I could trust him (no, I never got the money). He came 2 weeks later asking for another one, because he had no cigarettes left. I said no because he already owed me money for 2, he went crazy and yelled at me, though he did not assault me.
But yeah, smokers do tend to get kinda cranky when they don't get their fix. A lot of them get cranky. Not making fun of anyone btw, just stating my experiences here, so don't crucify me :P
Didn't you just agree with goblin about cologne and perfumes? Just asking
Cologne can stink to some people, so can other perfumes, but so can cigarette smoke. People who use cologne can also say they are trying to live a normal life. But people with asthma or other medical conditions may be severely affected by these smells.
As I said, it's the reason I don't use cologne or perfume at all. I don't wanna bother people around me.
Why is it so hard to do something nice for others?
What you said was that most smokers seem to think that everyone likes the smell of smoke. Like it was some sort of reason for smoking. Which is crap. And, also, what I was addressing.
I did agree that I have occasional issues with overuse of cologne or perfume, yes. I did not, however, agree with the idea that people should not be allowed to wear it in private or even public places. I'm not down with limiting personal freedoms like that. goblin_pride also never suggested that cologne be banned from use. He just said that he has medically documented trouble with the stuff. And he said that because there is no real proof as of yet as to what secondhand smoke does to people. He did that because you said flat out that you avoid smokers because they damage your health. Which has not (as of yet - who knows?) been proven to be true. Unlike his asthmatic response to cologne. This page recap has been brought to you by the letter "D".
Why is it so hard to do something nice for others, eh? I don't suppose, then, you'd find it too difficult to let people smoke where they please? It's the nice thing to do. ;)
Who the hell is tinkerbell? o_O
She is the hot fairy from Peter Pan.
What you said was that most smokers seem to think that everyone likes the smell of smoke. Like it was some sort of reason for smoking. Which is crap. And, also, what I was addressing.
I did agree that I have occasional issues with overuse of cologne or perfume, yes. I did not, however, agree with the idea that people should not be allowed to wear it in private or even public places. I'm not down with limiting personal freedoms like that. goblin_pride also never suggested that cologne be banned from use. He just said that he has medically documented trouble with the stuff. And he said that because there is no real proof as of yet as to what secondhand smoke does to people. He did that because you said flat out that you avoid smokers because they damage your health. Which has not (as of yet - who knows?) been proven to be true. Unlike his asthmatic response to cologne. This page recap has been brought to you by the letter "D".
I see your points. But as it stands, cigarette smoke is an everyday occurrence. Strong perfume is not. Plus there are not many complaints about perfume, but there are many about smoking, as you can see by this thread. Mainly because it stinks...I mean I like fresh air.
Why is it so hard to do something nice for others, eh? I don't suppose, then, you'd find it too difficult to let people smoke where they please? It's the nice thing to do.
I could just as well ask if you'd find it too difficult to smoke in a place where the smell doesn't bother everyone
Kinda goes the same way.But you see, if someone doesn't like the smell, don't light up. If they don't mind, feel free to light up. If I had cologne and someone told me it was too strong or asked me politely to remove it, I'd do it. But right now, you're operating on the basis "please be nice and let me do something you don't feet comfortable with."
But then again, if a smoker feels cornered by someone's need to avoid the smoke, that's a problem. But you also need to realize that a non smoker finds him/herself cornered as well, by a smoker's need to light up.
The problem is on both sides, and both sides seem to be too stupid to give up. If I tell you I don't like cigarette smoke, I expect you to be decent and not light up. And if you ask me to remove my cologne because you have a medical condition, or just find the scent too strong or bothersome, I'll remove it. I'm not a jerk, you only need ask me.
I don't force my habits on others. Smokers should not either, especially if asked politely.
What I'm basically saying is, let's play nice, ok?
She is the hot fairy from Peter Pan.
I KNEW the name sounded familiar!
Actually we do have human studies, since cigarettes have been around in bars and restaurants there is no conclusive evidence that second hand smoke is harmsful:
American Cancer Society:
Death rates for all cancer sites combined decreased 1.6 percent per year between 1993 and 2003 in males, and by 0.8 percent in females between 1992 and 2003.
Lung cancer incidence rates are declining in men and appear to be plateauing in women after increasing for many decades.
Among males age 40 and under, leukemia is the most common fatal cancer, while cancer of the lung and bronchus predominates in men 40 and over.
Yes, it's true that Surgeon General Richard Carmona claimed, "even brief exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer." However, there is not one finding in his own report — none — to back this up.
anti-smoking activist Dr. Michael Seigel. He supports government action to discourage smoking, but he also supports science and common sense.
Yes, if you live with a smoker for 20+ years, there is a small increase in your risk of cancer, but that's not what happens to customers in bars. Saying "there's no safe level of exposure to cigarette smoke" is as dumb as saying there's no safe amount of beef because it's possible to choke to death on a single bite of sirloin.
There is no "causal relationship between exposure to [passive smoke] and tobacco-related mortality" (British Medical Journal, 2003), and that sitting in the smokiest bar is equal to just 0.004 cigarettes an hour
That's all fine and dandy but that's only one study compared to all the rest. I wouldn't say there is no conclusive evidence. The majority of studies show that second hand smoke increases your chances of heart and lung disease by a significant amount. I would have to say that inhaling poisonous fumes (and much of what's in a cigarette is poisonous) should increase your chances of something toxic happening to your system. Studies that demonstrate the opposite should be evaluated heavily because they go against what the expected results should be. That doesn't mean they are wrong. We do know that many studies are done improperly of that the media comes to the wrong conclusion.
Stuff ...
Well, this is what this kind of stuff always comes down to. You think your side's opinions are of more merit than the other and I don't. Different ideas, who'da thunk? ;)
Umm. How can you not apply this same line of thought to normal bars? For as long as there have been bars and smokes, people have smoked in bars. I knew this as a child even though I had never been in one. Ever. So why do standard bars have to change their policy but not cigar bars? What you're saying here is part of the argument against these bans as a whole. If you know people smoke in bars (which they did since the dawn of bars) and you go to a bar or work in one, you should not be be upset by the smokers. So, if you don't like smoke, avoid cigar bars. Oh, and regular bars, too. ;)
I wasn't trying to say anything about regular bars, I was trying to demonstrate how poorly written the law was. That there was no provision for those establishments that reasonably would have smoking. In it's effort to "do the right thing" it failed to keep in mind people's individual choices that have no detrimental effect on others. I tend to vote against everything that does this.
I don't go to bars even now because the drinks are so freaking expensive. I also fear that too many of those people are going to get behind the wheel of a car drunk and too many of them can't drive sober. I didn't go before for the same reason.
Should a bar be responsible for the STDs their patrons, or employees may be carrying as well then?
Not even comparable. With only two exceptions, you aren't going to get an STD from being near someone. Those two exceptions would be crabs and scabies (which technically aren't diseases). Both are very treatable in any case and can't kill you if you have a common condition such as asthma.
That being said, if you have asthma and apply for work in a smoking environment I think that you don't have any right to complain. Now if you apply for work in a non-smoking environment and the boss makes it a smoking environment afterwards, then you have every right to complain.
I KNEW the name sounded familiar!
You're not denying that you're Tinkerbell... ;)
Not even comparable. With only two exceptions, you aren't going to get an STD from being near someone. Those two exceptions would be crabs and scabies (which technically aren't diseases). Both are very treatable in any case and can't kill you if you have a common condition such as asthma.
That being said, if you have asthma and apply for work in a smoking environment I think that you don't have any right to complain. Now if you apply for work in a non-smoking environment and the boss makes it a smoking environment afterwards, then you have every right to complain.
But the ill effects can be distributed to another patron by associating with that person. (For far less of a period of time that being around a smoker to get damage from them)
You are still potentially getting a disease by associating with that person.
Pick up someone at the bar, get herpes from said person.
Why isn't the bar held responsible? You met that person at the bar... shouldn't it be the bar's responsibility to make sure someone is clean and "safe"?
No?
There you go then.
But the ill effects can be distributed to another patron by associating with that person. (For far less of a period of time that being around a smoker to get damage from them)
You are still potentially getting a disease by associating with that person.
Pick up someone at the bar, get herpes from said person.
Why isn't the bar held responsible? You met that person at the bar... shouldn't it be the bar's responsibility to make sure someone is clean and "safe"?
No?
There you go then.
That doesn't make any sense.
I wasn't trying to say anything about regular bars, I was trying to demonstrate how poorly written the law was. That there was no provision for those establishments that reasonably would have smoking. In it's effort to "do the right thing" it failed to keep in mind people's individual choices that have no detrimental effect on others. I tend to vote against everything that does this.
I don't go to bars even now because the drinks are so freaking expensive. I also fear that too many of those people are going to get behind the wheel of a car drunk and too many of them can't drive sober. I didn't go before for the same reason.
Fair enough. Thank you for the explanation.
When I smoked in public back when it was legal to do so, I always asked those around me if they minded if I smoked. I can honestly say that not once in my 10 years of smoking was I told, "No, I would prefer you didn't." I took this as a sign that most people could care less if I smoke around them yet the government has decided that most people don't like it so you can't do it.
Now, I am going to address the comments about people being overweight and the "imposition" it causes on the health freaks.
I have always been over wieght even when I worked a job that consisted of throwing 35 to 50 lb. plates of steel around all day. I did the calculations and in a single day I moved 27 1/2 tons of steel. My arms were buff as hell but I still had a double chin. I did a lot of bending over to lift those plates (resulting in squat-like and crunch-like movements) and still I had love handles.
I ate mostly salads and really small portions during my time at that job so do not tell me that I eat too much. It has been proven that some people are genetically inclined to be over weight.
Excuse me if my genes offend you. Now go eat your damn salad and take a jog around the block before taking a giant leap.
That's all fine and dandy but that's only one study compared to all the rest. I wouldn't say there is no conclusive evidence. The majority of studies show that second hand smoke increases your chances of heart and lung disease by a significant amount. I would have to say that inhaling poisonous fumes (and much of what's in a cigarette is poisonous) should increase your chances of something toxic happening to your system. Studies that demonstrate the opposite should be evaluated heavily because they go against what the expected results should be. That doesn't mean they are wrong. We do know that many studies are done improperly of that the media comes to the wrong conclusion.
So how many studies does it take to get to the center of tootsie roll pop? Seriously though what you are saying is that depending upon which study say's what determines whether or not there is conclusive evidence. So that means that either you or I are looking at reports that support our claim meaning in a sense that there is no conclusive evidence if there is so much conflicting data. So how many cases of lung cancer has your study concluded is due to second hand smoke? So far I have found none only Doctors who like you have just assumed that second hand smoke is extremely toxic and should be avoided at all costs.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/114480.html
http://www.fumento.com/disease/smokingdebate.html
The point is making a law that prohibits an establishment from allowing it's patrons to smoke which is legal is wrong, and justifying that reaction with no concrete evidence to back it up is absurd.
So here is one example of what will happen going down that road:
http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2006/11/mass_smoker_sue.html
That doesn't make any sense.
You work at a bar take someone home, bang em. get herpes.
By your logic the bar owner should be responsible for that.
But the ill effects can be distributed to another patron by associating with that person. (For far less of a period of time that being around a smoker to get damage from them)
You are still potentially getting a disease by associating with that person.
Pick up someone at the bar, get herpes from said person.
Why isn't the bar held responsible? You met that person at the bar... shouldn't it be the bar's responsibility to make sure someone is clean and "safe"?
No?
There you go then.
Not even a close analogy. You're grasping at straws with this.
You work at a bar take someone home, bang em. get herpes.
By your logic the bar owner should be responsible for that.
Nope.
So how many studies does it take to get to the center of tootsie roll pop? Seriously though what you are saying is that depending upon which study say's what determines whether or not there is conclusive evidence. So that means that either you or I are looking at reports that support our claim meaning in a sense that there is no conclusive evidence if there is so much conflicting data. So how many cases of lung cancer has your study concluded is due to second hand smoke? So far I have found none only Doctors who like you have just assumed that second hand smoke is extremely toxic and should be avoided at all costs.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/114480.html
http://www.fumento.com/disease/smokingdebate.html
So far, the very high majority of studies show that second hand smoke is dangerous. Determining how dangerous is what seems to be difficult. We do know, for a fact, that the smoke is full of poisons. Anyone disputing this is going to be hard to reason with.
The point is making a law that prohibits an establishment from allowing it's patrons to smoke which is legal is wrong, and justifying that reaction with no concrete evidence to back it up is absurd.
What if the majority of the people voted on this non-government sponsored initiative? That's what happened here. More than 60% of the people of Washington wanted this.
So here is one example of what will happen going down that road:
http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2006/11/mass_smoker_sue.html
I hope he wins. I have never advocated the complete removal of smokers' rights. All I have said is that my right to not smoke does not infringe on anyone else's rights so the same should hold true for those who choose to smoke. If they want to light up, don't do it around my food, around those who's health is at risk (asthma patients, etc), or around those who simply don't wish to be bothered with it. That's what personal freedom is about, doing what you want so long as it doesn't affect those around you. When people want to be selfish, then it's important that someone steps in and tells them to knock it off.
You work at a bar take someone home, bang em. get herpes.
By your logic the bar owner should be responsible for that.
If the bar required you to go home with people and bang them as part of your job, yes, the bar should be responsible for your herpes.
So far, the very high majority of studies show that second hand smoke is dangerous. Determining how dangerous is what seems to be difficult. We do know, for a fact, that the smoke is full of poisons. Anyone disputing this is going to be hard to reason with.
As far as I can tell, there is no blanket statement that any amount of tobacco smoke is inevitably harmful. In any case, as Mark Wernimont notes at Clearing the Air, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration does set acceptable levels for the chemicals in tobacco smoke. Wernimont cites several studies of real-world concentrations in environments where smoking is permitted, including one by the American Cancer Society, that found levels well below the OSHA limits. As I noted in my book For Your Own Good: The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health, two studies using personal air monitors conducted in the 1990s found that nonsmokers with the heaviest exposure to secondhand smoke were absorbing between 0.8 and 1.5 milligrams of "tar" a day. By comparison, a single regular Marlboro has an official (machine-measured) tar yield of 12 milligrams
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/114480.html
That's what personal freedom is about, doing what you want so long as it doesn't affect those around you. When people want to be selfish, then it's important that someone steps in and tells them to knock it off.
The point, you will find, is that this chance for courtesy has been removed by the hamfisted, knee-jerk reaction. The law, in Iowa at least, says smoking is prohibited in any workplace or enclosed structure with the exception of the gambling floor of casinoes and smoke shops.
The insult of the thing that you don't see is that prior to the law, there were non-smoking bars in the city I live in. There were resturants that chose to make themselves non-smoking. I can respect that. I won't frequent those places, but it was the choice of the owner to make the rules in their own establishment.
If they put a non-smoking law to a general vote, it might pass here. I doubt it, but it could. As things stand, the law was written by politicians and passed by politicians. The voice of the people was stifled by those who feel they know better.
The latest insult was an increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco. I guess since so many sheep have quit because of the increased costs, they weren't making enough money. Pretty soon maybe they'll start taxing bottled water and vitamins.
I get my tobacco from a farmer that grows a couple of acres every year. He trades me even for rabbit meat. Since you can't tax barter, everything works. But I'm waiting to see people get good and fed up with the taxes going through the roof and start setting fire to truckloads of tax stamped cigarettes.
And in regard to selfishness. There are currently no bars here that cater to smokers. By law, smoking in a bar is a crime. So the selfishness of non-smokers is apparently acceptable.
goblin_pride also never suggested that cologne be banned from use.
that means that we have to outlaw perfume and cologne because it makes some people physically sick
...
...
Uhh. He was illustrating the ridiculous nature of smoking bans through example. "..." indeed.
Uhh. He was illustrating the ridiculous nature of smoking bans through example. "..." indeed.
Well sure, if you want to go by the intent of the original post instead of the small selection of words I quoted.....
Well sure.
Thank you. ;)
Do you make your own cigarettes Goblin Pride?
When I'm not out and about, I generally smoke a pipe. Cigarettes are for when it's inconvenient. Pipe tobacco seems to last much longer than a pack of cigarettes does.
You're not denying that you're Tinkerbell... ;)
;)
Well, this is what this kind of stuff always comes down to. You think your side's opinions are of more merit than the other and I don't. Different ideas, who'da thunk?
Well, when I discuss something, I try to understand both sides of the story. Not an easy thing, since I mostly find that this world is quite short of understanding