PDA

View Full Version : No more smoking in public places in NYC


Mr. Anderson
Dec 30, 2002, 10:07 PM
I do find it nice when I can go to dinner and not have people smoking around me, but being in Virginia, its going to take a while before we see a state wide restrcition. I just hope that this is a continuation of things to come. :D

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Northeast/12/30/ny.vice.laws.ap/index.html

D

vniow
Dec 30, 2002, 10:12 PM
Poor smokers.

I'm not one of them, but I kinda feel sorry for them, I mean they can't smoke anywhere now without somebody bitching about it.

I never saw what the big deal was anywayz.....

diorio
Dec 30, 2002, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by edvniow
Poor smokers.

I'm not one of them, but I kinda feel sorry for them, I mean they can't smoke anywhere now without somebody bitching about it.

I never saw what the big deal was anywayz.....

Oh poor smokers. They have too pay so much for a pack of cigarettes. I mean all that they are doing is a: killing themselves b: polluting the air and c: killing others with their second hand smoke. I think thats the best idea that NY has ever had.

Mr. Anderson
Dec 30, 2002, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by edvniow
Poor smokers.

I'm not one of them, but I kinda feel sorry for them, I mean they can't smoke anywhere now without somebody bitching about it.

If you don't smoke you really shouldn't be subjected to it, especially when eating. There are a couple places here in Alexandria that I like to go to once in a while, but I end up having to change clothes and take a shower afterwards because everything smells of smoke. Ugh!

D

ChicagoMac
Dec 30, 2002, 10:21 PM
The big deal for me is that I don't want to breath in their smoke or walk out of a store or restaurant smelling like cigarettes. Of course, most of them just stand right outside the door so you still get it coming and going. I lived in Minneapolis when they passed the indoor clean air act and it was great!

vniow
Dec 30, 2002, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by diorio


Oh poor smokers. They have too pay so much for a pack of cigarettes. I mean all that they are doing is a: killing themselves b: polluting the air and c: killing others with their second hand smoke. I think thats the best idea that NY has ever had.



What's the big deal about smoking?

People have been doing it since they figured out that things could be smoked, I just don't see what the big deal is over it.
I mean second hand smoke, jeez, there's many more things that are much more dangerous and life threatening (like cars) that aren't banned. Why smoking?

Edit: I agree that it's excessive in some situations, but I think people make a bigger deal out of it than it really is.

diorio
Dec 30, 2002, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by edvniow




What's the big deal about smoking?

People have been doing it since they figured out that things could be smoked, I just don't see what the big deal is over it.
I mean second hand smoke, jeez, there's many more things that are much more dangerous and life threatening (like cars) that aren't banned. Why smoking?

Are you serious? Smoking is the foulest thing a human being can do to their body willingly. It has been proven to cause cancer, and ultimately a shorter life span. It has also been proved that second hand smoke can cause cancer. Why should a nonsmoker have to be around those smoking? What have we done to deserve this foul invasion of poisen into our lungs? The smoke from cigarettes a: stinks b: lingers in your clothers c: is life threatening, must I go on?

ChicagoMac
Dec 30, 2002, 10:31 PM
Go put your mouth over someone's tailpipe and tell me if you feel the same;) I don't go home smelling like car exhaust after a meal. Just because people learned that things can be smoked doesn't mean we should smoke them.

vniow
Dec 30, 2002, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by diorio


Are you serious? Smoking is the foulest thing a human being can do to their body willingly.

So let them.

They're fully aware of the risks involved, just like the people who get into a car everyday and drive off to work where they could easily get into an accident. Just like the people who fly in a plane...I could go on and on, but the point is that smoking is dangerous. So what?

That's a part of life whether you like it or not and I'm not about to tell somebody that they can't because of a few people who can't seem to take it.

ChicagoMac:

Just because people learned that things can be smoked doesn't mean we should smoke them.

But does that mean they can't smoke them?
Pot doesn't kill and is less dangerous than cigarettes (in some parts) and it's illegal for some reason.
Alcohol kills more peopole every year than cigarrettes and that's not ilegal for some reason either........

What a funny take on drugs we have in this country.

BTW, both of my parents smoked since before I was born and didn't quit until I was about 10.
I hated every breath I took around them, but whenever I went to a resturant or whatever, it was always in the non-smoking section and I could breathe peacefully and let the smokers have their own little section.

diorio
Dec 30, 2002, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by edvniow


So let them.

They're fully aware of the risks involved, just like the people who get into a car everyday and drive off to work where they could easily get into an accident. Just like the people who fly in a plane...I could go on and on, but the point is that smoking is dangerous. So what?



That's a part of life whether you like it or not and I'm not about to tell somebody that they can't because of a few people who can't seem to take it.





[COLOR=teal]But does that mean they can't smoke them?
Pot doesn't kill and is less dangerous than cigarettes (in some parts) and it's illegal for some reason.
Alcohol kills more peopole every year than cigarrettes and that's not ilegal for some reason either........



What a funny take on drugs we have in this country.

BTW, both of my parents smoked since before I was born and didn't quit until I was about 10.
I hated every breath I took around them, but whenever I went to a resturant or whatever, it was always in the non-smoking section and I could breathe peacefully and let the smokers have their own little section.

Why should I have to take part in it?
Actually more and more are quitting, and I hear more and more bitch about smokers all the time. Why should I have to "take it"? I'll bet that before I die, smoking will be extint, because us non smokers are growing more and more, and starting to say "why should I put up with this ass who is polluting the air?"
By drinking, you don't directly effect me until you wreck into me.

There you go. You hated every breath around them. Second hand smoke isn't pleasent is it? Just because they have their own little section doesn't mean anything. You can still smell it and it still gets on your clothes.

Nipsy
Dec 30, 2002, 10:53 PM
Here's what is wrong with the logic:
Do you know anoyone addicted to secondhand smoke? No. Second hand smoke is like living in LA, you can get away from it very easily.

Bars should be exempted:
There is already a diverse selection of non-smoking bars. To make all bars enforce this is bad for the owners and the customers. 10% of people on the street smoke. 50% of people in bars smoke. Therefore the legislation does nothing good for NYC bars.

I live in SF, and have watched as some really great holes in the wall have been run under because their clientele (mostly smokers) had to find new, less legally aware watering holes. Furthermore, the bar & club night life in the city has visibly deteriorated since the smoking law went into effect.

I understand restaraunts, workplaces, etc. but bars should have the descretion to decide based on their clientele.

Nipsy
Dec 30, 2002, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by diorio


Are you serious? Smoking is the foulest thing a human being can do to their body willingly. It has been proven to cause cancer, and ultimately a shorter life span. It has also been proved that second hand smoke can cause cancer. Why should a nonsmoker have to be around those smoking? What have we done to deserve this foul invasion of poisen into our lungs? The smoke from cigarettes a: stinks b: lingers in your clothers c: is life threatening, must I go on?

A smoker puts out less pollution and carcinogens in a lifetime than an SUV (almost all cars actually) puts out in a month. Here's an experiment. Sit in the garage with a case of cigarettes. Smoke them. sit in the garage with a running car. See. Remember that when you bitch and moan.

Additionally, I, a smoker, never smoke near children, in restaurants, etc. I have resepect for those around me. I do not have any patience for a person who will walk across an empty park, sit next to me on a bench, and start making those fake little coughs.

I would gladly quit smoking if everyone else in the country would give up cars which require a gas guzzler tax.

vniow
Dec 30, 2002, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by diorio


There you go. You hated every breath around them. Second hand smoke isn't pleasent is it? Just because they have their own little section doesn't mean anything. You can still smell it and it still gets on your clothes.


Exactly my point.

Second hand smoke isn't pleasent, but it's definaltly not addictive or life threatening and it's not something that's worth my time bitching about to the city council or whatever.

funkywhat2
Dec 30, 2002, 10:59 PM
I can't wait to have Bloomberg take the rest of my rights away, and I don't even live in the city. Now he wants to tax me for using the train, but I can't drive by myself until after 9.

I thought he was supposed to be better that Guliani.

Everyone that voted for him hoping to get a few rights back but be kicking themselves.

ChicagoMac
Dec 30, 2002, 11:04 PM
You must have been smoking some to think that pot is less dangerous. Where did you get that from?

As far as the non-smoking section goes, what a joke! Everybody knows that you smell the smoke no matter where you sit.

Also, your comparison of driving vs. smoking is silly. That would be like someone forcing me to ride in their car. I don't want a ride from a stranger anymmore than I want to take their smoke into my lungs.

vniow
Dec 30, 2002, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by ChicagoMac
You must have been smoking some to think that pot is less dangerous. Where did you get that from?

As far as the non-smoking section goes, what a joke! Everybody knows that you smell the smoke no matter where you sit.

Also, your comparison of driving vs. smoking is silly. That would be like someone forcing me to ride in their car. I don't want a ride from a stranger anymmore than I want to take their smoke into my lungs.

Pot does not kill.

There have been meny studies proving this, even my anti-every-drug-in-existence hs heath teacher confirms that.
You can smoke all the pot you want and not die from it. You can't do that with cigarrettes however.......

And I think you missed the point about my driving/smoking comparison.
Driving is dangerous and life threatning.
Smoking is dangerous and life threatning.
You can not take a ride from a stranger.
You can also not breathe in smoke from a stranger by moving away from them or kindly tell them to stop.

There are better things to complain to your city council about than second-hand smoke.

mnkeybsness
Dec 30, 2002, 11:41 PM
it really sucks for people like me who are completely allergic to tobacco smoke...if i'm even just walking by some people that are smoking i have to hold my breath otherwise i will literally cough up a lung...i was in a really really smokey building one night and was sick for about a week...i could barely breathe :(

jerks...do it in private...not around other people who care about their lives

Nipsy
Dec 30, 2002, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by mnkeybsness
it really sucks for people like me who are completely allergic to tobacco smoke...if i'm even just walking by some people that are smoking i have to hold my breath otherwise i will literally cough up a lung...i was in a really really smokey building one night and was sick for about a week...i could barely breathe :(

jerks...do it in private...not around other people who care about their lives

Why did you enter/stay in a really smoky building?

If you have an allergy, you should make an effort to avoid smokers. They should not make an effort to avoid you.

My friend's daughter has an allergy to chlorine, that's why she doesn't use public pools. Public pools do not close because of this.

People, both smoker's and non, should be respectful. As a smoker, I look to smoke in a way that won't affect non smokers. Non smokers should similarly look for a way no to be affected by smokers. However, if I am standing clearly away from people on a street for example, 2 times in 10, someone who could do the same, will stand next to me, and start making contrived coughing noises.

Militant smokers & militant smokers do have one thing in common, they're all jerks!

Sun Baked
Dec 31, 2002, 12:12 AM
About time, it's not like smoking is healthy for the addict and/or the poor sap standing next to them.

And I don't hear any of the the pot/crack smokers complaining this ban infringing on their right to smoke in public. ;)

strider42
Dec 31, 2002, 12:23 AM
such rules are usually set up to protect employees, not patrons. it makes a lot of sense for that point of view. A waitress would be subjected to a lot of smoke in bars, all night, every night. In that case second smoke certainly is dangerous. And what if she's pregnent, you can't ask her to stop working, but the environment is very dangerous.

Here in california we've had this law for a long time now. its worked great. We can't smoke anywhere in doors anymore where employees will be subjected to it. There is a bar near where I live where what they did was simply set up a room where its self service, lots of ventillation, and you can legally smoke in there. Works great

Here's the funny thing about laws banishing smoking, myself (i recently quit) and my friends (most of whom smoke), actually liked it better. It limited how much we smoked so we didn't feel totally disgusting the next day. And even as a smoker, I didn't particularly like smokey bars most of the time. It really worked out better for everyone.

MacAztec
Dec 31, 2002, 12:35 AM
I didnt think smoking "effected" so many people. ahahahhaha.

Give me ONE CASE where second hand smoke has killed someone. Just one. And pot? Give me one there.

Driving a car is the same thing. It kills you. Its polluting the air! OH NO! The ozone layer is deflating! People worry about smoking more than air pollution (not that I care for either). Its stupid. More people drive in the U.S. than smoke. An exhaust pipe is what, about 3 1/2 inches in diameter and its pumping out CARBON MONOXIDE?

A Cigarette is what, .8cm in diameter and its stinks (to some people) and its only harmful to the person smoking it?

Oh jesus, I bet you wont be able to fart in public soon. It realeases a gas, and it stinks! Oh no! Lets pass a law saying you cant fart in public. Oh and how about one saying you cant wear cologne in public because it is allergic to some people and some people say the alcohol in it is bad for you.

Cmon, what is the world coming to....

Edit: And no offence to the person that said they are allergic to smoke. Im just saying that people are allergic to everything. Im allergic to grass, should that be banned too?

Sun Baked
Dec 31, 2002, 12:44 AM
Old study http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsbro.html

Second-hand smoke is the third-ranking known cause of lung cancer after active smoking and indoor radon. Exposure to second-hand smoke during adult life increases the risk of lung cancer in non-smokers. Lung cancer now kills more women than breast cancer, and is the second leading cause of premature death for men. The 1992 EPA report confirms that second-hand smoke is a human lung carcinogen, and is linked to 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in the U.S.8 Since in this case geographic and cultural differences are probably not significant, it can be assumed that the numbers are proportionately similar in Canada and Ontario. The cancer mortality from second-hand smoke alone is greater than the combined mortality from all regulated environmental carcinogens.9

strider42
Dec 31, 2002, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by MacAztec
I didnt think smoking "effected" so many people. ahahahhaha.

Give me ONE CASE where second hand smoke has killed someone. Just one. And pot? Give me one there.

Driving a car is the same thing. It kills you. Its polluting the air! OH NO! The ozone layer is deflating! People worry about smoking more than air pollution (not that I care for either). Its stupid. More people drive in the U.S. than smoke. An exhaust pipe is what, about 3 1/2 inches in diameter and its pumping out CARBON MONOXIDE?

A Cigarette is what, .8cm in diameter and its stinks (to some people) and its only harmful to the person smoking it?

Oh jesus, I bet you wont be able to fart in public soon. It realeases a gas, and it stinks! Oh no! Lets pass a law saying you cant fart in public. Oh and how about one saying you cant wear cologne in public because it is allergic to some people and some people say the alcohol in it is bad for you.

Cmon, what is the world coming to....

Edit: And no offence to the person that said they are allergic to smoke. Im just saying that people are allergic to everything. Im allergic to grass, should that be banned too?

Yeah second hand smoke never killed anyone. The kids and spouses of smokers with life threatening asthma and cardio pulmonary disease are just a statistical anomaly. For people around second hand smoke a lot, it can kill. For kids, its even worse since they bodies aren't fully developed. yes cars put out more, but we don't run them in a closed room day after day. I can promise you that as a smoker I got it much worse form smoking and being around smokers than around my cars because the environment matters just as much as the source. There's reasons so many house hold items say to use in well ventilated areas. The people working in these bars are exposed to 8 hours of heavy smoke every night they work. it ads up, and only ends up costing us all money with higher insurance costs and upblically funded health care.

Smokers should just be considerate of others, go outside for a smoke. its better for all of us. It never bothered me when I smoked, and like I said earlier, i actually liked it a lot, lot better. I have no problems with smokers (espcially being a recent quitter), but I wish those smokers that try to say it doesn't hurt anyone else would just get real about it. it does, it will, and such laws aren't relaly that huge an incovience. everyone bitched when it happened in in california. No one even thinks about it anymore.

Nipsy
Dec 31, 2002, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Old study

Second-hand smoke is the third-ranking known cause of lung cancer after active smoking and indoor radon.


So why don't we hear any news about news laws to eliminate Radon through Gov't mandated ventilation?

BTW, food poisoning kills thousands, mis-prescribed drugs kill ~10,000. Drunk drivers (car, train, ship, plane, bus) kill many. Chemical waste must be up there too. These are VERIFIABLE facts, yet the smoker remains the persecuted species. There are many ways to spend tax dollars to save lives which ARE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE!

3,000 deaths "linked" to second hand smoked is a statistic. It could be 0, 1, 1,000 or 5000 caused by second hand smoke, but 3000 are "linked". If I get lung cancer because I worked in a polyester plant, but my wife smoked, that could be "linked".

Not to belittle the issue, but rather than legislate smoking, why not apply pressure to the tobacco companies to remove some of the added carcinogens (good for everyone), the auto companies to ensure emissions from SUVs meet passenger car standards, the doctors/pharmacists deliver the right drugs, and the cooks are better trained in food safety?

Don't even get me started on the American obese...

irmongoose
Dec 31, 2002, 02:22 AM
The immediate effects of breathing second-hand smoke include an increase in heart rate and blood pressure, and dangerous levels of carbon monoxide in the blood. The smoke from the burning end of a cigarette is filled with hundreds of dangerous chemicals and contains more tar and nicotine then the smoke that is directly inhaled.



Exposure to secondhand smoke may increase the risk of gum disease, study results suggest.

Nonsmokers inhaling environmental tobacco smoke at work or home increased their chances of developing periodontal disease about 1.5 times, according to
researchers from the University of North Carolina School of Dentistry in Chapel Hill.

Even though this increase in risk is much smaller than the increase in risk associated with active cigarette smoking (which is up to 5 times greater), environmental
tobacco smoke could account for many cases of periodontal disease nationwide,'' according to lead author Dr. Samuel J. Arbes, Jr.





* 3,000 lung cancer deaths (in nonsmokers) annually.
* Up to 300,000 lower respiratory infections in babies and toddlers under 18 months old. How could people do this to babies and toddlers?
* Asthma in children and aggravations of symptoms in adults who already have asthma.
* Increased risk of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome).
* 36,000 deaths from heart disease.
* Irritation of eyes, noses and throats in the vicinity.
* Diminished capacity for young students in math, logic and reasoning.


Tobacco smoke contains about 4,000 chemicals, including 200 known poisons. Every time some one smokes, poisons such as benzene, formaldehyde and carbon monoxide are released into the air, which means that not only is the smoker inhaling them but so is everyone else around him. Many studies now show that this secondhand smoke can have harmful effects on nonsmokers and even cause them to develop diseases such as lung cancer.


You decide for yourself.




irmongoose

valypan
Dec 31, 2002, 02:49 AM
I am very happy to hear the news about the new smoking law in public places. The same law is being implemented in Europe: Italy and Denmark at least. Yes cars emissions are also dangerous, but how often do you sit by the side of the road and breathe in cars smoke? On the contrary cigarettes smoke is everywhere, especially in places where people go often (restaurants,etc..) and also where people work. I do hope new laws will be made in the future also regulating cars emissions, as has already been done in part during recent years. The smoking law is just one of the many laws we need. Itīs a good start.
The main point about anything is "do whatever you want as long as you do not limit other peopleīs freedom". That is what I think anyway.
Happy new year to everyone!

MacAztec
Dec 31, 2002, 03:15 AM
You had a quote saying Tobacco conatains like 200 poisons and 4000 chemicals. I think that is supposed to be ciggarrets that contain those chemicals.

My dad smokes cigars often, and it sure doesn't bother me. He has been checked up and he is 100% healthy.

My best friends grandfather has been smoking cigars every day for about 55 years. He is perfectly ok also. He jogs every morning with no problem.

These quotes say *3,000 people die from lung cancer. Are those 3,000 people dying from lung cancer caused by smoking? My aunt died from lung cancer, and she never smoked in her life. My other aunt got lung cancer before she started smoking, and she survived through it. She is smoking now and is fine.

Kind of weird how these "studies" work. I have heard a study (I will probly get flamed for this) saying that ciggarette/cigar smoking actually prevents many diseases.

I also heard that the "tar" in your lungs does not last forever. Once you stop smoking, it clears up. Did you know that lung cells are the quickest at replenishing themselves in your whole body?

Another thing. I have minor asthma. My dad smoking has never effected me. Actually, I don't really have asthma anymore. I had it since I was born, but it went away about 3 years ago. My dad was smoking during that time, but i never had an asthma attack, and Im still alive in tip top shape.

Kethoticus
Dec 31, 2002, 03:20 AM
CA has this law in place (I believe it's statewide and not limited to L.A.). I've heard no one complain and I for one and pretty happy with it. Those defending the rights of the smoker are defending their right to pollute the air and make life in general unpleasant for others. Smoking is not a right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. For those for whom it is, they have a narcotic addiction and need help. If they refuse to be helped, then the least they can do is keep their unhealthy and untidy habit to themselves.


edvniow, you said that no one bans cars when they're more polluting than cigarettes. But there's one problem with that comparison: no one NEEDS to smoke. But everyone NEEDS transportation.

Cigarettes are not food, air or shelter. They do nothing but satisfy a narcotic-style fix in the smoker. They meet no human need whatsoever. Their use is not a right worth defending, especially when it interferes with my quality of life.

Hurray for NYC. Too bad I left it after this.

One thing about taxing transportation: I'm not sure where I stand on this issue as I don't know all the sides to the story. But, I think NYC mayors in the past have wanted to do something similar as a way to limit the traffic congestion within Manhattan. The density and insanity of traffic in downtown NY is incredible. Even during the night it's surprisingly active. Is taxing the best way to deal with this? I really don't know, but I wanted to explain what I think is the rationale behind it.

alex_ant
Dec 31, 2002, 03:37 AM
Re banning smoking in restaurants: Initially I thought this would be the wrong thing to do, since restaurants are private establishments that should be able to allow or disallow smoking as they choose. (No nonsmokers are forced to go to smoking restaurants.) But then I realized that nonsmokers work in restaurants and probably don't want to be subjected to that. In that case, smoking should not be allowed in restaurants. Even if all the restaurants employees and attendees are smokers and are fine with it, this creates a situation hostile to nonsmokers who may be seeking a job there.

We all know that smoking does bad things to one's health. My problem with smoking isn't so much with the health concerns, since these take a long time and heavy exposure to come to the surface - it's with the stench. Here's a thing about Minneapolis: It's windy here. All the time. And the wind whips around in all directions. You could be the most considerate smoker in the world and still expel your foul cloud of burnt plant leaf residue straight into my face. Inhaling smoke on a 10-minute walk is totally unavoidable. I do try, but there are people everywhere. AT LEAST 1 out of 30 of them are smoking at any given time.

"If you've got a problem with the smell of cigarette smoke, why aren't you calling for a ban on cars, since they pollute as well and even more?" Because I choose not to. If I could get <50% of the population to agree with me, then yes, we could ban cars as well. But I see value in cars as a tool for transportation and I don't want them banned. Unlike cigarettes, which have basically no practical purpose whatsoever.

Just as your right to wave your arms about like a maniac ends at my nose, so does your right to emit a truly foul odor - which is NOT just an odor, but a mist of toxic particles. Just as a person with a can of pressurized cigarette smoke would not be allowed to walk up to someone and spray it in their face, smokers should not be allowed to subject others to their smoke UNLESS these others are okay with it. And in public, it must be assumed that others are NOT okay with it unless they explicitly say they are.

It's important, though, that one's rights as a smoker be protected. Smoking should be legal in homes where there are no protesting non-smokers. But I don't see many places for smoking outside the home.

alex_ant
Dec 31, 2002, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by MacAztec
My dad smokes cigars often, and it sure doesn't bother me. He has been checked up and he is 100% healthy.

My best friends grandfather has been smoking cigars every day for about 55 years. He is perfectly ok also. He jogs every morning with no problem.

My aunt died from lung cancer, and she never smoked in her life. My other aunt got lung cancer before she started smoking, and she survived through it. She is smoking now and is fine.

Another thing. I have minor asthma. My dad smoking has never effected me. Actually, I don't really have asthma anymore.
Way to go, statistics ace.

alex_ant
Dec 31, 2002, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by Nipsy
If you have an allergy, you should make an effort to avoid smokers. They should not make an effort to avoid you.
If you have an allergy, you likely DO make an effort to avoid smokers. Unfortunately, making an effort to avoid the smoke is usually not enough to avoid the smoke.
My friend's daughter has an allergy to chlorine, that's why she doesn't use public pools. Public pools do not close because of this.
Sometimes there is no way to escape cigarette smoke but to be either at home or in a public building, as I'm sure mnkeybsness will attest to. Your friend's daughter can choose not to go to public pools and be none the worse for it. Mnkeybsness cannot choose not to leave his home.
People, both smoker's and non, should be respectful. As a smoker, I look to smoke in a way that won't affect non smokers. Non smokers should similarly look for a way no to be affected by smokers.
Agreed, however, when there is still conflict, the smoker is the one at fault. Speaking as a nonsmoker, whenever I'm near a smoker, I'd love to get away, of course. Sometimes it's not possible. Like at the bus stop where I need a good position to get on the bus since I know it will be close to full; or entering/exiting a building where there are always smokers clustered. Some, maybe even most, people don't have a huge problem with smoke, and that's fine. But others do. We should structure our society to take the most sensitive into consideration, as we do with the handicapped.

Nipsy
Dec 31, 2002, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant

If you have an allergy, you likely DO make an effort to avoid smokers. Unfortunately, making an effort to avoid the smoke is usually not enough to avoid the smoke.

Sometimes there is no way to escape cigarette smoke but to be either at home or in a public building, as I'm sure mnkeybsness will attest to. Your friend's daughter can choose not to go to public pools and be none the worse for it. Mnkeybsness cannot choose not to leave his home.


No, but he certainly can choose not to be in smoky bars, or the smoky building he mentioned. My real problem is why someone complaining about smoke because of a legitamate allergy was in a smoky building.


Agreed, however, when there is still conflict, the smoker is the one at fault. Speaking as a nonsmoker, whenever I'm near a smoker, I'd love to get away, of course. Sometimes it's not possible. Like at the bus stop where I need a good position to get on the bus since I know it will be close to full; or entering/exiting a building where there are always smokers clustered.

I agree with and respect this. I don't often smoke in bus shelters, or outside trafficked entrances.

I don't mind steppin' out for a smoke, but I cannot handle being badgered after I've already stepped out.

Some, maybe even most, people don't have a huge problem with smoke, and that's fine. But others do. We should structure our society to take the most sensitive into consideration, as we do with the handicapped.

No, we shouldn't. We should be respectful of people, but legislation has gone waaaaay to far. Legislation required a business I know to put in a wheelchair accesible bathroom, with electric stair lift. It cost this small business $80,000 unsubsidized dollars, and will keep them in the red for 2 years.

The business is a purveyor of running shoes.

Additionally, a restaurant in San Francisco had a fire two years ago. They were required to put in a handicapped accesible employee washroom, and an elevator to the dishwashig room.

Now, anyone who knows anything about the handicapped, knows that the wheelchair bound are not big consumers of running shoes, and even if they wanted them for style purposes, could be asked to use the restroom in the public lobby next door.

Additionally, if a handicapped person is capable enough to function as a dishwasher in a busy restaurant, they would surely be capable of using normal facilities.

I appreciate peoples rights, but if we don't curb the PC monster soon, we're gonna be offering driver's tests in braille.


Just as your right to wave your arms about like a maniac ends at my nose, so does your right to emit a truly foul odor - which is NOT just an odor, but a mist of toxic particles. Just as a person with a can of pressurized cigarette smoke would not be allowed to walk up to someone and spray it in their face, smokers should not be allowed to subject others to their smoke UNLESS these others are okay with it. And in public, it must be assumed that others are NOT okay with it unless they explicitly say they are.

So, if you don't like my cologne, ass gas, hippy stank, or pommade's odor, I am violating your rights? No. You have no protected odor rights. Those that find smoke distasteful should bear the burden of avoiding it in public. Those that don't care will continue happily. Those that smoke should be considerate of their surroundings.

Places where smokers are the majority (some bars, some night clubs, all tobacconists) should have the right to allow their patrons to do so.


"If you've got a problem with the smell of cigarette smoke, why aren't you calling for a ban on cars, since they pollute as well and even more?" Because I choose not to. If I could get <50% of the population to agree with me, then yes, we could ban cars as well. But I see value in cars as a tool for transportation and I don't want them banned. Unlike cigarettes, which have basically no practical purpose whatsoever.


People enjoy cigarettes. People enjoy alcohol. People enjoy drugs. People enjoy suntans. People enjoy red meat. People enjoy a lot of things which can have bad effects if used, and cause death if abused. While cigarettes have no utility, they are a practical way to relax. It may not seem like much of a purpose to you, but a cigarette break has prolly averted all kinds of office mini catastrophes, domestic violence, etc.

Back on cars, we'd save a lot of lives by reducing emissions greatly! You are no sooner going to ban cars, then you're going to ban smoking entirely, but with 1-3 dollars tax on every pack of cigarettes, the gov't has a lot of money it could use to mandate/subsidize vastly lowered emissions, especially in the "trophy wife alone in Lincoln Navigator" category.

I like cars. I have two now, and have owned many. They are not the most eco-friendly of cars (I'm no shrub cuddling eco-weenie), but I certainly don't drag 3 tons of steel, and 7 empty seats, getting 6-12 MPG to the mall so I can park in 2 spots to buy a pair of socks.

And you breathe a lot more exhaust in urban areas than second hand smoke. The LA basin has several days a year when they advise you not to go outside. I guarantee it is not secondhand smoke they're warning about. I was there over Christmas, and was conscious of the air I breathed, both in odor, and taste.

So many complain about second hand smoke because it is an annoyance, or a relatively minor health risk. Others have the gall to equate it with pollution, yet fuel up the out of tune Ford Explorer to drive one person 50 miles to work in the chemical plant.

If any of you who are complaining about second hand smoke get into your SUV to drive to a bowl game tomorrow, shame on you!

alex_ant
Dec 31, 2002, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by Nipsy
I agree with and respect this. I don't often smoke in bus shelters, or outside trafficked entrances.
I'm glad you do, but there are many smokers who don't. I wish the solution to this problem were as easy as telling all smokers to be respectful and having them listen.
No, we shouldn't. We should be respectful of people, but legislation has gone waaaaay to far. Legislation required a business I know to put in a wheelchair accesible bathroom, with electric stair lift. It cost this small business $80,000 unsubsidized dollars, and will keep them in the red for 2 years.

The business is a purveyor of running shoes.

...

Well, that's really stupid that they had to do that. I won't argue with that. You're right that some laws can be really dumb. Fortunately in the case of a ban on smoking in restaurants, nobody will have to pay any money to install anything. It will be free for all parties involved to comply with this law.
So, if you don't like my cologne, ass gas, hippy stank, or pommade's odor, I am violating your rights? No. You have no protected odor rights. Those that find smoke distasteful should bear the burden of avoiding it in public. Those that don't care will continue happily. Those that smoke should be considerate of their surroundings.
As I said, though, cigarette smoke is not just an odor. It is a cloud of toxic particulates. It's actual physical stuff that you can condense and examine under a microscope. You can't do that with people's farts or their cologne.
Places where smokers are the majority (some bars, some night clubs, all tobacconists) should have the right to allow their patrons to do so.
The argument amongst the super-anti-smokers is that this type of place will discriminate against nonsmoking employees. I'm willing to compromise and let this (probably valid) argument slide.

People enjoy cigarettes. People enjoy alcohol. People enjoy drugs. People enjoy suntans. People enjoy red meat. People enjoy a lot of things which can have bad effects if used, and cause death if abused. While cigarettes have no utility, they are a practical way to relax. It may not seem like much of a purpose to you, but a cigarette break has prolly averted all kinds of office mini catastrophes, domestic violence, etc.

OK, I'll respect this as long as others will respect my preference not to breathe in the smoke. Now, there are the good smokers like you, and the disrespectful smokers who will mock me and tell me to go **** myself. It's the obnoxious ones who are ruining it for all the rest.

Back on cars, we'd save a lot of lives by reducing emissions greatly! You are no sooner going to ban cars, then you're going to ban smoking entirely, but with 1-3 dollars tax on every pack of cigarettes, the gov't has a lot of money it could use to mandate/subsidize vastly lowered emissions, especially in the "trophy wife alone in Lincoln Navigator" category.

...

Let's do it. I'm all for reducing auto emissions, raising the gas tax, and dramatically increasing investment in public transportation and walking/bicycling. But let's not use auto pollution as a red herring to divert attention away from the issue at hand. Just because it's a major issue doesn't mean public smoking isn't. We can in fact concentrate on them both (and on lots of other issues as well).

zarathustra
Dec 31, 2002, 07:48 AM
People, people. This is a fun thread, so I'll bite...

Smoking is like anything else: in excess it is harmful, unfortunately doing it in public affects innocent bystanders. To have smoking/no smoking in restaurants is like having a peeing/not peeing section in the kiddie swimming pool.

If you smoke a stoagie a few times a month in the company of people who enjoy the same thing: it's great. If you smoke 3 packs a day and stand by the entrance of ChuckECheese's smoking waiting for your kid,: It's stupid.

I would hate to see it banned in bars, etc. Because even though I am not a habitual smoker, it's nice to sometimes after a few shots of bourbon to light up a COHIBA. Besides, when I wake up at noon after a night of partying, I like to look around, scratch my aching had, taste a dead rodent in my mouth and for my clothes to smell like a sewage treatment/industriall waste disposal facility - that way I am not tempted to do it again for a long while and I have the souvenir of chipped teeth with a pair of panties I have no idea how I acquired. I know I had a great time barhopping lower Greenville and Deep Ellum.

medea
Dec 31, 2002, 08:59 AM
As a child who grew up in a smoking house, I can tell you that second hand smoke DOES! affect you in a bad way, I had horrible allergies, could'nt breathe well and was constantly sick. In late highschool when my Mom started to smoke out on the patio things started to get a little better, and after I moved out it was like I was cured, I rarely have the horrible sinus problems I had before or get sick. Both my Grandparents died from Lung Cancer, I know what it does to people......
It is stupid to say non-smokers should avoid areas of smoke, almost all chain-restaurants have smoking sections, and trust me the smoke still lingers over to the non-smoking areas....

I am amazed at some of the ignorance people have showed about smoking and second hand smoke on this thread, I can tell you that a similar law was passed this past election for Florida and I can't wait for it to start in '03.

Oh and maybe you havn't noticed, but we are finally slowly changing our cars into low and zero emission vehicles, it won't happen overnight, but it's starting. Have you guys that are arguing about cars stopped driving them yet? Have you bought a low-emission car or one of the new hybrids?:rolleyes:

zarathustra
Dec 31, 2002, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by medea
Have you bought a low-emission car or one of the new hybrids?:rolleyes:

I have an ULEV (Ultra Low Emission Vehicle), get 32 mpg, and can park in a compact parking spot with room to spare (VW Golf GLS). It does make me a little happy when I see an SUV back in an out 3 times before they can park the behemoth. If only I could convince the other 90% of Texas, that not having a huge SUV or truck, does not hurt your ego or manhood.

Thirteenva
Dec 31, 2002, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by crazy_will
I can't wait to have Bloomberg take the rest of my rights away, and I don't even live in the city. Now he wants to tax me for using the train, but I can't drive by myself until after 9.

I thought he was supposed to be better that Guliani.

Everyone that voted for him hoping to get a few rights back but be kicking themselves.

I hear that, I now have chosen to take the train to work rather than contribute to the already over crowded rush hour road ways and now they want to tax us to ride the liRR, the same lirr they have been pushing on comuters for years to aleviate a multitude of traffic and parking problems that new york and nassau county cannot solve.

New York preys on its a residents especially now that tourism has dwindled. Lets tax the smokers, lets tax the commuters, lets tax everyone who contributes to the state they live in.....

Of all the states i've been to on the east coast new york is the most expensive in all aspects of life now...

I hope to be out of NY within 3 years so for now I'll just be sure to exercise my voting rights.

Thirteenva
Dec 31, 2002, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by zarathustra

If only I could convince the other 90% of Texas, that not having a huge SUV or truck, does not hurt your ego or manhood.

You'd have a better chance of selling them pink cowboy hats and about the same chance as getting them to become vegetarians......;)

skunk
Dec 31, 2002, 10:04 AM
I'm having a little difficulty picturing GW as a vegetarian in a pink hat riding a bicycle, but I'll keep trying....:)

diorio
Dec 31, 2002, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Nipsy




Don't even get me started on the American obese...

Yes, it's pretty clear neither the obese nor smokers care about their health. The only difference between smokers and the obese are smokers don't care about the health of anyone else.

movabi
Dec 31, 2002, 11:20 AM
Doesn't anyone care about what might be next? Ban this ban that. Is this really the answer? People can avoid smoke. I've done it. Its a minor inconvenience. You are not going to die from occasional second hand smoke. I myself find the company of smokers more enjoyable than preachy judgemental folk that can't make decisions for themselves and have to be spoon fed info because their TV tells them so.

skunk
Dec 31, 2002, 11:59 AM
Right on! People can avoid crossing roads, so abandon speed limits.

Roger1
Dec 31, 2002, 12:00 PM
You can also not breathe in smoke from a stranger by moving away from them or kindly tell them to stop.

I won't argue your other points, but have you ever asked somebody to stop smoking because it offends you?:D

Seriously, my wife and I like to bowl, but you know what? We don't any more. Smoking is still legal in bowling alleys around here, and I detest having to come home, shower, change clothes, and wash them, all because they smell like nasty cigarettes.

I understand if people want to smoke, they should be able to. But don't force me to inhale the nasty cancerous smoke, just because they want too.
I've been told by people who smoke, if I don't want to be in the smoke, don't go to the bowling alley, etc. Well, I feel the same way toward smokers. If you want to smoke do it somewhere else.
And that's the problem. Their right to do something, and smoke while doing it, vs. my right to do the same thing, at the same time (such as bowl, eat, shoot pool, etc) and not have to smell their smoke.
The laws being passed are an attempt to make it fair on both sides of the argument. They may not be perfect but they are a good start.

goobus
Dec 31, 2002, 12:57 PM
To the people that were talking about the smoking and car analogy i think their kinda stupid. Because cars have a purpose, they transport people. There is no good reason to smoke. And if thsi law makes one person quit I think its worth it. Thats nto even counting all the lives it will save becusae of second hand smoke. And also there may be poeople that don't go the restaurnats becuase they are so smokey but now they will so the bars adn restuarnats will jsut get a different group of customers that smell nicer.

rainman::|:|
Dec 31, 2002, 01:13 PM
none of you find it excessive that in, say, a private club with a smoking lounge, members who have voted to allow pipe smoking can't smoke? What's the justification for that? At this point, with public opinion as it is, i don't mind having to be seated in a different room if i want to smoke (here in des moines, most restaraunts have sealed-off rooms for it)... But this is rediculous... let bars and restaraunts and clubs make their own decision...

i despise laws that are "for our own good". All they do is take away rights.

pnw

skunk
Dec 31, 2002, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by goobus
To the people that were talking about the smoking and car analogy i think their kinda stupid. Because cars have a purpose, they transport people. There is no good reason to smoke.
Cars in general may have a purpose, but very often they are not appropriate for the purpose they are put to.

skunk
Dec 31, 2002, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
i despise laws that are "for our own good". All they do is take away rights.
pnw
What about the rights of employees to work in a safe environment? Or would the bartender's job only be open to smokers?

Sun Baked
Dec 31, 2002, 02:33 PM
WHO emphasizes that second-hand smoke is one of the most critical issues facing tobacco companies today. An informed public, which understands the health effects of second-hand, is a threat to tobacco companies as it makes them accountable for the damage caused by tobacco products, not only to smokers, but also to non-smokers. Hence, tobacco companies have used many ploys to distract public attention from the issue. They regularly attack the science on the health effects of second-hand smoke and have spent millions on unscientific studies and "directed" research to support their false position. Their aim, in the words of an industry executive at a meeting of the UK Industry on Environmental Tobacco Smoke, London was: "not to prove that second-hand smoke is harmless - an impossible task - but to keep the controversy" alive as long as possible.

Another more recent ploy used by bars and restaurants, including those in countries of WHO South-East Asia Region is the "courtesy of choice" campaigns. These dilute the focus on the harmfulness of tobacco smoke and try to reduce it to a mere matter of courtesy, or a matter of social grace.

WHO points out that it is important to create smoke free places, including homes, workplaces, restaurants and airlines, etc. Many studies have proven that fears of declined revenues due to smoking restrictions are misplaced. A recent American study has in fact shown that in some cases in restaurants and bars, business actually increased with the imposition of smoking restrictions.

WHO points out that second-hand smoke is a by-product of a highly profitable industry that makes individuals, governments and businesses bear the health and financial costs of its actions. It call for communities and individuals to treat it as a pollutant, which poisons the air and endangers their health, and insist that strict legislation and monitoring put an end to it.
Seems we have an armchair tobacco lawyer in this thread trying to use tobacco company tactics to distract people from the scientifically validated studies, by telling them to ignore the position of every major health organization in the world.

[edit - add a few more paragraphs.]

wdlove
Dec 31, 2002, 03:04 PM
I'm personally against smoking, never smoked. Agree that 2nd hand smoke is hazardous to health.

If the no smoking lobby is successful in banning smoking totally in public, there next target could be beef!

Under our Constitution in the US I feel that private businesses should be able to allow smoking. Its the publics right to not patronize that business. Employees have the right to work where they choose, safety should be a consideration

funkywhat2
Dec 31, 2002, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by skunk

What about the rights of employees to work in a safe environment? Or would the bartender's job only be open to smokers?

Let them choose what room to work in. A smoking bartender can be in the smoking bar, a non-smoking one in the non-smoking one.

alex_ant
Dec 31, 2002, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by crazy_will
Let them choose what room to work in. A smoking bartender can be in the smoking bar, a non-smoking one in the non-smoking one.
The problem is that if smoking were allowed in restaurants only if there were no protest, restaurant owners would be inclined to discriminate against protesting nonsmokers by not hiring them, surreptitiously firing them, or just generally treating them badly because they don't like them.

Employee: "I'm a nonsmoker and I wish to work in this room only."
Employer: "Oh, you're a nonsmoker, eh? Very well, you have your wish."
(2 weeks later)
Employer: "I haven't been very impressed with your... uh... job performance. You're fired."

funkywhat2
Dec 31, 2002, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

The problem is that if smoking were allowed in restaurants only if there were no protest, restaurant owners would be inclined to discriminate against protesting nonsmokers by not hiring them, surreptitiously firing them, or just generally treating them badly because they don't like them.

Employee: "I'm a nonsmoker and I wish to work in this room only."
Employer: "Oh, you're a nonsmoker, eh? Very well, you have your wish."
(2 weeks later)
Employer: "I haven't been very impressed with your... uh... job performance. You're fired."

Please, then tell me where you won't get fired is you don't kiss your bosses ass. That's how life is. It isn't fair, but discrimination happens all the time. People can deal.

And I didn't say no protest. I said that as if there were a room for smokers to be in, and a room for non-smkoers to be in. Both rooms could be bars, retsausrants, whatever. Have workers choose what room they work in. When one room gets filled, let the workers either choose the other room or get fired. Thats how every company works. If a restructuring happens, and there are too many workers, the excess get to either choose a new job, or get canned.

jelloshotsrule
Dec 31, 2002, 03:59 PM
i am another person to attest that second hand smoke affects people's health.... along with the 3rd leading cause of cancer study that was brought up, there's the allergies... everytime i visit my grandparents' house, filled with smokers, i get sick.... same with my brother(s).

that said, i'm not sold that smoking should be banned 100%... though being in "public" places should rule out the law applying to private clubs and such. alex makes a good point about workers at places where the owner wants to allow smoking... the fact is, they may not have any other job chance, yet they shouldn't have to suck in cancer/emphysema causing toxens, just because that's the only job they can get.

and i also agree that cars are a huge problem (bigger even) but that they are a separate issue entirely...

not to mention that cow farms emit more methane than some cities..... ;)

alex_ant
Dec 31, 2002, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by crazy_will
Please, then tell me where you won't get fired is you don't kiss your bosses ass. That's how life is. It isn't fair, but discrimination happens all the time. People can deal.
It's not about kissing ass. The protesting employee could be the best and nicest employee in the world, but still get fired because it is not financially prudent for the employer to keep that employee on board (due to e.g. having to hire another employee to do what that employee won't do).
And I didn't say no protest. I said that as if there were a room for smokers to be in, and a room for non-smkoers to be in. Both rooms could be bars, retsausrants, whatever. Have workers choose what room they work in. When one room gets filled, let the workers either choose the other room or get fired. Thats how every company works.
Actually it's not how every company works, as any OSHA administrator will be happy to inform you. Imagine a lead paint removal service saying, "If you don't want to work without respiratory protection, you don't have to. We respect your preference. But if we run out of masks and you refuse to work without one, you're fired." It's no different.
If a restructuring happens, and there are too many workers, the excess get to either choose a new job, or get canned.
Usually "the excess" = "the ones with the poorest job performance" or "the ones with the least experience" etc., which is fine and perfectly legal. The problem in this case is that "the excess" = "the nonsmokers who protest." It's discrimination based upon smoking preference, plain and simple.

funkywhat2
Dec 31, 2002, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

It's not about kissing ass. The protesting employee could be the best and nicest employee in the world, but still get fired because it is not financially prudent for the employer to keep that employee on board (due to e.g. having to hire another employee to do what that employee won't do).
[/b]
Actually it's not how every company works, as any OSHA administrator will be happy to inform you. Imagine a lead paint removal service saying, "If you don't want to work without respiratory protection, you don't have to. We respect your preference. But if we run out of masks and you refuse to work without one, you're fired." It's no different.

Usually "the excess" = "the ones with the poorest job performance" or "the ones with the least experience" etc., which is fine and perfectly legal. The problem in this case is that "the excess" = "the nonsmokers who protest." It's discrimination based upon smoking preference, plain and simple. [/B]

Fine then, have them wear masks.

alex_ant
Dec 31, 2002, 08:47 PM
Yes, waiters and waitresses in gasmasks. What a fantastic idea. You're a genius.

skunk
Dec 31, 2002, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by crazy_will

Fine then, have them wear masks.
Now this sounds like a Brave New World I want to be a part of! :(

diorio
Dec 31, 2002, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by crazy_will


Fine then, have them wear masks.

Have people wear masks so others who are addicted to a deadly poison may puff away in peace. Great plan, brilliant even. Almost as smart as George W Bush's vocabulary. (Coming from a fan of George W. He is a good pres in my opinion, but should have paid more attention in English class)

Bottom line: why should I have to put up with smoke from cigarettes in a public establisment? I shouldn't.

funkywhat2
Dec 31, 2002, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by diorio


Have people wear masks so others who are addicted to a deadly poison may puff away in peace. Great plan, brilliant even. Almost as smart as George W Bush's vocabulary. (Coming from a fan of George W. He is a good pres in my opinion, but should have paid more attention in English class)

Bottom line: why should I have to put up with smoke from cigarettes in a public establisment? I shouldn't.

Lighten up.

Like I said, I can't stand smokers. But then again, I can't stand a government that takes away my rights because a few people bitch and the ruler of it all agrees with them.

NOTE: Anything bold was edited.

alex_ant
Jan 1, 2003, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by crazy_will
Like I said, I can't stand smokers. But then again, I can stand a government that takes away my rights because a few people bitch and the ruler of it all agrees with them.
You can? Why didn't you say so in the first place?

Juventuz
Jan 1, 2003, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by skunk

What about the rights of employees to work in a safe environment? Or would the bartender's job only be open to smokers?

Nobody forced these people to work there, they applied for the position knowing full well what it entailed.

I'm not a smoker, well maybe the occassional cigar, but I don't feel that it should be banned in restaurants or bars. In MANY of the restaurants I frequent I can never smell the cigarette smoke when I sit in non-smoking. Hell the majority of smoking is usually filled with non-smokers.

funkywhat2
Jan 1, 2003, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant

You can? Why didn't you say so in the first place?


Ha ha ha. I'm gonna edit it to say "can't." I was tired. Still am, but Windoze won't install and configure itself.

alset
Jan 1, 2003, 03:43 AM
Originally posted by diorio


Oh poor smokers. They have too pay so much for a pack of cigarettes. I mean all that they are doing is a: killing themselves b: polluting the air and c: killing others with their second hand smoke. I think thats the best idea that NY has ever had.

Well, how about when I pay $5 for a pack of smokes so that my taxes can pay additional funds for roads that you drive on? How fair is this? I can handle not smoking in public places. What I can't stand is state and government officials placing the burden of making up taxes and replacing funds by burdening those of us with vices (tobacco, alcohol).

Dan

skunk
Jan 1, 2003, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by alset


Well, how about when I pay $5 for a pack of smokes so that my taxes can pay additional funds for roads that you drive on? How fair is this? I can handle not smoking in public places. What I can't stand is state and government officials placing the burden of making up taxes and replacing funds by burdening those of us with vices (tobacco, alcohol).

Dan
How do you know what your tax is spent on? Your tax is probably going towards building weapons of mass destruction, whereas ours is probably going towards keeping you going. Give it up.

Sun Baked
Jan 1, 2003, 07:50 AM
Sin taxes are there to make it more difficult for people to enjoy their vice, realize it's too expensive, and if all else fails to begin recovering money spent caring for the damn idiots and the havoc they tend to sow with their vices (both alchohol and cigarettes - car crash victims and cancer)

And if cigarettes are sooo darn pleasurable you'll enjoy them just as much at $1, $5, or even $10 a pack.

Mr. Anderson
Jan 1, 2003, 09:56 AM
Quite surprised to see this thread get so involved - but I definitely agree with Sun Baked on this one here at the end - taxes are in place to make it harder for people to obtain the cigarettes. I can only imagine a time when smoking is banned completely.

Its not just about the government telling us what to do - ask someone who's lost a relative or friend to lung cancer. If you don't think that cigarettes are harmful to your health, well, then go right ahead and maybe you'll end up removing yourself from the gene pool early.

D

jelloshotsrule
Jan 1, 2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by alset
Well, how about when I pay $5 for a pack of smokes so that my taxes can pay additional funds for roads that you drive on? How fair is this? I can handle not smoking in public places. What I can't stand is state and government officials placing the burden of making up taxes and replacing funds by burdening those of us with vices (tobacco, alcohol).


how about you pay taxes to cover the ridiculous health insurance costs that come about largely as a result of all the money these companies lose from folks with tar filled lungs.... that'd be fine by me. that way us folks who don't poison our body excessively don't have to pay the price.

Sun Baked
Jan 1, 2003, 02:08 PM
Fun when smokers consider nicotine a craved substance, and farmers consider nicotine a hazardous insecticide. ;)

Nicotine Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet.pdf (http://www.state.nj.us/health/eoh/rtkweb/1349.pdf)

OutThere
Jan 1, 2003, 02:34 PM
Banning smoking cannot and should not be connected to the pollution from cars in any way, at the present time 2nd hand smoke is a big issue, and a large protion of the reason why it is a big issue it that it is relatively easy to combat with today's technology. Fighting pollution from cars is very complicated, requires untested new technology and is incredibly vital to the health of the world, but the only way that it will ever happen is if people realise what SUVs are doing to the environment, or we get cut off from our supply of oil and the price of gas rises to $2 a gallon. Owners of massive SUvs will be crying and people who bought hybrids will be laughing their ***es off. Smoking is much easier to control for the goveremnts, the only thing that they have to do is pass laws. If the government passed a law requiring all cars to get 60 mpg and have it be illegal to drive cars that got less than 30 mpg car manufacturers would drop like flies. Big tobacco companies on the other hand have developed somewhat of a reputation with the american people (in my opinion) and the government appears to have fewer woes about cutting down smokers than gas guzzlers. The effort involved in cutting car emissions is much greater than that of cutting down death from secondhand smoke, by cutting down on secondhand smoke the government will have tackled a real issue, but not spent billions of $$$, not have had to implement untested new technologies on the highways and not have gotton on the bad sides of the car companies. Cutting down on public smoking is going to be incredibly beneficial to the non-smoking public of NYC. Did anyone here take a transatlantic flight before smoking was eliminated on airplanes? It was like taking a ride in a cigarrette for 8 hours. Not pleasant. Second hand smoke is sick, its like a trail that indoor smokers leave behind, it lingers in the air hanging there for anyone to walk through it and snag its toxic contents, some of the nastiest feeligns I have had were expierienced when I stepped into a room and saw (and smelled) a blanket of smoke hanging over the entire gorup of ppl in the room, it s a common sight.

No offense intended to anyone based on the contents of this post, these are my personal opinions and are not meant to reflect any feelings that I may or may not have towards any other posts that I have read in this thread.



Edit: WOW! that was really wild and rambling...:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Judo
Jan 1, 2003, 09:58 PM
I havn't read all the posts so I could be repeating sorry but..

Some smokers idea's that just don't stack up.
-Complaining about high taxes.
Think about how much taxes have been lost from people retiring early because of health problems. The amount of days off from sickness (smoking lowers your ammune system). How many fires has it caused. I'm guessing you guys are still in debt. It's probably caused a few car crashes aswell.

-It's my right to smoke
Yes well it's my right to be able to go to a public place and be able to breath properly. I have yet to meet a smoker who smokes consideratly. I don't think you guys realise how bad it is for nonsmokers.

I think that bars should have to have a licence to be able to allow people to smoke in them, and make the licence hard to get (got to have excelent air circulation and fire escape routes).

As much as I dispise smoking I guess people should have their rights intact so they can support these sleazy tobacco companies who have broken the law, support their disgusting habit, and basically live they way they want to.

If you are a smoker please stop and think about what you are doing. Think about talking to your Grandchildren with one of those vibrating talk thingys,
about family members visiting you in hospital when you have cancer/heart disease/or one of the many other diseases you are more suseptable too from smoking,
about the unlucky ones who live life disfigured from fires caused by smokers.
about burn holes in yours and your friends favorite shirt/pants/skirt!!

barkmonster
Jan 2, 2003, 10:13 AM
To be honest with you, I think if cigarettes and tobacco were only introduced in the past few decades, they'd be as illegal as smack.

I've tried to quit a few times over the 8 years or so of me smoking, I felt the best when I was 18 and hadn't smoked for over 7 months. I ended up starting again when I was nearly 19 and apart from odd days where I just plain can't stand it, I smoke every day. The fact I have days like that makes me want to try and quit again. I just hope I can this time. I don't really enjoy the taste of any brand, I don't crave them all the time apart from waking up and after meals. I've got such a high metabalism that I could easily put on over a stone and still be a healthy weight. I just need to think of something to do everytime the craving hits, those overpriced quit smoking aids cost over double what I spend on smoking in a week so I've just gone cold turkey. Nothing since waking up on new years day. I keep feeling light headed but it's not like that won't pass.

skunk
Jan 2, 2003, 10:57 AM
Best of luck! Been there, done that, got hot rocks on the T shirt!

alset
Jan 4, 2003, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Sin taxes are there to make it more difficult for people to enjoy their vice, realize it's too expensive, and if all else fails to begin recovering money spent caring for the damn idiots and the havoc they tend to sow with their vices (both alchohol and cigarettes - car crash victims and cancer)

And if cigarettes are sooo darn pleasurable you'll enjoy them just as much at $1, $5, or even $10 a pack.


I don't support paying out funds to repair a cancer patient who has welcomed disease via smoking. Therefore, I should not be taxed for their mistakes in life. I deserve the freedom to exploit my health without sacrificing my hard earned dollars for the misdoings of others.

BTW - I for one will not be looking for government handouts when I am ill from my own negligent smoking.

Dan

skunk
Jan 4, 2003, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by alset
I don't support paying out funds to repair a cancer patient who has welcomed disease via smoking. Therefore, I should not be taxed for their mistakes in life. I deserve the freedom to exploit my health without sacrificing my hard earned dollars for the misdoings of others.

BTW - I for one will not be looking for government handouts when I am ill from my own negligent smoking.

Dan
How far are you willing to take this line of argument? Are you happy for tax dollars to bail out corporations for their mistakes (Chapter 11), or individuals who go bankrupt, or pedestrians who are drunk and get hit by cars (driven by drunks or not), or people who get lung cancer other than from smoking, or people who have heart attacks because they eat too much, or from overwork? Where do you draw the line? Are you going to leave a paraplegic to fend for themselves? I hope you are willing to live by such harsh judgments yourself. :confused:

amalling
Jan 12, 2003, 08:15 PM
I'm a smoker. Not of the obnoxious kind. For instance do I only smoke in one room at home, since my girlfriend is a non-smoker. I always, always, make sure to ask before I light up and soforth, but what gets to me is the rhetoric nonsmokers use (not necessarily people in this forum).
If i light up a cigarette in a restaurant , not seldomly does some obnoxious nonsmoker yell out "YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SMOKE HERE" even though I am. It just the sign on THEIR table, which says No Smoking", whereas mine of course says Smoking allowed. A lot of non-smokers ARE bashing smokers for no reason other than to have something to bitch about.
My girlfriend threw a party one night, and had invited 5 friends, of which four were smokers.
She is okay with people smoking in the living room if there is a "reason" for it (parties, birthdays etc.). So people lit up of course. Within 60 seconds, the nonsmoking friend demanded that everyone should leave the premises and smoke outside (in -12 degrees centrigrade(30 fahrenheit, I think)). Unfortunately I wasn't home at the time: I would have dragged her bare ass in the snow from here to afghanistan. She knew that there would be smokers, she knew that it's allowed in OUR home, still she comes in to other peoples homes and think she can orchestrate how we do things.
A lot of smokers have that tendency: "I have seen the light, and you have to obey". To my that's a load of BS. I know smoking kills (second-hand, too), but is it too much to ask of nonsmokers to respect the smokers?
Not to mention non-smokers way of addressing someone who smokes: Start off demanding that you put out your cigarette, instead of asking politely (because it bothers you blah, blah). That would be nice for a change.
Whenever people start TELLING me what to do,because they WANT it, as if it is their God-given right, I'm equally inclined to do the exactly opposite, just to spite(spelling) them.
It's okay they don't want to deal with the smoke, but it's NOT okay to disrespect (in a non-rapper-manner) other people, be they smokers or nonsmokers. Sometimes it feels like we're second-rate citizens.
Sorry about the rant. Now I need a cigarette. Pheeew!

allah akbar
Jan 13, 2003, 02:20 AM
First it will be banning cigarettes.

Then it will be lawsuits against McDonals for making America fat, and overburdenning our health system (underway).

Then it will be banning cell phones from cars because it is #4 on the list of things which disorient us while we drive. (underway)

Then it will be the banning of SUV's as they fund and support global terrorism (sort of underway)

and once you start down the slippery slope...once you believe in the leftist lie that all people are stupid dolts, and that it is the government's role to make decisions for the people, instead of people making decisions for themselves then you will see....

The banning of playing country and music while we drive because it is #3 on the list of things which disorient us while we drive.

followed by the regulation of all religious halls of worship so as to ensure that no hate-speech is propogated to the masses

followed by the banning of all 4 door cars, and cars which don't run on electricity for environmental purposes

followed by the banning of all cows from America as their methane excretions are destroying the ozone.


Bottom line is you fall into one of 2 camps. You either believe, as the founding fathers of this amazing nation did, that people were put on this God given earth to be free. To pursue their interst, as they deem appropriate. To make mistakes, and to conquer their obstacles in their own way, and to pursue and fulfill the dreams which they define.

Or, you are a rehashed leftist, who has nothing better to do than to try and destroy the liberty of this great nation, one freedom-stifling law at a time, by promoting the notion that people are stupid and make worse decisions that bureucracies.

There is a greater issue here than whether or not smokers are hurting themselves or not.

It is in fact about liberty.

cyks
Jan 13, 2003, 02:33 AM
NY State already had a no-smoking in public places law...
It's already been banned in buildings, stores, malls, etc... The only way to have a "smoking section" at a resturaunt was to have it seperately enclosed from the rest. All this law is punish the few places where people expect to be able to- bars and the occational pool hall.

I'm a part time bartender. I'm a non-smoker but I have no problem subjecting myself to the "toxic cloud" on the nights when I work... I do it by choice as does everyone else. I work in Westchester County (the county directly north of NYC) and I can tell you- we are scared. It's almost a sure thing- that whatever happens to NYC- happens to us within a year or two...and as soon as we're forced to enforce a no-smoking rule there goes our business. With more then half of our customers smoking (While they may not be "full time smokers" most people feel the need to light-up when they drink)- what can we do? Tell them sorry- but they're not allowed?

I lived in LA, CA for a few years- and I'll admit, it's great being able to go out to a bar or club and not smell like an ashtray when you get home...but LA also had the luxury of people being able to stand outside and smoke- NY weather doesn't fully support that.

I agree in that non-smokers shouldn't have to put up with smoking in the majority of places- and the state has done an amazing job already of covering that. This is going too far.... not to mention all of the businesses that have completely renovated themselves just to have an enclosed smoking section- now what about the millions that have been wasted?

Like I said- the no-smoking law was already in place... nothing new. All this does is make it really hard on the bars, clubs, and the like. Nothing more.

diorio
Jan 13, 2003, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by allah akbar
First it will be banning cigarettes.

Then it will be lawsuits against McDonals for making America fat, and overburdenning our health system (underway).

Then it will be banning cell phones from cars because it is #4 on the list of things which disorient us while we drive. (underway)

Then it will be the banning of SUV's as they fund and support global terrorism (sort of underway)



America would be a much better place if all of this was banned. Americans wouldn't all be fat asses, I wouldn't get t boned by someone on a cell phone, and the environment wouldn't be polluted as badly.

Shrek
Jan 13, 2003, 02:31 PM
I think all you smokers around here should just quit, then see how you feel as a non-smoker in a world where there is smokers. Just see for yourself how tough it is avoid second-hand smoke. :p

wdlove
Jan 13, 2003, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by diorio


America would be a much better place if all of this was banned. Americans wouldn't all be fat asses, I wouldn't get t boned by someone on a cell phone, and the environment wouldn't be polluted as badly.

Then it would no longer be America, but some Third World Country. What happened to choice, it is after a left wing core value!

allah akbar
Jan 13, 2003, 10:27 PM
quote
-----------------------------------
Then it would no longer be America, but some Third World Country. What happened to choice, it is after a left wing core value!
-----------------------------------

correction....choice is not a left wing core value.

It is a left wing deception, and applied to very very few of the issues which they promote.

Because when it comes to the economy, or religion, or union membership, or schooling for the unerpriviliged, or retirement savings...the left wing absolutely does not support choice.

In fact, I believe its only with abortion that they use the word choice. Can you think of any other issues?