Anti-Smoking Laws

[the_std]

To continue here from the main site, let's have a go about anti-smoking laws.

Do they do more harm than good in restricting individual liberties, or are they helping to protect the populace at large?

One, two, three, GO!

[blas87]

They are absolute bullshit. The government should not be putting laws like that in place just for the "good" of everyone else.

I like the idea of smoking bars and non-smoking bars, so that way they all aren't just one or the other. That's SO stupid.

Some places the only place you CAN smoke is in your own home. And most people who rent can't even do that anymore. So what do you do?

I'm a big girl and I can do whatever I want. Especially when it doesn't affect my driving or my ability to make decisions.

[Sylvia727]

Don't piss in my swimming pool, don't smoke in my house. But I'm not going to come over to your house and tell you not to smoke. The idea of a non-smoking city is rather frightening to me. They're just eroding away the idea of personal rights, probably because the idea of personal responsibility has also been eroded.

My college is irritating me on this one. The dorm halls are all non-smoking, but there's no place for the smokers to go except the lawn or the covered porch. If it's raining, the smokers all huddle under the roof, and to get to the front door I have to breathe in their fumes. They ought to put in a smoking gazebo away from the front door.

The schools are going too far in their anti-smoking campaigns, as my then nine-year-old sister came home bawing one day, because her teacher told the class that "If your parents smoke, then they don't love you." My mom made an effort to keep the smoke away from us kids (she has since quit), but she wasn't going to stop smoking in her own home. She called the principal up in arms, only to get blown off. Moving up the chain to the superintendent of the district got no results either.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I'm of two minds on it. On the one hand, I'm a staunch anti-smoker and DESPISE cigarettes with the fire of a thousand suns (try having asthma and allergies and growing up with both parents smoking and see how much fun that is). So I can't honestly say that I feel too bad about having nonsmoking public places (i.e., restaurants). I also don't mind rulings that say smokers have to keep a certain distance from the entry points of places like stores - I really dislike walking into a faceful of someone else's lung pollution.

On the other hand, I think smoking should be allowed in places like bars and the like, where smokers naturally go to congregate and antismokers like me naturally avoid like the plague. Illinois passed a total smoking ban at the beginning of this year and quite a few folks were pissed about it. I figure they should keep the ban for all public spots except those types, that way the smokers can have their havens and the rest of us can breathe (mostly) clean air.

[CancelMyService]

Despite what smokers think, there is no right (god given or constitutionally based) to stink up a room with your cancer causing discharges. It's an addiction, I understand that. It still doesn't give you the right to light up when others may not care to partake of your smokey treats. Breathing > Smoking. Sorry smokers, that's the way it is.

People can do what they want in their homes, but I rather enjoy going out to eat and not coming back home smelling like I pulled a double shift at the RJ Reynolds factory.

Besides, smoking is an expensive and nasty habit anyway. I don't smoke myself but I noticed the last time I was in the gas station that even generic brands are like $4 a pack now here in PA. Even if you don't care about the health benefits, I'm sure most people could use the extra cash.

[Dorath]

I don't smoke, and still think anti-smoking laws are rubbish. People are being vilified for no reason other than to make politicians feel better about themselves.

I doubt anyone else will find this amusing, but a bar I used to go to found out it was cheaper to ignore the law and pay the fines than make the place nonsmoking.

[Boozy]

I've never known what to think about certain anti-smoking laws.

On one hand, if I opened a bar or restaurant, I'd like to be able to make my own decisions about what to allow there myself without government interference. My establishment, my rules.

On the other hand, there are already laws that say what I can and cannot do if I own a place that's open to serve the public. It has to be safe, I must provide handicapped washrooms if its over a certain size, and I can't refuse service based on race or religion. It makes sense, then, for the government to ban smoking in public indoor areas.

I disagree with certain new laws we have here in Ontario that ban smoking on most government-owned property, indoors OR outdoors, regardless of proximity to building entrances. At some point, the whole thing becomes bloody stupid. If second-hand cigarette smoke can kill a person from twenty feet off in the open breeze, we had better just outlaw the damn things. :rolleyes:

[Greenday]

I've always been of the opinion, if you want to go and do that to yourself, go ahead, not my problem. But when I want to go out to a restaurant or a bar, I shouldn't be forced to suffer because of your addiction. CancelMyService hit it right on the head saying there is no right to smoke. Pretty much all legal rights out there, especially in the Constitution, are rights given as long as they don't harmfully effect other people.

[Lace Neil Singer]

That is why whether or not a bar should be smoking or non smoking should be up to the individual owner. So if you don't want to breathe in smoke, you go to the non smoking bar. I however will be in the smoking bar. True, you might like it now that the law is only affecting us, but just wait til your acceptance of this law brings a law down on your head. The whole of the western world is turning into a nanny state, and it sucks. If I want to eat salt, smoke, or drink in public, then I should be allowed to without stupid laws banning it.

[Greenday]

I've never heard of a bar that banned smoking before the laws did the banning for them. So it looks like us non-smokers are screwed because we want to enjoy fresh, clean air while we have a drink and/or listen to live music.

[Lace Neil Singer]

It goes hand in hand with those places. You might as well complain about people getting drunk in pubs. And I've heard of two.

[Greenday]

Well, what are non-smokers supposed to do then? I mean, nearly all bars would prefer to allow smokers to make more money. There really is nowhere to go to have a drink. I mean, is it really that bad to have to step outside for a minute or two if they desperately need that smoke?

The "businesses will lose tons of money" is an empty threat. Where else will smokers go? Either they smoke outside and enjoy the bar, or they don't drink anymore. NJ banned smoking inside restaurants and such. None of them have had to close because they've lost tons of cash.

[the_std]

If I want to eat salt, smoke, or drink in public, then I should be allowed to without stupid laws banning it.

I'm sorry, but I have to nitpick here. Eating salt and drinking do not have any direct affect on people who are not doing the consuming. People standing beside their drinking friends don't get drunk off of their breath. Someone scarfing French fries can do so without worrying that they will contaminate passers-by with their artery-clogging madness.

Second-hand smoke, while possibly built up by the media and villainized, is still a real harm. I know that, as an asthmatic, I cannot be in smoke-polluted air without having an attack. The logic behind these laws is that smokers are harming other people without these peoples' consent.

I'm sorry, but as an analogy, that wasn't a very strong one.

On the other hand, if it's something like a smoker's bar or somewhere where people have a choice to leave or stay, I support it completely. I wish these laws gave more choice to smokers, rather than penalizing them.

[Seshat]

Until smoking was banned in pubs and clubs here, I simply couldn't go to them. At all. I missed out on many things I'd have loved to do, missed out on seeing many bands I'd have loved to see, missed out on going out with friends.

Simple things that I just couldn't do because other people's right to smoke superceded my right to breathe.

I'm in favour of that smoking ban.

[Sylvia727]

Well, what are non-smokers supposed to do then? I mean, nearly all bars would prefer to allow smokers to make more money.

If there is a market for a non-smoking bar, then they will come. My city does not have a smoking ban, but I know of two non-smoking pubs. There are probably much more, but I'm not of age yet so I don't spend too much time in bars.

[Greenday]

I'm still not yet of age, but I've been in enough bars. My step-dad plays in a band and I usually go to watch him. He plays at all the local bars and they all allowed smoking until the law was passed. Thanks to the new laws, non-smokers are no longer SOL.

[Seshat]

If there is a market for a non-smoking bar, then they will come.

That doesn't seem to work, actually. Much of the market for non-smoking bars and the like is invisible - it's composed of people who don't go out to bars and the like because they can't, and therefore don't bother tantalising themselves reading ads for events they can't attend at places they can't go.

A club or bar that wanted to reach the smoke-intolerant would-be clubgoer market would need to be in a large enough city that the low percentage of smoke-intolerants who hear about it at first are a large enough number to keep it going while the news spreads.

[linguist]

The "businesses will lose tons of money" is an empty threat.

exactly. when they passed the smoking ban here, the club owners complained about the same thing. two years later, not a single bar has closed due to lack of smokers' business, and revenues for the majority of the bars in our bar district are actually up due to the higher number of nonsmokers who avoided going to bars and clubs because they couldn't stand the smoke.

[Norton]

Ok, I agree that all of you non-smokers deserve to have a night out without being forced to endure second-hand smoke. It creates an unpleasant atmosphere for you, and we smokers have no right to force you to smoke along with us.

Still, there must be some compromise we can agree to rather than outright banning smoking. My boyfriend and I recently went to PA. With the smoking ban here in NY, we were absolutely delighted to find ashtrays on tables in some restaurants there. In some restaurants, the smoking section was seperate from the rest of the dining area. In some, there was no non-smoking section. In others, there was no smoking at all.

In a case like that, everyone has a choice of where to patronize - smoker or not. I could choose to go to a place where every table has an ashtray, and a non-smoker could go to a non-smoking establishment, or we could go to the same restaurant and simply sit in different rooms.

To ban smoking in all restaurants and bars seems too extreme to me. Let it be the choice of the owners where smoking is allowed, and let it be the choice of the patrons whether to support the owner's decision.

[ebonyknight]

I'm of two minds on it. On the one hand, I'm a staunch anti-smoker and DESPISE cigarettes with the fire of a thousand suns (try having asthma and allergies and growing up with both parents smoking and see how much fun that is). So I can't honestly say that I feel too bad about having nonsmoking public places (i.e., restaurants). I also don't mind rulings that say smokers have to keep a certain distance from the entry points of places like stores - I really dislike walking into a faceful of someone else's lung pollution.

I had parents who smoked and grew up with asthma and allergies. So I was in the same boat as you. But I firmly believe in the rights of others as long as it doesn't interfere. I even took up smoking and quit. I still feel that if people want to pollute their lungs, so be it. I don't believe in the BS about second hand smoke. You keep in most of what you inhale (which is WHY it's dangerous) and what you exhale is no more dangerous than car exhaust. Are we going to prohibit driving cars next?

The anti-smoking movement and sentiment is just another movement that wants to try to impose their views on others. This country has fallen too far away from it's libertarian roots that we are such facists now and don't even realize it.

But on the other hand, I do believe that smokers (being attacked as they are) do go out of their way to impose on others, by disregarding non-smoking signs and smoking where it really isn't appropriate, in order to maintain their rights. But I believe if it wasn't for the movements to ban things, then there wouldn't be the negative backlash. For hundreds of years this country has had far more smokers than non-smokers, and now that it's not fashionable, the witch hunts have started.

These bans are ridiculous and reflect on how this country has gotten too out of control. I have no doubt the founders would be disgusted with how we have destroyed the libertarian nature of this nation.

[Boozy]

But on the other hand, I do believe that smokers (being attacked as they are) do go out of their way to impose on others, by disregarding non-smoking signs and smoking where it really isn't appropriate, in order to maintain their rights.

I am sure that you meant to say, "SOME smokers"....right? ;)

When I smoked, I never lit up in restricted areas, always stayed away from entrances, and took painstaking caution to avoid bothering others.

All smokers are not assholes, but some assholes are smokers.

[ebonyknight]

I am sure that you meant to say, "SOME smokers"....right? ;)

When I smoked, I never lit up in restricted areas, always stayed away from entrances, and took painstaking caution to avoid bothering others.

All smokers are not assholes, but some assholes are smokers.

No you are 100% right.

I was one of the courteous ones. At my building, there are signs every 20 ft around the perimeter that say no smoking. 60 percent of the smokers ignore them. (When I smoked) my co-workers and I would make the conscious effort to go across the street to smoke.

Now, why was smoking banned around the perimeter of the building (no, not because of facism :p), but because the building ran on window mounted air conditioners.

Smokers would smoke under the air conditioners and it would get sucked up by the second floor ACs (no windows on the first floor).

Did common courtesy stop them? No, even when a notice went out 2 years later to smokers, not one thing changed.

Funny thing, when I had the unit by my window serviced (I'm on the 2nd floor), the maintenance guy had no compunction about pouring the water out of the window there. Hope nobody was smoking when he did. :D

[Boozy]

Smokers would smoke under the air conditioners and it would get sucked up by the second floor ACs (no windows on the first floor).

I'm constantly telling my husband to get the hell away from our AC when he smokes.

I also had to be a bitch and ask my downstairs neighbour to not smoke directly under my open window. He suggested I close my window. I suggested he move five feet to the left. He then suggested that I perform certain sexual acts on myself and him.

He moved, thank god.

[DesignFox]

Non-smoking sections in restaurants do not work. The smoke wafts over and coats us non-smokers in an icky smoke funk.

As a non-smoker, I enjoy finally being able to go out to eat without coming home smelling like an ashtray. One shower was never enough to get that smell out of my super thick hair.

I also like going into a restaurant and smelling FOOD rather than smoke.

The fact is, there were next to no non-smoking restaurants before the ban was in effect.

Another point I bring up is the poor restaurant staff. Who wants to work all night in a smoke cloud? The poor non-smoking staff is given no choice but to work inside in the smoke for 8 hours? How is that fair to them?

If you want to smoke, that's fine. What's wrong with doing it outside where the fumes can waft away rather than settle around the restaurant?

One of you equated cigarette smoke to car exhaust. Well, we are taught pretty early on in our driver's education not to leave a car running in a closed garage. Why? Because the carbon monoxide in the exhaust is harmful.

While I think the concept of second hand smoke is extremely overplayed, I disagree that it is completely harmless. My BF has asthma and doesn't do well to be around cigarette smoke. I have extreme allergies to airborne molecules.

I like to breathe freely and not be forced to struggle. Thank you. :o

Also, there are certain places where smoker's CAN go... There are hookah/cigar bars that are exempt from the ban.

[digilight]

Living in Southern California I've seen Smoking bans come into existance, weather the storm and the contriversy, and survive. Now a days you don't even think twice about not being able to smoke in a bar or a restaraunt. Now mind you I quite smoking about 8 years ago. But I was a heavy smoker when the bans first took effect.

Everyone said how the owners and employee's would lose their jobs/business's/and the shirts off their back. It didn't happen. Like someone said, they have survived, and done it quite well.

There are some bars with outside area's also, you can smoke outside all you want, but keep it outside. Some of these places do better business then others, but not always. Hell if you get to choose between 2 for 1 drinks or being able to suck down a 4 dollar pack of cigs, most people choose the cheap drinks and sneak outside for a smoke (if the bouncer will let you back in).

I agree that bans are good. I do think that they can be fucked at places like universities where they make it harder then hell to find a place to smoke. If you make it to hard then people will just smoke in their units. And that defeats the whole purpose. Give the kids a spot thats close, covered, and has some seating. If the "Man" makes it easier, than the whole process will go easier.

[DesignFox]

I agree with that sentiment digilight- "the man" should make it easier.

There should be designated smoking areas at the very least.

Although really, I just think it should be banned indoors, but allowed outdoors. (none of this no smoking on campus at all attitude)

A covered patio so smokers don't have to get rained on would make it easier on everyone. I hate trying to get in the door and fighting through the "huddle" and cloud of smoke- but I also understand that people don't want to get wet.

[Sylvia727]

That doesn't seem to work, actually.

Really? That doesn't seem to be the case in my city. As I said previously, I know of at least two non-smoking pubs. This makes me wonder how they got started and maintained.

As far as the need being invisible, this is the sort of situation where savvy people make big bucks. They recognize a niche in the market that no one else has filled, and they fill it. When a non-smoking bar does go up near you, I'm sure its profits will skyrocket as all of your area's non-smokers head over there.

[Seshat]

Before the smoking ban in my city, there were none. There is now no smoking permitted inside almost every public building in my city.


As for smoking being allowed everywhere outdoors - that doesn't work. The considerate, thoughtful smokers move out of the main entrance ways and the handicapped entrances, but the ignorant or callous smokers make those places a smoke cloud. Smoke-intolerant people like me end up either having to avoid the buildings entirely, or if we must use them, we end up wheezing, suffering allergic reactions, suffering pain, or worse.

The assholes spoil it for everyone.


I'd be happy to compromise with the considerate, thoughtful smokers. You stay away from the places I must go, you don't smoke where the smoke will be trapped in places I must go or places designated for the smoke-intolerant or simply not-wanting-to-be-smoked-on.
I'll cheerfully take a wide berth around your covered smoking area with comfortable seating. I'll also cheerfully avoid your smokey pubs and clubs and restaurants as long as I have smoke-free ones, or shared ones with adequate separation*.

(* a single room with half of it designated as 'non-smoking' and half designated as 'smoking' is useless. The smoke doesn't care about the invisible barrier. I need separate rooms with separate air circulation, with closing doors between them. And I'd need to not be at the table beside those doors.)

[Colchek]

Non-smoking sections in restaurants do not work. The smoke wafts over and coats us non-smokers in an icky smoke funk.


Yep. A mall's food court that I used to frequent had a smoking section that was down lower than the non-smoking section. So the whole area was practically smoking. Most restaurants, the two sections are right next to each other, with little to no barriers between them. Why make a distinction?

Second hand smoke sends me for a loop, for I'm also asthmatic. Back in my high school days one kid thought it would be funny to blow a couple lungs worth of smoke at my face. Scared the hell out of him when I was coughing, hacking, and wheezing for nearly five minutes, tears running down my face from coughing so hard.

Overall, I'm in favor of bans. It makes many restaurants truly non-smoking, where I can go and enjoy myself without smelling the smoke, and places that have exemptions to the ban (usually bars, etc. Heck if I want a beer, I'll buy a six pack.), I avoid them. Smoking is truly unique in that it is a pasttime that is not limited to only the smoker but also to everyone around them to which the smoke travels. If it's inside a building where they can not escape it, then they're basically being forced to smoke, which isn't fair to them. If a place truly wants to have a smoking section, then I believe it needs to be truly isolated so that the smoke is kept within the confines of that area and doesn't affect those outside of it, much like the smoking areas I saw at the Louisville airport once. They were enclosed in glass with continual ventiliation that kept the smoke from leaving that room.

[miffed]

I see no problem with banning a frivolous nasty habit. The idea that it is someone's god given right to destroy their health and impose on others, is incredibly weak.

Is there any solid justifiable reason for people to smoke?

[Norton]

People smoke for the same reason they indulge in any vice (alcohol, junk food, too much TV or internet) - they enjoy it, and it makes them feel good.

Whether someone does harm to themselves is quite frankly none of your business, and not the issue at hand. The issue here is when non-smokers are forced to breathe second-hand smoke.

I will gladly keep the smoke from my cigarettes far away from non-smokers, but I don't need to be lectured about my own health. Hell, the warnings are printed right on the box.

[Darrien]

I have to agree with the few, its not my fault you chose to smoke thus I should not have to put up with asthma attacks just cause you are addicted to that cancer stick.

[rahmota]

I have said it before the rights of the individual to do somethign stupid abusive or self-destructive to themselves is no ones business but their own. the government has no right to tel a person how to live their life so long as they are the only ones who are being really affected by it.

[Sylvia727]

I see no problem with banning a frivolous nasty habit. The idea that it is someone's god given right to destroy their health and impose on others, is incredibly weak.

Is there any solid justifiable reason for people to smoke?
(I struck out part of your quote to emphasize my point.)

Alright, let's ban alcohol. Fast food. Salty snacks. White bread. Anything with sugar in it. After all, no one has the god given right to destroy their own health. Let's ban sports, since there's such a high rate of injuries. Let's ban computers, since staring at the screen is bad for your eyes and using a mouse too much gives you carpal tunnel.

I know I sound abrasive, and I apologize if you take it personally. It's not intention to mock you. But I do have the right to do whatever I want with my own body as long as I don't hurt other people. If I want to kill my lungs or my liver or my arteries, that's my choice. No one has the right to take that from me.

I have the right to light up a cigarette as long as I take reasonable precautions not to "infect" anyone else. This means I only smoke in a public building if it is clearly posted that this is a smoking building. I don't smoke so close to a door that someone has to breathe my fumes in order to get in. I don't smoke so close to a busy walkway that passerby have to breathe my fumes in order to get by.

But I'm not going to apologize for smoking in a gazebo that's 100 feet away from the building. I'm not going to apologize for smoking in a bar with a policy that permits smoking, not even if you have asthma or just got out of surgery. Go drink in a non-smoking bar. (Obviously I wouldn't be so rude if your city didn't have non-smoking bars.) And I'm certainly not going to apologize for smoking in my own home, or in a friend's home if I've gotten his permission.

[Dorath]

How is breathing someone elses cigarette smoke any different than being forced to breathe car or factory exhaust? I'm forced to do those every day and hate it, does that allow me to petition the government to ban those as well? After all, it's certainly having a detrimental effect on my health.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I had parents who smoked and grew up with asthma and allergies. So I was in the same boat as you. I don't believe in the BS about second hand smoke.

...okay. Did you ever stop and think that just maybe the reason you *have* that asthma and allergies is BECAUSE your parents smoked? (Not saying that it is - or isn't - but it's a damn good suspect as far as I'm concerned)

Studies have shown that pregnant women who smoke have a greater chance of having kids with lung-related illnesses (or worse); if the parents started the habit after a child was born, you can still develop breathing problems from the resulting polluted environment. Smoke CLINGS to EVERYthing it touches, and nothing short of a Hazmat cleanup (just about, anyway) will get rid of that stench. If a closed room has had smokers in it for years, you can sometimes literally see the *stains* that the smoke has left behind.

And, sorry, but there have been studies proving that secondhand smoke is at least as dangerous as the shit that the smoker inhales. (As well as studies showing that car exhaust fumes are not peaches-and-cream innocence either - lung cancers are on the rise (and it's either this one, or heart disease, that's currently the #1 killer of women in particular - I forget which now), and it's postulated that the reason is because there are so many air pollutants from various sources - including cars - in the air nowadays; these pollutants get inside the body and get hold through microscopic tears in lung tissues)

I CANNOT stand being in smoke. I WILL start coughing and hacking if I even so much as get a whiff of it. I can't even be in the same car as a smoker with the windows down, because the blowblack smoke from the wind still hits me and triggers my coughing. Thus, the only solution for me is to avoid being around smokers (when they're lit up, unless their personal stink from cigarettes is so bad it overrides everything else, and believe me I've met a few of those kind), inasmuch as this is feasible depending on the circumstances.

But I'm not going to lie and say that I feel bad about Evil Smoking Bans that apply to particular public places - because I just don't. When the government starts attempting to ban cigarettes in one's own personal home, then yeah, I'd agree with you that it's gone too far.

[Seshat]

How is breathing someone elses cigarette smoke any different than being forced to breathe car or factory exhaust? I'm forced to do those every day and hate it, does that allow me to petition the government to ban those as well? After all, it's certainly having a detrimental effect on my health.

You're allowed to petition about anything you want to. :)

Factory exhaust is gradually being cleaned up - mostly because of petitions and lobbying from various people. Factories are being required to filter more and more strictly.

Car exhaust is also being cleaned up. I remember when unleaded petrol was pushed through in Australia, because the lead was both a toxin itself, and destroyed the catalytic convertors which were required to clean up other toxins from car exhaust. My next car, if I can possibly swing it, will run biodiesel created from waste oil. Mmm, yummy chips-scented rapidly-biodegrading and/or bio-safe car exhaust.

Air-pollution-intolerant people are not picking on smokers to the exclusion of other sources of air pollution. We're picking on smokers as well as other sources of air pollution.

[ebonyknight]

...okay. Did you ever stop and think that just maybe the reason you *have* that asthma and allergies is BECAUSE your parents smoked? (Not saying that it is - or isn't - but it's a damn good suspect as far as I'm concerned)

Hey, maybe you have something there. Maybe because my mom and dad ate peanuts, I have my peanut allergy, too....

Studies have shown that pregnant women who smoke have a greater chance of having kids with lung-related illnesses (or worse); if the parents started the habit after a child was born, you can still develop breathing problems from the resulting polluted environment. Smoke CLINGS to EVERYthing it touches, and nothing short of a Hazmat cleanup (just about, anyway) will get rid of that stench. If a closed room has had smokers in it for years, you can sometimes literally see the *stains* that the smoke has left behind.

And, sorry, but there have been studies proving that secondhand smoke is at least as dangerous as the shit that the smoker inhales. (As well as studies showing that car exhaust fumes are not peaches-and-cream innocence either - lung cancers are on the rise (and it's either this one, or heart disease, that's currently the #1 killer of women in particular - I forget which now), and it's postulated that the reason is because there are so many air pollutants from various sources - including cars - in the air nowadays; these pollutants get inside the body and get hold through microscopic tears in lung tissues)

Studies are like statistics, you can find one to support anything you want. Besides, it just doesn't make sense.

Smoke is made up of particles of burned matter and chemicals that are in suspension (air being the medium). It's why smoke stains walls (as you said). But paint rather than HAZMAT equipment will cover it nicely, thank you. You inhale the smoke, it sticks to your lungs depositing the tar and other crap that's bad for you (didn't you say it sticks to everything???). For you to say that you breathe out the same stuff you breath in, is just ridiculous. Either it sticks to your lungs or it doesn't. It CAN'T be both ways. By simply inhaling, you don't magically create an equal amount of matter to exhale, thereby "proving that secondhand smoke is at least as dangerous as the shit that the smoker inhales."? Most of that crap, stays in the smoker. Did the people who conducted the study forget about the Law of Mass/Matter Conservation????

That's the problem with today's society. We have lost the ability to reason for ourselves. We see a "study" and it's gospel. We see a statistic and it just HAS to be correct. Ridiculous.

You can find studies that prove anything you want.

I CANNOT stand being in smoke. I WILL start coughing and hacking if I even so much as get a whiff of it. I can't even be in the same car as a smoker with the windows down, because the blowblack smoke from the wind still hits me and triggers my coughing. Thus, the only solution for me is to avoid being around smokers (when they're lit up, unless their personal stink from cigarettes is so bad it overrides everything else, and believe me I've met a few of those kind), inasmuch as this is feasible depending on the circumstances.

So, do we do now tell food manufacturers that they have to have to pay for separate factories to make food that does away with all peanuts, gluten, eggs, etc. since there are people who are deathly allergic to them? Is putting on the food label "Made in a Facility that processes (whatever your particular allergen)" no longer good enough?

I tell people who eat peanuts not to touch me or I leave. I don't tell them they can't eat them or where to eat them. I don't go to parks where dogs play and tell them to leave or tell my friend that he has to get rid of his dog, when I visit.

According to the sentiment here, I have the right to go into Good Guys Restaurant (or any other establishment that servers shelled peanuts) and tell them that if people want to eat them, go outside where the shell dust and peanut skin dust can't waft into my eyes or take it home on my clothes.

It's the same argument as telling a bar owner they can't have smoking in THEIR establishment.

I don't complain that I can't go into Good Guys because of all the peanut dust. Why should anyone complain that they can't go to O'Douhl's bar, because they allow smoking???? It's ridiculous!

But I'm not going to lie and say that I feel bad about Evil Smoking Bans that apply to particular public places - because I just don't. When the government starts attempting to ban cigarettes in one's own personal home, then yeah, I'd agree with you that it's gone too far.

Somehow hearing your reasoning so far, I would doubt your last statement. I believe you would be cheering.

*sigh*

I really don't even know why I am arguing this since I don't even smoke anymore.

It just incenses me to see people want to censure other people based on what THEY believe is "best for them". And don't say that you don't feel that way "I'm not going to lie and say that I feel bad about Evil Smoking Bans that apply to particular public places - because I just don't."

A bar or business owner should have the right to run a smoking or non-smoking establishment as he sees fit. THEY pays the taxes, overhead and costs, not the government. If these bans don't show how much of a "nanny-state" we've become, I don't know what will.

First it's smoking, now it's trans-fats.

Hey, didn't I hear some of you argue that eating bad food isn't the same? :rolleyes:

What's next? Dogs, peanuts and alcohol????? Don't laugh, who thought the local governments would have banned trans-fats a few years ago????

[Colchek]

Yes, some of that stays in the smoker, but you're forgetting one very important detail: The large, very noticeable billow of smoke that is rising off that lit cigar/cigarette/what have you. That's unfiltered smoke, that anyone nearby is going to breathe in, including the smoker. Combine that with the stuff that doesn't stick to the smoker's lungs when they breathe out, and you now have the basis for why its harmful. If you're around someone who's smoking, you can't avoid it.

[ebonyknight]

Yes, some of that stays in the smoker, but you're forgetting one very important detail: The large, very noticeable billow of smoke that is rising off that lit cigar/cigarette/what have you. That's unfiltered smoke, that anyone nearby is going to breathe in, including the smoker. Combine that with the stuff that doesn't stick to the smoker's lungs when they breathe out, and you now have the basis for why its harmful. If you're around someone who's smoking, you can't avoid it.

No I'm not. It wasn't whether the smoke is harmful or not, it was the ridiculous claim that "studies" have shown that exhaled smoke is just as harmful as the inhaled smoke.

Two, the volume of smoke that is coming off the cigarette doesn't compare to the volume of smoke released when a drag is exhaled. Or are you going to say they are the same or are even close?

Now where are these people that they can't avoid it? Are they friends of the smoker sitting in their smoke free homes? Are they people smoking in a restaurant or bar? Most likely the latter.

Now tell me. If I pay taxes, the rent, and the bills at my bar, who is the government to tell me whether I can have smokers or not?

Now if the business owner has no right to dictate that (which plenty here seem to indicate), then what right would you have to say that I couldn't smoke in your home, if I decided to visit?????

Can you not see the fascist view of the imposition upon a legal owner of property? Who is the government to tell me that I can't have a deep fried twinkie in all of it's trans-fat glory or that I can't smoke in my own establishment?

[Greenday]

The reason why smoking is such a huge issue is because it actually directly affects other people who don't do it. Drinking does not. Eating food does not. Those two cannot be compared to smoking.

Who is the government to tell us what we can and cannot do? The government elected by the people to create laws wanted by the majority of the people.

You can do what you want to yourself, but when it affects other people, that's when you cross the line.

[ebonyknight]

The reason why smoking is such a huge issue is because it actually directly affects other people who don't do it. Drinking does not. Eating food does not. Those two cannot be compared to smoking.

Who is the government to tell us what we can and cannot do? The government elected by the people to create laws wanted by the majority of the people.

You can do what you want to yourself, but when it affects other people, that's when you cross the line.


Really?

This should be interesting then. Let's see if you really mean that or if you (like everyone else) just want to impose what you believe is best.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=732626

*Children don't often die like this in the United States.

Madeline Neumann died Sunday from an undiagnosed and treatable form of diabetes.

But on Sunday in the Town of Weston, near Wausau, 11-year-old Madeline Kara Neumann died of diabetic ketoacidosis, a treatable though serious condition of type 1 diabetes in which acid builds up in the blood.

Neumann's parents said they didn't know she had diabetes. They didn't take her to a doctor. They prayed for healing.

The common course of medical treatment for the disease involves injections of insulin and intravenous fluids, said Omar Ali, assistant professor of pediatric endocrinology at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Wauwatosa.

"A fatal outcome would be unusual these days in the United States," Ali said.

The death of the girl has shocked the community and raised profound moral and legal questions over when medicine should trump faith, especially when the life of a child is at stake. *

Do you charge the parents with a crime? If so, why exactly?

[Colchek]

Ebonyknight, if you're claiming that exhaled smoke is not just as bad as the unfiltered, or is by itself not harmful, then I quite disagree. In order for all of the toxins, chemicals, particulates, etc to be completely absorbed, the smoker is going to have to hold that smoke in for quite some time. The natural urge to breathe is going to prevent that, and a significant portion of what went in, is going to come out, just the same as the fact that your body does not absorb all of the oxygen in the air you breathe. Unfiltered smoke from the tobacco source is still a significant amount, as is that which is exhaled by a smoker. Discounting studies doesn't make the risks go away.

As a non-smoker, I don't want to breathe any of it, and I should not be forced to. I have a choice to avoid your home. I have a choice to avoid your car. I don't have a choice if I want to enjoy a meal in restaurants that allows smoking, or bowl in a bowling alley that allows it, etc, etc. The smoke is there, it hangs in the air, because in an enclosed space it can not dissipate. Non-smoking sections, as mentioned before, do not work because there is no means to isolate anyone from the smoke, and inside a building, it gets concentrated, especially if there are multiple smokers. Banning smoking in those facilities is the only way to ensure that others who do not want to suffer from it are not exposed to it. They key is the fact that the bowling alley is not there to cater to smokers. The bar is not there to cater to smokers. The restaurant is not there to cater to smokers. The bowling alley is there to cater to bowlers. The bar is there to cater to people wanting a drink. The restaurant is there to cater to people wanting food. Smokers who come in and bring their smoke with them are imposing it upon others there to enjoy what the facility offers, there's no getting around it. Even if it is not intentional on their part, they are forcing it upon others.

[Norton]

I can see that before the bans, there was a need for for more bars and restaurants to accomodate non-smokers. Now in most places all restaurants and bars are non-smoking. It's gone from one extreme to the other.

Why are all the non-smokers against having any smoking establishments? Can we not have both? Again, I say let the owners of businesses decide whether to allow smoking, and let the patrons decide whether they support that decision by either avoiding or patronizing the business.

[Greenday]

Smoke outside, we don't care. Just don't smoke in areas we are forced to pass through to get somewhere.

And ebonyknight, I think those parents were morons. Praying to God is something you do when you already tried medicine and it's proven ineffective and you are pretty much out of options. To not get the girl medical help is a total screw-up on their part. As for how they should be punished, I don't know. I don't study criminal law. I study science and science tells me those people could have actually tried to save their kid but they didn't do a damn thing to try to save her.

As much as I'd like to argue about that, it has absolutely nothing to do with smoking, unless you are trying to get at people should be held responsible for their actions, in which case I agree. Both cases, people are endangering other people's lives. Smoking is not nearly as immediate a problem but it still harms other people regardless.

[ebonyknight]

As much as I'd like to argue about that, it has absolutely nothing to do with smoking, unless you are trying to get at people should be held responsible for their actions, in which case I agree. Both cases, people are endangering other people's lives. Smoking is not nearly as immediate a problem but it still harms other people regardless.

Who is the government to tell us what we can and cannot do? The government elected by the people to create laws wanted by the majority of the people.

You can do what you want to yourself, but when it affects other people, that's when you cross the line.

According to you, because it is law, it is the will of the people.

Well for your information, the couple will not and cannot be charged with a crime, because (as of last count) 40 of the states have religious exemptions for healing prayer.

Is that the will of the people? How can they have crossed the line if it isn't against the law?

As the old saying goes, you can't legislate morality and saying it's the law is a cop out, as I have just demonstrated.

Again, should I now go into Five Guys Restaurant (sorry, not Good Guys) and demand that they remove the peanuts for the exact same reason you say that smoking should be stopped?

Tell, me where do we stop? Afterall, as you have said, you've crossed the line when what you do affects others.



It still hasn't been explained to me how the Law of Mass/Matter Conversion isn't violated by the "study" that first hand smoke can be the same as exhaled smoke?

It's funny how people can parrot studies, "facts" and other things they have never seen or read, just because it fits their own morality. Several people have now parroted the same thing, yet none can tell me why it violates a known scientific law.

[Norton]

Again I pose the question:

Can we not have both smoking and non-smoking establishments? I just can't believe how it seems like no one wants a compromise here. A total ban can't be the best solution.

This is about individual freedom of choice. Business owners should have the freedom to make their business smoke friendly or not. We as customers, would have the freedom to frequent or reject those businesses, thus showing our support or disapproval while not sacrificing our own enjoyment - non-smokers and smokers alike.

If given a choice, I'll patronize smoking establishments, keeping my cigarette far away from non-smokers in the smoke-free business down the road. However, I don't have that choice in my state.

[Greenday]

Can we not have both smoking and non-smoking establishments? I just can't believe how it seems like no one wants a compromise here. A total ban can't be the best solution.

That's how it's been for years and it was nearly impossible to find a place that didn't allow smoking. Because if they didn't allow smoking, that'd be discrimination, wouldn't it?

As for the couple not being charge, once again, I don't do law, I only do facts and the fact is, the parents did absolutely nothing to help their kid and unfortunately, the kid paid the price for it.

Should you be able to go to a restaurant and demand that they remove any and all peanuts from the place? No. Why? Because that's ridiculous. Peanuts are not being forced on you like smoke is. No one is forcing you to buy products with peanuts in it.

As for the Law of Conservation of Mass, now you are in my field. The amount of smoke inhaled has to be equal to the amount of chemicals that stay in your system plus the amount of chemicals breathed out. As for how much of both those products their are, I don't know. Could be 60/40, could be 80/20, could be 40/60. I've never bothered with the studies. What I do know is that the amount of chemicals emitted by the smoker is greater than zero and thus has an effect on me.

[Colchek]

As for the Law of Conservation of Mass, now you are in my field. The amount of smoke inhaled has to be equal to the amount of chemicals that stay in your system plus the amount of chemicals breathed out. As for how much of both those products their are, I don't know. Could be 60/40, could be 80/20, could be 40/60. I've never bothered with the studies. What I do know is that the amount of chemicals emitted by the smoker is greater than zero and thus has an effect on me.

Which is the point I was trying to make. The body isn't going to absorb 100 percent of the smoke, the same as it doesn't absorb 100 percent of the oxygen in the air you breathe in each time. The dangers of the chemicals and other compounds in that smoke when it comes out are not reduced by having been in the lungs.

For perusal: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/SecondhandSmoke.htm

Straight from the CDC.

There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be dangerous.2

[rahmota]

That's how it's been for years and it was nearly impossible to find a place that didn't allow smoking. Because if they didn't allow smoking, that'd be discrimination, wouldn't it?
And by making a universal smoking ban that isnt discrimination in return?

Anti-smoking laws are a pain in the ass adn I dont smoke. I dont care if someone smokes and I've been around smokers all my life and have perfectly healthy lungs. It depends a lot on the health and genetic predisposition of the person. Also tobacco itself is not the source of most of the chemicals its the additives the cigarette companies put on the stuff that makes them truely unhealthy. Smokign tobacco straight out of the barn is a lot healthier.

But heres my solution drop any asinine morality based or alleged health based law and if you dont like being around smokers either go somewhere else, suck it up and deal with it, or get a mask. Just dont get up on your GD high horse and proclaim yourself to be the moral high ground defender and yell and berate those who want to smoke or be around smokers. Adults have the right to choose to do what they want to themselves (or at least they should and would if the moralist whiny wackos would STFU) and if that means doing something you personally dont like tough.

I swear I'm half tempted to take up smoking just to protest this BS. I know I'm never going to help enforce one of these stupid laws.

[DesignFox]

The difference is that I'm not affecting anyone by not smoking.

Someone else smoking in a building forces me to inhale smoke, smell smoke...smell like smoke.

And nobody ever has a non-smoking restaurant. Shit, the one restaurant my BF and I used to frequent claimed to be NON-smoking. You know how many people would like up right under the NO smoking sign?

What would the restaurant do about it? NOTHING.

We had to suffer.

Most restaurants have seating outdoors. Go outside to smoke. I don't see what the big deal is.

I also don't think it's fair to force people to work in smoky conditions. They have to WORK. It's not always a matter of just "go someplace else".

*Edit to add: I think that night at the restaurant in question, my BF and I asked the server to wrap up our just served food because we could not tolerate the smoke. We were polite about it, but it was upsetting to have to leave because the smokers had to light up even though we were there- and not smoking -first. :(

[Colchek]

Ok, let's get down to the real heart of the matter. Tobacco products, in all their forms, boil down to one basic item: nicotine. Nicotine is, and will always be, a narcotic. It is addictive, it is what makes smoking 'pleasureable' by stimulating receptors in the brain, and it is why people crave tobacco in order to give their body what it needs because it is now dependent on nicotine to function normally.

If people were talking about smoking crack, this discussion would be taking a completely different turn. Replace crack with tobacco, and now it's all of a sudden ok to smoke a narcotic? The difference between them is that unlike crack, tobacco is legal and freely available. Therefore, you don't see the problems that would occur if tobacco /wasn't/ freely available, and people had to seek out their next fix from a dealer. You'd have people doing all the various things that cause problems, like robbery, to get their next nicotine fix. Instead, they can go to any store and plop down cash to buy it. It's addictiveness is why smokers have a hard time quitting. They suffer the same withdrawl symptoms as any addict trying to quit.

You can't tell me that sitting next to a crack smoker is better for your health than a tobacco smoker. Once again, the difference is that one is illegal, and the other isn't. This brings up the question, why is tobacco legal? Because people have been smoking it for centuries, oblivious to the harmful effects. "Ah, but so have people been doing cocaine!" True, to a point. Coca leaves were used by ancient South American tribes for ceremonial purposes, and 'vision quests'. Many still do. Once the West discovered it's other properties in the 19th century, it quickly became outlawed. (Coke free Coke anyone?) Tobacco's effects weren't discovered until later, but by then, it was harder to stop because it was available in every store in the country. Not to mention it's a huge cash cow for government. It remains that way to this day.

So. Tobacco, due to its nicotine content, is a narcotic. It is a drug, plain and simple. A legal drug, but a drug none-the-less. Unlike many drugs, however, its use does not affect only the person smoking it. It affects them and everyone around them who breathes in the byproduct. Marijuana would be the same if you were near a person smoking it. With the question of its legality stripped from the equation, you now have a simple matter of people consuming a drug in public places, and exposing others who choose not to consume this drug to its method of introduction to the body, aka the smoke. There's a reason there have been many campaigns to prevent youths from taking up smoking, because it is addictive, harmful to your health and to that of others. Therefore, attempts are now being made to shield people from its use, rather than go the extreme of outlawing tobacco.

Looking at it from that perspective, can you truly defend it? If tobacco was classified as the drug it really is, would you then be vilifying laws that ban it?

[blas87]

Unless there is really no other choice of job, bartenders are going to be around smoke. If they don't like it, they should find a job at a non smoking bar or get a different job. I certainly would not stay at my factory if there were no ventilation or clean air. Cops have to go to work every day knowing they might get shot....it's the risk they take. If they don't like it, they need to get another job.

Not trying to be insensitive, but I'm just saying, if there are other job options, why subject yourself to cigarette smoke if you don't have to?

I have no problem smoking outside....but with the new laws, smokers are prohibited from smoking within x feet of businesses or public places. So I can't just walk outside and have a smoke. I am not walking 20-100 feet away just to have a cigarette to make everyone happy and be forced to smoke in the shadows with my fellow smokers.

Thankfully, they dropped the city-wide smoking ban in favor of going after a state-wide ban that will be looked at next year. So at least my first year of being 21 I'll still be able to smoke at the bars.

[rahmota]

Looking at it from that perspective, can you truly defend it? If tobacco was classified as the drug it really is, would you then be vilifying laws that ban it?

HELL YES! I am against drug laws anyhow and since Tobacco is not a drug ,never was and never shall be, in the same category as crack or heroin and is not as addictive as you are making it out to be I would be damned upset with any laws prohibiting it. Not to mention I personally know several farmers who have been hurt financially by all these BS anti-smoking whining laws.

Tobacco and Marijuana in their natural organic forms do have a stiulative effect on the body and in high enough dosages do cause other effects. however the addictive properties depend greatly upon the user's physical structure and condition. The average cigarette yields only about 1mg of nicotine so lets drop the act that you're smokign pure nicotine or that nicotine is the most abundent substance in a cigarette.

It is a drug, plain and simple And by the broad definitions used in your posting so is caffeine and a whole lot of other stuff that people routinely ingest on a daily basis. Should we get rid of anythign and everythign that is harmful to a person? Well that would leave plain distilled water and organic wheat bread. Forget that noise. I'd rather die happy doing what I enjoy, eating what I enjoy or if I do take it up smoking what I enjoy. not doing or eating or not smoking what someone else tells me to. Its my body I can do what I want with it.

Most restaurants have seating outdoors. Go outside to smoke. I don't see what the big deal is.
And if the smokers are indoors whats keeping you from goign outside to eat? If its weather or other conditions then how can you honestly and fairly expect smokers to go out and eat in it if you wont go out and eat in it? I dont see what the big deal is either. You have a choice. They make sprays to remove odors from clothes. which I doubt casual exposure to smoke can really stink clothes up that bad as I used to go to smokey biker/redneck bars and a quick spritz or a run through the wash and the clothes I was wearing smelled daisy freash (or at least as close to it as anythign I wear ever gets)

Anyhow it seems to me that the whole thing about anti-smoking laws is that some people dont like it and dont enjoy it and they get angry when they see someone who does enjoy it and have to get up on their high horse and prohibit what someone else enjoys because they dont like it. Busy body nannyism. Just because you dont like it, dont enjoy it and dont wanna do it doesnt give you the right to stop someone else who does enjoy it, doesnt care if there are risks involved and does like it from doing it. And that word it could be used to explain a lot of different things.

[Greenday]

Well, I'm seeing arguments on both sides that I don't agree with. Some of the arguments I see on the anti-smoking side just don't make plain sense and I'm just never going to see a valid reason why I should be forced to inhale your smoke and not allowed to breathe in fresh, clean air while I eat dinner or go to a bar. Telling me to go to a smoke-free bar or restaurant is another bad argument, as in my 17 years of living without anti-smoking laws, I never found one such establishment. Alls I ask is that you don't smoke where it affects me. Don't smoke inside these buildings and don't smoke at the entrance. Anywhere else and I don't care what you do. It doesn't affect me, and it doesn't affect other people who don't want to breathe in smoke-filled air.

[Seshat]

It still hasn't been explained to me how the Law of Mass/Matter Conversion isn't violated by the "study" that first hand smoke can be the same as exhaled smoke?

Yes it has, but I'll repeat in a rephrase.

SOME of the particulate matter and toxins in an inhaled breath of smoke get stuck in the lungs. Not ALL.

Now, I haven't personally done a study, so I don't know what percentage gets stuck in the smoker's lungs, and what percentage gets exhaled.

But I do know that when I wear one of my breathing masks (yes, I use them), the mask gets dirtier when I'm around smokers than when I'm not. Even if I'm in the exact same place at the exact same time of day, and it's only the smokers' presence or absence that changes.



Can we not have both smoking and non-smoking establishments? I just can't believe how it seems like no one wants a compromise here. A total ban can't be the best solution.

You must have missed some of my posts.

I'd be happy to compromise and have some smoke-free and some smoking establishments: if it actually happened. I've just never seen it happen.

Also, many of the staff of the bars and pubs who I've spoken to have said 'I'm a smoker myself, but I've been so much happier and healthier since this place went smoke-free'. It's anecdotal, sure, but when even the smoking staff prefer the place non-smoking, that says a lot to me.


But heres my solution drop any asinine morality based or alleged health based law and if you dont like being around smokers either go somewhere else, suck it up and deal with it, or get a mask.

That's what I've been doing since I was about 20. Now what do I do about smokers who get offended when I put my mask on?

Also, only a really expensive, awkward and uncomfortable mask with really expensive replacement filters eliminates all the smoke. Why should I have to pay more than the smokers, just because they want to smoke? Doesn't that mean they're infringing on my individual rights?

Anyhow it seems to me that the whole thing about anti-smoking laws is that some people dont like it and dont enjoy it and they get angry when they see someone who does enjoy it and have to get up on their high horse and prohibit what someone else enjoys because they dont like it. Busy body nannyism.

I haven't campaigned against smoking, but I have been much happier since the indoor smoking ban where I am.

But for me, it's not about anger when someone else is enjoying something. (Where do you get those ideas, anyway, rahmota? Is that sort of killjoying common where you are? Killjoying like that has to be a crazy and horrible way to live.)

Ahem. It's not about anger when someone else is enjoying something. It's me getting angry about needless pain and suffering that I get because someone else is being inconsiderate.

Like I said in an earlier post, I'm fine with considerate smokers. I'll take the extra time to travel around them so I don't get their secondhand smoke, I'll avoid places that I know they'll be. And in the past, that was every club, bar, and restaurant in the entire damn city.

And yes, even now, inconsiderate smokers will light up right in front of me. And then get upset when I flee or put my mask on (or both). ARGH!

[Amethyst Hunter]

Somehow hearing your reasoning so far, I would doubt your last statement. I believe you would be cheering.

It just incenses me to see people want to censure other people based on what THEY believe is "best for them". And don't say that you don't feel that way "I'm not going to lie and say that I feel bad about Evil Smoking Bans that apply to particular public places - because I just don't."

In all that nonsensical ranting, where'd you get the idea that you seem to think you know me well enough to make such (erroneous) assumptions about me?

I don't have any problem with smoking bans that apply to PUBLIC places (excluding bars, which I don't go to anyway), and I fail to see why I (or anyone else) should. I would agree that *if* a ban was extended to PERSONAL HOMES, it would be stepping over the line.

Personally, I think smoking is a fucking disgusting habit. But if someone else wants to poison themselves, that's their problem, much like it's only my problem if I eat something that makes me sick despite knowing better. Smoking becomes a problem for me when I *have* (as in, mandatory) to go to particular public places and despite my efforts not to, wind up inhaling or even marinating in other people's death-fumes. (And like Seshat said, when even the *staff* of a smoke-populated building are saying that they're happier without it, that's pretty bad)

[Colchek]

Tobacco and Marijuana in their natural organic forms do have a stiulative effect on the body and in high enough dosages do cause other effects. however the addictive properties depend greatly upon the user's physical structure and condition. The average cigarette yields only about 1mg of nicotine so lets drop the act that you're smokign pure nicotine or that nicotine is the most abundent substance in a cigarette.

The amount doesn't matter. Yes, like anything, it takes time to get addicted, but the fact remains, once addicted, daily smoking becomes a need, not a choice. So therefore yes, I do place it in the same category. What other purpose is there for smoking a cigarette?

And by the broad definitions used in your posting so is caffeine and a whole lot of other stuff that people routinely ingest on a daily basis. Should we get rid of anythign and everythign that is harmful to a person? Well that would leave plain distilled water and organic wheat bread. Forget that noise. I'd rather die happy doing what I enjoy, eating what I enjoy or if I do take it up smoking what I enjoy. not doing or eating or not smoking what someone else tells me to. Its my body I can do what I want with it.

I don't feel the effects in my body if you drink a cup of coffee. I don't feel the effects in my body if you have a drink. I /do/ feel the effects if you smoke. That's the key difference that has been pointed out many times. You don't have the right to do to /my/ body what you see fit.

[ebonyknight]

Which is the point I was trying to make. The body isn't going to absorb 100 percent of the smoke, the same as it doesn't absorb 100 percent of the oxygen in the air you breathe in each time. The dangers of the chemicals and other compounds in that smoke when it comes out are not reduced by having been in the lungs.

For perusal: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/SecondhandSmoke.htm

Straight from the CDC.

Well I see that some people have gotten my point (not you two though). Like I said before the body is going to absorb some of that stuff. You two are so stuck on your high horses you keep transposing whether it's harmful or not with your contentions that NONE of it is absorbed.

Again, inhaled smoke IS NOT the same as exhaled smoke, but you are too stuck on being in the moral right, that you ignore basic science.

Now where did I say that your body is going to absorb it all? I can sure point out where you guys say its the exact same going in as out...which ain't possible.

[ebonyknight]

But heres my solution drop any asinine morality based or alleged health based law and if you dont like being around smokers either go somewhere else, suck it up and deal with it, or get a mask. Just dont get up on your GD high horse and proclaim yourself to be the moral high ground defender and yell and berate those who want to smoke or be around smokers. Adults have the right to choose to do what they want to themselves (or at least they should and would if the moralist whiny wackos would STFU) and if that means doing something you personally dont like tough.

I swear I'm half tempted to take up smoking just to protest this BS. I know I'm never going to help enforce one of these stupid laws.

*Standing ovation*

It seems the meaning of freedom in this country is not as lost as I thought it was.

[Colchek]

Now where did I say that your body is going to absorb it all? I can sure point out where you guys say its the exact same going in as out...which ain't possible.

Dangerous chemicals go in, dangerous chemicals come out. The amount matters little, it's still dangerous. We're not saying the /amount/ is the same. The effect is the same.

[ebonyknight]

In all that nonsensical ranting, where'd you get the idea that you seem to think you know me well enough to make such (erroneous) assumptions about me?

I don't have any problem with smoking bans that apply to PUBLIC places (excluding bars, which I don't go to anyway), and I fail to see why I (or anyone else) should. I would agree that *if* a ban was extended to PERSONAL HOMES, it would be stepping over the line.

It's too bad that you feel that it's non-sensical for Americans to just hand over their freedoms, but Cest la Vie.

But you are right, I made some bad assumptions and I am always big enough to admit when I am wrong. I apologize.


Again, should I now go into Five Guys Restaurant (sorry, not Good Guys) and demand that they remove the peanuts for the exact same reason you say that smoking should be stopped?

Tell, me where do we stop? Afterall, as you have said, you've crossed the line when what you do affects others.

Still no takers?

[Greenday]

*Standing ovation*

It seems the meaning of freedom in this country is not as lost as I thought it was.

Oh, noez, we are losing our freedom to smoke wherever the hell we want, even if we are hurting other people. How terrible. Stop trying to make this into a "but the government is trying to take away all our freedoms!" No they aren't. Anti-smoking bans are about assuring every non-smoker the freedom to breathe air, something they HAVE to do to survive, and make sure it doesn't kill us. They aren't taking away freedom of speech. They aren't taking away freedom of religion or of the press. They are taking away your so called "freedom" to pollute the air in specific places just so anyone can enjoy these places.

Still no takers?

Well, I already covered that, but you've pretty much failed to acknowledge my few previous posts. I talked about how you demanding peanuts be removed from a restaurant isn't the same because the only way that will affect you is if you actually order something with peanuts. Smoking isn't even close to the same.

[powerboy]

Growing up in California, I have no problem with the ban. I only smoke, when I am around a few of my smoker friends. With us, when we do smoke, we go out side and a good distance away from the building. Otherwise, we don't smoke.

[ebonyknight]

Oh, noez, we are losing our freedom to smoke wherever the hell we want, even if we are hurting other people. How terrible. Stop trying to make this into a "but the government is trying to take away all our freedoms!" No they aren't. Anti-smoking bans are about assuring every non-smoker the freedom to breathe air, something they HAVE to do to survive, and make sure it doesn't kill us. They aren't taking away freedom of speech. They aren't taking away freedom of religion or of the press. They are taking away your so called "freedom" to pollute the air in specific places just so anyone can enjoy these places.

Can't see the forest for the trees......

Well, I already covered that, but you've pretty much failed to acknowledge my few previous posts. I talked about how you demanding peanuts be removed from a restaurant isn't the same because the only way that will affect you is if you actually order something with peanuts. Smoking isn't even close to the same.

I failed to acknowledge it, because in trying to be right, you didn't read what I posted (seems to be a recurring theme here).

According to the sentiment here, I have the right to go into Good Guys Restaurant (or any other establishment that servers shelled peanuts) and tell them that if people want to eat them, go outside where the shell dust and peanut skin dust can't waft into my eyes or take it home on my clothes.*

I shall try again.

Since you guys equate "studies" to gospel, heres a sermon....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6439891

*Aflatoxin in respirable airborne peanut dust.

Laboratory shelling and pilot handling operations were conducted to determine if peanut dust generated by such operations contained significant amounts of aflatoxin. Air samples were collected from points of highest dust concentration. No aflatoxin B1 was detected in dust from uncontaminated lots. Aflatoxin B1 levels of 700 ppb and 7.6 ng/m3 were detected from highly contaminated lots.*

http://www.wl.k12.in.us/hh/documents/peanutFAQ.pdf

*Can ingestion of small fragments of peanuts/nuts be enough to cause life-threatening anaphylaxis?
Absolutely, yes. Even small amounts of peanut dust or peanut molecules could be life-threatening.*

When people are standing in line, cracking open their peanuts and spreading that dust in the air, how is it different? When the bars put out shelled peanuts for the patrons, should I tell them they are imposing harm on me?

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Unless there is really no other choice of job, bartenders are going to be around smoke. If they don't like it, they should find a job at a non smoking bar or get a different job. I certainly would not stay at my factory if there were no ventilation or clean air. Cops have to go to work every day knowing they might get shot....it's the risk they take. If they don't like it, they need to get another job.

Not trying to be insensitive, but I'm just saying, if there are other job options, why subject yourself to cigarette smoke if you don't have to?


.

The exact same argument has been made ad nauseum, ad infintum by people trying to justify why they think it's okay not to tip. "If they dont like it, they should find a job at a place where they dont' have to rely on tips." Do you agree with this logic when it applies to this situation?

As for not wanting to have to walk 20 feet away to smoke, that's your choice to put yourself in that position. I just got over the worse case of brochitis I've ever had. I'm not sure I didn't have walking pneumonia. At the slightest provocation, I would go into a 20 minute coughing fit that would leave me weak and retching and lightheaded. And because there are 5 to 15 smokers congregating around the door to my office at any given time, guess where I had to go to even enter my building? I guess I don't have to tell you how that affected me. I sent a note to building maintenence complaining about it and they made the smokers move back to where they were supposed to be. I should not have to run a gauntlet to get to work.

And even if it DIDNT have any affect on me, I choose not the inhale tobacco smoke. I have a right to make that choice and have it respected. Should I be expected to get another job because I dont' want to have to navigate a smoking crowd just to enter my office?

Tell, me where do we stop? Afterall, as you have said, you've crossed the line when what you do affects others.



Okay, I'll bite. This is exactly my point. ;)

[Greenday]

7.6 ng/m^3? 7.6*10^-9 g/m^3. Heck, I haven't even dealt with something so ridiculously small in analytical lab. That's not a small amount. That's a microscopic amount. Let's compare that to smoking. I'm going to go ahead and say second-hand smoke is much denser than that microscopic amount of dust in the air from concentrated peanuts.

As far as purposely ignoring my comments on your restaurant/peanut situation, you are trying to compare two things that are completely different. One you have to do to yourself to be affected. The other you can't do a thing about. No matter how you try to look at it, it comes down to that and that's what these laws are about. We don't give a crap about what you do to yourself as long as it doesn't hurt other people. That's why we don't have prohibition with alcohol. Drinking in itself only hurts you. Laws are there to prevent you from doing things while drunk that hurt other people, like driving under the influence.

[Colchek]

Peanut alleriges. Yes, they can be lethal. How about bee allergies? Should we begin a worldwide campaign to destroy all honeybees, wasps, hornets, or any other stinging insect? Of course not. Why? Because they serve a purpose in nature. Without honeybees, we wouldn't have much of the food we eat. Even wasps and hornets serve a purpose, by consuming carrion. They're nature's clean up crew.

Peanuts also serve a purpose. They contain protein our body needs, and can benefit from. However, the natural oil they contain can be something some people are sensitive to. Unfortunate, but no different than people sensitive to bee stings. Peanuts can't be changed, and will always contain that oil. Bees will sting to defend themselves. That can't be changed.

Cigarettes, and other smoked tobacco products, don't serve any natural purpose other than to provide a source of nicotine. Even then, it can't be consumed in its natural state. It has to be dried out, processed, and put into a form that people can consume. Peanuts do not have to be, although there are some processes to make it easier to eat them, like shelling. Even smokers when they start smoking experience the body's natural reaction to a foreign substance like smoke: /cough it out/. The image of someone taking a drag and coughing up a storm isn't just the fodder of sitcoms, that's real. Smokers force themselves to get used to it over time, until the body just accepts it. At the same time, they are becoming dependent on nicotine. It /is/ that addictive.

I can not accept your analogy between the two. People do not want to be forced to inhale your smoke. Peanuts are an unfortunate sensitivity for some people, but it's something they were born with. You weren't born smoking. That was a choice on your part to start. A choice that no one is stopping you from making, but those who do not want to be exposed to your smoke had no choice until the bans. Non-smoking sections do not work, the effects on health of the smoke are known, many smokers (Unlike those like Powerboy, my hat is off to you) refuse to respect the wishes of people not wanting to smoke. Action had to be taken, and in many cases, it was.

[blas87]

I am not a rude smoker at all. If someone at the bar is throwing a hissy fit and making dramatic coughing noises and waving their fists at the smoke, I get up and leave. That's right, I get up and go somewhere else, like the other side of the bar, where my smoke won't bother anyone. Funny thing is, most of the time, when I'm smoking outside or in my own area, non smokers are the ones being all dramatic and throwing a fit.

Not all smokers are the evil monsters you are making us out to be. I don't walk up to random people and puff puff in their face, nor do I blow it indoors when smoking outside of a building. And I ahdere to the rules, I THANK YOU VERY MUCH. We cannot smoke right outside the doors at work. So I DON'T.

Good God, someone needs to get off their high horse already. Not every smoker is standing outside of a building, ready to just blow it right in your face and laugh as you cough. It may have been a little wrong to claim "The government is taking away our freedom!" but to puntificate that these smoking bans punishing smokers was the only way to go to force them to "Respect" non smokers is just BULLSHIT.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Well, there are plenty of super-considerate smokers out there, no argument here. And I believe you when you say you are one of them. However, if everyone was like you, then there would be no need for these anti-smoking laws. These laws are not being put into place because of people like you. They're being put into place because a huge number of people are inconsiderate and thoughtless.

[rahmota]

Now what do I do about smokers who get offended when I put my mask on? Tell them to STFU and get over it or ignore them or otherwise go on about your life and let them go on about theirs. they'll either get over it and deal with it or not. Aint your problem its theirs.

Also, only a really expensive, awkward and uncomfortable mask with really expensive replacement filters eliminates all the smoke. Why should I have to pay more than the smokers, just because they want to smoke? Doesn't that mean they're infringing on my individual rights?

Actually that sounds more like the mask manufacturers infringing by making their prices excessively high. Maybe getting price controls on masks would be better.

Where do you get those ideas, anyway, rahmota? Is that sort of killjoying common where you are? Killjoying like that has to be a crazy and horrible way to live.)
Sad to say it is not uncommon around midwest america. And becoming more common as the years go by around all of america. I've encountered it quite a bit back when i had a boom car, back when I ran the bars especially. The moralists who think they have the right way to live and the only way to live do think that way.

What other purpose is there for smoking a cigarette (or tobacco in general)?

1: Relaxation
2: Pleasure and enjoyment of the aroma/sensations. I enjoy the smell of a nice cherry cavendish blend pipe. Which is probably what I would take up if I did start smoking.
3: For some people its about the image just like anything else.
4: traditional values.
5: religious belief (some neo-pagens and native americans)

You don't have the right to do to /my/ body what you see fit.
Nor do you have the right to tell me how to live my life. So take your body away from my body as I am responsible for the health and safety of MY body and not your body....

Cigarettes, and other smoked tobacco products, don't serve any natural purpose other than to provide a source of nicotine. Even then, it can't be consumed in its natural state.
BS. Tobacco can be field stripped and chewed straight out of the field. It can be brewed into a tea straight out of the field. It cannot be smoked straight out of the field as it is rather difficult to burn a green leaf. Drying and curing tobacco enhances the flavor and aroma of the leaves and makes it easier for them to burn but tobacco can be used straight out of the field for a variety of things.

I take it you've never been aroud tobacco farming or production have you?

At the same time, they are becoming dependent on nicotine. It /is/ that addictive.
For some people it may be that addictive and for others it is no more addictive than a glass of water. I mean people say marijuana is so highly addictive and it has been 3 years since my last hit and I dont even care or notice anythign different. I have been aroud tobacco smokers all my life and have never felt any addictive urgings to start smoking just from the second hand smoke. Anyway about it just because somethign is addictive to some people does not mean that it should be banned , prohibited or taken away from people. Should chocolate be banned as I know several people who are addicted to it, what about american idol (well that should be banned for other reasons but anyhow) or a variety of other substances that activate the pleasure centers of the brain and release endorphins which cause addiction not to the substance but to the high they get from ingesting, encoutering the substance.

A choice that no one is stopping you from making
Except for those moralists who want to see people stop smoking and enact bans and prohibitions against smoking.

[Colchek]

Nor do you have the right to tell me how to live my life. So take your body away from my body as I am responsible for the health and safety of MY body and not your body....

As far as I'm concerned, when your activities directly threaten my health, then I do. Are you saying it's ok to drink and drive?

BS. Tobacco can be field stripped and chewed straight out of the field. It can be brewed into a tea straight out of the field. It cannot be smoked straight out of the field as it is rather difficult to burn a green leaf. Drying and curing tobacco enhances the flavor and aroma of the leaves and makes it easier for them to burn but tobacco can be used straight out of the field for a variety of things.

I take it you've never been aroud tobacco farming or production have you?

No, I have not. However, tobacco tea isn't what we're discussing. It's smoking.

Except for those moralists who want to see people stop smoking and enact bans and prohibitions against smoking.

Only because people are inconsiderate of the well being of others when they smoke near them. With exceptions, as blas and Powerboy have noted. However, a large majority don't adhere to common respect. Smoking is unique to any other personal activity because again the act affects people around you. It's not morality, it's basic courtesy. Don't even get me started on where cigarette butts end up.

Going for the argument of dramatic people, on either side, you've got that on any topic out there. It's not limited to smoking.

[rahmota]

As far as I'm concerned, when your activities directly threaten my health, then I do.
Then take the action of removeing your whiny butt out of the smoking area and STFU! Leave other people alone to their actions.

Are you saying it's ok to drink and drive?
generally no its not okay. but then again you CANNOT intelligently or reasonably compare drinking and driving to smoking as you will know where someone is smoking and can move away fom them. If someone is drinking and driving the odds of you knowing it before they become a threat is quite a bit reduced and you cannot remove yourself from the situation as easily as you can remove yourself from around a smoker.

No, I have not. However, tobacco tea isn't what we're discussing. It's smoking. Yeah thats what I thought given your adherence to the anti-smoking propaganda pieces and general ignorance of tobacco in general. I've grown up in appalachia. Go to the Ripley Tobacco festival each year. Know people whose entire lively hood depends on tobacco.
And you are the one who said that tobacco wasnt able to be used in its natural state. That tobacco didnt have any other uses than being smoked. Just responding to your statement.

Only because people are inconsiderate of the well being of others when they smoke near them. you are never going to get everybody to be considerate to everybody else all the time. So wah wah wah somebody upset you. Somebody was inconsiderate to you. suck it up and grow up. Dont like them, dont want to inhale their smoke. Then move your whiny little butt away from them. They are adults and have every right to smoke if they wish to. You have every right to be an inconsiderate jerk and try and stop them but not by going to the government and getting them to force your moralist or whatever viewpoint on them interfereing in their life.

and yeah I didlike peopel who just throw their butts anywhere but then I also hate folks who litter in general.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

This isn't my quote, but I wish it was: having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool.

I assure you that people complaining about being inundated with smoke in a public place are not hanging out the smoking section. We all know, smokers and non-smokers alike, that smoking in a room fills that room with smoke. It drifts and spreads. We all know that a "smoking section" is a farce. It serves no real purpose. Either a place is non-smoking or it isn't. You can't separate air. Let's not pretend that we think we can.

And yes, I realize that there are asshole non-smokers who deliberately approach smokers and make a fuss. We aren't talking about them. We're talking about the average smoker and the average non-smoker. The non-assholes just trying to reach a compromise.

I get tired of being told "well, if you dont' like it, stay home." Well, why is that advice good for me and not for anyone else? Why can't the smoker stay home? I think the double standard that gets applied to this argument every time it comes up irritates me worse than the smoke does.

[Colchek]

Then take the action of removeing your whiny butt out of the smoking area and STFU! Leave other people alone to their actions.

I am in a restaurant, and you decide you want to throw a punch at me. By your thinking, I must remove myself from the restaurant to avoid your punch? I do not have the right to tell you not to hit me? I see no difference in someone lighting up next to me and exposing me to the smoke. Like I've pointed out before, the 'barriers' between smoking sections are typically non-existent, and often you'll have a smoking table right next to a non-smoking table, with nothing but a planter between them. Keep in mind you're telling 'whiny people' to avoid /public/ places, which includes businesses that serve the public.

I've grown up in appalachia.

So did I.

you are never going to get everybody to be considerate to everybody else all the time. So wah wah wah somebody upset you. Somebody was inconsiderate to you. suck it up and grow up. Dont like them, dont want to inhale their smoke. Then move your whiny little butt away from them. They are adults and have every right to smoke if they wish to. You have every right to be an inconsiderate jerk and try and stop them but not by going to the government and getting them to force your moralist or whatever viewpoint on them interfereing in their life.

I will not accept your framing of the situation as a moral decision. It is a courtesy issue. Again, you are telling 'whiny people' to avoid public places.

[DesignFox]

Blas- in response to your "work someplace else"...what if there isn't any place else?

What if someone is a good bartender and that's what they make good money doing? They should just drop it, then?

I applaud you and PowerBoy for being courteous smokers. I wish there were more people like you.

I wish that we didn't need a ban. I wish that all restaurants had ventilated areas for us non-smokers to go so that we didn't have to go home smelling like an ashtray. I wish there were choices of smoking and non-smoking places.

Sad fact is, there never were until now.

And I can finally go out and enjoy a meal. I don't have to hide at home...or sit down...think "Oh good...no smokers.." only to have someone light up at the table next to me. :mad:

By Rahmota's logic, since I was sitting there, NOT smoking, FIRST, the smokers should have to take it elsewhere. OR maybe they could just be courteous and ASK BEFORE LIGHTING UP.

I have friends who smoke. They do not blow smoke in my face. They go OUTSIDE to smoke when I am around. They do not smoke in my car. They ASK ME IF IT'S OK before smoking around me. They know that smoke has adverse effects on me.

I do not go in their homes and tell them to stop smoking! We just compromise.

Smoke all you want. I don't care as long as I don't have to suffer for it.

Smoke in your house. Go outside and light up. Go confine yourself to a bubble and smoke yourself to oblivion! It's your choice. But don't come sit next to me while I'm eating and think I'll be ok with it. I'm not.

I agree with the pissing in the pool statement. Piss in your own pool. Don't mess up my waters because you don't want to walk to the bathroom.

[ebonyknight]

Here we go again....

*As far as I'm concerned, when your activities directly threaten my health, then I do. Are you saying it's ok to drink and drive?*

Is it okay to threaten someones health by eating peanuts and spreading peanut dust in the air at certain restaurants? According to you guys (I am sure the reason will change again), now it's that peanuts are useful and you can gain nourishment.

Again...that's a benefit YOU can enjoy at others expense. All of you so far keep saying that when your actions threaten another, you've crossed the line. I think peanut dust to an allergic person certainly qualifies. Smokers enjoy a mental benefit that can irritate non-smokers. Peanut eaters enjoy a physical benefit that can kill people with peanut allergies.

Your justification is that peanuts provide nourishment. Sorry there are plenty of people that don't get that benefit. So that benefit means nothing to them. It will kill them quicker than smoking will.

You can't have it both ways. Either you've crossed the line when you threaten another's health or you don't.

You can get plenty of protein from other sources. Peanuts are not the sole source. And we aren't talking about banning them. Just keeping them out of public places where other people's health can be threatened. No one's stopping you from contaminating the air in your own home. :D

Same argument, it just doesn't appeal to you because it doesn't affect you. You can't use keep using the argument that when it affects another, you've crossed the line, then put caveats on it. It's as unfair to the allergic person as non-smokers have been claiming all along.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Well, actually, I am in favor of peanut-free zones.

I'm not allergic, and I don't know anyone who is. However, I do realize that it is a DEADLY allergy.

For instance: in my kid's nursery, they have little parties sometimes. Some bonehead wanted to bring PBJ sandwitches. Why would anyone think that's a good idea in a freaking nursery? It's a TERRIBLE idea. Why? Because it's just not worth it to put kids at risk and then leave it up to the already overworked caregivers to remember which kids have permission to eat it and which don't. The stakes are too high. Let's not do the peanut butter.

And it doesn't take much, either. A contaminated butter knife cutting a sandwitch is all it takes to kill an extremely allergic kid, so, again, it's not worth it. Eat your PBJ at home, don't bring it here.

My argument stands.

[Colchek]

Peanut allergies are a medical condition. Smoking is a smoker's personal choice. You're comparing apples to oranges.

A person eating peanuts isn't going to know people nearby are allergic to them until that person mentions it. For those who know that they can have, or have had, an anaphylactic response to them, they typically wear bracelets to alert people to their condition. That's why restaurants that serve peanuts have notices to inform them that going into that restaurant may pose a risk to them. If they risk it, that's their choice. As for certain restaurants serving peanuts, they're food. That's what they do.

Smoking, on the other hand, has documentation galore about its health effects. Everyone, in some way, is affected by it. Therefore a smoker lighting up in a public place is making a conscious decision knowing that anyone near them is going to be affected by what they are doing. If the majority that do not care would respect that it affects everyone, there wouldn't be a need for the laws.

I still stand by my argument that the situations are completely different.

[Greenday]

The dust off peanuts, based on the article posted about them, from concentrated peanuts is such a ridiculously minuscule amount that it's VERY doubtful that people can be harmed just by being near them. Touching peanuts, yea, but not breathing in air somewhere nearby where someone is eating a few. Smoking carries a lot more in a bigger volume.

[DesignFox]

The dust off peanuts, based on the article posted about them, from concentrated peanuts is such a ridiculously minuscule amount that it's VERY doubtful that people can be harmed just by being near them. Touching peanuts, yea, but not breathing in air somewhere nearby where someone is eating a few. <snip>

Actually, Greenday, people CAN die by inhaling peanut dust.

I used to work at a summer camp. There was one week, during one summer, where all the counselors were alerted to the presence of one such child in camp. We didn't know which child...we weren't to single her out.

We did have to ask all the parents not to pack peanut products for their children, and the child's direct counselor was informed and had to discreetly check that all the kids had no peanuts around this girl.

That is why restaurants that keep out fresh peanuts post warnings on their doors.

To me, that's how it should be. Not all restaurants leave fresh peanuts out on their tables or in boxes , but those that do should sufficiently warn people who may suffer from allergies. (In all of my dining experiences in our great state, I've only been to ONE such restaurant- so I don't think peanut people have much to worry about.)

Anyway- before the ban, very nearly every restaurant allowed smoking (or didn't enforce their no-smoking signs). Non-smokers weren't given much of a choice.

And at least in our state, I'm pretty sure it's the people that demanded the ban...not big brother just swooping in and taking over. There were MANY petitions asking for local government to put this law into effect.

[rahmota]

I am in a restaurant, and you decide you want to throw a punch at me. By your thinking, I must remove myself from the restaurant to avoid your punch?
Why the frak would I throw a punch at you if you dont do anythign to deserve it? Like getting up in my face about somethign I'm doing. I mean if I was a smoker and I lit up in a public space and you came over and got all high and mighty in my face about my smoking then you may have earned a punch in the face but otherwise you stay on your side and I stay on mine and there be no punches flying or anything bad a-happening.

I see no difference in someone lighting up next to me and exposing me to the smoke. Wow you might wanna change your point of view there pardner. It must be difficult to breathe with where your head is right now. To compare smoking with punching someone in the face is not only bad logic but comparing apples to oranges. One is physical violence which should only be used when appropriate and the other is a personal behavior/right to act that some people get bent about and shouldnt.

So did I.
Really? Wow I couldnt tell. I guess it does go to show that nature vs nurture thing dont always work out right.

I will not accept your framing of the situation as a moral decision. It is a courtesy issue. Again, you are telling 'whiny people' to avoid public places.
You cannot and should not even begin to attempt to legislate either morals or consideration. that is thought police. In a free country thought police should be regarded as evil outright and anyone who supports thought police should be hung by the neck until dead. What i am telling you and other whiny people is STFU and get out of peoples lives and trying to tell people how to live their life. you do not have that right and do not have that priviledge unless someone grants it to you. I have never said avoid public places. I have said if you have such a big issue and problem with being around smokers no one is forcing you to go where there are smokers and thereare and always have been plenty of options available pre-ban. No one is holdign a gun to your head and tellign you you have to go be around smokers. you however are holdign a gun to smokers head (figuratively hopefully) and telling them they dont have the right to make a choice as an adult about the way they behave.

[Greenday]

The only options to avoid smoking pre-bans was to not go out for dinner, not go to bars, not go bowling, etc. etc. There was no escape. I've never even heard of a place that banned smoking pre-bans. If you wanted to go out into public, you were SOL.

It's been mentioned before. If all smokers were like the ones who post here are, there wouldn't be any problems. But there are a lot of smokers who are jerks, don't give a crap about blowing smoke in anyone and everyone's faces, smoke in non-smoking areas, etc. Non-smokers were sick of it and now the poor, considerate smokers are paying for it.

[blas87]

Just to be clear, smoke free restaurants do not and have not bothered me. All restaurants here are smoke free (save for the one I worked at, but that's a different city). I can go an hour without a cigarette or I can go outside. Restaurants I have NO problem being smoke free.

[Greenday]

And bars...?

[blas87]

Bars are a different story. I was actually misinformed, the smoking ban will still go into effect on July 1 here, but it's just for my city, not the county or state. But that's fine, more people can just get more DUIs for going to other cities and travelling longer distances to be able to smoke at bars out in the middle of nowhere. I know for a fact my friends, boyfriend and I will be willing to use the extra gas to travel 10-20 miles to find a bar where we can smoke. No, I am not encouraging drunk driving, I'm just making a point here. People will go where they can smoke, regardless of the consequences. I never drive nor take my car anywhere we go when I drink, so I won't be getting any. I guess the county and state cops will have to double up night shifts and search the boonies now...because only the little piss ant "redneck" towns are the only ones left where you still can smoke at the bar.

As of this moment, there are 2 non smoking bars on the "bar street" by the university. Sure, that's like 10 smoking bars to 2 non smoking, but I like the option. Non smokers have their own bars. Of course, there will be more live music at the smoking bars, because a lot of the local musicians smoke and won't go to bars where they can't. But it's a win/win situation. And that's the way I think it should be. If an owner of a bar wants it non smoking, fine. If an owner wants it smoking, fine. As long as there are options for both.

If it were like the Twin Cities where I could step outside of the bar and smoke, I'd be okay with that too. But the smoking ban is going to prohibit smoking 20 feet from public places. So I'd have to pretty much walk into the middle of the road to smoke a cigarette. That's not fair.

[Greenday]

If it were like the Twin Cities where I could step outside of the bar and smoke, I'd be okay with that too. But the smoking ban is going to prohibit smoking 20 feet from public places. So I'd have to pretty much walk into the middle of the road to smoke a cigarette. That's not fair.

New Jersey has a limit on how far away from a building you have to be when you smoke. I have never seen that part of the law enforced. As long as you don't smoke inside, no one gives a crap.

I still don't see why it's such a big deal to step outside for a moment to have your smoke so everyone can actually enjoy a bar.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Well, Rahmota, I live in the south where big tobacco is king and I'd love for you to share with me these "plenty of places for non-smokers to go". Supposedly, all these places existed before the ban, so I imagine they still do. I've apparently lived my entire life in ignorance of them. Please, do share what you know. Because right now, a place for me to see a show, eat supper, have a drink with friends, play music, or dance without coming home having to wash my hair and take benedryl is in extremely short order.

Seriously. I would LOVE to know where I could go to do some of these things and still be able to breathe.

And don't tell me "places with non-smoking sections." I think we've already established here that that is not a viable solution.

I really do think that the one of the problems that smokers have with taking the grievances of non-smokers seriously is that they DON'T take them seriously. On some level, they just do not believe that it genuinely bothers many people. They think those people are whiners, that they are babies, or drama queens. Deep down, they really do not believe that it's a genuine problem. I mean, it doesn't bother them; clearly, they enjoy it. So the people with a real problem being exposed to even light smoke must be faking it for attention.

Not trying to be provocative, here, but I'm just putting a name on the attitude towards non-smokers that I have encountered time and time again. Say I have severe bronchitis. I have a coughing fit triggered by anything; temperature change, pollen, or yes, smoke. If I DARE cough around a smoker, then suddenly I am the asshole. Because the attitude is that I'm faking it.

[blas87]

Let me re-iterate that I would actually have NO PROBLEM going outside for a smoke at the bar. (as long as someone watched my drink). But I am bothered by the 20 feet rule.....I suppose if I see others doing it, I'll do it.

Another point I'd just like to add.....these smoking bans are not going to force people to quit smoking. Lots of people are going to violate the rules and like I said, more DUIs are going to be issued and more police will be needed to go to small areas to find all the people drinking and driving.

[Greenday]

Another point I'd just like to add.....these smoking bans are not going to force people to quit smoking. Lots of people are going to violate the rules and like I said, more DUIs are going to be issued and more police will be needed to go to small areas to find all the people drinking and driving.

Um, good? People shouldn't be driving drunk and should get punished for doing it. Makes it easier for the cops to fill their quotas.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Let's be perfectly clear here: if a guy is stupid enough to get picked up for DUI, then it's no one's fault but his own. It's not the bar's fault, it's not the cop's fault, and it certainly is not the fault of the people putting a smoking ban in place. It's the fault of the knob who was stupid and irresponsible enough to drive drunk. It has 0 to do with the smoking ban.

What, would he be less drunk in his car if he didn't have so far to drive? Is a short distance okay to drive drunk but not a long one? This makes no sense.

[Colchek]

Why the frak would I throw a punch at you if you dont do anythign to deserve it? Like getting up in my face about somethign I'm doing. I mean if I was a smoker and I lit up in a public space and you came over and got all high and mighty in my face about my smoking then you may have earned a punch in the face but otherwise you stay on your side and I stay on mine and there be no punches flying or anything bad a-happening.

What did I do to deserve you lighting up while I'm eating and expose me to your poison?

Wow you might wanna change your point of view there pardner. It must be difficult to breathe with where your head is right now. To compare smoking with punching someone in the face is not only bad logic but comparing apples to oranges. One is physical violence which should only be used when appropriate and the other is a personal behavior/right to act that some people get bent about and shouldnt.

Same difference. Both are a physical act. Sending that smoke towards me is no different than throwing a punch, both will harm me, but it has the added effect of harming everyone else around.

I have never said avoid public places. I have said if you have such a big issue and problem with being around smokers no one is forcing you to go where there are smokers and thereare and always have been plenty of options available pre-ban. No one is holdign a gun to your head and tellign you you have to go be around smokers. you however are holdign a gun to smokers head (figuratively hopefully) and telling them they dont have the right to make a choice as an adult about the way they behave.

There were no places to go before these bans. I'd like to join RecoveringKinkoid in requesting examples. Point out a restaurant that banned smoking. My workplace had people smoking all over the floor, now I can do my job without worrying about the health effects. They still have places to go outside, where I know they are, and can avoid that area. The reason for the 20 foot rule is so that smoke doesn't enter the building, which it will if you're standing right by the door. People are free to smoke before they enter public places, smoke at home, and smoke in their car. Smoking itself isn't being stopped. The threat to public health is.

[anriana]

I live in a state with one of the highest smoking rates in the country. People here smoked EVERYWHERE before the ban. Every restaurant, every bar, every doorway was full of smokers pumping out smoke. I am extremely sensitive to smoke and had to deal with watery eyes and several minutes of coughing everytime I wanted to go anywhere, just from walking through the door. And heaven forbid I went out to eat with a relative - I was too young to have any say over where we went and we would always end up somewhere full of smoke where I would end up sick. I am incredibly thankful for the ban. I was able to get a job I needed at a restaurant, I'm able to actually enjoy going out to eat with my family/friends, and many businesses outside of the culinary region have implemented stricter rules too. My work has less cigarette butts littering our yard and no one is allowed to smoke in front of our doors - they have a nice gazebo in the parking lot and the buildings have cameras. I would never want to live in a city that didn't have this law.

[ebonyknight]

Peanut allergies are a medical condition. Smoking is a smoker's personal choice. You're comparing apples to oranges.

A person eating peanuts isn't going to know people nearby are allergic to them until that person mentions it. For those who know that they can have, or have had, an anaphylactic response to them, they typically wear bracelets to alert people to their condition. That's why restaurants that serve peanuts have notices to inform them that going into that restaurant may pose a risk to them. If they risk it, that's their choice. As for certain restaurants serving peanuts, they're food. That's what they do.

Smoking, on the other hand, has documentation galore about its health effects. Everyone, in some way, is affected by it. Therefore a smoker lighting up in a public place is making a conscious decision knowing that anyone near them is going to be affected by what they are doing. If the majority that do not care would respect that it affects everyone, there wouldn't be a need for the laws.

I still stand by my argument that the situations are completely different.

All of that and still didn't answer my question.

Again, everyone has been chanting like a mantra that when what someone else does affects another, that's crossing the line. Either it is or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

*If they risk it, that's their choice. As for certain restaurants serving peanuts, they're food. That's what they do.*

Same for non-smokers. Until the law was changed, that's what bars did, serve drinks and allow a place for indoor smoking because you could no longer smoke indoors in designated places at work (IE usually the bathroom). You still haven't given a decent reason why the same shouldn't be done for this deadly allergy.

First it was you want us to get rid of them all? No, just like you guys say, keep it out of the public places....contaminate your own homes if you like.

Then it was a valuable source of nutrition. Not for those allergic to them. Not benefit for them, just for you at their expense (which is exactly what you claim smokers do.

Now you claim that they enter an establishment known for this environment at their own risk. DING, DING, DING!!! The shoe now seems to be on the other foot.

Every point you continue to come up with can apply to the reverse. Just as this guy with the deadly allergy can avoid this establishment by going to another, so can a non-smoker.

Let the business "owner" make the choice as to whether or not to allow it. If there is no revenue drop as everyone says, then I am sure that plenty will convert over of their own free will, instead of with a boot on their neck.

So let me guess, when what you do affects another, that's crossing the line.....with caveats....right? Who makes those caveats? The will of the people? Well, the will of the people who own and pay taxes on the establishments didn't want to do that. So who else?

These bans infringe upon other's rights just as you say the other is doing. But as long as it's in your favor it's okay. Let the person who owns the place make the decision, they are the ones who pay for it and work for it. I am sure that economics will balance it out. Customers can vote with their feet. But putting a ban in place is just as facist as you claim the smokers are about their smoking.

[ebonyknight]

The dust off peanuts, based on the article posted about them, from concentrated peanuts is such a ridiculously minuscule amount that it's VERY doubtful that people can be harmed just by being near them. Touching peanuts, yea, but not breathing in air somewhere nearby where someone is eating a few. Smoking carries a lot more in a bigger volume.

:D

We're finished. This is another reason why I wasn't bothering to respond to you.

http://www.wl.k12.in.us/hh/documents/peanutFAQ.pdf

*Can ingestion of small fragments of peanuts/nuts be enough to cause life-threatening anaphylaxis?
Absolutely, yes. Even small amounts of peanut dust or peanut molecules could be life-threatening.*

You tout the validity of studies in one hand (when they support you), then when one is presented that directly contradicts what you just said, you ignore it.

We aren't having a debate, we are having a pissing contest. While I don't agree with Colchek's stand, he does make some good points that I am willing to explore.

[Greenday]

Just because I refuse to say why it is ok for peanuts to be legal and smoking illegal doesn't make my arguments invalid. You cannot compare the two. They are two totally different things. Smoke will easily distribute across an entire room. Unless you are eating at one of those places where there are tons of peanuts around and you can just throw the shells on the ground, it's not going to affect you unless you actually order something with peanuts.

Please, point me to any study I posted that I'm basing my knowledge on.

It's a fact that smoking harms people, both who smoke and don't.

[Colchek]

Peanuts are not a poison. Tobacco smoke is.

Now before you start yelling, "They are to those with allergies!", yes, to them, they are just as bad as a poison. To them, and only to them. Approximately 1 percent of the US population has peanut allergies. They know they have them, and they have to live with that, until medical science finally finds a means to treat their condition so that they will not have to. Therefore, as a courtesy to them, restaurants that serve peanuts, since they are edible, post warnings to those who have those allergies to alert them to the dangers. In my area, there is only one restaurant that serves peanuts in the shell (which I believe is required to achieve the dust levels you refer to) on a regular basis, and that's Texas Roadhouse.

Tobacco smoke is a known poison. It contains numerous deadly chemicals, carcinogens, and other substances never intended to be put into the human body. It affects anyone who is exposed to it. A person chooses to accept the risks of smoking by taking those chemicals into their body, however, by smoking, they are introducing a source of harm to their immediate environment, and not only themselves. There is a reason why I have not mentioned chewing tobacco, snuff, or any other non-smoked form of tobacco, and that is because its consumption harms only the person using it, not anyone in the room with them. As a co-worker said, "Back when I used to dip snuff, I said, 'When I dip, it's suicide, not murder.'" A strong sentiment, perhaps, but it does make a point.

I do see the point you are trying to make, and I acknowledge it. Why can peanuts be served when it's known there are people allergic to them, but smokers can't smoke. Why are people allowed to smoke in public places when people know that it's harmful to everyone around? To avoid peanuts, a person simply must either not eat them, or choose a restaurant that doesn't offer peanuts in the shell. They do this because they do not have any choice otherwise, or they will die. Smokers have a choice when they start their habit, a dangerous habit. Why should they be allowed to impose a habit that they chose to start on everyone?

I am an asthmatic. I know that, and I accept that. Cigarette smoke is one of the most severe triggers of my asthma, and will set me off into an attack. I avoid smokers as much as possible, but if smokers are in every restaurant, every bowling alley, every grocery store, every amusement park, every mall, every department store, smoking away and putting smoke everywhere, how do I avoid it? A peanut allergy sufferer can avoid triggering his condition by avoiding peanuts. If smoking is allowed in all public places, I can't avoid it. More and more evidence is being offered every year, confirming more and more that tobacco smoke is poisonous and harmful to everyone's health.

I'll boil it down to the key point that is the basis for my argument. A person has no choice when it comes to allergies or other medical conditions. A person has a choice to take up smoking. That choice should not affect everyone trying to live their lives, be it asthmatics, bronchitis sufferers, emphysema patients, people with one lung, or people with two healthy lungs who want to keep them that way. Smokers are imposing their habit on others. Peanut allergy sufferers are not, they simply live with their condition and everyone makes sure to let them know what may be harmful to them. Therefore I do not believe the shoe is on the other foot, as you say.

[Boozy]

For some people it may be that addictive and for others it is no more addictive than a glass of water.

Not weighing in on either side here, but I feel that one thing should be made clear:

Nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man. It addicts almost 98% of all users within the first year. Compare this to heroin (second on the list) at 87%.

Nicotine withdrawal symptoms are worse than that of cocaine.

Carry on.

[ebonyknight]

I do see the point you are trying to make, and I acknowledge it. Why can peanuts be served when it's known there are people allergic to them, but smokers can't smoke. Why are people allowed to smoke in public places when people know that it's harmful to everyone around? To avoid peanuts, a person simply must either not eat them, or choose a restaurant that doesn't offer peanuts in the shell. They do this because they do not have any choice otherwise, or they will die. Smokers have a choice when they start their habit, a dangerous habit. Why should they be allowed to impose a habit that they chose to start on everyone?

Just as eating peanuts is a choice as well. There are alternatives, so why not ban them in public places as well???? People who have peanut allergies cannot eat a lot of processed foods because manufacturers do not process the food on separate equipment. They can't just go out and eat for the same reasons you claim. You can do the same to avoid those establishments. I'm sorry. Do you really expect me to believe that until these bans went into effect you had never been to a bar, restaurant, etc because they had smokers?

I ate something at this one particular chain restaurant. Never found out what it was that did it, but I got sick for two days. Did I demand they investigate and find out what they did wrong? Afterall, they "crossed the line". Nope, I just don't patronize that establishment anymore.

I am an asthmatic. I know that, and I accept that. Cigarette smoke is one of the most severe triggers of my asthma, and will set me off into an attack. I avoid smokers as much as possible, but if smokers are in every restaurant, every bowling alley, every grocery store, every amusement park, every mall, every department store, smoking away and putting smoke everywhere, how do I avoid it? A peanut allergy sufferer can avoid triggering his condition by avoiding peanuts. If smoking is allowed in all public places, I can't avoid it. More and more evidence is being offered every year, confirming more and more that tobacco smoke is poisonous and harmful to everyone's health.

Exaggerate much? Smokers are not in every restaurant. Quite a few already had non-ban imposed restrictions on smoking. Smoking in a grocery store? Amusement parks are outside (where I believe you said smokers could go). Never heard of a department store where you could smoke or a mall where you could.

Just as Mr peanut can avoid these places, you can as well. As I stated before I am an asthmatic as well. I have done my share of albuterol inhailers, prednisone and numerous other drugs over the years. You should try Singulair...it does wonders. ;) Even had to go through the annoyance of getting allergy shots every week for over 10 years.

I was in the same boat as you 10 years ago where it seemed like everyone smoked everywhere. Know what? The places that let people smoke indoors, I avoided and went to EVERY PLACE you listed. Was it fair? No, but just as you said, you realize you are an asthmatic, just as people with other allergies and illnesses cope.

I even remember vividly being burned by a smoker when I was 8 years old. I even still have the scar on my arm. I am walking with my mother and someone who was being careless with their cig was walking with it at their hip level (which was my arm level). I walked into her or vice versa and got burned. She then "crossed the line and affected me". So, now do we ban them outside as well?

I'll boil it down to the key point that is the basis for my argument. A person has no choice when it comes to allergies or other medical conditions. A person has a choice to take up smoking. That choice should not affect everyone trying to live their lives, be it asthmatics, bronchitis sufferers, emphysema patients, people with one lung, or people with two healthy lungs who want to keep them that way. Smokers are imposing their habit on others. Peanut allergy sufferers are not, they simply live with their condition and everyone makes sure to let them know what may be harmful to them. Therefore I do not believe the shoe is on the other foot, as you say.

What about the mantra of crossing the line when what you does affects me???? You can't have it both ways.

Now you have gone from the same line of reasoning that going from how oppressed you were under smokers to the other away around. Afterall, if you now imply that you can't smoke at amusement parks, grocery stores, department stores, etc, where you and I both know nobody smokes inside of anyway (amusement parks the exception, usually being outside) where do they get to smoke? Only at home? Now who is oppressing whom?

[Greenday]

Colchek did a great job in summarizing my beliefs on that matter.

I decided to talk to my analytical chemistry professor about the peanut allergy vs cigarette smoke and smoking in general. Even in the concentrated amounts stated earlier, it is such a small amount that it will not affect people not near it. Smoking contains an ungodly amount of chemicals that are harmful to the body and are released in a very high concentration (a high concentration being one that will affect people farther away). According to her research into the subject, the amount of chemicals inhaled by the smoker is much smaller than the amount blown out by the smoker. The filters only increase this difference.

Here's a nice, valid link from the Department of Health in the UK: http://nds.coi.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=268483&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=True

[Colchek]

I'm still maintaining the key difference in that tobacco smoke is a poison, and a drug. Peanuts aren't. There are millions of people with allergies of various types, to things in the environment that are sometimes unavoidable, like pollen and molds. Smoking /is/ avoidable, because it is a choice made by the people who do it. Peanuts and other foods have been consumed by humans for thousands of years, long before smoking was ever conceived of. Smoking was invented by man, and as it was discovered later, harms man. Peanuts are found in nature, and some people, because of malfunctions in their immune systems, are sensitive to one ingredient in that peanut, the same that some people are allergic to tomatoes, or wheat, or milk, etc, etc, etc. People with healthy immune systems, and even more so those without, are affected by smoking, a creation of man.

I'm sorry, but I will not accept that they are one and the same. I cross the line when I /purposefully/ put someone's life in danger, by doing my best to inflict upon them that which harms them. If I took a peanut, went up to a person with an allergy, and rubbed it on them, or snapped it beneath their nose, then you would have a case. Otherwise, the consumption of a peanut by me, isn't going to harm that person. Peanut dust is not going to travel anywhere near the distance smoke from smoking does, unless concentrated, like the restaurant I mentioned before. They have signs to warn people about it. A smoker, smoking and allowing the smoke to enter my lungs, is doing the same thing as if I was forcing a peanut on a person allergic to them. If they were making a conscious effort to keep their smoke to themselves, as the warnings and cautions about peanuts and where they are located does for peanut allergy sufferers, then it would be a different story.

As for my being in places with smokers, many of the places I listed did have people smoking, especially back in the early 80's. These days they don't, mostly because of the bans. To address amusement parks specifically, there were always people smoking in the lines waiting to get on rides. Outdoors or not, that's right in the middle of a group of people. Now those areas are non-smoking, and I feel for the better. I remember walking in malls back in the day, and people were smoking. People shopping, and smoking. It was everywhere.

[Seshat]

To compare smoking with punching someone in the face is not only bad logic but comparing apples to oranges. One is physical violence which should only be used when appropriate and the other is a personal behavior/right to act that some people get bent about and shouldnt.


I don't think you understand how violently a smoke-intolerant person reacts to cigarette smoke. I used to be severely intolerant. Quite frankly, back then, I'd have preferred to be punched in the face. It would hurt less.

(I've improved my general health, including my liver function, and I'm less smoke intolerant than I used to be.)

One cigarette in a room the size of a typical movie theatre would get me coughing. I'd start coughing, and my husband would look around to find out who was smoking - I'd not even smelled it, I'd just be coughing.

Walking past a bar could cause me to be bent double trying to breathe.

Trying to get through a group of smokers clustered outside the front of a building I was trying to get into - say, a doctor's office - would leave me coughing at best. Struggling for breath was a possibility too.

Actually going into a bar? Impossible.

Not all non-smokers are smoke-intolerant. But for smoke-intolerant people, smoking around us causes us genuine pain and real problems. And looking at the 'smokers' side of this conversation, it looks like few, if any, of you actually understand that.

So I'll break this up a bit into several different categories of issue.

The smoke intolerant: survival & avoidable pain

This is the only part where I don't see a reasonable compromise. Smoke intolerant people must have access to their places of work, their doctors, government buildings, and the like. Therefore, in government buildings, medical offices, and other spaces where people must go, smoking (yes, and peanuts!) should be banned both in the building and in the accessways to the building.

Of course, smoke-intolerant people have no more business choosing to work in smoke-permitted bars than peanut-allergic people have working in a peanut-butter factory. So 'places of work' does have some compromise cases. :)



The smoke intolerant and non-smokers: public spaces


If there are both smoking and non-smoking bars, clubs, pubs, restaurants, movie theatres and the like, that's fine. I'd ask that smokers respect the non-smoking places & not smoke if they enter them, & not smoke in the accessways to them. I'd also ask that non-smokers respect the smoking places, and not make a fuss about people smoking there.

As for the peanuts situation: as someone else pointed out, there are restaurants and the like which serve peanuts, and restaurants and the like which don't. Those that do apparently tend to have signs (I'd not noticed, but it makes sense). So yes, I'm treating smoke and peanuts in exactly the same way.



Rights and freedoms


To me, this isn't about rights and freedoms at all. It's about whether or not smoke-intolerant people are permitted to breathe.

Making it about rights and freedoms - well, I can only assume that those of you saying that have no idea how much smoke-intolerant people suffer. Especially since the non-smoking side of this debate (on fratching, at least) has repeatedly said that we're happy to let you smoke out in the open, or in designated smoking bars etc.

We just want to be able to do our thing without having to put up with coughing fits and severe asthma attacks. Keep your cigarettes away from the places we need to go, and we're all cool.




I hope this clarifies my viewpoint, and I think this meshes (at least generally) with the viewpoint of the others on the 'non-smoking' side of this debate.

[Greenday]

I agree with most of those, but the problem is, in most places, there are no smoke-free restaurants or bars or anything. Back home there were none until the ban. I'm in college now, different state, and I can't find one non-smoking place.

I also can't agree with comparing peanuts to cigarettes. There are people allergic to aspirin. If we ban peanuts because people are allergic to that, why not aspirin? What about dairy? Smoking doesn't affect only those with allergies like the other ones I mentioned. Smoking affects everyone.

[ebonyknight]

I'm still maintaining the key difference in that tobacco smoke is a poison, and a drug. Peanuts aren't. There are millions of people with allergies of various types, to things in the environment that are sometimes unavoidable, like pollen and molds. Smoking /is/ avoidable, because it is a choice made by the people who do it. Peanuts and other foods have been consumed by humans for thousands of years, long before smoking was ever conceived of. Smoking was invented by man, and as it was discovered later, harms man. Peanuts are found in nature, and some people, because of malfunctions in their immune systems, are sensitive to one ingredient in that peanut, the same that some people are allergic to tomatoes, or wheat, or milk, etc, etc, etc. People with healthy immune systems, and even more so those without, are affected by smoking, a creation of man.

Well I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. It seems that you are in the minority. Man that will of the people thing is a two edged sword. So how would you feel if a peanut ban went into effect? (rhetorical question)

As for my being in places with smokers, many of the places I listed did have people smoking, especially back in the early 80's. These days they don't, mostly because of the bans. To address amusement parks specifically, there were always people smoking in the lines waiting to get on rides. Outdoors or not, that's right in the middle of a group of people. Now those areas are non-smoking, and I feel for the better. I remember walking in malls back in the day, and people were smoking. People shopping, and smoking. It was everywhere.

What area of the country (what country) was this? People were not smoking in grocery stores, department stores and the like. Amusement parks, sure the asshole smokers will do that. But you haven't any people smoking indoors in public places since the mid to late 70's. At least not in the metropolitan area I have lived in my whole life.

I'm sorry, but I will not accept that they are one and the same. I cross the line when I /purposefully/ put someone's life in danger, by doing my best to inflict upon them that which harms them. If I took a peanut, went up to a person with an allergy, and rubbed it on them, or snapped it beneath their nose, then you would have a case. Otherwise, the consumption of a peanut by me, isn't going to harm that person. Peanut dust is not going to travel anywhere near the distance smoke from smoking does, unless concentrated, like the restaurant I mentioned before. They have signs to warn people about it. A smoker, smoking and allowing the smoke to enter my lungs, is doing the same thing as if I was forcing a peanut on a person allergic to them. If they were making a conscious effort to keep their smoke to themselves, as the warnings and cautions about peanuts and where they are located does for peanut allergy sufferers, then it would be a different story.

Well, now you have a problem. Your caveat is that you "purposefully" endanger someone. We are now in a crisis, because you have now called every smoker an attempted murderer. :eek: Whether you really feel that way or not, it's not going to fly in a court.

You trying to kill/harm a person with a peanut, isn't going to fly. If they run, you will run after them. After all your purpose is to harm them. A smoker is not going to chase you down and do mouth to mouth on you. They are going to go on with their intended purpose, to derive pleasure while you leave. If they were purposefully trying to do you harm, you would have to call the police, because people would be knocking on your door and entering your home to smoke.

What's your next caveat, since that one doesn't work?

[ebonyknight]

Rights and freedoms


To me, this isn't about rights and freedoms at all. It's about whether or not smoke-intolerant people are permitted to breathe.

Making it about rights and freedoms - well, I can only assume that those of you saying that have no idea how much smoke-intolerant people suffer. Especially since the non-smoking side of this debate (on fratching, at least) has repeatedly said that we're happy to let you smoke out in the open, or in designated smoking bars etc.

We just want to be able to do our thing without having to put up with coughing fits and severe asthma attacks. Keep your cigarettes away from the places we need to go, and we're all cool.

I hope this clarifies my viewpoint, and I think this meshes (at least generally) with the viewpoint of the others on the 'non-smoking' side of this debate.

Well I can't argue with that, if you are willing to be even handed in your treatment. If you are going to give one segment of society special treatment, then you have to be willing to accommodate others. If not, you have a case of the haves and the have nots.

The mantra non-smokers espouse (I mean publically, not just here) of "when what you do affects me, crosses the line", can't work if you are going to be selective.

I just find that side of the argument to be a reverse of assholish (is that a word?) treatment. Going from one extreme straight to the other, without compromise. And I think everyone (I hope) would agree that sure doesn't work for other issues, like race relations, for instance.

[rahmota]

Just to correct another piece of your ignorance:smoking, a creation of man. No a creation of the godess for humans to use and enjoy. Tobacco is a natural substance and you know what nature sometimes isnt all that friendly or warm and fuzzy ala Disney co.

I don't think you understand how violently a smoke-intolerant person reacts to cigarette smoke. I used to be severely intolerant. Quite frankly, back then, I'd have preferred to be punched in the face. It would hurt less.

Then if you where that severely disabled you shouldnt have been out and about in the filthy urban air anyhow. At least not without an oxygen mask and tank. I've been in cities where I'd smoke a cigarette just to have the freash air.

One cigarette in a room the size of a typical movie theatre would get me coughing. For real? wow you must not be able to go anywhere or do anything at all in an urban environment since the air in most urban environments I'vebeen in is much much worse and unhealthier and dirtier than 1 cigarette in the cavernous space of a movie theator. My condolences for not being able to enjoy the world.

What area of the country (what country) was this? People were not smoking in grocery stores, department stores and the like. Amusement parks, sure the asshole smokers will do that. But you haven't any people smoking indoors in public places since the mid to late 70's. At least not in the metropolitan area I have lived in my whole life.
Exactly I have never been in a department store, mall or movie theator in my life that allowed smoking. And we are talkign about rural appalachia here. Amusement parks are outside so whats the beef there?bars and retraunts are usually divided or one class only and the higher class ones will be so well ventilated that I've sat next to a smoker and not even smelled it. (the few times I've been in one of those swanky places that is) however you go to a redneck bar and sometimes you need a foglight to get to the bathroom. Big deal you know what a sort of place each place is so you go where you will be comfortable and not where you wont.

I also can't agree with comparing peanuts to cigarettes. There are people allergic to aspirin. If we ban peanuts because people are allergic to that, why not aspirin? What about dairy? You begin to understand why banning items because of some arbitrary dislike or fear of potential harm is stupid and irrational.

Keep your cigarettes away from the places we need to go, and we're all cool. Sad thing is too many of the intolerant (you hit the nail on the head there) anti-tobacco/anti-smoking whiny Beeches dont want to stop it just with a compromise and want to end all smoking and everythign. I bet you ask colcheck if he supported a total ban on tobacco products hed say yes. Which would just mean more people would be breakign the law (rightfully so as any law prohibiting that should be broken) to get their cigs.

I cross the line when I /purposefully/ put someone's life in danger, by doing my best to inflict upon them that which harms them You are a free and adult person who has the capacity to leave or remove yourself from the situation at anytime. A smoker is not holding you down and breathig in your face so shut your BS up about that and acting like you are forced to breath in someone elses smoke. Because you arnt. And if someone did hold you down and breath in your face like that then you would be having a much bigger problem.

[rahmota]

Seshat: About my previous comments I didnt mean to sound disbelieving totally. I do find it hard to believe that someone could be that sensitive to cigarette smoke as I have never encountered someone like that that wasnt in the hospital/nursing home. And given how filthy and stinky most urban air is if you are that sensitive to a single cigarette how can you exist in an urban environment? There is more pollution, more poisonous chemicals and more filth in one average cities air than in an entire carton of cigarettes.

No insult intended just you are operating outside the bounds of my experiences. I have a couple friends who have asthma and they hang out with smokers. Most of the people I know dont throw a hissy fit everytime they get around someone smoking.

And yeah most of the people I have encountered that do that fake coughing and overacting BS are lying and faking it. Just to be an asshole about someone enjoyign a smoke. Ignorant assholes who dont want to see anyone enjoying themselves and overreact much too much get on my nerves when they have their little whiny hissy fit.

Unless a person is being held down or otherwise restrained you are not being forced to do anything. You are there of your own free will and need to get down off your high horse and join humanity by STFU about your moralistic agenda.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

And yeah most of the people I have encountered that do that fake coughing and overacting BS are lying and faking it. Just to be an asshole about someone enjoyign a smoke. .


How do you know?

[Colchek]

What's your next caveat, since that one doesn't work?

There isn't one, because I stand by my statement, and I do not accept your argument against it. I believe at this point, we are going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't think either of us is going to convince the other, and that's fine. I've made my opinion known.

No a creation of the godess for humans to use and enjoy. Tobacco is a natural substance and you know what nature sometimes isnt all that friendly or warm and fuzzy ala Disney co.

Smoking was created by man. Tobacco is a natural substance, drying it and burning it for the purpose of inhalation was invented by man.

[Norton]

To RecoveringKinkoid: Some people are obviously overdramatic about it - I've seen it myself when my sister smoked (I didn't smoke at the time). We were at an amusement park (outdoors), and these people 10 ft. away started fake-coughing and waving their hands under their nose. For Hell's sake, we were in the open air, and they could have walked a few feet away at any point instead of standing there hamming it up. I was right next to her, and I could barely notice the smoke.

Edit: My mother, a former smoker, is now one of those people who fakes coughing fits whenever they see (and I mean see, not smell) a cigarette. Then again, she's a bit of a hypocondriac.

[rahmota]

Kinkoid: Like Norton said its pretty obvious the ones who are hamming it up and faking it just to be jerks.

Tobacco is a natural substance, drying it and burning it for the purpose of inhalation was invented by man.
Wheat was created by the goddess. Drying it and grinding it up to turn it into bread was invented by man. Grapes where invted by the goddess. Squashign and fermentign them to turn them into wine was invented by man. Hops, and beer. Iron is arock in the ground. All the inventions of man can be argued to just be the opening of mans eyes to the world around him by the goddess.......

[Greenday]

Rahmota, I was being sarcastic with the dairy/aspirin comment. I also feel those two are a completely different situation than smoking. Dairy and aspirin aren't forced on you. Smoke is.

[ebonyknight]

There isn't one, because I stand by my statement, and I do not accept your argument against it. I believe at this point, we are going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't think either of us is going to convince the other, and that's fine. I've made my opinion known.

Well, while I may not be able to convince you that my analogy fits, it does appear that you are in the minority in your opinion. Cest la vie.

Be that as it may, I don't think that there is any room to believe that "purposefully" indicates anything other than intent or a desired outcome. Unless you have a different definition (which we can look up) you are in the wrong. Smokers are not "purposefully" trying to put your life in danger. If you left, they wouldn't follow you follow you to harm you. It's not about you. If you truly feel that way, then you are beyond debate and into the victim crowd. *shrug* There is too much of that in this country.

If they were purposefully trying to harm you, you could easily go to the police and file a complaint. Have you??????

The non-smoker mantra that the line is crossed when you do something that affects another is invalid, unless you want to apply it equally.

[Greenday]

The non-smoker mantra that the line is crossed when you do something that affects another is invalid, unless you want to apply it equally.

Why is it invalid? It's true. People smoke in areas I go to, it harms me. I NEED to get to my classes and I have to pass through people smoking at every entrance. Either I don't pass through the smoke and miss class, or I go through the smoke and inhale toxic chemicals. And being inside there's just no avoiding it if someone's smoking inside. I don't harm anyone by eating a PB&J sandwich and drinking milk or by popping an aspirin.

[DesignFox]

I don't harm anyone by eating a PB&J sandwich and drinking milk or by popping an aspirin.

And as an addendum to that, if I knew one of my classmates had a severe peanut allergy, I would NOT eat peanuts around them!

I only eat peanuts around people known not to have severe peanut allergies. And I rarely eat them by cracking shells...if I do, that happens only at home or in designated peanut eating places. NOT near random strangers.

Being an allergy sufferer (thankfully not of the deadly kind) I respect other people's rights to breathe. That means no peanuts near unknowns, no perfume and no smoking. Not only for my health, but also for the health (and pure courtesy) towards others.

(I'm not telling people to stop smoking. It is entirely that person's right to ingest whatever they please. I am only asking that they do it outside or in designated smoking areas...or their home...or their car.... I approve the ban because it protects me when I want to go out to eat! or work! or whatever...It protects workers who have no choice but to work whether they smoke or not...and it was approved by the people of my state...not forced on us by the government.)

[Seshat]

Well I can't argue with that, if you are willing to be even handed in your treatment.

Thank you.

The mantra non-smokers espouse (I mean publically, not just here) of "when what you do affects me, crosses the line", can't work if you are going to be selective. I just find that side of the argument to be a reverse of assholish (is that a word?) treatment. Going from one extreme straight to the other, without compromise.

That's part of what's been exasperating for me and several others on 'my' side of this thread: several of those on the 'smokers' side of this thread have been arguing against things that we never said!

Please try to distinguish between what people outside Fratching say from what people inside Fratching say. It's really hard to justify what 'we' said when we aren't the ones who said it.

Sad thing is too many of the intolerant (you hit the nail on the head there) anti-tobacco/anti-smoking whiny Beeches dont want to stop it just with a compromise and want to end all smoking and everythign.

I can't respond to this, because it's not what I feel. My personal choice would be a compromise situation.

You are a free and adult person who has the capacity to leave or remove yourself from the situation at anytime. A smoker is not holding you down and breathig in your face so shut your BS up about that and acting like you are forced to breath in someone elses smoke.

If a cluster of smokers is in the entrance of a medical or government building, they're barring me from entering the building without breathing their smoke.

It's true: I could simply choose not to do the medical or governmental task I went out to do. I could yell at them from a distance to get the hell out of my way (though if they're inconsiderate enough to smoke in the entranceway, they probably won't). I could call the receptionist for my doctor's office and tell them I can't get in until the smokers have left and their vile cloud has dissipated.

But these hypothetical smokers are being rude and thoughtless.
(Okay. I'll grant that the previous sentence was a moralistic judgement.)

Seshat: About my previous comments I didnt mean to sound disbelieving totally. I do find it hard to believe that someone could be that sensitive to cigarette smoke as I have never encountered someone like that that wasnt in the hospital/nursing home.

I appreciate this. It's not common, but for most people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, a hospital or nursing home is actually worse: the various cleansers and other such chemicals they use are trapped inside the building with you.

And given how filthy and stinky most urban air is if you are that sensitive to a single cigarette how can you exist in an urban environment?

Cigarette smoke was (and remains, to a lesser extent) one of my specific triggers. That said: yes, when I was that severely disabled I didn't go out and about except when absolutely necessary. Doctor's visits and the like. And yes, there's a lot of the world I can't enjoy. It sucks.

However, I'm not in an urban environment. I'm in the outer suburbs of a city which, by American standards, is a very small one. Larger than a town, but not truly 'urban'. It's in a region which gets a lot of wind, some of them very strong, which means the air is regularly changed. And the prevailing winds come from the ocean.

We chose our living place with care.

My own home is, as I mentioned in a totally different thread on CS, an eco-hippie's place. I clean without minimal chemicals, avoid formaldehydes, and so on.

This plus my improved health gives me enough margin to cope with normal living in my outer-suburban home region. And I do wear a mask if I need to go into the inner city.

But while I'm no longer hypersensitive to a single smoker, a cluster of smokers will still be enough to cause me to suffer.


No insult intended just you are operating outside the bounds of my experiences. I have a couple friends who have asthma and they hang out with smokers. Most of the people I know dont throw a hissy fit everytime they get around someone smoking.

I don't either. I simply move if it's a single cigarette, or leave if it's a bunch of them. I only throw a hissy fit if it's somewhere I need to be: like the aforementioned medical and government building examples.

And yeah most of the people I have encountered that do that fake coughing and overacting BS are lying and faking it. Just to be an asshole about someone enjoyign a smoke.

I understand. That's outside my experience, however. This is another case of you and I being in wildly different cultures with wildly different experiences, and misunderstanding each other due to those differences.

Unless a person is being held down or otherwise restrained you are not being forced to do anything. You are there of your own free will and need to get down off your high horse and join humanity by STFU about your moralistic agenda.

Now here, you're pushing your own moralistic agenda.

I can't see anywhere in the thread where I have claimed to be forced in a 'held down and smoke blown in the face' way. What I have said is that I resent it when smokers stand in the entrance to places where the (medically) smoke-intolerant must go.

Please understand that I'm not one of those hissy-fit throwing, fake-coughing killjoys you're accustomed to, and then think about whether or not I'm being moralistic. All I'm saying - and all I have said - is please don't smoke where I must be.

Okay, I've also said 'it'd be nice to have some non-smoking places of entertainment' and 'in my experience, before the rules banning smoking in bars & the like, there were no non-smoking bars etc in the city I live in'. The former is a statement of opinion, the second a statement of experience. Neither was intended to be moralistic. Just informative.


Being an allergy sufferer (thankfully not of the deadly kind) I respect other people's rights to breathe. That means no peanuts near unknowns, no perfume and no smoking. Not only for my health, but also for the health (and pure courtesy) towards others.

You and me both.

I very, very occasionally do wear perfume, but when I do, it's 'spray a cloud in front of me, wait for it to partially dissipate, step into it'. This gives an extremely subtle scent which someone has to be practically standing on my foot to smell.

I use unperfumed or very, VERY lightly perfumed soaps and cleaning products, including laundry detergents, shampoos and conditioners.

I and my clothing and the things I take out with me smell of 'clean human' (or 'clean cloth') and of outer-suburban off-the-ocean air. That's about it.

[DesignFox]

I very, very occasionally do wear perfume, but when I do, it's 'spray a cloud in front of me, wait for it to partially dissipate, step into it'. This gives an extremely subtle scent which someone has to be practically standing on my foot to smell.

I use unperfumed or very, VERY lightly perfumed soaps and cleaning products, including laundry detergents, shampoos and conditioners.

I and my clothing and the things I take out with me smell of 'clean human' (or 'clean cloth') and of outer-suburban off-the-ocean air. That's about it.

Thank you so much for being courteous with your perfume! I could start another thread on how I feel about perfume bathers... I get such debilititating headaches from most scents. :(

[ebonyknight]

The mantra non-smokers espouse (I mean publically, not just here) of "when what you do affects me, crosses the line", can't work if you are going to be selective. I just find that side of the argument to be a reverse of assholish (is that a word?) treatment. Going from one extreme straight to the other, without compromise.

That's part of what's been exasperating for me and several others on 'my' side of this thread: several of those on the 'smokers' side of this thread have been arguing against things that we never said!

Please try to distinguish between what people outside Fratching say from what people inside Fratching say. It's really hard to justify what 'we' said when we aren't the ones who said it.

Uh...I am not sure what you mean.


You can do what you want to yourself, but when it affects other people, that's when you cross the line.

Ahem. It's not about anger when someone else is enjoying something. It's me getting angry about needless pain and suffering that I get because someone else is being inconsiderate.

I don't feel the effects in my body if you drink a cup of coffee. I don't feel the effects in my body if you have a drink. I /do/ feel the effects if you smoke. That's the key difference that has been pointed out many times. You don't have the right to do to /my/ body what you see fit.

While you have stated that you are open to compromise, there several pages back and forth showing that Greenday and Colchek are not willing to compromise. They are more than willing to support something that benefits them, but if it affects something else (with even deadlier consequences), it doesn't seem to matter. It is just as easy to spread contaminiates by touch as by air. I even heard someone on CS say that METAL elicits an allergic reaction in them. All I asked was where does it end, you compromised.

Hell, I even thought that it wasn't even debatable that peanunts and their byproducts WERE deadly. :rolleyes:

[ebonyknight]

Thank you so much for being courteous with your perfume! I could start another thread on how I feel about perfume bathers... I get such debilititating headaches from most scents. :(

Well, in the corporate world it is considered unprofessional to wear perfume/cologne for this very reason.

I mean other than possibly annoying other people, do you really want guys and girls sniffing up on each other at work, like dogs. :D

[Greenday]

While you have stated that you are open to compromise, there several pages back and forth showing that Greenday and Colchek are not willing to compromise. They are more than willing to support something that benefits them, but if it affects something else (with even deadlier consequences), it doesn't seem to matter. It is just as easy to spread contaminiates by touch as by air. I even heard someone on CS say that METAL elicits an allergic reaction in them. All I asked was where does it end, you compromised.

Hell, I even thought that it wasn't even debatable that peanunts and their byproducts WERE deadly. :rolleyes:

I never said peanuts and their byproducts can't be deadly. I just said that if someone is eating peanuts, it's not going to affect someone on the other side of the room like smoking would. And yes, people can be allergic to specific metals. I have a friend who is allergic to nickel. Kinda made us partnering up and doing that nickel and zinc lab a lil bit harder...

Alls I want is for me to be able to go inside a building, enjoy whatever is going on inside or get whatever I need to get done done, and leave without having to walk through smoke or breathe a ton of it in. I agree with the bans in that they should apply inside buildings and at the entrances. After that, I couldn't care less where you smoke. Do you see me throwing a fit when my friend yesterday lit up on the way back from dinner? No. Do you see me throwing a fit when my friends smoked at work? No. Hell, half the time I'd go out and chill with them while they smoked. Alls I ask is you don't do it in areas that will FORCE non-smokers to breathe in the fumes.

[rahmota]

Now here, you're pushing your own moralistic agenda.

I can't see anywhere in the thread where I have claimed to be forced in a 'held down and smoke blown in the face' way. What I have said is that I resent it when smokers stand in the entrance to places where the (medically) smoke-intolerant must go.



Sorry that was in response to colcheck's claims that smokers where purposefully inflicting harm upon him by smoking near him. His words not yours nor mine. I got my wires crossed on who I was addressing that line to.

You are right not everyone who is against smoking has made comments as inflammatory and outrageous as colchecks and I have tried to address them without stooping to the same level.

But the thing is there are a variety of options available for the non-smokers that are being overlooked including simply holding ones breath when walking throug the doorway into the building.

I am glad you are able to live in an environment you can enjoy. And you are right it is different cultures/life experiences at work here again. I think I may withdraw from this thread for a time as it doesnt seem like there is goign to be much in the way of compromise or debate much more as thigns are getting to the reashign stage almost.

[Colchek]

You are right not everyone who is against smoking has made comments as inflammatory and outrageous as colchecks and I have tried to address them without stooping to the same level.

Now you are putting words into my mouth. I've made the stipulation many times, I'm not against smoking in itself. You want to smoke, smoke. Like another poster said, smoke yourself to oblivion. No one's stopping you. My comments about the differences between smoking and other choices of activities were to stress my point that it is a harmful activity that harms not only the smoker, but everyone around. The health risks are known. Therefore, lighting up in a public place, exposing everyone to the smoke, is intentional as far as I'm concerned. That's where the bans come in, and why I agree with them. As many have said, the bans are in place because the majority of the people wanted them, all knowing the dangers smoking poses. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been passed into law. The people have spoken.

To address one other point. If the majority of people desired a peanut ban, and it was voted into law, I would abide by it. Such a ban would undoubtedly be passed once they become a danger to not just a few, but a great many, as is smoking, the same that trans-fats are now under regulation. They affect anyone who eats them, and that's why laws were passed. If peanuts reach a level of danger as something like that, then I have no doubt laws will be passed to protect people from their exposure. Personally, I do not believe peanuts will reach that level, the same as bee allergies haven't become an epidemic. However, that is my personal opinion. Until such time that it does become a widespread problem, the compromise that has been reached is that manufacturers and restaurant owners post warnings about the potential exposure. No different than phenylketonurics, who are senstive to phenylalanine, have warnings posted on every bottle of soda and other beverages, not to mention a variety of other foods. It poses a great risk to them, leading to mental retardation and seizures, and the damage it causes to them is irreversible. Peanuts fall into the same category. They affect a certain number of the population, products they may be found in are clearly identified, so those who are sensitive to them can avoid them. Tobacco smoke affects everyone regardless of race, religion, sex, social standing, occupation, height, weight, hair color, eye color, etc, etc, etc. That is why bans have been put in place.

Wasn't that the original intent of this discussion? Why do we agree with them? I've said why I agree with them, and nothing I've read here so far will convince me otherwise.

[Greenday]

But the thing is there are a variety of options available for the non-smokers that are being overlooked including simply holding ones breath when walking throug the doorway into the building.

You don't think it's the tiniest bit silly that people should have to hold their breath just to enter a building?

[rahmota]

The health risks are known. Therefore, lighting up in a public place, exposing everyone to the smoke, is intentional as far as I'm concerned.
And that is one of the most retarded and ignorant arguments against smoking i have heard. your comparing someone smokign to someone coming up and randomly punching you in the face is stupid and inflammatory. It would never hold up in a fair trial and if you go around with this sort of chip on your shoulder in the real world I would be surprised if someone hasnt punched you in the face.

The people have spoken All hail ceasar! Just because SOME of the people have spoken does not make it right. All that does is make it legal. See my sig for my feeligns on that.

However, that is my personal opinion. Until such time that it does become a widespread problem, the compromise that has been reached is that manufacturers and restaurant owners post warnings about the potential exposure. i have never seen a warnign on a single restraunt about peanuts in my entire life.

and nothing I've read here so far will convince me otherwise. Gee why am I surprised by that. I doubt there is anything on the planet that can open that mind up.

You don't think it's the tiniest bit silly that people should have to hold their breath just to enter a building? No I dont. I mean I have to breathe shallow when I go into the city because of all the pollution and how much it stinks in the city. And besides unless you are lingering in the doorway your tranit time to get through the small bit of smokers and into the building can be measured in seconds. Barely a breath out of place.

[AFPheonix]

i have never seen a warnign on a single restraunt about peanuts in my entire life.


I see them at Dairy Queen and many other restaurants around here.

[Darrien]

[QUOTE=rahmota; No I dont. I mean I have to breathe shallow when I go into the city because of all the pollution and how much it stinks in the city. And besides unless you are lingering in the doorway your tranit time to get through the small bit of smokers and into the building can be measured in seconds. Barely a breath out of place.[/QUOTE]

I am sorry but smokers do not have the right to pollute someone else's air supply and us non smokers should not have to stop breathing just to get by you. You choose to smoke, we choose not to. We have a right to clean air just as you have a right to end up killing yourself with smoking. If I choose not to smoke why do I have to hold my breathe just so I can avoid your second hand smoke? I do not care if you smoke, but if you smoke where I have to go through an entrance to some place then you have crossed the line.

[DesignFox]

All hail ceasar! Just because SOME of the people have spoken does not make it right. All that does is make it legal. See my sig for my feeligns on that.


Actually, MOST of the people have spoken, otherwise it wouldn't be a law.

But then, to use your argument that SOME people have spoken isn't it equally unfair for the other part of the SOME to suffer for the choices of those SOME?

I wish there was a better compromise Rahmota, but unfortunately, until the ban was in effect there wasn't. There ARE smoking places in my state specifically for smokers to go to (hookah bars, cigar bars). Unlike before, now the non-smoking places just outnumber them. Smokers are also allowed to smoke within Atlantic City Casinos. Also, smoker's may still smoke outdoors at the non-smoking restaurants.

I'm glad you realize that not all of us are asking for a total smoking ban...I respect people's right to smoke- I just wish there didn't need to be law for them to respect my right to breathe clean(er) air, specifically indoors where I cannot escape the fumes.


i have never seen a warnign on a single restraunt about peanuts in my entire life.


Maybe it's just your area, or the fact that the peanut allergy is a relatively new problem.

Dunkin' Donuts warns that some of their products are manufactured in plants that manufacture peanut products.

I have also seen warnings on a fast food place in one of the local malls. They keep boxes of peanuts in the shell out for patrons to snack from. This is the ONLY restaurant I've ever been to that keeps peanuts out like that, and they have very prominent signs on the door warning people with allergies.

Those are just two places I can think of off the top of my head...

We're right on top of each other here...so things are a bit different, I guess. *shrug*

[Colchek]

And that is one of the most retarded and ignorant arguments against smoking i have heard. your comparing someone smokign to someone coming up and randomly punching you in the face is stupid and inflammatory. It would never hold up in a fair trial and if you go around with this sort of chip on your shoulder in the real world I would be surprised if someone hasnt punched you in the face.

Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. Look at the distinction. Public place. If I go to a designated smoking area, or into your house, or into your car, or walk up to a group of smokers sitting in a park, and then make my claim, now you have a right to claim it such. It is not an argument against smoking, it is an argument against putting the public's health at risk. Until the bans, smoking in public places was putting everyone's health in danger. You have the entire great outdoors to smoke in. Your argument would be true only if I said you were intentionally putting people in danger by climbing to the top of a mountain and lighting up. Lots of room in the great outdoors for people to avoid smokers. Not so inside public buildings, or immediately outside of them. Hence the bans.

i have never seen a warnign on a single restraunt about peanuts in my entire life.

Then you haven't been looking. In addition to the examples others have already cited, all of which I have seen, Texas Roadhouse has large, yellow diamond road signs with pictures of large peanuts on them that say 'Peanut dust ahead.', or 'Peanut dust in area'. Quite obvious if you ask me. I'll also add McDonald's. Their McFlurries also have a peanut warning.

[Boozy]

Actually, MOST of the people have spoken, otherwise it wouldn't be a law.

Again, not coming down on either side here, but I feel I should add something.

There have been many laws passed without the majority of the population's consensus. This is usually a good thing, as important civil rights laws have often depended on the Supreme Court's interpretation of existing legislation instead of passing a popular vote.

For example, lynching of blacks has always been illegal no matter how many good ol' boys in a certain jurisdiction think otherwise.

[DesignFox]

Hmm...good point Boozy.

I'll have to admit then that I don't know for sure if more or less people support the ban.

I know that enough seem to...and I recall petitions going out over the situation.

But then, haven't we put the people in office who made that decision? So indirectly supported it?

*headscratch*

[rahmota]

It is not an argument against smoking, it is an argument against putting the public's health at risk Okay and so what about pollution from various other sources. Putting the publics health at risk from too many and improper use of agrichems and other industrial chemicals. Polltuion from too many cars on the streets. Eh? And by saying smoking is a public health hazard you are trying to get smoking stopped. You dont even see the results of your own argument or do you just not want to admit to them.

But anyhow,
Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. Bull. I am responding to what you said. you have stated repeatedly that smokers are purposely, with intent to do harm to you by smoking in public places. I have not put a dang word in your mouth. If you aint gonna stand for what you yourself have said then fine. Whatever. I've already been warned by the mods for "insulting" you so I'm not gonna say anything else to you as you are beneath me and beneath talking to. Your argument is flawed, nonsensical and downright retarded. We is done talking here.

As for the restraunts. There are several small town diners around here with peanuts out and no warning signs. I have not been in a mcdonalds in nigh on a year now so I dont know about that. The local feed store sells peanut hulls by the 50lb bag for bedding and absorbance with no warnings. But then agian their attitude is if you know you have a problem and you go in there anyhow its your own damn fault you get hurt. (Somethign i agree with and like. I wish more places/people where like that. If you cant take responsibility for your own damn life then you dont deserve to be living it and definately dont need to have the government hold your hand until you grow up.) There is no texas roadhouse within 50-100 miles from me so I dont know about them. The nearest dunkin donuts is about 25-30 miles away so again I dont go to them but maybe one a month and since I like krispie kreme better anyhow.... The dairy queen is a walk up/drive up one and not an eat in. but now that you mention it they do have a small 3"*5" sign in the window but definately not something majorly obvious.

A lot of it may be the attitude and regional considerations. Like I said around here you are responsible for your life. if you have an allergy it isnt anyones business but your own for you to watch out for your allergy. If you cant watch out for your own life and take responsibility for yourself then you either need to grow up and get over it or you need to get out of this area and go somewhere where whiny crybabies are appreciated. *shrug* Not a bad thing if more of america was like that.

There have been many laws passed without the majority of the population's consensus. This is usually a good thing, But not always a good thing. Sometimes some very bad pieces of legislation have been passed in the name of the public good even though the public didnt agree with or want them for the majority.

[Colchek]

Bull. I am responding to what you said. you have stated repeatedly that smokers are purposely, with intent to do harm to you by smoking in public places. I have not put a dang word in your mouth. If you aint gonna stand for what you yourself have said then fine. Whatever. I've already been warned by the mods for "insulting" you so I'm not gonna say anything else to you as you are beneath me and beneath talking to. Your argument is flawed, nonsensical and downright retarded. We is done talking here.

Not bull at all. You continually say I am against smoking, and that is not the truth. I am against the public health risks of smoking, and its use in public places that put people in danger. That is not arguing for smoking to be stopped. It is arguing that smoking be kept out of public places where it does the most harm.

As for pollution from other sources, why do you think that there have been laws passed regulating everything you said? Emissions from factories are continually being restricted by law, dumping of dangerous chemicals is illegal, etc. As for all of those sources, they are an unfortunate side effect of our desire for progress. I for one would like to see them cleaned up, but it's going to take a very long time for that to happen, as well as advancement in technology that allows the items people use every day to be produced without harming the environment. At this point, regulation of those emissions is the most that can be done.

[machinest]

In reply to Rahmota's assertion that smokers are purposely harming others it is not so much a case of deliberate purpose as one of neglecting to ensure that their activities do the least amount of harm to others.

[DesignFox]

I think that's a good point machinest. Most people don't do it necessarily on purpose. They just don't think about how their actions are affecting the people around them. And frankly, most of them I've encountered don't care, even when they are told.

I mean, the thing that sucks about it is that the government has to force people to be courteous to one another. And Rahmota has a point that its kind of scary that we rely on our government to make those mandates for us.

Most basic stuff I wouldn't want the government meddling in, but this is one thing that has greatly improved my ability to go out in public and do the things I want to do...it has improved my health and protects the health of people in the service industry. I can't see any other way to solve the problem, except to shit all over the non-smokers like we did in the past.

Oh? Don't like smoke...fuck you I'm doing it next to you anyway...its MY RIGHT!

And yes, I worked with people like that. That's one reason I'm not still friends with them.

[Seshat]

But the thing is there are a variety of options available for the non-smokers that are being overlooked including simply holding ones breath when walking throug the doorway into the building.

Sorry, that one won't work either. 'Smoke alley' is usually too long for that (noting that I can't run), and cigarette smoke irritates my eyes.

I'm happy to hear other suggestions, though, because all I can think of are the ones that have already been mentioned in the thread.

(Smokers staying out of places smoke-intolerant people must go, smokers staying out of entrances, having some designated non-smoking places of recreation. Having designated smoking areas in or near non-smoking buildings, where the air is not circulated between smoking and non-smoking areas.)

Okay and so what about pollution from various other sources. Putting the publics health at risk from too many and improper use of agrichems and other industrial chemicals. Polltuion from too many cars on the streets. Eh?

In Australia, agrichems are regulated and CSIRO is constantly working to make them 'cleaner', factory output is being regulated and filtering technologies improved, biodiesel is becoming more and more common, Monash University has produced research-quantity samples of 'bio-crude' made from crop waste.

The local feed store sells peanut hulls by the 50lb bag for bedding and absorbance with no warnings. But then agian their attitude is if you know you have a problem and you go in there anyhow its your own damn fault you get hurt.

My opinion: yes and no. If there is no reason to suspect the presence of peanuts in a place, there is no reason for a peanut-allergic person to avoid the place.

That said, any peanut-allergic person who goes into a restaurant that serves a cuisine famous for satay or hoi sin sauce deserves whatever they get.

[Ree]

Ya know what?

It's sad that laws and regulations against smoking are even necessary.

"The freedom to swing my fist ends at my neighbour's face."

Sure, you have a right t enjoy your cigarette.
They're your lungs and if you don't mind filing them with crap, that's your business. However, second hand smoke has been proved to be harmful, whether anyone wants to admit or acknowledge those studies and case histories. Just ask Heather Crowe (http://www.smoke-free.ca/heathercrowe/).

I am a non smoker. At one time, before they had to enforce a regulation against smoking by anyone within a foster home, I was living with 5 smokers. I spent most of my time in my room because I couldn't breathe when everyone sat around puffing on their cigarettes.

I also worked for over 20 years with smokers who were allowed to light up in the breakroom. There were times when the air in the breakroom was so thick you could cut it, even with the vent running full force. (There was one place I worked where they didn't even have a vent.)

All these years I sat, silently inhaling those toxic chemicals coming from the unfiltered end of a cigarette.
My answer to, "Do you mind if I smoke," (if they even bothered to ask), was always, "It's a free country."

I always felt, just because I chose not to smoke, that did not give me the right to force others not to smoke around me. I could have simply gone somewhere else to sit, but why should I have to be the one to go find a smoke free place to eat my lunch or drink my coffee?

I now have a chronic cough that will not go away. It has actually become so chronic that I don't even notice it any more. My sister does, though. Every time we're together, she notices my cough, and she keeps bugging me to go for a chest X-ray, but I am just a little afraid to do that. I always brush it off by saying that it's just me getting over a cold, or that she only sees me when I have a cold. She wants to know who has a cold that lasts 4 years or more.

So, you can dress it up all you want and claim laws and regulations on smoking are impeding your rights as a citizen and you can insult people who point out that you are putting everyone around you at harm all for the sake of your own pleasure and enjoyment. (Personally, I prefer to think of it as putting others at risk to feed your own addiction, but whatever.)

You can make ridiculous claims that people can just hold their breath when they pass by you smoking outside a building.

You can even imply that you aren't deliberately harming other people, but the fact is, the world has known for more than 40 years that smoking kills. I am 48 years old and I remember when I was in grade school, watching an old black and white TV documentary about people who got cancer from smoking.

It has been at least 20 years since the studies were done on the effects of second hand smoke. Obviously, the studies were done because people were dying and there was a lot of questioning whether second hand smoke was connected to those deaths.

To stand back and say you aren't deliberately hurting anyone is ignorant and stupid. There is no excuse for not knowing that your activity is hurting others.

Yeah, it sucks that we have the government meddling in our private lives, enacting laws that impede our freedom, but sometimes, when people are too stubborn and pigheaded to realize they are hurting others, the government does have to step in and force them to smarten the hell up.

[rahmota]

ree: I think it more depends on the individual person's genetics about the cough. Yourcough could be from a variety of sources and instantly jumping to the conclusion that it was caused by second hand smoke without a doctor's exam is a rather presumptious one.
I am 35sey (Standard Earth Years) old and have been around smokers since I was born. My dad smoked, a couple of my friends have smoked since they where 12, my uncles smoked and while I never smoked tobacco I have smoked an herbal substance before on occasion..... anyhow according to my last physical my lung capacity is above nominal for the average human. Even though I have been exposed to smoke, agrichems, dust, histoplasmosis (A fungal infection brought about by exposure to bird droppings) , had pneumonia when i was 18 months old and a variety of other environmental factors my lungs are still quite halthy and functional.

machinest:In reply to Rahmota's assertion that smokers are purposely harming others it is not so much a case of deliberate purpose as one of neglecting to ensure that their activities do the least amount of harm to others.
thats not my restarded half arsed assertion but colchecks.

Designfox: And so what we do now is swing the pendulum back the other way to shit all over the smokers and treat them like second class citizens. Oh thats fair.

Anyhow as for the rest of this i stll believe in personal responsibility. ie I am responsible for my life and not yours you are responsible for your life and not mine. As long as we stay out of each other's face live will be a lot better and more peaceful indeed. There is no need for the government to come in and hold your hand if you're not adult to deal with the problems in your life and you cannot and should not even attempt to legislate consideration. And I have picked up today a pouch of cavendish cherry blend pipe tobacco in honor of this thread. Already smoked a pipe full of it and did not cough once or have a single fit. Depending on how things go I may go down to maysville and pick up some organic burley tobacco cigars from the warehouse this weekend.

[Sylvia727]

Anyhow as for the rest of this i stll believe in personal responsibility. ie I am responsible for my life and not yours you are responsible for your life and not mine.

But wouldn't you agree that you are responsible for your actions in not hurting other people? And if so, aren't you responsible for taking reasonable precautions to keep potentially harmful substances away from other people?

[Ree]

ree: I think it more depends on the individual person's genetics about the cough. Yourcough could be from a variety of sources and instantly jumping to the conclusion that it was caused by second hand smoke without a doctor's exam is a rather presumptious one.
I am 35sey (Standard Earth Years) old and have been around smokers since I was born. My dad smoked, a couple of my friends have smoked since they where 12, my uncles smoked and while I never smoked tobacco I have smoked an herbal substance before on occasion..... anyhow according to my last physical my lung capacity is above nominal for the average human. Even though I have been exposed to smoke, agrichems, dust, histoplasmosis (A fungal infection brought about by exposure to bird droppings) , had pneumonia when i was 18 months old and a variety of other environmental factors my lungs are still quite halthy and functional.
You have to be the most stubborn and deliberately obtuse individual I have ever encountered. Bully for you that you have such a wonderful lung capacity after all that exposure to toxins and crap, but just because you were so damned lucky does not mean that the rest of the world is not getting sick from exposure to second hand smoke. One lab rat as an exception to the rule does not definitive proof make.

The statistics are out there, and they are more and more holding up the side of the argument that second hand smoke is killing people.

The fact that I have not seen a doctor for a chest X-Ray does not mean that I have not consulted a doctor at all. I have seen a doctor for other things, and on listening to my chest, they have asked me if I smoke and when I tell them I live with a smoker, they just nod their heads.

When I was pregnant over 21 years ago, a doctor actually told me to tell my husband to "butt out".

I just haven't mentioned the chronic cough to my doctor because it's easier to stay in denial than actually find out something I don't want to know.
Yeah, it could be other environmental factors, but it could also be the smoking and it's rather irresponsible to deny that possibility at all.

To say that each person is responsible for their own well being is just an excuse to allow one's self to go through life in a constant state of self absorption and a lack of consideration for others.

Why should the rest of the world have to step aside for you, lest they be harmed by your choices? As Sylvia is saying, you have a personal responsibility to exercise precautions to prevent harm from coming to others because of your choices.

It's as if you are saying that you have all the freedom in the world to tear down the middle of the highway at top speed if you want to do that, because if you get into an accident, then that's your own poor choice, yet you are ignoring the fact that there may be other cars on the road who get taken down in the process.

[MadMike]

As long as we stay out of each other's face live will be a lot better and more peaceful indeed.

Yes, the smokers need to stay out of the faces of the nonsmokers.

This might piss a few people off, but I get a little sick of smokers who whine about their "rights" being taken away. If the government was trying to tell you you can't smoke in your own home, that's one thing, and I'd be complaining about that too. But just because something is legal does not mean it's OK to do in public. It's perfectly legal for me to have sex with my wife, but if I tried to do it in public, we'd both get arrested.

As several other people have pointed out, having smoking and non-smoking sections simply don't work. It's like trying to have a pissing and non-pissing section in a swimming pool.

[FashionLad]

Without reading much of the posts at all, considering most of them are probably what people like or don't like.

I have to say that since Minnesota has gone to non-smoking in bars, I find bars to be a lot more enjoyable. Funny thing is, my smoking friends have actually said that they do enjoy the fact that they don't go home smelling like an ashtray. I don't think it's too much to ask of the smokers to go outside and smoke, I really don't. Everyone should be able to enjoy the bar, not just smokers.

[Lace Neil Singer]

and yeah I didlike peopel who just throw their butts anywhere but then I also hate folks who litter in general.
Just throwing this in here; chewing gum wads is WAY worse than fag ends. A town near where I live has flipping gum parks where people are supposed to stick their gum, just to stop people chucking it on the floor and sticking it all over the place. These people are way more inconsiderate than smokers; and a lot of them are either nonsmokers or people who have given up. Fag ends will eventually disintegrate but chewing gum is there forever.

Also, something to think on; if cigarettes were really as bad as some of the fanatically nonsmokes say, then why aren't the government banning them? Answer; cuz of all the money they make on taxes. If they were banned, taxes will skyrocket. Hell, cigarette tax is probably the only thing keeping the NHS going; the smokers not only pay for their own health problems but for the health problems of everyone else, including all the obese people causing just as much or even more damage to the NHS coffers.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Not weighing in on either side here, but I feel that one thing should be made clear:

Nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man. It addicts almost 98% of all users within the first year. Compare this to heroin (second on the list) at 87%.

Nicotine withdrawal symptoms are worse than that of cocaine.

Carry on.I'm not addicted to cigarettes. Never have been, never will be. I'm not in denial; it's just a fact. I can go for days, weeks, months without having a smoke; I just enjoy smoking. You might as well say that everyone who has a drink is addicted, or everyone who enjoys their coffee is a caffine addict. Or everyone who enjoys having sex or gambling is addicted.

There are people who have addictive personalities; there are people who don't. End of.

Btw, I'm not desputing that there are people hooked on cigarettes. But it's silly to claim that every smoker is.

[Boozy]

Btw, I'm not desputing that there are people hooked on cigarettes. But it's silly to claim that every smoker is.

True. Which is why I claimed no such thing.

The statistic is that nicotine will addict 98% of regular smokers (one per day or more) within one year.

There are people who have addictive personalities; there are people who don't. End of.

There are no addictive "personalities" when it comes to chemical addiction. Its physiological.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Stop splitting hairs. I actually know a lot of people who smoke out of choice, not cuz of addiction. And as someone said earlier in the topic, you can find statistics to say anything you like. It doesn't mean it's true.

For the record, about the only thing that really bugs me about the smoking ban is that now if someone comes into the pub after a dodgy curry, the whole pub knows about it. -.- In the days of smoking, that overpowered every other smell. I just wonder what the next thing will be. 3 drinks maximum? Cameras in the toilets to stop people chatting to Charlie? A licience to drink alcohol? The mind boggles. O.o

[Boozy]

I actually know a lot of people who smoke out of choice, not cuz of addiction.

I know a lot of addicts who say that. Then they try to quit and realize they're addicted.

I do believe you when you say you're not addicted. Anyone who can go more than a few days without a smoke without going nuts is clearly not addicted.

[Difdi]

I have an extremely strong aversion to tobacco smoke. It stems from a combination of strong dislike for how it smells, asthma attacks caused by exposure to it, and an allergy on top of the asthma (makes my skin itch and my eyes burn). On the other hand, I am not particularly affected by a number of caustic industrial chemicals; I certainly wouldn't eat any, but I have an abnormally mild reaction to some things that cause reactions much like pepper spray in most people. And I actually find raw skunk musk to smell better than many brands of perfume. It's an odd personal quirk, but it's true.

Now, suppose I were to carry around a jar of chemicals and skunk musk with me. The effects on most people would mimic my reaction to tobacco smoke. Some people would be mostly unaffected. Some would react like one of my cousins does to tobacco, and literally vomit their guts out at the first whiff. How many smokers would support my right to carry my peculiar brand of odorant around with me?

I'd have just as much right to do so (it smells pleasant to me) as a smoker would to smoke in public. But how many people would object to me carrying what amounts, from their perspective, to a highly toxic and extremely foul smelling compound into their immediate presence? How many restaurant meals could I ruin by opening a jar of the stuff? And how many smokers, who simply light up in a public place, have the honesty to admit what they're doing to people like me?

[ebonyknight]

Now, suppose I were to carry around a jar of chemicals and skunk musk with me. The effects on most people would mimic my reaction to tobacco smoke. Some people would be mostly unaffected. Some would react like one of my cousins does to tobacco, and literally vomit their guts out at the first whiff. How many smokers would support my right to carry my peculiar brand of odorant around with me?

I'd have just as much right to do so (it smells pleasant to me) as a smoker would to smoke in public. But how many people would object to me carrying what amounts, from their perspective, to a highly toxic and extremely foul smelling compound into their immediate presence? How many restaurant meals could I ruin by opening a jar of the stuff? And how many smokers, who simply light up in a public place, have the honesty to admit what they're doing to people like me?

I'll punch that equine corpse once more. ;)

I'm not smoker anymore, but I would allow you to. Why, because I have the freedom to leave your presence. If you are making me sick, am I supposed to be stupid enough to stand there and continue to get sick? Do I exercise a freedom, or remove one from someone else? Cut and dry, to me.

Unfortunately there are plenty of people who don't bathe and could burn your nose hair with their BO. Some people actually gag, but I don't see any kind of ban, on BO.

At a restaurant? As I said before, as far as I am concerned that would be up to the restaurant. If you owned the restaurant and you liked to have that smell, it would be your right (as far as I am concerned), but I am sure you wouldn't be in business long. Customers would vote with their feet.

[rahmota]

Difdi: I'll agree with ebony in this. You can carry it around all you want. Unless you are physically restraining me and preventing me from leaving or otherwise physically forcing me to remain then you are not harming me and I can exercise my capacity as a consenting human adult to choose to remain where I am or to remove myself from the area. I do not have the right or permission to stop you from having a bottle of skunk juice open or not on your person. Its your life and your decision. I do not control you and should not attempt to control you.

Ree:You have to be the most stubborn and deliberately obtuse individual I have ever encountered.Aww gee thanks. Its always nice to have people recognize ones better qualities.

The statistics are out there, and they are more and more holding up the side of the argument that second hand smoke is killing people.
Maybe, maybe not. A lot of thigns are killing people. I'd rather live in a world where I can enjoy myself than live in nerf world where the government or other self rightious groups of nannies tell me how to live and remove all risks. Utopia may be safe and pleasant but it would be incredibly boring.

To say that each person is responsible for their own well being is just an excuse to allow one's self to go through life in a constant state of self absorption and a lack of consideration for others.
No saying each person is responsible for their own life is to say that each person is a responsible adult. Just because you are responsible for your own life does not make you self absorbed or have a lack of consideration for others. But like I said those two thigns are beyond the scope, realm, or area of control of legislation.

As Sylvia is saying, you have a personal responsibility to exercise precautions to prevent harm from coming to others because of your choices.
yes and you have the personal responsibility to not interefere in someone doing their actions that are not forcing you to be there. Someone sittign in the corner smoking is not forcing someone to be there.

It's as if you are saying that you have all the freedom in the world to tear down the middle of the highway at top speed if you want to do that, because if you get into an accident, then that's your own poor choice, yet you are ignoring the fact that there may be other cars on the road who get taken down in the process. annng. Wrong! Going down the highway is an example of real, actual harm to other people. A car doing 90 is difficult to see or react to. It is not like a stationary smoker. Also goign down the highway you dont Know if there is a drunk driver or a speeder or road rager in the next car. you know certain places are goign to have smokers around. Therefore the burden to protect yourself is on you not the others. Which thats true for most of life. It is your responsibility to protect yourself not the governments and not someone else. Its yourlife if you cant be obliged to protect it by taking your own responsibility for yourself then noone else should.

One always has the right to do harm to oneself no matter what. So if the road was closed and there was no other traffic then yeah drive as fast or on whatever side you choose to do so. If its a public road then takign care to not harm others is exercising personal responsibility.

Smoking on the other hand is potential harm only. It is not actual harm to anyone involved, except maybe the smoker. You are not being forced to be there and can leave at anytime you want.


Anyhow since this "discssion" seems to be a rather good example of the general intolerance and hatred prevalent in america today I'm not going to bother coming back to this thread.

[Ree]

Anyhow since this "discssion" seems to be a rather good example of the general intolerance and hatred prevalent in america today I'm not going to bother coming back to this thread.An excellent idea, I think, since it seems to be one that has caused a lot of animosity and is obviously upsetting you.

[MMATM]

Stop splitting hairs. I actually know a lot of people who smoke out of choice, not cuz of addiction. And as someone said earlier in the topic, you can find statistics to say anything you like. It doesn't mean it's true.
I'm not seeing any split hairs here. The quoted statistic is a statistic because it is supported by investigation. Not because some schmuck with a lab coat pulled it out of his ass to help win a debate. If 1000 people smoked one cigarette every day for a year, it can be safely expected that 980 of them, give or take a statistically insignificant number, would be addicted to cigarettes after that time.

Personality also has little to nothing to do with nicotine addiction. Nicotine is an alkaloid that elicits specific physiological reactions in the bodies of animals, including humans. The nicotine in tobacco, such as that smoked in a cigarette, comes in a small dose, which acts on the body as an addictive stimulant. The addiction stems from a physiological dependence on the chemical's presence rather than a psychological dependence like some other types of addiction (possibly including alcoholism). The only part of nicotine addiction that is affected by personality is withdrawal. An extremely strong-willed person can quit "cold turkey" and endure the withdrawal symptoms, whereas a normal person would have trouble doing so.

While I believe that you are not addicted to cigarettes, or nicotine in any form, I will say that the vast majority of people who smoke "regularly" as defined by one or more cigarettes a day, are already or will likely become addicted to them if they continue to smoke regularly.

As for being able to find statistics "to say anything you like", try finding some before you negate all statistics' validity. You won't find many studies indicating that cigarettes aren't addictive. It's not because the scientists who may have made the discovery that "nicotine addiction is a sham" covered it up, either. Scientific objectivity aside, a find like that would win them the Nobel prize.

And, to quote Dr. Perry Cox: "statistics mean nothing to the individual". Truer words have seldom been spoken. Some diseases (left untreated) have a 99.99% fatality rate (or worse), and yet people have survived them. To those few people, the statistics are not indicative of the truth. To the many millions who have died of said diseases, well... they are. For example, if you happen to know, say, exactly six people who have smoked "regularly" for over a year and all of them smoke entirely by choice (and none of them is really addicted and in denial), then congratulations, you are one of only about 64E-10% (less than 0.00000001%) of people who can claim to know six people who smoke, of whom none are addicted. Statistically possible? Most definitely yes. Likely? Most definitely not.

[Seshat]

Going down the highway is an example of real, actual harm to other people.

And many people in this thread have indicated that to them, their family and their friends, being in the presence of a smoker is real, actual harm.


you know certain places are goign to have smokers around. Therefore the burden to protect yourself is on you not the others
<snip>
You are not being forced to be there and can leave at anytime you want.


I have been surprised by the presence of a smoker many times. By the time I can smell the smoke, the damage is done: I'm going to have the itchy eyes and nose of a histamine reaction, and if I get enough smoke before I can get away, I'll have the runny nose and cough as well. In the past, you could have added body pain to that list. (That's from the presence of a single smoker, who happens to be upwind of me. From a group, I'll definitely get the nose and the cough.)

I used the phrase 'smoke-intolerant' to denote those of us who are medically affected by cigarette smoke; to distinguish us from people who just don't smoke.

Rahmota (I think) decided that the word 'intolerant' definitely applied. Personally, I think we're being very tolerant.

All we've asked in this thread is for smokers to stay out of some enclosed public spaces and the entrances to them.

We're willing to tolerate the histamine reactions, asthma attacks and other effects of other peoples' smoke. We're just asking you not to smoke where it's impossible for us to avoid it. We're accepting that you'll smoke outside, and that we'll unknowingly and unwittingly walk downwind of you and get affected sometimes.


We're willing to tolerate pain and discomfort so you can enjoy yourselves. I call that pretty tolerant. Wouldn't you?

[Difdi]

Do you use a stimulant to calm down? Do you use a depressant to cheer up? Congrats, you're an addict.

[ebonyknight]

Do you use a stimulant to calm down? Do you use a depressant to cheer up? Congrats, you're an addict.

True dat.

I could never rationalize calming down with a stim or cheering up with a depressant. Seems so counter intuitive, yet that's what they do. :D

[BlackIronCrown]

Do they do more harm than good in restricting individual liberties, or are they helping to protect the populace at large?


I don't believe that they're doing anyone a damn bit of good, especially since the FDA reports on second-hand smoke from the 90s were retracted by the organization as "inaccurate and drawing incorrect conclusions". Talk about a study that was NOT conducted properly.

Secondly, I see them as the modern-day Prohibition. If we're going to legislate that, we might as well ban alcohol again. And sugar. And caffeine. After all, these items are similar to tobacco - legal, but with the ability to cause harm. Why not just be fair and issue a blanket regulation?

[Greenday]

I don't believe that they're doing anyone a damn bit of good, especially since the FDA reports on second-hand smoke from the 90s were retracted by the organization as "inaccurate and drawing incorrect conclusions". Talk about a study that was NOT conducted properly.

Secondly, I see them as the modern-day Prohibition. If we're going to legislate that, we might as well ban alcohol again. And sugar. And caffeine. After all, these items are similar to tobacco - legal, but with the ability to cause harm. Why not just be fair and issue a blanket regulation?

That doesn't change the fact that second-hand smoke is still harmful. Whether they botch research or not, that won't change.

You know, I don't see it as modern-day Prohibition. Cigarettes are banned because they don't just harm the user. They harm everyone. If I down a pound of sugar, who else is going to suffer but me? Same goes with caffeine. I can't use that exact argument against drinking, but it's against the law to do certain things with alcohol that'd make it a problem for non-drinkers.

[DesignFox]

<snip> but it's against the law to do certain things with alcohol that'd make it a problem for non-drinkers.

And it's against the law to do certain things with cigarettes that are harmful to non-smokers.

[ebonyknight]

And it's against the law to do certain things with cigarettes that are harmful to non-smokers.

Was that a question or a statement? If it was a statement, what are the certain things?

[DesignFox]

The certain things in this case happen to be smoking inside public buildings where non-smokers are forced to inhale the second hand smoke. Or smoking in doorways to said buildings where non-smokers MUST walk to get inside.

The harm being that some people are highly allergic or asthmatic and have bad reactions to the fumes.

No one here, I think, is supporting a total ban. That's as ludicrous as prohibition was.

EDIT: I'm sorry, I should probably clarify that I'm from one of the so-called "nanny" states that has a smoking ban in effect. Frankly, I'm much happier now that we do. I can actually enjoy myself when I go out to eat, and I do so more frequently now that I don't have to suffer from itchy eyes, aching lungs, scratchy throat or come home stinking to high heaven which I have thick hair and it takes at least two showers to get rid of the smell....etc.

[BlackIronCrown]

That doesn't change the fact that second-hand smoke is still harmful. Whether they botch research or not, that won't change.


Since the FDA has retracted their papers, there are no current relevant studies on second-hand smoke and whether or not it is truly harmful. One may consider the meta-analyses performed by the Monographs Programme of the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization, but the data provided has been argued by further studies done by Enstrom and Kabat (published in the British Medical Journal).

Oh wait, my bad. The studies retracted were NOT by the FDA. They were by the EPA. Correction there.

You know, I don't see it as modern-day Prohibition. Cigarettes are banned because they don't just harm the user. They harm everyone. If I down a pound of sugar, who else is going to suffer but me? Same goes with caffeine. I can't use that exact argument against drinking, but it's against the law to do certain things with alcohol that'd make it a problem for non-drinkers.

I could argue sugar and caffeine, but we'll leave that alone for the moment.
If cigarettes are so bad for the user AND everyone else, why not an outright ban on tobacco products and forcible shutting down of the tobacco companies with resultant burning of the American farmer's tobacco crops? Why should we treat it differently than marijuana or cocaine?

[Greenday]

Oh wait, my bad. The studies retracted were NOT by the FDA. They were by the EPA. Correction there.

And this negates that...how? And they EPA is definitely not the only group out there doing research. I know people who have done research themselves (and I'm not talking about googling it, I'm talking about people who do real research) and smoking is harmful to the smokers and those around smokers.


If cigarettes are so bad for the user AND everyone else, why not an outright ban on tobacco products and forcible shutting down of the tobacco companies with resultant burning of the American farmer's tobacco crops? Why should we treat it differently than marijuana or cocaine?

Why aren't cigarettes completely banned? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Cocaine can kill you in one go. It's a hard drug. Not quite as good a comparison IMO. I don't study marijuana so I can't tell you how it adversely affects society. I'll let you know when I take my toxicology class next semester. But as a majority, people are against cocaine. There are way too many people against weed to change laws on that. Cigarettes on the other hand are enjoyed by a vast amount of people so they won't be completely banned, but they will be restricted in order to not be quite so harmful to those who don't smoke.

[Seshat]

Since the FDA has retracted their papers, there are no current relevant studies on second-hand smoke and whether or not it is truly harmful.


Asthma attacks are truly harmful. Histamine reactions may or may not be harmful in the long term, but are definitely harmful in the short term.

Both are readily visible immediate reactions that the smoke intolerant have to cigarette smoke. You don't need a study to see those reactions.

All you need is to be having a smoke, see a smoke-intolerant person approaching who is breathing the exact same air (but without smoke) as they're about to breathe with smoke, and watch their reaction.

Feel absolutely free to gather a group of smoke-intolerant people (who are willing to be human lab rats), and divide them into the control and test groups. Put them in two rooms with the same air. Into one room's ventilation duct*, add the exhaled and side-stream smoke of a gradually increasing number of smokers, and observe the reactions.

* so they don't see the smoke, and thus you can eliminate 'placebo' type effects.

If they're genuinely smoke-intolerant, I'm very confident about the results. And you'd better have oxygen masks and skilled first-aid people available.

I'd love to see the test done twice, actually. One with the groups normally medicated, and one with antihistamine and asthma-preventative medications banned for a few days before the tests. (A pharmacist could probably tell you how long to ban them, so the groups are clear of them.)