|
|
|
|
|
K-lo
|
Joined: 7/31/2006
Msg: 76 | |
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/17/2008 7:06:10 AM | JMarquis -
why not have it done one by one and let the people speak. I don't have a problem with banning smoking in places. I would rather have it be the voice of the people though, not the voice of the government.
You don't want that. In Ohio, the people did decide. They voted on it and passed the ban by popular vote. The government couldn't implement the ban without the vote of the people. But, that is not the same thing as allowing private businesses to decide for themselves - which, I think, is the stance that you favor.
Ancient Muse -
Damn, that rant felt good. It felt really good to me too. Thanks for that. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/17/2008 7:26:27 AM | I don't support bans- I've made a topic about it in the past, but it seems it's been removed because of inactivity.....
Here is the rant I started it out with......sorry in advance for the size....
------
I got to say, right off the bat- I cannot, with good and honest conscience, see how ANYONE can support a ban of smoking in Bars and Restaurants, while still claiming they believe in freedom. What you really must ask yourself, right here and now, is do you believe freedom and rights are all encompassing for all- that all people, be they man or woman, black or white, landowner or homeless- *deserve rights*- or, you must ask yourself, do you believe that some people deserve less or no rights, for such meaningless titles?
That’s what this law does- in our urges to save people from making bad choices- to free them from their complicated lives- we're actually denying landowners their rights- solely and entirely because they aren't doing what you what them to do with –their- property. In your rush to make the world a better place, you've stripped people of their rights- all the while, you retain your own. This isn't an issue of health, or common courtesy, or convenience- as wonderful as those goals are, freedom, liberty, rights- these things are far, far more important- if not for us, then for the following generations.
Did you ever think about the Restaurant or bar owner who welcomed the business of smokers? Obviously they existed, or else there would be no need for the law-What about THEIR rights? They pay for their property- they pay their taxes- and yet, you have passed a law stating they do not have the right to decide if people can smoke in their property or not? How can any rational person not be outraged by this? Would you not be outraged if the same law was passed against you? That, the smokers of Canada rose up and claimed discrimination, and forced you to accept smoke in YOUR property, least you be fined or arrested?
I suppose its wrong for your property rights to be restricted, but people who own stores- well, they can do with some less.
Can anyone within the sound of my voice tell me one- one good reason to support this law?
There always seems to be the health belief leading the pack- and its a decent belief, I'll give you that- smoking is a disgusting habit- one of whom I have not personally tried. I honestly cannot understand why anyone would like to smoke it, especially with the health risks- but should we really have the right to pass a law that basically turns cigarettes into scarlet letters? Because a person doesn't agree with our opinion? Shouldn't, as an adult, and with understanding of the risk they do to their body, shouldn't they have the right to put their health at risk if it makes them happy? And what kind of dangerous road are we traveling when anything that can be lead to unhealthiness can be legally ostracized or banned? Should we ban McDonald's from being sold, or even beef all together? Eating in excess, just like smoking in excess, can kill you. Or what about Cars- and oh, cars I find are the best example- Cars poison us far more than we give them credit- Cars spew pollution into the air, slowly ending each and every one of us lives prematurely- there’s no point denying it- Cars pollute- and London has it most of all, with some of the highest pollution in Ontario- You can sit in a room for a week brimming with second hand smoke with no real damage to yourself, except for an awful smell- you sit in a room brimming with car exhaust, you won't last an hour. Cars are, by far, much much more dangerous to our health and the health of everyone around us than second hand smoke- and yet, we ban smoking in bars and open up a Hummer Dealership.
Other than the fact that laws should not punish people for legal choices, why the hell should any of us have to pay for that? Why should I have to pay to protect people from bad choices? Why am I responsible in helping to pay to condemn people’s choices? What about personal responsibility? Not to sound callous, but if someone wants to take a risk, I shouldn't have to pay to be their safety net- they are grown adults- they should have to be responsible for their own well being- and if they choose not to be, I should not have be the responsible one. Instead, we pass a law- and laws are never enforced simply because they exist- we will all have to pay for this, from police raiding bars, looking for cigarettes, to the trials of the people who have enough love for freedom to risk their own for everyone’s- this will cost you and me money- money that could be better spent.
And then, of course, we have the argument about 'the other people'- that, if you go to a bar that allows smoking, you have to -*GASP*- tolerate second hand smoke. Seriously, I..... I simply do not understand this train of thought.....its borderline communism- from what I can grasp of this dissolving argument is that you believe you have the right to not have your airspace impaired in a bar or restaurant if you don't want it- a somewhat fair argument I suppose, although it ignores all known laws and rights we hold as Canadians, but what you must never, never forget is, if you don't like something at a Bar or Restaurant- *You-Can-Leave*. Say it with me now- *YOU-CAN-LEAVE* - its such an empowering sentence, so full of freedom, and respect.
You are not entitled as a Canadian with the right to enter any building you wish and demand how things should be run- if I were to enter a VH1 store, I don’t demand the music be turned down because it hurts my ears- I keep my ass outta VH1, and they suffer because they don’t have my Business. Likewise, if strippers offend you- do you demand The Rippers fire all their strippers, or do you stay out of the Rippers?
And that one, simple concept that, somehow, has been incomprehensible by those who support the ban on the grounds of other peoples health- that you are not *forced* to be there. No one is *forced* to be there. It’s a Choice. It’s a Restaurant. It’s a Bar. If you go there, you *CHOOSE* to be there. Not a single person I can imagine since the moment this country became free and offered its people rights, not once has anyone forced to go to a Restaurant or a Bar if they didn't want to. And, just like if you *choose* to put your health at risk by smoking a cigarette, if you choose to go to a Restaurant or Bar that allows it, you may also be putting your health at risk- if you don't want to, that’s great, wonderful, I completely support you- don't go back to that Restaurant, and tell all your friends about how terrible it was for you- with time, they'll loose business, and have to *choose* to go non-smoking or not. Just like you, they too should be responsible for their choices.
Equally this goes towards the workers arguments- they CHOOSE to work there- London has some excellent programs to help people find jobs, and the Human Resources of Canada Website has hundreds of requests for jobs in London on a weekly basis. The Government does NOT own the bar- they do not have the right to pass laws over them- nor does the Government own the job, so they do not have the right over it either.
Although I should take this point since, being the socialist country that we are, yes, we do have a universal healthcare system, and yes, this system does indeed mean we have to pay for the people who make bad choices through their health bill, I do agree- but then again, that would be an argument AGAINST the Federal Healthcare System- that the healthcare system protects people from the consequences of their actions.
Don't worry- we're almost done- just as a recap, lets review, since, sadly, we need a review on what is freedom. We've discovered that, yes, since a person owns a property, just like if you should have the right to decide if someone can or cannot smoke on your land, so should they. We've understood that, although smoking is undesirable, making a law against immoral things is, frankly, immoral, We've come to realize that, just as the Restaurant owner or Bar owner or even a smoker are responsible for their own actions, so are you- so if you choose to go somewhere you've deem unhealthy, you should have to own up to the consequences of your actions, and we've learned that its wrong to make the population pay to protect other people from their inability to act responsibly.
The last one of all is the most appalling- the last excuse for a law like this is *convenience*- that, because smokers choose to smoke in a building that chooses to allow it, and you don’t smoke, the smokers should have to leave because it inconveniences you- Which is, frankly, is insane- its not your property- you cannot demand other customers leave because you don’t want them there
Equally, the stance might be on convenience on the belief that, since all the non-smoking establishments are far away, it incontinences you, so you don’t have a choice. Once again, I don’t mean to be rude, but too bad. Life is hard- sometimes, the Eastside Mario’s is just too far away, or traffic’s too bad to get to Montana’s- Personally, I would love to have a Wendy’s burger right now- but just because I want it doesn’t mean I have the right to demand it. Equally, just because you want a non-smoking bar or restaurant, doesn’t mean you can demand the bar owner to obey your wish. You certainly do have power- you can REQUEST or talk to the owners, or you can tell you and your friends to no longer to there, tell them to tell everyone they know not to go there, and let the market decide for themselves- you can pressure people to change without forcing them
I have literally just stood here and explained why every concept and reason for this non-smoking law is wrong- and I’m not certain what is more awful- that people so cheerfully celebrate the stripping of other peoples freedoms, or that the good people of London- the people who see this as an attack against freedom- stand by and let it happen.
Yes, health, convenience, safety nets- these are noble and wonderful goals, I agree- but not more important than rights.
If you have, even an inkling of agreement with what I have to say- get your word out. Mail to the local papers; call your representatives, put up flyers on telephone poles, come down here to speakers corner- demand equal rights for all people. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/17/2008 7:52:16 AM | liberals just don't understand freedom of choice. It's not just liberals that are supporting the smoking bans that are spreading slowly across the U.S. Smoking bans are an easy way for local politicians, both left and right, to further cement their sense of incumbency as it relates to their current jobs as politicians. The bans cater to the voting habits of non-smokers, who make up 80% of the electorate. Stating the bans ensure employee's rights is a "smoke screen" (pun intended) perpetuated by the ban supporters.
I agree with everyone who states "let the establishment choose their rules". If a bar wants to set itself up as a non-smoking establishment, fine, I'm all for it. People actively seeking non-smoking environments would frequent these places. Smokers would go to the smoking bar. Everyone would be happy.
If politicians want to encourage healthier work environments, I MIGHT favor tax advantages for the bars and restaurants that establish non-smoking environments. Then take the tax money made from the smoking establishments and earmark it for health-related concerns like government health insurance. Only thing is we don't have government health insurance. So why should the government meddle half-way in matters like this with global bans? It's sort of ridiculous.
I must admit in Jersey the bars don't stink of smoke anymore. My clothes don't get smoky when I go out now. | |
|
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 79 | |
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/17/2008 8:10:59 AM | Well today, over here, the IL State Supreme Court just upheld the ban against the appeal filed by the IL casinos / "boats" which had sought to get themselves around the statewide ban. I gather their argument was solely financially-based, basically. Evidently it didn't impress. I have heard as well that in Cook County (Chicago and immediate area around it, for those of you not familiar w/here) they are planning to raise the tax per pack on cigarettes yet again. My sister is a fairly heavy smoker; she was telling me just this AM that price per package will now likely be around 7 dollars (???) in the city. When I was in high school they were like 1.75$ a pack!!! To go see a movie at night cost less than a pack of cigarettes costs here now!
I'm not a smoker, and as I said personally I was in favor of the bans here (I have personal reasons which I don't want to go into here). But the price on cigs here is admittedly getting absurd. If they're going to ban it , everywhere except your home or car or on your own property basically, or 15 - 30 ft from any public doorways, etc, as it is here in IL, AND keep hiking the prices on them, then .... ? How much further does it have to go before they're practically (de facto) forcing ppl to start looking into quitting?
At this point I'm really glad I don't smoke due to the hassles of doing it anywhere nowadays combined w/ the price ! Add that price to the (+/-) $50 dollars it takes to fill your car up all the way, and who would have thought even 10 or 15 yrs ago that you'd have to spend about 60 bucks (or even slightly more right now), to get gas for the car, a cup of coffee , and a pack of cigs , at your local gas station?? That's how it is here around Chicago at least. And I'm sure it's probably even worse elsewhere, such as NYC, or parts of Cali. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/17/2008 8:20:16 AM |
I'm not a smoker, and as I said personally I was in favor of the bans here (I have personal reasons which I don't want to go into here). But the price on cigs here is admittedly getting absurd. If they're going to ban it , everywhere except your home or car or on your own property basically, or 15 - 30 ft from any public doorways, etc, as it is here in IL, AND keep hiking the prices on them, then .... ? How much further does it have to go before they're practically (de facto) forcing ppl to start looking into quitting?
In your own home?  Some places are already looking and making it illegal to smoke in your own home. If it is an apartment building, condo, townhouse, or if minors reside in the residence.
Force them to quit? Did America learn nothing from prohibition? Gangs and thugs will soon start running cheaper cigarettes from reserves, lower taxed states or hijacked semi'sloaded with tobacco. Then other taxes will have to go up to replace the voluntary "sin taxes" lost. | |
|
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 81 | |
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/17/2008 9:15:48 AM | Yes, they would or will black market them if it ever comes to that, for certain. Not sure it will come to that, but.....who can say.
I wasn't aware they have looked to make it illegal in one's own home. Although I know, at least here in IL, it is now illegal in dorms, & prisons (indoors or w/in the 15 - 30 ft of the doorways that is). But I didn't know they were trying to do this in apt buildings, etc. Interesting. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/17/2008 9:39:20 AM | Yes, they are trying to illegalize it in your personal homes. I understand apartments or rental homes because the resident isn't the owner and the owner will have to rent the place to someone else later. But your own home that you may even have the mortgage paid is also a target of further banning.
Like I said, I can live with not being allowed to smoke indoors in places upon which non-smokers have no choice but to be. It's not about the smoking to me. It's about the fact that government goes beyond the bounds of Democracy and that while today it's this, what is it tomorrow?
It's about a situation where laws are not enforced by law enforcement where they are trained in the aspects of dealing with the citizenry in regards to law, but power is given to the lady that has a judgmental opinion on everything with no law enforcement training.
It's about those who are happy as clams as long as it's everyone else being discriminated against that sends the message of approval to further and more intrusive stripping of liberty.
I don't know what the equitable answer is, but this isn't it. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/17/2008 2:36:17 PM | Because smoking IS bad for your health and the health of other innocent people around you it should be "banned" in certain areas. Smoking sections do not work, it still disturbs the non-smokers and employees.
In most places the people have to vote on these issues and in most cases they vote for the bans. That is because the majority of people see the harmful affects of smoking and don't see it as a "right" like many smokers do. With the majority of the population voting against it, implementing what the people want is democratic. Those saying that we are not allowing capitalism to dictate what happens are mistaken, capitalism is ruled by the peoples (majority rules) choices affecting the system.
You should still have the choice to smoke in your house, but other than that, the government has a duty to protect the other people and the environment.
I can't believe how many inconsiderate smokers are out there that just throw their butts out their cars, or while standing on the sidewalk they just toss a lit butt on the ground.
I do think though that they should ban smoking in cars while kids are present. That is just plain stupid, ignorant and dangerous. Subjecting a child to second hand smoke in a car is unforgiveable, those that put their children in this situation should be fined heavily, putting a childs life at risk when they have no choice is plain stupid!
Smoking is stupid and this is coming from an occassional smoker. I am stupid for smoking, but at least I respect others opinion, health and comfort. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/17/2008 2:51:11 PM |
why not have it done one by one and let the people speak. I don't have a problem with banning smoking in places. I would rather have it be the voice of the people though, not the voice of the government. The people did speak (79% where I live) and the government (the people) listened. Be careful what you wish for. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/17/2008 2:59:19 PM | Smoking bans.....were the prelude to all Liberal agendas and enviormenaltist aka the tree huggers!
First Smoking ban
cars/trucks v8's
seat belts
cell phone restrictions
language..everthing is now a letter not a word (if someone says it hurts) lol
Trans fat
Happy hour
Camp fires
perfume
certain cooking odors
house sizes in certain neighborhoods
and even those who are voting for the bans don't realize that even fat folks will be banned from eating to much! lol... That's apart of the new Health Care System!
Food montering
Sugar intake
Sweets and so on....
Control Control Control.....where will it end nobody knows! But ride on Dude The man says we need to be told how to act think and live! So much for Freedom of Choice! | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/17/2008 2:59:32 PM | Where I live you also can't smoke outside within 15 feet of the doorway of a public/government buidling. The hospital in my town has banned smoking from the property, now the smokers go onto the street and smoke. There has been a noticeable decrease in smoking by patients and staff, which is a good thing, and visitors leave the premises to smoke. The only problem is with the littering. Many smokers who are forced outside by their habit just toss cigarette butts on the ground as if they were biodegradable. IT IS LITTERING !!! It hurts the wildlife/vegetation, looks digusting, costs tax money to clean up and is totally RUDE.
Get a clue people, you don't have the "right" to do whatever you want if it affect others.
Smokers are the MINORITY now, don't pretend everyone is on your side. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/17/2008 3:20:32 PM | Ms Lilly,
Get a clue people, you don't have the "right" to do whatever you want if it affect others.
I don't smoke or drink or eat too much or violate others in any area!
But I don't agree with banning everyone who you don't agree with!
I don't drink ....dont you think those who drink and drive kill people? does it not effect others? What about fat folks? doesn't that effect others? Health care costs? Who are you to say what affects bothers who?
So whats the solution? ban everything we deem as we don't like? As they keep cutting their throats.....Half the state taxs come from Smoking Booze bars clubs all the things the flamers can't stand....so their solution is to start first by raising the taxs and now banning? their goin to end up banning all their tax money!
in the name of Liberalism! | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/17/2008 5:04:52 PM | >>> That is because the majority of people see the harmful affects of smoking and don't see it as a "right" like many smokers do.
I agree- smoking wherever your want is not a right- but I see nothing wrong if the property owner chooses to permit smoking. They are the one who owns that right, not you.
>>> With the majority of the population voting against it, implementing what the people want is democratic.
Have you ever heard of the tyranny of the majority? I remember Hitler was democratically voted in- so was Saddam- does that justify their actions?
>>>Those saying that we are not allowing capitalism to dictate what happens are mistaken, capitalism is ruled by the peoples (majority rules) choices affecting the system.
Yes, but the hinge in that is the individual gets to choose- not the collective. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/17/2008 5:41:16 PM |
So whats the solution? ban everything we deem as we don't like?
Who gets to choose next time? | |
|
Hoop
|
Joined: 5/1/2006
Msg: 90 | |
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/17/2008 5:41:59 PM | (Sixties music plays) Remember the sixties? That’s when the U.S. Surgeon General warned us that cigarette
smoking causes lung cancer, well, music’s changed and now there’s another warning from the U.S. Surgeon
General: Radon causes lung cancer. Radon is an invisible gas that seeps into your home and it can cause lung
cancer whether you smoke or not. The only way to now if radon is in your home is to have it tested.
Call 1-800-SOS-RADON, that’s 1-800-SOS-R-A-D-O-N, because radon problems can be fixed. Brought to
you by this station and the U.S. EPA.
I actually heard this or something similar on the radio yesterday. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/17/2008 6:57:51 PM | /\/\/\ YES. RADON is the 2nd leading cause of lung cancer. If you don not smoke, it is your LEADING cause of lung cancer.
All in all, lung cancer death rates are average about 500 per 100,000 AT AGE 79, SMOKER or NON-SMOKER. Doesnt matter.
Theres such a small difference in lung cancer statistics between smokers & non-smokers below age 40 that its not even graphed. Theres a nice layout graph on the National Cancer Institute site :
http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/sites.php?site=Lung+and+Bronchus+Cancer&stat=Mortality
Whether smoker or non smoker, the graph maintains a statistical zero per 100,000 until it reaches the age 35-39 bracket. At that age its only a few per 100,000. It really starts to climb steadily at 60 and peaks at age 79.
Lung cancer is responsible for .5% of ALL deaths at age 79. What on earth are the other 99.5%, or 99,500 people dying from?? That would concern me more.
Hardly epidemic proportions that we are led to believe, considering average North American life expectency is 77.
As far as those measly 500 deaths per 100,000, smoking is responsible for for about half (250)of those deaths. But RADON comes in a close second at around 150 deaths of those 500 per 100,000. The other top 10 factors account for remaining 100 deaths of that 500 per 100,000 total.
When looked at it that way, why is there this hysteria over tobacco, whilst the dangers of RADON are virtually unknown to the general public?? I know the answer to that one.
Are anti-smoking crusaders ever concerned that they perhaps breathed RADON in their homes where their precious children live?? I dont think so. Little do they realise that they have breathed far more RADON than 2nd hand smoke in their lifetimes.
You should still have the choice to smoke in your house, but other than that, the government has a duty to protect the other people and the environment...
......I do think though that they should ban smoking in cars while kids are present
This is another fine jewel of the hypocritical double standard practised by the anti smoking crusaders. If it was NOT about their general dislike of tobacco smoke and it was truely about childrens health, we would have had smoking bans in CARS and HOMES long before we had smoking bans in BARS and WORKPLACES.
They use the tobacco health issue, and now their diabetic Ritalin-saturated children, as a hijacked vehicle to impose their intolerance on others.
Childrens' well-being is a glaringly visible afterthought, only deemed important AFTER the adult anti smoking crusader gets his or her way. How sad.
Children do not go to bars or workplaces . Anti smoking crusaders do, therefore the sad selfish agenda exposed....at the expense of children they hold so precious.
Double standard and hypocritical. | |
|
K-lo
|
Joined: 7/31/2006
Msg: 92 | |
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/18/2008 7:15:23 AM |
capitalism is ruled by the peoples (majority rules) choices affecting the system. Uhhh . . . no it isn't. That's democracy.
Capitalism is an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, as opposed to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. Capitalism is characterized by a free market for goods and services and private control of production and consumption. Capitalism is based on open competition. It encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. In a Capitalist system, individuals and firms have the right to own and use wealth to earn income and to sell and purchase labor for wages with little or no government control.
We are both a Democratic and Capitalist country. Democracy is a political system. Capitalism is an economic system. Taking business decisions away from the free market and asking the government to make those decisions for the people, for our "protection" . . . is what you would call "Socialism." And one day, when we are all a canvas of similar faces with gray clothes and equal pay and all with the same and limited rights (if you even want to call them "rights"), and working for paychecks which we all receive from the government, and receiving our healthcare from the government, and turning over our neighbors to the government because we learned that they somehow acquired more than we . . . then we can all live in the eutopian world of "Communism." | |
|
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 93 | |
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/18/2008 7:52:04 AM | ^^^ It is a democracy, yes, (obviously), a liberal representative republican-style democracy at that. And it is (again obviously) capitalist. But there has been, just to mention in all fairness, some good degree that America "borrowed" (so to speak) from socialism. This is not a truly laissez-faire capitalist country for instance. There are a great deal of restrictions, fed'l gov't oversight, etc, on big business and commerce and what-have-you. For some peoples' taste there is even too much. Hong Kong, if I'm not mistaken , was actually rated as more laissez-faire than America, as far as its style of capitalism, with America actually coming up something like 5th or 6th place behind for instance Singapore, I believe, and even Ireland -- all of whom have more of a free market and less gov't oversight and interference in their free markets' business decisions, etc.
Furthermore, during Wilson's "New Freedom" era, and later FDR's "New Deal" era, America adopted a good deal of important ideas from socialism. The breaking up of trusts and monopolies. The bans on child labor. The 8 hour workday & the minimum wage. The rights of unions to strike, picket, and so forth. So, I think to some extent, it has to be borne in mind that while what you've said is essentially correct, there has also been for many many years (and this has been basically a good thing, IMO) a good deal of "blending" here in America of what is best about capitalism and free markets and democracy, with what is best about socialism. That is why, IMO, moves such as this (smoking bans -- and my own state of IL was relatively late in taking this issue up) are hardly unprecedented or unheard of.
We do live in a relatively free country , yes (& what is perhaps most unique about it is our near complete freedom of speech and expression really). But we do not live in a totally free "libertarian"-style country, where gov't interference in what people view to be just their "daily lives" is unheard of. And America has not been that way for many many decades really. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/18/2008 7:53:48 AM |
I definitely believe business owners should be able to make this decision for themselves. It's Capitalism.
I don't think it's going to make a difference for much longer. Smokers have become a smaller and smaller part of society, and non-smokers don't want to patronize restaurants and bars where there are smoking.
So regardless of whether federal or local authorities ban smoking, establishiments that cater to it are on their way out.
You might like to have a beer with your steak, but there are non-drinkers at the restaurant that don't want to see a beer on your table when they eat theirs. They get other tee-totallers involved and then an activist pastor in town rallies a huge group into the county board meetings. Next thing you know, you've lost a liberty.
LOL. The objection of non-smokers to smoking isn't SEEING smokers or cigarettes, it's SMELLING the cigarette smoke and also suffering the damage that second hand smoke does to your body.
If cigarettes, cigars and pipes didn't emit carcingenic materials, were smokeless, and didn't smell I doubt that anyone would care. Regardless of whether you drink or not, the beer at someone else's table doesn't compromise your dining experience or harm your health.
ou have to understand the main reason for smoking ban in bars and restaurants. It's to protect the workers. They say that if you work in an enclosed area with several people smoking for an eight hour shift, it would be the equivalent of smoking several packs of cigarettes.
In California the law IS an OSHA law to protect workers, however, the laws are not OSHA laws in all states.
However, you are correct that retaurant workers are harmed by smoking. I know a long-time bartender who right now is dying from the effects of second-hand smoke. And he was a life-long non-smoker.
Well, that makes sense. So the banning of trans fats in NY was really because the lawmakers finally got the message that people are offended by fat people.
I gather this is a poor attempt at humor. Banning transfats won't make people any skinnier. There are plenty of healthy foods that can make you very, very fat.
Saturated fat isn't very good for you, but transfats are much worse. The reason for this is that a transfat sticks directly to your arteries and can't be flushed out with bran or other fiber. A saturated fat looks like this ^ , i.e., arched in the middle. A transfat looks like this ---, i.e. a straight line. So when you eat bran the fiber will catch some of the saturated fat and clean it off your arteries, and the saturated fat doesn't make as good an attachment because of the shape. On the other hand the transfat, because it is completely fat, adheres to the artery and is pretty well impossible to flush out unless you have an angioplasty.
If enough people band together for a cause (restriction) that then passes a referendum, then I guess I’ll have to live with it. I’m sure there are many dry counties in the States where this type of situation still exists. Your “liberty” to fill my air with your smoke has ended, and I can live with that.
That's exactly how we define liberty in this country. Liberty generally ends where the next person's space begins. After all, we denied Ted Bundy his liberty to rape and murder women, and Jeffrey Dahmer his liberty to murder and eat his victims.
We deny people their "liberty" to own handguns in many places, and we deny all convicted felons the liberty to own guns.
So we deny people various liberties all the time to protect the rights of other people.
If you drink and are caught driving a car you will be arrested for drunk driving, and your "liberty" to drive will be taken away. Because your liberty to drive drunk is outweighed by the rights of other people not to be killed by a drunk driver.
Same with smoking. Smoking causes harm to people other than the smoker. Therefore various states and municipalities have banned smoking. This is to protect the health of the nonsmokers who patronize and work in their restaurants.
Actually it would be a lot more democratic and capitalistic to allow freedom to go ahead and allow new bars to be built to cater to the human rights of smokers and all non smokers can then party down in their active locales.
There are actually private smoking clubs, even in California. Here's a link to a cigar lounge in Modesto:
http://www.cherootcigarlounge.com/
And one in San Francisco:
http://www.cigarbarandgrill.com/
Here's how I heard it described by the "regulars" at a bar once. They have gone to the bar 2, 3, or 5 evenings a week for 10 years and smoked with their buddies. Then the guy that comes in maybe once a month or every other month walking through the place like Liberace in too tight pants complains belligerently about the smoke. Why the hell did he even come in there then?
Even at bars, the ratio of non-smokers is much greater than smokers. So if you're making the argument of "majority rule" (which is not the reason for smoking bans), then in this case the majority IS ruling.
Seems to me everytime a law is passed a freedom is lost.
Really? Then should we repeal laws against murder, rape, theft, identify theft, arson and terrorism? I get it, 9/11 was really freedom of expression. How dare we encroach on personal freedoms. After all, all these folks are doing is expressing themselves.
We have and always will have laws that protect citizens from being harmed by the actions of others. | |
|
K-lo
|
Joined: 7/31/2006
Msg: 95 | |
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/18/2008 8:35:37 AM |
Then should we repeal laws against murder, rape, theft, identify theft, arson and terrorism? That's a bit extremist, don't ya think? | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/19/2008 11:35:00 AM | If a non-smoker dies of lung cancer, he died of lung cancer.
If a smoker dies of lung cancer, he died of smoking.
The Surgeon General has determined that there is NO minimum tolerance for tobacco smoke. Even Plutonium has a minimum level of tolerance.
So, if a smoker dies of anything, he died of smoking.
If a non-smoker dies of anything, he died from being exposed to second hand smoke, which infiltrated his air after being carried over the ocean on the Jet Stream from a smoker in Japan. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/21/2008 10:47:12 AM | Way to sum things up for us all. I suppose as a smoker you have had no health problems related to smoking and your lungs are crystal clear, because of course smoking doesn't cause lung cancer...cough cough...
Denial is a cute way of sidestepping the truth, the truth that hurts. Smokers that don't think they are harming others around them are either really naive, stubborn or just plain ignorant. SMOKING KILLS PEOPLE!
Smoking affecting others = selfish lifestyle choice, ignorant to facts. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/21/2008 8:50:21 PM | | I am all for smoking bans. I think that most smokers are so ignorant. What gives them the right to pollute my air with their nasty second hand smoke. Where do smokers usually smoke outside a building? Right in the doorway. I fully agree with banning smoking in restruants and bars. I wish they would put a ban on ALL public places. People should only be able to smoke in their cars (without children) or in their homes if they don't have children. It sickens me to see people smoke in a car where there are children with the windows up. That to me is a form of child abuse. Most smokers care about nopthing more than their precious cigaretts. They would buy cigaretts before they buy food for their kids. The same goes for drinking. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/21/2008 9:05:43 PM | Jiperly, was your message #77 written by you? It's a great post and defines what freedom really is. I do not smoke cigarettes but I am totally against putting constraints on PRIVATE business.
Here in Minnesota we had a smoking ban passed last October. I have a close friend in the restaunt business who's an excellent businessman and watches where every penny is coming and going. As soon as the ban came into effect his gross sales were down $1000 a day. Business did come back a little after people got used to it but not at the level it was prior to the ban.
The ban in Minnesota was skillfully (or shall I say politically) worded as "The Freedom to Breathe Act" As if we weren't free to breathe before that. But wording it in that way feeds on peoples' emotions and that's what politics has sadly become.
Now if our leaders who pass these bans are doing so based on their concern for the health and well-being of we citizens, which is indeed how they sell it, then why are there not bans on the sales of tobacco in these states? Of course that would mean kissing goodbye that $1.75 in tax the state of Minnesota gets for every pack sold here. They do not want to lose that. They banned smoking in all public places. You can still buy a pick of cigs at your favorite watering hole. You just can't smoke 'em there. These bans have nothing to do with health and are simply popularity issues. While many of the state senators who voted in favor had the best of intetions, I believe there are just as many who did it based on what they thought would make them more popular amongst the voters. And elected leader who casts a vote based on what they think the voters want is no leader at all. And that includes Governor Tim Pawlenty, a republican.
A good analogy on this issue is second hand drinking. How can there be such a thing as second hand drinking, you may ask? Well what about innocent children growing up in a home with one or even two alcoholic parents? What about homes and families that have been broken and torn apart because of alcoholism? Just think how many lives are affected by one alcoholic through work, friends and relatives. What about that young couple many years ago who were just married and on their way to their wedding reception when their limmo was hit by a drunk driver, killing the groom. That 70 yr old grandmother killed by a drunk driver while crossing her own street. Shouldn't there be a ban on drinking in public too?
We've all seen those TV ads advocating responsible drinking and hopefully it's taught a few people to think twice before getting behind the wheel after drinking. But I would love to see an ad on TV advocating PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY. That means not relying on the government to ban smoking just because someone doesn't like it. Freedom is wonderful and freedom is something that's deep inside each and every human spirit. We want to be free. But with freedom comes our own personal responsibility in making choices for our own well-being and not relying on the government to do it for us.
As Jiperly stated earlier "we have choice". Very powerful words, indeed. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/21/2008 11:57:58 PM | | Ok I am a smoker and have tried quitting several times and it is a pain in the butt and I have yet to succeed. Enough of that before I went on disability I was the general manager over different restaurants at different times. My state has not passed a no public smoking law but a few cities have and low and behold all the restaurants business plummeted all clubs, and bars moved out and now they are trying to get the laws removed because they see oh crap we screwed up our income for our city. I know the state my exwife moved to passed not only a state smoking ban, but also passed a law saying that the police must pull you over and write you a ticket if you are smoking in a car and they believe someone under the age of 18 is in the car. The one thing they did leave out was the casinos because they knew if they passed that law the casinos would up and leave and come over to the other side of the river to my state. The police are actually mad about them passing the ticket law. They say for all the things they have to do already they are under staffed and have worse things to worry about then people smoking in a car with someone under the age of 18. They have to worry about real crimes, and as one officer interviewed put it "after all the things we already have to do now they are going to give us these bull s*** laws when we are already taxed out on drunk drivers, drugs, and violent crimes". Personally being a smoker I respect nonsmokers cause I know it is a bad habit. My family used to own a restaurant and a bar they had different air units for each side and there was neutral ground between smoking and nonsmoking in the restaurant the bar they had several commercial air purifiers running so it wasn't bad. My parents did this even though they were smokers for the respect of nonsmokers. Personally if someone wants to complain about the hazards of second hand smoke. Go look at all the chemicals in the food you eat, and all the chemicals that are used to produce storage containers of your food and the effects they have on your body over time. Their are alot worse things to worry about then second hand smoke but I think it got such bad news after all the reports of smoking came out about how bad it was for you. Hey go fig people always have to find a way to make them feel better about themselves by knocking someone else for something they do. | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
Home
login 
