| smoking bans
Posted: 2/3/2009 4:24:37 AM | | A friend of mine who goes to lots of different bars in Ohio said she's seen signs and patrons are expected to make daily donations to help pay the smoking fines. These bars are not private but since there aren't enough enforcement agents, they are playing the odds they won't get caught. And if they do they have the money to pay the fines. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 2/3/2009 5:17:45 AM | | I was years ago a smoker,and have been quit for a very long time and I believe a business owner should be able to be a smoking establishment if they feel like it.There are establishments already I don't go to,its freedom of choice,if you don't like smokers then go to a non smoking establishment.Some city on the news a few nights ago outlawed smoking in ones own personal apartment and or condos saying the second hand smoke is harmful to the apartment next door and even as the mayor said in her own words is,even if you breath second hand smoke for a few seconds its dangerous and as for the lady complaining that she can't smoke in her house,the mayor said she had no idea how to help the woman,hopefully she'll move some place else,gee thanks "MOM"....................wow,its like a mild form of communism . | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 2/3/2009 6:39:50 AM | Think about it.
I don't have to guess if someone is smoking--I can smell it. Which means I'm breathing it. If I wanted to, I would light up and smoke my own. Which I don't.
Smoking stinks. Period. It doesn't all just float out the window. And, if it does, someone outside is breathing it.
Smoking in public is seriously rude and it's dangerous to people who are allergic to the poisons in tobacco. My father was severely allergic. Me? I'm just cranky about having to breath in someone else's addiction.
Smoking in a car with children is abusive. And disrespectful. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 2/3/2009 12:35:56 PM | "because smoking is banned in most states, this does not mean that breathing, seeing, talking or another freedom will also be banned. In my opinion these are weak arguments."
Really? It already has. Perfumes now have to have restricted access in some areas. We are back to restricting sugar heavy products in schools. Restricting some forms of abortion would be a partial ban not a full ban. Killing a healthy baby at birth when it is not necessary to save the life of the mother ... partial birth abortion ... may soon follow. I happen to think it should. But, if the argument works one way it also works the other. Restricting smoking does lead to restricting but not fully banning abortions.
We also have in CA restrictions on the bar on how liable they are fo r the person who drank those 22 beers. By the way, as a light drinker I can assure you ... beer and alcohol breath really and truly stinks as much as cigs ..... cigs smell offends my nose and makes me want to sneeze .... alcohol breath makes me want to vomit. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 2/3/2009 1:04:19 PM | Alomost every day I see under age childrren on the side walks near schools smoking, we need to enforce the laws, they can not sell cigarettes to minors but these kids are getting them some where
The police should issue them a summons that involves a substanial fine
Smoking should be banned in all public places | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 2/3/2009 1:26:14 PM |
What sort of person wouldn't have that sort of protection and insulation for their establishment. You actually SAVE MONEY in the long run having those systems protect aginst damage rather than waiting 20 minutes for a fire truck to arrive while the fire eats away your business. Its called common sense. So when sprinkler systems first came out many years ago, you think all businesses jumped at the chance to spend many thousands to install them, or do you think they installed them because they were ordered to by the local fire Marshall? I’d wager there was a few that did it because of “common sense”, but the majority did it because they were told to.
Any club or establishment has to have a restroom for men and women to acquire a liquor license. The government controls that my friend. That is a state law for any establishment wanting to serve hard drinks. Without that license I doubt the club would make money as it can serve booze or beer or wine. Check the laws and you'll see why and again its common sense. So we agree that Government can make rules on what a private business can and cannot do when it serves the public.
You just said only public owners have to abide by laws and rules that are stated by the government but now are saying that even private owners also have to abide by these rules and also conform to public rules and laws?
If the private business is open to the public, then yes, they are bound by the powers that be. Both publicly owned and privately owned businesses that serve the public have to abide by certain rules laid out by some sort of authority. I don’t see how you could think we should do away with private ownership because the Government makes rules on how a private business operates.
I do know the difference between public and private business, but thanks for your effort.
The government is treading into a gray area that is telling private owners that they cannot have their people smoking in that bar or club even though it is closed to the public. I dare say that a violation of freedom of assembly
If you’re talking about a private club that only allows members in, then smoke all you want if, but I bet the owner still has to remove asbestos and provide his and her bathrooms. If you’re talking about a private business that is open to the general public, then the owner will have to follow the rules set out by some sort of authority and that would include any no smoking bylaws. You’re free to assemble, who’s stopping you?
Cheers | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 2/3/2009 11:09:09 PM |
Smoking in public is seriously rude and it's dangerous to people who are allergic to the poisons in tobacco.
Then you better not go to L.A. You will shrivel up and die there.  | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 2/3/2009 11:13:04 PM | "Smoking in public is seriously rude and it's dangerous to people who are allergic to the poisons in tobacco."
...
"Then you better not go to L.A. You will shrivel up and die there"
Steel is right. We might have the strictest of smoking bans... but the same toxins in cigs are in the exhaust in most of our horrid traffic and manufacturing and oil processing businesses. We no longer kill you with cigs.... but we still kill you with our smog... even though it is less than it was at its worst.
I am campaigning for the solar and wind money and alternative fuel cars to clearn our air. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 2/4/2009 5:44:00 AM | When I was a smoker I was a courteous smoker,so dislike immensely the how rude we were to everyone lines how we're killing people.years ago we had a smoking room for smoker breaks,then the laws outlawed that and made us stand in the entrance to the building,now we were in the face of all and made them aware there even were smokers at the building.In Disneyland 20 yrs ago I went to the back corner of the outdoor eatery and had a no one there for 60 tables and wind blowing away from them,woman and kids come all the way over to me sits 2 tables away,and starts flapping her hands and coughing then stands up and gives me the how dare you I have kids,well I told how dare she,she saw me smoking on the way over,I didn't say anything about how obnoxious and offensive her perfume was.
Local restaurant had a glass sealed smoking room,air exhausted out of ceiling,air filtration the help clean the air and smoke sucks away from door when open by the pressure and a special air system at door,I had eaten there many times even next to the room and did not realize smokers were in there,well when they banned public place smoking there went the owners $200,000 room.Seems he was a shining example of how you can cater to both sides,yet he was forced to shut.
If someone is so sensitive to pollutants its they that should move to a more safe place,like the country side or a private house never an apartment,some of these others are right,pollution,car exhaust,perfume,pollen,a dairy,they all smell so sensitive people can't move next to a dairy say,and then complain it smells,thats whats happening here,people building next to 100 year old dairy and wanting the dairy removed,building next to horses in our famous horse owner area and complaining the manure smells and there are too many flys,building next to the local airport and protesting to reduce noise ,some people have a ton of nerve.
Can you just picture what type of dictator they'd be if they ruled a kingdom a few hundred years ago,thats one reason we hate communism, its that when one person is given ultimate power over everyone and we have to tolerate his or her unreasonable "its all about them" ways and demands.Well I wish people didn't drink so much,but I will never say that to them I will offer them a glass if they come over,"one cube or two",freedom of speech,freedom of choice as long as your not a child. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 5/29/2009 6:44:01 AM | another reason not to smoke. this part blows my mind. "butts constitute 28 percent to 33 percent of all litter nationwide — measured by item number, not volume. Similarly, the nonprofit Ocean Conservancy, which also receives money from Philip Morris, has found that butts account for 28 percent of littered items washing up on beaches worldwide"
Cigarette Butts: Tiny Trash That Piles Up
NY Times
By LESLIE KAUFMAN
Published: May 28, 2009
Andrea Scott says she would never throw a candy wrapper on the ground.
“Littering is one of my pet peeves, and I always told my kids they’d be in big trouble if I catch them doing it,” said Ms. Scott, a 43-year-old financial executive, as she sat outside an office tower on Michigan Avenue in Chicago on a recent sunny afternoon. “I see people throw stuff out their car windows, and I cringe.”
Yet she confesses that she routinely discards cigarette butts on the sidewalk.
For her and countless other American smokers, cigarette butts are an exception to the no-littering rule. “Aren’t cigarettes biodegradable?” volunteered Libby Moustakas, a co-worker who was enjoying a smoking break with Ms. Scott.
But dozens of municipalities across the nation have had enough. Weary of the butts’ unsightliness and the costs of sweeping them up, cities have passed bans on smoking on beaches and playgrounds. In San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom said last week that he would go a step further, seeking a 33-cents-a-pack tax to cover the $11 million that the city spends annually to remove cigarette litter.
Nationally, cigarette butts account for one-quarter or more of the items tossed onto streets and other roadways, San Francisco and other cities report.
Nathan Ballard, a spokesman for Mr. Newsom, described this as a predictable outcome of poor product design. “There is no good practical way of dealing with cigarettes,” he said. “You have a fiery object in your hand and so you have to throw it down and crush it under your heel. And then we have to clean it up.”
In her defense, Ms. Scott, the Chicago executive, pointed out that her city does not provide enough receptacles, like concrete planters filled with sand. And she fears that throwing them in a trash can could ignite a fire.
Still other smokers see butts as a more natural kind of trash than, say, a plastic bottle. But they are not biodegradable: they contain plastic filters that enter sewers and storm drains, and get swept into rivers and then out to sea, where they can release toxic chemicals including nicotine, benzene and cadmium.
For years, campaigns for heavy per-pack taxes and smoking bans in office buildings, restaurants and bars were driven mainly by health concerns about secondhand smoke, which can lead to lung cancer, emphysema and other diseases. In moving on to butt litter, municipalities are reckoning with the broader environmental consequences of the country’s most vilified personal habit.
Cigarette companies acknowledge the problem. The Cigarette Litter Prevention Program, created by the nonprofit group Keep America Beautiful, is financed by Philip Morris, the cigarette giant. The prevention program’s statistics show that butts constitute 28 percent to 33 percent of all litter nationwide — measured by item number, not volume. Similarly, the nonprofit Ocean Conservancy, which also receives money from Philip Morris, has found that butts account for 28 percent of littered items washing up on beaches worldwide | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 5/29/2009 9:17:18 AM | | The claim that ETS or sidestream smoke is almost if not as deadly as first hand is a claim made on inconsistent and unreiable evidence. Now with cigarettes I think there is an arugment as cigarettes are pumped up with chemicals and other sythetetic material to keep the tobacco fresh, burning constantly and also burning evenly. Infact one lab reported that ETS might even reduce you chance of getting lung cancer at all, thats how off the board research has been. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 5/30/2009 10:01:05 AM |
nfact one lab reported that ETS might even reduce you chance of getting lung cancer at all,
Citation? | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 5/30/2009 12:07:56 PM |
Now with cigarettes I think there is an arugment as cigarettes are pumped up with chemicals and other sythetetic material to keep the tobacco fresh, burning constantly and also burning evenly.
It's funny you should bring that up--my neighbor state to the south as enacted a law pumping a new chemical into cigarettes--this one to ensure they don't burn constantly. If you don't constantly drag on them, they go out after about 20-30 seconds. The packs have a code to signify this--FSC--fire safe cigarette.
Since smokes are cheaper there, many Ohioians trekked down monthly to buy them. But since this new chemical as been added, reports of stomach cramps, headaches and general nausea have been reported. Gotta wonder what that chemical is, how much research was done on it and if that research was long term to rule out additional health problems.
I do bet it has hurt their economy somewhat as many smokers I know will no longer buy them. And I have tried them, and they do taste different, but I had no side effects. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 5/30/2009 1:42:01 PM | | I think they should go further and make it so that the purchasing of cigarettes requires a prescription that would help keep the cigarettes out of the hands of minors | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 5/30/2009 3:46:58 PM | I think they should go further and make it so that the purchasing of cigarettes requires a prescription that would help keep the cigarettes out of the hands of minors
If store clerks are doing their jobs, they won't be getting into the hands of minors anymore than they are now. Try doing something like that and see what happens, in addition to the fact you'll never get in to see one because all the smokers will be there, doctors will be so livid about the wasted time they'll probably raise their rates even higher.
If you are going to do it to cigarettes then it certainly must be done for alcohol. They'll have to set up doctor posts at drive thrus. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 5/31/2009 9:13:15 AM | Charlesedem, I was simple pointing out the inconsistent data labs are producing from actally prevention of cancer by inhaling MTS to MTS being a cancer causing carcnogen. I have been trying to find exsacly where I found it but its lost in a stack of research I have done. I am looking however. You should check this out:
forces.org
THis site us bi partisan and doesnt have any help from the big T. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 5/31/2009 9:49:15 AM |
If store clerks are doing their jobs, they won't be getting into the hands of minors anymore than they are now. Try doing something like that and see what happens, in addition to the fact you'll never get in to see one because all the smokers will be there, doctors will be so livid about the wasted time they'll probably raise their rates even higher.
Its not just the store clerks it's older kids and adults either giving cigarettes to them or buying them for them. A prescription would help eliminate children being hooked on them before they are even old enough to make a rational decision as to whether they want to smoke or not. If a kid is seen walking down the street drinking a police officer has the right to stop them, they do not stop underage smokers from openly smoking even though it is against the law for them to purchase them | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 5/31/2009 10:07:07 AM |
Its not just the store clerks it's older kids and adults either giving cigarettes to them or buying them for them.
And they do the same with alcohol, so the point is?
A prescription would help eliminate children being hooked on them before they are even old enough to make a rational decision as to whether they want to smoke or not.
And how old is that? Is choosing to smoke ever a rational decision? It is mostly brought on by peer pressure. It's the cool thing to do--"cause you ain't allowed to" just like drinking.
If a kid is seen walking down the street drinking a police officer has the right to stop them, they do not stop underage smokers from openly smoking even though it is against the law for them to purchase them
I have also noticed a trend in both underage smoking and drinking that the kids are a bit smarter these days and don't do it openly. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 5/31/2009 6:37:51 PM |
And they do the same with alcohol, so the point is?
The point is if an addict " a smoker" has to have a prescription to purchase them they will not be as likely to buy using their prescription meaning less available for underage smokers
And how old is that? Is choosing to smoke ever a rational decision? It is mostly brought on by peer pressure. It's the cool thing to do--"cause you ain't allowed to" just like drinking.
Smoking is never a rational decision but an 18 year old is more likely to not to smart then a 11,12, or 13 year old
I have also noticed a trend in both underage smoking and drinking that the kids are a bit smarter these days and don't do it openly.
Maybe you see them smoking less because the price is discouraging them from even starting, We could never do enough to protect the children from the legalized drug dealers we allow to manufacture and distribute a product that when used as intended causes disease and death | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/3/2009 11:52:09 AM | I dont see how the last posts regarding minor smoking or store clerks doing their jobs. We are talking about the smoking ban.....which most often than not deals with places where people must be of legal age to go into.
Arguments stands, health effects of ETS and Tobacco smoking are not being shown to cause cancer. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/3/2009 1:27:07 PM | I dont see how the last posts regarding minor smoking or store clerks doing their jobs. We are talking about the smoking ban.....which most often than not deals with places where people must be of legal age to go into.
Arguments stands, health effects of ETS and Tobacco smoking are not being shown to cause cancer.
I just like to get peoples opinion on this. recently, the city I am planning on moving to, banned smoking in restaurants. I was wondering if people supported these bans, or think that each individual business owner should be able to run their business they way he or she chooses to.
Above this is a quote for the thread that started this debate can you see it? it says a ban on "smoking in restaurants" do children go into restaurants ?
As far as your argument that smoking and second hand smoke does not cause cancer, COPD and other diseases I think I will believe the surgeon general and my own reaction to inhaling smoke caused by some one elses inconsiderate smoking. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/3/2009 2:02:37 PM | Ha the Surgeon General the Don of the Phmaracy Industry. If I were to show Monograph 9 and a couple other a RECENT reports, the Surg Gen will be going aginist researh. I'll post a report that talks about the SG in regards to ETS and cigarsmoke.
About the title changing names, its not my fault that I didnt see it. Still Even with your titles I dont see where smoking bans has anything to do with a vendor at a gas station selling to minors or selling to minors atall., | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/3/2009 2:16:52 PM | Your in denial, talking to you is pointless, smoking kills it's as simple as that if you want to continue to abuse your body have at it but do it where it won't effect helpless children and animals.
A public place is just that, bans are put into place to protect the health of others you have the option of going out side to smoke, if it was left up to me you and any one else who smokes would need to obtain tobacco and tobacco products by prescription | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/3/2009 2:38:50 PM | This is a case of tyranny of the majority. In CA you cannot smoke in public buildings, at some parks, some cities (inside/outside) and beaches.
The facts are that the effects of second hand tobacco smoke OUTSIDE are ZERO. This is a clear indication of that the smoking ban folks are not interested in their health, they want to dictate how others behave.
HEPA filters can eliminate tobacco smoke, yet bars and other establishments cannot install them and allow for smoking sections. Having an exclusive smoking establishment is also forbidden.
I smoke cigars. I pay a 50% tax on them. That tax money supposedly goes for so called "free" healthcare for children. Considering all of the above, if you complain to me about smoking, I will take a page out of your book and not give a damn about the rights of others. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/3/2009 2:57:47 PM | I see it as a case of where a minority of people do not get to impose their will on a majority of the people. Your addicted to a designer drug "tobacco" and will remain in denial until you are forced to quit.
This is a case of tyranny of the majority. In CA you cannot smoke in public buildings, at some parks, some cities (inside/outside) and beaches. | |
|
Home
login 
