Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > smoking bans      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 77
smoking bansPage 4 of 16    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
>>>Many smokers make selfish choices and I think people who enjoy smoking are out of thier minds.

Thats quite possible- but it doesn't address anything I asked. I never asked you to judge people who smoke, I asked you why an adult cannot judge for themselves. Certainly you believe you are capable of judging for both yourself and others.....what gives you this distinction above your fellow man?

>>>I like to have clean air.

Ah, so you do not drive? And you refuse all forms of electricity?

I find it ironic you condemn people for polluting whist you yourself pollutes, but, nonetheless, I'm am still entirely interested in the answer to my question rather than argue who causes a greater harm.

>>>I would think that the cartoon hero Captain Planet would be anti smoking and would say don't reject indoor smoking bans.

I never understood Captain Planet......I mean, the pig-faced man manages to "steal" millions of drums of oil from Gaia, or locals, or whatever, and then they proceed to dump it into the ocean......huh? I mean, dude, shouldn't you, like, sell it? The characters they portrayed in that show seemed less like businessmen and more like drunken frat boys messing around.

Still, getting off on a tangent- I'm gunna try once more(I've been oddly patient here dude);

---Please Answer the Below---
Why can an adult not decide their own health?
---Please Answer the Above---
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 79
smoking bans
Posted: 4/26/2008 8:10:32 AM
>>>Many of us want to live a long health life. The best thing to do is never smoke.

No, the best thing to do is to exercise and eat right. Not smoking does not make you healthy, nor does staying away from smokers make you healthy- smoking and hanging around smokers certainly is decremental to a long life, but non-smoking doesn't extend your life by any means. Thats like saying that not chopping off your hand will extend your life- no, chopping off your hand will shorten your life, but not chopping off your hand doesn't extend it at all.

Not to mention this statement could clearly be a double standard- if theres nothing wrong with banning smoking because we "want to live a long health life", and thus justifies the Government telling you what you can and cannot do, then why cannot the Government equally treat you the same with drinking alchoal? Or Overeating? Or eating unbalanced diets? Or exercising too much?

If an adult knows the risks of their choices, why can they not make that choice? I doesn't matter that "Most" of us -the collective- wants; the collective claims no ownership nor has no right to your body or your health. I know that when I drive p to a Wendy's that this food will not help me live a long healthy life- but I choose so. When I drive past a gym, I know that not exercising on a regular basis will not help me live a long healthy life- but I know the risks, and a choose not to. I know that if I go out on an all night bender, spend $100 on shots and beers and wake up the next night not remembering half the night, that this isn't going to help me live a long, healthy life- but I choose it.

So, I ask again- why is smoking so special? Why do you believe there should be an exception to smoking?

>>>The New York City mayor thinks that every smoker should quit and I agree with him.

And you're entitled to your opinion- but you're not entitled to us my tax dollars to force me to do as you say. You're free to disagree, but your freedoms end the moment you try and force my hand.


But as for everything I posted just now- you might as well ignore it- you've been ignoring everything I've posted up until this point anyways- you clearly have no intention on answering why a grown adult cannot decide for themselves their own health, and just want to dictate people on how to life their lives, believing your opinion should be law while your neighbor should be arrested and punished for disagreeing with you. I feel sorry that there are so many people out there like yourself who claim to be fighting for my rights, but hate me having rights so very, very much.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 81
smoking bans
Posted: 4/26/2008 10:39:38 AM
>>>Politicians have the right to ban cigarettes. They just don't want the same thing to happen for when alcohol was illegal.

Please, how exactly do they have the right? Because we elected them? What if they outlawed junk food- would they have that right? Or what if they outlawed liquor? What if they start dictating that we spend 2 hours a day on a treadmill for our own safety, and that all night shifts are to be ended because thats unhealthy?

Health alone is not a reason to make something illegal. People should be responsible for their actions and should accept the consequences of such.

And how do you believe that a black market will not appear for cigarettes if you outlaw them? Taxes for cigarettes have skyrocketed in Ontario, and already a black market has appeared from our Aboriginal Reserves, tax free.

Pot is illegal, and theres a black market for it- same with crack, cocaine, heroin, meth- and yes, when liquor was illegal, there was also a black market for it- because all of these drugs are or were illegal, they are far more dangerous and have no oversight and health standards that anything else we sell has. All this money that was once being given to the government to pay for our services was immediately given to criminals to pay for further crimes

So what would be different when smokes are outlawed? You're the one preaching it, so I would hope you would have a plan to stop criminals from profiting from your social experiments

>>>My grandmother was born in the prohibition era and she never smoked and always banned smoking in the house.

And its wonderful she believes in freedom- her house, her property, her rules. I have nothing against people choosing not to smoke, I have everything against someone forcing a decision onto me because they believe there is some innate reason that I am incapable of making decisions for myself.
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 83
smoking bans
Posted: 4/27/2008 7:37:02 AM
So in other words you feel there should be no restrictions on dry cleaners, industrial plants, or coal plants that bilge pollution into the atmosphere? Right?

After all, that's "social engineering". While it does cut down on the cases of lung cancer and heart disesase, it drives up the cost of your dry cleaning, home heating fuel, not to mention the cost of consumer goods. How dare they!

The reason for smoking restrictions are just as valid as restrictions for other environmental pollutants.

The only way a restaurant would be able to have a smoking section that didn't stream tobacco in the the spaces of the non-smoking clients would be to have a separate room with a separate air filtration system and a door that didn't open into the rest of the restaurant.

My guess is this would be too expensive a proposition for most owners to even consider.

"Social engineering" would only come into play if smoking were made illegal, or if you weren't allowed to smoke in your own properly filtered single family home.

Any time the rights of the smoker impinges on the rights of non-smokers -- the right of the non-smoker not to be injured, or just plain old grossed out -- the rights of the non-smokers prevail.
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 84
smoking bans
Posted: 4/27/2008 8:50:26 AM
Doesn't particularly matter whether you are the "anti-smoker's" number one enemy or not. This isn't about you, it's about the rights of people not to be injured by second-hand smoke.

As someone who has been injured by second-hand smoke, I am interested in making sure that future generations of children don't have the same problems, and that adults who don't smoke also aren't injured.

I have no desire one way or another to stop people from smoking. Their lungs, their heart, their arteries, their right to ruin them if they so desire. That's a whole world different from inflicting that smoke on the general public.

Smoking bans have changed me from someone who couldn't go out to eat, couldn't travel on a plane, a bus, the subway -- who even had to turn down jobs in smoking offices, to someone who can now circulate free in society. It's a wonderful thing.

People shouldn't have to stay home because the air is so putrid they can't function normally in society, and that's the way it used to be.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 85
smoking bans
Posted: 4/27/2008 10:30:30 AM
>>>My guess is this would be too expensive a proposition for most owners to even consider.

So they shouldn't even be given the freedom to consider it at all, eh?

>>>"Social engineering" would only come into play if smoking were made illegal, or if you weren't allowed to smoke in your own properly filtered single family home.

Which is exactly what the person we have been talking to, Demo there, is preaching- outlawing smokes.

>>>This isn't about you, it's about the rights of people not to be injured by second-hand smoke.

I'm sorry- you have a right to go to a bar or restaurant? Why do you have the right to walk up to smokers and demand they have to put out their smokes while you are in their presence? What about my right not to be injured from car fumes- do I not have that right? What about my right not to be injured from the gases in the air caused by the power powering your PC- Is in this situation my suffering acceptable, but in yours, it isn't?

Why do you have a right to clean air, but I do not?

>>>I am interested in making sure that future generations of children don't have the same problems

I'm not sure if it was this topic or another anti-smoking thread, but another user pointed out the irony of such a statement- to defend children by making it legal for parents to smoke in their kids bedrooms, but illegal to smoke in places where children are not allowed to be.....right....

>>>and that adults who don't smoke also aren't injured.

Are adults incapable of making decisions for themselves? Are they incapable of handling the consequences of their choices? Should all choices that could potentially be a poor choice be the place where the Government steps in and takes our responsibility to our own well being away from us?

Admit it- you want to be freed from the burden of being responsible for your actions.

>>>Smoking bans have changed me from someone who couldn't go out to eat, couldn't travel on a plane, a bus, the subway -- who even had to turn down jobs in smoking offices, to someone who can now circulate free in society. It's a wonderful thing.

Really? Are you sure it was the smoking ban? Are you sure it simply wasn't a natural change in peoples opinions?

>>>People shouldn't have to stay home because the air is so putrid they can't function normally in society, and that's the way it used to be.

So you agree cars should be outlawed then, or at least heavily regulated? There was just a smog warning in the next town over warning seniors and young children to stay indoors because the air contains too many toxins- this isn't because of second hand smoke- but you claim people shouldn't have to stay at home either- so are you claiming that no one should ever have to stay at home because of the air conditions elsewhere? Or are you claiming that SOME people can suffer, SOME people can stay indoors- so long as you can benefit from pollution, its okay if others cannot? Why the double standard?

Why should a private business have to be forced to accommodate to you? If they do not wish to have your business, isn't it their loss? Isn't it entitlement and elitist to believe that business's should do as you say or the government will close them down? And if smoking bans are as popular as you claim, what do you have to worry about? If smokers are the minority, then its only the minority that will allow smoking in their establishments. Does that mean you may not be able to go everywhere you like and have good time? Yes- but then again, I like burgers- should I be entitled to go to a vegan restaurant and demand they accommodate my needs?
 NwMke
Joined: 8/1/2007
Msg: 86
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 4/27/2008 1:17:54 PM
.
to the OP; start a law suit against the city and lose it. DO not concede anything period. Then when you lose take it to the appelate court and kick their "democratic" asses and remind then this is a republic.

I do not smoke. I think no one should smoke.

I also think you have the RIGHT to smoke.

I will give you YOUR RIGHTS if you give me mine!

I will fight for your rights as well as mine.

.
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 87
smoking bans
Posted: 4/27/2008 2:03:58 PM

So they shouldn't even be given the freedom to consider it at all, eh?


There's nothing to stop them from considering it. Even California has private smoking establishments. There are cigar bars all over the state.



I'm sorry- you have a right to go to a bar or restaurant? Why do you have the right to walk up to smokers and demand they have to put out their smokes while you are in their presence?


I have just as much of a right to go to a bar or restaurant without smoke as you have a right to smoke. Your rights end where my nose begins.

Only a small portion of the people in this country smoke, and the indoor pollution is a hazard to nonsmokers, including those who work in the restaurant. Even in jurisdictions where smoking in private businesses is not under regulation, the majority of businesses don't allow smoking. Further, in suburban DC a very large and growing population of bars don't allow smoking -- with NO government interference.

So REGARDLESS of the law, restaurants and bars will continue to restrict smoking and more and more of them will do so.

Restaurants ONLY care about having patrons. If they can get the same number of patrons, or MORE patrons (the case in many places in the DC area) by banning smoking they're going to do it. It's cheaper for them to ban smoking. They don't have to deal with smoke damage, filters for air purifiers, dirty ashtrays, and the bartenders and waiters like it a whole lot better too.



Really? Are you sure it was the smoking ban? Are you sure it simply wasn't a natural change in peoples opinions?


It was the availability of more non-smoking establishments. So it was a combination of both. I used to spend a lot more time on the West Coast until NY banned smoking. Now I'm about half and half between coasts because I can enjoy myself in all three locations now (I also have a condo in the DC metro area).



I mean there are all those poluting cars, trucks and factories still pumping far more toxic fumes into the air than some second hand smoker..


Most people do not live on a highway, nor near an industrial plant. So the majority of people live in cleaner air than the average smoke-filled room (unless you ARE a smoker).

Further, there are a lot of regulations on both cars and factories. The air quality in California has improved significantly over the last 10 years.



So you agree cars should be outlawed then, or at least heavily regulated?


That's a joke, right? Cars are ALREADY heavily regulated, and more regulation is coming.



Why should a private business have to be forced to accommodate to you? If they do not wish to have your business, isn't it their loss?


They aren't forced to accommodate me, just to provide a non-smoking environment. I might not like a whole lot of things about a restaurant, and may choose not to go there again.

I may not like the food. I may not like a loud television and people watching sports. I may not like the noise level.

But regardless, people should be able to BREATHE there. That's not an accommodation, that's just basic safety. You wouldn't have benzene, methane or another environmental pollutant being sprayed in a restaurant, would you?



Yes- but then again, I like burgers- should I be entitled to go to a vegan restaurant and demand they accommodate my needs?


No, but you should be entitled to basic sanitary conditions, and those are regulated. You should be entitled to know the food they do serve is fresh, and that is regulated. Regulating smoking is just one other way of making sure that your experience in the restaurant is a healthy one.



You going to stand behind the State coming in and taking children away from smokers?


Do you stand behind the state when it removes children from parents who beat them? Who neglect them? Who starve them?

Now if you are a parent who smokes outside, and doesn't smoke in your car then that's one thing. But if it is proven that you are exposing your child to ETS, then sure. The effects of that are serious, and can cause permanent injury, and exposing children to ETS is more dangerous than exposing adults because their cells are growing.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 89
smoking bans
Posted: 4/27/2008 2:51:26 PM
>>>I have just as much of a right to go to a bar or restaurant without smoke as you have a right to smoke.

I never said you have a right to smoke. I said you have a right to run your business as you see fit, and its up to the consumer if they want anything to do with you. I don't have the right to smoke anywhere I want- but I do have the freedom to smoke if the property owner permits me to do so- their property, their rules- and If I do not like it, I don't have to take my business there. The opposite is equally the same- If you do not like cigarette smoke at a restaurant or a bar, you do not have to take your business there.


>>>Further, in suburban DC a very large and growing population of bars don't allow smoking -- with NO government interference.

And thats excellent- I have absolutely not problem with that whatsoever. Its the property owners right to choose I'm fighting for, not the right to smoke wherever you want.

>>>Restaurants ONLY care about having patrons.If they can get the same number of patrons, or MORE patrons (the case in many places in the DC area) by banning smoking they're going to do it.

So why not allow each one to address their patrons as they see fit? Why is there a need to ban cigarettes from bars and restaurants at all? If a bar owner feels they will save money, it should be their choice to make- its their investment, not yours.

>>>Most people do not live on a highway, nor near an industrial plant. So the majority of people live in cleaner air than the average smoke-filled room (unless you ARE a smoker).

And, if your above statements that smokers are minority are true, the majority of people do not spend time in smoke-filled rooms. So why the distinction at all?

>>>
That's a joke, right? Cars are ALREADY heavily regulated, and more regulation is coming.

And what about your own personal choice? After all, you are on a forum debating about how smoking should or should not be banned in bars and restaurants, and your opinion is quite clear- you feel its an unnecessary health risk, and unfair to impose that health risk onto others- so have you abandoned cars because they impose poor health on your neighbours? Do you abandon electricity because they pollute your fellow mans air supply? And if you believe businessmen and women should risk their investments based on the ideal that everyone deserves clean air, then why are you polluting mine? Isn't that a double standard?

>>>
They aren't forced to accommodate me, just to provide a non-smoking environment.

That....that's a joke, right?

You are a non-smoker demanding a business meet your beliefs, or be forced to be closed by the government- and you claim that isn't forcing them to accommodate you? Then what do you call it? What kind of bizarre doublespeak are you trying to pull?

>>>.But regardless, people should be able to BREATHE there.

Once again, coming back to my example of with cars- I should be able to breathe in my own home- so why does your right to drive override my right to clean air?

>>>That's not an accommodation, that's just basic safety. You wouldn't have benzene, methane or another environmental pollutant being sprayed in a restaurant, would you?

Oh gimme a break- life is about moderation- and if you go to a restaurant that you feel is harming your health by allowing smokers in it enough to cause you actual harm, then I feel you should be responsible for the action of not standing up, leaving, and never coming back.

Who is responsible for you going back to that restaurant? Who is responsible if you keep coming back to a place that you have deemed unsafe?

>>>Do you stand behind the state when it removes children from parents who beat them? Who neglect them? Who starve them?

Is this what we are discussing? Are we discussing about how smoking should be banned from homes, or are we discussing smoking being banned from places that children shouldn't be in the first place?

I love how you hide behind children over a law that does nothing to protect children in the first place.

>>>The effects of that are serious, and can cause permanent injury, and exposing children to ETS is more dangerous than exposing adults because their cells are growing.

And yet you support bans in areas that only have adults and speak nothing of banning smoking in a kids bedroom?

Oh, but then again, I suppose then we'd learn your agenda.
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 91
smoking bans
Posted: 4/29/2008 9:12:54 AM
There's a huge difference in the demographic between people who live in the Western part of PA and the Eastern. Eastern Pennsylvanian's are basically part of the East Coast and Western Pennsylvanians part of the Midwest. It doesn't surprise me at all that smoking bans have met with resistance in Ohio. The prevalence of smoking in that state is one of the highest in the country: 25.8% in 2004 (latest year for which data is compiled).

Most trends start on the East and West Coast and then work their way to the middle of the country. That appears to be more or less true for smoking, except in the tobacco growing states.

Bans have a very positive effect on getting people to quit smoking. California, which has had a ban in place for over 10 years has a smoking prevalence of 14.7% the second lowest in the country. Utah is first because of its large Mormon population.

The national average was 20.8% in 2004, which was down 1.2% from the year before. If that rate has continued, that means that the national average in 2008 is 16%.

See:

http://www.unitedhealthfoundation.com/shr2005/components/smoking.html
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 92
smoking bans
Posted: 5/2/2008 5:28:48 AM
It's not like that everywhere. This is a very big country.

The smoking ban went into effect without a whimper, at least in Marin County where I have a house, same in NYC, and DC. Alexandria, VA has voluntary smoking restriction that over half the restaurants adhere to at this point. Smoking bans and restrictions are the preference in all three locations. I divide my time rather evenly between CA, NY and DC, and have never run into a problem, FWIW.
 badge3939
Joined: 8/10/2007
Msg: 93
smoking bans
Posted: 5/2/2008 11:26:35 PM

Once you have seen that you can defeat one of the most addictive substances known to mankind, you will then see how to defeat the other drug problems you have with cocaine and such like.


Tobacco legal.
Grown legally, sold legally. Taxed
Only thing is where you can smoke it now.

Governments should do away with all smoking bans. Just make Tabacco products illegal

Cocaine illegal.
Smuggled in and sold illegally. No Taxes.

To defaet the other illegal drugs.
I do not see how, it could be done.

Fact is tobbaco and other illegal drugs have been around for millions of years.
They were used by people back then and still used today.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 94
smoking bans
Posted: 5/3/2008 12:30:38 AM
>>>By far and way though, the very best thing is that our children don't see adults smoking much any more.

Because its out of the areas that children aren't allowed to be(bars), and instead is mandatory for it to be out on the sidewalk, where the children can watch? How does that make sense?

>>>You shouldn't need to have a fine when it comes to this subject. Sounds like you ought to try teaching people some good manners. If it's no smoking, it's no smoking. You don't smoke in your hospitals and schools and public buildings or your planes and buses do you?

Ha!

So you think the mere existence of the law is going to make it not happen? You may not like it, but by outlawing something and placing fine and threatening to close stores down because your beliefs are absolute, then you have to deal with the reality that, yes, you ARE going to be fining people- yes, you ARE going to close down bars who do not agree with your laws. This is the world you are promoting- don't dilute yourself of it.

Nor is it the Governments position to dictate 'manners' and demand people follow them. There is no law in existence claiming you have a right to be free from offense.
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 95
smoking bans
Posted: 5/3/2008 4:50:30 AM
Flouting smoking bans is not a widespread practice in the US. But don't delude yourself in thinking that it doesn't happen occasionally in the UK as well.

Defiant bar owner finds 'loophole' to flout smoking ban
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=472889&in_page_id=1770

Man arrested after refusing to put out his cigarette in pub
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=466368&in_page_id=1770

Landlord faces action over smoking ban rebellion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jul/20/smoking

As I said, I haven't seen it where I live, and apparently you haven't seen it either, however, it happens.
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 97
smoking bans
Posted: 5/4/2008 8:59:44 PM

What your point? You find yourself a Englishman flouting the law!. Yes we have people with bad manners too I'm sorry to say. Always have a few renegades just like we did with seatbelts. Foolish people with limited intellegence and lack of respect for others.


My point is that laws are flouted everywhere. I only put a couple of links up for you. There's also a web site dedicated to overthrowing the UK smoking ban among numerous others.

I agree with you that we should obey our laws. However, people with bad manners come from all over the world. I've met them in London, Paris, Zurich, Rome, Athens, Tokyo, Beijing, and a number of other places.

Fortunately, most people have good manners and respect the law, including those who live in the US.
 itechman63
Joined: 7/7/2005
Msg: 98
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 6/24/2008 9:16:25 AM

The Chinese are free to smoke just about anywhere...it should be your dream destination.


Ironic isn't it that a communist country prescribes more to the Constitution of the United States than does the United States.
 Farve2009
Joined: 3/10/2008
Msg: 99
smoking bans
Posted: 6/24/2008 10:13:43 AM
Man Ohio went smoke free 3 years ago. i also have to be so far away from the front door.Cops can ticket you over this.
 flyonthewall!
Joined: 3/31/2008
Msg: 100
smoking bans
Posted: 6/24/2008 10:22:36 AM
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights the idea was to extend liberty as much as possible, and up to where it impedes with the next individual.

So you can drink (prohibition notwithstanding), but you can't drink to impairment and then drive a car. The reason you can't do that is you could injure another human being. Do you argue with the constitutionality of drunk driving laws?

You can also smoke, but increasingly there are regulations about smoking in public places because you can injure non-smokers with second-hand smoke. We have never been able to smoke in elevators, no longer can smoke in federal buildings, all (or at least most) state buildings, and most workplaces. This is being extended now to restaurants and bars.

The non-smoking population of the United States is approximately 80 percent (higher in many states like California -- home to one of every 9 people in the US). So do you think the minority -- which is inflicting a safety hazard on the majority -- has a right to adversely affect the public health?

Please give me specifics on HOW restricting smoking is unconstitutional.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > smoking bans