Rant...

markmarc

I have no problem with those that smoke on their own property, but when it comes to public buildings and places, the rights of non-smokers take precedence. No one has the right to destroy another person's health.

In most buildings in the country, air is recirculated, even with filters leaving the non-smoker with breathing in smoking particles. Change is occurring slowly, for example: Fresh air for new school classrooms is a big design issue that is why small, openable windows are a part of the plan.

One of my big pet peeves is where designated outdoor smoking areas for buildings are placed. In most cases, it is right next to the door, leaving the non-smoker with no choice, but to run the "gauntlet". For those smokers that are courteous enough to move away from the entrances THANK YOU!

I know some smokers point to the "double standard" of people who eat fast food every day and what that is doing to their body. However, nobody ever got cancer from sitting next to someone eating a Big Mac.

steveinaz

I have no problem with those that smoke on their own property, but when it comes to public buildings and places, the rights of non-smokers take precedence. No one has the right to destroy another person's health.

Where's the evidence that smoking outdoors has an effect on someone elses health?

One of my big pet peeves is where designated outdoor smoking areas for buildings are placed. In most cases, it is right next to the door, leaving the non-smoker with no choice, but to run the "gauntlet". For those smokers that are courteous enough to move away from the entrances THANK YOU!

Agree, that's sort of pointless to place the area where non-smokers have to walk thru it.

I know some smokers point to the "double standard" of people who eat fast food every day and what that is doing to their body. However, nobody ever got cancer from sitting next to someone eating a Big Mac.

That's not the comparison I would make. I would say that overweight people may become subject to the same scrutiny that smokers face now. As I've stated before, I have no problem with overweight folk's, if I did, I'd be a bit hypocritical wouldn't I? If I wasn't bless with my metabolism I'd be big as a house the way I eat. I can appreciate people who appreciate a good meal.

steveinaz

Funny, in all this discussion I haven't seen an ounce of compromise from the anti-smokers. Smokers have compromised, alot. Usually, when 2 different parties have a disagreement, you reach a compromise. But not with the anti-smokers, to them there will be no compromise. That's where smokers have a problem.

Let me distiunguish between a "non-smoker" and an "anti-smoker." A non-smoker is relatively tolerant of smokers. An anti-smoker is not. Just to clear that up.

An example of how anti-smoking sentiment is costing the anti-smoker:

I now buy my cigarettes exclusively from an Indian reservation, tax free, duty free. Guess what that means? Less tax revenue for the state means higher tax rates applied to YOU, the non-smoker, to make up the difference. Our problem is YOUR problem believe it or not.

cfrizz

Again this is about public health.

I have never inadvertantly inhaled someones race, color, sexual preference, religion or fatness. I have inhaled bad body odor but it hasn't hurt me.

I have however, inadvertantly inhaled someone elses cigarette smoke, which has: made my eyes itch & burn, made my nose run & burn. It has made me start to cough & cough & cough till I PUKE then keep on coughing!

When all the other TRUE intolerances have a DIRECT effect on my personal physical well being, then I will start yelling.

So long as what you do has no direct negative physical impact on other peoples lives have at it. When it does, look out!

steveinaz

Do you believe that someone else consuming alcohol can have a negative impact on your health?

Skynut

markmarc wrote:

In most buildings in the country, air is recirculated, even with filters leaving the non-smoker with breathing in smoking particles. Change is occurring slowly, for example: Fresh air for new school classrooms is a big design issue that is why small, openable windows are a part of the plan.

One of my big pet peeves is where designated outdoor smoking areas for buildings are placed. In most cases, it is right next to the door, leaving the non-smoker with no choice, but to run the "gauntlet". For those smokers that are courteous enough to move away from the entrances THANK YOU!

Isn't having a no-smoking section in a restraunt the same as having a no-peeing section in a pool?

Skynut

steveinaz wrote:

Do you believe that someone else consuming alcohol can have a negative impact on your health?

I'll bet they tax the heck out of alcohol but say that money is for alcohol & driver education.

bobman1235

Skynut wrote:

Isn't having a no-smoking section in a restraunt the same as having a no-peeing section in a pool?

Nah, I've seen it done right, with a fully closed-off section with separate ventilation.

Skynut

It was a joke.
I know what you are saying, I have seen rooms like this but most restraunts do not want to bother with seprate rooms and ventilation plus they have employees that need to go into those rooms.

kingsqueak

cfrizz wrote:

This is NOT about intolerance! It is about public health and the dangers of smoking have been known since before either you or I were born Steve!

You are perfectly free to kill yourself, but don't take everyone within lung distance of your smoke with you.

It has never been proven by an objective body that second hand smoke is anywhere near the danger that people hype it to be. Find out for yourself

The only study that is quoted by all the special interest groups like The Truth (incidentally they wouldn't have jobs or exist if it weren't for this 'battle') is one that the U.S. gov had comissioned years ago. It was proven early on that the data showed second hand smoke to be an inconsequential risk but congressmen insisted on a report that was contrary to the actual data.

It is that tainted report that all the 'statistics' for risks from second hand smoke come from.

The people yelling and screaming about the effects of second hand smoke are all making a living from that cause. What else do you think they would say?

If people are concerned about the rising healthcare costs from smoking related disease, fair enough. Take all the tax money that we smokers are paying and put it into a fund to offset the costs. Instead, these tax monies are going to all sorts of ridiculous causes having nothing to do with the healthcare costs of smoking. Again, people are victimizing smokers for their own political agenda.

All these wealthy people, having made their fortunes off my back, will be the first to turn on me when the day comes that I need medical attention from a lifetime of smoking. They are happy enough to take the money from me now but it was never intended as any sort of help, it's just the liberal's way of stealing from the public. Generate a cause, get people to swallow it, and start lining your pockets with the pork from the public barrel.

This is but one of many indicators that we are so far from the free republic our founding fathers intended. The attitude here that a private business is somehow public space is another.... People have been so successfully manipulated by our government, it's remarkable.

cfrizz

Yes if they are a violent drunk, but it would only happen once cause the **** would be in jail & out of my life! Actually there would be warning signs WAY before it got to that point & I would walk away!

I dumped a guy after 2 dates because it became clear he had an alchohol problem. I dumped another when it became clear he had a gambling problem.

I pay attention to what is going on around me & make adjustments accordingly.

steveinaz wrote:

Do you believe that someone else consuming alcohol can have a negative impact on your health?

cfrizz

Kingsqueak, I don't need to read anything about the affects of second hand smoke, I FEEL the physical effects of it!

Now are you going to call me a liar cause I'm not written up in some article, or accuse me of being paid by one of these special interest groups?

Demiurge

Excellent post Kingsqueak. Armed with the facts and they still deny it.

cfrizz

If first hand smoke is bad for the smoker, (which has been confirmed for decades) why would second hand smoke not be bad for everyone else? Your denial of these facts is totally idiotic!

Demiurge

cfrizz wrote:

If first hand smoke is bad for the smoker, (which has been confirmed for decades) why would second hand smoke not be bad for everyone else? Your denial of these facts is totally idiotic!

What facts?

If you stuff your face with McDonalds Hamburgers on a daily basis is there a chance you will die sooner than if you had it once a week, or once a month? Statistically speaking, yes.

Unless your lips are around the butt of that cigarette or you're sitting in a small room with 20 or 30 smokers your health isn't in any more danger than it would be anywhere else. Volume.

It's also hard to tell what it is you're advocating. Banning smoking all together? If so, kudos to you. That would be a fight worth having.

Saying how terrible it is and reaping the tax money off of it is pure hypocrisy. Doing that and then telling business owners they can't allow patrons to smoke in their bars and restraunts is absurd. In my house I make the rules, businesses should be no different. Again, these are legal substances.

Some of you are acting like you're forced to be around smokers. You have choices, but you want to force everyone else to live to your narrow standards where nobody ever infringes upon your personal space or air. Talk about a high and mighty attitude. This is exactly the case of the silent majority getting trampled on by the vocal minority.

If smoking bothered that many people there would be a push to ban tobacco, not just selectively ban it in PRIVATE institutions.

PolkThug

Demiurge wrote:

Unless your lips are around the butt of that cigarette or you're sitting in a small room with 20 or 30 smokers your health isn't in any more danger than it would be anywhere else.

I am more dumb after reading this.

I also sometimes suffer from what cfrizz is talking about.

Demiurge

PolkThug wrote:

I am more dumb after reading this.

I also sometimes suffer from what cfrizz is talking about.

Thoughtful response.

PhantomOG

kingsqueak wrote:

All these wealthy people, having made their fortunes off my back, will be the first to turn on me when the day comes that I need medical attention from a lifetime of smoking.

I don't understand. Just because someone makes a buck off selling you a cancer stick, their supposed to pay your medical bills when you get sick from it??

How is the government outlawing cigarettes to prevent the damage to your health any more stupid than the government taxing cigarettes to pay for your unnecessary medical bills? They are both cases of the government stepping in to try and stop you from hurting yourself and being a burden upon the rest of society. We're not talking about minimal medical treatment for those in need; we're talking about people doing something for years and years knowing the risks to their health.

I have no problem if you choose to smoke. If the smoke bothers me I'll go someplace else. But don't cry to me or anyone else when you get cancer, that's a burden you have chosen to take on and no one but you should bear the responsibility for it.

markmarc

Demurge:
Now, we can both admit that studies can be deceiving, and their are plenty of websites on both sides so that we could have a cut/pasting war for days. But we can agree that one: Filtered cigarettes trap particles from entering the smokers lungs. Two: Non-smokers sitting/standing next to a smoker have no such active barrier, just air/distance to avoid the full impact. Three: Hanging around with a smoker indulging leaves the non-smokers clothes smelling of smoke. Clothing fibers are very similar to lung fibers in that they trap smoke particles.

Based upon these irrefutable facts, how can you say that a non smokers lungs would not inhale smoke. Respectfully, that is pure common sense.

Dennis Gardner

I find it amusing that smokers complain about the freedom of smoking being taken away.

That statement in itself is hypocrisy as you must not understand that you aren't free anyway.........the nicotine has you by the balls begging you to smoke what 20-60 times a day? Noone can tell me that smoking is a healthy lifestyle to pursue and that you wish everyone could see the benefits that smoking has rewarded you with. Yeah, thats freedom.

Smoke, drink, drug yourself up, but don't cry freedom as the reason to do so. You aren't free if you choose to treat yourself this way.;)

Paul in Canada

The province that I live in banned all smoking in bars and restaurants a couple of years ago. When the idea was first anounced I though it was crazy, how could I go out drinking and not smoke a pack cigerettes. In the beginning the bars seemed to have fewer people in them but after a while smokers started going out again. If I was out at a bar and wanted to smoke I had to go outside, now everyone just accepts the change. I didn't like the change in the beginning but I find that a lot of my friends that were smokers have quit.
I quite smoking 16 days ago, hopefully for the last time. I have probably quite 3 or 4 times in the last 8 years. For the last year or so when ever I had a smoke out in public I felt ashamed when someone saw me and I would try to hide my cigarette, kind of like when my mom would catch me when I was a teenager. I think it is a good thing to try to deter young people from starting, and I think that banning smoking in certain areas helps, but at the same time smoking is legal and if people choose to do it that should be their right.

Demiurge

markmarc wrote:

Demurge:
Now, we can both admit that studies can be deceiving, and their are plenty of websites on both sides so that we could have a cut/pasting war for days. But we can agree that one: Filtered cigarettes trap particles from entering the smokers lungs. Two: Non-smokers sitting/standing next to a smoker have no such active barrier, just air/distance to avoid the full impact. Three: Hanging around with a smoker indulging leaves the non-smokers clothes smelling of smoke. Clothing fibers are very similar to lung fibers in that they trap smoke particles.

Based upon these irrefutable facts, how can you say that a non smokers lungs would not inhale smoke. Respectfully, that is pure common sense.

I agree with you, studies can be deceiving.

The bottom line in all of this is that the cow is still producing a hell of a lot of milk. With smokers willing to spend $5.00 - $6.00 for a pack of smokes, why stop? Almost all of that comes in the form of taxes. Government makes way too much money on smokers. That's why I say in that regard the overweight crowd is next, just as people who consume adult beverages have already been hit. This is hardly the end there. Of course, we'll hear all of this bashing on smokers until the overweight people start getting the same treatment.

That's one side of the argument.

The next side is of personal property rights. A lot of you have no issue with government coming in and telling private business and home owners what they can or can't do in their own homes with legal things? That's not a little concerning to you?

That's the other side of the argument.

Also, in response to your common sense. Nobody said you don't inhale smoke. The argument is about what is a true health risk. Smoking the cigarette is more harmful than being in the presence of one. Filters are your argument? Do you know the air/smoke ratio of someone inhaling a cigarette to those that are just in the room with the person smoking? It's vastly different, so I am going to have to respectfully disagree with your assertion.

Also, PolkThug seemed to be stupified by the comment as well. There's something known as concentration levels. If you're in a small room with 20-30 people smoking cigarettes that would be a health risk to a non-smoker. The high concentration levels would probably be damaging. That's why we banned it in public buildings. Not to mention that health risks are about sustained exposure, not a one time thing. If you smoked when you were young for 5-10 years and then quit your lungs clean themselves up over time. It's not to say damage hasn't been done, but it's the sustained exposure to it that causes the most problems.

steveinaz

Face it man, they don't like you smoking, period. They damn sure know that what minute/tiny amount of smoke you may breath in walking down the street behind some guy smoking ain't squat compared to that diesel bus that just went by, or by the tons of **** spewed in the air by the automobiles around them. It's just a heck of alot easier to blame smokers. Here's a hint, see someone smoking don't walk by them...oh, that's right, that would inconvenience YOU, I'm sorry. By all means we don't want to inconvenience you.

Again, no compromise.

Demiurge

I'm not even a smoker. I do have the occasional cigarette or cigar with friends at the bar or at parties when I feel like having them and it's allowed by the establishment I am in. I am fighting this because of the slippery slope this is, especially with regard to property rights. I wouldn't be up in arms if they just banned tobacco, but I wouldn't be supporting the ban either. I do support people being able to make choices for themselves, and that includes sometimes making bad choices.

It's amazing that I can go through my entire day without getting one whiff of smoke, but some of the arguments here are as if they're being innundated with it and are shackled; unable to move away from it.

shack

I don't care how the smokers, drinkers, drug users, overeaters, thrill junkies, etc., choose to (more than likely) shorten their life...that IS their choice. I have a problem with the costs passed on to me and the rest of society of keeping them alive after the effects of their chosen pursuits.

steveinaz

Demiurge wrote:

It's amazing that I can go through my entire day without getting one whiff of smoke, but some of the arguments here are as if they're being innundated with it and are shackled; unable to move away from it.

Exactly what I'm thinking, you'd have to actively seek out a smoker anymore. Where are you people finding all this second hand smoke?

PolkThug

Demiurge wrote:

Also, PolkThug seemed to be stupified by the comment as well. There's something known as concentration levels. If you're in a small room with 20-30 people smoking cigarettes that would be a health risk to a non-smoker. The high concentration levels would probably be damaging.

We have different perspectives because you haven't known anyone that is easily affected by tobaco smoke. Now you know of two. Often times, it only takes one person around me smoking for me to feel discomfort in my eyes. Two people smoking in a small room would be torture to me, let alone 20-30. Sometimes I will tolerate it, sometimes I won't.

Regards

PolkThug

steveinaz wrote:

Exactly what I'm thinking, you'd have to actively seek out a smoker anymore. Where are you people finding all this second hand smoke?

At the casino! Come on 7!!! *cough*

Skynut

The problem as I see it is that people do not like smokers or smoke.
the government likes big tobacco money.
The government will pass laws against the users of the product but not the manufacturers.
How can we sell a product that we know is so harmfull?
I'll give you a hint $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
the lobyist on both sides are making money, the gov. is making money, and the tobacco user is dying.
I believe that if the product is not illegal then the user needs to be left alone as long as they are not interfering with non-users. This is mainly for the insurance fines and higher rates.
The additional taxes on tobacco should go toward health care only, since the tobacco users are the ones paying it. How does the gov. get off charging people taxes for tobacco and using the revenue on other issues.

This frustrates me as bad as the bridge tolls. they charge bridge tolls to maintain the bridges. Thats fine. Then they begin to skim excess revenue off the top and when there is a fall out they raise the cost to cross the bridge. WTF? once they get their hands on the money they never want to give it back.
Tobacco companies are HUGE revenue, lobbyist also represent big money, you as a tobacco user do not represent big money so therefore you are expendable.

PhantomOG

Demiurge wrote:

It's amazing that I can go through my entire day without getting one whiff of smoke, but some of the arguments here are as if they're being innundated with it and are shackled; unable to move away from it.

A smoking ban for restauarants and bars was recently passed here, but the argument was not for the non-smoking patrons, it was for the employees of those establishments.

I don't agree with forcing business owners against their will, but my clothes are 1000% less stinky now when I do choose to go downtown to the bars and I really like that.