Is there ANYPLACE left to smoke in peace!!!

dorokusai

This thread makes we want to start smoking, just to make ppl angry.

tonyb

Shack,littering enforcement?? On butts?? Jeez man,while some smokers are pigs,look around,I see more Micky D's,Starbucks,Water bottles spewed all over than butts.I suppose next your going to tell me my smoking in illinois is affecting your health in Tennesse......according to the no distance is safe rule by the CDC.

bobman1235

cfrizz wrote: »

Bingo Tcross! The majority of society has gotten the message that smoking is bad & we will no longer tolerate the affects of second hand smoke. You are free to smoke, but the general public must be protected from 2nd hand smoke.

The govt knows that if left up to business owners they will always choose the bottom dollar over doing what's right. Therefore, more & more cities/states are making the right choice for them.

You are free to **** about that, but you are not going to stop it. Those that don't comply will end up being fined out of existence & no one will miss them since others will take their place happy to comply with the law.

Wow. Only in Massachusetts. That post is frightening on so many levels.

nms

Cool it guys. Seriously. The weirdest things set this place off. :rolleyes:

reeltrouble1

I have at times, enjoyed breaking a smoker in two, leaving the butt for brett.

We are watching all of you, in soooo many ways.

RT1--I'd ride my camel for a mile before I walked.

wingnut4772

venomclan

I switched to sniffing glue, I enjoy it freely everywhere.

exalted512

As a non-smoker, I would enjoy the smoke-free environment of a bar. Having said that, I don't think the government should regulate it in a bar environment. I would really rather not smell the crap while I'm eating at a restaurant, but it probably wouldn't deter me if the food was good enough. Of course, county, state, and federal buildings shouldn't allow it, but I'd hope even the smokers agree on that one.

Having said all that, the government has every right to ban it at any business they want. Its called the Commerce Clause, and under it, they can do just about anything they want to. A private business is not exempt from the government, and in reality, its REALLY ignorant to think so.
-Cody

wingnut4772

venomclan wrote: »

I switched to sniffing glue, I enjoy it freely everywhere.

I picked a bad week to stop sniffing glue.

sucks2beme

I believe all smoking should occur adjacent to large piles of meat.
Examples: brisket, ribs, pork.

shawn474

There are extremists on both sides of the discussion. My mother (an admitted extremist on some issues) takes the stance that it's OK if smokers want to subject themselves to the health hazards in the privacy of their homes, cars, etc. It's a different animal when you have smokers who are subjecting people (non-smokers, children, asthmatics) to the hazardous effects of smoking in a public setting (resturaunt, stadium, bar, etc.). I can't say that I disagree with her here.

I don't see banning smoking in these places a violation or over regulation any more than I see the smokers subjecting the effects of it onto the public. Bottom line is there are still places that smokers can smoke.

tonyb

I can agree with most comments,so why the need to change when both camps had their own places to indulge ?

Can't wait for the rest.....
The chlorine in your pool bothers me,you have to get rid of it.
Burning leaves bothers me,you can't do it.
I am driving a prius to save energy and your driving a Hummer,not fair,sell your hummer.
Your useing pesticides to control bugs on your property,and they are all running to mine,sorry,you have to stop.
Can't use regular light bulbs,must use the ones with mercury in them. HUH??
You'll have to pay a tax to visit the city if you don't live there.
Your fat,pay up.
your too skinny,pay up
Lawn mowers,leaf blowers,make too much noise,sorry,do it by hand.
Your carbon footprint is too big,pay up or buy credits.
Sorry,your kid can't have peanuts in his lunch because of one kid.
Bakery's will become the devil.

I could go on,but,really,where does it stop? No one can give me an answer on why change was needed when smokers and non smokers had their own places to patronize??
Probably cause there is no good reason.

tcrossma

tonyb wrote: »

I could go on,but,really,where does it stop? No one can give me an answer on why change was needed when smokers and non smokers had their own places to patronize??
Probably cause there is no good reason.

None of the things you mentioned has been proven to cause harm to others, with the exception of the peanut butter. And in fact my child's daycare does not allow peanut butter to be brought into the classroom if there are any students in the building that have a peanut allergy.

As to why it wasn't working when a restaurant had a place for smokers and non-smokers? Part of it might be because it's not always possible/practical to completely separate the two. I'm not sure how many times I sat in the non-smoking section that just happened to be 5 feet away from the smoking section. Unless the fascility has completely separate rooms the two sections have to merge somewhere...

Another part might be the staff. It is a proven fact that second hand smoke is bad, and why should a waitress have to serve people in a room filled with smoke? Sure, you could say "If you don't want to be around smoke, don't become a waitress". But you could also say "If you want to smoke, go outside".

Less than 20% of the country smokes. It seems to me that the recent changes to the laws prove that the majority of people do not want to be around smoke.

avelanchefan

shawn474 wrote: »

Smokers can smoke......................they can smoke in their houses and in their cars. I'm not against people smoking in a bar, etc. but I must admit that it's so much nicer to go to a bar, have a few drinks and not come home smelling like a chimney. Not to mention how bad smoking and even secondhand smoke is for you (not preaching, just saying).

I don't hate smokers; I just hate smoking.;)

I will chime in then jump back out. First off I smoke, and FFS I want to quit, but I love it to much. There I said it, and its out of the way. But I know I can control my smoking. I can go all day without one and not be a complete **** bag afterwards. I have to be able to do it because my job demands it. So sometimes I do not sympathize with smokers who need to get their fix.

That all being said here in Tucson they banned smoking in all public buildings and businesses. So the bars have made smoking areas for the outcasts of society. Now the people that made their lives look more pathetic are bitching about not being able to sit outside because there are smokers outside.

**** like that pisses me off. I don't care who the eff you are, get over yourself. You guys didn't want it in eateries, and taverns, now that you pushed the smokers outside you will not be happy with that either. Places have already banned public smoking, but why do all this stuff? Why not just ban smoking. Seriously. Why have all these laws in place, just ban it and be over with it.

But don't complain when they do ban it (and we know they will) when they cut little Johnny's after school program because, !!SHOCKER!!, all that tobacco tax was used to pay for it, and now YOU the anti smoker will actually have to foot the bill for it.

But I ask the Anti-smoker this? What kills more? Second hand smoke, or Drunk drivers from the bars that are smoke free? So getting all hot under the collar about smoke, while joe blow next to you is so inebriated that he can hardly speak, gets behind the wheel and kills someone, just makes this thread look pathetic. I wish more people were adamant about Drunk drivers as they are against smoking.

tcrossma

avelanchefan wrote: »

But I ask the Anti-smoker this? What kills more? Second hand smoke, or Drunk drivers from the bars that are smoke free? So getting all hot under the collar about smoke, while joe blow next to you is so inebriated that he can hardly speak, gets behind the wheel and kills someone, just makes this thread look pathetic. I wish more people were adamant about Drunk drivers as they are against smoking.

Drunk driving is illegal. And I don't think too many people are going to sympathize with someone who gets behind the wheel drunk and kills someone. You are talking about two completely different things here.

According to some quick googling, in 2006 there were approx. 14,000 deaths in the US caused by drunk driving. In 2007 there were approx. 50,000 deaths related to second hand smoking.

shack

Poor tony. He's so unfortunate to live in a place where there are restaurants and bars, pools, lots of vehicles, light bulbs (or electricity for that matter) leaf blowers or peanut butter or too much food. These pesky things cause nothing but trouble. There are lots of places in the world where none of this stuff is an issue. :rolleyes:

Why is smoking an issue? Because smoking not only harms the participant but adversly affects those near to them through no fault of their own. The smokers actions damages their health and intrudes on them.

Whether you believe it or not...from the CDC in 2006:

Cigarette smoking is the single most preventable cause of premature death in the United States. Each year, more than 400,000 Americans die from cigarette smoking. In fact, one in every five deaths in the United States is smoking related. Every year, smoking kills more than 276,000 men and 142,000 women.

- Between 1960 and 1990, deaths from lung cancer among women have increased by more than 400%—exceeding breast cancer deaths in the mid-1980s.

-The American Cancer Society estimated that in 1994, 64,300 women died from lung cancer and 44,300 died from breast cancer.

- Men who smoke increase their risk of death from lung cancer by more than 22 times and from bronchitis and emphysema by nearly 10 times. Women who smoke increase their risk of dying from lung cancer by nearly 12 times and the risk of dying from bronchitis and emphysema by more than 10 times. Smoking triples the risk of dying from heart disease among middle-aged men and women.

- Every year in the United States, premature deaths from smoking rob more than five million years from the potential lifespan of those who have died. Annually, exposure to secondhand smoke (or environmental tobacco smoke) causes an estimated 3,000 deaths from lung cancer among American adults. Scientific studies also link secondhand smoke with heart disease.

If 400,000 people died each year because of ANYTHING else there would be a public outcry to immediately ban/correct/remedy the problem.

Drunk driving kills about 13,000± annually.

avelanchefan

shack wrote: »

Poor tony. He's so unfortunate to live in a place where there are restaurants and bars, pools, lots of vehicles, light bulbs (or electricity for that matter) leaf blowers or peanut butter or too much food. These pesky things cause nothing but trouble. There are lots of places in the world where none of this stuff is an issue. :rolleyes:

Why is smoking an issue? Because smoking not only harms the participant but adversly affects those near to them through no fault of their own. The smokers actions damages their health and intrudes on them.

Whether you believe it or not...from the CDC in 2006:



If 400,000 people died each year because of ANYTHING else there would be a public outcry to immediately ban/correct/remedy the problem.

Drunk driving kills about 13,000± annually.

You know I really think those numbers are misleading. I can tell you right now, I see more DD deaths than I do smoking deaths. I can tell you right now that they will blame that breast cancer on smoking despite the fact that the woman had a family history of it, and she had been a non smoker for 20 years. They will still blame smoking. To get their point across.

I went to the doctor last year for a physical. (True story, not making this up) Doctor asked me if I had a family history of heart disease. I told him no. He said, "No one in your family has had a heart attack?" I said "Well technically yeah my grandfather had two at the age of 70, and 74." Doctor, "Well then you have a family history of it."

Basically I laughed it off, folks since when it is not acceptable for a 70 year old man to have a heart attack? And then try to tell the family the rest of their lives that they have a history of it? Hmm grandpa is 74 years old, and survived 2 heart attacks, drank until he rotted out his intestines, and smoked. He died at the age of 84 two years ago, and his doctor said smoking killed him. He is one of the 50,000 people in 2006. Grandma smoke too, so you should count her second hand smoke also. Statistics can be skewed.

tcrossma

avelanchefan wrote: »

He died at the age of 84 two years ago, and his doctor said smoking killed him. He is one of the 50,000 people in 2006. Grandma smoke too, so you should count her second hand smoke also. Statistics can be skewed.

No, he was one of the 400,000. Yes, statistics and numbers can be skewed, and if you think this is all some sort of consipracy that's certainly your right. But we're talking a lot of verifiable data at this point that says smoking and second hand smoke is a very very bad thing, so what you no longer have the right to do is smoke next to me while i'm eating.

shawn474

avalanchefan,
I'm not sure if your post was directed towards me or not, but I agree with you in some respects. We SHOULD be worrying about drunk drivers and such. The tobacco tax does pay for MANY things. However, you cannot argue with the FACT that smoking (directly or indirectly) causes cancer and contributes to a whole host of other health problems. People who don't smoke should not have to be subjected to that, plain and simple. It's your choice to smoke, greatly increasing your risk of heart disease, cancer, yada, yada, yada. But do it where it ONLY affects you. The non-smoking public should not have to be subjected to that. I'm not lecturing, judging or casting aspersions; just stating an opinion.

Tony, if you sincerely believe that the things that you listed are anywhere in the same vicinity as smoking and 2nd hand smoke, you're on another planet.

shack

avelanchefan wrote:

You know I really think those numbers are misleading. I can tell you right now, I see more DD deaths than I do smoking deaths. I can tell you right now that they will blame that breast cancer on smoking despite the fact that the woman had a family history of it, and she had been a non smoker for 20 years. They will still blame smoking. To get their point across.

Statistics can be skewed.

As I said, believe what you will. A smoker dies from a from a drunk driving crash and was in the early stages of lung cancer. The DD accident killed him...but had he lived he would have been another smoking fatality. Regardless of what the numbers are...more/less...the fact remains that smoking shortens the lifespan (on average) considerably and it poses a health risk to those who come in contact with the smoke.

I have clearly stated that I believe smoking indoors in a place accesable to the public should be banned to protect all (including employees). Smoke in your home, smoke in your car, smoke in open areas away from others. Knock yourself out (literally).

Enjoy the rest of this if you choose. I'm out.

candyliquor35m

Right now mars is looking pretty good before the internment camps get going.

dkg999

The state of IA just takes a different approach! They just tax the crap out of tobacco to curb smoking. I think a pack of cigs cost about $7 now, and there is a stream of cars crossing the borders to stock up on cigs in neighboring states. The IA Dept of Revenue even has signs up on the major border crossing roads that bringing cigs into the state is illegal.

tonyb

"Tony, if you sincerely believe that the things that you listed are anywhere in the same vicinity as smoking and 2nd hand smoke, you're on another planet."

That wasn't the point I was trying to,but obviously failed to make.Of coarse it has nothing to do with smoking,more so big brother getting involved in your day to day life.

Ok,so if I don't care if I die earlier,you mean to tell me big brother does??

TC-I don't mean seperate sections within one building,but seperate buisnesses.What was wrong with that? No one is getting harmed besides smokers themselves,and if you worked there,chances are you smoked too,or didn't care one way or the other.So basically,I have someone else telling me what is good and bad for me.Can't wait untill they come after you overweight people.

tonyb

dkg999 wrote: »

The state of IA just takes a different approach! They just tax the crap out of tobacco to curb smoking. I think a pack of cigs cost about $7 now, and there is a stream of cars crossing the borders to stock up on cigs in neighboring states. The IA Dept of Revenue even has signs up on the major border crossing roads that bringing cigs into the state is illegal.

You think they raise taxes on ciggs to curb it? Yet cry when they don't get their tax money? Whats more important? The money of coarse,has nothing to do with their concern for your wellbeing.Here in Illinois they even tax it on internet sales.So if you find a cheap site,call them instead to order.Pretty soon,you'll see internet sites for twinkies.:)

Demiurge

tcrossma wrote: »

When you have a business, open to the public, you are accepting to abide by a certain set of rules. No, you can't choose who you do or do not want inside it as that would be discrimination. You can't sell people OTC drugs in a restaurant, people can't dine naked in a restaurant, you can't serve alcohol in your private hair salon, you agree to have a clean, safe, healthy environment for your patrons (thus the health code regulation). This is not your business to do with whatever the hell you want, sorry. You have to follow the rules. And right now there are rules in place in many states that say smoking isn't OK.

You're not saying anything I don't know, sir. There are regulations put in place to prevent abuses by businesses just like there are regulations put in place to prevent abuses by individuals. I don't recall having any issue with that -- it's a loose definition of a society.

I have said in this thread that citing various other intrustive and obstructive regulations that government has imposed on businesses and individuals over the years isn't a premise I am willing to accept. You, Shack, and so many others are making your argument on the assumption that those other regulations are fair and just. I will argue many of them are not, and I am not alone, certainly not in the business community.

Nobody said you can do whatever the hell you want. The issue is the anti-smoking crowd has decided that it's going to impose it's agenda on the private property rights of individuals. That's where the argument lies.

On the issue of smoking, your car, home, or business, which may all be owned by you is your private property. When you invite someone into your car, home, or business -- there's no reasonable argument that can be made stating that you should not have the right to tell that person whether or not they can - or - cannot smoke inside.

Cigarettes are a LEGAL product. If you don't like the choices made by the property owner in regards to the rules he sets around said product -- either take the issue up with him directly or leave.

It's very simple, and there is absolutely NO reason for the government to be involved in any of those choices. NONE!

If you care about people's health, quit barking up the wrong damn tree and start organizing to have tobacco products made illegal. Otherwise this incrementalism crap will creep up and hit you in the Hostess box the fatasses among us love to indulge in.

tcrossma

I don't care if smoking is made illegal or not, anymore than I want alcohol to be made illegal.

But if I went to a restaurant and every time I had a gulp of beer I could pour it down the throat of the child sitting at the table next to me I don't think telling that family "hey, you chose to come here" would be acceptable.

Enough said, i've spoken my peace on this subject and i'm not here to change anyone's mind, so carry on - without me.

AsSiMiLaTeD

I've always been on the side of banning it in public places, but am starting to see the valid arguments people like bobman and demiurge are making.

That being said, on a selfish note I do enjoy restaurants here all being non-smoking now.

Demiurge

tcrossma wrote: »

I don't care if smoking is made illegal or not, anymore than I want alcohol to be made illegal.

But if I went to a restaurant and every time I had a gulp of beer I could pour it down the throat of the child sitting at the table next to me I don't think telling that family "hey, you chose to come here" would be acceptable.

Enough said, i've spoken my peace on this subject and i'm not here to change anyone's mind, so carry on - without me.

So obviously your stance on this issue is based on how you feel rather than anything substantial, such as property rights or health? Not a knock, just typical of what's been posted in this thread. It's all about ME, ME, ME, rather than putting yourselves in someone elses shoes.

If you invite someone to dinner at your place and your guest lights up a cigarette at the table do you believe you have a right to tell them they're not allowed to do that? On the converse of that, do you believe you have the right to invite them to smoke in your home?

The honest answer is yes to both questions.

Businesses are absolutely no different on this issue. In the 80s, laws went into effect forcing businesses to post Smoking and No Smoking signs in certain places of the business -- giving more than enough warning for any of you potential victims.

If restaurants with no smoking are what people want, that's what people will get. Did you know that it's LEGAL to smoke in most offices? Why don't most employers allow it? Because they wouldn't have many employees.

Let the market work. Government doesn't need to hold our damn hands on every single stinkin' issue that gets our pubes knotted up.

tonyb

Well Demi,unfortunatly,alot of people would rather have the government hold their hands and force an agenda down the non conformers throat.I just don't see how more government involvement helps anything...except drive up cost and raise taxes.As a buisness,you have to operate within the laws of the given jurisdiction.With so many laws,taxes,regulations,no wonder buisness owners are crying foul.It's also a miracle any one in their right mind open a small buisness of their own today.

treitz3

Ok, here goes. All you whiney non-smokers think about this. Your fu(king car exhaust poses a health risk to me and my family and the earth.

Stop driving.

Ever heard of carbon monoxide poisoning? Well, I've had it and it came from motorists just like you. So, tell you what. I'm going to march right on up to the Supreme Court and demand that for the health and safety of the "public"k"", that nobody can use a device that gives off carbon monoxide. Have fun mowing your yard.