What is your opinion on it? Do you feel it's a good idea? A main concern is the healthcare costs of treating someone who gets sick from secondhand smoke. Could this possibly be bad in the future if HMOs stop giving coverage for this sort of thing if this sort of bill passes? Do you agree with a statewide banning, rather than the owner of the business choosing for themselves?
Why or why not on the issue? And please, keep this flame-free.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
I doubt this will happen.. Think about it... how much revenue the government makes from cig sales... banning it from public places... naa ain't gunna happen
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Bleeeahhh.
quote:
Zephyer obviously shouldn't have said:
*blows out a puff of clove smoke* I think it sucks. Glad I don't live there.
Mmmm catnip > clove!
Second-hand smoke is slow and avoidable enough that I don't consider it a major threat. Suicide-by-cop threatens direct harm on others, so I don't think it'd be okay. Leaping off a cliff, sure. Smoking, sure.
I don't see any particular reason why I should take an interest in keeping someone else from harming him/herself through premeditated action. They want to, go ahead. So long as they don't attempt to force me to deal with the problem they created later, it is not something I see any reason to involve myself in.
But, I'm somewhat of a Libertarian. So I believe people should be pretty much free to do whatever they want with themselves.
It would be easier to enforce public places to maintain and possibly expand their smoke-free areas and make sure said areas are built so they can handle their purpose.
Family restaurants, such as Denny's or McDonald's, should be non-smoking. Bars and poolhalls, however, should be smoking.
And I completely agree with this idea. If its made a law that I cant smoke in public, I wont. As it stands, anytime I am asked to put out my cigarette, it goes out, because of people dont want me to share my carcinogens, I can happily oblige.
And it'll help me quit smoking.
quote:
{Tal} obviously shouldn't have said:
And it'll help me quit smoking.
I can help you do that.
Kitchener/Waterloo (banned it in 2000 or 2001 IIRC), Ottawa, California. London, Ontario was about the only place where it wasn't banned.
And personally, I LOVE it. I love being able to walk into a store or a restaurant or a bar or a poolhall and not immediately gag at the smell of smoke. Not to mention being able to get donuts at Tim Hortens and have them taste like Donuts rather than smoke and ash. (among other things).
Now, when I go to places without smoking bans (Just about anywhere in Quebec, back home to New Brunswick (but that's changing), to Cape Breton, if I walk into a place with smoking, it's almost enough to make me turn around and walk right back out. (If there is another option I will walk out too).
Whether it's right or not, I don't know, and I don't care. But for me, I support such efforts just for the comfort it gives me when I'm out and about.
quote:
{Tal} had this to say about Optimus Prime:
First off.. I smoke.And I completely agree with this idea. If its made a law that I cant smoke in public, I wont. As it stands, anytime I am asked to put out my cigarette, it goes out, because of people dont want me to share my carcinogens, I can happily oblige.
And it'll help me quit smoking.
An interesting viewpoint from a smoker. What makes you agree most? Do you agree or disagree that those who are sujected to secondhand smoke have a responsibility to police themselves in where they are exposed to it? Or do you agree or disagree that it is always the smoker's responsibility to police themselves in where they are smoking?
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
Please forgive any mispellings. I cant' see what I am typing. Melissas computer is about dead I think.
Health problems or no, a lot of people just don't like smoke. Just as they don't like somebody standing behind them in line and having said person's pelvis rubbed on their rear.
You can bet when I'm asked to stop my pelvic intrigues, I do.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Taeolas wrote:
Whether it's right or not, I don't know, and I don't care. But for me, I support such efforts just for the comfort it gives me when I'm out and about.
This brings up an interesting point as well. Whose right is more important? You wish to have the right to non-smokey air. What about the rights of the smokers, or the business owners to make choices about their own places of business? Which takes precedence and which has to stand by the wayside?
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
So in a bar/poolhall, there's smoke, but in something like a neighbourhood grill, nonsmoking is pristine, and smoking is smoke filled.
No, Really. Bite me.
quote:
Azizza had this to say about (_|_):
Dumb law. Second hand smoke doies not give you health problems
Asthmatics can have attacks triggered by second-hand smoke.
Thanks for researching.
I don't smoke, but my friend Jason does. I have no problem with it.
Yeah. [ 05-08-2003: Message edited by: Skaw ]
Even though second hand smoke isnt as bad as it is made out to be, it is still far from good. Smokers have claimed that because the air in many places is more polluted, they should be allowed to smoke. See, its simple. You can smoke somewhere where it wont hurt anyone -- your own property. But in a public place where both smokers and non smokers wish to partake of the services offered...there shouldnt be smoking allowed.
Just curious, though. J ust because pool halls and bars are adult only, why should they have smoking allowed? Should adults not be able to enjoy these activities in a smoke free environment? Why should it only be limited to kids?
quote:
Check out the big brain on Falaanla Marr!
I honestly feel it is more the right of the non smoker to have a smoke free environment than for the smoker to be able to smoke where ever he wants.Even though second hand smoke isnt as bad as it is made out to be, it is still far from good. Smokers have claimed that because the air in many places is more polluted, they should be allowed to smoke. See, its simple. You can smoke somewhere where it wont hurt anyone -- your own property. But in a public place where both smokers and non smokers wish to partake of the services offered...there shouldnt be smoking allowed.
Just curious, though. J ust because pool halls and bars are adult only, why should they have smoking allowed? Should adults not be able to enjoy these activities in a smoke free environment? Why should it only be limited to kids?
because adults are old enough to assume the risk if they so choose. If you're an adult, then it's assumed that you know the risks of secondhand smoke, and can choose if you want to expose yourself to it. There are nonsmoking bard and poolhalls out there if you like, but it's your choice if you do/don't want to expose yourself.
No, Really. Bite me.
Bars, on the other hand, are pits of smoke. If I want to go to one, I accept that I'm going to have to breathe it. I don't think a law to make places completely non-smoking is going to work. It'll cause a big loss of revenue for some places and probably cause them to completely close.
I imagine it also has to do with location as well. The news report didn't really tell *where* the pool hall was, what sort of town, if it was near someplace with a lot of kids, etc.
So most would agree that a non-smoker's rights are more important than a smoker's? Why or why not?
And again, what about the business owner's rights? Whether they're a smoker or a non-smoker, could it possibly be said this sort of law is taking away their right to run their business as they see fit? Why or why not?
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
If people wouldn't vote for a government that pays to treat them when they get lung cancer, laws like this wouldn't probably happen (as often). And why yes, I'm fatalistic enough to believe that when I am old, poor, and unable to get treatment that I can't afford, I deserve to suffer whatever miseries I get.
Now to say it all comes down to money is just my speculation. But even if a ban is intended just for the common good--I still don't think it's just. In a private establishment, the management could ban smoking if the clientelle really wanted it. If you complain that you can't find a bar with such a ban that probably gives you a good indication about what the average person wants there. If "smokeless bars" really could make money you bet you'd see some around. If you know of some, great--they got that way without interference.
If you want a nice SimCity Nation, try Sweden.
(postscript)
I suppose there are some people who are really helped by being told what to do by the government. That's great, except that smoking customers are going to find other places to and bars will lose business. I don't know where the balance lies between one person's aid and another's inconvenience--sometimes I don't think a win-win situation even exists. That's the main reason I advocate a "hands-off" approach.
quote:
Azizza impressed everyone with:
Dumb law. Second hand smoke doies not give you health problems
Yeah, let's forget about people who are allergic to cigarette smoke as well, hmm?
And yes, second hand smoke DOES cause health problem. Maybe it's not as bad as it used to be made out to be. But to completely deny that it causes ANY problems at ALL is completely ignorant and stupid.
quote:
Azizza had this to say about the Spice Girls:
Dumb law. Second hand smoke doies not give you health problems I think they proved the smoke would have top be literally blown down your throat for it to have any impact. And the ammount needed was far more than a person would normally get. evnen in a bar or pool hall..Please forgive any mispellings. I cant' see what I am typing. Melissas computer is about dead I think.
About the stupidest post I have seen yet. Contrare to what you just said, there have been hundreds of studies proving otherwise. Second hand smoke kills over 50,000 people a year.
Anyways, Florida just passed this law last election. Think it takes action in a month or so.
edit: one two many zeros [ 05-08-2003: Message edited by: Yuri ]
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
I carry my inhaler, but here's the deal: My asthma is a problem caused by no fault of my own. Asthma is not a lifestyle disease.
Addiction to cigarette smoke IS a lifestyle disease. And what makes it worse than alcohol is that someone who's drunk might puke on you inside a club, or sing loudly, or (in rare instances) pick a fight. But the vast majority of people who are quietly sipping their drinks are harmless. They're not spewing stuff into the atmosphere that can cripple someone.
Unfortunately, smokers are. Even the most innocuous smoker isn't metabolizing all of the smoke. They're shooting it back into the air and it DOES cause asthma attacks. I already modify my lifestyle to include carrying an inhaler for situations I can't avoid getting an asthma attack in. I already avoid or am careful in situations where I might be exposed to something that might trigger off my asthma, and usually I'm okay.
Why should I be forced to narrow down the number of places I can go to, or have to be on guard around, because someone is jonesing so badly for a fix that they have to light up? I'm not talking about people who puff on an occasional cigar or pipe in the comfort of their own home, and I'm not talking about the considerate smokers who make it a point of knowing the feeling of the company they keep in regards to smoking and abide it. Unfortunately, both of those parties are in the VAST minority of smokers.
Here's the deal: It is your right to poison your own bodies. It is your right to give yourself lung cancer. It is NOT your right to risk inflicting trouble on others. It is NOT your right to make public places a miasma of carcinogens. I don't know about most of you, but when I hear "smoke inhalation" I don't equate it to "having a good time".
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
The path of least resistence of course is to send it to spread the load among everyone--nobody's going to mind paying a little more income tax, right? But think about it--thousands of people who don't give a shit are spending your money because they don't have any of their own. On the other hand, many more are also spending your money who try and are simply unlucky. I suppose in the end it comes down to one's capacity to care--and if either of us really cared wouldn't we hand out our own money to people? Or I suppose you still need someone to tell you what to do?
quote:
Karnaj's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
The government should not be able to limit the ways that I can hurt myself. Next thing you know, I won't be able to slam my nuts in a drawer anymore.
I agree with you, if some one wants to hurt themselves, it is not any of my business.
I've lived with smokers my entire life. There are athsmatics in my family (cousin gets it bad), and everyone's generally cool enough not to smoke around her, but they will smoke in their own house/houses of others/other places of fun if they're not around.
I'm big on personal freedoms. I feel if a person wants to do something to themselves, what business is it of mine to step in and say it's wrong, even if I disagree with it? I wouldn't do cocaine but I won't bitchslap someone who does... it's not my business, it's not my choice, why should anyone tell anyone else what to do with their own body? Yet, some people can't be around smoke for fear of their lungs, and some really really don't like it, sooo... well-ventilated, enclosed, EQUAL SPACE smoking and non-smoking areas are the key here, not banning it outright.
Outright banning smoking in public places has maybe a few good things, but a looooot of bad things pop up - rebelliousness and open defiance of that law, difficulty of enforcement, and the moral "is it right"-ness of it... big things like that down to little things like restaurants changing into bars so they can keep their smokers, meaning underage people can't go anywhere to eat. I think there should be a few control laws, but nothing to this degree.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
I smoke occasionally, but I have always been curteous about it. If there's someone around who's allergic, just doesn't like smoke, or for just about any other reason... I simply don't smoke.
This law doesn't bother me. I don't take cigarettes with me when I go out as is. I'm not a bar person really, so it won't effect me there either.
My mother is really allergic to smoke. To the point that I make sure all my clothes I'm wearing when I see her are freshly laundered. I'll be happy to see her able to go out where she pleases again, without having to worry about her lungs locking up.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
I don't want to breath filthy smoke, and why should the bad habits of others harm me? It's fine on their property say, people can do whatever they like there really and it wouldn't bother me.. but public places, no smoking is a very good idea.
quote:
Nicole had this to say about dark elf butts:
I'm big on personal freedoms.
You have to realize that this isn't about personal freedoms. It's about public freedoms.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
The health of the majority outweighs the right to self-destructive addictions of the minority.
What he said.
quote:
Dr. Pvednes, PhD was naked while typing this:
It's fine on their property say, people can do whatever they like there really and it wouldn't bother me.. but public places, no smoking is a very good idea.
Here's something to consider. The owner of the restaurant/bar/pool hall, etc, is on their own property. The government wants to make this rule about what they can do on their own property. So even the owner etc couldn't light up on their own property. Good idea? Bad idea? What does it say for the liberties the government may try to take in the future?
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
quote:
So quoth Trillee:
I doubt this will happen.. Think about it... how much revenue the government makes from cig sales... banning it from public places... naa ain't gunna happen
This is already the law in New York, has been for a while.
No smoking in government buildings, office buildings, restaurants, etc. Bars have to keep a limited number of seats so that they can have smoking, and thats about to be outlawed also.
To answer Ly's question:
I've enjoyed the world a lot more since the law went into effect. There are places outside for people to smoke, but interiors are pretty much always smoke free unless it is a house or car. I don't have to carry an inhaler on me anymore.
Does it make smoking more trouble? Certainly. But smoking is a luxury, and one that is had in public places at other's expense.
I'm big on individuals rights, and I probably wouldn't have voted this law in, but I have to admit I love living with it in place. Most of my friends who smoke are very courteous anyway, but they don't seem to take it too hard, its a given here. [ 05-09-2003: Message edited by: 'Reko Tokah Fang ]
quote:
Lyinar Ka`Bael attempted to be funny by writing:
Here's something to consider. The owner of the restaurant/bar/pool hall, etc, is on their own property. The government wants to make this rule about what they can do on their own property. So even the owner etc couldn't light up on their own property. Good idea? Bad idea? What does it say for the liberties the government may try to take in the future?
I rephrase. Private Property it is okay, Public Property it is not.
