ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:35 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Smoking Bans
PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 8:53 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
As of this Monday, smoking in any public building in my town is illegal. I recall that the argument for this was something along the lines of second hand smoke being harmful to the staff.

Now, I don't smoke and I really don't care for having a lot of it in my face, but I really think smoking bans are a sign of the nanny state run amok. Everyone in a smoky bar is there voluntarily. If the bartenders or waiters are worried about their health, they can quit and get jobs at the glassworks breathing lead powder.

America doesn't have socialized health care; for the most part people pay for their own medical bills. So, what buisness do cities have passing passing laws that are alternately either patronizing or part of a stealth campaign to outlaw tobacco?

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 9:18 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:49 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Somewhere else
You just said it yourself.

Quote:
America doesn't have socialized health care; for the most part people pay for their own medical bills.


My brother has massivly bad asthma, and being around smokers triggers it particularly badly. If he has such a bad attack that he has to go to the hospital, he has to go to the hospital and pay for it himself. He can't ask the smoker's insurance to pay, despite the fact that the smoker triggered the attack.

---------

In Arlington, Texas, the city was trying to get a smoking ban in place for public access buildings. They could still have a smoking section, it just needed to have it's own ventilation system or be otherwise not connected to the non-smoking part's ventilation system. (i.e. outside, enclosed area w/o AC, whatever)

The association of restauranteers (or something like that) was the largest opponent of the ordinance, their aguement was that people wouldn't come if they couldn't smoke while they were eating. They'd go to the other cities nearby (and there are a lot) instead.

A month after the smoking ban was enacted, the restaurant sector reported the highest profits in a long time. It turns out that alot more people would rather go out to eat if they didn't have to deal with smoke, including those from neighboring areas, and they far outstripped the number of people who decided against going because they couldn't smoke.

------------

Personally, I'm of the opinion that my rights end where yours begin, and your rights end where mine begin. Your right to smoke infringes on my right to breathe clean(ish) air. You can smoke elsewhere, I have to breathe where I'm at.

_________________
--- This space for let ---


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:00 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
Herbal Enema wrote:
Personally, I'm of the opinion that my rights end where yours begin, and your rights end where mine begin. Your right to smoke infringes on my right to breathe clean(ish) air. You can smoke elsewhere, I have to breathe where I'm at.


Even if I'm there first? If a vehement non-smoker walks into bar full of smokers and indifferent non's, does it suddenly become a non-smoking space?


In case I wasn't quite clear, I mostly oppose the bans on libertarian principles. Columbus's ban was enacted by a midnight session of the city council. When the rest of the council members and the general public found out about it, there was quite a lot of milling around before it went to a referendum.

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 2:53 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 10551
Location: Bris-Vegas Australia
If I injected a syringe filled with acid into my heart, cut my arms off, drank poison, drank fifteen bottles of vodka or went to a concert for any cast member from Australian Idol and somehow lived I would be sent to a hospital until I was mentally better and less suicidal.

But if I inhaled toxic smoke on a daily basis people will stand up for my rights to do it?

Seems an odd double standard.

I've always been against public smoking personally, and if I catch my brother with a cigarette I belt him a couple of times.

Actor.

_________________
"Why can't we go back to living like cavemen? I know it was a rough and ready existence - the men where always rough and the women were always ready! " - Santa.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 2:54 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:49 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Somewhere else
There was nothing in the rules stating that the 'non-smoking' section had to be bigger than the 'smoking' section. If the bar has a non-smoking section that met the requirements, then more power to it.

Most establishments already have a larger non-smoking section than smoking.

And what if I was there first? Me and my wife go into a place to eat during an off time. We're the only patrons in there. Someone comes in a lights a cigarette, does the whole restaurant suddenly become smoking?

Also:

Do you need to breathe?
Do you need to smoke?

Shouldn't a need take precident over a want?

_________________
--- This space for let ---


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 3:40 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:34 am
Posts: 2715
Location: Podunk, MI
Personally, I don't think this should be a forced(Read: Regulated) topic in American society. While your rights might end where someone elses begin, the owner/leasor of the property you're on should continue to have the final say. Don't like it? Don't patronize their establishment.

And one would think that a smoker would be able to be taken to a civil trial over the smoking triggering an asthma attack, provided one could establish that without a doubt the smoke started it. Then again, what do I know?

_________________
"Oh, look who it is / It's my supportive wife/ And she thinks she's going to squeal/ Hey where do you think you're going?/ Don't you walk away from me/ You put down that telephone /You're not calling anyone"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 5:01 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3706
I can understand the reason people would do this, and to a certain extent agree, but i'm not sure it's an important enough issue to devote police time and such to enforce. It would be more logical to simply make it law to clearly display the policies of your business (ie Smoking, Non-Smoking or both Smoking & Non-Smoking areas) and then ensure that said businesses actually comply with what they've stated. That way smokers could just wander around looking for a restaurant that allows smoking, non-smokers can do the same and everyone's happy. Any intervention would then probably come in from the angle of false advertising, meaning there is no need for even more stupid & unnecessary laws.

(I'm assuming here that public places is reffering to bars, cafés, restaurants and such, and not just walking around the streets).

_________________
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies
within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:09 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Midworld
I think Rusty's got the gist of it. I'm reminded of working at the apartment complex. We had signs up that prohibited parking in our parking lot, and yet people dropped in to park there all the time. It got to be quite an issue sometimes, but the local police don't do anything about it. It's the proprietor's job to call local towing companies and get the cars off the lot, and I'm pretty sure it would be the same for a non-smoking town. Yeah, the law's on the books, but police aren't suddenly going to be driving down the street, see smoke inside a restaurant, and go in to arrest them. The proprietor's going to have to enforce the law on his own. So if a bar or whatnot has a long-standing tradition of perpetual haze, I don't think anyone who goes there is going to have to suddenly stop smoking. All it does is give restaurant owners who don't like smoke in general a legal recourse if someone decides to light up against multiple warnings.

_________________
Go then. There are other worlds than these.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:31 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Now, the thing is, second hand smoke, with people like Herbal's bro, isn't even particularly dangerous, unless you are in a room that is a cloud of it. The smoke in the room has already dissapated into the air and spread out enough that you would need smokers constantly breathe down your throat to cause much problem. If the fuckers want a smoke, let them smoke. I don't care about their health, as its not my problem. Smoking sections are a better idea than banning, though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 2:19 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
actor_au wrote:
If I injected a syringe filled with acid into my heart, cut my arms off, drank poison, drank fifteen bottles of vodka or went to a concert for any cast member from Australian Idol and somehow lived I would be sent to a hospital until I was mentally better and less suicidal.

But if I inhaled toxic smoke on a daily basis people will stand up for my rights to do it?

Seems an odd double standard.

No, I support your right to suicide too. Also legalized pot. So why would I be in favor of the slow criminalization of tobacco ... ?

We've already established that it's legal to buy and smoke tobacco, and we've had separate smoking/non sections for years. These new laws make no sense, except as a tool to marginalize smokers.

Herbal Enema wrote:
There was nothing in the rules stating that the 'non-smoking' section had to be bigger than the 'smoking' section. If the bar has a non-smoking section that met the requirements, then more power to it.

Sounds like your town has a more reasonable policy than mine, though I do wonder about the requirement for a totally separate ventilation system. Here, "smoking section" means <i>"an outdoor area no less than 20 feet from any enclosed area"</i>. Otherwise, we've managed to prohibit smoking indoors anywhere except homes, private clubs, hotel rooms, and smoke shops.

Quote:
We're the only patrons in there. Someone comes in a lights a cigarette, does the whole restaurant suddenly become smoking?

Also:

Do you need to breathe?
Do you need to smoke?

Well, in that situation the restaurant has a policy of allowing smokers. So apparently, it always was a smoking establishment. A fact that in real life you would probably smell when you entered.

A little smoke isn't stopping me from breathing. You (presumably) and I can both still breath if the air has a little smoke in it. You WANT smoke free air for the same reason a smoker WANTS smoke; you both think it will make your dinner better.

A typical set of lungs comes with all kinds of cilia and mucus to keep bad stuff out. Unless you're living or working every day with a smoker, a whiff of smoke is doing you no more harm than anything else in this dangerous, dangerous, world of ours.
Your brother NEEDS smoke-free air, and to what extent we should to legislate about other people's property and business to support his needs is a different ball of wax.


Re: Enforcement
Columbus's ban states that the health department (not the police) will issue violations after receiving two citizen complaints of the business allowing smokers. (Hooray for narcs...) I'm not sure what other cities do.

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:22 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 6793
Location: OI!
I don't smoke.

I don't care.

-Kitty

_________________
No. Antidisestablishmentarianism. Enigma. Muraena. Pundit. Malaise. Clusterfuck. Hootenanny.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:01 am 
Offline
Tourist

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 10:01 am
Posts: 46
Location: Brisneyland Ausvegas
For my money its real simple.

Develop a cigarette that can't hurt anyone but you? Smoke all you want. Chain smoke 24/7. Chain smoke like 3 at once. Chain smoke 15 at once, inhale the smoke through your ass because your throat has rotted out. Go hard. I don't care.

As long as the second hand smoke is an issue? Exposing other people to it against their wishes is assault.

If somebody walked up to you and sprayed some foul smelling shit in your face that burns your eyes, makes you choke, cough and wheeze, shortens your life and increases your chances of getting cancer? You'd probably punch the motherfucker, or call the cops. At the very least you'd be fucking pissed.

Welcome to what every non smoker deals with while their walking down the street and getting a face full of your second hand smoke.

I don't care what you do to your body as long as its your body. Jack heroin, rail coke, cram extasy up your ass while smoking crack and shooting ketamine. I don't give a fuck. If you can maange your habbit without fucking up anybody elses life? Thats your decision and nobody elses business. But don't make anybody else deal with your shit.

Yes, I know, its exceedingly unlikely that anybody can do heroin or crack without fucking upthe life of people around them. But hypothetically? Make fucking up other people's lives illegal and deal with it there. If you can handle your drugs, be they cigarettes, alchohol, or any of the hard shit? Fuck it. You have fun. The only controls I'd realistically support is a test before your allowed to buy the shit. A test that demonstrates you understand what your buying and what it'll do to you.

_________________
DNI'd by ptlis - w00t!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:46 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 6793
Location: OI!
"Hey, man, you looking for weed?"

"Yeah, man, hook me up with a bean."

"Okay, you're in a buddie's house. You see a bag of doritos sitting on the couch. You know your buddie wants to eat the doritos.

Do you A) Eat them, you're munching out
B) Don't touch, it's a trust thing, or
C) Wait until he returns, and ask politely?"

"Um.... A, wait, no B... ACB....B! B. It's B."

"...Fuck you, guy, no beano for you."

-Kitty

_________________
No. Antidisestablishmentarianism. Enigma. Muraena. Pundit. Malaise. Clusterfuck. Hootenanny.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:12 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 1654
Location: UrAnus
There's already no smoking in public here in NY... Bars that are not a cloud of smoke are one of the greatest things ever.

Plus it inspires creativity, a bar/concert venue I go to just made an outdoor bar where ppl can smoke, sit by the bonfire, play volleyball.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:31 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Herbal Enema wrote:
Also:

Do you need to breathe?
Do you need to smoke?

Shouldn't a need take precident over a want?

A want? Isn't smoking more of an addiction than anything else?

I'm using <a href=http://www.columbuscitycouncil.org/cleanair/ord1095-2004.pdf>this</a>(PDF) and <a href=http://www.publichealth.columbus.gov/media/news_21.asp>this</a> as a referrence.

I like the idea of the banning indoor smoking, like they did in 1992. But it'd be much better, in my opinion, if it was just accepted as rude to smoke indoors - the main reason that you wouldn't do it would be because it's socially irresponsible. Forcing government restriction on smoking indoors strikes me as unneccessary.

What's even worse is making it illegal to smoke near the entrances of buildings. There is plenty of outside air to disappate the toxins in second-hand smoke, no matter where you're placed outside. Am I wrong? It seems like a total waste of resources to me. But at least it is only the Board of Health that enforces the new law.

Quote:
WHEREAS, the United States Centers for Disease Control states that between 38,000 and 62,000 non-smoking
Americans die every year from exposure to secondhand smoke;

That's such a vague statistic. :P What <i>kind</i> of second-hand exposure caused the deaths? Was it second-hand smoke in the home from family members? Was it second-hand smoke at work? Was it second-hand smoke in the car? I'm sorry, I just find the notion of all 4000 chemicals reaching your lungs in an outdoor area silly, unless the person has blown the smoke in your face.

I think this was the Texas thing you were talking about, Herbal Enema.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5307a2.htm

Thinman wrote:
A typical set of lungs comes with all kinds of cilia and mucus to keep bad stuff out. Unless you're living or working every day with a smoker, a whiff of smoke is doing you no more harm than anything else in this dangerous, dangerous, world of ours.


"WHEREAS, secondhand smoke is classified as a "Class A Carcinogen" by the US Environmental Protection agency and,
by definition, there is no safe level of exposure to a class A carcinogen;"

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:34 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:49 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Somewhere else
That link is good, but what I was refering to happened in arlington, which is a suburb of both Dallas and Ft. Worth, and has numerous smaller suburbs nearby. The sheer amount of people in that local area who don't live in arlington is much, much greater than even the amount of people that live in El Paso.

_________________
--- This space for let ---


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:13 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
Kali_Ava wrote:
Thinman wrote:
A typical set of lungs comes with all kinds of cilia and mucus to keep bad stuff out. Unless you're living or working every day with a smoker, a whiff of smoke is doing you no more harm than anything else in this dangerous, dangerous, world of ours.


Quote:
"WHEREAS, secondhand smoke is classified as a "Class A Carcinogen" by the US Environmental Protection agency and,
by definition, there is no safe level of exposure to a class A carcinogen;"

A brief google search reveals that this EPA study was voided by a federal judge in 1998 for its slipshod approach to analysis and cherry picking of data.

I'm always a bit suspicious of scientific facts referenced in law. They represent something akin to a committee's interpretation of a lobbyist's summary of the actual academic matter.

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:05 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Thinman wrote:
I'm always a bit suspicious of scientific facts referenced in law. They represent something akin to a committee's interpretation of a lobbyist's summary of the actual academic matter.


[ irrelivant ]
Ooo. Good to know. Thanks for the tip! Sorry for looking into the study further. I didn't know to be wary of such things.
[ /irrelivant ]

Do they have any valid studies on second-hand smoking's effect on the lungs?

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 11:42 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
Kali_Ava wrote:
Thinman wrote:
I'm always a bit suspicious of scientific facts referenced in law. They represent something akin to a committee's interpretation of a lobbyist's summary of the actual academic matter.


[ irrelivant ]
Ooo. Good to know. Thanks for the tip! Sorry for looking into the study further. I didn't know to be wary of such things.
[ /irrelivant ]

I just wanted to explain <i>why</i> I was checking your facts for you instead of just saying you were "OMFG WRONG!" for citing a secondary source. You can take it personally if you want, I guess. I don't care.

Quote:
Do they have any valid studies on second-hand smoking's effect on the lungs?

If by "they" you mean "The EPA", I think the answer is no. If you mean "The Medical Establishment at large", I'm sure the answer is yes.

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:39 am 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 9:52 pm
Posts: 79
A person chooses to smoke...yes? Therefore they have the right and choice to smoke, so by various groups banning smoking in bars, it is possible that they are violating the smokers rights.

But... Cie la Vie, honestly though, if you go into any restaurant, the smoking section is the quieter of the two, at least that's the way it seems in my area. Also on a side note, smokers don't usually blow smoke in other people's faces, they consider it bad form. A young homosexual male I know says that blowing smoke in anothers face means they want to make love to you..........(the jury is still out on that one)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group