Going to a bar that doesnt allow it would be fine by me. unfortunately bar owners have a different fight....that Im not a part of. restaraunts would work that way for me as well. the non-smoking section doesnt cut it because most restaraunts use a half wall to divide the 2. I am pretty easy going and understand that people do things that I dont. but when its unavoidable (ie - the mall door entrance, planes, movie theaters, etc) I appreciate the govenrment looking out for MY freedoms as well.

Smokers are not the only ones with freedoms. We all have them...where is the line drawn?

I read most of my facts from www.thetruth.com but also some came from newspaper articles and magazine articles I have been reading on the subject lately since it came up for vote back in november here in ohio

you can also read the facts that the EPA has on the subject. if thats not a credible source, nothing is.

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/

some more good reading from the EPA about the health risks of second hand smoke

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healthrisks.html

the bottom line is, second hand smoke DOES affect those around you. Anyone who thinks differently is just not thinking at all.

Look, I don't mind some measures to reduce health risks from second-hand smoke -- well, that's not true, I do mind, but I'll put up with it. There's a coffee shop near me where the smoking section is entirely enclosed -- it makes you feel like you're on display, but hey, I get to smoke indoors, and you don't have to breathe my smoke. Exhaust fans, in sufficient quantity, can greatly reduce the amount of second-hand smoke in the air without annoying smokers at all. Now godxzilla posts the following list of effects of second-hand smoke - one question would be, what kind of exposure are we talking about? I think if you have kids, and smoke in your home, you're an asshole. But that's a different level of exposure entirely than one night at a bar. Moreover, take a look at the list: You'll note that all of these, except for the first one, all deal with either annoyances or children. Now, when was the last time you saw children in the neighborhood bar? So, for the most part, these alleged facts are not even relevant.

Why it is even necessary for someone to be able to smoke in public places? It seems ironic to me that most smokers will passionately defend their right to make everyone around them uncomfortable under the pretext that they shouldn't be made uncomfortable.

You will not die if you can't smoke in public. I just want to hear one smoker admit that smoking is a filthy habit, and that forcing everyone else to smoke along with you-because you went and got yourself addicted- is a fundamentally selfish act.

I would say that the reason they are including bars is because its a public place and the ban affects public places. unfortunate as it may seem, its the truth. I somewhat agree with you as far as the bar goes, I (non smoker) should be able to choose smoking or non smoking bars. But the bar owners had that fight, not smokers vs non smokers.

as for the levels of exposure, does it matter? If its a known carcinogen, why expose your children to ANY? who determines how much is too much, and when is it too late? My wife is pregnant right now. we just spent our holidays bouncing from airport to airport going through the security lines. Now there is no correlation between birth defects and the metal detector. Many women go through them every day...but they ask the woman whether she wants to go through or not because it is HER decision how safe she wants the baby to be, not the TSA, and definately not you (smoker...not directed at anyone). If some level of exposure is bad no matter how extreme, than none is the best, right?

NONSENSE! You call my article dated? The EPA report you write about is from 1992! and is only a survey that covers other reports! That 3,000 deaths number is fictitious nonsense, the EPA report even admits it! That the number gets repeated in every EPA and anti-smoking bulletin does not make it true.

The World Health Organization did a study in 1998 that:

"CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

If you have a more current source for your numbers that don't rely on the bullshit EPA study, link to them here. Otherwise, cut that crap out!

Then dude, you might as well put that kid in a plastic bubble and prevent him/her from breathing any of the air around us or eating any food.

Everybody does some activity that annoys somebody else. You have no right to be free from annoyances in public places. You have a right not to be killed in public, that's true, but until you can demonstrate a substantial link between an activity and some measurable harm to others the activity should be allowed.

That's true. And black people won't die if they have to use a separate water fountain and sit at the back of the bus. But not dying is not a sufficient reason to outlaw an activity.

Look no further, smoking is a filthy habit that is fundamentally selfish. But:
1. Smoking is cool. If you claim it's not, it's because you're not cool. It's also relaxing and enjoyable. The coolness, relaxingness and enjoyableness outweigh the smell for those of us who smoke.
2. Are you telling me that you have no selfish activities? Do you have cable television? Why aren't you putting that money to good use by saving the poor children in Africa who die from lack of food instead of watching the food channel while eating a whole Turkey for Christmas?

Pick a reason for the banning of smoking and stick with it. Every reason you present can be shot down, one at at time.

What are you, 12? I haven't heard of anyone claim themselves to be cool because they smoke once they have gone through puberty.

well considering you are quoting like 4 or 5 folks, ill try to keep it brief.

first of all, you think smoking is cool. you really do? maybe 20 years ago when the risks were not well known, it was a way to differentiate yourself from everyone else. it became a way of life and defined a specific group of people who may have been "cool". Now, its just plain stupid. After all the studies and the facts are known, you would have to be pretty stupid or extremely weak to continue.

I have read a bunch of other threads of yours, and it all boils down to the fact that you are a pissed off individual for whatever reason. Were you neglected as a child? I cant explain what it was, only you can. but I can tell that you need some help. maybe just a little growing up is all you need, I'm not the person to answer that.

What I want you to do for me, is give me a list of smoking benefits. no internet searches, no bullshit, just create a list of, oh, 10 reasons smoking has benefitted (spelling again, not sure about that one :)) your life.

I am not saying you shouldnt do it. I dont care if you kill yourself - truly, i will supply the bullet if you ask nicely. but once it starts affecting me and my family, you are going to hear from me. I am obviously not alone or this topic would cease to exist. The country has spoken, and smoking will be banned in public everywhere, its just a matter of time. Instead of wasting your time arguing with me about it, maybe you should start thinking of more creative ways to obtain lung cancer in public

Come ON now Averett, didn't you know? When you walk around with a cigarette in your hand, women fall to their knees and bow at your presence!

you mean YOU dont do that to men when you see them?

Honestly anyone who compares cool with smoking, be it the smoker or his "cool friends" need to get a life.

I never thought it was "cool" to smoke....its something I enjoy, others think its a filthy habit, I dont. It relaxes me when Im stressed the same way drinking does for other people (and drinkers stink too by the way). There is not much in life more enjoyable than a smoke after a really good meal (well to me there isnt).

Like I've said before...non smokers have a right to not have to be around it....just like I have a right not to patronize the establishments where its not allowed. If every single public place in the world banned smoking then fine....I can live a few hours without a smoke...I do it all the time at work.

my only gripe is this.....If I wanted to open a bar for smokers only....I wouldnt be allowed in my county and THAT isnt fair.

I couldnt agree more. You deserve that right. I bet its the other bar owners fighting against that because they KNOW they would lose too much business and we would be right back to where we started :)

Actually I think you can.... I know here in upstate NY if bars can show that they have lost a certain percentage of customers/revenu/whatever due to the smoking ban, they can allow smoking again. And for some reason I think theres a cigar bar in NYC.

I wouldn't have a problem with bars that allowed smoking. I just probably wouldn't go there. I'm not so much worried about getting cancer from spending 3 hours in a club, I just don't like smelling like an ash tray when I go to sleep that night.

Trust me....if it were allowed in GA somebody would have done it by now....our smoking ban went into affect April of 2004 and there was even a special session of the county commission because a club here Wild Bills (biggest country bar in the SE or something like that) had just put in a casino style ventilation systems MEGA BUCKS and it was put in before the ban was in and they tried to get grandfathered in and the county wouldnt allow it. So now.....instead of the smokers being in an area designated for them....they stand outside and smoke where all the non smokers have to walk thru it. (not saying thats right....I personally never stand around a door to smoke...but them I am considerate even though I have a "filthy" habit).

If they couldnt get an exception I doubt anyone could.

OK, so the new rule is every activity for which I cannot find 10 reasons it benefits my life should be outlawed? Well, look, I'll be honest with you. I've tried and tried and I can't find 10 reasons black people benefit my life. So maybe they should be outlawed too?

I did find one though: It feels goooooooood. Until it hurts you, leave me alone.

How is it substantially affecting you and your family? I don't want to kill others, if you can show me it's killing you or others I'll stop. Please, point to a source that doesn't quote a 12 year old flawed EPA study and I'll be happy to consider it.

That sounds like a great manifesto. So is marjority rule in every circumstance acceptable? If the country spoke and wanted to kill all homosexuals should we just accept that too?

Unfortunately, I'm not very smart, but if there were a cheaper, more efficient way to obtain lung cancer in public (that had the side benefit of feeling good) I would do it.

And you don't need to worry about bullets, I'll probably be dead from another type of cancer in a few years anyway.

Well you must only hang around with the uncool people.

I cannot stand the smell of smoke, it ruins my meals more then any other factor, and that includes bad food. I do not think this is at all like restricting races or weight, as others have suggested.

I have often thought, why not carry around a bottle of that fake fart smell, and just sit in the smoking section and spray it all day. Walk ahead of smokers on the streets and spray the stuff behind me. Just so *maybe* they can see how it is on the non-smoker side.

If you want to create farting and non-farting sections please do so, but I would oppose a law prohibiting the passing of gas in public just as much as I oppose the smoking in public ban.

And if the smell of smoke ruins your meal, why don't you sit in the non-smoking section or go to a non-smoking restaurant?

May be he want's to eat at theat particular restaurant? If you want a smoke so bad, why don't you just step outside? It won't kill you...but then again it might ;)
...smoking is cool? Where are you from?

I don't like the smell of Taco Bell, and I don't eat there. Now, some people like to eat at Taco Bell. It probably wouldn't kill them to not eat at Taco Bell, but I hardly think it's appropriate to outlaw Taco Bells. And eating there is probably a hell of a lot worse for you than smoking a cigarette.

Yes, I think smoking is cool and relaxing. You're free to disagree, but that's no reason to outlaw smoking. You must do some activity which I think is uncool, but I have intention of banning it.

Do you wear sneakers with lights in them? I can't think of anything I consider more uncool, yet people actually pay money for these things.

Do you wears T-Shirts with advertisements on them? This is only slightly less uncool than the sneaker thing, but people actually pay money to wear an advertisement.

Do you watch sitcoms? Lame, boring shit that emasculates men and repeats the same stupid plotlines forever, but people even Tivo this shit!

I am disgusted by all of these things, yet people disagree with me and consider them cool. I don't try to outlaw sneakers with lights in them or burn down the studio of "Everybody loves Raymond," and I hope you would show smokers the same respect by not trying to cut in on their cool action.

but you still, after all this, are missing the big picture.......

THOSE THINGS DO NOT AFFECT OTHER PEOPLE

wow you have a thick head.

Ok, I'll admit it. Smoking is a disgusting, filthy habit that smells awful if you aren't a smoker. It probably causes cancer and it probably kills children via even more horrific means such as molestation or neglect. Why not...

Again, my problem isn't with people who don't like smoke - for whatever stupid or rational reason you wish to promote. Go you. My problem is with people trying to use government force to solve their problems.

Do you go to a restaurant that has half walls between the smoking and non-smoking section? Don't call the cops, talk to the manager. All you have to do is ask that he stick a sheet of plexiglass between the sections. If he respects your business, then he will comply. If he doesn't respect your business, do you really want to go there again anyway?

It happens to smokers all of the time.

It's not like I'm smoking in these places to be an ass. If I'm smoking around a door and you don't like it - tell me. If you aren't an ass about it, I'll move. I probably just wasn't thinking when I set up camp there (or it was raining and I didn't want to get wet). If you want to go to a club that doesn't allow smoking, talk to the manager. If there are enough non-smokers to make the club money then they will do it.

But no. It's much too much work to talk to the person that offended you and come to an agreement. No, why do that when you can just call up your Congressman and blanketly label all smokers evil and be done with it. Why it's the freakin' American way!

Again, it isnt that I'm against private people asking me not to smoke in their establishment. My wife does it all of the time - and I even own half of the damn thing. My problem is with taking the decision out of the hands of private people. Moving it from a "hey buddy, would you mind smoking somewhere else?" to a "put the smoke out and keep your hand where I can see them" conversation.

Rationalize it all you want to. Smoking kills people, you don't like the smell, it gives you a headache, whatever. You have still forced someone to do what you wanted, instead of convincing them like a reasonable human being.

You are a tyrant.

Equating food (not that taco bell is food) to cigarettes is ridiculous (same as comparing cigarettes to children)
Maybe if you ate there 24/7, but I doubt it.

No one is banning smoking because it isn't cool, in fact, no one is trying to ban smoking at all, just where you do it and who breaths in your cancer causing smoke.

Just as I have no intention on banning your smoking.

Nope, can't say I ever bought them...I'm too old for that stuff even when it was cool;)

Can't say that I do, but thanks for giving me a heads up on what's only slightly less uncool than the sneaker thing.

Sadly, Sienfeld is off the air. It was the only sitcom I ever enjoyed.

Again, no one want's you to stop smoking. You're free to smoke all you want, just don't fill my air with your smoke and we'll get along fine. It's no more complicated than that.

This lets me remind everyone that smoking isn't a right, it's a privelage. There are no laws on the books in the US protecting smokers, thus they have no legal "rights"

That's different than the standard you were using earlier. Are you banning things that affect other people, or things that kill other people? Pick one rationale and stick with it.

You also still haven't shown that second hand smoke kills people. I have shown you a WHO article that finds weak evidence of such a connection. I try not to base my decisions on weak evidence, so if you know of moderate to strong evidence that second hand smoke kills, please show me so that I may educate myself.

As to affecting other people, there are a lot of things that affect other people that we don't ban. Loud people talking on cell phones affects others, children screaming in movie theatres affects others, yet we don't ban these activities.

I didn't equate food to cigarettes. I showed a relationship between the two and the effect they have on other people. If you think it's ridiculous, please tell me how it was ridiculous.

It's easy to compare cigs to children. They both have an effect on other people. Do you dispute this? Do you dispute that a child screaming in a movie theatre can be as annoying as a cigarette smoker? (and don't bring up the second hand smoke kills bullshit until you link to something other than a 12 year old nonsensical EPA survey).

Consider how you would feel if everybody in the country stood up and irrationally said that activity was killing them.

"Your enjoyment of Seinfeld is killing me, so you have to stop."

They present no evidence except for the testimonial of a man who said his friend died from laughing at Seinfeld 12 years ago.

No matter what you do you are incapable of getting everyone to realize that they have not shown a causitive link between the Seinfeld episode and the man's death, or a link that others are at risk if Seinfeld continues to air.

They ignore you, call you stupid and selfish, tax the shit out of the Seinfeld DVD's, and outlaw it's being show on the public airwaves.

If my understanding of the situation is flawed, please accept my apologies. My understanding is that the governments of several US states and several countries have or are currently attempting to ban smoking indoors, specifically in bars and restaurants, even when such places have established smoking sections. Is that incorrect? If so, please explain to me how that is not a ban on smoking, and explain to me what it is, and I will adjust my word usage appropriately.

And please, if you can't cite to a legitimte study that links second hand smoke and cancer, then cut that shit out.

I don't understand you, I thought the law was to prohibit me from smoking in bars and public places. How is that not wanting me to stop smoking?

What if they said you could only watch Seinfeld in Montana. Are you still free to watch Seinfeld all you want? (and if you should happen to actually live in Montana, please substitute Alaska or Arizona).

And sorry dude, I didn't realize you were at the bar the other night when I wanted to smoke. Please believe me, if I had know that it was YOUR AIR I would not have filled it with smoke. For future reference, could you possibly draw a line around your air so I know where it is and I don't pollute it.

Alternatively, if you promise to outlaw religion and war, give me a $100 million and a weekend in the woods with Britney Spears, I'm sure we'll get along fine too. It's no more complicated than that.

OK, but just because something isn't a right doesn't mean the government should ban it. I agree that the government can ban it, shit, if the government wanted to crucify me upside down they could do it, but that doesn't mean they should. Well, maybe they should crucify me upside down, but there must be something you know the government can do but it shouldn't do it.

i cant even reply anymore - you are just too stubborn and thick headed. ignorance reigns once again.

does this forum have an ignore feature? I feel like im getting dumber just reading his posts

Precisely. The problem I have here in the states is the legislation against smoking in bars, etc. If enough people complained to managers at restaurants, bars, and other venues they'd certainly ban smoking in those individual places. Hell, in Dallas, there were restaurants that you couldn't smoke in before the ban even went into effect! And I accepted that, even as a smoker, because obviously the manager had made that choice.

Instead, though, this is just another example of the government nannying us and legislating morality. No, they haven't outright banned cigs - and they won't, thanks to the $$$ that big tobacco donates. But they're trying to tread the fine line between villification and acceptance to keep that money flowing.

You know what? You ask me to put out my cigarette next to you in a bar, I'd do it. I've done it. No problem. Either it's out or I walk away so it's not in your face. I'm a considerate smoker. But you tell get your big brother, in this case the gub'mint, to tell me I'm not permitted to be a part of society, that I need to hide inside my house or stand outside in the rain like some disease-ridden leper that you don't want around you, and I'll tell you to go f-ck yourself.

Dear people that feel big brother should legislate this: I love the smell of my American Spirits, and I love the smell on my clothes, and I love the smell of them on my fingers. I hate your perfumed lotions. They make me physically ill. They fill the air and some of the brands honestly make me gag. (Oh and incidentally many of those chemicals have also been linked as carcinogens, but I don't have the links handy at this time.) So I walk away. You don't like to breathe smoke? You don't like the smell on your clothes? Walk away or petition the manager to eliminate the smoking section in that particular place. But don't run to mommy to get her to eliminate something you don't like.

i don't smoke and i'm glad laws like this are being passed all over the world. its about time we started to phase out smoking.

OK let's phase out alcohol too mmmkay since it's equally detrimental to your health.

And let's phase out fast food since current research shows that trans-fats may also be just as harmful and carcinogenic in the long run as tobacco.

I'm not trying to make the [flawed] slippery slope argument or troll here, just pointing out that there are several other equally harmful things that aren't being attacked for whatever reason. Maybe it's because they don't smell as bad.

while we are at it can we ban those stupid perfume women in the department stores who insist on spraying all those different little cards with scents, so much so that they all start to smell the same? I WILL NOT buy anything in those places because simply walking into the area makes me sneeze something awful and then I have to deal with my sinus allergies all day. To me thats just as inconsiderate and annoying as we smokers are to the non smokers

I apologize for being so ignorant, stubbron and thick-headed. If you would please supply me with a link to the resources to educate myself, I would appreciate it.

Actually it's because they don't have an adverse effect on passers-by.

To Master shake:
Whats up with your continual analogies to black people? What the hell have black folk got to do with smoking? Are you trying to make smokers out as a persecuted minority?

I have to say, I find your arguments to be flawed almost beyond common sense. Elaborate and ultimately irrelevant analogies, and use of the "you can't prove it so I win" technique are among several logical fallacies of which you are a chronic repeat offender. I refer mainly to your input in this particular thread, and attribute it to your being stubborn about this subject, which is fine, but makes an unconvincing argument.

As for making the point "smoking is cool, therefore I should be allowed to inflict it on everyone else" and then going on to explain to another poster that coolness is entirely subjective.... well, I dont know where the hell you're going with that one.

Clearly you can't be swayed in your opinion, so I will stop trying, but I do think your argumentative technique could be... revised. At the very least. I think you have poor form.

My good man, you are what I call "a smoker", and a fine example of why I despise them :)
So smoke happily while you can, I'm afraid the scales aren't about to tip in your favour.

Wholeheartedly agreed. I can't walk into one particular deparment store in my city because they have the cosmetics section right in the entrance - you literally have to walk through it to get into other sections of the store. The perfume-on-perfume-on-perfume smell almost knocks me over.

Ditto! heh :)

you can still smoke, just not in my face. nobody's "prohibiting" smoking. smoke if you want, just don't make me smoke with you.

if someone drinks, they're not affecting you. it's only affecting them. and it's their choice.

fast food too is not affecting you. only those who eat it.

smoking, in public places, on the other hand, does affect those who don't choose to smoke.

You keep claiming that smoking affects those who don't choose to smoke. How, other than being an annoyance?

Ok, so we all argee that if we ban smoking, then we get to ban children, perfume and incense - right? Perfume and incense give me a huge headache and start a allergic reaction in me. I just don't like children.

Because, it's not like I could leave the source of the perfume and incense...that's un-American!

And yes, smoking is cool. If you use a wicked awesome pipe, or roll them yourself. Which reminds me, I need to get a wicked awesome pipe....

Heh, I'd be happy to come home from a bar not smelling like someone else's vomit. But some things, she just ain't happening.

Ahhh, good times...

oh man....not the incense!!!! thats just going to far :lol:

maybe I can kind of put this in perspective for some people...

how many smokers, like me...appreciate when a place allows smoking but doesnt allow pipes and cigars? Cigars ALWAYS make me sick to my stomach, and pipes do too depending on the kind of tobacco used.

thats what its like for a lot of non smokers. Like I've said...if I choose to go to a place that doesnt allow smoking then I have no right to bitch about it...but on the other hand if a smoker chooses to go somewhere where it IS allowed then they have no right to bitch either.

Of course... My problem isn't with an establishment choosing to disallow smoking. It's their right as the owner of the facility, just as it's the right of a club to not let me in if I'm wearing a tube top and hot shorts (I'm a guy). But when the government says, "look sbudda, you can't go anywhere in a tube top and hot shorts" I'd get really pissed off. Not that I'm a tube top/hot shorts kind of guy, but because it's just not their business.

It's a philosophical problem for me only. Yet another example of a person being "annoyed" by something that a person does, and instead of confronting the offending person, they go and screw it all up for everyone. The Sheila Broflovski's of the world can eat me.

I admit my posts have been long and elaborate, but that's because I have been replying to several previous posts at the same time.

? Either you are confused, or I am.
You and the other anti-smokers are the ones attempting to enact legislation. You want action, the banning of smoking in public places. Therefore, the onus is on you to make your case for it, YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PERSAUSION. If you can't make your case that smoking should be banned in public places, then yes, I do win. That is the way arguments work. That is not a logical fallacy to require the proponent of an position to support his/her position.

I don't recall ever having made this statement. Why did you put in in quotes? That's misleading and uncool. I did make the statement that smoking is cool, but that was in response to a poster's query as to why people smoke, not why it shouldn't be banned in public places. If I failed to make this clear, I apologize.

I could be easily swayed in my opinion, as I thought I had made clear, but I am stupid so perhaps I haven't.

So, for the record:

I agree that killing other people without justification should be illegal. However, I do not believe that second hand smoke kills other people (certainly not second hand smoke in bars and restaurants). IF ANYONE HAS ANY EVIDENCE THAT SECOND HAND SMOKE KILLS PEOPLE PLEASE LINK TO IT AND I WILL CONSIDER IT.

The EPA report previously linked to is a 12 year old meta-study of smaller studies that is highly suspicious. The WHO report I linked to is only 6 years old and found only weak evidence to support the claim that second hand smoke increases cancer RISK. I do not find such weak evidence persausive.

If you have a different reason for banning smoking in public places, please post it and I will consider it, and if I disagree with it, I will point out why it is an insufficient reason for the government to take action.

Great, please point out which arguments I made were flawed. Such generalizations do not help me to improve my argument skills.

Again, please reference a specific analogy and I will try to make it clearer.

I know I'm stupid and have great difficulty making my ideas clear. But general ad hominem attacks against me do not make the issues in this topic

Gladly:


From:The American Cancer Society website

And from Canadian Cancer Society website

Im sure, Master Shake, you'll just come back and say "Yeah well, she shouldn't have worked there. Besides, it's not like you'll get cancer from one night in a club next to me smoking." So I'm sure I've wasted my time Googling for these results.

and what would be the first and second leading preventable causes? Shouldn't we be focused on those as well? I've heard on several news reports how obesity is the number one cause of preventable death. If that's the case why villify one group of people? We should be banning the whole lot of harmful products. Instead we have a push for a modern day prohibition. The government doesn't need to ban something until other alternatives are tried.

What I also find amusing is people who can't stand smoke and who say it's bad for you then they drink till they pass out. I guess liver cancer is better than lung cancer right? :rolleyes: The facts are this. We don't know what really causes cancer and what doesn't. People just need to be considerate of all involved. This goes for both parties.

here's a wacky idea....

let businesses choose whether to allow smoking or not.

if you don't smoke, you don't go to smoking establishments. and vice versa. why the fuck do people need the govt to police this for them!?

When i see someone smoking, i imagine that, instead of them smoking, they are sucking on really small expensive carcinogenic penises. Doesn't seem that cool to me.


I do selfish things all of the time, i just don't pretend that it is my right to force others to do them right along with me because i'm too addicted/self righteous to go outside.

There are many reasons to ban smoking, and i don't think you've succesfully shot down any of them.

You do seem to live up to your namesake quite well though.


Well, if i have asthma, or any number of other respiratory diseases, a whiff of smoke can have far reaching consequences. Plus, cigarette smoke has been directly linked with a wide assortment of adverse medical conditions. Maybe there isn't a study directly linking secondhand smoke and cancer, but you'd be a fool to point to this fact and claim that longterm exposure to secondhand smoke causes no adverse health effects. There are many chemicals in cigarette smoke that are known to cause health problems after longterm exposure. Furthermore, the thickheaded insistance that longterm secondhand exposure to a known carcinogen is harmless sounds to me suspicously analgous to every tobacco exec who still staunchly denies that tobacco even causes cancer. That is to say, it sounds like a whole lotta self serving bullshit.

How does not being able to smoke indoors affect smokers, other than being a mild annoyance?


As for letting businesses decide, the free market doesn't care about your health, it cares about money. If all you're concerned with is the free market, you're living in the wrong country. I trust all of you free marketeers never fly, since the airline industry is propped up by federal funds, rather than market forces. I trust all you free marketeers are making concerted efforts to remove "big government's" prohibition of the consumption of alcohol by minors.
The "antiregulatory" angle is bullshit unless you are the most hardcore of libertarians. Government regulation is often a good thing, to claim that you don't favor the government telling people what to do shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a citizen of any country. Hello laws? Hello OSHA? Hello Bill of Rights?

mild annoyance isnt the word for it.

I smoke in my house...its mine...I pay for it...if people visiting dont like it, well Im sorry....they know Im a smoker, if they choose to visit me, they know the consequences...They will respect my right to smoke in my own house just like I respect their right to ask me not to in theirs

but....having to go outside when you're out for a long nite at a bar (Im talking more than a few hours)or at work, restaurant etc... in whatever kind of weather god has given that day, be it blazing hot...pouring down rain....16 degrees with a windchill making it -10....THOSE are not mild annoyances

How is it such a huge deal? I've snuck out to smoke in -20 weather before. It was cold, but it wasn't like i was out there for more than a few minutes.

so...just because its not a big deal for you that means it doesnt have to be a big deal for me? (not being argumentative here)

for someone that breaks out in hives...swells up something awful, skin turns red and itches like crazy....on any exposed skin when faced with sudden cold.....yeah its a big deal.

Fortunately living in Atlanta it doesnt get cold enuff for that to happen to me that often...but it does happen...and a few minutes is all it takes.

anybody ever wonder if the "sicknesses" that some smokers have are a direct result of having to deal with the the elements to go outside and smoke?

I see what you're saying, but you have to understand that there are many nonsmokers who suffer the same problems as you when they are exposed to smoke.

I don't mean to sound dismissive, but from where i sit up here in minnesota, your reaction to cold air is the exception rather than the rule. I think for the majority, going outside to smoke would amount to no more than annoyance. I don't think the sicknesses smokers suffer result from having to deal with being outside since A) most smokers don't have to go outside to smoke, and B) There is a good portion of humanity that is outside a great deal more than your average smoker who don't suffer the same sicknesses as smokers.

I swear Im not being argumentative...but what do you mean most smokers dont have to go outside? Unless you are in the city limits in my county (and many others surrounding mine) you do indeed have to go outside if you're at a public place and want to smoke.

Any city/county that has a smoking ban makes it so that you do indeed have to go outside

I was just wondering allowed if there was any correlation to the ummm whats the word....degree of an illness a smoker might have (catching cold lets say) if they are made to be outside in the cold and or rain.

THANK YOU for finally posting a link indicating where you were getting your information. Now that I read it, I understand how you were confused.

I see this at the top of the page. Unfortunately, it is not cited anywhere. I did my own search on google and found that it might have been said by a US Attorney General, but nowhere is the study that found this listed. This number is insane, and is even far above the EPA's bullshit 1993 assessment that ETS kills 3,000 people per year. If you can find this study, not some repetition of something everybody says, I will be happy to reconsider.

This is also listed on the ACS website. I have been looking online for an actual copy of this report, but as of yet, I have been unable to locate it. I will not accept the word of the ACS as to the study's content or veracity. When dealing with this issue I like to have the actual report to read to determine if the report is scientifically valid. There is too much political nonsense on each side to take the word of any summary or one sentence statement. I grant you, that if this statement is true, then banning smoking in public would be appropriate. However, until I read the report I will not simply accept it as fact.

This is anecdotal evidence and is useless for proving your contention. I have no idea what the particulars of her situation were. She may have had a special sensitivity to lung cancer and have gotten it anyway. My father was not a smoker, did not grow up in a smoking house and worked as a Realtor in a smoke free office building. But he died of lung cancer. Correlation is not causation. You might as well say the sun rising in the morning killed this woman without some kind of scientific study to back it up.

And yes, people with asthma or special sensitivity to smoke should not work in the smoking section of bars or restaurants. That's just common sense.

Name one. And if it's legitimate I'll consider it. If you're going to claim it kills people, please point to a study.

You're right, it doesn't. But in order to annoy one group of people, I think the government should have to demonstrate that there is a legitimate reason for doing so. You may disagree, and feel that the government should just go around annoying whomever it pleases. If so, that's just where you and I differ.
But keep in mind that if your new standard from laws in this country is "Will this law create anything other than a mild annoyance," then there's no reason the government couldn't prohibit people from bringing children into movie theatres because How does not being able to hold a screaming child indoors affect parents, other than being a mild annoyance?

I never said that's all I was concerned with. If you show me that second hand smoke is killing people then I'll be happy to speak with you about

Yes, I am opposed to federal funding of the airline industry but I don't see why that means I shouldn't fly. And yes, were we having a discussion about prohibiting the consumption of alcohol by minors, I would oppose it. But that's not the issue here.

Just because I disagree with some laws doesn't mean I disagree with all laws. Hello Declaration of Independence.

[QUOTE]Well, if i have asthma, or any number of other respiratory diseases, a whiff of smoke can have far reaching consequences.
True, but should we make laws with only the most fragile people in mind? Would this mean that any activity that harms anybody should be prohibited?

OK, but harmless is different than killing people, yes? Is your standard we should ban activities that harm people? Because again, there are a lot of activities that harm people that we allow to continue. Some that you might even participate in.
The question then becomes, how much harm should be required before we prohibit an activity? We need an answer to that question before we should consider banning anything.
For example, rape is harmful. I would say that rape clearly rises to the level of harm required for it to be prohibited. Cigarette smoking, I think, clearly isn't as harmful as rape.
So what is the minimum level of harm required before banning something?

Yes? You called? Oh...

Like I said before - you are arguing for the sake of arguing. not actually trying to accomplish anything. folks, let this thread die. Master shrake, you win.

:rolleyes

!?! So you still persist in your unfounded belief that cigarettes kill people?

Cigarettes don't kill people? You must work for a tobacco company.

It isn't relevant that there are other things that are more harmful than cigarettes. It doesn't matter if you don't want to be annoyed by legislation. Right now, most nonsmokers are annoyed by a lack of legislation on this matter. Nonsmokers are the majority and smoking in restaurant and bars isn't a constitutional right. Do the math.

again, why does any non-smoker need the govt. to legislate for them???

if a business owner wants to allow smoking, it should be their choice. if they don't, then that should ALSO be their choice.

and "majority" means shit filtherton.........by that rationale, Hitler should rule the world, and all white men should have slaves. wtf.

Because business currently have no incentive to do so themselves. Sometimes the market needs to be tweaked.

So? If lawmakers want to enact regulations on business owners it's their choice. If they don't then that is also their choice. Can we agree that businesses do what businesses do, while lawmakers do what lawmakers do?

Why do smokers equate their struggle with the struggles of blacks and jews?

First of all, no one is denying you any of your basic human rights by forcing you to suffer the INCONVENIENCE of not being able to smoke in a bar or restaurant. Besides, if anyone has the right to claim sympathy, however remote, with gas chamber victims it is those who are forced to sit in one if they want to go out for a casual drink.

How hitler comes into this fray i don't know. Suffice to say that our american republic itself is based on the idea that the majority rules, with exceptions being provided by the constitution.

Tobacco smoke causes health issues for smokers and those around them.

The non-smoking public want to be able to assemble, work, dine, etc. in public places without the smoke.

The non-smoking public recognizes that commercial interests are often not in line with safety issues, hence the regulation.

And all the figures about second hand smoke killing? I dont buy it. For one second. Use some common sense and some real world experience and think about what they are claiming. How many of you have a family member or know someone who has died from lung cancer caused by smoking. Most of you here I'm sure. How many of you know someone who has cancer caused by second hand smoke? No one? Ask all your friends if they know someone whos died from second hand smoke. Thought so.

As several people have pointed out.. government should be the last resort in this struggle. Uncle Sam is not a baby sitter and shouldnt be treated like one. If the anti-smoking lobby spent their time talking to business's instead of pushing fascist legislation, we might see the same trend we are seeing today. More non smoking establishments. And no ones freedom is stepped on in the process.

The fact is the anti-smoking lobby has become just as underhanded, treacherous and venomous as the big tobacco lobby. But of course.. their end justifies their means..

Common sense to me can only result in attempting to minimize my exposure to chemicals known to cause cancer and other various adverse conditions, but that's just me and a whole lot of other people.

Any government must necessarily act as a "babysitter". That is what governments do- look out for the best interests of their citizens. You have benefitted immensely from goverment regulation of private business. If you want to claim otherwise perhaps you'd prefer to live in a third world country with little or no goverment regulation of private business.

Your statements about the anti-smoking lobby are interesting, but you lack any evidence to back them up. Even with evidence, your statements are hardly relevant. Politics is a dirty game.

While you may find it weak, many others do not...including lawmakers. I don't know how the laws are made in your country, but around here, the no smoking in public places was enacted by workers compensation, rather than by legislators.

Now, please step outside and enjoy your "cool" addiction. ;) :p

Oh yeah, YES it is my air just as much as it's your air, but it's your smoke and not mine, so keep it to yourself...thanks.

1.) Look, there's zero 100% accurate evidence linking the relatively small amount of secondhand smoke you get in a night out to health problems like the make it sound. ZERO. I'd love to see a link to an actual study that doesn't include the words "estimated" or "projected" or anything like that. All I'm seeing is "estimated (or the other fave 'up to') 30,000 people!" ZOMG SO MANY PEOPLE DYING FROM SECONDHAND SMOKE. WAIT HOW MANY? WE DON'T KNOW loooooolerz.

2.) Also, news flash regarding this stuff: if someone dies of prostate cancer, it's "cancer" and also *may* be counted in those figures if someone in their home smoked. The reason I say this is, once again, there has never, EVER, been a conclusive study regarding the effects of secondhand smoke. Not that bullshit 12 year old one, not the bullshit 6 year old one. It stands to reason that if you're in a COMPLETELY SMOKE SATURATED ENVIRONMENT - like, approaching 100% smoke - 24/7, for months, like those rats, that your chances of cancer will probably increase. Duh. Put someone in that same environment with car fumes and they'll be dead even faster. Duh as well. But cars aren't outlawed? Common sense, people.

3.) I'd love someone to Google this since I'm on dialup and travelling and can't at the moment, but there was some recent study that measured "average air pollution" in one night out VERSUS average air pollutants in morning traffic, then sitting in your office with your windows open, then afternoon traffic. And that was higher than the second hand smoke. It was published quietly and faded off of the radar like all studies that weaken the secondhand smoke argument do, but I recall it. You should be able to hunt it down.

4.) RE: my alcohol and fast food analogies. I apologize as you guys are right. Those don't directly affect other people. Strike those from the discussion.

5.) People with allergies to smoking and asthma etc: Now those people I feel for.

6.) The story about the waitress at the smoke filled restaurant? Yeah, talk to any research scientist about how "correllation does not equal causation." That isn't any sort of valid evidence whatsoever. We know nothing about the rest of her lifestyle, etc. etc. etc...

7.) And FINALLY, the main point that everyone that's FOR this has pretty much glossed over is still uh Stubba's: This, shockingly, isn't really about whether or not smoking is bad for you or for the guy standing in the room with you. This is about government intervention in business where they really didn't need to; in essence, nanny legislation. With the evidence supporting the secondhand smoke = cancer link weak at best, and with the free market clearly demonstrating that a very small minority of people wanted this ban (otherwise most business would have put their own ban in place), I find it completely insane that this legislation exists.

And as far as stuff that affects us? You know what, I don't own a car. I walk where I like to go or use transportation. Your gas guzzlers are pumping CARCINOGENIC CHEMICALS INTO MY AIR. It's YOUR exhaust, not mine. When I'm walking on the sidewalk, I'm breathing YOUR car's exhaust. When my apartment window is open, which is MY private space, I have to close it before rush hour or else the whole place will eventually smell. I DEMAND A BAN ON CARS. Demand, I say! Those chemicals cause cancer!

And that, my friends, is a completely valid argument too.

Well, I guess I can't really answer that. I just hope that the majority doesn't turn against something you enjoy doing without evidence that it's harming other people.

You are exposed to cancer causing chemicals constantly. Not just in the air you breathe from smokers, but in the milk you drink, the food you consume, and the sunlight you see. What you should be worried about is the amount of exposure and the relative risk associated with such exposure. The question should be, does second hand smoke produce cancer causing chemicals in such amounts that it poses a healh risk to bystanders? If that answer is yes, then I completely agree that smoking should be banned. But in the absence of real evidence to substantiate that position, I must disagree.

I don't agree that is what governments must necessarily do. And if you really believe that governments look out for the best interests of citizens, well, you obviously either don't live in the US or are ridiculously naive. I can't speak for other countries, but the US government exists for one reason: to perpetuate itself and make sure the rich white men stay rich and white.

Well, it's not that I find it weak, the WHO report specifically stated it found weak evidence to support the contention that ETS harm others. It actually used the word weak. It's not a question of anybody else finding it weak, it's a question of basing laws on weak evidence.

I will admit that if moderate to strong evidence showing ETS is harmful to others is proven, then smoking should be banned in public places.

Will you admit that if only weak or no evidence showing ETS is harmful to others is found, then smoking should not be banned in public places? If not, why not? I think this is one of the main areas of argument right now, but not because we really disagree about policy, but about the facts. First we should establish the policy, then determine if the facts fit the policy, yes?


I think it's generally enacted by legislation here. How is it enacted by worker's compensation where you are? What does that mean?

Oh well. I concede this arguement simply because no one is actually addressing my main concern. I have heard all of the horror stories about how bad smoke is for your enjoyment and how you all believe flawed studies about secondhand smoke. All I can suggest is that many of you need to learn how to intrepret study results...

(Here's a hint, a difference of 2 per million between the control group and the group being studied does not actually prove anything.)

Sadly it seems that all of you that are for the ban see no problem with using the force of government to stop smoking instead of simply using market pressure. I have gone to a restraunt, been dissatisified with something and told the manager about it many times. A simple "I am leaving your place because I didn't like so-and-so" repeated day after day by all of the non-smokers in the country would cause a number of places to change their policy. Then you could start a little website that identifies all of the places that are safe for your people and everything would be good. But no, that's a little too much personal responsibility.

Why do that when you can get daddy government to take care of the mean people for you?

I think this statement bothered me the most...
Any person who believes this is obviously not a person I need to be arguing with. Yes I have benefitted from regulation of private business. Thinks like food poisioning and licensing of hair stylists have made my life much better. However I believe in setting limits on that power. I hope you are happy with your babysitter. Personally, I'm an adult and don't want or need one.

I, at least, don't want to deny that second-hand smoke could conceivably cause health problems. But there are so many things that could be done besides just banning it. You could require all bars and restaurants to have a certain amount of ventilation. I have a few friends who can't stand cigarette smoke. But there's one bar in town that they'll go to. Not because it's non-smoking -- it's not. But they've limited where you can smoke, and have provided great ventilation, so that the smoke isn't a problem, even for very sensitive people.

It's not just the weather stuff, though it gets cold enough here in South Bend that it'd be a bit annoying if anyone ever did ban smoking in bars. But it's being at a table talking with my friends, and then having to leave that table to have a cigarette (it's an addiction, folks. You wouldn't want to be around me if I've gone more than a couple hours without a smoke.) It's not being able to have a cigarette with my coffee. It's getting off a plane after a 10 hour flight and still having to wait an hour before I have a cigarette. It's a hundred and one little things like this. And I'm not saying I should be able to smoke whereever I like. I'm just saying there should be more options available to me than "Behind the dumpster".


Indeed it does. And if there were hordes of people who hated smoky bars, but liked bars, wouldn't someone have opened a smoke-free bar by now, to cater to those people? Not because it's healthier, but because they could make money?

And if they do, i will accept the fact that sometimes the price of living in a community is conforming to the whims of the majority. Even when i did smoke, i agreed with the idea that smoking should be banned in restaurants and bars.

Minimization is minimization, and smoking causes more than just cancer. I see what you're saying though.


Yeah, i guess looking out for the citizen's best interest is a responsibility that has long since been shifted way down the list of priorities. But you have to admit that self-perpetuation and the protection of the rich white man doesn't preclude banning smoking.

And you decide where we draw the line? I thought that was the job of the constitution and the citizens. You see, there are limits on that power. Limits that don't involve vague buzzwords like "babysit". I trust the government to regulate businesses because business has time and time again proven that it needs to be regulated. You can call it babysitting all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you benefit from the babysitter. It doesn't change the fact that you'd shit your pants if the government decided to stop babysitting you. It seems rather ironic to me that you would agree to the idea that you benefit from the government's babysitting and then piss on me for saying that i benefit from a babysitting government.

Perhaps all you adults can buy plain tickets to somalia, where they don't even have a government to babysit anyone, and leave us pewling children to wallow in the protective babysitter arms of uncle sam.

I see what you're saying. Smoking bans aren't always outright bans. In my fair city the smoking "bans" that are going into effect this spring are actually just requirements that most establishments create seperate ventilated rooms for the smokers to smoke in.

As for the hordes of nonsmokers want to dring in clean air, i would argue the point that, just because a market isn't being tapped, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Yes I suppose I must. Consider it admitted.

You're right, it's ad hominem, I apologise.

So it was. Fair. The quote were more trying to imitate a particular tone of voice... hard to explain, its a bad typing habit I have.

But for the record:

I am of mixed feelings about this. I think smoke free resturants is a good idea but I think banning smoking in bars is kinda stupid. If individual bar owners want to make their bar smoke free that is one thing but I don't think the government has a right to tell private business owners what sort of legal things they can and can not allow in their business (smoking is still legal after all).

In each of these analogies, I was trying to point out how weak each argument was for the banning of smoking, not trying to make out smokers to be a protected class. Each of the arguments for banning smoking can be reduced to absurdity if the policy for banning smoking was instituted. In each case, the rationale for banning smoking would be the equivalent policy for a negative policy against black people or any other minority group. I use black people as an example because I hope everyone recognizes how uncool it would be to do these same things to black people.

#13: So when is your city going to get around to outlawing black men, the number one cause of death of other black men ages 15-34?

The suggestion being that if the government is really concerned with outlawing all causes of death then why not outlaw the # 1 cause of death of black men 15-34. This statstic is from US figures.

#81: Yeah, lets keep the smokers out of the bars. They make the place unpleasant. And you know what, lets keep the black people out too, they really make the place unpleasant.

Here, again, I was trying to be sarcastic. If the government should act when people are annoyed, well, some racist people are annoyed that black people go into bars. If annoyance is the only consideration, then why wouldn't they be banned from bars too?

#107: That's true. And black people won't die if they have to use a separate water fountain and sit at the back of the bus. But not dying is not a sufficient reason to outlaw an activity.

I think that's pretty clear, a policy not killing someone is not a sufficient reason to outlaw an activity.

#115: OK, so the new rule is every activity for which I cannot find 10 reasons it benefits my life should be outlawed? Well, look, I'll be honest with you. I've tried and tried and I can't find 10 reasons black people benefit my life. So maybe they should be outlawed too?

Ok, I was trying to be very sarcastic here. I'm sure there are 10 ways black people have benefited my life. But someone asked me to name 10 ways cigs benefited my life. I can't imagine why having 10 reasons something benefitted my life would be enough to prevent a policy of banning something. But if that were the policy, then certainly some redneck bastard could come forward and say that there aren't 10 ways black people benefitted his life and thus black people could be outlawed.

I hope that makes my reasons clear, but again, I am not very smart so if this isn't the way you would do things I hope you understand.