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.