New antismoking laws
 

Today the new antismoking law comes into effect in New Zealand. It goes like this:
No one can smoke indoors in any workplace of any kind. This includes bars, restaurants, smoko rooms, corridors, and so on. You can still smoke outside, and anywhere on private property.

Words cannot express my joy. It's about freaking time.

Now, I know smokers who agree, and non-smokers who disagree. What do all y'all think about it?

Welcome to New York City - -it's been like this for a while now. :)

It's nice having smoke free restaurants. Even having a smoking section, left the restuarant pretty stinky. I like having a smoke free workplace, however, when the smokers troop out of the building every few hours for a 15 minute smoke break, I don't get equivelent time off, so it's not fair because they smoke they get extra time.

Bars - eh- I'm a reformed smoker, smoke in bars never bothered me... My clients office building in Chicago, has a designated smoking area outside the building -- you have to walk around to the back of the building - because people complained about having to walk thru the cloud of smoke to get in the front doors.

Giants Stadium and Yankee Stadium -- kinda silly to ban smoking there -- they are open air stadiums... the car exhaust is probalby more toxic than the cigarettes.

That said -- I really don't think it's the government's business to tell an owner of a business whether they allow smoking or not. If I am a bar owner, and I want to get business from smokers - I should be allowed to. If non-smokers don't like it-- don't come in... The owners should be able to decide what goes on in their establishments.

NOW__ I wish with every fiber of my being - they'd allow smoking on airplanes again... The air was so much cleaner on planes when that was allowed.. Now - -it's recycled air - -and I always end up with some form of sniffles.

What a great idea! If only the government would pass laws regulating all undesirable behaviour. Then no one would drink liquor, eat red meat, listen to loud music, have anal sex, curse, or question authority.

Thankfully private industry is finding a way to replace the relaxing effects of cigarettes with the sedative effects of pharmaceuticals. Too bad the prozac is so much more expensive than a smoke. But hey, at least your medical insurance will cover it. At least, for the rich people, their medical insurance will cover it. The rest of us are shit out of luck.

Smokers have every right to give themselves lung cancer and die slowly from it. That does not, however, give them the right to give us lung cancer, smoke induced headaches, or reek of smokey death just because they want to light up indoors or anywhere else for that matter.

I'd disagree with this. What if I'm the guy sitting next to the smoker and have to sit through the sporting event while they smoke up the area? It disrupts my enjoyment of the game, because, well..... of all the reasons I mentioned above. I don't care how open-air the event is, if you sit next to someone who smokes, you get some of the second hand smoke in your face.

Just because a smoker has a nasy habit and "needs" to light up doesn't mean we have to join in his habit.

(Can you tell I don't like smokers or smoking much at all?? :rolleyes: )

It is so nice to come back from an evening out with friends at a bar, go to sleep, and wake up not smelling like an ashtray.

Whoa, you sound pretty bitter there mate. I beleive there are laws against drinking liquor, having anal sex etc.... at least in public workplaces...

EDIT: dunno about whereever else but you can't drink or be drunk in public in my city (hamiltron for kiwis who care)

Congratulations. Having never really traveled abroad that much, I guess I kind of assumed that smoking laws were pretty much the same everywhere ... until I got off a plane and stepped into the airport in Germany. Only then did I truly appreciate no smoking in public laws.

Our county has this....I really wish we smokers could open a place that was for smokers only...it seems only fair...if you non smokers dont want us around smoking then we should be able to have a place we dont want you around not smoking :lol:

fortunately here in my county, county laws dont affect city laws so any rest/bar inside city limits is getting a LOT more business because we can still smoke there and franchises are looking to build inside city limits to cash in on that. I wont go to a bar where I cant smoke....if I find out its non smoking I will leave at once....If I want to go to a particular place (one that has locations everywhere) I will drive out of my way to go to a city or a county that hasnt banned smoking yet.

I can appreciate that a non smoker might not want to be around it but I really do think that things are a bit lopsided

It's funny that it all boils down to the government taking away our rights to enjoy ourselves.

And how unfair is it of the single mother who works in the pub as a second job to support her kid and provide a decent life for them, and then decides to go and give herself lung cancer and leave junior with either the misery of her death or the bills from her treatment when he's only 20 years old and in college?
God damn that government for taking away your 'fun'.

You wouldn't expect someone to work on asbestos without very strict health controls, yet we're happy to have someone work in an area that should need a breath filter just so we can get our bud light brought to our table.

435000 tobacco related deaths in the US in 2000 vs 29000 gun related deaths.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm
Hmmm, seems that pack of camels is more dangerous than a 'saturday night special'.

I think that it should be up to the owner of the business. I mean, I hear alot of non-smokers rant about how smoky bars are, but when we go out at night, we don't go to the least smoky bar in town. If it was that big a deal, wouldn't people open smoke-free bars on their own, to take advantage of the non-smoking crowd? Seems like just another example of the government getting over-involved in our lives.

California has been like that for a while. I won't be surprised if it is banned completly and we see the "great L.A. exodus". Personally (as a non smoker who knows that second hand smoke actually kills more people than first hand smoke) I could care less. I don't think it is overinvolvement of the government. Smoking at best is natural selection, seeing as how it can make people impotent and give them cancer.

Um...yeah.
I guess from my point of view...if I can't smoke in public (and that's fine) then what right does that public have to demand tax dollars from me, as it relates to my "filthy" habit. Tit for tat.
And, not that it matters...but, you're breathing in more toxins driving in traffic thatn you're going to inhale sitting next to a smoker. No one ever wants to hear that, though.
Yes...I am a smoker. And as such, I am villified. Which is...ok. I'm used to it.

Thank god for god-fearing Hamiltron! Finally a city that understands how important it is to prevent people from harming themselves and each other.

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?

There's a difference between drinking and smoking. The act of drinking doesn't hurt anybody but the person whose liver has to filter the stuff. The act of smoking necessarily produces toxins that are unavoidable by the people around the smoker. To the extent that otherwise legal activities like drinking harm other people (e.g., driving drunk) they ARE illegal.

Being that i dont smoke, i think that its a great idea. It may cause a lot of controvery if its brought to the states. I would be nice if that law exist here though.

Once again folks, this isn't about fun, but about providing protection for those that have to work to provide you with a place to have your fun and food.

They are doing the same thing here as well. Soon you can only smoke outdoors and in private places as of January 1st. I am looking forward to it.

Hell yeah, I am glad stuff like this is happening.

Smoking habitually is one of the WORST things you can do to your body, and it boggles my mind that people do this to themselves. And to pay out the ass for it, no less.

I'm a non-smoker, and on the surface I love the idea of people not smoking around me when I am; In a pub, at a cafe, at a football game etc...

Then I went to Ireland this summer, and my opinion changed.

It was great once you got into the pub and could enjoy a pint in smoke-free air, the trouble was getting into the pub in the first place. At nearly every pub I went to in the 17 days I was there, and I went to a lot BTW (all in all I drank 59 pints of Guinness in 17 days) there was a phalanx of gruff looking smokers loitering around the front door. In addition to the smokers themselves, there was of course a pile of stinky cigarette butts on the sidewalks. All Ireland has managed to do by outlawing smoking in workplaces is push the problem on to the street. So now instead of there being smokers inside your pub, there's a group of people standing around outside your pub scaring off customers. I don't think it was a good trade.

Well, smoking is a choice, it's a vice just like drinking and yes you're quite entitled to do it.
The difference between smoking and any other vice (and this is where I hold my objection to it) is that it automatically inflicts itself on other people. You can drink liquor around other people, but if someone chooses not to, then they aren't forced to consume alcohol by the fact that the person next to them is. When someone chooses to smoke, they are taking away everyone elses right to not smoke.

Also, a thought on establishment-based laws (ie: any bar-owner should be able to choose whether thier place it non smoking or not).

This sounds perfectly reasonable, but in reality, it's a poor business decision. You could have a non-smoking establishment, but your patron numbers would more than likely dwindle, especially if other bars in town allowed smoking. Eventually the owner would be forced to allow smoking to bring business back.

Or maybe that's not what would happen... just a thought.

this is why you have demographics ;) a business can tell if more of it's income is from smoker's or non-smoker's and adjust accordingly. If I have a business that makes more on the regular dining crowd then I'm not going to sweat going to non-smoking. However, if a large portion of my income comes from smokers then in the current state of affairs I'm going to be SOL. So I agree with the fact that a business (especially private) should have the final say so in whether or not to allow smoking in their establishment. It makes it easier on everyone. I think you'd find it's split down the middle if you allowed businesses to do that. You'd have 50% for non and 50% for smoking. Of course this is a dream but one's still allowed to do that right?

I smoke, and I don't care if they ban smoking in places of work. I can go a few hours with out a cigarette, it won't kill me. But if they ban it in public, then I will be kinda pissed off. If you walk past me on the street and don't want to breathe in my deadly smoke, then just hold your breath. Besides, the car exhaust is more lethal than stupid fucking tobacco smoke. Remember why people turn on their car in a closed garage to kill themselves? When's the last time you've heard of someone smoking in a closed room to kill themselves?

Agreed. This is effectively my position. I won't go where there's smoke, but I don't want the government able to decide this. Influence it, maybe, but not decree it.

I smoke, but "I don't think it's a good idea" is the most massive understatement of all time. I think not allowing smoking in bars is one of the all time worst ideas ever.

That is all.

not to be rude to smokers.... but theres no reason to smoke.... your just killing yourself.... if you want to harm youself, i got a spare rope and cinderblock in my trunk.. i'll meet you at the bridge

smoking shouldn't be allowed in public at all

Smokers are a dying breed and the quicker they realize it the better.

Exactly. If I own a restaurant no one has any right to order me not to allow smoking in my establishment. If I want to let people have sex on the tables after they finish their dinners, that should be up to me. If you don't want to be in a place like that, don't come in.

I too, do not like to see the government constantly regulating our behavior, however as an (obviously biased) non-smoker I do agree with these types of laws. The problem with allowing buisnesses to regulate themselves is that they will not do something that will cost them money.

I am not accusing you personally as I don't know anything about your buisness practices, however I know many buisness owners that would gladly spend less money on sanitation, reuse old food, etc so that they can save money. Luckily the govt regulates the health food industry in the intrest of customers.

The govt is not regulating smoking because they don't want you (anyone) to smoke, they are regulating it becuase I shouldn't be subjected to your (their) foul habit.

People don't smoke because they want to kill themselves. Well, at least I don't.

I smoke because I enjoy it. I enjoy talking to friends (there's this hot redhead down the road who I smoke with) over a few cigarettes or a cigar. I enjoy buying some pipe tobacco, filling my pipe, sitting in an armchair, and smoking my pipe. And somedays, I just enjoy walking down the fuckin' street and smoking.

I know it's going to kill me, but thats my choice, not anyone else's. You know what else kills people? McDonalds. I don't see anti-McDonalds ads all over the place. You can still eat McDonalds in some restaurants. They don't tax the shit out of McDonalds.

McDonald's doesn't kill on the massive scale that smoking does.

And you can smoke if you want to, it's fine by everyone. Just don't inhibit everyone else's right to have clean air. My sister was asthmatic, and she would go into huge coughing fits and couldn't breathe when she breathed in cigarette smoke. Why should she be punished for someone else's dirty habit?

I was an asthmatic and I smoke. I'm not saying that we have the right to smoke in your face and blah blah blah. I just think that the government shouldn't <i>force</i> a business owner to ban smoking from his/her establishment. They need to focus on other things. Such as finding out ways to solve smog and other pollutants. If you live somewhere like LA I don't even want to hear shit about me smoking. You walk outside and you breathe more toxins in than you would standing next to me while I smoke a whole carton. Let's be honest here, instead of banning smoking, why not give business owners a choice. If they agree to allow smoking then they have to install new air ventalation systems the constantly recycle fresh air into the building. There are ways to please both sides. Putting one group above the other is wrong.

Why the fuck do I have to breathe your exhaust fumes? I walk into the city centre (a small northern UK city) and can taste the shit in the air. Not smell, but taste. Lets put into perspective for all you non-smokers.

1. Look at the size of a cigarette. It's not going to make a massive volume of smoke, is it? You know, if you burn something that weighs a few grams, you only get a correspondingly small amount of smoke.

2. How much petrol do you put in a car? Litres and gallons. How many times more fuel are you burning? Therefore how many times more smoke are you producing?

3. A car is burning fuel a lot longer than a cigarette. Therefore kicking out still more smoke.

So there's my few cubic metres of smoke a day vs your double-digits cubic metres of exhaust fumes a day. Which of these do you really think does more damage to the people around you?

(and to briefly anticipate the "Transport is more important!!! I need my car!!!" response, I really don't see why citizens need a car. You should not be allowed unfettered access to an environmentally threatening machine.)

This is an argument that comes up quite often, and not just when it comes to smoking, and each time it boggles my mind that anyone would actually consider this as a valid argument or even a point worth bringing up.

Let me see if I understand the "logic" of this argument. Since we have to inhale toxins when we drive, we should go ahead and add to those toxins with cigarettes? Maybe we should start adding Drano to each glass of water we drink, because, hey, our water isn't perfectly clean either. Given the fact that we are already being exposed to poisons on a daily basis, why can't some smokers understand when we non-smokers object to them adding their poison of choice to the soup?

In case you can't tell I am happy about laws that prohibit smoking in public places. I know that it's not fun when the government steps in and makes laws to dictate behavior, but when common decency fails, there is little recourse but to make a law to protect the public.

And many business owners will go out of business when their customers find out that they are cutting costs like that. I think the customers and the business owners could regulate these things for themselves. Not all business owners are going to do whatever they can to cut costs and fuck the customers.

If you don't want to be subjected to my foul habit (not mine actually, I don't smoke, nor do I own a business) then you should avoid frequenting places where people will be engaging in this habit. The government shouldn't enter into it at all.

But our logic isn't that, in fact . It's why the hell are you hassling us, instead of dealing with the real pollutants? Why can't you car owners understand when we non-drivers object to you driving around creating the fucking soup? Where's your common decency now? I mean, you're poisoning the whole fucking atmosphere, whilst our area of effect is somewhat more limited.

I don't know what everyone's so upset about. Don't you understand that the government know what is best for you? By smoking, you are showing that you are obviously stupid and need to be taken care of. I thank the government daily for letting me know that things like marijuana and cocaine are bad for me. Just imagine if I had to make those decisions for myself! I think my brain might explode.

Fortunately we all live in a wonderful, happy world where the government knows what is best for everyone.

Also, if it's not too much trouble, I would appreciate it if the government could let me know if I shouldn't have anal sex or question authority. There's a lot of conflicting literature on both sides, and I'm afraid that if I think too hard my head my explode. Thanks!

I don't care if they ban smoking, as long as they don't pass laws prohibiting me from walking around punching and kicking the air randomly. So what if someone gets hit, they saw me coming. Why should my rights be infringed upon because someone else wasn't able to stay out of my way? I also really enjoy kicking back with friends and releasing small amounts of hydrogen fluoride gas into the air. I know its unhealthy, but i really can't summon the desire to stop doing so. It is just so enjoyable for me. I think i should have the right to do so without big government sticking its nose in my business.

Really, i don't buy the "businesses should be able to decide" argument. This is far from the first business practice regulated under the guise of serving the public good. How many of you "let the market deciders" would prefer the market decide whether booze and cigarettes should be sold to minors? Economically, i would have to imagine that such deregulation would be a boon to the booze, cigarette and healthcare industies, everyone would make more money. Let's do it. Or not.

I personally would shed not a single tear if i never smelled a cigarette or cigar again. I don't care if some smokers feel "oppressed", in my mind, if you lack the consideration for your fellow human being to not expose them to extra carcinogens, than you have no right to complain about anything.

So we are only to "deal with" the pollutants that don't inconvenience you?

I don't like the fact that the air is filled with toxins, which is why I moved closer to where I work so I could ride a bike when the weather permited and walk when the streets are too icy to allow safe bike riding. That's also why the next car I buy will be a hybrid.

When cleaning up a mess as big as the one we're in, you start where you can. To say "Shut down the factories and no more driving cumbustion driven vehicles." would be great, but impossible. To say "Stop blowing smoke at the person next to you." is a more realistic start.

This isn't just about frequenting a place as a customer. There are people that work at all of these places as well. So your (and many others on this thread) response is, just don't go there... So now I must choose between breathing in smoke all day/night and having a job? Whst about if I were pregnant? I have to choose between working and the health of my baby?

OSHA (i.e. the govt) regulates all kinds of work place hazards like radiation, poisons etc, it is ridiculous to say that they also can't regulate such a workplace hazard as this.

Look, people don't drive cars in restaurants, so you point is invalid. You're free to smoke outside, and my sister just avoids people smoking on the street. It's when she is indoors and there are many people smoking that she has a problem.

And anyways, if you can't go an hour or two without having a smoke, you have a real problem.

California has had this law now for about 6-8 years or so. Yeah, people bitched for a few months. Not anymore, it's just a part of life now. Smokers go outside to smoke. Lots of bars have patios and such. Pretty simple.

And I also am glad I can come home from a bar and not smell like an ashtray. Bleah.

Eating McDonalds doesn't force the person next to you to also eat McDonalds reguardless of thier desires.

My bad. Didn't realise the law only specifically applies indoors. I was arguing against the whole concept. I find the no smoking in restaurants to be an arse, simply because a decent meal should be always followed with a tasty cigarette.

In Florida bars and such allow smoking. The only establishments where smoking is prohibited is places where more than 15% of their income is from food items.

I'm a smoker and I think its a good idea. I'm sorry, I may smoke, but I'm VERY aware of the hazards it poses to both myself and those around me. I'll keep my slow and painful death to myself thank you. I would have lit up in bars before, only because I could. I don't mind stepping out now to do so.

(speaking of Canada, and the new laws in the NWT)

Please stop causing the government to create pollutants by providing you with electricity and taking away your trash.
I recommend you turn off your pc right now and cease eating.

Thank you for your participation.

See, some things can go to the nth degree and it's dumb.
The pollution from a car is an acceptable side effect and western governments are pushing to change it.
No matter what you do, you can't really make healthy cigarette smoke. The pollution itself is your pleasure. And it's not really as if someone has parked an idling diesel engine at the table next to you in the pub, there's a lot more movement of air in the road than there is in a pub.

With the push for UK non-smoking, it's more of a factor of providing a safe working place for the catering and entertainment staff.

Second-hand smoke, in fact even just the smell of tobacco ignites a migraine for me, complete with cold sweat, shaking, and vomiting.

Smoking = disgusting to me. Smokers = disgusting to me. For these purely selfish reasons, I am all for this type of law.

Its so nice to know Im disgusting :)

-the wonderful environment and the goverment tangent-

I'm going to utterly ignore the attitude. Not worth it. I am going to take your trash and make it useful, though.
You raise a valid point , how can we move to an environmentally sound society? I believe that the overnight elimination of all polluntant production is impossible, but I also believe that the protecting the environment outweighs convienience (for example, most people's reason for owning a car) and entertainment (the PC example). My solution would be for the government to say "This is the amount of pollution the atmosphere can handle*" (and food production would definitely be in the "neccessary pollution" category, btw. Food production really should be nationalised or something). I don't mind not getting consumer goods (and if needs be, electricity**) until they can find a way of making them without fucking up the air.

/tangent

Back to the smoking. I like the idea of the staff getting to decide, as has been done in English pubs.

On another not too unrelated tangent (I am TangentMan!), the anti-smoking laws add weight to the governments right to decide what is good for its citizens. As a prolegalisation type, this makes my job harder.

* It may be whacky science, but I'm reasonably confident a smaller amount of pollution can be safely dissipated into our environment.

** I'm reasonably sure you're not going to believe me. I like to think I can hold to my beliefs. It's just one of those things. I love having electricity. But I like knowing the planets not getting fucked too. It's just inefficient.

My gripe with the situation is that people aren't just bashing cigarettes, they're bashing the smokers as well. Well what the fuck is that? I can't enjoy smoking my cancer sticks because you might get a little sick? I'm some sort of barbaric enemy because I smoke? I'm sick of this shit. "Smokers are disgusting" "Smokers are soo stupid" Well, fuck you. Fuck you.

Whoa there buddy, calm down. At least have the cajones to admit that smoking cigarettes is, for anyone seriously concerned about their health and longevity, not the smartest course of action. I don't have a problem with smokers as people, i just think many of them are overly sensitive to criticism because deep down they know what they are doing to themselves is not only foolish, but expensive.

What if i walked up to you and made a proposition. What if i offered to have you pay me 4-5 dollars american every day in exchange for me slowly deteriorating your health to the point where you can't even walk up a flight of stairs without an oxygen tank. Not only that, but in exchange for your money i would also make it so the health of everyone in your immediate vicinity was adversely effected too. Tell me this doesn't sound completley ridiculous. This is a proposition smokers accept over and over, every day. Tell me that's a good decision worthy of respect.

I wouldn't take your offer mainly because I don't spend that much everyday. I spend $2.64 cents for my pack of camels and I smoke a pack and half a week.. maybe more if I drink alot. Other than that sure I'd take your proposal. I choose to smoke knowing the "dangers" and what have you. My neighbor told me I should stop smoking so I could die healthy. Ok ..you tell me why that's so important. Why does it matter if I die healthy or not? You end up doing the same thing. To say that my decision isn't worthy of respect is insulting in itself. You're saying that what I want to do ( and yeah I'm a very respectful smoker) is just dumb. It may be dumb in your eyes but to me.. it's something I like to do. If they want to ban smoking in public places..fine.. I'll adjust but please..don't call me ignorant, stupid or anything else just because I make a conscious decision to smoke. I wonder if they same kind of attitudes would present themselves if all of a sudden it wasn't "cool" to drink. .. I wonder

I don't really drink either, because yeah, i think it's a self destructive waste of time and money. This isn't about being "cool". This is about the majority, which doesn't smoke, not having to put up with the dangerous filthy habit of a minority. I didn't say smokers were ignorant, in fact, i know many smokers who are really intelligent. Despite their intelligence, some of them can't seem to grasp the idea that people generally don't want to be exposed to more carcinogens than they are already exposed to.

I don't care about people dying healthy. I care about entire industries devoted to selling people their own deaths a pack at a time.

I'm sorry if you don't agree, but yes, i'm saying that smoking is a ridiculous activity. It makes absolutely no sense if you factor out addiction as motivation. Smoking has no redeeming value beyond satisfying an addiction. I don't think your decision is worthy of respect, and i have every right to not respect your decision for reasons i have already made clear. Perhaps you could tell me why your decision deserves my respect. Personally, "Because i enjoy it" is a good excuse to do something that is not directly linked to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people every year.

Let me be clear though in case this got lost in the hustle. I don't care if people smoke, i just don't want to have to smell that shit. I don't respect anyone who feels that satisfying their own addictions is more inportant than not poisoning their fellow human being.

I understand that it's not about being "cool" but look at the 80's when people considered it "cool" to smoke. You had alot less bitching back then. I can respect your decision not to smoke and while I think in return I should get the same respect, that's obviously a lost cause. People kill people everyday. It's a fact of life. I just think there are more issues that kill just as many people that are being pushed under the rug.

also, this quote could be used for any number of major corporations. Smoking, Alcohol, Food, Drug you name it. These companies have chemicals and other things they sell to people one dose, meal, drink, or pack at a time yet the only people that seem to get villified are the smokers. Choose how you will and what you will do and I will do the same.

I know that there are many behaviors people choose to engage in that are self destructive in many of the same ways that smoking is. I'm not ignoring them. It's just that this thread is about smoking. I respect your right to smoke, but i don't think smoking deserves respect. I put smokers in the same category as alcoholics, or really any person who gives an addiction higher priority than personal health.
You seem like an intelligent person, i don't think you're dumb, i just don't think smoking is a worthwhile activity. I smoked for nearly a decade. I'm 23. While i know that it was enjoyable(satisfying an addiction generally is), i also know that i am probably going to live to regret it. I'm at a point where i don't want to be around smoke, and i generally avoid it when i can. I wouldn't have a problem with being exposed to smoking on a regular basis if it didn't put my health at risk. Unfortunately it does.

Sorry, the anti smoking laws are pure bullshit. Not allowing the private business owner to the permission to decide whether its a smoking or non smoking establishment is outrageous.

All the studies linking second hand smoke to cancer and heart disease have been falsified. The data just doesnt support that assertion that second hand smoke is harmful in any signifigant way. So really the only justification left for these laws is that smoke is annoying to a non smoker. If your a non smoker that is bothered that much by smoke, dont go into a bar/resteraunt/establishment where smoking is allowed.

I don't think people are bashing the smokers at all, at least during this discussion, on this board. People are bashing your paticular habit that they disagree with, but no one should be bashing you for choosing your habit.

However, to your point "I can't enjoy smoking my cancer sticks because you might get a little sick?", I think it is unfortunate that I can't walk down the street punching people. Not very hard mind you, just some light punches to the gut; it makes me feel good to release a little steam now and again. Sounds absourd huh?

It's not outrageous, it's par for the course. Goverrnment has always regulated business in the name of public health.

I'd be very interested to see data supporting the idea that secondhand smoke isn't dangerous, especially in light of the fact that it can induce asthma attacks in people who suffer from asthma.

Even if it is were just a matter of annoyance(which i don't think it is), that still doesn't mean making laws against it is outrageous. Noise pollution laws are all about curbing annoyance.

Not that i'm actually advocating this but, if you wan't to take a hardline stance, it you're a smoker who is bothered that much by not being able to smoke, don't frequent establishments that won't let you smoke.

Yeah. It's all a major government conspiracy, run by shadow corporations within the gentle fabric of the heartland of America. How dare they feed us this mumbo jumbo about the negative side effects of things we enjoy? Fuck logic, this is Thunderdome!

I fully support anti-smoking laws. I love having cleaner air. I also think that we should ban motor vehicles, fireplaces, public flatulence, oil-burning heaters, wood-burning stoves, campfires, charcoal grills, and the outdoor grazing of cows and other farm animals. They all produce pollution that gets into my lungs and acid rain that falls on my property. I feel that we should raise income taxes by at least 10% across the board to support enforcement of these laws.

Additionally, since indoor air eventually circulates to the outdoors, we should mandate smoke alarms in every room of every building in the country. Any time one of those detectors is set off, the owner should be arrested and fined for negatively affecting the air quality in our country and shortening my life by forcing me to inhale their pollutants.

Since air can easily flow across national borders, we should look out for ourselves, and declare war on any country that does not immediately agree to conform to our new standards. To avoid the dangerous levels of pollution created by a typical war, we will mount our horses (who will be outfitted with diapers made of gas mask filter material to prevent gaseous emissions,) and pick up our spears, swords, bows, and arrows and invade. For the overseas countries, we'll man the canoes and sink enemy ships with ballistas.

I fully support regulatory self determination for all private businesses. Employers, unhindered by the meddling government, will reap the benefits of paying workers third world wages. Cheap labor will be plentiful, which is good, because we won't have worker safety regulations keeping them alive. Eventually all businesses will merge into one supercorporation that controls every aspect of every human's life. This is all necessary, because the government has absolutely no right to tell businesses what they can and cannot do.

Exaggeration and hyperbole is fun!

Unfortunately for you mrselfdestruct, your polemic is hardly relevant. Or maybe i'm wrong. Maybe the ability to smoke in indoor public places is just as much a necessity as passing gas, agriculture and our current transportation infrastructure.:rolleyes:

Ill post links when I have time to search for data.

Under the new smoking laws in new york, and recently in my hometown in florida, you dont have that choice. Every establishment is smoke free, enforced by law. I cant vote with my dollar and frequent places that give me the option, because the option has been taken away.

Either be uncomfortable or stay home. Currently, the smoke-averse have been making that choice for decades. I don't know of any bars in minneapolis that are smoke free. I feel your pain, though from the other side.

I wish they would just ban smoking altogether. Just the amount of litter that smokers produce is enough to make me want smoking banned.

I think banning it would create more problems than it would solve. I think people should be able to smoke if they so desire. I just don't think anyone should be able to subject anyone else to their carcinogenic cigarette smoke.

Too bad people can't smoke without littering :(

Yes, it is!
I was writing in the style known as "asshole libertarian." It was an enourmous exaggeration of reality and was not entirely relevant. On the other hand, almost every draconian law has to start small and work its way up slowly enough that people don't care enough to fight it.

Public trash cans with sand-filled ashtrays on top of them have always seemed like a good idea to me. It's a shame that they're disappearing. I guess it's good for the economy, since they now have to hire a guy to go around and pick up litter in addition to the guy who enpties the trash cans.

I don't know where you live, but nobody cleans up litter here..

The beach here is a giant ashtray. You can't scoop out a handful of sand without finding several cigarette butts. Smokers just don't give a fuck.

And don't even get me started about people driving and flipping their cig butts out the window...

The problem with a law like this is that is sets a precedent. We are making something that is legal, illegal (defacto illegal that is) because it can effect others in some negative way. (although the effect of second hand smoke on non smokers health is DRASTICALLY exagerrated).

Where does one draw the line here? If I choose to eat an unhealthy diet that does not effect you, unless I don't have insurance and then your tax dollars have to pay for my health care. Hmm, how can we fix this problem. I know, mandatory fat free diet and regular excersise program for everybody!!

A bit extreme of an example I know but there is a kernel of truth there. As for the worker health arguement, why can't you have a smoking establishment and then have that as a listed "hazard of the job". If you don't want to get burned by fire, don't be a fireman. If you don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke, don't be a server in a smoking bar.

As for the idea that it worked good in Cali because "bars have patios now". Well that might be because Cali has very nice weather when compared with much of the country. You can't go out on the patio when it's say, 2 degrees outside with a -22 windchill.

Filtherton said something to the effect of "if you don't like not being able to smoke, don't go somewhere where you can't smoke". I agree hold heartedly, the problem is, with this law everyplace is somewhere a person cannot smoke. That is the bad part about the law.

I am a non smoker btw. :D

Correct me if I'm wrong in detecting a selfish sense to this thread by the smokers, but are you saying that it should be up to the establishments owner whether or not to offer smoking in his premises?
And what of the chain owned premises? Do their staff get a say in their future health?

Ah, but of course, they can get new jobs if they don't like it. That's a lot more sensible than asking smokers to step outside to smoke.

Is smoking dangerous?
Hmmmm.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htmWere the law to become so tight that you couldn't smoke in your own home, then I would have an issue with it, but this is purely to protect the health of the workers in the food and entertainment industry. It's not about the non-smokers not wanting to reek of smoke or thinking that you are bad people.
These people have no voice, the dollar drowns it out. They need protecting. They have no unions like dock or mine workers.

Go ask people who work in bars. Not the young ones in college, but the ladies that have been doing it for years in smoky diners. Ask about their friends and their own health concerns. You'll be quite shocked.

a lot of people do that yes.....but I dont. If I am somewhere that there is no trash can I will put mine out then carry it with me until I am near one

:icare:

.

this law goes into effect here in Columbus in another month or 2. My wife (who is expecting our first child) and I went into a place to pick up wings for a get-together and the whole place was a huge cloud of smoke. I am not paranoid or anything but it still made me uncomfortable. I am very excited for the new law so we can go anywhere with our baby and know that it will be a clean environment.

I disagree with it in bars though. I think thats one place it should remain because you can be expected to leave if you dont like it. with restaraunts and other public places, you still have the choice but thats not realistic.

Great, you're replacing cigarette smoke with a crying baby. Instead of 2nd hand smoke lopping off a couple of years at the end of my miserable life, you and your shrieking offspring will ensure that what little time I have left is spent in auitory hell. Make sure you take your spawn to movie theatres, cause there's no smoke there and I for one truly appreciate the wailing cries of a newborn during a movie.

Honestly, I'd rather have the cancer.

are you honestly comparing the 2? smoking and children? how old are you, 12?

The difference is, I have enough respect for the general public that I would not bring a crying baby into a theater, unlike a smoker. if it was available, there would definately be people smoking in there. not all smokers, but the ones with shit-ass dont give a damn about anyone but themselves attitude like yours.

you need to grow up.


and im sorry your life is so miserable, maybe you should just kill yourself now to save everyone else from paying for your lung replacement surgery and health care premiums.

Don't worry, I don't have insurance so nobody will be paying for my chemothearpy.

Well, big ups to you. But I've been in theatres, and people bring their snot-nosed sniveling runts in and muck up the sound. I'm sure there are smokers out there who don't smoke in crowded places too. But the great majority of them do, and the great majority of parents deem it necessary to inflict their repugnant children on the rest of us.

At least smokers aren't contributing to planetary overcrowding and excess consumption of resources. How much damage will your child inflict on the world compared to a smoker? How much fossil fuel is used by tobacco? How many third-world peasants does nicotine kill? How many people die in poverty every year so your child can grow up to be a master of the universe? Last I heard, children were working in sunless fire traps in Thailand to produce sneakers with lights in them, not cigarettes.

And the bar staff?

They have the choice? You guys don't think you sound like the early mine or railroad owners with their disregard for the workers' safety?

but the bar staff has a choice. I think they can choose a different job. dont me wrong, im FOR the ban. im just trying to think with a level head!

What I don't understand is this...

If people prefer going to bars and clubs, etc that don't allow smoking - why don't these clubs exist prior to government intervention. Hell guys, it's the internet age. All of you non-smokers could post all of the bars that are non-smoking and go and have a great non-smoking time together. Instead you have to get the damn government involved.

I can understand people not wanting me to smoke in my office building or next to them at a stadium. I have learned that it's nicer to just walk away and smoke alone - or with another poor rejected smoker. But in a bar?

"Hey Stacy, I'm gonna go to a bar and drink till my liver explodes, and take home some guy I just met and have unprotected sex, but I swear if I have to deal with just one cigerette I will shoot someone." Bah.

The person who complained about smokers getting 15 minute breaks during the day should understand how much it sucks ass to stand outside this time of year. Trust me, we would rather light up at our desks and keep on working.

And to the guy who is sticking up for the rights of the employee - wouldn't it be easier if the employees just went to the owner and asked that an exhaust fan be installed? If enough good people asked it, the owner would likely install one. Or, I don't know, get a new job? But no, he wants the government involved. Makes me sick.

But I will make you a deal. Since you are getting rid of smoking and non-smoking sections - can we now have children and non-children sections? I would consider this a fair trade. Especially on airplanes.

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.

California is much the same way. Very strict smoking laws. I heard a story where an owner of a company was in his office smoking. One of the employees was offended by the smoke, even after he went outside to smoke. He was fined heavily by the state for breaking the law.

I agree with no smoking in public places as I can't stand the smell and have never tried a cigarette. I also have had two grandparents die from cancer due to prolonged smoking.

Children may annoy you but they aren't bad for your health. No smoking in public places has nothing to do with being or not-being annoyed. As soon as smokers realize this, your argument will be dead in the water.
You might as well accept it, because this is the way it's gonna be.

I agree, you can pretend that smoke is just a minor annoyance, but the fact is that smoking will kill you. I think if all of the poor, rejected smokers spent half the energy they spend on cultivating such righteous indignation on actually trying to quit, everyone who wasn't a tobacco executive would be much better off.

Children are bad for my health. Besides being terrible carriers of disease due to poor hygeine, the children of developed nations are responsible for the severe overpopulation problems we now face. Children cause pollution, they consume natural resources, and they exploit children of third world nations. That their parents do this by proxy for their benefit does not absolve them of their share of guilt.

Actually, i think recent studies have shown that being exposed to a larger variety of bacteria can actually strengthen the immune system.
Your critique of the global effects of childrearing can easily be extended to everyone in the developed world- you consume natural resources and exploit children of third world nations. This is a critique of humanity in general, not children.

You're still stretching if you think any of this has anything significant to do with banning smoking in public places.

Screaming in children, children that are the product of parents that dont believe they should make them behave in public etc ARE bad for my health....they give me horrible headaches....the same kind some non smokers claim to get if they are around cigarette smoke

Will they give you a terminal disease?

doesnt matter whether its terminal or not....it affects my life and those around me for the amount of time that Im a total bitch because my head hurts

your original statement made no mention of terminality, it simply said they werent bad for my health....which is not always true

I guess i thought my emphasis on the whole "making people die" thing was pretty clear, as i bolded it only a few posts above. Which original statement are you referring to? I also find screaming children annoying, but i think it is a huge stretch to compare a screaming child-an annoyance, with smoking-which kills 400000 plus people a year.

filterton...Im SO sorry.... there is a misunderstanding here.....I was replying to this (as were a few others)

I dont know where my brain is today....I think I need to stop posting :lol:

Don't worry about it. 'tis the season for mental exhaustion.

You sir, speak like a true smoker.
You can't seriously consider this a fair comparison. You're just being silly, really.

While I sympathize with getting headaches from children, kids don't give off toxic smoke that is known to shorten lives of people around them. The whole thrust for smoke free public places isn't to stop an annoying, headache causing smell, but rather, the long term heath of the people subjected to your cancer causing by-product.
I'm in no way suggesting that you not smoke, just that when you do smoke, you keep it to your self....that's it.

No, it is a critique of children. In the same way that your ridiculous generalizations about smokers "killing you" is a critique of all smokers.

Actually, life will kill you. What I think you mean is that smoking might shorten your life. Considering the years that will be lost (senile, impotent, lame) I don't think it's a bad trade off at all. And again, it's my choice to end my life early.

And enough with the second hand smoke nonsense. Sitting next to a smoker will not kill you, let alone give you a terminal disease! You need to be exposed to smoke long term and in large quantities for it to affect you, and even then its iffy. http://www.junkscience.com/news/euwsjets.htm

Maybe the bar employees have a case, but if they don't want to work in a hazardous environment then maybe they should leave the bar and apply for a job at that nice coffee shop down the street. Why won't they? Because the coffee shop is for lamers who don't tip. Bar patrons are drunk happy people who tip well. It's a simple economics game. Do you want to outlaw all hazardous activities? Why not focus on outlawing war and religion, the biggest contributors to human death and misery of all time.

What non-smokers are really objecting to is the fact that smokers are enjoying themselves in a way the non-smokers can't participate in. They get jealous and angry and act out. Just accept that you aren't nearly as cool as smokers and be done with it.

we recently passed a law similar to this in columbus ohio. im very glad. im a non smoker, and i absolutely can not stand smoke at all. im glad ill be able to go out to bars and clubs and not come home smelling like shit. without getting into too much of a flame war - i know its sort of contradictory to go to a bar and not want to kill myself, since im drinking myself stupid, but, i really really dont want lung cancer in 20 years. i also work at a service garage, and i get a healty dose of diesel and its related combustion byproducts every day, and i get really pissed about that too.

But its not your choice to end mine.

This dated, biased, poorly written article with nearly no credibility to speak of, is obviously written by a pissed off smoker such as yourself. If you were to read some REAL facts, youd know that Tobacco kills more Americans than AIDS, drugs, homicides, fires, and auto accidents combined.

* Secondhand Smoke causes about 3,000 deaths each year from lung cancer in people who don´t smoke.
* Secondhand Smoke causes irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat.
* Secondhand Smoke can also irritate the lungs, leading to coughing, excessive phlegm and chest discomfort.
* Secondhand Smoke has been linked with the onset of chest pain may affect the heart, according to some studies.
* Children who breathe Secondhand Smoke are more likely to suffer from pneumonia, bronchitis, and other lung diseases.
* Children who breathe Secondhand Smoke have more inner infections
* Children who breathe Secondhand Smoke are more likely to develop asthma
* Children who have asthma and who breathe Secondhand Smoke have more asthma attacks
* There are an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 case every year of infections, such as bronchitis and pneumonia in infants and children under 18 months of age who breathe Secondhand Smoke. These result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations.

While I am all for outlawing war and religion, your argument has nothing to do with smoking. you said the bar patrons are drunk happy people who tip well. what does that have to do with smoking in bars? I go out occasionally also, and I tip well. I dont smoke. This argument is completely invalid.

friend, understand this. It is NOT about you. nobody cares what you do in your house, on your own time. non-smokers dont care if you smoke. They dont care what you do at all. This is about the fact that what you choose to do to yourself is not only affecting you. It affects all those around you, especially children. You can hate other people and children all you want but the fact remains that they are out there, and they take precedent.

Your argument borders the assumption that you think drinking and driving shouldnt be illegal, since you are only hurting yourself. Bottom line is, these things DO kill other people and something needs to be done about it. Thank you New York, California, and all the other places where it is banned in public. I am also in Columbus, OH happily waiting for our ban to come into effect.

Actually, there are a number of questions about the origonal EPA report on second hand smoke. http://www.consumeralert.org/fumento/passive.htm The report noticed an increase in cancer at a rate of 2 per million - which any research scientist will tell you is statistically insignificant - less than 1 thousandth of a percent.

Saying that smoking will kill you also ignores a number of things. Things like, many non-smokers get lung cancer, and many life long smokers don't get cancer. As genetics improves we may find that smoking increases the rate at which genetically inclined people develop cancer - or maybe not. Smoking does seem to be the most obvious cause, but is by no means the sole cause. However, all cancer victims drink water... makes you wonder doesn't it?

How many scientists does it take to figure out if eggs are good for you or not?

Children however, are very bad for my health. There is a stastical evidence that shows that prolonged exposure to other people's children, raises my liklyhood of killing that child and then become sentenced to death.

I started writing this before godxzilla posted his facts. Hey godxzilla, could you post where you got those facts from? This is the internet, I can check your work. Otherwise you got your statistics from where I got these statistics...

* Secondhand children cause rashes on all mice
* Secondhand children a known carriers of the plague
* Secondhand children kill 40,000 migrant workers every second
* Secondhand children cause an estimated 20 billion dollars in property damage every week
* Secondhand children are the number cause of wedgie related accidents

I got those facts from my ass. This is why I didn't link to them - as my ass doesn't have a URL at this time. (I'm just being a dick about you not citing your source... nothing against you of course...)

But my point all boils down to this. If you don't like smoking, why do you have to get the government to ban it? Can't you just go to a bar that doesn't allow it? It's called exercizing freedom. What you have done is called restricting freedom. This is my main problem with the whole thing.

i agree with this completely, and i'm a non-smoker.

as a non-smoker, I also agree with this.