Supporters of smoking bans

[IrishMist]

So, let's force people to do what they do not choose to do. I can think of many things I do not think people should do but it is none of my business. If I get to tell them what to do, they get to tell me what to do. No way. I have a laundry list of rotten parenting behaviors I want to impose on the parents of my students and it affects me every day. It even affects my health. My stress level, my safety (two of our staff got physically pushed by a student this week - two weeks ago a student intentionally slammed my hand in a door). I want to outlaw spoiled brats with sub-standard parents. They should be banned from schools because it is bad for my health.

Eve

But that wouldn't be forcing you to do what you don't want to. Removing the nicotine would not change the taste... but it would remove the addictive drug from the equation. Nicotine is considered to be one of, if not THE most addictive drug in the world.

So, let them make the cigarettes, just without the nicotine. The many people who have tried and failed repeatedly (which includes me) to quit would be able to. Those that enjoy smoking would still be able to.

 

[HeartofTexas]

What I resent the most is the hypocritical way the gov't (whether local or federal or state) handles the smoking issue. If smoking is as bad as they say it is, then ban the damned things. Make them illegal. Instead, the various governments ban them in places owned by private citizens (restaurants, clubs, etc.) but then tax the heck out of them and enjoy spending the profits however they want. Texas went up $1.00 a pack on taxes on January 1, 2007. If cigarettes are so bad that they deserve a dollar a pack tax increase, then they should make smoking them illegal. But you can bet your bottom dollar that the government has no intention of losing their precious smoking taxes because it's one of their largest sources of income. Colorado has one of the highest taxes on cigarettes in the nation (not the highest, but one of the highest), and their statewide smoking increased almost 10% last year. So banning smoking from public places has not stopped, nor deterred smoking. Instead, it's increasing. But, the same health problems continue for smokers (costing the gov't countless dollars to treat annually) and yet you don't see the gov't banning cigarettes, do you? No way. They would lose their precious smoking taxes. Hypocritical, IMO. So, either smoking is totally toxic and the gov't should make it illegal, or the gov't should stay out of the way of people who own restaurants and bars and let them make their own rules for who can enter their establishments. As someone above said, if you don't want to be around smokers, then stay out.

 

[eve]

But that wouldn't be forcing you to do what you don't want to. Removing the nicotine would not change the taste... but it would remove the addictive drug from the equation. Nicotine is considered to be one of, if not THE most addictive drug in the world.

So, let them make the cigarettes, just without the nicotine. The many people who have tried and failed repeatedly (which includes me) to quit would be able to. Those that enjoy smoking would still be able to.

Well, if they offered cigs w/ nicotine and cigs without, I would in fact, choose those without if they tasted the same. I guess that's kinda like removing the trans fats, though people argue that changes the flavor. Should they just ban all products with anything unhealthy or risky? When would it end? What about when science offers new or conflicting information about what is good for you? What about snowmobiles? Birthday cake? Cell phones? Hazardous jobs?

The question is where could one smoke these nic-free ciggies?

Eve

 

[eve]

What I resent the most is the hypocritical way the gov't (whether local or federal or state) handles the smoking issue. If smoking is as bad as they say it is, then ban the damned things. Make them illegal. Instead, the various governments ban them in places owned by private citizens (restaurants, clubs, etc.) but then tax the heck out of them and enjoy spending the profits however they want. Texas went up $1.00 a pack on taxes on January 1, 2007. If cigarettes are so bad that they deserve a dollar a pack tax increase, then they should make smoking them illegal. But you can bet your bottom dollar that the government has no intention of losing their precious smoking taxes because it's one of their largest sources of income. Colorado has one of the highest taxes on cigarettes in the nation (not the highest, but one of the highest), and their statewide smoking increased almost 10% last year. So banning smoking from public places has not stopped, nor deterred smoking. Instead, it's increasing. But, the same health problems continue for smokers (costing the gov't countless dollars to treat annually) and yet you don't see the gov't banning cigarettes, do you? No way. They would lose their precious smoking taxes. Hypocritical, IMO. So, either smoking is totally toxic and the gov't should make it illegal, or the gov't should stay out of the way of people who own restaurants and bars and let them make their own rules for who can enter their establishments. As someone above said, if you don't want to be around smokers, then stay out.

:clap: :clap: :clap:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901275.html


I don't know if I am properly making a link but this is the address for an interesting article.

Eve

 

[IrishMist]

Well, if they offered cigs w/ nicotine and cigs without, I would in fact, choose those without if they tasted the same. I guess that's kinda like removing the trans fats, though people argue that changes the flavor. Should they just ban all products with anything unhealthy or risky? When would it end? What about when science offers new or conflicting information about what is good for you? What about snowmobiles? Birthday cake? Cell phones? Hazardous jobs?

The question is where could one smoke these nic-free ciggies?

Eve

Now, as far as the bans, I do think they are out of hand. That the market should determine, and they infringe on civil rights most of the time.

I guess I should have posted my idea in the other smoking thread, as it's not exactly on topic here, is it? Sorry, all! :blushing:

 

[reb]

delilah-- you are missing the point entirely. if i am sitting next to you in a bar and you are morbidly obese, you are not making ME obese by osmosis. you are not forcibly injecting your fat cells into my body. but when you are sitting next to me (or are in the same room), and you are puffing away on one cancer stick after another, you are injecting your chemical fumes and smoke into my lungs. it is incredibly invasive-- and i for one can't believe that it has been legal for so long!!
so yes, the government SHOULD step in and protect those of us who wish to breathe clean air in a room. that is a basic human right, it should not be too much to ask!! this is just like the government having to step in and make efforts to protect our water (since businesses and individuals will pollute it if it suits them-- they don't care).. and LE will arrest drunk drivers... LE will protect children from being abused.. women fom being raped.... that's what govt/LE is supposed to do!

 

[reb]

janetelaine-- your choice is not gone. you have the choice to smoke away to your heart's contect-- but you should NOT be allowed to do it around my or my lungs... in a public place of business. in the old days, we non-smokers did NOT have a choice of being able to go into a restraurant, bar or club, and breathe clean air, or go home not reeking down to our bones of nasty smoke. our only choice was "well, you can just NOT GO (or, NOT WORK THERE)-- if you don't like the smoke". why the hell should WE have to make that choice, because of your addiction??
so you DO have a choice now-- first of all, the choice to even smoke in the first place. then you also have the choice to smoke outside, in your car, or in your home-- OR come inside the establishment and enjoy yourself without harming other peoples' lungs.

 

[tybee204]

Here in Georgia if the establishment is just a bar smoking is permitted. If it is a bar with food service business smoking is prohibited. I think its a great option. It gives people choices.
There are penalties for being a smoking bar in that they have to remain closed on Sundays whilst Bar/Restarunts remain open.

 

[eve]

delilah-- you are missing the point entirely. if i am sitting next to you in a bar and you are morbidly obese, you are not making ME obese by osmosis. you are not forcibly injecting your fat cells into my body. but when you are sitting next to me (or are in the same room), and you are puffing away on one cancer stick after another, you are injecting your chemical fumes and smoke into my lungs. it is incredibly invasive-- and i for one can't believe that it has been legal for so long!!
so yes, the government SHOULD step in and protect those of us who wish to breathe clean air in a room. that is a basic human right, it should not be too much to ask!! this is just like the government having to step in and make efforts to protect our water (since businesses and individuals will pollute it if it suits them-- they don't care).. and LE will arrest drunk drivers... LE will protect children from being abused.. women fom being raped.... that's what govt/LE is supposed to do!

reb,

I think you are missing the point entirely.

You may not like it but smokers have rights too and smoking is a legal activity for adults. "Public" places where people go to conduct business, like post offices, banks, grocery stores, the mall -- or entertainment places frequented by minors like family restaurants, movies, museums...these should clearly be smoke-free, as should transporation service vehicles.

Smokers are NOT akin to rapists. OR drunk drivers. OR polluters. You don't have to choose a smoking bar or restaurant.

I will keep asking, why do you mistrust the marketplace if so many want non-smoking establishments? Why do you care if I am across town dancin' with the devil?

Why do you think you should have the whole smorgasbord while smokers wouldn't even get a tiny corner of the buffet table?

Eve

 

[reb]

je-- again, your 'freedom of choice' of whether you want to pollute my lungs in a bar has been now legally determined to take less precendence over my freedom to be able to go into a bar and breathe.
and actually, just ONE person's selfish desire to satisfy their nicotine craving can ruin the air for an entire roomful of people. even more reason for the ban.

should a trucker have the 'freedom of choice' to back up his/her truck into a bar or club, with the doors closed, and rev the engine for hours on end, with a roomful of people inside??? NO, of course not! smoking is NO different.

and yes there is some spite in my comments. but there is definitely an element of selfishness to many smokers... (hence the spite). 'i should be able to do what I want-- who cares about anyone else or their health. if they don't like it, they can just leave.' this attitude has been the final word for FAR too long.

i suffered greatly for years working in restaurants and bars, and going to clubs to see bands and whatnot.. because you couldn't do any of these things WITHOUT coming home like a piece of smoked meat. i suffered long-term lung problems also.. (chronic bronchitis).. and to this day my lungs have never been the same. and now, everyone's going to say the obvious thing; "well, why didn't you work somewhere else then?'' hello- DUH, where else can a young person work who has no skills, while they are trying to get their education, where they can make the most amount of money in the fewest hours of work (through tips)? you can't make $100-120 a night plus a paycheck doing anything else-- except stripping, selling drugs or doing other illegal things.
bottom line-- people should be able to work in, or go to a bar, restaurant or club, without being subjected to smoke or having your health compromised by someone else's actions. if you see not being able to smoke while you sit at a bar or see a band 'suffering',, well then it was YOUR choice to get addicted in the first place!! and believe me, your having to go outside is NOTHING compared to the suffering non-smokers had to endure for decades breathing in that junk, in order to go out and see their friends, enjoy a night out or see a show.

 

[Dalilah]

delilah-- you are missing the point entirely. if i am sitting next to you in a bar and you are morbidly obese, you are not making ME obese by osmosis. you are not forcibly injecting your fat cells into my body. but when you are sitting next to me (or are in the same room), and you are puffing away on one cancer stick after another, you are injecting your chemical fumes and smoke into my lungs. it is incredibly invasive-- and i for one can't believe that it has been legal for so long!!
so yes, the government SHOULD step in and protect those of us who wish to breathe clean air in a room.* that is a basic human right, it should not be too much to ask!! this is just like the government having to step in and make efforts to protect our water (since businesses and individuals will pollute it if it suits them-- they don't care).. and LE will arrest drunk drivers... LE will protect children from being abused.. women fom being raped.... that's what govt/LE is supposed to do!

I'm not missing the point - I simply see a different point than you are so focused on.

I may not be injected with a morbidly obese person's fat cells by sitting by them, but my health insurance premiums are sky high and my personal costs for healthcare are increasing all the time due to the morbidly obese (and others). It affects mine and my family's well-being. It affects me because I pay taxes for morbidly obese people to get disability benefits, including free healthcare (and FOOD STAMPS!) to sit around getting bigger and bigger. It affects me when a handicapped space for my elderly and (truly) disabled mother has been used by someone so morbidly obese he can barely get out of the car. Yes, it affects me. His fat cells are not filling up my lungs, but his lifestyle is taking away from mine. And, I work damn hard to get by.

*Further, you didn't addressed the woman on the subway with the disgusting perfume that has made at least one person physically ill. Will the use of offensive fragrances be banned? Many people are highly sensitive to chemicals and scents and many are quite allergic. How about in a store? How about in a bar or restaurant? What about in an office?

It could go on and on with each and every thing that could possibly offend someone else. In this case, the government has only appeased the non-smokers in a way that will fill their coffers. The government makes HUGE amounts of money on cigarettes. If they didn't, you wouldn't hear a single word about them because they would have been banned. So, instead of banning or criminaliztion of cigarettes, they've decided to tax them. This makes about as much money as criminalization would, without further clogging the judicial system and jails.

I can see that you're happy with the bans and I'm glad that someone is. However, don't expect the government to stop here. At some point, they will encroach upon territory that does bother you.

 

[BhamMama]

You still have the freedom to smoke.

Agreed and I don't look at it as taking away a personal choice or freedom. It's more a health issue. As long as they don't regulate how I do it in the privacy of my own home...or rather my back deck, which is my smoking area, I'm cool with it.

Why should my habit be everyone elses habit? I'm suppose to inhale it, not them. And even I, a smoker, hate to eat around anyone smoking and I don't like smoke to blow in my face. I wouldn't get down and blow smoke in my childs face, why should that be any different than making someone else inhale my smoke?

Alabama has had a non smoking indoors policy for years, never bothered me. Now Louisiana has new laws and I'm sure people are griping. But they've made it so certain places will still be smoking if they choose. Just bars that serve no food etc. Not sure about the Casino since I don't go there...guess that won't bother me either

Now taxing only smokers? I'm not so happy about that. Seems unfair on some level.

 

[reb]

eve-- no, i do see your point and wat you are asking. i did answer this in an earlier post. and in theory, i could see this could work. but in reality, no. because the addiction is too strong, and the cigarette corporations are too powerful.
actually in our town you are still allowed to smoke in places that are specified as billiard halls and bingo parlors. but our town is so dependent on the revenue of bars (because of the university- college students)-- that i think everyone knows, if there was more leeway allowed, then ALL the bars would just go back to allowing smokng, it would get too messy.
again.. the people voted to have ALL the establishments smoke-free... so the people have finally spoken, and in a democracy the majority rules.

 

[reb]

<Why should my habit be everyone elses habit? I'm suppose to inhale it, not them.>

HELLO!! this just shows how out of touch many smokers are!! in case you didn't notice,, with one cigarette, you FOUL UP AN ENTIRE ROOM. i am inhaling it by default-- unless that is, i make the 'choice' to hold my breath and stop breathing!!! don't know if you realize that smoke also contains PARTICLES. particles of noxious chemicals. so it is literally a physical thing. the only other way to prevent the contamination of everyone's else's breathing space would be for all smokers to wear a hermitically sealed helmet that you keep one arm in (also hermetically sealed up to the elbow). then you could puff away to your heart's desire, and you could have ALL your first-hand smoke AND your second-hand smoke to yourself.. still sit next to me, and it wouldn't bother me so much!

let me ask you something... how do you think 'inhaling' is different than 'breathing'?

 

[BhamMama]

<Why should my habit be everyone elses habit? I'm suppose to inhale it, not them.>

HELLO!! this just shows how out of touch many smokers are!! in case you didn't notice,, with one cigarette, you FOUL UP AN ENTIRE ROOM. i am inhaling it by default-- unless that is, i make the 'choice' to hold my breath and stop breathing!!! don't know if you realize that smoke also contains PARTICLES. particles of noxious chemicals. so it is literally a physical thing. the only other way to prevent the contamination of everyone's else's breathing space would be for all smokers to wear a hermitically sealed helmet that you keep one arm in (also hermetically sealed up to the elbow). then you could puff away to your heart's desire, and you could have ALL your first-hand smoke AND your second-hand smoke to yourself.. still sit next to me, and it wouldn't bother me so much!

let me ask you something... how do you think 'inhaling' is different than 'breathing'?

Uhmmmm I think you missed the point. I'm a smoker who agrees with the ban. Hence the MY habit not theirs statement. I understand all that mumbo jumbo and your health. I DON'T push my habit on others for the simple fact that it's not polite to do so. Just like I wouldn't put my fingers in your food, slurp your drink and hand it back or cough in your face.

I think you need to read my post again. I'm not the one out of touch here.

 

[JBean]

Uhmmmm I think you missed the point. I'm a smoker who agrees with the ban. Hence the MY habit not theirs statement. I understand all that mumbo jumbo and your health. I DON'T push my habit on others for the simple fact that it's not polite to do so. Just like I wouldn't put my fingers in your food, slurp your drink and hand it back or cough in your face.

This is what surprises me Bhamama. I would think more people would look at it like this. If for no other reason, smoking can just be impolite. Amost every smoker I know has your same attitude. They don't want to invade my space with their smoke and the reality is I don't even care that much.
I think your outlook is the right one and benefits us all.

 

[JBean]

Agreed and I don't look at it as taking away a personal choice or freedom. It's more a health issue. As long as they don't regulate how I do it in the privacy of my own home...or rather my back deck, which is my smoking area, I'm cool with it.

Why should my habit be everyone elses habit? I'm suppose to inhale it, not them. And even I, a smoker, hate to eat around anyone smoking and I don't like smoke to blow in my face. I wouldn't get down and blow smoke in my childs face, why should that be any different than making someone else inhale my smoke?

Alabama has had a non smoking indoors policy for years, never bothered me. Now Louisiana has new laws and I'm sure people are griping. But they've made it so certain places will still be smoking if they choose. Just bars that serve no food etc. Not sure about the Casino since I don't go there...guess that won't bother me either

Now taxing only smokers? I'm not so happy about that. Seems unfair on some level.

great post Bhamama.

 

[reb]

oops sorry bhamMama.... i was on a roll, and thought i was talking to one of the anti-smoking ban folks. my bad,, i apologize! (and i agree with you.)
thanks for your consideration for the rest of us. i certainly wouldn't have as much of a problem with it if all smokers had your point of view.

 

[eve]

<Why should my habit be everyone elses habit? I'm suppose to inhale it, not them.>

HELLO!! this just shows how out of touch many smokers are!! in case you didn't notice,, with one cigarette, you FOUL UP AN ENTIRE ROOM. i am inhaling it by default-- unless that is, i make the 'choice' to hold my breath and stop breathing!!! don't know if you realize that smoke also contains PARTICLES. particles of noxious chemicals. so it is literally a physical thing. the only other way to prevent the contamination of everyone's else's breathing space would be for all smokers to wear a hermitically sealed helmet that you keep one arm in (also hermetically sealed up to the elbow). then you could puff away to your heart's desire, and you could have ALL your first-hand smoke AND your second-hand smoke to yourself.. still sit next to me, and it wouldn't bother me so much!

let me ask you something... how do you think 'inhaling' is different than 'breathing'?

reb,

bham was actually agreeing with you :doh: !

NO you have not addressed my question. You are going on again about HAVING to breathe second-hand smoke. You shouldn't have to - who's arguing?

I will repeat it again - why can't you trust that the marketplace would allow non-smoking establishments (where you could breathe pure air to your heart's content) to flourish?

What difference does it make to you if I'm across the street with the other evil puffers who want to be there? You don't want to be with us anyway! We don't want to bother you, either!

Also, as I said, there is no vote on the matter here, so far.

Why do you get the whole smorgasbord?

Eve

 

[tybee204]

I have a question. My neighbor has severe asthema and woodsmoke can send her into a full attack. We apparantly have several people in the neighborhood that suffer from asthema and other pulmanary related diseases. Last year they sent letters to everyone in the neighborhood requesting that we do not use our fireplaces because of their health issues and it causes everything in their house to smell like smoke.

Whose rights are being infringed on and should wood burning fireplaces be banned?

This has caused alot of arguments in neighborhoods all over the Country.