View Full Version : Smoking Ban in Washington
Ok ok, I have started to hate my government because of this ban, and no its not because i'm a smoking asshole and have no respect for other people. First if you dont live in the evergreen state let me enlighten you, as of Dec 1st (i believe it's the 1st) you must be atleast 25 feet away from a door or window to smoke a cigarette. I see this as unconstitutional. Whats next? Fat people have to be 30 feet away from a drivethru window? I know a lot of people hate smoking and I for one believe an indoor ban is a good idea, but when i have to go stand in the middle of the road on my break to have a smoke it pisses me off... Now please all you zealous antismokers please just dont say anything. ( i say this because i am sick of people getting off topic about how they hate smoking if you have something to say please make sure it has to do with what i am talking about.) So what are your opinions on this matter?
Serves you right.
Its been like this over here in various counties for awhile, and in some govt complexes you've got to be completely off the property to smoke.
Don't get me wrong, whatever you do to your body is your own problem, but I don't particularly want to be blasted with it.
-Neo
LinkTheGameFreak
11-28-2005, 10:53 AM
I personally don't care, just as long as it's not in my way, but over the top government actions like this only serve for the benefit of one small group of people and tend to be an inconvienience for the other group...
don't get me wrong, I don't smoke and I hate when some scum sucking moron blows smoke in my face, but I don't think that they should be singled out for being obnoxious.
NEW RULE.
If smokers have to stand 30 feet from a building to smoke then mothers with infants are forbidden to go the theater, people with disablities aren't allowed to use stairs and brestfeeding mothers are court-ordered to either cover up, or stand within 18 inches of me :)
in all seriousness, people take this shit way too seriously and take it too far for one group to appease another group, that's all.
GenocideAlive
11-28-2005, 11:42 AM
Infants in movie theaters are annoying, not deadly.
The problem with smokers is that they enjoy their habit, but nobody else does. Their habit also kills them, which they don't mind--but others do. Sorry if it's an inconvience to think of anybody other than yourself. I'm glad you're getting moved away from public buildings, and I hope you eventually get restricted to smoking only in your car or in your home.
Call me whatever names you like, but smoking and endangering my life while I'm trying to get to my job isn't your right. Go find that on the Constitution and we'll talk. In the meantime, drag your ass away from my building and rasp your whiney complaints from there.
I personally don't care, just as long as it's not in my way, but over the top government actions like this only serve for the benefit of one small group of people and tend to be an inconvienience for the other group...
Would you please explain what the hell you're talking about, here? Telling people emitting noxious, radioactive gasses to take it away from entranceways is an "over the top government action" that "only serve for [sic] the benefit of one small group of people"? Is the "small group of people" you're referring to basically "everybody else"?
Your entire blurb smacks of uninformed babble, but let me update you: smokers tend to cluster around entranceways to buildings, especially when it's cold; nevermind that smoking makes them even colder. They'll drop their cigarette butts on the ground, grind them out, and go back into the building. They leave a huge mess and they form obnoxious clouds around the entrance. Usually building management has to go out of their way to make it ridiculously easy for smokers to dispose of their waste, or the walkway will become littered with butts in less than a week. People coming in and out that may have sensitive sinuses or vulnerable conditions (babies, elderly, etc.) are in serious danger from breathing that garbage.
And what do they suffer? They have to walk a measly 10 yards away from the building for others' safety. Oh Em Eff Gee, someone call the Constitution lawyers.
Kingscrab
11-28-2005, 12:59 PM
Boo-hoo. What an inconvenience.
It's pretty simple. Smoking is a personal choice; and a dangerous one. Why should those who choose not to smoke be forced to endure clouds your second hand smoke? It's a luxury habit, not a necessity. If you've smoked enough to become addicted, then why should that be a non-smoker's problem? Sorry dude. Put on an extra jacket if it's cold out.
Besides, it builds character! ;)
LinkTheGameFreak
11-28-2005, 4:56 PM
to paraphrase "your freedom ends where someone elses begins" so I do agree that, yes, people should be able to enjoy smoke free air, but what is the point of doing so when either way the air we breathe is contaminated anyways?
I'll use the example of the smoking and non smoking sections of resturants:
a little tiny glass barrier over the booth is going to keep smoke from coming to the non smoking section?
it seems that many laws and policies and the like are put in place to put people at ease when the measures taken have little or no effect - why make smokers move a few feet when the smoke will still eventually get to them?
I'm not arguing for either side because I see this law or policy as ineffective, but if it truly makes people feel safer, then fine
and as for those who have sinus problems, I understand that because of my mom, she has real problems with that, but sniffing smoke every once in a while is not going to kill you, simply put, the argument that peoples lives are in danger because of secondhand smoke are, IMO and according to some doctors, an assumption that has gotten out of hand
here is only one example of this, but it's a very well thought out paper and does make a good point that there is no proof that secondhand smoke causes a significant increase in mortality >> http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
here's something from the guardian that I found that is a summarization of the above paper >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,2763,957231,00.html
IMO, other than people blowing smoke DIRECTLY in my face, I've never been bothered by other peoples smoke, and after asking some other people, not too many people mind either
I honestly believe that the measures are not going to do much, and the "victims" of secondhand smoke are going to find more and more reasons to push for what they want, eventually finding an excuse to have all smokers exectuted (joke)
edit: i saw it cut off the end of my response and i had to remove genocidealive's quote...
I can't remember what it cut off :(
I have a problem with this smoking ban, from a business owners point of view. Why, as individually owned and operated businesses, should I cater to only those people whom desire a smoke free environment? Shouldn't we as owners of a business be permitted to make this decision for ourselves? After all, if you don't want to smell smoke, you can.....gasp....go somewhere else!
Hell, if a strip club can dance naked girls on stage whilst denying access to anyone under 18, I think I should be permitted to deny access to anyone that can't handle the smell of a cigarette. If you don't like it, then I guess we won't do business, eh? You, as a consumer, have no right to patronize my establishment unless I approve, so why in the hell must I cater to you?
At least Tampa had some common sense to allow smoking in bars and pubs. This Washington state law is not only repressive, but from an economical standpoint it will reduce state tax income! Bar business is going to plummet, and in the event that nobody knows it, alcohol is a major source of tax revenue for the government. Bars = Smoking and Drinking. Score one for the morons in Washington state! Whoo hoo! Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Disclaimer: I personally hate cigarette smoke, but I love Cigars. I resent the fact that my favorite restaurants are not permitted to allow smoking, even though the clientele would prefer it.
LinkTheGameFreak
11-28-2005, 6:34 PM
I have a problem with this smoking ban, from a business owners point of view. Why, as individually owned and operated businesses, should I cater to only those people whom desire a smoke free environment? Shouldn't we as owners of a business be permitted to make this decision for ourselves? After all, if you don't want to smell smoke, you can.....gasp....go somewhere else!
Hell, if a strip club can dance naked girls on stage whilst denying access to anyone under 18, I think I should be permitted to deny access to anyone that can't handle the smell of a cigarette. If you don't like it, then I guess we won't do business, eh? You, as a consumer, have no right to patronize my establishment unless I approve, so why in the hell must I cater to you?
At least Tampa had some common sense to allow smoking in bars and pubs. This Washington state law is not only repressive, but from an economical standpoint it will reduce state tax income! Bar business is going to plummet, and in the event that nobody knows it, alcohol is a major source of tax revenue for the government. Bars = Smoking and Drinking. Score one for the morons in Washington state! Whoo hoo! Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Disclaimer: I personally hate cigarette smoke, but I love Cigars. I resent the fact that my favorite restaurants are not permitted to allow smoking, even though the clientele would prefer it.
that makes sense: if it is good for business, and the management would consent to it, there should be no problem
a question to the thread starter: is this ban to affect all businesses, or just government facilities, or something similiar?
JenJen
11-28-2005, 6:58 PM
Now please all you zealous antismokers please just dont say anything. So what are your opinions on this matter?
and you're talking about rights and liberties? HAHA riiight..
look i dont mind the smoking laws because i hate smoke; i'm pretty sensitive to it. There are plenty of people who have serious problems with smoke similar to allergic reactions. I know that if someone is smoking near me i have to leave the room, so why is it so bad to ask smokers to do their business in a more open aired environment? Sure it's irritating for the people who smoke, but sometimes people have to be inconvenienced so the whole can lead healthier lives. If it's such a pain then quit and be free from the bonds of smoking. how many people actually want to be controlled by something?
that makes sense: if it is good for business, and the management would consent to it, there should be no problem
a question to the thread starter: is this ban to affect all businesses, or just government facilities, or something similiar?
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i901.pdf
Sadly it includes any and all businesses and public places.
UnHoly-Assassin
11-28-2005, 7:43 PM
I only see this as a step further from raising prices on tobacco and encouraging resturants to have anti-smoke areas. Be it a step too far, so be it. I grow tired of walking behind someone smoking and the wind blowing at my face (carrying the smoke with it). Why would people disallow radioactive material to be so close to other people? Sure cigarettes may be much less dangerous, it can still cause addiction if someone constantly inhales the smoke from others while on the streets. If smokers want to defend their right to have a smoking enviornment, fine, but some people who despises smoke will do their part to defend their right to have a smoke-free enviornment.
LinkTheGameFreak
11-28-2005, 8:01 PM
Sure cigarettes may be much less dangerous, it can still cause addiction if someone constantly inhales the smoke from others while on the streets.
i've never heard of anything like that... speaking of which, I have a nicotene craving... NOW!
:D
seriously though, the addicting part of cigarette smoking is firsthand inhaling, and I'm not sure but I would swear that you cannot become addicted by that...
my roommate says that it is possible but the conditions would have to be at extremes, like living in a small closet with a compulsive chain smoker... passing someone on the street won't do it for ya
but some people who despises smoke will do their part to defend their right to have a smoke-free enviornment.
So the answer to this dilemma is to overcompensate by banning smoking anywhere that is might be enjoyed, minus private residences? Perhaps we should ban drinking in bars, since after drinking, people often drive drunk, thereby killing innocent bystanders after ramming their 3000lb steel behemoth into the side of the church mini-van filled with little old ladies on their way back from quilting class. If we're really concerned about the health and safety of innocent bystanders, we would start with things that cause "immediate death" not a theory about second hand smoke.
Bottom line, people want smoking banned because it smells bad, not because of the .000001 % chance that they may develop cancer due to a chance encounter with second hand smoke.
LinkTheGameFreak
11-28-2005, 8:10 PM
Bottom line, people want smoking banned because it smells bad, not because of the .000001 % chance that they may develop cancer due to a chance encounter with second hand smoke.
that is actually the most honest answer I've read all day, and probably the one that makes the most sense :tup:
Wick3d
11-28-2005, 9:45 PM
Ok ok, I have started to hate my government because of this ban, and no its not because i'm a smoking asshole and have no respect for other people. First if you dont live in the evergreen state let me enlighten you, as of Dec 1st (i believe it's the 1st) you must be atleast 25 feet away from a door or window to smoke a cigarette. I see this as unconstitutional. Whats next? Fat people have to be 30 feet away from a drivethru window? I know a lot of people hate smoking and I for one believe an indoor ban is a good idea, but when i have to go stand in the middle of the road on my break to have a smoke it pisses me off... Now please all you zealous antismokers please just dont say anything. So what are your opinions on this matter?So am I allowed to give my opinion or not?
frazz
11-28-2005, 10:29 PM
Perhaps we should ban drinking in bars, since after drinking, people often drive drunk, thereby killing innocent bystanders after ramming their 3000lb steel behemoth into the side of the church mini-van filled with little old ladies on their way back from quilting class.
Good point.
Bottom line, people want smoking banned because it smells bad, not because of the .000001 % chance that they may develop cancer due to a chance encounter with second hand smoke.
Is that a bad thing? A primary reason people aren't aloud to dump toilet junk on the streets(other than health) is that it stinks.
So good point. Ban smoking for health, ban smoking for smell, whatever you do, ban somking!!!(within 10 yards of public buildings)
The fact that there is any chance that second smoke can kill you is enough of a reason. Even its if its .000001%.
Smokers, Deal with it. Your all morons for being addicted to them anyways, single handedly keeping afloat one of the most evil and dispicible (omg spelling?) industries in america.
I go out to enjoy myself. Not to risk my life becuase smokers can't control thier habit. Smoke at home, or by yourself. Not out in public.
-Neo
frazz
11-28-2005, 11:04 PM
.000001% chance
That is one in every 10 million. Which equals about 50 deaths in the U.S.
Unless you count that most people will get second hand smoke hundreds, if not thousands of times in their life. So in rough estimation, that comes out to about 300 deaths per year.
I thinks it's worth it to have a few people walk a few yards to save 300 lives a year.
GenocideAlive
11-28-2005, 11:06 PM
So the answer to this dilemma is to...
As far as I can tell, the dilemma is answered.
Perhaps we should ban drinking in bars, since after drinking, people often drive drunk
Oh, yay! The endless stream of justifications! If cigarettes kill people and steps are being taken to get that under control, YOU CAN'T DO THAT! Because alcohol used illegally kills people too! It's killing-discrimination, I tell you!1!11! We should be able to kill innocent bystanders with equality!
we would start with things that cause "immediate death" not a theory about second hand smoke.
Actually, it's not a theory. Cigarette smokers and those that live with / around cigarette smokers are at higher risk for lung and heart disease. And second hand smoke isn't the greater threat to bystanders, either. Figure out what you're talking about, please. ;)
Bottom line, people want smoking banned because it smells bad, not because of the .000001 % chance that they may develop cancer due to a chance encounter with second hand smoke.
Bottom line, you disagree with the ban and hide behind intellectually bankrupt justifications and misinformation to pad your viewpoint.
UnHoly-Assassin
11-28-2005, 11:42 PM
Bottom line, people want smoking banned because it smells bad, not because of the .000001 % chance that they may develop cancer due to a chance encounter with second hand smoke.
It's not really all about the actual chance you might get cancer by breathing in cigarette smoke on the streets, its about that chance increasing. If chances of getting cancer really is .000001% (Which I doubt very much), then that is still worse than .0000001% chance of getting cancer, which is 10 times less. If you google "second hand smoke kills percent", you see some real eye-opener statistics. I'm not willing to increase my chance of dying by up to 80% because some fool on the street cannot keep his smoke to himself.
If they can try to ban things like Partially Dehygenated Soy Bean Oil Extract (VERY unhealthy substance found on most microwavable popcorns that constricts intake of other vital oil), it's more than fitting that smoking be restricted even more. Why do you think they prohibit anyone, even staff, to smoke on most school premises elementary to high? By your logic, students would somehow be almost immune to the excess nicotine released into the air.
As frazz says, if this policy helps prevent certain people to become addicted, or to discourage people enough to quit smoking, then it is worth it for the lives saved. It's arrogrant and selfish to endanger other lives for your own pleasure. Especially if it takes so little to avoid that--step away from them a few yards if you really have to get a puff.
This is a first step in the right direction. I despise it when I got to things like Carols by Candlelight and Anzac Day Parade that I have the misfortune of having to sit near a smoker and breathing their stinky trash, especially since I have this thing called asthma.
Has anyone noticed that the smokers who smoke right outside a building are either with JUST THEMSELVES or other people who are smoking. Its ironic. Nobody wants to be near them!! The idiots want to kill themselves, well they shouldn't be allowed to kill everyone else as well, or put up with their rotten stink. Just walk ten metres at least! Smokers who smoke right outside the door are Selfishness personified, even more then most working-class exploiters/politicions. Actually about the same.
Second hand smoking can cause serious problems. Especially with children. People can get all the smoking related nasties if they are married to someone who smokes or related to someone who does. It annoys me when smokers start smoking with a giant crowd of small children. Selfish brutes. And especially when parents smoke all the time in front of their children. Passive smoking DOES cause problems. Its a fact, already.
It should be the law that people are not allowed to smoke/drink when they are pregnant.
If I became dictator of the world (you can tell when I say this that I'm merely thinking to myself, because thats never going to happen), I would ban smoking in ALL public places, including streets. People would only smoke in their own homes. Actually, if I followed the "eye for an eye" comment, smoking in public would be a death sentence. (Ok thats a bit harsh). No I'm not being serious with this paragraph.
I choose to rebut GenocideAlive, not because his point has any more relevance, but because I so enjoy making him look silly. So please remember, this is aimed at at the general viewing audience, but the sarcasm is all for GA.
Oh, yay! The endless stream of justifications! If cigarettes kill people and steps are being taken to get that under control, YOU CAN'T DO THAT! Because alcohol used illegally kills people too! It's killing-discrimination, I tell you!1!11! We should be able to kill innocent bystanders with equality!
It's called an analogy, deal with it. I am using this "analogy" to demonstrate the rationale behind a smoking ban, and it obviously isn't health related, otherwise we would attack more immediate health concerns.
Actually, it's not a theory. Cigarette smokers and those that live with / around cigarette smokers are at higher risk for lung and heart disease.
And this ban affects those people how? Oh wait, it doesn't. In fact, this ban has absolutely nothing to do with smoking in and around your home, one of the most dangerous settings for second hand smoke due to the repeat exposure.
The theory in question by yours truly is whether or not second hand smoke can cause death from casual contact. Obviously second hand smoke can be harmful when there are cases of consistent exposure, but as I point out above, this isn't about that, is it? This is about casual contact with second hand smoke, the occasional whiff of a cigarette or cigar. The deaths attributed to second hand smoke can be attributed to repeated exposure of a long period of time. If you think that smelling a cigarette every now and then is going to "infect" you with cancer, then I think perhaps you should lock yourself in a room and wear tissue boxes on your feet.
Bottom line, you disagree with the ban and hide behind intellectually bankrupt justifications and misinformation to pad your viewpoint.
The only misinformation here is your obvious attempt to steer this argument in a different direction. Now tell me again why a private business owner should be required to adhere to this ban? Give me a single valid reason, and we'll discuss it, otherwise I'll assume that you haven't a leg to stand on.
I am a smoker.
I agree with this ban.
Here in Canada, you must be at least 15m away from any doorway or window in a public area. You may not smoke on the grounds of any government building at all. You may not smoke at any transit stop (bus shelter, etc.) Smoking is completely banned in all restaurants, bars, and nightclubs. Again; I agree with this ban.
The fact of the matter is, that smokers make up a very small percentage of the population, and as such, they should submit to the will of the many. Why indeed should we let a minority (smokers) dictate to the majority (non-smokers)? We shouldn't.
It's a filthy despicable habit. I don't smoke in my own home, because I don't want my children exposed to it. I don't smoke in my car for the same reasons. Is it a bitch when it's -40 outside and I'm having a cigarette? Not really. I cut back during the winters anyway.
People who do things which are dangerous for others should be legislated against. It's the only way to curb their selfishness. Smoking is bad for your health. Everyone knows it. So why on earth would you support something that was bad for health by allowing smokers to congregate at doorways? You wanna smoke? Go do it in that field over there.
Xenon, would you support a ban on alcohol consumption considering that it too is bad for your health, especially when mixed with a motor vehicle? Some would even call it despicable, an adjective that you used to describe cigarettes. If the will of the majority voted to ban alcohol tommorrow, would you support it?
Food for thought: If people smoked like they drink (i.e. in moderation,) don't you think the amount of illness from said substance would decline significantly?
GenocideAlive
11-29-2005, 11:02 AM
It's called an analogy, deal with it. I am using this "analogy" to demonstrate the rationale behind a smoking ban, and it obviously isn't health related, otherwise we would attack more immediate health concerns.
While we're using everyday terms as though they're something new, I'd like to point out that your "rationale" for your shitty analogy is a joke. An analogy for your rationale behind your analogy: "Since we're attempting to raise the posted speed limit in this area, it's safe to say that the state DoT has no other concerns that would be considered more immediate." If one project takes 2 days and $100 to complete and the other takes 9 yrs. and $4M, guess which is going to get completed first? Owned, analogy boy.
And I'd just like to educate you a little, Nuts, since you've been using incorrect terminology since you've started. It's kind of ironic since you think you're rebutting something with your complete lack of education regarding the subject, but for purposes of keeping this amusing, I'm going to sort you out. While it's funny to watch you repeatedly bungle your arguments, it's less game for me. So read up a little if you'd like to look less stupid while trying to be smug.
Second-hand smoke is a term used for the discharge from a smoker's lungs. As in, they breathe through their filter and puff it out into the air. This smoke (depending on volume/lung efficiency) is relatively harmless and doesn't really cause many problems. This is the term you've been using since the inception of the argument, oblivious to the fact that you're completely misusing it.
Side-stream smoke is a term used for the ambient smoke that comes off of a cigarette tip. This smoke is unfiltered both by the cigarette's filter and the smoker's lungs, and thus it is more harmful to anybody that breathes it than smoking a cigarette would be. Unfiltered by any source (human or otherwise), it's basically leaking volumes of naked poison.
The deaths attributed to second hand smoke can be attributed to repeated exposure of a long period of time.
Actually, asthma attacks can be triggered and infants with allergies can be killed quite fast by acute exposure to sidestream smoke. I'd go into pediatrics or ENT details, but it'd go over your head and would be skimmed by some pundit comment anyway.
The only misinformation here is your obvious attempt to steer this argument in a different direction. Now tell me again why a private business owner should be required to adhere to this ban? Give me a single valid reason, and we'll discuss it, otherwise I'll assume that you haven't a leg to stand on.
Heh. Please see above, Mr. Misinformation. Frankly, given how much you know vs. how much you think you know, I'd say that you should trust your government to make your decisions a little more. In the meantime, obeying the ban would prevent a good deal of trouble that you and your patrons would have with the law.
And I'd just like to educate you a little, .......
Second-hand smoke is a term used for the discharge from a smoker's lungs. ....
Side-stream smoke is a term used for the ambient smoke that comes off of a cigarette tip.......
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422
Secondhand smoke, also know as environmental tobacco smoke, is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/factsheets/secondhand_smoke_factsheet.htm
Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of tobacco products (sidestream smoke) and the smoke exhaled by smokers (mainstream smoke).1,2
Gee, who do we listen to, GenocideAlive, or the American Lung Association and the CDC?
The only person you've owned is yourself. I laugh at you.
Actually, asthma attacks can be triggered and infants with allergies can be killed quite fast by acute exposure to sidestream smoke. I'd go into pediatrics or ENT details, but it'd go over your head and would be skimmed by some pundit comment anyway.
Keep it in context science boy. THe argument is over here, and you're way over there. I'm arguing for private businesses being permitted to allow smoking in their own establishments and you're arguing semantics over something that doesn't even apply. Come on science boy, you can do better than that, can't you?
Heh. Please see above, Mr. Misinformation. Frankly, given how much you know vs. how much you think you know, I'd say that you should trust your government to make your decisions a little more. In the meantime, obeying the ban would prevent a good deal of trouble that you and your patrons would have with the law.
In other words, your argument won't hold up. Seeing that I've ruined your credibility regarding the crux of your last post, I would suggest you either debate the issue at hand, or run away with your tail between your legs. The option is yours.
Screenshot attached for posterity.
GenocideAlive
11-29-2005, 11:17 AM
The theory in question by yours truly is whether or not second hand smoke can cause death from casual contact. Obviously second hand smoke can be harmful when there are cases of consistent exposure, but as I point out above, this isn't about that, is it?
The theory in question by yours truly is whether or not second hand smoke can cause death from casual contact
The deaths attributed to second hand smoke can be attributed to repeated exposure of a long period of time.
Bottom line, people want smoking banned because it smells bad, not because of the .000001 % chance that they may develop cancer due to a chance encounter with second hand smoke.
Save some laughs for yourself.
And if you want to "argue in context of a small business owner" only, it's pretty clear that all you're interested in doing is pigeonholing the entire debate for purposes of furthering your viewpoint. "I WANT TO DISCUSS RAPE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RAPIST ONLY!11!!11 IF YOU BRING UP ANYTHING ABOUT THE VICTIM, IT'S INVALID BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M ARGUING!"
That was an analogy.
Save some laughs for yourself.
And if you want to "argue in context of a small business owner" only, it's pretty clear that all you're interested in doing is pigeonholing the entire debate for purposes of furthering your viewpoint. "I WANT TO DISCUSS RAPE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RAPIST ONLY!11!!11 IF YOU BRING UP ANYTHING ABOUT THE VICTIM, IT'S INVALID BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M ARGUING!"
That was an analogy.
That was it? That was your reply? Damn, I was hoping for more.
As for pigeonholing the debate, I am curious to know why you would expect me to argue for something that I don't believe? Because I don't support a ban on smoking in privately owned business, this means I am opposed the the entirety of the ban? My apologies if things are not so black and white in my world.
Moser
11-29-2005, 11:56 AM
One person is killed every half-hour due to drunk driving.
Every other minute, another person is seriously injured in an alcohol related crash.
Each year in the U.S. there are over 120 million episodes of impaired driving.
An additional $70.5 billion is lost in quality of life due to these crashes.
Economic costs of alcohol-related crashes are estimated to be $45 billion yearly.
http://www.lapdonline.org/bldg_safer_comms/prevention/other/drunk_driving_98.htm
So tell me why smoking has been banned before drinking? To me, it seems like drunk driving is bigger problem then secondhand smoke. Not in the death toll, but in the effect it has on the economy. It hasn't been banned yet, why?
Not saying I have a problem with them banning this, but it just makes no sence.
Another thing, if the politicians of Washington really cared about people's health other then their own, why would they only issue the ban in Washington and not everywhere else?
GenocideAlive
11-29-2005, 12:00 PM
That was it? That was your reply? Damn, I was hoping for more.
Given that I got so hung up on the term "secondhand smoke" that I confused it with "mainstream smoke" during a two-page blurb I'm obviously a little distracted. Maybe when I'm a private business owner, I'll have more time to dedicate.
As for pigeonholing the debate, I am curious to know why you would expect me to argue for something that I don't believe? Because I don't support a ban on smoking in privately owned business, this means I am opposed the the entirety of the ban? My apologies if things are not so black and white in my world.
It's not "arguing something you don't believe", it's "splitting hairs for the purpose of specializing an argument". The issue: people smoking at the front of buildings in public places. What you've turned it into: people smoking in front of private businesses. You narrowed the definition by several degrees without addressing the intial issue. Let's put the shoe on the other foot: please explain to me why you should have the right to regulate what will taint public sidewalks with what the government obviously finds as a health hazard.
So tell me why smoking has been banned before drinking?
Wait, wait...when did smoking get banned? Did I miss something? It looks to me like smoking is being regulated, which alcohol is already HEAVILY regulated.
Kingscrab
11-29-2005, 12:01 PM
Xenon, would you support a ban on alcohol consumption considering that it too is bad for your health, especially when mixed with a motor vehicle? Some would even call it despicable, an adjective that you used to describe cigarettes. If the will of the majority voted to ban alcohol tommorrow, would you support it?
Food for thought: If people smoked like they drink (i.e. in moderation,) don't you think the amount of illness from said substance would decline significantly? Keep in mind that the idea is to restrict the areas one can smoke in, not ban smoking entirely or make it illegal. There are already restrictions in place for harmful substances such as alcohol, yet it is not banned entirely. Unlike a cigarette, when you have a beer or two, you do not effect the health of others nearby. There are places where one can consume booze legally, why should it be different for other harmful substances such as tobacco? (both of which are luxuries and not necessities)
I do agree with you though, in that private businesses should have the right to make the decision to ban or not. If you know a bar is a smoker's bar and you don't like that kind of atmosphere, then simply don't go there. I'm sure there are other places happy to take a consumer's cash...
It's not "arguing something you don't believe", it's "splitting hairs for the purpose of specializing an argument".The issue: people smoking at the front of buildings in public places. What you've turned it into: people smoking in front of private businesses. You narrowed the definition by several degrees without addressing the intial issue.
Look at my posts above, I already stated that I agree with banning smoking in public places. I've addressed the issue from all sides, and I happen to disagree with a single aspect that is extremely important in my opinion.
Let's put the shoe on the other foot: please explain to me why you should have the right to regulate what will taint public sidewalks with what the government obviously finds as a health hazard.
Considering that I'm arguing for the right to smoke inside a private business, I believe this speaks for itself. Smoking inside would not spill out into the streets, not in any measureable amount. As for the health hazard, again, if the primary concern were health, then cigarettes would simply be banned. Obviously we don't care about the health of those whom indulge in their own homes (at least not enough to ban it,) so why should we impose this law on private businesses whom cater to these same people?
Keep in mind that the idea is to restrict the areas one can smoke in, not ban smoking entirely or make it illegal. There are already restrictions in place for harmful substances such as alcohol, yet it is not banned entirely. Unlike a cigarette, when you have a beer or two, you do not effect the health of others nearby. There are places where one can consume booze legally, why should it be different for other harmful substances such as tobacco? (both of which are luxuries and not necessities)
Imagine drinking as frequently as one might smoke. I believe we would be looking at a very similar situation.
GenocideAlive
11-29-2005, 12:31 PM
Considering that I'm arguing for the right to smoke inside a private business, I believe this speaks for itself. Smoking inside would not spill out into the streets, not in any measureable amount. As for the health hazard, again, if the primary concern were health, then cigarettes would simply be banned. Obviously we don't care about the health of those whom indulge in their own homes (at least not enough to ban it,) so why should we impose this law on private businesses whom cater to these same people?
I'm of the general opinion that this is a step in privatizing cigarette smoke altogether. And just as a quick question, whom is going to report a bunch of smokers smoking in an establishment catering to them? Every law is only as effective as the capability to enforce it, and I question if the police department is going to prioritize crackdowns on dives that allow smoking for smoking clientele. I'm of the opinion that this is directed more towards extremely highly populated areas where smokers were too numerous for the management to control.
Imagine drinking as frequently as one might smoke. I believe we would be looking at a very similar situation.
...the dosages, mode of action, dangers, and side-effects are completely different. I'm having a lot of problems understanding why you're bringing up drinking problems in reference to smoking problems. Smoking doesn't alter states.
frazz
11-29-2005, 12:48 PM
Look at my posts above, I already stated that I agree with banning smoking in public places. I've addressed the issue from all sides, and I happen to disagree with a single aspect that is extremely important in my opinion..
Stop changing the subject, nuts.
At first it looked like you were against the ban alltogether. When the debate got nasty and you realized you had false info, you switchede to being in favor of it. But not in your own business. And all you've been doing thru this whole thread is making statements about things that are hardly related. GenocideAlive is atleest making valid arguments. And every time you get pwnded by ga, you just start talking about something different.
And no, you have not addresed the issue from all sides.
...the dosages, mode of action, dangers, and side-effects are completely different. I'm having a lot of problems understanding why you're bringing up drinking problems in reference to smoking problems. Smoking doesn't alter states.
The end result of both vices can result in death to non-participants. The "when" and "how" are irrelevant.
Stop changing the subject, nuts.
Would you care to show me where I changed the subject?
At first it looked like you were against the ban alltogether.
I'm against the ban as it pertains to private business as I stated quite clearly here. (http://www.warboards.org/showpost.php?p=245843&postcount=7)
When the debate got nasty and you realized you had false info, you switchede to being in favor of it. But not in your own business.
Son, I don't have false info, what page have you been reading?
And all you've been doing thru this whole thread is making statements about things that are hardly related.
Gee mister, I sure am sorry that my arguments don't fit within your defined areas of debate. Let me get you a hanky for those tears.
GenocideAlive is atleest making valid arguments. And every time you get pwnded by ga, you just start talking about something different.
Ha...haha...hahaha. Me, get pawned by GA? Surely you jest?
And no, you have not addresed the issue from all sides.
Well, yes, I have. Perhaps I haven't addressed them to your satisfaction, so why don't you indulge me and ask me for some clarification, mmmmk?
And kid, get a spell checker, your grammar is atrocious.
Your above post showed that you still don't have any arguments other than to insult people and deny things that are apparent looking at your previous posts.
Why don't you just stop insulting people, and argue about things that are more relevant?
Actually, asthma attacks can be triggered and infants with allergies can be killed quite fast by acute exposure to sidestream smoke. I'd go into pediatrics or ENT details, but it'd go over your head and would be skimmed by some pundit comment anyway.Keep it in context science boy. THe argument is over here, and you're way over there. I'm arguing for private businesses being permitted to allow smoking in their own establishments and you're arguing semantics over something that doesn't even apply. Come on science boy, you can do better than that, can't you?
I think infants and regular people with asthma dieing because of somebody else's smoking is in context.
Your above post showed that you still don't have any arguments other than to insult people and deny things that are apparent looking at your previous posts.
Why don't you just stop insulting people, and argue about things that are more relevant?
I asked you to provide me with a chance to clarify your misconceptions regarding my stance of the smoking ban, and you give me one single anecdote that I failed to answer, and this is cause for your little tirade?
I think infants and regular people with asthma dieing because of somebody else's smoking is in context.
When is the last time that an infant or an asthma patient was forced to patronize a business against their own free will?
GenocideAlive
11-29-2005, 1:46 PM
The end result of both vices can result in death to non-participants. The "when" and "how" are irrelevant.
"The ends justify the means" is yet another logically bankrupt half-assed argument that I'm not going to address. Frazz is at least partially correct; it's becoming clear that you're more interested in anecdotal quips and kiddy get-back games than taking a position, forming an argument and fleshing it out.
I stated my argument quite clearly, several times. And you have yet to tell me how smoking in a private business is harmful to the general public. It would be difficult for me to be any clearer.
As for "kiddie get-back games," need I remind you of this?So read up a little if you'd like to look less stupid while trying to be smug.
Perhaps it should be up to business owners.
But its not.
Its not here, and its not there.
Most smokers dont find a problem with it.
Even in bars. Though I usually though when one went to a bar, one was to busy drinking to care about smoking.
Besides, isnt smoking and drinking at the same time just a tad much?
This reminds me of that helmet thread awhile back Nuts ;)
The fact is that smoking is bad for you, and its bad for those around you. Due to pressure from who knows where, this law was enacted banning smoking from public places or w/e.
I say deal with it. No one is telling you can't smoke, you just can't do it in a restaurant or public area anymore.
If you enjoy it so much, light one up at home and enjoy all the booze ya want.
-Neo
This reminds me of that helmet thread awhile back Nuts ;)
Indeed, I thought of that yesterday. ;)
GenocideAlive
11-29-2005, 4:11 PM
And you have yet to tell me how smoking in a private business is harmful to the general public.
Actually, as I stated rather clearly earlier:
I'm of the general opinion that this is a step in privatizing cigarette smoke altogether.
it's becoming clear that you're more interested in anecdotal quips and kiddy get-back games
As for "kiddie get-back games," need I remind you of this?
Aaaaaaaaaaaand...that pretty much completes the circle.
Actually, as I stated rather clearly earlier:
I'm of the general opinion that this is a step in privatizing cigarette smoke altogether.
How does that answer my question?
UnHoly-Assassin
11-29-2005, 4:47 PM
As for pigeonholing the debate, I am curious to know why you would expect me to argue for something that I don't believe? Because I don't support a ban on smoking in privately owned business, this means I am opposed the the entirety of the ban? My apologies if things are not so black and white in my world.
Who do you think resturants have food inspectors? To ensure the quality of the resturant to be harmless to the customers. If you had a gas leak or high amounts of carbon monoxide emmissions from who knows what, do you think it'd just be passed off because you own the busniess and they have no right to tell you what to do? Smokes cause addiction--addiction increases death rate. It doesn't even have to lead to addiction; it can just skip that part and raise your chance of cancer. An asthma attack caused by the smoke may seriously harm a customer. It is a health hazard, and should be treated as such no matter who owns the property. You can get sued.
Who do you think resturants have food inspectors? To ensure the quality of the resturant to be harmless to the customers. If you had a gas leak or high amounts of carbon monoxide emmissions from who knows what, do you think it'd just be passed off because you own the busniess and they have no right to tell you what to do? Smokes cause addiction--addiction increases death rate. It doesn't even have to lead to addiction; it can just skip that part and raise your chance of cancer. An asthma attack caused by the smoke may seriously harm a customer. It is a health hazard, and should be treated as such no matter who owns the property. You can get sued.
If it's such a health hazard, why are they still legal?
UnHoly-Assassin
11-29-2005, 6:01 PM
It shouldn't, just as drugs isn't. In fact, it should be considered worse than drugs since its effects are not only limited to one person. So, if I may, I propose we ban smoking outright. But since that's not possible due to the large numbers of people that smoke, I think this policy whereon a smoker must distance themselves from others when taking a puff is reasonable.
So we're making exceptions for smokers so long as they stay away from the non-smokers? And again, I ask, how does a group of people smoking in a private business affect the public?
I would actually have less resistance to a complete ban on smoking. At least a complete ban would address the obvious health concern. Whereas the current Washington ban does nothing but provide for the comfort of non-smokers.
UnHoly-Assassin
11-29-2005, 7:38 PM
As I've said, if you're working alone or along with other smokers in a lumbermill company, go ahead and smoke. But if you're serving customers, you better watch out for their health while they're in your resturant. They ARE the public.
The health concern is for the non smokers. They're restricting smoking because of that, not because they care enough about the smokers to risk massive protests should they propose a full ban. However, should more people be like you, I wouldn't say it's entirely impossible. You choose to smoke, that's perfectly alright. Your health, not mine. Just don't smoke near me.
I would actually have less resistance to a complete ban on smoking. At least a complete ban would address the obvious health concern. Whereas the current Washington ban does nothing but provide for the comfort of non-smokers.
By banning smoking within 10 yards of public buildings(where there are higher concentrations of people), people will get less second-hand smoke(or side-stream or w/e). This addreses the health concern. And do you think that this law will hurt your business? Smokers aren't aloud to smoke within 15 feet of any public buildings. They're not going to single out yours not to go to.
As I've said, if you're working alone or along with other smokers in a lumbermill company, go ahead and smoke.But you see, this would be illegal under this law.
But if you're serving customers, you better watch out for their health while they're in your resturant. They ARE the public.By banning smoking within 10 yards of public buildings(where there are higher concentrations of people), people will get less second-hand smoke(or side-stream or w/e). This addreses the health concern. And do you think that this law will hurt your business? Smokers aren't aloud to smoke within 15 feet of any public buildings. They're not going to single out yours not to go to.The consistency of business is not my primary concern although it is a consideration. My primary and your primary concern should be the governments instrusion on your right to indulge in a legal product in the comfort of your local bar or pub.
As I said before, the public has no right to patronize a business without the consent of the owner. Therefore it only seems logical to allow the ownership to dictate what legal activities may or may not take place within his or her domain. As a business owner, I could tell my customers that nobody may enter unless they're wearing a cowboy hat, and I would be justified in doing so. But for some reason, a lit cigarette is going to somehow reach out and grab an unsuspecting public and lure them into my seedy establishment?
You choose to smoke, that's perfectly alright. Your health, not mine. Just don't smoke near me. I smoke a cigar 2-3 times a month. I have a greater chance of winning the lottery than I do dying from mouth cancer caused by cigars.
Note: For the record, I don't own a retail business; this debate has no personal connection to yours truly other than the fact that my city has a similar ban, minus liquor only establishments.
sweet8D
11-29-2005, 8:40 PM
I applaud Washington for such an excellent legislation. I am asthmetic and when I breath cigarette smoke I find it hard to breath at all.
Also, people will go into bars whether or not they are allowed to smoke. Noone says, "Hey, Frank! You wanna go suck ash at the bar?"
People will be just as happy getting wasted without the smoldering tarwad at their fingertips.
Also, people will go into bars whether or not they are allowed to smoke. Noone says, "Hey, Frank! You wanna go suck ash at the bar?"
People will be just as happy getting wasted without the smoldering tarwad at their fingertips.
A wonderful use of personal anecdotal rationale! Say that 3 times real fast.
Because you dislike cigarettes, you're going to impose your will on people whom would not be smoking in your presence?
The logic in this thread is astounding.
I think I'll start a petition to ban cheap cologne within 25 feet from any business door or public place. It stinks and I shouldn't have to be subjected to the $2.00 stench that people consider cologne. I want it banned in every public place and all businesses, especially cologne stores!
UnHoly-Assassin
11-29-2005, 9:00 PM
This isn't really all about you, Nuts. If you only smoke a few per month, good for you. If all smokers can be like you. Well in part anyways. Today I walked down one block and had to hold my nose through about six smoke clouds. But you know what--recently whenever I get caught unaware, I find myself savoring it for a few seconds before I regained my resolve. If you cater people, one would think having a smoke free enviornment actually draws more busniess.
Maybe my lumbermill analogy was a bad one. Then again, if the smokers unintentionally start a fire, there's a few less smokers in the world (Joking). However smokers do cause fires, specifically forest fires. Once in 2003 part of Los Angeles and nearby areas was engulfed in flames as a huge forestfire spread, destroying hundreds of acres of trees and homes. Our school forbade us to go outside during PE, as the smoke was thick enough to effect health. California had to borrow money and equipment from the rest of US and Canada to put that fire out. And the suspected item that caused that firestorm was a cigarette tossed out of a car on the side of the road in a dry bush. On the pavement of New York City, you can almost always see at least one cigarette butt on every tile of the sidewalk (amongst other litter).
ADD: Cologne isn't toxic; it just smells bad sometimes. What--are you also going to try and keep people who didn't take a bath for a week from the streets? And are we imposing our will or are smokers on the streets imposing? One can say that they should be free to shit on the streets (assuming there's no problem of dignity and nakedness involved). Would you like to wade through crap trying to get home? I'd like to be able to walk down the block one day without having to avoid poisonous fumes in the air.
I don't see why you make such a big deal out of this anyways. It's not like they'll enforce this with an iron fist. It's likely this will be as neglected as a jadewalking rule--most people wouldn't care. And if an establishment really is as private as you claim, it's not like a police officer will notice someone's been smoking and barge in to paste a "SHUT DOWN" notice on your window.
Cheap Cologne won't kill you.
-Neo
frazz
11-29-2005, 10:01 PM
The consistency of business is not my primary concern although it is a consideration. My primary and your primary concern should be the governments instrusion on your right to indulge in a legal product in the comfort of your local bar or pub.
Oh! So now your concern is about the government intrusion.
Could this be nuts yet again changing the subject?
Xenon
11-29-2005, 10:37 PM
Xenon, would you support a ban on alcohol consumption considering that it too is bad for your health, especially when mixed with a motor vehicle?
1) Cigarette smokers who smoke in public will harm everyone in that public space's health in EVERY situation. Alcohol consumption will only harm the individual who is consuming its health. Even if you want to say that the potential for harming someone's health through a related action such as drinking-and driving, this won't happen in EVERY situation if it happens at all. So right off the bat, you're not comparing apples to apples.
2) I DON'T support a complete ban on cigarettes, so again, it's the apples to oranges comparison and not a straight apples to apples deal. Nevertheless, I DO agree to banning alcohol consumption in public spaces, and lo-and-behold, it is already banned...
Some would even call it despicable, an adjective that you used to describe cigarettes. If the will of the majority voted to ban alcohol tommorrow, would you support it?
I would not. As I mentioned earlier, I would not support a complete ban on cigarettes, and so naturally, I would not support a complete ban on alcohol. Drinking in public is already banned, and I do support that.
Food for thought: If people smoked like they drink (i.e. in moderation,) don't you think the amount of illness from said substance would decline significantly?
It's possible. In my experience, most people don't drink responsibly, so I don't hold much faith that people will "smoke responsibly".
GenocideAlive
11-29-2005, 11:22 PM
So how is this answering my question?
...I would actually have less resistance to a complete ban on smoking. At least a complete ban would address the obvious health concern. Whereas the current Washington ban does nothing but provide for the comfort of non-smokers.
They're going to ban cigarettes in another 10-20 years. This is merely a "weaning" step to get the numbers of smokers down. Sort of like the profuse taxes. Dwindle the numbers to a few handfuls, then cut it off. They're basically removing their competition for legal challenge via proxy.
Draix
11-30-2005, 12:38 AM
I dont care about all this "serves you right" BS What did i say? i said i would understand an indoor ban. But 25 feet? you people make me sick you dont think this is unconstitutional? WTF?! Oh yeah it doesnt hurt you guys so you will let it slide. Jesus i wanted to know what you thought about it. Not your hate toward smokers. So your ok with letting me stand in the middle of the road to have a smoke? I pay my bills, i move away from people when i smoke, i ask if they mind, you are treating us smokers like a white guy would treat a black guy in 1907... Can i please PLEASE have someone sit down and think about it, do you think it is an attack on our rights? No more NO MORE of this "I hate smokers" BS i could care less what you think about smoking i want to know if you think they have the right to place this ban. Got it now? or do you still wanna lynch me cause i smoke?
I go out to enjoy myself. Not to risk my life becuase smokers can't control thier habit. Smoke at home, or by yourself. Not out in public.
You made me laugh. are you kidding? EVERYTHING kills you these days you have a better chance of getting cancer from the damn sun! Wait i know... we must...
BAN
THE
SUN!!!!!!!!!
Hell we mine as well ban the moon i think theres a .0000000000001% chance you might go blind if you look at it to long. THE POINT IS I MIGHT GO BLIND. You know what i hope that you walk through my second hand smoke one of these days an are among that .0000000000001% that gets cancer because you sir are an @$$hole. Yes yes i know i am too but only when people pointlessly attack me... for no reason... just because i wanted to know what he thought. Look man i dont know you, and you dont know me. But it would be nice if you didnt insult me because i posted something you dont like. *sigh* forgive my rage but i did nothing to you people and you attack ME because i brought up a topic, look beyond the fact that i smoke and think about the question... please.
frazz
11-30-2005, 12:58 AM
i want to know if you think they have the right to place this ban.
They do.
Happy?
They do.
Happy?
man here i thought warboards was a nice place... but now i know what its is, nothing but a bunch of kids... This thread needs to be locked because the next asshole is going to say "they do cause i dont like it"
I guess you don't read Draix.
I said they have the right. Yes. They do.
I am a smoker. I enjoy smoking. Nevertheless, they have the right to ban me from smoking in public places and within 25 feet of entrances to public places.
Sorry you're so mad about having to walk a few extra feet away. If you're too fat to walk that far, maybe you could get one of those little scooters and drive over there.
They're going to ban cigarettes in another 10-20 years. This is merely a "weaning" step to get the numbers of smokers down. Sort of like the profuse taxes. Dwindle the numbers to a few handfuls, then cut it off. They're basically removing their competition for legal challenge via proxy.
You can never ban a substance like that which is so often consumed. Firstly
1) The government is making megabucks on the taxes on them, and the Prime Minister isn't going to ban something which is making his government rich, even like cigarrettes. Not that he really cares about the longterm effects of any of his actions on Australia, no offence.
2) You can't ban something like that and expect it to be enforced. Smoking is addictive. People are still going to buy ciggarretes except they're going to buy it from another place at a much higher cost. Did you hear about prohibition? America tried to ban alcohol and it was a national disaster. There was a huge range of gunviolence between competing crime gangs trying to control the market. No-one stopped drinking. Not going to happen.
And....
I dont care about all this "serves you right" BS What did i say? i said i would understand an indoor ban. But 25 feet? you people make me sick you dont think this is unconstitutional? WTF?! Oh yeah it doesnt hurt you guys so you will let it slide. Jesus i wanted to know what you thought about it. Not your hate toward smokers. So your ok with letting me stand in the middle of the road to have a smoke? I pay my bills, i move away from people when i smoke, i ask if they mind, you are treating us smokers like a white guy would treat a black guy in 1907... Can i please PLEASE have someone sit down and think about it, do you think it is an attack on our rights? No more NO MORE of this "I hate smokers" BS i could care less what you think about smoking i want to know if you think they have the right to place this ban. Got it now? or do you still wanna lynch me cause i smoke?
Ok, Draix read the thread. This isn't exactly a "lets all hate smokers" discussion, there were/are serious arguments.
At this shopping centre I often go to there are signs which say "....please don't smoke within 15 (or so) metres of the entrance to this shopping centre" , with a few chairs (or whatever you call them) within 15 (or so) metres of the entrance, with ALWAYS people smoking on them. So everyone who enters/exits is affected by passive smoking. I recomment they put the chairs outside the 15m boundary. In addition to this law.
In addition to causing all those problems associated with passive smoking, it STINKS! No-body wants to smell someone who is smoking. Its really ironic that whenever you see those smokers they are either by themselves or other people who are smoking, or whatever small children have the miserable luck to be with them but don't have the ability to leave them. Obviously noone wants to be near one, to smell their filth, and people should not have to.
Cheap Cologne won't kill you.
-Neo
Addressing everyone:
The problem here is that nobody is concerned about death, they're concerned about smell. The public is saying "OMG, the smell is teh suck, I don't want to see cigarettes anywhere I go." And when in a public place, I completely agree. However, private businesses are NOT public places. As I said before, the public is not entitled to enter a business, they are invited. Therefore it is silly to extend a public smoking ban to a private business.
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear enough. A smoking ban that reaches into private business does nothing to prevent smoke from affecting the general public. The people that patronize these businesses are entering with the intention of either smoking or being in a room with smokers, therefore it is a conscious choice they are making. The outside world (i.e. the public) would have no knowledge of the smoke filled room that exists 20 feet away. It wouldn't affect them in any way unless someone told them, "hey, they're smoking over there, get 'em!"
Aside from GA whom thinks that this is simply the next step towards a complete ban, can anyone tell me why this ban would be required to reach into a private establishment when the very people that we're trying to protect would never be in there in the first place? By the way, GA, I think you're way off base with regard to a total ban. The tax revenue is simply too lucrative. No government official in his right mind would say goodbye to that much revenue.
And Neo, cheap cologne may not kill, but it should definitely be a crime. ;)
Oh! So now your concern is about the government intrusion.
Could this be nuts yet again changing the subject?
Do you have any idea how stupid you sound? Learn to connect the dots, government intrusion has been the underlying theme of this entire thread. Reading comprehension wasn't your strong suit in school, was it?
Aside from that, if someone can't have a rationale conversation regarding the facts, I'll just depart from this thread and consider it a lost cause. Nobody has yet to give me any solid justification for this law's existence as it pertains to privately owned business other than, "it's unhealthy." And to that I say, why are they still legal? I stand by my original thoughts, this is a ban on bad smell, not bad health.
Toucan
11-30-2005, 9:45 AM
You can never ban a substance like that which is so often consumed. Firstly
1) The government is making megabucks on the taxes on them, and the Prime Minister isn't going to ban something which is making his government rich, even like cigarrettes. Not that he really cares about the longterm effects of any of his actions on Australia, no offence.
Thats a myth Yoda, do you have any Idea how much it costs to treat a patient with a smoking related illness?
Don't forget here in Australia where you and I live there is still a public health system and treating smokers who have contracted a smoking related illness costs more than the Tax's acquired from tobacco tax.
You would be right if every Australian smoked, but every Australian doesnt.
EDIT: though I agree with you that Howard does not care about his people, only extending his own power.
Kingscrab
11-30-2005, 9:50 AM
The people that patronize these businesses are entering with the intention of either smoking or being in a room with smokers, therefore it is a conscious choice they are making. Yes, but when members of the public enter a private establishment, they generaly do so with the assumption that it is a safe/non dangerous environment, and that certain health standards are being met. (I think someone mentioned building or food inspectors earlier, which i thought was a good point) I'm no expert, but aren't there other cancer causing toxins (such as asbestos) that are against health standards? Personally, yes, i do find the smell to be annoying, the health argument is my main concern though. Breathing the smoke itself is quite irritating to my throat, and i am not even allergic to smoke, nor do i have a condition such as asthma.
If a private establishment allows smoking, they had better damn well put a sign up that says so, before someone who really does have a physical condition comes into an area (unknowingly) and suffers an attack and then sues their ass for not warning them. You know it WILL inevitably happen. Owning a private business comes with many responsibilities to the public. Just because it's a private business, this does not give the owner the authority to set his own health standards.
If a private establishment allows smoking, they had better damn well put a sign up that says so, before someone who really does have a physical condition comes into an area (unknowingly) and suffers an attack and then sues their ass for not warning them.
Don't you think it would be more appropriate to place a sign that says "no smoking?" Of course, in areas that have this current law, I wouldn't be opposed to a sign that excluded said business from the law. Sadly, this isn't an option. But I think it's a great idea, seriously.
Just because it's a private business, this does not give the owner the authority to set his own health standards.
Isn't it this very law that is changing the health standard? I really don't think it's a valid comparison. People don't patronize a bar so they can inhale asbestos.
Kingscrab
11-30-2005, 10:30 AM
Don't you think it would be more appropriate to place a sign that says "no smoking?" Of course, in areas that have this current law, I wouldn't be opposed to a sign that excluded said business from the law. Sadly, this isn't an option. But I think it's a great idea, seriously. Well, sure. At one time it was indeed appropriate to place a "no smoking" sign, but i think the tide has sort of turned. I think most people assume that the majority of places are no-smoking nowadays. The "smoking permitted" is kind of the oddball.People don't patronize a bar so they can inhale asbestos Not intentionally no. (i bet if they caught a buzz off it they might.. hmmm... :o ) We should still protect people from harmful chemicals as they are discovered though. As time goes on though science keeps identifying more and more chemicals that were once though to be not so harmful. Cigarettes obviously fall into this category. It's no mystery that smoking can kill you. Why not take extra precautions to protect those who choose not to smoke? Yeah, at the very least put up a warning so people can choose to enter that environment or not. (at least we agree on that!)
I smell a compromise.
Would anyone in this thread object to establishments permitting smoking within their place of business given that they display proper signage?
GenocideAlive
11-30-2005, 11:51 AM
man here i thought warboards was a nice place... but now i know what its is, nothing but a bunch of kids... This thread needs to be locked because the next asshole is going to say "they do cause i dont like it
I guess Warboards is a nice place up until you run into someone with a drastically different opinion for which you solicit. It's kind of funny that you start crying about everybody being insulting then you turn around and insult everyone at Warboards. If you want to make a case for smoking, by all means. But repeating over and over "CONSITUTUTIOTN CONTSTITUTION! CONSTIUTITOTONAL!" gives you no basis for repealing any of the laws. It just makes you look like an uninformed dolt trying to annex human rights documents to lend your viewpoint validity. By the way, it's not working.
By the way, GA, I think you're way off base with regard to a total ban. The tax revenue is simply too lucrative. No government official in his right mind would say goodbye to that much revenue.
Yeah, I guess all those poor people (very large chunk of smokers) on welfare are really churning out those taxes. Oh, but wait. We're turning around and giving them money for healthcare anyway, so when they get emphasema, lung cancer, or heart disease (or all three) the gov't ends up helping to pay or footing the bill entirely. Most of the diseases that come from smoke-related illness are extremely expensive due to their sensitivity and long-term nature. I seriously doubt the government is getting appreciable revenue from cigarette taxes once the diseases they fund are considered.
Additionally, if all the government were concerned about was tax dollars from addictive inhalants, they'd legalize marijuana. You can argue that Colorado is on its way, but I could argue that they're simply trying to free up prison space from petty possession charges. Additionally, now that medicinal marijuana has been made illegal, I'd say the Feds are well on their way to further banning it.
Yes, but when members of the public enter a private establishment, they generaly do so with the assumption that it is a safe/non dangerous environment, and that certain health standards are being met. (I think someone mentioned building or food inspectors earlier, which i thought was a good point) I'm no expert, but aren't there other cancer causing toxins (such as asbestos) that are against health standards?
Excellent point.
Asbestos insulation is cheap and effective. In the 70s and 80s it was extremely widespread in use because it's also a flame-retardant. However, during the 90s we discovered that it was a cancer-causing agent once it began to age and decay. Brand new, as long it was installed properly and didn't permit ventilation into human-occupied areas, it was fine. But again, once it got old and began to fall apart, it would aerosolize oncogenic agents. If the businesses maintained it properly (replacing every few years or so), it was perfectly safe (aside from those installing/manufacturing it). But the government outlawed its used and demanded that any public building using asbestos replace it in a given timeframe.
The businesses certainly could viably maintain the asbestos but the government knew that they couldn't RELIABLY count on businesses to do so at risk of the public's health. The public would thereby be questionably exposed to the asbestos at random intervals, causing numerous problems. Do you think businesses should be able to operate with asbestos in their celings if they put up a sign? I seriously doubt that sign would get the attention it deserves, and even those reading it may or may not know enough about the health hazards it outlines to make an informed decision.
Let's face it; people go to doctors because they don't know enough about health and medicine to treat themselves or their families. Why are we suddenly deciding to put it to them to make decisions about something they have little/no information or education about? Because, ultimately, I don't believe Nuts (and other priv owners) cares about patron's health, they simply want them to assume responsibility for the risk with minimal interruption to their business.
I don't believe Nuts (and other priv owners) cares about patron's health, they simply want them to assume responsibility for the risk with minimal interruption to their business.
Personal responsibility is a bitch. I'm concerned when people expect the government to watch over them on an hourly basis. It's a pity really.
I would like to get this clear;
I am not one of the "omg smoke is teh suck" people, I sincerely don't like it.
My Father was a chain smoker for a long time, especially when I was younger, there were a few times that I was sure I had asthma (my mother had it when she was younger), but thankfully no.
My father has cut back, and my mother was never really a chain smoker, but she still does -- this bothers me greatly.
Its not just the smell, its the fact that my parents are both harming thier bodies, and they both know it, and yet can't, or won't do anything to stop themselves.
I hope that with bans like these in effect that it will cause people to start simply giving up smoking, or cutting back.
If you think its only becuase of the smell... Well then I will ask to... well lets not go there.
Don't assume you know how people think, its not cool.
My brother's girlfriend's father died from smoking -- but was given THREE chances to live. He had lung cancer, stopped smoking, cancer went away/into submission, started smoking AGAIN, cancer popped up, stopped, then started smoking again and ultimately died.
So it comes down to this;
If you wish to poison your own bodies, FINE, do it at home, or in the privacy of your cars or whereever, but not where I am walking into/out of a building, or eating, or shopping. Take your cigarettes into the back alleys and freeze your asses off for all I care, just stay away from me and my family.
... >_>
"Smoking is bad, Mmmkay?"
-Neo
Nuts ignored all my points, even though he addressed certain questions to me, and I responded to them... :(
Ah well, I guess in the face of greater logic... ;)
GenocideAlive
11-30-2005, 2:22 PM
Personal responsibility is a bitch. I'm concerned when people expect the government to watch over them on an hourly basis. It's a pity really.
Your false pity outlined with your Big Brother insinuations are just a strawman that underscores your true motives: you'd prefer to have "control" over your business whether or not it's to the detriment of everyone around you. The government is reining in an almost ominpresent, addicting health hazard, and the majority supports it; this is We, the People watching over ourselves. "Personal responsibility is a bitch" is your attempt to downplay the issue of health consequences of smoking in public with a flippant one-liner that neither addresses the problem nor commits you to any defense.
In short, you're no longer rebutting any points nor are you constructing any points of your own; you're just hoping that wit and vague truisms are going to distract from your hollow stance. Thanks for your participation...I think this is pretty much over.
Of course it's false pity, it's called sarcasm.
The health of an individual should be at the individuals own choosing. If you disagree with this position, then so be it. I choose not to mandate the health of the public as I feel quite comfortable letting them take care of themselves. If you wish to coddle the public and wipe their collective asses, then be my guest. If an individual wishes to fill their lungs with black tar, why should I try to stop them? It's people like you that feel the need to save everyone from themselves that truly disgusts me.
Perhaps if you string together a few more words you'll look smarter, but for now it's just a bunch of rhetoric.
Morkeliph
11-30-2005, 4:34 PM
Too many pages for me to want to read them, so If I repeat something here, sorry.
There has been this same rule in Utah for years, and no one complains about it. Toughen up a bit, smoking doesn't just affect the smoker. Just because you want lung cancer doesn't mean I do.
UnHoly-Assassin
11-30-2005, 4:36 PM
The health of an individual should be at the individuals own choosing. If you disagree with this position, then so be it. I choose not to mandate the health of the public as I feel quite comfortable letting them take care of themselves. If you wish to coddle the public and wipe their collective asses, then be my guest. If an individual wishes to fill their lungs with black tar, why should I try to stop them? It's people like you that feel the need to save everyone from themselves that truly disgusts me.
If a woman can sue for millions of dollars after she spilled hot water/coffee over herself, can you really be that safe when you allow smoking in your own establishment? I agree to let them fill their lungs with black tar. I agree that you shouldn't try to stop them IF they do not effect others. However it does. Therefore it is your responsibility on your own turf to ensure that your area is poison-free. If a person was releasing methane gas to your establishment, would you stop him/her? Once a person enters your area, you are responsible for their safety. That's how a robber can trip on a staircase and sue the homeowner. Weather or not that actually happened, it is possible. Besides, do you oppose the restriction that beer may not be sold to minors? Because clearly that is an impeachment on the seller's rights, and booze and GTA should be able to be sold to all 10 year olds as long as they have the money. There are certain responsibilities of a busniessman that they must embrace regarding their customers.
Then again, I wouldn't have a problem with a smoking establishment if a sign was put out saying "BEWARE! Here be Smokers"
If a person was releasing methane gas to your establishment, would you stop him/her? Once a person enters your area, you are responsible for their safety.
Everything is relative. Methane is an asphyxiant (yes, I did have to look that up.) You can die in a matter of minutes from an intense exposure. However, a person can come into a bar or pub, inhale second hand smoke for 8 hours straight, walk away and never have a hint of trouble. It's repeated exposure that causes cancer, not the casual encounter. If my establishment caters to those whom wish to indulge in this repeated behavior, why should I try to restrict it? Is this restriction going to save their lives, or are they going to simply smoke elsewhere? Like I said before, if cigarettes were outlawed, I would have very little opposition. At least we would be honest about the intention at that point.
That's how a robber can trip on a staircase and sue the homeowner. Weather or not that actually happened, it is possible.
That's an entirely different and troublesome issue, but a good point nonetheless.
Besides, do you oppose the restriction that beer may not be sold to minors? Because clearly that is an impeachment on the seller's rights, and booze and GTA should be able to be sold to all 10 year olds as long as they have the money. There are certain responsibilities of a busniessman that they must embrace regarding their customers.
The difference here is that minors may not engage in this activity at any time or place. My trouble with smoking laws is the discrimination against a location, not a person. If the law said that minors could only drink alcohol 25 feet from a public place, then I might have something to say about it. Good point nonetheless.
Then again, I wouldn't have a problem with a smoking establishment if a sign was put out saying "BEWARE! Here be Smokers"
This solution would suit me just fine.
I guess you don't read Draix.
I said they have the right. Yes. They do.
I am a smoker. I enjoy smoking. Nevertheless, they have the right to ban me from smoking in public places and within 25 feet of entrances to public places.
Sorry you're so mad about having to walk a few extra feet away. If you're too fat to walk that far, maybe you could get one of those little scooters and drive over there.
Dude... i was not talking about you, I understand what ur saying and i thought it was a good point. I was talking about the other assholes.
I guess Warboards is a nice place up until you run into someone with a drastically different opinion for which you solicit. It's kind of funny that you start crying about everybody being insulting then you turn around and insult everyone at Warboards. If you want to make a case for smoking, by all means. But repeating over and over "CONSITUTUTIOTN CONTSTITUTION! CONSTIUTITOTONAL!" gives you no basis for repealing any of the laws. It just makes you look like an uninformed dolt trying to annex human rights documents to lend your viewpoint validity. By the way, it's not working.
I'm only an asshole when people attack "me" I wanted to know if you thought the government had the right to do this... If i was not clear then call me a dumbass because of that. I want to know if you think the government has the right to do this. If so why? i wanted to keep peoples personal opinions on smoking out of this.
As for me saying "Contitution" over and over again well i believe i only said that once and i didnt say "CONSTITUTION!" I did get mad and say you people make me sick... but I think i have a right to say that because i did not want your opinion on smokers i have had an "opinion on smokers" thread Before and that didnt go well. So just chill out You say i see you as an asshole because you have a different opinion then me? hahahahahaha, i would look at ur posts if i were you, you personally attacked people for having a different opinion. man your such a hippocrate it's just sad.
UnHoly-Assassin
11-30-2005, 10:32 PM
Isn't attacking opinions the basis of debate? As long as we don't get too personal, I don't see it too much of a problem. And this very debate cannot avoid the subject on the ethics of the smokers who releases the fume into the air by which other people breathe. Simply put, my stance is that the government is right to put such restrictions because it addresses it as a public health hazard, as it should be.
frazz
11-30-2005, 11:39 PM
Of course it's false pity, it's called sarcasm.
The health of an individual should be at the individuals own choosing. If you disagree with this position, then so be it. I choose not to mandate the health of the public as I feel quite comfortable letting them take care of themselves. If you wish to coddle the public and wipe their collective asses, then be my guest. If an individual wishes to fill their lungs with black tar, why should I try to stop them? It's people like you that feel the need to save everyone from themselves that truly disgusts me.
Perhaps if you string together a few more words you'll look smarter, but for now it's just a bunch of rhetoric.
You still have yet to say anything constructive. Though you have succeeded(spelling?) in insulting everybody again.
GA said it all pretty well:
Your false pity outlined with your Big Brother insinuations are just a strawman that underscores your true motives: you'd prefer to have "control" over your business whether or not it's to the detriment of everyone around you. The government is reining in an almost ominpresent, addicting health hazard, and the majority supports it; this is We, the People watching over ourselves. "Personal responsibility is a bitch" is your attempt to downplay the issue of health consequences of smoking in public with a flippant one-liner that neither addresses the problem nor commits you to any defense.
In short, you're no longer rebutting any points nor are you constructing any points of your own; you're just hoping that wit and vague truisms are going to distract from your hollow stance. Thanks for your participation...I think this is pretty much over.
Oh. and I only used thirty words.
Kingscrab
12-01-2005, 7:09 AM
I want to know if you think the government has the right to do this. If so why? i wanted to keep peoples personal opinions on smoking out of this. The government makes rules based on public sentiment of the majority, and the opinions of the people... based on their wants and needs... right? They (governemnt) represent the majority of opinions. How can a person answer your question without injecting some of their own personal opinions on the matter? Your intro question seemed pretty opinionated too.
This is the IR, dude. Opinions flow like water around here. ;)
You still have yet to say anything constructive. Though you have succeeded(spelling?) in insulting everybody again.
Your words are equivalent to "Nuh uh!" Debate the issue or get out of IR.
Your words are equivalent to "Nuh uh!" Debate the issue or get out of IR.
And yet... when one (such as myself) counters someone else's points (such as yours Nuts) the points are ignored, especially if they are irrefuteable (such as mine were).
So... NUH UH, NUH UH, YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?!!!??!~
And yet... when one (such as myself) counters someone else's points (such as yours Nuts) the points are ignored, especially if they are irrefuteable (such as mine were).
So... NUH UH, NUH UH, YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?!!!??!~
Actually I thought you made some decent points, but my questions weren't really designed to further my argument, a mistake on my part. Besides, replying to your posts require much more thought, so I really haven't had time to reply to them per say, although I did plan to and still would like to given I have more spare time to form a proper rebuttal.
GenocideAlive
12-01-2005, 11:13 AM
Of course it's false pity, it's called sarcasm.
I'm not sure of what difference you're trying to posit. It still illustrates my point beautifully.
The health of an individual should be at the individuals own choosing.
False. This isn't, wasn't, and never will be in effect: suicide is illegal, intentionally harming onesself is grounds for loss of freedoms (you will be arrested, then institutionalized), the FDA regulates which drugs are acceptable to buy and sell, and the police enforce those standards. You have no reasonable basis for your opinion other than that you hold it; that you think this opinion should eclipse those with a basis is totally laughable. Ha.
I choose not to mandate the health of the public as I feel quite comfortable letting them take care of themselves. If you wish to coddle the public and wipe their collective asses, then be my guest. It's people like you that feel the need to save everyone from themselves that truly disgusts me.
Ah, but here you've again proven my previous point to be an exact analysis of your crumbling foundation. You don't care about anybody or their health; you want to hold your beliefs high above your head while the shit piles up at everybody's feet. Thankfully, your selfish opinion has been completely rejected by nearly every government at large due to the fact that it's a non-existant basis for forming a series of regulations to keep healthcare and the overall condition of the citizens in an acceptable range. Abandoning the oversight of general public health in the name of some bullshit fantasy of "freedom" will never happen.
I'm glad you went out of your way to state that people with social responsibility disgust you--it's telling of your character.
It's surprising the number of people who respond to an analysis with its predicted product. You basically outlined and underscored everything I had said earlier.
Actually I thought you made some decent points, but my questions weren't really designed to further my argument, a mistake on my part. Besides, replying to your posts require much more thought, so I really haven't had time to reply to them per say, although I did plan to and still would like to given I have more spare time to form a proper rebuttal.
Nice dodge. BTW, the phrase you're looking for is "per se". I'm going to avoid the usual condescending remarks we exchange at this stage, as it's getting a little old.
Being able to smoke is freedom for some people, but not freedom for the majority, really. You may have an option to give serious health problems to the crowd around you, but for everyone else if the choice is go outside or have a chance of suffering serious health problems some time in the future. That is not "freedom." I know this is an exaggeration, though.
What if people were "free" to drinkdrive? They have the "freedom", the "absolute liberty" of getting themselves killed, but they also risk other people's lives. People should have the "freedom" to walk across a road or drive a car under the speed limit without getting themselves killed by some idiot.
frazz
12-05-2005, 10:44 PM
Your words are equivalent to "Nuh uh!" Debate the issue or get out of IR.
So were yours right there.
Oh, I mean
Nuh-uh!!!
GenocideAlive
12-06-2005, 12:01 AM
Don't bug about it. I seriously doubt he'll be back to this thread, as he's pretty much been drubbed at every turn.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.