Quote from: tab

Quote from: RVertigoThe Smoking Ban is about smell, nothing else...  

um, yea, its not the smoke that makes my eyes start to water and burn or cause me to wheeze and cough  

Could be pollen.  How do people deal with that?  Let's ban gratuitous landscaping!

Okay, I know I'm being facetious.

But...what if bar/restaurant owners who where so inclined were to improve ventilation around designated smoking areas?  As a moderately interesting side note, grilling meat sends carcinogens into the air.  Should we ban this in restaurants?  Of course not...they already have the technology to ventilate the kitchen adequately (and vent it outside).  Also, burning charcoal creates smoke that contains high concentrations of carbon monoxide and carries these same carcinogens.  Should we outlaw barbeques?  Should we shut down rib joints?  Prohibit cooking meat "well done"?

If people want to get outraged about something, I don't understand why folks aren't jumping up and down about the segregation, harassment, and discrimination of an entire group of people.  It is perfectly acceptable to include "non smoker" as a job requirement...I know that (at least at one time, dunno if it still is) this was a requirement to apply for the Massachusetts State Police.  If it were almost anything else, it would be discrimination.  If smoking were a religion, I bet this entire discussion would be moot.

I'm not trying to convince anybody that smoking is a good idea, or try to tell people to "suck it up and deal with it, damnit".  I just think there are other issues related to the legislative restriction of smoking that I feel set some very chilling precedents.  Of course, being a smoker, no one is going to listen to me anyway.  :dunno:

Quote from: BlueknytAll the Non smoking seats are full but the smoking section is only 1/4 filled?

I think you might be missing a critical point...there is no smoking section.  Period.  Not in Massachusetts.  Not in restaurants.  Not in bars.  Against the law.  Go outside...but don't stand near the entrance.  

There have been rumblings about banning smoking on public streets within city limits.  I think it's unlikely (this was already blocked in another town), but I've been surprised before.

badger, good thing you declared that you were being facetious upfront. :lol:

i look it at this way, non smokers also have the right not to be subjected to second hand smoking, when in a bar, restaurant, or any other public places. it's the smokers who have successfully sued the tabacco companies for making cigarette "toxic"...no wonder our society is trying to ban smoking in the public places.

if you choose to go to a restaurant and get a cancer from carcinogens of grilling meat, that's fine. but no one should be force to second hand smoke.

I think you are missing a critical point here...smoking is harmful to you and others around you when you smoke. do you expect the non smokers to be banned?

Quote from: JetSwingi look it at this way, non smokers also have the right not to be subjected to second hand smoking

So, do I have the right not to be subjected to automobile pollution?  Body odor?  Germs?  Screaming children?  There are lots of things I don't like.  What we like is irrelevant.

Quote from: JetSwingI think you are missing a critical point here...smoking is harmful to you and others around you when you smoke.

Smoking is harmful to me.  Accepted.  There is no law preventing me from smoking, that is not the issue.  Laws are not intended to protect people from the stupid things they do to themselves.  Drinking alcohol is harmful to you.  Eating a Big Mac is harmful to you.  Sitting on the sofa eating bon bons instead of training for a marathon is harmful to you.  Guess what?  Riding a motorcycle is harmful to you.

I think what has not been adequately established is the scope of harmfulness to others.  This was the earlier section of this debate.  Even so...driving your car is harmful to others, but that is acceptable.  Sure, you can say that I'm ignoring the 'facts' and 'studies', but I would submit that the findings aren't consistent with my non-scientific observations.  If they were true and accurate, non smokers should be dropping left and right from lung cancer.  I don't see it among the people that I know, and statistically that should be an anomoly.  Regardless of what people say, I find it impossible to accept that second hand smoke harms more people than pollution caused by automobiles.  I would be very interested in seeing data that compares the quantity of pollutants in cigarette smoke to the output of the average SUV exhaust.

Quote from: JetSwingdo you expect the non smokers to be banned?

I don't expect anyone to be banned.  That is my point...that would be taking away liberties.  Prohibition is not the answer.  Why not try to find ways to resolve the real problem?  If the real issue is concentrations of particulate matter in the air, ventilation fixes that.  If the issue is the smell, I think we've illustrated that attacking smokers for this is [unfairly?] singling out only one offender.  Smelling bad is not against the law.  

If the issue is that people just don't like it...then I would say that they should just learn to live with it.  We have to put up with things we don't like.  That's the price of freedom.

My problem with the prevailing attitude on this issue is that there is such an anti-smoking policital climate right now, the predominant reaction is to simply ban smoking everywhere, eliminate the problem, and make The People happy.  No other alternatives are being considered...after all, it only effects a minority of the population...but aren't we supposed to defend the minority?  We do not live in a society of mob rule, and our government is supposed to be structured to prevent that.

Unfortunately, I think this is largely because of a social guilt ingrained in smokers, such that they will not stand up while their liberties are being stripped...and that it is not pollitically correct to defend smokers.  Now that smokers have become a dwindling minority, I expect it's only a matter of time.  I would like to think that even if I wasn't a smoker, I still wouldn't support anti-smoking legislation...but who knows.

let's just establish the fact that harming YOURSELF by eating big macs, drinking alcohol, eating bon bons, or riding motorcycle are harmful to you not others. this should not even be part of this discussion. if a cigarette was like big mac, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

yes, no one cares if you smoke and kill yourself. but you're keep ignoring and dismissing the fact that smoking does harm others. if you accept the fact the smoking is harmful to you, why can't you accept that if someone sitting next to you inhale the same smoke, it would cause harm?

how many people do you know that doesn't drive because the air pollution will cause them harm? exactly! you can not compare life necessity with cigarettes. i can name 1000 more things that cause harm to all human kind but these are the result of our advancement, which we have no feasible solutions to. though we're trying to find solutions for these problems.

as for it being a political issue, any issue that a mass number of people care about is going to become a political issue. the politicians will make it their issue. i don't if there's anything you can do about that.  :dunno:

Quote from: JetSwingriding motorcycle is harmful to you not others.

Wrong.

OWNED!   :lol:

Really though...  People don't really think about the worst things harming them... Things they can't do anything about.  

Additives in our foods that make us unhealthy.
Toxic smoke from machinery and vehicles.

Cigarette smoke is NOWHERE NEAR as bad as vehicle exhaust...  Nowhere near.  Yet...  You can run your diesel truck with the exhaust pointed straight at someone's window...  or let it come in the door...  or get sucked into an air intake.

That's not illegal.  It will KILL you...  A few hours in a room with exhaust WILL KILL YOU, but directly inhaling cigarette smoke into your lungs for years doesn't kill you.  

BBQ fumes are also far worse that cigarette smoke...  I could go on and on...  

Why do cigarettes have to be 25 ft away from a door/window/intake, but all these TOXIC and DEADLY fumes can be right in it...  There's no law against it.

That's really my point...  People are confused about the smoking ban issue.  Second hand smoke is NOWHERE NEAR as bad as smoking...  And smoking is NOWHERE NEAR as bad as breathing the deadly fumes we put up with on a daily basis.

I think smoking should be isolated so people can choose to avoid it...  Not banned. :dunno:

Quote from: JetSwingthis should not even be part of this discussion.

:dunno: you brought it up:

Quote from: JetSwingI think you are missing a critical point here...smoking is harmful to you and others around you

My point was that it was irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote from: JetSwingif you accept the fact the smoking is harmful to you, why can't you accept that if someone sitting next to you inhale the same smoke, it would cause harm?

Define what you mean by 'harm'?  Critical harm?  More harm than burning a candle?  Cooking a steak on a Weber grill?  The only measurement of second hand smoke intake I've seen (the 2000 ORNL study) concluded that employees in a smoking environment got the equivalent of 6 cigarettes a year.  That's 1.6% of one cigarette a day.  Do I think that's harmful?  Not especially.

Quote from: JetSwingyou can not compare life necessity with cigarettes.

Do you think driving a Hummer is a necessity?  How about a Ferrari?  Ford Expedition?  Do you ever go nowhere on your motorcycle...just out for a ride?  Is that a life necessity?  People want to drive their vehicles whenever, however, and for whatever reason...and no one will challenge their right to do so.  How is this different?

Quote from: RVertigoI think smoking should be isolated so people can choose to avoid it...  Not banned. :dunno:

See?  The smokers agree.  

what a surprise! you know who funded the 2000 ORNL study? yup, tabacco companies. not only that, they've used flawed methodology. tabacco companies planned to used the study to lift the ban but look how far that has come after 5 years...

just use your common sense. how much harm you would get from second hand smoking depends on how much exposure you have to second hand smoking (duh). it's really on case by case basis. but i could see how a person who's exposed to second hand smoking on a daily basis can be really bad.

Now...  When it comes to young people being forced to be around smoke...  That's totally different.    Since the problem solving portions of the brain form last, society needs to problem solve for them...

Any enclosed area that people under 18 (or maybe 21) are allowed, should be totally smoke free.  Places that only allow people over that age should have the right to choose their own policies.

If the "adults only" business caters to a specific market of non-smokers, then they should be smoke free...  If the market is smokers, then they should allow smoking.

Putting smoking on the street only puts the smoke in more people's faces.  It's hard to avoid the sidewalk, but it's easy to not enter a building where smoking is allowed.

Quote from: JetSwingwhat a surprise! you know who funded the 2000 ORNL study? yup, tabacco companies. not only that, they've used flawed methodology. tabacco companies planned to used the study to lift the ban but look how far that has come after 5 years...

Right.  There are no unbiased studies, no indisputable results.  Their funding ultimately comes directly from tobacco companies or indirectly from anti-tobacco lobbyists.  

Quote from: JetSwingjust use your common sense. how much harm you would get from second hand smoking depends on how much exposure you have to second hand smoking (duh).

That's sort of my point.  Smoke loses concentration quicky as it expands to fit volume.  Equillibrium and all that.  Even a few cubic feet is a lot of volume to fill.  I haven't done the math, but I simply find it difficult to believe that inhaling a dissipated quantity of smoke from the air can be remotely comperable to actively smoking a cigarette.  If someone wants to work it out, I'd love to see it.  The best number that I have is the ORNL conclusion: 6 cigarettes a year.   :dunno:

Just like a clam-bake...  You have to fill a very small area with a very high volume of smoke for anyone to feel effects.

I think there should be smoking lounges.

People go to restaurants to eat, mainly. You expect cooking smells since restaurants SERVE FOOD!

People go to bars to drink (and get laid obviously)  

People should go to smoking lounges to smoke.

:dunno:

have you even read what the 2000 ORNL study were conducted? they had people wear a filter to sample air? what kind of conclusion would that bring...?

the researchers have been working with RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris since 1975.

"The study is fundamentally flawed." responed British Medical Association.

they refused to published the study...

the journal wrote back to the researchers, saying "The editors believe that this opinion piece is full of speculative assumptions of doubtful scientific value. We could not judge the merits of your criticisms because your own data and methods were so inadequately described. I should add that your article contains pejorative comments that should have no place in responsible scientific discourse."

these are the most recent article on study on secondhand smoking that i could find.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_2_1x_More_Studies_Slam_Secondhand_Smoke.asp

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-08-smoking-breastcancer_x.htm

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3011851

badger, i don't know what you do for living but you should consider quitting your job and go work a tabacco company. they need people more like you.

rvertigo, i only have one thing to say to you...

O W N E D   :nana:

Quote from: PhaedrusI think there should be smoking lounges.

People go to restaurants to eat, mainly. You expect cooking smells since restaurants SERVE FOOD!

People go to bars to drink (and get laid obviously)  

People should go to smoking lounges to smoke.

:dunno:

And if states would allow something like that, I'd vote for it!  Too bad they don't...  I have no problem with segregating the non-smokers (whiners)...  I just don't think smoking should be banned.   :dunno:

Quote from: JetSwingrvertigo, i only have one thing to say to you...

O W N E D   :nana:

Now that's just childish...  I can't believe you would take a serious debate like this and turn it into some kind of "owning" competition...  Just sad.  





















OWNED! :lol:

that blank space trick is so lame...anyone with half the brains knows you would write "owned" at the end  

OWNED!  :lol:

i think i'm done chit chatting on the topic of smoking...

Quote from: JetSwingi think i'm done chit chatting on the topic of smoking...

Ur Srsly Trd of ownage!


Yeah...  There's nothing more to discuss here...  Smokers want to smoke and non-smokers want to (whine) not smell it.  :dunno:

Outnumbered again...   :dunno:

Everyone in my family smokes and have friends that do it. Been around it ever since I was born. I took a single puff probably when I was 12 and that's been it for my entire life. I have a feeling I'm in the minority, though. Never appealed to me. Not attracted to it at all. It's a deal breaker with girls if I'm going to start dating them. Also, never tried a single drug (expect drinking... a lot) in my entire life. Go me!