Revisiting the News 1: The Smoking Ban

[LSN80]

This is subject manner(looking back to past news) Id like to hit on regularly, once a week optimally. The goal here is to look at stories that created controversy in the past, and discuss them now since they've died down. How have things turned out? Are you happy with the current resolution to the problem? Id like to discuss this and more throughout this series. Let's start with one that created alot of division, the smoking ban in public places. I'm going to discuss the ban with regards to my state, Pennsylvania, so feel free to look at with regards to your own state.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/clean_indoor_air/14187

The Clean Indoor Act was signed into effect on June 13th, 2008 by former PA governor Ed Rendell. According to the ban, restaurants, bars,sporting events, workplaces and state and federal buildings were given 90 days to get into compliance with eliminating smoking from their facilities. Cigar Bars and Private Clubs have been deemed to be exempt from the ban, to date. With regards to restaurants and bars, ashtrays had to be removed, and signs posted declaring no smoking was permitted on the premises. If places were not found to be in compliance within the 30 days, fines could be levied, and businesses shut down for multiple offenses. By 2011, 80% of public places within Pennsylvania were smoke free with regards to the tenants of the ban. Why was this ban put into effect in the first place, you ask? According to the World Health Organization, the answer is simple:

Smoking is optional, breathing is not.

The effects of smoking on the lungs & how second hand smoke affects individuals have been well documented, and are used as the primary arguments as to why the ban is necessary.Further, the American Health Association released detailed figures that 50,000 Americans die of second hand smoke each year, including 3,000 Pennsylvanians. Of course, these are obvious arguments for the ban. My question is this:What are some other reasonable reasons for banning public smoking?

When the bill was passed by Governor Rendell, there was an outcry of dispute and dissatisfaction, both from businesses and individuals. According to the American Health Association, the following are the top 3 reasons individuals gave as to why the smoking ban was a negative thing:

1.Smoking is legal, so why shouldn't I be able to smoke where I choose?

I used to agree with this sentiment, to a point. As someone who smoked for a few months back in 2008, I was angered when I was approached by security at PNC Park while attending a Pirates game and told to put my cigarette out. I was away from people, as I was standing near a railing, taking in the view of the Pittsburgh skyline. But what I've realized is this: Adapt. If it's that important for you and me to smoke at a certain time, avoid places that don't allow smoke. Or, step outside for a minute to smoke if it's that important. There have always been places that only allowed smoking in certain places to begin with, so a person should be able to adapt to further restrictions. It may not be ideal, but it's not as much of a bear as people make it out to be. The option of smoking outside has always been there.

2. Restaurants/Bars that have smoking and non-smoking sections as they do now should be able to keep them.

Well, here is a fair point, right? After all, there have been restaurants that allowed for small sections for smoking for years. However, what people fail to realize is that while there were small smoking sections in many restaurants, most of the restaurant prohibited it anyway.The majority of people don't want to be around smoke in the first place, which is why many restaurants evolved from allowing smoking throughout to sectioning it off into small places. It leaves far less exposure to second hand smoke, and it's a natural evolutionary process as we've progressed from a time I remember where restaurants/bars allowed smoking everywhere. As we've progressed as a society, we've learned more about the effects of second hand smoke, and we've gone from allowing smoking throughout a restaurant, allowing it in sectioned of places, and finally to not allowing it at all indoors. I think it's been a healthy and successful progression, and this is coming from an ex-smoker.

3. People who don't like smoke can just avoid places that allow smoking.

Unfortunately with this logic, there are less people who do smoke then there are people who do. Further, before the law was passed, when was the last time you went to a restaurant, be it Olive Garden, Chili's, or the Cheesecake Factory, and they were smoke free? This argument assumes that there are options available to non-smokers to eat freely where they choose. Rather, these places are now appealing to the majority. Not only do they provide for a healthier environment, but it's simply good business. I ask you, what's better for a restaurant: A place filled to 25% capacity with smokers, or 75% with non-smokers? To me, it's just common sense.

In summary, when the bill was first passed, I was upset at it. I smoked regularly for a few months, and was a social smoker for years when I drank. It was an enjoyable part of the drinking experience, and it was an automatic thing. But my lungs felt healthier through time, and I realized that if I really wanted to smoke, all I had to do was step outside. After all, it's not a ban on smoking, just on the places where one can smoke.

Do you believe the government overstepped their bounds in mandating where people can and cannot smoke?

How did the ban on smoking affect you personally at the time? What was your initial reaction, and has it changed over time?

If you could set the restrictions on where people could smoke, what would they be?

What are your thoughts on the arguments against the smoking ban? Any other valid arguments you hold that I didn't touch on?

All other thoughts and discussions are welcome as you look back on the ban from several years back. Please feel free to discuss what the laws are in your own state as compared to mine. Use the questions as a launching pad, but feel free to take this discussion anywhere you choose.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

I've been a part of the Wrestlezone Forums for years, but this is my very first post in the The Cigar Lounge! I kind of find it a little ironic that it's on a post having to do with SMOKING!

I have several different, sometimes contradiction views on this subject. I'm going to try and get them out and have them make sense without crashing into each other, but I don't know if I can. First I should note that I do not actively smoke, nor have I ever been a regular smoker. I do on occasion, usually as a social thing (very much different than peer pressure, I assure you) or in times of great stress, but that is about it. I feel like full disclosure is necessary in matters like this, as it can effect your personal bias.

1) I have no issue with smoking, or people smoking. In high school some of the people in my car pool would occasionally smoke, and having extremely minor asthma issues, I would just ask them politely to open a window on the rare occasion it bothered me. It was never an issue... My stance is that no matter the chemical or substance, what you choose to do with your body is completely up to you. The issue you run into with smoking, is it's not like alcohol where you can contain it responsibly to your person. Second-hand smoke is a killer... All the same, it boils down to personal responsibility.

2) I do not believe the government should have the ability to mandate our personal responsibility. At that point it becomes the appearance of freedom, and not actually freedom. This is way more applicable when you're dealing with marijuana than with cigerettes, which are still legal (for now). In the same way I don't believe big government should mandate the principles for small businesses. That's a gateway for larger control that has made it almost impossible for young business owner to succeed, thus crippling the "American Dream" of a free-market capitalist society. All that to say: I don't think government should be demanding that privately owned establishments do anything. If a privately owned bar or shop wants to demand that people not smoke in their establishment, that should be completely up to them!

3) I do think it is the government's right, and possibly their responsibility to limit where people can smoke on public property. That is NOT owned by an individual, but rather by the state and funded with tax money. THerefor, by the laws they have every right to not allow smoking where they see fit. That includes outside of establishments, as the government has claim to 10 feet in every direction from a public road. It includes sidewalks, city streets, public parks, public schools, and any government-owned places of employment. These are laws meant for a greater purpose, and upsetting them would upset the way the balance of power works. As somebody who lives near Chicago, I can say it's been very noticeable in parks and on downtown streets. The grounds are less cluttered, and while it may just be perception the air seems more breathable.

4) While I have these strong convictions on the laws, personal responsibility, and limiting the government...it's hard to argue with the results. While rights are being taken away (from businesses, not the smokers) the sheer amount of people smoking has gone down. At least in the Chicago and surrounding suburb area, the smoking rate has dropped considerably. From talking to my youngest brother, I've heard that smoking is no longer the "cool thing" to do in high school, and most people that do are looked on as unhealthy. From what I can tell the newer generations are slowly working towards a healthier country, and THAT is a good thing. But as I already said, it's all about personal responsibility. We shouldn't have to be controlled by laws in order to maintain a healthy life-style.

 

[Mustang Sally]

If homeowners look at their deeds (and apartment dwellers check their leases) they'll often find a clause that provides for "the quiet enjoyment of your premises," meaning you can have pretty much free reign in your home.......as long as you don't bother anyone else.

Loud noise is often the rub with people. You can play music in your apartment, but you shouldn't be able to play it so loud that it infringes on your neighbors, who might not be amenable to being forced to listen to your music. The people playing the music might invoke the "We have rights, too!" stuff, but it rings thin when it's plainly trampling the rights of those who don't want your music filling their ears.

The same applies to smoking in public places. Privately, I don't care if people want to smoke until their lungs rot out; I just don't want to be forced to have their cigarette smoke invade my space at a restaurant to the point I can't even taste my food.

Yes, you smokers have your rights, but when your rights obliterate the rights of others, government often (not always) will step in and act for the public good. We can debate all we want about personal freedoms and who's right and wrong.....and I can understand the anger of smokers since they have historically been allowed to smoke wherever they wanted......but with all the documented evidence of how harmful second-hand smoke can be, I would like to believe that even hardcore smokers understand why the government stepped in on this issue.

Most of them, anyway.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I've never been a smoker. When these laws were first being enacted I was highly against them. I felt that the laws were infringing upon citizens rights and freedoms. As time has passed I am fully supportive. I like being able to go out (which is rare nowadays) and not come back smelling like hell. However, the way I justified being ok with the law now is that if we had known back then what we know now about the effects of smoking we would have made it illegal to smoke in bars and restaurants in the first place.

If I could change anything about the law, I would allow establishments to allow smoking if they are willing to pay a large licensing fee (possibly a nice revenue boost for the gov't). However, I think what would end up happening is that those businesses would only attract small groups of clientele and ultimately fail since most people seem to really enjoy the non-smoking atmosphere.

 

[Larry]

Do you believe the government overstepped their bounds in mandating where people can and cannot smoke?

Completely. It's not their job or right to do so, nor are they given that power anywhere in any document to say where a person can or can not smoke and make that kind of legislation. If they wanted to do something about it they could have mandated that people have to install a proper ventilation system to filter it out of indoor places as many already did. As for outdoor areas I think it's complete bullshit. I'm sorry but when I am standing OUTSIDE, in wide open space, my smoke it going up into the air okay. That's not going into someone elses lungs, it's not POISONING them, it's not doing anything to anyone, it's dissipating in air. And how the hell can they say that it has any actual effect on the air??? Seriously??? Like the sky isn't big enough for that to be irrelevant? Please.

How did the ban on smoking affect you personally at the time? What was your initial reaction, and has it changed over time?

Greatly. I can't even smoke in my own apartment even though I pay for it. At places like the horse track, baseball stadium, the college I went to, the hospital, amusement park(Outdoors of course) and many other places public and private you can't even smoke outside at all or on the grounds. Even at the state fair which a massive outdoor event on the fairgrounds you can't smoke even though it's OUTSIDE and there is room all over. This is fascist bullshit and it's discrimination. That's the way I felt about it before, that's the way I fell about it now.

If you could set the restrictions on where people could smoke, what would they be?

EVERYWHERE. At one time you could smoke in schools, grocery stores, department stores, sports parks, arenas, restaurants, hospitals, everywhere. I don't recall a bunch of people dying from second hand smoke back then, that's some shit that they've come up with to discriminate against smokers even more. I'm not denying that it's unhealthy to smoke, but for Christ sake I find it rather hard to believe that the minimal exposure to second hand smoke that the non-smoker may be exposed to seriously does what these new-age assholes are claiming. But, people will believe just about anything they are told by just about anyone in a lab coat that claims to be a doctor(Proven fact) as they search for a justification to discriminate against smokers and put more sanctions on peoples rights. Do you realize that in most big cities the air is more toxic than any cigarette smoke ever could be, and even more toxic than exhaust fumes from a car??? Yeah. That's mostly from the accumulation of cars exhaust fumes and other pollutants, not cigarette smoke for fuck sake. Did anyone even factor that in when they did the studies?That maybe some of this was coming about due to people breathing air for years and years in these cities that was unclean? Unlikely. They just found a scapegoat and blamed it all on cigarettes.

What are your thoughts on the arguments against the smoking ban? Any other valid arguments you hold that I didn't touch on?

As I've said I think it's just propaganda used to censor yet another group of people and put sanctions on peoples rights. Smokers are one of the most discriminated groups in America and it's getting worse and worse. Some places won't even hire you if you're a smoker and there is nothing to stop it, no protections, nothing. It's "Fuck you, you're a horrible filthy smoker whose killing everyone around you, we're not going to hire you". I am tired of the discrimination, hate campaigns against smokers making them out to be this burden on society and so on.

If it was so horrible, why are there more people who smoke for 20, 30, 40, 50 years and never get cancer, never get emphysema, COPD, heart disease, etc....from smoking. I can tell you why, because it's more to do with your genetics than it is with smoking at all. If you're going to get cancer, COPD, Emphysema, heart disease, etc...your going to get it, smoking or not smoking or being exposed to in slightly or not being exposed to it isn't going to matter. It's the same reason why people who live perfectly healthy lives don't have better health statistics than those that do everything "Wrong" because most of that stuff is bullshit, it's entirely based on your genetics, and has little to do with outside factors. My dad was a very healthy man, didn't smoke, drink, do drugs, he ate right, worked hard his whole life and stayed in shape, and he died of leukemia 2 years ago. He did nothing to bring it about, but he got it anyway. I think the truth of the matter is that there are a million factors to cause all of these things, most notably genetics as I stated, but smoking was one they felt they could demonize the easiest and point to and lay the blame on which they did.

The government can't prevent or try to prevent unavoidable health issues that people will have by discriminating against people, taking away their rights, making them enemies of the people basically, and trying to control the perceived factors like this. Eventually what are they going to do next? "Oh, you can't drink in your home because you might leave the oven on and start a fire, or fall and bump your head, or anything else you could possibly do". "Oh, you can't use butter on your toast or in other cooking because it will make you obese and clog your arteries, we can't have that" "Oh, you can't go eat fast food either because it will make you obese too" "Fast Food companies, you can't offer burgers and fries, they're too unhealthy". What about personal responsibility???

How about if a place allows smoking you just don't go there and quit being bastards to these people who simply don't want to be forced into the cold in the winter just to have a smoke, or into the blazing heat of the summer, or the rain, or snow, or out of their own homes, or be banned from doing so in a ton of other places because there are a few uptight assholes who think they're going to die from someone else smoking? And, Why don't some other people get the bright idea to cater to the non-smoking crowd and start businesses to do just that and provide some jobs in the process instead of taking away our right, demonizing us, and treating us like fucking deviates? I am tired of the censorship, the smear campaign, and the lies about smoking. Sure it's not the best thing for you, but I think this shit has been totally blown out of proportion and that the facts have been fixed to rush people into the hospitals, diagnose them with shit, and put them on meds and give them surgeries to further the medical industry and the insurance industry as well. They get to drive up costs and premiums "Because you are a smoker" and of course these treatments cost a lot of money too so we've got to charge the insurance companies more which just gets past on to you.

 

[Slyfox696]

Do you believe the government overstepped their bounds in mandating where people can and cannot smoke?

Absolutely not. The government is charged with the task of protecting its citizens from outside harm, and the effect of smoking, both on the smoker and the people around him, are well documented. Quite honestly, I'm more incensed this didn't happen sooner and nationwide.

How did the ban on smoking affect you personally at the time? What was your initial reaction, and has it changed over time?

It made me hope this becomes law in every state.

If you could set the restrictions on where people could smoke, what would they be?

If I could do it, I would make smoking illegal. But realistically, people should have the right to smoke in their homes but ONLY if they do not have a child under the age of 18. People have a right to smoke in their yard, if they have one. People have the right to smoke in their motor vehicle, so long as all cigarette butts remain in the vehicle and not thrown on public or private property.

Which brings me to the next thing I would do, which is have throwing cigarette butts on public and private property (that is not your own) considered littering in the eyes of the law and tickets issued for anytime you do it. Is it REALLY that difficult to throw your cigarette butt in the trash after you stamp it out?

What are your thoughts on the arguments against the smoking ban? Any other valid arguments you hold that I didn't touch on?

There are no reasonable arguments against the smoking ban. As has already been said in this thread, your right to do whatever you want with you body ends the moment it infringes upon my right to do whatever I want with mine.

There are no valid arguments at all against the smoking ban.

Do you believe the government overstepped their bounds in mandating where people can and cannot smoke?

Completely. It's not their job or right to do so, nor are they given that power anywhere in any document to say where a person can or can not smoke and make that kind of legislation. If they wanted to do something about it they could have mandated that people have to install a proper ventilation system to filter it out of indoor places as many already did. As for outdoor areas I think it's complete bullshit. I'm sorry but when I am standing OUTSIDE, in wide open space, my smoke it going up into the air okay. That's not going into someone elses lungs, it's not POISONING them, it's not doing anything to anyone, it's dissipating in air. And how the hell can they say that it has any actual effect on the air??? Seriously??? Like the sky isn't big enough for that to be irrelevant? Please.

How did the ban on smoking affect you personally at the time? What was your initial reaction, and has it changed over time?

Greatly. I can't even smoke in my own apartment even though I pay for it. At places like the horse track, baseball stadium, the college I went to, the hospital, amusement park(Outdoors of course) and many other places public and private you can't even smoke outside at all or on the grounds. Even at the state fair which a massive outdoor event on the fairgrounds you can't smoke even though it's OUTSIDE and there is room all over. This is fascist bullshit and it's discrimination. That's the way I felt about it before, that's the way I fell about it now.

If you could set the restrictions on where people could smoke, what would they be?

EVERYWHERE. At one time you could smoke in schools, grocery stores, department stores, sports parks, arenas, restaurants, hospitals, everywhere. I don't recall a bunch of people dying from second hand smoke back then, that's some shit that they've come up with to discriminate against smokers even more. I'm not denying that it's unhealthy to smoke, but for Christ sake I find it rather hard to believe that the minimal exposure to second hand smoke that the non-smoker may be exposed to seriously does what these new-age assholes are claiming. But, people will believe just about anything they are told by just about anyone in a lab coat that claims to be a doctor(Proven fact) as they search for a justification to discriminate against smokers and put more sanctions on peoples rights. Do you realize that in most big cities the air is more toxic than any cigarette smoke ever could be, and even more toxic than exhaust fumes from a car??? Yeah. That's mostly from the accumulation of cars exhaust fumes and other pollutants, not cigarette smoke for fuck sake. Did anyone even factor that in when they did the studies?That maybe some of this was coming about due to people breathing air for years and years in these cities that was unclean? Unlikely. They just found a scapegoat and blamed it all on cigarettes.

What are your thoughts on the arguments against the smoking ban? Any other valid arguments you hold that I didn't touch on?

As I've said I think it's just propaganda used to censor yet another group of people and put sanctions on peoples rights. Smokers are one of the most discriminated groups in America and it's getting worse and worse. Some places won't even hire you if you're a smoker and there is nothing to stop it, no protections, nothing. It's "Fuck you, you're a horrible filthy smoker whose killing everyone around you, we're not going to hire you". I am tired of the discrimination, hate campaigns against smokers making them out to be this burden on society and so on.

If it was so horrible, why are there more people who smoke for 20, 30, 40, 50 years and never get cancer, never get emphysema, COPD, heart disease, etc....from smoking. I can tell you why, because it's more to do with your genetics than it is with smoking at all. If you're going to get cancer, COPD, Emphysema, heart disease, etc...your going to get it, smoking or not smoking or being exposed to in slightly or not being exposed to it isn't going to matter. It's the same reason why people who live perfectly healthy lives don't have better health statistics than those that do everything "Wrong" because most of that stuff is bullshit, it's entirely based on your genetics, and has little to do with outside factors. My dad was a very healthy man, didn't smoke, drink, do drugs, he ate right, worked hard his whole life and stayed in shape, and he died of leukemia 2 years ago. He did nothing to bring it about, but he got it anyway. I think the truth of the matter is that there are a million factors to cause all of these things, most notably genetics as I stated, but smoking was one they felt they could demonize the easiest and point to and lay the blame on which they did.

The government can't prevent or try to prevent unavoidable health issues that people will have by discriminating against people, taking away their rights, making them enemies of the people basically, and trying to control the perceived factors like this. Eventually what are they going to do next? "Oh, you can't drink in your home because you might leave the oven on and start a fire, or fall and bump your head, or anything else you could possibly do". "Oh, you can't use butter on your toast or in other cooking because it will make you obese and clog your arteries, we can't have that" "Oh, you can't go eat fast food either because it will make you obese too" "Fast Food companies, you can't offer burgers and fries, they're too unhealthy". What about personal responsibility???

How about if a place allows smoking you just don't go there and quit being bastards to these people who simply don't want to be forced into the cold in the winter just to have a smoke, or into the blazing heat of the summer, or the rain, or snow, or out of their own homes, or be banned from doing so in a ton of other places because there are a few uptight assholes who think they're going to die from someone else smoking? And, Why don't some other people get the bright idea to cater to the non-smoking crowd and start businesses to do just that and provide some jobs in the process instead of taking away our right, demonizing us, and treating us like fucking deviates? I am tired of the censorship, the smear campaign, and the lies about smoking. Sure it's not the best thing for you, but I think this shit has been totally blown out of proportion and that the facts have been fixed to rush people into the hospitals, diagnose them with shit, and put them on meds and give them surgeries to further the medical industry and the insurance industry as well. They get to drive up costs and premiums "Because you are a smoker" and of course these treatments cost a lot of money too so we've got to charge the insurance companies more which just gets past on to you.

Words....words cannot describe the ignorance in this post. I sure do hope you were joking, or trying to make a point through sarcasm, because if you were serious...wow.

 

[klunderbunker]

The smoking ban exists in Lexington and has for a few years now. I love it. I used to hate going to restaurants that weren't that big and having a smoking section in them. Yeah you're sectioned off from them, but it's not like the smoke is. It would go everywhere and the smell would mess up my appetite. Here's the basic theory I have behind it.

If I go to a restaurant and someone there is smoking, I've gone to that place for the same reason they have. Why should I as a paying customer have to put up with them doing something I find disgusting? Why should I have to sit in a different part of the restaurant because someone can't control their addiction long enough to not have a cigarette for an hour and a half? There's no reason those things should have to happen, especially when smokers are a minority by comparison to non-smokers. That would be like saying that a candidate that loses an election should receive more power than the winning candidate. That makes no sense.

In short, I'm fine with this. The government is doing something that hasn't had a massive outcry that I've seen. It makes people healthier, it makes the places smell better, it gets rid of basically segregation in public places. No problem with it and it should spread. If you want to have a drink, that's fine, but when you can affect me by me just sitting at the next table over, that's not cool.

 

[Larry]

Sly, anytime you get one of those kind of posts from me it's 95% sarcasm with some peppering of actual ideals in there. Fear not. Remember hyperbole??? You wondered the same thing about some other post a while back, it's hard to get across sometimes but I try to take it far enough that you get it. Someone had to say something else, why not make it fun?


Some of that like stating that technically the government doesn't have the right I do believe and nowhere are they given that power over the people. That is at least if you value the constitution. One of my more libertarian views here as I am a big supporter of individuals rights. People bitch and complain about a lot of stuff but that doesn't mean smoking in public actually infringes on the rights of anyone else. How is it right for them to make it a law that I can't smoke in my own house? or that I can't smoke outside in general depending on where I am? That's a heavy sanction on my rights, and it is my right to imbibe whatever I choose without anyone else telling me I can't, where I can or can't do it, or otherwise.

I also believe that genetics has more to do with what diseases you get than anything else. Of course there are things that can contribute, but ultimately you can't stop what is coming anyways which makes some of that stuff pointless. I don't think it's right to punish certain people and target them because they are an easy one either. For instance here where I live they have taxed the smokers numerous times not only making cigarettes 3 times more expensive, but once again, punishing one group of people, discriminating against them, and then adding unfair taxes that only effect them which is not right either.

I also believe that what has been going on most definitely is discriminatory, they are demonizing smokers and putting a bad light on them, employers all across the nation reject smokers simply for that and there's no protection for it, and I've heard plenty of other folks who weren't smokers that felt the same way on that issue that I do, that it's bullshit. People look down on you because you smoke like your some deviate and some bad person because you enjoy a smoke here and there. It's like "Woah, what is this? Am I black in 1960's Alabama or something? Why are they looking at me like I just shot their dog?"

My point about air in major cities being worse than cigarette smoke is true as well, there are cars on the road right now that put out cleaner air than that which they take in, that's just a fact and one I think makes the case for smokers all the stronger. How can you accuse us of "polluting the air" when the air is already more polluted than 20 million smokers standing in one spot lighting up at the same time could generate? It's a lame excuse to tax, censor, and discriminate period. And I have to add, if you don't experience it, it doesn't effect you like it does me, there's little you can say about it.

 

[Larry]

If I go to a restaurant and someone there is smoking, I've gone to that place for the same reason they have. Why should I as a paying customer have to put up with them doing something I find disgusting?

Au contraire, Why should the be told they can't smoke just because you don't like it? What if they don't like how you chew your food and find it disgusting, should you be made to go outside and eat? Like if you chew with your mouth open, smack your lips making an annoying sound, and make a mess and they find it detestable ? Should you be made to go outside? After all, they are there for the same reason you are, why should they have to deal with that? It's called tolerance and it seems certain people are afforded more of it than others, while others are also forced to observe more than others. Why not just deal with it? and if that person doesn't like how you chew your food, or talk to your waitress, or anything else that bothers them about you they just deal with it too? Oh, that's right I forgot, that would be fair!

Why should I have to sit in a different part of the restaurant because someone can't control their addiction long enough to not have a cigarette for an hour and a half?

What's wrong with your side of the restaurant? Is this a "back of bus" type of issue or something? You want to sit in their section? I thought you said you don't like smoke so why would it matter to you? Isn't having a smoke-free section good enough? With a proper ventilation system it seriously doesn't make a difference if people are smoking in the restaurant or not. I don't think it's a matter of not being able to control whether they smoke or not, rather than being controlled about whether they can or not. It's something people do socially it's not necessarily about being a fiend, but there you go and that's a perfect case of the discrimination I was talking about. It's "Oh these fiends just can't wait until this time or the other." What about the fact that it's no one's business to tell them when they can or can not smoke?

There's no reason those things should have to happen, especially when smokers are a minority by comparison to non-smokers. That would be like saying that a candidate that loses an election should receive more power than the winning candidate. That makes no sense.

So what you are insinuating is that not only are smokers a minority which you would need facts to prove, but that they don't count either way. That's fair. So a discriminated group of minorities by your logic here has no rights and theirs don't count? That's essentially what you are saying here. I would have to argue that smokers aren't a minority anyways or at least that they weren't when smoking was still allowed in restaurants considering that the establishments felt they were enough of a majority to provide them their own section to smoke even though people like yourself would incessantly bitch about it. I'd say they counted equally or more.

The government is doing something that hasn't had a massive outcry that I've seen. It makes people healthier, it makes the places smell better, it gets rid of basically segregation in public places. No problem with it and it should spread. If you want to have a drink, that's fine, but when you can affect me by me just sitting at the next table over, that's not cool.

Bold: It doesn't make people healthier, that is a perception. You think it's making people healthier because what you "perceive" as a health risk is not evident in the surrounding. In truth, as I said, with a proper ventilation system it makes no difference on you, you're not breathing any second hand smoke and the smell goes up with the smoke through the ventilation system. I've seen this in numerous establishments over the years and it's been fine.

Italicized: Public segregation??? Isn't that a bit of a stretch? Tying it to segregation? It's a preference of seating not a mandated separation of races and people in general.

Underlined: If you're in the non-smoking section they shouldn't be right next to you right? So what are you talking about? It doesn't effect you, you just think it does because you already have the predisposition to think so. The only way it effects you is that you don't like it and you THINK it will do something to you. That's no reason to force unconstitutional legislation on people who aren't doing anything to you but something you don't like.

(BTW: I'm just giving you shit. I totally get what you're saying. Just playing devils advocate)

 

[Slyfox696]

Sly, anytime you get one of those kind of posts from me it's 95% sarcasm with some peppering of actual ideals in there. Fear not. Remember hyperbole??? You wondered the same thing about some other post a while back, it's hard to get across sometimes but I try to take it far enough that you get it. Someone had to say something else, why not make it fun?

So you're not really making sense. If you agree 95% of your post was sarcasm, which part was truths?

Some of that like stating that technically the government doesn't have the right I do believe and nowhere are they given that power over the people. That is at least if you value the constitution.

The Constitution says nothing about the right of people to smoke cigarattes. And since these laws and ordinances are being passed at the municipal and state levels, the Constitution does not come into play. This must be one of those sarcastic comments.

One of my more libertarian views here as I am a big supporter of individuals rights.

As am I. For example, I'm a firm believe in the right to life. If you're smoking kills me, I no longer have my life. So you shouldn't get to smoke.

People bitch and complain about a lot of stuff but that doesn't mean smoking in public actually infringes on the rights of anyone else.

Sure it does. It infringes upon my right to breathe clean air and keep my body healthy, one of the most basic unalienable rights which exist.

How is it right for them to make it a law that I can't smoke in my own house?

Because if your smoking leads to harm to a minor, it should be the right of the government to step in and not allow you to harm your child.

or that I can't smoke outside in general depending on where I am?

Already covered.

That's a heavy sanction on my rights

Again, what right? The right to smoke cigarettes has NEVER been protected on any level, so what right are you talking about?

and it is my right to imbibe whatever I choose without anyone else telling me I can't, where I can or can't do it, or otherwise.

Unless what you are imbibing infringes upon my right to live a healthy life. Your rights end where mine begin.

I also believe that genetics has more to do with what diseases you get than anything else.

I don't give a rat's rear end what you believe, and neither do the numerous studies which prove you wrong.

I don't think it's right to punish certain people and target them because they are an easy one either.

I don't believe it's right for me to have to breathe your nasty second hand cigarette smoke, just because you don't have the mental toughness to go a couple hours without smoking. Why should your lack of willpower be allowed to kill me?

For instance here where I live they have taxed the smokers numerous times not only making cigarettes 3 times more expensive, but once again, punishing one group of people, discriminating against them, and then adding unfair taxes that only effect them which is not right either.

Completely stupid comment. I hope this is another one of those sarcasm things.

No one is making you buy the cigarettes. Don't like the tax? Then quit buying cigarettes. See how easy that is?

I also believe that what has been going on most definitely is discriminatory

It is. But since it's discrimination based upon what you choose to do and causes irreparable harm to others, I don't think many people care.

they are demonizing smokers and putting a bad light on them

Oh God, people are demonizing the people responsible for major financial drains on medical care, the people who are so mentally weak they try to justify their killing of others with secondhand smoke as okay? THOSE people are being demonized? Perish the thought! What is this world coming to?!

employers all across the nation reject smokers simply for that

Then quit smoking. I want to wear gym shorts and t-shirts to work everyday, but my employer tells me I can't. So do I cry about it, or simply wear appropriate clothing? I'll give you one guess.

and there's no protection for it, and I've heard plenty of other folks who weren't smokers that felt the same way on that issue that I do, that it's bullshit.

Then they are idiots too.

People look down on you because you smoke like your some deviate and some bad person because you enjoy a smoke here and there.

No, we look down upon you because you are mentally weak and your vice is killing innocent people.

My point about air in major cities being worse than cigarette smoke is true as well

Which has what to do with this conversation? The government has, many times, passed laws to combat pollution, what is your point?

there are cars on the road right now that put out cleaner air than that which they take in, that's just a fact and one I think makes the case for smokers all the stronger. How can you accuse us of "polluting the air" when the air is already more polluted than 20 million smokers standing in one spot lighting up at the same time could generate?

That's stupid.

That's like saying it's okay for you to murder someone with a sledgehammer, because US soldiers were killing more terrorists than you are American citizens. Two wrongs don't correct the problem.

It's a lame excuse to tax, censor, and discriminate period.

Then quit smoking.

And I have to add, if you don't experience it, it doesn't effect you like it does me, there's little you can say about it.

Are you kidding? Smoking in public places most definitely affects me, and if you say otherwise, you're just being ridiculous. When I go to Buffalo Wild Wings and ask for a seat in the non-smoking section and can STILL smell the smoke on my clothes when I leave, it affects me. When my wife and I go to Applebees and I smell cigarette smoke more than I do the food, it affects me.

Contrary to cigarette smokers' opinion, cigarettes are disgusting. They smell bad, they're dangerous to your health, and I don't want any part of them. If you don't like the tax on them, quit smoking. If you can't handle going a couple of hours without smoking, seek counseling. But quit killing me and driving up my medical costs because you're too mentally weak to avoid addiction.

 

[Барбоса]

Do you believe the government overstepped their bounds in mandating where people can and cannot smoke?

Once it was proven that second hand smoke can cause lung cancer then governments around the world are well within their rights to put caps on it.

How did the ban on smoking affect you personally at the time? What was your initial reaction, and has it changed over time?

LIke most others, I was somewhat shocked as to how easily it seemed to come in. Even the smokers themselves did not complain all that long; although now that winter is coming, the complaints might start up again.

If you could set the restrictions on where people could smoke, what would they be?

Where I live, you cannot smoke in any structure that has more than two walls and a roof. That seems fair enough to me.

What are your thoughts on the arguments against the smoking ban? Any other valid arguments you hold that I didn't touch on?

There is part of me that thinks that publicans and the like should be able to opt out of the smoking ban but then that would make the ban itself rather pointless as none of those establishments would take the risk that their business would fall.

However, now several years on, the predicted slump in pub takings post-smoking ban has not happened - certainly nothing tied to the smoking ban anyway. Perhaps the only place where the smoking ban has been negative is to the airline passenger as the airlines have saved themselves money by not having to replace the air in-flight leading to more instances of air rage.

 

[Larry]

I went through and wrote a response to every word that you said, but the further I got into it the more I realized that it wasn't worth arguing with you and deleted the whole thing. You are so disgustingly rude, so deplorably insensitive to the point of even justifying the discrimination of people you simply don't like, making hurtful accusations of them and also justifying their rights being taken away and having discriminatory legislation pushed on them, that there was no reason to speak another word to you on the matter. So "You Win" if that's what you wanted, but only because you're so unreasonable and act like such an asshole for no reason, that I'd rather just walk away from the conversation than continue to try to have one with someone who is going to act like that. Nice example by the way of how a top member should carry themselves.

 

[Slyfox696]

So I take it this is your concession speech?

I went through and wrote a response to every word that you said, but the further I got into it the more I realized that it wasn't worth arguing with you and deleted the whole thing.

And yet, was still worth making sure you let me know it wasn't worth it. Suggesting it really was worth it, you just knew your comments wouldn't measure up.

You are so disgustingly rude

How so? Because I point out stupidity where it exists?

so deplorably insensitive to the point of even justifying the discrimination of people you simply don't like

Yes, I justify it, because it's a self-imposed discrimination. No one makes you smoke, no one forces the cigarettes between your lips, that is all of your choosing. If you don't like it, change.

And it has nothing to do with people I don't like, merely the habit I don't like. The guy I work with and I get along wonderfully, and he's a smoker. It has nothing to do with the person, but the habit.

making hurtful accusations of them

I never once accused anyone of anything, except for stating smokers kill the innocents. Which, coincidentally, has been proven true.

also justifying their rights being taken away

Again, there is no "right" to smoke. Smoking is not a natural right, and it is not a right protected under the Constitution. You have no leg to stand on.

having discriminatory legislation pushed on them

Damn right. When your nasty habit affects my health, or the health of my children, you can damn sure bet I'm going to support that legislation. Don't like it? Don't smoke. But don't kill me and my child but you're too mentally weak to handle not smoking for a couple of hours.

that there was no reason to speak another word to you on the matter.

And yet, here you are with a venomous paragraph doing exactly that.

So "You Win" if that's what you wanted

I think everyone knew it, you saying it is just nice to hear.

but only because you're so unreasonable and act like such an asshole for no reason

No, I win because I'm right, and I'm far better at justifying my position than you are yours. Then again, that's not difficult, for what justification can you possibly have for killing people with your secondhand smoke?

Nice example by the way of how a top member should carry themselves.

If you thought this was bad, you clearly haven't been around here very long. The fact is you're completely wrong, and you're getting pissed off that people like me no longer want to be killed by the mentally weak like you. Sorry, but I really don't give a rat's rear end if you don't like it.

As I, and others, have said many times in this thread, your "rights" end where mine begin. And my right to a healthy life far outweighs your addiction to cigarettes.