Let’s take this one thing all the way out there. Are you now saying that smokers should be apprehended and forced by law into clinics now? Need you be reminded that smoking is still legal, and tobacco can be bought legally? There is a teeny tiny difference between smokers and junkies, besides the legality issue. Smokers generally don’t rob, steal or kill to support their habit. Smokers aren’t supporting Columbian smoke lords. Etc Etc. I don’t want government “requiring” me to do any more than is already expected - obey the law and pay taxes.
Now that sounds just like what I have gone along with here in California. It’s REASONABLE. If it’s a “common use” area such as a building, a stadium, anywhere that other people are affected, then it’s fine. If it’s someplace with a smoking “pit stop” within a reasonable walking distance, that’s fine too. You seem to be a lot less militant than I first thought.
No. It should be obvious that the only possible solution is detention camps with razor wire, spartan barracks, re-education programs and forced sing-alongs (suggested numbers include “The Air That I Breathe” and “Smoke From A Distant Fire”).
If we’re gonna “take this one thing all the way out there”, I wanna hear plans for the Resistance Movement. Will there be snappy uniforms and synchronized Zippo lighters? And even if you light up in secret, won’t the coughing give you away? :dubious:
And this argument has what to do with businesses not being allowed to permit smoking in their establishment?
On a larger scale and not directed at Yookeroo specifically:
This thread has gone exactly where I suspected it would. Mention smoking in any context and the pinheads come out with the same old tired shit about their lungs being the barrier of all other rights. Fine. We get it. Your system is so weakened that the slighest whiff of smoke will kill you. GOT IT! Can you fuckers stay on topic for just once?
Here’s a scenario pertaining to the OP. Try to keep up. Say a state bans smoking from all public-accessable buildings. I decide I want to build a structure with the sole purpose of allowing smokers to sit at a bar or table and enjoy meals and drinks. That’s the purpose of the building. There are no non-smoking areas. You enter this place because you know you can smoke anywhere you damn well please as long as you’re outside the food-prep areas.
Anyone and everyone applying for a job there knows that smoke is going to be present. Outside the doors is a large sign stating that there are smokers inside, smoking is allowed, and by entering there will be exposure to the devil-gas. Fair warning gives all involved the choice of entering the place.
Employees not having a choice of work environments? Without the place opening there are no new jobs available, anyway. Period. End of fucking story.
Place can’t open because smoking will be allowed? Hmmm…government imposing moral will on private citizens and taking away personal choice. I thought choice trumped all. You choose to avoid the smoke, I choose to enter it.
But since some don’t want smoking anywhere, at any time, we must bend to your will.
Once again I’m waiting for a response to this. Don’t fucking avoid it anymore. Answer it since it actually pertains to the OP. What good do these bans do for a bar that caters to bikers? I know many bikers and not one of them are so fucking soft that they would enter a place they didn’t want to. I challenge any of you to go tell a Hell’s Angel you know better than him what the air quality should be in his favorite watering hole. Then mention how you support the ban on his enjoyment of a beer and a heater. Just forget my name when your hospital bill comes due.
Uniform state-wide bans? I can think of at least 3 other “moral and health” bans that would have these boards in an uproar.
Stay on topic. Open your own fucking thread if you hate smoking that much.
I don’t want to derail duffer’s question, which surely deserves an answer. However:
Say what? How are smokers “trashing” beaches? My girlfriend and I are extrememly conscious of picking up all our butts when we leave. When we leave the beach, we get our butts out of there. And I usually find more shards of broken glass than cig butts.
What positive effect on beaches would smoking bans have that “Carry in, carry out” laws do not already address?
Gotta have the snappy uniforms. No singalongs though, I couldn’t cary a tune in a bucket.
Exactly, we don’t need any new laws. We already have anti-littering laws, enforce those if people littering is the problem. If what the antis really want is a backdoor ban, then by all means let the obfuscation begin.
I was at the Kraftwerk concert last week and had someone light up a few rows in front of me. No way to avoid the smoke (until a security guy told them to put it out). Luckily, I live in a state with sane smoking laws so this doesn’t happen much anymore. In places where the smokers are allowed to do whatever they want, it would be nearly impossible to avoid the smoke.
Because this benefits the majority while it hurts no-one. I do believe I’ve made this clear. It’s a law that does no damage, is pretty easy to enforce, adds almost no beauracracy and makes the world a nicer place. I see no downside. Seems like the very definition of what a good law should be.
Other beachgoers won’t be subjected to your drug of choice? If I have my blanket, umbrella, cooler, chair etc. all set up, it’s not easy for me to move to a different spot if someone decides to light up upwind of me. And why should I be the one to move?
Yeah, I know, you’re one of those very rare smokers who ask everyone around if it’s OK to light up. Most smokers don’t.
Who forced you to go to the gig? Was it not apparent beforehand that the venue allowed smoking? Is it really necessary for the government to step in to enforce your venue preferences? I appreciate that you want to go and see Kraftwerk, and that you’d like it if there wasn’t any smoke around when you go, but there is no obligation for you to go, nor any obligation on the government to make it more pleasant for you. I agree that it would be very nice if the venue banned smoking, but perhaps you should express this opinion to them, rather than requiring a blanket ban.
No; it enforces the majority choice while removing that of the minority. It is perfectly possible to accomodate both smokers and non-smokers, and this is surely the favourable option. Why do you need to be able to go everywhere without inconvenience? Why is your need more important?
I believe it does do damage. It inconveniences a not inconsiderable segment of the public, whose activity is not as yet illegal, and more importantly removes still more of the freedoms property-owners have in the manner in which they run their property. Here’s a question; would you accept a system in which venues could apply for smoking licences, á la liquor licences? If such a system were in place, would you still feel aggrieved at not being able to go to such places without encountering smoke?
Measure for Measure, I don’t think I really disagree with you that much - my point regarding the existence of consumer choice was intended to refute Jackmannii’s persistent argument regarding the convenience of non-smokers. I believe that this convenience is perfectly capable of being satisfied by the open market, as is (for me) handily demonstrated by the almost total domination of non-smoking restaurants in the UK, where there is no smoking ban in place. My point is that there is no decent justification for a ban from a public convenience point of view, something I stand by.
The bar worker argument is stronger - I accept that the government does indeed regulate hazardous working conditions. On this question, however, I believe that the alleged hazard is sufficiently nebulous, and the possibility of said hazard sufficiently obvious to potential employees, that regulation as draconian as a blanket indoor smoking ban is utterly unnecessary; the potential employees can choose to accept the risk or not, as with other hazardous professions. You balk at a blanket ban - I oppose it outright. I think we’d both greatly prefer it if more and more venues went non-smoking, but I think that is already happening, and that the outcome is vastly preferable by consumer choice than by legislative demand.
Fair point. Unless the smoker was there first.
Beach crowd density notwithstanding, of course. If it’s wall-to-wall blankets, I’ll walk away to light up. If there’s at least, say, 20’ between each party then when I’ve staked my claim then I’ve staked my claim. I’m not going to move my stuff around on the off chance that somebody might be offended.
The beach is the last bastion of where a smoker can say “Enough is enough.” It couldn’t possibly be more out-of-doors. It’s nearly always windy. It’s not going to smell up too many clothes, because people generally don’t wear many. And I leave no evidence behind. Anyone that chooses to be a whiner about smoking in that situation is simply being a whiner.
Make no mistake–in very close quarters I won’t even bother lighting up. In medium density situations I’ll ask. In low density situations I do what I want. I take reasonable precautions not to offend, but only reasonable precautions.
Wrong. The vast majority of the arguments I’ve posted here have related to the documented detrimental health effects of secondhand smoke which pertain to both patrons and workers, not the “convenience of non-smokers”.
Since the security guard told him to put it out, I’m going to assume that smoking is already prohibited in that particular establishment. So this guy was just an asshole. That doesn’t really address the issue of whether or not there should be private establishments that do allow smoking.
Actually, the law bans smoking there.
The blanket ban works pretty damn well. I get to see Kraftwerk without breathing in this crap. The smokers can still smoke…I know walking the hundred yards to the smoking area is a lot to ask, but it’s pretty easy to do. Who loses here?
The ban does accomodate both. Smokers still can smoke whenever ans wherever he goes out. Unless the smoker is really lazy, he can step outside for a few minutes.
I swear, you’d think making a smoker step outside for a smoke is like asking for their firstborn. You’d think a considerate smoker would be doing this anyway.
Because I’m not the one actively polluting the air. I’m not the one forcing others to partake in my drug of choice.
Why is the smoker’s need so important that I should have to breathe in their smoke while having a drink? Why does the need of the one polluting the air, stinking up everyone’s clothes trump the need of the one who just wants to enjoy a meal in relatively clean air?
Breathing dirty air is an “inconvenience” that’s OK to ask of non-smokers while walking out the door for a few minutes is “damaging”? Wow.
How about the decades and decades that non-smokers were subjecting their lungs to this easily preventable pollution? Having to breathe this crap while eating? Or dancing? All because it’s too much to ask that the smoker step outside? You guys should really listen to yourselves.
It’s not unprecedented for the government to tell you when & where you’re allowed to partake in a legal substance (like alcohol). And property owners have to deal with all sorts of regulations. This is one that’s pretty painless to implement and adhere to. One that does a lot of good with very little, if any, downside.
I live where there’s a ban on smoking indoors. The licenses would be a step backwards. No way would I support that.
“Draconian”? I re-iterate…you really need to listen to yourselves. Why should there be any chance taken on the potential hazard for the workers when the hazard is so easily & elegantly remedied?
Fair enough. I was thinking “if I am there first” even though I didn’t make that clear. If the smoker is there first, I’m happy to be the one to find a spot where the air is clear. But this is all becoming moot, banning smoking on beaches is happening around here. I suspect the rest of the country will start to follow suit eventually (the big problem is the litter issue).
The smokers who’d like to light up a cigarette in the middle of the show.
No one is forcing you to see that particular concert, and no one is forcing the band to play that particular venue. If you want to see Kraftwerk without breathing in smoke, why not write to them and ask them to play at a smoke-free venue? If there are enough fans who share your views, they’d be foolish not to listen.
Why does your need to drink at this particular bar, eat at this particular restaurant, or see this particular concert trump the wishes of the venue owner to offer a smoke-friendly environment to his smoking patrons?
This thread has become so derailed I read today Tahiti is building a station expecting the train any time now. 
I’d be fine with this if I was sure it would stop there. The thing is, anti-smokers aren’t willing to stop there. They want to ban smoking everywhere, for all time, for ever and ever, amen. We’ve already seen plenty of examples (at least one cited by you) where smokers can’t go outside because it’s illegal to smoke many places outside too. The most vocal anti-smokers have shown absolutely no willingness to compromise, no ability to negotiate, no willingness to share the planet. They want total control of every molecule of air on the planet.
I’m not buying the argument “They can smoke outside if they want, I just don’t want my own air polluted.” This is about as credible as creationists saying that they want ID to share “equal” time with evolution. It’s a lie. What they’re after is total control.
As I said before, for 25 years I’ve been giving concessions to the anti-smoking nutballs. And I’m done giving concessions. The nutballs are going to have to realize that once in a blue moon they might run across a tiny wiff of tobacco. If they suddenly drop dead on the spot, too bad, so sad.
And their position is just philosophically inconsistent with many, many other things we accept. No one is under the delusion that we have absolute freedom from being impacted by the things others do, but the anti-smokers hold this standard up as the one smoking should be judged by.
You breathe the air - cigarette smoke is a much smaller problem than factory pollution and automobile exhaust. The water you drink? Agricultural run-off. Lawn chemicals. Motor oil and gasoline from the roads. The food you eat is - if you’re lucky - merely contaminated with pesticides and antibiotics, and not teeming with bacteria introduced during the handling and packaging process.
Many of these problems could be fixed, in some cases eliminated entirely. By the twisted logic of the anti-smoking zealots, I’m entitled to at very least question every automobile trip, since your refusal to take the bus is impacting on my lung health. We have certain liberties in this nation, and many of them are annoying to others. Many, in fact, pose risks to other people. Why is there a fantasy that one is entitled to be entirely free of the risk of smoke, when no one would apply the same standard to any other risk?
And medicine doesn’t support them - there’s just not evidence that casual exposure to secondhand smoke is harmful; this idea was created both as a propaganda piece and out of a false extrapolation from the effects of high levels of exposure to these chemicals to low levels, while simple science shows that the effects of chemical exposure are non-linear. So next they start self-righteously proclaiming that they just don’t like it, and thus theys houldn’t have to be exposed. Then sit in the damn non-smoking section, asshole, since restaurants are about the only place you can go in public where smoking is permitted. If people would enjoy a smoke-free bar, then start one.
Why am I not entitled to be free of any glimpse of others’ annoying choices? You can sit in the no-smoking section; where’s my no-children section? I don’t like seeing children run amok in restaurants, I don’t like hearing them scream, hell - I just don’t like children. I’ve never claimed some fundamental right never to see one, though - because everyone has to accomodate the fact that others do things that annoy them. Why, then, to anti-smokers claim some imagined privilege never to be exposed to anything that they don’t like?
There are not many places that permit smoking. It’s good that most workplaces don’t permit you to smoke inside, and same goes for airplanes and buses. Once upon a time, a person really would be exposed to cigarette smoke, and it was impossible to reasonably avoid it. Those days are long past, and not only are non-smokers no longer under the slightest risk of health problems from exposure to smoke, but they can - easily, even! - make tiny changes in their lives that mean essentially never seeing a cigarette. If a restaurant has lousy ventilation and even the non-smoking section is smoky, then go somewhere else. What fundamental right do you have to find the ambience pleasant everywhere you might want to stuff your face? Make adult decisions for yourself - either tolerate the smoke, or avoid it. Why are you entitled to more than that?
The other day I was watching a rerun of Dharma and Greg in which Andrew Dice Clay lights up in front of one of Abbie’s tree-hugging friends. She exclaims “Don’t you know that second hand smoke is more dangerous than active smoking?!?” To which Clay replies “Eh, then I guess I made the right choice, huh?” Funny stuff, and intended to set up a joke, but I wonder how many people simply accept the “more dangerous” claim uncritically. My mother certainly did, way back in the 70s. She tried to use that claim to get my father to stop smoking.
Second hand smoke kills children instantly. And children are our future. I suppose you’d like Saddam back, too.
The battle over this issue will continue to occur on a statewide level as well as local - with advocates of reducing exposure to secondhand smoke working for state laws, and pro-smoking groups attempting to thwart local action by passing relatively weak pre-emptive state legislation. More here.
Note: Smokers and their allies will want to skip quickly over the 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 heart disease deaths in nonsmokers annually due to secondhand smoke referred to in the report, as well as the statement about the highest occupational exposures in nonsmokers being found in waiters and waitresses. Remember, such evidence is only disturbing if you pay attention to it.
I’m still waiting to hear from someone who has no other choice of employment than a gas chamber. Er, I mean known smoking establishment. Don’t worry, I’m patient. I realize it’s going to be almost impossible to do, but I’ll keep waiting.
One other ban we need. Grain elevators. Ever been in one? You literally feel the dust hitting your face when you even walk through the office. I wonder what that does to your lungs?