Hey, how’s that smog and ozone treating you? I hereby demand that LA ban cars toot sweet because when I go out there they affect my respiratory system.
Sounds stupid, dpesn’t it? Yet that’s the argument you guys are making. You know that smoking occurs in bars, and rather than exercise your right to vote with your feet and go somewhere else you complain. It’s like [url=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY”]NIMBYism:
So it is with smoking.
Setting aside that you obviously have no concept of the nature of addiction — minor inconvenience? — what is most disturbing is how you trivialize the majority steamrolling the minority. I suppose it’s pretty much out of sight out of mind for you with the minor inconveniences of Indians on the reservations, Blacks drinking from the colored water fountains, and gays unable to marry one another.
It is stupid. Of course the difference here is that banning smoking does negligible harm (if any) while banning cars would destroy the global economy. If we could ban cars/trains/boats/planes while only causing a minority a tiny inconvenience, I might be all for it. As it is, we do all we can to minimize the amount of pollution being spouted by these vehicles (via government regulation no less). And I’m all for working for cleaner energy sources.
So, yeah, that was pretty stupid to compare smog produced by cars to smokers.
Huh. That’s an interesting solution in which everyone could be happy, and makes sense, and employs useful terms such as “informed choice” and “compromise.”
The anti-smokers will never go for it.
The idea of requiring businesses to obtain a license for smoking is an intriguing one, but I think an unworkable one. The anti-smoking mindset will set the bar so high as to put it out of reach. Remember a few years back when there was pending legislation make tobacco a prescription drug? The thought being that no respectable doctor would prescibe it to anyone. The anti-smokers must have thought themselves Very Clever to have come up with that.
At the end of the day, I’m perfectly willing to not light up in extreme close spaces such as elevators and airplanes. I’m perfectly willing to keep my coworkers smoke-free. I respect the right of my fellow gourmands to taste less tar with their smoked salmon. But over the past 25 years smokers have been making concession after concession. We’ve done our part. And now it’s time for the rabid anti-smokers to realise that they, too, must share the planet.
A color coded window placard might be a good idea, but let’s not set up any sort of fee or license scheme. I see where it could cause problems that way - having to pay off an official, or wait for a placard owner to go out of business before one of the placards is “available”, or the fee/tax being priced out of reach by the militant “anti’s”. An example that I can think of is the “medallions” for taxis. The prices and the low number of available medallions are so screwed up, that it is ridiculous. Let the business owners themselves decide. That way you avoid the bureaucracy and the potential for corruption.
Fine. I’ll clarify that this statement applies to all smokers with grievances in this thread:
Avoiding the temptation to refer to the “hard of reading”, I’ll refer you back to the study I linked to earlier, demonstrating that contrary to the doomsday claims of some in the bar/restaurant industry, smoking bans have not destroyed business. People are still flocking to the bars.
This sets a new standard for idiocy.
First off, Yookeroo was referring to minor inconveniences like walking a few steps outdoors to light up, rather than subjecting other patrons of an establishment to smoke.
Secondly, it is beyond moronic for you or others to cite smokers as being in the same class as “Indians on the reservations” or other discriminated-against minorities. What next, will we be hearing claims of genocide?
Even among addicts, people dependent on heroin are generally able to avoid shooting up in the middle of the street or in public establishments. And their dope doesn’t diffuse into other people’s veins.
It doesn’t have to do with whether or not a bar can survive once fewer smokers are going there, but why it isn’t valid to have owners determine for themselves and let the market set whether or not they’ll be a smoke-free bar.
What’s wrong with that model? Non-smokers can have establishments which cater ro them, if the owners choose. Smokers can have establishments which cater to them, if the owners choose. And we let market forces rather than legislation settle the issue.
What it sounds like is more than 'leave me out of it". It sounds like, “I don’t like it so you can’t ever do it anywhere.”
I don’t blow smoke in people’s faces. If I’m sitting with non-smokers at a place where smoking is allowed, I always ask my guests if they mind if I smoke. If they do, I don’t. Where the animosity comes in is when some prick says it can’t be done any where they may eventually be in the future. Shit, when I’m in my car with non-smokers, I always keep the window fully down if it isn’t ass-freezing cold. If that’s not good enough, they can drive their own car.
And yet you continue typing…
Since you speak for Yookeroo, perhaps you can tell us why he made reference specifically to places outside where smoking is banned, if he meant what you say he meant.
Who can say what’s next? Who would have predicted that liberals would be establishing classes of people, some of whom deserve discrimination? Do you trivialize all addictions and all preventable ill-health sufferers, or just smokers? Do you think HIV carriers should sit in separate cubicles from the higher classes at work?
Tell Yookeroo that it’s beyond moronic to compare going for a smoke to going for a smack. Their dope is illegal. That’s why they hide it.
Give me a freaking break Airman. Nobody is advocating that nicotine cigarettes be banned like marijuana.
Furthermore polluting devices, be they cars, factories or electric power plants are heavily regulated. As they should be. Your right to create noxious gases extends as far as my lungs.
The issue here isn’t prohibition. It’s time, place, circumstance and volume: in other words, we are discussing proper regulation, a concept that seems to throw certain modern conservatives into a tizzy.
Newsflash: We are bothered, duffer. We’re just cutting you some slack (as is polite, I should add, unless the nonsmoker suffers from asthma or the like).
Also, I find it hilarious that not blowing smoke in people’s faces is presented as the embodiment of courtesy.
No, it’s I don’t like it and I fully support businesses going no-smoking. I also fully support publically owned places going no-smoking if it’s voted on.
Funny how all smokers seem to believe that they are models of politeness.
Restaurant employees.
In practice, restaurants may not want to piss off their smoking patrons, without a governmental scapegoat to point at.
In practice, some nonsmokers may prefer not breathe in smoke, but not enough to forgo their favorite steakhouse (weakest argument: in this situation, the nonsmoker enjoys a net gain by going to the steakhouse, assuming he is calculating the health costs of secondhand smoke properly, for him and his family).
But, hey, I like the color-code method, backed up by the issuance of smoking licences for restaurants.
Measure for Measure- Bar/Restaurant employees can find non-smoking employment if they so choose. They might even be able to find a different field, one that has nothing at all to do with smokers.
That having been said, I’m a smoker who doesn’t like smoking in enclosed places(except for Vegas, Baby!), and I pretty much support non-smoking establishments as they are today. I just think #1 on your list is a stupid excuse to go non-smoking.
Sam
I support them going non-smoking as well. IF THAT"S WHAT THE OWNER DECIDES!
Do you realize how pompous you sound when saying everything has to be your way? How about the bars you’ll never enter in your life?
Try it from this angle. How many whiskey joints catering to biker bars will a smoking ban help? You people keep talking about laws not being one-size-fits-all when it has to do with societal issues, unless it controls what YOU don’t want being done.
Also, I don’t suffer the same hubris you do. I would never pose as being representative of all smokers. Unlike you, I realize my opinions are that. Opinions. Not what needs to be followed by everyone else. Interestingly, over the past year or so, you’ve helped me see that. I have changed some points of view when it concerns the behavior of other. I realize I don’t know what’s best for everyone. You go ahead and keep lumping groups together as single-minded zombies, I’ll concentrate on the issues of personal choice. You know, a person’s choice being more important that what society thinks of it?
Wow, again we have the ONE SINGLE individual that knows what all non-smokers think and feel. If you can name just one person in my life that you know feels that way, I will not only cut off my own balls, but I’ll fry them up in Mangetout’s “special sauce” and chow down on PPV.
What a waste of electrons in your post. :non-winking Wally:
With all due respect duffer, --and recognize that I haven’t read many posts of jdgoddess outside this thread-- I see little evidence of hubris on the goddess’ part.
I don’t see where she claimed to represent all nonsmokers.
She has explicitly called for allowing smoking venues, though she has said (personally) that she liked to support nonsmoking ones.
I, in contrast, plead guilty to charges of arrogance.
Golly, duffer, seeing as I don’t know you, it’s unlikely that I can name ONE SINGLE individual in your life that… thinks you’re a great guy.
Or a bad guy, or a dumb guy or a considerate guy…
However, I do have nasal cavities and lungs. And I know that cigarette smoke irritates them (mildly). Based on this data, I’m generalizing to other humans.
The fact that you are seemingly oblivious to the effects of your behavior is disturbing.
Stupid? No. Problematic? Admittedly, yes. (Excuse? Probably, IMHO.)
Your same logic can be applied to OSHA regulations, mine safety regulations, etc. IMHO, these early (and mid) 20th century reforms advanced the commonwealth. They certainly save lives.
The question is whether the harms of secondhand smoke justify this sort of intervention. To me, (frankly) it’s not clear that they do; I would have to take a closer look at the data.
Well, you can’t have it both ways. Either it extends as far as your lungs, or it extends as far as the regulators will allow.