RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much?

RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

seekstofasn8adom -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/20/2007 7:43:48 PM)
I am a non smoker,but i really am not bothered at all by people smoking in pubs.In a way i personally feel quite sorry for them,as.Especially here in England we are turning into a nannystate.With people saying you must do this,this way.Then later they change there minds and say o'h we were wrong.Please carry on doing what you were doing it's us we were wrong please go back to your old ways thanks,that really does annoy me when that does happen.But in hindsight when the smoking ban is imposed alot of pubs/social clubs,will close down as a result of this as without the smokers there these places will be empty.So therefore not only will it affect the non smoker just as much,as it will do the smoker.As the smoker will have nowhere to socialise,and the drinker will loose out.As without the smokers frequenting our pubs they will all eventually close down alot of them will anyway so the drinker,will have nowhere to drink.Except at home.So everyone looses out in the long run.A great shame i think personally.[:@]

MistressYlwa -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/21/2007 12:58:57 AM)
Have to say, I am surprised at how volatile this has become. Why can't we all just get along? LOL While I understand the feelings of the non-smokers (having been one), my main concern is where will they go next? They are invading our homes, which is to me a violation of my rights. How far will they go, to make decisions about the way I live my life? From the looks of things, they don't see the individual as having any and continue to look for ways to remove as many as possible, if not all. Big Brother is on his way? Seems to me, he is already here. Mistress Ylwa

MasDom -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/21/2007 3:56:15 AM)
Toledo gets it. We just put the fucking plexi glass screens up in the restaurants and told every one to go fuck emselves for it. Sure it doesn't really keep the smoke out seeing how the entrances to all locations remain open at all times. But at least I finally got my appetite back. Thank you second hand. I,ve missed you to.... [:'(]As for all those anti smokers.[:@] Look i,ll level with you I don't like the fact that theirs tar and poisons in this. So why don't you just work on getting rid of that and leave the rest??? Cant we work on some kind of half way resolve that leaves both sides at least a little calmer... As for me. I cant wait until pots legal. Like to see you prove thats deadly past driving.

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/21/2007 4:06:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasDom I cant wait until pots legal. Like to see you prove thats deadly past driving. You'll always have the puritans biting at your ankles because their reaction is on auto-pilot and if it isn't pot it will be something else. However, you will notice they are always blind to what they inflict on other people, it's doubtful they will restrict their behaviour for anyone else, they never do because they are always right.

MissGing -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/21/2007 9:20:19 PM)
I smoke, my fiancee doesn't. We live in Virginia, the tobacco state...I highly doubt they'll put a ban on their biggest market. In D.C. however, the ban of smoking in resturants and bars have taken place. Personally, I don't care to smoke in resturants. I like my food to smell and taste, like food. In bars, drinking and smoking go hand in hand...but I can see the ban on that. And I would just LOVE to have someone try and tell me I can't smoke in my apartment or car. As for the people smoking around their kids or kids in general...you should be smacked. Seriously, don't force a kid to be around this because you need your fix, I don't.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Smoking Ban - Belmont, CA UPDATE (1/30/2007 1:21:35 PM)
Current state of Belmont, CA law prohibiting smoking throughout the city, including apartment buildings. quote: Belmont may not make the kind of history envisioned in the early headlines ("Belmont to be first U.S. city to ban all smoking"), it still could make history of another sort, by finding a line this tobacco-averse nation is unwilling to cross — at least for the moment — in pursuit of better public health. "I don't know where the boundaries of a truly legally defensible ordinance are," acknowledged Councilman Dave Warden, who is pushing to pass "the strictest law possible." "I really believe that we're really so close to the line that no one can really tell," he said. Even though nearly two-thirds of Americans have smoke-free policies in their own homes, according to the 2000 census, restrictions on smoking in multi-unit buildings, in the very sanctity of one's own living room, constitute a new frontier in tobacco law. The Belmont City Council is "breaking new ground," said Jim Bergman, director of the Smoke-Free Environments Law Project, who has advocated for smoking bans in multifamily buildings. "I think the folks in Belmont have to be very careful in what they do on this one…. There is always a question of how fast do you move." "People of this country need to wake up before all of our rights are diminished by these small interest groups and elected officials," wrote one reader on the San Mateo Daily Journal website. "You go right ahead and get that deadly smoker, and ignore the biggest killer of all, Booze," responded another. Posters to smokers-rights websites such as http://www.speakeasyforum.com were far angrier. Some likened elected officials in Belmont, population 24,522, to Nazis. Others suggested that readers flood the Police Department with "possible smoking violation" calls or e-mail Feierbach en masse. Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-belmont29jan29,0,7656220.story?coll=la-home-local

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - Belmont, CA UPDATE (1/30/2007 1:32:44 PM)
Typical anti-smoking irrational bullshit. BBC world service reported an American research report this week that said the biggest cause of child repiratory problems in the USA was traffic pollution. The near someone lives to the main road the worse their children's health will be. Note: THE NEARER YOU LIVE TO A ROAD< NOT THE NEARER YOU LIVE TO A SMOKER!!!!

Rule -> RE: Smoking Ban - Belmont, CA UPDATE (1/30/2007 2:42:30 PM)
We had a car when I was a child in the sixties, but most of the people in our neighborhood did not. So traffick pollution then was not as much of a problem as now. At the time I simply held my breath when a car passed and the wind was towards me. My father did smoke, though, and that was a huge problem for me. You cannot hold your breath for more than three minutes. So often I would play at floor level to be as much under the smoke as I could. My siblings did not and they all got inner ear infections. I have never had an inner ear infection.

CandleInTheWind -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/30/2007 9:46:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Koukei [:@] No pets allowed parks SUCK. Whats the fun of going to the park if my doggie cant chase the ducks? And no smoking park!? Now that I do not agree with even as a non smoker. Its a park... its outside... WTH? ~Koukei MonStar~ i guess becasue people like me that love dogs and prefer to make sure that they are well taken care of and as such leave them at home so that they are not in apotentially dangerous environment...once you have seen a poodle eaten by a pit bull in front of you ...you will get the picture...but anyhow aside fromt hat...I personally do not wish to step in your dogs poop...nope not in my list of things i like to do...but feel free to do the right thing and pick up after him...and dispose of poo right and in time it will catch on and i may very well change my mind

CandleInTheWind -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/30/2007 9:51:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger You're on the money, Merc. It wasn't but a month ago that I read an article in the WSJ suggesting we might one day target procrastinators....and how they're really costing us in lost productivity /revenue. Might procrastination one day be considered a crime? Perhaps you'll take a pill for it? It was about eight months ago that my own mother passed away due to complications from the ills of smoking. She woulda been one of the first people to jump on the stage, get to the podium, and tell everyone that we need to quell the talk of such intrusive concepts and stop trying to protect people from themselves. Anyways.....I've never smoked and don't eat junk /fast-food, but I fully support the rights of folks that do. If I'm in a bar or restaurant and it's just too smokey, I'll go to another one that isn't. - R Ranger for meany smoke is too much smoke....I do not smoke have never smoked and do not feel that it is right for me to be exposed to a cancer causing agent without my permission, especially since ther eis a choice here! having survived cancer 4 separate times...i do not wish to add to the exposure that can cause cancer

ElectraGlide -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/30/2007 10:02:17 PM)
Our local hospital had a smoking section outside. Last week in the newspaper they said smoking is banned on their property. You can not do it in your car either in the parking lot. They said you must leave the property to smoke.

violet7 -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/31/2007 1:10:37 AM)
well, us health care workers are the ones watching thousands of ppl die from second hand smoke. debate the studies and statistics all you want, but when you meet the real ppl who are dying because of other people's choices/behavior, you tend to be reluctant to force them or their families to be exposed to this same behavior on the very property they are dying on. i understand the slippery slope theory, and i too worry about when is too much, what will be next and when will we cross the line. i dont have the answers, i dont know. but i do know that we haven't crossed it yet.

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/31/2007 1:45:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CandleInTheWind Ranger for meany smoke is too much smoke....I do not smoke have never smoked and do not feel that it is right for me to be exposed to a cancer causing agent without my permission, especially since ther eis a choice here! having survived cancer 4 separate times...i do not wish to add to the exposure that can cause cancer If you don't want to be exposed to a cancer causing agent, then smoke is the least of your worries. My guess is that politicians go after smokers because they are either in the pay of the people who produce environmental carcenogens and need a distraction or they just feel the need to do something in the face of modern environments that are awash with carcenogens. Every time you drive you are probably inflicting ill health on someone else but you probably see your cancer producing activities as essential. Anyway, your suceptability to cancer or your life style is probably the problem for you and not some smoker in a bar somewhere.

KneelB4You -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (4/5/2007 8:33:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: starshineowned Lol..ofcourse and how convient of a statement huh. Not even going to bother on the smoking anymore as said. However, I also happen to believe that this whole global warming ozone crap is mallarky as well. Once again due to complete and constant total disagreement amongst the scientific community across the globe regarding it. I'm sure though..that if they disagree with you..it's because they are "right wingers". lmao sorry..not gonna fly..next? Apologies if this woman has already been corrected to death (it's a long thread to slog through), but I can't let this kind of ignorance stand. (Probably not her fault, she's likely another victim of FauxNews.) 1. Global warming (more appropriately "global climate change", since it's more complex than just an overall warming - the changing patterns due to what we've done can also cause wider swings in temperature, which can bring unnatural cold spells and more severe weather systems) and "ozone" are two almost entirely disconnected issues. In the early 90s a hole was detected in the ozone layer which protects us from a certain type of damaging solar radiation. Thanks to the scientific community which detected it, environmentalists and liberals who listen to scientists on science issues rather than relying on rightwing hate radio to inform them, CFCs were banned. It is well established now that that decision has led to the hole's diminishment, and it may be closed by about 2050. Thank God we didn't let conservatives "lead" us on that issue the way we have on global climate change. 2. The only "constant total disagreement amongst the scientific community across the globe regarding [manmade warming]" is whether our lifestyles are 90% responsible for the short-term changes we've seen, or 99% (or somewhere between). This is the "debate" you often see vaguely alluded to by rightwing/industry-funded news outlets. There's no debate that we are driving it, and actually hasn't been for about 10 years now. Not among actual living, breathing climatologists. It did take the media an excruciating while to stop obligatorily giving equal time to the "other side" (ie, industry hacks) every time a new study came out solidifying the evidence. That's why some have the misconception that this is a "new" consensus. It isn't.

b12345 -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (4/5/2007 2:02:38 PM)
***http://ivman.com/banbread.html According to a newspaper headline, "Smell of baked bread may be health hazard." The article went on to describe the dangers of the smell of baking bread. The main danger, apparently, is that the organic components of this aroma may break down ozone. (I'm incapable of making up this kind of stuff!) I was horrified. When are we going to do something about bread-induced global warming? Sure, we attack tobacco companies, but when is the government going to go after Big Bread? Well, I've done a little research, and what I've discovered should make anyone think twice. 1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread eaters. 2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests. 3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever and influenza ravaged whole nations. 4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread. 5. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month! 6. Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low occurrence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and osteoporosis. 7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects given only bread and water for a week, then deprived of bread and given only water, begged for bread after only two days. 8. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cold cuts. 9. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person. 10. Newborn babies can choke on bread. 11. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute. 12. Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling. In light of these frightening statistics, we propose the following bread restrictions: 1. No sale of bread to minors. 2. A nationwide "Just Say No To Toast" campaign, complete with TV spots and bumper stickers. 3. No advertising of bread within 1000 feet of a school. 4. A 300 percent federal tax on all bread to pay for all the societal ills we might associate with bread. 5. No animal or human images, nor any primary colors (which may appeal to children) may be used to promote bread usage. 6. Health hazard warning labels to be placed on all packages of bread. 7. A $4.2 bazillion fine on the three biggest bread manufacturers. Remember: Think globally, act idiotically.

Sinergy -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (4/5/2007 10:08:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: b12345 2. A nationwide "Just Say No To Toast" campaign, complete with TV spots and bumper stickers. This wont work. We do that, and the Vandals say "put that on your fucking toast," everybody will stand around with an anencephalic expression on their face, like they are in a televised debate. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (7/25/2007 7:37:25 PM)
No response to anybody in particular http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/va/20070725/118539394400.html Are you smokers going to argue with Uncle Walt? Sinergy

Owner59 -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (7/25/2007 9:39:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied quote: Will even go so far as to say that if you can provide a link that all asthmatics are triggered into an attack as a result of second hand smoke? I never claimed that all asthmatics are triggered by second hand smoke. Some education: asthma is largely an illness of allergy. Different people are allergic to different things. For many asthmatics, smoke is a trigger. As far as numbers go, I don't really care. I know from experience that it is true. Thanx KL, More fact and logic is needed in this thread.

Owner59 -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (7/25/2007 9:49:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mugwump "if you are going to ban something because it is harmful to other people, you have to ban EVERYTHING that might be harmful to other people" (haven't figured the quote thing out - forgive my idiocy!) i'm notoriously anti-smoking but my reaction here isn't to the should they/shouldn't they thing - but to the attitude that if you can't be perfect you might as well do nothing. It's the ultimate get out clause - 'well, officer i was speeding, but that guy there is doing 5mph more than i was', 'mom, i did pinch £50 out of your holiday jar, but dad pinched £70 from the xmas money'. It's all just fudging really. 1 person smoking in public for a lifetime is a minor glitch compared to Pohl Pot's life choices but of global significance compared to whether i wear a t-shirt or a long-sleeved top. You can pick comparables to deflect but they won't detract. jmo Thanks mugwump.Some clarity was need here. The pro-smoker says, "cars pollute,so I should be able to poison your air".Makes absolute perfect sense!Right?Of course it does. Pollution outside,pollution inside too!Yeahhh!!!!woppy,more poisons!!! Yeahhh lol Let`s add morrrrrre!!! "I haven`t died or got sick yet.Obviously, that means no one is affected by my smoke." "These are my kids,I should be able to inflict asthma and stunt their growth.It`s my god given right to poison and hurt my children".Are we making sense yet?Hell yeah,we are!!!! We all breath toxins outside,so logically,a smoker should have a legal right to add more toxins, on top of that.Again,makes perfect sense,right?lol The use of the slippery slope argument is bogus.No one`s gonna stop you from poisoning yourself,scouts honor.In an un-attached building,your poison is yours.Smoke 2 at a time,24/7,close the windows and duct tape the doors.Have at it.lol Where you will be stopped,is when it encroaches on someone elses space.And you won`t determine what that is. This conspiracy theory that people are out to get you, is silly.Bunch of scardy cats.Stop w/ the fake outrage and pretending to be victims.It`s getting old.Stop being crybabies.No ones listening to the "1st it`s smoking,what next?"line of BS. I`ve pasted some of the most ridiculous statements I`ve ever heard,on any board. .Some approached the sublime and this was just 5 pages.Especially the last one,that one is a keeper. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Name one person it has killed. The first time it does it will be front page news. It's a theory, no basis in fact" "As Merc pointed out, passive smoking is a theory that has not been proved, especially when passive smokers appear to drop dead quicker than actual smokers. If you rape and murder somebody you have actually raped and murdered them and is pretty irrelevent to the debate." "We not only surrender to, but support laws restricting certain types of fat.(I think the poster is refering to "Transfat".He`s bumming that his fat isn`t as unhealthy as it used to be.Why not buy transfat and add it to your food?) "We've been here before, a car driver pollutes the local atmosphere with more carcenogens than a passing smoker. No one complains about streets full of cars spewing out carcenogens into the atmosphere which is why I tend not to take raving anti-smokers seriously." "The point I think meatcleaver is trying to make with the air pollution (forgive me if I'm wrong here) is that if you are going to ban something because it is harmful to other people, you have to ban EVERYTHING that might be harmful to other people. But because smokers are a smaller group of people than those who drive cars, they are easier to target." "if you are going to ban something because it is harmful to other people, you have to ban EVERYTHING that might be harmful to other people" "These enforcement authorities can be added to those policing homes for TV watching, video game violence, alcohol, drug usage, food intake, and pornography. Going around the room I would expect that each one of this issues, and more, can be rationalized into law under the guise of "protecting children". Put them all in place and the Orwellian society becomes reality. This is no longer a "slippery slope" argument it is the result and logical conclusion of a population that decides it is a government's responsibly to dictate behavior in a home." "When you run across a claim where smoking Caused the asthma..then you might have a point. Until then, until people are just as ready to stop parents from letting their kids step foot out into the big bad word of deadly air pollutants that trigger asthma to allergys..it remains lame." "When the world is saved by no more smokers and everyone is living to 100 instead of 70 because they don't smoke anymore, and the population continues to rise..how long will this utopian world be able to support it? Only so much food and water to go around. You can grow food but you can't make water."

Owner59 -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (7/25/2007 10:10:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seekstofasn8adom I am a non smoker,but i really am not bothered at all by people smoking in pubs.In a way i personally feel quite sorry for them,as.Especially here in England we are turning into a nannystate.With people saying you must do this,this way.Then later they change there minds and say o'h we were wrong.Please carry on doing what you were doing it's us we were wrong please go back to your old ways thanks,that really does annoy me when that does happen.But in hindsight when the smoking ban is imposed alot of pubs/social clubs,will close down as a result of this as without the smokers there these places will be empty.So therefore not only will it affect the non smoker just as much,as it will do the smoker.As the smoker will have nowhere to socialise,and the drinker will loose out.As without the smokers frequenting our pubs they will all eventually close down alot of them will anyway so the drinker,will have nowhere to drink.Except at home.So everyone looses out in the long run.A great shame i think personally.[:@] Believe me ,mate, no one is ever going to say that smoking is ok,we were wrong,go right back now and puff away. That`s not going to happen. BTW,it`s not a nanny state that limits exposure to toxins.You wouldn`t want to put asbestos back in your home,or give thalidomide to your pregnant wife,would you?The state limiting your exposure to those things doesn`t make it a nanny state.

Page: << < prev 12 13 14 [15] 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

9.277344E-02