Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Smoking ban Options · View
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:36:18 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
Man, am I glad that the ban is in effect and we don't have to worry about legal fights over a bunch of bar owners installing crappy/undersized/malfunctioning 'smoke exhaust systems', technically fulfilling the requirements, but leaving the bar still smelling like rotten cigarettes in general, not to mention the smokers that are in the bar as well.

I feel you on the desire for freedom and choice, Nudes, but in this case, I'm glad the choice is gone where it already is- which selfishly, includes where I am. I can't imagine most bar owners having the money for an expensive high-quality exhaust system that probably wouldn't even work effectively much of the time.
Rembacher
Posted: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:50:17 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
I'm with LadyX, in my skepticism over the effectiveness of these devices, as well as whether the bar owners would pay for the size of air purification system they would actually need.

You can complain about the loss of freedoms all you want. I'll stick with my belief that sometimes rules are needed to keep the personal freedoms of one person from infringing on the rights of another 99 who have made an alternate choice. Having this rule in place keeps the bar owners from having to make tough choices, alienating either the smokers, or the non-smokers. Or in the extreme cases, it stops fights from breaking out when someone with a little too much to drink takes exception to cigarette smoke being blown in their face.
tomlando
Posted: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:57:08 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/29/2010
Posts: 128
Location: Orlando
I'd be okay with a partial outdoor ban for places likes a childrens' park, or if standing in line for something. As far as outlawing smoking completely.... no, because it does help with overpopulation. opps! that's a different topic. icon_smile
scooter
Posted: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:59:18 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/24/2010
Posts: 2,689
Location: Ohio
Jebru wrote:
Yep. I'm perfectly ok with it. The greater good outweighs the alternatives. The bar owners have a choice. If they think that it's going to be a financial disaster for them, sell, before someone else figures out the same thing, if it happens to be true. The patrons have the option to smoke outside, or even to stay home if they don't like the idea of being in a place where they are not allowed to smoke. No one is telling them they can't smoke. Only telling them they cannot subject others to the second hand fumes.



Jeb, jeb, jeb ,jeb, jeb.
Seriously, I considered buying a bar maybe a year before this bull crap all started.
I'm thankful I didn't. One of my best friends did tho.
He moved back to Ohio, from Florida after 25 years.
Wanting to own a bar bad, but trying to avoid the no smoking rules Florida already had in place.
He had visions of setting up a bar here in Ohio similar to what he found in Florida, Tiki huts with grass roofs, wet T shirt contests, mud wrestling, foo foo drinks with little umbrella's in them.
I'm telling you, the man had money when, and after he bought this Bar. 6 months after Ohio passed the no smoking in Bars law, he can't afford to give his old Pal a drink, much less anyone else.
There are about 8 Bars in my home town, and I know the owners to all of them. They all have the same story.
I even offered My services as carpenter, to build an enclosed, heated outdoor smoking area, where a guy, or gal can actually sit, and have a drink, and a smoke like back in the good ole days.
The problem is; They've already lost so much business, they are afraid to dump good money after bad.
When I said I offered my service's, I mean I was willing to work for peanuts and beer.
The cost of a carpenter, or a whole gang of them is normally at least the cost of material, so they would of saved a bundle.
Thats been at least 4 years ago,,, how long did you say it would be before business would be back to normal for them?
I'm sure they would like to know.
I Have several bars for sale here at my po-dunk little town if anyone is interested.
Thats right sell before anyone is the wiser.
Spoken like a true politician

I do how ever like the smoking ban in restaurants.
Even being a smoker, the smell of smoke while I'm stuffing my face piss's me off.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 11:46:32 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 781,303
The ban here in Florida in bars is if their business is made up of more than 10% food sales then it's a no smoking bar. If it's less, like chips, peanuts, stuff like that, then they can smoke in them. There's a bar a few blocks from where I live that had a pretty good thing going with pizzas, subs and salads. They closed that part of the business because they could make way more money on booze than food. Mark up is huge on liquor and beer in bars. Restaurants, public buildings are still non smoking. I think the only way for an outdoor ban that I would agree to would be directly outside of the public entrance to any building. I quit smoking several years ago and hate to go into a bank,restaurant, grocery store and have a shit load of second hand smoke blown in my face. Off to the side or out the back is fine by me. If it's cold, tough shit. Huddle up like I did in school and elsewhere. Deal or quit smoking.
Then again in Scooter's case, think how much more money a bar owner could make if he made a smoking area out the back door that was heated, with ashtrays and a jukebox speaker.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 2:58:38 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,781
Location: Cakeland, United States
Jebru wrote:
I'm with LadyX, in my skepticism over the effectiveness of these devices, as well as whether the bar owners would pay for the size of air purification system they would actually need.

You can complain about the loss of freedoms all you want. I'll stick with my belief that sometimes rules are needed to keep the personal freedoms of one person from infringing on the rights of another 99 who have made an alternate choice. Having this rule in place keeps the bar owners from having to make tough choices, alienating either the smokers, or the non-smokers. Or in the extreme cases, it stops fights from breaking out when someone with a little too much to drink takes exception to cigarette smoke being blown in their face.


Talk about a slippery slope. This is the kind of thinking which the Supreme Court follows and says that it's perfectly alright for law enforcement to enter any private domicile they wish, in their efforts to pursue criminal activity and stomp it out. So, what if they make a geographic address mistake...as long as they find a roach in an ashtray in the 2nd guest bathroom, they'll be justified and you'll be fucked...even though they entered the wrong residence.

What's good for the majority may not be good for the individual. But you're cool with that.

You should change your major at Uni and become a corporate attorney, then move to the States to practice. You've got promise.

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
Rembacher
Posted: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:37:52 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
WellMadeMale wrote:
Jebru wrote:
I'm with LadyX, in my skepticism over the effectiveness of these devices, as well as whether the bar owners would pay for the size of air purification system they would actually need.

You can complain about the loss of freedoms all you want. I'll stick with my belief that sometimes rules are needed to keep the personal freedoms of one person from infringing on the rights of another 99 who have made an alternate choice. Having this rule in place keeps the bar owners from having to make tough choices, alienating either the smokers, or the non-smokers. Or in the extreme cases, it stops fights from breaking out when someone with a little too much to drink takes exception to cigarette smoke being blown in their face.


Talk about a slippery slope. This is the kind of thinking which the Supreme Court follows and says that it's perfectly alright for law enforcement to enter any private domicile they wish, in their efforts to pursue criminal activity and stomp it out. So, what if they make a geographic address mistake...as long as they find a roach in an ashtray in the 2nd guest bathroom, they'll be justified and you'll be fucked...even though they entered the wrong residence.

What's good for the majority may not be good for the individual. But you're cool with that.

You should change your major at Uni and become a corporate attorney, then move to the States to practice. You've got promise.


How did we go from protecting the health of citizens who don't smoke, to a completely unrelated topic which already has its own thread?
lafayettemister
Posted: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:52:05 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,514
Location: Alabama, United States
Jebru wrote:
I'm with LadyX, in my skepticism over the effectiveness of these devices, as well as whether the bar owners would pay for the size of air purification system they would actually need.

You can complain about the loss of freedoms all you want. I'll stick with my belief that sometimes rules are needed to keep the personal freedoms of one person from infringing on the rights of another 99 who have made an alternate choice. Having this rule in place keeps the bar owners from having to make tough choices, alienating either the smokers, or the non-smokers. Or in the extreme cases, it stops fights from breaking out when someone with a little too much to drink takes exception to cigarette smoke being blown in their face.


But where do we draw the line with that? Should someone with herpes be forced to take medicine? It's the right thing to do, but can government MAKE someone do that? It's illegal to drink and drive, should we have alcohol monitors installed in all vehicles instead of just those convicted of drunk driving? Speeding can also infringe on others, should all cars come with speed regulators like some rental cars? Taking away one freedom makes it easier to take away the next.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Rembacher
Posted: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 4:13:57 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
Ontario has taken its law one step further than the bar ban. It is illegal to smoke in a car which has children in it. This is because the children are not afforded the choice of who their parents are, and whether they are idiots who don't care about their health. The small enclosed space of the car ensures that a child would be breathing in the smoke long after the cigarette was put out. And no, I see absolutely no problem with that. The kids have rights too, and they weren't being protected under the previous law, so the law was necessary.

Each situation has to be weighed and measured on its own merits. Herpes outbreaks are getting to the point where I could see a law forcing treatment being possible, although I don't see herpes as a life threatening thing. Tobacco smoke has been proven to kill people, and it doesn't do it quickly. It does it in a slow, painful, drawn out, expensive process. And second hand smoke has been proven to be more harmful than the smoke inhaled by the actual smoker. That's where I would make the distinction. Herpes may be uncomfortable, but as far as I understand, generally not life threatening.

For the drinking and driving law, I don't see the comparison. I would equate the fact that it's illegal to drive drunk with it being illegal to smoke in a public place. No one here is arguing that someone should be able to drink and drive because it infringes their personal freedoms to not allow it. Installing monitors on all cars, would be like installing highly sensitive smoke/fire detectors in all public buildings.

Making one law does not automatically allow for another. It would if we lived in a common law system, but we don't. In Canada and the US each law has to be argued on its own merits against the rules of the constitution. If it fits, it stays, if it doesn't it goes. Banning an individual from drinking and driving has absolutely no effect on a person's rights outside of the fact that they can not drink and drive, and will be at less risk of encountering a drunken driver. It didn't cause the governments to later say, "well, if you can't drink and drive, then you shouldn't be allowed to drink in public, because most people drive to get there" and it definitely didn't cause the government to later say "you can't eat fast food because fast food is unhealthy for you, and we've already said that drinking and driving is not allowed for that reason." Because they have to balance the harm versus the good of any such law, and look at how it would fit under the framework of the law of the land.

scooter
Posted: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 5:24:21 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/24/2010
Posts: 2,689
Location: Ohio
Why dint you answer my question first jeb,
I mean, what the fuck, I can confuse you, or be strait. just like a good boy lawyer.
Who's gonna keep track of all these revised, new and improved laws we are trying to create, and most importantly,, For what reason?

Sorry jebru, I'm old school, I listen to Joe Walsh, you should try it some time
scooter
Posted: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 5:40:32 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/24/2010
Posts: 2,689
Location: Ohio
Ok Jebrue, so you managed to make your point with the kids in a car thing.
I've never seen a kid in a car, in a bar to this day.
And If I ever did, I'll quit drinking,,, and smoking all together.
Lawyer qualities and all, I'd never hire you just from talking to you.
A good defense attorney woiuld eat you a new ass hole,
specially since you wont answer a direct question.
You should try out for "President next"
Rembacher
Posted: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 5:47:51 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
I didn't really see a question in your rant Scooter. I was willing to leave it at the fact that you seem to have a drastically different experience than myself and others I have talked to when it comes to bars surviving past a smoking ban. Here in Windsor where unemployment is high, the bars are full on a weekend, even after the students have gone home for the summer. Same with back home in Waterloo. Hell, back there they seem to keep opening up bigger bars.

The same people who keep track of the previous laws will keep track of the current ones, and as revisions come along, they will do what they've done for hundreds, if not thousands of years. They will take note, and adjust accordingly. The reason they do it? Because it's their job to protect the citizens and preserve law and order.

Life's Been Good was an ok song, but I'd much prefer to listen to Thorogood sing about Bourbon Scotch and Beer; Joe Cocker sing about a little help from his friends, or even a letter; or even John Lee Hooker going Boom Boom Boom Boom. How's that for a little old school for you?
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 6:41:04 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 781,303
sprite wrote:
you know that there are children and babies at restaurants, not just adults with choices? is it fair to expose them too?


Glad someone brought this up....this is my biggest pet peeve, you wouldn't let a baby have the odd ciggie, so why is it okay to let them have the equivalent over a few weeks or months through second hand smoke? It's crazy, I get really frustrated when I see people smoking around kids....if it's your own kids then that's your choice (though I feel for the kids), but it's ridiculous to put second hand smoke upon other people's kids.

Banning smoking from indoors has been excellent ever since it was implemented here a few years ago, it's been nice to be able to go out and not come back stinking of smoke. From outside...well, I personally think that in an ideal world no one would smoke - so making it more difficult for people to smoke isn't a bad thing in my book. But, it doesn't bother me, as long as people are respectful about when and where they smoke - and around whom, then I'm pretty alright with it.

All the above coming from someone who does give into temptation every now and again - oops!
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:16:37 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
Jebru wrote:

Each situation has to be weighed and measured on its own merits. Herpes outbreaks are getting to the point where I could see a law forcing treatment being possible, although I don't see herpes as a life threatening thing. Tobacco smoke has been proven to kill people, and it doesn't do it quickly. It does it in a slow, painful, drawn out, expensive process.


So does skin cancer - why not make it illegal to go outside without sunblock on? Thousands of people are killed each year in traffic accidents - even those that haven't been drinking. Why not make cars illegal? Heck - let's just make cigarettes illegal. That will do away with the whole argument, right?

Jebru wrote:
I'll stick with my belief that sometimes rules are needed to keep the personal freedoms of one person from infringing on the rights of another 99 who have made an alternate choice.


Yes, rules are needed. But why is it correct infringe on one person's rights in favor of another person? Why not come up with a system that allows for each person to enjoy his own lifestyle in his own way? Because cigarettes are baaaaaaaad, is that it? What about when the government decides that alcohol is baaaaaaaad? (Hint - it's been tried.)

If you're all about the "It's for the kids" argument, why not take that out to it's own logical conclusion? Since the government obviously knows how to raise kids better than some parents, let's just take those kids away from their parents altogether? After all, they'll be better off in a living arrangement that doesn't subject them to harmful influences, right? And since the government can easily dictate what a harmful influence is, why not just let the government raise all the kids? Those kids whose parents smoke, that is. After all, non-smokers would never, ever do anything to harm their kids, would they? My question still stands - if it's possible for smokers and non-smokers to both have their needs met, then why wouldn't you allow the bar owners to choose which way they would rather go, rather than the blindly pass laws that restrict people from living their lives their way?

One thing about freedom, Jeb. You either have it, or you don't. And if you have it, then it means that you're free to do things that piss other people off, and maybe even endanger them. And they're free to do the same things to you. And if that's not the case, then you don't have freedom at all.
latinfoxy
Posted: Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:21:22 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/5/2011
Posts: 819
Location: Here
MrNudiePants wrote:
Jebru wrote:

Each situation has to be weighed and measured on its own merits. Herpes outbreaks are getting to the point where I could see a law forcing treatment being possible, although I don't see herpes as a life threatening thing. Tobacco smoke has been proven to kill people, and it doesn't do it quickly. It does it in a slow, painful, drawn out, expensive process.


So does skin cancer - why not make it illegal to go outside without sunblock on? Thousands of people are killed each year in traffic accidents - even those that haven't been drinking. Why not make cars illegal? Heck - let's just make cigarettes illegal. That will do away with the whole argument, right?

Jebru wrote:
I'll stick with my belief that sometimes rules are needed to keep the personal freedoms of one person from infringing on the rights of another 99 who have made an alternate choice.


Yes, rules are needed. But why is it correct infringe on one person's rights in favor of another person? Why not come up with a system that allows for each person to enjoy his own lifestyle in his own way? Because cigarettes are baaaaaaaad, is that it? What about when the government decides that alcohol is baaaaaaaad? (Hint - it's been tried.)

If you're all about the "It's for the kids" argument, why not take that out to it's own logical conclusion? Since the government obviously knows how to raise kids better than some parents, let's just take those kids away from their parents altogether? After all, they'll be better off in a living arrangement that doesn't subject them to harmful influences, right? And since the government can easily dictate what a harmful influence is, why not just let the government raise all the kids? Those kids whose parents smoke, that is. After all, non-smokers would never, ever do anything to harm their kids, would they? My question still stands - if it's possible for smokers and non-smokers to both have their needs met, then why wouldn't you allow the bar owners to choose which way they would rather go, rather than the blindly pass laws that restrict people from living their lives their way?

One thing about freedom, Jeb. You either have it, or you don't. And if you have it, then it means that you're free to do things that piss other people off, and maybe even endanger them. And they're free to do the same things to you. And if that's not the case, then you don't have freedom at all.


Perfectly well said!! hello1
Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, May 26, 2011 9:01:38 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
MrNudiePants wrote:
Jebru wrote:

Each situation has to be weighed and measured on its own merits. Herpes outbreaks are getting to the point where I could see a law forcing treatment being possible, although I don't see herpes as a life threatening thing. Tobacco smoke has been proven to kill people, and it doesn't do it quickly. It does it in a slow, painful, drawn out, expensive process.


So does skin cancer - why not make it illegal to go outside without sunblock on? Thousands of people are killed each year in traffic accidents - even those that haven't been drinking. Why not make cars illegal? Heck - let's just make cigarettes illegal. That will do away with the whole argument, right?

Jebru wrote:
I'll stick with my belief that sometimes rules are needed to keep the personal freedoms of one person from infringing on the rights of another 99 who have made an alternate choice.


Yes, rules are needed. But why is it correct infringe on one person's rights in favor of another person? Why not come up with a system that allows for each person to enjoy his own lifestyle in his own way? Because cigarettes are baaaaaaaad, is that it? What about when the government decides that alcohol is baaaaaaaad? (Hint - it's been tried.)

If you're all about the "It's for the kids" argument, why not take that out to it's own logical conclusion? Since the government obviously knows how to raise kids better than some parents, let's just take those kids away from their parents altogether? After all, they'll be better off in a living arrangement that doesn't subject them to harmful influences, right? And since the government can easily dictate what a harmful influence is, why not just let the government raise all the kids? Those kids whose parents smoke, that is. After all, non-smokers would never, ever do anything to harm their kids, would they? My question still stands - if it's possible for smokers and non-smokers to both have their needs met, then why wouldn't you allow the bar owners to choose which way they would rather go, rather than the blindly pass laws that restrict people from living their lives their way?

One thing about freedom, Jeb. You either have it, or you don't. And if you have it, then it means that you're free to do things that piss other people off, and maybe even endanger them. And they're free to do the same things to you. And if that's not the case, then you don't have freedom at all.


There is no mutually beneficial solution to the smoking indoors problem. Somebody is going to suffer. Be it the smokers, the non smokers, or the bartenders, with your air cleansing solution. Speaking of, I couldn't find a system to completely eliminate cigarette odors, but found a few that stopped just short of guaranteeing a smoke free environment. The only one with a price listed was $1400 and would do an area up to 1000 sq feet. So, for a decent sized bar, you would need three of those units, at a cost of $4200 for the bartender. That's quite an outlay of cash, just so that what, less than 25% of the customer base can still smoke indoors? If they make $2 per drink above the cost of the booze, that's 2100 drinks they need to sell just to cover the cost of the air filtration. Then they still need to cover the cost of labour, rent, utilities, advertising, and maintenance.

The laws weren't enacted blindly. At least not up here. They were enacted first in small municipalities, with the support of the people. The provincial government then studied what happened in those small markets, looked at the health data, talked to consumers, and finally enacted a law, giving people a grace period to adjust to the new law. Give Ontario bartenders the choice to go back now, I bet 99% of them would not. Especially if they had to spend extra money to do so. One day, in Ontario, I fully expect to see cigarettes banned. They've already banned stores from displaying them on shelves, and they are taxed extremely high, discouraging people from buying. Currently a package of 25 cigarettes retails for around $10.

Going out without sunblock on would never be banned by law, because it is unenforceable, which is one of the characteristics a law in Canada needs. Driving being deadly depends on how you spin it. Yes, thousands die per year, but that's actually a very very small percentage of the drivers on the road, and an even smaller percentage of trips driven per fatal accident. So under my analysis, a driving ban wouldn't be valid because the good far outweighs the bad. Like I said, each situation has to be measured on its own.

As for freedom, I've made a similar argument to this on other threads, and I will make it again here. I can't just walk into a store and take the food I want. There are laws to stop me from doing that, protecting the store owner's right to earn a living, at the expense of my right to eat food. My rights are restricted, and yet I am still free. I'm not allowed to walk down the street, see an open lot, claim it as mine and build. There are laws to protect the rights of landowners at the expense of my right to have a home of my own, and yet I am still free. I am free to find my way under the law of the land. I'm free to fight the laws I don't agree with. I'm even free to break the laws I don't agree with, in protest, though I will face punishment for doing so. But not being allowed to rape, kill, and steal, does not in any way hinder my overall freedom, nor does whether or not I am allowed to smoke in a building I do not own.

latinfoxy
Posted: Thursday, May 26, 2011 9:45:20 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/5/2011
Posts: 819
Location: Here
Jebru wrote:


Driving being deadly depends on how you spin it. Yes, thousands die per year, but that's actually a very very small percentage of the drivers on the road, and an even smaller percentage of trips driven per fatal accident. So under my analysis, a driving ban wouldn't be valid because the good far outweighs the bad. Like I said, each situation has to be measured on its own.



The National Cancer Intitute says this about the amount of dead per year because of secondhand smoking "Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (4, 5). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2)." In 2010 there were approximately 308,745,538 ppl lets say only 60% of them are in contact with second hand smoker (we all know its higher than that) that means that from 185.247.322 only 3000 died from lung cancer that represents the 0,0016%. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration there are about 43,000 people killed in fatal car accidents each year in the United States. lets say the same amount of ppl that are exposed to second hand smocking are exposed to cars so thats 0,023%.

So the percentage is NOT fewer, so if you are gonna banned something because its better for the most ppl cars should be way up higher on that list than smocking.
Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, May 26, 2011 11:46:19 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
latinfoxy wrote:
Jebru wrote:


Driving being deadly depends on how you spin it. Yes, thousands die per year, but that's actually a very very small percentage of the drivers on the road, and an even smaller percentage of trips driven per fatal accident. So under my analysis, a driving ban wouldn't be valid because the good far outweighs the bad. Like I said, each situation has to be measured on its own.



The National Cancer Intitute says this about the amount of dead per year because of secondhand smoking "Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (4, 5). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2)." In 2010 there were approximately 308,745,538 ppl lets say only 60% of them are in contact with second hand smoker (we all know its higher than that) that means that from 185.247.322 only 3000 died from lung cancer that represents the 0,0016%. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration there are about 43,000 people killed in fatal car accidents each year in the United States. lets say the same amount of ppl that are exposed to second hand smocking are exposed to cars so thats 0,023%.

So the percentage is NOT fewer, so if you are gonna banned something because its better for the most ppl cars should be way up higher on that list than smocking.


For second hand smoke, and smoking fatalities, you also need to include heart disease deaths, according to cancer.org, http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smokewhich claims 46,000 deaths by heart disease in people who live with smokers are caused by secondhand smoke each year. That would change your percentage to 0.026% deaths for smoking. You are right. Limited exposure to second hand smoke is probably at 100%. Hell, coming home from the bar tonight I got a whiff of it from the three people standing outside enjoying a smoke there. But if you figure how much time the average American spends in a vehicle, compared to the amount of time they spend inhaling second hand smoke, I'm pretty sure you will find that the hours of exposure per death is a whole lot less for driving than for smoking.
LadyX
Posted: Friday, May 27, 2011 1:07:42 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
scooter wrote:

I've never seen a kid in a car, in a bar to this day.


I haven't ever seen a kid in a car, which in turn was inside of a bar, either. If I did, I think I'd drink more, though.

Do you like Dr. Seuss?

"I did not see them in a car, I did not see them in a bar!"
lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, May 27, 2011 6:59:58 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,514
Location: Alabama, United States
MrNudiePants wrote:
Jebru wrote:

Each situation has to be weighed and measured on its own merits. Herpes outbreaks are getting to the point where I could see a law forcing treatment being possible, although I don't see herpes as a life threatening thing. Tobacco smoke has been proven to kill people, and it doesn't do it quickly. It does it in a slow, painful, drawn out, expensive process.


So does skin cancer - why not make it illegal to go outside without sunblock on? Thousands of people are killed each year in traffic accidents - even those that haven't been drinking. Why not make cars illegal? Heck - let's just make cigarettes illegal. That will do away with the whole argument, right?

Jebru wrote:
I'll stick with my belief that sometimes rules are needed to keep the personal freedoms of one person from infringing on the rights of another 99 who have made an alternate choice.


Yes, rules are needed. But why is it correct infringe on one person's rights in favor of another person? Why not come up with a system that allows for each person to enjoy his own lifestyle in his own way? Because cigarettes are baaaaaaaad, is that it? What about when the government decides that alcohol is baaaaaaaad? (Hint - it's been tried.)

If you're all about the "It's for the kids" argument, why not take that out to it's own logical conclusion? Since the government obviously knows how to raise kids better than some parents, let's just take those kids away from their parents altogether? After all, they'll be better off in a living arrangement that doesn't subject them to harmful influences, right? And since the government can easily dictate what a harmful influence is, why not just let the government raise all the kids? Those kids whose parents smoke, that is. After all, non-smokers would never, ever do anything to harm their kids, would they? My question still stands - if it's possible for smokers and non-smokers to both have their needs met, then why wouldn't you allow the bar owners to choose which way they would rather go, rather than the blindly pass laws that restrict people from living their lives their way?

One thing about freedom, Jeb. You either have it, or you don't. And if you have it, then it means that you're free to do things that piss other people off, and maybe even endanger them. And they're free to do the same things to you. And if that's not the case, then you don't have freedom at all.




occasion5

You get a gold star.... you GET it. I know I'm in the minority here. Like I said, I understand the ban inside public places. But the outside ban has me baffled. My objection really has nothing to do with cigarettes but with a person's freedom being taken away. We all know that if you give a person a inch he'll take a yard. Politicians are the same way. Today it's cigs, who knows what it could be tomorrow.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Friday, May 27, 2011 7:14:01 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 781,303
MrNudiePants wrote:
Jebru wrote:

Each situation has to be weighed and measured on its own merits. Herpes outbreaks are getting to the point where I could see a law forcing treatment being possible, although I don't see herpes as a life threatening thing. Tobacco smoke has been proven to kill people, and it doesn't do it quickly. It does it in a slow, painful, drawn out, expensive process.


So does skin cancer - why not make it illegal to go outside without sunblock on? Thousands of people are killed each year in traffic accidents - even those that haven't been drinking. Why not make cars illegal? Heck - let's just make cigarettes illegal. That will do away with the whole argument, right?

Jebru wrote:
I'll stick with my belief that sometimes rules are needed to keep the personal freedoms of one person from infringing on the rights of another 99 who have made an alternate choice.


Yes, rules are needed. But why is it correct infringe on one person's rights in favor of another person? Why not come up with a system that allows for each person to enjoy his own lifestyle in his own way? Because cigarettes are baaaaaaaad, is that it? What about when the government decides that alcohol is baaaaaaaad? (Hint - it's been tried.)

If you're all about the "It's for the kids" argument, why not take that out to it's own logical conclusion? Since the government obviously knows how to raise kids better than some parents, let's just take those kids away from their parents altogether? After all, they'll be better off in a living arrangement that doesn't subject them to harmful influences, right? And since the government can easily dictate what a harmful influence is, why not just let the government raise all the kids? Those kids whose parents smoke, that is. After all, non-smokers would never, ever do anything to harm their kids, would they? My question still stands - if it's possible for smokers and non-smokers to both have their needs met, then why wouldn't you allow the bar owners to choose which way they would rather go, rather than the blindly pass laws that restrict people from living their lives their way?

One thing about freedom, Jeb. You either have it, or you don't. And if you have it, then it means that you're free to do things that piss other people off, and maybe even endanger them. And they're free to do the same things to you. And if that's not the case, then you don't have freedom at all.

Hear Hear!!Regaeman Man
Guest
Posted: Friday, May 27, 2011 2:36:54 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 781,303
Prohibition does not work; history has proven this.
LadyX
Posted: Friday, May 27, 2011 2:40:16 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
Yuzar wrote:
Prohibition does not work; history has proven this.


Nobody's prohibiting smoking- or at least if they eventually do, that's not what this discussion's about.

Right or wrong, we're ending up in scenarios where certain cities have laws that make it plain unfavorable for certain people to want to live there; namely, San Francisco and New York. Yet, it seems like most of the outrage about 'rights violations' etc. is coming from outside the areas affected. I do realize that other places may be next. I'm honestly on the fence about general bans on outdoor smoking (i.e. not within the confines of a business). I think it's a little excessive.
Guest
Posted: Friday, May 27, 2011 4:22:50 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 781,303
LadyX wrote:
Yuzar wrote:
Prohibition does not work; history has proven this.


Nobody's prohibiting smoking- or at least if they eventually do, that's not what this discussion's about.

Right or wrong, we're ending up in scenarios where certain cities have laws that make it plain unfavorable for certain people to want to live there; namely, San Francisco and New York. Yet, it seems like most of the outrage about 'rights violations' etc. is coming from outside the areas affected. I do realize that other places may be next. I'm honestly on the fence about general bans on outdoor smoking (i.e. not within the confines of a business). I think it's a little excessive.
Look at where its leading to though. I'm all for banning it inside of buildings, cuz yeah, cigarettes stink. Soon enough it'll get to the point where people can only smoke in their backyards and I wonder when non-smoking neighbors will raise the alarm to ban it from neighborhoods or apartment complexes.
Guest
Posted: Friday, May 27, 2011 4:54:15 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 781,303
LadyX wrote:
scooter wrote:

I've never seen a kid in a car, in a bar to this day.


I haven't ever seen a kid in a car, which in turn was inside of a bar, either. If I did, I think I'd drink more, though.

Do you like Dr. Seuss?

"I did not see them in a car, I did not see them in a bar!"


.....I did not see them here nor there, I did not see them anywhere!!
Guest
Posted: Friday, May 27, 2011 5:57:03 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 781,303
Yuzar wrote:
LadyX wrote:
Yuzar wrote:
Prohibition does not work; history has proven this.


Nobody's prohibiting smoking- or at least if they eventually do, that's not what this discussion's about.

Right or wrong, we're ending up in scenarios where certain cities have laws that make it plain unfavorable for certain people to want to live there; namely, San Francisco and New York. Yet, it seems like most of the outrage about 'rights violations' etc. is coming from outside the areas affected. I do realize that other places may be next. I'm honestly on the fence about general bans on outdoor smoking (i.e. not within the confines of a business). I think it's a little excessive.
Look at where its leading to though. I'm all for banning it inside of buildings, cuz yeah, cigarettes stink. Soon enough it'll get to the point where people can only smoke in their backyards and I wonder when non-smoking neighbors will raise the alarm to ban it from neighborhoods or apartment complexes.


They already ban them in a lot of apartment complexes in Texas and Florida and NYC. Not all of course but a lot of them.
overmykneenow
Posted: Friday, May 27, 2011 6:12:02 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/8/2010
Posts: 1,387
Location: United Kingdom
LittleBambi wrote:
LadyX wrote:
scooter wrote:

I've never seen a kid in a car, in a bar to this day.


I haven't ever seen a kid in a car, which in turn was inside of a bar, either. If I did, I think I'd drink more, though.

Do you like Dr. Seuss?

"I did not see them in a car, I did not see them in a bar!"


.....I did not see them here nor there, I did not see them anywhere!!


Bamb I am?

Warning: The opinions above are those of an anonymous individual on the internet. They are opinions, unless they're facts. They may be ill-informed, out of touch with reality or just plain stupid. They may contain traces of irony. If reading these opinions causes you to be become outraged or you start displaying the symptoms of outrage, stop reading them immediately. If symptoms persist, consult a psychiatrist.

Why not read some stories instead

NEW! Want a quick read for your coffee break? Why not try this... Flash Erotica: Scrubber
Guest
Posted: Friday, May 27, 2011 7:27:55 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 781,303
Cig in mouth
Sam I am.
Do I smoke them near to you?
Do I smoke them to hurt you?
Do I smoke them so you'll cough?
Do I smoke them to piss you off?
No, I smoke them, Sam I am.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, May 28, 2011 9:11:12 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 781,303
I am old enough (ok only 52 - lol) to remember when airplanes had smoking and non-smoking sections.. that was bizarre. I remember sitting in the non smoking section and the row ahead of me was the smoking section. Like what was the point !!

I was an advocate for stopping smoking in airplanes, on trains, in restaurants, at work, and in other indoor public places. We won those battles.

But even I have to wonder about banning smoking outside... perhaps we are going a bit too far now? There are probably other battles (like major environmental issues) that are more important.
scooter
Posted: Saturday, May 28, 2011 11:49:43 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/24/2010
Posts: 2,689
Location: Ohio
eviotis wrote:
Cig in mouth
Sam I am.
Do I smoke them near to you?
Do I smoke them to hurt you?
Do I smoke them so you'll cough?
Do I smoke them to piss you off?
No, I smoke them, Sam I am.
Regaeman Man

I never read dr.Seuss in all my life
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.