Public Smoking Ban

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Oh BS, prove that walking by a smoker on an outdoor sidewalk harms you in anyway what so ever. You can't and you know it. Just more stupid logic.

He may not be able to, but I CAN.

There are pathological changes in the airways within minutes of being exposed to cigarrette smoke. So if you take a lung biopsy from a non-smoker before and after being exposed to cigarrette smoke, you can spot the damage.

Yeah right. If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it must be a quack.

 

[mect]

While I am adamantly against smoking, I think that I agree that a private business owner should be able to allow smoking. I think this is something the markets can take care of. In public areas, smoking should be banned, but not in a private business. If an employee is concerned, the employer should be obligated to provide protective equipment such as a mask. That might look a little funny, but with how uncomfortable the things are, I highly doubt many would wear them, but they should have the option. If they are more concerned about their comfort than the health risks, then that is their decision. People need to start doing more lobbying directly to the businesses instead of trying to get the government to interfere in everything. Again, I hate even walking past smokers ( I always hold my breath because I can't stand the smell/taste of it), but I think there is a solution other than legislation/laws. I won't go to any business where smoking is preasant. What about people being allowed to smoke in their own home if they have children?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Oh BS, prove that walking by a smoker on an outdoor sidewalk harms you in anyway what so ever. You can't and you know it. Just more stupid logic.

He may not be able to, but I CAN.

There are pathological changes in the airways within minutes of being exposed to cigarrette smoke. So if you take a lung biopsy from a non-smoker before and after being exposed to cigarrette smoke, you can spot the damage.

Yeah right. If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it must be a quack.

/shrug

I once spent 3 hours trying to convince a mother that her child should get the meningitis vaccine. In the end, she refused anyway... and chose to homeschool the kid, since it was a requirement for school admission.

If you don't believe in proven facts, there is nothing anyone can do to convince you. But just as an aside - disbelief of objective reality has a scientific name - it's called psychosis.

 

[Purgatory-Z]

Standing in the proverbial middle of the political road, I'd like to offer my thoughts on this issue.

Personally, I don't smoke. I don't associcate myself with people who smoke, and I avoid it on every occassion. The only time I'm really confronted with it is when I go out to bars/etc. Now, I'm a middle 20something who attends bars on a regular basis so I get exposed to quite a bit of secondhand smoke. The detrimental health effects have been proven and aren't worth going into here. It's bad for you, plain and simple. Is drinking bad for me? Absolutely, but the difference is that I can't get secondhand alcohol poisoning. If the damage is going to be done it's going to be done by me and no one else. Of course, I could avoid it entirely by not going to the bar, and that's a semi reasonably argument for the smokers but really doesn't hold water in my opinion. I believe that I should be able to enjoy the bar, the same as the smokers, without their bad habits being "forced" upon my person in the form of secondhand smoke. Bars with great ventilation go a long way to help this, but we know that adding a few fans in each bar isn't exactly the solution that's saught in this instance.

I can appreciate the smoking ban on gov. buildings, places with children, public transportation, etc. Part of me wants to agree that if the private businesses want to ban smoking, it should be their decision. Another part of me knows that unless all the businesses do this at once, the one's who do will invariably lose business from the smokers (though personally, I don't care because I only go for the non-smoking women anyways). So while my initial response is to support the "ban it everywhere" argument, the reasonable, moderate side of me things the gov. may be going too far with a flat ban.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Oh BS, prove that walking by a smoker on an outdoor sidewalk harms you in anyway what so ever. You can't and you know it. Just more stupid logic.

He may not be able to, but I CAN.

There are pathological changes in the airways within minutes of being exposed to cigarrette smoke. So if you take a lung biopsy from a non-smoker before and after being exposed to cigarrette smoke, you can spot the damage.

Yeah right. If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it must be a quack.

/shrug

I once spent 3 hours trying to convince a mother that her child should get the meningitis vaccine. In the end, she refused anyway... and chose to homeschool the kid, since it was a requirement for school admission.

If you don't believe in proven facts, there is nothing anyone can do to convince you. But just as an aside - disbelief of objective reality has a scientific name - it's called psychosis.

As I recall, brief exposure to second hand smoke can cause the airway to constrict, but prove your lasting "damage" you refer to. Otherwise your just a quack IMO.

 

[piasabird]

As long as I dont have to breathe someone elses smoke I dont care what you do. I think all restraunts should be able to have a smoking section as long as the smoking is done on another side of a walled-in room with forced ventillation at the doorway at least to prevent them from contaminating my clean air.

The reason for the ban is they are not willing to protect the people who dont smoke.

 

[SMOKE20]

But you know what - it doesn't matter regardless. This is a democracy, and the smokers are no longer in the majority...

Yeah, I guess you're right.......I mean the majority was against gay marriage so that must be right.....right? The majority were against alcohol back in 1920 and that worked well right? The majority are against marijuana being legal so that's ok...........heck, a lot of people are against hunting and fishing.......make it illegal............I know a lot of people against pickups and SUV's........but then there's a lot of people against motorcycles too..........get rid of all of them! Guns...their outa here..........

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
As I recall, brief exposure to second hand smoke can cause the airway to constrict, but prove your lasting "damage" you refer to. Otherwise your just a quack IMO.

I'm sorry, please point me to where I said "lasting damage"? The damage is transient upon short-term exposure, since the damaged cells die and are replaced with fresh ones. That doesn't mean, however, that one of the damaged cells won't be transformed.

You, sir, are self-important and impolite. I have no desire to prove anything to you... but if you wish to finance a grant, I'll be glad to provide you with the results of the study. Otherwise, you're free to look it up, and believe or disbelieve it at your leisure.

 

[SMOKE20]

Originally posted by: piasabird
As long as I dont have to breathe someone elses smoke I dont care what you do. I think all restraunts should be able to have a smoking section as long as the smoking is done on another side of a walled-in room with forced ventillation at the doorway at least to prevent them from contaminating my clean air.

EXACTLY! Even beyond that, simply restaurants/bars/clubs that have smoking, and those that don't..........there's no need for government involvement.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: SMOKE20

Originally posted by: piasabird
As long as I dont have to breathe someone elses smoke I dont care what you do. I think all restraunts should be able to have a smoking section as long as the smoking is done on another side of a walled-in room with forced ventillation at the doorway at least to prevent them from contaminating my clean air.

EXACTLY! Even beyond that, simply restaurants/bars/clubs that have smoking, and those that don't..........there's no need for government involvement.

The problem is that without a law, no one can enforce the no-smoking rules. I wouldn't care myself, whether someone smoked, as long as I didn't have to breathe it. But I've met enough assholes whose response to being asked to put out their cigarette in a public place is "****** you", I tend to err on the side of the legal authority.

That being said, in theory if the air purification systems are good enough and the smoking happens in another room, I don't give a ******.

 

[desy]

The law is only concerned with employees what consenting gays do in the bedroom doesn't hurt anybody not inovlved in the activity.
AGAIN this isn't about the rights of smokers or estblishment owners but the rights of employees to a workplace free of smoke
http://www.smoke-free.ca/factsheets/pdf/Q&A-industryinvolvement.pdf
As far as what owners have to put up with they have all sorts of regulation can't sell to minors, only can have so many people inside, so many exits have to have safe food handling prep, this is simply another regulation to comply with.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
As I recall, brief exposure to second hand smoke can cause the airway to constrict, but prove your lasting "damage" you refer to. Otherwise your just a quack IMO.

I'm sorry, please point me to where I said "lasting damage"? The damage is transient upon short-term exposure, since the damaged cells die and are replaced with fresh ones. That doesn't mean, however, that one of the damaged cells won't be transformed.

You, sir, are self-important and impolite. I have no desire to prove anything to you... but if you wish to finance a grant, I'll be glad to provide you with the results of the study. Otherwise, you're free to look it up, and believe or disbelieve it at your leisure.

I'm psycotic, remember. :laughing;

You tried to imply that brief exposure (passing someone in the street who is smoking a cigarette) caused damage, but you can't prove it has any effect in the real world. I guess your definition of damage is different then mine. According to your logic, if I scratch myself then I might get skin cancer, because I suffered "damage".

I'm self-important? LMAO, look in the mirror if you want to see someone who is self-important..... or do you need a grant for that too. ROTFLMAO!!

And yes, I call them the way I see them. Deal with it.

 

[HomeAppraiser]

In Salem, Oregon we had non-smoking bars years before any ban laws. They were/are places where suits could hang out after work and drink expensive micro-brew without ending up smelling like a cheap whore when coming home to the wife.

I hate how second hand smoke sticks to your clothes and hair. Once when I was an early-teen, I spent the day bowling with friends. When I got home my dad took one whiff and almost beat my @ss for smoking. Good thing my friend was there to vouch for me "Honest we were just bowling".

The public smoking ban is ok by me.

 

[AragornTK]

I smoke, and I don't have any problem with stepping outside to smoke... unless it's -20 degrees with windchill... I think more places should have smoke lounges, like some airports do, then you can smoke, not freeze your arse off, and no one else has to deal with it.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: SMOKE20

Originally posted by: piasabird
As long as I dont have to breathe someone elses smoke I dont care what you do. I think all restraunts should be able to have a smoking section as long as the smoking is done on another side of a walled-in room with forced ventillation at the doorway at least to prevent them from contaminating my clean air.

EXACTLY! Even beyond that, simply restaurants/bars/clubs that have smoking, and those that don't..........there's no need for government involvement.

That still doesn't address employee safety which is the basis for government intervention. The regulation isn't about saving smokers from themselves or saving non-smoking customers from smokers, it is about protecting employees from an unsafe working environment. The separate smoking section would only work if employees are never required to enter it as part of their duties.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Todd33
I'm looking for that part of the Constitution that gives the right to smoke...

Maybe you should learn to read it properly. I'm looking for the part of the Constitution that gives the government the power to ban smoking.

Anyway, that's not the inherent right I referred to. I was referring to the rights of the property owners.

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
No easy answer to this.

I think that all public government buildings be smoke free and certain businesses that allow children (e.g. shopping centers, most restaurants, toy stores, etc.). But I do believe that some businesses are and should be inheritantly friendly to smokers, such as bars or bar & grills, concert halls, etc., should be allowed to have smoking provided that they have proper ventilation systems in place that would minimize second-hand smoke.

I agree. And this was how the situation was BEFORE the law in question in the OP was passed.

So the government should not have the power to ban private citizens from using nuclear weapons? Freedom to bear arms man.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Todd33
I'm looking for that part of the Constitution that gives the right to smoke...

Maybe you should learn to read it properly. I'm looking for the part of the Constitution that gives the government the power to ban smoking.

Anyway, that's not the inherent right I referred to. I was referring to the rights of the property owners.

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
No easy answer to this.

I think that all public government buildings be smoke free and certain businesses that allow children (e.g. shopping centers, most restaurants, toy stores, etc.). But I do believe that some businesses are and should be inheritantly friendly to smokers, such as bars or bar & grills, concert halls, etc., should be allowed to have smoking provided that they have proper ventilation systems in place that would minimize second-hand smoke.

I agree. And this was how the situation was BEFORE the law in question in the OP was passed.

So the government should not have the power to ban private citizens from using nuclear weapons? Freedom to bear arms man.

Uhh, yeah. Did they smoke when the constitution was written? I believe so. Did they have nukes? I don't think so.

Smoking is like nuking people?? Come on. It's attitudes like that why so many smokers just tell people to piss off when they ask them not to smoke. It really is out of hand when your outside having a smoke on your own property and some comes up and asks if you mind not smoking around them. LOL, I've had that happen before. Stand upwind or is that too hard to figure out?

 

[bctbct]

I smoke but try to be respectful of those that dont.

It has become fashionable to condemn smokers.

There is no public ban where I live but many restaurants have their own ban. I often find it amusing that when someone comes into a restaurant they ask for non smoking seating and after being told 1 hour wait they say first avail. So eating faster is more important to them than eating safer.

Signs that people just need something to hate....completey banning smoking on property, even outside. Employers banning employee smoking even at home....even their spouses. People giving you dirty looks from twenty feet away (mumblng to their friends about smokers) while you are outside smoking.

Want smokers to respect your rights, dont go out of your way to be offensive.

No one has profitted more off of smokers than States. Then they sue the tobacco companies, misuse the settlements. Only in America.

We've been kicked around for years. We deserve a refund.

 

[zendari]

It's up to owners of the business if they want smoking. Not elitist government officials.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Another interesting sidebar to it, which is definately going to visit courts soon, is drive up services. It's questionable if you could smoke in your own vehicle if you pull up to a drive-thru window, since the smoke would then exit your vehicle and enter the place of business. A number of businesses around here have already posted signs in their drive-thrus.

 

[Engineer]

I don't care where people smoke as long as I don't have to breath that crap.

 

[m316foley]

This is absolutely outrageous. If they ever ban smoking in my state to this extent, then I WILL go to canada. It's not like we're not polluting the air as it is with factories and cars. Wow, now pick on the cigarette smokers. Take smoking away from any bar I go to, yes, they WILL lose business.

I'm a conscious smoker. I'm very aware of who I am smoking around and if it may bother them, however, I do smoke at work. There's a long awning that I smoke under when it rains - about 20 feet from the door. Absolutely no one has complained about it and I will continue to do it until someone does. Then, i'll be in my car. However, forcing bars and clubs to enact this law is absolutely ridculous.

 

[AragornTK]

smoking is the number one cause of preventable death in the US... after they outlaw it are they gonna regulate our diets?(obesity is number two)

 

[BlancoNino]

I do support the fact that this measure was voted on by every citizen of the state.

 

[IGBT]

..good. Inhaling smoke of any kind is asking for health problems and gets rid of a visual que to others that might.