Buck Fush

The reason I asked whether smokers smoke in their own house was to point out the fact that most do not. Which begs the question, if you won't smoke in your own house, why do you think it's OK to smoke inside a public building? You don't even want to smell your own stench, what makes you think I do?

TwilightOfDeath

That's like saying that people shouldn't be able to drive freely wherever they want because it increases the risk of inadvertantly hitting someone. By your logic people should be mandated by law to only drive to work and home.


What I'm saying is that 9 times out of 10 people have no say so in how or when they will die. They just do. Smoking bans and seat belt laws might make you feel better at night, but that's about all they do. If you want to be protected from smoke I suggest you buy an air mask and never leave your filtered living room.

I wish it was still the 40s and we were all smoking ourselves to hell and had no knowledge of it whatsoever.

E



P.S. Oh yeah, when Mt. St. Helens erupted, it produced more harmful gas and carcinogens than America has in it's entire existance.

Bommando

DING DING DING.

Steeler

You're reading an absurd level of social control into my argument that simply isn't there. We currently limit drivers to the road in urban areas and the police keep them off the medians. Why? Because there is an obvious societal interest in having people following the rules of the road and not drive every which way.
We're just going to have to disagree on this. But I believe that if you have the ability to limit an activity that endangers lives and health (an activity that they have no control over), you should consider doing it.

__________________

TwilightOfDeath

That is exactly how I feel about this talk of a smoking ban. I admit that my remarks were a bit radical, and that social controls are necessary for motor vehicles and many other facets of every day life for obvious reasons,...those controls are in place with respect to tobacco as well. No sale or posession for children under 18. To me, a law like a total smoking ban is just one of many designed to further control our everyday lives and create the glorious "Utopia" that our radical left so desires.

In these great and glorious United States, free will should be valued, as well as the free market and social order/health. If a restaurant owner allows his patrons to smoke and does well with his business, the government should not step in, the people who do not wish to be in the presence of smokers should go somewhere else..,, start up their own establishments..etc

In the true spirit of Democracy, We should all work to compromise with each other on this issue. Sure there should be areas in our towns and cities where people are not allowed to smoke, like parks or recreation centers, courthouses...etc, and all indoor establishments that wish to allow smoking would have to install a sturdy and effective air purification system designed to lower carbon monoxide levels.

E

CingularDuality

I don't care so much about smokers' rights on this issue as I care about business owners' rights. Like I said, I smoke, but don't smoke indoors hardly at all, so laws of this sort haven't had any effect on me. But to tell someone that has worked their butt off to start their own business and then to tell them that they can't allow legal activity to take place inside it is just absurd. And the thought of outlawing smoking completely is asinine for completely different reasons.

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

UnDeaD77

You are my hero.

__________________

Rick_the_new_guy

Mine too.

__________________
(PO3) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Member
(CPO) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Leader
(LCDR) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Commander

Squad Member pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...ad-leader.html
Squad Leader pledge to their team:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...r-platoon.html
Commander pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...d-leaders.html

SmokingTarpan

What makes you think it's about stench? Pretty much every smoker that I know that doesn't smoke in their own place does it either because a) non-smokers also live there and the smoker is being courteous or b) they don't want to ruin the paint/wallpaper/furniture with the smoke. Smokers already smell like smoke pretty much all the time, at least in my experience.

Agreed, emphasis mine. Smoking is legal, and there are already regulations placed upon it. Telling a business owner they aren't allowed to have a legal activity on their premises because people who choose to go there might not like it is pretty silly. I don't like music so loud that it leaves me hard of hearing for hours afterward, and studies have shown that repeated exposure over time to loud music can cause permanent damage to a person's hearing. Let's make a law to limit the volume a band can play at, and also prohibits them from playing indoors. Sound good? Or. you know, I could just not go to a bar that has a loud band playing.

Here's the catch, people: If smoking were so dangerous to the populace at large due to secondhand smoke, why is it not outlawed? I certainly don't see a bandwagon for that. We outlaw drugs like speed (note: I'm not pro-drug), something that isn't going to get me killed with any more likelyhood than the guy sitting next to me having a scotch. But we keep legal something that tons of people claim don't just harm the user, but everyone around them when they use? Something doesn't seem right with that picture.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

Steeler

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I propose we ban smoking altogether, but only for tarpans.

__________________

SmokingTarpan

Smoking is already hard enough for tarpans, considering they have hooves that aren't conducive to using lighters. And the fact that they're extinct. Probably due to smoking.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

Steeler

A ban should be easy to enforce, then. From now on I propose that all laws only apply to dead people.

__________________

TheFeniX

No, second-hand smoke does affect people. I just don't see the evidence that people who are casually exposed to it, run a greater risk of debiliating side-effects. The short-term effects are fairly solid, but I have the same issue with I get behind an 18-wheeler that's burning oil. I've dug through some of those articles GITS posted, but not all the way through. I've been busy. I have yet to see any hard numbers.

Non-smokers aren't exposed to second-hand smoke nearly as often as they are to other hazards.

The benefits of other health factors is irrelevant to this disucussion. We're concerned with the negative side-effects: not the positive. I could go off on some tangent about how tobacco companies employ thousands of American workers, but it too isn't relevant.

Besides, I don't go to a monster truck rally and complain about the noise.

No one said that here. IF you don't want to deal with smoke, there are places that have no-smoking at all. In fact, I've been to a few bars that are non-smoking.

This was actually a very valid point back when smoking was allowed pretty much anywhere (malls, airplanes, etc). Even now, it holds some weight. But these days, you have the ability to choose establishments that suite your tastes, and so do I. I can find a restaurant that allows smoking (which are becoming increasingly rare). And you have the ability to find a bar that doesn't allow it (and they do exist).

In fact, many bars just have outside patios for smokers. While this does tend to suck during summer, if they have fans outside: I'm all for it.

Check your figures: people have died from being shot with BB guns. And comparing second-hand smoke to aggravated assault is a huge red-herring.

I still have the ability to smoke in my house if I want to. The smoking ban removes that ability in public places.

Seat belt laws save lives. There is no arguing that you are more that twice as likely to survive a car wreck when wearing your seatbelt. Hazards like smoking (and exposure to other slow acting chemicals) tend to only contribute to health effects. So, it's much harder to get solid evidence of how many lives they claim.

Crap like the assault weapons ban is "feel-good" legislation: seat belt laws are not.

__________________

Buck Fush

Cing, After I thought about it last night, I was worried you would take my comment personally since you were the only one who answered my question. That was not my intention. Thank you for not taking offense.

I understand that business owners have rights, but employees have rights also. In my opinion the rights of the numerous employees out-weigh the rights of the business owner, especially when you compare the damages to each you should limit those rights.

Take away a business owner's right to allow a legal activity in his establishment, and there is absolutely no evidence that he will suffer ANY damages. As a matter of fact, there are now long term studies that show that his business will actually benefit.

Take away an employee's right to work in as safe of an environment as possible and you take years off of their life.

Notice I said "safe as possible". Sure there are dangerous environments that Americans work in everyday, but there are regulations to make those environments as safe as possible. Not to mention that the people in those professions are compensated for their risk. Maybe what we should do instead of a smoking ban is require that employers that force employees to work in a smokey building pay the employees a 35% danger pay.

No matter how much you choose to poo poo them, all credible studies back both sides of my position.(Damages to the employee, no damages to the employer.) Even if you could argue lost revenue for the employer, money is not my God. I do not believe profit outweighs human life as so many righties seem to believe. (Directed at Twilight for his radical left comment.)

GhostintheShell

^^^This is what I was saying as well.

I can understand if the employer maintained the business as a smoking establishement and every employee was chosen specifically because they smoked, and thusly the patrons could smoke as well. No one would be harmed worse then they were already harming themselves. (Perhaps unless you consider that even an avid smoker may also not want to be exposed for 8 hours+ to second hand smoke on the job either.)

__________________
Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter.
Ernest Hemingway, "On the Blue Water," Esquire, April 1936