Anti-Smoking Laws

[Colchek]

Now where did I say that your body is going to absorb it all? I can sure point out where you guys say its the exact same going in as out...which ain't possible.

Dangerous chemicals go in, dangerous chemicals come out. The amount matters little, it's still dangerous. We're not saying the /amount/ is the same. The effect is the same.

[ebonyknight]

In all that nonsensical ranting, where'd you get the idea that you seem to think you know me well enough to make such (erroneous) assumptions about me?

I don't have any problem with smoking bans that apply to PUBLIC places (excluding bars, which I don't go to anyway), and I fail to see why I (or anyone else) should. I would agree that *if* a ban was extended to PERSONAL HOMES, it would be stepping over the line.

It's too bad that you feel that it's non-sensical for Americans to just hand over their freedoms, but Cest la Vie.

But you are right, I made some bad assumptions and I am always big enough to admit when I am wrong. I apologize.

Again, should I now go into Five Guys Restaurant (sorry, not Good Guys) and demand that they remove the peanuts for the exact same reason you say that smoking should be stopped?

Tell, me where do we stop? Afterall, as you have said, you've crossed the line when what you do affects others.

Still no takers?

[Greenday]

*Standing ovation*

It seems the meaning of freedom in this country is not as lost as I thought it was.

Oh, noez, we are losing our freedom to smoke wherever the hell we want, even if we are hurting other people. How terrible. Stop trying to make this into a "but the government is trying to take away all our freedoms!" No they aren't. Anti-smoking bans are about assuring every non-smoker the freedom to breathe air, something they HAVE to do to survive, and make sure it doesn't kill us. They aren't taking away freedom of speech. They aren't taking away freedom of religion or of the press. They are taking away your so called "freedom" to pollute the air in specific places just so anyone can enjoy these places.

Still no takers?

Well, I already covered that, but you've pretty much failed to acknowledge my few previous posts. I talked about how you demanding peanuts be removed from a restaurant isn't the same because the only way that will affect you is if you actually order something with peanuts. Smoking isn't even close to the same.

[powerboy]

Growing up in California, I have no problem with the ban. I only smoke, when I am around a few of my smoker friends. With us, when we do smoke, we go out side and a good distance away from the building. Otherwise, we don't smoke.

[ebonyknight]

Oh, noez, we are losing our freedom to smoke wherever the hell we want, even if we are hurting other people. How terrible. Stop trying to make this into a "but the government is trying to take away all our freedoms!" No they aren't. Anti-smoking bans are about assuring every non-smoker the freedom to breathe air, something they HAVE to do to survive, and make sure it doesn't kill us. They aren't taking away freedom of speech. They aren't taking away freedom of religion or of the press. They are taking away your so called "freedom" to pollute the air in specific places just so anyone can enjoy these places.

Can't see the forest for the trees......

Well, I already covered that, but you've pretty much failed to acknowledge my few previous posts. I talked about how you demanding peanuts be removed from a restaurant isn't the same because the only way that will affect you is if you actually order something with peanuts. Smoking isn't even close to the same.

I failed to acknowledge it, because in trying to be right, you didn't read what I posted (seems to be a recurring theme here).

According to the sentiment here, I have the right to go into Good Guys Restaurant (or any other establishment that servers shelled peanuts) and tell them that if people want to eat them, go outside where the shell dust and peanut skin dust can't waft into my eyes or take it home on my clothes.*

I shall try again.

Since you guys equate "studies" to gospel, heres a sermon....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6439891

*Aflatoxin in respirable airborne peanut dust.

Laboratory shelling and pilot handling operations were conducted to determine if peanut dust generated by such operations contained significant amounts of aflatoxin. Air samples were collected from points of highest dust concentration. No aflatoxin B1 was detected in dust from uncontaminated lots. Aflatoxin B1 levels of 700 ppb and 7.6 ng/m3 were detected from highly contaminated lots.*

http://www.wl.k12.in.us/hh/documents/peanutFAQ.pdf

*Can ingestion of small fragments of peanuts/nuts be enough to cause life-threatening anaphylaxis?
Absolutely, yes. Even small amounts of peanut dust or peanut molecules could be life-threatening.*

When people are standing in line, cracking open their peanuts and spreading that dust in the air, how is it different? When the bars put out shelled peanuts for the patrons, should I tell them they are imposing harm on me?

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Unless there is really no other choice of job, bartenders are going to be around smoke. If they don't like it, they should find a job at a non smoking bar or get a different job. I certainly would not stay at my factory if there were no ventilation or clean air. Cops have to go to work every day knowing they might get shot....it's the risk they take. If they don't like it, they need to get another job.

Not trying to be insensitive, but I'm just saying, if there are other job options, why subject yourself to cigarette smoke if you don't have to?


.

The exact same argument has been made ad nauseum, ad infintum by people trying to justify why they think it's okay not to tip. "If they dont like it, they should find a job at a place where they dont' have to rely on tips." Do you agree with this logic when it applies to this situation?

As for not wanting to have to walk 20 feet away to smoke, that's your choice to put yourself in that position. I just got over the worse case of brochitis I've ever had. I'm not sure I didn't have walking pneumonia. At the slightest provocation, I would go into a 20 minute coughing fit that would leave me weak and retching and lightheaded. And because there are 5 to 15 smokers congregating around the door to my office at any given time, guess where I had to go to even enter my building? I guess I don't have to tell you how that affected me. I sent a note to building maintenence complaining about it and they made the smokers move back to where they were supposed to be. I should not have to run a gauntlet to get to work.

And even if it DIDNT have any affect on me, I choose not the inhale tobacco smoke. I have a right to make that choice and have it respected. Should I be expected to get another job because I dont' want to have to navigate a smoking crowd just to enter my office?

Tell, me where do we stop? Afterall, as you have said, you've crossed the line when what you do affects others.

Okay, I'll bite. This is exactly my point.

[Greenday]

7.6 ng/m^3? 7.6*10^-9 g/m^3. Heck, I haven't even dealt with something so ridiculously small in analytical lab. That's not a small amount. That's a microscopic amount. Let's compare that to smoking. I'm going to go ahead and say second-hand smoke is much denser than that microscopic amount of dust in the air from concentrated peanuts.

As far as purposely ignoring my comments on your restaurant/peanut situation, you are trying to compare two things that are completely different. One you have to do to yourself to be affected. The other you can't do a thing about. No matter how you try to look at it, it comes down to that and that's what these laws are about. We don't give a crap about what you do to yourself as long as it doesn't hurt other people. That's why we don't have prohibition with alcohol. Drinking in itself only hurts you. Laws are there to prevent you from doing things while drunk that hurt other people, like driving under the influence.

[Colchek]

Peanut alleriges. Yes, they can be lethal. How about bee allergies? Should we begin a worldwide campaign to destroy all honeybees, wasps, hornets, or any other stinging insect? Of course not. Why? Because they serve a purpose in nature. Without honeybees, we wouldn't have much of the food we eat. Even wasps and hornets serve a purpose, by consuming carrion. They're nature's clean up crew.

Peanuts also serve a purpose. They contain protein our body needs, and can benefit from. However, the natural oil they contain can be something some people are sensitive to. Unfortunate, but no different than people sensitive to bee stings. Peanuts can't be changed, and will always contain that oil. Bees will sting to defend themselves. That can't be changed.

Cigarettes, and other smoked tobacco products, don't serve any natural purpose other than to provide a source of nicotine. Even then, it can't be consumed in its natural state. It has to be dried out, processed, and put into a form that people can consume. Peanuts do not have to be, although there are some processes to make it easier to eat them, like shelling. Even smokers when they start smoking experience the body's natural reaction to a foreign substance like smoke: /cough it out/. The image of someone taking a drag and coughing up a storm isn't just the fodder of sitcoms, that's real. Smokers force themselves to get used to it over time, until the body just accepts it. At the same time, they are becoming dependent on nicotine. It /is/ that addictive.

I can not accept your analogy between the two. People do not want to be forced to inhale your smoke. Peanuts are an unfortunate sensitivity for some people, but it's something they were born with. You weren't born smoking. That was a choice on your part to start. A choice that no one is stopping you from making, but those who do not want to be exposed to your smoke had no choice until the bans. Non-smoking sections do not work, the effects on health of the smoke are known, many smokers (Unlike those like Powerboy, my hat is off to you) refuse to respect the wishes of people not wanting to smoke. Action had to be taken, and in many cases, it was.

[blas87]

I am not a rude smoker at all. If someone at the bar is throwing a hissy fit and making dramatic coughing noises and waving their fists at the smoke, I get up and leave. That's right, I get up and go somewhere else, like the other side of the bar, where my smoke won't bother anyone. Funny thing is, most of the time, when I'm smoking outside or in my own area, non smokers are the ones being all dramatic and throwing a fit.

Not all smokers are the evil monsters you are making us out to be. I don't walk up to random people and puff puff in their face, nor do I blow it indoors when smoking outside of a building. And I ahdere to the rules, I THANK YOU VERY MUCH. We cannot smoke right outside the doors at work. So I DON'T.

Good God, someone needs to get off their high horse already. Not every smoker is standing outside of a building, ready to just blow it right in your face and laugh as you cough. It may have been a little wrong to claim "The government is taking away our freedom!" but to puntificate that these smoking bans punishing smokers was the only way to go to force them to "Respect" non smokers is just BULLSHIT.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Well, there are plenty of super-considerate smokers out there, no argument here. And I believe you when you say you are one of them. However, if everyone was like you, then there would be no need for these anti-smoking laws. These laws are not being put into place because of people like you. They're being put into place because a huge number of people are inconsiderate and thoughtless.

[rahmota]

Now what do I do about smokers who get offended when I put my mask on?

Tell them to STFU and get over it or ignore them or otherwise go on about your life and let them go on about theirs. they'll either get over it and deal with it or not. Aint your problem its theirs.

Also, only a really expensive, awkward and uncomfortable mask with really expensive replacement filters eliminates all the smoke. Why should I have to pay more than the smokers, just because they want to smoke? Doesn't that mean they're infringing on my individual rights?

Actually that sounds more like the mask manufacturers infringing by making their prices excessively high. Maybe getting price controls on masks would be better.

Where do you get those ideas, anyway, rahmota? Is that sort of killjoying common where you are? Killjoying like that has to be a crazy and horrible way to live.)

Sad to say it is not uncommon around midwest america. And becoming more common as the years go by around all of america. I've encountered it quite a bit back when i had a boom car, back when I ran the bars especially. The moralists who think they have the right way to live and the only way to live do think that way.

What other purpose is there for smoking a cigarette (or tobacco in general)?

1: Relaxation
2: Pleasure and enjoyment of the aroma/sensations. I enjoy the smell of a nice cherry cavendish blend pipe. Which is probably what I would take up if I did start smoking.
3: For some people its about the image just like anything else.
4: traditional values.
5: religious belief (some neo-pagens and native americans)

You don't have the right to do to /my/ body what you see fit.

Nor do you have the right to tell me how to live my life. So take your body away from my body as I am responsible for the health and safety of MY body and not your body....

Cigarettes, and other smoked tobacco products, don't serve any natural purpose other than to provide a source of nicotine. Even then, it can't be consumed in its natural state.

BS. Tobacco can be field stripped and chewed straight out of the field. It can be brewed into a tea straight out of the field. It cannot be smoked straight out of the field as it is rather difficult to burn a green leaf. Drying and curing tobacco enhances the flavor and aroma of the leaves and makes it easier for them to burn but tobacco can be used straight out of the field for a variety of things.

I take it you've never been aroud tobacco farming or production have you?

At the same time, they are becoming dependent on nicotine. It /is/ that addictive.

For some people it may be that addictive and for others it is no more addictive than a glass of water. I mean people say marijuana is so highly addictive and it has been 3 years since my last hit and I dont even care or notice anythign different. I have been aroud tobacco smokers all my life and have never felt any addictive urgings to start smoking just from the second hand smoke. Anyway about it just because somethign is addictive to some people does not mean that it should be banned , prohibited or taken away from people. Should chocolate be banned as I know several people who are addicted to it, what about american idol (well that should be banned for other reasons but anyhow) or a variety of other substances that activate the pleasure centers of the brain and release endorphins which cause addiction not to the substance but to the high they get from ingesting, encoutering the substance.

A choice that no one is stopping you from making

Except for those moralists who want to see people stop smoking and enact bans and prohibitions against smoking.

[Colchek]

Nor do you have the right to tell me how to live my life. So take your body away from my body as I am responsible for the health and safety of MY body and not your body....

As far as I'm concerned, when your activities directly threaten my health, then I do. Are you saying it's ok to drink and drive?

BS. Tobacco can be field stripped and chewed straight out of the field. It can be brewed into a tea straight out of the field. It cannot be smoked straight out of the field as it is rather difficult to burn a green leaf. Drying and curing tobacco enhances the flavor and aroma of the leaves and makes it easier for them to burn but tobacco can be used straight out of the field for a variety of things.

I take it you've never been aroud tobacco farming or production have you?

No, I have not. However, tobacco tea isn't what we're discussing. It's smoking.

Except for those moralists who want to see people stop smoking and enact bans and prohibitions against smoking.

Only because people are inconsiderate of the well being of others when they smoke near them. With exceptions, as blas and Powerboy have noted. However, a large majority don't adhere to common respect. Smoking is unique to any other personal activity because again the act affects people around you. It's not morality, it's basic courtesy. Don't even get me started on where cigarette butts end up.

Going for the argument of dramatic people, on either side, you've got that on any topic out there. It's not limited to smoking.

[rahmota]

As far as I'm concerned, when your activities directly threaten my health, then I do.

Then take the action of removeing your whiny butt out of the smoking area and STFU! Leave other people alone to their actions.

Are you saying it's ok to drink and drive?

generally no its not okay. but then again you CANNOT intelligently or reasonably compare drinking and driving to smoking as you will know where someone is smoking and can move away fom them. If someone is drinking and driving the odds of you knowing it before they become a threat is quite a bit reduced and you cannot remove yourself from the situation as easily as you can remove yourself from around a smoker.

No, I have not. However, tobacco tea isn't what we're discussing. It's smoking.

Yeah thats what I thought given your adherence to the anti-smoking propaganda pieces and general ignorance of tobacco in general. I've grown up in appalachia. Go to the Ripley Tobacco festival each year. Know people whose entire lively hood depends on tobacco.
And you are the one who said that tobacco wasnt able to be used in its natural state. That tobacco didnt have any other uses than being smoked. Just responding to your statement.

Only because people are inconsiderate of the well being of others when they smoke near them.

you are never going to get everybody to be considerate to everybody else all the time. So wah wah wah somebody upset you. Somebody was inconsiderate to you. suck it up and grow up. Dont like them, dont want to inhale their smoke. Then move your whiny little butt away from them. They are adults and have every right to smoke if they wish to. You have every right to be an inconsiderate jerk and try and stop them but not by going to the government and getting them to force your moralist or whatever viewpoint on them interfereing in their life.

and yeah I didlike peopel who just throw their butts anywhere but then I also hate folks who litter in general.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

This isn't my quote, but I wish it was: having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool.

I assure you that people complaining about being inundated with smoke in a public place are not hanging out the smoking section. We all know, smokers and non-smokers alike, that smoking in a room fills that room with smoke. It drifts and spreads. We all know that a "smoking section" is a farce. It serves no real purpose. Either a place is non-smoking or it isn't. You can't separate air. Let's not pretend that we think we can.

And yes, I realize that there are asshole non-smokers who deliberately approach smokers and make a fuss. We aren't talking about them. We're talking about the average smoker and the average non-smoker. The non-assholes just trying to reach a compromise.

I get tired of being told "well, if you dont' like it, stay home." Well, why is that advice good for me and not for anyone else? Why can't the smoker stay home? I think the double standard that gets applied to this argument every time it comes up irritates me worse than the smoke does.

[Colchek]

Then take the action of removeing your whiny butt out of the smoking area and STFU! Leave other people alone to their actions.

I am in a restaurant, and you decide you want to throw a punch at me. By your thinking, I must remove myself from the restaurant to avoid your punch? I do not have the right to tell you not to hit me? I see no difference in someone lighting up next to me and exposing me to the smoke. Like I've pointed out before, the 'barriers' between smoking sections are typically non-existent, and often you'll have a smoking table right next to a non-smoking table, with nothing but a planter between them. Keep in mind you're telling 'whiny people' to avoid /public/ places, which includes businesses that serve the public.

I've grown up in appalachia.

So did I.

you are never going to get everybody to be considerate to everybody else all the time. So wah wah wah somebody upset you. Somebody was inconsiderate to you. suck it up and grow up. Dont like them, dont want to inhale their smoke. Then move your whiny little butt away from them. They are adults and have every right to smoke if they wish to. You have every right to be an inconsiderate jerk and try and stop them but not by going to the government and getting them to force your moralist or whatever viewpoint on them interfereing in their life.

I will not accept your framing of the situation as a moral decision. It is a courtesy issue. Again, you are telling 'whiny people' to avoid public places.