Anti-Smoking Laws

[rahmota]

Now here, you're pushing your own moralistic agenda.

I can't see anywhere in the thread where I have claimed to be forced in a 'held down and smoke blown in the face' way. What I have said is that I resent it when smokers stand in the entrance to places where the (medically) smoke-intolerant must go.

Sorry that was in response to colcheck's claims that smokers where purposefully inflicting harm upon him by smoking near him. His words not yours nor mine. I got my wires crossed on who I was addressing that line to.

You are right not everyone who is against smoking has made comments as inflammatory and outrageous as colchecks and I have tried to address them without stooping to the same level.

But the thing is there are a variety of options available for the non-smokers that are being overlooked including simply holding ones breath when walking throug the doorway into the building.

I am glad you are able to live in an environment you can enjoy. And you are right it is different cultures/life experiences at work here again. I think I may withdraw from this thread for a time as it doesnt seem like there is goign to be much in the way of compromise or debate much more as thigns are getting to the reashign stage almost.

[Colchek]

You are right not everyone who is against smoking has made comments as inflammatory and outrageous as colchecks and I have tried to address them without stooping to the same level.

Now you are putting words into my mouth. I've made the stipulation many times, I'm not against smoking in itself. You want to smoke, smoke. Like another poster said, smoke yourself to oblivion. No one's stopping you. My comments about the differences between smoking and other choices of activities were to stress my point that it is a harmful activity that harms not only the smoker, but everyone around. The health risks are known. Therefore, lighting up in a public place, exposing everyone to the smoke, is intentional as far as I'm concerned. That's where the bans come in, and why I agree with them. As many have said, the bans are in place because the majority of the people wanted them, all knowing the dangers smoking poses. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been passed into law. The people have spoken.

To address one other point. If the majority of people desired a peanut ban, and it was voted into law, I would abide by it. Such a ban would undoubtedly be passed once they become a danger to not just a few, but a great many, as is smoking, the same that trans-fats are now under regulation. They affect anyone who eats them, and that's why laws were passed. If peanuts reach a level of danger as something like that, then I have no doubt laws will be passed to protect people from their exposure. Personally, I do not believe peanuts will reach that level, the same as bee allergies haven't become an epidemic. However, that is my personal opinion. Until such time that it does become a widespread problem, the compromise that has been reached is that manufacturers and restaurant owners post warnings about the potential exposure. No different than phenylketonurics, who are senstive to phenylalanine, have warnings posted on every bottle of soda and other beverages, not to mention a variety of other foods. It poses a great risk to them, leading to mental retardation and seizures, and the damage it causes to them is irreversible. Peanuts fall into the same category. They affect a certain number of the population, products they may be found in are clearly identified, so those who are sensitive to them can avoid them. Tobacco smoke affects everyone regardless of race, religion, sex, social standing, occupation, height, weight, hair color, eye color, etc, etc, etc. That is why bans have been put in place.

Wasn't that the original intent of this discussion? Why do we agree with them? I've said why I agree with them, and nothing I've read here so far will convince me otherwise.

[Greenday]

But the thing is there are a variety of options available for the non-smokers that are being overlooked including simply holding ones breath when walking throug the doorway into the building.

You don't think it's the tiniest bit silly that people should have to hold their breath just to enter a building?

[rahmota]

The health risks are known. Therefore, lighting up in a public place, exposing everyone to the smoke, is intentional as far as I'm concerned.

And that is one of the most retarded and ignorant arguments against smoking i have heard. your comparing someone smokign to someone coming up and randomly punching you in the face is stupid and inflammatory. It would never hold up in a fair trial and if you go around with this sort of chip on your shoulder in the real world I would be surprised if someone hasnt punched you in the face.

The people have spoken

All hail ceasar! Just because SOME of the people have spoken does not make it right. All that does is make it legal. See my sig for my feeligns on that.

However, that is my personal opinion. Until such time that it does become a widespread problem, the compromise that has been reached is that manufacturers and restaurant owners post warnings about the potential exposure.

i have never seen a warnign on a single restraunt about peanuts in my entire life.

and nothing I've read here so far will convince me otherwise.

Gee why am I surprised by that. I doubt there is anything on the planet that can open that mind up.

You don't think it's the tiniest bit silly that people should have to hold their breath just to enter a building?

No I dont. I mean I have to breathe shallow when I go into the city because of all the pollution and how much it stinks in the city. And besides unless you are lingering in the doorway your tranit time to get through the small bit of smokers and into the building can be measured in seconds. Barely a breath out of place.

[AFPheonix]

i have never seen a warnign on a single restraunt about peanuts in my entire life.

I see them at Dairy Queen and many other restaurants around here.

[Darrien]

[QUOTE=rahmota; No I dont. I mean I have to breathe shallow when I go into the city because of all the pollution and how much it stinks in the city. And besides unless you are lingering in the doorway your tranit time to get through the small bit of smokers and into the building can be measured in seconds. Barely a breath out of place.[/QUOTE]

I am sorry but smokers do not have the right to pollute someone else's air supply and us non smokers should not have to stop breathing just to get by you. You choose to smoke, we choose not to. We have a right to clean air just as you have a right to end up killing yourself with smoking. If I choose not to smoke why do I have to hold my breathe just so I can avoid your second hand smoke? I do not care if you smoke, but if you smoke where I have to go through an entrance to some place then you have crossed the line.

[DesignFox]

All hail ceasar! Just because SOME of the people have spoken does not make it right. All that does is make it legal. See my sig for my feeligns on that.

Actually, MOST of the people have spoken, otherwise it wouldn't be a law.

But then, to use your argument that SOME people have spoken isn't it equally unfair for the other part of the SOME to suffer for the choices of those SOME?

I wish there was a better compromise Rahmota, but unfortunately, until the ban was in effect there wasn't. There ARE smoking places in my state specifically for smokers to go to (hookah bars, cigar bars). Unlike before, now the non-smoking places just outnumber them. Smokers are also allowed to smoke within Atlantic City Casinos. Also, smoker's may still smoke outdoors at the non-smoking restaurants.

I'm glad you realize that not all of us are asking for a total smoking ban...I respect people's right to smoke- I just wish there didn't need to be law for them to respect my right to breathe clean(er) air, specifically indoors where I cannot escape the fumes.

i have never seen a warnign on a single restraunt about peanuts in my entire life.

Maybe it's just your area, or the fact that the peanut allergy is a relatively new problem.

Dunkin' Donuts warns that some of their products are manufactured in plants that manufacture peanut products.

I have also seen warnings on a fast food place in one of the local malls. They keep boxes of peanuts in the shell out for patrons to snack from. This is the ONLY restaurant I've ever been to that keeps peanuts out like that, and they have very prominent signs on the door warning people with allergies.

Those are just two places I can think of off the top of my head...

We're right on top of each other here...so things are a bit different, I guess. *shrug*

[Colchek]

And that is one of the most retarded and ignorant arguments against smoking i have heard. your comparing someone smokign to someone coming up and randomly punching you in the face is stupid and inflammatory. It would never hold up in a fair trial and if you go around with this sort of chip on your shoulder in the real world I would be surprised if someone hasnt punched you in the face.

Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. Look at the distinction. Public place. If I go to a designated smoking area, or into your house, or into your car, or walk up to a group of smokers sitting in a park, and then make my claim, now you have a right to claim it such. It is not an argument against smoking, it is an argument against putting the public's health at risk. Until the bans, smoking in public places was putting everyone's health in danger. You have the entire great outdoors to smoke in. Your argument would be true only if I said you were intentionally putting people in danger by climbing to the top of a mountain and lighting up. Lots of room in the great outdoors for people to avoid smokers. Not so inside public buildings, or immediately outside of them. Hence the bans.

i have never seen a warnign on a single restraunt about peanuts in my entire life.

Then you haven't been looking. In addition to the examples others have already cited, all of which I have seen, Texas Roadhouse has large, yellow diamond road signs with pictures of large peanuts on them that say 'Peanut dust ahead.', or 'Peanut dust in area'. Quite obvious if you ask me. I'll also add McDonald's. Their McFlurries also have a peanut warning.

[Boozy]

Actually, MOST of the people have spoken, otherwise it wouldn't be a law.

Again, not coming down on either side here, but I feel I should add something.

There have been many laws passed without the majority of the population's consensus. This is usually a good thing, as important civil rights laws have often depended on the Supreme Court's interpretation of existing legislation instead of passing a popular vote.

For example, lynching of blacks has always been illegal no matter how many good ol' boys in a certain jurisdiction think otherwise.

[DesignFox]

Hmm...good point Boozy.

I'll have to admit then that I don't know for sure if more or less people support the ban.

I know that enough seem to...and I recall petitions going out over the situation.

But then, haven't we put the people in office who made that decision? So indirectly supported it?

*headscratch*

[rahmota]

It is not an argument against smoking, it is an argument against putting the public's health at risk

Okay and so what about pollution from various other sources. Putting the publics health at risk from too many and improper use of agrichems and other industrial chemicals. Polltuion from too many cars on the streets. Eh? And by saying smoking is a public health hazard you are trying to get smoking stopped. You dont even see the results of your own argument or do you just not want to admit to them.

But anyhow,

Once again, you're putting words in my mouth.

Bull. I am responding to what you said. you have stated repeatedly that smokers are purposely, with intent to do harm to you by smoking in public places. I have not put a dang word in your mouth. If you aint gonna stand for what you yourself have said then fine. Whatever. I've already been warned by the mods for "insulting" you so I'm not gonna say anything else to you as you are beneath me and beneath talking to. Your argument is flawed, nonsensical and downright retarded. We is done talking here.

As for the restraunts. There are several small town diners around here with peanuts out and no warning signs. I have not been in a mcdonalds in nigh on a year now so I dont know about that. The local feed store sells peanut hulls by the 50lb bag for bedding and absorbance with no warnings. But then agian their attitude is if you know you have a problem and you go in there anyhow its your own damn fault you get hurt. (Somethign i agree with and like. I wish more places/people where like that. If you cant take responsibility for your own damn life then you dont deserve to be living it and definately dont need to have the government hold your hand until you grow up.) There is no texas roadhouse within 50-100 miles from me so I dont know about them. The nearest dunkin donuts is about 25-30 miles away so again I dont go to them but maybe one a month and since I like krispie kreme better anyhow.... The dairy queen is a walk up/drive up one and not an eat in. but now that you mention it they do have a small 3"*5" sign in the window but definately not something majorly obvious.

A lot of it may be the attitude and regional considerations. Like I said around here you are responsible for your life. if you have an allergy it isnt anyones business but your own for you to watch out for your allergy. If you cant watch out for your own life and take responsibility for yourself then you either need to grow up and get over it or you need to get out of this area and go somewhere where whiny crybabies are appreciated. *shrug* Not a bad thing if more of america was like that.

There have been many laws passed without the majority of the population's consensus. This is usually a good thing,

But not always a good thing. Sometimes some very bad pieces of legislation have been passed in the name of the public good even though the public didnt agree with or want them for the majority.

[Colchek]

Bull. I am responding to what you said. you have stated repeatedly that smokers are purposely, with intent to do harm to you by smoking in public places. I have not put a dang word in your mouth. If you aint gonna stand for what you yourself have said then fine. Whatever. I've already been warned by the mods for "insulting" you so I'm not gonna say anything else to you as you are beneath me and beneath talking to. Your argument is flawed, nonsensical and downright retarded. We is done talking here.

Not bull at all. You continually say I am against smoking, and that is not the truth. I am against the public health risks of smoking, and its use in public places that put people in danger. That is not arguing for smoking to be stopped. It is arguing that smoking be kept out of public places where it does the most harm.

As for pollution from other sources, why do you think that there have been laws passed regulating everything you said? Emissions from factories are continually being restricted by law, dumping of dangerous chemicals is illegal, etc. As for all of those sources, they are an unfortunate side effect of our desire for progress. I for one would like to see them cleaned up, but it's going to take a very long time for that to happen, as well as advancement in technology that allows the items people use every day to be produced without harming the environment. At this point, regulation of those emissions is the most that can be done.

[machinest]

In reply to Rahmota's assertion that smokers are purposely harming others it is not so much a case of deliberate purpose as one of neglecting to ensure that their activities do the least amount of harm to others.

[DesignFox]

I think that's a good point machinest. Most people don't do it necessarily on purpose. They just don't think about how their actions are affecting the people around them. And frankly, most of them I've encountered don't care, even when they are told.

I mean, the thing that sucks about it is that the government has to force people to be courteous to one another. And Rahmota has a point that its kind of scary that we rely on our government to make those mandates for us.

Most basic stuff I wouldn't want the government meddling in, but this is one thing that has greatly improved my ability to go out in public and do the things I want to do...it has improved my health and protects the health of people in the service industry. I can't see any other way to solve the problem, except to shit all over the non-smokers like we did in the past.

Oh? Don't like smoke...fuck you I'm doing it next to you anyway...its MY RIGHT!

And yes, I worked with people like that. That's one reason I'm not still friends with them.

[Seshat]

But the thing is there are a variety of options available for the non-smokers that are being overlooked including simply holding ones breath when walking throug the doorway into the building.

Sorry, that one won't work either. 'Smoke alley' is usually too long for that (noting that I can't run), and cigarette smoke irritates my eyes.

I'm happy to hear other suggestions, though, because all I can think of are the ones that have already been mentioned in the thread.

(Smokers staying out of places smoke-intolerant people must go, smokers staying out of entrances, having some designated non-smoking places of recreation. Having designated smoking areas in or near non-smoking buildings, where the air is not circulated between smoking and non-smoking areas.)

Okay and so what about pollution from various other sources. Putting the publics health at risk from too many and improper use of agrichems and other industrial chemicals. Polltuion from too many cars on the streets. Eh?

In Australia, agrichems are regulated and CSIRO is constantly working to make them 'cleaner', factory output is being regulated and filtering technologies improved, biodiesel is becoming more and more common, Monash University has produced research-quantity samples of 'bio-crude' made from crop waste.

The local feed store sells peanut hulls by the 50lb bag for bedding and absorbance with no warnings. But then agian their attitude is if you know you have a problem and you go in there anyhow its your own damn fault you get hurt.

My opinion: yes and no. If there is no reason to suspect the presence of peanuts in a place, there is no reason for a peanut-allergic person to avoid the place.

That said, any peanut-allergic person who goes into a restaurant that serves a cuisine famous for satay or hoi sin sauce deserves whatever they get.